Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutX2009-1036 - Misc2 F}oag Dr oBI� - 2cO9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. P.O.BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA (949) 644-3275 GRADING/DRAINAGE PLAN CHECK Project Description: Slope Screen Wall Project Address: 1 HOAG Drive Plan Check No.: 0819-2009 Date Filed: No. Stories: Use: Occupancy: Const. Type: ArchitectEngineer: PSE Phone: Owner: Phone: Submitted Valuation: Checked by: Ken Bagahi Phone: (949) 552-2006 Permit Valuation: X 1't Check(10i7/09) 24 Check 3'd Check* 4th Check' *NOTE: Do not resubmit. CaII plan check engineer for In -person recheck. WARNING: PLAN CHECK EXPIRES 180 DAYS AFTER SUBMITTAL. THIS PLAN CHECK EXPIRES ON: Approval of plans and specifications does not permit violation of any section of the Building Code or other City ordinances or State law. This plan check Is according to 2007 California Building Code. • Make all corrections listed below. • Return this correction sheet and check prints with corrected plans. • Indicate how each correction was resolved. • DO NOT resubmit after the third check. Call plan check engineer and schedule in -person recheck. SURVEY CORRECTIONS: GRADING CORRECTIONS: 1. For projects on a slope, adjacent to a slope, with a basement, or project sites which require remedial grading, sods engineer to review and approve the grading plan, foundation plan, and shoring plan (if applicable) to verify that the design is consistent with the geotechnical report recommendations. Soils engineer to stamp these plans with an approval stamp. Shared\Correction lists \Grads g NEW 2007.doc 9/17/08 1 2. List the pertinent "Grading Notes" on plans. DEWATERING SYSTEM CORRECTIONS: WATER QUALITY CORRECTIONS: PRIORITY PROJECTS NON PRIORITY PROJECTS 3. See drawings for additional corrections. See Sheets S4, L2.51 ADDITIONAL CORRECTIONS: 4. 5. 6. 7. Shared\Correction Llsts\Grading NEW 2007.doc 9/17/08 2 ,. 4 OH1aCIONS DEMOSE0 BY Mit H UMEDIMETISIONS. USE FRAM AS A FORD w,�'°°k RLIER r 4' Concrete or 6" Topsoi T 4" 0 Min. French drain perforation 0 bottom. • 3/4" Crushed Rock Filter Cloth Lap 12" 0 Top i i8' PERFORATED DRAINlTRENCH DETAIL Figure A SECTION E-fs 8' MIL 11E PUISIMPN SAE FRAME ORATE 3/8. Slat OPEMIOIL EASt . osom I CTI YAMS OR =AL 08 4-4100 TOP aira 1 FU, THIS PORTION WM CRUSHED ROM AFTER ORATE SPORT CURB a- Dig a 24" wile X 18` mblbnum depth tre & b- Race filter doth in their/act Lee it i top d c- FBI bottom he trench �e� with 3 4 crushed anti. rock - Form turdwrneft e- FE the met of the trench with au*hed rock to 4' from top of trench. BOTTOMLESS. TRENCH DRAIN _ Figure B Shared\Correction Lists\Grading NEW 2007.doc 9/17/08 3 GRATE SliIfli,1,1 1l E PLAN VIEW • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT REVIEW OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Date ResponseReceived:9-23-09 Date of Report:5-29-09 Consultant: Kleinfelder Site Address: 1 Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California Prior to approval of the report attend to the following; Date Complete& 10-7-09 Plan Check No:0819-2009 Our Job No: 206i-156 1. Please provide allowable bearing pleasure for caissons. 2. Provide lateral caisson. capacities under seismic loading. 3. Caissons shall extend through uncertified fill. 4. Reports conclusions differ from those reached by MAUI EC, please clarify. Additional Comments (no response reaulred): Note to City Staff. Staff should confirm that the Consultants (C.E.G. and R.C.E/G.E.) have signed the final dated grading, foundation/construction and landscaping plans, per City Code, thereby verifying the plans' geotechnical conformance with the Consultant's original report and associated addenda. Llnrltadons of Review: BY: Our review is intended to determine if the submitted report(,) comply with City Codes and generally accepted geotechnical practices within the local area. The scope of our services for this third party review has been limited to a brief site visit and a.review of the above referenced report and associated documents, as supplied by the City of Newport Beach. Re -analysis of reported dataand/or calculations and preparation of amended constnrction or design recommendations are specifically not included within our scope of services. Our review should not be considered as a certification, approval or acceptance previous consultant's work, nor is meant as an acceptance of liability for final design or construction recommendations made, by the geotechnical consultant of record or the project designers or engineers. Opinions presented in this review are for City's use only. BY: /. / 1 Garnini Weeratunga, G.E. 2403 Ken Bagahi, Ph.D., G.E. BAGAHI ENGINEERING, INC. BAGAHI ENGINEERING, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT REVIEW OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Date Response Received:9-23-09 Date of Reports-29-09 Consultant: Kleinfelder Site Address: 1 Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California Prior to approval of the report attend to the following; Date Completed: 10-7-09 Plan Check No:0819-2009 Our Job No:. 206i-156 1. Please provide allowable bearing pressure: for caissons. 2. Provide lateral caisson capacities under seismic loading. 3. Caissons shall extend through uncertified fill. 4. Reports conclusions differ from those reached by MACTEC, please clarify.. Additional Conuaeats (no response required): Note to City Staff. Staff should confirm that the Consultants (C.E.G. and RC.E/G.E.) have signed the final. dated grading,. foundation/construction and landscaping plans, per City Code, thereby verifying the plans' geotechnical conformance with the Consultant's original report and associated addenda. Limitations of Review; Our review is intended to determine if the submitted report(s) comply with City Codes and generally accepted geotechnical practices within the local area. The scope of our services for thisthird party review has been limited; to, a brief site visit and a review of the above referenced report and associated documents„ as supplied by the City of Newport Beach. Re -analysis of reported data and/or calculations and preparation of amended construction or design recommendations are specifically not included within our scope of services. Our review should not be considered as a certification, approval or acceptance previous consultant's work; nor is meant as an acceptance of liability for final design or construction recommendations made by the geotechnical consultant of record or the project designers or engineers. Opinions presented in this review are for City's use only. BY: BY: / i Gamini Weeratunga,.G.E. 2403 Ken Bagahi, Ph.D., G.E. BAGAHI ENGINEERING, INC. BAGAHI ENGINEERING, a 4 Ie0 41 2nftH 6:40PM HP LASERJET FAX P. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT REVIEW OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Tate Response Received:9.23-09 Cate of Reoort:7-27.09 Consultant: MACTEC a>te :Address: 1 Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California Data Completed: 10-7-09 Plan Cheek No:0819-2009 Our Job No: 2061-156 Prior to approval of the report attend to tba following: Page 4. Lateral Capacity. Please provide lateral caisson capacities under seismic Loading. 1. Page 6. Inatailation. (a) Slight seepage has been reported at 5 feet (see page 3). Please discuss caisson installation and bottom clean up under wet soil and groundwater conditions, (b) address potential of drilled caissons encountering underground gas. (Jeneral. Please review structural foundation plane for conformance with report recommendations. Additional Comments tnoresuoasq remtiraft .arts to City Staff Staff should confirm that the Consultants (C.E.G: and R.C.EtO.E.) have signed die final dated grading, foundation/construction and landscaping plans, per City Code, thereby verifying the plans' geotrchrucal conformance with the Consultant's original report and associated addenda. Limitations of Review; Our review is intended to detenoine if the submitted report(s) comply with City Codes and generally ccrptod geotechrdcal practices within the local area. The scope of our services for this third party iev;ew has been limited to a brief site visit and a review of the above referenced report and associated documents, as supplied by the City of Newport Beach. Re -analysis of reported data and/or calculations and prcpe:ation of amended construction or design recommendations are specifically not included within our scope of services. Our review should not he considered as a certification, approval or acceptance previous consultant's work, nor is meant as an acceptance of liability for final design or construction recommendations made by the geatechaicai consultant of record or the project designers or engineers. Opinions :presented in this review are for City's use only. BY; BY; C'arrinc Wceratunga, G.B. 2403 Ken Bagahi, Ph.D., G.E. ;s.AG. 111 ENGLNEERJNG, INC. BAGAHI ENGINEERIN 09/4933a Id,oy,,7 KLEINFELDER Bright People. Right Solutions. November 19, 2009 Revised December 2, 2009 Project No.: 103715 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Facilities Design & Construction 500 Superior Avenue Suite 300 Newport Beach, California 92663 Attn: Mr. Gregg Zoll, Senior Project Manager Subject: Response to Comments - SupplementalGoetechnieldransultatton- REVIEW Long 16th Street, Unit F PLAN REVIY,' W Long Beach, CA 90813 plans have been reviewed and are found to b$09 antfal bmpliance with the applicable grading codes adoptedtbyteiPy7ig Newport Beach Approval is recommended for pending approval by -all applicable City departmendats andagrn�s. The permute shall ensure tha all plans, specifications and construeboo conducted hereunder. ,t,a!i comply in all respects to the Applicaaat c< t and ordinances and by connnencing construction thereunder, agreas to release and tndeainiry City and it's consultants from and against any code violations in the completed work. The issuance or granting of a permit based on approval of these plans shall not allow or approve any violation of the applicable codes or ordinances. No permit presumed to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of such codes or ordinances shall be valid. BAGAHI ENGINEERING INC. =-- I -9 ) z —zg Date.__ Proposed Lower Campus Landscape Enhancement and itzi Cogeneration Building Sound Wall Project Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian i LW One Hoag Drive ,_4 -04c , r g � r,� Newport Beach, California r Dear Mr. Zoll: As requested by you, this letter provides Kleinfelder's response to review comments by City of Newport Beach in their Grading/Draining Plan Check dated October 7, 2009 and two Review of Geotechnical Reports (both dated October 7, 2009) for.Kleinfelder's report dated May 29, 2009 and MACTECs report dated July 27, 2009. This letter also provides supplemental geotechnical recommendations for the subject sound wall. As discussed herein, as requested by Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Kleinfelder is the Geotechnical Engineer of Record for this project. This letterspecificallyaddresses the lower campus sound wall planned a'wfeet north of the retaining wall for the Cooling Tower facility adjacent to the Cogeneration Building. The retaining walls for the Cooling Tower facility and Cogeneration Building are laterally supported with permanent post grouted tie -back anchors. The location of the proposed sound wall relative to the existing Cooling Tower facility and Cogeneration Building retaining walls is shown on Plate 1, Plot Plan. 103715/LBE9L123 Copyright 2009.KIeinfelder Page 1 of 8 November 19, 2009 Revised December 2, 2009 t LK E/NFELDER Bright Pecyk Right hlrtMF PROJECT HISTORY Kleinfelder previously performed the geotechnical investigation as well as the geotechnical observation and testing during construction of the Lower Campus Cogeneration Building and adjacent Cooling Towers. Kleinfelder was requested to provide an updated geotechnical report addressing the proposed Cogeneration Building sound wall, and we submitted a Geotechnical Consultation letter regarding the subject sound wall on. May 29, 2009. It is our understanding that MACTEC was simultaneous retained by Hoag toprovide a geotechnical report for the Lower Campus Landscape Enhancement and Infrastructure Improvements Project. MACTEC prepared a geotechnical report dated > July 27, 2009. that addressed construction of the sound wall as part of the lower campus landscape improvements. Both reports from MACTEC and Kleinfelder were submitted to the City for review, with the intention that MACTEC's report would address the grading plan; while Kleinfelder's report would address the sound wall. During the plan check process, both of the reports were reviewed, causing confusion regarding responsibility as Geotechnical Engineer of Record, as well as which recommendations would apply regarding construction of the sound wall. We have reviewed the geotechnical consultation letter prepared by MACTEC dated July 27, 2009 for proposed lower campus landscape improvements/enhancements. It is our understanding that uIACTEC is no longer involved with the project, therefore Kleinfelder's letters and referenced reports supersede the July 27, 2009 report prepared by MACTEC. Kleinfelder has also reviewed the grading plan for the Landscape Enhancement/Infrastructure Improvement project. We have provided additional comments in this letter that address the comments related to the Landscape Enhancement/Infrastructure Improvement project. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OF RECORD As requested by Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Kleinfelder accepts responsibility as the Geotechnical Engineer of Record (GEOR) for the subject project. The geotechnical recommendations included herein and in Kleinfelder's letter dated May 29, 2009, should be used in design of the lower campus Sound Wall adjacent to the Cooling Towers and Cogeneration Building. PROJECT INFORMATION Based on the structural calculations provided for the Cooling Tower sound wall by PSE (June 10, 2009), • The sound wall will be 25 feet long and located approximately 5 feet north and parallel to the Cooling Tower retaining wall. 103715/LBE9L123 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Page 2 of 8 November 19, 2009 Revised December 2, 2009 LK EINFELDER • The weight of the sound wall (including steel posts) is approximately 2340 Ibs or 94 Ibs per If of wall. • The net bearing pressure demand due to the wall (including the 6 feet deep, 2 feet diameter caissons) is anticipated to be on the order of 322 psf: RESPONSE TO REVIEW COMMENTS The comments are below in italics and followed by our responses. October 7, 2009 Grading/Drainage Plan Check Comments Grading Correction Comment 1. For projects on slopes Soils Engineer to stamp these plans with an approval stamp. Response: Kleinfelder is prepared to sign and stamp the plans as GEOR as they were reviewed by Kleinfelder to be consistent with the geotechnical recommendations included in our May 29, 2009 letter. October 7, 2009 Review of Kleinfelder Geotechnlcal Report dated May 29, 2009 Comment 1. Please provide allowable bearing pressure for caissons. Response: An allowable bearing pressure of 1000 psf may be used for caissons embedded in the existing engineered fill. The actual net bearing pressure of 322 psf is less than the recommended allowable bearing pressure. Comment 2. Provide lateral caisson capacities under seismic loading. Response: Per our May 29, 2009 report, Kleinfelder recommended a passive resistance of 300 psf/ft with a 1/3 increase for transient (wind/seismic) loading. Comment 3. Caissons shall extend through the uncertified fill. Response: It is our professional opinion that the caissons are not required to extend through the existing fill to provide support of the subject lower campus wall from a geotechnical standpoint. Based on the following, we recommend the proposed wall be supported on the currently proposed 6 feet deep, 2 feet diameter caissons. • The dead load of the sound wall is extremely light: approximately 94 pounds per lineal foot of wall. The load is equivalent to less than 1-foot of fill being placed in the area of the wall. • The net bearing pressure demand at the bottom of the planned caisson is anticipated to be on the order of 322 psf. 103715/LBE9L123 Page 3 of 8 November 19, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Revised December 2, 2009 LK EINFELOER �'�9M1fPeople. Right Sok,M1,tlom. • Settlement of the fill soils below the wall foundations is anticipated tote low (1/4 to possibly 1 inch maximum). • Compaction tests on the upper engineered fill indicate 90 percent relative k compaction which is suitable to provide lateral support for the proposed caissons. • As shown in Plates 1 and 2, the adjacent retaining walls for the Cogeneration Building and Cooling Towers are laterally supported by 3 rows of permanent tie back anchors. We are concemed that extending 2 feet diameter caissons within the area where the existing anchors were installed could compromise the integrity of the anchors and the adjacent retaining wall. We feel that it is an unnecessary significant risk to attempt to deepen the 2 feet diameter piers while trying to avoid the anchors. • Removal of existing fill is not feasible due to the presence of permanent tieback anchors. • The existing fill beneath the proposed sound wall was placed in two stages and in our opinion, is suitable to support the proposed lightly loaded wall. The attached Plate 2, Cross-section A -A' illustrates the two stages of fill soils in profile along the center line of the proposed sound wall. o The first stage of fill (aft) was placed during installationof theformer terrace subdrain system. To mitigate excessive seepage at the base of the former slope along the lower parking lot, a subdrain was installed. The fill (afi) was placed to buttress the required backcut and excavation to install the subdrain. It is our understanding that this subdrain was installed in 1996 or earlier and observed by Law/Crandall or Leighton. Specific testing data of the fill could not be found. Two Law/Crandall letters, reviewed by Kleinfelder, appeared to address the grading of the subdrain. The Law/Crandall report dated February 27, 1997 (UC project No. 70131-5-0689) states that site grading for the Terrrace Reduction Grading conformed to the project plans. In the Law/Crandall letter dated August 19, 1996, supplemental recommendations were provided to remove soft soils created/exposed in the excavation for the drainage trench at the base of the bluff slope. It is our opinion that it would be very unlikely that the fill placed to backfill the installed subdrain and result in a 2:1 (h:v) graded slope would be placed at a relative compaction less than 90 percent. During site grading for the adjacent Cooling Towers and Cogeneration Building and during our reconnaissance in 2002 (prior to construction of the Cogeneration Facility), there were no significant slope instabilities observed in the lower fill and the fill was observed to be compacted. The lower fill was not used to support the Cooling Tower or Cogeneration building since the structural loads for the buildings was much higher. o The second stage of fill (the upper fill, af2, was placed under the observation of Kleinfelder during construction of the Cooling Tower/Cogeneration Building 103715/LBE9L123 Page 4 of 8 November 19, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Revised December 2, 2009 KLE/NFELDER Bn}M 'Mk. Right Solutions retaining walls in approximately 2003. This is documented in our reports dated January 27, 2005 and August 21, 2006. It is our opinion that the fill soils have been in place long enough to respond to their own dead weight. It is not anticipated that significant settlement of the wall to occur if constructed as planned and per the recommendations provided by Kleinfelder. From a geotechnical standpoint, the worst case scenario of excessive settlement in the deeper fill is not probable due to the very low structural loads. Should this occur we would expect it to / occur gradually and not compromise the structural integrity of the wall. If a post were to ,/ become out of plumb, the steel posts could be re -plumbed. This would be much more cost effective than caissons that extend 25 feet deeper and compromise the tieback anchors beneath the wall. Comment 4. Report conclusions differ for those reached by MACTEC, please clarify. Response: As requested, Kleinfelder accepts responsibility as the Geotechnical Engineer of Record for the subject project. Kleinfelder's recommendations differ from MACTEC's, however, MACTEC is no longer involved with the project. It is our professional opinion, based on the information presented herein that the proposed foundations for the sound wall are not required to extend though the existing fill. In our assessment, we considered the estimated design loads, our knowledge of the existing fill, and our knowledge of the construction of the two adjacent tie -back anchor retaining walls. October 7, 2009 Review of MACTEC Geotechnical Report dated July 27, 2009 For clarification, Kleinfelder has been requested to respond to comments by the reviewer regarding MACTEC's July 27, 2009 report. Comment 1. Page 4. Lateral Capacity. Please provide lateral caisson capacities under seismic loading. Response. See response to Comment 2, above (page 3). Comment 2: page 6. installation. (a) Slight seepage has been reported at 5 feet (see page 3). Please discuss caisson installation and bottom cleanup under wet soil and groundwater conditions, (b) address potential of drilled caissons encountering underground gas. MACTEC reported that previous exploratory borings excavated in the vicinity of the project exhibited slight seepage at depths as shallow as five feet below the surface. For clarification, Law/Crandall boring B-3, excavated on November 17, 1995 recorded slight seepage at a depth of five feet, corresponding to approximately elevation 9 feet, (MSL). Some of the other borings excavated on or around the same date showed 103715/LBE9L123 Page 5 of 8 November 19, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder - Revised December 2, 2009 KLEINFELDER e yhtPeope. waMsd.4,r seepage at elevations of 2 to 5 feet, MSL. Kleinfelder encountered perched groundwater at elevation 31 to 33 feet in borings KB-1 and KB-2 excavated at the top of the adjacent slopes in 2002. The proposed foundations are planned to extend to a depth of six feet below current grade (approximate elevation 55 feet) which is significantly above anticipated zones of seepage. Foundations are anticipated to be excavated entirely in previously compacted fill soils. Groundwater is not anticipated to effect the excavation of the proposed foundations. MACTEC also reported the odor of hydrogen sulfide gas at a depth of 6.5 feet (elevation 8.5 MSL) in boring B-8, excavated November 16, 1995. This boring was excavated on the east end of the site in the vicinity of the new child care center, approximately 500 feet from the proposed foundation excavations. The presence of gas was not detected in subsequent borings excavated by Kleinfelder as part of the geotechnical investigation for the Cogeneration Plant and Cooling Towers. Accordingly, underground gas is not anticipated to be encountered in the foundation excavations for the sound wall. Comment 3: General. Please review structural foundation plans for conformance with report recommendations. Response: Kleinfelder has reviewed the structural foundation plans by PSE dated September 23, 2009 and evaluated them to be consistent with the geotechnical recommendations included in our May 29, 2009 letter and subsequent clarifications, including those contained herein. SUPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS Seismic Site Coefficients Per the 2007 CBC, the following seismic coefficients should be used for designing structures to resist seismic loads. Coefficient. ` Value Ss (0.2 sec period, Site Class B 1.830g Si (1.0 sec period, Site Class B) 0.687g Fa 1.0 Fs 1.5 SMs = FaSs (0.2 sec period, Site Class D) 1.830g SM1 = FvSi (1.0 sec period, Site Class D) 1.030g SDs = 2/3 x SMs (0.2 sec period, Site Class D) 1.220g SDI = 2/3 x SMt (1.0 sec period, Site Class D) 0.687g 103715/LBE9L123 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Page 6 of 8 November 19, 2009 Revised December 2, 2009 KLE/NFELDER Earthwork For the Cooling Tower Sound Wall, we do not anticipate any significant grading since construction will primarily include construction of the wall foundations. As such, any earthwork performed (cut and or fill) should be performed in general accordance with the recommendations contained in our August 15, 2002 report (Reference 2). Copies of Sections 4.7 and 4,10 (Excavations and Earthwork Sections) from our August 15, 2002 report are attached for reference. The ASTM test methods used should be the most current method (i.e ASTM D1157 -07 instead of ASTM D1557-91) Concrete Prior corrosion studies performed by others (Reference 1) indicate that the site soils in the vicinity of the proposed sound wall are moderately corrosive toward concrete. The results are consistent with preliminary test results included in Kleinfelder's 2002 report (Reference 2). The reports state that soluble sulfate concentrations indicate that the onsite soils may be moderately corrosive to Portland cement concrete. The Portland cement concrete mix design used for concrete elements in contact with soil should meet the requirements of the Section 1904A.3 of the 2007 CBC for soils with moderate sulfate exposure. Per ACI 318, Section 4.3, Type II Portland cement should be used and concrete should have a maximum water -cement ratio of 0.50 and a minimum compressive strength at 28-days of 4,000 psi. LIMITATIONS These services have been performed according to generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices that exist in the area at this time. No warranty, express or implied, is provided. 103715/LBE9L123 Page 7 of 8 November 19, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Revised December 2, 2009 (KLEINFELDER Bright Pe.*.. CLOSURE If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact our office. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Respectfully submitted, KLEINFELDER WEST, INC. Justin J. Kempton, PE, GE Principal Engineer / Area Manager Timothy Slegers, PE Project Manager Attachments: References Plate 1 - Plot Plan Plate 2 - Cross Section A -A' Sections 4.7 and 4.10 from Kleinfelder August 15, 2002 report Review Sheets (3) 103715/LBE9L123 Page 8 of 8 November 19, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Revised December 2, 2009 REFERENCES KLE/NFELDER People. Right Solutions. REFERENCES 1. Soil Corrosivity Study, Future Building, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Western Portion of Lower Campus, Newport Beach, California; M.J. Schiff & Associates, Inc., dated December 6, 1995 (Project # 95177). 2. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Cogeneration Building and Cooling Tower Facilities, West of Existing Parking Lot, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, California; Kleinfelder, August 15, 2002 (PN 16901). 3. Final Geotechnical Observation and Testing Report, Cogeneration Building Project, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, California; Kleinfelder, August 31, 2006 (PN 31793/002). 4. Geotechnical Consultation, Proposed Co -Gen Building Sound Wall, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, California; Kleinfelder, May 29, 2009 (PN 86680-3). 5. Geotechnical Consultation, Proposed Lower Campus Landscape Enhancements/Infrastructure Improvements Projects, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian — Lower Campus, One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, Califomia; MACTEC, July 27, 2009 (Project 4953-09-1121). 6. Review of (Kleinfelder) Geotechnical Report dated 5-29-09, City of Newport Beach Building Department, dated October 7, 2009; Plan Check No. 0819-2009. 7. Review of (MACTEC) Geotechnical Report dated 7-27-09, City of Newport Beach Building Department, dated October 7, 2009; Plan Check No. 0819-2009. 103715/LBE9L123 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Page 1 of 1 November 17, 2009 Revised December 2, 2009 PLATES ATTACHED IMAGES: Images: 00000001.JPG Images: 103715-basemap.jpg ATTACHED XREFS: DIAMOND BAR, CA CAD FILE: L:\2008\CADD\103715\ LAYOUT: 1 PLOTTED: 18 Nov 2009, 2:42pm, dfahmey CABLE FENCE PER LANDSCAPE PLANS NOT TO SCALE ,r,a.ja a Iu*a aaeaga 0.a.t.a hosbo.. ao,.,faro . way a .>a ma . says to awos wawa aria mAaeaa ama a I' W�tomw organ or area sdoccunonc d ei�..wfqe . abed nth mata.s,a Mead rot s. bid any p1Ca v i *M1.I .d or axtltl a e em4rtm ass, t.mM.� s us W a aka aW p ly est. dalawmen OS mW.a KLEINFELDER PeoPie Raga„ Solutions. wwwjdeinfelder.mm PROJECT NO. 103715 DRAWN: 11/18/09 DRAWN BY: DMF PLOT PLAN CO-GEN BUILDING CHECKED BY: JDW FILE NAME: 103715p1-p2.dwg PROPOSED COGEN BUILDING SCREEN WALL 1 HOAG DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA PLATE ATTACHED IMAGES: Images: 00000001.JPG Images: 103715-basemapjpg ATTACHED XREFS: DIAMOND BAR, CA CAD FILE: L:\2009\CADDN03715\ LAYOUT: 2 PLOTTED: 18 Nov 2009, 2:41 pm, dfahmey A TIEBACKS AT APPROXIMATE ELEVATION OF 441 AT LOCATION OF CROSS-SECTION 10 5 0 — APPROXIMATE SCALE (feet) A. 4NnLLw W ,' on to p.pt np,n. t Ned ern* N sates .M Is subject to *SW .kW ,Nka KWeeirrmka n. ,pn ban or .M,vtt soma or 'ogled a to messy...pW, aw,.t or rigit a the no M.w Ltmaan The ten.ar Is net barite a m W n.ta bpl Mpa a iMwtlyaaa. • .tn.,. t. ' & ost The6 Mmn.M en W pry* ,p..vMbn 6 n W. .W flak of the party who nibuilnotoW0r ,, 10 EXISTING V-DITCH GUTTER PROPOSED WALL PIERS (TYP.) EXISTING GRADE APPROXIMATE ELEVATION OF TOP OF EXISTING WALL APPROXIMATE ELEVATION OF TIEBACK € OF NEW WALL EXPLANATION aft al2 ARTIFICIAL FILL (LAW/CRANDALL 1997) ARTIFICIAL FILL (KLEINFELDER 2006) Qbn QUATERNARY TERRACE DEPOSITS APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF FILUNATNE CONTACT KLEINPELDER wew.NeinfeIder.c m PROJECT NO. 103715 DRAWN: 11/18/09 DRAWN BY: DMF CROSS-SECTION A -A' CHECKED BY: JDW FILE NAME: 103715p1-p2.dwg PROPOSED COGEN BUILDING SCREEN WALL 1 HOAG DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA PLATE 2 SECTIONS 4.7 AND 4.10 FROM KLEINFELDER AUGUST 15, 2002 REPORT - r Rf KLEINFELDER 4 ir 4i ar 4.7 EXCAVATIONS AND TEMPORARY SLOPES Temporary excavations, defined by OSHA to include trenches, shall be treated in accordance with the State of California version of OSHA excavation regulations, Construction Safety Orders for Excavation General Requirements, Article 6, Section 1541, effective October 1, 1995. The sides of excavations deeper than 4 feet shall be shored or sloped in accordance with OSHA regulations. In general, the site soils are considered to be Type C soils as defined by OSHA. For Type C soils, OSHA states that temporary slopes shall be excavated at a maximum gradient of 1'/2:t (H:V). Excavations below a 1'h:l (H:V) plane extending down from the bottom of any adjacent footings should be shored for safety. All excavations should be inspected by the geotechnical engineer during construction to allow any modifications to be made due to variations in the soil conditions. 16901IDBA2R109 Page 23 of 45 August 15, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kteinfetder, Inc. KLEINFELDER Based on the shear strength data for the onsite soils, we evaluated the potential for excavating temporary slopes steeper than 1'/:1 (H:V). Based on the strength parameters below, we analyzed alternative temporary slope gradients and associated maximum heights. The alternative temporary slope gradients and maximum heights are presented in the following table. The calculations are based on Singhs charts (Singh, 1970). Temporary Slone Stabilitv (FS = 1.25) for slopes above groundwater tt it SiSoil Strength Parameters Terrace Deposits Claystone/Siltstone Angle of Internal Friction: 33 degrees 34 degrees Cohesion: 240 psf 1090 psf Unit Weight: 120 pcf 120 pcf z 31 ITS Temporary Slone Gradient Maximum Height of Slope Terrace Deposits and Sandstone 25 feet 11 feet 7 feet 5 feet Claystonet 50 feet 32 feet 23 feet "Note: A maximum slope height of 40 feet is anticipated. The maximum claystone height is anticipated to be on the order of 20 feet Prior to excavating temporary slopes steeper than 1 1/4:1 (H:V), the excavationshall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record. Otherwise, the excavation slopes shall be shored. Recommendations for temporary and permanent shorings are presented in Sections 4.8 and 4.9 of this report. Recommendations for temporary slopes below groundwater can be provided for specific cases if desired. 4.8 TEMPORARY SHORING 4.8.1 General Excavations should be shored where there is insufficient room to make a safe sloped excavation. Recommendations are provided herein for the design and installation of conventional free 1690I /DBA2R I09 Page 24 of 45 August 15, 2002 Copyright 2002 Klcinfelder, Inc. gni'KLEINFEtDER 4.10.1 General All site preparation and earthwork operations should be performed in accordance with applicable codes, safety regulations and other local, state or federal specifications. All references to maximum unit weights are established in accordance with ASTM Standard Test Method D1557- -9fr07. 1rs 4.10.2 Site Preparation All surficial vegetation; deleterious, organic, inert and oversized materials (greater than 6-inches in maximum dimension); and demolition debris should be stripped from the site and exported or stockpiled away from the proposed building pad areas. Areas proposed to receive fill should be stripped of all loose or soft earth materials and any undocumented fill materials until a firm unyielding subgrade is exposed as evaluated by the geotechnical engineer. 16901/DBA2R109 Page 34 of 45 August 15, 2002 Copyright 2002 Klelnfelder, Inc. - - - KLEINFELDER ra Prior to placement of compacted fills, the excavation bottom should be observed and approved by the project geotechnical engineer. After approval, the subgrade should be scarified to a depth of at least 8 inches, moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry unit weight. 4.10.3 Engineered Fill We anticipate that most of the on -site soils may be reusable as engineered fill after any vegetation, construction debris and deleterious material is removed from the site. The onsite claystone/siltstone soils have a medium expansion potential and should not be used beneath floor slabs or behind walls. Fill should have no particles greater than 4 inches in diameter, be placed in lifts no greater than 8 inches thick (loose measurements), and should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the soil's maximum dry unit weight. Import materials, if required, should have a liquid limit of 25 or less, a plasticity index of.12 or less and should be uniformly graded with 10 to 40 percent of the particles passing the No. 200 sieve and no particles greater than 4 inches in dimension. Proposed import materials should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer prior to its use onsite. All earthwork operations should be observed and tested by a representative of this office. The on site siltstone and claystone materials tested to have relatively high moisture contents. Reuse of this material as engineered fill as well as other soils near the groundwater elevation may likely require significant drying prior to reuse. 4.10.4 Excavation Characteristics The borings advanced at the site were advanced using a hollow -stem auger and bucket .auger truck -mounted drill rigs. Drilling effort was moderate through the existing fill, terrace deposits, and bedrock. The degree of difficulty in drilling was greater at depths due to the presence of coarse gravels and bedrock. Caving of soils occurred in the bucket auger excavations near the groundwater elevation in the terrace deposits. Conventional construction and earth moving equipment should be capable of performing the excavations for the shallow foundations proposed for site development. Recommendations for sloped and shored excavations are presented in Sections 4.7 and 4.8 of this report. 4.10.5 Pipe Bedding and Trench BackfLll Utility trenches may either be backfilled with engineered fill soils or 1-sack cement slurry. Recommendations for both cases are presented below. I6901/DBA2R109 Copyright 2002 Klcinfeldcr, Inc. Page 35 of 45 August 15, 2002 KLEINFELDER cif Where utility conducts are backfilled with soils, pipe bedding and pipe zone material for utility trenches should consist of sand or sirnilar granular material having a minimum sand equivalent value of 30. The sand should be placed in a zone that extends a minimum of 6-inches below and 12-inches above the pipe for the full trench width. The bedding/pipezone materialshould be compacted to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer's on -site representative or to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry unit weight. Trench backfill above pipe bedding may consist of approved, on -site or import soils placed in lifts no greater than 8-inches loose thickness and compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry unit weight. Jetting of pipe bedding or trench backfill materials is not recommended and should only be allowed under conditions approved by the geotechnical engineer of record. Care needs to be exercised by the contractor to protect buried utilities from damage by equipment when placing and compacting fill above buried utilities. Soil back fill is not recommended where the utility trench excavation is in claystone bedrock or below groundwater. Where the utility trench excavation is in the claystone bedrock or below groundwater, we recommended that the backfill consist of 1-sack cement slurry to at least the soil/bedrock contact, the groundwater level, and to a sufficient height above the utilities to protect the pipe from damage due to heavy compaction equipment loading. If heavy compaction equipment is to be used to place engineered fill over slurry backfill, we recommend that the slurry cover extend at least 3 feet over the top of the utility.. Slurry may extend to within 12 inches below bottom of pavements. The contractor should be responsible for the means and methods of placing the soil backfill and pg. slurry backfill and should be responsible for protection and any damages to the buried utilities during compaction of fill over the utilities. 4.11 EXPANSION POTENTIAL Expansive index tests conducted during our laboratory testing on the onsite claystone indicate a moderate expansion potential. The results of a UBC Expansion Index Test indicated a UBC Expansion Index of 82, which is considered to be representative of a soil with a medium expansion potential. 16901/DBA21t109 Page 36 of45 August 15, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. R■ KLEINFELDER a Efforts should be made to minimize large moisture content variations in the claystone/siltstone materials. Upon completion of grading, finish pad grades should be evaluated for expansion potential by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record and appropriate mitigation recommendations should be provided. The evaluation should include conducting UBC Expansion Index tests and/or Atterberg limits tests as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record. To mitigate the potential shrink/swell cycles of the claystone materials, they should not be allowed to dry out and crack after excavating and prior to placing the filter material and concrete below. The foundation excavations in the claystone/siltstone materials should not be allowed to dry and crack prior to placement of concrete: If the claystone/siltstone dries and cracks, it should be excavated to moist conditions. Where the floor slab is underlain by the claystone materials, we recommend that the floor slab be underlain by at least 30 inches of relatively "non -expansive" fill materials. The subdrain system filter materials may be considered as part of the "non -expansive" soils if medium to highly expansive soils are encountered. The recommended thickness of non -expansive soils may very depending on the actual expansion potential. The "non -expansive" fill should consist of granular soils with an expansion index less than 35 or a plasticity index less than 12. If the claystone/siltstone dries out and cracks, it will need to be excavated and removed prior to placement of the "non -expansive" fill. Rewetting the material will be very difficult and time consuming and may not be practical. To reduce the potential for drying out of the claystone/siltstone, the claystone/siltstone could be overexcavated by 4 to 6 inches and replaced with a la yer of concrete orVisqueen covered with a granular compacted fill. Concrete exterior flatwork at grade to be constructed over the low to moderate expansive claystone/siltstone should be underlain by at least 18 inches of relatively "non -expansive" fill. Near -surface claystone/siltstone should be kept moist prior to placement of concrete. 4.12 CORROSIVITY Two selected samples of the soils encountered in the borings were tested for preliminary corrosion potential. The tests were conducted on samples from borings B-2 at 10 feet and KB-2 at 30 feet. The test results indicate that soluble sulfate concentrations were 444 and 54 parts per million (ppm) and chloride concentrations in the samples tested were 1639 and 763 ppm. 16901/DBA2R109 Page 37 of 45 August 15, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfclder, Inc. KLEINFELDER Soluble sulfate concentrations indicate that the onsite soils may be moderately corrosive to concrete. Consequently, Type II cement with a maximum water to cement ratio of 0.5 may be used for concrete elements in contact with the site soils. The chloride concentrations indicate the soils to be severely corrosive towards buried metals. The minimum electrical resistivity obtained for the samples tested were 290 and 260 ohm -centimeters and therefore representative of an environment, which is severely corrosive to metals. Our corrosion tests are preliminary in nature. We recommend that a qualified corrosion engineer t. r evaluate the general corrosion potential with respect to the construction materials at this site, @,s review the proposed design and provide corrosion mitigation recommendations for buried elements. The chemical test results are included in Appendix B. 16901/DBA2R109 Page 38 of 45 August 15,2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. REVIEW SHEETS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. P.O.BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA (949) 644-3275 GRADING/DRAINAGE PLAN CHECK Project Description: Slope Screen Wall Project Address: 1 HOAG Drive Plan Check No.: 0819-2009 Date Filed: No. Stories: Use: Occupancy: Const. Type: Architect/Engineer: PSE Phone: Owner: Phone: Submitted Valuation: Checked by: Ken Bagahi Phone (949) 552-2006 Permit Valuation: X 1•' Check(10/7/09) 2nd Check 3rtl Check' 4th Check' *NOTE: Do not resubmit. Call plan check engineer for In -person recheck. WARNING PLAN CHECK EXPIRES 180 DAYS AFTER SUBMITTAL. THIS PLAN CHECK EXPIRES ON; Approval of plans and specifications does not permit violation of any section of the Building Code or other City ordinances or State law. This plan check is according to 2007 California Building Code. • Make all corrections listed below. • Return this correction sheet and check prints with corrected plans. • Indicate how each correction was resolved. DO NOT resubmit after the third check. Call plan check engineer and schedule in -person recheck. SURVEY CORRECTIONS: GRADING CORRECTIONS: 1. For projects on a slope, adjacent to a slope, with a basement, or project sites which require remedial grading, soils engineer to review and approve the grading plan, foundation plan, and shoring plan (if applicable) to verify that the design is consistent with the geotechnical report recommendations. Soils engineer to stamp these plans with an approval stamp. Shared\Correction Lists\Grading NEW 2007.doc 9/17/08 1 2. List the pertinent "Grading Notes" on plans. DEWATERING SYSTEM CORRECTIONS: WATER QUALITY CORRECTIONS: PRIORITY PROJECTS NON PRIORITY PROJECTS 3. See drawings for additional corrections. See Sheets S4, L2.51 ADDITIONAL CORRECTIONS: 4. 5. 6. 7. SharedlCorrection Lists\Grading NEW 2007.doc 9/17/08 DOe7S10rS. DETEMA ED et GRAZE ERASE NMENSMEN USE ERNE AS A Farm 1i%ERODED ROCK iRER as is r 4' Concrete or 6" Topsoil "T 4" 9 Min. French drain pertttoration 0 bottorn • 3/4" Crushed Rock Filter Cloth Lap 12" 0 Top I--12' 18' PERFORATED DRAIN/TRENCH DETAIL Figure A SECTION E•E e' ma WOE PEDS1RAN SAFE FRAME TE 3/11" SLOT OPENER. PAST .10Ma 1R9n was at elm (800)374.4100 1rim soirca FML 119E POR80N wr1H ammo ROCK AFTER POURED GRATEswan CURB a- Dig a 24 wide X 18' minimum depth trench b- Pace Ster doth to the termh. Lee it ® top o- FM bottom of the trench with 3 4 crushed rock: d- Form and pow perimeter c curb. e- Flt the rest of the trench with gushed rods to 4' from top of trench. BOTTOMLESS TRENCH DRAIN - Figure B Shared\Correction Lists\Grading NEW 2007.doc 9/17/08 3 GRATE` '1111111i1�1%��� PLAN VIEW k, 6 - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT REVIEW OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Date Response Received:9-23-09 Date of Report:5-29-09 Consultant: Kleinfelder Site Address: 1 Hoag Drive Newport Beach; California Date Completed: 10-7-09 Plan Check No:0819-2009 Our Job No: 206i-I56 Prior to approval of the report attend to the following; 1. Please provideallowable bearing pressurefor caissons. 2. Provide lateral caisson capacities under seismic loading: 3. Caissons shall extend through uncertified fill. 4. Reports conclusions differ from those reached by MAC. I EC, please clarify. Additional Commend (no response reauiredb Note to City Staff Staff should confmn that the Consultants (C.E.G. and R.C.E/G.E.) have signed the final dated grading, foundation/construction and landscaping plans, per City Code, thereby verifying the plans' geotechnical conformance with the Consultant's original report and associated addenda. Limitations of Review: BY: Our review is intended to determine if the submitted report(s) comply with City Codes and generally accepted geotechnical practices within the local area. The scope of our services for this third party review has been limited to a brief site visit and a -review of the above referenced report and associated documents, as supplied by the City of Newport Beach. Re -analysis of reported data and/or calculations and preparation of amended construction or design recommendations are specifically not included within our scope of services. Our review should not be considered as a certification, approval or acceptance previous consultant's work, nor is meant as an acceptance of liability for final design or construction recommendations made, by the geotechnical consultant of record or the project designers or engineers. Opinions presented in this review are for City's use only. i BY Ganvni Weeratunga, G.E. 2403 Ken Bagahi, Ph.D.,. G.E. BAGAHI ENGINEERING, INC. BAGAHI ENGINEERING, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT REVIEW OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Date Response Received:9-23-09 Date of Report5-29-09 Consultant: Kleinfetder Site Address: i Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California Date Completed: 10-7-09 Plan Check No:0819-2009 Our Job No: 206i-156 Prior to approval of the report attend to the following: 1. Please provide allowablebearingpressure for caissons. 2. Provide lateral caisson capacities under seismic loading. 3. Caissons shall extend through uncertified fill. 4. Reports conclusions differ from those reached by MAC IBC, please clarify. Additional Comments (no resnouse required): Note to City Staff Staffshould confirm that the Consultants (C.E.G. and R.C.E/G.E.) have signed the final dated grading, foundation/construction and landscaping plans, per City Code, thereby verifying the plans' geoteelmical conformance with the Consultant's original report and associated addenda. Limitations of Review; Our review is intended to determine if the submitted report(s) comply with City Codes and generally accepted geotechnical practices within the local area. The scope of our services for this third party review has been limited to a brief site visit and a review of the above referenced report and associated documents,. as supplied by the City of Newport Beach. Re -analysis of reported data and/or calculations and preparation of amended construction or design recommendations are specifically not included within our scope of services. Our review should not be considered as a certification, approval or acceptance previous consultant's work, not is meant as an acceptance of liability for final design or construction recommendations' made by the geotechnical consultant of record or the project designers or engineers. Opinions presented in this review are for City's use only. BY: BY: 7 Gamin Weeratunga, G.E. 2403 Ken Bagahi, Ph.D., G.E. BAGAHI ENGINEERING, INC. BAGAHI ENGINEERING S leo °1 ?ens 6:40PM HP LRSERJET FAX P. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT REVIEW OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Date Response Received:9.23-09 Date of Report:7-27.09 Consultant: MACTEC Site .4 hers: 1 Hoag Drive Newport Baoh, California Date Completed: 10-0-09 Plan Check No:0819-2009 Ow Job No: 2061-156 Prior to approval of the report attend to the following: Page 4. Lateral Capw$ty. Please provide lateral caisson capacities under seismic loading. -. Page 6. Installation. (a) Slight seepage has beet reported at 5 feet (see page 3). Please discuss caisson installation and bottom clean up unda wet soil and groundwater conditions, (b) address potential of drilled caissons encountering underground gas. 3. (lateral. Please review structural foundation plats for conformance with report recommendation. Additional Comments Inc tjsoonse reunlred)t `-rote to City Staff: Staff should confirm that the Consultants (C.B.O. and RC.EIG.E.) have signed the final elated grading, foundation/conskuation and landscaping plans, per City Code, thereby vmifying the plans' geotcchnicai conformance with the Consultant's original report and associated addenda. J.Indtetlogd of Review; Our review is intended to determines If the submitted report(s) comply with City Codes and generally a::(pied geotecbnioal practices within the local area. The scope of our services for this third party review eel been Limited to a brief site visit and a review of the above referenced report and emaciated documents, as supplied by the City of Newport Beach. Reanalysis of reported data and/or calculation and preparation of amended commotion or design recommendations are specifically not included within our scope of services. Our review should not be considered as a ccWtcatlon, approval or acceptance previous :oasuitant's work, nor is meant as an acceptance of liability for final design or construction recommendations made by the geotechnical consultant of record or the project designers or engineers. t pirilons presented in this review are for City's use only I3Y: BY: <ulna. Weeratunga, G.S. 2403 KenBagald. Ph.D., G.E. 3A0A111 .NGLNIIERJNG, INC. BAOAHI ENGINEERIN PLAN REVIEW These plans have been reviewed and are found to be in substantial compliance with the applicable grading codes adopted by City of Newport Beach. Approval is recommended for permit issuance pending approval by all applicable City departments and agencies. CITY OF NEVVPORT t s l all plans, specifications and der shall comply in all respoets to the BUILDING DEP °i �d ordinances and by commencing construction to release and indemnify City and it's consultants ny code violations in the completed work. ting of a permit based on approval of these or approve any violation of the applicable codes (949) 644-32 5 rdivances. No permit presumed to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of such codes or ordinances shall be valid. 3300 NEWPORT{ P.O.BOX 1768, NEWPO GRADING/DRAINAGE P Project Description: Slope Screen 'Wall Project Address: I }IoAU jyri Ve Plan Check No.: beIq - 0o9 Date Filed: Use: Occupancy: Architect/Engineer: esPS E Owner. Checked by: V.20 &t`J"t-% j Phone: X Phone: BAGAHI ENGINEERING INC. N CHEC • S S2-2c0k, (949)644.32 a0BAG41 et," No. Stories: c`a No.040158 cc Const. Type m Exp. 9_30- to Phone: �ar8 ND Submitted Value OFCCA��EQ Permit Valuation: 1s' Check ,> 2nd Check 3r4 Check* 4th Check* IQ 7 .-n, (4 12/14 / oc ) *NOTE: Do not resubmit. Call plan check engineer for in -person recheck. 4-ASS 3.41 f_ t urn i l l creel -re cs Ries r°w f WARNING: PLAN CHECK EXPIRES 180 DAYS AFTER SUBMITTAL. THIS PLAN CHECK EXPIRES ON: ct0 ..b, Approval of plans and specifications does not permit violation of any section of the Building Code or other City ordinances or State law. This plan check is according to 2007 California Building Code. Make all corrections listed below. Return this correction sheet and check prints with corrected plans. Indicate how each correction was resolved. DO NOT resubmit after the third check. Call plan check engineer and schedule in -person recheck. SURVEY CORRECTIONS: Provide a site survey, stamped and signed by a State Licensed Land Surveyor or authorized Civil Engineer (License Number below 33,966). Surveyor or engineer shall permanently monument property comers or offsets before starting grading. Provide note on plan. Show north point and scale. Show location and description of all corner monuments. Show and identify all property lines. Dimension length and specify bearing. 70 Shared\Correction ListstGrading NEW 2007.doc 9/17/08 1 ,!` Show driveway, curb and gutter, and all existing site improvements (structures, walls, planters, stairs, etc.). e( Identify all finish surface materials. Provide a legend for all symbols used. .B� Locate all trees in public -right-of-way facing or within 20 feet of the subject property; power poles; utility boxes, etc. Show center line of street and dimension width or % width. Provide an on -site elevation bench mark at a permanent location, in front of the property. For sites within the special flood hazard area and sites on the islands, on the peninsula and in West Newport Beach, use the actual bench mark elevation as determined by Orange County Vertical Datum (NGVD29 or NAVD88). Provide relative elevations, at the following locations: ,ar All property corners. M Around existing structure(s) at corners, including corners at jogs of exterior walls. At interior finish floor elevations. ,C At bottom of all site walls. Indicate wall height. ,ems At bottom of elevated planters. Indicate planter height. At maximum spacing of 25' along the length and width of the property on all sides of an existing structure. g! Elevation contours for sloping sites every one foot elevation change. rkr Three. elevations (min.) equally spaced in the side yard of adjacent properties. ,.!!Three elevations along the flow line in gutter and alley adjacent to site. GRADING CORRECTIONS: o wet -signed and stamped sets are required for permit issuance. For projects on aslooe, adjacent to a slope, with a basement, or project sites which require remedial grading, soils engineer to review and approve the grading plan, foundation plan, and shoring plan (if applicable) to verify that the design is consistent with the geotechnical report recommendations. Soils engineer to stamp thes�lans with an approval stamp. _44e Write a note on foundation plan "surveyor to file a comer record or record of survey with the office of county surveyor. Evidence of filing shall be submitted to building inspector prior to foundation inspection." etr Provide property address on grading plan. )6! Show vicinity map indicating site location. e' Show name, address, and telephone number of: owner, plan preparer, and geotechnical engineer. (if applicable). Show north arrow, plan scale, and legend. Identify ALL property lines by clearly indicating their location. }re< Clearly identify the scope of work. Distinguish between existing hardscape and landscape and new/proposed hardscape and landscape improvements. Show locations of all existing buildings, structures, pools, fences, retaining walls, etc. Show grade elevation on both sides of wall and specify top of wall elevation. Shared\Correction Lists\Grading NEW 2007.doc 9117/08 2 Show accurate contours (or spot elevations) indicating the topography of the existing ground. Show locations of all existing slopes on and adjacent to the property. Top of structure footings at habitable space to be above the street gutter flow line elevation by 12" plus 2% the distance from the nearest footing to the gutter. Alternate elevations may be approved, provided it can be demonstrated that required drainage to the point of discharge and away from the structure is provided at all locations on the site. CBC 1805.3.4. Clearly show elevation of adjacent properties and the distance from property lines to adjacent structures. Comply with the minimum slope at the following areas (NBMC 15.10.120 F): Earth 2.0% Concrete 0.5% Concrete gutter in paved area 0.2% Asphalt 1.0% Show finish grades by spot elevations to indicate proper drainage in all areas. Use arrows to indicate direction of drainage. (267— Provide a drainage swale at side yard. Draw a section through swale. x7� Provide a drainage design that prevents entrance of drainage water from the street/alley onto property. Show top of drain elevations and drain invert elevations. Show downspout locations and connection to drain line or discharge location. 4,36. Design the drainage system to retain concentrated and surface sheet flow water from dry - weather run off and minor rain events within the site. (See Figure A on last page) Sheet flow through lawn area or 15' French drain in crushed rock bed wrapped with filter cloth is acceptable. Locate French drain in the front yard away from foundations. (Alternate: Provide hydrology calculations and design retention system to retain %" of rain over 24 hr.) 137 Provide a trench drain at bottom of driveway as shown in Figure B on last page. (Exception: When driveway is less than 10' long, trench drain is not required) Provide specifications for drain lines. Specify diameter 4" (min.) and type of material. The following drain line materials may be used: a. ABS, SDR 35 b. ABS, SCHEDULE 40 c. PVC, SDR 35 d. PVC, Schedule 40 e. ADS 3000 with PE glued joints Use UPC Table 11-2 to determine required site drain pipe size (diameter) and slope. The minimum distance between exterior finish grade and bottom of treated sill plate shall be as follows: a. 3" to concrete finish b. 6" to soil err a. For non-residential projects and multi -dwelling projects, specify on permit application the cost of construction of all drainage devices and drainage improvements. b. Specify volume of cut and fill in cubic yards. Obtain a private drainage easement to drain water over adjacent land not owned by the permittee. Easement must be recorded with the County Recorder's Office. Design drainage to insure water does not drain over the top edge of any slopes. Shared\Correction Lists\Grading NEW 2007.doc 9/17/08 3 1LitilgCH List the pertinent "Grading Notes" on plans. Where grading is proposed on adjacent property not owned by the permittee, a separate permit is required for that portion under the adjacent address. Show locations and details of subdrain system(s) and outlet for retaining walls on grading plan when subdrain is required by soils report. Subdrain to be piped separately from site drainage or invert in French drain to be higher than the inlet elevation of the nearest drain. Basement slab shall be underlain by a minimum of 4 inches of gravel or crushed stone containing less than 10% passing No. 4 sieve. Provide erosion and siltation control plans. igirr Provide a section showing required grading cut and proximity to property line. ?8r Provide a berm at top of slope. Draw a section through berm. Berm to be 12" high and slopes towards the pad @ 1 4 Show top and toe of all slopes and indicate slope ratio. 1 Maximum 2 18( Depth of excavation for grading exceeds the distance from the edge of excavation to the property line. Provide shoring design and specify shoring on the plan. Provide building or structure setbacks from top and bottom of slope as shown in CBC, Fig. 1805.3.1. For descending slopes less than 12 feet in height, minimum setback from competent slope face material shall be 4 feet. Afr Top and toe of slope to be setback from the property line per NBMC 15.10.110B, Fig. 1. Provide two copies of soils and foundation investigation report by a registered civil engineer. Soils report shall address the potential of soft or compressible or collapsible or liquefiable soils (Site Classes E and F), and recommend mitigation method if they exist. Soils report shall present seismic site coefficients with supporting documentation. List soils report recommendations on Grading plan Construction with basement or excavation deeper than 3 ft. near the property line: The distance from edge of excavation to the property line is less than the depth of excavation. Shoring is required. Provide a shoring plan and calculation prepared by a registered civil engineer. eb<Sheet piles are not permitted for shoring due to potential damage to adjacent properties. clShow all buildings and masonry walls on adjacent property within a distance equal to the / depth of the proposed excavation. d. Provide cross -sections at various locations to show excavation details. (i< Excavations and shoring shall be made entirely within the project site. ,f! A Cal -OSHA permit is required for excavations deeper than 5' and for shoring and/or underpinning. Contractor to provide a copy of OSHA permit. 9/ If bottom of excavation is at or below historical ground water level, submit a dewatering plan and computations by a registered geotechnical engineer. ttC Provide additional geotechnical information necessary for dewatering system design, soils report to include the following: Borings for soils investigation to extend a minimum of 20 ft. below bottom of proposed excavation. Shared\Correction Lists\Grading NEW 2007.doc 9/17/08 4 ir Provide sieve analysis and permeability value for each soil formation layer to a depth of 20 ft. / below bottom of excavation. AC -Write a note on the shoring drawing, "Licensed surveyor to provide. monitoring of shoring and improvements on adjacent properties and submit results with a report to the shoring design engineer and to the building inspector on a daily basis during excavation and shoring and weekly basis thereafter. Where dewatering is required, monitoring shall continue until dewatering is stopped." Geotechnical engineer to stamp and sign the shoring plan, certifying that the design is in compliance with his soils report recommendation. At Write a note on drawing: "In lieu of special inspection by Deputy Building Inspector, geotechnical engineer shall provide continuous inspections during shoring and excavation operations and during removal of shoring." Provide a description of the process for installing shoring, construction of basement walls, and removal of shoring. 7- If crushed rock is used to support temporary shoring steel soldier pile, specify method of compaction for gravel fill and method of grouting hole created when steel pile is removed. Steel soldier pile used as permanent support component of retaining wall shall be protected from earth with 3" concrete cover. Alternate methods of protecting steel flange from corrosion require an application for "Alternate Materials and Methods" with supporting documents and method of protecting material from damage during lagging installation. Write note on the drawings: "Contractor shall notify adjacent property owners by certified mail 10 days prior to starting the shoring or excavation work." For slot -cutting method of excavation, provide supporting computations by a registered geotechnical engineer and a drawing showing the location of slots, their width and sequence of slot cuts. Slot cut to be at least 36" away from any property lines and not exceed 5 feet in depth. ,e-Non-cantilevered retaining walls must be shored until the bracing element(s) is in place. Provide a design for wall shoring. , tC Cantilever shoring supporting hardscape improvements, foundations or swimming pool within a distance of less than half the shoring height shall be designed based on at rest earth /pressure. ,A! Depth of embedment of shoring caissons shall not be less than that outlined in CBC Section 1815.5. DEWATERING SYSTEM CORRECTIONS: Provide the following information on dewatering drawings: ,,ate Well or well point locations. tT Pipe system layout (including valve locations). S/Primary power source. If a generator is used for primary power supply, write a note on drawings stating maximum noise level from proposed generator not to exceed 50 dba on adjoining property. Back-up power supply (if any). fr.--Location of desanding tank. ,f! Location of property lines and excavation limits. <g Depth of wells or well points (reference to sea level or other datum). lirr Diameter of borehole. Shared\Correction Lists1Grading NEW 2007.doc 9/17/08 5 rr- The type of filter media used around wells or well points. Provide sieve analysis graph. Size of wellscreen openings (slots) and location of screened portion of well or well point. k! Soil permeability. Dewatering is required during excavation, soil investigation to include boring(s) to a depth of 20' below bottom of proposed excavation for sieve analysis to determine soils permeability. X Discharge termination point. -1 Water meter to measure flow. .a! Anticipated draw -down elevation. r Depth of deepest excavation. Method of well removal and abandonment. If a well point system is used, provide noise calculation using ARI method to verify noise level from pump not to exceed 50 dba at adjacent property. Public Works approval is required for discharge into storm drain or public way. Provide evidence of approval from State Regional Water Quality Control Board for disposal of ground water. WATER QUALITY CORRECTIONS: Arfr If area of construction site is one or more acres, obtain a general construction NPDES Storm water permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Tel. (909) 782-4130. 59! This project falls into category checked below. Prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) consistent with the model WQMP. (Attached) PRIORITY PROJECTS Residential development of 10 units or more; Commercial and industrial development greater than 100,000 sq. ft. including parking areas; 92! Automotive repair shop; $3 Restaurant where the land area of development is 5,000 sq. ft. or more including parking area; Hillside development on 10,000 sq. ft. or more which is located on areas with known erosive soil condition or where natural slope is 25% or more; Impervious surface of 2,500 sq. ft. or more located within or directly adjacent to (within 200 ft.) or discharging directly to receiving water within environmentally sensitive areas (San Diego Creek, upper and lower Newport Bay, Buck Gully, Los Trankos, Little Corona del Mar Beach, Crystal Cove State Beach). rParking lot area of 5,000 sq. ft. or more or with 15 or more parking spaces. NON PRIORITY PROJECTS E r. Require issuance of non-residential plumbing permit. See attached Water Quality Management Plan Correction List. See drawings for additional corrections. SLe erS 4 L2.sI Shared1Correction Lists\Grading NEW 2007.doc 9/17/08 6 ADDITIONAL CORRECTIONS: 70. 71. 72. 73. Shared\Correction Lists\Grading NEW 2007.doc 9/17/08 7 r 4° Concrete or 6" Tops' 4"95 Min, French drain perforation 4, bottom.' 3/4" Crushed Rock Filter Cloth Lop 12" 0 Top ►;is®; 4!; lizc e!;®e stz.c.- t .. e-e-r-a-a- I-- 12° `-`I 18r PERFORATED DRAINITRENCH DETAIL Figure A I11111+;{II!;Ill; 11111 111S_ ■1 Figure B Shared\Correction ListslGrading NEW 2007.doc 9/17/08 8 KLEINPELDER Bright People. Right Solutions. May 29, 2009 Project No. 86680-3 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Facilities Design & Construction 500 Superior Avenue, Suite 300 Newport Beach, California 92663 Attention Mr. Gregg Zoll, Senior Project Manager Subject: Geotechnical Consultation Proposed Co -Gen Building Sound Wall Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive Newport. Beach, California Dear Mr. Zoll: 620 West 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 pi 562.432.1696 f 1562.432.1796 kleinfeldercom. As requested by you, this letter provides our geotechnical recommendations for the subject soundwall. Kleinfelder was the geotechnical engineer of record for the existing cogeneration building and provided geotechnical observation and testing during construction of the cogeneration project. This letter presents a summary of our review of prior geotechnical reports, the proposed project plans, a description of subsurface conditions at the proposed wall location, and conclusions and recommendations. In summary, it is our professional opinion that the soundwall can be constructed as currently designed provided the recommendations included herein are incorporated into project design and construction. Please note that this consultation is limited to recommendations for the currently proposed foundations and is based on existing data. Subsurface explorations or additional testing were not conducted as part of this study. As such there could be some variations between the assumed subsurface conditions described in this letter and those actually encountered during foundation installation. In addition, evaluation of the seismic design parameters used by the structural engineer in design was beyond the scope of this letter. PRIOR REPORTS The results of Kleinfelder's geotechnical study for the existing building were presented in our report dated August 15, 2002. Supplemental recommendations were also presented in our letters dated December 19, 2002, October 15 and 20, 2003 and November 11, 2004. Our geotechnical observations and testing during construction of the existing facility were summarized in our letters dated January 27, 2005 (for the permanent soldier pile wall and tieback anchors) and August 31, 2006 (for the engineered fill and other geotechnical aspects). 86680-3/LBE9L070 Page 1 of 4 May 29, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER PROJECT DESCRIPTION Our understanding of the project is based on a cursory review of the project plans by PSE Dated May 7, 2009, and correspondence with Michael Schoch of PSE and Andrea Witjakso of Hoag Memorial Hospital. The project includes construction of an approximately 37 feet long and 12% feet tall soundwall north of and parallel to the Cooling Tower Yard wall. The sound wall will be offset from the existing building wall by approximately 2% feet. The current plans indicate that the sound wall will consist of 12 feet long sound panels supported by W4x13 columns which will be supported by 2 feet diameter drilled piers extending 6 feet below grade. We understand the dead load of the wall will be approximately 1 kip per column and that a passive resistance of 300 psf/ft was used in design. Based on discussions with Mr. Michael Schoch, we understand that tolerable settlements on the order of 1 inch are desired but there is additional differential settlement that could be tolerated due to the nature of the wall design. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Soils and Bedrock: Based on review of our prior geotechnicai observation reports, the soil conditions in the vicinity of the proposed wall consist of engineered fill overlying terrace deposits which are both underlain by clayey siltstone of the Capistrano formation. The fill appears to consist of silty sand, clayey silt and silty clay and vary in thickness from very shallow (less than 2 feet) at the west end of the wall to approximately 17 feet in depth at the east end of the wall. Field density testing results in the upper 5 feet of the fill indicate 90 percent relative compaction. Density testing below the depth was not available. The fill in this area was originally placed in 2002-2003 when the area was to be a landscape area and not originally intended to support foundations. The underlying terrace deposits consist of stiff sandy silts and dense to very dense sands and silty sands. Groundwater: Groundwater is not anticipated within the 6 feet excavation depth. There is a potential that seepage could be encountered at the bedrock contact as the bedrock is relatively impermeable. Tieback Anchors: As you are aware, the existing cogeneration building and cooling tower walls are laterally supported by post -grouted tieback anchor walls. The as -built plans for the tie back anchors include additional anchors added to the original design drawings and should be reviewed as part of project planning and design. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In summary, it is our professional opinion that the sound wall can be constructed as currently designed provided the recommendations included herein are incorporated into project design and construction. Our recommendations for foundation design and construction are presented below. • The currently design 2 feet diameter and 6 feet deep drilled piers appear to be suitable to support the anticipated structural load or 1 kip per column. A passive resistance of 300 psf/ft may be used for the engineered fill and bedrock to resist 86680-3/LBE9L070 Page 2 of 4 May 29, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder West, Inc. KLEINEELOER ugmhugk. Right Solutions. lateral Toads. A 1/3 increase may be used when evaluating transient loading such as wind and seismic conditions. • Total and differential settlement of the wall will depend on the thickness, uniformity and density of the existing fill. On the west end where the drilled piers are likely to be embedded into or terminate just above the terrace deposits, the total and differential settlement is anticipated to be very low (' inch or less). Where the fill is deeper on the east end of the wall, total and differential settlements are anticipated to be greater and could be on the order of 1 inch or more. There is a minor risk that adjustments to the columns may need to be made from an aesthetic purpose should movement. occur that becomes unacceptable to the owner. We do not anticipate that excessive settlement would occur that would compromise the structural integrity of the wall. We suggest constructing the drilled pier and columns from east to west to allow the easternmost pier an opportunity to initiate some settlementwhile the others are being constructed. All of the total settlement of the piers is notanticipated to be completed by completion of construction • Planning and extreme care should be exercised during drilling so as not to compromise the existing tie back anchors. The "as -built plans" for the tie backs should be reviewed for approximate location and potential embedment. A sufficient spacing between the anticipated location and the proposed construction should be included in design and construction. • All earthwork should be conducted in accordance with our referenced reports for the existing cooling towers and cogeneration building. • We recommend that our representative be present during drilling ofthe drilled piers to document that the soils encountered along and at the bottom of the drilled pier excavations are consistent with the anticipated soil conditions and to confirm that the recommendations included herein remain applicable. LIMITATIONS The professional opinions, conclusions and recommendations presented herein were prepared in accordance with the generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices that exist in the area at the time of this letter and the limitations presented in our August 15, 2002 report. No warranty, express or implied, is provided. Subsurface explorations were not conducted as part of this geotechnical consultation. As such, the recommendations included above are only applicable if our representative is onsite during construction to evaluate the actual soils conditions encountered. 86680-3/LBE9L070 Page 3 of 4 May 29, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder West, Inc. KLEINFELDER �m9M1«nk. x?MroL,rmn. CLOSURE If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact the undersigned. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Respectfully submitted, KLEINFELDER WEST, INC. Just' J. Kemp on, I5.E., G.E. Timothy J. Slegers, PE Principal Geotechnical Engineer Senior Professional <2,<\M StF Fto rr yn No.C58653 EXp,12f31(10 Civkv OF CO° 86680-3/LBE9L070 Page 4 of 4 May 29, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder West, Inc. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT REVIEW OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Date Response Received:9-23-09 Date of Report:5-29-09 Consultant: Kleinfelder Site Address: 1 Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California Prior to approval of the report attend to the following: Date Completed: 10-7-09 Plan Check No:0819-2009 Our Job No: 206i-156 1. Please provide allowable bearing pressure for caissons. 2. Provide lateral caisson capacities under seismic loading. 3. Caissons shall extend through uncertified fill. 4. Reports conclusions differ from those reached by MACTEC, please clarify. Additional Comments (no response required): Note to City Staff: Staff should confirm that the Consultants (C.E.G. and R.C.E/G.E.) have signed the final dated grading, foundation/construction and landscaping plans, per City Code, thereby verifying the plans' geotechnical conformance with the Consultant's original report and associated addenda. Limitations of Review: Our review is intended to determine if the submitted report(s) comply with City Codes and generally accepted geotechnical practices within the local area. The scope of our services for this third party review has been limited to a brief site visit and a review of the above referenced report and associated documents, as supplied by the City of Newport Beach. Re -analysis of reported data and/or calculations and preparation of amended construction or design recommendations are specifically not included within our scope of services. Our review should not be considered as a certification, approval or acceptance previous consultant's work, nor is meant as an acceptance of liability for final design or construction recommendations made by the geotechnical consultant of record or the project designers or engineers. Opinions presented in this review are for City's use only. BY: BY: Gamini Weeratunga, G.E. 2403 Ken Bagahi, Ph.D., G.E. BAGAHI ENGINEERING, INC. BAGAHI ENGINEERING, KLEINFELDER Bright People. Right Solutions. November 19, 2009 Revised December 2, 2009 Project No.: 103715 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Facilities Design & Construction 500 Superior Avenue Suite 300 Newport Beath, California 92663 Attn: Mr. Gregg Zoll, Senior Project Manager #erq.a7 / toytd 620 West 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach, CA 90813 p1 562.432.1696 f 1562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com Subject: Response to Comments — Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation Proposed Lower Campus Landscape Enhancement and Cogeneration Building Sound Wall Project Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California Dear Mr. Zoll: As requested by you, this letter provides Kleinfelder's response to review comments by City of Newport Beach in their Grading/Draining Plan Check dated October 7, 2009 and two Review of Geotechnical Reports (both dated October 7, 2009) for Kleinfelder's report dated May 29, 2009 and MACTECs report dated July 27, 2009. This letter also provides supplemental geotechnical recommendations for the subject sound wall. As discussed herein, as requested by Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Kleinfelder is the Geotechnical Engineer of Record for this project. This letter specifically addresses the lower campus sound wall planned a few feet north of the retaining wall for the Cooling Tower facility adjacent to the Cogeneration Building. The retaining walls for the Cooling Tower facility and Cogeneration Building are laterally supported with permanent, post grouted tie -back anchors. The location of the proposed sound wall relative to the existing Cooling Tower facility and Cogeneration Building retaining walls is shown on Plate 1, Plot Plan. 103715/LBE9L123 Page 1 of 8 November 19, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Revised December 2, 2009 m'vh.saxaa.A • The weight of the sound wall (including steel posts) is approximately 2340 Ibs or 94 Ibs per If of wall. • The net bearing pressure demand due to the wall (including the 6 feet deep, 2 feet diameter caissons) is anticipated to be on the order of 322 psf. RESPONSE TO REVIEW COMMENTS The comments are below in italics and followed by our responses. October 7, 2009 Grading/Drainage Plan Check Comments Grading Correction Comment 1. For projects on slopes Soils Engineer to stamp these plans with an approval stamp. Response: Kleinfelder is prepared to sign and stamp the plans as GEOR as they were reviewed by Kleinfelder to be consistent with the geotechnical recommendations included in our May 29, 2009 letter. October 7, 2009 Review of Kleinfelder Geotechnical Report dated May 29, 2009 Comment 1. Please provide allowable bearing pressure for caissons. Response: An allowable bearing pressure of 1000 psf may be used for caissons embedded in the existing engineered fill. The actual net bearing pressure of 322 psf is Tess than the recommended allowable bearing pressure. Comment 2. Provide lateral caisson capacities under seismic loading. Response: Per our May 29, 2009 report, Kleinfelder recommended a passive resistance of 300 psf/ft with a 1/3 increase for transient (wind/seismic) loading. Comment a Caissons shall extend through the uncertified filL Response: It is our professional opinion that the caissons are not required to extend through the existing fill to provide support of the subject lower campus wall from a geotechnical standpoint. Based on the following, we recommend the proposed wail be supported on the currently proposed 6 feet deep, 2 feet diameter caissons. • The dead load of the sound wall is extremely light: approximately 94 pounds per lineal foot of wall. The load is equivalent to less than 1-foot of fill being placed in the area of the wall. • The net bearing pressure demand at the bottom of the planned caisson is anticipated to be on the order of 322 psf. 103715/LBE9L123 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Page3of8 November 19, 2009 Revised December 2, 2009 December 4, 2009 Hoag Memorial Hospital, Lower Campus and PCH Screen Landscape Hoag Project # 125889 City Plan Check # 0819-2009 The following are the responses to the City of Newport Beach Grading/Drainage Division's plan check set and Geotechnical Report. General Corrections on Geotechnical Reports October 7, 2009 Grading/Drainage Plan Check Comments Grading eonection Comment 1. For projects on slopes Soils Engineer to stamp these plans with an approval stamp. Response: Kleinfelder is prepared to sign and stamp the plans as GEOR as they were reviewed by Kleinfelder to be c,onsistent with the geotechnical recommendations included in our May 29, 2009 letter. October 7, 2009 Review of Kleinfelder Geotechnical Report dated May 29, 2009 Comment 1. Please provide allowable bearing pressure for caissons.. Response: An allowable bearing pressure of 1000 psf may be used for caissons embedded in the existing engineered fill. Theactual net bearing pressure of 322 psf is less than the recommended allowable bearing pressure. Comment 2: Provide lateral caisson capacities under seismic loading. Response: Per our May 29, 2009 report, Kleinfelder recommended a passive resistance of 300 psf/ft with. a 1/3 increase for transient (wind/seismic) loading. Comment 3. Caissons shall extendthrough the uncertified fill. Response: It is our professional opinion that the caissons are not required to extend through the existing fill to provide support of the subject lower campus wall from a geotechnical standpoint. Based on the following. we recommend the proposed wall be supported on the currently proposed 6 feet deep, 2 feet diameter caissons. • The dead loadof the sound wall is extremely light; approximately 94 pounds. per linealfoot of wall. The load is equivalent to less than 1-foot of fill being placed in the area of the wall. • The netbearing pressure demand at the bottomof the planned caisson Is anticipated to be on the order of 322 psf. 103715/LBE9L123 Page 3 of 8 November 19. 2009 :opyn3M 2009 NMinfeder Revised December 2. 2009 \\ HMH\125889\City\Comments\C.O. # I\Grading/Drainage Comments_ Revision 1 Correction List (CO #I).doc KLE/NFELDER • Settlement of the fill soils below the wall foundations is anticipated to be low (1/4 to possibly 1 inch maximum). • Compaction tests on the upper engineered fill indicate 90 percent relative compaction which is suitable to provide lateral support for the proposed caissons. • As shown in Plates 1 and 2, the adjacent retaining walls for the Cogeneration Building and Cooling. Towers are laterally supported by 3 rows of permanent tie back anchors. We are concerned that extending 2 feet diameter caissons within the area where the existing anchors were installedcould compromise the integrity of the anchors and the adjacent retaining wail. We feel that it isan unnecessary significant risk to attemptto deepen. the 2 feet diameter piers while trying to avoid the anchors. • Removal of existing fill is not feasible due to the presence of permanent tieback anchors. • The existing fill beneath the proposed sound wall was placed in two stagesand in our opinion, is suitable to support the proposed lightly loaded wall. The attached Plate. 2, Cross-section A -A' illustrates the two stages of fill soils in profile along the center line of the proposed sound wall. o The first stage of fill (art) wasplaced during installation of the former terrace subdrain system. To mitigate excessive seepage at the base of the former slope along the lower parking lot, a subdrain was installed. The fill (all) was placed to buttress the required backcut and excavation to install the subdrain. It is our understanding that this subdrain was installed in 1996 or earlier and observed by Law/Crandall or Leighton. Specific testing data of the fill could not be found. Two Law/Crandall letters, reviewed by Kleinfelder, appeared to address the grading of the subdrain. The Law/Crandall report dated February 27, 1997 (L/C project No. 70131-5-0689) states that site grading for the Terrrace Reduction Grading conformed to the project. plans. In the Law/Crandall letter dated August 19, 1996, supplemental recommendations were provided to remove soft soils created/exposed in the excavation for the drainage trench at the base of the bluff slope. It is our opinion that it would be very unlikely that the fill placed to backfill the installed subdrain and result in a 2:1 (h:v) graded slopewould be placed at a relative compaction less than 90 percent. During site grading for the adjacent Cooling Towers and Cogeneration Building andduring our reconnaissance in 2002 (prior to construction of the Cogeneration Facility), there were no significant slope instabilities observed in the lower fill and the fill was observed to be compacted. The lower fill was not used to support the Cooling Tower or Cogeneration building since the structural loads for the buildings was much higher. o The second stage of fill (the upper fill, aft, was placed under the observation of Kleinfelder during construction of the Cooling Tower/Cogeneration Building 1037151LBE9L123 Page. 4 of 8 November 19, 2009 &MAMA 2009 Klontedar Revised December 2, 2009 \\ HMM125889\City\Comments\C.O. # 1\Grading/Drainage Comments_Revision 1 Correction List (CO #1).doc KLEINFEWDER retaining walls in approximately 2003. This is documented in our reports dated January 27, 2005 and August 21, 2006. It is our opinion that the fill soils have been in place long enough to respond to their own dead weight, It is not anticipated that significant settlement of the wall to occur if constructed as planned and per the recommendations provided by Kleinfelder. From a geotechnical standpoint, the worst case scenario of excessive settlement in the deeper fill is not probable due to the very tow structural loads. Should this occur we would expect it to occur gradually and not compromise the structural integrity of the wall. If a post were to become out of plumb, the steel posts could be re -plumbed. This would be much more cost effective than caissons that extend 25 feet deeper and compromise the tieback anchors beneath the wall. Comment 4, Report conclusions differ for those: reached by MACTEC, please clarify. Response: As requested, Kleinfelder accepts responsibility as the Geotechnical Engineer of Record for the subject project. Kleinfelder's recommendations differ from MACTEC's, however, MACTEC is no longer involved with the project. It is our professional opinion, based on the information presented herein that the proposed foundations for the sound wall are not required to extend though the existing fill. In our assessment, we considered the estimated design loads, our knowledge of the existing fill, and our knowledge of the construction of the two adjacent tie -back anchor retaining walls: October 7, 2009 Review of MACTEC Geotechnical Report dated July 27, 2009 For clarification, Kleinfelder has been requested to respond to comments by the reviewer regarding MACTEC's July 27. 2009 report. Comment I. Page 4. Lateral Capacity. Please provide lateral caisson capacities under seismic loading. Response: See response to Comment 2, above (page :3). Comment 2: page 6. Installation. (a) Slight seepage has been reported at 5 feet (see page 3). Please discuss caisson installation and bottom cleanup under wet soil and groundwater conditions, (b) address potential of drilled .caissons encountering underground gas. MACTEC. reported that previous exploratory borings excavated in the vicinity of the project exhibited slight seepage at depths as shallow as five feet below the surface. For clarification, Law/Crandall boring 13-3, excavated on November 17, 1995 rcwrded: slight seepage at a depth of five feet, corresponding to approximately elevation 9 feet,. (MSL). Some of the other borings excavated on or around the same date showed 103715/LBE9L123 Page 5 of 8 November 19, 2009 Copy,tq.2009 Mint alder Rased December 2, [P.H \\ HMH\125889\City\Comments\C.O. # 1 \Grading/Drainage Comments_ Revision 1 Correction List (CO #1).doc seepage at elevations of 2 to 5 feet, MSL. Kieinfetder encountered perched groundwater at elevation 31 to 33 feet in borings KB-1 and KB-2 excavated at the top of the adjacent slopes in 2002. The proposed foundations are planned to extend to a depth of six feet below current grade (approximate elevation 55 feet) which is significantly above anticipated zones of seepage. Foundations are anticipated to be excavated entirely in previously compacted fill soils. Groundwater is not anticipated to effect the excavation of the proposed foundations. MACTEC also reported the odor of hydrogen sulfide gas at a depth of 6.5 feet (elevation 8.5 MSL) in boring B-8, excavated November 16, 1995. Thisboring was excavated on the east end of the site in the vicinity of the new child care center, approxiniately 500 feet from the proposed foundation excavations The presence of gas was not detected in subsequent borings excavated by Kteinfelder as part of the geotechnical investigation fot the Cogeneration Plant and Cooling' Towers. Accordingly, underground gas is riot anticipated to be encountered in the foundation excavations for thesound wall. Comment 3. General Please review structural foundation plans for conformance with report recommendations. Response: Kleinfelder has reviewed the structural foundation plans by PSE dated September 23, 2009 and evaluated them to be consistent with the geotechnical recommendations included in our May 29, 2009 letter and subsequent clarifications, includingthose contained herein: SUPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS Seismic Site Coefficients Per the 2007 CBC, the followingseismic coefficients should be used for designing structures to resist seismic toads. '.. itsi."4adtekat .:ilpNw . S3 (0.2 sec perrad, Site Gass B 1.830g ,Sr {1.0 sec period, Site:class B) '0.667g1 Fa 1:0 Fir. 1.5 Sam=. F;S;{ csec nod, Site Class: O) l l 1.8309 Sam = Fv%r (1.0 sec period,: Site Class D) • 1.0304 Sips - 2i3 x'Sus (0.2 sec period, Site Class D) { 1.220g. SDI = 2J3 x Spa (1.0 set period, Site Class D) 0.6879 103715/L8E91123 Copyright 2009 Klein/elder Page 6 of 8 Novernber 19.2009 Revisal 00cenber 2. 2009 \\ HMH\125889\City\Comments\C.O. # I \Grading/Drainage Comments_Revision I Correction List (CO (11).doc KLKLE{NFECDER Earthwork For the Cooling Tower Sound Wall, we do not anticipate any significant grading since construction will primarily include construction of the wall foundations. As such, any earthwork performed (cut and or fill) should be performed in general accordance with the recommendations contained in our August 15, 2002 report (Reference 2). Copies of Sections 4.7 and 4,10 (Excavations and Earthwork Sections) from our August 15, 2002 report are attached for reference. The ASTM test methods used should be the :most current method (i.e ASTM DI157 -07 instead of ASTM D1557-91) Concrete Prior corrosion studies performed by others (Reference 1) indicate that the site soilsin the. vicinity of the proposed sound wall are moderately corrosive toward concrete. The results are consistent with preliminary test results included in Kleinfelder's 2002 report (Reference 2). The reports state that soluble sulfate concentrations indicate that the onsite soils may be moderately corrosive to Portland cement concrete. The Portland. cement concrete mix design used for concrete elements in contact with soil should meet the requirements of the Section 1904A.3 of the 2007 CBC for soils with moderate sulfate exposure. Per AC/ 318, Section 4.3, Type II Portland cement should be used and concrete should have a maximum water -cement ratio of 0.50 anda minimum compressive strength at 28-days of 4;000 psi. LIMITATIONS These services have been performed according to -generally acceptedgeotechnical. engineering practices that exist in the area at this time. No warranty, express.. or implied,is provided. 1037151LBE9L123 Page 7 of 8 November 19,2009 Copyd9M 2000 Kklnfetder Revised December 2.2009 \\ HMI-11125889\City \ Comments \C.O. # 1\Grading/Drainage Comments_Revision 1 Correction List (CO # I ).doc Written Corrections on drawings • Refers to comment on S1: - Show locations of wall tie backs PSE response: - Wall tie back locations now shown. • Refers to comment on S4: Soils report requires minimum 24' deep pile -on to carry lateral load of 24" dia cession. (See pg. 5 of Mactec Report.) PSE response: - 6' Deep Pile On is Recommended by Kleinfelder, page 3 of December 2" report. Mactec is no longer involved in this project therefore Kleinfelder's report and letter supercede July 27, 2009 by Mactec. • Refers to comment on L 2.51: Provide trench detail for irrigation lines per provided detail. R/Hdo response: - Trench detail previously and currently shown on Detail EL2.51. Ken Bagahi confirmed/accepted this detail on November 11t" 2009. \\ HMHU25889\City\Comments\C.O. # 1\Grading/Drainage Comments_Revision 1 Correction List (CO #1).doc CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT REVIEW OF GEOTECHNICAL RESPONSE Date Response`Received:12-8-09 Date of Response:11-19-09 Consultant: Kleinfelder Site Address: 1 Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California Prior to approval of the report attend to the following: Date Completed: 12-14-09 Plan Check No:0/119-2009 Our Job No: 206i-156 1. Comment 2. Seismic passive pressure. For the assumed static earth pressure of 300 pcf , please provide corresponding seismic earth pressure based on selected seismic coefficient used for the active case (see Kleinfelder Aug. 15.2002 report). 2. Submit a copy of the caisson embedment computations based on lateral loading. Additional Confluents (no response required): Note to City Staff: Staff should confirm that the Consultants (C.E.G. and R.C.E/G.E.) have signed the final dated grading, foundation/construction and landscaping plans, per City Code, thereby verifying the plans' geotechnical conformance with the Consultant's original report and associated addenda. Limitations of Review: Our review is intended to determine if the submitted report(s) comply with City Codes and generally accepted geotechnical practices within the local area. The scope of our services for this third party review has been limited to a brief site visit and a review of the above referenced report and associated documents, as supplied by the City of Newport Beach. Re -analysis of reported data and/or calculations and preparation of amended construction or design recommendations are specifically not included within our scope of services. Our review should not be considered as a certification, approval or acceptance previous consultant's work, nor is meant as an acceptance of liability for final design or construction recommendations made by the geotechnical consultant of record or the project designers or engineers. Opinions presented in this review are for City's use only. BY: BY: Gamini Weeratunga, G E 2403 Ken Bagahi, Ph.D., G.E. BAGAHI ENGINEERING, INC. BAGAHI ENGINEE' t G, i C. bog Pa55;ve_ Pre s5t/7 C 1.iif:G/ lAterol 4eer &<,; '&4 r -Are in 9c07 coc '�6/e /so it c,s0 d �e-lef he /SC p t-/7t tar this o7L- » e, fee-io/5 Su'/ Si"//ys n/f (4/el 5a d s;/,y Gjrmlve` Gnf (Jaye/ ravc/, Th c r.er irulfrc I(fie r✓ 4t4 tee was icv.6401 2007 1%5'C /W W 1 - ;s valve ` IS Aahe 074 ''hm /s is fern bit 7tAe 9Ofer n ko,. 'refe'± k 7e t Weer (Ly 15)' Peterson Stnclurel Englnen, Inc 5319 &W. Weatgole OAve, Suite 215 Portland" Oregon 99221-2411 phone (SOS m2-1035 Fax (392)292-9846 project 0 p Do$ date /2 -17-09 designer AAig! sheet 1 of Conpvt t74, (2oa7 fa is ,4-0 ® F-¢(9€36h/,4]16.1 b tine/Gr ©f ./_ hi] /17/.- /7=dist?n ce 1 -o#, rg6/bv&— /'/ 5VC P 4 eJ Sat-e-a/ 7or&e, 5 = 4//Ant k le 4 eh, ¢hr 6= 2 ft l� _ 12-54 = G_151t — nn; 5G-afon of La/1/ A 2_3V 7.9 s- a 90.83)114 D 4 (v,3(kZ9fl.n3)) Uc& 6 f (A so?/ / ear n5 eased on /e. ttra/ of //3 ter/4 col /0574 c t't p5E Polerron Slwolural Enginee2, Inc 5319 S.W. Westgate Delve. State 215 Portland, Oregon 97221-2411 phone (503) 292-1935 Fox: (503) 292-9945 project © 9_089, date l2 -/7-0 designerMe,' sheet of Z.. KLEINFELDER Bright People. Right Solutions. December 18, 2009 Project No.: 106963 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Facilities Design & Construction 500 Superior Avenue Suite 300 Newport Beach, California 92663 Attn: Mr. Gregg Zoll, Senior Project Manager 2 Ada, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92618 pl 949.727.4466 fl 949.727.9242 klelntelder.com Subject: Response to City of Newport Beach Comments dated 12/14/09 Proposed Cogeneration Building Sound Wall Project Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California References: (A) "Response to City of Newport Beach Comments of 12/14/09, Proposed Cogeneration Building Sound Wall Project, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, Califomia" prepared by Kleinfelder, dated November 19, 2009, Revised December 2, 2009. (B) "Review of Geotechnical Response", prepared by Bagahi Engineering, Inc. on behalf of the City of Newport Beach Building Department, dated December 12, 2009, Plan Check No.: 0819-2009, Bagahi Engineering, Inc. Job. No. 206i-156. Dear Mr. Zoll: This is our response to the City of Newport Beach Building Department review comments for the above Reference A report. Our response follows each comment. Comment 1 Comment 2. Seismic passive pressure. For the assumed static earth pressure of 300 pcf, please provide corresponding seismic earth pressure based on selected seismic coefficient used for the active case (see Kleinfelder Aug. 15, 2002 report). 106963/IRV9L273 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Page 1 of 3 December 18, 2009 1 KLE/NPELDER Response 1 Based on our review of the previous grading, the fill in the vicinity of the proposed wall consists predominantly of silty sand and clayey sand. The average wet unit weight is on the order of 120 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Kleinfelder direct shear tests indicated friction angles of 31 to 35 degrees. For cantilever walls, Kleinfelder report of August 2002 recommended a statteattWe pressure of 35 pcf and a dynamic active pressure of 2OH applied as an inverted triangle. These values correspond roughly to a soil having a friction angle of 31° degrees (a), a wet unit weight (y) of 120 pcf, a friction angle of 15 degrees between the back of the wall and the soil (S), a horizontal acceleration coefficient of 0.24 (about %2 of the PGA) and a vertical acceleration coefficient of 0.1 using the Mononobe-Okabe theory and Coulomb equations. Thsequlvafent static tluid passive pressure calculated by the Coulomb equation is 630 psf/ft. Kleinfelder's report recommended a design passive pressure of 300 psf/ft for the caissons. During a seismic event, there will be a reduction in the passive pressure. using the same parameters as described above (0=31 °, 5=15° and y=120 pcf), the calculated equivalent dynamic passive pressure with the Coulomb and Mononobe-Okabe . relationships is approximately 488 psf/ft. In the previous response (Reference A), Kleinfelder recommended to increase the static passive pressure of 300 -psf/ft by 1/3 (Le. to 400 psf/ft) during the design earthquake. This recommendations was presented because normally a lower safety factor can be tolerated during a seismic event because of short term loading. If the structural engineer had used the value of 400 psf/ft, the safety factor on the passive pressure during the design seismic event will be about 1.2 (488/400=1.2). Based on our discussion with the structural engineer and review of the structural calculations, we understand that the structural engineer had designed- the caissons using a passive pressure of 150 psf/ft for static and 200 psf/ft for seismic conditions prior to receiving Kleinfelder report. This leaves an additional margin of safety for the passive pressure during the design seismic event (488/200=2.4). No change to the present design is recommended from a geotechnical standpoint. Comment 2 Submit a copy of the caisson embedment computations based on lateral loading. Response 2 The structural engineer computations are attached. Closure This work was performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of Kleinfelder's profession practicing in the same locality, under similar conditions and at the date the services are provided. Kleinfelder 106963/IRV9L273 Page 2 of 3 December 18, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder 1 KLEINRELDER , &OFPeep.* rarSolar.. makes no other representation, guarantee or warranty, express or implied, regarding the services, communication (oral or written), report, opinion, or instrument of service provided. We trust this information meets your current needs. We appreciate the opportunity to be of professional service to you on this project. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, KLEINFELDER WEST, INC. r Jacques B. Roy, P.E., G.E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer Timothy Slegers, P.E. Project Manager Attachments: -Structural Engineer Calculations (2 pages) - City of Newport Beach Building Department Review Sheet dated 12/14/09 -Additional References Cc: Bill Rabben, RHDO 106963/IRV9L273 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Page 3 of 3 December 18, 2009 taeys 5a/1•10/ ieueisep 40-LI-Zl atap Soo-6o taefotd “1"." lmu.a•Md •.•sen taoY �•e ant*^.. WSWro•.a•a na•ns'.wa .WinIAWS UPI • wwa�mwwmas— �[� 013J s/ 6d) ?�/ "t � aye g! a ; o J'��'Vit t' 9151 08/ ogp Loot nal "7,� eir sdr� '7AO? ? "PAC!, -14/vA 2t/J , ! :EA 0_J 47 I P.Ady �uf /� a j ✓J �l '5%WS epos 4>Af9/9 2 5 -I//, r O 7% s�o..af ow LO 59 7 erg-/ ,WAS as/ '9etz fi /9ribP a o� as t/ a 7� dG� k.3 ei /'7ssa.'d a4ig4kd �.W94 5 Corrpvfufivh (2007 I&& lQ18A-l) d-o_54f [i#(93sh/AJ hI A= 2-3YP/,Ls, hb = di aMe/ ter Of 1C6fin./ (17R) /, =05 tap o WI, i. /t o� o P P=1�f�nn��ie/�/A�,s�mf/ ?carte, = 4I/a,4 4 4!Lira/ so/bear'nj \ha5el on 4 jet IA Of 1 ent o� (p579 b=2 ft h = 12.5/.¢ = 6-25 ft — 11.1 a/ Svc "o n p74 frj/-12sQ I6 „tot 5,=2Oso)(0jft33) _-7'98 sr,6a T f A= 2.3V 1 2 , _ 1. g 3 79 4.7 a�=8.503)114b4( .3c(lz9/[.BnJ''Z} = ,l6 ft {ftp c ft pSE Petersen SNmliu! mast,. In. We Sat UAMMs OSS. Sins 216 Portland. °repo 0)}21-2411 Kee 11503)212•,13p Fat pf12*a pr°jed 0 9-ofl designer Ay.3 sheet date /2 -17-t4 2 of 2- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACiI BUILDING DEPARTMENT REVIEW OF GEOTECIIN ICAL RESPONSE Date Response Received:12-8-09 Date cif Response: t 1-19-09 Consultant: Kleinfetder Site Address: 1 Hoag Drive Newport Beach. California Prior to approval of the report attend to the following: Date Completed: 12-14-09 Plan Check No:0819-2004 Our Job No: 206i-156 1. Comment 2. Seismic: passive pressure. For the assumed static earth pressure of 300 pet . please provide corresponding seismic earth pressure based on selected seismic coefficient used for the active case (see Kleinfelder Aug. 15. 2002 report). 2. Submit a copy of the caisson embedment computations based on lateral loading. .Additional Continents (no response required): Note to City Staff: Staff should confirm that the Consultants (C.E.G. and R.C.E/G.E.) have signed the final dated grading, foundatjoniconstruction and landscaping plans. per City Code, thereby verifying the plans' geotechnical conformance with the Consultant's original report and associated addenda. Limitations of Review: BY: Our review is intended to determine if the submitted report(s) comply with City Codes and generally accepted geotechnical practices within the local area. The scope of our services for this third party review has been limited to a brief site visit and a review of the above referenced report and associated documents, as supplied by the City of Newport Beach. Re -analysis of reported data anchor calculations and preparation of amended construction or design recommendations arc specifically not included within our scope of services. Our review should not be considered as a certification, approval or aoeptance previous consultant's work, nor is meant as an acceptance of liability for final design or construction recommendations made by the geotechnical consultant of record or the project designers or engineers. Opinions presented in this review are for City's use only. Garnini Weeratunua, G.E. 2403 BAGARI ENGINEERING, INC. BY/ Ken Bagahi, Ph.D., G.E. BAGAMII ENGINEERING KLE/NFELDER Med PS. RAW fakstha ADDITIONAL REFERENCES 1. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Cogeneration Building and Cooling Tower Facilities, West of Existing Parking Lot, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, Califomia; Kleinfelder, August 15, 2002 (PN 16901). 2. Final Geotechnical Observation and Testing Report, Cogeneration Building Project, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, Califomia; Kleinfelder, August 31, 2006 (PN 31793/002). 3. Geotechnical Consultation, proposed Co -Gen Building Sound Wall, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, Califomia; Kleinfelder, May 29, 2009 (PN 86680-3). 4. Geotechnical Consultation, Proposed Lower Campus Landscape Enhancements/Infrastructure Improvements Projects, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian — Lower Campus, One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, Califomia; MACTEC, July 27, 2009 (Project 4953-09-1121). 5. Review of Geotechnical Report, City of Newport Beach Building Department, dated October 7, 2009; Plan Check No. 0819-2009. 106934/IRV9L273 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Page 1 of 1 December 18, 2009 December 21, 2009 Hoag Memorial Hospital, Lower Campus and PCH Screen Landscape Hoag Project # 125889 City Plan Check # 0819-2009 Refer to Kleinfelder & PSE correspondence attached hereto for the responses to the City of Newport Beach Grading/Drainage Division's Geotechnical Report. \1 NMH11258891City\Comments\C.O. # 11GradingiDrainage Comments_ Revision I Correction List (CO #1).doc CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT REVIEW OF MITIGATION MEASURES PROJECT: Hoag Health Center Wall Date Received: 09/23/2009 Date Reviewed: 10/07/2009 Review By: BAGAHI ENGINEERING INC., Ken H Bagahi, (949) 552 - 2006 MM# COMMENT MM-3 Pending response to review comments ✓ bk.,. MM-6 Pending final caysson depth ✓ it) �- MM-7 Approved �� MM-14 Approved t,, o IL / aC — 27 - 0)2 MM-62 Sign page ii✓ MM-93 Approved. o-- 2-2 l z_ Let-MM-2.xls Co -Gen Screen Wall Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Lower Hoag Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 EXPIRES: 6/30/2011 STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS Scope: To provide construction drawings and structural calculations for the construction of a screen wall. The screen wall will be 25'-0" long and no more than 12'-6" high. Its construction will consist of a line of steel wide -flange posts at a typical spacing of 6'2" centers. Each post will be anchored to an isolated caisson at the same spacing. Proprietary panels act as lagging fitting between the flanges of the posts. References: 1. 2007 California Building Code (CBC) 2. 2006 International Building Code (IBC) 3. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-05), American Society of Civil Engineers, 2005 4. Manual of Steel Construction, 13`" Edition, American Institute of Steel Construction, 2006 5. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05), American Concrete Institute, 2005 6. 6.Geotechnical Report by Kleinfelder, Their Project No. 16901, dated August 15, 2002. Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation by Kleinfelder, Their Project No. 23447/001 dated Dec. 19, 2002. Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations by Kleinfelder, Their Project No. 31793/002 dated Oct. 20, 2003, Oct. 15, 2003, Nov. 11, 2004. 7. Building Plans, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian LovggrHQ 1pusc�li'1ant Cali & Associates, inc., Their Project No. 02-015, D%lpdtE31€�l_ pR,PPL c CONSTITUTE EXPRCa �� R Ics uT 8. Geotechnical Report by Kleinfelder, Theira�r�jgplBsl�TIo�R 31.dat$tiH s r "Tshl 9. Supplemental Geotechnical Conseil z D rsPe � e,�IT40 7�rP5 `,dated November 19, 2009. cut IBE APPROVALDOE.NOT GUARAN CI R ! A FOUIc (,. r_.NS COMPLIANCE WITH CO, BUILDIN r c ,t g GF t I - Tu 12 v -, WITHPt THE THE CITY HE BUILDING S1RUCTURr TR'JCT10NVIF EMEcdcSSl li IC Cr,. REVISE THE TER CONIES OF THE CITY OF NEV'FORT E' BEFORE. CES,DURIL OR AND POLICIES ___-- ORDINANCES, PLANS n c !T. (SIGNATL'RE1 GA7� PERMITTEE5 ACKNOWLEQGfi_P—_----- _SIGNAIURE ---� pRTMENT DE_ FIFE TI-1.-1.\ BY'. ApprO\iAL TO DATE: File: PSE509-008 - calculations.doc SSE Poreraon Structural Engineers, Inc. 5319 S.W. Westgate Drive, Suite 215 Portland. Oregon 07221-2411 Phone (503)202-1635 Far (503) 2924846 Project 09 - 00 date U/A! 7 designer pip g 5 sheet of J 7 • � F 019 -zo09 O(,.10 09 Co -Gen Screen Wall Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Lower Hoag Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS Scope: To provide construction drawings and structural calculations for the construction of a screen wall. The screen wall will be 25'-0" long and no more than 12'-6" high. Its construction will consist of a line of steel wide -flange posts at a typical spacing of 6'2" centers. Each post will be anchored to an isolated caisson at the same spacing. Proprietary panels act as lagging fitting between the flanges of the posts. References: 1. 2007 California Building Code (CBC) 2. 2006 International Building Code (IBC) 3. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-05), American Society of Civil Engineers, 2005 4. Manual of Steel Construction, 13th Edition, American Institute of Steel Construction, 2006 5. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05), American Concrete Institute, 2005 6. Geotechnical Report by Kleinfelder, Their Project No. 16901, dated August 15, 2002. Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation by Kleinfelder, Their Project No. 23447/001 dated Dec. 19, 2002. Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations by Kleinfelder, Their Project No. 31793/002 dated Oct. 20, 2003, Oct. 15, 2003, Nov. 11, 2004. 7. Building Plans, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Lower Campus Central Plant, Cefali & Associates, inc., Their Project No. 02-015, Dated: 3-21-03 8. Geotechnical Report by Kleinfelder, Their Project No. 86680-3, datediMay 29, 2009. ADPHOAIAL OF THESE PLANS S D01111 ONSTITUTE EXPRESS OR IMPLIED F '.I7ATt _. 10 CONSTRUCT F v-- n01.14.Tl 'J G GR INGP E.'TNT W i I.HEOR1N`AANCS1, PLANS, v:_:P. :-:E C' Y OF NE 'PC=T 6' <C T 1iS b .,1.✓0ES 'v I GUARANTEE- TEM. PLANS.ARE]IN ALl. RE E. 1N C111,1,1MAHCE 11A1TH Ci Y.. ELUDING, C.ih.Ai'LLS PLANS AND PCILICAES. T OF ' l' ORT PEACH P.ESERV,115 111E TGHTTOR OI NYPEa LIFE TO F THE PLOWING STRUCTURE OR IMi ' a.,r li :,U hO.1'ED SY THEK KLANS 6 GtE DUR111G 04 AFTER CONSTRUCTION. IF N CESSsRY TO COMPLY WITH THE O.4NGES, al ]_NS AND POLICIES OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. PER: it T TEES ACKNOWLEDGMENT: (SIGNATURE) DEPARTMENT SIGNATURE DATE P1 "". 1C'riOP.k:S G:'LE RAL SEW!CE$ GPMANG Ft.: n1iNG E/ih'P BY: APPROVAL TO ISSUE File: %1 09-008 calculations.doc Peterson 6bucuraI Engineers, Inc 5319 S.W. Westgate Drive. 6ulte 215 Portland, Oregon 97221-24111 Phone (S63) 292.1635 Fax: (503) 292-9616 pros« 09-Oa% 7 designer N% I 5 date 60/or/9 ways ewp Sd IA/ Jau6psap B00 — b O lea(oid 2Sic 9086-Z6Z (EBS):xed SE9L-Z6Z (cos) euoyd L L4Z-LZZL6 uo8a10'WeIL�'+d LZ al!nS'emq ale84SeM'M'S 6LES 3.0 sae ova Wn4'wu4S ulSWed 5e C t5 H�LIa-A del del £Y is Wind Seismic Force IE = 1.0 W parameters) long. = 381 pounds W4x13s. Site Class D Importance Latitude = 33.62282° N. Longitude Response Spectral Acc., Ss = 1.830g, Si = 0.687g Design base shear coefficient, µO = 0.249 (Sheet Factor, =—117.93655° (MCE 10) high and 5' 11" = is*ws*Hs 12'6" high 163 pounds = 135 pounds fl2 Force The panels are approximately 6" wide, 10" Length, Is = 6 feet Unit weight, ws = 5 psf Height of wall panels, hs = 12.7 feet Weight of one module of panels, Ws Posts will support the panels. They will be Typical post weight, wp = 13 p1f Post Height, hp = 12.5 feet Weight of one typical post, Wp = wp*hp= WDL = Ws+ Wp = 544 pounds Base Shear Force per module, Vs = ND*WDL Area of one wall module, Aw =1s*hp = 76.2 Unit seismic force, vs = Vs/Aw = 1.8 psf Wind Speed = 85 mph (3-second gust) Exposure C ASCE 7-05 6.5.14, Design Wind Load on Solid Freestanding G CF As Walls and Solid Signs Eq. 6-27 F =qh Wall height, h = s =12.5 feet Figure 6-20 Wall length, B 5 feet Figure 6-20 Aspect ratio, B/s r2.00 Figure 6-20 Force coeff C1 =1.40 Figure 6-20 Exposure coefficient lc =0.85 6.5.6.6, Table 6-3 Topography factor Kit =1.00 6.5.7.2 Directionality factor Kd =0.85 Table 6-4 Wind Speed V =85 mph Verified w/ building official Importance factor I =1.00 Table 6-1 qh = 0.00256 Kc KA Kd V2 I =13.36 psf Eq. 6-15 Gust Effect factor G =0.85 6.5.8 Design wind pressure F/As = qh*G*C( =15.9 psf Design for p = 16 psf p =16 psf > vy — Wind Controls LRfl Peterson Sbuctural Engineers, Inc. 5319 S.W. Westgate Drive. Suite 215 Portland. Oregon 97221-2411 Phone (503)292-1635 Fax: (503) 292-9846- project 0 9 00 R, date designer '1 5 sheet 3 of Panel Description/Calculations The spaces between vertical piles are infilled with panels which are dropped vertically between the flanges of adjacent piles. Each panel is about 10" high, 5.5" wide and 5' 11" long. The panels are configured as bins molded of HDPE (high density polyethylene), specifically, ExxonMobil HD 6908. The bins are filled with rock mineral wool and a layer of sheathing board. The typical wall segment will consist of 14 panels stacked upon one another. Structurally, the panels perform two basic functions: 1) they resist the wind forces and transfer those forces to the vertical piles and 2) they support their own gravity weight. PUSHVUT C.6RENER /—FENDER WASHER V8"1__ TOP CAR riT—IT-II . BAR RAND_ SECTION i ASSEMBLY DETAILS n Analysis of LSE 2000 Panels Physical Properties (Sheet 11) Tensile Yield Stress, Fy = 4,090 psi Modulus of Elasticity, E = 172,000 psi Loads Wind Load, p = 16 psf Dead Load, wp = 5 psf Check Panel by Capacity to Demand Ratio (CAD > 1) E Peterson Oregon tructural Engineers, Inc. 5319 S.W. Westgate Drive. Suite 215 Portland. Oregon 91221-2611 Fam(6 3) 292-9.1635 Fex:(Sg3i 292-96C6 project 0 9 — oo date G /10 /O 9 designer 44 PS sheet 11-- of Panel Side Walls (cantilever up from panel bottom) • • Section Properties (Sheet 12) A = 1.2 in2/ft Ix = 0.029 in4/ft Sx = 0.12 in3/ft Wind Force w=p=l6psf Flexure * 2 w L, — 5.5 ft-lb/ft Mmax = 2 C/D=Fy=7-OK Fb Deflection w*L4*123 Amax = — 0.33 inches 8*E*Ix Aa➢ is limited to movement inside of seat: 0.4895-0.11 = 0.3795 in L = 10 = 0.83 feet 12 fb= M S 1—550psi x Load Transfer to the Corrugated Ribs (Ref. "Formulas for Stress & Strain", Roark, 6th Ed., Table 26 Case la) p= 16 psf=0.11 psi t=0.11 inches a = 10 inches b = 2 inches a/b = 5 inches 13 = 0.7476 * *b2 f = p — 27.2 C/D = r =150 — OK t2 a Panel Bottom Section Properties (Sheet 13) A = 3.6 in2 Ix=41.5in4 Iy=18.2in4 Sx=5.9in3 S,=6.4in3 Wind Force w=p*10 =13.3p1f L=72 =6feet 12 12 Flexure * 2 Mmax = w L — 60 ft-lb 8 C/D=FY=36-OK Fb •Deflection f= M S-112psf Y —5 w L4 *123 = 0.12"=L/580—OK 384*E*Iy Petersai Vectored Engineers. Inc. 5319 S.W. Westgate Drive. Suite 215 Portland. Oregon 97221-2411 Phone(503)292-1635 Fax: (503)292-9846 project 0 9 00 , designer pig I 5 date sheet 6/10/09 So1 Support Channels Post Base Channel C6x8.2 w=12.5*wp+8.2=71pif Sheet 14 - OK Clip Angle Support — Base Channel L2'/2 x 21/2x 3/16" L = 6'0" R = 213 pounds L = 0'3" Assume channel reaction occurs 1.5" from root of angle 2 M = 1.5*R= 324 in -pounds S = L* 0.1875 — 0.0176 in3 Fb = 27,000 psi for flat plates fb= S=18,153psi :<Fk—OK Base Channel Connection 1" of 1/8" fillet weld on each side of angle — E70XX electrodes Capacity = 1 *2*(1.8k'Ps/M) = 3.6 kips > R — OK W4x13 (Sh.15) w = 6.2*p = 100 plf L = 12'6" — height of post w*L2 Mc = 2 — 7,813 ft-lb — at base of post fb= 12Mc — 17,171 psi S x F6 = 0.6*50 ksi = 30 ksi > fb — OK V = w*L = 1.250 Hounds — OK by Inspection 4 = 1.6" = L/186 — OK Sh # 15 Connection to base plate Couple, C = 12 M,— 22.5 kips 4.16*1000 wQld to each jde Capacity = 7*(3.71'1's/m) = 25.9 > C — OK 4.16 S. = 5.46 in3 Asa Peterson Structural Engineers, Inc. 5919 S.W. Westgate DMe, Suite 215 Portland. Oregon 97221-2411 Phone (503)292-1635 Fax: (503) 2924/945 pmect 09-9o9 date designer m PS sheet 6 of Base Flate 15"x 12"x 1" Mc=7813 ft-lb-Sh#6 T= 12*M�—6.9kips MP= 15-4.16 *T = 37.4 in -kips (15-1.5)*1000 2 = 1261 S—2in3 fb= SP=18.7ksi =0.75*36=27ksi>fti—OK Cast -in -Place (C.I.P) Anchor Bolts fct = 4,000 psi d = 24" or r = d/2 = 12" (4) 3/4"dia headed bolts w/ 2" dia. x 1/4" washers hef=l2in do = 0.75 in d";=2in cal =6in - s)=12in eat = 7.5 in - s2 = 9 in \\ '02 T„ = 6.9*1.6 = 11.0 kips — Governed by wind Va= 1.25*1.6 = 2.0 kips - - Check Four Cases in Tension 1) Steel Strength of Anchor in Tension n = 2 bolts As,= t[*( 2 °)=0.44in2 fate = 90,000 psi N5a = n*Ase*fora = 79,2001b ON. = 0,75*N9a = 59,400 lb 2) Pullout Strength of Anchor in Tension Abrg=tt*(d2 ) =314in2 '1Jc,r = 1.0 Np=8*Ai, *fc.= 100,480 lb Npa ='Pe,p*Np = 100,4801b ONp_ = 0.70*Niw.= 70.3361b sl psi Peterson Structural Engineers, Inc. 5319 S.W. Westgate Drive, Sulte 215 Portland. Oregon 97221-2411 Phone (5031292.1935 Fax: (503) 292-9846 project designer (12—oo (Off date sheet c/lo% -T of 3) Concrete Breakout Strength of Anchor in Tension Ice =24 -C.LP. h' — max Sine s'a" -5 in ef— (1.5 3 ) * z r 226 in2 ANC = Z ANc0 = 9*h'ef = 225 in2 `I`ee,N = 1 No Eccentricity 0.3*ca,aua Tad,N=0.7+ —0.94 1.5*h'ef isc,N = 1.25 — C.I.P. Wcp,N = 1.0 Nb = kc If: Well = 16,971 lb Ncbg = AN *`Pec,N*`Yed,N*'I'c,N*tIIcp N*Nb = 20,030 lb ANC tNog 14A21 1b 4) Concrete Side -Face Blowout Strength of a Headed Anchor in Tension cal =6in 0.4*hef = 4.8 in < cat — No Analysis Required Check Three Cases in Shear 1) Steel Strength of Anchor in Shear n=4bolts Ase = rc �o Jl2 = 0.44 in2 futa = 90,000 psi Vsa = n*Ase*f to = 158,400 lb Vaa = 0.65*Vsa =102,9601b 2) Concrete Pryout Strength of Anchor in Shear kap = 2 Ncbg = 20,030 lb Vepg = kcp*Ncbg = 40,060 lb (Wm = 0.7*Vc„ _ :.0421b SSE Peterson Structural Engineers, Inc. 5319 S.W. Westgate Drive, Suite 215 Portland. Oregon 97221-2411 Phone (503) 292.1635 Fax: (503)292-9846 project date ‘/lO/o �} designer M / S sheet g 3) Concrete Breakout Strength of Anchor in Shear 1e = 8*dD Ave = [1.5*ca) + s) + 1.5*ce1]*(1.5*cal) = 270 in2 Awe = 4.5*cal2 = 162 in2 'Pec,v = 1 — No eccentricity Wed= 0.7+0.3*c ,vat — 0.95 1.5*cal = 1 la.z Vb=7*I a` J *VT, * f1 *calls=8,5411b le •VDbg = Av ' *'Pcc,v*'Yed,v*`Pc,v*Vb = 13,523 lb Ave. Abe = 0.7*,b 9.4661b Interaction of Tensile and Shear Forces ND = Ta= 11.0 kips Na+V <1 IN IN Foundation VD = 2.0 kips ll+ —2=1<_1—OK 14 9.5 Use (4) 3/4" diameter beaded bolts w/2" . 4" washers, Embed 12" 2'0" diameter x 6'0" deep L = 6'0" (8)#7 Vertical bars w/ #3 ties @ 12" Mc = 7.8 ft-kips fc = 4,000 psi V = 1.3 kips Foundation Pile Embedment: Sheet 16 — OK Flexural Bending in Pile: Sheet 17 — OK 24" DIA. c\\ TIES 7 BARS SSE Peterson Structural Engineers. Inc. 5319 S.W. Westgate Drive, Sulte 215 Rolland. Oregon 97221-2411 Phone (503)292-1635 Fax: (503)292-9846 project o9-00% date designer M (5 sheet g of Co -Gen Screen Wall Lower Hoag Drive Newport Beach CA 92663 MCE Ground Motion Latitude = 33.62282 Longitude =-117.93655 20061BC Section 1613 Earthquake Loads Per ASCE 7-05 Ch 15 Seismic Design Requirements for Nonbuilding Structures Soil Site Class D 0 Pp. 11.4.2 - Class D is default Response Spectral Acc. (0.2 sec) Ss = Response Spectral Acc.( 1.0 sec) St = Site Coefficient Fa Site Coefficient E, Max Considered Earthquake Acc. SMs= Max Considered Earthquake Acc. SM1= @ 5% Damped Design Sin = Sm = Building Categories Seismic Design Category: Seismic Design Category for 0.1sec Seismic Design Category for 1.0sec S7 <.75g 0 Comply with Seismic Design Category D Basic Seismic Force Systems T-12.2-1 G= Building ht. H0 Approx Fundamental period, T, = Use T=T,= 0.135 sec. 0.8Ts = 0.8(SDt/SDs) = 0.550 Controls 183 =1.83g 68.7 = 0.687g 1.0 1.5 F,.S,= F,.31= 2/3(SMs) = 2/3(SMt) _ 1.830 1.031 1.220 0.687 II, Standard D D NA D Controls Figure 1613.5(1) Figure 1613.5(2) Table 1613.5.3(1) Table 1613.5.3(2) Eq. 16-37 Eq. 1638 Eq. 1639 Eq. 16-40 ASCE 7-05 Table 1-1 ASCE 7-0512.3 Table 1613.5.6(1) Table 1613.5.6(2) See Pp. 1613.5.6.1 Date: 6/4/2009 File: 09.008-Seismic Alt other steel distributed mass cantilever structures 0.02 x = 0.75 ASCE7-05 Table 12.8-2 12.7 - ft Limited Building Height (ft) = NP Is structure Regular & S 5 stories 7 Response Spectral Acc.( 0.2 sec) S, _ Response Spectral Acc.( 1.0 sec) St = @ 5% Damped Design Sin = SDI — Response Modification Coef. R = Over Strength Factor On = Importance factor I= Seismic Base Shear V= Ct(h�)' = 0.135 sec. , Eq. 12.8-7 Yes ASCE 7-05.12.8.1.3 1.5g Fa 1.00 0.687g Fv= 1.500 %(Fa.S,I= 1.000 54F,.St = 0.687 3.5 1.75 1.00 Os 0.8St Cs R/l or need not to exceed, C, = SDI -1.459 (R/IE).T Min Cs = 0.03, For Si > 0.6g, Min Cs = '�' =0 157 R/I 0.349 0.349(W) UseC,= LRFD Design base shear V = Design base shear uo = 0.249 =0 157 Eq. 16-39 Eq. -16-40 ASCE 7-05, TABLE 15.4-2 Signs & Billboards ASCE 7-05, TABLE 15.4-2 Signs & Billboards ASCE 7-05 - Table 11.5-1 ASCE 7-05 Eq 12.8-1 ASCE 7-05 Eq 15.4-2 ASCE 7-05 Eq 12.8-3 ASCE 7-05Eq12.8.5, 12.8-6 Strength Design Service Loads = V/1.4, 1605.3.2: Alt Basic Load Combinations )0 EkonMobil Chemical ExxonMobilTM HDPE HD 6908.19 Product Description HD 6908.19 isa homopolymer with outstanding stiffness with a good balance of processability and cold temperature impact performance. This resin is ideally suited for articles requiring very high stiffness or enable down -gauging. This material offers excellent performance in structural foam articles. General Availability t - - • - Latin America • North America • South America Additive • HD 6908.19: Antioxidant: Yes Applications • Cases • Materials Handling Articles • Totes Bins • Crates • Pallets • Hot Fill Packaging Pails • Structural Foam Articles Revision Date - 2/2007 Resin Properties Typical Value (English) Typical Value (SI) Test Based On Density Melt Index (190°C/2.16 kg) 0.965 g/cm' - 0.965 g/cm' 6.2 g/10 min - 8.2 g/10 min ASTM D4883 ASTM D1238 Thermal Typical Value (English) Typical Value (SI) Test Based On Deflection Temperature Under load (DTUL) - ASTM D648 at 66psi - Unannealed — 160 °F - 71.0 °C Deflection Temperature Under Load (DTUL) ASTM D648 at 264psi - Unannealed - — 108 °F - 42.0 °C Melting Temperature - 277 °F - - 136 °C ASTM D3418 Molded Properties Tensile Strength at Yield Elongation at Break Flexural Modulus - 1 % Secant Environmental Stress -Crack Resistance 10% Igepai, F50 Typical Value (English) 4090 psi 48 % 172000 psi < 3.00 hr Typical Value (SI) 28.2 MPa 48 % 1180 MPa <3.00 hr Test Based On ASTM D638 ASTM D638 ASTM D7908 ASTM D1693B Impact Typical Value (English) Typical Value (SI) Test Based On Notched 'sod Impact (-40°F (-40°C)) 1.44 ft. b/n - - 76.9 J/m ASTM D256 Additional Information - Properties are based on injection molded samples. - Test procedures may be modified to accommodate operating conditions or facility limitations. Foodlaw & Medical Use Statement HD 6908.19 grade can - in principle - be used in food contact applications in the USA (FDA) and in Canada (HPB): Migration or use limitations may apply. Please contact your ExxonMobil Chemical representative for more detailed information and/or actual compliance certification documents for the specific grade of interest. ExxonMobil Polyethylene is not intended for use in medical applications. Typical properties: these are not to be construed as specifications. 02009 Exxon Mobil Corporation. To the extent the user is entitled to disclose and distribute this document, the user may forward, distribute, andfor photocopy this copyrighted document only if unaltered and complete, induding all of its headers, footers, disclaimers, and other information. You may not copy this document to a Web site. ExxonMobil does not guarantee the typical (or other) values. Analysis may be performed on representative samples and not the actual product shipped. The information in this document relates only to the named product or materials when not in combination with any other product or materials. We based the information on data believed to be reliable on the date compiled, but we do not represent, warrant, or otherwise guarantee, expressly or impliedly, the merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, suitability, accuracy, reliability, or completeness of this information or the products. materials, or processes described. The user is solely responsible for all determinations regarding any use of material or product and any process in its territories of interest. We expressly disclaim liability for any loss, damage, or injury directly or indirectly suffered or incurred as a result of or related to anyone using or relying on any of the information in this document. There is no endorsement of any product or process, and we expressly disclaim any contrary implication. The terms, "we", "our, onMobii Chemicar, or "F_xxonMobir are used for convenience, and may include any one or more of ExxonMobil Chemical Company, Exxon Mobil Corporation, or any affiliates they directly or indirectly steward. ExxonMobil, the ExxonMobil Chemical Emblem, the "Interlocking X" Device; Enable, Exceed, Exact, Exxco, Escorene Escor, lotek, NTX, Polybib, Paxon and Optema are trademarks or service marks of boot Mobil Corporation. oownlaed dale0h ell at xww,exxan0,c04e<om January 20, coos. vaw'.i az� 5319 SW Westgate Drive, Suite 215 Portland, Oregon 97221 Phone: 503.292.1635 Fax: 503.292.9846 www.psengineers.com General Section Properties Lic.=#:i(W-060824g8 ' Description : Panel Side Walls Final Section Properties .; Total Area 1.177 inA2 Calculated final C.G. distance from Datum : X cg Dist. 4.338 in Y cg Dist. 0.2275 in Edge Distances from CG. : +X 4.622 in -X -4.388 in +Y 0.2192in -Y -0.2341 in Ixx = lyy= Sxx: -X Sxx :+X Syy: -Y Syy:+Y rxx r YY GeneraCShapes` 0.02856inA4 8.006inA4 0.1220 inA3 0.1303 inA3 1.825 inA3 1.732 inA3 0.1558 in 2.608 in Dsgnr: MPS Project Desc.: Project Notes : Minted, 4 JUN 2009, 7:25PM Flk OERafect F9e61Z0X9109-Wi1u0902SDanerc t-034438.=8 ENERCALc, INC.14832008,Yer. to.221 ; icense Owner : peterson:structural engineers' Rect :1 Height = Area = 0.048 inA2 Xcg = 0.050 in Ycg = 0.220 in 0.110 in Width = 0.440 in Ixx = 0.001 inA4 Sxx = lyy = 0.000 inA4 Syy = Rotation = 0.003 inA3 0.001 inA3 78 dec CCW Rxx = 0.124 in Ryy = 0.041 in Rect :2 Height = 0.110 in Width = 1.500 in Area = 0.165 inA2 Xcg = 0.840 in Ixx = Ycg = 0.380 in lyy 0.000 inA4 Sxx = 0.031 inA4 Syy = Rotation = 0 dec CCW 0.003 inA3 0.041 inA3 Rxx= 0.032in Ryy = 0.433 in Rect : 3 Height = 0.110 in Width = 0.440 in Rotation = 102 dec CCW Area = 0.048 inA2 Xcg = 1.640 in Ycg = 0.220 in Ixx = Iyy = 0.001 inA4 Sxx = 0.003 inA3 Rxx = 0.124 in 0.000 inA4 Syy = 0.001 inA3 Ryy = 0.041 in Rect : 4 Height = 0.110 in Width = 2.000 in Rotation = 0 dec CCW Area = 0.220 inA2 Xcg = 2.680 in Ixx = 0.000 inA4 Sxx = 0.004 inA3 Rxx = 0.032in Ycg = 0.060 in lyy = 0.073 inA4 Syy = 0.073 inA3 Ryy = 0.577 in ME Rect : 5 Height = 0.110 in Width = 0.440 in Rotation = 78 dec CCW Area = 0.048 inA2 Xcg = 3.730 in Ixx = 0.001 inA4 Sxx = 0.003 iO3 Rxx = 0.124in Ycg = 0.220 in lyy = 0.000 inA4 Syy = 0.001 inA3 Ryy = 0.041 in Rect : 6 Height = 0.110 in Width = 1.500 in Rotation = 0 dec CCW Area = 0.165 inA2 Xcg = 4.520 in Ixx = 0.000 inA4 Sxx = 0.003 inA3 Rxx = 0.032 in Ycg = 0.380 in Iyy = 0.031 inA4 Syy = 0.041 inA3 Ryy = 0.433 in Rect : 7 Area = 0.048 inA2 Xcg = Ycg = Height = 5.320 in 0.220 in 0.110 in Ixx !yr = Width = 0.440 in 0.001 inA4 Sxx = 0.000 inA4 Syy = Rotation = 102 dec CCW 0.003 inA3 0.001 inA3 Rxx= 0.124in Ryy = 0.041 in Rect : 8 Height = 0.110 in Width = 2.000 in Rotation = 0 dec CCW Area = 0.220 inA2 Xcg = 6.360 in Ixx = Ycg = 0.060 in Iyy = 0.000 inA4 Sxx = 0.004 inA3 Rxx = 0.032 in 0.073 inA4 Syy = 0.073 inA3 Ryy = 0.577 in 12 Fax: 503.292.9846 wwwysengineers com Pi rated 4 JuN 2009 ➢ 25P General Section Properties Lics N f KW 06002408 v , .: -� �..r _.,,w -license Owner : peterson structural engineers' 5319 SW Westgate Drive, Suite 215 Portland, Oregon 97221 Phone: 503.292.1635 Peterson strucWml Pownaers. Description Panel Bottom Final Section Properties Total Area 3.566 inA2 Calculated final C.G. distance from Datum : X cg Dist. 0.0 in Y cg Dist. 3.498 in Edge Distances from CG. +X 2.846 in -X -2.846 in +Y 7.002 in -Y -3.498 in Ixx YY Sxx: -X Sxx :+X Syy: -Y Syy :+Y rxx r yy eq®rahShapes Rect : 1 Area = 41,482 inA4 18.191 inA4 11.858 inA3 5.924 inA3 6.392 inA3 6.392 inA3 3.411 in 2.259 in Dsgnr: MPS Project Desc.: Project Notes : 0.840 inA2 Xcg = Ycg = Height = 0.000 in 0.094 in 0.188 in Width = 4.470 in Rotation = 0 dec CCW Ixx = 0.002 inA4 Sxx = 0.026 inA3 Rxx = 0.054 in lyy = 1.399 inA4 Syy = 0.626 inA3 Ryy = 1.290 in Rect : 2 Area = 0.109 inA2 Xcg = Ycg = Height = 2.173 in 0.438 in 0.875 in Width = 0.125 in Rotation = 0 dec CCW Ixx = lyy = 0.007 inA4 Sxx = 0.000 inA4 Syy = 0.016 inA3 0.002 inA3 Rxx = 0.253 in Ryy= 0.036in Rect : 3 Area = 0.109 inA2 Xcg = Ycg = Height = -2.173 in 0.438 in 0.875 in Width = 0.125 in Rotation = 0 dec CCW Ixx = lyy = 0.007 inA4 Sxx = 0.016 inA3 Rxx = 0.253 in 0.000 inA4 Syy = 0.002 inA3 Ryy = 0.036 in Rect : 4 Area = 0.103 inA2 Xcg = Ycg = Height = 0.875 in Width = 0.118 in Rotation = 0 dec CCW 2.783 in 0.438 in Ixx = lyy= 0.007 inA4 Sxx = 0.000inA4 Syy 0.015 inA3 0.002 inA3 Rxx= 0.253in Ryy= 0.034in Rect : 5 Area = 0.103 inA2 Xcg = Ycg = Height = -2.783 in 0.438 in 0.875 in Width = 0.118 in Rotation = 0 dec CCW Ixx = IYY = 0,007 inA4 Sxx = 0.015 inA3 Rxx= 0.253in 0.000 inA4 Syy = 0.002 inA3 Ryy = 0.034 in Ems Rect : 6 Height = Area = 0.092 inA2 Xcg = 2.480 in Ycg = 0.906 in 0.125 in Ixx = IYy = Width = 0.732 in 0.000 inA4 Sxx = 0.004 inA4 Syy = Rotation = 0 dec CCW 0.002 inA3 0.011 inA3 Rxx= 0.036 in Ryy = 0.211 in Rect : 7 Area = 0.092 inA2 Xcg = -2.480 in Ycg = 0.906 in Height = 0.125 in Width = 0.732 in Rotation = 0 dec CCW Ixx = 0.000 inA4 Sxx = 0.002 inA3 Rxx = 0.036 in lyy = 0.004 inA4 Syy 0.011 inA3 Ryy = 0.211in _ Rect : 8 Height = Area = 1.059 inA2 Xcg = 2.480 in Ycg = 5.688 in 9.625 in Ixx = Ivy= Width = 0.110 in 8.174 inA4 Sxx = 0.001 inA4 Syy = Rotation = 0 dec CCW 1.698 inA3 0.019 inA3 Rxx = Ryy = 2.778 in 0.032in 13/. Steel Beam. 5319 SW Westgate Drive, Suite 215 Portland, Oregon 97221 Phone: 503.292.1635 Fax: 503.292.9846 www. sp ngneers com esign Description : Base Channel Mate'Iar.Properttes' M Analysis Method : Allowable Stress Design Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral -torsion buckling Bending Axis : Minor Axis Bending Load Combination 2006 IBC & ASCE 7-05 Dsgnr: MPS Project Desc.: Project Notes : C6X8.2, Span = 6.0 ft Printed: 4 JUN 2009 731PM l'b0 a4 ERCALB166 004006, Veri60.221 -License Owner : peterson structural engineers Calculations per IBC 2006, CBC 2007,13th RISC Fy : Steel Yield : E: Modulus : 36.0 ksi 29,000.0 ksi Service loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Load for Span Number 1. Uniform Load : D = 00710 k/ft, Tributary Width = 1.0 fl ,vES(GI1I;SUMMARy",; a;,�s ,` Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = Section used for this span Mu : Applied • Mn / Omega : Allowable Load Combination Location of maximum on span Span # where maximum occurs Maximum Deflection Max Downward L+Lr+S Deflection Max Upward L+Lr+S Deflection Live Load Deflection Ratio Max Downward Total Deflection Max Upward Total Deflection Total Deflection Ratio $ Ov®ralfsMalumtim,Difl, Load Combination Span 0.228:1 C6X8.2 0.320 k-ft 1.403 k-ft +D 3.000ft Span # 1 Iced L, ads,; Max.' " Defl 0.000 in 0.000 in 0 <360 0.105 in 0.000 in 687 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = Section used for this span Vu : Applied Vn/Omega : Allowable Load Combination Location of maximum on span Span # where maximum occurs Location in Span Load Combination Design OK 0.025 : 1 C6X8.2 0.2130 k 8.518 k 0.000 ft Span # 1 Max. "+• Defl Location in Span D Only Support 1, (D Only) Support 2, (D Only) 1 0.1047 3.030 0.213 k 0.213 k 0.0000 0.000 P0110501, S?,ucimel Endi eierson structural engineers, Inc. 5319 SW Westgate Drive, Suite 215 Portland, Oregon 97221 Phone: 503.292.1635 Fax: 503.292.9846 www.psengineers.com Steel Beam Design Uc. # �KW-06002408' Description : Post Material Properties Analysis Method : Allowable Stress Design Beam Bracing : Completely Unbraced Bending Axis : Major Axis Bending Load Combination 2006 IBC & ASCE 7-05 Dsgnr: MPS Project Desc.: Project Notes : d 4 JUN 2009 725PM : ciPflieci Flbsr1009b4901,bogo251N4006%Ene,v ENERCALG:ING 1483200E %3License Owner : peterson structural, engineers Calculations per IBC 2006, CBC 2007,13th AISC Fy : Steel Yield E: Modulus : W4X13, Span = 12.50 ft 50.0 ksi 29,000.0 ksi Service loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Load for Span Number 1 Uniform Load : W = 0.10 k/ft, Tributary Width = DESSIG I.SUA9M4R N ' �. ,3 r , 1 Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = III Section used for this span Mu : Applied Mn / Omega : Allowable Load Combination Location of maximum on span Span # where maximum occurs Maximum Deflection Max Downward L+Lr+S Deflection Max Upward L+Lr+S Deflection Live Load Deflection Ratio Max Downward Total Deflection Max Upward Total Deflection Total Deflection Ratio 1.0f1 0.642: 1 W4X13 7.813 k-ft 12.167 k-ft +D+W+H 0.000ft Span # 1 0.000 in 0.000 in 0 <360 1.604 in 0.000 in 186 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = Section used for this span Vu : Applied Vn/Omega : Allowable Load Combination Location of maximum on span Span # where maximum occurs Design OK.. 0.054 : 1 ,I W4X13 1.250 k 23.296 k +D+W+H 0.000 ft Span # 1 OveralhMaxrmum;DeflecHons-Urifactored;Loads ", Load Combination Span Max. '" Dee Location in Span Load Combination Max. "+" Deft Location in Span W Only 1 1.6039 12.500 Maximum Vertical;;lieactions - Unfactored Support & Load Combinath Support Reaction 0.0000 0.000 Support 1, (W Only) Support 2, (D Only) 1.250 k Palmson Sbda • 5319 SW Westgate Drive, Sue 215 Portland, Oregon 97221 Phone: 503.292.1635 Fax: 503,292.9846 www.psengineers.com Pole Footing Embedded in Soil Dsgnr. MPS Project Desc.: Project Notes : Pnnted 4 JUN 2009 l 25PtJ Rki: G:IRojset Flbs12009aa4001 m 040E.ec8 ENERCALC, INC. 1982008 Ver 6A.221 Lrc-#:-KW-06002408 <. ,, Description : Foundation Pile Embedment Gener'al!nformatlon Pole Footing Shape Circular Footing Diameter 24.0 in Calculate Min. Depth for Allowable Pressures No Lateral Restraint at Ground Surface Allow Passive Max Passive 300.0 pct 3,000.0 pst Controlling Values Goveming Load Combination : +D+W+}i Lateral Load 2.250 k Moment 7.813 k-ft NO Ground Surface Restraint Pressures at 113 Depth Actual Allowable Footing Base Area Maximum Soil Pressure App►peti,Loads, ; Lateral Concentrated Load 761.03 psf 763.42 psi 3.142 ft"2 0.0 ksf IeTobrii y7s tliwg '-"" Lateral Distributed Load D : Dead Load 1.0 k k/ff Lr: Roof Live k It/ft L: Live k klft S : Snow k klft W : Wind k 0.10 klft E : Earthquake k k/ft H : Lateral Earth k klft Load distance above Base ft TOP of Load above ground 12.50 ft BOTTOM of Load above ground ft k ,Load L",ombinatlon'i,Res%ilts +D+L-Hi +D+Lr+H +D+W+H +D+0.750 Lr+0.750L+0.750W+H +D+0.750 L+0.7505+0.750 W+H +0.60D+W+H .icense Owner : peterson.structural. engineers; Code References: 2006 IBC 1805.7.2, 1997 UBC 1806.8.2.1 sou surface Applied Moment k-ft k-ft k-ft k-ft k-ft k-ft k-ft Pole Cmss section. Diameter= 20' Vertical Load k k k k k k k 1.0 0.0 0.13 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.13 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.13 0.0 0.0 2.3 7.8 5.75 761.0 763.4 1.9 5.9 5.38 700.0 700.3 1.9 5.9 5.38 700.0 700.3 1.9 7.8 5.50 727.6 728.3 16 5319 SW Westgate Drive, Suite 215 Portland, Oregon 97221 Phone:503.292.1635 Fax 503.292.9846 www.psengineers.com Concrete Column KW-06002406 - Description : Pile Foundation General' Information fc : Concrete 28 day strength 4.0 ksi E = 3,605.0 ksi Density = 150.0 pcf (3 = 0.850 Fy - Main Rebar = 60.0 ksi E - Main Rebar = 29,000.0 ksi Allow. Reinforcing Limits Min. Reinf. Max. Reinf. ASTM 4615 Bars Used 1.0 8.0 Load Combination 2006 IBC & ASCE 7-05 Column Cross Section Column Dimensions 24.0in Diameter, Column Edge to Rebar Edge Cover = 3.0in Column Reinforcing :8.0 - #7 bars Column self weight included : 2,827.431bs * Dead Load Facto] AXIAL LOADS... Axial Load at 6.0 ft above base, D = 1.0 k BENDING LOADS... Moment acting about X-X axis, W = 7.80 k-fl DESIGN <SUMMARY.` Maximum Stress Ratio Load Combination Location of max.above base Dsgnr: MPS Project Desc.: Project Notes : Pnniec 4 JUN 2309, 725PM Flle:G tPralmt F8a02009f094i b 08d25109.0081E0041 cl09-00Bsa6- ENERCALC. INC.,1983 2008,`Ver 6 0.221 License Owner :;peterson structural en men Code Ref : 2006 IBC, ACI 318-05 Overall Column Height = 6.0 ft End Fixity Top Free, Bottom Fixed ACI Code Year ACI 318-05 Brace condition for deflection (buckling) along columns : X-X (width) axis : Fully braced against buckling along X-X Axis Y-Y (depth) axis :Fully braced against buckling along Y-Y Axis Type of Stirrups used : Fy - Stirrups = E - Stirrups = Spirals Tie s 40.0 ksi 29,000.0 ksi Entered loads are factored per load combinations specified by user. 0.06555: 1 Maximum SERVICE Load Reactions .. +0.90D+1.60W+1.60HC GK ✓ Top along Y-Y k Bottom along Y-Y 6.0 ft Top along X-X k Bottom along X-X At Pn = Pu, Load Contour location values are .. Pu= 3.445k rp*Ion = Mux-Muy Angle -- Mu at Angle = Phi*Mn at Angle = Mu-x = Mu-y 12.480 k-ft 0.0 k-ft rp*Mn-x= rp ' Mn-y Column Capacities ... Pnmax : Nominal Max. Compressive Axial Capacity Pnmin : Nominal Min. Tension Axial Capacity rp Pn, max : Usable Compressive Axial Capacity rp Pn, min : Usable Tension Axial Capacity 3.445 k 0.0 deg 12.480 k-ft 190.38 k-ft 190.38 k-ft 0.0 k-ft 1,809.80 k -288.0 k 1,076.83 k -201.60 k Maximum SERVICE Load Deflections ... Along Y-Y in at for load combination : W Only Along X-X 0.0in at for load combination : 0-6 5 General Section Information . p = -07& k =0.850 p : % Reinforcing 1.061 % Rebar ° Ok Reinforcing Area 4.80 in^2 Concrete Area 452.39 in^2 ft above base 0.0 ft above base e= k k 0.850 December 4, 2009 Hoap Memorial Hospital, Lower Campus and PCH Screen Landscape Hoag Project # 125889 City Plan Check # 0819-2009 No corrections on the partially approved City of Newport Beach Building Department plan check set on 09-23-2009. Refer to the Grading/ Revision correction list for the correction/ response list. \\ HMH\I25889\City\Comments \C.O. 14 2\Bldg Dept Comments_ Revision 2 Correction List (CO 41).doc KLE/NFELDER Bright People. Right Solutions. November 19, 2009 Revised December 2, 2009 Project No.: 103715 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Facilities Design & Construction 500 Superior Avenue Suite 300 Newport Beach, California 92663 :Plvf:TEESACH<NOW. jNr1-`WPiSRr q9LIHWIINCiTiAPPRCUa 11I6 0cC c',rOCIIESOF_ THE CiTY0 LcD d!ENT� D O, Attn: Mr. Gregg Zoll, Senior Project Manager.__ i0ErtT +A�giORE _8 001 11..01.0 7 620 West 16th Street, Unit F Long Beach. CA 90813 p1562.432.1696 f 1562.432.1796 CITY Of NEWP - - - - kleinfelder.com APPROVAL ORT BEACH BUILDING AUTHO.IZAiION TO PLANS DEPARTMENT Wlih CO 75 UC7 DO c » SON GOfi FOLA� �DINANC TSfPiANS, AnA'r0i �1 VIA pTE EXPRESS OR 0E„ N9 UA.RANTc'_ ' VO OR I ^IS _ ONCE N7ru � H NS ARE 1 EWPORT BE 'SIMPLIED ES: PJA 'S a PS,S IN ThnH« H 70 d nn INPCRT 6EACH. (SIG RE)� DATE is Subject: Response to Comments — Supplemental Geotechnicl a bails kOn Proposed Lower Campus Landscape Enhancement and Cogeneration Building Sound Wall Project Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California Dear Mr. Zoll: 0 YVI, H THE As requested by you, this letter provides Kleinfelder's response to review comments by City of Newport Beach in their Grading/Draining Plan Check dated October 7, 2009 and two Review of Geotechnical Reports (both dated October 7, 2009) for Kleinfelder's report dated May 29, 2009 and MACTECs report dated July 27, 2009. This letter also provides supplemental geotechnicai recommendations for the subject sound wall. As discussed herein, as requested by Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian; Kleinfelder is the Geotechnical Engineer of Record for this project. This letter specifically addresses the lower campus sound wall planned a few feet north of the retaining wall for the Cooling Tower facility adjacent to the Cogeneration Building. The retaining walls for the Cooling Tower facility and Cogeneration Building are laterally supported with permanent, post grouted tie -back anchors. The location of the proposed sound wall relative to the existing Cooling Tower facility and Cogeneration Building retaining walls is shown on Plate 1, Plot Plan. 103715/LBE9L123 Page 1 of 8 November 19, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder - - - - Revised December 2, 2009 KLE/NF£LDER Might �.Right m. PROJECT HISTORY Kleinfelder previously performed the geotechnical investigation as well as the geotechnical observation and testing during construction of the Lower Campus Cogeneration Building and adjacent Cooling Towers. Kleinfelder was requested to provide an updated geotechnical report addressing the proposed, Cogeneration Building sound wall, and we submitted a Geotechnical Consultation letter regarding the subject sound wall on May 29, 2009. It is our understanding that MACTEC was simultaneous retained by Hoag to provide a geotechnical report for the .Lower Campus Landscape Enhancement and Infrastructure Improvements Project. MACTEC prepared a geotechnical report dated July 27, 2009 that addressed construction of the sound wall as part of the lower campus landscape improvements. Both reports from MACTEC and Kleinfelder were submitted to the City for review, with the intention that. MACTEC's report would address the grading plan, while Kleinfelder's report would address the sound wall. During the plan check process, both of the reports were reviewed, causing confusion regarding responsibility as Geotechnical Engineer of Record, as well as which recommendations would apply regarding construction of the sound wall. We have reviewed the geotechnical consultation letter prepared by MACTEC dated July 27, 2009 for proposed lower campus landscape improvements/enhancements. It is our understanding that MACTEC is no longer involved with the project, therefore Kleinfelder's .letters and referenced reports supersede the July 27, 2009 report prepared by MACTEC. Kleinfelder has also reviewed the grading plan for the Landscape Enhancement/Infrastructure Improvement project. We have provided additional comments in this letter that address the comments related to the Landscape Enhancement/Infrastructure Improvement project. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OF RECORD As requested by. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Kleinfelder accepts responsibility as the Geotechnical Engineer of Record (GEOR) for the subject project. The geotechnical recommendations included herein and in Kleinfelder's letter dated May 29, 2009, should be used in design of the lower campus Sound Wall adjacent to the Cooling Towers and Cogeneration Building. PROJECT INFORMATION Based on the structural calculations provided for the Cooling Tower sound wall by PSE (June 10, 2009), • The sound wall will be 25 feet long and located approximately 5 feet north and parallel to the Cooling Tower retaining wall. 103715/LBE9L123 Page 2 of 8 November 19, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Revised December 2, 2009 KLEINFELDER bight People. Right Solution,. • The weight of the sound wall (including steel posts) is approximately 2340 Ibs or 94 lbs per if of wall. The net bearing pressure demand due to the wall (including the 6 feet deep, 2 feet diameter caissons) is anticipated to be on the order of 322 psf. RESPONSE TO REVIEW COMMENTS The comments are below in italics and followed by our responses. October 7, 2009 Grading/Drainage Plan Check Comments Grading Correction Comment 1. For projects on slopes Soils Engineer to stamp these plans with an approval stamp. Response: Kleinfelder is prepared to sign and stamp the plans as GEOR as they were reviewed by Kleinfelder to be consistent with the geotechnical recommendations included in our May29, 2009 letter. October 7, 2009 Review of Kleinfelder Geotechnical Report dated May 29, 2009 Comment 1. Please provide allowable bearing pressure for caissons. Response: An allowable bearing pressure of 1000 psf may be used for caissons embedded in the existing engineered fill. The actual net bearing pressure of 322 psf is less than the recommended allowable bearing pressure. Comment 2. Provide lateral caisson capacities under seismic loading. Response: Per our May 29, 2009 report, Kleinfelder recommended a passive resistance of 300 psf/ft with a 1/3 increase for transient (wind/seismic) loading. Comment 3. Caissons shall extend through the uncertified fill. Response: It is our professional opinion that the caissons are not required to extend through the existing fill to provide support of the subject lower campus wall from a geotechnical standpoint. Based on the following, we recommend the proposed wall be supported on the currently proposed 6 feet deep, 2 feet diameter caissons. • The dead load of the sound wall is extremely light: approximately 94 pounds per lineal foot of wall. The load is equivalent to less than 1-foot of fill being placed in the area of the wall. • The net bearing pressure demand at the bottom of the planned caisson is anticipated to be on the order of 322 psf. 103715/LBE9L123 Page 3 of 8 November 19, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder - Revised December 2, 2009 • KLE/NFELOER 8d hlhapk. N(9M SoMtot • Settlement of the fill soils below the wall foundations is anticipated to be low (1/4 to possibly 1 inch maximum). • Compaction tests on the upper engineered fill indicate 90 percent relative compaction which is suitable to provide lateral support for the proposed caissons. • As shown in Plates 1 and 2, the adjacent retaining walls for the Cogeneration Building and Cooling Towers are laterally supported by 3 rows of permanent tie back anchors. We are concerned that extending 2 feet diameter caissons within the area where the existing anchors were installed could compromise the integrity of the anchors and the adjacent retaining wall. We feel that it is an unnecessary significant risk to attempt to deepen the 2 feet diameter piers while trying to avoid the anchors. • Removal of existing fill is not feasible due to the presence of permanent tieback anchors. • The existing fill beneath the proposed sound wall was placed in two stages and in our opinion, is suitable to support the proposed lightly loaded wall. The attached Plate 2, Cross-section A -A' illustrates the two stages of fill soils in profile along the center line of the proposed sound wall. o The first stage of fill (afi) was placed during installation of the former terrace subdrain system. To mitigate excessive seepage at the base of the former slope along the lower parking lot, a subdrain was installed. The fill (afi) was placed to buttress the required backcut and excavation to install the subdrain. It is our understanding that this subdrain was installed in 1996 or earlier and observed by Law/Crandall or Leighton. Specific testing data of the fill could not be found. Two Law/Crandall letters, reviewed by Kleinfelder, appeared to address the grading of the subdrain. The Law/Crandall report dated February 27, 1997 (L/C project No. 70131-5-0689) states that site grading for the Terrrace Reduction Grading conformed to the project plans. In the Law/Crandall letter dated August 19, 1996, supplemental recommendations were provided to remove soft soils created/exposed in the excavation for the, drainage trench at the base of the bluff slope. It is our opinion that it would be very unlikely that the fill placed to backfill the installed subdrain and result in a 2:1 (h:v) graded slope would be placed at a relative compaction less than 90 percent. During site grading for the adjacent Cooling Towers and Cogeneration Building and during our reconnaissance in 2002 (prior to construction of the Cogeneration Facility), there were no significant slope instabilities observed in the lower fill and the fill was observed to be compacted. The lower fill was not used to support the Cooling Tower or Cogeneration building since the structural loads for the buildings was much higher. o The second stage of fill (the upper fill, af2, was placed under the observation of Kleinfelder during construction of the Cooling Tower/Cogeneration Building 103715/LBE9L123 Page 4 of 8 November 19, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Revised December 2, 2009 caN KLEINFELDER Bright People R19M Soo a2 retaining walls in approximately 2003. This is documented in our reports dated January 27, 2005 and August 21, 2006. It is our opinion that the fill soils have been in place long enough to respond to their own dead weight. It is not anticipated that significant settlement of the wall to occur if constructed as planned and per the recommendations provided by Kleinfelder. From a geotechnical standpoint, the worst case scenario of excessive settlement in the deeper fill is not probable due to the very low structural loads. Should this occur we would expect it to occur gradually and not compromise the structural integrity of the wall. If a post were to become out of plumb, the steel posts could be re -plumbed. This would be much more cost effective than caissons that extend 25 feet deeper and compromise the tieback anchors beneath the wall. Comment 4. Report conclusions differ for those reached by MACTEC, please clarify. Response: As requested, Kleinfelder accepts responsibility as the Geotechnical Engineer of Record for the subject project. Kleinfelder's recommendations differ from MACTEC's, however, MACTEC is no longer involved with the project. It is our professional opinion, based on the information presented herein that the proposed foundations for the sound wall are not required to extend though, the existing fill In our assessment, we considered the estimated design loads, our knowledge of the existing fill, and our knowledge of the construction of the two adjacent tie -back anchor retaining walls. October 7, 2009 Review of MACTEC Geotechnical Report dated July 27, 2009 For clarification, Kleinfelder has been requested to respond to comments by the reviewer regarding MACTEC's July 27, 2009 report. Comment 1. Page 4. Lateral Capacity. Please provide lateral caisson capacities under seismic loading. Response: See response to Comment 2, above (page 3). Comment 2: page 6. Installation. (a) Slight seepage has been reported at 5 feet (see page 3). Please discuss caisson installation and bottom cleanup under wet soil and groundwater conditions, (b) address potential of drilled caissons encountering underground gas. MACTEC reported that previous exploratory borings excavated in the vicinity of the project exhibited slight seepage at depths as shallow as five feet below the surface. For clarification, Law/Crandall boring B-3, excavated on November 17, 1995 recorded slight seepage at a depth of five feet, corresponding to approximately elevation 9 feet, (MSL). Some of the other borings excavated on or around the same date showed 103715/LBE9L123 Page 5 of 8 November19, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder - - Revised December 2, 2009 KL E/NFELDER seepage at elevations of 2 to 5 feet, MSL. Kleinfelder encountered perched groundwater at elevation 31 to 33 feet in borings KB-1 and KB-2 excavated at the top of the adjacent slopes in 2002. The proposed foundations are planned to extend to a depth of six feet below current grade (approximate elevation 55 feet) which is significantly above anticipated zones of seepage. Foundations are anticipated to be excavated entirely in previously compacted fill soils. Groundwater is not anticipated to effect the excavation of the proposed foundations. MACTEC also reported the odor of hydrogen sulfide gas at a depth of 6.5 feet (elevation 8.5 MSL) in boring B-8, excavated November 16, 1995. This boring was excavated on the east end of the site in the vicinity of the new child care center, approximately 500 feet from the proposed foundation excavations. The presence of gas was not detected in subsequent borings excavated by Kleinfelder as part of the geotechnical investigation for the Cogeneration Plant and Cooling Towers. Accordingly, underground gas is not anticipated to be encountered in the foundation excavations for the sound wall. Comment 3: General. Please review structural foundation plans for conformance with report recommendations. Response: Kleinfelder has reviewed the structural foundation plans by PSE dated September 23, 2009 and evaluated them to be consistent with the geotechnical recommendations included in our May 29, 2009 letter and subsequent clarifications, including those contained herein. SUPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS Seismic Site Coefficients Per the 2007 CBC, the following seismic coefficients should be used for designing structures to resist seismic loads. a Site -Coe i cig a ;:; lue 1 Ss (0.2 sec period, Site Class B 1.830g Si (1.0 sec period, Site Class B) 0.687g Fa 1.0 Fv 1.5 SMs = FaSs (0.2 sec period, Site Class D) 1.830g SM1 = FvSi (1.0 sec period, Site Class D) 1.030g Sin = 2/3 x SMs (0.2 sec period, Site Class D) 1.220g Sot = 2/3 x SM1 (1.0 sec period, Site Class D) 0.687g 103715/LBE9L123 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Page 6 of 8 November 19, 2009 Revised December 2, 2009 KLE/NFELOER Bright People. Right Solutions. Earthwork For. the Cooling Tower Sound Wall, we do not anticipate any significant grading since construction will primarily include construction of the wall foundations. As such, any earthwork performed (cut and or fill) should be performed in general accordance with the recommendations contained in our August 15, 2002 report (Reference 2). Copies of Sections 4.7 and 4,10 (Excavations and Earthwork Sections) from our August 15, 2002 report are attached for reference. The ASTM test methods used should be the most current method (i.e ASTM D1157 -07 instead of ASTM D1557-91) Concrete Prior corrosion studies performed by others (Reference 1) indicate that the site soils in the vicinity of the proposed sound wall are moderately corrosive toward concrete. The results are consistent with preliminary test results included in Kleinfelder's 2002 report (Reference 2). The reports state that soluble sulfate concentrations indicate that the onsite soils may be moderately corrosive to Portland cement concrete. The Portland cement concrete mix design used for concrete elements in contact with soil should meet the requirements of the Section 1904A.3 of the 2007 CBC for soils with moderate sulfate exposure. Per ACI 318, Section 4.3, Type II Portland cement should be used and concrete should have a maximum water -cement ratio of 0.50 and a minimum compressive strength at 28-days of 4,000 psi. LIMITATIONS These services have been performed according to generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices that exist in the area at this time. No warranty, express or implied, is provided. 103715/LBE9L123 Page 7 of 8 November19, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Revised December 2, 2009 KLEINFELDER 8141". b. Rigflhn/ens CLOSURE If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact our office. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Respectfully submitted, KLEINFELDER WEST, INC. Justin J. Kempton, PE, GE Principal Engineer / Area Manager QsuJES.33F,. � co 9Z �m rn w ~ No. C58653 �'F�cp. 12/31/10 l CIVIC- t .. 9.CF CA1-\*C) Timothy Slegers, PE Project Manager Attachments: References Plate 1 - Plot Plan Plate 2 - Cross Section A -A' Sections 4.7 and 4.10 from Kleinfelder August 15, 2002 report Review Sheets (3) 103715/LBE9L123 Page 8 of 8 November 19, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Revised December 2, 2009 REFERENCES KLEINFELOER �bgM P.O.. Right Solutions REFERENCES 1. Soil Corrosivity Study, Future Building, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Western Portion of Lower Campus, Newport Beach, Califomia; M.J. Schiff & Associates, Inc., dated December 6, 1995 (Project # 95177). 2. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Cogeneration Building and Cooling Tower Facilities, West of Existing Parking Lot, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, California; Kleinfelder, August 15, 2002 (PN 16901). 3. Final Geotechnical Observation and Testing Report, Cogeneration Building Project, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, California; Kleinfelder, August 31, 2006 (PN 31793/002). 4. Geotechnical Consultation, Proposed Co -Gen Building Sound Wall, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, California; Kleinfelder, May 29, 2009 (PN 86680-3). 5. Geotechnical Consultation, Proposed Lower Campus Landscape Enhancements/Infrastructure Improvements Projects, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian — Lower Campus, One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, California; MACTEC, July 27, 2009 (Project 4953-09-1121). 6. Review of (Kleinfelder) Geotechnical Report dated 5-29-09, City of Newport Beach Building Department, dated October 7, 2009; Plan Check No. 0819-2009. 7. Review of (MACTEC) Geotechnical Report dated 7-27-09, City of Newport Beach Building Department, dated October 7, 2009; Plan Check No. 0819-2009. 103715/LBE9L123 Page 1 of 1 November 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Revised December 2, 2009 PLATES ATTACHED IMAGES: Images: 00000001.JPG Images: 103715-basemapjpg ATTACHED XREFS: DIAMOND BAR, CA CAD FILE: L:120091CADDN 037151 LAYOUT: 1 PLOTTED: 18 Nov 2009, 2:42pm, dfahmey PROPERTY UNE CABLE FENCE PER LANDSCAPE PLANS I NOT TO SCALE ,M Kerman pekM on Y wwlt ,aeMAfYn ,a been .m�� m mane way et me/ingot te dry *that Mlx Mini Mx m ,....we ....M.. myna or mmY6 . is texas =m a..Mm. *ASP. a !INNS a M um M µ1Ch wo,Mtm N. Mnwat. b M-la :. a pnl.aq prod. nor .[ d .d a ISMS.a .n .n Mlp, wn.. 1M um or minim at Ow Mm..M, aMhM an this Wag* .pamiWn n«1b W,W aM pa WyamktaptlMMnRf (E) V-DITCH Sip /4" COOLING TOWER YARD S KLE�a/IN�FELDEy�R M� ro„` a. Right Solutions. www.ldeinfddetoom App rite ROX KOArr 111) PROJECT NO. 103715 DRAWN: 11/18/09 DRAWN BY: DMF STEP TreAPPArox Nor MA N PLOT PLAN CO-GEN BUILDING CHECKED BY: JDW FILE NAME: 103715p1-p2.dwg PROPOSED COGEN BUILDING SCREEN WALL 1 HOAG DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CAUFORNIA PLATE 1 ATTACHED IMAGES: Images: 00000001.JPG Images: 103715-basemap.jpg ATTACHED XREFS: DIAMOND BAR, CA CAD FILE: L:120091CADD41037151 LAYOUT: 2 PLOTTED: 18 Nov2009, 2:41pm, dfahmey TIEBACKS AT APPROXIMATE ELEVATION OF 44' AT LOCATION OF CROSS-SECTION 10 J _0 10 APPROXIMATE SCALE (feet) 1M Incarnate bed m W 9Kt- na.mLLn — Ma eo{o.� . a.n...n bsmiled .°I_a �n. notice. . ,.iRr'0* ft le scanty. completenft. bthe awe"� f�*er cameo baamst b net Mmrl*. m. • hmd stint moot nor b oc.lamd or LMnds ...noncom deep aeumW The use or misuse W W IMnaMm aa0M n 0* wept r. .a4Wnb 01116.el o kdeft piety .toanta.V 14Ybm,Y. 60 50 4D 30 20 PROPOSED WALL A PIERS (TYP.) EXISTING V-DITCH GUTTER EXISTING GRADE A' 60 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION OF TOP OF EXISTING WALL APPROXIMATE ELEVATION OF TIEBACK € OF. NEW WALL EXPLANATION aft ARTIFICIAL FILL (LAW/CRANDALL 1997) af2 ARTIFICIAL FILL (KLEINFELDER 2006) Qtm QUATERNARY TERRACE DEPOSITS — — — APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF FILL/NATIVE CONTACT KLEINPELDER�� \, w!Y... r®v & •.glee. $okSns wxw.Neinfetder.com PROJECT NO. 103715 DRAWN: 11/18/09 DRAWN BY: DMF CROSS-SECTION A -A' CHECKED BY: JDW FILE NAME: 103715p1-p2.dwg PROPOSED COGEN BUILDING SCREEN WALL 1 HOAG DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA PLATE 2 SECTIONS 4.7 AND 4.10 FROM KLEINFELDER AUGUST 15, 2002 REPORT gni:KLE1NFELDER to 4.7 EXCAVATIONS AND TEMPORARY SLOPES Temporary excavations, defined by OSHA to include trenches, shall be treated in accordance with the State of California version of OSHA excavation regulations, Construction Safety Orders for Excavation General Requirements, Article 6, Section 1541, effective October 1, 1995. The sides of excavations deeper than 4 feet shall be shored or sloped in accordance with OSHA regulations. In general, the site soils are considered to be Type C soils as defined by OSHA. For Type C soils, OSHA states that temporary slopes shall be excavated at a maximum gradient of 1'A:1 (H:V). Excavations below a 1 A:1 (H:V) plane extending down from the bottom of any adjacent footings should be shored for safety. All excavations should be inspected by the geotechnical engineer during construction to allow any modifications to be made due to variations in the soil conditions. 16901/DBA2R109 Page 23 of 45 August 15, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kitinklder, Inc. KLEINFELDER Based on the shear strength data for the onsite soils, we evaluated the potential for excavating temporary slopes steeper than 1'A:1 (H:V). Based on the strength parameters below, we analyzed alternative temporary slope gradients and associated maximum heights. The alternative temporary slope gradients and maximum heights are presented in the following table. The calculations are based on Singhs charts (Singh, 1970). Temporary Slope Stability (FS = 1.25) for slopes above groundwater Soil Strength Parameters Terrace Deposits Claystone/Siltstone Angle of' Internal Friction: 33 degrees 34 degrees Cohesion: 240 psf 1090 psf Unit Weight: 120 pcf 120 pcf Temporary Slone Gradient Maximum Height of Slope Terrace Deposits and Sandstone Claystone* 1'/::I (H:V) 25 feet -- 1:1 11 feet 50 feet '/4:1 7 feet 32 feet A:1 5 feet 23 feet *Note: A maximum slope height of 40 feet is anticipated. The maximum claystone height is anticipated to be on the order of 20 feet. Prior to excavating temporary slopes steeper than 1%:1 (H:V), the excavation shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record. Otherwise, the excavation scopes shall be shored. Recommendations for temporary and permanent shorings are presented in Sections 4.8 and 4.9 of this report. Recommendations for temporary slopes below groundwater can be provided for specific cases if desired. 4.8 TEMPORARY SHORING 4.8.1 General Excavations should be shored where there is insufficient room to make a safe sloped excavation. Recommendations are provided herein for the design and installation of conventional free I6901/DBA2R109 Page 24 of 45 August 15, 2002 Copyright 2002 lcleinfelder, Inc. KLE1NFEL.DER: 4.101'. General' All site preparation and earthwork operations should be performed in accordance with applicable codes, safety regulations and other local, state or federal specifications. All references to maximum unit weights are established in accordance with ASTM Standard Test Method D1557- -917- 07. ors 4.10.2 Site Preparation All surficial vegetation; deleterious, organic, inert and oversized materials (greater than 6-inches in maximum dimension); and demolition debris should be stripped from the site and exported or stockpiled away from the proposed building pad areas. Areas proposed to receive fill should be stripped of all loose or soft earth materials and any undocumented fill materials until a firm unyielding subgrade is exposed as evaluated by the geotechnical engineer. 16901/DBA2R109 Page 34 of 45 August 15,2002 Copyright 2002 Xleinteelder, Inc. • KLEINFEIDER US Prior to placement of compacted fills, the excavation bottom should be observed and approved by the project geotechnical engineer. After approval, the subgrade should be scarified to a depth of at least 8 inches, moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry unit weight. 4.10,3 Engineered Fill We anticipate that most of the on -site soils may be reusable as engineered fill after any vegetation, construction debris and deleterious material is removed from the site. The onsite claystone/siltstone soils have a medium expansion potential and should not be used beneath floor slabs or behind walls. Fill should have no particles greater than 4 inches in diameter, be placed in lifts no greater than 8 inches thick (loose measurements), and should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the soil's maximum dry unit weight. Import materials, if required, should have a liquid limit of 25 or Less, a plasticity index of 12 or less and should be uniformly graded with 10 to 40 percent of the particles passing the No. 200 sieve and no particles greater than 4 inches in dimension. Proposed import materials should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer prior to its use onsite. All earthwork operations should be observed and tested by a representative of this office. The on site siltstone and claystone materials tested to have relatively high moisture contents. Reuse of this material as engineered fill as well as other soils near the groundwater elevation may likely require significant drying prior to reuse. 4.10.4 Excavation Characteristics The borings advanced at the site were advanced using a hollow -stem auger and bucket auger truck -mounted drill rigs. Drilling effort was moderate through the existing fill, terrace deposits, and bedrock. The degree of difficulty in drilling was greater at depths due to the presence of coarse gravels and bedrock. Caving of soils occurred in the bucket auger excavations near the groundwater elevation in the terrace deposits. Conventional construction and earth moving equipment should be capable of performing the excavations for the shallow foundations proposed for site development. Recommendations for sloped and shored excavations are presented in Sections 4.7 and 4.8 of this report. 4.10.5 Pipe Bedding and Trench Backfill Utility trenches may either be backfilled with engineered fill soils or 1-sack cement slurry. Recommendations for both cases are presented below. 16901/DBA2R109 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page 35 of 45 August 15, 2002 I +5 A KLEINFELDER Where utility conducts are backfilled with soils, pipe bedding and pipe zone material for utility trenches should consist of sand or sitnilar granular material having a minimum sand equivalent value of 30. The sand should be placed in a zone that extends a minimum of 6-inches below and 12-inches above the pipe for the full trench width. The bedding/pipezone material should be compacted to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer's on -site representative or to a minimum of' 90 percent of the maximum dry unit weight. Trench backfill above pipe bedding may consist of approved, on -site or import soils placed in lifts no greater than 8-inches loose thickness and compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry unit weight. Jetting of pipe bedding or trench backfill materials is not recommended and should only be allowed under conditions approved by the geotechnical engineer of record. Care needs to be exercised by the contractor to protect buried utilities from damage by equipment when placing and compacting fill above buried utilities. Soil back fill is not recommended where the utility trench excavation is in claystone bedrock or below groundwater. Where the utility trench excavation is in the claystone bedrock or below groundwater, we recommended that the backfill consist of 1-sack cement slurry to at least the soil/bedrock contact, the groundwater level, and to a sufficient height above the utilities to protect the pipe from damage due to heavy compaction equipment loading. If heavy compaction equipment is to be used to place engineered fill over slurry backfill, we recommend that the slurry cover extend at least 3 feet over the top of the utility.. Slurry may extend to within 12 inches below bottom of pavements. The contractor should be responsible for the means and methods of placing the soil backfill and fi slurry backfill and should be responsible for protection and any damages to the buried utilities during compaction of fill over the utilities. 4.11 EXPANSION POTENTIAL Expansive index tests conducted during our laboratory testing on the onsite claystone indicate a moderate expansion potential. The results of a UBC Expansion Index Test indicated a UBC Expansion Index of 82, which is considered to be representative of a soil with a medium expansion potential. 1690IIDBA2R109 Page 36 of 45 August 15, 2002 Copyright 2002 Klcinfelder. Inc. 1■ KLEINFELDER 'F Efforts should be made to minimize large moisture content variations in the claystone/siltstone materials. Upon completion of grading, finish pad grades should be evaluated for expansion potential by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record and appropriate mitigation recommendations should be provided. The evaluation should include conducting UBC Expansion Index "tests and/or Atterberg limits tests as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record. To mitigate the potential shrink/swell cycles of the claystone materials, they should not be allowed to dry out and crack after excavating and prior to placing the filter material and concrete below. The foundation excavations in the claystone/siltstone materials should not be allowed to dry and crack prior to placement of concrete. If the claystone/siltstone dries and cracks, it should be excavated to moist conditions. Where the floor slab is underlain by the claystone materials, we recommend that the floor slab be underlain by at least 30 inches of' relatively "non -expansive" fill materials. The subdrain system filter materials may be considered as part of the "non -expansive" soils if medium to highly expansive soils are encountered. The recommended thickness of non -expansive soils may very depending on the actual expansion potential. The "non -expansive" fill should consist of granular soils with an expansion index less than 35 or a plasticity index less than 12. If the claystone/siltstone dries out and cracks, it will need to be excavated and removed prior to placement of the "non -expansive" fill. Rewetting the material will be very difficult and time consuming and may not be practical. To reduce the potential for drying out of the claystone/siltstone, the claystone/siltstone could be overexcavated by 4 to 6 inches and replaced with a layer of concrete or Visqueen covered with a granular compacted fill. Concrete exterior flatwork at grade to be constructed over the low to moderate expansive claystone/siltstone should be underlain by at least 18 inches of relatively "non -expansive" fill. Near -surface claystone/siltstone should be kept moist prior to placement of concrete. 4.12 CORROSIVITY Two selected samples of the soils encountered in the borings were tested for preliminary corrosion potential. The tests were conducted on samples from borings B-2 at 10 feet and KB-2 at 30 feet. The test results indicate that soluble sulfate concentrations were 444 and 54 parts per million (ppm) and chloride concentrations in the samples tested were 1639 and 763 ppm. 16901/DBA2R109 Page 37 of 45 August 15, 2002 Copyrigh12002 Kleinfelder, Inc. 4 m KLEINFELDER e tti w Soluble sulfate concentrations indicate that the onsite soils may be moderately corrosive to concrete. Consequently, Type II cement with a maximum water to cement ratio of 0.5 may be used for concrete elements in contact with the site soils. The chloride concentrations indicate the soils to be severely corrosive towards buried metals. The minimum electrical resistivity obtained for the samples tested were 290 and 260 ohm -centimeters and therefore representative of an environment, which is severely corrosive to metals. Our corrosion tests are preliminary in nature. We recommend that a qualified corrosion engineer evaluate the general corrosion potential with respect to the construction materials at this site, review the proposed design and provide corrosion mitigation recommendations for buried elements. The chemical test results are included in Appendix B. 16901/DBA2R109 Page 38 of 45 August 15, 2002 Copyright 2002 Klcinklder, Inc. J. Ai REVIEW SHEETS KLE/NFELOER Bright People. Right Solutions. axk S41/41219 pQtq-2001 620 West 16th Street, Unit r Long Beach, CA 90813 CITY GE NE'NFORT Fit `.'-ILGING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL OF THESE ' DNS ` Til DIE EXPESS OR IMPLIED May 29, 2009 AST �Q TION T v;CT C '1P IN D SISTENT P1lhT avr r �...A , P, 1PChi ac-0' THIS Project No. 86680-3 A „ C-s C ,,NT RESPECTS, IN CC I a Il n UL;P1c AN( PEAND.,,,'OLI [TEFIFO Tr. i r l h ,Y T. ESE PLANS Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian R = $ ul Y -Y WITH THE Facilities Design & Construction ce.l„�X�,., F,.Lh IEOF hr (D,% cl- N YcPT BEACH. 500 Superior Avenue, Suite 300 PERMITt. _ n r.VN:--,r‘r FocI4=NT• Newport Beach, California 92663 (SGNATUR=_) pc,:,.e-;�cvT SIGNATURE RATE Attention Mr. Gregg Zoll, Senior Prt{ect JVaager EF Subject: Geotechnical Cons» t'i n Proposed Co -Gen Btifitliu4-36tiiid Wall APPROVAL TO ISSUE Hoag Memorial Hos DATE: One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California Dear Mr. Zoll: pl 562.432.1696 f 1562.432.1796 kleinfelder.com As requested by you, this letter provides our geotechnical recommendations for the subject soundwall. Kleinfelder was the geotechnical engineer of record for the existing cogeneration building and provided geotechnical observation and testing during construction of the cogeneration project. This letter presents a summary of our review of prior geotechnical reports, the proposed project plans, a description of subsurface conditions at the proposed wall location, and conclusions and recommendations. In summary, it is our professional opinion that the soundwall can be constructed as currently designed provided the recommendations included herein are incorporated into project design and construction. Please note that this consultation is limited to recommendations for the currently proposed foundations and is based on existing data. Subsurface explorations or additional testing were not conducted as part of this study. As such there could be some variations between the assumed subsurface conditions described in this letter and those actually encountered during foundation installation. In addition, evaluation of the seismic design parameters used by the structural engineer in design was beyond the scope of this letter. PRIOR REPORTS The results of Kleinfelder's geotechnical study for the existing building were presented in our report dated August 15, 2002. Supplemental recommendations were also presented in our letters dated December 19, 2002, October 15 and 20, 2003 and November 11, 2004. Our geotechnical observations and testing during construction of the existing facility were summarized in our letters dated January 27, 2005 (for the permanent soldier pile wall and tieback anchors) and August 31, 2006 (for the engineered fill and other geotechnical aspects). 86680-3/LBE9L070 Page 1 of 4 May 29, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder K( EINEELDER __,Bright people_ Right Solutions. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Our understanding of the project is based on a cursory review of the project plans by PSE Dated May 7, 2009, and correspondence with Michael Schoch of PSE and Andrea Witjakso of Hoag Memorial Hospital. The project includes construction of an approximately 37 feet long and 12'% feet tall soundwall north of and parallel to the Cooling Tower Yard wall. The sound wall will be offset from the existing building wall by approximately 2A feet. The current plans indicate that the sound wall will consist of 12 feet long sound panels supported by W4x13 columns which will be supported by 2 feet diameter drilled piers extending 6 feet below grade. We understand the dead load of the wall will be approximately 1 kip per column and that a passive resistance of 300 psf/ft was used in design. Based on discussions with Mr. Michael Schoch, we understand that tolerable settlements on the order of 1 inch are desired but there is additional differential settlement that could be tolerated due to the nature of the wall design. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Soils and Bedrock: Based on review of our prior geotechnical observation reports, the soil conditions in the vicinity of the proposed wall consist of engineered fill overlying terrace deposits which are both underlain by clayey siltstone of the Capistrano formation. The fill appears to consist of silty sand, clayey silt and silty clay and vary in thickness from very shallow (less than 2 feet) at the west end of the wall to approximately 17 feet in depth at the east end of the wall. Field density testing results in the upper 5 feet of the fill indicate 90 percent relative compaction. Density testing below the depth was not available. The fill in this area was originally placed in 2002-2003 when the area was to be a landscape area and not originally intended to support foundations. The underlying terrace deposits consist of stiff sandy silts and dense to very dense sands and silty sands. Groundwater: Groundwater is not anticipated within the 6 feet excavation depth. There is a potential that seepage could be encountered at the bedrock contact as the bedrock is relatively impermeable. Tieback Anchors: As you are aware, the existing cogeneration building and cooling tower walls are laterally supported by post -grouted tieback anchor walls. The as -built plans for the tie back anchors include additional anchors added to the original design drawings and should be reviewed as part of project planning and design. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In summary, it is our professional opinion that the sound wall can be constructed as currently designed provided the recommendations included herein are incorporated into project design and construction. Our recommendations for foundation design and construction are presented below. • The currently design 2 feet diameter and 6 feet deep drilled piers appear to be suitable to support the anticipated structural load or 1 kip per column. A passive resistance of 300 psf/ft may be used for the engineered fill and bedrock to resist 86680-3/LBE9L070 Page 2 of 4 May 29, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder West, Inc. LK E/NFELDER 9n'ght 0.nPk. R&ht SONtionx lateral loads. A 1/3 increase may be used when evaluating transient loading such as wind and seismic conditions. • Total and differential settlement of the wall will depend on the thickness, uniformity and density of the existing fill. On the west end where the drilled piers are likely to be embedded into or terminate just above the terrace deposits, the total and differential settlement is anticipated to be very low ('/< inch or less). Where the fill is deeper on the east end of the wall, total and differential settlements are anticipated to be greater and could be on the order of 1 inch or more. There is a minor risk that adjustments to the columns may need to be made from an aesthetic purpose should movement occur that becomes unacceptable to the owner. We do not anticipate that excessive settlement would occur that would compromise the structural integrity of the wall. We suggest constructing the drilled pier and columns from east to west to allow the easternmost pier an opportunity to initiate some settlement while the others are being constructed. All of the total settlement of the piers is not anticipated to be completed by completion of construction • Planning and extreme care should be exercised during drilling so as not to compromise the existing tie back anchors. The "as -built plans" for the tie backs should be reviewed for approximate location and potential embedment. A sufficient spacing between the anticipated location and the proposed construction should be included in design and construction. • All earthwork should be conducted in accordance with our referenced reports for the existing cooling towers and cogeneration building. • We recommend that our representative be present during drilling of the drilled piers to document that the soils encountered along and at the bottom of the drilled pier excavations are consistent with the anticipated soil conditions and to confirm that the recommendations included herein remain applicable. LIMITATIONS The professional opinions, conclusions and recommendations presented herein were prepared in accordance with the generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices that exist in the area at the time of this letter and the limitations presented in our August 15, 2002 report. No warranty, express or implied, is provided. Subsurface explorations were not conducted as part of this geotechnical consultation. As such, the recommendations included above are only applicable if our representative is onsite during construction to evaluate the actual soils conditions encountered. 86680-3/LBE9L070 Page 3 of 4 May 29, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder West, Inc. LK E/NFELOCR Blight People. Right Solutions. CLOSURE If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact the undersigned. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Respectfully submitted, KLEINFELDER WEST, INC. Just' rf J. Kemp on, P.E., G.E. Timothy J. Slegers, PE Senior Professional Principal Geotechnical Engineer Qp,OFESSIpyq J. Ste 1% y* �F9a N m d No.C58653 xi * Exp.12/311lO * 6": CIV11- �P . OF CAL�FC) 86680-3/LBE9L070 Page 4 of 4 May 29, 2009 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder West, Inc. CITY:OP NEWPORT 'REACH eta DINO DEPARTMENT Rigyrgw-ov GEOTECHNICAL RESPONSE Date RespottankReceived:12-8-09 Date of Response:11 -19-09 Consultant: Kleinfelder Site Address: I Hoag Drive Newport Bach, California ?AV SOX DEPARTMENT PI UTE EXPRESS OR IMPLIED APPROVAL iN VIOLATION OF OR INCONSISTENT WITH THE ORDINANCES, PLANS, AND POLICE:: -Sr THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. THIS AUTHORIZATI APPROVAL DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT 1i4E SE PLANS ARE, IN ALL RESPECTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY, BUILDING, AND ZONING ORDINANCES, PLANS AND POLICIES. THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RESEF2VES THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE ANY PERMITTEE TO REVISE THE BUILDING STRUCTURE OR IMPROVEMENT AUTHORIZED BY THESE PLANS BEFORE. DURING OR AFTER CONSTRUCTION, IF NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCES, PLANS AND POLICIES OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. PERMITTEE'SACKNOWLEOGIAENT: (SIGNATURE) Prior to approval ofthe report attendto the following: . — TE POYide t011tePoihig P F°11tit FC:• -' UF.111 RC:ANL g_RE:'‘C ES SIGNATUR I, ate**. Bei** Passive. ressla . cit-7APTAEIIT „ . . SOiSMia *a case ( Ili . earth ,..._ Z. $tdita a coy, feinfelder- '14tt'f5: 6(;)2 niPait ..,!, . ° the GSttelaernheldment c ormantarn_igalsase4.0040enaathng. APPROVAL I DATE' Additional ContstelOgjnotsernonie required); Note toCitY;Settfil StstitsliaWd Coffin** that theConsultants (CEO. and R.C.E/Gathave. :tot grading, 'fotantationkonstruetion, and landscaping plans, per CityCode, there* q qq-q- with dm Consultant's maenad report and associated liadttiffins Of Revlon Out *vie* is interuktd to deter'ne if the Inbnitted *Ott® einiSply With Cate** and; selle.IY accepted geoutchrnettipmeliets within the local area The scope of our sera** for-Ole:000 pztyr haii.:*grgkrtimitoilo tiniest* visit and a tetdew etthe shove relitrenced geport:andeistartistedcdo - as futi)Ptied by the City of NO!* Nit& Rosititlysis reported data and/or GatelthOttte and PO/Patatiort of 000044,conetruction or Of Op recommends** are appcifitutily not " ,lithitt;tett .F0fle, Of *Vie& titittisiOW.404d not *considered s a cerlicration,„ approval.* acctsflnviOUs cintatiltott's work, nor is meant M 8fl **plan* • of liability: for Anal irelattininenclations Mode by the geornerne* consultant of record es the ;pnaject Ophlt9tts *Seated inthistetilew are liar City's use only. • BY: Gemini Weeratungzi, G.E. 2403 BAGAIN ENGINEERING, INC„ December 21, 2009 Hoaq Memorial Hospital, Lower Campus and PCH Screen Landscape Hoag Project # 125889 City Plan Check # 0819-2009 No corrections on the partially approved City of Newport Beach Building Department plan check set on 09-23-2009. Refer to Geotechnical Comment Responses included with Grading / Drainage Division set for supplemental computations. \\ HMH\125889\City\Comments\C.O. # 2\Bldg Dept Comments_Revision 2 Correction List (CO #1).doc ;says 5044 tou6(sap 60-n-[./ alep Oa-0 pafoid steers (ces):«&i g„..4 sesaeI M eeuw l lte lA16ee6w0' Pewyad stZ ellnS'eN+O wesleaA4 /d'M'S Bfe9 'eul'uesu16us io n awls uowood (q so!) tf -J Ls20/ cyyoa� o�h `/f v/ 21 sly 5/Q7-'' ><0 J/2 y s/ -}4/94 s'yl f 4- 40g/ 299 zoos Jail �°�i` v a`' s ej r 24 D�a Q0 v�ci ?4,7n �yl ,,2A dC f(aAt2 p�f�iram/ /7-4_i �. '/; `d e n i!' J, f 5 1T / f c / eI9/ -;744/ JO 55l/7 Jay /jl/,190f c25/ 7,9 07e /P ?t22/—a P (vh J>ir e.;" d >' s GJ (4F.!,3;p'/� /wi T //2-/t// ✓ l ss�JG •- 4I9g � i%14,/c/ 5 Gornioviptrvh (2007 1 et rQ 18 A-0 ® d=U 54O4-0 4-(`f-36A/,0 V1 A= 2/-3YP/5, b b di4rte/er Of Tyco i ✓ (/4 1d i S 7 n ce �j owe �� r-bvr'/ S yr /Join t o� e�,"/,�6Irron 67C `? (ti) And/el ///�� el e-a/ Korc-e, (//2 S = 4/�OL✓G,b//e �G ere / SB// keac �i y ,6aScd 4 lop/� - of // ern 4 c6,1 �� � 6=2¢¢ h = 12-5/ = 6_25ft _ An; P-1/ = t 2-5 ' 16 wnss:..0 wcAad S = 2050)(G)' )'t:33) 79g FM6�? / A. 231. 3. J ✓"GO'®ei C¢_/f Peterson Structural Engineers, Inc. 5319 S.W. Westgate Otivq Sable 215 Portland, Oregon 91221-2411 Phone (503) 292-1635 Fan: (503) 291-9846 project © 9—o02 date t2. -t7-0i designer 44 sheet of 2. 2 Ma, Suite 250 Irvine, CA KLE/NFEL DER 92619 Bright People. Right Solutions. December 18, 2009 Project No.: 106963 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Facilities Design & Construction 500 Superior Avenue Suite 300 Newport Beach, Califomia 92663 Attn: Mr. Gregg Zoll, Senior Project Manager PI 949.727.4466 fl 949.727.9242 kleinfelder.6om Subject: Response to City of Newport Beach Comments dated 12/14/09 Proposed Cogeneration Building Sound Wall Project Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California References: (A) "Response to City of Newport Beach Comments of 12/14/09, Proposed Cogeneration Building Sound Wall Project, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, Califomia" prepared by Kleinfelder, dated November 19, 2009, Revised December 2, 2009. (B) "Review of Geotechnical Response", prepared by Bagahi Engineering, Inc. on behalf of the City of Newport Beach Building Department, dated December 12, 2009, Plan Check No.: 0819-2009, Bagahi Engineering, Inc. Job. No. 206i-156. Dear Mr. Zoll: This is our response to the City of Newport Beach Building Department review comments for the above Reference A report. Our response follows each comment. Comment 1 Comment 2. Seismic passive pressure. For the assumed static earth pressure of 300 pcf, please provide corresponding seismic earth pressure based on selected seismic coefficient used for the active case (see Kleinfelder Aug. 15, 2002 report). 106963/IRV9L273 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Page 1 of 3 December 18, 2009 t KLEINPELDER might Ima.. Right hlutbre. Response 1 Based on our review of the previous grading, the fill in the vicinity of the proposed wall consists predominantly of silty sand and clayey sand. The average wet unit weight is on the order of 120 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Kleinfelder direct shear tests indicated friction angles of 31 to 35 degrees. For cantilever walls, Kleinfelder report of August 2002 recommended a static active pressure of 35 pcf and a dynamic active pressure of 20H applied as an inverted triangle. These values correspond roughly to a soil having a friction angle of 31 degrees (0), a wet unit weight (y) of 120 pcf, a friction angle of 15 degrees between the back of the wall and the soil (6), a horizontal acceleration coefficient of 0.24 (about 1/2 of the PGA) and a vertical acceleration coefficient of 0.1 using the Mononobe-Okabe theory and Coulomb equations. The equivalent static fluid passive pressure calculated by the Coulomb equation is 630 psf/ft. Kleinfelder's report recommended a design passive pressure of 300 psf/ft for the caissons. During a seismic event, there will be a reduction in the passive pressure. Using the same parameters as described above (0=31°, 5=15° and y=120 pcf), the calculated equivalent dynamic passive pressure with the Coulomb and Mononobe-Okabe relationships is approximately 488 psf/ft. In the previous response (Reference A), Kleinfelder recommended to increase the static passive pressure of 300 psf/ft by 1/3 (i.e. to 400 psf/ft) during the design earthquake. This recommendations was presented because normally a lower safety factor can be tolerated during a seismic event because of short term loading. If the structural engineer had used the value of 400 psf/ft, the safety factor on the passive pressure during the design seismic event will be about 1.2 (488/400=1.2). Based on our discussion with the structural engineer and review of the structural calculations, we understand that the structural engineer had designed the caissons using a passive pressure of 150 psf/ft for static and 200 psf/ft for seismic conditions prior to receiving Kleinfelder report. This leaves an additional margin of safety for the passive pressure during the design seismic event (488/200=2.4). No change to the present design is recommended from a geotechnical standpoint. Comment 2 Submit a copy of the caisson embedment computations based on lateral loading. Response 2 The structural engineer computations are attached. Closure This work was performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of Kleinfelder's profession practicing in the same locality, under similar conditions and at the date the services are provided. Kleinfelder 106963/IRV9L273 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Page 2 of 3 December 18, 2009 KLE/NRELOER � Mght hq4. NCM M SeUt,. makes no other representation, guarantee or warranty, express or implied, regarding the services, communication (oral or written), report, opinion, or instrument of service provided. We trust this information meets your current needs. We appreciate the opportunity to be of professional service to you on this project. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, KLEINFELDER WEST, INC. Jacques B. Roy, P.E., G.E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer Timothy Slegers, P.E. Project Manager Attachments: -Structural Engineer Calculations (2 pages) - City of Newport Beach Building Department Review Sheet dated 12/14/09 - Additional References Cc: Bill Rabben, RHDO 106963/IRV9L273 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Page 3 of 3 December 18, 2009 5eygen;r Pa OS ;VC Prc-ssrr/ G I/I%Iia/ lattrol Aware) Gas ¢aur -('ro r 2007 tic "74.6/c /Yo V._ 7 0/0d Sb�GGfB� be ice /v6r-/ft tor afras o'f /✓ram terit/s SGa / 5% // n 1r G/sy<y an 0 rmveJ nl G/vyey $rays,< 74c Vb/lre /i17c/ .Gdc7ve was �ov�✓s� ).er 2007 GAG /$4Y-- /. 74%3: vatic is 4a/f f kcLs is //s7feo in fs, yeofe$4;CC report ty 4-/e/n {c/dar 4 P9 15 Lr5E Petersen sIry Wrtl Engineers, Ina 99195.W. Westgate Orin, Sues 9e! PeNend, Onion 972149915 Phone MOM 2524835 flue (sw) 2924)845 project 09_cag date 12 -i7-09 designer peg sheet of Z m 2 sous ce/W Jeu&sep 60-4/- ZI eiBp $00-i O perad ➢➢➢YLBL (09J au➢NM md lard-Kua uaauo YUVlwd 9K 81n4401tO 414a011%.7AY➢t{9 lacy u➢u; jampituis N➢ugatl 1" 9 Y ={z,, an 6Oj l-h)t- gt1}(ig-05 0 -/# 64 6 1. h2`L =lf S62-' (c2-lit, 4os1)z= 3 • Sri /Ud v° VO"S /°!"' _ �f SZ"9 t�S"Zl = N (,e.I) r?„L'a £�/ ,&o yfo/r (io pa9C9' SL, J7a%/;os /w_ddy / al9J",o//f' _ 5 (he) % P o yJA U Q2'-OJf27 nits tvied «) ruftaJJo ,s1,"4e_ ; GI = q 7's/dAet = is4 ()Vin ,h)e1 tlJb`S 4=p (l -d 8/ 2 99l loot) v4y_tg{ter,'o9 a CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT REVIEW OFGEOTECHNICAL RESPONSE Date Response Received:12-8-09 Date of Response:11-19-09 Consultant Kheinfelder Site Address: 1 Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California Date Completed: 12-14-09 Plan Check No:0819-2009 Our kb No: 2061-156 Prior to approval of the report attend to the following: 1. Comment 2. Seismic passive pressure. For the assumed static earth pressure of 300 pcf . please provide corresponding seismic earth pressure based on selected seismic coefficient used for the active case (see Kleinfeldea Aug. 15.2002 report). 2. Submit a copy of the caisson embedment computations based on lateral loading. Additional Comments (no response required): Note to City Staff Staff should confirm that the Consultants (C.E.G. and R.C.E/G.E.) have signed the final dated grading, foundation/construction and landscaping plans. per City Code, thereby verifying the plans' geotechnical conformance with the Consultant's original report and associated addenda. J,imitations of Rolm: Our review is intended to determine if the submitted report(s) comply with City Codes and generally accepted geote chnical practices within the local area. The scope of our services for this third party review has been limited to a brief site visit and a review of the above referenced report and associated documents, as supplied by the City of Newport Beach. Re -analysis of reported data anchor calculations and preparation of amended construction or design recommendations are specifically not included within our scope of services. Our review should not be considered as a certification, approval or acceptance previous consultant's work, nor is meant as an ace ptance of liability for final design or construction recommendations made by the gextechmeal consultant of record or the project designers or engineers, Opinions presented in this review are for City's use only. BY: _ Gemini Weeratunga. G.E. 2403 BAGAHI ENGINEERING, INC. Ken Bagahi, Ph.D., G.E BAGABIENGINEE G, INC. KLE/NFELDER ADDITIONAL REFERENCES 1. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Cogeneration Building and Cooling Tower Facilities, West of Existing Parking Lot, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, California; Kleinfelder, August 15, 2002 (PN 16901). 2. Final Geotechnical Observation and Testing Report, Cogeneration Building Project, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, California; Kleinfelder, August 31, 2006 (PN 31793/002). 3. Geotechnical Consultation, proposed Co -Gen Building Sound Wall, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, Califomia; Kleinfelder, May 29, 2009 (PN 86680-3). 4. Geotechnical Consultation, Proposed Lower Campus Landscape Enhancements/Infrastructure Improvements Projects, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian — Lower Campus, One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, California; MACTEC, July 27, 2009 (Project 4953-09-1121). 5. Review of Geotechnical Report, City of Newport Beach Building Department, dated October 7, 2009; Plan Check No. 0819-2009. 106934/IRV9L273 Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder Page 1 of 1 December 18, 2009