Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPA2022-0311_20221220_Geotechnical Report dated 07-17-2223 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone 949 629 2539 | Email info@Rmccarthyconsulting.com July 17, 2022 RW Selby & Company, Inc File No: 8728-00 11661 San Vicente Blvd, 5th Floor Report No: R1-8728 Los Angeles, California 90049 Attention: Steven K. Fowlkes Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Custom Home Tract 1014, Lot 7 2722 Bayshore Drive Newport Beach, California APN: 049-191-08 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the project site located at 2722 Bayshore Drive in the City of Newport Beach, California, which was performed to determine various site and regional geologic and geotechnical conditions pertinent to the construction currently proposed for the subject property. Analyses for this investigation are based upon preliminary plans for the project prepared by Cynthia Childs, Architect. The plans indicate the construction as a two-story, slab-on-grade, single-family residence. The purpose of our review and investigation was to evaluate the subsurface conditions, determine the compatibility of the proposed development with respect to the site-specific geotechnical features, and provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations and design parameters for site precise grading and planned improvements. Specific information and recommendations for site development are provided herein. The conclusions and recommendations of this report are considered preliminary due to the absence of specific foundation and grading plans, the preparation of which are partially dependent upon recommendations presented herein. Project Authorization The work performed was per your request and authorization based on our Proposal No: P1- 8728, dated May 23, 2022. July 17, 2022 File No: 8728-00 Report No: R1-8728 Page: 2 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Scope of Investigation The investigation included the following: 1. Review of collected geologic, geotechnical engineering and seismological reports and maps pertinent to the subject site. A reference list is included in Appendix A. 2. Subsurface exploration consisting of two borings advanced to depths of 9.5 and 16.5 feet. The boring locations are shown on the Geotechnical Plot Plan, Figure 1. 3. Logging and sampling of the exploratory borings, including collection of soil samples for laboratory testing. The logs of the explorations are included in Appendix B. 4. Laboratory testing of soil samples representative of subsurface conditions. The results are presented in Appendix C. 5. Geotechnical engineering and geologic analyses of collected data, including shallow liquefaction and seismic settlement analyses. 6. Preparation of this report containing our geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction in accordance with the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) and for use by your design professionals and contractors. Site Description The subject property is located on the east side of Bay Shore Drive along the Lower Newport Bay Channel as shown on the Location Map, Figure 2. The lot is bordered on the north and south by similar residential properties. Bay Shore Drive fronts the house on the west side. The lot includes a sea wall and a boat dock which extends easterly into the channel. The Topographic Survey prepared by RdM Surveying Inc. (Reference 1) was used as a base map for our Geotechnical Plot Plan, Figure 1. Based on the architectural plans, the lot area is approximately 4,003 square feet. Exterior elevations vary from approximately 8.6 to 12.5 feet (NAVD88). The entry into the partial subterranean room is indicated at elevation 7.26 on the plan. The adjoining properties on the east and west are essentially level with the subject site with localized areas varying within approximately one foot. The site presently contains a two-story residence with an attached garage. There is also a partial subterranean storage room below the east side of the house. Yard areas are landscaped with planter areas along the sidewalks, patios and decks. The back deck, the front driveway apron and entry sidewalk are paved with frosted red brick. The north side yard walk is concrete with brick joints. Vegetation includes shrubs, espaliered vines and shrubs, hedges and flower- bed plants. There is one tree in the southeast back yard planter. The exterior improvements, including the hardscape, appear to be in generally good repair. Minor cracks and separations were observed; however, there were no damages noted that would suggest significant soil movement or differential settlement. July 17, 2022 File No: 8728-00 Report No: R1-8728 Page: 3 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Proposed Development Preliminary plans indicate that the proposed development will consist of the demolition of the existing structure to build a new, slab-on-grade, two-story residence. The new structure will be approximately 3,920 square feet including the attached garage. Grading is expected to consist of reprocessing surface soils following removal of existing foundation elements, unsuitable soil, weathered soil, planter soils and materials disturbed by demolition. Overexcavation and replacement of soil as densified engineered fill will be required to provide uniform conditions below the structure and for seismic considerations. The existing seawall may be reinforced as part of the planned construction. The seawall reinforcement may require new deadman anchors and/or caisson support. Structural loads were not provided. We anticipate wood-frame and light steel construction that is typical of the area and relatively light construction loads. We assume that maximum column loads will be less than 25 kips and wall loads of 2 kip/foot. Our office should be notified when the structural design loads are available to check preliminary assumptions. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS Geologic Setting The property is situated within the southeasterly edge of the Los Angeles Basin on the edge of Newport Bay. This area is generally underlain by recent marine deposits consisting predominantly of silty sands, sands and occasional silt/clay layers. The regional geology is shown on Figure 3. The Pacific Ocean is about 4,100 feet southwest of the site. Historical topographic maps and accounts indicate that the area was formerly a low-lying, intertidal area along the natural bay. The site is thought to be resting on a regionally extensive, relatively flat bench scoured by wave activity into bedrock. The bedrock lies below successive layers of beach, bay and alluvial deposits. Earth Materials The site surface exposed shallow fill soils (Af) and Marine deposits (Qm). Subsurface materials generally consisted of an upper zone of tan-brown sand underlain by interbedded gray to blue- gray fine to coarse sands, silty sands, clayey sands, silty clay and silt. Mollusk shells were common in some horizons. These deposits were generally loose to very dense in the sands and soft to firm in the silt layers based on the SPT blow counts. Interbedded silt and sand layers were encountered at depths of 7 to 9 feet in the exploratory borings. The materials encountered in the explorations were very moist or saturated below the water table at depths of 7 to 8 feet. Laboratory test results and visual observations indicate that the on-site sands within the upper several feet are non-plastic and non-expansive. Geologic Hazard The potential geologic hazards at the site are primarily from liquefaction, flooding and shaking due to movement of nearby or distant faults during earthquake events. These are discussed in greater detail below. July 17, 2022 File No: 8728-00 Report No: R1-8728 Page: 4 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Groundwater Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 7 to 8 feet (approximate elevation +3.5 to +4.5 feet) in the exploratory borings. On-site groundwater conditions may additionally be affected by tidal conditions and fluctuate daily in conjunction with the ingoing and outgoing tides. Water Infiltration From a geotechnical standpoint, on-site water infiltration above the usual tidal water elevations is allowable. Setback from the foundations is recommended for large volume runoff. Simple trench drains and permeable pavement surfaces may be allowable without setback with appropriate agency and geotechnical review and approvals. Proposed water infiltration features should be reviewed and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant. Surficial Run-off Proposed development should incorporate engineering and landscape drainage designed to transmit surface and subsurface flow to the street and/or storm drain system via non-erosive pathways. Faulting/Seismic Considerations The major concern relating to geologic faults is ground shaking that affects many properties over a wide area. Direct hazards from faulting are essentially due to surface rupture along fault lines that could occur during an earthquake. Therefore, geologists have mapped fault locations and established criteria for determining the risks of potential surface rupture based on the likelihood of renewed movement on faults that could be located under a site. Based on criteria established by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), now referred to as the California Geological Survey (CGS), faults are generally categorized as active, potentially active or inactive (Jennings, 1994). The basic principle of faulting concern is that existing faults could move again, and that faults which have moved more recently are the most likely faults to move again and affect us. As such, faults have been divided into categories based on their age of last movement. Although the likelihood of an earthquake or movement to occur on a given fault significantly decreases with inactivity over geologic time, the potential for such events to occur on any fault cannot be eliminated within the current level of understanding. By definition, faults with no evidence of surface displacement within the last 1.6 million years are considered inactive and generally pose no concern for earthquakes due renewed movement. Potentially-active faults are those with the surface displacement within the last 1.6 million years. Further refinement of potentially active faults are sometimes described based on the age of the last known movement such as late Quaternary (last 700,000 years) implying a greater potential for renewed movement. In fact, most potentially active faults have little likelihood of moving within the time frame of construction life, but the degree of understanding of fault age and activity is sometimes not well understood due to absence of geologic data or surface information, so geologists have acknowledged this doubt by using the term "potentially July 17, 2022 File No: 8728-00 Report No: R1-8728 Page: 5 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 active." A few faults that were once thought to be potentially active, have later been found to be active based on new findings and mapping. Active faults are those with a surface displacement within the last 11,000 years and, therefore, most likely to move again. The State of California has, additionally, mapped known areas of active faulting as designated Alquist- Priolo (A-P) "Special Studies Zones,” which requires special investigations for fault rupture to limit construction over active faults. Based on our review of various published and unpublished reports, maps and documents, the site is located approximately 1.25 kilometers northeast of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone (Figure 4). This fault consists of a series of parallel and en echelon, northwest-trending faults and folds extending from the southern edge of the Santa Monica Mountains to Huntington Beach and then offshore along Newport Beach. This fault zone has historically experienced moderate to high seismic activity. No active or potentially active faults are known to project through the site. In addition, the Newport-Inglewood Fault is not sufficiently well-defined in the area of the subject site to be placed within the boundaries of an “earthquake fault zone,” as defined by the State of California in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. A potential seismic source near the site is the San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust Fault (SJHBT), which is approximately 2 to 8 kilometers beneath the site at its closest point, based on the reported fault structure. The SJHBT is a postulated fault that is suspected to be responsible for uplift of the San Joaquin Hills. This fault is a blind thrust fault that does not intercept the ground surface and, therefore, presents no known potential for ground rupture at the property. The potential for surface rupture at the site is considered to be low and the property is not located within a special study zone for fault rupture. The site will experience shaking during earthquake events on nearby or distant faults. Site improvements should take into consideration the seismic design parameters outlined herein. Site Classification for Seismic Design Seismic design parameters are provided in a later section of this report and in Appendix F for use by the Structural Engineer. The soil underlying the subject site has been classified in accordance with Chapter 21 of ASCE 7, per Section 1613 of the 2019 CBC. The results of our on-site field investigation, as well as nearby investigations by us and others, indicate that the site is generally underlain by Class D loose to medium dense Marine sand deposits with layers of silt and clay at depths below 7 feet. Based on the on-site test results and the proposed compacted fill soil, we recommend using a characterization of this property as a Class D (Default), “Stiff Soil,” Site Classification. Secondary Seismic Hazards Review of the Seismic Hazard Zones Map (CDMG, 1998) for the Newport Beach Quadrangle, (1997/1998), Figures 5 and 6, and the City of Newport Beach Seismic Safety Element (2008) indicates the site is located within a zone of required investigation for earthquake-induced liquefaction. July 17, 2022 File No: 8728-00 Report No: R1-8728 Page: 6 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Liquefaction Considerations The area along Newport Harbor and its channels is in a Zone of Required Investigation for liquefaction on the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Newport Beach Quadrangle. Requirements for investigation are included in several documents including the City of Newport Beach Building Code Policy (Revised 7/3/2014), the CBC Section 1803.5, and the Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which the strength of a soil is reduced by earthquake shaking or other rapid loading. Liquefaction occurs in saturated soils, that is, soils in which the void space between individual sand particles is completely filled with water. This water exerts a pressure on the soil particles that influences how tightly the particles themselves are pressed together. Prior to an earthquake, the water pressure is relatively low. However, earthquake shaking can cause the water pressure to increase to the point where the soil particles can readily move with respect to each other. Liquefaction generally occurs in sandy, granular soils. When liquefaction occurs, the strength of the soil decreases and, the ability of a soil deposit to support foundations for buildings is reduced. The factors known to promote liquefaction potential include high groundwater level, degree of saturation, relative density, grain size, soil type, depth below the surface, and the magnitude and distance to the causative fault or seismic source. The subject site is in an area with potential for liquefaction (Morton and others, 1976; Toppozada and others, 1988). In order to address liquefaction potential, soil borings were drilled to a maximum depth of 16.5 feet below the site. The deeper boring included SPT testing at intervals of 2 feet. In addition, liquefaction analyses were performed to evaluate seismically-induced settlement. The results of our analyses are included in Appendix E. Based on the results of our analysis, some of the soil layers below the site, in the locations tested, to depths of about 10 feet, have safety factors of less than 1.0, assuming groundwater is present to those levels at the time of a design magnitude earthquake. This indicates risk of liquefaction during a seismic event strong enough to induce liquefaction. Layers exhibiting safety factors of 1.3 and less based on Boulanger and Idriss (2010-16) were evaluated for potential seismic settlement. Seismically-induced settlements were estimated by the procedures developed by Boulanger and Idriss (2010-16) and Tokimatsu and Seed (1987). Additionally, seismically- induced settlements were estimated by the procedures developed by Pradel (1998) for dry sand within materials above the assumed water table elevation. The GeoAdvanced GeoSuite Software Version 3.1.0.1, developed by Fred Yi, was utilized for the analyses (Appendix E). The resultant potential total seismic settlement within the upper 10 feet of soil was determined to be less than 1-inch within Boring B-1. Additional seismic settlement on the order of 3-inches should be assumed for depths between 10 and 50 feet during a design earthquake event. It is our opinion that this settlement potential may be mitigated by the recommended remedial grading and foundation system for support of the proposed structure. Lateral Impacts of Liquefaction Lateral spread is a hazard that sometimes occurs when there is sloping ground and weak lateral restraint for soil undergoing liquefaction. Spread of soil into the bay would primarily affect areas July 17, 2022 File No: 8728-00 Report No: R1-8728 Page: 7 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 outside of the development limits since these areas are partially submerged with tidal fluctuations. Lateral impacts of liquefaction at the subject site such as lateral spreading and lateral loads on the new house foundations are expected to be negligible due to the presence of the existing seawall along the back yard to confine the soil. As such, the house foundations are not expected to be impacted by the potential for seismically induced lateral spread due to the seawall and setback of the structure from the bay. The risk of lateral spread is therefore considered to be low. Flooding Seismically-induced flooding normally includes flooding from inland waters, which is not likely, and tsunami run-up from seismic wave energy. No specific tsunami analysis has been undertaken in this investigation. However, the “Evaluation of Tsunami Risk to Southern California Coastal Cities” (EERI, 2003) provides discussion of the impacts of locally seismic and/or landslide generated tsunamis. The typical maximum run-up heights were estimated from 1 to 2 meters in the Newport Beach area. Because of unknown bathymetry on wave field interactions and irregular coastal configurations, actual maximum run-up heights could range from 2 to 4 meters, or more. The City of Newport Beach, in their Seismic Safety Element, describe Newport Beach as somewhat protected from most distantly generated tsunamis by the Channel Islands and Point Arguello, except for those generated in the Aleutian Islands, those off the coast of Chile, and possibly off the coast of Central America. The publication also states that there may generally be adequate warning given within the time frames from such distant events. The warnings would be intended to allow for public safety but would not necessarily protect property improvements. Other Secondary Seismic Hazards Other secondary seismic hazards to the site include deep rupture and shallow ground cracking. With the absence of active faulting on-site, the potential for deep fault rupture is low. The potential for shallow ground cracking to occur during an earthquake is a possibility at any site, but does not pose a significant hazard to site development. CONCLUSIONS 1. Proposed development is considered feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided the recommendations of this report are followed during design, construction, and maintenance of the subject property. Proposed development should not adversely affect, or be adversely affected by, adjacent properties, providing appropriate engineering design, construction methods and care are utilized during construction. 2. Within the areas explored, artificial fill and marine deposits were encountered. On-site materials within the upper 16.5 feet generally consisted of sands, silts, clay and silty sands. 3. Seismically-induced liquefaction has not historically been observed in the vicinity of the site; however, the liquefaction of soils in the general area is considered to be a possibility due to the presence of groundwater, underlying soil conditions and proximity of nearby earthquake faults. July 17, 2022 File No: 8728-00 Report No: R1-8728 Page: 8 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 4. Our calculations indicate that potential settlement due to both liquefaction and consolidation of dry sand layers caused by a large seismic event is less than 1-inch for the upper zone that includes 10 feet below proposed foundations. Additional settlement is also possible at greater depths. Foundation and slab design recommendations are provided in consideration of the seismic settlement potential. 5. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 7 to 8 feet below existing site grades and is not expected to be a significant factor during construction for the planned house. Groundwater may impact deeper foundation elements, including deadman anchors or caissons, if constructed to augment support of the seawall. 6. The near surface materials that were encountered were determined to have a very low expansion potential. 7. The existing near surface soils may be disturbed by excavation and/or demolition. Removal, scarification and recompaction to provide a uniform compacted fill cap within the upper 3-feet is recommended. Cement-treatment of fill soils may be considered for additional excavation and stability considerations. 8. Seawall rehabilitation, if necessary, should be designed by the structural engineer in consideration of the recommendations herein. 9. Grading and construction methods will need to consider lateral and subjacent support of adjacent structures and property improvements. 10. Although the probability of fault rupture across the property is low, ground shaking may be strong during a major earthquake. 11. Tsunami potential for this site is considered moderate; although historically such effects have been subdued in southern California due to topographic protection from distant seismic events and the rarity of significant offshore earthquakes. 12. Adverse surface discharge onto or off the site is not anticipated provided proper civil engineering design and post-construction site grading are implemented. 13. The proposed structure should be supported by a mat slab foundation supported entirely within approved, recompacted fill materials. RECOMMENDATIONS Site Preparation and Grading 1. General Site grading should be performed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach, the recommendations of this report, and the Standard Grading Guidelines of Appendix D. All excavations should be supervised and approved in writing by a representative of this firm. July 17, 2022 File No: 8728-00 Report No: R1-8728 Page: 9 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 2. Demolition and Clearing Deleterious materials, including those from the demolition of the existing concrete, vegetation, organic matter and trash, should be removed and disposed of off-site. Subsurface elements of demolished structures should be completely removed, including any trench backfills, abandoned foundations, cisterns, utility lines, etc. 3. Subgrade Preparation Excavations should be made to remove any soils disturbed by demolition, unsuitable fill and surficial materials where encountered within the planned building areas. A minimum removal depth of 3 feet is recommended in order to re-compact the existing upper sand deposits and provide uniform bearing conditions below foundation and slab areas. Removals should be followed by 6-inches of scarification and re-compaction. These remedial excavations should be made within the planned building footprint and the influence zone of footings. Excavations to remove the partial basement are anticipated to extend to approximately elevation +6 to +7 feet. Deeper excavations may be necessary to remove unsuitable materials, if encountered. Cement-treatment of the soil is recommended to stabilize and strengthen the compacted fill and to stabilize looser excavation bottom materials. Existing walls and retaining walls may be suitable locally for excavation support; however, structures must be supported laterally during grading operations. Although not anticipated at this time, lateral support may sometimes be achieved by the use of bracing, slot cutting, or trenching where wall footings are shallow relative to excavation depths. Dewatering is not expected to be necessary at planned removal depths but this may be somewhat dependent on tide levels and depths of foundations. Excavations should be replaced with compacted engineered fill. The horizontal limits of overexcavation should be outlined by the Geotechnical Engineer based on grading and foundation plans when these are available for review; however, the overexcavation for the remedial grading of the structural building pad need not extend beyond the planned building footprint. Removals below significant hardscape improvements such as driveway aprons, patios, and sidewalks should be sufficient to provide a 1.5-feet-thick compacted fill zone. Removal depths of 18-inches are expected to be adequate in exterior areas; however, boundary conditions for removals under exterior improvements may be better addressed subsequent to demolition when equipment can expose the site materials for evaluation and when improvement limits are identified on the plan. Light track propelled mini-loader type equipment should be used for the grading. Rubber tire equipment shall not be used until a stable subgrade is achieved. July 17, 2022 File No: 8728-00 Report No: R1-8728 Page: 10 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 The depths of overexcavation should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineer or Geologist during the actual construction. Any surface or subsurface obstructions, or questionable material encountered during grading, should be brought immediately to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer for recommendations. 4. Fill Soils The on-site soils are anticipated to be suitable for use as compacted fill; however, cement-treatment using Portland Cement is recommended within the graded building pad to provide additional soil strength, aid in the foundation construction and reduce collapse potential of vertical footing cuts. Fill soils should be free of debris, organic matter, cobbles and concrete fragments greater than 6-inches in diameter. Soils imported to the site for use as fill below foundation and slab areas should be predominantly granular, non-expansive, non-plastic and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to importing. 5. Shrinkage Shrinkage losses are expected to be about 5 percent overall. This does not include clearing losses from demolition that could result in volume reductions for available fill soils. 6. Expansive Soils Expansion potential should be evaluated during grading to determine the expansion potential of the processed fill materials. On-site surface soils encountered during our investigation were determined to be non-plastic, non-expansive sands. 7. Compaction Standard The on-site soils are anticipated to be generally suitable for use as compacted fill. Highly organic and oversize materials must be removed, if encountered, prior to compaction. Fill materials should be placed at above optimum moisture content and compacted under the observation and testing of the Soil Engineer. The recommended minimum density for compacted material is 90 percent of the maximum density as determined by ASTM D1557. 8. Temporary Construction Slopes Temporary slopes exposing on-site materials should be cut in accordance with Cal/OSHA Regulations. It is anticipated that the exposed on-site earth materials may be classified as Type C soil, and temporary cuts of 1:1 (horizontal: vertical) or flatter may be appropriate to heights of 5-feet or less; however, the material exposed in temporary excavations should be evaluated by the Contractor during construction. Dry or running sands, or saturated sands, may require flatter laybacks. Temporary construction slopes should not be left exposed overnight unless approved in writing by the Geotechnical Consultant. The cement-treated fill soils may be cut vertical to a maximum height of 3 July 17, 2022 File No: 8728-00 Report No: R1-8728 Page: 11 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 feet. Subsequent excavations below the compacted, cement-treated fill zone my be subject to caving. Excavations should proceed in a manner so as not to remove lateral or bearing support of adjacent properties or structures. Along property lines, cuts of 1:1 or flatter are typically prudent and are required by the City of Newport Beach. Care will be needed along the property lines. The soils exposed in the excavation cuts should be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant during excavation. The safety and stability of temporary construction slopes and cuts is deferred to the General Contractor, who should implement the safety practices as defined in Section 1541, Subchapter 4, of Cal/OSHA T8 Regulations (2006). The Geotechnical Consultant makes no warranties as to the stability of temporary cuts. Soil conditions may vary locally and the Contractor(s) should be prepared to remedy local instability if necessary. Contract documents should be written in a manner that places the Contractor in the position of responsibility for the stability of all temporary excavations. Stability of excavations is also time dependent. If unsupported property line cuts are made, the Contractor should monitor the performance of adjacent structures and improvements during construction. If movement or distress is noted, appropriate remedial measures should be immediately implemented. 9. Adjacent Property Assessments and Monitoring The following measures may be considered in order to reduce the potential risks of damage, and perceived damage, to adjoining improvements: • Visual inspections and walk-throughs of each of the adjacent properties should be arranged in order to document pre-existing conditions and damages. • Measurements of all existing damages observed, including crack lengths, widths and precise locations should be made. • Photographs should be taken to accompany written notes that refer to damages or even lack of damages. Video may also be considered; however, videos that attempt to show these types of damages are often lacking in detail. • Floor level surveys of nearby structures may be considered especially if pre- existing damage is evident. • Vibrations from construction equipment may be monitored with portable seismographs during excavation. • Surveys to monitor lateral and vertical position of adjacent improvements and shoring elements is recommended. • It is recommended that the Project Geologist be on-site during excavation in order to evaluate conditions as the project advances. • Please note that these activities require coordination with your contractor and some activities may not be part of our normal scope of work unless requested. Construction activities, particularly excavation equipment, produce vibrations that can be felt by occupants of adjoining properties. People will often be annoyed by the noise and vibration caused by construction activities, which prompts them to personally perform July 17, 2022 File No: 8728-00 Report No: R1-8728 Page: 12 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 detailed inspections of their property for damage. Pre-existing damage, that previously went unnoticed, can be unfairly attributed to current construction activities, particularly when pre-construction property inspections are not performed. At that point, it may be difficult to determine what caused the damage, especially damages such as wall separations, cracks in drywall, stucco and masonry. Other common problems that may be scrutinized can include uneven doors, sticking windows, tile cracks, leaning patio posts, fences, gates, etc. Implementation of measures such as those listed above can help avoid conflicts by monitoring construction activities that may be problematic as well as provide valuable data to defend against unwarranted claims. Foundation Design 1. General It is anticipated that foundation elements for the planned structure will bear in re- compacted fill and will utilize a mat slab foundation. The near surface materials are expected to exhibit a very low expansion potential. The following recommendations are based on the geotechnical data available and are subject to revision based on conditions actually encountered in the field. Foundations and slabs should be designed for the intended use and loading by the structural engineer. Our recommendations are considered to be generally consistent with the standards of practice. They are based on both analytical methods and empirical methods derived from experience with similar geotechnical conditions. These recommendations are considered the minimum necessary for the likely soil conditions and are not intended to supersede the design of the Structural Engineer or criteria of governing agencies. 2. Bearing Capacity for Foundations A mat slab may be utilized to support the proposed structure. The purpose of the mat slab system is to help mitigate potential earthquake effects, static and seismic settlement and to provide an appropriate foundation in the local marine environment. The allowable bearing capacity for a mat slab type system founded in re-compacted fill should not exceed 1,500 pounds per square foot. This value may be increased by one- third for short-term wind or seismic loading; however, there is no increase in bearing value with depth. A minimum slab thickness of 14-inches is recommended. A continuous perimeter thickened edge to a minimum depth of 24-inches is recommended for the house and garage slabs. For design of a mat foundation system, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 pounds per cubic inch may be considered. The subgrade is expected to consist of sand. Actual thickness, depths and widths of the foundation and slab system should be governed by CBC requirements and the structural engineering design. July 17, 2022 File No: 8728-00 Report No: R1-8728 Page: 13 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 3. Settlement Static Static settlement is anticipated to be on the order of 0.5-inch total and 0.25-inch differential between adjacent similarly loaded columns (approximately 30 feet assumed horizontal distance), provided that the recommended site grading is implemented first and that the bearing capacity values given above are not exceeded. These estimates should be confirmed when structural engineering plans are prepared and foundation load conditions are determined. Dynamic Potential liquefaction-induced settlement based on current estimates of peak ground accelerations during an earthquake was calculated to be approximately 0.48-inch total within the upper 10 feet (see Appendix E). Additional seismic settlement on the order of 3-inches is possible below that depth. The underlying stratigraphy is expected to be fairly uniform below the planned development area; therefore, differential seismic settlement can be estimated as approximately one-half of the total estimated settlement, or approximately 1.74-inches across a span of about 30 feet (Martin and Lew, 1999). Seismically-induced settlements were estimated by using the procedure of Boulanger and Idriss (2010-16) and Tokimatsu and Seed (1987). These methods are based on empirical data from past seismic events that have been studied and are, therefore, approximate. 4. Lateral Resistance Lateral loads may be resisted by passive pressure forces developed in front of the slab/foundation system and by friction acting at the base of the mat slab. Allowable lateral resistance should not exceed 175 pounds per square foot per foot of depth equivalent fluid pressure. Resistance to sliding can be calculated using a coefficient of friction of 0.35. These values may be used in combination per 2019 CBC, Section 1806.3.1. 5. Footing Reinforcement Two No. 5 bars should be placed at the top and two at the bottom of continuous footings in order to resist potential movement due to various factors such as subsurface imperfections and seismic shaking. Dowelled connections between the slab and footings should be provided and should consist of No. 4 bars at 24-inches on center maximum spacing. Quantity and placement of reinforcing steel should be determined by the structural engineer. Seismic Design Based on the geotechnical data and site parameters, the following table is provided based on ASCE/SEI 7-16 using the ASCE Hazard Tool to satisfy the 2019 CBC design criteria. A site- specific Ground-Motion Hazard Analysis (GMHA) was not performed for the site. July 17, 2022 File No: 8728-00 Report No: R1-8728 Page: 14 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Site and Seismic Design Criteria For 2019 CBC Design Parameters Recommended Values Site Class D (Default)* (Stiff Soil) Site Longitude (degrees) -117.907497 W Site Latitude (degrees) 33.613635 N Ss (g) 1.383 S1 (g) 0.492 SMs (g) 1.659 SM1 (g) 0.890 SDs (g) 1.106 SD1 (g) 0.593 Fa 1.2 Fv 1.808 Seismic Design Category D *Per ASCE 7-16, Section 11.4.8, the above values may be used provided the value of the seismic response coefficient Cs is determined by Eq. (12.8-2) for values of T ≤ 1.5Ts and taken as equal to 1.5 times the value computed in accordance with either Eq. (12.8-3) for TL ≥ T > 1.5Ts or Eq. (12.8-4) for T > TL. This is due to the value of S1 greater than or equal to 0.2 g for this site. The values above are generally applicable for typical residential structures. The Structural Engineer should verify that Section 11.4.8 is satisfied per the above. A Site-Specific Ground Motion Hazard Analysis (GMHA) may be beneficial for this project as part of the structural design. A Site-Specific GMHA can be performed at an additional cost if requested. Supporting documentation is also included in a previous section of this report, Site Classification for Seismic Design, and in Appendix F. Slab-On-Grade Construction Slabs should be designed in accordance with the 2019 CBC and the requirements of the City of Newport Beach. On-site near-surface materials were determined to be non-plastic. Concrete floor slabs should be at least 14-inches thick (actual). Slab design and reinforcement should be determined by the Structural Engineer; however, the minimum slab reinforcement should consist of No. 4 bars at 12-inches on-center in each direction placed at the top and bottom of July 17, 2022 File No: 8728-00 Report No: R1-8728 Page: 15 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 the slab (or approved equivalent). These recommendations assume that the subsurface soils have first been densified as recommended above. Slabs should be underlain by 4-inches of open-graded gravel. Slab underlayment is deferred to the Project Architect; however, in accordance with the American Concrete Institute, we suggest that slabs be underlain by a 15-mil thick vapor retarder/barrier (Stego Wrap or equivalent) placed over a layer of woven geofabric (such as Mirafi 140N) over the gravel in accordance with the requirements of ASTM E1745 and E1643. Slab subgrade soils should be well moistened prior to placement of the vapor retarder. All subgrade materials should be geotechnically approved prior to placing the gravel for the slab underlayment. The above recommendations are provided for vapor transmission considerations but do not provide for waterproofing of the slab in the local marine environment. If flooding or tidal intrusion are a concern in the event of deepened slab areas, additional underlayment measures may be appropriate and should be addressed by the Civil Engineer and/or Project Architect. Exterior flatwork elements should be a minimum 4-inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 3 bars 18-inches on center both ways. Subgrade soils should be well moistened prior to placing concrete. Structural Design of Retaining Walls 1. Lateral Loads No new retaining walls are currently planned at the site. Active pressure forces acting on backfilled retaining walls which support level ground may be computed based on an equivalent fluid pressure of 40 pounds per cubic foot. Restrained retaining walls should add an additional 6H pounds per cubic foot for at-rest loading, where H is the retained height of the soil. Other topographic and structural surcharges should be addressed by the Structural Engineer. Minor wall rotations should be anticipated for walls that are free to rotate at the top and considered in design of walls and adjacent improvements. 2. Earthquake Loads on Retaining Walls The Structural Engineer should determine if there are retaining walls at the site within their purview that will be subject to design lateral loads due to earthquake events. Section 1803.5.12 of the 2019 CBC states that the geotechnical investigation shall include the determination of dynamic seismic lateral earth pressures on foundation walls and retaining walls supporting more than 6 feet (1.83 m) of backfill height due to design earthquake ground motions. No new walls are planned and, therefore, the site development is not subject to the design requirements of Section 1803.5.12. A seismic load of 30 pounds per cubic foot (inverted triangle) may be assumed for the existing sea wall. July 17, 2022 File No: 8728-00 Report No: R1-8728 Page: 16 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 3. Foundation Bearing Values for Walls Footings for retaining walls may be designed in accordance with the recommendations provided above for building foundations and should be embedded in compacted fill at a minimum depth of 18-inches below the lowest adjacent grade. 4. Wall Backfill The on-site soils are suitable for use as retaining wall backfill. Imported backfill, if needed, should consist of select, non-expansive soil or gravel. Gravel may consist of pea gravel or crushed rock. Where space for compaction equipment is adequate, on-site or imported granular, non-expansive sand materials may be compacted into place in thin lifts per the compaction requirements provided herein. Imported pea gravel or crushed rock should be placed in lifts and tamped or vibrated into place. The lift thickness for gravel is dependent on the type of material and method of compaction. Gravel lifts of 18- to 24-inches or less are recommended. The Geotechnical Engineer should observe the backfill placement of soil or gravel behind each wall following approval of wall backdrains. Gravel wall backfill material should be covered with a suitable filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N and capped with on-site soil or concrete. Fill soils should be free of debris, organic matter, cobbles and rock fragments greater than 6-inches in diameter. Fill materials should be placed in 6- to 8-inch maximum lifts at above optimum moisture content and compacted under the observation and testing of the Soil Engineer. The recommended minimum density for compacted material is 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557-12. Field density tests should be performed at intervals of 2 vertical feet or less within the backfill zone and in accordance with agency requirements at the time of grading. 5. Subdrains An approved exterior foundation subdrain system should be used to achieve control of seepage forces behind retaining walls. The details of such subdrain systems are deferred to the Wall Designer, Builder or Waterproofing Consultant. The subdrain is not a substitute for waterproofing. Water in subdrain systems should be collected and delivered to suitable disposal locations or facilities. Additional recommendations may be provided when plans are available. 6. Dampproofing and Waterproofing Waterproofing in consideration of the local marine environment should be installed in accordance with the architectural specifications or those of a Waterproofing Consultant. The criteria in Section 1805 of the 2019 CBC should be followed as a minimum. July 17, 2022 File No: 8728-00 Report No: R1-8728 Page: 17 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Seawall The following preliminary values may be used in the design if seawall rehabilitation is planned: 1. Active soils pressure above ground water level = 40 pcf 2. Active soils pressure below ground water level = 85 pcf 3. Active soils pressure submerged = 22 pcf 4. Passive soils pressure submerged = 175 pcf (FS=1.5 included) 5. Passive soils pressure wet = 220 pcf (FS=1.5 included) 6. Soil seismic earth pressure = 30 pcf 7. Friction coefficient = 0.35 8. Phi angle = 30 deg Seawall structural plans should be provided to us for review prior to construction. Hardscape Design and Construction Hardscape improvements may utilize conventional foundations in compacted fill. Such improvements should be designed in accordance with the foundation recommendations presented above. Cracking and offsets at joints are possible; however, occurrence may be minimized by appropriate drainage and the use of thickened edge beams to limit moisture transfer below slabs. Concrete flatwork should be divided into as nearly square panels as possible. Joints should be provided at maximum 8-feet intervals to give articulation to the concrete panels (shorter spacing is recommended if needed to square the panels). Landscaping and planters adjacent to concrete flatwork should be designed in such a manner as to direct drainage away from concrete areas to approved outlets. Planters located adjacent to principle foundation elements should be sealed and drained; this is especially important if they are near retaining wall backfills. Exterior flatwork elements should be a minimum 4-inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 3 bars 18-inches on center both ways. Subgrade soils should be well moistened prior to placing concrete. Concrete Construction Components in Contact with Soil Testing of the on-site sandy soils resulted in a low soluble sulfate content. Various components within the concrete may be subject to corrosion over time when exposed to soluble sulfates and chemical attack. To help mitigate corrosion, sulfate resistant cement should be used in concrete that may be in contact with on-site soils or ground source water. Attention to maximum water-cement ratio and the minimum compressive strength may also help mitigate deterioration of concrete components. The sulfate testing is presented in the attached Appendix C, Laboratory Test Results. July 17, 2022 File No: 8728-00 Report No: R1-8728 Page: 18 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Type V cement or an appropriate alternate is, therefore, recommended with a maximum water-cement ratio of 0.45 percent. The minimum concrete compressive strength should be at least 4,500 pounds per square inch. It is recommended that a concrete expert be retained to design an appropriate concrete mix to address the structural requirements. In lieu of retaining a concrete expert, it is recommended that the 2019 CBC, Section 1904 and 1905, be utilized which refers to ACI 318. Testing should be performed during grading when fill materials are identified to confirm the sulfate concentration. Metal Construction Components in Contact with Soil Metal rebar encased in concrete, iron pipes, copper pipes, lift shafts, air conditioner units, etc., that are in contact with soil or water that permeates the soil should be protected from corrosion that may result from salts contained in the soil and groundwater. Recommendations to mitigate damage due to corrosive soils, if needed, should be provided by a qualified corrosion specialist. The results of chemical tests are included in Appendix C. Finished Grade and Surface Drainage Finished grades should be designed and constructed so that no water ponds in the vicinity of footings. Drainage design in accordance with the 2019 CBC, Section 1804.4, is recommended or per local City requirements. Roof gutters should be provided and outflow directed away from the house in a non-erosive manner as specified by the Project Civil Engineer or Landscape Architect. Surface and subsurface water should be directed away from building areas. Proper interception and disposal of on-site surface discharge is presumed to be a matter of civil engineering or landscape architectural design. Infiltration It is our opinion that typical gravel trenches for periodic water infiltration into the on-site soil is acceptable from a geologic and geotechnical standpoint. The water levels are expected to be at a depth of about 7 to 8 feet (elev. +3.5 to +4.5) below grade based on our borings. The water table is ultimately tidal in nature and introduction of the infiltration water is not expected to raise the water level or create significant perched water zones due to lateral permeability. These types of infiltration will, therefore, not be expected to create any geohazards due to modification of groundwater levels. Planned infiltration design and BMP devices should be reviewed by our office prior to construction. Foundation Plan Review The undersigned should review final foundation and grading plans and specifications prior to their submission to the Building Official for issuance of permits. The review is to be performed only for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with design concepts and the information provided herein. Review shall not include evaluation of the accuracy or completeness of details, such as quantities, dimensions, weights or gauges, fabrication processes, construction means or methods, coordination of the work with other trades or construction safety precautions, all of which are the sole responsibility of the Contractor. The July 17, 2022 File No: 8728-00 Report No: R1-8728 Page: 19 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. (RMC) review shall be conducted with reasonable promptness while allowing sufficient time in our judgment to permit adequate review. Review of a specific item shall not indicate that RMC has reviewed the entire system of which the item is a component. RMC shall not be responsible for any deviation from the Contract Documents not brought to our attention in writing by the Contractor. RMC shall not be required to review partial submissions or those for which submissions of correlated items have not been received. Utility Trench Backfill Utility trench backfill should be placed in accordance with Appendix D, Standard Earthwork Guidelines. It is the Owner’s and Contractor’s responsibility to inform Subcontractors of these requirements and to notify R McCarthy Consulting when backfill placement is to begin. It has been our experience that trench backfill requirements are rigorously enforced by the City of Newport Beach. The on-site soils are anticipated to be generally suitable for use as trench backfill; however, silt materials may be difficult to mix and compact to a uniform condition. The use of imported backfill is sometimes more efficient when silt soil materials are at high moisture contents. Fill materials should be placed at near optimum moisture content and compacted under the observation and testing of the Soil Engineer. The minimum dry density required for compacted backfill material is 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. Pre-Grade Meeting A pre-job conference should be held with representative of the Owner, Contractor, Architect, Civil Engineer, Geotechnical Engineer, and Building Official prior to commencement of construction to clarify any questions relating to the intent of these recommendations or additional recommendations. OBSERVATION AND TESTING General Geotechnical observation and testing during construction is required to verify proper removal of unsuitable materials, check that foundation excavations are clean and founded in competent material, to test for proper moisture content and proper degree of compaction of fill, to test and observe placement of wall and trench backfill materials, and to confirm design assumptions. It is noted that the CBC requires continuous verification and testing during placement of fill, pile driving, and pier/caisson drilling. An RMC representative shall observe the site at intervals appropriate to the phase of construction, as notified by the Contractor, in order to observe the work completed by the Contractor. Such visits and observation are not intended to be an exhaustive check or a detailed inspection of the Contractor’s work but rather are to allow RMC as an experienced professional, to become generally familiar with the work in progress and to determine, in general, if the grading and construction is in accordance with the recommendations of this report. RMC shall not supervise, direct, or control the Contractor’s work. RMC shall have no responsibility for the construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures July 17, 2022 File No: 8728-00 Report No: R1-8728 Page: 20 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 selected by the Contractor, the Contractor’s safety precautions or programs in connection with the work. These rights and responsibilities are solely those of the Contractor. RMC shall not be responsible for any acts or omission of any entity performing any portion of the work, including the Contractor, Subcontractor, or any agents or employees of any of them. RMC does not guarantee the performance of any other parties on the project site, including the Contractor, and shall not be responsible for the Contractor’s failure to perform its work in accordance with the Contract Documents or any applicable law, codes, rules or regulations. Construction-phase observations are beyond the scope of this investigation and budget and are conducted on a time and material basis. The responsibility for timely notification of the start of construction and ongoing geotechnically-involved phases of construction is that of the Owner and his Contractor. We request at least 48 hours’ notice when such services are required. Geotechnical Observation/Testing Activities during Grading and Construction The Geotechnical Consultant should be notified to observe and test the following activities during grading and construction: • To observe proper removal of unsuitable materials; • To observe the bottom of removals for all excavations for the building pad grading, trenching, exterior site improvements, etc.; • To observe side cut excavations for grading, retaining walls, trenches, etc.; • To test for proper moisture content and proper degree of compaction of fill; • To check that foundation excavations are clean and founded in competent material; • To check the slab subgrade materials prior to placing the gravel, vapor barrier and concrete; • To check retaining wall subdrain installation; • To test and observe placement of wall backfill materials; • To test and observe placement of all trench backfill materials; • To test and observe patio, driveway apron and sidewalk subgrade materials; • To observe any other fills or backfills that may be constructed at the site. It is noted that this list should be used as a guideline. Additional observations and testing may be required per local agency, code, project, Contractor and geotechnical requirements at the time of the actual construction. LIMITATIONS This investigation has been conducted in accordance with, and limited to, generally accepted practice in the engineering geologic and soils engineering field, and in accordance with services provided by geotechnical consultants practicing in the same or similar locality under the same or similar circumstances. No further warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. Conclusions and recommendations presented are based on subsurface conditions encountered and are not meant to imply that we have control over the natural site conditions. The samples taken and used for testing, the observations made and the field testing performed are believed representative of the general July 17, 2022 File No: 8728-00 Report No: R1-8728 Page: 21 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 project area; however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between tested or observed locations. Site geotechnical conditions may change with time due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur as a result of the broadening of knowledge, new legislation, or agency requirements. The recommendations presented herein are, therefore, arbitrarily set as valid for one year from the report date. The recommendations are also specific to the current proposed development. Changes in proposed land use or development may require supplemental investigation or recommendations. Also, independent use of this report without appropriate geotechnical consultation is not approved or recommended. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Respectfully submitted, R MCCARTHY CONSULTING, INC. Robert J. McCarthy Principal Engineer, G.E. 2490 Registration Expires 3/31/24 Date Signed: 07/17/2022 Accompanying Illustrations and Appendices Figure 1 - Geotechnical Plot Plan Figure 2 - Location Map Figure 3 - Regional Geology Figure 4 - Fault Map Figure 5 - Geologic Hazard Map - Regional Figure 6 - Geologic Hazard Map – Local (City of Newport Beach) Figure 7 - Aerial Map Appendix A - References Appendix B - Field Exploration Figures B-1 through B-3 Appendix C - Laboratory Testing Figures C-1 through C-7 Appendix D - Standard Grading Guidelines Appendix E - Results of Liquefaction Analysis Figures E-1 and E-2 Data Interpretations Appendix F - Seismicity Data Af/Qm B-1 HA-1 Figure 1 - Geotechnical Plot Plan Base map source: Topographic Survey for 2722 Bayshore Drive, Newport Beach, CA, by RdM Surveying Inc., dated 6/24/2022. EXPLANATION Estimated Location of Exploratory Boring Artificial Fill/Residual Soil Marine Deposits Af Qm HA-1B-1 0 16 SCALE, FEET 32 2722 Bayshore Drive Newport Beach, CA File: 8728-00 July 2022 Af/Qm Feet Every reasonable effort has been made to assure the accuracy of the data provided, however, The City of Newport Beach and its employees and agents disclaim any and all responsibility from or relating to any results obtained in its use. Disclaimer: 0 400200 FILE NO: 8728-00 JULY 2022 FIGURE 2 - LOCATION MAP SITE: 2722 Bayshore Drive Figure 3 - Regional Geology 2722 Bayshore Drive Newport Beach, CA File: 8728-00 July 2022 0 2000 SCALE, FEET 4000 SITE2722 Bayshore Drive ó Pacific Ocean Base map source: Portion of: PRELIMINARY DIGITAL GEOLOGICAL MAP OF THE 30’ X 60’ SANTA ANA QUADRANGLE, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, VERSION 2.0 U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 99-172 Compiled by Douglas M. Morton, Kelly R. Bovard, and Rachel M. Alvarez 2004 0 2 SCALE, MILES Figure 4 - Fault Location Map 2722 Bayshore Drive Newport Beach, CA File: 8728-00 July 2022 SITE2722 Bayshore Drive 1 3 4 0 5.0 SCALE, KILOMETERS 2.5 7.5 10 5 6 ó Figure 5 - Geologic Hazards Map 2722 Bayshore Drive Newport Beach, CA File: 8728-00 July 2022 Areas where historic occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical and groundwater conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c) would be required. EXPLANATION Base map source: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Areas where previous occurrence of landslide movement, or local topographic, geological, geotechnical and subsurface water conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c) would be required. Newport Beach QuadrangleSeismic Hazard Zone Report for the Newport Beach 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Orange County, California. California Geological Survey, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 03. Liquefaction Released: April 17, 1997Landslide Released: April 15, 1998 SITE 2722 Bayshore Drive Feet Every reasonable effort has been made to assure the accuracy of the data provided, however, The City of Newport Beach and its employees and agents disclaim any and all responsibility from or relating to any results obtained in its use. Disclaimer: 0 833417 FILE NO: 8728-00 JULY 2022 FIGURE 6 - HAZARDS MAP Landslide Hazard Zone Liquefaction Hazard Zone SITE: 2722 Bayshore Drive Feet Every reasonable effort has been made to assure the accuracy of the data provided, however, The City of Newport Beach and its employees and agents disclaim any and all responsibility from or relating to any results obtained in its use. Disclaimer: 0 8040 FILE NO: 8728-00 JULY 2022 FIGURE 7 - AERIAL MAP R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92663 APPENDIX A REFERENCES APPENDIX A REFERENCES (2722 Bayshore Drive) R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 1. RdM Surveying Inc., 2022, “Topographic Survey, 2722 Bayshore Drive, Newport Beach,” Scale 1”=8’, June 24. 2. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2019, ASCE 7 Hazard Tool, https://asce7hazardtool.online/ 3. ASCE/SEI 7-16, “Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures.” 4. Barrows, A. G., 1974, “A Review of the Geology and Earthquake History of the Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone, Southern California,” California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 114. 5. Building Seismic Safety Council, 2004, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA 450), 2003 Edition, Part 2: Commentary, Washington, DC. 6. California Building Code, 2019 Edition. 7. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1989, “Earthquake Planning Scenario, Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone,” California Geology, Toppozada, T. R., Borchardt, Glenn, Bennett, J. H., and Richard, Saul, April. 8. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1998, “Seismic Hazards Zones Map, Newport Beach Quadrangle.” 9. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 2008, “Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California,” Special Publication 117A. 10. City of Newport Beach, 2014, Community Development Department, Building Division, Building Code Policy, “Liquefaction Study Mitigation Measures,” revised July 14. 11. City of Newport Beach Seismic Safety Element (2008). 12. Coast Geotechnical, Inc., 2003, “Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for New Residence At 2762 Bayshore Drive, Newport Beach, California,” W.O. 218403, April 3. 13. Coast Geotechnical, Inc., 2012, “Geotechnical Engineering Investigation of Proposed New Residence at 2782 Bayshore Drive, Newport Beach, California,” W.O. 430312- 01, January 5. 14. Cynthia Childs, Architect, 2022, “Proposed Remodel for: Fowlkes Residence, 2722 Bayshore Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660,” Scale: 1/8” = 1’-0”, July 5. 15. Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, University of California at Davis, 2010, “SPT-Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures,”, Boulanger, R. W., and Idress, I. M., December. 16. Department of the Navy, 1982, NAVFAC DM-7.1, Soil Mechanics, Design Manual 7.1, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 17. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), 2003, “Evaluation of Tsunami Risk to Southern California Coastal Cities,” Legg, Mark R., Borrero, Jose C., and Synolakis, Costas E., January. 18. EGA Consultants, 2016, “Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Pool House Located at 2772 Bayshore Drive, Newport Beach, California,” Project No. IH971.1, August 30. APPENDIX A REFERENCES (2722 Bayshore Drive) R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 19. Hart, E. W., and Bryant, W. A., 1997, “Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act: California Division of Mines and Geology,” Special Publication 42 (Interim Supplements and Revisions 1999, 2003, and 2007). 20. Jennings, Charles W., et al., 1994, “Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas,” California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map No. 6. 21. Martin, G. R. and Lew, M., 1999, “Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California,” Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), University of Southern California, 63 pages, March. 22. Morton and Miller, 1981, Geologic Map of Orange County, CDMG Bulletin 204. 23. Morton, P. K., Miller, R. V., and Evans, J. R., 1976, “Environmental Geology of Orange County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology,” Open File Report 79-8 LA. 24. Morton, D. M., Bovard, Kelly H., and Alvarez, Rachel M., 2004, “Preliminary Digital Geological Map of the 30’ X 60’ Santa Ana Quadrangle, Southern California,” Version 2.0, Open-File Report 99-172, Version 2.0 – 2004. 25. Morton, Douglas M., and Miller, Fred K., Compilers, 2006, “Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30’ X 60’ Quadrangles, California,” U. S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2006-1217. 26. Petersen, M. D., Bryant, W. A., Cramer, C. H., Cao, T., Reichle, M. S., Frankel, A. D., Lienkaemper, J. J., McCrory, P. A., and Schwartz, D. P., 1996, “Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California,” Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, DMG Open-File Report 96-08, USGS Open File Report 96-706. 27. Petra Geotechnical, Inc., 2012, “Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Additions to Existing Single-Family Residence and New 4-Car Garage, Swimming Pool and Exterior Hardscape, 2692 Bayshore Drive, Newport Beach, California.,” J.N. 285-12, December 20. 28. Pradel, Daniel, 1998, “Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, April. 29. Schmertmann, Dr. John H., 1977, “Guidelines for CPT Performance and Design,” prepared for the Federal Highway Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation, FHWA-TS-78-209, February. 30. Seed, Bolton H. and Idriss, I. M., 1974, “A Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential,” Journal of Soil Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM9, September, pp. 1249-1273. 31. State of California, Department of Industrial Relations, Cal/OSHA – Title 8 Regulations. 32. Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), 2019, OSHPD Seismic Design Maps, https://seismicmaps.org/ 33. Tan, Siang, S., and Edgington, William J., 1976, "Geology and Engineering Geology of the Laguna Beach Quadrangle, Orange County, California," California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 127. 34. Terzaghi, Karl, Peck, Ralph B., and Mesri, Ghoamreza, 1996, “Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, Third Edition,” John Wiley & Sons, Inc. APPENDIX A REFERENCES (2722 Bayshore Drive) R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 35. Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H. B., 1987, “Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 8, pp. 861-878. 36. Vedder, J. G., Yerkes, R. F., and Schoellhamer, J. E., 1957, Geologic Map of the San Joaquin Hills-San Juan Capistrano Area, Orange County, California, U. S. Geological Survey, Oil and Gas Investigations Map OM-193. 37. Zhang, G., Robertson, P. K., and Brachman, R. W. I., 2002, “Estimating Liquefaction-induced Ground Settlements from CPT for Level Ground,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal 39: 1168-1180. APPENDIX B FIELD EXPLORATION APPENDIX B FIELD EXPLORATION (2722 Bayshore Drive) R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 General Subsurface conditions were explored by excavating two auger borings at the site on June 8, 2022. Boring B-1 was drilled to a depth of 16.5 feet with a hollow-stem auger using a limited access drill rig and HA-1 was excavated to a depth of 9.5 feet with a hand auger. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on the Geotechnical Plot Plan, Figure 1. The Boring Logs are included as Figures B-2 and B-3. A Key to Logs is included as Figure B-1. Excavation of the borings was observed by our field geologist who logged the soils and obtained samples for identification and laboratory testing. The exploratory excavations were located in the field by pacing from known landmarks. Their locations as shown are, therefore, within the accuracy of such measurements. Elevations were determined by interpolation between points on the Topographic Survey prepared by RdM Surveying, Reference 1. Sample Program 1. Drill Rig - Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed to determine the in-place relative densities and consistencies of the underlying soils. The test involves the number of blows it takes for a 140-pound hammer falling 30-inches to drive a 2-inch (outer diameter)/ 1 3/8-inch inner diameter) split spoon sampler (ASTM D1586). These blow counts are given in blows per 6-inch driving interval for a sample with a length of 18- inches. SPT samples were immediately sealed in individual plastic bags. 2. Hand Augers - Relatively undisturbed drive samples were obtained by utilizing a sampler lined on the inside with brass rings, each 1-inch long and 2.5-inches outside diameter. The sample was typically driven for a total length of about 6-inches. The number of blows per 6-inches of driving were recorded on the boring logs. The slide hammer used to drive the samples has a weight of 10.3 pounds with effort. The slide hammer drop height was 18-inches. The hammer weight alone was not sufficient to drive the sample; additional energy was applied by the drilling operator by thrust force on the hammer from the topmost position.* The brass rings were removed from the sampler and transferred into a plastic tube and sealed. 3. Bulk/disaggregated samples representative of subsurface conditions were collected from the excavations and sealed in plastic bags. Summary The soils were classified based on field observations and laboratory tests. The classification is in accordance with ASTM D2487 (the Unified Soil Classification System). Collected samples were transported to the laboratory for testing. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately 9 feet bgs (approx. elev. +3.5). * Note: Based on correlations on similar sites the blow counts with the slide hammer are generally about 1/3 of the blow count energy of the SPT test; and 1/2 of the blow count of the Cal Sampler. Sample blow counts can be used as an indicator of soil density. Blow counts may be affected by various additional factors including soil type, moisture content and/or presence of rocks at the sample level. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART CLEANGRAVELS GRAVELWITHFINES CLEANSANDS SANDSWITHFINES GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH PT GROUPSYMBOLS SYMBOLMAJOR DIVISIONS TYPICAL NAMES HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS SILTS AND CLAYS: Liquid Limit 50% or less SILTS AND CLAYS: Liquid Limit greater than 50% Well graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little orno fines Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays Poorly graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, littleor no fines Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures Well graded sands and gravelly sand, little or no fines Poorly graded sands and gravelly sands, little or nofines Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures Inorganic silts, very fine sands, rock flour, silty orclayey fine sands Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandsor silts, elastic clays Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays Organic clays of medium to high plasticity Peat, muck, and other highly organic soils KEY TO LOGS COARSE-GRAINED SOILS: more than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve (based on the material passing the 3-inch [75mm] sieve) FINE-GRAINED SOILS: 50% or more passes No. 200 sieve* GRAVELS: 50% or more of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve SANDS:more than 50% ofcoarse fractionpasses No. 4 sieve Water level SYMBOL Figure B-1: Unied Soil Classication Chart / Key To Logs NOTATION SAMPLER TYPE C Core barrel CA California split-barrel sampler with 2.5-inch outside diameter and a 1.93-inch inside diameter D&M Dames & Moore piston sampler using 2.5-inch outside diameter, thin-walled tube O Osterberg piston sampler using 3.0-inch outside diameter, thin-walled Shelby tube PTB Pitcher tube sampler using 3.0-inch outside diameter, thin-walled Shelby tube S&H Sprague & Henwood split-barrel sampler with a 3.0-inch outside diameter and a 2.43-inch inside diameter SPT Standard Penetration Test (SPT) split-barrel sampler with a 2.0-inch outside diameter and a 1.5-inch inside diameter ST Shelby Tube (3.0-inch outside diameter, thin-walled tube) advanced with hydraulic pressure NR No Recovery Modified California Sampler (3" O.D.) Modified California Sampler, no recovery Standard Penetration Test, ASTM D 1586 Standard Penetration Test, no recovery Thin-walled tube sample using Pitcher barrel Thin-walled tube sample, pushed or used Osterberg sampler Disaggregated (bulk) sample DE P T H US C S BL O W C O U N T IN - P L A C E S A M P L E BA G S A M P L E MO I S T U R E ( % ) DR Y D E N S I T Y ( P C F ) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION NOTES DE P T H LOG OF BORING R MCCARTHY CONSULTING, INC. 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 SP BORING NO: B-1 FILE NO: 8728-00 FIGURE B-2 EQUIPMENT: 6.5" Diam Hollow-Stem Auger (Fraste drill rig) SURFACE ELEVATION: 11.5 +/- BY: GM Total Depth: 16.5 feet Groundwater at 7 feet SITE LOCATION: 2722 Bayshore DriveNorth side of garage apronDATE: 6-8-22 Only cap first letter of sentence. Color, MATERIAL TYPE, moisture, stiffness, density, fineness, all other descriptions Put a contact line between soil and rock types, use the “At X" notation to determine the depth, remove the “At X” notation 556 433 134 6810 192531 101929 131924 Upper 4”: brick 8” concrete ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af): Tan brown SAND, moist, compacted MARINE DEPOSITS (Qm): Tan brown SAND, slightly moist to dry, medium dense, shell fragments SPT1 at 3’: Tan brown silty SAND, dry, medium dense, fine grained, scattered shell fragments SPT2 at 5 feet: Dark tan brown silty SAND, moist, loose, fine to coarse grained, abundant shell fragments SPT3 at 7 feet: Brown-gray silty CLAY, very moist, soft to firm, interbedded sandy to clayey silt layers SPT4 at 9 feet: Dark gray silty SAND, wet, medium dense, fine grained SPT5 at 11 feet: Dark gray silty SAND, wet, very dense SPT6 at 13 feet: Dark gray silty SAND, wet, dense SPT7 at 15 feet: Dark gray silty SAND, wet, dense 5.9 29.5 24.9 21.2 21.8 21.6 2.7 Max Density (106 pcf, 13 %) Remolded Shear(C=150 psf, 31.5 deg.) Chemical Testing Grain Size @ 3' (3.1 % passing #200) Grain Size @ 5' (4.6 % passing #200) Grain Size @ 7' (52.0 % passing #200) Grain Size @ 7.5-8.5' (37.2 % passing #200) Grain Size @ 9' (12.6 % passing #200) Grain Size @ 11'(5.9 % passing #200) Grain Size @ 13' (6.5 % passing #200) Grain Size @ 13'(4.2 % passing #200) SP CL SM SP/ SM SP SP/SM SC/SM DE P T H US C S BL O W C O U N T IN - P L A C E S A M P L E BA G S A M P L E MO I S T U R E ( % ) DR Y D E N S I T Y ( P C F ) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION NOTES DE P T H LOG OF BORING R MCCARTHY CONSULTING, INC. 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 SM SP EQUIPMENT: 4” Diam Hand Auger SURFACE ELEVATION: 11.5 +/- BORING NO: HA-1 FILE NO: 8728-00 FIGURE B-3 BY: GM Total Depth: 9.5 feet (terminated due to caving) Groundwater at 8 feet Heavy caving below groundwater SITE LOCATION: 2722 Bayshore DriveNorth side of upper rear patioDATE: 6-8-22 Only cap first letter of sentence. Color, MATERIAL TYPE, moisture, stiffness, density, fineness, all other descriptions Put a contact line between soil and rock types, use the “At X" notation to determine the depth, remove the “At X” notation 15___6” SP 16___6” 18___6” SC/SM 13___6” RESIDUAL SOIL (Af): Dark brown silty SAND, moist, loose, roots, planter soil MARINE DEPOSITS (Qt): Pale gray SAND, moist, loose to medium dense D1 at 2 feet: Pale gray silty SAND, moist, loose, coarse grained, rootletsD2 at 4 feet: Tan brown SAND, moist, loose to medium dense, fine grained, abundant shell fragments, disturbed sample D3 at 6 feet: Medium gray brown silty SAND, moist, loose to medium dense, fine grained, scattered shell fragments, disturbed sample D4 at 8 feet: Dark gray Silty CLAY/sandy SILT/silty SAND, wet, firm, micaceous, disturbed sample Grain Size @ 4' (1.1 % passing #200) Grain Size @ 6'(9.6 % passing #200) Grain Size @ 8'(33.3 % passing #200) SP/SM 1.4 8.1 23.7 APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING (2722 Bayshore Drive) R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 The laboratory testing program was designed to fit the specific needs of this project and was limited to testing the soil samples collected during the on-site exploration. The test program was performed by our laboratory and supplemented with testing by HDR, Inc. Soils were classified visually and per the results of laboratory testing according to ASTM D2487, the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The field moisture contents of the soils encountered were determined by performing laboratory tests on the collected samples. The results of the moisture tests and soil classifications are shown on the Boring Logs in Appendix B. Maximum Density The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content relationships were determined for representative samples of the on-site soil. The laboratory standard used was ASTM D1557. The test results are presented below in Table C-1 and on Figure C-1. TABLE C-1 RESULTS OF MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D1557) Expansion Index Test The results of an expansion index test are summarized in Table C-2 below. TABLE C-2 RESULTS OF EXPANSION INDEX Test Location Soil Classification Expansion Index Expansion Potential B-1 @ 0-5’ SP 0 Very Low Test Location Soil Classification Soil Description Maximum Dry Density pcf Optimum Moisture Content % B-1 @ 0-5’ SP Light Brown SAND 107.0 13.0 APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING (2722 Bayshore Drive) R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Gradation Particle size analysis consisting of mechanical sieve analysis were performed on representative samples of the on-site soils in accordance with ASTM D1140 and C-136. The test results are presented graphically herein on Figures C-2 through C-5. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 (75μm) sieve are tabulated in Table C-3 below: TABLE C-3 GRAIN SIZE – FINES CONTENT Location Classification Percent Fines (Passing #200) Figure No. B-1 @ 3’ SP 3.1 B-1 @ 5’ SP 4.6 C-2 B-1 @ 7’-7.5’ CL-ML 52.0 C-3 B-1 @ 7.5’-8.5’ SC-SM 37.2 C-4 B-1 @ 9’ SM 12.6 C-5 B-1 @ 11’ SP-SM 5.9 C-6 B-1 @ 13’ SP-SM 6.5 B-1 @ 15’ SP 4.2 HA-1 @ 4’ SP 1.1 HA-1 @ 6’ SP-SM 9.6 HA-1 @ 8’ SC-SM 33.3 Direct Shear - Remolded Direct shear tests were performed on selected samples that were remolded to approximately 90 percent of the pre-determined maximum density of the test soil. The samples were then saturated under a surcharge equal to the applied normal force during testing. The apparatus used is in conformance with the requirements outlined in ASTM D3080. The test specimens, approximately 2.5-inches in diameter and 1-inch in height, were subjected to simple shear along a plane at mid- height after allowing time for pore pressure dissipation prior to application of shearing force. The samples were tested under various normal loads, a different specimen being used for each normal load. The samples were sheared at a constant rate of strain of 0.05-inches per minute. Shearing of APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING (2722 Bayshore Drive) R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 the specimens was continued until the shear stress became essentially constant or until a deformation of approximately 10 percent of the original diameter was reached. The peak and ultimate shear stress values were plotted versus applied normal stress, and a best-fit straight line through the plotted points was determined to arrive at the cohesion and the angle of internal friction parameters of the soil samples. The direct shear test results are presented in Figure C-7. Sulfate Test Sulfate test results are shown in the attached HDR summary and in Table C-4 below: TABLE C-4 RESULTS OF SULFATE TEST (ASTM D4327) Test Location Soil Classification Soluble Sulfates (mg/kg) ASTM D4327 Sulfate Exposure B-1 @ 0-5’ SP 118 Low Chemical Testing A series of corrosivity tests were performed by HDR and the test results are attached. Selected test results are also presented below in Table C-5. Table C-5 CHEMICAL TESTING Test Location Soil Classification pH Soluble Sulfates (mg/kg) ASTM D4327 Soluble Chlorides (mg/kg) ASTM D4327 Min. Resistivity (ohm-cm) ASTM G187 B-1 @ 0-5’ SP 8.8 119 18 5,600 Date: C-1 Sample Identification B-1 @ 0-5' MAXIMUM DENSITY & OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATION File No.: 8728-00 July - 2022 Figure: Sample Description Brown Silty SAND Maximum Dry Density (pcf) 106.5 Optimum Moisture Content (%) 13.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 120.0 125.0 130.0 135.0 140.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Moisture Content (%) 2.60 2.65 2.70 PASSING NO. 200 (%) July 2022 SILT SP LOCATION C-2Figure No.: 3.9 File No.: 8728-00 Date: SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION SOIL DESCRIPTION @ 5' PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS COMPARISON CC Coarse 4.6 Fine DEPTH (FT) 1.0 USCSCU CLAY Medium Brown SAND SAND C O B B L E GRAVEL B-1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000 PE R C E N T P A S S I N G PARTICLE SIZE (MILLILMETERS) PARTICLE SIZE (INCHES OR SIEVE NO.) 3" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 20 40 60 100 200 SAND C O B B L E GRAVEL B-1 Coarse 52.0 Fine DEPTH (FT) - - USCSCU CLAY Medium Brown Silty Clay 8728-00 Date: SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION SOIL DESCRIPTION @ 7' PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS COMPARISON CC PASSING NO. 200 (%) July 2022 SILT CL-ML LOCATION C-3Figure No.: - - File No.: 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000 PE R C E N T P A S S I N G PARTICLE SIZE (MILLILMETERS) PARTICLE SIZE (INCHES OR SIEVE NO.) 3" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 20 40 60 100 200 Medium SILT CLAY PASSING NO. 200 (%)DEPTH (FT) Date:File No.: SOIL DESCRIPTION 7.5-8.5 Gray-Brown Clayey SAND SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION C-4 Coarse 37.2 Fine CULOCATION 165.0 C O B B L E GRAVEL SAND Figure No.:July 2022 B-1 CC SC-SM11.6 USCS PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS COMPARISON 8728-00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000 PE R C E N T P A S S I N G PARTICLE SIZE (MILLILMETERS) PARTICLE SIZE (INCHES OR SIEVE NO.) 3" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 20 40 60 100 200 SAND C O B B L E GRAVEL B-1 Coarse 12.6 Fine DEPTH (FT) - - USCSCU CLAY Medium Gray-Brown Silty SAND 8728-00 Date: SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION SOIL DESCRIPTION @ 9' PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS COMPARISON CC PASSING NO. 200 (%) July 2022 SILT SM LOCATION C-5Figure No.: - - File No.: 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000 PE R C E N T P A S S I N G PARTICLE SIZE (MILLILMETERS) PARTICLE SIZE (INCHES OR SIEVE NO.) 3" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 20 40 60 100 200 LOCATION C-6Figure No.: 2.6 File No.: PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS COMPARISON CC PASSING NO. 200 (%) July 2022 SILT SP-SM USCSCU CLAY Medium Gray-Brown SAND with Silt 8728-00 Date: SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION SOIL DESCRIPTION @ 11' SAND C O B B L E GRAVEL B-1 Coarse 5.9 Fine DEPTH (FT) 1.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000 PE R C E N T P A S S I N G PARTICLE SIZE (MILLILMETERS) PARTICLE SIZE (INCHES OR SIEVE NO.) 3" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 20 40 60 100 200 Dry Density (pcf) Angle of Friction - degrees (Ultimate) 29.098.9 Moisture Content (%) 22.3 B-1 @ 0-5' Characteristics Cohesion - psf (Peak)150 Sample Identification Shear Strength Angle of Friction - degrees (Peak) Cohesion - psf (Ultimate)100 31.5 C-7Figure No.:July - 2022 Rate of Shear 0.05 in/min Sample Type Remolded Date:8728-00 DIRECT SHEAR TEST File No.: 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Sh e a r i n g S t r e s s ( p s f ) Normal Stress (psf) DATE: ATTENTION: Rob McCarthy       TO:       SUBJECT:       COMMENTS: James T. Keegan, MD Corrosion and Lab Services Section Manager TRANSMITTAL LETTER 8728-00 2722 Bayshore Drive Enclosed are the results for the subject project.   23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150 Laboratory Test Data Newport Beach, CA 92660 June 23, 2022 Your #8728-00, HDR Lab #22-0594LAB R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 431 West Baseline Road ∙ Claremont, CA 91711 Phone: 909.962.5485 ∙ Fax: 909.626.3316 Sample ID B-1 @ 0-5' Resistivity Units as-received ohm-cm 64,000 saturated ohm-cm 5,600 pH 8.8 Electrical Conductivity mS/cm 0.11 Chemical Analyses Cations calcium  Ca2+mg/kg 72 magnesium Mg2+mg/kg ND sodium Na1+mg/kg 36 potassium K1+mg/kg 23 ammonium NH41+mg/kg ND Anions carbonate CO32-mg/kg 17 bicarbonate HCO31-mg/kg 92 fluoride F1-mg/kg 2.5 chloride Cl1-mg/kg 18 sulfate SO42-mg/kg 119 nitrate NO31-mg/kg 4.9 phosphate PO43-mg/kg ND Other Tests sulfide S2-qual na Redox mV na Resistivity per ASTM G187, pH per ASTM G51, Cations per ASTM D6919, Anions per ASTM D4327, and Alkalinity per APHA 2320-B. Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analyses were made on a 1:5 soil-to-water extract. mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil. Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts ND = not detected na = not analyzed Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples 8728-00 2722 Bayshore Drive Your #8728-00, HDR Lab #22-0594LAB 23-Jun-22 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 431 West Baseline Road ∙ Claremont, CA 91711 Phone: 909.962.5485 ∙ Fax: 909.626.3316 Page 2 of 2 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 APPENDIX D STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES (2722 Bayshore Drive) R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660   GENERAL These Guidelines present the usual and minimum requirements for grading operations observed by R McCarthy Consulting, Inc., (RMC), or its designated representative. No deviation from these guidelines will be allowed, except where specifically superseded in the geotechnical report signed by a registered geotechnical engineer. The placement, spreading, mixing, watering, and compaction of the fills in strict accordance with these guidelines shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor. The construction, excavation, and placement of fill shall be under the direct observation of the Geotechnical Engineer or any person or persons employed by the licensed Geotechnical Engineer signing the soils report. If unsatisfactory soil-related conditions exist, the Geotechnical Engineer shall have the authority to reject the compacted fill ground and, if necessary, excavation equipment will be shut down to permit completion of compaction. Conformance with these specifications will be discussed in the final report issued by the Geotechnical Engineer. SITE PREPARATION All brush, vegetation and other deleterious material such as rubbish shall be collected, piled and removed from the site prior to placing fill, leaving the site clear and free from objectionable material. Soil, alluvium, or rock materials determined by the Geotechnical Engineer as being unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall be removed from the site. Any material incorporated as part of a compacted fill must be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. The surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6-inches until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment used. After the area to receive fill has been cleared and scarified, it shall be disced or bladed by the contractor until it is uniform and free from large clods, brought to the proper moisture content and compacted to minimum requirements. If the scarified zone is greater than 12- inches in depth, the excess shall be removed and placed in lifts restricted to 6-inches. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipe lines or others not located prior to grading are to be removed or treated in a manner prescribed by the Geotechnical Engineer. MATERIALS Materials for compacted fill shall consist of materials previously approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. Fill materials may be excavated from the cut area or imported from other approved sources, and soils from one or more sources may be blended. Fill soils shall be free from organic (vegetation) materials and other unsuitable substances. Normally, the material shall contain no rocks or hard lumps greater than 6-inches in size and shall contain at least 50 percent of material smaller than 1/4-inch in size. Materials greater than 4-inches in size shall be APPENDIX D STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES (2722 Bayshore Drive) R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660   placed so that they are completely surrounded by compacted fines; no nesting of rocks shall be permitted. No material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise of an unsuitable nature shall be used in the fill soils. Representative samples of materials to be utilized, as compacted fill shall be analyzed in the laboratory by the Geotechnical Engineer to determine their physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, the appropriate analysis of this material shall be conducted by the Geotechnical Engineer in a timely manner. PLACING, SPREADING, AND COMPACTING FILL MATERIAL Soil materials shall be uniformly and evenly processed, spread, watered, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed 6-inches in thickness. Achievement of a uniformly dense and uniformly moisture conditioned compacted soil layer should be the objective of the equipment operators performing the work for the Owner and Contractor. When the moisture content of the fill material is below that specified by the Geotechnical Engineer, water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is near optimum as specified. Moisture levels should generally be at optimum moisture content or greater. When the moisture content of the fill material is above that specified by the Geotechnical Engineer, the fill material shall be aerated by the Contractor by blading, mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is near the specified level. After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted to 90 percent of the maximum laboratory density in compliance with ASTM D1557 (five layers). Compaction shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of acceptable compacting equipment. Equipment shall be of such design that it will be able to compact the fill to the specified density. Compaction shall be continuous over the entire area and the equipment shall make sufficient passes to obtain the desired density uniformly. A minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finished slope face of all fill slopes will be required. Compacting of the slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling the slopes in increments of 2 to 5 feet in elevation gain or by overbuilding and cutting back to the compacted inner core, or by any other procedure, which produces the required compaction. GRADING OBSERVATIONS The Geotechnical Engineer shall observe the fill placement during the course of the grading process and will prepare a written report upon completion of grading. The compaction report shall make a statement as to compliance with these guidelines. As a minimum, one density test shall be required for each 2 vertical feet of fill placed, or 1 for each 1,000 cubic yards of fill, whichever requires the greater number of tests; however, testing should not be limited based on these guidelines and more testing is generally preferable. APPENDIX D STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES (2722 Bayshore Drive) R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660   Processed ground to receive fill, including removal areas such as canyon or swale cleanouts, must be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer and/or Engineering Geologist prior to fill placement. The Contractor shall notify the Geotechnical Engineer when these areas are ready for observation. UTILITY LINE BACKFILL Utility line backfill beneath and adjacent to structures; beneath pavements; adjacent and parallel to the toe of a slope; and in sloping surfaces steeper than ten horizontal to one vertical (10:1), shall be compacted and tested in accordance with the criteria given in the text of this report. Alternately, relatively self-compacting material may be used. The material specification and method of placement shall be recommended and observed by the Soil Engineer, and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and Building Official before use and prior to backfilling. Utility line backfill in areas other than those stated above are generally subject to similar compaction standards and will require approval by the Soil Engineer. The final utility line backfill report from the Project Soil Engineer shall include an approval statement that the backfill is suitable for the intended use. PROTECTION OF WORK During the grading process and prior to the complete construction of permanent drainage controls, it shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to provide good drainage and prevent ponding of water and damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. After the Geotechnical Engineer has finished observations of the completed grading, no further excavations and/or filling shall be performed without the approval of the Geotechnical Engineer.   APPENDIX E RESULTS OF LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Table E-1 File No: 8728-00 Results of Liquefaction & Seismic Settlement Analyses Summary 2722 Bayshore Drive Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement Potential Smax Figure Condition Boring # (inches) E-1/E-2 Existing B-1 0.48 Smax = Calculated seismically induced settlement of potential liquefiable and dry sand layers Please see the associated figures and spreadsheet for additional details. Computation: GeoAdvanced GeoSuite Software Version 3.1.0.1, developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE www.geoadvanced.com Project: Location: Project No.: Boring No.: Enclosure: Liquefaction Potential - SPT Data RW Selby & Company, Inc 2722 Bayshores Drive 8728-00 B-1 E-1 GeoSuite© Version 3.1.0.1. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE, F. ASCE Copyright© 2002 - 2022 GeoAdvanced®. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 7/17/2022 5:01:53 PM C: \ U s e r s \ r o b m a \ R M C C o s t a M e s a D r o p b o x \ E m p l o y e e L i s t \ E x p a n s i o n \ P r o j e c t s \ 8 7 0 0 - 8 7 9 9 - 0 0 R M C P r o j e c t F i l e s \ 8 7 2 8 - 0 0 - 2 7 2 2 B a y s h o r e D riv e , N B \ L i q u e f a c t i o n \ G e o S u i t e _ 8 7 2 8 - 0 0 _ B - 1 . c s v SP CL-ML SC-SM SM Silt Correction: K=(1-FC)⁰ˑ⁷⁵ Earthquake & Groundwater Information: Magnitude = 7.2 Max. Acceleration = 0.75 g Project GW = 7 ft Maximum Settlement = 0.48 in Settl. at Bottom of Footing = 0.48 in Liquefaction: Boulanger & Idriss (2010-16) Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu & Seed (1987) Lateral spreading: Idriss & Boulanger (2008) M correction: [Sand; Clay] Boulanger & Idriss(2004) σv correction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008) Stress reduction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008) SP SP CL-ML SC-SM SM USCS 02040 N60|(N1)60 0 204060 DR (%) 024 OCRG0 00.1 τav(tsf) 00.20.4 CSR7.5|CRR7.5 01 FS15|FS50|FS85 5 10 15 De p t h ( f t ) Project GW Boring GW Bottom of Footing Project: Location: Project No.: Boring No.: Enclosure: Seismic Settlement Potential - SPT Data RW Selby & Company, Inc 2722 Bayshores Drive 8728-00 B-1 E-2 GeoSuite© Version 3.1.0.1. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE, F. ASCE Copyright© 2002 - 2022 GeoAdvanced®. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 7/17/2022 5:01:53 PM C: \ U s e r s \ r o b m a \ R M C C o s t a M e s a D r o p b o x \ E m p l o y e e L i s t \ E x p a n s i o n \ P r o j e c t s \ 8 7 0 0 - 8 7 9 9 - 0 0 R M C P r o j e c t F i l e s \ 8 7 2 8 - 0 0 - 2 7 2 2 B a y s h o r e D riv e , N B \ L i q u e f a c t i o n \ G e o S u i t e _ 8 7 2 8 - 0 0 _ B - 1 . c s v SP CL-ML SC-SM SM Silt Correction: K=(1-FC)⁰ˑ⁷⁵ Earthquake & Groundwater Information: Magnitude = 7.2 Max. Acceleration = 0.75 g Project GW = 7 ft Maximum Settlement = 0.48 in Settl. at Bottom of Footing = 0.48 in Liquefaction: Boulanger & Idriss (2010-16) Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu & Seed (1987) Lateral spreading: Idriss & Boulanger (2008) M correction: [Sand; Clay] Boulanger & Idriss(2004) σv correction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008) Stress reduction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008) SP SP CL-ML SC-SM SM USCS 02040 N60|(N1)60 0204060 DR (%) 024 OCRG0 0 0.2 0.4 CSR7.5|CRR7.5 01 FS15|FS50|FS85 024 γmax (%)Pd 00.511.5 εv (%)Pd 00.20.4 ΣSi (in)Pd 5 10 15 De p t h ( f t ) Project GW Boring GW Bottom of Footing SPT Data Interpretation Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu Seed (1987) Zb (ft)Zm (ft)γ (pcf)N 60 FC(%)CC(%)USCS φ (°)C' (tsf)σ v0 (tsf)σ v0 ' (tsf)C N Cs (N 1 )60 (N 1)60cs D R (%)V s (m/s)V s (ft/s)G 0(kPa) 0.50 0.25 100.0 19.0 3.0 0.0 17 38.5 0.0 0.01 0.01 1.7 1.0 32.3 32.3 78.8 243.5 799.0 95,014.8 1.00 0.75 100.0 19.0 3.0 0.0 17 38.5 0.0 0.04 0.04 1.7 1.0 32.3 32.3 78.8 242.2 794.5 93,928.8 1.50 1.25 100.0 19.0 3.0 0.0 17 38.5 0.0 0.06 0.06 1.7 1.0 32.3 32.3 78.8 240.8 790.1 92,890.8 2.00 1.75 100.0 19.0 3.0 0.0 17 38.5 0.0 0.09 0.09 1.7 1.0 32.3 32.3 78.8 239.5 785.8 91,897.3 2.50 2.25 100.0 19.0 3.0 0.0 17 38.5 0.0 0.11 0.11 1.7 1.0 32.3 32.3 78.8 238.3 781.7 90,944.9 3.00 2.75 100.0 19.0 3.0 0.0 17 38.5 0.0 0.14 0.14 1.7 1.0 32.3 32.3 78.8 237.1 777.8 90,030.8 3.50 3.25 100.0 11.6 3.0 0.0 17 34.7 0.0 0.16 0.16 1.7 1.0 19.7 19.7 61.6 217.3 713.0 75,655.4 4.00 3.75 100.0 11.6 3.0 0.0 17 34.7 0.0 0.19 0.19 1.7 1.0 19.7 19.7 61.6 216.3 709.6 74,938.2 4.50 4.25 100.0 11.6 3.0 0.0 17 34.7 0.0 0.21 0.21 1.7 1.0 19.7 19.7 61.6 215.3 706.3 74,247.5 5.00 4.75 100.0 11.6 3.0 0.0 17 34.7 0.0 0.24 0.24 1.7 1.0 19.7 19.7 61.6 214.3 703.2 73,581.6 5.50 5.25 100.0 6.3 4.6 0.0 17 31.0 0.0 0.26 0.26 1.7 1.0 10.8 10.8 45.5 192.9 632.8 59,595.3 6.00 5.75 100.0 6.3 4.6 0.0 17 31.0 0.0 0.29 0.29 1.7 1.0 10.8 10.8 45.5 192.1 630.1 59,088.1 6.50 6.25 100.0 6.3 4.6 0.0 17 31.0 0.0 0.31 0.31 1.7 1.0 10.8 10.8 45.5 191.3 627.5 58,597.7 7.00 6.75 100.0 2.1 52.0 0.0 6 26.6 0.0 0.34 0.34 1.7 1.0 3.6 9.2 42.1 186.5 612.0 55,745.0 7.50 7.25 100.0 2.1 52.0 0.0 6 26.6 0.0 0.36 0.35 1.7 1.0 3.6 9.2 42.2 186.5 611.8 55,709.5 8.00 7.75 100.0 7.6 37.2 0.0 10 32.0 0.0 0.39 0.36 1.7 1.0 12.9 18.5 59.6 212.2 696.2 72,134.7 8.50 8.25 100.0 7.7 37.2 0.0 10 32.1 0.0 0.41 0.37 1.7 1.0 13.1 18.6 59.8 213.6 700.7 73,055.6 9.00 8.75 100.0 7.8 37.2 0.0 10 32.1 0.0 0.44 0.38 1.7 1.0 13.1 18.6 59.9 214.9 704.9 73,950.3 9.50 9.25 100.0 20.4 12.6 0.0 12 37.7 0.0 0.46 0.39 1.4 1.0 29.4 31.7 78.1 236.4 775.5 89,503.2 10.00 9.75 100.0 20.6 12.6 0.0 12 37.7 0.0 0.49 0.40 1.4 1.0 29.4 31.8 78.2 237.7 779.8 90,498.6 10.50 10.25 100.0 20.9 12.6 0.0 12 37.7 0.0 0.51 0.41 1.4 1.0 29.5 31.8 78.2 238.9 784.0 91,460.6 GeoSuite© Version 3.1.0.1. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE, F. ASCE Copyright© 2002 - 2022 GeoAdvanced®. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 7/17/2022 5:01:53 PM SPT Data Interpretation Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu Seed (1987) Z b(ft)Zm(ft) 0.50 0.25 1.00 0.75 1.50 1.25 2.00 1.75 2.50 2.25 3.00 2.75 3.50 3.25 4.00 3.75 4.50 4.25 5.00 4.75 5.50 5.25 6.00 5.75 6.50 6.25 7.00 6.75 7.50 7.25 8.00 7.75 8.50 8.25 9.00 8.75 9.50 9.25 10.00 9.75 10.50 10.25 G 0 (tsf)σ p' (tsf)OCR G0 Su /σ v0 'K 0 rd MSF K σ Kα CSR7.5 CRR7.5 FS τav (tsf)p (tsf)G/G0 γ max (%)εv (%) 992.2 0.06 5.0 1.0 1.00 1.12 1.10 1.00 0.40 0.67 0.01 0.01 0.6013 0.001 0.0005 980.9 0.19 5.0 1.0 1.00 1.12 1.10 1.00 0.40 0.67 0.02 0.04 0.3163 0.002 0.0015 970.0 0.31 5.0 1.0 1.00 1.12 1.10 1.00 0.40 0.67 0.03 0.06 0.1853 0.004 0.0029 959.7 0.44 5.0 1.0 1.00 1.12 1.10 1.00 0.40 0.67 0.04 0.09 0.1167 0.006 0.0044 949.7 0.56 5.0 1.0 1.00 1.12 1.10 1.00 0.39 0.67 0.05 0.11 0.0736 0.008 0.0063 940.2 0.69 5.0 1.0 0.99 1.12 1.10 1.00 0.39 0.67 0.07 0.14 0.0452 0.010 0.0084 790.0 0.81 5.0 1.1 0.99 1.05 1.10 1.00 0.42 0.20 0.08 0.17 0.0290 0.017 0.0259 782.6 0.94 5.0 1.1 0.99 1.05 1.10 1.00 0.42 0.20 0.09 0.20 0.0325 0.021 0.0333 775.3 1.06 5.0 1.1 0.99 1.05 1.10 1.00 0.42 0.20 0.10 0.22 0.0367 0.025 0.0420 768.4 1.19 5.0 1.1 0.99 1.05 1.10 1.00 0.42 0.20 0.11 0.25 0.0410 0.030 0.0521 622.3 1.21 4.6 1.1 0.99 1.02 1.10 1.00 0.43 0.12 0.13 0.27 0.0453 0.063 0.2317 617.0 1.27 4.4 1.0 0.99 1.02 1.10 1.00 0.43 0.12 0.14 0.30 0.0467 0.078 0.2973 611.9 1.32 4.2 1.0 0.98 1.02 1.10 1.00 0.43 0.12 0.15 0.32 0.0477 0.096 0.3789 582.1 1.34 4.0 1.0 0.98 1.02 1.10 1.00 0.43 0.54 0.16 0.34 0.0427 0.135 0.3659 581.8 1.37 3.9 1.0 0.98 1.02 1.09 1.00 0.44 0.53 1.21 0.17 0.36 5.377 1.5147 753.3 1.58 4.3 1.0 0.98 1.04 1.10 1.00 0.44 0.19 0.43 0.19 0.37 5.354 1.1606 762.9 1.60 4.3 1.0 0.98 1.05 1.10 1.00 0.46 0.19 0.42 0.20 0.38 5.355 1.1531 772.2 1.63 4.3 1.0 0.98 1.05 1.10 1.00 0.47 0.19 0.40 0.21 0.39 5.353 1.1519 934.7 1.80 4.6 1.0 0.97 1.11 1.10 1.00 0.46 0.62 1.35 0.22 0.39 2.830 0.5316 945.1 1.83 4.6 1.0 0.97 1.11 1.10 1.00 0.47 0.62 1.33 0.23 0.40 2.906 0.5445 955.1 1.86 4.5 1.0 0.97 1.11 1.10 1.00 0.48 0.63 1.31 0.24 0.40 3.015 0.5639 GeoSuite© Version 3.1.0.1. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE, F. ASCE Copyright© 2002 - 2022 GeoAdvanced®. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 7/17/2022 5:01:53 PM SPT Data Interpretation Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu Seed (1987) Z b(ft)Zm(ft) 0.50 0.25 1.00 0.75 1.50 1.25 2.00 1.75 2.50 2.25 3.00 2.75 3.50 3.25 4.00 3.75 4.50 4.25 5.00 4.75 5.50 5.25 6.00 5.75 6.50 6.25 7.00 6.75 7.50 7.25 8.00 7.75 8.50 8.25 9.00 8.75 9.50 9.25 10.00 9.75 10.50 10.25 ΔS i ΣS i (in)ΔD i ΣD i (in)G0 (tsf)Pd G/G0Pd γ max (%)Pd ε v (%)Pd ΔSi ΣS i (in)Pd γ max (%)TS εv (%)TS ΔS i ΣSi (in)TS 0.00 0.48 992.2 0.9236 0.001 0.0005 0.00 0.48 0.001 0.0012 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.48 980.9 0.8650 0.002 0.0015 0.00 0.48 0.002 0.0024 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.48 970.0 0.8198 0.004 0.0029 0.00 0.48 0.004 0.0044 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.48 959.7 0.7798 0.006 0.0044 0.00 0.48 0.006 0.0068 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.48 949.7 0.7428 0.008 0.0063 0.00 0.48 0.008 0.0095 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.48 940.2 0.7078 0.010 0.0084 0.00 0.48 0.011 0.0123 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.48 790.0 0.6027 0.017 0.0259 0.00 0.48 0.017 0.0380 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.48 782.6 0.5648 0.021 0.0333 0.00 0.48 0.021 0.0462 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.48 775.3 0.5290 0.025 0.0420 0.00 0.48 0.026 0.0563 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.47 768.4 0.4951 0.030 0.0521 0.00 0.47 0.031 0.0682 0.00 0.48 0.01 0.46 622.3 0.3243 0.063 0.2317 0.01 0.46 0.058 0.2873 0.02 0.47 0.02 0.44 617.0 0.2874 0.078 0.2973 0.02 0.44 0.070 0.3461 0.02 0.45 0.02 0.42 611.9 0.2544 0.096 0.3789 0.02 0.42 0.084 0.4156 0.02 0.42 0.02 0.40 582.1 0.2061 0.135 0.3659 0.02 0.40 0.115 0.4041 0.02 0.40 0.09 0.31 581.8 5.377 1.5147 0.09 0.31 5.377 1.5147 0.09 0.31 0.07 0.24 753.3 5.354 1.1606 0.07 0.24 5.354 1.1606 0.07 0.24 0.07 0.17 762.9 5.355 1.1531 0.07 0.17 5.355 1.1531 0.07 0.17 0.07 0.10 772.2 5.353 1.1519 0.07 0.10 5.353 1.1519 0.07 0.10 0.03 0.07 934.7 2.830 0.5316 0.03 0.07 2.830 0.5316 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.03 945.1 2.906 0.5445 0.03 0.03 2.906 0.5445 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.00 955.1 3.015 0.5639 0.03 0.00 3.015 0.5639 0.03 0.00 GeoSuite© Version 3.1.0.1. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE, F. ASCE Copyright© 2002 - 2022 GeoAdvanced®. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 7/17/2022 5:01:53 PM SPT Data Interpretation Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu Seed (1987) Z b(ft)Zm(ft) 0.50 0.25 1.00 0.75 1.50 1.25 2.00 1.75 2.50 2.25 3.00 2.75 3.50 3.25 4.00 3.75 4.50 4.25 5.00 4.75 5.50 5.25 6.00 5.75 6.50 6.25 7.00 6.75 7.50 7.25 8.00 7.75 8.50 8.25 9.00 8.75 9.50 9.25 10.00 9.75 10.50 10.25 γmax (%)Yi εv (%)Yi ΔS i ΣSi (in)Yi γ max (%)UC ε v (%)UC ΔS i ΣS i (in)UC σp ' (tsf)OCR Dr σ p ' (tsf)OCR N60 N 1jpcs V s (m/s)Ad V s (m/s)UC 0.004 0.0040 0.00 1.37 0.001 0.0006 0.00 0.45 0.06 5.0 0.10 7.9 45.3 162.0 79.1 0.020 0.0231 0.00 1.37 0.002 0.0006 0.00 0.45 0.19 5.0 0.30 7.9 43.8 162.0 102.8 0.058 0.0656 0.00 1.37 0.004 0.0006 0.00 0.45 0.31 5.0 0.50 7.9 42.3 162.0 116.2 0.128 0.1216 0.01 1.36 0.006 0.0006 0.00 0.45 0.44 5.0 0.70 7.9 41.0 162.0 125.9 0.261 0.1209 0.01 1.35 0.008 0.0006 0.00 0.45 0.56 5.0 0.89 7.9 39.7 162.0 133.7 0.518 0.1201 0.01 1.35 0.010 0.0006 0.00 0.45 0.69 5.0 1.09 7.9 38.5 162.0 140.3 0.973 1.5630 0.09 1.25 0.017 0.0089 0.00 0.45 0.73 4.5 0.96 5.9 22.9 143.0 139.3 1.000 1.5630 0.09 1.16 0.020 0.0158 0.00 0.45 0.84 4.5 1.11 5.9 22.2 143.0 144.1 1.000 1.5630 0.09 1.07 0.025 0.0241 0.00 0.45 0.96 4.5 1.26 5.9 21.6 143.0 148.5 1.000 1.5630 0.09 0.97 0.030 0.0341 0.00 0.45 1.07 4.5 1.40 5.9 21.0 143.0 152.5 1.000 2.3895 0.14 0.83 0.063 0.1552 0.01 0.44 0.72 2.8 1.08 4.1 11.2 122.7 147.3 1.000 2.3895 0.14 0.69 0.078 0.2104 0.01 0.42 0.79 2.8 1.18 4.1 10.9 122.7 150.6 1.000 2.3895 0.14 0.54 0.096 0.2800 0.02 0.41 0.86 2.8 1.28 4.1 10.6 122.7 153.6 1.000 2.4178 0.15 0.40 0.135 0.1643 0.01 0.40 0.59 1.7 0.93 2.8 9.1 117.9 112.0 5.377 1.5147 0.09 0.31 5.377 1.5147 0.09 0.31 0.62 1.8 0.99 2.8 9.1 118.1 113.6 5.354 1.1606 0.07 0.24 5.354 1.1606 0.07 0.24 1.42 3.9 2.26 6.2 19.6 140.7 146.1 5.355 1.1531 0.07 0.17 5.355 1.1531 0.07 0.17 1.45 3.9 2.30 6.2 19.7 141.6 147.3 5.353 1.1519 0.07 0.10 5.353 1.1519 0.07 0.10 1.46 3.8 2.33 6.1 19.7 142.6 148.5 2.830 0.5316 0.03 0.07 2.830 0.5316 0.03 0.07 1.96 5.0 3.53 9.0 34.6 164.1 181.3 2.906 0.5445 0.03 0.03 2.906 0.5445 0.03 0.03 2.01 5.0 3.56 8.9 34.7 165.2 182.5 3.015 0.5639 0.03 0.00 3.015 0.5639 0.03 0.00 2.06 5.0 3.58 8.7 34.8 166.2 183.7 GeoSuite© Version 3.1.0.1. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE, F. ASCE Copyright© 2002 - 2022 GeoAdvanced®. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 7/17/2022 5:01:53 PM SPT Data Interpretation Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu Seed (1987) Z b (ft)Z m (ft) 0.50 0.25 1.00 0.75 1.50 1.25 2.00 1.75 2.50 2.25 3.00 2.75 3.50 3.25 4.00 3.75 4.50 4.25 5.00 4.75 5.50 5.25 6.00 5.75 6.50 6.25 7.00 6.75 7.50 7.25 8.00 7.75 8.50 8.25 9.00 8.75 9.50 9.25 10.00 9.75 10.50 10.25 Vs (m/s)UCSa V s (m/s)UCSi Vs (m/s)UCCly V s (m/s)WDall Vs (m/s)WDSa Vs (m/s)WDSiC p/p a Vsp (m/s)Yi Vsv (m/s)Yi σ m' (tsf)Yi OCRYi G0(tsf)Yi LDI (in) 79.1 77.8 110.2 59.35 61.53 45.42 0.012 130.46 165.89 0.013 5.00 284.70 102.8 100.2 132.0 80.29 79.22 64.56 0.036 130.46 165.89 0.038 5.00 284.70 116.2 112.7 143.5 92.40 89.10 76.03 0.060 130.46 165.89 0.064 5.00 284.70 125.9 121.7 151.7 101.36 96.27 84.67 0.084 130.46 165.89 0.089 5.00 284.70 133.7 128.9 158.0 108.61 102.00 91.76 0.108 130.46 165.89 0.112 4.77 284.70 140.3 135.0 163.3 114.77 106.82 97.84 0.132 130.46 165.89 0.132 4.33 284.70 139.3 128.5 149.9 108.09 99.11 94.93 0.161 129.21 159.24 0.156 3.96 279.28 144.1 132.8 153.5 112.43 102.43 99.38 0.186 129.21 159.24 0.176 3.70 279.28 148.5 136.7 156.6 116.37 105.42 103.44 0.211 129.21 159.24 0.195 3.48 279.28 152.5 140.2 159.5 119.99 108.15 107.19 0.236 129.21 159.24 0.214 3.30 279.28 147.3 128.7 141.1 108.26 96.27 99.84 0.259 129.19 155.21 0.241 3.15 279.17 150.6 131.4 143.2 111.01 98.30 102.79 0.279 132.93 155.21 0.262 3.10 295.60 153.6 134.0 145.1 113.58 100.21 105.57 0.299 137.08 155.21 0.284 3.07 314.35 140.8 112.1 114.2 91.60 79.22 89.77 0.324 150.54 163.03 0.323 3.23 379.08 142.6 113.6 115.4 93.11 80.36 91.39 0.338 153.36 163.19 0.338 3.21 393.43 162.1 143.4 155.2 123.21 108.26 114.36 0.349 154.75 177.87 0.333 3.20 400.59 163.4 144.6 156.4 124.48 109.27 115.59 0.357 156.17 178.94 0.340 3.18 407.99 164.6 145.8 157.6 125.71 110.25 116.79 0.365 157.60 180.22 0.348 3.16 415.45 181.5 174.0 197.2 155.48 138.18 138.51 0.368 152.88 184.35 0.331 3.03 390.94 182.7 175.3 198.5 156.89 139.31 139.84 0.375 154.17 185.57 0.338 3.01 397.59 183.9 176.6 199.7 158.27 140.41 141.15 0.382 155.45 186.77 0.345 3.00 404.20 GeoSuite© Version 3.1.0.1. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE, F. ASCE Copyright© 2002 - 2022 GeoAdvanced®. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 7/17/2022 5:01:53 PM SPT Data Interpretation Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu Seed (1987) Z b(ft)Z m(ft) 0.50 0.25 1.00 0.75 1.50 1.25 2.00 1.75 2.50 2.25 3.00 2.75 3.50 3.25 4.00 3.75 4.50 4.25 5.00 4.75 5.50 5.25 6.00 5.75 6.50 6.25 7.00 6.75 7.50 7.25 8.00 7.75 8.50 8.25 9.00 8.75 9.50 9.25 10.00 9.75 10.50 10.25 FS50 FS 85 D E Cr N 1.00 0.75 18.0 1.00 0.75 18.0 1.00 0.75 18.0 1.00 0.75 18.0 1.00 0.75 18.0 1.00 0.75 18.0 1.00 0.75 11.0 1.00 0.75 11.0 1.00 0.75 11.0 1.00 0.75 11.0 1.00 0.75 6.0 1.00 0.75 6.0 1.00 0.75 6.0 1.00 0.75 2.0 1.21 1.21 0.00 0.76 2.0 0.49 0.55 0.00 0.77 7.0 0.47 0.54 0.00 0.78 7.0 0.46 0.52 0.00 0.79 7.0 1.53 1.75 0.00 0.81 18.0 1.51 1.72 0.00 0.81 18.0 1.49 1.69 0.00 0.82 18.0 GeoSuite© Version 3.1.0.1. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE, F. ASCE Copyright© 2002 - 2022 GeoAdvanced®. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 7/17/2022 5:01:53 PM R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone 949-629-2539 APPENDIX F SEISMICITY DATA ASCE 7 Hazards Report Address: 2722 Bayshore Dr Newport Beach, California 92663 Standard:ASCE/SEI 7-16 Risk Category:II Soil Class:D - Default (see Section 11.4.3) Elevation:12.33 ft (NAVD 88) Latitude: Longitude: 33.613635 -117.907497 Page 1 of 3https://asce7hazardtool.online/Sun Jul 17 2022 SS : 1.383 S1 : 0.492 Fa : 1.2 Fv : N/A SMS : 1.659 SM1 : N/A SDS : 1.106 SD1 : N/A TL : 8 PGA : 0.605 PGA M : 0.726 FPGA : 1.2 Ie : 1 Cv : 1.377 Seismic Site Soil Class: Results: Data Accessed: Date Source: D - Default (see Section 11.4.3) USGS Seismic Design Maps Ground motion hazard analysis may be required. See ASCE/SEI 7-16 Section 11.4.8. Sun Jul 17 2022 Page 2 of 3https://asce7hazardtool.online/Sun Jul 17 2022 Additional Calculations:SM1 =(FV)(S1) Fv = 1.808 for S1 = 0.492 g per Table 1613A.2.3(2) Therefore, SM1 = (1.808)(.492) = 0.890 g SD1 = (2/3)(SM1) = (2/3)(0.890) = 0.593 g The ASCE 7 Hazard Tool is provided for your convenience, for informational purposes only, and is provided “as is” and without warranties of any kind. The location data included herein has been obtained from information developed, produced, and maintained by third party providers; or has been extrapolated from maps incorporated in the ASCE 7 standard. While ASCE has made every effort to use data obtained from reliable sources or methodologies, ASCE does not make any representations or warranties as to the accuracy, completeness, reliability, currency, or quality of any data provided herein. Any third-party links provided by this Tool should not be construed as an endorsement, affiliation, relationship, or sponsorship of such third-party content by or from ASCE. ASCE does not intend, nor should anyone interpret, the results provided by this Tool to replace the sound judgment of a competent professional, having knowledge and experience in the appropriate field(s) of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting and applying the contents of this Tool or the ASCE 7 standard. In using this Tool, you expressly assume all risks associated with your use. Under no circumstances shall ASCE or its officers, directors, employees, members, affiliates, or agents be liable to you or any other person for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages arising from or related to your use of, or reliance on, the Tool or any information obtained therein. To the fullest extent permitted by law, you agree to release and hold harmless ASCE from any and all liability of any nature arising out of or resulting from any use of data provided by the ASCE 7 Hazard Tool. Page 3 of 3https://asce7hazardtool.online/Sun Jul 17 2022