The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20210511_Geotechnical Investigation_04-19-2021consultants GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 114 E. OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Presented to:. Newport Homes Development, LLC Attn: Robert J. Hall 755 W 17th Street, Unit H Costa Mesa, California 92627 c/o: Masum Azizi, AIA 1601 Dove Street, Ste 255 Newport Bea.ch , CA 92660 Prepared by: EGA Consultants, Inc. 375-C Monte Vista Avenue Costa Mesa, California 92627 ph (949) 642-9309 fax (949) 642-1290 April 19, 2021 Project No. MA304.1 engineering geotechnical applications 375-C Monte V ista Avenue • Costa Mesa, CA 92627 • (949) 642-9309 • FAX (949) 642-1290 PA2021-112 consultants engineering geotechnical applications Newport Homes Development, LLC Mr. Robert J. Hall April 19, 2021 Project No. MA304.1 755 W 17th Street, Unit H Costa Mesa, California 92627 c/o: Subject: Masum Azizi, AIA GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 114 E. OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Dear Team, In accordance with your request and with the 2019 CBC, we have completed our Geotechnical Investigation of the above referenced site. This investigation was performed to determine the site soil conditions and to provide geotechnical parameters for the proposed re-grading and construction at the subject site. It is our understanding that the proposed re-development shall include the demolition of the existing residence and the construction of a new residential dwelling with associated improvements. This report presents the results of the investigation (including Liquefaction Computations) along with grading and foundation recommendations pertaining to the development of the proposed residential development. This opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, DAVID A. WORTHINGTON, CEG 2124 Principal Engineering Geologist/CEO ~~~ JOHN F. EGGERS Staff Geologist cc: {3) Addressee PAUL DURAND, PE, RCE 58364 Sr. Project Engineer 37 5-C Monte Vista Ave n ue • Costa Mesa, CA 92627 • (949) 642-9309 • FAX (949) 642-1290 PA2021-112 consultants Site: Proposed Residential Development: 114 E. Oceanfront Newport Beach, California Executive Summary April 19, 2021 Project No. MA304.1 engineering geotechnicaf applications Based on our geotechnical study of the site, our review of available reports and literature and our experience, it is our opinion that the proposed residential development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. There appear to be no significant geotechnical constraints on-site that cannot be mitigated by proper planning, design, and utilization of sound construction practices. The engineering properties of the soil and native materials, and surface drainage offer favorable conditions for site re-development. The following key elements are conclusions confirmed from this investigation: A review of available geologic records indicates that no active faults cross the subject property. The site is located in the seismically active Southern California area, and within 2 kilometers of the Type B Newport-Inglewood Fault. As such, the proposed development shall be designed in accordance with seismic considerations specified in the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) and the City of Newport Beach requirements. Foundation specifications herein include added provisions for potential liquefaction on-site per City policy CBC 1803.11-12. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Design Item Mat Slab Foundation: Mat Slab Bearing Pressure: Modulus of Subgrade Reaction: Passive Lateral Resistence: Coefficient of Friction: Building Pad Over-Excavation: Soil Expansion: Soil Sulfate Content: Soil Maximum Density: Building Pad Over-Excavation: Recommendations min. 12 inches with thickened edges(+ 6 inches) with no. 5 bars @ 12" o.c. each way, top and bottom 1,000 psf k. = 90 lbs/in3 250 psf per foot 0.30 min. 2½ ft. below existing grade, + scarify bottom 6 in. Non-Expansive Silty Sands Negligible, 5 ppm, [SO) 107.0 pcf@ 12 0% optimum moisture content min. 2½ ft. below ex. grade, +6" scarify & treat bottom * Concrete building slabs shall be underlain by 2" clean sand, underlain by a min. 15 mil thick vapor barrier, with all laps sealed, underlain by 4" of ¾-inch gravel (capillary break). Seismic Values (per CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 Equivalent Lateral Force Method): Site Class Definition (Table 1613.5.2) D Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, s. 1.394 g Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 1 s Period, s, 0.495 g Short Period Site Coefficient at 0 .2 Period, Fa 1.2 Long Period Site Coefficient at 1 s Period, Fv 1.8 Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SMs 1.673 g Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period, SM, 0.891 g Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, S0s 1. 115 g Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1 s Period, S01 0.594 g PGAm = 0.734 g Note: EGA Consultants recommends the structural engineer review and confirm associated seismic values for the proposed residential development. 375-C Monte Vista Avenue • Costa Mesa, CA 92627 • (949) 642-9309 • FAX (949) 642-1290 PA2021-112 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION April 19, 2021 Project No. MA304.1 FOR PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT INTRODUCTION 114 E. OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA In response to your request and in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Building Department requirements, we have completed a preliminary geotechnical investigation at the subject site located at 114 E. Oceanfront, in the City of Newport Beach, State of California (see Site Location Map, Figure 1 ). The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the existing geotechnical conditions at the subject site and provide recommendations and geotechnical parameters for site re- development, earthwork, and foundation design for the proposed construction . We were also requested to evaluate the potential for on-site geotechnical hazards. This report presents the results of our findings, as well as our conclusions and recommendations. SCOPE OF STUDY The scope of our investigation included the following tasks: • Review of readily available published and unpublished reports; • Geologic reconnaissance and document research; • Excavation and sampling of two (2) exploratory borings to a total depth of 11 feet below existing grade (b.g.); • Continuous Cone Penetration Test (CPT) sounding to a depth of 50½ feet below grade (results of the CPT sounding are included herein); • Laboratory testing of representative samples obtained from the exploratory borings; • Engineering and geologic analysis including seismicity coefficients in accordance with the 2019 California Building Code (CBC); • Seismic and Liquefaction analysis and settlement computations (in accordance with California Geological Survey, SP 117 A); • Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. 2 PA2021-112 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS The beachfront property is an approximate 30 ft. wide by 70 ft. long, rectangular lot located at 114 E. Oceanfront within the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange. The subject site is located within the central portion of the Balboa Peninsular. For the purpose of clarity in this report, the lot is bound by E. Oceanfront (a .k.a. "Alley") to the north, by Oceanfront East and public beach to the south, and by similar residences to the east and west. Channel waters of the Newport Bay are located approximately 1,000 feet north of the subject site. The Pacific Ocean is located approximately 600 feet southwest of the property across the public beach (see Site Location Map, Figure 1 ). The subject lot consists of a relatively flat, planar lot with no significant slopes on or adjacent to the site. The lot size is ro ughly 2,100 sq. ft. The site is legally described as Lot 20, Block 11 , of East Newport in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California (APN 048-074-09). Currently, the lot is occupied by a two-story residence, with an attached one-car garage in the northwest of the lot. All structures are supported on continuous perimeter footings with slab-on-grade floors. The one-car garage is accessed from E. Oceanfront. The existing property lines and dimensions are shown in the Plot Plan, Figure 2, herein. PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Based on review of preliminary plans by Azizi Architects, Inc., dated April 12, 2021 , the proposed residential development shall include the demolition of the existing structures, and the construction of a new three-story single family dwelling with a rooftop deck and cabana. The proposed square footages are as follows: First Floor: Second Floor: Third Floor & Cabana: Total: 1,174 sq ft. 1,265 sq ft. 201 sq ft. 2,640 sq ft. The proposed residential development shall include a new two-car garage accessed from E. Oceanfront. We assume that the proposed building will consist of wood-frame and masonry block construction or building materials of similar type and load. The building foundations will consist of a combination of isolated and continuous spread footings. Loads on the footings are unknown, but are expected to be less than 2,250 and 1,750 pounds per square foot on the isolated and continuous footings, respectively. If actual loads exceed these assumed values, we should be contacted to evaluate whether revisions of 114 E. Oceanfront, Newport Beach, CA Soils Report -Proposed Residential Development Project No. MA304. I April I 9, 202 1 3 PA2021-112 this report are necessary. It is our understanding that the grade of the site is not expected to vary significantly. Based on the digital elevation model by NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI -NAVD88, Last Modified September 23, 2016), the site elevation is approximately 15 ft. above MSL (see reference No. 10). Based on the preliminary plans, the proposed finish floor elevation shall be 9+ ft. above mean sea level (MSL) to conform with City and United States FEMA flood elevation requirements. Note: The precise determination, measuring, and documenting of the site elevations, hub locations, property boundaries, etc., is the responsibility of the project licensed land surveyor. No basement or retaining walls are planned. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Our subsurface exploration consisted of the excavation of two (2) exploratory borings (B-1 and B-2) to a maximum depth of 11 feet below grade (b.g.) and one CPT probe (CPT-1) to a depth of 50½ b.g. (continuous soil profile). Prior to drilling, the underground detection and markup service (Underground Service Alert of Southern California) was ordered and completed under DigAlert. Due to congestion of utilities adjacent to the lot, the CPT rig was located in the nearest parking space at E. Balboa Boulevard. Representative bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained for labora- tory testing. Geologic/CPT logs of the soil boring/probes are included in Appendix A. The borings were continuously logged by a registered geologist from our firm who obtained soil samples for geotechnical laboratory analysis. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Figure 2 (Plot Plan). Geotechnical soil samples were obtained using a modified California sampler filled with 2% inch diameter, 1-inch tall brass rings. Bulk samples were obtained by collecting representative bore hole cuttings. Locations of geotechnical samples and other data are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. The soils were visually classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Classifications are shown on the boring logs included in Appendix A. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing was performed on representative soil samples obtained during our subsurface exploration. The following tests were performed: 114 F. Oceanfront, Newport lkach. CA Soils Report • Proposed Residential Dcvclopmcnl Project No Ml\304.1 April 19,2021 4 PA2021-112 * * * * * Dry Density and Moisture Content (ASTM: D 2216) Soil Classification (ASTM: D 2487) Direct Shear (ASTM: D 3080) Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content (ASTM: D 1557) Sulfate Content (CA 417, ACI 318-08, Table 4.2.1) All laboratory testing was performed by our sub-contractor, G3Soi1Works, Inc., of Costa Mesa, California. Geotechnical test results are included in Appendix B, herein. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The site soil and geologic conditions are as follows: Seepage and Groundwater According to the Orange County Water District (OCWD), there are no water wells located within the general vicinity of the subject property. Channel waters of the Newport Bay are located approximately 1,000 feet north of the subject site. The Pacific Ocean is located approximately 600 feet southwest of the property across the public beach. Seepage or surface water ponding was not noted on the subject site at the time of our study. Our data indicates that the groundwater encountered is subject to significant tidal fluctuations. Groundwater was encountered in our test excavation at depth of approximately 9.5 feet below grade. Based on our review, the groundwater highs approach the tidal highs in the bay, and groundwater lows drop slightly below mean sea level. From a construction standpoint, any excavations advanced down to within the tidal zones should be expected to experience severe caving. A tidal chart beginning on March 26, 2021 is presented as Figure 4, herein. Geologic Setting Regionally, the site is located within the western boundary of the Coastal Plain 114 E. Oceanfront, Newport I.leach, CA Soils Report -Proposed Residential Development Project No. MA304. I April 19, 202 I 5 PA2021-112 of Orange County. The Coastal Plain lies within the southwest portion of the Los Angeles Basin and consists of semi-consolidated marine and non-marine deposits ranging in age from Miocene to recent. The Coastal Plain is bound by the Tustin Plan and the Santa Ana Mountains to the northeast and the San Joaquin Hills to the southeast. Based on available geologic maps the site is underlain by a thin mantle of eolian marine (Qe)/hydraulic sands and/or engineered fill. The shallow soil layer is underlain by Quaternary-age old paralic deposits (Qop) which are described as medium dense to very dense, oxidized, fine to medium grained, moderately to well-cemented sand and silty sand (see reference No. 2). The eolian sand deposits are underlain by massive bedrock of the Monterey Formation (Tm). Roadside exposures of massive bedrock of the Monterey Formation (Tm) are visible on the inland side of side of Pacific Coast Highway approximately 1 kilometer north and northeast of the site (Dover Shores and Bayside Drive bluffs). A Geologic Map is presented as Figure 3, herein (reference: Morton, D.M., and Miller, F.K., 2006). Based on the geologic map (Figure 3) correlation with the nearby CPT probe, bedrock of the Monterey Formation (Tm) was likely encountered approximately 35 feet below grade. Faulting A review of available geologic records indicates that no active faults cross the subject property (reference No. 2, and Figure No. 3). Seismicity The seismic hazards most likely to impact the subject site is ground shaking following a large earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood (onshore), Palos Verdes (offshore), San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust, Whittier-Elsinore, or Cucamonga Faults. The site is primarily underlain by fill and beach sands with thin layers of silt/clay. For design purposes, two-thirds of the maximum anticipated bedrock acceleration may be assumed for the repeatable ground acceleration. The effects of seismic shaking can be mitigated by adhering to the 2019 California Building Code or the standards of care established by the Structural Engineers Association of California. With respect to this hazard, the site is comparable to others in this general area in similar geologic settings. The grading/building specifications outlined in this 114 E. Oceanfront, Newport Beach, CA Soils Report -Proposed Residential Development Project No. MAJ04. I April 19, 2021 6 PA2021-112 report are in part, intended to mitigate seismic shaking. Based on our review of the "Seismic Zone Map," issued by the State of California, there are no mapped earthquake landslide zones on the site. The proposed development shall be designed in accordance with seismic requirements contained in the 2019 CBC as adopted by the City of Newport Beach building codes. Based on Chapter 16 of the 2019 CBC and on Maps of Known Active Near- Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada (ASCE 7-16 Standard, Equivalent Lateral Force Method), the site shall be designed using the following seismic parameters: 2019 CBC Seismic Design Parameters S DDRESS fr h C !TE A -· : 114 E. Ocean ont, Newport Beac , A Site Latitude (Decimal Degrees) 33.6033041 Site Longitude (Decimal Degrees) -117.905563 Site Class Definition D Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, Ss 1.394 g Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at Is Period, S1 0.495 g Short Period Site Coefficient at 0.2 Period, Fa 1.2 Long Period Site Coefficient at Is Period, Fv 1.8 Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SMs 1.673 g Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at Is Period, SM, 0.891 g Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, Sos 1.115 g Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Is Period Sn1 0.594 g In accordance with the USGS Design Maps, and assuming Site Class "D", the mean peak ground acceleration (PGAm) per USGS is 0.734 g. The stated PGAm is based on a 2% probability of exceedance in a 50 year span (see copies of the USGS Design Maps Detailed Report, Appendix D, herein) EGA Consultants recommends the structural engineer review and confirm associated seismic values for the proposed residential development. FINDINGS Subsurface Soils As encountered in our test borings, the site is underlain by hydraulic fill sands I 14 E. Oceanfront, Newport £leach, CA Soils Report -Proposed Residential Development Project No. MA304. I April 19, 2021 7 PA2021-112 and native materials as follows: Fill (Af} Fill sands were encountered in each of the borings to a depth of approximately 2½ feet below ground. The fill soils consist generally of tan yellowish brown, dry to damp, loose to medium dense, fine-to medium- grained sand with trace shell fragments and rootlets. The expansion potential of the fill soils was judged to be "non-expansive" when exposed to an increase in moisture content. Hydraulic-Native Sands (Qm), Paralic Deposits (Qop) and Bedrock (Tm) The fill materials are hydraulic and native sands as encountered in each of the test borings (8-1 , 8-2, and CPT-1). The native sands consist generally of light tan brown, dry to saturated, medium dense, non-cemented, fine-to medium-grained, sand and silty sand with trace shell fragments. The native sands are underlain by marine sands (Qm) and old paralic (Qop) deposits, which are underlain by Monterey Formation (Tm) bedrock consisting of medium dense to very dense, oxidized, fine to medium grained, moderately to well-cemented sand and siltstone to the maximum depths explored (50½ ft. b.g.). Based on the geologic map (Figure 3) correlation with the nearby CPT probe, bedrock of the Monterey Formation (Tm) was likely encountered approximately 35 feet below grade. Based on the laboratory results dated April 19, 2021, the site maximum dry density is 107.0 pcf at an optimum moisture content of 12.0% (per ASTM D 1557). The complete laboratory reports are presented in Appendix B, herein. LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS (Per SP117A) Liquefaction of soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion in response to earthquakes. Both research and historical data indicate that loose, granular sandy soils are susceptible to liquefaction, while the stability of rock, gravels, clays, and silts are not significantly affected by vibratory motion. Liquefaction is generally known to occur only in saturated or near saturated granular soils. The site is underlain by fill/eolian sands, old paralic deposits, and bedrock of the Monterey Formation. It is our understanding that the current City policy, has assigned a seismic settlement potential of one (1.0) inch in the upper ten feet, and three (3.0) inches for soil depths of ten to fifty feet. In the event settlement values exceed these threshold values, then additional analysis and/or additional mitigation is 114 E. Oceanfront, Newport Deach, CA Soils Report -Proposed Residential Development Project No. MA301I. I April 19, 202 1 8 PA2021-112 required. The CPT testing was performed in accordance with the "Standard Test Method for Performing Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone Penetration Testing of Soils," (ASTM 05778-12). The seismically induced settlement for the proposed structure was evaluated based on the "Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes" by 1.M. Idriss and R.W. Boulanger, dated September 8, 2008 as well as the "CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures" by R.W. Boulanger and I.M. Idriss, dated April 2014. The analysis was provided by two 10-feet deep 4 " diameter hand-auger borings, and a nearby 50+ feet deep 1.7" diameter CPT probe advanced by Kehoe Testing and Engineering, Inc. The exploratory borings and probe locations are shown in the Plot Plan, Figure 2, herein. The soil borings were continuously logged by a certified engineering geologist of our firm. The CPT test consists of a sounding to the specified depth using an integrated cone system manufactured by Vertek. The cone penetrometer was pushed using a 30-ton CPT rig, with samples taken approximately every 2.5 cm, or 0.98 inches. The following parameters are measured: Cone Resistance (qc), Sleeve Friction (fs), Dynamic Pore Pressure (u), Inclination, and Penetration Speed. The parameters were recorded using a laptop computer, and compared with baseline readings to adjust for temperature or zero load offsets. The Ishihara and Yoshimine 1992 paper titled "Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits Following Liquefaction During Earthquakes" was reviewed. The paper discusses that if given the factor of safety and the density in each layer of a sand deposit at a given site, the volumetric strain can be calculated, and then by integrating the volume changes through the depth, the amount of settlement at the ground surface can be estimated. The liquefaction analysis is based on the accepted document of Idriss and Boulanger (2014), which integrates the findings established by Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992). The total value for seismic induced settlement due to liquefaction is calculated in the last three columns of the spreadsheet in Appendix E herein. The computations and results of our Liquefaction Analysis, based on CPT blow counts of Boring CPT-1 , are attached in Appendix D, herein. The seismically induced settlement analysis was evaluated based on methods published in the references Nos. "a" through "j" (see "Associated References", herein). The liquefaction and seismic settlement calculations indicate seismic settlement (includes dry and saturated sands) in the upper 50 feet is less than 2.0 inches, 114 E. Oceanfront, Newport Beach, CA Soils Keport -Proposed Residential Devclopmcnl Project No MA304. I April 19, 2021 9 PA2021-112 and in the upper 10 feet is less than 1.0 inch and hence shallow mitigation methods for liquefaction may be implemented per City Code Policy (No. CBC 1803.5.11 -2 last revised 7/3/2014). Based on our liquefaction analysis, and in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Policy No. CBC 1803.5.11-12 (NBMC, Chapter 15), we recommend the following mitigative methods to minimize the effects of shallow liquefaction: a. Remedial Grading via Soil Cement in Upper 3 feet -See Page 11 , below b. Mat Slab Foundation -see Page 12, below The soil densification via soil cement and the mat slab foundation specifications outlined below will act to decrease the potential settlement due to liquefaction and/or seismically induced lateral deformation to tolerable amounts. The above specifications eliminate the use of piles and associated construction vibrations and groundwater displacement induced by caisson drilling or pile-driving. If the above specifications are incorporated, the proposed structure shall be stable and adequate for the intended uses and the proposed construction will not adversely impact the subject or adjacent properties. Remedial grading via soil densification reduces the calculated seismic settlement. Other Geologic Hazards Other geologic hazards such as landsliding, or expansive soils, are not factors at the subject site. There is not sufficient topography for soil creep or slope movement. CONCLUSIONS Based on our geotechnical study of the site, our review of available reports and literature and our experience, it is our opinion that the proposed improvements at the site are feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. There appear to be no significant geotechnical constraints on-site that cannot be mitigated by proper planning, design, and utilization of sound construction practices. The engineering properties of the soil and native materials, and the surface drainage offer favorable conditions for site re- development. RECOMMENDATIONS The following sections discuss the principle geotechnical concerns which should be considered for proper site re-development. I 14 E. Oceanfront, Newport l3each, CA Soils Report • Proposed Residential Development Project No. MA304. I April 19. 2021 10 PA2021-112 Earthwork Grading and earthwork should be performed in accordance with the following recommendations. It is our understanding that the majority of grading will be limited to the re-grading of the building pad for the proposed construction. In general, it is anticipated that the removal of the upper 2½ feet (plus 6 inches of scarification) within the building footprint (slab-on-grade portion) will require removal and recompaction to prepare the site for construction. The removals should be accomplished so that all fill and backfill existing as part of the previous site use and demolition operations are removed . Where feasible, the limits of the pad fill shall be defined by a 3 foot envelope encompassing the building footprint, where feasible. Care should be taken to protect the adjacent property improvements. A minimum one foot thick fill blanket should be placed throughout the exterior improvements (approaches, parking and planter areas). The fill blanket will be achieved by re-working (scarifying) the upper 12 inches of the existing grade. Remedial Grading -Soil Cement Due to in situ dry, granular sands, we recommend a minimum three (3) pallets (40 bags dry mix, each weighing 94 pounds and approximately 1.33 cubic yards) of Portland cement be blended into the newly-placed fill. The first application of the Portland Cement shall be placed on the bottom of the scarified over-excavation(s). This option may be eliminated or reduced if suitable import fills are trucked-in. Site Preparation Prior to earthwork or construction operations, the site should be cleared of surface structures and subsurface obstructions and stripped of any vegetation in the areas proposed for development. Removed vegetation and debris should then be disposed of off-site. A minimum of 2½ feet of the soils below existing grade will require removal and recompaction in the areas to receive building pad fill. Following removal and scarification of 6 inches, the excavated surface should be inspected by the soils engineer or his designated representative prior to the placement of any fill in footing trenches. Holes or pockets of undocumented fill resulting from removal of buried obstructions discovered during this inspection should be filled with suitable compacted fill. The on-site soils are suitable for reuse as compacted fill, provided they are free of organic materials, debris, and materials larger than four (4) inches in 11 4 E. Oceanfront, Newport Beach, CA Soils Repon -Proposed Re,idential Development Projecl No. MA304. I April 19,202 1 11 PA2021-112 diameter. After removal of any loose, compressible soils, all areas to receive fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 12 inches, brought to at least 2 percent over optimum moisture conditions and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM: D 1557). If necessary, import soils for near-surface fills should be predominately granular, possess a very low expansion potential, and be approved by the geotechnical engineer. Lift thicknesses will be dependent on the size and type of equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 6 inches. Placement and compaction of fill should be in accordance with local grading ordinances under the observation and testing of the geotechnical consultant. We recommend that fill soils be placed at moisture contents at least 2 percent over optimum (based on ASTM: D 1557). We recommend that oversize materials (materials over 4 inches) should they be encountered, be stockpiled and removed from the site. Trench Backfill The on-site soils may be used as trench backfill provided they are screened of rock sizes over 4 inches in dimension and organic matter. Trench backfill should be compacted in uniform lifts (not exceeding 6 inches in compacted thickness) by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM: D 1557). Geotechnical Design Parameters The following Geotechnical parameters may used in the design of the proposed structure (also, see "Liquefaction Analysis" section, above): Mat Foundation Design Due to cohesionless sands during construction, a mat slab foundation system is recommended. Mat slabs founded in compacted fill or competent native materials may be designed for an allowable bearing value of 900 psf (for dead- plus-live load). These values may be increased by one-third for loads of short duration, including wind or seismic forces. The actual design of the foundation and slabs should be completed by the structural engineer. MIN. DESIGN ITEM Mat foundations: allowable bearing pressure: passive lateral resistence mat slab thickness: steel reinforcement: coefficient of friction: I 14 L. Oceanfront, Newpon Heach, CA Soils Report -Proposed Residential Development Projc:cl No. MA304. I April 19, 2021 12 RECOMMENDATIONS 1,000 psf 250 psf per foot min. 12 inches with th ickened edges ( + 6 inches) no. 5 bars @ 12" o.c. each way, top and bottom 0.30 PA2021-112 Modulus of Subgrade Reaction ks = 90 lbs/in3 If applicable, the mat slab shall be directly underlain by a min. 2-inch thick layer of washed sand, underlain by min. 15-mil Stego wrap (or equiv., lapped and sealed), underlain by 4 inches of gravel (¾-inch crushed rock), underlain by competent native materials (see "Capillary Break Section above). For mat slabs, we do not recommend expansion or felt joints be used. Reinforcement requirements may be increased if recommended by the project structural engineer. In no case should they be decreased from the previous recommendations. Capillary Break Below Interior Slabs In accordance with the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code Section 4.505.2.1 , we provide the following building specification for the subject site (living area and garages slabs): Concrete building slabs shall be directly underlain by a min. 2 inches of clean/washed sand, underlain by a min.15 mil-thick moisture barrier (e.g. "Stego Wrap"), with all laps sealed, underlain by 4 inches of ¾-inch gravel. We do not advise placing sand directly on the gravel layer as this would reverse the effects of vapor migration (due to si ltation of fines). The above specification meets or exceeds the Section 4.505.2.1 requirement. Cement Type for Concrete in Contact with On-Site Earth Materials Concrete mix design should be based on sulfate testing with Section 1904.2 of the 2019 CBC (in the event of soil import, soils shall be tested a specified accordingly). Preliminary laboratory testing indicates the site soils possess negligible sulfate exposure. ACI 318 BUILDING CODE -Table 193.1.1 REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCRETE EXPOSED TO SULFATE-CONTAINING SOLUTIONS Sulfate Water soluble Sulfate (SO,) in Exposure sulfate (SO,) in soil water, ppm percent by weight Negligible [SO] 0.00 s so,< 0.10 0 5 so, <150 Moderate 0.10 < so,< 0.20 150 < SO,< 1500 [S1] I 14 F.. Oceanfront, Newport Beach, CA Soib Report -Proposed Residential Devdopment Project No. MA304. l April I 9, 2021 Cement Type Maximum water-Minimum fc', cementitious material normal-weight ratio, by weight, normal and light weight weight concrete concrete, psi --·-------------- 11,IP(MS), 0.50 4000 IS(MS),P(MS) l(PM)(MS), l(SM)(MS) 1 3 PA2021-112 Severe 0.20 ~ so,< 2.00 1500 <so,< V 0.45 4500 [S2] 10,000 Very Severe so,> 2.00 SO,> 10,000 V plus 0.45 4500 [S3] pozzalan As a conservative approach, and due to the marine environment, we recommend cement with a minimum strength f'c of 3,000 psi be used for concrete in contact with on-site earth materials. Settlement Utilizing the design recommendations presented herein, we anticipate that the majority of any post-grading settlement will occur during construction activities. We estimate that the total settlement for the proposed structure will be on the order of 1 inch. Differential settlement is not expected to exceed ½ inch over 30 feet. These settlement values are expected to be within tolerable limits for properly designed and constructed foundations. Lateral Load Resistance Footings founded in fill materials may be designed for a passive lateral bearing pressure of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. A coefficient of friction against sliding between concrete and soil of 0.30 may be assumed. Exterior Slabs-on-grade (Hardscape) Concrete slabs cast against properly compacted fill materials shall be a minimum of 4 inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 3 rebar at 18 inches on center in both directions. The reinforcement shall be supported on chairs to insure positioning of the reinforcement at mid-center in the slab. Control joints should be provided at a maximum spacing of 8 feet on center in two directions for slabs and at 6 feet on center for sidewalks. Control joints are intended to direct cracking. Expansion or felt joints should be used at the interface of exterior slabs on grade and any fixed structures to permit relative movement. Some slab cracking due to shrinkage should be anticipated. The potential for the slab cracking may be reduced by careful control of water/cement ratios. The contractor should take appropriate curing precautions during the pouring of concrete in hot weather to minimize cracking of slabs. Surface Drainage Surface drainage shall be controlled at all times. Positive surface drainage 114 F,. Oceanfront, Newport Beach, CA Soils Report -Proposed Residential Development i>roject No. MA304. I April I 9, 2021 14 PA2021-112 should be provided to direct surface water away from structures and toward the street or suitable drainage facilities. Ponding of water should be avoided adjacent to the structures. Roof gutter discharge should be directed away from the building areas through solid PVC pipes to suitable discharge points. Area drains should be provided for planter areas and drainage shall be directed away from the top of slopes. Review of Plans The specifications and parameters outlined in this report shall be considered minimum requi rements and incorporated into the Grading, and Foundation Plans if applicable. This office should review the Plans when available. If approved , the geotechnical consultant shall sign/stamp the applicable Plans from a geotechnical standpoint. PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING It is recommended that no clearing of the site or any grading operation be performed without the presence of a representative of this office. An on site pre-grading meeting should be arranged between the soils engineer and the grading contractor prior to any construction. GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING DURING CONSTRUCTION We recommend that a qualified geotechnical consultant be retained to provide geotechnical engineering services, including geotechnical observation/testing, during the construction phase of the project. This is to verify the compliance with the design, specifications and or recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated. Geotechnical observations/testing should be performed at the following stages: During ANY grading operations, including excavation, removal, filling, compaction, and backfilling , etc • After excavations for footings (or thickened edges) and/or grade beams verify the adequacy of underlying materials. After pre-soaking of new slab sub-grade earth materials and placement of capillary break, plastic membrane, prior to pouring concrete. During backfill of drainage and utility line trenches, to verify proper compaction. • When/if any unusual geotechnical conditions are encountered. Prior to interior and exterior slab pours to ensure proper subgrade compaction and moisture barriers. Please schedule an inspection with the geotechnical consultant prior to the pouring of all interior and exterior slabs. 114 E. Oceanfronl, Newport Beach, CA Soils Report -Proposed Residential Development Project No. MA304. l April 19, 2021 ) 5 PA2021-112 LIMITATIONS The geotechnical services described herein have been conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the geotechnical engineering profession practicing contemporaneously under similar conditions in the subject locality. Under no circumstance is any warranty, expressed or implied, made in connection with the providing of services described herein. Data, interpretations, and recommendations presented herein are based solely on information available to this office at the time work was performed. EGA Consultants will not be responsible for other parties' interpretations or use of the information developed in this report. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction by a representative of EGA Consultants. We recommend that all foundation excavations and grading operations be observed by a representative of this firm to ensure that construction is performed in accordance with the specifications outlined in this report. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for the safety of others. The contractor should notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. I 14 E. Oceanfront, Newport Beach, CA Soils Report -Proposed Residen1i<1I Development Project No. MA304. I April 19, 2021 16 PA2021-112 Associated References re: Liquefaction Analysis a. "Special Publication 117 A: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California," by the California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, dated March 13, 1997; Revised September 11, 2008. b. "Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California," by G.R. Martin and M. Lew, University of Southern California Earthquake Center dated March, 1999. c "Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes" by I.M. Idriss and R.W Boulanger, dated September 8, 2008. d. "Soils and Foundations, 8th Edition," by Cheng Liu and Jack B. Evett, dated August 4, 2013. e. "Evaluation of Settlement in Sands due to Earthquake Shaking" by Kahaji Tokimatsu and H. Bolton Seed, Dated August 1987. f "Guidelines for Estimation of Shear Wave Velocity Profiles" By Bernard R. Wair, Jason T. Jong, Thomas Shantz Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Dated December, 2012. g. "Subsurface Exploration Using the Standard Penetration Test and the Cone Penetrometer Test," by J. David Rogers, Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, pp. 161-179, dated May, 2006. h. "Handbook of Geotechnical Investigation and Design Tables" By Burt G. Look, Dated 2007. I "Use of SPT Blow Counts to Estimate Shear Strength Properties of Soils: Energy Balance Approach," by Hiroshan Hettiarachi and Timothy Brown, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, pp. 830-834, dated June, 2009. j. "Standard Test Method for Performing Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone Penetration Testing of Soils," (ASTM D5778-12), dated 2012. k "Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits Following Liquefaction During Earthquakes," by Ishihara and Yoshimine, dated 1992. I. "CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures" by R.W. Boulanger and I.M. Idriss, dated April 2014. REFERENCES 1. "USGS Topographic Map, 7.5 minute Quadrangle, Newport Beach OE S, California Quadrangle," dated September 7, 2018. 2. "Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' X 60' Quadrangles, California," Version 1.0, compiled by Douglas M. Morton and Fred K. Miller, dated 2006. 3. "Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California," by Roger W. Reensfelder, dated 197 4. 4. Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada," prepared by California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, published by International Conference of Building Officials, dated February, 1998. 5. "Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction," by American Concrete Institute, ACI 302.1 R- 04, dated 2004. 6. "California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2," by California Building Standards Commission, 2019. 7. "Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Newport Beach 7 5-Minute Quadrangles, Orange County, California," by the California Department of Conservation, 1997. 8. "2015 International Building Code," by the International Code Council, dated June 5, 2014. 9. "Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet," Compilation by Thomas H. Rogers, 1965, fifth printing 1985. 10. "Digital Elevation Model NAVD88 Mosaic," by NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI}, Created August 20, 2015, last modified September 23, 2016. 11. "Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Dana Point 7 .5-Minute Quadrangle, Orange County, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 049" by California Department of Mines and Geology (CDMG) dated 2001. 114 E. Oceanfront, Newpon Beach, CA Soils Rcpon -Proposed Residential Uevelopmcnt Project No. MA304. l April 19, 2021 17 PA2021-112 Newport Bay ~ --~~ ._ Coll. s #F-~~=I Isl B Balb Source: USGS US Topo 7.5-minute map for Newport Beach OE S, CA, Published September7, 2018. EGA SITE LOCATION MAP Consultants 114 E. OCEANFRONT Project No: MA304.1 Date: APRIL2021 engineering geotechnical applications NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Figure No: 1 PA2021-112 I EXISTING ADJACENT I RESIDENCE ~ EAST OCEANFRONT (a.k.a. "Alley'J 30' -- _j -a: I-~ B-1 z UJ u UJ <( u PROPOSED 0 z <( UJ I 0 RESIDENTIAL l? vi z UJ I ;:::: a:: FOOTPRINT Vl X UJ OCEANFRONT EAST l I Public Beach References. -0 CPT-1 L - I-z UJ u <( 0 I. <( l? 0 I ,.._ z f:= Vl x UJ L ' - UJ u z UJ 0 vi UJ 0:: LEGEND GEOTECHNICAL BORINGS BY EGA CONSULTANTS CONE PENETRATION TEST BY KEHOE TESTING, Inc. "114 E Oceanfront, Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, APN:048-074-26," by Christensen & Plouff Land Surveying, dated April S, 2021. "Schematic Design . Beach House@ 114 E Oceanfront, Newport Beach, Newport Homes Development, LLC, California, USA," by Azizi Architects, Inc., dated April 12, 2021. EGA Consultants engineering geolechnical applications PLOT PLAN 114 E. OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Project No: Date: Figure No: MA304.1 APRIL 2021 2 PA2021-112 • • • • • • [::_,::d."\:.)j Eolian deposits (late Holocene)-Active or recently active f;:,-• =:::,e.:,::.-·_ ·::_ sand dune deposits; unconsolidated. f;,:. Qes .·. • -j Estuarine_ de posits (lat_e Holocene )-Sand, si It, and clay; ~-·-. - · ·_ unconsolidated, contains variable a mounts of organic matter. -Qop--4-, Old paralic deposits, Unit 4 (late to middle ~--~ Pleistocene)-Silt, sand and cobbles resting on 34-37 m Stuart Mesa terrace. AgeaboutZ00,000-300,000years. I Old paralic deposits, Unit 3 (late to middle Qopa Pleistocene)-Silt, sand and cobbles resting on45-46m Guy Fleming terrace. Age about 320,000-340,000 years Qorrt I Old paralic deposits, Unit 2 (late to middle ..___ __ •_, Pleistocene)-Silt, sand and cobbles resting on 55 m Parry Grove terrace.Age a bout413,000years. ~Qapj--~, Old paralic deposits, Unit 1 (late to middle .__ __ ...., Pleistocene)-Silt, sand and cobbles resting on 61-63 m Golf Course terrace. Age about 450,000 years. Sources: • • I Old paralic deposits, Units 3-6, un<ivided (late to middle Oop3.5 ____ Pleistocene)-Silt, sand and cobbles on 45-55 m terraces. Qopf Old paralic deposits (late to middle Pleistocene) overt.in by alluvial fan deposits-Old paralic deposits capped by sandy a 11 uvial-fa n deposits. ___ .., Capistrano Formation (early Pliocene and Miocene) Siltstone facies-Siltstone and mudstone; white to pale gray, massive to crudely bedded, friable. Monterey Formation (Miocene)--Ma rine siltstone and Tm ~--~ sandstone; siliceous and diatomaceous. TIit I Topanga Formation (middle Miocene) LosTrancos ..___ __ _,_ Member-Siltstone and sandstone. Thin to medium bedded; pa le gray to brownish gray. Morton, D.M., and Miller, F.K. Preliminary Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' x 60' quadrangles, California. U.S. Geological Survey. Published 2006. 1:100,000scale. EGA Consultants engineering geotechnical applications GEOLOGIC MAP 114 E. OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Project No: Date: Figure No: MA304.1 APRIL2021 3 PA2021-112 u s H A R BO R s I I • -■ Balboa Pier, Newport Beach, CA -Mar 2021 Data AM ft Mon 10 :08 5.1 Tue 10 :57 4.4 Wed 11:58 3.6 Thu 12:13 5.0 Fri 1:10 4.9 Sat 2:26 4.8 Sun 3:53 4.9 Mon 5:08 5.1 Tue 6:08 5.3 Wed 6:56 5.5 Thu 7:38 5.5 Fri 8:15 5.4 Sat 8:50 5.2 Sun 10:24 4.8 Mon 10:58 4.4 Tue 11:33 3.9 Wed Thu 12:0A 4.5 Fri 12:33 4.3 Sat 1:14 4.1 Sun 2:26 3.9 Mon 4:14 4.0 Tue 5:36 4.3 Wed 6:33 4.7 Thu 7:21 5.1 r·1 8.04 54 Sat 8:47 5.5 Sun 9:31 5.4 Mon 10:17 5.1 Tue 11:06 4.6 Wed 12~02P 3.9 EGA Consultants engineering geotcchnical applications High Low PM ft AM ft PM , 10:50 4.9 4:14 0.6 4:38 . 11:28 5.0 5:07 0 .5 5:11 6:09 0.5 5:46 1:23 2.9 7:27 0.5 6:26 3:40 2.7 9:04 0.4 7:28 5:46 3.0 10:39 0.0 9·:26 6:44 3.4 11:50 -0.4 11 :10 • 7:20 3.7 12:42 7:51 4.0 12:16 2.1 1:25 8:18 4.2 1:05 1.7 2:01 8:43 4.3 1:45 1.3 2:33 9:07 4.5 2:22 1.0 3:01 9:31 4.6 2:57 0.8 3:27 10:53 4.6 4:31 0.7 4:50 11:16 4.6 5:05 0.6 5:12 · 11:39 4.6 5:42 0.6 5:32 I 12:13 3.3 6:22 0.1 5:49 i 1:06 2..8 7:11 0.9 6:00 2:50 2.4 8:18 1.0 5:49 10:02 1.0 11:42 0.7 8:0A 3.2 12:41P 0.3 11:59 8:10 3.5 1:21 8:24 3.8 12:53 2.4 1:55 8:44 4.1 1:34 1.9 2:26 9 06 45 2.13 1 3 2.56 9:32 4.9 2:63 0.7 3:26 , 10:0·1 5.3 3:35 0.2 3:57 10:33 5.5 4:20 -0.2 4:18 . 11:08 5.6 5:07 -0.5 5:01 11:47 5.6 6:00 -0.5 5:35 TIDE CHART 114 E. OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA • """ ft Risa -0.2 6:19 0.4 6:18 1.0 6:16 1.7 6:15 2.3 6:14 2.6 6:13 2.5 6:11 .Q.8 6:10 -0.9 6:09 -1 .0 6:07 -0.9 6:06 -0.6 6:05 -0.3 6:04 0.1 7:02 0.5 7:01 1.0 7:00 1.5 6:58 1.9 6:57 2.3 6:55 6:54 6:53 2.8 6:51 -0.1 6:50 -0.4 6:49 -0.6 6:47 -0 fj 6.46 ~ -0.7 6:45 -0.5 6:43 -0.1 6:42 0.5 6:41 1.1 6:39 Project No: Date: Figure No: ' (. Set Moon 5:51 5:51 5:52 5:53 5:54 5:55 5:56 5:56 5:57 5;58 5:59 5~59 6:00 7:01 7:02 7:03 7:03 7:04 7:05 7:06 7:06 7:07 7:08 7:09 7:09 7 10 7:11 7:12 7:1 2 7:13 7:14 MA304.1 APRIL2021 4 PA2021-112 APPENDIX A GEOLOGIC LOGS (B-1 and B-2) and CPT Data Report (CPT-1) PA2021-112 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ASTM 0-2457 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOL CHART COARSE-GRAINED SOILS (more than 50% of material 1s larger than No. 200 sieve size.) GRAVELS More than 50% of coarse fraction l;,rger than No 4 SANOS 50% or more of coarse fraction smaller than No 4 sieve size Clean Gravels (Less than 5% fines) ..... ! ..-_.;4 GW Well-graded gravels. gravel-sand ~l~ mixtures. litUe or no fines j GP , Poony--graded gravels. gravel-sand mixtures. little or no fines Gravels with fines (More than 12% fines) GC Silty gravels, gravel-sand-sill mixtures Clayey gravels. gravel-sand-clay mixtures Clean Sands {Less than 5% fines SW SP Well-graded sands. gravelly sands, little or no fines Poony graded sands, gravelly sands. little or no fines Sands with fines lMore \ha_r1_ 1]°~1/•~fi~m~e~sL) ______ _ f1T SM ] Silty sands. sand-silt moctures SC Clayey sands. sand-clay mixtures FINE-GRAINED SOILS (50% or more of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve size.) Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock ML flour silty of clayey fine sands or clayey SILTS silts with slight plasucity AND CLAYS Inorganic clays of low to medium Liquid limit CL plasticity. gravelly clays. sandy clays, less than silty clays. lean clays 50% -OL Orgarnc silts and organic silty clays or low plasticity Inorganic silts. micaceous or MH diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils. SILTS elastic silts AND CLAYS CH Inorganic clays or high plasticity, fat Liquid hm1t clays 50% 01 greater Org;,nic clays of medium to high OH plastlc1ty, organic sills HIGHLY ORGANIC PT Peat and 0U1er h1gt11y orgamc soils SOILS ------ RELATIVE DENSITY Cohesionless Blows/ft* Blows/ft .. Sands and Silts Very loose 0-4 0-30 Loose 4-10 30-60 Medium dense 10-30 80-200 Dense 30-50 200-400 Very dense Over 50 Over400 ,-- c- LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA 060 D30 C :--greater than 4 Cc = ---be1ween 1 and ~ GW u o,o o,o•D50 GP Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW - GM Atterberg limits below ·A· Above "A" line with Pl. between line or P.1. less than 4 4 and 7 are borderline cases GC Alterberg limits above ·A· requiring use or dual symbols hne with P. I. greater than 7 cu D50 D30 = --greater than 4 Cc = ---between 1 ana 3 SW o,o o 10 xo60 SP Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW SM Attert>erg limits below • A" Limits plotting ,n shaded zone line or P. I. less than 4 with P.1. between 4 and 7 are Atterberg limits above "A" bordenine cases requmng use SC line with P.I. greater than 7 of dual symt>ols. Determine percentages of sand and gravel from g,a1n•s1ze curve Depending on percentage of fines (frachon smaller lh<.1n No 200 sieve size). coarse-grained soils are classified as follows: Less than 5 percent .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . ... GW. GP. SW. SP More than 12 percent ................................. GM GC. SM SC 6 to f 2 percent ......... _ ••....... Bordortino caooe roqumng dual ::.ymboh:; PLASTICITY CHART 60 V ~ 50 V ~ CH ./ X 40 V ALINE· w 0 Pl= 0.73(LL-20) ~ 30 >-CL .,v MH&OH I-u 20 V .: rJ) / :3 10 Q. L+Mt. ./ ML&OL 00 I 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) (%) CONSISTENCY Cohesive Soils Blows/ft* Blows/ft** Very soft 0-4 0-4 Soft 2-4 4-11 Firm 4-8 1]-50 Stiff 8-16 50-110 Very stiff 16-32 110-220 Hard Over 32 Over220 * Blows/foot for a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches to drive a 2-inch O.D., 1-3/8 inch 1.0. Split Spoon sampler (Standard Penetration Test). •• Blows/foot for a 36-pound hammer falling 24 inches to drive a 3.25 0.0., 2.411.0. Sampler (Hand Sampling). Blow count convergence to standard penetration test was done in accordance with Fig. 1.24 of Foundation Engineering Handbook by H.Y. Fang, Von Nostrand Reinhold, 1991. PA2021-112 LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Sheet 1 of 1 Job Number: MA304.1 Boring No: B-1 Project: 114 E. Oceanfront, Newport Beach, CA Boring Location: See Figure 2 Proposed SFR Date Started: 3/26/2021 Rig: Mob. 4" augers Date Completed: 3/26/2021 Grnd Elev. +/-15 ft. NAVD88 Sample ~ t; Direct Type 0 X a. Shear 4) "E t; <I) ,::, (/) ■ThinWall C8J 2 .5" Ring a. -0 I- <I) QJ <I) ,::, E "iii (/) u. a. -0 Tube Sample c C: 'ui w >-QJ 0 'iii C: <I) I-·= I-.0 0 0 0 a. :5 :!, 0 C: iii -<a> 0:: ..c: IZ] Bulk DJ S1andard Split sz S1atic Wttler <I) 0.. i5 vi :::, ~ 0 C: E 0 w QJ (/) 'ci en Sample Spoon Sample = Table :::, ro :::, I vi <!' a. E I-0 C: 0 X ·x 0 ::::, ·o w :E ro <::nit nFSCRIPTl/"'\~t ~ I FILL: Light tan to yellow, poorly graded medium Opt% 1 SP grained sand, damp, loose to medium dense. 5.1 95.0 107.0 30.0 66 12.0% t--x Sult SP At 2.5 ft.: Tan to yellowish brown beach sand 5ppm z with shell fragments, dry to damp, medium-3.7 5 -grained, medium dense. High porosity. z At 6 ft.: Same, medium dense. 2.6 SP 7 At 8 ft.: Same, becoming more dense. 2.7 SP '\I At 9 ft.: Saturated, more dense. 10 -/ At 10 ft.: Saturated fine to medium sand, dense. 29.0 Total Depth: 11 ft Groundwater at 9.5 ft. No Caving (cased). 15 -Backfilled and Compacted 3/26/2021 20 - 25 - 30 - 35 - 40 I EGA Consultants II 'Z",~ I PA2021-112 LOG OF EXP LORA TORY BORING Sheet 1 of 1 Job Number: MA304.1 Boring No: B-2 Project: 114 E. Oceanfront, Newport Beach, CA Boring Location: See Figure 2 Proposed SFR Date Started: 3/26/2021 Rig: Mob. 4" augers Date Completed: 3/26/2021 Grnd Elev. +/-15 ft. NAVD88 Sample ~ u Direct Type 0 X a. Shear w i': u QJ >, (/) ■ThinWall [g] 2.5" Ring a. "O ·~ I- QJ QJ QJ -~ .E: (/) LL a. "O Tube Sample i': C: 'ti w >, QJ 0 C: QJ I-C: I--e "' 0 0 0 a. 0 C: ~ a:: J::. ·5 :, ~ [Z]Bulk [D standard Splij sz static Water !!! QJ .vi E 0 w Q_ "' :, 0 C: (/) w Sample Spoon Sample = Table ro :, I Ql '6 :, ~ a. .!:; 0 C: "' 0 X ti ::> 5 w X ~ ro c::n11 nFCf'CIPTlnN ~ I FILL: Light tan to yellow, poorly graded, medium-Opt.% 1 SP grained sand, dry, loose to medium dense. 22 96.2 107.0 30.0 66 12.0% >( Cqlf ~ SP At 2.5 ft.: Tan to yellowish brown beach sand 5 ppm 7 with shell fragments, dry to damp, medium-6.1 5 -grained, medium dense. High porosity. z At 6 ft.: Same, less moist, medium dense. 3.2 SP 7 At 8 ft.: Same, becoming more dense. 4.3 SP \/ At 9 ft.: Saturated, more dense. SM =_.c'" ~ At 10 ft: Saturated fine to medium silty sand, dense. 31.0 10 - Total Depth: 11 ft. Groundwater at 9.5 ft No Caving (cased) 15 -Backfilled and Compacted 3/26/2021. 20 - 25 - 30 - 35 - 40 I EGA Consultants II ':'; I PA2021-112 K~ Kehoe Testing and Engineering 714-901-7270 rich@kehoetesting.com www .kehoetesting.com Project: EGA Consultants, LLC Location: Balboa Blvd Newport Beach, CA Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction Pore pressure u '.l I 0 0 1 2 2 4 4 6 6 8 8 10 10 10 12 12 12 14 14 14 16 16 16 18 18 18 20 20 20 .-.. 22 .-.. 22 .-.. 22 ..., ,t'. ..., .... .... ....., 24 .._, 24 ....., 24 £ ..r:: ..r:: ..., ..., 0. 26 0. 26 0. 26 (I/ (I/ (I/ 0 28 0 28 0 28 30 30 30 32 32 32 34 34 34 I· 36 36 36 38 38 38 40 40 40 42 42 42 44 44 44 46 46 46 48 48 48 50 so so 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 -5 0 5 10 Tip resistance (tsf ) Friction (tsf) Pressure ( psi) CPeT-IT v.2.0.1.55 -CPTU data presentation & interpretation software -Report created on: 6/19/2018, 11:58:51 AM Project file: C:\EGANewport6-18\Balboa\Plot Data\Plots.cpt CPT-1A Total depth: 50.53 ft, Date: 6/18/2018 Cone Type: Vertek Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type 0 0 I .-----.-Sand 2 2 4, 4 6 6 8 10· 8 10 J t Sand & silty sand 12 12 14 14 16 16 18 20 .-.. 22 ..., .... 18 i J Sand 20 Sand & silty sand .-.. 22 ..., .... .._, 24 ._.. 24 £ 0. 26 £ 0. 26 (I/ QI 0 28 0 28 30 30 32 32 34 36 38 34 i I 36 Sand & silty sand 38 40 40 42 < 42 44 44 46 46 48 48 so 15 0 . . 1 2 3 4 5678 50 I f ' I ' I ' I • J ' I • I • I · I 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Rf(%) SBT (Robertson, 2010) 0 PA2021-112 Deptl1 (ft) qc (tsf) 125.63 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 so 98.89 90.12 111.42 141.5 246.97 200.08 160.3 100.88 59.73 79.26 70.91 81.87 98.27 124.79 166.87 214.28 239,87 222.01 254.49 218.88 241.44 263.68 236.95 262.32 227.44 280.18 269.32 262.63 296.68 253.13 248.22 240.6 355.26 318.92 346.07 304.72 351.5 407.06 368.52 345.55 343,67 313,91 345.03 347.12 302 332.39 33S.84 336.99 fs (tsf) 0.63 0.73 0.63 0.52 0.63 0.94 1.36 1.25 0.84 0,63 0.42 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.42 0.52 0.52 0.63 0.52 0.63 0.94 1.57 2.4 2.92 2.92 2.82 3.34 3.65 3.65 3.86 3.86 3.34 3.45 3.76 3.65 4.49 4,8 4.07 3,97 4.28 3.97 3.86 3.86 4.39 4.91 4.39 3.86 3.65 0 SBTn Ksbt (ft/s) 2.79E-03 6 9.39E-04 6 6.04E-04 6 4.57E-04 6 6.0IE-04 6 6.18E-04 6 2.3!E-03 6 l.06E-03 6 8.45E-04 6 !.98E-04 4.22E-OS 6 t.77E-04 6 1.03E-04 6 1.6SE-04 6 3.12E-04 6 5.07E-04 6 l.12E-03 6 2.95E-03 7 3.40E-03 7 3.03E-03 7 3.90E-03 6 9.77E·04 6 S.24E-04 6 2.90E-04 6 I.OSE-04 6 1.61E·04 6 8.63E-05 6 l.41E-04 6 9,02E·05 6 7.60E-05 6 l.l0E-04 6 5.02E-05 6.15E-05 6 4.67E-05 6 2.24E-04 6 l ,38E-04 6 l.16E-04 6 5.13E-05 6 1.45E-04 6 2.98E·04 6 1.47E-04 6 l.24E-04 6 1.23E-04 6 7.57E-05 6 8.37E-05 6 6.21E-OS 6 3.96E-OS 6 8.29E-OS 6 9.54E-OS 0 0.OOE+OO SPTN60 (blows/ft) 21 20 19 18 21 27 42 36 30 21 IS 17 16 18 20 24 30 36 39 37 41 40 47 54 53 57 52 62 62 61 67 61 59 59 75 70 77 73 77 83 81 77 76 73 80 82 75 77 76 100 Constnlined Mod. (tsf) 603.57 649.7 625.94 599.51 705.18 891.32 1226.49 1142.25 953.17 777.76 606.17 621.57 612.87 650.1 696.01 810.55 940.52 1015 1107.52 1046.23 1145.86 1264.8 1562.01 1899.75 2040.21 2101.78 2036.5 2296.76 2393.86 2406,58 2542.47 2498.47 2360.91 2403.61 2678.81 2623,97 2937.1 299S.76 2864.76 2914.76 2997.93 2895.7 2882.98 2873.6 3103.16 3295.08 3105.02 2992.37 2947.36 4675.96 Dr(o/o) 97 86 77 70 n 79 97 87 76 60 46 51 48 so 54 60 68 76 79 76 80 73 75 78 72 75 68 75 73 71 75 67 66 64 79 73 75 69 75 81 75 72 71 66 69 68 62 66 66 0 Friction angle (0) 45 44 43 42 43 43 45 44 43 41 38 39 38 39 40 41 42 43 43 43 43 Es(tsf) 481.57 518.38 499.42 478.33 562.65 711.16 Go (tsf) 603.57 649.7 625.94 599.51 705.18 891.32 978.59 1226.49 911.37 1142.25 760.5 953.17 620.55 777.76 483.65 606.17 495.93 621.57 488.99 612.87 518.7 650.1 555.33 696.01 646.72 810.55 750.42 940.52 809.84 1015 883.66 1107.52 834.76 1046.23 914.25 1145.86 43 1009.15 1264.8 43 1246.28 1562.01 43 1S15.76 1899.75 42 1627.83 2040.21 43 1676,95 2101.78 42 1624.87 2036.5 43 1832.52 2296.76 43 1909.99 2393.86 42 1920.15 2406.58 43 2028.57 2542.47 42 1993.46 2498.47 42 1883.71 2360.91 41 1917.78 2403.61 43 2137.35 2678.81 43 2093.59 2623.97 43 2343.43 2937,1 42 2390.24 2995.76 43 2285.71 2864.76 44 2325.61 2914.76 43 2391.97 2997.93 42 2310.4 2895.7 42 2300.25 2882.98 42 2292.77 2873.6 42 2475.92 3103.16 42 2629.05 3295.08 41 2477.41 3105.02 42 2387.53 2992.37 42 2351.62 2947.36 0 5139i.64 114 E. Oceanfront, Newport Beach, CA EGA Consultants Project No. MA304.1 April 2021 Nkt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CPT-1 advanced to 50.53 feet on Jule 18, 2018 by Kehoe Testing and Engineering, Inc. PA2021-112 APPENDIX B LABORATORY RESULTS PA2021-112 GEOLOGY· GEOTECH · GROUNDWATER EGA Consultants 375-C Monte Vista Avenue Costa Mesa, California 92627 Attention: Subject: Mr. David Worthington, C.E.G. Laboratory Test Results 114 East Oceanfront Newport Beach, California Dear Mr. Worthington: April 19, 2021 Project No. 114-678-10 G3SoiIWorks, Inc. performed the requested laboratory tests on the soil specimens delivered to our office for the subject project. The results of these tests are included as an attachment to this report. We appreciate the opportunity of providing our services to you on this project. Should you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, G3Soi1Works, Inc. ·, \. '· By: _$;:::;1~4=:::::::==~~~- . ' Irec or o Engineeri ----- Attachment: Laboratory Test Results 350 Fischer Ave. Front • Costa Mesa, CA 92626 • P: 714 668 5600 • www.G3Soi1Works.com PA2021-112 EGA Consultants Laboratory Test Results 114 East Oceanfront Newport Beach, California LABORATORY TEST RESULTS April 19, 2021 Project No. 114-678-10 Page 2 of 3 Summarized below are the results of requested laboratory testing on samples submitted to our office. Dry Density and Moisture Content Tabulated below are the requested results of field dry density and moisture contents of undisturbed soils samples retained in 2.42-inch inside diameter by 1-inch height rings. Moisture only results were obtained from small bulk samples. Sample Dry Density Moisture Content Identification (pcf) (%) B-1 @ 2.5' 95.0 5.1 B-1 @ 4.0' * 3.7 B-1@ 6.0' * 2.6 B-1 @ 8.0' * 2.7 B-1 @ 10.0' * 29.0 B-2 @2.5' 96.2 2.2 B-2 @4.0' * 6.1 B-2 @6.0' * 3.2 B-2 @8.0' * 4.3 B-2@ 10.0' * 31.0 Notes: (*) Denotes small bulk sample for moisture content testing only. Soil Classification Requested soil samples were classified using ASTM D2487 as a guideline and are based on visual and textural methods only. These classifications are shown below: Sample Identification Soil Description Group Symbol B-1 @ 0-3' Poorly graded sand, medium-grained SP -yellowish brown Poorly graded sand, medium- B-1 @6.0' grained, with shell fragments -SP yellowish brown 350 Fischer Ave. Front • Costa Mesa, CA 92626 • P: 714 668 5600 • www.G3So i1Works.com PA2021-112 EGA Consultants Laboratory Test Results 114 East Oceanfront Newport Beach, California Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content April 19, 2021 Project No. 114-678-10 Page 3 of 3 Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content test was performed on the submitted bulk soil samples in accordance with ASTM D 1557. The results are shown below: Sample Identification Maximum Dry Density Optimum Moisture (pcf) Content(%) B-1 @ 0-3' 107.0 12.0 Sulfate Content A selected bulk sample was tested for soluble sulfate content in accordance with Hach procedure. The test result is shown below: Sample Identification Water Soluble Sulfate in Soil Sulfate Exposure (PPM) (ACI 318-08, Table 4.2.1) B-2@ 0-3' 5 so Direct Shear The results of direct shear testing (ASTM D3080) are plotted on Figure S-1. Soil specimens were soaked in a confined state and sheared under varied loads ranging from 1.0 ksf to 4.0 ksf with a direct shear machine set at a controlled rate of strain of 0.01 inch per minute. 350 Fischer Ave. Front • Costa Mesa, CA 92626 • P: 714 668 5600 • www.G3Soi1Works.com PA2021-112 4,000 3,750 3,500 3,250 3,000 2,750 LL 2,500 (/) n. Cl) 2,250 (/) w 0:: f-(/) 2,000 0:: 1,750 <( w I (/) 1,500 1,250 1,000 750 500 250 0 0 symbol boring • B-1 500 1,000 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Undisturbed 1,500 2,000 2,500 NORMALSTRESS,PSF 3,000 3,500 4,000 114 East Oceanfront, Newport Beach COHESION 66 psf. depth (ft.) symbol boring depth (ft.) 2.5 FRICTION ANGLE 30.0 degrees FIGURE S-1 DIRECT SHEAR TEST PN: 114-678-10 REPORT DATE: 04/19/2021 3SO F1;.c1>.,, Ave Front Cvstci Mc~a. C/:\ ~l2C2C Phone (714) 6-68 5601; \'\"N'h'.G3 5odV\iorhs corn FIG. S-1 PA2021-112 APPENDIX C GENERAL EARTHWORKS AND GRADING GUIDELINES PA2021-112 GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES I. GENERAL These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for grading and earthwork including preparation of areas to be filled, placement of fill, installation of subdrains, and excavations. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications and should supersede the provisions contained herein in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the recommendations of the geotechnical report. II. EARTHWORK OBSERVATION AND TESTING Prior to commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these specifications. The consultant is to provide adequate testing and observation so that he may determine that the work was accomplished as specified. It should be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes so that the consultant may schedule his personnel accordingly. The contractor is to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency ordinances, and these specifications. If in the opinion of the consultant, unsatisfactory conditions are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the consultant may reject the work and recommend that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. Maximum dry density tests used to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials Test Method ASTM: D 1557. 114 E. Occanfron\, Newport 13each, CA Soils Report -Proposed Residential Development Project No. MA304. I April 19, 2021 PA2021-112 111. PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED 1. Clearing and Grubbing: All brush, vegetation, and debris should be removed and otherwise disposed of. 2. Processing: The existing ground which is evaluated to be satisfactory for support of fill should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground which is not satisfactory should be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free of uneven features which would inhibit uniform compaction. 3. Overexcavation: Soft, dry, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition, should be over excavated down to firm ground, approved by the consultant. 4. Moisture Conditioning: Over excavated and processed soils should be watered, dried-back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum. 5. Recompaction: Over excavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed and moisture-conditioned should be recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. 6. Benching: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), the ground should be benched. The lowest bench should be a minimum of 15 feet wide, and at least 2 feet deep, expose firm material, and be approved by the consultant. Other benches should be excavated in firm material for a minimum width of 4 feet. Ground sloping flatter than 5: 1 should be benched or otherwise over excavated when considered necessary by the consultant. 7. Approval: All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and toe-of-fill benches should be approved by the consultant prior to fill placement. IV. FILL MATERIAL 1. General: Material to be placed as fill should be free of organic matter and other deleterious substances, and should be approved by the consultant. Soils of poor 114 E. Oceanfront. Newport Beach, CA Soils Report • Proposed Residential Development Project No. MA304. I April 19,2021 2 PA2021-112 gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics should be placed in areas designated by the consultant or mixed with other soils until suitable to serve as satisfactory fill material. 2. Oversize: Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches, should not be buried or placed in fill, unless the location, materials, and disposal methods are specifically approved by the consultant. Oversize disposal operations should be such that nesting of oversize material does not occur, and such that the oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade or within the range of future utilities or underground construction, unless specifically approved by the consultant. 3. Import: If importing of fill material is necessary for grading, the import material should be approved by the geotechnical consultant. V. FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION 1. Fill Lifts: Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 6 inches in compacted thickness. The consultant may approve thicker lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer shall be spread evenly and should be thoroughly mixed during spreading to attain uniformity of material and moisture in each layer. 2. Fill Moisture: Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers should be aerated by scarification or blended with drier material. Moisture-conditioning and mixing of fill layers should continue until the fill material is at a uniform moisture content at or near optimum. 3. Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture- conditioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density. Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability, to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction. 4. Fill Slopes: Compacting of slopes should be accomplished, in addition to normal compacting procedures, by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at 114 E. Oceanfront, Newpon Beach, CA Soils Report -Proposed R<.:siucntial Development Project No. MJ\304.1 April 19, 202 1 3 PA2021-112 VI. frequent increments of 2 to 3 feet in fill elevation gain, or by other methods producing satisfactory results. At the completion of grading, the relative compaction of the slope out to the slope face shall be at least 90 percent. 5. Compaction Testing: Field tests to check the fill moisture and degree of compaction will be performed by the consultant. The location and frequency of tests should be at the consultant's discretion. In general, the tests should be taken at an interval not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of embankment. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdrain systems, if required, should be installed in approved ground and should not be changed or modified without the approval of the consultant. The consultant, however, may recommend and upon approval, direct changes in subdrain line, grade, or material. VII. EXCAVATION Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading. If directed by the consultant, further excavation or overexcavation and refilling of cut areas should be performed, and/or remedial grading of cut slopes performed. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope should be made and approved by the consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope. 114 E. Oceanfront, Newport Beach, CA Soils Report -Proposed Residential Development Project No. MA304. I April 19, 2021 4 PA2021-112 APPENDIX D USGS Design Maps Detailed Report PA2021-112 L\TC Hazards by Location Search Information Address: Coordinates: Elevation: Time stamp: 114 E Oceanfront. Newport Beach, CA 92661, USA 33.6033041, -117.905563 15 ft 2021-04-16T04:39:32.845Z 0 --~--0 • ' Santo Mon,ca ..-~ ~ Long Beac 15 ft helm 0 .Jne ) Catalina Island Essential Fish Habitat... 12 .:>~II Dt:llli:11 UIIIU 0 Riverside Temecula 0 -Ch Hazard Type: Seismic Go gle ' W N 1· Oceanside a 10 Map data ©2021 Google, INEGI Reference Document: ASCE?-16 Risk Category: II Site Class: D-default Basic Parameters Name Value Description Ss 1.394 MCER ground motion (period=0.2s) S1 0.495 MCER ground motion (period=1.0s) SMs 1.673 Site-modified spectral acceleration value SM1 • null Site-modified spectral acceleration value Sos 1.115 Numeric seismic design value at 0.2s SA So1 • null Numeric seismic design value at 1.0s SA * See Section 11.4.8 •Additional Information Name Value Description SDC • null Seismic design category Fa 1.2 Site amplification factor at 0.2s Fv * null Site amplification factor at 1.0s CRs 0.905 Coefficient of risk (0.2s) CR1 0.919 Coefficient of risk (1.0s) PGA 0.611 MCEG peak ground acceleration FPGA 1.2 Site amplification factor at PGA PGAM 0.734 Site modified peak ground acceleration PA2021-112 TL 8 SsRT 1.394 SsUH 1.541 SsD 2.622 S1RT 0495 S1UH 0.539 S1D 0.822 PGAd 1.057 • See Section 11.4.8 Long-period transition period (s) Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion (0.2s) Factored uniform-hazard spectral acceleration (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) Factored deterministic acceleration value (0.2s) Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion (1 .0s) Factored uniform-hazard spectral acceleration (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) Factored deterministic acceleration value (1.0s) Factored deterministic acceleration value (PGA) The results indicated here DO NOT reflect any state or local amendments to the values or any delineation lines made during the building code adoption process. Users should confirm any output obtained from this tool with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction before proceeding with design. Disclaimer Hazard loads are provided by the U.S. Geological Survey Seismic Design Web Services. While the information presented on this website is believed to be correct, ATC and its sponsors and contributors assume no responsibility or liability for its accuracy. The material presented in the report 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. ATC does 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 report 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 report. PA2021-112 APPENDIX E LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES/SETTLEMENT COMPUTATIONS PA2021-112 114 E. Oceanfront, Newport Beach, CA Project No.: MA304. l April 2021 ln[!ut Parameters: Peak Ground Acceleration: 0.734 Earthquake Magnitude: 7.2 Water Table Depth (m): 0.66 Average y above water table (kN/m"3): 16 Average y below water table (kN/m"3): 18 Borehole diameter (mm): 34.925 Requires correction for Sample Liners (YES/NO): NO Sample Depth Measured (N) Soil Type Flag "Clay" Fines Energy CE CB CR cs N60 oVC oVC' CN Number (m) (USCS) "Unsaturated" Content Ratio "Unreliable" (%) (ER)% 1 0.30 21 SP 8 65 1.08 1 0.75 1 17.06 4.88 4.88 1.70 2 0.61 20 SP 8 65 1.08 1 0.75 1 16.25 9.75 9.75 1.70 3 0.91 19 SP 8 65 1.08 1 0.75 1 15.44 15.14 12.64 1.70 4 1.22 18 SP 8 65 1.08 1 0.75 1 14.63 20.63 15.14 1.70 5 1.52 21 SP 8 65 1.08 1 0.8 1 18.20 26.11 17.64 1.70 6 1.83 27 SP 8 65 1.08 1 0.8 1 23.40 31.60 20.13 1.70 7 2.13 42 SP 8 65 1.08 1 0.8 1 36.40 37.08 22.63 1.70 8 2.44 36 SP 8 65 1.08 1 0.8 1 31.20 42.57 25.13 1.70 9 2.74 30 SP 8 65 1.08 1 0.85 1 27.63 48.06 27.62 1.70 10 3.05 21 SP 8 65 1.08 1 0.85 1 19.34 53.54 30.12 1.70 11 3.35 15 SW 4 65 1.08 1 0.85 1 13.81 59.03 32.61 1.70 12 3.66 17 SP 8 65 1.08 1 0.85 1 15.65 64.52 35.11 1.70 J'3 3.96 16 SW 4 65 1.08 1 0.85 1 14.73 70.00 37.61 1.64 14 4.27 18 SW 4 65 1.08 1 0.85 1 16.58 75.49 40.10 1.59 15 4.57 20 SW 4 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 20.58 80.98 42.60 1.54 16 4.88 24 SP 8 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 24.70 86.46 45.10 1.50 17 5.18 30 SP 8 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 30.88 91.95 47.59 1.46 18 5.49 36 SP 8 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 37.05 97.44 50.09 1.42 19 5.79 39 SP 8 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 40.14 102.92 52.58 1.39 20 6.10 37 SW 4 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 38.08 108.41 55.08 1.36 21 6.40 41 SP 8 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 42.20 113.89 57.58 1.33 22 6.71 40 SP 8 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 41.17 119.38 60.07 1.30 23 7.01 47 SP 8 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 48.37 124.87 62.57 1.27 24 7.32 54 SP 8 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 55.58 130.35 65.07 1.25 engineering ~eotechnical applications PLATE A consultants CPT-1 advanced to 50.53 ft. on 6/18/2018 Page 1 PA2021-112 114 E. Oceanfront, Newport Beach, CA Project No.: MA304. l April 2021 25 7.62 53 SP 8 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 54.55 135.84 67.56 1.22 26 7.92 57 SW 4 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 58.66 141.33 70.06 1.20 27 8.23 52 SW 4 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 53.52 146.81 72.56 1.18 28 8.53 62 SW 4 65 1.08 1 1 1 67.17 152.30 75.05 1.16 29 8.84 62 SP 8 65 1.08 1 1 1 67.17 157.79 77.55 1.14 30 9.14 61 SP 8 65 1.08 1 1 1 66.08 163.27 80.04 1.13 31 9.45 67 SP 8 65 1.08 1 1 1 72.58 168.76 82.54 1.11 32 9.75 61 SP 8 65 1.08 1 1 1 66.08 174.24 85.04 1.09 33 10.06 59 SP 8 65 1.08 1 1 1 63.92 179.73 87.53 1.08 34 10.36 59 SP 8 65 1.08 1 1 1 63.92 185.22 90.03 1.06 35 10.67 75 SW 4 65 1.08 1 1 1 81.25 190.70 92.53 1.05 36 10.97 70 SW 4 65 1.08 1 1 75.83 196.19 95.02 1.03 37 11.28 77 SP 8 65 1.08 1 1 1 83.42 201.68 97.52 1.02 38 11.58 73 SP 8 65 1.08 1 1 1 79.08 207.16 100.01 1.01 39 11.89 77 SP 8 65 1.08 1 1 1 83.42 212.65 102.51 0.99 40 12.19 83 SW 8 65 1.08 1 1 1 89.92 218.14 105.01 0.98 41 12.50 81 SP 8 65 1.08 1 1 1 87.75 223.62 107.50 0.97 42 12.80 77 SW 4 65 1.08 1 1 1 83.42 229.11 110.00 0.96 43 13.11 76 SW 4 65 1.08 1 1 1 82.33 234.60 112.50 0.95 44 13.41 73 SP 8 65 1.08 1 1 1 79.08 240.08 114.99 0.94 45 13.72 80 SP 8 65 1.08 1 1 1 86.67 245.57 117.49 0.93 46 14.02 82 SP 8 65 1.08 1 1 88.83 251.05 119.98 0.92 47 14.33 75 SW 4 65 1.08 1 1 1 81.25 256.54 122.48 0.91 48 14.63 77 SP 8 65 1.08 1 1 1 83.42 262.03 124.98 0.90 49 14.94 76 SP 8 65 1.08 1 1 1 82.33 267.51 127.47 0.89 50 15.24 100 SW 4 65 1.08 1 1 1 108.33 273.00 129.97 0.88 Auger Diameter: 1.375 inches Hammer Weight: n.a. Drop: continuous push CPT-1 performed to 50.53 ft by Kehoe Testing and Engineering on June 18, 2018 (CPT Data Logs attached herein) References: Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger. R.W. Soil Liquefoction During Earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. 8 September 2008. Liu, C. and Evett. J.B. Soils and Foundacions. 8ch Edition. 4 August 2013. Martin. G.R and Lew. M. Recommendations for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117. University of Southern California Earthquake Center. March 1999. California Department of Conservation, CGS. Special Publication 117A: Guidelines/or Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California Rev 11 SepL 2008. en1.:i11eering g eot ecl,n ica I applications PLATE A consultants CPT-1 advanced to 50.53 ft. on 6/18/2018 Page 2 PA2021-112 (N1)60 l'1N for (N1)60-CS Stress CSR Fines reduction Content coeff, rd 29.01 0.37 29.37 1.00 27.63 0.37 27.99 1.00 26.24 0.37 26.61 1.00 24.86 0.37 25.23 1.00 30.94 0.37 31.31 0.99 39.78 0.37 40.15 0.99 61.88 0.37 62.25 0.99 53.04 0.37 53.41 0.98 46.96 0.37 47.33 0.98 32.87 0.37 33.24 0.98 23.48 0.00 23.48 0.97 26.59 0.37 26.96 0.97 24.18 0.00 24.18 0.97 26.35 0.00 26.35 0.96 31.74 0.00 31.74 0.96 37.02 0.37 37.39 0.95 45.05 0.37 45.42 0.95 52.70 0.37 53.06 0.95 55.72 0.37 56.08 0.94 51.65 0.00 51.65 0.94 55.98 0.37 56.34 0.93 53.46 0.37 53.83 0.93 61.55 0.37 61.92 0.92 69.35 0.37 69.72 0.92 e nginee ring geotechnical applications consultants MSF for sand Ko for sand CRR for M=7.5 &oVC'= 1 atm 0.48 1.08 1.10 0.45 0.48 1.08 1.10 0.38 0.57 1.08 1.10 0.33 0.65 1.08 1.10 0.30 0.70 1.08 1.10 0.58 0.74 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.77 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.80 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.81 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.83 1.08 1.10 0.79 0.84 1.08 1.10 0.26 0.85 1.08 1.10 0.35 0.86 1.08 1.10 0.27 0.86 1.08 1.10 0.33 0.87 1.08 1.10 0.62 0.87 1.08 1.10 1.93 0.88 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.88 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.88 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.88 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.88 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.88 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.88 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.88 1.08 1.10 2.00 114 E. Oceanfront, Newport Beach, CA Project No.: MA304.1 April 2021 CRR Factor of Limiting shear Safety strain ylim 0.53 1.11 0.05 0.46 0.96 0.06 0.40 0.70 0.07 0.35 0.54 0.09 0.69 0.98 0.04 2.00 2.00 0.01 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.94 1.14 0.03 0.31 0.37 0.11 0.41 0.48 0.07 0.32 0.38 0.10 0.39 0.45 0.08 0.74 0.85 0.04 2.00 2.00 0.01 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 PLATE A CPT-1 advanced to 50.53 ft. on 6/18/2018 Page 3 PA2021-112 66.80 0.37 67.17 0.91 0.88 1.08 1.10 70.55 0.00 70.55 0.91 0.88 1.08 1.10 63.24 0.00 63.24 0.90 0.87 1.08 1.10 78.04 0.00 78.04 0.90 0.87 1.08 1.09 76.78 0.37 77.14 0.89 0.87 1.08 1.08 74.35 0.37 74.72 0.89 0.87 1.08 1.07 80.42 0.37 80.79 0.88 0.86 1.08 1.06 72.14 0.37 72.50 0.88 0.86 1.08 1.05 68.77 0.37 69.14 0.87 0.86 1.08 1.04 67.81 0.37 68.18 0.87 0.85 1.08 1.03 85.03 0.00 85.03 0.86 0.85 1.08 1.03 78.31 0.00 78.31 0.86 0.85 1.08 1.02 85.03 0.37 85.40 0.85 0.84 1.08 1.01 79.60 0.37 79.97 0.85 0.84 1.08 1.00 82.93 0.37 83.30 0.84 0.84 1.08 1.00 88.33 0.37 88.69 0.84 0.83 1.08 0.99 85.19 0.37 85.56 0.83 0.83 1.08 0.98 80.06 0.00 80.06 0.83 0.82 1.08 0.97 78.14 0.00 78.14 0.82 0.82 1.08 0.97 74.24 0.37 74.60 0.82 0.82 1.08 0.96 80.48 0.37 80.85 0.81 0.81 1.08 0.96 81.63 0.37 82.00 0.81 0.81 1.08 0.95 73.90 0.00 73.90 0.80 0.80 1.08 0.94 75.11 0.37 75.48 0.80 0.80 1.08 0.94 73.40 0.37 73.77 0.79 0.79 1.08 0.93 95.65 0.00 95.65 0.79 0.79 1.08 0.93 References: Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, RW. Soil Uquefaction During Earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. 8 September 2008. Liu. C. and Evett.1.B. Soi/sand Foundations, 8m Edition. 4 August 2013. 114 E. Oceanfront, Newport Beach, CA Project No.: MA304. l April 2021 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Martin, G.R and Lew, M. Recommendations for Implementation o[DMG Special Publication 117. University of Southern California Earthquake Center. March 1999. California Department of Conservation, CGS. Special Pub//cation 117A: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. Rev 11 Sept 2008. consultants engineering geotechnica/ applications PLATE A CPT-1 advanced to 50.53 ft. on 6/18/2018 Page 4 PA2021-112 Parameter Fa Maximum liHi (m) liLDli (m) shear strain ymax -0.05 0.03 0.30 o.oi 0.04 0.04 0.30 0.01 0.13 0.07 0.30 0.02 0.22 0.09 0.30 0.03 -0.18 0.04 0.30 0.01 -0.82 0.00 0.30 0.00 -2.62 0.00 0.30 0.00 -1.87 0.00 0.30 0.00 -1.37 0.00 0.30 0.00 -0.31 0.03 0.30 0.01 0.32 0.11 0.30 0.03 0.11 0.07 0.30 0.02 0.28 0.10 0.30 0.03 0.15 0.08 0.30 0.02 -0.21 0.04 0.30 0.01 -0.61 0.00 0.30 0.00 -1.22 0.00 0.30 0.00 -1.84 0.00 0.30 0.00 -2.09 0.00 0.30 0.00 -1.72 0.00 0.30 0.00 -2.11 0.00 0.30 0.00 -1.90 0.00 0.30 0.00 -2.59 0.00 0.30 0.00 -3.27 0.00 0.30 0.00 engineering georechnical applications c onsultants Vertical ll.Si (m) liSi (ft) reconsol. Strain £v 0.01 0.00 0.01 O.Dl 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 114 E. Oceanfront, Newport Beach, CA Project No.: MA304. l April 2021 liSi (inches) 0.07 0.10 0.19 0.23 I 0.08 = 0.72 0.00 n=lO 0.00 Post Soil Cement Treatment: 0.00 I 0.00 = 0.31 0.06 n=lO 0.24 0.18 0.23 0.20 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PLATE A CPT-1 advanced to 50.53 ft. on 6/18/2018 Page 5 PA2021-112 -3.04 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.34 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.70 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.02 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.94 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.72 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.27 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.52 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0,00 -3.22 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.13 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.66 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0,00 -4.04 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.69 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.19 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.50 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -5.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.71 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.20 0.00 0,30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.03 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.71 0.00 1.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.27 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.38 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.64 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.79 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.63 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -5.65 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Settlement: 0.041 References: Idriss, l.M. and Boulanger. R.W.Soi/ liquefaction During Earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. 8 September 2008. Liu. C. and Even, 1.8. Soils and Foundations. 8th Edition. 4 August 2013. 114 E. Oceanfront, Newport Beach, CA Project No.: MA304.1 April 2021 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.141 1.671 Martin, G.R. and Lew. M. Recommendations for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117. University of Southern California Earthquake Center. March 1999. California Department of Conservation, CGS. Special Publication 117A: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. Rev 11 Sept. 2008. consultants engineering geoteclinical applications PLATE A CPT-1 advanced to 50.53 ft. on 6/18/2018 Page 6 PA2021-112