No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20191218_Geotechnical Investigation_12-16-201923 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone 949 629 2539 | Email info@rmccarthyconsulting.com December 16, 2019 Ed and Chris Capparelli File No: 8398-00 10182 Squires Circle Report No: R1-8398 Villa Park, California 92861 Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Residential Construction 117 North Bay Front Balboa Island Newport Beach, California Legal Description: Lot 5 of Block 2 of Resubdivision of Balboa Island in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 5, Page 44, of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said Orange County. APN: 050-021-06 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for 117 North Bay Front on Balboa Island in Newport Beach, California, which was performed to determine various site and regional geotechnical conditions pertinent to the residential construction currently proposed for the subject property. Analyses for this investigation are based upon a brief description of the project by Brandon Architects. The purpose of our review and investigation was to evaluate the subsurface conditions, determine the compatibility of the proposed development with respect to the geotechnical features of the site, and provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations and design parameters for site precise grading and planned improvements. Specific information and recommendations for site development are provided herein. The conclusions and recommendations of this report are considered preliminary due to the absence of specific foundation and grading plans, the preparation of which are partially dependent upon recommendations presented herein. Project Authorization The work performed was per your authorization based on our Proposal No: P1-8398, dated December 9, 2019. Scope of Investigation The investigation included the following: PA2019-263 December 16, 2019 File No: 8398-00 Report No: R1-8398 Page No: 2 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 1. Review of collected geologic, geotechnical engineering and seismological reports and maps pertinent to the subject site. A reference list is included in Appendix A. 2. Subsurface exploration consisting of one boring advanced to a depth of 18.5 feet by use of a limited access drill rig (Pacific Drilling Mini-Mole) and one hand auger boring advanced to a depth of 4.5 feet. The boring locations are shown on the Geotechnical Plot Plan, Figure 1. 3. Logging and sampling of the exploratory borings, including collection of soil samples for laboratory testing. The Logs of the exploration are included in Appendix B. 4. Laboratory testing of soil samples representative of subsurface conditions. The results are presented in Appendix C. 5. Geotechnical engineering and geologic analyses of collected data, including a liquefaction analysis and seismic settlement analysis. 6. Preparation of this report containing our geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction in accordance with the 2016 California Building Code (CBC) and for use by your design professionals and contractors. Site Description The subject property is located on the north side of Balboa Island facing Beacon Bay. The property is located on North Bay Front between Emerald Avenue and Park Avenue. The site is bounded on the east and west sides by developed residential properties. The North Bay Front “boardwalk” is on the north with a seawall beyond along the Beacon Bay channel. The site is bordered on the south by the Bay Front Alley North. The Topographic Map prepared by Apex Land Surveying, Inc. (Reference 1) indicates that the lot has an approximately trapezoidal shape. The Apex plan was used as a base map for our Geotechnical Plot Plan, Figure 1. The lot size is roughly 2,133 square feet (redfin.com). Lot elevations are indicated as approximately 6.21 to 8.23 feet (NAVD88). The adjoining property on the east is level with the subject site to about 1 foot higher. The adjoining lot on the west is level to about 2 feet lower than the subject site. The site presently contains a two-story house with attached garage. Concrete, brick and tile hardscape covers the areas around the existing house. There is little or no vegetation on the lot. Drainage is not well developed. Proposed Development We understand that the proposed development will consist of the demolition of the existing structure to build a new, two and three-story single-family residence. Grading is expected to consist of reprocessing surface soils following removal of existing foundation elements, unsuitable fill, weathered soil and materials disturbed by demolition. Import soil will be required to raise the building pad elevations by 2 to 3 feet. PA2019-263 December 16, 2019 File No: 8398-00 Report No: R1-8398 Page No: 3 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Structural loads were not provided. We anticipate wood-frame and light steel construction that is typical of the area and relatively light construction loads. We assume that maximum column loads will be less than 18 kips and wall loads of 2 kip/foot. A mat slab-on-grade construction is anticipated. Our office should be notified when the structural design loads for foundation elements are available to check these preliminary assumptions. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS Geologic Setting The property is situated within the southeasterly edge of the Los Angeles Basin on an island within Newport Bay. This area is generally underlain by recent marine deposits consisting predominantly of silty sands, sands and occasional silt layers. The Pacific Ocean is about 3,000 feet southwest of the site. Historical topographic maps and accounts indicate that the Balboa Island areas were formerly low-lying, intertidal sand bars and island areas of the natural bay. The site is thought to be resting on a regionally extensive, relatively flat bench scoured by wave activity into bedrock. The bedrock lies below successive layers of beach and bay deposits. Earth Materials The site is underlain by Marine deposits consisting of light brown and grey, fine to coarse sand, silty sand, clayey sand and sandy clay. A 6 to 8-inch thick soft clay layer was encountered at a depth of 3 feet in the borings. Marine deposits were generally medium dense. The sands encountered in the borings were very moist or saturated below a depth of about 4 feet. Laboratory test results and visual observations indicate that the on-site sands are non-plastic and non-expansive. Geologic Hazard The potential geologic hazards at the site are primarily from liquefaction, flooding and shaking due to movement of nearby or distant faults during earthquake events. These are discussed in greater detail below. Groundwater Groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately 4-feet in our exploratory borings. Groundwater levels are anticipated to remain near existing elevations and generally fluctuate to a high of about elevation +3 in the area. Groundwater is tidal influenced and will fluctuate daily. Surficial Run-off Proposed development should incorporate engineering and landscape drainage designed to transmit surface and subsurface flow to the street and/or storm drain system via non-erosive pathways. PA2019-263 December 16, 2019 File No: 8398-00 Report No: R1-8398 Page No: 4 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Portion of: PRELIMINARY DIGITAL GEOLOGICAL MAP OF THE 30’ X 60’ SANTA ANA QUADRANGLE, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, VERSION 2 U. S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 99-172 Compiled by D. M. Morton Version 2.0 Digital Preparation by Kelly R. Bovard and Rachel M. Alvarez – 2004 Faulting/Seismic Considerations The major concern relating to geologic faults is ground shaking that affects many properties over a wide area. Direct hazards from faulting are essentially due to surface rupture along fault lines that could occur during an earthquake. Therefore, geologists have mapped fault locations and established criteria for determining the risks of potential surface rupture based on the likelihood of renewed movement on faults that could be located under a site. Based on criteria established by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), now referred to as the California Geological Survey (CGS), faults are generally categorized as active, potentially active or inactive (Jennings, 1994). The basic principle of faulting concern is that existing faults could move again, and that faults which have moved more recently are the most likely faults to move again and affect us. As such, faults have been divided into categories based on their age of last movement. Although the likelihood of an earthquake or movement to occur on a given fault significantly decreases with inactivity over geologic time, the potential for SITE PA2019-263 December 16, 2019 File No: 8398-00 Report No: R1-8398 Page No: 5 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 such events to occur on any fault cannot be eliminated within the current level of understanding. By definition, faults with no evidence of surface displacement within the last 1.6 million years are considered inactive and generally pose no concern for earthquakes due renewed movement. Potentially-active faults are those with the surface displacement within the last 1.6 million years. Further refinement of potentially active faults are sometimes described based on the age of the last known movement such as late Quaternary (last 700,000 years) implying a greater potential for renewed movement. In fact, most potentially active faults have little likelihood of moving within the time frame of construction life, but the degree of understanding of fault age and activity is sometimes not well understood due to absence of geologic data or surface information, so geologists have acknowledged this doubt by using the term "potentially active." A few faults that were once thought to be potentially active, have later been found to be active based on new findings and mapping. Active faults are those with a surface displacement within the last 11,000 years and, therefore, most likely to move again. The State of California has, additionally, mapped known areas of active faulting as designated Alquist- Priolo (A-P) "Special Studies Zones,” which requires special investigations for fault rupture to limit construction over active faults. Based on our review of various published and unpublished reports, maps and documents, the site is located approximately 1 to 3 kilometers northeast of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone. This fault consists of a series of parallel and en-echelon, northwest-trending faults and folds extending from the southern edge of the Santa Monica Mountains to Huntington Beach and then offshore along Newport Beach. This fault zone has historically experienced moderate to high seismic activity. No active or potentially active faults are known to project through the site. In addition, the Newport-Inglewood Fault is not sufficiently well-defined in the area of the subject site to be placed within the boundaries of an “earthquake fault zone,” as defined by the State of California in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. A potential seismic source near the site is the San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust Fault (SJHBT), which is approximately 2 to 8 kilometers beneath the site at its closest point, based on the reported fault structure. The SJHBT is a postulated fault that is suspected to be responsible for uplift of the San Joaquin Hills. This fault is a blind thrust fault that does not intercept the ground surface and, therefore, presents no known potential for ground rupture at the property. The potential for surface rupture at the site is considered to be low and the property is not located within a special study zone for fault rupture. The site will experience shaking during earthquake events on nearby or distant faults. Site improvements should take into consideration the seismic design parameters outlined herein. PA2019-263 December 16, 2019 File No: 8398-00 Report No: R1-8398 Page No: 6 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Site Classification for Seismic Design Seismic design parameters are provided in a later section of this report for use by the Structural Engineer. The soil underlying the subject site has been classified in accordance with Chapter 20 of ASCE 7, per Section 1613 of the 2016 CBC. The results of our on-site field investigation, as well as nearby investigations by us and others, indicate that the site is underlain by Class D medium dense to dense sands and gravels overlying a bedrock shelf. We, therefore, recommend using a characterization of this property as a Class D “stiff soil” Site Classification. Secondary Seismic Hazards Review of the Seismic Hazard Zones Map (CDMG, 1998) for the Newport Beach Quadrangle, 1997/1998 and the City of Newport Beach Seismic Safety Element (2008) indicates the site is located within a zone of required investigation for earthquake-induced liquefaction. Liquefaction Considerations The area along Newport Harbor and its channels, is in a Zone of Required Investigation for liquefaction on the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Newport Beach Quadrangle. Requirements for investigation are included in several documents including the City of Newport SITE PA2019-263 December 16, 2019 File No: 8398-00 Report No: R1-8398 Page No: 7 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Beach Building Code Policy (Revised 7/3/2014), the CBC Section 1803.5 and the Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which the strength of a soil is reduced by earthquake shaking or other rapid loading. Liquefaction occurs in saturated soils, that is, soils in which the void space between individual sand particles is completely filled with water. This water exerts a pressure on the soil particles that influences how tightly the particles themselves are pressed together. Prior to an earthquake, the water pressure is relatively low. However, earthquake shaking can cause the water pressure to increase to the point where the soil particles can readily move with respect to each other. Liquefaction generally occurs in sandy, granular soils. When liquefaction occurs, the strength of the soil decreases and, the ability of a soil deposit to support foundations for buildings is reduced. The factors known to promote liquefaction potential include high groundwater level, degree of saturation, relative density, grain size, soil type, depth below the surface, and the magnitude and distance to the causative fault or seismic source. The subject site is in an area with potential for liquefaction (Morton and others, 1976; Toppozada and others, 1988). In order to address liquefaction, two soil borings were drilled to a maximum depth of 18.5 feet below the site. In addition, liquefaction analyses were performed to evaluate seismically-induced settlement. The results of our analysis are included in Appendix E. Based on the results of our analyses, some of the soil layers below the site, in the locations tested, had safety factors of less than 1.0, indicating risk of liquefaction during a seismic event strong enough to induce liquefaction. Layers exhibiting safety factors of 1.3 and less based on Boulanger & Idriss (2010-16) were evaluated for potential seismic settlement. Seismically-induced settlements were estimated by the procedures developed by Boulanger & Idriss (2010-16), Tokimatsu and Seed (1987). Additionally, seismically-induced settlements were estimated by the procedures developed by Pradel (1998) for dry sand (if present). The GeoAdvanced GeoSuite Software Version 2.4.0.16, developed by Fred Yi, was utilized for the analyses. The resultant potential total shallow seismic settlement in the upper 10 feet of underlying soil is less than one- inch. Additional seismic settlement is possible below 10 feet. It is our opinion that this settlement potential may be mitigated by the foundation system for support of the proposed structure. Lateral Impacts of Liquefaction Lateral impacts of liquefaction at the subject site such as lateral spreading and lateral loads on foundations are expected to be negligible due to lack of sloping ground on the property. Lateral impacts of liquefaction will also be reduced by the presence of the existing seawall along the North Bay Front boardwalk to confine the soil. Flooding Seismically-induced flooding normally includes flooding from inland waters, which is not likely, and tsunami run-up from tidal wave energy. No specific tsunami analysis has been undertaken in this investigation. However, the “Evaluation of Tsunami Risk to Southern California Coastal Cities” (EERI, 2003) provides discussion of the impacts of locally seismic and/or landslide generated PA2019-263 December 16, 2019 File No: 8398-00 Report No: R1-8398 Page No: 8 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 tsunamis. The typical maximum run-up heights were estimated from 1 to 2 meters in the Newport Beach area. Because of unknown bathymetry on wave field interactions and irregular coastal configurations, actual maximum run-up heights could range from 2 to 4 meters, or more. The City of Newport Beach, in their Seismic Safety Element, describe Newport Beach as somewhat protected from most distantly generated tsunamis by the Channel Islands and Point Arguello, except for those generated in the Aleutian Islands, those off the coast of Chile, and possibly off the coast of Central America. The publication also states that there may generally be adequate warning given within the time frames from such distant events. The warnings would allow for public safety but would not necessarily protect property improvements. Other Secondary Seismic Hazards Other secondary seismic hazards to the site include deep rupture and shallow ground cracking. With the absence of active faulting on-site, the potential for deep fault rupture is low. The potential for shallow ground cracking to occur during an earthquake is a possibility at any site, but does not pose a significant hazard to site development. Landsliding is not a hazard at the site due to the absence of sloping ground. SITE PA2019-263 December 16, 2019 File No: 8398-00 Report No: R1-8398 Page No: 9 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 CONCLUSIONS 1. Proposed development is considered feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided the recommendations of this report are followed during design, construction, and maintenance of the subject property. Proposed development should not adversely affect adjacent properties, providing appropriate engineering design, construction methods and care are utilized during construction. 2. The property is underlain by Marine deposits consisting of silty sands, sands and occasional thin fine-grained silt and clay layers to the maximum depth explored. 3. The subgrade materials at the foundation levels are generally not suitable in their present condition for structural support; however, these materials may be removed and replaced as compacted, engineered fill in order to reduce the potential for static and seismic settlement to acceptable levels. 4. Site grading is expected to include over-excavation of the upper 3 feet, and deep scarification and cement-treatment for a total re-compacted and densified zone of about 4 feet of existing on-site soil. The deep scarification and mixing will provide remediation of the 6 to 8-inch thick clay layer encountered at a depth of 3 feet in our borings. This will be followed with cement-treatment of soil during compaction. The proposed grading will provide a compacted, cement-treated fill cap that includes the re-compacted fill zone plus an additional imported fill zone to raise the existing site grades and top-of-slab to a projected elevation of about +9.0. 5. Densification of the upper zone of marine deposits reduces the seismic settlement estimate to less than 1-inch for the upper 10 feet. The proposed remedial grading is outlined herein for your consideration in order to reduce the potential seismic and static settlement to an acceptable level. 6. Densification of the on-site soil may generally be accomplished through conventional grading methods by removal and recompaction of the soil. 7. Seismically-induced liquefaction has not historically been observed in the vicinity of the site; however, the liquefaction potential of soils in the general area is considered to be high due to the high groundwater, underlying soil conditions and proximity of nearby earthquake faults. 8. Groundwater was encountered at depths of about 4 feet below the site (elevation +2.3) and will be a factor during grading. Tidal effects on groundwater levels should be monitored and prepared for throughout the construction time period. Suitable drainage elements need to be installed within excavations and at retaining structures to mitigate possible transient seepage. Hydrostatic forces should be accounted for when building below grade structures, such as spas, wine cellars or elevators, and adequate waterproofing should be provided in sensitive areas. Groundwater conditions should be addressed in accordance with local ordinances and practices, as well as agency requirements. PA2019-263 December 16, 2019 File No: 8398-00 Report No: R1-8398 Page No: 10 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 9. The near surface materials that were encountered have a very low expansion potential based upon laboratory testing. 10. Although the probability of fault rupture across the property is low, ground shaking may be strong during a major earthquake. 11. Tsunami potential for this site is considered moderate; although historically such effects have been subdued in southern California due to topographic protection from distant seismic events and the rarity of significant offshore earthquakes. 12. Adverse surface discharge onto or off the site is not anticipated provided proper civil engineering design and post-construction site grading are implemented. The potential for street flooding is referred to the Civil Engineer. 13. Suitable drainage elements need to be installed within excavations and at retaining structures to mitigate possible transient seepage. 14. Care must be taken during construction to not disturb the existing off-site bulkhead and associated tie-back anchors, foundations, wall systems, etc., along the North Bay Front boardwalk. An appropriate setback limit should be established to protect the sidewalk and bulkhead along the north side of the site. Evaluation of the existing off-site bulkhead and determination of the structural configuration were not within the scope of this investigation. 15. Care must also be taken during construction to not disturb the adjoining properties, alley and street improvements. An appropriate monitoring program is recommended during construction. 16. The proposed structure should be supported by a mat slab foundation supported entirely within recompacted fill materials. RECOMMENDATIONS Site Preparation and Grading 1. General Site grading should be performed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach, the recommendations of this report, and the Standard Grading Guidelines of Appendix D. 2. Demolition and Clearing Deleterious materials, including those from the demolition, vegetation, organic matter and trash, should be removed and disposed of off-site. Subsurface elements of demolished structures should be removed. Agency requirements also apply as PA2019-263 December 16, 2019 File No: 8398-00 Report No: R1-8398 Page No: 11 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 appropriate. Subsurface elements would also include any trench backfills, foundations, cisterns, abandoned utility lines, etc. Care should be taken during demolition and construction to not create excessive vibrations on off-site properties. 3. Subgrade Preparation The site preparation and fill placement should include the following components: 1. Excavation of the on-site materials to a depth of 3 feet within the structural footprint of the house. 2. Scarification and compaction of the removal bottom to a depth of 8 to12-inches. 3. Stabilization of the exposed, scarified bottom materials by deep mixing with cement. 4. Dewatering the excavation as necessary. 5. Placement of on-site and imported cement-treated fill to design grades. Excavations should be made to remove any soils disturbed by demolition, undocumented fill and surficial materials where encountered within the planned building areas. Earth removals are recommended to allow densification of the sand deposits and to remediate the clay layer observed at a depth of 3 feet in the borings for settlement considerations and to provide uniform bearing conditions below foundation and slab areas. Removals should be followed by 6 to 12-inches of scarification and deep mixing with recompaction. These remedial excavations should be made within the planned building footprint. Grading activities must be carried out in a manner that doesn’t remove lateral support or undermine the existing property line walls. We, therefore, recommend that depths of any existing wall footings be verified when exposed following demolition and prior to the start of grading. Although not expected to be necessary, lateral support may sometimes be achieved by the use of bracing, slot cutting, or trenching where wall footings are shallow relative to excavation depths. Due to the groundwater conditions observed in the area, excavations may become saturated. Groundwater levels were at a depth of about 4 feet below grade (about elevation +2.3) at the time of our field exploration. We anticipate that cement-treatment of the exposed soils will provide adequate stability for placement of additional fill. Note that the grading contractor should allow 24 to 48 hours for setup of the cement within the soil. Dewatering may also be necessary. For excavations that expose saturated materials (that are not stabilized by the cement- treatment) we recommend that geofabric (Mirafi 500X or similar) be placed on exposed soil followed by a 1 to 1.5-foot-thick layer of CalTrans Class II filter rock prior to placement of fill soil, if necessary, to help stabilize the work area for compaction equipment and to bridge over soft areas. A 1- to 1.5-foot-thick layer of 3/4-inch crushed rock may be substituted for graded filter rock; however, the 3/4-inch rock should be fully enveloped within the geofabric to prevent migration of sand into the gravel layer. The top of the rock and fabric layer should be kept at least one foot below the bottom elevation of proposed foundations. Dewatering may be necessary to perform the grading PA2019-263 December 16, 2019 File No: 8398-00 Report No: R1-8398 Page No: 12 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 to required depths. Excavations should be replaced with compacted, cement-treated engineered fill above the stabilized soil layer. Removal depths of 12 to 24-inches are expected to be adequate in exterior hardscape areas; however, boundary conditions for removals under exterior improvements may be better addressed subsequent to demolition when equipment can expose the site materials for evaluation and when improvement limits are identified on the plan. Light track propelled mini-loader-type equipment should be used for the grading. Rubber tire equipment shall not be used until a stable subgrade is achieved. The depths of overexcavation should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineer or Geologist during the actual construction. Any surface or subsurface obstructions, or questionable material encountered during grading, should be brought immediately to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer for recommendations. 4. Fill Soils (On-Site and Imported) The on-site soils are anticipated to be suitable for use as compacted fill, provided they are moisture conditioned to near optimum. Fill soils should be free of debris, organic matter, cobbles and concrete fragments greater than 6-inches in diameter. Cement- treatment is also recommended for all fill soils below the building pad. Soils, including gravels, imported to the site for use as fill below foundation and slab areas should be predominantly granular, non-expansive, non-plastic and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to importing. 5. Shrinkage Shrinkage losses are expected to be on the order of 4 percent overall. This does not include clearing losses from demolition that could result in volume reductions for available fill soils. These are preliminary rough estimates and actual field results may vary. 6. Expansive Soils Expansive soil evaluations should be performed during grading to determine the expansion potential of the processed fill materials. On-site soils encountered during our investigation were determined to be predominantly non-plastic, fine silty sands, with a very low expansion potential. 7. Compaction Standard The on-site soils are anticipated to be suitable for use as compacted fill. Fill materials should be placed at above optimum moisture content and compacted under the observation and testing of the Soil Engineer. The recommended minimum density for PA2019-263 December 16, 2019 File No: 8398-00 Report No: R1-8398 Page No: 13 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 compacted material is 90 percent of the maximum density as determined by ASTM D1557-12. Cement-treatment is recommended as indicated above. 8. Temporary Construction Slopes Temporary slopes exposing on-site materials should be cut in accordance with Cal/OSHA Regulations. It is anticipated that the exposed on-site earth materials may be classified as Type C soil, and temporary cuts of 1:1 (horizontal:vertical) may be appropriate to heights of 4 feet or less; however, the material exposed in temporary excavations should be evaluated by the Contractor during construction. Shoring should be anticipated if deeper excavations for construction items such as utilities or elevator shafts, and where space limitations preclude temporary slope layback. Dry or running sands may require flatter laybacks. Saturated sands may require slot cuts, slurry walls or other appropriate methods. Temporary construction slopes should not be left exposed overnight unless approved in writing by the Geotechnical Consultant. Excavations should proceed in a manner so as not to remove lateral or bearing support of adjacent properties or structures. Care will be needed along the property lines. The soils exposed in the excavation cuts should be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant during excavation. The safety and stability of temporary construction slopes and cuts is deferred to the General Contractor, who should implement the safety practices as defined in Section 1541, Subchapter 4, of Cal/OSHA T8 Regulations (2006). The Geotechnical Consultant makes no warranties as to the stability of temporary cuts. Soil conditions may vary locally and the Contractor(s) should be prepared to remedy local instability if necessary. Contract Documents should be written in a manner that places the Contractor in the position of responsibility for the stability of all temporary excavations. Stability of excavations is also time dependent. If unsupported property line cuts are made, the Contractor should monitor the performance of adjacent structures and improvements during construction. If movement or distress is noted, appropriate remedial measures should be immediately implemented. 9. Dewatering Dewatering is not expected to be necessary during grading provided that excavations are promptly scarified, cement-treated, compacted and backfilled. The contractor should also check tide tables with the construction grading schedule to help facilitate efficient grading conditions. Control of groundwater can usually be achieved with the periodic use of portable pumps along with the placement of the crushed rock and geofabric for stabilization as described above. Longer term dewatering is not expected to be necessary; however, if needed, may be achieved with a well dewatering system around the interior perimeter of the below grade excavation. In order to reduce the potential for settlement of adjoining properties, groundwater drawdown should be controlled during pumping in order to limit PA2019-263 December 16, 2019 File No: 8398-00 Report No: R1-8398 Page No: 14 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 the drawdown level outside of excavated areas. Drawdown limits should be based on elevation of the mean lowest low tide elevation of -0.2 feet (NAVD 1988). Permits may be required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for discharge of water. It is generally the responsibility of the Contractor for permitting and water quality testing. 10. Adjacent Property Assessments and Monitoring The following measures may be considered in order to reduce the potential risks of damage, and perceived damage, to adjoining improvements: • Visual inspections and walk-throughs of each of the adjacent properties should be arranged in order to document pre-existing conditions and damages. • Measurements of all existing damages observed, including crack lengths, widths and precise locations should be made. • Photographs should be taken to accompany written notes that refer to damages or even lack of damages. Video may also be considered; however, videos that attempt to show these types of damages are often lacking in detail. • Floor level surveys of nearby structures may be considered especially if pre- existing damage is evident. • Vibrations from construction equipment may be monitored with portable seismographs during excavation. • Surveys to monitor lateral and vertical position of adjacent improvements during excavation and dewatering is recommended. • It is recommended that the project Geologist be on-site during excavation in order to evaluate conditions as the project advances. Construction activities, particularly excavation equipment, produce vibrations that can be felt by occupants of adjoining properties. People will often be annoyed by the noise and vibration caused by construction activities, which prompts them to personally perform detailed inspections of their property for damage. Pre-existing damage, that previously went unnoticed, can be unfairly attributed to current construction activities, particularly when pre-construction property inspections are not performed. At that point it may be difficult to determine what caused the damage, especially damages such as wall separations, cracks in drywall, stucco and masonry. Other common problems that may be scrutinized can include uneven doors, sticking windows, tile cracks, leaning patio posts, fences, gates, etc. Implementation of measures such as those listed above can help avoid conflicts by monitoring construction activities that may be problematic as well as provide valuable data to defend against unwarranted claims. Foundation Design 1. General It is anticipated that foundation elements for the planned residential structure will bear in compacted fill and will utilize a mat slab foundation. PA2019-263 December 16, 2019 File No: 8398-00 Report No: R1-8398 Page No: 15 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 The near surface materials are expected to exhibit a very low expansion potential. The following recommendations are based on the geotechnical data available and are subject to revision based on conditions actually encountered in the field. Foundations and slabs should be designed for the intended use and loading by the Structural Engineer. Our recommendations are considered to be generally consistent with the standards of practice. They are based on both analytical methods and empirical methods derived from experience with similar geotechnical conditions. These recommendations are considered the minimum necessary for the likely soil conditions and are not intended to supersede the design of the Structural Engineer or criteria of governing agencies. 2. Bearing Capacity for Foundations A mat slab may be utilized to support the proposed structure. The purpose of the mat slab system is to mitigate potential static and seismic settlement and to provide an appropriate foundation in the local marine environment. The allowable bearing capacity for a mat slab type system founded in re-compacted fill should not exceed 1,500 pounds per square foot. This value may be increased by one-third for short-term wind or seismic loading; however, there is no increase in bearing value with depth. A minimum slab thickness of 16-inches is recommended. For design of a mat foundation system, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 pounds per cubic inch may be considered (172 kips per cubic foot). The subgrade is expected to consist of sand. Actual thickness, depths and widths of the foundation and slab system should be governed by CBC requirements and the structural engineering design. 3. Settlement Static Static settlement is anticipated to be on the order of ¾-inch total and ¼-inch differential between adjacent similarly loaded columns (approximately 25 feet assumed horizontal distance), provided that the recommended site grading is implemented first and that the bearing capacity values given above are not exceeded. These estimates should be confirmed when structural engineering plans are prepared and foundation load conditions are determined. Dynamic Potential liquefaction-induced settlement based on current estimates of peak ground accelerations during an earthquake was calculated to be approximately 0.76-inch total within the upper 10 feet (see Appendix E). Additional seismic settlement is possible below that depth. In the absence of site-specific information for materials at depths of 20 to 50 feet below the foundation level it is conservatively assumed that an additional 3-inches of seismic settlement potential may occur during a design earthquake event. The underlying stratigraphy is fairly uniform below the planned development area; therefore, differential seismic settlement can be estimated as approximately one-half of PA2019-263 December 16, 2019 File No: 8398-00 Report No: R1-8398 Page No: 16 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 the total estimated settlement, or approximately 1.88-inches across a span of about 30 feet (Martin and Lew, 1999). Seismically-induced settlements were estimated by using the procedure of Boulanger and Idriss (2010-16) and Tokimatsu and Seed (1987). These methods are based on empirical data from past seismic events that have been studied and are, therefore, approximate. 4. Lateral Resistance Lateral loads may be resisted by passive pressure forces developed in front of the slab/foundation system and by friction acting at the base of the mat slab. Allowable lateral resistance should not exceed 150 pounds per square foot per foot of depth equivalent fluid pressure. Resistance to sliding can be calculated using a coefficient of friction of 0.25. These values may be used in combination per CBC 2016 Section 1806.3.1. 5. Footing Reinforcement Two No. 5 bars should be placed at the top and two at the bottom of continuous footings in order to resist potential movement due to various factors such as subsurface imperfections and seismic shaking. Dowelled connections between the slab and footings should be provided and should consist of No. 4 bars at 24-inches on center maximum spacing. Quantity and placement of reinforcing steel should be determined by the Structural Engineer. Slab-On-Grade Construction Slabs should be designed in accordance with the 2016 CBC and the City of Newport Beach Building Code requirements. Static and dynamic settlements are the governing concerns with regard to slab design and soil expansion is not an issue on this site. Engineered, rigid slabs should be at least 16-inches thick (actual). Slab design and reinforcement should be determined by the Structural Engineer; however, the minimum slab reinforcement should consist of No. 4 bars at 12-inches on-center in each direction placed at the top and bottom of the slab (or approved equivalent). These recommendations assume that the subsurface soils have first been densified as recommended above. Slabs should be underlain by 4-inches of open-graded gravel. Slab underlayment is deferred to the project Architect; however, in accordance with the American Concrete Institute, we suggest that slabs be underlain by a 15-mil thick vapor retarder/barrier (Stego Wrap or equivalent) placed over a layer of woven geofabric (such as Mirafi 140N) over the gravel in accordance with the requirements of ASTM E1745 and E1643. Slab subgrade soils should be well moistened prior to placement of the vapor retarder. All subgrade materials should be geotechnically approved prior to placing the gravel for the slab underlayment. The above recommendations are provided for vapor transmission considerations but do not provide for waterproofing of the slab in the local marine environment. If flooding is a concern, additional underlayment measures may be appropriate and should be addressed by the Civil Engineer and/or project Architect. PA2019-263 December 16, 2019 File No: 8398-00 Report No: R1-8398 Page No: 17 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Exterior flatwork elements should be a minimum 4.5-inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 4 bars 18-inches on center both ways. Subgrade soils should be well moistened prior to placing concrete. Seismic Design Based on the geotechnical data and site parameters, the following is provided by the USGS (ASCE 7, 2010 – with March 2013 errata) to satisfy the 2016 CBC design criteria: Table 2, Site and Seismic Design Criteria For 2016 CBC Design Parameters Recommended Values Site Class D (Stiff Soil) Site Longitude (degrees) -117.89935 W Site Latitude (degrees) 33.60845 N Ss (g) 1.736 g S1 (g) 0.641 g SMs (g) 1.736 g SM1 (g) 0.961 g SDs (g) 1.158 g SD1 (g) 0.641 g Fa 1.0 Fv 1.5 Seismic Design Category D Supporting documentation is also included in an earlier section of this report, Site Classification for Seismic Design, and in Appendix F. Structural Design of Retaining Walls 1. Lateral Loads Active pressure forces acting on backfilled retaining walls which support level ground may be computed based on an equivalent fluid pressure of 40 pounds per cubic foot. Restrained retaining walls should add an additional 6H pounds per cubic foot for at-rest loading, where H is the retained height of the soil. PA2019-263 December 16, 2019 File No: 8398-00 Report No: R1-8398 Page No: 18 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Other topographic and structural surcharges should be addressed by the Structural Engineer. Some minor wall rotation should be anticipated for walls that are free to rotate at the top and considered in design of walls and adjacent improvements. Evaluation of the existing off-property seawall along North Bay Front is beyond the scope of the present investigation. 2. Earthquake Loads on Retaining Walls The Structural Engineer should determine if there are retaining walls at the site within their purview that will be subject to design lateral loads due to earthquake events. Section 1803.5.12 of the 2016 CBC states that the geotechnical investigation shall include the determination of dynamic seismic lateral earth pressures on foundation walls and retaining walls supporting more than 6 feet (1.83 m) of backfill height due to design earthquake ground motions. No walls are planned to this height and, therefore, the site development is not subject to the design requirements of Section 1803.5.12. 3. Foundation Bearing Values for Walls Footings for retaining walls should be embedded in compacted fill at a minimum depth of 18-inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Reinforcement should consist of two No. 5 bars top and bottom, as a minimum. 4. Wall Backfill The on-site sand soils are suitable for use as retaining wall backfill. Imported backfill, if needed, should consist of select, non-expansive soil or gravel. Gravel may consist of pea gravel or crushed rock. Where space for compaction equipment is adequate, on-site or imported granular, non-expansive sand materials may be compacted into place in thin lifts per the compaction requirements provided herein. Imported pea gravel or crushed rock should be placed in lifts and tamped or vibrated into place. The lift thickness for gravel is dependent on the type of material and method of compaction. Gravel lifts of 18- to 24-inches or less are recommended. The Geotechnical Engineer should observe the backfill placement of soil or gravel behind each wall following approval of wall backdrains. Gravel wall backfill material should be covered with a suitable filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N and capped with on-site soil or concrete. 5. Subdrains An approved exterior foundation subdrain system should be used to achieve control of seepage forces behind retaining walls. The details of such subdrain systems are deferred to the Wall Designer, Builder or Waterproofing Consultant. The subdrain is not a substitute for waterproofing. Water in subdrain systems should be collected and delivered to suitable disposal locations or facilities. Additional recommendations may be provided when plans are available. PA2019-263 December 16, 2019 File No: 8398-00 Report No: R1-8398 Page No: 19 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 6. Dampproofing and Waterproofing Waterproofing should be installed in accordance with the architectural specifications or those of a Waterproofing Consultant. The criteria in Section 1805 of the 2016 CBC should be followed as a minimum. Hardscape Design and Construction Hardscape improvements may utilize conventional foundations in compacted fill. Cracking and offsets at joints are possible; however, occurrence may be minimized by appropriate drainage and the use of thickened edge beams to limit moisture transfer below slabs. Concrete flatwork should be divided into as nearly square panels as possible. Joints should be provided at maximum 8 feet intervals to give articulation to the concrete panels (shorter spacing is recommended if needed to square the panels). Landscaping and planters adjacent to concrete flatwork should be designed in such a manner as to direct drainage away from concrete areas to approved outlets. Planters located adjacent to principal foundation elements should be sealed and drained; this is especially important if they are near retaining wall backfills. Flatwork elements should be a minimum 4.5-inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 4 bars 18-inches on center both ways. Subgrade soils should be well moistened prior to placement of concrete. Concrete Construction Components in Contact with Soil The on-site soils are expected to have a low soluble sulfate content; however, due to shallow sea water levels in the area, a moderate exposure to sulfate can be expected for concrete placed in contact with on-site soils. Various components within the concrete may be subject to corrosion over time when exposed to soluble sulfates. To help mitigate corrosion, sulfate resistant cement should be used in concrete that may be in contact with on-site soils or ground source water. Attention to maximum water-cement ratio and the minimum compressive strength may also help mitigate deterioration of concrete components. Type V cement is, therefore, recommended with a maximum water-cement ratio of 0.5 percent. The minimum concrete compressive strength should be at least 4,000 pounds per square inch. It is recommended that a Concrete Expert be retained to design an appropriate concrete mix to address the structural requirements. In lieu of retaining a Concrete Expert, it is recommended that the 2016 CBC, Section 1904 and 1905, be utilized, which refers to ACI 318. Testing should be performed during grading when fill materials are identified to confirm the sulfate concentration. PA2019-263 December 16, 2019 File No: 8398-00 Report No: R1-8398 Page No: 20 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Metal Construction Components in Contact with Soil Metal rebar encased in concrete, iron pipes, copper pipes, elevator shafts, air conditioner units, etc. that are in contact with soil or water that permeates the soil should be protected from corrosion that may result from salts contained in the soil. Recommendations to mitigate damage due to corrosive soils, if needed, should be provided by a qualified Corrosion Specialist. Finished Grade and Surface Drainage Finished grades should be designed and constructed so that no water ponds in the vicinity of footings. Drainage design in accordance with the 2016 CBC, Section 1804.3, is recommended or per local City requirements. Roof gutters should be provided and outflow directed away from the house in a non-erosive manner as specified by the project Civil Engineer or Landscape Architect. Proper interception and disposal of on-site surface discharge is presumed to be a matter of civil engineering or landscape architectural design. Foundation Plan Review The undersigned should review final foundation plans and specifications prior to their submission to the Building Official for issuance of permits. The review is to be performed only for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with design concepts and the information provided herein. Review shall not include evaluation of the accuracy or completeness of details, such as quantities, dimensions, weights or gauges, fabrication processes, construction means or methods, coordination of the work with other trades or construction safety precautions, all of which are the sole responsibility of the Contractor. R McCarthy Consulting, Inc.’s review shall be conducted with reasonable promptness while allowing sufficient time in our judgment to permit adequate review. Review of a specific item shall not indicate that R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. has reviewed the entire system of which the item is a component. R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. shall not be responsible for any deviation from the Contract Documents not brought to our attention in writing by the Contractor. R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. shall not be required to review partial submissions or those for which submissions of correlated items have not been received. Utility Trench Backfill Utility trench backfill should be placed in accordance with Appendix D, Standard Grading Guidelines. It is the Owner’s and Contractor’s responsibility to inform Subcontractors of these requirements and to notify R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. when backfill placement is to begin. It has been our experience that trench backfill requirements are rigorously enforced by the City of Newport Beach. PA2019-263 December 16, 2019 File No: 8398-00 Report No: R1-8398 Page No: 21 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Pre-Grade Meeting A pre-job conference should be held with representative of the Owner, Contractor, Architect, Civil Engineer, Geotechnical Engineer, and Building Official prior to commencement of construction to clarify any questions relating to the intent of these recommendations or additional recommendations. Observation and Testing Geotechnical observation and testing during construction is required to verify proper removal of unsuitable materials, check that foundation excavations are clean and founded in competent material, to test for proper moisture content and proper degree of compaction of fill, to test and observe placement of wall and trench backfill materials, and to confirm design assumptions. It is noted that the CBC requires continuous verification and testing during placement of fill, pile driving, and pier/caisson drilling. A R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. representative shall observe the site at intervals appropriate to the phase of construction, as notified by the Contractor, in order to observe the work completed by the Contractor. Such visits and observation are not intended to be an exhaustive check or a detailed inspection of the Contractor’s work but rather are to allow R McCarthy Consulting, Inc., as an experienced professional, to become generally familiar with the work in progress and to determine, in general, if the grading and construction is in accordance with the recommendations of this report. R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. shall not supervise, direct, or control the Contractor’s work. R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. shall have no responsibility for the construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures selected by the Contractor, the Contractor’s safety precautions or programs in connection with the work. These rights and responsibilities are solely those of the Contractor. R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. shall not be responsible for any acts or omission of any entity performing any portion of the work, including the Contractor, Subcontractor, or any agents or employees of any of them. R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. does not guarantee the performance of any other parties on the project site, including the Contractor, and shall not be responsible for the Contractor’s failure to perform its work in accordance with the Contract Documents or any applicable law, codes, rules or regulations. Construction-phase observations are beyond the scope of this investigation and budget and are conducted on a time and material basis. The responsibility for timely notification of the start of construction and ongoing phases of construction that require geotechnical review is that of the Owner and his Contractor. We request at least 48 hours’ notice when such services are required. PA2019-263 December 16, 2019 File No: 8398-00 Report No: R1-8398 Page No: 22 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 List of Guidelines The Geotechnical Consultant should be notified to observe and test the following activities during grading and construction: • to observe proper removal of unsuitable materials; • to observe the bottom of removals for all excavations for the building pad grading, trenching, exterior site improvements, etc.; • To observe side cut excavations for retaining walls, trenches, etc.; • to test for proper moisture content and proper degree of compaction of fill; • during CIDH Pile/Caisson drilling, if used for shoring and/or deepened foundation support; • To check that foundation excavations are clean and founded in competent material; • to check that foundation excavations are clean and founded in competent material; • to check the slab subgrade materials prior to placing the gravel, vapor barrier and concrete; • to check retaining wall subdrain installation when the pipe is exposed and before it is covered by the gravel and fabric; and again after the gravel and fabric have been placed; • to test and observe placement of wall backfill materials; • to test and observe placement of trench backfill materials; • to test and observe patio, pool deck and sidewalk subgrade materials; • to observe any other fills or backfills that may be constructed at the site. It is noted that this list should be used as a guideline. Additional observations and testing may be required per local agency and code requirements at the time of the actual construction. The 2016 CBC requires continuous verification and testing during placement of fill materials and during pile/caisson drilling. LIMITATIONS This investigation has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted practice in the engineering geologic and soils engineering field. No further warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. Conclusions and recommendations presented are based on subsurface conditions encountered and are not meant to imply that we have control over the natural site conditions. The samples taken and used for testing, the observations made and the field testing performed are believed representative of the general project area; however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between tested or observed locations. Site geotechnical conditions may change with time due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur as a result of the broadening of knowledge, new legislation, or agency requirements. The recommendations presented herein are, therefore, arbitrarily set as valid for one year from the report date. The recommendations are also specific to the current proposed development. Changes in proposed land use or development may require supplemental investigation or PA2019-263 December 16, 2019 File No: 8398-00 Report No: R1-8398 Page No: 23 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 recommendations. Also, independent use of this report without appropriate geotechnical consultation is not approved or recommended. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Respectfully submitted, R MCCARTHY CONSULTING, INC. Robert J. McCarthy Principal Engineer, G.E. 2490 Registration Expires 3-31-20 Date Signed: 12/16/19 Distribution: (1) Addressee C/O Brandon Architects (pdf) Accompanying Illustrations and Appendices Text Figure - Geologic Map of Santa Ana Quadrangle Text Figure - Fault Map, Newport Beach, California Text Figure - CDMG Seismic Hazards Location Map Figure 1 - Geotechnical Plot Plan Figure 2 – Location Map Figure 3 - Hazard Map Appendix A - References Appendix B - Field Exploration Figures B-1 through B-3 Appendix C - Laboratory Testing Appendix D - Standard Grading Guidelines Appendix E - Results of Liquefaction Analysis Table E-1, Figures E-1 and E-2 Data Interpretations Appendix F - Seismicity Supporting Data PA2019-263 RESUBDIVISION OF BALBOA ISLAND BLOCK 2 M.M. 5/44 LOT 6 LOT 5 LOT 4 BASIS OF BEARINGS BENCHMARK INFORMATIONTITLE REPORT/EASEMENT NOTESNO TITLE REPORT PROVIDED GRAPHIC SCALE VICINITY MAP BENCHMARK NO: NB3-15-70DESCRIBED BY OCS 2002 - FOUND 3 3\4" OCS ALUMINUMBENCHMARK DISK STAMPED "NB3-15- 70", SET IN THEEASTERLY END OF A CONCRETE SEAWALL. MONUMENT ISLOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THEINTERSECTION OF PARK AVENUE AND SOUTH BAY FRONT,15 FT. SOUTHERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF PARK AVENUEAND 6 FT. WESTERLY OF PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY.MONUMENT IS SET LEVEL WITH THE TOP OF THESEAWALL. ELEVATION: 7.986 FEET (NAVD88), YEAR LEVELED 1992LEGAL DESCRIPTION REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT 5, BLOCK 2 OF RESUBDIVISION OF BALBOA ISLAND IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 5, PAGE 44 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY.THE BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE CENTERLINE OF THE ALLEY HAVING A BEARING OF N87°16'18"W PER R.S.B. 209/29 LC EXISTING ELEVATION LEGENDBLOCK WALL ( ) AD AREA DRAIN FOUND MONUMENT SEARCHED, FOUND NOTHING; TO BE MONUMENTED PRIOR TO GRADING FS FL FINISHED SURFACE FLOWLINEFFGFINISHED FLOOR GARAGE BRICK SURFACE T.B.M.TEMPORARY BENCHMARK SET ON A WATER METER (WM). ELEVATION = 6.13 FEET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92646PHONE:(714)488-5006 FAX:(714)333-4440 APEXLSINC@GMAIL.COMPAUL D. CRAFT, P.L.S. 8516 DATE NOTE: SECTION 8770.6 OF THE CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE STATES THAT THE USE OF THE WORD CERTIFY OR CERTIFICATION BY A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR IN THE PRACTICE OF LAND SURVEYING OR THE PREPARATION OF MAPS, PLATS, REPORTS, DESCRIPTIONS OR OTHER SURVEYING DOCUMENTS ONLY CONSTITUTES AN EXPRESSION OF PROFESSIONAL OPINION REGARDING THOSE FACTS OR FINDINGS WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE CERTIFICATION AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A WARRANTY OR GUARANTEE, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. LICENSE RENEWAL DATE 12/31/20 PAULDO M I NICK C RAFTPROFESSIO N A L LAND S U RVEYORFF FINISHED FLOOR WATER METERWM GAS METERGM CENTERLINE NG NATURAL GROUND TOP OF WALLTW CURVE DATA CURVE DELTA RADIUS LENGTH C1 06°00'11"248.99' 26.09' SMH SEWER MANHOLE SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER SHALL PERMANENTLY MONUMENT PROPERTY CORNERS OR OFFSETS BEFORE STARTING GRADING. PLEASE CALL PAUL CRAFT @ 714-488-5006 TO SCHEDULE. SURVEYOR'S NOTES C2 06°00'13"334.05' 35.00' LINE DATA LINE BEARING DISTANCE L1 N24°52'23"W 7.50' CONCRETE SURFACEEPBELECTRICAL PULL BOX SCO SEWER CLEANOUT TSW TOP OF SEAWALL TD TOP OF DOCK EXISTING 3/4" IRONE PIPE WITH TAG STAMPED 'LS 2312' EXISTING LEAD & TAG STAMPED 'LS 9038' MONUMENT NOTES Figure 1: Geotechnical Plot Plan 117 N. Bay Front Newport Beach, CA File: 8398-00 December 2019 0 20 feetNAf/Qm B-1 HA-1 Estimated location of field density test Approximate limits of grading Base map: Apex Land Surveying, Inc. EXPLANATION Approximate location of exploratory hand auger Approximate location of exploratory boring Af Articial ll Qm Marine deposits PA2019-263 Feet Every reasonable effort has been made to assure the accuracy of the data provided, however, The City of Newport Beach and its employees and agents disclaim any and all responsibility from or relating to any results obtained in its use. Disclaimer:0 400200 FILE NO: 8398-00 DECEMBER 2019 FIGURE 2 - LOCATION MAP SITE- 117 N Bay Front PA2019-263 Feet Every reasonable effort has been made to assure the accuracy of the data provided, however, The City of Newport Beach and its employees and agents disclaim any and all responsibility from or relating to any results obtained in its use. Disclaimer:0 400200 FIGURE 3- GEOLOGIC HAZARD MAPFILE NO: 8398-00 DECEMBER 2019 SITE - 117 N Bay Front Liquefaction Hazard Zone PA2019-263 APPENDIX B FIELD EXPLORATION PA2019-263 APPENDIX B FIELD EXPLORATION (117 North Bay Front) R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 General Subsurface conditions were explored by drilling and sampling one hollow-stem auger boring and one hand-auger boring on December 11, 2019, to depths of 4.5 to 18.5 feet below the surface at the subject site. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on the Geotechnical Plot Plan, Figure 1. A Key to Logs is included as Figure B-1. Boring Logs are included as Figures B-2 and B-3. Excavation of the borings was observed by our Field Geologist who logged the soils and obtained samples for identification and laboratory testing. Exploratory excavations were located in the field by pacing from known landmarks. Their locations as shown are, therefore, within the accuracy of such measurements. Elevations were determined by interpolation between points on the Apex Land Surveying, Inc. Topographic Map, Reference 1. Sample Program 1. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed to determine the in-place relative densities and consistencies of the underlying soils. The test involves the number of blows it takes for a 140-pound hammer falling 30-inches to drive a 2-inch (outer diameter)/1 3/8-inch (inner diameter) split spoon sampler (ASTM D1586). These blow counts are given in blows per 6-inch driving interval for a sample with a length of 18- inches. SPT samples were immediately sealed in individual plastic bags. 2. Hand Augers - Relatively undisturbed drive samples were obtained by utilizing a sampler lined on the inside with brass rings, each 1-inch long and 2.5-inches outside diameter. The sample is typically driven for a total length of about 6-inches. The number of blows per 6-inches of driving are recorded on the boring logs. The slide hammer used to drive the samples has a weight of 10.3 pounds with effort. The slide hammer drop height was 18-inches. The hammer weight alone is not sufficient to drive the sample; additional energy is applied by the drilling operator by thrust force on the hammer from the topmost position. The brass rings were removed from the sampler and transferred into a plastic tube and sealed. 3. Bulk samples representative of subsurface conditions were collected from the excavations and sealed in plastic bags. Summary The soils were classified based on field observations and laboratory tests. The classification is in accordance with ASTM D2487 (the Unified Soil Classification System). Collected samples were transported to the laboratory for testing. Groundwater was encountered in the borings at a depth of about 4 feet in December 2019. PA2019-263 DEPTHUSCSBLOW COUNTIN-PLACE SAMPLEBAG SAMPLEMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)MATERIAL DESCRIPTION NOTES DEPTHLOG OF BORING R MCCARTHY CONSULTING, INC. 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 EQUIPMENT: Mini Mole, 6” Continuous Flight Auger SURFACE ELEVATION: 6.3 +/- BORING NO: B-1 FILE NO: 8398-00 FIGURE B-2 BY: GM Upper 3”: Brick, underlain by ~4” concrete MARINE/BEACH DEPOSITS (Qm/Qe) Light brown SAND, moist,loose to medium dense, fine to medium grained, abundant shells SPT1 at 3’: Medium gray-brown silty CLAY, very soft, very moist, micaceous, 8" clay layer grades to clayey sand below SPT2 at 5’: Medium gray SAND, medium dense, wet, fine to coarse grained, abundant mica SPT3 at 7’: Medium gray SAND, medium dense, wet, fine to medium grained SPT4 at 9’: Medium gray SAND, medium dense, wet, medium to coarse grained, shells SPT5 at 11’: Medium gray SAND, medium dense, wet, fine to medium grained, micaceous SPT6 at 13’: Medium gray silty SAND, medium dense, wet, fine grained SPT7 at 15’: Medium gray silty SAND, medium dense, wet, fine grained, shells SPT8 at 17’: Medium gray SAND, medium dense, wet, medium grained Total Depth: 18.5 feet Groundwater at 4 feet SITE LOCATION: 117 N. Bay Front DATE: 12-11-19 “At x’:” always at front. Only cap first letter of sentence. Color, fineness SOIL TYPE, material classification, moisture, density, other Groundwater 1 1 1 5 6 9 2 7 13 5 8 10 7 9 15 8 12 15 9 11 12 5 10 12 SP CL/ SC SP SM 25.9 23.6 29.9 23.4 24.5 26.6 26.4 20.3SP PA2019-263 DEPTHUSCSBLOW COUNTIN-PLACE SAMPLEBAG SAMPLEMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)MATERIAL DESCRIPTION NOTES DEPTHLOG OF BORING R MCCARTHY CONSULTING, INC. 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 EQUIPMENT: Hand auger SURFACE ELEVATION: 6.3+/- BORING NO: HA-1 FILE NO: 8398-00 FIGURE B-3 BY: GM Upper 3”: Brick, underlain by ~4” concrete MARINE/BEACH DEPOSITS (Qm/Qe) D1 at 1.5’: Light brown SAND, moist, medium dense, fine to medium grained, shells At 3’: Gray, silty CLAY, soft, moist, shells D2 at 3.5’: Gray clayey SAND, moist, micaceous Total Depth: 4.5 feet (caving) Groundwater at 4 feet SITE LOCATION: 117 N. Bay Front SE corner of driveway apron DATE: 12-11-19 “At x’:” always at front. Only cap first letter of sentence. Color, fineness SOIL TYPE, material classification, moisture, density, other SM 10___ 6” CL SC 5___ 6” 5.9 94 51.8 30.0 109 PA2019-263 APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING PA2019-263 APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING (117 North Bay Front) R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 The laboratory testing program was designed to fit the specific needs of this project and was limited to testing the soil samples collected during the on-site exploration. The test program was performed by our laboratory and supplemented with testing by HDR, Inc. Soils were classified visually and per the results of laboratory testing according to ASTM D2487, the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The soil classifications are shown on the Boring Logs, Figures B-2 and B-3. Density characteristics of the soils encountered were determined by performing in-situ Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) in the undisturbed soil as the borings were advanced. N-Values and soil classifications are shown on the Boring Logs, Appendix B. The field moisture contents of the soils encountered were determined on select samples by performing laboratory tests on the collected samples. Dry density determinations were made according to ASTM D2487. The results of the moisture tests, density determinations and soil classifications are shown on the Boring Logs. Additional supporting Laboratory Testing results will be provided in a separate addendum report. PA2019-263 APPENDIX D STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES PA2019-263 APPENDIX D STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES (117 North Bay Front) R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 GENERAL These Guidelines present the usual and minimum requirements for grading operations observed by R McCarthy Consulting, Inc., or its designated representative. No deviation from these guidelines will be allowed, except where specifically superseded in the geotechnical report signed by a registered geotechnical engineer. The placement, spreading, mixing, watering, and compaction of the fills in strict accordance with these guidelines shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor. The construction, excavation, and placement of fill shall be under the direct observation of the geotechnical engineer or any person or persons employed by the licensed geotechnical engineer signing the soils report. If unsatisfactory soil-related conditions exist, the geotechnical engineer shall have the authority to reject the compacted fill ground and, if necessary, excavation equipment will be shut down to permit completion of compaction. Conformance with these specifications will be discussed in the final report issued by the geotechnical engineer. SITE PREPARATION All brush, vegetation and other deleterious material such as rubbish shall be collected, piled and removed from the site prior to placing fill, leaving the site clear and free from objectionable material. Soil, alluvium, or rock materials determined by the geotechnical engineer as being unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall be removed from the site. Any material incorporated as part of a compacted fill must be approved by the geotechnical engineer. The surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment used. After the area to receive fill has been cleared and scarified, it shall be disced or bladed by the contractor until it is uniform and free from large clods, brought to the proper moisture content and compacted to minimum requirements. If the scarified zone is greater than 12 inches in depth, the excess shall be removed and placed in lifts restricted to 6 inches. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipe lines or others not located prior to grading are to be removed or treated in a manner prescribed by the geotechnical engineer. MATERIALS Materials for compacted fill shall consist of materials previously approved by the geotechnical engineer. Fill materials may be excavated from the cut area or imported from other approved sources, and soils from one or more sources may be blended. Fill soils shall be free from organic (vegetation) materials and other unsuitable substances. PA2019-263 APPENDIX D STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES (117 North Bay Front) R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Normally, the material shall contain no rocks or hard lumps greater than 6 inches in size and shall contain at least 50 percent of material smaller than 1/4-inch in size. Materials greater than 4 inches in size shall be placed so that they are completely surrounded by compacted fines; no nesting of rocks shall be permitted. No material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise of an unsuitable nature shall be used in the fill soils. Representative samples of materials to be utilized, as compacted fill shall be analyzed in the laboratory by the geotechnical engineer to determine their physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, the appropriate analysis of this material shall be conducted by the geotechnical engineer in a timely manner. PLACING, SPREADING, AND COMPACTING FILL MATERIAL Soil materials shall be uniformly and evenly processed, spread, watered, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed 6 inches in thickness. Achievement of a uniformly dense and uniformly moisture conditioned compacted soil layer should be the objective of the equipment operators performing the work for the Owner and Contractor. When the moisture content of the fill material is below that specified by the geotechnical engineer, water shall be added by the contractor until the moisture content is near optimum as specified. Moisture levels should generally be at optimum moisture content or greater. When the moisture content of the fill material is above that specified by the geotechnical engineer, the fill material shall be aerated by the contractor by blading, mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is near the specified level. After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted to 90 percent of the maximum laboratory density in compliance with ASTM D: 1557 (five layers). Compaction shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of acceptable compacting equipment. Equipment shall be of such design that it will be able to compact the fill to the specified density. Compaction shall be continuous over the entire area and the equipment shall make sufficient passes to obtain the desired density uniformly. A minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finished slope face of all fill slopes will be required. Compacting of the slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling the slopes in increments of 2 to 5 feet in elevation gain or by overbuilding and cutting back to the compacted inner core, or by any other procedure, which produces the required compaction. PA2019-263 APPENDIX D STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES (117 North Bay Front) R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 GRADING OBSERVATIONS The geotechnical engineer shall observe the fill placement during the course of the grading process and will prepare a written report upon completion of grading. The compaction report shall make a statement as to compliance with these guidelines. As a minimum, one density test shall be required for each 2 vertical feet of fill placed, or one for each 1,000 cubic yards of fill, whichever requires the greater number of tests; however, testing should not be limited based on these guidelines and more testing is generally preferable. Processed ground to receive fill, including removal areas such as canyon or swale cleanouts, must be observed by the geotechnical engineer and/or engineering geologist prior to fill placement. The contractor shall notify the geotechnical engineer when these areas are ready for observation. UTILITY LINE BACKFILL Utility line backfill beneath and adjacent to structures; beneath pavements; adjacent and parallel to the toe of a slope; and in sloping surfaces steeper than ten horizontal to one vertical (10:1), shall be compacted and tested in accordance with the criteria given in the text of this report. Alternately, relatively self-compacting material may be used. The material specification and method of placement shall be recommended and observed by the soil engineer, and approved by the geotechnical engineer and Building Official before use and prior to backfilling. Utility line backfill in areas other than those stated above are generally subject to similar compaction standards and will require approval by the soil engineer. The final utility line backfill report from the project soil engineer shall include an approval statement that the backfill is suitable for the intended use. PROTECTION OF WORK During the grading process and prior to the complete construction of permanent drainage controls, it shall be the responsibility of the contractor to provide good drainage and prevent ponding of water and damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. After the geotechnical engineer has finished observations of the completed grading, no further excavations and/or filling shall be performed without the approval of the geotechnical engineer. PA2019-263 APPENDIX E RESULTS OF LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES PA2019-263 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Table E-1 Results of Liquefaction Analyses Summary 117 N Bay Front Balboa Island Smax Figure Condition Boring # (inches) E-1/E-2 Proposed B-1 0.76 Smax = Calculated seismically induced settlement of potential liquefiable and dry sand layers within the upper 10 feet following remedial grading and raising site grades. Please see the associated figures for additional details. Computation: GeoAdvanced GeoSuite Software Version 2.4.0.16, developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE www.geoadvanced.com PA2019-263 Project:Location:Job Number: Boring No.: Enclosure:Liquefaction Potential - SPT DataCaparelli117 N Bay Front - Balboa Island8398-00 B-1 E-1GeoSuite© Version 2.4.0.16. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GECopyright© 2002 - 2019 GeoAdvanced™. All rights reserved _Commercial CopyPrepared at 12/16/2019 7:40:26 PMC:\Users\Robert\Desktop\CAPARELLI\Graded Site\GeoSuite_8398-00_B-1 AAA.csvSPCLSCSP-SMEarthquake & Groundwater Information:Magnitude = 7.2Max. Acceleration = 0.75 gProject GW = 4.3 ftMaximum Settlement = 0.76 inSettlement at Bottom of Footing = 0.76 inLiquefaction: Boulanger & Idriss (2010-16)Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu & Seed (1987)Lateral spreading: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)M correction: σv correction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)Stress reduction: Blake (1996)SPCLSCSP-SMSPUSCS02040N60|(N1)6004080DR(%)024OCRG000.51CSR7.5|CRR7.501FS510Depth (ft)Project GWBoring GWBottom of FootingGW at elev. +3PA2019-263 Project:Location:Job Number: Boring No.: Enclosure:Seismic Settlement Potential - SPT DataCaparelli117 N Bay Front - Balboa Island8398-00 B-1 E-2GeoSuite© Version 2.4.0.16. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GECopyright© 2002 - 2019 GeoAdvanced™. All rights reserved _Commercial CopyPrepared at 12/16/2019 7:40:26 PMC:\Users\Robert\Desktop\CAPARELLI\Graded Site\GeoSuite_8398-00_B-1 AAA.csvSPCLSCSP-SMEarthquake & Groundwater Information:Magnitude = 7.2Max. Acceleration = 0.75 gProject GW = 4.3 ftMaximum Settlement = 0.76 inSettlement at Bottom of Footing = 0.76 inLiquefaction: Boulanger & Idriss (2010-16)Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu & Seed (1987)Lateral spreading: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)M correction: σv correction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)Stress reduction: Blake (1996)SPCLSCSP-SMSPUSCS02040N60|(N1)6004080DR(%)024OCRG000.51CSR7.5|CRR7.501FS024γmax(%)Pd00.511.5εv(%)Pd00.20.40.6ΣSi(in)Pd510Depth (ft)Project GWBoring GWBottom of FootingGW at elev. +3PA2019-263 SPT Data Interpretation Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu Seed (1987) Lateral spreading: Idriss Boulanger (2008) M correction: Z b (ft)Z m (ft)γ (pcf)N 60 FC(%)CC(%)USCS φ (°)C' (tsf)σ v0 (tsf)σ v0 ' (tsf)C N C s (N 1 )60 (N 1 )60cs D R (%)V s (m/s)V s (ft/s)G 0 (kPa) 0.50 0.25 110.0 23.9 2.0 0.0 17 40.5 0.0 0.01 0.01 1.7 1.0 40.5 40.5 88.3 241.1 791.2 102,462.8 1.00 0.75 110.0 23.9 2.0 0.0 17 40.5 0.0 0.04 0.04 1.7 1.0 40.5 40.5 88.3 239.6 786.2 101,179.7 1.50 1.25 110.0 23.9 2.0 0.0 17 40.5 0.0 0.07 0.07 1.7 1.0 40.5 40.5 88.3 238.2 781.4 99,958.6 2.00 1.75 110.0 23.9 2.0 0.0 17 40.5 0.0 0.10 0.10 1.7 1.0 40.5 40.5 88.3 236.8 776.9 98,794.3 2.50 2.25 110.0 23.9 2.0 0.0 17 40.5 0.0 0.12 0.12 1.7 1.0 40.5 40.5 88.3 235.5 772.5 97,682.5 3.00 2.75 110.0 23.9 2.0 0.0 17 40.5 0.0 0.15 0.15 1.7 1.0 40.5 40.5 88.3 234.2 768.3 96,619.0 3.50 3.25 110.0 23.9 2.0 0.0 17 40.5 0.0 0.18 0.18 1.7 1.0 40.4 40.4 88.1 232.9 764.2 95,600.5 4.00 3.75 110.0 23.9 2.0 0.0 17 40.3 0.0 0.21 0.21 1.6 1.0 39.2 39.2 86.8 231.7 760.3 94,623.5 4.30 4.15 110.0 23.9 2.0 0.0 17 40.1 0.0 0.23 0.23 1.6 1.0 38.3 38.3 85.8 230.8 757.3 93,870.0 4.50 4.40 110.0 23.9 2.0 0.0 17 40.0 0.0 0.24 0.24 1.6 1.0 37.9 37.9 85.4 230.4 755.8 93,514.4 5.00 4.75 110.0 23.9 70.0 0.0 5 0.0 0.2 0.26 0.25 1.6 1.0 37.6 43.2 240.8 790.1 102,197.6 5.50 5.25 110.0 23.9 70.0 0.0 5 0.0 0.2 0.29 0.26 1.6 1.0 37.2 42.7 240.4 788.6 101,811.0 6.00 5.75 110.0 1.6 45.0 0.0 9 25.8 0.0 0.32 0.27 1.7 1.0 2.7 8.3 40.0 175.1 574.6 54,054.6 6.50 6.25 110.0 11.9 7.0 0.0 14 34.9 0.0 0.34 0.28 1.7 1.0 20.3 20.4 62.6 204.2 669.8 73,445.3 7.00 6.75 110.0 11.9 7.0 0.0 14 34.9 0.0 0.37 0.29 1.7 1.0 20.3 20.4 62.6 203.8 668.5 73,152.9 7.50 7.25 110.0 12.1 7.0 0.0 14 35.0 0.0 0.40 0.31 1.7 1.0 20.5 20.7 63.0 203.8 668.5 73,161.1 8.00 7.75 110.0 12.3 7.0 0.0 14 35.0 0.0 0.43 0.32 1.7 1.0 20.7 20.8 63.3 203.9 669.1 73,279.7 8.50 8.25 110.0 16.6 4.0 0.0 17 36.8 0.0 0.45 0.33 1.6 1.0 26.2 26.2 71.0 213.6 700.7 80,367.7 9.00 8.75 110.0 16.9 4.0 0.0 17 36.8 0.0 0.48 0.34 1.6 1.0 26.2 26.2 71.0 213.7 701.0 80,434.1 9.50 9.25 110.0 17.1 4.0 0.0 17 36.8 0.0 0.51 0.35 1.5 1.0 26.2 26.2 71.0 213.7 701.1 80,474.4 10.00 9.75 110.0 17.3 4.0 0.0 17 36.8 0.0 0.54 0.37 1.5 1.0 26.2 26.2 70.9 213.7 701.2 80,492.0 10.10 10.05 110.0 15.6 2.0 0.0 17 36.1 0.0 0.55 0.37 1.5 1.0 23.9 23.9 67.9 210.6 691.0 78,168.8 GeoSuite© Version 2.4.0.16. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright© 2002 - 2019 GeoAdvanced™. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 12/16/2019 5:29:48 PM NOTES: Depth = 0 is bottom of proposed mat slab foundation at approx. elevation +7.3; Groundwater is shown at elevation +3.0 PA2019-263 SPT Data Interpretation Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu Seed (1987) Lateral spreading: Idriss Boulanger (2008) M correction: Z b (ft)Z m (ft) 0.50 0.25 1.00 0.75 1.50 1.25 2.00 1.75 2.50 2.25 3.00 2.75 3.50 3.25 4.00 3.75 4.30 4.15 4.50 4.40 5.00 4.75 5.50 5.25 6.00 5.75 6.50 6.25 7.00 6.75 7.50 7.25 8.00 7.75 8.50 8.25 9.00 8.75 9.50 9.25 10.00 9.75 10.10 10.05 G 0 (tsf)σ p ' (tsf)OCR G0 S u /σ v0 'K 0 r d MSF K σ K α CSR 7.5 CRR 7.5 FS τ av (tsf)p (tsf)G/G 0 γ max (%)ε v (%) 1,070.0 0.07 5.0 1.0 1.00 1.08 1.10 1.00 0.41 1.30 0.01 0.01 0.6179 0.001 0.0000 1,056.6 0.21 5.0 1.0 1.00 1.08 1.10 1.00 0.41 1.30 0.02 0.04 0.3377 0.002 0.0000 1,043.8 0.34 5.0 1.0 1.00 1.08 1.10 1.00 0.41 1.30 0.03 0.07 0.2033 0.004 0.0000 1,031.7 0.48 5.0 1.0 1.00 1.08 1.10 1.00 0.41 1.30 0.05 0.10 0.1306 0.006 0.0000 1,020.1 0.62 5.0 1.0 1.00 1.08 1.10 1.00 0.41 1.30 0.06 0.12 0.0832 0.008 0.0000 1,009.0 0.76 5.0 1.0 1.00 1.08 1.10 1.00 0.41 1.30 0.07 0.15 0.0518 0.010 0.0000 998.3 0.89 5.0 1.0 0.99 1.08 1.10 1.00 0.41 1.30 0.09 0.18 0.0333 0.013 0.0000 988.1 1.03 5.0 1.0 0.99 1.08 1.10 1.00 0.41 1.30 0.10 0.21 0.0323 0.016 0.0000 980.3 1.14 5.0 1.0 0.99 1.08 1.10 1.00 0.41 1.30 0.11 0.23 0.0357 0.018 0.0000 976.5 1.19 5.0 1.0 0.99 1.08 1.10 1.00 0.41 1.30 2.0 0.12 0.24 0.000 0.0000 1,067.2 1.24 5.0 0.80 1.0 0.99 1.01 1.10 1.00 0.46 1.30 0.13 0.25 1,063.2 1.30 5.0 0.80 1.0 0.99 1.01 1.10 1.00 0.48 1.30 0.14 0.26 564.5 1.18 4.3 1.1 0.99 1.08 1.10 1.00 0.47 0.12 0.3 0.15 0.28 5.404 2.7983 767.0 1.39 4.9 1.1 0.99 1.08 1.10 1.00 0.49 0.24 0.5 0.17 0.30 5.352 1.5160 763.9 1.42 4.8 1.1 0.99 1.08 1.10 1.00 0.51 0.24 0.5 0.18 0.31 5.353 1.5161 764.0 1.45 4.7 1.0 0.99 1.08 1.10 1.00 0.52 0.24 0.5 0.19 0.31 5.351 1.5003 765.2 1.48 4.6 1.0 0.98 1.08 1.10 1.00 0.54 0.25 0.5 0.20 0.32 5.350 1.4897 839.3 1.58 4.8 1.0 0.98 1.08 1.10 1.00 0.55 0.37 0.7 0.22 0.34 4.986 1.1314 840.0 1.61 4.7 1.0 0.98 1.08 1.10 1.00 0.56 0.37 0.6 0.23 0.35 4.985 1.1312 840.4 1.64 4.6 1.0 0.98 1.08 1.10 1.00 0.58 0.37 0.6 0.24 0.36 4.987 1.1320 840.6 1.67 4.5 1.0 0.98 1.08 1.10 1.00 0.59 0.36 0.6 0.26 0.36 4.990 1.1337 816.3 1.66 4.4 1.0 0.98 1.08 1.10 1.00 0.59 0.30 0.5 0.26 0.37 5.236 1.2910 GeoSuite© Version 2.4.0.16. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright© 2002 - 2019 GeoAdvanced™. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 12/16/2019 5:29:48 PM PA2019-263 SPT Data Interpretation Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu Seed (1987) Lateral spreading: Idriss Boulanger (2008) M correction: Z b (ft)Z m (ft) 0.50 0.25 1.00 0.75 1.50 1.25 2.00 1.75 2.50 2.25 3.00 2.75 3.50 3.25 4.00 3.75 4.30 4.15 4.50 4.40 5.00 4.75 5.50 5.25 6.00 5.75 6.50 6.25 7.00 6.75 7.50 7.25 8.00 7.75 8.50 8.25 9.00 8.75 9.50 9.25 10.00 9.75 10.10 10.05 ΔS i ΣS i (in)ΔD i ΣD i (in)G 0 (tsf)Pd G/G 0Pd γ max (%)Pd ε v (%)Pd ΔS i ΣS i (in)Pd γ max (%)TS ε v (%)TS ΔS i ΣS i (in)TS 0.00 0.76 1,070.0 0.9258 0.001 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.001 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.76 1,056.6 0.8689 0.002 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.002 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.76 1,043.8 0.8250 0.004 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.004 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.76 1,031.7 0.7858 0.006 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.006 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.76 1,020.1 0.7494 0.008 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.009 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.76 1,009.0 0.7149 0.010 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.011 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.76 998.3 0.6818 0.013 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.014 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.76 988.1 0.6505 0.016 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.017 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.76 980.3 0.6265 0.018 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.019 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.76 976.5 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.76 0.11 0.65 564.5 5.404 1.7872 0.11 0.65 5.404 1.7872 0.11 0.65 0.09 0.56 767.0 5.352 1.5160 0.09 0.56 5.352 1.5160 0.09 0.56 0.09 0.47 763.9 5.353 1.5161 0.09 0.47 5.353 1.5161 0.09 0.47 0.09 0.38 764.0 5.351 1.5003 0.09 0.38 5.351 1.5003 0.09 0.38 0.09 0.29 765.2 5.350 1.4897 0.09 0.29 5.350 1.4897 0.09 0.29 0.07 0.22 839.3 4.986 1.1314 0.07 0.22 4.986 1.1314 0.07 0.22 0.07 0.15 840.0 4.985 1.1312 0.07 0.15 4.985 1.1312 0.07 0.15 0.07 0.08 840.4 4.987 1.1320 0.07 0.08 4.987 1.1320 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.02 840.6 4.990 1.1337 0.07 0.02 4.990 1.1337 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.00 816.3 5.236 1.2910 0.02 0.00 5.236 1.2910 0.02 0.00 GeoSuite© Version 2.4.0.16. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright© 2002 - 2019 GeoAdvanced™. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 12/16/2019 5:29:48 PM PA2019-263 SPT Data Interpretation Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu Seed (1987) Lateral spreading: Idriss Boulanger (2008) M correction: Z b (ft)Z m (ft) 0.50 0.25 1.00 0.75 1.50 1.25 2.00 1.75 2.50 2.25 3.00 2.75 3.50 3.25 4.00 3.75 4.30 4.15 4.50 4.40 5.00 4.75 5.50 5.25 6.00 5.75 6.50 6.25 7.00 6.75 7.50 7.25 8.00 7.75 8.50 8.25 9.00 8.75 9.50 9.25 10.00 9.75 10.10 10.05 γ max (%)Yi ε v (%)Yi ΔS i ΣS i (in)Yi γ max (%)UC ε v (%)UC ΔS i ΣS i (in)UC σ p ' (tsf)OCR Dr σ p ' (tsf)OCR N60 N 1jpcs V s (m/s)Ad V s (m/s)UC 0.004 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.001 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.07 5.0 0.13 9.1 56.8 171.6 82.7 0.019 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.002 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.21 5.0 0.38 9.1 54.7 171.6 107.5 0.053 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.004 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.34 5.0 0.63 9.1 52.7 171.6 121.5 0.116 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.006 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.48 5.0 0.88 9.1 50.9 171.6 131.7 0.234 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.008 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.62 5.0 1.13 9.1 49.2 171.6 139.8 0.459 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.010 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.76 5.0 1.38 9.1 47.6 171.6 146.7 0.842 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.013 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.89 5.0 1.63 9.1 46.1 171.4 152.7 1.000 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.016 0.0000 0.00 0.76 1.03 5.0 1.88 9.1 44.7 170.1 158.0 1.000 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.018 0.0000 0.00 0.76 1.14 5.0 2.08 9.1 43.7 169.1 161.9 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.76 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.76 1.19 5.0 2.18 9.1 43.2 168.7 163.6 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.76 3.54 5.0 8.01 32.4 174.4 189.5 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.76 3.53 5.0 8.39 32.4 173.9 191.0 5.404 1.7872 0.11 0.65 5.404 1.7872 0.11 0.65 0.40 1.5 0.53 2.0 8.3 114.9 102.0 5.352 1.5160 0.09 0.56 5.352 1.5160 0.09 0.56 1.31 4.6 1.70 6.0 20.9 144.3 159.4 5.353 1.5161 0.09 0.47 5.353 1.5161 0.09 0.47 1.36 4.6 1.77 6.0 20.7 144.3 161.0 5.351 1.5003 0.09 0.38 5.351 1.5003 0.09 0.38 1.43 4.7 1.86 6.1 20.7 144.7 162.7 5.350 1.4897 0.09 0.29 5.350 1.4897 0.09 0.29 1.50 4.7 1.95 6.1 20.8 145.0 164.5 4.986 1.1314 0.07 0.22 4.986 1.1314 0.07 0.22 1.65 5.0 2.42 7.3 27.4 153.7 170.8 4.985 1.1312 0.07 0.15 4.985 1.1312 0.07 0.15 1.71 5.0 2.53 7.4 27.5 153.7 172.5 4.987 1.1320 0.07 0.08 4.987 1.1320 0.07 0.08 1.77 5.0 2.64 7.5 27.5 153.7 174.1 4.990 1.1337 0.07 0.02 4.990 1.1337 0.07 0.02 1.83 5.0 2.75 7.5 27.5 153.6 175.7 5.236 1.2910 0.02 0.00 5.236 1.2910 0.02 0.00 1.87 5.0 2.59 6.9 24.8 151.0 174.8 GeoSuite© Version 2.4.0.16. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright© 2002 - 2019 GeoAdvanced™. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 12/16/2019 5:29:48 PM PA2019-263 SPT Data Interpretation Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu Seed (1987) Lateral spreading: Idriss Boulanger (2008) M correction: Z b (ft)Z m (ft) 0.50 0.25 1.00 0.75 1.50 1.25 2.00 1.75 2.50 2.25 3.00 2.75 3.50 3.25 4.00 3.75 4.30 4.15 4.50 4.40 5.00 4.75 5.50 5.25 6.00 5.75 6.50 6.25 7.00 6.75 7.50 7.25 8.00 7.75 8.50 8.25 9.00 8.75 9.50 9.25 10.00 9.75 10.10 10.05 V s (m/s)UCSa V s (m/s)UCSi V s (m/s)UCCly V s (m/s)WDall V s (m/s)WDSa V s (m/s)WDSiC p/p a V sp (m/s)Yi V sv (m/s)Yi σ m ' (tsf)Yi OCR Yi G 0 (tsf)Yi 82.7 82.4 118.0 63.99 66.29 48.68 0.013 129.60 151.64 0.014 5.00 309.07 107.5 106.2 141.3 86.57 85.34 69.19 0.039 129.60 151.64 0.041 5.00 309.07 121.5 119.5 153.6 99.62 95.98 81.48 0.065 129.60 151.64 0.069 5.00 309.07 131.7 129.1 162.4 109.28 103.70 90.74 0.091 129.60 151.64 0.096 5.00 309.07 139.8 136.8 169.2 117.10 109.88 98.34 0.117 129.60 151.64 0.121 4.74 309.07 146.7 143.3 174.8 123.74 115.07 104.86 0.143 129.60 151.64 0.142 4.30 309.07 152.7 149.0 179.7 129.56 119.57 110.62 0.169 129.60 151.64 0.162 3.97 309.07 158.0 154.0 184.0 134.76 123.57 115.81 0.195 129.60 151.64 0.182 3.71 309.07 161.9 157.6 187.0 138.57 126.49 119.62 0.216 129.60 151.64 0.198 3.53 309.07 163.6 159.3 188.5 140.32 127.82 121.38 0.227 129.60 151.64 0.206 3.46 309.07 165.0 160.5 189.5 141.64 128.83 122.72 0.234 143.63 167.04 0.247 3.75 379.57 166.8 162.3 191.0 143.49 130.23 124.58 0.245 146.25 167.04 0.259 3.73 393.55 130.0 101.3 103.2 81.16 70.58 79.75 0.268 138.39 156.56 0.266 3.47 352.39 159.4 146.4 165.2 126.65 113.31 113.89 0.279 134.55 154.79 0.254 3.31 333.10 161.0 147.8 166.3 128.09 114.39 115.40 0.288 136.60 154.79 0.265 3.29 343.35 162.7 149.5 167.9 129.83 115.76 117.11 0.298 138.58 154.83 0.274 3.27 353.38 164.5 151.2 169.6 131.67 117.22 118.88 0.307 140.55 154.88 0.284 3.26 363.47 170.8 161.0 182.9 141.95 126.74 126.64 0.317 139.72 153.44 0.287 3.18 359.22 172.5 162.7 184.6 143.77 128.19 128.39 0.326 141.59 153.49 0.297 3.17 368.88 174.1 164.4 186.1 145.53 129.59 130.08 0.336 143.42 153.52 0.307 3.16 378.46 175.7 166.0 187.7 147.23 130.93 131.73 0.345 145.21 153.58 0.317 3.14 387.97 174.8 163.8 184.0 144.91 128.56 130.35 0.350 143.22 151.54 0.322 3.07 377.44 GeoSuite© Version 2.4.0.16. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright© 2002 - 2019 GeoAdvanced™. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 12/16/2019 5:29:48 PM PA2019-263 APPENDIX F SEISMICITY DATA PA2019-263 12/16/2019 U.S. Seismic Design Maps https://seismicmaps.org 1/3 117 N Bayfront 117 North Bay Front, Newport Beach, CA 92662, USA Latitude, Longitude: 33.6084516, -117.89934970000002 Date 12/16/2019, 11:33:57 AM Design Code Reference Document ASCE7-10 Risk Category II Site Class D - Stiff Soil Type Value Description SS 1.736 MCER ground motion. (for 0.2 second period) S1 0.641 MCER ground motion. (for 1.0s period) SMS 1.736 Site-modified spectral acceleration value SM1 0.961 Site-modified spectral acceleration value SDS 1.158 Numeric seismic design value at 0.2 second SA SD1 0.641 Numeric seismic design value at 1.0 second SA Type Value Description SDC D Seismic design category Fa 1 Site amplification factor at 0.2 second Fv 1.5 Site amplification factor at 1.0 second PGA 0.721 MCEG peak ground acceleration FPGA 1 Site amplification factor at PGA PGAM 0.721 Site modified peak ground acceleration TL 8 Long-period transition period in seconds SsRT 1.736 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (0.2 second) SsUH 1.945 Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration SsD 3.274 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (0.2 second) S1RT 0.641 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (1.0 second) S1UH 0.705 Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration. S1D 1.108 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (1.0 second) PGAd 1.2 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (Peak Ground Acceleration) CRS 0.893 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at short periods PA2019-263 12/16/2019 U.S. Seismic Design Maps https://seismicmaps.org 2/3 Type Value Description CR1 0.909 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at a period of 1 s PA2019-263 12/16/2019 U.S. Seismic Design Maps https://seismicmaps.org 3/3 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 website. PA2019-263