Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20191121_ApplicationDI\J0:1-q ~'ll{l, Community Development Department '' J q CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 949 644-3200 Planning Permit Application 11 /,z,1 1 newportbeachca.gov/communitydevelopment 1. Check Permits Requested: D Approval-in-Concept -AIC # D Lot Merger Iii Coastal Development Permit D Limited Term Permit- D Waiver for De Minimis Development D Seasonal D < 90 day 0>90 days D Staff Approval D Tract Map D Traffic Study D Coastal Residential Development D Modification Permit D Use Permit -DMinor 0Conditional D Condominium Conversion D Off-Site Parking Agreement D Comprehensive Sign Program D Planned Community Development Plan D Amendment to existing Use Permit D Variance D Development Agreement D Planned Development Permit D Development Plan D Site Development Review - D Major D Minor D Amendment -DCode DPC DGP DLCP D Other: D Lot Line Adjustment D Parcel Map 2. Project Address{es)/Assessor's Parcel No{s) 2008 OCEAN FRONT E., NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 3. Project Description and Justification {Attach additional sheets if necessary): Demolish existing residence to build a single family residence. New single family residence to be 4,901 S.F. Living and 684 Garage 4 A I. t/C N jsrandon Architects j . pp 1can ompany ame~--------------------------~- M .1• Add j151 Kalmus Ave. S ·t /U ·t jG-1 I a1 mg ress ~-------------------~ u1 e m . City lcosta Mesa ' State lcA j Zip 192626 ___ _ Phone 1714.754.4040 I Fax ______ ~I Email j1nfo@brandonarchitects.com ' Ryan McDaniel I 5. Contact/Company Name~-------------------------------' Mailing Address -'-1 1_5 _1 _Ka_l_m_us~A~-v~e_. -----~-----~~-~____. Suite/Unit-'-IG_-1 ____ ____.j City lcosta Mesa State lcA j Zip 192626 j Phone 1714.754.4040 j Fax .,__ _____ ___.I Email jryan@brandonarchitects.com =i 0 N j Robert & Julie Wheatley -, 6. wner ame __________________________________ _J Mailing Address ~' 1_4_66_1_F_r_an_k_lin_A_v_e_. --------------~ Suite/Unit j rno =i City !Tustin State JcA j Zip _js_21_a_o ___ ~ Phone! .-7-14-.-71-9-.2-3_2_2 _____ , Fax-'----------'' Email Jbob@wheatleylaw.com 7 P rt O , A,ff'd. 't* (I) (W ) j Robert & Julie Wheatley . rope y wner s N I av1 : e ____________________ _ depose and say that (I am) (we are) the owner(s) of the property (ies) involved in this application. (I) (We) further certify, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of (my) (our) knowledge and belief. Signature(s): Julie Wheatley2019.11.2111:09:09-D8'00' Title: Jown_e_r -------~' Date: l1112112019===i DD/MO/YEAR Signature(s): --------------Title:---~-~---~ Date: *May be signed by the lessee or by an authorized· agent if written authorization from the owner of record is filed concurrently with the application. Please note, the owner(s)' signature for Parcel/Tract Map and Lot Line Adjustment Application must be notarized. PA2019-242 F:\Users\PLN\Shared\Staff_Dir\Garciamay\Ruby\desktop\DESKTOP_\CUT_PASTE_DRAG_COPY\Office Use Only.docx Updated 08/15/17 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY\ Date Filed: _______________________ 2700-5000 Acct. APN No: __________________________ Deposit Acct. No. ________________________ Council District No.: _________________ For Deposit Account: General Plan Designation: ____________ Fee Pd: _______________________________________ Zoning District: _____________________ Receipt No: ____________________________ Coastal Zone: Yes No Check #: __________ Visa MC Amex # ____________ CDM Residents Association and Chamber Community Association(s): _______________________ Development No: __________________________ _____________________________________________ Project No: ________________________________ _____________________________________________ Activity No: _______________________________ Related Permits: ___________________________ APPLICATION Approved Denied Tabled: _________________________ ACTION DATE Planning Commission Meeting Zoning Administrator Hearing Community Development Director Remarks: __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ APPLICATION WITHDRAWN: Withdrawal Received (Date): ________________________ APPLICATION CLOSED WITHOUT ACTION: Closeout Date: ________________________ Remarks: __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ 11.21.19 048 262 27 1 RS-D R-1 PA2019-242 Balboa Peninsula Point D2019-0600 CD2019-065 NOTICE OF APPLICATION FILING / / THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECENTLY RECEIVED A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE FOLLOWING PROJECT: PROPOSED PROJECT: Deroa\\&'o ex\,~\06 residfV)(e.: ·to . ba.\\t\ a ~int,\f .taM,,~ · tu\dan_tee. ~ ~V'~\e.; · .fam\h~ Witltnce.. ·-n De, 4 11 O\ -,. ,, . · U\JM~ an4 ltR4 'all0¥. LocAT10N: 200\2 Orem ~ ~. Nftlfutk t,each 1 · Cl\ C( l. f,,, \ APPLICANT: ?Ji4Ngo ~QQ\~L\s APPLICATION No.: __ P~R_2_o_-i_q_--_·· ··. _~i._Lf __ 2-=----------- DATE NOTICE POSTED: _t_\ _J---=-2 ____ 2_Ji--=-2--.a0..._-_) ~----------- The public hearing for this application has not yet been scheduled. When the hearing, or determination are scheduled, further notice will be provided. The application is available for your review at the Community Development Department Permit Center (Bay C-1st Floor), at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, CA 92660. Prior to the public hearing, the agenda, staff report, and documents may be reviewed. For more information, c~II (949) 644-3200 (please reference the application number). F:\Users\CDD\Shared\Admin\Planning_Division\Applications\CDP Rev 02/14/17 PA2019-242 GeoSoils Inc. 5741 Palmer Way, Suite D, Carlsbad CA 92010 760-438-3155 October 22, 2019 Mr. & Mrs. Wheatley c/o Patterson Custom Homes 15 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 150 Newport Beach, California 92660 SUBJECT: Coastal Hazard and Wave Runup Study, 2008 East Oceanfront, Newport Beach, California. Dear Mr. & Mrs. Wheatley: At your request, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is pleased to provide this coastal hazard and wave runup study for the property located at 2008 East Oceanfront, Newport Beach, California. The purpose of this report is to provide the hazard information for your permit application typically requested by the City of Newport Beach and the California Coastal Commission (CCC). Our scope of work includes a review of the latest CCC Sea-Level Rise (SLR) Guidance document (November 2018), a review of City of Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) 21.30.15.E.2, a review of the site elevations, a review of the residence plans, a site inspection, and preparation of this letter report. This report constitutes an investigation of the wave and water level conditions expected at the site as a result of extreme storm and wave action over the next 75 to 100 years. It also provides conclusions and recommendations regarding the susceptibility of the property and the proposed new residential structure to wave attack. The analysis uses design storm conditions typical of the January 18-19, 1988 and the winters of 1982-83 and 1998 type storm waves and beach conditions. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The subject site is located at 2008 East Oceanfront, Newport Beach, California. It is a rectangular shaped parcel approximately 64 feet wide by 80 feet long with an existing residential structure. Figure 1 is a “Bird’s Eye” aerial photograph of the site taken in 2018 downloaded from the internet. The proposed development consists of removal of the existing residence and construction of a new residence. The site is fronted by a wide sandy beach (approximately 500 feet wide) and the Pacific Ocean. This shoreline is located between the Balboa Pier and the west jetty of Newport Harbor, in a coastal segment referred to as the Balboa Beach segment of the Huntington Beach Littoral cell in the US Army Corp of Engineers Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study South Coast Region, Orange County (USACOE, 2002). In general, the movement of sand along a shoreline depends upon the orientation of the shoreline and the incoming wave direction. The movement of sand along this southern section of Newport Beach is generally to the east, but under wave conditions from the south, the direction reverses. PA2019-242 GeoSoils Inc.2 5741 Palmer Way, Suite D, Carlsbad CA 92010 760-438-3155 Figure 1. Subject site in April 2018. Note the vegetation fronting the site, the dune areas, and the very wide beach. USACOE (2002) contains historical beach profile and beach width data for the Newport Beach area. At the subject site, the beach width has changed little over the past 70 years as a result of beach nourishment in the 1930's with sand from Newport Harbor. The available photographic data shows that the actual beach width has increased since 1965. During typical winter beach conditions, the beach width may be reduced to about 400 feet. The narrowest beach width occurred in 1965 (approximately 400 feet) prior to the beach stabilization and nourishment efforts. During typical summer beach conditions, the beach width is in excess of 500 feet. Measurements during our April 15, 2019 site inspection indicate that the mean high tide line is ~525 feet from the site property line. Despite efforts to control the movement of sand along the Newport coast, the shoreline at this section of Newport Beach does experience short-term erosion. The erosion is temporary and is largely the result of an energetic winter. As stated before, there is no clear evidence of any long-term erosional trend (USACOE, 2002). The wide sandy beach in front PA2019-242 GeoSoils Inc.3 5741 Palmer Way, Suite D, Carlsbad CA 92010 760-438-3155 of the subject site is normally over 500 feet wide and has provided more than adequate protection for the property over the last several decades. In the past, wave runup has not reached the site, and the site has not been subject to wave attack for at least the last 60 years. This includes the winter storms of 1982-83, January 1988, and 1998, which are considered the coastal engineering design storms for southern California. DATUM & DATA The datum used in this report is North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) which is 2.35 feet below NGVD29, and 4.49 feet below Mean High Water (MHW). The units of measurement in this report are feet (ft), pounds force (lbs), and seconds (sec). The NOAA Nautical Chart #18746 was used to determine bathymetry. Beach profile data was reviewed from USACOE (2002). Aerial photographs, taken semi-annually from 1972 through 2018, were reviewed for shoreline changes. Site elevations relative to NAVD88 were taken from a site survey by Apex Surveying Inc, dated May 28, 2019. Development plans were provided by Brandon Architects. SITE BEACH EROSION AND WAVE ATTACK In order to determine the potential for wave runup to reach the site, historical aerial oblique photographs dating back to 1972 were reviewed. None of the photographs showed that wave runup reached the site since 1972. Figure 2, taken in January 1988, shows a relatively wide beach in front of the property. The photo was taken after the January 19, 1988,“400-year” wave event and shows the eroded beach in front of the property. However, the beach did not erode back to the site and no water reached the site. Figure 3, taken April 4, 2018, shows what could be described as the normal beach width (over 500 feet). A review of the annual aerial vertical photographs over the last 45 years shows a wide beach even though the photos were taken in the winter and spring, when the beach is seasonally the narrowest. None of the reviewed photographs show water reaching within 400 feet of the site. Based upon review of the aerial photographs, it is highly unlikely that the shoreline will erode back to the site and allow direct wave attack on the existing or proposed development. Based upon interviews with long-term local residents, the subject site has not been subject to wave runup during the last 70 years. The site has not flooded from ocean water or from surface drainage due to its elevation relative to the city street drainage paths. The adjacent city street (alley) is lower than the lowest grade on site. In the future, wave runup will likely not reach the site under severely eroded beach conditions and extreme storms. PA2019-242 GeoSoils Inc.4 5741 Palmer Way, Suite D, Carlsbad CA 92010 760-438-3155 Figure 2. Shoreline fronting the subject in January 1988 after the “400-year” wave event. Figure 3. Shoreline fronting the subject site in May 2018 (note the very wide beach). WAVE RUNUP AND OVERTOPPING Wave runup is defined as the vertical height above the still water level to which a wave will rise on a structure (beach slope) of infinite height. Overtopping is the flow rate of water over the top of a finite height structure (the steep beach berm) as a result of wave runup. As waves encounter the beach at the subject site, water has the potential to rush up, and PA2019-242 GeoSoils Inc.5 5741 Palmer Way, Suite D, Carlsbad CA 92010 760-438-3155 Figure 4. Wave runup terms from ACES analysis. sometimes crest, the beach berm. In addition, beaches can become narrower due to a long-term erosion trend and sea level rise. Often, wave runup and overtopping strongly influence the design and the cost of coastal projects. Wave runup and overtopping is calculated using the US Army Corps of Engineers Automated Coastal Engineering System, ACES. ACES is an interactive computer based design and analysis system in the field of coastal engineering. The methods to calculate runup and overtopping, implemented within this ACES application, are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 7 of the Shore Protection Manual (1984) and Coastal Engineering Manual (2004). The overtopping estimates calculated herein are corrected for the effect of onshore winds. Figure 4 is a diagram showing the analysis terms. Oceanographic Data The wave, wind, and water level data used as input to the ACES runup and overtopping application were taken from the historical data reported in USACOE (1986) and USACOE (2002). The shoreline throughout southern California and fronting this property have experienced many extreme storms over the years. These events have impacted coastal property and beaches depending upon the severity of the storm, the direction of wave approach and the local shoreline orientation. The focusing of incoming waves on the Newport Beach shoreline is controlled primarily by the Newport Submarine Canyon. PA2019-242 GeoSoils Inc.6 5741 Palmer Way, Suite D, Carlsbad CA 92010 760-438-3155 Historically, the section of Newport Beach from 25 Street to 40 Street has experiencedthth extreme storm wave erosion due to focusing of the waves by the canyon. The ACES analysis was performed on an extreme wave condition when the beach is in a severely eroded condition. However, it is important to point out that the waves during the 1982-83 El Niño winter eroded beaches throughout southern California. The subject property and adjacent properties were not subject to wave runup during that winter. The wave and water level conditions on January 18, 1988 have been described by Dr. Richard Seymour of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography as a “400-year recurrence.” The wave runup conditions considered for the analysis use the maximum unbroken wave at the shoreline when the shoreline is in an eroded condition. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric (NOAA) National Ocean Survey tidal data station closest to the site with a long tidal record (Everest International Consultants Inc. (EICI), 2011) is located at Los Angeles Harbor (Station 94106600). The tidal datum elevations are as follows: Mean High Water 4.55 feet Mean Tide Level (MSL) 2.62 feet Mean Low Water 0.74 feet NAVD88 0.0 feet Mean Lower Low Water -0.2 feet During storm conditions, the sea surface rises along the shoreline (super-elevation) and allows waves to break closer to the shoreline and runup on the beach. Super-elevation of the sea surface can be accounted for by: wave set-up, wind set-up and inverse barometer, wave group effects and El Niño sea level effects. The historical highest ocean water elevation at the Los Angeles Harbor Tide station is +7.72 feet NAVD88 on January 10, 2005. In addition, the 2011 Everest International Consultants Inc. (EICI, 2011) reported that the elevation of 7.71 feet NAVD88 is the 1% water elevation. For this analysis the historical highest water elevation will be +7.7 feet NAVD88. Future Tide Levels Due to Sea Level Rise The California Coastal Commission (CCC) SLR Guidance document recommends that a project designer determine the range of SLR using the “best available science.” When the SLR Guidance document was adopted by the CCC in 2015, it stated that the best available science for quantifying future SLR was the 2012 National Research Council (NRC) report (NRC, 2012). The NRC (2012) is no longer considered the state of the art for assessing the magnitude of SLR in the marine science communities. The California Ocean Protection Council (COPC) adopted an update to the State’s Sea-Level Rise Guidance in March 2018. These new estimates are based upon a 2014 report entitled “Probabilistic 21st and 22nd century sea-level projections at a global network of tide-gauge sites” (Kopp el at, 2014). PA2019-242 GeoSoils Inc.7 5741 Palmer Way, Suite D, Carlsbad CA 92010 760-438-3155 This update included SLR estimates and probabilities for Los Angeles, the closest SLR estimates to Newport Beach. These SLR likelihood estimates are provided below in Figure 5 taken from the Kopp et al 2014 report. The report provides SLR estimates based upon various carbon emission scenarios known as a “representative concentration pathway” or RCP. Figure 5 provides the March 2018 COPC data (from the Kopp et al 2014 report) with the latest SLR adopted estimates (in feet) and the probabilities of those estimates to meet or exceed the 1991-2009 mean, based upon the best available science. Figure 5. Table from Kopp et al (2014) and COPC 2018, providing current SLR estimates and probabilities for the Los Angeles tide station. This table illustrates that SLR in the year 2100 for the “likely range,” and considering the most onerous RCP (8.5), is 1.3 feet to 3.2 feet above the 1991-2009 mean. In addition, based upon this 2018 COPC SLR report, the 0.5% probability SLR for the project is estimated to be 5.5 feet (interpolating between the years 2090 and 2100 and between the low and high emissions). The design maximum historical water elevation is +7.72 feet NAVD88. This actual high water record period includes the 1982-83 severe El Niño, and the 1997 El Niño events, and is therefore, consistent with the methodology outlined in the CCC 2018 Sea-Level Rise Policy Guidance document. To be conservative, if 3.2 feet and 5.5 feet are added to this 7.7 feet NAVD88 elevation, then future design maximum water levels of 10.9 feet NAVD88 and 13.2 feet are determined. The wave that typically generates the greatest runup is the wave that has not yet broken when it reaches the toe of the beach. It is not the largest wave to come into the area. The larger waves generally break farther offshore of the beach and lose most of their energy PA2019-242 GeoSoils Inc.8 5741 Palmer Way, Suite D, Carlsbad CA 92010 760-438-3155 before reaching the shoreline. If the total water depths is 10.4 feet, based upon a maximum scour depth at the toe of the beach slope of 0.5 feet NAVD88 and water elevation+10.9 feet NAVD88), then the design wave height (0.78xwater depth) will be about 8.5 feet, respectively. The slope of the beach is about 1/12 (v/h) and the near-shore slope was chosen to be 1/80 (v/h). The height of the beach at the berm is about +13 feet NAVD88. It should be noted that the height of the beach berm will increase as sea level rises. The beach is a mobile deposit that will respond to the water elevation and waves. To be conservative an additional 5.5 feet SLR case will be considered with the elevation of the beach berm adjusted to +15 feet NAVD88. Table I, and Table II are the ACES output for these two SLR design conditions Table I Table II PA2019-242 GeoSoils Inc.9 5741 Palmer Way, Suite D, Carlsbad CA 92010 760-438-3155 For the highest SLR case, the calculated overtopping rate of the beach, under the eroded beach conditions with 5.5 feet of future SLR is 15.6 ft /s-ft. For the calculated overtopping3 rate (Q=q), the height of water and the velocity of this water can be calculated using the following empirical formulas provided by the USACOE (Protection Alternatives for Levees and Floodwalls in Southeast Louisiana, May 2006, equations 3.1 and 3.6). 1For SLR of 5.5 feet with an overtopping rate of 15.6 ft /s-ft, the water height h = 2.9 feet and3 cthe velocity, v = 7.9 ft/sec. The runup water is not a sustained flow, but rather just a pulse of water flowing across the beach. The 2004 USACOE Coastal Engineering Manual (CEM) states as a wave bore travels across a sand beach, the height of the bore is reduced. Based upon observations, this is about 1-foot reduction in bore height every 25 to 50 feet. The site is over 450 feet away, so for the 5.5 feet of SLR case, the wave bore may travel about 200 feet from the shoreline, which is well short of the site. Rather than being inundated by sea level rise, the beach and the nearshore will readjust to the new level over time, such that waves and tides will see the same profile that exists today. This is the principle of beach equilibrium and is the reason why we have beaches today even though sea level has risen over 200 feet in the last 10,000 years. The overtopping waters over the next 75 years most likely will not reach the subject site, even under the extreme design conditions. TSUNAMI Tsunami are waves generated by submarine earthquakes, landslides, or volcanic action. Lander, et al. (1993) discusses the frequency and magnitude of recorded or observed tsunami in the southern California area. James Houston (1980) predicts a tsunami of less than 5 feet for a 500-year recurrence interval for this area. Legg, et al. (2002) examined the potential tsunami wave runup in southern California. The Legg, et al. (2002) report determined a maximum open ocean tsunami height of less than 2 meters. The maximum tsunami runup in the Newport Beach open coast area is less than 1 meters in height. Any wave, including a tsunami, that approaches the site will be refracted, modified, and reduced in height by the Newport jetties, as it travels into the bay, or over the development land seaward of the site. Due to the infrequent nature and the relatively low 500-year recurrence interval tsunami wave height, setback from the ocean, and the elevation of the proposed improvements, the site is reasonably safe from tsunami hazards. It should be noted that the site is mapped within the limits of the California Office of Emergency Services tsunami innundation map, Newport Beach Quadrangle (State of California 2009). The tsunami inundation maps are very specific as to their use. Their use PA2019-242 GeoSoils Inc.10 5741 Palmer Way, Suite D, Carlsbad CA 92010 760-438-3155 is for evacuation planning only. The limitation on the use of the maps is clearly stated in the PURPOSE OF THIS MAP on every quadrangle of California coastline. In addition, the following two paragraphs were taken from the CalOES Local Planning Guidance on Tsunami Response concerning the use of the tsunami inundation maps. In order to avoid the conflict over tsunami origin, inundation projections are based on worst-case scenarios. Since the inundation projections are intended for emergency and evacuation planning, flooding is based on the highest projection of inundation regardless of the tsunami origin. As such, projections are not an assessment of the probability of reaching the projected height (probabilistic hazard assessment) but only a planning tool. Inundation projections and resulting planning maps are to be used for emergency planning purposes only. They are not based on a specific earthquake and tsunami. Areas actually inundated by a specific tsunami can vary from those predicted. The inundation maps are not a prediction of the performance, in an earthquake or tsunami, of any structure within or outside of the projected inundation area. The CalOES maps model the inundation of a tsunami with an approximate 1,000 year recurrence interval (0.1% event). The Science Application for Risk Reduction (SAFRR) tsunami study headed by USGS investigated a tsunami scenario with a 200-240 year recurrence interval. The SAFRR modeling output is shown in Figure 6 and reveals that the site is not within the more probable (0.4% event) tsunami inundation zone. The City of Newport Beach and County of Orange have clearly marked tsunami evacuation routes for the entire Newport Beach/Bay area. Figure 6. SAFRR tsunami modeling output for the site. PA2019-242 GeoSoils Inc.11 5741 Palmer Way, Suite D, Carlsbad CA 92010 760-438-3155 SHORELINE EROSION WITH FUTURE SLR The California Coastal Commission (CCC) Sea Level Rise (SLR) Guidance suggests the use of the highest erosion rate available for the predication of the future shoreline erosion due to SLR (Appendix B, page 237). The United States Geological Survey (USGS, 2006) performed a comprehensive assessment of shoreline change including this section of coastline. Figure 7 is portion of a figure from USGS 2006 (Figure 39, page 62) and shows the maximum short-term erosion rate at the subject site. There is no long-term erosion at the site. The highest nearby short-term erosion rate is calculated to be ~2 ft/yr. Even if the short-term rate was used as the long-term rate (this would be very conservative analysis), the retreat would be 150 feet over the 75 year life of the development. The site is currently over 500 feet from the shoreline. If the beach retreats 150 feet in the next 75 years then the site will be ~350 feet from the shoreline. A beach width of 200 feet or greater is recognized as sufficient to protect the back shore from extreme events. The site is safe from shoreline erosion over the design life of the development due to the significant setback from the current shoreline and future shoreline with SLR. The proposed development will not need shore protection over the life of the development. Figure 7. Shoreline change rate in meters per year from USGS 2006. PA2019-242 GeoSoils Inc.12 5741 Palmer Way, Suite D, Carlsbad CA 92010 760-438-3155 SLR & 100 YEAR STORM The USGS has also developed a model called the Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS) for assessment of the vulnerability of coastal areas to SLR and the 100 year storm, http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/coastal_processes/cosmos/. Using the modeling program the vulnerability of the site to three different SLR scenarios with shoreline erosion and the100 year storm can be assessed. However, the following are the limitations as to the use of the CoSMoS model. Inundated areas shown should not be used for navigation, regulatory, permitting, or other legal purposes. The U.S. Geological Survey provides these data “as is” for a quick reference, emergency planning tool but assumes no legal liability or responsibility resulting from the use of this information. Figure 8 is the output of the CoSMoS program. The modeling shows that the shoreline does not erode to near the site, that the streets including West Balboa, the main arterial street, will flood during the 100 year event with 150 cm (~5 feet) of SLR. The alley near site may flood slightly. However, the area flooding will come from the bay and not from the ocean. The lowest finished floor is at +17.5 feet NAVD88 and well above the adjacent flow line in the alley at ~+12 feet NAVD88. Based upon the CoSMoS modeling, the development is reasonably safe from flooding over the design life of the development due to the proposed elevation of the finished floor. Figure 8. Output for USGS CoSMoS vulnerability modeling. PA2019-242 GeoSoils Inc.13 5741 Palmer Way, Suite D, Carlsbad CA 92010 760-438-3155 CCC SLR GUIDANCE INFORMATION Step 1. Establish the projected sea level rise range for the proposed project’s planning horizon using the best available science. Using the latest CCC SLR guidance and the City of Newport Beach City Council SLR guidance, the SLR estimate over the project design life that range in the year ~2095 is 3.0 feet to 3.2 feet. In addition, the analysis herein considered a less than “likely” SLR of 5.5 feet. This is the sea level rise range for the proposed project, 3.2 feet to 5.5 feet. Step 2. Determine how physical impacts from sea level rise may constrain the project site, including erosion, structural and geologic stability, flooding, and inundation. The analysis herein shows that it is unlikely that wave runup will reach the site even with 5.5 feet of SLR. The proposed lowest habitable finished floor elevation of +17.5 feet NAVD88 is above the maximum future water elevation. The project includes a garage and utility area with a finished floor at about +13 feet . Portions of the building below grade will need to be adequately waterproofed per the project geotechnical consultant. Site drainage from non-ocean waters is provided by the project civil engineer. The CCC Sea-Level Rise Policy Guidance document states, “predictions of future beach, bluff, and dune erosion are complicated by the uncertainty associated with future waves, storms and sediment supply. As a result, there is no accepted method for predicating future beach erosion.” The CCC- approved SLR document provides very little means or methods for predicating shoreline erosion due to SLR. If a conservative future erosion rate due to SLR of 40 feet for every foot of SLR, then the shoreline will move about 200 feet over the life of the development under 5 feet SLR. The site is over 500 feet from the shoreline. Rather than being inundated by sea level rise, the beach and the nearshore will readjust to the new level over time such that waves and tides will see the same profile that exists today. This is the principle of beach equilibrium and is the reason why we have beaches today even though sea level has risen over 200 feet in the last 10,000 years. The proposed project is reasonably safe from shoreline erosion due to the site distance from the shoreline. Step 3. Determine how the project may impact coastal resources, considering the influence of future sea level rise upon the landscape as well as potential impacts of sea level rise adaptation strategies that may be used over the lifetime of the project. The project will not impact coastal resources considering sea level rise. Step 4. Identify alternatives to avoid resource impacts and minimize risks throughout the expected life of the development. PA2019-242 GeoSoils Inc.14 5741 Palmer Way, Suite D, Carlsbad CA 92010 760-438-3155 The project does not impact resources and minimizes flood risk through the project design. Step 5. Finalize project design and submit CDP application. The project architect will incorporate this report into the design. Coastal Hazards Report shall include (NBMC 21.30.15.E.2): i. A statement of the preparer’s qualifications; Mr. Skelly is Vice President and Principal Engineer for GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI). He has worked with GSI for several decades on numerous land development projects throughout California. Mr. Skelly has over 40 years experience in coastal engineering. Prior to joining the GSI team, he worked as a research engineer at the Center for Coastal Studies at Scripps Institution of Oceanography for 17 years. During his tenure at Scripps, Mr. Skelly worked on coastal erosion problems throughout the world. He has written numerous technical reports and published papers on these projects. He was a co-author of a major Coast of California Storm and Tidal Wave Study report. He has extensive experience with coastal processes in Southern California. Mr. Skelly also performs wave shoring and uprush analysis for coastal development, and analyzes coastal processes, wave forces, water elevation, longshore transport of sand, and coastal erosion. ii. Identification of costal hazards affecting the site; As stated herein, the coastal hazards to consider for ocean front sites are shoreline erosion, flooding, and wave impacts. iii. An analysis of the following conditions: 1. A seasonally eroded beach combined with long-term (75 year) erosion factoring in sea level rise; As discussed herein, due to the very wide beach, the site is safe from shoreline erosion, including factoring in SLR. If a conservative future erosion rate due to SLR of 40 feet for every foot of SLR, then the shoreline will move about 200 feet over the life of the development. The site is over 500 feet from the shoreline. If the beach retreats 200 feet in the next 75 years then the site will be 300 feet or more from the shoreline. A beach width of 200 feet or greater is recognized as sufficient to protect the back shore from extreme events. The site is safe from shoreline erosion over the design life of the development due to the significant setback from the current shoreline and future shoreline with SLR. The proposed development will not need shore protection over the life of the development. PA2019-242 GeoSoils Inc.15 5741 Palmer Way, Suite D, Carlsbad CA 92010 760-438-3155 2. High tide conditions, combined with long-term (75 year) projections for sea level rise; Using the latest CCC SLR guidance and the City of Newport Beach City Council SLR guidance, the SLR estimate over the project design life in the year ~2100 is 3.2 feet. In addition, the analysis herein considered a less than “likely” SLR of about 5.5 feet. This is the sea level rise range for the proposed project, 3.2 feet to 5.5 feet. The highest recorded water elevation on record in the vicinity of the site is 7.7 feet NAVD88. This actual high water record covers the 1982-83 severe El Niño and the 1997 El Niño events and is therefore consistent with the methodology outlined in the CCC Sea-Level Rise Policy Guidance document. Per the Guidance, this elevation includes all short-term oceanographic effects on sea level, but not the long-term sea level rise prediction. If 3.2 feet and 5.5 feet are added to this 7.7 feet NAVD88 elevation, then future design maximum water levels of 10.9 feet NAVD88 and 13.2 feet are determined. 3. Storm waves from a one hundred year event or storm that compares to the 1982/83 El Nino event; For the design wave with the maximum runup on the beach and SLR of 5.5 feet, the beach 1covertopping rate is 15.6 ft /s-ft, the water height h is 2.9 feet, and the velocity, v is 7.93 ft/sec. The runup water is not a sustained flow, but rather just a pulse of water. The 2004 USACOE Coastal Engineering Manual (CEM) states as a wave bore travels across a sand beach, the height of the bore is reduced. Based upon observations, this is about 1-foot reduction in bore height every 25 to 50 feet. The site is over 500 feet away, so for the largest SLR case, the wave bore may travel about 200 feet from the shoreline which is well short of the site. Rather than being inundated by sea level rise, the beach and the nearshore will readjust to the new level over time, such that waves and tides will see the same profile that exists today. This is the principle of beach equilibrium and is the reason why we have beaches today even though sea level has risen over 200 feet in the last 10,000 years. The overtopping waters over the next 75 years most likely will not reach the subject site, even under the extreme design conditions and maximum possible shoreline erosion. 4. An analysis of bluff stability; a quantitative slope stability analysis that shows either that the bluff currently possesses a factor of safety against sliding of all least 1.5 under static conditions, and 1.1 under seismic (pseudostatic conditions); or the distance from the bluff edge needed to achieve these factors of safety; and There is no bluff fronting the site. This condition does not occur at the site. 5. Demonstration that development will be sited such that it maintains a factor of safety against sliding of at least 1.5 under static conditions PA2019-242 GeoSoils Inc.16 5741 Palmer Way, Suite D, Carlsbad CA 92010 760-438-3155 and 1.1 under seismic (pseudostatic) conditions for its economic life (generally 75 years). This generally means that the setback necessary to achieve a factor of safety of 1.5 (static) and 1.1 (pseudostatic) today must be added to the expected amount of bluff erosion over the economic life of the development (generally 75 years); There is no bluff fronting the site. There is no potential for sliding. iv. On sites with an existing bulkhead, a determination as to whether the existing bulkhead can be removed and/or the existing or a replacement bulkhead is required to protect existing principal structures and adjacent development or public facilities on the site or in the surrounding areas; and There is no bulkhead fronting the site. No shore protection will be necessary to protect the development over the next 75 years. v. Identification of necessary mitigation measures to address current hazardous conditions such as siting development away from hazardous areas and elevating the finished floor of structures to be at or above the base floor elevation including measures that may be required in the future to address increased erosion and flooding due to sea level rise such as waterproofing, flood shields, watertight doors, moveable floodwalls, partitions, water-resistive sealant devices, sandbagging and other similar flood-proofing techniques. The analysis provided in the hazard study verifies that it is unlikely that wave runup will reach the site even with 5.5 feet of SLR. The proposed habitable finished floor elevation of +17.5 feet NAVD88 is reasonably safe for SLR. Site drainage from non-ocean waters is provided by the project civil engineer. If a conservative future erosion rate due to SLR of 40 feet for every foot of SLR, then the shoreline will move about 200 feet over the life of the development under 5 feet SLR. The site is over 500 feet from the shoreline. Rather than being inundated by sea level rise, the beach and the nearshore will readjust to the new level over time such that waves and tides will see the same profile that exists today. This is the principle of beach equilibrium and is the reason why we have beaches today even though sea level has risen over 200 feet in the last 10,000 years. The proposed project is reasonably safe from shoreline erosion due to the site distance from the shoreline. The public streets will flood due to SLR long before the residence will be impacted by SLR. The shoreline fronting the site is stable and an increase in the water elevation will likely not increase shoreline erosion. The proposed project is reasonably safe from shoreline erosion due to the setback of the development to the potential future MHT line in consideration of SLR. Finally, in the future if necessary, the residence can be retrofitted with waterproofing to an elevation above the flooding potential elevation along with flood shields and other flood proofing techniques. It is very likely that the community will adopt SLR adaptation PA2019-242 GeoSoils Inc.17 5741 Palmer Way, Suite D, Carlsbad CA 92010 760-438-3155 strategies that are currently being considered by the City of Newport Beach. These strategies involve raising/replacing the bulkheads, beaches and walkways that surround the bay. These are site specific adaptation strategies. CONCLUSIONS • There is a very wide (>500 feet) sandy beach in front of the property 99.99% of the time. • A review of aerial photographs over the last five decades generally shows no overall shoreline retreat and a wide sand beach in front of the property, even at times when the beach is seasonally at its narrowest. • The long-term shoreline erosion rate is small, if any long-term erosion occurs at all. If a very conservative FUTURE retreat rate of 2 feet/year is used, it would account for about 150 feet of retreat over the life of the structure. This conservative retreat rate will not reduce the beach to less than 350 feet in nominal width (200 feet width of beach is recognized by coastal engineers as a sufficiently wide enough beach to provide back-shore protection). • The site has not been subject to any wave overtopping in the past. • The proposed finished first floor elevation for the structure is above the street flow line (landward of the residence). • The current mean high tide line is over 500 feet from the site and it is unlikely that over the life of the structure that the mean high tide line will reach within 300 feet of the property. In conclusion, wave runup and overtopping will not significantly impact this site over the life of the proposed improvements. The proposed development will neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site, or adjacent area. There are no recommendations necessary for wave runup protection. The proposed project minimizes risks from flooding. GSI certifies* that coastal hazards will not impact the property over the next 75 years and that there is no anticipated need for a shore protection device over the life of the proposed development. There are no recommendations necessary for avoidance or minimization of coastal hazards. LIMITATIONS Coastal engineering is characterized by uncertainty. Professional judgements presented herein are based partly on our evaluation of the technical information gathered, partly on PA2019-242 GeoSoils Inc. 5741 Palmer Way, Suite D, Carlsbad CA 92010 760-438-3155 our understanding of the proposed construction, and partly on our general experience. Our engineering work and judgements have been prepared in accordance with current accepted standards of engineering practice; we do not guarantee the performance of the project in any respect. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties express or implied. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ GeoSoils, Inc. David W. Skelly, MS RCE #47857 *The term "certify" is used herein as defined in Division 3, Chapter 7, Article 3, § 6735.5. of the California Business and Professions Code (2007). PA2019-242 GeoSoils Inc.19 5741 Palmer Way, Suite D, Carlsbad CA 92010 760-438-3155 REFERENCES Aerial Fotobank, San Diego web site www.landiscor.com. Coastal Engineering Manual 2004, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Everest International Consultants, Inc., 2011, Assessment of seawall structure integrity and potential for seawall over-topping for Balboa Island and Little Balboa Island, main report, No Project No., dated April 21. Kopp, Robert E., Radley M. Horton Christopher M. Little Jerry X. Mitrovica Michael Oppenheimer D. J. Rasmussen Benjamin H. Strauss Claudia Tebaldi Radley M. Horton Christopher M. Little Jerry X. Mitrovica Michael Oppenheimer D. J. Rasmussen Benjamin H. Strauss Claudia Tebaldi “Probabilistic 21st and 22nd century sea-level projections at a global network of tide-gauge sites” First published: 13 June 2014 Lander, James F., P. Lockridge, and M. Kozuch, 1993, “Tsunamis Affecting the West Coast of the US, 1806-1992,” NOAA National Geophysical Data Center publication. Legg, Mark R., Borrero, Jose C., and Synolakis, Costas E., Evaluation of tsunami risk to southern California coastal cities, in The 2002 NEHRP Professional Fellowship Report. Shore Protection Manual, 1984, 4th ed. 2 Vols, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. State of California, County of San Diego, 2009, “Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Newport Beach Quadrangle,” 1:24,000 scale, dated June 1. USACOE (US Army Corps Of Engineers), 1986, "Southern California Coastal Processes Data Summary" Ref # CCSTW 86-1. USACOE (US Army Corps Of Engineers), 2002, Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study South Coast Region, Orange County. USACOE, 2013, “Incorporating Sea Level Change in Civil Works Programs,” ER 1100-2- 8162, dated 31 December. USGS 2006, “National Assessment of Shoreline Change Part 3: Historical Shoreline Change and Associated Coastal Land Loss Along Sandy Shorelines of the California Coast”, Open File Report 2006-1219, PA2019-242 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation of Proposed New Residence at 2008 East Oceanfront Newport Beach, California BY: COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. W. 0. 576919-01, dated July 19, 2019 FOR: Mr. and Mrs. Robert Wheatley 2008 East Oceanfront Newport Beach, CA 92663 PA2019-242 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 1200 W. Co=onwealth Avenue, Fullerton, CA 92833 • Ph: (714) 870-1211 • Fax: (714) 870-1222 • E-mail: coastgeotec@sbcglobal.net July 19, 2019 Mr. and Mrs. Robert Wheatley 2008 East Oceanfront Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Wheatley: Subject: w.o. 576919-01 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation of Proposed New Residence at 2008 East Oceanfront, Newport Beach, California Pursuant to your request, a geotechnical engineering investigation has been performed at the subject site. The purposes of the investigation were to determine the general engineering characteristics of the near surface soils on and underlying the site and to provide recommendations for the design of foundations and underground improvements. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based upon the understanding of the proposed development and the analyses of the data obtained from our field and laboratory testing programs. This report completes our scope of geotechnical engineering services authorized by you in the May 22, 2019 proposal. SITE DEVELOPMENT It is our understanding that the existing residence will be demolished and that the site is to be redeveloped with a new two-story residential structure over slab-on-grade. Structural loads are anticipated to be light. Significant grade changes are not anticipated. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of the study was to obtain subsurface information within the project site area and to provide recommendations pertaining to the proposed development and included the following: 1. A cursory reconnaissance of the site and surrounding areas. 2. Excavation of two exploratory borings to determine the near subsurface soil conditions and groundwater conditions. 3. Collection of representative bulk and/or undisturbed soil samples for laboratory analysis. 4. Laboratory analyses of soil samples including determination of in-situ and maximum density, in- situ and optimum moisture content, shear strength characteristics, consolidation, expansion potential, and sulfate content. PA2019-242 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Mr. and Mrs. Wheatley 2 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation w. 0. 576919-01 July 19, 2019 5. Preparation of this report presenting results of our investigation and recommendations of the proposed development. RECORDS REVIEW A search of records was performed through the City of Newport Beach online database for applicable geotechnical records for the lot and tract. No geotechnical records were found for the subject lot. Records show that in 2005 the adjacent property on the western side, 2004 East Ocean Front, installed shoring along the property line for the construction cut of the basement and a new six foot high retaining wall was constructed in that area. Readers of this report are advised that a record search is not an exact science; it is limited by time and resource constraints, incomplete records, ability of custodian of records to locate files, and where records are located is only a limited interpretation of other consultant's work. Readers of this report should perform their own review of City records to arrive at their own interpretations and conclusions. SITE CONDITIONS The project site is located at 2008 East Ocean Front in the City of Newport Beach, California, and is shown on the attached Site Vicinity Map, Plate 1. The parcel is rectangular in shape, with a split level building pad showing about three feet of elevation difference. The parcel is bordered by a beach to the south, East Ocean Front alley to the north, and residential properties to the east and west. The lot is currently developed with a single-family residence, hardscape, and landscape. Site configuration is further shown on the Site Plan, Plate 2. EXPLORATORY PROGRAM The field investigation was performed on July 9, 2019, consisting of the excavation of a boring by a limited access drilling equipment (for Boring No. 1) and a boring by hand auger equipment (for Boring No. 2) at the locations shown on the attached Site Plan, Plate 2. As excavations progressed, a representative from this office visually classified the earth materials encountered, and secured representative samples for laboratory testing. Geotechnical characteristics of subsurface conditions were assessed by either driving a split spoon ring sampler or an SPT sampler into the earth material. Undisturbed samples for detailed testing in our laboratory were obtained from Boring No. 2 by pushing or driving a sampling spoon into the earth material. A solid-barrel type spoon was used having an inside diameter of 2.5 inches with a tapered cutting tip at the lower end and a ball valve at the upper end. PA2019-242 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Mr. and Mrs. Wheatley 3 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation w. 0. 576919-01 July 19, 2019 The barrel is lined with thin brass rings, each one inch in length. The spoon penetrated into the earth materials below the depth of borings approximately six inches. The central portion of this sample was retained for testing. All samples in their natural field condition were sealed in airtight containers and transported to the laboratory. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was performed for Boring No. 1, based on ASTM D1586. The number of blows required for driving the sampler through three six-inch intervals is recorded. The sum of the number of blows required for driving the last two six-inch intervals is referred to as the standard penetration number "N". Samplers from Boring No. 1 were driven into the soil at the bottom of the borehole by means of hammer blows. The hammer blows are given at the top of the drilling rod. The blows are by a hammer weighing 140 pounds dropped a distance of30 inches. Drive sampling was obtained at two feet intervals for the upper level foundations in accordance with City guidelines. Considering that the upper three feet of the pad area will be recompacted, SPT sampling commenced at three feet below grade. For liquefaction analysis, CE of 1.0 (for safety hammer), CB of 1.05 (for seven inch borehole diameter), and Cs of 1.2 ( for sampler without liners) are used to calculate corrected N values. EARTH MATERIALS Earth materials encountered within the exploratory borings were visually logged by a representative of COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. The earth materials encountered were classified as artificial fill underlain by native soils to the maximum depth explored. Artificial fills encountered consisted of brown to gray brown silty fine to medium grained sand, damp and generally loose to medium dense. The fills were encountered to a depth of about two feet below existing grade. Native soils encountered consisted of yellow tan to tan, clean, fine to coarse grained sand, damp to wet, and generally medium dense to dense, to maximum depth explored of 12.5 feet. Logs of the exploratory borings are presented on the appended Plates B and C. GROUNDWATER Groundwater was encountered at seven and ten feet below existing ground surface during the field investigation. This groundwater level is subject to minor fluctuation due to tidal changes. Plate 1.2 in Appendix B shows the subject site area to have a historic high groundwater depth ofless than ten feet below existing ground surface. In our liquefaction and seismic settlement analyses, a groundwater elevation of five feet below ground surface is used for more conservative calculations in accordance with City policy. PA2019-242 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Mr. and Mrs. Wheatley 4 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation SEISMICITY w. 0. 576919-01 July 19, 2019 Southern California is located in an active seismic region. Moderate to strong earthquakes can occur on numerous faults. The United States Geological Survey, California Division of Mines and Geology, private consultants, and universities have been studying earthquakes in Southern California for several decades. Early studies were directed toward earthquake prediction estimation of the effects of strong ground shaking. Studies indicate that earthquake prediction is not practical and not sufficiently accurate to benefit the general public. Governmental agencies are shifting their focus to earthquake resistant structures as opposed to prediction. The purpose of the code seismic design parameters is to prevent collapse during strong ground shaking. Cosmetic damage should be expected. Within the past 48 years, Southern California and vicinity have experienced an increase in seismic activity beginning with the San Francisco earthquake in 1971. In 1987, a moderate earthquake struck the Whittier area and was located on a previously unknown fault. Ground shaking from this event caused substantial damage to the City of Whittier, and surrounding cities. The January 17, 1994, Northridge earthquake was initiated along a previously unrecognized fault below the San Fernando Valley. The energy released by the earthquake propagated to the southeast, northwest, and northeast in the form of shear and compression waves, which caused the strong ground shaking in portions of the San Fernando Valley, Santa Monica Mountains, Simi Valley, City of Santa Clarita, and City of Santa Monica. Southern California faults are classified as: active, potentially active, or inactive. Faults from past geologic periods of mountain building, but do not display any evidence of recent offset, are considered "inactive" or "potentially active". Faults that have historically produced earthquakes or show evidence of movement within the past 11,000 years are known as "active faults". There are no known active faults within the subject property, with the nearest being the Newport Inglewood Fault Zone and the San Joaquin Blind Thrust Fault. • Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone: The Newport-fuglewood Fault Zone is a broad zone of left- stepping en echelon faults and folds striking southeastward from near Santa Monica across the Los Angeles basin to Newport Beach. Altogether these various faults constitute a system more than 150 miles long that extends into Baja California, Mexico. Faults having similar trends and projections occur offshore from San Clemente and San Diego (the Rose Canyon and La Nacion Faults). A near-shore portion of the Newport-fuglewood Fault Zone was the source of the destructive 1933 Long Beach earthquake. The reported recurrence interval for a large event along this fault zone is 1,200 to 1,300 years with an expected slip of one meter. • San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust Fault: The seismic hazards in Southern California have been further complicated with the recent realization that major earthquakes can occur on large thrust faults that are concealed at depths between 5 to 20 km, referred to as "blind thrusts." The uplift of the San Joaquin Hills is produced by a southwest dipping blind thrust fault that extends at least 14 km from northwestern Huntington Mesa to Dana Point and comes to within 2 km of the ground surface. Work by Grant et al. (1997 and 1999) suggest that uplift of the San Joaquin Hills began in the Late Quaternary and continues during the Holocene. Uplift rates have been PA2019-242 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Mr. and Mrs. Wheatley 5 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation w. 0. 576919-01 July 19, 2019 estimated between 0.25 and 0.5 mm/yr. If the entire length of the fault ruptured, the earthquake has been estimated to generate an Mw 6.8 event. We are of the opinion that the more active Newport Inglewood fault is the causative fault for the subject site. The site is located approximately 2 kilometer northeast of the Newport Inglewood fault. SEISMIC HAZARDS The potential hazards to be evaluated with regard to seismic conditions include fault rupture, landslides triggered by ground shaking, soil liquefaction, earthquake-induced vertical and lateral displacements, earthquake-induced flooding due to the failure of water containment structures, seiches, and tsunamis. Fault Rupture The project is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007). No known active faults are mapped on the site. Based on this consideration, the potential for surface fault rupture at the site is considered to be remote. Ground Shaking The site is located in a seismically active area that has historically been affected by moderate to occasionally high levels of ground motion, and the site lies in relatively close proximity to several active faults; therefore, during the life of the proposed development, the property will probably experience moderate to occasionally high ground shaking from these fault zones, as well as some background shaking from other seismically active areas of the Southern California region. Residential structures are typically designed to maintain structural integrity not to prevent damage. Earthquake insurance is available where the damage risk is not acceptable to the client. Seismic Induced Landslide Earthquake-induced landslide zones were delineated by the State of California using criteria adopted by the California State Mining and Geology Board. Under those criteria, earthquake- induced landslide zones are areas meeting one or more of the following: 1. Areas known to have experienced earthquake-induced slope failure during historic earthquakes. 2. Areas identified as having past landslide movement, including both landslide deposits and source areas. 3. Areas where CDMG's analyses of geologic and geotechnical data indicate that the geologic materials are susceptible to earthquake-induced slope failure. Based on the Seismic Hazard Zone Map published by the State of California, Newport Beach Quadrangle, appended as Plate 3, the site is not mapped as being in an area subject to potential seismic induced landslides. PA2019-242 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Mr. and Mrs. Wheatley Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Seismic Induced Liquefaction 6 w. 0. 576919-01 July 19, 2019 Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, non-cohesive granular soils exhibit severe reduction in strength and stability when subjected to high-intensity ground shaking. The mechanism by which liquefaction occurs is the progressive increase in excess pore pressure generated by the shaking associated with the seismic event and the tendency for loose non-cohesive soils to consolidate. As the excess pore fluid pressure approaches the in-situ overburden pressure, the soils exhibit behavior similar to a dense fluid with a corresponding significant decrease in shear strength and increase in compressibility. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions exist: 1) shallow groundwater; 2) low density, non-cohesive sandy soils; and 3) high-intensity ground motion. Seismic Hazard Zone Maps published by the State of California have been prepared to indicate areas that have a potential for seismic induced liquefaction hazards. The Seismic Hazard Zone Map for the Newport Beach Quadrangle, appended as Plate 3, shows the site to be mapped as being subject to potential liquefaction hazards. The City of Newport Beach has a policy concerning these areas. The City has assigned certain parameters to existing soil conditions. From ten to thirty feet below ground surface they have assigned the zone to be liquefiable with a seismic settlement of three inches. From thirty to fifty feet below ground surface they have assigned liquefaction and seismic settlement not to be of concern. The client has the option of accepting these conditions and assessing the zone of earth materials from the ground surface to ten feet below the proposed footing bottom for liquefaction and seismic settlement, or ignoring the City conditions and drilling deep exploration for similar assessment. For this project shallow exploration was chosen. A liquefaction assessment for the upper earth materials follows. Liquefaction evaluation for soil zone to ten feet below foundation bottom was based on blow counts from Boring No. 1, a M = 7.2 seismic event from the Newport-Inglewood fault, a maximum ground acceleration of 0.715g PGAM and a groundwater level at five feet. Liquefaction analysis, based on these values and field obtained data, is presented in Appendix B. The results indicate that there is liquefaction potential for the subject site. Lateral Spreading The occurrence of liquefaction may cause lateral spreading. Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which lateral displacement can occur on the ground surface due to movement of non-liquefied soils along zones of liquefied soils. For lateral spreading to occur, the liquefiable zone must be continuous, unconstrained laterally, and free to move along sloping ground toward an unconfined area. Due to the relatively level lot and distance to a free face, the potential of lateral spreading is not considered to be significant. PA2019-242 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Mr. and Mrs. Wheatley 7 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Earthquake-induced Settlements w. 0. 576919-01 July 19, 2019 Earthquake-induced settlements result from densification of non-cohesive granular soils which occur as a result of reduction in volume during or after an earthquake event. The magnitude of settlement that results from the occurrence of liquefaction is typically greater than the settlement that results solely from densification during strong ground shaking in the absence of liquefaction. It is understanding that the current City policy, has assigned a seismic settlement potential of three inches for soils depths of ten to thirty feet and no additional analysis of seismic settlement for this level should be required. The seismically induced settlement for the at-grade structure was evaluated based on the "Evaluation of Settlement in Sands due to Earthquake Shaking" by Kahji Tokimatsu and H. Bolton Seed, dated August 1987. The analysis was limited to ten feet below the footing bottom. The result, based on the SPT N-values in Boring No. 1, groundwater table at six feet below grade and shown in Appendix C, indicates that the estimated settlement (including dry and saturated sands) is 0.05 inch. According to City policy, the City's shallow mitigation method niay be used since the seismic settlement is less than one inch to a depth of ten feet below proposed foundations. Earthquake-Induced Flooding The failure of dams or other water-retaining structures as a result of earthquakes and strong ground shaking could result in the inundation of adjacent areas. Due to the lack of a major dam or water-retaining structure located near the site, the potential of earthquake-induced flooding affecting the site is considered not to be present. Seiches Seiches are waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking. Based on the lack of nearby enclosed bodies of water the risk from a seiche event is not present. Tsunamis Tsunamis are waves generated in large bodies of water as a result of change of seafloor topography caused by tectonic displacement or landslide. Based on the City of Newport Beach "Potential Tsunami Runup Inundation Caused by a Submarine Landslide" map, the subject site is situated in the zone for potential tsunami run-up as shown on Plate 5, and is referenced on this plate to be areas below elevation 32 feet. For more information about tsunami run-up hazards and evacuation routes you are referred to the City website. GEOTECHNICAL DISCUSSION The site is within an area subject to liquefaction and liquefaction induced settlements under certain seismic events. Under current 2016 CBC codes, City policy, and industry standards residential PA2019-242 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Mr. and Mrs. Wheatley 8 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation w. 0. 576919-01 July 19, 2019 structures subject to seismic hazards are designed to protect life and safety. Under this design objective the requirements of protecting life and safety could be met but the structure could be damaged. The damage to the structure could range from minimal to being non-functional. The reduction of risk, for the occurrence of structural damage from a seismic event, is generally associated with the structure's foundation system. Typically the use of a conventional foundation system or a mat foundation system has been utilized in the area. Based on analysis presented within this report and City guidelines concerning liquefaction study mitigation measures the proposed structure can be developed utilizing the City's "strengthened slab on grade foundation system" for support. This type of foundation system, also referred to as a conventional foundation system, is a minimum design. As the minimum design, this foundation system has the highest risk for occurrence of structural damage to the residence. The minimum geotechnical requirements for a conventional foundation system are as follows: (1) the structure shall be placed on a mat of compacted fill soil, (2) bottom of all footings shall be 24 inches below grade, (3) foundations shall be continuous or tied together with grade beams, (4) foundations shall be reinforced with a minimum of four #5 bars, two top and two bottom, (5) concrete slabs shall be a minimum of five inch actual thickness with #4 bars at 12 inches on center each way, and (6) footings shall be dowelled into slabs with #4 bars at 24 inches on center. Additional reinforcement maybe required if the structural engineer's design is more stringent. An alternate foundation system typically utilized is a structural mat foundation, which is more rigid than a conventional foundation system, and should be more effective in reducing the risk of structural damage to a structure during a seismic event. Where a mat slab foundation is planned, the slab should be at least twelve inches thick with perimeter footing a minimum of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Reinforcement shall be determined by the structural engineer. If the risk associated with either of these foundation systems is not acceptable to the client, the client has the option of utilizing more stringent designs that could decrease the risk of damage to the structure to a level they perceive as acceptable. Some of these designs could consist of soil modifications, grout densification, stone columns, piles placed below liquefiable soils, and other methods. Additional geotechnical exploration and or analysis would be required to provide geotechnical design recommendation for these mitigation measures, and would be at the request of the client under separate contract. Grading will be required for support of new foundations as stated within this report. Development of the site as proposed is considered feasible from a soils engineering standpoint, provided that the recommendations stated herein are incorporated in the design and are implemented in the field. The proposed grading and or construction will not have an adverse effect on adjacent property or vice versa, provided site work is performed in accordance with the PA2019-242 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Mr. and Mrs. Wheatley 9 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation w. 0. 576919-01 July 19, 2019 guidelines of project geotechnical reports, approved plans, applicable codes, industry standards, City inspections, and required geotechnical observation and testing. The following recommendations are subject to change based on review of final foundation and grading plans. PROPOSED GRADING Grading plans were not available at the time this report was prepared. It is anticipated that grading will consist mainly of over-excavation and recompaction for uniform support of the foundations and slabs. GENERAL GRADING NOTES All existing structures shall be demolished and all vegetation and debris shall be stripped and hauled from the site. The entire grading operation shall be done in accordance with the attached "Specifications for Grading". Any import fill materials to the site shall not have an expansion index greater than 20, and shall be tested and approved by our laboratory. Samples must be submitted 48 hours prior to import. Grading and/or foundation recommendations are subject to modification upon review of final plans by the Geotechnical Engineer. Please submit plans to COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. when available. GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS Removal and recompaction of existing earth materials will be required to provide adequate support for foundations and site improvements. Earthwork for foundation support shall include the entire building pad and shall extend a minimum of three feet outside exterior footing lines. Based on in place densities and consolidation tests, soils found at a depth of three feet below existing grade and deeper have adequate geotechnical properties to provide adequate support of proposed fills and the structure; as such, removals to a depth of three feet below existing grade or to one foot below proposed footing bottoms, whichever is greater, are anticipated; however, field observations made at the time of grading shall determine final removal limits. To provide adequate support along property lines excavations shall be sloped at a 1: 1 (H:V) gradient from property line down to the excavation bottom. As fill soils are placed the grading contractor shall bench into the 1: 1 construction cut to final grade. Temporary excavations along property lines are shown on Plate 4. During earthwork operations, a representative of COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. shall be present to verify compliance with these recommendations. Subsequent to approval of the excavation PA2019-242 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Mr. and Mrs. Wheatley 10 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation w. 0. 576919-01 July 19, 2019 bottom, the area shall be scarified six inches, moisture conditioned as needed, and compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. Fill soils shall be placed in six to eight inch loose lifts, moisture conditioned as needed, and compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. This process shall be utilized to finish grade. Due to the caving nature of the on-site sands, it is highly recommended that the upper two feet of fill be mixed with cement to reduce, but not eliminate, the potential of caving of the foundation excavations. Typically, a 2-3% by volume mixture of cement is sufficient to reduce the caving potential of foundation excavations. Preventing the foundation excavations from being surcharged by foot traffic and equipment will also help to reduce caving potential. Grading for hardscape areas shall consist of removal and recompaction of loose surficial soils. Removal depths are estimated at one to two feet. Earthwork shall be performed in accordance with previously specified methods. FOUNDATIONS -RESIDENCE The proposed structures shall be supported by a mat foundation or a conventional foundation system. Conventional foundations shall utilize spread footings and/or isolated pad footings placed a minimum depth of 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade utilizing an allowable bearing value of 1,800 pounds per square foot. This value is for dead plus live load and may be increased 1/3 for total including seismic and wind loads where allowed by code. The structural engineer's reinforcing requirements should be followed if more stringent. Calculations for the bearing capacity are provided on Plate G. Where isolated pads are utilized, they shall be tied in two directions into adjacent foundations with grade beams. Footing excavations shall be observed by a representative of COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC., prior to placement of steel or concrete to verify competent soil conditions. If unacceptable soil conditions are exposed mitigation will be recommended. Geotechnical recommendations for foundation reinforcement are given under the liquefaction section of this report. If a mat slab design is utilized, the structural engineer should design the thickness and reinforcement requirements for the mat foundation for the building based on the anticipated loading conditions. The mat foundation slab should be at least twelve inches thick, with perimeter footings a minimum of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. A modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 pci may be used in the design of the mat foundation. Reinforcement PA2019-242 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Mr. and Mrs. Wheatley 11 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation w. 0. 576919-01 July 19, 2019 shall be determined by the structural engineer. Calculations for the subgrade reaction are provided on Plate J. Alternate foundations and or additional ground modification techniques, for support of the structure, can be addressed upon request of the project manager. All foundation plans are subject to review and approval of the soils engineer. All foundation bottoms shall be observed and approved by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. prior to placement of the capillary break. FOUNDATIONS-SECONDARY STRUCTURES Property line walls, planter walls, and other incidental foundations may utilize conventional foundation design. Continuous spread footings or isolated pads placed a minimum depth of 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade may utilize an allowable bearing value of 1,500 pounds per square foot. This value is for dead plus live load and may be increased 1/3 for total including seismic and wind loads where allowed by code. Where isolated pads are utilized, they shall be tied in two directions into adjacent foundations with grade beams. Footing excavations shall be observed by a representative of COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., prior to placement of steel or concrete to verify competent soil conditions. If unacceptable soil conditions are exposed mitigation will be recommended. Foundations shall be reinforced with a minimum of four #5 bars, two top and two bottom, The structural engineer's recommendations for reinforcement shall be utilized where more severe. LATERAL DESIGN Lateral restraint at the base of footings and on slabs may be assumed to be the product of the dead load and a coefficient of friction of 0.3 5. Passive pressure on the face of footings may also be used to resist lateral forces. A passive pressure of zero at the surface of finished grade, increasing at the rate of 300 pounds per square foot of depth to a maximum value of 3,000 pounds per square foot, may be used for compacted fill at this site. If passive pressure and friction are combined when evaluating the lateral resistance, then the value of the passive pressure should be limited to 2/3 of the values given above. Calculations are provided on Plate H. RETAINING WALLS Walls retaining drained earth under static loading may be designed for the following: PA2019-242 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Mr. and Mrs. Wheatley 12 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation w. 0. 576919-01 July 19, 2019 Calculations for the stated equivalent fluid pressures are based on the Coulomb theory provided on Plate I. The point of resultant force under static loading is at H/3 above the base of the retaining wall. Walls are expected to be six feet or less, higher walls would need to be evaluated based on a site specific plan. Retaining walls should include subdrains consisting of four inch, SCH 40 or SDR 35 perforated pipe surrounded by one cubic foot per lineal foot of crushed rock, wrapped with geofabric cloth. All wall backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. All retaining structures should include appropriate allowances for anticipated surcharge loading, where applicable. Retaining walls with an ascending slope condition shall include a minimum one- foot free board and concrete swale in their design. Retaining walls shall be waterproofed to the degree desired by the client. FLOOR SLABS Slab on grades shall be designed in accordance with 2016 CBC codes. Site soils are non plastic. Minimum geotechnical recommendations for slab design are five inches actual thickness with #4 bars at 12 inches on center each way. Slabs shall be tied into perimeter foundations with #4 bars at 24 inch centers. Structural design may require additional reinforcement and slab thickness. Sub grade soils shall exhibit a minimum relative compaction of 90% to the depth determined by the geotechnical engineer. The soil should be kept moist prior to casting the slab. However, if the soils at grade become disturbed during construction, they should be brought to approximately optimum moisture content and rolled to a firm, unyielding condition prior to placing concrete. COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. to verify adequacy of subgrade soils prior to placement of sand or visqueen. Section 4.505.2.1 of the California Green Code requires the use of a capillary break between the slab subgrade and vapor barrier. The capillary break material shall comply with the requirements of the local jurisdiction and shall be a minimum of four inches in thickness. Geotechnically coarse clean sand is acceptable; however, some localities require the use of four inches of gravel (1/2-inch or larger clean aggregate). If gravels are used, a heavy filter fabric (Mirafi 140N) shall be placed over the gravels prior to placement of the recommended vapor barrier to minimize puncturing of the vapor barrier. Additionally, a vibratory plate should be used over the gravels PA2019-242 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Mr. and Mrs. Wheatley 13 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation w. 0. 576919-01 July 19, 2019 prior to placement of the recommended filter fabric to smooth out any sharp protuberances and consolidate the gravels. Slab areas should be underlain by a vapor retarder consisting of an engineered plastic film ( as described by ASTM:E-1745). In areas where a moisture sensitive floor covering will be used and/or where moisture infiltration is not desirable, a vapor barrier with a permeance of less than O.Olperms (consistent with ACI 302.2R-06) such as 15 mil. Stego Wrap Vapor Barrier, or equivalent, should be considered, and a qualified water proofing specialist should be consulted. The vapor barrier should be underlain by the above described capillary break materials and filter cloth. The capillary break materials should be compacted to a uniform condition prior to placement of the recommended filter cloth and vapor barrier. The vapor barrier should be properly lapped and sealed. SEISMIC DESIGN Based on the current CBC the following seismic design parameters are provided. These seismic design values were determined utilizing latitude 33.59614 and longitude -117.88638 and calculations from the USGS ground motion parameter calculator. A conservative site class D was assigned to site earth materials. • Site Class = D • Mapped 0.2 Second Spectral Response Acceleration, Ss = 1.722g • Mapped One Second Spectral Response Acceleration S1 = 0.634g • Site Coefficient from Table 1613A.3.3(1), Fa= 1.0 • Site Coefficient from Table 1613A.3.3(2), Fv = 1.5 • Maximum Design Spectral Response Acceleration for short period, SMs = 1. 722g • Maximum Design Spectral Response Acceleration for one-second period, SM 1 = 0.950g • 5% Design Spectral Response Acceleration for short period, SDs = 1.148g • 5% Design Spectral Response Acceleration for one-second period, Sm = 0.634g SETTLEMENT The maximum total post-construction static settlement is anticipated to be on the order of 1/2 inch. Differential settlements are expected to be less than 1/2 inch, measured between adjacent structural elements over a distance of 40 feet. Seismic induced settlements are addressed under previous sections. SUBSIDENCE & SHRINKAGE Subsidence over the site is anticipated to be negligible. Shrinkage of reworked materials should be in the range of 5 to 10 percent. EXPANSIVE SOILS Results of expansion tests indicate that the near surface soils have a very low expansion potential. PA2019-242 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Mr. and Mrs. Wheatley 14 Geotecbnical Engineering Investigation UTILITY LINE BACKFILLS w. 0. 576919-01 July 19. 2019 All utility line backfills, both interior and exterior, shall be compacted to a rmrumum of 90% relative compaction and shall require testing at a maximum of two-foot vertical intervals. Utility lines shall be placed at appropriate depths. Shallow pipes can be damaged by the forces imposed by compacting backfill soils. If shallow pipes are not capable of withstanding the forces of backfill compaction, slurry backfill will be recommended. HARDSCAPE AND SLABS Hardscape and slab sub grade areas shall exhibit a minimum of 90% relative compaction to a depth of at least one foot. Deeper removal and recompaction may be required if unacceptable conditions are encountered. These areas require testing just prior to placing concrete. Hardscape shall be at least four inches thick and reinforced with #3 bars on 18 inch centers both ways. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS An on-site soil sample showed a soluble sulfate content of 34 ppm, which is a negligible sulfate exposure. Concrete with Type II 2,500 psi may be utilized; however, the saltwater environ may cause damage to exposed concrete and a designed concrete should be considered. DRAINAGE Positive drainage should be planned for the site. Drainage should be directed away from structures via non-erodible conduits to suitable disposal areas. The structure should utilize roof gutters and down spouts tied directly to yard drainage. Pipes used for storm/site water drainage should be stout enough to withstand the force of compaction of the soils above. This force can be considerable, causing some weaker pipes to collapse. Drainage pipes shall have a smooth interior. Pipes with a corrugated interior can cause the buildup of deleterious matter, which can impede or block the flow of site waters and, as such, are not recommended. All storm/site water drainage pipes should be in conformance with the requirements from the current California Plumbing Code. Unlined flowerbeds, planters, and lawns should not be constructed against the perimeter of the structure. If such landscaping ( against the perimeter of a structure) is planned, it should be properly drained and lined or provided with an underground moisture barrier. Irrigation should be kept to a minimum. Section 1804.4 of the 2016 CBC recommends five percent slope away from structures for landscape areas within ten feet of the residence. Hardscape areas shall be sloped a minimum of two percent where within ten feet of the residence unless allowed otherwise by the building official. Minimum drainage shall be one percent for hardscape areas and two percent for all other areas. PA2019-242 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Mr. and Mrs. Wheatley 15 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation w. 0. 576919-01 July 19, 2019 We do not recommend the use of infiltration best management practice (BMP) such as infiltration trenches, bottomless trench drains infiltration basins, dry wells, permeable pavements or similar systems designed primarily to percolate water into the subsurface soils within five feet of foundations. Due to the physical characteristics of the site earth materials, infiltration of waters into the subsurface earth materials has a risk of adversely affecting below grade structures, building foundations and slabs, and hardscape improvements. From a geotechnical viewpoint surface drainage should be directed to the street. The WQMP requirement shall be addressed by the Civil Engineer. ENGINEERING CONSULTATION, TESTING & OBSERVATION We will be pleased to provide additional input with respect to foundation design once methods of construction have been determined. Grading, foundation and shoring plans should be reviewed by this office prior to commencement of grading so that appropriate recommendations, if needed, can be made. Areas to receive fill should be observed when unsuitable materials have been removed and prior to placement of fill. Fill should be observed and tested for compaction as it is placed. SUPPLEMENTAL CONSULTING During construction, a number of reviews by this office are recommended to verify site geotechnical conditions and conformance with the intentions of the recommendations for construction. Although not all possible geotechnical observation and testing services are required. The following site reviews are advised, some of which will probably be required by the City of Newport Beach: • Grading and excavations review for main structures • Foundation excavations • Slab sub grade compaction testing prior to placement of the capillary break or waste slab • Slab steel placement, primary and appurtenant structures • Compaction of utility trench backfill • Hardscape subgrade compaction AGENCY REVIEW All soil, geologic and structural aspects of the proposed development are subject to the review and approval of the governing agency(s). It should be recognized that the governing agency(s) can dictate the manner in which the project proceeds. They could approve or deny any aspect of the proposed improvements and/or could dictate which foundation and grading options are acceptable. Supplemental geotechnical consulting in response to agency requests for additional information could be required and will be charged on a time and materials basis. PA2019-242 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Mr. and Mrs. Wheatley 16 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation LIMITATIONS w. 0. 576919-01 July 19, 2019 This report presents recommendations pertaining to the subject site based on the assumption that the subsurface conditions do not deviate appreciably from those disclosed by our exploratory excavations. Our recommendations are based on the technical information, our understanding of the proposed construction, and our experience in the geotechnical field. We do not guarantee the performance of the project, only that our engineering work and judgments meet the standard of care of our profession at this time. In view of the general conditions in the area, the possibility of different local soil conditions may exist. Any deviation or unexpected condition observed during construction should be brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer. In this way, any supplemental recommendations can be made with a minimum of delay necessary to the project. If the proposed construction will differ from our present understanding of the project, the existing information and possibly new factors may have to be evaluated. Any design changes and the finished plans should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Of particular importance would be extending development to new areas, changes in structural loading conditions, postponed development for more than a year, or changes in ownership. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are called to the attention of the Architects and Engineers for the project, and incorporated into the plans and that the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractors and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. This report is subject to review by the controlling authorities for this project. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. Respectfully submitted: COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Ming-Tarng Chen RCE 54011 PA2019-242 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Mr. and Mrs. Wheatley 17 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation APPENDIXA w. 0. 576919-01 July 19, 2019 This appendix contains a description of the field investigation, laboratory testing procedures and results, site plan, exploratory logs and expansive soil recommendations. FIELD INVESTIGATION The field investigation was performed on July 9, 2019, consisting of the excavation of a boring by a limited access drilling equipment (for Boring No. 1) and a boring by hand auger equipment (for Boring No. 2) at the locations shown on the attached Site Plan, Plate 2. As drilling progressed, personnel from this office visually classified the soils encountered, and secured representative samples for laboratory testing. Description of the soils encountered is presented on the attached Boring Logs. The data presented on this log is a simplification of actual subsurface conditions encountered and applies only at the specific boring location and the date excavated. It is not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations and times. LABORATORY TESTING Field samples were examined in the laboratory and a testing program was then established to develop data for preliminary evaluation of geotechnical conditions. Field moisture and dry densities were calculated for each undisturbed sample. The samples were obtained per ASTM:D-2937 and tested under ASTM:D-2216. Maximum density-optimum moisture relationships were established per ASTM:D-1557 for use in evaluation of in-situ conditions and for future use during grading operations. Direct shear tests were performed in accordance with ASTM:D-3080, on specimens at near saturation under various normal loads. The results of tests are based on an 80% peak strength or ultimate strength, whichever is lower, and are attached as Plates E and F. Expansion tests were performed on typical specimens of natural soils in accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM:D-4829. A consolidation test was performed on representative samples based on ASTM:D-2435. The consolidation plot is presented on Plate D. PA2019-242 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Mr. and Mrs. Wheatley 18 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation TEST RESULTS Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture (ASTM: D-1557) Direct Shear (ASTM: D3080) 1 0 -5 (remolded) 100 32 2 2.5 50 32 Expansion Index (ASTM: D4829) Soluble Sulfate Analysis (USEP A Method 375.4) w. 0. 576919-01 July 19, 2019 PA2019-242 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING SITE CLEARING All existing vegetation shall be stripped and hauled from the site. PREPARATION After the foundation for the fill has been cleared, plowed or scarified, it shall be disced or bladed until it is uniform and free from large clods, brought to a proper moisture content and compacted to not less than ninety percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM:D-1557 (5 layers -25 blows per layer; 10 lb. hammer dropped 18"; 4" diameter mold). MATERIALS On-site materials may be used for fill, or fill materials shall consist of materials approved by the Soils Engineer and may be obtained from the excavation of banks, borrow pits or any other approved source. The materials used should be free of vegetable matter and other deleterious substances and shall not contain rocks or lumps greater than six inches in maximum dimension. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTING FILL MATERIALS The selected fill material shall be placed in layers which, when compacted, shall not exceed six inches in thickness. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during the spreading to ensure uniformity of material and moisture of each layer. Where moisture of the fill material is below the limits specified by the Soils Engineer, water shall be added until the moisture content is as required to ensure thorough bonding and thorough compaction. Where moisture content of the fill material is above the limits specified by the Soils Engineer, the fill materials shall be aerated by blading or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is as specified. After each layer has been placed, mixed and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted to not less than 90 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM:D-1557 (5 layers -25 blows per layer; 10 lbs. hammer dropped 18 inches; 4" diameter mold) or other density tests which will attain equivalent results. Compaction shall be by sheepfoot roller, multi-wheel pneumatic tire roller, track loader or other types of acceptable rollers. PA2019-242 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING PAGE2 Rollers shall be of such design that they will be able to compact the fill to the specified density. Rolling shall be accomplished while the fill material is at the specified moisture content. Rolling of each layer shall be continuous over the entire area and the roller shall make sufficient trips to ensure that the desired density has been obtained. The final surface of the lot areas to receive slabs on grade should be rolled to a dense, smooth surface. The outside of all fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compaction operations shall be continued until the outer nine inches of the slope is at least 90 percent compacted. Compacting of the slopes may be progressively in increments of three feet to five feet of fill height as the fill is brought to grade, or after the fill is brought to its total height. Field density tests shall be made by the Soils Engineer of the compaction of each layer of fill. Density tests shall be made at intervals not to exceed two feet of fill height provided all layers are tested. Where the sheepfoot rollers are used, the soil may be disturbed to a depth of several inches and density readings shall be taken in the compacted material below the disturbed surface. When these readings indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion there is below the required 90 percent density, the particular layer or portion shall be reworked until the required density has been obtained. The grading specifications should be a part of the project specifications. The Soil Engineer shall review the grading plans prior to grading. INSPECTION The Soil Engineer shall provide continuous supervision of the site clearing and grading operation so that he can verify the grading was done in accordance with the accepted plans and specifications. SEASONAL LIMITATIONS No fill material shall be placed, spread or rolled during unfavorable weather conditions. When heavy rains interrupt work, fill operations shall not be resumed until the field tests by the Soils Engineer indicate the moisture content and density of the fill are as previously specified. EXPANSIVE SOIL CONDITIONS Whenever expansive soil conditions are encountered, the moisture content of the fill or recompacted soil shall be as recommended in the expansive soil recommendations included herewith. PA2019-242 NEWPORT BEACH QUADRANGLE CALIFORNIA -ORANGE CO. 7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) SITE VICINITY MAP Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 2008 East Oceanfront Newport Beach, California UNITED STATES t.; DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ! GEOLOGIC SURVEY Work Order 576919 Plate No. 1 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PA2019-242 HU~,~~IN!~ PHIINE~714148&5006 FAXll?141333"4441l APEXLSJNC@GNAlL,COM SITE PLAN East Oceanfront Pacific Ocean Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 2008 East Oceanfront Newport Beach, California Scale: 1" ~ 16' Work Order 576919 Plate No. 2 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PA2019-242 SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES MAP 8------"-...--~·. ----......_________~--:--. ------------3v-. . ---------45 39 44 ~J ~SITE,a -------------60_ 48 . ~ • ---------_,,.,..--------~ . "-----. STATE OF CALIFORNIA -------------~ MAP EXPLANATION SEISMIC HAZARDS ZONES , · -Zones of Required Investigation: :DeHneated In compliance with ; -1 106 Chapter 7 .8, Dlvlffl)n 2 of the Clll!llfarnia Pubic Resources Code . _,_ NazardS-!Aapp/n . .Acl) .. <'o--.... ,.......-----~ . NEWPORT B!=ACH QUADRANGLE ---. "--·---·@b OFFICIAL MAP · Liquefaction Zone Released: April 7, 1997 Landslide Zone Released: April 15, 1998 171 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 2008 East Oceanfront Newport Beach, California Liquefaction . Areas where historic occurrence of llquefectlon, or local geological, geotechnlcal and groundWater conditions lndfcate·a potential for permanent g_rourd dlspJacements such that mitigation as defined l'l Public Resources Code Section 2693(0) would be rllqulred. E,arthquako.-lnduced Landslides Areas where previous occurrence of landsllde movenierit, or local topographic, geological, geotechnlcal and subsurface water conditions indicate a potential fur permanent ground displacements such that mitigation as de(ined In Public Resources Code Section 2693(c) would beraqulrlld. Work Order 576919 Plate No. 3 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PA2019-242 TEMPORARY EXCAVATION ALONG PROPERTY LINES BUILDING FACE NEW FOOTING (24") F.F. 1 / / / SCALE: 1"~ 2' WALL/PL /l / // l~EMPORARY ,f-----.J, SLOPE /: / // ! ~ BENCIDNG 7 ------~------ti' ~ 1:1 PROJECTION OVER-EXCAVATION This plate is not a representation of actual site conditions. It is a general representation of typical conditions and intended for the illustration of geotechnical data only. The indicated scale is approximate, and to be used for rough measurement only. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 2008 East Oceanfront Newport Beach, California Work Order 576919 Plate No. 4 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PA2019-242 POTENTIAL TSUNAMI RUNUP INUNDATION CAUSED BY A SUBMARINE LANDSLIDE /' ~ ,')""' '~~. '-"-' ·"-., B.aie M.ap: USGS Topogr.aphic M.apfrom Sure!MAPS RASTER ' Source: City of Ne,wpo rt Bea: h, 2007 b.aied on un pu blii hed " re,e.ao: h by J. C. Bo m:ro .and othen .at Un iven ify of So ut he rn Ca.I ifo rn i.a NOTffi: ' This; map i; inbii:n:lr;dforz,;n,;:r.a.J lil.nd umpla.nninz Qn(y. lnfomua.tionQnthi:; map S na: ""- s;Qfi,:i;;rt ta s;:r.,,;: z a. substitltG: far d;t;a.ik:d p:i b,t~ ir,,,-,;st iza.tio l!ii of individua.l s;i:,;s;. near dc,;s it 5iiiltisiy th,;: QViil.)Uaticin ri;;qu ir.:m,;:rts; 51il: forth in z,;o:logic: ha..za.n::I r,;gulat io.n!ii. Guth Col!iiub.nl5 ll'G:rna.tiona.l(ECO millo.s no rc:p~ntaJ:i:in; or",,l,'ilria.nti;s; rqa.idinz thoa.oc:U""f dthoda!a.from wh<:h tho,;" Jm!)'"""'d"rmd. r.c:1,h~II not bo liabk. .... un:lra:r any ci ,::u l'IT.ita.nczfor a.ny d ir,;;,:t. indi ~ ~ia.L in-c:mnta.L or a.in~u,;:.rt iii.I .:I.a.map w~h ~ ta any cb.im by ill'l'f u;;:,r ear th in::I paty can il.CalU rt .:if. a r -.risinz f1>01,. th .. uooofths impj Project Num bcr: 2706 D.ate: 20013 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 2008 East Oceanfront Newport Beach, California ........ ... Scale: 1 :60,000 8._-'..,...,....,,,,.,,,,• .. ·• ........ ,,,.,,,,.,1,,.5 Miler EXPLANATION Area that would be inundated by a tsunami generated by a submarine lands Ii de offshore of Newport Beach (areas at or lower than 32 foot elevation Newport Beach City Boundary Sphere of Influence Work Order 576919 Plate No. 5 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PA2019-242 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND KEY TO BORING LOGS UNITED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D-2487) PRIMARY DIVISIONS SYMBOLS SECONDARY DIVISIONS GW WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE GRAVEL AND CLEAN GRAVELS ORNO FINES GRAVELLY (LITTLE OR NO SOILS FINES) GP POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, COARSE LITTLE OR NO FINES GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE GRAVELS WITH GM SIL TY GRAVELS, GRAVELS-SAND-SILT MIXTURES FRACTION FINES RETAINED ON (APPRECIABLE N0.4SIEVE AMOUNT OF FINES) GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVELS-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES SW WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO SAND AND CLEAN SAND FINES SANDY SOILS (LITTLE OR NO MORE THAN 50% FINES) SP POORLY-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO OF MATERIAL IS FINES LARGER THAN NO. MORE THAN 50% 200 SIEVE SIZE OF COARSE SAND WITH SM SIL TY SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES FRACTION FINES PASSING NO. 4 (APPRECIABLE SIEVE AMOUNT OF FINES) SC CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY MIXTURES INORGANIC SIL TS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, ML SIL TY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SIL TS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY FINE GRAINED SILTS AND LIQUID LIMIT INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, SOILS CLAYS LESS THAN 50 CL GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY MH INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE MORE THAN 50% SAND OR SIL TY SOILS OF MATERIAL IS SILTS AND LIQUID LIMIT SMALLER THAN CLAYS GREATER THAN CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS NO. 200 SIEVE 50 SIZE OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SIL TS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY COARSE GRAINED SOILS FINE GRAINED SOILS CONSISTENCY BLOWS/FT* CONSISTENCY BLOWS/FT* VERY LOOSE 0-4 VERY SOFT 0-2 LOOSE 4 • 10 SOFT 2-4 MEDIUM DENSE 10 • 30 FIRM 4-8 DENSE 30 • 50 STIFF 8 -15 VERY DENSE OVER50 VERY STIFF 15 • 30 HARD OVER30 * BLOWS/FT FOR A 140-POUND HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES TO DRIVE A 2 INCH O.D., 1-3/8 INCH 1.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER (STANDARD PENETRATION TEST) KEY TO SAMPLE TYPE: U = UNDISTURBED SAMPLE B = BULK S = SPT SAMPLE COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PA2019-242 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. (Text Supercedes) 12" 12" 12" 15" 15" 15" 15" 15" 15" 15" 18" 18" 18" 18" 18" 24" 24" 24" 24" 30" 24" 24" 24" 24" 36" 24" 24" 24" 24" 30" 24" 24" 24" 24" 36" 4 #5 Bars 4 #5 Bars 4 #5 Bars 4 #5 Bars 4 #5 Bars 2Top 2Top 2 Top 2 Top 2Top 2Bottom 2 Bottom 2Bottom 2Bottom 2Bottom 5" Actual 5" Actual 5" Actual 5" Actual 5" Actual #4 Bars on #4 Bars on #4 Bars on #4 Bars on #4 Bars on 12" 12" 12" 12" 12" Centers Both Centers Both Centers Both Centers Both Centers Both Ways Ways Ways Ways Ways 15 mil 15 mil 15 mil 15 mil 15 mil Membrane Membrane Membrane Membrane Membrane #4 Bars on #4 Bars on #4 Bars on #4 Bars on #4 Bars on 12" 12" 12" 12" Center 12" Center Centers Both Centers Both Centers Both Both Ways Both Ways Ways Ways Ways Free Floating Free Floating Same as Adj. Same as Adj. Same as Adj. Same as Adj. Same as Adj. Ext. Ftg. Ext. Ftg. Ext. Ftg. Ext. Ftg. Ext. Ftg. 4" Clean 4" Clean 4" Clean 4" Clean 4" Clean Aggregate Aggregate Aggregate Aggregate Aggregate Above Opt. 110% of Opt 130% of Opt 130% of Opt To M/Cto M/Cto Depth MIC to Depth Depth ofFtg. Depth Footing Footing (No Testing) Footing 1. Basement slabs shall have a minimum thickness of six inches. 2. Floor slab shall be constructed over a 15 mil plastic membrane. The membrane shall be properly lapped, sealed and in contact with the slab bottom. 3. Aggregate should be Yi-inch or larger. PA2019-242 Date: 7/9/2019 Cl) -I-.2 C en Cl) Cl) a.. ro ~ C Cl) > Cl) u:: z a.. 10 2 17 1 32 3 37 3 24 2 SUMMARY OF BORING NO. 1 Elevation: E.G. en >, Cl) -: -: (.) Cl) C :5s 0.. u.. .... Cl) -0 -en ~ E ..c Description 0 en ro -·1n ·o o Cl) a. (.) C ~ '?ft. Cl) 0 0 (.) -U B Concrete (5") FILL: SAND ---slightly silty, fine to medium-Gray Brown Medium grained, damp Dense NATIVE: SAND ---medium to coarse-grained, Yellow Tan Medium clean, damp Dense SAND ---medium to coarse-grained, clean, damp Yellow Tan to Medium 3.8 Tan Dense 5 SAND ---medium to coarse-grained, clean, damp Yellow Tan to Medium 4.8 Tan Dense SAND ---fine to medium-grained, clean, wet Tan Dense 20.8 SAND ---fine to medium-grained, clean, wet Tan Dense 24.0 10 SAND ---fine to medium-grained, clean, wet Tan Medium 23.5 Dense to Dense End of boring at 12.5 feet Groundwater at 7.0 feet Sands are subject to caving 15 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 2008 East Oceanfront Newport Beach, California Work Order 576919 Plate B COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PA2019-242 Date: 7/9/2019 ~ -Cl) "cii ~~ Q) ...... c.. LL c--Q) 't:5 ->, E 0 a.. Cl) .... ..c: ·5 0 ro -c.'.'.'-Cl) 0. ~~ Cl) 0 -0 2 100.7 3.8 4 101.5 4.8 6 101.9 5.3 8 101.0 11.9 10 SUMMARY OF BORING NO. 2 Description FILL: SAND ---silty, fine to medium-grained, dry to damp NATIVE: SAND ---medium to coarse-grained, clean, damp SAND ---fine to medium-grained, clean, damp, with shells SAND ---fine to medium-grained, clean, damp, with shells SAND ---fine to medium-grained, clean, moist to very moist, with shells End of boring at 10.5 feet Groundwater at 10.0 feet Sands are subject to caving Elevation: .... 0 0 t) Brown Tan E.G. ~ C Cl) -Cl) "cii C 0 t) Loose Medium Dense Tan to Light Medium Gray Tan Dense Tan to Light Medium Gray Tan Dense Tan to Light Gray Tan Medium Dense Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 2008 East Oceanfront Newport Beach, California Work Order 576919 Plate C COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PA2019-242 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS [ Boring No. 2 @ 2.5 Feet l Pressure (Kips Per Square Foot) 0.1 1 10 0.00 n. L. ~,..__ 1.00 NI .......... ............ • ........ ---, .. 2.00 --' --"---" ---"- --..:, 3.00 --C: Cl) ~ 4.00 Cl) CL -C: 0 5.00 .:; ca "C 0 ti) 6.00 C: 0 u 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 0 Test Specimen at In-Situ Moisture • Test Specimen Submerged Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Work Order 576919 2008 East Oceanfront Newport Beach, California Plate No. D COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PA2019-242 SHEAR TEST RESULT ( Boring No.1 @ 0 to 5 Feet (Re molded to 90%) ) 5 4 ..--. .::: 3 & ~ C. :.52 ._., 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Confining Pressure (kips/sq. ft.) Remolded soil samples were tested at saturated conditions. The sample had a dry density of 101.1 lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of 24.4 %. Cohesion = 100 psf Friction Angle = 32 degrees Based on 80% peak strength or ultimate strength, whichever is lower Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 2008 East Oceanfront Newport Beach, California Work Order 576919 Plate No. E COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PA2019-242 Cl) Cl) ( 5 4 SHEAR TEST RESULT Boring No. 2 @ 2.5 Feet ~ 2 ..... Cl) 1 V .V 0 1 2 3 4 Confining Pressure (kips/sq. ft.) Native soil samples were tested at saturated conditions. ) 5 The sample had a dry density of 100.7 lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of 24.7 %. Cohesion = 50 psf Friction Angle = 32 degrees Based on 80% peak strength or ultimate strength, whichever is lower Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 2008 East Oceanfront Newport Beach, California Work Order 576919 Plate No. F COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PA2019-242 ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY Bearing Capacity Calculations are based on "Terzaghi's Bearing Capacity Theory" Bearing Material: Compacted fill Properties: Wet Density (y) = 110 pcf Cohesion (C) = 100 psf Angle of Friction (<P) = 32 degrees Footing Depth (D) = 2 feet Footing Width (B) = 1.0 foot Factor of Safety = 3.0 Calculations -Ultimate Bearing Capacity from Table 3.1 on page 127 of "Foundation Engineering Handbook", 1975 Ne= 35.49 Nq = 23.18 Nr = 30.22 Ou = 1.3 C Ne + y D Nq + 0.4 y B Ny (Square Footing) = 1.3 * 100 * 35.49 + 110 * 2 * 23.18 + 0.4 * 110 * 1 * 30.22 = 4613 + 5099 + 1329 = 11041 psf Allowable Bearing Capacity for Square Footing Oa11= Ou/ F.S. = Use 1800 psf 3680 psf Ou = 1.0 C Ne + y D Nq + 0.5 y B Ny (Continuous Footing) = 1.0 * 100 * 35.49 + 110 * 2 * 23.18 + 0.5 * 110 * 1 * 30.22 = 3549 + 5099 + 1662 = 10310 psf Allowable Bearing Capacity for Continuous Footing Oa11 = Ou/ F.S. = Use 1800 psf 3436 psf Increases: 750 psf / ft in depth over 2 feet 250 psf / ft in width over 1 foot Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 2008 East Oceanfront Newport Beach, California Work Order 576919 Plate G COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PA2019-242 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE CALCULATIONS Retaining structures such as retaining walls, basement walls, and bulk-heads are commonly used in foundation engineering, and they support almost vertical slopes of earth masses. Proper design and construction of these structures require a through knowledge of the lateral forces acting between the retaining structures and the soil masses being retained. These lateral forces are due to lateral earth pressure. Properties of earth material: Wet Density (y) Cohesion (C) = = 110 pcf 100 psf Angle of Friction (¢) = 32 degrees Coefficient of Friction = tan <I> Therefore, Coefficient of Friction = tan <I> = tan¢ = 0.625 Assumed H = 2 feet Use 0.35 Pp = 0.5 y H2 tan 2 ( 45° + ¢ / 2 ) + 2 C H tan ( 45° + ¢ / 2 ) = 0.5 * 110 * 4 * 3.254 + 2 * 100 * 2 * 1.804 = 716 + 722 = 1438 lbs/ LF 1/2 EFP H2 = 1438 EFP = 719 psf / LF EFP: passive pressure Allowable Passive Pressure= 300 psf / LF ( with F.S. = 2.4) Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 2008 East Oceanfront Newport Beach, California Work Order 576919 Plate H COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PA2019-242 ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE BY COULOMB THEORY Compacted fill The total active thrust can be expressed as PA= 0.5 KAY H2 where the active earth pressure coefficient, KA, is given by COS2 (</J -0) cos 20 cos(o + O) { 1 + [ sin(o + ¢) sin(¢ -/J) cos(o + 0) cos(/3 -0) Where: () = slope of the back of the wall with respect to the vertical o = angle of friction between the wall and the soil /3 = slope of the backfill with respect to the horizontal Properties of earth material: Wet Density (y) Cohesion (C) Angle of Friction (cp) () 0 = = = = = Caculate KA based on slope of the backfill Surface Slope Slope Angle (/3) KA Level 0.0 0.276 5:1 (H:V) 11.3 0.319 4:1 (H:V) 14.0 0.333 3:1 (H:V) 18.4 0.361 2:1 (H:V) 26.6 0.454 1.5:1 (H:V) 33.7 0.765 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 2008 East Oceanfront Newport Beach, California 110 pcf 100 psf 32 degrees 0 20 EFP [ = y * KA ], pcf 30.3 35.1 36.6 39.7 50.0 84.2 Work Order 576919 Plate COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PA2019-242 CALCULATION OF SUBGRADE REACTION Subgrade reaction calculations are based on "Foundation Analysis and Design" Fourth Edition, by Joseph E. Bowles. Ks= 24 quit (for ~H = 1/2 inch) Where: Ks = subgrade reaction in k / ft 3 quit = ultimate bearing capacity For qu1t = 10.3 ksf (from bearing capacity calculations) Ks = 24 * 10.3 k / ft3 = 247.2* 1000 I ( 12 * 12 * 12) lb/ in 3 = 143.1 lb/in3 Use 100 pound per cubic inch Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 2008 East Oceanfront Newport Beach, California COAST GEOTECHNICAL Work Order 576919 Plate No. J PA2019-242 APPENDIXB Liquefaction Analysis by SPT Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 2008 East Oceanfront Newport Beach, California COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PA2019-242 Newport Beach "---------------------------------------' JJ'!W ""'"""" PA2019-242 ·.·.·.·.·.•.·.·.· ®flJf 3 5 7 9 11 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS BY SPT C = ( p / a ' )112 < 2 N a O -, FOR BORING NO. 1 Pa= 2089 psf (N1)50 = Nm CN CE Cs CR Cs CSR= Tav I a 0 ' = 0.65 ( a 0 I a 0') rd ( amax / g ) 315.0 525.0 775.0 :¢JI (J>$fj), 315.0 525.0 650.2 1025.0 I 775.4 1275.o I 900.6 ~;: l'.ilq~,Wft 10 2.00 I 1.00 I 1.05 I 0.75 I 1.20 17 1.99 I 1.00 I 1.05 I 0.75 I 1.20 32 1.79 I 1.00 I 1.05 I 0.75 I 1.20 37 1.64 I 1.00 I 1.05 I 0.75 I 1.20 24 1.52 I 1.00 I 1.05 I o.75 I 1.20 l tNWJgb\ l ( ~i~ws.xrt: 18.9 32.0 54.2 57.4 34.5 s~~i-2 Hp~HJ~Ht 2~~;.W 0.99 I 0.46 2 0.21 I 1.15 I 0.24 0.99 I 0.46 0.60 I 1.15 I o.69 0.99 I 0.55 3 o.60 I 1.15 I 0.69 0.98 I 0.60 3 0.60 I 1.15 I 0.69 0.98 I 0.64 2 o.60 I 1.15 I o.69 Note: 1. Moist unit weight of 105 pcf, saturated unit weight of 125 pcf, and groundwater at 5 feet 2. Magnitude of 7.2 and peak ground acceleration of 0.715 g 3. According to Figure 7.1, soil layers having (N 1 )60 higher than 30 are not considered liquefiable. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation I Work Order 576919 2008 East Oceanfront Newport Beach, California Plate M COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 0.52 1.50 1.26 1.15 1.07 PA2019-242 (!J (!J ..::: 0. (!J 0 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.8 00 0.1 I 101 I 0.4 _;__--,---_I . . _ 1 1 _ _L I l I i . 0.9 I __ ! __ I I I I I 1.0 I 20!--_..:__ __ _.._ __ -'-1__ I j ~veroge :,alues'":\.J._ __ ....; -~I I I . ~ I I ' I \ ~ ,_. I 30 t-I --.:..--~-----I I - f I 40!-i I. : I i I 501 I 60 I ! 70 I I I I 80. I I I 90 100 it~· I • I . I ----T I ! FIG. 1 -RANGE OF VALUES OF rd FOR DIFFERENT SOIL PROFILES PA2019-242 Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California Table 5.2. Corrections to Field SPT N-Values (modified from Youd and Idriss, 1997) Factor Equipment Variable Tenn Overburden Pressure CN Energy Ratio Safety Hammer CE Donut Hammer Automatic Trip Hammer Borehole Diameter 65 mm to 115 mm CB 150mm 200mm Rod Length** 3mto4m CR 4mto6m 6mto10m 10m to30m >30m Sampling Method Standard Sampler Cs Sampler without liners * The Implementation Committee recommends using a minimum of 0.4. ** Actual total rod length, not depth below ground surface 12 Correction (P./ cr' vo)°"'; 0.4.:s;CN.:s;2 * 0.60 to 1.17 0.45 to 1.00 0.9 to 1.6 1.0 1.05 1.15 0.75 0.85 0.95 1.0 <LO 1.0 1.2 PA2019-242 Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California .29 Percent Fines = 35 I I 251".:1 15 o.si---~~~---1-~~~~--1-1-~--+-~~11--~~~---1~~~~~ I I I I I I Adjustment Recommended By Workshop CRR curves for 5,15, and 35 percent fines, respectively Marainal No Liquefaction Liquefaction Liquefaction Pan -American data • m Japanese data • g a Chinese data • A OL--....1.::==:=:::;::::.~-...1-----....L----L---__J 0 10 20 30 40 50 Corrected Blow Coun4 (N1)60 Figure 7.1. Simplified Base Curve Recommended for Determination of CRR from SPT Data for Moment Magnitude 7 .5 Along with Empirical Liquefaction Data (after Youd and Idriss, 1997) 50 PA2019-242 Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California ~ Cl.) ~ I-<' .8 c..> £ bO c:: ·--t-1 c..> Cl.) 0 "'O B ·-c:: ~ ~ 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 5.0 Workshop 6.0 7.0 -+-Seed and Idriss, (1982) ---Idriss x A.nlbraseys(1985) ¢ Arango (1996) + Arango (1996) -e-Andrus and Stokoe A Youd and Noble, PL<20% A Youd and Noble, PL<32% • Youd and Noble, PL<50% 8.0 9.0 Earthquake Magnitude, Mw Figure 7 .2. Magnitude Scaling Factors Derived by Various Investigators (After Youd and Idriss, 1997) 51 PA2019-242 APPENDIXC Calculations of Seismically Induced Settlement Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 2008 East Oceanfront Newport Beach, California COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PA2019-242 CALCULATIONS OF SEISMICALLY-INDUCED SETTLEMENT Calculations of seismically-induced settlement for the subject site are performed based on the II Evaluation Of Settlement In Sands Due To Earthquake Shaking II by Kohji Tokimatsu and H. Bolton Seed, dated August 1987. The calculations of the seismically-induced settlement are as follows: 1. Calculate the effective overburden pressure at the center of each layer. 2. The SPT N-value needs to be corrected depending on equipment used and a0'. (N1)ao = Nm CN CE Cs CR Cs Where CN = (Pa/ a0') 112 < 2, Pa= 2089 psf (N1)ao = corrected N value Nm = field N value CN = correction factor depending on effective overburden pressure a0' = effective overburden pressure, in psf 3. Calculate the maximum shear modulus Gmax = 20 (N1)ao 1/3 ( ao' ) 112 Gmax = maximum shear modulus, in ksf ao' = effective overburden pressure, in psf 4. From the depth in Figure 1, find the stress reduction coefficient, rd 5. Calculate Yett (Gett/ Gmax) Yett ( Gett I Gmax) = 0.65 amax a0 rd I ( g Gmax) amax = 0. 715 g and M = 7.2 ( for the subject site) Yett = effective shear strain induced by earthquake shaking Gett = effective shear modulus at induced strain level (cont'd) Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 2008 East Oceanfront Newport Beach, California Work Order 576919 Plate N1 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PA2019-242 CALCULATIONS OF SEISMICALLY-INDUCED SETTLEMENT amax = maximum ground surface acceleration a0 = total overburden pressure g = acceleration of gravity 6. From Yeff ( Geff / Gmax) and a0' in Figure 2, find yeff (cyclic shear strain) 7. From Yeff and (N 1)60 in Figure 3, find cc.M. =7.5 (volumetric strain due to compaction) 8. Interpolation from Table 1, cc.M. = 7.2 = 0.940 cc.M. = 7.5 9. This settlement caused by combined horizontal motions is about equal to the sum of the settlement caused by the components acting alone. Calculate 2 s c.M. = 7.2 10. Calculate the total settlement Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 2008 East Oceanfront Newport Beach, California Work Order 576919 Plate N2 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PA2019-242 1 2 SEISMICALLY INDUCED SETTLEMENT OF DRY SAND FOR BORING NO. 1 iill~y~[I ~1[J~~~r ~~4ID~~ (~) \gfJj (f:}) <w0 i r~(:fJr~ iffi0[~mrn 2.0 4.0 3.0 I 2.0 I 315 I 315 10 I 18.9 I 946 I o.99 I 15.3 *10-5 I 50 *10-5 1 o.056 I o.053 I 0.105 0.03 4.0 5.0 4.5 I 1.0 I 473 I 473 17 I 32.0 I 1380 I 0.99 I 15.8 *10-5 I 34 *10-5 1 0.018 I 0.017 I 0.034 0.00 TOTAL 0.03 Based on : 1. Moist unit weight of 105 pcf, saturated unit weight of 125 pcf, and groundwater at 5 feet 2. Magnitude of 7.2 and peak ground acceleration of 0.715 g 3. Gmax = 20 (N1)50 113 ( ao' ) 112 4. Yett ( Geff I Gmax) = 0.65 amax ao rd/ ( g Gmax) Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 2008 East Oceanfront Newport Beach, California COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Work Order 576919 Plate No. N3 PA2019-242 --CJ >-. C ·-0 ... (fl '- 0 4.) .c. (fl I <Tm .1 0.1 t 5f 0.2 10 3 -4 10 -~ 10 '---~~'---~---'---'.__...........i ......... ~~--""~--L.---1,......1..--i-.i....J...J...L~~.....i..----' ,o-3 ,o-5 ,o-4 raff (Gef f /Gmax) FIG. ·:z. -PLOT FOR DETERMINATION OF INDUCED STRAIN IN SAND DEPOSITS PA2019-242 Cyclic Shear Strain, 'f -percent ~ 2 xy 10-.) 10-10·1 10-:3 r---,---r-r-r---r---r--.--,--,----.---r-r--..--,.---. C ·2 ~ 10 ~ CJ a. I u w C 0 u 0 a. ~ 10 1 u 0 - C 0 "--V, "" 15 :::::10 :::::5 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '\, ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 15 Cycles ' '\ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '\ ' ... ' ' ' .... .... .... ... FIG.3 -RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VOLUMETRIC STRAIN, SHEAR STRAIN, AND PENETRATION RESISTANCE FOR DRY SANDS PA2019-242 TABLE 1 -INFLUENCE OF EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE ON VOLUMETRIC STRAIN RATIO FOR DRY SANDS Earthquake magnitude (1) 8-1/2 7-1/2 6-3/4 6 5-1/4 Number of representative CyCf85 at Q.65 Tmax (2) 26 15 10 5 2-3 Volumetric strain ratio, Ec,N /Ec;N-15 (3) 1.25 1.0 0.85 0.6 0.4 PA2019-242 SEISMICALLY INDUCED SETTLEMENT OF SATURATED SOILS FOR BORING NO. 1 i!!~~~i! ~~,1~11 lllll~llll l!l!l)~illlll lll\~lj//l!l llli!lllllllll~llli 11:11111~1 1111~,,~,111111111~111111111111~111111111111~~~11 .,.,:,:,:,::e,:::::::::::::1:,:,:,:,:,:,: :,::::::::•:•:• ~t~~~~~f J~1111 11:11~~~~i~~t!II 1 5.0 I 6.0 I 1.0 I 32.0 I 1 I o.oo 1.00 32.0 0.46 1.15 0.40 0.2 I 0.02 2 6.0 8.0 2.0 I 54.2 3 o.oo I 1.00 54.2 0.55 1.15 0.48 0.0 0.00 3 8.0 10.0 2.0 I 57.4 3 o.oo I 1.00 57.4 0.60 1.15 0.52 0.0 0.00 4 10.0 12.0 2.0 I 34.5 2 o.oo I 1.00 34.5 0.64 1.15 0.56 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 0.02 Note: 1. Groundwater at 5 feet, magnitude of 7.2, and peak ground acceleration of 0.715 g 2. (N1)50 cs= a+ f3 (N1)50 3. For volumetric strain refer to Figure 7.11 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 2008 East Oceanfront Newport Beach, California Work Order 576919 Plate No. 0 COAST GEOTECHNICAL PA2019-242 Thomas F. Blake (Fugro-West, Inc., Ventura, Calif., written commun.) approximated the simplified base curve plotted on Figure 2 by the following equation: a + ex + ex 2 + gx 3 CRR 7 5 = · 1 + bx + dx 2 + .fx 3 + hx 4 (4) where CRR7.5 is the cyclic resistance ratio for magnitude 7.5 earthquakes; x = (Ni)60 ; a= 0.048; b = -0.1248; c = -0.004721; d = 0.009578; e = 0.0006136; f= -0.0003285; g = -l.673E-05; and h = 3.714E-06. This equation is valid for (N 1\0 less than 30 and may be used in spreadsheets and other analytical techniques to approximate the simplified base curve for engineering calculations. Robertson and Wride (this report) indicate that Equation 4 is not applicable for (N 1)60 less than three, but the general consensus of workshop participants is that the curve defined by Equation 4 should be extended to intersect the intercept at a CRR value of about 0.05. Correlations for Fines Content and Soil Plasticity Another change was the quantification of the fines content correction to better fit the empirical data and to support computations with spreadsheets and other electronic computational aids. In the original development, Seed et al. (1985) found that for a given (N1)60 , CRR increases with increased fines content. It is not clear, however, whether the CRR increase is because of greater liquefaction resistance or smaller penetration resistance as a consequence of the general increase of compressibility and decrease of permeability with increased fines content. Based on the empirical data available, Seed et al. developed CRR curves for various fines contents as shown on Figure 2. After alengthy review by.the workshop participants, consensus was gained that the correction for fines content should be a function of penetration resistance as well as fines content. The participants also agreed that other grain characteristics, such as soil plasticity may affect liquefaction resistance; hence any correlation based solely on penetration resistance and fines content should be used with ~ngineering judgement and caution. The following equations, developed by I.M. Idriss with assistance from R.B. Seed are recommended for correcting standard penetration resistance determined for silty sands to an equivalent clean sand penetration resistance: (5) where a and p are coefficients determined from the following equations: a= 0 forFC;,; 5% (6a) a= exp[l.76 -(190/FC2)] for 5% < FC < 35% (6b) a;;::; 5.0 forFC ~ 35% (6c) p = 1.0 . forFC;,; 5% (7a) p = [0.99 + (FCi.5/1000)] for 5% < FC < 35% (7b) p = 1.2 for FC ~ 35% (7c) where FC is the fines content measured from laboratory gradation tests on retrieved soil samples. 7 PA2019-242 Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California Volumetric Stro in -% 0.5 10 5 4 3 2 0.5 I I 0.4 IaY- cr;.' 0 0.3 0.2 "0.1 I I I I I J /,0.2 I I I I I I /. //p.1 I I 1 I I I I·/ I I I I I I / / / '/ I. I I I I I I I I / / I / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /,,/ /,, // I/ '// '// '// '// V/ ~ 10 20 30 40 50 Figure 7.11. Relationship Between Cyclic Stress Ratio, (N 1)60 and Volumetric Strain for Saturated Clean Sands and Magnitude= 7.5 (After Tokimatsu and Seed, 1987) 60 PA2019-242 2008 E Oceanfront, Newport Beach, CA 92661, USA Latitude, Longitude: 33.5961412, -117.88638220000001 Date Design Code Reference Document Risk Category 7/16/2019, 9:54:20 AM ASCE7-10 II Site Class Type Ss S1 SMs SM1 Sos So1 Type soc Fa Fv PGA FPGA PGAM TL SsRT SsUH SsD S1RT S1UH S1D PGAd CRs CR1 Value 1.722 0.634 1.722 0.95 1.148 0.634 Value D 1.5 0.715 0.715 8 1.722 1.93 3.217 0.634 0.697 1.079 1.176 0.892 0.909 Description MCER ground motion. (for 0.2 second period) MCER ground motion. (for 1.0s period) Site-modified spectral acceleration value Site-modified spectral acceleration value Numeric seismic design value at 0.2 second SA Numeric seismic design value at 1.0 second SA Description Seismic design category Site amplification factor at 0.2 second Site amplification factor at 1.0 second MCE8 peak ground acceleration Site amplification factor at PGA Site modified peak ground acceleration Long-period transition period in seconds Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (0.2 second) D -Stiff Soil Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration Factored deterministic acceleration value. (0.2 second) Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (1.0 second) Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration. Factored deterministic acceleration value. (1.0 second) Factored deterministic acceleration value. (Peak Ground Acceleration) Mapped value of the risk coefficient at short periods Mapped value of the risk coefficient at a period of 1 s OSHPD PA2019-242 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 MCER Response Spectrum 0.0 2.5 5.0 Period, T (sec) -Sa(g) Design Response Spectrum 0.0 0.0 2.5 5.0 Period, T (sec) -Sa(g) 7.5 7.5 DISCLAIMER While the information presented on this website is believed to be correct, SEAOC /OSHPD and its sponsors and contributors assume no responsibility or liability for its accuracy. The material presented in this web application should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability and applicability by engineers or other licensed professionals. SEAOC / OSHPD do not intend that the use of this information replace the sound judgment of such competent professionals, having experience and knowledge in the field of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting and applying the results of the seismic data provided by this website. Users of the information from this website assume all liability arising from such use. Use of the output of this website does not imply approval by the governing building code bodies responsible for building code approval and interpretation for the building site described by latitude/longitude location in the search results of this webstie. PA2019-242 FILE #197970 2008 E OCEAN BLVD NEWPORT BEACH CA COASTAL OCTOBER 31 2019 048 262 27 048 211 10 Steven Ri c hman 224 Conway Ave Los Angeles CA 90024 048 2 11 13 Edyth Elaine Linhoff 1760 E Ocean Blvd Newport Beach CA 92661 048 2 11 25 Elizabeth Pierce 120 E 87 th St #P26A New York NY 10128 048 212 13 Marshall Flapan 3435 Southern Hills Dr Des Moines IA 50321 048 2 12 18 James Muth II Po Box 797 Newport Beach CA 92661 048 2 12 31 Contessa LLC 1752 E Oceanfront Newport Beach CA 92661 048 261 02 Bonnie Aver 2005 Miramar Dr Newport Beach CA 92661 048 261 05 David M cEwen 1 Summerside Coto De Caza CA 92679 SUSAN W. CASE, INC. orders@susancasei nc. com 917 Glenneyre Street, Suite 7 • Laguna Beach, CA 92651 PHONE (949) 494-6105 048 211 11 048 211 12 Ronald Anderson Keith & Melanie Cox 2440 San Antonio Cres W 1761 Miramar Dr Upland CA 91784 Newport Beach CA 92661 04821114 048 211 15 Steven & Beth Elliott Rex Nederend 1756 E Ocean Blvd 1754 E Ocean Blvd Newport Beach CA 92661 Newport Beach CA 92661 048 211 31 048 212 11 Bernardino & Lia Daquila Bill Criss 17 46 E Ocean Blvd 8537 Acacia Dr Newport Beach CA 92661 Cypress CA 90630 048 212 14 048 212 17 Scenario Winifred Ann Spengler 283 Bel Air Rd 10666 Westminster Ave Los Angeles CA 90077 Garden Grove CA 92843 048 212 27 04821228 Marie C R E & M White Daniel Kaschmitter 1751 E Ocean Blvd 1615 S Devonshire Dr Newport Beach CA 92661 Salt Lake City UT 84108 048 212 32 048 261 01 Contessa LLC Scott Figge 1758 E Oceanfront 4081 Hampstead Rd Newport Beach CA 92661 La Canada CA 91011 048 261 03 048 261 04 Beach House Newport James Pace 2007 Miramar Dr 38385 Shady Ct Newport Beach CA 92661 Yucaipa CA 92399 048 26 1 06 048 261 07 Gary Burnison James Fuller 5472 Island Forest Pl 2025 Linden Lake Rd Westlake Village CA 91362 Fort Collins CO 80524 PA2019-242 048 261 08 048 261 09 048 261 21 Jeffrey D'Eliscu John Ernst Rr Ocean Vacation LLC 201 7 Miramar Dr 2021 Miramar Dr 2050 E Ocean Blvd Newport Beach CA 92661 Newport Beach CA 92661 Newport Beach CA 92661 048 261 22 048 261 23 048 261 24 Matthew Crowley James John Cefalia Michael Johnson 5852 Sandra Dr 1224 W Oceanfront 2032 E Ocean Blvd Yorba Linda CA 92886 Newport Beach CA 92661 Newport Beach CA 92661 048 261 25 048 261 28 048 261 29 Barbara Dahl Lee Assenheimer Eleanor Neslen-Ramsay 2028 E Ocean Blvd 2008 E Ocean Blvd 2004 E Ocean Blvd Newport Beach CA 92661 Newport Beach CA 92661 Newport Beach CA 92661 048 261 30 048 261 31 048 261 32 Eric Johnson Hon Ocean Cao Frank & Lori Gervasi 61 50 Tiburon Dr 3667 Arlington Ave 26757 Macmillan Ranch Rd Rive rsid e CA 92506 Riverside CA 92506 Santa Clarita CA 91387 048 26 1 33 048 261 34 048 261 35 Terry Malley Seidler Richard Alan Teaman Robert Chapman 51 5 S Fi gueroa St #1988 8064 Pepita Ct 2023 Miramar Dr Los Angeles CA 9007 1 Riverside CA 92508 Newport Beach CA 92661 048 26 1 36 048 262 01 048 262 02 Edward Kramer 2001 E Ocean Boulevard Anthony Viele 93 7 19th St 2001 E Ocean Blvd 15423 Avenida Socorro Santa Mon ica CA 90403 Newport Beach CA 92661 La Mirada CA 90638 048 262 03 048 262 04 048 262 05 John Schmidt V Cefa lia Michael Hawkins 46 3 E Happy Canyon Rd 224 Knox St 2019 E Ocean Blvd Cas tl e Rock CO 80108 Costa Mesa CA 92627 Newport Beach CA 92661 048 262 06 048 262 07 048 262 08 Ron ald Dahl Adam Devone Charles Chacon 202 5 E Ocean Blvd 137 16 Birtcher Dr 765 N Main St Newport Beach CA 92661 Lake Forest CA 92630 Corona CA 92880 04 8 262 09 048 262 10 048 262 11 And erson Nancy M N M Allari Amin Mirhadi 20 37 E Ocean Blvd 2041 E Ocean Blvd 1199 Roberto Ln Newport Beach CA 92661 Newport Beach CA 92661 Los Angeles CA 90077 04 8 26 2 12 048 262 19 048 262 20 Joh nson Pu rple Sage Nb LLC Edmund Shea Jr. 86 5 S Madison Ave Po Box 970340 655 Brea Canyon Rd Pa sadena CA 91106 Orem UT 84097 Walnut CA 91789 PA2019-242 048 262 21 048 262 22 048 262 23 Bill Vuylsteke Nancy R N Harrison Pauline D P D Ventura 3130 Wilshire Blvd #600 1979 Port Locksleigh Pl 160 Kahawai Pl Santa Monica CA 90403 Newport Beach CA 92660 Kapaa HI 96746 04 8 26 2 24 048 262 25 048 262 26 Elizabe th Weigand Bradley Gordon Robert Ackerman 6 37 Alamosa Dr 4658 E Desert Park Pl 10960 Wilshire Blvd Claremont CA 91711 Paradise Valley AZ 85253 Los Angeles CA 90024 048 262 27 048 262 31 048 262 32 Robert Wheatley John & Sarah Ryan Ronald Seidner 1466 1 Franklin Ave #100 172 Beach Rd 1151 N Azusa Ave Tu stin CA 92780 Belvedere CA 94920 Covi na CA 91722 048 310 01 048 21110 04821111 C ity Of Newport Beach Occupant Occupant 3300 Newport Blvd 1755 Miramar Dr 1759 Miramar Dr Newport Beach CA 92663 Newport Beach CA 92661 Newport Beach CA 92661 04 8 21 1 25 048 212 11 048 212 13 Occupa nt O cc upant Occupant 1750 E Ocean Blvd 174 7 E Ocean Bl vd 1759 E Ocean Blvd Newpo rt Bea c h CA 92661 N ewport Beach CA 9266 1 Newport Beach CA 92661 04 8 2 12 14 048 212 17 048 212 18 O ccupa nt Occupant Occ upant 17 63 E Ocean Blvd 1750 E Oceanfront 17 44 E Oceanfront Newport Beach CA 92661 Newport Beach CA 92661 Newport Bea ch CA 92661 04 8 2 12 28 048 2 12 32 048 261 01 O ccupant Occupant Occupant 17 55 E Ocean Blvd 17 58 E Oceanfront 2001 Miramar Dr Newport Beach CA 92661 Newport Beach CA 92661 N ewport Beach CA 9266 1 04 8 26 1 04 048 261 05 048 2 61 06 Occupa nt Occupant Occupant 20 09 Miramar Dr 2011 Miramar Dr 2013 Miramar Dr Newpo rt Beach CA 92661 Newport Beach CA 92661 Newport Beach CA 92661 04 8 26 1 07 048 261 21 048 261 22 Occupa nt Occupant Occupant 201 5 Miramar Dr 2044 E Ocean Blvd 2040 E Ocean Blvd Newport Beach CA 92661 Newport Beach CA 92661 Newport Beach CA 92661 048 26 1 23 048 26 1 30 048 261 31 Occupan t Occupa nt Occupant 2036 E Ocean Blvd 2000 E Ocean Blvd 2020 E Ocean Blvd Newpo rt Beac h CA 92661 Newport Bea ch CA 92661 Newport Beach CA 9266 1 PA2019-242 04 8 26 1 32 048 261 33 048 261 34 O ccupant O ccupant Occupant 20 24 E Ocean Blvd 2012 E Ocean Blvd 2016 E Ocean Blvd Ne wpo rt Beach CA 92661 Newport Beach CA 92661 Newport Beach CA 92661 04 8 26 1 36 048 262 02 048 262 03 Occ upant Occupant Occupant 2025 Miramar Dr 2005 E Ocean Blvd 2015 E Ocean Blvd New po rt Beach CA 92661 Newport Beach CA 92661 Newport Beach CA 92661 04 8 262 04 048 262 07 048 262 08 Occu pant Occupant Occupant 201 7 E Ocean Blvd 2029 E Ocean Blvd 2033 E Ocean Blvd Newp o rt Beach CA 92661 Newport Beach CA 92661 Newport Beach CA 92661 04 8 262 11 048 262 12 048 262 19 Occ up ant Occupant Occupant 204 5 E Oc ean Blvd 204 9 E Ocean Blvd 2046 E Ocean Blvd Newpo rt Bea c h CA 92661 Newport Beach CA 92661 Newport Beach CA 92661 04 8 262 20 048 262 21 048 262 22 Occupant Occupant Occupant 2042 E Ocean Blvd 203 8 E Ocean Blvd 2034 E Ocean Blvd New po rt Beach CA 92661 Newport Beach CA 92661 Newport Beach CA 92661 04 8 262 2 3 048 262 24 048 262 25 Occ upant Occupant Occupant 2030 E Ocean Blvd 2026 E Ocean Blvd 2020 E Ocean Blvd Newport Be ach CA 92661 New port Bea c h CA 92661 Newport Beach CA 92661 04 8 26 2 26 048 262 2 7 048 262 31 Occu pant Occupant Occupant 20 16 E Oc ean Blvd 2008 E Ocean Blvd 2004 E Ocean Blvd N ew port Beach CA 92661 Newpo rt Beach CA 92661 Newport Beach CA 92661 04 8 26 2 32 Occu pa nt 2000 E Oc ean Blvd Newport Beach CA 92661 PA2019-242 SUSAN W. CASE, INC. 917 GLENNEYRE ST# 7 LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 PH ONE 949-494-6105 ord ers@s usancaseinc.com Certification of Preparation The a tt ac hed li st represents th e names a nd addresses of a ll Jproperty owner ~ an d !resi de ntial occupant~ lo cated w ithin 300 feet of the ex terio r boundaries ex cluding streets , ri g hts of ways a nd water way s o f th e property locat ed a t 2008 E OCEAN BLVD NE WPO R T BEACH CA T hi s in fo rma ti o n wa s obtained through F irs t American Core Logic, a data s ource utili z ing the co unty assess or ro ll s and o th e r avail able so urces. This in fo rm a ti on is gen erall y dee m ed re li a bl e , but is not guaranteed. Return of prope rty ad dre sse s tha t a re deemed und el iverabl e by the U nited States Posta l Service is , therefore, a possib ility . S usan W. Case, In c. is no t re s po ns ibl e fo r providing furth e r in vestigatio n of said la be ls. Accepta nce of thi s package acknowledges thi s fact. Susan W . Case, Inc. 10-31-2019 PA2019-242 ,.,/ · ,_, d ' .•~.·.,pr;. rni-(Jilli,#.• .~ .. :' r .~J>--::.ri--;., ~~~·}i1 ~· · :, 11 . • C.o , ~'Iii' ~.: :-...,,,r:. ,.,. l ··.e.,. ' '"' ·~·~r• 11., J. .,,-.~ '?Iii., .. " ... ,. ~·-.. ~:·.:::,"J'.!..'·'; ..... '"'·"" j 0 N J J ]· 22 Ml/UN.AH ORI~ <i) ,, .... ® r i . ®\l ; ® /.~ /_~I®~., .. 1 ,,. @ /@ /@ /@ I... ,,. H (211} "' I" L~J~t@r@ @/®/@ /@ ®/@/@ /©/@ @ ,er;) .. L "--'---" : OCEAN ' IIOUL CVA RD e '"T .• ~ ----..---,,,- @/@i © @ ©/@ ' ' \ \___j \ " I '---------' 1,1/RAMAR I BLK. C @~ ® @ @ ® @ e @ I @ , :\ocm ~· •'• _, I F I I :.-·~. ~: , .. @1..0 .. :,t . ~ ... # s 11• tr I ~@ :_ .@: J_~. I I ,., I - i = -~ I~ I ~IO IO I~ I''® l,. I,. . --.,-~·--·· I '518 @ :@ I • I I I '· @ t ~ @ @j l::' I I JP i-r. O.J' p i: f?,f i JlT'""l II @J .. ~@ I @ l ,. I fl e I ®' I I 31 !,(Al/CH 1949 TR. NO. 518 MIi. t7-.J..J -S6 \ \ -" I ~__J -,. Map Preparer: SUSAN W. CASE, INC. 917 G LENNEYRE ST #7 LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 949 494 6105 susancaseinc@yahoo.com __j_ . . fi ~ FILE #197970 2008 E OCEAN BLVD NEWPORT BEACH CA COASTAL OCTOBER 31 2 0 19 048 262 27 • 3 1 6 8> 27 j L o~a-26 ORM" ®l®l@l@~®i ·iC \ l ... BOULEVARD ® ~ @ [ re ~ ®\®' NO. 518 ssi::w·s '-'•" ().18 P ACC 16 •rr or ORANCC .- D PA2019-242