Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPA2023-0150_20230817_Geotechnical Investigation dated 08-15-2323 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone 949 629 2539 | Email info@rmccarthyconsulting.com August 15, 2023 Donte Andry File No: 8830-00 31 Beacon Bay Report No: R1-8830 Newport Beach, CA 92660 SUBJECT: Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Custom Home Lot 31, East Side Addition to Beacon Bay 31 Beacon Bay Newport Beach, California APN: 050-211-15 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the project site located at 31 Beacon Bay in Newport Beach, California, which was performed to determine various site and regional geotechnical conditions pertinent to the construction currently proposed for the subject property. Analyses for this investigation are based upon the plans prepared by South Coast Architects (Reference 30), which indicate that the project will include a new three-story residence with a roof deck. We understand that the existing structure on the lot will be torn down. The purpose of our review and investigation was to evaluate the subsurface conditions, determine the compatibility of the proposed development with respect to the geotechnical features of the site, 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 based on our Proposal No: P1-8830R, dated March 10, 2023, revised April 14, 2023, your subsequent authorization. August 15, 2023 File No: 8830-00 Report No: R1-8830 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 and analysis of collected reports, maps, and photographs, as well as conceptual plans to relate geotechnical conditions to proposed construction. A reference list is included in Appendix A. 2. Subsurface exploration consisting of two soil borings advanced to depths of 15.5 and 7 feet by use of a drill rig and hand auger, respectively. The exploration 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 data logs of the boring explorations are included in Appendix B. 4. Laboratory testing of soil samples representative of subsurface conditions. The results are presented in Appendix C. 5. Analyses of the field and laboratory data for evaluation of the suitability of the site for the proposed development with respect to geotechnical conditions. 6. Geotechnical engineering and geologic analyses of collected data, including a liquefaction and seismic settlement analysis. 7. Preparation of this report containing our geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction in accordance with the current 2022 California Building Code (CBC) and for use by your design professionals and contractors. Site Description The subject property is located at 31 Beacon Bay in Newport Beach, California as shown on the Location Map, Figure 2. The lot is bordered on the north and south by similarly developed residential properties, on the west by a service alley (Schooner Road), and on the east by a green belt with a paved walkway (Reef Cove). According to realtor.com the existing house was built in 1942. There may have been various additions since that time. The lot is approximately 4387 square feet based on review of the Newport Beach GIS Parcel Report. The Topographic Survey prepared by Toal Engineering, Inc (Reference 1) was used as a base map for our Geotechnical Plot Plan (Figure 1). The lot is a flat lot with no significant slopes. The survey indicates that lot elevations range from approximately 10 to 11 feet (NAVD88). The adjacent property on the north is slightly higher than the subject site within 6-inches to 18- inches. The adjoining lot on the south is generally level to slightly lower with the subject site to within 6-inches. There is an existing two-story house on the property. The construction appears to be typical wood-frame, brick and stucco, with slab-on-grade floors and shallow footings. There is an August 15, 2023 File No: 8830-00 Report No: R1-8830 Page: 3 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 attached garage and carport off the alley. The property is landscaped. Concrete hardscape walkways and patios provide access. The north side yard is bounded by a block masonry screen wall and wood fencing. Wood fencing lines most of the south property line. Vegetation includes lawn area on the east side into the green belt. Planter beds contain tropical shrubs including palms and birds of paradise. There are two large pine trees in the landscape courtyard on the south side of the house and a tree in the northeast corner of the lot. Drainage appears to be primarily by sheet flow runoff from the exterior hardscape toward the east and west. The house, as well as the site improvements, show signs of wear, and the conditions are commensurate with the age of the structure. Cracks were evident in the house brick and stucco. Separations and cracks were also observed in the exterior flatwork and walls. Some of the damages would suggest minor soil settlement in combination with inadequate reinforcement as part of the previous construction. Proposed Development Current plans indicate that the proposed development will consist of the demolition of the existing structure to build a new three-story residence with a roof deck. Overexcavation and replacement of soil as densified engineered fill will be required to provide uniform conditions below the structure and for seismic considerations. 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 for foundation elements are available to check these 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 and estuary deposits (Qes) consisting predominantly of silty sands, sands and occasional silt/clay layers. The regional geology is shown on Figure 3. The Beacon Bay Channel is about 300 feet south of the site, the Pacific Ocean is approximately 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 is underlain at depth by sedimentary bedrock assigned to the Monterey Formation based on regional geologic maps. The bedrock is overlain by Marine deposits (Qm) and residual planter soils classified as Artificial Fill (Af). Subsurface soils encountered in our borings generally August 15, 2023 File No: 8830-00 Report No: R1-8830 Page: 4 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 consisted of poorly graded sands to the maximum depth explored of 15.5 feet. The upper soils are predominantly granular sands that are non-plastic and non-expansive. The marine deposits were generally medium dense below the water level. 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. Groundwater Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 6 feet (approximate elevation (+4 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. August 15, 2023 File No: 8830-00 Report No: R1-8830 Page: 5 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 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 is 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 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 the U.S. Geological Survey- Earthquake Hazards Program, Unified Hazard Tool, the site is located approximately 3 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 E 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 2022 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 August 15, 2023 File No: 8830-00 Report No: R1-8830 Page: 6 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 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 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. 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 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). Based on the results of our analysis, some of the soil layers below the site, in the locations tested, and to the depths explored, 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), UCLA (2008- 2014) and Yi (2022) for dry sand within materials above the assumed water table elevation. The GeoAdvanced GeoSuite Software Version 3.2.2.6, developed by Fred Yi, was utilized for the analyses (Appendix F). The resultant potential total seismic settlement within the upper 10 feet of soil was determined to be 0.83-inch within the exploratory boring. 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 proposed remedial grading and by the foundation system for support of the proposed structure. August 15, 2023 File No: 8830-00 Report No: R1-8830 Page: 7 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Earthquake insurance should be considered as an additional precaution for properties within seismic hazard zones. Lateral Impacts of Liquefaction There is no significant sloping ground at the site. Additionally, the site is separated from the bay and beach by other residential properties, which are at similar elevation. The risk of lateral spread is, therefore, considered to be very low. Flooding Seismically-induced flooding normally includes flooding from inland waters, which is not likely, and tsunami run-up from tidal 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 allow for public safety but would not necessarily protect property improvements. Street flooding, particularly due to storm tides may occur periodically in low lying coastal and harbor areas. No evidence of uncontrolled concentrated runoff onto or off the subject property was observed or reported based on our investigation. The site is in FEMA Zone X - 0.2 PCT Annual Chance Flood Hazard. Other Secondary Seismic Hazards Review of the Seismic Hazard Zones Map (CDMG, 1998) for the Newport Beach Quadrangle, 1997/1998 and the City of Newport Beach Seismic Safety Element (2008) indicates the site is not located within a zone of required investigation for earthquake-induced landsliding. This finding is in keeping with the results of our study. Landsliding is not a known hazard at the site due to the absence of sloping ground. 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. August 15, 2023 File No: 8830-00 Report No: R1-8830 Page: 8 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 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. The property is underlain by artificial fill, and marine deposits consisting of poorly graded sands to the maximum depth explored of 15.5 feet. 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. 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. Suitable drainage elements need to be installed within excavations and at retaining structures to mitigate possible transient seepage. Hydrostatic forces should be accounted for when building below grade structures, such as swimming pools, spas or elevators, and adequate waterproofing should be provided in sensitive areas. Groundwater conditions should be addressed in accordance with local ordinances and practices, as well as agency requirements. 6. Groundwater has been encountered at a depth of approximately 6 feet at the site. Groundwater levels below the property may fluctuate seasonally with rainfall, irrigation and the tide cycle. Groundwater conditions should be addressed in accordance with local ordinances and practices, as well as agency requirements. Hydrostatic forces should be accounted for when building below grade structures, such as spas, wine cellars or elevators, and adequate waterproofing should be provided in sensitive areas. 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. Grading and construction methods will need to consider lateral and subjacent support of adjacent structures and property improvements. 9. Care must be taken during construction to not disturb the adjoining properties and street improvements. An appropriate monitoring program is recommended during construction. August 15, 2023 File No: 8830-00 Report No: R1-8830 Page: 9 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 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. 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 The site preparation and fill placement should include the following components: 1. Excavation of the on-site materials to a depth of 3 feet within the structural footprint of the new house. 2. Scarification and compaction of the removal bottom to a depth of 6 to 8-inches. 3. Stabilization of the exposed, scarified bottom materials by mixing with cement. 4. Placement of on-site and/or imported cement-treated fill to design grades. Excavations should be made to remove any soils disturbed by demolition, undocumented fill and surficial materials where encountered within the planned building areas. Earth removals are recommended to allow densification of the sand deposits and to provide uniform bearing conditions within the upper materials below foundation and slab areas. Removals should be followed by 6 to 8-inches of scarification and August 15, 2023 File No: 8830-00 Report No: R1-8830 Page: 10 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 recompaction. These remedial excavations should be made within the planned building footprint. Deeper excavations may be necessary to remove unsuitable materials, if encountered. Grading activities must be carried out in a manner that does not remove lateral support or undermine existing property line walls that are to be preserved. We, therefore, recommend that depths of any existing wall footings be verified when exposed following demolition and prior to the start of grading. Although not expected to be necessary, lateral support may sometimes be achieved by the use of bracing, slot cutting, or trenching where wall footings are shallow relative to excavation depths. Excavations during grading should be replaced with compacted, cement-treated 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. Cement treatment of soils should be avoided in planned infiltration trench areas, if applicable. Removals below significant hardscape improvements such as driveways, patios, and sidewalks should be sufficient to remove existing disturbed or loose surface soil. Removal depths of 12-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. Dewatering is not expected to be necessary at planned removal depths. Light track propelled mini-loader type equipment should be used for the grading. Rubber tire equipment is not recommended for soil compaction. 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. August 15, 2023 File No: 8830-00 Report No: R1-8830 Page: 11 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 5. Shrinkage Shrinkage losses are expected to be about 4 percent overall. This does not include clearing losses from demolition that could result in volume reductions for available fill soils. 6. Expansive Soils Fill soil, and particularly import fill soil, 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 prior to compaction. Fill materials should be placed at near 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 4 feet or less; however, the material exposed in temporary excavations should be evaluated by the Contractor during construction. Dry or running sands may require flatter laybacks. Temporary construction slopes should not be left exposed overnight unless approved in writing by the Geotechnical Consultant. 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. August 15, 2023 File No: 8830-00 Report No: R1-8830 Page: 12 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 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. • These activities and monitoring are generally outside of our normal scope of services. Our office may be contacted to coordinate various monitoring activities with your general contractor, if needed. 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 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. August 15, 2023 File No: 8830-00 Report No: R1-8830 Page: 13 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 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. 3. Settlement Static Static settlement is anticipated to be on the order of 0.5-inch total and less than 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. August 15, 2023 File No: 8830-00 Report No: R1-8830 Page: 14 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dynamic Potential dry sand and liquefaction-induced settlement based on current estimates of peak ground accelerations during an earthquake was calculated to be 0.83-inch total within the upper 15.5 feet (see Appendix F). Additional seismic settlement is possible below that depth. In the absence of site-specific information for materials at depths of 15.5 to 50 feet below the foundation level it is conservatively assumed that an additional 3-inches of seismic settlement potential may occur during a design earthquake event. The underlying stratigraphy is fairly uniform below the planned development area; therefore, differential seismic settlement can be estimated as approximately one-half of the total estimated settlement, or on the order of 1.91-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 slab. Allowable lateral resistance should not exceed 150 pounds per square foot per foot of depth equivalent fluid pressure to a maximum of 1,500 psf. Resistance to sliding can be calculated using a coefficient of friction of 0.35. These values may be used in combination per 2022 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 18-inches on center maximum spacing. Quantity and placement of reinforcing steel should be determined by the Structural Engineer. Slab-On-Grade Construction Slabs should be designed in accordance with the 2022 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 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) August 15, 2023 File No: 8830-00 Report No: R1-8830 Page: 15 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 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. 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 2022 CBC design criteria. A site- specific Ground-Motion Hazard Analysis (GMHA) was not performed for the site. Site and Seismic Design Criteria For 2022 CBC Design Parameters Recommended Values ASCE/SEI 7-16 Site Class D (Default - Stiff Soil) * Site Longitude (degrees) -117.897965 W Site Latitude (degrees) 33.610637 N Ss (g) 1.382 S1 (g) 0.491 SMs (g) 1.658 SM1 (g) 0.888 SDs (g) 1.106 SD1 (g) 0.592 Fa 1.2 Fv 1.809 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. August 15, 2023 File No: 8830-00 Report No: R1-8830 Page: 16 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 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 E. 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 10 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 principal foundation elements should be sealed and drained; this is especially important if they are near retaining wall backfills. Flatwork elements should be a minimum 4-inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 3 bars at 18-inches on center both ways. Subgrade soils should be well moistened prior to placement of 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 other chemicals in the marine environment. 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 results of corrosivity tests on the on-site soil are provided in Appendix C. 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 2022 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. August 15, 2023 File No: 8830-00 Report No: R1-8830 Page: 17 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Metal Construction Components in Contact with Soil Various concentrations of salts may be present in the marine environment. 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. Recommendations to mitigate damage due to corrosive soils, if needed, should be provided by a qualified corrosion specialist. 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 2022 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 If proposed, water infiltration features should be reviewed and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant. It is our opinion that typical gravel trenches and permeable hardscape 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 6 feet 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. Lateral permeability is anticipated to limit perched water zones to elevations near the levels encountered in our borings. These types of infiltration will, therefore, not be expected to create any geohazards due to modification of groundwater levels. Infiltration trenches should be sited at least 3 feet away from building foundations. Planned infiltration design and BMP devices should be reviewed by our office prior to construction. Foundation Excavations All excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement of forms, reinforcement, and concrete for verification of conformance with the intention of these recommendations. All excavations should be trimmed neat, level, and square. All loose or sloughed material should be removed prior to the placement of concrete. Materials from footing excavations should not be spread in slab subgrade areas unless compacted per the requirements for fill soils as stated herein. 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 August 15, 2023 File No: 8830-00 Report No: R1-8830 Page: 18 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 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 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 Grading Guidelines. It is the Owner’s and Contractor’s responsibility to inform Subcontractors of these requirements and to notify RMC when backfill placement is to begin. It has been our experience that trench backfill requirements are rigorously enforced by the local agencies. 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. If utility contractors indicate that it is undesirable to use compaction equipment in close proximity to a buried conduit, we recommend the utilization of lightweight mechanical equipment and/or shading of the conduit with clean granular material, which could be thoroughly jetted in place above the conduit prior to initiating mechanical compaction procedures. Bedding materials should have a Sand Equivalent not less than 30. Other methods of utility trench compaction may also be appropriate as approved by the Geotechnical Engineer at the time of construction. The walls of temporary construction trenches are expected to be stable when cut into soils, with only minor sloughing, provided the total depth does not exceed about 3 feet. Shoring of excavation walls or flattening of slopes may be required, if greater depths are necessary. All work associated with trench shoring must conform to the State of California Safety Code. The depth of the site utilities is unknown at this time. Excavation exceeding 3 feet below site grades should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant to provide recommendations prior to digging. Trenches should be located so as not to impair the bearing capacity or cause settlement under foundations. As a guide, trenches subparallel to foundations should be clear of a 45-degree plane extending outward and downward from the edge of the foundations. 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. August 15, 2023 File No: 8830-00 Report No: R1-8830 Page: 19 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 OBSERVATION AND TESTING General Geotechnical observation and testing during construction are 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 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; August 15, 2023 File No: 8830-00 Report No: R1-8830 Page: 20 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 • 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 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 Taylor Yasar Robert J. McCarthy Project Engineer Principal Engineer, G.E. 2490 Registration Expires 3-31-24 Date Signed: 08/14/2023 August 15, 2023 File No: 8830-00 Report No: R1-8830 Page: 21 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 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-4 Appendix D - Standard Grading Guidelines Appendix E - Seismicity Data Appendix F - Results of Liquefaction Analysis Figures F-1 and F-2 Data Interpretations B-1 HA-1 Af/Qm Af/Qm Base map source: Topographic and Boundary Survey for 31 Beacon Bay, Newport Beach, CA, by Toal Engineering, Inc., dated 2/27/23. EXPLANATION Estimated Location of Exploratory Boring Residual Soil/ Artificial Fill Marine Deposits Af Qm HA-1B-1 0 20 SCALE, FEET 40 Figure 1 - Geotechnical Plot Plan 31 Beacon Bay Newport Beach, CA File No: 8830-00 Report No: R1-8830 August 2023 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: 8830-00 REPORT NO: R1-8830 August 2023 FIGURE 2 - LOCATION MAP SITE: 31 Beacon Bay Figure 3 - Regional Geology 31 Beacon Bay Newport Beach, CA File: 8830-00 Report No: R1-8830 August 2023 0 2000 SCALE, FEET 4000 ó Pacific Ocean SITE 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 Qm 0 2 SCALE, MILES Figure 4 - Fault Location Map 31 Beacon Bay Newport Beach, CA File: 8830-00 Report No: R1-8830 August 2023 SITE 1 3 4 0 SCALE, KILOMETERS 1 5 6 ó 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 2000 SCALE, FEET 4000 Base map source: California Department of Conservation,Division of Mines and Geology, Newport Beach Quadrangle Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Newport Beach 7.5-MinuteQuadrangle, Orange County, California. California Geological Survey, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 03.Liquefaction Released: April 17, 1997Landslide Released: April 15, 1998 LIQUEFACTION EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LANDSLIDES Areas where historic occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical andgroundwater conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements such thatmitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c) would be required. Areas where previous occurrence of landslide movement, or local topographic, geological,geotechnical and subsurface water conditions indicate a potential for permanent grounddisplacements such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c)would be required. EXPLANATION  Figure 5 - Geologic Hazards Map 31 Beacon BayNewport Beach, CAFile: 8830-00 Report No: R1-8830 August 2023 SITE 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: 8830-00 REPORT NO: R1-8830 August 2023 FIGURE 6 - HAZARDS MAP SITE: 31 Beacon BayLiquefaction Hazard Zone Landslide Hazard Zone 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 4020 FILE NO: 8830-00 REPORT NO: R1-8830 August 2023 FIGURE 7 - AERIAL MAP R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92663 APPENDIX A REFERENCES APPENDIX A REFERENCES (31 Beacon Bay) R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 1. Toal Engineering Inc., 2023, “Topographic and Boundary Survey, Lot 31, East Side Addition to Beacon Bay, RSB 9/42-43, APN 050-211-15, 31 Beacon Bay, Newport Beach, California,” Sheet 1/1, DWG No: TP-01, Scale 1”=8’, Survey Date: 2-16-23; Job No: 23028, February 27. 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, 2022 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,” April 15. 9. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 2008, “Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California,” Special Publication 117A. 10. California Geologic Survey, 1997/1998, “Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Newport Beach 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Orange County, California,” Seismic Hazard Zone Report 003. 11. City of Newport Beach, 2014, Community Development Department, Building Division, Building Code Policy, “Liquefaction Study Mitigation Measures,” revised July 14. 12. City of Newport Beach Seismic Safety Element (2008). 13. Coast Geotechnical, Inc., 2016, “Geotechnical Engineering Investigation of Proposed New Residence at 38 Beacon Bay, Newport Beach, California,” W.O. 510216-01, June 21. 14. 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. 15. Department of the Navy, 1982, NAVFAC DM-7.1, Soil Mechanics, Design Manual 7.1, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 16. 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. 17. 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). APPENDIX A REFERENCES (31 Beacon Bay) R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 18. Grant, Lisa, C., Mueller, K. J., Gath, E. M., Cheng, Hai, Edwards, R. L., Munro, R., and Kennedy, G. L., 1999, Late Quaternary Uplift and Earthquake Potential of the San Joaquin Hills, southern Los Angeles Basin, California, Geology, Vol. 27, No. 11, p 1031-1034. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. Morton and Miller, 1981, Geologic Map of Orange County, CDMG Bulletin 204. 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. 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. 25. P.A. & Associates, Inc., 1998, “Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single Family Residence, 34 Beacon Bay, Newport Beach, California,” Project File No. 98113-101, February 26. 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. Pradel, Daniel, 1998, “Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, April. 28. 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. 29. 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. 30. South Coast Architects, 2023, Andry Residence, 31 Beacon Bay, Newport Beach, California,” Job No. 23002, March 7. 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 (31 Beacon Bay) 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. U.S. Geological Survey- Earthquake Hazards Program, Unified Hazard Tool. Access date: 6/6/2023 37. 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. 38. 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 PROGRAM (31 Beacon Bay) R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subsurface conditions were explored by excavating two exploratory borings at the site on April 27, 2023. Boring B-1 was excavated to a depth of approximately 15.5 feet using the Pacific Drilling Fraste drill rig. Boring HA-1 was drilled to a depth of approximately 7 feet using 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 subsurface materials and obtained samples for identification and laboratory testing. The exploratory excavations were located in the field by pacing from known landmarks. The locations as shown are, therefore, within the accuracy of such measurements. Elevations were determined by interpolation between points on the Topographic and Boundary Survey prepared by Toal Engineering, Inc, 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. Drill Rig - Relatively undisturbed drive samples were obtained by utilizing a 3-inch outside diameter California sampler lined with brass rings, each 1-inch long and approximately 2.5-inch inside diameter. The sample was driven for a total length of 18- inches. The number of blows per foot of driving the final 12-inches were recorded on the boring logs. The hammer weight and drop were as indicated for the SPT. The brass rings containing the samples were carefully removed while intact from the California sampler and transferred into a plastic tube and sealed. 3. 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. 4. Bulk samples representative of subsurface conditions were collected from the excavations and sealed in plastic bags. APPENDIX B FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM (31 Beacon Bay) R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 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 depths of approximately 6 feet below the ground surface (approx. elev. +4). * 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 SANDS WITHFINES 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 passesNo. 200 sieve* GRAVELS: 50% or more of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve SANDS: more than 50% of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve DESCRIPTION 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 Shelby Tube Disaggregated (bulk) sample Water level SYMBOL Figure B-1: Unified Soil Classification 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 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 Cohesive (Silts and Clays) Consistency UCC = Unconfined Compressive StrengthTSF = Tons per Square Foot Very soft Soft Firm/medium stiff Stiff Very stiff Hard SPT/Blow Counts 0 - 2 3 - 4 5 - 8 9 -16 17 - 32 32+ UCC (TSF) 0 - 0.25 0.25 - 0.50 0.50 - 1.00 1.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 4.00 >4.00 Non-Cohesive (Sands and Gravels) Relative Density Phi (f) = Angle of Internal Friction Very loose Loose Medium dense Dense Very dense SPT/Blow Counts 0 - 4 5 - 10 11 - 30 31 - 50 50+ Phi (f) 18 - 28 28 - 30 30 - 36 36 - 41 41 Do not use “At x feet” for start of units For contact after top layer - use depth indicated in the topmost entry (”Upper X”) Use this format: Top layer: ARTIFICIAL FILL: Upper X”: Then layer description Next layer: MARINE DEPOSITS (Qm): To X”: Then layer description 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 Use sample depth to determine boring depthSAMPLE LENGTHS:- Drill rigs always 1.5’ - Hand auger samples are usually 1’- Bulk samples should be as indicated.- Blow counts measured at 6” intervals. If you see 11, 16, 23 that means 11 for the first 6”, 16 for the next 6” and 23 for the last 6” for a total of 18”. If you see 15, 50 for 2, that means 16 for the first 6” and 50 for the next 2” for a total of 8” - SPT’s are always 1.5’ SP EQUIPMENT: 6” Diam Hollow Stem (Pacific Drilling Fraste Rig) SURFACE ELEVATION: 10' +/- BORING NO: B-1 FILE NO: 8830-00 FIGURE B-2 BY: GM Total Depth: 15.5 feet Groundwater at 6 feet SITE LOCATION: 31 Beacon BaySouth Yard Landscape Area near CarportDATE: 4-27-23 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 445 456 245 248 4812 101621 112131 4” Diam Hand Auger RESIDUAL SOIL (Af): Medium brown silty SAND, moist, landscape area soil MARINE DEPOSITS (Qm): Tan brown SAND, moist, shell fragments SPT1 at 2’: Tan brown SAND, moist, loose, shell fragments SPT2 at 4’: Light gray to tan brown SAND, moist, medium dense, shell fragments SPT3 at 6’: Medium gray to orange brown SAND, wet, loose SPT4 at 8’: Dark gray SAND with silt, wet, medium dense SPT5 at 10’: Dark gray SAND, wet, medium dense, less silty, shell fragments SPT6 at 12’: Dark gray SAND, wet, dense, shell fragments SPT7 at 14’: Dark gray SAND, wet, very dense, shell fragments 6.6 Max Dry Density (107.0 pcf, 10.0 %) Sulfate Test Grain Size(3.8% passing #200) Grain Size(3.4% passing #200) Grain Size (4.8% passing #200) Grain Size(9.6% passing #200) Grain Size(4.9% passing #200)SP SP SP/SM SP SP SP 21.5 8.6 24.4 24.6 27.3 25.1 SM Do not use “At x feet” for start of units For contact after top layer - use depth indicated in the topmost entry (”Upper X”) Use this format: Top layer: ARTIFICIAL FILL: Upper X”: Then layer description Next layer: MARINE DEPOSITS (Qm): To X”: Then layer description 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 Use sample depth to determine boring depthSAMPLE LENGTHS:- Drill rigs always 1.5’ - Hand auger samples are usually 1’- Bulk samples should be as indicated.- Blow counts measured at 6” intervals. If you see 11, 16, 23 that means 11 for the first 6”, 16 for the next 6” and 23 for the last 6” for a total of 18”. If you see 15, 50 for 2, that means 16 for the first 6” and 50 for the next 2” for a total of 8” - SPT’s are always 1.5’ SP EQUIPMENT: 4” Diam Hand Auger SURFACE ELEVATION: 10' +/- BORING NO: HA-1 FILE NO: 8830-00 FIGURE B-3 BY: GM Total Depth: 7 feet Groundwater at 6 feet Caving at 7 feet SITE LOCATION: 31 Beacon BaySouth Side Yard Planter next to HouseDATE: 4-27-23 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 4” Diam Hand Auger RESIDUAL SOIL (Af): Medium brown silty SAND, moist, landscape area soil MARINE DEPOSITS (Qm): Tan brown SAND, moist, fine grained, shell fragments D1 at 2’: Tan brown SAND, moist, loose D2 at 4’: Tan brown SAND, moist, medium dense, shell fragments D3 at 6’: Tan to light gray SAND, wet, medium dense, shell fragments At 7': Heavy caving, boring terminated 27___6” 31___6” 32___6” 4.2 96.3 4.6 25.2 94.6 SM APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING (31 Beacon Bay) 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 chemical testing by Project X Corrosion Engineering. Soils were classified visually and per the results of laboratory testing according to ASTM D2487, the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The field moisture content and dry densities of the soils encountered were determined by performing laboratory tests on the collected samples. The results of the moisture tests, density determinations and soil classifications are shown on the Boring Logs, Figures B-2 and B-3. 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 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-6. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 (75μm) sieve are tabulated in Table C-2 below: Test Location Soil Classification Soil Description Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Optimum Moisture Content (%) B-1 @ 0-5’ SP Brown SAND with Shells 107.0 10.0 APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING (31 Beacon Bay) R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 TABLE C-2 GRAIN SIZE – FINES CONTENT Location Classification Percent Fines (Passing #200) Figure No. B-1 @ 2’ SP 3.8 C-2 B-1 @ 4’ SP 3.7 C-3 B-1 @ 6’ SP 4.8 C-4 B-1 @ 8’ SP-SM 9.6 C-5 B-1 @ 10’ SP 4.9 C-6 Sulfate Test Sulfate testing was performed on a representative sample of the on-site soil. The test results are presented in Table C-3 below: TABLE C-3 Results of Sulfate Tests ASTM D4327 Test Location Soil Classification Soluble Sulfates (mg/kg) ASTM D4327 Sulfate Exposure B-1 @ 0-5’ SP 15 S0 Low Chloride Testing Chloride testing was performed on a representative sample of the on-site soil. The test results are presented in Table C-4 below: TABLE C-4 Results of Sulfate Tests Test Location Soil Classification Soluble Chlorides (mg/kg) ASTM D4327 B-1 @ 0-5’ SP 15.5 Date:C-1 Sample Identification B-1 @ 0-5' MAXIMUM DENSITY & OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATION File No.: 8830-00 August 2023 Figure: Sample Description Brown Sand with Shells Maximum Dry Density (pcf)107.0 Optimum Moisture Content (%)10.0 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 2' C O B B L E GRAVEL C-2Figure No.: 2.1 File No.: PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS COMPARISON brown SAND 3.8B-1 LOCATION DEPTH (FT) 1.0 8830-00 Date: CC August 2023 SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION SOIL DESCRIPTION Coarse SILT SP USCSCU CLAY Medium Fine SAND PASSING NO. 200 (%) 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 CC PASSING NO. 200 (%) August 2023 SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION SOIL DESCRIPTION 4' C-3Figure No.: 2.1 File No.: PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS COMPARISON brown SAND 3.4 Fine SAND LOCATION DEPTH (FT) 1.0 8830-00 Date: C O B B L E GRAVEL B-1 Coarse SILT SP USCSCU CLAY Medium 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 CC PASSING NO. 200 (%) August 2023 SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION SOIL DESCRIPTION 6' C-4Figure No.: 2.3 File No.: PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS COMPARISON Brown SAND 4.8 Fine SAND LOCATION DEPTH (FT) 1.1 8830-00 Date: C O B B L E GRAVEL B-1 Coarse SILT SP USCSCU CLAY Medium 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 Coarse SILT SP-SM USCSCU CLAY Medium Fine SAND LOCATION DEPTH (FT) 1.4 8830-00 Date: C O B B L E GRAVEL C-5Figure No.: 3.6 File No.: PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS COMPARISON Grey silty SAND 9.6B-1 CC PASSING NO. 200 (%) August 2023 SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION SOIL DESCRIPTION 8' 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 C O B B L E GRAVEL B-1 Coarse SILT SP USCSCU CLAY Medium Grey SAND with shells 4.9 Fine SAND LOCATION DEPTH (FT) 1.0 8830-00 Date: 10' C-6Figure No.: 2.2 File No.: PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS COMPARISON CC PASSING NO. 200 (%) August 2023 SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION SOIL DESCRIPTION 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 Project X REPORT S230502C Corrosion Engineering Page 1 Corrosion Control – Soil, Water, Metallurgy Testing Lab 29990 Technology Dr, Suite 13, Murrieta, CA 92563 Tel: 213-928-7213 Fax: 951-226-1720 www.projectxcorrosion.com Results Only Soil Testing for 31 Beacon Bay May 3, 2023 Prepared for: Stephan Cousineau R. McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 stephan@rmccarthyconsulting.com Project X Job#: S230502C Client Job or PO#: 8830-00 Respectfully Submitted, Eduardo Hernandez, M.Sc., P.E. Sr. Corrosion Consultant NACE Corrosion Technologist #16592 Professional Engineer California No. M37102 ehernandez@projectxcorrosion.com Project X REPORT S230502C Corrosion Engineering Page 2 Corrosion Control – Soil, Water, Metallurgy Testing Lab 29990 Technology Dr., Suite 13, Murrieta, CA 92563 Tel: 213-928-7213 Fax: 951-226-1720 www.projectxcorrosion.com Soil Analysis Lab Results Client: R. McCarthy Consulting, Inc. Job Name: 31 Beacon Bay Client Job Number: 8830-00 Project X Job Number: S230502C May 3, 2023 Method Bore# / Description Depth (ft)(mg/kg)(wt%)(mg/kg)(wt%) 8830-00 B-1 0-5 15.2 0.0015 15.5 0.0016 ASTM D4327 ASTM D4327 Sulfates SO42- Chlorides Cl- Cations and Anions, except Sulfide and Bicarbonate, tested with Ion Chromatography mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil weight ND = 0 = Not Detected | NT = Not Tested | Unk = Unknown Chemical Analysis performed on 1:3 Soil-To-Water extract PPM = mg/kg (soil) = mg/L (Liquid) Note: Sometimes a bad sulfate hit is a contaminated spot. Typical fertilizers are Potassium chloride, ammonium sulfate or ammonium sulfate nitrate (ASN). So this is another reason why testing full corrosion series is good because we then have the data to see if those other ingredients are present meaning the soil sample is just fertilizer-contaminated soil. This can happen often when the soil samples collected are simply surface scoops which is why it's best to dig in a foot, throw away the top and test the deeper stuff. Dairy farms are also notorious for these items. APPENDIX D STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES (31 Beacon Bay) 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., 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 placed so that they are completely surrounded by compacted fines; no nesting of rocks shall be APPENDIX D STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES (31 Beacon Bay) R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 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 D: 1557 (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 one 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 (31 Beacon Bay) 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. R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone 949-629-2539 APPENDIX E SEISMICITY DATA ASCE 7 Hazards Report Address: 31 Beacon Bay Newport Beach, California 92660 Standard:ASCE/SEI 7-16 Latitude:33.610637 Risk Category:II Longitude:-117.897965 Soil Class:D - Default (see Section 11.4.3) Elevation:10.050009875406081 ft (NAVD 88) Page 1 of 3https://asce7hazardtool.online/Thu Jun 01 2023 SS : 1.382 S1 : 0.491 Fa : 1.2 Fv : N/A SMS : 1.658 SM1 : N/A SDS : 1.106 SD1 : N/A TL : 8 PGA : 0.604 PGA M : 0.725 FPGA : 1.2 Ie : 1 Cv : 1.376 Seismic Site Soil Class: Results: D - Default (see Section 11.4.3) Page 2 of 3https://asce7hazardtool.online/Thu Jun 01 2023 Ground motion hazard analysis may be required. See ASCE/SEI 7-16 Section 11.4.8. ' D W D $ F F H V V H G Wed Mar 01 2023 ' D W H 6 R X U F H USGS Seismic Design Maps Additional Calculations: SM1 =(FV)(S1) Fv = 1.809 for S1 = 0.491 g per Table 1613A.2.3(2) Therefore, SM1 = (1.809)(0.491) = 0.888 g SD1 = (2/3)(SM1) = (2/3)(0.888) = 0.592 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/Thu Jun 01 2023 APPENDIX F RESULTS OF LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Table F-1 File No: 8830-00 Results of Liquefaction & Seismic Settlement Analyses Summary 31 Beacon Bay Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement Potential Smax = Calculated seismically induced settlement of potential liquefiable and dry sand layers within the upper 10 feet. Please see the associated figures and spreadsheet for additional details. Computation: GeoAdvanced GeoSuite Software Version 3.2.2.6, developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE www.geoadvanced.com Figure Condition Boring # Smax (inches) F-1/ F-2 Existing B-1 0.83 Project: Location: Project No.: Boring No.: Figure: Liquefaction Potential - SPT Data Andry 31 Beacon Bay 8830-00 B-1 F-1 GeoSuite© Version 3.2.2.6. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE, F. ASCE Copyright© 2002 - 2023 GeoAdvanced®. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 8/14/2023 8:27:39 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 P r o j e c t s \ R M C \ A \ 8 8 0 0 - 8 8 9 9 R M C F i l e s \ 8 8 3 0 - 0 0 - 3 1 B e a c o n B a y , N e w p o r t B e a c h \ L i q u e f a c t i o n \ Re v i e w F i l e R J M \ G e o S u i t e _ 8 8 3 0 - 0 0 _ B - 1 . c s v SP SP-SM Silt Correction: UCLA method Earthquake & Groundwater Information: Magnitude = 7.5 Max. Acceleration = 0.71 g Project GW = 5 ft Maximum Settlement = 0.83 in Settl. at Bottom of Footing = 0.83 in Liquefaction: Boulanger & Idriss (2010-16) Settl.: [dry] UCLA (2008-14); [sat] Tokimatsu & Seed (1987) Lateral spreading: Idriss & Boulanger (2008) M correction: [Sand] Boulanger & Idriss(2004) σv correction: Seed et al. (2001) Stress reduction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008) SP SP SP SP-SM SP USCS 02040 N60|(N1)60 04080 DR (%) 024 OCRG0 00.51 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.: Figure: Seismic Settlement Potential - SPT Data Andry 31 Beacon Bay 8830-00 B-1 F-2 GeoSuite© Version 3.2.2.6. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE, F. ASCE Copyright© 2002 - 2023 GeoAdvanced®. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 8/14/2023 8:27:39 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 P r o j e c t s \ R M C \ A \ 8 8 0 0 - 8 8 9 9 R M C F i l e s \ 8 8 3 0 - 0 0 - 3 1 B e a c o n B a y , N e w p o r t B e a c h \ L i q u e f a c t i o n \ Re v i e w F i l e R J M \ G e o S u i t e _ 8 8 3 0 - 0 0 _ B - 1 . c s v SP SP-SM Silt Correction: UCLA method Earthquake & Groundwater Information: Magnitude = 7.5 Max. Acceleration = 0.71 g Project GW = 5 ft Maximum Settlement = 0.83 in Settl. at Bottom of Footing = 0.83 in Liquefaction: Boulanger & Idriss (2010-16) Settl.: [dry] UCLA (2008-14); [sat] Tokimatsu & Seed (1987) Lateral spreading: Idriss & Boulanger (2008) M correction: [Sand] Boulanger & Idriss(2004) σv correction: Seed et al. (2001) Stress reduction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008) SP SP SP SP-SM SP USCS 02040 N60|(N1)60 04080 DR (%) 024 OCRG0 00.51 CSR7.5|CRR7.5 01 FS15|FS50|FS85 024 γmax (%)UC 00.511.5 εv (%)UC 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 ΣSi (in)UC 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] Yi (2022); [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 12.4 4.0 0.0 17 35.1 0.0 0.01 0.01 1.7 1.0 21.1 21.1 63.7 226.9 744.3 82,443.2 1.00 0.75 100.0 12.4 4.0 0.0 17 35.1 0.0 0.04 0.04 1.7 1.0 21.1 21.1 63.7 225.6 740.0 81,500.9 1.50 1.25 100.0 12.4 4.0 0.0 17 35.1 0.0 0.06 0.06 1.7 1.0 21.1 21.1 63.7 224.3 735.9 80,600.2 2.00 1.75 100.0 9.3 4.0 0.0 17 33.2 0.0 0.09 0.09 1.7 1.0 15.8 15.8 55.1 212.7 697.7 72,446.9 2.50 2.25 100.0 9.3 4.0 0.0 17 33.2 0.0 0.11 0.11 1.7 1.0 15.8 15.8 55.1 211.6 694.1 71,696.1 3.00 2.75 100.0 9.3 4.0 0.0 17 33.2 0.0 0.14 0.14 1.7 1.0 15.8 15.8 55.1 210.5 690.6 70,975.5 3.50 3.25 100.0 9.3 4.0 0.0 17 33.2 0.0 0.16 0.16 1.7 1.0 15.8 15.8 55.1 209.5 687.2 70,283.0 4.00 3.75 100.0 11.4 3.0 0.0 17 34.5 0.0 0.19 0.19 1.7 1.0 19.3 19.3 61.0 215.6 707.2 74,432.7 4.50 4.25 100.0 11.4 3.0 0.0 17 34.5 0.0 0.21 0.21 1.7 1.0 19.3 19.3 61.0 214.6 704.0 73,746.7 5.00 4.75 100.0 11.4 3.0 0.0 17 34.5 0.0 0.24 0.24 1.7 1.0 19.3 19.3 61.0 213.6 700.8 73,085.2 5.50 5.25 100.0 11.4 3.0 0.0 17 34.5 0.0 0.26 0.25 1.7 1.0 19.3 19.3 61.0 213.0 698.7 72,643.7 6.00 5.75 100.0 11.4 3.0 0.0 17 34.5 0.0 0.29 0.26 1.7 1.0 19.3 19.3 61.0 212.6 697.5 72,406.8 6.50 6.25 100.0 11.4 3.0 0.0 17 34.5 0.0 0.31 0.27 1.7 1.0 19.3 19.3 61.0 212.3 696.4 72,173.0 7.00 6.75 100.0 9.3 5.0 0.0 17 33.2 0.0 0.34 0.28 1.7 1.0 15.8 15.8 55.1 205.0 672.4 67,287.4 7.50 7.25 100.0 9.4 5.0 0.0 17 33.3 0.0 0.36 0.29 1.7 1.0 16.0 16.0 55.5 205.0 672.7 67,348.2 8.00 7.75 100.0 12.8 9.6 0.0 14 35.4 0.0 0.39 0.30 1.7 1.0 21.7 22.7 66.0 217.3 712.8 75,616.0 8.50 8.25 100.0 13.0 9.6 0.0 14 35.5 0.0 0.41 0.31 1.7 1.0 22.0 23.0 66.5 217.5 713.5 75,759.3 9.00 8.75 100.0 13.1 9.6 0.0 14 35.6 0.0 0.44 0.32 1.7 1.0 22.3 23.3 67.0 217.6 714.0 75,874.4 9.50 9.25 100.0 13.3 9.6 0.0 14 35.7 0.0 0.46 0.33 1.7 1.0 22.6 23.6 67.4 217.8 714.5 75,964.7 10.00 9.75 100.0 22.5 5.0 0.0 17 40.0 0.0 0.49 0.34 1.7 1.0 38.2 38.2 85.7 235.2 771.6 88,600.2 10.50 10.25 100.0 22.7 5.0 0.0 17 40.1 0.0 0.51 0.35 1.7 1.0 38.6 38.6 86.2 235.3 771.9 88,659.3 11.00 10.75 100.0 22.9 5.0 0.0 17 40.2 0.0 0.54 0.36 1.7 1.0 39.0 39.0 86.6 235.3 772.0 88,697.8 11.50 11.25 100.0 23.2 5.0 0.0 17 40.3 0.0 0.56 0.37 1.7 1.0 39.3 39.3 86.9 235.3 772.1 88,717.9 GeoSuite© Version 3.2.2.6. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE, F. ASCE Copyright© 2002 - 2023 GeoAdvanced®. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 8/14/2023 8:27:39 PM SPT Data Interpretation Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Settl.: [dry] Yi (2022); [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 11.00 10.75 11.50 11.25 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 (%) 860.9 0.06 5.0 1.1 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 0.42 0.22 0.01 0.01 0.6382 0.001 0.0009 851.1 0.19 5.0 1.1 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 0.42 0.22 0.02 0.04 0.3652 0.002 0.0009 841.7 0.31 5.0 1.1 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 0.42 0.22 0.03 0.07 0.2275 0.004 0.0009 756.5 0.44 5.0 1.1 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 0.42 0.16 0.04 0.09 0.1483 0.007 0.0011 748.7 0.56 5.0 1.1 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 0.42 0.16 0.05 0.12 0.0973 0.010 0.0011 741.2 0.69 5.0 1.1 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 0.42 0.16 0.06 0.15 0.0628 0.013 0.0046 733.9 0.81 5.0 1.1 0.99 1.00 1.10 1.00 0.42 0.16 0.07 0.17 0.0417 0.017 0.0111 777.3 0.94 5.0 1.1 0.99 1.00 1.10 1.00 0.42 0.20 0.09 0.20 0.0308 0.019 0.0124 770.1 1.06 5.0 1.1 0.99 1.00 1.10 1.00 0.42 0.20 0.10 0.22 0.0349 0.023 0.0195 763.2 1.19 5.0 1.1 0.99 1.00 1.10 1.00 0.42 0.20 0.11 0.25 0.0389 0.027 0.0279 758.6 1.27 5.0 1.1 0.99 1.00 1.10 1.00 0.43 0.20 0.46 0.12 0.27 5.362 1.5883 756.1 1.32 5.0 1.1 0.99 1.00 1.10 1.00 0.45 0.20 0.44 0.13 0.28 5.360 1.5877 753.7 1.36 5.0 1.1 0.99 1.00 1.10 1.00 0.47 0.20 0.42 0.14 0.29 5.357 1.5866 702.7 1.34 4.7 1.1 0.99 1.00 1.10 1.00 0.49 0.16 0.33 0.15 0.29 5.329 1.8426 703.3 1.36 4.7 1.0 0.98 1.00 1.10 1.00 0.51 0.16 0.32 0.16 0.30 5.330 1.8266 789.6 1.46 4.8 1.0 0.98 1.00 1.10 1.00 0.53 0.24 0.46 0.18 0.31 5.307 1.3736 791.1 1.49 4.8 1.0 0.98 1.00 1.10 1.00 0.55 0.25 0.46 0.19 0.32 5.292 1.3524 792.3 1.51 4.7 1.0 0.98 1.00 1.10 1.00 0.56 0.25 0.45 0.20 0.33 5.276 1.3324 793.3 1.53 4.7 1.0 0.98 1.00 1.10 1.00 0.58 0.26 0.45 0.21 0.33 5.259 1.3136 925.2 1.68 4.9 1.0 0.98 1.00 1.10 1.00 0.59 1.30 2.00 0.22 0.34 0.000 0.0000 925.8 1.70 4.9 1.0 0.98 1.00 1.10 1.00 0.60 1.30 2.00 0.23 0.35 0.000 0.0000 926.2 1.72 4.8 1.0 0.97 1.00 1.10 1.00 0.61 1.30 2.00 0.24 0.35 0.000 0.0000 926.5 1.75 4.8 1.0 0.97 1.00 1.10 1.00 0.62 1.30 2.00 0.25 0.36 0.000 0.0000 GeoSuite© Version 3.2.2.6. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE, F. ASCE Copyright© 2002 - 2023 GeoAdvanced®. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 8/14/2023 8:27:39 PM SPT Data Interpretation Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Settl.: [dry] Yi (2022); [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 11.00 10.75 11.50 11.25 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 0.83 860.9 0.9168 0.001 0.0009 0.00 0.84 0.001 0.0023 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.83 851.1 0.8520 0.002 0.0031 0.00 0.84 0.002 0.0051 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.83 841.7 0.8018 0.004 0.0058 0.00 0.84 0.004 0.0095 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.83 756.5 0.7258 0.007 0.0147 0.00 0.84 0.008 0.0246 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.83 748.7 0.6793 0.010 0.0211 0.00 0.84 0.011 0.0345 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.83 741.2 0.6358 0.013 0.0289 0.00 0.84 0.014 0.0455 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.83 733.9 0.5949 0.017 0.0381 0.00 0.84 0.018 0.0570 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.83 777.3 0.5913 0.019 0.0339 0.00 0.83 0.019 0.0478 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.83 770.1 0.5569 0.023 0.0425 0.00 0.83 0.024 0.0577 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.83 763.2 0.5242 0.027 0.0526 0.00 0.83 0.028 0.0696 0.00 0.83 0.10 0.73 758.6 5.362 1.5883 0.10 0.73 5.362 1.5883 0.10 0.73 0.10 0.64 756.1 5.360 1.5877 0.10 0.64 5.360 1.5877 0.10 0.64 0.10 0.54 753.7 5.357 1.5866 0.10 0.54 5.357 1.5866 0.10 0.54 0.11 0.43 702.7 5.329 1.8426 0.11 0.43 5.329 1.8426 0.11 0.43 0.11 0.32 703.3 5.330 1.8266 0.11 0.32 5.330 1.8266 0.11 0.32 0.08 0.24 789.6 5.307 1.3736 0.08 0.24 5.307 1.3736 0.08 0.24 0.08 0.16 791.1 5.292 1.3524 0.08 0.16 5.292 1.3524 0.08 0.16 0.08 0.08 792.3 5.276 1.3324 0.08 0.08 5.276 1.3324 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00 793.3 5.259 1.3136 0.08 0.00 5.259 1.3136 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 925.2 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 925.8 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 926.2 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 926.5 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.00 GeoSuite© Version 3.2.2.6. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE, F. ASCE Copyright© 2002 - 2023 GeoAdvanced®. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 8/14/2023 8:27:39 PM SPT Data Interpretation Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Settl.: [dry] Yi (2022); [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 11.00 10.75 11.50 11.25 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 0.003 0.0069 0.00 1.36 0.001 0.0009 0.00 0.83 0.06 4.7 0.08 6.2 29.6 145.5 75.9 0.017 0.0364 0.00 1.35 0.002 0.0009 0.00 0.83 0.18 4.7 0.23 6.2 28.6 145.5 98.7 0.044 0.0972 0.01 1.35 0.004 0.0009 0.00 0.83 0.30 4.7 0.38 6.2 27.7 145.5 111.5 0.097 0.3100 0.02 1.33 0.007 0.0011 0.00 0.83 0.33 3.8 0.45 5.2 20.1 135.2 117.6 0.189 0.6067 0.04 1.29 0.010 0.0011 0.00 0.83 0.43 3.8 0.58 5.2 19.5 135.2 124.9 0.358 1.1482 0.07 1.22 0.013 0.0046 0.00 0.83 0.52 3.8 0.71 5.2 18.9 135.2 131.0 0.635 1.8419 0.11 1.11 0.017 0.0111 0.00 0.83 0.62 3.8 0.84 5.2 18.3 135.2 136.3 1.000 1.5884 0.10 1.02 0.019 0.0124 0.00 0.83 0.83 4.4 1.10 5.8 21.8 142.3 143.8 1.000 1.5884 0.10 0.92 0.023 0.0195 0.00 0.83 0.94 4.4 1.24 5.8 21.2 142.3 148.2 1.000 1.5884 0.10 0.83 0.027 0.0279 0.00 0.83 1.05 4.4 1.39 5.8 20.6 142.3 152.2 5.362 1.5883 0.10 0.73 5.362 1.5883 0.10 0.73 1.13 4.4 1.49 5.8 20.2 142.3 154.7 5.360 1.5877 0.10 0.64 5.360 1.5877 0.10 0.64 1.17 4.4 1.54 5.8 20.0 142.3 156.1 5.357 1.5866 0.10 0.54 5.357 1.5866 0.10 0.54 1.21 4.4 1.60 5.8 19.9 142.3 157.4 5.329 1.8426 0.11 0.43 5.329 1.8426 0.11 0.43 1.07 3.8 1.46 5.2 16.1 135.2 155.6 5.330 1.8266 0.11 0.32 5.330 1.8266 0.11 0.32 1.12 3.8 1.52 5.2 16.1 135.7 157.1 5.307 1.3736 0.08 0.24 5.307 1.3736 0.08 0.24 1.50 5.0 1.89 6.3 22.8 148.2 162.9 5.292 1.3524 0.08 0.16 5.292 1.3524 0.08 0.16 1.56 5.0 1.97 6.3 23.0 148.7 164.4 5.276 1.3324 0.08 0.08 5.276 1.3324 0.08 0.08 1.60 5.0 2.04 6.4 23.1 149.2 165.8 5.259 1.3136 0.08 0.00 5.259 1.3136 0.08 0.00 1.65 5.0 2.12 6.4 23.1 149.7 167.1 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.70 5.0 2.98 8.8 36.7 169.0 176.9 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.74 5.0 3.08 8.8 36.8 169.5 178.3 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.79 5.0 3.19 8.9 36.8 169.9 179.6 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.84 5.0 3.28 8.9 36.9 170.4 180.9 GeoSuite© Version 3.2.2.6. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE, F. ASCE Copyright© 2002 - 2023 GeoAdvanced®. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 8/14/2023 8:27:39 PM SPT Data Interpretation Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Settl.: [dry] Yi (2022); [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 11.00 10.75 11.50 11.25 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) 75.9 72.1 99.9 54.16 55.79 42.25 0.012 130.40 162.82 0.013 5.00 284.42 98.7 92.8 119.7 73.27 71.83 60.05 0.037 130.40 162.82 0.039 5.00 284.42 111.5 104.4 130.1 84.32 80.79 70.72 0.062 130.40 162.82 0.065 5.00 284.42 117.6 107.1 128.7 86.94 81.70 75.00 0.088 129.67 158.97 0.093 5.00 281.25 124.9 113.5 134.1 93.17 86.56 81.28 0.113 129.67 158.97 0.117 4.74 281.25 131.0 118.9 138.6 98.45 90.65 86.67 0.138 129.67 158.97 0.138 4.30 281.25 136.3 123.5 142.5 103.08 94.20 91.43 0.163 129.67 158.97 0.158 3.97 281.25 143.8 132.3 152.7 111.94 101.95 99.03 0.186 129.16 158.97 0.176 3.70 279.06 148.2 136.2 155.9 115.86 104.93 103.08 0.211 129.16 158.97 0.195 3.48 279.06 152.2 139.7 158.8 119.46 107.65 106.82 0.236 129.16 158.97 0.214 3.30 279.06 154.7 142.0 160.6 121.78 109.39 109.23 0.253 129.16 158.97 0.227 3.19 279.06 156.1 143.1 161.6 123.00 110.31 110.51 0.263 129.16 158.97 0.234 3.14 279.06 157.4 144.3 162.5 124.19 111.20 111.75 0.271 129.16 158.97 0.241 3.09 279.06 155.6 140.3 156.0 120.06 107.01 109.18 0.278 132.43 161.04 0.253 3.11 293.36 157.1 141.7 157.3 121.46 108.12 110.55 0.285 134.03 161.20 0.261 3.10 300.48 162.9 150.7 169.6 130.81 116.81 117.61 0.295 138.03 171.69 0.265 3.14 318.69 164.4 152.2 171.0 132.35 118.05 119.08 0.302 139.56 171.91 0.272 3.13 325.82 165.8 153.6 172.4 133.84 119.24 120.50 0.309 141.07 172.11 0.280 3.11 332.90 167.1 155.0 173.8 135.28 120.39 121.89 0.316 142.55 172.29 0.287 3.10 339.92 176.9 171.3 196.9 152.54 136.65 134.42 0.320 139.41 173.27 0.277 3.00 325.09 178.3 172.7 198.2 154.06 137.86 135.85 0.327 140.75 173.43 0.283 2.98 331.40 179.6 174.1 199.6 155.53 139.04 137.25 0.333 142.08 173.58 0.290 2.97 337.67 180.9 175.4 200.9 156.96 140.18 138.62 0.340 143.39 173.87 0.297 2.96 343.93 GeoSuite© Version 3.2.2.6. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE, F. ASCE Copyright© 2002 - 2023 GeoAdvanced®. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 8/14/2023 8:27:39 PM SPT Data Interpretation Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Settl.: [dry] Yi (2022); [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 11.00 10.75 11.50 11.25 FS50 FS 85 D E Cr N 1.00 0.75 12.0 1.00 0.75 12.0 1.00 0.75 12.0 1.00 0.75 9.0 1.00 0.75 9.0 1.00 0.75 9.0 1.00 0.75 9.0 1.00 0.75 11.0 1.00 0.75 11.0 1.00 0.75 11.0 0.53 0.60 0.00 0.75 11.0 0.50 0.57 0.00 0.75 11.0 0.48 0.54 0.00 0.75 11.0 0.38 0.43 0.00 0.75 9.0 0.37 0.42 0.00 0.76 9.0 0.52 0.60 0.00 0.77 12.0 0.52 0.59 0.00 0.78 12.0 0.52 0.59 0.00 0.79 12.0 0.51 0.59 0.00 0.81 12.0 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.81 20.0 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.82 20.0 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.83 20.0 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.84 20.0 GeoSuite© Version 3.2.2.6. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE, F. ASCE Copyright© 2002 - 2023 GeoAdvanced®. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 8/14/2023 8:27:39 PM