The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPA2017-248_20170721_CR Geotechnical Evaluation Mariner's SquareGEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION FOR PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 1244 IRVINE AVENUE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR MELIA HOMES 8951 RESEARCH DRIVE IRVINE,CALIFORNIA 92618 PREPARED BY GEOTEK,INC. 710 E.PARKRIDGE AVENUE,SUITE 105 CORONA,CALIFORNIA 92879 PROJECT NO.1704-CR JULY 21,2017 GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL | MATERIALS July 21, 2017 Project No.1704-CR Melia Homes 8951 Research Drive Irvine, California 92618 Attention:Ms.Christine Harmon-Harris Subject:Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development Mariner’s Square Project 1244 Irvine Avenue City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California Dear Ms.Harmon-Harris: We are pleased to provide the results of our geotechnical evaluation for the subject site located in the city of Newport Beach, County of Orange, California. This report presents a discussion of our evaluation and provides preliminary geotechnical recommendations for earthwork,foundation design,and construction. In our opinion,site development appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the design and construction. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our office. Respectfully submitted, GeoTek, Inc. Edward H.LaMont CEG 1892, Exp.7/31/18 Principal Geologist Robert R. Russell GE 2042, Exp.12/31/18 Senior Geotechnical Engineer Distribution:(3) Addressee G:\Projects\1701 to 1750\1704CR Melia Homes Mariner's Square Newport Beach\Geotechnical Investigation\1704-CR Geotechnical Evaluation Mariner's Square.doc Mariner’s Square Project Project No.1704-CR Geotechnical Evaluation July 21, 2017 1244 Irvine Avenue, City of Newport Beach, California Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES.............................................................................................1 2.SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ..............................................................1 2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................................................................................1 2.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.....................................................................................................................................................2 3.FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING................................................................2 3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION...............................................................................................................................................................2 3.2 LABORATORY TESTING ..........................................................................................................................................................2 4.GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS...........................................................................................3 4.1 REGIONAL SETTING ................................................................................................................................................................3 4.2 GENERAL SOIL/GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS............................................................................................................................3 4.2.1 Undocumented Artificial Fill ........................................................................................................................................................3 4.2.2 Older Paralic Deposits ..................................................................................................................................................................3 4.3 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER ...........................................................................................................................................4 4.3.1 Surface Water.................................................................................................................................................................................4 4.3.2 Groundwater....................................................................................................................................................................................4 4.4 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY ..........................................................................................................................................4 4.4.1 Seismic Design Parameters.........................................................................................................................................................4 4.4.2 Liquefaction and Seismically-Induced Settlement ................................................................................................................5 4.4.3 Other Seismic Hazards ................................................................................................................................................................6 5.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................6 5.1 GENERAL ..................................................................................................................................................................................6 5.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS..........................................................................................................................................6 5.2.1 Site Clearing and Demolition......................................................................................................................................................6 5.2.2 Removals/Overexcavations..........................................................................................................................................................7 5.2.3 Preparation of Areas to Receive Engineered Fill...................................................................................................................7 5.2.4 Engineered Fills................................................................................................................................................................................7 5.2.5 Excavation Characteristics...........................................................................................................................................................7 5.2.6 Trench Excavations and Backfill..............................................................................................................................................8 5.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................................................................8 5.3.1 Foundation Design Criteria..........................................................................................................................................................8 Miscellaneous Foundation Recommendations.................................................................................................................................11 5.3.2 Foundation Set Backs..................................................................................................................................................................11 5.3.3 Retaining Wall Design and Construction..............................................................................................................................11 5.3.4 Soil Corrosivity................................................................................................................................................................................14 5.3.5 Soil Sulfate Content .....................................................................................................................................................................14 5.3.6 Import Soils.....................................................................................................................................................................................15 5.4 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................................................................................15 5.4.1 General ............................................................................................................................................................................................15 5.4.2 Concrete Mix Design...................................................................................................................................................................15 5.4.3 Concrete Flatwork........................................................................................................................................................................15 5.4.4 Concrete Performance ................................................................................................................................................................15 5.5 POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS.......................................................................................................................16 Mariner’s Square Project Project No.1704-CR Geotechnical Evaluation July 21, 2017 1244 Irvine Avenue, City of Newport Beach, California Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 5.5.1 Landscape Maintenance and Planting...................................................................................................................................16 5.5.2 Drainage..........................................................................................................................................................................................16 5.6 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS ...................................................................................................17 6.INTENT...............................................................................................................................................18 7.LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................................18 8.SELECTED REFERENCES.................................................................................................................19 ENCLOSURES Figure 1 –Site Location Map Figure 2 –Boring and Infiltration Test Location Map Appendix A –Hollow Stem Boring Logs Appendix B –Laboratory Test Results Appendix C –General Grading Guidelines Mariner’s Square Project Project No.1704-CR Geotechnical Evaluation July 21, 2017 1244 Irvine Avenue, City of Newport Beach, California Page 1 1.PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of this study was to evaluate the geotechnical conditions in the area of proposed construction.Services provided for this study included the following: Research and review of available geologic data and general information pertinent to the site, Site exploration consisting of the excavation, logging, and sampling of five hollow-stem auger exploratory boring, Laboratory testing of soil samples obtained during the field investigation, Review and evaluation of site seismicity,and Compilation of this geotechnical report which presents our findings, conclusions, and recommendations for the proposed development. 2.SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION The site is located at 1244 Irvine Avenue in the city of Newport Beach,Orange County, California (see Figure 1).The subject site is located north of Westcliff Plaza, east of Irvine Avenue and south of Mariners Drive in the city of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. Based on our site reconnaissance completed on June 14, 2017, the area to be developed currently has 20 multi-family residential two-to three-story buildings with associated landscape, parking and drive areas.The irregular shaped site is approximately 5.76 acres and can be considered as having relatively flat to gently sloping terrain with existing elevations ranging from approximately 94 to 83 mean sea level (msl)and generally sloping down to the southwest. The adjacent area to the west of the subject site is occupied by commercial retail buildings. Roadways encompass the adjacent north, east, and south sides of the subject site. Mariner’s Square Project Project No.1704-CR Geotechnical Evaluation July 21, 2017 1244 Irvine Avenue, City of Newport Beach, California Page 2 2.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Information regarding the proposed development was provided by SUMMA Architecture, dated May 29, 2017.It is our understanding that proposed site improvements include razing of all the existing buildings,concreted areas and landscape areas. The proposed new development is to consist of 95 new multi-family residential buildings ranging from two to three stories. A recreation center with a pool is proposed in the western central portion of the site. It is our understanding that the new improvements are to consist of wood-frame construction and incorporate a concrete slab-on-grade floor.Based on the information provided improvements look to be at least five feet or further away from the site boundary. If the site development differs from that described above, the recommendations should be subject to further review and evaluation.Final site development plans should be reviewed by GeoTek, Inc. 3.FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration was conducted on June 14,2017.A geologist from GeoTek observed the excavation of five hollow stem borings on the site (see Figure 2). The depth of the borings ranged from 5 feet to 50 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs).Logs of the borings is included in Appendix A.Soil samples were obtained from the boring excavations for use in subsequent laboratory testing. 3.2 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing was performed on selected bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples collected during our field exploration. The purpose of the laboratory testing was to confirm the field classification of the soils encountered and to evaluate their physical properties for use in the engineering design and analysis. Results of the laboratory testing program along with a brief description and relevant information regarding testing procedures are included in Appendix B and on the exploratory log included in Appendix A. Mariner’s Square Project Project No.1704-CR Geotechnical Evaluation July 21, 2017 1244 Irvine Avenue, City of Newport Beach, California Page 3 4.GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS 4.1 REGIONAL SETTING The subject property is situated in the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. The Peninsular Ranges province is one of the largest geomorphic units in western North America. Basically, it extends from the point of contact with the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province, southerly 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. Several 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.The Newport- Inglewood Fault, located approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the site, is the closest known active fault to the subject site. 4.2 GENERAL SOIL/GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS A brief description of the earth materials underlying the site is presented in the following section. Based on our field exploration, the site area evaluated is underlain by approximately up to five feet of fill materials underlain by older paralic deposits.Based on the results of the laboratory testing and our experience in the project area with similar soils, the expansion potential of the on-site soils anticipated to be encountered during earthwork generally indicated a “very low” (0≤EI≤20) expansion potential when tested in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 4829. 4.2.1 Undocumented Artificial Fill Undocumented artificial fill soils were encountered in the test borings to an approximate depth of up to five feet. The fill materials generally consist of fine grained sandy silt to clayey silt, which are brown,slightly moist to moist and medium stiff to stiff. 4.2.2 Older Paralic Deposits Based on our recent subsurface exploration and review of readily available regional geologic maps for the project site area (Morton, D.M., 2004),Quaternary age older paralic deposits underlie the artificial fill materials in the immediate site area.The older paralic deposits Mariner’s Square Project Project No.1704-CR Geotechnical Evaluation July 21, 2017 1244 Irvine Avenue, City of Newport Beach, California Page 4 encountered in the hollow stem borings generally consist of gray to grayish brown,moist to wet,loose to medium dense silty fine to coarse sands along with medium stiff to hard silty clays or clayey silts. 4.3 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER 4.3.1 Surface Water If encountered during the earthwork construction, surface water on this site is the result of precipitation or surface run-off from surrounding sites. Overall area drainage is towards the west/southwest. Provisions for surface drainage will need to be accounted for by the project civil engineer. 4.3.2 Groundwater Groundwater was encountered in three of the deeper borings excavated at the site by this firm. The shallowest reading of groundwater was 11 feet bgs in the southwest corner of the site. The deepest reading of groundwater was 11.5 feet bgs in the northwestern and southcentral portion of the site.This groundwater is considered to be in a perched condition as materials beneath are not saturated to the depth explored (51 feet bgs). Based on the results of our field exploration, review of site area geomorphology and geology, groundwater is not anticipated to adversely affect the proposed improvements.Locally perched groundwater may be encountered in deeper utility trench excavations. 4.4 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY The geologic structure of the entire southern California area is dominated mainly by northwest-trending faults associated with the San Andreas system. The site is in a seismically active region. No active or potentially active fault is known to exist at this site nor is the site situated within an “Alquist-Priolo”Earthquake Fault Zone or a Special Studies Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007; CGS, 1980).The nearest zoned fault is the Newport-Inglewood fault,2.5 miles to the southwest. 4.4.1 Seismic Design Parameters The site is located at approximately 33.62994 Latitude and -117.90569 Longitude. Site spectral accelerations (Ss and S1), for 0.2 and 1.0 second periods for a Class “D” site, were determined from the USGS Website, Earthquake Hazards Program, Interpolated Probabilistic Ground Motion for the Conterminous 48 States by Latitude/Longitude. The results are presented in the following table: Mariner’s Square Project Project No.1704-CR Geotechnical Evaluation July 21, 2017 1244 Irvine Avenue, City of Newport Beach, California Page 5 2016 CBC SITE SEISMIC PARAMETERS Mapped 0.2 sec Period Spectral Acceleration, Ss 1.689g Mapped 1.0 sec Period Spectral Acceleration, S1 0.621g Site Coefficient for Site Class “D”, Fa 1.0 Site Coefficient for Site Class “D”, Fv 1.3 Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE Spectral Response Acceleration for 0.2 Second, SMS 1.689g Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE Spectral Response Acceleration for 1.0 Second, SM1 0.807g Design Spectral Response Acceleration for Parameter at 0.2 Second, SDS 1.126g Design Spectral Response Acceleration for Parameter at 1.0 second, SD1 0.538g Peak Ground Acceleration (PGAM)0.688g 4.4.2 Liquefaction and Seismically-Induced Settlement Liquefaction describes a phenomenon in which cyclic stresses, produced by earthquake-induced ground motion, create excess pore pressures in relatively cohesionless soils. These soils may thereby acquire a high degree of mobility, which can lead to lateral movement, sliding, settlement of loose sediments, sand boils and other damaging deformations. This phenomenon occurs only below the water table, but, after liquefaction occurs, the liquefied soil/water matrix can propagate upward into overlying non-saturated soil as excess pore water dissipates. The factors known to influence liquefaction potential include soil type and grain size, relative density, groundwater level, confining pressures, and both intensity and duration of ground shaking.In general, materials that are susceptible to liquefaction are loose, saturated granular soils having low fines content under low confining pressures. Based on the California Geological Survey, the site is not mapped within a zone of potentially liquefiable soil. Perched groundwater was encountered in our test borings however, the site liquefaction potential is considered negligible due to the material type, relatively firm nature, and age of the underlying materials (older paralic deposits under near-surface fill). Mariner’s Square Project Project No.1704-CR Geotechnical Evaluation July 21, 2017 1244 Irvine Avenue, City of Newport Beach, California Page 6 4.4.3 Other Seismic Hazards Evidence of ancient landslides or slope instabilities at this site was not observed during our investigation. The site vicinity is located in an area that has relatively flat to gently sloping terrain.Thus, the potential for landslides is considered negligible.Additionally, the project site is not located in an area identified by the State of California as an earthquake-induced landslide hazard zone (CGS,2000). Based on a review of the Tsunami Inundation Map for the Newport Beach Quadrangle, this site is not located within an established tsunami inundation zone. The potential for secondary seismic hazards such as a tsunami are considered to be negligible due to site elevation and distance from an open body of water. 5.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 GENERAL The anticipated site development appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the following recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction phases of development. 5.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS Earthwork and grading should be performed in accordance with the applicable grading ordinances of the City of Newport Beach, the 2016 California Building Code (CBC),and recommendations contained in this report.The Grading Guidelines included in Appendix C outline general procedures and do not anticipate all site specific situations. In the event of conflict, the recommendations presented in the text of this report should supersede those contained in Appendix C. 5.2.1 Site Clearing and Demolition In areas of planned grading or improvements, the site should be cleared of existing improvements, vegetation, trash and debris, and properly disposed of off-site.Demolition of the existing improvements should include removal of all foundations and any other below- grade construction.Voids resulting from demolition of the existing structures and improvements should be backfilled with engineered fill materials with expansion characteristics similar to or less than the on-site soils. Mariner’s Square Project Project No.1704-CR Geotechnical Evaluation July 21, 2017 1244 Irvine Avenue, City of Newport Beach, California Page 7 5.2.2 Removals/Overexcavations It is recommended that all undocumented artificial fill below the planned buildings be removed until competent native soil is encountered.Competent native soil should have a relative compaction of at least 85% and little to no visible porosity.Undocumented artificial fill was encountered to a depth of up to approximately five feet in our test borings. Deeper areas of fill may be present on the site. In areas where no fill is encountered, the natural soils should be removed to a minimum depth of 3 feet below existing grade or one foot below the bottom of the proposed foundations, whichever is greater. The horizontal limits of overexcavation should extend at least three feet outside the perimeter of the structural elements or a distance equal to the depth of the removals, whichever is greater. A representative of this firm should observe the bottom of all excavations. Removals along property lines should extend down at a 1:1 (horizontal:vertical) projection to the required removal depth. 5.2.3 Preparation of Areas to Receive Engineered Fill A representative of this firm should observe the bottom of all excavations. Upon approval, the exposed soils and all soils in areas to receive engineered fill should be scarified to a depth of approximately eight inches, moistened to at least the optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent (ASTM D 1557). 5.2.4 Engineered Fills The on-site soils are generally considered suitable for reuse as engineered fill provided they are free from vegetation, debris and other deleterious material.Rock fragments greater than six inches in maximum dimension should not be incorporated into the fill. Engineered fill should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding eight inches in loose thickness, moisture conditioned to at least the optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90%(ASTM D 1557). 5.2.5 Excavation Characteristics Excavation in the on-site soils is expected to be feasible using heavy-duty grading equipment in good operating condition. All temporary excavations for grading purposes and installation of underground utilities should be constructed in accordance with local and Cal-OSHA guidelines. Temporary excavations within the on-site materials should be stable at 1:1 (H:V)inclinations for cuts less than five feet in height. Mariner’s Square Project Project No.1704-CR Geotechnical Evaluation July 21, 2017 1244 Irvine Avenue, City of Newport Beach, California Page 8 5.2.6 Trench Excavations and Backfill Trench excavations should conform to Cal-OSHA regulations. The contractor should have a competent person, per OSHA requirements, on site during construction to observe conditions and to make the appropriate recommendations. Utility trench backfill should consist of sandy soil with a “very low” expansion potential and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction (as determined per ASTM D 1557). Compaction should be achieved with a mechanical compaction device. Jetting of trench backfill is not recommended. If soils to be used as backfill have dried out, they should be thoroughly moisture conditioned prior to placement in trenches. 5.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Preliminary foundation design criteria for on-grade slabs, conventional foundations and deepened foundations are presented in this report. These are typical design criteria and are not intended to supersede the design by the structural engineer. 5.3.1 Foundation Design Criteria Based on the results of our recent testing, the on-site soils near subgrade may be classified as having a “very low” (0 <EI <20)potential for expansion in accordance with ASTM D 4829. Presented below are foundation design parameters for proposed single-family residences. Foundations should be designed in accordance with the 2016 California Building Code (CBC). Given the “very low”expansion potential classification, post-tensioned slabs are not required by the CBC.The slab designer may choose the post-tension design methodology, since the CBC indicated Post Tensioning Institute (PTI) design methodology is intended for expansive soils conditions which do not apply, based on the conditions observed and soils tested. Consequently, no em or ym parameters as used in the PTI methodology are provided. Additional testing of the soils should be performed during construction to evaluate the as- graded conditions. Additional recommendations may be necessary based on the as-graded soils conditions. Mariner’s Square Project Project No.1704-CR Geotechnical Evaluation July 21, 2017 1244 Irvine Avenue, City of Newport Beach, California Page 9 MINIMUM DESIGN REQUIREMENTS DESIGN PARAMETER 0≤EI≤20 Foundation Depth or Minimum Perimeter Beam Depth (inches below lowest adjacent grade) One-Story Exterior Footing –12” One-Story Interior Footing –12” Two-Story Exterior Footing –18” Two-Story Interior Footing –18” Minimum Foundation Width One-Story -12” Two-Story –15” Minimum Slab Thickness (actual)4” Presaturation of Subgrade Soil (Percent of Optimum/Depth in Inches)110% to a depth of 12 inches It should be noted that the above recommendations are based on soil support characteristics only. The structural engineer should design the slab and beam reinforcement based on actual loading conditions. The bottom of the perimeter edge beam/deepened footing should be designed to resist tension forces using either cable or conventional reinforcement, per the structural engineer. Other applicable recommendations presented for conventionally reinforced foundations should be incorporated into the design and construction phases of the project. An allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for design of continuous and perimeter footings a minimum of 12 inches deep and 12 inches wide. An allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may also be used for design of isolated pad footings 24 inches square and 12 inches deep. These values may be increased by 250 pounds per square foot for each additional 12 inches in depth and 125 pounds per square foot for each additional 12 inches in width to a maximum value of 3,000 psf. The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 230 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 psf for footings founded on engineered fill. A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with dead load forces. The upper one foot of soil below the adjacent grade should not be used in calculating passive pressure. The above values may be increased as allowed by Code to resist short-term transient loads (e.g. seismic and wind loads). Mariner’s Square Project Project No.1704-CR Geotechnical Evaluation July 21, 2017 1244 Irvine Avenue, City of Newport Beach, California Page 10 Based on our experience in the area,we estimate that foundations may experience a total static settlement of up to approximately one (1) inch as a result of structural loading. Differential settlement of up to one-half of the total settlement over a horizontal distance of 40 feet could result from structural loading. The foundation engineer should incorporate these settlement estimates from the structural loads into the design of the slab, as appropriate. A grade beam, 12 inches wide by a minimum of 12 inches deep, should be utilized across large opening or garage entrances. The base of the grade beam should be at the same elevation as the bottom of the adjoining footings. A moisture and vapor retarding system should be placed below slabs-on-grade where moisture migration through the slab is undesirable.Guidelines for these systems are provided in the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Section 4.505.2 and the 2016 CBC Section 1910.1. It should be realized that the effectiveness of the vapor retarding membrane can be adversely impacted as the result of construction related punctures (e.g. stake penetrations, tears, punctures from walking on the aggregate layer, etc.). These occurrences should be limited as much as possible during construction. Thicker membranes are generally more resistant to accidental puncture than thinner ones. Products specifically designed for use as moisture/vapor retarders may also be more puncture resistant. It is GeoTek’s opinion that a minimum 10 mil thick membrane with joints properly overlapped and sealed should be considered, unless otherwise specified by the slab design professional. Moisture and vapor retarding systems are intended to provide a certain level of resistance to vapor and moisture transmission through the concrete, but do not eliminate it. The acceptable level of moisture transmission through the slab is to a large extent based on the type of flooring used and atmospheric conditions. Ultimately, the vapor retarding system should be comprised of suitable elements to limit migration of water and reduce transmission of water vapor through the slab to acceptable levels. The selected elements should have suitable properties (.e. thickness, composition, strength, and permeance) to achieve the desired performance level. Consideration should be given to consulting with an individual possessing specific expertise in this area for additional evaluation. Mariner’s Square Project Project No.1704-CR Geotechnical Evaluation July 21, 2017 1244 Irvine Avenue, City of Newport Beach, California Page 11 Miscellaneous Foundation Recommendations 5.3.1.1 To minimize moisture penetration beneath the slab-on-grade areas,utility trenches should be backfilled with engineered fill, lean concrete or concrete slurry where they intercept the perimeter footings or thickened slab edge. 5.3.1.2 Soils from the footing excavations should not be placed in the slab-on-grade areas unless properly compacted and tested. The excavations should be free of loose/sloughed materials and be neatly trimmed at the time of concrete placement. 5.3.1.3 Soils from the footing excavations should not be placed in the slab-on-grade areas unless properly compacted and tested. The excavations should be free of loose/sloughed materials and be neatly trimmed at the time of concrete placement. 5.3.1.4 Under-slab utility trenches should be compacted to project specifications. Compaction should be achieved with a mechanical compaction device. If soils to be used as backfill have dried out, they should be thoroughly moisture conditioned prior to placement in trenches. 5.3.2 Foundation Set Backs Minimum setbacks to all foundations should comply with the 2016 CBC or City of Newport Beach requirements, whichever is greater.Improvements not conforming to these setbacks are subject to the increased likelihood of excessive lateral movements and/or differential settlements. If large enough,these movements can compromise the integrity of the improvements. The bottom of any proposed foundations should be deepened so as to extend below a 1:1 (horizontal:vertical) upward projection from the bottom edge of the closest footing. 5.3.3 Retaining Wall Design and Construction 5.3.3.1 General Design Criteria Recommendations presented in this report apply to typical masonry,concrete or modular retaining walls to a maximum height of up to 6 feet. Additional review and recommendations should be requested for higher walls. These are typical design criteria and are not intended to supersede the design by the structural engineer. Mariner’s Square Project Project No.1704-CR Geotechnical Evaluation July 21, 2017 1244 Irvine Avenue, City of Newport Beach, California Page 12 Retaining wall foundations should be embedded a minimum of 12 inches into engineered fill and should be designed in accordance with Section 5.3.1 of this report. Structural needs may govern and should be evaluated by the project structural engineer. All earth retention structure plans, as applicable, should be reviewed by this office prior to finalization. The seismic design parameters as discussed in this report remain applicable to all proposed earth retention structures at this site, and should be properly incorporated into the design and construction of the structures. Earthwork considerations, site clearing and remedial earthwork for all earth retention structures should meet the requirements of this report, unless specifically provided otherwise, or more stringent requirements or recommendations are made by the designer. The backfill material placement for all earth retention structures should meet the requirement of Section 5.3.4.4 in this report. In general, cantilever earth retention structures, which are designed to yield at least 0.001H, where H is equal to the height of the earth retention structure to the base of its footing, may be designed using the active condition.Rigid earth retention structures (including but not limited to rigid walls, and walls braced at top, such as typical basement walls) should be designed using the at-rest condition. In addition to the design lateral forces due to retained earth, surcharges due to improvements, such as an adjacent building or traffic loading, should be considered in the design of the earth retention structures. Loads applied within a 1:1 (h:v) projection from the surcharge on the stem and footing of the earth retention structure should be considered in the design. Final selection of the appropriate design parameters should be made by the designer of the earth retention structures. 5.3.3.2 Cantilevered Walls The recommendations presented below are for cantilevered retaining walls up to 10 feet high. Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wall is not restrained from minor deflections. An equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall. Appropriate fluid unit weights are given below for specific slope gradients of the retained material. These do not include other superimposed loading conditions such as traffic, structures, or adverse geologic conditions. Mariner’s Square Project Project No.1704-CR Geotechnical Evaluation July 21, 2017 1244 Irvine Avenue, City of Newport Beach, California Page 13 ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURES Surface Slope of Retained Materials (h:v) Equivalent Fluid Pressure (pcf) (Native/Select Backfill)* Level 40 2:1 60 *The design pressures assume the backfill material has an expansion index less than or equal to 20. Backfill zone includes area between back of the wall to a plane (1:1 h:v) up from bottom of the wall foundation (on the backside of the wall) to the (sloped) ground surface. It should be noted that the 2016 CBC only requires the additional earthquake induced lateral force to be considered on retaining walls in excess of 6 feet. Additional lateral forces can be induced on retaining walls during an earthquake. For level backfill, the minimum earthquake- induced load onto retaining walls may be considered to be equivalent to a fluid pressure of 15.5 pcf. The seismic pressure can be assumed to be a conventional triangular distribution. 5.3.3.3 Restrained Retaining Walls Retaining walls that will be restrained at the top that support level backfill or that have reentrant or male corners, should be designed for an equivalent at-rest fluid pressure of 60 pcf, plus any applicable surcharge loading for level backfill conditions. For areas of male or reentrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance of twice the height of the wall laterally from the corner, or a distance otherwise determined by the project structural engineer. 5.3.3.4 Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage Retaining walls should be provided with an adequate pipe and gravel back drain system to help prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures. Backdrains should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated collector pipe (Schedule 40, SDR 35, or approved equivalent) embedded in a minimum of one (1) cubic foot per linear foot of ¾-to 1-inch clean crushed rock or an approved equivalent, wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or an approved equivalent). The drain system should be connected to a suitable outlet.Waterproofing of site walls should be performed where moisture migration through the wall is undesirable. Mariner’s Square Project Project No.1704-CR Geotechnical Evaluation July 21, 2017 1244 Irvine Avenue, City of Newport Beach, California Page 14 Retaining wall backfill should be placed in lifts no greater than eight (8) inches in thickness and compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1557. The wall backfill should also include a minimum one (1) foot wide section of ¾-to 1-inch clean crushed rock (or an approved equivalent). The rock should be placed immediately adjacent to the back of the wall and extend up from a back drain to within approximately 24 inches of the finish grade. The rock should be separated from the earth with filter fabric. The upper 24 inches should consist of compacted on-site soil. As an alternative to the drain rock and fabric, Miradrain 2000, or approved equivalent, may be used behind the retaining wall. The Miradrain 2000 should extend from the base of the wall to within 2 feet of the ground surface. The subdrain should be placed at the base of the wall in direct contact with the Miradrain 2000. The presence of other materials might necessitate revision to the parameters provided and modification of the wall designs. Proper surface drainage needs to be provided and maintained. 5.3.3.5 Other Design Considerations Wall design should consider the additional surcharge loads from superjacent slopes and/or footings, where appropriate. No backfill should be placed against concrete until minimum design strengths are evident by compression tests of cylinders. The retaining wall footing excavations, backcuts, and backfill materials should be approved the project geotechnical engineer or their authorized representative. 5.3.4 Soil Corrosivity The soil resistivity at this site was tested in the laboratory on a sample collected during the field exploration. The results of the testing indicate that the soil sample was considered “mildly corrosive” to buried ferrous metals in accordance with current standards commonly used by corrosion engineers. These characteristics are considered typical of soils commonly found in Southern California.Consideration should be given to consulting with a corrosion engineer. 5.3.5 Soil Sulfate Content The sulfate content was determined in the laboratory for a representative on-site soil sample. The results indicate that the water-soluble sulfate range is less than 0.1 percent by weight, which is considered “not applicable” (i.e. negligible) as per Table 4.2.1 of ACI 318. Based upon the test results,no special concrete mix design is required for sulfate attack resistance. Mariner’s Square Project Project No.1704-CR Geotechnical Evaluation July 21, 2017 1244 Irvine Avenue, City of Newport Beach, California Page 15 5.3.6 Import Soils Import soils should have expansion characteristics similar to the on-site soils. GeoTek also recommends that, as a minimum, proposed import soils be tested for corrosivity and soluble sulfate content.GeoTek should be notified a minimum of 72 hours prior to importing so that appropriate sampling and laboratory testing can be performed. 5.4 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION 5.4.1 General Concrete construction should follow the 2016 CBC and ACI guidelines regarding design, mix placement and curing of the concrete. If desired, we could provide quality control testing of the concrete during construction. 5.4.2 Concrete Mix Design As indicated in Section 5.3.5, no special concrete mix design is required by Code to resist sulfate attack based on the existing test results. However, additional testing should be performed during grading so that specific recommendations can be formulated based on the as- graded conditions. 5.4.3 Concrete Flatwork Exterior concrete flatwork is often one of the most visible aspects of site development. They are typically given the least level of quality control, being considered “non-structural” components. Cracking of these features is fairly common due to various factors. While cracking is not usually detrimental, it is unsightly. We suggest that the same standards of care be applied to these features as to the structure itself. Flatwork should consist of 4-inch thick concrete and the use of reinforcement is suggested. The project structural engineer should provide final design recommendations. 5.4.4 Concrete Performance Concrete cracks should be expected. These cracks can vary from sizes that are essentially unnoticeable to more than 1/8 inch in width. Most cracks in concrete while unsightly do not significantly impact long-term performance. While it is possible to take measures (proper concrete mix, placement, curing, control joints, etc.) to reduce the extent and size of cracks that occur, some cracking will occur despite the best efforts to minimize it. Concrete undergoes chemical processes that are dependent on a wide range of variables, which are difficult, at best, to control. Concrete, while seemingly a stable material, is subject to internal expansion and contraction due to external changes over time. Mariner’s Square Project Project No.1704-CR Geotechnical Evaluation July 21, 2017 1244 Irvine Avenue, City of Newport Beach, California Page 16 One of the simplest means to control cracking is to provide weakened control joints for cracking to occur along. These do not prevent cracks from developing; they simply provide a relief point for the stresses that develop. These joints are a widely accepted means to control cracks but are not always effective. Control joints are more effective the more closely spaced they are. GeoTek suggests that control joints be placed in two directions and located a distance apart approximately equal to 24 to 36 times the slab thickness. 5.5 POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 5.5.1 Landscape Maintenance and Planting Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of soil, and slope stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage away from graded slopes should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Controlling surface drainage and runoff, and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover can minimize erosion. Plants selected for landscaping should be lightweight, deep-rooted types that require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate. Overwatering should be avoided. Care should be taken when adding soil amendments to avoid excessive watering. Leaching as a method of soil preparation prior to planting is not recommended. An abatement program to control ground-burrowing rodents should be implemented and maintained. This is critical as burrowing rodents can decreased the long- term performance of slopes. It is common for planting to be placed adjacent to structures in planter or lawn areas. This will result in the introduction of water into the ground adjacent to the foundation. This type of landscaping should be avoided. 5.5.2 Drainage The need to maintain proper surface drainage and subsurface systems cannot be overly emphasized. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond or seep into the ground adjacent to the footings. Soil areas within 10 feet of the proposed structure should slope at a minimum of 5 percent away from the building, if possible unless the area is paved. Paved areas are to be sloped at 2 percent away from the structure. Roof gutters and downspouts should discharge onto paved surfaces sloping away from the structure or into a closed pipe system which outfalls to the street gutter pan or Mariner’s Square Project Project No.1704-CR Geotechnical Evaluation July 21, 2017 1244 Irvine Avenue, City of Newport Beach, California Page 17 directly to the storm drain system. Pad drainage should be directed toward approved areas and not be blocked by other improvements. It is the owner’s responsibility to maintain and clean drainage devices on or contiguous to their lot. In order to be effective, maintenance should be conducted on a regular and routine schedule and necessary corrections made prior to each rainy season. 5.6 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS We recommend that grading and foundation plans be reviewed by this office prior to construction to check for conformance with the recommendations of this report. We also recommend that GeoTek, Inc.representatives be present during site grading and foundation construction to check for proper implementation of the geotechnical recommendations. The owner/developer should have the representative from GeoTek, Inc.perform at least the following duties: Observe site clearing and grubbing operations for proper removal of all unsuitable materials. Observe and test bottom of removals prior to fill placement. Evaluate the suitability of on-site and import materials for fill placement, and collect soil samples for laboratory testing where necessary. Observe the fill for uniformity during placement,including utility trenches. Perform field density testing of the fill materials. Observe and probe foundation soils to confirm suitability of bearing materials. If requested, a construction observation and compaction report can be provided by GeoTek, Inc.which can comply with the requirements of the governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the project.We recommend that these agencies be notified prior to commencement of construction so that necessary grading permits can be obtained. Mariner’s Square Project Project No.1704-CR Geotechnical Evaluation July 21, 2017 1244 Irvine Avenue, City of Newport Beach, California Page 18 6.INTENT It is the intent of this report to aid in the design and construction of the proposed development. Implementation of the advice presented in Section 5 of this report is intended to reduce risk associated with construction projects.The professional opinions and geotechnical advice contained in this report are not intended to imply total performance of the project or guarantee that unusual or variable conditions will not be discovered during or after construction. The scope of our evaluation is limited to the boundaries of the subject residential lot. This review does not and should in no way be construed to encompass any areas beyond the specific area of the proposed construction as indicated to us by the client. Further, no evaluation of any existing site improvements is included. The scope is based on our understanding of the project and the client’s needs, our proposal (P-0503417) dated May 25, 2017 and geotechnical engineering standards normally used on similar projects in this region. 7.LIMITATIONS The materials observed on the project site appear to be representative of the area; however, soil materials vary in character between excavations formed during site construction. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. GeoTek, Inc. assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing or recommendations performed or provided by others. Since our recommendations are based on the site conditions observed and encountered, and laboratory testing, our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions that are limited to the extent of the available data. Observations during construction are important to allow for any change in recommendations found to be warranted. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. Mariner’s Square Project Project No.1704-CR Geotechnical Evaluation July 21, 2017 1244 Irvine Avenue, City of Newport Beach, California Page 19 8.SELECTED REFERENCES American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2006, Publication 302.2R-06, Guide for Concrete Slabs That Receive Moisture Sensitive Flooring Materials. ASTM, 2011, “Soil and Rock: American Society for Testing and Materials,” vol. 4.08 and 4.09. Morton, D,M.,2004, “Preliminary Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30’X60’ Quadrangle,” U.S. Geological Survey open-file Report 99-172. Bryant, W.A., and Hart, E.W., 2007, "Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps," California Geological Survey: Special Publication 42. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2016 “California Building Code,” 3 volumes. National Association of Corrosion Engineers, 1984, “Corrosion Basics An Introduction.” Seismic Design Values for Buildings (http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php). State of California, 1997 “Seismic Hazard Zone, New Port Beach Quadrangle.” APPENDIX A Hollow Stem Boring Logs 1244 Irvine Avenue Newport Beach,Orange County, California Project No.1704-CR Mariner’s Square Project Project No.1704-CR Geotechnical Evaluation July 21, 2017 1244 Irvine Avenue, City of Newport Beach, California Page A-1 A -FIELD TESTING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES Bulk Samples (Large) These samples are normally large bags of representative earth materials over 20 pounds in weight collected from the field by means of hand digging or exploratory cuttings. Bulk Samples (Small) These are plastic bag samples which are normally airtight and contain less than 5 pounds in weight of representative earth materials collected from the field by means of hand digging or exploratory cuttings. These samples are primarily used for determining natural moisture content and classification indices. B -BORING LOG LEGEND The following abbreviations and symbols often appear in the classification and description of soil and rock on the logs of borings: SOILS USCS Unified Soil Classification System f-c Fine to coarse f-m Fine to medium GEOLOGIC B: Attitudes Bedding: strike/dip J: Attitudes Joint: strike/dip C:Contact line ………..Dashed line denotes USCS material change Solid Line denotes unit / formational change Thick solid line denotes end of boring (Additional denotations and symbols are provided on the log of boring) GeoTek, Inc.LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING 3" AC 4" CAB ML 11.0 123.0 DS, MD EI = 10 10 ML 20 13.5 28 8 SM 12 6.1 HC 14 5 12 18.4 16 5 SM 12 17 ---Ring ---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table AL = Atterberg Limits SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test F sandy SILT, brown to orangish brown, moist F sandy SILT with CLAY, brown, moist, stiff, trace brownish gray clay mottles Same as above, becomes wet Silty f-m SAND, brownish gray, wet, medium dense, little shell fragments BORING TERMINATED AT 15 FEET EI = Expansion Index Trench backfilled with soil cuttings SA = Sieve Analysis Groundwater encountered at 11.5 feet 30 RV = R-Value Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum DensityLEGENDSample type:---SPT ---Large Bulk Lab testing: 20 25 5 10 15 Silty f SAND, gray, very moist, medium dense OLDER PARALIC DEPOSITS Dry Density(pcf)OthersMATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTSARTIFICIAL FILL SAMPLES USCS Symbol BORING NO.: B-1 Laboratory Testing Depth (ft)Sample TypeBlows/ 6 inSampleNumberWaterContent (%)LOCATION:See Boring Location Map DATE:6/14/2017 DRW PROJECT NAME:Mariners Square DRILL METHOD:Hollow Stem Auger OPERATOR: CLIENT:Malea Homes DRILLER:LOGGED BY: PROJECT NO.:1704-CR HAMMER:140lb/30in RIG TYPE: GeoTek, Inc.LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING 3" AC 4" CAB ML 15 SC 17 8.0 30 4 SM 7 9 8 SM 16 21 4 SM/ML11 13 ---Ring ---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table AL = Atterberg Limits SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test RV = R-Value Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum DensityLEGENDSample type:---SPT ---Large Bulk Lab testing:EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis 20 25 30 Groundwater encountered at 11.5 feet Trench backfilled with soil cuttings Silty f-c SAND to f-c sandy SILT, gray, wet, medium dense 15 BORING TERMINATED AT 15 FEET Silty f-m SAND, grayish brown, wet, medium dense 10 Clayey f-c SAND, brown, moist, dense 5 OLDER PARALIC DEPOSITS Silty f-m SAND, brown, moist, medium dense, trace clay nodules F sandy SILT, brown, moist Dry Density(pcf)Depth (ft)Sample TypeBlows/ 6 inSampleNumberOthersMATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS ARTIFICIAL FILL SAMPLES USCS Symbol BORING NO.: B-2 Laboratory Testing Water Content(%)LOCATION:See Boring Location Map DATE:6/14/2017 PROJECT NO.:1704-CR HAMMER:140lb/30in RIG TYPE: PROJECT NAME:Mariners Square DRILL METHOD:Hollow Stem Auger OPERATOR: CLIENT:Malea Homes DRILLER:LOGGED BY:DRW GeoTek, Inc.LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING 3" AC 4" CAB ML ---Ring ---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table AL = Atterberg Limits SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test RV = R-Value Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum DensityLEGENDSample type:---SPT ---Large Bulk Lab testing:EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis 20 25 30 15 Trench backfilled with soil cuttings 10 5 BORING TERMINATED AT 5 FEET No groundwater encountered F sandy SILT, brown to orangish brown, moist Dry Density(pcf)Depth (ft)Sample TypeBlows/ 6 inSampleNumberOthersMATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS ARTIFICIAL FILL SAMPLES USCS Symbol BORING NO.: B-3 Laboratory Testing Water Content(%)LOCATION:See Boring Location Map DATE:6/14/2017 PROJECT NO.:1704-CR HAMMER:140lb/30in RIG TYPE: PROJECT NAME:Mariners Square DRILL METHOD:Hollow Stem Auger OPERATOR: CLIENT:Malea Homes DRILLER:LOGGED BY:DRW GeoTek, Inc.LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING 3" AC 4" CABML 12 ML 18 13.625 4 SM 7 P200 = 28.5% 11 1113 17.4 22 2 SM 4 5 3 CL 5 7 2 CL4 8 4 CL 711 ---Ring ---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table AL = Atterberg Limits SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test RV = R-Value Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density Silty CLAY, grayish brown, very moist, stiff Silty CLAY, brown to black, very moist, stiff Silty CLAY, dark brown to black, very moist, stiff LEGENDSample type:---SPT ---Large Bulk Lab testing:EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis 20 25 30 Silty f-c SAND to sandy SILT, grayish brown, wet, loose/medium stiff 15 Silty f-c SAND, gray, wet, medium dense 10 Clayey SILT, brownish gray, moist, very stiff 5 OLDER PARALIC DEPOSITS Silty f-m SAND, gray, moist, medium dense, little brown mottles F sandy SILT, brown to orangish brown, moist Dry Density(pcf)Depth (ft)Sample TypeBlows/ 6 inSampleNumberOthersMATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS ARTIFICIAL FILL SAMPLES USCS Symbol BORING NO.: B-4 Sheet 1 of 2 Laboratory Testing Water Content(%)LOCATION:See Boring Location Map DATE:6/14/2017 PROJECT NO.:1704-CR HAMMER:140lb/30in RIG TYPE: PROJECT NAME:Mariners Square DRILL METHOD:Hollow Stem Auger OPERATOR: CLIENT:Malea Homes DRILLER:LOGGED BY:DRW GeoTek, Inc.LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING 5 8 12 49 13 5 1017 511 13 ---Ring ---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table AL = Atterberg Limits SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test RV = R-Value Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density 35 40 45 50 Groundwater encountered at 11 feet Trench backfilled with soil cuttings LEGENDSample type:---SPT ---Large Bulk Lab testing:EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis Silty CLAY, dark gray to black, very moist, stiff BORING TERMINATED AT 50 FEET Same as above Same as above, trace shell fragments Same as above Dry Density(pcf)OthersMATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS SAMPLES USCS Symbol BORING NO.: B-4 Sheet 2 of 2 Laboratory Testing Depth (ft)Sample TypeBlows/ 6 inSampleNumberWater Content(%)LOCATION:See Boring Location Map DATE:6/14/2017 PROJECT NO.:1704-CR HAMMER:140lb/30in RIG TYPE: PROJECT NAME:Mariners Square DRILL METHOD:Hollow Stem Auger OPERATOR: CLIENT:Malea Homes DRILLER:LOGGED BY:DRW GeoTek, Inc.LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING 3" AC 4" CAB ML ---Ring ---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table AL = Atterberg Limits SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test RV = R-Value Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum DensityLEGENDSample type:---SPT ---Large Bulk Lab testing:EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis 20 25 30 15 No groundwater encountered Trench backfilled with soil cuttings 10 F-m sandy SILT, brown, moist 5 BORING TERMINATED AT 5 FEET Dry Density(pcf)OthersMATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS ARTIFICIAL FILL Water Content(%)SAMPLES USCS Symbol BORING NO.: B-5 Laboratory Testing Depth (ft)Sample TypeBlows/ 6 inSampleNumberLOCATION:See Boring Location Map DATE:6/14/2017 PROJECT NO.:1704-CR HAMMER:140lb/30in RIG TYPE: PROJECT NAME:Mariners Square DRILL METHOD:Hollow Stem Auger OPERATOR: CLIENT:Malea Homes DRILLER:LOGGED BY:DRW APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 1244 Irvine Avenue Newport Beach, Orange County, California Project No.1704-CR Mariner’Square Project Project No.1704-CR Geotechnical Evaluation July 21, 2017 1244 Irvine Avenue, City of Newport Beach, California Page B-1 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING In Situ Moisture Content and Unit Weight The field moisture content was measured in the laboratory on selected samples collected during the field investigation. The field moisture content is determined as a percentage of the dry unit weight. The dry density was measured in the laboratory on selected ring samples. The results are shown on the logs of exploratory borings in Appendix A. Direct Shear Shear testing was performed in a direct shear machine of the strain-control type in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 3080. The rate of deformation was approximately 0.035 inch per minute. The sample was sheared under varying confining loads in order to determine the coulomb shear strength parameters, angle of internal friction and cohesion.One test was performed on a remolded sample. The shear test results are presented in Appendix B. Moisture-Density Relations Laboratory testing was performed on a site sample collected during the recent subsurface exploration. The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the sample tested was determined in general accordance with test method ASTM Test Procedure D 1557. The results are included herein. Boring No.Depth (ft.)Description Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Optimum Moisture Content (%) B-1 1-3.5 Sandy Silt 123.0 11.0 Expansion Index Expansion Index (EI) testing was performed on a soil sample collected from boring HA-1 between 0 and 5 feet. Testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 4829. The results indicate an EI of 0. Boring No.Depth (ft.)Description Expansion Index Classification B-1 1-3.5 Sandy Silt 10 Very Low Sulfate Content, Resistivity and Chloride Content Testing to determine the water-soluble sulfate content was performed by others in general accordance with California Test No. 417. Resistivity testing was completed by others in general accordance with California Test 643. Testing to determine the chloride content was performed by others in general accordance with California Test No. 422. The results of the testing are included herein. Boring No.Depth (ft.)pH ASTM G51 Chloride ASTM D512B (mg/kg)) Sulfate ASTM D516 (% by weight) Resistivity ASTM G187 (ohm-cm) B-1 0-3.5 8.12 240 0.0180 2,345 Date: W.O.:sample ID Client:depth Technician: in.mm. 3 3.00 76.2 150 100.0% 2 2.00 50.8 150 100.0% 1 1/2 1.50 37.5 150 100.0% 1 1.00 25.4 150 100.0% 3/4 0.742 18.85 150 100.0% 1/2 0.500 12.7 150 100.0% 3/8 0.371 9.423 150 100.0% 1/4 0.250 6.350 150 100.0% #4 0.185 4.699 150 100.0% #8 0.093 2.362 150 100.0% #10 0.0787 2.000 150 100.0% #16 0.0460 1.168 150 100.0% #20 0.0331 0.840 150 100.0% #30 0.0232 0.589 150 100.0% #40 0.0165 0.420 150 100.0% #50 0.0116 0.295 150 100.0% #60 0.0085 0.265 150 100.0% #100 0.0058 0.147 150 100.0% #200 0.0029 0.074 107.3 42.7 28.5% #270 0.0021 0.053 42.7 28.5% Pan 42.7 28.5% Total Dry Weight Gradation Analysis 7/3/2017 1704-CR Melia Homes % Passing B-4 6 Specs 150 Sieve Size Particle Diameter Wt. Retained Wt. Passing DI Ring #:Ring Dia. :Ring Ht.:1" A Weight of compacted sample & ring (gm) B Weight of ring (gm) C Net weight of sample (gm) D E F Moisture Content, % G Specific Gravity, assumed H Unit Wt. of Water @ 20 °C, (pcf) I % Saturation EXPANSION INDEX =10 782.9 16.4 62.3 48.7 FINAL MOISTUREFinal Weight of wet sample & tare % Moisture 2.70 6/30/2017 9:30 0.1570 Final 10.0 SATURATION DETERMINATION Dry Density, lb / ft3 (D/1.F)108.2 Wet Density, lb / ft3 (C*0.3016)119.0 9:25 0.1470 10 min/Dry 394.6 6/29/2017 9:15 0.1470 Initial DENSITY DETERMINATION 757.6 READINGS 363.0 DATE TIME READING Sample Description: 4.01" Project Number:1704-CR Date Tested:6/29/2017 Project Location:Mariners Square Sample Source:B-1 @ 0 - 3.5 EXPANSION INDEX TEST (ASTM D4829) Client:Melia Homes Tested/ Checked By:DA/DI Lab No Corona Seating Cycle PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2435 Loading Prior to Inundation Loading After Inundation Rebound Cycle PROJECT NO.: 1152-CR3 Date: 04/14 Chino, California CONSOLIDATION REPORT CHECKED BY: EHL Lab: DI Parcel 4 of Tract No. 18785 Plate C-1 Sample: B-2 @ 15' 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 CONSOLIDATION-PERCENT OF SAMPLE THICKNESS (%)STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT Sample Location: Date Tested: Shear Strength: =28.0 O ,C =0.00 psf Notes: B-4 @ 6 7/7/2017 DIRECT SHEAR TEST 2 - The above reflect direct shear strength at saturated conditions. 1 - The soil specimen used in the shear box was a ring sample remolded to approximately 90% relative compaction from a bulk sample collected during the field investigation. Project Name: Project Number: 3 - The tests were run at a shear rate of 0.035 in/min. Mariners Square 1704-CR 0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 4000.0 4500.0 5000.0SHEAR STRESS (psf)NORMAL STRESS (psf) MOISTURE/DENSITY RELATIONSHIP Client:Melia Homes Job No.:1704-CR Project:Mariners Square Lab No.:Corona Location:Newport BeachMaterial Type:Brown Fine Sandy Clayey Silt Material Supplier: Material Source: Sample Location:B-1 @ 0 - 3.5 Sampled By:DRW Date Sampled:0-Jan-00 Received By:DLI Date Received: Tested By:DA Date Tested:29-Jun-17Reviewed By:Date Reviewed: Test Procedure:ASTM 1557 Method:AOversized Material (%):0.0 Correction Required: yes x no MOISTURE CONTENT (%):13.89522 11.91942 9.89011 7.874865 13.89522 11.91942 9.8901099 7.874865 DRY DENSITY (pcf):115.9627 122.341 122.6062 118.4333 CORRECTED DRY DENSITY (pcf):#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0! ZERO AIR VOIDS DRY DENSITY (pcf): MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP VALUES Maximum Dry Density, pcf 123.0 @ Optimum Moisture, %11.0 Corrected Maximum Dry Density, pcf @ Optimum Moisture, % MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONGrain Size Distribution:Atterberg Limits: % Gravel (retained on No. 4)Liquid Limit, % % Sand (Passing No. 4, Retained on No. 200)Plastic Limit, % % Silt and Clay (Passing No. 200)Plasticity Index, % Classification: Unified Soils Classification:AASHTO Soils Classification: 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20DRY DENSITY, PCFMOISTURE CONTENT, % MOISTURE/DENSITY RELATIONSHIP CURVE DRY DENSITY (pcf): CORRECTED DRY DENSITY (pcf): ZERO AIR VOIDS DRY DENSITY(pcf) S.G. 2.7 S.G. 2.8 S.G. 2.6 Poly. (DRY DENSITY (pcf):) OVERSIZE CORRECTED ZERO AIR VOIDS Poly. (S.G. 2.7) Poly. (S.G. 2.8) Poly. (S.G. 2.6) Project X REPORT S170629A Corrosion Engineering Page 1 Corrosion Control – Soil, Water, Metallurgy Testing Lab Results Only Soil Testing for Mariners Home July 3, 2017 Prepared for: Anna Scott Geotek Inc 1548 North Maple Street Corona, CA 92880 ascott@geotekusa.com Project X Job #: S170629A Client Job or PO #: 1703-CR 29970 Technology Dr, Suite 105F, Murrieta, CA 92563 Tel: 213-928-7213 Fax: 951-226-1720 www.projectxcorrosion.com Project X REPORT S170629A Corrosion Engineering Page 2 Corrosion Control – Soil, Water, Metallurgy Testing Lab 29970 Technology Dr, Suite 105F, Murrieta, CA 92563 Tel: 213-928-7213 Fax: 951-226-1720 www.projectxcorrosion.com SOIL ANALYSIS LAB RESULTS Client: Geotek Inc Job Name: Mariners Home Client Job Number: 1703-CR Project X Job Number: S170629A June 29, 2017 Unk = Unknown NT = Not Tested ND = 0 = Not Detected mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil weight mg/L - milligrams per liter of liquid volume Chemical Analysis performed on 1:3 Soil-To-Water extract Please call if you have any questions. Respectfully Submitted, Eddie Hernandez, M.Sc., P.E. Sr. Corrosion Consultant NACE Corrosion Technologist #16592 Professional Engineer California No. M37102 ehernandez@projectxcorrosion.com Method ASTM G187 ASTM G187 SM 4500-E SM 4500-C SM 4500-D SM 2580-B ASTM G51 Bore# / Description Depth As-Rec'd Resistivity Min-Resistivity Nitrate Ammonia Sulfide Redox pH (ft)(Ohm-cm)(Ohm-cm)(mg/kg)(wt%)(mg/kg)(wt%)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mV) B-1 0 - 3.5 24,790 2,345 180 0.0180 240 0.0240 198 49.5 4.08 273 8.12 Sulfates ASTM D516 Chlorides ASTM D512B APPENDIX C GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES 1244 Irvine Avenue Newport Beach, Orange County, California Project No.1704-CR GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C 1244 Irvine Avenue Page C-1 Newport Beach,Orange County,California Project No.1704-CR GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES Guidelines presented herein are intended to address general construction procedures for earthwork construction. Specific situations and conditions often arise which cannot reasonably be discussed in general guidelines, when anticipated these are discussed in the text of the report. Often unanticipated conditions are encountered which may necessitate modification or changes to these guidelines. It is our hope that these will assist the contractor to more efficiently complete the project by providing a reasonable understanding of the procedures that would be expected during earthwork and the testing and observation used to evaluate those procedures. General Grading should be performed to at least the minimum requirements of governing agencies, Chapters 18 and 33 of the Uniform Building Code, CBC (2016)and the guidelines presented below. Preconstruction Meeting A preconstruction meeting should be held prior to site earthwork. Any questions the contractor has regarding our recommendations, general site conditions, apparent discrepancies between reported and actual conditions and/or differences in procedures the contractor intends to use should be brought up at that meeting. The contractor (including the main onsite representative)should review our report and these guidelines in advance of the meeting. Any comments the contractor may have regarding these guidelines should be brought up at that meeting. Grading Observation and Testing 1.Observation of the fill placement should be provided by our representative during grading. Verbal communication during the course of each day will be used to inform the contractor of test results. The contractor should receive a copy of the "Daily Field Report" indicating results of field density tests that day. If our representative does not provide the contractor with these reports, our office should be notified. 2.Testing and observation procedures are, by their nature, specific to the work or area observed and location of the tests taken, variability may occur in other locations. The contractor is responsible for the uniformity of the grading operations; our observations and test results are intended to evaluate the contractor’s overall level of efforts during grading. The contractor’s personnel are the only individuals participating in all aspect of site work. Compaction testing and observation should not be considered as relieving the contractor’s responsibility to properly compact the fill. 3.Cleanouts, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrains should be observed by our representative prior to placing any fill. It will be the contractor's responsibility to notify our representative or office when such areas are ready for observation. 4.Density tests may be made on the surface material to receive fill, as considered warranted by this firm. GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C 1244 Irvine Avenue Page C-2 Newport Beach,Orange County,California Project No.1704-CR 5.In general, density tests would be made at maximum intervals of two feet of fill height or every 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. Criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and size of the fill. More frequent testing may be performed. In any case, an adequate number of field density tests should be made to evaluate the required compaction and moisture content is generally being obtained. 6.Laboratory testing to support field test procedures will be performed, as considered warranted, based on conditions encountered (e.g. change of material sources, types, etc.) Every effort will be made to process samples in the laboratory as quickly as possible and in progress construction projects are our first priority. However, laboratory workloads may cause in delays and some soils may require a minimum of 48 to 72 hours to complete test procedures. Whenever possible, our representative(s) should be informed in advance of operational changes that might result in different source areas for materials. 7.Procedures for testing of fill slopes are as follows: a)Density tests should be taken periodically during grading on the flat surface of the fill, three to five feet horizontally from the face of the slope. b)If a method other than over building and cutting back to the compacted core is to be employed, slope compaction testing during construction should include testing the outer six inches to three feet in the slope face to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. 8.Finish grade testing of slopes and pad surfaces should be performed after construction is complete. Site Clearing 1.All vegetation, and other deleterious materials, should be removed from the site. If material is not immediately removed from the site it should be stockpiled in a designated area(s) well outside of all current work areas and delineated with flagging or other means. Site clearing should be performed in advance of any grading in a specific area. 2.Efforts should be made by the contractor to remove all organic or other deleterious material from the fill, as even the most diligent efforts may result in the incorporation of some materials. This is especially important when grading is occurring near the natural grade. All equipment operators should be aware of these efforts. Laborers may be required as root pickers. 3.Nonorganic debris or concrete may be placed in deeper fill areas provided the procedures used are observed and found acceptable by our representative. Treatment of Existing Ground 1.Following site clearing, all surficial deposits of alluvium and colluvium as well as weathered or creep effected bedrock, should be removed unless otherwise specifically indicated in the text of this report. GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C 1244 Irvine Avenue Page C-3 Newport Beach,Orange County,California Project No.1704-CR 2.In some cases, removal may be recommended to a specified depth (e.g. flat sites where partial alluvial removals may be sufficient). The contractor should not exceed these depths unless directed otherwise by our representative. 3.Groundwater existing in alluvial areas may make excavation difficult. Deeper removals than indicated in the text of the report may be necessary due to saturation during winter months. 4.Subsequent to removals, the natural ground should be processed to a depth of six inches, moistened to near optimum moisture conditions and compacted to fill standards. 5.Exploratory back hoe or dozer trenches still remaining after site removal should be excavated and filled with compacted fill if they can be located. Fill Placement 1.Unless otherwise indicated, all site soil and bedrock may be reused for compacted fill; however, some special processing or handling may be required (see text of report). 2.Material used in the compacting process should be evenly spread, moisture conditioned, processed, and compacted in thin lifts six (6) to eight (8) inches in compacted thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill should be placed and compacted on a nearly horizontal plane, unless otherwise found acceptable by our representative. 3.If the moisture content or relative density varies from that recommended by this firm, the contractor should rework the fill until it is in accordance with the following: a)Moisture content of the fill should be at or above optimum moisture. Moisture should be evenly distributed without wet and dry pockets. Pre-watering of cut or removal areas should be considered in addition to watering during fill placement, particularly in clay or dry surficial soils. The ability of the contractor to obtain the proper moisture content will control production rates. b)Each six-inch layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. In most cases, the testing method is ASTM Test Designation D 1557. 4.Rock fragments less than eight inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided: a)They are not placed in concentrated pockets; b)There is a sufficient percentage of fine-grained material to surround the rocks; c)The distribution of the rocks is observed by, and acceptable to, our representative. 5.Rocks exceeding eight (8) inches in diameter should be taken off site, broken into smaller fragments, or placed in accordance with recommendations of this firm in areas designated suitable for rock disposal. On projects where significant large quantities of oversized materials are anticipated, alternate guidelines for placement may be included. If significant oversize materials are encountered during construction, these guidelines should be requested. 6.In clay soil, dry or large chunks or blocks are common. If in excess of eight (8) inches minimum dimension, then they are considered as oversized. Sheepsfoot compactors or other suitable GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C 1244 Irvine Avenue Page C-4 Newport Beach,Orange County,California Project No.1704-CR methods should be used to break up blocks. When dry, they should be moisture conditioned to provide a uniform condition with the surrounding fill. Slope Construction 1.The contractor should obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finished slope face of fill slopes. This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment. 2.Slopes trimmed to the compacted core should be overbuilt by at least three (3) feet with compaction efforts out to the edge of the false slope. Failure to properly compact the outer edge results in trimming not exposing the compacted core and additional compaction after trimming may be necessary. 3.If fill slopes are built "at grade" using direct compaction methods, then the slope construction should be performed so that a constant gradient is maintained throughout construction. Soil should not be "spilled" over the slope face nor should slopes be "pushed out" to obtain grades. Compaction equipment should compact each lift along the immediate top of slope. Slopes should be back rolled or otherwise compacted at approximately every 4 feet vertically as the slope is built. 4.Corners and bends in slopes should have special attention during construction as these are the most difficult areas to obtain proper compaction. 5.Cut slopes should be cut to the finished surface. Excessive undercutting and smoothing of the face with fill may necessitate stabilization. UTILITY TRENCH CONSTRUCTION AND BACKFILL Utility trench excavation and backfill is the contractors responsibility. The geotechnical consultant typically provides periodic observation and testing of these operations. While efforts are made to make sufficient observations and tests to verify that the contractors’ methods and procedures are adequate to achieve proper compaction, it is typically impractical to observe all backfill procedures. As such, it is critical that the contractor use consistent backfill procedures. Compaction methods vary for trench compaction and experience indicates many methods can be successful. However, procedures that “worked” on previous projects may or may not prove effective on a given site. The contractor(s) should outline the procedures proposed, so that we may discuss them prior to construction. We will offer comments based on our knowledge of site conditions and experience. 1.Utility trench backfill in slopes, structural areas, in streets and beneath flat work or hardscape should be brought to at least optimum moisture and compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Soil should be moisture conditioned prior to placing in the trench. GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C 1244 Irvine Avenue Page C-5 Newport Beach,Orange County,California Project No.1704-CR 2.Flooding and jetting are not typically recommended or acceptable for native soils. Flooding or jetting may be used with select sand having a Sand Equivalent (SE) of 30 or higher. This is typically limited to the following uses: a)shallow (12 + inches) under slab interior trenches and, b)as bedding in pipe zone. The water should be allowed to dissipate prior to pouring slabs or completing trench compaction. 3.Care should be taken not to place soils at high moisture content within the upper three feet of the trench backfill in street areas, as overly wet soils may impact subgrade preparation. Moisture may be reduced to 2% below optimum moisture in areas to be paved within the upper three feet below sub grade. 4.Sand backfill should not be allowed in exterior trenches adjacent to and within an area extending below a 1:1 projection from the outside bottom edge of a footing, unless it is similar to the surrounding soil. 5.Trench compaction testing is generally at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Testing frequency will be based on trench depth and the contractors procedures. A probing rod would be used to assess the consistency of compaction between tested areas and untested areas. If zones are found that are considered less compact than other areas, this would be brought to the contractors attention. JOB SAFETY General Personnel safety is a primary concern on all job sites. The following summaries are safety considerations for use by all our employees on multi-employer construction sites. On ground personnel are at highest risk of injury and possible fatality on grading construction projects. The company recognizes that construction activities will vary on each site and that job site safety is the contractor's responsibility. However, it is, imperative that all personnel be safety conscious to avoid accidents and potential injury. In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of our field personnel on grading and construction projects. 1.Safety Meetings: Our field personnel are directed to attend the contractor's regularly scheduled safety meetings. 2.Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for and are to be worn by our personnel while on the job site. 3.Safety Flags: Safety flags are provided to our field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits. GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C 1244 Irvine Avenue Page C-6 Newport Beach,Orange County,California Project No.1704-CR In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not following the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office. Test Pits Location, Orientation and Clearance The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. The primary concern is the technician's safety. However, it is necessary to take sufficient tests at various locations to obtain a representative sampling of the fill. As such, efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractors authorized representatives (e.g. dump man, operator, supervisor, grade checker, etc.), and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractors authorized representative should direct excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Again, safety is the paramount concern. Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away from oncoming traffic. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil pile. This necessitates that the fill be maintained in a drivable condition. Alternatively, the contractor may opt to park a piece of equipment in front of test pits, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access. A zone of non-encroachment should be established for all test pits (see diagram below). No grading equipment should enter this zone during the test procedure. The zone should extend outward to the sides approximately 50 feet from the center of the test pit and 100 feet in the direction of traffic flow. This zone is established both for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration, which typically decreases test results. 50 ft Zone of Non-Encroachment 50 ft Zone of Non-Encroachment Traffic Direction Vehicle parked here Test Pit Spoil pile Spoil pile Test Pit SIDE VIEW PLAN VIEW TEST PIT SAFETY PLAN 10 0 ft Zone of Non-Encroachment GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C 1244 Irvine Avenue Page C-7 Newport Beach,Orange County,California Project No.1704-CR Slope Tests When taking slope tests, the technician should park their vehicle directly above or below the test location on the slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operation distance (e.g. 50 feet) away from the slope during testing. The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location. Trench Safety It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction testing is needed. Trenches for all utilities should be excavated in accordance with CAL-OSHA and any other applicable safety standards. Safe conditions will be required to enable compaction testing of the trench backfill. All utility trench excavations in excess of 5 feet deep, which a person enters, are to be shored or laid back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with OSHA standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any trench by being lowered or "riding down" on the equipment. Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation which; 1.is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back, 2.exit points or ladders are not provided, 3.displays any evidence of instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the trench, or 4.displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth. If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our company policy requires that the soil technician withdraws and notifies their supervisor. The contractors representative will then be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. All backfill not tested due to safety concerns or other reasons is subject to reprocessing and/or removal. Procedures In the event that the technician's safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the contractor's failure to comply with any of the above, the technician is directed to inform both the developer's and contractor's representatives. If the condition is not rectified, the technician is required, by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify their supervisor. The contractor’s representative will then be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. No further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill placed in the interim can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction or removal. In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety guidelines,we request that the contractor bring this to technicians attention and notify our project GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C 1244 Irvine Avenue Page C-8 Newport Beach,Orange County,California Project No.1704-CR manager or office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractors' representative and the field technician(s) is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety program and safety in general. The safety procedures outlined above should be discussed at the contractor's safety meetings. This will serve to inform and remind equipment operators of these safety procedures particularly the zone of non-encroachment. The safety procedures outlined above should be discussed at the contractor's safety meetings. This will serve to inform and remind equipment operators of these safety procedures particularly the zone of non-encroachment.