The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPA2021-274_20220106_Geotechnical Investigation_7-14-21consultants GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 1712 E. OCEANFRONT NEWPORT Bl;:ACH, CALIFORNIA Presented to: Magis TLCS, LLC 10915 Osterman Avenue Tustin, CA 92868 Attention: Lisa Van0orpe Manager Prepared by: EGA Consultants, Inc. 375-C Monte Vista Avenue Costa Mesa, California 92627 ph (949) 642-9309 fax (949) 642-1290 July 14, 2021 Project No. RK324.1 engineering geotechnical applications 37 5-C Monte V i sta .Avenue • Costa Mesa, CA 92627 • (949) 642-9309 • FAX (949) 642-1290 PA2021-274 consultants Site: Proposed Residential Development: 1712 E. Oceanfront Newport Beach, California Executive Summary July 14, 2021 Project No. RK324.1 engineering geotuhnical appli&atio11s Based on our geotechnical study of the site, our review of available reports and literature and our experience, it is our opinion that the proposed residential development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. There appear to be no significant geotechnical constraints on-site that cannot be mitigated by proper planning, design, and utilization of sound construction practices. The engineering properties of the soil and native materials, and surface drainage offer favorable conditions for site re-development. The following key elements are conclusions confirmed from this investigation: A review of available geologic records indicates that no active faults cross the subject property. The site is located in the seismically active Southern California area, and within 2 kilometers of the Type B Newport-Inglewood Fault. As such, the proposed development shall be designed in accordance with seismic considerations specified in the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) and the City of Newport Beach requirements. Foundation specifications herein include added provisions for potential liquefaction on-site per City policy CBC 1803.11-12. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Design Item Mat Slab Foundation: Mat Slab Bearing Pressure: Modulus of Subgrade Reaction: Passive Lateral Resistence: Coefficient of Friction: Building Pad Over-Excavation: Soil Expansion: Soil Sulfate Content: Soil Maximum Density: Building Pad Over-Excavation: Recommendations min. 12 inches with thickened edges(+ 6 inches) with no. 5 bars@ 12" o.c. each way, top and bottom 900 psf k5 = 90 lbs/in3 250 psf per foot 0.30 min. 2½ ft. below existing grade, + scarify bottom 6 in. Non-Expansive Silty Sands Negligible, 4 ppm, [SO) 117.0 pct@ 11.5 optimum moisture content min. 2½ ft. below ex. grade, +6" scarify & treat bottom * Concrete building slabs shall be underlain by 2" clean sand, underlain by a min. 15 mil thick vapor barrier, with all laps sealed, underlain by 4" of ¾-inch gravel (capillary break). Seismic Values (per CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 Equivalent Lateral Force Method): Site Class Definition (Table 1613.5.2) D Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, s. 1.379g Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 1 s Period, S1 0.489 g Short Period Site Coefficient at 0.2 Period, Fa 1.2 Long Period Site Coefficient at 1 s Period, F. 1.8 Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SMs 1.654 g Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 1 s Period, SM, 0.880 g Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0 2s Period, S05 1.103 g Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1 s Period, S01 0.587 g PGAm = 0. 725 g Note: EGA Consultants recommends the structural engineer review and confirm associated seismic values for the proposed residential development. 375-C Monte Vista Avenue • Costa Mesa, CA 92627 • (949) 642 -9309 • FAX (949) 642-1290 PA2021-274 I I EGA I engineering geotechnical applicatio11s consultants Magis TLCS, LLC 10915 Osterman Avenue Tustin, CA 92868 Attn: Subject: Dear Lisa, Lisa VanDorpe, Manager GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 1712 E. OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA July 14, 2021 Project No. RK324.1 In accordance with your request and with the 2019 CBC, we have completed our Geotechnical Investigation of the above referenced site. This investigation was performed to determine the site soil conditions and to provide geotechnical parameters for the proposed re-grading and construction at the subject site. It is our understanding that the proposed re-development shall include the demolition of the existing residence and the construction of a new residential dwelling with associated improvements. This report presents the results of the investigation (including Liquefaction Computations) along with grading and foundation recommendations pertaining to the development of the proposed residential development. This opportunity to be of service is appreciated . If you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, EGA Consultan~ ~- DAVID A . WORTHINGTON, CEG 2124 Principal Engineering Geologist/CEO ~6rr,--- JOHN F. EGGERS Staff Geologist cc. (3) Addressee E.D G avid orthingt No.CEG21 \ CERTIFIED I ~'.\, rnG11JrE1,:~ ~ ~ G'""01 (,,,,,,. . '-° .. ""r.. )I_ :, ··J ·'l. -.. ------.,,-~ !....·(:: (: !\·1 \~ -;,.,, PAUL D Sr. Project 375-C Monte Vista Avcnut: • Costa Mesa, CA 92627 • (949) 642-9309 • FAX (949) 642-1290 PA2021-274 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION July 14, 2021 Project No. RK324.1 FOR PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 1712 E. OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION In response to your request and in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Building Department requirements, we have completed a preliminary geotechnical investigation at the subject site located at 1712 E. Oceanfront, in the City of Newport Beach, State of California (see Site Location Map, Figure 1 ). The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the existing geotechnical conditions at the subject site and provide recommendations and geotechnical parameters for site re- development, earthwork, and foundation design for the proposed construction. We were also requested to evaluate the potential for on-site geotechnical hazards. This report presents the results of our findings, as well as our conclusions and recommendations. SCOPE OF STUDY The scope of our investigation included the following tasks: • Review of readily available published and unpublished reports; • Geologic reconnaissance and document research; • Excavation and sampling of two (2) exploratory borings to a total depth of 13 feet below existing grade (b.g.); • Continuous Cone Penetration Test (CPT) sounding to a depth of 50½ feet below grade (results of the CPT sounding are included herein); • Laboratory testing of representative samples obtained from the exploratory borings; • Engineering and geologic analysis including seismicity coefficients in accordance with the 2019 California Building Code (CBC); • Seismic and Liquefaction analysis and settlement computations (in accordance with California Geological Survey, SP 117 A); • Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. 2 PA2021-274 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS The beachfront property is an approximate 40 ft. wide by 80 ft. long, rectangular lot located at 1712 E. Oceanfront within the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange. The subject site is located near the eastern end of the Balboa Peninsular. For the purpose of clarity, the lot is bound by E. Oceanfront (a.k.a. "Alley") to the north, by a public beach to the south, and by similar residences to the east and west. The Newport Bay is located approximately 1,150 feet north; and the Pacific Ocean is located approximately 400 feet southwest of the property (see Site Location Map, Figure 1 ). The subject lot consists of a relatively flat, planar lot with no significant slopes on or adjacent to the site. The lot size is roughly 3,200 sq. ft. The site is legally described as Lot 3, Block C, of Tract No. 518 in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California (APN 048-212-25). Currently, the lot is occupied by a two-story residence, with an attached two-car garage in the northwest of the lot. All structures are supported on continuous perimeter footings with slab-on-grade floors. The one-car garage is accessed from East Oceanfront. The existing property lines and dimensions are shown in the Plot Plan, Figure 2, herein. PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Preliminary plans were not available at the time of preparing this report. However, it is assume that the proposed construction shall include the demolition of the existing structures and construction of a new two story residence with a rooftop deck. We assume a two-car garage to be accessed from E. Oceanfront. We assume that the proposed building will consist of wood-frame and masonry block construction or building materials of similar type and load. The building foundations will consist of a combination of isolated and continuous spread footings. Loads on the footings are unknown, but are expected to be less than 2,250 and 1,750 pounds per square foot on the isolated and continuous footings, respectively. If actual loads exceed these assumed values, we should be contacted to evaluate whether revisions of this report are necessary. It is our understanding that the grade of the site is not expected to vary significantly. Based on the digital elevation model by NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI -NAVD88, Last Modified September 23, 2016), the site elevation is approximately 15 ft. above MSL (see reference No. 10). Based on the preliminary plans, the proposed finish floor elevation shall be 9+ ft. above mean sea level (MSL) to conform with City and United States FEMA flood elevation requirements. 1712 E. Oceanfront, Newport Ueach. CA Soils Report -Proposed Residential Development Project No. RK324. I July 14. 2021 3 PA2021-274 Note: The precise determination, measuring, and documenting of the site elevations, hub locations, property boundaries, etc., is the responsibility of the project licensed land surveyor. No basement or retaining walls are planned. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Our subsurface exploration consisted of the excavation of two (2) exploratory borings (B-1 and B-2) to a maximum depth of 13 feet below grade (b.g.) and one CPT probe (CPT-1) to a depth of 50½ b.g. (continuous soil profile). Prior to drilling, the underground detection and markup service (Underground Service Alert of Southern California) was ordered and completed under DigAlert. Representative bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained for labora- tory testing. Geologic/CPT logs of the soil boring/probes are included in Appendix A. The borings were continuously logged by a registered geologist from our firm who obtained soil samples for geotechnical laboratory analysis. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Figure 2 (Plot Plan). Geotechnical soil samples were obtained using a modified California sampler filled with 23/s inch diameter, 1-inch tall brass rings. Bulk samples were obtained by collecting representative bore hole cuttings. Locations of geotechnical samples and other data are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. The soils were visually classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Classifications are shown on the boring logs included in Appendix A. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing was performed on representative soil samples obtained during our subsurface exploration. The following tests were performed: * * * * Dry Density and Moisture Content (ASTM: D 2216) Soil Classification (ASTM: D 2487) Direct Shear (ASTM: D 3080) Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content (ASTM: D 1557) 1712 E. Ocean front, Newport Beach, C/1 Soils Report • Proposed Kcsiclential Development Project No. RK324. I July 14, 2021 4 PA2021-274 * Sulfate Content (CA417,ACI 318-08, Table4.2.1) All laboratory testing was performed by our sub-contractor, G3Soi1Works, Inc., of Costa Mesa, California. Geotechnical test results are included in Appendix B, herein. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The site soil and geologic conditions are as fo llows: Seepage and Groundwater According to the Orange County Water District (OCWD), there are no water wells located within the general vicinity of the subject property. Channel waters of the Newport Bay are located approximately 1, 150 feet north of the subject site. The Pacific Ocean is located approximately 400 feet southwest of the property across the public beach. Seepage or surface water ponding was not noted on the subject site at the time of our study. Our data indicates that the groundwater encountered is subject to significant tidal fluctuations. Groundwater was encountered in our test excavation at depth of approximately 12.0 feet below grade. Based on our review, the groundwater highs approach the tidal highs in the bay, and groundwater lows drop slightly below mean sea level. From a construction standpoint, any excavations advanced down to within the tidal zones should be expected to experience severe caving. A tidal chart dated June 17, 2021 is presented as Figure 4, herein. Geologic Setting Regionally, the site is located within the western boundary of the Coastal Plain of Orange County. The Coastal Plain lies within the southwest portion of the Los Angeles Basin and consists of semi-consolidated marine and non-marine deposits ranging in age from Miocene to recent. The Coastal Plain is bound by the Tustin Plan and the Santa Ana Mountains to the northeast and the San Joaquin Hills to the southeast. Based on available geologic maps the site is underlain by a thin mantle of eolian marine (Qe)/hydraulic sands and/or engineered fill. The shallow soil layer is underlain by Quaternary-age old paralic deposits (Qop) which are described as medium dense to very dense, oxidized, fine to medium grained, moderately to well-cemented sand and silty sand (see reference No. 2). I 712 E. Oceanfront, Ncwpon Beach, CA Soils Repon -Propu,cd Residential Dcvelopmenl Project No. RK324. I July 14. 2021 5 PA2021-274 The eolian sand deposits are underlain by massive bedrock of the Monterey Formation (Tm). Roadside exposures of massive bedrock of the Monterey Formation (Tm) are visible on the inland side of side of Pacific Coast Highway approximately 1 kilometer north and northeast of the site (Dover Shores and Bayside Drive bluffs). A Geologic Map is presented as Figure 3, herein (reference: Morton, D.M., and Miller, F.K., 2006). Based on the geologic map (Figure 3) correlation with the nearby CPT probe, bedrock of the Monterey Formation (Tm) was likely encountered approximately 22 feet below grade. Faulting A review of available geologic records indicates that no active faults cross the subject property (reference No. 2, and Figure No. 3). Seismicity The seismic hazards most likely to impact the subject site is ground shaking following a large earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood (onshore), Palos Verdes (offshore), San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust, Whittier-Elsinore, or Cucamonga Faults. The site is primarily underlain by fill and beach sands with thin layers of silt/clay. For design purposes, two-thirds of the maximum anticipated bedrock acceleration may be assumed for the repeatable ground acceleration. The effects of seismic shaking can be mitigated by adhering to the 2019 California Building Code or the standards of care established by the Structural Engineers Association of California. With respect to this hazard, the site is comparable to others in this general area in similar geologic settings. The grading/building specifications outlined in this report are in part, intended to mitigate seismic shaking. Based on our review of the "Seismic Zone Map," issued by the State of California, there are no mapped earthquake landslide zones on the site. The proposed development shall be designed in accordance with seismic requirements contained in the 2019 CBC as adopted by the City of Newport Beach building codes. Based on Chapter 16 of the 2019 CBC and on Maps of Known Active Near- Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada (ASCE 7-16 Standard, Equivalent Lateral Force Method), the site shall be designed using the following seismic parameters: 1712 E. Oceanfront. Newport Beach, C/\ Soils Repon -Proposed Residential Development Project No. R K324_ I July 14. 2021 6 PA2021-274 2019 CBC Seismic Design Parameters SITE ADDRESS 171? E O fr N B h CA -cean ont, ewport eac , Site Latitude (Decimal Degrees) 33.5968075 Site Longitude (Decimal Degrees) -117.8884422 Site Class Definition D Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, Ss 1.379 g Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at Is Period, S1 0.489 g Short Period Site Coefficient at 0.2 Period, Fa 1.2 Long Period Site Coefficient at Is Period, Fv 1.8 Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SMs 1.654 g Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at Is Period, SM, 0.880 g Design Spectral Response Acceleration al 0.2s Period, S05 I. I 03 g Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Is Period S01 0.587 g In accordance with the USGS Design Maps, and assuming Site Class "D", the mean peak ground acceleration (PGAm) per USGS is 0.725 g. The stated PGAm is based on a 2% probability of exceedance in a 50 year span (see copies of the USGS Design Maps Detailed Report, Appendix D, herein) EGA Consultants recommends the structural engineer review and confirm associated seismic values for the proposed residential development. FINDINGS Subsurface Soils As encountered in our test borings, the site is underlain by hydraulic fill sands and native materials as follows: Fill (Af) Fill sands were encountered in each of the borings to a depth of approximately 3 feet below ground. The fill soils consist generally of light olive brown , dry, loose to medium dense, fine-grained sand with trace gravels, shell fragments and roots. The expansion potential of the fill soils was judged to be "non-expansive" when exposed to an increase in moisture content. I 712 E Oceanfront. Newpon Beach, CA Soils Report -Proposed Rt:sidenlial Development Project No. RK324. I July 14. 202 I 7 PA2021-274 Hydraulic-Native Sands (Om), Paralic Deposits (Oop) and Bedrock (Tm) The fill materials are hydraulic and native sands as encountered in each of the test borings (B-1 , B-2, and CPT-1 ). The native sands consist generally of tan brown, dry to saturated, medium dense to dense, non-cemented, fine-to medium-grained, sand and silty sand with trace shell fragments. The native sands are underlain by marine sands (Om) and old paralic (Oop) deposits, which are underlain by Monterey Formation (Tm) bedrock consisting of medium dense to very dense, oxidized, fine to medium grained, moderately to well-cemented sand and siltstone to the maximum depths explored (50½ ft. b.g.). Based on the geologic map (Figure 3) correlation with the nearby CPT probe, bedrock of the Monterey Formation (Tm) was likely encountered approximately 22 feet below grade. Based on the laboratory results dated July 1, 2021 , the site maximum dry density is 117.0 pcf at an optimum moisture content of 11.5% (per ASTM D 1557). The complete laboratory reports are presented in Appendix B, herein. LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS (Per SP117 A) Liquefaction of soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion in response to earthquakes. Both research and historical data indicate that loose, granular sandy soils are susceptible to liquefaction, while the stability of rock, gravels, clays, and silts are not significantly affected by vibratory motion. Liquefaction is generally known to occur only in saturated or near saturated granular soils. The site is underlain by fill/eolian sands, old paralic deposits, and bedrock of the Monterey Formation. It is our understanding that the current City policy, has assigned a seismic settlement potential of one (1.0) inch in the upper ten feet, and three (3.0) inches for soil depths of ten to fifty feet. In the event settlement values exceed these threshold values, then additional analysis and/or additional mitigation is required. The CPT testing was performed in accordance with the "Standard Test Method for Performing Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone Penetration Testing of Soils," (ASTM D5778-12). The seismically induced settlement for the proposed structure was evaluated based on the "Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes" by 1.M. Idriss and R.W. Boulanger, dated September 8, 2008 as well as the "CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures" by R.W. Boulanger and I.M. Idriss, dated April 2014. 1712 E Oceanfronl, Newport Beach. CA Soils Report -Proposed Rcsidenlial Developinenl Projcc1 Nu. RK324. I July 14. 2021 8 PA2021-274 The analysis was provided by two 10-feet deep 4-inch diameter hand-auger borings, and a nearby 50+ feet deep 1. 7-inch diameter CPT probe advanced by Kehoe Testing and Engineering, Inc. The exploratory borings and probe locations are shown in the Plot Plan, Figure 2, herein. The soil borings were continuously logged by a certified engineering geologist of our firm. The CPT test consists of a sounding to the specified depth using an integrated cone system manufactured by Vertek. The cone penetrometer was pushed using a 30-ton CPT rig, with samples taken approximately every 2.5 cm, or 0.98 inches. The following parameters are measured: Cone Resistance (qc), Sleeve Friction (fs), Dynamic Pore Pressure (u), Inclination, and Penetration Speed. The parameters were recorded using a laptop computer, and compared with baseline readings to adjust for temperature or zero load offsets. The Ishihara and Yoshimine 1992 paper titled "Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits Following Liquefaction During Earthquakes" was reviewed. The paper discusses that if given the factor of safety and the density in each layer of a sand deposit at a given site, the volumetric strain can be calculated, and then by integrating the volume changes through the depth, the amount of settlement at the ground surface can be estimated. The liquefaction analysis is based on the accepted document of Idriss and Boulanger (2014), which integrates the findings established by Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992). The total value for seismic induced settlement due to liquefaction is calculated in the last three columns of the spreadsheet in Appendix E herein. The computations and results of our Liquefaction Analysis, based on CPT blow counts of Boring CPT-1 , are attached in Appendix D, herein. The seismically induced settlement analysis was evaluated based on methods published in the references Nos. "a" through "j" (see "Associated References", herein). The liquefaction and seismic settlement calculations indicate seismic settlement (includes dry and saturated sands) in the upper 50 feet is less than 2.0 inches, and in the upper 10 feet is less than 1.0 inch and hence shallow mitigation methods for liquefaction may be implemented per City Code Policy (No. CBC 1803.5 .11 -2 last revised 7/3/2014). Based on our liquefaction analysis, and in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Policy No. CBC 1803.5.11 -12 (NBMC, Chapter 15), we recommend the following mitigative methods to minimize the effects of shallow liquefaction: 1712 E. Oceanfront. Newport Beach, CA Soils Report -Proposed Residential Development Project No. RK324.1 July 14, 2021 9 PA2021-274 a. Remedial Grading via Soil Cement in Upper 3 feet -See Page 11, below b. Mat Slab Foundation -see Page 12, below The soil densification via soil cement and the mat slab foundation specifications outlined below will act to decrease the potential settlement due to liquefaction and/or seismically induced lateral deformation to tolerable amounts. The above specifications eliminate the use of piles and associated construction vibrations and groundwater displacement induced by caisson drilling or pile-driving. If the above specifications are incorporated, the proposed structure shall be stable and adequate for the intended uses and the proposed construction will not adversely impact the subject or adjacent properties. Remedial grading via soil densification reduces the calculated seismic settlement. Other Geologic Hazards Other geologic hazards such as landsliding, or expansive soils, are not factors at the subject site. There is not sufficient topography for soil creep or slope movement. CONCLUSIONS Based on our geotechnical study of the site, our review of available reports and literature and our experience, it is our opinion that the proposed improvements at the site are feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. There appear to be no significant geotechnical constraints on-site that cannot be mitigated by proper planning, design, and utilization of sound construction practices. The engineering properties of the soil and native materials, and the surface drainage offer favorable conditions for site re- development. RECOMMENDATIONS The following sections discuss the principle geotechnical concerns which should be considered for proper site re-development. Earthwork Grading and earthwork should be performed in accordance with the following recommendations. It is our understanding that the majority of grading will be limited to the re-grading of the building pad for the proposed construction. In general, it is anticipated that the removal of the upper 2½ feet (plus 6 inches of scarification) within the building footprint (slab-on-grade portion) will require removal and recompaction to prepare the site for construction. The removals should be accomplished so that all fill and backfill existing as part of the previous site use and demolition operations are removed. 17 12 E. Oceanfronl, Newpon Beach, CA Soils Report -Proposed Residential Development Projccl No, RK324. I July 14. 2021 10 PA2021-274 Where feasible, the limits of the pad fill shall be defined by a 3 foot envelope encompassing the building footprint, where feasible. Care should be taken to protect the adjacent property improvements. A minimum one foot thick fill blanket should be placed throughout the exterior improvements (approaches, parking and planter areas). The fill blanket will be achieved by re-working (scarifying) the upper 12 inches of the existing grade. Remedial Grading -Soil Cement Due to in situ dry, granular sands, we recommend three (3) pallets (40 bags dry mix, each weighing 94 pounds and approximately 1.33 cubic yards) of Portland cement be blended into the newly-placed fill. The first application of the Portland Cement shall be placed on the bottom of the scarified over- excavation(s). This option may be eliminated or reduced if suitable import fills are trucked-in. Site Preparation Prior to earthwork or construction operations, the site should be cleared of surface structures and subsurface obstructions and stripped of any vegetation in the areas proposed for development. Removed vegetation and debris should then be disposed of off-site. A minimum of 2½ feet of the soils below existing grade will require removal and recompaction in the areas to receive building pad fill. Following removal and scarification of 6 inches, the excavated surface should be inspected by the soils engineer or his designated representative prior to the placement of any fill in footing trenches. Holes or pockets of undocumented fill resulting from removal of buried obstructions discovered during this inspection should be filled with suitable compacted fill. The on-site soils are suitable for reuse as compacted fill , provided they are free of organic materials, debris, and materials larger than four (4) inches in diameter. After removal of any loose, compressible soils, all areas to receive fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 12 inches, brought to at least 2 percent over optimum moisture conditions and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM: D 1557). If necessary, import soils for near-surface fills should be predominately granular, possess a very low expansion potential, and be approved by the geotechnical engineer. Lift thicknesses will be dependent on the size and type of equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 6 inches. Placement and compaction of fill should be in accordance with local grading ordinances 1712 E. Oceanfront, Newport Beach. CA Soils R<:port -Proposed Residential Development Project No RK324. I July 14. 2021 11 PA2021-274 under the observation and testing of the geotechnical consultant. We recommend that fill soils be placed at moisture contents at least 2 percent over optimum (based on ASTM: D 1557). We recommend that oversize materials (materials over 4 inches) should they be encountered, be stockpiled and removed from the site. Trench Backfill The on-site soils may be used as trench backfill provided they are screened of rock sizes over 4 inches in dimension and organic matter. Trench backfill should be compacted in uniform lifts (not exceeding 6 inches in compacted thickness) by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM: D 1557). Geotechnical Design Parameters The following Geotechnical parameters may used in the design of the proposed structure (also, see "Liquefaction Analysis" section, above): Mat Foundation Design Due to cohesionless sands during construction, a mat slab foundation system is recommended . Mat slabs founded in compacted fill or competent native materials may be designed for an allowable bearing value of 900 psf (for dead- plus-live load). The actual design of the foundation and slabs should be completed by the structural engineer. MIN. DESIGN ITEM Mat foundations: allowable bearing pressure: passive lateral resistence: mat slab thickness: steel reinforcement: coefficient of friction: Modulus of Subgrade Reaction: RECOMMENDATIONS 900 psf 250 psf per foot min. 12 inches with thickened edges(+ 6 inches) no. 5 bars@ 12" o.c. each way, top and bottom 0.30 ks = 90 lbs/in3 The mat slab shall be directly underlain by a min. 2-inch thick layer of washed sand, underlain by min. 15-mil Stego wrap (or equiv., lapped and sealed), underlain by 4 inches of gravel (¾-inch crushed rock), underlain by competent native materials (see "Capillary Break Section above). For mat slabs, we do not recommend expansion or felt joints be used. Reinforcement requirements may be increased if recommended by the project structural engineer. In no case should they be decreased from the previous recommendations. 1712 F.. Oceanfront, Newport Beach, CA Solis Keport -Proposed Residential De, clopment Pr0JeCt No KK324 I Jul} 1-l. 2021 12 PA2021-274 Capillary Break Below Interior Slabs In accordance with the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code Section 4.505.2.1, we provide the following building specification for the subject site (living area and garages slabs): Concrete building slabs shall be directly underlain by a min. 2 inches of clean/washed sand, underlain by a min.15 mil-thick moisture barrier (e.g. "Stego Wrap"), with all laps sealed, underlain by 4 inches of ¾-inch gravel. We do not advise placing sand directly on the gravel layer as this would reverse the effects of vapor migration (due to siltation of fines). The above specification meets or exceeds the Section 4.505.2.1 requirement. Cement Type for Concrete in Contact with On-Site Earth Materials Concrete mix design should be based on sulfate testing with Section 1904.2 of the 2019 CBC (in the event of soil import, soils shall be tested a specified accordingly). Preliminary laboratory testing indicates the site soils possess negligible sulfate exposure. ACI 318 BU ILDING CODE-Table 19.3.1.1 REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCRETE EXPOSED TO SULFATE-CONTAINING SOLUTIONS Sulfate Water soluble Sulfate (SO,) in Cement Type Maximum water-Minimum fc', Exposure sulfate (SO,) in soil water, ppm cementilious material normal-weight percent by weight ratio, by weight, normal and light weight weight concrete concrete, psi Negligible 0.00 <so,< 0.10 0 :S so, <150 --------------- [SO] Moderate 0.10 <so,< 0.20 150<SO,<1500 II,IP{MS), 0.50 4000 [S1] IS(MS),P(MS) l(PM)(MS), l(SM)(MS) Severe 0.20 :S so,< 2.00 1500 <SO,< V 0.45 4500 [S2] 10,000 Very Severe SO,> 2.00 so,> 10,000 V plus 0.45 4500 [S3] pozzalan As a conservative approach, and due to the marine environment, we recommend cement with a minimum strength f'c of 3,000 psi be used for concrete in contact with on-site earth materials. Settlement Utilizing the design recommendations presented herein, we anticipate that the majority of any post-grading settlement will occur during construction activities. 17 I 2 E. Oceanfront. Newport Beach. CA Soil~ Report -Proposed Residential Development Project No. RK324. I July 14. 202 1 13 PA2021-274 We estimate that the total settlement for the proposed structure will be on the order of 1 inch. Differential settlement is not expected to exceed ½ inch over 20 feet. These settlement values are expected to be within tolerable limits for properly designed and constructed foundations. Lateral Load Resistance Footings founded in fill materials may be designed for a passive lateral bearing pressure of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. A coefficient of friction against sliding between concrete and soil of 0.30 may be assumed. Exterior Slabs-on-grade (Hardscape) Concrete slabs cast against properly compacted fill materials shall be a minimum of 4 inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 3 rebar at 18 inches on center in both directions. The reinforcement shall be supported on chairs to insure positioning of the reinforcement at mid-center in the slab. Control joints should be provided at a maximum spacing of 8 feet on center in two directions for slabs and at 6 feet on center for sidewalks. Control joints are intended to direct cracking. Expansion or felt joints should be used at the interface of exterior slabs on grade and any fixed structures to permit relative movement. Some slab cracking due to shrinkage should be anticipated. The potential for the slab cracking may be reduced by careful control of water/cement ratios. The contractor should take appropriate curing precautions during the pouring of concrete in hot weather to minimize cracking of slabs. Surface Drainage Surface drainage shall be controlled at all times. Positive surface drainage should be provided to direct surface water away from structures and toward the street or suitable drainage facilities. Ponding of water should be avoided adjacent to the structures. Roof gutter discharge should be directed away from the building areas through solid PVC pipes to suitable discharge points. Area drains should be provided for planter areas and drainage shall be directed away from the top of slopes. Review of Plans The specifications and parameters outlined in this report shall be considered minimum requirements and incorporated into the Grading, and Foundation Plans if applicable. This office should review the Plans when available. If approved, the geotechnical consultant shall sign/stamp the applicable Plans 1712 I.:. Oceanfront. Newport 13each, CA Soils R~port -Proposed Residcntml Development ProJect No. RK324 I Jul) 14.2021 14 PA2021-274 from a geotechnical standpoint. GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING DURING CONSTRUCTION We recommend that a qualified geotechnical consultant be retained to provide geotechnical engineering services, including geotechnical observation/testing, during the construction phase of the project. This is to verify the compliance with the design, specifications and or recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated. Geotechnical observations/testing should be performed at the following stages: • During ANY grading operations, in~luding excavation, removal, filling, compaction, and backfilling, etc. After excavations for footings (or thickened edges) and/or grade beams verify the adequacy of underlying materials. • After pre-soaking of new slab sub-grade earth materials and placement of capillary break, plastic membrane, prior to pouring concrete. During backfill of drainage and utility line trenches, to verify proper compaction. When/if any unusual geotechnical conditions are encountered. Prior to interior and exterior slab pours to ensure proper subgrade compaction and moisture barriers. Please schedule an inspection with the geotechnical consultant prior to the pouring of all interior and exterior slabs. LIMITATIONS The geotechnical services described herein have been conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the geotechnical engineering profession practicing contemporaneously under similar conditions in the subject locality. Under no circumstance is any warranty, expressed or implied, made in connection with the providing of services described herein. Data, interpretations, and recommendations presented herein are based solely on information available to this office at the time work was performed. EGA Consultants will not be responsible for other parties' interpretations or use of the information developed in this report. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction by a representative of EGA Consultants. We recommend that all foundation excavations and grading operations be observed by a representative of this firm to ensure that construction is performed in accordance with the specifications outlined in this report. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for the safety of others. The contractor should notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. 1712 E. Oceanfront. Newport Ueach, CA Soils Rcpon -Proposed Residential Development Project No. RK324. I July 14, 2021 15 PA2021-274 Associated References re: Liquefaction Analysis a. "Special Publication 117 A: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California," by the California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, dated March 13, 1997; Revised September 11 , 2008. b. "Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California," by G.R. Martin and M. Lew, University of Southern California Earthquake Center dated March, 1999. c. "Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes" by I.M. Idriss and R.W. Boulanger, dated September 8, 2008. d. "Soils and Foundations, 8th Edition," by Cheng Liu and Jack B. Evett, dated August 4, 2013. e. "Evaluation of Settlement in Sands due to Earthquake Shaking" by Kahaji Tokimatsu and H. Bolton Seed, Dated August 1987. f. "Guidelines for Estimation of Shear Wave Velocity Profiles" By Bernard R. Wair, Jason T. Jong, Thomas Shantz Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Dated December, 2012. g. "Subsurface Exploration Using the Standard Penetration Test and the Cone Penetrometer Test," by J. David Rogers, Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, pp. 161-179, dated May, 2006. h. "Handbook of Geotechnical Investigation and Design Tables" By Burt G. Look, Dated 2007. I. "Use of SPT Blow Counts to Estimate Shear Strength Properties of Soils: Energy Balance Approach," by Hiroshan Hettiarachi and Timothy Brown, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, pp. 830-834, dated June, 2009. j. "Standard Test Method for Performing Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone Penetration Testing of Soils," (ASTM D5778-12), dated 2012. k. "Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits Following Liquefaction During Earthquakes," by Ishihara and Yoshimine, dated 1992. I. "CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures" by R.W. Boulanger and I.M. Idriss, dated April 2014. REFERENCES 1. "USGS Topographic Map, 7.5 minute Quadrangle, Newport Beach OE S, California Quadrangle," dated September 7, 2018. 2. "Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' X 60' Quadrangles, California," Version 1.0, compiled by Douglas M. Morton and Fred K. Miller, dated 2006. 3. "Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California," by Roger W. Reensfelder, dated 197 4. 4. Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada," prepared by California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, published by International Conference of Building Officials, dated February, 1998. 5. "Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction," by American Concrete Institute, ACI 302.1 R- 04, dated 2004. 6. "California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2," by California Building Standards Commission, 2019. 7. "Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Newport Beach 7.5-Minute Quadrangles, Orange County, California," by the California Department of Conservation, 1997. 8. "2015 International Building Code," by the International Code Council, dated June 5, 2014. 9. "Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet," Compilation by Thomas H. Rogers, 1965, fifth printing 1985. 10. "Digital Elevation Model NAVD88 Mosaic," by NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), Created August 20, 2015, last modified September 23, 2016. 11 . "Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Dana Point 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Orange County, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 049" by California Department of Mines and Geology (CDMG) dated 2001 . 1712 E Oceanfront. Newport Beach, CA Soils Report -Proposed Residential Dcvclopmcnl Project No. RK324. I July 14. 2021 16 PA2021-274 --....; ..._ '---..'-.:--._ EWPORT BEACH ---- Source: USGS US Topo 7.5-minute map for Newport Beach OE S, CA 2018. EGA Consultants engineering geotechnical applications SITE LOCATION MAP 1712 E. OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA hina Cov Beac ~ \ Corona delMa Project No: RK324.1 Date: JULY 2021 Figure No: 1 PA2021-274 UJ u z UJ a vi UJ ex: I-z UJ u <( ...... 0 <( ID z i= V1 x UJ - EAST OCEANFRONT CPT-1 ~.-----40' .J .. 0 I oo I ~ B-1 EXISTING RESIDENTIAL FOOTPRINT 40' $-B-2 - _J - PUBLIC BEACH PLOT PLAN I . 0 I oo t-z LU u UJ <( u i3 z <( LU ID Q z tD i= CX: V1 x UJ \ LEGEND ~ GEOTECHNICAL BORINGS BY EGA CONSULTANTS -0 CONE PENETRATION TEST BY KEHOE TESTING AND ENGINEERING Project No: EGA Consultants engineering geotcchnical applicutions 1712 E. OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Date: Figure No: RK324.1 JULY 2021 2 ci N 0 N .s;; ~ .. ::? -0 ~ .. -0 ~ 9 QJ C ·.., C: w ·;; 0 ,_ .t:J t3' £ V .. QJ co t: 0 C. ~ QJ z i _g C: .. QJ 0 ..,; N .... .... ... i ~ :, Vl 2! iii V :c C. ~ ~ C. ~ PA2021-274 [::(:.·6~<:\.-' I Eolian deposits (I.ate Holocen~)-Active or recently active :.,,,., : .. :; ·:-·, sand dune deposits; unconsolidated. f. Om · J Marine deposits (late Holocene)-Active or recently active '-l -------'--'· beach deposits; sand, unconsolidated. I Qes>· 1 Estuarin~ deposits (la~e Hol~cene)-Sand, silt, and clay; ) · · _ unconsolidated, contains variable amounts of organic matter. ~--- ! Qop4 j Old paralic deposits, Unit 4 (late to middle Pleistocene)- '-·----'· Silt, sand and cobbles resting on 34-37 m Stuart Mesa terrace. Age about 200,000-300,000years. Qopa J Old paralic deposits, Unit 3 (late to middle Pleistocene)- L_ __ _._ Silt, sand and cobbles resting on 45-46 m Guy Fleming terrace. Age about 320,000-340,000 years. Qomf 8 / ~Id paralic deposits, Unit 2 (late to middle Pleistocene)- L_ __ ___J_ Silt, sand and cobbles resting on 55 m Parry Grove terrace. Age about 413,000 years. Source: r. I Old paralic deposits, Unit 1 (late to middle L aop.. Pleistocene)-Silt, sand and cobbles resting on 61-63 m Golf Course terrace. Age about 4S0,000 years. Qop3-a / Old paralic deposits, Units 3-6, undivided (late to middle ~--~· Pleistocene)-Silt, sand and cobbles on 45-55 m terraces. Qopf Old paralic deposits (late to middle Pleistocene) overlain by alluvial fan deposits-Old paralic deposits capped by sandy alluvial-fan deposits. Capistrano Formation (early Pliocene and Miocene)- Marine sandstone. Siltstone facies-Siltstone and mudstone; white to pale gray, massive to crudely bedded, friable. Tm I Monterey Formation (Miocene)-Marine siltstone and ~---· sandstone; siliceous and diatomaceous. Morton, D.M., and Miller, F.K. Preliminary Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' x 60' quadrangles, California. U.S. Geological Survey. Published 2006. 1:100,000 scale. EGA Consultants engineering geotechnical applications GEOLOGIC MAP 1712 E. OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Project No: RK324.1 Date: JULY 2021 Figure No: 3 PA2021-274 Newport Beach, Newport Bay Entrance Corona del Mar Tide Chart for June 17, 2021 Tides. net station (1788) Newport Beach, Newport Bay Entrance, Corona del Mar Thursday, June 17, 2021 Sun 5:41 am-8:04pm high tide 2:03am (4.28ft) low tide 9:22am (0 .34ft) high tide 4: 37pm (4.17ft) low tide 10: 14pm (2.47ft) Moonset 12:51A 11oonrise 12 :26P EGA Consultants TIDAL CHART engineering geotechnical applications 1712 E. OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 Project No: RK324.1 Date: JULY 2021 Figure No: 4 PA2021-274 APPENDIX A GEOLOGIC LOGS (8-1 and 8-2) and CPT Data Report (CPT-1) PA2021-274 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ASTM D-2457 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOL CHART COARSE-GRAINED SOILS (more than 50% or materiaf Is larger than No. 200 s,eve size.) r~----~--·•·· Well-graded gravels, grave~sand ·~; GW mixtures, little or no fines GRAVELS ·•:, More than 50% r GP Poorly-graded gravels, gravel-sand of coarse mixtures, little or no fines Clean Gravels (Less than 5% fines) fraction larger Gravels with fines (More than 12% fines) than No. 4 r !• sreve size f,~. GM Stlty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures l GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-day mixtures .•. Clean Sand~~s _!han 5% fines_} ' I I SANDS 50% or more of coarse fraction smaller lhan No. 4 s!eve size '. ::_, liltle or no fines I □::: :· SW Well-graded sands. gravelly sands, -. SP Poorly graded sands. gravelly san~ little or no fines Sands with fines (More than 12% fines) f SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures 7 SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures I FINE-GRAINED SOILS (50% or more of material Is smaller than No. 200 sieve size ) SILTS AND CLAYS Lrqu1d limil less than 50% SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid limit 50% or greeter HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Cohesionless Sands and Silts Very loose Loose Medium dense Dense Very dense ML CL OL MH CH OH PT Inorganic slits and very fine sands, rock flour, silty of ciayey fine sands or ciayey sills with slight plastre1ty Inorganic ciays of low lo medium plasticity. gravelly clays, sandy clays, s,lty clays, lean clays Organ,c s,lts and organic silty clays of low plasticity Inorganic silts, micaceous or dialomaceous fine sandy or silty soils. elastic silts Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays Orgarnc clays of medium 10 high plashc,ty. organic silts Peat and other highly organic sods RELATIVE DENSITY Blows/ft* Blows/ft0 0·4 0-30 4-10 30-60 10-30 80-200 30-50 200-400 Over 50 Over 400 LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA D60 D30 C =--greater lhan 4, Cc = ---between 1 and 3 GW u D10 D10 xD6o GP Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW GM Alterberg limits below • A" Above "A" line with P.1. between line or P.I. less than 4 4 and 7 are borderline cases GC Atterberg limits above ·A• requlnng use of dual symbols hne with P. I. greater than 7 cu D50 D30 = --greater 1han 4 Cc • ---between 1 and 3 SW D10 D,o 'D60 SP Not meeting all gradabon requirements for GW SM Atterberg hm,ts below •A• Limits plotting in shaded zone line or P.I. less than 4 with P.t, between 4 and 7 are Atterberg tim1ls above 'A• borderline cases requinng use SC line with P.I. greater than 7 of dual symbols. Determine percentages ot sand and gravel from gra,n-s,ze e<irve Depending on percentage of tines (fraction smaller than No. 200 sieve size), coarse-grained sods are class1fled as follows: Less than 5 percent .. . . . . . . . . .................... GW, GP. SW. SP More than 12 percent .................................. GM. GC, SM, SC 5 to 12 porcont .....•.•••.• , •••.•• Borderhne caSGs requ1nng dual syrnbot:-:; PLASTICITY CHART 60 .. v l 50 ~ CH ./ V >< 40 I~ ... ALINE w 0 Pl = o·73(LL-20) ~ 30 V MH&OH /: CL u 20 V i:: V) ./ '.3 10 n. fcl•ML "ML&OL 00 I 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIQUID LIMIT (LL)(%) CONSISTENCY Cohesive Soils Blows/ft* Blows/ft .. Very soft 0-4 0-4 Soft 2-4 4-11 Firm 4-8 11-50 Stiff 8-16 50-110 Very stiff 16-32 110-220 Hard Over 32 Over 220 • Blows/foot for a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches to drive a 2-inch O.D., 1·3/8 inch 1.0. Split Spoon sampler (Standard Penetration Test). •• Blows/foot for a 36-pound hammer falling 24 inches to drive a 3.25 0.0., 2.411.0. Sampler (Hand Sampling). Blow count convergence to st andard penetration test was done in accordance w ith Fig. 1.24 of Foundat ion Engineering Handbook by H.Y. Fang, Von Nostrand Reinhold, 1991. PA2021-274 LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Sheet 1 of 1 Job Number: RK324.1 Boring No: B-1 Project: 1712 E. Oceanfront, Newport Beach, CA Boring Location: See Figure 2 Van Dorpe Residence Date Started: 6/17/2021 Rig: Mob. 4" augers Date Completed: 6/17/2021 Grnd Elev. +/-15 ft. NAVD88 Sample ;,?. 't3 Direct Type 0. Shear "E 't3 )( li (/) -a; Q) ■ThinWall ~2.S"Ring 0. 'O I-Q) ~ 2 .i-.E V, (/) u. 'O Tube Sample C: C: in w >, Q) 0 ·;;; C: Q) I-.!: I-£ 0 0 0 0. :, -""-(.) C: ·;;; -e-0:: .r; ·o iii :i IZ] Bulk DJ Standard Split sz Static Water !I! Q) E (.) w a.. 0 C: Q) (/) '6 CD Sample Spoon Sample = Table :, "' :, J: iii ~ 0. E I-0 C: )( :::> ·5 0 w ·;;; 0 :!: "' ~()II ,r-.-.\..J""-11"' II ,n.1 :!: I FILL: Light olive brown, poorly graded fine sand with 1 SM trace gravels, shell fragments and trace roots, Opt % ~ loose to medium dense, drv. 2.6 99.7 117.0 30.0 68 11.5% At 3 ft.: Becomes tan brown, fine sand, medium Sulf SP z dense, w/trace shell fragments, damp, cohesionless. 3.4 4 ppm 5 -At 3.5 ft. Fine sand, micaceous, damp, medium z dense, well-sorted. 1.8 SP z At 8 ft.: Well-sorted sand, fine grained, damp, 1.6 2 medium dense becoming dense. 10 -SM At 11 ft.: Becoming very moist, silty sand more 2.1 ~ dense. z At 12 ft.: Groundwater encountered. 15.3 Total Depth: 13.0 ft. 15 -Groundwater at 12.0 ft . No Caving. Backfilled and Compacted 6/17/2021. 20 - 25 - 30 - 35 - 40 I EGA Consultants II F:_";· I PA2021-274 LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Sheet 1 of 1 Job Number: RK324.1 Boring No: B-2 Project: 1712 E. Oceanfront, Newport Beach, CA Boring Location: See Figure 2 Van Dorpe Residence Date Started: 6/17/2021 Rig: Mob. 4" augers Date Completed: 6/17/2021 Grnd Elev. +/-15 ft. NAVD88 Sample :,R 0 Direct Type 0 X 0. Shear Q) ~ 0 Q) ;:, (/) ■ThinWall 1ZJ 2.5" Ring a. u I-Q) Q) Q) ;:, .!: 'iii (/) u. 0. u Tube Sample c C: 1ii IJJ >, Q) 0 'iii C: (1) I-.!: I--e 0 0 0 0. "" 0 C 'iii -e-a::: .c: ::, [Z] Bulk [I] standard Splrt sz sta1ic Water Q) ii ·o t, :; ~ 0 C: E C.) w (/) co Sample Spoon Sample = Table ::, <II ::, :x: (1) '5 t, ~ 0. E I-0 C: >< ::> ·o 0 w ·x 0 ::ii: <II SOIi nFSr.RIPTl()N ::ii: I FILL: Light olive brown, poorly graded fine sand with 1 SM trace gravels, shell fragments and trace roots, Opt% ~ loose to medium dense, drv. 2.1 98.3 117.0 30.0 68 11.5% At 3 ft.: Becomes tan brown, fine sand, medium Sulf SP kZ dense, w/trace shell fragments, damp, cohesionless. 1.5 4 ppm 5 -At 3.5 ft.: Fine sand, micaceous, damp, medium z dense, well-sorted, porous. 1.8 SP z At 8 ft.: Well-sorted sand, fine grained, damp, 3.0 z medium dense becoming dense. 10 -SM At 11 ft.: Becoming very moist, silty sand more 2.8 ~ dense. 7 At 12 ft.: Groundwater encountered. 16.9 Total Depth: 12.5 ft. 15 -Groundwater at 12.0 ft. No Caving. Backfilled and Compacted 6/17/2021. 20 - 25 - 30 - 35 - 40 I EGA Consultants II F:~~· I PA2021-274 K~ Project: EGA Consultants, LLC Kehoe Testing and Engineering 714-901-7270 rich@kehoetesting.com www.kehoetesting.com Location: 1706 E. Ocean Front Newport Beach, CA Cone resistance qt 01'1 ==;;:;:;;;:::;zc::::;;:::~1 t'., .c 2- 4, 6, 8- 10, 12, 14• 18, 20, 22· 24- Q. 26 IV 0 28· 30, 32, 36, 39. 40• 42 so I ~ I 0 JOO 200 300 <l-00 Tip resistance (tsf) Sleeve friction O·-r=~=::::::iiiiii-=J 10. 12- 16- 18· 20, -2.2· ..... .... ....... 2• .c a. 26-IV 0 28- 30, 32, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44. 46, 48, 0 2 j 4 5 6 Friction (tsf) Pore pressure u 0-,------,-----~ 10, 12. 14, 16· 18- 20- ,-,. 22· ,t'. ..._. 24" :5 0. 26, <II 0 28, 30. 32. 34. 36- 38- 40, 42 46, 49. s~ I , , , • 'I •10 ·S O 5 10 Pressure (psi) CPeT-IT v.1.7.6.42 -CPTU data presentation & interpretation software -Report created on: 8/11/2016, 4:33:01 PM Project file: C:\EGANewportBch8· 16\Slte3\CPeT Data\Plot Data\Plots.cpt Friction ratio 011~iiiii.=====-7 ,..._ ,t'. 4, 6, 8- 10. -2• .c ..., 0. 26, IV 0 3• 36, 38, 40, 42 44, 46, 43, so I .' I ' ' i .j 0 6 8 Rf(%) 6- 8- 10· 12- J,4. 16 18 20 ,-,. 22· ,t'. ......, 24, .c ..., C. 26· IV 0 28, 30, 32, 3• 36, 39. 40, 42- 44. 46, ~a. so. 0 CPT: CPT-1 Total depth: 50.91 ft, Date: 8/10/2016 Cone Type: Vertek Soil Behaviour Type r---Verydenselstiffsoil Sand & silty sand Sand Sand&. silty sand Sand Sand & silty sand Sand Sand & silty sand 4 6 s 10 12 1<1 16 1·s SBT (Robertson, 2010) 0 PA2021-274 Depth (ft) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 H IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 '16 47 48 49 so In situ data qc (tsf) 259.6 226,3 135.6 96.3 77.4 89 140 163.5 155.9 129.4 126 111.J 192.7 258.2 285.9 298,5 260.l 321 320.7 313.2 348 362.3 317.3 264,8 263.8 293.4 258.S 279.4 295.l 293.2 263.3 236.4 294.2 305.2 269.5 300.3 285.2 254,5 213.5 202.5 228.2 218.8 232.6 207.3 241.9 278 277 340.1 320.8 303.4 ,. (tsf) 2.72 2.07 0.92 0.63 0.5 0.35 0,46 0.54 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.41 0.98 1.05 1.36 2.53 1.87 1.4 1.8 1.75 1.48 l.67 1.15 1.32 2.62 2.85 2.28 2.77 2.12 1.64 1.97 2.5 2.88 2.97 2.76 2,67 3.14 3.21 2.47 2.82 2,72 2.83 3.19 3.05 2.82 3.67 3.75 3.58 4.2 3.71 SBTn IC5bt (ft/s) CV (tt:2/s) 6 2.54E--03 9.90E+Ol 6 l.93E-03 6.57E+Ol 6 l.39E-03 3.71E+Ol 8.25E-04 l.63E+Ol 6 6.73E-04 l.17E+OI 6 l.20E-03 2,19E+Ol 6 2.39E-03 4.93E•Ol 3.22E-03 7.38E+Ol 3.53E-03 7. 76E+OI 6 2.79E-03 5.87E+ol 6 l.91E-03 3.84E+OI 6 l.41E--03 3.SlE+OI 2.18E-03 6.56E+Ol 7 3.24E-03 l,19E+02 6 2.SOE-03 1.IOE+02 6 !.75E-03 8.24E+Ol 6 1.94E-03 9.34E+OI 7 2.73E-03 1.27E+02 7 3.48E-03 l.63E+o2 7 3.63E-03 I. 74E+02 7 4.38E-03 2.11E+02 5.61E-03 2.60E+02 4.ME-03 !.86E+02 6 J.68E-03 7.94E+Ol 6 7.74E-04 4.lOE+Ol 6 5.39E-04 3.02E+ol 6 5.40£-04 3.08E+o! 6 6.SSE-04 3.62E+ol 6 9.27E-04 S.OlE+ol 6 l.10E-03 5.67E+0l 6.87E-04 J.S8E+Ol 6 4.45E-04 2.51E+ol 6 4.02E-04 2.43E+Ol 6 4.29E-04 2.67E+Ol 6 1,54E-04 2.81E+Ol 6 3.81E-04 2.38E+Ol 6 3.0SE-04 l.95E+Ol 6 l.94E-04 l,21E+OI 6 l.24E-04 7.40E+OO l.l5E-04 6. 70E+OO 6 l.OSE-04 6.25E+OO 6 1.l2E-04 6,92E+OO 6 8.69E-05 5.44E+OO 9,8SE--05 6.24E+OO 6 1.13E-04 7.15E+OO 6 l.40E-04 9.71E+OO 6 l.92E-04 l.42E+Ot 2.06E-04 1.57E+Ol 6 2.29E-04 1.77E+01 6 1.83E-04 l.◄lE+Ol SPT N60 (blows/feet) 42 36 27 19 17 13 22 25 24 23 21 25 32 40 11 49 so so Sl 53 5" S3 51 49 51 51 5l 53 " 50 52 56 57 57 57 57 51 so 48 49 51 so 52 51 58 64 66 67 66 Constrained Mod. (tsf) 1214.93 1064.68 832.3 616,95 543.12 570.73 645.35 715.4 687.2 656.56 626.11 ns.88 938.17 1145.49 1373.05 1467.1 1499.84 1145.57 1465.51 1495.02 1506.29 1446.1 1402,96 1479.09 1652.31 1750.34 1783,17 1724.85 1687.37 1004.:U 1626.04 1761.14 1888.79 1940.57 1933.52 1949.29 1993.68 1937.25 1869.06 1B17.59 1864.27 1926.81 1951.26 1977.74 2058.98 2173.18 2306.32 2387.31 2407.39 2410.67 Dr(%) 100 100 100 81 75 76 81 84 Bl 77 72 78 B7 97 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 95 93 93 93 92 93 91 87 B7 88 90 89 88 86 81 76 74 73 74 73 73 75 79 83 84 85 83 Friction angle (0) 51.56 48.96 16.15 13.05 41.44 41.62 42.17 43.05 42.56 41.82 40.96 41.96 43.42 44.95 45.8 45.76 15.85 45.79 45.99 16.01 ◄6.17 46.01 15.41 41.68 11.48 14.35 14.35 11.23 44.37 14.12 13.56 13.48 43.73 43.9 43.81 43.59 43.36 42.47 42.33 42.03 42.09 42.23 42.14 42.18 42.4 12.69 12.86 43.l 43.22 42.95 1712 E. Oceanfront, Newport Beach, CA EGA Consultants July 2021 Project No.: RK324.1 Es (Isl) 969.36 849.4B 661.07 49i.25 433.34 455.37 514.9 570.8 548.3 523.85 199.55 619.06 74B.54 913.96 1095.52 1170.8 ll96.68 1153.38 1169.29 1192.84 1201.83 1153.8 1119,39 1180.13 1318.33 1396,55 1422.74 1376.21 1346.31 1279.97 1297.37 1405.17 1507.01 1548.33 1512.7 1555.28 1590.7 1545.68 1491.27 1450.21 1487.45 1537.37 1559.25 1577.98 1612.81 1733.92 1840.15 1904.77 1920.79 19l3.41 Go (tsf) 1214.93 1064.68 832.3 616.95 513.12 570.73 615,35 715.4 687.2 656.56 626.11 775.88 938.17 1145.49 1373.05 1167.4 1499.84 1445.57 1465.51 1495.02 1506.29 1446.l 1402.96 1479.09 1652.31 1750.34 1783.17 172◄.SS 1687.37 1604.23 1626.04 1761.11 1888.79 1940.57 1933.52 1919.29 1993.68 1937.25 1869.06 1817.59 1864.27 1926.84 1954.26 1977.71 2058.98 2173.18 2306.32 2387.31 2407.39 2410.67 Nkt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Su (tsf) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CPT-1 advanced to 50.91 feet on August 10, 2016 by Kehoe Testing and Engineering, Inc. PA2021-274 APPENDIX B LABORATORY RESULTS PA2021-274 GEOLOGY·GEOTECH-GROUNDWATER EGA Consultants 375-C Monte Vista Avenue Costa Mesa, California 92627 Attention: Subject: Mr. David Worthington, C.E.G. Laboratory Test Results 1712 E. Oceanfront Newport Beach, California Dear Mr. Worthington: July 1, 2021 Project No. 114-702-10 G3SoiIWorks, Inc. performed the requested laboratory tests on the soil specimens delivered to our office for the subject project. The results of these tests are included as an attachment to this report. We appreciate the opportunity of providing our services to you on this project. Should you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, G3Soi1Works, Inc. By: Attachment: Laboratory Test Results 350 Fischer Ave. Front • Costa Mesa, CA 92626 • P: 714 668 5600 • www.G3Soi1Works.com PA2021-274 EGA Consultants Laboratory Test Results 1712 E Oceanfront Newport Beach, California July 1, 2021 Project No. 114-702-10 Page 2 of 3 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Summarized below are the results of requested laboratory testing on samples submitted to our office. Dry Density and Moisture Content Tabulated below are the requested results of field dry density and moisture contents of undisturbed soils samples retained in 2.42-inch inside diameter by 1-inch height rings. Sample Dry Density Moisture Content Identification (pcf) (%) 8-1 @ 2.5' 99.7 2.6 8-2@ 2.5' 98.3 2.1 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 8-1 @ 0-3' Silty Sand, fine to medium-grained, SM contains rootlets, pale brown 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' 117 11.5 Sulfate Content A selected bulk sample was tested for soluble sulfate content in accordance with Hach procedure. The test result is shown below: Sample Identification Water Soluble Sulfate in Soil Sulfate Exposure (PPM) (ACI 318-08, Table 4.2.1) 8-2@ 0-3' 4 so 350 Fischer Ave. Front • Costa Mesa, CA 92626 • P: 714 668 5600 • www.G3Soi1Works.com PA2021-274 EGA Consultants Laboratory Test Results 1712 E Oceanfront Newport Beach, California Direct Shear July 1, 2021 Project No. 114-702-10 Page 3 of 3 The results of direct shear testing (ASTM D3080) are plotted on Figure S-1. Soil specimens were soaked in a confined state and sheared under varied loads ranging from 1.0 ksf to 4.0 ksf with a direct shear machine set at a controlled rate of strain of 0.01 inch per minute. 350 Fischer Ave. Front • Costa Mesa. CA 92626 • P: 714 668 5600 • www.G3Soi1Works.com PA2021-274 4,000 3,750 3,500 3,250 3,000 2,750 u.. 2,500 (/) a. (/) (/) w a:: I- C/) a'. ~ w I (/) 2,250 2,000 1,750 1,500 1,250 1,000 750 500 250 0 0 :-. :--:: ........ ,., . ~ .-.-....... . . . .. ... ..• ~-. : ;·, 500 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Undisturbed ~ • ·, , ·, , , ••• , , I , l • l , •, ,•, , , . -...... - 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 NORMALSTRESS,PSF 3,000 1712 East Oceanfront, Newport Beach COHESION FRICTION ANGLE 0 • 4 0 ~ •~ "' M< • 0 0 < . . . . . . 3,500 4,000 68 psf. 30.0 degrees symbol boring depth (ft.) symbol boring depth (ft.) FIGURE S-1 DIRECT SHEAR TEST • B-1 2.5 PN: 114-702-10 REPORT DATE: 07/01/2021 ~sn F1c,ch~r AYP Fr ... ,nt Co,la fvb,, CA !))b;'b Phone \ l14) 6G8 SnOO ,~ wwG:1,So,l\11/ork ~con FIG. S-1 PA2021-274 1712 E. Oceanfront Newport Beach, CA Project No. RK324.1 July 2021 Sample Identification 8-1@ 4' 8-1@ 6' B-1@ 8' 8-1@ 10' 8-1@ 12' 8-2@ 4' 8-2@ 6' 8-2@ 8' 8-2@ 10' 1 of 1 Moisture Content % 3.4 1.8 1.6 2.1 15.3 1.5 1.8 3.0 2.8 co11 sulta11ts Clljii11eeri11g .~eoteclmirnl a!'plicnlions PA2021-274 APPENDIX C GENERAL EARTHWORKS AND GRADING GUIDELINES PA2021-274 I. II. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES GENERAL These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for grading and earthwork including preparation of areas to be filled, placement of fill, installation of subdrains, and excavations. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications and should supersede the provisions contained herein in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the recommendations of the geotechnical report. EARTHWORK OBSERVATION AND TESTING Prior to commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these specifications. The consultant is to provide adequate testing and observation so that he may determine that the work was accomplished as specified. It should be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes so that the consultant may schedule his personnel accordingly. The contractor is to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency ordinances, and these specifications. If in the opinion of the consultant, unsatisfactory conditions are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the consultant may reject the work and recommend that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified . Maximum dry density tests used to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials Test Method ASTM: D 1557. 17 12 E. Oceanfront Newport Beach, CA Soils Report -l'roposed Residenlial Uevelopment Projecl No RKJ24. I July 14, 2021 PA2021-274 Ill. PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FI LLED 1. Clearing and Grubbing: All brush, vegetation, and debris should be removed and otherwise disposed of. 2. Processing: The existing ground which is evaluated to be satisfactory for support of fill should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground which is not satisfactory should be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free of uneven features which would inhibit uniform compaction. 3. Overexcavation: Soft, dry, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition, should be over excavated down to firm ground, approved by the consultant. 4. Moisture Conditioning: Over excavated and processed soils should be watered, dried-back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum. 5. Recompaction: Over excavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed and moisture-conditioned should be recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. 6. Benching: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5: 1 (horizontal to vertical units), the ground should be benched. The lowest bench should be a minimum of 15 feet wide, and at least 2 feet deep, expose firm material, and be approved by the consultant. Other benches should be excavated in firm material for a minimum width of 4 feet. Ground sloping flatter than 5: 1 should be benched or otherwise over excavated when considered necessary by the consultant. 7. Approval: All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and toe-of-fill benches should be approved by the consultant prior to fill placement. IV. FILL MATERIAL 1. General: Material to be placed as fill should be free of organic matter and other deleterious substances, and should be approved by the consultant. Soils of poor 1712 E. Oceanfront. Newport Beach. CA Soils Report• Proposed Residential Development Project No. RK324. l July 14, 2021 2 PA2021-274 gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics should be placed in areas designated by the consu ltant or mixed with other soils until suitable to serve as satisfactory fill material. 2. Oversize: Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches, should not be buried or placed in fill, unless the location, materials, and disposal methods are specifically approved by the consultant. Oversize disposal operations should be such that nesting of oversize material does not occur, and such that the oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade or within the range of future utilities or underground construction, unless specifically approved by the consultant. 3. Import: If importing of fill material is necessary for grading, the import material should be approved by the geotechnical consultant. V. FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION 1. Fill Lifts: Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 6 inches in compacted thickness. The consultant may approve thicker lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer shall be spread evenly and should be thoroughly mixed during spreading to attain uniformity of material and moisture in each layer. 2. Fill Moisture: Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers should be aerated by scarification or blended with drier material. Moisture-conditioning and mixing of fill layers should continue until the fill material is at a uniform moisture content at or near optimum. 3. Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture- conditioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density. Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability, to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction. 4. Fill Slopes: Compacting of slopes should be accomplished, in addition to normal compacting procedures, by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfdot rollers at 1712 E. Oceanfront, Newport Reach, CA Soils Report • Proposed Residential Development Project No. RK324. I July 14. 202 1 3 PA2021-274 frequent increments of 2 to 3 feet in fill elevation gain, or by other methods producing satisfactory results. At the completion of grading, the relative compaction of the slope out to the slope face shall be at least 90 percent. 5. Compaction Testing: Field tests to check the fill moisture and degree of compaction will be performed by the consultant. The location and frequency of tests should be at the consultant's discretion. In general, the tests should be taken at an interval not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of embankment. VI. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdrain systems, if required , should be installed in approved ground and should not be changed or modified without the approval of the consultant. The consultant, however, may recommend and upon approval, direct changes in subdrain line, grade, or material. VII. EXCAVATION Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading. If directed by the consultant, further excavation or overexcavation and refilling of cut areas should be performed, and/or remedial grading of cut slopes performed. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope should be made and approved by the consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope. 1712 E. Oceanfront, Newport Beach, CA Soils Report • Proposed Residential Development Project No. RK324. I July 14, 202 1 4 PA2021-274 APPENDIX D USGS Design Maps Detailed Report PA2021-274 L\TC Hazards by Location Search Information Address: Coordinates: Elevation: Timestamp: Hazard Type: Reference Document: 1712 E Oceanfront, Newport Beach, CA 92661, USA 33.5968075, -117.8884422 17 fl 2021-07-07T05:18:08.670Z Seismic ASCE?-16 Risk Category: II D-default Site Class: Basic Parameters Name Value Description Ss 1.379 MCER ground motion (period=0.2s) S1 0.489 MCER ground motion (period= 1.0s) SMs 1.654 Site-modified spectral acceleration value SM1 * null Site-modified spectral acceleration value Sos 1.103 Numeric seismic design value at 0.2s SA So1 * null Numeric seismic design value at 1.0s SA * See Section 11.4.8 •Additional Information Name Value Description soc • null Seismic design category Fa 1.2 Site amplification factor at 0.2s Fv * null Site amplification factor at 1.0s CRs 0.906 Coefficient of risk (0.2s) CR1 0.92 Coefficient of risk (1.0s) PGA 0.604 MCEG peak ground acceleration FPGA 1.2 Site amplification factor at PGA PGAM 0.725 Site modified peak ground acceleration " Santa Monica v --V V Anaheim 17 ft Catalina Island Essential Fish Habitat... .ne . ... Riverside 0 Temecula 0 -Cle Oceanside W Natio1 Map data ©2021 Google, INEGI PA2021-274 TL 8 SsRT 1.379 SsUH 1.521 SsD 2.624 S1RT 0.489 S1UH 0.531 S1D 0.819 PGAd 1.056 • See Section 11.4.8 Long-period transition period (s) Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion (0.2s) Factored uniform-hazard spectral acceleration (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) Factored deterministic acceleration value (0.2s) Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion (1.0s) Factored uniform-hazard spectral acceleration (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) Factored deterministic acceleration value (1.0s) Factored deterministic acceleration value (PGA) The results indicated here DO NOT reflect any state or local amendments to the values or any delineation lines made during the building code adoption process. Users should confirm any output obtained from this tool with the local Authority Hav,ng Jurisdiction before proceedmg with design. Disclaimer Hazard loads are provided by the U.S. Geological Survey Seismic Design Web Services. While the information presented on this website is believed to be correct, ATC and its sponsors and contributors assume no responsibility or liability for its accuracy. The material presented in the report should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability and applicability by engineers or other licensed professionals. ATC does not intend that the use of this information replace the sound judgment of such competent professionals, having experience and knowledge in the field of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting and applying the results of the report provided by this website. Users of the information from this website assume all liability arising from such use. Use of the output of this website does not imply approval by the governing building code bodies responsible for building code approval and interpretation for the building site described by latitude/longitude location in the report. PA2021-274 APPENDIX E LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES/SETTLEMENT COMPUTATIONS PA2021-274 lupyt f,m1mftfn: Peak Ground Acceleration: 0.725 Earthquake Magnitude: 7.2 Water Table Depth (m): 2.1336 Average y above water table (kN/mA3): 16 Average y below water table (kN/m,3): 18 Borehole diameter (mm): 34.925 Requires correction for Sample Liners (YES/NO): Sample Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Depth Measured (N) Soil Type (m) (USCS) 0.30 42 SP 0.61 36 SP 0.91 27 SP 1.22 19 SP 1.52 17 SP 1.83 18 SP 2.13 22 SP 2.44 25 SP £.74 24 SP 3.05 3.35 3.66 3.96 4.27 4.57 4.88 5.18 5.49 5.79 6.10 6.40 6.71 7.01 7.32 23 SP 21 SP 25 SP 32 SP 40 SP 47 SP 49 SP SO SP 50 SP 52 SP 53 SP 54 SP 53 SP 51 SP 49 SP engineering {!eoleC"hnh-al applications consultants NO Flag "Clay" Fines "Unsaturated" Content ·•unreliable" (%) 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Energy CE CB CR cs Ratio (ER)% 65 1.08 l 0.75 1 65 1.08 1 0.75 1 65 1.08 1 0.75 J 65 1.08 1 0.75 1 65 1.08 l 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 l 0.85 ] 65 1.08 l 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 l 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 34.13 29.25 21.94 15.44 14.73 15.60 19.07 21.67 22.10 21.18 19.34 23.02 29.47 36.83 48.37 50.43 51.46 51.46 53.52 54.55 55.58 54.55 52.49 50.43 1712 E. Oceanfront, Newport Beach, CA RK324.1 July 2021 oVC oVC' CN 4.88 4.88 l.70 9.75 9.75 1.70 14.63 14.63 1.70 19.51 19.51 1.70 24.38 24.38 1.70 29.26 29.26 1.70 34.14 34.14 1.70 39.62 36.63 1.66 45.11 39.13 1.61 50.60 41.63 1.56 56.08 44.12 1.52 61.57 46.62 1.47 67.06 49.12 1.44 72.54 51.61 1.40 78.03 54.11 1.37 83.52 56.60 1.34 89.00 59.10 1.31 94.49 61.60 1.28 99.97 64.09 1.26 105.46 66.59 1.23 110.95 69.09 1.21 116.43 71.58 1.19 121.92 74.08 1.17 127.41 76.57 1.15 PLATE A CPT-1 advanced to 50.91 ft. on 8/10/2016 Pagel PA2021-274 25 7.62 51 SP 4 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 26 7.92 53 SP 4 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 27 8.23 54 SP 4 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 28 8.53 53 SP 4 65 1.08 1 l 1 29 8.84 53 SP 4 65 1.08 1 1 1 30 9.14 52 SP 4 65 1.08 l 1 1 31 9.45 SO SP 4 65 1.08 1 1 1 32 9.75 52 SP 4 65 1.08 1 1 1 33 10.06 56 SP 4 65 1.08 1 1 1 34 10.36 57 SP 4 65 1.08 1 1 1 35 10.67 57 SP 4 65 1.08 1 1 1 36 10.97 57 SP 4 65 1.08 1 1 1 37 11.28 57 SP 4 65 1.08 1 1 1 38 11.58 54 SP 4 65 1.08 1 1 1 39 11.89 SO SP 4 65 1.08 1 1 1 40 12.19 48 SP 4 65 1.08 1 1 1 41 12.50 49 SP 4 65 1.08 1 l 1 42 12.80 51 SP 4 65 1.08 1 1 1 43 13.11 SO SP 4 65 1.08 1 1 1 44 13.41 52 SP 4 65 1.08 1 l 1 45 13.72 54 SP 4 65 1.08 1 1 1 46 14.02 58 SP 4 65 1.08 1 l J 47 14.33 64 SP 4 65 1.08 1 1 ] 48 14.63 66 SP 4 65 1.08 1 l 1 49 14.94 67 SP 4 65 1.08 ] 1 1 so 15.24 66 SP 4 65 1.08 ] l l Auger Diameter: 1.375 inches Hammer Weight: n.a. Drop: continuous push CPT-1 advanced to 50.91 ft by Kehoe Teshng and Engineering on August 10, 2016 (CPT Data Logs attached herein) References: ldri-55, I.M_ and Boulanger, R. W. S<liJ Liquefaction During Earthquakes.. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. 8 September 2008. Liu, C. and Evett, J.B. Sotls and Foundations. 8th Edition. 4 August 2:013. Martin. G.R. and Lew. M. Recommendations/or JmplementatJan o/DMC Special Pubficar.ron 117. University or Southern Cahforn1a Earthquake Center. March 1999. C:diforn1a. Oepartm~nt of Conservation, CGS. Special Publltation 117A: Guidelines/or Evalualingond Mitigating Seismic Hat:ords in California. Rev l I SepL 2008. consult a n ts engineering geotechnica/ applications 52.49 54.55 55.58 57.42 57.42 56.33 54.17 S6.33 60.67 61.7S 61.75 61.75 61.75 SB.SO 54.17 52.00 53.08 55.25 54.17 56.33 58.50 62.83 69.33 71.50 72.58 71.50 1 712 E. Oceanfront, Newport Beach, CA RK324.1 July 2021 132.89 79.07 1.13 138.38 81.57 1.11 143.87 84.06 1.10 149.35 86.56 1.08 154.84 89.06 1.07 160.32 91.55 1.05 165.81 94.05 1.04 171.30 96.55 1.02 176.78 99.04 1.01 182.27 101.54 1.00 187.76 104.03 0.99 193.24 106.53 0.98 198.73 109.03 0.96 204.22 111.52 0.95 209.70 114.02 0.94 21S.19 116.52 0.93 220.68 119.01 0.92 226.16 121.51 0.91 231.65 124.00 0.90 237.13 126.50 0.89 242.62 129.00 0.89 248.11 131.49 0.88 253.59 133.99 0.87 259.08 136.49 0.86 264.57 138.98 0.85 270.05 141.48 0.85 PLATE A CPT-1 advanced to 50.91 ft. on 8/10/2016 Page 2 PA2021-274 (Nl)60 llN for Fines Content 58.01 0.00 49.73 0.00 37.29 0.00 26.24 0.00 25.05 0.00 26.52 0.00 32.41 0.00 36.03 0.00 35.Sb u.uu 33.04 0.00 29.30 0.00 33.94 0.00 42.32 0.00 51.61 0.00 66.19 0.00 67.47 0.00 67.38 0.00 66.00 0.00 67.29 0.00 67.28 0.00 67.30 0.00 64.90 0.00 61.39 0.00 58.01 0.00 consultants (N1)60-CS Stress reduction coeff, rd 58.01 49.73 37.29 26.24 25.05 26.52 32.41 36.03 35.56 33.04 29.30 33.94 42.32 51.61 66.19 67.47 67.38 66.00 67.29 67.28 67.30 64.90 61.39 58.01 engineering ~eotechnica/ applications 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.92 CSR MSF for sand Ko for sand CRR for M=7.5 CRR & oVC'= 1 atm 0.47 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.47 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.47 1.08 1.10 1.88 0.47 1.08 1.10 0.32 0.47 1.08 1.10 0.29 0.47 1.08 1.10 0.33 0.47 1.08 1.10 0.69 a.so 1.08 1.10 1.39 0.53 1.08 1.10 1.25 0.56 1.08 1.10 0.76 0.58 1.08 1.10 0.44 0.60 1.08 1.10 0.90 0.62 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.64 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.65 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.66 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.67 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.68 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.69 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.70 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.71 1.08 1.10 2.00 0.71 1.08 J.10 2.00 0.72 1.08 1.09 2.00 0.72 1.08 1.08 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.38 0.35 0.39 0.82 1.65 1.49 0.91 0.53 1.07 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 200 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1712 E. Oceanfront, Newport Beach, CA RK324.1 July 2021 Factor of Limiting shear Safety strain ylim 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 O.ol 0.82 0.08 0.74 0.09 0.84 0.07 1.76 0.03 2.00 0.02 2.00 0.02 1.63 O.Q3 0.91 0.05 1.77 0.03 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 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 PLATE A CPT-1 advanced to 50.91 ft. on 8/10/2016 Page 3 PA2021-274 59.42 0.00 59.42 0.91 0.72 1.08 1.07 60.79 0.00 60.79 0.91 0.73 1.08 1.06 61.01 0.00 61.01 0.90 0.73 1.08 1.05 62.12 0.00 62.12 0.90 0.73 1.08 1.05 61.24 0.00 61.24 0.89 0.73 1.08 1.04 59.26 0.00 59.26 0.89 0.73 1.08 1.03 56.22 0.00 56.22 0.88 0.74 1.08 1.02 57.71 0.00 57.71 0.88 0.74 1.08 1.01 61.36 0.00 61.36 0.87 0.74 1.08 1.01 61.69 0.00 61.69 0.87 0.74 1.08 1.00 60.94 0.00 60.94 0.86 0.74 1.08 0.99 60.22 0.00 60.22 0.86 0.73 1.08 0.98 59.53 0.00 59.53 0.85 0.73 1.08 0.98 55.76 0.00 55.76 0.85 0.73 1.08 0.97 51.06 0.00 51.06 0.84 0.73 1.08 0.96 48.49 0.00 48.49 0.84 0.73 1.08 0.96 48.98 0.00 48.98 0.83 0.73 1.08 0.95 50.45 0.00 50.45 0.83 0.73 1.08 0.95 48.96 0.00 48.96 0.82 0.72 1.08 0.94 50.42 0.00 50.42 0.82 0.72 1.08 0.93 51.85 0.00 51.85 0.81 0.72 1.08 0.93 55.16 0.00 55.16 0.81 0.72 1.08 0.92 60.29 0.00 60.29 0.80 0.72 1.08 0.92 61.61 0.00 61.61 0.80 0.71 1.08 0.91 61.97 0.00 61.97 0.79 0.71 1.08 0.91 60.51 0.00 60.51 0.79 0.71 1.08 0.90 Referenc.e-s: Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger', R.W. Soil liquefac:cion During Earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research lnstilute. 8 September 2008. Liu, C. and Evett. J.B. S011s and Foundations, 8th Edition. 4 August 2013. 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 2.00 200 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 1.98 2.00 1.97 2.00 1.96 2.00 1.95 Marun, C.R and Lew. M. Recommendations for Implementation of DMC Special Pubhcot1on I J 7. University of Southern Califom13 Eanhquake Center. March 1999. C~lifornia Oe-partment of Conservation.. CCS. Spedof Publication 117A: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in Ca/Jfornia. Rev 11 Sept 2008. consultants engineering geo/echnical appl i,·a Ii o 11s 1712 E. Oceanfront, Newport Beach, CA RK324.1 July 2021 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 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 PLATE A CPT-1 advanced to 50.91 ft. on 8/10/2016 Page 4 PA2021-274 Parameter Fa -2.25 -1.57 -0.60 0.16 0.23 0.14 -0.25 -0.51 -0.48 -0.30 -0.04 -0.36 -0.98 -1.72 -2.96 -3.07 -3.06 -2.94 -3.06 -3.06 -3.06 -2.8S -2.54 -2.2S Maximum .6Hi (m) shear strain ymax 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 O.Q7 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 engineerinx 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 consullants Ll.LDii (m) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vertical .6Si (m) Ll.Si (ft) reconsol. Strain tv 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 o.oi 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ll.Si (inches) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.19 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.00 I = 0.02 0.10 n=lO 1712 E. Oceanfront, Newport Beach, CA RK324.1 July 2021 0.49 0.01 Post Soll Cement Treatment: 0.00 I= 0.35 0.00 0.00 n =JO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PLATE A CPT-1 advanced to 50.91 ft. on 8/10/2016 Page 5 PA2021-274 -2.37 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.49 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.51 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.61 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.53 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.36 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.10 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.23 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 ·2.54 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.57 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.50 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.44 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.38 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.06 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.68 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.47 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 ·1.51 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.63 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.51 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 ·1.62 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1. 74 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.01 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.45 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.56 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.59 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.47 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Settlement: I 0.021 References; fdriss. l.M, and Boulanger, RW. SoJI l.iqi1efact10n Durmg £archquokes. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. 8 Sepiembet 2008, Liu, C. iind Ever1. f.B. Soi/sand foundations. 8th EdiDOh. 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 o.osl 0.611 Manin, C.R. and Lew. M. Recomme11daoons for lmplementaoon of DMG Special Pub/1ca.tlon 1 J 7. University of Southern Cahfomia Earthquake Cenrer. March 1999. C~liform.1 Department of Conservation, CCS. Specta( Publication 117A: Guidelines for Evaluollng and Miti,9acin9 Seismic Hatards In California . Rev 11 Sepl 2008. consultants engineerinx f!.eo1ech11ica/ applications 1712 E. Oceanfront, Newport Beach, CA RK324 .l July 2021 PLATE A CPT-1 advanced to 50.91 ft. on 8/10/2016 Page 6 PA2021-274