Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHOAG_MITIGATION_MONITORING_UPPER_CAMPUS_PARKING_STRUCTUREHOAG_MITIGATION_MONIT ORING_UPPER CAMPUS_PA RKING STRUCTURE LAWGIBB C;1R-C)-1v"J1P'�& REPORT OF REVISED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED EAST ADDITION HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN Newport Beach, California November 3,1999 Project 70131-9-0330 LAW Crandall LAWGIBB Group Member A November 3, 1999 Mr. Leif N. Thompson, AIA Facilities Design and Construction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive, Suite 6100 Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Subject: Report of Revised Geotechnical Investigation Proposed East Addition Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Newport Beach, California Hoag Project No.1253.08 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330 Dear Mr. Thompson: We are pleased to submit this report presenting the results of our revised geotechnical investigation for the proposed east addition at the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California. Our investigation was conducted in general accordance with our revised proposal for geotechnical services for the proposed east addition and parking structure dated August 6, 1999, as authorized by you on August 11, 1999. We Have previously submitted the results of the revised geotechnical investigation for the proposed parking structure in a report dated September 10, 1999. The scope of our revised investigation was planned based on discussions with Mr. William C. Taylor of Taylor & Associates, Architects. Mr. Ed Gharibans of Taylor & Gaines, Structural Engineers, advised us of the structural features of the proposed east addition. The results of our revised investigation and design recommendations are presented in this report. Please note that you or your representative should submit copies of this report to the appropriate governmental agencies for their review and approval prior to obtaining a building permit. A Division of LAW Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. 200 Citadel Drive • Los Angeles, CA 90040-1554 323-889-5300 • Fax: 323-721-6700 ' Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330 It has been a pleasure to be of professional service to you. Please call if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. ' Sincerely, LAW/CRANDALL A Division of Law En QRpS/OH vironmental Services, Inc. ' QUO PAL C. XF sUSAN FlIMIZEN KIRKGARD 11754 N0. C m AA * IGI I ED C7 m ENERTIFIING ED Carl C. Kim d EKP. 3/i dL Susan F. Kirkgard GEDLDGIST �� 9� 0 Senior Enginee *s CNII. Q Senior Engineerin Geologist FOF CAI �F00 ' r�OF �� OFESS/p Marshall Lew, PI :-CC? Corporate Corporate Consultant �w No. 522 z ' Vice President * nExp 3.31.0 !Z; \\L0SANGELES-1\GROUPS\En ents\90330rp01.doc1CK:ck (2 copies submitted) OF CALWF cc: (4) Taylor & Associates, Architects Attn: Mr. William C. Taylor (1) Taylor & Gaines, Structural Engineers ' Attn: Mr. Ed Gharibans (1) Base Isolation Consultants ' Attn: Mr. Douglas Way 1 ' 2 REPORT OF REVISED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ' PROPOSED EAST ADDITION HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN ' Newport Beach, California Law/Crandall Los Angeles, California ' November 3,1999 Project70131-9-0330 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation LawlCrandall Project 70131-9-0330 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES SUMMARY ...... 1.0 SCOPE... 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 GENERAL .............. November 3, 1999 Page .... iv ...................................... 2 ...................................... 2 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS................................................................................................................... 3 4.0 FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND, LABORATORY TESTS ........................................................ 3 4.1 FIELD EXPLORATIONS............................................................................................. 3 4.2 LABORATORY TESTS................................................................................................ 3 5.0 SOIL CONDITIONS................................................................................................................... 4 6.0 GEOLOGY..................................................................................................................................4 6.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING.................................................................................................. 4 6.2 GEOLOGIC MATERIALS............................................................................................ 5 6.3 GROUNDWATER.........................................................................................................5 6.4 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS................................................................................................ 6 6.6 GEOLOGIC CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................... 11 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................................... 11 7.1 GENERAL...................................................................................................................11 7.2 FOUNDATIONS......................................................................................................... 12 7.3 RESPONSE SPECTRA............................................................................................... 13 7.4 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS......................................15 7.5 EXCAVATION AND SLOPES................................................................................... 15 7.6 UNDERPINNING ............................ :........................................................................... 16 7.7 SHORING....................................................................................................................16 7.8 WALLS BELOW GRADE.......................................................................................... 22 7.9 FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT........................................................................................... 23 7.10 GRADING................................................................................................................. 24 8.0 BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................... 26 9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY.....................................................................................................................27 ii Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) TABLES FIGURES APPENDIX A: FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS APPENDIX B: SOIL CORROSIVITY STUDY APPENDIX C: FAULT DATA APPENDIX D: SEISMICITY AND GROUND MOTION DATA November 3, 1999 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Tables November 3, 1999 I Horizontal Ground Motion Pseudo Spectral Acceleration in Inches/Second 2 Horizontal Ground Motion Pseudo Spectral Velocity in g's Figures I Plot Plan 2 Geologic Section 3 Local Geology 4 Regional Faults 5 Regional Seismicity 6 Response Spectra (10% probability of exceedence in 50 years) 7 Response Spectra (10% probability of exceedence in 100 years) iv Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 Laiv/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330 SUMMARY We have completed our revised geotechnical investigation for the proposed east addition to be constructed within the existing Hoag Hospital campus in NewportBeach, California. The structure is planned to be seven stories in height with one basement level and one sub -basement level for base isolators. The sub -basement level is planned to extend to about 23 feet below existing grade. Free-standing retaining walls with a maximum height of 28 feet are planned around the basement levels to create a moat wall that will provide 30 inches of clearance between the base isolated building and the moat wall. Excavation on the order of 30 feet deep will be required for the development. Some hardscaped and landscaped plaza areas are also planned. Based on the available geologic data, active or potentially active faults with the potential for surface fault rupture are not known to be located beneath the site. In our opinion, the potential for surface rupture at the site due to fault plane displacement propagating to the ground surface during the design life of the proposed east addition is considered low. Although the site could be subjected to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake, this hazard is common in Southern California and the effects of ground shaking can be mitigated if the buildings are designed and constructed in conformance with current building codes and engineering practices. The site is considered grossly stable and not prone to slope stability hazards. The potential for other geologic hazards such as liquefaction, seismic settlement, subsidence, flooding, tsunamis, inundation, and seiches affecting the site is considered low. We explored the soil conditions beneath the site by drilling eight borings. Fill soils, ranging up to about 6-feet thick, were encountered in three of the eight borings. The natural soils beneath the site are terrace deposit consisting primarily of silty sand, sand, clayey sand, and clay with lesser deposits of silt. The natural soils are generally dense or stiff throughout the depths explored. The water level was measured at a depth of 49 feet below the existing grade. W I 1� 1 U II II II IM 1. II 1 10 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330 November 3, 1999 The natural soils at and below the lower subterranean level of the proposed east addition are generally stiff and dense, and the development may be supported on spread footings established in the undisturbed stiff and dense natural soils. The floor slabs of the lower subterranean level (if not structurally supported) may be supported on grade. No significant difficulties due to the soil conditions are anticipated in excavating at the site; conventional earthmoving equipment may be used. Where the necessary space is available for sloped excavation, temporary unsurcharged embankments may be sloped back without shoring. Shoring should be used where sloped excavations are not possible. vi Hoag Mentoria! Hospital Presbyterian—GeotechnicalInvestigation November 3, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-7-0254.0001 1.0 SCOPE This report presents the results of our revised geotechnical investigation performed for the proposed east addition to be constructed at the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian campus in Newport Beach, California. We previously performed numerous geotechnical investigations for projects within and adjacent to the hospital campus, including an investigation of the Newport Boulevard improvements planned by the City of Newport Beach (our Job No. 70131-5-0362). One of the borings (Boring 13) drilled for this investigation is within and applicable to the currently proposed development, and the log of this boring has been incorporated into this report. The location of the proposed development relative to the adjacent existing structures and streets, and the locations of our recent and previous exploration borings are shown in Figure 1, Plot Plan. This revised investigation was authorized to determine the static physical characteristics of the soils at the site of the proposed development, and to provide recommendations for foundation design, shoring, walls below grade, floor slab support, and grading for the proposed development. In addition, we were to perform a geologic -seismic hazards evaluation and a ground motion study of the site to develop input for use in dynamic structural analyses of the proposed development. More specifically, the scope of the investigation included the following: • A field exploration program to determine the nature and stratigraphy of the subsurface soils and groundwater levels and to obtain undisturbed and bulk samples for laboratory observation and testing. • Laboratory testing of the soils for evaluation of the static physical soil properties. • Engineering evaluation of the geotechnical data to determine the design recommendations for the proposed development. • A geologic and seismic hazards evaluation in conformance with Title 24 to address geologic and seismic considerations. I Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian—Geotedmical Investigation LawlCrandall Project 70131-7-0254.0001 November 3, 1999 • A ground motion study to develop input for use in the dynamic structural analyses of the proposed development, including an evaluation of the suitability of time histories selected for use in the proposed non -linear dynamic structural analysis. • A corrosion study to determine the corrosive characteristics of the on -site soils and to develop recommendations for mitigation measures. The assessment of general site environmental conditions for the presence of contaminants in the soils and groundwater of the site was beyond the scope of this investigation. Our recommendations are based on the results of our field explorations, laboratory tests, geologic evaluation, and appropriate engineering analyses. The results of the field explorations and laboratory tests are presented in Appendix A. The results of the corrosion study by M. J. Schiff & Associates, Inc., Consulting Corrosion Engineers, are presented in Appendix B. The fault data are presented in Appendix C; the seismicity and ground motion data studies are presented in Appendix D. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. This report has been prepared for the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian and their design consultants to be used solely in the design of proposed east addition. The report has not been prepared for use by other parties, and may not contain sufficient information for purpose of other parties or other uses. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 GENERAL The proposed east addition at the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian is planned to be seven stories in height with one basement level and one sub -basement level for base isolators. The sub- basement level is planned to extend to about 23 feet below existing grade. Free-standing retaining walls with a maximum height of 28 feet are planned around the basement levels to create a moat wall that will provide 30 inches of clearance between the base isolated building and the moat wall. 2 Hoag A4entorial Hospital Presbyterian—Geotechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 Laiv/Crandall Project 70131-7-0254.0001 Excavation on the order of 30 feet deep will be required for the development. Some hardscaped and landscaped plaza areas are also planned. The proposed structure is identified and shown in plan in Figure 1. Column loads are estimated to range between 760 kips to 1,200 kips. 3.0 SITE The majority of the site of the proposed east addition is currently occupied by an existing building (referred to as the "Ham" building) that contains a partial basement. The remainder of the site of the east addition is either paved or landscaped. The adjacent existing hospital also contains a partial basement. 4.0 FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS 4.1 FIELD EXPLORATIONS The soil conditions beneath the site of the proposed east addition and adjacent parking structure were simultaneously explored by drilling eight borings to depths of 20 to 51 % feet below the existing grade at the locations shown in Figure 1. To supplement the data obtained from our borings, and to obtain data for the liquefaction study, standard penetration tests (SPTs) were performed in two of the borings. Details of the explorations and the logs of the borings are presented in Appendix A. 4.2 LABORATORY TESTS Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples obtained from the borings to aid in the classification of the soils and to determine the pertinent engineering properties of the foundation soils. The following tests were performed: • Moisture content and dry density determinations. • Direct shear. 3 ' Hoag Meniorial'Hospital Presbyterian—GeotecltnlcalInvestigation November 3, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-7-0254.0001 • Consolidation. ' • Compaction. • Sieve analysis. ' Details of the laboratory testing program and test results are presented in Appendix A. The results ' of corrosion study are presented in Appendix B. t5.0 SOIL CONDITIONS Fill soils, 2%x to 6 feet thick, were encountered in three of the eight exploration borings. The fill, ' which consists of silty sand, is not uniformly well compacted and contains some debris. Deeper and/or poorer quality fill may exist between boring locations; however, the existing fill will be ' automatically removed by the planned excavations. The natural soils beneath the site of the proposed development consist of silty sand, sand, clayey sand, and clay with lesser deposits of silt. The silty sand, sand, and clayey sand deposits throughout the depths explored are dense; the clay and silt deposits are stiff. Water was measured at a depth of 49 feet below the existing grade. Based on the corrosion study performed for the site by M. J. Schiff & Associates, Inc., Consulting ' Corrosion Engineers, the on -site soils are classified as severely corrosive to ferrous metals and non -deleterious to portland cement concrete. 6.0 GEOLOGY t6.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING ' The proposed east addition is situated on Newport Mesa, about 1.1 kilometers from the Pacific Ocean and 0.5 kilometer northwest of Newport Bay at an elevation of about 23 to 24 meters above ' mean sea level (U.S. Geological Survey datum). Newport Mesa is one of several physiographic features that compromise the Orange County Coastal Plain. The hills and mesas in the Newport ' area are separated by gaps which were incised into the late Pleistocene age land surface. Two such features are the Santa Ana Gap, which is occupied by the Santa Ana River northwest of Newport Mesa, and Upper Newport Bay, which separates Newport Mesa from the San Joaquin Hills to the 1 4 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian—Geoterbnical Investigation November 3. 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-7-0254.0001 east. The site is near the southern end of the Los Angeles Basin, a structural depression that contains a great thickness of sedimentary rocks. The inferred subsurface distribution of geologic materials that were encountered in our borings is illustrated in Figure 2, Geologic Section. The relationship of the site to local geologic features is shown in Figure 3, Local Geology, and faults in the vicinity of the site are shown in Figure 4, Regional Faults. Figure 5, Regional Seismicity, shows the locations of major faults and earthquake epicenters in Southern California. 6.2 GEOLOGIC MATERIALS Based on a review of previous and current borings drilled at site, the site is locally mantled by artificial fill placed during the initial and subsequent grading and site developments. Artificial fill was encountered in current Borings 1, 4, and 5 to a maximum depth of 1.8 meters (6 feet). The fill materials consist of silty sand, with some concrete and asphalt fragments. The fill materials are underlain by marine terrace deposits composed of varying amounts of clay, silt, and sand. Based on our previous borings drilled at the site, these materials are present beneath the site at elevations greater than 6.0 to 7.6 meters (20 to 25 feet) above sea level (U.S. Geological Survey datum) and are exposed in the bluff along Pacific Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard. The terrace deposits are underlain by the Miocene age Monterey Formation. The Monterey Formation rocks are exposed at the base of the bluff adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway and consist of interbedded siltstone and claystone. The sedimentary rocks of the Monterey Formation together with the underlying Tertiary age sedimentary rocks extend to a depth greater than 3 kilometers beneath the site. 6.3 GROUNDWATER The site is located in Section 28, Township 6 South, Range 10 West and is located outside of the Orange County Coastal Plain. No groundwater was encountered in our borings drilled in the area of the proposed east addition. However, minor water seepage was encountered in Boring 7 at a depth of about 15 meters (49 feet) beneath the existing ground surface. This water seepage is locally perched water and is not representative of the regional groundwater table. Perched water could be present locally within the terrace deposits at other locations, and at the contact between 5 ' Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian—Geotechmcal Investigation November 3, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-7-0254.0001 ' the terrace deposits and the underlying less permeable rocks of the Monterey Formation. The Monterey Formation bedrock is considered to be nonwater-bearing; however, because of the close ' proximity to the Pacific Ocean, the formation is likely to be saturated at or near sea level. 6.4 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ' Fault Rupture The site is not within a currently established Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for surface ' fault rupture hazards. The closest Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, established for the North Branch fault of the Newport -Inglewood fault zone, is located 6 kilometers to the northwest. Based on the available geologic data, active or potentially active faults with the potential for surface fault rupture are not known to be located directly beneath or projecting toward the site. Therefore, the ' potential for surface rupture due to fault plane displacement propagating to the surface at the site during the design life of the proposed east addition is considered low. The numerous faults in Southern California are categorized as active, potentially active, and inactive. Detailed information concerning the faults in the site area is presented in Tables C-1, ' C-2, and C-3 in Appendix C. The closest active fault to the site is the North Branch fault of the Newport -Inglewood fault zone, located about 0.9 kilometer south of the site. Other nearby active faults are the Palos Verdes fault, ' the Whittier fault, and the Elsinore fault zone, located 17 kilometers west-southwest, 34 kilometers north-northeast, and 37 kilometers northeast of the site, respectively. The San Andreas fault zone ' is about 85 kilometers northeast of the site. ' The closest known potentially active fault is an unnamed fault, observed in the cut slope adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway, approximately 790 meters west-southwest of the proposed east addition. Other nearby potentially active faults include the Pelican Hill fault, the Los Alamitos ' fault, the El Modeno fault, and the Peralta Hills fault, located 4.0 kilometers east-northeast, 21 1 6 ' Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian—GeotechnmalInvestigation November 3. 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-7-0254.0001 kilometers northwest, 24 kilometers north-northeast, and 25 kilometers north-northeast of the site, respectively. Seismicity The seismicity of the region surrounding the site was determined from research of a computer catalog of seismic data. A description of the search and the results of the search are presented in Appendix D. Epicenters of major earthquakes (magnitude greater than 6.0) are shown in Figure 5, Regional Seismicity. Several earthquakes of moderate to large magnitude have occurred in the Southern California area within the last 65 years. A list of these earthquakes is included in the following table. List of Historic Earthquakes Earthquake Distance to Direction to (Oldest to Youngest) Date of Earthquake Magnitude Epicenter Epicenter Long Beach March 10,1933 6.4 5 SW San Fernando February 9, 1971 6.6 99 NNW Whittier Narrows October 1, 1987 5.9 52 NNW Sierra Madre June 28, 1991 5.8 73 N Landers June 28, 1992 7.3 147 NE Big Bear June 28, 1992 6.4 118 NE Northridge January 17, 1994 6.7 88 NW Hector Mine October 16, 1999 7.1 189 NE The site could be subjected to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. However, this hazard is common in Southern California and the effects of ground shaking can be mitigated if the proposed east addition is designed and constructed in conformance with current building codes and engineering practices. We have reviewed strong motion records of the Northridge earthquake (Shakal, 1994) from a free - field station located near Newport Boulevard and Coast Highway, shown projected onto the geologic section (CSMIP Station in Figure 2), and from the lower Service Level of the main hospital building. The maximum ground accelerations recorded at the free field station were 0.11 g and 0.08 g for the 90- and 180-degree components, respectively, in the horizontal direction and 0.02 g in the vertical direction. In the lower Service level of the main hospital building, the maximum recorded ground 7 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian—Geotechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-7-0254.0001 accelerations were 0.05 g and 0.08 g in the 335 and 65 degree orientations, respectively, in the horizontal direction and 0.03 g in the vertical direction. These levels of ground motion appear to be normal for an earthquake of this size and distance from the site. Slope Stability The gently sloping topography in the vicinity of the proposed east addition precludes both stability problems and the potential for lurching (earth movement at right angles to a cliff or steep slope during ground shaking). There is an east -facing and a north -facing 2:1 (horizontal to vertical gradient) cut slope about 250 feet away to the north of the east addition. However these slopes expose horizontally layered to massive terrace deposits and are considered grossly stable from a geologic standpoint. According to the City of Newport Beach Seismic Safety Element, the area of the proposed addition is not within an area susceptible to slope instability. Additionally, the site is not located within an area identified as having a potential for seismic slope instability (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998). There are no known landslides near the site, nor is the site in the path of any known or potential landslides. The proposed east addition will have one basement level and one sub -basement level requiring excavation on the order of about 9 meters (30 feet) deep. The excavation will expose artificial fill or alluvial deposits. The artificial fill and alluvial deposits are horizontally stratified and lack any well-defined planar features or discontinuities (such as bedding or joints) which would act as planes of weakness, The geologic conditions will not create an additional surcharge on the proposed subterranean walls or have an adverse effect on the proposed development. Liquefaction and Seismically -Induced Settlement Liquefaction potential is greatest where the groundwater level is shallow, and loose, fine sands occur within a depth of about 15 meters (50 feet) or less. Liquefaction potential decreases as grain size and clay and gravel content increase. As ground acceleration and shaking duration increase during an earthquake, liquefaction potential increases. 8 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian—Geotechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 LowlCrandall Project 70131-7-0254.0001 The groundwater is not expected to be present in significant quantities above Elevation 15 meters (50 feet). The natural soils beneath the site consist primarily of dense silty sand, sand and clayey sand, and stiff clay and silt. In addition, based on the results of the standard penetration tests (SPTs), the granular soils underlying the site are dense with relative densities in excess of 80% and soils with such characteristics have a low liquefaction potential. Therefore, liquefaction will not have any adverse effects on the proposed development. The site is not within a designated liquefaction hazard zone (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998). Seismic settlement is often caused by loose to medium -dense granular soils densified during ground shaking. Uniform settlement beneath a given structure would cause minimal damage; however, because of variations in distribution, density, and confining conditions of the soils, seismic settlement is generally non -uniform and can cause serious structural damage. Dry and partially saturated soils as well as saturated granular soils are subject to seismically -induced settlement. Generally, differential settlements induced by ground failures such as liquefaction, flow slides, and surface ruptures would be much more severe than those caused by densification alone. The dense granular soils encountered in our borings are not in the loose to medium -dense category. Based on the uniform soil conditions at the site, any seismic settlement would be uniform across the building area. We have estimated the seismic settlement at the site to be less than '/< inch. Therefore, the potential for seismically -induced settlement to adversely impact the planned structure is low. Tsunamis, Inundation, Seiches, and Flooding The site is approximately 1.1 kilometers from the Pacific Ocean at an elevation of about 23 to 24 meters above sea level. Therefore, tsunamis (seismic sea waves) are not considered a significant hazard at the site. According to the Orange County General Plan (1995), the site is not located downslope of any large bodies of water that could adversely affect the site in the event of earthquake -induced failures or Seiches (wave oscillations in an enclosed or semi -enclosed body of water). E ' Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian—GeotechnicalInvestigation November 3, 1999 LawlCrandall Project 70131-7-0254.0001 ' The site is in an area of minimal flooding potential (Zone C) as defined by the Federal insurance Administration. ' Subsidence ' The site is not within an area of known subsidence associated with fluid withdrawal (groundwater or petroleum), peat oxidation, or hydrocompaction. 6.5 ESTIMATED PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION ' Ground motions were postulated corresponding,to the Upper Bound Earthquake (UBE), having a ' 10% probability of exceedence during a 100-year time period. ' The site -specific peak ground acceleration for the UBE was estimated by a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) using the computer program FRISKSP, Version 3.O1 b (Blake, 1998), The faults used in the study are shown in Tables C-2 and C-3 in Appendix C, along with the maximum magnitude and the slip rate assigned to each fault. FRISKSP converts the slip rate into an activity rate ' for each fault using an algorithm consistent with the Anderson and Luco Occurrence Relation 2 (Anderson and Luco, 1983). ' The peak ground acceleration was developed using the average ground motions obtained using the ground motion attenuation relations for a type'B" site classification discussed in Boore et al. (1993) and a type "C" site classification. ' Dispersion in the Boore et al. ground motion attenuation relationships was considered by inclusion of the standard deviation of the ground motion data in the attenuation relationship used in the PSHA. ' For the fault rupture length versus magnitude relationship, we have used the relationship of Wells and Coppersmith (1994) for "all -slip -type" for all the faults in the model. The estimated peak ground ' acceleration for the UBE is 0.52 g. 1 ' 10 ' Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian—Geotechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 LawlCrandall Project 70131-7-0254.0001 6.6 GEOLOGIC CONCLUSIONS Based on the available geologic data, active or potentially active faults with the potential for surface ' fault rupture are not known to be located beneath the site. In our opinion, the potential for surface rupture at the site due to fault plane displacement propagating to the ground surface during the design ' life of the proposed east addition is considered low. Although the site could be subjected to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake, this hazard is common in Southern California and the teffects of ground shaking can be mitigated if the buildings are designed and constructed in conformance with current building codes and engineering practices. The site is considered grossly stable and not prone to slope stability hazards. The potential for other geologic hazards such as liquefaction, seismic settlement, subsidence, flooding, tsunamis, inundation, and seiches affecting the site is considered low. ' 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 GENERAL ' The natural soils at and below the planned excavation level are dense and stiff, and the proposed hospital addition may be supported on spread footings established in the dense and stiff natural soils at the excavation level. Individual footings, or a combination of individual and combined or ' continuous footings may be used. The floor slabs of the structure (if not structurally supported) may be supported on grade. Based on the existing topography of the site, excavation ranging from about 10 to 30 feet below ' the existing grade will be required for the proposed development. ' The adjacent existing hospital building also contains a partial basement. Where the existing building adjacent to the planned addition does not contain a basement, underpinning of the I' existing foundations near the existing grade and adjacent to the planned excavation may be required unless the shoring and permanent basement walls of the proposed addition are designed I' to support the lateral surcharge pressure imposed by the adjacent existing foundations. We can determine the lateral surcharge pressure imposed by any adjacent foundations when their locations ' 11 Hoag Memoria[Hospital Presbyterian—Geotechmcal Investigation November 3, 1999 LawlCrandall Project 70131-7-0254.0001 and imposed loads are known. In addition, any new shallow footings adjacent to the existing basement should be located below a plane drawn at 1:1 upward from the bottom of the existing footings. 7.2 FOUNDATIONS Bearing Values Spread footings carried at least 1 foot into the stiff and dense natural soils, and at least 3 feet below the lowest adjacent floor level, may be designed to impose a net dead -plus -live load pressure of 6,000 pounds per square foot. A one-third increase in the bearing value may be used when considering wind or seismic loads. Since the recommended bearing value is a net value, the weight of concrete in the footings may be taken as 50 pounds per cubic foot and the weight of soil backfill over the footings may be neglected when determining the downward load on the footings. Footings for minor structures (including low retaining walls, free-standing walls, and elevator pit walls) established in properly compacted fill and/or undisturbed natural soils, may be designed to impose a net dead -plus -live load pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot. Footings should extend at least 1 %2 feet below the adjacent final grade or floor level. Settlement The settlement of each of the proposed buildings, supported on spread footings in the manner recommended is expected to be on the order of 1 %2 inches or less. At least half of the total settlement is anticipated to occur during construction (shortly after dead loads are imposed). Based on our review of the proposed foundation plan dated August 26, 1999 marked up with estimated column loads by the project structural engineer, differential settlements are anticipated to be on the order of/a inch. Lateral Loads Lateral loads may be resisted by soil friction against the footings and the floor slabs, and by the passive resistance of the soils. A coefficient of friction of 0.5 may be used between the floor slabs, spread footings, and the supporting soils. The passive resistance of the undisturbed natural soils or 12 ' Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian—Geotechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 LawlCrandall Project 70131-7-0254.0001 1 ' properly compacted fill against footings may be assumed to be 300 pounds per cubic Foot. Aone- third increase in the passive value may be used for wind or seismic loads. ' The passive resistance of the soils and the frictional resistance between the floor slabs, footings, and the supporting soils may be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral tresistance. ' Foundation Observation ' To verify the presence of satisfactory soils at design elevations, all footing excavations should be observed by personnel of our firm. Footings should be deepened as necessary to reach satisfactory ' supporting soils. Where footing excavations are deeper than 4 feet, the sides of the excavations should be sloped back or shored for safety. Backfill around and over footings and utility trench backfill within the building area should be mechanically compacted; flooding should not be permitted. ' Inspection of the foundation excavations may also be required by the appropriate reviewing governmental agencies. The contractor should be familiar with the inspection requirements of the ' reviewing agencies. 7.3 RESPONSE SPECTRA ' Ground motions were postulated corresponding to the Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) having a 10% probability of exceedence during a 50-year time period and the Maximum Capable Earthquake (MCE) or the Upper Bound Earthquake (UBE) having a 10% probability of ' exceedence during a 100-year time period. ' Site -specific response spectra for the two levels of shaking specified were determined by a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) using the computer program FRISKSP, ' Version 3.01b. Details of the PSHA are given in Appendix D, Seismicity and Ground Motion Data. The response spectra for the DBE and MCE are presented in Figures 6 and 7, respectively, for structural damping values of 2%, 5%, and 10%. The response spectra in tabular form are 1 13 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian—Geotechnical Investigation Lair/Crandall Project 70131-7-0254.0001 Novewber 3, 1999 shown in Tables 1 and 2 for the pseudo spectral acceleration and pseudo spectral velocity, respectively. We understand that the horizontal components of strong motion records (time histories) are planned to be scaled to approximate ground motions resulting in 1.3 times the DBE response spectrum. Three sets of horizontal time histories are planned to be scaled to approximate ground motions resulting in 1.3 times the MCE response spectrum. The strong motion records proposed for use in the non -linear dynamic analysis of the proposed structure are presented in the tables below. DBE Station Earthquake El Centro Array Station 7 1979 Imperial Valley Yermo—Fire Station Hollister — South Street & Pine Drive Newhall — Fire Station Petrolia—General Store Lucerne Valley Van Nuys 1992 Landers 1989 Loma Prieta 1994 Northridge 1992 Cape Mendocino/Petrolia 1992 Landers 1994 Northridge MCE Station Earthquake El Centro Array Station G 1979 Imperial Valley Lexington Dam 1989 Loma Prieta Sylmar —County Hospital Parking Lot 1994 Northridge The time histories listed in the tables above are suitable for use in the non -linear dynamic analysis of the proposed structure. 14 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian—Geotechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 Laiv/Crandall Project 70131-7-0254.0001 7.4 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS The site coefficient, S, can be determined as established in the Earthquake Regulations under Section 1628 of the Uniform Building Code, 1994 edition, for seismic design of the proposed development. Based on a review of the local soil and geologic conditions, the site may be classified as Soil Profile S2, and the site coefficient (S) may be taken as equal to a value of 1.2 as specified in the code. The site is located within UBC Seismic Zone 4. Furthermore, based on the SPT blowcounts and Section 1636 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code, the site may be categorized as having an SC soil profile. The nearest fault to the site classified as active is the Newport -Inglewood fault, which has been determined to be a Type B seismic source by the California Division of Mines and Geology, According to Map M-33 in the 1998 publication from the International Conference of Building Officials entitled "Maps of Known Active Fault Near -Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada," the project site is located within 2 kilometers of the Newport -Inglewood fault. At this distance for a seismic source type B, the near source factors, Na and Nv, are to be taken as 1.3 and 1.6,respectively, based on Tables 16-S and 16-T of the 1997 UBC. 7.5 EXCAVATION AND SLOPES Excavation on the order of 30 feet deep below the existing grade will be required for the proposed development. Where the necessary space is available, temporary unsurcharged embankments may be sloped back at 1:1 without shoring. Adjacent to any existing structure, the bottom of any unshored excavation should be restricted so as not to extend below a plane drawn at 1'/Z:1 (horizontal to vertical) downward from the foundations of existing structure. Where space is not available, shoring will be required. Data for design of shoring are presented in a following section. The excavations should be observed by personnel of our firm so that any necessary modifications based on variations in the soil conditions encountered can be made. All applicable safety requirements and regulations, including OSHA regulations, should be met. Where sloped embankments are used, the tops of the slopes should be barricaded to prevent vehicles and storage loads within 7 feet of the tops of the slopes. A greater setback may be 15 ' Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian—Geotechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-7-0254 0001 ' necessary when considering heavy vehicles, such as concrete trucks and cranes; we should be advised of such heavy vehicle loadings so that specific setback requirements call be established. If the temporary construction embankments are to be maintained during the rainy season, berms are ' suggested along the tops of the slopes where necessary to prevent runoff water from entering the excavation and eroding the slope faces. 7.6 UNDERPINNING ' There is an existing hospital building adjacent to the addition. Based on the extent of the planned ' basement of the addition, underpinning of the existing foundations may be necessary unless the adjacent shoring and permanent basement walls of the proposed addition are designed to support ' the lateral surcharge by the foundations of the adjacent existing hospital. Underpinning carried to the same level as the footings of the proposed addition may be designed to impose the bearing ' pressure of 6,000 pouhds per square foot given in Section 7.2. If necessary, we can provide information on the lateral surcharge pressures imposed by the footings of the adjacent existing hospital when their locations and imposed loads are known. ' 7.7 SHORING General ' Where there is not sufficient space for sloped embankments, shoring will be required. One method ' of shoring would consist of steel soldier piles placed in drilled holes, backfilled with concrete, and tied back with earth anchors. Some difficulty may be encountered in the drilling of the soldier piles and the anchors because of caving in the sandy deposits. Special techniques and measures will be necessary in some areas to permit the proper installation of the soldier piles and/or tie -back ' anchors. In addition, if there is not sufficient space to install the tie -back anchors to the desired lengths on any side of the excavation, the soldier piles of the shoring system may be internally braced. The following information on the design and installation of the shoring is as complete as possible ' at this time. We can furnish any additional required data as the design progresses. Also, we 10 1 16 11 1 11 11 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian—Geotechmcal Investigation November 3. 1999 LawlCrandall Project 70131-7-0254.0001 suggest that our firm review the final shoring plans and specifications prior to bidding or negotiating with a shoring contractor. We recommend that the adjacent existing buildings be surveyed for horizontal and vertical locations. Also, a careful survey of existing cracks and offsets in -any adjacent structures should be performed and recorded and photographic records made. Lateral Pressures For excavation heights of 15 feet or less, cantilevered shoring may be used. For design of cantilevered shoring, a triangular distribution of lateral earth pressure may be used. It may be assumed that the retained soils with a level surface behind the cantilevered shoring will exert a lateral pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 30 pounds per cubic foot. For heights of shoring greater than 15 feet, the use of braced or tied -back shoring is recommended. For the design of tied -back or braced shoring, we recommend the use of a trapezoidal distribution of earth pressure. The recommended pressure distribution, for the case where the grade is level behind the shoring, is illustrated in the following diagram with the maximum pressure equal to 22H in pounds per square foot, where H is the height of the shoring in feet. (Where a combination of sloped embankment and shoring is used, the pressure would be greater and must be determined for each combination.) H-HEIGHT SHORING IN FT (P S F.) 0 2H 06H 0 2H 17 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian—Geotechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 LawlCrandall Project 70131-7-0254.0001 ' In addition to the recommended earth pressure, the upper ] 0 feet of shoring adjacent to the streets and vehicular traffic areas should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds ' per square foot, acting as a result of an assumed 300 pounds per square foot surcharge behind the shoring due to normal street traffic. If the traffic is kept back at least 10 feet from the shoring, the traffic surcharge may be neglected. Furthermore, the shoring system adjacent to existing structures ' should also be designed to support the lateral surcharge pressures imposed by the adjacent structure foundations, unless the existing foundations are underpinned. Furthermore, the shoring ' system should be designed to support the lateral surcharge pressures imposed by concrete trucks and other heavy construction equipment placed near the shoring system. 1 Design of Soldier Piles For the design of soldier piles spaced at least two diameters on centers, the allowable lateral ' bearing value (passive value) of the soils below the level of excavation may be assumed to be 600 pounds per square foot per foot of depth at the excavated surface, .up to a maximum of 6,000 pounds per square foot. To develop the full lateral value, provisions should be taken to assure firm contact between the soldier piles and the undisturbed soils. The concrete placed in the ' soldier pile excavations may be a lean -mix concrete. However, the concrete used in that portion of the soldier pile which is below the planned excavated level should be of sufficient strength to ' adequately transfer the imposed loads to the surrounding soils. ' The frictional resistance between the soldier piles and the retained earth may be used in resisting the downward component of the anchor load. The coefficient of friction between the soldier piles ' and the retained earth may be taken as 0.4. (This value is based on the assumption that uniform full bearing will be developed between the steel soldier beam and the lean -mix concrete and between the lean -mix concrete and the retained earth.) In addition, provided that the portion of the ' soldier piles below the excavated level is backfilled with structural concrete, the soldier piles below the excavated level may be used to resist downward loads. For resisting the downward ' loads, the frictional resistance between the concrete soldier piles and the soils below the excavated level may be taken equal to 300 pounds per square foot. 18 Haag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian—Geotechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 LawlCrandall Project 70131-7-0254.0001 Lagging Continuous lagging will be required between the soldier piles within the less cohesive soils, such ' as silty sand, sand, and clayey sand. If the clear spacing between the soldier piles does not exceed 4 feet, it may be possible to omit lagging within the cohesive soils. We recommend that the ' exposed soils be observed by personnel of our firm to determine the areas where lagging may be omitted. The unlagged soils should be sprayed with an asphaltic emulsion or equivalent to keep the soils from drying. Depending on the length of exposure, the soils may still dry and crack, posing a hazard for personnel working at the base of the shoring. In such an event, it may be necessary to re -spray the soils or apply wire mesh or chain link fencing to the face of the shoring to prevent chunks of soil from falling. ' The soldier piles and anchors should be designed for the full anticipated lateral pressure. However, ' the pressure on the lagging will be less due to arching in the soils. We recommend that the lagging be designed for the recommended earth pressure but limited to a maximum value of 400 pounds per square foot. ' Anchor Design Tie -back friction anchors may be used to resist lateral loads. For design purposes, it may be assumed that the active wedge adjacent to the shoring is defined by a plane drawn at 35 degrees with the vertical through the bottom of the excavation. The anchors should extend at least 15 feet ' beyond the potential active wedge and to a greater length if necessary to develop the desired capacities. ' The capacities of anchors should be determined by testing of the initial anchors as outlined in a following section. For design purposes, we estimate that drilled friction anchors will develop an average friction value of 500 pounds per square foot. Only the frictional resistance developed tbeyond the active wedge would be effective in resisting lateral loads. If the anchors are spaced at least 6 feet on centers, no reduction in the capacity of the anchors need be considered due to group action. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian—GeoteclmicalInvestigation November 3, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-7-0254.0001 Anchor Installation The anchors may be installed at angles of 15 to 40 degrees below the horizontal. Caving of the anchor holes should be anticipated and provisions made to minimize such caving. The anchors should be filled with concrete placed by pumping from the tip out, and the concrete should extend from the tip of the anchor to the active wedge. To minimize chances of caving, we suggest that the portion of the anchor shaft within the active wedge be backfilled with sand before testing the anchor. This portion of the shaft should be filled tightly and flush with the face of the excavation. The sand backfill may contain a small amount of cement to allow the sand to be placed by pumping. Anchor Testing Our representative should select at least two of tine initial anchors for each building for 24-hour 200% tests, and at least five additional anchors for quick 200% tests. Tile purpose of tine 200% tests is to verify the friction value assumed in design. Tile anchors should be tested to develop twice the assumed friction value. Where satisfactory tests are not achieved on tine initial anchors, the anchor diameter and/or length should, be increased until satisfactory test results are obtained. The total deflection during the 24-hour 200% tests should not exceed 12 inches during loading; the anchor deflection should not exceed 0.75 inch during the 24-hour period, measured after the 200% test load is applied. If the anchor movement after the 200% load has been applied for 12 hours is less than 0.5 inch, and the movement over the previous 4 hours has been less than 0.1 inch, the test may be terminated. For the quick 200% tests, the 200% test load should be maintained for 30 minutes. The total deflection of the anchor during the 200% quick test should not exceed 12, inches; the deflection after the 200% test load has been applied should not exceed 0.25 inch during the 30-minute period. Where satisfactory tests are not achieved on the initial anchors, the anchor diameter and/or length should be increased until satisfactory test results are obtained. All of the production anchors should be pretested to at least 150% of the design load; the total deflection during the tests should not exceed 12 inches. The rate of creep under the 150% test 20 ' Hoag A4eniortal Hospital Presbyterian—Geotechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 LawlCrandall Project 70131-7-0254.0001 ' should not exceed 0.1 inch over a 15-minute period For the anchor to be approved for the design loading. After a satisfactory test, each production anchor should be locked -off at the design load. The locked -off load should be verified by rechecking the load in the anchor. If the locked -off load ' varies by more than 10% from the design load, the load should be reset until the anchor is locked - off within 10% of the design load. The installation of the anchors and the testing of the completed anchors should be observed by our ' firm. ' Internal Bracing ' Raker bracing may be used to internally brace the soldier piles. If used, raker bracing could be supported laterally by temporary concrete footings (deadmen) or by the permanent interior footings. For design of such temporary footings, poured with the bearing surface normal to the rakers inclined at 45 to 60 degrees with the vertical, a bearing value of 3,000 pounds per square foot may be used, provided the shallowest point of the footing is at least I foot below the lowest adjacent grade. To reduce the movement of the shoring, the rakers should be tightly wedged ' against the footings and/orshoring system. Deflection ' It is difficult to accurately predict the amount of deflection of a shored embankment. It should be realized, however, that some deflection will occur. We estimate that this deflection could be on the order of I inch at the top of the shored embankment. If greater deflection occurs during ' construction, additional bracing may be necessary to minimize settlement of the existing utilities within or adjacent to the site. If desired to reduce the deflection of the shoring, a greater active pressure could be used in the shoring design. 1 21 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian--Geotechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 LawlCrandall Project 70131-7-0254.0001 Monitoring Some means of monitoring the performance of the shoring system is recommended. The monitoring should consist of periodic surveying of the lateral and vertical locations of the tops of all the soldier piles. We will be pleased to discuss this further with the design consultants and the contractor when the design of the shoring system has been finalized. 7.8 WALLS BELOW GRADE Lateral Pressures For design of cantilevered retaining walls below grade where the surface of the backfill is level, it may be assumed that the soils will exert a lateral pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 35 pounds per cubic foot. The basement walls should be designed to resist a trapezoidal distribution of lateral earth pressure. The lateral earth pressure on the permanent basement walls will be similar to that recommended for design of temporary shoring except that the maximum lateral pressure will be 24H in pounds per square foot, where H is the height of the basement wall in feet. In addition to the recommended earth pressure, the upper 10 feet of walls adjacent to streets and vehicular traffic areas should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot, acting as a result of an assumed 300 pounds per square foot surcharge behind the walls due to normal traffic. If the traffic is kept back at least 10 feet from the walls, the traffic surcharge may be neglected. Furthermore, adjacent to any existing structures, the basement walls should be designed for the appropriate lateral surcharge pressures imposed by the foundations of the structures unless the foundations are underpinned. The lateral surcharge pressures imposed by the adjacent foundations could be computed when the locations, sizes, and loads of these foundations are known. Backfll Any required soil backfill should be mechanically compacted, in layers not more than 8 inches thick, to at least 90% of the maximum density obtainable by the ASTM Designation D1557-91 22 ' Hoag A4eniortal Hospital Presbyterian—Geotechntcal Investigation November 3, 1999 Lam/Crandall Project 70131-7-0254.0001 ' method of compaction. The backfill should be sufficiently impermeable when compacted to restrict the inflow of surface water. Some settlement of the deep backfill should be allowed for in ' planning sidewalks and utility connections. Drainage System ' If the backfill is placed and compacted as recommended and good surface drainage is provided, infiltration of water into the backfill should be small. However, we suggest that building walls below grade be waterproofed or at least dampproofed. We also recommend that a perimeter drain ' be installed at the base of building walls below grade. The perimeter drain may consist of a 4-incli- diameter perforated pipe placed with the perforations down and surrounded by at least 4 inches of ' filter gravel. Non -building retaining walls should also be provided with a drain or weep holes. 7.9 FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT Because the proposed structure is planned to be base isolated, significant floor slab areas supported on grade are not anticipated. However, recommendations for floor slab support are presented in the event that there may be some floor slabs on grade. If the subgrade is prepared as recommended, in the following section on grading, the building ' floor slabs and other slabs may be supported on grade. Construction activities and exposure to the environment may cause deterioration of the prepared subgrade. Therefore, we recommend that our ' field representative observe the condition of the final subgrade soils immediately prior to slab -on - grade construction and, if necessary, perform further density and moisture content tests to determine the suitability of the final prepared subgrade. Care should be taken not to allow the clay to dry out and crack before pouring the floor slabs. In areas where moisture -sensitive floor covering is planned, we recommend that the floor slabs at ' these locations be underlain by a capillary break consisting of a vapor -retarding membrane over 4-inch-thick layer of gravel. Two -inch -thick layers of sand should be placed above and below the membrane to decrease the possibility of damage to the membrane and to reduce the potential for slab curling. A suggested gradation for the gravel would be as follows: III 23 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian—Geotechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 LawlCrandall Project 70131-7-0254.0001 Sieve Size Percent Passing 3/4" 90-100 No.4 0-10 No.100 0-3 If a membrane is used, a low -slump concrete should be used to minimize possible curling of the slabs. Care should be taken during the placement of the concrete to prevent displacement of the sand. The concrete slab should be allowed to cure properly before placing vinyl or other moisture - sensitive floor covering. Where vinyl or other moisture -sensitive floor covering is not planned, the floor slab may be supported directly on the prepared subgrade. 7.10 GRADING Site Preparation To provide support for shallow spread footings of minor structures and for floor slabs on grade, all the existing fill and disturbed natural soils should be excavated and replaced as properly compacted fill. Where excavations are deeper than about 4 feet, the sides of the excavations should be sloped back or shored for safety. Recommendations for sloping of excavations and shoring were presented in preceding sections. After the site is cleared, the exposed soils should be carefully observed for the removal of all unsuitable deposits. Next, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, brought to near -optimum moisture content, and rolled with heavy compaction equipment. The upper 6 inches of the exposed soils should be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry density obtainable by the ASTM Designation D1557-91 method of compaction. After compacting the exposed soils, all required fill should be placed in loose lifts not more than 8 inches thick and compacted to at least 90%. The moisture content of the on -site soils at the time of compaction should vary no more than 2% below or above optimum moisture content. The moisture content of on -site clayey soils should be brought to about 4% above optimum at the time of compaction. 24 ' Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian—Geoteclmical Investigation November 3, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-7-0254.0001 ' Material for Fill The on -site soils, less any debris or organic matter, may be used in required fills. Any required ' import material should consist of relatively non -expansive soils with an Expansion Index of less than 35. The imported materials should contain sufficient fines (binder material) so as to be relatively impermeable and result in a stable subgrade when compacted. All proposed import materials should be approved by our personnel prior to being placed at the site. ' Field Observation ' The reworking of the upper soils and the compaction of all required fill should be observed and tested during placement by a representative of our firm. This representative should perform at least ' the following duties: ' • Observe the clearing and grubbing operations for proper removal of all unsuitable materials. • Observe the exposed subgrade in areas to receive fill and in areas where excavation has resulted in the desired finished subgrade. The representative should also observe proofrolling and delineation of areas requiring ' overexcavation. • Evaluate the suitability of on -site and import soils for fill placement; collect and submit soil samples for required or recommended laboratory testing where necessary. • Observe the fill and backfill for uniformity during placement. ' • Test backfill for field density and compaction to determine the percentage of compaction achieved during backfill placement. • Observe and probe foundation materials to confirm that suitable bearing materials are present at the design foundation depths. The governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the project should be notified prior to commencement of grading so that the necessary grading permits can be obtained and arrangements can be made for required inspection(s). The contractor should be familiar with the inspection ' requirements of the reviewing agencies. 25 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian—Geotecbnical Investigation November 3, 1999 LawlCrandall Project 70131-7-0254.0001 8.0 BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations provided in this report are based on our understanding of the described project information and on our interpretation of the data collected during the subsurface exploration. We have made our recommendations based on experience with similar subsurface conditions under similar loading conditions. The recommendations apply to the specific project discussed in this report; therefore, any change in the proposed development configurations, loads, locations, or the site grades should be provided to us so we may review our conclusions and recommendations and make any necessary modifications. The recommendations provided in this report are also based on the assumption that the necessary geotechnical observations and testing during construction will be performed by representatives of our firm. The field observation services are considered a continuation of the geotechnical investigation and essential to determine that the actual soil conditions are as anticipated. This also provides for a procedure whereby the client can be advised of unanticipated or changed conditions that would require modifications of our original recommendations. In addition, the presence of our representative at the site provides the client with an independent professional opinion regarding the geotechnically-related construction procedures. If another firm is retained for the geotechnical observation services, our professional responsibility and liability would be limited to the extent that we would not be the geotechnical engineer of record. 1 26 ' Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian—Geotechnical Investigation November 3. 1999 LawlCrandall Project 70131-7-0254.0001 9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY ' Anderson, John G., and Luco, J. Enrique, 1983, "Consequences of Slip Rate Constraints on Earthquake Occurrence Relations," Bulletin of the Seismological .Society of America, Vol. 73, No. 2, p. 471-496. Anderson, J.G., 1984, "Synthesis of Seismicity and Geologic Data in California," U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 84-424. ' Barrie, D.S., Tatnall, T.S., and Gath, E.M., 1992, "Neotectonic Uplift and Ages of Pleistocene Marine Terraces, San Joaquin Hills, Orange County California," in Heath, E.G. and Lewis, ' W.L., eds., The Progressive Pleistocene Shoreline, Southern California, Southcoast Geological Society, Annual Field Trip Guidebook No. 20, p. 115-121. ' Barrie, D.S., Tatnall, T.S., and Gath, E.M., 1989, "Postulated Quaternary Uplift Rates of the San Joaquin Hills between Newport Beach and Laguna Beach, Orange County, California, in Cann, L.R., and Steiner, E.A., compilers, Association of Engineering Geologists, Southern California Section, Annual Field Trip Guidebook and Volume, p. 53-68. 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. ' Blake, T.F., 1998, "FRISKSP, A Computer Program for Probabilistic Estimation of Peak Acceleration and Uniform Hazard Spectra Using 3-D Faults as Earthquake Sources." Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and Fumal, T.E., 1994, "Estimation of Response Spectra and Peak Accelerations from Western North American Earthquakes: An Interim Report, Part 2," U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 94-127. ' Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and Fumal, T.E., 1993, "Estimation of Response Spectra and Peak Accelerations from Western North American Earthquakes: An Interim Report," U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 93-509. Bryant, W.A., 1988, "Recently Active Traces of the Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone, Los Angeles and Orange Counties, California," California Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 88-14. Bryant, W.A., 1986, "Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone Across Southwest Newport Mesa, Orange County, California," California Division of Mines and Geology Fault Evaluation Report FER 172. ' California Department of Water Resources, 1976, "Crustal Strain and Fault Movement Investigation," Bulletin 116-2. ie 1 27 Hoag Mentorial Hospital Presbyterian—Geotechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-7-0254.0001 California Department of Water Resources, 1967, "Progress Report on Groundwater Geology of the Coastal Plain of Orange County" California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, "State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, Newport Beach Quadrangle, Official Map," Liquefaction Zones Released April 7, 1997; Landslide Zones Released April 15, 1998. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, "Checklists for Review of Geologic/Seismic Reports for California Public Schools, Hospitals, and Essential Services Buildings" CDMG Note 48. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California," Special Publication 117. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1996, "Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California" Open File Report 96-08. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1986, "Earthquake Fault Zones Map of the Newport Beach Quadrangle," Revised Official Map, July 1, 1986." California Division of Mines and Geology, 1986, "Guidelines for Preparing Engineering Geologic Reports," CDMG Note 44. California Institute of Technology, Magnetic Tape Catalog of Earthquakes for Southern California, 1932-1998. Clarke, S.H., Greene, H.G., and 'Kennedy, M.P., 1985, "Identifying Potentially Active Faults and Unstable Slopes Offshore," in Ziony, J.I., ed., Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region An Earth -Science Perspective, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1320, p. 347-373. Cramer, C.H. and Petersen, M.D., 1996, "Predominant Seismic Source Distance and Magnitude Maps for Los Angeles, Orange, and Ventura Counties, California," Bulletin of Seismological Society ofAnterica, Vol. 86, No. 5, pp. 1645-1649. Darragh, R., Cao, T., Huang, M., and Shakal, A., 1994, "Processed CSMIP Strong -Motion Records from the Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994," Release No. 9: California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program, Report OSMS 94-16. Dolan, J.F., et al., 1995, "Prospects for Larger or More Frequent Earthquakes in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Region, California," Science, Vol. 267, 199-205 pp. Dolan, J.F. and Sieh K., 1993, "Tectonic Geomorphology of the Northern Los Angeles Basin: Seismic Hazards and Kinematics of Young Fault Movement." Dolan, J.F. and Sieh, K., 1992, "Paleoseismology and Geomorphology of the Northern Los Angeles Basin: Evidence for Holocene Activity on the Santa Monica Fault and Identification of New 28 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian—Geotechnical Investigation Laip/Crandall Project 70131-7-0254.0001 November 3, 1999 Strike -Slip Faults through Downtown Los Angeles," EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, Vol. 73, p. 589. Environmental Management Agency, County of Orange, 1987, "Orange County Safety Element." Fife, D.L., and Bryant, M.E., 1983, "The Peralta Hills Fault, A Transverse Range Structure in, the Northern Peninsular Ranges, Orange County, California," Association of Engineering Geologists, Abstract, 26th Annual Meeting, San Diego, California. Geocon, 1986, "Palos Verdes Fault Literature Review For FY86 Long Beach Family Housing, Los Angeles, California," for the Peterson Architectural Group. Goter, S.K., Oppenheimer, D.H., Mori, J.J., Savage, M.K., and Masse, R.P., 1994, "Earthquakes in California and Nevada," U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 94-647. Gray, C.H., Jr., 1961, "Geology of and Mineral Resources of the Corona South Quadrangle," California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin No. 178. Greene, H.G., and Kennedy, M.P., 1987, "Geology of the Inner -Southern California Continental Margin," California Division of Mines and Geology, Continental Margin Geologic Map Series, Area 1, 4 Map Sheets. Greenwood, R.B., and Morton, D.M., compilers, 1991, "Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 1:100,000 Quadrangle, California," California Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 91-17. Guptii, P.D., Armstrong, C., and Egli, M., 1992, "Structural Features of the West Newport Mesa," in Heath, E.G., and Lewis, W.L., editors, The Regressive Pleistocene Shoreline, Southern California: Southcoast Geological Society Annual Fieldtrip Guidebook, No. 20, P. 123-136. Guptil, P.D. and Heath, E.G., 1981, "Surface Faulting Along the Newport -Inglewood Zone of Deformation," in California Geology, Vol. 34, No. 7. Hall, J.F., ed., 1995, "Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994, Reconnaissance Report: Earthquake Spectra," EERI Publication 95-03. Hart, E. W., 1973, revised 1997, "Fault -Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zone Maps," California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Hauksson, E., 1990, Earthquakes, Faulting, and Stress in the Los Angeles Basin," Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 95, No. B 10, pp. 15,365-15,394. Hauksson, E., 1987, "Seismotectonics of the Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone in the Los Angeles Basin, Southern California," Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 77, pp.539-561. 29 I U iN U U ■ I ■ 1 1 Ile Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian—Geotechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 LawlCrandall Project 70131-7-0254.0001 Herndon, R.L., 1992, "Hydrology of the Orange County Groundwater Basin —An Overview," in Heath, E.G., and Lewis, W.L., eds., The Regressive Pleistocene Shoreline, Southern California, Southcoast Geological Society Annual Field Trip Guidebook, No. 20. Hummon, C., Schnieder, C.L., Yeats, R.S., Dolan, J.F., Sieh, K.E., and Huftile, G.J., 1994, "Wilshire Fault: Earthquakes in Hollywood?," Geology, Vol. 22, pp. 291-294. Hunter, A.L., and Allen, D.R., 1956, "Recent Developments in West Newport Oil Field," California Division of Oil and Gas, Summary of Operations, Volume 42, No. 2. Jackson, D.D., et al., 1995, "Seismic Hazards in Southern California: Probable Earthquakes, 1994 to 2024, Seismological Society ofAnierica Bulletin, Vol. 85, No. 2. Jahns, Richard H., et al., 1954, "Geology of Southern California," California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 170. Jennings, C.W., 1994, "Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions," California Division of Mines and Geology Map No. 6. ,Kramer, S. L., 1996, "Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering," Prentice Hall. Larsen, E.S., Jr., 1948, `Batholithh and Associated Rocks of Corona, Elsinore, and San Luis Rey Quadrangles, Southern California," Geological Society of America Mem. 29. Law/Crandall, Inc., 1997, "Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed East Addition and Parking Structure, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach, California" (Project 70131-7-0254). Law/Crandall, Inc., 1996, "Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Emergency Generator Plant, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Hospital Road and West Service Road, Newport Beach, California" (Job No. 70131-6-0171.0001). Law/Crandall, Inc., 1995, "Report of Ground Motion Study, Main Hospital Building, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, 301 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California" (Job No. 2661.50038.0001). Law/Crandall, Inc., 1995, "Response to Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology Reports for Proposed Base Isolation Retrofit of Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, dated October 25, 1995, Newport Beach, California, OSHPD File Number HS-950398-30" (Job No. 70131-5-0327.0002). Law/Crandall, Inc., 1994, "Report of Fault Rupture Hazard Investigation, Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 2, Huntington Beach, California, for the County Sanitation Districts of Orange Comity" (Job No. 2661.30140.0001). II 30 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian—Geolechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 Laiv/Crandall Project 70131-7-0254.0001 Law/Crandall, Inc., 1994, "Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Outpatient Services Buildings, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Lower Campus, 301 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California" (Job No. 2661.30916.0001). Law/Crandall, Inc., 1993, "Report of Potential Fault Displacements, Wastewater Treatment Plant Number 2, Huntington Beach, California, for County Sanitation Districts of Orange County" Project No. 2661.30140.0001. Y Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1990, "Technical Appendix to the Safety Element of the Los Angeles County General Plan," Draft Report by Leighton and Associates with Sedway Cooke Associates. LeRoy Crandall and Associates, 1991, "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation For Preparation of Master Plan and Environmental Impact Report, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Campus, 301 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California" (Job No. 089034.AEO). LeRoy Crandall and Associates, 1990, "Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Emergency Room Expansion and Renovation, 301 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California for Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian" (Job No. 090072.AEO). LeRoy Crandall and Associates, 1990, "Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Employee Child Care Center, 4050 West Pacific Coast Highway, for Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian" (Job No. 089083.AEB). LeRoy Crandall and Associates, 1987, "Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Hoag Cancer Center, 301 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, for the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbytrian" (Job No. AE-87147). LeRoy Crandall and Associates, 1971, "Report of Foundation Investigation, Proposed Parking Structure, 301 Newport Beach, California, for the Hoag Memorial Hospital" (Job No. A- 71235). LeRoy Crandall and Associates, 1969, "Report of Foundation Investigation, Proposed Nursing Wing and Power Plant, 301 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, for the Hoag Memorial Hospital" (Job No. A-69080). Los Angeles, County of, 1975, Draft revision 1990, "Seismic Safety Element." Mark, R.K., 1977, "Application of Linear Statistical Models of Earthquake Magnitude Versus Fault Length in Estimating Maximum Expectable Earthquakes," Geology, Vol. 5, pp. 464-466. Miller, R.V., and Tan, S.S., 1976, "Geology and Engineering Geologic Aspects of the South haft Tustin Quadrangle, Orange County, California," California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 126, Map Scale 1:12000. Morton P.K., et al., 1973, "Geo-Environmental Maps of Orange County, California," California Division of Mines and Geology, Preliminary Report 15. 31 I I F1 11 11 lie II 11 ■ J Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian—Geotechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 Laiv/Crandall Project 70131-7-0254.0001 Morton, P.K. and Miller, R.V., 1981, "Geologic Map of Orange County, California," California Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 204. Newport Beach, City of, 1972, "Geologic -Seismic Study, Phase I," by Woodward -McNeill and Associates for the General Plan. Orange County General Plan, "1995 Safety Element," Advance Planning Program, Environmental Management Agency. Petersen, M.D., Bryant, W.A., Cramer, C.H., Cao, T.,'Reichle, M.S., Frankel, A.D., Lienkaemper, J.J., McCrory, P.A., and Schwatz, D.P., 1996, "Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California," California Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 96-08. Petersen, M.D. and Wesnousky, S.D., 1994, "Fault Slip Rates and Earthquake Histories for Active Faults in Southern California." Seismological Society of America Bulletin, Vol. 84, No. 5, October, 1994. Poland, J.R., Garrett, A.A., and Sinnott, Allen, 1959, "Geology, Hydrology, and Chemical Character of Groundwaters in the Torrance —Santa Monica Area, California," U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1461. Ryan, J.A., Burke, J.N., Walden, A.F., and Wieder, D.P., 1982, "Seismic Refraction Study of the El Modeno Fault, Orange County, California," California Geology, Vol. 35, No. 2. Shakal, A.F., et al., 1994, "CSMIP Strong -Motion Records from the Northridge, California Earthquake of 17 January 1994," California Division of Mines and Geology, Strong Motion Instrumentation Program, Report OSMS 94-07. Shaw, J.H. and Suppe, J., 1996, "Earthquake Hazards of Active Blind Thrust Faults Under the Central Los Angeles Basin, California," Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 101, No. B4, pp. 8623-8642. Shaw, J.H., 1993, "Active Blind -Thrust Faulting and Strike -Slip Folding in California," Ph.D. Thesis, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, p. 216. Shlemon, R.J., 1994, "Late Quaternary Stratigraphic and Neotectonic Framework, Wastewater Treatment Plant 2, Huntington Beach, California," Appendix to Law/Crandall Report (Job No. 2661.30140.0001), 1994. Sieh, K.E., 1984, "Lateral Offsets and Revised Dates of Large Pre -historic Earthquakes at Pallett Creek, California," Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 9, pp. 7,461-7,670. Slemmons, D.B., 1979, "Evaluation of Geomorphic Features of Active Faults For Engineering Design and Siting Studies," Association of Engineering Geologists Short Course. L' 32 ' Hoag Memorial Hosprtal Presbyterian—Geotechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-7-0254.0001 ' Stover, C.W. and Coffman, J.L., 1993, "Seismicity of the United States, 1568-1989 (revised)," U.S. Geological Society Professional Paper 1527. Tan S.S., and Edgington, W.J., 1976, "Geology and Engineering Geologic aspects of the Laguna ' Beach Quadrangle, Orange County, California," California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 127. Toppozada, T.R., et al., 1988, "Planning Scenario for a Major Earthquake on the Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone," California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 99. U.S. Geological Survey, 1985, "Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region —An Earth -Science Perspective," Ziony, J.1., ed., Professional Paper 1360, Article by Clarke, S.H., Greene, H.G., and Kennedy, M.P., Identifying Potentially Active Faults and Unstable Slopes Offshore, pp. 347-373. U.S. Geological Survey, 1965, "Newport Beach, California 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Map," photorevised 1981. Vedder, J.G. et al., 1957, "Geologic Map of the San Joaquin Hills -San Juan Capristrano Area, Orange County California," U.S. Geological Survey Oil and Gas Map OM-193. Wallace, R.E., 1968, "Notes of Stream Channel Offset by San Andreas Fault, Southern Coast Ranges, California," in Dickinson, U.R., and Grantz, A., eds., Proceedings of Conference of ' Geologic Problents on San Andreas Fault System, Stanford University Publications, Geological Sciences, Vol. IX, p. 6-21. ' Wells, D.L., and Coppersmith, Kevin J., 1994, "New Empirical Relationships among Magnitude, Rupture Length, Rupture Width, Rupture Area, and Surface Displacement," Bulletin of the Seismological Society ofAmerica, Vol. 84, No. 4, pp. 974-1002. ' Wesnousky, S.G., 1986, "Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults and Seismic Hazard in California," Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 91, No. B 12, pp. 12,587-12,631. ' Wissler, S.G., 1943, "Stratigraphic Formations of the Producing Zone of the Los Angeles Basin Oil Fields," California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 118, pt. 2, p. 210-234. Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 1995, "Seismic Hazards in Southern California: Probable Earthquakes, 1994 to 2024," Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Volume 85, No. 2, April 1995. Yerkes, R.F., 1972, "Geology and Oil Resources of the Western Puente Hills Area, Southern ' California," U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 420-C. 1 33 11 11 U IM II II 1 1� Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian—Geotechnical Investigation LowlCrandall Project 70131-7-0254.0001 November 3, 1999 Ziony, J.I., and Jones, L.M., 1989, "Map Showing Late Quaternary Faults and 1978-1984 Seismicity of the Los Angeles Region, California," U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1964. Ziony, J.I. Wentworth, C.M., Buchanan -Banks, J.M., and Wagner, H.C., 1974, "Preliminary Map Showing Recency of Faulting in Coastal Southern California," U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-585. Ziony, J.I., and Yerkes, R.E., 1985, "Evaluating Earthquake and Surface Faulting Potential," in Ziony, J.I., ed., Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region Ant Earth Science Perspective, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360, p. 43-91. r� I 34 I I 'II 1 II II r lie u 11 11 II TABLES II I II 11 11 11 II II L' 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian -Revised Geotechnical Investigation Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330 Table 1: Horizontal Ground Motion Pseudo Spectral Velocity in Inches/Second Period in 2%Damping Seconds November3, 1999 5%Damping 10%Damping DBE 10% in MCE 10% in DBE 10% in MCE 10% in DBE l0% in MCE 10% in 50 years 100 years 50 years 100 years 50 years 100 years 0.01 0.26 0.32 0.26 0.32 0.26 0.32 0,03 0.77 0.95 0.77 0.95 0.77 0.95 0.10 5.21 6.67 4.11 5.26 3.46 4.44 0.15 10.51 13.17 8.15 10.24 6.56 8.29 0.20 15.33 19.25 11.75 14.79 9.29 11.76 0.30 22.51 28.61 17.16 21.93 13.32 17.15 0.40 27.10 34.90 20.77 26.96 16.12 21.10 0.50 30.28 39.33 23.38 30.69 18.15 24.04 0.60 32.95 43.01 25.27 33.40 19.60 26.12 0.70 35.17 46.01 26.81 35.54 20.79 27.79 0.80 36.70 48.05 27.89 36.99 21.77 29:10 0.90 37.68 49.28 28.90 38.27 22.48 30.02 1.00 38.75 50.57 29.49 38.97 22.94 30.56 1.30 39.82 51.57 30.27 39.59 23.58 31.08 1.60 39.67 51.00 29.95 38.79 23.49 30.62 2.00 38.73 49.42 29.41 37.66 22.93 29.50 2.20 37.83 47.68 28.52 36.32 22.28 28.35 2.50 36.66 45.45 27.38 34.60 21.44 26.88 2.70 35.97 44.15 26.71 33.60 20.95 26.03 3.00 35.05 42.43 25.83 32.29 20.29 24.91 1 I Ir 11 11 r II II ■: II F ■ Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian -Revised Geotechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330 Table 2: Horizontal Ground Motion Pseudo Spectral Acceleration in g's Period in 2%Damping 5%Damping 10%Damping Seconds DBE 10% in 50 years MCE 10% in 100 years DBE 10% in 50 years MCE 10% in 100 years DBE 10% in 50 years MCE 10% in 100 years 0.01 0.42 0.52 0.42 0.52 0.42 0.52 0.03 0.42 0.52 0.42 0.52 0.42 0.52 0.10 0.85 1.08 0.67 0.86 0.56 0.72 0.15 1.14 1.43 0.88 1.11 0.71 0.90 0.20 1.25 1.56 0.96 1.20 0.76 0.96 0.30 1.22 1.55 0.93 1.19 0.72 0.93 0.40 1.10 1.42 0.84 1.10 0.66 0.86 0.50 0.98 1.28 0.76 1.00 0.59 0.78 0.60 0.89 1.17 0.68 0.91 0.53 0.71 0.70 0.82 1.07 0.62 0.83 0.48 0.65 0.80 0.75 0.98 0.57 0.75 0.44 0.59 0.90 0.68 0:89 0.52 0.69 0.41 0.54 1.00 0.63 0.82 0.48 0.63 0.37 0.50 1.30 0.50 0.65 0.38 0.50 0.29 0.39 1.60 0.40 0.52 0.30 0.39 0.24 0.31 2.00 0.31 0.40 0.24 0.31 0.19 0.24 2.20 0.28 0.35 0.21 0.27 0.16 0.21 2.50 0.24 0.30 0.18 0.23 0.14 0.17 2.70 0.22 0.27 0.16 0.20 0.13 0.16 3.00 0.19 0.23 0.14 0.18 0.11 0.14 W Z 120- 80 C W EXISTING GRADE ai Z_ h O w icy. 40 Lu O 3 W Z SEA ,._Z_._ _. —. • _ LEVEL ul==J// � y � M HOLOCENE ALLUVIUM --�-�- — _ Lu p -40 Q-• PLEISTOCENE ALLUVIUM __-?----- Lu o -80 W o - CONTACT BASED ON h CDMG OFF! 80-19LA -120 a M O O O = O ,_ a , -160 - cc m rn ' (s LLY= ci Z t. THE SECTION IS BASED ON )UEOLOGIO` CONDITIONS AT BORING LOCATIONS AND AT SURFAQE EXPOSURES MAPPED DURING THE INVESTIGATION. THE GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS BETWEEN SUCH m O -200 • , LOCATIONS HAVE BEEN INTERPOLATED. "LOCALIZED VARIAMONS . COULD OCCUR. THE SECTION IS INTENDED FOR OFSCRIPTNE PURPOSES ONLY. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MONTEREY FORMATION NEWPORT1' BOULEVARD OFFRAMP 1 CWIP B4R236 STATIONF (FRUJECTE,D 550 FEET) N 18E -,,I N59E EXISTING HOSPITAL BUILDING BOR. 6 BOR. T BOR. 3 (PROJECTED) (PROJECTED) BOR. 5 .I I (PROJECTED) " I t I10R. 'I SOM 1 EXISTING PROPOSED (A-71236) tA-63080) GRADE^ EAST ADDITION n=. {PRt P"ED T. O TERRAC .[DEPOSITS u BOR. 1 It, (PROJECTED) BOR., 2. ) . { -1 120 Ij h G. N 2 80 MONTEREY FORMATION GEOLOGIC SECTION HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"-100' VERTICAL SCALE 1".40' . Z SEA, i EitEL Z -40ui J W -80 -120 -160 -200 LAWICRANDALL FIGURE 2 •\•S ''-e. -•• jrz' �.=��7 I! "4,_ �e,�d� �J 'fjj�' •'1 /+,:;T /`'` (-,.`i`''� \ .I-I'an.:slE a' :': �;t .. n ' ••• a. '� li : •�-_ 5 �.._ 'lid: y 1.. a. �, ;.• ,r,; EXPLANATION y Y 5•- .a.:. ° •• f: �_-n a •. r-/fJ • �'j't, i-�7�. •.,t 1, 3 '=f !`.Ir t•dlaliftl �s ^ •• ° i •••j 7. a ; . `f'.il` ••• : t,nr° a d O 5 a6a `� S d r «a� ail HOLOCENE ALLUVIUM per- j N g•li �_ :. ...4 l.._ . e� �•'.•Y ,=G '-, '! ti0 r,. _ •�} :- ,� JWir' ¢=3i Li :•` ,fy0 .• .yi r f _ . -i!' ; . 7_ __a'• � _, : � .r: 1 _ g�wH=_ Viz- Mar?asn.L ( �.,. ?vTraner / 9 QpU LATE PLEISTOCENE ALLUVIUM + '• 3 • •!I a T a« n • f FG L�FI y. I y P Z l ?ary ! fi Safi , • I • •• g u C - .?{i :?� / ? �y �• '�y a ,:3r,. w oa_ _ � 1- I a:' GEOLOGIC CONTACT f _ i, �{•• I.• "I ' ��yJ' • ii - -1-�2rr,r-� • sy r.•-t_?'-r gh ] ��rt'�e ref. _.=�•_r• r ! -r's� d • a a �,•, I. , t • IJ .i• '` i •Y{ y •_' .i Suceta" i to • ,�� / ; lam' IL ' __i �'h:l�in :Y �_ ` Iz Ii� L J 1 J • • • i?� ., _ =t •:. t P.ar.:r. - y FAULTS u i h 7 ° -t 1. .1 m f:. Sch+ .. a•• i P ' I ry u- •I_ •-- • • •°- N-... _. -: rr. / s,,' ., °D_ sr sue,= _ AVOCADO- '�5.--- .- ,t �r .2�� k • �•� • i9 ��•=zgi p i '==1. If' • � 7 1 yY Y% T ra i'I � _.-•i ; i I Pa: $ - IIv�__-_ .. •, ' i • • e4 tl • 'y� - s. PT VA .a, ' LI z { i .•r... :a._ - M?t,7..� 6 . :: •` • _ 1 -•-SI r=-�_�-i =•"== 1 Y}_- p�'J6 F n ✓fCTGar.i l ` !I\�1 L~ "�: Dashed where near surface; =ui l� '' I# �.�_�f I�'' a•t • lit V pjU s' j•�• +•6 ,rj4.•.r� a•; V:-1 \, I.& 1 .i• s:1..ti •i, „i. _��-'➢a •- ? �I`•• j- M 'I •••=. �`'9 a Jam:'/. .'I ..,I •.5�;� yrnt cia ,�I 5 :('' i -- 'srt_F �� `•"% ,;`'.. �..a.p, dotted where buried ibl ',�t•' ` t;.l ,.r.iT>ig -. •--1o>T.r-u :_•_ 3�__L aa7.v •k,. •"�11 '-`ry^.:I. P 1.--: 'A ��.:-i�i.r- -')' '� -�. _ �:Saa Sch �N E si, „N� II �n; °% `.: '•4 ---1' • I i. Imo•-'iS _ {: ml- I` > ,._;rI_ til t.h .j ,� vsun.t N i Tppil`isa'; •1►l;ti eeYY4 r� "h,la_I y; !xe'ate^ I� �f I --a "-:.:. `� •••m California Department of Water j ':S' :I:Siii m: ,a • i! �. r` « "� t i,2 i..... ,:,. ^4.',• t.+Y_ew 5 + -•'.3' t`� .. i' �•< ��,. Resources, 1966 :�:, T�.� rry� p I' r j1 y, F •-lia /'� .i <�..,=1 I 'I Trader r `' +III ?ilt O, •� .j_ I •� r * II I�'qq 9{`• t�• = I • •_b dJ ( /'>5_ J j ._. .1. I Y t •a a)I :\i y% 't., 5f B', 4Q$HWJ13 Bryant, 1988 I�" `;l, (a� i • I :I �`.•h y :o ./ !;t' r+' r ' :e`✓-�-�-- 'i C: i' ..�` '' •-\' /; �,. tt:. 't!i fi:' c • -1 AA ' .� i• .!"..f"_ YI � k a 1 I .(,z'. 9 ^..-j`\, y" 1�A,i „:C� <•, , � _ \ 1 i`-� S..0 tfe ,h � ,• h 1• �.�_: I .:rr t y Resa I! -.,�k; p s f-.: � �' \. ,`•rs ; A ` ',\ ! •"=I t'�'� 19 'I y ',' : ,4I s'I' .'}([•!Tall ., .i. .�, r „ ., aka\r , wT ,\ �4 j x _ '+}i r �Iq i.' •l,c % a Alquist Priolo Earthquake dV }later •r'�-f _ i• 7f ri,3 n ! I •ai / >cn: t„ q ?. 'l• us >. ! - i•-t:..1.re, _ II i \q a;, I t Fault Zone .LYE=� •_-. ;.r L.r ~ �,-i3�_ 94.1 ._ 'i.14ZH.1_ I l.._ -'�'i -- i.i°ach;`` t.,.`' ' \ ,q n//��'">•AVV 7�1�IL� � Il�'- -�<�I; -; / 'j ° .'r� ', 't'._; 'I_..; ,,,,1< r�'- •iy�M1`ti ..-. -.F�' ,��' �1� &r.: •a \a " �`a,�c\, !.. 1. \ •`.?$,y`1. 0al •tom; `Y r; ,•,11 • •II L `, �:, yy.t_rA 8��= r:A�.,,ti. l :• �`�,.\ ,\` .�`1 \\ t�'�a `'�ovllann `\,!! a ?•�/•,�: :ff2u;•. x • i} ! Id / 4I: Aat!. ' ••u`: �:;- .,.,__ `'F'_ _.li'v!'_1t=. )-�`� .< `'4� ` ., ,,�M n`n \ : � >%t•.. .t .-•ry 'ff,/ =`s�F„ 1 I v t_✓' • ,,, a.N/htuier a -�•: - `y-•• , ..ri ,\ v •G, �,�,` �,\C- ! '.*•„ �s�i ••P�, IN'1 _e' �� q��'�n� I'✓ Seh,; �;� °'1f yl Parkl i 9" :9� �¢;.y �'i v 9 . ` •: c'r", n \i > •`.\ '` .'. I" / r .: ��:�. •-..: !�' Y r , e, , ✓`\ . n, .> . S . � IL / �. r, < 1!IL==. .: ta-( .3L __`i .. h e- j_ �\ ., ,.} �\ -L „'S� �ti 't°i.. `C ^•jt;.,•.. ;'� - �S �+. s=.-�,. G1� 't.-' ":u 0 Mill � �Cautttrwsc� `.•� `\\ LL 8� ti:_v`, • • •;' SE9!?r •'a k,$-F-'��'R' :1a♦ aay:'IF .+1..'/'t)h ' 1. '• t. `qv �! S��' " ?T ::II�� lt�i,l -' �'i« `0.7 c ;u `\ c ri`�.• ~i''t,,, , "•` i •dp f:` OISP(9' k ' fjT,'°F/y�" :,,,k-''Jr `n`'j'J-at%I II, t gpnlmr y•.t:• ��r,�OB�Mt._•...� • :_ "\, '`� n\ car • �`'. �'!:�` =n�' REFERENCES: 8 ��\ •. •i•,� qT 'M y t: _`; ,✓�{(.i�.".�v�\`,,�� •'I!('ark -ij ar`� �'--:,6�.. `n `� \�e� ;L''., :'G''"'y. ` �t�. sT A�::� }a •:`\ 9 is• �y rNt�,- ' 1' :_ ;: b �';:,"�U'•'li.�� :i: "• r' °�S?�• ... _ Tf ✓� y . r�.9gf1,� ,,A\�.Z:>:1 >:ow'vw%``. `\,,,.` :., \ :/+ BASE MAP FROM U.S.G.S. 7.5 MINUTE ' y ' - ny1 •lt ` 4, .` 9/•,, r a p ^°' `' ''" 3��" NEWPORT BEACH QUADRANGLE, 1965 r,�la • • '1'1::9#l'j ti`t� :al. }s1)�.� TµKI;�'1'.I�:..�::.:iltf l.�'I />fr.. \_ _g�__f !L-c� /39• '`� % \jo„t ?„SY,,, ,r,\ \ \\ ;,/ (a'` 5 ;<� /� •I,: !L` ',r^� I d'6 9; W ,III Ma�n'aa�2<> it \r,+� `t,. `�...9X `, '•,\\ .. (PHOTOREVISED 1981). A ` ` - O J �,..e•. 5r t i rader 1 Y ' f t,. 1„ a .� ` `\, %" '\•,I + r^` ' � ��,'' "` .: •.t ^ /���. GEOLOGY MODIFIED FROM POLAND . 't t.':_ ' qy `\, 'rla.ko �n .••"3�l !, '(•"' •. ° , � -v.iP= (Park I ,I. 'Z_Sr a , \� ! i •d w' >•a •\`o` Ir . t:., ail 1ti r'l s r %>t .: a� AND PIPER, 1956 �:"%°• - , s \ 'r`N: _ * iify�l7-i x•.1 . "-:'h Win. 'a c" ; y `' itr•'�•--"^^\H_'J���+•�6T.A=.��.sz:_ ^yu,F.6, ,f , Sit` ' •`� „+h Via: earl::�l_ ty CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF MINES AND R rt!.ay�cr7anks GEOLOGY, EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONES, :J �.�-? f 'S( If"^ i•> .7,tl•'a° �•'r 9_]_,-_w-s''�{'•u,''a� ♦1 l..M.-`, ',/, ✓'„• Rch „ ' �.f,~j -'`' ,: /`t: a, _,-.• ��-_i-,*=--�, - $ ;� e"r .o .b p �• v Ai-; % F; •%^ NEWPORT BEACH QUADRANGLE OFFICIAL \: i. iy"�'-' I•:. ` - . '}, ^"•� r�u �L; . =-Xs•• . (`,`1.' . " \\'3 .\ !.tc ,, l �s„ ,h JL"4• Mneia«P±' . i'\ ,..t�` • /, !'�. , '`\<lnu .•w--. ::" a` H�lr r n r t y rf+ `'\` +� J cJ:. .,� {St' a YI. �,: �...al 4a � C3,I.s.- ,• K'4L1 "32'�a r,\. \` `> , „ ��P 11 :�4 •s'',' -F MAP (1986). _ n - �1 /•`., ••�\.>r.;'Ys�, a'\1 I' '.r�''n�,�.� `• {�� _ r--.'��'`` `% (; 'n� '•v,w \\� \'r ;c` `\ l \ 1 ` / ..�,,, ';�'�'•'� r'%�%N ,"�- • c :!Vc'. I' (i " 3}r _"litJzt I • . +r �•. fS'« `'; `.� •U_. �G.� `� i' (I'^';t • '$• I11 • .` � ..,y.^. ...: .,,\„yr I1 d::. i. ;t �- .I fiae\ r' Y .`\ , \ '.,c\ \ �Y'f•' � � , \` ` •�..^ °o..'` Y xc'< IIn'-+: _ \ . +V i. .-/f:rl,,,,i<,[[��%,,r Irt �T •Y ' , '.+ `' ��i{(•'% ,,.�ttt"""yI,t'!+'' 1.. •" 9 j L�"$<h� \\ ✓A\ ��,�',3,� I gg ``k;.:•G•'k••., 'Yt;n��"+1 ��;!dK %<k:P.i,•.`4 ••, y2`�i'•:�,,`4,P V .%�5.',7AD•IYR�`•, `.•`, ..i�Q '.�,:F a F;1iE;yk`�p {.`«ucf - t\-r"n'i ,:r. 31)( i ' \ ::tir �\`::`�; 1 •! marial +!b3 0f?r.:. Jt •, j•,\,i si!-%� ,S',�••Y.:3:+T".�d•at` 1. �� ` v � w sta_ r' \ 4' R'4" v %1. Ja-3 LATITUDE. 33.6153° ;\ 't YA► kti a�^�`✓(!/�y ' �' a s�C"�1 ao•: i LONGITUDE 117.91500 , ,° .; f\' : / T��`; :�r..a � �:vv .:Its �u!fip�,.%� .9'\l` �•}✓�( y :,;;�V• �y.✓,•7.c �,� ' i'.C, W .4•c_4 ��ura�T �:•.:.i9.ICC.h '� ar %, •'_?.. .% 2000 7 If 0 4000 '�'n',..• .'�'• ''rf;2r',tu FEET 'i'« , e ''tF: �`p`�Q ;�",,;, "'�<':.i TBa'•"s°,'0 �+'ar; i Y•t:`..r.: }I 1�1Wi tl x �; ' Sy�r!� y �/ '�. \` r '\••\.i: 'tY ''\`a' -„"^„ �` �1•"�-.h 4S 'r -*:;l -r: IN SITE OF MAIN �,,��>9 : Yar : �'- "�� 'LOCAL GEOLOGY HOSPITAL BUILDING,. q� 3nr,r•: r ,..,t . ;.5 j,'• SCALE 1" = 2000, M_'' • `�, `'� \F �',»`y d' �.f`�r • !� +'f�.;r� L�?�rti�?oy2',,k- q°.2. \ ' O ' i'f`,'�.•�� :li .a ♦ .a - i,'� 1 ':,�4 ;L A( a d1.3 YS•�'i.� C \ .' i1 �., i .t, q't'l� Liynlo: `._,..s�:.Aal'/,�/ � �;jK.. •. �,� , tQ , Harbor � ''"4 `\ ♦♦1,, i' .� iyt, � ♦ I ry��� IlY l 1 � gin: 4 ;fi�•.,� s �y •RII _\ t ` ;;14,.f' ' ` ., � �J .. rn^ �ti � °�u� �� �i E \::Y ''�G .i -ic �'` •t4 ` LAW/CRANDALLQ FIGURE 3 I "i nd ar, Lui An ue» eeaCH -TATE PARK undo' i •, ➢weLnet I'AN BEAQt1 HATTAN� y�1er, appsean �C 7 jjj ' O�b m,•,r I 9S � NA .i c`.1 Flo xeh FeIN Paloz•'Vgd n5 q rw.l !iron ri.d I Cllna,ln }luv.'y a�\x wr rirnl � t y , _ mddl . ll%' I1,^ •• 5 RK ' •'=rri '•'I �xrcH, 'SJitovllA �` I p LA CIEN i1 :I i IqUE"It $? f t I • Hei9. 7f16F it e �A HAB Z•L i r r , .: � : RQq Aira '' Mo. T " RIVER' E '} • • J:} .r,l. I N,Ut+ , ;\ ;4 -_ -�-°•, I .✓'.- - _ �-,• •. •_ _I_1_._ N"' - � -•fJ "Y',.,- r 7 'i R� : ' �a b , ... •. 4 w , .—. .• I >,f: � S�. ' J' 14: y �y; C,Rf3,t 6i Gar!'len: t IP„I rr,.`,'f`,.,_y' r.J�© '• L ..,r. L. •�-.'_)1. F:-; t' .F3 I !! _ L}''e ':: I e..c � • •` � ''{I:��•�•- ''�A:'eT!L�L3"�,d'!; % 1.: d: Jl ,y.,':+�,; "rL.�. i.:.. ., . •• ' .` ...��•v ' l ro •� , I v Si; {'.•i-}' ^n- ��: - a 8 • ,< _ __ _ _ — °a1-n_ tdn O d�ITis ILcZ' S:ri:. • i '•' �iuo Vi a ParS R . �'P° "}"q'•�rii•:!„`�'� ,'r,.A, '�♦.. IEIie:r'r' �: _..dy;a..l•.t.{ry,�;I ec} N m� i— .••I•. --�i� _ — _ !::� `'r•' `i... ' -�• - ,a V�^ •'�--�t_ n �: nJ 41 •L! 4 •IA'�'^l' 1. ,./v .�tw�.•- os a �f ' •M s - ;,� _ 1 _I• I ...� C'•S _ . e � �. �f . r•.a,♦'F _i �I+` _ n ): ,((iuiAl �. -�- + •: i II r^., :i t •� ,t tta•-If ''I fI!.! .rn. �:•N^• J +V - A GARDENV li �� .} • - �. y T !`.. i9. . �. -' ,� r�, `..-, G (/ "ri•Ifp:.: :.:.�, I ::•. y �[ i f ,id.: iN •. :GROYo_ L ./ ,.rr�:%. r'. • .5. •'. ' Ct ry , '.7 ; ;y-/iv,_N,U,.4Yr rit.B' i ate. mry .�I10•i• 4. A, v.�L1t0 ,♦ Ptth'.i' :�iG4v)ui: ;°(�li _'� '•"�'.":i' \•?: rS:. 1'i - - I RA JGE " r�;, l�•: • _ — ,7 z. 'cf' c� ' v Val EALrt 11 WE$TMINSrE;xy'� AivTA� U Hurtlyr .uC.,,,,1 v19 •YA x9•� I I A _.'is.'ANA 2 y ^- L. _i, .� , ice;, . I ,1''•,C•Et',•�-:.z.C. 1 y.• • .. _;•:. •- - - - �x ., .h.min,S EALY_„ • --•I. i ..�.._ I^.,: �• ` 1� 'va': {:e:;• •:; �.. ...1. P.;it�}b"}.`.[. A. ••�„ rVq.A�arI�rLS+Jr FesertaRo - ` 'f. . lt•n.e i�UHU +JA }. OkJl,_.,t� ``+i I '�'• Stil li.^ ..i '' n^ •7 \`•-�%, 7: , J, Lam eaurjact. y« A iiM - - "w Tu y' v r0'. I,• nM1 Fat FI 'yl mete,`+ • ., :� •-/'`..�_. `I '♦ �• ''` ., .r .. _ Y � LTV I \`.. �I� 11'li r� I1; '`� y L •� ` 7 `7\ • 3 nne, re, `'�<��7� r"y, ��H`,,e>. ' k • rlo-lu,nn �nu141ae �', ^ ,�i7 I_ -Y'� •�• • lT!'G :.. :1•'_ ... i :`� ,.• '4 � ��. •, _ ; yi •. o-` .. ! ;.t {• _ •. • r /l.I KiSJff. 0. IMn?!' I2,k :: O •+ :•�• I v �• •:X" I /1 '; L `tP0 '•'•�NL(O � O ��, •' FOUrI AI = : _ . •• ---rr.... — —7—• t.,r [xr!uunoN •-, L7 j ' ' - p c, n„VA�E'(`,, ., • fa. f.;.. , :{iN_.•�- ro L xi puGyk vr"r.r. a`lo ✓ O i• •�.I: ♦ ' �r_.v;-:i••. O 3.:. •• REF R=E; wk.a.1.. eRr".Oian[ ei. N I lhj C-:-r. p•f - \\ O.�- R c4; '�"`�"'"c"� •+••: :. \H L9 A ...... L7 �;a;; l - -= 7JONY,JOSEPH I AND JONES LUCY M., MAP T R ::� :., • °ip"°"''djde"k"••"�-s•+•i• _•nttt`• CF1 l •'l" •; ;+, - �:'i; •'.' `'� -'_ I ' SHOWING LATE QUATERNARY FAULTS AND 1978-84 G H ' ar"d'Ikn.rda [+li..r+ngrntr.�•. \\ HUNT GTOhi I ,: ^•..,,, i ;- '�t.; :,q. .,..a...L..rr.n+lsx.a.ea BEACH \ 'y:' f-.= r'; ' ,::. LI .t M [�T H r `'` JyI >•" a6>.. - , ,• ` • •, ^.,.I `...,;.:. O ,- ... , •^'•,}' :,: , ?�"` : y SEISMICITY OF THE LOS ANGELES REGION, Gj .e„y,.,�ek, Ir�Ivl.�lss H�\ •. ` QSj,i, h:1;�'^ :1 , . _ ,• .t ; CALIFORNIA MAP MF-1984.(1989) \,. �.• ; laiat.lh.rdllc 9•"!i[MwH".Nxu. L9 ...,. @ : ..,. , nLR Y Iliil"y • � '1 \i .t'J .: .y. I .r :.: i • 'n'', !• ��''•"� r YI [[In•r n J,.h4.ku W,nq KiM•[1• \ \ ��` y(;, c , S�TE;� \'• •'I ;.... .. i t •..r v. - ,.., L 7 1^c_ 4,sb ww[^r k�M•••[r \L t 4 +S� A "''a •'-1 ;' E t ;lit t '-'EI _: • `„'�',:''• • ♦ ' !�♦1 H\� •-_ •�, _. L 9 1 ,n, '• Taro •'1•:'3 4a; NEW T :�,' - SEA"" , �f ":':• :,: r r. • f.l,•yuca Nill: 'r H._ • -' _�::.; ::.:- . `` J4 REGIONAL FAULTS i. vss ) ' • ,:rS1 \ �� i -' •� :_. `=-,,}'••-ci• t•;z �! . 'i ':.t.. SCALE 1" = 4 miles • L•AW/CRANDALL 24 FIGURE 4 1952' oag;§96 .. � ri ''�.' ��•_ •rq`�•eN; -ww.w i :ram"•�yrkk *a_ �` '�N�E 7ya - ..§-, � fir' � � s�� J -� 1�' .,.- .Fgub 18. _ w11oY 4 • i ANTB LOOP y " L '.N, Lancaster '/yLa•� ; r v a8e 'Gtl. a ry':� 3 '�1-♦`=..,;;6-:"1^',?7( a.. ..i-z-^-T-'`-y--y'e s�.r_' s � t- c�a+:.'[��f .?Ll., f1" ..-/-` C i �; ,`��T ' wehero >. 41e1i�s��Ys`�r " ._• ti r.+•' `.. ^!- a'`q�-xAfEi`. . 7' � rt:�,r ?e'er .,We- oA � y �usO��r� J��'• d �,5.,,. � :� �. tillN _ 1 4 yI \��` — -- �N ...'� �I � 'O YI .-; � l a+a a 33v5�•., o- G IB -' -i, L^.N.,:yA 9 ` ,d., 1 v1AJh J Sa" ., V43Tr1 ,x,e d8 y"'� y -�.. „rx.a K a..a� 543 1 fl .'a6i�a�a Ysye' io,• 71 alt of c ?— ox:nRo i Ji'f o...«a nawNr�r \1nm,,jdpQ4�9 " -!„ vVl R/ n � NSF rw,H d� 3i - �ae 1 �•.C.'�' -:,al n "^•: ,, _ ' � \` _R i4! �•r-y"�'a+`�' ''+e x� P,a u• �xnviSe�e 63 :e 9A �olp l ra \ .x°'n@eveyTr' abrfe =!a:'�, •-� _ -'i56 rm= i "- r L N 6LFr - 7 pa EXPLANATION• _—_�'�— ' Mm. rSwNa Mor?ca' , d7 nlebe1lJL _-Y'" • HISTORIC FAULT DISPLACEMENT -�� Si'r�-�"� \\\�\ 3 A tntn tope 'aLeNdn —�-- ��' x 'A, M(+MCA\ AY d _ fJ_ \�\a \ l — RCe ch - - - - --=�• HOLOCENE FAULT DISPLACEMENT -� M� is � WITHOUT HISTORIC RECORD \\ T H.,. tk'O ' 11tJpxr7�- ' ne ` r. WW royJe E YEAR4llelqpQ YEAR \.� o ;: r _,_�rwcrorl. � e3 cN-3 M 7-8 APPROXIMATE EPICENTRAL ` AREA OF EARTHQUAKE '' ,as— w Newl YEAR REFERENCES: M 6-7 1.) JENNINGS, C.W., 1994, -FAULT ACTIVITY MAP OF CALIFORNIA AND ADJACENT AREAS WITH LOCATION AND AGES OF RECENT 19, VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS-, CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF MINES YEAR SCALE 1:750,000 AND GEOLOGY,GDM-6. ,fkl M 5-6 _10)10 12 24 2.) EARTHQUAKE CATALOGS: RICHTER, 1812-1932, NATIONAL OCEANIC ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, 1812-1931; CALTECH, 1932-1995. SCALE IN MILES La • ' ,.,tip. � ��V���_: ,� �.,, m Jtl _.`� I DD 1899 . a oax�A • A�.� e„ / C �°,.. � - a 1 r"'.+40� - J L � ra - xf J ^—•� - 1 'yyc 1' d. iP11a �.�j��li •Tr a �J� I \® � s. e•k N J\ � > ry <i1 '�t 1 _I y .` :Viv' I CaJ_OJ-rz'`'•1 f ``y'yam�_��`` J_,,,,,,//��'�'�{1�� Ni4v7 N' REGIONAL SEISMICITY LAW/CRANDALL k FIGURE 5 1 1 1 1 N F w 0 U N w F 6 A ' o 0 a ., h �' I �j I I Ir I u r u I� II II u r1 1 II APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS Ii ' Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330 1�' APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS ' FIELD EXPLORATIONS The soil conditions beneath the site were explored by drilling eight borings at the locations shown in Figure 1. The borings were drilled to depths of 20 to 51%z feet below the existing grade ' using 18-inch-diameter bucket -type or 8-inch-diameter hollow -stem auger -type drilling equipment. In addition, numerous borings were drilled during our prior investigations for adjacent ' projects. One of the borings (Boring 13 of our Job No. 70131-5-0362.0002), which is applicable to the newly proposed development have been included in this report (Figure A-1.9). Caving and ' raveling of the boring walls did not occur during the drilling; casing or drilling mud was not used to extend the borings to the depths drilled. 1 The soils encountered were logged by our field technician, and undisturbed and bulk samples were obtained for laboratory inspection and testing. The logs of the borings are presented in Figures A-1.1 through A-1.9; the depths at which the undisturbed samples were obtained are ' indicated to the left of the boring logs. The energy required to drive the Crandall sampler 12 inches is indicated on the logs. In addition, to obtain information for the liquefaction study, tstandard penetration tests (SPTs) were performed in two of the borings; the results of the tests are indicated on the logs. The soils are classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification ' System described in Figure A-2. ' LABORATORY TESTS The field moisture content and dry density of the soils encountered were determined by performing tests on the undisturbed samples. The results of the tests are shown to the left of the boring logs. ' Direct shear tests were performed on selected undisturbed samples to determine the strength of the tsoils. The tests were performed at Feld moisture content and after soaking to near -saturated moisture content and at various surcharge pressures. The yield -point values determined from the direct shear tests are presented in Figure A-3, Direct Shear Test Data. ' A-1 1� 1 II U II ■ II LE II 1 II 1 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical 'Investigation Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330 November 3, 1999 Confined consolidation tests were performed on five undisturbed samples. Water was added to one of the samples during the test to illustrate the effect of moisture on the compressibility. To simulate the effect of the planned excavation, three of the samples were loaded, unloaded, and subsequently reloaded. The results of the tests are presented in Figures A-4.1 through A-4.3, Consolidation Test Data. The optimum moisture content and maximum dry density of the upper soils were determined by performing a compaction test on a sample obtained from Boring 5. The test was performed in accordance with the ASTM Designation D1557-91 method of compaction. The results of the test are presented in Figure A-5, Compaction Test Data. To determine the particle size distribution of the soils and to aid in classifying the soils, mechanical analyses were performed on two samples. The results of the mechanical analyses are presented in Figure A-6, Particle Size Distribution. 1 FEW OG 10 j w `i' w a. BORING 1 a. DATE DRILLED: June 3 and 4, 1997 EaEViATION USED: �� Diameter Bucket x w'_ o 3' rn ° 00 2' p� } 0 o� h uj �17 >EL zN * I- _ 0x c m� as m U c m .oc m o E m a u c o m o o` '� U •o 0 m N 0 v C C G o m 'a 0 0 a d '" 0 3 > h o w v u y w N N `0 3 ° o Z 75 70 65 60 56 50 45 40 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 6.6 109 2 3" Asphalt Paving - 4" Base Course FILL - SILTY SAND - fine, some debris, light brown ENCOUNTERED A 3/4"-DIAMETER ELECTRIC LINE AT A DEPTH OF 2' SILTY SAND - fine to medium, light brown Thin layers of Clayey Sand CLAYEY SAND - fine to medium, reddish brown SILTY CLAY - light brownish grey SILTY SAND - fine, light grey SAND - fine, lenses of Silty Sand, light brown SM SM 9.2 11.3 108 117 -• 3 4 1 SC 23.1 103 3 CL 9 SM 11.3 7.0 104 99 3 4'�'�'. .,. ± N, .;;... : • ;• •,`•'••r ;•r ;,. •;. •'r!' •' .�:�•• SP 7.9 5.5 105 103 4 5 " Number of blows required to drive the Crandall sampler 12 inches for depths of: 0' to 25' using a 1600 pound hammer falling 12 inches; Below 25' using an 800 pound hammer falling 12 inches. Elevations refer to datum of topographic map dated October 1993 by David A. Boyle Engineering. 7.0 108 10 SANDY SILT - light grey and light brown SAND - fine, light brown NOTE: Water not encountered. No caving. END OF BORING AT 40'. BORING LAW/CRANDALL ML 16.7 6.9 107 97 9 14 �5 •: ^ .:;,,'• • gp 7.8 83 14 LOG OF FIGURE A-1.1 w --- >- _ F- W * z - BORING 2 (� w >w Q CL L) U 3 �` O� DATE E 1997 wV �� ¢D zo Q EQ IPMENTSED: 18'e- Diamot r Bucket o U) m rn ELEVATION: 77 a 3" Asphalt Paving - 6" Base Course SILTY SAND - fine, brown SM 75 v 5 5.9 117 2 Some medium Sand m U 'c_ 9 5.0 115 5 70 CLAYEY SAND - fine to medium, reddish brown SC m CL d 24.9 102 3 SILTY CLAY - light brownish grey m 10 a C yj N p, o E 65 m a 24.4 101 2 a c o m C 9 'o •,� CLAYEY SILT - light grey and light brown a " 15 ML SAND - fine, light brown 26.4 98 3 j` SP 0 o •a�i t 60 , •.S: y O .' m 6.7 96 3 Few Gravel N Y C N O > 9 20 C C 6•L O O d " 55 5.7 106 4 e' w Q •�i m � o m � 8 '" c 25 7.2 102 5 ' o t 0 H 50 c m 3.4 105 10 o m v a o a 30 u 8 8.6 107 14 d ` N 45 C a m CL SILTY CLAY - light brownish grey c o 22.6 106 12 35 SILTY SAND - fine to medium, light greyish brown SM s y r- s 40 NOTE: Water not encountered. No caving. o z 40 4.5 104 10 END OF BORING AT 40'. BORING' LAW/CRANDALL LOG OF I 1� 1 ° W _ Zg i_ + 0 �� BORING 3 Q .i-" �- rn'a LU V i W O J Lu ` a 2 0 a a- DATE DRILLED: 1997 BuneDiameter w ° z p EOU PMENT USED; Hollow Stem Auger 9 r~n m U)) ELEVATION: 77 3" Asphalt Paving - 5" Base Course SM SILTY SAND - fine, brown 75 9.3 119 37 Some Clay m 5 m U c 'Y 70 30 SAND - fine, light brown gp m m_ .c m •� Thin layers of Clayey Sand 10 :', c E 65 SILTY CLAY - light brownish grey CL m v 25.9 101 46 o m P///. * Number of blows required to drive the Crandall sampler 12 ° 15 inches using a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. 46 a U O m c 60 a o V1 O M $ 16.5 109 23 SANDY SILT - light brown ML m o a :� 20 a c o N U m66 •� 55 SAND - fine, light greyish brown SP U " t `0 25 3.1 110 19 '• C N O :;'+•• c 0 50 C N •';w O y t•• t, c 30 86 = . Fine to medium � o J N � 45 ' J N � « SILTY CLAY - Thin layers of Clayey Sand, light brownish grey CL o — 35 12.7 111 55 L F 40 SAND -fine, light brown •; gp z° 40 77 (CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING FIGURE) LOG OF BORING LAW/CRANDALL FIGURE A-1.3a }^ f W °_ Z` 3� o y BORING 3 (Continued) W V Q Z w w o O o ? a � ° a DATE DRILLED: June 6, 1997 j 2 0 oc M Z n O 9 Q EQUIPMENT USED: 8" - Diameter Hollow Stem Auger o ` rn m c,,) ELEVATION: 77 END OF BORING AT 40%,'. ' NOTE: Water not encountered. N U C Y 9 d L 1 N � V Y � � y c E U 1 � v U C O N N C O 'O •M W U O .0 `m N L a o N UI � H C i0 O R E 'v Q C C ' O O (/ U N � U U (7 o w m a F � N IL C O 3 d o m c w o � N C 6 Cc O N . U L W � 0 f- m � H C L J H � a o 3 O 0 to ° c ' N H � N _ n 0 M O ' ^O Z idLOG OF BORING LAW/CRANDALL L' FIGURE A-1.3b 1 ° _ N I— * Mx w ~ _ �; 3~ . BORING 4 a$ N. >W Oy J W� ❑0 Z o a3 a- DATE DRILLED: June 3,1997 L Q p EQUIPMENT USED! 18" - iamet r Bucket ' ° vi m rn ELEVATION: 76 • 3" Asphalt Paving - 8" Base Course 75 SM FILL - SILTY SAND - fine, some pieces of concrete, light ' brown 8.8 98 1 ' v 5 CLAYEY SAND - fine to medium, lenses of Silty Sand, 70 SC yellowish brown c 6.5 117 3 m v L m 12.8 107 1 1 5 Thin layers of fine Sand 10 ' 65 CL SILTY CLAY - thin layers of Clayey Silt, light brownish grey a 24.8 101 2 'm 15 SILTY SAND - fine, light brown SM ui w _ 60 8.8 102 2 '0 az ° y N y 21.1 103 5 Light greyish brown c m ° o c c 20 . �a;•: SP SAND - fine, light brown 0 55 4.2 U ., C7 o a • :+:. 0 t w 25 7.6 98 7 • �• : * Number of blows required to drive the Crandall sampler 12 u_ _ inches for depths of:3 50 >. y 0' to 25' using a 1600 pound hammer falling 12 inches; ' :• Below 25' using an 800 pound hammer falling 12 inches. ' r a)c ,� « °c' 8.1 96 9 0•j''�' ,i ° m 6rc••. N C m .n 30 w m « 45 4.3 97 9 0 0 3 v o 9.7 92 1 12 ••: " 0 0 F 35 n = 40 = cn ° NOTE: Water not encountered. No caving. z ' ' o cc 40 5.0 94 12 0•+.'•'''• •� END OF BORING AT 40'. OL LOG OF BORING /, LAW/CRANDALL /� A-1.4 FIGURE I Ir ' v C C Z } LU 1— Y W W Z^ ° �> BORING 5 Q,Y w' �v p� >w 01 U w -i O� DATE DRILLED: e- 1997 w` �� o °' zo ¢ QU PMENT USED: 18"2 Diamet r Bucket rn m rn ELEVATION: 79 SM FILL - SILTY SAND - fine, some pieces of asphalt concrete, light brown ENCOUNTERED 1 "-DIAMETER SPRINKLER LINE 75 9.1 118 2 1 Brown m 5 m v CLAYEY SAND - fine, light brown SC c 10.5 123 4 v = 70 8.0 108 3 Fine to medium 10 a C N N y c E 0• •0 c 27.5 97 4 1 SILTY CLAY - light brownish grey CL o m rn 65 c 0 15 23.8 102 4 w o UI .0 N � N 60 22.3 104 3 m o > := c 20 SAND - fine, light brown g r: Sp 0 p m m 7.2 96 4r:':•' C � N 55 c o 25 4.7 107 4 v. c 0 30 > N C N D m _ m 50 :.'.. C 30 4.0 107 15 , U « N `0 3 ;.. 45 .' o 6.1 98 17 Iiil 35 END OF BORING AT 35'. „ y r •- ~ - NOTE: Water not encountered. No caving. ui 0 2 OF BORING LAW/CRANDALL /�\ LOG I 1� i II e) z w a } w. F-, F— wW • Z^ a =O BORING 6 w a F Qz V cl)w w o o`o } ; Zao 3'5 DATE DRILLED: June 6, 1997 USED: - Diameter Hollow Stem Auger "' y m rrai EL�EVIPMENTATION 79 SM 4" Concrete Slab SILTY SAND - fine, brown 75 9.8 118 39 v 5 CLAYEY SAND - fine to medium, light reddish brown SC m U a 11.8 123 57 vc Thin layers of Sand and Silty Sand 70 m 10 3.4 111 28 Lenses of Silty Clay ,o p gp o E SAND -fine to medium, light brown _ Y m v 5.0 101 36 U C 0 0 65 SILTY CLAY -light brownish grey CL _ o o` a 15 Layer of Clayey Sand 25.9 96 54 'u m` m t 0 0 N t 60 m ° >• v 20 21.7 102 64 END OF BORING AT 20'. o c 0 � 0 NOTE: Water not encountered. m U a w " Number of blows required to drive the Crandall sampler 12 w inches using a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. o y v � m m = 0 3 m o L p Vl N C C N O y n a U N 0 U r N � N a � 0 3 rn a o � L N W 0 Z OF BORING LAW/CRANDALL LOG I o: 0 °_ W -.- I— �� * �; �w BORING 7 > K a. on W � >a OV ul �` o a 1997 DATE DRILLED: 8" w ?I 0= a EQUIPMENT USED: - Diameter Hollow Stem Auger o' (n m to ELEVATION: 78 4" Asphalt Paving - 6" Base Course SILTY SAND - fine to medium, light brown SM 75 7.2 123 38 Some Clay v 5 7.9 113 41 Thin layers of Clayey Sand 'a c 70 CLAYEY SAND - fine, light reddish brown SC m 36 m 10 a C y m 0 E 23.3 102 45 SILTY CLAY -light brownish grey CL o c 65 o m rn � c c 4 �� 15 30 o` a � U 2 .N SILTY SAND - fine, light brown SM c 60 34 m m c c 9 20 SILTY CLAY -light grey CL 26.9 100 50 > M 0 c d m SAND - fine, light brown ':.• SP a m 0 55 50 z c 25 c w i• o• w m 55 c 0 m 50 •_.i`. 0 m 30 7.4 95 48 9 � a n 45 .;.:: 4•. ;,• o c 1 51 c 35 o +, Z 40 53 .° 40 (CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING FIGURE) LOG OF BORING LAW/CRANDALL FIGURE A-1.7a i� 1 a Y U U 0 ° w ^ � x I- � x �� I- BORING 7 (Continued) Q H^ w� F .- Z p` Q Z >w O m U 3 W "y- J �. oa DRILLED: $uneDiame Lu a o}c� zo EDATE OUIPMENT USED: e� Hollow Stem Auger 9 m w ELEVATION: 78 ::i ; 35 6.9 104 81 1for 11' w 45 SILTY SAND - fine to medium, light brown SM U c 57 30 .� Some coarse Sand, few Gravel m 50 c 82 c E END OF BORING AT 51'h'. NOTE: Water measured at a depth of 49', 10 minutes after 0 completion of drilling. � N 00 C .o ,m a 0 o •U CJ O 0 N O N � N N A T •O C C O O N U N N p• U a m m c J 0 0 N J W � L O C O O L �p N N O C N O y 'a n c m 0 � U � O O N w � J N C d U J N � `0 3 rn o � c L H O O Z OF BORING LOG LAWICRANDALL FIGURE A-1.7b N W 0 n m m M N m W a O II Ir 1 1 1 1 O W BORING 8 _ --:} _ V I— �uj * z$ , Oo j= w �� 0� >Lu a a W 0 O o } Z o DATE DRILLED: June 4, 1997 11' _ EQUIPMENT USED: 18" - Diameter Bucket o' y m U)i ELEVATION: 79 SM SILTY SAND - fine, brown 75 8.9 112 2 0 m 5 u c 8.4 116 2 0 rj N r. CLAYEY SAND - fine to medium, light brown SC m v °c 70 4.0 100 4 ; Thin layer of Sand m 10 .. c d SILTY CLAY -light grey and light brown CL c E m a 25.4 102 2 o c o m rn 66 c O 15 SAND - fine, some Silt, light brown i•: • SP u o 5.1 102 4 ,-, U N N L y O 3.9 102 6 .•',r c m o 60 20 C C O y. . O m v 5.2 98 6 '? '•,• m m 'C c � N w � 55 .uc 3 25 6.6 97 6 c O N � C o m m 50 30 U � '.q •r N � ° 3 •ice ' `•..' Thm layers of Silty Sand 0 45 23.5 91 16 ° 35 END OF BORING AT 35'. s y F- = NOTE: Water not encountered. No caving. ro 0 • Number of blows required to drive the Crandall sampler 12 inches for depths of: 0' to 25' using a 1600 pound hammer falling 12 inches; Below 25' using an 800 pound hammer falling 12 inches. LOG OF BORING AAA LAWICRANDALL FIGURE A-1.8 !J 0 a is U� ~ I- _$ _ �� '� BORING 13 jw � v` o j Lu ov o a (Previous Investigation 70131-5-0362.0002) J o O o IS y z 3 DATE DRILLED: November 8, 1996 �� c o : LI._ O Q EQUIPMENT USED: 8" - Diameter Hollow -stem Auger w cc m h ELEVATION: 77.1 3%a" Concrete Slab SM ARTIFICIAL FILL SILTY SAND - fine, heavy iron oxide staining, moist, dark 75 reddish brown 5.6 19.7 36 8.1 17.6 24 5 Some charcoal fragments U 5 6.9 17.6 37 70 v m m 10 8.6 16.1 23 ALLUVIUM Sp. •;. SAND - fine to medium, moist, slightly compact to compact, light brown o E 65 •� 17 SILTY SAND - fine to medium, moist, slightly compact, light gM ° brown c o `o 15 10.3 18.0 27 a ° _ SANDY SILT - moist, very stiff, light greyish brown ML ° N L 0 60 N 0 N 26 H c 0 20 0 O ° SAND - fine, some iron oxide staining, moist, compact to .'•"':^ SP 8.0 16.3 Be : dense, light reddish brown a 55 c � N , O ° s 25 43 3 d o Z w 50 c w 6.8 15.9 40 0 m c m 30 ° 0 43 •t 5�r• a � 45 m o 3 4.9 15.4 36 No iron oxide staining, light brown rn c : Y ° c 35 .. :3 40 40 : �•: •: Z :• :; NOTE: Water not encountered. No caving after removal of �•;i'', augers. 5.8 14.8 47 END OF BORING AT 40'. 40 LOG OF BORING LAW/CRANDALL FIGURE A-1.9 ' GROUP MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL NAMES CLEAN pp'j GW Well graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures. lime or no fines •.�. GRAVELS ' GRAVELS (Little or no tines) Y9�', (an 50% ir GP (More mPoorly graded gravels or gravel -sand mixtures. little or no fines of coarse fraction is LARGER than the No 4 GRAVELS GM Silty gravels, gravel•sar llt mixtures COARSE sieve size) WITH FINES GRAINED (Appreciable SOILS amount of fines) GC Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mixtures (More than 50% ' of material is LARGER than : r:5 SW Well graded sands, gravelly sands. time or no lines the No.200 CLEAN SANDS sieve size) SANDS (Little or no tines) ' (More than 60 % :: ;.) SP Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines of coarse traction is SMALLER than me No 4 SANDS SM Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures sieve size) WITH FINES ' (Appreciable amount of fines) SC Clayey sands. sand -clay mixtures ' ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty arm fine sands or clayey sots with slight plasticity ' SILTS AND CLAYS CL inorganic days of low to medium plasticity, FINE (Liquid limit LESS than 50) gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays GRAINED SOILS OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity (More than of materiall Is SMALLER than MH Inorganic silts, mlacedus or diatomaceous the No.200 tine sandy or silty sons, elastic silts ' sieve sae) SILTS AND CLAYS (Liquid limit GREATER than 50) CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat and other highly organic soils ' BOUNDARY CLASSIFICATIONS- Soils possessing Characteristics of two groups are designated by combinations of group symbols. tP A R T I C L E S I Z E L I M I T S SAND GRAVEL SILT OR CLAY COBBLES BOULDERS Fine I Medium • Coarse Fine Coarse 11 No. 200 No. 40 No. 10 No 4 3i4 in 3 in. (12 in.) ' U. S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE ' UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM REFERENCE: The Unified Soil Classification System, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Artily Technical Memorandum No. 3.357, Vol. 1. March, 1953. (Revised April, 1960). L A W / C R A N D A L FIGURE A-2 SHEAR STRENGTH in Pounds per Square Foot 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 z@ 8@18 BORING NUMBER & 3@12 VALUES USED IN ANALYSES � \O 7@2 6@g O\ 7@tt •3@12 q@6 � 5@15 1@27�\• 4@18 � \ SAMPLE DEPTH (FT.) \ 8@9 �@Z 4@60 \ 7@11 2@3 O \ • 1@21 • 5@15 2@24 \ \ LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 0 0.01 2 Boring 2 at 27' SAND Boring SAND 4 at 34' FIGURE A - 4.1 LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 0.00 0.01 2 z 0.02 W a N W 0.03 = V z _Z Z 0.04 a 0 0 U) 0.05 O V 0.06 0.07 NOTE: Samples tested at field rmistue content CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA LAW(CRANDALL ti Boring 5 at 18' ` SILTY CLAY Boring 7 at 11' \ SILK CLAY \ FIGURE A - 4.2 II 140 II II co I LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 0.00 0.01 Z 0.02 W a W = 0.03 Boring 8 at SAND 18' Z Z Z 0— 0.04 Q 0 J N Z 0.05 V 0.06 0.07 NOTE: Water added to sample after consolidation under a load of 1.8 kips per square foot CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA LAW(CRANDALL FIGURE A - 4.3 I I I I 14 r r v cq N m nt BORING NUMBER AND SAMPLE DEPTH: MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY: (Ibs./cu. ft.) OPTIMUM MOISTURE COP (% of dry wt.) 5 at 2'to 6' FILL - SILTY SAND II Ir 1 u 1` Y S C IQ 1 SIEVE ANALYSIS mmmm�i►i��1111��IIi1111v mm�mmkv=m1111lm111111m ; SAND ��������\\IIII��IIIIIII�� •.., •. .1 'SILTYSAND APPENDIX B SOIL CORROSIVITY STUDY (BY M. J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC.) ' M. J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC. ' Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959 1291 North Indian Hill Boulevard Claremont, California 9-626-0967 Phone 909-626-0967 FAX 909-621-1419 E-mail SCHIFFCORR@AOL.COM June 25, 1997 LAW/CRANDALL, INC. 200 Citadel Drive Los Angeles, California 90040-1554 ' Attention: Mr. Mike Shahabi Re: Soil Corrosivity Study ' Hoag Hospital Parking Structure, East Addition ' Newport Beach, California Your #70131-7-0254, MJS&A #97185 ' INTRODUCTION Laboratory tests have been completed on five soil samples we selected from your boring logs for the referenced parking structure project. Also included is soil corrosivity test data from this site that we tested in 1995 for Hoag Hospital. The purpose of these tests was to determine if the soils ' may have deleterious effects on underground utilities, hydraulic elevator cylinders, and concrete foundations. ' The scope of this study is limited to a determination of soil corrosivity and general corrosion control recommendations for materials likely to be used for construction. If the architects and/or engineers desire more specific information, designs, specifications, or review of design, we will be ' happy to work with them as a separate phase of this project. ' TEST PROCEDURES The electrical resistivity of each sample was measured in a soil box per ASTM G57 in its as - received condition and again after saturation with distilled water. Resistivities are at about their lowest value when the soil is saturated. The pH of the saturated samples was measured. A 5:1 water:soil extract from each sample was chemically analyzed for the major anions and cations. ' Test results are shown on Table 1. 10 CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS • FAILURE ANALYSIS 0 EXPERT WITNESS . CORROSIVITY AND DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS c F 11 U 11 I' C CI II II 1 1 LAW/CRANDALL MJS&A #97185 SOIL CORROSIVITY June 25, 1997 Page 2 A major factor in determining soil corrosivity is electrical resistivity. The electrical resistivity of a soil is a measure of its resistance to the flow of electrical current. Corrosion of buried metal is an electrochemical process in which the amount of metal loss due to corrosion is directly proportional to the flow of electrical current (DC) from the metal into the soil. Corrosion currents, following Ohm's Law, are inversely proportional to soil resistivity. Lower electrical resistivities result from higher moisture and chemical contents and indicate corrosive soil. A correlation between electrical resistivity and corrosivity toward ferrous metals is: Soil Resistivity in ohm -centimeters Corrosivity Category over 10,000 mildly corrosive 2,000 to 10,000 moderately corrosive 1,000 to 2,000 corrosive below 1,000 severely corrosive Other soil characteristics that may influence corrosivity towards metals are pH, chemical content, soil types, aeration, anaerobic conditions, and site drainage. Electrical resistivities were in moderately to severely corrosive categories with as -received moisture and at saturation. Soil pH values varied from 6.5 to 7.5. This range is slightly acidic to mildly alkaline and does not particularly enhance corrosivity. The chemical content of the samples was low. Tests were not made for sulfide or negative oxidation-reduction (redox) potentials because they would not exist in these aerated samples. This soil is classified as severely corrosive to ferrous metals. CORROSION CONTROL The life of buried materials depends on thickness, strength, loads, construction details, soil moisture, etc., in addition to soil corrosivity, and is, therefore, difficult to predict. Of more practical value are corrosion control methods that will increase the life of materials that would be subject to significant corrosion. U F U ■ 1 n F tl l_' II U LAW/CRANUALL June 25, 1997 MJS&A #97185 Page 3 Steel Pipe Abrasive blast underground steel utilities and apply a high quality dielectric coating such as extruded polyethylene, a tape coating system, hot applied coal tar enamel, or fusion bonded epoxy. Bond underground steel pipe with rubber gasketed, mechanical, grooved end, or other nonconductive type joints for electrical continuity. Electrical continuity is necessary for corrosion monitoring and cathodic protection. Electrically insulate each buried steel pipeline from dissimilar metals, cement -mortar coated and concrete encased steel, and above ground steel pipe to prevent dissimilar metal corrosion cells and to facilitate the application of cathodic protection. Apply cathodic protection to steel piping as per NACE International RP-0169-92. As an alternative to dielectric coating and cathodic protection, apply a 3/4 inch cement mortar coating or encase in cement -slurry or concrete 3 inches thick, using any type of cement. Hydraulic Elevator Coat hydraulic elevator cylinders as described above. Electrically insulate each cylinder from building metals by installing dielectric material between the piston platen and car, insulating the bolts, and installing an insulated joint in the oil line. Apply cathodic protection to hydraulic cylinders as per NACE International RP-0169-92. As an alternative to electrical insulation and cathodic protection, place each cylinder in a plastic casing with a plastic watertight seal at the bottom. The elevator oil line should be placed above ground if possible but, if underground, should be protected as described above for steel utilities. Iron Pipe Encase ductile iron water piping in 8 mil thick low -density polyethylene or 4 mil thick high - density, cross -laminated polyethylene plastic tubes or wraps per AWWA Standard C105 or coat with a high quality dielectric coating such as polyurethane or coal tar epoxy. As an alternative, encase iron piping with cement slurry or concrete at least 3 inches thick surrounding the pipe, using any type of cement. Bond all nonconductive type joints for electrical continuity. Electrically insulate underground iron pipe from dissimilar metals and above ground iron pipe with insulated joints. Encase cast iron drain lines in 8 mil thick low -density polyethylene or 4 mil thick high -density, cross -laminated polyethylene plastic tubes or wraps per AW WA Standard C105. As an alternative, encase iron piping with cement slurry or concrete at least 3 inches thick surrounding the pipe, using any type of cement. Electrically insulate underground iron pipe from dissimilar metals and above ground iron pipe with insulated joints. I I 11 I' I 110 F 11 1 1� I 1 LAW/CRANDALL MJS&A #97185 June 25, 1997 Page 4 Copper Tube Bare copper tubing for cold water should be bedded and backfilled in the silty sand at least 2 inches thick surrounding the copper. Hot water tubing may be subject to a higher corrosion rate. The best corrosion control measure would be to place the hot copper tubing above ground. If buried, encase in plastic pipe to prevent soil contact or apply cathodic protection. Plastic and Vitrified •Clay Pipe No special precautions are required for plastic and vitrified clay piping placed underground from a corrosion viewpoint. Protect any iron valves and fittings with a double polyethylene wrap per AWWA C105 or as described below for bare steel appurtenances. Where concrete thrust blocks are to be placed against iron, use a single polyethylene wrap to prevent concrete/iron contact and to eliminate the slipperiness of a double wrap. All Pipe On all pipe, coat bare steel appurtenances such as bolts, joint harnesses, or flexible•couplings with a coal tar or elastomer based mastic, coal tar epoxy, moldable sealant, wax tape, or equivalent after assembly. Where metallic pipelines penetrate concrete structures such as building floors or walls, use plastic sleeves, rubber seals, or other dielectric material to prevent pipe contact with the concrete and reinforcing steel. Concrete Any type of cement and standard concrete cover over reinforcing steel may be used for concrete structures and pipe in contact with these soils. Please call if you have any questions. Respectfully Submitted, M.J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC. James T. Keegan Eric: Table 1 zAdocs•97\97185.doc Reviewed by, -Aaed /eJ;x7k Paul R. Smith, P.E. M. J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959 1291 North Indian Hill Boulevard Claremont, California 91711-3897 Phone 909.626-0967 FAX 909-621-1419 E-mail SCHIFFCORR@AOL.COM Table 1- Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples Page 1 of 2 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach, California Your #70131-7-0254, MJS&A #971 S5 June 20,1997 Sample ID B-2 B-3 B-5 B-7 B-7 @9.5' @3.5' @2'-7' @2.5' @14'-15.5' Soil Type silty silty - ,silty clay sand sand sand clay Resistivity Units as -received ohm -cm saturated ohm -cm pH Electrical Conductivity mS/cm Chemical Analyses Cations calcium Cat+ mg/kg magnesium Mgt+ mg/kg sodium NaI+ mg/kg Anions carbonate C032- mg/kg bicarbonate HC031- mg/kg chloride C11- mg/kg sulfate S042, mg/kg Other Tests 800 6,400 7,600 6,300 775 720 3,650 4,800 4,400 740 6.5 7.0 6.7 6.5 6.6 0.09 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.15 16 ND ND ND 32 ND ND ND ND 10 86 104 77 96 116 ND ND ND ND ND 73 122 85 85 183 60 43 39 57 57 79 63 41 56 137 sulfide S2- qual na na na na Redox my na na na na ammonium NH4'+ mg/kg na na na na nitrate NO3" mg/kg na na na na Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis are of a 1:5 soil -to -water extract. mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil. Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts ND = not detected na = not analyzed does97\97185.xis na na na na CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS • FAILURE ANALYSIS -EXPERT WITNESS • CORROSIVITY AND DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS ' M. J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC. ' Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959 1291 North Indian Hill Boulevard Claremont, California 91711-3897 Phone 909.626.0967 t FAX 9OM21-1419 E-mail SCHIFFCORR@AOL.COM ' Table 1- Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples Page 2 of 2 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach, California Your #70131-7-0254, MJS&A #97185 ' June 20,1997 ' Sample ID HAI, 4' ' Soil Type silty sand Resistivity Units as -received ohm -cm 4,100 saturated ohm -cm 3,300 pH 7.5 Electrical Conductivity mS/cm 0.15 Chemical Analyses Cations calcium Cat+ mg/kg 60 magnesium Me mg/kg ND ' sodium Na" mg/kg 83 Anions ' carbonate C032- mg/kg ND bicarbonate HCO31- mg/kg 195 chloride Cif- mg/kg 28 ' sulfate S042- mg/kg 124 Other Tests ' sulfide S' qual na Redox my na ammonium NH4" mg/kg na ' nitrate NO3'mg/kg na Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis are of a 1:5 soil -to -water extract. ' mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil. Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts ND = not detected na na =not analyzed docs97197185.xis CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS • FAILURE ANALYSIS • EXPERT WITNESS • CORROSIVITY AND DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS u u IM IE r 0 c II " Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330 ' APPENDIX C FAULT DATA ' GENERAL The numerous faults in Southern California include active, potentially active, and inactive faults. The criteria for these major groups, as established by Slemmons (1979), are presented in ' Table C-1. Table C-2 presents a listing of active faults in Southern California with the distance in kilometers between the site and the nearest point on the fault, the maximum magnitude, and the ' estimated slip rate for the fault. Table C-3 provides a similar listing for potentially active faults. ' ACTIVE FAULTS Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone The nearest active fault to the site is the North Branch fault of the Newport -Inglewood fault zone (NIFZ) located 0.9 kilometer southwest of the site. Bryant (1988), in CDMG Open File Report 88- 14, identifies and summarizes the principal evidence for recent faulting (late Pleistocene and Holocene) along the previously mapped traces of the NIFZ. Bryant identifies three northwest - trending faults in the area as shown in Figure 3. The northern -most fault was identified by vague tonal lineaments in the Holocene alluvium observed on aerial photographs and documented offset ' in Pleistocene age materials. The southern two fault locations were based on oil well data. ' We have previously performed several fault evaluations at the Hoag Hospital campus. Geologic mapping of the bluff within the undeveloped portion of the site was performed as part of our previous investigations at the hospital campus to determine if faults identified on Newport Mesa by other consultants traversed the site. The contact between the Pleistocene age terrace deposits ' and the underlying Miocene age Monterey Formation is exposed in the bluff face and could be traced for nearly the entire length of the bluff. The materials exposed in the bluff face were observed to be stratigraphically-continuous and the contact was not disrupted by faulting. However, a fault was mapped in the bluff adjacent to the western property line of the Hoag Hospital lower campus, approximately 790 meters west-southwest of the proposed east addition. The fault offsets Miocene age Monterey Formation and possibly the Pleistocene age terrace ' C-1 ' Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330 ' deposits. This fault coincides with the southwesterly projection of a previously mapped fault by Bryant (1988). ' Currently, a portion of the North Branch fault is included in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault ' Zone for surface fault rupture in the Huntington Beach area. The zone is approximately 6 kilometers to the northwest of the site at its closest point, as shown in Figure 3. The California Division of Mines and Geology (1986) projects the North Branch fault passing about 150 meters tsouthwest of the hospital campus and 0.9 kilometer south of the proposed east addition, as shown in Figure 3. Palos Verdes Fault ' The active Palos Verdes fault is about 17 kilometers west-southwest of the site. Vertical ' separations up to about 1,825 meters occur across the fault at depth. Strike -slip movement is indicated by the configuration of the basement surface and lithologic changes in the Tertiary age rocks across the fault. A series of marine terraces in the Palos Verdes Hills were uplifted as a result of movement along the fault during the Pleistocene epoch. Geophysical data indicate offset ' at the base of offshore Holocene age deposits (Clarke et al., 1985). However, no historic large magnitude earthquakes are associated with this fault. Whittier Fault ' The Whittier fault zone, located approximately 34 kilometers north-northeast of the site, is a northeast -trending zone of faulting that extends along the south flank of the Puente Hills from the ' Santa Ana River on the northeast to the Merced Hills, and possibly beyond, on the northwest. The fault zone is a high -angle reverse fault, with the north side uplifted over the south side at an angle of approximately 70 degrees. In the Brea-Olinda Oil Field, the Whittier fault displaces Pleistocene age alluvium, and Carbon Canyon Creek is offset in a right lateral sense by the Whittier fault. ' Yerkes (1972) estimates vertical separation along the fault zone on the order of 1,825 to 3,660 meters, with a right slip component of about 4,570 meters. 10 C-2 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian—Revised,Geoteclinical Investigation November 3, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330 San Andreas Fault Zone The San Andreas fault zone is about 85 kilometers northeast of the site. This fault zone, California's most prominent geological feature, trends generally northwest for almost the entire length of the state. The southern segment, closest to the site, is approximately 450 kilometers long and extends from the Mexican Border to the Transverse Ranges west of Tejon Pass. Wallace (1968) estimated the recurrence interval for a magnitude 8.0 earthquake along the entire fault zone to be between 50 and 200 years. Sieh (1984) estimated a recurrence interval of 140 to 200 years. The 1857 Fort Tejon earthquake was the last major earthquake along the San Andreas fault zone in Southern California. BLIND THRUST FAULT ZONES Compton -Los Alamitos Thrust The Compton -Los Alamitos Thrust, as defined by Dolan et al. (1995), is an inferred blind thrust fault located within the central portion of the Los Angeles Basin. The vertical surface projection of the thrust fault is 12 kilometers northwest of the site. The thrust fault is suggested to extend over 80 kilometers from the Santa Monica Bay coastline southeast into northwestern Orange County and may connect with the Elysian Park Thrust to the northeast along a detachment fault below Los Angeles. Like other blind thrust faults in the Los Angeles area, the Compton -Los Alamitos Thrust is not exposed at the surface and does not present a potential surface rupture hazard; however, the Compton -Los Alamitos Thrust should be considered an active feature capable of generating future earthquakes. There are no direct data on recurrence intervals or characteristic displacements for individual blind thrust segments, at the present time. However, an average slip rate of 1.5 mm/yr and a maximum credible earthquake of 6.8 is estimated by Petersen et al. (1996) for the Compton -Los Alamitos Thrust. Elysian Park Thrust Fold and Thrust Belt The Elysian Park Fold and Thrust Belt as originally defined by Hauksson (1990) was postulated to extend northwesterly from the Santa Ana Mountains to the Santa Monica Mountains, extending C-3 ' Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330 westerly and paralleling the Santa Monica -Hollywood and Malibu Coast faults. The Elysian Park Fold and Thrust Belt is more recently known as the Elysian Park Thrust (Petersen et al., 1996) and ' is now believed to be smaller in size, only underlying the central Los Angeles Basin. The Elysian Park Thrust is approximately 27 kilometers north of the site at its closest point. Like ' other blind thrust faults in the Los Angeles area, the Elysian Park Thrust is not exposed at the surface and does not present a potential surface rupture hazard; however, the Elysian Park Thrust ' should be considered an active feature capable of generating future earthquakes. An average slip rate of 1.5 mm/yr and.a maximum credible earthquake of 6.7 is estimated by Petersen et al. (1996) ' for the Elysian Park Thrust. POTENTIALLY ACTIVE FAULTS Pelican Hill Fault ' The closest potentially active fault is the Pelican Hill fault is located about 4.0 kilometers east- northeast of the site. The Pelican Hill fault is believed to be a probable branch of the Newport - Inglewood fault zone. There is evidence that several branches of the fault offset late Pleistocene ' age terrace deposits (Miller and Tan, 1976). Evidence presented by Tan and Edgington (1976) suggests that the Pelican Hill fault has displaced marine terrace deposits, suggesting late ' Pleistocene or younger activity. However, there is no evidence that this fault has offset Holocene age alluvial deposits (Ziony and Jones, 1989). Additionally, the "Fault Activity Map of California" published by the California Division of Mines and Geology (Jennings, 1994) considers this fault to be potentially active. Los Alamitos Fault The potentially active Los Alamitos fault is approximately 21 northwest of the site. This fault trends northwest -southeast from the northern boundary of the City of Lakewood, southeastward to ' the Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center. The fault, considered a southeasterly extension of the Paramount Syncline, appears to be a vertical fault with the early Pleistocene age materials on I' the west side of the fault displaced up relative to the east side. There is no evidence that this fault 10 has offset Holocene age alluvial deposits (Ziony and Jones, 1989). Additionally, the "Fault ' C-4 U r U iM U C II 1 rw Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotecbnical Investigation Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330 November 3, 1999 Activity map of California" published by the California Division of Mines and Geology (Jennings, 1994) considers this fault to be potentially active. El Modeno Fault The potentially active El Modeno fault is about 24 kilometers north-northeast of the site. The fault is a steeply -dipping normal fault about 14 kilometers long and has about 610 meters of uplift on its eastern side. The "Fault Activity map of California" published by the California Division of Mines and Geology (Jennings, 1994) considers this fault to be potentially active. Additionally, Ziony and Jones (1989) does not identify this fault as a late Quaternary fault. Peralta Hills The Peralta Hills fault is located approximately 25 kilometers north-northeast of the site. This reverse fault is about 8 kilometers long and generally trends east -west and dips to the north. Pleistocene age offsets are known along this fault; however, there is no evidence that this fault has offset Holocene age alluvial deposits (Ziony and Jones, 1989). Additionally, the "Fault Activity Map of California" published by the California Division of Mines and Geology (Jennings, 1994) considers this fault to be potentially active. I C-5 n n Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian -Revised Geoteehnieal Investigation Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330 s Table C-1 Criteria for Classification of Faults With Regard to Seismic Activity (After D.B. Slemmons,1979) Activity Classification Criteria and Definition November 3, 1999 Historic Geologic Seismologic Active --a tectonic fault with a history of strong (1) Surface faulting and earthquakes or surface faulting, or a fault with a short associated strong recurrence interval relative to the life of the planned earthquakes. project The recurrence interval used to define activity (2) Tectonic fault creep or rate may vary according to the consequence of geodetic evidence of activity. fault displacement or deformation. Potentially Active —a tectonic fault without historic No reliable report of historic surface offset, but with a recurrence interval drat could surface faulting. be sufficiently short to be significant to the particular project (1) Geologically young deposits cut by the fault Earthquake epicenter can (2) Youthful geomorphological features that are characteristic of be assigned with geologically young displacements along the trace fault confidence to the fault (3) Groundwater barriers in geologically young or unconsolidated deposits. (1) Geomorphic features that are characteristic of active faults, but Alignment of some with subdued, eroded, and discontinuous form. earthquake epicenters (2) Faults not known to cut or displace -youngest alluvial deposits, but along or near fault, but offset older Quaternary deposits. assigned locations have (3) Water barriers in older deposits. low degree of confidence (4) Geological setting in which the geometry in relation to active or in location. potentially active faults suggests similar degree of activity. ActivilyUncertain—a fault with insufficient evidence Available information is insufficient to provide criteria thatare sufficiently definitive to establish fault activity. This lack of to define past activity or recurrence interval. The information may be due to the inactivity of the fault or to lack of investigations needed to provide definitive criteria. following classifications can be used until the results of additional studies provide definitive evidence. Tentatively Active —predominant evidence suggests Available information suggests evidence of fault activity, but evidence is not definitive. that the fault may be active even though its recurrence interval is very long or poorly defined. Tentatively Inactive —predominant evidence suggests Available information suggests evidence of fault inactivity, but evidence is not definitive. that the fault is not active. Inactive —a fault along which it can be demonstrated No historic activity. that surface faulting has not occurred in the recent past, and that the requirement interval is long enough not to be of significance to the particular project Geomorphic features characteristic of active fault zones are not present Not recognized as a source and geological evidence is available to indicate that the fault has not of earthquakes. moved in the recent past and recurrence is not likely during a time period considered significant to the site. Should indicate age of last movement_ Holocene, Pleistocene, Quaternary, Tertiary, etc. C-6 ' Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian -Revised Geotechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 Law/Crandall Project70131-9-0330 Table C 2 Major Named Faults Considered to be Active (a) ' in Southern California Fault Maximum Slip Rate Distance From Site Direction ' (in increasing distance) Magnitude (mmlyr.) (Kilometers) From Site Newport -Inglewood Zone 6.9 (e) SS 1.0 0.9 S ' Compton -Los Alamitos Thrust 6.8 (e) RO 1.5 12 NW Palos Verdes 7.1 (e) SS 3.0 17 WSW Elysian Park Thrust 6.7 (e) RO 1.5 27 N ' Whittier 6.8 (e) SS 2.5 34 NNE Elsinore (Glen Ivy Segment) 6.8 (e) SS 5.0 37 NE ' Sierra Madre 7.0 (e) RO 3.0 57 N Raymond 6.5 (e) RO 0.5 58 NNW ' Cucamonga 7.0 (e) RO 5.0 63 NNE Hollywood 6.4 (e) RO 1.0 63 NW Santa Monica 6.6 (e) RO 1.0 63 NW Verdugo 6.7 (e) RO 0.5 67 NNW Malibu Coast 6.7 (e) RO 0.3 73 NW ' Northridge Thrust 6.9 (e) RO 1.5 75 NW San Jacinto (San Bernardino Segment) 6.7 (e) SS 12.0 77 NE San Fernando 6.7 (e) RO 2.0 79 NW ' San Gabriel 7.0 (e) SS 1.0 79 NNW Anacapa-Dume 7.3 (e) RO 3.0 82 NW ' San Andreas (Southern Segment) 7.4 (e) SS 24.0 85 NE (a) Slemmons, 1979 (b) Mark, 1977 ' (c) Blake, 1995 (d) Dolan et al., 1995 (e) CDMG, 1996 (0 Anderson, 1984 (g) Wesnousky,1986 (h) Hummon et al., 1994 SS Strike Slip ' NO Normal Oblique RO Reverse Oblique ' C-7 ' Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation November3, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330 10 Table C-3 Major Named Faults Considered to be Potentially Active (a) in Southern California ' Fault Maximum Slip Rate Distance From Site Direction (in increasing distance) Magnitude (mm/yr.) (Kilometers) From Site ' Pelican Hill 6.3 (b) SS 0.1 4 ENE Los Alamitos 6.2 (b) SS 0.1 21 NW ' El Modeno 6.5 (b) NO 0.1 24 NNE Peralta Hills 6.5 (b) RO 0.1 25 NNE Norwalk 6.7 (a) RO 0.1 29 NNW ' Chino - Central Avenue 6.7 (e) NO 1.0 40 NE Coyote Pass 6.7 (b) RO 0.1 50 NNW ' San Jose 6.5 (e) RO 0.5 50 NNE Indian Hill 6.6 (b) RO 0.1 54 N MacArthur Park 5.7 (h) RO 3.0 55 NW ' Duarte 6.7 (a) RO 0.1 56 N Overland 6.0 (a) SS 0.1 56 NW Chamock 6.5 (a) SS 0.1 57 NW Clamshell-Sawpit 6.5 (e) RO 0.5 59 N ' (a) Slemmons, 1979 (b) Mark, 1977 (c) Blake, 1995 ' (d) Dolan et al., 1995 (e) CDMG,1996 (f) Anderson, 1984 ' (g) Wesnousky, 1986 (h) Hummon et al., 1994 SS Strike Slip NO Normal Oblique ' RO Reverse Oblique 1 19 C-8 I u I, C L7 c r APPENDIX D SEISMICITY AND GROUND MOTION DATA Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Revised Geotechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330 APPENDIX D SEISMICITY AND GROUND MOTION DATA SEISMICITY The seismicity of the region surrounding the site was determined from research of a computer database catalog of earthquakes. This catalog includes seismic data compiled by the California Institute of Technology for 1932 to 1998 and data for 1812 to 1931 compiled by Richter and the U.S. National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The search for earthquakes that occurred within 100 kilometers of the site indicates that 364 earthquakes of Richter magnitude 4.0 and greater occurred between 1932 and 1996; 4 earthquakes of magnitude 6.0 or greater occurred between 1906 and 1931, and 1 earthquake of magnitude 7.0 or greater occurred between 1812 and 1905. A list of these earthquakes is presented in Table D-1 at the end of this appendix. The information for each earthquake in Table D-1 includes date and time in Greenwich Civil Time (GCT), location of the epicenter in latitude and longitude, quality of epicentral determination (Q), depth in kilometers, distance from the site in kilometers, and magnitude. Where a depth of 0.0 is given, the solution was based on an assumed 16-kilometer focal depth. The explanation of the letter code for the quality factor of the data is presented on the first page of the table. GROUND MOTION STUDIES Ground motions were postulated corresponding to earthquake levels having a 10% probability of exceedence during a 50-year time period and a 10% probability of exceedence during a 100-year time period. Site -specific response spectra for the levels of shaking specified were determined by a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) using the computer program FRISKSP, Version 3.01b. The faults used in the study are shown in Tables C-2 and C-3, along with the maximum credible magnitude and the slip rate assigned to each fault. FRISKSP converts the slip rate into an activity rate for each fault using an algorithm consistent with the Anderson and Luco Occurrence Relation 2 (Anderson and Luco, 1983). Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330 The response spectra were developed as the average of the spectra using the ground motion attenuation relations for a type "B" site classification and the ground motion attenuation relations for a type "C" site classification discussed in Boore et al. (1993). We have previously measured the shear wave velocity at a nearby location at St. Andrews Presbyterian church, located about 1'/a miles east of Hoag Hospital, at the intersection of St. Andrews Road and 15th Street in Newport Beach. The upper 40 feet of soil is the same Pleistocene age terrace deposits that are found at Hoag Hospital; beneath the terrace deposits is the Monterey Formation, the same formation that underlies the terrace deposits at Hoag Hospital. We have computed the average shear wave velocity in the upper 30 meters to be about 340 meters per second, close to the division between Boore `B" and Boore "C" at 360 meters per second. The previous shear wave velocities measured are shown in Figure D-1, as measured in boring 1 shown in Figure D-2, and the location of the nearby site for which the shear wave velocities were measured is shown in Figure D-3. Dispersion in the ground motion attenuation relationships was considered by inclusion of the standard deviation of the ground motion data in the attenuation relationship used in the PSHA. For the fault rupture length versus magnitude relationship, we have used the relationship of Wells and Coppersmith (1994) for "all -slip -type" for all of the faults in the model. The response spectra for the ground motions with a 10% probability of exceedence in 50 years and for those with a 10% probability of exceedence in 100 years are presented in Figures 7 and 8, respectively, for structural damping values of 2%, 5%, and 10%. The response spectra in digitized form are shown in Tables 1 and 2 for the pseudo spectral velocity and pseudo spectral acceleration, respectively. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian -Revised Geotechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330 Table D-1: List of Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 or Greater Within 100 Kilometers of the Site (CAL TECH DATA 1932-1998) DATE TIME LATITUDE LONGITUDE Q DIST DEPTH MAGNITUDE 11-01-1932 04:45:00 34.00 N 117.25 W E 75 .0 4.0 03-11-1933 01:54:07 33.62 N 117.97 W A 5 .0 6.4 03-11-1933 02:04:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.9 03-11-1933 02:05:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.3 03-11-1933 02:09:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 5.0 03-11-1933 02:10:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.6 03-11-1933 02:11:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.4 03-11-1933 02:16:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.8 03-11-1933 02:17:00 33.60 N 118.00 W E 8 .0 4.5 03-11-1933 02:22:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.0 03-11-1933 02:27:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.6 03-11-1933 02:30:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 5.1 03-11-1933 02:31:00 33.60 N 118.00 W E 8 .0 4.4 03-11-1933 02:52:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.0 03-11-1933 02:57:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.2 03-11-1933 02:58:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.0 03-11-1933 02:59:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.6 03-11-1933 03:05:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.2 03-11-1933 03:09:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.4 03-11-1933 03:11:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.2 03-11-1933 03:23:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 5.0 03-11-1933 03:36:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.0 03-11-1933 03:39:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.0 03-11-1933 03:47:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.1 03-11-1933 04:36:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.6 03-11-1933 04:39:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.9 03-11-1933 04:40:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.7 03-11-1933 05:10:22 33.70 N 118.07 W C 17 .0, 5.1 03-11-1933 05:13:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.7 03-11-1933 05:15:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.0 03-11-1933 05:18:04 33.58 N 117.98 W C 8 .0 5.2 03-11-1933 05:21:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.4 03-11-1933 05:24:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.2 03-11-1933 05:53:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.0 03-11-1933 05:55:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.0 03-11-1933 06:11:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.4 03-11-1933 06:18:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.2 03-11-1933 06:29:00 33.85 N 118.27 W C 42 .0 4.4 03-11-1933 06:35:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.2 03-11-1933 06:58:03 33.68 N 118.05 W C 15 .0 5.5 03-11-1933 07:51:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.2 03-11-1933 07:59:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.1 NOTE: Q IS A FACTOR RELATING THE QUALITY OF EPICENTRAL A = +- 1 km horizontal distance; +- 2 km depth B = +- 2 km horizontal distance; +- 5 km depth C = +- 5 km horizontal distance; no depth restriction D = >+- 5 km horizontal distance Event qualities are highly suspect prior to 1990. Many of these event qualities are based on incomplete information according to Caltech. ' Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian -Revised Gemechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330 Table D-1 (continued): ' List of Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 or Greater Within 100 IGlometers of the Site (CAL TECH DATA 1932-1998) DATE TIME LATITUDE LONGITUDE Q DIST DEPTH MAGNITUDE ' 03-11-1933 08:08:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.5 03-11-1933 08:32:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.2 03-11-1933 08:37:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.0 03-11-1933 08:54:57 33.70 N 118.07 W C 17 .0 5.1 ' 03-11-1933 09:10:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 5.1 03-11-1933 09:11:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.4 03-11-1933 09:26:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.1 03-11-1933 10:25:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.0 ' 03-11-1933 10:45:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.0 03-11-1933 11:00:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.0 03-11-1933 11:04:00 33.75 N 118.13 W C 25 .0 4.6 03-11-1933 11:29:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.0 ' 03-11-1933 11:38:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.0 03-11-1933 11:41:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.2 03-11-1933 11:47:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.4 03-11-1933 12:50:00 33.68 N 118.05 W C 15 .0 4.4 ' 03-11-1933 13:50:00 33.73 N 118.10 W C 22 .0 4.4 03-11-1933 13:57:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.0 03-11-1933 14,:25:00 33.85 N 118.27 W C 42 .0 5.0 03-11-1933 14:47:00 33.73 N 118.10 W C 22 .0 4.4 03-11-1933 14:57:00 33.88 N 118.32 W C 48 .0 4.9 03-11-1933 15:09:00 33.73 N 118.10 W C 22 .0 4.4 03-11-1933 15:47:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.0 03-11-1933 16:53:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.8 03-11-1933 19:44:00 33.75 N 17.8.08 W C 22 .0 4.0 ' 03-11-1933 19:56:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.2 03-11-1933 22:00:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.4 03-11-1933 22:31:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.4 03-11-1933 22:32:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.1 ' 03-11-1933 22:40:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.4 03-11-1933 23:05:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.2 03-12-1933 00:27:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.4, 03-12-1933 00:34:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.0 ' 03-12-1933 04:48:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.0 03-12-1933 05:46:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.4 03-12-1933 06:01:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.2 03-12-1933 06:16:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.6 ' 03-12-1933 07:40:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.2 03-12-1933 08:35:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.2 03-12-1933 15:02:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.2 NOTE: Q IS A FACTOR RELATING THE QUALITY OF EPICENTRAL DETERMINATION A = +- 1 km horizontal distance; +- 2 km depth B = +- 2 km horizontal distance; +- 5 km depth C = +- 5 km horizontal distance; no depth restriction D = >+- 5 km horizontal distance Event qualities are highly suspect prior to 1990. Many of these event qualities are based on incomplete information according to Caltech. 1 I I'r n II U I 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian -Revised Geolechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330 Table D-1 (continued): List of Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 or Greater Within 100 Kilometers of the Site (CAL TECH DATA 1932-1998) DATE TIME LATITUDE LONGITUDE Q DIST DEPTH MAGNITUDE 03-12-1933 16:51:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.0 03-12-1933 17:38:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.5 03-12-1933 18:25:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.1 03-12-1933 21:28:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.1 03-12-1933 23:54:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.5 03-13-1933 03:43:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.1 03-13-1933 04:32:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.7 03-13-1933 06:17:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.0 03-13-1933 13:18:28 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 5.3 03-13-1933 15:32:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.1 03-13-1933 19:29:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.2 03-14-1933 00:36:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.2 03-14-1933 12:19:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.5 03-14-1933 19:01:50 33.62 N 118.02 W C 9 .0 5.1 03-14-1933 22:42:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.1 03-15-1933 02:08:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.1 03-15-1933 04:32:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.1 03-15-1933 05:40:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.2 03-15-1933 11:13:32 33.62 N 118.02 W C 9 .0 4.9 03-16-1933 14:56:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.0 03-16-1933 15:29:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.2 03-16-1933 15:30:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.1 03-17-1933 16:51:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.1 03-18-1933 20:52:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.2 03-19-1933 21:23:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.2 03-20-1933 13:58:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.1 03-21-1933 03:26:00 33.75 N 118.06 W C 22 .0 4.1 03-23-1933 08:40:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.1 03-23-1933 18:31:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.1 03-25-1933 13:46:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.1 03-30-1933 12:25:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.4 03-31-1933 10:49:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.1 04-01-1933 06:42:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.2 04-02-1933 08:00:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.0 04-02-1933 15:36:00 33.75 N 118.08 W C 22 .0 4.0 05-16-1933 20:58:55 33.75 N 118.17 W C 28 .0 4.0 08-04-1933 04:17:48 33.75 N 118.18 W C 29 .0 4.0 10-02-1933 09:10:17 33.78 N 118.13 W A 28 .0 5.4 10-02-1933 13:26:01 33.62 N 118.02 W C 9 .0 4.0 10-25-1933 07:00:46 33.95 N 118.13 W C 42 .0 4.3 NOTE: Q IS A FACTOR RELATING THE QUALITY OF EPICENTRAL DETERMINATION A = +- 1 km horizontal distance; +- 2 Ian depth S = +- 2 km horizontal distance; +- 5 km depth C = +- 5 km horizontal distance; no depth restriction D = >+- 5 km horizontal distance Event qualities are highly suspect prior to 1990. Many of these event qualities are based on incomplete information according to Caltech. I 1 U I IM I 1 I 1 II� Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian -Revised Geotechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330 Table D-1(continued): List of Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 or Greater Within 100 Kilometers of the Site (CAL TECH DATA 1932-1998) DATE TIME LATITUDE LONGITUDE Q DIST DEPTH MAGNITUDE 11-13-1933 21:28:00 33.87 N 118.20 W C 38 .0 4.0 11-20-1933 10:32:00 33.78 N 118.13 W B 28 .0 4.0 01-09-1934 14:10:00 34.10 N 117.68 W A 58 .0 4.5 01-18-1934 02:14:00 34.10 N 117.68 W A 58 .0 4.0 01-20-1934 21:17:00 33.62 N 118.12 W B 19 .0 4.5 04-17-1934 18:33:00 33.57 N 117.98 W C 8 .0 4.0 10-17-1934 09:38:00 33.63 N 118.40 W B 45 .0 4.0 11-16-1934 21:26:00 33.75 N 118.00 W B 17 .0 4.0 06-07-1935 16:33:00 33.27 N 117.02 W B 92 .0 4.0 06-19-1935 11:17:00 33.72 N 117.52 W B 39 .0 4.0 07-13-1935 10:54:16 34.20 N 117.90 W A 65 .0 4.7 09-03-1935 06:47:00 34.03 N 117.32 W B 72 .0 4.5 11-04-1935 03:55:00 33.50 N 116.92 W B 94 .0 4.5 12-25-1935 17:15:00 33.60 N 118.02 W B 10 .0 4.5 02-23-1936 22:20:42 34.13 N 117.34 W A 78 10.0 4.5 02-26-1936 09:33:27 34.14 N 117.34 W A 79 10.0 4.0 07-29-1936 14:22:52 33.45 N 116.90 W C 96 10.0 4.0 08-22-1936 05:21:00 33.77 N 117.82 W B 19 .0 4.0 01-15-1937 18:35:47 33.56 N 118.06 W B 15 10.0 4.0 03-19-1937 01:23:38 34.11 N 117.43 W A 71 10.0 4.0 07-07-1937 11:12:00 33.57 N 117.98 W B 8 .0 4.0 09-01-1937 13:48:08 34.21 N 117.53 W A 75 10.0 4.5 09-01-1937 16:35:33 34.18 N 117.55 W A 72 10.0 4.5 09-13-1937 22:14:39 33.04 N 118.73 W C 99 10.0 4.0 05-21-1938 09:44:00 33.62 N 118.03 W B 11 .0 4.0 05-31-1938 08:34:55 33.70 N 117.51 W B 39 10.0 5.2 06-16-1938 05:59:16 33.46 N 116.90 W B 96 10.0 4.0 07-05-1938 18:06:55 33.68 N 117.55 W A 34 10.0 4.5 08-06-1938 22:00:55 33.72 N 117.51 W B 40 10.0 4.0 08-3i-1938 03:18:14 33.76 N 118.25 W A 35 10.0 4.5 11-29-1938 19:21:15 33.90 N 118.43 W A 58 10.0 4.0 12-07-1938 03:38:00 34.00 N 118.42 W B 63 .0 4.0 12-27-1938 10:09:28 34.13 N 117.52 W B 68 10.0 4.0 04-03-1939 02:50:44 34.04 N 117.23 W A 79 10.0 4.0 06-25-1939 01:49:00 32.75 N 118.20 W C 100 .6 4.5 11-04-1939 21:41:00 33.77 N 118.12 W B 25 .0 4.0 11-07-1939 18:52:08 34.00 N 117.28 W A 73 .0 4.7 12-27-1939 19:28:49 33.78 N 118.20 W A 32 .0 4.7 01-13-1940 07:49:07 33.78 N 118.13 W B 28 .0 4.0 62-08-1940 16:56:17 33.70 N 118.07 W B 17 .0 4.0 NOTE: Q IS A FACTOR RELATING THE QUALITY OF EPICENTRAL A = +- 1 km horizontal distance; +- 2 km depth B = +- 2 km horizontal distance; +- 5 km depth C = +- 5 km horizontal distance; no depth restriction D = >+- 5 km horizontal distance Event qualities are highly suspect prior to 1990. Many of these event qualities are based on incomplete information according to Caltech. I 1 I ri II II II IN II I 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian -Revised Geotechnical Investigation Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330 Table D-1 (continued): List of Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 or Greater Within 100 Kilometers of the Site (CAL TECH DATA 1932-1998) November 3, 1999 DATE TIME LATITUDE LONGITUDE Q DIST DEPTH MAGNITUDE 02-11-1940 19:24:10 33.98 N 118.30 W B 54 .0 4.0 02-19-1940 12:06:55 34.02 N 117.05 W A 92 .0 4.6 04-18-1940 18:43:43 34.03 N 117.35 W A 70 .0 4.4 06-05-1940 08:27:27 33.83 N 117.40 W B 54 .0 4.0 07-20-1940 04:01:13 33.70 N 118.07 W B 17 .0 4.0 10-11-1940 05:57:12 33.77 N 118.45 W A 52 .0 4.7 10-12-1940 00:24:00 33.78 N 118.42 W B 50 .0 4.0 10-14-1940 20:51:il 33.78 N 118.42 W B 50 .0 4.0 11-01-1940 07:25:03 33.78 N 118.42 W B 50 .0 4.0 11-01-1940 20:00:46 33.63 N 118.20 W B 27 .0 4.0 11-02-1940 02:58:26 33.7& N 118.42 W B 50 .0 4.0 01-30-1941 01:34:46 33.97 N 118.05 W A 41 .0 4.1 03-22-1941 08:22:40 33.52 N 118.10 W B 20 .0 4.0 03-25-1941 23:43:41 34.22 N 117.47 W B 79 .0 4.0 04-11-1941 01:20:24 33.95 N 117.58 W B 48 .0 4.0 10-22-1941 06:57:18 33.82 N 118.22 W A 36 .0 4.8 11-14-1941 08:41:36 33.78 N 118.25 W A 36 .0 4.8 01-24-1942 21:41:48 32.80 N 117.83 W B 91 .0 4.0 04-16-1942 07:28:33 33.37 N 118.15 W C 35 .0 4.0 02-23-1943 09:21:12 32.85 N 117.48 W 'C 94 .0 4.0 10-24-1943 00:29:21 33.93 N 117.37 W C 62 .0 4.0 06-19-1944 00:03:33 33.87 N 118.22 W B 40 .0 4.5 06-19-1944 03:06:07 33.87 N 118.22 W C 40 .0 4.4 02-24-1946 06:07:52 34.40 N 117.80 W C 88 .0 4.1 03-01-1948 08:12:13 34.17 N 117.53 W B 71 .0 4.7 10-03-1948 02:46:28 34.18 N 117.58 W A 70 .0 4.0 01-11-1950 21:41:35 33.94 N 118.20 W A 45 .4 4.1 11-06-1950 20:55:46 32.72 N 117.83 W B 100 .0 4.4 09-22-1951 08:22:39 34.12 N 117.34 W A 77 11.9 4.3 12-26-1951 00:46:54 32.82 N 118.35 W B 97 .0 5.9 02-13-1952 15:13:37 32.87 N 118.25 W C 89 .0 4.7 02-17-1952 12:36:58 34.00 N 117.27 W A 73 16.0 4.5 10-26-1954 16:22:26 33.73 N 117.47 W B 44 .0 4.1 05-15-1955 17:03:25 34.12 N 117.48 W A 69 7.6 4.0 01-03-1956 00:25:48 33.72 N 117.50 W B 41 13.7 4.7 06-28-1960 20:00:48 34.12 N 117.47 W A 69 12.0 4.1 10-04-1961 02:21:31 33.85 N 117.75 W B 31 4.3 4.1 10-20-1961 19:49:50 33.65 N 117.99 W B 9 4.6 4.3 10-20-1961 20:07:14 33.66 N 117.98 W B 8 6.1 4.0 10-20-1961 21:42:40 33.67 N 117.98 W B 8 7.2 4.0 NOTE: Q IS A FACTOR RELATING THE QUALITY OF EPICENTRAL A = +- 1 km horizontal distance; +- 2 km depth B = +- 2 km horizontal distance; +- 5 km depth C = +- 5 km horizontal distance; no depth restriction D = >+- 5 km horizontal distance Event qualities are highly suspect prior to 1990. Many of these event qualities are based on incomplete information according to Caltech. 1 C 1 1 1 1 1 1 M Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian -Revised Geotechnical Investigation Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330 Table D-1 (continued): List of Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 or Greater Within 100 Kilometers of the Site (CAL TECH DATA 1932-1998) November 3, 1999 DATE TIME LATITUDE LONGITUDE Q DIST DEPTH MAGNITUDE 10-20-1961 22:35:34 33.67 N 118.01 W B 11 5.6 4.1 11-20-1961 08:53:34 33.68 N 117.99 W B 10 4.4 4.0 04-27-1962 09:12:32 33.74 N 117.19 W B 69 5.7 4.1 09-14-1963 03:51:16 33.54 N 118.34 W B 40 2.2 4.2 09-23-1963 14:4i:52 33.71 N 116.93 W B 92 16.5 5.1 08-30-1964 22:57:37 34.27 N 118.44 W B 88 15.4 4.0 01-01-i965 08:04:18 34.14 N 117.52 W B 69 5.9 4.4 04-15-1965 20:08:33 34.13 N 117.43 W B 73 5.5 4.5 01-08-1967 07:37:30 33.63 N 118.47 W B 51 11.4 4.0 01-08-1967 07:38:05 33.66 N 118.41 W C 47 17.7 4.0 06-15-1967 04:58:05 34.00 N 117.97 W B 43 10.0 4.1 05-05-1969 16:02:09 34.30 N 117.57 W B 83 8.8 4.4 10-27-1969 13:16:02 33.55 N 117.81 W B 13 6.5 4.5 09-12-1970 14:10:11 34.27 N 117.52 W A 81 8.0 4.1 09-12-1970 14:30:52 34.27 N 117.54 W A 81 8.0 5.2 09-13-1970 04:47:48 34.28 N 117.55 W A 81 8.0 4.4 02-09-1971 14:00:41 34.41 N 118.40 W B 99 8.4 6.6 02-09-1971 14:01:08 34.41 N 118.40 W D 99 8.0 5.8 02-09-1971 14:01:33 34.41 N 118.40 W D 99 8.0 4.2 02-09-1971 14:01:40 34.41 N 118.40 W D 99 8.0 4.1 02-09-1971 14:01:50 34.41 N 118.40 W D 99 6.0 4.5 02-09-1971 14:01:54 34.41 N 118.40 W D 99 8.0 4.2 02-09-1971 14:01:59 34.41 N 118.40 W D 99 8.0 4.1 02-09-1971 14:02:03 34.41 N 118.40 W D 99 8.0 4.1 02-09-1971 14:02:30 34.41 N 118.40 W D 99 8.0 4.3 02-09-1971 14:02:31 34.41 N 118.40 W D 99 8.0 4.7 02-09-1971 14:02:44 34.41 N 118.40 W D 99 8.0 5.8 02-09-1971 14:03:25 34.41 N 118.40 W D 99 8.0 4.4 02-09-1971 14:03:46 34.41 N 118.40 W D 99 8.0 4.1 02-09-1971 14:04:07 34.41 N 118.40 W D 99 8.0 4.1 02-09-1971 14:04:34 34.41 N 118.40 W C 99 8.0 4.2 02-09-1971 14:04:39 34.41 N 118.40 W D 99 8.0 4.1 02-09-1971 14:04:44 34.41 N 118.40 W D 99 8.0 4.1 02-09-1971 14:04:46 34.41 N 118.40 W D 99 8.0 4.2 02-09-1971 14:05:41 34.41 N 118.40 W D 99 8.0 4.1 02-09-1971 14:05:50 34.41 N 118.40 W D 99 8.0 4.1 02-09-1971 14:07:10 34.41 N 118.40 W D 99 8.0 4.0 02-09-1971 14:07:30 34.41 N 118.40 W D 99 8.0 4.0 02-09-1971 14:07:45 34.41 N 118.40 W D 99 8.0 4.5 02-09-1971 14:08:04 34.41 N 118.40 W D 99 8.0 4.0 NOTE: Q IS A FACTOR RELATING THE QUALITY OF EPICENTRAL A = +- 1 km horizontal distance; +- 2 km depth B = +- 2 km horizontal distance; +- 5 km depth C = +- 5 km horizontal distance; no depth restriction D = >+- 5 km horizontal distance Event qualities are highly suspect prior to 1990. Many of these event qualities ore based on incomplete information according to Caltech. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian -Revised Geotechnical Investigation Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330 Table D-1(continued): List of Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 or Greater Within 100 Kilometers of the Site (CAL TECH DATA 1932-1998) November 3, 1999 DATE TIME LATITUDE LONGITUDE Q DIST DEPTH MAGNITUDE 02-09-1971 14:08:07 34.41 N 118.40 W D 99 8.0 02-09-1971 14:08:38 34.41 N 118.40 W D 99 8.0 02-09-1971 14:08:53 34.41 N 118.40 W D 99 8.0 02-09-1971 14:10:21 34.36 N 118.31 W B 90 5.0 02-09-1971 14:10:28 34.41 N 118.40 W D 99 6.0 02-09-1971 14:16:12 34.34 N 118.33 W C 89 11.1 02-09-1971 14:19:50 34.36 N 118.41 W B 94 11.8 02-09-1971 14:39:17 34.39 N 118.36 W C 95 -1.6 02-09-1971 14:43:46 34.31 N 118.-45 W B 92 6.2 02-09-1971 15:58:20 34.33 N 118.33 W B 89 14.2 02-10-1971 03:12:12 34.37 N 118.30 W B 91 .8 02-10-1971 05:06:36 34.41 N 118.33 W A 96 4.7 02-10-1971 11:31:34 34.38 N 118.46 W A 99 6.0 02-10-1971 13:49:53 34.40 N 116.42 W A 99 9.7 02-10-1971 14:35:26 34.36 N 118.49 W A 98 4.4 02-10-1971 17:38:55 34.40 N 118.37 W A 96 6.2 02-21-1971 05:50:52 34.40 N 118.44 W A 99 6.9 02-21-1971 07:15:11 34.39 N 118.43 W A 98 7.2 03-07-1971 01:33:40 34.35 N 118.46 W A 96 3.3 03-25-1971 22:54:09 34.36 N 118.47 W A 97 4.6 03-30-1971 08:54:43 34.30 N 118.46 W A 91 2.6 03-31-1971 14:52:22 34.29 N 118.51 W A 93 2.1 04-02-1971 05:40:25 34.28 N 118.53 W A 93 3.0 04-15-1971 11:14:32 34.26 N 118.58 W B 95 4.2 04-25-1971 14:48:06 34.37 N 118.31 W B 91 -2.0 06-21-1971 16:01:08 34.27 N 118.53 W B 93 4.1 06-22-1971 10:41:19 33.75 N 117.48 W B 43 8.0 08-14-1974 14:45:55 34.43 N 118.37 W A 100 8.2 01-12-1975 21:22:14 32.76 N 117.99 W C 95 15.3 01-01-1976 17:20:12 33.97 N 117.89 W A 39 6.2 10-18-1976 17:26:52 32.71 N 117.91 W P 100 15.1 10-18-1976 17:27:53 32.76 N 117.91 W P 95 13.8 08-12-1977 02:19:26 34.38 N 118.46 W B 99 9.5 01-01-1979 23:14:38 33.94 N 118.68 W B 80 11.3 10-17-1979 20:52:37 33.93 N 118.67 W C 78 5.5 10-19-1979 12:22:37 34.21 N 117.53 W B 75 4.9 02-09-1982 23:41:17 33.85 N 116.96 W D 92 6.0 05-25-1982 13:44:30 33.55 N 118.21 W A 28 12.6 01-06-1983 07:19:30 34.13 N 117.45 W A 72 7.8 02-22-1983 02:18:30 33.03 N 117.94 W D 65 10.0 NOTE: Q IS A FACTOR RELATING THE QUALITY OF EPICENTRAL A = +- 1 km horizontal distance; +- 2 km depth B = +- 2 km horizontal distance; +- 5 km depth C = +- 5 km horizontal distance; no depth restriction D = >+- 5 km horizontal distance Event qualities are highly suspect prior to 1990. Many of these event qualities are based on incomplete information according to Caltech. I 1� 1 I IN C II I 1 I 1 II II Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian -Revised Geotechnical Investigation Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330 Table D-1 (continued): List of Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 or Greater Within 100 Kilometers of the Site (CAL TECH DATA 1932-1998) November3, 1999 DATE TIME LATITUDE LONGITUDE Q DIST DEPTH MAGNITUDE 02-27-1984 10:18:15 33.47 N 118.06 W C 21 6.0 4.0 09-07-1984 11:03:13 32.94 N 117.81 W C 75 6.0 4.3 10-02-1985 23:44:12 34.02 N 117.25 W A 77 15.2 4.8 07-13-1986 13:47:08 32.97 N 117.87 W C 72 6.0 5.4 07-13-1986 14:01:33 32.99 N 1i7.84 W C 69 6.0 4.3 07-14-1986 00:32:46 32.96 N 117.82 W C 73 6.0 4.1 07-29-1986 08:17:41 32.93 N 117.84 W C 76 6.0 4.3 07-30-1986 22:51:13 32.99 N 117.80 W C 71 6.0 4.0 07-31-1986 01:06:19 32.97 N 117.83 W C 72 6.0 4.1 09-30-1986 09:52:11 32.99 N 117.80 W C 70 6.0 4.1 02-21-1987 23:15:29 34.13 N 117.45 W A 72 8.5 4.0 10-01-1987 14:42:20 34.06 N 118.08 W A 52 9.5 5.9 10-01-1987 14:45:41 34.05 N 118.10 W A 51 13.6 4.7 10-01-1987 14:48:03 34.08 N 118.09 W A 54 11.7 4.1 10-01-1987 14:49:05 34.06 N 118.10 W A 52 11.7 4.7 10-01-1987 15:12:31 34.05 N 118.09 W A 51 10.8 4.7 10-01-1987 15:59:53 34.05 N 118.09 W A 51 10.4 4.0 10-04-1987 10:59:38 34.07 N 118.10 W A 54 8.3 5.3 02-11-1988 15:25:55 34.08 N 118.05 W A 53 12.5 4.7 06-26-1988 15:04:58 34.14 N 117.71 W A 61 7.9 4.7 11-20-1988 05:39:28 33.51 N 118.07 W C 19 6.0 4.9 12-03-1988 11:38:26 34.15 N 118.13 W A 63 14.3 5.0 01-15-1989 15:39:55 32.95 N 117.74 W C 76 6.0 4.3 01-19-1989 06:53:28 33.92 N 118.63 W A 74 11.9 5.0 02-18-1989 07:17:04 34.01 N 117.74 W A 46 3.3 4.1 04-07-1989 20:07:30 33.62 N 117.90 W A 1 12.9 4.7 06-12-1989 16:57:18 34.03 N 118.18 W A 52 15.6 4.6 06-12-1989 17:22:25 34.02 N 118.18 W A 51 15.5 4.4 12-28-1989 09:41:08 34.19 N 117.39 W A 81 14.6 4.3 02-28-1990 23:43:36 34.14 N 117.70 W A 62 4.5 5.4 03-01-1990 00:34:57 34.13 N 117.70 W A 60 4.4 4.0 03-01-1990 03:23:03 34.15 N 117.72 W A 62 11.4 4.7 03-02-1990 17:26:25 34.15 N 117.69 W A 62 5.6 4.7 04-04-1990 08:54:39 32.97 N 117.81 W C 72 6.0 4.3 04-17-1990 22:32:27 34.11 N 117.72 W A 57 3.6 4.8 06-28-1991 14:43:54 34.27 N 117.99 W A 73 9.1 5.8 06-28-1991 17:00:55 34.25 N 117.99 W A 71 9.5 4.3 01-17-1994 12:30:55 34.21 N 118.54 W A 88 18.4 6.7 01-17-1994 12:30:55 34.22 N 118.54 W A 88 17.4 6.6 NOTE: Q IS A FACTOR RELATING THE QUALITY OF EPICENTRAL A = +- 1 km horizontal distance; +- 2 km depth B = +- 2 km horizontal distance; +- 5 km depth C = +- 5 km horizontal distance; no depth restriction D = >+- 5 km horizontal distance Event qualiies are highly suspect prior to 1990. Many of these event qualities >re based on incomplete information according to Caltech, 1 II L UI L II Iw CI II II Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian -Revised Geolechnical Investigation Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330 Table D-1 (continued): List of Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 or Greater Within 100 Kilometers of the Site (CAL TECH DATA 1932-1998) November 3, 1999 DATE TIME LATITUDE LONGITUDE Q DIST DEPTH MAGNITUDE 01-17-1994 12:31:58 34.27 N 118.49 W C 91 6.0 5.9 01-17-1994 12:34:18 34.31 N 118.47 W C 93 6.0 4.4 01-17-1994 12:39:39 34.26 N 118.54 W C 93 6.0 4.9 01-17-1994 12:40:09 34.32 N 118.51 W C 96 6.0 4.8 01-17-1994 12:54:33 34.31 N 118.46 W C 92 6.0 4.0 01-17-1994 12:55:46 34.28 N 118.58 W C 96 6.0 4.1 01-17-1994 13:06:28 34.25 N 118.55 W C 92 6.0 4.6 01-17-1994 13:26:45 34.32 N 118.46 W C 93 6.0 4.7 01-17-1994 13:28:13 34.27 N 118.58 W C 95 6.0 4.0 01-17-1994 13:56:02 34.29 N 118.62 W C 100 6.0 4.4 01-17-1994 14:14:30 34.33 N 118.44 W C 93 6.0 4.5 01-17-1994 15:07:03 34.30 N 118.47 W A 92 2.6 4.2 01-17-1994 15:07:35 34.31 N 118.47 W A 92 1.6 4.1 01-17-1994 17:56:08 34.23 N 118.57 W A 91 19.2 4.6 01-17-1994 19:35:34 34.31 N 118.46 W A 92 2.3 4.0 01-17-1994 20:46:02 34.30 N 118.57 W C 97 6.0 4.9 01-17-1994 22:31:53 34.34 N 118.44 W C 94 6.0 4.1 01-18-1994 11:35:09 34.22 N 118.61 W A 93 12.1 4.2 01-18-1994 13:24:44 34.32 N 118.56 W A 98 1.7 4.3 01-19-1994 14:09:14 34.22 N 118.51 W A 86 17.5 4.5 01-21-1994 18:39:15 34.30 N 118.47 W A 92 10.6 4.5 01-21-1994 18:39:47 34.30 N 118.48 W A 92 11.9 4.0 01-21-1994 18:42:28 34.31 N 118.47 W A 93 7.9 4.2 01-21-1994 18:52:44 34.30 N 118.45 W A 91 7.6 4.3 01-21-199.4 18:53:44 34.30 N 118.46 W A 91 7.7 4.3 01-23-1994 08:55:08 34.30 N 118.43 W A 90 6.0 4.1 01-27-1994 17:19:58 34.27 N 118.56 W A 95 14.9 4.6 01-28-1994 20:09:53 34.38 N 118.49 W A 100 .7 4.2 01-29-1994 11:20:35 34.31 N 118.58 W A 98 1.1 5.1 01-29-1994 12:16:56 34.28 N 118.61 W A 98 2.7 4.3 02-03-1994 16:23:35 34.30 N 118.44 W A 90 9.0 4.0 02-06-1994 13:19:27 34.29 N 118.48 W A 91 9.3 4.1 02-25-1994 12:59:12 34.36 N 118.48 W A 98 1.2 4.0 03-20-1994 21:20:12 34.23 N 118.47 W A 86 13.1 5.2 04-06-1994 19:01:04 34.19 N 117.10 W A 99 7.3 4.8 05-25-1994 12:56:57 34.31 N 118.39 W A 89 7.0 4.4 06-15-1994 05:59:48 34.31 N 118.40 W A 89 7.4 4.1 12-06-1994 03:48:34 34.29 N 118.39 W A 87 9.0 4.5 06-21-1995 21:17:36 32.98 N 117.82 W C 71 6.0 4.3 06-28-1997 21:45:25 34.17 N 117.34 W A 82 10.0 4.2 12-21-1997 00:20:58 33.67 N 117.01 W A 85 .0 4.0 01-05-1998 18:14:06 33.95 N 117.71 W A 42 11.5 4.3 03-11-1998 12:18:51 34.02 N 117.23 W A 78 14.9 4.5 NOTE: Q IS A FACTOR RELATING THE QUALITY OF EPICENTRAL DETERMINATION A = +- 1 km horizontal distance; +- 2 ]an depth B = +- 2 I= horizontal distance; +- 5 km depth C = +- 5 Ian horizontal distance; no depth restriction D = >+- 5 km horizontal distance Event qualities are highly suspect prior to 1990. Many of these event qualities are based on incomplete information according to Caltech. 11 1 10 1 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geolechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330 Table D-1(continued): List of Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 or Greater Within 100 Kilometers of the Site (CAL TECH DATA 1932-1998) DATE TIME LATITUDE LONGITUDE Q DIST DEPTH MAGNITUDE S E A R C H O F E A R T H Q U A K E D A T A F I L E 1 SITE: Hoag Hospital COORDINATES OF SITE ...... 33.6153 N 117.9150 W DISTANCE PER DEGREE ..... 110.9 KM-N 92.8 KM-W MAGNITUDE LIMITS ..................... 4.0 - 8.5 TEMPORAL LIMITS .................... 1932 - 1998 SEARCH RADIUS (KM) ....................... 100 NUMBER OF YEARS OF DATA .................. 66.63 NUMBER OF EARTHQUAKES IN FILE ............ 4038 NUMBER OF EARTHQUAKES IN AREA ............ 364 L A W/ C R A N D A L L Hoag Memorial Hospital -Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70I3I-9-0330 Table D-1(continued): List of Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 or Greater Within 100 Kilometers of the Site (RICHTER DATA 1906-1931) DATE TIME LATITUDE LONGITUDE Q DIST DEPTH MAGNITUDE 09-20-1907 01:54:00 34.20 N 117.10 W D 100 .0 6.0 05-15-1910 15:47:00 33.70 N 117.40 W D 49 .0 6.0 04-21-1918 22:32:25 33.75 N 117.00 W D 86 .0 6.8 07-23-1923 07:30:26 34.00 N 117.25 W D 75 .0 6.3 S E A R C H O F E A R T H Q U A K E D A T A F I L E 2 SITE: Hoag Hospital COORDINATES OF SITE ...... 33.6153 N 117.9150 W DISTANCE PER DEGREE ..... 110.9 KM-N 92.8 KM-W MAGNITUDE LIMITS ..................... 6.0 - 8.5 TEMPORAL LIMITS .................... 1906 - 1931 SEARCH RADIUS (KM) ....................... 100 NUMBER OF YEARS OF DATA .................. 26.00 NUMBER OF EARTHQUAKES IN .FILE ............ 35 NUMBER OF EARTHQUAKES IN AREA ............ 4 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geolechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330 Table D-1 (continued): List of Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 or Greater Within 100 Kilometers of the Site (NOAA/CDMG DATA 1812-1905) DATE TIME LATITUDE LONGITUDE Q DIST DEPTH MAGNITUDE 02-09-1890 04:06:00 34.00 N 117.50 W D 57 .0 7.0 S E A R C H O F E A R T H Q U A K E D A T A F I L E 3 SITE: Hoag Hospital COORDINATES OF SITE ...... 33.6153 N 117.9150 W DISTANCE PER DEGREE ..... 110.9 KM-N 92.8 KM-W MAGNITUDE LIMITS ..................... 7.0 - 8.5 TEMPORAL LIMITS .................... 1812 - 1905 SEARCH RADIUS (KM) ....................... 100 NUMBER OF YEARS OF DATA .................. 94.00 NUMBER OF EARTHQUAKES IN FILE ............ 9 NUMBER OF EARTHQUAKES IN AREA ............ 1 L A W/ C R A N D A L L Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised GeotechnicalInvestigation November 3, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330 Table D-1(continued): List of Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 or Greater Within 100 Kilometers of the Site S U M M A R Y O F E A R T H Q U A K E S E A R C H NUMBER OF HISTORIC EARTHQUAKES WITHIN 100 KM RADIUS OF SITE MAGNITUDE RANGE 4.0 - 4.5 4.5 - 5.0 5.0 - 5.5 5.5 - 6.0 6.0 - 6.5 6.5 - 7.0 7.0 - 7.5 - 8.0 - L 'NUMBER 246 83 24 7 4 4 Hoag Memorial Hospita,'Pres5yterian-Revised GeotechnicalInvestigation November 3, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330 Table D-1(continued): List of Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 or Greater Within 100 Kilometers of the Site C O M P U T A T I O N O E R E C U R R E N C E C U R V E L 0 G N = A - B M BIN MAGNITUDE RANGE NO/YR (N) 1 4.00 4.00 - 8.50 5.44 2 4.50 4.50 - 8.50 1.77 3 5.00 5.00 - 8.50 .533 4 5.50 5.50 - 8.50 .174 5 6.00 6.00 - 8.50 .699E-01 6 6.50 6.50 - 8.50 .484E-01 7 7.00 7.00 - 8.50 .535E-02 NU 8 7.50 7.50 - 8.50 .000 9 8.00 8.00 - 8.50 .000 A = .668 B = .4692 (NORMALIZED) A = 4.066 B = .8545 SIGMA = .130 L A N/ C R A N D A L L y 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian -Revised Geotechnical Investigation November 3, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330 Table D-1(continued): List of Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 or Greater Within 100 Kilometers of the Site C O M P U T A T I O N O F D E S I G N M A G N I T U D E C 0 N S T A N T A R E A TABLE OF DESIGN MAGNITUDES RISK RETURN PERIOD (YEARS) DESIGN MAGNITUDE DESIGN LIFE (YEARS) 25 50 75 100 25 50 75 100 .01 .. 2487 4974 7462 9949 .. 8.26 8.37 8.41 8.44 .05 .. 487 974 1462 1949 .. 7.78 8.02 8.14 8.21 .10 .. 237 474 711 949 .. 7.48 7.77 7.92 8.01 .20 .. 112 224 336 448 .. 7.13 7.45 7.63 7.74 .30 .. 70 140 210 280 .. 6.91 7.24 7.42 7.55 .50 .. 36 72 108 144 .. 6.58 6.92 7.12 7.25 .70 .. 20 41 62 83 .. 6.30 6.65 6.85 6.99 .90 .. 10 21 32 43 .. 5.98 6.33 6.53 6.67 MMIN = 4.00 MMAX = 8.50 MU = 4.45 BETA = 1.968 L A W/ C R A N D A L L I LAW Crandall LAWGIBB Group Member May 17, 2001 Mr. Leif Thompson Vice President Facilities Design and Construction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive, Suite 6100 Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Subject: Verification of Supplementary Recommendations Proposed East Addition (Recently Renamed Women's Pavilion) Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Newport Beach, California OSHPD # HL 991554-30 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0005 Dear Mr. Thompson: We understand that Dr. Ken Lou of Taylor & Gaines, Structural Engineers, has been requested by a plan checker from EQE International to verify that the seismic lateral earth pressure is considered an ultimate design condition. As stated in page 4 of our June 7, 2000 letter report presenting supplementary recommendations for the proposed East Addition (Our Project No. 70131-9-0330.0005), seismic lateral earth pressures are considered an ultimate design condition and load factors need not be applied. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. A Division of LAW Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. 200 Citadel Drive • Los Angeles, CA 90040-1554 323-889-5300 • Fax: 323-721-6700 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Supplemental Consultation: Time Histories May 17. 2001 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0005 I1 Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this letter. Please bind this letter to the front of our report. Sincerely, LAW/CRANDALL "y A DIVISION Or LAw ENGINEERII_NS' U NNVIRONNIENTAL SERVICES, INC. _ _a FESS/ne,_ No. 522 r, l� 1 ICY/ NO. C58 4 z 3-31-03 Car] C. Kim w Marshall Lew, Ph. J, "Fp ��@ Senior Engineer * E P. d * Senior Principal 9" ' OCHN � Project Manager 'P CIVIL ��P Vice President OF CALIF 9�OF CAGIF�Q' G:IEnggeo199-projI90330-051 doclCkck (2 copies submitted) cc: (2) Taylor & Associates, Architects Attn: Mr. William C. Taylor (4) Taylor & Gaines, Structural Engineers Attn: Mr. Ken Lou 2 10 ■ l II II II II LAWCrandall LAWGIBB Group Member A& June 7, 2000 Mr. LeifN. Thompson, AIA Vice President —Facilities Design & Construction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive, P.O. Box 6100 Newport Beach, California 9265 8-6 100 Subject: Supplemental Recommendations Proposed East Addition (Recently Renamed Women's Pavilion) Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Newport Beach, California Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0005 Dear Mr. Thompson: This letter presents supplemental geotechnical recommendations for the proposed East Addition (recently renamed Women's Pavilion) at Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California. We previously submitted a revised geotechnical' report for the project dated November 3, 1999 (Our Job No. 70131-9-0330). As requested by Mr. Bill Blanchard of Taylor & Gaines, Structural Engineers, this letter provides geotechnical recommendations for a mat foundation, seismic lateral earth pressures, and permanent tieback anchors. The professional opinions presented in this letter have been developed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied is made to the professional advice included in this letter. Mat Foundation We understand that a mat foundation is currently proposed as an alternative to supporting the proposed structure on spread footings. Recommendations for a mat foundation are presented below. II A Division of LAW Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. 200 Citadel Drive • Los Angeles, CA 90040.1554 323-889-5300 • Fax. 323-721-6700 ' Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian — Supplemental Recommendations June 7, 2000 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0005 Bearing Value A mat foundation, carried at least 1 foot into the stiff and dense undisturbed natural soils, and at ' least 3 feet below the lowest adjacent grade or floor level, may be designed .to impose an average bearing value for dead -plus -live loads of up to 4,000 pounds per square foot. Localized areas of the mat may be designed to impose a maximum dead -plus -live load pressure of 6,000 pounds per ' square foot as long as the average pressure for the entire mat (given above) is not exceeded. For loading due to earthquake or wind loads, localized areas of the mat may be designed to impose a maximum pressure of 8,000 pounds per square foot. ' Mr. Blanchard provided us with three figures presenting pressures imposed on the soil by a mat foundation for a variety of loading conditions. These soil pressure diagrams are attached for ' reference. The soil pressure diagram for static loading (dead plus live) indicates that the average foundation pressure is less than 2,000 pounds per square foot, which is less than the overburden pressure imposed by the soils over most of the area to be excavated for the proposed structure. ' Modulus of Subarade Reaction ' A vertical modulus of subgrade reaction (K) of 200 pounds per cubic inch may be used for undisturbed natural soils and fill compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry density obtainable by the ASTM Designation D1557-91 method of compaction. (Additional grading recommendations are presented in Section 7.10 of our report.) The K value was estimated from published empirical data and soil density information. The K value presented above is a unit value for use with a one -foot square footing. The modulus should be reduced in accordance with the ' following equation when used with larger foundations: ' _ I B+I Ke — K 2 B J ' where KR = reduced subgrade modulus K = unit subgrade modulus B = foundation width (in feet). ' Settlement ' The settlement of the proposed building supported on a mat foundation is expected to be on the order of 1V4 inches or less. At least half of the total settlement is anticipated to occur during construction (shortly after dead loads are imposed). Based on the soil pressure diagrams provided to us, differential settlements between adjacent columns are anticipated to be on the order of inch or less. ,0 1 +A I Ir 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Supplemental Recommendations June 7, 2000 LawlCrandall Project 70131-9-0330.0005 Lateral Resistance Lateral loads can be resisted by soil friction and by the passive resistance of the soils. A coefficient of friction of 0.5 may be used between the mat foundation and the supporting soils. The passive resistance of the undisturbed natural soils or properly compacted fill soils against footings can be assumed to be equal to the pressure developed by a fluid with a density of 300 pounds per cubic foot. A one-third increase in the passive value can be used for wind or seismic loads. The frictional resistance and the passive resistance of the soils can be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance. Ultimate Design Values The recommended bearing values and lateral load design values are for use with loadings determined by a conventional working stress design. When considering an ultimate design approach, the recommended design values may be multiplied by the following factors: Design Item Ultimate Design Factor Bearing Value 2.5 Passive Pressure 1.25 Coefficient of Friction 1.0 In no event, however, should foundation sizes be less than those required for dead plus live loads when using the working stress design values. SEISNIIC LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE In addition to the lateral earth pressures presented in Section 7.8 (Walls Below Grade), retaining walls more than 6 feet high should be designed to support a seismic active pressure. Basement walls need not be designed for seismic lateral earth pressures unless an unbalanced earth condition exists. An unbalanced earth condition is defined as a difference in backfill height or elevation between opposite basement walls. The recommended seismic active pressure distribution on the wall is shown in the following diagram with the maximum pressure equal to 20H pounds per square foot, where H is the wall height in feet: I II II II 1 IM 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian — Supplemental Recommendations Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0005 The wall height may be taken as the difference in retained grade across the building. June 7, 2000 The seismic lateral earth pressure distribution presented above may be considered as an ultimate design condition. For resistance to ultimate lateral loads, no increase should be used for the friction value previously given between slabs and footings and the underlying soil. However, a one-third increase may be applied to the passive resistance for ultimate lateral loading conditions. PERMANENT TIEBACK ANCHORS Tieback anchor design recommendations presented in. Section 7.7 (Shoring) of our report may be used in the design of permanent tieback anchors with the following modifications: Appropriate corrosion protection in conformance with the corrosion study presented in Appendix B of our report should be provided • The lateral earth pressures for permanent walls below grade presented in Section 7.8 should be used instead of the values for temporary shoring presented in Section 7.7. • All production anchors should be tested to at least 200% of the design load instead of 150% of the design load recommended for temporary shoring. 0 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian— Supplemental Recommendations Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0005 t: June 7. 2000 It has been a pleasure to be of professional service to you. Please call if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, LAW/CRANDALL A Division of Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. C�" V Carl C. Kim w Senior Engineer or Project Manager c IILOVAIGELES-11GRO1 (2 copies submitted) Attachments ND. C5 04 E+[P� d d Y \CNIV ._..P/. No. 522 Marshall Lew, P11.D: * Exp 3-31-03 Corporate Consultant ,r� FO�\CQ Vice President q cc: (2) Taylor & Associates Architects Attn: Mr. William C. Taylor (4) Taylor & Gaines Structural Engineers Attn: Mr. Bill Blanchard 4� 1% PA. r a ��I "now— wommur !! JALL 41 :a oil mp W. ewe Igo, Moro �� ■ ■�=G�Giiil� -ai �1 ram._ .A■ min msmp�m .0 i mmob 'amw' 29 MR •CI Id I e- I .dili, .u�ir 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II* August 15, 2000 Mr. Leif Thompson LAW LAWGIBB Group Member RECEIVED ALG 16 2000 TAYLOR & ASSOC. ARD-IME}CT3 Vice President Facilities Design and Construction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive, Suite 6100 Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Subject: Time Histories and Scale Factors Selected for Design Proposed East Addition (Recently Renamed Women's Pavilion) Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Newport Beach, California OSHPD # HLr991554-30 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0004 Dear Mr. Thompson: As requested by Mr. William C. Taylor of Taylor & Associates, Architects, in this letter we present our opinion regarding the scaled time histories selected for the non -linear dynamic analysis of the proposed structure. In particular, we, were requested to comment on the appropriateness of the earthquake records (time histories) and the scale factors used to develop the scaled time histories. We presented the results of our revised geotechnical investigation for the project in a report dated November 3, 1999 (Our Project No. 70131-9-0330). The original dynamic analysis used time histories developed using the "average -of -seven" and the "maximum -of -three" methods for the Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) and the Maximum Capable Earthquake (MCE), respectively. Scale factors were selected to match the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) of each record's horizontal response spectra to 1.3 times the DBE or MCE response spectra at a period of 2.5 seconds, the fundamental period of the proposed structure according to Base Isolation Consultants (BIC). As presented in our report and further discussed in our subsequent response letter dated May 31, 2000 to review comments on our report from CDMG, 10 different time histories were selected for use in the non -linear dynamic analysis. We understand that a revised dynamic analysis is currently proposed for the MCE event using the "average -of -seven" method in lieu of the previously used "maximum -of -three" method. The additional four time histories are to be developed by scaling selected time histories used in the DBE analysis. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. Law/Crandall, A Division of Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. 200 Citadel Drive • Los Angeles, CA 90040-1554 323-ae9-5300•Fax 323-721-6700 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Supplemental Consultation: Time Histories Law/Crandall Project ?0131-9-0330.0004 August 15. 2000 Appropriateness of Time Histories and Scale Factors Originally Selected for Design As discussed in our response letter to CDMG comments on our report, the 10 time histories used in the original dynamic analysis of the proposed structure were selected by others. The records selected for use in the dynamic analysis are presented in the tables below. Nine records were selected by Drs. Tony Shakal and Moh Huang of the California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (CSMIP). The Van Nuys record was selected by Dr. I.M. ldriss of the University of California, Davis, a peer reviewer during the design of the base isolation system for the Hoag Hospital Nursing Tower in 1995. The scale factors to match the SRSS of each record's response spectra to 1.3 times the DBE or MCE response spectra were developed by BIC. DBE Records Earthquake Scale Factor El Centro Array Station 7 1979 Imperial Valley 0.60 Yermo — Fire Station 1992 Landers 1.50 Hollister— South St. & Pine Dr. 1989 Loma Prieta 0.80 Newhall — Fire Station 1994 Northridge 0.80 Petrolia — General Store 1992 Cape Mendocino 0.70 Lucerne Valley 1992 Landers 0.90 Van Nuys — 7-story hotel 1994 Northridge 1.10 MCE Records Earthquake Scale Factor El Centro Array Station 6 1979 Imperial Valley 0.60 Lexington Dam — Left Abutment 1989 Loma Prieta 1.00 Sylmar —County Hospital Parking Lot 1994 Northridge 0.50 As stated in our report, the records listed in the tables above are suitable for use in the dynamic analysis of the proposed structure. The scale factors selected are appropriate in our opinion. Transformation of DBE Records to MCE Records We understand that the four DBE records presented in the table below have been selected for use as MCE records. We recommend that the scale factors presented in the table below be used to transform the DBE records to MCE records. The scale factors shown in the table below correspond to the product of the DBE scale factors multiplied by the ratio of the MCE response spectra to the DBE response spectra at 2.5 seconds. DBE Records Transformed to MCE Records Earthquake Scale Factor Yermo — Fire Station 1992 Landers 1.92 Hollister— South St. & Pine Dr. 1989 Loma Prieta 1.02 Newhall —Fire Station 1994 Northridge 1.02 Petrolia — General Store 1992 Cape Mendocino 0.90 A 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Supplemental Consultatzon: Time Histories Lam/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0004 Augzist 15. 2000 Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this letter. Please bind this letter to the front of our report. Sincerely, LAW/CRANDALL A DIVISION OF LAW ENGINEER1N . A�VIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. S C/ y NO.G58D46 Carl C. Kim M � m Senior Engineer `y �' �l$°l•L Project Manager d CNII. �Q G:IEnggeo199-projt90330-031 arICK.ck (2 copies submitted) cc: (2) Taylor & Associates, Architects Attn: Mr. William C. Taylor /R"'u/ Marshall Lew, Ph.D. Corporate Consultant �QQRQ Vice President �4Q No. 522 Exp 3.31-03 >'r 3 I II I LAWCrandall LAWGIBB Group Member ,& October 31, 2000 Mr. Leif Thompson Vice President Facilities Design and Construction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive, Suite 6100 Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Subject: Revised Scaled Time Histories for Design of Base Isolators Proposed East Addition (Recently Renamed Women's Pavilion) Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Newport Beach, California OSHPD # HL-991554-30 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0004 Dear Mr. Thompson: As requested by Mr. William C. Taylor of Taylor & Associates, Architects, we have developed revised scaled time histories selected for the non -linear dynamic analysis of the proposed structure. In particular, we were requested to revise the scale factors previously developed by Base Isolation Consultants to scale the time histories. We presented the results of our revised geotechnical investigation for the project in a report dated November 3, 1999 (Our Project No. 70131-9-0330). The non -linear dynamic analysis of the proposed structure is based on the procedures outlined in Section 1655B of the California Building Code (CBC), 1998 Edition. Accordingly, the development of the scaled time histories presented herein was based on Section 165513.4 — Ground Motion of the 1998 CBC. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. A Division of LAW Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. 200 Citadel Drive • Los Angeles, CA 90040-1554 323.689-5300 • Fax: 323-721-6700 I! II 11 F II II II �I II 11 1 1� Haag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Supplemental Consultation: Time Histories October 31, 2000 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0004 Design Spectra The design site -specific response spectra for the Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) and the Maximum Capable Earthquake (MCE) were developed based on the procedures presented in Section 1655B.4.1 — Design Spectra of the 1998 CBC. We presented site -specific response spectra based on Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analyses (PSHA) for ground motions corresponding to the DBE (10% probability of exceedance in 50 years) and the MCE (10% probability of exceedance in 100 years) in our geotechnical report for the project. Section 1555B.4.1 of the CBC states that the design response spectrum shall not be taken as less than 80% of the normalized spectrum presented in Figure 16B-3 of the 1998 CBC. Accordingly, we compared the 5% damped PSHA response spectra to 80% of the CBC response spectra. For the development of the CBC response spectra, the near -field factor, N, was taken as 1.3. According to Map M-33 in the 1998 publication from the International Conference of Building Officials entitled "Maps of Known Active Fault Near -Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada," the project site is located within 2 kilometers of the Newport -Inglewood fault. The seismic zone factor, Z, was taken as 0.4 because the site is located within Seismic Zone 4. Figures In and lb present the 5% damped PSHA and 80% of the CBC response spectra for the DBE and MCE, respectively. As shown in Figures la and lb, because the PSHA response spectra fall below 80% of the CBC spectra, the design spectra for both the DBE and MCE were selected as 80% of the corresponding CBC spectra. Scaled Time Histories The "average -of -seven" method is being used for the non -linear dynamic analysis of the building. Revised scale factors were developed based on the criteria presented in Section 1655B.4.2 — Time Histories of the 1998 CBC. The time histories were scaled so that the average value of the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) spectra does not fall below 1.3 times the design spectra by more than 10% for periods from T, (fundamental period for the structure) minus 1.0 second to T, plus 1.0 second. We understand that the T, for the proposed structure is 2.5 seconds. The SRSS of each pair of scaled time histories are greater than the design spectra at T1. As previously presented in our report and further discussed in our subsequent response letter dated May 31, 2000 to review comments on our report from the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 10 different ground motion records were selected for scaling. These records are presented in the tables below. Nine records were selected by Drs. Tony Shakal and Moh Huang of the California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (CSMIP). The Van Nuys record was selected by Dr. I.M. Idriss of the University of California, Davis, a peer reviewer during the design of the base isolation system for the Hoag Hospital Nursing Tower in 1995. Most of these records exhibit strong directivity or near -source ground motions. tHoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian -Supplemental Consultation: Time Histories Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0004 October 31, 2000 DBE Records Earthquake M�v` PGA" (g) Tectonic Setting` Site Geology° Centro Array Station 6 1979 Imperial Valley 6.6 0.45 SS Alluvium -El El Centro Array Station 7 1979 Imperial Valley 6.6 0.47 SS Alluvium Petrolia - General Store 1992 Cape Mendocino 7.0 0.66 RO Alluvium Lucerne Valley 1992 Landers 7.4 0.81 $S Alluvium Yermo - Fire Station 1992 Landers 7.4 0.24 SS Alluvium Hollister- South St. & Pine Dr. 1989 Loma Prieta 7.0 0.37 SS Alluvium Lexington Dam - Left Abutment 1989 Loma Prieta 7.0 0.44 SS Slate and Sandstone Newhall - Fire Station 1994 Northridge 6.7 0.59 RO Alluvium Sylmar- County Hospital Parking Lot 1994 Northridge 6.7 0.84 RO Alluvium Van Nuys - 7-story hotel 1994 Northridge 6.7 0.45 RO Alluvium a Moment magnitude per California Institute of Technology bCorrected Peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration cTectonic Setting of Fault: SS = Strike Slip, NO = Normal Oblique, RO = Reverse Oblique dSite Geology at Recording Station The scaling factors selected for each record are presented in the tables below. The average SRSS spectrum for the seven scaled DBE records is presented in Figure 2. The response spectra and the acceleration, velocity, and displacement time histories for each record are presented in Figure sets 3-1 through 3-7. Each figure set consists of three plots. The first plot presents the response spectra for the two individual horizontal components along with the SRSS spectra. The second and third plots present the scaled acceleration, velocity, and displacement time histories for each horizontal component. DBE Records Earthquake Scale Factor Figure No. El Centro Array Station 7 1979 Imperial Valley 0.75 3-I Yermo -Fire Station 1992 Landers 2.10 3-2 Hollister- South St. & Pine Dr. 1989 Loma Prieta 1.20 3-3 Newhall - Fire Station 1994 Northridge 1.20 3-4 Petrolia - General Store 1992 Cape Mendocino 0.95 3-5 Lucerne Valley 1992 Landers 0.90 3-6 Van Nuys - 7-story hotel 1994 Northridge 1.25 3-7 Similarly, the average SRSS spectrum for the seven scaled MCE records is presented in Figure 4. The response spectra and the acceleration, velocity, and displacement time histories for each record are presented in Figure sets 5-1 through 5-7. NICE Records Earthquake Scale Factor Figure No. El Centro Array Station 6 1979 Imperial Valley 0.75 5-1 Yermo-Fire Station 1992 Landers 2.50 5-2 Hollister - South St. & Pine Dr. _ 1989-Loma Prieta 1.55 5-3 Newhall - Fire Station 1994 Northridge 1.60 5-4 Petrolia - General Store 1992 Cape Mendocino 1.30 5-5 Lexington Dam 1989' Loma Prieta 1.50 5-6 Symar- County Hospital Parking Lot 1994 Northridge 0.80 5-7 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Supplemental Consultation: Time Histories October 31, 2000 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0004 The electronic files of the scaled DBE and MCE acceleration time histories are included in the attached floppy disk. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this letter. Please bind this letter to the front of our report. Sincerely, LAW/CRANDALL A DIVISION OF LAw ENGINEER] VIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. QPpFESS/pN C `✓ C.V- C i Fy �/%� /� Q ),ROFESS/p,�9 N0.058046 m li " A "/ti//A Carl C. Kim 6 u a Marshall Lew, Ph.D. No. 522 Senior Engineer *— * Corporate Consultant E7q� 3.31-03 x Project Manager 63CNIVice President (2 copies submitted) Attachments: Figures 1 through 5 cc: (8) Taylor & Associates, Architects Attn: Mr. William C. Taylor (2) Taylor & Gaines, Structural Engineers Attn: Mr. Ed Gharibans El 1.5 80% 1998 CBC 99-projV0131U0330.04\dbetgt.gf FIGURE I 1.5 !t? 0 1.0 N Z0 w I j i 80% 1998 CBC 1 j j PSHA y 1 1 i I ! 1 I I 'T-- i I ITN ! 1 ♦ I i I j _♦ i I 1 I I I i � iI , ♦ i I � t 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Period (seconds) RESPONSE SPECTRA 5% Structural Damping MCE -10% Probability of Exceedence in 100 Years TARGET ENVELOPE 99•proj\70131\90330.04McetgLgrf FIGURE 1b MMMMMMMMMf J0131-9-0330.0004 DATE: 30 oct. 2000 F.T.: n/a : mm O.E.: ck CHKD: 2.0 1.5 c 0 N N U U a N 1.0 0 U) .Q Q 0 in 0.5 d MI - -"---- - --- - - - --- SRSS Average of 7 Sets of Scaled Records --- - - - - - - 1.3 X DBE Spectrum - - - 90% of 1.3 X DBE Spectrum - -� - -- - -- [Tr1.0 sec., T+1.0 sec.] - - - - --- 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Period (seconds) Response Spectra: DBE -10% Probability of Exceedence in 50 Years AVERAGE SRSS OF 7 SETS OF SCALED RECORDS 99-proj\90330-041dbe2\dbeavg.grr = M M = me = M = M M M = JOB: 70131-9-0330.0004 DATE: 30 oct. 2000 F.T.: n/a DR.: ck O.E.: ck CHKD: —e 2.0 1.5 0 CU a) a) (D 1.0 U) 0 a) 0) 0.5 CL w ------- 1.3 X DBE Spectrum DBE Spectrum SRSS 0.75 X 140 Degree Component 0.75 X 230 Degree Component % 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Period (seconds) Response Spectra: DBE - 10% Probability of Exceedence in 50 Years 1979 IMPERIAL VALLEY EARTHQUAKE El Centro Array Station 7 Scale Factor = 0.75 1�11� . cl�-1 10C � I. 0.5 L � I 0.0 ^M -0.5 2.0 42 0.0 o I i i -2.0 2.0 i j ' 0.0 aEi U (6 _U) 6 i -2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (seconds) SCALED HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION, VELOCITY, AND DISPLACEMENT Scale Factor = 0.75 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake EL CENTRO ARRAY STATION 7 140 Degree Component LAW/CRANDALL AAk 99-proj\90330.04\dbe2\dbe-o7b grf FIGURE 3-1 0.5 m c o i j � i 0.0 I U I Q I � i ' -0.5 2.0 co I 0.0 i- U o -2.0 2.0 42 � i 1 I � I I E 0.0 — — — v I I f6 to I i -2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (seconds) SCALED HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION, VELOCITY, AND DISPLACEMENT Scale Factor = 0.75 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake EL CENTRO ARRAY STATION 7 230 Degree Component LAW/CRANDALL Alk FIGURE 3-1c -proJwafau-umaaeznaae arcgrt M M _ M M M M M M I M M M M M M M M M 4 is JOB: 70131-9-0330.0004 DATE: 30 oct. 2000 F.T.: n/a DR: ck O.E.: ck CHKD: (% 2.0 ro7 - - --- -- - - - -- - -- --- - - - 1.3 X DBE Spectrum - — -- - - - ---- - - - -- -------- DBE Spectrum SRSS 2.1 X 360 Degree Component 2.1 X 270 Degree Component ---- ------ 1 ---- - -- - -- -- - - - 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Period (seconds) Response Spectra: DBE -10% Probability of Exceedence in 50 Years 1992 LANDERS EARTHQUAKE Yermo Fire Station Scale Factor = 2.1 99-proj\90330-04\dbe2\dbc-ycr grf FI(AI IRF R-9e 1.0 c O I � , � � m 0.0 W I -1.0 2.0 U � 0.0 — — — -- — — .�` -2.0 2.0 v E 0.0 a CL � I I -2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (seconds) SCALED HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION, VELOCITY, AND DISPLACEMENT Scale Factor = 2.1 1992 LANDERS EARTHQUAKE Yermo Fire Station 360 Degree Component LAW/CRANDALL 99•proj190330.041dbe21dbe-yerb.grf FIGURE 34 1.0 0 I T 0.0- - a) a -1.0 3.5 cn � i ! I 0.0 - -- - -- - - - •V O -3.5 3.5 m' E 0.0 -- — - — — -- U; CL CD 5 -3.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (seconds) SCALED HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION, VELOCITY, AND DISPLACEMENT Scale Factor = 2.1 1992 LANDERS EARTHQUAKE Yermo Fire Station 270 Degree Component LAW/CRANDALL FIGURE 3-12 99-proj\90330.04\dbe2\dbe-yem.grf JOB: 70131-9-0330.0004 DATE: 30 ocL 2000 F.T.: n/a DR.: ck O.E.: ck CHKD: elk 2.0 M - - - -- - -- ----- - --- - 1.3 X DBE Spectrum -- -- -- -- — --- -- DBE Spectrum -- - — ---- --- ------ SRSS -- -- - ----- - - - - - - - -- - --- ------ 1.2 X 0 Degree Component ------ 1.2 X 90 Degree Component - - — -- ---- -- ----- ---- - -- -- --- I - ------------------ -- - ---- - 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Period (seconds) Response Spectra: DBE -10% Probability of Exceedence in 50 Years 1989 LOMA PRIETA EARTHQUAKE Hollister - South Street & Pine Drive Scale Factor = 1.2 99-pro3190330-04\dbe2\dbe-hol grF 0.5 m I i j o i 0.0 a� � U Q i � I I -0.5 2.0 N � 4(2 0.0 I Pik O -2.0 2.0 C I I I I I - E 0.0 v— -- —-- � U CU C � I 0 -2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (seconds) SCALED HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION, VELOCITY, AND DISPLACEMENT Scale Factor = 1.2 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake HOLLISTER - SOUTH ST. & PINE DR. 0 Degree Component AL LAW/CRANDALL FIGURE 3-31 99-proj\90330.09\dbe2\dbe-holb.grf 0.5 rn ! o 0.0 W U Q I ! I i I -0.5 2.0 U ! i N ! 0.0 - — -- i✓' v 1 ! O ' ! -2.0 2.0 42 c i I m 0.0— U I ! 6 -2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (seconds) SCALED HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION, VELOCITY, AND DISPLACEMENT Scale Factor = 1.2 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake HOLLISTER - SOUTH ST. & PINE DR. 90 Degree Component Ak LAW/CRANDALL FIGURE 3 99-pmj\90330-04\dbc2\dbc-holo.grf mb_ m m m m m mgm m m m m m IIIIII•om m JOB: 70131-9-0330.0004 DATE: 30 oct.2000 F.T.: n/a DR.: ck O.E.: ck CHKD: 4.0 3.5 v 3.0 O O N 2.5 N U U Q O 2.0 O O to Q 1.5 O (a 1.0 IM 0.5 - - - 1.3 X DBE Spectrum - - - DBE Spectrum SRSS 1.2 X 360 Degree Component - — 1.2 X 90 Degree Component - 1 � 1 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Period (seconds) Response Spectra: DBE -10% Probability of Exceedence in 50 Years 1994 NORTHRIDGE EARTHQUAKE Newhall Fire Station Scale Factor = 1.2 FIGURE 3-4a 1.0 v O I I 0.0 m Q -1.0 3.0 L) U N40evv i N i i i �O O I > I i -3.0 2.0 I f a � I E 0.0 cuCn . I I 0 -2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (seconds) SCALED HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION, VELOCITY, AND DISPLACEMENT Scale Factor = 1.2 1994 Northridge Earthquake NEWHALL - FIRE STATION 360 Degree Component LANCRANDALL FIGURE 3-4 99-proj\90330.04\dbe2\dbe-newb.grf 1.0 0 0.0 ' Q -1.0 3.0 i Q-) j 0.0 o > -3.0 2.0 I j E 0.0 — ! — —I-- — --- — i V M G7 � 0 —2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (seconds) SCALED HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION, VELOCITY, AND DISPLACEMENT Scale Factor = 1.2 1994 Northridge Earthquake NEWHALL - FIRE STATION 90 Degree Component LAW/CRANDALL AAk FIGURE 34 99-proj\90330.0Adbe2\dbe-newt grr m Inb_ m m m m m m IF m m m m m m w_ JOB: 70131-9-0330.0004 DATE: 30 oct. 2000 F.T.: n/a DR.: ck O.E.: ck CHKD: (%— 2.5 c 0 0) N 1.5 U U Q 0 0 1.0 0 .0 N EL 0.5 ( K 1.3 X DBE Spectrum — --- --- — - --- — - - - - DBE Spectrum SRSS - -- - - — - - - - - ---- ---- --- 0.95 X 0 Degree Component -- --- 0.95 X 90 Degree Component — ----- — - ----- ---------------------- ------------ 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 Period (seconds) Response Spectra: DBE -10% Probability of Exceedence in 50 Years 1992 CAPE MENDOCINO EARTHQUAKE Petrolia General Store Scale Factor = 0.95 4.00 LAW/CRANDALL A&� 99-proj190330-041dbe2Xdbe-pet.grf FIGURE 3-5t 1.0 N T 0.0 a� U � I Q I -1.0 2.0 U I I ! to W0.0 I I t -2.0 2.0 I 42) E 0.0 — — � I CU Q- I 0 -2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (seconds) SCALED HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION, VELOCITY, AND DISPLACEMENT Scale Factor = 0.95 1992 Cape Mendocino Earthquake PETROLIA - GENERAL STORE 0 Degree Component LAW/CRANDALL 99•proj\90330.04\dbe2\dbe•petb grf FIGURE 3- 1.0 I 0 1:2 0.0 CD m U � U -1.0 2.0 U i I i 0.0 I U f i -2.0 2.0 CD I ! v i ^C W E 0.0 I I (D WC% fII i ( a fn I -2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (seconds) SCALED HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION, VELOCITY, AND DISPLACEMENT Scale Factor = 0.95 1992 Cape Mendocino Earthquake PETROLIA - GENERAL STORE 90 Degree Component LAW/CRANDALL FIGURE 3-6 99-proj\90330.04Wbe2\dbe-petc.grf M M _ M M M M M M M M M M MMM M M !O - 0131-9-03X0004 DATE: 30 ocL 2000 F.T.: n/a R: ck O.E.: ck CHKD: C�tt &0 c O CO ca N U U Q N 2.0 O Q O (0 1.0 Q- M ---- — — -- - - - 1.3 X DBE Spectrum - --- --- - ---- --- - -- - - - DBE Spectrum --- ---- SRSS 0.9 X 0 Degree Component 0.9 X 270 Degree Component - ------------ ------ ----- - -- 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Period (seconds) Response Spectra: DBE -10% Probability of Exceedence in 50 Years 1992 LANDERS EARTHQUAKE Lucerne Valley Scale Factor = 0.9 FIGURE 3-6a 1.0 o � CU 0.0 JAL a� U Q -1.0 2.0 w I 0.0 — ! V O -2.0 2.0 N � i � I ! E 0.0 U CU 5 -2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (seconds) SCALED HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION, VELOCITY, AND DISPLACEMENT Scale Factor = 0.9 1992 Landers Earthquake LUCERNE VALLEY 0 Degree Component LAW/CRANDALL FIGURE 3-6b propvussu--mownaoe-mco.gn 1.0 rn c I I 0.0 m a� U ' I I -1.0 5.0 U I I a) I I t 0.0 — O I i I -5.0 8.0 E 0.0 a) U , (6 � � o. w I I -8.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (seconds) SCALED HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION, VELOCITY, AND DISPLACEMENT Scale Factor = 0.9 1992 Landers Earthquake LUCERNE VALLEY 90 Degree Component Ak LAW/CRANDALL FIGURE Mc- vjxywou-uamoenaae-maa.gn J010131-9-0330.0004 DATE: 30 oc[. 2000 F.T.: n/a DR.: ck O.E.: ck CHKD: ()"� 3.0 g c 0 to 2.0 L a) a) U U N 0 cn Q 0 1.0 7 U) a- - -- ----- - - - 1.3 X DBE Spectrum -'- ------- - ---- - ---- - - - DBE Spectrum SRSS -- _ -- - -- - 1.25 X 0 Degree Component --- - - -- -- - --- -- -- 1.25 X 270 Degree Component ---- ♦ 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Period (seconds) Response Spectra: DBE -10% Probability of Exceedence in 50 Years 1994 NORTHRIDGE EARTHQUAKE 7-story Hotel Scale Factor = 1.25 LAWICRANDALL i-pmjNYWJwUaWtl zwb van grt FIGURE 3-7a 1.0 0 0.0 I a� I I D U Q I -1.0 2.0 N 0.0 - - --' - - ' j i I U I i O -2:0 2.0 O O iv I � i I E 0.0 U (6 CL -2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (seconds) SCALED HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION, VELOCITY, AND DISPLACEMENT Scale Factor = 1.25 1994 Northridge Earthquake VAN NUYS - 7 STORY HOTEL 0 Degree Component LAW/CRANDALL Ak FK3UHL 2 99•proj\90330.04\dbe2\dbe-vanb prf 1.0 I m ; , 0 CU 0.0 ! I CD U -1.0 2.0 � I v I 0.0 - -- -- - - - U O � i -2.0 2.0 v 1 I I E 0.0 - - - - -'--- - - - a> U I i ; (Q i Cn I -2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (seconds) SCALED HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION, VELOCITY, AND DISPLACEMENT Scale Factor = 1.25 1994 Northridge Earthquake VAN NUYS - 7 STORY HOTEL 270 Degree Component LAW/CRANDALL FIGURE 3-7c proj\90330-04\dbe2 W be-vane.gtl JOB: 70131-9-0330.0004 DATE: 30 oct. 2000 F.T.: n/a DR: ck O.E.: ck CHKD: c O M a) 1.5 U U Q N 0 1.0 Q O O N rn 0-. 0.5 WI SRSS Average of 7 Sets of Scaled Records 1.3 X MCE Spectrum - --- - -- -- - - -- - - - - 90% of 1.3 X MCE Spectrum ---- - - ---------- - - - — [T; 1.0 sec., T+1.0 sec.] --.. --- ---------------- ------------ --- -------------- 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3,00 3.50 4.00 Period (seconds) Response Spectra: MCE -10%a Probability of Exceedence in 100 Years AVERAGE SRSS OF 7 SETS OF SCALED RECORDS LAW/CRANDALL Mi I JOB: 70131-9-0330.0004 DATE: 30 oct. 2000 F.T.: n/a DR.: mm O.E.: ck CHKD: 2.0 1.5 c 0 cc N N 0 0 Q N 1.0 0 to O .O ron 0.5 a- - -- - t _ _ _ -- -- -- - - ---- - - - - - - - --- - - - 1.3 X MCE Spectrum -- - - - MCE Spectrum -- - - ------ 1 - - - - -- - - - — - - - -- ----- SRSS 0.75 X 140 Degree Component - _- -- 0.75 X 230 Degree Component 1 1 � - -- - - -- --- - 1 � 1 � � i 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Period (seconds) Response Spectra: MCE -10% Probability of Exceedence in 100 Years 1979 IMPERIAL VALLEY EARTHQUAKE El Centro Array Station 6 Scale Factor = 0.75 LAW/CRANDALL �9-pmj%90330.041mcc21mc -a6.grf FIGURE 5-1a 0.5 � t ! 0 0.0 � ' U Q i -0.5 4.0 2 I ! I I �— 0.0 -4.0 2.0 i m E 0.0 — — — U 1 (6 to 5 -2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (seconds) SCALED HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION, VELOCITY, AND DISPLACEMENT Scale Factor = 0.75 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake EL CENTRO ARRAY STATION 6 140 Degree Component Ak LAW/CRANDALL FIGURE 5-1 99•proj\90330.04\mce2\mce•a•6b.grf 0.5 rn v I I O I T 0.0 U � Q � I -0.5 4.0 Cn 0.0 I U O iN -4.0 2.0 W42) I v 0.0 aEE U � CU L] co i -2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (seconds) SCALED HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION, VELOCITY, AND DISPLACEMENT Scale Factor = 0.75 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake EL CENTRO ARRAY STATION 6 230 Degree Component AL LAW/CRANDALL FIGURE 5-1c »�>u»v-u4uncc<uncc-a•vagn M*_ M M M M M M 9 M M M M M M M M M JOB: 70131-9-0330.0004 DATE: 30 ocL 2000 P.T.: n/a DR.: mm O.E.: ck CHKD: C�� 2.5 c O 0) N 1.5 U U 0) 7 O 1.0 Q O .a 0) W d 0:5 M _ - - - - 1.3 X MCE Spectrum - -- - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - _ MCE Spectrum SRSS - --------- ---- --- --- 2.5 X 360 Degree Component -- 2.5 X 270 Degree Component 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Period (seconds) Response Spectra: MCE - 10% Probability of Exceedence in 100 Years 1992 LANDERS EARTHQUAKE Yermo Fire Station Scale Factor = 2.5 FIGURE 5-2a 1.0 rn 0 E 0.0 a� U U Q -1.0 4.0 0 N m ! 0.0 -- — - --- - - -- U O i > -4.0 2.0 ' ao vi � I i E 0.0— a) U (p Q. N 0 -2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (seconds) SCALED HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION, VELOCITY, AND DISPLACEMENT Scale Factor = 2.5 1992 LANDERS EARTHQUAKE Yermo Fire Station 360 Degree Component LAW/CRANDALL Huun 30.046nce2\mce-yerb.grf 1.0 m 20 0.0 - - - a> m U U Q -1.0 4.0 UL) N - -- -- 0.0 - — - .0 ' O > I -4.0 4.0 a� T v a> E 0.0 cu I ! CL Cn 0 -4.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (seconds) SCALED HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION, VELOCITY, AND DISPLACEMENT Scale Factor = 2.5 1992 LANDERS EARTHQUAKE Yermo Fire Station 270 Degree Component LAW/CRANDALL FIGURE 5-e 99-proj\90330.04\mce2\mce-yem,grt JOB: 70131-9-0330.0004 DATE: 30 oa 2000 F.T.: n/a DR.: mm O.E.: ck CHKD: Q 2.5 c 0 CU a) 1.5 U U Q O s 1.0 0 0) CD 0L 0.5 O - - - - - -- --- - - -- - -- - - - - 1.3 X MCE Spectrum - - - - - — --- -- --- - ---- — -- ---- — — - - - MCE Spectrum SRSS ----_ -- - - ----- - -- -- -- --- --- -- - - ---------- -- 1.55 X 0 Degree Component - - - - 1.55 X 90 Degree Component i—'-- -- -- V - - - - - - --- - - — - — -- -- --- - - I n-�7z 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Period (seconds) Response Spectra: MCE -10% Probability of Exceedence in 100 Years 1989 LOMA PRIETA EARTHQUAKE Hollister - South Street & Pine Drive Scale Factor = 1.55 r-pr0jAVwju-U41M u1MCe n01 gn LAW/CRANDALL FIGURE 5-3a 1.0 c o ' 0.0 m ' m U Q I -1.0 4.0 O I , to � � I i 4- 0.0 —1 U O i j ' -4.0 2.0 m c � � E 0.0 -- — —------- — U Q. O -2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (seconds) SCALED HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION, VELOCITY, AND DISPLACEMENT Scale Factor = 1.55 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake HOLLISTER - SOUTH ST. & PINE DR. 0 Degree Component Ak LAW/CRANDALL FIGURE 5: 99-pmj\90330-04\mcc2\mco-bolb,grf 1.0 o j 0.0 U Q � -1.0 4.0 i I I W 0.0 i \O -4.0 2.0 a) I v E 0.0 —\IV _—_— ---tt U i I f6 CL -2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (seconds) SCALED HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION, VELOCITY, AND DISPLACEMENT Scale Factor = 1.55 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake HOLLISTER - SOUTH ST. & PINE DR. 90 Degree Component A LAW/CRANDALL 99-pmj\9D330-04\mce2\mcc-holc.grf FIGURE 521: M M M M M M MM M JO 0131-9-0330.0004 DATE: 30 oct 2000 F.T.: n/a R.: mm O.E.: ck CHKD: �� M 5.0 c 0 ca 4.0 L. _a) a) U U Q 0 3.0 7 0 Q o 2.0 0) y IL 1.0 M - - - 1.3 X MCE Spectrum MCE Spectrum SRSS 1.6 X 360 Degree Component - - - - - — - — - - - — 1.6 X 90 Degree Component 1 ` 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Period (seconds) Response Spectra: MCE -10% Probability of Exceedence in 100 Years 1994 NORTHRIDGE EARTHQUAKE Newhall Fire Station Scale Factor =1.6 .-M , FIGURE 54a 1.0 rn v 0 0.0 U Q -1.0 4.0 U � 40-2 i-- 0.0 - - - - i -4.0 2.0 m ,y? aa) E 0.0 U fU CL N -2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (seconds) SCALED HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION, VELOCITY, AND DISPLACEMENT Scale Factor = 1.6 1994 Northridge Earthquake NEWHALL - FIRE STATION 360 Degree Component LAW/CRANDALL FIGURE 5-4k 99-proj\90330-04\mce2\mce-newb.grf 1.0 ^ rn I ' O 0.0 i a� I -1.0 4.0 U N i O O I i I 0.0 — - - - - - 41 U O I j i I I -4.0 2.0 ^ I I 42 i E 0.0 U I Q -2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (seconds) SCALED HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION, VELOCITY, AND DISPLACEMENT Scale Factor = 1.6 1994 Northridge Earthquake NEWHALL - FIRE STATION 90 Degree Component LAW/CRANDALL t99-prof\90330-04\mce21mc ne"v grf FIGURE JOB: 70131-9-0330.0004 DATE: 30 oct. 2000 F.T.: n/a DR.: mm O.E.: ck CHKD: rl� 4.0 out -- - - -- - -- -- --- -- - - - - 1.3 X MCE Spectrum - - - - - --- -- - -- - - - - - MCE Spectrum -- --- -- ---------- ----------------- --- SRSS 1.3 X 0 Degree Component -- - 1.3 X 90 Degree Component -- — ----- — ---- --- I -- ---- - -- 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Period (seconds) Response Spectra: MCE - 10% Probability of Exceedence in 100 Years 1992 CAPE MENDOCINO EARTHQUAKE Petrolia General Store Scale Factor = 1.3 LAW/CRANDALL 9-prOJ\9U33U-U4lmw2\mcc-pcl.grf FIGURE 5-5a 1.0 rn c 0 i 2 0.0 Adwil ,mow^-,� o -- w a) a U Q -1.0 4.0 U i N N I � 0.0 I I � O -4.0 2.0 a) i I c m E 0.0 -- — -- —------- - — — m U N , O. N I � I -2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (seconds) SCALED HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION, VELOCITY, AND DISPLACEMENT Scale Factor = 1.3 1992 Cape Mendocino,Earthquake PETROLIA - GENERAL STORE 0 Degree Component LAW/CRANDALL HUUKt 5 t 99-proj\90330-04\mcc2\tnce-pctb,grf 1.0 a> c o Tu 0.0 m 0 U U Q -1.0 4.0 U N i 0.0 - — — .:' i V -4.0 2.0 m v E 0.0 Q U cu Q. U 0 -2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (seconds) SCALED HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION, VELOCITY, AND DISPLACEMENT Scale Factor = 1.3 1992 Cape Mendocino Earthquake PETROLIA - GENERAL STORE 90 Degree Component LAW/CRANDALL FIGURE 5 99-proj\90330-04\mce2\mce-pc1c grf mb_ m m m m m m g m m m m=" mom JOB: 70131-9-0330.0004 DATE: 30 oct. 2000 F.T.: n/a DR.: ck O.E.: ck CHKD: ✓ �' 2.5 2.0 rn c 0 cLa N a) 1.5 O Q N 7 O s 1.0 0 C0 LL 0.5 - - - 1.3.X MCE Spectrum - - - - - — - --- - - - - - - - MCE Spectrum SRSS - --- - - -- - --- -- --- - - - - ----- - - - . - --- 1.5 X 0 Degree Component - - - - - - — 1.5 X 90 Degree Component 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Period (seconds) Response Spectra: MCE -10% Probability of Exceedence in 100 Years 1989 LOMA PRIETA EARTHQUAKE Lexington Dam - Left Abutment Scale Factor = 1.5 LAW/CRANDALL FIGURE 5-6a 1.0 rn � C0 0.0 a) U U Q i -1.0 4.0 i �- 0.0 - - I i U > I ! I -4.0 2.0 a) 40-2 v i I � I f E 0.0 _ ai U (c CL -2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (seconds) SCALED HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION, VELOCITY, AND DISPLACEMENT Scale Factor = 1.5 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake LEXINGTON DAM - LEFT ABUTMENT 0 Degree Component LAW/CRANDALL 99•proj\90330.041mcc2\mcolexb.grf FIGURE 5-1 1.0 rn v ' i I O 0.0 U U Q ' 4.0 2 v 0.0 O I -4.0 2.0 42 I c i E � 0.0 — I a� U � N � c -2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (seconds) SCALED HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION, VELOCITY, AND DISPLACEMENT Scale Factor = 1.5 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake LEXINGTON DAM - LEFT ABUTMENT 90 Degree Component LAW/CRANDALL FIGURE 5- 99-pmj\90330.04\mcc2\mce-Icxc grf Eb_ M M M M M me M M M M MM JOB: 7013 1-9-0330.0004 DATE: 30 oct. 2000 F.T.: n/a DR.: mm O.E.: ck CHKD: (� 2.5 c O «.. tea N a) 1.5 U U Q 0) O 1.0 0 tv 0.5 o @' 1.3 X MCE Spectrum - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - MCE Spectrum - -- --- - -- - - SRSS - -- — --- 0.8 X 360 Degree Component - - - - -- - - -- -- - - - - - - 0.8 X 90 Degree Component 1 � - I Tow 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Period (seconds) Response Spectra: MCE -10% Probability of Exceedence in 100 Years 1994 NORTHRIDGE EARTHQUAKE Sylmar - County Hospital Parking Lot Scale Factor = 0.8 -r• �........, b,� FIGURE 5-7a 1.0 rn ; m 0.0 a� a� U I -1.0 4.0 U � N � -4.0 2.0 N ' E 0.0 U Q co -2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (seconds) SCALED HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION, VELOCITY, AND DISPLACEMENT Scale Factor = 0.8 1994 Northridge Earthquake SYLMAR - COUNTY HOSPITAL PARKING LOT 360 Degree Component LANCRANDALL 99-proj190330-0AmceZmcc-sy1b grf FIGURE 1.0 rn o i E 0.0 a� U Q ' � I -1.0 4.0 U I ' i i 42 �- 0.0 I i I U O i -4.0 2.0 m E0.0 - - - - — — - cu N 5 -2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (seconds) SCALED HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION, VELOCITY, AND DISPLACEMENT Scale Factor = 0.8 1994 Northridge Earthquake SYLMAR - COUNTY HOSPITAL PARKING LOT 90 Degree Component LAW/CRANDALL FIGURE 5-7 99-proj\90330-04\mcc2Umce-syic.Brf W iffig 0HOSPITAL wm1 Hoag One I long Drive PO Box 6100 Newport Bench CA 92658-6100 Phone 949/645.8000 Internet: www.hong.org February 22, 2001 Patricia Temple, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-1768 Presbyterian 7 RE: Lighting System — Upper Campus Visitors/Patients Parking Structure Dear Ms. Temple: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPr)RT EEACI-I AM MAR 16 2001 • PM 71819110 il11 lu Ii i213141618 I wanted to thank you and your staff for meeting with Hoag Hospital and its consultants on December 6, 2000, to review the lighting system that has been designed for the Upper Campus Visitors/Patients Parking Structure (UCVPPS). The lighting system reviewed at that meeting was approved by the City in conjunction with the building permit for the UCVPPS (issued on August 2, 2000). As part of the December 6, 2000, site visit, a mock-up of the approved lighting for the UCVPPS in one bay of the Hoag Conference Center Parking Structure was prepared so that City staff would have an opportunity to view the lighting associated with the UCVPPS. Subsequent to the City's approval of the UCVPPS building plans, the lighting fixtures were ordered from the manufacturer. The parking structure is currently under construction, with construction scheduled to be - complpted in August 2001. The intent of our December 6, 2000, meeting was to obtain assurances from the City that the lighting system included as part of the approved UCVPPS plans would meet with the City's approval. Hoag wants to avoid a similar experience to that related to lighting for the Hoag Conference Center parking structure. During the final .inspection of the Hoag Conference Center parking structure, City staff requested that the approved and installed lighting system be modified. These modifications were requested by City staff even though a similar amount of light shines from adjacent developments onto Hong property, and the light from the City streetlights is significantly brighter. The process for determining a need to adjust the lighting was very subjective. Hoag was forced to spend thousands of dollars to comply with the request by installing louvers over the lights, which decreased their efficiency. It took weeks to special order these louvers, and the Hoag Conference Center could not be occupied until the louvers were installed. Hoag has received a number of complaints from people using the Hoag Conference Center parking structure because users do not feel safe due to the dimmed lighting in the parking structure. In order to ensure that lighting issues similar to those identified after construction of the Hoag Conference Center parking structure do not affect the UCVPPS, Hoag Hospital underwent a lengthy process (see attached letter from electrical engineer dated December 22, 2000) to select the most appropriate lighting for the UCVPPS. Hoag has discussed this process and the UCVPPS lighting system with City staff at several meetings. On July 17, 2000, Jim Easley of Hoag Hospital reviewed a mock-up of the selected lighting system with Jim Sinacek. Subsequent to that meeting, Hoag sent a letter to Genia Garcia (dated August 22, 2000, copy enclosed), requesting resolution of any lighting issues City staff may have. In response to that letter, a meeting was held with City staff on September 20, 2000, during which City staff suggested that Hoag contact you to discuss the lighting for the UCVPPS. On November 18, 2000, Hoag sent you a letter (copy A NON IT0I II (.0WH1NPPY 111SPPPAI AWII:Dn1.D aY TIIE 111119 11111111YI1IN UN M-011:PP1 A I" I' u1 "I AI Ill...\Ill t M.ANILAIRMS uMab,Knw I..xMo114� Patricia Temple • February 22, 2001 enclosed) reviewing the planned lighting and requesting a meeting for you to review a mock-up of the planned lighting. Based on that letter, we met on December 6, 2000. At our December 6, 2000, meeting, you requested that Hoag provide you with a variety of information to assist City staff in reviewing the planned lighting system for the UCVPPS, including: 1) information related to the design of the lighting system; 2) industry standards for lighting; and, 3) the ability to manipulate lighting variables while still meeting Illuminating Engineering Society (I.E.S.) standards, among others. We have attempted to answer all of your questions below. The Hospital's goal related to the selection of the lighting system for the UCVPPS was to adhere to I.E.S. standards, while at the same time balancing objectives of the Hospital and the City. There are basically three standards/requirements applicable to the design of the UCVPPS's lighting system. These are: 1. Zoning — The Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations (PCDCDR) for the Hoag Master Plan contain the following requirement: "The lighting systems shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light sources and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer." 2. Uniform Building Code — The Uniform Building Code contains requirements related to the minimum egress lighting levels, but not to the operating lighting levels of the UCVPPS. 3. Illuminating Engineering Society (I.E.S.) Standards The only national standard with recommendations for indoor parking structure lighting levels. The lighting plans approved by the City for the UCVPPS incorporate the criteria of the Uniform Building Code and the standards of the Illuminating Engineering Society. Further, the lighting system adheres to the PCDPDR criteria in that light sources are concealed, and light/glare spillage is minimized. In addition there are no adiacent residential areas. All adjacent properties are commercial or industrial. Since the UCVPPS will be used primarily by patients of and visitors to the Hospital, Hoag Hospital's objective for the lighting system is to ensure that it fosters a safe and navigable environment for its users. To accomplish this objective, the parking structure itself must be open so that patients and visitors unfamiliar with the Hospital Campus can readily locate the Hospital entrance. Some patients may be arriving after dark, and some patients may be arriving with serious health issues, so it is imperative that the UCVPPS be well -lit, thus fostering user safety, and allowing for easy way -finding. At the same time, Hoag recognizes that the City is concerned about minimizing light impacts on adjacent residential uses. The closest residences are approximately one -eighth of a mile away and are above the parking structure. There are several features associated with the lighting system for the UCVPPS that directly relate to minimizing potential light impacts: 1) the light source is concealed by the fixture housing and light shield; 2) indirect lighting creates a more uniform light level; and, 3) a special extended light shield has been added to minimize light spillage. Over the years, Hoag has utilized a variety of lighting types. One has only to view the campus at night to see how the lighting has evolved. The electrical engineer for the addition to the existing Upper Campus parking structure is the same electrical engineer (R.E. Wall and Associates) for the UCVPPS. The lighting used on the addition to the existing Upper Campus parking structure, however, would not be utilized today because of the direct fixture glare that would be viewed from the street below. As mentioned above, lighting for the Hoag Conference Center was designed using metal halide parking fixtures and was changed to respond to the concerns of City staff. Lessons learned by Hoag from previous projects influenced the process for selection of lighting for the UCVPPS. I want to emphasize that cost was Page 2 Patricia Temple February 22, 2001 w not a criteria in the selection process; in fact, the selected lighting fixtures is more expensive than conventional parking fixtures. Within the confines of the requirements imposed by the applicable standards/requirements discussed above, and accounting for City and Hoag objectives, the lighting system was selected. In the process of selecting a lighting system for the UCVPPS, standard Fluorescent fixtures were ruled out, as were contemporary fixtures that were previously rejected by City staff with respect to the Hoag Conference Center parking structure. The indirect lighting design was selected and the determination was made to paint the ceiling of the UCVPPS to provide h soft light bounce. Due to the elevated nature of the parking structure, fixtures are restricted to the indirect type to prevent direct fixture image. This applies to Fluorescent as well as point sources (HID). Fluorescent sources are linear sources and therefore is not as effective or even possible in light control compared to HID. The indirect lighting method, therefore, is the most effective and lowest glare method of illumination for the UCVPPS. A similar process was undertaken to select the fixtures and identify their locations within the UCVPPS. Fixtures are located away from exterior walls (except on the roof of the UCVPPS) to minimize spillage and glare. Great care was taken to prevent direct source glare and still conform to I.E.S. standards. At our December 6, 2000, meeting, City staff asked whether it would be possible to manipulate components (e.g„ ceiling paint color/texture and shielding a portion of the fixture itself) of the lighting system, while still adhering to applicable standards/requirements. The lighting system as it is currently designed, with the ceiling colors selected, is in direct conformance with I.E.S. standards. The changing of colors or other modifications will lower, the values below I.E.S. standards and is not appropriate from a liability and a patient safety standpoint. Further, several key issues regarding light trespass have recently addressed by the I.E.S. (December 2, 2000, I.E.S. light trespass research, results and recommendations TM- I1-00 technical publication, copy enclosed). These recommendations include the following: 1. TM-11-00 indicates that lighting levels to reduce light trespass should never drop below LE.S. standards for the specific occupancy or application - safety and liability issues should not be compromised for reducing light trespass. 2. The "Environmental Zone" classification for the geographic area in which the UCVPPS is located is "E4". "E4" is defined as: "areas of high ambient brightness. Normally, this category will include dense urban areas with mixed residential and commercial use with a high level of nighttime activity." The light trespass value limitation recommendation for this zone ("E4") is 1.50 footcandles (per Table 1 in TM-11-00). The light trespass values for the UCVPPS are far below this value. 3. The next "Environmental Zone" below in brightness level is "E3", defined as "urban residential only", which does not apply to this area of the Campus. However, even "ET' allows a .80 footcandle light trespass value. Again, the UCVPPS light trespass values are below this level. 4. The project light trespass values and design for the UCVPPS are, therefore, in conformance with national/international practice and standards, Page 3 Patricia Temple • February 22, 2001 Hoag undertook an exhaustive effort to select a lighting system for the UCVPPS that adhered to applicable standards/requirements, as well as responding to the objectives of Hoag and the City. Hoag cannot compromise patient safety, and cannot accept potential liability issues by not adhering to industry standards. We therefore request assurances that no post -permit revisions will be required for the UCVPPS. Sincerely, Leif Thompson, AIA Vice President Facilities Design and Construction Enclosures: Letter from Hoag to Genia Garcia (August 22, 2000) Letter from Hoag to Patricia Temple (November 18, 2000) Letter from R. E. Wall and Associates to Hoag (December 22, 2000) IES Publication TM.I 1-00 — Light Trespass: Research, Results and Recommendations, 2000 C: Mick Cunningham, Jim Easley, Hoag He Pete Foulke, Hoag H Genic Garcia, City o John Heffernan, Cou Per! Murano, Consul Randy Regier, Taylo Jim Sinacek, City of Linda Taylor, Taylor File: 1255,20-36.00-Cn 1V 0 0 HOAG' Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive PO Boa 610D Newport Beach CA 92653-6100 Phone 949/645 8600 Internet www.hoag.org August A 2000 Genia Garda City of Newport Beach, Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beack Clk9I658-1768 Subject: Permit Number B9906933 Hoag Project 1255.20 — East Parking Structure Regarding: Parking Structure Ughting, Mitigation Measure 44 Dear Genla: Taylor and Associates submitted plans for parking structure to be constructed on the North East comer of our property. A pernYt has been Issued and we are under construction. The Illumination of the structure Is very Important to Hoag; the structure will be the comerstone of our frail enhance and thousands of patients will navigate through this building when They use fire hospital facilities. We trove spent thousands of dollars designing a fang system that would meet he city requirements and the hospital spedaLreeds. I rrspectNNy request .that the City review our general Iklhtkhg plan and photomebt studies for One project; provide written carinlents or apprave.the plan as designed before it is cast in concrete. :r,kjoag recently completed the Conference Cater patldng sinudu P,. During tie design, Hoag's dectrcab engbreer worked.wutlh• fighting vw,,Inanuf duxers to select the best avaikabk4bitawthat wouldmeet the city requirements; however, durhrg•.theflnal kapectlon,oRtle,pro]ect, ta,xwe were directed by the city to modifystheilesigned NghtirKischeme to reduce light spilling to the adjaoenbdevekipment•.:Vftprocess is - «revery subjeudhre. There was no measurabie•Nghtprojecdng fromauc property. A similar amount of NghtVilnesrfiom ad)aoen4vde elopments :_; :on•to hospital property. The night from.the_dgssbeeMots•Is slgoUontiy brighter space. Hoag was forced 0APhuhd thousands-oFildlars to .. aimply with the request by Installing louvers ovwAhe Nghts; which:deaeased their effrdency: It took week® twolredal order thislouve; and -rrr,the b ulkNrg could not be occupied ur&.they.were Installed iMbe result met the city requuirements;drowevae now I recekventarrruerous • :Complaints from our stab` and community:membas who use the center at night because the level Is din* Nghtedaaul does not fed sere- - TWe believe that we have found a better wayto light the rota anrof the new structure. We studied several'methods to conceal• One light ,r resource and still provide suitable safe and -comfortable lighting4e vels. We ruled out screens or IOUverS.an'the'DatSide of the build irg shell, .:.•:because they would create a "boxy" structixe; Instead, we designed an "open' structure that has beet.favacalnly received try cityplanneis • -.,,;-and mlnd[persons. We ruled out standard•ttuoftcent fbdunrsa id the contemporary fixtures Onattwerelrejeded WtRe,`Qty In the Conference Center structure. We studied indhed lighting and decided to paint the structure ceiling to create a very finished Interior and provide a soft No bounce from a "state•of•the arr up -light fixture. The selected flxtum Is deskgmed to' conceal the night source and mW mlm fight spillage and glare. In order to avoid the previous Basco, we requested that ]kn Sinasek, City of Newport Beads Code Enforcement provide an informal review of a full sox lighting mock-up of one bay of this structure. He reviewed the mock up and on ]uly 17, 2000, he replied to Jim Edsky, Hoag Project Manage, stafpg his concern that the ceiling is ilhminated with some "hot spots' and Hoag's neighbors may be upset With faun levels or illuminated cellings shining In their eyes. He declined to provide fiurther comment, because he would not be able to evaluate the fight until the total strudure Is constructed and illuminated. I am sure you can understand our concern that any objections to the design that are raised after the project is complete, will be yga cc* to correct. We believe that the design o neds the mitigation requirements and an be reviewed and approved prior' to construction as noted in One measure. If our architects or I an be of help or provide additional Information, please call me. Thank you in advance for your consideration. I leak forward to your response. Sincerely. HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERi'AN Let �-- __ Vie President Facilities Design and Construction INT: Jr Cr ft" TernpieAdmod Plant" MVIDW, OtYOr HeR'Mt Bendy MM" OepedRlmt am SInN* rode Fed, City or Waport Beach, Cade EMecelnelt Bob Mx*W,CRT' AtIRNW, City of xexpat Beadybly Atl TWS OMoe MkkCumyham, APsodate/ NdiBa;TByleraAvfiaWtaAnidtecis it&Taft, Presided, Taylor a Associates Nd#b ce Rd Mxetta, elvwernnedal CW=bftt Pie FuuNv:, Fxeaere Vim President Hoag HWb1 _ Foe: RE LIGHTING A NON-PROFIT COMMUNITY HOSPITAL ACCREDITED BY THE JOINT COMMISSION ON ACCREDITATION OF HEALTHCARE ORGANIZATIONS ,4MVHA •1 r• • owe Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian H` One Hoag Drive ro Holt 6100 Newport Beach CA 92658•6100 949/645•sb00 www.hooghospital.org 'November 18, 2000 Patricia Temple, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard NewportBeach,CA 92658-1768 RE: lighting System— Upper Campus Visitors/Patients Parking Structure Dear Ms. Temple: On September 20, 2000, Hoag Hospital and its consultants met with Genia Garcia and Jim Sinacek to discuss the approved lighting system for the Upper Campus Visitors/Patients Parking Structure that is currently under construction. The purpose of that meeting was to follow up on a letter sent by Hoag to the City on August 22, 2000 (copy enclosed). That letter detailed the lengthy process Hoag undertook to design a lighting system for the Upper Campus Visitom'Patients Parking Structure. It also reviewed the issues related to the Hoag Conference Center Parking Structure lighting system that arose after the plans were approved by the City, and, in fact, after the Hoag Conference Center Parking Structure was constructed. In order to eliminate requests by City staff to alter the approved lighting system in the Upper opus Visitors/Patients Parking Structure after construction has been completed, an informal review of a full- sized fighting mock-up of one bay of the Upper Campus Visitors/Patients Parking Structure was completed by Jim Sinacek in July of this year (as discussed in the August 22, 2000, letter). At that time, Jim Sinacek expressed concerns that he would not be able to fully evaluate the lighting systenes impacts until the Upper Campus Visitors/Patients Parking Structure was constructed. The Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Master Plan for Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian adopted in conjunction with the cettificaition of the Final Environmental Impact Report contains the following Mitigation Measure (No. 44) regarding lighting: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall submit plans to, and obtain the approval of plans from, the City Planning Department which detail the lighting system for all buildings and window systems for buildings on tbe western side of ilia, Upper Campus. The systems shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimize light spillage and glans to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his or her opinion, this requitement has been met The Upper Campus Visitors/Patients Parking Structure that is currently under construction is located on the northeast corner of the Upper Campus, and is, therefore, not subject to die requirements of Mitigation Measure No. 44. However, the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations (PCDCDR), that were adopted by the City Council on May 26, 1992, contain the following requirement with respect to lighting - The lighting systems shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer. A NOT FOR PROFIT COMMUNITY HOSPITAL ACCREDITED BY THE JOINT COMMISSION ON ACCREDITATION OF HEALTHCARE ORGANIZATIONS ww,�. • 0 Patricia Temple November 18, 2000 The lighting standard contained in the PCDCDR does not require that Hoag eliminate fight spillage and glare. Rather, it requires that the lighting system be designed to minimize fight spillage and glare. In order to comply with the PCDCDR's fighting requirement, Hoag Hospital undertook an extensive (and expensive) process to select lighting for the Upper Campus Visitors/Patients Parking Structure. At our September 20, 2000, meeting, City staff suggested that Hoag Hospital te-evaluate the photometric studies completed for the approved lighting system to determine whether it would be possible to change the selected paint in order to reduce potential glare impacts. Based on that request, Taylor and Associates, the project architect, met with the fighting consultant for the Upper Campus Visitors/Patients Parking Structure to review City staffs request. The lighting consultant subsequently re-evaluated the photometric studies and determined that the paint system could not be altered and still maintain requited lighting levels. City staff also suggested that once Hoag had reviewed its photometric studies, that a meeting be scheduled with you to review both the approved plans and the findings from the re-evaluation of the photometric studies. Also, Hoag will be re -erecting the full-sized lighting mock-up of one bay of the Upper Campus Visitors/Patients Parking Structure, which I would like you to we. I will be contacting you within a week of Upper Campus Visitors/Patients Parking Sincerely, Leif Thompson, ALA Vice President Facilities Design and Construction Enclosure C: Mick Cumdajhnn AmEasky Gems OurU Pei Mardis Rudy Regar Am Smack Flnume: 1255.20-36.00.1ETTER TO TEMPLE ppA Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Nn08P11ill�l One Hoag Drive PO BOX 6100 Newport h CA 9265"100 Phone 949/645.86DO Internet: www.ho2g.org Augtst22, 200D Geda Garda Beach,City of Newport Planning DqPt P.O. ON 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658.1768 Subject: Pem4t Number B9906933 Hoag Project IM.2D — East Par" Structure Regarding: Par" Structure Lighting, Mitlga m Measure 44 Dear Geda: Taylor and Asi odates chatted plans far palling structure to be Cur stru¢ted on the North East corner of our properlt. A permit has been Issued and we are under construction. The Ilurnlr ation of the structure is very important to Hoag; the structure will be the cornerstone of our Awk entrance and thousands of patients will navigate through ft buldbg when they use the ho*W facilities. we have spent thouaarda of dollars dctlgting.alglitkg system that would meet the city regniemads and thehosplMaps" Tneerds I respedffuly regrmst that the city review our general:Nghtlng plan and pholomebk stadles far the project; provldd:vrghsn consrtmis or approve the om as desig P l before t is cast in canaete. Hoag reorntly:•compietW the ,Caftenoe Center paftg stnrctre. During the• dal marauhciurerst"alect I mbest annfahie fbItue that would meet the city regWsmenis • we were•dieded try the c1trA mutlry the desWied IIghli ng sciuene bo+eduae fight st very sab)Wive,07here was mmeasurab a Ight r t jectig from ail property •:A Xlrnlar an to•bospttel,poperty. The•lightiromthe city Streetlights IssfgdlrxruVbr*ftspW corapilpthe �d�-kWaNk bums over the �Wriot adung VW werelled The rePAVrr a tive dt wmpWMs *ommr staff and community members who use the r P I atrAgfibecam Hoags•decticad egtuew wog with lighdhg.:I:. weevers dakg the Iinal inspeWon of the project, •.s;t,.. 9 britmadjaaut developme nt Mb prociraa hs••:: ru. uuutof Ight stones tan adjacent da elopnenbr.. A ,• ba .vm fac„d to spad thousands of daMars m :•. a• yv1>;.fliok weeds tD•sp Wort order dw.lOL verskand­;m. ultutrerlertts; however, now I receive nantrotec.x.. :&vd:tsdidy Illlfed and does not feed saliv'•: •,i r-.. We beller ihat•we haw: fboatka•betber way to IV* the i tarkm of thaiw*.sbuudrae, liftatudted several methods to oonaal the4ghut: t•;: source and.sil4pnvkk sulW leaefe and comfortable Ighfleg levels. •Vfe.rulldhautseaemsena Jarvers or the oulske of We building. gift o :n . becia hey.woM aeate a.?%oW sbudwe; kuw4 we designed an'bpeatcptruhuedlatdlm bem favorably recdved by city plwcmz r . and coudipesors. we •ruled -out standard nuoreuent fbdures and thI eauctnrlporary'•thelures that were rejected bf the My Wtlse : BT Conference Center sturhre. Wa strafed indres3t 000 and decided to paint the sbuchme celit0 to agate a very &*dmd interior and provide a sat l9ht bastceftm a'shte of the art' up4WIt fact rm- :ilre•sdecied firtre:de-dasigried to conceal Bee tight source end• In order to avoid Ire previous ftx% we requeftd gnat An SirasN, Cty of Newport head► Code Worcareruy provide m iulormd review of a Rd sine Igir" mWt-W of one bay of this structure. Ile revewed the mock up and on 3* 17, 2000, he replied to Ian Easley, HM Project Manager, slaffrg his co raem that the clang Is illuminated wIh some "hot spots' and Moagss F*W ms may be upset tMth far levels of IlmukoW cdMRgs ahirig in fink eyes. He dedred m provide ArOw corrarw bemm he would not Ire ail t6 evaivaba fhe ight untl the btu *ucbae Is cm *uded and linimted. I am sue you mn undusfand our concern that airy objeWmks to fhe desgn that are raised ahtrr the poject B eomgetq wNI lee wait costty to cased We believe dot fhe design daxafs fhe mitigation mquira ants and can be reviewed and approved prior to consbudlon as noted In the measum ell our ardaeft or I can be of help or provide addidordal lrftnaftA, please d me. Thad* you M advance for your c ridderation. I look Ponward to your response. Sincerely, HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESWERIAN low Leif hwvsm, Alin Vice President RKNIes Design and Construction Leer: Ce MraiTW*01e PIM Prnraer, CRY axcNpaet Dot% PMmeg DVabnert air saD*k mar ervtoetaln. anY Maallow eedl. Dodo BYarement 30b%=h^C1vAftW,C1YuIAevatee CRrArt MW3ORke corkLTrrnaRant.AMabpINdrt4TabuaAnxl&W kcNteds thU7"Ir, PnrldeA, 7rybraAeoderesNdAkds Full MwNa, ohl"In"Wo mnBAbnt Fda foikk bmaAwVie RmWen% HM HoWW Fie HSS.7E]6ADOTY LETTER RE UGHTING , A NON•PAOIIT COMMUNITY HOSPITAL ACCREDITED BY THE JOINT COMMISSION ON ACCREDITATION OF HEALTHCARE ORGANIZATIONS w"ti.. /�IOM R.049.Vad: 12/22/00 11:28; -� HOAO FACILITO. OESXGN 6 CONDT , YSfl• e Ddc-2.'tc-00 11:13A R.E. WALL it ASSOCIATES r INCORPORATED December 22, 2000 Jim Easley Hoag FD&C 351 Hospital Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Jim, Following is a list of considerations, the accompanied solutions, andindividual explanations in the lighting design of this patient/staff parking structure: Establish required illumination level in the parking structure for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. To increase the visual comfort probability for the elderly, incoming, and outgoing patients. Re&we d Eleddral Engineers BASIS OF DESIGN light source from view by the space. P.02 a. Design to IES (Illuminating Engineering Society) criteria In order to meet the professional standard of care for this "a of facility. b. A concealed light source is achieved by inverting a light fixture so that the lamp is above the fixture housing, thus blocking the lamp from view. An indirect light fixture is usually accompanied by a glare shield to further reduce the chance of seeing the bright lamp end' at the same time, better redirect the light evenly on the ceiling. c. A concealed light source eliminates harmful glare, which is very uncomfortable to the eyes and may disorient patients. The diffused light across the ceiling will not be disorienting nor uncomfortable to sight and is not defined _ as lag re by the IES. _ J 2842-A Walnut Avenue Tustin, CA 92780.7027 714-W2783 FAX 714-M4-4762 e-mail: rewall.com H*gO1V"GC lw/,2 ,Yu , . iC-i pp4r--22-00 11:13A P.03 Elimination of harmful glare to surrounding residences in dose proximity of the parking structure. To minimize the residual light trespass due to veiling reflection from the It ceiling. d. An indirect light fixture allows light to be reflected off of the ceiling, thus more evenly distributing the light on the driving lanes for safer entry and exiting of vehicles. e. Indirect lighting also allows for vertical illumination. This means the structure is perceived to be warmer and more inviting. Vertical illumination also allows drivers to see other moving vehicles and pedestrians much better. f. It is important to realize that while indirect lighting illuminates the entire calling, the light a person outside Me structure may see is much more faint than if they stared at a parking light fixture with a visible tamp source. g. To minimize the chance of any near -by resident seeing the direct lamp source, a special customized shield was engineered and manufactured specifically for this parking structure. This costly shield minimizes the possibility of any harmful glare to the surrounding neighbors. h. To make the.parking structure lighting less noticeable, different temperature lamps were considered. A perceived "cooler color makes the parking structure less noticeable at night from the streets and surrounding homes. The number of light fixtures and the brightness of the lamps in these fixtures were designed and redesigned many times to minimize the energy costs to the hospital and the light levels to the surrounding neighbors. The finalized design had to provide enough light in the structure for moving vehicles to be easily visible to pedestrians and other drivers. IES, the only nationally recognized authority on lighting design, has setup a' minimum lighting level required for parking facilities which our final lighting design meets. A lighting level below what is defined by the IES invites possible legal actions by victims in parking structure related injuries against the city of Newport Beach and the hospital. 2' neoU: v.d: 12/22/00 11.29. Da1c-22-00 11 : 14A LIA -� HOAO FAOILIT* DESIGN & GONOT , raga t If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, R.E. Wall & Associates, Inc. • ike 1"'' cc: Mick Cunningham Randy Reiger P.04 3' RobOIV*d: 12/22/00 11:29r .ppc-22-00 11:24A L oR77NG DESIGN -s ny/.V fMY1 L11� VCOLNp q YVAOI 1 .-�Y� V P.05 My. naas, ryplaat WIM or roadway rant area U) daoalaraibrr lamas: (a socdo alon bass; tor) Yon soya; (4) aasmoWa p"W, (sl trade padMg; 0 eoedia Mae - M Pksx area; %) was tttaaae and IW iraalar ma"W. adaptation from the illuminated test area to the un- lighted roadway. It ix womanended that luminaires be used that ccadine the main light to the deceleration and aeeclea ation lanes and carrier high -angle hrightnea. In the event that the main roadway is continuously lighted beyond the connnes of the rest area, deceleration and aaxlcration lance should be lighted to a lmoA equal to that of the main roadway. kt dw Roadways. Interior roadways are chase bo- tween the entrance or edt points and the parking Most As those roadways ate off the main highway, the designer may select another type of luminaim than that used on the highway. The designer should keep in mind, boasvcr, that there may be an added mainte- manct: pmblam when several different types of lund- nadrex and lamps are required within Out area. Pwkklp Areas. illumination of both automobile and truck parking areas should be designed so that, from the vehicle, the motorist an distinguish features or the sign including WCXtTiant The area slarutd be lighted 24 & Recommended Illuriloo ice Levels for floadway Real Meal' VWRORO—AM" UnlAraiMyt Ilrr Area tax faaoaneira flan. [ararga and MA As*= camas fl or a A to A 0:1 a a:t a" a a x1 rntarto► Roadwit" a A 3:1 Far"Ar@ft* 11 1A tblar 11 1A a:l Mlror 5 .5 e:t ' TMOV1wdinrnwWaramnnwasdnywMase»oon�dabnMw CW r dnrAna andbr rout' #WmlWg as eakuneed and pMnNa M MaGulp poeedun. t AVOW a mk*m n. * 8 as PA inokarAmot minimum. 771 no that a motorist.can rearlAs sge and be directed by it to various parts of UK area. Careful attention should be paid to areas, swb as handicap ramps and sanitary disposal stations, which may require special detalling_ Adiv" Areas. Activity areas are those Hemmed for pedestrian use. Major activity areas are those which include sack structures as comfort stations and infor- mation centers, as weft as the walkways between those locations and the parking area. Minor activity areas are those which include picnic tables and dog wane., and their associated walkways ind fatalities. Gonorafly, the illuminance In the maim activity areas wilt be higher than those in the minor areas. Area floodlighting easy be provided for architectural or tabor purposes. Care nhuuld be taken to ensure that stray light is not directed toward, air relleacd fnmb the main roadway toward the passing motorist. Maintenance, Rest areas are frequently in remote, isolated regions and require more rigid maintenance and supervision than faci6des which an be visited alone n:gulariy by maintenance and security Personnel. Parking Facility Lighting" Objectives. Parking Wlity lighting is vital for traffic safety, for protection against assault, theft and vandal- ism, for convenience and comfort to the user, and, in may instimcca, for business attraiian. Types of Facilities. Fray lighting purposes, parading fa. talities can be classificd ax either open or caven:d. Most parking facilities will the either one type or the other, be considered open while the lower levels will he considered covered. Open Parking FatWet Tho illumination' require- ments of an open parking facility depend on the amount Of uaaAe it receives. Toren levels of activity have been established and are designated as high, mo&tun and pac-22-00 21a14A P-06 M ROADWAY IJ011TING low. Thee: levels reflect both tralTic and pedestrian activity and are illustrated by, but not limited to, the following examples: High activity: - Major league athletic events • Mrijor cultural or civic events • Regional shopping centers • Foal food facilities Mcdium activity: • Community shopping centers • Ofiax parts • Hospital parking areas • Transportation parking (airports, commuter IM etc.) • Otitural, civic or Mcrcational events • Residential comples parking Low activity. • Neighborhood shopping • Industrial employee parking • Mucational facility parking • Church packing If the level 01 Nighttime activity 1MVIves a largo num- ber of vehides, then the examples above fur lour and mcdium activity pmparly belong in the next higher L-W. Coorrrd PlorkhW Fad1&k% Four critical areas can be identified within covered parking facilities. general parking and pedestrian areas; ramps and corners; en- trance •teas; and stairways. Thusc critical areas can require lighting loth day and night. The first of thcso atom is considered to he the same as for an open parkins facility, '17ho second area is self-caplanatoty. 11►c third area (entrance) is defint:d as the entryway into the coveted portion of the parking atmeture from the ponal to a point 15 m (SO fl) buyund the edge of gravelling on the structure. no fourth area again is self-explanatory. /itruninanoe Rom"nicndedwnx Recommendations have been eslablinccd for both open parking faeititkm (outdoor) and covered parting facilities (structures), as shown in figure 24.23. These recommendations are given to provide for the sal movement of traffic, for satisfactory vision for pe'dcaeriams and for the guidancc of both vehicles and pedestrians. 'They are the lowest acceptable kWh consistent with the news task in- volved and the noel to dater vandalism while at the same tame meeting cagy constraints. ( uttomer con- venience, dosed circuit televnwm surveillance and cus- tomor attraction may require a higher level of fighting in some circumstances. In open parking faalitics, a atnanl parking avid pedarrian area is defined as one where pedestrian conflicts with vehicles are likely to occur. A eeldeukr ute area{ (any) is defined as one where conflicts vWth pedestrians are not likely to ncatr. These are areas xwdr as service areas or mown roads. It should be noted that, whereas figure 24.23 sped• foes averaw kvcls for the vehicular area in upon park 111* 114•13. Recommended Maintained Horizontal Numinenexa for PW" FaMes taw' 2 at 4:1 6 ON 41 Corermd PWMM Fadtiltss an M IMwaN msaasay Roo nntalt is Rrwsegt M PavonwO taqt=WMI M, PadaMm wags 54 6 64 6 4:1 rei�e t Far eaa a540 60 54 6 as omc-22-00 22:14A UGRWG UFSIGN ins facilities and for covered parking facilites, it speci- rres mk&upe levels for the pedestrian areas of open parking facilities. The reason for this b that an abso- lute minimum of lighting in considered necessary low the identification of features or pedestrian safety which should be achieved at all points. Spedal Conside►attons. Lighting of access road& to 8i1 types of parking facilities should match the local high- way lighting, an much an possible. The average main• tained illuminance should be compatible with local conditions. 'Me avftraso-uo-minimum uniformity lUio should not exceed 3: 1. in all parking faalitim6 consideration should be Wan to color rendition, uniformity of lighting and minimising stare. Users somciimca have trouble identi- fying their can under light stomas with poor color rendering characteristics. Unitermities leas than rec- ommended can detract from safety and security. Glare can affect the ability to perceive objew or obstructions clearly. in mmy parking facilities, closed-circuit television is deemed necessary. When the camen tube is specified, the lighting level, the type of light source, the distribu- tion palter of luminairea and the aiming of the earn - am mutt he rxmsidcrcd in order to cruurc effective results. From the standpoint of energy management, it tray be desirable to reduce the lighting levels in certain parking facilities during puriods of reduced activity. For example, during peak am, the high -activity lighting levels may be required. inuring inactive periods only security lighting will be necessary. Specisl Coadderut"M for Opm Facil am In open parking facilities, exits, entrances, loading zones, pedestrian cnxaings and collector lanes should be given spatial ansideratlon to permit ready identification and to cnluoce safety. Lighting tar outdoor pedestrian staitways MAY re- quire a huninaim on every landing with additional units in between If required for safety. It may be necessary to call attention to change& in elevation where steps are presenL Parking facilities for rest or rcenie areas adjacent to roadways generally employ lower illuminances. See the subsection an Rest Areas. Support poles should be located xn an not to be damaged by automobilcs being parked. The overhang of a Typical automobile is appm dmately 0.5-1.0 in (15-3.3 ft) in front, and 1.5 to (5 ft) in the rear. parking facilities. Damage can generally be reduced by mounting luminaires at least 3 m (10 ft) above grade. However, greater mounting heights are recommended. Special Consideration for Couuad Faeilil6x In cov- urcd parking facilities, vertical illuminances of objects P.07 773 such in columns and walls should be equal to the horizontal values given in figure 24-23. These vertical values should be for a location IS in (b ft) above the pavement. in covered parking facilities the design should be arranged so that suma lighting can be left on for security reasons. The law level from figure 24-23 for open parking facilities can be used for this purposes F.mergenry luminaires in covered packing facilities should be located so as to provide a minimum lighting level in case of an interruption to the normal power supply. In general, those units should provide apprasi. mately 10% of the levels in figure 24.23, or applicable local code requin:ments. Illuminated Roadway Signs' Motariw may ship or redubd speed at roadway signs that am difficult to read, and thus create a hawdous condition. Proper sign ligktins can aid rapid and accu- rate recogahion of the sign shape, color and mean". Lighting for rundway signs becomes more significant as: (1) volume of traffic increases, (2) complexity of highway- design incraases, (3) likelihood of adverse weather increases and (4) ambient luminance in- creases. Ambient l.unninance. The background l u tinence against which a sign will be viewed by a motorist is called its ambfnu hnuinam-e.'ilore: catogorios of ambi- eat hitnioance (high, medium and low) can be idend. fled: Higb: Areas with high street lighting ltmla and brightly lWed advertising signs Mediutm: Areas with small commercial develop - menu and lighted roadways and Interchanges Low: Rural areas without lighting or areas with very low levels of lighting High levels of ambient luminance can make sign light- ing mandatory in order to ensure sign legibility for decisive driver action. U9M Source Selection. Energy consumption is a ma- jor consideration that must he balanced by other far: - tors, such as color rendering, ambient temperature and maintenance. Selection should be based on efficacy and lamp life in addition to careful evaluation of color rendering abilities. Lighting must maintain the color rendering as close as practical to that seen under Illumination Recommandationa. There are three typal of lighted nigm errer=6 Lighted sipatr, internally tigbted signs, and hndinous source Otaxage Tka (where the message is formed by lamps). TMm I I u00 Light Trespass: Research, Results and Recommendations Suggedons for re&;= should 6e directed to the IM A. The LIGHTING Prepared by The Obtrusive Light Subcommittee of the AUTHORITY° IESNA Roadway Lighting Committee IESNA TM-1 1-2000 IESNA Technical Memorandum on Light Trespass: Research, Results and Recommendations Publication of this Technical Memorandum has been approved by the IESNA. Suggestions for revisions should be directed to the IESNA. Prepared by: The Obtrusive Light Subcommittee of the IESNA Roadway Lighting Committee Copyright 2000 by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. Approved by the IESNA Board of Directors, December 2, 2000, as a Transaction of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in any electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without prior written permission of the IESNA. Published by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America,120 Wall Street, Nowlbbrk, New York 10005. IESNA Standards and Guides are developed through committee consensus and produced by the IESNA Office in Newyork. Careful attention is given to style and accuracy. If any errors are noted in this document, please for- ward them to Rita Harrold, Director Educational and Technical Development, at the above address for verification and correction. The IESNA welcomes and urges feedback and comments. ISBN # 87995-1745 Printed in the United States of America. Prepared by the Obtrusive Light Oommittee of the IESNA Roadway Lighe Committee r Obtrusive Light SubCommittee William A. Hughes, Chair Bradford, RA. Canavan M.G. Kosiorek, A.S. Maftezos M Rowsell, E.C. Schiewe. N. Chapman, T.J. McCormick, J. Vogel, R.P. Cimino, V. McGowan, T.K.' Weight, V.H. Contos, P. Mickel, J.J. Crawford, D.L Monahan, D.R. Daiber, W. Monsoor, R.G. Edmonds, J.W. Morehead, W.E. Eslinger, GA. Oedwitz, C.A. Fairbanks, K. Okon, D.W. Roadway Lighting Committee John J. Mickel, Chair W. Adrian T. Fenimore" H.D. Mosley" A.P. Allegretto' D.H. Fox' K. Negash' B. Ananthanarayanan M. Freedman' H. Odle S.W. Annoh' D.G. Garner' CA. Oerkvilz J.B. Arens R. Gibbons" D.W. Okon . J.D. Armstrong A.S. Goal' J.L. Pimenta' J.A. Bastianpillai R.C. Gupta G,P. Robinson' J. Bodanis' R.L Hamm M.J. Robinson' P.C. Box G. Hadow' A.S. Rose R.A. Bradford J.M. Hart E.C. Rowsell J.J. Bumczynslki' GA. Hauser' RP Sabau K.A. Burkett T.S. Hester' NA. Schiewe J.C. Busser W.A. Hughes R.N. Schwab E, Cacique' D.E. Husby' B.L Shelby" M.G. Canavan M.S. Janoff A.D. Silbiger' V.F. Carney J.E. Jewell' J. Simard R.A. Catone' R. Kauffman' R.L. Shzema, Jr. T.J. Chapman' M.E. Keck" G.E. Smallwood B.T. Chau' D. Keith R.E. Stark D. Chaudhuri' A. Ketvirtis R. Stemprok' A.Cheng' A.S. Kosiorek' D.C. Strong' R.B. Chong J. Kroli' J.D.Turner' V. Cimino R. LeVere HA. Van Dusan R.D. Clear 1. Lewin R. Vincent R Contos C.H. Loch R.P. Vogel' C.W. Craig P.J. Lutkevich V.H. Weight D.L. Crawford' D. Mace J.D. Walters M.D. Crossland D.R. Macha' C.P. Watson C.L. Crouch" M. Maftezos J. Weaver' W. Daiber J. McCormick" S. Wegner' J.E. Degnan S.W. McKnight A. Williams' N. Dittman J.F. Meyers R.R. Wylie G. Duve' D.R. Monahan W.H. Edman'" R.G. Monsoor 'Advisory Member G.A. Eslinger W.E. Morehead' K. Fairbanks" E. Morel "Honorary Member Contents Introduction...................................................................... Background......................................•.................................1 1.Research Project...................................................................... 1.seminar and Surveys.................:................................................ 2. ught Sources and Brightness .......... l........................................... 3.TheExperimental Design ............................................................... 4.Test Results.........................................................................2 5.Analysis of Results...................................................................2 Recommendations it. Development of ........................................................ 1.Area Classifications ................................................................... 2.Curfew.............................................................................. 3. Quantitative Recommendations......................................•...................7 Summary of Recommendations...........................................................8 Non -curfew Recommendations............................................................8 Exceptions......... ....................8 ........................................... Conclusion............................................................................8 References............................................................................9 . IESNA TM-11-2000 ti Light Trespass: Research, Results and Recommendations This Technical Memorandum provides a brief descrip- tion of findings and references from a 1998 research project for measuring, determining and identifying tight trespass as a component of obtrusive light Information is included about a specific experiment conducted as part of this research project, which was intended to qqro vide Input about how individuals react to light trespdss. Recommendations are provided for measuring light trespass and developing guidelines on curlews for spe- cific environmental zones. Also included are references to written material used as a basis for the research pro- gram. The main body of the research may be found through the Lighting Research Office (LRO).' Since IIgM trespass is a complicated topic, TM-11 only begins to address the issues and is limited in its scope. Additional research is welcomed and needed. The information in TM-11 is useful for but not specific to roadway lighting. The results of the research have provided input for two IESNA publications, RR33, Lighting for Outdoor Environments,° and TM-10, Addressing Obfrusflre light (Urban Sky Glow and LlghtTmspass) in Conjunction with Roadway Ughbnga Background One of the most important, ongoing outdoor fighting Issues is unwanted light in the night-time environment, which may take numerous forms and result in various concerns. With the increasing awareness of orMron- mental issues of all types. it is important that lighting designers recognize the need to provide solutions for problems related to the general subject of "Light Trespass; or "Obtrusive Light° as it is sometimes called. Numerous local communities, cities, counties, and states have developed ordinances to control unwanted light These ordinances vary greatly, from simple to complex. They vary also in the aspects of lighting that they seek to control. There is no coordinated effort to create uniformity among the regulations since no cen- tral authority has developed guidelines to assist in their writing. This problem will be compounded with time as the number and diversity of ordinances increases. light trespass and development of meaningful ordi- nances would not be an easy task. "tight trespass, in '71e Ughft Research lm#kft M9 of NewMxk dweloped a probiem ebtamerd end smsdedaresearchwntra,d oUghfiN Sciences. Inc.. Swlbdale,Adz More delayed c rage about the deign of the experiments eM the research findirW canbe bind In Mal report e And pubfished by tiro Ughft Reseam hOMce (Uyo), suwessarto t: fact, had not been defined. It was generally accepted that many factors were involved, but these were not categorized and no numerical Information was avail- able to provide the basis for light trespass controls. A program of research was needed to define the para- mation so that the situation could be addressed. I. RESEARCH PROJECT 1. Seminar and Surveys A seminar and survey were organized to define the nature of fight trespass problems and rank the various sources of light trespass in accordance with their seri- ousness.The following questions were directed to the par icdpants: 1. What consfitutes light trespass? Spill light from street lighting? Ball field lighting? Residential lights? Sky glow? 2. Who is affected? What is the nature of the com- plaints? 3. Does light trespass constitute a safety problem or is it primarily aesthetically offensive? 4. What is the visual nature of fight trespass? Is ttye problem the offensive glare of bright lights, or Is it the illumination of areas that are preferred to be dark? 5. Can the problem be defined numerically? What measurable quantities should be considered? 6. How can acceptable levels of light trespass be specified and ordinances developed? What regula- tions are now in effect? Have they been successful? 7. Looking to the future, can a simple meter be devel- oped to check light trespass levels against ordi- nance specifications? The seminar and survey produced much valuable information to more clearly define light trespass. Data were produced which allowed the ranking of causes of light trespass and the issues on which to focus." 2- Light Sources and Brightness A program was developed to'investigate the charac- teristics of fight sources, which produce light trespass. Source brightness had been generally identified as being the principal characteristic to which persons objecL Spill light was seen as a less significant effect it was decided, therefore, to design experimentation source brightness and the degree to which the light source was found objectionable. Brightness is a difficult characteristic to investigate. It is the observed effect of the source's physical lumi- IESNA TMA 1-2000 • nance, and as such is related to the intensity of the retinal image. This in turn will be affected by chars} teristics of the observers eyes. The measurement of subjective brightness is not practical under the oondl- T used to realistically limit the luminaire appearance in a practical ordinance. It is thus logical to base the research on source lumi- nance, that Is, physical brightness, rather than observed or subjective brightness. The relationship between source luminance and the subjective bright- ness it produces is affected strongly by the level of ambient lighting. Meaningful research therefor6 can be conducted to relate source luminance to the observers reaction, if conducted under several differ- ent ambient levels. Recommendations must then be developed for these different ambient levels, and in doing so, the physical luminance of the source will be a realistic indicator of its subjective brightness. 3.The Experimental Design Observation experiments were planned in which human subjects from a variety of educational and vocational backgrounds would be presented with sev- eral different situations and tasks, in the presence of a test fixture. This test fixture consisted of a controlled source of light of known photometric Characteristics. By varying the location, size, and luminance of the test fixture, subjects would determine the degree to which the source was objectionable while conducting the var- ious tasks. A total of 30 observers were used in the actual experiments. Age ranged from 20 to 60 years. Fourteen male and 16 female observers were used. LlghBng Conditions and Tasks —Numerous situations were considered for conducting the experiments. Due to the number of possible permutations of visual task type, ambient lighting and task fixture condition and location, only a few carefully selected conditions could be tested. The selected conditions were: Observers in a room watching television. The test fixture was located outside a window to simulate a street light or floodlight. The interior lighting level was low, averaging 5.0 lux (0.5 fc). The distance from the observers to the light source was approx- imately 10m (32 fL). 2. Observers mingling In an exterior area with a low level of ambient lighting of just under 2lux (0.2 fc). lighting and distant street lighting. The test fixture was located peripheral to the area at a height of 3m (10 fL). The distance from the observers to the light source was approximately 15 meters (49 ft.) 3. Same condition as condition 2, butwith ambient illu- mination increased to approximately 20 lux (2 fc). In the exterior experiments, the test subjects were not instrurted to perform any particular task but to judge conditions on the basis of being located on a residen- tial property. As part of the development of the research program, a pilot study was run. This indicated that the appropd- ate range of interest was from 2000 to 7500 cdlsq.m (186 to 697 cdtsq. ft.). Accordingly all testing was run between these two limits, in steps of 500 cdlsq.m (46 cd/sq. tL) but In random order. 4.Test Results Results were converted to a numerical measure by assigning the following points to each response: 5 - Extremely objectionable 4 - Very objectionable 3 - Quite objectionable 2 - Slightly objectionable 1 - Not objectionable Points were analyzed for each experimental condition, both as the average for all observers and individually. For each individual tesf condition, there was a wide range of ratings assigned by the individual observers, as expected. In general, however, responses showed a range between observers of,2 to 3 points on the objectionable scats. ft was rare, for Instance, to find one observer judging a test condition to be "slightly objectionable" while another judged the condition to be "extremely objectionable' In order to handle the spread of results for a given test condition; an average score was calculated using the responses of all observers. This is termed "Objectionable•Rating" or OR. This rating, In theory, can vary from 1 to 5, although in practice, OR values tended to be concentrated between 2 and 5. Figure 1 presents the results of the indoor testing. Figure 2 presents equivalent data for the outdoor test conducted under low ambient conditions, while Figure3 gives the data and plots for the outdoor test for medium ambient conditions. (Note: In Figures 1, 2 and 3, small area is defined as 12 inches square, medium area as 18 inches square and large area as S. Analysis of Results General —Each of the three experiments indicates the same general trends, all of which appear to be logical. 2 , 5 45 n G 3.5 3 2.6 2 O 1.6 1 0.0 0 0 E 4.5 U Q 3.5 O i 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0 Indo"Task . IESNA TM-11-2000 X X X x X • x • A. ■ ■ ■Stne6Am • •MedNwn Nei Xl•rGe Ana 1000 2000 3000 • 40m MW einu 1u aw.. Luminance�cdlsq.m. Figure 1. Note: Small area =12 in. square; medium area =18 in. square; large area 241n.square Outdo"Task - Low Ambient • x ♦ x ■ x x ♦ ■ x ■ • ■Smdl Nee • Medium Area xLargeAr� 1000 2000 3000 40DO 5000 50m 70m e0uu Luminance cdlsq.m. Figure 2. Note : Small area =12 in. square; medium area =18 in. square; large area = 24 in. square 3 w iESNATM-11-2000 • • 4.5 2 1A 0.0 OutdoorTask - Medium Ambient x X X X ♦' ■ X • ■ ■Sm�Ara .. ♦Mo&Wn Ann xUw"Am 1000 2000 3000 4000 am am IWO soW Luminance cd/sq.m. Figure 8. Note: Small area =12 In. square; medium area =18 in. square; large area = 24 in. square Close examination of the data reveals significant insight into the relationship between the characteristics of the light source and the degree to which it is objectionable. As a broad summary, the data indicate the following: 1. For a given size of test fixture aperture, increasing luminance causes an increase in the OR, under otherwise identical test conditions. 2. For a constant luminance level, increasing the aperture size increases the OR, other factors being constant. 3. The ambient lighting level has a significant effect upon the OR. Distance —Due to the wide number of possible vari- ables in testing of this type, and the enormity of the task of evaluating all possible variables, each test was conducted at a fixed distance between the subjects and test light source. jects were asked to move away from the source to dis- tances of up to 150 m (480 it). They were then asked whether their rating of the source had changed. In vir- tually all cases, subjects indicated that the degree to which the light source was objectionable decreased as distance increased. This is logical: a source, which may be offensive at 10 m (33 ft.), may not be a prob- lem at 1 km (0.6 miles). This leads to a further conclusion: Test distance from the test fixture to the subject affects OR, with decreas- ing OR for increased distance. All of these general conclusions appear to be reason- able and unsurprising. it may almost be assumed from cursory examination that such results would Ibe obtained. A detailed analysis, however, reveals impor- tant Information about what causes negative reaction to unwanted sources of light. This in turn leads to the derivation of a quantitative basis by which such light trespass effects can be evaluated. Observer variability —Variability, among observers is normal in any subjective testing program. In the test- ing involved here subjects can vary greatly in emo- tional response. A particular source of light trespass under given conditions may be highly objectionable to one observer, who may feel strongly that extraneous ment. Another observer may such light trespass. Even given the wide spread of results for any parficu- lar test condition, the trends are strong and significant. 4 . IESNA TMA 1-2000 Considering the relationship between luminance and OR, the anticipated connection is found: Changing luminance is a major controlling factor in observer reactions. While the conclusion is obvious, the results do provide a quantifiable basis for the derivation of limits and recommendations for light trespass control. considered. Luminance and !!luminance --The area of the aper- ture, which exposed the test fixture luminance to the subjects, was found to be important. An observer pre- sented with a very large area of high luminance can be expected to find it more objectionable than a very small area of a similar luminance, which may noybe objectionable at all. This result, however, has consid- erable significance: It reveals that the observers do not simply read to the level of luminance but to a com- bination of luminance and source area. Considering this further, the assumption might be that the observers are reacting in fact to intensity, intensity being the product of luminance and area. Applying additional analysis will cause modification of this hypothesis. It has been noted that test distance has a significant effect upon the rating assigned by the subjects. The effect of test distance is that sub- jects react not simply to intensity, but to a combination of intensity and distance. A quantity, which combines these two factors, is illuminance at the eye. Increasing intensity increases the OR, while increasing distance reduces the OR. OR therefore behaves in a manner similar to the illuminance at the eye. it cannot be concluded with certainty that OR is relat- ed to intensity and distance in precisely the same way as illuminance. Because of the wide spread in the subjective ratings for a given condition, precise rela- tionships cannot and should not be derived. We do not know whether there is a linear relationship between OR and intensity, or whether OR follows the inverse square law as does illuminance. However, it can be argued that this is irrelevant, as OR is an arbitrary scale without absolute meaning. OR is derived and should be analyzed broadly, as a means of showing trends to be used to develop general conclusions. Such a conclusion, which appears reasonable from the data, is that illuminance at the eye is a useful mea- sure of the degree of light trespass. A further consideration is what form of illuminance is most reasonable to use as a measure of light tres- pass for a bright light source. illuminance may be cal - cal plane, or any sloped plane between the two. Further, a vertical or sloped plane may be oriented to face in any horizontal direction. The most logical plane upon which to evaluate Illumi- nance appears to be the plane perpendicular to the line of sight. This is one measure of light entering the eye, which of course, is the source of the light tres- pass problem. It is also well established that a prime factor in the evaluation of disability glare is the vertical trespass and disability glare are quantitatively identi- cal. There are separate variables that affect each of these. It appears quite reasonable, however, to assert that illuminance perpendicular to the line of sight is a significant factor which affects both. One further point requires consideration: Observers tend to view sources of light trespass by looking directly at them. Even when attention is away from the offending sources, the eyes look in a variety of differ- ent directions under most practical situations. Thus, there is an additional and uncontrolled variable, which is the angle between the line of sight and the offend- ing source. There is no definite basis for using any particular such angle in this analysis. The worst, and quite normal, situation is for the observer to view the offending source directly. It is therefore logical to use the illuminance at the eye on a plane perpendicular to the line of sight as a quantitative indicator of the amount of light trespass caused by the appearance of an offending source. This conclusion is seen as a sig- nificant result of the research project Single vs MuNple Luminalres—A fu rthe r factor, which must be addressed, is the presence in the field of view of multiple luminaires. Are light trespass limitations to be derived to apply to all luminaires, to each luminaire singly, or to particular groups of luminaires? The entire field of view may contain a large number of luminaires; for example an urban area may have street lights, parking lot luminaires, lighted signage and other neighborhood property lights. The aim of an ordinance is usually to control a particular lighting installation or luminaire on a specific property. It is not usually practi- cal under normal circumstances to control the entire nighttime scene. Thus, an ordinance cannot reason- ably apply to the entire array of all luminaires on all properties. In fad, numerous extraneous sources will create a general increase in nighttime brightness, which may mitigate the effect of a lighting installation on one particular property. This effect can be addressed under area classifications in an ordinance. The aim of an ordinance is to control excessive bright- ness from particular luminaires. If a single luminalre is as a whole could be objectionable. To provide proper control, therefore, an ordinance must logically be applied to individual luminaires. The recommenda- tions in this report have been developed on that basis. 5 IESNA TM-11-2000 . This conclusion is entirely consistent with methods used for establishing disability glare limitations, which, as noted earlier, appear to have some relationship td light trespass effects. plane perpendicular to the line of sight was stated ear- lier to apply to the viewer direc►ing the line of sight to the luminalre. if•this is now to be applied to a system, there are multiple lines of sight. How is the illuminance level to be calculated and measured? A difficulty in applying limitations to the light level pro- duced from a single luminalre is that sometimes 3here is more than one luminalre on a pole. If there. two luminaires on a pole, for instance, they are usually so dote together that the eye is essentially aimed at both luminaires together. Thus our limitations should logi- cally be applied to a group of luminaires on a pole. This approach has a further advantage: measurement of the light from such a group of luminaires is relative- ly simple, while measurement of individual luminaires contained in a group may not be. In any case, if a particular luminalre, or set of lumi- naires on a pole, appears to be the cause of a light trespass problem, the entire system could be checked by calculation or measurement. N. DEVELOPMENT OF RECOMMENDATIONS Data is available from the research work undertaken in this project, and from several other sources."' These provide a broad perspective in developing rec- ommendations. First, it is necessary to develop recommendations for area categories. The nature of the area, and the sen- sitivity, to light trespass, will strongly influence the light trespass control requirements. One method of exer- cising control may be to limit the hours of nighttime usage of lighting systems. The next step is to develop meaningful quantitative recommendations for the var- ious area categories. 1. Area Classifications The principles of area classification, which might be incorporated into an ordinance, must be logical, both to lighting personnel and others. The classification s stem must be simple so that there is minimum diffi- culty In determining the area category into Which a particular property falls. In addition, the system must be flexible enough to accommodate the concerns and preferences of widely diverse communities. ft In examining a system now under development by the international Commission on Illumination (CIE), it is apparent that considerable thought has been given to this subject in other countries. The CIE framework appears to fulfill the necessary objectives for applica- u__ ,_ ki_a6 A.,,e., 6 it nnnaars tocical to use the CIE system rather than developing a ferent set of area classifications Areas may be classified into a series of environmen- tal zones, based upon the extent to which control of light trespass is considered necessary or desirable. These are described as zones El, E2, E3, and E4, which are defined as follows: E1.Areas with intrinsically dark landscapes. Examples are national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, or residential areas where inhabitants have expressed a strong desire for strict limitation of light trespass. E2.Areas of low ambient brightness. These may be suburban and rural residential areas. Roadways may be lighted to typical residential standards. E3.Areas of medium ambient brightness. These will generally be urban residential areas. Roadway lighting will normally be to traffic route standards. E4.Areas of high ambient brightness. Normally this category will include dense urban areas with mixed residential and commercial use with a high level of nighttime activity. Utilizing four categories is probably sufficient for ordi- nances. if a lesser number were used, the categories would be too broad to serve their intended purpose. A greater number will produce unnecessary further complications. 2. Curfew Numerous ordinances, and also the CIE document°, refer to the use of curfews. As an example, floodlight- ing of neighborhood sports areas was found to be the most objectionable source of light trespass in this sur- vey. Yet, ff such lighting is to be allowed at all, even when well designed, it is likely to cause a trespass problem. Many existing ordinances therefore require that lighting of certain types be extinguished at a par- ticular hour. Establishment of curfews is a logical method to pro- __ 1____ situations, this may be the only way to satisfy conflict- ing requirements. The very nature of outdoor lighting and the desire by residents to have no sources of high brightness may be incompatible. A curfew may be the '7 • IESNATM-11-2000 only method of compromising the need and desire for outdoor fighting with its accompanying problematic effects. However, when considering application of a curfew, proper attention must be given to issues of safety and security. IESNA recommended practice few is in effect. Where a curfew is established, the local ordinance for pre -curfew hours can allow higher limitations for light trespass. During post -curfew hours, fighting which is non-esserdial, such as that of sports facilities, building floodlighting and outdoor advertising, cquld be extin- guished and much stricter limits can be providy'd in the ordinance. However, in areas and seasons where the morning commute starts before sunrise, curfews should be modified to allow outdoor retail and adver- tising lighting to be turned back on at high illuminance values during the time when traffic starts. For exam- ple, a curfew would start at midnight but end at 5:00 a.m. Climate too has an effect on the nighttime use of some sports facilities. For example it is often to hot during the summer to use tennis courts or ball fields during the day. Ordinances should be able to address these variations. 3. Quantitative Recommendations It has been detailed above that an ordinance should Incorporate a range of environmental areas and that four such categories have been proposed. Further, in each of the categories, pre -curfew and post -curfew light trespass levels can be set. Given these eight categories, recommendations must be developed for each. it is strongly emphasized, however, that no set of values will be totally satisfac- tory. As discussed, light trespass by its very nature is subjective and is affected by the personalities and desires of the persons involved. Recommendations can only be developed with the understanding that individual communities can change these to any extent required to fit local needs. At least, however, they do provide a framework for ordinances and sug- oesTde limitations based on this and other research. An ordinance with the intent of controlling every light source that is even slightly objectionable would result in virtually all outdoor lighting being disallowed and prove to be unduly restrictive given the needs which outdoor lighting must fulfill. The realistic aim of an ordinance should be to control lighting that is'Very objectionable" It is therefore proposed that the levels of eye illumi- nance to be recommended as a limitation should be those which prevent light trespass in the 'Very objeo- tionable" or "extremely objectionable" categories. Under curfew conditions, however the aim is to restrict lighting to the "not objectionable' or "slightly objection- able" categories. it should be re-emphasized that these recommenda- tions are suggested general guidelines. Actual ordi- nances should be developed by local authorities. Space does not permit a full discussion of the experi- mental results and their use in the derivation of rec- ommendations for the various environmental cate- godes. In general, however, recommendations for pre - curfew conditions were based on the light levels that produced an OR of roughly 4. For post -curfew, levels were derived for an OR value of 3 or less. Extrapolations were made from the collected data for situations not investigated in the research. More details are available in reference 1. Table 1. Recommended Light Trespass Limitations Environmental Zone Pre -Curfew Limitations* Post -Curfew Limitations* El 1.0 0.10 0.0 0.00 ** E2 3.0 0.30 1.0 0.10 E3 8.0 0.80 3.0 0.30 Lux (footcandles) values on a plane perpendicular to the line of sight to the luminalre (s)., "Where safety and security are issues, nighttime lighting is needed. Such lighting should meet IESNA recommendations for the particular property being lighted. Ughting should be designed, however, to minimize light trespass 7 'IESNATM-11-2000 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS few values can be applied. Under most circum- stances, values between the pre -curfew and post -cur- few levels are most logically applicable. A general point of importance needs to be made: Exceptions limited range of conditions. A test program, which would satisfactorily cover all of the widely ranging con- ditions present in light trespass, would be an enor- mous task. It is therefore emphasized that these con- clusions require review, and additional research is highly desirable. The need for users to view and mea- sure light trespass conditions before adopting any particular values for ordinances is extremely i0por- tant. However, it should be noted the levels'recom- mended in Table 1 are in the same general order as those contained in the references, including those from research conducted in Europe and Australia. Light levels are measured by observers within the Environmental Zone viewing area. NOTE: For best control, the recommendations in Table 1 apply to locations at the property line. These recommendations are developed on the basis of luminaires operating continuously during the applic- able period. Where luminaires are on for a short peri- od only, these recommendations should not be applied; for example, a luminalre which is on for a peri- od of 2 minutes, perhaps while occupants of a car dis- embark and enter a building. Similarly, these recommendations would not be applicable 9 a continuously operating light source is viewed only for a short period, perhaps while a view- er moves from one location to another. The principle behind the recommendations Is to prevent viewing of objectionable sources for long periods of time. It is believed that applying these recommendations will serve as an effective measure for reducing seri- ous light trespass. For reasons stated earlier, howev- er, they do not guarantee that no objections will occur, because of the nature of people and the problem. Non -curfew Recommendations The basis for the levels in Table 1 is the existence of two time periods —pre and post curfew. If a local authority having jurisdiction decides that application of a curfew is undesirable, unnecessary or unenforce- able, then any recommendation adopted will apply throughout the nighttime. Under these conditions, it is decide upon recommended levels. For non -curfew situations where light trespass is not seen as a significant problem, the pre -curfew limita- tions logically can be applied. Where light trespass is viewed as a critical local problem, the above post -cur - Certain situations may require lighting that cannot meet the above recommendations. Floodiighting of a ball field,. for example, produces large quantities of light trespass, even when luminaires are used which sharply reduce intensity above the beam. For such sit- uations, the ordinances may include an exception. This may be based on limited use and time -of -day restrictions in addition to normal curfew hours. Conclusion It was not the intention of the research to develop a model ordinance for widespread adoption, but rather to offer guidelines and a framework on which to devel- op an ordinance responsive to local conditions and viewpoints. Further general information on communi- ty responsive design may be found in IESN4-RP-33- 99, Lfghting for Exterior Environmentse Additional Information on lighting for sports facilities can be found in IESNA-RP-6.01, Sports LfghBn#' and for roadways in IESNA-RP-8-00, Roadway LighflnW4 A r References 1. Lewin, I. Light Trespass Research, EPRI Report Number: TR-114914, March 2000. Lighting Research Office of the Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI California. (1-800-313-3774, or askepri@gpd.com). 2. IESNA Outdoor Environmental Lighting Committee, IESNA RP-33-99, Lighting for Exterior Environments. New York: Illuminating Engineering Society of North American,1999. 3. Obtrusive Light Subcommittee of the IESNA Roadway Lighting Committee, TMA 0-99, Addrowng Obtrusive Light (Urban Sky Glow and Light Trespass) In Conjunction with Roadway Lighting. New York: Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, 1999. 4. Lewin, Ian. "Light Trespass: Problems and Direcctions" Lighting Design and Application, June 1992. Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, New York. 5. "Gulde on the Limitation of the Effects of Obtrusive Light from Outdoor Lighting Installations" Report of committee TC5.12 - Obtrusive Light Commission Internationale de I-Ecialrage, CIE, Vienna, Austria. 6. New Jersey Light Pollution Study Commission's Report Submitted to legislature April 1996. State of New Jersey. 7. "Economic Issues in Wasted and Inefficient Outdoor Lighting" Information sheet no.26. February 1990. International Dark Sky Association, Tucson, Arizona. 8. "A Statement on Astronomical Light Pollution and Light Trespass' Subcommittee on Light Trespass of the Roadway Lighting Committee of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. Publication no. OP-46.IESNA, New York. 9. "Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution."The Institution of Lighting Engineers,1994. Rugby, England. 10. Shafitk, Carl. "Light Pollution. Environmental Effects of Roadway Lighting' Technical Paper pre- pared for CIVL 582, Department of Civil Engineering, Untversity of British Columbia, Canada. 11. "Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting" Interim Australian Standard. Standards Australia, Homebush, NSW, Australia. . IESNA TM-11-2000 12. "Outdoor Lighting Manual for Vermont Municipalities" Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. May 1996: Essex Junction, Vermont 13. IESNA Sports Lighting Committee, IESNA RP-6- York: illuminating Engineering Society of North America., 2001. 14. IESNA Roadway Lighting Committee, ANSI/IESNA RP-8-00, Standard Practice on Roadway Lighting. Never brk: Illuminating Engineering Society of North America., 2000. Illuminating Engineering society of North America 120 Wall St.17th Floor $15.00 New York, NY 10006 Order # IESNATM-11-00 http://www.lasna.org ISBN # 0-87995-174-5 2220 NORTH UNIVERSITY DRIVO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660.3319 949.574.1325 FAX 949.574.1338 ARCHITECTURE AND INTERIOR GESIGN TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS CONFERENCE NOTES Project Name: Taylor & Associates Project No.: Meeting Date: HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN PLANNINGcIVED DEPABY RTAIFNT CITY OF NF1.A10^cT r,=A H AM OCT 2 g 2001 PM 71819110111112111 ZI31415 A Attendees: Jim Easley — FD&C, Hoag Hospital Jim Sinasek - City of Newport Beach Russ Givens - R.E. Wall & Associates Mike McLane — Taylor & Associates Architects Items Discussed: Parking Structure 100916111 10/19/01 at 6:30 p.m. The purpose of the meeting was to review the lighting modifications requested by the City of Newport Beach in regards to glare. Two modifications at the roof level were reviewed. • The first modification was to install light fixture baffles around each head of the parking lot light standards. Hoag had suggested this modification. Taylor & Associates and R.E. Wall noted that this option is not acceptable since it lowers the Code -required foot-candle level at the perimeter of the parking structure below 1-foot candle. If City of Newport Beach insisted on this approach then there would be a liability for the City and Hoag since the light level would not match the Code requirements. ■ The second modification was to install high-pressure sodium lamps in each of the parking lot pole heads. R.E. Wall noted that the high-pressure sodium lamps provide a warmer light source and also meet the code requirements for foot-candles at the perimeter of the parking deck. Jim Easley added that it would be acceptable to Hoag to replace the existing metal halide lamps with the high-pressure sodium lamps. 2. Two modifications on the wall -mounted accent lights at the elevator lobbies were reviewed. ■ The first modification was to install a light baffle across the center potion of the fixture. Taylor & Associates indicated that this was not aesthetically pleasing and therefore not the preferred option. ■ The second modification was to reduce the wattage,of the fixture. Jim Easley indicated that this would be acceptable to Hoag. Conference Notes 0 . HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN East Tower Parking Structure 10/19101 Page 2 3. Several modifications to the stairwell light fixtures were reviewed. ■ R.E. Wall noted that several modifications had been made such as having the lights reflector installed correctly oriented, using frosted bulbs and blacking out a portion of the interior reflector. Jim Easley indicated that this approach was acceptable to Hoag, 4. After reviewing each of the preferred modifications to the lights, the Parking Structure was reviewed from several locations, up to approximately 1/3 mile away. Jim Sinasek indicated that he felt the modifications made to the various light fixtures would be acceptable. He requested that Hoag have all of the fixtures modified accordingly and he felt "everything should be OK'. Once the fixtures are modified, Hoag will schedule a final sign -off meeting with Jim Sinasek. The above documents our understanding of items discussed in the above referenced meeting. Unless notice to the contraryis received, the notations will be considered acceptable and Taylor & Associates Architects will proceed with work based on these understandings, Any discrepancies should be brought to our attention within seven (7) workinh days. By: Mike McLane cc: Attendees Pete Foulke - Hoag Hospital Leif Thompson - FD&C, Hoag Hospital John VanderLans - McCarthy Construction Linda Taylor, Mick Cunningham — Taylor & Associates 1730cn29.doc 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659-1768 August 8, 2002 Mr. James Easley Project Manager, Facilities Design and Construction HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 FILE COPY RE: Visible Light Source at the Recently Completed Upper Campus Parking Structure Dear Mr. Easley: It has been brought to the attention of staff that there are visible light sources present on the recently completed parking structure on the upper campus. The visible light sources referred to here are the blue neon lights found on four (4) levels of the north elevation of the parking structure. The fact that the light sources are visible is in conflict with the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community (PC — 38) Development Criteria and District Regulations (please refer to Section E. — Lighting, found on page 17 of the regulations — copy attached). The visibility occurs due to the existing topography separating the parking structure from the nearby Hospital Road and Newport Boulevard intersection. The parking structure is effectively sitting atop a slope that is at a much higher finished grade than the neighboring intersection. When an individual looks up towards the north face of the parking structure, where the lights were installed, a portion of the light sources associated with the blue neon lighting are clearly visible. Granted, full use of the parking structure has been approved by the Building Department. However, the regulation remains in effect for all lighting installations on the entire campus. The City has determined that visibility only occurs when viewing the north elevation for the parking structure. Please contact staff as soon as possible in order to resolve this matter. If you should have any questions regarding the project or this letter, feel free to contact me at (949) 644-3209. Sincerely, dd M. Weber Associate Planner c: Code Enforcement Attachments: 1. Copy of Page 17 of the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community (PC — 38) Development Criteria and District Regulations. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach 0 Y 10% of the linear length of height zones A and B as viewed from the existing bicycle/pedestrian trail, exclusive of that area adjacent to the consolidated portion of the view park, shall be maintained as view corridors between buildings. These requirements may be altered for individual buildings, if requested by the hospital, through the site plan review proces& defined in Section IX. 3. There will be no building setbacks along the boundary with CalTrans east property at Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway. 4. A 20 foot setback from property line shall be provided along Newport Boulevard from Hospital Road to a point 600 feet south; a 25 foot setback from property line shall be provided along the remainder of Newport Boulevard and along the Newport Boulevard/West Coast Highway Interchange. 5. A ten (10) foot building setback from the property line shall be provided along Hospital Road. E. Li htin '�— The lighting systems shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. a x The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer. F. Roof Treatment Prior to the issuance of building permits; the project sponsor shall submit plans which illustrate that major mechanical equipment will not be located on the roof of any structure on the Lower Campus. Rather, such buildings will have clean rooftops. Minor rooftop equipment necessary for operating purposes will comply with all building height criteria, and shall be concealed and screened to blend into the building roof using materials compatible with roofing materials. G. 5-1 n� All signs shall be as specified under the Hoag Hospital Sign Program, Part VI. H. Parking All parking shall be as specified in Part V11t Hoag Hospital Parking Regulations. 17 May 26, IM Attachment No. 1 "1 0 • HOAG0 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian + { HOSPITAL One Hoag Drlve PO Box 6100 Newport Beach CA 92658-6100 949/645.8600 fib, 1 www.hoaghospaal.org 1 November 18, 2000 m REe0 Patricia Temple, Planning Director 9EIIN 6t 9 9 2000 City of Newport Beach M'rt , - ,,,H 3300 Newport Boulevard NN1NG DEPART 11 Newport Beach, CA 92658-1768 n RE: Lighting System — Upper Campus Visitors/Patients Parking Structure F } Dear Ms. Temple: On September 20, 2000, Hoag Hospital and its consultants met with Genia Garcia and Jim Sinacek to, discuss the approved lighting system for the Upper Campus Visitors/Patients Parking Structure that is currently under construction. The purpose of that meeting was to follow up on a letter sent by Hoag to the City on August 22, 2000 (copy enclosed). That letter detailed the lengthy process Hoag undertook to design a lighting system for the Upper Campus Visitors/Patients Parking Structure. It also reviewed the issues related to the Hoag Conference Center Parking Structure lighting system that arose after the plans were approved by the City, and, in fact, after the Hoag Conference Center Parking Structure was constructed. In order to eliminate requests by City staff to alter the approved lighting system in the Upper Campus Visitors/Patients Parking Structure after construction has been completed, an informal review of a full- sized lighting mock-up of one bay of the Upper Campus Visitors/Patients Parking Structure was completed by Jim Sinacek in July of this year (as discussed in the August 22, 2000, letter). At that time, Jim Sinacek expressed concerns that he would not be able to fully evaluate the lighting system's impacts until the Upper Campus Visitors/Patients Parking Structure was constructed. The Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Master Plan for Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian adopted in conjunction with the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report contains the following Mitigation Measure (No. 44) regarding lighting: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall submit plans to, and obtain the approval of plans from, the City Planning Department which detail the lighting system for all buildings and window systems for buildings on the western side of the Upper Campus. The systems shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his or her opinion, this requirement has been met. The Upper Campus Visitors/Patients Parking Structure that is currently under construction is located on the northeast comer of the Upper Campus, and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of Mitigation Measure No. 44. However, the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations (PCDCDR), that were adopted by the City Council on May 26, 1992, contain the following requirement with respect to lighting: The lighting systems shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light sources and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer. A NOT FOR PROFIT COMMUNITY HOSPITAL ACCREDITED BY THE JOINT COMMISSION ON ACCREDITATION OF HEALTHCARE ORGANIZATIONS On WMbLry, ImMOY1M� E Patricia Temple November 18, 2000 The lighting standard contained in the PCDCDR does not require that Hoag eliminate light spillage and glare. Rather, it requires that the lighting system be designed to minimize light spillage and glare. In order to comply with the PCDCDR's lighting requirement, Hoag Hospital undertook an extensive (and expensive) process to select lighting for the Upper Campus Visitors/Patients Parking Structure. At our September 20, 2000, meeting, City staff suggested that Hoag Hospital re-evaluate the photometric studies completed for the approved lighting system to determine whether it would be possible to change the selected paint in order to reduce potential glare impacts. Based on that request, Taylor and Associates, the project architect, met with the lighting consultant for the Upper Campus Visitors/Patients Parking Structure to review City staffs request. The lighting consultant subsequently re-evaluated the photometric studies and determined that the paint system could not be altered and still maintain required lighting levels. City staff also suggested that once Hoag had reviewed its photometric studies, that a meeting be scheduled with you to review both the approved plans and the findings from the re-evaluation of the photometric studies. Also, Hoag will be re -erecting the full-sized lighting mock-up of one bay of the Upper Campus Visitors/Patients Parking Structure, which I would like you to see. I will be contacting you within a week or so to schedule this meeting to review the lighting system for the Upper Campus Visitors/Patients Parking Structure. Sincerely, Leif Thompson, AIA Vice President Facilities Design and Construction Enclosure C: Mick Cunningham Jim Easley Genia Garcia Ped Mmetta Randy Regier - Jim Sinasek Filename: 1255.20.36.00-LETTE11 TO TEMPLE RE LIGHTING Page 2 HOiee Hoag Memoriam One Hoag Drive PO Box 6100 )r' HOSPITAL Newport Beach CA 92658-6100 Fr^a/\l/\ Phone 949/645-8600 Internet: www.hoag.org August 22, 2000 Genial Garda City of Newport Beady Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-1768 Subject: Permit Number Hoag Project Presbyterian 89906933 1255.20— East Parking Structure Regarding: Parking Structure Lighting, Mitigation Measure 44 Dear Genia: Taylor and Associates submitted plans for parking structure to be constructed on the North East comer of our property. A permit has been Issued and we are under construction. The illumination of the structure is very Important to Hoag; the structure will be the cornerstone of our front entrance and thousands of patients will navigate through this building when they use the hospital facilities. We have spent thousands of dollars designing.a lighting system that would meet the city requirements and the hospital special needs. I respectfully request that the city review our general•Ilghting plan and photometric studies for the project; provide:.written comments or approve the plan as designed before It is cast In concrete. Hoag recently • completed the ,Conference Center parking structure. During the design, Hoag's electrical engineer worked with lighting. 1 manufacWrers.to-select the,bestavallable fixture that would meet the city requirements; howevery during the final Inspection of the project,,,*, Ir, . we wereAlrected,by the city,tacmodify the designed lighting scheme to reducetlght spliling to.the.adjacent development. This process.ls• :,xi• very subjeNve.•, There was no measurable light projecting from our property.: A similar amountof light shines from adjacent developments-.:x on to•hospltal property. The light from the city streetlights is slgnificandy'brighter space. HGag.Was forced to spend thousands of dollars to r r« complywith themquest by Installing louvers over the lights, which decreased.their etOdency., Itt6ok weeks to special order the louvers; and •'.zJ: the building could not be occupied until they were installed. The result:mebthe city requirements, however, now I receive numerous, complaints frorn•our staff and community members who use the center. at night because the•levelds dimly lighted and does not feel safe/- • -I I , We beilevedhat we have found:a• better way to light the Interior of the newtstructure. We.studled several methods to conceal the light,,:' - source and.s011•provide sultable.safe and comfortable lighting levels. • We..ruled!out screensror.Aouvers on the outside of the building shell; : r because they.would create a "boxy" structure; instead, we designed an "openPotructure•that•has, been favorably received by city planners:,:.v, and coundlpersons. We ruled out standard fluorescent fixtures and,the. contemporary, fixtures that were rejected by the City in the Conference Center structure. We studied Indirect lighting and decided to paint the structure ceiling to create a very finished Interior and provide a,soR light trounce from a "state of the art" up -light fixture: uThe•selected fixture;ls�designed to conceal the light source and I'• - minimizes light spillage and glare. In order to avoid the previous fiasco, we requested that Jim Sinasek, City of Newport Beach Code Enforcement, provide an Informal review of a full size lighting mock-up of one bay of this structure. He reviewed the mock up and on July 17, 2000, he replied to Jim Easley, Hoag Project Manager, stating his concern that the ceiling is illuminated with some "hot spots" and Haag s neighbors may be upset with four levels of Illuminated ceilings shining in their eyes. He declined to provide further comment, because he would not be able to evaluate the light until the total structure is constructed and illuminated. I am sure you can understand our concern that any objections to the design that are raised after the project is complete, will be 3M costly to correcL We believe that the design exceeds the mitigation requirements and can be reviewed and approved prior to construction as noted in the measure. If our architects or I can be of help or provide additional Information, please call me. Thank you in advance for your consideration. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN Leif Th�-- Vice President Facilities Design and Construction LNT: k Cc Patricia Temple Adyanced Planning Manager, CRY or Newport Beach, Planning Department Jim Slnasek Code EnWcerrient, City of Newport Beady Code Enforcement Bob Bumham, City Attorney, Clty of Newport Beady City Attorneys Onxe Muck LLnnngham, Amclate/ Architect, Taylor hAssodates Architects Linda Taylor, Pmldent, Taylor h AssodatesArchlteds Pert Muretta, Environmental Consultant Pete Foulke, Eaeanhe vice President, Hoag Hospital File: 1255.20-36.00-CM IEMR RE LIGHTING A NON-PROFIT COMMUNITY HOSPITAL ACCREDITED BY THE JOINT COMMISSION ON ACCREDITATION OF HEALTHCARE ORGANIZATIONS Em "we""w.. ♦.."nwon RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF MFJhfPnMT nEAMi MEMORANDUM AM JUL 0 G N00 PM 71819110111,12,11216141516 DATE: July 5, 2000 TO: Janet Divan FROM: Peri Murett RE: Year 2000 Hoag Hospital Parking Survey Enclosed is detailed information gathered by Newport Traffic Studies based -on the campuswide parking survey conducted from May 31, 2000, through June 3, 2000. For ease of review, this information has been aggregated into two tables. These tables are: 1. Hoag Hospital Parking Analysis (July 2y 000) — This table summarizes the parking provided by Hoag Hospital by type of parking space (e.g., standard, accessible, etc.). The parking areas identified correspond to those shown on the parking graphics provided to you this spring. In addition to providing a summary of campuswide parking as of July 2000, the table also includes information on Hospital parking provided during 1998 and 1999. 2. Hose Hospital Parkine Occunancv Analvsis (5/31/00 — 6/3/00)—This table summarizes the average and peak utilization for each of Hoag's parking areas. The format of this table is the same as used to document previous parking surveys, so that you can compare the current occupancy rates with those of past years. For your information, the 325-space auxiliary lot adjacent to West Coast Highway and the new Hoag Conference Center is not counted in the supply of or demand for parking on Hoag's campus, as this auxiliary lot is currently being used as a staging area for campuswide development projects. It is my understanding that this information will be used by Linscott, Law and Greenspan as part of the Phase II Transportation Phasing Ordinance analysis they will soon be under contract with the City of Newport Beach to prepare. Please let me know if you need any additional information. Enclosures C: Trissa Allen, Linscott, Law and Greenspan Genia Garcia, City of Newport Beach (memo only) Randy Regier, Taylor and Associates Leif Thompson, Hoag Hospital 3 R E G A L O 0 R I V E M I S S I O N V I E J O. O A L I F O R N I A 9 2 6 9 2 9 4 9/ 6 8 8- 6 0 9 0 1 Z S 4 O 6 R Q P N M L K flu RRI 0 2.1 ,6 3.7 4.2 5.4 J 6.6 5.9 5.1 11 13 9.7 9.5 6.5 H o. 0.7 1.1 6A 5.4 4.6 0.5 0.7 1.0 11 1 G 05 0.7 to 0. 0.8 1.1 .5 0.8 1.1 as 8.4 6.4 o.� 0.8 1,1 F 6.0 5.4 4.8 SS 52 46 0.� 0.6 1.0 4.3 4.2 3.5 E 3. 2 11, D 1,0 1.4 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.4 2,3 2.3 2.3 2R 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3 2. 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.0 8 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.7 c i oo W o0 00 0 00 B 0o n(TvniFnleve o 005) A 7 1 4 5 6 7 R 9 1(1 1 1 19 11 14 15 16 17 1.1 1.4 1.9 2.6 2,5 .5 2.6 2. 2.4 2.8 2. .5 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.6 2S .6 8 2.7 22 1.9 2.1 ].5 2. 3.2 4.6 4.3 .I 4.1 4. 4.9 4.9 4.l .0 4.3 4.8 5.0 4.2 4.1 .4 9 4.8 3.7 2.8 3.6 3. 2.0 3. 4.8 7.3 6.5 .0 5.9 6. 7.6 7.4 5. .6 6.3 7.3 7.8 6.0 6.1 .7 7 7.7 6. 5.2 3.7 5.4 5.9 5. 2.3 3. 5.8 9,0 7.8 .0 7.0 8. 9.4 8.9 6. .6 7.8 9.1 9.6 7.0 7.3 .3 9. 8.1 6.1 4.2 6.4 7.2 6. 2.4 3.8 5.6 7.3 8.3 8.2 7.3 6.6 6.8 7.9 8.8 2 6,1 7.3 6. 6.5 7.5 BS B.8 7.8 6,7 6.4 7.0 7,7 7 6 7,3 5.8 .7 42 4,7 5.8 6,3 5. 2.3 3.3 4.5 5.5 6.3 6.3 5.7 5.5 5.8 6.3 6.8 .1 6.5 6.0 5. 5.7 6.1 6.6 6.8 6.3 5.8 5.6 5.8 6.0 6 6. 5.8 4.9 .3 4.0 4.2 4.6 4.6 4. 2.3 3.1 4.0 4.7 5.3 5.5 5.1 5.1 5.3 5.6 5.9 2 5.8 5.5 5. 5.3 5.4 5.8 5.9 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.1 5.3 7 5.0 4.6 .1 3.8 3.8 4.0 3.9 3. 2.3 3.3 4.4 5.3 6.3 6.4 5.9 5.7 7 5.8 6.2 6.8 .2 6.8 62 5. 5.7 6.0 6.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.7 5.7 5.9 6 6.6 5.9 5.1 .4 4,0 4.1 4.4 4.5 3. 2.5 3.8 5.4 7.1 8.4 8.5 7.6 6.9 6.8 7.8 8.7 .4 8.8 7.7 6. 6.6 7.3 8.4 9.2 8.2 7.1 6.5 6.8 7.6 6 8.7 7.7 6.1 .9 4.3 4.5 5.4 5.9 5. 2.6 4.0 6.0 8.1 9.7 9.7 8.6 7. 8.7 9 .6 9.6 8.3 7.1 7. 8.1 2 9.0 7.5 7.0 7.6 S. 8.5 .0 4.4 4.9 6.0 6.8 6. 2.4 3.7 5.4 7.0 8.2 8.2 7.3 6. 3 7.7 4 .9 B.2 7.2 6. 6. 7.2 6 7.8 6.8 6.4 6.8 7. 3 72 .8 ,7 4.1 4.5 5.4 5.8 S.l 2.2 3,0 4.1 5.0 5.7 .8 5.3 5. I 5.7 1 ,4 6,0 5,5 5. 5, 5.6 3 5.9 5.4 5.2 S.3 5. 5.4 6 .0 3.6 3.8 4.2 4.2 3. 1.9 2S 3.2 3.8 4.4 5 4.3 4. 4.6 9 .2 4,9 4.7 4, 4, 4,6 1 4.9 4.7 4.5 4.4 4, 9 4.4 ,6 3.3 3.2 3,3 32 2. 2.1 3.1 4.2 5.2 6.0 5.7 5. 3 6.0 6 A 6.6 6.1 5. 5. 5.9 0 6.4 5.8 5.5 Sb 6. 7 5.9 .2 3.7 3,8 4,3 4.4 3. 2.5 3.7 5.5 7.2 6.6 7.7 6. 7.9 9 S 8.8 7.8 6. 6. 7.6 4 6.4 7.1 6.6 7,1 B. 1 7.8 6. .8 42 4,5 5.5 62 5. 2.6 4.0 6.1 82 9.6 9.6 8.5 7, 8.8 9 0.6 9.6 6.3 7.1 7, 8.2 .1 8.9 7.4 7.0 7.6 8. 8 8.4 6.4 .0 4.4 4.9 61 6.8 6. 2.5 3.8 5.4 6.8 8.0 8.1 7.2 6.6 3 6.7 7.6 6.4 .8 8.0 7.2 6. 6.5 7.2 8.0 82 7.S 6.6 6.3 6.7 7.2 0 8.0 6.9 5.7 .7 4,2 4.5 5.3 5.6 4. 2.3 3.3 4.3 52 6.0 6.1 SS 5.4 5,7 6.7 6.4 .7 6.3 5.9 5. 5.6 5.8 6.2 G4 6.0 5.7 5.5 5.5 5.6 1 6.0 5.4 4.8 .2 3.9 4.0 4.3 42 3. 22 3.0 3.9 4.6 5.3 5�5 5.2 5.1 2 c � 5,5 5.8 .3 5.9 5.5 5. 5.2 5.4 5.7 6.0 5.8 5.5 5.2 5.1 52 7 5,5 5.2 4.6 .1 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.8 3. 2.2 3.2 4.4 5.6 6.6 6.7 6.2 5.8 7 5.8 6.3 6.9 .6 7.1 6.4 5. 5.7 6.2 6.7 7.4 6.9 6.1 5.8 5.8 62 9 6.9 62 5.3 .4 4.0 4.1 4.5 4.7 4. 2.4 3.6 5.4 7.2 BS 8.8 7.7 6.9 6.7 7,7 8,7 S 8.6 7b 6. 6.4 7.3 8.4 9.3 8.4 7.0 6.4 6.9 7.7 7 8.8 7.8 6.1 .8 4.2 4.6 5.7 6.3 5. a2.3 3. 5.6 9.0 7.9 .9 6.8 8.1 9.0 8.9 6. .4 7.4 8.5 9.3 6.9 6. 7.9 9 8.9 7. 6.0 q.l 6.0 0 2.0 3.1 4.6 6.9 6.2 .6 5.7 6. 7.2 6.8 5. .4 6.0 6.7 7.1 5.6 5. 5. 62 9 6,8 5. 4.8 3.5 4.9 1.5 2. 3.t 4.2 3.9 .7 3.9 4. 4.6 4.3 3. .8 4.0 4.3 4.4 3.8 3. 3.7 3.9 3 42 3. 32 2.6 32 3. Lunlnalre Schedule Pro ect� Pro ect_1 Label. Description _ Lunens LLF Total Watts Rty C I Elllptlpnr M452-i50MH 113500 10.72 r70 _ 36 Lunlnnlre Location Summary Pro ect� Pro ect_1 SegNo Label X Y Z Orlent Tllt 1 C 82.75 160 9 160 120 2 C 82.75 130 9 t80 120 3 C 236,75 160 9 tea 120 4 C 85.25 160 9 0 120 5 C 85.25 130 9 0 120 6 C 119 160 9 t80 120 7 C 119 130 9 180 120 8 C 121.5 160 9 0 120 9 C 121.5 130 9 0 120 10 C 155.5 159.75 9 180 120 11 C 155.5 129.75 9 160 120 12 C 156 159.75 9 0 120 13 C 158 129.75 9 0 120 14 C 191.25 159.75 9 180 120 IS C 191.25 129.75 9 180 120 16 C 193.75 159.75 9 0 120 17 C 193.75 129J5 9 0 120 18 C 23725 129.75 9 180 120 19 C 82.75 66 9 180 120 20 c 82.75 96 9 160 120 21 C 236.75 66 9 180 120 22 C 85.25 66 9 0 120 23 C 8525 96 9 0 120 24 C 119 66 9 180 120 25 C 119 96 9 180 120 26 C 121.5 66 9 0 120 27 C 121.5 96 9 0 120 28 C 155.5 66.25 9 180 120 29 C 155.5 96.25 9 180 120 30 C 158 6625 9 0 120 31 C 156 96.25 9 0 120 32 C 191.25 66.25 9 180 120 33 C 19125 96.25 9 I80 120 34 C 193.75 66.25 9 0 120 35 C 193.75 96.25 9 0 120 36 C 237.25 9625 9 160 120 Numeric Summary Pro ect� Pro ect_1 Lnbel Av Max Min Avg/Min /MIn Max/Min PARKING 5.03 10.7 0,3 16,77 35,67 F � G F n tv I K H G ARRF�T��� i r^ * � No. C23842 � * J'Jq 'PFN 4-'So�0 RE WALL dt • 2842 Walnut Ave., Ste. A - ASSOCIATES Tustin, CA 92780 INCORPORATED FAX 714-544-4762 I 714-544-2783 Registered Electrical Engineers Copyright 1999 'This is the property of RE W011 &Assoc. Inc.' and shall not be utilized without written consent of R.E. Wall k Assoc. Inc. TAYLO R & ASSOCIATES 2220 NORTH UNIVERSITY DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 949.574.1325 FAX 949.574.1338 ARCHITECTURE AND INTERIOR DESIGN PROJECT: SPITAL PRESBYTERIAN HOAG MEMORIAL HO t HOAQ DRNE, NEWPOR'f BEACH, CA, 92658-6100 PARKING STRUCTURE SHEET TITLE: PHOTOMETRIC STUDY TYPICAL LEVELS 1 THRU 5 AGENCY APPROVALS: RECEIVED APR 2 1 2600 T YLOR & ASSOC. ARCHITEC11 PROJECT NUMBER: ` nao.>o PROTECT ARCHRECT: R REGER e DRAWN BY: FEW � B m AGENCY SUBMITTAL DATE: 1124.99 4� ISSUED FOR BIDS: >f.2a.99 U W d ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION: w o' a s SGA`US' a � d SHEEP NUMBER: c A E-1.4 0 s E O i I I L 1, Y I J I p I 1 p 1 J I I I , r I IL I I IN go -AIIIIIII RE g■ 1l■ ]■ an DN 11 0.37 0.43 0.49 0.56 0.61 0.6 49 0.73. 'O.12=0,72.. '0:35' b.80 0.75 0.74 0.70 0.66 0.62 0.63 0.68 0.72 0.75 0.7 . .71 0.63 0.59 0.52 0.46 0.40 0.34 0.75 1 86 0.98 1.09 1.14 1.04 1. 1.03 1.05 15 1.23 1.15 1.11 1.03 0. 6 0.87 2 1.00 07 1.14 1.19 � 1.2 1.08 1.04 .01 1. 3 1.02 1 1.15 02 0.91 0.79 0.6(a 8 OS4 i 1.11 31 1.50 1.71 1.77 1.63 1. 1.48 1.56 71 1.84 1.70 1.5 1.49 L 1.22 1.43 56 1.65 1.80 ' 1.79 1.62 1.5 A 1, I9 1.57 1.79 58 1.39 1.19 1.00 n 4 0.80 1.57 98 2.30 2.5 2.7 2.57 2. 1 2.18 2.37 11.56 2.67 2.43 2.2U 2.07 1. 1.79 g 2.01 U20 2.38 2.56 65 2.46 2,2 2.fl] 2.47 7 2.73 .39 2.11 1.72 11 .3 \ 1 5 1.19 u� \I 2.14 2.71 347 3.5 3.85 3.69 3.41 3.12 3.15 3.38 3.61 3.58 3.24 2.98 2.72 2.55 2.54 2.56 2,64 2.87 3.14 3.43 3 3.47 3.25 3.26 3.58 3.84 3.76 3.32 2.92 2.37 1.85 1. �� 0.98 1.43 1.83 2.14 2.46 2.70 2.93 3.60 4.20 4.7 5.10 5.10 4.89 4.54 4.59 4.70 4.69 4.60 4.12 3.70 3.46 3.48 3.70 3.56 3.36 3.60 3.92 4.43 4. 4.71 4.64 4.78 5.04 5.10 4.98 4.45 3.85 3.21 2.79 2.54 2.26 1.95 1.61 1.18 7 4.00 4.29 4.76 5.34 5.6 6.20 6.35 6.68 6.32 6.25 5.96 5.53 5.28 4.60 4.21 4.05 4.69 5.05 4.91 4.33 4.11 4.42 4.95 5. 5.73 6.30 6.52 6.50 6.23 5.99 5.49 5.02 4.34 4,14 3 IA2 DN 1.77 2.53 3.55 4.76 552 5.94 6.44 6.78 6.8 7.23 7.66 7.87 8.06 7.53 6.92 6.24 5.67 5.04 4.51 4.80 5.60 5.98 5.78 5.12 4.43 4.80 5.45 6,02 6.65 7.27 7 7.95 7.77 7.40 6.93 6.79 6.62 6.11 5.69 5,16 4.03 2.90 2.03 1.44 1.87 2.83 4.24 0.71 7.08 7.35 8.02 8.70 8.81 9.01 9.55 9.69 9.55 9.07 8.27 7.51 6.94 6.20 5.34 5.55 6.14 6.65 6.49 5.71 5.37 5.84 6.61 .15 8.04 8.78 9.66 9.58 926 8.95 8.98 8.30 7.55 7.21 6 JJjjJ�II 1.48 2.08 3.13 4.60 6.08 7.62 9.33 10.4 11.5 121 13.2a 12.9 1 12.5 N 10.4 0.5 9.98 8.53 7. 7.23 7 V 7.27 10 7.37 .13 7.83 9.4 • .4 2. 4 12.4 13.2 13.1 12.2 10.7 9.71 8.38 6.60 5.22 3.64 a.p0 1.69 2.61 3.60 4.97 6.64 8.25 10.6 12.3 14.8 18.1 .4 18.0 1 1 15.8 7 14.2 4.9 14.8 11.9 9.51 9.20 9 11 9.51 9 2 9.14 1.29 10.9 13.6 ,6 4. 5.5 Is 9 17.1 19.2 16.1 12.9 11.4 9.19 7 �O�6 9 4.06 3.0 2.12 302 4.07 5.42 7.03 9.21 11.9 14.9 19.4 24.i 1 23.5 1 18.4 5 17.8 8.9 19.0 15.7 121 10.7 11 10.1 11 10.4 1.5 14.4 18.0 1 , 8.1 J113 22.2 25.4 212 16.4 13.1 10.3 7.73 6.06 4.54 3.44 2.42 3.25 4.41 5.46 6.99 9.64 13.5 18.4 24.3 30. 3 27.6 19.9 0 20.0 2.5 22,8 19.0 14, 11.4 1 9.29 9 10.8 11 172 21.7 • 23. 2 . 9. 3 25.3 30. 31.8 26.7 20.8 15.3 11.1 7.74 5.97 4.79 'a9 2.59 7 9.47 13.8 19.9 25.9 19. d4.3 L11.5 I e 1 .1 28.6 22.5 16.0 11.1 7.61 5.94 4.98 3.85 2.74 318 4.30 5.48 7.07 9.82 13.0 17.3 22.6 27.1 7 26.4 a 19.6 11 8 19.4 12 21.4 18.0 13. 11.3 1 9.70 11 10.8 2.6 16.3 20.3 al. 2012 1 . 19.0 2 •9 24.3 Y229.3 24.8 19.2 14.5 11.1 7.87 6.07 4.72 3.60 2.53 2 8.85 11.3 13.5 17.2 21. 2 21.2 1 17.5 5 16.3 7.4 17.6 14.2 11. 10.2 10.1 9.97 0.6 12.8 16.3 17, 16.8 1 17.1 0 20.0 3.2 19.0 14.5 12.2 9.88 7.51 5.93 4.38 t2 2.33 2.40 3.37 4.73 6.38 7.77 10.1 11.6 13A 151 15.8 1 . 14.3 3 12.7 U3.1 12.7 10.5 8. 8.41 8.50 7 8.39 .38 9.59 11.8 13. 12.8 1 14.1 3 15.1 DI 6.5 14.4 12.1 1018 8.77 6 1.95 H H U t.94 3.0 4 8 7.52 8.54 9.42 10.4 11.1 11.3 11.3 11.2 11.1 10.5 9.51 9.11 8.61 7.47 6.41 6.47 6.99 6.97 6.92 6.62 6.39 6.90 8.13 8.92 9.33 10.1 11.0 11.3 11.2 11.4 11.3 11.0 9.75 8.83 8.28 J JjrIj`I 1.53 1.83 2.70 3.97 5.47 6.46 6.68 7.31 7.78 7.7 8.05 8.69 8.71 8.86 8.35 7.67 6.82 6.13 5.59 4.89 5.13 5.87 6.49 6.15 5.39 4.86 5.32 5.92 6.48 7.40 7.93 8.73 9.86 8.79 8.31 7.80 7.87 7.47 6.96 6.60 6.05 4.52 3.20 13 1.47 1.76 2.37 3.28 4.20 4.99 5.29 5.77 6.16 6.2 6.73 7.08 7.47 7.43 7.20 6.51 5.90 5.41 4.81 4.41 4.56 5.36 5.58 5.60 4.94 4.37 4.57 5.19 5.73 6.25 6.97 7.33 755 7.22 6.87 .43 6.23 5.96 5.48 5.10 4.1.99 1.42 UP 1l1Ijjjj 1.58 2.05 2.53 3.03 3.44 3.66 4.22 4.85 5.3 5.76 5.87 5.99 5.49 5.63 5.51 5.22 5.05 4.45 4.05 3.81 4.20 4.57 4.38 3.92 3.94 4.27 4.77 5.18 5.36 5.66 5.42 5.86 5.96 5.78 5.62 5.06 4.49 3.79 3.56 3.24 2.72 2.27 15 1.32 1.32 1.67 1.92 2.10 2.29 2.58 325 3.79 42 4.57 4.52 4.28 3.86 3.98 4.13 4.24 4.18 3.78 3.45 3.17 3.06 3.13 3.13 3.05 3.35 3.63 4.02 4.25 4.20 4.06 3.82 4,14 4.42 4.57 4.47 3.99 3.50 2.85 2.36 218 2.03 1.76 1.50 1.10 E000O 1.02 1.24 1.45 1. r 1.57 0 2.42 .78 3.1Z 3.40 3.1 2.94 2 2.71 4 3.14 .18 2.89 2.69 2.4 2.28 2 2.22 9 2.60 .81 3.04 3.24 3.0 2.82 2. 2.80 3.10 3.31 0 2.91 2.10 1.62 53 1.46 1.34 1.10 0.90 11 113 7 168 94 221 231 21 193 1 187 2 1 2.18 .33 2.11 1.97 1.8 1.63 1 1.55 5 1.92 .06 2.23 227 2.0 1.89 128 1.90 2.07 2.23 4 2.03 .7 1.49 1.21 9 1.01 0. 0.80 1. 5 1.11 27 1.41 1.49 1.3 1.29 1. 1 1.29 1. 3 1.46 .Se 1.46 1.38 1.21 1.17 1 Z 1.12 4 1.36 .42 1.53 1.53 1.31 1.30 12 1.28 1.31 1.42 1 1.33 1.17 1.01 0.86 N 72 0.68 0,E 0.55 JR3 0.73 .82 0.9 0.94 O.8U 0.88 0 0.90 1 0.97 1.03 0.97 0.94 0.8 U 0.82 0 14 0.80 0 6 0.92 0.98 1.01 1.01 0.9u 0.90 0.9 0.88 0.67 0.91 5 0 �.77 0.67�0.58 0 0 0.43 �.58 0.60 0.57 0.56 0.58 0.52 0.49 0.44 0.39 0.34 0.28 LUMINAIRE LOCATION SUMMARY -------------------------- COORDINATES IN FEET LUMINAIRE AIMING COORDINATES NO. LABEL X_COORD Y_COORD-Z_COORD- -- ------- ORIENT - X Y Z I C 84 119 18 90 -TILT 0 -------------------- 84 119 O 2 C 84 119 18 270 0 84 119 0 3 C 120 119 18 90 0 120 119 0 4 C 120 119 18 270 0 120 119 0 5 C 174 119 18 90 0 174 119 0 6 C 174 119 18 270 0 174 119 0 7 C 210 119 IS 90 0 210 119 0 8 C 210 119 18 270 0 210 119 0 9 C 84 119 18 ISO 0 84 119 0 10 C 210 t19 18 0 0 210 119 0 C, TOTAL NUMBER OF LOCATIONS 10 AVERAGE TILTED LAMP CORRECTION FACTOR APPLIED = 1 PLANE 1 PARKING ------------------ POINT SPACING LEFT -TO -RIGHT - 5 ft POINT SPACING TOP -TO -BOTTOM = 5 ft LOWER LEFTHAND CORNER OF PLANE. X=36 Y=48 Z = 0 UPPER RIGHTHAND CORNER OF PLANE, X=263 Y= 185 Z = 0 LIGHT METER IS NORMAL TO PLANE AVERAGE fc = 6,48 MAXIMUM fc = 34 MINIMUM fc = ,28 AVERAGE/MINIMUM = 23.14 MAXIMUM/MINIMUM = 121. 43 TOTAL NUMBER OF POINTS = 1164 R.E. WALL & 7 2842 Walnut Ave., Ste. A ASSOCIATES Tustin, CA 92780 INCORPORATED FAX 714-544-4762 714-544-2783 Registered Dectricd Engineers Copyright 1999 "This is the property of R.E. Wall & Assoc. Inc.' and shall not be utilized without written consent of R.E. Wall & Assoc. Inc. v �pNOY RF�¢� TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES * No. C23842 * 2220 NORTH UNIVERSITY DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 .p o, �Q 949.574,1325 FAX 949.574.1338 0,9T FN 4�30i t�� ARCHITECTURE AND INTERIOR DESIGN PROJECT: HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN 1 i 1GAG a�vE NEwPORr eEAcw CA, 92658-stoo F V F r n L k H G I RR IVED PARKING STRUCTURE APtn( 21 200 SHEET TITLE: LEVEL 6 PHOTOMETRIC STUDY AGENCY APPROVALS: OR & ASS X ARCHITECTS C v' PROJECT NUMBER: 1M.10 m 6 PROJECT ARCHITECT: R RIEGER r fi DRAWN BY: REW B `> AGENCY SUBMRTAL DATE: 124.99 ISSUED FOR BIDS: 112499 U W ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION: LU Ci o4a SCALE: 1/s• - r-o• Of 1 d A c A 2 SHEET NUMBER E1.5 0 S I 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 110 11 12 1 13 1 14 15 1 16 17 0-1 November 29, 1999 Genia Garcia, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RE: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian — East Addition Parking Structure Dear Ms Garcia: The Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the East Addition Parking Structure contains a number of mitigation measures for which the standard of compliance is that the grading and/or building plans include information to demonstrate compliance. Each of these mitigation measures is listed below, and the sheet reference(s) for the grading or building plans, as applicable is provided. 1. Mitigation Measure #2 — Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project sponsor shall submit documentation to the City of Newport Beach Building Department confirming that all cut slopes shall be monitored for potential instabilities by the project geotechnical engineer during all site grading and construction activities and strictly monitor the slopes in accordance with the documentation. Compliance: Refer to City of Newport Beach Building and Safety Department Civil Engineering drawings, Title Sheet, Sheet #1 of 7, for confirmation that cut slopes will be monitored during construction by the project geotechnical engineer. 2. Mitigation Measure # 9 — Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project sponsor shall ensure that a construction erosion control plan is submitted to and approved by the City of Newport Beach that is consistent with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance and includes procedures to minimize potential impacts of silt, debris, dust and other water pollutants. These procedures may include: the replanting of exposed slopes within 30 days after grading or as required by the City Engineer; the use of sandbags to slow the velocity of or divert stormflows; the limiting of grading to the non -rainy season. The project sponsor shall strictly adhere to the approved construction erosion control plan and compliance shall be monitored on an on -going basis by the Newport Beach Building Department. Compliance: Refer to City of Newport Beach Building and Safety Department Civil Engineering drawings, Erosion Control Plan; Sheet # 7 of 7 for erosion control measures. 3. Mitigation Measures #29 — The project shall comply with the City of Newport Beach Transportation Demand Management Ordinance approved by the City Council pursuant to the County's Congestion Management Plan. (Note: Mitigation Measure # 38, which is also applicable, identifies specific provisions of the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance). Com In 'ante: See Architectural Plans, Sheet # T-1, Parking Tabulations, for compliance with Ordinance 91-16 (Transportation Demand Management Ordinance). 3 R E G A L O D R I V E M I S S I O N V I E J O. C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 6 9 2 9 4 9/ 5 8 8. 6 0 9 0 Genia Garcia East Addition Parking Structure November 29, 1999 4. Mitigation Measure # 33 — Prior to the issuance of precise grading permits -for the phase of Master Plan development that includes new, or modifications to existing, internal roadways (other than service roads), the project sponsor will prepare an internal circulation plan for submittal to and approval by the Director of Public Works that identifies all feasible measures to eliminate internal traffic congestion and facilitates ingress and egress to the site. All feasible measures identified lin this study shall be incorporated into the site plan. Compliaric : Refer to City of Newport Beach Building and Safety Department Civil Engineering drawings, Phase I Precise Grading/Demolition Plan (Sheet # 4 of 7) and Phase II Precise Grading/Demolition Plan (Sheet #5 of 7) for internal circulation plan. 5. Mitigation Measure # 37 — Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits for each phase of development, the project proponent shall provide evidence for verification by the Planning Department that energy efficient lighting has been incorporated into the project design. Complianic: Title 24 energy conservation requirements are not applicable to the East Addition Parking Structure as there is no occupied space. 6. Mitigation Measure # 45 — Prior to issuance of building permit, the project sponsor shall submit plans to the City Planning Department which illustrate that all mechanical equipment and hash areas will be screened from public streets, alleys and adjoining properties. Compliance: See Architectural Plans, Sheet # A-2 and # A-2.1, and Mechanical Plans # M-2 and # M-3 which demonstrates that mechanical equipment has been screened. There are no trash areas associated with the East Addition Parking Structure. 7. Mitigation Measure # 82 —Before the issuance of building permits, the Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the Building Department, City of Newport Beach, demonstrating compliance with all applicable District Rules, including Rule 402, Public Nuisance, and Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. Corn lip ance: Refer to City of Newport Beach Building and Safety Department Civil Engineering drawings, Sheet #1 of 7 for documentation regarding the South•Coast Air Quality Management District's Rules 402 and 403. 8. Mitigation Measure # 88 — The project sponsor shall submit plans to the City Building Department prior to the issuance of a building permit for each phase of development, verifying that energy efficiency will be achieved by incorporating appropriate technologies and systems into future structures, which may include: High efficiency cooling/absorption units; thermal storage and ceramic cooling towers; cogeneration capabilities; high efficiency water heaters; energy efficient glazing systems; appropriate off -hour heating/cooling/lighting controls; time clocks and photovoltaic cells for lighting controls; efficient insulation systems; light colored roof and building exteriors; PL lighting and fluorescent lighting systems; motion detector lighting controls; natural interior lighting (skylights, clerestories); and solar orientation, earth berming and landscaping. Corn lin ance: Title 24 energy conservation requirements are not applicable to the East Addition Parking Structure as there is no occupied space. Page 2 Il Genia Garcia East Addition Parking Structure November 29, 1999 9. Mitigation Measure # 89 — The project sponsor shall demonstrate to the City Building Department that methods and materials which minimize VOC emissions have been employed where practical, available and where value engineering allows it to be feasible. Compliance: Refer to Project Manual Sections 07110, 07180, 07181, 07190, 07270, 07900 and 09900 for references to the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 1113, Architectural Coatings. 10. Mitigation Measure # 91 —Prior to issuance of grading permits, emergency fire access to the site shall be approved by the City Public Works and Fire Departments. Com liance: Refer to City of Newport Beach Public Works Department, Civil Engineering Improvement Plans, Sheets #1 of 5 through #5 of 5 for emergency fire access during construction and for permanent emergency fire access to the East Addition Parking Structure. 11. Mitigation Measure # 94 — Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project sponsor shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City Fire Department, that all buildings shall be equipped with fire suppression systems. _Cmwlian : Refer.to City of Newport Beach Public Works Department Improvement Plan — Fire Service Plan, Sheet #2 of 5; Plumbing Floor Plan — Level 1, Sheet # P-2.0; and, Fire Protection drawings, Sheets # FP-1 through # FP-7 for documentation regarding fire suppression systems. 12. Mitigation Measure # 95 — Prior to issuance of building permits, the project sponsor shall demonstrate to the City Fire Department that all existing and new access roads surrounding the project site shall be designated as fire lanes, and no parking shall be permitted unless the accessway meets minimum width requirements of the Public Works and Fire Departments. Parallel parking on one side may be permitted if the road is a minimum 32 feet in width. Complianc : See Site Plan, Sheet # A-1.1 for compliance with Fire Department roadway access requirements. 13. Mitigation Measure # 100 — The project sponsor shall ensure that all cut material is disposed of at either an environmentally cleared development site or a certified landfill. Also, all material exported off site shall be disposed of at an environmentally cleared development site or a certified landfill. Compliance: Refer to City of Newport Beach Building and Safety Department Civil Engineering drawings, Title Sheet, Sheet #1 of 7 for requirement that materials imported/exported be disposed of in accordance with mitigation measure. 14. Mitigation Measure # 106 — Project sponsor shall ensure that all project related grading shall be performed in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance which contains procedures and requirements relative to dust control, erosion and siltation control, noise and other grading related activities. Compliance: Refer to City of Newport Beach Building and Safety Department Civil Engineering drawings, Title Sheet, Sheet #1 of 7 for compliance with the Newport Beach Grading Ordinance. Page 3 Genia Garcia East Addition Parking Structure November 29, 1999 • If you have any questions related to Hoag Hospital's compliance with the above -referenced mitigation measures for the East Addition Parking Structure, please let me know. ncerely, 4er'MMunrePa7�tft C: Leif Thompson, Hoag Hospital Randy Regier, Taylor and Associates Page 4 V L ✓ HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULICS STUDIES for Hoag Hospital Parking Structure & E. Wing Addition Newport Beach, CA Prepared for: Taylor & Associates 2220 UniversityDrive #200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 574-1325 Prepared by: THE KEITH COMPANIES 2955 Red Hill Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 540-0800 Nov. 18,1999 J.N. 13456.000 This Hydrology and Hydraulics Report has been prepared for a 3.9-acre portion of the Hoag Hospital Campus located at the southwest corner of Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road. The current site condition is fully developed. Phase I of the proposed ' development will entail demolition of an existing single story building to be replaced with a multiple story parking structure. Phase 11 will construct a multiple story medical facility attached to the existing hospital. ' The proposed on -site storm drain system is an extension of existing 24" RCP along Newport Boulevard. The existing drainage area tributary to the off -site connection point will remain the same. I I I I I I I! 0 L II JA13456000\662833 Hydro Hydmdoc LOCATION MAP II 1 11 L.J 11 11 11 I Orange County Rational Hydrology Program (Hydrology Manual Date(s) October 1986 & November 1996) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software, (c) 1989-1997 Version 5.2 --------Rational Hydrology Study, Date: 11/18/99 File Name: hoagi.roc ---------------------------------------------------- �'---- The Keith Companies, Costa Mesa, CA - SIN 702 ------------------------------------------- ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** Rational hydrology study storm event year is 25.0 Decimal fraction of study above 2000 ft., 600M 0.0000 English Units Used for input data i +++++++++++++++++++++77++++++++00+++0++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++ Process from Point/Station 10.000 to Point/Station 11.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** COMMERCIAL subarea type Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00 Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fm)= Initial subarea data: Initial area flow distance = 220.000(Ft.) Top (of initial area) elevation = 81.420(Ft.) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 77.270(Ft.) Difference in elevation = 4.150(Ft.) Slope = 0.01886 s(%)= 1.89 TC = k(0.304)*[(length"3)/(elevation change)]"0.2 Initial area time of concentration = 5.817 min. Rainfall intensity = 4.428(In/Hr) for a 25.0 Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) Subarea runoff = 0.956(CFS) Total initial stream area = 0.241(Ac.) Pervious area fraction = 0.100 Initial area Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr) 0.020(ln/Hr) year storm is C = 0.896 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 11.000 to Point/Station 12.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) **** Upstream point/station elevation = 71.940(Ft.) Downstream point/station elevation = 71.170(Ft.) Pipe length = 154.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.011 No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 0.956(CFS) Given pipe size = 12.00(In.) Calculated individual pipe flow = 0.956(CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe = 4.68(In.) Flow top width inside pipe = 11.70(In.) Critical Depth = 4.92(In.) Pipe flow velocity = 3.38(Ft/s) Travel time through pipe = 0.76 min. Time of concentration (TC) = 6.58 min. ++++++++++t++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 12.000 to Point/Station 12.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Rainfall intensity = 4.130(In Hr) for a 25.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00 Pervious ratio(AP) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.020(In/Hr) Time of concentration = 6.58 min. Rainfall intensity = 4.130(In/Hr) for a 25.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.896 Subarea runoff = 0.150(CFS) for 0.058(Ac.) Total runoff = 1.106(CFS) Total area = 0.30(Ac.) Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr) Process from Point/Station 12.000 to Point/Station 12.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Rainfall intensity = 4.130(In Hr) for a 25.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00 Pervious ratio(AP) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.020(In/Hr) Time of concentration = 6.58 min. Rainfall intensity = 4.130(ln/Hr) for a 25.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.896 Subarea runoff = 0.607(CFS) for 0.164(Ac.) Total runoff = 1.713(CFS) Total area = 0.46(Ac.) Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr) Process from Point/Station 12.000 to Point/Station 13.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) **** Upstream point station elevation = 70.350(Ft.) Downstream point/station elevation = 66.830(Ft.) Pipe length = 21.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013 No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 1.713(CFS) Given pipe size = 18.00(In.) Calculated individual pipe flow 1.713(CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe = 2.45(In.) Flow top width inside pipe = 12.35(In.) Critical Depth = 5.89(In.) I 11 I I 11 I I Pipe flow velocity = 11.85(Ft/s) Travel time through pipe = 0.03 min. ' Time of concentration (TC) = 6.61 min. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ' Process from Point/Station 13.000 to Point/Station 13.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Rainfall intensity = 4.120(In/Hr) for a 25.0 year storm PARK subarea Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00 Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.8500 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.170(In/Hr) Time of concentration = 6.61 min. Rainfall intensity = 4.120(In/Hr) for a 25.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.891 Subarea runoff = 0.273(CFS) for 0.078(Ac.) ' Total runoff = 1.986(CFS) Total area = 0.54(Ac.) Area averaged Fm value = 0.042(In/Hr) L II u 11 Process from Point/Station 13.000 to Point/Station 14.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) **** Upstream point/station elevation = 66.830(Ft.) Downstream point/station elevation = 52.790(Ft.) Pipe length = 83.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013 No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 1.986(CFS) Given pipe size = 18.00(In.) Calculated individual pipe flow = 1.986(CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe = 2.63(In.) Flow top width inside pipe = 12.71(In.) Critical Depth = 6.37(In.) Pipe flow velocity = 12.42(Ft/s) Travel time through pipe = 0.11 min. Time of concentration (TC) = 6.72 min. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 14.000 to Point/Station 14.00.0 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION '**** Rainfall intensity = 4.081(In Hr) for a 25.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00 Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.020(In/Hr) Time of concentration = 6.72 min. Rainfall intensity = 4.081(In/Hr) for a 25.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.894 Subarea runoff = 4.345(CFS) for 1.194(Ac.) Total runoff = 6.331(CFS) Total area = 1.74(Ac.) Area averaged Fm value = 0.027(In/Hr) .tt+ttkt+++++-Ftt.....+++tkt+tk+t..... h..........+.....4..........t++4+ Process from Point/Station 14.000 to Point/Station 14.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Rainfall intensity = 4.081(In Hr) for a 25.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type Decimal fraction soil group A. = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00 Pervious ratio(AP) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.020(In/Hr) Time of concentration = 6.72 min. Rainfall intensity = 4.081(ln/Hr) for a 25.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.894 Subarea runoff = 1.232(CFS) for 0.337(Ac.) Total runoff = 7.562(CFS) Total area = 2.07(Ac.) Area averaged Fm value = 0.026(ln/Hr) Process from Point/Station 14.000 to Point/Station 15.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) **** Upstream point/station elevation = 52.500(Ft.) Downstream point/station elevation = 49.870(Ft.) Pipe length = 45.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013 No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 7.562(CFS) Given pipe size = 18.00(In.) Calculated individual pipe flow = 7.562(CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe = 6.73(in.) Flow top width inside pipe = 17.42(In.) Critical Depth = 12.78(in.) Pipe flow velocity = 12.54(Ft/s) Travel time through pipe = 0.06 min. Time of concentration (TC) = 6.78 min. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++k+ Process from Point/Station 15.000 to Point/Station 15.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Rainfall intensity = 4.061(In Hr) for a 25.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00 Pervious ratio(AP) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.020(In/Fir) Time of concentration = 6.78 min. Rainfall intensity = 4.061(In/Hr) for a 25.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.895 Subarea runoff = 1.369(CFS) for 0.387(Ac.) Total runoff = 8.932(CFS) Total area = 2.46(Ac.) ' Area averaged Fm value = 0.025(In/Hr) Process from Point/Station 15.000 to Point/Station 16.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) **** Upstream point/station elevation = 49.870(Ft.) Downstream point/station elevation = 48.340(Ft.) Pipe length = 27.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013 ' No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 8.932(CFS) Given pipe size = 18.00(In.) Calculated individual pipe flow = 8.932(CFS) ' Normal flow depth in pipe = 7.44(In.) Flow top width inside pipe = 17.73(In.) Critical Depth = 13.88(In.) Pipe flow velocity = 12.97(Ft/s) Travel time through pipe = 0.03 min. Time of concentration (TC) = 6.81 min. 11 1 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 16.000 to Point/Station 16.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Rainfall intensity = 4.049(In/Hr) for a 25.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00 Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.020(In/Hr) Time of concentration = 6.81 min. Rainfall intensity = 4.049(In/Hr) for a 25.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.895 Subarea runoff = 0.931(CFS) for 0.264(Ac.) Total runoff = 9.863(CFS) Total area = 2.72(Ac.) Area averaged Fm value = 0.024(In/Hr) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 16.000 to Point/Station 16.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Rainfall intensity = 4.049(In/Hr) for a 25.0 year storm PARK subarea Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00 Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.8500 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.170(In/Hr) Time of concentration = 6.81 min. Rainfall intensity = 4.049(In/Hr) for a 25.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.894 Subarea runoff = 0.237(CFS) for 0.068(Ac.) Total runoff = 10.100(CFS) Total area = 2.79(Ac.) Area averaged Fm value = 0.028(In/Hr) Process from Point/Station 16.000 to Point/Station 17.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) **** Upstream point station elevation = 48.310(Ft.) Downstream point/station elevation = 48.020(Ft.) Pipe length = 58.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013 No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow - 10.100(CFS) Given pipe size = 24.00(In.) Calculated individual pipe flow = 10.100(CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe = 13.83(In.) Flow top width inside pipe = 23.72(In.) Critical Depth = 13.65(In.) Pipe flow velocity = 5.38(Ft/s) Travel time through pipe = 0.18 min. Time of concentration (TC) = 6.99 min. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++f+++++++++++*+++*+++++++ Process from Point/Station 17.000 to Point/Station 17.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Rainfall intensity = 3.990(In Hr) for a 25.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0,000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00 Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.020(In/Hr) Time of concentration = 6.99 min. Rainfall intensity = 3.990(ln/Hr) for a 25.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.894 Subarea runoff = 1.559(CFS) for 0.478(Ac.) Total runoff = 11.659(CFS) Total area = 3.27(Ac.) Area averaged Fm value = 0.027(In/Hr) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++t+++++++++++++.++++++t+++++++++f++++++ Process from Point/Station 17.000 to Point/Station 17.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Rainfall intensity = 3.990(In Hr) for a 25.0 year storm PARK subarea Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00 Pervious ratio(AP) = 0.8500 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.170(In/Hr) Time of concentration = 6.99 min. Rainfall intensity = 3.990(In/Hr) for a 25.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.893 J L I I I r Subarea runoff 0.378(CFS) for 0.110(Ac.) Total runoff = 12.038(CFS) Total area = 3.38(Ac.) ' Area averaged Fm value = 0.031(In/Hr) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ' Process from Point/Station 17.000 to Point/Station 18.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) **** ' Upstream point station elevation = 48.020(Ft.) Downstream point/station elevation = 47.740(Ft.) Pipe length = 56.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013 No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 12.038(CFS) Given pipe size = 24.00(In.) Calculated individual pipe flow 12.038(CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe = 15.54(In.) ' Flow top width inside pipe = 22.93(In.) Critical Depth = 14.94(In.) Pipe flow velocity = 5.59(Ft/s) Travel time through pipe = 0.17 min. Time of concentration (TC) = 7.16 min. '++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 18.000 to Point/Station 18.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** ' Rainfall intensity = 3.937(In Hr) for a 25.0 year storm PARK subarea Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 ' SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00 Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.8500 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.170(In/Hr) Time of concentration = 7.16 min. Rainfall intensity = 3.937(In/Hr) for a 25.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.892 Subarea runoff = 0.185(CFS) for 0.102(Ac.) Total runoff = 12.222(CFS) Total area = 3.48(Ac.) Area averaged Fm value = 0.035(In/Hr) Process from Point/Station 18.000 to Point/Station 19.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) **** ' Upstream point station elevation = 47.740(Ft.) Downstream point/station elevation = 47.680(Ft.) Pipe length = 13.50(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013 No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 12.222(CFS) Given pipe size = 24.00(In.) ' Calculated individual pipe flow = 12.222(CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe = 16.38(In.) Flow top width inside pipe = 22.34(In.) ' Critical Depth = 15.08(In.) Pipe flow velocity = 5.35(Ft/s) Travel time through pipe = 0.04 min. Time of concentration '(TC) = 7.20 min. ......++.+++++++++++++++.....++++t+++++++.+.++++++++++++++++++++++++++ , Process from Point/Station 19.000 to Point/Station 19.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Rainfall intensity = 3.924(In Hr) for a 25.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00 Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.020(In/Hr) Time of Concentration = 7.20 min. Rainfall intensity = 3.924(In/Hr) for a 25.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.892 Subarea runoff = 0.409(CFS) for 0.128(Ac,) Total runoff = 12.631(CFS) Total area = 3.61(Ac.) Area averaged Fm value = 0.035(ln/Hr) Process from Point/Station 19.000 to Point/Station 20.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) **** Upstream point station elevation = 47.200(Ft.) Downstream point/station elevation 44.150(Ft.) Pipe length = 32.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013 No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 12.631(CFS) Given pipe size = 24.00(In.) Calculated individual pipe flow = 12.631(CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe = 6.91(In.) Flow top width inside pipe = 21.74(In.) Critical Depth = 15.34(in.) Pipe flow velocity = 16.87(Ft/s) Travel time through pipe = 0.03 min. Time of concentration (TC) = 7.23 min, 7 u L I 1 I �J ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++......++++++++++++++t+ Process from Point/Station 20.000 to Point/Station 21.000 ' **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) **** Upstream point station elevation = 43.400(Ft.) Downstream point/station elevation = 42.850(Ft.) Pipe length = 110.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013 No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 12.631(CFS) Given pipe size = 24.00(In.) Calculated individual pipe flow = 12.631(CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe = 16.08(In.) Flow top width inside pipe = 22.57(In.) Critical Depth = 15.34(In.) Pipe flow velocity = 5.64(Ft/s) Travel time through pipe = 0.32 min. Time of concentration (TC) = 7.56 min. �I ++++++++.f++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++.....+++++++++++ 1 i 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 rI i 1 1 1 i 1-1 i Process from Point/Station 21.000 to Point/Station 21.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Rainfall intensity = 3.818(In Hr) for a 25.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00 Pervious ratio(AP) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.020(In/Hr) Time of concentration = 7.56 min. Rainfall intensity = 3.818(In/Hr) for a 25.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.892 Subarea runoff = 0.736(CFS) for 0.316(Ac.) Total runoff = 13.368(CFS) Total area = 3.93(Ac.) Area averaged Fm value = 0.034(In/Hr) End of computations, total study area = 3.93 (Ac.) The following figures may be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area. Note: These figures do not consider reduced effective area effects caused by confluences in.the rational equation. Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 0.168 Area averaged SCS curve number = 75.0 1 THE KEITH COMPANIES Plannina • Enaineerina - Environmental Services • Land Surveying • Public Works • Water Resources • Cultural Resources r I I I p i I ' i -O.ZGFS - --------------- --• - - "' --:--�/.2r,F, - -�- '--cB+v.�iGry -= - a2 /9Li5 -- - --- ��-- c ` -c 6.2LGS - - 1 ■I ■ Job No. Calculated by ' Date Sheet of 2955 Red Hill Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714)540-0800 C. B. I Curs' 0 P E N I N G (SUAlP) Given: (a) Discharge Q l,{OF CFS (b) Curb type "A-2" "D" 4" Rolled 6" Rolled 46, Tf 7yick �E�s Solution: cSi7''MAX.1^0/5'N6 ¢" p li (depth at opening) = inches h (height of opening) inches From Chart: C1 /f4 of nnonins = O. / d+12 /o 8 6 4 3 i 2 7.5 .6 7 �0.y- y s.s � •s .-din � o .o .3 r i' v ¢ b z f�lipl%/ �, 3.514 i' I't . / q .�' r .08 a •� .zs 3 � .ob ` .3 c o o .04 0 .25 2.5 `O .03 C r 0 e i .02 0 O � V ./s L i /Surf.<e W.+ar Nl H Curb _ Jl •loco/ 9ePrassron (oJ l r /•2 Bureou cJ ?i.rl'.� F. rods -30- TABLE L. Frei e�r?eo fe.- eoeoc..01. cf ar�b ccei••.-o ram'/e•'s a/ /on' �'c•^•s HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE L n 1 t «««««««««««««««««««»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»> (C) Copyright 1982,1986 Advanced Engineering Software AAES6 Especially prepared for: KEITH «««««««««««««««««««»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»> «««««««««««««««««««»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»> Advanced Engineering Software AAESo SERIAL No. F1721 VER. 2.3C RELEASE DATE: 2/20/86 F «««««««««««««««««««»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»> PjZAtit Ll LLi »»PIPEFLOW HYDRAULIC INPUT INFORMATION«« --------------------------------------------------------------------------- PIPE DIAMETER(FEET) = 2.000 PIPE SLOPE(FEET/FEET) = 0.0050 PIPEFLOW(CFS) = 13.40 MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR'= 0.014000 CRITICAL -DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION: CRITICAL DEPTH(FEET) = 1.32 CRITICAL FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 2.195 CRITICAL FLOW TOP-WIDTH(FEET) = 1.897 CRITICAL FLOW PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 237.52 CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.1105 CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 0.58 CRITICAL FLOW HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 1.16 CRITICAL FLOW SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 1.90 -------------- NORMAL-DEPTH FLOW INFORMAT . NORMAL DEPTH(FEET) = 1.49 FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET = 2.50 FLOW TOP WIDTH(FEET) - 1.748 FLOW PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 242.90 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.352 FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 0.445 HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 1.43 FROUDE NUMBER = 0.788 SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 1.93 1 ' LOS ANGELES COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT STORM DRAIN ANALYSIS EDP JOB R4412 DATE 18-NOV-9 PROJECT Hoag Extension PAGE 1 DESIGNER Vince Hoag.storm ' LINE Q D W ON DC FLOW SF -FULL V 1 V 2 FL 1 FL 2 HG 1 HG 2 D 1 D 2 TW TW NO (CFS) (IN)(IN) (FT) (FT) TYPE (FT/FT) (FPS), (FPS) (FT) (Fr) __ CALC (FT) (FT) CALC CK REMARKS ' 1 HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE CONTROL ( = 43.89 - d9 bj Z ilv+ � Y�`ir� I?5.33 2 13.4 24 0 1.49 1.31 PART 0.00407 5.3 422..44'0'f"42.85 43.89 44.34 1.49 1.49 0.00 0.00 X - 0.00 X(N) = 89.51 3 12.6 24 0 1.41 1.27 PART 0.00360 4.5 9.5 42.85 43.40 44.51 44.28 1.66 0.88 0.00 0.00 HYD JUMP ' X = 0.00 X(N) = 0.00 X(J) = 77.13 F(J) = 3.66 O(BJ) - 1.07 D(AJ) - 1.51 4 12.6 24 0 0.60 1.27 PART 0.00360 13.8 9.4 44.15 47.20 44.81 48.08 0.66 0.88 0.00 0.00 ' 5 12.2 24 0 1.36 1.25 PART 0.00337 5.9 5.6 47.68 47.75 48.93, 49.07 1.25 1.32 0.00 0.OD 6 12.0 24 0 1.36 1.24 PART 0.00326 5.0 5.2 47.75 48.03 49.17 49.41 1.42 1.38 0.00 0.00 7 10.1 24 0 1.22 1.13 PART 0,01211 3.5 12.1 48.03 48.31 49.73 48.93 1.70 0:61 0.01 0.00 HYD JUMP ' X - 0.00 X(N) = 0.00 X(J) = 26.78 F(J) = 3.15 D(BJ) - 0.79 D(AJ) = 1.60 8 8.9 18 0 0.64 1.15 PART 0.00833 10.8 8.7 48.34 49.87 49.05 50.71 0.71 0.84 0.00 0.00 9 7.6 18 0 0.59 1.07 PART 0.00607 11.0 5.7 49.87 52.50 50.49 53.57 0.62 1.07 0.00 0.00 ' 10 2.0 18 0 0.23 0.53 PART 0.00042 1.2 9.4 52.79 66.80 54.11 67.07 1.32 0.27 0.00 0.00 HYD JUMP X - 0.00 X(N) = 20.15 X(J) = 1.34 F(J) = 0.75 D(BJ) = 0.23 D(AJ) = 1.08 11 1.7 18 0 0.21 0.49 PART 0.00030 11.4 6.7 66.80 70.35 67.01 70.65 0.21 0.30 0.00 0.00 ' X = 0.00 X(N) = 8.19 12 1.0 12 0 0.40 0.42 PART 0.00056 3.4 3.2 71.17 71.94 71.57 72.36 0.40 0.42 72.55 0.00 X - 0.00 X(N) = 149.10 S 77.27it.- 5 HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE CONTROL = 48.51 l 13 0.4 18 0 0.08 0.23 PART 0.00002 10.5 2.3 48.18 72.13 48.26 72.36 0.08 0.23 72.46 0.00 ' X - 0.00 X(N) = 4.88 ' 8 HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE CONTROL = 48.99 "A�']„" 14 1.2 12 0 0.11 0.46 PART 0.00081 16.1 3.4 48.84 73.56 48.99 74.02 0.15 0.46 74.24 0.00 X = 0.00 X(N) = 8.04 ' �3 7%3�6TL 10 HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE CONTROL = 53.84 ' 15 4.3 18 0 0.28 0.79 PART 0.00194 18.2 4.5 52.77 61.89 53.06 62.68 0.29 0.79 63.07 0.00 X = 0.00 X(N) = 25.99 12 HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE CONTROL = 71.11 16 0.8 12 0 0.21 0.37 PART 0.00036 6.3 3.0 71.17 71.90 71.39 n I I 72.27 0.22 0.37 72.44 0.00 I ' V 1, FL 1, D 1 AND HG 1 REFER TO DOWNSTREAM END V 2, FL 2, D 2 AND HG 2 REFER TO UPSTREAM END X - DISTANCE IN FEET FROM DOWNSTREAM END TO POINT WHERE HG INTERSECTS SOFFIT IN SEAL CONDITION X(N) - DISTANCE IN FEET FROM DOWNSTREAM END TO POINT WHERE WATER SURFACE REACHES NORMAL DEPTH BY EITHER DRAWDOWN OR BACKWATER X(J) - DISTANCE IN FEET FROM DOWNSTREAM END TO POINT WHERE HYDRAULIC JUMP OCCURS IN LINE F(J) - THE COMPUTED FORCE AT THE HYDRAULIC JUMP O(BJ) - DEPTH OF WATER BEFORE THE HYDRAULIC JUMP (UPSTREAM SIDE) D(AJ) - DEPTH OF WATER AFTER THE HYDRAULIC JUMP (DOWNSTREAM SIDE) SEAL INDICATES FLOW CHANGES FROM PART TO FULL OR FROM FULL TO PART HYO JUMP INDICATES THAT FLOW CHANGES FROM SUPERCRITICAL TO SUBCRITICAL THROUGH A HYDRAULIC JUMP HJ 0 UJT INDICATES THAT HYDRAULIC JUMP OCCURS AT THE JUNCTION AT THE UPSTREAM END OF THE LINE HJ B DJT INDICATES THAT HYDRAULIC JUMP OCCURS AT THE JUNCTION AT THE DOWNSTREAM END OF THE LINE ' EOJ u H KEITH ENGINEERING, INC. STORM BRAIN ANALYSIS EDP JOB R4412 (INPUT) DATE 18-NOV-9 PROJECT Hoag Extension PAGE 1 DESIGNER Vince Hoag.storm CD L2 MAX Q ADJ Q LENGTH FL 1 FL 2 CTL/7Y 0 H S KJ KE KM LC Ll L3 L4 Al A3 A4 J N 8 1 43.89 2 2 13.4 13.4 90.00 42.40 42.85 0.00 24. 0. 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 3 0 0 0. 0. 0. 0.00 0.014 2 3 12.6 12.6 110.00 42.85 43.40 0.00 24. 0. 3 0.00 0.00 0.05 0 4 0 0 55. 0. 0. 5.00 0.014 2 4 12.6 12.6 31.57 44.15 47.20 0.00 24. 0. 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 S 13 0 S. 73. 0. 5.00 0.014 2 5 12.2 12.2 13.35 47.68 47.75 0.00 24. 0. 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 6 0 0 0. 0. 0. 0.00 0.014 2 6 12.0 12.0 55.98 47.75 48.03 0.00 24. 0. 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7 0 0 0. 0. 0. 0.00 0.014 2 7 10.1 10.1 57.59 48.03 48.31 0.00 24. 0. 3 0.00 0.00 0.05 0 8 14 0 2. 42. 0. 5.00 0.014 2 8 8.9 8.9 26.52 48.34 49.87 0.00 18. 0. 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 9 0 0 0. 0. 0. 0.00 0.014 2 9 7.6 7.6 45.48 49.87 52.50 0.00 18. 0. 3 0.00 0.00 0.05 0 10 15 0 0. 80. 0. 5.00 0.014 2 10 2.0 2.0 83.11 52.79 66.80 0.00 18. 0. 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 11 0 0 0. 0. 0. 0.00 0.014 2 11 1.7 1.7 20.89 66.80 70.35 0.00 18. 0. 3 0.00 0.00 0.05 0 12 16 0 0. 54. 0. 5.00 0.014 2 12 1.0 1.0 154.22 71.17 71.94 0.00 12. 0. 1 0.00 0.20 0.00 0 0 0 0 0. 0. 0. 0.00 0.011 2 13 0.4 0.4 56.14 48.18 72.13 0.00 18. 0. 1 0.00 0.20 0.00 5 0 0 0 0. 0. 0. 0.00 0.014 2 14 1.2 1.2 20.09 48.84 73.56 0.00 12. 0. 1 0.00 0.20 0.00 8 0 0 0 0. 0. 0. 0.00 0.011 2 15 4.3 4.3 26.59 52.77 61.89 0.00 18. 0. 1 0.00 0.20 0.00 10 0 0 0 0. 0. 0. 0.00 0.014 2 16 0.8 0.8 20.59 71.17 71.90 0.00 12. 0. 1 0.00 0.20 0.00 12 0 0 0 0. 0. 0. 0.00 0.011 u II 91 II „v r „ r 3' r - - it iyt ;f- 24 E. 14 s: g• 12' 8' COURTYARD ORIGINAL BUILDING F F NO TES: M TNLs swnoN OF sEweR NOT FBD vauFR'D Tsuchiyama & Kaino Consulting Mechanical Engineers 17877 Von Kaman Avenue, Slate 100 Irvine, CA 92614 PH (949)756.0565 0 FAX (949)756.0927 \ 8- \ 11 U - e- 24* ,a _ — o t6F T b 1 r4! L i EMERENCY GENERATOR LBILDIN R , e,m.olNc POWER PLAN. 4' �l 1; , L�,i�� 8• 8' / 4' \ O4' \ \ \ \ \ f 12' ,of 1-7=17�-,�.� .�. - - -_ - ., �`-`.,(�-J_.(-ALL 111 i-'�`_(_i' 4-1-1_J�1.I.I I I' I I I I k ..\V/ \\\W1 U It= Ali / I CaAL m CENNTTEER ( IN UTA M TUNNEL) I r offZIA - n. 12' WRSING TOW - 1 n 24' a caRolAc !.r SERVICES !1 ORIGINAL BUYU)ING 8' SOUTH ENTRANCE 12' ^ 8" AND LOBBY r r r / F 8 e /� 24' , r • ,r !/ F !1 ,r 8' � I \\� 12' , _ e m e a■ e e s e - , f - it I mmmmp%W_ i 12' ' EUP-il NOTES: DI . THIS SECTION OF sEwm NOT mDvemm Tsuchiyama & Kaino Co stA ft Mechanical Engineers 17877 Von Kaman Avenue, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92614 PH (949)756-0565 0 FAX (949)756.0927 O m PHASE I DEVELOPMENT EASE( TOWER 40,583 SQ. FT, DEMOLITION 277,295 SQ. FT. ADDITION WATER 2,456,836 CFMM FED THRU E)MING METER SEWER 1,965,469 CFMM NEW 8' SEWER TO " HOSPITAL ROAD . PH�I^SE l DEVELOPMENT' LOWER CAMPUS CENTRAL PLANT 0