Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutF2002-0324 - Misc (2)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 Building Department GRADING/DRAINAGE PLAN CHECK • Make the following corrections to the plans • Return this correction sheet and check prints with corrected plans. • Indicate how each correction was resolved. ( • Project Address / / I I E( ) /V L Plan Check # Z 3 27r -20c Checked by/ Ul Cr-A-1+1 Date 42-5 -Q I Phone No.) -2 f2. 5 2 7 2 PLANS MUST CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ,/1. Provide a site survey, stamped and signed by a State Licensed Land Surveyor or authorized Civil Engineer (License Number beStlieDtht�€Nurveyor or engineer shall monument property cor CITY OFNEWPppTBEACH CA g P P Y ,�T YM OF TNESE PUNS OOES NOT ryQNSTlmrt E OUP TEN/ WITH THE g01NANSC Cp ANY :IP INO INYIOuTWAw O.OR�. Show Job address.RESPECTS, IN PPROVAL ODES HOt GOappFE�HAiSHESE rU IIW �'�"0 PLANS AND POUCIESLTHECIryOFHlrp%%ppyE01N0 AHO 10NING (N as RtQQIgE ANY PEg41TEL TO PEVISE THE &"A H RESERVES ME •HTTJ { ,7,. Show vicinity map indicating site loca 1E NTE0SISARY `0!HOMFL9 A;Ti;>HE P:& DURW AFTER C°1161 C. OF THE CITY OF NEW POT BEACH V4. Show name, address, and telephon@PPtutmxalogxoY,piowner, plan pre INA=t tM d geotechnical engineer (if applicable). - PUDLIC Po--rs - .:_._.- ��'� ,- . Registered civil engineer or licen IRE Ic rc iiet . _to-starrip 't'^a--sis URns indicating license number. cRArnec PUNNI= _G. Show north arrow, plan scale, and legend. GATE: ArrAOPAi TOUSLE Identify ALL property lines) � (, �- tV `V. I "\'\ ; �'� r' ' ( 8.) Clearly identify the scope of work. Distinguish between existing hardscape and J 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. ,/9. 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. t Clearly show elevation of adjacent properties and the distance from property lines to adjacent structures. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach 11 Minimum gradients for drainage: RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS: Paved 1% Not paved 2% COMMERCIAL STANDARDS: Concrete 0.5% Concrete gutter in paved area 0.2% A.C., landscape areas 1.0% 12. 'Show finish grades by spot elevations to indicate proper drainage in all areas. All surfaces shall be designed to drain at a minimum of 1%. Use arrow to indicate direction of drainage. Glke7z, ' �', - 2 Z , C. Provide a drainage swale at side yard. Draw a section through swale. /14. Provide a Drainage design that prevents entrance of drainage water from the street/alley onto property. ei.t Show top of drain elevatiols and drain inve Show slope of drain lines (0.5% min.). Planter areas require drains. vations. ,L 7\(4Rs1kn oi^ C 18. Provide specifications for drain lines. Specify diameter (4" 0 min) and type of material. l Drain line materials must be: 1. ABS, SDR 35 2. ABS, SCHEDULE 40 3. PVC, SDR 35 4. PVC, Schedule 40 5. ADS 3000 with PE glued joints The minimum distance acceptable between finish grade and bottom of treated plate shall be as follows: —0 °-4L IIII— I \' •°A -i,ab. • o 6 . 20. a) 01.'• 3" Exterior Concrete Slab Slope Cat 1% Concrete: 3" i 0 Y—x=—• - .' 0 4 a 1 • 1, 1 1 0 % ° Soil: 6" Submit summary of all drainage devices and onsite parking and drainage improvements. Specify yardage of cut and fill. - eikA}ya-4t11 01A C- \ t9� 'AMN% Ok fr-G,,� 2 sill 21i 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. 22'. Design drainage to insure water does not drain over the top edge of any slopes. ,23 / Provide a berm at top of slope. Draw a section through berm. Berm to be 12" high and slopes towards the pad @ Q 1 a <24 Show top and toe of all slopes and indicate slope ratio. (Q 1 Maximum) 2 i zb. Put the pertine t "Grading Notes" (in iip'ted on attached sheet) on plans. r /26. Where gradinis proposed on adjacent property not owned by the permittee, obtain written permission from the adjacent owner(s). Obtain a haul route permit fro Tr fic Engineer for export and/3r import materials. G\ Cam. °v ( \\ 6,-ti Cro Show locations and details of subdrain system(s)�"�,� �a�nd outlet for retaining walls on grading plan. f?eSFb c± tR �c I �°ter a &vo krWs4h, 529. Place attached (Erosion Control/Paving) notes on plans. j30. Provide erosion and siltation control plans. Provide building or structure setbacks from top and bottom of slope as outlined in Section 1510.10 of the Municipal Code. ,-32. Provide two copies of soils and foundation investigation report by a licensed g geotechnical engineer. rill Soils report shall address the potential of�lseismica-llly induced liquefarcttiion. t �4. List soils report rec dations on fou d tion n. C P 2 4e tesu e P fib\\ Ye�bW-4�QN c Jct ,135. Proposed improvements or construction within the public/right-of-way or utility easement requires public works approval prior to issuing of a building permit. Submit an additional set of drawings for Public Works review. Provide evidence of submittal to Public Works or Public Works approval. New driveway requires Public Works approval prior to issuing a Building or Grading permit. Submit an additional set of drawings for Public Works review immediately. Provide evidence of submittal to Public Works or Public Works approval. "k`l\-u W ,,`4-b Q ft Y 95a341 6 3 3 . Fill out a separate permit application for: a) fence b) patio cover/trellis c) detached structures 7 �j w vv� JUAW C4vert) 38.'N Construction with basement 0-6\ \i'voV O N Provide a shoring plan and calculation prepared by a registered civil enginleer; also submit a separate building permit for shoring. (_ Plans shall show all buildings and masonry walls on adjacent property within a distance equal to the depth of the proposed excavation. �� Plans shall provide cross -sections at various locations to show excavation details. d) Excavations and shoring shall be made entirely within the project site. �e) A Cal-Osha permit is required for excavations deeper than 5' vertical and for shoring and/or underpinning. f) Submit a dewatering plan prepared by the geotechnical engineer, also show sound attenuation for the pump(s) and generator (if any). g) Obtain approval from "Regional Water Quality" for disposal of ground water. ubmit a monitoring plan prepared by a licensed surveyor or civil engineer authorized to perform surveying to monitor vertical & horizontal movement of shoring and adjacent structures and site improvements. Geotechnical engineer to stamp and sign the shoring plan and dewatering plan, certifying that the design is in compliance with his recommendation. Write a note on drawing that the geotechnical engineer will provide continuous inspections during shoring and excavation operations and during removal of shoring. k) Specify the process for construction of basement walls and removal of shoring. 1) Write note on the drawings: Contractor shall notify adjacent property owner by certified mail 10 days prior to starting the shoring or excavation work. m) If slot -cutting method of excavation is to be used, provide a drawing showing the location and sequence of slot cuts. n) Non -cantilevered retaining walls must be shored until the bracing element(s) is in place. Provide a design for wall shoring. See drawings for additional corrections. — `1 �1 ere 'art ',o 0Ike". : rrt"Ci'` ``' i ` ("4141 5 ADDITTIONAL CORRECTIONS // lc 04..o . n—o�d- .tz4p4,2 ren,..AV ore- (form\drainpc-11/99) 4 RESOURCES CREATING SOLUTIONS April 19, 2002 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian c/o Mr. Mick Cunningham Taylor & Associates, Architects 2220 North University Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Subject: Dear Mr. Cunningham: REO MEE AUTHORIZED BY THESE PLANS rRERYPE DURING OR AFTER CONSTRUC- TION. IF NECESSARY TO COMPLY PAID THE ORDINANCES. PLANS AND PoutNIS Responses to Review Comments frown{thlsflbkiwjF iftB-B6ach Fire Department Report of Revised Geotechnical L spgatitmsov;E.;'G,: ENT Proposed Women's Paviiio.+ (formerly Lan Addition) Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyteffiltf &:LL _ _. Newport Beach, California PUBLIC 'EMETIC 'rvnattrel BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CA APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS DOES NOT CpNSTITUTE EXPRESS OR IMPLIED AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT ANY BUILDING IN VIOLATION OF, OR INCONS& TENT WITH, THE ORDINANCES, PLANS AND POLICIES OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. THIS APPROVAL DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT THESE PLANS ARE, IN ALL RESPECTS, IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY, BUILDING AND ZONING ORDINANCES. PLANS AND POLICIES THE CITY Or NEWPORT BEACH RESERVES THE RIGHT TO DIRE ANY PERMIIEL TO HIV "±i. THE CUiLOiNS, TPJCTURE OR IMPROVE` DATE Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-033({1007 PLANNING BY DATE APPROVAL TO ISSUE In this letter, we provide our responses to a comment regarding pavement design from Ms. Kim Lerch of the Newport Beach Fire Department. We presented the results of our geotechnical investigation at Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian for the proposed Women's Pavilion (formerly named East Addition) and the recently constructed East Parking Structure in reports dated November 3, 1999 and September 10, 1999, respectively (our Project No. 70131-9-0330). Pavement design recommendations were presented in our report for the East Parking Structure, which were incorporated in the design drawings for both projects. The comment was presented in a letter dated July 5, 2002. Comment Roads must be constructed of a material that provides an all weather driving surface and capable of supporting the 71,000 pounds imposed load for fire apparatus. Please provide calculations stamped and signed by a registered professional engineer (RPE) certifiing that the proposed surface meets the above criteria for driveways #120 & #126 on sheet A-1.2.3. Response As discussed with Ms. Lerch, the subject driveways were designed per the pavement recommendations in our geotechnical report for the East Parking Structure. The subject driveways will have asphalt concrete or portland cement concrete pavement sections designed for a Traffic Index of 51/4. Accordingly, these driveways will have an all-weather driving surface capable of supporting the fire apparatus mentioned in the comment. LAW Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. 200 Citadel Drive Los Angeles, CA 90040-1554 323-889-5300 • Fax: 323-721-6700 1-loag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Responses to Review Comments April 19, 2002 Gaw/Cramall Project 70131-9-0330,0007 Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this letter. Please bind this letter to the front of our report. Sincerely, LAW/CRANDALL A DIVISION OF LAW ENGINEERING AND.ENVJRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. ccpEESSIQ C. kid F� NO. C58046 :a1`, Carl C. Kim Senior Engineer Project Manager Marshall Lew, Ph.D. Senior Principal Vice President CrlProjects170131 Geotech199 pro response to city)190330-07r102.DOC/CK:ck (4 copies submitted) 2 • RESOURCES CREATING SOLUTIONS April 19, 2002 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian c/o Mr. Mick Cunningham Taylor & Associates, Architects 2220 North University Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Subject: Responses to Review Comments from the Newport Beach Fit t Department Report of Revised Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Women's Pavilion (formerly East Atioiiwn) Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Newport Beach, California Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0007 Dear Mr. Cunningham: In this letter, we provide our responses to a comment regarding pavement design from Ms. Kim Lerch of the Newport Beach Fire Department. We presented the results of our geotechnical investigation at Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian for the proposed Women's Pavilion (formerly named East Addition) and the recently constructed East Parking Structure in reports dated November 3, 1999 and September 10, 1999, respectively (our Project No. 70131-9-0330). Pavement design recommendations were presented in our report for the East Parking Structure, which were incorporated in the design drawings for both projects. The comment was presented in a letter dated July 5, 2002. Comment Roads must be constructed of a material that provides an all weather driving surface and capable of supporting the 71,000 pounds imposed load for fire apparatus. Please provide calculations stamped and signed by a registered professional engineer (RPE) certifying that the proposed surface meets the above criteria for driveways #120 & #126 on sheet A-1.2.3. Response As discussed with Ms. Lerch, the subject driveways were designed per the pavement recommendations in our geotechnical report for the East Parking Structure. The subject driveways will have asphalt concrete or portland cement concrete pavement sections designed for a Traffic Index of 51/2. Accordingly, these driveways will have an all-weather driving surface capable of supporting the fire apparatus mentioned in the comment. LAW Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. 200 Citadel Drive Los Angeles, CA 90040-1554 323-889-5300 • Fax: 323-721-6700 T Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Responses to Review Comments April 19, 2002 I,aw/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0007 Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this letter. Please bind this letter to the front of our report. Sincerely, LAW/CRANDALL A DIVISION OF LAW ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. Carl C. Kim Senior Engineer Project Manager G:IProjects170131 Geotec (4 copies submitted) kfrievIdA rn tri .iseponse to city)190330-07r102.DOC/CK: ck Marshall Lew, Ph.D. Senior Principal Vice President 2 ,Timothy Riley Fire Chief 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach CA 92658-8915 NEWPORT BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT July 5, 2002 Taylor & Associates Regier D. Randy 2200 University Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 VIA FACSIMILE (213) 897-0168 Re: Hoag Hospital East Tower (OSHPD 991554-30; TAA 1350.4; and NBFD 2822-2001). Mr. Randy, I have completed my review of the submittal referenced above and have the following comments. Roads must be constructed of a material that provides an all weather driving surface and capable of supporting the 71,000 pounds imposed load for fire apparatus. Please provide calculations stamped and signed by a registered professional engineer (RPE) certifying that the proposed surface meets the above criter}s fo dr vewa ' #12 & #126 on sheet A-1.2.3. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Indicate on plans elevation of canopy and type of material o co st ction. NIr , _ a,a--ma y OXIL FM-200 shall not be allowed in lieu of fire sprinklers. Change note #7 on sheet T-1 to reflect this equirement. r� o2Qi Y� OAA If you have any questions or need further assistance, please feel free to contact me at (949) 644-3106. BUILDING DEPARTMENT Sincerely, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CA AOMOVAL OF THESE PLANS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE EXPRESS OA IMPLIED AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUE ANY BUILDING IN VIOLATION OF. OR INCONSIS rw` TENT WITH, APPROVALP OVDOES, PLANS AND POLICES OF ESE CITYOFAREWPORT SEACH. THIS DOES NOT GIARANTEE THAT THESE CLANS ARE, IN ALL RFaPcrr IN COMPLIANCE WEIN CITY, BUILDING AND ZONING ORDINANCES, Kim Lerch PLANS AND POLICIES. THE CITY OF ;JLWPORI BEACH RESFR" ES THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE ANY PERMITEE IC frLVISI THE HUNG, STRUCTURE OR IMPROVE Fire Protection Specialist PENT AUTHORIZED BY THESE ThPi !FCCRA, 0:THING OR AFTER CONSTRUC- TION, IF NECESSARY TO CCMPLt HITS 1 ME ORDINANCES PLANS AND POLICIES Newport Beach Fire DepartlneOrtTHE CITY OF NEWPORT ELAN+ APPLICANTS ACKNEAYLECiE,ILY" Cc: Bill Cadieux, Hoag Hospital Don Summers, OSHPD DEPART'.'?:T DATE PUB IC -;'LARKS TRAFFIC,FIRE 'SiunerWel GHAU!NG PLANNING APPROVAL TO cSOE BY: OATE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GEOTECHNICAL REPORT REVIEW CHECKLIST Date Received: November 30, 2001 Date of Report: November 3, 1999 Consultant: LawGibb Group Additional Documents Reviewed: Grading, Paving and Drainage Plans for the East Tower by Taylor and Associates Applicant Name: Randy Regier Taylor and Associates 2220 N. University Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Site Address: One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California Date completed: December 5, 2001 Plan Check No: 2827-2001 Our Job No: 117M-156 Title of Report: Report of Revised Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed East Addition, Hoag Memorial Hospital, Presbyterian, Newport Beach, California Purpose of Report: Geotechnical recommendations for a multi -story hospital building Project Information/Background: Y/N Review of Existing City Files Y/N Reference to Site(s) by Street Address Y/N Reference to Grading/Foundation Plans by Date Y/N Subsurface Investigation Y/N Aerial Photograph Geologic Hazards: Hazard Discussion Adverse Geologic Structure Y/N/NA Bluff Retreat Y/N/NA Debris/Mud Flow Y/N/NA Differential Settlement Y/N/NA Erosion Y/N/NA Expansive Soils Y/NfA Faulting Y/N/NA Fractured Bedrock Y/N/NA Groundwater Y/N/NA Landslide YIN/NA Liquefaction Y/N/NA Settlement/Collapsible Soils Y/N/NA Slump Y/N/NA Soil/Rock Creep Y/N/NA Sulfate Rich Soils Y/N/NA Supporting Analysis/Data Recommendations for Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Slope Stability Calculations Shear Strength Values Other Laboratory Data Seismicity Boring/Trench Logs Liquefaction Study Calculations Supporting Recommendations Geologic Map and Cross Sections Drainage Plan Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Foundations Retaining Walls Foundation Setbacks Slabs Flatwork Grading Pools/Spas Slope/Bluff Setbacks Adequacy for Intended use Not Adversely Impacting Adjoining Sites X PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE REPORT, ATTEND TO THE ITEMS BELOW: Page 15, Excavation and Slopes: Please verify whether the proposed 1:1 slope have the minimum FOS required for temporary slopes, considering the presence of sands in the lower portion of the slope. The gradation tests and field classifications indicate low fines contents implying very little cohesion in the sand. Page 21, Deflection of Soldier Piles: The report states that the lateral deflection of soldier piles could be on the order of 1 inch. Can this lateral deflection produce vertical and lateral movements of adjacent footings (if not underpinned) to cause distress? Please address. Page 12, Bearing value and settlement: Please provide computations with lab data for the recommended bearing of 6000 psf. Also provide span over which differential settlement is estimated. Page 15 , Section 7.4: Please provide Ca and Cv values per 97 UBC. Supplemental Recommendations on mat foundations and seismic lateral earth pressures: •The influence zone of the mat foundation would extend beyond the maximum exploration depth. Please indicate whether the effect of subsurface materials located below the explored depths were considered in the analysis and the estimated settlements are reasonable. •The report implies that the mat would settle about 1 ''A inches uniformly. The settlement of the mat may not be uniform unless the mat is extremely rigid and the subsurface materials within the influence zone are homogeneous (see the above comment). Generally in large mats, there could be appreciable differential settlements between corners/edges and the center, causing additional stresses in the mat. Please explain why the differential settlements within the mat were not considered. •The seismic lateral earth pressure given in the report appears to be low, considering the relatively high accelerations predicted for the site. Please indicate the acceleration used for evaluating the lateral earth pressure. How is this acceleration related to the DBE or UBE? What is the basis for using this acceleration? •Please provide for double corrosion protection for permanent anchors. •Please address the potential for distress to structures above proposed anchors when anchors are loaded to 200 percent. General: •Please provide recommendations for design of (internal street) pavements and flatwork. •The magnitude of DBE is not presented in the report. Is it 0.42g as shown in Table 2? X Please state that the proposed construction would not adversely impact adjoining properties. X Please review and comment upon the geotechnical aspects of the grading plan and the foundation plan and Qr— verify that the plans are in conformance with the geotechnical recommendations of the referenced report. 18� Please include a copy of the plans with your response. 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: Gamini Weeratunga, G.E. 2403 BAGAHI ENGINEERING, INC. BY; Ken Bagahi, Ph.D., G.E BAGAHI ENGINEE .7_ Pia LAW Crandall =AWGIBB Group Member A April 19, 2002 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian c/o Mr. Randy Regier, AIA Taylor & Associates, Architects 2220 North University Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 APR 2 3 2002 . � .. �.. .. ,.i l V . ARCHITECTS. Subject: Responses to Review Comments from the City of Newport Beach Report of Revised Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Women's Pavilion (formerly East Addition) Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Newport Beach, California Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0007 Dear Mr. Regier: In this letter, we provide our responses to review comments by Bagabi Engineering, the reviewers for the City of Newport Beach, on our geotechnical investigation report for the proposed Women's Pavilion (formerly named East Addition) at Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (Our Project No. 70131-9-0330). The review comments were presented in a checklist dated December 5, 2001. Comment No. 1 Page 15, Excavation and Slopes: Please verify whether the proposed 1:1 slope [will] have the minimum FOS required for temporary slopes, considering the presence of sands in the lower portion of the slope. The gradation tests and field classifications indicate low fines contents implying very little cohesion in the sand. Response The thick sand layers generally encountered below depths of 15 to 20 feet in our borings at the project site are dense to very dense marine terrace deposits. As documented in our borings logs (Appendix A of our report), no caving was observed in our large -diameter bucket auger borings at the site, which is consistent with our observations in prior large -diameter borings for other projects at the hospital's upper campus. Furthermore, the sandy terrace deposits at the site have provided adequate support for temporary 1:1 sloped embankments during prior projects at the hospital's upper campus. A Division of LAW Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. 200 Citadel Drive 0 Los Angeles, CA 90040-1554 323-889-5300 0 Fax: 323-721-6700 April 19. 2002 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Responses to Review Comments Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0007 Because of the confinement provided by overlying materials, sandy terrace deposits at the bottom of embankments will have sufficient shear strength derived from soil friction to safely support temporary 1:1 slopes (Please see Figure A-3 in Appendix A of our report). As stated in Section 7.5 of our report (pages 15 and 16), we recommend that runoff water be diverted away from the face of embankments to prevent erosion of the slope surface. Comment No. 2 Page 21, Deflection of Soldier Piles: The report states that the lateral deflection of soldier piles could be on the order of 1 inch. Can this lateral deflection produce vertical and lateral movements of adjacent footings (f not underpinned) to cause distress? Please address. Response The potential need for underpinning is discussed in Section 7.6 of our report (page 16). If adjacent buildings are not underpinned, the shoring design will be stiffened as necessary to prevent excessive vertical or lateral movement of adjacent buildings. The estimated deflection of 1 inch provided in page 21 of our report is for cantilevered shoring away from existing buildings. Comment No. 3 Page 12, Bearing Value and Settlement: Please provide computations with lab data for the recommended bearing of 6000 psf. Also provide span over which differential settlement is estimated. Response Computations are attached for your reference. Results of laboratory testing used in our analyses are presented in Appendix A of our report. Differential settlement is estimated for a span corresponding to column spacing, which is about 27 feet. 2 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Responses to Review Comments Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0007 Comment No. 4 Page 15, Section 7.1: Please provide Ca and Cv values per 97 UBC. Response April 19, 2002 The following Uniform Building Code (UBC) seismic parameters are provided in Section 7.1 of our report: • Seismic Zone = 4 • Soil Profile Type = Sc • Near -source Factor Na = 1.3 • Near -source Factor Nv = 1.6 Given the above UBC seismic parameters, the Ca and Cv values are calculated per Tables 16-Q and 16-R of the UBC, 1997 Edition. Per Table 16-Q, Ca = [0.40Na] = 0.52. Per Table 16-R, Cv = [0.56Nv] = 0.90. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this letter. of our report. Sincerely, LAW/CRANDALL .4 DIVISION OF LAW ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. Carl C. Kim Senior Engineer Project Manager G:IProjects170131 Geotec (4 copies submitted) Enclosures OFESS/py C r: NO. C58046 _= CN11. Please bind this letter to the front Marshall Lew, Ph.D. Senior Principal Vice President o city)190330-07r101. DOC/CK: ck 3 BEARING CAPACITY -- TERZAGHI EQUATION Client: Hoag Hospitial Job No: 70131-7-0254.0001 By: ms SOIL PROPERTIES: 18 bABA Type of Footing: CONTINUOUS Type of shear GENERAL Factor of safety: 3 BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS: UNIT WEIGHT = 120 pcf Nc = 44.0 COHESION = 300 psf Ng = 28.5 FRICTION ANGLE = 32 degrees Ngamma = 27.5 FOOTING SHAPE MULTIPLIERS: Sc = Sgamma = TERZAGHI EQUATION: Allowable bearing capadty = (Sc(c*Nc) + gamma*DEPTH•Nq + 0.5'Sgamma'gamma'WIDTH'Ngamma) / FS Allowable bearing capacities psf) for various footing depths and widths: Footing Width (ft) Depth (ft) 1 2 4 6 10 0 2 4 6 4950 5500 6600 7700 9900 7230 7780 8880 9980 12180 9510 10060 11160 12260 14460 11790 12340 13440 14540 16740 12G GOoc PSf 3 1.0 1.0 2 0 to 0 3 4 6 0 ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY (psf) 5000 10000 15000 20000 FOOTING WI S-1 —is-2 t4 6/23/97 8:30 AM LAW/CRANDALL, INC. Bearingl1 by Victor Langhaar LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES PROGRAM SETTLE -- VERSION 2-01 SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS - under center of SQUARE footing CLIENT: Hoag Hospital JOB NO 70131-7-0254.1 BY: JE I CASE: Col. Load =800 Kips; BV=6000 psf SIZE OF FOUNDATION in Feet 11.5 7/ FOUNDATION PRESSURE in PSF 4500.0 j DEPTH OF FOUNDATION in Feet 3.0 PRESSURE RELEASE in PSF 1800.0 DATE 06-26-97 f,. LAYER LAYER LAYER FDN INIT PRE -CON TOTAL CONSOLIDATION I LAYER ] SETTLE- j TOP BOT MIDPT PRESS PRESS PRESS PRESS 1 INITIAL TOTAL DIFF I THICK I MENT (FT1 (FT) (FT) (PSF) (PSF) (PSF) (PSF) (IN/IN) (IN/IN) (IN/IN) I (IN) 1 (INCHES) 149. CONSOLIDATION CURVE 3.0 4.0 .5 4226.7 420.0 2220.0 .0148 .0203 .0055 12.0 .067 P {R) Bor. 50)18' CLm 2220.0 4646.7 ] .0220 .0358 .0138 12.0 .165 (V} " 4.0 5.0 1.5 3766.0 540.0 2340.0 .0156 .0205 .0049 12.0 .059 (R} Bor. 5418' CLm 2340.0 4306.0 .0228 .0340 .0113 12.0 .135 [ {V} 5.0 6.0 2.5 3308.2 660.0 2460.0 .0163 .0207 .0044 12.0 .053 {R} Bor. 5418' CLm 2460.0 3969.2 j .0235 .0321 .0086 12.0 .103 (V) 6.0 7.0 3.5 2886.2 780.0 2580.0 .0168 .0208 .0040 12.0 .048 (R) Bor. 5E18' CLm 2560.0 3666.2 .0241 .0305 .0064 12.0 .077 (V) 7.0 8.0 4.5 2510.1 900.0 2700.0 .0173 .0210 .0037 12.0 j .044 j (6) Bor. 5E18' CLm 2700.0 3410.1 .0248 .0291 .0042 12.0 ' .051 ! {V} 8.0 9.0 5.5 2180.1 1020.0 2820.0 .0177 .0211 .0034 12.0 .041 {R} Bor. 5@18' CLm 2820.0 3200.1 .0256 .0278 .0022 12.0 .C27 j (v) 9.0 10.0 6.5 1892.4 1140.0 2940.0 .0181 .0213 .0032 12.0 .039 ''� (R) eor. 5@18' CLm 2940.0 3032.4 1 .0263 .0269 .0006 12.0 I .007 {V} 10.0 11.0 7.5 1643.2 1260.0 2903.2 1 .0184 .0212 .0028 12.0 .034 (R) Bor. 5E18' CLm 11.0 12.0 8.5 1428.9 1380.0 2808.9 .0187 .0211 .0024 12.0 .029 {19} Bor. S@18' CLm 12.0 13.0 9.5 1246.8 1500.0 2746.8 1 .0190 .0211 .0021 12.0 .025 (R) Bor. 5418' CLm 13.0 14.0 10.5 1094.1 1620.0 2714.1 1 .0192 .0210 .0018 12.0 .021 (R) 8or. 56018' CLm 14.0 15.0 11.5 967.4 1740.0 2707.4 I .0195 .0210 .0015 12.0 .018 {R) Bor. 5018' CLm 15.0 16.0 12.5 862.7 1860.0 2722.7 I .0197 .0210 .0013 12.0 .016 j (13) Bor. 5018' CLm 16.0 13.5 775.7 1980.0 2755.7 .0199 .0211 .0011 12.0 .014 j {R} 8or. 5418' CLm 17.0 18.0 14.5 701.9 2100.0 2801.9 1 .0201 .0211 .0010 12.0 .012 (R) Bor. 5E18' CLm 16.0 19.0 15.5 637.5 2220.0 2857.5 I .0203 .0212 .0009 12.0 .010 (R} Bar. 5018' CLm 19.0 20.0 16.5 579.2 2340.0 2919.2 1 .0205 _0213 0008 12.0 .009 (R} Bor. 5418' CLm 20.0 21.0 17.5 525.2 2460.0 2965.2 1 .0207 .0213 .0007 12.0 j .008 (R) Bor. 50:18' CLm 21.0 22.0 16.5 474.4 2580.0 3054.4 .0208 .0214 .0006 12.0 .007 (R) Bor. 5418' CLm 22.0 23.0 19.5 425.8 2700.0 3125.8 1 .0210 .0215 .0005 12.0 .006 F (R) Bor. 5418' CLm 23.0 24.0 20.5 378.0 2820.0 3198.0 1 .0211 .0216 .0004 12.0 .005 (R) Bor. 5018' CLm 24.0 25.0 21.5 328.5 2940.0 3268.5 1 .0213 .0217 .0004 12.0 .004 1 {12) Bor. 5018' CLm 25.0 26.0 22.5 273.9 3060.0 3333.9 1 .0214 .0217 .0003 12.0 .004 1 {RI Bor. 5018' CLm 3j4 o TOTAL SETTLEMENT = 1.139 INCHES LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES PROGRAM SETTLE -- VERSION 2.01 SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS - under center of SQUARE footing CLIENT, Hoag Hospital JOB NO: 70131-7-0254.1 BY: JB i CASE: Col. Load =800 Kips; BV=6000 psf 1800.0 PRESSURE RELEASE in PSF SOIL PROFILE DATE: 06-26-97 BOTTOM EFFECTIVE CONSOLIDATION LAYER OF LAYER WEIGHT TEST (FEET) (PCF) NO 50.0 120.0 1 nnn,cnr.rnamrne mrcm name VIRGIN COMPRESSION [Surcharge (psf), Consolidation (inch/inch)]] Bor. 5418' CLm 100. .0002 1""' 2E0. .0025 v 450. .0053 ✓/ 900. .0123 ✓ 1800. .0194 3600. .0301 ✓/ 7200. .0458 4% CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA RECOMPRESSION [Surcharge (psf), Consolidation (inch/inch)] Bor. 5010' CLm 100. .0095 ✓ 450. .0150 1800. .0196 1" 3600.E .0220 7200. .024E LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES PROGRAM SETTLE -- VERSION 2.01 SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS - under center of SQUARE footing CLIENT: Hoag Hospital JOB NO: 70131-7-0254.1 BY: JB DATE: 06-26-97 CASE: Col. Load =B00 Rips; EV=6000 psf PRESSURE RELEASE in PS' 1800.0 POLYNOMIAL REPRESENTATION OF CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA COEFFICIENTS TO DESCRIPTION X**0 X**1 X**2 X**3 X**4 X**5 X**6 X**7 VIRGIN COMPRESSION Por_ 56218' CLm RECOMPRESSION Bor. 5918' CLm -.24083E+02 .51183E+02 -.44994E+02 .206609E+02 -.53053E+01 .71866E+00 -.40148E-01 -.37567E-01 .47686E-01 -.18264E-01 .36133E-02 -.25975E-03 LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES PROGRAM SETTLE -- VERSION 2.01 SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS - under center of SQUARE footing CLIENT: Hoag Hospital JOB NO: 70131-7-0254.1 BY: JB CASE: Co1. Load =500 Kips; BV=6000 psf SIZE OF FOUNDATION in Feet 9.0 1' FOUNDATION PRESSURE in PSF 4500.0 t. DEPTH OF FOUNDATION in Feet 3.0 PRESSURE RELEASE in PSE 1800.0 DATE: 06-26-97 LAYER LAYER LAYER FDN INIT PRE -CON TOTAL 1 CONSOLIDATION LAYER 1 SETTLE - TOP BCC MIDFT PRESS PRESS PRESS PRESS j INITIAL TOTAL CIEF THICK MENT CONSOLIDATION (FT) (FT_: (FT) (PSF) (PSF) (PSF) (ESF) (IN/IN) (IN/IN) (IN/IN) ! (IN) ! (INCHES) CURVE 3.0 4.0 .5 4164.8 420.0 2220.0 .0148 .0203 .0055 12.0 .067 ! (R) Bor. 5018' CLm 2220.0 4584.8 .0220 .0355 .0135 12.0 .161 j (V) " 4.0 1.5 3572.3 540.0 2340.0 .0156 .0205 .0049 12.0 .059 ! {2) Bor. 5(218' CLm 2340.0 4112.3 .0228 .0329 .0102 12.0 '! .122 (V) " 5.0 6.0 2.5 3010.4 660.0 2460.0 .0163 .0207 .0044 12.0 .053 (R) Bor. 5018' CLm 2460.0 3670.4 .0235 .0306 .0071 12.0 .085 (V) 6.0 3.5 2519.9 780.0 2580.0 .0168 .0208 .0040 12.0 .048 (12) Bor. 5018' CLm 2580.0 3299.9 .0241 .0284 .0043 12.0 .051 (v) " 2.0 2.0 4.5 2104.4 900.0 2700.0 .0173 .0210 .0037 ! 12.0 .044 1 (R) Bor. 56=18' CLm 2700.0 3004.4 .0248 .0267 .0018 12.0 .022 1 (v) " 8.0 9.0 5.5 1756.3 1020.0 2776.3 j .0177 .0211 .0034 12.0 .041 (R) Bor. 5018' CLm 9.0 10.0 6.5 1466.0 1140.0 2608.0 .0181 .0209 .0028 12.0 .034 (R) Bor. 5018' CLm 10.0 11.0 7.5 1233.0 1260.0 2493.0 1 .0184 .0207 .0023 12.0 .028 1 (R) Bor. 5018' CLm 11.0 12.0 8.5 1045.5 1380.0 2425.5 1 .0187 .0206 .0019 12.0 ! .023 1 (R) Bor. 5@18' CLm 12.0 13.0 9.5 898.2 1500.0 2398.2 1 .0190 .0206 .0016 12.0 .019 J (R) 80r. 56018' CLm 13.0 14.0 10.5 782.4 1620.0 2402.4 1 .0192 .0206 .0013 12.0 .016 1 (R) Bor. 5018' CLm 14.0 15.0 11.5 688.8 1740.0 2428.8 .0195 .0206 .0011 12.0 .014 (R) Bor. 5018' CLm 15.0 16.0 12.5 609.4 1860.0 2469.4 .0197 .C207 _0010 12.0 .012 (R) Bor. 5018' CLm 26.0 17.0 13.5 538.4 1980.0 2518.4 .0199 .0207 .0008 12.0 .010 (R) Bor. 5018' CLm 17.0 18.0 14.5 472.9 2100.0 2572.9 .0201 .0208 .0007 12.0 .008 (R.) Bor. 5018' CLm 18.0 19.0 15.5 411.1 2220.0 2631.1 .0203 .0209 .0006 12.0 .007 (12) Bor. 5018' CLm 19.0 20.0 16.5 349.7 2340.0 2689.7 1 .02C5 .0210 .0005 12.0 : .006 : (R) Bor. 5E18' CLm 20.0 21.0 17.5 281.8 2460.0 2741.8 1 .0207 _0210 .0004 12.0 i .005 (R) Bor. 5018' CLm TOTAL SETTLEMENT = .933 INCHES LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES PROGRAM SETTLE -- VERSION 2.01 SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS - under center of SQUARE footing CLIENT: Hoag Hospital JO3 50: 90131-4-0254.1 EY: JB DATE: 06-26-92 CASE: Col. Load =500 Kips; BV=6000 psf PRESSURE RELEASE in PSF 1800.0 SOIL PROFILE BOTTOM EFFECTIVE CONSOLIDATION LAYER OF LAYER WEIGHT TEST 4 (FEET) (PCP) NO 1 50-0 120.0 1 CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA VIRGIN COMPRESSION [Surcharge (psf), Consolidation (inch/inch)] Bor. 5218' CLm 100. .0002 250. .0025 3600. .0301 7200. .0458 CONSOLIDAT:ON TEST DATA RECOMPRESSION [Surcharge (psf), Consolidation (inch/inch)] 450. .0053 900. .0123 1800. .0194 Bor. 5CJ18' CLm 100. .0095 450. .0150 1800. .0196 3600. .0220 7200. .0245 LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES PROGRAM SETTLE -- VERSION 2.01 SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS - under center of SQUARE footing CLIENT: Hoag Hospice' JOB NO: 70131-7-0254.1 BY: SE DATE: 06-26-97 CASE: Cc1. Load +500 Kips; EV=6000 psf PRESSURE RELEASE in PS- 1800.0 POLYNOMIAL REPRESENTATION OF CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA COEFFICIENTS TO DESCRIPTION X"0 X"1 X**2 X'•3 X**4 X**5 X"•6 X**7 VIRGIN COMPRESSION Bor. 518' CLn RECOMPRESSION Bor. 5015' CLm -.24083E+02 .51183E+02 -.44794E+02 .206669E+02 -.53053E+01 .71866E+00 -.40148E-01 -.37567E-01 .47686E-01 -.18264E-01 .36133E-02 -.25975E-03 2-:2_ - r7J rO ,gee#: 175°•06 FJLE 000E: LAW Crandall LAWGIBB Group Member REPORT OF REVISED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE. HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CA APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS DOES NOT IMPLIED AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT ANY BUILDING INITUTE VIOUTIONRESS OF. ORRINC0NSI5 TENT WITH, THE ORDINANCES. PUNS AND POLICIES OF THE CITY OFARE, IN ALL NEWPORT RESPECTS, INAPPROVAL ES COMPLIANCE With 4H CITY. BUILDING ANDT GUARANTEE THATESE ZONI GNORDINANCES NS AND POLICIES THE Ccc NEWPORT BEACH RESERVES THE RIGHT TO Prepare ANY PERMITEL TO REV SE THE BULGING. `5RUCTURE OR IMPROVE WENT AUTHORIZED BY THESE PLAYS SEFCPL, DURING DA AFTER CONSTAILO TION, IF NECESSARY 10 CCMPLY'WIT?'' THE ORDINANCES PUNS AND POLICIES HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPI PA�J t 61h“ APPLICANT'S ACKHG�:LEJ..E.'�cL•+ _e;gnanuel Newport Beach, Calfor is �a'.' "S._- DA OEPAR�MENP PUBLIC ViORKS TRAFFIC FIRE GRADING PUNNING WPROYAETO'rssue. DARE. BY: September 10, 1999 Project 70131-9-0330.0002 LAW LAWGIBB Group Member September 10, 1999 Mr. LeifN. Thompson, AIA Facilities Design and Construction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive, Suite 6100 Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Subject: Report of Revised Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Parking Structure Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Newport Beach, California Hoag Project No. 1253.08 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 Dear Mr. Thompson: We are pleased to submit this report presenting the results of our revised geotechnical investigation for the proposed parking structure at the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California. This report supersedes our original report for the project'. Our investigation was conducted in general accordance with our revised proposal dated August 6, 1999, as authorized by you on August II, 1999. This revised geotechnical investigation incorporates the information from our original geotechnical report and addresses the changes to the proposed parking structure since the submittal of our original report. The scope of our investigation was planned based on communications with you, Mr. William Taylor of Taylor & Associates, the project architects. and Mr. Ed Gharibans of Taylor & Gaines, the project structural engineers. Mr. Gharibans also advised us of the structural features of the proposed development. The results of our investigation and design recommendations are presented in this report: Please note that you or your representative should submit copies of this report to the appropriate governmental agencies for their review and approval prior to obtaining a building permit. Report of Geotechnical Investigation: Proposed East Addition and Parking Structure. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian: Newport Beach, California; dated August I I, 1997 (Our Job No. 70131-7-0254). Law/Crandall, A Division of Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. 200 Citadel Drive • Los Angeles. CA 90040-1554 323-889-5300 • Fax 323-721-6700 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation September 10. 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 It has been a pleasure to be of professional service to you. Please call if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, LAW/CRANDALL Carl Kim Senior Engineer G:\Enggeo\99-proj190330190330rp01.DOC/CK:ck (1 copy submitted) cc: (5) Taylor & Associates, Architects Attn: Mr. William Taylor Marshall Lew, Ph.D. Corporate Consultant Vice President (1) Taylor & Gaines, Structural Engineers Attn: Mr. Ed Gharibans 2 REPORT OF REVISED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN Newport Beach, California Law/Crandall Los Angeles, California September 10, 1999 Project 70131-9-0330.0002 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geatechnical Investigation September 10. 1999 Late/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SUMMARY iii 1.0 SCOPE 1 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 2 4.0 FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS 3 4.1 FIELD EXPLORATIONS 3 4.2 LABORATORY TESTS 3 5.0 SOIL CONDITIONS 3 6.0 LIQUEFACTION AND SEISMICALLY -INDUCED SETTLEMENT 4 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 5 7.1 GENERAL 5 7.2 FOUNDATIONS 5 7.3 UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS 7 7.4 EXCAVATION AND SLOPES 7 7.5 SHORING 8 7.6 WALLS BELOW GRADE 13 7.7 FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT 14 7.8 PAVING 15 7.9 GRADING 16 8.0 BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS 18 FIGURE I: PLOT PLAN APPENDIX A: FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS APPENDIX B: SOIL CORROSIVITY STUDY Hoag ,Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnica/ Investigation September 10. 1999 Late/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 - SUMMARY We have completed our revised geotechnical investigation for the proposed parking structure to be constructed within the existing Hoag Hospital campus in Newport Beach, California. The development will consist of a six -level parking structure consisting of four above -grade levels, one below -grade level, and one level that transitions from above -grade at the eastern side to below grade at the western side. Excavations as deep as 35 feet deep will be required for the development, Some hardscaped and landscaped plaza areas are also planned. Our current study was based on the subsurface explorations and laboratory testing performed for the original geotechnical investigation, which explored the site of the proposed parking structure jointly with the site of a proposed hospital addition (East Addition). For our original investigation, we explored the soil conditions beneath the parking structure site by drilling three 40-foot-deep borings and one 40%-foot-deep boring. Fill soils were encountered in Boring 1 (2%: feet thick) and Boring 4 (5 feet thick). The natural soils beneath the site are terrace deposits consisting primarily of silty sand, sand, clayey sand, and clay with lesser deposits of silt. The natural soils are generally dense or stiff throughout the depths explored. Groundwater was not encountered within the depths explored. However, the water level was measured at a depth of 49 feet below the existing grade at a boring at the proposed East Addition site, which corresponds to Elevation +29 feet mean sea level (MSL). The natural soils at and below the lowest floor level of the proposed parking structure, which range from approximately Elevation +58 feet MSL to +64 feet MSL, are generally stiff and dense. Accordingly, the development may be supported on spread footings established in the undisturbed stiff and dense natural soils. The floor slabs of the lowest floor level may be supported on grade. No significant difficulties due to the soil conditions are anticipated in excavating. Conventional earthmoving equipment may be used. Where the necessary space is available for sloped excavation, temporary unsurcharged embankments may be sloped back without shoring. Shoring should be used where sloped excavations are not possible. iii Hoag Alemorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geo,echnical Investigation September 10. /999 Law/Crandall Project70131-9-0330.0002 1.0 SCOPE This report presents the results of our revised geotechnical investigation performed for the proposed parking structure to be constructed at the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian campus in Newport Beach, California. We did not perform subsurface explorations for the current study. The current study was based on the subsurface explorations and laboratory testing performed for our original geotechnical investigation', which explored the site of the proposed parking structure jointly with the site of a proposed hospital addition (East Addition). The location of the proposed parking structure relative to the adjacent existing structures and streets, and the locations of exploratory borings performed for our original investigation are shown in Figure 1, Plot Plan. The current study was authorized to update our original report of geotechnical investigation to address the changes to the proposed parking structure. Our original investigation was authorized to determine the static physical characteristics of the soils at the site of the proposed development, and to provide recommendations for foundation design, shoring, walls below grade, floor slab support, and grading. More specifically, the scope of the investigation included the following: • A field exploration program to determine the nature and stratigraphy of the subsurface soils and groundwater levels and to obtain undisturbed and bulk samples for laboratory observation and testing. • Laboratory testing of the soils for evaluation of the. static physical soil properties. • Engineering evaluation of the geotechnical data to determine the design recommendations for the proposed development. • A corrosion study to determine the corrosive characteristics of the on -site soils and to develop recommendations for mitigation measures. Report of Geotechnical investigation: Proposed East Addition and Parking Structure, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian: Newport Beach, California: dated August 11, 1997 (Our Job No. 70131-7-0254). 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation September la /999 Lair/Crandall Project 70/31-9-0330.0002 - The assessment of general site environmental conditions for the presence of contaminants in the soils and groundwater of the site was beyond the scope of this investigation. Our recommendations are based on the results of our field explorations, laboratory tests, and appropriate engineering analyses. The results of the field explorations and laboratory tests are presented in Appendix A. The results of the corrosion study by M. J. Schiff & Associates, Inc., Consulting Corrosion Engineers, are presented in Appendix B. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. This report has been prepared for the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian and their design consultants to be used solely in the design of proposed parking structure. The report has not been prepared for use by other parties, and may not contain sufficient information for purpose of other parties or other uses. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION A six -level parking structure consisting of four above -grade levels, one below -grade level, and one level that transitions from above -grade at the eastern side to below grade at the western side is proposed. The location of the proposed parking structure relative to the adjacent existing structures and streets is shown in Figure 1, Plot Plan. The lowest floor level will range from about Elevation +58 MSL to +64 MSL. Excavations as deep as 35 feet below the existing grade will be required to accommodate anticipated spread footing depths of up to eight feet below the lowest floor level. Anticipated dead -plus -live column loads range from 180 kips to 1,550 kips. Some hardscaped and landscaped plaza areas are also planned. 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS The site of the proposed parking structure is occupied by an existing building (conference center) that is to be removed. The existing ground surface at the site is relatively level and approximately 2 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation September l0. 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 at Elevation +77 MSL. An existing embankment located along the northeast sides of the proposed parking structure slopes down approximately to Elevation +45 at the northeast corner. Part of the parking structure will extend down the slope embankment to the north. 4.0 FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS 4.1 FIELD EXPLORATIONS The soil conditions beneath the site were explored by drilling four borings to depths of 40 to 40'/ feet below the existing grade at the locations shown in Figure 1. To supplement the data obtained from our borings, and to obtain data for the liquefaction study, standard penetration tests (SPTs) were performed in one of the borings. Details of the explorations and the Togs of the borings are presented in Appendix A. 4.2 LABORATORY TESTS Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples obtained from the borings to aid in the classification of the soils and to determine the pertinent engineering properties of the foundation soils. The following tests were performed: • Moisture content and dry density determinations. • Direct shear. • Consolidation. • Sieve analysis. • Corrosion study Details of the laboratory testing program and test results are presented in Appendix A. The results of corrosion study are presented in Appendix B. 5.0 SOIL CONDITIONS Fill soils, 21/4 and 5 feet thick, were encountered in Boring 1 and Boring 4, respectively. The fill, which consists of silty sand, is not uniformly well compacted and contains some debris. Deeper and/or poorer quality till may exist between boring locations. However, the existing fill will be removed by the planned excavations. 3 • Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical investigation September 10. 1999 Lau/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 The natural soils beneath the site of the proposed development consist of silty sand, sand. clayey sand, and clay with lesser deposits of silt. The silty sand, sand, and clayey sand deposits throughout the depths explored are dense; the clay and silt deposits are stiff. Water was measured at Elevation +29 feet MSL (49 feet below the existing grade) at a boring performed for the East Addition site, which is immediately south of the proposed parking structure site. Based on the corrosion study performed for the site by M. J. Schiff & Associates, Inc., Consulting Corrosion Engineers, the on -site soils are classified as severely corrosive to ferrous metals and non -deleterious to portland cement concrete. 6.0 LIQUEFACTION AND SEISMICALLY -INDUCED SETTLEMENT Liquefaction potential is greatest where the groundwater level is shallow, and loose, fine sands occur within a depth of about 50 feet or less. Liquefaction potential decreases as grain size and clay and gravel content increase. As ground acceleration and shaking duration increase during an earthquake, liquefaction potential increases. Groundwater is not expected to be present in significant quantities above Elevation +29 feet (49 feet below existing grade). The natural soils beneath the site consist primarily of dense silty sand, sand and clayey sand, and stiff clay and silt. In addition, based on the results of the standard penetration tests (SPTs), the granular soils underlying the site are dense with relative densities in excess of 80% and soils with such characteristics have a low liquefaction potential. Therefore, liquefaction will not have any adverse effects on the proposed development. Seismic settlement is often caused by loose to medium -dense granular soils densified during ground shaking. Dry and partially saturated soils as well as saturated granular soils are subject to seismically -induced settlement. Generally, differential settlements induced by ground failures such as liquefaction, flow slides. and surface ruptures would be much more severe than those caused by densification alone. The dense granular soils encountered in our borings are not in the loose to medium -dense categoiy. Based on the relatively uniform soil conditions at the site, any seismic settlement would be uniform across the building area. We have estimated the seismic settlement at 4 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation September 10. 1999 Lair/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 the site to be less than % inch. Therefore, the potential for seismically -induced settlement .to adversely impact the planned structures is low. 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 GENERAL The natural soils at and below the planned excavation levels are dense and stiff, and the proposed parking structure may be supported on spread footings established in the dense and stiff natural soils exposed at the bottom of the planned excavations. Individual footings, or a combination of individual and combined or continuous footings may be used. The lowest floor slabs of the structures may be supported on grade. Excavations as deep as 35 feet below the existing grade will be required to anticipated spread footing depths of up to eight feet below the lowest floor level. 7.2 FOUNDATIONS Bearing Values accommodate Spread footings carried at least I foot into the stiff and dense natural soils. and at least 3 feet below the lowest adjacent floor level, may be designed to impose a net dead -plus -live load pressure of 6.000 pounds per square foot.. A one-third increase in the bearing value may be used when considering wind or seismic loads. Since the recommended bearing value is a net value, the weight of concrete in the footings may be taken as 50 pounds per cubic foot and the weight of soil backfill over the footings may be neglected when determining the downward load on the footings. Footings for minor structures (including low retaining walls, free-standing walls, and elevator pit walls) established in properly compacted fill and/or undisturbed natural soils, may be designed to impose a net dead -plus -live load pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot. Footings should extend at least 1 % feet below the adjacent final grade or floor level. 5 SIM Hoag Alentorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geatechnical Investigation September 10. 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330A002 Settlement The settlement of the proposed parking structure, supported on spread footings in the manner recommended is expected to be on the order of 1/ inches or less. At least half of the total settlement is anticipated to occur during construction (shortly after dead loads are imposed). Based on our review of the proposed foundation plan dated July 20, 1999, differential settlements are anticipated to be on the order of 'A inch. Lateral Loads Lateral loads may be resisted by soil friction against the footings and the floor slabs, and by the passive resistance of the soils. A coefficient of friction of 0.5 may be used between the floor slabs, spread footings, and the supporting soils. The passive resistance of the undisturbed natural soils or properly compacted fill against footings may be assumed to be 300 pounds per cubic foot. A one- third increase in the passive value may be used for wind or seismic loads. The passive resistance of the soils and the frictional resistance between the floor slabs, footings, and the supporting soils may be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance. Foundation Observation To verify the presence of satisfactory soils at design elevations, all footing excavations should be observed by personnel of our firm. Footings should be deepened as necessary to reach satisfactory supporting soils. Where footing excavations are deeper than 4 feet, the sides of the excavations should be sloped back or shored for safety. Backfill around and over footings and utility trench backfill within the building area should be mechanically compacted; flooding should not be permitted. Inspection of the foundation excavations may also be required by the appropriate reviewing governmental agencies. The contractor should be familiar with the inspection requirements of the reviewing agencies. 6 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation September 10, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 73 UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS The site coefficient, S, for the project site can be determined as established in the Earthquake Regulations under Section 1628 of the Uniform Building Code, 1994 edition, or Section 1629 of the UBC, 1997 edition. Based on a review of the local soil and geologic conditions, the site can be classified as Soil Profile S2, as specified in the 1994 code, or Soil Profile Type Sc, as specified in the 1997 code. The site is located within UBC Seismic Zone 4. The nearest fault to the site classified as active is the Newport -Inglewood fault, which has been determined to be a Type B seismic source by the Califomia Division of Mines and Geology. According to Map M-33 in the 1998 publication from the International Conference of Building Officials entitled "Maps of Known Active Fault Near -Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada," the project site is located within 2 kilometers of the Newport -Inglewood fault. At this distance for a seismic source type B, the near source factors, Na and Nv, are to be taken as 1.3 and 1.6, respectively, based on Tables 16-S and 16-T of the 1997 UBC. 7.4 EXCAVATION AND SLOPES Excavations as deep as 35 feet below the existing grade will be required for the proposed parking structure. Where the necessary space is available, temporary unsurcharged embankments may be sloped back at 1:1 without shoring. Adjacent to any existing structure, the bottom of any unshored excavation should be restricted so as not to extend below a plane drawn at 1'/z:I (horizontal to vertical) downward from the foundations of existing structure. Where space is not available, shoring will be required. Data for design of shoring are presented in Section 7.5. The excavations should be observed by personnel of our firm so that any necessary modifications based on variations in the soil conditions encountered can be made. All applicable safety requirements and regulations, including OSHA regulations, should be met. Where sloped embankments are used, the tops of the slopes should be barricaded to prevent vehicles and storage loads within 7 feet of the tops of the slopes. A greater setback may be • necessary when considering heavy vehicles, such as concrete trucks and cranes; we should be advised of such heavy vehicle loadings so that specific setback requirements can be established. If 7 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation September 10. 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 the temporary construction embankments are to be maintained during the rainy season, berms are suggested along the tops of the slopes where necessary to prevent runoff water from entering the excavation and eroding the slope faces. 7.5 SHORING General Where there is not sufficient space for sloped embankments, shoring will be required. One method of shoring would consist of steel soldier piles placed in drilled holes, backfilled with concrete, and tied back with earth anchors. Some difficulty may be encountered in the drilling of the soldier piles and the anchors because of caving in the sandy deposits. Special techniques and measures may be necessary in some areas to permit the proper installation of the soldier piles and/or tie- back anchors. In addition, if there is not sufficient space to install the tie -back anchors to the desired lengths on any side of the excavation, the soldier piles of the shoring system may be internally braced. The following information on the design and installation of the shoring is as complete as possible at this time. We can furnish any additional required data as the design suggest that our firm review the final shoring plans negotiating with a shoring contractor. Lateral Pressures progresses. Also, we and specifications prior to bidding or For excavation heights of 15 feet or less, cantilevered shoring may be used. For design of cantilevered shoring, a triangular distribution of lateral earth pressure may be used. It may be assumed that the retained soils with a level surface behind the cantilevered shoring will exert a lateral pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 30 pounds per cubic foot. For heights of shoring greater than I5 feet, the use of braced or tied -back shoring is recommended. For the design of tied -back or braced shoring, we recommend the use of a trapezoidal distribution of earth pressure. The recommended pressure distribution, for the case where the grade is level 8 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnica[ Investigation September /0. 1999 Lau/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 - behind the shoring, is illustrated in the following diagram with the maximum pressure equal to 22H in pounds per square foot, where H is the height of the shoring in feet. The above recommended lateral earth pressures assume a level backfill. If the backfill is sloped at 1:1, 1'/:l, or 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), the pressures presented above should be multiplied by 2.0, 1.65, and 1.5. respectively. We can review specific backfill cases' if desired. In addition to the recommended earth pressure, the upper 10 feet of shoring adjacent to the streets and vehicular traffic areas should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot, acting as a result of an assumed 300 pounds per square foot surcharge behind the shoring due to normal street traffic. Additional surcharge pressures imposed by concrete trucks and other heavier traffic may be taken as 200 pounds per square foot imposed against the upper 10 feet of the shoring. If the traffic is kept back at least 10 feet from the shoring, the traffic surcharge maybe neglected. Design of Soldier Piles For the design of soldier piles spaced at least two diameters on centers, the allowable lateral bearing value (passive value) of the soils below the level of excavation may be assumed to be 600 pounds per square foot per foot of depth at the excavated surface, up to a maximum of 6,000 pounds per square foot. To develop the full lateral value, provisions should be taken to assure firm contact between the soldier piles and the undisturbed soils. The concrete placed in the 9 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotedtnical Investigation September 10. 1999 Lax/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 soldier pile excavations may be a lean -mix concrete. However, the concrete used in that portion of the soldier pile which is below the planned excavated level should be of sufficient strength to adequately transfer the imposed loads to the surrounding soils. The frictional resistance between the soldier piles and the retained earth may be used in resisting the downward component of the anchor load. The coefficient of friction between the soldier piles and the retained earth may be taken as 0.4. (This value is based on the assumption that uniform full bearing will be developed between the steel soldier beam andthe lean -mix concrete and between the lean -mix concrete and the retained earth.) In addition, provided that the portion of the soldier piles below the excavated level is backfilled with structural concrete, the soldier piles below the excavated level may be used to resist downward loads. For resisting the downward loads, the frictional resistance between the concrete soldier piles and the soils below the excavated level may be taken equal to 300 pounds per square foot. Lagging Continuous lagging will be required between the soldier piles within the Tess cohesive soils, such as silty sand, sand, and clayey sand. If the clear spacing between the soldier piles does not exceed 4 feet, it may be possible to omit lagging within the cohesive soils. We recommend that the exposed soils be observed by personnel of our firm to determine the areas where lagging may be omitted. The unlagged soils should be sprayed with an asphaltic emulsion or equivalent to keep the soils from drying. Depending on the length of exposure, the soils may still dry and crack, posing a hazard for personnel working at the base of the shoring. In such an event, it may be necessary to re -spray the soils or apply wire mesh or chain link fencing to the face of the shoring to prevent chunks of soil from falling. The soldier piles and anchors should be designed for the full anticipated lateral pressure. However, the pressure on the lagging will be less due to arching in the soils. We recommend that the lagging be designed for the recommended earth pressure but limited to a maximum value of 400 pounds per square foot. I0 Haag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation September in. 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 _ Anchor Design Tie -back friction anchors may be used to resist lateral loads. For design purposes, it may be assumed that the active wedge adjacent to the shoring is defined by a plane drawn at 35 degrees with the vertical through the bottom of the excavation. The anchors should extend at least 15 feet beyond the potential active wedge and to a greater length if necessary to develop the desired capacities. The capacities of anchors should be determined by testing of the initial anchors as outlined in the section below on Anchor Testing. For design purposes, we estimate that drilled friction anchors will develop an average friction value of 500 pounds per square foot. Only the frictional resistance developed beyond the active wedge would be effective in resisting lateral loads. If the anchors are spaced at least 6 feet on centers, no reduction in the capacity of the anchors need be considered due to group action. Anchor Installation The anchors may be installed at angles of 15 to 40 degrees below the horizontal. Caving of the anchor holes should be anticipated and provisions made to minimize such caving. The anchors should be filled with concrete placed by pumping from the tip out, and the concrete should extend from the tip of the anchor to the active wedge. To minimize chances of caving, we suggest that the portion of the anchor shaft within the active wedge be backfilled with sand before testing the anchor. This portion of the shaft should be filled tightly and flush with the face of the excavation. . The sand backfill may contain a small amount of cement to allow the sand to be placed by pumping. Anchor Testing Our representative should select at least two of the initial anchors for 24-hour 200% tests, and at least five additional anchors for quick 200% tests. The purpose of the 200% tests is to verify the friction value assumed in design. The anchors should be tested to develop twice the assumed friction value. Where satisfactory tests are not achieved on the initial anchors, the anchor diameter and/or length should be increased until satisfactory test results are obtained. 1I Hoag A4emoria/ Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation September /0. /999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 - The total deflection during the 24-hour 200% tests should not exceed 12 inches during loading; the anchor deflection should not exceed 0.75 inch during the 24-hour period. measured after the 200% test Toad is applied. If the anchor movement after the 200% load has been applied for 12 hours is less than 0.5 inch, and the movement over the previous 4 hours has been less than 0.1 inch, the test may be terminated. For the quick 200% tests, the 200% test load should be maintained for 30 minutes. The total deflection of the anchor during the 200% quick test should not exceed 12 inches; the deflection after the 200% test load has been applied should not exceed 0.25 inch during the 30-minute period. Where satisfactory tests are not achieved on the initial anchors, the anchor diameter and/or length should be increased until satisfactory test results are obtained. All of the production anchors should be pretested to at least 150% of the design load; the total deflection during the tests should not exceed 12 inches. The rate of creep under the 150% test should not exceed 0.1 inch over a 15-minute period for the anchor to be approved for the design loading. After a satisfactory test, each production anchor should be locked -off at the design load. The locked -off load should be verified by rechecking the load in the anchor. If the locked -off load varies by more than 10% from the design load, the load should be reset until the anchor is locked - off within 10% of the design load. The installation of the anchors and the testing of the completed anchors should be observed by our firm. Internal Bracing Raker bracing may be used to internally brace the soldier piles. If used, raker bracing could be supported laterally by temporary concrete footings (deadmen) or by the permanent interior footings. For design of such temporary footings, poured with the bearing surface normal to the rakers inclined at 45 to 60 degrees with the vertical, a bearing value of 3.000 pounds per square 12 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation September 10, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 - - foot may be used, provided the shallowest point of the footing is at least 1 foot below the lowest adjacent grade. To reduce the movement of the shoring, the rakers should be tightly wedged against the footings and/or shoring system. Deflection It is difficult to accurately predict the amount of deflection of a shored embankment. It should be realized, however, that some deflection will occur. We estimate that this deflection could be on the order of 1 inch at the top of the shored embankment. If greater deflection occurs during construction. additional bracing may be necessary to minimize settlement of the existing utilities within or adjacent to the site. If desired to reduce the deflection of the shoring, a greater active pressure could be used in the shoring design. Also, shoring braced by internal rakers will significantly reduce the shoring deflection. Monitoring Some means of monitoring the performance of the shoring system is recommended. The monitoring should consist of periodic surveying of the lateral and vertical locations of the tops of all the soldier piles. We will be pleased to discuss this further with the design consultants and the contractor when the design of the shoring system has been finalized. 7.6 WALLS BELOW GRADE Lateral Pressures For design of cantilevered retaining walls below grade where the surface of the backfill is level, it may be assumed that the soils will exert a lateral pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 35 pounds per cubic foot. The basement walls should be designed to resist a trapezoidal distribution of lateral earth pressure. The lateral earth pressure on the permanent basement walls will be similar to that recommended for design of temporary shoring except that the maximum lateral pressure will be 24H in pounds per square foot, where H is the height of the basement wall in feet. 13 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnica! Investigation September 10. 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 - In addition to the recommended earth pressure, the upper 10 feet of walls adjacent to streets and vehicular traffic areas should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot, acting as a result of an assumed 300 pounds per square foot surcharge behind the walls due to normal traffic. If the traffic is kept back at least 10 feet from the walls. the traffic surcharge may be neglected. Furthermore, adjacent to any existing structures, the basement walls should be designed for the appropriate lateral surcharge pressures imposed by the foundations of the structures unless the foundations are underpinned. The lateral surcharge pressures imposed by the adjacent foundations could be computed when the locations, sizes, and loads of these foundations are known. Backlit! Any required soil backfill should be mechanically compacted, in layers not more than 8 inches thick, to at least 90% of the maximum density obtainable by the ASTM Designation D1557-91 method of compaction. The backfill should be sufficiently impermeable when compacted to restrict the inflow of surface water. Some settlement of the deep backfill should be allowed for in planning sidewalks and utility connections. Drainage System If the backfill is placed and compacted as recommended and good surface drainage is provided, infiltration of water into the backfill should be small. However, we suggest that building walls below grade be waterproofed or at least dampproofed. We also recommend that a perimeter drain be installed at the base of building walls below grade. The perimeter drain may consist of a 4-inch- diameter perforated pipe placed with the perforations down and surrounded by at least 4 inches of filter gravel. Non -building retaining walls should also be provided with a drain or weep holes. 7.7 FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT If the subgrade is prepared as recommended in Section 7.9, the floor slabs may be supported on grade. Construction activities and exposure to the environment may cause deterioration of the prepared subgrade. Therefore, we recommend that our field representative observe the condition of the final subgrade soils immediately prior to slab -on -grade construction and, if necessary, 14 Hoag A-fentorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geatechnical Investigation September 10. 1999 Late Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 perform further density and moisture content tests to determine the suitability of the final prepared subgrade. Care should be taken not to allow clayey soils to dry out and crack before pouring the floor slabs. The lowest floor slab of the parking structure will be used for parking and should not be sensitive to capillary moisture. 7.8 PAVING We have performed R value testing on several soil samples obtained throughout the hospital campus during a previous survey of pavement condition. The results indicated that the on -site soils generally have an R-value between 20 to 30. The asphalt and portland cement concrete pavement throughout the hospital campus appeared to have performed relatively well to date. Accordingly, an R-value of 20 was assumed in computing the paving sections. Asphalt Concrete Paving If the subgrade is prepared as recommended in Section 7.9, the following asphalt paving sections may be used: Assumed Traffic Index Asphalt Paving (inches) Base Course (inches) 4 (automobile parking) 3 4 51/2 (driveways subject to light trucks) 3 I0 Careful inspection is recommended to verify that the recommended thicknesses, or greater, are achieved and that proper construction procedures are followed. The recommended paving sections were established using the Orange County flexible pavement design method for a subgrade consisting of on -site soils. We could provide paving thicknesses for other Traffic Index values if desired. The base course should meet the specifications for Class 2 Aggregate Base as defined in Section 26 of the most current State of California, Department of Transportation, Standard Specifications. Alternatively, the base course should meet the specifications for untreated base as defined in Section 15 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation September 10. /999 Lam/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 200-2 of the most current Standard Specification for Public Works Construction (Green Book). The base course should be compacted to at least 95%. The asphalt concrete materials and construction should conform to Sections 203-6 and 302-5, respectively, of the Green Book. Portland Cement Concrete Paving If the subgrade is prepared as recommended in Section 7.9 and a portland cement concrete (PCC) with a compressive strength of at least 3,000 pounds per square inch, the following sections may be used: Assumed Traffic Index PCC Paving (inches) 4 (automobile parking) 7 51/4 (driveways subject to light trucks) 71/4 The portland cement concrete materials and construction should conform to Sections 203-6 and 302-6, respectively of the Green Book. 7.9 GRADING Site Preparation To provide support for shallow spread footings of minor structures and for floor slabs on grade, all the existing fill and disturbed natural soils should be excavated and replaced as properly compacted fill. Where excavations are deeper than about 4 feet, the sides of the excavations should be sloped back or shored for safety. Recommendations for sloping of excavations and shoring were presented in preceding sections. After the site is cleared, the exposed soils should be carefully observed for the removal of all unsuitable deposits. Next, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, brought to near -optimum moisture content, and rolled with heavy compaction equipment. The upper 6 inches of the exposed soils should be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry density obtainable by the ASTM Designation DI557-9I method of compaction. 16 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geateehnical Investigation September 10. 1999 Lair/Crandall Project ?0/31-9-0330.0002 - After compacting the exposed soils, all required fill should be placed in loose lifts not more than 8 inches thick and compacted to at least 90%. The moisture content of the on -site soils at the time of compaction should vary no more than 2% below or above optimum moisture content. The moisture content of on -site clayey soils should be brought to about 4% above optimum at the time of compaction. Material for Fill The on -site soils, Tess any debris or organic matter, may be used in required fills. Any required import material should consist of relatively non -expansive soils with an Expansion Index of less than 35. The imported materials should contain sufficient fines (binder material) so as to be relativelyimpermeable and result in a stable subgrade when compacted. All proposed import materials should be approved by our personnel prior to being placed at the site. Field Observation The reworking of the upper soils and the compaction of all required fill should be observed and tested during placement by a representative of our firm. This representative should perform at least the following duties: • Observe the clearing and grubbing operations for proper removal of all unsuitable materials. • Observe the exposed subgrade in areas to receive fill and in areas where excavation has resulted in the desired finished subgrade. The representative should also observe proofrolling and delineation of areas requiring overexcavation. • Evaluate the suitability of on -site and import soils for fill placement; collect and submit soil samples for required or recommended laboratory testing where necessary. • Observe the fill and backfill for uniformity during placement. • Test backfill for field density and compaction to determine the percentage of compaction achieved during backfill placetent. • Observe and probe foundation materials to confirm that suitable bearing materials are present at the design foundation depths. 17 Hoag iviemorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geoiedmical Investigation September ID. /999 Law/Crandall Project 70/31-9-0330.0002 Tile governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the project should be notified prior to commencement of grading so that the necessary grading permits can be obtained and arrangements can be made for required inspection(s). The contractor should be familiar with the inspection requirements of the reviewing agencies. 8.0 BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations provided in this report are based on our understanding of the described project information and on our interpretation of the data collected during the subsurface exploration. We have made our recommendations based on experience with similar subsurface conditions under similar loading conditions. The recommendations apply to the specific project discussed in this report; therefore, any change in the proposed development configurations, loads, locations, or the site grades should be provided to us so we may review our conclusions and recommendations and make any necessary modifications. The recommendations provided in this report are also based on the assumption that the necessary geotechnical observations and testing during construction will be performed by representatives of our firm. The field observation services are considered a continuation of the geotechnical investigation and essential to determine that the actual soil conditions are as anticipated. This also provides for a procedure whereby the client can be advised of unanticipated or changed conditions that would require modifications of our original recommendations. In addition, the presence of our representative at the site provides the client with an independent professional opinion regarding the geotechnically-related construction procedures. If another firm is retained for the geotechnical observation services, our professional responsibility and liability would be limited to the extent that we would not be the geotechnical engineer of record. 18 FIGURE APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS HOSPITAL FIOAO PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE, (4 LEVELS ABOVE GRADE + 2 SUBTERRANERN LEVELS) REFERENCE: SITE PLAN (DATED.'7/ 1 /99) BY TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES. LEGEND: 4� ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION (70131-7-0254.0001) PLOT PLAN SCALE 1" = 60' LAW/CRANDALL Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnica! Investigation September 10. 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 - APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS FIELD EXPLORATIONS The soil conditions beneath the site were explored during our original investigation (our Job No. 70131-5-0254) by drilling four borings at the locations shown in Figure 1. The borings were drilled to depths of 40 to 40% feet below the existing grade using I8-inch-diameter bucket -type or 8-inch-diameter hollow -stem auger -type drilling equipment. Caving and raveling of the boring walls did not occur during the drilling; casing or drilling mud was not used to extend the borings to the depths drilled. The soils encountered were logged by our field technician, and undisturbed and bulk samples were obtained for laboratory inspection and testing. The logs of the borings are presented in Figures A-I.1 through A-1.4; the depths at -which the undisturbed samples were .obtained are indicated to the left of the boring logs. The energy required to drive the Crandall sampler 12 inches is indicated on the Togs. In addition, to obtain information for the liquefaction study, standard penetration tests (SPTs) were performed in one of the borings; the results of the tests are indicated on the logs. The soils are classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System described in Figure A-2. LABORATORY TESTS The field moisture content and dry density of the soils encountered were determined by performing tests on the undisturbed samples. The results of the tests are shown to the left of the boring logs. Direct shear tests were performed on selected undisturbed samples to determine the strength of the soils. The tests were performed at field moisture content and after soaking to near -saturated moisture content and at various surcharge pressures. The yield -point values determined from the direct shear tests are presented in Figure A-3, Direct Shear Test Data. A- I Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation September 10. 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 Confined consolidation tests were performed on five undisturbed samples. Water was added to one of' the samples during the test to illustrate the effect of moisture on the compressibility. To simulate the effect of the planned excavation, three of the samples 'were loaded, unloaded, and subsequently reloaded. The results of the tests are presented in Figures A-4.1 through A-4.3, Consolidation Test Data. To determine the particle size distribution of the soils and to aid in classifying the soils, mechanical analysis was performed on one sample. The results of the mechanical analyses are presented in Figure A-5, Particle Size Distribution. s A-2 0 Y U rn O rC O 0 141 0 n 0 n only at the specific boring location and at the date indicated. onditions at other locations and times, ELEVATION .I (ft.) DEPTH Ift.) MOISTURE (% of dry wt.) DRY DENSITY (Ibs./cu. tt.) "N" VALUE STD.PEN..TEST BLOW COUNT• (blows/ft.) SAMPLE TYPE BORING 1 DATE DRILLED: June 3 and 4, 1997 EQUIPMENT USED: 18" - Diameter Bucket ELEVATION: 77 • 3' Asphalt Paving - 4" Base Course 75 — ' SM FILL - SILTY SAND - fine, some debris, light brown ENCOUNTERED A 3/4"-DIAMETER ELECTRIC LINE AT A DEPTH OF 2' 6.6 109 2 ' SM SILTY SAND - fine to medium, light brown 70 — 5 9.2 108 3 Thin layers of Clayey Sand 11.3 117 4 SC CLAYEY SAND - fine to medium, reddish brown 65 — - 10 23.1 103 3 , CL SILTY CLAY - light brownish grey • SM SILTY SAND - fine, light grey - 15 11.3 104 3 60— - 7.0 99 4 • :a,. sp SAND - fine, lenses of Silty Sand, light brown 20 wn hereon applies e of subsurface c 55 — 7.9 5.5 105 103 4 5 r ; : • Number of blows required to drive the Crandall sampler 12 inches for depths of: 0' to 25' using a 1600 pound hammer falling 12 inches; Below 25' using an 800 pound hammer falling 12 inches. '• Elevations refer to datum of topographic map dated - 25 October 1993 by David A. Boyle Engineering. Note: The log of subsurface conditions sho It is not warranted to be representativ 50 — 7.0 108 10 W.:•�re '•,'r:: - ML SANDY SILT - light grey and light brown - 30 16.7 107 9 ■ _ 45 — - 6.9 97 14 II.. ' 1 • v .; '�• SP SAND - fine, light brown 40 - 35 - 7.8 93 14 ■ • - -, NOTE: Water not encountered. No caving. ENO OF BORING AT 40'. 40 LOG OF BORING LAW/CRANDALL FIGURE A-1.1 0 U w O o: 0 U 0 LL 0 0 m m w 0 0 0 0 0 N O m 0 Note: The log of subsurface conditions shown hereon applies only at the specific boring location and at the date indicated. It is not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other Locations and times. ELEVATION (ft.) DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (% of dry wt.) DRY DENSITY (Ibs./cu. ft.) "N" VALUE STD.PEN.TEST BLOW COUNT' (blows/ft.) SAMPLE TYPE BORING 2 DATE DRILLED: June 3, 1997 EQUIPMENT USED: 18" - Diameter Bucket ELEVATION: 77 3" Asphalt Paving - 6" Base Course 75 I 5.9 117 2 ■ SM SILTY SAND - fine, brown Some medium Sand r 5 5.0 115 5 70— Fy7 SC CLAYEY SAND - fine to medium, reddish brown 24.9 102 3 �/ CL SILTY CLAY - light brownish grey 65 - 10 24.4 101 2 j ML CLAYEY SILT - light grey and light brown 15 J 60 — 26.4 6.7 98 96 3 3 Sp SAND - fine, light brown Few Gravel 20 55 —: 5.7 106 4 WQ-. 7.2 102 5 �.. •.; ',, 25 50— 3.4 105 10 ■ . ..• 30 45 ! 8.6 107 14 - 22.6 106 12 CL SILTY CLAY - light brownish grey C 35 40 H 1 L40 4.5 104 10 i - , SM SILTY SAND - fine to medium, light greyish brown NOTE: Water not encountered. No caving. END OF BORING AT 40'. " LOG OF BORING LAW/CRANDALL A. FIGURE A-1.2 • Z O w w = a MOISTURE (% of dry wt.) DRY DENSITY (Ibs./cu. ft.) "N" VALUE STD.PEN.TEST BLOW COUNT' (blows/ft.) SAMPLE TYPE BORING 3 DATE DRILLED: June 6, 1997 EQUIPMENT USED: 8" -Diameter Hollow Stem Auger ELEVATION: 77 location and at the date indicated. and times. 3" Asphalt Paving - 5" Base Course 75— 9.3 119 37 � •� A. ..l .:y • SM , • SILTY SAND - fine, brown Some Clay 70 — 30 L;,• - 10 s sp SAND - fine, light brown Thin layers of Clayey Sand 65 — 25.9 101 46 r CL SILTY CLAY - light brownish grey .c o o .2 15 _ j / ' Number of blows required to drive the Crandall sampler 12 inches n u using a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. 60 � 18.5 109 46 23 j/ < / - ML SANDY SILT - light brown Note: The log of subsurface conditions shown hereon applies only It is not warranted to be representative of subsurface condi 55— 20 66 F25 3.1 110 19 �•.,�' • Sp SAND - fine, light greyish brown 50 — �- 30 86 Fine to medium 45-1 G` • 35 12.7 111 55 �j CL SILTY CLAY - Thin layers of Clayey Sand, light brownish grey 40 — !!! 40 77 1_� . SP SAND - fine, light brown (CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING FIGURE) LOG OF BORING LAW/CRANDALL A LL 0 0 LO 0 O O r FIGURE A-1.3a Note: The log of subsurface conditions shown hereon applies only at the specific boring location and at the date indicated. It is not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations and times. 1-7 3 (Continued) DRILLED: June 6, 1997 USED: 8" - Diameter Hollow Stem Auger 77 ELEVATION (ft.) DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (% of dry wt.) DRY DENSITY (Ibs./cu. ft.) "N" VALUE STD.PEN.TEST BLOW COUNT' (blows/ft.) r SAMPLE TYPE BORING DATE EQUIPMENT ELEVATION: • OF END OF BORING AT 40W. NOTE: Water not encountered. BORING LAW/CRANDALL LOG FIGURE A-1.3b eon applies only al me specific boring location and at the date indicated. ubsurface conditions at other locations and times. BORING 4 DATE DRILLED: June 3, 1997 EQUIPMENT USED:. 18" - Diameter Bucket ELEVATION: 76 ELEVATION (ft.) DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (% of dry wt.) DRY DENSITY (Ibs./cu. ft.) "N" VALUE STD.PEN.TEST BLOW COUNT• (blows/ft.l SAMPLE TYPE — 75'fie r 3" Asphalt Paving - 8" Base Course FILL - SILTY SAND - fine, some pieces of concrete. light SM brown 5 8.8 98 1 1 SC CLAYEY SAND - fine to medium, lenses of Silty Sand, 70 — yellowish brown 6.5 117 3 0 65 — - 10 12.8 107 5 f�, +' - Thin layers of fine Sand J CL SILTY CLAY - thin layers of Clayey Silt, light brownish grey 24.8 101 2 . 60 �15 . 8.8 102 2 �'. SM SILTY SAND - fine, light brown 21.1 103 5 I Light greyish brown 20 55 — SP SAND - fine, light brown 4.2 103 7 • • shown her ntative of s 25 7.6 98 7 � = -.: • Number of blows required to drive the Crandall sampler 12 50 —' '.=:" inches for depths of:, 0' to 25' using a 1600 pound hammer falling 12 inches; Below 25' using an 800 pound hammer falling 12 inches. Note: The log of subsurface conditions It is not warranted to be represe 8.1 96 9 : .:. <: -30 45 1 4.3 97 9 9.7 92 12 .: 35 40 '7 ;[_;... " NOTE: Water not encountered. No caving. 40 5.0 94 12 END OF BORING AT 40'. LOG OF BORING LAW/CRANDALL A\ 0 0 0 m 0 0 FIGURE A-1.4 MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOLS TYPICAL NAMES CLEAN GRAVELS 0004? rp'O pl w. . G W Wes praised gravers. gravel -sane mixtures. Inge or no lines GRAVELS (More than rap �, - of manse fraction is (Little or no fines,lrst yfi twin �?9 GP Poony graded gravels or gravel-sano frustums. Ina ar no lines COARSE LARGER man me NoA sieve sae) GRAVELS WITH FINES ; 1 i 1 r r GM Spry gravels, gravel -sand -slit mixtures GRAINED SOILS (More plan 50% a (Aporao tines) amount of hoes) li I,/, //�� `/'/• GC Clayey gravers. gravel-sarw•clay matures of material is LARGER man the No200 CLEAN SANDS SW Well graded sanos. gravelly sanos. ume or no hoes sieve 52e) SANDS (More man 50 4 of coarse fraction is (Lime or no fines) SP Peony graded sands or gravelly sands. Me or no fines . SMALLER Man pNp.4 sieve sae) jFre SANDS 1 WITH FINES SM Say sands. sand-slt mixtures amount of hoes) a•i a .• a SC Clayey sands. sand -clay mixtures IaL inorganic silts and very line sands. rock tour. stay or clayey fine sands or clayey sets win slight Waspgry FINE SILTS AND CLAYS (Liquid limn LESS roan 50) CL Inorganic days of IOW In medium plasndty, gravelly days. sandy days. silty clcl lean ays GRAINEDiii SOILS OL Organic sits and organic city low l'fil clays of plasticity (More roan 50'' al material 15 SMALLER can '• MH Inorganic slits, micaceous or diatomaceous me No.200 the sanay or Siry sails. elastic Mu sieve sae) SILTS AND CLAYS (Liana limn GREATER than 50) 1 el I'I v v 4 vvvv v.v CH Inorganic days of hign plasticity, tat clays /2 / / / / OH Organic days of meaWm to rugn plaslldly, organic silts • HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILSA PT Peat ano highly otner organic sous pO11NOARY Cl A4SIFICATIfNS; Soils possessing cnaracteristics of ma are oesignated by comomabons groups or group symbols. PARTICLE SIZE LINIITS SILT OR CLAY SAND GRAVEL -Fine Medium Coarse Fine Coarse COBBLES BOULDERS No. 200 No. 40 No 10 No, 4 3/4 in, 3 in. (12 m.) U. 5. STA NDARD SIEVE SIZE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM- • REFERENCE- Tne Unified Son Classification System. Cocos of Engineers. U.S. Army Tecnntrai Memorandum No. 3.357. Val. 1. Macon. 1953. (Revised Adel. 19601. LAW / C R A N D A L L /// FIGURE A-2 0 2 U DATE 6/23197 JOB 70131 70254 0001 SURCHARGE PRESSURE in Pounds per Square Fo 100 200 300 4000 5000 6000 0 1000 SHEAR STRENGTH in Pounds per Square Foot 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 2@3\ O \ O\ 4@6 1@21t\• 2@24- • 3@12 4018 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ BORING NUMBER & DEPTH (FT.) SAMPLE 4@6 \ O 2@3 O \ \ • \ 1 @21 • 2@24 4@18 •3@12 VALUES IN USED \ \ \ ANALYSES \ \ \ \ KEY • Samples tested at field moisture content Samples tested after soaking to a moisture content near saturation I —Natural soils DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA LAW/CRANDALL A FIGURE A - 3 0 2 U 2 CO DATE 626/97 CONSOLIDATION IN INCHES PER INCH O O O O 0O 2 p0 J 20) a 2 0 -. LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 ` I Boring SAND _ \ 4 at 34' Boring \ \` 2 at 27' SAND —ti 1 � . L t NOTE: Samples tested at field moisture content CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA LAW/CRANDALL a. FIGURE A - 4 J SIEVE ANALYSIS U.S. Sid. Sieve Openings US.Standard Sieve Numbers HYDROMETER ANALYSIS 1003' 1-1/2' 3/4' 3/8' 44 410 420 440 4100 4200 90 I 0 0 $ 8 0 00 0 RETAINED BY WEIGHT 2 80 I I _ 0 W 70 CO 60 C 50 cn d 40 1 i 1— W 30 _. U II 20 Boring 3 at 29W1n 3031 2 70 2 W 0 d 0 SAND 80 CC W 0_ 90 0 ... .. ._ to 1....n m O to 0 to m o '0 N m e0 N i0 C- e0 — m -t • m v — 0 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS o 0 Q C'1 0 0 0 O N 0 0 O m — 0 0 0 en 0 0 p t7 N *- 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 GRAVEL SAND Coarse Fine Coarse Medium I Fine SILT OR CLAY PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION • LAW/CRANDALL FIGURE A-5 APPENDIX B SOIL CORROSIVITY STUDY (BY M. J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC.) M. J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959 June 25,.1997 LAW/CRANDALL, INC. 200 Citadel Drive Los Angeles, California 90040-1554 Attention: Mr. Mike Shahabi 1291 North Indian Hill Boulevard Claremont, California 91711-3897 Phone 909-626-0967 FAX 909-621-1419 E-mail SCHIFFCORR@AOLCOM Re: Soil Corrosivity Study Hoag Hospital Parking Structure, East Addition Newport Beach, California Your #70131-7-0254, MJS&A #97185 INTRODUCTION Laboratory tests have been completed on five soil samples we selected from your boring logs for the referenced parking structure project. Also included is soil corrosivity test data from this site that we tested in 1995 for Hoag Hospital. The purpose of these tests was to determine if the soils may have deleterious effects on underground utilities, hydraulic elevator cylinders, and concrete foundations. The scope of this study is limited to a determination of soil corrosivity and general corrosion control recommendations for materials likely to be used for construction. If the architects and/or engineers desire more specific information, designs, specifications, or review of design, we will be happy to work with them as a separate phase of this project. TEST PROCEDURES The electrical resistivity of each sample was measured in a soil box per ASTM G57 in its as - received condition and again after saturation with distilled water. Resistivities are at about their lowest value when the soil is saturated. The pH of the saturated samples was measured. A 5:1 water:soil extract from each sample was chemically analyzed for the major anions and cations. Test results are shown on Table 1. CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS • FAILURE ANALYSIS • EXPERT WITNESS • CORROSIVITY AND DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS LAW/CRANDALL MJS&A #97185 SOIL CORROSIVITY June 25, 1997 Page 2 A major factor in determining soil corrosivityis electrical resistivity. The electrical resistivity of a soil is a measure of its resistance to the flow of electrical current. Corrosion of buried metal is an electrochemical process in which the amount of metal loss due to corrosion is directly proportional to the flow of electrical current (DC) from the metal into the soil. Corrosion currents, following Ohm's Law, are inversely proportional to soil resistivity. Lower electrical resistivities result from higher moisture and chemical contents and indicate corrosive soil. A correlation between electrical resistivity and corrosivity toward ferrous metal's is: Soil Resistivity in ohm -centimeters Corrosivity Category over 10,000 mildly corrosive 2,000 to 10,000 moderately corrosive 1,000 to 2,000 corrosive below 1,000 severely corrosive Other soil characteristics that may influence corrosivity towards metals are pH, chemical content, soil types, aeration, anaerobic conditions, and site drainage. Electrical resistivities were in moderately to severely corrosive categories with as -received moisture and at saturation. Soil pH values varied from 6.5 to 7.5. This range is slightly acidic to mildly alkaline and does not particularly enhance corrosivity. The chemical content of the samples was low. Tests were not made for sulfide or negative oxidation-reduction (redox) potentials because they would not exist in these aerated samples. This soil is classified as severely corrosive to ferrous metals. CORROSION CONTROL The life of buried materials depends on thickness, strength, loads, construction details, soil moisture, etc., in addition to soil corrosivity, and is, therefore, difficult to predict. Of more practical value are corrosion control methods that will increase the life of materials that would be subject\o significant corrosion. a. LAW/CRANDALL MIS&A #97185 June 25, 1997 Page 3 Steel Pipe Abrasive blast underground steel utilities and apply a high quality dielectric coating such as extruded polyethylene, a tape coating system, hot applied coal tar enamel, or fusion bonded epoxy. Bond underground steel pipe with rubber gasketed, mechanical, grooved end, or other nonconductive type joints for electrical continuity. Electrical continuity is necessary for corrosion monitoring and cathodic protection. Electrically insulate each buried steel pipeline from dissimilar metals, cement -mortar coated and concrete encased steel, and above ground steel pipe to prevent dissimilar metal corrosion cells and to facilitate the application of cathodic protection. Apply cathodic protection to steel piping as per NACE International RP-0169-92. As an alternative to dielectric coating and cathodic protection, apply a 3/4 inch cement mortar coating or encase in cement -slurry or concrete 3 inches thick, using any type of cement. Hydraulic Elevator Coat hydraulic elevator cylinders as described above. Electrically insulate each cylinder from building metals by installing dielectric material between the piston platen and car, insulating the bolts, and installing an insulated joint in the oil line. Apply cathodic protection to hydraulic cylinders as per NACE International RP-0169-92. As an alternative to electrical insulation and cathodic protection, place each cylinder in a plastic casing with a plastic watertight seal at the bottom. The elevator oil line should be placed above ground if possible but, if underground, should be protected as described above for steel utilities. Iron Pipe Encase ductile iron water piping in 8 mil thick low -density polyethylene or 4 mil thick high - density, cross -laminated polyethylene plastic tubes or wraps per AWWA Standard C105 or coat with a high quality dielectric coating such as polyurethane or coal tar epoxy. As an alternative, encase iron piping with cement slurry or concrete at least 3 inches thick surrounding the pipe, using any type of cement. Bond all nonconductive type joints for electrical continuity. Electrically insulate underground iron pipe from dissimilar metals and above ground iron pipe with insulated joints. Encase cast iron drain lines in 8 mil thick low -density polyethylene or 4 mil thick high -density, cross -laminated polyethylene plastic tubes or wraps per AWWA Standard C105. As an alternative, encase iron piping with cement slurry or concrete at least 3 inches thick surrounding the pipe, using any type of cement. Electrically insulate underground iron pipe from dissimilar metals and aboye ground iron pipe with insulated joints. a .. LAW/CRANDALL June 25, 1997 MJS&A #97185 - Page 4 Copper Tube Bare copper tubing for cold water should be bedded and bacldilled in the silty sand at least 2 inches thick surrounding the copper. Hot water tubing may be subject to a higher corrosion rate. The best corrosion control measure would be to place the hot copper tubing above ground. If buried, encase in plastic pipe to prevent soil contact or apply cathodic protection. Plastic and Vitrified Clay Pipe No special precautions are required for plastic and vitrified clay piping placed underground from a corrosion viewpoint. Protect any iron valves and fittings with a double polyethylene wrap per AWWA C105 or as described below for bare steel appurtenances. Where concrete thrust blocks are to be placed against iron, use a single polyethylene wrap to prevent concrete/iron contact and to eliminate the slipperiness of a double wrap. All Pipe On all pipe, coat bare steel appurtenances such as bolts, joint harnesses, or flexible couplings with a coal tar or elastomer based mastic, coal tar epoxy, moldable sealant, wax tape, or equivalent after assembly. Where metallic pipelines penetrate concrete structures such as building floors or walls, use plastic sleeves, rubber seals, or other dielectric material to prevent pipe contact with the concrete and reinforcing steel. Concrete Any type of cement and standard concrete cover over reinforcing steel may be used for concrete structures and pipe in contact with these soils. Please call if you have any questions. Respectfully Submitted, M.J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC. James T. Keegan Enc: Table 1 z:\docs-97\97185.doc Reviewed by, Paul R. Smith, P.E. Ow fp M. J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC. r- Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959 1291 North Indian Hill Boulevard Claremont, Califomia 91711-3897 Phone 909-626-0967 FAX 909-621-1419 E-mail SCHIFFCORR@AOL.COM Table 1- Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples Page 1 of 2 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach, California Your #70131-7-0254, MJS&A #97185 June 20, 1997 Sample ID B-2 B-3 B-5 B-7 B-7 @ 9.5' @ 3.5' @2'-7' @2.5' @14'-15.5' Soil Type silty silty silty clay sand sand sand clay Resistivity Units as -received ohm -cm 800 6,400 7,600 6,300 775 saturated ohm -cm 720 3,650 4,800 4,400 740 pH 6.5 7.0 6.7 6.5 6.6 Electrical Conductivity mS/cm 0.09 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.15 Chemical Analyses Cations calcium Ca2t mg/kg 16 ND ND ND 32 magnesium Mgt+ mg/kg ND ND ND ND 10 sodium Na'+ mg/kg 86 104 77 96 116 Anions carbonate C032- mg/kg ND ND ND ND ND bicarbonate HC031" mg/kg 73 122 85 85 183 chloride CII" mg/kg 60 43 39 57 57 sulfate SO41- mg/kg 79 63 41 56 137 Other Tests sulfide S2" qual na na na na na Redox my na na na na na ammonium NH4I+ mg/kg na na na na na nitrate NO3I " mg/kg na na na na na - Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis are of a 1:5 soil -to -water extract. mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil. Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts ND = not detected na = not analyzed docs97‘97185.xls CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS • FAILURE ANALYSIS • EXPERT WITNESS • CORROSIVITY AND DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS • M. J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959 Sample ID 1291 North Indian Hill Boulevard Claremont, California 91711-3897 Phone 909-626-0967 FAX 909-621-1419 E-mail SCHIFFCORR@AOLCOM Table 1- Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples Page 2 of 2 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach, California Your #70131-7-0254, MJS&A #97185 June 20,1997 HAI, 4' Soil Type Resistivity Units as -received ohm -cm 4,100 saturated ohm -cm 3,300 silty sand pH 7.5 Electrical Conductivity mS/cm 0.15 Chemical Analyses Cations calcium Cat' mg/kg 60 magnesium Mgt' mg/kg ND sodium Na" mg/kg 83 Anions carbonate C032- mg/kg ND bicarbonate HCO3'" mg/kg I95 chloride CI'" mg/kg 28 sulfate S042" mg/kg 124 Other Tests sulfide S'" qual Redox my ammonium NH41 mg/kg nitrate NO3I" mg/kg na na na - na Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis are of a 1:5 soil -to -water extract. mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil. Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts ND = not detected na = not analyzed docs97197185.xls CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS • FAILURE ANALYSIS • EXPERT WITNESS • CORROSIVITY AND DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS 1 I 2 SURGERY CENTER HOAG 3 DRIVE j 2 - 8"PVC FIRE- 8" CHANNEL DRAIN 2' SO SUMP PIT 3 4 4 - -78.6IFS 78.49 S 5 79,401 6 5 1 6 78,66FS 7 8 9 10 HOSPITAL PARKING STRUCTURE DEEPENED FOOTING AND HAND RAIL SEE ARCHITECT PLAN mAN Tf W 0 t.t) 0 w 0 7 8 78.69T 78.59FG 78.30 TG-TYP 78 69111 78,59FG 78.81 FF 9 p" 2 TC-FS- 78.34TC 5 77.84F 78.69TW 78.00FS-GB 10 11 EXISTING DRAINAGE CHANNEL s7EP •SOFL 11 1 r� Ts ms�y/ 12 8"S 13 ROAD R 71.0 INV 10" PVC 70.631NV. 6" 70.471NV. 10" 76.44TG /72.08IN V 12' SO INLET / / / 66.0 INV. --1 %ye 6"PVC 3"SEWER VENT SEE MECH. DRWG. = = 66-. INV. EXIST. 8' FIRE LINE 2© a 8"PVC=--o- r 12 I 11 6" PVC OUTLET TO CHANNEL f / I � W a a_ 6" PVC OUTLET TO CHANNEL SEE MECH. DRWG. 13 SMH 14 FITTINGS AS REQUIRE a PROPOSED A.C. PAVEMENT 0.7% �'G,3 15 8"S-- 6" SCALE: I'=20' 18' 16 L_ DETAIL NO. 2 NOT TO SCALE T XISTING RAIN GUTTER E f DOWNDRAIN MODIFY END OF DOWNDRAIN TO CENTER IN NEW INLET PIPE I/2" GAP 4" SDR 35 DRAIN LINE MAKE CONNECTION TO DRAINAGE SYSTEM FITTINGS AS REQUIRED 4.5' 12" 12"' ' '( TYP TYP 17 3/8" LIP WHERE A.C. PVM'T 0" LIP WHERE CONC. PVM'T/r IY• I'R8R WHERE A.C. EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK OR LANDSCAPING PROPOSED 3" SDR 35 DRAIN PIPE TO AREA DRAIN PROPOSED 4" SDR 35 DRAIN PIPE TO CATCH BASIN DETAIL NO. I NOT TO SCALE 10' z 0 ce J CC cIC U 1- w r 3.7' TYP SECTION A -A PROPOSED A.C. PAVEMENT I% CONCRETE CROSSWALK/SPEEDBUMP SCALE:1"=5' Q CONSTRUCTION NOTES: a lO CONSTRUCT 3" A.C. OVER 10" A.B. PER SOILS ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATION © CONSTRUCT 7 1/2" P.C.C. CONCRETE OVER 0" BASE MATERIAL PER SOILS ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATION. CONSTRUCT 6' STANDARD CONCRETE CURB a GUTTER, TYPE "A", MODIFIED TO 18" WIDE GUTTER PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD-I82-L. NO LIP WHERE CONCRETE PAVING. SEE DETAIL NO. 2. CONSTRUCT 0' OR 6' STANDARD CONCRETE CURB, TYPE "B", PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD-I82-L. CONSTRUCT CURB ACCESS RAMP PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD-181-L-A88, CASE 'H'. CONSTRUCT P.C.C. CONCRETE GUTTER, MODIFIED TO 3' WIDE PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD-140-L CONSTRUCT LOCAL DEPRESSION PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD-304-L. CONSTRUCT CURB INLET TYPE OL-A PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD-305-L, Lr3'-6" INCL. FOSSIL FILTER. CONSTRUCT CONCRETE PIPE COLLAR PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD-313-L. CONSTRUCT 18" R.C.P., 2000D, STORM DRAIN. SEE C-3 CONSTRUCT 12" P.V.C. SDR35 STORM DRAIN 0 I% MINIMUM. SEE C-3 FOR INVERTS. CONSTRUCT 6" P.V.C. SDR35 STORM DRAIN a I% MINIMUM. SEE C-3 FOR INVERTS. CONSTRUCT 4" P.V.C. SDR35 STORM DRAIN 0 I% MINIMUM. SEE C-3 FOR INVERTS. CONSTRUCT 3" P.V.C. SDR35 STORM DRAIN a IY• MINIMUM. SEE C-3 FOR INVERTS. CONSTRUCT ACO CHANNEL DRAIN, NW-100 SERIES WITH NO. 410 GRATE. CONNECT EXISTING 2" P.V.C. DRAIN LINE TO ACO CHANNEL DRAIN. MAKE CONNECTION TO EXISTING 18" R.C.P. STORM DRAIN PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CONNECTION ASSEMBLY STD-312-L. MAKE CONNECTION TO EXISTING CATCH BASIN. CONSTRUCT 3" ATRIUM INLET (TYPICAL) WITH REQUIRED PIPE CONSTRUCT 4" ATRIUM INLET (TYPICAL) WITH REQUIRED PIPE JOIN EXISTING CONCRETE CURB. JOIN EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK. PROTECT IN PLACE. REMOVE 8 REPLACE EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD-180-L. SEE ARCHITECT'S PLAN SHEET� A-1.2.7 FOR CONC. PAVEMENT COLOR AND DETAILING. REMOVE / 4 \ CONSTRUCT RAIN GUTTER DOWNDRAIN CONNECTION TO DRAINAGE SYSTEM PER DETAIL NO. I NOT USED CONSTRUCT 5" SQ. SATIN BRASS INLET PER NDS 913 B WITH REQUIRED PIPE CONNECTIONS. PAINT CURBS RED AND RED STRIPE AS SHOWN. JOIN AND MATCH EXISTING PAVEMENT. REMOVE EXISTING 6" SEWER AND CONSTRUCT 8' PVC SDR 35 SEWER MAIN. CONSTRUCT 4" P.V.C. SDR 35 SEWER MAIN WITH CONNECTION PER CITY STD 405-L. CONSTRUCT LABORATORY WASTE INSPECTION MANHOLE, SEE PLUMBING DRWG. P5.3 4 " P 0 I OC CONNECTIONS. CONNECTIONS. ONST' ICT PVC- £ WA 900 CLASS 200 WATER LINE, PIPE BEDDING PER CITY STD. I06-L. CONSTRUCT THRUST BLOCK PER CITY STD. 510-L-A. NOTE: NEW CURB ADJACENT TO EXISTING PAVEMENT TO INCLUDE 1' WIDE 3" A.C./10"A.B. EXISTING A.C. IN THE CROSSWALKS, TO BE REPLACED BY 7 1/2" CONCRETE. ONE LANE MINIMUM MUST BE MAINTAINED OPEN ON HOAG DRIVE DURING CONSTRUCTION. HOAG DRIVE IS A FIRE LANE. 14 15 16 17 D.A.B.E. JOB NO.: T12-102-00 DATE OF DWG.: DECEMBER 5, 2003 DATE: 8-6-01 3-4-02 2-26-02 7-25-02 8-05-02 4-17-03 12-5-03 PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT ARCHITECT: L. TAYLOR DRAWN BY: N.S. AGENCY SUBMITTAL DATE: 12-21-00 ISSUED FOR BIDS: ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION: SCALE: It I SHEET NUMBER: M IL ct a. C 2.2 L K • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS COES NOT CCNSTI'iuTE EXPRESS OR IMPLIED AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT ANY E:U:LC'.NG IN VOLATIO.'1 CF, OR INCOur'SrENT WITH THE CRRD!NANCES, FLANS. AN3 FE Ur:ES r,; THE CITY OF NEWPORT E$ APPROVAL CCEST NOT GOLL;1';rEE -NE"; = cIANS ' E, IN N COVPU N 'TH ryry el a C S. FLAN THE CITY or I CRTf A Hs 'EIRE 7 ;qr REVISE THE L G F G ORD'DEFOR : -t N ES F Ia. r. 1 Ct rr' APPLICANT AC7 NG% .._,: DEPARTMENT PURUC v. )a,; GENERAL Si QVI_rt FIRE PIANNP, EP4? BY: THIS TS, IN L!CIES. 'AITEE TO “SE PUNS, LY VIITH THE AFPFY:ATEyETTO ISSUE 7 /cJ if ,. 1 PROPOSED lNSTALt.A77018 ACCEPTABLE TO NEWPORT BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT' FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION Inspcctor: Date: j2//2 \etc: Acceptance applies to ' • or pint as submitted and fur construction indkaito. thcreen-subject ig aid CONSULTANT: IThregaredl W IDAVIED O re IERT GIIHIEIEI ZEN 2078 S. GRAND AVE.r SANTA ANA CA 92705 PH: 714-957-8144 FAX:714-957-8499 M2220 NORTH UNIVERSITY DRIVE MINEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 949.574.1325 FAX 949.574.1338 ARCHITECTURE AND INTERIOR DESIGN TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES PROJECT: HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL rric,,,r. x 4-1 SHEET TITLE: PRECISE GRADING AND PAVING PLAN CITY CORRECTIONS LOWER MOAT EL., ADD INLETS ADD CANOPY DRAINS ADD VESTIBULE DRAIN AGENCY APPROVALS: 1-11 rin-15921.-00