The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20190214_Soil Reportconsultants GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 110 SONORA STREET NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Presented to: SHAOULIAN PROPERTIES Attn: Emanuel Shaoulian, MD P.O. Box 3237 Newport Beach, CA 92659 c/o : Brion Jeannette Architecture 470 Old Newport Blvd . Newport Beach, CA 92663 Attn : Katelynn Rodgers Prepared by: EGA Consultants, Inc. 375-C Monte Vista Avenue Costa Mesa, California 92627 ph (949) 642-9309 fax (949) 642 -1290 August 3, 2018 Project No . SP130 .1 engineering geotechnical applications 375-C Mo n te Vis t a Aven u e• Costa Mesa, CA 92627 • (949) 642-93 0 9 • FAX (949) 642-1290 PA2019-029 consultants Site: Proposed 3-Story Duplex: 110 Sonora Street Newport Beach , California Executive Summary August 3 , 2018 Project No . SP130.1 engineering geotech nica l applications Based on our geotechnical study of the site , our review of available reports and literature and our experience , it is our opinion that the proposed residential development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. There appear to be no significant geotechnical constraints on -site that cannot be mitigated by proper planning , design , and utilization of sound construction practices . The engineering properties of the soil and native materials , and surface drainage offer favorable conditions for site re -development. The following key elements are conclusions confirmed from this investigation : A review of available geologic records indicates that no active faults cross the subject property . The site is located in the seismically active Southern California area , and with in 2 kilometers of the Type B Newport-Inglewood Fault. As such , the proposed development shall be designed in accordance with seismic considerations specified in the 2016 California Building Code (CBC) and the City of Newport Beach requirements. Foundation specifications herein include added provisions for potential liquefaction on -site per City policy CBC 1803 .11 -12 . Secant system shoring and basement walls specifications are included herein . SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Design Item Foundations : Footing Bearing Pressure Passive Lateral Resistence Perimeter Footing Widths: Perimeter Footing Depths : Coefficient of Friction Mat (Optional): Soil Expansion Soil Sulfate Content Building Pad Removals : Soil Maximum Density: Building Slab: Recommendations 2 ,000 psf -building , continuous; 2 ,500 psf -pad footings 250 psf per foot min . 15 inches with two No . 5 bars top and bottom min . 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade 0 .30 min . 12 inches with thickened edges(+ 6 inches) with no . 5 bars @ 12" o .c. each way , top and bottom Non -Expansive Beach Sands Negligible min. 2 ~ ft . overexcavation 111.0 pct at 11 .5% Optimum Moisture Content * Concrete slabs cast against properly compacted fill materials shall be a minimum of 5 inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 4 rebar at 12 inches on center in both directions. * Dowel all footings to slabs with No . 4 bars at 24 inches on center. * Concrete building slabs shall be underlain by a min . 15 mil thick moisture barrier ("Stego W rap , or equiv .), with all laps sealed , underlain by 4" of % -inch gravel (cap i llary break). Seismic Values (per CBC 2016, ASCE 7-10): Site Class Definition (Table 1613.5 .2) Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 0 .2s Period, s. Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 1 s Period , S 1 Short Period Site Coefficient at 0 .2 Period , Fa Long Period Site Coefficient at 1 s Period , Fv Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 0 .2s Period , SMs Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 1 s Period , SM1 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0 .2s Period , Sos Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1 s Period , S01 D 1.674 g 0 .620 g 1.00 1.50 1.674 g 0.930 g 1.116 g 0.620 g PGAm = 0 .681 g 375-C Monte Vista Avenue• Costa Mesa, CA 92627 • (949) 642 -93 0 9 • FAX (949) 642-1290 PA2019-029 August 3, 2018 Project No. SP130.1 SHAOULIAN PROPERTIES Attn: Emanuel Shaoulian, MD P.O. Box 3237 Newport Beach, CA 92659 c/o:Brion Jeannette Architecture, Attn: Sean Vu Subject:GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 110 SONORA STREET NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Dear Dr. Shaoulian, In accordance with your request, we have completed our Geotechnical Investigation of the above referenced site. This investigation was performed to determine the site soil conditions and to provide geotechnical parameters for the proposed residential development at the subject site. Based on our discussions, the proposed development shall include the demolition of the existing site structures, and the construction of a new residential dwelling with an attached garage and associated improvements in its place. This report presents the results of the investigation (including Liquefaction Computations) along with grading and foundation recommendations pertaining to the re-development of the subject lot. This opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, EGA Consultants, Inc. DAVID A. WORTHINGTON CEG 2124 PAUL DURAND RCE 58364 Principal Engineering Geologist Sr. Project Engineer Copies: (4) Addressee PA2019-029 August 3, 2018 Project No. SP130.1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 110 SONORA STREET NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION In response to your request and in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Building Department requirements, we have completed a preliminary geotechnical investigation at the subject site located at 110 Sonora Street, near the western entrance of the Balboa Peninsula, in the City of Newport Beach, State of California (see Site Location Map, Figure 1). The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the existing geotechnical conditions at the subject site and provide recommendations and geotechnical parameters for site re- development, earthwork, and foundation design for the proposed re-construction. We were also requested to evaluate the potential for on-site geotechnical hazards. This report presents the results of our findings, as well as our conclusions and recommendations. SCOPE OF STUDY The scope of our investigation included the following tasks: C Review of readily available published and unpublished reports; C Geologic reconnaissance and mapping; C Excavation and sampling of two (2) exploratory borings to a total depth of 11 feet below existing grade (b.g.); C Continuous Cone Penetration Test (CPT) sounding to a depth of 50 feet below grade (results of the CPT soundings are included herein); C Laboratory testing of representative samples obtained from the exploratory borings; C Engineering and geologic analysis including seismicity coefficients in accordance with the 2016 California Building Code (CBC); C Seismic and Liquefaction analysis and settlement computations (in accordance with California Geological Survey, SP 117A); 2 PA2019-029 • Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommendations . GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS The subject property is a roughly 48 ft. by 7 4 to 76 ft., rectangular lot located at 110 Sonora Street within the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange . The subject lot is located near the west entry of the Balboa Peninsular and one short block from the beach . For the purpose of clarity in this report, the lot is bound by Sonora Street to the west, by Seashore Drive to the north, by similar single family dwellings to the east, and by 7210 W . Oceanfront across an alley to the south (see Plot Plan, Figure 2). The site is legally described as Subdivision A of lots 7 , 8 , and 9, Block L , of the Seashore Colony Tract (APN 045 -023 -11). The Pacific Ocean shoreline is located approximately 600 feet southwest of the property (see Site Location Map, Figure 1 ). The subject lot consists of a relatively flat, planar lot with no significant slopes on or adjacent to the site. Currently, the lot is occupied by a two -story residence and a one-story cottage residence, both situated on a graded level pads . An attached two -car garage is located in the southern half of the property as the first floor of the two-story residence and is accessed by the rear alley. The existing site layout is shown in Figure 2, herein . All structures are supported on continuous perimeter footings with a combination of slab-on -grade and raised wood floors . PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL RE -DEVELOPMENT (Duplex) Based on our discussions with the site owner and the project assistant , Katelynn Rodgers with Brion Jeannette Architecture, the proposed residential development shall include the demolition of the existing structures, and the construction of a new three - story residential duplex in its place . Additionally, it is our understanding that a subterranean basement is planned. The limits of the basement footprint and depths were not made available at this time. However , specifications for secant system shoring and basement walls are included herein. We assume that the proposed building will consist of wood -frame and masonry block construction or building materials of similar type and load. The building foundations will 11 0 Sonora Str ee t, New port Beach, CA So il s Re port Proj ec t No. SP 130.1 A ug ust 3, 20 18 3 PA2019-029 consist of a combination of isolated and continuous spread footings. Loads on the footings are unknown, but are expected to be less than 2,500 and 2,000 pounds per square foot on the isolated and continuous footings, respectively. If actual loads exceed these assumed values, we should be contacted to evaluate whether revisions of this report are necessary. It is our understanding that the grade of the site is not expected to vary significantly, with maximum regrades consisting of approximately 1 to 2 feet in the building areas. Based on the topographic and boundary survey, the site elevation is approximately 12 ft. above MSL (see Plot Plan, herein). Based on the preliminary plans, the proposed finish floor elevation shall be 9+ ft. above mean sea level (MSL) to conform with City and United States FEMA flood elevation requirements. Note: The precise determination, measuring, and documenting of the site elevations, hub locations, property boundaries, etc., is the responsibility of the project licensed land surveyor. The site survey was not available at the time of this report issuance. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Our subsurface exploration consisted of the excavation of one (1) exploratory boring (B- 1) to a depth of 10.5 feet below grade (b.g.) and one CPT probe (CPT-1) to a depth of 50.73 ft b.g. (continuous soil profile). Prior to drilling, the underground detection and markup service (Underground Service Alert of Southern California) was ordered and completed under DigAlert Confirmation No. A181690915-00A. Representative bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained for labora- tory testing. Additionally, the laboratory data for 7210 W Oceanfront, the adjacent property to the south of the proposed residence, shall be included herein as additional data. Geologic/CPT logs of the soil boring/probe are included in Appendix A. The borings were continuously logged by a registered geologist from our firm who obtained soil samples for geotechnical laboratory analysis. The approximate location of the borings are shown on Figure 2, Plot Plan. Geotechnical soil samples were obtained using a modified California sampler filled with 2 d inch diameter, 1-inch tall brass rings. Bulk samples were obtained by collecting representative bore hole cuttings. Locations of geotechnical samples and other data are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. The soils were visually classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Classifications are shown on the boring logs included in Appendix A. 110 Sonora Street, Newport Beach, CA Soils Report Project No. SP130.1 August 3, 2018 4 PA2019-029 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing was performed on representative soil samples obtained during our subsurface exploration. The following tests were performed: * Dry Density and Moisture Content (ASTM: D 2216) * Soil Classification (ASTM: D 2487) * Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content (ASTM: D 1557) * Wet (Submerged) Density (ASTM: D 1557) * Sulfate Content (CA 417, ACI 318-14) * Direct Shear (ASTM D 3080) * Sieve Analysis Test (ASTM D 442) Geotechnical test results are included in Appendix B, herein. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The site soil and geologic conditions are as follows: Seepage and Groundwater According to the Orange County Water District (OCWD), there are no water wells located within the general vicinity of the subject property. The Pacific Ocean is located approximately 600 feet southwest of the property. Our data indicates that the perched groundwater encountered is subject to significant tidal fluctuations. Seepage or surface water ponding was not noted on the subject site at the time of our study. Groundwater was encountered in our test excavation at a depth of approximately 9 feet b.g.. The tidal fluctuations were further verified from reading of our nearby 110 Sonora Street, Newport Beach, CA Soils Report Project No. SP130.1 August 3, 2018 5 PA2019-029 piezometer well installed on April 1, 2016 at the end of Sonora Street (at the beach entry). Based on our review of the on-site piezometric data, the groundwater highs mimic the tidal highs in the nearby seashores, and groundwater lows drop slightly below mean sea level. From a construction standpoint, any excavations advanced down to within the tidal zones should be expected to experience severe caving. A tidal chart for the date of the subsurface investigation, June 25, 2018, is presented as Figure 4, herein. Geologic Setting According to a United States Geological Survey (USGS) Map of the Newport Beach Quadrangle the site is approximately 12 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). Regionally, the site is located within the western boundary of the Coastal Plain of Orange County. The Coastal Plain lies within the southwest portion of the Los Angeles Basin and consists of semi-consolidated marine and non-marine deposits ranging in age from Miocene to recent. The western boundary of the Coastal Plain, in which the site is located, is referred to as the Tustin Plain. It is bound by the Santa Ana Mountains to the northeast and the San Joaquin Hills to the southeast. Based on available geologic maps the site is underlain by a thin mantle of hydraulic fill soils and/or engineered fill. The shallow soil layer is underlain by Quaternary-age marine deposits which are described as clean beach sands. Below the artificial fill, the site is generally underlain by Eolian beach sands (Qe) and old paralic deposits (Qop, see reference No. 2). The old paralic deposits are underlain by massive bedrock of the Monterey Formation (Tm). Roadside exposures of massive bedrock of the Monterey Formation (Tm) are visible on the inland side of East Pacific Coast Highway less than ½ kilometers north of the site (Banning Ranch and Dover Shores bluffs). A Geologic Map is presented as Figure 3, herein (reference: “Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' X 60' Quadrangles, California,” Version 1.0, compiled by Douglas M. Morton and Fred K. Miller, dated 2006). CPT-1 was advanced on June 18, 2018 by Kehoe Testing & Engineering, under the supervision of a representative of EGA Consultants. The probe push reached a total depth of 50.73 feet b.g. (geologic refusal under a 500-ton point load). Copies of the data output results of the Liquefaction Analysis are found in Appendix E, Liquefaction Analysis. 110 Sonora Street, Newport Beach, CA Soils Report Project No. SP130.1 August 3, 2018 6 PA2019-029 Based on the geologic map (Figure 3) correlation with the on-site CPT probe advanced on June 18, 2018, bedrock of the Monterey Formation (Tm) was likely encountered at approximately 40 feet below grade. Faulting A review of available geologic records indicates that no active faults cross the subject property (reference No. 2). Seismicity The seismic hazards most likely to impact the subject site is ground shaking following a large earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood (onshore), Palos Verdes (offshore), San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust, Whittier-Elsinore, or Cucamonga Faults. The fault distances, probable magnitudes, and horizontal accelerations are listed as follows: FAULT (Seismic Source Type) DISTANCE FROM SUBJECT SITE (Kilometers) MAXIMUM CREDIBLE EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE MAXIMUM HORIZONTAL ROCK ACCELERATION Newport- Inglewood (B) 2 kilometers southwest 7.2 0.69 g San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust Fault (B) 5 kilometers beneath the site 6.6 0.48 g Palos Verdes (B) 16 kilometers southwest 7.1 0.38 g Chino-Cental Avenue (B) 40 kilometers northeast 6.7 0.14 g Elsinore (B) 37 kilometers northeast 6.8 0.16 g Cucamonga (A) 50 kilometers north- northeast 7.0 0.14 g The maximum anticipated bedrock acceleration on the site is estimated to be less than 0.69, based on a maximum probable earthquake on the Newport- Inglewood Fault. The site is underlain by hydraulic sands (Qe), paralic deposits (Qop), and 110 Sonora Street, Newport Beach, CA Soils Report Project No. SP130.1 August 3, 2018 7 PA2019-029 bedrock (Tm/Tc). For design purposes, two-thirds of the maximum anticipated bedrock acceleration may be assumed for the repeatable ground acceleration. The effects of seismic shaking can be mitigated by adhering to the 2016 California Building Code or the standards of care established by the Structural Engineers Association of California. With respect to this hazard, the site is comparable to others in this general area in similar geologic settings. The grading specifications and guidelines outlined in Appendix C of the referenced report are in part, intended to mitigate seismic shaking. These guidelines conform to the industry standard of care and from a geotechnical standpoint, no additional measures are warranted. Based on our review of the “Seismic Zone Map,” published by the California Department of Mines and Geology in conjunction with Special Publication 117A, there are no earthquake landslide zones on or adjacent to the site. The proposed development shall be designed in accordance with seismic considerations contained in the 2016 CBC and the City of Newport Beach requirements. Based on Chapter 16 of the 2016 CBC and on Maps of Known Active Near- Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada (ASCE 7-10 Standard), the following parameters may be considered: 2016 CBC Seismic Design Parameters SITE ADDRESS: 110 Sonora Street, Newport Beach, CA Site Latitude (Decimal Degrees) 33.62948 Site Longitude (Decimal Degrees) -117.95553 Site Class Definition D Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SS 1.674 g Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period, S1 0.620 g Short Period Site Coefficient at 0.2 Period, Fa 1.00 Long Period Site Coefficient at 1s Period, Fv 1.50 Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SMS 1.674 g Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period, SM1 0.930 g Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SDS 1.116 g Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period SD1 0.620 g In accordance with the USGS Design Maps, and assuming Site Class “D”, the mean peak ground acceleration (PGAm) per USGS is 0.681 g. The stated 110 Sonora Street, Newport Beach, CA Soils Report Project No. SP130.1 August 3, 2018 8 PA2019-029 PGAm is based on a 2% probability of exceedance in a 50 year span (see copies of the USGS Design Maps Detailed Report, Appendix D, herein). FINDINGS Subsurface Soils As encountered in our test borings, the site is underlain by sandy fill and native materials as follows: Fill (Af) Fill soils were encountered in each of the borings to a depth of approximately two to three feet b.g. The fill soils consist generally of fine to very fine, dry, loose to medium dense, silty sands with trace shell fragments. The expansion potential of the fill soils was judged to be very low (E.I. = 0) when exposed to an increase in moisture content. Hydraulic and Native Sands (Qe) Underlying the fill materials are hydraulic and native sands as encountered in each of the test borings (B-1, B-2, and CPT-1). The native sands are underlain by old paralic (Qop), and Monterey Formation (Tm) bedrock consisting of medium dense to very dense, oxidized, fine to medium grained, moderately to well-cemented sand and silty sand to the maximum depths explored. Based on the geologic map (Figure 3) correlation with the on-site CPT probe advanced on June 18, 2018, bedrock of the Monterey Formation (Tm) was likely encountered at approximately 40 feet below grade. Based on the laboratory results dated July 9, 2018, the site maximum dry density is 111.0 pcf at an optimum moisture content of 11.5 % (per ASTM D 1557 – the complete laboratory reports are presented in Appendix B, herein). LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS (Per SP117A) Liquefaction of soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion in response to earthquakes. Both research and historical data indicate that loose, granular sandy soils are susceptible to liquefaction, while the stability of rock, gravels, clays, and silts are not significantly affected by vibratory motion. Liquefaction is generally known to occur only in saturated or near saturated granular soils. The site is underlain by sandy fill, old paralic deposits, and bedrock of the Monterey Formation. 110 Sonora Street, Newport Beach, CA Soils Report Project No. SP130.1 August 3, 2018 9 PA2019-029 It is our understanding that the current City policy, has assigned a seismic settlement potential of one (1.0) inch in the upper ten feet, and three (3.0) inches for soil depths of ten to fifty feet. In the event settlement values exceed these threshold values, then additional analysis and/or additional mitigation is required. The CPT testing was performed in accordance with the “Standard Test Method for Performing Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone Penetration Testing of Soils,” (ASTM D5778-12). The seismically induced settlement for the proposed structure was evaluated based on the “Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes” by I.M. Idriss and R.W. Boulanger, dated September 8, 2008. The analysis was provided by two 10½ -feet deep 4 “ diameter hand-auger borings, and a 50 feet deep 1.7" diameter CPT probe advanced on June 18, 2018. The boring and probe locations are shown in the Plot Plan, Figure 2, herein. The soil boring was continuously logged by a certified engineering geologist of our firm. The computations and results of our Liquefaction Analysis, based on CPT blow counts of Boring CPT-1, are attached in Appendix E, herein. The seismically induced settlement analysis was evaluated based on methods published in the references Nos. “a” through “j” (see “Associated References”, herein). The liquefaction and seismic settlement calculations indicate seismic settlement (includes dry and saturated sands) in the upper 50.73 feet is less than 1.0 inch, and hence shallow mitigation methods for liquefaction may be implemented per City Code Policy (No. CBC 1803.5.11-2 last revised 7/3/2014). Based on our liquefaction analysis, and in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Policy No. CBC 1803.5.11-12 (NBMC, Chapter 15), we recommend the following mitigative methods to minimize the effects of shallow liquefaction: 1. Tie all pad footings with grade beams. 2. All footings should be a minimum of 24 inches deep, below grade. 3. Continuous footings should be reinforced with two No. 5 rebar (two at the top and two at the bottom). 4. Concrete slabs cast against properly compacted fill materials shall be a minimum of 5 inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 4 rebar at 12 inches on center in both directions. The reinforcement shall be supported on chairs to insure positioning of the reinforcement at mid-center in the slab. 5. Dowel all footings to slabs with No. 4 bars at 24 inches on center. 6. Additionally, for cohesion treatment of the site sand fills in the upper 110 Sonora Street, Newport Beach, CA Soils Report Project No. SP130.1 August 3, 2018 10 PA2019-029 pad only; soil-cement shall be used in the upper 2½ feet . To achieve this, during grading – dry bags of Portland Cement shall be mixed in the scarified over-excavation bottoms and into each of the overlying fill lifts. Water via a 2-inch hose shall be vigorously induced during the pad grading operations. Vigorous watering and soil cement are not necessary for basement excavation bottoms, if applicable. The foundation specifications outlined above will act to decrease the potential settlement due to liquefaction and/or seismically induced lateral deformation to tolerable amounts. The above specifications eliminate the use of piles and associated construction vibrations and groundwater displacement induced by caisson drilling or pile-driving. If the above specifications are incorporated, the proposed structure shall be stable and adequate for the intended uses and the proposed construction will not adversely impact the subject or adjacent properties. Other Geologic Hazards Other geologic hazards such as landsliding, or expansive soils, do not appear to be evident at the subject site. CONCLUSIONS Based on our geotechnical study of the site, our review of available reports and literature and our experience, it is our opinion that the proposed improvements at the site are feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. There appear to be no significant geotechnical constraints on-site that cannot be mitigated by proper planning, design, and utilization of sound construction practices. The engineering properties of the soil and native materials, and the surface drainage offer favorable conditions for site re- development. RECOMMENDATIONS The following sections discuss the principle geotechnical concerns which should be considered for proper site re-development. Earthwork Grading and earthwork should be performed in accordance with the following recommendations and the General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines included in Appendix C. It is our understanding that the majority of grading will be limited to the re-grading of the building pad for the proposed construction. In general, it is anticipated that the removal of the upper 2½ feet within the building footprint (slab-on-grade portion) will require removal and recompaction to prepare the site for construction. The removals should be accomplished so that 110 Sonora Street, Newport Beach, CA Soils Report Project No. SP130.1 August 3, 2018 11 PA2019-029 all fill and backfill existing as part of the previous site use and demolition operations are removed. Where feasible, the limits of the pad fill shall be defined by a 2½ feet envelope encompassing the building footprint. Care should be taken to protect the adjacent property improvements. A minimum one foot thick fill blanket should be placed throughout the exterior improvements (approaches, parking and planter areas). The fill blanket will be achieved by re-working (scarifying) the upper 12 inches of the existing grade. Site Preparation Prior to earthwork or construction operations, the site should be cleared of surface structures and subsurface obstructions and stripped of any vegetation in the areas proposed for development. Removed vegetation and debris should then be disposed of off-site. A minimum of 2½ feet of the soils below existing grade will require removal and recompaction in the areas to receive building pad fill. Following removal, the excavated surface should be inspected by the soils engineer or his designated representative prior to the placement of any fill in footing trenches. Holes or pockets of undocumented fill resulting from removal of buried obstructions discovered during this inspection should be filled with suitable compacted fill. Soil Cement- for upper pad only At the time of the writing of this report, the site plan showing the limits of at- grade and/or basement slab footprints were not available for our review. For the upper building pads (if applicable), due to in situ dry, cohesionless soils, we recommend approximately three (3) pallets (35 bags dry mix, each weighing 94 pounds and approximately 1.33 cubic yards) of Portland cement be blended into the newly-placed fill. The first application of the Portland Cement shall be placed on the bottom of the scarified over-excavation(s). This remedial specification may be eliminated or reduced if suitable import fills are trucked-in. This remedial recommendation does not apply to basement excavation bottoms, where soil cement is not warranted. Fills The on-site soils are suitable for reuse as compacted fill, provided they are free of organic materials, debris, and materials larger than six (6) inches in diameter. After removal of any loose, compressible soils, all areas to receive fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 12 inches, brought to at least 2 percent over optimum moisture conditions and 110 Sonora Street, Newport Beach, CA Soils Report Project No. SP130.1 August 3, 2018 12 PA2019-029 compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM: D 1557). If necessary, import soils for near-surface fills should be predominately granular, possess a low or very low expansion potential, and be approved by the geotechnical engineer. Lift thicknesses will be dependent on the size and type of equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches. Placement and compaction of fill should be in accordance with local grading ordinances under the observation and testing of the geotechnical consultant. We recommend that fill soils be placed at moisture contents at least 2 percent over optimum (based on ASTM: D 1557). We recommend that oversize materials (materials over 6 inches) should they be encountered, be stockpiled and removed from the site. Trench Backfill The on-site soils may be used as trench backfill provided they are screened of rock sizes over 4 inches in dimension and organic matter. Trench backfill should be compacted in uniform lifts (not exceeding 6 inches in compacted thickness) by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM: D 1557). Geotechnical Parameters Note: At the time of the writing of this report, the site plan showing the limits of at-grade and/or basement slab footprints were not available for our review. The following Geotechnical parameters may used in the design of the proposed structure (also, see “Liquefaction Analysis” section, above): Foundation Design Structures on properly compacted fill may be supported by conventional, continuous or isolated spread footings. All footings should be a minimum of 24 inches deep (measured in the field below lowest adjacent grade). Footing widths shall me an minimum 15 inches and 18 inches for interior beams and perimeter footings respectively. At this depth (24 inches) footings founded in fill materials may be designed for an allowable bearing value of 2,000 and 2,500 psf (for dead-plus-live load) for continuous wall and isolated spread footings, respectively. These values may be increased by one-third for loads of short duration, including wind or seismic forces. 110 Sonora Street, Newport Beach, CA Soils Report Project No. SP130.1 August 3, 2018 13 PA2019-029 Continuous perimeter footings should be reinforced with No. 5 rebar (two at the top and two at the bottom). Reinforcement requirements may be increased if recommended by the project structural engineer. In no case should they be decreased from the previous recommendations. Mat Foundation Design - Basement Due to anticipated high tide waters and cohesionless sands during construction, a mat slab foundation system is recommended for the proposed basement. Mat slabs founded in compacted fill or competent native materials may be designed for an allowable bearing value of 2,500 psf (for dead-plus-live load). These values may be increased by one-third for loads of short duration, including wind or seismic forces. The actual design of the foundation and slabs should be completed by the structural engineer. This is also and option for the at-grade, upper pad structures. MIN. DESIGN ITEM RECOMMENDATIONS Mat foundations: allowable bearing pressure:2,500 psf passive lateral resistence:250 psf per foot mat slab thickness:min. 12 inches with thickened edges (+ 6 inches) steel reinforcement:no. 5 bars @ 12" o.c. each way, top and bottom coefficient of friction:0.30 Modulus of Subgrade Reaction: ks = 90 lbs/in3 The mat slab shall be directly underlain by a min. 2-inch thick layer of washed sand, underlain by min. 15-mil Stego wrap (or equiv., lapped and sealed), underlain by 4 inches of gravel (¾-inch crushed rock), underlain by competent native materials. The precise sequence, composition and thickness of “ballast”, “weight” or “waste” slabs shall be determined by the structural engineer. Joints in walls and floors, and between the wall and floor, and penetrations of the wall and floor shall be made watertight using suitable methods and materials (e.g. bentonite “water stops”). Reinforcement requirements may be increased if recommended by the project structural engineer. In no case should they be decreased from the previous recommendations. Cement Type for Concrete in Contact with On-Site Earth Materials Concrete mix design should be based on sulfate testing with Section 1904.2 of the 2016 CBC. Preliminary laboratory testing indicates the site soils possess negligible sulfate exposure. 110 Sonora Street, Newport Beach, CA Soils Report Project No. SP130.1 August 3, 2018 14 PA2019-029 ACI 318-14 BUILD ING CODE (Tab le 19.3.1.1) REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCRETE EXPOSED TO SULFATE-CONTAINING SOLUTIONS Sulfate Water soluble Sulfate (SO.) in Cement Type Maximum water-Minimum fc' , Exposure sulfate (SO•) in soil water , ppm cementitious material normal-weight [SO] percent by weight ratio , by weight , normal and light weight weight concrete concrete , psi Negligible 0 .00 ~so.< 0 .10 0 s so. <150 ---------------- [S1] Moderate 0 .10 < so.< 0 .20 150 < S04 < 1500 11 ,IP(MS), 0 .50 4000 [S2] IS(MS},P(MS) l(PM)(MS), l(SM)(MS) Severe 0 .20 ::; S04 < 2 .00 1500 <so.< V 0.45 4500 [S3] 10,000 Very Severe S04 > 2 .00 so.> 10 ,000 V plus 0.45 4500 [S4] pozzalan As a conservative approach, we recommend cement w ith a minimum strength f'c of 4,000 psi be used for concrete in contact with on-site earth materials (does not apply to temporary shoring "soft" piles which may be reduced to a min. 1,000 psi). Settlement Uti lizing the design recommendations presented herein, we anticipate that the majority of any post-grading settlement will occur during construction activities. We estimate that the total settlement for the proposed structure will be on the order of 1 inch. Differential settlement is not expected to exceed 1 inch in 30 feet. These settlement values are expected to be within tolerable limits for proper ly designed and constructed foundations. Lateral Load Resistance Footings founded in fill materials may be designed for a passive lateral bearing pressure of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. A coefficient of friction against sliding between concrete and soil of 0.30 may be assumed. Slabs-on-grade Concrete slabs cast against properly compacted fill materials shall be a minimum of 5 inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 4 rebar at 12 inches on center in both directions . The slabs shal l be dowe led into the footings us ing No. 4 bars at 24 inches on center. The reinforcement shall be supported on chairs to insure positioning of the reinforcement at mid-center in the slab. Interior slabs shall be underlain by a minimum 15 mil visqueen moisture barrier ("Stego Wrap", or equivalent), with all laps sealed, over 4 inches% -inch I I O Sonora Stree t, New port Beach , CA Soil s Re port Proj ec t No . SP 130.1 A ug ust 3, 20 18 15 PA2019-029 crushed rock (see "Capillary Break," below). Some slab cracking due to shrinkage should be anticipated. The potential for the slab cracking may be reduced by careful control of water/cement ratios . The contractor should take appropriate curing precautions during the pouring of concrete in hot weather to minimize cracking of slabs. We recommend that a slipsheet (or equivalent) be utilized if crack-sensitive flooring is planned directly on concrete slabs. All slabs should be designed in accordance with structural considerations . Capillary Break Below Interior Slabs -Upper Building Pad Only In accordance with the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code Section 4 .505 .2.1, we provide the following building specification for the subject site (living area and garages slabs): Concrete building slabs shall be directly underlain by a minimum15 mil-thick moisture barrier (e.g. "Stego Wrap ", or an equivalent product), with all laps sealed, underlain by 4 inches of% -inch gravel. In no case shall we approve sand placed directly on top of the gravel layer. The above specification meets or exceeds the Section 5 .505.2.1 requirement. New Garage Grade Beams The grade beams, reinforced continuously with the garage footings , should be constructed across the garage entrance , tying together the ends of the garage footings. The grade beams should be embedded at the same depth as the adjacent perimeter footings . The grade beams/thickened slab edges should consist of a clean, cold joint (disregard for monolithic pours). Basement Shoring Installation Recommendations The precise limits of the basement footprint and depths were not made available at this time . At any rate, it is our understanding that the shoring system will consist of steel "H" beam soldier piles and slurry-backfilled "soft" piles. The soldier piles should not be driven or vibrated into place due to the possible damage that could occur to nearby structures . It is expected that slight to moderate caving may occur within the pre-drilled holes above the groundwater elevations . Below the ground water table, moderate to severe caving of the beach sand deposits is expected . To mitigate the potential for this caving, the soldier pile excavations should be drilled using casing and may also require a drilling slurry additive such as Slurry Pro CDP. The casing may be advanced by drilling ahead of the casing and then "crowding down " the casing; however, the drill auger should not be advanced more than 2 to 3 feet below the bottom of the casing as the hole is drilled . It is also recommended that special 11 0 Sonora Street, Newpon Beach, CA Soil s Repon Project No . SP I30. I Aug ust 3, 20 18 16 PA2019-029 drill augers ( i.e., an auger with an overcut tooth) be used that permit the groundwater to flow relatively unrestricted past the augers as they are being lifted so that suction is not created. This is expected to reduce the potential for piping of the sands beneath the bottom of the casing as the auger is being withdrawn. The addition of a drilling slurry additive is for the purpose of sealing the sidewalls of the excavation and helping in balancing the differential hydrostatic pressure between the slurry and the surrounding saturated soil. Once a hard pile boring is advanced to its recommended depth, a steel soldier pile should be place immediately within the boring and the boring then slurry- backfilled. The concrete and slurry should be placed into the soldier pile excavation from the bottom up using a pump and tremie pipe. The bottom of the tremie pipe should be kept at least 2 to 3 feet below the level of the rising concrete or slurry. The concrete should be thoroughly vibrated to remove any entrapped air. The soil and water mixture dispersed by the concrete and slurry should be pumped into a suitable disposal container. After the concrete and slurry is poured, the casing may be removed. In some difficult cases, the casing top should be notched to allow for “spinning”; which may improve the extraction workability. Shoring: Temporary Secant Wall System The precise limits of the basement footprint and depths were not made available at this time. At any rate, for the limits of the proposed basement for the bayfront property, we recommend the installation of secant walls which will provide the advantage of cutting-off groundwater and greatly reducing or eliminating the need for de-watering. The secant walls would be constructed prior to the basement excavation. Hard piles and soft piles would be interlocked and each drilled to the target depths. The soft piles (non-reinforced) are drilled first. The secant wall hard piles are then drilled and reinforced using soldier beams. Tremie tubes shall be deployed for concrete placed below the water table. The tremie application displaces groundwater without inducing a hydraulic cone of depression. The secant walls and weighted (“suppression”) slab induces no influence to the water table and eliminates potential problems with “draw-down”. The secant wall system, weighted mat slab, soil movement monitoring details and waterproofing shall be provided by the design engineer(s). We recommend the design engineer assume hydrostatic pressure up to 7.0 ft. above MSL (NAVD 88). We recommend cement with a minimum strength f’c of 1,000 psi be used for the temporary concrete elements. We recommend an approximate 2% blend of water resistant additive such as Xypex be used for the concrete pours. The finalized shoring and Secant Wall Plans should be provided by the design 110 Sonora Street, Newport Beach, CA Soils Report Project No. SP130.1 August 3, 2018 17 PA2019-029 engineer and reviewed by EGA Consultants. The geotechnical consultant should be present during the excavation phases of the project to observe the soil conditions and make additional recommendations if necessary. Dewatering Dewatering can be accomplished by installing a series of well-points and/or sumps and pumps within the basement excavation. Dewatering through the use of a number of electric submersible pumps surrounded in gravel filler and filter fabric have been adequate at similar sites in the beachfront vicinity. Pumped groundwater may require special treatment or clarification prior to discharge back into the site strata, ocean or into the storm water system. This should be determined by the design team and by governing regulatory agency. A Dewatering Plan should be provided by the design engineer and reviewed by EGA Consultants. #Groundwater and saturated soils were encountered at 7 to 12 ft. below existing grade. However, the historic high salt water level is at the ground surface which can be expected due to storm surge. We recommend a min. of 8 (eight) monitoring points installed by the Licensed Surveying company. At least four of the monitoring points shall be established near each of the side yard property lines on the drilled shoring piles. The settlement monitoring points shall be monitored for horizontal and vertical movement prior and subsequent to the completion of construction, and on a daily basis during the grading and basement construction. #Basement floor slabs below the water table are planned. We recommend the following be incorporated into the Foundation Plan: Basement Slabs To counter against the effects of buoyancy, for the basement floors we recommend a min. 30 inch thick weighted slab at the bottom of the basement excavation. The weighted (aka “suppression”, “waste”, “ballast, aka “buoyancy”) slab shall be overlain by waterproofing (e.g. “Carlisle Waterproofing Products”) which extends up the wall faces, and then overlain by a min. 4-inch “protection slab” and then overlain by a 18-inch structural mat slab. The protection slab is crucial in preserving the underlying waterproofing from puncture or damage during construction. The mat slab shall be reinforced with a minimum No. 5 bar placed 12 inches on-center in both directions. Steel reinforcement is not required for the protection slab or the waste slab. We recommend a min. 4,000 psi concrete pour. The mat slab shall be designed by the project structural engineer. The presence of the weighted suppression and mat slabs; as well as the other foundation specifications outlined herein will act to decrease the potential 110 Sonora Street, Newport Beach, CA Soils Report Project No. SP130.1 August 3, 2018 18 PA2019-029 settlement due to liquefaction and/or seismically induced lateral deformation to tolerable amounts. Generally, a moderate risk for the potential effects of liquefaction, seismic events, tsunamis and/or lateral spreading is assumed by the client. Some cosmetic damage to structures may be unavoidable during large earthquakes. The proposed structure, should however, be designed to resist structural collapse and thereby provide reasonable protection from serious injury, catastrophic property damage and loss of life. To provide mitigation for the potential effects of liquefaction, seismic events, tsunamis and/or lateral spreading we recommend (1) the structure shall be placed either on a compacted fill mat or competent native materials; (2) all footings shall be a minimum 24 inches below adjacent grade; (3) foundations shall be continuous and tied together with grade beams; (4) foundations shall be reinforced with four #5 bars, two top and two bottom; (5) the 4,000 psi concrete min. 18 inch thick mat foundation slab placed above a minimum 6 inch thick protection slab placed over a 30 inch thick waste slab; (6) footings shall be doweled into slabs with #4 bars at 24 inches on-center; and (7) asphalt rubberized waterproofing of all basement walls and basement floor. Basement Retaining Walls and Shoring Parameters The structural engineer should consider wether some portions of the secant walls should be designed for permanent structures (e.g. landscaped elements, exterior retaining walls/stairways). After the secant walls are constructed, the basement walls will be designed as permanent structures. In the construction sequence, the shoring is provided first, then the construction of the basement retaining walls. The following equivalent fluid pressures may be used in the design of the site basement walls and shoring assuming embedment in competent native soils. These EFP values assume groundwater at the tidal high elevation equal to 7.0 ft. above MSL (NAVD 88) and include hydrostatic loads below the elevation of 7.0 ft above MSL: Active Pressures 70 pcf At-Rest Pressures 80 pcf Passive Pressures 200 pcf Coefficient of Friction 0.30 For the EFP values above 7.0 ft. elevation (NAVD 88) we recommend the following (vadose zone): Active Pressures 40 pcf At-Rest Pressures 55 pcf 110 Sonora Street, Newport Beach, CA Soils Report Project No. SP130.1 August 3, 2018 19 PA2019-029 Retaining wall footings founded in competent native soils may be designed for an allowable bearing value of 2,500 pounds per square foot for dead-plus-live load. Sliding friction and passive resistance may be combined without reduction in calculating the total lateral resistance. Passive pressures may be assumed to become constant at a value of 5 times the above values below a depth of 10 feet. The limits and depths of the basement footprints were not available for our review. However, for bidding purposes, assume shoring secant hard piles shall extend a minimum 35 ft. below current ground level. Soldier Pile Installation Observations All soldier pile drilling and installation should be observed by the project geotechnical consultant to verify that they are cast against the anticipated geotechnical conditions, that pile excavations are properly prepared, that proper dimensions are achieved, and that proper installation procedures are followed. Waterproofing Basement wall and slabs shall be waterproofed in accordance with section 1805 of the 2016 CBC. Permanent waterproofing of the basement slab and basement walls is required. Basement walls and basement floors shall be designed to withstand anticipated hydrostatic pressure with the water level at the current ground surface level. Waterproofing shall consist of rubberized asphalt, polymer-modified asphalt, butyl rubber, or other approved materials capable of bridging non-structural cracks (e.g. “Carlisle Waterproofing Products”). Special materials may be required due to the corrosive effects of seawater. Joint in the membrane shall be lapped and sealed in an approved manner. Protection board shall be used to protect the membrane during and after backfilling. Joints and protrusions in walls and floors, and between the wall and floor, and penetrations of the wall and floor shall be made watertight using suitable methods and materials (e.g. bentonite “Water Stops”). The contractors shall strictly follow the manufacturer’s recommendations for the for surface preparation and use of water-proofing products. A third-party waterproofing expert shall be retained to inspect and verify the waterproofing installation. Seismic Loads In accordance with Section 1803.5.12 of the 2016 CBC, for design purposes, a seismic earth pressure of 22 pcf (equivalent fluid pressure) may be used for the basement wall design. This pressure is additional to the static earth pressures and should be considered as an inverted triangular pressure distribution, with the maximum pressure occurring at the top of the wall (reference: Mononobe- Okabe equation and PEEP Report dated October, 2008). 110 Sonora Street, Newport Beach, CA Soils Report Project No. SP130.1 August 3, 2018 20 PA2019-029 Exterior Slabs-on-grade (Hardscape) Concrete slabs cast against properly compacted fill materials shall be a minimum of 4 inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 3 rebar at 18 inches on center in both directions. The reinforcement shall be supported on chairs to insure positioning of the reinforcement at mid-center in the slab. Control joints should be provided at a maximum spacing of 10 feet on center in two directions for slabs and at 6 feet on center for sidewalks. Control joints are intended to direct cracking. Expansion or felt joints should be used at the interface of exterior slabs on grade and any fixed structures to permit relative movement. Some slab cracking due to shrinkage should be anticipated. The potential for the slab cracking may be reduced by careful control of water/cement ratios. The contractor should take appropriate curing precautions during the pouring of concrete in hot weather to minimize cracking of slabs. Surface Drainage Surface drainage shall be controlled at all times. Positive surface drainage should be provided to direct surface water away from structures and toward the street or suitable drainage facilities. Ponding of water should be avoided adjacent to the structures. Recommended minimum gradient is 2 percent for unpaved areas and one percent for concrete/paved areas. Roof gutter discharge should be directed away from the building areas through solid PVC pipes to suitable discharge points. Area drains should be provided for planter areas and drainage shall be directed away from the top of slopes. PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING It is recommended that no clearing of the site or any grading operation be performed without the presence of a representative of this office. An on site pre-grading meeting should be arranged between the soils engineer and the grading contractor prior to any construction. GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING DURING CONSTRUCTION We recommend that a qualified geotechnical consultant be retained to provide geotechnical engineering services, including geotechnical observation/testing, during the construction phase of the project. This is to verify the compliance with the design, specifications and or recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated. 110 Sonora Street, Newport Beach, CA Soils Report Project No. SP130.1 August 3, 2018 21 PA2019-029 Geotechnical observations/testing should be performed at the following stages: • During ANY grading operations, including excavation, removal, filling, compaction, and backfilling, etc. • After excavations for footings (or thickened edges) and/or grade beams verify the adequacy of underlying materials. • After pre-soaking of new slab sub-grade earth materials and placement of capillary break, plastic membrane, prior to pouring concrete. • After excavations for and/or drilling for soldier piles/caissons, if any to verify the adequacy of underlying materials. • After excavation for retaining wall footings to verify the adequacy of underlying earth materials. • During/after installation of water proofing for retaining walls, if any prior to installation of sub-drain/backfilling. • During/after installation of retaining wall sub-drain, prior to backfilling. • During compaction of retaining wall backfill materials to verify proper compaction. • During backfill of drainage and utility line trenches, to verify proper compaction. • When/if any unusual geotechnical conditions are encountered. • Placement of waterproofing at cold joints and penetrations (e.g. bentonitic “Water Stops”). Please schedule an inspection with the geotechnical consultant prior to the pouring of ALL interior and exterior slabs (includes waste and protection slabs). LIMITATIONS The geotechnical services described herein have been conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the geotechnical engineering profession practicing contemporaneously under similar conditions in the subject locality. Under no circumstance is any warranty, expressed or implied, made in connection with the providing of services described herein. Data, interpretations, and recommendations presented herein are based solely on information available to this office at the time work was performed. EGA Consultants will not be responsible for other parties' interpretations or use of the information developed in this report. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction by a representative of EGA Consultants. We recommend that all foundation excavations and grading operations be observed by a representative of this firm to ensure that construction is performed in accordance with the specifications outlined in this report. We do not direct the contractor’s operations, and we cannot be responsible for the safety of others. The contractor should notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. 110 Sonora Street, Newport Beach, CA Soils Report Project No. SP130.1 August 3, 2018 22 PA2019-029 Associated References re: Liquefaction Analysis a. “Dynamic Cone for Shallow In-Situ Penetration Testing, ASTM (D1586) Special Technical Publication #399,” George F. Sowers and Charles S. Hedges, 1966. b. “Special Publication 117A: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California,” by the California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, dated March 13, 1997; Revised September 11, 2008. c. “Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California,” by G.R. Martin and M. Lew, University of Southern California Earthquake Center dated March, 1999. d. “Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes” by I.M. Idriss and R.W. Boulanger, dated September 8, 2008. e. “Soils and Foundations, 8th Edition,” by Cheng Liu and Jack B. Evett, dated August 4, 2013. f. “Evaluation of Settlement in Sands due to Earthquake Shaking” by Kahaji Tokimatsu and H Bolton Seed, Dated August 3987. g. “Guidelines for Estimation of Shear Wave Velocity Profiles” By Bernard R. Wair, Jason T DeJong, Thomas Shantz Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Dated December, 2012. h. “Subsurface Exploration Using the Standard Penetration Test and the Cone Penetrometer Test,” by J. David Rogers, Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, pp. 161-179, dated May, 2006. I. “Handbook of Geotechnical Investigation and Design Tables” By Burt G. Look, Dated 2007. j. “Use of SPT Blow Counts to Estimate Shear Strength Properties of Soils: Energy Balance Approach,” by Hiroshan Hettiarachi and Timothy Brown, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, pp. 830-834, dated June, 2009. REFERENCES 1. “USGS Topographic Map, 7.5 minute Newport Beach Quadrangles, California-Orange Co.,” U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, dated 2015. 2. “Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' X 60' Quadrangles, California,” Version 1.0, compiled by Douglas M. Morton and Fred K. Miller, dated 2006. 3. “Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California,” by Roger W. Reensfelder, dated 1974. 4. Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada," prepared by California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, published by International Conference of Building Officials, dated February, 1998. 5. “Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction,” by American Concrete Institute, ACI 302.1R- 04, dated 2004. 6. “California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2,” by California Building Standards Commission, 2016. 7. “Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Newport Beach 7.5-Minute Quadrangles, Orange County, California,” by the California Department of Conservation, 1997. 8. “2015 International Building Code,” by the International Code Council, dated June 5, 2014. 9. “Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet,” Compilation by Thomas H. Rogers, 1965, fifth printing 1985. 10. “Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Residential Development Located at 7210 West Oceanfront, Newport Beach, California,” [City of Newport Beach Plan Check No.: 2932-2016] by EGA Consultants dated April 29, 2016. PA2019-029 Sources: Morton, D.M., and Miller, F.K. Preliminary Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' x 60' quadrangles,California. U.S.Geological Survey. Published 2006. 1:100,000 scale. GEOLOGIC MAP 110 SONORA STREET NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Project No: ____________ Date: ____________ Figure No: ____________ AUGUST 2018 3 SP130.1EGA Consultants engineering geotechnical applications Qvop Eolian deposits (late Holocene)—Active or recently active sand dune deposits; unconsolidated. Estuarine deposits (late Holocene)—Sand, silt, and clay; unconsolidated, contains variable amounts of organic matter. Young alluvial fan deposits (Holocene and late Pleistocene)—Gravel, sand, and silt, mixtures, some contain boulders; unconsolidated. Old paralic deposits, undivided (late to middle Pleistocene)—Silt, sand and cobbles. Interfingered strandline, beach, estuarine, and colluvial deposits. Very old paralic deposits (middle to early Pleistocene)—Silt, sand and cobbles on emergent wave-cut abrasion platforms. Monterey Formation (Miocene)—Marine siltstone and sandstone; siliceous and diatomaceous. Marine deposits (late Holocene)—Active or recently active beach deposits; sand, unconsolidated. Qop Qm Qes Qyf PA2019-029 PLOT PLAN 110 SONORA STREET NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Project No: ___________ Date: ___________ Figure No: ___________ AUGUST 2018 2 SP130.1EGA Consultants engineering geotechnical applications LEGEND GEOTECHNICAL BORINGS By EGA Consultants, Inc. CONE PENETRATION TEST Advanced by Kehoe Testing and Engineering on June 18, 2018 ADJACENT RESIDENCEEXISTING RESIDENCE B-1 SEASHORE DRIVE Source: “Topographic Survey,” by RdMSurveying, Inc., dated July 10, 2018.EXISTING RESIDENCE P.L.SONORA STREETALLEY B-2 48’ADJACENT RESIDENCEADJACENT RESIDENCE74’76’CPT-1 PA2019-029 SITE LOCATION MAP 110 SONORA STREET NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Project No: ___________ Date: ___________ Figure No: ___________ AUGUST 2018 1 SP130.1EGA Consultants engineering geotechnical applications OBTAINED FROM “THE THOMAS GUIDE” THOMAS BROS. MAPS, ORANGE COUNTY RAND MCNALLY & COMPANY, DATED 2008 PA2019-029 TIDE CHART 110 SONORA STREET NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Project No: ___________ Date: ___________ Figure No: ___________ AUGUST 2018 4 SP130.1EGA Consultants engineering geotechnical applications Balboa Pier, Newport Beach, California Tide Chart Requested time: 2018-06-25 Mon 12:00 AM PDT Balboa Pier, Newport Beach, California 33.6000°N, 117.9000°W 2018-06-25 Mon 2:55 AM PDT -0.2 feet Low Tide 2018-06-25 Mon 5:42 AM PDT Sunrise 2018-06-25 Mon 9:03 AM PDT 3.6 feet High Tide 2018-06-25 Mon 1:59 PM PDT 1.9 feet Low Tide 2018-06-25 Mon 8:05 PM PDT Sunset 2018-06-25 Mon 8:10 PM PDT 5.8 feet High Tide 2018-06-26 Tue 3:30 AM PDT -0.4 feet Low Tide 2018-06-26 Tue 5:43 AM PDT Sunrise 2018-06-26 Tue 9:45 AM PDT 3.6 feet High Tide 2018-06-26 Tue 2:33 PM PDT 2.0 feet Low Tide 2018-06-26 Tue 8:05 PM PDT Sunset 2018-06-26 Tue 8:41 PM PDT 5.8 feet High Tide 2018-06-27 Wed 4:04 AM PDT -0.5 feet Low Tide 2018-06-27 Wed 5:43 AM PDT Sunrise 2018-06-27 Wed 10:23 AM PDT 3.6 feet High Tide 2018-06-27 Wed 3:06 PM PDT 2.1 feet Low Tide 2018-06-27 Wed 8:05 PM PDT Sunset 2018-06-27 Wed 9:11 PM PDT 5.8 feet High Tide 2018-06-27 Wed 9:54 PM PDT Full Moon 2018-06-28 Thu 4:37 AM PDT -0.5 feet Low Tide 2018-06-28 Thu 5:43 AM PDT Sunrise 2018-06-28 Thu 11:00 AM PDT 3.6 feet High Tide 2018-06-28 Thu 3:38 PM PDT 2.2 feet Low Tide 2018-06-28 Thu 8:05 PM PDT Sunset 2018-06-28 Thu 9:42 PM PDT 5.7 feet High Tide 2018-06-29 Fri 5:10 AM PDT -0.4 feet Low Tide PA2019-029 APPENDIX A GEOLOGIC LOGS and CPT Data Report by Kehoe Drilling & Testing (B-1, B-2 and CPT-1) PA2019-029 LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Sheet 1 of 1 Job Number:SP130.1 Boring No:B-1 Project:106-110 Sonora Street, Newport Beach, CA Boring Location: See Figure 2 Shaoulain Properites Date Started:6/25/2018 Rig:Mob. 4" augers Date Completed:6/25/2018 Grnd Elev.+/- 12 ft. NAVD88 Depth in FeetSoil Type Undisturbed BulkMoisture Content, %Dry Density, pcfExpansion IndexMaximum Density, pcff °C psfOTHER TESTSFILL: Medium brown, silty fine to medium sand with 1 SM gravel and shell fragments, damp to moist, loose Opt. % to medium dense.2.1 109.9 111.0 11.5% SM At 2.5 ft.: Becomes med. brown and gray fine to Sulf med. grained silty sand, moist, med dense to dense.2.1 19 ppm 5 At 5 ft.: Medium to olive brown, fine silty SM sand with trace shell fragments, moist, med dense.2.1 %<200 At 7 ft.: Becomes moist, dense.0.9 At 8 ft.: Same, moist to wet, dense.25.5 SM At 9 ft.: Saturated, groundwater, more dense. 10 At 10 ft.: Saturated, dense. Total Depth: 11 ft. Groundwater at 9 ft. No caving 15 Backfilled and Compacted 6/25/2018 20 25 30 35 40 Figure EGA Consultants A-1 SOIL DESCRIPTION Direct Shear Sample Type PA2019-029 LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Sheet 1 of 1 Job Number:SP130.1 Boring No:B-2 Project:106-110 Sonora Street, Newport Beach, CA Boring Location: See Figure 2 Shaoulain Properites Date Started:6/25/2018 Rig:Mob. 4" augers Date Completed:6/25/2018 Grnd Elev.+/- 12 ft. NAVD88 Depth in FeetSoil Type Undisturbed BulkMoisture Content, %Dry Density, pcfExpansion IndexMaximum Density, pcff °C psfOTHER TESTSFILL: Medium brown, silty fine to medium sand with 1 SM gravel and shell fragments, damp to moist, loose Opt. % to medium dense.2.6 105.3 111.0 11.5% SM At 2.5 ft.: Becomes med brown and gray fine to Sulf med. grained silty sand, moist, med dense to dense.1.9 19 ppm 5 At 5 ft.: Medium to olive brown, fine silty SM sand with trace shell fragments, moist, med dense.2.1 %<200 At 7.5 ft.: Becomes moist to wet, dense.0.9 25.6 SM At 9 ft.: Saturated, groundwater, more dense. 10 At 10 ft.: Saturated, dense. Total Depth: 10.5 ft. Groundwater at 9 ft. No caving 15 Backfilled and Compacted 6/25/2018 20 25 30 35 40 Figure EGA Consultants A-2 SOIL DESCRIPTION Direct Shear Sample Type PA2019-029 RELATIVE DENSITY Cohesionless Sands and Silts Blows/ft*Blows/ft** Very loose 0-4 0-30 Loose 4-10 30-60 Medium dense 10-30 80-200 Dense 30-50 200-400 Very dense Over 50 Over 400 CONSISTENCY Cohesive Soils Blows/ft*Blows/ft** Very soft 0-4 0-4 Soft 2-4 4-11 Firm 4-8 11-50 Stiff 8-16 50-110 Very stiff 16-32 110-220 Hard Over 32 Over 220 * Blows/foot for a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches to drive a 2-inch O.D., 1-3/8 inch I.D. Split Spoon sampler (Standard Penetration Test). ** Blows/foot for a 36-pound hammer falling 24 inches to drive a 3.25 O.D., 2.41 I.D. Sampler (Hand Sampling). Blow count convergence to standard penetration test was done in accordance with Fig. 1.24 of Foundation Engineering Handbook by H.Y. Fang, Von Nostrand Reinhold, 1991. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ASTM D-2457 PA2019-029 Project:EGA Consultants, LLC Kehoe Testing and Engineering 714-901-7270 rich@kehoetesting.com www.kehoetesting.com Total depth: 50.73 ft, Date: 6/18/2018 106-110 Sonora St Newport Beach, CA Cone Type: Vertek CPT-1 Location: CPeT-IT v.2.0.1.55 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 6/19/2018, 12:09:50 PM 0 Project file: C:\EGANewport6-18\Sonora\Plot Data\Plots.cpt PA2019-029 Depth (ft)qc (tsf)fs (tsf)SBTn Ksbt (ft/s)SPT N60 (blows/ft) Constrained Mod. (tsf)Dr (%)Friction angle (°)Es (tsf) 1 148.6 1.04 6 2.00E-03 26 758.35 100 46 605.07 2 58.58 0.73 6 1.04E-04 13 509.8 72 42 406.75 3 30.81 0.52 5 1.32E-05 8 387.72 52 39 309.35 4 132.41 0.84 6 8.33E-04 25 790.66 82 44 630.84 5 127.61 0.84 6 6.03E-04 24 807.36 78 43 644.17 6 131.16 0.73 6 7.19E-04 25 803.66 76 43 641.22 7 112.99 0.73 6 3.52E-04 23 787.17 69 42 628.06 8 83.65 0.42 6 2.40E-04 17 623.14 58 40 497.19 9 96.28 0.52 6 2.56E-04 20 709.11 61 41 565.78 10 95.76 0.52 6 2.22E-04 20 723.16 59 41 576.99 11 92.21 0.42 6 2.41E-04 19 685.23 56 40 546.72 12 133.25 0.63 6 5.01E-04 26 869.41 66 42 693.68 13 153.72 0.94 6 4.03E-04 31 1043.29 70 42 832.42 14 150.06 0.94 6 3.34E-04 30 1053 68 42 840.16 15 125.73 0.84 6 1.82E-04 27 983.85 61 41 784.99 16 150.06 1.04 6 2.33E-04 31 1123.67 65 42 896.54 17 195.28 1.36 6 3.97E-04 39 1329.03 73 43 1060.4 18 210.63 1.78 6 2.94E-04 43 1513.55 75 43 1207.62 19 287.8 1.57 6 1.39E-03 51 1562.92 86 44 1247.01 20 276.73 1.36 6 1.48E-03 49 1485.41 84 44 1185.17 21 399.23 1.67 7 4.60E-03 63 1747.92 100 46 1394.61 22 356.31 1.15 7 5.59E-03 56 1504.94 94 45 1200.75 23 349.73 1.15 7 4.91E-03 55 1511.83 92 45 1206.24 24 296.68 0.94 7 3.25E-03 49 1380.53 84 44 1101.49 25 278.82 1.15 6 1.62E-03 49 1471.15 80 43 1173.79 26 271.2 1.15 6 1.36E-03 48 1476.85 78 43 1178.34 27 242.69 0.73 6 1.75E-03 42 1261.25 73 43 1006.32 28 288.22 0.63 7 4.54E-03 46 1261.5 80 43 1006.52 PA2019-029 29 270.36 0.73 6 2.57E-03 45 1311.15 76 43 1046.13 30 112.05 0.52 6 7.74E-05 26 1014.14 46 38 809.15 31 267.54 0.73 6 2.22E-03 45 1330.79 74 43 1061.8 32 272.87 0.52 7 3.80E-03 44 1231.59 75 43 982.65 33 164.26 0.31 6 7.26E-04 31 995.45 56 40 794.24 34 170.74 0.42 6 5.72E-04 33 1080.48 56 40 862.08 35 153.93 0.52 6 2.45E-04 32 1134.04 52 39 904.82 36 242.06 0.94 6 7.17E-04 46 1475.07 66 42 1176.91 37 307.22 0.94 6 2.10E-03 53 1544.13 76 43 1232.02 38 197.05 0.94 6 2.44E-04 41 1455.58 58 40 1161.37 39 314.74 1.25 6 1.26E-03 56 1735.05 75 43 1384.35 40 309.73 1.88 6 4.80E-04 61 2031.58 72 42 1620.94 41 289.89 0.94 6 1.32E-03 52 1582.01 71 42 1262.24 42 302.42 1.15 6 1.07E-03 55 1715.26 71 42 1368.56 43 312.55 2.09 6 3.47E-04 63 2172.82 70 42 1733.63 44 326.96 2.82 6 2.08E-04 69 2494.08 70 42 1989.96 45 328.21 2.19 6 3.61E-04 66 2266.47 71 42 1808.35 46 306.18 1.88 6 3.44E-04 62 2131.12 67 42 1700.37 47 319.23 1.67 6 5.19E-04 62 2062.64 69 42 1645.72 48 294.8 1.67 6 3.34E-04 60 2061.06 65 41 1644.47 49 272.03 1.46 6 2.82E-04 56 1959.22 62 41 1563.21 50 149.12 0 0 0.00E+00 100 2046.38 0 0 0 PA2019-029 Go (tsf)Nkt Su (tsf)Su ratio Kocr OCR Vs (ft/s)State parameter Ko Sensitivity Peak phi (°) 758.35 0 0 0 0.33 0 630.53 -0.3 0 0 20 509.8 0 0 0 0.33 0 527.56 -0.2 0 0 20 387.72 0 0 0 0.33 0 468.15 -0.14 0 0 20 790.66 0 0 0 0.33 0 648.89 -0.22 0 0 20 807.36 0 0 0 0.33 0 655.96 -0.21 0 0 20 803.66 0 0 0 0.33 0 656.93 -0.2 0 0 20 787.17 0 0 0 0.33 0 651.15 -0.17 0 0 20 623.14 0 0 0 0.33 0 591.42 -0.13 0 0 20 709.11 0 0 0 0.33 0 625.53 -0.14 0 0 20 723.16 0 0 0 0.33 0 631.73 -0.13 0 0 20 685.23 0 0 0 0.33 0 619.53 -0.12 0 0 20 869.41 0 0 0 0.33 0 686.4 -0.16 0 0 20 1043.29 0 0 0 0.33 0 741.64 -0.18 0 0 20 1053 0 0 0 0.33 0 745.26 -0.17 0 0 20 983.85 0 0 0 0.33 0 724.22 -0.14 0 0 20 1123.67 0 0 0 0.33 0 767.44 -0.16 0 0 20 1329.03 0 0 0 0.33 0 826.06 -0.19 0 0 20 1513.55 0 0 0 0.33 0 874.08 -0.2 0 0 20 1562.92 0 0 0 0.33 0 888.76 -0.24 0 0 20 1485.41 0 0 0 0.33 0 870.36 -0.23 0 0 20 1747.92 0 0 0 0.33 0 935.24 -0.28 0 0 20 1504.94 0 0 0 0.33 0 878.17 -0.26 0 0 20 1511.83 0 0 0 0.33 0 880.33 -0.26 0 0 20 1380.53 0 0 0 0.33 0 847.57 -0.23 0 0 20 1471.15 0 0 0 0.33 0 870.33 -0.21 0 0 20 1476.85 0 0 0 0.33 0 872.25 -0.21 0 0 20 1261.25 0 0 0 0.33 0 817.87 -0.19 0 0 20 1261.5 0 0 0 0.33 0 820.34 -0.21 0 0 20 PA2019-029 1311.15 0 0 0 0.33 0 832.98 -0.2 0 0 20 1014.14 0 0 0 0.33 0 746.88 -0.07 0 0 20 1330.79 0 0 0 0.33 0 839.29 -0.19 0 0 20 1231.59 0 0 0 0.33 0 815.53 -0.2 0 0 20 995.45 0 0 0 0.33 0 748.99 -0.11 0 0 20 1080.48 0 0 0 0.33 0 772.92 -0.12 0 0 20 1134.04 0 0 0 0.33 0 787.2 -0.1 0 0 20 1475.07 0 0 0 0.33 0 877.87 -0.16 0 0 20 1544.13 0 0 0 0.33 0 896.08 -0.2 0 0 20 1455.58 0 0 0 0.33 0 873.84 -0.12 0 0 20 1735.05 0 0 0 0.33 0 941.67 -0.2 0 0 20 2031.58 0 0 0 0.33 0 1007.32 -0.19 0 0 20 1582.01 0 0 0 0.33 0 907.52 -0.18 0 0 20 1715.26 0 0 0 0.33 0 939.02 -0.18 0 0 20 2172.82 0 0 0 0.33 0 1038.56 -0.18 0 0 20 2494.08 0 0 0 0.33 0 1102.93 -0.18 0 0 20 2266.47 0 0 0 0.33 0 1058.76 -0.18 0 0 20 2131.12 0 0 0 0.33 0 1031.82 -0.17 0 0 20 2062.64 0 0 0 0.33 0 1018.11 -0.17 0 0 20 2061.06 0 0 0 0.33 0 1018.49 -0.16 0 0 20 1959.22 0 0 0 0.33 0 997.6 -0.14 0 0 20 22491.38 0 0 0 0.33 0 4070.94 0 0 0 20 PA2019-029 APPENDIX B LABORATORY RESULTS PA2019-029 EGA Consultants July 9, 2018 375-C Monte Vista Avenue Project No. 114-507-10 Costa Mesa, California 92627 Attention: Mr. David Worthington, C.E.G. Subject: Laboratory Test Results 106-110 Sonora Street Newport Beach, California Dear Mr. Worthington: G3SoilWorks, Inc. performed the requested laboratory tests on soil specimens delivered to our office for the subject project. The results of these tests are included as an attachment to this report. We appreciate the opportunity of providing our services to you on this project. Should you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, G3SoilWorks, Inc. By: _________________________ Daniel J. Morikawa, PE, GE RGE 2726, Reg. Expires 9/30/18 Attachment: Laboratory Test Results SoilWorksG GEOLOGY GEOTECH GROUNDWATER 3 350 Fischer Ave. Front Costa Mesa, CA 92626 P: 714 668 5600 www.G3SoilWorks.com PA2019-029 EGA Consultants July 9, 2018 Laboratory Test Results Project No. 114-507-10 106-110 Sonora Street Page 2 of 4 Newport Beach, California LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Summarized below are the results of requested laboratory testing on samples submitted to our office. Dry Density and Moisture Content Tabulated below are the requested results of field dry density and moisture contents of undisturbed soils samples retained in 2.42 – inch inside diameter by one-inch height rings. Moisture only results were obtained from small bulk samples. Notes: (*) Denotes small bulk sample for moisture content testing only. Soil Classification Requested soil samples were classified using ASTM D2487 as a guideline and are based on visual and textural methods only. These classifications are shown below: Sample Identification Soil Description Group Symbol B-1 @ 0-3’Silty fine to medium sand with gravel and shell fragments – gray brown SM B-2 @ 0-3’Silty fine to coarse sand with gravel and shell fragments – gray brown SM Sample Identification Dry Density, pcf Moisture Content, % B-1 @ 2.5’109.9 2.1 B-1 @ 4.0’* 2.1 B-1 @ 6.0’* 2.1 B-1 @ 8.0’* 25.5 B-2 @ 2.5’105.3 2.6 B-2 @ 4.0’* 1.9 B-2 @ 6.0’* 2.1 B-2 @ 8.0’* 25.6 350 Fischer Ave. Front Costa Mesa, CA 92626 P: 714 668 5600 www.G3SoilWorks.com PA2019-029 EGA Consultants July 9, 2018 Laboratory Test Results Project No. 114-507-10 106-110 Sonora Street Page 3 of 4 Newport Beach, California Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content test was performed in accordance with ASTM: D 1557. The results are shown below: Sample Identification Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Optimum Moisture Content (%) B-1 @ 0-3’111.0 11.5 Sulfate Content A selected bulk sample was tested for soluble sulfate content in accordance with Hach procedure. The test result is shown below: Sample Identification Water Soluble Sulfate in Soil (Percentage by weight (%)) Sulfate Exposure Class (ACI 318-14, Table 19.3.1.1) B-2 @ 0-3’0.0019 S0 Wet Density Requested composite samples from B-1 and B-2 were remolded to the field dry densities obtained from B-1 @ 2.5 feet and B-2 @ 2.5 feet, respectively, and then soaked to determine their corresponding wet densities. The results are tabulated below: Composite of Samples Wet Density, pcf B-1 @ 4’, 6’, and 8’131.6 B-2 @ 4’, 6’, and 8’129.0 350 Fischer Ave. Front Costa Mesa, CA 92626 P: 714 668 5600 www.G3SoilWorks.com PA2019-029 EGA Consultants July 9, 2018 Laboratory Test Results Project No. 114-507-10 106-110 Sonora Street Page 4 of 4 Newport Beach, California Sieve Analysis Test Particle size analysis was performed in accordance with ASTM D442. The test results are presented below: Sample ID B-1 @ 4.0’, 6.0’ and 8.0’ Sieve Size Percent Passing 1/2" 100.0 3/8” 99.2 No. 4 94.2 No. 8 86.5 No. 16 68.0 No. 30 46.5 No. 50 27.2 No. 100 3.7 No. 200 0.9 350 Fischer Ave. Front Costa Mesa, CA 92626 P: 714 668 5600 www.G3SoilWorks.com PA2019-029 APPENDIX C GENERAL EARTHWORKS AND GRADING GUIDELINES PA2019-029 GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES I. GENERAL These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for grading and earthwork including preparation of areas to be filled, placement of fill, installation of subdrains, and excavations. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications and should supersede the provisions contained herein in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the recommendations of the geotechnical report. II. EARTHWORK OBSERVATION AND TESTING Prior to commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these specifications. The consultant is to provide adequate testing and observation so that he may determine that the work was accomplished as specified. It should be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes so that the consultant may schedule his personnel accordingly. The contractor is to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency ordinances, and these specifications. If in the opinion of the consultant, unsatisfactory conditions are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the consultant may reject the work and recommend that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. Maximum dry density tests used to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials Test Method ASTM: D 1557. 110 Sonora Street, Newport Beach, CA Soils Report Project No. SP130.1 August 3, 2018 PA2019-029 III. PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED 1. Clearing and Grubbing: All brush, vegetation, and debris should be removed and otherwise disposed of. 2. Processing: The existing ground which is evaluated to be satisfactory for support of fill should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground which is not satisfactory should be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free of uneven features which would inhibit uniform compaction. 3. Overexcavation: Soft, dry, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition, should be over excavated down to firm ground, approved by the consultant. 4. Moisture Conditioning: Over excavated and processed soils should be watered, dried-back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum. 5. Recompaction: Over excavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed and moisture-conditioned should be recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. 6. Benching: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), the ground should be benched. The lowest bench should be a minimum of 15 feet wide, and at least 2 feet deep, expose firm material, and be approved by the consultant. Other benches should be excavated in firm material for a minimum width of 4 feet. Ground sloping flatter than 5:1 should be benched or otherwise over excavated when considered necessary by the consultant. 110 Sonora Street, Newport Beach, CA Soils Report Project No. SP130.1 August 3, 2018 2 PA2019-029 7. Approval: All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and toe-of-fill benches should be approved by the consultant prior to fill placement. IV. FILL MATERIAL 1. General: Material to be placed as fill should be free of organic matter and other deleterious substances, and should be approved by the consultant. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics should be placed in areas designated by the consultant or mixed with other soils until suitable to serve as satisfactory fill material. 2. Oversize: Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches, should not be buried or placed in fill, unless the location, materials, and disposal methods are specifically approved by the consultant. Oversize disposal operations should be such that nesting of oversize material does not occur, and such that the oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade or within the range of future utilities or underground construction, unless specifically approved by the consultant. 3. Import: If importing of fill material is necessary for grading, the import material should be approved by the geotechnical consultant. V. FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION 1. Fill Lifts: Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 6 inches in compacted thickness. The consultant may approve thicker lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer shall be spread evenly and should be thoroughly mixed during spreading to attain uniformity of material and moisture in each layer. 2. Fill Moisture: Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum should be 110 Sonora Street, Newport Beach, CA Soils Report Project No. SP130.1 August 3, 2018 3 PA2019-029 watered and mixed, and wet fill layers should be aerated by scarification or blended with drier material. Moisture-conditioning and mixing of fill layers should continue until the fill material is at a uniform moisture content at or near optimum. 3. Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture- conditioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density. Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability, to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction. 4. Fill Slopes: Compacting of slopes should be accomplished, in addition to normal compacting procedures, by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at frequent increments of 2 to 3 feet in fill elevation gain, or by other methods producing satisfactory results. At the completion of grading, the relative compaction of the slope out to the slope face shall be at least 90 percent. 5. Compaction Testing: Field tests to check the fill moisture and degree of compaction will be performed by the consultant. The location and frequency of tests should be at the consultant's discretion. In general, the tests should be taken at an interval not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of embankment. VI. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdrain systems, if required, should be installed in approved ground and should not be changed or modified without the approval of the consultant. The consultant, however, may recommend and upon approval, direct changes in subdrain line, grade, or material. VII. EXCAVATION Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading. If directed by the consultant, further excavation or overexcavation and refilling of cut areas should be 110 Sonora Street, Newport Beach, CA Soils Report Project No. SP130.1 August 3, 2018 4 PA2019-029 performed, and/or remedial grading of cut slopes performed. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope should be made and approved by the consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope. 110 Sonora Street, Newport Beach, CA Soils Report Project No. SP130.1 August 3, 2018 5 PA2019-029 APPENDIX D USGS DESIGN MAPS DETAILED REPORT PA2019-029 PA2019-029 PA2019-029 PA2019-029 PA2019-029 PA2019-029 PA2019-029 PA2019-029 APPENDIX E LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS PA2019-029 106-110 Sonora Street, Newport Beach, CA SP130.1 August, 2018 Input Parameters: Peak Ground Acceleration:0.681 Earthquake Magnitude:7.2 Water Table Depth (m):1.2192 Average γ above water table (kN/m^3):16 Average γ below water table (kN/m^3):18 Borehole diameter (mm):34.925 Requires correction for Sample Liners (YES/NO):NO Sample Number Depth (m) Measured (N) Soil Type (USCS) Flag "Clay" "Unsaturated" "Unreliable" Fines Content (%) Energy Ratio (ER)% CE CB CR CS N60 σVC σVC'CN 1 0.30 26 SM 16 65 1.08 1 0.75 1 21.13 4.88 4.88 1.70 2 0.61 13 SM/ML 50 65 1.08 1 0.75 1 10.56 9.75 9.75 1.70 3 0.91 8 ML/SM 50 65 1.08 1 0.75 1 6.50 14.63 14.63 1.70 4 1.22 25 SM 16 65 1.08 1 0.75 1 20.31 19.51 19.51 1.70 5 1.52 24 SM 16 65 1.08 1 0.8 1 20.80 24.99 22.00 1.70 6 1.83 25 SM 16 65 1.08 1 0.8 1 21.67 30.48 24.50 1.70 7 2.13 23 SM 16 65 1.08 1 0.8 1 19.93 35.97 27.00 1.70 8 2.44 17 SM 16 65 1.08 1 0.8 1 14.73 41.45 29.49 1.70 9 2.74 20 SM 16 65 1.08 1 0.85 1 18.42 46.94 31.99 1.70 10 3.05 20 SM 16 65 1.08 1 0.85 1 18.42 52.43 34.49 1.70 11 3.35 19 SM 16 65 1.08 1 0.85 1 17.50 57.91 36.98 1.66 12 3.66 26 SM 16 65 1.08 1 0.85 1 23.94 63.40 39.48 1.60 13 3.96 31 SM 16 65 1.08 1 0.85 1 28.55 68.88 41.97 1.55 14 4.27 30 SM 16 65 1.08 1 0.85 1 27.63 74.37 44.47 1.51 15 4.57 27 SM 16 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 27.79 79.86 46.97 1.47 16 4.88 31 SM 16 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 31.90 85.34 49.46 1.43 17 5.18 39 SM 16 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 40.14 90.83 51.96 1.40 18 5.49 43 SW 16 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 44.25 96.32 54.46 1.36 19 5.79 51 SW 16 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 52.49 101.80 56.95 1.33 20 6.10 49 SM 16 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 50.43 107.29 59.45 1.31 21 6.40 63 SM 16 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 64.84 112.78 61.94 1.28 22 6.71 56 SW 16 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 57.63 118.26 64.44 1.25 23 7.01 55 SW 16 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 56.60 123.75 66.94 1.23 24 7.32 49 SW 16 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 50.43 129.24 69.43 1.21 25 7.62 49 SM 16 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 50.43 134.72 71.93 1.19 PLATE A CPT-1 advanced to 50.73 ft. on 6/18/18 Page 1 PA2019-029 106-110 Sonora Street, Newport Beach, CA SP130.1 August, 2018 26 7.92 48 SM 16 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 49.40 140.21 74.43 1.17 27 8.23 42 SW 16 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 43.23 145.69 76.92 1.15 28 8.53 46 SW 16 65 1.08 1 1 1 49.83 151.18 79.42 1.13 29 8.84 45 SW 16 65 1.08 1 1 1 48.75 156.67 81.91 1.11 30 9.14 26 SM 16 65 1.08 1 1 1 28.17 162.15 84.41 1.10 31 9.45 45 SW 16 65 1.08 1 1 1 48.75 167.64 86.91 1.08 32 9.75 44 SM 16 65 1.08 1 1 1 47.67 173.13 89.40 1.06 33 10.06 31 SM 16 65 1.08 1 1 1 33.58 178.61 91.90 1.05 34 10.36 33 SM 16 65 1.08 1 1 1 35.75 184.10 94.40 1.04 35 10.67 32 SM 16 65 1.08 1 1 1 34.67 189.59 96.89 1.02 36 10.97 46 SM 16 65 1.08 1 1 1 49.83 195.07 99.39 1.01 37 11.28 53 SW 16 65 1.08 1 1 1 57.42 200.56 101.89 1.00 38 11.58 41 SM 16 65 1.08 1 1 1 44.42 206.04 104.38 0.99 39 11.89 56 SW 16 65 1.08 1 1 1 60.67 211.53 106.88 0.97 40 12.19 61 SM 16 65 1.08 1 1 1 66.08 217.02 109.37 0.96 41 12.50 52 SW 16 65 1.08 1 1 1 56.33 222.50 111.87 0.95 42 12.80 55 SW 16 65 1.08 1 1 1 59.58 227.99 114.37 0.94 43 13.11 63 SM 16 65 1.08 1 1 1 68.25 233.48 116.86 0.93 44 13.41 69 SM 16 65 1.08 1 1 1 74.75 238.96 119.36 0.92 45 13.72 66 SM 16 65 1.08 1 1 1 71.50 244.45 121.86 0.91 46 14.02 62 SM 16 65 1.08 1 1 1 67.17 249.94 124.35 0.90 47 14.33 62 SM 16 65 1.08 1 1 1 67.17 255.42 126.85 0.89 48 14.63 60 SM 16 65 1.08 1 1 1 65.00 260.91 129.34 0.89 49 14.94 56 SM 16 65 1.08 1 1 1 60.67 266.40 131.84 0.88 50 15.24 100 SM 16 65 1.08 1 1 1 108.33 271.88 134.34 0.87 Auger Diameter:1.375 inches Hammer Weight:n.a. Drop:continuous push CPT-1 advanced to 50.73 ft by Kehoe Testing and Engineering on June 18, 2018 (CPT Data Logs attached herein) References: Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W. Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. 8 September 2008. Liu, C. and Evett, J.B. Soils and Foundations, 8th Edition . 4 August 2013. Martin, G.R. and Lew, M. Recommendations for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 . University of Southern California Earthquake Center. March 1999. California Department of Conservation, CGS. Special Publication 117A: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California . Rev 11 Sept. 2008. PLATE A CPT-1 advanced to 50.73 ft. on 6/18/18 Page 2 PA2019-029 106-110 Sonora Street, Newport Beach, CA SP130.1 August, 2018 (N1)60 ΔN for Fines Content (N1)60-CS Stress reduction coeff, rd CSR MSF for sand Kσ for sand CRR for M=7.5 & σVC'= 1 atm CRR Factor of Safety Limiting shear strain γlim 35.91 3.58 39.49 1.00 0.44 1.08 1.10 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.01 17.96 5.61 23.57 1.00 0.44 1.08 1.10 0.26 0.31 0.70 0.11 11.05 5.61 16.66 1.00 0.44 1.08 1.10 0.17 0.20 0.46 0.23 34.53 3.58 38.11 1.00 0.44 1.08 1.10 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.01 35.36 3.58 38.94 0.99 0.50 1.08 1.10 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.01 36.83 3.58 40.41 0.99 0.55 1.08 1.10 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.01 33.89 3.58 37.46 0.99 0.58 1.08 1.10 1.97 2.00 2.00 0.01 25.05 3.58 28.62 0.98 0.61 1.08 1.10 0.41 0.49 0.80 0.06 31.31 3.58 34.88 0.98 0.64 1.08 1.10 1.08 1.29 2.00 0.02 31.31 3.58 34.88 0.98 0.66 1.08 1.10 1.08 1.29 1.96 0.02 28.96 3.58 32.54 0.97 0.67 1.08 1.10 0.70 0.84 1.24 0.03 38.36 3.58 41.93 0.97 0.69 1.08 1.10 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.01 44.35 3.58 47.93 0.97 0.70 1.08 1.10 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 41.70 3.58 45.27 0.96 0.71 1.08 1.10 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 40.81 3.58 44.39 0.96 0.72 1.08 1.10 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 45.66 3.58 49.24 0.95 0.73 1.08 1.10 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 56.05 3.58 59.63 0.95 0.73 1.08 1.10 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 60.37 3.58 63.94 0.95 0.74 1.08 1.10 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 70.01 3.58 73.59 0.94 0.74 1.08 1.10 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 65.84 3.58 69.41 0.94 0.75 1.08 1.10 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 82.92 3.58 86.50 0.93 0.75 1.08 1.10 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 72.27 3.58 75.84 0.93 0.75 1.08 1.10 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 69.64 3.58 73.22 0.92 0.76 1.08 1.10 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 60.92 3.58 64.50 0.92 0.76 1.08 1.10 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 59.85 3.58 63.43 0.91 0.76 1.08 1.10 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 PLATE A CPT-1 advanced to 50.73 ft. on 6/18/18 Page 3 PA2019-029 106-110 Sonora Street, Newport Beach, CA SP130.1 August, 2018 57.64 3.58 61.22 0.91 0.76 1.08 1.09 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 49.61 3.58 53.19 0.90 0.76 1.08 1.08 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 56.29 3.58 59.86 0.90 0.76 1.08 1.07 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 54.22 3.58 57.79 0.89 0.76 1.08 1.06 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 30.86 3.58 34.44 0.89 0.76 1.08 1.05 0.99 1.12 1.48 0.02 52.64 3.58 56.21 0.88 0.76 1.08 1.04 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 50.75 3.58 54.32 0.88 0.75 1.08 1.04 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 35.26 3.58 38.84 0.87 0.75 1.08 1.03 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.01 37.04 3.58 40.61 0.87 0.75 1.08 1.02 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.01 35.45 3.58 39.03 0.86 0.75 1.08 1.01 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.01 50.32 3.58 53.89 0.86 0.75 1.08 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 57.26 3.58 60.83 0.85 0.74 1.08 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 43.76 3.58 47.34 0.85 0.74 1.08 0.99 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 59.07 3.58 62.65 0.84 0.74 1.08 0.98 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 63.61 3.58 67.18 0.84 0.74 1.08 0.98 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 53.61 3.58 57.19 0.83 0.73 1.08 0.97 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 56.08 3.58 59.66 0.83 0.73 1.08 0.96 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 63.55 3.58 67.13 0.82 0.73 1.08 0.96 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 68.87 3.58 72.45 0.82 0.73 1.08 0.95 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 65.20 3.58 68.77 0.81 0.72 1.08 0.94 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 60.63 3.58 64.21 0.81 0.72 1.08 0.94 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 60.03 3.58 63.61 0.80 0.72 1.08 0.93 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 57.53 3.58 61.11 0.80 0.71 1.08 0.93 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 53.18 3.58 56.76 0.79 0.71 1.08 0.92 2.00 1.99 2.00 0.00 94.09 3.58 97.66 0.79 0.71 1.08 0.92 2.00 1.98 2.00 0.00 References: Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W. Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. 8 September 2008. Liu, C. and Evett, J.B. Soils and Foundations, 8th Edition . 4 August 2013. Martin, G.R. and Lew, M. Recommendations for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 . University of Southern California Earthquake Center. March 1999. California Department of Conservation, CGS. Special Publication 117A: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California . Rev 11 Sept. 2008. PLATE A CPT-1 advanced to 50.73 ft. on 6/18/18 Page 4 PA2019-029 106-110 Sonora Street, Newport Beach, CA SP130.1 August, 2018 Parameter Fα Maximum shear strain γmax ΔHi (m)ΔLDIi (m)Vertical reconsol. Strain εv ΔSi (m)ΔSi (ft)ΔSi (inches) -0.77 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.08 0.30 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.24 0.68 0.23 0.30 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.32 -0.66 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.72 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.83 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.61 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.30 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.13 -0.43 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.43 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.26 0.02 0.30 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 -0.95 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.42 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.21 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.14 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.53 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.39 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.76 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.62 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.24 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.80 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.82 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.58 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.81 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.72 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PLATE A CPT-1 advanced to 50.73 ft. on 6/18/18 Page 5 PA2019-029 106-110 Sonora Street, Newport Beach, CA SP130.1 August, 2018 -2.53 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.85 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.41 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.24 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.40 0.01 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 -2.10 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.94 0.00 3.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.72 0.00 3.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.85 0.00 3.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.73 0.00 3.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.91 0.00 3.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.49 0.00 3.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.37 0.00 3.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.65 0.00 3.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.05 0.00 3.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.18 0.00 -12.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.39 0.00 -12.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.04 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.51 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.19 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.79 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.73 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.52 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.15 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -5.85 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Settlement:0.02 0.06 0.77 References: Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W. Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. 8 September 2008. Liu, C. and Evett, J.B. Soils and Foundations, 8th Edition . 4 August 2013. Martin, G.R. and Lew, M. Recommendations for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 . University of Southern California Earthquake Center. March 1999. California Department of Conservation, CGS. Special Publication 117A: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California . Rev 11 Sept. 2008. PLATE A CPT-1 advanced to 50.73 ft. on 6/18/18 Page 6 PA2019-029