Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutX2007-1997 - MiscRBB ARCHITECTS INC Joseph A. Balbona, AIA Arthur E. Border, AIA Sylvia Botero, AIA Joel A. Jaffe, AIA Deneys Purcell, AIA 10980 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90024-3905 Telephone 310 473 3555 Facsimile 310 312 3646 www.rbbinc.com July 23, 2007 Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RE: Response to City Comments on Proposed ECU & Imaging Renovation RBB No. 0413700 City of Newport Beach Plan Check No. 2456-2006 Dear Ms. Ung: Listed below, please find plan check comments from the Disabled Access Division, the Planning Division and the Grading/Drainage plan review. Our responses are provided after each comment. The numbering in this list corresponds to the comment number provided in the City of Newport Beach comment numbers. TITLE 24 DISABLED ACCESS CORRECTION LIST SITE DEVELOPMENT & ACCESSIBLE ROUTE OF TRAVEL ACCESSIBLE PARKING 5. Comment: Provide details of existing accessible parking spaces in locations identified in correction 1. If parking structure is relatively new, plans and details of existing accessible parking may be submitted for review and labeled, "For Reference Only". Include reference to plan check/permit number for parking structure on site plan. Comment: Provide full size copies of accessible parking plans and details issued for permit B9906267. Label each drawing sheet "For reference only". Complete review is not possible from reduced size drawings. Include permit number along edge of drawing by title block. Comment: See requirement for signage in accessible parking access aisles in correction 6. New Comment: See red marks on plan sheets A2-A2.5 (attached "For Reference only") for requirements for additional detectable warnings at elevator "lobbies" in parking structure. Provide plans of these areas on drawings submitted for review showing required detectable warnings. Do not show requirements for these elements on drawings attached "For Reference only". Response: See new drawing A113 with detectable warning surfaces added near elevator lobbies in -existing parking structure. 6. Comment: One in every eight accessible spaces, but not Tess than one, shall be served by an access aisle 96" wide minimum and shall be designated "van accessible". All such spaces may be grouped on one level of a parking structure. The words, "No parking" shall be painted within the loading area • with 12" high letters located where it is visible to parking enforcement official (1129B.4.2). Comment: The words, "No parking" shall be painted within the loading area with 12" high letters located where it is visible to parking enforcement official (1129B.4.2). New Comment: This stencil is required at all access aisles to accessible parking spaces on grade and in parking structure. Plan check engineer suggests adding "typical" accessible parking space detail to plans submitted for review (not drawings added "For Reference Only") showing requirements for "No Parking" stencil at all accessible parking spaces on grade and in parking structure. See N14/A1-1.3 on drawings submitted "For Reference only" for example of "typical" accessible parking space detail. Response: Typical existing accessible parking space with "No Parking" stencil detail added on drawing 21/A112. 16. Comment: Provide detail of curb ramp at NW corner of area of construction as marked on A121. Comment: See curb ramp circled on drawing A110. Comment:_ See additional curb ramp details required as marked on drawing A061. Provide details from previously approved plans on full size drawings labeled, "For Reference Only". Include permit number along edge of drawing by title block. New Comment: Attach civil drawing 2/7 For Reference Only to drawings submitted for review and include reference to detail 5 from curb ramp locations on A061. Response: Reference drawing 2/7 attached to submittal set as requested. Reference to detail 5 also added on drawing A061. ELEVATOR 25. Comment: Provide details of existing elevator in parking structure showing compliance with requirements in CBC 1116E including dimensions of elevator cab. Comment: Provide plans, details and elevations from previously approved plans on full size drawings labeled "For reference only". Submitted reduced size drawings are too small for complete review. Include permit number along • edge of drawing by title block. Comment: Include cab plan showing actual cab dimensions. New Comment: Attach sheet A-8 of drawings submitted "For Reference Only" to drawings submitted for review. Include reference to elevator details on attached sheet from parking structure shown on A061. • Include note that actual elevator cab dimensions have been handwritten on detail D4/A-8 of attached drawing "For Reference Only". Response: Reference drawing A-8 attached to submittal set as requested. Reference also made to elevator detail D4/A-8 from drawing A061. - • PLANNING COMMENTS 1. Comment: Submit roof plans showing all proposed/existing roof top mechanical equipments. Number 7 of the PC — General Notices requires screening of all new mechanical equipment (see attachment). Show method of screening, especially for Fan #EF/1-16. Response: See drawing MPE-10 and letter from Fundament & Associates, Inc. 2. Comment: Mitigation measure 115 will not be approved until the screening issue has been resolved. Response: A 7 feet hiqh acoustical screen matching the height of Fan EF/1-16 is provided — see roof plan and detail 1 on drawing MPE-10. x GRADING DRAINAGE PLAN CHECK 1. Comment: Please submit soils report. P/C done. Response: See soils report submitted together with the approved drawing previously submitted. Please let me know if you need anything further. Since Jere y Cherry Huie CC Peri Muretta, HMHP Sylvia Botero, RBB CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. P.O.BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA (949) 644-3275 TENANT IMPROVEMENT CORRECTIONS Project Description: Site Accessibility for Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian ECU & Imaging Renovation Project Address: 1 Hoag Drive Plan Check No.: 2456-2006 Date Filed: 10/17/06 No. Stories: NA Use: NA Occupancy: NA Const. Type: NA Architect/Engineer: Joseph A. Balbona Phone: 310-473-3555 Owner: Phone: Submitted Valuation: $2,700,000 Checked by: Eric Skarin Phone: (949) 644-3270 Permit Valuation: 1st Check — std text 11/16/06 2nd Check — bold std 04/17/07 X 3`d Check — italic text 06/19/07 WARNING: PLAN CHECK EXPIRES 180 DAYS AFTER SUBMITTAL. THIS PLAN CHECK EXPIRES ON: 04/15/07 • Make all corrections listed below. • Return this correction sheet and check prints with corrected plans. • Indicate how each correction was resolved. TITLE 24 DISABLED ACCESS CORRECTION LIST SITE DEVELOPMENT & ACCESSIBLE ROUTE OF TRAVEL 4th Check 2. Provide detoctablo warning strip 36" wido whoro a walk croscoc or-adjoinc a vehicular way and-tlao SharedtCorrection Lists\TlCorr.doc 06/19/07 1 „ ACCESSIBLE PARKING 5. 2 See redmarks on plan sheets A2 A2.5 (attached "For Reference Only') for requirements for additional detectable warnings at elevator "lobbies” in parking structure. Provide plans of these areas on drawings submitted for review showing required detectable warnings. Do not show requirements for these'elements on drawings attached "For Reference Only". 6. One-ill The words, "No parking" shall be painted within the loading area with 12" high letters located where it is visible to parking enforcement official (1129B.4.2). This stencil is required at all access aisles to accessible parking spaces on grade and in parking structure. Plan check engineer suggests adding "typical' accessible parking space detail to plans submitted for review (not drawings added "For Reference Only") showing requirements for "No Parking" stencil at all accessible parking spaces on grade and in parking structure. See N14/A-9.3 on drawings submitted "For Reference Only" for example of "typical" accessible parking space detail. „ 18A, B 8, C). Shared\Correction Lists\TlCorr.doc 06/19/07 2 sidewalic-( 9B.5). 1, ,1 • U • OR „ „ RAMPS 13. 39)7 (1133B.5.2.2). Shared\Correction Lists\TlCorr.doc 06/19/07 3 11. ta • b,---TaR-larwliAgfp-shll-be4iat-lass-414aFi--60!-wi4e-an4s1-shal1-have-a-length-ef-nat-less-than-6gLIR er 414e4ir-ection-of-Famp4414-(443,3B7,54:24ig--11-13-38-&-34), 15. GT----44ermediate-lai4Rg-at-a-shaRge-of-direstian-in-exsess•-af-30-degraes-an4-bettem-landins shall-hava-a4iffienalA14-44-the-dirastisq-af-ramp-FLIP-64-149t-less-than-7-22-te-assammadata the-handral4-extensiart-(41336,574,61-Fig--1143-38), d,---Qt4er--lAtecmediata-lagdipga-shall-44ave-a4imensier4-144-the-dicestion-of-Famp-R144-ef-nat-less than 60" (1133B.5.1.7 Fig 116 38). • 202-4-14acizental461nr exaept-that-at-exter-lar-daer4aR4lagsr handrails-aFe-nat-r-aGfUlf-ad-en ramps less than 6" rise or 72" in length (1133B.5.5.1). b. Handrails shall bo placed on oach sido of eash-ramprshall-be-GaRtigueus4he-full-lenth-ef the ramp, sha41-ba-34:49-382-abava4he-ramp-sucfaser shall-exteRd-a-Fainimum-g-121 • beyan4414e-tapaRs1-19ettana-ef-the-rampr--The-eXteRSIOR-1:flay-lae-tumad-909 if it creates a hazard or returned smoothly to wall, floor, or post (1133B.5.5.1 Fig 11B 27(b) &(c)). diamoter, or the shapo shall provide an eguivalent gripping curface, and all surfaces-chatl be cmooth with no charp cornore. Handrails shall not rotate -within the!r fittingc (1133B.5.5.1, Fig 116 36). • handrail (1133B.5.5.1, Fig 116 36). 16. P-paviele-detail-af-Gur-b-rarap-at-14W-GGFI4er-g-area-of-Ganstr-ustian-as-mapkeel-GR--A421, See-Garb-raMp-Girded-on-drawing-A-140. See additional curb ramp details required as marked on drawing A061. Provide -details -from weviousty_approvedoacts_ori_figi_sie4rawingerubelletirapar_ReforeRGeoniyA4mulde pOrillit-FIUMber-aleng-edge-ef-cir-awing-blptitle-biockr '"Valklafglatigilarto drawings submitted for review and include eigaggegtMktelt • Wilmignad 44k, 17r--Rovie-ourb-ramosietails-on-A112-to-shew-aotual-slope-sia--M4FFILlm-and-reaximum-slopesr Gur-blguaRkall-betweenecige-of--planter-aA4214amp-peFG64-11338,847-a4;441etestablewar4i94m49 te4h9w_cieteGtabie_war4449&_Fecpr_ed_for_aape&_tass_thari_44454g4794), Note-in-detall-3-stiti-needs4o-be-revisod. Shared \Correction Lists\TICorr.doc 06/19/07 4 18. )Alhece-the.;amp-sui4ase-is-Rot-lasunded-by-a-v,Lall-OF4914Ga-aPcl-the-Fanap.43Xereed-s--141-111-lengthr the (11336.5.6.1). b. A wheel guide rail shall be provided, centered 3" + 1" above the surface of the ramp (1133B.5.6.2). STAIRWAYS terminals (1133B.1.2, Fig 116 35 & 37). 21. The handgrip portion of handrails shall be not less than 1 1/1" nor moro than 1 1/2" in crocs is at least as slip resistant as the other treads of the stair. (113313.1.1, Fig 116 35). 24. SIGNS & IDENTIFICATION Shared\Correction Lists\TlCorr.doc 06/19/07 5 ELEVATOR 26. Provide details of existing elevator in parking structure showing compliance with requirements in CBC 1116B including dimensions of elevator cab. , labeii_orgyRr_submitted_reduGed_size_cirawings_are400.4mait.for Attach sheet A-8 of drawings submitted "For Reference Only" to drawings submitted for review. Include reference to elevator details on attached sheet from parking structure shown on A061. Include note that actual elevator cab dimensions have been handwritten on detail D4/A-8 of attached drawing "For Reference Only" Shared\Correction Lists\TlCorr.doc 06/19/07 6 ' • • , • . . • • • • ' . . • Forilefereilb6 Permit No: B9906267 MACTEC engineering and constructing a better tomorrow October 9, 2007 Mr. Greg Zoll Facilities Design and Construction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive; P.O. Box 6100 Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Subj ect: Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation Proposed MRI Building Additions and Renovation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Dear Mr. McClure: We previously performed a geotechnical investigation for the subject project at the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California and presented the results in a report dated October 26, 2005. Subsequently, we provided geotechnical recommendations in supplemental letters dated March 28, 2006, June 22, 2006, December 5, 2006, and February 27, 2007 for the subject project. Dr. Martin B. Hudson will be the Senior Principal Engineer for this project. The previous MACTEC report and supplemental letters have been reviewed by the undersigned and are acceptable. Dr. Hudson may be contacted at (323) 889-5300, or mbhudson@mactec.com for any questions or additional consultation on the project. 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 letter. MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. • 5628 E. Slauson Avenue • Los Angeles, CA 90040 • Phone: 323.889.5300 • Fax: 323.721.6700 www.mactec.com Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian — Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation October 9, 2007 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 We look forward to continuing to be of professional service to you. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. Lran-Anh Tran Project -Engineer • Martin B. Hudson, Ph.D. Senior Principal Engineer P:I4953 Geotechl2005 proj151091 HOAG Memorial Medical CenterlDeliverables14953-05-10911t11.doc/LT:•It (2 copies submitted) cc: (3) RBB Architects Attn: Ms. Cherry Huie 11- MACTEC engineering and constructing a better tomorrow 1 ' February 27, 2007 Mr. Greg McClure Facilities Design and Construction 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive; P.O. Box 6100 Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 ' Subject: Response to City of Newport Beach Geotechnical Report Review Checklist Proposed MVIRI Building Additions and Renovation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California ' Plan Check No: 2456-2006 City of Newport Beach Job No: 1679N-156 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Dear Mr. McClure: We previously performed a geotechnical investigation for the subject project at the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California and presented the results in a report dated October 26, 2005. Subsequently, we provided geotechnical recommendations in supplemental letters ' dated March 28, 2006, June 22, 2006, and December 5, 2006 for the subject project. This letter provides our responses to the Geotechnical Report Review Checklist by the City of Newport Beach Idated November 3, 2006. The Review Checklist is attached for your reference. Our responses are presented below. In the checklist, the October 26, 2005 report (referred to as "Report 2" in the checklist), and the March 28, 2006 letter (referred to as "Report 1") were reviewed. Response 1 (Report 1): ' The lateral capacities for piles with sonotubes used in the upper portion of the piles are revised here in based on the plan check comment, and are presented on the following page. The deflection of the piles is shown as greater to account for the approximate '/-inch thickness of the sonotube. For piles where lateral isolation using a compressive material or gap around the piles is necessary because of MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 9 9 9 200 Citadel Drive • Los Angeles, CA 90040-1554 • Phone: 323.889.5300 • Fax: 323.721.6700 www.mactec.com 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian — Response to Review Comments February 27, 2007 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 the proximity of the piles to the basement, then no lateral capacity should be assumed for those piles; structural elements such as grade beams should be used to transfer lateral loads to foundation elements away from the basement walls_ For piles away from the basement walls, where neither sonotubes or a gap (annulus space) is necessary at the top of the pile, then the full lateral capacity presented in the March 28, 2006 letter may be used_ Lateral Capacity -inch-diameter Drilled Pile with Sonotubes in Upper Portion Pile Head Deflection {inches) % 3h Pile Head Condition Free Fixed Free Fixed Lateral Load (kips) 42 92 59 119 Maximum Moment (ft-kips) 150 388 243 592 Depth to Maximum Moment (ft) 51/2 0 5 % 0 Depth to Zero Moment (ft) 19 22 19 22 Lateral Capacity -inch-diameter Drilled Pile with Sonotubes in Upper Portion Pile Head Deflection (inches) Pile Head Condition Free Fixed Free Fixed Lateral Load (kips) 61 126 84 172 Maximum Moment (ft-kips) 243 635 382 1011 Depth to Maximum Moment (ft) 71/2 0 71/2 0 Depth to Zero Moment (ft) 23 27 23 27 Lateral Capacity -diameter Drilled Pile with Sonotubes in Upper Portion • Pile Head Deflection (inches) % 3/4 Pile Head Condition Free Fixed Free Fixed Lateral Load (kips) 83 I68 113 236 Maximum Moment (ft-kips) 373 978 592 1588 Depth to Maximum Moment (ft) 9 0 9 0 Depth to Zero Moment (ft) 26 31 26 31 2 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian — Response to Review Comments February 27, 2007 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Response 2 (Report 1): Previous geotechnical investigations have indicated the presence of methane gas in the subsurface soils, however, the installation of piles is feasible with a proper Health and Safety Plan to be provided by the pile drilling subcontractor at the time of the installation; the drilling subcontractor should prepare such a health and safety plan prior to excavation. We did not analyze the piles for end bearing (the piles are assumed to behave as pure friction piles), therefore, the cleaning of pile bottoms to obtain a competent end -bearing surface is not required. Response 3 (Report 1): In our March 28, 2006, we recommended that the existing fill could be left in place if pile foundations are used_ For this case, the floor slabs of the additions should be structurally supported rather than supported at grade_ Response 4 (Report 2) : We do not anticipate having to overexcavate at locations planned for paving. Only minor paving is planned. Based on the available information, we expect to find natural soils below the existing paved area in the area planned for new paving. Our inspector will verify that the soils exposed in the paving excavations are suitable. If existing filI soils are encountered, they should be excavated and replaced with properly compacted fill. Response 5 (General): • The supplemental letter indicated as Report 1 is properly dated March 28, 2006. This letter referenced a report dated May 25, 2005, which is incorrect. The correct date referenced should be October 26, 2005 (Report 2). • The locations of the proposed development, new and prior borings and the cross section are . shown on the attached Figure I, Plot Plan. 3 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian — Response to Review Comments February 27, 2007 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 • The on -site clayey soils are classified as moderately expansive. The soils may be used as fill since the expansion potential is considered to be low to moderate. This recommendation is . consistent with previous grading recommendations prepared at Hoag Memorial Hospital Medical Center, such as those given in our report dated April 4, 2003 for the proposed addition to the James Irvine Surgery Center (our Job No. 4953-03-0931). • The corrosivity test results indicate the onsite soils are corrosive to ferrous metals when saturated and the attack on concrete is negligible. These results are consistent with prior corrosion studies performed on the campus. • Hardscape elements may be supported on grade if the recommendations for grading are followed as presented in our October 26, 2005 report. Existing fill soils beneath hardscape elements should be excavated and replaced as properly compacted fill. • The site is adequate for the proposed development if the recommendations presented in our report and letters are followed. The topography at the site is relatively level and there are no existing slopes at the site or immediately adjacent to the site. The proposed development will not have an adverse affect on the geologic stability of adjacent properties. All other recommendations in our October 26, 2005 report and supplemental letters remain applicable. 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 letter. 1 4 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian — Response to Review Comments February 27, 2007 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 It has been a pleasure to be of professional service to you. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. Lan-Anh Tran Staff Engineer 7z7,V Martin B. Hudson, Ph.D. Senior Principal Engineer Project Manager P:I4953 Geotech12005 proj151091 HOAG Memorial Medical CenterlDeliverables14953-05-10911t05r.doc/LT li (2 copies submitted) Attachments: City of Newport Beach Geotechnical Report Review Checklist Figure 1. Plot Plan cc: (1) KPFF Consulting Engineers Attn: Mr. Terang Kim (3) City of Newport Beach 5 f 1 c i' I 1 1 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GEOTECIINICAL REPORT REVIEW CHECKLIST Date Received: October 24, 2006 Date of Report: October 26, 2005 Consultant: MACTEC Date completed: November 3, 2006 Plan Check No: 2456-2006 Our Job No: I679N-I 56 Site Address: One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California Title of Reports: I. Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Additions to MRI Building, Hoag Mernoria! Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drve, Newport Beach, California, dated March 28, 2006 2_ Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Additions to MRI Building, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drve, Newport Beach, California, dated October 26, 2005 Purpose of Report: Geotechnical recommendations for a Hospital Building Project Infornaation/Background: Y/N Review of Existing City Files Y/N Reference to Site(s) by Street Address Y/N Reference to Grading/Foundation Plans by Date Y/N Subsurface investigation Y/N Aerial Photograph Geologic Hazards: Hazard Discussion Adverse Geologic Structure Y/N/NA Bluff Retreat Y/N/NA Debris/Mud Flow Y/N/NA Differential Settlement Y/N/NA Erosion Y/N/NA Expansive Soils Y/N/NA Faulting Y/N/NA Fractured Bedrock Y/N/NA Groundwater Y/N/NA Landslide Y/N/NA Liquefaction YJN/NA Settlement/Collapsible Soils Y/N/NA Slump Y/N/NA SoiVRock Creep Y/N/NA Sulfate Rich Soils Y/N/NA Supporting Analysis/Data Recommendations for Y/N/NA Slope Stability Calculations Y/N/NA Foundations Y/N/NA Shear Strength Values Y/N/NA Retaining Walls Y/N/NA Other Laboratory Data Y/N/NA Foundation Setbacks Y/N/NA Seismicity Y/N/NA Stabs Y/N/NA Boring/Trench.Logs Y/N/NA Flatwork I 1 1 C r 1' 1 1 .i Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Liquefaction Study Calculations Supporting Recommendations Geologic Map and Cross Sections Drainage Plan Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA YfWNA Y/N/NA Grading Pools/Spas Slope/Bluff Setbacks Adequacy for Intended use Not Adversely Impacting Adjoining Sites PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE REPORT, ATTEND TO THE ITEMS BELOW: Report 1 1. Pages 2 and 3, Lateral capacity of Piles: Lateral capacities presented in the report appear to be too high. Please provide computations to support the results presented. Also, please indicate how the proposed gap or the compressible materials was modeled and its impact on the lateral response. 2. Page 4, Section on Pile installation: Previous geotechnical investigation have indicated the presence of methane gas in the subsurface. Considering this, please address the feasibility of installing drilled piles. • If drilling mud is used, the bottom should be cleaned to obtain .end bearing for the piles. Please describe bow the bottom would be cleaned obtain a competent surface. Also indicate how the impact of the drilling mud was accounted for in the bearing capacity computations. 3_ General: The report does not provide recommendations for floor slabs of the modified foundations system. Please indicate whether they should be designed to span between pile rows or grade beams. Report 2 4. Page 22, Section on Pavement: Please indicate whether overexcavation is necessary in areas receiving structural pavements_ 5. General: • Report dates are confusing. The supplemental report (Report 1) appears to have been written on March 28, 2006. This report indicates that the main report (Report 2) was published on May 25, 2006. However, the combined copy submitted for review indicates the publishing date of both reports as October 25, 2005. Please clarify. • The Locations of the proposed development and the borings drilled are not shown on the site plan. In addition, the location of the cross section is not shown either. Please revise. • Masiaddress the expansive potential of near surface soils. The laboratory consolidation tests have exhibited swelling indicating that the soils could be expansive. Considering this, indicate whether any special consideration is necessary for the design of floor slabs (see Comment 3). • A single corrosivity test indicates a low corrosion potential of site soils. Please indicate the applicability of this test to the soils in contact with subsurface structures. • Please provide recommendations for flatwork including overexcavation depths. • Please include a statement on the adequacy of the site for its intended use. • Please address the impact of the proposed development on the adjacent properties. X Please review and comment upon the geotechnical aspects of the grading plan and the foundation plan and verify that the plans are in conformance with the geotechnical recommendations of the referenced report. Please include a copy of the plans with your response. 1 • Additional Comments (no response required): Note to City Staff: Staff should confirm that the Consultants (C.E.G. and R_C.E/G.E.) have signed the final dated grading, foundation/construction and landscaping plans, per City Code, thereby verifying the plans' geotechnical conformance with the Consultant's original report and associated addenda. Limitations of Review: Our review is intended to determine if the submitted report(s) comply. with City Codes and generally accepted geotechnical practices within the local area. The scope of our services for this third party review has been limited to a brief site visit and a review of the above referenced report and associated documents, as supplied by the City of Newport Beach. Re -analysis of reported data and/or calculations and preparation of amended construction or design recommendations are specifically not included within our scope of services. Our review should not be considered as a certification, approval or acceptance of the previous consultant's work, nor is meant as an acceptance of liability for the final design or construction recommendations made by the geotechnicaI consultant of record or the project designers or engineers. Opinions presented in this review are for City's use only. BY: BY: Gamini Weeratunga, G.E. 2403 Ken Bagahi, Ph.D_, BAGAHI ENGINEERING, INC. BAGAHI ENGINES RIG, INC. 301 Newport Blvd - Newport Eteoch. Cotilornio REFERENCES: SITE PLAN BY TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES DATED NOVEMBER 2000. LEGEND: 1 • CURRENT INVESTIGATION (4953-05-1091) • 7 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION (A-69080) L BORING LOCATION AND NUMBER €.7! BENCH MARK FOR CURRENT BORING ELEVATIONS, FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION AT EMERGENCY CARE UNIT. ASSUMED ELEVATION = 100.0 PLOT PLAN SCALE 1" = 100* SO" 2 OCY ONIACTEC FIGI TRP 1 !MACTEC 1 1 1 1 1 a 1 1 t engineering and constructing a better tomorrow December 5, 2006 Mr. Greg McClure Facilities Design and Construction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive; P.O. Box 6100 Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Subject: Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation Proposed MRI Building Additions and Renovation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Dear McClure: We previously performed a geotechnical investigation for the subject project at the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California and presented the results in a report dated October 26, 2005. Subsequently, we provided geotechnical recommendations for alternative foundation types in a letter dated March 28, 2006 and our opinions regarding overexcavation in a letter dated June 22, 2006. This letter presents our recommendations for pile load testing to address OSHPD review comments as emailed to us by Mr. Terang Kim of KPFF Consulting Engineers on November 22, 2006. To confirm the downward capacity of the piles, at least one initial pile should be load tested. The test pile should be tested to at least two times the allowable downward pile capacity based on the values given in our March 28, 2006 letter. The test load should be applied in at least four equal load increments up to the maximum test Toad; the 200% test load should be maintained for at least 15 minutes. As an alternative to conventional load testing, it is acceptable to utilize an Osterberg load cell; if a load cell is used, reaction piles will not need to be installed. Also, after testing, the test pile can be used as a production pile if the hydraulic lines are flushed with grout. MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 200 Citadel Drive • Los Angeles, CA 90040-1554 • Phone: 323.889.5300 • Fax: 323.721.6700 www.mactec.com 1 A A 1 1 1 A 1 1 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian — Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation December 5, 2006 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 The pile length or diameter may need to be modified based on the test results. If the design of the piles is governed by upward Ioading rather than downward loading, the pile should be tested in tension. The portion of the pile extending through the fill may be cased with a sonotube. If a sonotube is used, the downdrag loads due to settlement of the undocumented fill soils may be ignored in the design. Downdrag loads should not be considered when the pile is in upward loading. As there are only a small number of piles planned for the project, it may be desirable to perform the load test on a non -production pile near the project site, well in advance of production pile installation, to confirm the capacities. Caution must be taken to protect adjacent existing footings and utilities during testing. All other recommendations in our October 2005 report and June 22, 2006 letter remain applicable. 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. letter. 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 F Rfrv‘7 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian — Supplemental Geotechnica! Consultation December 5, 2006 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 It has been a pleasure to be of professional service to you. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. Lan-Anh Tran Staff Engineer Marshall Lew, Ph.D. Senior Principal Vice President P:I4953 Geotechl2005 proj151091 HOO �� r " ' edical CenterlDeliverables14953-05-10911t04.doc/LT.•It (2 copies submitted) ar• Martin B. Hudson, Ph.D. Senior Principal Engineer Project Manager cc: KPFF Consulting Engineers Attn: Terang Kim 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER. Governor Department of Conservation CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 801 K Street • Moil Slop 12-32 • Sacramento, CA 958'14-3531 telephone: 916 323-4399 • TDD: 916-324-2555 Ms. Catherine F. Slater, CEG 2219, Senior Engineering Geologist CSlater@oshpdstate_ca_Us `C 916-653-8440 - Facilities Development Division Office of Statewide Health Planning & Development 1600 Ninth Street, Suite 420 Sacramento, CA 95814-6414 1 • Web Site.: conservation.co.gov/cgs 1 1 November 8, 2006 Subject: Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology for Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Emergency Care Unit and MRI Renovation One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, Orange County, CA 92658-6100 OSHPD Permit # HL-050402-30 OSHPD Facility # 10428 Hoag Hospital project #0413700 Dear Ms. Slater. In accordance with your request and transmittal. of documents, the California' Geological Survey lias performed an engineering geology -and seismology review:to Check for conformance with the. • 2001 California Building Code; California Code of Regulations, Title 24, particularly Chapter 16 (seismology), Chapter 18 (foundations), and Chapter 33(grading). This is a $31 million renovation and expansion of the existing Emergency Care Unit (ECU) and the MRI scanning building. • We reviewed these .two reports that were bound.together in one document: Carl C. Kim, Registered Geotechnical Engineer 2620; and Lan-Anh Tran, Staff Engineer; 2006, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed MRI Building Additions and Renovation, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian: Mactec Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 200 Citadel Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90040; g 323-889-5300, .Mactec project no. 4953-05-1091, • Mactec report dated March 28, 2006; 8 pages. Kirkgard, Susan F., Certified Engineering Geologist 1754, Carl C. Kim, Registered Geotechnical Engineer 2620, • Lan-Anh Tran, Staff Engineer; 2005, Report of Geotechnical investigation, Proposed Additions to MRI Building, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian: Mactec Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 200 Citadel Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90040; g 323-889-5300, Mactec project no. 4953-05-1091, Mactec report dated October 26, 2005; 35 pages. Within the scope .of this review, the California Geological Survey performed these tasks: Q review of geologic maps -for the NewportBeach.area of ©range .County;. O evaluation of the earthquake ground - •motion; a evaluation of the -borehole logsand the geologic•cross=section§,.®-evaluation of the geotechnical laboratory tests; and-0-preparation of 1liis review letter. -Several years ago; we inspected the campus of Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian where the California Geological Survey operates and maintains a strong -motion accelerometer.. For this new phase of construction, we did not perform a new geologic field -inspection. • The iDepartment of Conservations mission is w proud C4'i nzians and trurir environment by ewes -sing Ewes endpmpe np f:our earthquakes and landsCuies; Ensuring safe mining and oitandgas drigirrg Conserving CaGforniasfannAnd an*Saving energy arulrtsources through rerycEng. Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology for Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian ECU and MRI Renovation OSHPD Facility #10428 November 8, 2006 In the numbered paragraphs below, this review is keyed to the paragraph numbers of California Geological Survey Note 48, Checklist for the Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology Reports for California Public Schools, Hospitals, and Essential Services Buildings. Project Location 1. Site Location: OK, an index map was properly prepared (Figure 1). • : • 2. Boreholes: OK, sufficient boreholes were drilled for this project with a relatively small footprint. Boreholes # 1, 7 and 10 are used by the consultants, and a plot plan is shown in Figure 2. 3. Site Coordinates: Satisfactory. The consultants reported the site coordinates of the hospital campus from the Newport Beach 7Y2-minute Quadrangle: 117.9294 degrees west Longitude, and 33.6242 degrees north Latitude. 2 Engineering Geology 4. Regional Geologic. and Fault Map: _ OK, a fault map of the Newport Beach region is provided in Figures 4 and 5_ 5. Geologic Map of Site: OK, refer to Figure 4. - 6. Subsurface Geology at Site: Satisfactorily described. 7. Geologic Cross Sections: Satisfactory. Refer to Figure 3_ This is a two -layer sl<atigraphic model, with Quaternary terrace deposits (-30+ feet thick) overlying siltstone of the.Monterey Formation at depth. 8. Evaluation of Active Faulting & Coseismic Deformation: OK.. The consultants have stated that there is no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone within this hospital campus. 9.. Seismic Hazard Zones: OK, the official Newport Beach quadrangle of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Program was properly referenced. This project is not within either a liquefaction zone or -a landslide zone_ 10. Landslides: Satisfactory; not applicable to this elevated terrace_ 11. Geotechnical Laboratory Testing: OK. 12. Expansive Soils: OK. 13. Geochemistry of the Geologic Subgrade: OK. 14. Flooding OK. This site on an elevated terrace is not subject to flooding. Seismology es Calculation of Earthquake Ground Motion 15. Evaluation of Historic Seismicity: Satisfactory, refer to Figure 6. 16. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) Methodology: Satisfactory. 17. Upper -Bound Earthquake Ground -Motion OK, the Upper -Bound Earthquake ground -motion, 10 percent chance of exceedance in 100 years, is properly cited and used. 18_ Design -Basis Earthquake Ground -Motion: OK, proper use of code terminology. 19. Classify the Geologic Subgrade: OK, we concur that the geologic subgrade is appropriately classified as Type Sc = "very dense soil or soft rock" ,(� alluvium) from Table 16A-J of 2001 CBC. 20. Near -Source Coefficients: Satisfactory. On page.21, Na 1.3 and Nv - 1.6 21. Peak Ground Acceleration: OK. On page 15 and 17, and Table 4, these ground motions are provided: Upper -Bound Earthquake Ground Motion, 10% chance of exceedance in 100-years • Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAUBE 0.53g .horizontal . . Peak Spectral Acceleration, SA ;1.28g at 0.3-second-peiiod . Design -Basis Earthquake Ground Motion, 10% chance of exceedance in 50 years Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAuaE = 0.40g horizontal Peak Spectral Acceleration, SA at 0.3-second period 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology for Hoag Memorial hospital Presbyterian ECU and MRI Renovation OSHPD Facility #10428 November 8, 2006 3 The California Geological Survey independently evaluated the ground motion using our 2003 CGS statewide model and a Type Sc (very dense soil) subgrade, and out computations yielded similar results. 22. Normalized Spectral Acceleration: OK, refer to Figures 7 and 8 in the appendix. 23_ California Seismic Zone 3 or 4: OK_ This site in Orange County is within CBC Seismic Zone 4, so by definition, coefficient Z = 0.4 24. Scaled Time -Histories of Earthquake Ground -Motion: Not Applicable to this particular structure. Liquefaction Analysis 25_ Geologic Setting: OK, the consultants have shown that the site is not subject to seismically -induced liquefaction because it is underlain by soft rock and located on a elevated terrace bluff that is far above 'the water table (- 66 feet below grade, as inferred from the downhole shear -wave velocities). 26. Liquefaction Methodology: OK, not applicable . • 27. Liquefaction Calculations:. OK, not applicable 28. Seismic Settlement of the Entire Soil Column: OK, on page 2 of the March 28, 2006 report, the seismic settlement is estimated &A -inch (since deep caissons are planned): 29_ Lateral Spreading: OK, not applicable to this relatively flat site. 30. Remedial Options for Liquefaction: OK, not applicable. 31. Acceptance Criteria for Liquefaction Remediation: . OK, not applicable. Exceptional Geologic Hazards 'or Site Conditions: 32 to 43: OK; not applicable'or not reviewed: Site Grading Plan Review & Foundation Plan Review 44_ Areas of Cut & Fill, Preparation of Ground, Depth of Removals: OK_ . 45. Geologic & Geotechnical Problems Anticipated During Grading Operations: OK. 46_ Subdrainage Plans and Hydrogeology: OK (not applicable). 47_ Cut -Fill prisms: OK 48. Deep Foundation Plans: OK The 8-page report dated March 28, 2006 contains information about the planned use of cast-in-drillhole piers (caissons). 49. Retaining Walls and Engineered Fill Buttresses: OK, soldier piles are planned for the braced excavation. . • Report Documentation 50. Geology, Seismology, and Geotechnical References: OK_ . 51. Certified Engineering Geologist: OK; Rosalind Munro, CEG i263_ 52. ' Registered Geotechnical Engineer: OK; Dr. Marshall Lew, RGE 522 Conclusions I _ The engineering geology and geotechnical engineering reports for the Emergency Care Unit and MRI building have adequately evaluated the geologic subgrade for ibis site.' These reports meet the intent of the California Building Code, CCR Title 24. 2. The seismology values shown in Table 4, and spectral diagrams shown in Figures 7 and 8 are approved: Peak Ground Acceleration; PGAUBE = 0.53g . and PGAOBE n 0.40g. Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology for Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian ECU and MRI Renovation OSHPD Facility #10428 November 8, 2006 Recommendations 1. The two reports prepared by Mactec are recommended for approval from an engineering geology and seismology viewpoint. . 2. It is recommended that all grading_and foundation operations (caissons) be inspected 'during - . construction. At the completion of all grading and foundation work, a final as -built report Should be prepared and copies submitted to OSHPD for final approval_ Summary The consulting reports are adequate, and this project may proceed from an engineering geology and seismology perspective. If you have any further questions about this review letter, please send e-mail messages to • < Robert.Sydnor@conservation.ca.gov > or telephone the California Geological Survey g 916-32-4399. Reviewed by: 72,1 Je - 'fer Thornburg Senior Engineering Geologist !VI -AEG. M-GSA, M-AGU, M-EERI PG 5476, CHG 220, CEG 2240 Respectfully submitted, Robert H. Sydnor Senior Engineering Geologist PG 3267, CPG 4496, CHG 6, CEG 966 t.M-AEG, M-ASCE, LM-SSA, M-EERI, LM-AGU, M-GSA, M-ASTM, MAIPG, LM-AAAS ottAL GF ROBERT H. 0 SYDNOR No.968 • 1 CERTIFIED ENGINEERING ,GgOLOGIST Op cp` Enclosure: • California Geological Survey Note 48 (2 pages) Checilistfor the Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology Reports for California Public Schools, Hospitals, and Essential Services Buildings 0' ROBERT H. a SYDNOR • No.6 CERTIFIED A ISIDROGEOLOGIST OF cAi • 4 Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology for Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian ECU and MRI Renovation OSHPD Facility #10428 November 8, 2006 Copies to: Rosalind Munro, CEG 1269, M AEG, M-GSA cell `i - 949-278-8223 Senior Engineering Geologist . rmunro@mactec.com Mactec Engineering & Consulting, Inc. office M .323-889-5366 200 Citadel Drive Los Angeles, CA 90040-1554 Dr. Marshall Lew, RGE 522, M-ASCE, WEER!, M-SSA cell . 213-280-3888 Principal Geotechnical Engineer mlew@mactec_com and Executive Vice President office g 323-889-5325 Mactec Engineering & Consulting, Inc. 200 Citadel Drive Los Angeles, CA 90040-1554 Ramzi Hodali, SE 3552, M-SEAOC, M-ASCE Principal Structural Engineer KPFF Structural Engineers 6080. Center Drive, Suite 300 -- Los Angeles, CA 90045 Sylvia Botero, Architect C-20224,. AIA Architect Supervising Architect RBB Architects, Inc. 10980 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024-3905 Langston Trigg, Jr., AIA Architect Vice President for Facilities Design & Construction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, CA 92658-6100 n 310-665-1536 rhodali@kpff-la.com M 310-473-3555 sbotero@rbbinc.com 949-764 1479. - Langston.Trigg@hoaghospital.org • 5 1 i 1 1 1 1 California Geological Survey -- Note 48Re arts Checklist for the Review of Engineering Geology and Seismologand Essential Services Buildings . for California Public Schools, Hospitals, January 1, 2004 and completeness of consulting engineering geology, CGS to determine adequacy Title 2e, California Building Code. se late 48 is used a the Calipo its thatGeare Survey (CGS) California Code of Regulations, CCR Title 24nd es to Caiil rnia Public are California _ the State Architect (DSA)- Hospitals and Skilled Nursing Facilities Survey serves under der CCR Title applies to California Schools. Hospitals, Skilled Nursing Facilities. and Essential Services Buildings- The Building Official for public schools is the Division lion of & Development (OSHPD). The California Geological �w eunder con jurisdiction of the Office of Statewide Healthgeology and seismology review purposes to these two state agencies for engineering � gY fi R. f SUt Li1 ligs Location: ih2 Gil-°s Pi me w Pv4,7vt-. / 6. 42 ' Review by: CalifomiaCertified Engineering Geologist # Adequately Desae Satisfa Seismolo 86 Calculation of Earth Evaluation of Historic dearthquakes that aifeded the sie in the past 200 years 16. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard FSHA } Eras of Earthquake Ground -Motion 1. robab10% chance of exceedance in 100 years: cite & use 17. • • � -Bound ' '' •' � Ground-Motion 18. t �- �' Basis +r • • " Gibund-Motion — 10% chance of >n 50ears ate &. usee Y — 19. Characterize and ft . the .. • • •' +' • ' from Table 16A4 of Lode: shear -wave velodty and Distance to Nearest Active Fadt — if ic Na Nv, Ca: Cv 20 Near Source notion - summary P6A values 1 21. Peak Ground Acceleration for UBE and DBE levels of ACce - Site- acceleration is required for dynamic analysis 22- Normalized Spectral viscous • • for both UBE and DBE ground -motion. for' �• � . anddtall but + ,• Use t; = 5 percentviscous 1 GA-2 and Section 1629A4. k 23. Seismic Zone 3. or 4 — determine appropriate from Figure structures • 24. Scaled Time -E G�or>es a , . - ' Ground -Motion - as amicable for base -isolated Project Name: CI) OSHPD orb'► Fie #n Date Reviewed �v o" ` $ 4, Checklist Item or Parameternowthin t on t evaluated at g Report s time NIA =not applicable Pro'ect Location 1. Site Location Map, Street Address, C. Name, Plot Pit with Buildi • Footprint 2. Adequate Number of Borehotes or Trenches- one per 5;00o fie, wit minimum of 2 for any one bilking 3. 'Site Coordinates latitude & tan • itude-correctly plotted on a 7'Yr-minute USGS quadrangle base -map En _ - + eerie _ Geolo 4. Re 'anal Geology and Regional Fault Maps — concise page -sized illustrations with site plotted 5. Geologic Map of Site — detailed (large') geologic map with proper symbols and geologic legend engidesrip0at summarized from boreholes or trends logs X 6. Subsurface Geology at Site--"'"qgeology X 7. Geologic Cross Sections --several detailed geologic sections stowing pertinent foundations & site gracbg 8. Active Faulting and Coseismic Deformation Across. crSite�te� S -NoloE, , „ ., Faun Zones for active faults ez liquefaction & landslides)9etbads horn fault lane . Geologic Hazard Zones — Seismic Hazard Zone M� { provide page -sized extrad of of idat map shoving liqueladml and lard zones from California Geological Survey as .,,•nimble) and ' maafront the Element of the local ..•,yy • or • both on -site& on adjacent h illsiope proPCY (above'or below); debris flows & roddals 1(). Landslides 1--► :.. — broad suite of appropriate geotedund tests 11. Geotechnical Testin+ .of Representative • Soils — $ a .I .of the • : • • + " . de tlass3YbyTable 18-1-8 & remeriraie 13. tic + .. Subgrade - Soluble Sulfates and Corrosive Soils i 3. Geochemistry of Geologic ri. 5y�) eitherT1r It oro T�• Y • • �r, met. T••r' solubleSulfatesincbckide de �i1 ' m and.osae 14. Aoodin • & Severe Erosion " disass FBM Rood Zones show site plotted on otTidat map (d applicable) X uake Ground -Motion x x pC K X M � 416, Additional Data Needed; Not Sails -fa Checklist Item or Parameter within Consulting Report NIA = not applicable NIR = not reviewed; not evaluated at this time Liquefaction Analysis 25. Geologic :Setting for Occurrence of Seismically -Induced Liquefaction: .meter ♦ applicable • Id any ground -water surface:<50 it. depth; for calculations use historic -highest gramd' .. ♦ -kw-density alluvium, typically SPT N<35, composed' of sands or:silty sands with non -plastic fines • moderate earthquake ground -motion, typidfy.PGGusE >0.1g • 26. Liquefaction Methodology — NSEIMCEER treatise on liquefaction by Youd, ldnss, and 19 others, &CGS Spedal %Mu llinn 117 Oct. 2001 issue of ASCE /wmalaf�t�'�& on�tal � Fodor SF <13 An. �- 27. Liquefaction Calculations -- based on detailed geologic cross-section and Safety 28. Seismic Settlement of entire Sol Column at relevant Boreboles (both unsaturated & saturated) total & differential as &/L Provide complete cakulations (no estimates). Input PGA = UBE ground -motion 29. Lateral Spreading due to Liquefaction — when near a free -face (river bank, carnal. cut -slope) for Liquefaction •• — several appropriate options to remediate Gquefadion effects 30. Ret� O�� 31. Acceptance Criteria for liquefaction Remediation — needed for subsequent remedation contract • Exceptional Geologic Hazards and Complicated Site Conditions too site Usepnidant and carehd'analysisbrat tCR eZ4 butma}'bepertiaent c:xhpkaftt Theseoaro,dpredicaments edica ent andnot texiensivcatty delays salvo! andh alskes lhisIsteferc ardgea gichar�r�'wrlhefrtoaaid sc7estoarnidtsandeapmcmrrncda► pulafr-ironic►n�se+ctnot ecafuatadaithistine hmx��and bath•-checks}Wren adritioa(Warmat /7isregavzdbyerrer>r rgagency Adequately Desa1bed: Satisfactory Additional Data Needed; Not Satisfactor 32. Phase 1 & II Envirorunental Site Assessment Work —ASTM Test E 1527 & Test E 1903 for toxics 33. Hazardous Materials — methane gas. hydrogen sulfide gas, tar seeps, high-pressure gas pnpeines, etc 34. Cali Environmental Quaidy Act ,= applicable Environmental Impact Report data, paleontology,. etc 35. Ground -Water Quality = safe chinkingviatersuppliesforrural orstrbrrba n opuses C applicable) 36. On -Site Septic Systems — for nuai.orsuburban campuses, evaluatesepticleadn-field system 37. Non -Tectonic Faulting and liydrocoiapse of Alluvial Fan Soils — due to anthropic use of water 38. Regional Subsidence — due to sustained withdrawal of fluids (ground -water extraction & petroleum) 39. Volcanic Eruption — only near active volcanic centers; refer to USGS Bulletin 1847 (M►ller,1979) * 40. Tsunami or Seiche — only for low-lying sites dose to Calfiornia coastline or large lakes and reservoirs 41.. Asbestos — in formations associated with serpentine and trenoite. Refer to CGS Special Publication 124. 42. Radon-222 Gas — typically within organic -rich wine shales of the Caliorraa Coast Ranges. 43. Other Geologic Hazards -- use professional judgment for complicated or unusual geologic hazards AA1a Grading Plan Review and Foundation Plan Review 44. Areas of Cut & Fill, Preparation of Ground, Depth of Removals and mom paction 45. Geologic & Geotechnical inspections and Problems Anticipated During Grading — c�lfed inspections for CEG or RGE (removal & recompadi'n canyon dean -out shear -key for buttress fill) 46. Subdrairage Plains for Ground Water and Surface Water — show details of planned subdrains 47. Cut -All Prisms seismic compresicn aid limbered ground -motion across the at-fif beef fnnlside pads Foundations, Structural Mat Foundations (only as applicable) -- per, belled caissons, etc. 48. DeepSod-Nailed Geosyrdheties, C Wa is, �ions. etc. 49. Retaining Walls, Engineered Fill Report Documentation 50. Geology, Seismology, and Geotechnital References — current Fi adequate published dtations 51. Engineering Geology report signedby Celled Engineering Geologist vim CEG seal or number 52. Geotechniral Engineering report signed by Registered Geotecbnical Engineer with BCE seal Robert H. Sydnor, RG3261.01Ge.CPG4496•CEG958 California Geological Survey, Note 48 January 1, 2004. www.conservatiot cagovi cgs PC PC 2 AMACTEC engineering and constructing a better tomorrow June 22, 2006 Mr. Greg McClure' - Facilities Design and Construction • Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian . One Hoag -Drive; P.O. Box 6100 -Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Subject: Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation Proposed MRI Building Additions and Renovation - Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive Newport Beach,.California try MACTEC Project 4953-05-109r Dear McClure: - We previously performed -a geotechnical investigation for the subject project at the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California and presented the results in a report dated May 25; 2005. Subsequently, we provided geotechnical recommendations for alternative foundation types in a letter dated March 28, 2006. This letter presents our opinions regarding overexcavation concerns raised by Kemp Bros., the general contractor. According to Mr. Juan Hind -Rico of KPFF Consulting Engineers, Kemp Bros expressed concern about the need to overexcavate at the locations of footings supporting four new gravity columns (at . - N2.4/Ain, N2.4/NE, N2.58/Dm, and 2m/E.5m) and two braced frames (along lines 4.5m and NJ) - • We .do not anticipate having to overexcavate .below the subject footings. Based on the available information, we expect to find natural soils below planned footing bottoms. Our inspector will verify that the soils exposed in the footing excavations are suitable_ . 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 thus letter_ 1 • MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 11 200 Citadel [hive, • Los Angeles, CA 90040 • Phone: 323:889.5300 . 323.721.45700 www.mactoc.com Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation June 22, 2006 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 It has been a pleasure to be of professional service to you. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. Lan-Anh Tran Staff Engineer Carl C. Kim Principal Engineer Project Manager P:14953 Geotech12005 projt51091 HOAG Memorial Aledical Center4Deliverables14953-0540911103 doc/LT-1t (2 copies submitted) Attachments cc: KPFF Consulting Engineers Attn: Juan Hinds -Rico I I I I I I I I n 2 1 e OMACTEC engineering and constructing a better tomorrow 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 11 I . 1 1 1 March 28, 2006 Mr. Fidel Gonzalez Senior Project Manager Facilities Design and Construction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive; P.Q. Box 6100 Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Subject: Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation Proposed MRI Building Additions and Renovation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Dear Mr. Gonzalez: We are pleased to submit the results of our supplemental geotechnical investigation for alternative foundation types for the proposed MRI building additions at the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California. We previously performed a geotechnical investigation for the proposed addition and presented the results in a report dated May 25, 2005. PROJECT DESCRIPTION • As described in our May 25, 2005 report, additions to the existing MRI building are planned. We previously provided recommendations for new spread footings or mat -type foundations to accommodate the proposed MRI additions. The footings were recommended to be established in the dense natural sand soils about 3 to 9 feet below the lowest adjacent grade or floor level to extend below the existing uncertified fill soils. It is our understanding that excavaticin of the existing fill adjacent the MRI building to construct mat foundations would be difficult and may require shoring. As an alternative to avoid surcharging the adjacent basement walls of the existing MR1 building, drilled pile foundations may be used to support the proposed additions. All other recommendations in our May 25, 2005 report remain applicable. We understand that the existing MRI building will be renovated as part of the project. The renovation will include the replacement of the existing moment frame for the building with a new braced frame. MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 200 Citadel Drive • Los Angeles, CA 90040 • Phone: 323.889.5300 • 323.721.6700 www.mactec.com Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations March 28, 2006 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 RECOMMENDATIONS To avoid excavation of the existing fill adjacent to the proposed additions and to avoid surcharging the existing basement walls, the proposed additions to the MRI building and replacement braced frame system may be supported on drilled, cast -in -place concrete piles. The existing MRI building is supported on spread footings that have already undergone settlement due to static loads. The use of pile foundations will minimize settlement of the new braced frame and reduce the potential for differential settlement between it and the MRI building. Segments above a 1:1 plane project upward from the base of adjacent basement walls should be isolated from surrounding soils. Sonotubes or similar materials may be used. Drilled Pile Foundations The allowable downward and upward capacities of 24-, 30- and 36-inch-diameter drilled, cast -in - place concrete piles are presented as a function of penetration into natural soils below adjacent basement walls on Figure 1, DrilIed Pile Capacities. The portions of the piles isolated from surround soils should not be counted towards the length of piles required to support the toad based on Figure 1. The pile capacities shown on Figure 1 are dead -plus -live load capacities; a one-third increase may be used for wind or seismic loads. The capacities presented are based on the strength of the soils; the compressive and tensile strength of the pile sections should be checked to verify the structural capacity of the piles. Based on the anticipated loading, piles in groups are not expected. However, if piles in group are required, they should be spaced at 1P.ast 2Y2 diameters on centers. If the piles are so spaced, no reduction in the downward capacities need be considered due to group action. Settlement We estimate the settlement of the proposed structure supported on piles in the manner recommended to be less than inch and the differential settlement to be less than V4 inch. Lateral Capacities Lateral loads may be resisted by the piles, by soil friction on the side of the pile caps and by the passive resistance of the soils on.pile caps. PIease note that.piles within 8 diameters of adjacent basement walls and Loaded toward these basement walls will impose surcharge pressures. If existing basement walls are deemed incapable of accommodating the surcharge pressure, a gap or compressible material should be installed between the piles and surrounding soils in the direction of the basement walls. This gap or compressible material should extend to a depth of 10 feet or to the base of the adjacent basement wall, whichever is shorter. 2 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Pres&vlerian Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations March 28. 2006 M.4CTEC Project 4953-05-1091 1 1 1 i We have computed the lateral capacities of the piles using the computer program LPILE by ENSOFT, Inc. Resistance of the soils adjacent to 24, 30, and 36-inch-diameter drilled piles that are at least 25 feet tong are shown in the following tables for top of pile deflection of 'A and %z inch. These resistances have been calculated assuming both fixed and free -head pile conditions for minimum pile lengths corresponding to the "Depth to Zero Moment" shown on the table below. The lateral resistance of other sizes of piles may be assumed to be proportional to the pile diameter. Lateral Capacity 24-inch-diameter Drilled Pile Pile Head Deflection (inches) Z - 1/2 Pile Head Condition Free Fixed Free - Fixed Lateral Load (kips) 42 92 59 119 Maximum Moment (ft-kips) 150 388 243 592 Depth to Maximum Moment (ft) 51/2 0 51/2 0 Depth to Zero Moment (ft) 19 22 19 22 Lateral Capacity 30-inch-diameter Drilled Pile Pile Head Deflection (inches) f Pile Read Condition Free Fixed Free Fixed Lateral Load (kips) 61 126 84 172 Maximum Moment (ft-kips) 243 635 382 1011 Depth to Maximum Moment (ft) 7'/ 0 .71/2 0 Depth to Zero Moment (ft) 23 27 23 27 Lateral Capacity 36-inch-diameter Drilled Pile Pile Head Deflection (inches) 1 % Pile Head Condition Free Fixed Free Fixed Lateral Load (kips) 83 168 113 236 Maximum Moment (ft-kips) 373 978 592 1588 Depth to Maximum Moment (ft) 9 0 9 0 Depth to Zero Moment (ft) 26 • 31 26 31 3 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations March 28, 2006 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 1 1 • Piles in groups are not expected. However, if piles in groups are required, no reduction in the lateral capacities need be considered for the first row of piles and the piles located in the direction perpendicular to loading. For subsequent rows in the direction of loading, piles in groups spaced closer than 8 pile diameters on centers will have a reduction in lateral capacity due to group effects. Therefore, the lateral capacity of piles in groups, except for the first row of piles, if spaced at 2'/s pile diameters on centers, may be assumed to be reduced by one half. The reduction of lateral capacity in the direction of loading for other pile spacing may be interpolated. The passive resistance of natural or fill soils against pile caps may be assumed to be equal to the pressure developed by a fluid with a density of 200 pounds per cubic foot. A one-third increase in the passive value may be used for wind or seismic loads. The resistance of the piles and the passive resistance of the materials against pile caps may be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance. Ultimate Design Values The values recommended above for foundation design are for use with loadings determined by a conventional working stress design. If the structures are analyzed based on an ultimate design concept, the recommended design values may be multiplied by the following factors: Foundation Loading Ultimate Design Factor Axial Capacity of Piles Lateral Capacity of Piles Passive Resistance 2.0 1.0 1.3 In no event, however, should the pile lengths be reduced from those required for support of dead plus live loads when using the working stress values. Pile Installation Significant caving was not observed beneath the site during our field exploration. However, caving tends to occur in sandy soils with low moisture content, typically less than 5%. Therefore, installation of drilled cast -in -place concrete piling will require special provisions to prevent caving of shaft walls during construction. Special drilling provisions for caving include, but are not limited to, casing and/or drilling mud. Among other precautions, the drilling speed should be reduced as necessary to minimize vibration and sloughing of the sand deposits. As some caving and raveling may occur during installation, piles spaced less than five diameters on center should be drilled and filled alternately, with the concrete permitted to set at least eight hours before drilling an adjacent hole. Pile excavations should be filled with concrete as soon after drilling and inspection as possible; the holes should not be left open overnight. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations March 28, 2006 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Only competent drilling contractors with experience in the installation of drilled cast -in -place piles in similar soil conditions should be considered for the pile construction. We suggest requesting the piling contractor to submit a list of similar projects along with references for each project. The drilling of the pile excavations and the placing of the concrete should be observed continuously by personnel of our office to verify that the desired diameter and depth of piles are achieved. Temporary 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 may 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 suggest that our firm review the final shoring plans and specifications prior to bidding or negotiating with a shoring contractor. Lateral Pressures 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. Where retained soils are partially sloped at 1:1 above the shoring, it may be assumed that the soils will exert lateral pressures equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 60 pounds per cubic foot. 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. However, where the required soils are sloped at 1:1 above the shoring, it may be assumed that the soils will exert a lateral pressure equal to 44H pounds per square foot. 5 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations March 28, 2006 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 H=HEJGHT OF SHORING IN FT In addition to the recommended earth pressure, the upper 10 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, adjacent to existing structures, the shoring system should be designed for the appropriate lateral surcharge pressures imposed by the adjacent foundations of the structures unless the foundations are underpinned, or, as planned, the proper setback is incorporated. Any lateral surcharge pressures imposed by the adjacent foundations could be computed when the relative locations, sizes, and loads of these foundations are known. 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. 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 6 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations March 28. 2006 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 excavated level is backfilled with structural concrete, the soldier piles below the excavated level may be used to resist downward Toads. 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 250 pounds per square foot. Lagging Continuous lagging will be required between the soldier piles. 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. For clear spans of up to 8 feet, we recommend that the lagging be designed for a semi -circular distribution of earth pressure where the maximum pressure is 400 pounds per square foot at the mid -line between soldier piles, and 0 pounds per square foot at the soldier piles. 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 1 inch at the top of the shored embankment. If greater deflection occurs during construction, additional bracing may be necessary to minimize settlement of the utilities in the adjacent streets. If it is desired to reduce the deflection of the shoring, a greater active pressure could be used in the shoring design. GENERAL LIMITATIONS 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 letter. 7 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations March 28, 2006 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 It has been a pleasure to be of professional service to you. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. Laid'-Anh Tr Staff Engineer Carl C. Ism Principal Engineer Project Manager P:170131 Geatech12005 proji51091 HOAG Memorial Medical CenterlDeliverabtesWW953-05-10911t02.doc/LT:•It (2 copies submitted) Attachments cc: KPFF Consulting Engineers Attn: Juan Hinds -Rico 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 MIN I DEPTH BELOW BASEMENT (in feet) ALLOWABLE DOWNWARD PILE CAPACITY IN NATURAL SOIL(kips) 0 10 20 30 40 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 i i i i — — \\ _ \, i i, i 1 1 1 (l I l l I l I 11 I l l l l I. I! _ _ Diameter Diameter Diameter - 24-inch 30-inch 36-inch — — k i — — — \ \ \ . \ \ \ ` — —, _ _. r — • \ \ — 1 1 1 1 1 1' 1 i 1 1 l 1 I • 1 I_ 'I. 1 1 • I'• i 1 1 1 0 25 50 75 100 125 ALLOWABLE UPWARD PILE CAPACITY (kips) 150 NOTES: (1) The indicated values refer to the total of dead plus live loads; a one-third increase may be used when considering wind or seismic loads. (2) Piles in groups should be spaced a minimum of 2-1/2 pile diameters on centers. (3) The indicated values are based on the strength of the soils; the actual pile capacities may be limited to lesser values by the strength of the piles. Prepared/Date: VB 3/13/06 Checked/Date: Li Hoag Memorial Hospital South Building Los Angeles, California 1 MACTEC DRILLED PILE CAPACITIES Project No. 4953-05-1091 Figure 1 2005-prof'1510911calcubtions1axial pile capacirylpilecaptwcity.grf REPORT OF GEOTEC.HNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO MRI BUILDING HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN ONE HOAG DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN Newport Beach, California October 26, 200— Project 4953-05-1091 '/f MACTEC WMACTEC i I� iI LI 1• it engineering and constructing a better tomorrow October 26, 2005 Mr. Fidel Gonzalez Senior Project Manager Facilities Design and Construction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive; P.O. Box 6100 • Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Subject: Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Additions to MRI Building Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Dear Mr. Gonzalez: We are pleased to submit the results of our geotechnical investigation for the additions to the MRI Building at Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California. Our services were conducted in general accordance with our proposal dated March 18, 2005, as authorized by you on April 6, 2005. The scope of our services was planned based on information provided by Mr. Juan Hinds -Rico of KPFF. Consulting Engineers who also advised us of the structural features of the proposed additions. The results of our 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 ii governmental agencies for their review and approval prior to obtaining a building permit. 1 MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 1200 Citadel Drive • Los Angeles, CA 90040 • Phone: 323.889.5300 • Fax: 323.721.6700 www.mactec.com 1 1 7 1 1 1 I 111 1 1 'J 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 It has been a pleasure to be of professional service to you_ questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. Lan-Anh Tran Staff Engineer Carl C. Kim Principal Engineer Project Manager October 26, 2005 Please contact us if you have any Susan F. Kirkgar�' Senior Engineering Geologist .00 GE,, SUSAN FRANZEN KIRKGARD . 11754 CERTIFIED DEERING GEOLOGIST TF P:170131 Geotech12005 projI51091 HOAG Memorial Medical CenterlDeliverab1es14953-05-1091rpt01_doc/LT_tm (4 copies submitted) cc: (I) KPFF Consulting Engineers. Attn: Juan Hinds -Rico r 2 REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO MRI BUILDING . HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN ONE HOAG DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN Newport Beach, California MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. Los Angeles, California October 26, 2005 Project.4953-05-1091 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES iii SUMMARY 1 1.0 SCOPE 2 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3 3.0 HELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS 3 4.0 GEOLOGY 4 4.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING 4 4.2 GEOLOGIC MATERIALS 4 4.3 GROUND WATER 5 • 4.4 FAULTS • 6 4.5 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 12 4.6 ESTIMATED PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION 16 4.7 GEOLOGIC CONCLUSIONS 17 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 17 • 5.1 FOUNDATIONS 18 6.2 DYNAMIC SITE CHARACTERISTICS 20 6.3 FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT 22 6.4 PAVING 22 6.5 GRADING 23 6.6 GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION 25 7.0 GENERAL LIMITATIONS AND BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS 26 8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 27 TABLES FIGURES APPENDIX: CURRENT AND PRIOR HELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 11 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1 Major Named Faults Considered to be Active in Southern California 2 Major Named Faults Considered to be Potentially Active in Southern California 3 Pseudospectral Velocity in Inches/Second 4 Pseudospectral Acceleration in g Figure 1 Site Location Map 2 • Plot Plan 3 Geologic Section 4 Local Geology 5 Regional Faults 6 Regional Seismicity 7 Horizontal Response Spectra — 10% Probability of Exceedence in 50 years 8 Horizontal Response Spectra — 10% Probability of Exceedence in 100 years iii • Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian -Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 SUMMARY We have completed our geotechnicaI investigation of the site of the proposed addition to the MRI Building at the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian campus in Newport Beach, California. The proposed I- and 2-story building additions will be approximately 1,100 and 4,700 square feet, respectively. Our current and prior subsurface explorations, engineering analyses, and foundation design recommendations are summarized below. 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 additions 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. To supplement our prior data at the project site, which consists of two borings (prior Borings 7 and 10) in the immediate area of the proposed additions, one verification boring was drilled to a depth of 50 feet below the existing grade (bgs). We encountered fill -ranging in depth from 3 to 9 feet below the ground surface. The natural soils consist primarily of clay and sand. Ground water was encountered at a depth of about 42 feet below the ground surface at the new boring location. The prior borings did not encounter water within the maximum 50 foot depth explored. The upper clay soils are moderately expansive. Fill soils are not suitable for support of the proposed addition, if encountered. The proposed structures can be supported on spread footings established in properly compacted fill or undisturbed natural soils. The on -site soils are suitable for use as compacted fill, and the building floor slab may be supported on grade. 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 1.0 SCOPE This report presents the results of our geotechnicaI investigation for the proposed additions to the MRI Building at Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California. The project location is shown on Figure I, Site Location Map. The location of existing buildings, the proposed additions, and exploratory borings used in the current study are shown in Figure 2, Plot Plan. We relied on our prior and current subsurface exploration and laboratory testing program in our evaluation of the geotechnical conditions at the site. Our services also included of evaluating the geologic and seismic hazards at the site to meet the requirements of the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) and the California Geological Survey (CGS). In addition to the current explorations and laboratory testing, we also relied on the results of a prior geotechnical investigation of the site by our predecessor firm Law/Crandall (L/C Job No. 69080). The recommendations in the current report were developed in part using geotechnical information from the previous investigation. We have reviewed the prior report and accept responsibility for the use and interpretation of the data presented herein. The results of the current and previous filed explorations and laboratory tests, which form the basis of our recommendations, are presented in Appendix A. 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 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 Iocalities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. This report has been prepared for Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian and their design consultants to be used solely for the design of the additions to the hospital. The report has not been prepared for use by other parties, and may not contain sufficient information for purposes of other parties or other uses. 2 1 J 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report ofGeotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 • MACTECProject 4953-05-1091 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) facilities are planned adjacent to the existing Ancillary Building at Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California. A 2-story building is to be constructed to the north of the Ancillary Building, and a single -story building addition is proposed to the south of the Ancillary Building. The plan footprints of the proposed 2- story and single -story MRI additions will be approximately 4,700 and 1,100 square feet, respectively. We understand that no basement levels are planned for either addition. Maximum and minimum dead -plus -live column load is about 310 and 110 kips, respectively. The Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian campus is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road. An emergency entrance currently occupies the site of the 2-story addition and will be removed as part of the construction. Paved parking lots and driveways occupy the rest of the sites. The ground surface of the site is generally level. Various underground utilities cross the site 3.0 FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS The soil conditions beneath the site were explored by drilling one boring to a depth of 50 feet below the existing grade (bgs) at the locations shown on Figure 2: In addition, subsurface data in the vicinity of the proposed additions is also available from exploration performed previously. Details of the current and prior explorations and the logs of the borings are presented in Appendix A Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples obtained from current and prior boringsto 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. • Consolidation. • Stabilometer (R-value). . • • Corrosion. 3 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTECProject 4953-05-1091 All testing was performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM specifications. Details of the current and prior Iaboratory testing program and test results are presented in Appendix A. 4.0 GEOLOGY 4.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING The site 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 the 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 that are incised into the late Pleistocene age land surface. Two such features are the Santa Ana Gap, which is occupied by the Santa Aha River northwest of the Newport Mesa, and Upper Newport Bay, which separates the Newport Mesa from the San Joaquin Hills to the east. The site is near the southern end of the Los Angeles Basin, a structural depression that contains great thickness of sedimentary rocks. The inferred subsurface distribution of the geologic materials encountered in our explorations are shown in Figure 3, Geologic Section. The relationship of the site to local geologic features is depicted , in Figure 4, Local Geology, and the faults in the vicinity of the site are shown in Figure 5, Regional Faults. Figure 6, Regional Seismicity, shows the locations of major faults and earthquake epicenters in Southern California. 4.2 GEOLOGIC MATERIALS The site is Iocally mantled by artificial fill placed during the initial site grading and Iater.grading for various buildings. Artificial fill was encountered in our previous borings drilled in 1969 at the site of the Ancillary Building (prior to construction) to a maximum depth of 4.6 meters (15 feet). During construction, pre-existing artificial fill within the Ancillary Building area, consisting of clayey sand, silty sand, sand, sandy clay, was removed and replaced as engineered fill compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density' per ASTM D1557-66T method of compaction, modified to use three layers. 4 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 As shown on Figure 3, Geologic Section, artificial encountered in our current boring and our previous Boring 7 (drilled in 1969 in the area of the proposed additions) ranges from 0.9 to 2.7 meters (3 to 9 feet) in thickness. Based on the materials encountered in Boring 7, the artificial fill consists of a mixture of sandy silt arid clayey silt. The' fill encountered in the current boring consists of base course underlain by Pleistocene age marine terrace deposits composed of varying amounts of stiff clay, silt, and dense sand. The terrace deposits 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. Monterey Formation bedrock is exposed at the base of the bluff adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway and consist of interbedded siltstone and claystone. The sedimentaryrocks of the Monterey Formation together with the underlying Tertiary age sedimentary rocks extend to a depth greater than 3 kilometers beneath the site (California Department of Water Resources, 1967) 43 GROUND WATER The site is located in Section 28 of Township 6 South, Range 10 West and is Located outside of the regional ground -water basin of the Orange County Coastal Plain. Ground water was not typically encountered in our previous borings drilled at and in the immediate vicinity of the Ancillary Building_ However, ground water could be present locally within the terrace deposits and at the contact between the terrace deposits and the underlying less permeable bedrock 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. Ground water was encountered in our current boring (Boring 1) at Elevation +11.4 meters (+37.3 feet), which corresponds to a depth of 12.9 meters (42.3 feet) beneath the existing ground surface. Additionally, ground water was encountered in one of the borings previously drilled at the site of the Ancillary Building in 1969. In Boring 6, ground water. was encountered at Elevation +9.1 meters (+30 feet), which corresponds to a depth of 10.7 meters (35 feet) beneath the existing ground surface. This water seepage is locally perched water and is not representative of the. regional ground -water table. 5 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report ofGeotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTECProject 4953-05-1091 4.4 FAULTS The numerous faults in Southern California include active, potentially active, and inactive faults. The criteria for these major groups are based on criteria developed by the California Geological Survey (previously the California Division of Mines and Geology) for the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Program (Hart, 1999). By definition, an active fault is one that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). A potentially active fault is a fault that has demonstrated surface displacement of Quaternary age deposits (last I.6 million years). Inactive faults have not moved in the last 1.6 million years. A list of nearby active faults and the distance in kilometers between the site and the nearest point on the fault, the maximum magnitude, and the slip rate for the fault is given in Table 1. A similar list for potentially active faults is presented in Table 2. The faults in the vicinity of the site are shown in Figure 5. 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 approximately .0.9 kilometer to the south-southwest. Bryant (1998) identifies and summarizes the principle evidence for the recent faulting (late Pleistocene and Holocene) along the previously mapped traces of the NIFZ. Bryant identifies three northwest -trending faults in the area shown in Figure 4. The northern -most fault was identified by vague tonal lineaments in the Holocene alluvium observed on aerial photographs and documented offset in the 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 the 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 between the terrace deposits and 6 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 .the Monterey Formation 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 Ancillary Building. The fault offsets Miocene age Monterey Formation and possibly the Pleistocene age terrace deposits. The fault coinsides 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 4. The California Geological Survey (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1986) projects the North -Branch fault passing about 150 meters southwest of the hospital campus and 0.9 kilometer south- southwest of the Ancillary Building, as shown in Figure 4. Palos Verdes Fault Zone An offshore segment of the active Palos Verdes fault zone is located 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 lithological changes in the Tertiary age rocks across the fault. A series of marine terrace deposits in the Palos Verdes Hills were uplifted as a result of movement along the fault during the Pleistocene epoch. Geophysical data indicate the base of offshore Holocene age deposits in San Pedro Bay are offset (Clarke et al., 1985). A later investigation by Stephenson 'et al. (1995) that included aerial photograph interpretation, geophysical studies, and limited trenching identify several active onshore branches of the fault. However, no historic Iarge magnitude earthquakes are associated with this fault. Whittier Fault Zone - The active Whittier fault zone is located approximately 34 kilometers north-northeast of the site. The northeast -trending Whittier fault extends along the south flank of the Puente Hills from the Santa Ana River on the northeast of 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 Pliestocene 7 Hoag Memorial hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 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. San Andreas Fault Zone The active San Andreas fault zone is Iocated 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 of the fault is approximately 450 kilometers long and extends from the Transverse Ranges west of Tejon Pass on the north to the Mexican border and beyond on the south. 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 Magnitude 8.0 Fort Tejon earthquake was the last major earthquake along the San Andreas fault zone in Southern California. Blind Thrust Faults Several buried thrust faults, commonly referred to as blind thrusts, underlie the Los Angeles Basin at depth. These faults are not exposed at the ground surface and are typically identified at depths greater than 3 kilometers. These faults do not present a potential surface fault rupture hazard: However, the following described blind thrust faults are considered active and potential- sources for future earthquakes. San Joaquin Hills Thrust Until recently, the southern Los Angeles Basin has been estimated to have a low seismic hazard relative to the greater Los Angeles region (Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 1995; Dolan et al., 1995). This estimation is generally based on the fewer number of known active faults, and the lower rates of historic seismicity for this area. However, several recent studies by Grant et al. (2000, 2002) suggest that an active blind thrust fault system underlies the San Joaquin Hills. This postulated blind thrust fault is believed to be a faulted anticlinal fold, parallel to the Newport - Inglewood fault zone (NIFZ) but considered a distinctly separate seismic source (Grant et al., 2002). The recency of movement and Holocene slip rate of this fault are not known. However, the fault, if it 8 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnica! Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 exists, has been estimated to be capable of producing a Magnitude 6.8 to 7.3 earthquake (Grant et al., 2002). This estimation is based primarily on coastal geomorphology and age -dating of marsh deposits that are elevated above the current coastline. The San Joaquin Hills Thrust underlies the site at a depth (greater than 3 kilometers). This thrust fault is not exposed at the surface and does not present a potential surface fault rupture hazard. However, the San Joaquin Hills Thrust is an active feature that can generate future earthquakes. The California Geological Survey (2003) considers this fault to be active and estimates an average slip rate of 0.5 mm/yr and a maximum magnitude of 6.6 for the San Joaquin Hills Thrust. Puente Hills Blind Thrust The Puente Hills Blind Thrust (PHBT) is defined based on seismic reflection profiles, petroleum well data, and precisely located seismicity (Shaw and others, 2002). This blind thrust fault system extends eastward from downtown Los Angeles to Brea (in northern Orange County). The PHBT includes three north -dipping segments, named from east to west as the Coyote Hills segment, the Santa Fe Springs segment, and the Los Angeles segment. These segments are overlain .by folds expressed at the surface as the Coyote Hills, Santa Fe Springs Anticline, and the Montebello Hills. The Santa Fe Springs segment of the PHBT is believed to be the causative fault of the October 1, 1987 Whittier Narrows Earthquake (Shaw and others, 2002). The vertical surface projection of the PHBT is approximately 27 kilometers north of the site at the closest point. Postulated earthquake scenarios for the PHBT include single segment fault ruptures capable of producing an earthquake of magnitude 6.5 to 6.6 (Mw) and a multiple segment fault rupture capable of producing an earthquake of magnitude 7.1 (Mw). The PHBT is not exposed at the ground surface and does not present a potential for surface fault rupture. However, based on deformation of late Quaternary age sediments above this fault system and the occurrence of the Whittier Narrows earthquake, the PHBT is considered an active fault capable of generating future earthquakes beneath the Los Angeles Basin. An average slip rate of 0.7 mm/yr and a maximum magnitude of 7.1 are estimated by the California Geological Survey (2003) for the Puente Hills Blind Thrust. 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Upper Elysian Park The Upper Elysian Park fault is a blind thrust fault that overlies the Los Angeles and Santa Fe Springs segments of the Puente Hills Thrust (Oskin et al., 2000 and. Shaw et al., 2002). The eastern edge of the Upper Elysian Park fault is defined by the northwest -trending Whittier fault zone. The vertical surface projection of the Upper Elysian Park fault is approximately 45 kilometers north- northwest of the site at its closest point. Like other blind thrust faults in the Los Angeles area, the Upper Elysian Park fault is not exposed at the surface and does not present a potential surface rupture hazard; however, the Upper Elysian Park fault should be considered an active feature capable- of generating future earthquakes. An average slip rate of 1.3 mm/yr and a maximum magnitude of 6.4 are estimated by the California Geological Survey (2003) for the Upper Elysian Park fault. Northridge Thrust The Northridge Thrust, as defined by Petersen et al. (1996), is an inferred deep thrust fault that is considered the eastern extension of the Oak Ridge fault. The Northridge Thrust is located beneath the majority of the San Fernando Valley and is believed to be the causative fault of the January 17, 1994 Northridge earthquake. This thrust fault is not exposed at the surface and does not present a potential surface fault rupture hazard_ However, the Northridge Thrust is an active feature that can generate future earthquakes. The vertical surface projection of the Northridge Thrust is approximately 75 kilometers northwest of the site at the closest point. The California Geological Survey (2003) estimates an average slip rate of 1.5 mm/yr. and a maximum magnitude of 7.0 for the Northridge Thrust. Potentially Active Faults Pelican Hill Fault The closest potentially active fault to the site is the Pelican Hill fault located approximately 4.0 kilometers to the east-northeast. The Pelican Hill fault is believed to be a probable branch of the Newport -Inglewood fault zone and 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 I0 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 (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 State Geologist does not consider this fault to be active (California Geological Survey, 2003). Los Alamitos Fault The potentially active Los Alamitos fault is located approximately 21 kilometers northwest of the site. This fault tends 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 the west side of the fault displaced up relative to the east side. There is no evidence that this fault has offset Holocene age alluvial deposits (Ziony and Jones, 1989). Additionally, the State Geologist does not consider this fault to be active (California Geological Survey, 2003). El Modeno Fault The potentially active El Modeno fault is located about 24 kilometers north-northeast of the site. The fault is a steeply -dipping normal fault about 14 kilometers Iong and has about 610 meters of uplift on its eastern side. The California Geological Survey (2003) and, Ziony and Jones (1989) do not identity this fault as an active fault. Peralta Hills Fault The potentially active Peralta Hills fault is located approximately 25 kilometers north-northeast of the site. This reverse fault is about 8 kilometers long and generally tends 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. The California Geological Survey (2003) and, Ziony and Jones (1989) do not identity this fault as an active fault. 11 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTECProject 4953-05-1091 4.5 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Fault Rupture The site is not within a currently established Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for surface fault rupture hazards. The closest splay of the active Newport -Inglewood fault zone is located approximately 0.9 kilometers south-southwest of the site. However, this portion of the fault is not included in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone because the fault trace is not sufficiently well- defined. The closest Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone to the site, established for another segment of the Newport -Inglewood fault zone, is Located approximately '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 MRI building additions is considered low. Seismicity Earthquake Catalog Data The seismicity of the region surrounding the site was determined from research of an electronic database of seismic data (Southern California Seismographic Network, 2005). This database includes earthquake data compiled by the California Institute of Technology from 1932 through 2004 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 377 earthquakes of Richter magnitude 4.0 and greater occurred from 1932 through 2004; four earthquakes of magnitude 6.0 or greater occurred between 1906 and 1931; and one earthquake of magnitude 7.0 or greater occurred between 1812 and 1905. A list of these earthquakes is presented as Table 3. Epicenters of moderate and major earthquakes (greater than magnitude 6.0) are shown in Figure 6. 12 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 _ The information for each earthquake 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. Historic Earthquakes A number of earthquakes of moderate to major magnitude have occurred in the 'Southern California area within about the last 70 years. A partial list of these earthquakes is included in the following table. List of Historic Earthquakes Earthquake (Oldest to Youngest) Date of Earthquake Distance to Direction to Magnitude Epicenter Epicenter (Kilometers) Long Beach March 10, 1933 6.4 4 SW Tehachapi July 21, 1952 7.5 1.90 NW San Fernando February 9,1971 6.6 98 NNW Whittier Narrows October 1, 1987 5.9 50 NNW Sierra Madre June 28, 199I 5.8 72 N Landers June 28, 1992 7.3 147 NE Big Bear June 28, 1992 6.4 118 NE Northridge January. 17,1994 6.7 86 NW Hector Mine October .16, 1999 7.1 190 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 by proper engineering design and construction in conformance with current building codes and engineering practices. 13 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation . October 26, 2005 MACTECProject 4953-05-1091 Slope Stability The gently sloping topography in the site vicinity 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 150 meters (500 feet) the east of the proposed MRIbuilding additions. 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 MRI building additions is not within an area susceptible to slope instability. There are no known landslides near the site, nor is the site in the path of any known or potential landslides. 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). Liquefaction and Seismic -Induced Settlement Liquefaction potential is greatest where the ground water level is shallow, and Ioose, fine sands occur within a depth of about 15 meters (50 feet) or less. Liquefaction potential decreases as grain size and clay and graver content increase. As ground acceleration and shaking duration increase during an earthquake, liquefaction potential increases. According to the California Division of Mines and Geology (1998) and the County of Orange Safety Element (1995), the site is not within an area identified -as having a potential for liquefaction. Groundwater is not expected to be present in significant quantities above a depth of 15 meters (50 feet) below the existing ground surface. The groundwater encountered in our borings at the site appears to be locally perched water and not representative of the regional groundwater table. In general, the natural soils beneath the site, which consist primarily of dense sand and stiff clay and silt, are not considered susceptible to liquefaction. Subsurface materials encountered below Elevation +11.4 and +12.9 meters consist predominantly of clay soils and Monterey Formation bedrock, neither of which is considered susceptible to liquefaction. 14 1 II 1 I I 1 l Hoag Memorial Hospital,Presbyterian—Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 As part of our evaluation of liquefaction potential at the project site, a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) using the computer program EZ-FRISK, Version 7.11 (Risk Engineering, 2005), was performed to estimate the Magnitude-7.5-adjusted peak ground acceleration (PGA) for the ground motion with a 10% probability of being exceeded in 100 years (designated as the Upper Bound Earthquake, UBE). The PGA was estimated using the attenuation relationships of Abrahamson & Silva (1997), Sadigh et al. (1997), and Boore et al. (1997) with equal weight. For the Abrahamson & Silva (1997) and Sadigh et al. (1997) attenuation relationships,a deep soil site classification was used. For the Boore et al. (1997) attenuation relationship, the recommended shear wave velocity (310 meters per second) for a typical soil site was used. The Magnitude 7.5 adjusted UBE PGA calculated as described above is 0.5g. The liquefaction potential at the project site was evaluated using the Magnitude 7.5 adjusted UBE PGA, the results of the SPTs performed in our boring, and two ground -water levels: the historic - high of 30 feet bgs and our designground-water level of 42 feet bgs. The liquefaction potential was computed according to procedures described in the Youd and Idriss, 1997 (NCEER Technical Report 97-0022) consensus publication on liquefaction evaluation, and Youd et al., 2001 summary report from 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshop on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. Our results indicate that ' inches or less of total liquefaction -induced settlement may occur at the hospital site due to the DBE or-UBE with a rise in ground -water to historic -high levels. The potential for lateral spreading at the site is considered low. Seismically -induced settlement is often caused by loose to medium -dense granular soils densified during ground shaking. Dry and partially saturated soils as well as saturated granular soils are subject to seismically -induced settlement. The dense granular soils encountered in our borings are not in the loose to medium -dense category. We have estimated the seismic -induced settlement at the site to be Iess than '/ inch. Therefore, the potential for seismic -induced settlement to adversely impact the proposed additions is considered low. t 15 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Tsunamis, Inundation, Seiches, and Flooding The site is located approximately 1.1 kilometers from the Pacific Ocean at an elevation of about 23 to 24 meters above sea level. The site is not within a tsunami hazard zone identified by the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, tsunamis (seismic sea waves) are not considered a significant hazard at the site. According to the County of Orange Safety Element (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 dam failures or seiches (wave oscillations in an enclosed or semi -enclosed body of water). 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 (ground water or petroleum), peat oxidation, or hydrocompaction. 4.6 ESTIMATED PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION 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 Upper Bound Earthquake (UBE), having a 10% probability of exceedence during a 100-year time period. The site -specific peak ground accelerations for the DBE and UBE were estimated by a • Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) using the computer program EZFRISK, Version 7.11. The faults used in the study are shown in Tables 1 and 2, along with the maximum magnitude and the slip rate assigned to each fault. Background seismicity was also included in the PSHA. The peak ground accelerations were developed using the average of the values computed from ground motion attenuation relations for a "soil" type site classification discussed in Abrahamson and Silva (1997), Boore et al. (1997), and Sadigh et al. (1997). 16 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MAOLC Project 4953-05-1091 Dispersion in the ground motion attenuation relationships was considered by inclusion of the standard deviation of the ground motion data in the attenuation relationships used in the PSHA. For the fault rupture length versus magnitude relationship, we have used the relationship of Wells and Coppersmith (1994) for all the faults in the model. The estimated peak ground acceleration for the DBE and the UBE is 0A0g and 0.53g, respectively. 4.7 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 or projecting toward 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 project 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 by proper engineering design and construction in conformance with current building codes and engineering practices. The site is considered grossly stable and not prone to slope stability hazards (landsliding or lurching). The potential for other geologic hazards such as liquefaction, seismic -induced settlement, tsunamis, inundation, seiches, flooding, and subsidence affecting the site is considered low. 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The, existing fill soils are not considered suitable for foundation or floor slab support. The proposed additions may be supported on spread footings established in the undisturbed natural soils. To prevent surcharging of existing footings, which may induce settlement of structures supported thereon; new footings should extend below a 1:1 plane extending upward from the bottom of the adjacent existing footings. However, new footings should -not extend below a 1:1 plane extending downward from the bottom of adjacent existing footings, which may undermine bearing support for existing footings. The horizontal and vertical alignment of existing utility lines should be verified and new footings should be located to extend below a 1:1 plane extending upward from the bottom of adjacent utilities. 17 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Alternatively, the integrity of existing utility lines surcharged by new footings should be evaluated to confirm that surcharge pressures imposed by new footings cad be accommodated without damage or distress. Surcharge pressures from footings at various depths may be assumed to increase with depth based on a 1:1 downward plane projection from the bottom edges of footings. The building floor slab may can be supported on grade if the recommendations presented in Grading, are implemented. 5.1 FOUNDATIONS Spread Footings Spread footings established in undisturbed natural soils and at least 2 feet below the lowest adjacent grade, may be designed to impose a net dead -plus -live load pressure of 6,000 pounds per square foot. Spread footings established in properly compacted fill and at least 2 feet below the lowest adjacent grade, may be designed to impose a net dead -plus -live load pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot. A one-third increase can be used for wind or seismic loads. The recommended bearing value is a net value, and the weight of the concrete in the footings can be taken as 50 pounds per cubic foot; the weight of soil backf fled can be neglected when determining the downward loads. We estimate the settlement of the proposed additions, supported on spread footings in the manner recommended, will be less than 1 inch. Differential settlement is expected to be less than Y2 inch. At least half of the total settlement is expected to occur during construction, shortly after dead loads are imposed. Lateral loads can be resisted by soil friction and by the passive resistance of the soils. A coefficient of friction of 0.4 can be used between the footings and the floor slab and the supporting soils. The passive resistance of natural soils or properly compacted soils can be assumed to be equal to the pressure developed by a fluid with a density of 250 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. 18 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnica! Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTECProject 4953-05-1091 Mat Foundations Preliminary column and wall loading was not available for the portion of the additions to be on mat foundation. Based on our experience with similar developments, we estimate that the net actual applied dead -plus live loading on a mat foundation for the proposed buildings would be on the order of 1,000 to 1,200 pounds per square foot. The natural soils at the site are adequate to support bearing pressures well in excess of the anticipated values. The settlement estimates presented below should be re-evaluated when specific building information is available. Thus, a design bearing pressure for a mat foundation of 1,200 pounds per square foot may be assumed. A one-third increase can be used for wind or seismic Loads. The recommended bearing value is a net value, and the weight of concrete in the footings can be taken as 50 pounds per cubic foot; the weight of soil backfill can be neglected when determining the downward loads. We estimate the settlement of the mat foundations due to static loading will be about 1 inch_ At least half of the total settlement is expected to occur during construction, shortly after dead loads are imposed. Lateral loads may be resisted by friction of the soil acting against the mat foundation and by the passive resistance of the soils acting against the mat foundation and also the basement walls. The mat foundation will derive lateral resistance from the soil -to -mat contact. However, the mat and soil contact will be separated by a water -proofing membrane, in this case. Thus, the frictional resistance available will be the lesser of that friction developed between the mat foundation and the water -proofing membrane and the friction developed between the water -proofing membrane and the supporting .soils. Verification of this coefficient should be performed once the waterproofing materials are specified. 19 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report ofGeotechnicallnvestigation October 26, 2005 MACTECProject 4953-05-1091 While the waterproofing materials have not yet been specified, it has been our experience that a reduction in the lateral resistance is necessary to account for the waterproofing materials. For preliminary design purposes, an effective coefficient of friction of 0.4 can be assumed to resist lateral loads. The passive resistance of soils when considering buoyant .conditions can be assumed to be equal to the pressure developed by a fluid with a density of 250 pounds per cubic foot, unless the potential for lateral spreading is confirmed. In that case, the lateral earth pressure recommendations presented herein will require modification. 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. Modulus of Subg wade Reaction A modulus of subgrade reaction, k, of 150 pounds.per cubic inch may be assumed for the natural soils. Reduction of this value due to the size of the mat has already been factored in our calculations. 6.2 DYNAMIC SITE CIIARAC IERISTICS Site -Specific Response Spectra The site -specific response spectrum for seismic events with 10% probability of being exceeded in II50 years and 10% probability of being exceeded in 100 years (designated, DBE and UBE, respectively) were estimated from a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) using the computer program EZ-FRISK, Version 7.12 (Risk Engineering, 2005). The nearby faults are shown on Tables 1 and 2, along with their maximum magnitudes and slip rates, as published by the 1 California Geological Survey (CGS). Background seismicity was also included in the PSHA. 20 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26.2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 The response spectra were developed using the average of the ground motions obtained from the attenuation relationships of Abrahamson & Silva (1997), Sadigh et al. (1997), and Boore et al. (1997). For the Boore et al. (1997) relationship, we have used a shear wave velocity equivalent to that of a typical soil site (310 meters per second). For the attenuation relationships of Abrahamson & Silva and Sadigh et al., we have used the form of the equations developed for deep soil or soils site conditions. EZ-FRISK modifies the attenuation equations to account for rupture directivity from earthquakes occurring on nearby faults as recommended by Somerville et al. (1997). To account for the • uncertainty in the ground motion attenuation relationships, each relationship was integrated to six standard deviations beyond the median. EZ-FRISK uses the relationships developed by Wells and Coppersmith (1994) and others to obtain estimates of earthquake magnitude from rupture size. The response spectrum for seismic events DBE and UBE are presented on Figure 7 and 8, respectively for 5% of critical structural damping. The response spectra in digitized form are shown on Tables 3 and 4. Site Coefficient and Seismic Zonation The site coefficient, S, may be determined as established in the Earthquake Regulations under Section 1629A of the California Building Code (CBC), 2001 edition, for seismic design of the hospital buildings. Based on a review of the local soil and geologic conditions, the site may be classified as Soil Profile Type SD, as specified in the 2001 code. The site is located within CBC Seismic Zone 4. The site is near 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 N 34 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 site of .the proposed additions is located within 2 kilometers from the Newport -Inglewood fault. At this distance for a Type B seismic source, the near source factors, Na and Nv are 1.3 and 1.6, respectively, based on Tables 16A-S and 16A-T of the 2001 CBC. 21 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnicat Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTECProject 4953-05-1091 6.3 FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT If the subgrade is prepared as recommended -in the following section on grading, the addition floor slab can be supported on grade underlain by at. least 2-foot thick layer of properly compacted fill soils. Construction activities and exposure to the environment can cause deterioration of the prepared subgrade_ Therefore, we recommend our that our field representative observe the condition of the final subgrade soils immediately prior to floor slab construction, and, if necessary, perform further density and moisture content tests to determine the suitability of the final prepared subgrade. If vinyl or other moisture -sensitive floor covering is planned, we recommend that the floor slab in those areas be underlain by a capillary break consisting of a vapor -retarding membrane over a flinch thick layer of gravel. A 2-inch-thick layer of sand should be placed between the gravel and the membrane to decrease the possibility of damage to the membrane. We suggest the following gradation for the -gravel: Sieve Size :» 4 No. 4 No. 100 Percent Passing 90 -100 0-10 0-3 IA low -slump concrete should be used minimize possible curling of the slab. A 2inch-thick layer of coarse sand can be placed over the vapor retarding membrane to reduce slab curling. If this sand bedding is used, 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. The sand and gravel layers can be considered part of the required non - expansive soil layer under concrete slabs. 6.4 PAVING Within the proposed building footprint and at least 5 feet beyond in plan view, the existing fill soils should be excavated and replaced as properly compacted fill. All required fill should be uniformly well compacted and- observed and tested during placement. The on -site soils can be used in any required fill. 22 7 7 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 The required paving and base thicknesses will depend on the expected wheel Ioads and volume of traffic (Traffic Index or TI). An R-value of 20 was assumed for the on -site bedrock materials for design of paving. The R-value of the bedrock materials or any import should be tested during construction to confirm the assumed value. If testing of the bedrock materials indicates a lower or higher R-value, the pavement sections recommended below should be adjusted accordingly. Based on our assumption, the minimum recommended paving thicknesses for TIs of 6, 8 and 10 are presented in the following table. Traffic Asphaltic Concrete Base Course Index (inches) (inches) 6 4 9 8 5 14 10 7 17 The asphalt paving sections were determined using the City of Los Angeles design method. We can determine the recommended paving and base course thicknesses for other Traffic Indices if required. Careful inspection is recommended to check that .the recommended thicknesses or greater are achieved, and that proper construction procedures are followed. The base course should conform the specifications for untreated base as defined in Section 200-2 of the latest edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book). The base course should be compacted to at least 95%. Compaction of the subgrade, including trench backfills, to at Ieast 90%, and achieving a . firm, hard, and unyielding surface will be important for paving support. The preparation of the paving area subgrade should be done immediately prior to placement of the base course. Proper drainage of the paved areas should be provided since this will reduce moisture infiltration into the subgrade and increase the life of the paving. 6.5 GRADING Within the proposed building footprint and at least 5 feet beyond in plan view, the existing fill soils should be excavated and replaced as properly compacted fill. All required fill should be uniformly 1 23 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnicat Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 well compacted and observed and tested during placement. The on -site soils can be used in any required fill. Site Preparation After the site is cleared and the existing fill soils (if encountered) are excavated as recommended, the exposed natural 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. At least 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 method of compaction. Excavations and Temporary Slopes Where excavations are deeper than about 4 feet, the sides of the excavations should be sloped back at 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) or shored for safety. Unshored excavations should not extend below a plane drawn at 1 %:1 (horizontal to, vertical) extending downward from adjacent existing footings. We would be pleased to present data for design of shoring if required. Excavations should be observed by personnel of our firm so that any necessary modifications based . on variations in the soil conditions can be made. All applicable safety requirements and regulations, including OSHA regulations, should be met. Compaction Any required fill should be placed in loose lifls not more than 8-inches-thick and compacted. The fill should be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum density obtainable by the ASTM Designation D1557 method of compaction. 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. Backfill All required backfill should be mechanically compacted in layers; flooding should not be permitted. Proper compaction of backfill will be necessary to minimize settlement of the backfill and to reduce 24 1 t I1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnicallnvestigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 settlement of overlying slabs and paving. Backfill should be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry density obtainable by the ASTM Designation D1557 method of compaction. The on - site soils may be used in the compacted backfill. The exterior grades should be sloped to drain away from the foundations to prevent ponding of water. Material for Fill The on -site soils, less any debris or organic matter, may be used in required fills. Cobbles larger than 4 inches in diameter should not be used in the fill. 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. 6.6 GEOTECIINICAL 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. 25 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 f1 i� Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 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. 7.0 GENERAL LIMITATIONS AND BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations provided in this report are based upon our understanding of the described project information and on our interpretation of the data collected during our current and previous subsurface explorations. We have made our recommendations based upon 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 structure configuration, loads, location, or the site grades should be provided to us so 'that we can review our conclusions and recommendations and make any necessary modifications. The recommendations provided in this report are also based upon 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 verify that the actual soil conditions are as expected. This also provides for the procedure whereby the client can be advised of unexpected 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. As previously discussed, if our firm is not. retained to perform the geotechnical observation and testing services, our professional responsibility and liability would be limited to the extent that we would not be the geotechnical engineer of record. r 26 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 9953-05-1091 8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abrahamson and Silva, 1997, "Empirical Response Spectra Attenuation Relationships for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes," Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1, p. 94-127. Anderson, J. G., and Luco, J. E., 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, South Coast 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, 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. Barrows, A. G., 1973, "Earthquakes Along the Newport —Inglewood Structural Zone," California Geology, Vol. 26, No. 3. Boore, D. M., Joyner, W. B., and Fumal, T. E., 1997, "Equations for Estimating Horizontal Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: A Summary of Recent Work," Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1. 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. • t 27 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnica! Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Bryant, W. A., 1986, "Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone Across Southwest Newport Mesa, Orange County, California," Cal forma Division of Mines and Geology Fault Evaluation Report FER 172_ Bullard, T. R. and Lettis, W. R., 1993, "Qnaternary Fold Deformation Associated with Blind Thrust Faulting, Los Angeles Basin, California," Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 98, No. B5, pp. 8349-8369. California Department of Water Resources, 2005, "Groundwater Level Data" http://well.water.ca.gov_ California Department of Water Resources, 1976, "Crustal Strain and Fault. Movement Investigation," Bulletin 116-2. 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, 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, "Official Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map for 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 Geological Survey, 2005, "Checklists for Review of Geologic/Seismic Reports for California Public Schools, Hospitals, and Essential Services Buildings" CGS Note 48.. California Geological Survey, 2003, "The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps, June 2003" Appendix A — 2002 California Fault Parameters. 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 ofAmerica, Vol. 86, No. 5, pp. 1645-1649. 28 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 %I Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report ofGeotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-109I Davis, J. F_, Bennett, J. H., Borchardt, G. A., Kahle, J. E., Rice, S. .J., Silva, M. A., 1982, "Earthquake Planning Scenario for a Magnitude 8.3 Earthquake on the San Andreas Fault in Southern California," California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 60. _ 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 Strike -Slip Faults through Downtown Los Angeles," EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, Vol. 73, p_ 589. 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. Grant, L. B., Ballenger, L. J., and Runnerstrom, E. E., 2002, "Coastal Uplift of the San Joaquin Hills, Southern Los Angeles Basin, California, by a Large Earthquake Since A. D. 1635", Bulletin of the Seismological Society ofAmerica, Vol. 92, No. 2, pp. 590-599. Grant, L. B., Mueller, K. J., Gath, E. M., and Munro, R., 2000, "Late Quaternary Uplift and Earthquake Potential of the San Joaquin Hills, Southern Los Angeles Basin, California" Geology, Vol. 28, No. 4, p. 384. Gray, C. H., Jr., 1961, "Geology of and Mineral Resources of the Corona South Quadrangle," Cal fornia 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 ofMines and Geology Open File Report 91-17. • Guptil, 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. 29 1 11 til 1 i t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 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 1999, "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, 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. 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 of America Bulletin, Vol. 85, No. 2. Jahns, R.. H., et al., 1954, "Geology of Southem 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 ofMines and Geology Map No. 6. Kramer, S. L.,1996," "Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering," Prentice Hall. Larsen, E. S., Jr., 1948, "Batholith and Associated Rocks of Corona, Elsinore, and San Luis Rey Quadrangles, Southern California," Geological Society ofAmerica Memoir. 29. Law/Crandall, 2001, "Report of Revised Geotechnical Consultation, Proposed Seismic Upgrade of the .Ancillary Building, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, California" (Project 70131-0-0355). 111 30 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Law/Crandall, 1999, "Report of Revised Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed East Addition and Parking Structure, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach, California" (Project 70131-9-0330). 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 County" (Job No_ 2661.30140.0001). 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. 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). 31 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTECProject 4953-05-1091 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, 30I 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, 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. McNeilan, T. W., Rockwell, T. K., and Resnick, G. S_,.1996, "Style and Rate of Holocene Slip, Palos Verdes Fault, Southern California", Journal of Geophysical Research, April 10, 1996, Vol. 101, No- B4, p. 8317-8334_ 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. 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 PIan, internet updates through June 2005_ Oskin, M., Sieh, K., Rockwell, T., Miller, G., Guptill, P., Curtis, M., McArdle, S., and Elliott, P., 2000, "Active Parasitic Folds on the Elysian Park Anticline, Implications for Seismic Hazard in Central Los Angeles, California , Geological Society of America Bulletin May 2000, Vol. 112, No. 5, pp.693-707_ Orange County Water District, 2004, "2003 Groundwater Contour Map". Orange County General Plan, "1995 Safety Element," Advance Planning Program, Environmental Management Agency. 32 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26. 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 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_ Risk Engineering, Inc_, 2005, EZFRISK version 7.01 _ Rivero, C., Shaw, J. H., and Mueller, K., 2000, "Oceanside and Thirtymile Bank Blind Thrusts: Implications for Earthquake Hazards in Coastal Southern California" Geology, Vol. 28, No_ 10, October 2000_ 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_ Sadigh, K., Chang, C. Y., Egan, J_ A., Makdisi, F., and Youngs, R. R, 1997, "Attenuation Relationships for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes Based on California Strong Motion Data," Seismological Research Letters, Vol_ 68, No_ 1. Schneider, C. L., Hummon, C_, Yeats, R. S., and Huftile, G. L., 1996, "Structural Evolution of the Northern Los Angeles Basin, California, Based on Growth Strata," Tectonics, Vol_ 15, No_ 2, pp. 341-355. Shakal, A. F. et a1_, 1994, "CSMIP Strong -Motion Records from the Northridge, California Earthquake of 17 January 1994," Cal fornia Division of Mines and .Geology, Strong Motion Instrumentation Program, Report OSMS 94-07_ Shaw, J. H_ and others, 2002, "Puente Hills Blind Thrust System Los Angeles, California," Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 92, No. 8, pp. 2946 2960_ 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, 216 pp. 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_ 33 '1 111 II 1 1 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26. 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Slemmons, D. B., 1979, "Evaluation of Geomorphic Features of Active Faults For Engineering Design and Siting Studies," Association of Engineering Geologists Short Course. Somerville, P. G., Smith, N. F., Graves, R. W., and Abrahamson, N. A., 1997, "Modification of Empirical Strong Ground Motion Attenuation Relations to Include the Amplitude and Duration Effects of Rupture Directivity," Seismological Research Letters, Vol_ 68, No_1. Stephenson, W_ J_, Rockwell, T. K., Odum J.. K., ShedIock,K. M., and Okaya, D. A., 1995, "Seismic Reflection and Geomorphic Characterization of the Onshore Palos Verdes Fault Zone, Los Angeles, California," Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol_ 85, No. 3. Stover, C. W. and Coffman, J_ L., 1993, "Seismicity of the United States, 1568-1989 (revised)," U.S. Geological Society Professional Paper 1527_ Southern California Seismographic Network, 2005 "Southern California Earthquake CataIog," http://www.scecdc.scec_org/ftp/catalogs/SCSN/_ 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_, Bennett, J_ H., Borchardt, G. A., Saul, R., and Davis, J .F., "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. I_, ed., Professional Paper 1360, Article by CIarke, S.H., Greene, H.G., and Kennedy, M.P., Jdentfing 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 Glantz, A., eds., Proceedings of Conference of Geologic Problems 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 of America, Vol_ 84, No. 4, pp. 974-1002. Wesnousky, S. G., 1986, "Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults and Seismic Hazard in California," Journal of Geophyqical Research, Vol. 91, No. B 12, pp_ 12,587-12,631 _ • 34 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26.2005 MACTECProject 4953-05-1091 Wissler, S.. G_, 1943, "Stratigraphic Formations of the Producing Zone of the Los Angeles Basin Oil Fields," California Division ofMines 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, Vol_ 85, No. 2, April I995. Yerkes, R. F., 1972, "Geology and Oil Resources of the Western Puente Hills Area, Southern California," US. Geological Survey Professional Paper 420-C_ .Ziony, J. I., and. Jones, L. M., 1989, "Map Showing Late Quaternary Faults and 1978-1984 Seismicity of the Los Angeles Region, California," US. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-I964. 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," US_ Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-585. Ziony, J_ 1., and Yerkes, R. F_, I985, "Evaluating Earthquake and Surface Faulting Potential," in Ziony, J.I., ed., Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region -An Earth Science Perspective, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360, p. 43-91 _ 35 1 '.' i.�j•, ii TABLES 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Table 1 Major Named Faults Considered to be Active in Southern California Fault (in increasing distance) Maximum SIip Rate Distance Direction Magnitude . (mm/yr_) From Site From Site (kilometers) San Joaquin Hills Thrust 6:6 (a) BT 0.5 0 Newport -Inglewood Zone 7.1 (a) SS 1.0 0.9 SSW Palos Verdes Zone 73 (a) SS 3.0 17 WSW Puente Hills Blind Thrust • 7.1 (a) BT 0.7 27 N Whittier Zone 6.8 (a) SS 2.5 34 NNE Elsinore (Glen Ivy Segment) _ 6.8 (a) SS '5.0 37 NE Chino -Central Avenue 6.7 (a) NO 1.0 40 NE Upper Elysian Park 6.4 (a) BT 1.3 45 NNW Sierra Madre Zone 7.2 (a) RO 2.0 57 N Raymond 6.5 (a) RO 1.5 58 NNW Cucamonga Zone 6.9 (a) RO 5.0 63 NNE Hollywood 6.4 (a) RO 1.0 63 NW Santa Monica 6.6 (a) RO 1.0 63 NW Verdugo 6.9 (a) RO 0.5 67 NNW Malibu Coast 6.7 (a) RO 0_3 73 NW Northridge Thrust 7_0 (a) BT 1.5 75 NW San Jacinto (San Bernardino Segment) 6.7 (a) SS I2.0 77 NE San Gabriel Zone 7.2 (a) SS 1.0 79 NW San Fernando Zone 6_7 (a) RO 2.0 79 NW Anacapa-Dume 75 (a) RO 3.0 82 NW San Andreas (San Bernardino Segment) 7.5 (a) SS 24.0 85 NE (a) California Geological Survey, 2003 (b) Mark, 1977 (c) Simmons, 1979 (d) Wesnousky,1986 (e) Hummon et al., 1994 SS Strike Slip NO Normal Oblique RO Reverse Oblique BT Blind Thrust Table 2 Major Named Faults Considered to be Potentially Active in Southern California Fault (in increasing distance) Maximum Slip Rate Distance From Site Direction 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 (c) RO 0.1 29 NNW San Jose 6.4' (a) RO 0.5 50 NNE Indian Hill 6.6 (b) RO 0.1 54 N Duarte 6.7 (c) RO 0.1 56 N Overland 6.0 (c) SS 0.1 56 NW Charnock 6.5 (c) SS 0.1 57 NW Clamshell-Sawpit 6.5 (a) RO 0.5 59 N (a) California Geological Survey, 2003 (b) Mark, 1977 (c) Simmons, 1979 (d) Wesnousky, 1986 (e) Hummon et al_, 1994 SS Strike Slip NO Normal Oblique RO Reverse Oblique BT Blind Thrust Table 3: Pseudospectral Velocity in Inches/Second 2% damping 5% damping 10% damping Period in Seconds 0.01 0.05 0_ 10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.75 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 DBE 10% in UBE 10% in 50 years 100 years 0.24 0.33 1.67 2.2$ 5.25 7.16 14.99 19.81 22.32 29.87 27.36 37.24 31.57 43.64 39.41 . • 56.48 44.36 63.31. 49.74 69.39 46.75 65.58 42.88 60.48 DBE 10% in 50 years 0.24: 1.67 4.39 11.58 17.70 22.28 25.72 32.10 36.14 42.20 39.67 36.38 UBE 10% in DBE 10% 100 years in 50 years 0.33 '0.24 2.28 1.67 5_98 3_74 15.30 9.00 23.69 14.20 30.33 18.45 35.55 21.29 46.01 26.57 51.57 29.91 58.88 36.50 55.64 34.31 51.3131.47 UBE 10% in 100 years 0.33 2.28 5.09 11.89 19.01 25.11 29.42 38.08 42.69 50.92 48.13 44.38 Table 4: Pseudospectral Acceleration in g 2% damping 5% damping By LT 5/20/05 Chkd: JAA 5/20/05 10% damping Period in Seconds 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 .0.75 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 DBE 10% in 50 years 0.40 0.54 0.85 1.22 1.21 1.11 1.03 0.85 0.72. 0_40 0.25 0.17 UBE 10% in 100 years 0.53 0_74 1._16 1.61 1.62 1.51 1.42 1.22 1.03 0.56 0.36 0.25 DBE 10% in 50 years 0.40 0.54 0.71 0.94 0.96 0.91 0.84 0.70 0.59 0.34 0.22 0.15 UBE 10% iri 100 years 0.53 0.74 0.97 1.24 1.28 1.23 1.16- 1.00 0.84 0.48 0.30 0.21 DBE 10% in 50 years 0.40 0.54 0.61 0.73 0.77 0.75 0.69 0.58 0.49 0_30 0.19 0.13 UBE 10% in 100 years 0.53 0.74 0_83 0.97 1.03 1.02 0.96 0.83 0.69 0_41 026 0.18 By LT 5/20/05 Chkd: JAA 5/20/05 1. • FIGURES 1 NEWPORT BEAD a 117°5b.000' W t MILE 117°55.000' W 01070FEET 0 500 J000METERS Printed from TOPOI 02001 National Geographic Holdings (www.topo.com) FIGURE 1 11 1 301 Newport Blvd.. Newport Beach. California • REFERENCES: SITE PLAN BY TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES DATED NOVEMBER 2000_ 1 • CURRENT INVESTIGATION (4953-654091) 7 (ii? PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION (A-69080) L BORING LOCATION AND NUMBER 9 BENCH MARK FOR CURRENT BORING. ELEVATIONS, FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION AT EMERGENCY CARE UNIT, ASSUMED ELEVATION = 100_0 FIGURE 2 3= as, ��ar E -is NE m i• r in Is aim amo t�la.. ..,, •----u:E. •a....+1is JHKD'' ... _ . n 7 0 n a ELEVATION IN FEET 150 - 120 - 90- 60- 30 - LIMITS OF LIMITS OF EXISTING PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION BORING 7 PROJECTED (PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION ' A-69080) I t l +I I I I artifclal fill --- -ammo N23°W - 150 LIMITS OF EXISTING MRI BUILDING EXISTING GRADE LIMITS OF PROPOSED ADDITION imommimA 111 W BOR NG 1 PROJECTED (CURRENT INVESTIGATION 4953.05.1091)' I to tit =1t1 artiflclal fill 1116t11-P-111 ? .—....... TERRACE DEPOSITS - 120 - 90 .I11.741. -.1l.(.r.. . MONTEREY FORMATION - 60 - 30 NOTES: 1. THE SECTION IS BASED ON GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS AT BORING ' LOCATIONS. THE GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN INTERPOLATED BETWEEN EXPLORATION LOCATIONS: LOCALIZED VARIATIONS COULD OCCUR. THE SECTION I5 INTENDED FOR DESCRIPTIVE PURPOSES ONLY. 2. SEE FIGURE 2 FOR LOCATION OF SECTION. GEOLOGIC SECTION SCALE 1" = 30' 0. 30' 80 SCALE IN' FEET 0 ELEVATION IN FEET Qal Qpu 1111.1. de EXPLANATION HOLOCENE ALLUVIUM LATE PLEISTOCENE ALLUVIUM GEOLOGIC CONTACT FAULTS Dashed where near surface; dotted where buried s • • INN Ina California Department of Water Resources, 1966 41, as# mos Bryant, 1988 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone REFERENCES: BASE MAP FROM U.S.G.S. 7.5 MINUTE NEWPORT BEACH QUADRANGLE, 1965 (PHOTOREVISED 1981). GEOLOGY MODIFIED FROM POLAND AND PIPER, 1956, CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONES, NEWPORT BEACH QUADRANGLE OFFICIAL MAP (1986). 0 SITE COORDINATES: Latitude N33.6249 Longitude W117.9294 2000 4000 FEET LOCAL GEOLOGY SE rla* v OMACTEC 'FIGURE 4 ID U I N al 0 111 0 Los Aiig6s t3i DOCKWELLER.BEAC 1j STATE PARK _ El S•etundo 0 L\ o v ^ L O SO �� ,- r-40lier 6 LC- ` f � -• flat o.0 Point • - �:-- —�-• ��r ca4u � ; -- ;,` .`� Polo? ge e "> l �y � Palos ?ode: Fri r� B f. �S Pipelines TIAN .BEAa HATTAN CH ST P15 y� L 1971 ar . • }thrl ,_ " ,, ?65tllrinc Cane l Y Nar 1 Fur• F! •At. irr Rese a' -. :: �~—�,SO �YY'lufnt Polntt 7—* H? 5.0-5.9 4.0-4.9 o •.t 0 L ✓a t... tC. EXPLANATION Lala Qualtraary bolt—Donsd whoa concealed onshq dashed where dram (Infected from aeoua7eyrflso, lion made*); queried where ea4ten t vss tts; tar when fault uses too :tort to show " scale. am asd ball on stisUvely dowmhtowa side, stwteeds oa arca plate of iiuust fault. Aepeesentadn, dip of fob soma hen known. Later 7Mkates gtobgk lima p.tbd within whkh last surface faulting it knows to here aeumd: I1. Holocene: 1., late when age woman. DIM Indicates mat =eater lariat turhea faulaag; quedod when historical mot, fence 4 uncertain Epicstlsrs a( earthquakes (:1422.0) occurring In 1971-114, showing corresponding magnitude rum O 3.0-3.9 O 2.0-2.9 -� • 7a ts- •yyr € ! y�eP���t���.� , t1.-tee � {`(t2yl `•--�E orlt�,Fl(�i�n �r HurtLyr •..�farree I, •' KING BEAI:FI • Fremm�rr 1SE /, L d q r .emu f 't all � 4.V PEDROst 1., 1, Bid.>, ---___ Llghl f, 'lea'vallen poml . `.,� f? -•t. btt`i�� :Ar ur q v��et5 lights rr nset A r fl--ere Plalfarmt u• 4 ylY-..,.a Lc?LL,�<t�!2�,,,���G000c :S H:•t.f?ElU!? : .. .. . �I! 40) \ O L0 \ rt •r-iA \ \\H L? Piepern, 5 q.t.,/` 'S.l,1q PE k�\\\\ s L� �; f �t`�\& ON �''AttEY H\ H\\ L? H ?� REFERENCE: ZIONY. JOSEPH I AND JONES LUCY M., MAP SHOWING LATE QUATERNARY FAULTS AND 1978-84 ) SEISMICITY OF THE LOS ANGELES REGION, CALIFORNIA MAP MF-1964, (1989) sea fat n`l51. BEACH Tgaeline ' - F� L? Lido • tGls51711t1rr.,. \ _O ` - ' '' : �•. .. Cliuwa Ilet hUir ` I ,J1 ice' ,..----......b______J ,, Al:::: •,:,...... \,\ _ �. \ `, `I`\ \ • • _ \ \ • • • L? • • • • \\• • tr':i�-�:•.n` \L? L'? SiY lai�a�a�a i • ti ..• �t o • try • \\.. )IYlton 1Q•: •r• ''E'I..T�fiIl�• ..,�•�.. : ri'-1•5...:_:.{=..t+``1, 1.<l.':/,'.} �:"',:r�•:'1:`':.'etl•..r Minfg �_ • %i •na Point Y•L)uaon n �, ^\ Light t`}�1. ;.1..o _ . I f 1'.E J `i.) y clD• sty. •- �.,- -<t# :. ti '!,• j vwRi . �\l - ,� lert,, ape • L--. f �k= e e : 7 e" \ +\ Juan • - .-f:� te. R L•",A cans , .O 111 Nei. to. Y(it ;4Y&iri s.` .'- ikrni i jp(it�f[an4'BeacSt Death c••' REGIONAL FAULTS SCALE 1" = 4 miles . NMACTEC FIGURE 5 PINE • EXPLANATION: YEAR M 8+ YEAR M 7-8 YEAR M 6-7 YEAR M 5-6 -1.952E—,7 ttlag, HOLOCENE FAULT DISPLACEMENT WITHOUT HISTORIC RECORD APPROXIMATE EPICENTRAL AREA OF EARTHQUAKE SCALE IN KILOMETERS SCALE 1: 750.000 12 SCALE IN MILES L ncgster F- Ha mdate Redman .--,VV:Iscma'hardans .4342: rblassom Oria“kil ?clot Duo, .e• • \ s • .c. Palos t2-81 I Z•121). FIEFERENCES 1.) JENNINGS, C.W., 1994, "FAULT ACTIVITY MAP OF CALIFORNIA AND ADJACENT AREAS WITH LOCATION AND AGES OF RECENT VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS", CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, GDM-6. 24 2.) EARTHQUAKE CATALOGS: RICHTER, 1812-1932, NATIONAL OCEANIC ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, 1812-1931; CALTECH, 1932-1997. :• 12.11-1ita Id X ••• • HA. t p . Norco. 9, SAN FA ..1-C • . \ 0 nkG4,1:41. d a 643a unto Vfr or Ina Haria 4 lMI DS „Sloddard Alt09 •• ••••22.i TEE64:: Sunnyn V matt Vatic N.V. -1.24\t --4:211-244•1;5,-K. F.Azt,„„"--- • • _ 5.4zeill.?Qr..;:n154c544%., 1.41. 46/ :r • \ 1;77-0. - , REGIONAL SEISMICITY ...latesvil ri • r RMACTEC FICI i 1.: Pseudo Spectral Acceleration (g) 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Period (seconds) - 4 t t -t- i i 2% damping 1- , i , _ . T -r . (. ; i ; -+ . , ! 5% damping { ( t ( : r j--j • ; ,• •• — — - 10% damping .... . .. - - --- 1_-:_...-- .-_ - -4.-.------*_- • - — '- _ _ - - - . . . - t . • - .- 3.0 HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRA - SITE SPECIFIC Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian DBE - 10% Probabittiy of Exceedence.in 50 Years 3.5 4.0 MACTECO 1 _51091/..JDBEpaaxrf FIGURE 7 1 1 1, F- DATE: May 18, 2005 JOB:4953.05-1091 2.0 1.5 0) i a) a) U —a 1.0 a) ''Q. O T3 W CL 0.5 0.0 1 I i t _ -'---� - j i - i . ' - ALL.. i 1 Li,' i t �' I 1 i i - ll� 1 i I --1••--t ; H--i 2% damping ; 5% damping • • t-- I ' — - 10% damping J . ' ' I j I ( �- T-T ' ( I. i i i—f i t i l i i i i ! 1 i i 1 1 ' i ; ! t { — i i_ f i 1 _ i • ` • _._ -. -- - - -- --- -' --- 1 -- Tim—: — • • ....' ' 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Period (seconds) 3.0 HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRA - SITE SPECIFIC Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian UBE - 10% Probabiltiy of Exceedence in 100 Years 3.5 4.0 MACTEC f ._40734/..JU BEpaa.grf FIGURE 8 1 APPENDIX . CURRENT AND PRIOR FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation . October 26, 2005 MACTECProject 4953-05-1091 i� 1 '1 1 1 '1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX A CURRENT AND PRIOR FIELD EXPLORATIONS The soil conditions beneath the site were explored by drilling one boring. In addition, data were available from our prior investigation adjacent to the site (our Job. No. 69080). The locations of our current and prior borings are shown on Figure 2. The current borings were drilled to a depth of 50 feet below the existing grade using 8-inch-diameter hollow stem auger -type drilling equipment. The prior borings were drilled to depths of 40 to 50 feet "below the existing grade using 18-inch- diameter bucket -type drilling equipment. The elevations for the prior explorations are based on a datum different than what was assumed for our current explorations. 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. 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 boring are presented on Figure A-1; the logs from our prior nearby borings are presented in Figures A-1.2 through A-1.3. The depths at which 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, standard penetration tests (SPTs) were performed in our current boring; the results of the tests are indicated on the logs. The soils are classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System described on Figure A-2. CURRENT AND PRIOR LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples obtained from the borings to aid in the classification of the soils and to evaluate their engineering properties: 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 presented to the left of the boring logs. A-1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTECProject 4953-05-1091 Direct shear tests were performed on selected undisturbed samples to determine the strength of the soils. The tests were performed after soaking to near -saturated moisture content and at various surcharge pressures.. The maximum values determined from the direct shear tests are presented in Figure A-3.1 and A-3.2, Direct Shear Test Data. Confined consolidation tests were performed on undisturbed samples. Water was. added to the samples during the test to illustrate the effect of moisture on the compressibility. The results of the tests are presented in Figure A-4.1 through A-4.2, 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 the boring.. The test was performed in accordance with the ASTM Designation D1557 method,of compaction. The results of the test are presented in Figure A-5, Compaction Test Data. To provide information for paving design, a stabilometer test ("R" value test) was performed on a sample of the upper soils. The results of the test are presented on Figure A-6.1 through A-62. R- Value Test Report Soil corrosivity test was performed on samples of the on -site soils. The results of the test are presented at the end of the Appendix. A-2 1 i, 1 J ELEVATION (ft) pa 0 A v BORING 1 DATE DRILLED: April 25, 2005 EQUIPMENT USED: Hollow Stem Auger HOLE DIAMETER (in.):. 8 ELEVATION: 102** 100- 5 95 - 10 90- 15 85- 20 80- 25 75- 30 70- - 35 65 - 40 30 34 56 79 12.3 111 22.6 5.4 4.8 3.7 120 106 99 103. 101 104 29 26 24 28 4] 92/11" (C • `. j 4 ONTINUED ON 6" Thick Asphalt Concrete over 2%z` Thick Base Course SILTY CLAY - very stiff, moist, light brown, some fine sand Layer of SILTY SAND - moist, light brown, fine and • • Becomes brownish gray SANDY SILT - very stiff, moist, light gray, very fine to fine sand POORLY GRADED SAND - medium dense, slightly moist, light brown, fine sand Becomes very dense, some Silt Cemented layer, approximately 6" Becomes dense, light gray FOLLOWING FIGURE) Field Tech: GMC Prepared By: LT Checked By: .By: 5 1 — HOAG Memorial Hospital Newport Beach, California OMACTEC LOG OF BORING Project: 4953-05-1091 Figure: A -I .I a 1 t 1 1 1 i t z -, H o amva -1 l-: ¢zw' � O 0 F'W�Uo Aa, a„ oQ MI ca q zA� A w� a < CO 60- 55- 50- 45- 40- 35 - 30- 25 - 45 50 55 60' 65 70 75 80 49 SAMPLE LOC, BORING 1 (Continued) DATE DRILLED: April 25, 2005 EQUIPMENT USED: Hollow Stem Auger HOLE DIAMETER (in.): 8 ELEVATION: 102** 18.1 107 43 SM HOAG Memorial Hospital Newport Beach, California sz SILTY SAND - dense, wet, light brown with rusty stain, fme sand SANDY SILT - very stiff; wet, light gray and light brown, some Clay Few rounded gravel END OF BORING AT 50 FEET NOTE: Hand angered upper 5 feet. Water encountered at 42.3 feet, 10 minutes after auger removed. Caving below 42%2 feet. -Possible caving from 17 to 43 feet. Boring backfhled with soil cuttings and tamped. * Number of blows required to drive the Crandall sampler 12 inches using a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. ** Boring elevation based on assumed datum with Elevation 100. (please see Plot Plan). JMACTEC Field Tech: GMC Prepared By: LT Checked By: LOG OF BORING Project: 4953-05-1091 Figure: A -I .I b 1 75- 70- 1 O J▪ �`‘ ��Jti j JQ,`` Q÷ O\ca�� O S,G P4. 12.0 123 10 651 15 16.3 23.9 113 103 (PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION A-690803 BORING 7 DATE -DRILLED : Mcy 2, 1.969 EOUIPMENT USED : 18"-Diometer Bucket ELEVATION J76,,QQ ML- FILL - SANDY SILT and ZLAYEY SILT MIX TURF - 24.4 100 601 2.9 V 20---5.6 55 1. 35 30 2 8:.2 4.9 14.1 102 103 108 97 4 5.5 89 12.9 45 5� 7.9 99 115 1 III SP L rootlets, pieces of wire, brown SILTY CLAY - jointeci,mottted grey and brown SAND - fine, Tight brownish -grey Lenses of Silt, few grovel; light grey Coarse, brown Loyer of CLAYEY SILT - light grey • Cemented layer Lenses of Silt, brown Layer of SANDY SILT - tight grey Lenses of Silt, light grey Few gravel SILTY CLAY - some Sand, few gravel, brown NOTE: Water not encountered. Raveling from 17 to 23' (to 24" in diameter). LOG OF BOR ING- LEROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES FIC-HIRE A-1.2 — 7 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 •s\ / 75 1- . 5 70 - ♦ • 12.1 123 y\' ff? a�� o\' (PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION A-69080) BORING 10 DATE DRILLED : April 29, 1969 EQUIPMENT USED: 18"-Diameter Bucket ELEVATION 7940 SC • CLAYEY SAND _ fine, rootlets, brown - 10' 65-' 15 -1 r 20 55-1 25 50 45 - 23.3 .19.9 9.7 4.0 14.1 3.0 2.1 30 5.1 - 35- 2.9 104 104 107 102 109 102 100 04 93 1 401 40 8.1 88 I_.:_ MI CLAYEY SILT - some Sand, brown Layer of SAND - fine, Tight grey SAND - fine, light brownish -grey Layer of Silty Clay - brown Cemented layers Silty (GAD USED FROM 30 TO 30.5 FEET) • NOTE: Water not encountered. Caving from 22' to 27' .(to 36" in diameter). Silty LOG OF BORING LEROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE A-1.3 MAJOR DIVISIONS COARSE GRAINED SOILS (More than 50% of material is LARGER than No. 200 sieve size) FINE GRAINED SOILS (More than 50% of material is SMALLER than No. 200 sieve size) GRAVELS (More- than 50% of coarse fraction is LARGER than the No. 4 sieve size) SANDS (More than 50% of coarse fraction Is SMALLER than the No. 4 Sieve Size) CLEAN GRAVELS (Little or no fines) GRAVELS WITH FINES (Appreciable amount of fines) CLEAN SANDS (Little or no fines) SANDS WITH FINES (Appreciable amount of fines) SILTS AND CLAYS (Liquid limit LESS than 50) SILTS AND CLAYS (Liquid limit GREATER than 50) HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS .)r GROUP SYMBOLS GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML 'CL OL MH CH OH PT sme — a .No is so os s — sis— TYPICAL NAMES Well graded gravels, gravel • sand mixtures, little or no fines, Poorly graded gravels or grave • sand mixtures, little or no fines. Silty gravels, gravel • sand • silt mixtures. Clayey gravels, gravel • sand • clay mixtures. . Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines. Silty sands, sand • silt mixtures Clayey sands, sand • clay mixtures. Inorganic silts and very tine sands, rock flour, silty of clayey fine sands or clayey silts And wjth slip t plasticity, Inorganic lays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays. Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity. Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils; elastic silts. Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts. Peat and other highly organic soils, BOUNDARY CLASSIFICATIONS: Soils possessing characteristics of two groups are designated by combinations .of group symbols, SILT OR CLAY SAND GRAVEL Fine Medium Coarse Fine Coarse Cobbles Boulders No.200 No.40 No.10 No.4 3/4" U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 3" 12" Reference: The Unified Soil Classification System, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army Technical Memorandum No. 3.357, Vol. 1, March, 1953 (Revised April, 1960) Undisturbed Sample Standard Penetration Test Rock Core Dilatometer Packer Water Table at time of drilling 0 Auger Cuttings Bulk Sample Crandall Sampler Pressure Meter No Recovery Water Table after 24 hours Correlation of Penetration Resistance with Relative Density and Consistency SAND & GRAVEL No, of Blows 0.4 5.10 11 -30 31.50 Over 50 • Relative Density Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense No, of 0- 2• 5- 9- 16- 'Over SILT & CLAY Blows Consistency 1 Very Soft 4 Soft 8 Medium Stiff 15 Stiff 30 Very Stiff 30 Hard KEY TO SYMBOLS AND DESCRIPTIONS MACTEC FIGURE A-2 t t73 10 12 a 1 1 H !w SURCHARGE PRESSURE in Pounds per Square Foot 0 1000. 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 KEY: 0 SHEAR STRENGTH in Pounds per Square Foot 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 x ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ I@s%z o ♦ Boring Sample Number and Depth (ft.) • ♦�@gi, ♦ ♦ ♦ O 1Q11'% ♦ . \ 1QI7% ♦ 0 ♦♦%2 IQ23 I@5V2 1@8%z ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 0 Values Used in Analyses ♦ ♦ /, \ 1@ms 0 1QI7i ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ o Samples tested after soaking to a moisture content near saturation DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA MACTEC FIGURE A - 3J 1 1 1 0 Lz cr, 1000 0 " Cr t_ 2000 en 0 3000 D Cr 4000 CL CC 5000 6000 SHEAR STRENGTH in Pounds per Square • Foot 3000 4000 5000 6000 \ Vioze 6-tv-30.• o 40/7J log...5- se7\t • -Ig„o .9e-5 • 6e-ea PROPOSED NURSING WING .9,40t. .. • acia 4/ \ 0.odo • st-/-- ste...4- \ • 7,3'/7 8e/.6 BORING /SAMPLE i / i ....9 /. NUMBER DEPTH . 8 (FT.) • . . /oe 0.9 e• ././m ,54 IN • 6 27 wa 00 . • Af,e_so 6036 \fel& 7 • VALUES IN USED ANALYSES ' \ • \ . . • 70/7 • • /1/4i. , . 4 KEY: • Tests at field moisture content o Tests at increased moisture content DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA LEROY CRANDALL 6 ASSOCIATES IFI6ORE A - 3.: CONSOLIDATION IN INCHES PER INCH 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14. 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 Boring 1 at 5Y2 SILTY CLAY NOTE: Water added to samp es after consolidation under a load of 1.8 kips per square foot. CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA' MACTEC teg'ir FIGURE A-4.1 1 CONSOLIDATION IN INCHES PER INCH LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.00. 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Boring 1 at I 1 %' SILTY CLAY NOTE: Water added to sample after consolidation under a load of 1.8 kips per square foot. CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA • MACTEC FIGUREA-4.2 1 BORING NUMBER AND SAMPLE DEPTH: SOIL TYPE: MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY; (Ibs./cu.ft.) 1 at 3 to 6' - SILTY CLAY 126 OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT: 10.5 (%) TEST METHOD: ASTM Designation D1557 COMPACTION TEST DATA MACTEC FIGURE A - 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 Date: Project No.: Project: Depth: Material Description: Tested by: Checked by: Remarks: RESISTANCE R-VALUE TESTING RESULTS (Cal Test 301) 05/05/2005 4953-05-1091.02 Hoag Memorial Medical 3-6' SANDY CLAY (CL), brown NS JH Lab #16328 Sample Number: 1 Test specimen number 1 2 3 Compaction pressure (psi): Wet weight (gms): Dry weight (gms) : Tare weight (gms): Exudation load bs.) sue• ,, . ��<, .l- ._.(l0A; ;.� Total weight (gms.): Mold weight (gms.): Initial expansion (x10,000): • 0 300 1320.0 - '1199.2 0.0 x Final expansion (x10,000): S-*:ins •.presSU'e:.1, 75''r.', Ph at 2000 lbs.: D turns: 3244.0 2109.0 15 120. 3.69 R-Value at 300 psi exudation pressure = 20 150 1330.0 1199.2 0.0 3263.0 2110.0 0 7 129 3:94 350 1310.0 1199.2 0.0 3269.0 2115..0 MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. FIGURE A-6.I — 1 R-VALUE TEST REPORT t i 1 1 1 a) m 100 80 60 40 20 0 --I-- __ r -1 I t\ = I ! ;, ,,,I tlt, 1III tilt lilt MIL,' IIIIIIIIIIIIII III, WI lttl tilt 800 700 600 500 400 Exudation Pressure - psi Resistance R-Value and Expansion Pressure - Cat Test 301. 300 200 100 No. 1 Compact. Pressure psi 2 3 300 150 350 Density pcf 125.0 123.1 128.1 Moist. 10.1 10.9 9.2 Expansion Pressure psi 0.45 0.21 0.64 Horizontal Press. psi @ 160 psi 120 129 106 Sample Height in. 2.50 2.56 2.50 Exud. Pressure psi 282 187 390 R Value 18 13 26 R Value Corr. 18 14 26 Test Results Material Description R-value at 300 psi exudation pressure = 20 SANDY CLAY (CO, brown Project No.: 4953-05-1091.02 Project:Hoag Memorial Medical Sample Number: 1 Date: 05/05/2005 Depth: 3-6' R-VALUE TEST REPORT MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, lnc. Tested by: NS Checked by: JH Remarks: Lab #16328 Plate FIGURE A-6.2 M.J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC. 431 Wes! Baseline Road Claremont, CA 91711 TEL (909) 626-0967 / FAX _(909) 626-3316 E-mail: mjsa@mjschOcom http://www.mjschicom TRANSMITTAL LETTER DATE: May 18, 2005 ATTENTION: Ms. Lan-Anh Tran To: MACTEC 200 Citadel Drive Los Angeles, CA 90040 SUBJECT: Laboratory Test Data Hoag Memorial Medical Your # 4953-05-1091 MJS&A # 05-061 SLAB COMMENTS: Enclosed are the results for the subject project. es T. Keegan Laboratory Manager M. J. Schiff & Associates, Inc. (909) 626-0967Fax: (909) 626-3316 Consulting Corrosion Engineers -Since 1959 Phone: 431 W. Baseline Road E-mail lab a(�mjsch jcom Claremont, CA 91711 website: mjschiff com Table 1- Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples Sample ID Resistivity as -received saturated pH MACTEC Hoag Memorial Medical, Newport Beach, CA Your #4953-05-1091, MJS&A #05-061 SLAB 3-May-05 Units ohm -cm ohm -cm @ 5.5' CL 13,000 1,400 8.4 Electrical Conductivity mS/cm 0.25 Chemical Analyses Cations calcium Cat+ mg/kg 36 magnesium Mgt+ mg/kg 15 sodium Na'+ mg/kg 178 Anions carbonate C032- mg/kg ND bicarbonate HC031- mg/kg 571 chloride Cl mg/kg ND sulfate S042- mg/kg 67 Other Tests ammonium NH41+ mg/kg nitrate NO31- mg/kg sulfide, S2_ qual Redox mV na na na na Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis were made on a 1:5 soil -to -water extract. mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil. Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts ND= not detected na = not analyzed Page 1 of 1 IMACTEC engineering and constructing a better tomorrow October 9, 2007 Mr. Greg Zoll Facilities Design and Construction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive; P.O. Box 6100 Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Subj ect: Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation Proposed MRI Building Additions and Renovation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Dear Mr. McClure: We previously performed a geotechnical investigation for the subject project at the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California and presented the results in a report dated October 26, 2005. Subsequently, we provided geotechnical recommendations in supplemental letters dated March 28, 2006, June 22, 2006, December 5, 2006, and February 27, 2007 for the subject project. Dr. Martin B. Hudson will be the Senior Principal Engineer for this project. The previous MACTEC report and supplemental letters have been reviewed by the undersigned and are acceptable. Dr. Hudson may be contacted at (323) 889-5300, or mbhudson@mactec.com for any questions or additional consultation on the project. 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 letter. 1 MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 5628 E. Slauson Avenue • Los Angeles, CA 90040 • Phone: 323.889.5300 • Fax: 323.721.6700 www.mactec.com Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian— Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation October 9, 2007 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 We look forward to continuing to be of professional service to you. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. Lan-Anh Tran ProjecfEngineer 7. • Martin B. Hudson, Ph.D. Senior Principal Engineer P:14953 Geotech12005 prolI51091 HOAG Memorial Medical CenterlDeliverables14953-05-10911tIl.doc/LT::It (2 copies submitted) cc: (3) RBB Architects Attn: Ms. Cherry Huie 2 I. �'MACTEC engineering and constructing a better tomorrow February 27, 2007 Mr. Greg McClure Facilities Design and Construction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive; P.O. Box 6100 Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Subject: Response to City of Newport Beach Geotechnical Report Review Checklist Proposed MRI Building Additions and Renovation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California Plan Check No: 2456-2006 City of Newport Beach Job No: 1679N-156 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Dear Mr. McClure: We previously performed a geotechnical investigation for the subject project at the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California and presented the results in a report dated October 26, 2005. Subsequently, we provided geotechnical recommendations in supplemental letters dated March 28, 2006, June 22, 2006, and December 5, 2006 for the subject project. This letter provides our responses to the Geotechnical Report Review Checklist by the City of Newport Beach dated November 3, 2006. The Review Checklist is attached for your reference. Our responses are presented below. In the checklist, the October 26, 2005 report (referred to as "Report 2" in the checklist), and the March 28, 2006 letter (referred to as "Report 1") were reviewed. Response 1 (Report 1): The lateral capacities for piles with sonotubes used in the upper portion of the piles are revised here in based on the plan check comment, and are presented on the following page. The deflection of the piles is shown as greater to account for the approximate '/-inch thickness of the sonotube. For piles where lateral isolation using a compressive material or gap around the piles is necessary because of MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 200 Citadel Drive • Los Angeles, CA 90040-1554 • Phone: 323.889.5300 • Fax: 323.721.6700 www.mactec.com 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian — Response to Review Comments February 27, 2007 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 the proximity of the piles to the basement, then no Iateral capacity should be assumed for those piles; structural elements such as grade beams should be used to transfer lateral loads to foundation elements away from the basement walls. For piles away from the basement walls, where neither sonotubes or a gap (annulus space) is necessary at the top of the pile, then the full lateral capacity presented in the March 28, 2006 letter may be used. Lateral Capacity -inch-diameter Drilled Pile with Sonotubes in Upper Portion Pile Head Deflection (inches) Pile Head Condition Free Fixed Free Fixed Lateral Load (kips) 42 92 59 119 Maximum Moment (ft-kips) 150 388 243 592 Depth to Maximum Moment (ft) 51/2 0 5% 0 Depth to Zero Moment (ft) 19 22 19 22 Lateral Capacity -inch-diameter Drilled Pile with Sonotubes in Upper Portion Pile Head Deflection (inches) % % Pile Head Condition Free Fixed Free Fixed Lateral Load (kips) 61 126 84 172 Maximum Moment (ft-kips) 243 635 382 1011 Depth to Maximum Moment (ft) 7/ 0 71/2 0 Depth to Zero Moment (ft) 23 27 23 27 Lateral Capacity -inch-diameter Drilled Pile with Sonotubes in Upper Portion Pile Head Deflection (inches) % 3/4 Pile Head Condition Free Fixed Free Fixed Lateral Load (kips) 83 168 113 236 Maximum Moment (ft-kips) 373 978 592 1588 Depth to Maximum Moment (ft) 9 0 9 0 Depth to Zero Moment (ft) 26 31 26 31 1 2 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian — Response to Review Comments February 27, 2007 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Response 2 (Report 1): Previous geotechnical investigations have indicated the presence of methane gas in the subsurface soils, however, the installation of piles is feasible with a proper Health and Safety Plan to be provided by the pile drilling subcontractor at the time of the installation; the drilling subcontractor should prepare such a health and safety plan prior to excavation. We did not analyze the piles for end bearing (the piles are assumed to behave as pure friction piles), therefore, the cleaning of pile bottoms to obtain a competent end -bearing surface is not required. Response 3 (Report 1): In our March 28, 2006, we recommended that the existing fill could be left in place if pile foundations are used. For this case, the floor slabs of the additions should be structurally supported rather than supported at grade. Response 4 (Report 2) : We do not anticipate having to overexcavate at locations planned for paving. Only minor paving is planned. Based on the available information, we expect to find natural soils below the existing paved area in the area planned for new paving. Our inspector will verify that the soils exposed in the paving excavations are suitable. If existing fill soils are encountered, they should be excavated and replaced with properly compacted fill. Response 5 (General): • The supplemental Ietter indicated as Report 1 is properly dated March 28, 2006. This letter referenced a report dated May 25, 2005, which is incorrect. The correct. date referenced should be October 26, 2005 (Report 2). • The locations of the proposed development, new and prior borings and the cross section are . shown on the attached Figure 1, Plot Plan. 3 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian — Response to Review Comments Febntary 27, 2007 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 • The on -site clayey soils are classified as moderately expansive. The soils may be used as fill since the expansion potential is considered to be low to moderate. This recommendation is consistent with previous grading recommendations prepared at Hoag Memorial Hospital Medical Center, such as those given in our report dated April 4, 2003 for the proposed addition to the James Irvine Surgery Center (our Job No. 4953-03-0931). • The corrosivity test results indicate the onsite soils are corrosive to ferrous metals when saturated and the attack on concrete is negligible. These results are consistent with prior corrosion studies performed on the campus. • Hardscape elements may be supported on grade if the recommendations for grading are followed as presented in our October 26, 2005 report. Existing fill soils beneath hardscape elements should be excavated and replaced as properly compacted fill. • The site is adequate for the proposed development if the recommendations presented in our report and letters are followed. The topography at the site is relatively level and there are no existing slopes at the site or immediately adjacent to the site. The proposed development will not have an adverse affect on the geologic stability of adjacent properties. All other recommendations in our October 26, 2005 report and supplemental letters remain applicable. 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 letter. 4 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian — Response to Review Comments February 27, 2007 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 It has been a pleasure to be of professional service to you. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. Lan-Anh Tran Martin B. Hudson, Ph.D. Staff Engineer Senior Principal Engineer Project Manager P:I4953 Geotech12005 proj151091 HOAG Memorial Medical CenterlDeliverables14953-05-10911t05r doc/LT:1t (2 copies submitted) Attachments: City of Newport Beach Geotechnical Report Review Checklist Figure 1. Plot Plan cc: (1) KPFF Consulting Engineers Attn: Mr_ Terang Kim (3) City of Newport Beach 5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GEOTECHNICAL REPORT REVIEW CHECKLIST Date Received: October 24, 2006 Date of Report: October 26, 2005 Consultant: MACTEC Site Address: One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California Date completed: November 3j 2006 Plan Check No: 2456-2006 Our Job No: 1679N-156 Title of Reports: 1. Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Additions to MRl Building, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drve, Newport Beach, California, dated March 28, 2006 2_ Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Additions to MR1 Building, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drve, Newport Beach, California, dated October 26, 2005 Purpose of Report: Geotechnical recommendations for a I-Iospital Building Project Inforxmation/Background: Y/N Review of Existing City Files Y/N Reference to Site(s) by Street Address Y/N Reference to Grading/Foundation Plans by Date Y/N Subsurface Investigation Y/N Aerial Photograph Geologic Hazards - Hazard Discussion Adverse Geologic Structure Y/N/NA Bluff Retreat Y/N/NA Debris/Mud Flow Y/N/NA Differential Settlement Y/N/NA Erosion Y/N/NA Expansive Soils Y/N/NA Faulting Y/N/NA Fractured Bedrock Y/N/NA Groundwater Y/N/NA Landslide Y/N/NA Liquefaction YIN/NA Settlement/Collapsible Soils Y/N/NA Slump Y/N/NA SoilRock Creep Y/N/NA Sulfate Rich Soils Y/N/NA Supporting Analysis/Data Recommendations for Y/N/NA Slope Stability Calculations Y/N/NA Foundations Y/N/NA Shear Strength Values Y/N/NA Retaining Walls Y/N/NA Other Laboratory Data Y/N/NA Foundation Setbacks Y/N/NA Seismicity Y/N/NA Slabs Y/N/NA Boring/Trench•Logs Y/N/NA Flatwork Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA •Y/N/NA Liquefaction Study Calculations Supporting Recommendations Geologic Map and Cross Sections . Drainage Plan Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Grading Pools/Spas Slope/Bluff Setbacks Adequacy for Intended use Not Adversely Impacting Adjoining Sites PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE REPORT, ATTEND TO THE ITEMS BELOW: Report 1 1. Pages 2 and 3, Lateral capacity of Piles: Lateral capacities presented in the report appear to be too high. Please provide computations to support the results presented. Also, please indicate how the proposed gap or the compressible materials was modeled and its impact on the lateral response. 2. Page 4, Section on Pile Installation: = Previous geotechnical investigations have indicated the presence of methane gas in the subsurface. Considering this, please address the feasibility of installing drilled piles. • If drilling mud is used, the bottom should be cleaned to obtain end bearing for the piles. Please describe how the bottom would be cleaned obtain a competent surface. Also indicate how the impact of the drilling mud was accounted for in the bearing capacity computations. 3_ General: The report does not provide recommendations for floor slabs of the modified foundations system. Please indicate whether they should be designed to span between pile rows or grade beams. Report 2 4. Page 22, Section on Pavement: Please indicate whether overexcavation is necessary in areas receiving structural pavements_ 5. General: • Report dates are confusing. The supplemental report (Report 1) appears to have been written on March 28, 2006. This report indicates that the main report (Report 2) was published on May 25, 2006. However, the combined copy submitted for review indicates the publishing date of both reports as October 25, 2005. Please clarify. • The locations of the proposed development and the borings drilled are not shown on the site plan. In addition, the location of the cross section is not shown either. Please revise. • Please address the expansive potential of near surface soils. The laboratory consolidation tests have exhibited swelling indicating that the soils could be expansive. Considering this, indicate whether any special consideration is necessary for the design of floor slabs (see Comment 3). • A single corrosivity test indicates a low corrosion potential of site soils. Please indicate the applicability of this test to the soils in contact with subsurface structures. • Please provide recommendations for flatwork including overexcavation depths. • Please include a statement on the adequacy of the site for its intended use. • Please address the impact of the proposed development on the adjacent properties. X Please review and comment upon the geotechnical aspects of the grading plan and the foundation plan and verify that the plans are in conformance with the geotechnical recommendations of the referenced report. Please include a copy of the plans with your response. Additional Comments (no response required): •Note to City Staff: Staff should confirm that the Consultants (C.E.G. and R.C.E/G.E.) have signed the final dated grading, foundation/construction and landscaping plans, per City Code, thereby verifying the plans' geotechnical conformance with the Consultant's original report and associated addenda. Limitations of Review: Our review is intended to determine if the submitted report(s) comply with City Codes and generally accepted geotechnical practices within the local area. The scope of our services for this third party review has been limited to a brief site visit and a review of the above referenced report and associated documents, as supplied by the City of Newport Beach. Re -analysis of reported data and/or calculations and preparation of amended construction or design recommendations are specifically not included within our scope of services. Our review should not be considered as a certification, approval or acceptance of the previous consultant's work, nor is meant as an acceptance of liability for the final design or construction recommendations made by the geoteclutical consultant of record or the project designers or engineers. Opinions presented in this review are for City's use only. BY: BY: Gamini Weeratunga, G.E. 2403 Ken Bagahi, Ph.D., BAGAHI ENGINEERING, INC. BAGAJ-II ENGINE C W1G, INC. 1 •mm 1 .____•,.. .2-.`,.......-. 11 ..../ -77 ri. 1 - i :14 i I II1-:-._,.I-.-N i -_7M! ..... . - 1..- -----..a. • i/ • .. ''" 1 "•_, ',..,_ ..;" - __...------------ _ _. ----__, ,2, ._____ —7 • • /"" PO.C)°431' 4.9 'El • (Wet-.t_SAC) ?9SG it ••- ,--N Vf.„,...---\ \ \ ,:..\\ ,;-; i ..------.------' \ ..„,. \ ' i.i \--------. %\ \ 1 ! i , ,, , \ C.‘.....,-- --\ '...\,_ - , 7 ....------J i • - - 1 . -"•. '..., 1 r : \ \) \ ;1 ,...--' , N • / , -----....,_____--;.: •, ,I... ....-, .- • . ._ 1 •,....-:.- \ . .• \ " $ .--. -k 1 1 \ .s-•:::`-` . • .• i ...,.. *.- • : s'• .. .‘ \ _N::::;.--\ , V.- / '•. \ \ s ( . ....., ,, \ - - - - — 1r- • \ - - N E 1; - T.- a_ v SRFITEFFREPLNACN-FSBY TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES DATED NOVEMBER 2000 ri I t 1! _ IE _ -1_ 33 0 0 301 Newport Blvd.. Newport Beach. California REFERENCES: SITE PLAN BY TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES DATED NOVEMBER 2000. LEGEND: 1 • CURRENT INVESTIGATION (4953-05-1091) • 7 Q PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION (A-69080) L BORING LOCATION AND NUMBER (-I BENCH MARK FOR CURRENT BORING ELEVATIONS, FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION AT EMERGENCY CARE UNIT. ASSUMED ELEVATION = 100.0 PLOT PLAN SCALE 1" = 100' .00" 20C> SC tonsE 1 OlvIACTEC FIGURE 1 &MACTEC engineering and constructing a better tomorrow December 5, 2006 Mr. Greg McClure Facilities Design and Construction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive; P.O. Box 6100 Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Subject: Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation Proposed MRI Building Additions and Renovation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Dear McClure: We previously performed a geotechnical investigation for the subject project at the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California and presented the results in a report dated October 26, 2005. Subsequently, we provided geotechnical recommendations for alternative foundation types in a letter dated March 28, 2006 and our opinions regarding overexcavation in a letter dated June 22, 2006. This letter presents our recommendations for pile load testing to address OSHPD review comments as emailed to us by Mr. Terang Kim of KPFF Consulting Engineers on November 22, 2006. To confirm the downward capacity of the piles, at least one initial pile should be load tested. The test pile should be tested to at least two times the allowable downward pile capacity based on the values given in our March 28, 2006 letter. The test Toad should be applied in at least four equal load increments up to the maximum test load; the 200% test load should be maintained for at least 15 minutes. As an alternative to conventional load testing, it is acceptable to utilize an Osterberg load cell; if a load cell is used, reaction piles will not need to be installed. Also, after testing, the test pile can be used as a production pile if the hydraulic lines are flushed with grout. MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 200 Citadel Drive • Los Angeles, CA 90040-1554 • Phone: 323.889.5300 • Fax: 323.721.6700 www.mactec.com The pile length or diameter may need to be modified based on the test results. If the design of the piles is governed by upward loading rather than downward loading, the pile should be tested in tension. HoagMemorial Hospital Presbyterian — Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation December 5, 2006 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 '( III Ii‘ . ( The portion of the pile extending through the fill may be cased with a sonotube. If a sonotube is used, the downdrag loads due to settlement of the undocumented fill soils may be ignored in the design. Downdrag loads should not be considered when the pile is in upward loading. As there are only a small number of piles planned for the project, it may be desirable to perform the load test on a non -production pile near the project site, well in advance of production pile installation, to confirm the capacities. Caution must be taken to protect adjacent existing footings and utilities during testing. All other recommendations in our October 2005 report and June 22, 2006 letter remain applicable. 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. letter. 1 2 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian— Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation December 5, 2006 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 It has been a pleasure to be of professional service to you. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. Lan-Anh Tran Staff Engineer Marshall Lew, Ph.D. Senior Principal Vice President No. 522 Exp. 3-31-09 JECH44 P:14953 Geotech12005 proj151091 HOB edical CenterlDeliverables14953-05-/0911t04.dos/LT.•lt (2 copies submitted) ff Martin B. Hudson, Ph.D. Senior Principal Engineer Project Manager cc: KPFF Consulting Engineers Attn: Terang Kim 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor Department of Conservation CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 801 K Street • Mail Slop 12-32 • Sacramento, CA 958'14-3531 telephone: 916-323-4399 • TOD: 916-324-2555 • Web Site: conservation.ca.gov/cgs CALIFORNIA CONSERVATION Ms. Catherine F. Slater, CEG 2219, Senior Engineering Geologist CStater@oshpd.state.ca.us 916-653-8440 Facilities Development Division Office of Statewide Health Planning & Development 1600 Ninth Street, Suite 420 Sacramento, CA 95814-6414 November 8, 2006 Subject: Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology for Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Emergency Care Unit and MRI Renovation . One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, Orange County, CA 92658-6100 OSHPD Permit # HL-050402-30 OSHPD Facility # 10428 Hoag Hospital project #0413700 Dear Ms. Slater: . in accordance with your request and transmittal. of documents, the California Geological Survey has performed an.engineering geology -and seismology review.to'check for conformance with the. • 2001 California Building Code; California Code of Regulations, Title 24, particularly Chapter 16 (seismology), Chapter 18 (foundations), and Chapter 33(grading). This is a $31 million renovation and expansion of the existing Emergency Care Unit (ECU) and the MRI scanning building. • We reviewed these_two reports that were bound.together in one document: Carl C. Kim, Registered Geotechnical Engineer 2620; and Lan-Anh Tran, Staff. Engineer; 2006, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed MRI Building Additions and Renovation, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian: Mactec Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 200 Citadel Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90040; g 323-889-5300, .Mactec project no. 4953-05-1091,- Mactec report dated March 28, 2006; 8 pages. • Kirkgard, Susan F., Certified Engineering Geologist 1754, Carl C. Kim, Registered Geotechnical Engineer 2620, Lan-Anh Tran, Staff Engineer, 2005, Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Additions to MRI Building, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian: Mactec Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 200 Citadel Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90040; g 323-889-5300, Mactec project no. 4953-05-1091, Mactec report dated October 26, 2005; 35 pages. Within the scope.of this review, the California Geological Survey performed these tasks: 0 review of geologic maps for the NewportBeach area of Orange County; 0 evaluation of the earthquake 'ground - motion; a evaluation of•the borehole logs • and the geologic•ctoss-section,. 0-'evaluation of the geotechnical laboratory.tests, and-Q - preparation of this.revievcr letter. Several years ago, we inspected the campus of Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian where the California Geological Survey operates and maintains a strong -motion accelerometer.. For this new phase of construction, we did not perform a new geologic field -inspection. • The (Department "Conservation's mission is to protest Californians and their environment by: (Protecting hues andproperty from eartiquakts arrdlands6des,• Snsuring safe mining and atarufgas diilHug; Construing Cai fonsia'sfarmfana aneSaving energy and -resources through recycling. Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology for Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian ECU and MRI Renovation OSHPD Facility #10428 November 8, 2006 In the numbered paragraphs below, this review is keyed to the paragraph numbers of California Geological Survey Note 48, Checklist for the Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology Reports for California Public Schools, Hospitals, and Essential Services Buildings_ Project Location .. :. 1. Site Location: OK, an index map was properly prepared (Figure 1). 2. Boreholes: OK, sufficient Boreholes were drilled for this project with a relatively small footprint. Boreholes #1, 7 and 10 are used by the consultants, and a plot plan is shown in Figure 2. 3. Site Coordinates: Satisfactory. The consultants reported the site coordinates of the hospital campus from the Newport Beach TA -minute Quadrangle: 117.9294 degrees west Longitude, and 33.6242 degrees north Latitude. 2 Engineering Geology 4. • Regional Geologic. and Fault Map: OK, a fault map of the Newport Beach region is provided in Figures 4 and 5. 5. Geologic Map of Site: OK, refer to Figure 4. 6. Subsurface Geology at Site: Satisfactorily described. 7. Geologic Cross Sections: Satisfactory. Refer to Figure 3. This is a two -layer stratigraphic model, with Quaternary terrace deposits (�30+ feet thick) overlying siltstone of the Monterey Formation at depth. .8. Evaluation of Active Faulting & Coseismic Deformation: OK.. The consultants have stated that there is no Aiquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone within this hospital campus. 9.. Seismic Hazard Zones: OK, the official Newport Beach quadrangle of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Program was properly referenced. This project is not within either a liquefaction zone or -a landslide zone. 10. Landslides: Satisfactory; not applicable to this elevated terrace. 11. Geotechnical Laboratory Testing: OK. 12. Expansive Soils: OK. 13. Geochemistry of the Geologic Subgrade: OK. 14. Flooding OK. This site on an elevated terrace is not subject to flooding. Seismology & Calculation of Earthquake Ground Motion 15. Evaluation of Historic Seismicity: Satisfactory, refer to Figure 6. 16. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) Methodology: Satisfactory. 17. Upper -Bound Earthquake Ground -Motion: OK, the Upper -Bound Earthquake ground -motion, 10 percent chance of exceedance in 100 years, is properly cited and used. 18. Design -Basis Earthquake Ground -Motion: OK, proper use of code terminology. 19. Classify the Geologic Subgrade: OK, we concur that the geologic subgrade is appropriately classified as Type Sc= "very dense soil or soft rock" alluvium) from Table 16A-J of 2001 CBC. 20. Near -Source Coefficients: Satisfactory. On page 21, Na Pe. 1.3 and Nv 1.6 21. Peak Ground Acceleration: OK. On page 15 and 17, and Table 4, these ground motions are provided: Upper -Bound Earthquake Ground Motion, 10% chance of exceedance in 100-years Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA„BE=.0.53g .horizontal Peak Spectral Acceleration, SA'_1.28g at 0.3-second'period Design -Basis Earthquake Ground Motion, 10% chance of exceedance iri 50 years Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAOBE 0.40g horizontal Peak Spectral Acceleration, SA =0.96g at 0.3-second period Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology for • Hoag Memorial hospital Presbyterian ECU and MRI Renovation OSHPD Facility #10428 November 8, 2006 3 The California Geological Survey independently evaluated the ground motion using our 2003 CGS statewide model and a Type Sc (very dense soil) subgrade, and our computations yielded similar results. 22. Normalized Spectral Acceleration: OK, refer to Figures 7 and 8 in the appendix. 23. California Seismic Zone 3 or 4: OK. This site in Orange County is within CBC Seismic Zone 4; so by definition, coefficient Z = 0.4 • 24. Scaled Time -Histories of Earthquake Ground -Motion: Not Applicable to this particular structure. Liquefaction Analysis 25. Geologic Setting: OK, the' consultants have shown that the site is not subject to seismically -induced liquefaction because it is 'underlain by soft rock and located on a elevated terrace bluff that is far above the water table (� 66 feet below grade, as inferred from the downhole shear -wave velocities). 26. Liquefaction Methodology: OK, not applicable . • • 27. Liquefaction Calculations: OK, not applicable 28. Seismic Settlement of the Entire Soil Column: OK, on page 2 of the March 28, 2006 report, the seismic settlement is estimated --.%2-inch (since deep caissons are planned). 29. Lateral Spreading: OK, not applicable to this relatively flat site. 30. Remedial Options for Liquefaction: OK, not applicable. 31. Acceptance Criteria for Liquefaction Remediation: • OK, not applicable. Exceptional Geologic Hazards or Site Conditions: 32 to 43: OK; not applicable•or not reviewed.. Site Grading Plan Review & Foundation Plan Review 44. Areas of Cut & Fill, Preparation of Ground, Depth of Removals: OK . 45. Geologic & Geotechnical Problems Anticipated During Grading Operations: OK. 46. Subdrainage Plans and Hydrogeology: OK (not applicable). 47. Cut -Fill prisms: OK. 48. Deep Foundation Plans: OK. The 8-page report dated March 28, 2006 contains information about the planned use of cast -in drillhole piers (caissons). 49. Retaining Walls and Engineered Fill Buttresses: OK, soldier piles are planned for the braced excavation. Report Documentation 50. Geology, Seismology, and Geotechnical References: OK. . 51. Certified' Engineering Geologist: OK; Rosalind Munro, CEG 1260. 52. Registered Geotechnical Engineer: OK; Dr. Marshall Lew, AGE 522 Conclusions 1. The engineering geology and geotechnical engineering reports for the Emergency Care Unit and MRI building have adequately evaluated the geologic subgrade for this site. `These reports meet the intent of the California Building Code, CCR Title 24. • 2. The seismology values shown in Table 4, and spectral diagrams shown in Figures 7 and 8 are approved: Peak Ground Acceleration; PGAUBE ^; 0.53g • and PGAOBE a0.40g. Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology for Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian ECU and MRI Renovation OSHPD Facility #10428 November 8, 2006 Recommendations 1.. • The two reports prepared by Mactec are recommended for approval from an engineering geology and seismology viewpoint. .. 2. It is recommended that all grading and foundation operations (caissons) be inspected during . construction. At the completion of all grading and foundation work, a final as -built report Should be prepared and copies submitted to OSHPD for final approval. Summary. The consulting reports are adequate, and this project may proceed from an engineering geology and seismology perspective. If you have any further questions about this review letter, please send e-mail messages to • < Robert.Sydnor@conservation.ca.gov > or telephone the California Geological Survey 9167323-4399. Reviewed by: Jerinifer Thornburg Senior Engineering Geologist M-AEG, M-GSA, M-AGU, M-EERI PG 5476, CHG 220, CEG 2240 Respectfully submitted, Robert H. Sydnor Senior Engineering Geologist PG 3267, CPG 4496, CHG 6, CEG 968 LM-AEG M-ASCE, LM-SSA, WEER!, LM-AGU, JenniferThornburg No. 2240 CERTIFIED ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST Enclosure: California Geological Survey Note 48 (2 pages) Checklistfor the Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology Reports for California Public Schools, Hospitals, and Essential Services Buildings ROBERT H. SYDNOR ' No. 6 CERTIFIED HYDROGEOLOGIST M-GSA, M-ASTM ROBERT H. SYDNOR No. 968 CERTIFIED ENGINEERING GgOLOGIST OF C A% M-AtPG, LM-AAAS 4 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology for Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian ECU and MRI Renovation OSHPD Facility #10428 November 8, 2006 Copies to: Rosalind Munro, CEG 1269, M AEG. M-GSA Senior Engineering Geologist Mactec Engineering & Consulting, Inc. 200 Citadel Drive Los Angeles, CA 90040-1554 Dr. Marshall Lew, RGE 522, M-ASCE, M-EERI, M-SSA Principal Geotechnical Engineer and Executive Vice President Mactec Engineering & Consulting, Inc. 200 Citadel Drive Los Angeles, CA 90040-1554 Ramzi Hodali, SE 3552, M-SEAOC, M-ASCE Principal Structural Engineer KPFF Stnictural Engineers 6080. Center Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Sylvia Botero, Architect C-20224,, AIA Architect Supervising Architect RBB Architects, Inc. 10980 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024-3905 Langston Trigg, Jr., Am Architect Vice President for Facilities Design & Construction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, CA 92658-6100 cell 3'. 949-2.78-8223 rmunro@mactec.com office g .323-889-5366 cell g 213-280-3888 mlew@mactec.com office g 323-889-5325 S 310-665-1536 rhodali@kpff-la.com 310-473-3555 sbotero@rbbinc.com `i 949-764-4479 Langston.Trigg@hoaghospital.org 1 1 1 California Geological Survey — Note 48 Checklist for the Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology Reports for California Public Schools, Hospitals, and Essential Services Buildings . January 1, 2004 Note-48 is used by the C'alifomia Geological Survey (CGS) to determine adequacy and completeness of consulting engineering geology, serts CCR Title a lie to California repo that are prepared under California Code of Regulations, Title 24. California Building Code, Hospitals and Skilled Nursing Facilities in California are under the CCR Title 24 applies to California Public Schools. Hospitals, Skilled Nursing Facilities. and Essential- Services Buildings. The Building Official for public schools is the w deion ol the StPlanning & Development (DSA)oilmen_ Survey c decon jurisdiction of the Office of Statewide Healthloeoloanruand seismology revieGv purposes. a GeologicalCaliforniaSurvey serves under contract cgs to these two state agencies for engineering geology Project Name: Cli ck I (R 1 Mil Lh1 }t S Location. OSHPD oral He # l l7 `t 2 g Review by. Date Reviewed: l�!o^` 'e, E. 2 V rP California Certified Engineering Geologist # q% 13 Checklist Item or Parameter�o at withint tConsunot lting Report NIA = not applicable W me Pro'ect Location 1. Site Location Map, Street Address, Cou Name, Plot Plan with Buildin Footprint 2. Adequate Number of Boreholes or Trenches - one per 5,000 ftZ, with minimum of Mc( any one building 3. 'Site Coordinates latitude & ion nude -correctly plotted on a Tit -minute USGS quadrangle base -map Ell ' eerin Geolo 4. Re • Tonal Geology and Regional Fault Maps — concise page -sizes illu 1$ with Site plotted 5. Geologic Map of Site — detailed (large-scale) geologic map with proper symbols and geologic legend 6. Subsurface Geology at Site.— engineering geology demon summarized from boreholes or trench logs JC 7. Geologic Cro55-SeCtiOfS —several detailed geologic sections showing pertinent foundations & site gracing X 8. Active Faulting and Coseismic Deformation Across-Sitetches; 50-foot setbacks from fault tare X Al ist-Priolo Earth Fault Zones for active faults: excavation faun tre9. Geologic Hazard Zones — Seismic Hazard Zone ia tartdsudp zo�es9�°m �on►'�c�togica► sr�ey 'x Provide page -sized erdrad of official map showing icluenar as ... liable) and . , : grit • ,, _,_ man from the Sad Element of the local .••,;y� • or c°u X 10. Landslides �- both on -site & on adjacent hillsiope property (above or below); debris flows & rockfalls k Samples — broad suite of appropriate geotedmicai tests 11. Geotechnica! Testin -of Representative Samp det�s�y by Table ts-t-s & noel -late *1:‹ Ex a Soils - Oa M. of the Su 13. Geochemistry of Geologic Subgrade - Soluble Sulfates and Corrosive Soils �x 5pecfly either Type It or Type V poctiarrd cement Typical soluble sulfates include gypsum and jarosite. 14. Floodtn & Severe Erosion - discuss fiTtA Rood Zones show site plotted on offioal map (d applicable) Seismolo Fs Calculation of Earth • uake Ground -Motion 15. Evaluation of Historic • 's — signirtcant eardlquakes that affected the site in the past 200 years X 16. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard ' (PSHA) Evaluation of Earthquake Ground -Motion J( 17. • • - -Bound Earth' e mound -Motion — 1O% chance of exceedatrce in 100 years cite & use 18. lt -. ' n-Basis — 10% chance of ezceedance in 50 years cite & use 19. Characterize and # . the - • • •ic Su • • . de from Table 16A-I of Code; shear -wave velocity 20. Near -Source C.oefficients and Distance to Nearest Active Fault — if appfiable Na, Nv, Ca, Cv 21.. Peak Ground Acceleration for UJBE and DBE levels of ' • -motion - summary PGA values 22. Normalized Spectral kceleration - Site -specific spectral acceleration is required for dynamic analysis for irregular and tall btu . • Use i; = 5 percent viscous der' for both UBE and DBE ground -motion. 23. Seismic Zone 3. ot- 4 — determine appropriate zone from ire 16A-2 and Secfion 1629A.4.1 r. r Ground -Motion - as applicable for base -isolated structures 24. Scaled lime -Histories of Adequately Despaired; Satisfa ■ X X Ro u. 4 M Additional Data Needed: Not satisfacto t 1 1 1 1 Checklist Item or Parameter within Consulting Report NIA = not applicable • NIR = not reviewed; not evaluated at this time Liquefaction Analysis 25. Geologic :setting for Occurrence of Seismically -Induced Liquefaction: ♦. appliaible tb any ground -water surface <50 ft. depth; for calculations use historic -highest groundwater- .. ♦ ._(ow -density alluvium, typically SPT Ak35, composed•of sands or.silty sands'with non -plastic fines ♦ moderate earthquake ground -motion, typically PGAuee >0.1g 26. Liquefaction Methodology - NSF/MCEER trratise on liquefaction by Youd, ldriss, and 19 others. Oct. 2001 issue of ASCE lajrnal ofCeotednral &6eoenylonmental Engineering &CGS Special Publication 117 27. Li uefaction Calculations -� based on detailed geologic cross-section and Safety Factor 5F<1.3 r f y"`A . Adequately Described; Satisfactory q 28. Seismic Settlement of entire Soil Column at relevant Boreholes (both unsaturated & saturated) total & differential as 8/1. Provide complete calculations (no estimates). Input PGA = UBE ground -motion 29. Lateral Spreading due to Liquefaction - when near a free -face (river bank, canal, cut -slope) 30. Remedial Options for Liquefaction - several appropriate options to remediate liquefaction effects 31. Acceptance Criteria for Liquefaction Remediation - needed for subsequent remediation contract X- Mj� Additional Data Needed; Not Satisfactory Exceptional Geologic Hazards and Complicated Site Conditions cable statexada butnraybe petinerrt to a cnmptrcatedsite Use prudent and careful analysis to ra9W Tdle24 sites to exceptional damsnts are nattevenst.e dl school and hospitalsite . This list d exceptanalgeorogrichazarrk help to arvdd sties ar�a�dp�dicamerrts and evens* delays in �°fpuGte misunderstandings and back-dtecks when additional. imbrma required bythe reviewing agency.. N/2= not reve d;notevaluatedat this tme 32. Phase I & II Environmental Site Assessment Work -ASTM Test E 1527 & Test E-1903 for toxics 33. Hazardous Materials - methane gas. hydrogen sulfide gas, tar seeps, high-pressure gas pipelines, etc 34. Calif. Environmental Quality Act .-applicable Environmental Impact Report data. paleontology,.etc 35. Ground -Water Quality = safe drinking watersuppfiesfor rural orsuburban carnpuses (if applicable) 36. On -Site Septic Systems - for rural orsuburban campuses, evaluate septic teach -field system 37. Non -Tectonic Faulting and Hydrocoilapse of Ailtiviai Fan Soils - due to anthropic use of water 38. Regional Subsidence - due to sustained withdrawal of fluids (ground -water extraction & petroleum) 39. Volcanic Eruption - only near active volcanic centers. refer to USGS Bulletin 1847 (Miller, 1979) 40. Tsunami or Seiche - only for low -hying sites dose to California coastline or large lakes and reservoirs 41. Asbestos - in formations associated with serpentine and tremollte. Refer to CGS Special Publication 124. 42. Radon-222 Gas - typically within organic -rich marine shales of the California Coast Ranges. 43. Other Geologic Hazards -use professional judgment for complicated or unusual geologic hazards Grading -Plan Review and Foundation -Plan Review 44. Areas of Cut & Fill, Preparation of Ground, Depth of Removals and Recompaction 45. Geologic & Geotechnical Inspections and Problems Anticipated During Grading - Called inspections for CEG or RGE (removal & recompaction; canyon dean -out shear -key for buttress fill) 46. Subdrainage Plans for Ground Water and Surface Water - show details of planned subdralns 47. Cut -Fill Prisms seismic compression and iground-motion aauss the cut -fit line of hillside pads 48. Deep Foundations, Structural Mat Foundations (only as applicable) - piles, belled caissons, etc. 49. Retaining Walls, Engineered Ell I3uttresses, Soil-Naled Walls, Geosyn heiics, Gabions, etc. X Report Documentation 50. Geology, Seismology, and Geotechnical References - current & adequate published aiations 51. Engineering Geology report signed by Certified Engineering Geologist with CEG seal or number 52. Geotechnical Engineering report signed by Registered Geotechnical Engineer with fit£ seal Robert H. Sydnor, RG 3267, CMG 6, CAG 4496, CEG 968 California Geological Survey, Note 48 January 1, 2004. www.conservation.ca.govicgs K 1 OMACTE.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f engineering and constructing a better tomorrow June 22, 2006 Mr. Greg McClure' Facilities Design and Construction • Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian . One Hoag•Drive; P.O. Box 6100 Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Subject Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation Proposed MRI Building Additions and Renovation Hoag Meniorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive Newport Beach,.California MACTEC Project 4953-05-109r Dear McClure: • We previously performed'a geotechnical investigation for the subject project at the Hoag Memorial • Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California and presented the results in a report dated May • • 25, 2005. Subsequently, we provided geotechnical recommendations for alternative foundation types in a letter dated March 28, 2006. This Letter presents our opinions regarding overexcavation concerns raised by Kemp Bros., the general contractor. According to Mr. Juan Hind -Rico of KPFF Consulting Engineers, Kemp Bros expressed concern about the need to overexcavate at the locations of footings supporting four new gravity columns (at N2.4fAtn, N2.4/NE, N2.58/Dm, and 2mfE.5m) and two braced frames (along lines 4.5m and NJ) We do not anticipate having to overexcavate .below the subject footings. Based on the available information, we expect to find natural soils below planned footing bottoms. Our inspector will verify that the soils exposed in the footing excavations are suitable. 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 letter. • MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. I200 Citadel Drive, • Los Angeles, CA 90040 • Phone: 323:889.5300 • 323.721.6700 www.mactec.com Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation June 22, 2006 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 It has been a pleasure to be of professional service to you. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. Lan-Anh Tran Staff Engineer Carl C. Kim Principal Engineer Project Manager P:14953 Geotech12005 projt51091 HOAG Memorial Medical CenterlDeliverablest4953-05-10911t03.doc/LT lz (2 copies submitted) Attachments cc: KPFF Consulting Engineers Attn: Juan Hinds -Rico 2 MACTEC engineering and constructing a better tomorrow March 28, 2006 Mr. Fidel Gonzalez Senior Project Manager Facilities Design and Construction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive; P.O. Box 6I00 Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Subject: Supplemental Geotecbnical Investigation Proposed MRI Building Additions and -Renovation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Dear Mr. Gonzalez: We are pleased to submit the results of our supplemental geotechnical investigation for alternative foundation types for the proposed MRI building additions at the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California. We previously performed.a geotechnical investigation for the proposed addition and presented the results in a report dated May 25, 2005. PROJECT DESCRIPTION • As described in our May 25, 2005 report, additions to the existing MRI building are planned. We previously provided recommendations for new spread footings or mat -type foundations to accommodate the proposed MRI additions. The footings were recommended to be established in the dense natural sand soils about 3 to 9 feet below the lowest adjacent grade or floor level to extend below the existing uncertified fill soils. It is our understanding that excavation of the existing fill adjacent the MRI building to construct mat foundations would be difficult and may require shoring. As an alternative to avoid surcharging the adjacent basement walls of the existing MRI building, drilled pile foundations may be used to support the proposed additions. All other recommendations in our May 25, 2005 report remain applicable. We understand that the existing MRI building will be renovated as part of the project. The renovation will include the replacement of the existing moment frame for the building with a new braced frame. MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 200 Citadel Drive • Los Angeles, CA 90040 • Phone: 323.889.5300. 323.721.6700 www.mactec.com Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations March 28, 2006 MftCTEC Project 4953-05-1091 RECOMMENDATIONS To avoid excavation of the existing fill adjacent to the proposed additions and to avoid surcharging the existing basement walls, the proposed additions to the MRI building and replacement braced frame system may be supported on drilled, cast -in -place concrete piles. The existing MRI building is supported on spread footings that have already undergone settlement due to static Loads. The use of pile foundations will minimize settlement of the new braced frame and reduce the potential for differential settlement between it and the MRI building. Segments above a I:I plane project upward from the base of adjacent basement walls should be isolated from surrounding soils. Sonotubes or similar materials may be used. Drilled Pile Foundations The allowable downward and upward capacities of 24-, 30- and 36-inch-diameter drilled, cast -in - place concrete piles are presented as a function of penetration into natural soils below adjacent basement walls on Figure I, Drilled Pile Capacities. The portions of the piles isolated from surround soils should not be counted towards the length of piles required to support the load based on Figure I . The pile capacities shown on Figure l are dead -plus -live load capacities; a one-third increase may be used for wind or seismic loads. The capacities presented are based on the strength of the soils; the compressive and tensile strength of the pile sections should be checked to verify the structural capacity of the piles. Based on the anticipated loading, piles in groups are not expected. However, if piles in group are required, they should be spaced at least 2%2 diameters on centers. If the piles are so spaced, no reduction in the downward capacities need be considered due to group action. Settlement We estimate the settlement of the proposed structure supported on piles in the manner recommended to be less than %2 inch and the differential settlement to be less than Y4 inch. Lateral Capacities Lateral loads may be resisted by the piles, by soil friction on the side of the pile caps and by the passive resistance of the soils on• pile caps. Please note that.piles within 8 diameters of adjacent basement walls and loaded toward these basement walls will impose surcharge pressures. If existing basement walls are deemed incapable of accommodating the surcharge pressure, a gap or compressible material should be installed between the piles and surrounding soils in the direction of the basement walls. This gap or compressible material should extend to a depth of 10 feet or to the base of the adjacent basement wall, whichever is shorter. 2 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Supplemental Geotechnieal Recommendations March 28.2006 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 We have computed the lateral capacities of the piles using the computer program LPILE by ENSOFT, Inc. Resistance of the soils adjacent to 24,.30, and 36-inch-diameter drilled piles that are at least 25 feet long are shown in the following tables for top of pile deflection of Y4 and '/ inch. These resistances have been calculated assuming both fixed and free -head pile conditions for minimum pile lengths corresponding to the "Depth to Zero Moment" shown on the table below. The lateral. resistance of other sizes of piles may be assumed to be proportional to the pile diameter. Lateral Capacity 24-inch-diameter Drilled Pile Pile Head Deflection (inches) ' Pile Head Condition Free Fixed Free Fixed Lateral Load (kips) 42 . 92 59 119 Maximum Moment (ft-kips) 150 388 243 592 Depth to Maxitnum Moment (ft) 5' - 0 5'/s 0 . Depth to Zero Moment (ft) 19 22 19 22 Lateral Capacity 30-inch-diameter Drilled Pile Pile Head Deflection (inches) % �/ Pile -Head Condition Free Fixed Free Fixed Lateral Load (kips) 61 126 84 172 Maximum Moment (ft-kips) 243 635 382 1011 Depth to Maximum Moment (ft) 7'/x 0 .7% 0 Depth to Zero Moment (ft) 23 27 23 27 Lateral Capacity 36-inch-diameter Drilled Pile Pile Head Deflection (inches) y4 % Pile Head Condition Free Fixed Free Fixed Lateral Load (kips) 83 168 113 . 236 Maximum Moment (ft-kips) 373 978 592 1588 Depth to Maximum Moment (ft) 9 0 9 0 Depth to Zero Moment (ft) 26 " 31 26 31 3 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations March 28, 2006 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Piles in groups are not expected. However, if piles in groups are required, no reduction in the lateral capacities need be considered for the first row of piles and the piles located in the direction perpendicular to loading. For subsequent rows in the direction of loading, piles in groups spaced closer than 8 pile diameters on centers will have a reduction in lateral capacity dueto group effects. Therefore, the lateral capacity of piles in groups, except for the first row of piles, if spaced at 2V2 pile diameters on centers, may be assumed to be reduced by one half. The reduction of lateral capacity in the direction of loading for other pile spacing may be interpolated. . The passive resistance of natural or fill soils against pile caps may be assumed to be equal to the pressure developed by a fluid with a density of 200 pounds per cubic foot. A one-third increase in the passive value may be used for wind or seismic loads. The resistance of the piles and the passive resistance of the materials against pile caps may be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance. Ultimate Design Values The values recommended above for foundation design are for use with loadings determined by a conventional working stress design. if the structures are analyzed based on an ultimate design concept, the recommended design values may be multiplied by the following factors: Foundation Loading Ultimate Design Factor Axial Capacity of Piles Lateral Capacity of Piles,_ Passive Resistance 2.0 1.0 1.3 In no event, however, should the pile lengths be reduced from those required for support of dead plus live loads when using the working stress values. Pile Installation Significant caving was not observed beneath the site during our field exploration. However, caving tends to occur in sandy soils with low moisture content, typically less than 5%. Therefore, installation of drilled cast -in -place concrete piling will require special provisions to prevent caving of shaft walls during construction. Special drilling provisions for caving include, but are not limited to, casing and/or drilling mud. Among other precautions, the drilling speed should be reduced as necessary to minimize vibration and sloughing of the sand deposits. As some caving and raveling may occur during installation, piles spaced less than five diameters on center should be drilled and filled alternately, with the concrete permitted to set at least eight hours before drilling an adjacent hole. Pile excavations should be filled with concrete as soon after drilling and inspection as possible; the holes should not be left open overnight. 4 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Supplemental Ceotechnical Recommendations March 28, 2006 MACTEC Project 4953-05-109! Only competent drilling contractors with experience in the installation of drilled cast -in -place piles in similar soil conditions should be considered for the pile construction. We suggest requesting the piling contractor to submit a list of similar projects along with references for each project. The drilling of the pile excavations and the placing of the concrete should be observed continuously by personnel of our office to verify that the desired diameter and depth of piles are achieved. Temporary 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 may 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 suggest that our firm review the final shoring plans and specifications prior to bidding or negotiating with a shoring contractor. Lateral Pressures 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. Where retained soils are partially sloped at 1:1 above the shoring, it may be assumed that the soils will exert lateral pressures equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 60 pounds per cubic foot. 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. However, where the required soils are sloped at 1:1 above the shoring, it may be assumed that the soils will exert a Lateral pressure equal to 44H pounds per square foot. 5 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterihn—Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations March 28, 2006 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 (P.S.F.) In addition to the recommended earth pressure, the upper 10 feet.of shoring adjacent to the streets and vehicular traffic areas should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of l00 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 I0 feet from the shoring, the traffic surcharge may be neglected. Furthermore, adjacent to existing structures, the shoring system should be designed for the appropriate lateral surcharge pressures imposed by the adjacent foundations of the structures unless the foundations are underpinned, or, as planned, the proper setback is incorporated. Any lateral surcharge pressures imposed by the adjacent foundations could be computed when the relative locations, sizes, and loads of these foundations are known. 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_ 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 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations March 28 2006 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1 091 excavated level is backfilled with structural concrete, the soldier piles below the excavated level may be used to resist downward Toads. 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 250 pounds per square foot. Lagging Continuous lagging will be required between the soldier piles. 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. For clear spans of up to 8 feet, we recommend that the lagging be designed for a semi -circular distribution of earth pressure where the maximum pressure is 400 pounds per square foot at the mid -line between soldier piles, and 0 pounds per square foot at the soldier piles. 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 1 inch at the top of the shored embankment. If greater deflection occurs during construction, additional bracing may be necessary to minimize settlement of the utilities in the adjacent streets. If it is desired to reduce the deflection of the shoring, a greater active pressure could be used in the shoring design. • GENERAL LIMITATIONS 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 letter. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations March 28, 2006 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 It has been a pleasure to be of professional service to you. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. i1L`— Lari-Anh Tr i Carl C. mi Staff Engineer Principal Engineer Project Manager P:170131 Geotech12005 proj15109! HOAG Memorial Medical CenterlDeliverables14953-05-1091It02.doc/LT:It (2 copies submitted) Attachments cc: ' KPFF Consulting Engineers Attn: Juan Hinds -Rico 8 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DEPTH BELOW BASEMENT (in feet) ALLOWABLE DOWNWARD PILE CAPACITY IN NATURAL SOIL(kips) 0 10 20 30 40 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 tilt - — i t i T t t t r r i l i r l i i i i i l i t t - — — Diameter 24-inch 30-inch Diameter — 36-inch Diameter — \\ \ • — _ _ 1 1 l 1 t 1' 1 1 1 t 1 1 t • •• t l - `1_ l l l",. — t I t l 0 25 50 75 100 125 ALLOWABLE UPWARD PILE CAPACITY (kips) 150 NOTES: (1) The indicated values refer to the total of dead plus live loads; a one-third increase may be used when considering wind or seismic loads. (2) Piles in groups should be spaced a minimum of 2-1/2 pile diameters on centers. (3) The indicated values are based on the strength of the soils; the actual pile capacities may be limited to lesser values by the strength of the piles. Prepared/Date: VB 3/13/06 Checked/Date: Li, Hoag Memorial Hospital South Building Los Angeles, California MACTEC DRILLED PILE CAPACITIES Project No. 4953-05-1091 Figure I 1 2005-proj151091kstcu#tions‘axial pile capacityypilecapxcitySrf 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO MRI BUILDING HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN ONE HOAG DRIVE • NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN Newport Beach, California October 26, 2005�' Project 4953-05-1091 '/f MACTEC l� `1 1 1MACTEC engineering and constructing a better tomorrow October 26, 2005 Mr. Fidel Gonzalez . Senior Project Manager Facilities Design and Construction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive; P.O. Box 6100 Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Subject: Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Additions to MRI Building Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Dear Mr. Gonzalez: We are pleased to submit the results of our geotechnical investigation for the additions to the MRI Building at Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California. Our services were conducted in general accordance with our proposal dated March 18, 2005, as authorized by you on April 6, 2005. The scope of our services was planned based on information provided by Mr. Juan Hinds -Rico of KPFF. Consulting Engineers who also advised us of the structural features of the proposed additions. The results of our investigation and design recommendations are presented in this report. PIease 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. MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc_ 200 Citadel Drive • Los Angeles, CA 90040 • Phone: 323.889.5300 • Fax: 323.72 } .6700 www.mactec.com 1 1 I 1I 1 1 1 1 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 It has been a pleasure to be of professional service to you_ Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance_ Sincerely, MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. Lan-Anh Tran Staff Engineer Carl C. Kim Principal Engineer Project Manager Susan F. Kirkgar c7 Senior Engineering Geologist SUSAN FRA►EZt'31 KIRX6AR€? . i1753 CEINERTIER{FIED tG GEOLOGIST 1FF E 0 \F4�. AI. P:•170131 Geotech12005 proj15109I HOAGMemorial Medical CenterlDeliverables14953-05-109Irpt01.doc/LT.-tm (4 copies submitted) cc: (I) KPFF Consulting Engineers. Attn: Juan Hinds -Rico 1 2 REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO MRI BUILDING . HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN ONE HOAG DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN Newport Beach, California MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. Los Angeles, California October 26, 2005 Project.4953-05-I091 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES "1 SUMMARY 1 1.0 SCOPE 2 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3 3.0 FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS 3 4.0 GEOLOGY 4 4.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING 4 4.2 GEOLOGIC MATERIALS 4 4.3 GROUND WATER 5 4.4 FAULTS 6 4.5 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 12 4.6 ESTIMATED PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION 16 4.7 GEOLOGIC CONCLUSIONS 17 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 17 5.1 FOUNDATIONS 18 6.2 DYNAMIC SITE CHARACTERISTICS 20 6.3 FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT 22 6.4 PAVING 22 615 GRADING 23 6.6 GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION 25 7.0 GENERAL LIMITATIONS AND BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS 26 8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 27 TABLES FIGURES APPENDIX : CURRENT AND PRIOR FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ii Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report ofGeotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MA,CTEC Project 9953-05-1091 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1 Major Named Faults Considered to be Active in Southern California 2 Major Named Faults Considered to be Potentially Active in Southern California 3 Pseudospectral Velocity in Inches/Second 4 Pseudospectral Acceleration in g Figure 1 Site Location Map 2 Plot Plan 3 Geologic Section 4 Local Geology 5 Regional Faults 6 Regional Seismicity 7 Horizontal Response Spectra — 10% Probability of Exceedence in 50 years 8 Horizontal Response Spectra —10%Probability of Exceedence in 100 years iii Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 SUMMARY We have completed our geotechnical investigation of the site of the proposed addition to the MRI Building at the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian campus in Newport Beach, California. The proposed I- and 2-story building additions will be approximately 1,100 and 4,700 square feet, respectively. Our current and prior subsurface explorations, engineering analyses, and foundation design recommendations are summarized below. Based on the available geologic data, active or potentially active faults with the potential forsurface 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 additions 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. To supplement our prior data at the project site, which consists of two borings (prior Borings 7 and 10) in the immediate area of the proposed additions, one verification boring was drilled to a depth of 50 feet below the existing grade (bgs). We encountered fill -ranging in depth from 3 to 9 feet below the ground surface. The natural soils consist primarily of clay and sand. Ground water was encountered at a depth of about 42 feet below the ground surface at the new boring location. The prior borings did not encounter water within the maximum 50 foot depth explored. The upper clay soils are moderately expansive. Fill soils are not suitable for support of the proposed addition, if encountered. The proposed structures can be supported on spread footings established in properly compacted fill or undisturbed natural soils. The on -site soils are suitable for use as compacted fill, and the building floor slab may be supported on grade. 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTECProject 4953-05-109I 1.0 SCOPE This report presents the results of our geotechnicaI investigation for the proposed additions to the MRI Building at Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California. The project location is shown on Figure I, Site Location Map. The location of existing buildings, the proposed additions,- and exploratory borings used in the current study are shown in Figure 2, Plot Plan. We relied on our prior and current subsurface exploration and laboratory testing program in our evaluation of the geotechnical conditions at the site. Our services also included of evaluating the geologic and seismic hazards at the site to meet the requirements of the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) and the California Geological Survey (CGS). In addition to the current explorations and laboratory testing, we also relied on the results of a prior geotechnical investigation of the site by our predecessor firm Law/Crandall (L/C Job No. 69080). The recommendations in the current • report were developed in part using geotechnical information from the previous investigation. We have reviewed the prior report and accept responsibility for the use and interpretation of the data presented herein. The results of the current and previous filed explorations and laboratory tests, which form the basis of our recommendations, are presented in Appendix A. 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 professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnicaI 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 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian and their design consultants to be used solely for the design of the additions to the hospital. The report has not beenprepared for use by other parties, and may not contain sufficient information 'for purposes of other parties or other uses. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) facilities are planned adjacent to the existing Ancillary Building at Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California. A 2-story building is to be constructed to the north of the Ancillary Building, and a single -story building addition is proposed to the south of the Ancillary Building. The plan footprints of the proposed 2- story and single -story MRI additions will be approximately 4,700 and 1,100 square feet, respectively. We understand that no basement levels are planned for either addition. Maximum and minimum dead -plus -live column load is about 310 and 110 kips, respectively. The Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian campus is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road. An emergency entrance currently occupies the site of the 2-story addition and will be removed as part of the construction. Paved parking lots and driveways occupy the rest of the sites. The ground surface of the site is generally level. Various underground utilities cross the site 3.0 PIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS The soil conditions beneath the site were explored by drilling one boring to a depth of 50 feet below the existing grade (bgs) at the locations shown on Figure 2: In addition, subsurface data in the vicinity of the proposed additions is also available from exploration performed previously. Details of the current and prior explorations and the logs of the borings are presented in Appendix A Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples obtained from current and prior 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. • Consolidation. • Stabilometer (R-value). • Corrosion, 3 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 All testing was performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM specifications. Details of the current and prior laboratory testing program and test results are presented in Appendix A. 4.0 GEOLOGY 4.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING The site 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 the 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 mews in the Newport area are separated by gaps that are 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 the Newport Mesa, and Upper Newport Bay, which separates the Newport Mesa from the San Joaquin Hills to the east The site is near the southern end of the Los Angeles Basin, a structural depression that contains great thickness of sedimentary rocks. The inferred subsurface distribution of the geologic materials encountered in our explorations are shown in Figure 3, Geologic Section. The relationship of the site to local geologic features is depicted in Figure 4, Local Geology, and the faults in the vicinity of the site are shown in Figure 5, Regional Faults. Figure 6, Regional Seismicity, shows the locations of major faults and earthquake epicenters in Southern California. 4.2 GEOLOGIC MATERIALS The site is locally mantled by artificial fill placed during the initial site grading and later.grading for various buildings. Artificial fill was encountered in our previous borings drilled in .1969 at the site of the Ancillary Building (prior to construction) to a maximum depth of 4.6 meters (15 feet). During construction, pre-existing artificial fill within the Ancillary Building area, consisting of clayey sand, silty sand, sand, sandy clay, was removed and replaced as engineered fill compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density: per ASTM D1557-66T method of compaction, modified to use three Iayers. 4 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 As shown on Figure 3, Geologic Section, artificial encountered in our current boring and our previous Boring 7 (driIled in 1969 in the area of the proposed additions) ranges from 0.9 to 2.7 meters (3 to 9 feet) in thickness. Based on the materials encountered in Boring 7, the artificial fill consists of a mixture of sandy silt and clayey silt. The' fill encountered in the current boring consists of base course underlain by Pleistocene age marine terrace deposits composed of varying amounts of stiff clay, silt, and dense sand. The terrace deposits are present beneath the site at elevations greater than +6.0 to +7.6 meters (+20 to +25 feet) above sea Ievel (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. Monterey Formation bedrock is 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 (California Department of Water Resources, 1967) 4.3 GROUND WATER The site is Iocated in Section 28 of Township 6 South, Range 10 West and is located outside of the regional ground -water basin of the Orange County Coastal Plain. Ground water was not typically encountered in our previous borings drilled at and in the immediate vicinity of the Ancillary Building. However, ground water could be present locally within the terrace deposits and at the contact between the terrace deposits and the underlying less permeable bedrock 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. Ground water was encountered in our current boring (Boring 1) at Elevation +11.4 meters (+37.3 feet), which corresponds to a depth of 12.9 meters (42.3 feet) beneath the existing ground surface. Additionally, ground water was encountered in one of the borings previously drilled at the site of the Ancillary Building in 1969. In Boring 6, ground water. was encountered at Elevation +9.1 meters (+30 feet), which corresponds to a depth of 10.7 meters (35 feet) beneath the existing ground surface. This water seepage is locally perched water and is not representative of the regional ground -water table. i 111 1 J 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report ofGeotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTECProject 4953-05-1091 4.4 FAULTS The numerous faults in Southern California include active, potentially active, and inactive faults. The criteria for these major groups are based on criteria developed by the California Geological Survey (previously the California Division of Mines and Geology) for the Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Program (Hart, 1999). By definition, an active fault is one that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). A potentially active fault is a fault that has demonstrated surface displacement of Quaternary age deposits (last 1.6 million years). Inactive faults have not moved in the last 1.6 million years. A list of nearby active faults and the distance in kilometers between the site and the nearest point on the fault, the maximum magnitude, and the slip rate for the fault is given in Table 1. A similar list for potentially active faults is presented in Table 2. The faults in the vicinity of the site are shown in Figure 5. 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 approximately.0.9 kilometer to the south-southwest. Bryant (1998) identifies and summarizes the principle evidence for the recent faulting (late Pleistocene and Holocene) along the previously mapped traces of the NIFZ. Bryant identifies three northwest -trending faults in the area shown in Figure 4. The northern -most fault was identified by vague tonal lineaments in the Holocene alluvium observed on aerial photographs and documented offset in the 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 the 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 between the terrace deposits and 1 6 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Ceotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTECProject 4953-05-1091 the Monterey Formation 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 Ancillary Building. The fault offsets Miocene age Monterey Formation and possibly the Pleistocene age terrace deposits. The fault coinsides 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 4. The California Geological Survey (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1986) projects the North -Branch fault passing about 150 meters southwest of the hospital campus and 0.9 kilometer south- southwest of the Ancillary Building, as shown in Figure 4. Palos Verdes Fault Zone An offshore segment of the active Palos Verdes fault zone is located 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 lithological changes in the Tertiary age rocks across the fault. A series of marine terrace deposits in the Palos Verdes Hills were uplifted as a result of movement along the fault during the Pleistocene epoch. Geophysical data indicate the base of offshore Holocene age deposits in San Pedro Bay are offset (Clarke et al., 1985). A later investigation by Stephenson et al. (1995) that included aerial photograph interpretation, geophysical studies, and limited trenching identify several active onshore branches of the fault. However, no historic large magnitude earthquakes are associated with this fault. Whittier Fault Zone* The active Whittier fault zone is located approximately 34 kilometers north-northeast of the site. The northeast -trending Whittier fault extends along the south flank of the Puente Hills from the Santa Ana River on the northeast of 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 Pliestocene 7 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 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. San Andreas Fault Zone The active San Andreas fault zone is located 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 of the fault is approximately 450 kilometers long and extends from the Transverse Ranges west of Tejon Pass on the north to the Mexican border and beyond on the south. 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 Magnitude 8.0 Fort Tejon earthquake was the last major earthquake along the San Andreas fault zone in Southern California. Blind Thrust Faults Several buried thrust faults, commonly referred to as blind thrusts, underlie the Los Angeles Basin at depth. These faults are not exposed at the ground surface and are typically identified at depths greater than 3 kilometers. These faults do not present a potential surface fault rupture hazard. However, the following described blind thrust faults are considered active and potential sources for future earthquakes. San Joaquin Hills Thrust Until recently, the southern Los Angeles Basin has been estimated to have a Iow seismic hazard relative to the greater Los Angeles region (Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 1995; Dolan et al., 1995). This estimation is generally based on the fewer number of known active faults and the lower rates of historic seismicity for this area. However, several recent studies by Grant et al. (2000, 2002) suggest that an active blind thrust fault system underlies the San Joaquin Hills. This postulated blind thrust fault is believed to be a faulted anticlinal fold, parallel to the Newport - Inglewood fault zone (NIFZ) but considered a distinctly separate seismic source (Grant et al., 2002). The recency of movement and Holocene slip rate of this fault are not known. However, the fault, if it 8 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 exists, has been estimated to be capable of producing a Magnitude 6.8 to 7.3 earthquake (Grant et al., 2002). This estimation is based primarily on coastal geomorphology and age -dating of marsh deposits that are elevated above the current coastline. The San Joaquin Hills Thrust underlies the site at a depth (greater than 3 kilometers). This thrust fault is not exposed at the surface and does not present a potential surface fault rupture hazard. However, the San Joaquin Hills Thrust is an active feature that can generate future earthquakes. The California Geological Survey (2003) considers this fault to be active and estimates an average slip rate of 0.5 mm/yr and a maximum magnitude of 6.6 for the San Joaquin Hills Thrust. Puente Hills Blind Thrust The Puente Hills Blind Thrust (PHBT) is defined based on seismic reflection profiles, petroleum well data, and precisely located seismicity (Shaw and others, 2002). This blind thrust fault system extends eastward from downtown Los Angeles to Brea (in northern Orange County). The PHBT includes three north -dipping segments, named from east to west as the Coyote Hills segment, the Santa Fe Springs segment, and the Los Angeles segment. These segments are overlain by folds expressed at the surface as the Coyote Hills, Santa Fe Springs Anticline, and the Montebello Hills. The Santa Fe Springs segment of the PHBT is believed to be the causative fault of the October 1, 1987 Whittier Narrows Earthquake (Shaw and others, 2002). The vertical surface projection of the PHBT is approximately 27 kilometers north of the site at the closest point. Postulated, earthquake scenarios for the PHBT include single segment fault ruptures capable of producing an earthquake of magnitude 6.5 to 6.6 (Mw) and a multiple segment fault rupture capable of producing an earthquake of magnitude 7.1 (Mw). The PHBT is not exposed at the ground surface and does not present a potential for surface fault rupture. However, based on deformation of late Quaternary age sediments above this fault system and the occurrence of the Whittier Narrows earthquake, the PHBT is considered an active fault capable of generating future earthquakes beneath the Los Angeles Basin. An average slip rate of 0.7 mm/yr and a maximum magnitude of 7.1 are estimated by the California Geological Survey (2003) for the Puente Hills Blind Thrust. 9 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Upper Elysian Park The Upper Elysian Park fault is a blind thrust fault that overlies the Los Angeles and Santa Fe Springs segments of the Puente Hills Thrust (Oskin et al., 2000 and Shaw et al., 2002). The eastern edge of the Upper Elysian Park fault is defined by the northwest -trending Whittier fault zone. The vertical surface projection of the Upper Elysian Park fault is approximately 45 kilometers north- northwest of the site at its closest point. Like other blind thrust faults in the Los Angeles area, the Upper Elysian Park fault is not exposed at the surface and does not present a potential surface rupture hazard; however, the Upper Elysian Park fault should be considered an active feature capable of generating future earthquakes. An average slip rate of 1.3 mm/yr and a maximum magnitude of 6.4 are estimated by the California Geological Survey (2003) for the Upper Elysian Park fault. Northridge Thrust The Northridge Thrust, as defined by Petersen et al. (1996), is an inferred deep thrust fault that is considered the eastern extension of the Oak Ridge fault. The Northridge Thrust is located beneath the majority of the San Fernando Valley and is believed to be the causative fault of the January 17, 1994 Northridge earthquake. This thrust fault is not exposed at the surface and does not present a potential surface fault rupture hazard. However, the Northridge Thrust is an active feature that can generate future earthquakes. The vertical surface projection of the Northridge Thrust is approximately 75 kilometers northwest of the site at the closest point. The California Geological Survey (2003) estimates an average slip rate of 1.5 mm/yr. and a maximum magnitude of 7.0 for the Northridge Thrust. Potentially Active Faults Pelican Hill Fault The closest potentially active fault to the site is the Pelican Hill fault located approximately 4.0 kilometers to the east-northeast. The Pelican Hill fault is believed to be a probable branch of the Newport -Inglewood fault zone and there is evidence that several branches of the fault offset late Pleistocene age terrace deposits (Miller arid Tan, 1976). Evidence presented by Tan and Edgington 10 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTECProject 4953-05-1091 (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 State Geologist does not consider this fault to be active (California Geological Survey, 2003). Los Alamitos Fault The potentially active Los Alamitos fault is located approximately 21 kilometers northwest of the site. This fault tends 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 the west side of the fault displaced up relative to the east side. There is no evidence that this fault has offset Holocene age alluvial deposits (Ziony and 'Jones, 1989). Additionally, the State Geologist does not consider this fault to be active (California Geological Survey, 2003). El Modeno Fault The potentially active EI Modeno fault is located 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 California Geological Survey (2003) and, Ziony and Jones (1989) do not identity this fault as an active fault. Peralta Hills Fault The potentially active Peralta Hills fault is located approximately 25 kilometers north-northeast of the site. This reverse fault is about 8 kilometers long and generally tends 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. The California Geological Survey (2003) and, Ziony and Jones (1989) do not identity this fault as an active fault. 11 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 9953-05-109I 4.5 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Fault Rupture The site is not within a currently established Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for surface fault rupture hazards. The closest splay of the active Newport -Inglewood fault zone is located approximately 0.9 kilometers south-southwest of the site. However, this portion of the fault is not included in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone because the fault trace is not sufficiently well- defined. The closest Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone to the site, established for another segment of the Newport -Inglewood fault zone, is located approximately '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 Iocated 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 MRI building additions is considered low. Seismicity Earthquake Catalog Data The seismicity of the region surrounding the site was detennined from research of an electronic database of seismic data (Southern California Seismographic Network, 2005). This database includes earthquake data compiled by the California Institute of Technology from 1932 through 2004 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 377 earthquakes of Richter magnitude 4.0 and greater occurred from 1932 through 2004; four earthquakes of magnitude 6.0 or greater occurred between 1906 and 1931; and one earthquake of magnitude 7.0 or greater occurred between 1812 and 1905. A list of these earthquakes is presented as Table 3. Epicenters of moderate and major earthquakes (greater than magnitude 6.0) are shown in Figure 6. 12 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 The information for each earthquake 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. Historic Earthquakes A number of earthquakes of moderate to major magnitude have occurred in the 'Southern California area within about the last 70 years. A partial list of these earthquakes is included in the following table. List of Historic Earthquakes Earthquake (Oldest to Youngest) Long Beach Tehachapi San Fernando Whittier Narrows Sierra Madre Landers Big Bear Northridge Hector Mine Date of Earthquake March 10, 1933 July 21, 1952 February 9, 1971 October 1, 1987 June 28, 1991 June 28, 1992 June 28, 1992 January 17, 1994 October .16, 1999 Distance to Direction to Magnitude Epicenter Epicenter (Kilometers) 6.4 4 SW 7.5 190 NW 6.6 98 NNW 5.9 50 NNW 5.8 72 N 7.3 147 NE 6.4 118 NE 6.7 86 NW 7.1 . 190 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 by proper engineering design and construction in conformance with current building codes and engineering practices. 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation . October 26, 2005 MACTECProject 4953-05-1091 Slope Stability The gently sloping topography in the site vicinity 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 150 meters (500 feet) the east of the proposed MRI'building additions_ 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 MRI building additions is not within an area susceptible to slope instability. There are no known Iandslides near the site, nor is the site in the path of any known or potential landslides_ 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)_ Liquefaction and Seismic -Induced Settlement Liquefaction potential is greatest where the ground water 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 graven content increase. As ground acceleration and shaking duration increase during an earthquake, liquefaction potential increases. According to the California Division of Mines and Geology (1998) and the County of Orange Safety Element (1995), the site is not within an area identified -as having a potential for liquefaction_ Groundwater is not expected to be present in significant quantities above a depth of 15 meters (50 feet) below the existing ground surface. The groundwater encountered in our borings at the site appears to be locally perched water and not representative of the regional groundwater table. In general, the natural soils beneath the site, which consist primarily of dense sand and stiff clay and silt, are not considered susceptible to liquefaction. Subsurface materials encountered below Elevation +11.4 and +12.9 meters consist predominantly of clay soils and Monterey Formation bedrock, neither of which is considered susceptible to liquefaction. 1 14 Hoag Memorial Hospital.Presbyterian—Report of Geotechnica! Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 As part of our evaluation of liquefaction potential a the project site, a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) using the computer program EZ-FRISK, Version 7.11 (Risk Engineering, 2005), was performed to estimate the Magnitude-7.5-adjusted peak ground acceleration (PGA) for the ground motion with a 10% probability of being exceeded in 100 years (designated as the Upper Bound Earthquake, UBE). The PGA was estimated using the attenuation relationships of Abrahamson & Silva (1997), Sadigh et al. (1997), and Boore et al. (1997) with equal weight. For the Abrahamson & Silva (1997) and Sadigh et aI. (1997) attenuation relationships,.a deep soil site classification was used. For the Boore et al. (1997) attenuation relationship, the recommended shear wave velocity (310 meters per second) for a typical soil site was used. The Magnitude 7.5 adjusted UBE PGA calculated as described above is 0.53g. The liquefaction potential at the project site was evaluated using the Magnitude 7.5 adjusted UBE PGA, the results of the SPTs performed in our boring, and two ground -water levels: the historic - high of 30 feet bgs and our design ground -water level of 42 feet bgs. The Iiquefaction potential was computed according to procedures described in the Youd and ldriss, 1997 (NCEER Technical Report 97-0022) consensus publication on liquefaction evaluation, and Youd et al., 2001 summary report from 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshop on evaluation of Iiquefaction resistance of soils. Our results indicate that % inches or less of total liquefaction -induced settlement may occur at the hospital site due to the DBE or-UBE with a rise in ground -water to historic -high levels. The potential for lateral spreading at the site is considered low_ Seismically -induced settlement is often caused by loose to medium -dense granular soils densified during ground shaking. Dry and partially saturated soils as well as saturated granular soils are subject • to seismically -induced settlement. The dense granular soils encountered in our borings are not in the loose to medium -dense category. We have estimated the seismic -induced settlement at the site to be less than % inch. Therefore, the potential for seismic -induced settlement to adversely impact the proposed additions is considered low_ 1 15 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2605 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Tsunamis, Inundation, Seiches, and Flooding The site is located approximately 1.1 kilometers from the Pacific Ocean at an elevation of about 23 to 24 meters above sea level. The site is not within a tsunami hazard zone identified by the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, tsunamis (seismic sea waves) are not considered a significant hazard at the site. According to the County of Orange Safety Element (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 dam failures or seiches (wave oscillations in an enclosed or semi -enclosed body of water). 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 (ground water or petroleum), peat oxidation, or hydrocompaction. 4.6 ESTIMATED PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION 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 Upper Bound Earthquake (UBE), having a 10% probability of exceedence during a 100 year time period. The site -specific peak ground accelerations for the DBE and UBE were estimated by a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) using the computer program EZFRISK, Version 7.11. The faults used in the study are shown in Tables 1 'and 2, along with the maximum magnitude and the slip rate assigned to each fault. Background seismicity was also included in the PSHA. The peak ground accelerations were developed using the average of the values computed from ground motion attenuation relations for a "soil" type site classification discussed in Abrahamson and Silva (1997), Boore et al. (1997), and Sadigh et al. (1997). 16 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnicallnvestigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Dispersion in the ground motion attenuation relationships was considered by inclusion of the standard deviation of the ground motion data in the attenuation relationships used in the PSHA. For the fault rupture length versus magnitude relationship, we have used the relationship of Wells and Coppersmith (1994) for all the faults in the model: The estimated peak ground acceleration for the DBE and the UBE is 0.40g and OS3g, respectively. 4.7 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 Iocated.beneath or projecting toward 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 project 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 by proper engineering design and construction in conformance with current building codes and engineering practices. The site is considered grossly stable and not prone to slope stability hazards (landsliding or lurching). The potential for other geologic hazards such as liquefaction, seismic -induced settlement, tsunamis, inundation, seiches, flooding, and subsidence affecting the site is considered low_ 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The, existing fill soils are not considered suitable for foundation or floor slab support. The proposed additions may be supported on spread footings established in the undisturbed natural soils. To prevent surcharging of existing footings, which may induce settlement of structures supported thereon; new footings should extend below a I :1 plane extending upward from the bottom of the adjacent existing footings. However, new footings should .not extend below a I:I plane extending downward from the bottom of adjacent existing footings, which may undermine bearing support for existing footings. The horizontal and vertical alignment of existing utility lines should be verified and new footings should be located to extend below a 1:1 plane extending upward from the bottom of adjacent utilities. I7 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October26. 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Alternatively, the integrity of existing utility lines surcharged by new footings should be evaluated to confirm that surcharge pressures imposed by new footings can be accommodated without damage or distress. Surcharge pressures from footings at various depths may be assumed to increase with depth based on a 1:I downward plane projection from the bottom edges of footings. The building floor slab may can be supported on grade if the recommendations presented in Grading, are implemented. 5.1 FOUNDATIONS Spread Footings Spread footings established in undisturbed natural soils and at least 2 feet below the lowest adjacent grade, may be designed to impose a net dead -plus -live load pressure of 6,000 pounds per square foot. Spread footings established in properly compacted fill and at least 2 feet below the Iowest adjacent grade, may be designed to impose a net dead -plus -live load pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot. A one-third increase can be used for wind or seismic loads. The recommended bearing value is a net value, and the weight of the concrete in the footings can be taken as 50 pounds per cubic foot; the weight of soil backfilled can be neglected when determining the downward loads. We estimate the settlement of the proposed additions, supported on spread footings in the manner recommended, will be less than 1 inch. Differential settlement is expected to be less than %2 inch. At least half of the total settlement is expected to occur during construction, shortly after dead loads are imposed. Lateral loads can be resisted by soil friction and by the passive resistance of the soils. A coefficient of friction of 0.4 can be used between the footings and the floor slab and the supporting soils. The passive resistance of natural soils or properly compacted soils can be assumed to be equal to the pressure developed by a fluid with a density of 250 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. 18 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Mat Foundations Preliminary column and wall loading was not available for the portion of the additions to be on mat foundation. Based on our experience with similar developments, we estimate that the net actual applied dead -plus live loading on a mat foundation for the proposed buildings would be on the order of 1,000 to 1,200 pounds per square foot. The natural soils at the site are adequate to support bearing pressures well in excess of the anticipated values. The settlement estimates presented below should be re-evaluated when specific building information is available. Thus, a design bearing pressure for a mat foundation of 1,200 pounds per square foot may be assumed. A one-third increase can be used for wind or seismic loads. The recommended bearing value is a net value, and the weight of concrete in the footings can be taken as 50 pounds per cubic foot; the weight of soil backfill can be neglected when determining the downward loads. We estimate the settlement of the mat foundations due to static loading will be about 1 inch. At least half of the total settlement is expected to occur during construction, shortly after dead loads are imposed. Lateral loads may be resisted by friction of the soil acting against the mat foundation and by the passive resistance of the soils acting against the mat foundation and also the basement walls. The mat foundation will derive lateral resistance from the soil -to -mat contact. However, the mat and soil contact will be separated by a water -proofing membrane, in this case. Thus, the frictional resistance available will be the lesser of that friction developed between the mat foundation andthe water -proofing membrane and the frictiondeveloped between the water -proofing membrane and the supporting soils. Verification of this coefficient should .be performed once the waterproofing materials are specified. 19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTECProject 4953-05-1091 While the waterproofing materials have not yet been specified, it has been our experience that a reduction in the lateral resistance is necessary to account for the waterproofing materials. For preliminary design purposes, an effective coefficient of friction of 0.4 can be assumed to resist lateral loads. The passive resistance of soils when considering buoyant .conditions can be assumed to be equal to the pressure developed by a fluid with a density of 250 pounds per cubic foot, unless the potential for lateral spreading is confirmed. In that case, the lateral earth pressure recommendations presented herein will require modification. 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. Modulus of Subgrade Reaction A modulus of subgrade reaction, k, cif 150 pounds. per cubic inch may be assumed for the natural soils. Reduction of this value due to the size of the mat has already been factored in our calculations. 6.2 DYNAMIC SITE CHARACTERISTICS Site -Specific Response Spectra The site -specific response spectrum for seismic events with 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years and 10% probability of being exceeded in 100 years (designated, DBE and UBE, respectively) were estimated from a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) using the computer program EZ-FRISK, Version 7.12 (Risk Engineering, 2005). The nearby 'faults are shown on Tables 1 and 2, along with their maximum magnitudes and slip rates, as published by the California Geological Survey (CGS). Background seismicity was also included in the PSHA. 20 l t 1 1 1 1 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report ofGeotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 The response spectra were developed using the average of the ground motions obtained from the attenuation relationships of Abrahamson & Silva (1997), Sadigh et al. (1997), and Boore et al. (1997). For the Boore et al. (1997) relationship, we have used a shear wave velocity equivalent to that of a typical soil site (31.0 meters per second). For the attenuation relationships of Abrahamson & Silva and Sadigh et al., we have used the form of the equations developed for deep soil or soils site conditions. EZ-FRISK modifies the attenuation equations to account for rupture directivity from earthquakes occurring on nearby faults as recommended by Somerville et al. (1997). To account for the uncertainty in the ground motion attenuation relationships, each relationship was integrated to six standard deviations beyond the median. EZ-FRISK uses the relationships developed by Wells and Coppersmith (1994) and others to obtain estimates of earthquake magnitude from rupture size. The response spectrum for seismic events DBE and UBE are presented on Figure 7 and 8, respectively for 5% of critical structural damping. The response spectra in digitized form are shown on Tables 3 and 4. Site Coefficient.and Seismic Zonation The site coefficient, S, may be determined as established in the Earthquake Regulations under Section 1629A of the California Building Code (CBC), 2001 edition, for seismic design of the hospital buildings. Based on a review of the local soil and geologic conditions, the site may be classified as Soil Profile Type SD, as specified in the 2001 code. The site is located within CBC Seismic Zone 4. • The site is near 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 N-34 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 site of the proposed additions is located within 2 kilometers from the Newport -Inglewood fault. At this distance for a Type B seismic source, the near source factors, Na and Nv are 1.3 and 1.6, respectively, based on Tables 16A-S and 16A-T of the 2001 CBC. 21 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTECProject 4953-05-1091 ' 6.3 FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT If the subgrade is prepared as recommended. -in the following section on grading, the addition floor slab can be supported on grade underlain by at. least 2-foot thick layer of properly compacted fill soils. Construction activities and exposure to the environment can cause deterioration of the prepared subgrade. Therefore, we recommend our that our field representative observe the condition of the final subgrade soils immediately prior to floor slab construction, and, if necessary, perform further density and moisture content tests to determine the suitability of the final prepared subgrade. If vinyl or other moisture -sensitive floor covering is planned, we recommend that the floor slab in those areas be underlain by a capillary break consisting of a vapor -retarding membrane over a 4-inch- thick layer of gravel. A 2-inch-thick layer of sand should be placed between the gravel and the membrane to decrease the possibility of damage to the membrane. We suggest the following gradation for thegravel: Sieve Size 3„ No. 4 No. 100 Percent Passing 90- 100 0-10 0-3 A low -slump concrete should be used minimize possible curling of the slab_ A 2-inch-thick layer of coarse sand can be placed over the vapor retarding membrane to reduce slab curling. If this sand bedding is used, 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. The sand andgravel layers can be considered part of the required non - expansive soil layer under concrete slabs. 6.4 PAVING Within the proposed building footprint and at Ieast 5 feet beyond in plan view, the existing fill soils should be excavated and replaced as properly compacted fill. All required fill should be uniformly well compacted and -observed and tested during placement. The on -site soils can be used in any required fill. 22 1 I 1 1 i� 1 1 1 l '1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 The required paving and base thicknesses will depend on the expected wheel loads and volume of traffic (Traffic Index or TI). An R-value of 20 was assumed for the on -site bedrock materials for design of paving. The R-value of the bedrock materials or any import should be tested during constructionto confirm the assumed value. If testing of the bedrock materials indicates a lower or higher R-value, the pavement sections recommended below should be adjusted accordingly. Based on our assumption, the minimum recommended paving thicknesses for TIs of 6, 8 and 10 are presented in the following table. Traffic Asphaltic Concrete Base Course Index (inches) (inches) 6 4 9 8 5 14 10 7 17 The asphalt paving sections were determined using the City of Los Angeles design method. We can determine the recommended paving and base course thicknesses for other Traffic Indices if required. Careful inspection is recommended to check that .the recommended thicknesses or greater are achieved, anc} that proper construction procedures are followed_ The base course should conform the specifications for untreated base as defined in Section 200-2 of the latest edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book). The base course should be compacted to at least 95%. Compaction of the subgrade, including trench backfills, to at least 90%, and achieving a . firm, hard; and unyielding surface will be important for paving support_ The preparation of the paving area subgrade should be done immediately prior to placement of the base course. Proper drainage of the paved areas should be provided since this will reduce moisture infiltration into the subgrade and increase the life of the paving. 6.5 GRADING Within the proposed building footprint and at least 5 feet beyond in plan view, the existing fill soils should be excavated and replaced as properly compacted fill_ All required fill should be uniformly t 23 1 1 i 1 1 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnicallnvestigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 well compacted and observed and tested during placement. The on -site soils can be used in any required fill. Site Preparation After the site is cleared and the existing fill soils (if encountered) are excavated as recommended, the exposed natural 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. At least 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 DI557 method of compaction. Excavations and Temporary Slopes Where excavations are deeper than about 4 feet, the sides of the excavations should be sloped back at 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) or shored for safety. Unshored excavations should not extend below a plane drawn at 11/2:1 (horizontal to vertical) extending downward from adjacent existing footings. We would be pleased to present data for design of shoring if required. Excavations should be observed by personnel of our firm so that any necessary modifications based , on variations in the soil conditions can be made. All applicable safety requirements and regulations, including OSHA regulations, should be met. Compaction Any required fill should be placed in loose lifis not more than 8-inches-thick and compacted. The fill should be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum density obtainable by the ASTM Designation D1557 method of compaction. 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 Backfill All required backfill should be mechanically compacted in layers; flooding should not be permitted. Proper compaction of backfill will be necessary to minimize settlement of the backfill and to reduce t 24 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 settlement of overlying slabs and paving. Backfill should be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry density obtainable by the ASTM Designation D1557 method of compaction. The on - site soils may be used in the compacted backfilI. The exterior grades should be sloped to drain away from the foundations to prevent ponding of water. Material for Fill The on -site soils, less any debris or organic matter, may be used in required fills. Cobbles larger than 4 inches in diameter should not be used in the fill. 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. 6.6 GEOTECHNICAL 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 Ieast 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 backfiIl 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. 25 1 1 1 1 1 1 I l 1 1 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical investigation October 26, 2005 MACTECProject 4953-05-1091 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. 7.0 GENERAL LIMITATIONS AND BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations provided in this report are based upon our understanding of the described project information and on our interpretation of the data collected during our current and previous subsurface explorations. We have made our recommendations based upon 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 structure configuration, loads, location, or the site grades should be provided to us so that we can review our conclusions and recommendations and make any necessary modifications. The recommendations provided in this report are also based upon 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 verify that the actual soil conditions are as expected. This also provides for the procedure whereby the client can be advised of unexpected 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. As previously discussed, if our firm is not. retained to perform the geotechnicaI observation and testing services, our professional responsibility and liability would be limited to the extent that we would not be the geotechnical engineer of record. 26 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abrahamson and Silva, 1997, "Empirical Response Spectra Attenuation Relationships for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes," Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1, p. 94-127. Anderson, J. G., and Luco, J. E., 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, South Coast Geological Society, Annual Field Trip Guidebook No..20, p. 115-121. Barrie, D. S., TatnalI, 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, 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. Barrows, A. G., 1973, "Earthquakes Along the Newport —Inglewood Structural Zone," California Geology, Vol. 26, No. 3. Boore, D. M., Joyner, W. B., and Fumal, T. E., 1997, "Equations for Estimating Horizontal Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: A Summary of Recent Work," Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1. 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. 27 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnicaf Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 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. Bullard, T. R. and Lettis, W. R., 1993, "Quaternary Fold Deformation Associated with Blind Thrust Faulting, Los Angeles Basin, California," Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 98, No. B5, pp. 8349-8369. California Department of Water Resources, 2005, "Groundwater Level Data" http://well.water.ca.gov. California Department of Water Resources, 1976, "Crustal Strain and Fault. Movement Investigation," Bulletin 116-2. 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, 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, "Official Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map for 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 Geological Survey, 2005, "Checklists for Review of Geologic/Seismic Reports for California Public Schools, Hospitals, and Essential Services Buildings" CGS Note 48. California Geological Survey, 2003, "The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps, June 2003" Appendix A — 2002 California Fault Parameters. 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 of America, Vol. 86, No. 5, pp. 1645-1649. 28 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Davis, J. F., Bennett, J. H., Borchardt, G. A., Kahle, J. E., Rice, S. .J., Silva, M. A., 1982, "Earthquake Planning Scenario for a Magnitude 8.3 Earthquake on the San Andreas Fault in Southern California," California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 60. _ 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 Strike -Slip Faults through Downtown Los Angeles," EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, Vol. 73, p. 589. 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. Grant, L. B., Ballenger, L. J., and Runnerstrom, E. E., 2002, "Coastal Uplift of the San Joaquin Hills, Southern Los Angeles Basin, California, by a Large Earthquake Since A. D. 1635", Bulletin of the Seismological Society ofAmerica, Vol. 92, No. 2, pp. 590-599. Grant, L. B., Mueller, K. J., Gath, E. M., and Munro, R., 2000, "Late Quaternary Uplift and Earthquake Potential of the San Joaquin Hills, Southern Los Angeles Basin, California" Geology, Vol. 28, No. 4, p. 384. Gray, C. H., Jr., 1961, "Geology of and Mineral Resources of the Corona South. Quadrangl 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 ofMines and Geology Open File Report 91-17. Guptil, 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. 29 [1 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 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 1999, "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, 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. 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 Huftule, 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 of America Bulletin, Vol. 85, No. 2. Jahns, R. 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, "Batholith and" Associated Rocks of Corona, Elsinore, and San Luis Rey Quadrangles, Southern California," Geological Society of America Memoir. 29. Law/Crandall, 2001, "Report of Revised Geotechnical Consultation, Proposed Seismic Upgrade of the* Ancillary Building, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, California" (Project 70131-0-0355). 30 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Law/Crandall, 1999, "Report of Revised Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed East Addition and Parking Structure, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach, California" (Project 7013I-9-0330). 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 .County" (Job No. 2661.30140.0001). 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. 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). 31 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MAGI EC Project 4953-05-1091 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, I969, "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, I990, "Seismic Safety Element." Mark, R. K., I977, "Application of Linear Statistical Models of Earthquake Magnitude Versus Fault Length in Estimating Maximum Expectable Earthquakes," Geology, Vol- 5, pp. 464-466. McNeilan, T. W., Rockwell, T. K., and Resnick, G. S_,.1996, "Style and Rate of Holocene Slip, Palos Verdes Fault, Southern California", Journal of Geophysical Research, April 10, 1996, Vol. 101, No. B4, p_ 8317-8334. 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:I2000. Morton P. K., et al_, 1973, "Geo-Environmental Maps of Orange County, California," California Division ofMines and Geology, Preliminary Report 15_ Morton, P. K. and Miller, R. V., 1981, "Geologic Map of Orange County, California," California Division ofMines and Geology Bulletin 204. Newport Beach, City *of, 1972, "Geologic -Seismic Study, Phase I," by Woodward -McNeill and Associates for the General Plan, internet updates through June 2005_ Oskin, M., Sieh, K., Rockwell, T., Miller, G., Guptill, P., Curtis, M., McArdle, S., and Elliott, P., 2000, "Active Parasitic Folds on the Elysian Park Anticline, Implications for Seisnuc Hazard in Central Los Angeles, California", Geological Society ofAmerica Bulletin May 2000, Vol. 112, No. 5, pp.693-707_ Orange County Water District, 2004, "2003 Groundwater Contour Map". Orange County General Plan, "I995 Safety Element," Advance Planning Program, Environmental Management Agency. 32 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MAC.7EC Project 4953-05-1091 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," Cal fornia 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_ Risk Engineering, Inc., 2005, EZFRISK.version 7.01. Rivero, C., Shaw, J. H_, and Mueller, K., 2000, "Oceanside and `Iuirtymile Bank Blind Thrusts: Implications for Earthquake Hazards in Coastal Southern California" Geology, Vol_ 28, No_ 10, October 2000. 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_ 1 Sadigh, K., Chang, C. Y., Egan, J_ A., Makdisi, F., and Youngs, R_ R., 1997, "Attenuation Relationships for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes Based on California Strong Motion Data," • Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1 _ Schneider, C. L., Hummon, C_, Yeats, R. S_, and Huftile, G. L., 1996, "Structural Evolution of the Northern Los Angeles.Basin, California, Based on Growth Strata," Tectonics, Vol_ 15, No_ 2, pp. 341-355. 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 others, 2002, "Puente Hills Blind -Thrust System Los Angeles, California," Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 92, No_ 8, pp. 2946-2960. 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, 216 pp_ 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. 33 q-� Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26. 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Slemmons, D. B., 1979, "Evaluation of Geomorphip Features of Active Faults For Engineering Design and Siting Studies," Association of Engineering Geologists Short Course. Somerville, P. G., Smith; N. F., Graves, R. W., and Abrahamson, N. A., 1997, "Modification of Empirical Strong Ground Motion Attenuation Relations to Include the Amplitude and Duration Effects of Rupture Directivity," Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No.l . Stephenson, W. J., Rockwell, T. K., Odum J.-K., Shedlock,K. M., and Okaya, D. A., 1995, "Seismic Reflection and Geomorphic Characterization of the Onshore Palos Verdes Fault Zone, Los Angeles, California," Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 85, No. 3. Stover; C. W. and Coffman, J. L., 1993, "Seismicity of the United States, 1568-1989 (revised)," U.S. Geological Society Professional Paper 1527_ Southern California Seismographic Network, 2005 "Southern California Earthquake Catalog," http_//www.scecdc.scec_orgiftp/catalogs/SCSN/_ 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., Bennett, J. H., Borchardt, G. A., Saul, R., and Davis, J _F., "1988, "Planning Scenario for a Major Earthquake on the Newport —Inglewood Fault Zone," California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 99. • I U.S. Geological Survey, 1985, "Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region. An Earth -Science Perspective," Ziony, J. I_, ed., Professional Paper 1360, Article by Clarke, S.H., Greene, H.G., and Kennedy, M.P., Identfing 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_ t 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 Problems 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 of America, 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_ 12,587-1 2,631 _ t 34 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report ofGeotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Wissler, S_ G_, 1943, "Stratigraphic Formations of the Producing Zone of the Los Angeles Basin Oil Fields," Cal fbrnia 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, Vol. 85, No. 2, April 1995_ Yerkes, R. F., 1972, "Geology and Oil Resources of the Western Puente Hills Area, Southern California," US. Geological Survey Professional Paper 420-C. -Ziony, J. I., and Jones, L. M., 1989, "Map Showing Late Quaternary Faults and 1978-1984 Seismicity of the Los Angeles Region, California," US. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF 1964. Ziony, J. 1. Wentworth, C. M., Buchanan -Banks, J. M., and Wagner, H. C_, 1974, "Preliminary Map Showing Recency of Faulting in Coastal Southern California," US. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-585_ Ziony, J. 1., and Yerkes, R. F., 1985, "Evaluating Earthquake and Surface Faulting Potential," in Ziony, J.I., ed., Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region -An Earth Science Perspective, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360, p. 43-91 _ 35 TABLES l 1 Table 1 Major Named Faults Consideredto be Active in Southern California Fault Maximum Slip Rate Distance Direction (in increasing distance) Magnitude . (min/yr.) From Site From Site (kilometers) San Joaquin HiIis Thrust 6_6 (a) BT 0.5 0 Newport -Inglewood Zone 7.I (a) SS 1.0 0.9 SSW Palos Verdes Zone 7.3 (a) SS 3.0 17 WSW Puente Hills Blind Thrust • 7.1 (a) BT 0.7 27 N Whittier Zone 6.8 (a) SS . 2.5 34 NNE Elsinore (Glen Ivy Segment) 6.8 (a) SS •5_0 37 NE Chino -Central Avenue 6.7 (a) NO 1.0 40 NE Upper Elysian Park 6.4 (a) BT 1.3 45 NNW Sierra Madre Zone 7.2 (a) RO 2.0 57 N Raymond 6.5 (a) RO 1.5 58 NNW Cucamonga Zone 6.9 (a) RO 5.0 63 NNE Hollywood 6.4 (a) RO 1.0 63 NW Santa Monica 6.6 (a) RO 1.0 63 NW Verdugo 6.9 (a) RO 0.5 67 NNW Malibu Coast 6.7 (a) RO 0.3 73 NW Northridge Thrust 7.0 (a) BT 1.5 75 NW San Jacinto (San Bernardino Segment) 6.7 (a) SS 12.0 77 NE San Gabriel Zone 7.2 (a) SS 1.0 79 NW San Fernando Zone 6.7 (a) RO 2.0 79 NW Anacapa-Dume 7.5 (a) RO 3.0 82 NW San Andreas (San Bemardino Segment) 7.5 (a) SS 24.0 85 NE (a) California Geological Survey, 2003 (b) Mark, 1977 (c) Slemmons, 1979 (d) Wesnousky, 1986 (e) Hummon et al., 1994 SS Stnice Slip NO Normal Oblique - RO Reverse Oblique BT Blind Thrust 1 1 11 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i Table 2 Major Named Faults Considered to be Potentially Active in Southern California Fault (in increasing distance) Maximum Slip Rate Distance From Site Direction 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 (c) RO 0_1 29 NNW San Jose 6.4' (a) RO 0_5 50 NNE Indian Hill 6.6 (b) RO 0.1 54 N Duarte ' 6.7 (c) RO 0.1 56 N Overland 6.0 (c) ' SS 0.1 56 NW Charnock 6.5 (c) SS 0_1 57 NW Clamshell-Sawpit 6.5 (a) RO 0.5 59 N (a) California Geological'Survey, 2003 (b) Mark, 1977 (c) Slemmons, 1979 (d) Wesnousky, 1986 (e) Hummon et al., 1994 SS Strike Slip NO Normal Oblique RO Reverse Oblique BT Blind Thrust Table 3: Pseudospectral Velocity in Inches/Second 2% damping 5% damping 10% damping Period in Seconds 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.75 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 DBE 10% in 50 years 0.24 1.67 5.25 14.99 22.32 27.36 31.57 39.41 44.36 49.74 46.75 42.88 UBE 10% in 100 years 0.33 2.28 7.16 19.81 29.87 37.24 43.64 • ' 56.48 63.31. 69.39 65.58 60.48 DBE 10% in 50 years 0.24' 1.67 4.39 11.58 17.70 22.28 25.72 32.10 36.14 42.20 39.67 36.38 UBE 10% in 100 years 0.33 2.28 5.98 15.30 23.69 30.33 35.55 46.01 51.57 58.88 55.64 51.31 Table 4: Pseudospectral Acceleration in g 2% damping 5% damping DBE 10% UBE 10% in in 50 years 100 years '0.24 0.33 1.67 2.28 3.74 5.09 9.00 11.89 14.20 19.01 18.45 25.11 21.29 29.42 26.57 38.08 29.91 42.69 36.50 50.92 34.31 48.13 31.47 44.38 By LT 5/20/05 Chkd: JAA 5/20/05 10% damping - Period in Seconds 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 .0.75 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 DBE 1 0% in 50 years 0.40 0.54 0.85 1.22 1.21 1.11 1.03 0.85 0.72. ' 0_40 0.25 0.17 UBE 10% in 100 years 0.53 0.74 1.16 1.61 1.62 1.51 1.42 1.22 1.03 0.56 0.36 0.25 DBE 10% in 50 years 0.40 0.54 0.71 0.94 0.96 0.91 0.84 0.70 0.59 0.34 0.22 0.15 UBE 10% in 100 years 0.53 0.74 0.97 1.24 1.28 1.23 1.16 1.00 0.84 0.48 0.30 0.21 DBE10% UBEIO% in 50 years in 100 years 0.40 0.53 0.54 0.74 0.61 0.83 0.73 0.97 0.77 1.03 0.75 1.02 0.69 0.96 0.58 0.83 0.49 0.69 0.30 0.41 0.19 0.26 0.13 0.18 By LT 5/20/05 Chkd: JAA 5/20/05 IH I FIGURES 117°s6,000' W 117°55.000' W a S^, t MILE ®d06 FEET 0 — — IOW METERS Printed from TOPO! 02001 National Oeographic Holdings (www.topo.com) r-e-+-3--i•-�" i} t t�} i l i i} i l t—'-' ,iei[.i�. . . F 301 Newport Btvd_, Newport Beach, California REFERENCES: SITE PLAN BY TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES DATED NOVEMBER2000_ 1 CURRENT INVESTIGATION (4953-05-1O91) 7 0 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION (A-69080)- L BORING LOCATION AND NUMBER A BENCH MARK FOR CURRENT BORING ELEVATIONS, FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION AT EMERGENCY CARE UNIT, ASSUMED ELEVATION = 100_0 FIGURE 2 n D n ELEVATION IN FEET 150 -- N23°W \ -150 LIMITS OF LIMITS OF EXISTING PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION 120 - 90- Itl7..l11=1.1 LIMITS .OF EXISTING MRI BUILDING BORING 7 PROJECTED (PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION • A.69080) EXISTING GRADE LIMITS OF PROPOSED ADDITION artificial fill ...._ ..........� 60 30 - I11 =11•1 .I(! ul _II( r11 *wow.: ...._., ...__ .._.7 .._........ artificial fill TERRACE DEPOSITS . MONTEREY FORMATION 1nV n17-111 BOR NG 1 PROJECTED (CURRENT INVESTIGATION 4953-05-1091) c • - 120 11i..!IL.11.►_... - 90 LL O - 60 w - 30 NOTES: 1. THE SECTION IS BASED ON GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS AT BORING • LOCATIONS. THE GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN INTERPOLATED BETWEEN EXPLORATION LOCATIONS; LOCALIZED VARIATIONS COULD OCCUR. THE SECTION IS INTENDED FOR DESCRIPTIVE PURPOSES ONLY. 2. SEE FIGURE 2 FOR LOCATION OF SECTION. GEOLOGIC SECTION SCALE 1" = 30' 0. 30 60 SCALE IN FEET 0 • baht •••,,ide• • Dashed where near surface; dotted where buried • • • UN ••• California Department of Water Resources, 1966 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone REFERENCES: BASE MAP FROM U.S.G.S. 7.5 MINUTE NEWPORT BEACH QUADRANGLE, 1965 (PHOTOREVISED 1981). GEOLOGY MODIFIED FROM POLAND AND PIPER, 1956. CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONES, NEWPORT BEACH QUADRANGLE OFFICIAL MAP (1986). SITE COORDINATES: Latitude N33.6249 Longitude W117.9294 LOCAL GEOLOGY FIGURE4 til 0 0 \ L 0 524' \ . ' 11 ' • ' ) 1971 V V Los Ale mations! DOCKWELLER BEAC • 126- STATE PARK El Seiundo NcP \\\ 0 < 4°Per 6 H ? • 5.0-5.9 4.0-4.9 • , • ‘‘'• • • tr7T •Cov.t_ PoIos(Vee zi Polos Vprdes Poi9 '1":"•:....;.::-,...%;\....4,nocht Liam.* Rosok.Poinf — \ \ • ;s\ • copi• sic) rQr Reso• . Motet Polorio • •... • • ---- 0 0 0 • EXPLANATION Late Qua( ----- y fault —Dotted where annealed oakum dulled where disbars (Intemed from acoustk.rcar.- don pane*); vertu* when aloe= uncauta: rar where ho)t trace tco Mort to show at wale. to aid bad mi relatively dams/gown al& Sawa* on apse plate of Ma fault. Reptseentatire dip of (auk Maya when known. Later Indkata mak& thne psbi withbt whkh latest surface faulting it known to hae =wed: IL Holcana L. UM Quaternary: queried what age wean. Dam Indicatesaaoor ream tit- indica Ricrac' tanking: queried what hittorial cam fence it uncertain Balalaika et earthquake* (Ack2.0) occurring In 1.971-ta, showlag corretoesdkig magnitude ram 0 3.0-3.9 0 2.0-2.9 .fs\ !PALI neLt' hat 14G Eii-A.61-:1 '("1.11:1!-• 6.45:12FLin'a:"119157F... A(1.1 "ilIftS(1" \ f' 1I., 'AVAL BASE , Bi v Su lilictt.1.•./kr urw.......ii,-,a-v.-17Jel." Li ghtc Oheri -s..\ I • E• • nset Platform! a t ,..... 4: eALI \ 447./.4k../_•t ES HAR.BOR : Coe. 1‘\• ,i-FCrrerN\ \ . • • : \ q PE DR15.\\\v, "•• • • I.' E\ H\N\H ',A..) • .4(.!, • \ 2 'te:%•VtitorrPEo2R6 ).. ''' \ Light I -4, o-- -----...—....._c, . 0 j H • • • • - • - • • • • \.\ C..1 a: , SI. Moat th ]---7---'—r—,Z-Ifir )kieslig,-,•:, '-• - - 7,, --tt k.'\ _...tit. (17) 4 (LIQ41,.."1...., ' .... .. . ... . • mgiti ./. • -1. (..,g„u•,-,—.?!.(,;k1„,„ ....„, , ........•:....1;;.......4-:_, - i — '' ,..t,.._, Noth.o.,i ....NN' `.,-,...,/ t-- 1 „an 1,;‘'.. • -- • 1. • • I, I tti* • '-" ‘S: • •• -foe./ rt:s L 0 .4- c'E".2,-.•••z? • Pck --(7.•••••,t-:•r.,i • c't-• ‘-r. " il"TViet N'ehl:11//t • ". 1. • .10;"-T-''---t • \tap, Et's, , • V _ • nt'j (:).':10-1 • • LAI t •-•• 1 •••••• •-••••• • • A.,-• • • • ••_ _et 11:).1<1.-.. • • • • •'I\ ••'11‘1 • -••• • • • • • • • ; .C: "EL:VilOP `P't. / Al sTA41,- ix -to 1. • • ft'Ad.. RINIr elp's 2-• : ;;„ \— J-4 b•,!•:-.L* . .• "(t.:tro ••••••• • • L? 'gall (I* '..1\• HUNINGIFON LEACH L? 0 •• p • ; • ) ;1 • Vgv, ,(.<(,24•„•• 4litatt (5.; • toP ••••• .3c; 01411511 . • I • .st ; ▪ P:'>,:.1,,r391‘51A 49- IN rt • •••• !,.$1' • .01.1 ; • , C • . • .*:. .X....-...''2't't••••2:4•••••!:"'; `•;,..,1,) •• ./ • •ON.,, 1 v: : % .1,...y.,,rva it ' • •.% • •• srh ; • • • , s•do, i yi .-• „ , 4/Er1-.1.. r 1 . .l'irk.WIT.1,....WilliniJ11 NO .? :,... ‘i.....• ....R ' • • . ' 0 """"". i•ciG r . /PI !TEO • -- , -0- (t) Li...! • . •t / • - -• • •••, • / ono o . '"•1 •• . . • . • 7.1 (4 r. .4. . • • L?«CI •k J.: • •*; • . NEW pt T lottop.a.71*,11,1- • • lAddL) 6.--1-111P.•\• 'HA l• - • \.1-1 BEAU. ? ' • . 75 <: •. • a• , ,• 19_1 ,z)()•••,,,\K• 0 j , •-• • - • • f • s••• • •-) li•• • • •:Nieltil De! ai7+!;:%-:X :tfiv.sto. :W•rt t". `,11 • ••.` r ,y). :c•t , • • • • sl own • • • '? • ‘-> ../\ f•-, •• .A5 C`b %) • -4. 0 L ? • • • Eta":""c':;•-• ••••••--- -- • 1 E-'• ‘• ! \ r•-••• • 1 • I . b ‘c ••••-\\\ \ ' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Nu. \ • -0 \ • \ \ ••• • ••; r)\ • •-•\ 1-17 (7).. • , • . ; • ..\v.:‘ uno' -0 -1 7..kes0 ) 0 s•••\..\c 1\1 •L' \hq Po \ • •••••••••:• , - • _ : \\ isfs' . • • %, REFERENCE* ZIONY, JOSEPH I AND JONES LUCY M., MAP SHOWING LATE QUATERNARY FAULTS AND 1978-84) ‘-- SEISMICITY OF 'THE LOS ANGELES REGION, CAUFORNIA MAP MF-1964. (19 8 9) fV ( • ..r . , • Jj • • ••• •.•-( • • , ‘,.4r.7( • • Triibitat'r&V1)c0; r " • • t.1 •-; • .s • '`•;`-(7%--,•• ) ▪ \ ' ''• __os•-•-•ivu.,-4•••@c , • '1V••••,itrc)? 4 .•;• ?-1* . 1 _ l.N.t.: ......„9 10Ii v‘iro.i.;•• y.,•A:".-. 7-..:•i)-•• .,.,,,e',1° (4f.., 1 ove s."-t.,,S•s`f* • )4: ....PI, ill 0-t.- SI Beath ,• • /2; ,.• • .iLif:, :A • • • - • •„.".1 ;Wnt (7-<)§ , • REGIONAL FAULTS NMACTEC SCALE 1" 4 miles . FIGURE 5 1 j ; s C .4 YEAR M 8+ ~'"M+r't fr� nmowo 48. !."�s � l�@i?f. "" sty S-2 �\ � I R t,: i1 �Q.( l.•iEti/. oxrmo :mnara6-E�. �_; r .NBtYb'CrY P�S(ij No; ifuenrAIN :?� EXPLANATION: YEAR0M 7-8 YEAR M 6-7 YEAR M 5-6 oJ0 HISTORIC FAULT DISPLACEMENT HOLOCENE FAULT DISPLACEMENT WITHOUT HISTORIC RECORD APPROXIMATE EPICENTRAL AREA OF EARTHQUAKE 0 20 SCALE IN KILOMETERS SCALE 1:750,000 12 SCALE IN MILES 24 4 TO; Tart: 1 nlnt OW.- / - C ��� 2` T{• CN. eY l,a�c�i - :ria�tid. ti�l��q •1L4a�v!''a���i . _ VernasaEa• ?edtt n`B +�•� �;\CV!'A l f` tic, s7ardc -•S 't, 1. S . ant +fe:1 ills '-� 1. H 1 =aYN., . -o C> j �5` Pstos re/C-S•7 BAY y"!: p•a`0 seal g t.� REFERENCES; 1.) JENNINGS, C.W., 1994, "FAULT ACTIVITY MAP OF CALIFORNIA AND ADJACENT AREAS WITH LOCATION AND AGES OF RECENT VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS", CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, GDM-6. 2.) EARTHQUAKE CATALOGS: RICHTER, 1812-1932, NATIONAL OCEANIC ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, 1812-1931; CALTECH, 1932-1997- Yo, •_I ���,. :. ag .L : �' — •'G • , •v Youna •��_ �i 'r tom'`, �' tt u . 3 lk.'r[ySy I5�=:J An y cNr. �`! 1 tySz-ems ' = _:' -,• »�fi � \ L.�.__`-^'psi . a_. rtI 4'S8 h r^ ^ i.e `- ,, t, y tl . F F 't \ 6 ,.10a 1:4"-be•IJulllx" REGIONAL SEISMICITY �(MACT EC FIG! !ARE 6 1 ..i ti 'jam • -�m 0 2.5 2.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Period (seconds) 2%° damping . --,- f i ,. + i , 1 damping -;--t- f 5% . ' + • t I — — - 10%damping I • • • • ..._.... ... • __ .. .... _ ..i.-.. 3.0 HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRA - SITE SPECIFIC Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian DBE - 10% Probabiltiy of Exceedence in 50 Years 3.5 4.0 MACTEC ...51091/..JDBEpaa_grf FIGURE 7 i r 1 r I ._i 1 1 r 11 1 U w O DATE; May 18, 2005 JOB:4953.05-1091 Pseudo Spectral Acceleration (g) 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1 ! t i f LI • i 1' i 11 • j i i I! i � i 1 1 2% damping v%damping 10% damping - r 1 - - r ' ` , 1 . 1 ' '• — — 11 i 7 1 i { _ , a _ I"'-' I 1— ` -i--+- . j i I. i 1-- —j 1 • • i • • .. • . - _ ...... .. .. • .......`-: •--:-`+'l----`?-..�_- • . .__' 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Period (seconds) 3.0 HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRA - SITE.SPECIFIC Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian UBE - 10% Probabiltiy of Exceedence in 100 Years 3.5 4.0 MACTEC ._40734/..JUBEpaa.grf FIGURE 8 I - APPENDIX CURRENT AND PRIOR FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 APPENDIX A CURRENT AND PRIOR FIELD EXPLORATIONS The soil conditions beneath the site were explored by drilling one boring. In addition, data were available from our prior investigation adjacent to the site (our Job. No. 69080). The locations of our current and prior borings are shown on Figure 1 The current borings were drilled to a depth of 50 feet below the existing grade using 8-inch-diameter hollow stem auger -type drilling equipment_ The prior borings were drilled to depths of 40 to 50 feet 'below the existing grade using 1 8-inch- diameter bucket -type drilling equipment. The elevations for the prior explorations are based on a datum different than what was assumed for our current explorations. 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. 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 boring are presented on Figure A-1; the logs from our prior nearby borings are presented in' Figures A-1.2 through A-I.3. The depths at which 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, standard penetration tests (SPTs) were performed in our current boring; the results of the tests are indicated on the logs. The soils are classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System described on Figure A-2. CURRENT AND PRIOR LABORATORY TEST. RESULTS Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples obtained from the borings to aid in the classification of the soils and to evaluate their engineering properties, 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 presented to the Ieft of the boring logs. A - I Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnicallnvestigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Direct shear tests were performed on selected undisturbed samples to determine the strength of the soils. The tests were performed after soaking to near -saturated moisture content and at various surcharge pressures. The maximum values determined from the direct shear tests are presented in Figure A-3.1 and A-3.2, Direct Shear Test Data. Confined consolidation tests were performed on undisturbed samples. Water was added to the samples .during the test to illustrate the effect of moisture on the compressibility. The results of the tests are presented in Figure A-4.1 through A-4.2, 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 the boring. The test was performed in accordance with the ASTM Designation DI557 method of compaction. The results of the test are presented in Figure A-5, Compaction Test Data. To provide information for paving design, a stabilometer test ("R" value test) was performed on a sample of the upper soils. The results of the test are presented on Figure A-6.1 through A-6.2. R- Value Test Report Soil corrosivity test was performed on samples of the on -site soils. The results of the test are presented at the end of the Appendix. A-2 1 1 1 1 1 1 ELEVATION (ft) 100-' 5 95 - 10 90- 15 85 - 20 80- 25 75- 30 70- - 35 65 - 40 30 34 56 79 12.3 22.6 5.4 4.8 3.7 120 106 99 I03. 101 104 29 26 24 28 41 92/II" 8 9 93 64 ' (C BORING 1 DATE DRILLED: April 25, 2005 EQUIPMENT USED: Hollow Stem Auger HOLE DIAMETER (in.):. 8 ELEVATION: 102'. ONTINUED ON 6" Thick Asphalt Concrete over 2W Thick Base Course SILTY CLAY - very stiff, moist, light brown, some fine sand Layer of SILTY SAND - moist, light brown, fine sand Becomes brownish gray SANDY SILT - very stiff, moist, light gray, very fine to fine sand POORLY GRADED SAND - medium dense, slightly moist, light brown, fine sand Becomes very dense, some Silt Cemented layer, approximately 6" Becomes dense, light gray FOLLOWING FIGURE) Field Tech: GMC Prepared By: LT Checked By: .5 HOAG Memorial Hospital Newport Beach, California OMACTEC LOG OF BORING Project: 4953-05-1091 Figure: A-1 . I a 1 1 1 1 1 z vim, WW-� 1- a O .1 lW' p: 5 Zq o • H ¢Z� w 83 xA a A ZA P A a0A O w W c P4 Q0 60- 55- 50- 45— J 40- 35- 30- 25 — 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 S0 49 SAMPLE LOC. BORING 1 (Continued) DATE DRILLED: April 25, 2005 EQUIPMENT USED: Hollow Stem Auger HOLE DIAMEt>✓R (in): 8 FI.FVATION: 1024* 18.1 107 43 HOAG Memorial Hospital Newport Beach, California SM • 2 SILTY SAND - dense, wet, light brown with rusty stain, fine sand SANDY SILT - very stiff, wet, light gray and light brown, some Clay Few rounded gravel END OF BORING AT 50 FEET NOTE: Hand augered upper 5 feet. Water encountered at 42.3 feet, 10 minutes after auger removed. Caving below 42'V2 feet. Possible caving from 17 to 43 feet. Boring backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped. * Number of.blows required to drive the Crandall sampler 12 inches using a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. ** Boring elevation based on assumed datum with Elevation I00. (please see Plot Plan). OMACTEC Field Tech: GMC Prepared By: LT Checked By: LOG OF BORING Project: 4953-05-1091 Figure: A-1.1 b q 1 1 1 1 1 (PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION A-690803 BORING 7. • DATE •DRILLED : Moy 2, 1.969 -' EQUIPMENT USED : "-DI meter Bucket 12.0 123 16.3 113 23.9 103 24.4 100 2.9 5.6 .8.:2 J4.1 102 I 103. I 106 108• 1 97 -i:• • r. 5.5 12.9 35- - 45 5.6 30 - 50 7.9 89 99 115 86 I I -• .a:. • • III • ELEVATION "77¢¢,,0 • . MIL FILL - SANDY SILT and CLAYEY SILT MIRTORE-:- rootlets, pieces of wire, brown L SP L SILT' CLAY - jointed,mottled grey and brown SAND - fine, light brownish -grey Lenses of.Silt, few grovel; fight grey Coorse, brown Layer of CLAYEY SILT - light grey Cemented layer Lenses of Silt, brown Layer of SANDY SILT - light grey Lenses of Silt, light grey Few gravel SILTY CLAY - some Sand, few gravel, brown NOTE: Water not encountered. Raveling from 17 to 23` (to 24" in diameter). LOG OF BORING" 1 LEROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE A-1.2 — 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 i 70 - 65 - 45- - 10 15 12.1 23.3 19.9 9.7 123 104 104 - (PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION A-69080) BORING 10 DATE , DRILLED : April 29, 1969 EQUIPMENT USED: 18"-Diameter Bucket ELEVATION 79.0 . SC ML 1 107 SP • • 4.0 201 14.1 3.0 25 2 '."1 3fl -1 - 35 2.9 40-f ) 4a 8.1 102 109 102 100 93 88 1 1 IL:. • CLAYEY SAND a- fine, rootlets, brown CLAYEY SILT - some Sand, brown Layer of SAND - fine, light grey' SAND - fine, light brownish -grey Layer of Silty Clay - brown Cemented layers Silty (GAD USED FROM 30 TO 30.5 FEET) • NOTE: Water not encountered. Caving from 22' to 27' (to 36" in diameter). Silty LOG OF BORING 1 LEROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE A-1.3 — M ,— e IIIIII Mr r Mr I MI all MI - -NIB MAJOR DIVISIONS COARSE GRAINED SOILS (More than 50% of material is LARGER than No. 200 sieve size) GRAVELS (More than 50%of coarse fraction is LARGER than the No, 4 sieve size) CLEAN GRAVELS (Little or no fines) GRAVELS WITH FINES (Appreciable amount of fines) GROUP SYMBOLS • 11'l GW M. ° c°< GP �n n ° GM TYPICAL NAMES Well graded gravels, gravel • sand mi>tures, little or no fines. Poorly graded gravels or grave • sand mixtures, little or no fines, Silty gravels, gravel • sand • silt mixtures. Undisturbed Sample Standard Penetration Test Rock Core Dilatometer Auger Cuttings Bulk Sample Crandall Sampler Pressure Meter FINE GRAINED SOILS (More than 50% of material is SMALLER than No. 200 sieve size) SANDS (More than 50% of coarse fraction is SMALLER than the No, 4 Sieve Size) CLEAN SANDS (Little or no fines) GC • •••• SW Clayey gravels, gravel • sand • clay mixtures, . Packer O No Recovery Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. 7. Water Table at time of drilling Water Table after 24 hours SP Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines, SANDS WITH FINES (Appreciable amount of fines) SILTS AND CLAYS (Liquid limit LESS than S0) SILTS AND CLAYS (Liquid limit GREATER than 50) SM ML jCL = OL MH CH OH Silty sands, sand • silt mixtures Clayey sands, sand • clay mixtures, Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty of clayey fine sands or clayey silts an4 wjth slight pjasticity, Inorganic hays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays. Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity, Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts, Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays Correlation of Penetration Resistance with Relative Density and Consistency SAND & GRAVEL SILT & CLAY No, of Blows 0.4 5.10 11 -30 31.50 Over 50 • Relative Density Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense No, of Blows 0-1 2.4 . 5.8 9.15 1.6.30 'Over 30 Consistency Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Stiff Very Stiff Hard 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, SILT OR CLAY SAND GRAVEL Fine Medium Coarse Fine Coarse Cobbles Boulders No,200 No.40 No.l0 No.4 3/4' U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 3" 1211 Reference: The Unified Soil Classification System, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army Technical Memorandum No, 3.357, Vol. 1, March, 1953 (Revised April, 1960) KEY TO SYMBOLS AND DESCRIPTIONS OMACTEC FIGURE A-2 1 SHEAR STRENGTH in Pounds per Square Foot t 1 1 1 1 1 0 uI O a a H 0 H W a 4953-05.1091 I2 0 1 0 1000. 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 KEY: 0 1000 2000 3000. 4000 5000 6000 \ \ \ \ i@s%o • Boring Sample Number and Depth (it.) • @sy, \ • • / o 1@ii% o \ 1@im \ O \\I@23%: o. i@sih . 1@8% \ \ \ 0 Values Used in Analyses \ \ 7 \ \ I@lt% 0 1@im • N. N. o Samples tested after soaking to a moisture content near saturation DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA MACTEC .FIGURE A - 3.1. 1 1 t 1 1 1 I O 0 LI- W 1000 0 Q t!? 2 C 0 El. c 3000 U1 W CC 4000 6000 SHEAR STRENGTH in Pounds per Square • Foot 4000 5000 6000 `7e4/9 6� • Q®/7 /oms le 7\e • 3@e 000e.0 /02/ • . p •ge.5 • G. 20 PROPOSED NURSING WING op9e9 9e • g@ // mist ��•ifee• • 7m7 8@/5 BORING SAMPLE /, f 9 • DUMBER DEPTH 8 (FT.) /O@ 23 • • //c ei •6a27 - • 6 @30 /OCR o a36 \i"4 fp 7 • /0c2/ VALUES IN USED ANALYSES \ eei/ • • ' 3B . ¢ :7 / •9 70/7 . *5 cam /1. - KEY: • Tests at field moisture content o Tests at increased moisture content DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA LEROY CRANDALL 81 ASSOCIATES 1 FIGURE A-3.1* 1 1 1 1 1 1 CONSOLIDATION IN INCHES PER INCH 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14. LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1..0 2.0 3.04.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Boring 1 at 5 Y2' SILTY CLAY 1 NOTE: Water added to samples after consolidation under a load of 1.8 kips per square foot. CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA' MACTEC FIGURE A - 4.1 1 1 CONSOLIDATION IN INCHES PER INCH LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0:00. 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 2 0 3.0 SILTY CLAY 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 0.14 NOTE: Water added to sample after consolidation under a Load of 1.8 kips per square foot. CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA MACTEC FIGURE A - 4.2 BORING NUMBER AND SAMPLE DEPTH: SOIL TYPE: MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY: (lbs./cu.ft.) 1 at 3 to 6' - SILTY CLAY 126 OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT: I0.5 (%) TEST METHOD: ASTM Designation DI 557 COMPACTION TEST DATA MACTEC FIGURE A - 5 Date:• Project No.: Project: Depth: Material Description: Tested by: Checked by: Remarks: RESISTANCE R-VALUE TESTING RESULTS (Cal Test 301) 05/05/2005 4953-05-1091.02 Hoag Memorial Medical 3-6' Sample Number: 1 SANDY CLAY (CL), brown NS JH Lab #16328 Test specimen number 1 2 3 Compaction pressure (psi): Wet weight (gms): Dry weight (gms): Tare weight (gms): Exudation load (lbs. sAura- Total weight (gms.): Mold weight (gms.): 300 1320.0 - *1199.2 0.0 3244.0 2109.0 Initialexpansion (x10 , 000) : • 0 Final expansion (x10,000): 15 .i" Ph at 2000 lbs.: D turns: Height (in.): 120 3.69 2..50 R-Value at 300 psi exudation pressure = 20 150 1330.0 1199.2 0.0 y9. 3263.0 2110.0 0_ 0 7 129 3:94 2.56 350 1310.0 1199.2 0.0 4902 0; 3269.0 2115.0 0 21 106 3.60 26,. 2.50 MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. FIGURE A-6.1 - 1 R-VALUE TEST REPORT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100 80 60 40 20 0 _ ; f { T i t- _ I I -1 -tilt tilt ►tit 1111 tiff -�-- 11111111111111I111 1111 1111 WI till 11i1 800 700 600 500 400 Exudation Pressure - psi Resistance R-Value and Expansion Pressure - Cal Test 301 300 200 100 No. 1 Compact. Pressure psi 2 3 300 Density pcf 150. 350 125.0 123.1 128.1 Moist. 10.1 10.9 9.2 Expansion Pressure psi 0.45 021 0.64 Horizontal Press. psi @ 160 psi 120 129 106 Sample Height in. 2.50 2.56 2.50 Exud. Pressure psi 282 187 390 R Value 18 13 26 • R Value Corr. 18 14 26 Test Results Material Description R-value at 300 psi exudation pressure = 20 SANDY CLAY (CL), brown Project No.: 4953-05-1091.02 Project:Hoag Memorial Medical Sample Number: 1 Date: 05/05/2005 Depth: 3-6` R-VALUE TEST REPORT MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. Tested by: NS Checked by: JH Remarks: Lab #16328 Plate re 'r FIGURE A-6.2 M.J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC. 431 West Baseline Road Claremont, CA 91711 TEL (909) 626-0967 / FAX (909) 626-3316 E-mail_ mjsa@mjschfcom http_//www.mjsch(com TRANSMITTAL LETTER DATE: May 18, 2005 ATTENTION: Ms. Lan-Anh Tran To: MACTEC 200 Citadel Drive Los Angeles, CA 90040 SUBJECT: Laboratory Test Data Hoag Memorial Medical Your # 4953-05-1091 • MJS&A # 05-0615LAB COMMENTS: Enclosed are the results for the subject project. es T. Keegan Laboratory Manager M. J. Schiff & Associates, Inc. (909) 626-0967 Fax: (909) 626-3316 Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since I959 Phone: 431 W. Baseline Road E-mail lab mjschiff com Claremont, CA 91711 website: mjschiffcom Table 1- Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples Sample ID Resistivity as -received saturated PH MACTEC Hoag Memorial Medical, Newport Beach, CA Your #4953-05-1091, MJS&A #05-061 SLAB 3-May-05 Units ohm -cm ohm -cm I @ 5.5' CL . 13,000 1,400 8.4 Electrical Conductivity mS/cm 0.25 Chemical Analyses Cations calcium Cat+ mg/kg 36 magnesium Mgt+ mg/kg 15 sodium Nal+ mg/kg 178 Anions carbonate C032- mg/kg ND bicarbonate HC031- mg/kg 571 chloride C11- mg/kg ND sulfate S042_ mg/kg 67 Other Tests ammonium NH414 mg/kg na nitrate N031 mg/kg na sulfide. S2_ qual na Redox mV na Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis were made on a 1:5 soil -to -water ex ad. mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil. Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts ND= not detected na = not analyzed Page 1 of 1 (MACTEC engineering and constructing a better tomorrow October 9, 2007 Mr. Greg Zoll Facilities Design and Construction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive; P.O. Box 6100 Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Subject: Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation Proposed MRI Building Additions and Renovation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Dear Mr. McClure: We previously performed a geotechnical investigation for the subject project at the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California and presented the results in a report dated October 26, 2005. Subsequently, we provided geotechnical recommendations in supplemental letters dated March 28, 2006, June 22, 2006, December 5, 2006, and February 27, 2007 for the subject project. Dr. Martin B. Hudson will be the Senior Principal Engineer for this project. The previous MACTEC report and supplemental letters have been reviewed by the undersigned and are acceptable. Dr. Hudson may be contacted at (323) 889-5300, or mbhudson@mactec.com for any questions or additional consultation on the project. 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 letter. MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 5628 E. Slauson Avenue • Los Angeles, CA 90040 • Phone: 323.889.5300 • Fax: 323.721.6700 www.mactec.com s Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian — Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation October 9, 2007 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 We look forward to continuing to be of professional service to you. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. Lan=Anh Tran Project -Engineer 'FCA Martin B.Iudson, Ph. Senior Principal Engineer P:14953 Geotech12005 pro/151091 HOAG Memorial Medical CenterlDeliverablesl4953-05-10911t11.doc/LT:lt (2 copies submitted) cc: (3) RBB Architects Attn: Ms. Cherry Huie s JMACTEC engineering and constructing a better tomorrow February 27, 2007 Mr. Greg McClure Facilities Design and Construction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive; P.O. Box 6100 Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Subject: Response to City of Newport Beach Geotechnical Report Review Checklist Proposed MRI Building Additions and Renovation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California Plan Check No: 2456-2006 City of Newport Beach Job No: 1679N-156 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Dear Mr. McClure: We previously performed a geotechnical investigation for the subject project at the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California and presented the results in a report dated October 26, 2005. Subsequently, we provided geotechnical recommendations in supplemental letters dated March 28, 2006, June 22, 2006, and December 5, 2006 for the subject project. This letter provides our responses to the Geotechnical Report Review Checklist by the City of Newport Beach dated November 3, 2006. The Review Checklist is attached for your reference. Our responses are presented below. In the checklist, the October 26, 2005 report (referred to as "Report 2" in the checklist), and the March 28, 2006 letter (referred to as "Report 1") were reviewed. Response 1 (Report 1): The lateral capacities for piles with sonotubes used in the upper portion of the piles are revised here in based on the plan check comment, and are presented on the following page. The deflection of the piles is shown as greater to account for the approximate 1/4-inch thickness of the sonotube. For piles where lateral isolation using a compressive material or gap around the piles is necessary because of MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 200 Citadel Drive • Los Angeles, CA 90040-1554 • Phone: 323.889.5300 • Fax: 323.721.6700 www.mactec.com r 1 1 r Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian — Response to Review Comments February 27, 2007 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 the proximity of the piles to the basement, then no lateral capacity should be assumed for those piles; structural elements such as grade beams should be used to transfer lateral loads to foundation elements away from the basement walls. For piles away from. the basement walls, where neither sonotubes or a gap (annulus space) is necessary at the top of the pile, then the full lateral capacity presented in the March 28, 2006 letter may be used. Lateral Capacity -inch-diameter Drilled Pile with Sonotubes in Upper Portion Pile Head Deflection (inches) 1/ 3/42 Pile Head Condition Free Fixed Free Fixed Lateral Load (kips) 42 92 59 119 Maximum Moment (ft-kips) 150 388 243 592 Depth to Maximum Moment (ft) 5%2 0 51/2 0 Depth to Zero Moment (ft) 19 22 19' 22 Lateral Capacity -inch-diameter Drilled Pile with Sonotubes in Upper Portion Pile Head Deflection (inches) 1/2. 3A Pile Head Condition Free .Fixed Free Fixed Lateral Load (kips) 61 126 84 172 Maximum Moment (ft-kips) 243 635 382 1011 • Depth to Maximum Moment (ft) TA 0 7%2 0 Depth to Zero Moment (ft) 23 27 23 27 Lateral Capacity -diameter Drilled Pile with Sonotubes in Upper Portion Pile Head Deflection (inches) % 3/4 Pile Head Condition Free Fixed Free Fixed Lateral Load (kips) 83 168 113 236 Maximum Moment (ft-kips) 373 978 592 1588 Depth to Maximum Moment (ft) 9 0 9 0 Depth to Zero Moment (ft) 26 31 26 31 2 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian — Response to Review Comments February 27, 2007 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Response 2 (Report 1): Previous geotechnical investigations have indicated the presence of methane gas in the subsurface soils, however, the installation of piles is feasible with a proper Health and Safety Plan to be provided by the pile drilling subcontractor at the time of the installation; the drilling• subcontractor should prepare such a health and safety plan prior to excavation. We did not analyze the piles for end bearing (the piles are assumed to behave as pure friction piles), therefore, the cleaning of pile bottoms to obtain a competent end -bearing surface is not required. Response 3 (Report 1): In our March 28, 2006, we recommended that the existing fill could be left in place if pile foundations are used. For this case, the floor slabs of the additions should be structurally supported rather than supported at grade.. Response 4 (Report 2) : We do not anticipate having to overexcavate at locations planned for paving. Only minor paving is planned: Based on the available information, we expect to find natural soils below the existing paved area in the area planned for new paving. Our inspector will verify that the soils exposed in the paving excavations are suitable. If existing fill soils are encountered, they should be excavated and replaced with properly compacted fill. Response 5 (General): • The supplemental letter indicated as Report 1 is properly dated March 28, 2006. This Letter referenced a report dated May 25, 2005, which is incorrect. The correctdate referenced should be October 26, 2005 (Report 2). • The locations of the proposed development, new and prior borings and the cross section are . shown on the attached Figure 1, Plot Plan. 3 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian — Response to Review Comments February 27, 2007 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 • The on -site clayey soils are classified as moderately expansive. The soils may be used as fill since the expansion potential is considered to be low to moderate. This recommendation is consistent with previous grading recommendations prepared at Hoag Memorial Hospital Medical Center, such as those given in our report dated April 4, 2003 for the proposed addition to the James Irvine Surgery Center (our Job No. 4953-03-0931). • The corrosivity test results indicate the onsite soils are corrosive to ferrous metals when saturated and the attack on concrete is negligible. These results are consistent with prior corrosion studies performed on the campus. • Hardscape elements may be supported on grade if the recommendations for grading are followed as presented in our October 26, 2005 report. Existing fill soils beneath hardscape elements should be excavated and replaced as properly compacted fill. • The site is adequate for the proposed development if the recommendations presented in our report and letters are followed. The topography at the site is relatively level and there are no existing slopes at the site or immediately adjacent to the site. The proposed development will not have an adverse affect on the geologic stability of adjacent properties. All other recommendations in our October 26, 2005 report and supplemental letters remain applicable. 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 letter. 4 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian — Response to Review Comments February 27, 2007 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 It has been a pleasure to be of professional service to you. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. Lan-Anh Tran Staff Engineer Martin B. Hudson, Ph.D. Senior Principal Engineer Project Manager P:14953 Geotech12005 proj151091 HOAG Memorial Medical CenterlDeliverablesl4953-05-10911t05rdoc/LT.-I1 (2 copies submitted) Attachments: City of Newport Beach Geotechnical Report Review Checklist Figure 1. Plot Plan cc: (1) KPFF Consulting Engineers Attn: Mr_ Terang Kim (3) City of Newport Beach 5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GEOTECHNICAL REPORT REVIEW CHECKLIST Date Received: October 24, 2006 Date of Report: October 26, 2005 Consultant: MACTEC Date completed: November 3, 2006 Plan Check No: 2456-2006 Our Job No: 1679N-156 Site Address: One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California Title of Reports: 1. Report of Geotechnical investigation, Proposed Additions to MRI Building, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drve, Newport Beach, California, dated March 28, 2006 2. Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Additions to MR1 Building, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drve, Newport Beach, California, dated October 26, 2005 Purpose of Report: Geotechnical recommendations for a Hospital Building Y/N Y/N YIN YIN Y/N Project Information/Background: Review of Existing City Files Reference to Site(s) by Street Address Reference to Grading/Foundation Plans by Date Subsurface Investigation Aerial Photograph Geologic Hazards: Hazard Adverse Geologic Structure Bluff Retreat Debris/Mud Flow Differential Settlement Erosion Expansive Soils Faulting Fractured Bedrock Groundwater Landslide Liquefaction Settlement/Collapsible Soils Slump Soil/Rock Creep Sulfate Rich Soils Supporting Analysis/Data Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Slope Stability Calculations Shear Strength Values Other Laboratory Data Seismicity Boring/Trench-Logs Discussion Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Recommendations for Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Foundations Retaining Walls Foundation Setbacks Slabs Flatwork 1 i 1 r I f 1 1 Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA 'Y/N/NA Liquefaction Study Calculations Supporting Recommendations Geologic Map and Cross Sections Drainage Plan Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Grading Pools/Spas Slope/Bluff Setbacks Adequacy for Intended use Not Adversely Impacting Adjoining Sites PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE REPORT, ATTEND TO THE ITEMS BELOW: Report 1 1. Pages 2 and 3, Lateral capacity of Piles: Lateral capacities presented in the report appear to be too high. Please provide computations to support the results presented. Also, please indicate how the proposed gap or the compressible materials was modeled and its impact on the lateral response. 2. Page 4, Section on Pile Installation: • Previous geotechnical investigations have indicated the presence of methane gas in the subsurface. Considering this, please address the feasibility of installing drilled piles. • If drilling mud is used, the bottom should be cleaned to obtain end bearing for the piles. Please describe how the bottom would be cleaned obtain a competent surface. Also indicate how the impact of the drilling mud was accounted for in the bearing capacity computations. 3_ General: The report does not provide recommendations for floor slabs of the modified foundations system. Please indicate whether they should be designed to span between pile rows or grade beams. Report 2 4. Page 22, Section on Pavement: Please indicate whether overexcavation is necessary in areas receiving structural pavements_ 5. General: • Report dates are confusing. The supplemental report (Report l) appears to have been written on March 28, 2006. This report indicates that the main report (Report 2) was published on May 25, 2006. However, the combined copy submitted for review indicates the publishing date of both reports as October 25, 2005. Please clarify. • The Iocations of the proposed development and the borings drilled are not shown on the site plan. In addition, the location of the cross section is not shown either. Please revise. • Please. address the expansive potential of near surface soils. The laboratory consolidation tests have exhibited swelling indicating that the soils could be expansive. Considering this, indicate whether any special consideration is necessary for the design of floor slabs (see Comment 3). • A single corrosivity test indicates a low corrosion potential of site soils. Please indicate the applicability of this test to the soils in contact with subsurface structures. • Please provide recommendations for flatwork including overexcavation depths. • Please include a statement on the adequacy of the site for its intended use. • Please address the impact of the proposed development on the adjacent properties. X Please review and comment upon the geotechnical aspects of the grading plan and the foundation plan and verify that the plans are in conformance with the geotechnical recommendations of the referenced report_ Please include a copy of the plans with your response. 1 Additional Comments (no response required): Note to City Staff: Staff should confirm that the Consultants (C.E.G. and R.C.E/G.E.) have signed the final dated grading, foundation/construction and landscaping plans, per City Code, thereby verifying the plans' geotechnical conformance with the Consultant's original report and associated addenda. Limitations of Review: Our review is intended to determine if the submitted report(s) comply with City Codes and generally accepted geotechnical practices within the local area. The scope of our services for this third party review has been limited to a brief site visit and a review of the above referenced report.and associated documents, as supplied by the City of Newport Beach. Re -analysis of reported data and/or calculations and preparation of amended construction or design recommendations are specifically not included within our scope of services. Our review should not be considered as a certification, approval or acceptance of the previous consultant's work, nor is meant as an acceptance of liability for the final design or construction recommendations made by the geotechnical consultant of record or the project designers or engineers. Opinions presented in this review are for City's use only. BY: BY: 1: Gamini Weeratunga, G.E. 2403 Ken Bagahi, Ph.D., BAGAHI ENGINEERING, INC. BAGA I1 ENGINE ji RQG, INC. — -, • ram = z__ -• rife - _.. S- = \ _ _, • RFFFRFNCFS: SITE PLAN BY TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES DATED NOVEMBER 2000 • a 0011 jQP� Out </ .al1G a'ii ��'Q- wpoRT - —_ V frQO©O� 4Rp �,s ; r 0 D 0 301 Newport Blvd__ Newport Beach. California REFERENCES: SITE PLAN BY TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES DATED NOVEMBER 2000_ LEGEND: I • CURRENT INVESTIGATION (4953-05-1091) • • 7 Q PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION (A-690$0) L BORING LOCATION AND NUMBER N BENCH MARK FOR CURRENT BORING ELEVATIONS, FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION AT EMERGENCY CARE UNIT. ASSUMED ELEVATION = 100.0 PLOT PLAN SCALE 1" = 100' 1.00 200 SC "LE EEi omAC'I'EC F'WI1RFt 1MACTEC engineering and constructing a better tomorrow December 5, 2006 Mr. Greg McClure Facilities Design and Construction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive; P.O. Box 6100 Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Subject: Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation Proposed MRI Building Additions and Renovation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 " Dear McClure: We previously performed a geotechnical investigation for the subject project at the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California and presented the results in a report dated October 26, 2005. Subsequently, we provided geotechnical recommendations for alternative foundation types in a letter dated March 28, 2006 and our opinions regarding overexcavation in a letter dated June 22, 2.006. This letter presents our recommendations for pile load testing to address OSHPD review comments as emailed to us by Mr: Terang Kim of KPFF Consulting Engineers on November 22, 2006. To confirm the downward capacity of the piles, at least one initial pile should be load tested. The test pile should be tested to at least two times the allowable downward pile capacity based on the values given in our March 28, 2006 letter. The test load should be applied in at least four equal load increments up to the maximum test load; the 200% test load should be maintained for at least 15 minutes. As an alternative to conventional load testing, it is acceptable to utilize an Osterberg load cell; if a load cell is used, reaction piles will not need to be installed. Also, after testing, the test pile can be used as a production pile if the hydraulic lines are flushed with grout. MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 200 Citadel Drive • Los Angeles, CA 90040-1554 • Phone: 323.889.5300 • Fax: 323.721.6700 www.mactec.com I a I 1 1 1 1 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian — Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation December 5, 2006 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 The pile length or diameter may need to be modified based on the test results. If the design of the piles is governed by upward loading rather than downward loading, the pile should be tested in tension. The portion of the pile extending through the fill may be cased with a sonotube. If a sonotube is used, the downdrag loads due to settlement of the undocumented fill soils may be ignored in the design. Downdrag loads should not be considered when the pile is in upward loading. As there are only a small number of piles planned for the project, it may be desirable to perform the load test on a non production pile near the project site, well in advance of production pile installation, to confirm the capacities. Caution must be taken to protect adjacent existing footings and utilities during testing. All other recommendations in our October 2005 report and June 22, 2006 letter remain applicable. 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. letter. 2 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian — Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation December 5, 2006 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 It has been a pleasure to be of professional service to you. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. Lan-Anh Tran Staff Engineer Marshall Lew, Ph.D. Senior Principal Vice President P:I4953 GeotechI2005 proj151091 HO (2 copies submitted) WESS, SHACC 4:7 No. 522 Exp. 3-31-09 TECHa)'1F cc: KPFF Consulting Engineers Attn: Terang Kim 50' Martin B. Hudson, Ph.D. Senior Principal Engineer Project Manager edical CenterlDeliverables14953-05-10911t04.doc/LT:lt 3 °It STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor Department of Conservation CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 801 K Street • Moil Stop 12-32 • Sacramento, CA 95814-3531 CALIFORNIA CONSERVATION telephone: 916-323-4399 TDD: 916-324-255S Web Site: conservation.co.gov/cgs Ms. Catherine F. Slater, CEG 2219, Senior Engineering Geologist CStater@oshpd.state.ca.us M 916-653-8440 Facilities Development Division Office of Statewide Health Planning & Development 1600 Ninth Street, Suite 420 Sacramento, CA 95814-6414 November 8, 2006 Subject: Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology for Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Emergency Care Unit and MRI Renovation One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, Orange County, CA 92658-6100 OSHPD Permit # HL-050402-30 OSHPD Facility # 1.0428 Hoag Hospital project #0413700 Dear Ms: Slater. In accordance with your request and transmittal of documents, The California' Geological Survey has performed anengineering geology and seismology review:to .check for conformance with the• • 2001 California Building Code; California Code of Regulations, Title 24, particularly -Chapter 16 (seismology), Chapter 18 (foundations), and Chapter 33(grading). This is a $31 million renovation and expansion of the existing Emergency Care Unit (ECU) and the MRI scanning building. • We reviewed these.:two reports that were bound.together in one document: Carl C. Kim, Registered Geotechnical Engineer 2620; and Lan-Anh Tran, Staff:Engineer, 2006, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed MRI Building Additions and Renovation, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian: Mactec Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 200 Citadel Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90040; 323-889-5300, •Mactec project no. 4953-05-1091,: Mactec report dated March 28, 2006; 8 pages. Kirkgard, Susan F., Certified Engineering Geologist 1754, Carl C. Knit, Registered Geotechnical Engineer 2620, • Lan-Anh Tran, Staff Engineer, 2005, Report of Geotechnical investigation, Proposed Additions to MRI Building, _ Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian: Mactec Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 200 Citadel Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90040; tg 323-889-5300, Mactec project no. 4953-05-1091, Mactec report dated October 26, 2005; 35 pages. Within the scope.of this review, the California Geological. Survey performed these tasks: @ review of geologic maps: for the Newport Beach.area of.Orange County.;..a evaluation of the earthquake ground - motion; � evaluation of:the borehole logs•and the geologic ctoss=sections,: ®" evaluation,of the geotechnical'laboratory .testS, and0preparation of this.review Ietter: •Severaiyears ago; we inspected the campus of Hoag. Memorial Hospital Presbyterian where the California Geological Survey operates and maintains a sirong-motion accelerometer. For this new phase of construction, we did not perform a new geologic field -inspection. • The 'Department °f Conservations mission is to prate t'Cafefomrans and their environment by Trotecting hoes andp'vperty frost earthquakes andlandsGdu; Emitting safe ruining andaitandgas Jri ang; Conserving Caafornia'sfanntend aniSaving energy andresourres through regereng. Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology for Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian ECU and MRI Renovation OSHPD Facility #10428 November 8, 2006 In the numbered paragraphs below, this review is keyed to the paragraph numbers of California Geological Survey Note 48, Checklist for the Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology Reports for California Public Schools, Hospitals, and Essential Services Buildings_ Project Location 1_ Site Location: OK, an index map was properly prepared (Figure 1). . 2. Boreholes: OK, sufficient boreholes were drilled for this project with a relatively small footprint. Boreholes # 1, 7 and 10 are used by the consultants, and a plot plan is shown in Figure 2. 3_ Site Coordinates: Satisfactory. The consultants reported the site coordinates of the hospital campus from the Newport Beach 7'%-minute Quadrangle: 117.9294 degrees west Longitude, and 33.6242 degrees north Latitude_ 2 Engineering Geology 4. • Regional Geologic.and Fault Map: OK, a fault map 'of the Newport Beach region is provided in Figures 4 and 5. 5. Geologic Map of Site: OK, refer to Figure 4. • 6. Subsurface Geology at Site: Satisfactorily described. 7. Geologic Cross Sections: Satisfactory. Refer to Figure 3_ This is a two -layer stratigraphic model, with Quaternary terrace deposits (r=-30+ feet thick) overlying siltstone of the.Monterey Formation at depth. .8. Evaluation of Active Faulting & Coseismic Deformation: OK. The consultants have stated that there is no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone within this hospital campus. 9. Seismic Hazard Zones: OK, the official Newport Beach quadrangle of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Program was properly referenced. This project is not within either a liquefaction zone ora landslide zone_ 10. Landslides: Satisfactory; not applicable to this elevated terrace. 11. Geotechnical Laboratory Testing: OK. 12. Expansive Soils: OK. 13. Geochemistry of the Geologic Subgrade: OK. 14. Flooding_ OK. This site on an elevated terrace is not subject to flooding. Seismology 86 Calculation of Earthquake Ground Motion 15.• • Evaluation of Historic Seismicity: Satisfactory, refer to Figure 6. 16. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) Methodology: Satisfactory. 17. Upper -Bound Earthquake Ground -Motion: OK, the Upper -Bound Earthquake ground -motion, 10 percent chance of exceedance in 100 years, is properly cited and used. 18. Design -Basis Earthquake Ground -Motion: OK, proper use of code terminology. 19. Classify the Geologic Subgrade: OK, we concur that the geologic subgrade is appropriately classified as Type Sc = "very dense soil or soft rock" (n alluvium) from Table 16A J of 2001 CBC. 20. Near -Source Coefficients: Satisfactory. On page 21, Na Al 13 and Nv 1.6 21. Peak Ground Acceleration: OK. On page 15 and 17, and Table 4, these ground motions are provided: Upper -Bound "Earthquake Ground Motion, 10% chance of exceedance in 100-years " • Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAuoE 0.53g .horizontal • . Peak Spectral Acceleration; SA=I.28g at 0.3-second•period Design -Basis Earthquake Ground Motion, 10% chance of exceedance ill 50 years Peak Ground Acceleration, PGArnE = 0.40g horizontal Peak Spectral Acceleration, SA =0.96g at 0.3-second period Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology for Hoag Memorial hospital Presbyterian ECU and MRI Renovation OSHPD Facility #10428 November 8, 2006 The California Geological Survey independently evaluated the ground motion using our 2003 CGS statewide model and a Type Sc (very dense soil) subgrade, and our computations yielded similar results. 22. Normalized Spectral Acceleration: OK, refer to Figures 7 and 8 in the appendix. 23. California Seismic Zone 3 or 4: OK. This site in Orange County is within CBC Seismic Zone 4, so by definition, coefficient Z = 0.4 24. Scaled Time -Histories. of Earthquake Ground -Motion. Not Applicable to this particular structure. Liquefaction Analysis 25. Geologic Setting: OK, the'consultants have shown that the site is not subject to seismically -induced liquefaction because it is underlain by soft rock and located on a elevated terrace bluff that is far above the water table (-Al 66 feet below grade, as" inferred from the downhole shear -wave velocities). 26. Liquefaction Methodology: OK, not applicable 27. Liquefaction Calculations: OK, not applicable 28. Seismic Settlement of the Entire Soil Column: OK, on page 2 of the March 28, 2006 report, the seismic settlement is .estimated �ih-inch (since deep caissons are planned). 29. Lateral Spreading: OK, not applicable to this relatively flat site. 30. Remedial Options for Liquefaction: OK, not applicable. 31. Acceptance Criteria for Liquefaction Remediation: - OK, not applicable. Exceptional Geologic Hazards or Site Conditions: 32 to 43' OK;" not applicable"or not reviewed." " • Site Grading Plan Review & Foundation Plan Review 44. Areas of Cut & Fill, Preparation of Ground, Depth of Removals: OK. . 45. Geologic & Geotechnical Problems Anticipated During Grading Operations: OK. 46_ Subdrainage Plans and Hydrogeology: OK (not applicable). 47_ Cut -Fill prisms: OK. 48_ Deep Foundation Plans: OK. The 8-page report dated March 28, 2006 contains information about the planned use of cast in-drillhole piers (caissons). 49. Retaining 'Walls' and Engineered Fill Buttresses: OK, soldier piles are planned for the braced excavation. . Report Documentation 50. Geology, Seismology, and Geotechnical References: OK. . 51. Certified Engineering Geologist: OK; Rosalind Munro, CEG 1269. 52. Registered Geotechnical Engineer: OK; Dr. Marshall Lew, RGE 522 Conclusions •. . • 1_ The engineering geology and geotechnical engineering reports for the Emergency Cate Unit and MRI building have adequately evaluated the geologic subgrade forihis site. These reports meet the intent of the California Building Code, CCR Title 24_ • 2. The seismology values shown in Table 4, and spectral diagrams shown in Figures 7 and 8 are approved: Peak Ground Acceleration; PGADBEPs 0.53g . and PGADBE ,ir•0.40g. Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology for Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian ECU and MRI Renovation OSHPD Facility #10428 November 8, 2006 Recommendations 1.. • The two reports prepared by Mactec are recommended for approval from an engineering geology and seismology viewpoint. . 2. It is recommended- that all grading and foundation operations (caissons) be inspected during construction. At the completion of all grading and foundation work, a final as -built report Should be prepared and copies submitted to OSHPD for final approval. Summary The consulting reports are adequate, and this project may proceed from an engineering geology and seismology perspective. If you have any further questions about this review letter, please send e-mail messages -to • < Robett.sydnor@conservation.ca.gov > or telephone the California Geological Survey M 916-323-4399. Respectfully submitted ReGva` N. Robert H. Sydnor �F Senior Engineering Geologist A �cA PG3267, CPG 4496; CHG 6, CEG 96B LM-AEG, M-ASCE, LM-SSA, WEER!, LM-AGLI, M-GSA, M-ASTM, M-AJPG, LM-AAAS Reviewed by: 3erinifer Thornburg Senior Engineering Geologist M AEG, M-GSA, M-AGtl, M-EERI PG 5476, CHG 220, CEG 2240 Enclosure: • California Geological Survey Note 48 (2 pages) Checklistfor the Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology Reports for California Public Schools, Hospitals, and Essential Services Buildings ROBERT H. SYDNOR No_ 968 CERTIFIED ENGINEERING gOLOGIST 4 Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology for Hoag Memorial hospital Presbyterian ECU and MRI Renovation OSHPD Facility #10428 November 8, 2006 Copies to: Rosalind Munro, CEG 1269, MAEG, M-GSA Senior Engineering Geologist Mactec Engineering & Consulting, Inc. 200 Citadel Drive Los Angeles, CA 90040-1554 cell g. 949-278-8223 rmunro@mactec.com office g -323-8S9-5366 Dr. Marshall Lew, RGE 522, M-ASCE, M-EERI. MScell g 213-280-3888 SA l ct mactec.c -3 Principal Geotechnical Engineer moffice � 323-$89-5325 m and Executive Vice President Mactec Engineering & Consulting, Inc. 200 Citadel Drive Los Angeles, CA 90040-1554 Ramai Hodali, SE 3552, M-SEAOC, M-ASCE Principal Structural Engineer KPFF Structural Engineers 6080.Center Drive, Suite 300.- Los Angeles, CA 90045 Sylvia Botero, Architect C-20224,, AK Architect Supervising Architect RBB Architects, Inc- 10980 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024-3905 g 310-665-1536 rhodali@kpff-la.com g 310-473-3555 sbotero@rbbinc.com Langston Trigg, it, AIA Architect • 949-764 4479. . Vice President, for Facilities Design & Construction Lan gston.Trigg@hoaghospital.org Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, CA 92658-6100 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 California Geological Survey-- Note 48 and Seismology Reports . Checklist for the Review of Engineering Geology CaliforniaPublic Schools, Hospitals, and Essential Services Buildings . for January 1, 2004 engineering geology, Survey (CGS) to determine adequacy and .completeness of consulting g Note 48 is used by the l r California GeologicalTitle 24. California Building Code. Building • and technical reports that ate PnPaT� under California ('-ode of Regul ons, seismology, t;� Facilities. and Essential Services Buildings Irtos tals and Skilled Nursing FaciShtry Ya1 ewes uric[ CCR Title 24 applies to Califomia Public Sc�tools. gospitaLs, Strolled Nursing ifornia are under the Official for public schools is the Statewide l the anState g & Developmentrchitect (DSOSHPD). The California Geological covey serves under o n jurisdiction tw state eice of forenOt Heal�Pogy and seismology review purlm� to these two state agencies engineering - it-00- s P it- me to r02T vt- /' CI �` l`1 R SV.! L Location8. - Project Name: OSHPD or.t Fie # Date Reviewed /ow .t 4 2' Checklist Item or Parameterow Consulting ed Report e WA = not applicable PTO ect Location 1_ Site Location Map, Street Addre�, Co Name, Plot Plan Ali Buidi • Footprint 2. Adequate Number of Boreholes or Trenches - one per 5,C00 ft2, ekti minimum of 2 for any one building 3. Site Coordinates latitude & Ion •'tude "correctly plotted on a rh-minuteUSGSquadrrngle baseman En:' eerie: Geolah 4. Re•"onai Geology and Regional Fault Maps — concise Page -sized ilustrations rib site plotted �y��clege� 5. Geologic Map of Site — deta#ed (rarge-sue) map rob pfoper'symbo� .. at Stle -- engy kig geology °'ion summarized from boreholes or trench logs 6. Subsurface Geo sections shoeing pertinent foundations & site g ►g 7. Geologic Cross -Sections —sue detailed K se 8. Active Faulting and Coseismic Deformation Across' cr Site — �� moot setyadts from ist-Pi;alo . , ,� `� Fault-Zones� awe faults; ext (liquefaction & landslides) Geologic Hazard Zones — Seismic Hazard Zone Maps Provide page -sized extract of'c iliaat map shoring kludadion and theones kom local California �g� Survey ar ) and -. , _ . , maofront tthje��' p Bement L,,(�. debris flows hfilsiope proPert t or below); de:..is flows & rockfalls # O. Landslides _ both on -site & on adjacenttests T:- h+ . of Representative . — .broad 'sae of appropriate geotetftrnd 11. Gepteeliq•Ical _ ... . _h__:.. c..t..,�� nxcavi,vTahie t8-t-t3 urerthediaze 12. 6c axis -- c w rhahcr -• - 13. Geochemistry of Geologic Subgrade - Soluble Sulfates and Corrosive Soils 5either ' If orT,' V ceinent. T,. soluble sulfates indude.>i ' 14. Hoods + & Severe Erosion - discuss FEMA Hood Zones siaw ske plotted on dfidat map (d applicable) Seismolo ' A maculation of Earth ' uake Ground -Motion that affected the sde in the past 200 years X 15. Proba ion d• — FSHA� of � ke Ground -Motion J( 17. Probabilistic 10% chance of ex in 100 years: cite & use 17. :. -Bound E . h - Ground -Motion — � .sips —10% chance of is 50 Y cite & use 18. t � � Basis '� ` � '' 16A-) of Code: shear -wave veJodi)+ 19. Characterize and $ . the from Table 20. Near-Sotirte Coefficients and Distance to New Arhve Fats —iapritcable Na NY, Ca, Cr for UBE and DBE levels of . • • t • - summary PGA values 21.. Peak Ground �ICCe�n acceleration is required for dynamic analysis 22. Normal¢ed Spectral � -Sole-�°�� for both UBE and DBE ground-motion.for - • and tail bulldogs. Use C = 5 percent viscous dampin ;feternone appropriate zone from Fig 16A-2 and Section 1629A.4.1 23. Seismic Zone 3. or 4 — 24. Scaled lime-Htstories of ' Bound -Motion - as appficabie for base -isolated sttucdtces Review by: - Caifo niaCefifed Engineering Geologist # Adequately Oesokiet Satisfa' x X Rau �Ilv B Addkional Data Needed; Not Satisfa • 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 Checklist Item or Parameter within Consulting Report NIA = not applicable • NIR = not reviewed; not evaluated at this time Li uefaction Anal sus 25. Geologic'Setting for Occurrence. of Seismically -Induced Liquefaction: �• � ♦• applicable to any ground -water surface:<.50ft. depth; for calculations use,historic-highest group • --tiny-density alluvium, typically SPT hk35, composed of sands or silty sands"with non -plastic fines ♦ moderate earthquake ground -motion, hp'y/PGA uee >0.1 g • Z6. Liquefaction Methodology — NSFIMCEER treatise on liiquefadmn by bud, driss, P bo and 19 o oth 7 0d. 2091 issue of ASCE Jannalofbeoteclrnral ( uci� & 1 V. Liquefaction Calculations -- based on detailed geologic rross-sedion and Safety Fador SF<1 3 28. Seismic Settlement of entire Soli Column at relevant 8oreholes (both a ated & saturated) total & differential as SIC Provide ete calculations no estiPGA mates — t1umo 29. Lateral Spread • due to Li uefaction — when near a free -face (river bank. carnal, cut -slope) /1^- on — several appropriate options to remediate fiquefadion effects 41 331. Remedial Options Criteria ter ' a Remediation — needed for subsequent remedlation contract Exceptional Geologic Hazards and Complicatedse i e Conditioofls balmy be pendent to a ed and carehdana ices to a e dpre dews air not!erper yaschool andhn l This ist afercepda lgc ha we he@ to avoid sftestoarar/pr nentsandez' d of Pub N/R=rrotrer> era4�atedait/Jistine aisu�and baok-dredts►►rie» �°risreQuiredby re gaga Y 32. Phase I & 11 Environmental Site Assessmert work —ASTM Test E 1527 & Test E-1903 for towcs 33. Hazardous Materials — methane gas. hydrogen sulfide gas, tar seeps, high-pressure gas pipelines, etc 34, Calif. Environmental Quar } ,—applicable Environmental Impact Report data. paleonto ' ,etc 35. Ground -Water Qualky -= safe drinimrg watersuppfiesforrural or ban onvdses (f applicable) 36. On -Site t S ems — for mat or suburbanAilamp Sod a d' — due to 1y f water 37. Non -Tectonic faulting and °collapse of 38. Regional Subsidence — due to sustained. withdrawal of fluids (ground -water exbaction & petroleum) 39. Volcanic Eruption — only near active volcanic centers: refer to U%S Bulletin 1847 (Miller, 1979)* 40. Tsunami or Seiche — only for low-lying sites dose to Calflomia coastline or large lakes and reservoirs 41.. Asbestos — in formations assooated with serpentine and tremoite. Mato LGS Special Publication 124. 42. Radon-222 Gas — typiailhr within organic -rich marine shales of the California Coast Ranges. 43. Other Geologic Hazards — use professional judgment for complicated or unusual geologic hazards Adequately Described; Satisfactory Grading -Plan Review and Foundation Plan Review 44. Areas of Cut & EE, Preparation of Ground, Depth of Removals and Recoinpaction 45. Geologic &•Geotechnical Inspections and Problems Anticipated During Grading -- caged inspections for LEG or Fa (removal & recompadion; canyon dean out; -key for buttress fig) 46. Subdrainage Plans for Ground Water and Surface Water — show detaas of planned subdrains 47. Cut -All Prisms —seismic compression arid inoterert gut arnossthe aut-fit Meat asde pads 48. Deep Foundations, Structural Mat Foundaticcs (may as Vie) — piles, belled caissons, etc. 49. Retaining Walls, Engineered FBI futtresses, Sol -Nailed Wails, Gam, Gabions. etc . X- Re out Documentation and Geotechnical References —current & adequate published clarions Robert H. Sydnor, RG 3207, CNG 6. CPG 4496. CEO 968 California Geological Survey, Note 48 January 1, 2004. www.c ceservaiion.ca-govi cgs A_ De Additional Data Needed; Not 5atisfador 2 1 1 1 engineering and constructing a better tomorrow June 22, 2006 • Mr. Greg McClure* • Facilities Design and Construction • Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Otte HoagDrive; P.O. Box 6100 • Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Subject Supplemental Geotechuical Consultation Proposed MRI Building Additions and Renovation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian .One Hoag Drive Newport Beach,California MACTEC Project 4953-05-199i'" Dear McClure: • We previously performed'a geotechnical investigation for the subject project at the Hoag Memorial .Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California and presented the results in a report dated May 25; 2005. Subsequently, we provided geotechnical recommendations for alternative foundation types in a letter dated March 28, 2006. This letter presents our opinions regarding overexcavation concerns raised by Kemp Bros., the general contractor. According to Mr_ Juan Hind -Rico of KPFF Consulting Engineers, Kemp Bros expressed concern about the need to overexcavate at the locations of footings supporting four new gravity columns (at . • N2.4/Ain, N2.4JNE, N2.58/Dm, and 2m/E.5m) and two braced frames (along lines 4.5m and NJ) • • We -do not anticipate having to overexcavate .below the subject footings. Based on the available information, we expect to find natural' soils below planned footing bottoms. Our inspector will verify that the soils exposed in the footing excavations are suitable. . 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 lc calities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this letter. MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. I200 Citadel Drive, • los Angeles. CA 90040 • Phone: 323:889.5300 • 323.721.6700 www.mactec.com Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 June 22, 2006 It has been a pleasure to be of professional service to you. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. Lan-Anh Tran Staff Engineer Carl C. Kim Principal Engineer Project Manager :011SGS-1811,4f.IN.I.N/C:sii.s.f: C. No. 269.0 * \ EXP. 5-3ii-i o \ ;,fir P: 4953 Geotech12005projt5109! HOAG Memorial Aledical CenterlDeliverablest4953-05-IO91ltO3.doc/LT_ 1t (2 copies submitted) Attachments cc: KPFF Consulting Engineers Attn: Juan Hinds -Rico 2 iE OMACTEC ' engineering and constructing a better tomorrow March 28, 2006 Mr. Fidel Gonzalez Senior Project Manager Facilities Design and Construction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive; P.O. Box 6100 Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Subject: Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Mill Building Additions and Renovation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Dear Mr_ Gonzalez: We are pleased to submit the results of our supplemental geotechnical investigation for alternative foundation types for the proposed MRI building additions at the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California. We previously performed a geotechnical investigation for the proposed addition and presented the results in a report dated May 25, 2005. PROJECT DESCRIPTION As described in our May 25, 2005 report, additions to the existing MRI building are planned. We previously provided recommendations for new spread footings or mat -type foundations to accommodate the proposed MRI additions. The footings were recommended to be established in the dense natural sand soils about 3 to 9 feet below the lowest adjacent grade or floor level to extend below the existing uncertified fill soils. It is our understanding that excavation of the existing fill adjacent the MRI building to construct mat foundations would be difficult and may require shoring. As an alternative to avoid surcharging the adjacent basement walls of the existing MRI building, drilled pile foundations may be used to support the proposed additions. All other recommendations in our May 25, 2005 report remain applicable. We understand that the existing MRI building will be renovated as part of the project The renovation will include the replacement of the existing moment frame for the building with a new braced frame. MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 200 Gtodel Drive • Los Angeles, CA 90040 • Phone: 323.889.5300.323.721.6700 www.mactec.com Hoag Menzorial Hospital Presbyterian —Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations March 28, 2006 MACTEC Project 4953-054091 RECOMMENDATIONS To avoid excavation of the existing fill adjacent to the proposed additions and to avoid surcharging the existing basement walls, the proposed additions to the MRI building and replacement braced frame system may be supported on drilled, cast -in -place concrete piles. The existing MRI building is supported on spread footings that have already undergone settlement due to static loads. The use of pile foundations will minimize settlement of the new braced frame and reduce the potential for differential settlement between it and the MRI building. Segments above a l :l plane project upward from the base of adjacent basement walls should be isolated from surrounding soils. Sonotubes or similar materials may be used_ Drilled Pile Foundations The allowable downward and upward capacities of 24-, 30- and 36-inch-diameter drilled, cast -in - place concrete piles are presented as a function of penetration into natural soils below adjacent basement walls on Figure I, Drilled Pile Capacities. The portions of the piles isolated from surround soils should not be counted towards the length of piles required to support the load based on Figure I . The pile capacities shown on Figure I are dead -plus -live load capacities; a one-third increase may be used for wind or seismic loads. The capacities presented are based on the strength of the soils; the compressive and tensile strength of the pile sections should be checked to verify the structural capacity of the piles. Based on the anticipated loading, piles in groups are not expected. However, if piles in group are required, they should be spaced at least 2%2 diameters on centers. if the piles are so spaced, no reduction in the downward capacities need be considered due to group action. Settlement We estimate the settlement of the proposed structure supported on piles in the manner recommended to be less than %2 inch and the differential settlement to be less than %s inch. Lateral Capacities Lateral loads may be resisted by the piles, by soil friction on the side of the pile caps and by the passive resistance of the soils on. pile caps. Please note thatpiles within 8 diameters of adjacent basement walls and loaded toward these basement walls wilt impose surcharge pressures. If existing basement walls are deemed incapable of accommodating the surcharge pressure, a gap or compressible material should be installed between the piles and surrounding soils in the direction of the basement walls. This gap or compressible material should extend to a depth of 10 feet or to the base of the adjacent basement wall, whichever is shorter. 2 r Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations March 28, 2006 M.4CTEC Project 4953-05-1091 1 1 1 We have computed the lateral capacities of the piles using the computer program LPILE by ENSOFT, Inc. Resistance of the soils adjacent to 24,.30, and 36-inch-diameter drilled piles that are at least 25 feet long are shown in the following tables for top of pile deflection of 'A and V2 inch. These resistances have been calculated assuming both fixed and free -head pile conditions for minimum pile lengths corresponding to the "Depth to Zero Moment" shown on the table below. The lateral resistance of other sizes of piles may be assumed to be proportional to the pile diameter. Lateral Capacity 24-inch-diameter Drilled Pile Pile Head Deflection (inches) Pik Head Condition Free Fixed Free - Fixed Lateral Load (kips) 42 . 92 59 119 Maximum Moment (ft-kips) 150 388 243 592 Depth to Maximum Moment (ft) 5% 0 5% 0 Depth to Zero Moment (ft) 19 22 19 22 Lateral Capacity 30-inch-diameter Drilled Pile Pile Head Deflection (inches) s/ Pile Head Condition Free Fixed Free Fixed Lateral Load (kips) 61 126 84 172 Maximum Moment. (ft-kips) 243 635 382 1011 Depth to Maximum Moment (ft) 7%. 0 .7'/r 0 Depth to Zero Moment (ft) 23 _ 27 23 27 Lateral Capacity 36-inch-diameter Drilled Pile Pile Head Deflection (inches) % % Pile Head Condition Free Fixed Free Fixed Lateral Load (kips) 83 168 113 236 Maximum Moment (ft-kips) 373 978 592 1 588 Depth to Maximum Moment (ft) 9 0 9 0 Depth to Zero Moment (ft) 26 . 31 26 31 3 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations March 28, 2006 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Piles in groups are not expected. However, if piles in groups are required, no reduction in the lateral capacities need be considered for the first row of piles and the piles located in the direction perpendicular to loading. For subsequent rows in the direction of loading, piles in groups spaced closer than 8 pile diameters on centers will have a reduction in lateral capacity due to group effects. Therefore, the lateral capacity of piles in groups, except for the first row of piles, if spaced at 2%s pile diameters on centers, may be assumed to be reduced by one half. The reduction of lateral capacity in the direction of loading for other pile spacing may be interpolated_ The passive resistance of natural or fill soils against pile caps may be assumed to be equal to the pressure developed by a fluid with a density of 200 pounds per cubic foot. A one-third increase in the passive value may be used"for wind or seismic loads. The resistance of the piles and the passive resistance of the materials against pile caps may be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance. Ultimate Design Values The values recommended above for foundation design are for use with loadings determined by a conventional working stress design. If the structures are analyzed based on an ultimate design concept, the recommended design values may be multiplied by the following factors: Foundation Loading Ultimate Design Factor Axial Capacity of Piles Lateral Capacity of Piles, Passive Resistance 2.0 1.0 1.3 In no event, however, should the pile lengths be reduced from those required for support of dead plus live loads when using the working stress values. Pile Installation Significant caving was not observed beneath the site during our field exploration. However, caving tends to occur in sandy soils with low moisture content, typically less than 5%. Therefore, installation of drilled cast -in -place concrete piling will require special provisions to prevent caving of shaft walls during construction. Special drilling provisions for caving include, but are not limited to, casing and/or drilling mud. Among other precautions, the drilling speed should be reduced as necessary to minimize vibration and sloughing of the sand deposits. As some caving and raveling may occur during installation, piles spaced less than five diameters on center should be drilled and filled alternately, with the concrete permitted to set at least eight hours before drilling an adjacent hole. Pile excavations should be filledwith concrete as soon after drilling and inspection as possible; the holes should not be left open overnight. 4 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Supplemental Ceotechnical Recommendations March 28, 2006' MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Only competent drilling contractors with experience in the installation of drilled cast -in -place piles in similar. soil conditions should be considered for the pile construction. We suggest requesting the piling contractor to submit a list of similar projects along with references for each project. The drilling of the pile excavations and the placing of the concrete should be observed continuously by personnel of our office to verify that the desired diameter and depth of piles are achieved. Temporary 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 may 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 suggest that our firm review the final shoring plans and specifications prior to bidding or negotiating with a shoring contractor. Lateral Pressures 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. Where retained soils are partially sloped at I :1 above the shoring, it may be assumed that the soils will exert lateral pressures equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 60 pounds per cubic foot. 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. However, where the required soils are sloped at 1:1 above the shoring, it may be assumed that the soils will exert a lateral pressure equal to 44H pounds per square foot. 5 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations March 28, 2006 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 H=HEIGHT OF SHORING IN FT. / / 22H (F.S.F.) In addition to the recommended earth pressure, the upper 10 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, adjacent to existing structures, the shoring system should be designed for the appropriate lateral surcharge pressures imposed by the adjacent foundations of the structures unless the foundations are underpinned, or, as planned, the proper setback is incorporated. Any lateral surcharge pressures imposed by the adjacent foundations could be computed when the relative locations, sizes, and loads of these foundations are known. 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. 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 6 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations March 28. 2006 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 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 250 pounds per square foot. Lagging Continuous lagging will be required between the soldier piles. 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. For clear spans of up to 8 feet, we recommend that the lagging be designed for a semi -circular distribution of earth pressure where the maximum pressure is 400 pounds per square foot at the mid -line between soldier piles, and 0 pounds per square foot at the soldier piles. 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 1 inch at the top of the shored embankment. If greater deflection occurs during construction, additional bracing may be necessary to minimize settlement of the utilities in the adjacent streets. If it is desired to reduce the deflection of the shoring, a greater active pressure could be used in the shoring design. GENERAL LIMITATIONS 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 letter. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 March 28, 2006 It has been a pleasure to be of professional service to you. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. Lars-Anh Tr Staff Engineer Carl C. l'm Principal Engineer Project Manager P:170131 Geotech12005-proji51091 HOAG Memorial Medical CenterlDeliverablest4953-O5-10911102.doc/LT_!t (2 copies submitted) Attachments cc: KPFF Consulting Engineers Attn: Juan Hinds -Rico 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DEPTH BELOW BASEMENT (in feet) ALLOWABLE DOWNWARD PILE CAPACITY IN NATURAL SOIL(kips) 150 200 250 300 0 I0 0 30 40 0 50 100 i t i 1 — \\ \ i l i T i t i f rl i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i l I _ Diameter - 24-inch 30-inch Diameter 36-inch Diameter — — \\ \ \ \ \ N — 1 1 1 1 1 I'1 t 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1_1 1 1``‘, — 1 1 1 1 0 25 50 75 100 125 ALLOWABLE UPWARD PTLR CAPACITY (kips) 150 NOTES: (1) The indicated values refer to the total of dead plus Iive loads; a one-third increase may be used when considering wind or seismic loads. (2) Piles in groups should be spaced a minimum oft-1/2 pile diameters on centers. (3) The indicated values are based on the strength of the soils; the actual pile capacities may be limited to lesser values by the strength of the piles. Prepared/Date: VB 3/13/06 Checked/Date: Li, Hoag Memorial Hospital South Building Los Angeles, California MACTEC DRILLED PILE CAPACITIES Project No. 4953-05-109I Figure 1 1 2005-proj151091\Cxitulationstaxial pile capacirytpilecapecity.grf REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO MRI BUILDING HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN ONE HOAG DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN Newport Beach, California October 26, 200k" Project 4953-05-1091 f MACTEC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I i t/MACTEC • eng.i•neering and constructing a better tomorrow October 26, 2005 Mr. Fidel Gonzalez . Senior Project Manager Facilities Design and Construction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive; P.O. Box 6100 • Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Subject: Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Additions to MRI Building Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Dear Mr. Gonzalez: We are pleased to submit the results of our geotechnical investigation for the additions to the MRI Building at Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California. Our services were conducted in general accordance with our proposal dated March 18, 2005, as authorized by you on April 6, 2005. The scope of our services was planned based on information provided by Mr. Juan Hinds -Rico of KPFF. Consulting Engineers who also advised us of the structural features of the proposed additions. The results of our 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. MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. II200 Citadel Drive • Los Angeles, CA 90040 • Phone: 323.889.5300 • Fax: 323.721.6700 www.mactec.com 1 1 l 1 1 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 It has been a pleasure to be of professional service to you. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 4-"/ Lan-Anh Tran Staff Engineer Carl C. Kim Principal Engineer Project Manager Susan F. Kirkgar�' Senior Engineering Geologist k" susAn FRAfZEtI �. * KIRRG 5�Af O t17 CERTIFIED INEERING GEOLOGIST4'4. 9"OpcAO''' P:170131 Geotech12005 proj151091 HOAG Memorial Medical CenterlDeliverables14953-05-1091rpt01.doc/LT•tm (4 copies submitted) cc: (1) KPFF Consulting Engineers. Attn: Juan Hinds -Rico 2 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO MRI BUILDING HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN ONE HOAG DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN Newport Beach, California MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. Los Angeles, California October 26, 2005 Project4953-05-1091 1 11 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 i i 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES iii SUMMARY 1 1.0 SCOPE 2 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3 3.0 FIELD •EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS 3 4.0 GEOLOGY 4 4.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING 4 4.2 GEOLOGIC MATERIALS 4 4.3 GROUND WATER 5 4.4 FAULTS 6 4.5 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 12 4.6 ESTIMATED PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION 16 4.7 GEOLOGIC CONCLUSIONS 17 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 17 5.1 FOUNDATIONS 18 6.2 DYNAMIC SITE CHARACTERISTICS 20 6.3 FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT 22 6.4 PAVING 22 6.5 GRADING 23 6.6 GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION 25 7.0 GENERAL LIMITATIONS AND BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS 26 8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 27 TABLES FIGURES APPENDIX : CURRENT AND PRIOR FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ii Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1 Major Named Faults Considered to be Active in Southern California 2 Major Named Faults Considered to be Potentially Active i i Southern California 3 Pseudospectral Velocity in Inches/Second 4 Pseudospectral Acceleration in g Figure 1 Site Location Map 2 Plot Plan 3 Geologic Section 4 Local Geology 5 Regional Faults 6 Regional Seismicity 7 Horizontal Response Spectra — 10% Probability of Exceedence in 50 years 8 Horizontal Response Spectra — 10% Probability of Exceedence in 100 years iii 1 i i� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 i 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian -Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 SUMMARY We have completed our geotechnical investigation of the site of the proposed addition to the MRI Building at the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian campus in Newport Beach, California_ The proposed 1- and 2-story building additions will be approximately 1,100 and 4,700 square feet, respectively. Our current and prior subsurface explorations, engineering analyses, and foundation design recommendations are summarized below. 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 additions 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. To supplement our prior data at the project site, which consists of two borings (prior Borings 7 and 10) in the immediate area of the proposed additions, one verification boring was drilled to a depth of 50 feet below the existing grade (bgs). We encountered fill -ranging in depth from 3 to 9 feet below the ground surface. The natural soils consist primarily of clay and sand. Ground water was encountered at a depth of about 42 feet below the ground surface at the new boring location. The prior borings did not encounter water within the maximum 50 foot depth explored. The upper clay soils are moderately expansive. Fill soils are not suitable for support of the proposed addition, if encountered. The proposed structures can be supported on spread footings established in properly compacted fill or undisturbed natural soils. The on -site soils are suitable for use as compacted fill, and the building floor slab may be supported on grade. 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTECProject 4953-05-109/ 1.0 SCOPE This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed additions to the MRI Building at Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California. The project location is shown on Figure I, Site Location Map. The location of existing buildings, the proposed additions, and exploratory borings used in the current study are shown in Figure 2, Plot Plan. We relied on our prior and current subsurface exploration and laboratory testing program in our evaluation of the geotechnical conditions at the site. Our services also included of evaluating the geologic and seismic hazards at the site to meet the requirements of the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) and the California Geological Survey (CGS). In addition to the current explorations and laboratory testing, we also relied on the results of a prior geotechnical investigation of the site by our predecessor firm Law/Crandall (L/C Job No. 69080). The recommendations in the current report were developed in part using geotechnical information from the previous investigation. We have reviewed the prior report and accept responsibility for the use and interpretation of the data presented herein. The results of the current and previous filed explorations and laboratory tests, which form the basis of our recommendations, are presented in Appendix A. 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 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 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian and their design consultants to be used solely for the design of the additions to the hospital. The report has not been prepared for use by other parties, and may not contain sufficient information 'for purposes of other parties or other uses. 2 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) facilities are planned adjacent to the existing Ancillary Building at Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California. A 2-story building is to be constructed to the north of the Ancillary Building, and a single -story building addition is proposed to the south of the Ancillary Building. The plan footprints of the proposed 2- story and single -story MRI additions will be approximately 4,700 and 1,100 square feet, respectively. We understand that no basement levels are planned for either addition. Maximum and minimum dead -plus -live column load is about 310 and 110 kips, respectively. The Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian campus is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road. An emergency entrance currently occupies the site of the 2-story addition and will be removed as part of the construction. Paved parking lots and driveways occupy the rest of the sites. The ground surface of the site is generally level. Various underground utilities cross the site 3.0 FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS The soil conditions beneath the site were explored by drilling one boring to a depth of 50 feet below the existing grade (bgs) at the locations shown on Figure 2; In addition, subsurface data in the vicinity of the proposed additions is also available from exploration performed previously. Details of the current and prior explorations and the logs of the borings are presented in Appendix A Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples obtained from current and prior 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. • Consolidation. • Stabilometer (R-value). • Corrosion. 3 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 All testing was performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM specifications. Details of the current and prior laboratory testing program and test results are presented in Appendix A. 4.0 GEOLOGY 4.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING The site 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 the 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 that are 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 the Newport Mesa, and Upper Newport Bay, which separates the Newport Mesa from the San Joaquin Hills to the east. The site is near the southern end of the Los Angeles Basin, a structural depression that contains great thickness of sedimentary rocks. The inferred subsurface distribution of the geologic materials encountered in our explorations are shown in Figure 3, Geologic Section. The relationship of the site to local geologic features is depicted in Figure 4, Local Geology, and the faults in the vicinity of the site are shown in Figure 5, Regional Faults. Figure 6, Regional Seismicity, shows the locations of major faults and earthquake epicenters in Southem California. 4.2 GEOLOGIC MATERIALS The site is Iocally mantled by artificial fill placed during the initial site grading and later grading for various buildings. Artificial fill was encountered in our previous borings drilled in 1969 at the site of the Ancillary Building (prior to construction) to a maximum depth of 4.6 meters (15 feet). During construction, pre-existing artificial fill within the Ancillary Building area, consisting of clayey sand, silty sand, sand, sandy clay, was removed and replaced as engineered fill compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density per ASTM D1557-66T method of compaction, modified to use three layers. 4 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 As shown on Figure 3, Geologic Section, artificial encountered in our current boring and our previous Boring 7 (drilled in 1969 in the area of the proposed additions) ranges from 0.9 to 2.7 meters (3 to 9 feet) in thickness. Based on the materials encountered in Boring 7, the artificial fill consists of a mixture of sandy silt and clayey silt. The fill encountered in the current boring consists of base course underlain by Pleistocene age marine terrace deposits composed of varying amounts of stiff clay, silt, and dense sand. The terrace deposits are present beneath the site at elevations greater than +6.0 to +7.6 meters (+20 to +25 feet) above sea Ievel (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. Monterey Formation bedrock is 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 (California Department of Water Resources, 1967) 4.3 GROUND WATER The site is located in Section 28 of Township 6 South, Range 10 West and is located outside of the regional ground -water basin of the Orange County Coastal Plain. Ground water was not typically encountered in our previous borings drilled at and in the immediate vicinity of the Ancillary Building. However, ground water could be present locally within the terrace deposits and at the contact between the terrace deposits and the underlying less permeable bedrock 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. Ground water was encountered in our current boring (Boring 1) at Elevation +11.4 meters (+37.3 feet), which corresponds to a depth of 12.9 meters (42.3 feet) beneath the existing ground surface. Additionally, ground water was encountered in one of the borings previously drilled at the site of the Ancillary Building in 1969. In Boring 6, ground water. was encountered at Elevation +9.1 meters (+30 feet), which corresponds to a depth of 10.7 meters (35 feet) beneath the existing ground surface. This water seepage is locally perched water and is not representative of the regional ground -water table. 5 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTECProject 4953-05-1091 4.4 FAULTS The numerous faults in Southern California include active, potentially active, and inactive faults. The criteria for these major groups are based on criteria developed by the California Geological Survey (previously the California Division of Mines and Geology) for the Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Program (Hart, 1999). By definition, an active fault is one that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). A potentially active fault is a fault that has demonstrated surface displacement of Quaternary age deposits (last 1.6 million years). Inactive faults have not moved in the last 1.6 million years. A list of nearby active faults and the distance in kilometers between the site and the nearest point on the fault, the maximum magnitude, and the slip rate for the fault is given in Table 1. A similar list for potentially active faults is presented in Table 2. The faults in the vicinity of the site are shown in Figure 5. 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 approximately•0.9 kilometer to the south-southwest. Bryant (1998) identifies and summarizes the principle evidence for the recent faulting (late Pleistocene and Holocene) along the previously mapped traces of the NIFZ. Bryant identifies three northwest -trending faults in the area shown in Figure 4. The northern -most fault was identified by vague tonal lineaments in the Holocene alluvium observed on aerial photographs and documented offset in the 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 the 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 between the terrace deposits and 6 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 the Monterey Formation 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 Ancillary Building. The fault offsets Miocene age Monterey Formation and possibly the Pleistocene age terrace deposits. The fault coirisides 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 4. The California Geological Survey (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1986) projects the North. Branch fault passing about 150 meters southwest of the hospital campus and 0.9 kilometer south- southwest of the Ancillary Building, as shown in Figure 4. Palos Verdes Fault Zone An offshore segment of the active Palos Verdes fault zone is located 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 lithological changes in the Tertiary age rocks across the fault. A series of marine terrace deposits in the Palos Verdes Hills were uplifted as a result of movement along the fault during the Pleistocene epoch. Geophysical data indicate the base of offshore Holocene age deposits in San Pedro Bay are offset (Clarke et al., 1985). A later investigation by Stephenson et al. (1995) that included aerial photograph interpretation, geophysical studies, and limited trenching identify several active onshore branches of the fault. However, no historic Iarge magnitude earthquakes are associated with this fault. Whittier Fault Zone' The active Whittier fault zone is located approximately 34 kilometers north-northeast of the site. The northeast -trending Whittier fault extends along the south flank of the Puente Hills from the Santa Ana River on the northeast of 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 Pliestocene 7 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 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. San Andreas Fault Zone The active San Andreas fault zone is located 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 of the fault is approximately 450 kilometers long and extends from the Transverse Ranges west of Tejon Pass on the north to the Mexican border and beyond on the south. 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 Magnitude 8.0 Fort Tejon earthquake was the last major earthquake along the San Andreas fault zone in Southern California. Blind Thrust Faults Several buried thrust faults, commonly referred to as blind thrusts, underlie the Los Angeles Basin at depth. These faults are not exposed at the ground surface and are typically identified at depths greater than 3 kilometers. These faults do not present a potential surface fault rupture hazard. However, the following described blind thrust faults are considered active and potential- sources for future earthquakes. San Joaquin Hills Thrust Until recently, the southern Los Angeles Basin has been estimated to have a low seismic hazard relative to the greater Los Angeles region (Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 1995; Dolan et al., 1995). This estimation is generally based on the fewer number of known active faults and the lower rates of historic seismicity for this area. However, several recent studies by Grant et al. (2000, 2002) suggest that an active blind thrust fault system underlies the San Joaquin Hills. This postulated blind thrust fault is believed to be a faulted anticlinal fold, parallel to the Newport - Inglewood fault zone (NIFZ) but considered a distinctly separate seismic source (Grant et al., 2002). The recency of movement and Holocene slip rate of this fault are not known. However, the fault, if it 8 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 exists, has been estimated to be capable of producing a Magnitude 6.8 to 7.3 earthquake (Grant et al., 2002). This estimation is based primarily on coastal geomorphology and age -dating of marsh deposits that are elevated above the current coastline. The San Joaquin Hills Thrust underlies the site at a depth (greater than 3 kilometers). This thrust fault is not exposed at the surface and does not present a potential surface fault rupture hazard. However, the San Joaquin Hills Thrust is an active feature that can generate future earthquakes. The California Geological Survey (2003) considers this fault to be active and estimates an average slip rate of 0.5 mm/yr and a maximum magnitude of 6.6 for the San Joaquin Hills Thrust. Puente Hills Blind Thrust The Puente Hills Blind Thrust (PHBT) is defined based on seismic reflection profiles, petroleum well data, and precisely located seismicity (Shaw and others, 2002). This blind thrust fault system extends eastward from downtown Los Angeles to Brea (in northern Orange County). The PHBT includes three north -dipping segments, named from east to west as the Coyote Hills segment, the Santa Fe Springs segment, and the Los Angeles segment. These segments are overlain by folds expressed at the surface as the Coyote Hills, Santa Fe Springs Anticline, and the Montebello Hills. The Santa Fe Springs segment of the PHBT is believed to be the causative fault of the October 1, 1987 Whittier Narrows Earthquake (Shaw and others, 2002). The vertical surface projection of the PHBT is approximately 27 kilometers north of the site at the closest point. Postulated earthquake scenarios for the PHBT include single segment fault ruptures capable of producing an earthquake of magnitude 6.5 to 6.6 (Mw) and a multiple segment fault rupture capable of producing an earthquake of magnitude 7.1 (Mw). The PHBT is not exposed at the ground surface and does not present a potential for surface fault rupture. However, based on deformation of late Quaternary age sediments above this fault system and the occurrence of the Whittier Narrows earthquake, the PHBT is considered an active fault capable of generating future earthquakes beneath the Los Angeles Basin. An average slip rate of 0.7 mm/yr and a maximum magnitude of 7.1 are estimated by the California Geological Survey (2003) for the Puente Hills Blind Thrust. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTECProject 4953-05-1091 Upper Elysian Park The Upper Elysian Park fault is a blind thrust fault that overlies the Los Angeles and Santa Fe Springs segments of the Puente Hills Thrust (Oskin et al., 2000 and. Shaw et al., 2002). The eastern edge of the Upper Elysian Park fault is defined by the northwest -trending Whittier fault zone. The vertical surface projection of the Upper Elysian Park fault is approximately 45 kilometers north- northwest of the site at its closest point. Like other blind thrust faults in the Los Angeles area, the Upper Elysian Park fault is not exposed at the surface and does not present a potential surface rupture hazard; however, the Upper Elysian Park fault should be considered an active feature capable of generating future earthquakes. An average slip rate of 1.3 mm/yr and a maximum magnitude of 6.4 are estimated by the California Geological Survey (2003) for the Upper Elysian Park fault. Northridge Thrust The Northridge Thrust, as defined by Petersen et al. (1996), is an inferred deep thrust fault that is considered the eastern extension of the Oak Ridge fault. The Northridge Thrust is located beneath the majority of the San Fernando Valley and is believed to be the causative fault of the Janwiry 17, 1994 Northridge earthquake. This thrust fault is not exposed at the surface and does not present a potential surface fault rupture hazard. However, the Northridge Thrust is an active feature that can generate future earthquakes. The vertical surface projection of the Northridge Thrust is approximately 75 kilometers northwest of the site at the closest point. The California Geological Survey (2003) estimates an average slip rate of I.5 mm/yr. and a maximum magnitude of 7.0 for the Northridge Thrust. Potentially Active Faults Pelican Hill Fault The closest potentially active fault to the site is the Pelican Hill fault located approximately 4.0 kilometers to the east-northeast. The Pelican Hill fault is believed to be a probable branch of the Newport -Inglewood fault zone and there is evidence that several branches of the fault offset late Pleistocene age terrace deposits (Miller arid Tan, 1976). Evidence presented by Tan and Edgington 10 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTECProject 4953-05-1091 (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 State Geologist does not consider this fault to be active (California Geological Survey, 2003). Los Alamitos Fault The potentially active Los Alamitos fault is located approximately 21 kilometers northwest of the site. This fault tends 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 the west side of the fault displaced up relative to the east side. There is no evidence that this fault has offset Holocene age alluvial deposits (Ziony and 'Jones, 1989). Additionally, the State Geologist does not consider this fault to be active (California Geological Survey, 2003). El Modeno Fault The potentially active El Modeno fault is located 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 California Geological Survey (2003) and, Ziony and Jones (1989) do not identity this fault as an active fault. Peralta Hills Fault The potentially active Peralta Hills fault is located approximately 25 kilometers north-northeast of the site. This reverse fault is about 8 kilometers long and generally tends 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. The California Geological Survey (2003) and, Ziony and Jones (1989) do not identity this fault as an active fault. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 4.5 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Fault Rupture The site is not within a currently established Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for surface fault rupture hazards. The closest splay of the active Newport -Inglewood fault zone is located approximately 0.9 kilometers south-southwest of the site. However, this portion of the fault is not included in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone because the fault trace is not sufficiently well- defined. The closest Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone to the site, established for another segment of the Newport -Inglewood fault zone, is located approximately '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 MRI building additions is considered low. Seismicity Earthquake Catalog Data The seismicity of the region surrounding the site was determined from research of an electronic database of seismic data (Southern California Seismographic Network, 2005). This database includes earthquake data compiled by the California Institute of Technology from 1932 through 2004 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 377 earthquakes of Richter magnitude 4.0 and greater occurred from 1932 through 2004; four earthquakes of magnitude 6.0 or greater occurred between 1906 and 1931; and one earthquake of magnitude 7.0 or greater occurred between 1812 and 1905. A list of these earthquakes is presented as Table 3. Epicenters of moderate and major earthquakes (greater than magnitude 6.0) are shown in Figure 6. 12 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 The information for each earthquake 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. Historic Earthquakes A number of earthquakes of moderate to major magnitude have occurred in the Southern California area within about the last 70 years. A partial list of these earthquakes is included in the following table. List of Historic Earthquakes Earthquake (Oldest to Youngest) Long Beach Tehachapi San Fernando Whittier Narrows Sierra Madre Landers Big Bear Northridge Hector Mine Date of Earthquake March 10, 1933 July 21, 1952 February 9, 1971 October 1, 1987 June 28, 1991 June 28, 1992 June 28, 1992 January 17, 1994 October .16, 1999 Distance to Direction to Magnitude Epicenter Epicenter (Kilometers) 6.4 4 SW 7.5 190 NW 6.6 98 NNW 5.9 50 NNW 5.8 72 N 7.3 147 NE 6.4 118 NE 6.7 86 NW 7.1 190 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 by proper engineering design and construction engineering practices. in conformance with current building codes and 13 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Report of Geotechnical Investigation . October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Slope Stability The gently sloping topography in the site vicinity 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 150 meters (500 feet) the east of the proposed MRI building additions. 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 MRI building additions is not within an area susceptible to slope instability. There are no known landslides near the site, nor is the site in the path of any known or potential landslides. 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). Liquefaction and Seismic -Induced Settlement Liquefaction potential is greatest where the ground water 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. According to the California Division of Mines and Geology (1998) and the County of Orange Safety Element (1995), the site is not within an area identified as having a potential for Iiquefaction. Groundwater is not expected to be present in significant quantities above a depth of 15 meters (50 feet) below the existing ground surface. The groundwater encountered in our borings at the site appears to be locally perched water and not representative of the regional groundwater table. In general, the natural soils beneath the site, which consist primarily of dense sand and stiff clay and silt, are not considered susceptible to liquefaction. Subsurface materials encountered below Elevation +11.4 and +12.9 meters consist predominantly of clay soils and Monterey Formation bedrock, neither of which is considered susceptible to liquefaction. 14 Hoag Memorial Hospital.Presbyterian—Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 As part of our evaluation of liquefaction potential at the project site, a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) using the computer program EZ-FRISK, Version 7.11 (Risk Engineering, 2005), was performed to estimate the Magnitude-7.5-adjusted peak ground acceleration (PGA) for the ground motion with a 10% probability of being exceeded in I00 years (designated as the Upper Bound Earthquake, UBE). The PGA was estimated using the attenuation relationships of Abrahamson & Silva (1997), Sadigh et al. (1997), and Boore et al. (1997) with equal weight. For the Abrahamson & Silva (1997) and Sadigh et al. (1997) attenuation relationships,.a deep soil site classification was used. For the Boore et al. (1997) attenuation relationship, the recommended shear wave velocity (310 meters per second) for a typical soil site was used. The Magnitude 7.5 adjusted UBE PGA calculated as described above is 0.5g. The liquefaction potential at the project site was evaluated using the Magnitude 7.5 adjusted UBE PGA, the results of the SPTs performed in our boring, and two ground -water levels: the historic - high of 30 feet bgs and our design ground -water level of 42 feet bgs. The Iiquefaction potential was computed according to procedures described in the Youd and Idriss, 1997 (NCEER Technical Report 97-0022) consensus publication on liquefaction evaluation, and Youd et al., 2001 summary report from 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshop on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. Our results indicate that '' inches or less of total liquefaction -induced settlement may occur at the hospital site due to the DBE or.UBE with a rise in ground -water to historic -high levels. The potential for lateral spreading at the site is considered low_ Seismically -induced settlement is often caused by loose to medium -dense granular soils densified during ground shaking. Dry and partially saturated soils as well as saturated granular soils are subject to seismically -induced settlement. The dense granular soils encountered in our borings are not in the loose to medium -dense category. We have estimated the seismic -induced settlement at the site to be Less than ' inch. Therefore, the potential for seismic -induced settlement to adversely impact the proposed additions is considered low. 15 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Tsunamis, Inundation, Seiches, and Flooding The site is located approximately 1.1 kilometers from the Pacific Ocean at an elevation of about 23 to 24 meters above sea level. The site is not within a tsunami hazard zone identified by the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, tsunamis (seismic sea waves) are not considered a significant hazard at the site. According to the County of Orange Safety Element (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 dam failures or seiches (wave oscillations in an enclosed or semi -enclosed body of water). 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 (ground water or petroleum), peat oxidation, or hydrocompaction. 4.6 ESTIMATED PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION 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 Upper Bound Earthquake (UBE), having a 10% probability of exceedence during a 100-year time period. The site -specific peak ground accelerations for the DBE and UBE were estimated by a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) using the computer program EZFRISK, Version 7.11. The faults used in the study are shown in Tables 1 and 2, along with the maximum magnitude and the slip rate assigned to each fault. Background seismicity was also included in the PSHA. The peak ground accelerations were developed using the average of the values computed from ground motion attenuation relations for a "soil" type site classification discussed in Abrahamson and Silva (1997), Boore et al. (1997), and Sadigh et al. (1997). 16 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnicallnvestigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Dispersion in the ground motion attenuation relationships was considered by inclusion of the standard deviation of the ground motion data in the attenuation relationships used in the PSHA. For the fault rupture length versus magnitude relationship, we have used the relationship of Wells and Coppersmith (1994) for all the faults in the model. The estimated peak ground acceleration for the DBE and the UBE is 0.40g and 0.53g, respectively. 4.7 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 or projecting toward 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 project 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 by proper engineering design and construction in conformance with current building codes and engineering practices. The site is considered grossly stable and not prone to slope stability hazards (landsliding or lurching). The potential for other geologic hazards such as liquefaction, seismic -induced settlement, tsunamis, inundation, seiches, flooding, and subsidence affecting the site is considered low. 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The existing fill soils are not considered suitable for foundation or floor slab support. The proposed additions may be supported on spread footings established in the undisturbed natural soils. To prevent surcharging of existing footings, which may induce settlement of structures supported thereon; new footings should extend below a 1:1 plane extending upward from the bottom of the adjacent existing footings. However, new footings should.not extend below a 1:1 plane extending downward from the bottom of adjacent existing footings, which may undermine bearing support for existing footings. The horizontal and vertical alignment of existing utility lines should be verified and new footings should be located to extend below a 1:1 plane extending upward from the bottom of adjacent utilities. 17 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Alternatively, the integrity of existing utility lines surcharged by new footings should be evaluated to confirm that surcharge pressures imposed by new footings can be accommodated without damage or distress. Surcharge pressures from footings at various depths may be assumed to increase with depth based on a 1:1 downward plane projection from the bottom edges of footings. The building floor slab may can be supported on grade if the recommendations presented in Grading, are implemented. 5.1 FOUNDATIONS Spread Footings Spread footings established in undisturbed natural soils and at least 2 feet below the lowest adjacent grade, may be designed to impose a net dead -plus -live load pressure of 6,000 pounds per square foot. Spread footings established in properly compacted fill and at least 2 feet below the lowest adjacent grade, may be designed to impose a net dead -plus -live load pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot. A one-third increase can be used for wind or seismic loads. The recommended bearing value is a net value, and the weight of the concrete in the footings can be taken as 50 pounds per cubic foot; the weight of soil backfilled can be neglected when determining the downward loads. We estimate the settlement of the proposed additions, supported on spread footings in the manner recommended, will be less than 1 inch. Differential settlement is expected to be less than % inch. At least half of the total settlement is expected to occur during construction, shortly after dead loads are imposed. Lateral loads can be resisted by soil friction and by the passive resistance of the soils. A coefficient of friction of 0.4 can be used between the footings and the floor slab and the supporting soils. The passive resistance of natural soils or properly compacted soils can be assumed to be equal to the pressure developed by a fluid with a density of 250 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. 18 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 J 1 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Mat Foundations Preliminary column and wall loading was not available for the portion of the additions to be on mat foundation. Based on our experience with similar developments, we estimate that the net actual applied dead -plus live loading on a mat foundation for the proposed buildings would be on the order of 1,000 to 1,200 pounds per square foot. The natural soils at the site are adequate to support bearing pressures well in excess of the anticipated values. The settlement estimates presented below should be re-evaluated when specific building information is available. Thus, a design bearing pressure for a mat foundation of 1,200 pounds per square foot may be assumed. A one-third increase can be used for wind or seismic loads. The recommended bearing value is a net value, and the weight of concrete in the footings can be taken as 50 pounds per cubic foot; the weight of soil backfill can be neglected when determining the downward loads. We estimate the settlement of the mat foundations due to static loading will be about 1 inch. At least half of the total settlement is expected to occur during construction, shortly after dead loads are imposed. Lateral loads may be resisted by friction of the soil acting against the mat foundation and by the passive resistance of the soils acting against the mat foundation and also the basement walls. The mat foundation will derive lateral resistance from the soil -to -mat contact. However, the mat and soil contact will be separated by a water -proofing membrane, in this case. Thus, the frictional resistance available will be the lesser of that friction developed between the mat foundation and the water -proofing membrane and the friction developed between the water -proofing membrane and the supporting soils. Verification of this coefficient should be performed once the waterproofing materials are specified. 19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 While the waterproofing materials have not yet been specified, it has been our experience that a reduction in the lateral resistance is necessary to account for the waterproofing materials. For preliminary design purposes, an effective coefficient of friction of 0.4 can be assumed to resist lateral loads. The passive resistance of soils when considering buoyant conditions can be assumed to be equal to the pressure developed by a fluid with a density of 250 pounds per cubic foot, unless the potential for lateral spreading is confirmed. In that case, the lateral earth pressure recommendations presented herein will require modification. 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. Modulus of Subgrade Reaction A modulus of subgrade reaction, k, of 150 pounds. per cubic inch may be assumed for the natural soils. Reduction of this value due to the size of the mat has already been factored in our calculations. 6.2 DYNAMIC SITE CHARACTERISTICS Site -Specific Response Spectra The site -specific response spectrum for seismic events with 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years and 10% probability of being exceeded in 100 years (designated, DBE and UBE, respectively) were estimated from a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) using the computer program EZ-FRISK, Version 7.12 (Risk Engineering, 2005). The nearby faults are shown on Tables 1 and 2, along with their maximum magnitudes and slip rates, as published by the California Geological Survey (CGS). Background seismicity was also included in the PSHA. 20 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report ofGeotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 The response spectra were developed using the average of the ground motions obtained from the attenuation relationships of Abrahamson & Silva (1997), Sadigh et al. (1997), and Boore et al. (1997). For the Boore et al. (1997) relationship, we have used a shear wave velocity equivalent to that of a typical soil site (310 meters per second). For the attenuation relationships of Abrahamson & Silva and Sadigh et al., we have used the form of the equations developed for deep soil or soils site conditions. EZ-FRISK modifies the attenuation equations to account for rupture directivity from earthquakes occurring on nearby faults as recommended by Somerville et al. (1997). To account for the uncertainty in the ground motion attenuation relationships, each relationship was integrated to six standard deviations beyond the median. EZ-FRISK uses the relationships developed by Wells and Coppersmith (1994) and others to obtain estimates of earthquake magnitude from rupture size. The response spectrum for seismic events DBE and UBE are presented on Figure 7 and 8, respectively for 5% of critical structural damping. The response spectra in digitized form are shown on Tables 3 and 4. Site Coefficient and Seismic Zonation The site coefficient, S, may be determined as established in the Earthquake Regulations under Section 1629A of the California Building Code (CBC), 2001 edition, for seismic design of the hospital buildings. Based on a review of the local soil and geologic conditions, the site may be classified as Soil Profile Type SD, as specified in the 2001 code. The site is located within CBC Seismic Zone 4. The site is near 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 N-34 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 site of the proposed additions is located within 2 kilometers from the Newport -Inglewood fault. At this distance for a Type B seismic source, the near source factors, Na and Nv are 1.3 and 1.6, respectively, based on Tables 16A-S and 16A-T of the 2001 CBC. 21 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 6.3 FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT If the subgrade is prepared as recommended in the following section on grading, the addition floor slab can be supported on grade underlain by at. least 2-foot thick layer of properly compacted fill soils. Construction activities and exposure to the environment can cause deterioration of the prepared subgrade. Therefore, we recommend our that our field representative observe the condition of the final subgrade soils immediately prior to floor slab construction, and, if necessary, perform further density and moisture content tests to determine the suitability of the final prepared subgrade. If vinyl or other moisture -sensitive floor covering is planned, we recommend that the floor slab in those areas be underlain by a capillary break consisting of a vapor -retarding membrane over a 4-inch- thick layer of gravel. A 2-inch-thick layer of sand should be placed between the gravel and the membrane to decrease the possibility of damage to the membrane. We suggest the following gradation for thegravel: Sieve Size Percent Passing 3/" 90 -100 No.4 0- 10 No.100 0-3 A low -slump concrete should be used minimize possible curling of the slab. A 2-inch-thick layer of coarse sand can be placed over the vapor retarding membrane to reduce slab curling. If this sand bedding is used, 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. The sand and gravel layers can be considered part of the required non - expansive soil layer under concrete slabs. 6.4 PAVING Within the proposed building footprint and at least 5 feet beyond in plan view, the existing fill soils should be excavated and replaced as properly compacted fill. All required fill should be uniformly well compacted and- observed and tested during placement_ The on -site soils can be used in any required fill. t 22 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 The required paving and base thicknesses will depend on the expected wheel loads and volume of traffic (Traffic Index or TI). An R-value of 20 was assumed for the on -site bedrock materials for design of paving. The R-value of the bedrock materials or any import should be tested during construction to confirm the assumed value. If testing of the bedrock materials indicates a lower or higher R-value, the pavement sections recommended below should be adjusted accordingly. Based on our assumption, the minimum recommended paving thicknesses for TIs of 6, 8 and 10 are presented in the following table. Traffic Asphaltic Concrete Base Course Index (inches) (inches) 6 4 9 8 5 . 14 10 7 17 The asphalt paving sections were determined using the City of Los Angeles design method. We can determine the recommended paving and base course thicknesses for other Traffic Indices if required. Careful inspection is recommended to check that the recommended thicknesses or greater are achieved, and that proper construction procedures are followed_ The base course should conform the specifications for untreated base as defined in Section 200-2 of the latest edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book). The base course should be compacted to at least 95%. Compaction of the subgrade, including trench backfills, to at least 90%, and achieving a . firm, hard, and unyielding surface will be important for paving support. The preparation of the paving area subgrade should be done immediately prior to placement of the base course. Proper drainage of the paved areas should be provided since this will reduce moisture infiltration into the subgrade and increase the life of the paving. 6.5 GRADING Within the proposed building footprint and at least 5 feet beyond in plan view, the existing fill soils should be excavated and replaced as properly compacted fill_ All required fill should be uniformly 23 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnicailnvestigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 well compacted and observed and tested during placement. The on -site soils can be used in any required fill. Site Preparation After the site is cleared and the existing fill soils (if encountered) are excavated as recommended, the exposed natural 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. At least 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 method of compaction. Excavations and Temporary Slopes Where excavations are deeper than about 4 feet, the sides of the excavations should be sloped back at 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) or shored for safety. Unshored excavations should not extend below a plane drawn at 1 % :1 (horizontal to, vertical) extending downward from adjacent existing footings. We would be pleased to present data for design of shoring if required. Excavations should be observed by personnel of our firm so that any necessary modifications based, on variations in the soil conditions can be made. All applicable safety requirements and regulations, including OSHA regulations, should be met. Compaction Any required fill should be placed in loose lifts not more than 8-inches-thick and compacted. The fill should be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum density obtainable by the ASTM Designation D1557 method of compaction. 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. Backfill All required backfill should be mechanically compacted in layers; flooding should not be permitted. Proper compaction of backfill will be necessary to minimize settlement of the backfill and to reduce 24 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 settlement of overlying slabs and paving. Backfill should be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry density obtainable by the ASTM Designation D1557 method of compaction. The on - site soils may be used in the compacted backfill. The exterior grades should be sloped to drain away from the foundations to prevent ponding of water. Material for Fill The on -site soils, less any debris or organic matter, may be used in required fills. Cobbles larger than 4 inches in diameter should not be used in the fill. 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. 6.6 GEOTECHNICAL 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. 25 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 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. 7.0 GENERAL LIMITATIONS AND BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations provided in this report are based upon our understanding of the described project information and on our interpretation of the data collected during our current and previous subsurface explorations. We have made our recommendations based upon 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 structure configuration, loads, location, or the site grades should be provided to us so that we can review our conclusions and recommendations and make any necessary modifications. The recommendations provided in this report are also based upon 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 verify that the actual soil conditions are as expected. This also provides for the procedure whereby the client can be advised of unexpected 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. As previously discussed, if our firm is not. retained to perform the geotechnical observation and testing services, our professional responsibility and liability would be limited to the extent that we would not be the geotechnical engineer of record. 26 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abrahamson and Silva, 1997, "Empirical Response Spectra Attenuation Relationships for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes," Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1, p. 94-127. Anderson, J. G., and Luco, J. E., 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, South Coast 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, 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. Barrows, A. G., 1973, `Earthquakes Along the Newport —Inglewood Structural Zone," California Geology, Vol. 26, No. 3. Boore, D. M., Joyner, W. B., and Fumal, T. E., 1997, "Equations for Estimating Horizontal Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: A Summary of Recent Work," Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1. 13oore, 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. • 27 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 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. Bullard, T. R. and Lettis, W. R., 1993, "Quaternary Fold Deformation Associated with Blind Thrust Faulting, Los Angeles Basin, California," Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 98, No. B5, pp. 8349-8369. California Department of Water Resources, 2005, "Groundwater Level Data" http://well.water.ca.gov. California Department of Water Resources, 1976, "Crustal Strain and Fault Movement Investigation," Bulletin 116-2. 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, 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, "Official Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map for 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 Geological Survey, 2005, "Checklists for Review of Geologic/Seismic Reports for California Public Schools, Hospitals, and Essential Services Buildings" CGS Note 48. California Geological Survey, 2003, "The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps, June 2003" Appendix A — 2002 California Fault Parameters. 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, I.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 ofAmerica, Vol. 86, No. 5, pp: 1645-1649. 28 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Davis, J. F., Bennett, J. H., Borchardt, G. A., Kahle, J. E., Rice, S. .J., Silva, M. A., 1982, "Earthquake Planning Scenario for a Magnitude 8.3 Earthquake on the San Andreas Fault in Southern California," California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 60. _ 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 Strike -Slip Faults through Downtown Los Angeles," EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, Vol. 73, p. 589. 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. Grant, L. B., Ballenger, L. J., and Runnerstrom, E. E., 2002, "Coastal Uplift of the San Joaquin Hills, Southern Los Angeles Basin, California, by a Large Earthquake Since A. D. 1635", Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 92, No. 2, pp. 590-599. Grant, L. B., Mueller, K. J., Gath, E. M., and Munro, R., 2000, "Late Quaternary Uplift and Earthquake Potential of the San Joaquin Hills, Southern Los Angeles Basin, California" Geology, Vol. 28, No. 4, p. 384. 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. Guptil, 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. 29 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 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 1999, "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, 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. 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 of America Bulletin, Vol. 85, No. 2. Jahns, R. 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, "GeotechnicaI Earthquake Engineering," Prentice Hall. Larsen, E. S., Jr., 1948, "Batholith and Associated Rocks of Corona, Elsinore, and San Luis Rey Quadrangles, Southern California," Geological Society of America Memoir. 29. Law/Crandall, 2001, "Report of Revised Geotechnical Consultation, Proposed Seismic Upgrade of the 'Ancillary Building, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, California" (Project 70131-0-0355).. 30 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Law/Crandall, 1999, "Report of Revised Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed East Addition and Parking Structure, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach, California" (Project 70131-9-0330). 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 ,County" (Job No. 2661.30140.0001). 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. 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). 31 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26. 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 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 PIant, , 301 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, for the Hoag Memorial Hospital" (Job No. A-69080). Los Angeles, County of, 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. McNeilan, T. W., Rockwell, T. K., and Resnick, G. S.,.1996, "Style and Rate of Holocene Slip, Palos Verdes Fault, Southern California", Journal of Geophysical Research, April 10, 1996, Vol. 101, No. B4, p. 8317-8334. 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:I2000. Morton P. K., et al., 1973, "Geo-Environmental Maps of Orange County, California," California Division of Mines and Geology, Preliminary Report 15. 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, Internet updates through June 2005. Oskin, M., Sieh, K., Rockwell, T., Miller, G., Guptill, P., Curtis, M., McArdle, S., and Elliott, P., 2000, "Active Parasitic Folds on the Elysian Park Anticline, Implications for Seismic Hazard in Central Los Angeles, California ", Geological Society of America Bulletin May 2000, Vol. 112, No. 5, pp.693-707. Orange County Water District, 2004, "2003 Groundwater Contour Map". Orange County General Plan, "1995 Safety Element," Advance PIanning Program, Environmental Management Agency. 1 32 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 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. Risk Engineering, Inc., 2005, EZFRISK version 7.01 _ Rivero, C., Shaw, J. H., and Mueller, K., 2000, "Oceanside and Thirtymile Bank Blind Thrusts: Implications for Earthquake Hazards in Coastal Southern California" Geology, Vol. 28, No. 10, October 2000. 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_ Sadigh, K., Chang, C. Y., Egan, J. A., Makdisi, F., and Youngs, R. R., 1997, "Attenuation Relationships for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes Based on California Strong Motion Data," Seismological Research Letters, Vol_ 68, No_ 1_ Schneider, C. L., Hummon, C_, Yeats, R. S., and Huftile, G. L., 1996, "Structural Evolution of the Northern Los Angeles Basin, California, Based on Growth Strata," Tectonics, Vol_ 15, No. 2, pp. 341-355. 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 others, 2002, "Puente Hills Blind Thrust System Los Angeles, California," Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 92, No. 8, pp. 2946-2960. 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, 216 pp. 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_ 1 1 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report ofGeotechnical Investigation October 26. 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Slemmons, D. B., 1979, "Evaluation of Geomorphic Features of Active Faults For Engineering Design and Siting Studies," Association of Engineering Geologists Short Course. Somerville, P. G., Smith, N. F., Graves, R. W., and Abrahamson, N. A., 1997, "Modification of Empirical Strong Ground Motion Attenuation Relations to Include the Amplitude and Duration Effects of Rupture Directivity," Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No_1. Stephenson, W. J., Rockwell, T. K., Odum J."K., Shedlock,K. M., and Okaya, D. A., 1995, "Seismic Reflection and Geomorphic Characterization of the Onshore Palos Verdes Fault Zone, Los Angeles, California," Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 85, No_ 3. Stover, C. W. and Coffman, J. L., 1993, "Seismicity of the United States, 1568-1989 (revised)," U.S. Geological Society Professional Paper 1527_ Southern California Seismographic Network, 2005 "Southern California Earthquake Catalog," http://www.scecdc.scec.org/ftp/catalogs/SCSN/. 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., Bennett, J. H., Borchardt, G. A., Saul, R., and Davis, J .F., "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. I., ed., Professional Paper 1360, Article by CIarke, S.H., Greene, H_G., and Kennedy, M.P., Identifiiing Potentially Active Faults and Unstable Slopes Offshore, pp. 347-373_ U.S. Geological Survey, 1965, "Newport Beach, California 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Map," photorevised 198L Vedder, J. G. et al., 1957, "Geologic Map of the San Joaquin Hills -San Juan Capristrano Area, Orange County California," US. 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 Problems 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 of America, 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. B12, pp_ 12,587-12,63I. 1 34 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 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, Vol. 85, No. 2, April 1995_ Yerkes, R. F., 1972, "Geology and Oil Resources of the Western Puente Hills Area, Southem California," U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 420-C. .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," US. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-585. Ziony, J. I., and Yerkes, R. F_, 1985, "Evaluating Earthquake and Surface Faulting Potential," in Ziony, J.I., ed., Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region —An Earth Science Perspective, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360, p_ 43-91. 35 TABLES Table 1 Major Named Faults Consideredto be Active in Southern California Fault Maximum Slip Rate Distance Direction (in increasing distance) Magnitude . (mm/yr.) From Site From Site (kilometers) San Joaquin Hills Thrust 6.6 (a) BT 0.5 0 Newport -Inglewood Zone 7.1 (a) SS 1.0 0.9 SSW Palos Verdes Zone 7.3 (a) SS 3.0 17 WSW Puente Hills BIind Thrust • 7.1 (a) BT 0.7 27 N Whittier Zone 6.8 (a) SS 2.5 34 NNE Elsinore (Glen Ivy Segment) . 6.8 (a) SS '5.0 37 NE Chino -Central Avenue 6.7 (a) NO 1.0 40 NE Upper Elysian Park 6.4 (a) BT 1.3 45 NNW Siena Madre Zone 7.2 (a) RO 2.0 57 N Raymond 6.5 (a) RO 1.5 58 NNW Cucamonga Zone 6.9 (a) RO 5.0 63 NNE Hollywood 6.4 (a) RO 1.0 63 NW Santa Monica 6.6 (a) RO 1.0 63 NW Verdugo 6.9 (a) RO 0.5 67 NNW Malibu Coast 6.7 (a) RO 0.3 73 NW Northridge Thrust 7.0 (a) BT 1.5 75 NW San Jacinto (San Bernardino Segment) 6.7 (a) SS 12.0 77 NE San Gabriel Zone 7.2 (a) SS 1.0 79 NW San Fernando Zone 6.7 (a) RO 2.0 79 NW Anacapa-Dume 7.5 (a) RO 3.0 82 NW San Andreas (San Bernardino Segment) 7.5 (a) SS 24.0 85 NE (a) California Geological Survey, 2003 (b) Mark, 1977 (c) Simmons, 1979 (d) Wesnousky, 1986 (e) Hummon et al., 1994 SS Strike Slip NO Normal Oblique RO Reverse Oblique BT Blind Thrust 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Table 2 Major Named Faults Considered to be Potentially Active in Southern California Fault (in increasing distance) Maximum Slip Rate Distance From Site Direction Magnitude (mm/yr.) (kilometers) From Site Pelican Hill 6.3 (b) SS 0.1 4 ENE Los AIamitos 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 (c) RO 0.1 29 NNW San Jose 6.4. (a) RO 0.5 50 NNE Indian Hill 6.6 (b) RO 0.1 54 N Duarte 6.7 (c) RO 0.1 56 N Overland 6.0 (c) SS 0.1 56 NW Charnock 6.5 (c) SS 0.1 57 NW Clamshell-Sawpit 6.5 (a) RO 0.5 59 N (a) California Geological Survey, 2003 (b) Mark, 1977 (c) Slemmons, 1979 (d) Wesnousky, 1986 (e) Huinmon et al., 1994 SS Strike Slip NO Normal Oblique RO Reverse Oblique BT Blind Thrust Table 3: Pseudospectral Velocity in Inches/Second 2% damping 5% damping 10% damping Period in Seconds 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.75 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 DBE 10% in 50 years 0.24 1.67 5.25 14.99 22.32 27.36 31.57 39.41 44.36 49.74 46.75 42.88 UBE 10% in 100 years 0.33 2.28 7.16 19.81 29.87 37.24 43.64 56.48 63.31. 69.39 65.58 60.48 DBE 10% in 50 years 0.24 1.67 4.39 11.58 17.70 22.28 25.72 32_10 36.14 42.20 39.67 36.38 UBE 10% in 100 years 0.33 2.28 5.98 15.30 23.69 30.33 35.55 46.01 51.57 58.88 55.64 51.31 Table 4: Pseudospectral Acceleration in g 2% damping 5% damping DBE 10% in 50 years '0.24 1.67 3.74 9.00 14.20 18.45 21.29 UBE 10% in 100 years 0.33 2.28 5.09 11.89 19.01 25.11 29.42 26.57 38.08 29.91 42.69 36.50 50.92 34.31 48.13 31.47 44.38 By LT 5/20/05 Chkd: JAA 5/20/05 10% damping Period in DBE 10% in UBE 10% in Seconds 50 years 100 years 0.01 0.40 0.53 0.05 0.54 0.74 0.10 0.85 1.16 0.20 1.22 1.61 0.30 1.21 1.62 0.40 1.11 1.51 0.50 1.03 1.42 •0.75 0.85 1.22 1.00 0.72. 1.03 2.00 0.40 0.56 3.00 0.25 0.36 4.00 0.17 0.25 DBE 10% in 50 years 0.40 0.54 0.71 0.94 0.96 0.91 0.84 0.70 0.59 0.34 0.22 0.15 UBE 10% iri 100 years 0.53 0.74 0.97 1.24 1.28 1.23 1.16 1.00 0.84 0.48 0.30 0.21 DBE10% UBE 10% in 50 years 0.40 0.54 0.61 0.73 0.77 0.75 0.69 0.58 0.49 0.30 0.19 0.13 in 100 years 0.53 0.74 0.83 0.97 1.03 1.02 0.96 0.83 0.69 0.41 0.26 0.18 By LT 5/20/05 Chkd: JAA 5/20/05 FIGURES 1 1 1 1 1 1 tt iikt 7-7,.....__Aoc,rr,ilk: / ; _� 1' ra xa: �� U= ~' 1 Trailer .� `ti^><� ��-� Park �4T I����� 0 117°56.000' W tiutE 117°SS,000' W 0 1030 FEET 0 Soo . OM METERS Printed from TOPO! C2001 National Geographic Holdings (www.topo.com) FIGURE 1 UM' " ti r_.1 1_14-14-H4-hi-yr-Ft 1.111 1 I t . • 0444m--i-i 4:1 33 301 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, California REFERENCES: ISITE PLAN BY TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES DATED NOVEMBER 2000. 1 • CURRENT INVESTIGATION (4953-05-:1991) 7 Q PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION (A:69980) L BORING LOCATION AND NUMBER 49 BENCH MARK FOR CURRENT BORING ELEVATIONS, FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION AT EMERGENCY CARE UNIT, ASSUMED ELEVATION•= 100..0 FIGURE 2 NIB ' 11111111JGtJ111111113,:_. UU1 -- Dti t61 MI RIM _i - - -u.E. --LHKD aum um an -n C w ELEVATION IN FEET 150 - LIMITS OF LIMITS OF EXISTING PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION 120 - 90 - 60 - 30 - BORING 7 PROJECTED (PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION ' A-69080) Ili2tlt = t:I artificial fill N23°W N LIMITS OF EXISTING MRI BUILDING EXISTING GRADE LIMITS OF PROPOSED ADDITION BOR NG 1 PROJECTED (CURRENT INVESTIGATION 4953-05-1091) -150 -120 - 90 I11 7-111.IIt In�ttl r(1 artificial fill 1{1E77t11=10 TERRACE DEPOSITS .� _.? _.._ ._.._..._. . MONTEREY FORMATION - 60 - 30 NOTES: 1. THE SECTION IS BASED ON GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS AT BORING • LOCATIONS. THE GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN INTERPOLATED BETWEEN EXPLORATION LOCATIONS. LOCALIZED VARIATIONS COULD OCCUR. THE SECTION IS INTENDED FOR DESCRIPTIVE PURPOSES ONLY. 2. SEE FIGURE 2 FOR LOCATION OF SECTION. GEOLOGIC SECTION SCALE 1" = 30' 0 30 • 60 SCALE IN FEET 0 ELEVATION IN FEET COST MES Dashed where near surface; dotted where buried • • • — am California Department of Water Resources, 1966 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone REFERENCES; BASE MAP FROM U.S.G.S. 7.5 MINUTE NEWPORT BEACH QUADRANGLE, 1965 (PHOTOREVISED 1981). GEOLOGY MODIFIED FROM POLAND AND PIPER, 1956. CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONES, NEWPORT BEACH QUADRANGLE OFFICIAL MAP (1986). SITE COORDINATES: Latitude N33.6249 Longitude W117.9294 LOCAL GEOLOGY SbALE 1" *km 'FIGURE 4 0 I U tY 0 u- 0 i' if • r r qr r\ TiEDOND0 J \KNOL.L • IVA eo L • • H; Los An DOCKWELLER BEAC l STATE PARK El Segundo O `c E) ‹\•-v : ,11/ O \ 2 • 4 \ ` \A _I Lfi \ 4 \ • —.._, EXPLANATION Late Qum ernsry fault —Oohed where aoneraled omMq dashed where offs oce (Inferred from acoustic-rt14o- tin. proms); queried when akt.n . user:talc for when fault trace too short to Yaw as soak, filar Ind ball on relsl vely downhuow•e Yule. SewteW on wpty plate of thrust fault. Repreacnttdve dip of (auk shove hen known Leuer indicate seolosk tlme perbd wlthle whkk hater surface faulting is known to lows occurred: H. Holocene L. Ist. Quaternary; qu¢nd whets aµ uncertain. Deg Wawa roost mutt Ks• tonal aurae' faulting: queried when hkarial aato renea is uncertain 5.0-5.9 4.0-4.9 Epleenters of earthquakes (Aft22.0) I. In 197344 showing corresponding magnitude mete Q 3.0-3.9 0 2.0-2.9 fit ;fl(i4 � -,-tRi`lsF�dCL,•'.1 hr I �IIr. N �._�.t ort7�a Fjet�c{ I HfrrQyr ,yrnnre h., �i. t8t 0'le : • (-� G BEA .H " v. •. ^-_:• Frecmrrr 1 fi NAVAL BASE SEAL Aci- ••L(111\ \\,:k..L rf_11:11LIA ,t. , 'AN PEDRO BAY light .SuifsidL\ 'fet vnlron Point t -- -2: o.••-•---------i. r1 rptt. 14 r ur 4•r�tie lights m trnset tut Fi4 H, e� Plalfonns O4L r0•'•. LO \ L? PIS HUN . GTON BEACH L? cs ( ) , ,...._ --___„........_ \mac\�`\., ," �v .-4:._......,) '‘) j ' \\'',.......-_--`,._..„ „,......__." REFERENCE; ZIONY, JOSEPH I AND JONES LUCY M., MAP SHOWING LATE QUATERNARY FAULTS AND 1978-84 ) SEISMICITY OF THE LOS ANGELES REGION, CAUFORNIA MAP MF-1964.(1989) I: 1•vu itTls aqi 4 (d 41r , ; Gh+muey `.,,��••cc..M1f:-'"+q,l�.."�:,;w'-'c `o'JIj Joc L? suen 0 • LLight . . st Beach - "c. oltefy • ,11Aiiftaim*5e.oc REGIONAL SCALE 1" = 4 m FAULTS I iles . (MAC; TEC FIGURE 5 w Cuyama\ •79;1 N •... EXPLANATION: HISTORIC FAULT DISPLACEMENT ✓�'= '_` HOLOCENE FAULT DISPLACEMENT WITHOUT HISTORIC RECORD YEAR M 8+ YEAR M 7-8 YEAR M 6-7 YEAR M 5-6 APPROXIMATE EPICENTRAL AREA OF EARTHQUAKE 0 20 SCALE IN KILOMETERS SCALE 1: 750,000 12 24 • ,ty Actis -- REFERENCES; 1.) JENNINGS, C.W., 1994, "FAULT ACTIVITY MAP OF CALIFORNIA AND ADJACENT AREAS WITH LOCATION AND AGES OF RECENT VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS", CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, GDM-6. 2.) EARTHQUAKE CATALOGS: RICHTER, 1812-1932, NATIONAL OCEANIC ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, 1812-1931; CALTECH, 1932-1997. %sem, AMPS stmi' I�111. • "4 v ' 1 T. Vla Dsni ajnuv 4. 'S tt o.Aper�VC 9uY' t•. ��siar5�r;<Nc ram'' \ .` ju. s;jcsni,nur • REGIONAL SEISMICITY • SCALE IN MILES %'MACTEC FIGURE 6 Lue 111 DATE: May 18, 2005 Pseudo Spectral Acceleration (g) 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Period (seconds) I . . • I • ' • I 1 i i ; i I I 1 . I I , 1 : 1 -I- 4-4 I, i I • i . ' I I I I ,......_i_I_ 1 1 ; . ; , IL; ! . , :-.11;1..;L: damping :; • 1 .— ; , • ---1 ; i i --T- 1 , •., 1 , , i ! i 2% damping 5% . • i. ' I, 1 ' • I ' ' i i • : : 1 • , 1 • _L • 1 1 .--. -10% damping .1 : : _.; 1 , ___,, • 1 1 1 1 I . I I I ; I ; 1 , . - • : 1 . . . . 1 i i 1 I : 1 ' • ; : I 1 1 • 1 ! : • , I . , . ; 1 ; ; ; ' : I . : • • ; i 1 1 ; • • • ' : . I • ; 1 • : I • . • • : . , ' • --I— -i-- : . .. ... .. . . . i • ; • • : • : ; • ' ; , • 1 *.' i -I• -4-• • ; ; I I I .1_,.. t I -.• - : ; • : t il : 1 ' i' i ; I ; . ; , ; • . • • I I ; 1 I - : I : I I ' • i ; ; I . • ' ; ; . ; - 1 I : t i. • I ; i I ; : • ; , ! •I • . : , 1 i ! : , 1 i . ; : • • •,;.; ! • " - ' • ' ___Lz _ ... .. . .. . . ••• • . : i . • . : ; __;,.; _, . • 4. . . . _ . 1..;•••••••••%,.. • • . . : ; ' ' . . . : ; `. ' . . • ./. . \ . • i , . ... ; • f , "• ....,s. • . . ; • . • % . . ; . . • • • - ....„,,,, ...' ••••••••4....... ' • • . ' ..........• ".....4 . .. . . .. _ _ __ _ 4 ."............ • ...... • • •• • •• •• • • • .• •••• 1... • ... - . • •• •• -• •• . 3.0 HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRA - SITE SPECIFIC Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian DBE - 10% Probabiltiy of Exceedence in 50 Years 3.5 4.0 MACTEC ...51091/..JDBEpaa.grf FIGU.R 7 1 Pseudo Spectral Acceleration (g) 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 _ . - ...:.. - _ ___ ,— --_ _r._ • i 1 — • • i! 1 '_ — -1-- T_� _;' i --- I• ; i; - "---- -_ 1' ---r=-i--, `1 t , 2% L L. damping r damping damping I- • 5% ' ---- ---- i j ---i--- - 10°!o — - __ __._. _._ _.. .. i i I '. 1 I .4-4— I �_..f _ ___ i • i i .. , I . • _;* • • _ 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Period (seconds) 3.0 HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRA - SITE SPECIFIC Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian UBE - 10% Probabiltiy of Exceedence in 100 Years 3.5 4.0 MACTECO ._40734/..JUBEpaa.grf FIGURE 8 APPENDIX. CURRENT AND PRIOR FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTECProject 4953-05-1091 APPENDIX A CURRENT AND PRIOR FIELD EXPLORATIONS The soil conditions beneath the site were explored by drilling one boring. In addition, data were available from our prior investigation adjacent to the site (our Job. No. 69080). The locations of our current and prior borings are shown on Figure 2. The current borings were drilled to a depth of 50 feet below the existing grade using 8-inch-diameter hollow stem auger -type drilling equipment. The prior borings were drilled to depths of 40 to 50 feet below the existing grade using 18-inch- diameter bucket -type drilling equipment. The elevations for the prior explorations are based on a datum different than what was assumed for our current explorations. 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. 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 boring are presented on Figure A-1; the logs from our prior nearby borings are presented in Figures A-1.2 through A-1.3. The depths at which undisturbed samples were obtained are indicated to the Ieft of the boring logs. The energy required to drive the Crandall sampler 12 inches is indicated on the logs_ In addition, standard penetration tests (SPTs) were performed in our current boring; the results of the tests are indicated on the logs_ The soils are classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System described on Figure A-2. CURRENT AND PRIOR LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples obtained from the borings to aid in the classification of the soils and to evaluate their engineering properties: 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 presented to the left of the boring logs. A-1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MA CTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Direct shear tests were performed on selected undisturbed samples to determine the strength of the soils. The tests were performed after soaking to near -saturated moisture content and at various surcharge pressures. The maximum values determined from the direct shear tests are presented in Figure A-3.1 and A-3.2, Direct Shear Test Data. Confined consolidation tests were performed on undisturbed samples. Water was added to the samples during the test to illustrate the effect of moisture on the compressibility. The results of the tests are presented in Figure A-4.1 through A-4.2, 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 the boring. The test was performed in accordance with the ASTM Designation D1557 method of compaction. The results of the test are presented in Figure A-5, Compaction Test Data. To provide information for paving design, a stabilometer test ("R" value test) was performed on a sample of the upper soils. The results of the test are presented on Figure A-6.1 through A-6.2. R- Value Test Report Soil corrosivity test was performed on samples of the on -site soils. The results of the test are presented at the end of the Appendix. A-2 t I 1 1 1 zww 0 Q V¢ < z row hOa 00 �'4 oZ OF 0 aa. X Wa z¢ z� oz UW uuul,, raw rU ro 0 F zoo ¢W w A w¢ F � zr„ wW zw Ox � F WO c4 F ¢ — A �z 0 a ELEVATION (ft) 100- 95 — 90- 85- 80- 75- 70- 65 — • a'C 41' H P we p zh At et_>W �w C: ,a. U A ZA �°� c4 Oo � W — 5 • 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 30 34 56 79 12.3 22.6 5.4 4.8 3.7 120 106 99 103 101 104 29 26 24 28 41 92/11" 8.9 93 64 SAMPLE LOC. BORING 1 DATE DRILLED: April 25, 2005 EQUIPMENT USED: Hollow Stem Auger HOLE DIAMETER (in.): 8 ELEVATION: 102** CL (C SP ONTINUED ON 6" Thick Asphalt Concrete over 21/2' Thick Base Course SILTY CLAY - very still, moist, light brown, some fine sand Layer of SILTY SAND - moist, light brown, fine sand • Becomes brownish gray SANDY SILT - very stiff, moist, light gray, very fine to fine sand POORLY GRADED SAND - medium dense, slightly moist, light brown, fine sand Becomes very dense, some Silt Cemented layer, approximately 6" Becomes dense, light gray FOLLOWING FIGURE) Field Tech: GMC Prepared By: LT Checked By: .g HOAG Memorial Hospital Newport Beach, California OMACTEC LOG OF BORING Project: 4953-05-109I Figure: A-] .l a 1 ELEVATION (ft) 4" Qz� pH r.24 tat 0 o A a A Z Ee 00 O� a SAMPLE LOC. BORING 1 (Continued) DATE DRILLED: April 25, 2005 EQUIPMENT USED: Hollow Stem Auger HOLE DIAMETER (in.): 8 ELEVATION: 102** 60- 55 — 50- 45- J 40- 35- 30- 25 — J — 45 50 55 49 18.1 107 43 60 65 70 75 80 HOAG Memorial Hospital Newport Beach, California SM : •ML 2 SILTY SAND - dense, wet, light brown with rusty stain, fine sand SANDY SILT - very stiff, wet, light gray and light brown, some Clay Few rounded gravel END OF BORING AT 50 FEET NOTE: Hand augered upper 5 feet. Water encountered at 42.3 feet, 10 minutes after auger removed. Caving below 42'h feet. Possible caving from I7 to 43 feet. Boring backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped. * Number of. blows required to drive the Crandall sampler 12 inches using a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. ** Boring elevation based on assumed datum with Elevation 100. (please see Plot Plan). JJMACTEC Field Tech: GMC Prepared By: LT Checked By: LOG OF BORING Project: 4953-05-1091 Figure: A-1.1 b (PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION A-690803 1 1 kJc1• � o o\go� O t Pam` ir �_ f / v 1• 4 EL • 75 5 12.0 123 N 70- - 16.3 113 1 23.9 103 Qln 651 - 10 15- 24.4 100 • 1' L 601• • 2•.9 5.6 102 103 . iy ..."-.:'•SP .: 55 f- 20— 25 .:. 50 i 4.9 . 108 I -.:d. ; ' j4.1 97 A 45-1 3 •0- 5.5 89 .: �.'. 40- 3 L 40 12' 9 99 1 �n 35 5� 115 . 30 - 45 "' .f cii 7.9 86 �`'L rA BORING 7 • DATE DRILLED : Moy 2, 1969 EQUIPMENT USED : 18"-Diameter Bucket EVATION J744,�Qp • • FILL - SANDY SILT and CLAYEY SILT MIRTURE rootlets, pieces of wire, brown SILTY CLAY - jointed,mottled grey and brown SAND - fine, light brownish -grey Lenses of Silt, few grovel; tight grey Coarse, brown Loyer of CLAYEY SILT - light grey Cemented layer Lenses of Silt, brown Layer of SANDY SILT - light grey Lenses of Silt, light grey Few grovel SILTY CLAY - some Sand, few gravel, brown NOTE: Water not encountered. Raveling from 17 to 23' (to 24" in diameter). LOG OF BORING- LEROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES FICTI THE A-1.2 • (PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION A-69080) J6 JP�\O �� O\ c;k1, �v// 0 tl'`t* O ....‘c2\ 7/ BORING 10 DATE DRILLED: April 29, 1969 EQUIPMENT USED: 18"—Diameter Bucket ELEVATION 79.0 70 - 65 - 12.1 123 SC CLAYEY SAND - fine, rootlets, brown 10 60 -1 - 20 55 - - 25 23.3 19.9 9.7 4.0 104 1:04 107 102 14.1 3.0 109 102 ML CLAYEY SILT - some Sand, brown ;-. 2.1 50 r 30 5.1 45- - 35 40 40 2.9 8.1 100 104 93 88 • • P Layer of SAND - fine, light grey SAND - fine, light brownish --grey Layer of Silty Clay - brown Cemented layers Silty (GAD USED FROM 30 TO 30.5 FEET) NOTE: Water not encountered. Caving from 22' to 27' (to 36" in diameter). Silty LOG OF BORING LEROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE A-1.3 an - — um — . — s on s s s s s its mu as or as — MAJOR DIVISIONS COARSE GRAINED SOILS (More than 50% of material is LARGER than No. 200 sieve size) GRAVELS (More than 50% of coarse fraction is LARGER than the No. 4 sieve size) CLEAN GRAVELS (Little or no fines) GROUP SYMBOLS TYPICAL NAMES Well graded gravels, gravel • sand mixtures, little or no fines. Poorly graded gravels or grave • sand mixtures, little or no fines. Undisturbed Sample Standard Penetration Test Rock Core Auger Cuttings Bulk Sample Crandall Sampler GRAVELS WITH FINES (Appreciable amount of fines) SANDS (More than 50% of coarse fraction is SMALLER than the No. 4 Sieve Size) CLEAN SANDS (Little or no fines) °� GM GC SW Silty gravels, gravel • sand • silt mixtures, Dilatometer Pressure Meter Clayey gravels, gravel • sand • clay mixtures. Packer O No Recovery Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. SZ� Water Table at time of drilling Water Table after 24 hours • SP Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines, SANDS WITH FINES (Appreciable amount of fines) SM Silty sands, sand • silt mixtures • SC Clayey sands, sand - clay mixtures. FINE GRAINED SOILS (More than 50% of material is SMALLER than No, 200 sieve size) SILTS AND CLAYS (Liquid limit LESS than 50) SILTS AND CLAYS (Liquid limit GREATER than 50) ML r OL MH CH OH Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty of clayey fine sands or clayey silts,and with slight plasticity, Inorganic lays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays. Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity, Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts. Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays Correlation of Penetration Resistance with Relative Density and Consistency SAND & GRAVEL No. of Blows 0-4 5.10 11 30 31.50 Oyer 50 • Relative Density Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense No. of 0- 2- 5- 9- 16- -Over SILT & CLAY Blows Consistency 1 Very Soft 4 Soft 8 Medium Stiff I S Stiff 30 Very Stiff 30 Hard 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, SILT OR CLAY 1 SAND GRAVEL Cobbles Boulders Fine Medium Coarse Fine Coarse o,200 No,40 No.10 No.4 3/4" U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 3" 12" Reference: The Unified Soil Classification System, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army Technical Memorandum No, 3.357, Vol, 1, March, 1953 (Revised April, 1960) KEY TO SYMBOLS AND DESCRIPTIONS MACTEC FIGURE A-2 1 t 0 0 O H I 0 Q 1 t t 0 0 4953-05-1091 0 1000 0 W a) R3 i 2000 11 r 'CS 0 3000 W tx a 4000 r4 5000 6000 KEY: 0 SHEAR STRENGTH in Pounds per Square Foot 1000 2000 3000. 4000 5000 6000 N \ \ \ 1@5%2 0 ? o 1@ll%2 Boring Sample Number and Depth (ft.) \mil@S�i2 \ \ \ \ \ 1@17%2 \ 0 \ \ 1@23%2 o. 1@sit , 1@8% \ \ \ \ 0 Values Used in Analyses \ \ \ ♦ 0 ♦ ♦ 1@11%2 1@17r ♦ • • o Samples tested after soaking to a moisture content near saturation DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA MACTEC J' -FIGUR,E A - 3.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t t L a2 3000 W CC co u.)' W Q.. 4000 w CC C) 5000 fY D 6000 0 SHEAR STRENGTH in Pounds per Square Foot 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 ` �`'�/9 6@ • Q0 /7 %C-0.S ¢@71' • 3@sV;p909 /oge/ • 4a.0 4)9g'5 • ro@ 20 PROPOSED NURSING WING 9,39�7. • •8Q// f- /-1& • • 73�� e@/5 BORING ,rsAMPLE i •3 NUMBER DEPTH • 8 (FT.) . /O23 • • •627 620 • 6 @ 30 /oe.so r@36 \•4CLP 7 • /O@2/ VALUES IN USED ANALYSES eeit// \ • ,ig • 3@B , • ¢;/7 •9@5 70/7 •• //@ /¢. KEY: • Tests at field moisture content o Tests at increased moisture content DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA LEROY CRANDALL 8 ASSOCIATES tFIGURE A-3. CONSOLIDATION IN INCHES PER INCH 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 I.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Boring 1 at 5%s' SILTY CLAY NOTE Water added to samp es after consolidation under a load of 1.8 kips per square foot. CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA' MACTEC . FIGURE A - 4.1 CONSOLIDATION IN INCHES PER INCH LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.00. 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Boring 1 at 11 Y2' SILTY CLAY 0.14 NOTE: Water added to sample after consolidation under a load of 1.8 kips per square foot. CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA r MACTEC FIGURE A - 4.2 BORING NUMBER AND SAMPLE DEPTH: SOIL TYPE: MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY: (Ibs./cu.ft.) 1 at 3 to 6` - SILTY CLAY 126 OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT: 10.5 (%) TEST METHOD: ASTM Designation DI 557 COMPACTION TEST DATA MACTEC 1 FIGURE A - 5 RESISTANCE R-VALUE TESTING RESULTS (Cal Test 301) Date:. 05/05/2005 Project No.: 4953-05-1091.02 Project: Hoag Memorial Medical Depth: 3-6' Material Description: SANDY CLAY (CL), brown Tested by: NS Checked by: JH Remarks: Lab #16328 Sample Number: 1 Test specimen number 1 2 3 Compaction pressure Wet weight (gms): Dry weight (gms): Tare weight (gms): %:::Mpai•sture5.• Exudation load (lbs.): Eiuda401v .pressure' . (ps i Total weight (gms.): Mold weight (gms.): S Ye".:.we 4 t:= '.(gins )- (psi) 300 1320.0 1199.2 0.0 3547 3244.0 2109.0 13'5 .; 0: Initial expansion (x10,000): 0 Final expansion (x10,000): 15 E tpaflsion pressure• (psisj `:`: ,` =0.:45 Ph at 2000 lbs.: 120 D turns: 3.69 R,: 18 Height (in.): 2.50 Dry,'density_ .;(Rcf): :125'.,0 Corrected = Rs , ,. R-Value at 300 psi exudation pressure = 20 150 1330.0 1199.2 0.0 1'0.. 9 2351 3263.0 2110.0 - 0 7 0.21- 129 3.94 13 2.56 12311 350 1310.0 1199.2 0.0 9.2 4902 390 3269.0 2115.0 11.54-: a , 0 21 0 64- 106 3.60 26 2.50 120-..1 .: 2: MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. FIGURE A-6.1 -- 1 R-VALUE TEST REPORT 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 t 1 1 .' 111 100 80 60 40 20 0 - - i -I-'--t _ f _ i _ 1 F i _ _ i _ _ HJ 4 -1111 1111 ►I11 It1I IIJt ItIII1111 1111111111111 1111 1111 1111 1111 800 700 600 500 400 Exudation Pressure - psi Resistance R-Value and Expansion Pressure - Cal Test 301 300 200 100 No. 1 Compact. Pressure psi 300 Density pcf 125.0 Moist. 10.1 Expansion Pressure psi 0.45 Horizontal Press. psi @ 160 psi 120 Sample Height in. 2.50 Exud. Pressure psi 282 R Value 18 R Value Corr. 18 2 3 150 123.1 10.9 0.21 129 2.56 187 13 14 350 128.1 9.2 0.64 106 2.50 390 26 26 Test Results Material Description R-value at 300 psi exudation pressure = 20 SANDY CLAY (CL), brown Project No.: 4953-05-1091.02 Project:Hoag Memorial Medical Sample Number: 1 Date: 05/05/2005 Depth: 3-6' R-VALUE TEST REPORT MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, inc. Tested by: NS Checked by: J1-1 Remarks: Lab #16328 Plate td""' FIGURE A-6.2 M.J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC. 431 West Baseline Road Claremont, CA 91711 TEL (909) 626-0967 / FAX (909) 626-3316 E-mail: mjsa@mjschjcom http://www.mjschfcom TRANSMITTAL LETTER DATE: May 18, 2005 ATTENTION: Ms. Lan-Anh Tran To: MACTEC 200 Citadel Drive Los Angeles, CA 90040 SUBJECT: Laboratory Test Data Hoag Memorial Medical Your # 4953-05-1091 MJS&A # 05-0615LAB COMMENTS: Enclosed are the results for the subject project. Ines T. Keegan Laboratory Manager 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 M. J. Schiff & Associates, Inc. Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959 Phone: (909) 626-0967 Fax: (909) 626-3316 431 W. Baseline Road E-mail lab@njschiffcom Claremont, CA 91711 website: mjschiffcom Sample ID Resistivity as -received saturated pH Table 1- Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples MACTEC Hoag Memorial Medical, Newport Beach, CA Your #4953-05-1091, MJS&A #05-061 SLAB 3-May-05 Units ohm -cm ohm -cm 13,000 I,400 8.4 Electrical Conductivity mS/cm 0.25 Chemical Analyses Cations calcium Cat+ mg/kg 36 magnesium Mgt+ mg/kg 15 sodium Na'+ mg/kg 178 Anions carbonate C032- mg/kg ND bicarbonate HCO3'- mg/kg 571 chloride CI'- mg/kg ND sulfate S042- mg/kg 67 Other Tests ammonium NH41+ mg/kg na nitrate NO3'- mg/kg na sulfide S2- qual na Redox mV na Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis were made on a 1:5 soil -to -water extract. mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil. Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts ND= not detected na = not analyzed Page 1 of 1 CLAN,. REVI .IA- Ililcis e d re •rid �= s r itia+ bfpptlance:wi�a p' able ' ing cod= = • • • dof r Ir NPy9Soi Beach... Approval is recommended for permit issuance nding,approval by all applicable City departments and agencies. p,, rjt ii a :shad ensure that all plans, specifications and e:t44c 011 Conducted hereunder shali-comply in ail rebpacts to the Ai liiable codes and ordinances and by commencing constriction itferetinder, agrees to release and indemnity City and it's consultants Ai;;;.; _frorxa;and against any cods violations in the completed milk. essuance or granting of a permit based on approval of these , sierls.shall not allow or -approve any violation of the applicable codes flr ntdifances. No permit presumed to give authority to violate or can+:Qi;the provisions of such codes or ordinance:'shall be valid. • BAGAHI ENGINEERING INC. REPORT OF GEOTECHN1:GAL STA KIN 7, 3g PROPOSED ADDITIONS T i RI B HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTER" ONE HOAG DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: ri-k A -Ai 2_ HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN Newport Beach, California October 26, 2005 Project 4953-05-1091 f MACTEC 7 z7 X Project Description: Project Address: Plan Check No.:Z4-2 6 r.. 2_00 a Date Piled: Architect/Engineer.. e> Owner: 14-0 ,r- jt D 5 e t a S-L,. Phone: . Checked by: K& 3 co 14. I 18t Check 2nd Check PLAN REVIEV'. i hese plans have been reviewed and are found to be in sibs ito compliance with the applicable grading codes adopted by City of tir Newport Beach. Approval is recommended for permit issuance �y��(� icable City departments and agencies. CITY OF NEWPOIV rmi ,asIf ensure hattall plans, specifications and BU I LD I N G DEPARTMENionducted hereunder shall comply in all respects to the icable codes and ordinances and by commencing construction 3300 NEWPORT BLR�. �Qr ees to release and indemnity City and it's consultants (9 49)644-3275 P.O.BOX 17 NEWPORT ��'a st any code violations in the completed work. The issuance or granting of a pemit based on approval of these Plans shall not allow or approve any violation of the applicable codes or ordinances. No permit such codes or resumed to o dinanceve oshali be vto Tate aiid�r GRADING/DRAINAGE PLAI*1OH€CiK AGAHI ENGINEERING INC. -1(--':Dat7' b e 4 7 Vs-z. Phone: (949) g 3`d Che BASE Phone: Submitted Val Permit Valuati k WARNING: PLAN CHECK EXPIRES 180 DAYS AFTER SUBMITTAL. \I-Q-(4\ THIS PLAN CHECK EXPIRES ON:DrrjV Make all corrections listed below. a Return this correction sheet and check prints with corrected plans. A 14° Indicate how each correction was resolved. > 'I� Q`i, �M� gn As^ S O'`clo‘Qt0 . ttRVEX CORRECTIONS. S44 e-a=T/' Provide a site survey, stamped and signed by a State Licensed Land Surveyors". L ,authorized Civil Engineer (License Num er a ow 33,06). qurveyor or en ineer shall p.ermanently mo roperty comers or offsets betore starting grading,, Provide %.2( .,Show north point and scale. Show location and description of all corner monuments. j�ecr Show and identify all property lines. Dimension length and specify bearing. 06 Show driveway, curb and gutter, and all existing site improvements (structures, walls, planters, stairs, etc.). 6/ Identify all finish surface materials. Shared\Correction Lists\Grading.doc 09/23/06 I Provide a legend for all symbols used. Locate all trees in public -right-of-way facing or within 20 feet of the subject property; power poles; utility boxes, etc. Show center line of street and dimension width or Y2 width. Provide an on -site elevation bench mark at a permanent location, in front of the property. For sites within the special flood hazard area and sites on the islands, on the peninsula and in West Newport Beach, use the actual bench mark elevation as determined by Orange County Vertical Datum (NGVD29 or NAVD88). Provide relative elevations at the following locations: All " I " comers. Around existing structure(s) at corners, including corners at jogs of exterior walls. iitc At interior finish floor elevations. At bottom of all site walls. Indicate wall height. At bottom of elevated planters. Indicate planter height. At maximum spacing of 25' along the length and width of the property on ail sides of an existing structure. Elevation contours for sloping sites every one foot elevation change. Three elevations (min.) equally spaced in the side yard of adjacent properties. Three elevations along the flow line in gutter and alley adjacent to site. GRADING CORRECTIONS: 4S-1-E2- t 2.. , Jk wo wet -signed and stamped sets are required for permit issuance. For projects on a slope, adjacent to a slope, with a basement, or project sites which require remedial grading, soils engineer to review and approve the grading plan, foundation plan, and shoring plan (if applicable) to verify that the design is consistent with the geotechnical report recommendations. Soils engineer to stamp these plans with an approval stamp. Write a note on foundation plan "surveyor to file a corner record or record of survey with the office of county surveyor. Evidence of filing shall be submitted to building inspector prior to foundation inspection." Provide property address on grading plan. Show vicinity map indicating site location. Shared'Correctiion Lists\Grading.doc 09/23/06 2 (2_4-0 r4O Hg3 Show name, address, and telephone number of: owner, plan preparer, and geotechnical engineer (if applicable). how north arrow, plan scale, and legend. Identify ALL property lines. a STA.-re ; s Ft rr4 443h f~ CA04 �`- • Clearly identify the scope of work. Distinguish between existing hardscape and landscape and ew/proposed hardscau and landscape improvements ,.Show locations of all existing bw ings, structures, pools, fences, retaining walls, etc. Show glevatiori on both sides of wall and specify top of wall elevation. Show accurate contours (or spot elevations) indicating the topography of the existing round. Show locations of all existing slopes on and adjacent to the property. Top of structure. footings at habitable space to be above the street gutter flow line elevation by 12" plus 2% the distance from the nearest footing to the gutter. Alternate elevations may be approved, provided it can be demonstrated that required drainage to the point of discharge and away from the structure is provided at all locations on the site. CBC 1806.5.5. Clearly show elevation of adjacent properties and the distance from property lines to adjacent structures. Comply with the minimum slope at the following areas (NBMC 15.10.120 E): RESIDENTIAL: Paved 0.5% Not paved 2% COMMERCIAL: Concrete 0.5% Concrete gutter in paved area 0.2% A.C., landscape areas 1.0% Show finish grades by spot elevations to indicate proper drainage in all areas. Use arrows to indicate direction of drainage. provide a drainage swale at side yard. Draw a section through swale. Provide a drainage design that prevents entrance of drainage water from the street/alley onto property. Show top of drain elevations and drain invert elevations. Design the drainage system to retain concentrated and surface sheet flow water from dry -weather run off and minor rain events within the site. Sheet flow through lawn area or 15' French drain in crushed rock bed wrapped with filter cloth is acceptable. Locate French drain in the front yard away from foundations. Shared\Correction Lists\Grading.doc 09/23/06 3 (Alternate: Provide hydrology calculations and design retention system to retain 3 ' of rain over 24 hr.) r 4' Concrete or 6" Topsoff 4' 0 Min. French drain perforation 0 bottom. 3/4m Crushed Rock Filter Cloth Lap 12' 0 Top `--12' --1 Perforated drain/trench detail Provide a trench drain at bottom of driveway as shown in detail 'E'. (Exception: When driveway is Tess than 10' long, trench drain is not required) OII&N9ONS DEEMED m BY GRATE FRAME D EENSIONS. USE FRAME AS A FORM • 3/4' CRUSHED ROCK Wf LTER BATH ELEVATION 6' M16 NOE PEDSTRGW SAFE 3 oOPAE a1E111E4314Sn WORKS UT EQUAL (800)874-4100 ft • t w DOM THIS PORUON WITH CRUEICED ROOC AFTER POURrG GRATE SUPPORT CURB a— Dig a 24' wide X 18' minirnuin depth trench b— Puce filter doth in the .trench. Lae 12' 0 top c— fSl bottom of the trench with 3/4 crushed rock d— Form and pour perimeter concrete curb. e— FE the rent of the trench with crushed rock to 4' from top of trench. BOTTOMLES ..TRENCH DRAIN _ GRATE- 0111111111 ll�" PLAN VIEW Provide specifications for drain lines. The following drain line materials may be used: 1. ABS, SDR 35 Shared\Correction Lists\Grading.doc 09/23/06 4 2. ABS, SCHEDULE 40 3. PVC, SDR 35 4. PVC, Schedule 40 5. ADS 3000 with PE glued joints Use UPC Table 11-2 to determine required site drain pipe size (diameter) and slope. The minimum distance acceptable between finish grade and bottom of treated sill plate shall be as follows: Concrete: 3" 3" Exterior oncrete Slab `♦ lope © 1% Sill Plate/Earth Separation r• ���� q2, c.t 6" Soil e 2% 11Mit '‘ % =11 So 6" For non-residential projects and multi -dwelling projects, submit summary of all drainage devices and onsite parking and drainage improvements. Specify yardage of cut and fill. A. Obtain a private drainage easement to drain water over adjacent land not owned by the permittee. Easement must be recorded with the County Recorder's Office. Design drainage to insure water does not drain over the top edge of any slopes. Provide a berm at top of slope. Draw a section through berm. Berm to be 12" high and slopes towards the pad @,„,,,1 1 4 Show top and toe of all slopes and indicate slope ratio 1 Maximum 2 List the pertinent "Grading Notes" (indicated on attached sheet) on plans. 236y Shared\Correction Lists\Grading.doc 09/23/06 5 Where grading is proposed on adjacent property not owned by the permittee, a separate permit is required for that portion under the adjacent address. • Show locations and details of subdrain system(s) and outlet for retaining walls on grading plan when subdrain is required by soils report. Subdrain to be piped separately from site drainage or invert in French drain to be higher than the inlet elevation of the nearest drain. 1&41-6 Provide erosion and siltation control plans. a. Provide a section showing required grading cut and proximity to property line. b. Depth of excavation for grading exceeds the distance from the edge of excavation to the property line. Provide shoring design and specify shoring on the plan. . Provide building or structure setbacks from top and bottom of slope as outlined in NBMC 15.10.110 Table A. Provide two copies of soils and foundation investigation report by a licensed geotechnical engineer. Soils report shall address the potential of seismically induced liquefaction and �� � i,;, recommend mitigation method. ii.A..... 7°ia. L.4-Z.S C seKs /moo. �+,C,ar„ e1Rz../to. 0.- ir__,016 Av. List soils report recommendations on Grading plan cti).0 .A rs 5 ts € r ."48''- Construction with basement or excavation near the property line: a. The distance from edge of excavation to the property line is less than the depth of excavation. Shoring is required. Provide a shoring plan and calculation prepared by a registered civil engineer. b. Sheet piles are not permitted for shoring due to potential damage to adjacent properties. c. Show all buildings and masonry walls on adjacent property within a distance equal to the depth of the proposed excavation. d. Provide cross -sections at various locations to show excavation details. e. Excavations and shoring shall be made entirely within the project site. f. A Cal -OSHA permit is required for excavations deeper than 5' and for shoring and/or underpinning. Contractor to provide a copy of OSHA permit. g. Bottom of excavation is below water table. Submit a dewatering plan prepared by the geotechnical engineer. SharedlCorrection ListslGrading.doc 09/23/06 6 h. Provide additional geotechnical information necessary for dewatering system design, soils report to include the following: • Borings to extend a minimum of 20 ft. below bottom of proposed excavation. • Provide sieve analysis and permeability value for each soil formation layer to a depth of 20 ft. below bottom of excavation. i. Write a note on the shoring drawing, "Shoring engineer to provide monitoring of shoring and improvements on adjacent properties and submit results with a report to the Building Inspector on a daily basis during excavation and shoring and weekly basis thereafter. Where dewatering is required, monitoring shall continue until dewatering is stopped. Geotechnical engineer to stamp and sign the shoring plan and dewatering plan, certifying that the design is in compliance with his recommendation. k. Write a note on drawing: "Geotechnical engineer shall provide continuous inspections during shoring and excavation operations and during removal of shoring." I. Provide a description of the process for installing shoring, construction of basement walls, and removal of shoring. m. Write note on the drawings: "Contractor shall notify adjacent property owners by certified mail 10 days prior to starting the shoring or excavation work." n. If slot cutting method of excavation is to be used, provide a drawing showing the location and sequence of slot cuts. Slot cut to be 36' away from the property line or provide shoring for the top 3 ft. to prevent sloughing. o. Non -cantilevered retaining walls must be shored until the bracing element(s) is in place. Provide a design for wall shoring. p. Write a note on grading plan: "Continuous inspection by a City -licensed deputy inspector is required during shoring, excavation and removal of shoring? J. DEWATERING SYSTEM CORRECTIONS: Provide the following information on dewatering drawings: a. Well or well point locations. b. Pipe system layout (including valve locations). c. Primary power source. If a generator is used for primary power supply, write a note on drawings stating maximum noise level from proposed generator not to exceed 50 dba on adjoining property. d. Back-up power supply (if any). Shared\Correction Lists\Grading.doc 09/23/06 7 e. Location of desanding tank. f. Location of property lines and excavation limits. g. Depth of wells or well points (reference to sea level or other datum). h. Diameter of borehole. 1. The type of filter media used around wells or well points. Provide sieve analysis graph. j. Size of wellscreen openings (slots) and location of screened portion of well or well point. k. Soil permeability. Dewatering is required during excavation, soil investigation to include boring(s) to a depth of 20' below bottom of proposed excavation for sieve analysis to determine soils permeability. I. Discharge termination point. m. Water meter to measure flow. n. Anticipated draw -down elevation. o. Depth of deepest excavation. p. Method of well removal and abandonment. If a well point system is used, provide noise calculation using ARI method to verify noise level from pump not to exceed 50 dba at adjacent property. Public Works approval is required for discharge into storm drain or public way. Provide evidence of approval from State Regional Water Quality Control Board for disposal of ground water. WATER QUALITY CORRECTIONS: If area of construction site is one or more acres, obtain a general construction NPDES Storm water permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Tel. (909) 782-4130. This project falls into category checked below. Prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) consistent with the model WQMP. (Attached) PRIORITY PROJECTS Residential development of 10 units or more; Shared\Correction Usts\Grading.doc 09/23/06 8 Commercial and industrial development greater than 100,000 sq. ft. including parking areas; Automotive repair shop; Restaurant where the land area of development is 5,000 sq. ft. or more including parking area; Hillside development on 10,000 sq. ft. or more which is located on areas with known erosive soil condition or where natural slope is 25% or more; impervious surface of 2,500 sq. ft. or more located within or directly adjacent to (within 200 ft.) or discharging directly to receiving water within environmentally sensitive areas (San Diego Creek, upper and lower Newport Bay, Buck Gully, Los Trankos, Little Corona del Mar Beach, Crystal Cove State Beach). Parking lot area of 5,000 sq. ft. or more or with 15 or more parking spaces. NON PRIORITY PROJECTS 2• Require issuance of non-residential plumbing permit. -6"3. See attached Water Quality Management Plan Correction List. See drawings for additional corrections. ADDITIONAL CORRECTIONS: 65. 66. 67. SharedlCorrection ListslGrading.doc 09/23/06 9 MACTEC engineering and constructing a better tomorrow February 27. 2007 1E0E01E MAR 0 1 2007 F!BB AI�CI-IITIECT a INC Mr. Greg McClure Facilities Design and Construction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive; P.O. Box 6100 Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Subject: Response to City of Newport Beach Geotechnical Report Review Checklist Proposed MR1 Building Additions and Renovation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California Plan Check No: 2456-2006 City of Newport Beach Job No: 1679N-156 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Dear Mr. McClure: We previously performed a geotechnical investigation for the subject project at the E[oag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California and presented the results in a report dated October 26, 2005. Subsequently, we provided geotechnical recommendations in supplemental letters dated March 28, 2006, June 22, 2006, and December 5, 2006 for the subject project. This letter provides our responses to the Geotechnical Report Review Checklist by the City of Newport Beach dated November 3, 2006. The Review Checklist is attached for your reference. Our responses are presented below. En the checklist, the October 26, 2005 report (referred to as "Report 2" in the checklist), and the March 28, 2006 letter (referred to as "Report 1 ") were reviewed. Response 1 (Report 1): The lateral capacities for piles with sonotubes used in the upper portion of the piles are revised here— in based on the plan check comment, and are presented on the following page. The deflection of the piles is shown as greater to account for the approximate 'A -inch thickness of the sonotube. For piles where lateral isolation using a compressive material or gap around the piles is necessary because of MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 200 Citadel Drive • Los Angeles, CA 90040-1554 • Phone: 323.889.5300 • Fax: 323.721.6700 www.mactec.com Hoag.tlernorial hospital Presbyterian • Response to Review C. orvrne•rn.% febnurn• 27. 2007 M1CTEC Project 4953-05.10►91 the proximity of the piles to the basement, then no lateral capacity should be assumed for those piles; structural elements such as grade beams should be used to transfer lateral Toads to foundation elements away from the basement walls. For piles away from the basement walls, where neither sonotubes or a gap (annulus space) is necessary at the top of the pile, then the full lateral capacity presented in the March 28, 2006 letter may be used. Lateral Capacity 24-inch-diameter Drilled Pile with Sonotubes in Upper Portion Pile Head Deflection (inches) 1A 34 Pile Head Condition Free Fixed Free Fixed Lateral Load (kips) 42 92 59 119 Maximum Moment (ft-kips) 150 388 243 592 Depth to Maximum Moment (ft) s 0 51' 0 Depth to Zero Moment (ft) 19 22 19 22 Lateral Capacity 30-inch-diameter Drilled Pile with Sonotubes in Upper Portion Pile Read Deflection (inches) . v. 34 Pile Head Condition Free Fixed Free Fixed Lateral Load (kips) 61 126 84 172 Maximum Moment (ft-kips) 243 635 382 1011 Depth to Maximum Moment (ft) 71 0 71/2 0 Depth to Zero Moment (ft) 23 27 23 27 Lateral Capacity 36-inch-diameter Drilled Pile with Sonotubes in Upper Portion Pile Head Deflection (inches) % i Pile Head Condition Free Fixed Free Fixed Lateral Load (kips) 83 168 113 236 Maximum Moment (ft-kips) 373 978 • 592 1588 Depth to Maximum Moment (ft) 9 0 9 0 Depth to Zero Moment (ft) 26 31 26 31 J Hoag Memorial t/ospitu! Presbyterian Rc.+ponsc to Review Comments February 27. 2007 MdC7EC Project 4953-05-109/ ,,� Response 2 (Report 1): Previous geotechnical investigations have indicated the presence of methane gas in the subsurface soils, however, the installation of piles is feasible with a proper Health and Safety Plan to be provided by the pile drilling subcontractor at the time of the installation: the drilling subcontractor should prepare such a health and safety plan prior to excavation. We did not analyze the piles for end bearing (the piles are assumed to behave as pure friction piles), therefore, the cleaning of pile bottoms to obtain a competent end -bearing surface is not required. r ;/ Response 3 (Report 1): In our March 28, 2006, we recommended that the existing fill could be left in place if pile foundations are used. For this case. the floor slabs of the additions should be structurally supported rather than supported at grade. Response 4 (Report 2) : We do not anticipate having to overexcavate at locations planned for paving Only minor paving is planned. Based on the available information, we expect to find natural soils below the existing paved area in the area planned for new paving. Our inspector will verify that the soils exposed in the paving excavations are suitable. [f existing fill soils are encountered, they should be excavated and replaced with properly compacted fill. 7 Response 5 (General): • The supplemental letter indicated as Report 1 is properly dated March 28, 2006. This letter referenced a report dated May 25, 2005, which is incorrect. The correct date referenced should be October 26, 2005 (Report 2). J • The locations of the proposed development, new and prior borings and the cross section are shown on the attached Figure 1, Plot Plan. 3' Hoctg:t lk'rnoric! Hospital Preshrterian - Response to Review Comments F.hruun• 27. 2007 114.-ICTEC Project 49:;-05.1n9! • The on -site clayey ;oils are classified as tnoderately expansive. The soils may be used as fill since the expansion potential is considered to be tow to moderate. This recommendation is consistent with previous grading recommendations prepared at Hoag Memorial Hospital Medical Center, such as those given in our report dated April 4, 2003 for the proposed addition to the James Irvine Surgery Center (our Job No. 4953-03-0931). • The corrosivity test results indicate the onsite soils are corrosive to ferrous metals when saturated and the attack on concrete is negligible. These results are consistent with prior corrosion studies performed on the campus. • Hardscape elements may be supported on grade if the recommendations for grading are followed as presented in our October 26, 2005 report. Existing fill soils beneath hardscape elements should be excavated and replaced as properly compacted fill. • The site is adequate for the proposed development if the recommendations presented in our report and letters are followed. The topography at the site is relatively level and there are no existing slopes at the site or inunediately adjacent to the site. The proposed development will not have an adverse affect on the geologic stability of adjacent properties. All other recommendations in our October 26, 2005 report and supplemental letters remain applicable. 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 letter. 4 Hoag ;Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Response to Review Comments MACTEC Project 495 3-0 5 -1091 Ft;brut:1 y ? %. 2007 tt has been a pleasure to be of professional service to you. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. Lan-Anh Tran Staff Engineer P::4953 Geotcchi20O5-prnj;51091 HO:AG:Memorial (2 copies submitted) Attachments: City of Newport Beach Geotechnical Report Review Checklist Figure 1. Plot Plan Martin B. Hudson, Ph.D. Senior Principal Engineer Project Manager cc: (1) KPFF Consulting Engineers Attn: Mr. Terang Kim (3) City of Newport Beach :Medical Cente,- Deliverables14953-O5-10911tO5r.doc c$pEESS/ , 0 B. N`�as�FG No. 2579 1 z ' Expires 12-31-07 (P)f(orEc#j/I- 'L7::1t 5 fl ri 0 PI fl 1 1 .- -"'"--- .."- — --- — — — 'T.• 7: 7. 1-.--: _ • ___ -. „-c-,- _,,....er,-, -• . I 1 , — — . • ... . : ; . r ' ; • - r_17.7,11.11;. 2.- ii;:l. ;III•Witliiiiii •=:-_-;_ 7..: 1 ._ ,_., _ -- ., 1-.-1 ti- ! Ti ‘: 1 , i : : • : • .;.-,-,, _ , : - • I'L \ :. ,•1 ; i 1 I — 11111 ill 12:;•;-Hji :AM ':•-:. . \;.. -t.•-, i-t , s• \ :1 — \ i • . _ ••••_ _ - ---- ---. t r, I 1 i : r : I : : - I 1, ; ' . i • — . .,_..1 ;-, ii-1, f.-1-1J.-l'. i-L-. • ,•—• • i —H! --- - . , •• : i , . 1 1 ' ' t 1 t i ; ' i • : • -- ; . , . . • . . \ \ \ ' 0 Pk \\,_ / R Ns\ .•• _. • •, •. , • , • • • • • • - • REFFRENCFS: SITE PLAN BY TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES DATED NOVEMBER 2000 " • W P r 0 > 0 I, HOAG HOSPITAL 30 t 81.d , Ne1wplo4erwl PB°Lch, California REFERENCES: SITE PLAN BY TAYLOR & DATED NOVEMBER 2000. ASSOCIATES LEGEND: I • CURRENT INVESTIGATION (4953-05-10911 • 7 Q PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION (A-69080) L BORING LOCATION AND NUMBER BENCH MARK FOR CURRENT BORING ELEVATIONS. FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION AT EMERGENCY CARE UNIT. ASSUMED ELEVATION = 100 0 PLOT PLAN SCALE 1" = 100' 10W 1.W 2OW =T3 OMACTEC 1:1(1111TP CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GEOTECHNICAL REPORT REVIEW CHECKLIST Date Received: October 24, 2006 Date of Report: October 26, 2005 Consultant: MACTEC Date completed: November 3, 2006 Plan Check No: 2456-2006 Our Job No: 1679N-156 Site Address: One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California Title of Reports: 1. Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Additions to MRI Building, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drve, Newport Beach, California, dated March 28, 2006 2. Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Additions to MRI Building, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drve, Newport Beach, California, dated October 26, 2005 Purpose of Report: Geotechnical recommendations for a Hospital Building Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Project Information/Background: Review of Existing City Files Reference to Site(s) by Street Address Reference to Grading/Foundation Plans by Date Subsurface Investigation Aerial Photograph Geologic Hazards: Hazard Adverse Geologic Structure Bluff Retreat Debris/Mud Flow Differential Settlement Erosion Expansive Soils Faulting Fractured Bedrock Groundwater Landslide Liquefaction Settlement/Collapsible Soils Slump Soil/Rock Creep Sulfate Rich Soils Supporting Analysis/Data Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Slope Stability Calculations Shear Strength Values Other Laboratory Data Seismicity Boring/TrenchLogs Discussion Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Recommendations for Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Foundations Retaining Walls Foundation Setbacks Slabs Flatwork Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Liquefaction Study Calculations Supporting Recommendations Geologic Map and Cross Sections Drainage Plan Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Grading Pools/Spas Slope/Bluff Setbacks Adequacy for Intended use Not Adversely Impacting Adjoining Sites X ' PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE REPORT, ATTEND TO THE ITEMS BELOW: Report 1 1. Pages 2 and 3, Lateral capacity of Piles: Lateral capacities presented in the report appear to be too high. Please provide computations to support the results presented. Also, please indicate how the proposed gap or the compressible materials was modeled and its impact on the lateral response. 2. Page 4, Section on Pile Installation: • Previous geotechnical investigations have indicated the presence of methane gas in the subsurface. Considering this, please address the feasibility of installing drilled piles. • If drilling mud is used, the bottom should be cleaned to obtain end bearing for the piles. Please describe how the bottom would be cleaned obtain a competent surface. Also indicate how the impact of the drilling mud was accounted for in the bearing capacity computations. 3. General: The report does not provide recommendations for floor slabs of the modified foundations system. Please indicate whether they should be designed to span between pile rows or grade beams. Report 2 4. Page 22, Section on Pavement: Please indicate whether overexcavation is necessary in areas receiving structural pavements. 5. General: • Report dates are confusing. The supplemental report (Report 1) appears to have been written on March 28, 2006. This report indicates that the main report (Report 2) was published on May 25, 2006. However, the combined copy submitted for review indicates the publishing date of both reports as October 25, 2005. Please clarify. • The locations of the proposed development and the borings drilled are not shown on the site plan. In addition, the location of the cross section is not shown either. Please revise. • Please address the expansive potential of near surface soils. The laboratory consolidation tests have exhibited swelling indicating that the soils could be expansive. Considering this, indicate whether any special consideration is necessary for the design of floor slabs (see Comment 3). • A single corrosivity test indicates a low corrosion potential of site soils. Please indicate the applicability of this test to the soils in contact with subsurface structures. • Please provide recommendations for flatwork including overexcavation depths. • Please include a statement on the adequacy of the site for its intended use. • Please address the impact of the proposed development on the adjacent properties. X Please review and comment upon the geotechnical aspects of the grading plan and the foundation plan and verify that the plans are in conformance with the geotechnical recommendations of the referenced report. Please include a copy of the plans with your response. Additional Comments (no response required): Note to City Staff Staff should confirm that the Consultants (C.E.G. and R.C.E/G.E.) have signed the final dated grading, foundation/construction and landscaping plans, per City Code, thereby verifying the plans' geotechnical conformance with the Consultant's original report and associated addenda. Limitations of Review: Our review is intended to determine if the submitted report(s) comply with City Codes and generally accepted geotechnical practices within the local area. The scope of our services for this third party review has been limited to a brief site visit and a review of the above referenced report and associated documents, as supplied by the City of Newport Beach. Re -analysis of reported data and/or calculations and preparation of amended construction or design recommendations are specifically not included within our scope of services. Our review should not be considered as a certification, approval or acceptance of the previous consultant's work, nor is meant as an acceptance of liability for the final design or construction recommendations made by the geotechnical consultant of record or the project designers or engineers. Opinions presented in this review are for City's use only. BY: BY: Gamini Weeratunga, G.E. 2403 Ken Bagahi, Ph.D., BAGAHI ENGINEERING, INC. BAGAHI ENGINE ' "G, INC. 4 iggivievi /L€ 6 7 , 3.0.4 `( 1414r1 L.g 7"frth Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Upper Campus Ancillary Services Building Renovation and Addition Mitigation Measures Applicability Matrix November 4, 2006 Approved by Planning Department: November 21, 2006 Mitigation Measure Mitigation Applies* N/A** . Measure Applies* N/A** n /TiLL.. 11-Aa A004.4v,,. 4 � z x , gin- .d1> MM 36 OSHPD x N/A 64.,.., MM 2 1/ /. X 1 MM 37 MM 3 // X il� C IM 3$ 4' MM 4 OSHPD ‘ 0 itti, (Mius * X MM 5 , • N/A MM 40 OSHPD _ MM 6 V X 4p m> MM 41 X l MM 7 ✓ X !! b MM 42 AMR ' MM 8 ✓ X e• �1 l 4 * X MM 9 17 X , ', 44 , N/A ( M 1,0* CX <RVIM 455 X MM 11 r AMR MM 46 N/A MM 12 ✓ / X ij MM 47 Complete MM 13 V X !, MM 48 / N/A Lk 1 X -4-- 1.G021t. 12-EA4 MM 49✓ 4/—. MM 15 AMR MM 50 C Complete MM 16 Complete Complete MM 51 MM 5� Complete MM 17 !� MM 18 Complete MM 53 X*_** MM 19 Complete MM 54 X*** #� MM 20 v Complete MM 55 X*** 1i X MM 56 X. ii (M 22 X MM 57 Complete MM 23 Complete MM 58 Complete MGM -23* ' X • MM 59 N/A erIM-3%F X • MM 60 Complete MM 26 Complete MM 61 Complete CM1-- 2- X MM 62 / X laa MM 28 AMR MM 63V ;ram' �-- X MM 29 AMR MM 64 N/A MM 30 N/A MM 65 complete MM 31 AMR MM 66 X*** -cy►� ,CgM_______313 X MM 67 Complete 3.)$E. X . MM 68 N/A 4Y''?''"' %.-'� MM 34 N/A MM 69 X MM 35 AMR MM 70 N/A 4 /\111 1%7- Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Upper Campus Ancillary Services Building Renovation and Addition Mitigation Measures Applicability Matrix, Continued November 4, 2006 Approved by Planning Department: November 21, 2006 Mitigation Mitigation . Measure Applies* N/A** Measure Applies* N/A** MM 71 N/A MM 98 OSHPD '' t911-71� MM 72 N/A MM 99 OSHPD ,, ." MM 73 X*** .6t. MM 100 �- X MM 74 X*** Pe /. MM 101I X MM 75 Complete MM 102 X MM 76 Complete MM 103 X MM 77 Complete MM 104 X MM 78 Complete MM 105_, — X / MM 79 Complete MM 106 X i-d ``oe MM 80 Complete MM 107 ✓ X ii MM 81 CompleteaftreX MM 82 X $•-- O 109 X L 83 X MM 110 x �y MM 84 AMR MM 111 X C M85- , X MM 112 X P CMM 86 X MM 113 , Complete MM 87 N/A 114; X • MM 88 OSHPD % 41 MM 115 r X MM 89 OSHPD ', MM 116 Complete MM 90 Complete MM 117 AMR M 9tS X D+ X MM 92 OSHPD / d MM 119 AMR MM 93 OSHPD ., MM 120 N/A MM 94 OSHPD i, CMM 121 'Y X MM 95)* X MM 122 N/A MM 96 OHSPD .4- MM 123 N/A MM 97 OHSPD - .,, * OSHPD = Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development responsible for building plan check **AMR = Annual Monitoring Report. Measure required to be fulfilled in conjunction with Development Agreement Annual Review *** Applicability dependent upon findings of report for Mitigation Measure # 52 .*- 4551frl Page 2 C' f 3 7. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Upper Campus Ancillary Services Building Renovation and Addition Mitigation Measures Applicability Matrix November 4, 2006 Approved by Planning Department: November 21, 2006 Mitigation Measure Mitigation Applies* N/A** . Measure Applies* TLL ?LAA APP.1,0vvL_. ,[eViek , ,E Air -04-0 7 N/A** cky 1J / x _ i 1) MM 36 N/A MM 2 ✓/ X AtiA/Aer- MM 37 OSHPD 09y MM3 t/ X ili/ �VIM34" X "� MM 4 OSHPD a/L MM 3 ' X MM 5 • i N/A MM 40 OSHPD MM 6 V X 4pAtk. MM 41 X d MM 7 r% X MM 42 AMR • MM8✓ X 1 M43)* �7 X MM 9 ✓ X tr VIM 44 N/A tM 10* (J C1�M 45 X MM 11 �/ AMR MM 46 N/A MM 12 X iJ MM 47 Complete N/A MM 13 ✓ X i, MM 48 �S X -4--(wee( dt2AI MM 49 X 4 MM 15 AMR MM 50 Complete MM 16 Complete MM 51 Complete MM 17 Complete 52 X N MM 18 Complete MM 53 X*** MM 19 Complete MM 54 X*** ,.. MM 20 Complete MM 55 X*-** /ice MM X MM 56 ✓ X. Ki PreOi/ CrIK122.7-X MM 57 Complete MM 23 Complete MM 58 Complete N/A c'" X • MM 59 X • MM 60 Complete Complete iVA3 MM 26 Complete MM 61 ,/ M_ 2 X MM 62 ✓ X - MM 28 AMR MM 63 X rf MM 29 AMR MM 64 N/A MM 30 N/A MM 65 complete MM 31 AMR MM 66 X*** , < 14M 32 X MM 67 Complete 3' X . MM 8 N/A MM 34 N/A 69 X MM 35 AMR,/ �,%1GIM MM 70 N/A Gui2LeArLY 0 C 6 ► r 6- p oti 0 cj i s, e 61-04` rc't-Pt,E.P,Se Pg-evtd%)121. mrr 1;49-1rJl1($) tlt l EA 6 4- O t. ioT f �� �T Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Upper Campus Ancillary Services Building Renovation and Addition Mitigation Measures Applicability Matrix, Continued November 4, 2006 Approved by Planning Department: November 21, 2006 Mitigation Mitigation . Measure Applies* N/A** Measure Applies* N/A** MM 71 N/A MM 98 OSHPD ' c9 MM 72 N/A MM 99 OSHPD -. MM 73 X*** MM 100 X MM 74 X*** irl .r MM 101 X MM 75 Complete MM 102 X MM 76 Complete MM 103 X MM 77 Complete MM 104 X MM 78 Complete MM 105 X MM 79 Complete MM 106 X MM 80 Complete MM 107 X '' MM 81 Complet M 10 X MM 82 ✓ X a,, (,r'- ••, , .� it,109 c X .-191.M 83 X ? MM 110 ✓, x A v- e( 84 MMAMR MM 111 V X rr-"' " M85 ' X MM112 X ,r i/ MM 86 X MM 113 Complete MM 87 N/A 114 X' • MM 88 OSHPD 4 o MM 115 X MM 89 OSHPD '/ MM 116 Complete AMR 90 Complete MM 117 _MM X •• X MM 92 OSHPD d MM 119 AMR MM 93 OSHPD t, MM 120 N/A MM 94 OSHPD ,, VOID if X CMM 95YAL X MM 122 N/A MM 96 OHSPD ''p ° MM 123 N/A MM 97 OHSPD ,, * OSHPD = Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development responsible for building plan check **AMR = Annual Monitoring Report. Measure required to be fulfilled in conjunction with Development Agreement Annual Review *** Applicability dependent upon findings of report for Mitigation Measure # 52 4(5511 Page 2 r3A--6 A mie: puma.- ictIt 9 �{"v EA-14-fliVe4,-(Affri troi‘fil Date: these plans have been reviewe s . • • nd to be in s-lbs compliance p Ti � r �e :. �,�>. ity of -asa�armi- Newport BeacTi. pp 1. Include in the Water Quality Management Plan Re the "NO" column on the following checklist. WQMP REQUIREMENT Project Address: Plan Check No.: CITY OF NEWPORT' BEAC BUILDING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. P.O.BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA (949) 644-3275 .4,56 12 Plan Check Engineer: I•c,e--.0-4 ance pending approval by all applicable City departments and agencies. • Make the following corrections to the plans. The pem ,. =: ;;i ensure that all plans, specifications and • Return this correction sheet and check prints withpu:r, :t da ttthQa1 litysti azragoina spects to the Plan. Ap:'►=c;; .! :.;.dos and ordinances and by commencing construction ttf.:;;;�ridt,:, .;;re's to elease and indemnity City and it's consultants • Submit a response sheet indicating how each correct4}� wauslr0,sSl,Yode violations in the completed work. The issuance or granting of a permit based on approval of these P �ljall�j', ut�ll any violation of the applicable codes WATER QUALITY MANAGEMEl1� 'r�lirlVIred to give authority to violate or CORRECTION CHECKLEISqProvisions of such codes or ordinance shall be valid. BAGAHI ENGINEERING INC. ation where indic.atodr in equirem6a Satisfied? NO N/A { a'�// Title Page a G Name of project �/ Site address (or addresses) 'V Owner/Developer name ./ Owner/Developer address & telephone number , / Consulting/Engineering firm that prepared WQMP `.// Consulting/Engineering firm address & phone number ,✓� Date WQMP was prepared/revised Owner's Certification0 L „ 1\91 1, A signed certification statement, in which the project owner acknowledges and accepts the provisions of the WQMP, follows the title page. Table of Contents A Table of Contents, including a list of all figures and attachments is Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Correction List included. Section I, Permit Numbers and Conditions of Approval Lists the Discretionary Permits(s). Lists, verbatim, the Water Quality Conditions, including condition requiring preparation of WQMP, if applicable. J. Final Resolution of Approval, Conditional Use Permit, etc. is included as an attachment to the WQMP. •✓ Section II, Project Description For all Projects: Does the project description completely and accurately describe where facilities will be located, what activities will be conducted and where on the site, what kinds of materials and products will be used, how and where materials will be received and stored, and what kinds of wastes will be generated? Describes all paved areas, including the type of parking areas. Describes all landscaped areas. a✓ Describes ownership of all portions of project and site. o Will any infrastructure transfer to public agencies (City, County, Caltrans, etc.)? o Will a homeowner or property owners association be formed? o Will the association be involved in long term maintenance? r. Identifies the potential stormwater or urban runoff pollutants reasonably expected to be associated with the project. ,✓ For Commercial and Industrial Projects: o Provides Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code which best describes the facilities operations? „✓ / o Describes the type of use (or uses) for each building or tenant space. `� �.., o Does project include food preparation, cooking, and eating areas (specify location and type of area). o Describes delivery areas and loading docks (specify location and design and if below grade and types of materials expected to be stored). / N o Describes outdoor materials storage areas (describe and depict locations(s), specify type(s) of materials expected to be stored). / o Describes activities that will be routinely conducted outdoors. o Describes any activities associated with equipment or vehicle maintenance and repair, including washing or cleaning. Indicates number of service bays or number of fueling islands/fuel pumps, if applicable. Residential Projects • o Range of lot and home sizes o Describes all community facilities such as, laundry, car wash, swimming pools, jaci»zi, parks, open spaces, tot lots, etc. - _ Section III, Site Description Describes project area and surrounding planning areas in sufficient detail to allow project location to be plotted on a base map. I , 2 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Correction List (t9 eiIdentifies Provides site address and site size to nearest tenth acre. j Identifies the zoning or land use designation. soil types and the quantity and percentage of pervious and impervious surface for pre -project and project conditions. .� Describes pre -project site drainage and how it ties into drainage of surrounding or adjacent areas and describes how planned drainage and how it will tie into drainage of surrounded pil project or adjacent areas. Identifies the watershed in which the project is located and the : o downstream receiving waters o known water quality impairments as included in the 303(d) list o applicable Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) o hydrologic conditions of concern, if any. ✓ j 1 1 Identifies known environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) and Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBSs) within the vicinity and their proximity to the project. Section IV, Best Management Practices Includes narrative describing how site design concepts were considered and incorporated into project plans. Lists and describes all Routine Source Control BMPs (Non-structural and Structural). Describes the implementation frequency and identifies the entity or Party responsible for implementation of each Non -Structural BMP. ✓4 If applicable Routine Source Control BMPs were not included, was a reasonable explanation provided? . Lists and describes appropriate Treatment Control BMPs and identifies the design basis (SQDF or SQDV) for the Treatment Control BMPs. Section V, Inspection and Maintenance Responsibility of BMPs Identifies the entity (or entities) responsible for the long-term inspection and maintenance of all structural source control BMPs and all Treatment Control BMPs, including name, title, company, address, and phone number. Describes the minimum frequency for inspection and maintenance to/ ensure the effectiveness of each structural source control BMP and each Treatment Control BMP. If ownership of the Treatment Control BMPs will be transferred to a public agency does the WQMP include an attachment indicating the public agency's intent to accept the Treatment Control BMPs as designed? Is an appropriate mechanism for the long-term operation and maintenance, including funding, in place? Section VI, Location Map and Plot Plan Has an 11" by 17" plot plan been included? ✓ / Do all figures, maps, plot plans, etc. have a legend, including a North arrow and scale? ./ Are all facilities labeled for the intended function? 3 /v. SACS. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Correction List Are all areas of outdoor activity labeled? V Are all structural BMPs indicated? N% Is drainage flow information, including general surface flow lines, concrete or other surface ditches or channels, as well as storm drain facilities such as catch basins and underground storm drain pipes depicted? I Depicts where and how on -site drainage ties into the off -site drainage system. „/ Section VII, Educational Materials For Routine Non-structural BMPs Ni (Education for Property Owners, Tenants, and Occupants) and N12 (Employee Training), does the WQMP describe the concepts that will be addressed by the education and training? Is a list of educational materials that will be used provided? Are copies of the educational materials included in an Attachment to the WQMP? N/ U . Implement the WQMP best management practices into the precise grading plan, landscape d irrigation plan and architectural design drawings. Implement the following routine structural B g F i o c F kr•c °a' 11 J2>G ra Filfttion - Surface runoff shall be T csrt s� '`r ent Practices: ected to landscaped areas wherever practicable. NA- S2. Wash Water Controls for Food Preparation Areas - Food establishments (per State Health & Safety Code 27520) shall have either contained areas, sinks, each with sanitary sewer connections for disposal of wash waters containing kitchen and food wastes. If located outside, the contained areas, sinks shall also be structurally covered to prevent entry of storm water. )Yk S3. Trash Container (dumpster) areas -- Trash container (dumpster) areas to have drainage from adjoining roofs and pavements diverted around the area(s), and: N4 A. For trash container areas associated with fuel dispensing, vehicle repair/maintenance, and industry, such areas are to be roofed over or drained to a water quality inlet (see S 16), engineered infiltration/filtration system, or equally effective alternative. B. For trash container areas associated with restaurants and warehouse/grocery operations such areas are to be screened or walled to prevent off site transport of trash. flA- S4. Self-contained areas are required for washing/steam cleaning, wet material processing, and maintenance activities. N.A. S5. Outdoor Storage - Where a plan of development contemplates or building plans incorporate outdoor containers for oils, fuels, solvents, coolants, wastes, and other chemicals, these shall be protected by secondary containment structures (not double wall containers). For fYA- 4 14, 4 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Correction List outdoor vehicle and equipment salvage yards, and outdoor recycling the entire storage area shall drain through water quality inlets. t'CA-- S6. Motor Fuel Concrete Dispensing Areas — Areas used for fuel dispensing, shall be paved with. concrete (no use of asphalt). Concrete surfacing to extend 61/2 feet from the corner of each fuel dispenser in any direction. This distance may be reduced to OR the maximum length that the fuel dispensing hose and nozzle assembly may be operated in any direction plus one (1) foot. In addition, the fuel dispensing area shall be graded and constructed so as to prevent drainage flow either through or from the fuel dispensing area. /m'/i- S7. Motor Fuel Dispensing Area Canopy — All motor fuel concrete dispensing areas are to have a canopy structure for weather protection, extending over the motor fuel concrete fuel dispensing area as defined in No. 6. Motor Fuel Concrete Dispensing Area Interruptible Drainage — The concrete motor fuel dispensing area will be graded and constructed so as to drain to an underground clarifier/sump/tank equipped with a shut-off valve that can stop the further draining of storm water or spilled material there from into the street or storm drain system. Spills will be immediately cleaned up according to Spill Contingency Plan. i` / S9. Energy Dissipaters — Energy dissipaters are to be installed at the outlets of new storm drains, which enter unlined channels, in accordance with applicable agency specifications. Catch Basin Stenciling — Phase "No Dumping — Drains to Ocean" or equally effective phrase to be stenciled on catch basins to alert the public to the destination of pollutants discharged into storm water. S 11. Diversion of Loading Dock Drainage — Below grade loading docks for grocery stores and warehouse/distribution centers of fresh food items will drain through water quality inlets or to an engineered infiltration system; or an equally effective alternative. NA- S12. Water Quality Inlets — Water Quality Inlets designed to remove free phase liquid petroleum compounds, grease, floatable debris, and settleable solids can be used in the following applications: S3, S5, S11. S8. WQMPCorrList 12/06/05 eit-t--11V 5 OMACTEC engineering and constructing a better tomorrow RECEfVED MAR 0 1 2007 t'SSARCHITECTS INC February 27, 2007 Mr. Greg McClure Facilities Design and Construction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive; P.O. Box 6100 Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Subject: Response to City of Newport Beach Geotechnical Report Review Checklist Proposed MRI Building Additions and Renovation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California Plan Check No: 2456-2006 City of Newport Beach Job No: 1679N-156 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Dear Mr. McClure: We previously performed a geotechnical investigation for the subject project at the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California and presented the results in a report dated October 26, 2005. Subsequently, we provided geotechnical recommendations in supplemental letters dated March 28, 2006, June 22, 2006, and December 5, 2006 for the subject project. This letter provides our responses to the Geotechnical Report Review Checklist by the City of Newport Beach dated November 3, 2006. The Review Checklist is attached for your reference. Our responses are presented below. In the checklist, the October 26, 2005 report (referred to as "Report 2" in the checklist), and the March 28, 2006 letter (referred to as "Report 1") were reviewed. Response 1 (Report 1): The lateral capacities for piles with sonotubes used in the upper portion of the piles are revised here in based on the plan check comment, and are presented on the following page. The deflection of the piles is shown as greater to account for the approximate '/-inch thickness of the sonotube. For piles where lateral isolation using a compressive material or gap around the piles is necessary because of MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 200 Citadel Drive • Los Angeles, CA 90040-1554 • Phone: 323.889.5300 • Fax: 323.721.6700 www.mactec.com 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian -- Response to Review Comments Ethnicity 27. 2007 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 the proximity of the piles to the basement, then no lateral capacity should be assumed for those piles; structural elements such as grade beams should be used to transfer lateral loads to foundation elements away from the basement walls. For piles away from the basement walls, where neither sonotubes or a gap (annulus space) is necessary at the top of the pile, then the full lateral capacity presented in the March 28, 2006 letter may be used. Lateral Capacity 24-inch-diameter Drilled Pile with Sonotubes in Upper Portion Pile Head Deflection (inches) Pile Head Condition Free Fixed Free Fixed Lateral Load (kips) 42 92 59 119 Maximum Moment (ft-kips) 150 388 243 592 Depth to Maximum Moment (ft) 51/2 0 5`/z 0 Depth to Zero Moment (ft) 19 22 19 22 Lateral Capacity 30-inch-diameter Drilled Pile with Sonotubes in Upper Portion Pile Head Deflection (inches) % 3/4 Pile Head Condition Free Fixed Free Fixed Lateral Load (kips) 61 126 84 172 Maximum Moment (ft-kips) 243 635 382 1011 Depth to Maximum Moment (ft) 7'/2 0 71/2 0 Depth to Zero Moment (ft) 23 27 23 27 Lateral Capacity 36-inch-diameter Drilled Pile with Sonotubes in Upper Portion Pile Head Deflection (inches) y Pile Head Condition Free Fixed Free Fixed Lateral Load (kips) 83 168 113 236 Maximum Moment (ft-kips) 373 978 592 1588 Depth to Maximum Moment (ft) 9 0 9 0 Depth to Zero Moment (ft) 26 31 26 31 1 2 Hoag iLlemorial Hospital Presbyterian - Response to Review Comments February 27. 2007 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Response 2 (Report 1): Previous geotechnical investigations have indicated the presence of methane gas in the subsurface soils, however, the installation of piles is feasible with a proper Health and Safety Plan to be provided by the pile drilling subcontractor at the time of the installation; the drilling subcontractor should prepare such a health and safety plan prior to excavation. We did not analyze the piles for end bearing (the piles are assumed to behave as pure friction piles), therefore, the cleaning of pile bottoms to obtain a competent end -bearing surface is not required. Response 3 (Report 1): In our March 28, 2006, we recommended that the existing fill could be left in place if pile foundations are used. For this case, the floor slabs of the additions should be structurally supported rather than supported at grade. Response 4 (Report 2) : We do not anticipate having to overexcavate at locations planned for paving. Only minor paving is planned. Based on the available information, we expect to find natural soils below the existing paved area in the area planned for new paving. Our inspector will verify that the soils exposed in the paving excavations are suitable. If existing fill soils are encountered, they should be excavated and replaced with properly compacted fill. Response 5 (General): • The supplemental letter indicated as Report 1 is properly dated March 28, 2006. This letter referenced a report dated May 25, 2005, which is incorrect. The correct date referenced should be October 26, 2005 (Report 2). • The locations of the proposed development, new and prior borings and the cross section are shown on the attached Figure 1, Plot Plan. 3 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian — Response to Review Comments February 27. 2007 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 • The on -site clayey soils are classified as moderately expansive. The soils may be used as fill since the expansion potential is considered to be low to moderate. This recommendation is consistent with previous grading recommendations prepared at Hoag Memorial Hospital Medical Center, such as those given in our report dated April 4, 2003 for the proposed addition to the James Irvine Surgery Center (our Job No. 4953-03-0931). • The corrosivity test results indicate the onsite soils are corrosive to ferrous metals when saturated and the attack on concrete is negligible. These results are consistent with prior corrosion studies performed on the campus. • Hardscape elements may be supported on grade if the recommendations for grading are followed as presented in our October 26, 2005 report. Existing fill soils beneath hardscape elements should be excavated and replaced as properly compacted fill. • The site is adequate for the proposed development if the recommendations presented in our report and letters are followed. The topography at the site is relatively level and there are no existing slopes at the site or immediately adjacent to the site. The proposed development will not have an adverse affect on the geologic stability of adjacent properties. All other recommendations in our October 26, 2005 report and supplemental letters remain applicable. 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 letter. 4 Hoag:blem<irial Hospital Presbyterian -- Response to Review Comments February 27, 2007 M,4CTEC Project 4953-05-1091 It has been a pleasure to be of professional service to you. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. Lan-Anh Tran Staff Engineer Martin B. Hudson, Ph.D. Senior Principal Engineer Project Manager P_ 1495 3 Geotech12005pro/ 51091 HOAG Memorial Medical CenterlDelirerab1es14953-05-10911t05r.doc/LT:•1t (2 copies submitted) Attachments: City of Newport Beach Geotechnical Report Review Checklist Figure 1. Plot Plan cc: (1) KPFF Consulting Engineers Attn: Mr. Terang Kim (3) City of Newport Beach o\ y No. 2570 v 73 Expires 12-31-07 5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GEOTECHNICAL REPORT REVIEW CHECKLIST Date Received: October 24, 2006 Date of Report: October 26, 2005 Consultant: Iv1ACTEC Site Address: One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California Date completed: November 3, 2006 Plan Check No:2456-2006 Our Job No: 1679N-156 Title of Reports: 1. Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Additions Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drve, Newport March 28, 2006 2. Report of Geotechnicat Investigation, Proposed Additions Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drve, Newport October 26, 2005 Purpose of Report: Geotechnical recommendations for a Hospital Building Y/N Y/N YIN YIN Y/N Project Information/Background: Review of Existing City Files Reference to Site(s) by Street Address Reference to Grading/Foundation Plans by Date Subsurface Investigation: Aerial Photograph Geologic Hazards: Hpra cd Adverse Geologic Structure Bluff Retreat Debris/Mud Flow Differential Settlement Erosion Expansive Soils Faulting Fractured Bedrock Groundwater Landslide Liquefaction Settlement/Collapsible Soils Slump SoiVRock Creep Sulfate Rich Soils Discussion Y/N/NA Y/N/NA. Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA YIN1NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Supporting Analysis/Data Recommendations for Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Slope Stability Calculations Shear Strength Values Other Laboratory Data Seismicity Boring/Trench Logs Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA to MRl Building, Hoag Beach, California, dated to MRt Building, Hoag Beach, California, dated Foundations Retaining Walls Foundation Setbacks Slabs Flatwork Y114NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Liquefaction Study Calculations Supporting Rcommendations Geologic Map and Cross Sections Drainage Plan Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Grading Pools/Spas Slope/Bluff Setbacks Adequacy for Intended use Not Adversely Impacting Adjoining Sites X PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE REPORT, ATTEND TO THE ITEMS BELOW: Report 1 1. Pages 2 and 3, Lateral capacity of Piles: Lateral capacities presented in the report appear to be too high. Please provide computations to support the results presented. Also, please indicate how the proposed gap or the compressible materials was modeled and its impact on the lateral response. 2. Page 4, Section on Pile Installation: • Previous geoteclutical investigations have indicated the presence of mchane gas in the subsurface. Considering this, please address the feasibility of installing drilled piles. • If drilling mud is used, the bottom should be cleaned to obtain end bearing for the piles. Please describe how the bottom would be cleaned obtain a competent surface. Also indicate how the impact of the drilling mud was accounted for in the bearing capacity computations. 3. General: The report does not provide recommendations for floor slabs of the modified foundations system. Please indicate whether they should be designed to span between pile rows or grade beams. Report 2 4. Page 22, Section on Pavement: Please indicate whether overexcavation is necessary in areas receiving structural pavements. S. General: • Report dates are confiising. The supplemental report (Report I) appears to have been written on March 28, 2006. This report indicates that the main report (Report 2) was publisbed on May 25, 2006. However, the combined copy submitted for review indicates tbe publishing date of 'both reports as October 25, 2005. Please clarify. • The Iocations of the proposed development and the borings drilled are not shown on the site plan. In addition, the location of the cross section is not shown either. Please revise. • Please address the expansive potential of near surface soils. The laboratory consolidation tests have exhibited swelling indicating that the soils could be expansive. Considering this, indicate whether any special consideration is necessary for the design of floor slabs (see Comment 3). • A single corrosivity test indicates a low corrosion potential of site soils. Please indicate the applicability of this test to the soils in contact with subsurface structures. • Please provide recommendations for flat -work including overexcavation depths. • Please include a statement on the adequacy of the site for its intended use. • Please address the impact of the proposed development on the adjacent properties. X Please review and comment upon the geotechnical aspects of the grading plan and the foundation plan and verify that the plans are in conformance with the geotechnical recommendations of the referenced report. Please include a copy of the plans with your response. Additional Comments (no response required): Note to City Staff: Staff should confirm that the Consultants (C.E.G. and R.C.E/G.E.) have signed the final dated grading, foundation/construction and landscaping plans, per City Code, thereby verifying the plans' geotechnical conformance with the Consultant's original report and associated addenda. Limitations of Review: BY: Our review is intended to determine if the submitted report(s) comply with City Codes and generally accepted geotechnical practices within the local area. The scope of our services for this third party review has been limited to a brief site visit and a review of the above referenced report and associated documents, as supplied by the City of Newport Beach. Re -analysis of reported data and/or calculations and preparation of amended construction or design recommendations are specifically not included within our scope of services. Our review should not be considered as a certification, approval or acceptance of the previous consultant's work, nor is meant as an acceptance of liability for the final design or construction recommendations made by the geotechnical consultant of record or the project designers or engineers. Opinions presented in this review are for City's use only Gamini Weeratunga, G.E. 2403 BAGAI-II ENGINEERING, INC. BY: / 41\ (I.E. Ken Bagahi, Ph.D., (.E. / • BAGAJ-II ENGINE G, INC. HT 1 1 ! i - • -- c • — 1.• r-11-71111iiit;I; • : 11 • ,•'-• ; t t a • 0 pk, plk ‘Ca0 oc( ix() ?\P1/4s- t•OS-• Newpo D ----_________ RFFFRFNCF: SITE PLAN BY TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES DATED NOVEMBER 2000 _ ock • ; 1 - 1 1 11, f ------- •".." ...-----" ' r I ("‘"-•<...1..........c,.."-.....1 •••••/ il 1 \ \ k - / .1--,--.„ .. • \'' • , i -e,.---: , .. • . _.•,. \ - . I _--,- \ - \ • \ • . ' \ \--'------ \ , .__,;-:;•- \ \ 7-- 1 f \ , .0.....,:-....., \ •,, , / . ::..c .....,, _. , • ,, 0 r 0 HOAG HOSPITAL 301 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, Catifornia REFERENCES: SITE PLAN BY TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES DATED NOVEMBER 2000. LEGEND: 1 • CURRENT INVESTIGATION (4953-05-1091) 7 Q PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION (A-69080) L BORING LOCATION AND NUMBER BENCH MARK FOR CURRENT BORING ELEVATIONS, FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION AT EMERGENCY CARE UNIT, ASSUMED ELEVATION = 100.0 PLOT PLAN SCALE 1" = 100' 0 0, 11:, 200 scp.,_C 11,1 VEET ACTEC FIGURE 1 OMACTEC engineering and constructing a better tomorrow December 5, 2006 Mr. Greg McClure Facilities Design and Construction I log . Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One i-1oag Drive: P.O. Box 6100 Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Subject: Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation Proposed MRI Building Additions and Renovation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Dear McClure: We previously performed a geotechnical investigation for the subject project at the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California and presented the results in a report dated October 26. 2005. Subsequently, we provided geotechnical recommendations for alternative foundation types in a letter dated March 28, 2006 and our opinions regarding overexcavation in a letter dated June 22, 2006. This letter presents our recommendations for pile load testing to address OSHPD review comments as emailed to us by Mr. Terang Kim of KPFF Consulting Engineers on November 22. 2006. To confirm the downward capacity of the piles, at least one initial pile should be load tested. The test pile should be tested to at least two times the allowable downward pile capacity based on the values Given in our March 28. 2006 letter. The test load should be applied in at least four equal load increments up to the maximum test load: the 200% test load should be maintained for at least 15 in inutes. As an alternative to conventional load testing, it is acceptable to utilize an Osterberg load cell: if a load cell is used, reaction piles will not need to be installed. Also, after testing, the test pile can be used as a production pile lithe hydraulic lines are flushed with grout. MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 200 Citadel Drive • Los Angeles, CA 90040-1554 • Phone: 323.889.5300 • Fax: 323.721.6700 www.mactec.com HMI!: l Mnu,rutl Plus/well /'re.chrter-ictntementnl ( 1..ntec•lu,tcnl (.(I rcttltnttn,t 1 ccrmhel. ?. 'hilt', I t 1(11i(l'i•n/C(-t .l'r5 $-(1?-I(191 The pile length or diameter may need to be modified based on the test results. If the design of the .piles is governed by upward loading rather than downward loading, the pile should he tested in tension. The portion of the pile extending through the till may be cased xvith a sonotube. If a sonotube is used. the clnwndra�g loads due to settlement of the undocumented till soils may he i`.:nored in the . design_ Dow ndrag loads should not be considered when the pile is in upward loading. As there are only a small number of piles planned for the project, it may be desirable to perform the load test on a non -production pile near the project site, well in advance of production pile installation, to confirm the capacities. Caution must be taken to protect adjacent existing footings and utilities during testing_ A11 other recommendations in our October 2005 report and June 22, 2006 letter remain applicable. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty., expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this letter. 2 1 brag :1•Iemurnrl Hospital Presbyterian - ,1ltp/)/cmerlia/ (.ierrtrchrlica/ c 'ancrrltulinrr 1 ice :rnhel- 5. 2 O( 11-1(. E('l'r•n/c•ct 4V-i.i-(Ii-11191 It has been a pleasure to be of professional service to you. Please contact us if you have any questions or i f we can he of further assistance. Sincerely", MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. Lan-Anh Trail Staff Engineer Marshall Lew. Ph.D. Senior Principal Vice President Martin B. Hudson, Ph.D. Senior Principal Engineer Project Manager /': hQi$ (ic'otech1?OO5-aril?1(19/ HOAG A4c,nor•icr/1lIedicul ('an1 •rlDeI1V rahles1-19 ;-O5-1(191la(14 chic•.1.T•l1 (2 copies submitted) cc: KPFF Consulting Engineers Attn: Terang Kim 3 MACTEC engineering and constructing a better tomorrow June 22, 2006 Mr. Greg McClure Facilities Design and Construction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive; P.O. Box 6100 Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Subject: Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation Proposed MR[ Building Additions and Renovation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Dear McClure: We previously performed a geotechnical investigation for the subject project at the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California and presented the results in a report dated May 25, 2005. Subsequently, we provided geotechnical recommendations for alternative foundation types in a letter dated March 28, 2006. This letter presents our opinions regarding overexcavation concerns raised by Kemp Bros., the general contractor. According to Mr. Juan Hind -Rico of KPFF Consulting Engineers, Kemp Bros expressed concern about the need to overexcavate at the locations of footings supporting four new gravity columns (at N2.4/Am, N2.4/NE, N2.58/Dm, and 2m/E.5m) and two braced frames (along lines 4.5m and NJ) We do not anticipate having to overexcavate below the subject footings. Based on the available information, we expect to find natural soils below planned footing bottoms. Our inspector will verify that the soils exposed in the footing excavations are suitable. 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 letter. MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 200 Citadel Drive, • Los Angeles, CA 90040 • Phone: 323.889.5300 • 323.721.6700 www.mactec.com Hoag Memorial Hospital Pri...oyterian ••• Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation Jane 22. 2006 MATEC Project ,1953-05-1091 It has been a pleasure to be of professional service to you. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. Lan-Anh Iran Staff Engineer Carl C Kim Principal Engineer Project Manager P:1.1953 Geotech12005-projl51091 HOAG Memorial Medical CenterlDelicerables1d953-05-10911103.doeLT.:lt (2 copies submitted) Attachments cc: KPFF Consulting Engineers Attn: Juan I -finds -Rico 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER. Governor Department of Conservation CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 801 K Street • Mail Stop 12-32 • Sacramento. CA 95814-3531 telephone: 916-323-4399 • TDD: 916-324-2555 • Web Site: conservation.ca.gov/cgs Ms. Catherine F. Slater, CEG 2219, Senior Engineering Geologist CSlater@oshpd.state.ca.us M 916-653-8440 Facilities Development Division Office of Statewide Health Planning & Development 1600 Ninth Street, Suite 420 Sacramento, CA 95814-64 1 4 November 8, 2006 Subject: Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology for Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Emergency Care Unit and MRI Renovation One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, Orange County, CA 92658-6100 OSHPD Penult # HL-050402-30 - OSHIPD Facility # 10428 Hoag Hospital project #0413700 Dear Ms- Slater: In accordance with your.request and transmittal of documents, 'the California Geological Survey has performed an engineering geology and seismology review.to check for conformance with the, 2001 California Building Code; California Code of Regulations, Title 24, particularly Chapter. 16 (seismology), Chapter 18 (foundations), and Chapter 33(grading). This is a $31 million renovation and expansion of the existing Emergency Care Unit (ECU) and the MRI scanning building. We reviewed these two reports that were bound together in one document: Carl C. Kim, Registered Geotechnical Engineer 2620; and Lan-Anh Tran, Staff Engineer; 2006, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed MRI Building Additions and Renovation, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian: Mactec Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 200 Citadel Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90040; in 323-889-5300, Mactec project no. 4953-05-1091, Mactec report dated March 28, 2006; 8 pages. Kirkgard, Susan F., Certified Engineering Geologist 1754, Carl C. Kim, Registered Geotechnical Engineer 2620, Lan-Anh Tran, Staff Engineer, 2005, Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Additions to MRI Building, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian: Mactec Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 200 Citadel Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90040; n 323-889-5300, Mactec project no. 4953-05-1091, Mactec report dated October 26, 2005; 35 pages. Within the scope.of this review, the California Geological Survey performed these tasks: 0 review of geologic maps for the NewportBeach.area of Orange County; 20 evaluation of the earthquake ground - motion; 0 evaluation of the borehole logs and the geologic.cross-sections, Cl) evaluation of the geotechnical laboratory tests, and a5 -preparation of this review letter. .Several year ago, we inspected the campus of Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian where the California Geological Survey operates and maintains a strong -motion. accelerometer. For this new phase of construction, we did not perform a new geologic field -inspection. • Tire (Department of Conservation's mission is 10 pmteci Californians and their environment by: crmtecting Croes andproperty from earthquakes and -fa y:Odes;• Ensuring safe mining and oifand- gas drOng; Conserving California sfarmfand; and -Saving energy and -resources through recycling Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology for Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian ECU and MRI Renovation OSHPD Facility #10428 November 8, 2006 In the numbered paragraphs below, this review is keyed to the paragraph numbers of California Geological Survey Note 48, Checklist_ for the Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology Reports for California Public Schools, Hospitals, and Essential Services Buildings. Project Location . .. . 1. Site Location: OK, an index map was properly prepared (Figure 1). 2. Boreholes: OK, sufficient boreholes were drilled for this project with a relatively small footprint. Boreholes #1, 7 and 10 are used by the consultants, and a plot plan is shown in Figure 2. 3. Site Coordinates: Satisfactory. The consultants reported the site coordinates of the hospital campus from the Newport Beach 7%-minute Quadrangle: 1 17.9294 degrees west Longitude, and 33.6242 degrees north Latitude. 2 Engineering Geology 4. Regional Geologic and Fault Map: OK, a fault map of the Newport Beach region is provided in Figures 4 and 5. 5. Geologic Map of Site: OK, refer to Figure 4. 6. Subsurface Geology at Site: Satisfactorily described. 7. Geologic Cross Sections: Satisfactory. Refer to Figure 3. This is a two -layer stratigraphic model, with Quaternary terrace deposits (n 30+ feet thick) overlying siltstone of the Monterey Formation at depth. .8. Evaluation of Active Faulting & Coseismic Deformation: OK. The consultants have stated that there is no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone within this hospital campus. 9. Seismic Hazard Zones: OK, the official Newport Beach quadrangle of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Program was properly referenced. This project is not within either a liquefaction zone or a landslide zone. 10. Landslides: Satisfactory; not applicable to this elevated terrace. 11. Geotechnical Laboratory Testing: OK. 12. Expansive Soils: OK. 13. Geochemistry of the Geologic Subgrade: OK. 14. Flooding: OK. This site on an elevated terrace is not subject to flooding. Seismology & Calculation of Earthquake Ground Motion 15. Evaluation of Historic Seismicity: Satisfactory, refer to Figure 6. 16. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) Methodology: Satisfactory. 17. Upper -Bound Earthquake Ground -Motion: OK, the Upper -Bound Earthquake ground -motion, 10 percent chance of exceedance in 100 years, is properly cited and used. 18. Design -Basis Earthquake Ground -Motion: OK, proper use of code terminology. 19. Classify the Geologic Subgrade: OK, we concur that the geologic subgrade is appropriately classified as Type Sc" "very dense soil or soft rock" alluvium) from Table 16A-J of 2001 CBC. 20. Near -Source Coefficients: Satisfactory. On page 21, Na 1.3 and Nv 1.6 21. Peak Ground Acceleration: OK. On page 15 and 17, and Table 4, these ground motions are provided: Upper -Bound Earthquake Ground Motion, 10% chance of exceedance in 100.years Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAuBE = 0.53g .horizontal . Peak Spectral Acceleration, SA -1.28g at 0.3-second period Design -Basis Earthquake Ground Motion, 10% chance of exceedance in 50 years Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAOBE = 0.40g horizontal Peak Spectral Acceleration, SA -0.96g at 0.3-second period Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology for Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian ECU and MRI Renovation OSHPD Facility #10428 November 8, 2006 The California Geological Survey independently evaluated the ground motion using our 2003 CGS statewide model and a Type Sc (very dense soil) subgrade, and our computations yielded similar results_ 3 22. Normalized Spectral Acceleration: OK, refer to Figures 7 and 8 in the appendix. 23. California Seismic Zone 3 or 4: OK. This site in Orange County is within CBC Seismic Zone 4, so by definition, coefficient Z = 0.4 24. Scaled Time -Histories of Earthquake Ground -Motion: Not Applicable to this particular structure. Liquefaction Analysis 25. Geologic Setting: OK, the consultants have shown that the site is not subject to seismically -induced liquefaction because it is underlain by soft rock and located on a elevated terrace bluff that is far above the water table (n 66 feet below grade, as inferred from the downhole shear -wave velocities). 26. Liquefaction Methodology: OK, not applicable 27. Liquefaction Calculations: OK, not applicable 28. Seismic Settlement of the Entire Soil Column: OK, on page 2 of the March 28, 2006 report, the seismic settlement is estimated &'/2-inch (since deep caissons are planned). 29. Lateral Spreading: OK, not applicable to this relatively flat site. 30. Remedial Options for Liquefaction: OK, not applicable. 31. Acceptance Criteria for Liquefaction Remediation: OK, not applicable. Exceptional Geologic Hazards or Site Conditions: 32 to 43. OK; not applicable or not reviewed. Site Grading Plan Review & Foundation Plan Review 44. Areas of Cut & Fill, Preparation of Ground, Depth of Removals: OK. . 45. Geologic & Geotechnical Problems Anticipated During Grading Operations: OK. 46. Subdrainage Plans and HydrogeoIogy: OK (not applicable). 47. Cut -Fill prisms: OK. 48. Deep Foundation Plans: OK. The 8-page report dated March 28, 2006 contains information about the planned use of cast-in-drillhole piers (caissons). 49. Retaining Walls and Engineered Fill Buttresses: OK, soldier piles are planned for the braced excavation. Report Documentation 50. GeoIogy, Seismology, and Geotechnical References: OK. 51. Certified Engineering Geologist: OK; Rosalind Munro, CEG 1269. 52. Registered Geotechnical Engineer: OK; Dr. Marshall Lew, RGE 522 Conclusions 1. The engineering geology and geotechnical engineering reports for the Emergency Care Unit and MRI building have adequately evaluated the geologic subgrade for this site. These reports meet the intent of the California Building Code, CCR Title 24. 2. The seismology values shown in Table 4, and spectral diagrams shown in Figures 7 and 8 are approved: Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAuBE,=, 0.53g and PGADBE rz0.40g_ 7. Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology for Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian ECU and MRI Renovation OSHPD Facility #10428 November 8, 2006 Recommendations 1. The two reports prepared by Mactec are recommended for approval from an engineering geology and seismology viewpoint. It is recommended that all grading and foundation operations (caissons) be inspected during construction. At the completion of all grading and foundation work, a final as -built report should be prepared and copies submitted to OSHPD for final approval. Summary The consulting reports are adequate, and this project may proceed from an engineering geology and seismology perspective. If you have any further questions about this review letter, please send e-mail messages to < Robert.Sydnor@conservation.ca.gov > or telephone the California Geological Survey ! 916-323-4399. Reviewed by: JerYnifer Thornburg Senior Engineering Geologist M-AEG, M-GSA, M-AGU, M-EERI PG 5476, CHG 220, CEG 2240 Respectfully submitted, Robert H. Sydnor Senior Engineering Geologist PG 3267, CPG 4496, CHG 6, CEG 968 IM-AEG, M-ASCE, LM-SSA, M-EERI, LM-AGU, M-GSA, M-ASTM. M-AIPG, LM-AAAS Q�SS`ONAL o ROBERT H. i SYDNOR No. 6 \\\ CERTIFIED HYDRODEOLOGIST �oNAL v5 S. 0 ROBERT H. 01 n. SYDNOR -4 1. • No.968 - tP CERTIFIED 2 ENGINEERING 2 9J` . GEOLOGIST 2' OF CA‘-k� GF 0.4( r Jennifer Thornburg * No.2240 CERTIFIED Q ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST cAL`� Enclosure: California Geological Survey Note 48 (2 pages) Checklist for the Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology Reports for California Public Schools, Hospitals. and Essential Services Buildings OF C A� 4 Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology for Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian ECU and MRI Renovation OSHPD Facility #10428 November 8, 2006 ' Copies to: Rosalind Munro, CEG 1269, M-AEG. M-GSA Senior Engineering Geologist Mactec Engineering & Consulting, Inc_ 200 Citadel Drive Los Angeles, CA 90040-1554 Dr. Marshall Lew, RGE 522, M-ASCE, M-EERK. M-SSA Principal Geotechnical Engineer and Executive Vice President Mactec Engineering & Consulting, Inc. 200 Citadel Drive Los Angeles, CA 90040-1554 Ramzi Hodali, SE 3552, M-SEAOC, M-ASCE Principal Structural Engineer KPFF Structural Engineers 6080 Center Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Sylvia Botero, Architect C-20224, MA Architect Supervising Architect RBB Architects, Inc_ 10980 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024-3905 Langston Trigg, Jr., AIA Architect Vice President for Facilities Design & Construction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, CA 92658-6100 cell M. 949-278-8223 rmunro@mactec.com office g 323-889-5366 cell 213-280-3888 mlew@mactec.com office M 323-889-5325 310-665-1536 rhodali@kpff-la_COm g 310-473-3555 sbotero@rbbinc.com g 949-764-4479 Langston.Trigg@hoaghospital.org 5 17. Upper -Bound Earthquake Ground -Motion — 10% chance of exceedance in 100 years: ate & use 18. Design-Racis Earthquake Ground -Motion — 10% chance of ezceedance in 50 years cite & use 19. Characterize and Gassify the Geologic Subgrade from Table 16A-1 of Lode; shear -wave velodty 20. Near -Source Coefficients and Distance to Nearest Active Fault — if applicable Na, Nv, Ca, CV 21. Peak Ground Acceleration for UBE and DBE levels of ground -motion - summary PGA values 22. Normalized Spectral Acceleration - Site -specific spectral acceleration is required for dynamic analysis for irregular and tall buildings. Use = 5 percent viscous damping for both UBE and DBE ground -motion. 23. Seismic Zone 3 or 4 — determine appropriate zone from Figure 16A-2 and Section 1629A4.1 24. Scaled Time -Histories of Earthquake Ground -Motion - as applicable for base -isolated structures California Geological Survey — Note 48 Checklist for the Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology Reports for California Public Schools, Hospitals, and Essential Services Buildings January Note 48 is used by the California Geological Survey (CGS) to determine adequacy and completeness of consulting engineering geology, seismology. and geotechntcai reports that are prepared under California Code of Regulations, Title 24, California Building Code. CCR Title 24 applies to California Public Schools. Hospitals, Skilled Nursing Facilities. and Essential Services Buildings. The Building Official for public schools is the Division of the State Architect (DSA). Hospitals and Skilled Nursing Facilities in California are under the jurisdiction of the Office of Statewide Health Planning & Development (OSHPD). The California Geological Survey serves a devicgsunder �a to these two state agencies for engineering geology and seismology review purposes. Project Name: C(J * /1 i I SV11-1311t.G5 Location: /JOr1-G H7P5PhT / Ale ul P02i"734/ � 61• OSHPD or- t file # ! 0 42 Date Reviewed: Alive-111, Sr Review by: California Certified Engineering Geologist # Checklist Item or Parameter within Consulting Report NIA = not applicable NIR = not reviewed; not evaluated at this time Project Location 1. Site Location Map, Street Address, County Name, Plot Plan with Building Footprint 2. Adequate Number of Boreholes or Trenches - one per 5,000 ft2, with minimum of 2 for any one building 3. Site Coordinates (latitude & longitude) -correctly plotted on a Th-minute USGS quadrangle base -map Engineering Geology 4. Regional Geology and Regional Fault Maps — concise page -sized illustrations with site plotted 5. Geologic Map of Site — detailed (large-scale) geologic map with proper symbols and geologic legend 6. Subsurface Geology at Site — engineering geology desmptron summarized from boreholes or trendy logs 7. Geologic Cross -Sections --several detailed geologic sedions showing pertinent foundations & site grading 8. Active Faulting and Coseismic Deformation Across Site — Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones for active faults: excavation of fault trendies 50-foot setbacks from fault plane 9. Geologic Hazard Zones — Seismic Hazard Zone Maps (liquefaction & landslides) Provide page -sized extract of official map showing Iiquefadion and landslide zones from CalifomiaGeologiwl Survey (as applicable) and any pertinent geologic mao from theSafety Element of the loci agency (dty or county). 10. Landslides — both on -site & on adjacent hillslope property (above or below); debris flows & roddalis 11. Geotechnical Testing of Representative Samples — broad suite of appropriate geotechnical tests 12. Expansive Soils — Clay Mineralogyof the Geologic Subgrade tbssify by Table 18-1-B & remea;ate 13. Geochemistry of Geologic Subgrade - Soluble Sulfates and Corrosive Soils Sp cify either Type It or Type V portland cement Typical soluble sulfates indude gypsum and jarosite. 14. Flooding & Severe Erosion - discuss FEMA Rood Zones; show site plotted on official map (if applicable) Adequately Described; Satisfactory X X x x oC x Seismology & Calculation of Earthquake Ground -Motion 15. Evaluation of Historic Seismicity — significant earthquakes that affected the site in the past 200 years x 16. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis ( PSHA) Evaluation of Earthquake Ground -Motion X 5p x ?"2.4 Ml� Additional Data Needed; Not Satisfactory 1 1 1 1 1 ( Checklist Item or Parameter within Consulting Report NIR = not reviewed; not evaluated at this time WA = not applicable Adequately Descn-bed; Satisfactory Additional Data Needed; Not Satisfactory 25. Geologic :Setting for Occurrence of Seismically -Induced Liquefaction: • - • applicable to any groundwater surface <50 ft. depth; for calculations use historic -highest ground -water ' + -low-density alluvium, typically SPT N<35 composed of sands orsilty sands with non -plastic fines • moderate earthquake ground -motion, typically PGAuc >0.1g. - . X • 26. Liquefaction Methodology - NSFiMCEER treatise on liquefaction by Youd. Idriss, and 19 others, Oct. 2001 issue of ASCE kvmalofGentednta/ffGeoenvimm /. Fgineering & CGS Special Publication 117 /� f 27. Liquefaction Calculations -- based on detailed geologic a-oss-section and Safely Factor SF<1.3 ,AA.1 28. Seismic Settlement of entire Soil Column at relevant Boreholes (both unsaturated & saturated) total & differential as S/L Provide complete calculations (no estimates). input PGA = UBE ground -motion ...-1- r 29. Lateral Spreading due to Liquefaction - when near a free -face (river bank, canal, cut -slope) "-(A. 30. Remedial Options for Liquefaction - several appropriate options to remediate liquefaction effects r k 31. Acceptance Criteria -for Liquefadion Remediation - needed for subsequent remediation contract /4.44 _ Exceptional Geologic Hazards and Complicated Site Conditions These erceptia al items are not 4fpical/yapp1cabkstaternde; butmaybe pert to a complicated site Use prudent and careful analysts for all LG? Tale 24 sites to avoid predicamentsand erpenslie delaysin construction ofpublic school and hospital sites: This list of erceptonalgeologic hazards nil help to avoid •edcs vh dr7ionalinmrmabonisreouired byrhereviewing agarcy N/R= notrevisved•not evaluated at this tine mcsundersTandmgs andbaoF dr ena 32. Phase l & 11 Environmental Site Assessment Work -ASTM Test E-1527 & Test E-1903 for toxics 33. Hazardous Materials - methane gas. hydrogen sulfide gas, tar seeps, high-pressure gas pipelines, etc 34. Calif. Environmental Quality Act - applicable Environmental Impact Report data, paleontology, etc. 35. Ground -Water Quality - safe drinking watersupplies for nrral or•suburban campuces (if applicable) 36. On -Site Septic Systems - for rural or suburban campuses, evaluate septic leach -field system • 37. Non -Tectonic Faulting and Hydrocollapse of Alluvial Fan Soils - due to anthropic use of water 38. Regional Subsidence - due to sustained withdrawal of fluids (ground -water extraction & petroleum) 39. Volcanic Eruption - only near active volcanic centers; refer to USGS Bulletin 1847 (Miller, 1979) 40. Tsunami or Seiche - only for low-lying sites dose to California coastline or large lakes and reservoirs 1 41. Asbestos - in formations associated with serpentine and tremolite. Refer to CGS Special Publication 124. - • 42. Radon-222 Gas - typically within organic -rich marine shales of the California Coast Ranges.I., 43. Other Geologic Hazards - use professional judgment for complicated or unusual geologic hazards -Plan Review and Foundation -Plan Review 44. Art -as of Cut & Fill, Preparation of Ground, Depth of Removals and Recompaction X 45. Geologic & Geotechnical Inspections and Problems Anticipated During Grading - called inspections for CEG or RGE (removal & recompadion; canyon dean -out shear --key for buttress fill) 46. Subdrainage Plans for Ground Water and Surface Water - show details of planned subdrains V 47. Cut -Fill Prisms-seisnnc compression and incobered gruund-motion across the art -fit line of hillside pads )C 48. Deep Foundations, Structural Mat Foundations (only as applicable) - piles, belted caissons, etc. )< 49. Retaining Walls, Engineered Fi1i Buttresses, Soil -Nailed Walls, Geosynthetics, Gabions, etc. X 50. Geology, Seismology, and Geotechnical References - current & adequate published citations -)( 51. Engineering Geology report signed by Certified Engineering Geologist With CEG seat or number 3 52. Geotechnical Engineering report signed by Registered Geotechnical Engineer with RGE seal .)( Robert H. Sydnor, RG 3267, CHG 6, CPG 4496, CEG 968 California Geological Survey, Note 48 January I, 2004 www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs MACTEC engineering and constructing a better tomorrow March 28, 2006 Mr. Fidel Gonzalez Senior Project Manager Facilities Design and Construction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive; P.O. Box 6100 Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Subject: Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation Proposed MRI Building Additions and Renovation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Dear Mr. Gonzalez: We are pleased to submit the results of our supplemental geotechnical investigation for alternative foundation types for the proposed MRI building additions at the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California. We previously performed a geotechnical investigation for the proposed addition and presented the results .in a report dated May 25, 2005. PROJECT DESCRIPTION As described in our May 25, 2005 report, additions to the existing MRI building are planned. We previously provided recommendations for new spread footings or mat -type foundations to accommodate the proposed MRI additions. The footings were recommended to be established in the dense natural sand soils about 3 to 9 feet below the lowest adjacent grade or floor level to extend below the existing uncertified fill soils. It is our understanding that excavation of the existing fill adjacent the MRI building to construct mat foundations would be difficult and may require shoring. As an alternative to avoid surcharging the adjacent basement walls of the existing MRI building, drilled pile foundations may be used to support the proposed additions. All other recommendations in our May 25, 2005 report remain applicable. We understand that the existing MRI building will be renovated as part of the project. The renovation will include the replacement of the existing moment frame for the building with a new braced frame. MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 200 Citadel Drive • los Angeles, CA 90040 • Phone: 323.889.5300 • 323.721.6700 www.mactec.com Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations March 28, 2006 MACTEC Project 9953-05-1091 RECOMMENDATIONS To avoid excavation of the existing fill adjacent to the proposed additions and to avoid surcharging the existing basement walls, the proposed additions to the MRI building and replacement braced frame system may be supported on drilled, cast -in -place concrete piles. The existing MRI building is supported on spread footings that have already undergone settlement due to static loads. The use of pile foundations will minimize settlement of the new braced frame and reduce the potential for differential settlement between it and the MRI building. Segments above a 1: I plane project upward from the base of adjacent basement walls should be isolated from surrounding soils. Sonotubes or similar materials may be used. Drilled Pile Foundations The allowable downward and upward capacities of 24-, 30- and 36-inch-diameter drilled, cast -in - place concrete piles are presented as a function of penetration into natural soils below adjacent basement walls on Figure I, Drilled Pile Capacities. The portions of the piles isolated from surround soils should not be counted towards the length of piles required to support the load based on Figure 1. The pile capacities shown on Figure I are dead -plus -live load capacities; a one-third increase may be used for wind or seismic loads. The capacities presented are based on the strength of the soils; the compressive and tensile strength of the pile sections should be checked to verify the structural capacity of the piles. Based on the anticipated loading, piles in groups are not expected. However, if piles in group are required, they should be spaced at least 21/2 diameters on centers. If the piles are so spaced, no reduction in the downward capacities need be considered due to group action. Settlement We estimate the settlement of the proposed structure supported on piles in the manner recommended to be Tess than % inch and the differential settlement to be less than % inch. Lateral Capacities Lateral loads may be resisted by the piles, by soil friction on the side of the pile caps and by the passive resistance of the soils on pile caps. Please note that piles within 8 diameters of adjacent basement walls and loaded toward these basement walls will impose surcharge pressures. If existing basement walls are deemed incapable of accommodating the surcharge pressure, a gap or compressible material should be installed between the piles and surrounding soils in the direction of the basement walls. This gap or compressible material should extend to a depth of 10 feet or to the base of the adjacent basement wall, whichever is shorter. 2 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations March 28, 2006 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 It has been a pleasure to be of professional service to you. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. Lan-Anh Tran Staff Engineer Carl C. Kim Principal Engineer Project Manager em s ' s `I" No. 2620 � L Exp. 6-30-06 TECIAA OF P:170131 Geotech12005 proj151091 HOAG Memorial Medical CenterlDeliverables14953-05-10911t02.dociLT.:1t (2 copies submitted) Attachments cc: KPFF Consulting Engineers Attn: Juan Hinds -Rico 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • ALLOWABLE DOWNWARD PILE CAPACITY IN NATURAL SOIL(kips) 0 0 a) 10 H z w 20 0 ca H 30 Q 40 50 100 150 200 250 300 _ _ IIII �' 1 1 1 1 I I I I► i 1 1 1 1 1► 1 1►► 1 1 1 24-inch Diameter 30-inch Diameter 36-inch Diameter - — — • \ • • \ I I I I 1 VI I 1 1 1 1 1 1 N 1 ''I. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 25 50 75 I00 125 ALLOWABLE UPWARD PILE CAPACITY (kips) 150 NOTES: (I) The indicated values refer to the total of dead plus live loads; a one-third increase may be used when considering wind or seismic loads. (2) Piles in groups should be spaced a minimum of 2-1/2 pile diameters on centers. (3) The indicated values are based on the strength of the soils; the actual pile capacities may be limited to lesser values by the strength of the piles_ Prepared/Date: VB 3/13/06 Checked/Date: LT Hoag Memorial Hospital South Building Los Angeles, California MACT EC DRILLED PILE CAPACITIES Project No. 4953-05-1091 Figure 1 2005-proj'.5109I'calcu►ations \axial pile capacity: pilecapacrty.gr( 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 eirrir MACTEC engineering and constructing a better tomorrow October 26, 2005 Mr. Fidel Gonzalez Senior Project Manager Facilities Design and Construction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive; P.O. Box 6100 Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Subject: Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Additions to MRI Building .Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Dear Mr. Gonzalez: We are pleased to submit the results of our geotechnical investigation for the additions to the MRI Building at Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California_ Our services were conducted in general accordance with our proposal dated March 18, 2005, as authorized by you on April 6, 2005. The scope of our services was planned based on information provided by Mr. Juan Hinds -Rico of KPFF. Consulting Engineers who also advised us of the structural features of the proposed additions. The results of our 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. 1 MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc_ 200 Citadel Drive • Los Angeles, CA 90040 • Phone: 323.889.5300 • Fax: 323.721.6700 www.madec.com Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 It has been a pleasure to be of professional service to you. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (14-"/ Lan-Anh Tran Staff Engineer Carl C. Kim Principal Engineer Project Manager Susan F. Kirkgar Senior Engineering Geologist lr• ili ti CERTIFIED litiEE .Ilia GEOLO(.T P:170131 Geotech12005 proj151091 HOAG Memorial Medical CenterlDeliverablest4953-05-1091rpt01.doc/LT::tm (4 copies submitted) cc: (1) KPFF Consulting Engineers. Attn: Juan Hinds -Rico REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO MRI BUILDING HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN ONE HOAG DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN Newport Beach, California MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. Los Angeles, California October 26, 2005 Project 4953-05-1091 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES iii SUMMARY i 1.0 SCOPE 2 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3 3.0 FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS 3 4.0 GEOLOGY 4 4.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING 4 4.2 GEOLOGIC MATERIALS 4 4.3 GROUND WATER • 5 4.4 FAULTS 6 4.5 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS I2 4.6 ESTIMATED PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION 16 4.7 GEOLOGIC CONCLUSIONS 17 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 17 5.1 FOUNDATIONS 18 6.2 DYNAMIC SITE CHARACTERISTICS 20 6.3 FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT 22 6.4 PAVING 22 6.5 GRADING 23 6.6 GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION . 25 7.0 GENERAL LIMITATIONS AND BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS 26 8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 27 TABLES FIGURES APPENDIX : CURRENT AND PRIOR FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ii Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 9953-05-1091 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1 Major Named Faults Considered to be Active in Southern California 2 Major Named Faults Considered to be Potentially Active in Southern California 3 Pseudospectral Velocity in Inches/Second 4 Pseudospectral Acceleration in g Figure 1 Site Location Map 2 Plot Plan 3 Geologic Section 4 Local Geology 5 Regional Faults 6 Regional Seismicity 7 Horizontal Response Spectra — 10% Probability of Exceedence in 50 years 8 Horizontal Response Spectra — 10% Probability of Exceedence in 100 years Ill Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTECProject 4953-05-109/ SUMMARY We have completed our geotechnical investigation of the site of the proposed addition to the MRI Building at the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian campus in Newport Beach, California. The proposed 1- and 2-story building additions will be approximately 1,100 and 4,700 square feet, respectively. Our current and prior subsurface explorations, engineering analyses, and foundation design recommendations are summarized below_ Based on the available geologic data, active or potentially active faults with the potential for surface fault rupture are not known to be Iocated 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 additions 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_ To supplement our prior data at the project site, which consists of two borings (prior Borings 7 and 10) in the immediate area of the proposed additions, one verification boring was drilled to a depth of 50 feet below the existing grade (bgs). We encountered fill ranging in depth from 3 to 9 feet below the ground surface. The natural soils consist primarily of day and sand. Ground water was encountered at a depth of about 42 feet below the ground surface at the new boring location. The prior borings did not encounter water within the maximum 50 foot depth explored. The upper clay soils are moderately expansive. Fill soils are not suitable for support of the proposed addition, if encountered_ The proposed structures can be supported on spread footings established in properly compacted fill or undisturbed natural soils. The on -site soils are suitable for use as compacted fill, and the building floor slab may be supported on grade. 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 1.0 SCOPE This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed additions to the MRI Building at Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California. The project location is shown on Figure 1, Site Location Map. The location of existing buildings, the proposed additions, and exploratory borings used in the current study are shown in Figure 2, Plot Plan. We relied on our prior and current subsurface exploration and laboratory testing program in our evaluation of the geotechnical conditions at the site. Our services also included of evaluating the geologic and seismic hazards at the site to meet the requirements of the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) and the California Geological Survey (CGS). In addition to the current explorations and laboratory testing, we also relied on the results of a prior geotechnical investigation of the site by our predecessor firm Law/Crandall (L/C Job No. 69080). The recommendations in the current report were developed in part using geotechnical information from the previous investigation. We have reviewed the prior report and accept responsibility for the use and interpretation of the data presented herein. The results of the current and previous filed explorations and Laboratory tests, which form the basis of our recommendations, are presented in Appendix A. 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 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 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian and their design consultants to be used solely for the design of the additions to the hospital. The report has not been prepared for use by other parties, and may not contain sufficient information 'for purposes of other parties or other uses. 2 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) facilities are planned adjacent to the existing Ancillary Building at Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California. A 2-story building is to be constructed to the north of the Ancillary Building, and a single -story building addition is proposed to the south of the Ancillary Building. The plan footprints of the proposed 2- story and single -story MRI additions will be approximately 4,700 and 1,100 square feet, respectively. We understand that no basement levels are planned for either addition. Maximum and minimum dead -plus -live column load is about 310 and 110 kips, respectively. The Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian campus is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road. An emergency entrance currently occupies the site of the 2-story addition and will be removed as part. of the construction. Paved parking lots and driveways occupy the rest of the sites. The ground surface of the site is generally level. Various underground utilities cross the site 3.0 FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS The soil conditions beneath the site were explored by drilling one boring to a depth of 50 feet below the existing grade (bgs) at the locations shown on Figure 2. In addition, subsurface data in the vicinity of the proposed additions is also available from exploration performed previously. Details of the current and prior explorations and the logs of the borings are presented in Appendix A Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples obtained from current and prior 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. • Consolidation. • Stabilometer (R-value). Corrosion. 3 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 All testing was performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM specifications. Details of the current and prior laboratory testing program and test results are presented in Appendix A. 4.0 GEOLOGY 4.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING The site 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 the 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 that are incised into the Iate Pleistocene age land surface. Two such features are the Santa Ana Gap, which is occupied by the Santa Ana River northwest of the Newport Mesa, and Upper Newport Bay, which separates the Newport Mesa from the San Joaquin Hills to the east. The site is near the southern end of the Los Angeles Basin, a structural depression that contains great thickness of sedimentary rocks. The inferred subsurface distribution of the geologic materials encountered in our explorations are shown in Figure 3, Geologic Section_ The relationship of the site to local geologic features is depicted in Figure 4, Local Geology, and the faults in the vicinity of the site are shown in Figure 5, Regional Faults. Figure 6, Regional Seismicity, shows the locations of major faults and earthquake epicenters in Southem California. 4.2 GEOLOGIC MATERIALS The site is locally mantled by artificial fill placed during the initial site grading and later grading for various buildings. Artificial fill was encountered in our previous borings drilled in 1969 at the site of the Ancillary Building (prior to construction) to a maximum depth of 4.6 meters (15 feet). During construction, pre-existing artificial fill within the Ancillary Building area, consisting of clayey sand, silty sand, sand, sandy clay, was removed and replaced as engineered fill compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density per ASTM D1557-66T method of compaction, modified to use three layers. 4 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation • October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 As shown on Figure 3, Geologic Section, artificial encountered in our current boring and our previous Boring 7 (drilled in 1969 in the area of the proposed additions) ranges from 0.9 to 23 meters (3 to 9 feet) in thickness. Based on the materials encountered in Boring 7, the artificial fill consists of a mixture of sandy silt and clayey silt. The fill encountered in the current boring consists of base course underlain by Pleistocene age marine terrace deposits composed of varying amounts of stiff clay, silt, and dense sand. The terrace deposits 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. Monterey Formation bedrock is 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 (California Department of Water Resources, 1967) 4.3 GROUND WATER The site is located in Section 28 of Township 6 South, Range 10 West and is located outside of the regional ground -water basin of the Orange County Coastal Plain. Ground water was not typically encountered in our previous borings drilled at and in the immediate vicinity of the Ancillary Building. However, ground water could be present locally within the terrace deposits and at the contact between the terrace deposits and the underlying less permeable bedrock 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. Ground water was encountered in our current boring (Boring 1) at Elevation +11.4 meters (+37.3 feet), which corresponds to a depth of 12.9 meters (42.3 feet) beneath the existing ground surface_ Additionally, ground water was encountered in one of the borings previously drilled at the site of the Ancillary Building in 1969. In Boring 6, ground water was encountered at Elevation +9.1 meters (+30 feet), which corresponds to a depth of 10.7 meters (35 feet) beneath the existing ground surface. This water seepage is locally perched water and is not representative of the regional ground -water table_ 5 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian—Repor7 of Geotechnical Investigation October 26. 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1.091 4.4 FAULTS The numerous faults in Southern California include active, potentially active, and inactive faults. The criteria for these major groups are based on criteria developed by the California Geological Survey (previously the California Division of Mines and Geology) for the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Program (Hart, 1999). By definition, an active fault is one that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 1I,000 years). A potentially active fault is a fault that has demonstrated surface displacement of Quaternary age deposits (last I.6 million years). Inactive faults have not moved in the last 1.6 million years. A list of nearby active faults and the distance in kilometers between the site and the nearest point on the fault, the maximum magnitude, and the slip rate for the fault is given in Table 1. A similar list for potentially active faults is presented in Table 2. The faults in the vicinity of the site are shown in Figure 5. Active Faults Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone The nearest active fault to the site is the North Branch fault of the Newport -Inglewood fault zone (NTFZ) located approximately.0.9 kilometer to the south-southwest. Bryant (1998) identifies and summarizes the principle evidence for the recent faulting (late Pleistocene and Holocene) along the previously mapped traces of the NIFZ. Bryant identifies three northwest -trending faults in the area shown in Figure 4. The northern -most fault was identified by vague tonal lineaments in the Holocene alluvium observed on aerial photographs and documented offset in the 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 the 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 between the terrace deposits and 6 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 the Monterey Formation 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 Ancillary Building. The fault offsets Miocene age Monterey Formation and possibly the Pleistocene age terrace deposits_ The fault coinsides 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 4. The California Geological Survey (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1986) projects the North Branch fault passing about 150 meters southwest of the hospital campus and 0.9 kilometer south- southwest of the Ancillary Building, as shown in Figure 4. Palos Verdes Fault Zone An offshore segment of the active Palos Verdes fault zone is located 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 lithological changes in the Tertiary age rocks across the fault. A series of marine terrace deposits in the Palos Verdes Hills were uplifted as a result of movement along the fault during the Pleistocene epoch. Geophysical data indicate the base of offshore Holocene age deposits in San Pedro Bay are offset (Clarke et al_, 1985). A later investigation by Stephenson et al. (1995) that included aerial photograph interpretation, geophysical studies, and limited trenching identify several active onshore branches of the fault. However, no historic large magnitude earthquakes are associated with this fault_ Whittier Fault Zone The active Whittier fault zone is located approximately 34 kilometers north-northeast of the site. The northeast -trending Whittier fault extends along the south flank of the Puente Hills from the Santa Ana River on the northeast of 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. 1n the Brea-Olinda Oil Field, the Whittier fault displaces Pliestocene 7 1 1 111 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26. 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 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. San Andreas Fault Zone The active San Andreas fault zone is located 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 of the fault is approximately 450 kilometers long and extends from the Transverse Ranges west of Tejon Pass on the north to the Mexican border and beyond on the south. 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 Magnitude 8.0 Fort Tejon earthquake was the last major earthquake along the San Andreas fault zone in Southern California. Blind Thrust Faults Several buried thrust faults, commonly referred to as blind thrusts, underlie the Los Angeles Basin at depth. These faults are not exposed at the ground surface and are typically identified at depths greater than 3 kilometers. These faults do not present a potential surface fault rupture hazard. However, the following described blind thrust faults are considered active and potential sources for future earthquakes. San Joaquin Hilts Thrust Until recently, the southern Los Angeles Basin has been estimated to have a low seismic hazard relative to the greater Los Angeles region (Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 1995; Dolan et al., 1995). This estimation is generally based on the fewer number of known active faults, and the lower rates of historic seismicity for this area. However, several recent studies by Grant et al. (2000, 2002) suggest that an active blind thrust fault system underlies the San Joaquin Hilts. This postulated blind thrust fault is believed to be a faulted anticlinal fold, parallel to the Newport - Inglewood fault zone (NJFZ) but considered a distinctly separate seismic source (Grant et al., 2002). The recency of movement and Holocene slip rate of this fault are not known. However, the fault, if it 1 8 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 exists, has been estimated to be capable of producing a Magnitude 6.8 to 7.3 earthquake (Grant et al., 2002). This estimation is based primarily on coastal geomorphology and age -dating of marsh deposits that are elevated above the current coastline. The San Joaquin Hills Thrust underlies the site at a depth (greater than 3 kilometers). This thrust fault is not exposed at the surface and does not present a potential surface fault rupture hazard. However, the San Joaquin Hills Thrust is an active feature that can generate future earthquakes. The California Geological Survey (2003) considers this fault to be active and estimates an average slip rate of 0.5 mm/yr and a maximum magnitude of 6.6 for the San Joaquin Hills Thrust. Puente Hills Blind Thrust The Puente Hills Blind Thrust (PHBT) is defined based on seismic reflection profiles, petroleum well data, and precisely located seismicity (Shaw and others, 2002). This blind thrust fault system extends eastward from downtown Los Angeles to Brea (in northern Orange County). The PHBT includes three north -dipping segments, named from east to west as the Coyote Hills segment, the Santa Fe Springs segment, and the Los Angeles segment. These segments are overlain by folds expressed at the surface as the Coyote Hills, Santa Fe Springs Anticline, and the Montebello Hills. The Santa Fe Springs segment of the PHBT is believed to be the causative fault of the October 1, 1987 Whittier Narrows Earthquake (Shaw and others, 2002). The vertical surface projection of the PHBT is approximately 27 kilometers north of the site at the closest point. Postulated earthquake scenarios for the PHBT include single segment fault ruptures capable of producing an earthquake of magnitude 6.5 to 6.6 (Mw) and a multiple segment fault rupture capable of producing an earthquake of magnitude 7.1 (Mw). The PHBT is not exposed at the ground surface and does not present a potential for surface fault rupture. However, based on deformation of late Quaternary age sediments above this fault system and the occurrence of the Whittier Narrows earthquake, the PHBT is considered an active fault capable of generating future earthquakes beneath the Los Angeles Basin. An average slip rate of 0.7 nun/yr and a maximum magnitude of 7.1 are estimated by the California Geological Survey (2003) for the Puente Hills Blind Thrust. 9 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Upper Elysian Park The Upper Elysian Park fault is a blind thrust fault that overlies the Los Angeles and Santa Fe Springs segments of the Puente Hills Thrust (Oskin et al., 2000 and Shaw et al., 2002). The eastern edge of the Upper Elysian Park fault is defined by the northwest -trending Whittier fault zone. The vertical surface projection of the Upper Elysian Park fault is approximately 45 kilometers north- northwest of the site at its closest point. Like other blind thrust faults in the Los Angeles area, the Upper Elysian Park fault is not exposed at the surface and does not present a potential surface rupture hazard; however, the Upper Elysian Park fault should be considered an active feature capable of generating future earthquakes. An average slip rate of 1.3 mm/yr and a maximum magnitude of 6.4 are estimated by the California Geological Survey (2003) for the Upper Elysian Park fault. Northridge Thrust The Northridge Thrust, as defined by Petersen et al. (1996), is an inferred deep thrust fault that is considered the eastern extension of the Oak Ridge fault. The Northridge Thrust is located beneath the majority of the San Fernando Valley and is believed to be the causative fault of the January 17, 1994 Northridge earthquake. This thrust fault is not exposed at the surface and does not present a potential surface fault rupture hazard. However, the Northridge Thrust is an active feature that can generate future earthquakes. The vertical surface projection of the Northridge Thrust is approximately 75 kilometers northwest of the site at the closest point. The California Geological Survey (2003) estimates an average slip rate of 1.5 mm/yr. and a maximum magnitude of 7.0 for the Northridge Thrust_ Potentially Active Faults Pelican Hill Fault The closest potentially active fault to the site is the Pelican Hill fault located approximately 4.0 kilometers to the east-northeast. The Pelican Hill fault is believed to be a probable branch of the Newport -Inglewood fault zone and 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 10 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 9953-05-1091 (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 State Geologist does not consider this fault to be active (California Geological Survey, 2003). Los Alamitos Fault The potentially active Los Alamitos fault is located approximately 21 kilometers northwest of the site. This fault tends 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 the west side of the fault displaced up relative to the east side. There is no evidence that this fault has offset Holocene age alluvial deposits (Ziony and "Jones, 1989). Additionally, the State Geologist does not consider this fault to be active (California Geological Survey, 2003). El Modeno Fault The potentially active El Modeno fault is located 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 California Geological Survey (2003) and, Ziony and Jones (1989) do not identity this fault as an active fault. Peralta Hills Fault The potentially active Peralta Hills fault is located approximately 25 kilometers north-northeast of the site. This reverse fault is about 8 kilometers long and generally tends 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. The California Geological Survey (2003) and, Ziony and Jones (1989) do not identity this fault as an active fault. II Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 9953-05-109/ 4.5 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Fault Rupture The site is not within a currently established Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for surface fault rupture hazards. The closest splay of the active Newport -Inglewood fault zone is located approximately 0.9 kilometers south-southwest of the site. However, this portion of the fault is not included in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone because the fault trace is not sufficiently well- defined. The closest Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone to the site, established for another segment of the Newport -Inglewood fault zone, is located approximately 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 MRI building additions is considered low. Seismicity Earthquake Catalog Data The seismicity of the region surrounding the site was determined from research of an electronic database of seismic data (Southern California Seismographic Network, 2005)_ This database includes earthquake data compiled by the California Institute of Technology from 1932 through 2004 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 377 earthquakes of Richter magnitude 4.0 and greater occurred from 1932 through 2004; four earthquakes of magnitude 6.0 or greater occurred between 1906 and 1931; and one earthquake of magnitude 7.0 or greater occurred between 1812 and 1905. A list of these earthquakes is presented as Table 3. Epicenters of moderate and major earthquakes (greater than magnitude 6.0) are shown in Figure 6_ 12 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-/09/ The information for each earthquake 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 Ietter code for the quality factor of the data is presented on the first page of the table. Historic Earthquakes A number of earthquakes of moderate to major magnitude have occurred in the Southern California area within about the last 70 years. A partial 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 (Kilometers) Long Beach March 10, 1933 6.4 4 SW Tehachapi July 21, 1952 7.5 190 NW San Fernando February 9, 1971 6.6 98 NNW Whittier Narrows October 1, 1987 5.9 50 NNW Sierra Madre June 28, 1991 5.8 72 N Landers June 28, 1992 7.3 147 NE Big Bear June 28, 1992 6.4 118 NE Northridge January 17, 1994 6.7 86 NW Hector Mine October 16, 1999 7.1 190 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 by proper engineering design and construction in conformance with current building codes and engineering practices. 13 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Slope Stability The gently sloping topography in the site vicinity 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 150 meters (500 feet) the east of the proposed MRI building additions. 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 MRI building additions is not within an area susceptible to slope instability. There are no known landslides near the site, nor is the site in the path of any known or potential landslides. 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). Liquefaction and Seismic -Induced Settlement Liquefaction potential is greatest where the ground water 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. According to the California Division of Mines and Geology (1998) and the County of Orange Safety Element (1995), the site is not within an area identified as having a potential for liquefaction_ Groundwater is not expected to be present in significant quantities above a depth of 15 meters (50 feet) below the existing ground surface. The groundwater encountered in our borings at the site appears to be locally perched water and not representative of the regional groundwater table. In general, the natural soils beneath the site, which consist primarily of dense sand and stiff clay and silt, are not considered susceptible to liquefaction. Subsurface materials encountered below Elevation +11.4 and +12.9 meters consist predominantly of clay soils and Monterey Formation bedrock, neither of which is considered susceptible to liquefaction. 14 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 As part of our evaluation of liquefaction potential at the project site, a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) using the computer program EZ-FRISK, Version 7.11 (Risk Engineering, 2005), was performed to estimate the Magnitude-7.5-adjusted peak ground. acceleration (PGA) for the ground motion with a 10% probability of being exceeded in 100 years (designated as the Upper Bound Earthquake, UBE). The PGA was estimated using the attenuation relationships of Abrahamson & Silva (1997), Sadigh et al. (1997), and Boore et al. (1997) with equal weight. For the Abrahamson & Silva (1997) and Sadigh et al. (1997) attenuation relationships, a deep soil site classification was used. For the Boore et al. (1997) attenuation relationship, the recommended shear wave velocity (310 meters per second) for a typical soil site was used. The Magnitude 7.5 adjusted UBE PGA calculated as described above is 0.53g. The liquefaction potential at the project site was evaluated using the Magnitude 7.5 adjusted UBE PGA, the results of the SPTs performed in our boring, and two ground -water levels: the historic - high of 30 feet bgs and our design ground -water level of 42 feet bgs. The liquefaction potential was computed according to procedures described in the Youd and Idriss, 1997 (NCEER Technical Report 97-0022) consensus publication on liquefaction evaluation, and Youd et al., 2001 summary report from 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshop on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. Our results indicate that ''/ inches or less of total liquefaction -induced settlement may occur at the hospital site due to the DBE or.UBE with a rise in ground -water to historic -high levels. The potential for lateral spreading at the site is considered Iow. Seismically -induced settlement is often caused by loose to medium -dense granular soils densified during ground shaking. Dry and partially saturated soils as well as saturated granular soils are subject to seismically -induced settlement. The dense granular soils encountered in our borings are not in the loose to medium -dense category. We have estimated the seismic -induced settlement at the site to be less than 1/4 inch. Therefore, the potential for seismic -induced settlement to adversely° impact the proposed additions is considered low. 15 1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Tsunamis, Inundation, Seiches, and Flooding The site is located approximately 1.1 kilometers from the Pacific Ocean at an elevation of about 23 to 24 meters above sea level. The site is not within a tsunami hazard zone identified by the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, tsunamis (seismic sea waves) are not considered a significant hazard at the site. According to the County of Orange Safety Element (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 dam failures or seiches (wave oscillations in an enclosed or semi -enclosed body of water). 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 (ground water or petroleum), peat oxidation, or hydrocompaction. 4.6 ESTIMATED PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION 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 Upper Bound Earthquake (UBE), having a 10% probability of exceedence during a 100-year time period. The site -specific peak ground accelerations for the DBE and UBE were estimated by a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) using the computer program EZFRISK, Version 7.11. The faults used in the study are shown in Tables 1 and 2, along with the maximum magnitude and the slip rate assigned to each fault. Background seismicity was also included in the PSHA. The peak ground accelerations were developed using the average of the values computed from ground motion attenuation relations for a "soil" type site classification discussed in Abrahamson and Silva (1997), Boore et al. (1997), and Sadigh et al. (1997). 16 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Dispersion in the ground motion attenuation relationships was considered by inclusion of the standard deviation of the ground motion data in the attenuation relationships used in the PSHA. For the fault rupture length versus magnitude relationship, we have used the relationship of Wells and Coppersmith (1994) for all the faults in the model_ The estimated peak ground acceleration for the DBE and the UBE is 0.40g and 0.53g, respectively. 4.7 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 or projecting toward 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 project 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 by proper engineering design and construction in conformance with current building codes and engineering practices. The site is considered grossly stable and not prone to slope stability hazards (landsliding or lurching). The potential for other geologic hazards such as liquefaction, seismic -induced settlement, tsunamis, inundation, seiches, flooding, and subsidence affecting the site is considered low. 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The existing fill soils are not considered suitable for foundation or floor slab support. The proposed additions may be supported on spread footings established in the undisturbed natural soils_ To prevent surcharging of existing footings, which may induce settlement of structures supported thereon; new footings should extend below a 1:1 plane extending upward from the bottom of the adjacent existing footings. However, new footings should not extend below a 1.1 plane extending downward from the bottom of adjacent existing footings, which may undermine bearing support for existing footings. The horizontal and vertical alignment of existing utility lines should be verified and new footings should be located to extend below a 1:1 plane extending upward from the bottom of adjacent utilities_ 17 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian --Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Alternatively, the integrity of existing utility lines surcharged by new footings should be evaluated to confirm that surcharge pressures imposed by new footings can' be accommodated without damage or distress. Surcharge pressures from footings at various depths may be assumed to increase with depth based on a 1:1 downward plane projection from the bottom edges of footings_ The building floor slab may can be supported on grade if the recommendations presented in Grading, are implemented. 5.1 FOUNDATIONS Spread Footings Spread footings established in undisturbed natural soils and at least 2 feet below the lowest adjacent grade, may be designed to impose a net dead -plus -live load pressure of 6,000 pounds per square foot_ Spread footings established in properly compacted fill and at least 2 feet below the lowest adjacent grade, may be designed to impose a net dead -plus -live load pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot. A one-third increase can be used for wind or seismic loads. The recommended bearing value is a net value, and the weight of the concrete in the footings can be taken as 50 pounds per cubic foot; the weight of soil backfilled can be neglected when determining the downward loads. We estimate the settlement of the proposed additions, supported on spread footings in the manner recommended, will be less than I inch. Differential settlement is expected to be less than %2 inch. At least half of the total settlement is expected to occur during construction, shortly after dead loads are imposed. Lateral loads can be resisted by soil friction and by the passive resistance of the soils. A coefficient of friction of 0.4 can be used between the footings and the floor slab and the supporting soils. The passive resistance of natural soils or properly compacted soils can be assumed to be equal to the pressure developed by a fluid with a density of 250 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. 18 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report ofCeotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Mat Foundations Preliminary column and wall loading was not available for the portion of the additions to be on mat foundation. Based on our experience with similar developments, we estimate that the net actual applied dead -plus live loading on a mat foundation for the proposed buildings would be on the order of I,000 to 1,200 pounds per square foot. The natural soils at the site are adequate to support bearing pressures well in excess of the anticipated values. The settlement estimates presented below should be re-evaluated when specific building information is available. Thus, a design bearing pressure for a mat foundation of 1,200 pounds per square foot may be assumed_ A one-third increase can be used for wind or seismic loads. The recommended bearing value is a net value, and the weight of concrete in the footings can be taken as 50 pounds per cubic foot; the weight of soil backf ll can be neglected when determining the downward loads. We estimate the settlement of the mat foundations due to static loading will be about 1 inch. At least half of the total settlement is expected to occur during construction, shortly after dead loads are imposed. Lateral loads may be resisted by friction of the soil acting against the mat foundation and by the passive resistance of the soils acting against the mat foundation and also the basement walls. The mat foundation will derive lateral resistance from the soil -to -mat contact However, the mat and soil contact will be separated by a water -proofing membrane, in this case_ Thus, the frictional resistance available will be the lesser of that friction developed between the mat foundation and the water -proofing membrane and the friction developed between the water -proofing membrane and the supporting soils. Verification of this coefficient should be performed once the waterproofing materials are specified. 19 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26. 2005 MACTECProject 4953-05-109/ 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 While the waterproofmg materials have not yet been specified, it has been our experience that a reduction in the lateral resistance is necessary to account for the waterproofing materials. For preliminary design purposes, an effective coefficient of friction of 0.4 can be assumed to resist lateral loads. The passive resistance of soils when considering buoyant conditions can be assumed to be equal to the pressure developed by a fluid with a density of 250 pounds per cubic foot, unless the potential for lateral spreading is confirmed_ In that case, the lateral earth pressure recommendations presented herein will require modification. 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. Modulus of Subgrade Reaction ' A modulus of subgrade reaction, k, of 150 pounds per cubic inch may be assumed for the natural soils. Reduction of this value due to the size of the mat has already been factored in our calculations. 6.2 DYNAMIC SITE CHARACTERISTICS Site -Specific Response Spectra The site -specific response spectrum for seismic events with 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years and 10% probability of being exceeded in 100 years (designated, DBE and UBE, respectively) were estimated from a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) using the computer program EZ-FRISK, Version 7.12 (Risk Engineering, 2005). The nearby faults are shown on Tables 1 and 2, along with their maximum magnitudes and slip rates, as published by the California Geological Survey (CGS). Background seismicity was also included in the PSHA. 1 20 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Ceotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-109/ The response spectra were developed using the average of the ground motions obtained from the attenuation relationships of Abrahamson & Silva (1997), Sadigh et al. (1997), and Boore et al_ (1997)_ For the Boore et al. (1997) relationship, we have used a shear wave velocity equivalent to that of a typical soil site (310 meters per second). For the attenuation relationships of Abrahamson & Silva. and Sadigh et al., we have used the form of the equations developed for deep soil or soils site conditions_ EZ-FRISK modifies the attenuation equations to account for rupture directivity from earthquakes occurring on nearby faults as recommended by Somerville et al. (1997). To account for the uncertainty in the ground motion attenuation relationships, each relationship was integrated to six standard deviations beyond the median. EZ-FRISK uses the relationships developed by Wells and Coppersmith (1994) and others to obtain estimates of earthquake magnitude from rupture size. The response spectrum for seismic events DBE and UBE are presented on Figure 7 and 8, respectively for 5% of critical structural damping. The response spectra in digitized form are shown on Tables 3 and 4_ Site Coefficient and Seismic Zonation The site coefficient, S, may be determined as established in the Earthquake Regulations under Section 1629A of the California Building Code (CBC), 2001 edition, for seismic design of the hospital buildings. Based on a review of the local soil and geologic conditions, the site may be classified as Soil Profile Type SD, as specified in the 2001 code. The site is located within CBC Seismic Zone 4_ The site is near 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 N-34 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 site of the proposed additions is located within 2 kilometers from the Newport -Inglewood fault. At this distance for a Type B seismic source, the near source factors, Na and Nv are 1.3 and I.6, respectively, based on Tables 16A-S and 16A-T of the 2001 CBC_ 21 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 6.3 FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT If the subgrade is prepared as recommended -in the following section on grading, the addition floor slab can be supported on grade underlain by at least 2-foot thick layer of properly compacted fill soils. Construction activities and exposure to the environment can cause deterioration of the prepared subgrade. Therefore, we recommend our that our field representative observe the condition of the final subgrade soils immediately prior to floor slab construction, and, if necessary, perform further density and moisture content tests to determine the suitability of the final prepared subgrade. If vinyl or other moisture -sensitive floor covering is planned, we recommend that the floor slab in those areas be underlain by a capillary break consisting of a vapor -retarding membrane over a 4-inch- thick layer of gravel. A 2-inch-thick layer of sand should be placed between the gravel and the membrane to decrease the possibility of damage to the membrane. We suggest the following gradation for the gravel: Sieve Size Percent Passing No. 4 No. 100 90 - 100 0- 10 0-3 A low -slump concrete should be used minimize possible curling of the slab. A 2-inch-thick layer of coarse sand can be placed over the vapor retarding membrane to reduce slab curling_ If this sand bedding is used, 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. The sand and gravel layers can be considered part of the required non - expansive soil layer under concrete slabs. 6.4 PAVING Within the proposed building footprint and at least 5 feet beyond in plan view, the existing fill soils should be excavated and replaced as properly compacted fill. All required fill should be uniformly well compacted and -observed and tested during placement. The on -site soils can be used in any required fill. 22 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Pro%ect 4953-05-1091 The required paving and base thicknesses will depend on the expected wheel loads and volume of traffic (Traffic Index or TI). An R-value of 20 was assumed for the on -site bedrock materials for design of paving. The R-value of the bedrock materials or any import should be tested during construction to confirm the assumed value. If testing of the bedrock materials indicates a lower or higher R-value, the pavement sections recommended below should be adjusted accordingly. Based on our assumption, the minimum recommended paving thicknesses for TIs of 6, 8 and 10 are presented in the following table. Traffic Asphaltic Concrete Base Course Index (inches) (inches) 6 8 10 4 9 5 14 7 17 The asphalt paving sections were determined using the City of Los Angeles design method_ We can determine the recommended paving and base course thicknesses for other Traffic Indices if required. Careful inspection is recommended to check that the recommended thicknesses or greater are achieved, and that proper construction procedures are followed_ The base course should conform the specifications for untreated base as defined in Section 200-2 of the latest edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book). The base course should be compacted to at least 95%. Compaction of the subgrade, including trench backfrlls, to at least 90%, and achieving a firm, hard, and unyielding surface will be important for paving support. The preparation of the paving area subgrade should be done immediately prior to placement of the base course. Proper drainage of the paved areas should be provided since this will reduce moisture infiltration into the subgrade and increase the life of the paving. 6.5 GRADING Within the proposed building footprint and at least 5 feet beyond in plan view, the existing fill soils should be excavated and replaced as properly compacted fill. All required fill should be uniformly 23 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 well compacted and observed and tested during placement. The on -site soils can be used in any required fill_ Site Preparation After the site is cleared and the existing fill soils (if encountered) are excavated as recommended, the exposed natural 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. At least 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 method of compaction. Excavations and Temporary Slopes Where excavations are deeper than about 4 feet, the sides of the excavations should be sloped back at 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) or shored for safety_ Unshored excavations should not extend below a plane drawn at 1'/2:l (horizontal to vertical) extending downward from adjacent existing footings. We would be pleased to present data for design of shoring if required_ Excavations should be observed by personnel of our firm so that any necessary modifications based on variations in the soil conditions can be made. All applicable safety requirements and regulations, including OSHA regulations, should be met. Compaction Any required fill should be placed in loose lifts not more than 8-inches-thick and compacted. The fill should be compacted to at Ieast 90% of the maximum density obtainable by the ASTM Designation D1557 method of compaction. 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. Backfill All required backfill should be mechanically compacted in layers; flooding should not be permitted. Proper compaction of backfill will be necessary to minimize settlement of the backfill and to reduce 24 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 settlement of overlying slabs and paving. Backfill should be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry density obtainable by the ASTM Designation D1557 method of compaction. The on - site soils may be used in the compacted backfill. The exterior grades should be sloped to drain away from the foundations to prevent ponding of water. Material for Fill The on -site soils, less any debris or organic matter, may be used in required fills. Cobbles larger than 4 inches in diameter should not be used in the fill. 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. 6.6 GEOTECHNICAL 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. 25 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian --Report ofGeotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 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. 7.0 GENERAL LIMITATIONS AND BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations provided in this report are based upon our understanding of the described project information and on our interpretation of the data collected during our current and previous subsurface explorations. We have made our recommendations based upon 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 structure configuration, loads, Iocation, or the site grades should be provided to us so that we can review our conclusions and recommendations and make any necessary modifications_ The recommendations provided in this report are also based upon 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 verify that the actual soil conditions are as expected. This also provides for the procedure whereby the client can be advised of unexpected 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_ As previously discussed, if our firm is not retained to perform the geotechnical observation and testing services, our professional responsibility and liability would be limited to the extent that we would not be the geotechnical engineer of record. 26 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-109/ 8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abrahamson and Silva, 1997, "Empirical Response Spectra Attenuation Relationships for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes," Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1, p. 94-127. Anderson, J. G., and Luco, J. E., 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, South Coast 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, 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. Barrows, A. G., 1973, "Earthquakes Along the Newport —Inglewood Structural Zone," California Geology, Vol. 26, No. 3. Boore, D. M., Joyner, W. B., and Fumal, T. E., 1997, "Equations for Estimating Horizontal Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: A Summary of Recent Work," Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. I . 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. - 27 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 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. Bullard, T. R. and Lettis, W. R., 1993, "Quaternary Fold Deformation Associated with Blind Thrust Faulting, Los Angeles Basin, California," Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol_ 98, No. B5, pp. 8349-8369. California Department of Water Resources, 2005, "Groundwater Level Data" http://well_water.ca.gov_ California Department of Water Resources, 1976, "Crustal Strain and Fault Movement Investigation," Bulletin 116-2. 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. Califomia 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. Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, 1986, "Official Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map for 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 Geological Survey, 2005, "Checklists for Review of Geologic/Seismic Reports for California Public Schools, Hospitals, and Essential Services Buildings" CGS Note 48. California Geological Survey, 2003, "The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps, June 2003" Appendix A — 2002 California Fault Parameters. 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 of America, Vol. 86, No. 5, pp. 1645-1649. 28 Hong Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Davis, J. F., Bennett, J. H., Borchardt, G. A., Kahle, J. E., Rice, S. .J., Silva, M_ A., 1982, "Earthquake Planning Scenario for a Magnitude 8_3 Earthquake on the San Andreas Fault in Southern California," California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 60. Dolan, J.F. et al., 1995, "Prospects for Larger or More Frequent Earthquakes in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Region, California," Science, Vo1. 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 Northem Los Angeles Basin: Evidence for Holocene Activity on the Santa Monica Fault and Identification of New Strike -Slip Faults through Downtown Los Angeles," EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, Vol. 73, p. 589. 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. Grant, L. B., Ballenger, L. J., and Runnerstrom, E. E., 2002, "Coastal Uplift of the San Joaquin Hills, Southern Los Angeles Basin, California, by a Large Earthquake Since A. D. 1635 , Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 92, No. 2, pp. 590-599. Grant, L. B., Mueller, K. J_, Gath, E_ M., and Munro, R., 2000, "Late Quaternary Uplift and Earthquake Potential of the San Joaquin Hills, Southern Los Angeles Basin, California" Geology, Vol. 28, No. 4, p. 384. 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., I987, "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. Guptil, P. D., Armstrong, C., and Egli, M_, I992, "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. 29 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Guptil, P. D_ and Heath, E. G., I981, "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 • 1999, "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., I990, Earthquakes, Faulting, and Stress in the Los Angeles Basin," Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 95, 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. 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., I995, "Seismic Hazards in Southern California: Probable Earthquakes, 1994 to 2024, Seismological Society of America Bulletin, Vol. 85, No. 2. Jahns, R. 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, "Batholith and Associated Rocks of Corona, EIsinore, and San Luis Rey Quadrangles, Southern California," Geological Society of America Memoir. 29. Law/Crandall, 2001, "Report of Revised Geotechnical Consultation, Proposed Seismic Upgrade of the Ancillary Building, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, California" (Project 70131-0-0355). 30 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-/ 09i Law/Crandall, 1999, "Report of Revised Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed East Addition and Parking Structure, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach, California" (Project 70131-9-0330). 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, OSI-IPD 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 County" (Job No. 2661.30I 40.0001 ). 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 _ 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). 31 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian --Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26. 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 LeRoy Crandall and Associates, 1990, "Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Employee Child Care Center, 4050 West Pacific Coast Highway, for ldoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian" (Job No 089083.AEB). LeRoy Crandall and Associates, 1987, "Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Hoag Cancer Center, 30I 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, 30I Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, for the Hoag Memorial Hospital" (Job No. A-69080). Los Angeles, County of, '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. McNeilan, T. W., Rockwell, T. K., and Resnick, G. S., 1996, "Style and Rate of Holocene Shp, Palos Verdes Fault, Southern California", Journal of Geophysical Research, April 10, 1996, Vol. 101, No_ B4, p_ 8317-8334_ 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. 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, intemet updates through June 2005. Oskin, M., Sieh, K., Rockwell, T., Miller, G., Guptill, P., Curtis, M_, McArdle, S_, and Elliott, P., 2000, "Active Parasitic Folds on the Elysian Park Anticline, Implications for Seismic Hazard in Central Los Angeles, California', Geological Society of America Bulletin May 2000, Vol_ 112, No. 5, pp.693-707_ Orange County Water District, 2004, "2003 Groundwater Contour Map". Orange County General Plan, "1995 Safety Element," Advance Planning Program, Environmental Management Agency_ 32 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report ofGeotechnical Investigation October 26. 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 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. Risk Engineering, Inc., 2005, EZFRISK version 7.01. Rivero, C., Shaw, J. H_, and Mueller, K., 2000, "Oceanside and Thirtymile Bank Blind Thrusts: Implications for Earthquake Hazards in Coastal Southern California" Geology, Vol. 28, No. 10, October 2000_ 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. Sadigh, K_, Chang, C. Y_, Egan, J. A., Makdisi, F_, and Youngs, R. R_, 1997, "Attenuation Relationships for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes Based on California Strong Motion Data," Seismological Research Letters, Vol_ 68, No. I_ Schneider, C. L., Hummon, C., Yeats, R. S., and Huftile, G. L, 1996, "Structural Evolution of the Northern Los Angeles Basin, California, Based on Growth Strata," Tectonics, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 341-355. Shakal, A. F. et al., 1994, "CSMJP 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 others, 2002, "Puente Hills Blind -Thrust System Los Angeles, California," Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 92, No. 8, pp_ 2946-2960. 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. I01, No_ B4, pp. 8623-8642. Shaw, J. H., 1993, "Active Blind -Thrust Faulting and Strike -Slip Folding in California," PhD_ Thesis, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, 216 pp. 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. 33 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26. 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Slemmons, D. B_, 1979, "Evaluation of Geomorphic Features of Active Faults For Engineering Design and Siting Studies," Association of Engineering Geologists Short Course. Somerville, P. G., Smith, N_ F., Graves, R. W., and Abrahamson, N. A., 1997, "Modification of Empirical Strong Ground Motion Attenuation Relations to Include the Amplitude and Duration Effects of Rupture Directivity," Seismological Research Letters, Vol_ 68, No.l. Stephenson, W_ J., Rockwell, T. K., Odum J. K., Shedlock,K. M., and Okaya, D. A., 1995, "Seismic Reflection and Geomorphic Characterization of the Onshore Palos Verdes Fault Zone, Los Angeles, California," Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol- 85, No. 3. Stover, C. W. and Coffman, J_ L., 1993, "Seismicity of the United States, 1568-1989 (revised)," US_ Geological Society Professional Paper 1527_ Southern California Seismographic Network, 2005 "Southern California Earthquake Catalog," http://ww%v.scecdc_scec_org/ftp/catalogs/SCSN/. 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., Bennett, J. H., Borchardt, G. A., Saul, R., and Davis, J _F., "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. I., ed., Professional Paper 1360, Article by CIarke, 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 photorevised 1981. Quadrangle Map," Vedder, J. G. et al., 1957, "Geologic Map of the San Joaquin Hills -San Juan Capristrano Area, Orange County California," US. 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 Problems 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 of America, 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. 34 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation October 26, 2005 MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 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, Vol_ 85, No. 2, April 1995. Yerkes, R. F., 1972, "Geology and Oil Resources of the Western Puente Hills Area, Southern California," US. Geological Survey Professional Paper 420-C_ 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, It C., 1974, "Preliminary Map Showing Recency of Faulting in Coastal Southern California," US Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-585_ Ziony, J. I., and Yerkes, R. F_, 1985, "Evaluating Earthquake and Surface Faulting Potential," in Ziony, J.I., ed., Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region —An Earth Science Perspective, US. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360, p_ 43-91. a 35 Cable 1 Major Named Faults Considered to be Active in Southern California Fault (in increasing distance) Maximum Slip Rate Distance Direction Magnitude (inrn/yr_) From Site From Site (kilometers) San Joaquin Hills Thrust 6_6 . (a) BT 0.5 0 Newport -Inglewood Zone 7.! (a) SS 1.0 0.9 SSW Palos Verdes Zone 7.3 (a) SS 3.0 17 WSW Puente 1-1ills Blind Thrust - 7.1 (a) BT 0.7 27 N Whittier Zone 6.8 (a) SS 2.5 34 NNE Elsinore (Glen ley Segment) 6.8 (a) SS •5.0 37 NE Chino -Central Avenue 6.7 (a) NO 1.0 40 NE Upper Elysian Park 6.4 (a) BT 1.3 45 NNW Sierra Madre Zone 7.2 (a) RO 2.0 57 N Raymond 6.5 . (a) RO I.5 58 NNW Cucamonga Zone 6.9 (a) RO 5.0 63 NNE Hollywood 6.4 (a) RO 1.0 63 NW Santa Monica 6.6 (a) RO 1.0 63 NW Verdugo 6.9 (a) RO 0.5 67 NNW Malibu Coast 6.7 (a) RO 0.3 73 NW Northridge Thrust 7.0 (a) BT 1.5 75 NW San Jacinto (San Bernardino Segment) 6.7 (a) SS 12.0 77 NE San Gabriel Zone 7.2 (a) SS 1.0 79 NW San Fernando Zone 6.7 (a) RO 2.0 79 NW Anacapa-Dume 7.5 (a) RO 3.0 82 NW San Andreas (San Bernardino Segment) 7.5 (a) SS 24.0 85 NE (a) California Geological Survey, 2003 (b) Mark, 1977 (c) Simmons, 1979 (d) Wesnousky, 1986 (e) Hummon et al., 1994 SS Strike Slip NO Norma! Oblique RO Reverse Oblique BT Blind Thrust Table 2 Major Named Faults Considered to be Potentially Active in Southern California Fault (in increasing distance) Maximum Slip Rate Distance From Site Direction Magnitude (Inn/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 (c) RO 0.1 29 NNW San Jose 6.4 (a) RO 0.5 50 NNE Indian Hill 6.6 (b) RO 0_ 1 54 N Duarte 6.7 (c) RO 0.1 56 N Overland 6_0 (c) SS 0.1 56 NW Chamock 6.5 (c) SS 0_1 57 NW Clamsh'ell-Sawpit 6.5 (a) RO 0_5 59 N (a) California Geological Survey, 2003 (b) Mark; 1977 (c) Slemmons, 1979 (d) Wesnousky, 1986 (e) Hummon et al., 1994 SS Strike Slip NO Normal Oblique RO Reverse Oblique BT Blind Thrust Table 3: Pseudospectral Velocity in Inches/Second 2% damping Period in Seconds 50 years 0.01 0.24 0.05 1.67 0.10 5.25 0.20 14.99 0.30 22.32 0.40 27.36 0.50 31.57 0.75 39.41 1.00 44.36 2.00 49.74 3.00 46.75 4.00 42.88 DBE 10% in UBE 10% in 100 years 0.33 2.28 7.16 19.81 29.87 37.24 43.64 56.48 63.31 69.39 65.58 60.48 5% damping DBE 10% in 50 years 0.24 1.67 4.39 11.58 17.70 22.28 25.72 32.10 36.14 42.20 39.67 36.38 10% damping UBE 10% in 100 years 0.33 2.28 5.98 15.30 23.69 30.33 35.55 46.01 51.57 58.88 55.64 51.31 DBE 10% UI3E 10% in in 50 years 100 years 0.24 1.67 3.74 9.00 14.20 18.45 21.29 26.57 29.91 36.50 34.31 31.47 0.33 2.28 5.09 11.89 19.01 25.11 29.42 38.08 42.69 50.92 48.13 44.38 Table 4: Pseudospectral Acceleration in g 2% damping 5% damping. By LT 5/20/05 Chkd: JAA 5/20/05 10% damping Period in Seconds 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.75 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 DBE 10% in UBE 10% in 50 years 100 years 0.40 0.54 0.85 1.22 1.21 1.11 1.03 0.85 0.72 0.40 0.25 0.17 0.53 0.74 1.16 1.61 1.62 1.51 1.42 1.22 1.03 0.56 0.36 0.25 DBE I0% in 50 years 0.40 0.54 0.71 0.94 0.96 0.91 0.84 0.70 0.59 0.34 0.22 0.15 UBE 10% in 100 years 0.53 0.74 0.97 1.24 1.28 1.23 1.16 1.00 0.84 0.48 0.30 0.21 DBE 10% UBE 10% in 50 years in 100 years 0.40 0.53 0.54 0.74 0.61 0.83 0.73 0.97 0.77 1.03 0.75 1.02 0.69 0.96 0.58 0.83 0.49 0.69 0.30 0.41 0.19 0.26 0.13 0.18 By LT 5/20/05 Chkd: JAA 5/20/05 1 1 1 1 tel J1 Uj 0 1- 1- JOB 4953-05-1091 117°57.000' W 117°56.000' W 117.°55.000' W WGS84 117°54.000' W 1 J ' -- t'•'rater==. •%,7 ShoRDin3-n� i( Patj{; / a�...�� ' 33°36.000' N 33°37.000' N ° 33 38.000 N 33°39.000' N � LIE � ._ t',t l.:• J; $ jf I •of •.__ --- �.-_ , %,;.I . a_'••14. `�� -_�L -'1 a - ---S -- •-i s:, �),_ .� ,, `.:' J# `- - �} o "l� .�I�_ni :;•----•--.�%� d _. __ _`�"` ti"a" j.;•, z • ',~ ;r'_. 1 __ :,. 1� ,tz "� 7_ ubfta��? fp •.:./���w i7r`:r:_:_t• LYI.n _ ,v 8 ; .ice <1, ;f .;_iy''•�t r•`9' r j -'---:`• <-�i :eb, !;- ,} �:: ti g' ggitit&� a • j '•a COST�.IE % _ _ _L`D,JsF[F.E__ ,.: ; ,: rs 'o'9-r'--- y,. f•, i• i �J 6': 3� � p . >� -- -- t' 4,, �78TF' `-_ N,+J.. c r?, y'•},. •BS •. L2jli iYt tTCP6i T'i1::- 6 $ `�\- • _t' ,t ,.` d pt v �� �ig'a z ^t li—lf® • ,_ �i 1 ::.}• Ef, ? '!3 F"'.. ,.s.f... 1.: J• r�P'+� ' ' Ylt- -4 i = i5r 3 o - i:uata . 5 , .• S •,J��' L '£\ ""'�_.� _ i. $'u" •tcv3++c.t:+n ; u H'i.'.,..:;_a'.ivliisdt..:,..w_,, k� /. 0~ A n t.4.. /+;-i✓ _—� tz=�a +' '1 -. X,• ! `� � `\�'tS ST �_,, / F `.l� �>r O --- -.�i1 . .f :+ - _ —;- ��.�. _ . � . .i., : ; _. - -' - - Fr - 2 s'x^�2 s' : Y .. - : C� - ->i%ra.x f3"Y.• ��yyna a \ � dr —T. 3 if, �iq ac r E °• 3. •k,": • ; f _ .. ._ •. • g' x f., yl r �. r ... % o-5, . _ o•GS -S -' -s• •,�!;• __� may°} N t v � %4"• ., `C a��` ^ l-••. M • •� -'..� ` •`\..'',.'\\7%� : ��•:. _F : -( �: z: :il Seh =i.'. �•• - .. I -''., '1,� �Y`•• ,t.+�• <�' d,'� `�'� M M + _t� ___-_-._ �`' f ' $ -s. _ ,p a=;� '�t:,Y•.is'1,: 1. t 2. •y„ j t�i3 i'I_-�-.s `•,i�:--_==-7, d .��-. y,-.i/'''-',„„:1.:-..,.- 4, -' ^i 1 . 0 I ., !.:`•,1,•r42 . - ` ..7. -, :,; ;,• i �t _U_' _' . •-,;,.t mac=-r t •�: r: �•: /.e i1 ."� :'i T. 5 'ti ,� •: ., .! � :i 1,_�-F : t e a: yg ; ' lr,�,_. f `yJz * r e % Lsi�! -d - it - !< -4•tiC t,,aaC a'oi 1-S Trailer ."•? A. '/ ?� h ' �'!. Pr(r?.`_ °e7y :: t` N.�' •j,•,":'/ +. :• 4,.. �a•�Si `\, i• y a ( I; •.<: 3 �=-- a "� ;f. " J1 i !#iL ,�..; } I ' ? 7 t-. ! "' ��. =_-`"".,e' 's %:rr t; ar` `� y:,a. _• �,c t 'hsp, �^ )!-1 P a.11 W: > k ,r i es.:a !! ;/n:/ ui =`- __- '' 1 I' g if' i ; j:-�t�L__Jt is._,t• •:i :_. t.`�-'--4• -. j� :.,:' >•-`".ti `'•• g�;ti CTx %3y'7;>r �='off"-C'iY • ,,`. „ \b' \fi Bluer! .4,i. , ti•. .. �,L ,,,7`-- �•• t_ Y / �,.,= ' •\� +. ^. °� i�.:S_J - 4,1•. 4.C. - �� „!9 <r•: _ _ �,{; rt5 . - t1_ -.: ;-. .,.• ,}q�.Y:..,t_,i.5"Ze.t! \� ra\'� ` • �, 'a . - -rl' l ' •• -' � i:� ��,j.:i }�a r 74 "w� eY "�i Y �'�t vT� ;'�` '� 3� axe •_.a>:.._.,_..�?' !s' , Pl4r -t_� :^�` &--''. � •?j '4' i'�> v • 2 \ -,/ I ''tl .MP+ ,! ` _.;�,' �� __1E6. c'.`., . r r•N� :\4� �ou is ui \:.;J ".-_ _. a;,r3,,;-_•"i,� -- i '—;, V,,_e_ ;y'_ __ ! `„ .ate y, ` . " i( --- - `'-r: -sat • F3i=+r^:. x _ Z — ,:s� g}S • .aScl'•o •,.f ! .Y _`:..<sa r%Yn yitttes; a s=: _at_____,(Y es 1 ' I!•£` ._C ��. ZS. ',:\? ',/- �;yr •�,% 'ill y a . 't • �_1 .1,•' • = r,:_::. "'_ _ !a '�.r `s-`-;` m+„`r S.h + , -a.' Park �3J�� i+, t @. v„ %Y"` n•k'" • .•5-.—' `�i,.-.r .t, ,�?a�C•:' • - "— -- ... .' :_, 'K ,.t;l_a C ``� ? :\ ,.,r,�, `�'•. k's:.g'` .� r 5=.:;:,". tu- tit=r- _t sr F' .,, •Fl •oti�=- 1 t �.I = , a,a y',? rj}. o v. '' • :;.,,::3_ • �iJ _ Win_-s,. `rpv ? w% ?. ` � .:':`.a r,,,'� 't f' f ao,s'' \ r *eelr2� aqJ' ��' _ : ° •- ~' n 7'.. -..n RpS� 'pia 3 etcaJ', ��' .i ~`° '3 } \° y r\ ` �, . 7 : .�•' =iL . ':;,�i ' xc•1 r:a.sea`; • 9.,3,S' f ff _ • .. • y <J . ,y\trp \{` . ,.•rl:s'r = r�^,� ° 1�:. `�• �. Sc . :-1 .Y.; ti- .i `a= ':v • :'�t F \' [ 1141 CC t ,:-31 ' ..y .. ± 1 - �•q-f�'' %/' * 6 1' i :Y "� ( �fy�':"a. i ,tires\ j S. • .) ' —r, 11�. , 'i 1 i t;,,i. • St,i aus!! r r.r- .— -- .3 -- �'/ A •?, t \... rv�'t:-`: 0 0 07 .• r p po - n• •"' , ( tq„ a n a.i :_=,': :<(• •+ J' lid •CPtl fr �� .( .,Za, • .i •\`ry"M 1 -` Y%. !. •:• }h. •• >ra, •J \JL_—yTrader? ' �::.1 '_ w/-� I }, �' �•�y ;, r.'i, '`c, l S; .` F'!% :,iYT' JF' �,•1'T ':.::tip- _ .,�`:�_ = is>= ;^.`--•• __ ::T�]rii �5'• .,7 • '.j� +x ' �'' � '':p1f, : h1' k., r\ t . ` Y �'•.• `Cji \�•. `'�•.r r^ _,i''r•_ `r..: r: t 'fir-Yt•?Snxv : =v: •3 . -ti �.IN '/i`� �. ° •`C•; :E"`. `,;.�z �a`r :z,f•• ---- :yti•>.•=• -- °�1 •;sy� +1: E y .-'^, 4 `�. `tl, $ g� -h, /..� ' ;. _J .,t , t 4*.�J r5n>)__,...i_1i•_ .n. Al- ,r Y.xra�_, ,6%' tiV. Yfn- ..:. , `Srr,!-' _`.::7..�_.` / y ..; f/�� � ' 1 Par 1: - `.-.>bsejff.; 'co Yti •.r'•6v,•�+j,' •.�.,I • •`�'.,�ik7-i'=>iTActis 1L`llaca`�ti:y.;_.,�J`.ari�� `���i• •��:o�' �cb _{'-:_z�� ld•r:/-': ` �' •.hi•, i_.+,..:, 1+,• • _ • • _. _ : I•:),..-- i' l' ,., f?'�rc�•' +``"i .' r%'"�SFi. •" , "•,fn.:t `�:^h .. -'.'•,-'� i• an a;•_=- G•[ .y -.. r.,` `>,� ri`�•a,-.8, •.eCS ->.•a.; ,,,,, T .;2-,-i ; '',' . Ta©-- � i:.�..•'i�`��i?r•%• ,%^' , '7 3 � ' ' T•r l r •;� • �6 v.,,_. _ Trat •/' s� '_�,i :•(-•,{� •':fi tz_•- Pf/f :f-4,� • y •.. "'`•. •l!/�=� : rv_ _ : F-!•:�--- - _ -,r •<ir�' •d.7, y �" :-�a~,@:. ,.,, ": , :'i,ray1� ._{`::�.ii 1 :i.; �i; ' .\ \ tass-- m :;.00- •:/�,-, `%�I - , :..4 % "t:, SraDa,dg .)t'/ _.; .. - _ --• '? ._ \-• •:'1.��§,/•I.i`. �'._-� _;r.-f�,_�Fc`Kcest Lfu•. 'a_ ;T•:ya,:.ur.:Sa:? ^�„i - .°.y.��: '�•}••'.�..�_' 3i-'" f . �\.... ,;I +'�"`./ - '/QCF..- . '�: t• • , - -:, 'ti ,:;. l „3., \ :�'®_ 1 �/ ism•-2•,"Y '/ •;'L .. vi -• •. - �•�i ":t `(,;1, .• •tor: • a3lQ:•'-1>-• • marnor131 a-�'', pil.,^5; �"`i uryryt'-:'a 1'i Lori W 1t�i 'l t.S,,, .; �y /Q`,F •'l \., •-:' ,�/F": i:•'/%Y1. ,/ ::�\. _:�;!;-' �,.4e•�p°r. �5r .mo � C`. _:. p r'l % sh F S-`fig Q ,tr1}$•^�•'.`._a•-14 •, •; '.� moo- - mil'' !t„ ,raucN`J , _ • "'Pa,Jn9r`� y=y •h'ar•�s:^-,,...^'..'L'};>:>.`+:�`5._, '�j,•t % h4:Wp03';• .�•M y'.' ;^,•,S. ahi• _ ,,•syN7•�!,?' ��•' :.5 '�:t:•. T rn '1'Ta "�•�,`,';e- e _.. r•�`.``` ••�-�, -tt llar+a _ - - - _ 'fir.'�� . i� • , .'`i>'�"j ';Jxt.' art ` . TN V. Y' _;. ` '-h`VJ. q,_�ati�`.,,t '` 'x.�=e�.c,,.. O M M •'S� «� • fY': :' i'.: n `` -•.`. !, `I',K.•_�,,,-tot-$I'+• 1•, y.? �:, `.-asr-;:i '; ., 'o:-j:4 .� i .T7A+0•'i5iC:• --°'i� '..� . '•,•c Ligntc�r, ccaw: •�: �<,, ttt3ht•. Harbor k;+� •, , ,r 'a `• .._ Ltght ... -, "',t' i:,r;, h,t _:-•2w , at,* fnr-' •' P3rkirg Area` x7„1. ,' rat Mean _. . �6." f"r'• =• -', L,gnt ,, s• y ;Collins b:•• • NEWPORT BEACH - -N.,.. _:' 0 `)" 1. 0 I -di- TN 1 '7°57.000' W 3 117°56.000�Vi tAR�tE 117°55.000' W WGS84117°54.000' W JIv1N --, 13%< 9 7C33F l 0 �JOA!EiE9S Printed from TOPO! ©2001 National 0eographic Holding (www.topo com) /T Pl VdACTEC FIGURE 1 1 1 1 i i P-1 I 111 - I '--•" : .. . - 1-• 4 i, : \ 1111 i i t --111 :—.i i 1 i ii Fi 1 t E : ,,--1-.1 1 I _ i — : 1 1 J --t ! 1 • : 1_4• • .1 . t s I s • • 77. Nz•tr \ks, t t ----es,/ .----- 7 _. \ . ,--- , ,--\ \x, ,--- \ _. __..- ..-• , __- ... ; .- ---% e \ ___::::.> \ \-\-( 1 Li 1.-4-21 ; 11 1:4 i 1-7irfl r-7-1 • I c • • ____---- ' - - NewpoRT BL yip RFSIZRKNFNAC-F: BY TAYLOR Se ASSOCIATES DATED NOVEMBER 2000 c-2 \-< • X , • , \ \-\v- • T-7.1 is-- \ - N !! _ - -/: !! = 0 r HOAG HOSPITAL 301 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, California REFERENCES: SITE PLAN BY TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES DATED NOVEMBER 2000. LEGEND: 1 CURRENT INVESTIGATION (4953-05-1091) 7 Q PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION (A-69080) L BORING LOCATION AND NUMBER O BENCH MARK FOR CURRENT BORING ELEVATIONS, FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION AT EMERGENCY CARE UNIT, ASSUMED ELEVATION = 100.0 PLOT PLAN SCALE 1" = 100' I SO' 100- ZOO' Cf•t_£ F-CE ,f/MACTEC JOI D Uat F.T. JR. -.E. es vr1KD ELEVATION IN FEET 1507 12.0..- 90-- 60 30- 0 LIMITS OF LIMITS OF EXISTING PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION /. . BORING 7 PROJECTED (PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION A-69080) artificial fill N23°W i LIMITS OF EXISTING MRI BUILDING EXISTING GRADE LIMITS OF PROPOSED ADDITION 111 - III= Ili Ill �til =111 artificial fill 11t. i11=1U ?o•••••• TERRACE DEPOSITS MONTEREY FORMATION BOR NG 1 PROJECTED (CURRENT INVEST GATION 4953.05.1091) NOTES: 1. THE SECTION IS BASED ON GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS AT BORING LOCATIONS. THE GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN INTERPOLATED BETWEEN EXPLORATION LOCATIONS. LOCALIZED VARIATIONS COULD OCCUR. THE SECTION IS INTENDED FOR DESCRIPTIVE PURPOSES ONLY, TI 2. SEE FIGURE 2 FOR LOCATION OF SECTION. — 150 — 120 — 90 — 60 - 30 GEOLOGIC SECTION SCALE 1" = 30' 0 30 • 60 SCALE IN FEET 0 ELEVATION IN FEET - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P. a., i kaytion ttq Seh • ov @gm Inaia California Department of Water Resources. 1966 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone REFERENCES; BASE MAP FROM U.S.G.S. 7.5 MINUTE NEWPORT BEACH QUADRANGLE, 1965 (PHOTOREVISED 1981). GEOLOGY MODIFIED FROM POLAND AND PIPER, 1956. CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONES, NEWPORT BEACH QUADRANGLE OFFICIAL MAP (1986). SITE COORDINATES: Latitude N33.6249 Longitude W117.9294 ri 0 t I, 0%,-..AtIER.51. Rypt:maiL ... 1 ..,ro • oocKwELLER otiaci-r‘v,‘i /25. " ••• ---+ o ..-.,.., STATE. PARK i \ pi ,mh,.110LN N,,,-,4: •::-•-• L EI undo . \ 0,- AMU .-...... `1111, .., --N•eolmaliiirlit =, =.* ".0 An. 4,1"FAIN B 11-IATTAN L s AcH Si pp: s•-:` 13 610 L 0 0 6/ Her 1 6 •-\ VE.412. ) " • 1171 L " ad CtFIf C • - • Eta': I 0 • ...21-mie. Cope ' • frtithurLr,ArRes:-"rTii. lop wi it • P I rig' -ser I•‘-• • • •••••• (Th 0 0 OA \ 7-4 ? 5.0-5.9 4.0-4.9 0 ! , ) L \ _ EXPLANATION Late Quateraary fautt-Oneed wt.= adorned oatho. &that when oflIc (inferred horn wourdc-rterc. *30prdfltrr); queried when cateicrca uncertain) tar was fault uses lad short id elder at scare. Itar ballad rdativelyaddenthnew. ride- Sawaccd.0vpier pima a thrust (auk itcrecreniadva dip dhoti slant when blown. Lauer inks.= leakier th.4 perbd wfthle, which lucre saint faultiny knew*34 hd•c =cum* it. I33olo3244 L, bra Qauenary; queen! dn.,4 arc unccndift. 0434 idEcnci awn meat Ea. laical surface (aultiftv queried where lanancd. I ecor. rums ia lernendh. Er wr ..... (d1,2/.10 returner is 1,11-44,s4e4lor swernid..EidC m.10E4,0t 0 i.0-3.9 0 . 2.0-2.9 0, • LP lath' /3. • -7-r • - - • n•4 . .• G. — _-•.-5`S•T I • ..ereiy.F., '',`.; • • e•-•.J •---< - , • ''''' 1 rt: .,,,1L-,s-t•p..' -.,,," : ,.iiiile‘e '.---c' G-X)1.41-4'L;-d, /.,„?y,-:- -.7-1•Et>4\123Kj: "."."-- ltr119r 1G SEW(0-f4wISE''•;V:1• 4(.1.:...',414..'‘ IVCVIVALBASE D 1_ il.V PEDRO BAY ;met -1,1,: 'l.; rat ton P0.1 ...... , • ...i. O.-- ---- ........ ,.. ' _ '.'..4t, li..fuopasq\....-Ai‘ ... . ... ;$ ., Lights ",.;;v ?tali:Alm A, Nik; i..1 //:1:-.'.6 C.R . (1111 s- • P•EDIa\\\\„ • •, .•-kALLEY H\\\ H • • •, 0 4c\N,,S 14 bon' :surtmtlE.1 0 \\ L? H U i-Nk`c-zic.N ( H \ „•\•• . \ cv4 9 r. . <H j\/ •• .• - • IT h Tc-2, • • L ? --- 00,1,..,•- :. ---,Zil-,,'-::-,:;":..)-.---!--- A•-rt.'w- "&: ' "'- AP- - - _ i.- ',..._.„,:gb-es •do::...4,,...-Tr'.1;;;t,..../ ' '-v..liP4-w-,e............9119,•,...:0 - le-tijfi----P !,' (e• Ask . ..&,,, • * ......_ -----:---... odi, ........-• 6„ • .: • ,„ • • : I I. • \rs-eitiP)7 - • -1-•••••,------‘•-•V.: • „vs ;••••".:Y r -• • 41,-4,, • • - • .1 •••••?:).,:k:••• • • • - / ' . RINr: (Mrs - • • • , .!'•• • J o ..] N r•-•• r • 04!) ia-6 C4,.4 /7-!--- 5'44;:_eoropall.14°B 71 -'' ... Alh, sTa 1,...N., ,i .' ---,...,s5. • •-',7•-•,,,,•4,_. -. ' -\••• ."1••••...Y---" \-* W4Eei ••••••,:z„- -1,1•-,.-....,•-•-,..______-,•;_ , ';---7. ' -, . ", • -..' c...- -::,-,.. 11- • ,%lt1„.p- t,,•,, ,... , -. -k,., .) .•• „• . • ":,-_.....,I ••••?-• ' • ' -: Ili . ..5...• .. ,. _. .... 2.- 1 '... -. /.‘;., 4 -1- - • •• _..., -.....,„:.- ..t i • • P`..'. I:;.f'4 I 1,.:..,-,:a..i.. • • TrtibitOti V.i3.11/41-.. • ;,/,-,•, ..,5./ ).: f-'-'•••••••5 f: ‘4.E- . -- 1,4 • t• a• ••• 2\12.p, -/ • ,4••- • • • •,_-zrir „ -" • 1 • • Ifixsoyc, - NT:;''' ITO EL' 71 ' I iB o Pi• $.5:. ;••• Nit!!! • ' 4, t • rgallbylir: I LII-P1-1-1° ' • •••' I •!._ f• • . • • ..e.%-rs. • i Gil mite)! , • • ,1 - -- • • eft^. • 1.1 dna !. •r! '13- -r-k, • A • - A, a b I, •• • L? Lido land- ••„&.•••"‹.'" ' ..- • • , • • "4';',"Si- • '• • „ ..„ ;„ • Tor* , • • Whirtifiiite: (1, ;,:,1 • •• •• • 9••-o • !..i• • z \ • i d f/ --.• • • • •-• • FIFFERFNCP ft BONY. JOSEPH I AND JONES WCY M.. MAP - SHOWING LATE QUATERNARY FAULTS AND 1978-84;s' SEISMICITY OF THE LOS ANGELES REGION, CALIFORNIA MAP MF-1964. (198 9) - •• 17E: Ida , • -0 • - 0 • ‘s. ••* I • :\ (2-• • • _ \ S\ - • r ir • Al",/.. 01,E.L." ,-/-;•s•tf.• . •,•44' • Vtaft • :' 1e :-. .1:vda.n•s-.v.1.JI: 4. - 7.. ,B6t1h '11) • • 173 ••• • • •!: :Tale \ )::- • • . Poin( k,:•• ria • 0 Light alit, St anch •-• ) • • ..- • •\t ..ftil•;i"•2:S-1-0 •-; f I •EJ ‘!. - „., 5‘ N- 411- :P,4A1 0 cir - •••.?'"lir'i • • ""7,-,,..-t• • . • 0 . • •••••:..‘ • .A1:•• • •v,•jj•• •••;" N • • ctl; 1.0: ai";61 • - .40 •ins4••• REGIONAL FAULTS SCALE 1" =4 miles . NMACTEC i 1 ,r:Sc:,: 1 VPfa _ .; .:tt. a'%•'"-.i l'• m19.75152 •.V • - ;;" j ,M'a.!R, T.laiava `�ix .,.:'tvhcoler ' J •1 -�. ... •- + '�J" .' r:- i. i1�7—,•a.•:.. gam. -✓�.:1 _. .. _______ •-'��:�▪ ~-.`:�"._"_ • • r jA�Ot1NttYAiry'--FAULT • • _.L1-1 tJ ) •1\Oxr!nk.i1) - arnar.• asn!; 4_�1350, .=S . .L7 • EXPLANATION: HISTORIC FAULT DISPLACEMENT = • HOLOCENE FAULT DISPLACEMENT WITHOUT HISTORIC RECORD YEAR M 8+ YEAR M 7-8 YEAR M 6-7 YEAR M 5-6 oJ� APPROXIMATE EPICENTRAL AREA OF EARTHQUAKE 0 20 SCALE IN KILOMETERS SCALE 1:750.000 12 SCALE IN MILES 24 . s:: 34y1 '•40 :a,onrk Imam • ^• r �- �s- - • r' • 1 •) JENNINGS, C W_, 1994, "FAULT ACTIVITY MAP OF CALIFORNIA AND ADJACENT AREAS WITH LOCATION AND AGES OF RECENT VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS', CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, GDM-6. 2.) EARTHQUAKE CATALOGS: RICHTER, 1812-1932, NATIONAL OCEANIC ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, 1812-1931; CALTECH, 1932-1997- 1 Salad a J' 3:? C.• '4'I J 13Inr„ Hill= 1899 • t'1-0',.t-C:��1�_:'"'1� •�oi.!U�yj� , '' . •+.'�,YYc�,`1,7� �q • :ry v ti e4-0.1- 'cd'-. �2 d» • ^„..,..12'.-a‘�' tR cam_:, �\ .t 20a1Hxcr3- lit-ot+�t�.�.1ati 1933��`• • • itt6.4 - • r • iPmr'• � , <-0:r ac,ett �413 • 3IR oar } ti-921 t- C.u.•cana3-4\ C 6- - s1A1912d ;�i�c`y- ti I - .. rcl��':ZtaM7.1 ,Nr ama! '.-tli REGIONAL. SEISMICITY] MACTEC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 u 1-- ;r 0 DATE: May 18, 2005 Pseudo Spectral Acceleration (g) 2. 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 ... ... -• - .. .. .. - '•.. • -: .__. _. - - _.y-_____ - ' - -- ; ..: _,-. = � • - - --- _ ._ __ : - _-. . I - 1 damping -. .. 2%damping 5% damping — — - 1 O% • i t • -/ \ - • . _ - - - • • - - - - - ____ ��, 0.0 .0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Period (seconds) 3.0 HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRA - SITE SPECIFIC Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian DBE - 10% Probabiltiy of Exceedence in 50 Years 3.5 4.0 MACTEC O' 51nvi, .1)131'paa.ert FIGURE 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H DATE: May 18, 2005 JOB: 495-05-1091 Pseudo Spectral Acceleration (g) 2. 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 • • :• i • • • 2% damping r damping 5% damping 10% — — t - N. \ ` • • ' • • ....\ - - N. ._' • ... N \ . . . N. ... .. .. _ • . . ....... -- . _ .. . .. _. .. _. - •---•- ---- • -- -- __. _.. _.. ............. ...........7.....• _ ...... • .. .. . . . 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Period (seconds) 3.0 HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRA - SITE SPECIFIC Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian UBE - 10% Probabiltiy of Exceedence in 100 Years 3.5 4.0 MACTEC 1 .10734, .-t'RI p:,a g,! FIGURE 8 APPENDIX CURRENT AND PRIOR FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Georechnical Investigation October26, 2005 MACTECProject 9953-05-1091 APPENDIX A CURRENT AND PRIOR FIELD EXPLORATIONS The soil conditions beneath the site were explored by drilling one boring. In addition, data were available from our prior investigation adjacent to the site (our Job. No_ 69080). The locations of our current and prior borings are shown on Figure 2. The current borings were drilled to a depth of 50 feet below the existing grade using 8-inch-diameter hollow stem auger -type drilling equipment. The prior borings were drilled to depths of 40 to 50 feet below the existing grade using 18-inch- diameter bucket -type drilling equipment. The elevations for the prior explorations are based on a datum different than what was assumed for our current explorations_ 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. 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 boring are presented on Figure A-1; the logs from our prior nearby borings are presented in Figures A-1.2 through A-I.3. The depths at which 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, standard penetration tests (SPTs) were performed in our current boring; the results of the tests are indicated on the logs. The soils are classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System described on Figure A-2. CURRENT AND PRIOR LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Laboratory tests were perfonned on selected samples obtained from the borings to aid in the classification of the soils and to evaluate their engineering properties, 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 presented to the left of the boring logs. A - 1 October 26, 2005 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Report of Geotechnical Investigation MACTEC Project 4953-05-1091 Direct shear tests were performed on selected undisturbed samples to determine the strength of the soils. The tests were performed after soaking to near -saturated moisture content and at various surcharge pressures. The maximum values determined from the direct shear tests are presented in Figure A-3.I and A-3.2, Direct Shear Test Data. Confined consolidation tests were performed on undisturbed samples. Water was added to the samples during the test to illustrate the effect of moisture on the compressibility. The results of the tests are presented in Figure A-4.1 through A-4.2, 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 the boring. The test was performed in accordance with the ASTM Designation DI 557 method of compaction. The results of the test are presented in Figure A-5, Compaction Test Data. To provide information for paving design, a stabilometer test ("R" value test) was performed on a sample of the upper soils. The results of the test are presented on Figure A-6.I through A-6.2. R- Value Test Report Soil corrosivity test was performed on samples of the on -site soils. The results of the test are presented at the end of the Appendix. iff A - 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ELEVATION (ft) 100- 95 — 90— 85- x 1-. a. Ca 5 10 — 15 - - 20 S0— 25 75 — — 30 70 — 65 — 35 40 30 12.3 22.6 4.8 120 106 99 101 29 26 24 41 SAMPLE LOC, 56 79 3.7 89 104 92/11" BORING 1 DATE DRILLED: April 25, 2005 EQUIPMENT USED: Hollow Stem Auger HOLE DIAMETER (in.): 8 ELEVATION: 102** CL ML 6" Thick Asphalt Concrete over 2'/� Thick Base Course SILTY CLAY - very still, moist, light brown, some fine sand Layer of SILTY SAND - moist, light brown, fine sand Becomes brownish gray SANDY SILT - very stiff, moist, light gray, very fine to fine sand POORLY GRADED SAND - medium dense, slightly moist, fight brown, fine sand Becomes very dense, some Silt Cemented layer, approximately 6" Becomes dense, light gray (CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING FIGURE) Field Tech- GMC Prepared By. LT Checked Be. S HOAG Memorial Hospital Newport Beach, California /MACTEC LOG OF BORING Project: 4953-05-1091 Figure: A-1. la 1 1 z 0 I-- U 0 N0 0AQ t- < (7 Ow < U UL t— U h tz<, Lx W aw w C/3m zz O 0 0 -(7) oZ z� 0 F 0: 0. X wc. wry < F- w 2< F F zz oz w w3 �w cc °n N h W U fir¢ cn rzL.* 0 1— oz l- L 0. Q a. w < JILI L < F zw <1- <0 MI cLt- << co r ELEVATION (ft) x f—� SAMPLE LOC. BORING 1 ?(Continued) DATE DRILLED: April 25, 2005 EQUIPMENT USED: Hollow Stem Auger HOLE DIAMETER (in.): 8 ELEVATION: 102** 60 — 55- 50- 45 — 40- 35 — 30- 25 — = 45 50 — 55 r — 60 65 70 - 75 49 18.1 107 43 SM SILTY SAND - dense, wet, light brown with rusty stain, fine sand SANDY SILT - very stiff, wet, light gray and light brown, some Clay Few rounded gravel END OF BORING AT 50 FEET NOTE: Hand augered upper 5 feet. Water encountered at 42.3 feet. 10 minutes after auger removed. Caving below 42'4 feet. Possible caving from 17 to 43 feet. Boring backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped. * Number of blows required to drive the Crandall sampler 12 inches using a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. ** Boring elevation based on assumed datum with Elevation 100. (please see Plot Plan). Field Tech. GMC Prepared By 1.T Checked By. HOAG Memorial Hospital Newport Beach, California 7MACTEC LOG OF BORING Project. 4953-05-1091 Figure: A-l.lb 75- . 70 65-I 601 2.9 102 I- 20— 5.6 103 55 -j • 8..2 1 -IV' 40 O• • oQ� ���� " 12.0 123 10 15 16.31 113 23.9 103 24.4 100 BORING. 7 • DATE DRILLED : Moy 2, 1969 EQUIPMENT USED : 18"-Dlameter Bucket ELEVATION FILL - SAND Y SILT and CLAYEY SILT MIRTURE - rootlets, pieces of wire, brown 501 'l. SP 25 1- 3 454 40 35- 30 - i- 3 . ---106 4.9 108 1 �4.1 97 5.5 89 12.9 99 1 - 45 56 115__1 50 7.9 SILTY CLAY - jointed, mottled grey and brown SAND - fine, light brownish -grey Lenses of Silt, few grovel, light grey Coarse, brown • Layer of CLAYEY SILT - light grey Cemented layer Lenses of Silt, brown Layer of SANDY SILT - light grey Lenses of Silt, light grey Few grovel SILTY CLAY - some Sand, few gravel, brown NOTE: Water not encountered. Raveling from 17 to 23' (to 24" in diameter). LOG OF BORING' LEROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES 1:1G1IRE A-1.2 — t ,Q O . • ah� �Qo % coP/ e (PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION A-69080) BORING 10 DATE DR I L L : April 29, 1969 EQUIPMENT USED: Mu -Diameter Bucket ELEVATION 79,0 ' • 751 12.1 123 SC CLAYEY SAND' - fine, rootlets, brown 23.3 70 - _ 10, 19.9 65 9.7 104 104 107 ML 60 -1 f-20 55 l t 25 50 J 45-- 0 4.0 102 14.1 3.0 109 102 2.1 35 1 2.9 8.1 100 04 88 SP CLAYEY SILT - soriie Sand, brown Layer of SAND - fine, light grey SAND - fine, light brownish -grey Layer of Silty Clay - brown Cemented layers. Silty (GAD USED FROM 30 TO 30.5 FEET) NOTE: Water not encountered. Cwing From 22' to 27' (to 36" in diameter). Silty LOG OF BORING LEROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE A-l.3 - - NM V r r• - - - r MN - Imo. - - . >,r M. 1.. a� MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOLS TYPICAL NAMES Undisturbed Sample Auger Cuttings COARSE GRAINED SOILS (More than 50% of material is LARGER than No 200 sieve size) GRAVELS (More than 50% of' coarse fraction is LARGER than the No. 4 sieve size) CLEAN GRAVELS (Little or no fines) • ►'4 GW °C� GP Well graded gravels, gravel • sand mixtures, little or no fines, Standard Penetration Test Bulk Sample Poorly graded gravels or grave • sand mixtures, little or no fines. Rock Core Crandall Sampler GRAVELS WITH FINES (Appreciable amount of fines) GM Silty gravels, gravel • sand • silt mixtures. Dilatometer it Pressure Meter GC Clayey gravels, gravel • sand • clay mixtures. Packer 0 No Recovery SANDS (More than 50% of coarse fraction is SMALLER than the No. 4 Sieve Sizel CLEAN SANDS (Little or no fines) SW Well graded sands, gravelly sands, linle or no fines. Water Table at time of'drilling Water Table after 24 hours SP Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines. SANDS WITH FINES (Appreciable amount of fines) SM Silty sands, sand • silt mixtures FINE GRAINED SOILS (More than 50% of f material is SMALLER than No. 200 sieve size) SILTS AND CLAYS (Liquid limit LESS than 50) SILTS AND CLAYS (Liquid limit GREATER than 50) HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS SC CL ML OL MH Clayey sands, sand • clay mixtures. Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty of clayey fine sands or clayey silts and with slight plasticity, Inorganic lays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays. Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity. Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts. Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts. Peat and other highly organic soils, BOUNDARY CLASSIFICATIONS: Soils possessing characteristics of two groups are designated by combinations of group symbols. SILT OR CLAY SAND GRAVEL Fine Medium Coarse Fine Coarse Cobbles Boulders No.200 No.40 No,10 No,4 3/4" 3" U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 12" Reference: The Unified Soil Classification System, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army Technical Memorandum No. 3.357, Vol. 1, March, 1953 (Revised April, 1960) Correlation of Penetration Resistance with Relative Density and Consistency SAND & GRAVEL No, of Blows 0.4 5.10 11 - 30 31 - 50 Over 50 Relative Density Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense SILT & CLAY No. of Blows 0.1 2.4 5-8 9.15 1.6.30 'Over 30 Consistency Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Stiff Very Stiff Hard KEY TO SYMBOLS AND DESCRIPTIONS t MACTEC FIGURE A-2 1 1 1 1 1 t t 1 0 W O ars tN▪ t f— d 0 krt • 1 00 0 w c�S Q" a) 2000 0 3000 VD W a ▪ 4000 cf) 5000 6000 0 SHEAR STRENGTH in Pounds per Square Foot 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 r N. \ \ \ 0 1@5'h 0 Boring Sample Number and Depth (ft.) • @sr \ • O I@11% • \ \ 1@17%: \ O \ \ 1@23% o 1@5%: 1@siz \ • \ \ \ • . 0 Used in Analyses! • \ \ • lam, \ 0 )()(armI \ \ \ \ \ \ \ KEY: o Samples tested after soaking to a moisture content near saturation DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA MACTEC 1 FIGURE A - 3.1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O 0 -LL w 10 1 N 2 D 0 C_ 300C LtJ (!) Cr 4000 LLI cr c9 2 O 5000 cr 6000 0 SHEAR STRENGTH in Pounds per Square Foot 1000 2000 3000 . 4000 5000 6 �'`4/9 • O 40 /7 /O�-0- 107'II s es(kop /O LA 2/ • - 8 •95 9@. • 6@ 20 T 1 PROPOSED NURSING WING ..9/sc, •gQ// BORING NUMBER 8 /C�/ i SAMPLE DEPTH (FT.) 4.•- o. • 8@ /6 i' 70 7 •- 3• �0/9 620 . /O@ 23 - • • //' 2¢ •627 • 6 @ 30 /0e o -\¢ e 7 • 6@.36 • . /Oe2/ t\• VALUES USED IN ANALYSES ee// • 9@ 9 3@ a 4e./7 . • 70/7 //@ /1 KEY: • Tests of field moisture content o Tests at increased moisture content D t RECT SHEAR TEST DATA LEROY CRANDALL & ASSOCIATES I FIGURE A - 3.: 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 ui 0 a a DATE May 24, 2005 0 ra 0 CONSOLIDATION IN INCHES PER INCH O O O O C _ O p N O o00 c° CD .. 0 O t , LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 0.4 0.5 0_6 0_7 0.8 0.9 I 0 2 0 3 0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7 0 8.0 • Boring SILTY l at 5'/2 CLAY NOTE Water added to samp es after consolidation under a load of 1.8 kips per square foot. CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA -11 MACTEC - FIGURE A - 4.1 1 1 1 1 .c1 f) 0 H ui 0 M MIIII JOB 4953.05-1091 0.02 U 0.04 z w a V 0.06 z 0 g 0.08 0 z O 0.10 V 0.12 0.14 LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 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 SILTY CLAY NOTE: Water added to sample after consolidation under a load of 1.8 kips per square foot. CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA MACTEC <- FIGURE A - 4.2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J U f- ui 0 a Q 4953.0571091 BORING NUMBER AND SAMPLE DEPTH: SOIL TYPE: MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY: (Ibs./cu.ft.) I at 3 to 6' . SILTY CLAY 126 OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT: I0.5 (%) TEST METHOD: ASTM Designation DI557 COMPACTION TEST DATA MACTEC FIGURE A-5 Date: Project No.: Project: Depth: Material Description: Tested by: Checked by: Remarks: RESISTANCE R-VALUE TESTING RESULTS (Cal Test 301) 05/05/2005 4953-05-1091.02 Hoag Memorial Medical 3-6` Sample Number: 1 SANDY CLAY (CL), brown NS JH Lab #16328 Test specimen number 1 2 3 Compaction pressure (psi): Wet weight (gms): Dry weight (gms): Tare weight (gms): % 4MQisture: • Exudation load (lbs.): Exudation.pressure (psi): Total weight (gms.): Mold weight (gms.): Saiiiple weight. .(gms.): Initial expansion (x10,000): Final expansion (x10,000): Expansion pressure (psi): Ph at 2000 lbs.: D turns: Height (in.): Dry density (•pcf) : Corrected R: 300 150 1320.0 1330.0 1199.2 1199.2 0.0 0.0 10,4 10,9 3547 -2351 282 187 3244.0 3263.0 2109.0 2110.0 1135.0 1153.0 0 0 15 7 0.45 0.21 120 129 3.69 3.94 18 13 2.50 2.56 125..0 123.1 18' 14 R-Value at 300 psi exudation pressure = 20 350 1310.0 1199.2 0.0 9..2 .: 4902 390 3269.0 2115.0 115'4•._0 0 21 0.64 106 3.60 26 2.50 128..1 26 MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc_ FIGURE A-6.1 M. J. Schiff & Associates, Inc. Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959 Phone: (909) 626-0967 Fax: (909) 626-3316 931 W. Baseline Road E-mail lab mjschii f com Claremont, CA 91711 website: mjschiffcom Sample ID Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples MACTEC Hoag Memorial Medical, Newport Beach, CA Your #4953-05-1091, MJS&A #05-06ISIAB 3-May-05 1 @ 5.5' CL Resistivity Units as -received ohm -cm 13,000 saturated ohm -cm 1,400 pN 8.4 Electrical Conductivity mS/cm 0.25 Chemical Analyses Cations calcium Cat+ mg/kg 36 magnesium Mgt+ mg/kg 15 sodium Na'+ mg/kg 178 Anions carbonate C032" mg/kg ND bicarbonate HCO3'" mg/kg 571 chloride C1'" mg/kg ND sulfate SO42" mg/kg 67 Other Tests ammonium nitrate sulfide Redox NH414 mg/kg na NO3'" mg/kg na S2" qual mV na na Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis were made on a 1:5 soil -to -water extract. mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil. Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts ND = not detected na = not analyzed Page 1 of 1