Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutX2018-3519 - SoilsENGEO — Expect Excellence December 20, 2018 Mr. Matt Winsryg Atria Senior Living 401 South Fourth Street, Suite 1900 Louisville, KY 40202-4436 Subject: Atria Newport Beach 393 Hospital Road Newport Beach, California REVIEW OF FOUNDATION PLANS GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL WATER RESOURCES CONSTRUCTION SERVICES Project No. 13823.000.000 Reference: ENGEO; Geotechnical Exploration; Atria Newport Beach, Newport Beach, California; Project No. 13823.000.000; April 17, 2017, Revised June 12, 2018. Dear Mr. Winsyrg: As requested, we reviewed the foundation plan set for the Atria Senior Living south building prepared by KPFF, dated December 20, 2018. Structural calculations were not included for review at this time. The purpose of this letter is to comment if the foundation plan was prepared in general conformance with the geotechnical report referenced above. The plan sheets we reviewed are listed in Table 1 below. TABLE 1: Reviewed Plans and Details for 393 Hospital Road (South Building) SHEET DESCRIPTION SHEET NO. Structural General Notes Sheets S0.01 and S0.02 Basement Foundation Plan — Area C Sheet 52.13 First Floor Foundation Plan — Areas A, B, and C Sheets S2.21, S2.22, and S2.23 Typical Concrete Details Sheet S5.01, 55.02, S5.03, S5.04, and S5.05 The south building plans show a shallow spread footing foundation system with slab -on -grade floor. The basement walls will be supported on 36 -inch -thick continuous footings and the first floor foundation will be 24 -inch -thick continuous footings. The plans also show isolated spread footings for concentrated loading, holdowns, and shear walls, as well as the use of micropiles below column footings on the slope at the east side of the site. Concrete Structural Note 4 (Sheet S0.01) states the foundation design include a minimum 28 -day compressive strength of 4,000 psi for all concrete footings, tie beams, piles, pile caps, walls, and slabs. The geotechnical design criteria provided in the concrete, seismic, and foundation sections of Sheet S0.01 match those provided in the referenced report. Based on our review, it is our opinion that the foundation plans listed above were prepared in general conformance with the referenced geotechnical report. We make no representations as to the accuracy of dimensions, measurements, calculations or any portion of the design. 6 Morgan • Suite 162 • Irvine, CA 92618 • (949) 529-3479 • Fax (888) 279-2698 www.engeo.com Atria Senior Living Atria Newport Beach REVIEW OF FOUNDATION PLANS 13823.000.000 December 20, 2018 Page 2 As recommended in our geotechnical report, the foundation subgrade should be moisture conditioned to at least 1 percentage point above optimum moisture content and approved by ENGEO. In addition, foundation excavations should be observed by ENGEO for firmness and cleanliness prior to placement of steel reinforcement. If you have any questions regarding this document, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, QRoFESS/0� ENGEO Incorporated �oE� A. FA%F�cZ effFippin, No.2631 Oliver Chang GE 'P�gc�elorfCH�\�P�'P lFOF CAS\Fo jr/oc/jtb/jf/dt ENGEO Expect Excellence December 18, 2018 Mr. Matt Winsryg Atria Senior Living 401 South Fourth Street, Suite 1900 Louisville, KY 40202-4436 Subject: Atria Newport Beach 393 Hospital Road Newport Beach, California GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL WATER RESOURCES CONSTRUCTION SERVICES Project No. 13823.000.000 ADDITIONAL PRELIMINARY MICROPILE DESIGN PARAMETERS References: 1. ENGEO; Geotechnical Exploration; Atria Newport Beach, Newport Beach, California; Project No. 13823.000.000; April 17, 2017, Revised June 12, 2018. 2. ENGEO; North Building Geotechnical Design Parameters; Atria Newport Beach, Newport Beach, California; Project No. 13823.000.000; August 30, 2018. As requested, this letter addresses a City of Newport Beach plan check comment regarding the structural plans for the proposed new Senior Living Building at 393 Hospital Road, Newport Beach, California. The purpose of this letter is to provide additional preliminary parameters forthe proposed micropile design. In the referenced geotechnical report, we provide preliminary values for the geotechnical unit grout -to -ground bond strength (ultimate bond strength) of the micropiles. These parameters are presented again in Table 1 below. TABLE 1: Geotechnical Unit Grout -To -Ground Bond Strength Used for Preliminary Design Type A 1,800 psf Type B 2,700 psf Type C 3,000 psf Type D 3,000 psf For preliminary design purposes, we recommend applying the following factors for the grout -to -ground ultimate bond strength, depending on the design methodology used. These factors should not be applied concurrently. • Allowable Stress Design: FS = 2.5 • Load Factor Design: (p = 0.6 6 Morgan, Suite 162 • Irvine, CA 92618-1922 • (949) 529-3479 • Fax (888) 279-2698 www.engeo.com Atria Senior Living 13823.000.000 Atria Newport Beach December 18, 2018 ADDITIONAL PRELIMINARY MICROPILE DESIGN PARAMETERS Page 2 As a reminder, micropiles are generally procured through a design -build process. The contractor is required to submit a detailed design and to demonstrate that the design meets the project design criteria by performing at least one verification test and proof tests on at least 5 percent of production micropiles. As part of the final micropile design, it may be acceptable to use different factors than those recommended above, depending on the design methodology and any proposed proof testing program. We should have the opportunity to review the micropile design prior to final approval. If you have any questions or comments regarding this letter, please contact us and we will be glad to discuss them with you. Sincerely, ENGEO Incorporated Jeff Braun, PE oc/jtb/jf/dt A. F�<< w No. 2631 CH ffFippin, GE 9TFOF CALF% ATRIA NEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION SUBMITTED TO: Matt Winsryg Atria Senior Living 401 South Fourth Street, Suite 1900 Louisville. KY 40202-4436 PREPARED BY: ENGEO Incorporated April 17, 2017 Revised June 12, 2018 PROJECT NO. 13823.000.000 Copyright ©2018 uc d in w Incorporated. This document ENGEO may not be reproduced in whole or in part by any means I\Y/(vim whatsoever, nor may it be quoted or excerpted without the express written consent of ENGEO Incorporated. —Expect Excellence — Expect Excellence April 17, 2017 Revised June 12, 2018 Mr. Matt Winsryg Atria Senior Living 401 South Fourth Street, Suite 1900 Louisville, KY 40202-4436 Subject: Atria Newport Beach 393 Hospital Road Newport Beach, California GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION Dear Mr. Winsryg: GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL WATER RESOURCES CONSTRUCTION SERVICES Project No. 13823.000.000 We prepared this geotechnical report for Atria Senior Living as outlined in our agreement dated March 1, 2017. We characterized the subsurface conditions at the site to provide the enclosed geotechnical recommendations for design. Our experience and that of our profession clearly indicate that the risk of costly design, construction, and maintenance problems can be significantly lowered by retaining the design geotechnical engineering firm to review the project plans and specifications and provide geotechnical observation and testing services during construction. Please let us know when working drawings are nearing completion, and we will be glad to discuss these additional services with you. If you have any questions or comments regarding this report, please call and we will be glad to discuss them with you. Sincerely, ENGEO Incorporated *4Z Marlon Osegue o1 RoFESS/O A. F� Fac - w No. 2631 2 m e ipp , GE Jr 0`noTfCHN�P��'Q mo/mp/jf/dt �TFCF CA�F�� Maggie Parks, PhD 6 Morgan, Suite 162 • Irvine, CA 92618-1922 • (949) 529-3479 • Fax (888) 279-2698 www.engeo.com Atria Senior Living Atria Newport Beach 13823.000.000 Geotechnical Exploration TABLE OF CONTENTS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................1 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE.................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION........................................................................................................2 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................2 2.0 FINDINGS............................................................................................................ 2 2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION.......................................................................................................2 2.2 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY............................................................................................3 2.2.1 Geology..................................................................................................................3 2.2.2 Seismicity...............................................................................................................3 2.3 SURFACE CONDITIONS......................................................... 2.4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................................. 2.5 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ............................................. 2.6 LABORATORY TESTING......................................................... 2.7 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES ............................................... 2 7 1 Geomet and Idealized Soil Profiles ........................................ 4 ........................................ 5 ........................................ 5 ........................................ 5 ............... I ............ I........... 6 ry........................... I ..... I............ 2.7.2 Seismic Analysis............................................................................. 2.7.3 Acceptable Factors of Safety.......................................................... 2.7.4 Results of Analyses........................................................................ ............. I....... 6 ..................... 6 ..................... 7 ..................... 7 3.0 CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................8 3.1 EXISTING FILL...................................................................................................................8 3.2 EXPANSIVE SOIL...............................................................................................................8 3.3 SEISMIC HAZARDS...........................................................................................................8 3.3.1 Ground Shaking.....................................................................................................9 3.3.2 Dynamic Densification Settlement.........................................................................9 3.3.3 Seismically Induced Landslides.............................................................................9 3.3.4 Ground Rupture..................................................................................................... 9 3.3.5 Liquefaction............................................................................................................9 3.3.6 Ground Lurching..................................................................................................10 3.4 FLOODING....................................................................................................................... 10 3.5 SOIL CORROSION POTENTIAL...................................................................................... 10 3.6 2016 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS................................................................. 10 4.0 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING...................................................................... 11 5.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................. 11 5.1 GENERAL SITE CLEARING............................................................................................12 5.2 ACCEPTABLE FILL..........................................................................................................12 5.3 FILL COMPACTION.......................................................................................................... 12 5.3.1 Grading in Structural Areas.................................................................................. 12 5.3.2 Underground Utility Backfill.................................................................................. 13 5.3.2.1 General.................................................................................................13 5.3.2.2 Structural Areas....................................................................................13 5.3.3 Landscape Fill......................................................................................................13 5.4 SLOPES............................................................................................................................13 GEO of ii April 17, 2017 Revised June 12, 2018 —Expect Excellence— Atria Senior Living 13823.000.000 Atria Newport Beach Geotechnical Exploration TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 5.4.1 Gradients..............................................................................................................13 5.4.2 Fill Placed on Existing Slopes.............................................................................. 14 5.5 SITE DRAINAGE..............................................................................................................14 5.5.1 Surface Drainage................................................................................................. 14 5.5.2 Subsurface Drainage........................................................................................... 14 6.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................14 6.1 CONVENTIONAL FOOTINGS WITH SLAB -ON -GRADE ................................................. 15 6.1.1 Footing Dimensions and Allowable Bearing Capacity ......................................... 15 6.1.2 Waterstop.............................................................................................................15 6.1.3 Reinforcement......................................................................................................15 6.1.4 Foundation Lateral Resistance............................................................................ 16 6.1.5 Settlement............................................................................................................16 6.2 DEEP FOUNDATIONS..................................................................................................... 16 6.2.1 Micropiles.............................................................................................................16 6.2.2 Pile Cap Design.................................................................................................... 17 7.0 SLABS-ON-GRADE ...........................................................................................17 7.1 INTERIOR CONCRETE FLOOR SLABS.......................................................................... 17 7.1.1 Minimum Design Section..................................................................................... 17 7.1.2 Slab Moisture Vapor Reduction........................................................................... 18 7.1.3 Subgrade Modulus for Structural Slab Design.....................................................18 7.2 EXTERIOR FLATWORK................................................................................................... 18 7.3 TRENCH BACKFILL.........................................................................................................19 8.0 RETAINING WALLS..........................................................................................19 8.1 LATERAL SOIL PRESSURES..........................................................................................19 8.2 RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE........................................................................................20 8.3 BACKFILL.........................................................................................................................20 8.4 FOUNDATIONS................................................................................................................20 9.0 PAVEMENT DESIGN......................................................................................... 21 9.1 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS..................................................................................................21 9.2 RIGID PAVEMENTS.........................................................................................................21 9.3 SUBGRADE AND AGGREGATE BASE COMPACTION.................................................22 10.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS ....................................... 22 SELECTED REFERENCES FIGURES APPENDIX A — Exploration Logs APPENDIX B — Laboratory Test Data APPENDIX C — Slope Stability Analysis Results NGEO —Expect Excellence— ii of ii April 17, 2017 Revised June 12, 2018 Atria Senior Living 13823.000.000 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE Atria Newport Beach Geotechnical Exploration We prepared this geotechnical report for design of Atria Newport Beach in Newport Beach, California. We prepared this report as outlined in our agreement dated March 1, 2017. Atria Senior Living authorized ENGEO to conduct the following scope of services: • Service plan development • Subsurface field exploration • Soil laboratory testing • Data analysis and conclusions • Report preparation For our use, we received the following: 1. Existing floor plans for Newport Villa (East and West). 2. Avalon at Newport, Seismic Strengthening of Wood Portions of Structures. Prepared by John Yadegar & Associates, dated June 11, 2003. 3. Atria Newport Beach, Concept Package. Prepared by C+TC Design Studio, dated January 30, 2017. 4. Newport Villa & Newport Villa West, A.L.T.A./A.C.S.M. Land Title Survey. Prepared by Anacal Engineering Co., dated July 11, 2000. 5. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Newport Villa/Newport Villa West. Prepared by Underground Environmental Services, Inc., dated March 1, 2002. 6. Preliminary ConXTech Framing Plan. Prepared by Bentley, dated March 2, 2017. 7. Atria Newport Beach, Concept Package. Prepared by Douglas Pancake Architects, dated December 11, 2017. 8. Atria Senior Living, Basement Foundation Options. Prepared by KPFF Consulting Engineers, dated February 28, 2018, 9. Atria Newport Beach, Foundation Layout Schematic. Prepared by KPFF Consulting Engineers, dated February 13, 2018. We prepared this report for the exclusive use of our client and their consultants for design of this project. In the event that any changes are made in the character, design or layout of the development, we should be contacted to review the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report to evaluate whether modifications are recommended. This document may not be reproduced in whole or in part by any means whatsoever, nor may it be quoted or excerpted without our express written consent. GEO Page 11 April 17, 2017 Revised June 12, 2018 —Expect Excellence — Atria Senior Living 13823.000.000 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION Atria Newport Beach Geotechnical Exploration Figure 1 displays a Site Vicinity Map. The site is located at the northwest corner of Newport Boulevard/Highway 55 and Hospital Road in Newport Beach, CA. Access to the site is provided via an entrance on Hospital Road, near the southwest corner of the site. Figure 2 shows site boundaries, existing building and pavement areas, and our exploratory locations. The Newport Beach Lido medical center covers a portion of the area directly west of the site. The rest of the area to the west is occupied by single-family residences. To the north of the site is the Flagship Healthcare Center. Hospital Road forms the southern site boundary, and Newport Boulevard/Highway 55 is to the east. 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Based on our discussions with Mr. Winsryg, and review of the information provided, we understand the project includes the following proposed site improvements: 1. Demolition of the existing one-story southern building, including existing foundation elements. 2. Construction of a new three-level building at the south end of the site comprised of a basement, ground floor and second floor. 3. Paved parking stalls and drive lanes. 4. Utilities and other infrastructure improvements. 5. Retaining walls over 6 feet in height with level backfill. 6. Concrete flatwork. EXHIBIT 1.3-1: Rendered View — East Side of New Building Douglas Pancake Architects, Concept Package, December 11, 2017 2.0 FINDINGS 2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION Our field exploration consisted of drilling four borings at the locations shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. We performed our field exploration on March 17, 2017. The location and elevations of our explorations are approximate and were estimated by pacing from features shown on Figure 2; they should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. 60►GEO Page 12 April 17, 2017 Revised June 12, 2018 —Expect Excellence— Atria Senior Living Atria Newport Beach 13823.000.000 Geotechnical Exploration An ENGEO representative observed the drilling and logged the subsurface conditions at each location. We retained the services of a truck -mounted drill rig and crew to advance two borings, S-1 and S-2, using 6 -inch -diameter hollow -stem auger methods. The borings were advanced to depths of 41 and 80 feet below existing grade, respectively. We retained the services of a "minuteman" drill rig to advance two limited access borings, S-3 and S-4, on the slope along the eastern side of the southern building. The minuteman borings were drilled using 6 -inch -diameter solid -flight auger methods to depths of 21'/2 and 26'/2 feet respectively. We collected samples at regular intervals during the borings using a 2 -inch O.D. split -spoon sampler and a 2.5 -inch I.D. Modified California Sampler. The standard penetration resistance blow counts were obtained by dropping a 140 -pound hammer through a 30 -inch free fall. The 2 -inch O.D. split -spoon sampler was driven 18 inches and the number of blows was recorded for each 6 inches of penetration. In addition, 2.5 -inch I.D. samples were obtained using the Modified California Sampler driven into the soil with the 140 -pound hammer previously described. Unless otherwise indicated, the blows per foot recorded on the boring log represent the accumulated number of blows to drive the last 1 foot of penetration; the blow counts have not been converted using any correction factors. When sampler driving was difficult, penetration was recorded only as inches penetrated for 50 hammer blows. We used the field logs to develop the report logs in Appendix A. The logs depict subsurface conditions at the exploration locations for the date of exploration; however, subsurface conditions may vary with time. 2.2 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY 2.2.1 Geology The project site is located on the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30x60 Regional Geologic Map (Morton & Miller, 2006), at the southwestern margin of the Los Angeles Basin. Geologic mapping shows the site as underlain by late to middle Pleistocene paralic deposits, Qop. The Qop unit is composed of poorly sorted, moderately permeable, interfingered beach, estuarine and colluvial deposits. These deposits are primarily comprised of silt, sand and cobbles. The deposits now lie on emergent wave cut abrasion platforms preserved by regional uplift. The Newport Inglewood fault zone drove the regional uplift and further details are described in Section 2.2.2. Paralic refers to the interfingering of the continental and marine deposits. 2.2.2 Seismicity The site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no known surface expression of active faults is believed to exist within the site. Fault rupture through the site, therefore, is not anticipated. The Los Angeles Basin is a region of high seismicity, and it is likely that the site will experience strong seismic ground shaking. The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF 3, 2015) estimates the 30 -year probability for a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake in Southern California at approximately 93 percent, considering the known active seismic sources in the region. Nearby active faults that are capable of generating strong seismic ground shaking at the site include the Alt 1 segment of the Newport Inglewood fault, located less than a mile to the south and the San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust fault, located approximately 4% miles to the northwest. ENGEO Page 13 April 17, 2017 Expect Excellence— Revised June 12, 2018 Atria Senior Living Atria Newport Beach 13823.000.000 Geotechnical Exploration The San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust is a "blind" subsurface fault believed to lie under the San Joaquin Hills Anticline, south of the site. The largest seismic source in the Southern California region is the San Andreas Fault, located approximately 52 miles north of the site. Many earthquakes of low magnitude occur every year throughout the region, most of which are concentrated along the San Andreas Fault. Figure 4 shows the approximate location of historic, Holocene, and Quaternary faults and significant historic earthquake epicenters mapped within the region. Significant earthquakes with magnitude (M) 6 or greater have ruptured on the San Andreas Fault, including the 1812 Wrightwood earthquake (approximate M 7.3) and the 1857 Great Fort Tejon earthquake (M 7.9). More recently, significant earthquakes in the Southern California region include the 1933 Long Beach earthquake (M 6.4), the 1971 San Fernando earthquake (M 6.6), the 1992 Landers earthquake (M 7.3), and the 1994 Northridge earthquake (M 7.3). 2.3 SURFACE CONDITIONS The subject property consists of two structures occupied by elderly care facilities and professional office space. The western portion of the site is relatively level, ranging in elevation from 82 feet (NAD27 datum) at the western parking lot to approximately 77 feet at the southwestern corner of the property. A significant slope descending from west to east runs along the eastern portion of the site where the lowest elevation is approximately 52 feet. The north building includes a parking garage and rests partially on a retaining wall constructed mid -slope. The southern structure extends over the slope and columns with deepened foundations constructed mid -slope support the overhanging portion of the building. The landscaping at the site is mature, with large trees and shrubs growing along the open space between the buildings and along the slope, as shown in Photo 2.3-1. The slope beneath the southern building does not have landscape features and the soil is exposed, although it is protected from precipitation and runoff by the overhanging structure. The slope terminates at surficial drainage structures running along the eastern side of the property, parallel with Newport Boulevard. The drainage features descend from the north and south toward a low point approximately midway along the edge of the site, where they join a storm drain running below Newport Boulevard. The Site Plan, Figure 2, provides an aerial view of current site features. PHOTO 2.3.1: View from A' to A as identified in Figure 2 ENGEO Page 14 April 17, 2017 —Expec! Excellence— Revised June 12, 2018 Atria Senior Living 13823.000.000 2.4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Atria Newport Beach Geotechnical Exploration The four borings we completed at the site generally encountered loose fill to a depth of approximately 11 feet. Our observed fill thickness is consistent with the as -built drawings provided in the 2003 John Yadegar & Associates seismic upgrade design package, showing benched fill used to create the slope during construction of the existing structures in 1969. Beneath the fill, we encountered medium dense silty sand to a depth of approximately 25 feet. Beneath the silty sand, our borings primarily encountered loose to dense sand interbedded with clayey sand, fat clay, and elastic silt. The fat clay was soft, while the elastic silt was stiff to very stiff. The clayey sand was primarily medium dense to dense. The interbedded soil profile is a result of the geologic depositional environment, comprised of Pleistocene lacustrine, playa and estuarine deposits. Nearby faulting moved and pushed together these deposits, which caused variability and interbedding in the soil profile. The table below summarizes the plasticity Index test results on representative soil samples. TABLE 2.4-1: Plasticity Index Test Results S-1 3 to 3'/ CL 27 S-2 29'/2 to 31 CL -ML 7 S-2 391/2to 41 CH 43 S-3 10'/2 to 11 CH 67 S-4 20'/2 to 21 CH 49 Consult the Site Plan (Figure 2) and exploration logs in Appendix A for specific subsurface conditions at each location. The logs contain the soil [or rock] type, color, consistency, and visual classification in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The logs graphically depict the subsurface conditions encountered at the time of the exploration. 2.5 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS We encountered groundwater in Borings S-1 and S-3 during our geotechnical exploration. We observed groundwater in Boring S-1 at 41 feet below ground surface (NAD27 datum elevation of 40 feet) and 12 feet below ground surface (NAD27 elevation of 47 feet) in Boring S-3. The historically highest groundwater elevation for the site, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), is 30 feet below the ground surface. Given the interbedded nature of the subsurface at the site, there is potential for perched groundwater conditions that may vary across the site. 2.6 LABORATORY TESTING We submitted representative soil samples for laboratory testing to determine engineering characteristics. The table below summarized the laboratory soil tests conducted. TABLE 2.6-1: Laboratory Tests Performed Natural Unit Weight ASTM D2937 Natural Moisture Content ASTM D2216 Plasticity Index ASTM D4318 GEO Page 1 5 April 17, 2017 Revised June 12, 2018 —Expec( Excellence Atria Senior Living 13823.000.000 Atria Newport Beach Geotechnical Exploration Fine Sieve Analysis for Soils ASTM D6913 Unconfined Compression ASTM D2166 Direct Shear ASTM D3080 Unconsolidated Undrained ASTM D2850 Expansion Index ASTM D4829 Soil pH DOT CA Test 643 Electrical Resistivity ASTM G187 Chloride Content ASTM D6919 Sulfate Content ASTM D6919 The boring logs in Appendix A show the laboratory test results and individual test results are provided in Appendix B. 2.7 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES The proposed improvements include demolition of the southern building currently partially supported on existing columns founded mid -slope, and construction of a new southern building supported primarily on shallow footings with slab on grade floor, with a small portion over the slope supported on deep foundations. We analyzed the slope to determine the potential for lateral pressures on existing and planned foundation elements due to static and kinematic slope conditions. We performed two-dimensional limit -equilibrium slope stability analyses with the computer software Slide Version 7.0 using Spencer's method (Spencer, 1967) on Section A -A' identified in Figure 2. 2.7.1 Geometry and Idealized Soil Profiles For the purposes of slope stability evaluation, we divided the subsurface materials into various layers. We developed shear strength parameters primarily from in-situ SPT data, correlations with PI, unconfined compression strengths, and soil types. Based on our data review, we developed the idealized soil profiles shown in Figure 7 with the strength parameters provided in Table 2.7.1-1. TABLE 2.7.1-1: Summary of Shear Strength Parameters Sand Fill 33 100 Native Sand 35 0 Silt and Clay 0 1600 Clav 0 2000 2.7.2 Seismic Analysis In evaluating the stability of the slope under seismic conditions, we used a "pseudo -static" method of analysis, which is the standard method of evaluating the stability of earth embankments against sliding during earthquakes. The pseudo -static method models the effects of transient or pulsating CEO Page 6 April 17, 2017 YRevised June 12, 2018 —Expect Excellence — Atria Senior Living Atria Newport Beach 13823.000.000 Geotechnical Exploration earthquake loading on a potential slide mass by using an equivalent sustained horizontal force that is the product of a seismic coefficient and the weight of the potential slide mass. The slope is first analyzed to establish the minimum factor of safety under static conditions. Once this minimum failure surface is located, an additional horizontal force acting in the direction of potential failure is imposed on the sliding mass. This additional force is equal to the soil mass multiplied by a seismic coefficient of horizontal acceleration. Special Publication 117A "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California" (CGS, 2008a), is currently used in practice to evaluate seismic stability of slopes in California. Note 48, which is used for Public Schools, Hospitals, and Essential Services Buildings, advises the procedure recommended in SPI 17A in addition to using a design -level ground motion based on geometric mean and without risk coefficient (i.e. PGAM/1.5). We estimate PGAM for the site to be 0.69g in accordance with the 2016 California Building Code. We then divided the PGAM by 1.5 to yield a design -level PGA of 0.46g. SP1 17A states that slopes that have a pseudo -static factor of safety greater than 1.0 using a seismic coefficient derived from the screening analysis procedure of Stewart and others (2003) can be considered stable. We developed the pseudo -static coefficient for the site as 0.228 based on a 6 -inch (15 -centimeter) threshold of displacement. Lateral deformations within the top 5 feet of soil are unlikely to create substantial lateral forces on existing or planned deep foundation elements. We performed a secondary analysis, forcing the failure surface to be greater than 5 feet below ground surface, to better estimate the potential forces on foundation elements due to seismic slope displacement. To generate the pseudo -static coefficient for the seismic displacement analysis, we performed a critical seismic coefficient (ky) analysis at a depth of 5 feet below the ground surface. The resulting pseudo -static coefficient for the seismic slope displacement analysis was 0.25g. We used this seismic coefficient to estimate the potential lateral displacement of the slope at a depth of 5 feet below the surface using the methods of Bray and Travasorou (2008). 2.7.3 Acceptable Factors of Safety Based on local geotechnical practice, we recommend analyzing the slope using a static factor of safety of 1.5 and a pseudo -static factor of safety of 1.0. We considered the various levels of conservatism involved in determining the engineering properties of the soil (density, shear strength, unit weight, permeability, etc.), the assumptions made in the method of analysis, and potential variations in field conditions. 2.7.4 Results of Analyses The static analyses resulted in a factor of safety of 1.5 for a shallow surficial slope failure and a deeper failure surface factor of safety of 2.3, as shown in the figures provided in Appendix C. Based on our seismic slope stability and seismic slope displacement analysis, we estimate seismic lateral deformation to be less than 6 inches at the surface and less than 2 inches at a depth of 5 feet below the existing ground surface. This level of deformation is insufficient to yield lateral loading (kinematic loading) on the existing or planned foundation elements extending more than 5 feet below the existing ground surface along the east -facing slope adjacent to Newport Blvd. Based on our analysis, the seismic pseudo -static factor of safety for surface deformation of 6 inches or less was 1.0. There is a potential risk for minor slumping at the surface of the slope (upper 5 feet) during a seismic event. We recommend foundation elements adjacent to slopes be setback a minimum horizontal distance of 10 feet from the face of slope. GEOPage 1 7 April 17, 2017 L Revised June 12, 2018 Expect Excellence Atria Senior Living 13823.000.000 3.0 CONCLUSIONS Atria Newport Beach Geotechnical Exploration From a geotechnical engineering viewpoint, the proposed project may be designed as planned, provided the geotechnical recommendations in this report are properly incorporated into the design plans and specifications. The primary geotechnical concerns that could affect development on the site are existing fill and substantial ground shaking. We summarize our conclusions below. 3.1 EXISTING FILL Our borings and the as -built grading plans for the existing structures indicate that approximately 11 feet of fill underlies portions of the site. The fill depths observed during our exploration are consistent with the as -built drawings, Documentation of the fill placement specifications during construction of the existing structures was not available at the time this report was prepared. Our exploration showed relatively low density/stiffness for the shallow fill. Improperly engineered fills can undergo excessive settlement, especially under new fill or building loads. Without proper documentation of existing fill placed on the site, we recommend removal of the undocumented fill to a minimum of 3 feet below proposed finished grade or existing grade, whichever is deeper, with recompaction of the fill under planned shallow foundations. Overexcavation for the deep foundation pile/pier caps may not be necessary, although the subgrade should be a uniform competent material. A representative of our firm should observe and approve the cap subgrade prior to installation of the deep foundations. 3.2 EXPANSIVE SOIL We observed potentially expansive fat clay and clayey sand beneath the sandy fill in Boring S-2 and near the surface in Borings S-1, S-3, and S-4. Our laboratory testing indicates that this soil exhibits moderate to high shrink/swell potential with variations in moisture content. Expansive soil changes in volume with changes in moisture. It can shrink or swell and cause heaving and cracking of slabs -on -grade, pavements, and structures founded on shallow foundations. Building damage due to volume changes associated with expansive soil can be reduced by: (1) using a rigid mat foundation that is designed to resist the settlement and heave of expansive soil, (2) deepening the foundations to below the zone of moisture fluctuation, i.e. by using deep footings or drilled piers, and/or (3) using footings at normal shallow depths but bottomed on a layer of engineered fill moisture conditioned and compacted in accordance with our recommendations for that soil type. Successful performance of structures on expansive soil requires special attention during construction. It is imperative that exposed soil be kept moist prior to placement of concrete for foundation construction. It can be difficult to remoisturize clayey soil without excavation, moisture conditioning, and recompaction. 3.3 SEISMIC HAZARDS Potential seismic hazards resulting from a nearby moderate to major earthquake can generally be classified as primary and secondary. The primary effect is ground rupture, also called surface faulting. The common secondary seismic hazards include ground shaking, and ground lurching. GEOPage 1 8 April 17, 2017 L Revised June 12, 2018 — Expect Excellence Atria Senior Living Atria Newport Beach 13823.000.000 Geotechnical Exploration The following sections present a discussion of these hazards as they apply to the site. Based on topographic and lithologic data, the risk of regional subsidence or uplift, soil liquefaction, lateral spreading, tsunamis, flooding or seiches is considered low to negligible at the site. 3.3.1 Ground Shaking An earthquake of moderate to high magnitude generated within the Southern California region could cause considerable ground shaking at the site, similar to that which has occurred in the past. To mitigate the shaking effects, structures should be designed using sound engineering judgment and the 2016 California Building Code (CBC) requirements, as a minimum. Seismic design provisions of current building codes generally prescribe minimum lateral forces, applied statically to the structure, combined with the gravity forces of dead -and -live loads. The code -prescribed lateral forces are generally considered to be substantially smaller than the comparable forces that would be associated with a major earthquake. Therefore, structures should be able to: (1) resist minor earthquakes without damage, (2) resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage but with some nonstructural damage, and (3) resist major earthquakes without collapse but with some structural as well as nonstructural damage. Conformance to the current building code recommendations does not constitute any kind of guarantee that significant structural damage would not occur in the event of a maximum magnitude earthquake; however, it is reasonable to expect that a well-designed and well -constructed structure will not collapse or cause loss of life in a major earthquake (SEAOC, 1996). 3.3.2 Dynamic Densification Settlement Densification of loose granular soil above the water table can cause settlement of the ground surface due to earthquake -induced vibrations. We calculated potential seismic settlement estimates using our SPT blowcounts and the method published by Tokimatsu and Seed, 1987. Our analysis indicates up to approximately 1 inch of settlement may occur due to dynamic densification at the site, with resulting differential settlement of less than 1/2 inch (SCEC, 1999). 3.3.3 Seismically Induced Landslides The site is not located within a State of California Seismic Hazard Zone Map (2006, Figure 5) for areas that may be susceptible to seismically induced landsliding. Seismically induced landslides are triggered by earthquake ground shaking. The risk of this hazard is generally greatest in the late winter when groundwater levels are highest and surficial soils are saturated. The results of our slope stability analyses presented in Section 2.7 shows the potential for substantial displacement due to seismically induced landslides is low. 3.3.4 Ground Rupture Since there are no known active faults crossing the property and the site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Special Study Zone, it is our opinion that ground rupture is unlikely at the subject property. 3.3.5 Liquefaction Soil liquefaction results from loss of strength during cyclic loading, such as imposed by earthquakes. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, saturated, uniformly -graded, fine-grained sands. According the Seismic Hazard Zone Map (2006, Figure 5), the site is not located within a potential liquefaction zone. Additionally, we did not encounter loose uniformly GAO Page 1 9 April 17, 2017 L Revised June 12, 2018 Expect Excellence— Atria Senior Living Atria Newport Beach 13823.000.000 Geotechnical Exploration graded sand below observed or historically high groundwater elevations in our explorations. For these reasons and based upon engineering judgment, the potential for liquefaction at the site is low during seismic shaking. 3.3.6 Ground Lurching Ground lurching is a result of the rolling motion imparted to the ground surface during energy released by an earthquake. Such rolling motion can cause ground cracks to form in weaker soils. There is greater potential for the formation of these cracks at contacts between deep alluvium and bedrock. Such an occurrence is possible at the site as in other locations in the Southern California region, but based on the site location, it is our opinion that the offset is expected to be minor. We provide recommendations for foundation and pavement design in this report with the intention to reduce the potential for adverse impacts from lurch cracking. &iCl711116Z677PLr Based on site elevation and distance from water sources, flooding is not expected at the subject site; however, the Civil Engineer should review pertinent information relating to possible flood levels for the subject site based on final pad elevations and provide appropriate design measures for development of the project, if recommended. 3.5 SOIL CORROSION POTENTIAL As part of this study, we obtained a representative soil sample and submitted to a qualified analytical lab for determination of pH, resistivity, sulfate, and chloride. The results are included in Appendix B and summarized in the table below. TABLE 3.5-1: Corrosivity Test Results S-2 1'/z-2 6.8 3,160 ND 14 * ND — Non -detect The 2016 CBC references the 2014 American Concrete Institute Manual, ACI 318-14, Chapter 19, Section 19.3 for structural concrete requirements. ACI Table 19.3.1.1 provides exposure categories and classes based upon the exposure risk. Considering this information, the sulfate exposure class for the sample tested is category SO. Table 19.3.2.1 within ACI 318-14 recommends a minimum concrete strength of 2,500 psi for SO sulfate exposure class. ACI does not specify cement type or water -cement ratio for this range and the Structural Engineer should therefore determine them. The results of the soil resistivity testing indicated a resistivity of 3,160 ohms -cm, indicating the soil tested as having a low corrosive potential to buried metal. The chloride concentration was a non -detect (ND) result and the pH was 6.8, which indicates levels that do not pose a significant impact to metals in concrete. If desired to investigate further, a corrosion consultant can be retained. 3.6 2016 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Based on the subsurface conditions encountered, we characterized the site as Site Class D in accordance with the 2016 CBC. We provide the 2016 CBC seismic design parameters in GEO Page 10 April 17, 2017 Revised June 12, 2018 —Expect Excellence — Atria Senior Living Atria Newport Beach 13823.000.000 Geotechnical Exoloration Table 3.6-1 below, which include design spectral response acceleration parameters based on the mapped Risk -Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) spectral response acceleration parameters. TABLE 3.6-1: 2016 CBC Seismic Design Parameters, Latitude: 33.6263° Longitude: -117.92870 Site Class 0 Mapped MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods, Ss (g) 1.70 Mapped MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at 1 -second Period, S1 (g) 0.63 Site Coefficient, FA 1.00 Site Coefficient, Fv 1.50 MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods, Sms (g) 1.70 MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at 1 -second Period, Smi (g) 0.94 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods, SDs (g) 1.13 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1 -second Period, Soy (g) 0.63 Mapped MICE Geometric Mean (MCEG) Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA (g) 0.69 Site Coefficient, FPGA 1.00 MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration adjusted for Site Class effects, PGAM (g) 0.69 Long period transition -period, TL 8 sec 4.0 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING Our experience and that of our profession clearly indicate that the risk of costly design, construction, and maintenance problems can be significantly lowered by retaining the design geotechnical engineering firm to: Review the final grading and foundation plans and specifications prior to construction to evaluate whether our recommendations have been implemented, and to provide additional or modified recommendations, as needed. This also allows us to check if any changes have occurred in the nature, design or location of the proposed improvements and provides the opportunity to prepare a written response with updated recommendations. Perform construction monitoring to check the validity of the assumptions we made to prepare this report. Earthwork operations should be performed under the observation of our representative to check that the site is properly prepared, the selected fill materials are satisfactory, and that placement and compaction of the fills has been performed in accordance with our recommendations and the project specifications. Sufficient notification to us prior to earthwork is important. If we are not retained to perform the services described above, then we are not responsible for any party's interpretation of our report (and subsequent addenda, letters, and verbal discussions). 5.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS The relative compaction and optimum moisture content of soil and aggregate base referred to in this report are based on the most recent ASTM D1557 test method. Compacted soil is not acceptable if it is unstable. It should exhibit only minimal flexing or pumping, as observed by an ENGEO representative. n �GE0 Page 111 April 17, 2017 i Y Revised June 12, 2018 Expect Excellence Atria Senior Living Atria Newport Beach 13823.000.000 Geotechnical Exploration As used in this report, the term "moisture condition" refers to adjusting the moisture content of the soil by either drying if too wet or adding water if too dry. We define "structural areas" in Section 5 of this report as any area sensitive to settlement of compacted soil. These areas include, but are not limited to building pads, sidewalks, pavement areas, and retaining walls. 5.1 GENERAL SITE CLEARING Areas to be developed should be cleared of surface and subsurface deleterious materials, including existing building foundations, slabs, buried utility and irrigation lines, pavements, debris, and designated trees, shrubs, and associated roots. Clean and backfill excavations extending below the planned finished site grades with suitable material compacted to the recommendations presented in Section 5.3.1. We recommend we be retained to observe and test backfilling. Following clearing, the contractor should strip the site to remove surface organic materials. Organics should be stripped from the ground surface to a depth of at least 2 to 3 inches below the surface. The contractor should remove strippings from the site or, if considered suitable by the landscape architect and owner, use them in landscape fill. 5.2 ACCEPTABLE FILL Onsite soil material is suitable as fill material provided it is processed to remove concentrations of organic material, debris, and particles greater than 8 inches in maximum dimension. Imported fill materials should meet the above requirements and have a plasticity index less than 12. We should be allowed to sample and test proposed imported fill materials at least 5 days prior to delivery to the site. 5.3 FILL COMPACTION 5.3.1 Grading in Structural Areas The contractor should perform subgrade compaction prior to fill placement, following cutting operations, and in areas left at grade as follows. 1. Scarify to a depth of at least 8 inches. 2. Moisture condition soil to at least 1 percentage point above the optimum moisture content; and 3. Compact the subgrade to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Compact the upper 6 inches of finish pavement subgrade to at least 95 percent relative compaction prior to aggregate base placement. After the subgrade soil has been compacted, the contractor should place and compact acceptable fill as follows: 1. Spread fill in loose lifts that do not exceed 8 inches. 2. Moisture condition lifts to at least 1 percentage point above the optimum moisture content; and ��O Page 1 12 April 17, 2017 Revised June 12, 2018 Expect Excellence — Atria Senior Living Atria Newport Beach 13823.000.000 Geotechnical Exploration 3. Compact fill to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction; Compact the upper 6 inches of fill in pavement areas to 95 percent relative compaction prior to aggregate base placement. The contractor should compact the pavement Caltrans Class 2 Aggregate Base section to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557) at a moisture content at or slightly above the optimum moisture content prior to compaction. 5.3.2 Underground Utility Backfill 5.3.2.1 General The contractor is responsible for conducting trenching and shoring in accordance with CALOSHA requirements. Project consultants involved in utility design should specify pipe -bedding materials. 5.3.2.2 Structural Areas The contractor should place and compact trench backfill as follows: 1. Trench backfill should have a maximum particle size of 6 inches. 2. Moisture condition trench backfill to or slightly above the optimum moisture content. Moisture condition backfill outside the trench. 3. Place fill in loose lifts not exceeding 12 inches; and 4. Compact fill to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557). Where utility trenches cross perimeter building foundations, backfill with native clay soil for pipe bedding and backfill for a distance of 2 feet on each side of the foundation. This will help prevent the normally granular bedding materials from acting as a conduit for water to enter beneath the building. As an alternative, a sand cement slurry (minimum 28 -day compressive strength of 500 psi) may be used in place of native clay soil. Jetting of backfill is not an acceptable means of compaction. We may allow thicker loose lift thicknesses based on acceptable density test results, where increased effort is applied to rocky fill, or for the first lift of fill over pipe bedding. 5.3.3 Landscape Fill The contractor should process, place and compact fill in accordance with Sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2, except compact to at least 85 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557). 5.4 SLOPES 5.4.1 Gradients Final slope gradients should be 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter. The contractor is responsible to construct temporary construction slopes in accordance with CALOSHA requirements. A,%[O Page 1 13 April 17, 2017 i Y�JI_ Revised June 12, 2018 Expect Excellence Atria Senior Living 13823.000.000 5.4.2 Fill Placed on Existing Slopes Atria Newport Beach Geotechnical Exploration We recommend keying and benching where fills are placed on original grade with a gradient of 6:1 or steeper. Cut benches into original grade after the key has been nearly filled and compacted in accordance with Section 5.3.1. Construct benches into original slope grade as filling proceeds every 2 feet vertically, to remove loose soil/rock. Deeper bench depths may be recommended by ENGEO depending on actual conditions observed during construction. Bench widths may vary depending on the original slope grade and actual bench depth. 5.5 SITE DRAINAGE 5.5.1 Surface Drainage The project civil engineer is responsible for designing surface drainage improvements. With regard to geotechnical engineering issues, we recommend that finish grades be sloped awayfrom buildings and pavements to the maximum extent practical. The latest California Building Code Section 1804.3 specifies minimum slopes of 5 percent away from foundations. Where development conditions restrict meeting this slope requirement, we recommend that specific drainage requirements be developed. As a minimum, we recommend the following: 1. Discharge roof downspouts into closed conduits and direct away from foundations to appropriate drainage devices. 2. Do not allow water to pond near foundations, pavements, or exterior flatwork. 3. The dry -well for surface water infiltration should be located a minimum of 15 feet laterally from building foundations and the infiltration depth should be a minimum of 10 feet below finished grade. 5.5.2 Subsurface Drainage Based on our site exploration and current grading concepts for the site, we do not anticipate that subdrainage systems will be recommended. We recommend that we review the site grading plans to further evaluate the need for subdrainage systems as well as observe the earthwork operations during site grading. 6.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS We understand the proposed new south structure will be supported primarily on conventional footings with slab -on -grade floor, with a small portion supported on micropiles with pile caps. We provide recommended design criteria for conventional footings and micropiles below. We understand the north structure will remain in-place founded on the existing foundation. If the anticipated building loads of the north structure change due to the new design, we should be requested to analyze the existing structure's foundation plans and provide recommendations for adding capacity to the foundation elements if necessary. A summary of the north structure analysis and recommendations, if necessary, would be provided under separate cover. �IG1_[O Page 114 April 17, 2017 i Y Revised June 12, 2018 Expect Excellence Atria Senior Living Atria Newport Beach 13823.000.000 Geotechnical Exploration 6.1 CONVENTIONAL FOOTINGS WITH SLAB -ON -GRADE 6.1.1 Footing Dimensions and Allowable Bearing Capacity We estimate allowable bearing capacities for foundation elements founded on fill removed and recompacted to a minimum of 3 feet belowfinished grade, or existing grade, whichever is deeper, to be 3,000 psf for dead plus live load combinations, assuming foundation designs meet the minimum footing dimensions provided below. This bearing value can be increased by one-third for load combinations including wind or seismic. TABLE 6.1.1-1: Minimum Footing Dimensions Continuous 12 Isolated 18 18 below lowest adjacent pad grade For footings adjacent to or within slopes, the foundation elements may be deepened to provide a minimum horizontal distance of 5 feet between the base of the foundation and the face of slope, allowing for the recommended allowable bearing capacity. We recommend that we evaluate the condition of the bottom of footing excavation during construction to confirm firm and unyielding material is present to support new footings. For budgeting, the team should assume as a minimum the upper 18 inches of soil beneath newly constructed foundation elements be overexcavated and recompacted with proper moisture conditioning. Minimum footing depths shown above are taken from lowest adjacent pad grade. The maximum allowable bearing pressure is a net value; the structural engineer can neglect the weight of the footing for design purposes. Footings located adjacent to utility trenches should have their bearing surfaces below an imaginary 1:1 (horizontal:vertical) plane projected upward from the bottom edge of the trench to the footing. 6.1.2 Waterstop Shallow footings and concrete stem walls should extend at least 4 inches above adjacent finish exterior grade. If a two -pour system is used for footings and slab, the cold joint between the exterior footing and slab -on -grade should be located at least 4 inches above adjacent finish exterior grade. If this is not done, then we recommend the addition of a waterstop between the two pours to reduce moisture penetration through the cold joint and migration under the slab. Use of a monolithic pour would eliminate the need for the waterstop. 6.1.3 Reinforcement The structural engineer should design footing reinforcement to support the intended structural loads without excessive settlement. Reinforce continuous footings with top and bottom steel to provide structural continuity and to permit spanning of local irregularities. At a minimum, design continuous footings to structurally span a clear distance of 5 feet. C GCO Page 15 April 1, 201 c C Revised June 122, 20188 Expect Excellence— Atria Senior Living Atria Newport Beach 13823.000.000 Geotechnical Exploration 6.1.4 Foundation Lateral Resistance Lateral loads may be resisted by friction along the base and by passive pressure along the sides of foundations. The passive pressure is based on an equivalent fluid pressure in pounds per cubic foot (pcf). We recommend the following allowable values for design: • Passive Lateral Pressure: 300 pcf • Coefficient of Friction: 0.35 The above allowable passive lateral pressure should not be used for footings on or above slopes until a depth where there is a minimum horizontal distance of 10 feet to the slope face. As an alternative for walls adjacent to or within slopes with a horizontal distance to the slope face less than 10 feet, we recommend an allowable passive lateral pressure of 125 pcf for use in design. For this case, the top foot of soil cover should be neglected with respect to passive resistance. The above allowable values include a factor of safety of 1.5. Increase the above values by one-third for the short-term effects of wind or seismic loading. 6.1.5 Settlement Provided our report recommendations are followed and given the proposed construction (Section 1.3), we estimate total and differential foundation settlements to be less than approximately 1 and 1/2 inches, respectively. 6.2 DEEP FOUNDATIONS We understand the current design concept includes a portion of the structure overhanging the adjacent slope along the east side of the property and being supported by columns. The columns will rest on foundations mid -slope, where shallow foundations are not feasible. Based on the anticipated loads, site conditions, and design team input, micropiles are the preferred foundation type for the column support. Our recommendations for design of the micropiles and associated pile caps are below. 6.2.1 Micropiles Micropiles, for the purposes of this report, are drilled foundation elements ranging from 7 to 12 inches in diameter. Micropiles gain their support primarily from skin fiction in the soil. The piles typically consist of a central reinforcing element, typically a high strength reinforcing steel bar, surrounded by cement grout. The grout can be placed by gravity only (Type A construction per FWHA-SA-97-070) or the grout can be injected under pressure and/or the pile can be "post grouted" to increase the capacity (Types B, C, or D construction per FWHA-SA-97-070). The upper portion of the micropile may include a steel casing to increase the structural capacity. To allow for flexibility in the contractor's means and methods, micropiles are generally procured through a design -build process. The contractor is required to submit a detailed design and to demonstrate that the design meets the project design criteria by performing at least one verification and proof tests on 5 percent of production micropiles. GEO Page 1 16 April 17, 2017 Revised June 12, 2018 Expect Excellence Atria Senior Living Atria Newport Beach 13823.000.000 Geotechnical Exploration For preliminary estimating purposes, we performed engineering analyses and developed a preliminary design for the micropiles. The design is based on the following structural components: Drilled Hole — 8 -inch nominal diameter Minimum Reinforcing Bar—#18 bar, Grade 75 threadbar We developed preliminary values for the geotechnical unit grout -to -ground bond strength (ultimate bond strength) based on observed soil conditions (sandy clay and silt) near the anticipated column locations and assuming the micropiles extend to a minimum depth of 50 feet below the pile cap. Our recommended ultimate bond nominal strengths are presented in the table below. The designer should add appropriate factors of safetyfor seismic and static loading cases. Table 6.2.1-1 presents typical grout -to -ground bond values based on the FHWA Micropile Manual. A design -build contractor will likely be able to optimize the design. TABLE 6.2.1-1: Geotechnical Unit Grout -To -Ground Bond Strength Used for Preliminary Design A me Type B 2,700 psf Type C 3,000 psf 3,000 psf The micropile design should neglect vertical capacity from grout -to -ground bond in the upper portion of each micropile until there is a minimum horizontal distance of 5 feet from the micropile to the slope face. 6.2.2 Pile Cap Design Lateral loads may also be resisted by passive pressure along the sides of pile caps where poured neatly against undisturbed native soil or newly constructed engineered fill. The passive pressure is based on an equivalent fluid pressure in pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Based on the understanding the pile cap will be adjacent to or within a slope, we recommend an allowable passive lateral pressure of 125 pcf for use in design. The above allowable value includes a factor of safety of 1.5. The first 1 foot of soil cover should be neglected with respect to passive resistance. 7.0 SLABS -ON -GRADE 7.1 INTERIOR CONCRETE FLOOR SLABS 7.1.1 Minimum Design Section We recommend the following minimum design: 1. Provide a minimum concrete thickness of 5 inches. 2. Place minimum steel reinforcing of No. 3 rebar on 18 -inch centers each way within the middle third of the slab to help control the width of shrinkage cracking that inherently occurs as concrete cures. AN%[O Page 17 April 17, 2017 � V�JL Revised June 12, 2018 —Expect Excellence— Atria Senior Living 13823.000.000 Atria Newport Beach Geotechnical Exploration The structural engineer should provide final design thickness and additional reinforcement, as necessary, for the intended structural loads. 7.1.2 Slab Moisture Vapor Reduction When buildings are constructed with concrete slab -on -grade, water vapor from beneath the slab will migrate through the slab and into the building. This water vapor can be reduced but not stopped. Vapor transmission can negatively affect floor coverings and lead to increased moisture within a building. When water vapor migrating through the slab would be undesirable, we recommend the following to reduce, but not stop, water vapor transmission upward through the slab -on -grade. 1. Construct a moisture retarder system directly beneath the slab on -grade that consists of the following: a. Vapor retarder membrane sealed at all seams and pipe penetrations and connected to all footings. Vapor retarders shall conform to Class A vapor retarder in accordance with ASTM E 1745, latest edition, "Standard Specification for Plastic Water Vapor Retarders used in Contact with Soil or Granular Fill under Concrete Slabs". The vapor retarder should be underlain by b. 4 inches of clean crushed rock. Crushed rock should have 100 percent passing the 3/4 -inch sieve and less than 5 percent passing the No. 4 Sieve. 2. Use a concrete water -cement ratio for slabs -on -grade of no more than 0.50. 3. Provide inspection and testing during concrete placement to check that the proper concrete and water cement ratio are used. 4. Moist cure slabs for a minimum of 3 days or use other equivalent curing specified by the structural engineer. The structural engineer should be consulted as to the use of a layer of clean sand or pea gravel (less than 5 percent passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve) placed on top of the vapor retarder membrane to assist in concrete curing. 7.1.3 Subgrade Modulus for Structural Slab Design Provided the contractor conducts site earthwork in accordance with the recommendations of this report, a subgrade modulus of 100 psi/in can be used for structural slab design. 7.2 EXTERIOR FLATWORK Exterior flatwork includes items such as concrete sidewalks, steps, and outdoor courtyards exposed to foot traffic only. Provide a minimum section of 4 inches of concrete over 4 inches of aggregate base. Compact the aggregate base to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557). Thicken flatwork edges to at least 8 inches to help control moisture variations in the subgrade and place wire mesh or rebar within the middle third of the slab to help control the width and offset of cracks. Construct control and construction joints in accordance with current Portland Cement Association Guidelines. GEOPage 1 18 April 17, 2017 L Revised June 12, 2018 —Expect Excellence— Atria Senior Living 13823.000.000 7.3 TRENCH BACKFILL Atria Newport Beach Geotechnical Exploration Backfill and compact all trenches below building slabs -on -grade and to 5 feet laterally beyond any edge in accordance with Section 5.3.2. 8.0 RETAINING WALLS 8.1 LATERAL SOIL PRESSURES The proposed retaining walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures from adjoining natural materials and/or backfill and from any surcharge loads. Provided that adequate drainage is included as recommended below, design walls restrained from movement at the top to resist an equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). In addition, design restrained walls to resist an additional uniform pressure equivalent to one-half of any surcharge loads applied at the surface. Unrestrained site retaining walls up to 10 feet high may be designed for active lateral equivalent fluid pressures as follows, plus one-third of any surcharge loads. TABLE 8.1-1: Lateral Soil Pressures, Unrestrained and Drained Conditions Level 45 3:1 60 2:1 70 The above lateral earth pressures assume sufficient drainage behind the walls to prevent any build-up of hydrostatic pressures from surface water infiltration and/or a rise in the groundwater level. If the design does not include adequate drainage, we recommend that an additional equivalent fluid pressure of 40 pcf be added to the values recommended above for both restrained and unrestrained walls. Damp -proofing of the walls should be included in areas where wall moisture would be problematic. Design of retaining walls over 6 feet in height should consider seismic conditions. Under seismic conditions, the active incremental seismic force along the face of a retaining wall should be added to the static active pressures, and can be calculated as follows: OP = 35 pcf OP is the active incremental seismic fluid pressure in pounds per cubic foot. Figure 7 provides a schematic of the active, at -rest, and passive lateral pressures along with the seismic increment. Construct a drainage system, as recommended below, to reduce hydrostatic forces behind the retaining wall. iVGEO Page 119 April 17, 2017 Revised June 12, 2018 —Expect Excellence— Atria Senior Living 13823.000.000 8.2 RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE Atria Newport Beach Geotechnical Exploration Either graded rock drains or geosynthetic drainage composites should be constructed behind the retaining walls to reduce hydrostatic lateral forces. For rock drain construction, we recommend two types of rock drain alternatives: A minimum 12 -inch -thick layer of Class 2 Permeable Filter Material (Caltrans Specification 68-2.02F) placed directly behind the wall, or A minimum 12 -inch -thick layer of washed, crushed rock with 100 percent passing the %-inch sieve and less than 5 percent passing the No. 4 sieve. Envelop rock in a minimum 6 -ounce, nonwoven geotextile filter fabric. For both types of rock drains: 1. Place the rock drain directly behind the walls of the structure. 2. Extend rock drains from the wall base to within 12 inches of the top of the wall. 3. Place a minimum of 4 -inch -diameter perforated pipe (glued joints and end caps) at the base of the wall, inside the rock drain and fabric, with perforations placed down. 4. Place pipe at a gradient at least 1 percent to direct water away from the wall by gravity to a drainage facility. We should review and approve geosynthetic composite drainage systems prior to use. 8.3 BACKFILL Backfill behind retaining walls should be placed and compacted in accordance with Section 5.3.1. Use light compaction equipment within 5 feet of the wall face. If heavy compaction equipment is used, the walls should be temporarily braced to avoid excessive wall movement. 8.4 FOUNDATIONS Retaining walls may be supported on continuous footings designed in accordance with recommendations presented in Section 6.1, except the minimum embedment depth should be increased to 24 inches below lowest adjacent soil grade and passive resistance should be calculated using one of the following options: For walls with flat foreground, we recommend an allowable passive lateral pressure of 300 pcf for use in design, assuming there will be a minimum horizontal distance of 10 feet between the point where passive resistance starts and the face of slope. • For walls adjacent to or within slopes, we recommend an allowable passive lateral pressure of 125 pcf for use in design. The above allowable value includes a factor of safety of 1.5. The top foot of soil cover should be neglected with respect to passive resistance. • As an alternative for walls adjacent to or within slopes, foundation elements may be deepened to provide a minimum horizontal distance of 10 feet between the base of the foundation and GEO Page 1 20 April 17, 2017 Revised June 12, 2018 —Expect Excellence Atria Senior Living 13823.000.000 Atria Newport Beach Geotechnical Exploration the face of slope, allowing for an allowable passive lateral pressure of 300 pcf below the elevation where the 10 -foot horizontal distance is achieved. Existing wall foundations meeting the design criteria described above may also be assumed to have similar design parameters. If the depth, width, or horizontal distance to slope face minimums are not met, the recommended design parameters may not apply and should be evaluated based on the conditions at the specific locations. 9.0 PAVEMENT DESIGN 9.1 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS For preliminary purposes, we assumed an R -value of 15 based on our knowledge of site soils and the surrounding area. Once utility installation is substantially complete, actual street subgrade samples can be collected and tested for R -value and the sections herein will be revisited and updated as necessary. Using estimated traffic indices for various pavement loading requirements, we developed the following recommended pavement sections using Topic 633 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, presented in the table below. TABLE 9.1-1: Recommended Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections 5 3.0 8.5 5.5 3.0 10.0 6 3.0 11.5 The civil engineer should determine the appropriate traffic indices based on the estimated traffic loads and frequencies. 9.2 RIGID PAVEMENTS We developed rigid Portland Cement Concrete Pavement (PCCP) sections in accordance with ACI 330R-08 "Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Parking Lots'. At the time, we performed this analysis, no traffic data were available and no serviceability information was provided. To provide preliminary concrete pavement sections, we assumed Traffic Category B for the distribution of traffic with varying average daily truck traffic volumes (ADTT). We also assumed a 28 -day unconfined compressive strength of 4,000 psi (or 550 psi modulus of rupture) for the concrete, a serviceability index of 2.25, a reliability index of 90 percent, and a 20 -year design life. These assumptions correspond to a rigid pavement section designed to have five percent of the slabs cracked at the end of the design life; if the design team would like these assumptions revised, we can provide supplemental pavement sections. We evaluated concrete pavement sections using the software program StreetPave12. We assumed edge support is provided by a concrete shoulder or curb and gutter and an assumed R - value of 15 for preliminary design. GEOPage 1 21 April 17, 2017 L Revised June 12, 2018 —Expect Excellence Atria Senior Living 13823.000.000 TABLE 9.2-1: Recommended Concrete Pavement Sections Atria Newport Beach Geotechnical Exploration 2 5'/x 6 11 9 6 6 12 35 6 6 12 106 6'/z 6 13 We should review the jointing details when plans are completed. Properly designed joint spacing may extend the pavement life greater than the calculated design life. 9.3 SUBGRADE AND AGGREGATE BASE COMPACTION The contractor should compact finish subgrade and aggregate base in accordance with Section 5.3.1. Aggregate Base should meet the requirements for 3/ -inch maximum Class 2 AB in accordance with Section 26-1.02a of the latest Caltrans Standard Specifications. 10.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS This report presents geotechnical recommendations for design of the improvements discussed in Section 1.3 for the Atria Newport Beach project. If changes occur in the nature or design of the project, we should be allowed to review this report and provide additional recommendations, if any. It is the responsibility of the owner to transmit the information and recommendations of this report to the appropriate organizations or people involved in design of the project, including but not limited to developers, owners, buyers, architects, engineers, and designers. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are solely professional opinions and are valid for a period of no more than 2 years from the date of report issuance. We strived to perform our professional services in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices currently employed in the area; no warranty is expressed or implied. There are risks of earth movement and property damages inherent in building on or with earth materials. We are unable to eliminate all risks or provide insurance; therefore, we are unable to guarantee or warrant the results of our services. This report is based upon field and other conditions discovered at the time of report preparation. We developed this report with limited subsurface exploration data. We assumed that our subsurface exploration data is representative of the actual subsurface conditions across the site. Considering possible underground variability of soil, rock, and groundwater, additional costs may be required to complete the project. We recommend that the owner establish a contingency fund to cover such costs. If unexpected conditions are encountered, notify ENGEO immediately to review these conditions and provide additional and/or modified recommendations, as necessary. Our services did not include excavation sloping or shoring, soil volume change factors, flood potential, or a geohazard exploration. In addition, our geotechnical exploration did not include work to determine the existence of possible hazardous materials. If any hazardous materials are encountered during construction, notify the proper regulatory officials immediately. This document must not be subject to unauthorized reuse, that is, reusing without written authorization of ENGEO. Such authorization is essential because it requires ENGEO to evaluate the document's applicability given new circumstances, not the least of which is passage of time. %[ Page 22 April 17, 2017 ENGEO / Revised June 12, 2018 Expect Excellence— Atria Senior Living Atria Newport Beach 13823.000.000 Geotechnical Exploration Actual field or other conditions will necessitate clarifications, adjustments, modifications or other changes to ENGEO's documents. Therefore, ENGEO must be engaged to prepare the necessary clarifications, adjustments, modifications or other changes before construction activities commence or further activity proceeds. If ENGEO's scope of services does not include on-site construction observation, or if other persons or entities are retained to provide such services, ENGEO cannot be held responsible for any or all claims arising from or resulting from the performance of such services by other persons or entities, and from any or all claims arising from or resulting from clarifications, adjustments, modifications, discrepancies or other changes necessary to reflect changed field or other conditions. We determined the lines designating the interface between layers on the exploration logs using visual observations. The transition between the materials may be abrupt or gradual. The exploration logs contain information concerning samples recovered, indications of the presence of various materials such as clay, sand, silt, rock, existing fill, etc., and observations of groundwater encountered. The field logs also contain our interpretation of the subsurface conditions between sample locations. Therefore, the logs contain both factual and interpretative information. Our recommendations are based on the contents of the final logs, which represent our interpretation of the field logs. ENGEO Page 123 April 1, 201 Revised June 122, 20188 —Expect Excellence Atria Senior Living Atria Newport Beach 13823.000.000 Geotechnical Exploration SELECTED REFERENCES 1. Atria Newport Beach, Concept Package. Prepared by C+TC Design Studio, dated January 30, 2017. 2. Avalon at Newport, Seismic Strengthening of Wood Portions of Structures. Prepared by John Yadegar & Associates, dated June 11, 2003. 3. Bray, J.D. and Travasarou, T., 2007. Simplified procedure for estimating earthquake -induced deviatoric slope displacements. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133(4), pp. 381-392. California Building Code (2016). 4. California Geologic Survey (2008). Special Publication 117A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. 5. Division of Mines and Geology (1997). Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluation and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, adopted March 13. 6. Existing floor plans for Newport Villa (East and West). Morton D.M. & Miller, F.K. (2006). Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' x 60' Quadrangles, California: Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey and U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Earth Sciences, University of California, Riverside; 1:100.000. 8. Newport Villa & Newport Villa West, A.L.T.A./A.C.S.M. Land Title Survey. Prepared by Anacal Engineering Co., dated July 11, 2000. 9. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Newport Villa/Newport Villa West. Prepared by Underground Environmental Services, Inc., dated March 1, 2002. 10. Preliminary ConXTech Framing Plan. Prepared by Bentley, dated March 2, 2017. 11. Spencer, E. (1967). A Method of Analysis of the Stability of Embankments Assuming Parallel Inter -Slice Forces; Geotechnique; Volume 17, Issue 11, pp. 11-26; March 1967. 12. Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H. B. (1987). Evaluation of Settlements In Sands Due To Earthquake Shaking. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering; Volume 113, Issue 8, pp. 861-878. 13. ENGEO; Percolation Test Results, Atria Newport Beach, Newport Beach, California; April 9, 2018; Project No. 13823.000.000. A/%[O April 17, 2017 111�JL Revised June 12, 2018 —Expect Excellence FIGURES FIGURE 1: Vicinity Map FIGURE 2: Site Plan FIGURE 3: Regional Geologic Map FIGURE 4: Regional Faulting and Seismicity Map FIGURE 5: Seismic Hazards Zone Map FIGURE 6: Cross Section FIGURE 7: Retaining Wall/Basement Wall YV I SITE r, Newport'.Beach I Qw WASH DEPOSITS i GEOLOGIC CONTACT Qe EOLIAN DEPOSITS oFAULT, Qlil MARINE DEPOSITS CONSIDERED INACTIVE, QUERIEC WHERE EXISTENCE UNCERTAIN, DOTTEC Qe5 ESTRUARINE DEPOSITS WHERE CONCEALED Qop • N QVOp VERY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS STRIKE AND DIP OF BEDDING MILES 1 W 0 — � — AXIS OF ANTICLINE wKILOMETERS 2 - -AXIS OF SYNCLINE o BASE MAP SOURCE. MORTON, 2004 I Qw WASH DEPOSITS i GEOLOGIC CONTACT ° CEO REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP PROJECT NO.: 13823.000.000 FIGURE NO. a C ATRIA NEWPORT BEACH SCALE: AS SHOWN Expect Excellence NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA DRAWN BY: JCS CHECKED BY: JTB Qe EOLIAN DEPOSITS oFAULT, Qlil MARINE DEPOSITS CONSIDERED INACTIVE, QUERIEC WHERE EXISTENCE UNCERTAIN, DOTTEC Qe5 ESTRUARINE DEPOSITS WHERE CONCEALED Qop OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS N QVOp VERY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS STRIKE AND DIP OF BEDDING MILES 1 W 0 — � — AXIS OF ANTICLINE wKILOMETERS 2 - -AXIS OF SYNCLINE o BASE MAP SOURCE. MORTON, 2004 ° CEO REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP PROJECT NO.: 13823.000.000 FIGURE NO. a C ATRIA NEWPORT BEACH SCALE: AS SHOWN Expect Excellence NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA DRAWN BY: JCS CHECKED BY: JTB O .1../�I = r >'�`"'f .�' ,,W e.! _Lty?�f'$��J ,��� f,�tP �( &t,�7"�e / >q��,.,,,;,,y rf�. � e �< 4 �E(`iH D• 1w 3 . r r !"'fin t .a4.. ^ r f ➢.`: ' r _ '. � � r r z � r '�' r,/)" � . � a � � S�•C.ifq < Y � EiANT. s„�� MpN ^_,,ret�iZ�'�.� �.� j S,qN✓ .sgNANO >_.� �i '-T'� .: In x.. 1,6 t i `\\'P4 �. � Am S\2 1�c�F• S1+rN egG2 \ \ S,9 '9 tura \ a 1 SITE I a BASE MAP SOURCE., COLOR HILLSHADE IMAGE BASED ON THE NATIONAL ELEVATION DATASET (NED) AT 30 METER RESOLUTION U.S.G.S. QUATERNARY FAULT DATABASE, NOVEMBER, 2010 U.S.G.S. HISTORIC EARTHQUAKE DATABASE (1800-2000) / 1 � Lo JoIIa � (\ /� A� z �n EAGEO —Expect Excellence— IN Or L05 X� " amond fi i r'n ,, °San,R1 gr -•� p 7. r �ti 31 u( MAGNITUDE 7+ 4lA`�sa � j. �_ m3 � " F 17, 1 MUR3F ITgH �• 7 <S i / 1 � Lo JoIIa � (\ /� A� z �n EAGEO —Expect Excellence— IN Or L05 X� " amond fi i r'n ,, °San,R1 gr -•� EXPLANATION 7. qll I� r MAGNITUDE 7+ 4lA`�sa � �_ m3 � 0 MILES 15 17, 0 KILOMETERS 30 REGIONAL FAULTING AND SEISMICITY ATRIA NEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO.: 13823.000.000 FIGURE N0. SCALE: AS SHOWN 41 DRAWN BY: JCS CHECKED BY: JTB ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR EXPLANATION qll I� ♦ MAGNITUDE 7+ ; h� ,A � MAGNITUDE 6-7 MAGNITUDE 5-6 a HISTORIC FAULT 1 f HOLOCENE FAULT •- `g a QUATERNARY FAULT HISTORIC BLIND THRUST F, d� t F II �-1F�ta 'I '�..1 Jl ('�� . ,rw• REGIONAL FAULTING AND SEISMICITY ATRIA NEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO.: 13823.000.000 FIGURE N0. SCALE: AS SHOWN 41 DRAWN BY: JCS CHECKED BY: JTB ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR 26 O, SITE EXPLANATION p YT 7=9 0 my f.AY9Wq_w Light 11 Em i'op 13 , Light u EARTHQUAKE -INDUCED LANDSLIDES 0 SET 2000 AREAS WHERE PREVIOUS OCCURRENCE OF LANDSLIDE MOVEMENT, OR LOCAL TOPOGRAPHIC, GEOLOGICAL, GEOTECHNICAL AND SUBSURFACE 0 M=S 1000 WATER CONDITIONS INDICATE A POTENTIAL FOR PERMANENT GROUND DISPLACEMENTS SUCH THAT MITIGATION AS DEFINED IN PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 2693(c) WOULD BE REQUIRED BASE MAP SOURCE. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 2006 SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES MAP PROJECT NO.: 13823.000.000 FIGURE NO. ENGEOATRIA NEWPORT BEACH SCALE: AS SHOWN `i —Expect Exce//ence— NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA DRAWN BY: JCS CHECKED BY: JTB V LIQUEFACTION AREAS WHERE HISTORIC OCCURRENCE OF LIQUEFACTION, OR LOCAL GEOLOGICAL, GEOTECHNICAL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS INDICATE A POTENTIAL FOR PERMANENT GROUND DISPLACEMENTS SUCH THAT N MITIGATION AS DEFINED IN PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 2693(c) WOULD BE REQUIRED EARTHQUAKE -INDUCED LANDSLIDES 0 SET 2000 AREAS WHERE PREVIOUS OCCURRENCE OF LANDSLIDE MOVEMENT, OR LOCAL TOPOGRAPHIC, GEOLOGICAL, GEOTECHNICAL AND SUBSURFACE 0 M=S 1000 WATER CONDITIONS INDICATE A POTENTIAL FOR PERMANENT GROUND DISPLACEMENTS SUCH THAT MITIGATION AS DEFINED IN PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 2693(c) WOULD BE REQUIRED BASE MAP SOURCE. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 2006 SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES MAP PROJECT NO.: 13823.000.000 FIGURE NO. ENGEOATRIA NEWPORT BEACH SCALE: AS SHOWN `i —Expect Exce//ence— NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA DRAWN BY: JCS CHECKED BY: JTB V 0 0 0 z `o 0 v 3 A p' 100 EXISTING GROUND 100 0 SURFACE S-2 p 80 80 C COMPACTED "! COMPACTED SAND FILL NEWPORT SAND FILL S-3 BOULEVARD/HWY 55 0 0 60 60LU g I IJ -, s >x.W SAbID 0 2 ,r 3. G. � Y", "� a- q ,SAND 2 z 1 2 40- _ �. ��s 3 40 Lu 2 IK T ✓-. W ' S � Y 20S ,1 � u 'i g'4° Sk i .. 20 Y( ft _ 0 0 0 x 3 a 20 -20 g 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 0 D/STANCE /NFEET a s i 0 k 0 0 0 30 e0 30 SCALE/NFEET 01 ^�O CROSS SECTION PROJECT NO.: 13823.000.000 FIGURE N0. l�/�~` ATRIA NEWPORT BEACH SCALE: AS SHOWN y� —Expect Erce//ence— NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA DRAWN BY, JCS CHECKED BY, JTB V G:\Dm(ting\DRAF7NG2\_D,,\_13000 Plus\13823\000\GE%\13823000000-60rosaSe.tion-0417.Ewg Plot Oale:4-17-17 JSt.,h... ,n GRGIRAI FIGURE PRINTED IN COIOR AT REST (RESTRAINED): 60 pcf FOR LEVEL BACKFILL ACTIVE: 45 pcf FOR LEVEL BACKFILL 60 pcf FOR 3:1 SLOPED BACKFILL 70 pcf FOR 2:1 SLOPED BACKFILL SEISMIC FORCE: 35 pcf (WALLS WITH ACTIVE SIDE PASSIVE SIDE 9c PASSIVE: 300 pcf IF MINIMUM HORIZONTAL DISTANCE OF 10' TO SLOPE FACE 125 pcf WITH HORIZONTAL DISTANCE LESS THAN 10' TO SLOPE FACE (NEGLECT TOP V OF SOIL) RETAINING WALL/ BASEMENT WALL PROJECT NO.: 13823.000.000 FIGURE NO.I ��I v ATRIA NEWPORT BEACH SCALE: NO SCALE % Expect EX` llgRce NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA DRAWN BY: LL CHECKED 1 JTB I KEY TO BORING LOGS MAJOR TYPESDESCRIPTION a g GRAVELSCLEAN GRAVELS WITH GW - Well graded gravels or gravel-Sand mixtures MORE THAN HALF LESS THAN 5% FINES w z COARSE FRACTION GP - Poorly graded ravels or ravel-sand mixtures i0a', y 9 9 9 a i IS LARGER THAN o -. GM - Silty gravels, gravel-sand and silt mixtures ren w NO. 4 SIEVE SIZE GRAVELS WITH OVER O (D> 12 % FINES s"" GC - Clayey gravels, gravel-sand and clay mixtures SANDS MORE THAN HALF CLEAN SANDS WITH .'>°. SW - Well graded sands, or gravelly sand mixtures COARSE FRACTION LESS THAN 5% FINES SP - Poorly graded sands or gravelly sand mixtures IS SMALLER THAN tr ; " SM - Silty Sand, sand-silt mixtures UJ o W NO. 4 SIEVE SIZE 0= SANDS WITH OVER 12 %FINES SC - Clayey sand, sand-clay mixtures :. w w ML - Inorganic silt with low to medium plasticity � � w s1Lrs AND CLAYS ucu1D LIMIT so % OR LEss ,, CL - Inorganic clay with low to medium plasticity rn rn > �JW o a 0 OL - Low plasticity organic silts and clays Z $ MH - Elastic silt with high plasticity 2 F SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50 % CH - Fat clay with high plasticity LL= OH - Highly plastic organic silts and clays ~ HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT - Peat and other highly organic soils For fine-grained soils with 15 to 29% retained on the 4200 sieve, the words "with sand" or With gravel" (whichever Is predominant) are added to the group name. For fine-grained soil with >30% retained on the #200 sieve, the words "sandy" or "gravelly' (whichever is predominant) are added to the group name. U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE SIZE GRAIN SIZES CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINGS SILTSI SAND GRAVEL AND COBBLES BOULDERS CLAYS FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY BLOWS/FOOT SILTS AND CLAYS STRENGTH* SANDS AND GRAVELS S.P.T. VERY SOFT 0-1/4 VERYLOOSE 0-4 SOFT 1/4-1/2 LOOSE 4-10 MEDIUM STIFF 1/2-1 MEDIUM DENSE 10-30 STIFF 1-2 DENSE 30-50 VERY STIFF 2-4 VERY DENSE OVER 50 HARD OVER 4 MOISTURE CONDITION SAMPLER SYMBOLS DRY Dusty, dry to touch Modified California (3" O.D.) sampler MOIST Damp but no visible water WET Visible freewater e California (2.5" O.D.) sampler LINE TYPES S.P.T. - Split spoon sampler Solid - Layer Break ❑Shelby Tube Dashed - Gradational or approximate layer break ®Dames and Moore Piston Continuous Core GROUND-WATER SYMBOLS Bag Samples Q Groundwater level during drilling ® = Stabilized groundwater level Grab Samples NR No Recovery eC^® (S.P.T.) Number of blows of 140 16. hammer falling 30" to drive a 2-inch O.D. (1-318 inch I.D.) sampler (/`,'�/� ENG ` Unconfined compressive strength in tons/sq. ft., asterisk on log means determined by pocket penetrometer Expect Excellence LOG OF BORING S-1 IGEQ NCORPORATE D Prelim. Geotechnical Exploration DATE DRILLED: 3/17/2017 LOGGED / REVIEWED BY: C. Stouffer / MRH Atria Newport Beach HOLE DEPTH: Approx. 41%ft. DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Martini Drilling Newport Beach, California HOLE DIAMETER: 6.0 in. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger 13823.000.000 SURF ELEV (NAD27): Approx. 81 ft. HAMMER TYPE: 140 Ib. Auto Trip Atterberg Limits c O x N ^ L = N FO LL LL a DESCRIPTION -0 u- °'x `E C c H E > j O J r U d N 3 20 (n d ao 0, t o NU% O d T p) U J a U U 0E U y Y C N c d N d N O P N N N@ �n ,n �Q� �V 06 C� N >N FE AGGREGATE BASE (AB) (4" AC / 2" AB section) 80 SANDY CLAY (CL), dark yellowish brown and grayish green, loose, moist, [FILL]fn`'��'%- 9 t9 CLAYEY SAND (SC), dark reddish brown, loose, moist, [FILL] 12 40 13 27 27 5 (grades to dense) 44 >4.5' PP 75 9 125 ------------------------ SILTY CLAY WITH SAND (CL -ML), light yellowish brown and dark grayish brown, medium dense, moist, variegated dark brown veins [FILL] 10 70 13 ----------------------- WELL GRADED SAND (SW), dark yellowish brown medium dense, moist, [NATIVE] 15 23 i 65 8 103 SILTY SAND (SM), light yellowish brown, loose to medium dense, moist 20 m 60 WELL GRADED SAND (SW), reddish yellow, dense, moist 25 ENGEO LOG OF BORING S-1 INCORPORATE D Prelim. Geotechnical Exploration DATE DRILLED: 3/17/2017 LOGGED / REVIEWED BY: C. Stouffer / MRH Atria Newport Beach HOLE DEPTH: Approx. 411/4 ft. DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Martini Drilling Newport Beach, California HOLE DIAMETER: 6.0 in. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger 13823.000.000 SURF ELEV (NAD27): Approx. 81 ft. HAMMER TYPE: 140 Ib. Auto Trip Atterberg Limits m n c r a N N 00 LL- O ^ C L m w 2 m ~ N N N LL a DESCRIPTION a _ o m w OI'- C s LL c a >E 2 Q ao F y a d E• J UCo O m W Q O O' W N\ >N ffl :n ILL FL E WELL GRADED SAND (SW), reddish yellow, dense, 44 moist 55 1.5' PP WELL GRADED SAND (SW), light yellowish brown medium dense, moist, medium -grained sand 30 66 14 50 35 (grades to fine -to medium -grained sand) 46 2' PP 45 1.5' PP ----------------------- POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), reddish brown and .... light yellowish brown, medium dense, wet, contains fines 40 25 End of boring at approximately 41 1/4 feet. Ground water observed at approximately 41 1/4 feet during time of drilling. ENGEO LOG OF BORING S-2 INCORPORATE D Prelim. Geotechnical Exploration DATE DRILLED: 3/17/2017 LOGGED / REVIEWED BY: C. Stouffer / MRH Atria Newport Beach HOLE DEPTH: Approx. 80 ft. DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Martini Drilling Newport Beach, California HOLE DIAMETER: 6.0 in. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger 13823.000.000 SURF ELEV (NAD27): Approx. 72 ft. HAMMER TYPE: 140 Ib. Auto Trip Atterberg Limits > O c d 6 m O N m o ,� Wit.- 6y E cc vTv T ~ N N DESCRIPTION W a _ a O C L o � m OJ— c x E b a 2 a J U _ N > E N O t? N ¢ O D T U r N T, _N ASPHALT 4" AC section, no base SILTY SAND (SM), light yellowish brown, loose, moist, well graded, fine-grained sand, contains roots [FILL] 12 70 3* PP ----------------------- SILTY SAND (SM), light yellowish brown, loose, very a 5* PP moist, fine-grained sand, contains fine gravel [FILL] 13 0* PP SILTY SAND (SM), dark red, loose, moist, contains _ clay lenses, well graded [FILL] 5 __________� SILTY SAND (SM), dark brown mottled with grayish 24 green, medium dense, moist, 5-10% gravel, 45-50% 2.5* PP fine- to medium -grained sand [FILL] 14 4.5* PP 65 WELL GRADED SAND (SW), dark olive brown and reddish brown, medium dense, moist, contians clay lenses [FILL] 10 20 SILTY SAND (SM), dark reddish brown, medium dense, moist, well graded fine-grained sand [NATIVE] 60 SILTY SAND (SW), dark yellowish brown, loose, moist, contians clay mottles 15 1.5" PP 18 112 .5" PP 55 ----------------------- SILTY SAND (SM), dark reddish brown, medium dense, very moist, well graded sand 20 50 -------------------- WELL GRADED SAND (SW), dark reddish brown and dark yellowish brown, medium dense, moist 25 LOG OF BORING S-2 IGEQ NCO R P O R A T E D Prelim. Geotechnical Exploration DATE DRILLED: 3/17/2017 LOGGED / REVIEWED BY: C. Stouffer/ MRH Atria Newport Beach HOLE DEPTH: Approx. 80 ft. DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Martini Drilling Newport Beach, California HOLE DIAMETER: 6.0 in. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger 13823.000.000 SURF ELEV (NAD27): Approx, 72 ft. HAMMER TYPE: 1401b. Auto Trip Atterberg Limits c0 a d aM E N DESCRIPTION c2 N U 9 U U UNre 7 3 C Cz N w O1 N N N N O O' N 65 � a 3 0 >N 13 M 11 a- 2. GRAVELY LEAN CLAY (CL), dark yellowish brown and 32 dark reddish brown, very stiff to hard, very moist 3, PP >4.5` PP 45 ------------------------ SILTY SAND (SM), red, dense, moist, fine-grained sand 30 30 27 20 7 40 ECAST ICSILT (MH), pale olive green and reddish brown, stiff to very stiff, moist, medium plasticity e a 35 k 14 46 74 1690 1.5 UU 2" PP 2.5' PP 35 ------------------------ ____FAT CLAY (CH), pale olive gray, soft, moist, high FAT plasticity, contains red veins 40 3 65 22 43 30 Stiff (contains trace fine-grained sand) 45 14 2` PP 60 63 1990 1 UU 25 ----------------------- SANDY CLAY (CL), yellowish red and pale olive, stiff, moist, medium plasticity, contains some silt fines LOG OF BORING S-2 IGEO NCORPORATE D Prelim. Geotechnical Exploration DATE DRILLED: 3/17/2017 LOGGED/REVIEWED BY: C. Stouffer/MRH Atria Newport Beach HOLE DEPTH: Approx. 80 ft. DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Martini Drilling Newport Beach, California HOLE DIAMETER: 6.0 in. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger 13823.000.000 SURF ELEV (NAD27): Approx. 72 ft. HAMMER TYPE: 140 Ib. Auto Trip Atterberg Limits c X m m o E d m a ~ 16 n DESCRIPTION a o oz 'd c'K r " LL G c c J O J J =rn O 5 UF, BB N .�'- 7^ 6 N > E O r 3 O J O' N �p .nU �� VI � ii ) >N _ _ SANDY CLAY (CL), yellowish red and pale olive, stiff, % ,'-%'-.: 7 moist, medium plasticity, contains some silt fines 20 ; 55 SANDY SILT (ML), dark yellowish brown, very stiff to hard, moist, contains some clay fines 15 60 62 3' PP (contains trace gravels) 38 76 >4.5' PP 10 65 5 70 (contains some gray fine-grained sand) 26 0 75 ENGEO LOG OF BORING S-2 I N C O R P O R A T E D Prelim. Geotechnical Exploration DATE DRILLED: 3/17/2017 LOGGED / REVIEWED BY: C. Stouffer / MRH Atria Newport Beach HOLE DEPTH: Approx. 80 ft. DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Martini Drilling Newport Beach, California HOLE DIAMETER: 6.0 in. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger 13823.000.000 SURF ELEV (NAD27): Approx. 72 ft. HAMMER TYPE: 140 Ib. Auto Trip Afterberg Limits N1E N d'ciii c 6 " 0 K O'C .t-E 7 �N ~ °�' DESCRIPTION '£ h li c .n E o E :7 Y c rn U� m o. a'2 o T J Uco 0.9 N N N O � W fn J � m J n. 0. LL.° �° ❑ d N« �i fq SANDY SILT (ML), dark yellowish brown, very stiff to hard, moist, contains some clay fines -5 66 >4.5' PP 80 >4.5 PP End of boring at approximately 80 feet. Groundwater not observed during time of drilling. ENGEO LOG OF BORING S-3 INCORPORATE D Prelim. Geotechnical Exploration DATE DRILLED: 3/17/2017 LOGGED/REVIEWED BY: C. Stouffer/MRH Atria Newport Beach HOLE DEPTH: Approx. 27 ft. DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Martini Drilling Newport Beach, California HOLE DIAMETER: 6.0 in. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger 13823.000.000 SURF ELEV (NAD27): Approx. 59 ft. HAMMER TYPE: 140 Ib. Rope and Cathead Atterberg Limits j N 0 c � N m O Nn x w^ rn £ E t a m T ~ N N N a DESCRIPTIONa IL _ m a O G L o m pp- x E "x jA m LL c H a E m o U� m a N J U J v v o U m Z. c m m d d N m N o Q N N O Z` U L N 20 WELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SM), dark brown, loose, moist, well graded, <15% gravel, moderately strong 9 123 55 15 (mottled light brawn with dark brown) 5 CLAYEY SAND (SC), dark brown, medium dense, moist, fine -to medium grained sand, moderately strongas 47 to strong 41 9 50 10 SANDY FAT CLAY (CH), grayish green, very stiff, 29 3' PP moist, very little sand 88 21 67 3' PP Q 2.5' PP 45 FAT CLAY (CH), grayish green and brown, stiff, wet, high plasticity 15 9 40 20 (oxidized, contains trace sand) 14 1.5' PP 72 56 850 1' 1.5` PP ----------------------- ELASTIC SILT (MH), brown, stiff to very stiff, moist medium plasticity, contains trace gravel ; 35 25 LOG OF BORING S-3 IGEQ NCORPORATE D Prelim. Geotechnical Exploration DATE DRILLED: 3/17/2017 LOGGED/ REVIEWED BY: C. Stouffer / MRH Atria Newport Beach HOLE DEPTH: Approx. 27 ft. DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Martini Drilling Newport Beach, California HOLE DIAMETER: 6.0 in. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger 13823.000.000 SURF ELEV (NAD27): Approx. 59 ft. HAMMER TYPE: 140 Ib. Rope and Cathead Atterberg Limits W.2 d N O L O m LL a DESCRIPTION LL a o L t o x LL F a > j v �.v 3 P a'o E. U U o N v E f0 o Q N N °" 3D �`U tN Ury 0 w co in !D a a u- 2' ELASTIC SILT (MH), brown, stiff to very stiff, moist, medium plasticity, contains trace gravel 3 u 4 11 27 f;t s's ( 54 Y, End of boring at approximately 27 feet. Groundwater observed at approximately 12 feet during i time of drilling. ENGEOLOG OF BORING S-4 INCORPORATE D Prelim. Geotechnical Exploration DATE DRILLED: 3/17/2017 LOGGED / REVIEWED BY: C. Stouffer / MRH Atria Newport Beach HOLE DEPTH: Approx. 211/. ft. DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Martini Drilling Newport Beach, California HOLE DIAMETER: 6.0 in. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger 13823.000.000 SURF ELEV (NAD27): Approx. 75 ft. HAMMER TYPE: 140 Ib. Rope and Cathead Atterberg Limits j N p E N O N 0 01 .� 6 W £ E CC T ~ y a DESCRIPTION a a o m x d m E LL c F N j E E G Cm U'N 3 >-m > 22 aQ FO- C o U T N J U J U U .N U y J •C fir. fn Od. Ol a N > m E N Q ,�. N 3 O O' '65 N N n �� w-a Oo �`U LO CN Co D SANDY CLAY (SC), dark brown, very dense, moist, fine-to medium-grained sand, strong [FILL] 66 48 7 128 57 5 70 60 7 118 10 fi5 (grades to reddish brown) 43 CLAYEY SAND (SC), dark brown to black, very dense, moist, well graded, strong WELL GRADED SAND WITH CLAY (SW-SC) brownish red, dense, moist 15 60 31 20 55 ______ SANDY FAT CLAY (CH), grayish green and light 42 2.5" PP brown, very stiff, moist, high plasticity, partial oxidation 70 21 49 3.5' PP 3.5 PP End of boring at approximately 21 1/2 feet. Groundwater not observed during time of drilling. APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST DATA Liquid and Plastic Limits Test Reports Direct Shear Test Results Moisture and Density Test Results Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Test Results Unconfined Compression Test Results Particle Size Distribution Reports Expansion Index Test Results Analytical Results of Soil Corrosion AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. DBEIMBEISBE 2607 Pomona Boulevard I Pomona, CA 91768 t. 909.869.6316 1 f. 909.869.6318 1 www.aolaboratory.com ATTERBERG LIMITS ASTM D 4318 Project Name: Atria Newport Beach Tested By: DK Project No.: 13823.000.000 Checked By: AP A 50 L 40 w 0 30 L) 5 zo o. 10 11 r Date: 03/31/17 Date: 04/03/17 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) PROCEDURE USED Sample Depth 50 Plasticity Wet Preparation Number Number (feet) LL PL PI e 45 CH FX Dry Preparation v CIL ❑X Procedure A 00 40 v \fie ooe 40 13 Multipoint Test 0 1000, 00 35 ❑ Procedure B / MH or OH 30 10 25 100 ML rOL Number of Blows 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) PROCEDURE USED Sample Depth 50 Plasticity Wet Preparation Number Number (feet) LL PL PI e 45 FX Dry Preparation v ❑X Procedure A 00 40 v 3-3.5 40 13 Multipoint Test 0 00 35 ❑ Procedure B One -point Test 30 10 25 100 Number of Blows Boring Sample Depth Plasticity Symbol Number Number (feet) LL PL PI Chart S mbol S-1 3-3.5 40 13 27 CL AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. 1 ,r•,.� /«�'.t `_.. I� DBEIMBEISBE 2607 Pomona Boulevard I Pomona, CA 91768 t. 909.869.6316 1 f. 909.869.6318 1 www.ai3laboratory.com DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS ASTM D 3080 Project Name: Atria Newport Beach Tested By: LS Project No.: 13823.000.000 Computed By: JP Boring No.: S-1 Checked by: AP Sample No.: - Depth (ft): 1.5-2 Sample Type: Mod. Cal. Soil Description: Sandy Clay Test Condition: Inundated Shear Type: Regular Date: 04/01/17 Date: 04/03/17 Date: 04/03/17 Wet Unit Weight (Pcf) Dry Unit Weight (Pcf) Initial Moisture Content (%) Final Moisture Content (%) Initial Degree Saturation N Final Degree Saturation N Normal Peak Stress Shear (ksf) Stress (ksf) Ultimate Shear Stress (ksf) 137.2 120.3 14.1 14.4 95 97 1 0.706 0.629 2 1.182 1.037 4 1.896 1.735 3 Normal Stress: t 1 ksf t 2 ksf —A 4 ksf 0 : r i Ii 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Shear Deformation (Inches) 4 3 1 0 + 0 o Peak: C=300 psf; �=22° o Ultimate: C=250 psf; 0=20° L% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Normal Stress (ksf) AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. DBEIMBEISBE 2607 Pomona Boulevard I Pomona, CA 91768 t. 909.869.6316 1 f. 909.869.6318 1 www.aolaboratory.com MOISTURE AND DENSITY TEST RESULTS Client: ENGEO Inc. AP Lab No.: 17-0362 Project Name: Atria Newport Beach Date: 03/30/17 Project No.: 13823.000.000 Boring No. Sample No. Sample Depth (ft.) Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) S-1 - 1-1.5 10.4 NA S-1 5.5-6 9.1 124.5 S-1 15.5-16 8.3 102.8 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. a� t�z� .� DBEIMBEISBE f 2607 Pomona Boulevard I Pomona, CA 91768 t. 909.869.6316 1 f. 909.869.6318 1 www,aolaboratory.com UNCONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST (UU,Q) ASTM D 2850 Client Name: ENGEO Inc. Tested By: ST Date: 04/01/17 Project Name: Atria Newport Beach Checked by: AP Date: 04/03/17 Project No.: 13823.000.000 Boring No.: S-2 Sample No.: - Depth (feet): 35-35.5 Soil Description Fat Clay Sample Type: Mod. Cal. Sample Diameter (inch): 2.392 Wet Unit Weight (pcf): 108.4 Sample Height (inch): 5.797 Dry Unit Weight (pcf): 74.1 Sample Weight (g): 741.53 Moisture Content (%): 46.3 Wt. of Wet Soil+Container (g): 889.46 Void Ratio for Gs=2.7: 1.27 Wt. of Dry Soil+Container (g): 655.12 % Saturation: 98.1 Wt. of Container (g): 148.98 TEST DATA Deviator Axial _ Cell Pressure (ksf): 4.26 £' Load Def. Area Stress Strain Back Pressure (ksf): 0.0 - (lbs) (inch) (sq.in) (ksf) M Eff. Confining Pressure (ksf): 4.26 _ 0 0.000 4.49 0.00 0.00 Shear Rate (%/min): 0.3 19 0.005 4.50 0.61 0.09 Maximum Deviator Stress (ksf): 3.78. 25 0.010 4.50 0.80 0.17 Ultimate Deviator Stress (ksf): 3.38'-- 33 0.020 4.51 1.05 0.35 Ultimate Undrained Shear Strength (ksf): 1.69 ik, 36 0.025 4.51 1.15 0.43 Axial Strain @ Maximum Stress (%) 12.08 _ 39 0.030 4.52 1.24 0.52 53 0.060 4.54 1.68 1.04 4.0 62 0.090 4.56 1.96 1.55 69 0.120 4.59 2.17 2.07 74 0.150 4.61 2.31 2.59 3.5 83 0.200 4.65 2.57 3.45 90 0.250 4.70 2.76 4.31 3.0 97 0.300 4.74 2.95 5.18 104 0.350 4.78 3.13 6.04 110 0.400 4.83 3.28 6.90 "in'2.5 116 0.450 4.87 3.43 7.76 121 0.500 4.92 3.54 8.63 U) 126 0.550 4.96 3.65 9.49 2 0 130 0.600 5.01 3.73 10.35 y 132 0.650 5.06 3.76 11.21 1.5 134 0.700 5.11 3.78 12.08 j 135 0.750 5.16 3.77 12.94 v 136 0.800 5.21 3.76 13.80 1.0 135 0.850 5.27 3.69 14.66 133 0.900 5.32 3.60 15.53 0.5 132 0.950 5.37 3.54 16.39 129 1.000 5.43 3.42 17.25 129 1.050 5.49 3.38 18.11 0.0 129 1.100 5.55 3.3518 .98 0 5 10 15 20 133 1.200 5.67 3.38 20.70 Axial Strain (%) j AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. DBEIMBEISBE 2607 Pomona Boulevard I Pomona, CA 91768 = - t. 909.869.6316 ( f. 909.869.6318 1 www.aplaboratory.com UNCONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST (UU,Q) ASTM D 2850 Client Name: ENGEO Inc. Tested By: ST Date: 03/31/17 Project Name: Atria Newport Beach Checked by: AP Date: 04/03/17 Project No.: 13823.000.000 Boring No.: S-2 Sample No.: - Depth (feet): 45.5-46 Soil Description Fat Clay Sample Type: Mod. Cal. Sample Diameter (inch): 2.400 Wet Unit Weight (pcf): 100.8 Sample Height (inch): 5.867 Dry Unit Weight (pcf): 63.2 Sample Weight (g): 703.06 Moisture Content (%): 59.6 Wt. of Wet Soil+Container (g): 843.62 Void Ratio for Gs=2.7: 1.67 Wt. of Dry Soil+Container (g): 581.69 % Saturation: 96.6 Wt. of Container (g): 142.39 TEST DATA Cell Pressure (ksf): 5.52 �" Load Def. Area Deviator Stress Axial Strain Back Pressure (ksf): 0.0 (Ibs) (inch) (sq.in) (ksf) (%) Eff. Confining Pressure (ksf): 5.52 0 0.000 4.52 0.00 0.00 Shear Rate (%/min): 0.3 20 0.005 4.53 0.64 0.09 Maximum Deviator Stress (ksf): 4.02 25 0.010 4.53 0.79 0.17 Ultimate Deviator Stress (ksf): 3.98 ;, 36 0.020 4.54 1.14 0.34 Ultimate Undrained Shear Strength (ksf): 1.99 ,", 39 0.025 4.54 1.24 0.43 Axial Strain @ Maximum Stress (%) 17.90 - ------ 42 0.030 4.55 1.33 0.51 56 0.060 4.57 1.76 1.02 4.5 64 0.090 4.59 2.01 1.53 72 0.120 4.62 2.24 2.05 79 0.150 4.64 2.45 2.56 4.0 88 0.200 4.68 2.71 3.41 97 0.250 4.73 2.96 4.26 3.5 105 0.300 4.77 3.17 5.11 113 0.350 4.81 3.38 5.97 120 0.400 4.85 3.56 6.82 3.0 Y w 2.5 124 0.450 4.90 3.64 7.67 128 0.500 4.95 3.73 8.52 m « 128 0.550 4.99 3.69 9.37 129 0.600 5.04 3.69 10.23 to 2.0 � 0 •j 131 0.650 5.09 3.71 11.08 131 0.700 5.14 3.67 11.93 134 0.750 5.19 3.72 12.78 1.5 p 137 0.800 5.24 3.77 13.64 140 0.850 5.29 3.81 14.49 1.0 145 0.900 5.34 3.91 15.34 148 0.950 5.40 3.95 16.19 0.5 151 1.000 5.45 3.99 17.04 154 1.050 5.51 4.02 17.90 0.0 155 1.100 5.57 4.01 18.75 0 5 10 15 20 157 1.200 5.69 3.98 20.45 Axial Strain (%) j AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. DBEIMBEISBE 2607 Pomona Boulevard I Pomona, CA 91768 CH t. 909.869.6316 1 f. 909.869.6318 1 www.aplabooratory.com ATTERBERG LIMITS ASTM D 4318 Project Name: Atria Newport Beach Tested By: DK ♦ Date: 03/31/17 Project No.: 13823.000.000 29.5-31 27 Checked By: AP 7 Date: 04/03/17 S-2 / 39.5-41 65 22 60 CH ML r OL 00 50 40 x wCL 100, 0 30 U 20 Q a 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) PROCEDURE USED 70 Wet Preparation 60 0 FX Dry Preparation `m 50 0 ❑X Procedure A U 2 40 Multipoint Test 0 30 F-1Procedure B One -point Test 20 10 25 100 Number of Blows Boring Sample Depth Plasticity Symbol Number Number (feet) LL PL PI Chart Symbol CH ♦ S-2 - 29.5-31 27 20 7 CL -ML S-2 / 39.5-41 65 22 MH or OH CH ML r OL ♦ S-2 - 29.5-31 27 20 7 CL -ML S-2 - 39.5-41 65 22 43 CH 'AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. Dry Unit Weight (pcf) Initial Moisture Content (%) Final Moisture Content (%) DBEIMBEISSE Final Degree Saturation N Normal Stress (ksf) Peak Ultimate Shear Shear Stress (ksf) Stress (ksf) 2607 Pomona Boulevard I Pomona, CA 91768 121.6 13.3 = t. 909.869.6316 1 f. 909.869.6318 1 www.aolaboratory.com 99 1 0.823 0.707 2 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 4 3.055 2.718 ASTM D 3080 Project Name: Atria Newport Beach Tested By: LS Date: 03/31/17 Project No.: 13823.000.000 Computed By: JP Date: 04/03/17 Boring No.: S-2 Checked by: AP Date: 04/03/17 Sample No.: - Depth (it): 3-3.5 Sample Type: Mod. Cal. Soil Description: Clayey Sand Test Condition: Inundated Shear Type: Regular Wet Unit Weight (pcf) Dry Unit Weight (pcf) Initial Moisture Content (%) Final Moisture Content (%) Initial Degree Saturation N Final Degree Saturation N Normal Stress (ksf) Peak Ultimate Shear Shear Stress (ksf) Stress (ksf) 137.8 121.6 13.3 14.1 93 99 1 0.823 0.707 2 1.584 1.446 4 3.055 2.718 4 3 1 INormal Stress: 0 1 ksf t 2 ksf —A 4 ksf 0 1 1 i 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Shear Deformation (Inches) 4 3 1 0W 0 ®Peak: C=150 psf; 4=36° o Ultimate: C=100 psf; 4=33° /0"I'll Ile 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Normal Stress (ksf) AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. DBE MBE SBE 2607 Pomona Boulevard I Pomona, CA 91768 t. 909.869.6316 1 f. 909.869.6318 1 www.aolaboratory.com MOISTURE AND DENSITY TEST RESULTS Client: ENGEO Inc. Project Name: Atria Newport Beach Project No.: 13823.000.000 AP Lab No.: 17-0362 Date: 03/30/17 Boring No. Sample No. Sample Depth (ft.) Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf7 S-2 - 3.5-4 13.2 NA S-2 - 5.5-6 13.7 120.1 S-2 - 15.5-16 18.0 111.6 S-2 - 60.5-61 38.3 76.3 DBE I MBE I SBE 2607 Pomona Boulevard I Pomona, CA 91768 t. 909.869.6316 1 E 909.869.6318 1 www.aolaboratorv.com GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVE ASTM D 6913 Client Name: ENGEO Inc. Tested by: JT Date: 04/03/17 Project Name: Atria Newport Beach Computed by: JP Date: 04/03/17 Project Number: 13823.000.000 Checked by: AP Date: 04/03/17 I I SIEVEOPENING SIEVE NUMBER HYDROMETER O O O 100 90 80 70 w 60 m C7 z 50 Q a 40 z w U w 30 CL 20 10 0 LIE_ 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE (mm) Symbol GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COARSE FINE LOARSE I MEDIUM FINE I I SIEVEOPENING SIEVE NUMBER HYDROMETER O O O 100 90 80 70 w 60 m C7 z 50 Q a 40 z w U w 30 CL 20 10 0 LIE_ 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE (mm) Symbol Boring No. Sample No. Sample Depth (feet) Percent Atterberg Limits LL:PL:PI Soil Type U.S.C.S Gravel Sand Silt & Clay O S-2 5-5.5 6 47 47 N/A SC* *Note: Based on visual classification of sample AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. DBEIMBEISBE m 2607 Pomona Boulevard I Pomona, CA 91768 t. 909.869.6316 11. 909.869.6318 1 www.aolaboratory.com ATTERBERG LIMITS ASTM D 4318 Project Name: Atria Newport Beach Tested By: DK Project No.: 13823.000.000 Checked By: AP 70 W, 50 ii w p 40 z v 30 F N CL 20 10 0 0 Date: 03/31/17 Date: 04/03/17 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) PROCEDURE USED Sample Depth 100 Wet Preparation • Number Number 0 95 ❑X Dry Preparation v Chart .`,fie � ❑X Procedure A d Multipoint Test A ♦ ,oe CH 10.5-11 88 21 67 CH CIL „ine MH or OH ML rOL 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) ❑ Procedure B One -point Test 80 4- 10 25 100 Number of Blows PROCEDURE USED Sample Depth 100 Wet Preparation Symbol Number Number 0 95 ❑X Dry Preparation v Chart c L) 90 ❑X Procedure A d Multipoint Test A ♦ S-3 20 85 ❑ Procedure B One -point Test 80 4- 10 25 100 Number of Blows Boring Sample Depth Plasticity Symbol Number Number (feet) LL PL PI Chart Symbol ♦ S-3 10.5-11 88 21 67 CH AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. OBEIMBEISBE ^y 2607 Pomona Boulevard I Pomona, CA 91768 - t. 909.869.6316 1 f. 909.869.6318 I www.aolaboratory.com MOISTURE AND DENSITY TEST RESULTS Client: ENGEO Inc. AP Lab No.: 17-0362 Project Name: Atria Newport Beach Date: 03/30/17 Project No.: 13823.000.000 Boring No. Sample No. Sample Depth (ft.) Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pct) S-3 1-1.5 9.3 122.6 S-3 5.5-6 9.2 NA nr cugmeennS unu r®aungr uw. DBE I MBE I SBE 2607 Pomona Boulevard I Pomona, CA 91768 t. 909.869.6316 1 f. 909.869.6318 1 www.aolaboratory.com GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVE ASTM D 6913 Client Name: ENGEO Inc. Tested by: JT Project Name: Atria Newport Beach Computed by: JP Project Number: 13823.000.000 Checked by: AP Date: 04/03/17 Date: 04/03/17 Date: 04/03/17 GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COARSE I FINE bOARSE I MEDIUM FINE SIEVE OPENING 100 "I M F— 70 w y60 m (D a -i 50 a 1— 40 z w U w 30 a 20 10 10 1 0.1 PARTICLE SIZE (mm) 0.01 0.001 Symbol Boring No. I I SIEVE NUMBER Sample Depth (feet) HYDROMETER ,le Soil Type U.S.C.S 0 iO �p 0 0 0 0 10 1 0.1 PARTICLE SIZE (mm) 0.01 0.001 Symbol Boring No. Sample No. Sample Depth (feet) Percent Atterberg Limits LL:PL:PI Soil Type U.S.C.S Gravel Sand Silt & Clay O S-3 5.5-6 0 59 41 N/A SC* *Note: Based on visual classification of sample AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. DBE MBE SBE 2607 Pomona Boulevard I Pomona, CA 91768 t. 909.869.6316 1 f. 909.869.6318 1 www.as3laboratorv.com UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST RESULTS ASTM D 2166 Project Name: Atria Newport Beach Sample Type: Mod Cal Project No.: 13823.000.000 Soil Description Fat Clay Boring No.: S-3 Dry Density (pcf): 56.4 Sample No.: - Moisture Content (%) 71.8 Depth (feet): 20.5-21 Test Date: 03/30/17 Sample Diameter (inch): 2.392 Wt. Wet Soil+Container(gms) 818.34 Sample Height (inch): 5.886 Wt. Dry Soil+Container(gms) 538.32 Sample Weight (gms): 672.48 Wt. Container (gms) 148.56 After Test Load lbs 1.8 Area s .in Compressive Stress ks Axial Strain 0 0.000 4.49 1.6 0.00 1 0.005 4.50 0.03 0.08 2 0.010 4.50 0.06 0.17 3 0.020 4.51 0.10 0.34 5 0.025 4.51 0.16 M 1.4 6 0.030 4.52 0.19 0.51 15 0.060 4.54 0.48 1.02 24 0.090 4.56 u 1.2 N 1.53 31 0.120 4.59 0.97 2.04 d 1.0 0.150 4.61 1.16 2.55 45 0.200 U) 1.39 3.40 51 0.250 4.69 1.56 0.8 55 0.300 4.74 1.67 5.10 56 0.320 4.75 1.70 5.44 55 0.350 4.78 w 5.95 0.6 m a 0.4 E 0.2 U 0.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Axial Strain (%) After Test Load lbs Deformation inch Area s .in Compressive Stress ks Axial Strain 0 0.000 4.49 0.00 0.00 1 0.005 4.50 0.03 0.08 2 0.010 4.50 0.06 0.17 3 0.020 4.51 0.10 0.34 5 0.025 4.51 0.16 0.42 6 0.030 4.52 0.19 0.51 15 0.060 4.54 0.48 1.02 24 0.090 4.56 0.76 1.53 31 0.120 4.59 0.97 2.04 37 0.150 4.61 1.16 2.55 45 0.200 4.65 1.39 3.40 51 0.250 4.69 1.56 4.25 55 0.300 4.74 1.67 5.10 56 0.320 4.75 1.70 5.44 55 0.350 4.78 1.66 5.95 Unconfined Compressive Strength (ksf) = 1.70 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. r " 4 DBEIMBEI6BE 2607 Pomona Boulevard I Pomona, CA 91768 t. 909.869.6316 1 f. 909.869.6318 1 www.aolaboratorv.com ATTERBERG LIMITS ASTM D 4318 Project Name: Atria Newport Beach Tested By: DK Project No.: 13823.000.000 Checked By: _AP- 50 a 40 x w 0 30 U F C 20 a 10 Date: 03/31/17 I Date: 04/03/17 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) ❑ ❑X ❑X PROCEDURE USED Wet Preparation Dry Preparation Procedure A Multipoint Test Procedure B One -point Test 0 d 0 tj 5 i 80 75 70 65 60 10 25 Number of Blows \'K Plasticity Symbol Number Number (feet) LL PL PI / CH CL Symbol / S-4 \fie 20.5-21 70 21 49 CH 10 / MH or OH ML rOL 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) ❑ ❑X ❑X PROCEDURE USED Wet Preparation Dry Preparation Procedure A Multipoint Test Procedure B One -point Test 0 d 0 tj 5 i 80 75 70 65 60 10 25 Number of Blows Plasticity Symbol Number Number (feet) LL PL PI Chart Symbol 100 Boring Sample Depth Plasticity Symbol Number Number (feet) LL PL PI Chart Symbol S-4 20.5-21 70 21 49 CH AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. DBEIMBEISBE 2607 Pomona Boulevard I Pomona, CA 91768 t. 909.869.6316 1 f. 909.869.6318 I www.aolaboratory.com MOISTURE AND DENSITY TEST RESULTS Client: ENGEO Inc. AP Lab No.: 17-0362 Project Name: Atria Newport Beach Date: 03/30/17 Project No.: 13823.000.000 Boring No. Sample No. Sample Depth (ft.) Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pct) S-4 2-2.5 6.5 127.8 S-4 5.5-6 8.6 118.4 I AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. DBE I MBE I SBE 2607 Pomona Boulevard I Pomona, CA 91768 t. 909.869.6316 1 f. 909.869.6318 1 www.aolaboratoN.com GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVE ASTM D 6913 Client Name: ENGEO Inc. Tested by: JT Date: 04/03/17 Project Name: Atria Newport Beach Computed by: JP Date: 04/03/17 Project Number: 13823.000.000 Checked by: AP Date: 04/03/17 SIEVE OPENING SIEVE NUMBER HYDROMETER n 100 90 80 F 70 w 60 m (D N 50 o_ f— 40 z w U w 30 0- 20WINEL 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE (mm) Symbol GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COARSE I FINE bOARSE I MEDIUM FINE SIEVE OPENING SIEVE NUMBER HYDROMETER n 100 90 80 F 70 w 60 m (D N 50 o_ f— 40 z w U w 30 0- 20WINEL 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE (mm) Symbol Boring No. Sample No. Sample Depth (feet) Percent Atterberg Limits LL:PL:PI Soil Type U.S.C.S Gravel Sand Silt & Clay O S-4 2-2.5 1 51 48 N/A SC* *Note: Based on visual classification of sample Sample ID Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples ENGEO Inc Atria Newport Beach Your #13823.000.000, HDR Lab #17-0227LAB 4 -Apr -17 S2,1.5-2', Atria, 13823.000.000 Resistivity Units as -received ohm -cm 3,400 saturated ohm -cm 3,160 pH 6.8 Electrical Conductivity ms/cm 0.08 Chemical Analyses Cations calcium Ca 2+ mg/kg 34 magnesium Mgt+ mg/kg 10 sodium Na'� mg/kg 31 potassium K1+ mg/kg 12 Anions carbonate CO3`- mg/kg ND bicarbonate HCO3" mg/kg 268 fluoride F'- mg/kg 1.9 chloride CI'- mg/kg ND sulfate SO4`' mg/kg 14 phosphate PO43 mg/kg 5.7 Other Tests ammonium NH41+ mg/kg ND nitrate NO3'- mg/kg ND sulfide S2- qual na Redox mV na Resistivity per ASTM G187, Cations per ASTM D6919, Anions per ASTM D4327, and Alkalinity per APHA 2320-B. Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analyses were made on a 1:5 soil -to -water extract. mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil. Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts ND = not detected na = not analyzed 431 West Baseline Road • Claremont, CA 91711 Phone: 909.962.5485 • Fax: 909.626.3316 Page 1 of 1 b J xk '; m' s v SAN RAMON SAN FRANCISCO SAN JOSE OAKLAND LATHROP ROCKLIN SANTA CLARITA IRVINE LOS ANGELES CHRISTCHURCH WELLINGTON AUCKLAND GEO —Expect Excellence CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LIFE SAFETY SERVICES GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS GUIDELINE 13.01 - Determination of Required Fire Flow 13.01.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this guideline is to provide assistance to architects, builders and engineers in determining the adequate fire flow requirements for buildings and complexes. This guideline is in accordance with the California Fire Code, Appendix B and Appendix C. B.01.2 SCOPE All buildings built within the City of Newport Beach are required to comply with the California Fire Code Appendix B, Fire Flow Requirements for Buildings and Appendix C, Fire Hydrant Locations and Distribution. 13.01.3 PROCEDURE Determine a total s u e footage of all floor levels: Line 1 sq. ft. Determinethp�peof Construction: Line 2� 0 4 �r Using Table B105.1, determine the fire flow. (If the building has full sprinkler system, deduct 50%) Line 3 gpm.1,z Using Table C105.1, use the determined fire flow from line 3 to determine the required number of fire hydrants re wired and their spacing: Line 4 ?_ Hydrants ft. apart. Existing fire hydrants on public streets within 500'of the building are allowed to be considered as available. The aggregate flow from existing hydrants, at no less than 20 pounds residual pressure, may be credited toward the total flow required. Existing hydrants on adjacent property may not be considered unless the hydrant and main are owned by a public water company or public utility and the road serving those hydrants is of appropriate construction and width. An easement for the roadway must be recorded. B.01- Determination of Required Fire Flow Pages 1 of 3 Revised: 03 04 99, ^^2716, 07-13-16 LIFE SAFETY SERVICES I/ , , /`, dr I :i New hydrants shall provide a minimum flow of 1250 gpm at 20 pounds residual pressure. 1. The fire sprinkler demand is permitted to be included within this value as long as the sprinkler demand does not exceed the minimum required fire flow. 2. Thee minimum fire flow shall not be less than 1500 gpm. TABLE 8105.1 MINIMUM REOU1RED FIRE -FLOW AND FLOW DURATION FOR BUILDINGS B.01- Determination of Required Fire Flow Pages 2 of 3 Revised: 03 -04 -OR, 0467-'2-167 '6, 07-13-16 LIFE SAFETY SERVICES FIRE -FLOW CALCULATION AREA (square feet) FIRE -FLOW FLOW DURATION Type IA and IB' Type IIA and IIIA' Type IV and V-A` Type IIB and 1118' Type V -B' (gallons per minute)° (hours) 0-22,700- 0-12,700 0-8,200 0-5,900 0-3,600 1,500 22,701-30,200 12,701-17,000 8,201-10,900 5,901-7,900 3,6014,800 1,750 30,201-38,700 17,001-21,800 10,901-12,900. 7,901-9,800 4,801-6,200 2,000 38,70148,300 21,801-24,200 12,901-17,400 9,801-12,600 6,201-7,700 2,250 48,301-59,000 24,201-33,200 17,401-21,300 12,601-15,400 7,701-9,400 2,500 59,001-70,900 33,201-39,700 21.301-25,500 15,401-18,400 9,401-11,300 2,750 70,901-83,700 39,70147,100 25,501-30,100 18,401-21,800 11,301-13,400 3,000 83,701-97,700 47,101-54,900 30,101-35,200 21,801-25,900 13,401-15,600 3,250 3 97,701-112,700 54,901-63,400 35,20140,600 25,901-29,300 15,601-18,000 3,500 112,701-128,700 63,401-72,400 40,60146,400 29,301-33,500 18.001-20,600 3,750 128,701-145,900 72,401-82,100 46,401-52,500 33,501-37,900 20,601-23,300 4,000 145,901-164,200 82,101-92,400 52,501-59,100 37,901-42,700 23,301-26,300 4,250 164,201-183,400 92,401-103,100 59,101-66,000 42,70147,700 26,301-29,300 4,500 183,401-203,700 103,101-114,600 66,001-73,300 47,701-53,000 29,301-32,600 4,750 203,701-225,200 114,601-126,700 73,301-81,100 53,001-58,600 32,601-36,%%,,_ r 5, 225,201-247,700 126,701-139,400 81,101-89,200 58,601-65,400 36,001-39,610 ._ 7'j 2 247,701-271,200 139,401-152,600 89,201-97,700 65,401-70,600 39,60143,400 5,500 271,201-295,900 152,601-166,500 97,701-106,500 70,601-77,000 43,40147,400 5,,x50., 295,901 -Greater 166,501 -Greater 106,50)-115,800 77,001-83,7(10 47,401-51,500>.IV: ? 6,0 4 - - 115,801-125,500 83,701-90,600 S1,SOl-55,700 6,250 - - 125,501-135,500 90,601-97,900 55,701-60,200 6,500 01'145,800 97,901-106,800 60,201-64,800 6,750 5,801-156,700 106,801-113,200 64,801-69,600 - - 156,701-167,900 113,201-121,300 69,601-74,600 7,250 - - 167,901-179,400 121,301-129,600 74,601-79,800 7,500 - - 179,401-191,400 129,601-138,300 79,801-85,100 7,750 - - 193,401-Crcaler 138,301-6reater $5,'I`.,.' to 8,000 B.01- Determination of Required Fire Flow Pages 2 of 3 Revised: 03 -04 -OR, 0467-'2-167 '6, 07-13-16 LIFE SAFETY SERVICES TABLE C1DSA NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION OF FIRE HYDRANTS FIRE -FLOW REOUIREMENT (gpm) MINIMUM NUMBER OF HYDRANTS AVERAGE SPACING BETWEEN HYDRANTS;00 (feet) MAXIMUM DISTANCE FROM ANY POINT ON STREET OR ROAD FRONTAGE TO A HYDRANT' 1,750 or less 1 500 250 2,000.2.250 2 450 225 2,500 3 450 225 3,0)0 3 400 225 3.500.4,000 4 350 210 4,5005.000 5 300 180 5,500 6 310 180 6,000 6 250 150 6„500-7,000 7 250 150 7,500 or more S or more` 200 120 For SI: I fool = 304.5 mm. I gallon per minute = 3.755 Llm. a. Reduce by 100 feel for dead-end streets or roads. b. Where streets are provided with median dividers, which cannot be crossed by fire fighters pulling hose lines, or where arterial streets arc provided with four or more traffic lanes and have a traffic count of mom than 30.000 vehicles per day, hydrant spacing shall avenge 500 feet on each side of the street and be arranged on an alternating basis up to a fire -flow requirement of 7,000 gallons per minute and 400 feet for higher fire -flow requirements. c. Where new water mains are extended along streets where hydrants arc not needed for protection of structures or similar fire problems, fire hydrants shall be provided it spacing not to exceed 1,000 feet to provide for tnnsportation hamrds. d. Reduce by 50 feet for dead-end streets or roads. e. One hydrant for each 1,000 gallons per minute of friction thereof. B.01- Determination of Required Fire Flow Pages 3 of 3 Revised: 03 0409, 04-7 4R, 07-13-16 LIFE SAFETY SERVICES