Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPA2021-285_20211130_Geotechnical Investigation_10-29-211011 N. Armando Street, Anaheim, CA 92806-2606 (714) 630-1626 October 29, 2021 J.N.: 3010.00 Garrett & Heather Bland 14975 Corona Del Mar Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 Subject: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence, 125 East Bay Front, Newport Beach, California Dear Mr. & Mrs. Bland, Pursuant to your request, Albus & Associates, Inc. is pleased to present to you our geotechnical investigation report for the subject development. This report presents the results of our field investigation, laboratory testing, engineering analyses, as well as our preliminary geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the subject development. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this report, please do not hesitate to call this office. Sincerely yours, ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC. David E. Albus Principal Engineer ~ ALBUS &ASSOCIATES PA2021-285 Garrett & Heather Bland October 29, 2021 J.N.: 3010.00 Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 1  1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ........................................................................................................ 1  1.2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ............................................................................... 1  1.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................. 1  1.4 RESEARCH ............................................................................................................................ 2  2.0 INVESTIGATION .................................................................................................................... 3  2.1 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION........................................................................................ 3  2.2 LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................................................... 3  3.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS.................................................................................................... 3  3.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING ........................................................................................................... 3  3.2 GEOLOGIC UNITS ................................................................................................................ 4  3.3 GROUNDWATER .................................................................................................................. 4  3.4 FAULTING ............................................................................................................................. 4  4.0 ANALYSES ............................................................................................................................... 5  4.1 SEISMICITY ........................................................................................................................... 5  4.2 STATIC SETTLEMENT ........................................................................................................ 6  5.0 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................... 7  5.1 FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................... 7  5.2 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ......................................................................................................... 7  5.2.1 Ground Rupture ................................................................................................................ 7  5.2.2 Ground Shaking ................................................................................................................ 7  5.2.3 Liquefaction ...................................................................................................................... 7  5.3 STATIC SETTLEMENT ........................................................................................................ 8  5.4 EXCAVATION AND MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS .................................................. 8  5.5 SHRINKAGE AND SUBSIDENCE ....................................................................................... 8  6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................... 9  6.1 EARTHWORK ........................................................................................................................ 9  6.1.1 General Earthwork and Grading Specifications ............................................................... 9  6.1.2 Pre-Grade Meeting and Geotechnical Observation .......................................................... 9  6.1.3 Site Clearing...................................................................................................................... 9  6.1.4 Ground Preparation ........................................................................................................... 9  6.1.5 Fill Placement ................................................................................................................. 10  6.1.6 Import Materials .............................................................................................................. 10  6.1.7 Temporary Excavations .................................................................................................. 10  6.1.8 Shoring ............................................................................................................................ 10  6.1.9 Dewatering ...................................................................................................................... 11  6.2 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS .................................................................................... 11  6.2.1 Mapped Seismic Design Parameters ............................................................................... 11  6.2.2 Site-Specific Seismic Design Parameters ....................................................................... 12  6.3 CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATION DESIGN ..................................................................... 12  6.3.1 General ............................................................................................................................ 12  6.3.2 Soil Expansion ................................................................................................................ 13  6.3.3 Settlement Considerations .............................................................................................. 13  6.3.4 Allowable Bearing Value ................................................................................................ 13  6.3.5 Lateral Resistance ........................................................................................................... 13  PA2021-285 Garrett & Heather Bland October 29, 2021 J.N.: 3010.00 Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS REPORT ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 6.3.6 Footing and Slab on Grade ............................................................................................. 14  6.3.7 Footing Observations ...................................................................................................... 15  6.4 MAT SLAB ........................................................................................................................... 15  6.5 RETAINING AND SCREENING WALLS.......................................................................... 16  6.5.1 General ............................................................................................................................ 16  6.5.2 Allowable Bearing Value and Lateral Resistance .......................................................... 16  6.5.3 Active Earth Pressures .................................................................................................... 16  6.5.4 Drainage and Moisture-Proofing .................................................................................... 16  6.5.5 Footing Reinforcement ................................................................................................... 18  6.5.6 Footing Observations ...................................................................................................... 18  6.5.7 Retaining Wall Backfill .................................................................................................. 18  6.5.8 Wall Jointing ................................................................................................................... 18  6.6 CONCRETE MIX DESIGN .................................................................................................. 18  6.7 EXTERIOR FLATWORK .................................................................................................... 19  6.8 POST GRADING CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................................. 19  6.8.1 Site Drainage and Irrigation ............................................................................................ 19  6.8.2 Utility Trenches .............................................................................................................. 19  6.9 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES ....................................................... 20  7.0 LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 20  REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 22  FIGURES AND PLATES Figure 1 – Site Location Map Plate 1 – Geotechnical Map APPENDICES APPENDIX A - EXPLORATION LOGS AND LAB- BY EGA APPENDIX B - EXPLORATION LOG BY ALBUS APPENDIX C- LIQUEFACTION CALCS BY EGA PA2021-285 Garrett & Heather Bland October 29, 2021 J.N.: 3010.00 Page 1 ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purposes of our preliminary geotechnical investigation were to evaluate geotechnical conditions within the project area and to provide conclusions and recommendations relevant to the design and construction of the proposed improvements at the subject site. The scope of this investigation included the following:  Review of previous geotechnical reports, published geologic and seismic data for the site and surrounding area  Exploratory drilling and soil sampling  Laboratory testing of selected soil samples  Engineering analyses of data obtained from our review, exploration, and laboratory testing  Evaluation of site seismicity and settlement potential  Preparation of this report 1.2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The site is located within the address of 125 East Bay Front within the city of Newport Beach, California. The site is bordered by residential properties to the north and south, Jade Ave to the west, and the Newport Harbor/East Bay Front to the east. The location of the site and its relationship to the surrounding areas is shown in Figure 1, Site Location Map. The project site and overall property are relatively flat with elevations ranging from 11 to 12 feet above mean sea level (based on Google Earth). The site appears to drain generally towards Jade Ave on the west and towards East Bay Front on the east as sheet flow. The property is currently occupied by an existing two-story house. The house occupies the middle of the property with the garage entrance accessed from Jade Ave on the west. The east portion of the property contains a patio space with concrete hardscaping which extends along the north and south sides of the house and up to East Bay Front on the east. Vegetation of the site consists of grass, shrubs and a moderate sized tree. 1.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT We understand the proposed site development will consist of the complete teardown of the existing house and construction of a new 3-story single-family residential house. The development is planned with a wood-framed residential building and may include one basement level. No structural plans were available for our review at this time. PA2021-285 Garrett & Heather Bland October 29, 2021 J.N.: 3010.00 Page 2 ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC. © 2021 Google Earth FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATION MAP Proposed Single-Family Residence, 125 East Bay Front, Newport Beach, California NOT TO SCALE 1.4 RESEARCH Our review of historical aerial photos indicates the site was occupied by a single family home by 1938. The home is still seen in a photo from 1952 but is gone in 1953. In a photo from 1963, the current home can be seen occupying the property. A geologic map for the area (Morton, PK et al. 1973) indicates the general area is underlain by alluvial and colluvial materials (Qac) mostly consisting of loosely consolidated gravel, sand, and silt of stream channels. A more recent geologic map for the area (Morton, D.M., and Miller, F.K., 2006), indicates the site is underlain by estuarine deposits (Qes) consisting of unconsolidated sand, silt, and clay that contains variable amounts of organic matter. The site is not located within a Alquist Priolo Fault Zone. However, the site is located within a state of California Liquefaction Hazard Zone (CGS 1998). SITE N l PA2021-285 Garrett & Heather Bland October 29, 2021 J.N.: 3010.00 Page 3 ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Several previous geotechnical reports have been performed for nearby properties. The most comprehensive report we found was for the property located at 225 E. Bay Front (EGA 2017) located about 360 feet north of the subject site. This previous work included one boring extending to a depth of 10 feet and a cone penetration test (CPT) sounding that extended to a depth of 50 feet. The report also provided results of laboratory testing including in-place moistures and densities, maximum density, direct shear, and sulfate content. Copies of the previous exploration and laboratory testing are provided in Appendix A. 2.0 INVESTIGATION 2.1 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION Subsurface exploration for this investigation was conducted on August 6, 2021. Our exploration consisted of one (1) boring in a selected area of the site. The boring was hand-augered to a depth of about 10 feet below the existing ground surface. Representatives of Albus & Associates, Inc. logged the exploratory excavation. Visual and tactile identifications were made of the materials encountered, and their descriptions are presented on the Exploration Log in Appendix A. The approximate location of the exploratory boring is shown on the enclosed Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. Bulk and relatively undisturbed samples were obtained at selected depths from the boring for subsequent laboratory testing. Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained using a 3-inch O.D., 2.5- inch I.D., California split-spoon soil sampler lined with brass rings. Bulk samples were placed in plastic bags and transported to our laboratory for analyses and testing. The boring was backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion of sampling. 2.2 LABORATORY TESTING Selected samples obtained from the borings were tested in the soil laboratory. Tests consisted of in- place moisture and density. Results of these tests are included on the boring log presented in Appendix B. 3.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 3.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING The site is situated in the Peninsular Ranges province, which is one of the largest geomorphic units in western North America. Basically, it extends from the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province and the Los Angeles Basin, approximately 900 miles south to the tip of Baja California. This province varies in width from about 30 to 100 miles. It is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the south by the Gulf of California and on the east by the Colorado Desert Province. The Peninsular Ranges are essentially a series of northwest-southeast oriented fault blocks. Three major fault zones are found in this province. The Elsinore Fault zone and the San Jacinto Fault zone trend northwest-southeast and are found near the middle of the province. The San Andreas Fault zone borders the northeasterly margin of the province. PA2021-285 Garrett & Heather Bland October 29, 2021 J.N.: 3010.00 Page 4 ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3.2 GEOLOGIC UNITS Based on our review of the geologic literature, previous geotechnical reports, and site exploration, the site is underlain by artificial fills and estuarine deposits. Artificial fill was encountered to the full depth of our boring (10 feet below ground surface). We estimate the artificial fills extend to a depth of about 12 feet based on data collected at 225 E. Bay Front (EGA 2017). The fill materials are generally comprised of interlayered silty sands and fine to medium, poorly-graded sands with occasional sea shells. These materials are typically medium dense and moist near the surface but become wet near a depth of 4 feet. Estuarine deposits underly the artificial fills and extend to a depth of about 40 feet based on data contained in the report by EGA (2017). These materials generally consist of interlayered silty sands and poorly-graded sands that are medium dense but become dense below a depth of about 20 feet. Below a depth of 40 feet, the underlying materials become a stiff silty clay and clay as suggested by the nearby CPT sounding by EGA. These materials may be an upper weathered section of the Capistrano Formation bedrock that is generally comprised of siltstone or the Monterey Formation bedrock that is interbedded siltstone and claystone. Detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered within the site and nearby surrounding area are provided the exploration logs and CPT soundings contained in Appendices A and B. 3.3 GROUNDWATER Groundwater was encountered in our boring at a depth of 4 below ground surface. The depth to ground water is significantly influenced by the water levels in the nearby channel. Based on our previous experience in the general area, groundwater is likely to vary by 1 to 2 feet due to tidal fluctuations. Our boring was drilled at about the time of high tide (6.07 ft) and therefore, the depth to groundwater of 4 feet that we encountered is very near the shallowest expected depth. 3.4 FAULTING Based on our review of the referenced publications and seismic data, no faults are known to project through or immediately adjacent the site and the site does not lie within an "Earthquake Fault Zone" as defined by the State of California in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Traces of a buried fault are mapped by Morton and Miller (2006) and Morton (1999) to the northeast approximately 1.84 mile away. This fault is not in the relative vicinity of the site and is not indicated on the State of California maps. We do not consider this fault to be a design consideration of the project. Table 3.1 presents a summary of all the known seismically active faults within 10 miles of the site PA2021-285 Garrett & Heather Bland October 29, 2021 J.N.: 3010.00 Page 5 ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC. TABLE 3.1 Summary of Faults Name Distance (miles) Slip Rate (mm/yr.) Preferred Dip (degrees) Slip Sense Rupture Top (km) Fault Length (km) Newport Inglewood Connected alt 1 1.84 1.3 89 strike slip 0 208 Newport Inglewood Connected alt 2 1.84 1.3 90 strike slip 0 208 Newport-Inglewood (Offshore) 1.84 1.5 90 strike slip 0 66 Newport-Inglewood, alt 1 2.84 1 88 strike slip 0 65 San Joaquin Hills 5.96 0.5 23 thrust 2 27 4.0 ANALYSES 4.1 SEISMICITY 2019 CBC requires seismic parameters in accordance with ASCE 7-16. Unless noted otherwise, all section numbers cited in the following refer to the sections in ASCE 7-16. Per Section 20.3 the project site was designated as Site Class D. We used the OSHPD seismic hazard tool to obtain the basic mapped acceleration parameters, including short periods (SS) and 1-second period (S1) MCER Spectral Response Accelerations. Section 11.4.8 requires site-specific ground hazard analysis for structures on Site Class E with SS greater than or equal to 1.0 or Site Class D or E with S1 greater than or equal to 0.2. Based on the mapped values of SS and S1 the project site falls within this category, requiring site specific hazard analysis in accordance with Section 21.2. However, “A ground motion hazard analysis is not required for structures where: Structures on Site Class D sites with S1 greater than or equal to 0.2, provided the value of the seismic response coefficient Cs is determined by Eq. (12.8-2) for values of T ≤ 1.5Ts and taken as equal to 1.5 times the value computed in accordance with either Eq. (12.8-3) for TL ≥ T > 1.5Ts or Eq. (12.8-4) for T > TL.” Assuming this exception is met for this project, a ground motion hazard analysis is not required and mapped seismic values can be used. Should this exception not be met, a ground motion hazard analysis is required to determine the Design response spectra for the proposed structures at this site. Both mapped and site-specific seismic design parameters are provided in this report as presented in Section 6.2. Details of a ground motion hazard analysis are explained below. According to Section 21.2.3 (Supplement 1), the site-specific Risk Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) spectral response acceleration at any period is the lesser of the probabilistic and the deterministic response accelerations, subject to the exception specified in the same section. The probabilistic response spectrum was developed using the computer program OpenSHA (Field et al., 2013), which implements Method 1 as described in Section 21.2.1.1. Fault Models 3.1 and 3.2 from PA2021-285 Garrett & Heather Bland October 29, 2021 J.N.: 3010.00 Page 6 ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC. the Third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3) were used as the earthquake rupture forecast models for the PSHA. In addition to known fault sources, background seismicity was also included in the PSHA. The ground motion Prediction Equations (GMPEs) selected for use in this analysis are those developed for the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) West 2 project. Four GMPEs - Abrahamson et al. (2014), Boore et al. (2014), Campbell and Bozorgnia (2014), and Chiou and Youngs (2014) were used to perform the analysis. In accordance with Section 21.2.2 (Supplement 1), the deterministic spectral response acceleration at each period was calculated as the 84th percentile, 5% damped response acceleration, using NGA-West2 GMPE Worksheet. For this, the information from at least three causative faults with the greatest contribution per deaggregation analysis were used and the larger acceleration spectrum among these was selected as the deterministic response spectrum. The deterministic spectrum was adjusted per requirements in Section 21.2.2 (Supplement 1) where applicable. Both probabilistic and deterministic spectra were subjected to the maximum direction scale factors specified in Section 21.2 to produce the maximum acceleration spectra. Design response spectrum was developed by subjecting the site-specific MCER response spectrum to the provisions outlined in Section 21.3. This process included comparison with 80% code-based design spectrum determined in accordance with Section 11.4.6. The short period and long period site coefficient (Fa and Fv, respectively) were determined per Section 21.3 in conjunction with Table 11.4- 1. Site-specific design acceleration parameters (SMS, SM1, SDS, and SD1) were calculated according to Section 21.4. Per Section 11.2 (definitions on Page 79 of ASCE7-16) for evaluation of liquefaction, lateral spreading, seismic settlements, and other soil-related issues, Maximum Considered Earthquake Geometric Mean (MCEG) peak ground acceleration PGAM shall be used. The site-specific PGAM is calculated per Section 21.5.3, as the lesser of the probabilistic PGAM (Section 21.5.1) and deterministic PGAM (Section 21.5.2), but no less than 80% site modified peak ground acceleration, PGAM, obtained from OSHPD seismic hazard tool. From our analyses, we obtain a PGAM of 0.709g. 4.2 STATIC SETTLEMENT Analyses were performed to evaluate potential for static settlement of foundations. The underlying soils are primarily granular in nature and so an elastic method was used for evaluation. The elastic modulus of the existing soils was estimated from the CPT data in the report by EGA (2017). The plot indicated a correlated soil elastic modulus of 76 ksf per foot based on a cone penetration resistance of 19 tsf per foot of depth. Two conditions were analyzed. The first was to represent a shallow continuous footing embedded near existing grade and the second was based on a continuous basement footing embedded 10 feet below current grade. For the at-grade footing that carries a wall load of 2 kips/ft, we estimate a total settlement of 0.1 inch assuming the upper 2 feet are removed and recompacted. For the basement footing that carries a wall load of 3 kips/ft., we estimate a total settlement of 0.05 inches. Both analyses assume groundwater at a depth of 4 feet below current grade. We also evaluated the potential ground settlement that may be induced by lowering of the groundwater level due to dewatering. Assuming the groundwater is lowered to 12 feet below adjacent surface grades, we estimate a total induced ground settlement of less than 0.1 inches. PA2021-285 Garrett & Heather Bland October 29, 2021 J.N.: 3010.00 Page 7 ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS 5.1 FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT From a geotechnical point of view, the proposed site improvements are considered feasible provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. Furthermore, it is also our opinion that the proposed development will not adversely impact the stability of adjoining properties if the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into site development. Key issues that could have significant fiscal impacts on the geotechnical aspects of the proposed site development are discussed in the following sections of this report. 5.2 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 5.2.1 Ground Rupture No known active faults are known to project through the site nor does the site lie within the boundaries of an “Earthquake Fault Zone” as defined by the State of California in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. The closest known active fault is the offshore portion of the Newport Inglewood Fault located about 1.84 miles from the site to the west. Therefore, the potential for ground rupture due to an earthquake beneath the site is considered very low. 5.2.2 Ground Shaking The site is situated in a seismically active area that has historically been affected by generally moderate to occasionally high levels of ground motion. The site lies in relative close proximity to several active faults; therefore, during the life of the proposed structures, the property will probably experience similar moderate to occasionally high ground shaking from these fault zones, as well as some background shaking from other seismically active areas of the Southern California region. Potential ground accelerations have been estimated for the site and are presented in Section 4.1 of this report. Design and construction in accordance with the current California Building Code (CBC) requirements is anticipated to address the issues related to potential ground shaking. 5.2.3 Liquefaction Engineering research of soil liquefaction potential (Youd, et al., 2001) indicates that generally three basic factors must exist concurrently in order for liquefaction to occur. These factors include: A source of ground shaking, such as an earthquake, capable of generating soil mass distortions. A relatively loose silty and/or sandy soil. A relative shallow groundwater table (within approximately 50 feet below ground surface) or completely saturated soil conditions that will allow positive pore pressure generation. The liquefaction susceptibility of the onsite subsurface soils was evaluated by analyzing the potential concurrent occurrence of the above-mentioned three basic factors. The liquefaction evaluation for this site was completed under the guidance of Special Publication 117A: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California (CDMG, 2008). Based on the criteria above, the site has a risk of liquefaction. The occurrence of liquefaction can lead to seismic settlement of the ground. Analyses were performed by EGA (2017) to estimate the factor PA2021-285 Garrett & Heather Bland October 29, 2021 J.N.: 3010.00 Page 8 ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC. of safety against liquefaction and seismic settlement based on the CPT data at the nearby property at 225 E. Bay Front. The analyses were based on a PGAM of 0.72 and the results indicate a total settlement of 2.32 inches. Based on our seismic analyses for the site discussed in Section 4.1, we obtain a PGAM of 0.71 which is slightly lower than the value used by EGA. Upon review of their work, we accept the basis and results of that work as representing conditions at the subject site. A copy of the calculations by EGA are provided in Appendix C. Removing and recompacting the upper 3 feet of soils will reduce the seismic settlement within the upper 10 feet to less than 1 inch. Based on these results, the Shallow Liquefaction Mitigation Methods established by the city of Newport Beach can be implemented for mitigation of liquefaction effects. Specific recommendations are provided in Sections 6.3 and 6.4. 5.3 STATIC SETTLEMENT As summarize in Section 4.2, based on the proposed improvements and provided that a uniform blanket of engineered fill is placed as recommended in this report, total and differential settlement is anticipated to be less than 1 inch and 1/2 inch over 30 feet, respectively. These values are considered within tolerable limits of proposed structures and site improvements. 5.4 EXCAVATION AND MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS The surficial earth materials are anticipated to be relatively easy to excavate with conventional heavy earthmoving equipment where located above the groundwater depth. Excavations below the ground water depth will be saturated and tend to cave unless supported by shoring. In addition, excavations more than about two feet below ground water will tend to sand boil and become unstable unless the zone of excavation is dewatered. Specific recommendations pertaining to dewatering are provided in Section 6.1.9. Offsite improvements exist near the property lines. The presence of the existing improvements may limit removals of unsuitable materials and deeper excavations adjacent the property lines. Shoring will be required where excavations cut below a plane projected down at 1.5 to 1 (H:V) from adjacent property lines. Specific recommendations for temporary shoring are provided in Section 6.1.8. 5.5 SHRINKAGE AND SUBSIDENCE Volumetric changes in earth quantities will occur when excavated onsite soil materials are replaced as properly compacted fill. We estimate the existing surficial soils may shrink approximately 5% to 15% when removed and replaced as compacted fill. Subsidence due to processing of excavations is anticipated to be about 0.10 feet. The estimates of shrinkage and subsidence are intended as an aid for project engineers in determining earthwork quantities. However, these estimates should be used with some caution since they are not absolute values. Contingencies should be made for balancing earthwork quantities based on actual shrinkage and subsidence that occurs during the grading process. PA2021-285 Garrett & Heather Bland October 29, 2021 J.N.: 3010.00 Page 9 ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 EARTHWORK 6.1.1 General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Earthwork and grading should be performed in accordance with applicable requirements of the grading codes of the City of Newport Beach, California and CAL/OSHA, in addition to recommendations presented herein. 6.1.2 Pre-Grade Meeting and Geotechnical Observation Prior to commencement of grading, we recommend a meeting be held between the owner/developer, City Inspector, grading contractor, civil engineer, and geotechnical consultant, to discuss proposed grading and construction logistics. We also recommend that a geotechnical consultant be retained to provide soil engineering and engineering geologic services during site grading and foundation construction. This is to observe compliance with the design specifications and recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated. If conditions are encountered during construction that appears to be different than those indicated in this report, the project geotechnical consultant should be notified immediately. Design and construction revisions may be required. 6.1.3 Site Clearing Vegetation, concrete slabs and foundations, underground improvements to be abandoned and deleterious materials should be removed from the site. Onsite disposal systems consisting of septic tank and seepage pits are not anticipated at the site. If onsite disposal systems are encountered during site development, the septic tank should be completed removed from the site and seepage pits should be properly abandoned in accordance with the requirements established by the government agencies. The project geotechnical consultant should be notified at the appropriate times to provide observation services during clearing operations to verify compliance with the above recommendations. Voids created by clearing and excavation should be left open for observation by the geotechnical consultant. Should any unusual soil conditions or subsurface structures be encountered during site clearing or grading that are not described or anticipated herein, these conditions should be brought to the immediate attention of the project geotechnical consultant for corrective recommendations as needed. Temporary construction equipment (office trailers, power poles, etc.) should be positioned to allow adequate room for clearing and recommended ground preparation to be performed for proposed structures, pavements, and hardscapes. 6.1.4 Ground Preparation Existing soils should be removed to a depth of 2 feet below existing grade below areas to support at- grade footings and slabs on grade. Such removals should extend at least 2 feet beyond the edges of footings. Where footings are supported by soils located below a depth of 8 feet from existing grade (basement condition), no additional removal will be required. PA2021-285 Garrett & Heather Bland October 29, 2021 J.N.: 3010.00 Page 10 ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Following removals, the exposed grade should first be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, brought to at least 110 percent of the optimum moisture content, and then compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. 6.1.5 Fill Placement In general, materials excavated from the site may be used as fill provided they are free of deleterious materials and particles greater than 4 inches in maximum dimension. Fill materials should be placed in loose lifts no greater than approximately 8 inches in thickness. Each lift should be watered or air- dried as necessary to achieve at least the optimum moisture content, and then compacted in place to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. The laboratory standard for maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for each soil type should be determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557. Each lift should be treated in a similar manner. Subsequent lifts should not be placed until the project geotechnical consultant has tested the preceding lift. Lifts should be maintained relatively level and should not exceed a gradient of 20:1 (H:V). 6.1.6 Import Materials If import materials are required to achieve the proposed finish grades, the proposed import soils should have an Expansion Index less than 21 (ASTM D4829). Import sources should be indicated to the geotechnical consultant prior to hauling the materials to the site so that appropriate testing and evaluation of the fill materials can be performed in advance. 6.1.7 Temporary Excavations Due to the sandy nature of the subsurface soils, temporary construction slopes up to 2 feet in depth may be cut vertically provided no surcharge loading is located within a 1:1 plane projected up from the bae of the excavation. Excavations exceeding a depth of 2 feet should be laid back at a minimum gradient of 1.5:1 (H:V) or shored. Recommendations for shoring are provided in Section 6.1.8. Excavations should not be left open for prolonged periods of time. The project geotechnical consultant should observe all temporary cuts to confirm anticipated conditions and to provide alternate recommendations if conditions dictate. All excavations should conform to the requirements of Cal/OSHA. The grading contractor should take appropriate measures when excavating adjacent existing improvements to avoid disturbing or compromising support of existing structures. 6.1.8 Shoring Due to the proximity of the adjacent property lines, shoring should be utilized in the excavation of a basement. In consideration of required cuts and soil conditions, a cantilever system using soldier beams may be used. We assume that site will be dewatered to a depth of at least 2 feet below the cut prior to commencing excavation within the shoring area. If the site is not dewatered to this depth, the following recommendations may require modifications. For a cantilever condition, active pressure should be estimated using the Equivalent Fluid Pressure (EFP) of 37 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) from surface to depth of 3 pile diameters below the cut grade. At greater depths, the active pressure may be disregarded. PA2021-285 Garrett & Heather Bland October 29, 2021 J.N.: 3010.00 Page 11 ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC. The ultimate passive resistance on soldier piles may be taken as an equivalent fluid pressure of 560 pcf. This passive resistance accounts for three-dimensional effects and as such, should only be applied to the actual width of the pile. The allowable passive resistance should be based on applying an appropriate factor of safety to the ultimate value above in consideration of allowable deflections. Generally, a factor of safety of 2.0 is used where no sensitive structures are located within a 1 to 1 projection up from the base of the cut. If shoring will support sensitive features, a greater factor of safety should be applied. Because this is a temporary shoring system, seismic loads are not to be considered. Portions of the shoring may be subjected to additional surcharge loads due to construction equipment. We recommend that such additional loads use the pressure distribution suggested in the NAVFAC manual 7.2. Due to the friable nature of site materials, the excavation should be lagged continuously as the cut progresses. For any additional information or conditions encountered during construction that may vary from those described in this report, this office should be contacted promptly. Shoring plans should be reviewed by this office to verify their compliance with the information and recommendations provided herein. A representative of this office should observe construction of the shoring system. 6.1.9 Dewatering If a basement will be constructed as part of the project, temporary dewatering will be required to allow for shoring and excavation work. Dewatering will generally be required to lower the ground water level to at least 2 feet below the planned excavation depths including footing cuts. Dewatering will generally require the installation of well points around the perimeter of the excavation. Therefore, sufficient room to installation of dewatering wells outside of the shoring should be considered in the site planning. Specific recommendations for dewatering should be prepared by a specialty contactor. The dewatering plans should be reviewed by this office prior to construction. 6.2 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS 6.2.1 Mapped Seismic Design Parameters For design of the project in accordance with Chapter 16 of the 2019 CBC, the mapped seismic parameters may be taken as presented in the tables below. PA2021-285 Garrett & Heather Bland October 29, 2021 J.N.: 3010.00 Page 12 ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC. TABLE 6.1 2019 CBC Mapped Seismic Design Parameters Parameter Value Site Class D Mapped MCER Spectral Response Acceleration, short periods, SS 1.37 Mapped MCER Spectral Response Acceleration, at 1-sec. period, S1 0.486 Site Coefficient, Fa 1.0 Site Coefficient, Fv 1.8* Adjusted MCER Spectral Response Acceleration, short periods, SMS 1.37 Adjusted MCER Spectral Response Acceleration, at 1-sec. period, SM1 0.875 Design Spectral Response Acceleration, short periods, SDS 0.914 Design Spectral Response Acceleration, at 1-sec. period, SD1 0.583 Long-Period Transition Period, TL (sec.) 8 Seismic Design Category for Risk Categories I-IV II MCER = Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake *According to Section 11.4.8 in ASCE 7-16, “a ground motion hazard analysis shall be performed in accordance with Section 21.2 for the following structures on Site Class D and E sites with S1 greater than or equal to 0.2.” However, “A ground motion hazard analysis is not required for structures where: Structures on Site Class D sites with S1 greater than or equal to 0.2, provided the value of the seismic response coefficient Cs is determined by Eq. (12.8-2) for values of T ≤ 1.5Ts and taken as equal to 1.5 times the value computed in accordance with either Eq. (12.8-3) for TL ≥ T > 1.5Ts or Eq. (12.8-4) for T > TL.” The Fv value of 1.8 above from Table 11.4-2 assumes that this exception is met and that a ground motion hazard analysis is not required. Should this exception not be met, the site-specific seismic design parameters provided in the next section should be used. 6.2.2 Site-Specific Seismic Design Parameters In addition to the Code Spectra parameters presented in Table 6.1, we have performed a site-specific ground motion hazard analysis in accordance with Chapter 21 of ASCE 7-16 to obtain site-specific seismic design acceleration parameters, the risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake response spectrum, and the design earthquake response spectrum. The site-specific seismic design parameters are presented below. 6.3 CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATION DESIGN 6.3.1 General The following design parameters are provided to assist the project structural engineer to design the foundations of the proposed residential development at the site assuming the structure will be at grade without a basement. These design parameters are based on typical site materials encountered during subsurface exploration and are provided for preliminary design purposes. Depending on actual materials encountered during site grading and actual foundation loads, the design parameters presented herein may require modification. Where the project will include a basement, the structure should be supported by a mat as discussed in Section 6.4. PA2021-285 Garrett & Heather Bland October 29, 2021 J.N.: 3010.00 Page 13 ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC. TABLE 6.2 2019 CBC Site Specific Seismic Design Parameters Parameter Value Site Class D Site Coefficient, Fa 1.0 Site Coefficient, Fv 2.5 Adjusted MCE Spectral Response Acceleration, short periods, SMS 1.579 Adjusted MCE Spectral Response Acceleration, at 1-sec. period, SM1 1.096 Design Spectral Response Acceleration, short periods, SDS 1.053 Design Spectral Response Acceleration, at 1-sec. period, SD1 0.73 MCE = Maximum Considered Earthquake 6.3.2 Soil Expansion The recommendations presented herein are based on soils with a Very Low expansion potential (EI≤20). Following site grading, additional testing of site soils should be performed by the project geotechnical consultant to confirm the basis of these recommendations. If site soils with higher expansion potentials are encountered or imported to the site, the recommendations contained herein may require modification. 6.3.3 Settlement Considerations As summarized in Section 5.3, based on anticipated foundation loads, and provided that a uniform blanket of engineered compacted fill has been placed, total and differential static settlement under the weight of anticipated residential structures are anticipated to be less than 1 inch and 1/2 inch over 30 feet, respectively. These values are considered within tolerable limits of proposed structures and site improvements. The structure may also be subject to total and differential settlement due to the occurrence of liquefaction as discussed in Section 5.2.3. Recommendations provided herein are intended to mitigate settlement from seismic settlement but may require more restrictive design considerations based on recommendations from the structural engineer. Such recommendations should supersede the recommendations contain herein if more restrictive. 6.3.4 Allowable Bearing Value Provided site grading is performed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report, a bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for continuous footings having a minimum width of 12 inches and founded at a minimum depth of 15 inches below the lowest adjacent finished grade. The allowable bearing value presented herein includes both dead and live loads and may be increased by one-third for wind and seismic forces. 6.3.5 Lateral Resistance A passive earth pressure of 200 pounds per square foot per foot of depth up to a maximum value of 1500 pounds per square foot may be used to determine lateral bearing for footings. The passive earth pressure may be increased by one-third for wind and seismic forces. A coefficient of friction of 0.39 times the dead load forces may also be used between concrete and the supporting soils to determine lateral sliding resistance, however, no increase in the coefficient of friction is allowed. PA2021-285 Garrett & Heather Bland October 29, 2021 J.N.: 3010.00 Page 14 ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC. The above values are based on footings placed directly against compacted fill. In the case where footing sides are formed, all backfill against the footings should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. 6.3.6 Footing and Slab on Grade Exterior and interior building footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. All continuous footings should be reinforced with a minimum of four No. 5 bars, two top and two bottom. The structural engineer may require different reinforcement and should dictate if greater than the recommendations provided herein. Exterior and interior isolated pad footings should be a minimum of 24 inches square and founded at minimum depths of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. All pad footings should be tied in both directions to adjacent footings using a grade beams that are at least 12 inches in width and 24 inches in depth. The grade beams should be reinforced with a minimum of four No. 5 bars, two top and two bottom. Interior concrete slabs constructed on grade should be a minimum 5 inches thick and should be reinforced with No. 4 bars spaced 12 inches on center, each way. Care should be taken to ensure the placement of reinforcement at mid-slab height. The slab should be doweled to the footings with No. 4 bars spaced no more than 24 inches on center. The structural engineer may recommend a greater slab thickness and reinforcement based on proposed use and loading conditions and such recommendations should govern if greater than the recommendations presented herein. Concrete floor slabs in areas to receive carpet, tile, or other moisture sensitive coverings should be underlain with a minimum of 10-mil moisture vapor retarder conforming to ASTM E 1745-11, Class A. The membrane should be properly lapped and sealed. The membrane should be underlain by at least 2 inches of sand having an SE of 30 or greater. This vapor retarder system is anticipated to be suitable for most flooring finishes that can accommodate some vapor emissions. However, this system may emit more than 4 pounds of water per 1,000 sq. ft. and therefore, may not be suitable for all flooring finishes. Additional steps should be taken if such vapor emission levels are too high for anticipated flooring finishes. Special consideration should be given to slabs in areas to receive ceramic tile or other rigid, crack- sensitive floor coverings. Design and construction of such areas should mitigate hairline cracking as recommended by the structural engineer. Garage floor slabs should have the minimum thickness and reinforcing as described above. Consideration should be given to providing a vapor retarder below the garage slab to mitigate the potential for effervescence on the slab surface. Block-outs should be provided around interior columns to permit relative movement and mitigate distress to the floor slabs due to differential settlement that will occur between column footings and adjacent floor subgrade soils as loads are applied. Prior to placing concrete, subgrade soils below slab-on-grade areas should be thoroughly moistened to provide a moisture content that is equal to or greater than the optimum moisture content to a depth of 12 inches. PA2021-285 Garrett & Heather Bland October 29, 2021 J.N.: 3010.00 Page 15 ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 6.3.7 Footing Observations Footing excavations should be observed by the project geotechnical consultant to verify that they have been excavated into competent bearing soils and to the minimum embedment recommended above. These observations should be performed prior to placement of forms or reinforcement. The excavations should be trimmed neat, level and square. Loose, sloughed or moisture-softened materials and debris should be removed prior to placing concrete. 6.4 MAT SLAB If the home will be underlain by a basement that extends below current ground level, the home should be supported on a concrete mat. The mat should be a minimum of 8 inches in thickness. However, the structural engineer may require a greater thickness and should govern if more. An average net bearing pressure of up to 750 pounds per square foot (psf) under static conditions may be used to design a mat foundation. Local bearing pressures under static and seismic conditions should be limited to 2,000 psf and 2,660 psf, respectively. A passive earth pressure of 190 pounds per square foot per foot of depth may be used to determine lateral bearing for the mat. A coefficient of friction of 0.39 times the effective dead load forces may also be used between concrete and the supporting soils to determine lateral sliding resistance. The passive pressure may be increased by 1/3 for wind and seismic loading. However, no increase should be applied to the friction factor. Design of the mat may be based on a standard modulus of subgrade reaction (Kv1) of 50 pci. The modulus is based on an effective loading area of 1 foot by 1 foot. The modulus may be adjusted for other effective loading areas using the equation provided below. 2 1 2 1)(b bKpcikvb  where “b” is the effective width of loading (min. dimension) in ft. The mat should also be designed to tolerate a maximum total and differential seismic settlement of up to 2.5 inches and 1.7 inches over 30 feet, respectively. Based on the State of California Special Publication 117A, hazards from liquefaction should be mitigated to the extent required to reduce seismic risk to “acceptable levels”. The acceptable level of risk means, “that level that provides reasonable protection of the public safety” [California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 3721 (a)]. As such, the mat need not be designed to prevent cracking of the superstructure as a result of seismic settlement. The mat is anticipated to be permanently located below groundwater. As such, the mat will be subjected to a vertical uplift force (buoyancy). We recommend the mat and structure be designed to accommodate a groundwater elevation that is 3 feet below current ground surface. The sections of the basement located below this elevation should also be designed to be water-tight. PA2021-285 Garrett & Heather Bland October 29, 2021 J.N.: 3010.00 Page 16 ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 6.5 RETAINING AND SCREENING WALLS 6.5.1 General The following recommendations are provided for preliminary design purpose. Final retaining wall designs specific to the site development should be provided to us for review once completed. The structural engineer and architect should provide recommendations for sealing at all joints and applying moisture-proofing material on the back of the walls. 6.5.2 Allowable Bearing Value and Lateral Resistance Retaining and free-standing wall footings should be founded in engineered compacted fill. Retaining walls may utilize the bearing capacities and lateral resistance values provided in Sections 6.3.4 and 6.3.5 provide those footings are not located below groundwater. The above values are based on footings placed directly against properly compacted fill or competent native soil. In the case where footing sides are formed, all backfill against the footings should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. 6.5.3 Active Earth Pressures Static and seismic earth pressures for level backfill conditions are provided in Table 6.2. Seismic earth pressures provided herein are based on the method provided by Seed & Whitman (1970) using a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.47g which represents a 10% chance of exceedance in 50 years. As indicated in Section 1803.5.12 of the 2016 CBC, retaining walls supporting 6 feet of backfill or less are not required to be designed for seismic earth pressures. The values provided in the following table are based on using backfill consisting of select, relatively granular site materials with Very Low expansion potential (0<EI<21). The select material should be placed within a 1:1 plane projected up from the base of the wall stem. In addition, the values are based on drained backfill conditions and do not consider hydrostatic pressure. Furthermore, retaining walls should be designed to support adjacent surcharge loads imposed by other nearby footings or traffic loads in addition to the earth pressure. 6.5.4 Drainage and Moisture-Proofing Portions of retaining walls above groundwater should be constructed with a perforated pipe and gravel subdrain to prevent entrapment of water in the backfill. The perforated pipe should consist of 4-inch- diameter, ABS SDR-35 or PVC Schedule 40 with the perforations laid down. The pipe should be embedded in ¾- to 1½-inch open-graded gravel wrapped in filter fabric. The gravel should be at least one foot wide and extend at least one foot up the wall above the footing and drainage outlet. Drainage gravel and piping should not be placed below outlets and weepholes. Filter fabric should consist of Mirafi 140N, or equal. Outlet pipes should be directed to positive drainage devices. PA2021-285 Garrett & Heather Bland October 29, 2021 J.N.: 3010.00 Page 17 ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC. TABLE 6.2 EARTH PRESSURES Pressure Diagram Static Seismic Total Component Component Force Pressure Values Value Backfill Condition 1. Level above groundwater Level below groundwater2. A 37H 80H. B 14H 14H C 25.5H 47H Note 1.:H is in feet and resulting pressure is in psf. Design may utilize either the sum of the static component and the seismic component force diagrams or the total force diagram above. SEAOSC has suggested using a load factor of 1.7 for the static component and 1.0 for the seismic component. The actual load factors should be determined by the structural engineer. Note 2.: Forces include the hydraulic pressure The use of weepholes may be considered in locations where aesthetic issues from potential nuisance water are not a concern. Weepholes should be 2 inches in diameter and provided at least every 6 feet on center. Where weepholes are used, perforated pipe may be omitted from the gravel subdrain. Retaining walls supporting backfill should also be coated with a moisture-proofing compound or covered with such material to inhibit infiltration of moisture through the walls. Moisture-proofing material should cover any portion of the back of wall that will be in contact with soil and should lap over and onto the top of footing. The top of footing should be finished smooth with a trowel to inhibit the infiltration of water through the wall. The project structural engineer should provide specific recommendations for moisture-proofing, water stops, and joint details. I· B • I H + OR I· A --1 1.. c • l PA2021-285 Garrett & Heather Bland October 29, 2021 J.N.: 3010.00 Page 18 ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 6.5.5 Footing Reinforcement All continuous retaining wall footings that are not part of the habitable structure should be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom. For footings that support the habitable structure, refer to Section 6.3. The structural engineer may require different reinforcement and should dictate if greater than the recommendations provided herein. Where recommended removals are limited due to space restrictions, greater reinforcement may be recommended. Specific recommendations should be provided by the geotechnical consultant during grading based on as-built conditions exposed in the field. 6.5.6 Footing Observations Footing excavations should be observed by the project geotechnical consultant to verify that they have been excavated into competent bearing soils and to the minimum embedment recommended herein. These observations should be performed prior to placement of forms or reinforcement. The excavations should be trimmed neat, level and square. Loose, sloughed or moisture-softened materials and debris should be removed prior to placing concrete. 6.5.7 Retaining Wall Backfill Onsite soils may generally be used for backfill of retaining walls provided they are free of deleterious materials and particles greater than 4 inches in maximum dimension. The project geotechnical consultant should approve all backfill used for retaining walls. Wall backfill should be moisture- conditioned to slightly over the optimum moisture content; placed in lifts no greater than 12 inches in thickness, and then mechanically compacted with appropriate equipment to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Hand-operated compaction equipment should be used to compact the backfill placed immediately adjacent the wall to avoid damage to the wall. Flooding or jetting of backfill material is not recommended. 6.5.8 Wall Jointing All site walls above groundwater should be provided with cold joints through the masonry block section at horizontal spacing generally not exceeding 40 feet. If walls will be constructed in locations where removal of unsuitable soils was restricted to less than a 1 to 1 projection down from the foundation (such as property boundaries) the joints should be provided every 20 feet. The joints should not extend through the footing. 6.6 CONCRETE MIX DESIGN Laboratory testing of on-site soils indicates negligible soluble sulfate content. However, the site is in close proximity to salt water. As such, we recommend following the procedures provided in ACI 318, Section 4.3, Table 4.3.1 for C2 exposure for which includes the requirements for a maximum w/c ratio of 0.40 and minimum compressive strength of 5,000 psi.. Upon completion of rough grading, an evaluation of as-graded conditions and further laboratory testing should be completed for the site to confirm or modify the recommendations provided in this section. PA2021-285 Garrett & Heather Bland October 29, 2021 J.N.: 3010.00 Page 19 ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 6.7 EXTERIOR FLATWORK Exterior flatwork should be a nominal 4 inches thick. Cold joints or saw cuts should be provided at least every 15 feet in each direction. Special jointing detail should be provided in areas of block-outs, notches, or other irregularities to avoid cracking at points of high stress. Subgrade soils below flatwork should be moistened to achieve a minimum of 110 percent of optimum moisture content to a depth of 12 inches. Moistening should be accomplished by lightly spraying the area over a period of a few days just prior to pouring concrete. The geotechnical consultant should observe and verify the density and moisture content of subgrade soils prior to pouring concrete to ensure that the required compaction and pre-moistening recommendations have been met. Drainage from flatwork areas should be directed to local area drains or other appropriate collection devices designed to carry runoff water to the street or other approved drainage structures. Flatwork adjacent entry points to structures should have a minimum slope of 0.5% away from the structure. 6.8 POST GRADING CONSIDERATIONS 6.8.1 Site Drainage and Irrigation The ground immediately adjacent to foundations should be provided with positive drainage away from the structures in accordance with 2016 CBC, Section 1804.3. However, the ground slope may be limited to 2% for climatic and soils conditions. No rain or excess water should be allowed to pond against structures such as walls, foundations, flatwork, etc. Excessive irrigation water can be detrimental to the performance of the proposed site development. Water applied in excess of the needs of vegetation will tend to percolate into the ground. Such percolation can lead to nuisance seepage and shallow perched groundwater. Seepage can form on slope faces, on the faces of retaining walls, in streets, or other low-lying areas. These conditions could lead to adverse effects such as the formation of stagnant water that breeds insects, distress or damage of trees, surface erosion, slope instability, discoloration and salt buildup on wall faces, and premature failure of pavement. Excessive watering can also lead to elevated vapor emissions within buildings that can damage flooring finishes or lead to mold growth inside the home. Key factors that can help mitigate the potential for adverse effects of overwatering include the judicious use of water for irrigation, use of irrigation systems that are appropriate for the type of vegetation and geometric configuration of the planted area, the use of soil amendments to enhance moisture retention, use of low-water demand vegetation, regular use of appropriate fertilizers, and seasonal adjustments of irrigation systems to match the water requirements of vegetation. Specific recommendations should be provided by a landscape architect or other knowledgeable professional. 6.8.2 Utility Trenches Trench excavations should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations contained in Section 6.1.7 of this report. Trench excavations must also conform to the requirements of Cal/OSHA. Trench backfill materials and compaction criteria should conform to the requirements of the local municipalities. As a minimum, utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Materials placed within the pipe zone (6 inches below and 12 inches above the pipe) should consist of particles no greater than ¾ inches and have a SE of at least 30. The materials PA2021-285 Garrett & Heather Bland October 29, 2021 J.N.: 3010.00 Page 20 ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC. within the pipe zone should be moisture-conditioned and compacted by hand-operated compaction equipment. Above the pipe zone (>1 foot above pipe), the backfill may consist of general fill materials. Trench backfill should be moisture-conditioned to slightly over the optimum moisture content, placed in lifts no greater than 12 inches in thickness, and then mechanically compacted with appropriate equipment to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. For trenches with sloped walls, backfill material should be placed in lifts no greater than 8 inches in loose thickness, and then compacted by rolling with a sheepsfoot roller or similar equipment. The project geotechnical consultant should perform density testing along with probing to verify that adequate compaction has been achieved. Within shallow trenches (less than 18 inches deep) where pipes may be damaged by heavy compaction equipment, imported clean sand having a SE of 30 or greater may be utilized. The sand should be placed in the trench, thoroughly watered, and then compacted with a vibratory compactor. For utility trenches located below a 1:1 (H:V) plane projecting downward from the outside edge of the adjacent footing base or crossing footing trenches, concrete or slurry should be used as trench backfill. 6.9 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES We recommend that Albus & Associates, Inc. be retained to review the final grading and foundation plans prior to construction. This is to verify that the recommendations contained in this report have been properly interpreted and are incorporated into the project specifications. If we are not provided the opportunity to review these documents, we take no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations. We recommend that a geotechnical consultant be retained to provide soil engineering services during construction of the project. These services are to observe compliance with the design, specifications and recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. If the project plans change significantly, the project geotechnical consultant should review our original design recommendations and their applicability to the revised construction. If conditions are encountered during construction that appears to be different than those indicated in this report, the project geotechnical consultant should be notified immediately. Design and construction revisions may be required. 7.0 LIMITATIONS This report is based on the proposed development and geotechnical data as described herein. The materials described herein and in other literature are believed representative of the total project area, and the conclusions contained in this report are presented on that basis. However, soil and bedrock materials can vary in characteristics between points of exploration, both laterally and vertically, and those variations could affect the conclusions and recommendations contained herein. As such, observation and testing by a geotechnical consultant prior to and during the grading and construction phases of the project are essential to confirming the basis of this report. PA2021-285 Garrett & Heather Bland October 29, 2021 J.N.: 3010.00 Page 21 ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC. This report has been prepared consistent with that level of care being provided by other professionals providing similar services at the same locale and time period. The contents of this report are professional opinions and as such, are not to be considered a guaranty or warranty. This report should be reviewed and updated after a period of one year or if the site ownership or project concept changes from that described herein. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Garrett & Heather Bland to assist the project consultants in design of the proposed development. This report has not been prepared for use by parties or projects other than those named or described herein. This report may not contain sufficient information for other parties or other purposes. Respectfully submitted, ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC Daniel Albus David E. Albus Staff Engineer Principal Engineer G.E. 2455 PA2021-285 Garrett & Heather Bland October 29, 2021 J.N.: 3010.00 Page 22 ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC. REFERENCES Publications California Geologic Survey, Special Publication 117A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, 2008. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology,1998, Seismic Hazard Report for the Anaheim Newport Beach 7.5-Minute Quadrangles, Orange County, California, SHZR 003. California Geologic Survey, “Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Laguna Beach Quadrangle, April 15, 1998 Morton, P.K., Miller, R.V., and Fife, D.L. (1973), Geologic map of Orange County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Preliminary Report 15 Morton, D.M., and Miller, F.K., (2006) Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30’ x 60’ Quadrangles, California, 2006 U.S.G.S., U.S. Seismic Design Maps, Version 3.1.0, July 2013. Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J., Dobry, R., Finn, W.D.L., Harder, L.F., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P., Liao, S.S.C., Marcuson, W.F., Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, P.K., Seed, R.B., and Stokoe, K.H., “Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, October, 2001. Reports EGA Consultants, 2017, Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Single Family Dwelling Located at 225 East Bay Front, Newport Beach, California, PN IH011.1 (dated March 29, 2017) PA2021-285 B-1APPROXIMATEPROJECT SITE LIMITSJADE AVEPARK AVEEXPLANATION(Locations Approximate)0 15 30 60APPROX SCALE : 1" = 30'- Exploratory Boring1Plate:10/29/2021Date:3010.00Job No.:GEOTECHNICAL MAP©Google 2021PA2021-285 ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC. APPENDIX A EXPLORATION LOGS AND LAB BY EGA PA2021-285 I I I -II I I -----·------· --- LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Job Number: IH011.1 Boring No: B-1 Project: 225 East Bay Front Boring Location: See Figure 2 Garret Residence Date Started: 2/25/2017 Rig: Mob. 4" augers Date Completed: 2/25/2017 Grnd Elev. +/-9 ft. NAVD88 Sample ~ 't3 Type 0 X Q. OJ 'E 't3 Q) ~ ■ThinWall Q. 'O Q) Q) 'O ~2.S"Ring ~ ~ E 'cij LL Q. Tube Sample C: Q) .!: >, -e 0 "' C: Q) f-0 0 "" t) C: 'cij .c ·o ::::, :3. 1Z] Bulk [D standard Split ~ static Water ~ Q) C: E ci 1ii 0 Q) (f) 'o CD. Sample Spoon Sample Table ::::, ltl ::::, 1ii ~ Q. E 0 C: X ::::, ·o 0 w ·x ~ ltl c::n11 -·"' ----,n~, :ii: / FILL: Light brown to tan, silty fine to medium .. 1 SM/ sand, dry to moist, with trace clay blebs, .. SP loose to medium dense . 9.2 86.7 123.5 X -At 2.7 ft.: Light brown, fine to medium sand with SP l.::::::: shell fragments, moist, medium dense. 15.5 - 5 -~ SP [2 At 6 ft.: Medium to dark grey, fine sand, wet 33.0 with trace silt, medium dense. SP At 8 ft.: Saturated silty fine to medium sand, gray to tan, medium dense. -10 Total Depth: 10 ft. Groundwater at 6 ft. No caving Backfilled and Compacted 2/25/2017 c.. 15 .... 20 _ 25 ~ 30 .... 35 40 EGA Consultants Sheet 1 of 1 Direct Shear (f) f-(f) -w "' 0 Q. f-.... a:: t) w J: f-0 0.M. 32 130 10.0% Sulf 31 ppm [:;:] 1 PA2021-285 I I I I I I UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ASTM D-2457 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOL CHART COARSE-GRAINED SOILS (more than 50% of material is larger than No. 200 sieve size.) GRAVELS More than 50% of coarse fraction larger than No. 4 sieve size SANDS 50% or more of coarse fraction smaller than No. 4 sieve size ~:, ►."•~ .-•:, I t::;::: [/ I Clean Gravels (Less than 5% fines) Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand GW mixtures, little or no fines GP Poorly-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Gravels with fines More than 12% fines GM GC SIity gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures Clean Sands (Less than 5% fines) Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, SW lltUe or no fines SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, litUe or no fines Sands with fines More than 12% fines SM Silty sands, sand-slit mixtures SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures FINE-GRAINED SOILS (50% or more of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve size.) Inorganic slits and very fine sands, rock SILTS ML flour, silty of clayey fine sands or clayey AND silts With slight plasticity CLAYS Inorganic clays of low to medium Liquid limit plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, less than silty clays, lean clays 50% OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity Inorganic silts, micaceous or MH diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, SILTS elastic silts AND CLAYS CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat Liquid limit clays 50% or greater Organic clays of medium to high OH plasticity, organic silts HIGHLY {~ ORGANIC _1/ ,~ PT Peat and other highly organic soils SOILS ~~ RELATIVE DENSITY Cohesion less Blows/ft* Blows/ft** Sands and Silts Very loose 0-4 0-30 Loose 4-10 30-60 Medium dense 10-30 80-200 Dense 30-50 200-400 Very dense Over SO Over400 LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA cu D50 D30 GW = --greater than 4; Cc = ---between 1 and 3 D10 • O,oxDso GP Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW GM Atterberg limits below "A" Above "A" line with P.I. between line or P.I. less than 4 4 and 7 are borderline cases GC Atterberg limits above "A" requiring use of dual symbols line with P.I. greater than 7 Oeo D30 Cu = --greater than 4; Cc = ---between 1 and 3 SW D10 D10 xDso SP Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW SM Atterberg limits below "A" Limits plotting in shaded zone line or P.I. less than 4 with P.1. between 4 and 7 are Atterberg limits above "A" borderline cases requiring use SC line with P.I. greater than 7 of dual symbols. Determine percentages of sand and gravel from grain-size curve. Depending on percentage of fines (fraction smaller than No. 200 sieve size), coarse-grained soils are classified as follows: Less than 5 percent .................................... GW, GP, SW, SP More than 12 percent .................................. GM, GC, SM, SC 5 to 12 percent ................... Borderline cases requiring dual symbols PLASTICITY CHART 60 ~ 50 [ )( 40 w C a:: 30 ~ .,V CH / / " A LINE: /p1 = 0)3(LL.-20) CL / MH&OH B 20 1/) :3 10 0.. / V -···· ,, ML&1OL -r-;-:'" O O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) (%) CONSISTENCY Cohesive Soils Blows/ft* Blows/ft** Very soft 0-4 0-4 Soft 2-4 4-11 Firm 4-8 11-50 Stiff 8-16 50-110 Very stiff 16-32 110-220 Hard Over 32 Over220 • Blows/foot for a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches to drive a 2-inch O.D., 1-3/8 inch I.D. Split Spoon sampler (Standard Penetration Test). •• Blows/foot for a 36-pound hammer falling 24 inches to drive a 3.25 O.D., 2.41 I.D. Sampler (Hand Sampling). Blow count convergence to standard penetration test was done in accordance with Fig. 1.24 of Foundation Engineering Handbook by H.Y. Fang, Von Nostrand Reinhold, 1991. PA2021-285 I I I t I SUMMARY OF CoNE PENETRATION TEST DATA Project: 225 E. Bay Front Newport Beach, CA February 23, 2017 Prepared for: Mr. David Worthington EGA Consultants, LLC 375 Monte Vista Avenue, Ste C Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Office (949) 642-9309 I Fax (949) 642-1290 Prepared by: K~ KEHOE TESTING & ENGINEERING 5415 Industrial Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1518 Office (714) 901-7270 I Fax (714) 901-7289 www. kehoetesting. com PA2021-285 SUMMARY OF CoNE PENETRATION TEST DATA 1. INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a Cone Penetration Test (CPT) program carried out for the project located at 225 E. Bay Front in Newport Beach, California. The work was performed by Kehoe Testing & Engineering (KTE) on February 23, 2017. The scope of work was performed as directed by EGA personnel. 2. SUMMARY OF FIELD WORK The fieldwork consisted of performing CPT soundings at one location to determine the soil lithology. Groundwater measurements and hole collapse depths provided in TABLE 2.1 are for information only. The readings indicate the apparent depth to which the hole is open and the apparent water level (if encountered) in the CPT probe hole at the time of measurement upon completion of the CPT. KTE does not warranty the accuracy of the measurements and the reported water levels may not represent the true or stabilized groundwater levels. DEPTH OF LOCATION CPT (ft) COMMENTS/NOTES: CPT-1 50 Hole open to 4 ft (dry) TABLE 2.1 -Summary of CPT Soundings 3. FIELD EQUIPMENT & PROCEDURES The CPT soundings were carried out by KTE using an integrated electronic cone system manufactured by Vertek. The CPT soundings were performed in accordance with ASTM standards (05778). The cone penetrometers were pushed using a 30-ton CPT rig. The cone used during the program was a 15 cm112 cone and recorded the following parameters at approximately 2.5 cm depth intervals: • Cone Resistance (qc) • Inclination • Sleeve Friction (fs) • Penetration Speed • Dynamic Pore Pressure (u) The above parameters were recorded and viewed in real time using a laptop computer. Data is stored at the KTE office for future analysis and reference. A complete set of baseline readings was taken prior to each sounding to determine temperature shifts and any zero load offsets. Monitoring base line readings ensures that the cone electronics are operating properly. PA2021-285 Project: EGA Consultants, LLC Kehoe Testing and Engineering 714-901-7270 rich@kehoetesting.com www.kehoetesting.com Location: 225 E. Bay Front Newport Beach, CA Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction 0 0 2 2 4 4 6 6 8 8 10 12 12 14 14 16 16 18 18 20 20 ........ 22 ,-.. 22 ~ .I-) ..... -....., 24 ....., 24 £ .c .I-) a. 26 a. 26 (I.I (I.I 0 28 0 28 30 30 32 32 34 34 36 36 38 3B 40 40 42 42 44 44 46 46 48 48 50 50 0 100 200 300 400 0 2 3 4 Tip resistance (tsf) Friction (tsf) Pore pressure u 0 2 4 6 8 10 - 12 14 16 18 20 ........ 22 .I-) ..... -....., 24 £ a. 26 (I.I 0 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 6 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 Pressure (psi) CPeT-IT v.2.0.1.50 -CPTU data presentation & interpretation software -Report created on: 2/24/2017, 12:27:58 PM Project file: C:\EGANewportBch2-17\Plot Data\Site2\Plots.cpt Friction ratio 0 0 2 2 4 4 6 6 8 8 10 10 12 12 14 14 16 16 18 18 20 20 ........ 22 ........ 22 ~ .I-) ..... 24 24 :§_ £ 26 a. 26 (I.I ~ 0 28 28 30 30 32 32 34 34 36 36 38 38 40 40 42 42 44 44 46 46 48 48 50 50 0 2 4 6 8 Rf(%) 0 2 CPT-1 Total depth: 50.13 ft, Date: 2/23/2017 Cone Type: Vertek Soil Behaviour Type 4 6 8 Clay & silty clay Said & silty sand S ii ty sand & sandy sill Said & silty sam Said & silty sand S ii ty sand & sandy si It S aid & sit ty sand § ~~ & silty sand §~~ S aid & silty sand Said Said Said & silty sand Said § ~~ & silty sand Said Said & silty sand Silly sand & sandy silt c~ ~ sil~cl~ V ens sti soil S ii ty sand & sandy silt Clay Clay ~li:iy & s11i cl~ illy sand sa silt V ff'/ dense/stiff sci! Said sil s nd 10 12 14 16 SBT (Robertson, 2010) 18 0 PA2021-285 Depth {ft) qc {tsf) fs {tsf) SBTn Ksbt {ft/s) SPTN60 Constrained Dr{%) Friction {blows/ft) Mod. {tsf) angle (0 ) 1 27.15 0.1 6 0 6 195.67 56 40 2 34.46 0.1 6 0 7 244.31 53 40 3 16.71 0.1 6 0 4 192.7 39 37 4 31.33 0.1 6 0 7 266.49 45 38 5 96.07 0.52 6 0 19 623.4 70 42 6 120.09 0.73 6 0 23 767.91 75 43 7 154.55 0.73 6 0 28 855.32 80 43 8 118 0.52 6 0 22 728.68 69 42 9 58.48 0.42 6 0 14 562.92 49 39 10 59.52 0.31 6 0 14 536.32 48 39 11 149.33 0.84 6 0 29 954.49 72 42 12 160.82 0.94 6 0 31 1029.83 73 43 13 171.26 0.73 6 0 31 982.07 74 43 14 142.02 0.52 6 0 27 859.07 66 42 15 129.49 0.31 6 0 24 747.78 62 41 16 214.08 0.63 6 0 36 1035.59 78 43 17 247.49 0.73 7 0 40 1136.01 83 44 18 239.14 1.15 6 0 43 1316.72 81 44 19 255.85 0.94 6 0 43 1264.14 82 44 20 279.86 1.25 6 0 48 1436.18 85 44 21 270.47 1.25 6 0 48 1440.11 83 44 22 240.18 1.15 6 0 44 1376.25 77 43 23 260.02 0.73 7 0 43 1222.56 80 43 24 321.64 1.25 7 0 53 1534.48 88 44 25 318.5 1.36 6 0 54 1589.79 86 44 26 316.41 1.98 6 0 58 1850.09 84 44 27 310.15 1.57 6 0 55 1697.43 83 44 28 299.71 1.15 6 0 51 1521.53 81 44 29 310.15 2.4 6 0 61 2044.63 80 43 30 309.1 1.25 6 0 54 1604.87 81 44 31 365.5 1.67 6 0 63 1850.68 87 44 32 341.48 2.61 6 0 66 2207.16 82 44 33 250.63 1.78 6 0 52 1812.72 68 42 PA2021-285 34 258.98 2.4 6 0 56 2075.29 68 42 35 288.22 2.51 6 0 61 2166.86 72 42 36 338.34 3.45 6 0 71 2565.54 77 43 37 318.5 2.82 6 0 66 2351.64 74 43 38 326.86 2.82 6 0 68 2380.39 74 43 39 197.37 1.88 6 0 47 1896.22 55 40 40 77.28 3.13 4 0 32 1048.26 0 0 41 84.59 3.55 4 0 34 1147.28 0 0 42 86.67 3.34 4 0 34 1175.61 0 0 43 75.19 3.03 4 0 31 1013.84 0 0 44 38.64 2.09 3 0 20 474.88 0 0 45 34.46 1.98 3 0 19 360.68 0 0 46 66.83 3.13 3 0 30 894.05 0 0 47 75.19 2.19 4 0 30 1010.11 0 0 48 124.27 4.7 4 0 47 1696.44 0 0 49 260.02 1.78 6 0 57 2101.91 59 41 50 113.83 0 0 0 100 1548.83 0 0 PA2021-285 CPT~l In situ data Depth (It) qc (Isl) fs (Isl) u (psi) Dther qt (Isl) Rf(%) 27.15 0.1 0.2 27.15 0.38 34.46 0.1 0.5 34.46 0.3 16.71 0.1 0.16 0.9 16.71 0,62 31.33 0.1 0.24 0.9 31.33 0.33 96.07 0.52 0,7 1.1 96.08 0.54 120.09 0.73 1.11 1.1 120.1 0.61 154.55 0.73 0,72 1.1 154.56 0.47 118 58.48 10 59.52 II 149.33 12 160.82 13 171.26 14 142.02 15 129.49 16 214.08 17 247.49 18 239.14 19 255.85 20 279.86 21 270.47 22 240.18 23 260.02 24 321.64 25 318.5 26 316.41 27 310.15 28 299.71 29 310.15 30 309.1 31 365.5 32 341.48 33 250.63 34 258.98 35 288.22 36 338.34 37 318.5 38 326.86 39 197.37 40 77.28 41 84.59 42 86.67 43 75.19 44 38.64 45 34.46 46 66.83 47 75,19 48 124.27 49 260.02 50 113.83 0.52 0.42 0.31 0.84 0.94 0.73 0.52 0.31 0.63 0.73 I.IS 0.94 1.25 1.25 1.15 0.73 1.25 1.36 1.98 1.57 1.15 2.4 1.25 1.67 2.61 1.78 2.4 2.51 3.45 2.82 2.82 1.48 1.73 2.07 2.71 3.01 3.42 4.46 4,88 5.57 6.02 6.45 6.93 7.36 7.56 7.64 8.47 8,36 8.59 8.92 9.15 9.26 9.79 9.79 10.11 10.59 10.35 10.43 10.75 11.78 12.34 12.9 I.BB 12.82 3.13 3.37 3.55 ·10.67 3.34 ·10,67 3.03 ·10.99 2.09 ·11.76 1.98 ·12.1 3.13 ·12.1 2.19 ·12.18 4.7 -11.41 1.78 ·11.14 ·10.83 1.1 118.02 0.44 1.2 58.5 0.71 1.2 59.55 0.53 1.2 149.36 0.56 1.3 160,85 0.58 1.3 171.3 0.43 1.3 142.08 0.37 1.4 129.55 0,24 1.5 214.14 0.29 1.7 247.57 0.3 1.7 239.22 0.48· 1.8 255.93 0.37 1.9 279.95 0.45 1.9 270.56 0.46 240.28 0.48 1.9 260.13 0.28 321.74 0.39 2.1 318.61 0.43 2. I 316.52 0.63 2.1 310.26 0.5 2.2 299.82 0.38 2.2 310.27 0.77 2.3 309,22 0.41 2.3 365.62 0.46 2.4 341.61 0.76 2.4 250.75 0.71 2.4 259.11 0.93 2.5 288.35 0.87 2.5 338.49 1.02 2.5 318.65 0.88 2.5 327.01 0.86 2.5 197.52 2,9 77.32 2.9 84.46 2,9 86,54 3 75.05 38.49 0.95 4.05 4.2 3.86 4.03 5.43 34.31 5.78 3.1 66.69 4.7 3.3 75.04 2.92 3.2 124.13 3.79 3.5 259.89 0.68 3.5 113.69 SBT Basic output data Ic SBT 2.21 2.08 2.49 2.13 1.79 1.74 1.58 1.67 2.03 1.96 1.64 1.62 1.52 1.55 1,51 1.35 1.3 1.43 1.34 1.36 1.38 1.43 1,27 1.28 1.31 1.42 1.36 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.28 1.46 1.53 1.61 1.55 1.56 1.53 1.52 1.7 I (pcl) 6,v (Isl) uo (Isl) 0',vo (Isl) Qtl Fr (%) Bq SBTn n 0.48 0.48 0.63 0.54 0.46 0.46 0.42 en 4.25 3.06 3.39 2.43 Ic 1.64 1.63 2,02 1.78 1.56 1.55 1,44 Qin 108.8 99.26 53.07 71.61 171,74 194.89 222.53 164.93 101.79 o.os 0 0.05 532.11 0.39 0 102,37 0.1 0 0.1 336.36 0.3 0 6 100.61 0.15 102,14 0.2 116.65 0.26 119.66 0.32 120.27 0.38 2.43 2.42 2.39 2.44 2.73 117.15 113.81 111.75 121.17 122,21 120.52 117.61 113,64 119,94 121.42 124.65 123.34 125.67 125.58 124.66 121.54 126 126.57 129.33 127.55 125.2 130.68 125.91 128.42 131.52 127,95 130,24 130.81 133.53 131.91 131.98 127.78 129.23 130.36 129,98 128,91 124.56 2.79 123.91 2.52 128.87 2.34 126,55 2.28 133.35 I.SI 128.03 0 87.36 0.44 0.5 0,55 0.61 0.67 0.73 0.79 0.85 0.91 0.97 1.03 1.1 1.16 1.22 1.28 1.34 1.41 1.47 1.54 1,6 1.66 1.73 1.79 1.85 1.92 1.98 2.05 2.11 2.18 2.25 2.31 2.38 2.44 2.51 2.57 2.64 2,7 2.76 2.82 2.89 2.95 3.02 3.06 0.15 108.7 0.63 0.2 153.02 0.34 0.26 366.02 0.54 0.32 372.39 0.61 0.38 403.79 0.47 0.44 267.07 0.44 0.5 116.66 0.72 0.55 106.66 0.53 0.61 242.37 0.56 0.67 237.35 0.59 0.73 232.07 0.43 0. 79 177. 98 0.37 0,85 151.29 0.24 0.91 234.15 0.29 0.97 253.84 0.3 1.03 230.44 0.48 I.I 232.66 0.37 1.16 240.72 0.45 1.22 220.59 0.47 1.28 186.22 0.48 1.34 192.55 0,28 1.41 227.66 0.39 1.47 215.69 0.43 1.54 205.19 0.63 1.6 193.05 0.51 1.66 179.47 0.39 1.73 178.69 0.78 1.79 171.78 0.41 1.85 196.21 0.46 0 1.92 176.94 0.77 0 1.98 125.42 0,71 0 2.05 125.47 0.93 0 2.11 135.39 0.88 0 2.18 154.2 1.02 0 2.25 140.81 0.89 0 2.31 140.39 0.87 2.38 82.11 2.44 30.67 2.51 32.69 2.57 32.65 2.64 27.47 2.7 13.27 0.96 0 4.18 0 4.33 -0.01 3.98 -0.01 4.18 ·0.01 5.83 ·0.02 2.76 11.43 6.29 -0,03 2.82 22.61 4,91 -0.01 2,89 24.98 3.04 ·0.01 0 2.95 41.01 3.88 ·0.01 0 3.02 85,1 0.69 3.06 36.13 -0,01 1.9 1.72 1.53 0.45 1.48 1.52 0.59 1.56 1.88 0.57 1.45 1.83 0.47 1.29 1.55 0.47 1.24 1.55 0.44 1.18 1.47 6 0.46 1.14 I.SI 6 0.45 I.I 1.47 0,4 1.06 1.33 0.39 1.03 1.29 0.45 1.01 1.43 85,5 80.78 181.58 187.3 189.44 152.49 134.22 214 240.9 227.46 6 0.42 0.99 1.35 237.41 6 0.43 0.96 1.38 253.45 6 0,44 0,94 1.41 238.87 0,47 0.91 1.47 206.32 0.41 0.91 1.31 221.6 0,42 0.89 1.32 268.62 0.44 0.87 1.36 259.64 0.49 0.83 1.48 248.35 0.47 0.82 1.43 240.24 0.45 0.82 1.37 229.94 0.53 0.77 1.58 224.68 6 0.46 0.78 1.39 227.72 6 0.46 0.77 1.37 265.77 0.54 0,73 1.56 233.33 0.57 0.7 1.65 164 0.61 0.67 1.73 162,67 0.59 0.66 1.68 179.71 0.6 0,65 1.69 206,49 0.59 0.64 1.67 191.52 0.59 0.63 1.66 0.68 0.99 0.58 0.43 0.42 0.42 0.4 0.39 1.88 2.71 2.7 2.67 2.74 3.07 0.38 3,15 0.37 2.85 4 0.37 2.68 4 0.97 0.37 2.58 6 0.66 0.5 1.74 0.35 4.06 193.36 106.51 30.76 32.81 32.99 27,47 13.27 11,43 22,61 24.98 42.1 121.84 36.13 U2 0.08 0.08 0.19 0.25 0.14 ~B) Mod, SBTn 106.14 109.08 60.95 88.8 111.1 106.45 132.49 0.24 122.12 0.25 72.58 0.27 80.41 0.32 111.4 0.32 109.67 0.34 131.92 0.4 128.8 0.41 140.47 0.44 168.57 0.45 171.42 0.45 132.14 0.46 157,03 0.46 143.24 0.45 137.39 0.43 127.87 0.45 174.67 0.43 159.14 0.42 148.88 0.42 114.09 0.41 130.39 0.4 151.3 0.41 95.83 0.39 146 0.39 143.58 0.4 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.39 0.4 0.4 0.39 0.1 -0.31 -0.3 -0.3 -0.31 -0.32 -0.31 -0.3 -0.28 -0.27 -0.25 97.59 93.03 77.78 83.44 76.88 83.73 85.48 67.51 20.51 20.18 21.38 20.27 15.78 15.1 18.02 23.97 22.33 85.5 65.9 PA2021-285 I This software is licensed to: Kehoe Testing and Engineering Presented below is a list of formulas used for the estimation of various soil properties. The formulas are presented in SI unit system and assume that all components are expressed in the same units. :: Unit Weight, g (kN/m3) :: g ~ 9w · ( 0.27 -log(R 1) +0.36 -log(!) +1.236) where 9w "" water unit weight :: Permeability, k (m/s) :: Ic < 3.27 and le > 1.00 then k ~ 10°·952-3.c-4-r, Ic '.". 4.00 and Ic > 3.27 then k = 10➔-52-1.37 r, :: NsPT (blows per 30 cm):: N60 ~ ( ~c \) .. 101.126il~ii'.2av:i;: . a . :: Young's Modulus, Es (MPa) :: (q, -Ov) · 0.015 · 10°.ss.i, '168 ( applicable only to le < I, .cutoff) :: Relative Density, Dr(%):: (applicable only to SBTn: 5, 6, 7 and 8 or le < lc_cutoTT) :: State Parameter, 1J1 :: LjJ -0.56 --0.33 -log(Q tn,c..-s) :: Peak drained friction angle, q, (0 ) :: q> "17.60 + 11 · bg(Q tn) (applicable only to SBTn: 5, 6, 7 and 8) :: 1-D constrained modulus, M (MPa} :: If I, > 2.20 a"' 14 for Qtn > 14 a, Qtn for Qtn 5; l4 Mc PT~' O·(Qt ·-Ov) If le :; 2.20 Mc PT~ (qt -(JV) -0.0188-100.55-lc ,,1.68 References :: Small strain shear Modulus, Go (MPa) :: Go • (qt .. Ov)·0.0l88-l00.ss1,-1.68 :: Shear Wave Velocity, Vs (m/s} :: :: Undrained peak shear strength, Su (kPa) :: Nkt "10.50 + 7 -log(F r) or user defined $ _ (qt -Q' V) u -Nkt (applicable only to SBTn: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9 or le> Iccutorr) :: Remolded undrained shear strength, Su(rem) {kPa) :: Su(rem} = f5 (applicable only to SBT.: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9 or I, > k_cutot1) :: Overconsolidation Ratio, OCR:: k "" Qtn or user defned [ 0.20 ]1.25 OCR 0.25 (10.50-+7-bg(F,)) OCR -kocR · Qtn (applicable only to SBT.: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9 or le > Ic_cutorr) :: In situ Stress Ratio, Ko:: K0 =(1 ···· shQ?') -OCR51""' (applicable only to SBT.: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9 or I, > Ic_cutott) : : Soil Sensitivity, St : : S _Ns t -F, (applicable only to SBT.: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9 or r, > Ic_a,toff) :: Effective Stress Friction Angle, q,' (0 ) :: (j), =29.5°·8~·121 -(0.256+0.336-Bq +bgQt) (applicable for 0.10<8,,<1.00) • Robertson, P.K., cabal K.L., Guide to Cone Penetration Testing for Geotechnical Engineering, Gregg Drilling & Testing, Inc., 5th Edition, November ?01? • Robertson, P.K., Interpretation of Cone Penetration Tests - a unified approach., Can. Geotech. J. 46(11): 1337-1355 (2009) PA2021-285 EGA Consultants Laboratory Test Results 225 East Bayfront Newport Beach, California LABORATORY TEST RES UL TS March 8, 2017 Project No. 114-384-10 Page 2 of 3 Summarized below are the results of requested laboratory testing on samples submitted to our office. Dry Density and Moisture Content Tabulated below are the requested results of field dry density and moisture contents of undisturbed soils samples retained in 2.42 -inch inside diameter by one-inch height rings. Moisture only results were obtained from small bulk samples. Sample Dry Density, Moisture Content, Identification pcf % B-1@ 2.5' 86.7 9.2 B-1 @4.0' * 15.5 B-1@ 6.0' * 33.0 Notes: (*) Denotes small bulk sample for moisture content testing only. Soil Classification Requested soil samples were classified using ASTM D2487 as a guideline and are based on visual and textural methods only. These classifications are shown below: Sample Identification Soil Description Group Symbol B-1@ 4.0' Fine to medium sand with shell SP fragments -light brown B-1@ 6.0' Fine sand with trace silt -dark gray SP B-1 @ 0-3' Silty fine to medium sand with clay SP blebs Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content test was performed on the submitted bulk soil samples in accordance with ASTM: D 1557. The results are shown below: Sample Identification Maximum Dry Density Optimum Moisture (pcf) Content(%) B-1 @ 0-3' 123.5 10.0 350 Fischer Ave. Front • Costa Mesa, CA 92626 • P: 714 668 5600 • www.G3Soi1Works.com PA2021-285 I EGA Consultants Laboratory Test Results 225 East Bayfront Newport Beach, California Sulfate Content March 8, 2017 Project No. 114-384-1 0 Page 3 of 3 A selected bulk sample was tested for soluble sulfate content in accordance with Hach procedure. The test result is shown below: Sample Identification Water Soluble Sulfate In Soil Sulfate Exposure (Percentage by weight(%)) (ACI 318-08, Table 4.2.1) B-1 @ 0-3' 0.0031 Not Applicable Wet Density A composite of samples identified as B-1 @ 4.0 and 6.0 feet was remolded to the dry density obtained from B-1 @ 2.5 feet. This soil specimen was then soaked and reweighed and the resulting wet density of this sample was determined to be 117.6 pcf. Direct Shear The results of direct shear testing (ASTM D3080) are plotted on Figure S-1. Soil specimens were soaked in a confined state and sheared under varied loads ranging from 1.0 ksf to 4.0 ksf with a direct shear machine set at a controlled rate of strain of 0.005 inch per minute. Consolidation A consolidation test was performed on sample identified as B-1 @ 2.5 feet. The test specimen was initially loaded to 0.4 tons per square foot and soaked during the test. Progressive loading was then applied to a maximum of 1.6 tons per square foot. Loading was then reduced to determine rebound characteristics. The consolidation test is presented on Figure C-1. 350 Fischer Ave. Front • Costa Mesa. CA 92626 • P: 714 668 5600 • www.G3Soi1Works.com PA2021-285 I I LL en a.. Cl) en w 0:: I-C/) 0:: <: w I en 4,000 3,750 3,500 3,250 3,000 2,750 2,500 2,250 2,000 1,750 1,500 1,250 1,000 750 500 250 0 . . ' ..... . ·1·1•,••,••,••,•;•1·1· ·?•:-•:--:--:--:-i•i·i• .............. ,.,., .. . . . . ' .... . .............. ,., .... . . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . . ;.:..: .. : . .: . .:.;.;.;. . . . . . . . . . . , .,, .............. ' . , . . ;.; .. :.,:..:••>i•i·i· . , ......... , . .,.,.,., . . . . . . . . . . ........... , ......... . . . . . . . . . . DIRECT SHEAR TEST Undisturbed . , ...... . ,;.,:.,:, . .... ,;,,. •'••· . . . . . . . . . ··········•·\·1·1•:·.·· ,;,,:,,:, ......... ......... .,.,.,., .......... ,.,.,.,., ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... , ............ .,.,., .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... ..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... ..................... . . . . . . . . . ' ........ . ... ... ... .. . . . . . ' . , ................. , ....... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. ,., ...... •.•,·••1•1•,0 ....... . ............ , ... , ....... . . . . . . . . . ......... ,., .......... . . . . . . . . . . ......... ·.·-.•\·1·1·.·········· . . ... ,.,.1., ........... . . . . . . . . . . .......... , ........... . . . . . . . . . . ...... ' ......... . . . . . . . ... ... ... ... .. . . . . ................... . . . . . . . ' ......... . ·······,· .. ······ .. · .. · .,., ............... , . . ' .... ' .. .,.,.,., .... , .. , .... ,. •t•i•i•:•-:-,:.,;,,:-t• . ,,,., ............ ,., . . . . . . . . . . . ,.,., ............ ,., . . . . . . . . . . ....................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ······• .. •,.,, ....... . . . . . . . . . . • \ • I• I •1 ••• ••• ••• ... \ • ·t·i·i•:-<••:•-:-•:•{• ·•·•·•·•· .. ······1'·1• . . . . . . . . . ········· .. ······'·'· ......... ········· ............ . . . . . . . . . . ...................... . : . : . : . ~ .:. .: .. : . .:. ~. . ....... . ... , ... ,, ............. . •\•i•i·i•:••:••: .. :•\· . ,.,., ............... ,. . . . . . . . . . . , ................ ,.,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,,., .............. ,. . , ............ ,.,.1 . . . . . . . . . .............. ,., .. . . . . . ' .. . .................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ , ...... ,. .... ' .. . ......... • J •,-••• ••• ••• -.• ~ • I •I. .,., ......... .,.,.1., . ......... .............. , ...... . . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . . .. , ................. . . . . . . . . . . ... ,., ........... ,., . . ....... . .,., ............... ,.,. . ,., ............ ,.,.,. . . . . . . . . . .............. ,., ..... . . . . . . . . . ......... ,.,.,., ...... . . . . . . . . . . ......... , ... , ....... . . ....... . . ..................... . . ....... . . ..................... . .:..: .. : . .:.:.:.:.:..:. . . . . . . . . . . .............. , ... , .... •:••=••:--:•::•i·i·i•: .. . . . . . . . . . . ........... ,.,., ...... . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . ....... . ... ,.,.,., ........... . . . . . . . . . . ...... ,., ............. . . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . .. ................... . .: . .:.:.;.;.;.:..: .. : . . . . . . . . . . ........ ,.,., ........ . . ; .. :.\•i·i·i•:•-:-•:• . . . . . . . . . ...... , ............... . . ....... . ... ,., ..... , ........ . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . ... ,., ................. . . , ............... .,., . . . . . . . . . . ········· ... • .... ,., . . ' ...... . ········· .... · ....... . . ....... . ....................... . . . . . . . . . ·······-· .. ······ .... . . . . . ' ... . .... ,., ............... . . ....... . ·\•1·1·1•.•·········\· .,.,.,., ......... ,., . . ....... . .,., .............. ,., . . ....... . ...................... ......................... ....................... ...................... ....................... ....................... ....................... ·········-"· ...... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' ..................... . . . .. ... ... -· .................. -· ..... ·-.... -· ..................................................... -· ............... -· ........... ·-.............................................. . ............................................ ' ........ . ..................... , .............. ,, ................. , .............. ······•-•.-•·· .. ····· ., ................. , ................. , ........ . ·. · ......... · :. · . . . . . . . . . . ······· .. · .. ······•··· ...................................... ' ................................ . • f '; •.-••• ...... I••• I • ••• ••• ••• ... ••I •I•# ... • -.• ... \ • I• I •; ... ••• ••• • • • I• I• I ... ••• o,• ... • • • I •I ... ••• ••• .. , \ • I• I• •; ••• ••• ... • • I• f •; ... • ••• ... ••I •I•; ... ••• ••• •••I •I•; ... ••• ••• ... • • .;.;.; . .;..; .. ;.\•i·i . .;. .;. .; .. :.\•i·i•:••:•• ·=••:• i• i·; .:, .;. ,:. .;. ·\· i .,.; .;. -:, .; •• ;., •• ;.;. .:. ,:..;..:.i•i .; . .;.,:..; .. ;.\. i·i•:• .; ..• ;.,:. \.j ., .:, .;.,:. .: .. \·i .; .:, .;. ,:..; .. ;. ,:. :;:; :\: :\: ~: ~: ~:; :; : :j: :~: :!: ~: ~:;:; :; :~: :~: ~: ~:; :; :; :j: :~: :\: : ~:;:; :; :~: :!: :~: f ~: : ; :; :~ :i: :j: ~: ~:;:;: :i: \ :j: ~: ~:;:; :; :i::. :\: ~: f; :; :; :j: :\: :\: : ~:; :; :; :\: \¢.1 . . . . . . . . . ·:·:·:··:·-:·-:·:·:·:· ....................... . ; .:. .:. .: . .: . .: . : . : . ; . . . . . . . . . . . ,., .............. ,., . . ,.: .. ;.,:..; .. :.\•i·i· ·=•:•❖•:••: .. :-!•!•i· ., ............... ,.,., . . . . . . . . . . ·•·•······ .. · .. ······· ......... ....................... ......... . : . :. .: .. : . .: . .: . : . : . ~ . ......... ·········• .. • .. ·····1• . . . . . . . . . ·1·1·.··········1•1·1· ·=<•❖❖•: .. :•!·!•:• .,., ...... .,.,.,.1., . . . . . . . . . . ........... , ......... . ......... ....................... . . . . . . . . . ....................... ......... ....................... ......... ......... ........................ . . . . . . . . . ....................... .:. .: . .:. ~. : . : . ; .; .:. . . . . . . . . . . ......... , ... ,., ...... ......... ············\•1•1•.-···· ' ....... . ....................... . . . . . . . . . .. ................... . . . . . . . . . . ....................... . . . . . . . . . ........ , ... , ........ . . ...................... . . ' ...... . ..................... . : . : . : .; .:. .: . .:. ~. ; . ......... ·····••t• .. ······ .. · .. · ......... .,.,·,·1·.············ ......... .,.,.,., .......... .,., ... , ............. ,.,., ............ .,., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... .,,,., .............. ,.,., .............. ········· .. ··· .. ·'·'· . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................ ...................... ..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' ............. . .................................. , ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. ,.,., ............. ,.,., ........ . • ; •. ; •• ; .• ;. {· i .; .; •• ; ••. ;. ~· \• i. i .;. .;. ,:. .: . ......... ,., ... , .......... ,.,.,., ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... , ............. ,, .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................ ..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... ... ... .. . . . .. ... . ... ... .. . .. ... ... ... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. , ................. , ... , ........ . . . . . . . . . . ·········--······"··· . . . . . . . . . ... , ... , ............. . . ....... . ·\·1·1·:•.··········\· . ,.,., ............... , . . . . . . . . . . ······· .. · .. ··· .. ·'·'· . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. ... ... ... ... .. ......... . .. . . . ... ... ... ... ... .. . : . ; . : . ; .:. .: . .: . .: . ~ . . ....... . ......... . , ............... ,.,.,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ ~V.f:" .... . m111111111111m ■ m111111 .............. ,., ..... . . . . . . . . . ........... ,., ...... . . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . ....................... . ; .:. .: .. : . .: . .: . : . : . ~. . . . . . . . . . . ,., ............ ,.,.,. . . . . . . . . . ., ............... ,.,.,. . , ............ ,.,.1.,. . . . . . . . . . ........... ,., ...... . . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . ....................... . . . . . . . . . ....................... . . . . . . . . . ... , ............ ,.,.,. . ;.; .. ; .. ; .. ; .. :.\•i·i· ........... ,.,.,.,.,. . . . . . . . . . . :.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.'.: :::_ i:l:i:/:1:i:i:'.: . :..: . .: . .:.:.:.:.:..:. ......... . . . . . . . . . . .............. ,.,., ............ ,. . . . . . . . . . ............ ,•1·1·,···· ......... ,. •:•❖•:•-:•!•!•:•:--:•• ❖•:•!•i· ............ , ... , ........... ,., .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ··········,·'·'·'··· ............. , .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................................................ . . . . . . . 0 500 1,000 •:•❖❖•:• ............ . , ............ .,., . . . . . . . . . ............. ,., . . ..... . . ................. . ....... . . . . . . . . , .... .,. ......... . . . . . . . . .,., ............. . ....................... . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . ·······-·-··· ....... . ......... . .. ,.,., ............. . . . . . . . . . . ·,•1•1•1•.•·.••.····\· .,.1., ............ .,.,. . . . . . . . . . . , ................ , .. . . . . . . ' .. . . , .•......... .,.,.,.,. . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . ....................... . ....... . . .................... . . ....... . . .................. , .. . . . . . . . . . . . , .................. ,. . . . . . . . . . •1•1•.·············1·,· ., ............... ,.,.,. . ....... . ....................... . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . . , .... , ............ , .. . . . . . . . . . . . ,., ............ ,.,.,. ......... .,., ............ ,.,.,. ·•·•········· .. ·'·'·'· . . ' ..... . ............. , ...... . . . . . . . . . . . ........... ,.,.,., ... . . . . . . . . . . . .................... . ' ....... . ....................... . . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . ................ , ... . . . . . . . . . . .............. ,.,., .... . . . . . . . . . . ........... ,·1·1·.:·.·· . ........... ,.,., ...... . . ....... . ......... ,., .......... . . . . . . . . . . ....................... . . . . . . . . . ...................... .:. .: .. :. ~. : . ; . : .; .:. . . ....... . . , ............. ,., ... . . . . . . . . . . ........... ·\·1•1•:·.·· ............ ,.,., ...... . . . . . . . . . . ......... ........................ . . . . . . . . . ....................... .:. .; .. :. ~-:.:.: . :. .:. . . ....... . . , ........... ,., ..... . ......... ......... ., .... ,.,•1•.-· . ........... , ... , ...... . . ....... . . ....... ,,., ......... . . ....... . . .................................................................. . ' ................ . 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 NORMAL STRESS, PSF 225 E. Bayfront, Newport Beach COHESION FRICTION ANGLE ......... •:••=••:• ......... ......... ......... •:•❖❖ ......... . . . . . . . . . ·,·1·1·1·.•·········'· ., ... , ............ .,., . . ....... . .,., ................. . . ....... . ...................... . ....... ' ······· .. ···""· .... . .:.:.;.;..:..: .. : . .:.: . . ....... . . .. ,.,., ............. . ......... ·\·1·1·.·············'· .,.,., ............ ,., . . ....... . •I• I • \ •" ••• ••• ... I'• I• . ....... . . .................... .. . ... ' .. . ········· ............ . . ....... . . ..................... . . ....... . . .. ,.,., ............ . . ....... . .,.,·,·1·.•·········\· . ,.,.,., ......... ,., . . ....... . ········· ............ . . . . . . . . . . ·········-·""·"·"· . ....... . ·······-·--········ .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. ,.,., . ., .......... . . ....... . ·,•1·1•1•.············ . ,., .............. .,., . ......... ., ................ , .. . . ....... . 3,500 4,000 130 psf. 32.0 degrees symbol boring depth (ft.) symbol boring depth (ft.) FIGURE S-1 DIRECT SHEAR TEST • B-1 2.5 PN: 114-384-10 REPORT DATE: 3/8/2017 350 Fischer Ave. Front Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (714) 668 5600 www.G3So1IW0rks.com FIG. S-1 PA2021-285 11 I I I-I <.? ui I z w <.? z <( I l) 1-z w l) 0:: w n. COMPRESSIVE STRESS IN TSF 0.01 0.0 2 3 4 5 B 1 8(!).1 2 3 4 5 67891 : : : : : : ~:::: ::: : : :~: :~: ::: : : : ~::: •'• : : : : : : ~:::: ::: : : :~ : : ~ : :~ : : : ~::: •'• . ' .... ,., ...... ' ..... ,\ ....... ,. , . . ' .. ' .. ; ..... :. ' . ,:, .. :; . -~ . '. ~. i. '•' Boring Depth(ft.) oZi~itv in situ -200 Group Moist. sieve Svmbol 2 3 4 5 6 7 8910 !! ·······:···· .. ······-···· , ............ . .............. ., ... , ii Soil Description B-1 2.5 225 E. Bayfront, Newport Beach WATER ADDED AT 0.8 TSF. FIGURE C-1 CONSOLIDATION CURVE PN:114-384-10 REPORT DATE: 3/8/2017 350 Fischer Ave. Front Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (714) 668 5600 www.G3So1IW0rks.com FIG. C-1 PA2021-285 ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC. APPENDIX B EXPLORATION LOG BY ALBUS PA2021-285 Field Identification Sheet Light gray Description Order: Description, Color, Moisture, Density, Grain Size, Additional Description Gray Description % 0-5 trace 5-15 Dark gray with 15-30 30+Gravelly Sand with Silt trace Clay Moisture Silty Clay with Sand trace Gravel Gray Brown Dry Damp Moist Light brown Very Moist Wet Brown Density (Navfac) SPT CA 0-3 0-5 Dark Brown 3-8 5-13 8-14 13-22 14-25 22-40 Olive brown 25> 40> 2< 0-3 Olive 2-4 3-6 4-8 6-13 8-15 13-24 Yellow 15-30 24-48 30> 48> Yellowish brown Grain Size Description Sieve Size Approx. Size >12" Larger than basketball Yellowish red 3-12" Fist to basketball coarse 3/4-3" Thumb to Fist fine #4-3/4" Pea to Thumb Red coarse #10-4 Rock Salt to Pea medium #40-10 Sugar to Rock Salt fine #200-40 Flour to Sugar Reddish Brown Pass #200 Smaller than Flour Additional Description (ie. roots, pinhole pores, debris, etc.) Tan Trace 5% Moderate 15% Abundant 30% Albus & Associates, Inc. Plate B-0 absence of water near optimum below optimum Very Loose Sand Sand trace Silt Sand with Silt Silty Sand Example Very Soft Soft Stiff above optimum free water visible Loose Medium Dense More Examples Fines Sand Gravel Sand with Silt and Clay Sand trace Silt and Clay Sand with Silt trace Clay Very Stiff Hard Fine grained soils Medium Stiff Boulders Cobbles Dense Coarse grained soils Very Dense I I I 0 . . .. PA2021-285 Project: Address: Job Number: Drill Method: Client: Driving Weight: Location: Elevation: Date: Logged By: Depth (feet) Lith- ology Blows Per Foot Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Other Lab Tests Laboratory TestsSamples Material Description E X P L O R A T I O N L O G WaterCoreBulk5 10 15 20 EXPLANATION Solid lines separate geologic units and/or material types. Dashed lines indicate unknown depth of geologic unit change or material type change. Solid black rectangle in Core column represents California Split Spoon sampler (2.5in ID, 3in OD). Double triangle in core column represents SPT sampler. Vertical Lines in core column represents Shelby sampler. Solid black rectangle in Bulk column respresents large bag sample. Other Laboratory Tests: Max = Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content EI = Expansion Index SO4 = Soluble Sulfate Content DSR = Direct Shear, Remolded DS = Direct Shear, Undisturbed SA = Sieve Analysis (1" through #200 sieve) Hydro = Particle Size Analysis (SA with Hydrometer) 200 = Percent Passing #200 Sieve Consol = Consolidation SE = Sand Equivalent Rval = R-Value ATT = Atterberg Limits Albus & Associates, Inc.Plate B-1 I I I --~ --~ -\ ;- ---~ -H ~ -.. ~ --~ -_I - --~ --~ --~ --~ PA2021-285 Project: Address: Job Number: Drill Method: Client: Driving Weight: Location: Elevation: Date: Logged By: Depth (feet) Lith- ology Blows Per Foot Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Other Lab Tests Laboratory TestsSamples Material Description E X P L O R A T I O N L O G 125 East Bay Front, Newport Beach, CA 92661 3010.00 8/6/2021 ddalbusHand Auger Garrett & Heather Bland B-1 10.1 WaterCoreBulkHand Driven 5 10 ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af) Silty Sand (SM): Brown, moist, fine to medium grained sand Sand (SP): Light brown, moist, fine to medium grained sand @ 4 ft, Dark gray, wet, sea shell Total Depth 10 feet Groundwater at 4 feet Boring backfilled with soil cuttings 7.1 24.2 96.5 99.4 Albus & Associates, Inc.Plate B-2 PA2021-285 ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC. APPENDIX C LIQUEFACTION CALCS BY EGA PA2021-285 ------,------: lnp1,1t eau1mi:t1:r5; Peak Ground Acceleration: 0.720 Earthquake Magnitude: 7.2 Water Table Depth (m): 1.2192 Average y above water table (kN/mh3): 16 Average y below water table (kN/mh3): 18 Borehole diameter (mm): 34.925 Requires correction for Sample Liners (YES/NO): Sample Depth Number (m) 1 0.30 2 0.61 3 0.91 4 1.22 5 1.52 6 1.83 7 2.13 8 2.44 9 2.74 10 3.05 11 3.35 12 3.66 13 3.96 14 4.27 15 4.57 16 4.88 17 5.18 18 5.49 19 5.79 20 6.10 21 6.40 22 6.71 23 7.01 24 7.32 consultants Measured (NJ Soil Type (USCS) 6SW 7SW 4SW 7SW 19 SW 23 SW 28 SW 22 SW 14 SW 14 SW 29 SW 31 SW 31 SW 27 SW 24 SW 36 SW 40 SW 43 SW 43 SW 48 SW 48 SW 44 SW 43 SW 53 SP engineering geotechnical applications .. NO Flag "Clay" Fines "Unsaturated" Content "Unreliable" (%) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 8 .. Energy CE CB CR cs Ratio (ER)% 65 1.08 1 0.75 1 65 1.08 1 0.75 1 65 1.08 1 0.75 1 65 1.08 1 0.75 1 65 1.08 1 0.8 1 65 1.08 1 0.8 1 65 1.08 1 0.8 1 65 1.08 1 0.8 1 65 1.08 1 0.85 1 65 1.08 1 0.85 1 65 1.08 1 0.85 1 65 1.08 1 0.85 1 65 1.08 1 0.85 1 65 1.08 1 0.85 1 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 .. N60 4.88 5.69 3.25 5.69 16.47 19.93 24.27 19.07 12.89 12.89 26.70 28.55 28.55 24.86 24.70 37.05 41.17 44.25 44.25 49.40 49.40 45.28 44.25 54.55 225 E Bay Front, Newport Beach, CA 92662 IH0ll.1 March, 2017 o-VC o-VC' CN 4.88 4.88 1.70 9.75 9.75 1.70 14.63 14.63 1.70 19.51 19.51 1.70 24.99 22.00 1.70 30.48 24.50 1.70 35.97 27.00 1.70 41.45 29.49 1.70 46.94 31.99 1.70 52.43 34.49 1.70 57.91 36.98 1.66 63.40 39.48 1.60 68.88 41.97 1.55 74.37 44.47 1.51 79.86 46.97 1.47 85.34 49.46 1.43 90.83 51.96 1.40 96.32 54.46 1.36 I 101.80 56.95 1.33 107.29 59.45 1.31 112.78 61.94 1.28 118.26 64.44 1.25 123.75 66.94 1.23 129.24 69.43 1.21 PLATE A CPT-1 performed to 50.13 ~-on 2/23/17 Page 1 ... PA2021-285 .. .. 25 7.62 54 SP 8 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 55.58 26 7.92 58 SW 12 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 59.69 27 8.23 55 SP 8 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 56.60 28 8.53 51 SW 12 65 1.08 1 1 1 55.25 29 8.84 61 SW 12 65 1.08 1 1 1 66.08 30 9.14 54 SW 12 65 1.08 1 1 1 58.50 31 9.45 63 SP 8 65 1.08 1 1 1 68.25 32 9.75 66 SW 12 65 1.08 1 1 1 71.50 33 10.06 52 SW 12 65 1.08 1 1 1 56.33 34 10.36 56 SW 12 65 1.08 1 1 1 60.67 35 10.67 61 SW 12 65 1.08 1 1 1 66.08 36 10.97 71 SW 12 65 1.08 1 1 1 76,92 37 11.28 66 SW 12 65 1.08 1 1 1 71.50 38 11.58 68 SW 12 65 1.08 1 1 1 73.67 39 11.89 47 SW 12 65 1.08 1 1 1 50.92 40 12.19 32 CL Clay 48 65 1.08 1 1 1 34.67 41 12.50 34 CL Clay 48 65 1.08 1 1 1 36.83 42 12.80 34 CL Clay 48 65 1.08 1 1 1 36.83 43 13.11 31 CL Clay 48 65 1.08 1 1 1 33.58 44 13.41 20 CL Clay 48 65 1.08 1 1 1 21.67 45 13.72 19 CL Clay 48 65 1.08 1 1 1 20.58 46 14.02 30 CL Clay 48 65 1.08 1 1 32.50 47 14.33 30 CL Clay 48 65 1.08 1 1 1 32.50 48 14.63 47 CL Clay 48 65 1.08 1 1 1 50.92 49 14.94 57 CL Clay 48 65 1.08 1 1 1 61.75 50 15.24 100 SW 12 65 1.08 1 1 1 108.33 Auger Diameter: 1.375 inches Hammer Weight: n.a. Drop: continuous push CPT-1 performed to 50.13 ft by Kehoe Testing and Engineering on February 23, 2017 (CPT Data Logs attached herein) References: Idriss, J.M. and Boulanger, R.W. Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. 8 September 2008. Liu, C. and Evett. J.B. Sails and Foundations, 8th Edition. 4 August 2013. Martin, G.R. and Lew, M. Recommendations for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117. University of Southern California Earthquake Center. March 1999. California Department of Conservation, CGS. Special Publication 117A: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. Rev 11 Sept 2008. consultants engineering geotl'chnical applications .. -225 E Bay Front, Newport Beach, CA 92662 IH011.1 March, 2017 134.72 71.93 1.19 140.21 74.43 1.17 145.69 76.92 1.15 151.18 79.42 1.13 156.67 81.91 1.11 162.15 84.41 1.10 167.64 86.91 1.08 173.13 89.40 1.06 178.61 91.90 1.05 184.10 94.40 1.04 189.59 96.89 1.02 195.07 99.39 1.01 200.56 101.89 1.00 206.04 104.38 0.99 211.53 106.88 0.97 217.02 109.37 0.96 222.50 111.87 0.95 227.99 114.37 0.94 233.48 116.86 0.93 238.96 119.36 0.92 244.45 121.86 0.91 249.94 124.35 0.90 255.42 126.85 0.89 260.91 129.34 0.89 266.40 131.84 0.88 271.88 134.34 0.87 PLATE A CPT-1 performed to 50.13 ft. on 2/23/17 Page 2 PA2021-285 ..... (N1)60 ~N for Fines Content 8.29 2.07 9,67 2.07 5.53 2.07 9.67 2.07 27.99 2.07 33.89 2.07 41.25 2.07 32.41 2.07 21.92 2.07 21.92 2.07 44.20 2.07 45.73 2.07 44.35 2.07 37.53 2.07 36.28 2.07 53.03 2.07 57.49 2.07 60.37 2.07 59.03 2.07 64.49 2.07 63.18 2.07 56.78 2.07 54.45 2.07 65.89 0.37 consultants .. ,; , . (N1)60-CS Stress reduction coeff. rd 10.36 1.00 11.74 1.00 7.60 1.00 11.74 1.00 30.07 0.99 35.96 0.99 43.33 0.99 34.49 0.98 23.99 0.98 23.99 0.98 46.27 0.97 47.81 0.97 46.42 0.97 39.60 0.96 38.35 0.96 55.10 0.95 59.56 0.95 62.44 0.95 61.10 0.94 66.57 0.94 65.25 0.93 58.86 0.93 56.52 0.92 66.26 0.92 engineering geotechnical applications CSR - MSFfor sand Ka for sand CRR for M=7.5 &aVC'= 1 atm 0.47 1.08 1.10 0.12 0.47 1.08 1.10 0.13 0.47 1.08 1.10 0.10 0.47 1.08 1.10 0.13 0.53 1.08 1.10 0.49 0.58 1.08 1.10 1.37 0.62 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.65 1.08 1.10 1.00 0.67 1.08 1.10 0.27 0.69 1.08 1.10 0.27 0.71 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.73 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.74 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.75 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.76 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.77 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.78 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.78 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.79 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.79 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.79 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.80 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.80 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.80 1.08 1.10 2.00 CRR 0.14 0.16 0.12 0.16 0.58 1.63 2.00 1.19 0.32 0.32 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 225 E Bay Front, Newport Beach, CA 92662 IH0ll.1 March, 2017 Factor of Limiting shear Safety strain ylim 0.31 0.45 0.33 0.39 0.26 0.50 0.33 0.39 1.10 0.05 2.00 0.02 2.00 0.00 1.84 0.02 0.47 0.10 0.46 0.10 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.01 2.00 0.01 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 PLATE A CPT-1 performed to 50.13 ft. on 2/23/17 Page 3 PA2021-285 -r1 l .. .. 65.96 0.37 66.33 0.91 0.80 1.08 1.10 69.65 2.07 71.72 0.91 0.80 1.08 1.09 64.97 0.37 65.33 0.90 0.80 1.08 1.08 62.41 2.07 64.48 0.90 0.80 1.08 1.07 73.50 2.07 75.57 0.89 0.80 1.08 1.06 64.09 2.07 66.17 0.89 0.80 1.08 1.05 73.69 0.37 74.06 0.88 0.80 1.08 1.04 76.12 2.07 78.19 0.88 0.80 1.08 1.04 59.15 2.07 61.22 0.87 0.80 1.08 1.03 62.85 2.07 64.93 0.87 0.79 1.08 1.02 67.58 2.07 69.65 0.86 0.79 1.08 1~01 77.66 2.07 79.73 0.86 0.79 1.08 1.00 71.30 2.07 73.38 0.85 0.79 1.08 1.00 72.58 2.07 74.65 0.85 0.78 1.08 0.99 49.58 2.07 51.65 0.84 0.78 1.08 0.98 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.84 0.78 1.08 0.98 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.83 0.78 1.08 0.97 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.83 0.77 1.08 0.96 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.82 0.77 1.08 0.96 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.82 0.77 1.08 0.95 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.81 0.76 1.08 0.94 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.81 0.76 1.08 0.94 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.80 0.76 1.08 0.93 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.80 0.75 1.08 0.93 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.79 0.75 1.08 0.92 94.09 2.07 96.16 0.79 0.75 1.08 0.92 References: Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W. Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. 8 September 2008. Liu, C. and Evett, J.B. Soils and Foundations, 8th Edition. 4 August 2013. --1 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 2.00 1.98 Martin, G.R. and Lew, M. Recommendations for Implementation of DMG Special Publication I 17. University of Southern California Earthquake Center. March 1999. California Department of Conservation, CGS. Special Publication 117A: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California . Rev 11 Sept. 2008. consultants engineering geotechnical applications .. , .. l_ 225 E Bay Front, Newport Beach, CA 92662 IH0ll.1 March, 2017 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 n.a. 0.00 n.a. 0.00 n.a. 0.00 n.a. 0.00 n.a. 0.00 n.a. 0.00 n.a. 0.00 n.a. 0.00 n.a. 0.00 n.a. 0.00 2.00 0.00 PLATE A CPT-1 performed to 50.13 ft. on 2/23/17 Page 4 .. PA2021-285 .. Parameter Fa 0.91 0.87 0.95 0.87 -0.09 -0.51 -1.06 -0.40 0.29 0.29 -1.29 -1.41 -1.30 -0.77 -0.68 -2.01 -2.39 -2.63 -2.52 -2.99 -2.88 -2.33 -2.13 -2.97 Maximum L\Hi (m) shear strain ymax 0.45 0.39 0.50 0.39 0.Q3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 engineering geotechnical applications 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 consultants --: ~- L\LD!i (m) 0.14 0.12 0.15 0.12 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 ---, - Vertical L\Si (m) reconsol. Strain £V 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.Ql 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 __ r ----;-· L\Si (ft) 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 L\Si (inches) 0.44 0.41 0.52 0.41 0.Q7 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .. 225 E Bay Front, Newport Beach, CA 92662 IH011.1 March, 2017 PLATE A CPT-1 performed to 50.13 ft. on 2/23/17 Page 5 -PA2021-285 .. .. .. - -2.97 0.00 0.30 0.00 0,00 0.00 -3.45 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.88 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.81 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0,00 -3.79 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.96 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.66 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.03 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.53 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.85 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.26 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.17 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.60 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.71 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.72 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -5.70 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Settlement: 0.061 References: Idriss, J.M. and Boulanger, R.W. Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. 8 September 2008. Liu. C. and Evett. J.B. Soils and Foundations, 8th Edition. 4 August 2013. - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.191 2.321 Martin, G.R. and Lew, M. Recommendations for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117. University of Southern California Earthquake Center. March 1999. California Department of Conservation, CGS. Special Publication 117A: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. Rev 11 Sept. 2008. consultants engineering geotechnicul applications .. 225 E Bay Front, Newport Beach, CA 92662 IH0ll.1 March, 2017 PLATE A CPT-1 performed to 50.13 ft. on 2/23/17 Page 6 ... PA2021-285