The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01 - Appendix B Part 1APPENDIX B GEOLOGY AND SOILS M Volume 1 Report of Geotechnical Studies Proposed Newport Banning Ranch Development City of Newport Beach /County of Orange Prepared for: Newport Banning Ranch LLC Prepared By: GMU Geotechnical, Inc. July 2011 GEOTECH N�CAL. �N C_ 23241 Arroyo Visia RaiLCtLO Sar•ta MaLgariLa CA 92688 v - 949.888_6513 oLax= 949.858.1380 web= www_g mugao_com REPORT OF GEQTECHICAL STUDIES PROPOSED NEWPORT BANNING RANCI3 DEVELOPMENT CITY OF NEWPORT SEACII COUNTY OF ORANGE July 2011 GMU pROJ ECTI' 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Nenvpor! Bannirng Ranch TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUMEI Reports and Plates Description Page INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... ..............................1 PURPOSE............................................................................................... ..............................1 SCOPE..................................................................................................... ..............................1 LOCATION............................................................................................. ..............................2 SITEDESCRIPTION .......................................................................................... ..............................2 TOPOGRAPHY...................................................................................... ..............................2 PREVIOUS ON -SITE GRADING AND IMPROVEMENTS ............... ..............................3 OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................. ..............................3 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND GRADING ................................... ..............................3 PREVIOUS REPORTS AND TECHNICAL STUDIES ..................................... ..............................4 GEOTECHNICAL AND FAULT STUDY INVESTIGATIONS .......... ..............................4 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES ............................................................. ..............................5 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC AND TECTONIC SETTING .................................... ..............................6 REGIONALFAULTING ........................................................................ ..............................6 ComptonThrust Ramp ................................................................ ..............................6 Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone .................................................. ..............................7 San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust ................................................... ..............................8 SEISMICITY AND EARTHQUAKE HISTORY .................................. ..............................8 SEISMIC WATER WAVES ................................................................... ..............................9 Seiches........................................................................................ ..............................9 Tsunamis..................................................................................... ..............................9 TsunamiInundation Maps ........................................................... .............................10 Tsunami Hazard Assessment ....................................................... .............................11 SITEGEOLOGY .................................................................................................. .............................11 GEOMORPHOLOGY.............................................................................. .............................11 NORTH BRANCH OF THE NIFZ .......................................................... .............................12 STRATIGRAPHY.................................................................................... .............................12 The San Pedro Formation ............................................................ .............................13 Marine Terrace Deposits .............................................................. .............................13 RiverAlluvium ( Qal) ................................................................... .............................14 Colluvium( Qcol) ......................................................................... .............................14 Man -made Fill .............................................................................. .............................15 SoilDevelopment ......................................................................... .............................14 i GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Banning Ranch TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Description Page GEOLOGICSTRUCTURE ..................................................................... .............................15 HISTORIC SLOPE STABILITY ............................................................. .............................16 HYDROGEOLOGY................................................................................ .............................16 FLOODING AND COASTAL EROSION .............................................. .............................17 OILFIELD SUBSIDENCE ..................................................................... .............................17 BLUFF SLOPE RETREAT ..................................................................... .............................18 GROUNDMOTION ................................................................................ .............................19 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) .......................... .............................19 Caltrans Seismic Hazard Analysis ............................................... .............................21 SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES ................................................................... .............................22 FAULT INVESTIGATION AND FINDINGS .................................................... .............................22 BACKGROUND...................................................................................... .............................22 INVESTIGATIVE APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY .................... .............................23 FAULTING.............................................................................................. .............................25 Faults That Could Not Be Proved Inactive .................................. .............................26 SUMMARY OF FAULT INVESTIGATION FINDINGS ...................... .............................28 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND FINDINGS .................................. .............................29 GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION SUMMARY ................................ .............................29 Previous Exploration by Others ................................................... .............................29 Exploration by GMU Geotechnical ............................................. .............................29 LABORATORY TESTING ..................................................................... .............................29 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ANALYSES AND FINDINGS .....29 SlopeStability .............................................................................. .............................29 Liquefaction................................................................................. .............................31 Compressible and Collapsible Soils ............................................. .............................32 ExpansiveSoils ............................................................................ .............................33 CorrosionPotential ...................................................................... .............................34 Excavation Characteristics ........................................................... .............................34 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................... .............................34 RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................... .............................35 FAULTSETBACK .................................................................................. .............................35 2011 ii GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Banning Ranch TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Description Page BLUFF SLOPE REPAIR AND SETBACK ............................................ .............................36 SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING ................................................ .............................37 General......................................................................................... .............................37 Clearing....................................................................................... ..............................3 7 Processing.................................................................................... .............................37 CorrectiveGrading ....................................................................... .............................37 GradingObservations .................................................................. .............................38 Offsite Retaining Wall (Hilfiker Wall) Considerations ............... .............................39 Over - Excavation for Transition Lots ........................................... .............................39 FILL MATERIAL AND PLACEMENT ................................................. .............................39 Suitability..................................................................................... .............................39 Compaction Standard and Methodology ..................................... .............................40 FillSlope Compaction ................................................................. .............................40 Use of Oversize Rock or Broken Concrete .................................. .............................40 Use of Bio- Remediated and Asphalt -like Soils ........................... .............................41 SUBDRAINS........................................................................................... .............................41 General......................................................................................... .............................41 Arroyo /Ravine Bottom Areas ...................................................... .............................41 Keyway Backdrains and Outlets .................................................. .............................41 DewateringSumps ....................................................................... .............................42 BIOSWALES AND PERMEABLE PAVEMENT .................................. .............................42 PRELIMINARY SEISMIC DESIGN AND FOUNDATION CONSIDERATIONS ........... 42 Residential and Commercial Structures ....................................... .............................42 PedestrianBridge ......................................................................... .............................43 SLOPE LANDSCAPING ......................................................................... .............................44 SURFACE DRAINAGE .......................................................................... .............................44 PLAN REVIEW AND FUTURE REPORTS .......................................... .............................45 LIMITATIONS..................................................................................................... .............................45 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................... .............................46 SUPPORTINGDATA .......................................................................................... .............................46 REFERENCES..................................................................................................... .............................47 July 2011 iii GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Banning Ranch TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) PLATES Plate 1 Location Map Plate 2.1 Land Use Plan Plate 2.2 Land Use Table Plate 3.1 Regional Faulting: Compton Thrust Ramp Plate 3.2 Regional Faulting: Newport Inglewood Fault Zone Plate 4 Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning Plate 5 Local Geomorphology and North Branch of the Newport Inglewood Fault Zone Plate 6 Faults Mapped in the Newport Banning Ranch Area by Previous Investigators Plate 7 Geologic Map Plates 8.1 -8.14 Geologic Cross Sections Plate 9 Fault Setback Zones Plate 9.1 Fault Setback Zone: Newport Mesa North Segment Plate 9.2 Fault Setback Zone: Newport Mesa South Segment Plate 10 Typical Benching and Keyway Plate 11 Typical Buttress or Stabilization Fill Plate 12 Typical Detail Over - Excavation of Transition Lots Plate 13 Recommended Placement Method for Oversize Rock or Concrete Plate 14 Typical Canyon Bottom Detail Plate 15 Typical Backdrain Type Subdrain Plate 16 Typical Dewatering Sump VOLUME II Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology Data and Analysis APPENDIX A — Boring and CPT Sounding Logs Appendix A -1 —Boring and CPT Soundings Performed by Goffman, McCormick, and Urban, Inc. Appendix A -2 — Boring and CPT Soundings Performed by Woodward -Clyde Consultants Appendix A -3 — Boring and CPT Soundings Performed by Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. Appendix A -4 — Boring and CPT Soundings Performed by Leighton and Associates, Inc. July 2011 iv GNW Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Banning Ranch APPENDIX B — Geotechnical Laboratory Data Appendix B -1— Geotechnical Laboratory Procedures and Test Results Performed by Goffman, McCormick, and Urban, Inc. Appendix B -2 — Geotechnical Laboratory Procedures and Test Results Performed by Others APPENDIX C — Slope Stability Methodology and Results APPENDIX D — Seismic Hazard Analyses VOLUME III Fault Evaluation Data APPENDIX E — Fault Trench Logs Appendix E -1 — Fault Trench Logs Performed by Goffman, McCormick, and Urban, Inc. Appendix E -2 — Fault Trench Logs Performed by Earth Consultants International, Inc. (ECI) Appendix E -1 — Fault Trench Logs Performed by Earth Technology Corporation Appendix E -1 — Fault Trench Logs Performed by Converse Consultants APPENDIX F — Age Dating Techniques, Representative Soil Profile July 2011 v GMU Project 06- 163 -00 PURPOSE This report presents the results of preliminary geotechnical studies of the soil and geologic conditions for the proposed development at Newport Banning Ranch (NBR). The primary purpose of this study was to address and evaluate geological and geotechnical issues that may affect the proposed NBR development. SCOPE The scope of our studies was as follows: Review of geological and geotechnical reports previously prepared for the project site and adjacent properties. 2. Interpretation of historic aerial photographs and topographic maps. 3. Completion of appropriate geologic mapping. 4. Performance of a fault investigation that included: ® A photolineament study to locate potential zones of surface fault rupture. e Excavation and logging of approximately 5,000+ lineal feet of fault trenching. ® Twenty -one Cone Penetration Soundings (CPT) and two adjacent rotary wash -type borings in the recent alluvial sediments. ® Age- dating assessment of surface sediments and soils (pedogenic profiles) and relative fault activity. 5. Excavation of nine additional bucket auger type borings and six backhoe test pits to augment existing geotechnical data. 6. Performance of geotechnical laboratory tests to compliment existing test data, to evaluate potential geotechnical constraints, and to determine typical engineering properties of the soil and rock materials that may be encountered during grading. 7. Preparation of a geologic map and cross sections. NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Neipport Banning Ranch 8. Geological and geotechnical engineering analysis of background data, subsurface data, and laboratory testing data. 9. Preparation of this report that summarizes our findings in regards to potential geologic hazards, geotechnical design constraints, and outlines preliminary recommendations about the feasibility of project development. f:1I1Zfl�I,YI[11U The proposed NBR development area is east of the Santa Ana River, approximately %8- to t/4 -mile north of the coastline in western coastal Orange County (see Plate 1 -- Location Map). The site is bounded by the Santa Ana River to the west, the westward extension of West 19th Street to the north, existing commercial and residential development to the east, and West Coast Highway to the south. Most of the site is in unincorporated Orange County, with the remainder in the City of Newport Beach. SITE DESCRIPTION TOPOGRAPHY The site is comprised of two main topographic areas: 1) lowlands located in the northwest portion of the site, and 2) an uplifted mesa (i.e., Newport Mesa) in the remainder of the site (see Plate 1 -- Location Map). The lowlands are about one -third of the site and range in elevation from approximately elevation 1.0 to 10.0 feet. Mesa elevations range from approximately 50 feet in the southwestern portion to approximately 105 feet in the east central portion (Plate 7). The Newport Mesa has been incised in several areas to form arroyos of various sizes. Two main arroyos occur in the southern portion and the northern portion of the mesa, respectively. Based on historical survey maps from 1874, the major arroyos pre -date development and are largely the result of natural processes. Slopes that descend from the mesa top to the lowlands and adjacent West Coast Highway average 30 to 40 degrees with locally flatter and steeper sections. These slopes are eroded forming gullies and ravines. Slopes that descend into the main arroyos are relatively flatter than the outer bluff slope faces and generally average approximately 20 degrees in steepness. July 2011 2 GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Neivport Banning Bench PREVIOUS ON -SITE GRADING AND IMPROVEMENTS The top of the Newport Mesa was used for agriculture in the late 1920's and 1930's and has been a producing oil field since approximately 1943/44 based on review of air photos. There are, and were, several hundred oil wells located throughout the site. Most oil production facilities are in the central portion of the mesa and adjoining lowland area. The current oil operator is now removing surface facilities and abandoning wells. Farming and oil production have produced several cut pads and near - vertical cut slopes, areas of non - engineered loose fills, and numerous excavations. Additionally, the site contains oil and gas production equipment and appurtenances (i.e., pipelines, tanks, etc.). Currently, there are approximately 90 active oil wells and related appurtenances within the proposed NBR development. Roads are also present across the mesa and lowland areas of the site in connection with the development of the oil production areas. There is also a deep, abandoned road cut along the southeastern property boundary (Plate 7). OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS The NBR site is bordered by existing developments along portions of the northern, eastern, southern, and southwestern boundaries (Plate 7). Development along the eastern boundary consists of two single - family residential developments, several mobile home parks, and various light commercial and professional office -type developments. A recent development, The California Sea - Breeze, is adjacent to the northern section of the eastern property line, and contains two mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining walls on the property line. These walls range in height from a few to approximately 33 feet. In addition to the aforementioned residential and commercial developments, a water filtration plant also exists in a "boxed out" area along the southern portion of the eastern boundary (Plate 1 -- Location Map). Developments along the north and east direct their surface drainage via engineered structures through the NBR site into existing arroyos and eventually into the lowlands. A condominium development called the "Newport Crest" is adjacent to the southeastern project boundary. Additional residential developments include the Lido Sands south of the site and across West Coast Highway, the Newport Shores southwest of the site, and the Newport Terrace along the northern property boundary near the eastern corner. The northern portion of the property is also bounded by the County's Talbert Regional Park. The western boundary of the site is bordered by the Anny Corps of Engineers (ALOE) Santa Ana River marsh restoration project constructed adjacent the Santa Ana River channel (see Plate I -- Location Map). PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND GRADING Land use within the NBR development is illustrated on Plate 2.1 — Land Use Plan, and land uses are summarized on Plate 2.2. — Land Use Table. The proposed development consists of creating July 2011 3 GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Banning Ranch several residential areas, roadways, a resort hotel, parks, trails, and open space (see Plate 2.1 and 2.2 — Land Use Plan). Limited portions of the site will remain active oil production areas as noted on Plate 2.1. Open space areas will occupy the remainder of the project, especially within the lowlands and the major arroyos. The planned development will incorporate a comprehensive runoff management plan that includes water quality and drainage features designed to treat and reduce runoff. Water quality features will consist of bioswales, permeable pavement, and other improvements designed to promote soil -based infiltration processes. Drainage improvements will minimize runoff to arroyos, re- direct runoff away from bluffs, and reduce flow rates and volumes in the Oxbow Loop below the bluffs. The proposed development will be accessed via roadways from West Coast Highway to the south as well as Whittier Avenue and 15th, 16th, and 17a' Streets to the east. The Land Use Plan discussed above is supported by Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 17308 within the City of Newport Beach, Orange County. GMU prepared a geotechnical review of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map grading plans (GMU Geotechnical, 2009). The planned grading shown on the Tentative Tract Map includes malting design cuts and fill up to about 25 and 45 feet, respectively, to create mass graded areas for residential and commercial sites, parks, trails, arterial and collector streets, and landscape areas. Graded slopes of up to about 65 feet in maximum height are shown at gradients of 2:1, or flatter. The existing bluff that is oriented south and west will remain, although portions that have experienced local erosion will require restoration. The mass graded areas are shown to surface drain at a minimum 2% gradient. Preliminary slope drainage devices and three water quality basin/cleansing areas are shown on the plan. Currently, no storm drains or other drainage improvements (i.e., bio- swales, etc) are shown. However, a separate Watershed Assessment plan, which includes storm drains, bio - swales, basins and other water quality improvements has been developed by Fuscoe Engineering and will be part of the project rough grading plans which will be reviewed at a future date when the rough grading plans are finalized. PREVIOUS REPORTS AND TECHNICAL STUDIES GEOTECHNICAL AND FAULT STUDY EVALUATIONS Previous geotechnical studies were performed by various consultants including: Woodward - Clyde Consultants (1985), The Earth Technology Corporation (1986), Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. (1993), and Leighton & Associates (1997, 1998). Woodward -Clyde Consultants prepared a report entitled "Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study, Long Range Planning Program," July 2011 4 GMLJ Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Banning Ranch while Pacific Soils Engineering completed an overall " Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation." Leighton and Associates prepared two more specific geotechnical reports addressing settlement and liquefaction potential of previously considered school site locations in the lowlands area. These school sites are no longer considered in the lowlands area. Several surface fault investigations have been performed in the area of the NBR development. Specifically, these were by: Guptill and Heath (1981), Earth Technology Corporation (1986), Law /Crandall, Inc. (1993, 1994), Converse Consultants Orange County (1994), Magorien and Shlemon (1995), Shlemon and others (1995), and Earth Consultants International (1997). Relevant information and findings from both the previous geotechnical and fault studies are discussed in subsequent sections of this report. ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Environmental studies for the NBR, including soil and groundwater investigations, date back to 1984. Past reports and data are summarized in a Summary Environmental Restoration Report and a Phase I Description report prepared by GeoSyntec Consultants in 1996. In general, the main environmental findings include: 1) groundwater below the site has been intruded by seawater with limited impacts to groundwater by oil production related facilities, 2) the soil vadose zone (i.e., zone of partial saturation above the groundwater table) has been impacted in the vicinity of wells, tanks, mud pits, etc. with crude oil, and 3) some of the oil production tank bottom materials (crude oil and sand forming asphalt -like materials) have been used for dust and erosion control at the site. As part of an approved development project, the oil operator will consolidate oil production activities to three areas. During the consolidation process, oil related facilities will be removed. The consolidation operations include removal of structures and equipment related to crude oil production, including oil wells, pipelines, drill rigs, tank farms, a steam generating plant, compressed air plant, generators, and an equipment maintenance facility, as well as other structures and equipment. Oil well removal, or abandonment, operations and petroleum - impacted soil remediation are being conducted in accordance with California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, Orange County Health Care Agency, and Orange County Regional Water Quality Control Board guidelines. The removal and restoration activities generally conform to environmental restoration plans developed by the leaseholder and land owners /developers, discussed with the appropriate oversight agencies, and conducted in consultation with Geosyntec Consultants. The oil consolidation and remediation operation will yield materials including bio- remediated soils, asphalt -like materials, and concrete from abandoned oil production facilities. It is July 2011 5 GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Banning Ranch anticipated that these materials will be utilized in fills placed as part of the planned grading and/or in the construction of roadways. REGIONAL GEOLOGIC AND TECTONIC SETTING REGIONAL FAULTING Three regional fault systems potentially affect design of the proposed NBR development: the Compton Thrust Ramp in the Los Angeles area; the Newport- Inglewood fault zone (NIFZ), a portion of which borders and locally infringes on the site; and the San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust, an inferred blind fault potentially underlying the San Joaquin Hills and postulated to extend immediately south of the proposed development. Compton Thrust Ramp Shaw and Suppe (1996) inferred the existence of the northwest- trending southwest - vergent Compton Thrust Ramp (CTR) from deep, seismic - reflection profiles and from construction of retrodeformable cross sections. They believe regional Quaternary structures within the LA Basin, including the Newport Inglewood Fault Zone (NIFZ), are controlled, in part, by a growth fold(s) within a fault -bend fold above the base of the buried (i.e., no geomorphic expression) CTR (see Plate 3.1 -- Regional Faulting: Compton Thrust Ramp). The east side upthrust as defined by Shaw and Suppe (1996) ramps up from a central LA Basin decollement that appears to connect to the Elysian Park ramp farther to the northeast. The structure strikes approximately N60W and dips to the NE from 20 to 25 degrees. Approximately 25 miles of dip -slip displacement has been inferred on the CTR during the last 2.5 million years. A portion of the southern or upper end of the CTR, as currently mapped, lies beneath the Torrance-Wilmington oil field. Within the oil field, structural relief in late Pliocene and Quaternary horizons is interpreted as fault -bend folding. Davis and others (1989) similarly believe anticlines within the Torrance oil field resulted from fault -bend folding above a thrust ramp. The depth of the CTR, as postulated by Shaw and Suppe, lies between 3 miles and 6 miles. Horizontal offsets in the fold trend suggest the CTR can be divided into three segments. The segments from north to south are the Baldwin Hills, Central, and Santa Ana (see Plate 3.1 -- Regional Faulting - Compton Thrust Ramp). The segments, if active (i.e., Holocene), may rupture in separate earthquakes or multi- segments may possibly rupture together. Recent studies suggest a lack of activity on the thrust during the Holocene (Mueller and Suppe, 1996; Rockwell and others, 1996). The CTR was removed as a seismic source from the 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps and California Uniform Earthquake Rupture Forecast based on Mueller (1997), which documented lack of fault deformation in deposits as old as 15 -20 ka. In contrast, Leon et al. (2009) utilized a combination of high - resolution seismic reflection profiles and borehole excavations to conclude that the CTR has had Holocene earthquakes and thus is active. The lateral extent of the two end segments July 2011 6 GW Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Banning Ranch (i.e., Baldwin Hills and Santa Ana) is poorly constrained. The NBR development is potentially located above the Santa Ana Section. Although the CTR does not pose a risk of surface rupture within the NBR development, it is potentially active and may therefore contribute to ground motion at the site. Newport - Inglewood Fault Zone The Newport- Inglewood fault (NIFZ) is a structural zone containing numerous faults and fault splays or branches and anticlinal uplifts that are believed to have been created by movement on the Compton Thrust Ramp. The zone strikes generally N45W and neat surface dips range between 70 and 90 degrees. The surface trace is discontinuous in the Los Angeles Basin, but the zone is marked by distinct geomorphic features extending from Culver City to Signal Hill. South of Signal Hill, the zone parallels the coastline until just south of Newport Bay, where it heads offshore (see Plate 3.2 — Regional Faulting: Newport - Inglewood Fault zone). Geomorphic expression of the NIFZ locally includes warped or displaced surfaces, scarps, troughs, deflected drainage channels, air photo lineaments, and closed depressions on the mesas. The onshore segment of the NIFZ extends south from Beverly Hills to Newport Bay. North of Signal Hill, the NIFZ is defined by a discontinuous chain of low hills. South of Seal Beach, the NIFZ is marked by several relatively youthful, low -lying and tilted and uplifted surfaces including, from north to south, Landing Hill (i.e., Seal Beach area) and Bolsa Chica, Huntington Beach, and Newport mesas. Signal Hill, an uplifted structural feature north of Seal Beach, is believed to be approximately 200,000 years old based on ages of marine shells (Forrest and others, 1997). Recently, as noted above, Shaw and Suppe (1996), Davis and others (1989), constructed retrodeformable cross- sections across the L.A. area. They interpret the NIFZ zone as, respectively: 1) a multi- sectioned zone of strike -slip faulting that has been offset at depth (5 to 6 miles) and translated 2' /z miles to the southwest along the Compton Thrust Ramp, and 2) an expression of fault - propagation folding above a deeply buried thrust fault. Two sections of the NIFZ are defined by a northerly trend increase in the strike of the zone north of Signal Hill. This boundary is also north of the aftershock zone of the 1933 Long Beach Earthquake (Hauksson, 1987). Separate portions of the fault southerly of Signal Hill have been named (Hauksson, 1987) and from north to south include the Cherry Hill, Northeast Flank, Reservoir Hill, Seal Beach, and North and South Branch faults (see Plate 3.2 — Regional Faulting: Newport- Inglewood Fault zone). The near - surface expression of the Cherry Hill fault, as exposed in Signal Hill trenches, is a thrust that clearly displaces Pleistocene and probable Holocene sediments and soils (pedogenic profiles). Additionally, the presence of deeply incised windgaps (abandoned channels) provides geomorphic evidence that Signal Hill has been subject to at least 80 feet of uplift and folding since latest Pleistocene time (Mills and Shlemon, 1992). The south section of the NIFZ continues at least as far south as Newport Bay. South of the site, the NIFZ trends offshore and appears to be continuous with submarine faults (sometimes July 2011 7 GNW Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Bmuthig Ranch identified as the offshore Newport- Inglewood or as the South Coast Offshore fault) and locally coincides with a submarine canyon. The coastal end of the submarine canyon is located near the end of the Newport pier. Farther to the south the NIFZ is believed to connect to the northern offshore segment of the Rose Canyon fault which cuts through San Diego (Fischer, 1992). In the San Diego area, the southern most segment shows evidence of Holocene surface rupture. Estimates of the amount of right - lateral displacement on the NIFZ vary. For example, total displacement (horizontal along strike of the fault) has been estimated to be approximately 1.8 miles with offsets decreasing to the north. However, Forrest and others (1997) note approximately six miles of offset in the last seven million years. The sense of vertical separation is both east- and west - side -up on individual faults, but appears to be west -side up across the width of the entire zone of deformation. Slip rate estimates, depending on fault segment, range from a low of 0.34 mm/yr (.013 in/yr) to a high of 1.0 to 2.0 mm /yr (.04 to .08 in/yr) (Freeman and others, 1992; Grant and others, 1997; Shlemon and others, 1995). Forrest and others (1977) estimated that the NIFZ is capable of large earthquakes with up to one meter of offset and recurrence in 1200 to 3000 years. At least two large events are inferred to have occurred within the last 2,000 to 4,000 years (Grant and others, 1997; Shlemon and others, 1995); and Peterson and others (1996) suggested a Mw 6.9 earthquake for each segment of the NIFZ. Accordingly, based on a maximum estimated slip rate of 2 to 5 nun /yr (.08 to .2 in/yr) and a moment magnitude of less than 7.0, the NIFZ is deemed a "Class B" fault. San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust The site is about 4.6 km from the San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust ( SJHBT), an inferred, low - angle fault system (e.g., blind thrusts) suggested by Grant et al. (1999). Blind thrust faults normally do not break the ground surface during sizeable earthquakes. The existence of the SJHBT is postulated from comparison of an early 20th Century topographic survey with recent geodetic measurements in the Newport Back Bay and from uplifted marine terraces within the San Joaquin Hills (Grant et al., 1999). The blind thrust fault is modeled to dip westerly from about 1 mile deep below the east side of the San Joaquin Hills, intersecting the Newport - Inglewood fault at a depth of about 5 miles. Direct evidence of the SJHBT, such as seismicity data, geophysical data, or deep boring logs, does not exist. However, the existence of the SJHBT has been incorporated into the seismic hazard models of CGS, USGS, and Caltrans. SEISMICITY AND EARTHQUAKE HISTORY Since 1920, approximately 16 earthquakes M4.0 or larger have occurred along the NIFZ north of Newport Bay. Barrows (1974) noted that the majority of the events are associated with the section of the NIFZ near the NBR development area. The largest event within the NIFZ was the July 2011 8 GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Banning Ranch ML 6.3 1933 Long Beach earthquake. The earthquake occurred at 5:54 P.M. and nucleated between Huntington Beach and Newport Bay (Hauksson and Gross, 1991). The rupture propagated to the northwest from a depth of 8 miles. The focal mechanism, based on recorded seismograms, indicates right - lateral motion with a small normal component on a NW striking, 80 degree NE- dipping nodal plane. Reports of coseismic surface faulting are questionable. However, elevation changes of approximately -0.39 to +0.59 feet detected shortly after the earthquake are attributed to coseismic deformation (Castle and Buchanan - Banks, 1989). The largest aftershock (ML 5.4) occurred seven months after the main shock near Signal Hill. The NBR development area appears to be within the southern limits of the 1933 aftershock zone. The most recent earthquake greater than M4.0 occurred on May 17, 2009, near Lennox and Inglewood, California. According to the Preliminary Earthquake Report by the USGS, this earthquake event registered a magnitude (Mw) of 4.7 and was located at 33.937 °N, 118.345 °W, which is about 49 km northeast of Banning Ranch. The earthquake occurred at a depth of 15.1 km. Although the earthquake location is consistent with the NIFZ, and unofficial USGS comments in the media suggested the earthquake may have occurred on the NIFZ, the USGS did not conclusively assign the earthquake to the NIFZ. SEISMIC WATER WAVES Seiches A seiche is a free, coseismic oscillation of the surface of water in an enclosed or semi- enclosed basin such as a lake or harbor. The closest enclosed bodies of water to the site are the Santa Ana River and the slough -like areas created by the ACOE Santa Ana River marsh restoration project. However, neither of these bodies of water is close enough and /or large enough to represent a significant hazard to the NBR development. Consequently, the potential seiche hazard is not significant. Tsunamis Tsunamis or seismic sea waves that have affected coastal southern California are generally produced by submarine fault rupture. Historical records indicate that the coast, from San Pedro to Newport Bay, has been affected by six significant tsunamis since 1868 (Vasily Tito, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, Personal Communication, June 1998). The largest waves were on the order of 6 to 8 feet. The most extensive recent damage occurred in harbor areas such as Los Angeles (Alaska - 1964, Chile - 1960). Legg et al. (2004) investigated the tsunami hazard associated with the Catalina fault offshore of Southern California. They simulated tsunamis based on coseismic deformation of the sea floor and estimated that coastal runup values are 1.4 to 4.0m, although runup could exceed 7m 9 GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Bmiiihig Rmrcir depending upon amplification due to bathymetry and coastal configuration. Large earthquakes on the Catalina fault are relatively infrequent, with recurrence intervals of several hundred to thousands of years (Legg et al., 2004). Tsunami Inundation Maps In 2009, the California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Survey, and University of Southern California partnered in an effort to create tsunami inundation maps for California. The tsunami inundation maps were generated through a modeling process that utilizes the Method of Splitting Tsunamis (MOST). This computational program models tsunami evolution and inundation based on bathymetry and topography. The modeling also utilizes a variety of tsunami source events, including "realistic local and distant earthquakes and hypothetical extreme undersea, near -shore landslides" (California Emergency Management Agency et al., 2009). Using the source, bathymetry, and topography, the tsunami modeling yields a maximum inundation line. It is important to note that the published map does not represent inundation from a single event. Rather, it is the result of combining inundation lines from multiple source events. Therefore, the entire inundation region will not likely be inundated during a single tsunami event (California Emergency Management Agency et al., 2009). The Tsunami Inundation Map states that the "tsunami inundation map was prepared to assist cities and counties in identifying their tsunami hazard. It is intended for local jurisdictional, coastal evacuation planning uses only." Furthermore, the map conveys that it is not intended for regulatory purposes. With respect to probability, the map states that it contains "no information about the probability of any tsunami affecting any area within a specific period of time." A Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning was published for the Newport Beach Quadrangle (California Emergency Management Agency et al., 2009). In considering the Tsunami Inundation Map with respect to the proposed Banning Ranch development, it is critical to note three points: (1) the map is only intended for emergency planning and evacuation planning; (2) the map does not convey any information with respect to probability or timing of tsunami events; and (3) the inundation line is a conservative combination of multiple source events. An excerpt of the Tsunami Inundation Map for the Newport Beach Quadrangle is attached as Plate 4. The tsunami inundation line is mapped near the toe of the bluffs that divide the upland and lowland areas of the NBR development. The structural and habitable developments planned at NBR are located on the uplands area, which is outside of the tsunami inundation area. This is consistent with our reference (1) report, which concluded that significant protection is provided from potential tsunamis. 2011 10 GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Banning Ranch Tsunami Hazard Assessment Based on our evaluation of the Tsunami Inundation Map, we conclude that the structural and habitable developments planned at NBR are outside of the Tsunami Inundation Area and will be sufficiently protected from potential tsunamis. Protection from potential tsunamis is also based on the fact that: (1) the closest section of the NBR development to the ocean is the southwestern portion of the mesa which exists approximately 800 feet away at an elevation of approximately 50 feet; and (2) natural and constructed barriers, such as homes and West Coast Highway, exist between the ocean and the site. Although the upland /mesa area is judged to be protected from tsunami inundation, the lowland/floodplain areas may be subject to tsunamis. However, the probability and severity of tsunami inundation in the lowland areas cannot be estimated based on current available information. SITE GEOLOGY GEOMORPHOLOGY The proposed NBR development is located along the western edge of Newport Mesa and extends into the eastern margin of the Santa Ana River flood plain. U.S. Coast Survey topographic mapping from the 1870's shows the Santa Ana River flood plain as a low -lying swampy area between La Mesa (Newport Mesa) on the east and Las Bolas (Huntington Beach Mesa) on the north and west. Several branches or channels meander across the flood plain, flowing around willow swamps, then turning southeast at or near the coast. The channels join near the ocean then flow into "Bitter" Lake at the south edge of the site. The map indicates that direct flow into the ocean at the mouth of the Santa Ana River was blocked by beach deposits. The river, continuing to flow southeasterly parallel to the coast, enters Newport Bay, flowing into the ocean at the eastern edge of the bay. In the 1870's, a relatively wide channel that appears to have been blocked by sedimentation or other natural process formed a shallow lake along the western edge of Newport Mesa. The lake was drained by several smaller channels along its western edge. The western- facing bluffs along the edge of Newport Mesa are approximately 50 feet to 90 feet above the flood plain. The mesa gently slopes toward the west and south. The upper terrace surface appears to be of at least two separate ages and elevations, separated by a northwest- trending paleo - shoreline (see Appendix F). Several northwest- trending and west - draining channels incise deeply into the mesa. Aerial photos taken in the 1920's and 1930's show relatively small, distal fans developing at the edge of the flood plain. Several of the fans were deeply eroded during the 1938 flood. 2011 11 GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newvport Banning Ranch NORTH BRANCH OF THE NIFZ From about Signal Hill on the north to the Bolsa Chica area of Huntington Beach on the south, the NIFZ is generally expressed by a northwest - trending (— N45W), relatively narrow zone (0.6 to 1.2 miles wide) of near - surface, mainly strike -slip faults (Plate 5 -- Local Geomorphology and North Branch of the Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone). To the south, however, particularly from the Huntington Mesa, across the Santa Ana River Gap and through the Newport Mesa, the NIFZ makes a distinct turn in trend (— N60W). Here also the fault diverges into numerous splays that form an approximately 3- mile -wide zone (Castle and Buchanan - Banks, 1989). These widely spaced faults, mostly identified as controlling subsurface oil -field structures, are collectively (and informally) designated as the "North Branch" of the NIFZ (Barrows, 1974; Bryant, 1988). The NBR development area is located within this "North Branch" zone. Pacific Soils Engineering (PSE; 1996) emplaced cone penetration test (CPT) lines across an alignment of oil wells thought to identify the location of a North Branch splay along the east side of the Santa Ana River floodplain in Huntington Beach (near Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue). Although not precluding presence of a deep- seated fault, the CPT data showed that the Pleistocene - Holocene contact was unbroken and could be readily traced over the presumed fault alignment. Therefore, this splay of the NIFZ North Branch was determined to be "not active" for purposes of commercial development. In contrast, as reported in Mills and Shlemon (1988), PSE exposed a thrust fault that bordered the southwest flank of a 36- foot -high pressure ridge, one of three aligned topographic features that delimit the NIFZ North Branch on the Huntington Beach Mesa near Yorktown Avenue and Seabluff Drive. Soil - stratigraphic evidence showed that the last near- surface displacement was probably Holocene in age; and therefore, that particular North Branch splay of the NIFZ was concluded to be active. STRATIGRAPHY Three basic stratigraphic units are present within the NBR development area: the San Pedro Formation (Qsp), marine terrace deposits (Qtm), and river alluvium (Qal) (see Plate 7 -- Geologic Map and Plates 8.1 through 8.14 -- Geologic Cross Sections). The distribution of these units in map view and in cross section rely on extensive surficial geologic mapping and drill hole data. Some cross sections also rely on subsurface contact projections that are consistent with other observations throughout the project. For example, the subsurface geology for Cross Section 5 -5' is consistent with that of Cross Section 6 -6'. Specifically, the geologic contacts on Cross Section 5 -5' are constrained at the surface, and then projected into the subsurface at orientations consistent with other cross sections that have drill hole data. The remaining cross sections were constructed in a similar manner. July 2011 12 GNM Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Bannhig Ranch The San Pedro Formation and overlying marine terrace deposits occur beneath the elevated or mesa areas of the site, with alluvial deposits spread across the flood plain of the Santa Ana River. Surficial colluvium (Qcol) and man-made, artificial fill (at) mantle portions of these three basic units throughout the site. Each mapped unit is described below. The San Pedro Formation The San Pedro Formation is the oldest geologic unit exposed within the NBR development area and is generally believed to correlate with similar lower Pleistocene sediments in other parts of the Los Angeles Basin. Exposures are visible along the base of the bluff bordering the lowlands and along West Coast Highway (see Plate 7 -- Geologic Map). San Pedro Formation sediments were also encountered in a limited number of borings and trenches. Lithologically, this moderately indurated "bedrock" unit consists mainly of gray and dark gray to reddish yellow - stained siltstone and clayey siltstone, with friable, interbedded fine- to coarse - sandstone interbeds. The variable lithologies are attributed to a wide range of depositional, near- shore environments, including near -shore fluvial, lagoonal, deltaic, shallow marine, and backbay tidal flat environments. These depositional environments yielded lenticular and laterally discontinuous depositional units that are laminated to thinly bedded. Bedding is generally well - defined in exposures but, as noted above, is laterally discontinuous due to the depositional characteristics of the formation. Many angular unconformities and eroded paleo - channels occur within this unit. The paleo- channel walls are locally steep and planar and can be easily mistaken for faults. However, close examination of nearby cut exposures usually reveal one or more of the following features indicative of a non -fault origin: 1) continuous, unbroken strata beneath the ancient channel, 2) unfaulted sand lamellae across the channel walls, and /or 3) near - horizontal, terrace -like abrasion surfaces that have been cut into the top of the San Pedro Formation to form an unconformity with the overlying marine terrace deposits. Marine Terrace Deposits Most sediments beneath the elevated portion of the NBR development area consist of marine terrace deposits (Qtm). These deposits overlie an abrasion platform 20 to 30 feet above the river channel, and extend to the top of the mesa for a total thickness of approximately 40 to 50 feet. Sediments above the abrasion platform locally contain rounded cobbles, shells, and angular rocks with mollusk borings similar to materials found in the tidal zone today. The marine terrace sediments, although lithologically similar, were deposited in two distinct stages. These stages are discussed in "Fault Dating Techniques" (Appendix F). Marine terrace deposits were exposed in all of the recently excavated fault trenches (i.e, Trenches TR -1 through TR -23; Plate 7). These deposits are predominantly light gray, soft, 13 GMU Proiect06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Banning Ranch friable, thin to thick bedded sands, with light olive brown silt to clayey silt interbeds. Locally, the sand beds vary from yellowish brown to red brown, whereas the finer- grained interbeds were generally darker. The coarser beds were essentially uncemented -like beach sand, which caved in some trenches. The finer- grained silty and clayey interbeds were generally well - defined, continuous, and easy to trace across trench walls. Many depositional features, such as cross bedding, fine- grained lamellar beds, and scattered shells, also occur in the marine terrace deposits. Abundant secondary features, such as carbonate nodules, iron oxide - stained beds, and dark mineral banding, were also noted. Shell -rich beds and lenses were encountered in the northern pants of the mesa. River Alluvium (Qal) Holocene alluvial deposits overlie a late Pleistocene channel of the lower Santa Ana River west of the Newport Mesa at a depth of approximately 100 feet (Shlemon, et. al., 1995). These relatively young sediments are gravel, sand, and clay deposits that form a grossly fining -up sequence. Near the bluffs, they appear to be locally interbedded with tongues of colluvium derived from the adjacent bluffs. Colluvium (Qcol) Colluvium has accumulated along the base of the bluff slopes and fills gullies, ravines, and arroyos that drain the mesa. A relatively thick apron of colluvium has accumulated at the base of the bluff slopes (Plate 7). The distal end of these materials probably extends into and intertongues with river alluvium present along the western side of the site. Most colluvium was deposited during latest Pleistocene and early Holocene time when the lower Santa Ana River (local base level) was more deeply incised and graded to the last glacio- eustatic lowstand of sea level, some —330 feet below the present (Appendix F). These relatively young deposits consist essentially of homogenous, non - descript sandy and silty clays. Bedding is indistinct and few stratigraphic features are observable. These materials are generally too young for site fault - dating assessment. Soil Development Thick soils (pedogenic profiles) are present on the marine terrace deposits that immediately underlie the Newport Mesa and the NBR development area. These soils, up to 10 feet thick, are very strongly developed. They are typically characterized by very thick, dark reddish - brown, blocky to prismatic structure in the subsoil (argillic or "Bt" horizons); by many, moderately thick clay films on ped faces; and by an overlying greyish or "bleached" zone (eluvial or "E" horizon; see Appendix F). The very strong development of these soils stems from their antiquity (relict paleosols), and from the likely addition of eolian fine sand and local colluvium (composite profiles) during the Pleistocene (Appendix F). Based on their strong relative profile July 2011 14 GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Banning Ranh development, the NBR development area soils in the western part of the Newport Mesa are at least about 100 ka (i.e., 100,000 year old); and those composite profiles in the eastern part of the Mesa are probably about 200 ka old (Appendix F); see also Shlemon, 1985; Guptill and others, 1989; Freeman and others, 1992; Magorien and Shlemon, 1995; ECI, 1997). The Newport Mesa soils thus prove to be excellent stratigraphic markers for dating the last time of fault displacement. For example, where the thick argillic horizons are unbroken, as displayed in trench exposures, any underlying fault is reasonably deduced as being pre - Holocene in age. In contrast, where tectonic displacement extends through the argillic horizons, and into overlying sediments upon which the "E horizon" has developed, last observed fault displacement is conservatively judged to have taken place in Holocene time. Man -made Fill Several areas of shallow (1 to 3 feet thick) and relatively deep fills occur throughout the site. Many of these areas are now concealed by roads, pipelines, or other oil field structures. Many fill areas are associated with the construction of oil drilling pads and/or other oil- related facilities. Where they are known or inferred to be more than 2 feet thick, they are indicated on the attached Geologic Map, Plate 7. The fills observed in the general area are comprised of a wide variety of materials, from "clean" reworked natural soils to concrete and other construction debris. GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE On -site geologic structures include slightly to moderately folded and inclined strata, and high - angle faults with vertical displacements less than a few feet. The lowermost stratigraphic unit, the San Pedro Formation, generally dips between 5 and 15 degrees towards the southwest, west, and northwest with locally steeper inclinations of up to approximately 25 degrees (see Plate 7 -- Geologic Map and Plates 8.1 through 8.14 -- Geologic Cross Sections). Several folds within this formation are exposed along the bluff face in the north - central portion of the site, where fold axes are relatively tight but essentially unfaulted. Well - defined, fissile, and horizontally continuous bedding planes are not typical within the underlying San Pedro Formation due to the relatively young age of the formation, the environment of deposition, fold structures, and the primary sediment types. As discussed previously, the varying depositional environments yielded lenticular and laterally discontinuous depositional units, thereby limiting the lateral continuity of bedding plane structures. The marine terrace deposits are distinguished from the underlying San Pedro sediments by their more gently inclined strata. For example, several trenches exposed terrace deposits with near- horizontal strata a few inches thick that could be laterally traced for more than 300 feet. Slight folding or arching of these strata was noted adjacent to mapped faults. These gently arched or July 2011 15 GNW Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Banning Ranch warped beds appear to be related temporally with regional stresses and associated fault displacements. HISTORIC SLOPE STABILITY Interpretation of aerial photographs taken in the 1920's and 1930's indicate that several western - facing slopes along the edge of the mesa have experienced slope failure. The failures are generally shallow slump -type features concentrated in the terrace sediments overlying the San Pedro Formation. Geologic mapping also identified several recent slump -type features along the bluffs (see Plate 7 -- Geologic Map). These features most likely resulted from uncontrolled surface runoff, erosion, and normal bluff retreat and possibly from past seismic events. Evidence of larger, older slope failures (i.e., large translational or rotational failures) was not found. HYDROGEOLOGY The proposed development is located within the Orange County Groundwater Basin, which underlies the Orange County Coastal Plain. The Orange County Ground Water Basin is composed of three intra - connected confined aquifer systems, the Lower, Middle, and Upper aquifer systems (GeoSyntec Consultants, 1996; California Department of Water Resources, CDWR, 1967). The lower aquifer system is a series of hydraulically interconnected aquifers overlying the non - water- bearing formations of consolidated sedimentary and basement rock. The Middle Aquifer system is composed of a series of aquifers predominantly of the water - bearing San Pedro Formation. The Main Aquifer, the predominant aquifer within the Middle Aquifer system, is comprised of coarse sand and gravel with interbedded layers of finer deposits. This is the primary source of groundwater for Orange County. The Upper Aquifer system is made up of discontinuous lenses of coarse sand and gravel confined by lenses of clay sediments. The Talbert Aquifer is the uppermost confined aquifer in the Upper Aquifer system. Local fine- grained sediments give rise to perched or quasi- perched water above the Talbert Aquifer. Groundwater levels below the NBR site in both the lowlands area and the Newport Mesa are deduced from observations in exploratory borings performed by various investigators from 1985 through 1998 and in groundwater monitoring wells installed by GeoSyntec in 1994. In the lowlands, groundwater generally occurs within a few feet of MSL as shown in the geotechnical exploratory borings of Woodward - Clyde, Leighton and Associates, and GMU Geotechnical, Inc. (i.e., this study). Pacific Soils also noted groundwater at MSL in their boring HB -1, but noted groundwater in boring HB -2 at approximately 6.0 MSL at the mouth of the southernmost, major arroyo. More definitively, groundwater was determined to be at approximately MSL by readings taken in three groundwater monitoring wells installed within the lowlands area by GeoSyntec. July 2011 16 GW Project NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Bainring Ranch Groundwater below the mesa area was noted by Pacific Soils at an elevation of approximately 10 feet in their boring B -6 (Plate 7). However, a groundwater monitoring well installed by GeoSyntec on the mesa indicated groundwater at approximately MSL. Consequently, the groundwater noted by Pacific Soils may be related to either a local condition, to perched water, or to capillary rise. Consistent with the aforementioned groundwater observations, seepage in the existing bluff faces was not observed during GMU's 1998 exploration program. In the mesa area, the groundwater flow direction appears to be toward the bluffs (i.e., to the west in the northern portion of the NBR site and to the south along West Coast Highway) while in the lowlands area, the direction of groundwater flow in the upper aquifer appears to be mainly toward the south parallel to the Santa Ana River (GeoSyntec, 1996). FLOODING AND COASTAL EROSION In the late 1800's, the Santa Ana River channel was along the western edge of the mesa (U.S. Coast Survey, 1874 and U.S. Geological Survey, 1901). Near the coast, the channel appears to have been blocked forming a lake at the base of the bluff. The lake was drained by several small channels. At the coast, the channels combined into a larger one that drained to the southeast into Newport Bay. On the 1874 U.S. Coast Survey map, the coastal channel along the south edge of the site is labeled "Bitter Lake ". From at least the 1870's to the present, the bluffs appear to have been protected from direct wave action by a barrier bar or spit. Between 1894 and 1927, the Santa Ana River was channelized. The new channel was relocated, generally less than three - quarters of a mile west of the base of the bluffs. Aerial photos taken in March 1938 show flood waters over the banks of the constructed channel and eroding the bluffs and alluvial fans along the western edge of the mesa. Receding flood waters deposited a thin blanket of sediment at the western edge of the site. Based on previous site visits, low areas east of the modern channel have been flooded during heavy rainfall events. According to the local Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) the 100 year flood level occurs at elevation 10 MSL. Given that proposed development areas are planned either on the mesa at elevations between approximately 50 MSL and 105 MSL, and /or in transition areas, which occur between the lowland open space area and the mesa (i.e., elevations between 10 MSL and 50 to 105 MSL), flooding is not anticipated to be a significant geotechnical design constraint. OIL FIELD SUBSIDENCE Woodward -Clyde Consultants (WWC) (1985) evaluated the potential for oil field subsidence at the NBR site. They incorporated data from previous oil field subsidence studies at the Wilmington oil field in Long Beach, the Huntington Beach oil field, and survey data along 2011 17 GMU Project 06- NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Banning Raneir coastal Orange County performed by the County Surveyor. WWC concluded that ground subsidence from oil field operations has not been identified in the West Newport oil field possibly due to: 1) relatively thin oil producing horizons, 2) a natural water drive that may be replacing some of the removed hydrocarbons, and 3) partial replacement of hydrocarbon fluids by steam injection. This conclusion is consistent with the lack of evidence of ground subsidence (i.e., ground cracking etc.) noted during this investigation, which included approximately 1 mile of fault trenching across the site. Oil field subsidence is not anticipated to be a significant geotechnical design constraint based on: (1) the WWC evaluation, (2) the lack of ground subsidence documented in the GMU investigation, (3) the general lack of subsidence impacts on oil production, and (4) the planned abandonment of production oil wells within structural areas of the planned NBR development. BLUFF SLOPE RETREAT Historically, bluff retreat in the NBR development area has been caused by: 1) Santa Ana River flooding; 2) direct wave action; 3) slope failure; 4) rainfall and channel development on the mesa, and 5) oil field activities (i.e., earthwork for oil field facility construction). However, since the 1940's, primarily owing to improvements in the Santa Ana River channel, oil field activities and slope failures (i.e., shallow slumps), along with rainfall and channel development on the mesa have been the only significant factors. Of these three, oil field activities have probably had the greatest effect. To calculate reasonable distances for bluff - building setbacks, historical bluff retreat was analyzed. The rate of the historical bluff retreat was estimated by comparing the topography over a 33 -year period, as surveyed by the U.S. Geological Survey in 1932 and in 1965. Earlier topographic maps from 1874 and 1894 were not used because they do not have a common datum. The 1932 and 1965 topographic surveys used the 1927 North American datum. The contour interval for both maps is 5 feet. For comparison, the center of the 75 -foot contour lines were digitized and plotted to the same scale. The distance between the 75 -foot contour lines was measured at several locations and was determined to be approximately 30 to 40 feet wide. The relative horizontal distance between the contour lines was measured at 10 locations. The measurements were made along the westerly bluff, generally between 16th Street and 18th Street. Average bluff slope retreat was estimated at approximately 2 feet per year. Potential error due to the width of the contour lines and the digitizing process is approximately ±1.1 feet per year. The rate ranged from 0.6 feet per year to 4.2 feet per year. The estimated historic bluff slope retreat rates are greatly affected by the flood of 1938 and grading of the mesa for oil production facilities. It should be noted that completion of the Prado and Mentone Dams has now greatly reduced the Santa Ana River flood potential, and hence lessened potential bluff retreat. Examination of the 1965 U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Banning Rateln and the 1993 air photos indicate that the largest bluff retreat rates are associated with oil field activities along the upper edge of the mesa. Earthwork for oil production increased bluff slope retreat rates by physically modifying the terrain and locally increasing runoff and associated erosion. The largest erosion rates were measured due west of the western terminus of 18th Street. A relatively large pad and access road were graded at that location. Consequently, the historic bluff retreat rates are greatly skewed by man -made processes that will not be present following development. The proposed development will improve surface drainage conditions and will mitigate most of the surface drainage over the top of the bluff slope face. The runoff management plan will also serve to reduce flow rates and volumes within the Oxbow Loop, thereby reducing flood potential below the bluffs. Consequently, bluff slope retreat will be significantly reduced such that rational development setbacks can be determined. GROUND MOTION Most of southern California is subject to some level of ground shaking (ground motion) as a result of movement along active and potentially active fault zones in the region. Given the proximity of the site to several active and potentially active faults (Table 1; see discussion below), the site will likely be subject to earthquake ground motions in the future. The level of ground motion at a given site resulting from an earthquake is a function of several factors including earthquake magnitude, type of faulting, rupture propagation path, distance from the epicenter, earthquake depth, duration of shaking, site topography, and site geology. Ground motion at the site has been quantified using probabilistic and deterministic seismic hazard analyses. These analyses are presented below as "Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis" and "Caltrans Seismic Hazard Analysis." Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) A probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) of horizontal ground shaking was performed to evaluate the likelihood of future earthquake ground motion occurring at the site. A PSHA is a mathematical process based on probability and statistics that is used to estimate the mean number of events per year (annual Frequency of Exceedance) in which the level of some ground motion parameter exceeds a specified risk level. The mathematical computations of probability and statistics are based on work by Cornell (1968). The commercial computer program EZ -FRISK ver. 7.32 was used to make the mathematical computations for this analysis. The software program EZ -FRISK is based on earlier work of McGuire (1976) but has been updated and modified to analyze earthquake sources as 31) planes using modern attenuation relationships. The PSHA utilized seismic sources and attenuation equations consistent with the 2008 USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps (Peterson et al., 2008). At least 26 seismogenic faults are located July 2011 19 GNW Project NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Neiuport Banning Ranch within a radius of 80 kilometers of the site coordinates (USGS Newport Beach 7 -1/2 minute quadrangle, Latitude 33.6327 °N, Longitude 117.9439 °W). The "Maximum Moment Magnitude" presented in Appendix A of CGS OFR 96 -08 (revised 2003) and the CGS California Fault Parameters web page are taken to represent the maximum earthquake each of the 26 faults presented in Table 2 are capable of generating under the current tectonic regime. The PSHA computations were performed for peak horizontal ground acceleration (PHGA) using equally- weighted USGS variants of the following Next Generation Attenuation relationships: Boore and Atkinson (2008), Campbell and Bozorgnia (2008), and Chien and Youngs (2007). These attenuation relationships require that the site be categorized according to material type in the upper 30 meters of the site. Review of the boring logs and available geologic literature indicate that the upper 30 meters of the site is predominantly underlain by artificial fill, marine terrace deposits, and bedrock of the San Pedro Formation. Therefore, the site is categorized with a Soil Profile Type D. This corresponds to an average shear wave velocity of 275 meters /second. The specified risk level for this analysis is a -475 ARP hazard level (i.e., 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years). The site coordinates used in the PSHA were 33.6327° North Latitude and 117.9439° West Longitude. The PSHA included contributions of earthquake events with magnitude of 5.0 or greater. Table 2 - Fault Tablet Fault Name Distance (km) ', Seismology Parameters'' Maximum M Fault T e2 Slip Rate (mm/ r) Newport-Inglewood L.A. Basin 0.5 7.1 rl -ss 1.0 San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust 4.6 6.6 bt 0.5 Newport-Inglewood (Offshore) 5.4 7.1 rl -ss 1.5 Palos Verdes 19.1 7.3 rl -ss 3.0 Puente Hills Thrust 33.3 7.1 bt 0.4 Whittier 33.6 6.8 rl -ss 2.5 Chino - Central Avenue 37.1 1 6.7 rl -r -o 1 1.0 Elsinore - Glen Ivy 37.6 6.8 rl -ss 5.0 Coronado Bank 40.5 7.6 rl -ss 3.0 San Jose 45.6 6.4 ll -r -o 0.5 Elysian Park Thrust (upper) 50.6 6.4 r 1.3 Elsinore - Temecula 55.2 6.8 rl -ss 5.0 Raymond 563 6.5 11-r -o 1.5 Sierra Madre 56.8 7.2 r 2.0 Cucamonga 58.3 6.9 r 1 5.0 erdu o 58.7 6.9 r 0.5 Hollywood 1 60.2 6.4 11 -r -o 1.0 Clamshell -Saw it 60.8 6.5 r 0.5 Santa Monica 64.8 6.6 11 -r -o 1.0 alibu Coast 70.2 6.7 11-r -o 0.3 Rose Canyon 74.4 7.2 rl -ss 1.5 July 2011 20 GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newpor7 Banning Ranch San Jacinto - San Bernardino 76.6 1 6.7 rl -ss 12.0 San Jacinto - San Jacinto Valley 78.4 6.9 rl -ss 12.0 Northridge E. Oak Ride 78.8 7.0 bt 1.5 Sierra Madre (San Fernando) 78.8 6.7 r 2.0 naca a -Dume 79.8 7.5 r -11 -o 3.0 ' - CDMG Statewide Fault Database (CDMG OFR 96 -08) 2 - r1= right - lateral; 11= left- lateral; ss = strike -slip; r = reverse; o = oblique; bt = blind thrust The results of the PSHA are included in Appendix D. The PHGA at the specified risk level of —475 ARP is 0.37g. Seismic design of structures, excluding bridges, should be performed in accordance with the 2010 CBC. The appropriate seismic design parameters are provided in a subsequent section of this report (see Preliminary Seismic Design and Foundation Considerations). Caltrans Seismic Hazard Analysis For design of a potential pedestrian bridge for the NBR project, ground motions at the site were also evaluated in accordance with current Caltrans procedures. The Caltrans -based analysis evaluated ground motions at the site using Caltrans ARS Online Version 1.0.4 (htt • /dgp3.dot ca.gov /shake stable /index.12hu). Caltrans ARS Online is a web -based program that calculates deterministic and probabilistic acceleration response spectra based on Appendix B of Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria. Given site coordinates, the ARS Online program generates deterministic spectra for nearby fault sources and a probabilistic spectrum based on the 2008 USGS National Hazard Map for 5% probability of exceedance in 50 years (i.e., 975 year return period). The design ARS curve is then taken as the upper envelope of the deterministic and probabilistic response spectra. The program also accounts for soil type and near source adjustments to the ARS curves. For the NBR project, site coordinates used in the analysis were 33.6327° North Latitude and 117.9439° West Longitude. Consistent with the PSHA described above, the site is categorized as Soil Profile Type D. This corresponds to an average shear wave velocity of 275 meters /second. Based on these parameters, the Caltrans ARS Online program calculates ARS curves for the deterministic and probabilistic response spectra. The calculated ARS curves and site data are included in Appendix D. At short periods (i.e., <0.8 sec), the deterministic response spectrum for the San Joaquin Hills blind thrust is the controlling curve, indicating a PGA of 0.60g. At longer periods (i.e., >0.8 sec), the deterministic response spectrum for the Newport- Inglewood fault zone is the controlling curve. July 2011 21 GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Banning Ranch SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES Two seismic hazard zones mapped by the State of California have been mapped within the NBR development area. These zones are shown on the "Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Anaheim and Newport Beach 7.5- Minute Quadrangles, Orange County, California" (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997). The map indicates that alluvial sediments in the lowlands area have been zoned as being prone to liquefaction; and the slopes descending from the mesa to the lowlands and West Coast Highway may be subject to earthquake- induced landslides. Specifically, the liquefaction hazard zones are defined as: "Areas where historic occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical and groundwater conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c) would be required." Similarly, the Earthquake- Induced Landslide zones are defined as: "Areas where previous occurrence of landslide movement, or local topographic, geological, geotechnical and subsurface water conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693 (c) would be required." The liquefaction zoning is consistent with previously performed site - specific geotechnical engineering analyses and is discussed in more detail in a subsequent section of this report. The potential for earthquake- induced landslide is evaluated in the "Slope Stability" section of this report. FAULT INVESTIGATION AND FINDINGS BACKGROUND Except for a few Holocene fault- bounded low hills on the Huntington Beach Mesa (Mills and Shlemon, 1998), most North Branch splays have little obvious geomorphic expression, particularly where projected southward across the Santa Ana River floodplain and into the NBR development on the Newport Mesa. An exception is a low (3 feet) sinuous escarpment that trends northwest across the Newport Mesa, essentially conforming to the regional strike of many North Branch faults (Plate 5 -- Local Geomorphology and North Branch of the Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone). This, however, was previously trenched (Earth Technology Corporation, 1986) and demonstrated to be an erosional feature, rather than a fault, the product of a —100 ka high sea -level stand that cut into older marine sediments. This conclusion was also verified during the present investigation by placement and logging of several trenches across the escarpment (e.g., TR -15; Appendix E). Accordingly, the North Branch faults on the NBR development have heretofore been excluded from State of California "active fault zones" (Bryant, 1988). July 2011 22 GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Banning Rmrdt Recently, however, CPT and seismic investigations for expansion of a sewage disposal facility in the Santa Ana River floodplain, approximately '/a -mile west of the site (Plate 6 -- Faults Mapped in the Newport Banning Ranch Area by Previous Investigators), revealed the presence of several, closely spaced North Branch faults, most of which substantially offset Holocene sediments (Law - Crandall, 1994; Shlemon and others, 1995). A reasonable projection of these faults, along strike to the southeast, suggests that they do not impinge upon the NBR development area. Nevertheless, a myriad of other, so- called North Branch splay faults can be projected toward or occur adjacent to the NBR development area. One of these, the "West Mesa fault," (Plate 6 -- Faults Mapped in the Newport Banning Ranch Area by Previous Investigators) occurs immediately east of the NBR development area (i.e., in the boxed -out area along the eastern property boundary), where trench exposures showed that only two, field - observable paleoseismic events occurred within about the last 200 ka; the last, however, probably taking place in Holocene time (Converse Consultants, 1994; Magorien and Shlemon, 1995). Another North Branch splay, as partially exposed in a cut along West Coast Highway, was previously deemed "active" (Guptill and Heath, 1981); but later trenching and detailed soil - stratigraphic analyses showed that, in reality, last near - surface displacement occurred long before Holocene time (Guptill and others, 1989; Freeman and others, 1992). INVESTIGATIVE APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY In order to demonstrate whether or not active (Holocene) faults extend across the NBR development area, our basic approach was to: 1) expose, by trenching, the generally continuous marine terrace deposits on the mesa across any possible fault trace, and 2) where actual or suspected offset strata are found, trace the offset beds up, or vertically, into the thick, argillic soil horizons where relative ages could be evaluated. This required placement of trenches on the mesa in areas of thick, natural soil development — areas free of significant colluvial deposits, man-made fill, or grading. In addition, a series of cone penetration soundings were performed in limited areas to investigate the possibility of determining fault age using Holocene sediment correlations. A series of trenches was excavated by Earth Technology Corporation (ETC; 1986) across portions of the central and southern areas within the NBR development area (Plate 7 -- Geologic Map). However, their trench locations were widely separated and did not address the question of whether active faults may be present across the entire NBR development area. Several long trenches or series of trenches (T -1 through T -14c, Plate 7) were excavated by Earth Consultants International (ECI; 1997) (see Appendix E for trench logs). Two ECI trenches (T -1 and T -2) were placed near the West Mesa fault. Based on review of ECI trench logs, their findings appeared to be reasonable with respect to the presence or absence of significant faults. In addition, our recent trenches exhumed portions of the ECI trenches (T -8b, T -9a, T -13, etc.) 2011 23 GMU Project 06 -1 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Banning Ranch and indicated a general agreement with field conditions. However, the ECI trenches did not extend across all potential fault trends and were restricted to the west - central portion of the NBR development area. Unfortunately, gaps remained between and around their trenches owing to the presence of pipelines, thick colluvium, and sensitive habitat areas. Also, many of the ECI trenches were positioned subparallel to, rather than perpendicular to, fault trends. Both previous fault studies, by ETC (1986) and ECI (1997), were limited in scope and areal extent. Large areas within the NBR development area, such as the northern, eastern, and extreme southern parts, remained uninvestigated. Accordingly, in this investigation, we used the ETC (1986) and ECI (1997) data where applicable, but greatly relied on the new, extensive trench exposures and detailed mapping of bluff -face outcrops. Prior to trench excavation, a geologic map of the NBR development area was prepared on a topographic base provided by Fuscoe Engineering at a scale of 1 " =200' feet, with 2- and 10 -foot contour intervals. Stereographic pairs of vertical aerial photographs, used initially to assess photolineaments, were utilized to help identify geologic units, in particular, areas of deep fill and colluvium to avoid during trenching. Emphasis was placed on mapping continuous, unbroken strata exposed in natural and man -made cut slopes. Several areas were identified that required cleaning with a backhoe to extend exposures of unfaulted sediments. A special symbol was used on the geologic map to indicate the presence of continuous, unfaulted beds along these exposures (see Plate 7 -- Geologic Map). Trenches were excavated in 1998 with a John Deere 710D tractor backhoe, using a 3- foot -wide bucket, to an average depth of approximately 10 feet (see Appendix A for trench logs). Long, continuous trench alignments were excavated in segments a few hundred feet in length with right -angle "T" trenches emplaced about every 100 feet for safety and for providing "three dimensional" exposures of terrace sediments and soils (i.e., TR -17A through TR -17D). The segments were parallel and overlapped to provide stratigraphic continuity. All trenches were shored in accordance with CaIOSHA guidelines. Prior to shoring, a few sections of the trench walls caved and required trench relocation. After shoring, the shady southern trench wall was scraped of smeared soil to expose a fresh surface. In most trenches it was necessary to scrape and clean only the lower portion of the trench wall where continuous, unfaulted strata were present. Coarser- grained deposits generally required less scraping. Once fully exposed, the key strata contacts, planar features, and any apparent offsets of deposits were carefully marked with colored flagged nails for recording purposes. A string level line was then established along the wall to be logged. Five -foot stations were marked on the trench wall with spray paint. Graphic trench logs were prepared at a scale of 1" = 5', with a few at 1 "=10' by a Certified Engineering Geologist (CEG) who recorded the features, carefully measured from the level line and station numbers. Discrete, sharp contacts were generally recorded to an accuracy of about one -tenth of a foot. Trench walls were then photographed. At completion, Fuscoe Engineering surveyed the trench locations and key fault crossings. July 2011 24 GW Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Banning Ranch To complement the previous trenches by ETC (1986) and ECI (1997) and "close off' any potential fault trends, we excavated between and extended many of their trenches. For example, Trenches TR -1 and TR -2 from this study were positioned where a concentration of faults was suspected in the north - central portion of the mesa (Plate 7 -- Geologic Map). Trenches TR -8a, TR -8b, TR -9, and TR -9a (Plate 7 -- Geologic Map) were emplaced to further assess a fault reported by ECI and fill -in between their trenches T -5a and T -11, respectively. Trench TR -15, in the south, was positioned to overlap a potentially active fault described by ECI in T -2, and extend the trench westward (Plate 7 -- Geologic Map). In addition to trenching, a backhoe was used to better expose unfaulted strata along natural bluff and cut exposures at the north portion of the site: at ECI Trench T -5a, below TR -2, and below TR -12 and 12A. These broad, cut -face exposures significantly reduced the area that would have required trenching (Plate 7 -- Geologic Map). Twenty -one CPT probes with two correlation borings were also performed in the recent alluvial deposits within the lowlands. The probes were roughly perpendicular to anticipated north- to northwest- trending faults. The location of these explorations are shown on Plate 7 -- Geologic Map. FAULTING Many faults in the site displace the San Pedro Formation and overlying marine terrace deposits. Almost all faults have remarkably similar characteristics; they trend between north 15 and 55 degrees west, dip steeply to the southwest, and have normal displacements of less than 2 feet down to the southwest. Horizontal component offset could not be determined, but was evident along most faults based on abrupt changes of bed thickness across the fault. Most faults do not displace the thick argillic soil horizons that have developed on the marine terrace deposits atop the mesa. There are no faults observed with northeast strike and very few faults with north strike. As documented on the trench logs (Appendix E), apparent vertical displacements across most faults were less than 1 foot, with a few offsets measured at about 2 feet. However, a 7- foot -wide zone of faults, recorded in TR -2, was bounded by vertical faults with at least 5 feet of apparent vertical displacements (the height of the trench wall). Within this narrow zone, there was a web pattern of fracture -like, oxide - stained, cross - cutting features, each with fractions of an inch to a few inches of apparent offset. Nearly all fault planes were sharp, fracture -like, thin and indistinct, with no trace of gouge, clay, or other infilling. Several faults displayed a "flowering upward" pattern, where a single fault trace at a depth of 8 to 12 feet below the natural ground surface "flowers" upward into a wide, July 2011 25 GW Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Banning Ranch branching set of multiple fault traces (TR -6b and TR -15), a feature suggesting recency of displacement. The faults exposed in trenches, as well as those observed in outcrops, mainly occurred in concentrated zones, or bands, several feet to tens of feet wide. A few isolated, individual fault traces, however, were encountered throughout the site (i.e., in TR -3, TR -6A, and TR -20 and 20A). An excellent example of fault distribution and spacing can be seen in the 2400 -foot- long alignment of trenches TR -15, TR -16, and TR -17A through D across the southern part of the site (Plate 7 -- Geologic Map). This series of continuous, overlapping excavations exposed five discrete zones of faults up to 200 feet in width separated by through- going, fault -free terrace deposits that were traced unbroken for 100 to 550 feet. These zones of multiple fault traces apparently do not continue along their trend more than a few hundred feet. For example, a myriad of fault traces exposed in the bluff face near ECI trenches T -3A and T -3B did not extend southeastward into trenches placed directly across their projections. Several individual fault traces, however, could be traced for hundreds of feet along trend. A fault in TR -15 (Station 48) was traced along strike to TR -20, some 1000 feet to the northwest, although several en- echelon "step - overs" (i.e., parallel faults that are offset) apparently occur along the fault trace. Also, an individual fault at TR -6 was traced to TR -21, about 400 feet to the southeast, and may extend northwest through TR -1 -- a total distance of approximately 1800 feet. These individual fault traces displayed some evidence of offset of the —80 -200 Ka paleosols or younger units (Appendix E and F). Although not demonstrably shown to have Holocene surface rupture, these faults are conservatively treated herein as "active" by currently documented CGS definition. The California State Mining & Geology Board (SMGB) is presently re- evaluating setback -zone and structural requirements appropriate to mitigate possible surface faulting. Based on evolving standards of practice, a Technical Advisory Committee for the SMGB is now proposing structural mitigation (usually strengthened foundations) for well characterized faults with less than —4 inches vertical or —12 inches of lateral displacement. These criteria would therefore encompass several "non- significant," on -site faults presently deemed to require setbacks. Thus, depending on the revised requirements, some presently recommended fault setback zones may ultimately be reduced, if not entirely eliminated. The new SMGB guidelines are anticipated to be formally adopted in late 2010. Faults That Could Not Be Proved Inactive Two fault segments were encountered that displayed evidence of offset of the —80 -200 Ka paleosols or younger units. One fault segment exists at the central part of the NBR development area, at Trenches TR -6a, 6b, and 6c, and the other exists at the southeast site corner, at TR -15 (Plate 7 -- Geologic Map). These segments comprise the Newport Mesa fault system and are deemed the "North" and the "South" segments, respectively. July 2011 26 GMLJ Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Bawthig Ranch It is important to note that these fault segments were not demonstrably shown to have Holocene surface rupture, and therefore are not demonstrably "active." However, these faults could not be proven to be pre - Holocene (i.e., "inactive ") due to uncertainty in dating the latest fault rupture events. For conservatism, faults that could not be proved inactive, and which exhibited evidence for offset of the —80 -200 Ka paleosols or younger units, are treated herein as "active" with respect to recommendations for fault setback zones. The Newport Mesa North Segment. At TR -6a, a single fault trace offset the base of the thick argillic (Bt) soil horizon 1 to 2 feet, down to the southwest. Subsequently, other trenches placed along trend nearby (TR -6b, 6e) confirmed displacements of up to 3 feet at the base of the Bt soil horizon. Further, the uppermost colluvial and eolian deposits (Appendix F), upon which an E horizon has formed, infrlls deep, V- notched erosion gullies into the Bt horizon, and may also slightly thicken to the southwest, potentially a result of early Holocene displacement. The fault was traced to the southeast and was intercepted by trenches TR -18 and TR -21, 220 and 350 feet, respectively, from the offset soils in TR -6c. However, trench TR -21 exposed unbroken Bt and E soil horizons over the fault trace (Appendix E). Northwest of Trench TR -6a, no soil horizons are present that would be suitable to constrain the age of faulting. For conservatism, however, the fault trace was projected to the northwest through a faulted cut exposure and into Quaternary faults exposed in TR -1 and TR -2, for a total length of approximately 1500 feet (Plate 7 -- Geologic Map). The Newport Mesa South Segment. At trench TR -15, three faults that could not be proved inactive were exposed at Stations 0 +48, 1 +70, and 1 +90 to 1 +95 (Appendix E). Each fault trace "flowers" upward and downdrops the Bt and /or underlying soil horizons 1 to 2 feet. Similar to the fault in Trenches TR -6a through 6c, a "V" -notch is eroded into the top of the Bt soil horizon and is infilled with E- horizon fine sands at the upward projection of the faults. The same features were apparently encountered in ECI (1997) Trench T -2 a short distance to the southeast, but they do not continue on trend to TR -22. This zone of possible Holocene faults attenuated to only one fault trace through Tr -19, 270 feet to the northwest, and did not affect the Bt horizon in TR -20, placed about 900 feet from TR -15. Trench TR -22 does, however, expose a possible active fault trending about N20 -25W (Appendix E, Station 3 +15). This fault may be the continuation of one of the possible active faults exposed northward in Trench TR -15. For conservatism, the trace of the possible active TR -22 fault is projected to the southern NBR development boundary (Plate 7 -- Geologic Map). In addition, for conservatism, a parallel fault located at Station 3 +35 is also treated as active. In sum, the total length of the Newport Mesa south segment faults is less than about 1500 feet. July 2011 27 GNW Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Neipport Banning Ranch Gap in Newport Mesa Fault Segments Although the Newport Mesa south segment faults appear to align with the possible faults in TR -6A to the north, their strikes of N20W, N27W, and N50W do not match the trend of the Newport Mesa north segment. The north and south segments therefore appear to be either different tectonic features or, more likely, the expression of right, en- echelon steps along a low -slip fault (Plate 7 -- Geologic Map). Within the gap area, fault traces were identified but were conclusively shown to be inactive (see trenches TR -20 and TR -21, Appendix E). SUMMARY OF FAULT INVESTIGATION FINDINGS Many splays of the NIFZ North Branch project into and were encountered in the NBR development area. Most are concentrated in discrete zones, but others occur as isolated traces. The faults are generally less than a few hundred feet long. Apparent vertical separation of —200 ka (i.e., 200,000 years old) terrace sediments and soils is very low, usually less than about 7 feet. Additionally, they have very low recurrence intervals; in some cases, only one or two events within about the past 200 ka. The characteristics and style of faulting throughout the NBR development area are remarkably consistent. Nearly all individual fault traces trend northwest to southeast (North 20 to 50 degrees west), most dip steeply to the southwest and display normal displacements of less than 2 feet, down to the southwest. All appear as sharp, indistinct, fracture -like breaks with no gouge or infilling. All but two fault alignments are demonstrably pre - Holocene (i.e., "inactive ") and do not affect pre- Holocene soil horizons and /or terrace deposits. Within the NBR development area, two discrete fault segments of the NIFZ North Branch could not be proved inactive: (1) the Newport Mesa North Segment between about TR -18 on the south, to TR -1 and possibly beyond on the north; (2) and the Newport Mesa South Segment, well exposed in TR -15, TR -19, and TR -22 (Plate 7 -- Geologic Map). These segments are generally less than about 1800 feet long, and separated by an approximately 1300 - foot -long interval of clearly unbroken late Pleistocene to early Holocene sediments and soils (Plate 7 -- Geologic Map). Within the NBR development area, the possible activity of the Newport Mesa North and South Segment faults abruptly terminates, a phenomenon occurring elsewhere near major active, strike - slip faults (Shlemon and others, 1998). Comparable to the demonstrably pre - Holocene faults in the NBR development area, these segments have low apparent slip rates and low recurrence. Further, in contrast to frequent Holocene recurrence, and the relatively large vertical separation of North Branch splays that underlie a nearby Waste Treatment facility, the Newport Mesa North and South segments are relatively benign. Although they have no obvious geomorphic expression, trench data nevertheless indicate that the Newport Mesa North and South Segment faults may be active based on present State of California criteria. Accordingly, for purposes of safety and for conformance with State law, a structural setback is warranted. 2011 28 GMU Proiect 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Banning Ronch GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND FINDINGS GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION SUMMARY Previous Exploration by Others Most of the previous geotechnical explorations were performed in the lowlands area of the site. Past exploration consists of two hollow stem auger borings and four CPT soundings by Woodward -Clyde in 1985, two hollow stem auger borings by Pacific Soils in 1993, along with six hollow stem and 10 CPT soundings by Leighton & Associates in 1997. Most borings exist outside the area of the planned development areas but serve to characterize the geotechnical properties of the flood plain or recent alluvial deposits. Previous geotechnical explorations on the mesa are the seven bucket auger borings drilled by Pacific Soils (1993). Exploration by GMU Geotechnical In addition to fault trenching, geotechnical exploration by GMU Geotechnical included nine bucket auger borings and six backhoe test pits. The bucket auger borings were spread out across the mesa and the backhoe test pits were placed in the arroyo bottoms. The borings on the mesa augmented previously placed borings by Pacific Soils and provided additional subsurface data to evaluate potential geotechnical constraints. The backhoe test pits were placed to preliminarily evaluate potential corrective grading removals in the minor arroyo bottoms. LABORATORY TESTING Geotechnical laboratory testing characterized the materials in the proposed development area. Atterberg limit, expansion index, and hydrometer tests were performed to determine soil index properties. Consolidation and hydro - collapse tests were performed to evaluate the potential for consolidation, and direct shear tests were performed to develop a strength model to analyze both existing natural slopes and proposed slopes. In addition, chemical testing and compaction testing were performed to further characterize the on -site soil and rock materials. SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ANALYSES AND FINDINGS Slope Stability To evaluate the stability of the bluff slopes, Cross Sections 44', 6 -6', and 9 -9' were selected for analysis since they are representative of general and worst -case conditions (i.e., highest and steepest slope) at the site. Given the lack of continuous and planar bedding within the San Pedro 2011 29 GMU Project NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Banning Ranch Formation and terrace deposits, the stability analyses were performed using arcuate failure searches. Buoyant conditions representative of soils below groundwater were modeled below an elevation of 0 feet. Stability analyses were also performed for a typical fill slope up to 65 feet high. Shear Strength Model. Based on variability of the terrace deposits and the underlying San Pedro Formation sediments, as well as their lithologic similarities, we developed a strength model that used a single average ultimate design strength for static conditions and a single peak design strength for pseudo- static conditions (see Appendix Q. Shear strength test data used to derive the shear strength parameters used in our analyses are included in Appendix B. The shear strength data is also summarized in Appendix C. Strengths were determined under saturated conditions. Static Analyses. The static stability analyses indicated that the slopes in their current condition possess static safety factors in excess of 1.5 against rotational failure (see Appendix C). The bluff slopes therefore meet the County of Orange static stability requirements. Pseudo - Static Analyses. To address slope stability under dynamic conditions (i.e., conditions during a seismic event), we performed pseudo - static slope stability analysis on each cross section. The analyses utilized a seismic coefficient of .15g (i.e., the minimum coefficient required by the County of Orange). In addition, potentially liquefiable alluvial soils near the toe of the bluffs were conservatively assumed to have "zero" strength in the pseudo- static analyses. The results, also summarized in Appendix C, indicate that safety factors for deep- seated dynamic stability are in excess of 1.1. The bluff slopes therefore meet the County of Orange dynamic stability requirements. We also performed a parametric pseudo- static slope stability analysis for Cross Section 6 -6'. This analysis indicates that the pseudo- static safety factor approaches unity (i.e., 1.0) with a ground acceleration of .51g. This suggests that only accelerations above .51g would contribute to the mobilization of significant deep- seated slope movements. The probabilistic seismic hazard analysis contained herein indicates that the peak ground acceleration (PGA) corresponding to a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (i.e., a 475 year return period) is 0.37g, and the PGA for 5 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (i.e., a 975 year return period) is 0.50g. Given this, the potential for deep seated slope failure during a seismic event is considered low. Stability Discussion. The stability results also show that the lowest safety factors were obtained for shallow rotational failures near the face of the bluff slope. This result is consistent with observations of past and recent shallow slumps that have most likely occurred on bluff slope faces due to uncontrolled runoff and resulting over - saturation of July 2011 30 GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Banning Ranclt the bluff slope face and possibly past seismic shaking. Thus, although the bluff slopes possess an adequate safety factor against gross failure for wet conditions, saturation and resulting pore pressures at the bluff face along with strong seismic shaking may lead to additional shallow slumping. In addition, continued natural weathering of the bluff face will serve to reduce soil strength which will also increase the potential for shallow slumping. However, improved drainage conditions from the proposed development will reduce the potential for bluff face material saturation to occur and thus will serve to reduce but not eliminate the shallow slumping potential from present conditions. Because the proposed cut slopes are flatter than the existing bluff slopes, all cut slopes are anticipated to be grossly stable. However, where cut slopes expose San Pedro Formation sediments, local warping may yield local wedge conditions where bedding is daylighted. This will require corrective grading. To evaluate proposed fill slopes on the project, a 65 -foot high 2:1 fill slope was analyzed using the remolded fill strengths outlined in Appendix C. A surficial stability analysis is also included in Appendix C. The fill slope analyses indicate that fill slopes up to 65+ feet high will be grossly and surficially stable under static and pseudo- static conditions. Furthermore, fill slopes that are less than 65 feet high will also be grossly and surficially stable. Liquefaction The only on -site soils subject to liquefaction are recent alluvial deposits in the lowland area (see Plate 7 -- Geologic Map). The San Pedro Formation bedrock and overlying terrace are either too dense and /or above the water table. Colluvial deposits, where saturated, may be locally subject to liquefaction. However, these materials, where present in development areas, will be removed down to competent terrace or San Pedro Formation materials. Leighton and Associates, Inc. (L &A - 1997) performed a detailed liquefaction analysis for a previously proposed school building site in the lowland alluvial area. This analysis is considered approximately representative of conditions throughout the lowlands (Plate 1). Using an earthquake magnitude of 7.1 and a peak site acceleration of 0.46g, which corresponds to a 949 -year return period or a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 100 years (i.e., required conditions for a school site), L &A concluded that: 1) local soil zones within the alluvium are subject to liquefaction and seismic settlement, 2) related deformations due to seismic settlement and /or lateral spreading will be low, and 3) the magnitude of settlements would be in the range of 1 to 6 inches. Utilization of a smaller peals ground acceleration, consistent with residential development (i.e., 475 year return period or 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years), will yield seismic settlement magnitude values slightly less than those estimated by L &A. July 2011 31 GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Bawdng Raneh Based on the current land use plan (Plate 2. 1), proposed residential development is located on the mesa above the lowlands area that is susceptible to liquefaction. Consequently, liquefaction remediation in these areas will not be required from a building code perspective (i.e., life safety) and most likely will not be economically justified. GMU should review the final grading plan to be used, along with the final site plan, to assess liquefaction potential in the vicinity of planned structural improvements. If liquefaction remediation is deemed necessary, the type of remediation will depend on the local soil conditions, the planned grades, and the type and extent of corrective grading. If, after detailed site - specific analysis of the proposed conditions, remediation is required, options are anticipated to include "Stone Columns ", and/or "Compaction Grouting." Compaction grouting will serve to density the underlying sandy soils subject to liquefaction thus reducing the potential for liquefaction and reducing the seismic settlement potential. Stone columns would serve to density the soil, reduce the potential for the build -up of excess pore pressures during a seismic event, and provide vertical support should adverse seismic settlements occur. The vertical extent of the stone columns and /or compaction grouting may need to extend to a depth of liquefiable materials (i.e., approximately 30 feet). Compressible and Collapsible Soils Generally, from a soil compressibility standpoint, the soils on the mesa can be broken down into four categories: 1) recent alluvial deposits, 2) existing artificial fills, 3) colluvial soils, and 4) terrace deposits. The recent alluvial deposits contain zones of highly compressible materials in the upper 15 feet. The zones appear to range between approximately 1 foot to approximately 5 feet in thickness depending on location. These materials will undergo significant time - related settlements upon loading. L &A (1997) estimated that a 10 -foot fill surcharge in an area within the lowlands (Plate 1) would induce settlements of up to about 8 inches and take over one year to complete. As previously discussed, the current development plan (Plate 2.1) does not include structural development within the lowlands area where the recent alluvial deposits are most common; these areas are currently planned for open space and trails. However, remediation options will need to be considered if future structural improvements are planned over top of recent alluvial deposits within the lowlands area. In this regard, remediation options would most likely be required to limit both the time for settlement as well as the settlement magnitude. Remediation options would include: 1) surcharge fills, 2) soil mixing, and 3) stone columns. Surcharge fills involve the placement of a fill surcharge greater than the height of the planned fill which will serve to reduce the time for settlement. Soil mixing consists of mixing soils insitu with additives (i.e., usually cement or lime) to strengthen the soft soils and thus reduce the magnitude of consolidation. The use of lime columns will also serve to increase the permeability of the soil and thus will aid in reducing the time required for settlement. Stone columns can also be used in fine - grained soils utilizing a technique called "vibro- replacement ". This method may be especially suited for areas where July 2011 32 GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC NeivpmY Banning Ranch both liquefaction mitigation as well as compressible soil mitigation are necessary. In this regard, stone columns placed in granular soils to mitigate liquefaction can be extended to the surface to improve the compressibility characteristics of the overlying soft soils. Final remediation design will depend on a myriad of variables such as the planned grade elevations, construction timing requirements, etc., and will require detailed area specific analysis and design when final grading plans are developed. Due to the fact that the existing artificial fills are either stockpile fills or unengineered, they should be considered as potentially highly compressible. The colluvial soils are present at the base of the mesa slopes and in ravines and arroyos. The colluvial soils are essentially a combination of slope wash and talus deposits. Where observed in the fault trenches, the colluvial soils were locally porous and soft. Consequently, the colluvial soils should be considered as moderately to highly compressible. The terrace deposits contain an upper soil zone that ranges from a few feet in thickness to over 10 feet in thickness. Based on consolidation testing, these materials should be considered to possess a low to moderate consolidation potential. Collapsible soils are defined as soils that undergo a significant reduction in volume when inundated with water. This phenomena is commonly referred to as "hydro- collapse." The recent alluvial sediments in the lowland area are not susceptible to hydro - collapse due to the high water table and the fact that the area has been flooded or under water numerous times in recent geologic times. Based on geotechnical laboratory testing, the terrace deposits and underlying San Pedro Formation sediments posses a low potential for hydro - collapse. However, upper sections of the terrace deposits are locally porous and thus may be subject to adverse hydro - collapse deleting settlements that may necessitate locally deeper corrective grading removals. Additional mitigation of hydro - collapse can be achieved by reducing deep infiltration via design of positive surface drainage, subdrains below bioswales, etc. Based on limited test data, the colluvial soils appear to also possess a low potential for hydro- collapse, but based on their depositional characteristics should be considered as locally subject to moderate levels of hydro - collapse. Expansive Soils To evaluate the expansion potential of on -site materials that will most likely influence proposed structures, several expansion index (EI) tests were performed. The results indicate that on -site soils possess a low to medium expansive potential. These results are also supported by plasticity data which indicates low plasticity. 33 GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Neipport Baimiag Ranch Corrosion Potential To characterize the on -site soil corrosion potential, several suites of corrosion tests were performed. The test suite consisted of pH, soluble sulfates, soluble chlorides, and minimum resistivity. Soluble sulfate concentrations are used to determine the potential for sulfate attack to concrete while the pH, chloride concentration, and minimum resistivity results are used to evaluate the potential for ferrous metal corrosion. The sulfate concentrations indicate that although the terrace deposits in general possess negligible levels of sulphate, moderate levels may exist in various soils throughout the site. Minimum resistivity and chloride contents indicate that the on -site soils should be considered as severely corrosive to ferrous metals. The potential for ferrous metal corrosion is also exhibited by corrosion of buried pipelines. Excavation Characteristics Jppability. The surficial soil materials underlying the site can be excavated with scrapers and other conventional grading equipment. Trenching. We expect that excavation of utility trenches can be accomplished utilizing conventional trenching machines and backhoes. Trench support requirements will be limited to those required by safety laws or other locations where trench slopes will need to be flattened or supported by shoring designed to suit the specific conditions exposed. Volume Change. Our estimate as to the change in volume of on -site materials excavated and placed as compacted fill at an average relative compaction of 92% is as follows: Upper 5 feet terrace deposits /soils above terrace deposits ............... Coluuvium ...... ............................... Alluvium ............................ Artificial fills ...................... ...........assume about 0 -5% loss ...........assume about 5 -10% loss ...........assume about 15 -20% loss ...........assume about 10 -30% loss It should be noted that although the above values are approximate, they represent our best estimate of lost yardage which would likely occur during grading. CONCLUSIONS Based on geotechnical fault studies which have been completed to date, it is our opinion that it is geotechnically feasible to accomplish the proposed development as presently July 201 1 34 GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Banning Ranch planned, provided that the recommendations presented in subsequent sections of this report are followed. 2. The main geotechnical constraints for the project are: 1) fault setback, 2) bluff slope repair and setback, 3) compressible soils, and 4) overall site seismicity. Preliminary recommendations for the mitigation of these constraints are contained in the following sections of this report. RECOMMENDATIONS FAULTSETBACK The State of California requires that a setback for habitable structures must encompass active (Holocene) faults (Hart, 1999). Of the various NIFZ North Branch splays encountered in the NBR development area, only two relatively short segments, the Newport Mesa North and the Newport Mesa South, could not be proved inactive (Plate 7 -- Geologic Map) and thus are conservatively treated herein as active faults. Note that the Newport Mesa North and South Segments were not demonstrably shown to be active. The width of a fault setback zone is usually variable, depending on the width and geometry of individual faults, the number and spacing of outcrops and trenches for control, and the relative uncertainty of fault projection. In the absence of trenches or outcrops, a 50- foot -wide zone, on either side of a fault or its geomorphic expression, is normally established. The Newport Mesa fault segments, however, are of such low recurrence and separation that no geomorphic expression is apparent. Accordingly, for general planning, a conservative, variable width is provided, one that ranges from about 40 feet where the North Segment is constrained by outcrops and trench exposures (near TR -11), to over 100 feet where projections of the South Segment are unconstrained by exposures south of TR -22 and TR -23 (Plates 9, 9. 1, and 9.2). Additional conservatism is provided by extending the setback zones well beyond the southern and northern termini of the North and South segments, respectively. Specifically, the potentially "active" fault in TR -18 (North Segment) does not extend to TR -21 (Plate 7). Nevertheless, the recommended setback zone almost reaches TR -21, rather than ending midway between the two trenches (Plate 9.1 -- Fault Setback Zone, Newport Mesa North Segment). Similarly, the fault setback zone at TR -19 is extended fully almost 500 feet northward toward TR -20, where a demonstrably unbroken pre- Holocene stratigraphy precludes reasonable northward extension of the South Segment (Plate 9.2 -- Fault Setback Zone, Newport Mesa South Segment). Because of the conservative interpretation of trench data and resulting setback geometry discussed above, if additional trenches were performed, the length and width of the presently recommended setback zones could likely be reduced. July 2011 35 GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Neippori Banning Ranch The "gap" in fault setback zones for the Newport Mesa North Segment and South Segment is based on trench exposures at TR -20 and TR -21, which conclusively indicate fault inactivity. In order to verify the absence of active faulting within the gap area, an additional fault trench is recommended about 400 feet northwest of TR -20. If no active faulting is observed in the additional trench, then the fault setback zones will not need to be extended further into the gap area. If active faulting is discovered in the additional trench, then the fault setback zones will need to be modified appropriately. BLUFF SLOPE REPAIR AND SETBACK Natural bluff areas will remain at various locations throughout the site (see Plate 2.1 — Land Use Plan). Given the high erosion potential of sediments comprising the bluff slope face and that shallow slumping will locally continue to occur on the bluff slope faces following development, a development setback from the top of slope along with local bluff erosion repair /improvement will be required. Several areas of the bluff edge have suffered from erosion, resulting in incised gullies and ravines. The project proposes to restore some portions of the eroded bluff slope using careful grading techniques. The bluff restoration can be achieved by one of two methods depending on the size of the erosion gully. Large gullies can be repaired by filling the erosion gully and creating a manufactured slope face that ties in with the natural bluff face. The slope gradient of the manufactured slope should match the existing bluff face. In cases where the existing slope face is steeper than 2:1, slope reinforcement will be required such as geogrids or geo- fabrics. Small gullies may require more small -scale grading methods, including hand labor, in order to restore the natural slope. In addition to the grading, drainage that flows toward the bluff edge will be intercepted at the trail system and redirected. The grading and drainage improvements, combined with the installation of carefully chosen native landscape materials, will help to reduce future erosion of the bluffs. The existing slopes along the southern site boundary adjacent to West Coast Highway contain one recent erosional gully and one large erosional ravine. The recent relatively shallow erosional gully should be repaired via standard grading methods. Given the gentle side slopes of the erosional ravine along West Coast Highway and the thick vegetative cover, the employment of a development setback should be sufficient to protect proposed structures. Following bluff repairs and improvements, a development setback from the top of the mesa slope is recommended. In the natural slope areas, a setback for private property and infrastructure (i.e., roads and utilities, etc.) is recommended to be 50 feet from the top of the bluff where the top of the bluff is defined as the point at which the bluff face slope flattens to a gradient of 5:1 (11.3 degrees) or flatter. This requirement meets or exceeds the City of Newport Beach bluff setback requirements contained in the City of Newport Beach's General Plan. Structures and July 2011 36 GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Neruport Banning Ranch grading within the 50 -foot setback zone should be limited to trails, lighting, and minor grading for surface drainage control. Planting within the setback area should be restricted to a plant palette such that permanent irrigation is not required. In addition, a minimum building setback for habitable structures of 10 feet from the development setback (i.e., 60 feet from the top of slope) is also recommended. In the erosion gully /ravine repair areas where engineered fill slopes are created, no specific setback is required so long as the constructed fill slope is properly vegetated and maintained. If vegetation adequate to minimize significant erosion is restricted from being utilized, a 25 -foot development setback is recommended. As with the setback in natural areas, the development setback should apply to private property and infrastructure. No specific building setback other than those contained in the County Code will be necessary. SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING General All site preparation and grading should be performed in accordance with the County of Orange and the City of Newport Beach grading code requirements along with the recommendations presented in this report. Clearing All significant organic material such as weeds, brush, tree branches, roots, construction debris, and any other decomposable materials should be removed from areas to be graded. Processing Once remedial removals are completed where recommended by the project geotechnical consultant, the upper 6 inches of the excavated native soil should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. Corrective Grading The need for corrective grading, i.e., removal of existing soil and rock materials from areas to receive fill or where exposed at future design grade in cut areas, should be anticipated as follows: (a) Existing Non - Engineered Fills: All existing non - engineered fills present on the site should be removed. All trash debris or excessive amounts of organic material should be disposed of offsite. Rock and/or concrete materials of less than 12 inches in maximum diameter may be placed as compacted fill. Based on July 2011 37 GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Banning Ranch observations in fault trenches, fills can range in thickness from a few feet to over 20 feet in thickness. Due to the past use of the site as an oil production facility, occurrences of artificial fill are scattered throughout the site. (b) Colluvial Soils: Colluvial soils contained in swales, ravines, and arroyos should be removed down to competent terrace deposits or San Pedro Formation sediments where fill is to be placed or where remaining in shallow cuts. The thickness of the materials is anticipated to range from a few feet to over 25 feet in thickness. (c) Recent Alluvial Soils: The recent alluvial deposits will require, as a minimum, remedial removals down to a few feet above the groundwater table. Anticipated removals will range from approximately 4 to 6 feet. Excessive amounts of organic materials or soils should not be incorporated into the fills. Once the removals are completed, additional remediation options (i.e., fill surcharging, etc.) may be necessary depending on the exact location and use of planned development areas. (d) Terrace Deposits: The upper 3 to 5 feet of the soil horizon along with any locally compressible and /or porous zones within the terrace deposits should be removed and recompacted to provide uniform bearing conditions for proposed structures. Locally deeper removal zones may extend to depths of 5 to 10 feet. (e) Toe Keys and Fill Support Benches: Keyways or benches should be excavated through any topsoil material, colluvium, and alluvium wherever the toe of a fill slope is located at a natural ground surface having a gradient of 6 horizontal to 1 vertical, or steeper, or in flatter areas where recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Keyway construction and benching should be in general conformance with Plate 10 -- Typical Benching and Keyway. The actual extent of such keyway grading will need to be determined based on actual grading plans and field conditions exposed during grading. (f) Stabilization Fills: Given that existing terrace deposits and the San Pedro Formation sediments have zones of cohesionless sands, along with the fact that the San Pedro Formation sediments may contain locally daylighted bedding, all cut slopes should be buttressed with a stabilization fill. Stabilization fills should be constructed in general conformance with Plate 11 -- Typical Buttress or Stabilization Fill. (g) Bluff Slope Erosion Repair: Corrective grading in the area of the large erosion bluff repairs will consist of the removal of all recent slough, talus, and colluvial deposits down to firm in -place San Pedro Formation sediments prior to placement July 2011 38 GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Bnnabig Renick of engineered fill and construction of the fill slope. Grading should be performed in general conformance with Plate 11 -- Typical Buttress or Stabilization Fill. Grading Observations During grading observations, full -time geotechnical and environmental observations should be performed so that a diligent search can be made for all non - engineered fills, oil wells, sumps, pipelines, etc. Full -time observations are necessary to provide reasonable assurance that all oil facility structures have been properly mitigated (i.e., as per the 1996 GeoSyntec Environmental Restoration Program) and so that corrective grading can be extended down to appropriate depths. Offsite Retaining Wall (Hilfiker Wall) Considerations Where grading is planned adjacent offsite retaining walls (i.e., Hilfiker type mechanically stabilized earth walls adjacent to the northern portion of the eastern property line), the grading limits should be set back sufficiently from the walls so as to not add any surcharge and /or reduce support for the soils supporting the wall system. As an alternative, fill may be considered to be placed adjacent to the walls to reduce the overall wall height and add additional support. Based on the results of borings drilled near the base of the walls, geologic mapping and review of available offsite geotechnical reports, it appears that the walls are founded on dense terrace deposits. Consequently, the surcharge of additional fill will most likely result in tolerable settlements. However, the following items will need to be completed prior to this option being utilized: 1) the wall design plans will need to be made available, 2) the condition of the walls and supporting structures must be reviewed and evaluated, 3) a pre - construction survey will need to be performed, and 4) the wall and supporting structures will need to be monitored during grading operations. Over - Excavation for Transition Lots The cut portion of proposed lots or building pads that occur across cut -fill transitions will need to be over- excavated to provide a more uniform bearing condition. For planning purposes, over - excavation should be completed in general accordance with Plate 12 -- Typical Detail -- Over- excavation of Transition Lots. FILL MATERIAL AND PLACEMENT Suitability All on -site soils should be suitable for use as compacted fill if. 1) care is taken to remove all significant organic and other decomposable debris, 2) rock materials larger than 12 inches in maximum diameter are separated and stockpiled, and 3) soils contaminated with crude oil are July 2011 39 GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Neruport Banning Ranch bio- remediated. Testing for environmental suitability of soil should be performed by a qualified environmental consultant prior to the use of such soils in engineered fills. Compaction Standard and Methodology All soil material used as compacted fill or material processed in -place or used to backfill trenches, should be moistened, dried or blended as necessary to achieve a minimum of 2% over optimum moisture content for compaction, and densified to at least 90% relative compaction as determined by ASTM Test Method 1557. Fill Slope Compaction Fill slopes should be carefully constructed and backrolled during grading to obtain the specified degree of compaction. These slopes should be either overfilled and trimmed back to expose firm, dense fill or, after "baclaolling" during placement, compacted to the specified density by using cable - lowered sheepsfoot and grid rollers. "Track walking" is not a recommended means of finishing and compacting fill slope surfaces. Use of Oversize Rock or Broken Concrete A limited amount of concrete or rock materials greater than 12 inches in diameter may be placed within larger deeper fills (i.e., within the minor arroyos) if placed in accordance with the following procedures and as illustrated in Plate 13 -- Recommended Placement Method for Oversize Rock or Concrete. a. Rock of 12 inches or more in diameter should be placed in rows at least 15 feet apart, 15 feet from the edge of the fill, and 10 feet or more below roadway subgrade. Spaces should be left between each rock fragment to provide for placement and compaction of soil around the fragments. b. Fill materials consisting of soil at slightly above optimum moisture content and free of oversize material should be placed between and over the rows of rock or concrete. Ample water and compactive effort should be applied to the fill materials as they are placed in order that all of the voids between each of the fragments are filled and compacted to the specified density. C. Subsequent rows of rock should be placed such that they are not directly above a row placed in the previous lift of fill. d. Fragments of hard rock should not be used where they will obstruct excavation of storm drains, utility trenches, or other planned or future underground improvements. July 2011 40 GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Bannhig Ranch Use of Bio- Remediated and Asphalt -like Soils From a geotechnical perspective, petroleum- contaminated soils that have been bio- remediated and asphalt -like materials may used in compacted engineered fills. However, the suitability and placement location of these materials is beyond the scope of our purview. All environmental regulations concerning the use of these soils beneath habitable structures should be followed. Significant restrictions from a geotechnical engineering standpoint are not anticipated. 1tI.7]10 General The construction of subdrains is recommended where free moisture is encountered during corrective grading or as a precautionary measure wherever the presence of future subsurface moisture would be likely to create possible problems with respect to slope stability or saturation of subgrade soils. Arroyo/Ravine Bottom Areas Subdrains should be constructed in the bottom of all ravines /arroyos in which fills will be placed. These subdrains should consist of 6- inch - diameter perforated plastic pipe installed in a 3 -foot- wide by 3- foot -deep trench. The pipe should be bedded and the trench backfilled using at least 9 cubic feet of permeable filter materials per lineal foot of pipe. The recommended configuration of the subdrain and the specification for the pipe and the filter material are illustrated by Plate 14 -- Typical Canyon Bottom Detail. Keyway Backdrains and Outlets Subdrains should be constructed at the rear of stabilization fills and in keyways for the support of sidehill fills. These drains should consist of 4- inch - diameter perforated plastic pipe embedded in 4 cubic feet of filter material per lineal foot of pipe installed in a "V" cut or shallow backhoe trench at the rear of the keyway for the stabilization or sidehill fill. The collector drains should have a minimum gradient of two percent toward the outlet pipe locations. The outlet pipe should consist of non - perforated plastic pipe connected with a "T" to the collector pipe and installed in shallow, narrow trenches excavated through the fill and sloping at a minimum gradient of two percent toward the toe -of- slopes. The outlets should be constructed at intervals of about 200 feet and at each end of the collector system. Subdrain pipe and filter materials should meet County of Orange and City of Newport Beach standards. The standards and details illustrating the configuration of the backdrains are shown on Plate 15 -- Typical Backdrain Type Subdrain. 2011 41 GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Bmathig Ranch Dewatering Sumps Dewatering sumps consisting of 8- inch - diameter perforated or slotted plastic pipe embedded in at least 12 cubic feet of Class 2 permeable filter material should be constructed at the downstream end of keyways or other removal areas where the presence of free moisture requires dewatering prior to and during the placement of fill and daylighting of subdrains is not possible. The subdrain systems should be outletted into these sumps using "T" or "Y" fittings. A submersible pump should be used as necessary to discharge free moisture collected in the sump until such time that the level of the keyway backfill is above the elevation of significant groundwater seepage into the excavation. A generalized sketch illustrating the configuration of the recommended sump is presented as Plate 16 -- Typical Dewatering Sump. BIOSWALES AND PERMEABLE PAVEMENT The project design is anticipated to include water quality features such as bioswales, permeable pavement, and other improvements for treatment of runoff through soil -based infiltration processes. Infiltration within the uppermost soils (i.e., —5 feet below finish grade) is acceptable from a geotechnical perspective, but deep infiltration should be minimized in order to prevent deep saturation of the underlying terrace deposits and San Pedro Formation. Deep saturation can be reduced by installing subdrains below areas of significant infiltration, such as bioswales and permeable pavement. This will allow treated water to be captured and conveyed prior to deep infiltration. PRELIMINARY SEISMIC DESIGN AND FOUNDATION CONSIDERATIONS Residential and Commercial Structures Seismic Design. The site will likely be subject to seismic shaking at some time in the future. Site - specific seismic design parameters were determined using the USGS computer program title "Seismic Hazard Curves and Uniform Hazard Response Spectra, Version 5.1.0." Seismic design of on -site structures (excluding schools and bridges) should be in accordance with the following 2010 CBC criteria: 2011 42 GMU Proiect 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Banning Ranch Parameter Pactor value 0.2s Period Spectral Response S, 1.81 1.0s Period Spectral Response St 0.68g Soil Profile Type Site Class D Site Coefficient Fa 1.00 Site Coefficient F, 1.SOg Adjusted Spectral Response SMs 1.81g SMr 1.028 Adjusted Spectral Response SD, 1.21g SDr 0.68g Foundation Type. Based on the overall high seismicity of the site along with a potential for medium expansive conditions, the use of standard slab -on -grade foundation systems is not recommended. Foundation systems should consist of some type of rationally designed stiffened foundation system capable of acting as a unit during a seismic event and to resist the effects of expansive soils. Examples of suitable systems would include post- tensioned foundation systems, mat foundations, etc. Pedestrian Bridge Seismic Desierr. For design of a potential pedestrian bridge for the NBR project, ground motions at the site were evaluated in accordance with current Caltrans procedures. The Caltrans -based analysis evaluated ground motions at the site using Caltrans ARS Online Version 1.0.4 (http: / /dap3.dot.ca.vov /shake stable /index.php). Caltrans ARS Online is a web -based program that calculates deterministic and probabilistic acceleration response spectra based on Appendix B of Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria. Given site coordinates, the ARS Online program generates deterministic spectra for nearby fault sources and a probabilistic spectrum based on the 2008 USGS National Hazard Map for 5% probability of exceedence in 50 years (i.e., 975 year return period). The design ARS curve is then taken as the upper envelope of the deterministic and probabilistic response spectra. The program also accounts for soil type and near source adjustments to the ARS curves. For the NBR project, site coordinates used in the analysis were 33.6327° North Latitude and 117.9439° West Longitude. Consistent with the PSHA described above, the site is categorized as Soil Profile Type D. This corresponds to an average shear wave velocity of 275 meters /second. Based on these parameters, the Caltrans ARS Online program calculates ARS curves for the deterministic and probabilistic response spectra. The calculated ARS curves and site data are included in Appendix D. At short periods (i.e., <0.8 sec), the deterministic response spectrum for the San Joaquin Hills blind thrust is the controlling cove, indicating a PGA of 0.60g. At longer periods (i.e., >0.8 sec), the 2011 43 GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Neroport Banning Ranch deterministic response spectrum for the Newport- Inglewood fault zone is the controlling curve. Foundation Considerations. We anticipate that a potential pedestrian bridge could span West Coast Highway. This location would place at least a portion of the bridge overtop potentially liquefiable soils. If the pedestrian bridge is pursued as a project feature, additional geotechnical studies and analyses will be needed to evaluate the subsurface conditions at each bridge abutment. For preliminary purposes, it should be anticipated that bridge abutments will need to be pile supported. SLOPE LANDSCAPING Plans for landscaping and irrigation of both natural and graded slopes should be prepared by a qualified landscape architect experienced in utilizing plant materials for long -term reduction of slope erosion hazards. The use of plant materials requiring the minimum of cultivation and irrigation is recommended. Irrigation of graded slopes must be carefully controlled to prevent saturation of the compacted fill or in -place native soil or rock materials forming the slopes. Any irrigation system should consist of above - ground piping to avoid the need for trenching and disturbance to the slope surfaces. Planting of the natural slope areas should also be performed with minimum disturbance to the natural topsoil materials present on the slopes. Plant materials should be used which will require minimum irrigation to be come established and no irrigation thereafter. Slope landscaping for graded slopes should be initiated as soon as possible following slope construction. SURFACE DRAINAGE Due to the highly erosive nature of both the on -site soil materials and bluff slopes, it is critical that surface drainage be designed to prevent pending adjacent to, and runoff onto, any graded or natural slopes. Areas within the bluff slope setback zone should contain drainage devices to minimize the surface flow over the bluff slopes. In addition, it is recommended that surface drainage and bluff slope erosion mitigation schemes be undertaken in areas where bluff slopes are to remain natural. This should be undertaken as soon as practical to minimize additional damage prior to development. July 2011 44 GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Banning Ranch PLAN REVIEW AND FUTURE REPORTS The following additional geotechnical tasks to develop final geotechnical design recommendations are anticipated: • Consultation during grading plan development. • Review of rough grading plans. • Geotechnical exploration, testing, and analysis as necessary to address specific aspects of the rough grading plan. A rough grading plan review report will be needed. This report will include: 1) detailed geotechnical analysis of the planned grading, and 2) any needed corrective grading recommendations to accomplish the planned grading. LIMITATIONS All parties reviewing or utilizing this report should recognize that: 1) it is an EIR level study and does not contain details normally associated with a rough grading plan review, 2) this study integrates and utilizes geotechnical exploration data performed by others, and 3) the findings, conclusions and recommendations presented represent the results of our professional geological and geotechnical engineering efforts and judgements. Due to the inexact nature of the state of the art of the geotechnical engineering and geological professions and the possible occurrence of undetected variables in subsurface conditions, we cannot guarantee that there are no unknown subsurface conditions which could have an adverse effect on the use of the property. We believe, however, that we have exercised a degree of care comparable to that presently maintained by other professionals in the fields of geotechnical engineering and engineering geology and have performed sufficient observation and testing to provide a rational basis for our opinion that the proposed project is feasible. Because our conclusions and recommendations are based on a limited amount of current and previous geotechnical exploration performed by others, all parties should recognize the need for possible revisions to our conclusions and recommendations based upon future geotechnical studies and /or observations during grading of the project. The scope of our study included geotechnical engineering and engineering geological aspects only and specifically did not include testing or analysis pertaining to the presence of toxic or hazardous waste materials. July 2011 45 GMIJ Proiect 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH LLC N ✓purl Bo••rt irg Rortc /r ACZGNO W I QED GMENTS Siga�_i8cant portions of this study were con ipleted by several irndependent geologic proFessionals_ The Following contributions are notawoa -tlzyc i'ield operations grad trenci-a loggirag ef£ox-ts were led by Mr P¢zzJ Davis RG� CI�Gi Dr Roy SJzlenzozz� Pla_D.� 12G� perFormed age dating of faults arced aided in the overall planning of ti-ae fault investigatioa� Dr_ Jef'f'rey JoJznson� PYr_D_� CEG� provided overall cornrraents and guidance_ S UPPORTZNG DATA The Plates and Appendices wlai clz complete tl-ais report aa-e listed in the Table of Contents_ pE 2336 ' Exp_ Oac_ 31 , 20Y Y 7k RespectFully submitted, GMU G ZNC_ Gregoiy P� Si � M_Sc_ GE 2336 Pri uicipal Geot� laraical Engineer � ` EIV OINEERINO J� I j A.I'011 TayYOr M_SC_ PGA CEG 2455 \ mss\ E EEg .I��s Q / l/ Principal Engineering Geologist /06- 1 63 -0012 cjuly 20 1 13 July 201 7 46 GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Nervporl Bmwiug Ranch 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, 115 p. Basu, A., and Hart, E. (eds.), 1996, Earth processes: reading the isotopic code: Geophysical Monograph 95, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, 437 p. Bender, E.E., 2000, Late Quaternary uplift and earthquake potential of the San Joaquin Hills, southern Los Angeles Basin, California: Comment and Reply: Geology, v. 28, p. 383. Birkeland, P. W., 1984, Soils and geomorphology: Oxford University Press, New York, 372 p. Boore, D.M. and Atkinson, G.M., 2008, Ground- Motion Prediction Equations for the Average Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, and 5 %- Damped PSA at Spectral Periods between 0.01 s and 10 s: Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 24, No. 1, p. 99 -138. Bryant, W.A., 1985 a, Northern Newport- Inglewood fault zone, Los Angeles County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology Fault Evaluation Report FER -173, 26 p. Bryant, W.A., 1985 b, Southern Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone, Southern Los Angeles and Northern Orange Counties, California: California Division of Mines and Geology Fault Evaluation Report FER -172, 21 p. 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, no. 88 -14, 15 p. Bullard, T.F., and Lettis, W.R., 1993, Quaternary fold deformation associated with blind thrust faulting, Los Angeles Basin, California: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 98, no. B5, p. 8349 -8369. California Building Code, 1995, Code of Regulations Title 24 California Department of Water Resources, 1961, Planned utilization of the ground water basins of the coastal plain of Los Angeles County, Appendix A, Ground water geology: California Department of Water Resources Bulletin, v. 104, 181 p California Department of Water Resources, 1968, Sea -water intrusion: Bolsa- Sunset area, Orange County: California Department of Water Resources Bulletin, v. 63 -2, 167 p. July 2011 47 GMU Proiect 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Banning Ranch California Division of Mines and Geology Note 42, 1986, Guidelines to geologic /seismic reports California Division of Mines and Geology Note 44, 1986, Recommended guidelines for preparing engineering geologic reports California Division of Mines and Geology Note 48, Checklists for public schools, hospitals, and essential services buildings, 3 p. California Division of Mines and Geology Note 49, Guidelines for evaluating the hazard of surface fault rupture, 4 p. California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, 1997, Fault- rupture hazard zones in California, for evaluation of Alquist - Priolo Earthquake fault zones, 38 p. California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117, 1997, Guidelines for evaluating and mitigating seismic hazards in California, 74 p. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1996, Probablistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California. California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Survey, and University of Southern California, 2009, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, State of California, County of Orange, Newport Beach Quadrangle Campbell, K.W., and Bozorgnia, Y., 2008, NGA Ground Motion Model for the Geometric Mean Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, PGD, and 5% Damped Linear Elastic Response Spectra for Periods Ranging from 0.01 to 10s: Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 24, No. 1, p. 139 -171. Castle, R.O., and Buchanan- Banks, J.M., 1989, Vertical surface displacements along a part of the Newport- Inglewood zone of folds and faults, Los Angeles and Orange Counties, California: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Investigations MF -2088. Chien, B.S., and Youngs, R.R., 2008, An NGA Model for the Average Horizontal Component of Peak Ground Motion and Response Spectra: Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 24, No. 1, p. 173- 215. Clark, M.M., Harms, K.K., Lienkaemper, J.J., Harwood, D.S., Lajoie, K.R., Matti, J.C., Perkins, J.A., Rymer, M.J., Sarna- Wojcicki, A.M., Sharp, R.V., Sims, J.D., Tinsley, J.C., III, and Ziony, J.I., 1984, Preliminary slip -rate table and map of late Quaternary faults of California: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report no. 84-106,12 p., 5 plates Cooke, R., Warren, A., and Goudie, A., 1993, Desert geomorphology: University College London Press, London, England, 526 p. July 2011 48 GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Banning Ranch Converse Consultants Orange County, 1994, Evaluation of on -site faulting, ground water development project: unpublished technical report prepared for City of Newport Beach Utilities Department (CCOC Project No. 93- 32197 -02), 10p. Corin, 1947, West Newport Oil Field; in Summary of operations, California oil fields, thirty - second annual report of the state Oil and Gas Supervisor: Department of natural resources, Division of Oil and Gas, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 8 -16. Cornell, C.A., 1968, Engineering seismic risk analysis: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 58, p. 1583 -1606. Costa, J. E., Miller, A. J., Potter, K. W., and Wilcock, P. R. (eds.), 1995, Natural and anthropogenic influences in fluvial geomorphology (the Wolman volume), Geophysical Monograph 89, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, 239 p. Earth Consultants International, 1997, Fault trenching investigation, Newport- Banning property, Orange County, CA, Project No. 978100 -019, Nov. 25. Earth Technology Corporation, 1986, Geological evaluation of faulting potential, West Newport Oil Field, Orange County, CA, Project No.: 86- 820 -01, July 31. Easterbrook, D. J., 1988, Dating Quaternary sediments: Geological Society of America Special Paper 227, Boulder, CO, 165 p. Erlandson, J. M., Rick, T. C., and Peterson, C., 2005, A geoarchaeological chronology of Holocene dune building on San Miguel Island, California: The Holocene, v. 15, no. 8, p. 1227 -1235. Fischer, P.J., 1992, Neotectonics of the Newport- Inglewood and Palos Verdes fault zones along the offshore margins of the greater Los Angeles basin, in Stout, M.L. ed., Proceedings of the 35`h Annual Meeting of the Association of Engineering Geologists, 1992, Sheraton Hotel, Long Beach, October 2 -9, 1992, p. 603 -615. Forrest, M., Rockwell, R., Grant, L., and Garth, E., 1997, Shattered crust series, The Newport- Inglewood and Whittier - Elsinore fault zones, Southern California Earthquake Center, 62 p. Freeman, T.S., Heath, E.G., Guptill, P.D., and Wagoner, J.T., 1992, Seismic hazard assessment, Newport- Inglewood fault zone, in Pipkin, B.W., and Proctor, R.J., eds., Engineering geology practice in southern California: Association of Engineering Geologists, Southern California Section, Special Publication No. 4, Star Publishing Company, Belmont, CA, p. 211 -231. July 2011 49 GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Batming Ranch GeoSyntec Consultants, "Phase 1 Description, Environmental Restoration Program, Newport Banning Ranch, West Newport Oil Company, Orange County, California," prepared for West Newport Oil Company, dated January 31, 1996 (Their Project No. CE4057 -06). GeoSyntec Consultants, "Summary Report, Environmental Restoration Program, Newport Banning Ranch, West Newport Oil Company, Orange County, California," prepared for West Newport Oil Company, dated January 31, 1996 (Their Project No. CE4057 -06). GMU Geotechnical, Inc., "Geotechnical Review of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 17308, Newport Banning Ranch, City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California," prepared for Newport Banning Ranch LLC, dated February 3, 2009 (GMU Project No. 06- 163 -03). Grant, L.B., Muellar, K.J., Gath, E.M., Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L., Munro, R., and Kennedy, G.L., 1999, Late Quaternary uplift and earthquake potential of the San Joaquin Hills, southern Los Angeles Basin, California: Geology, v. 27, p. 1031 -1034. Grant, L.B., Wagoner, J.T., Rockwell, T.K., and von Stein, C.R., 1997, Paleoseismicity of the North Branch of the Newport- Inglewood fault zone in Huntington Beach, California, from CPT data: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 87, no. 2, p. 277 -293. Grant, L.B., Wagoner, J.T., and von Stein, C.R., 1995, Paleoseismicity of the North Branch of the Newport- Inglewood fault in Huntington Beach, California: EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 1995 Fall Meeting, v. 76, no. 46, San Francisco, California, p. F362. Guptill, P.D., and Heath, E.G., 1981, Surface faulting along the Newport- Inglewood zone of deformation: California Geology, v. 34, p. 142 -148. Guptill, P. D., Armstrong, C. and Egli, M., 1989, Structural features of West Newport Mesa: in Engineering geology along coastal Orange County: Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Field Trip Guidebook, p. 31 -44. Harden J. W., 1982, A quantitative index of soil development from field descriptions: examples from a chronosequence in central California: Geoderma, v. 28, p. 1 -28. Hart, E. W., and Bryant, W. A., 1997 (revised 1999), Fault- rupture hazard zones in California: CDMG Special Publication 42, 38p. Hauksson, E., 1987, Seismotectonics of the Newport- Inglewood fault zone in the Los Angeles Basin, Southern California: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 77, no. 2, p. 539 -561. 2011 50 GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Banning Ranch Hauksson, E., 1990, Earthquakes, faulting, and stress in the Los Angeles basin: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 95, no. B10, p. 15,365- 15,394. Hauksson, E., and Gross, S., 1991, Source parameters of the 1933 Long Beach earthquake: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 81, no. 1, p. 81 -98. Hecker, S., Kendrick, K. J., Ponti, D.J., and Hamilton, J. C., 1998, Digital fault and foldmap and database for Southern California: Phase I faults of The Long Beach 30,E x 607E quad., USGS OFR 98 -129. Jenny, H., 1980, The soil resource: Springer - Verlag, New York, NY, 337 p. Lajoie, K.R., Ponti, D.J., Powell, C.L.II, Mathieson, S.A., and Salna- Wojcicki, A.M., 1991, Emergent marine strand lines and associated sediments, coastal California; a record of Quaternary sea -level fluctuations, vertical tectonic movements, climatic changes, and coastal processes, in Morrison, R.B., ed., Quaternary Nonglacial Geology: Conterminous U.S.: The Geology of North America, v. K -2, The Geological Society of America, p. 190 -214. Law /Crandall, Inc., 1993, Report of potential fault displacements, Wastewater Treatment Plant Number 2, Huntington Beach, California: unpublished technical report for County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, project no. 266.130140.0001, 10p, Law /Crandall, Inc., 1994, Report of fault rupture hazard investigation, Waste water Treatment Plant Number 2, Huntington Beach, California: unpublished technical report for the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, project no. 2661.30140.0001 (June 13, 1994), 37 p. Leon, L.A., Dolan, J.F., Shaw, J.H., and Pratt, T.L., 2009, Evidence for large Holocene earthquakes on the Compton thrust fault, Los Angeles, California: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 114, B12305. Legg, M.R., Borrero, J.C., and Synolakis, C.E., 2004, Tsunami Hazards Associated with the Catalina Fault in Southern California: Earthquake Spectra, v. 20, no. 3, p. 917 -950. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1993, Preliminary geotechnical investigation, Areas I -1 and 1 -3, the Bluffs, Holly - Seacliff Project, City of Huntington Beach, California: unpublished report prepared for Seacliff Partners, Santa Monica, California, Project No. 1911073 -04, January 22, 1993, 23 p. July 2011 51 GNM Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newpoil Banning Ranch Leighton and Associates, Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation of Liquefaction and Settlement Potential, Proposed Residential Development at the Lowland Portion of Newport/Banning Ranch, Northeast of Pacific Coast Highway and the Santa Ana River, City of Newport Beach, California: prepared for Taylor Woodrow Homes, Laguna Hills, California, Project No. 1970011 -01, dated May 16, 1997. Leighton and Associates, Inc., Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation of Liquefaction and Settlement Potential, Proposed School and Residential Areas, Lowland Portion of Newport/Banning Ranch Northeast of Pacific Coast Highway and the Santa Ana River, County of Orange, California: prepared for Taylor Woodrow Homes, Laguna Hills, California, Project No. 1970011 -01, dated January 6, 1998. Magorien, D.S., and Shlemon, R.J., 1995, Surface displacement of the Newport- Inglewood fault (third order, North Branch splay) at Newport Beach, California: Association of Engineering Geologists, Annual Meeting. McGill, Sally, and Grant, L.B., 1995, Summary of findings: workshop on preparing a digital fault and fold map and database for southern California: unpublished report prepared for the Southern California Earthquake Center, 19 p. McGuire, R.K., 1976, Fortran program for seismic risk analysis: U.S. Geol. Survey Open File Report 76 -67, 90p. Miller, R.V., Tan, S.S., Chapman, R.H., and Chase, G.W., 1977, Recency of movements along major faults in Orange County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology. Mills, M.F., and Shlemon, R.J., 1992, Trench exposures of the Cherry Hills fault on Signal Hill, Newport- Inglewood fault system, Long Beach, California, in Ehlig, P.L., and Steiner, E.A. (compilers), Engineering geology field trips, Orange County, Santa Monica Mountains, Malibu: Guidebook and Volume, Southern California Section, Association of Engineering Geologists, 35th Annual Meeting, Long Beach, CA, Oct. 2 -9, 1992, p. A37 -A44. Mills, M.F., and Shlemon, R.J., 1993, Trench exposures and tectonic - geomorphic evidence for latest Pleistocene and Holocene uplift of north Signal Hill, Long Beach, California: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Pacific Section Abstracts, v. 77, p. 709. Mills, M. F., and Shlemon, R. J., 1998, Near - surface style of the Newport- Inglewood fault at a pressure ridge, Huntington Beach Mesa, California: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Cordilleran Section, v. 30, no. 5, p. 55. July 2011 52 GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Bonning Ranch Morton, P.K., Miller, R.V., and Evans, J.R., 1976, Environmental geology of Orange County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report, no. 79 -8, p. 474. Mualchin, L., A Technical Report to Accompany the Caltrans California Seismic Hazard Map 1996 (Based on Maximum Credible Earthquakes), prepared for California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, California, dated July 1996 (rev. 1) Mueller, K.J., 1997, Recency of folding along the Compton -Los Alamitos trend: Implications for seismic risk in the Los Angeles basin: EOS Transaction of the American Geophysical Union, v. 78, p. F702. Mueller, K., and Suppe, J., 1996, Paleoseismic studies of active blind thrusts in the Los Angeles basin: 1995 Annual Report, v. Il, 1995 Progress Reports from SCEC Scientists, Southern California Earthquake Center, p. C -36 - C -40. Muhs, D. R., Budahn, J. R., Johnson, D. L., and 5 others, 2008, Geochemical evidence for airborne dust additions to soils in Channel Island National Park, California: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 120, no. 1/2, p. 106 -126. Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation, Newport/Banning Ranch Project, County of Orange, California, prepared for West Newport Oil Company, Costa Mesa, California, dated October 8, 1993. Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., 1996, Alquist - Priolo earthquake fault zone investigation, North Branch of the Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone, Tract No. 15109, southeast of the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue, City of Huntington Beach, California: Consultants' Technical Report, Work Order 102167 -GG (April 5, 1966), 9 plates, 4 figures, 5 appendices. Petersen, M.D., Frankel, A.D., Harmsen, S.C., Mueller, C.S., Haller, K.M., Wheeler, R.L., Wesson, R.L., Zeng, Y., Boyd, O.S., Perkins, D.M., Luce, N., Field, E.H., Wills, C.J., and Rukstales, K.S., 2008, Documentation for the 2008 Update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 2008 -1128, 61 p. Poland, J. F., Piper, A. M., et al., 1956, Ground -water geology of the coastal zone, Long Beach - Santa Ana area, California: U.S. Geological Survey Water- Supply Paper 1109, 162 p., plates. July2011 53 GNW Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Banning Ranch Ponti, D.J., 1993, Quaternary chronostratigraphy and deformation history, Los Angeles Basin, California, in Jacobson, M.L., Compiler, Summaries of Technical Reports, vol. XXXIV, prepared by participants in National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, December 1992: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report no. 93 -195, v. II, p. 588 -592. Ponti, D.J., and Lajoie, K.R., 1992, Chronostratigraphic implications for tectonic deformation of Palos Verdes and Signal Hills, Los Angeles basin, California, in Stout, M.L. ed., Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association of Engineering Geologists, 1992, Sheraton Hotel, Long Beach, October 2 -9, 1992, p. 617 -620. Ponti, D.J., Quinn, J.P., Hillhouse, J.W., and Powell, C.L. II, 1996, Quaternary chronostratigraphic constraints on deformation in the northern Los Angeles Basin, California, Southern California Earthquake Center 1996 Annual meeting, Palm Springs, California, Southern California Earthquake Center, p. 70. Reinhardt, J., and Sigleo, W. R. (eds.), 1988, Paleosols and weathering through geologic time: principles and applications: Geological Society of America Special Paper 216, Boulder, CO, 181 p. Richter, C.F., 1958, Elementary Seismology: San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. Rube, R. V., 1965, Quaternary paleopedology: in Wright, H. E. and Frey, D. G. (eds.), The Quaternary geology of the United States: Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, p. 755 -764 Shaw, J.H., 1993, Active blind - thrust faulting and strike -slip fault -bend folding in California, Princeton University, Ph.D. dissertation, 216 p. Shaw, J.H., and Suppe, J., 1994, Active blind - thrust ramps and growth folds in the Los Angeles Basin, California: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 78, no. 4, p. 675. 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, v. 101, no. B4, p. 8623 -8642. Shlemon, R. J., 1978, Quaternary soil - geomorphic relationships, southeastern Mojave Desert, California and Arizona: in Mahaney, W. C. (ed.), Quaternary soils: Geo Abstracts, Limited, University of East Anglia, Norwich, England, p. 187 -207. Shlemon, R. J., 1985, Application of soil - stratigraphic techniques to engineering geology: Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists, v. XXII, no. 2, p 129 -142. July 2011 54 GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Banning Ranch Shlemon, R.J., 1994, Late Quaternary stratigraphic and neotectonic fiamework, Waste water Treatment Plant Number 2, Huntington Beach, California, Appendix A: unpublished technical report for Law /Crandall, Inc., on behalf of County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, 12 p. Shlemon, R.J., Elliott, P., and Franzen, S., 1995, Holocene displacement history of the Newport- Inglewood, North Branch fault splays, Santa Ana River floodplain, Huntington Beach, California: The Geological Society of America 1995 Annual Meeting, Cordilleran Section, v. 27, no. 6, p. A -375. Shlemon, R.J., Engel, D.J., and Hanson, J.A., 1998, Where does a fault end ( ?): late Quaternary deformation near Hesperia, San Bernardino County, California: Association of Engineering Geologists Program with abstracts: 41st Annual Meeting (Seattle, WA), p. 125. Soil Survey Staff, 1975, Soil taxonomy: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Agriculture Handbook 436, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 754 p. Soil Survey Staff, 2006, Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 10th ed., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservations Service, Washington, DC., 341 p. Soil Survey Division Staff, 1993, Soil survey manual: United States Department of Agriculture Handbook No. 18, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 437 p. Suppe, J., 1983, Geometry and kinematics of fault -bend folding: American Journal of Science., v. 283, p. 648 -721. Suppe, J., Bischke, R.E., and Shaw, J.H., 1992, Regional map -view and cross- sectional determination of fault geometry and slip for blind thrusts in populated areas of southern California: 1992 report prepared for the SCEC annual meeting, Southern California Earthquake Center, Los Angeles, California. Toppozada, T. R., and Parke, D. L., 1982, Areas damaged by California earthquakes, 1900 - 1949: California Division of Mines and Geology OFR 82 -17 SAC, 65 p. Wells, D.L., and Coppersmith, K.J., 1994, New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 84, no. 4, p. 974 -1002. Weide, D. L. (ed.), 1985, Soils and Quaternary geology of the southwestern United States: Geological Society of America Special Paper 203, Boulder, CO, 150 p. July 2011 55 GMU Project 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Banning Ranch Woodward -Clyde Consultants, 1984, Preliminary evaluation of surface faulting, Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program, Bolsa Chica planning unit, Orange County, California: prepared for Signal Landmark, Inc. and Orange County Environmental Management Agency, Job. No. 4159213, 44 p. Woodward -Clyde Consultants, Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Studies, Long Range Planning Program, West Newport Oil Company, prepared for West Newport Oil Company, Costa Mesa, California, Project No. 41890A, dated June 21, 1985. Woodward -Clyde Consultants, 1987, Evaluation of hazards due to fault surface rupture at Bolsa Chica Mesa and in the Bolsa Chica lowland, Orange County, California: unpublished report prepared for Signal Landmark, Inc. and Orange County Environmental Management Agency. Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 1995, Seismic hazards in southern California: probable earthquakes, 1994 to 2024: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 85, no. 2, p.379 -439. Wright, T.L., 1987, The Inglewood oil field, in Wright, T.L., and Heck, R. eds., Petroleum geology of coastal southern California: Pacific Section, American Association of Petroleum Geologists Guidebook 60, p. 41 -49. Wright, T.L., 1991, Structural geology and tectonic evolution of the Los Angeles Basin, California, in Biddle, K.T., ed., Active margin basins: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 52, v. 52, p. 5 -134. Zeiser Geotechnical, Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Evaluation Report, Barto Oil Project, 1045 West 18t" Street, City of Costa Mesa, Orange County, California, prepared for Kaufman & Broad of Southern California, Inc., dated July 31, 1987, Project PN 87151 -1. Ziony, J.I., and Jones, L.M., 1989, Map showing late Quaternary faults and 1978 -84 seismicity of the Los Angeles region, California: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF -1964, 23 p. 2011 56 GMU Proiect 06- 163 -00 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC Newport Banning Ramrc% Air Photos Fairchild Collection, Whittier College Date Flight No. Frame No. Scale 1927 C -113 763,764 1"1500' 1928 C -278 #2 B:8, B:9 1"2000' 5/22/31 C -1590 34,35 1"1500' 3/4/38 C -5029 47,48 1 "2640' Earth Graphics Date Fli hg t No. Frame No. Scale 6/10/93 93 -125 1 to 9, 11 to 13 1"500' Mans California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Anaheim and Newport Beach 7.5- Minute Quadrangles, Orange County, California; Seismic Hazard Zone Report 03. California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Survey, and University of Southern California, 2009, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, State of California, County of Orange, Newport Beach Quadrangle Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 060212 - 0054 -A. U.S. Coast Survey, 1874, Section X, Bolsas Creek to Santa Ana River, Scale 1:10,000, Register No. 1369. U.S. Geological Survey, 1901, Santa Ana Quadrangle, Scale 1:62,500, surveyed in 1932. U.S. Geological Survey, 1935, Newport Beach Quadrangle, Scale 1:31,680, surveyed in 1932. U.S. Geological Survey, photorevised 1981, Newport Beach Quadrangle, 7.5 min. series, Scale 1:24,000, topography revised 1965. July 2011 57 GW Project 06- 163 -00 VaMMM n Volume 1 Report of Geotechnical Studies Proposed Newport Banning Ranch Development City of Newport Beach /County of Orange Plates 1 - 8.8 Prepared for: Newport Banning Ranch LLC Prepared By: GMU Geotechnical, Inc. July 2011 y AVE r Moll ab6la %/ 0� � Ril CONGRE FJ Vic C3 _ . t!w L� •:I . 4 , C a. AVE • M/ � NdtiILY i�L = _ • L 3rh - III o E:F E:.,lr_. c,•h I Rn❑ �l� v J e5. St — _99�W .C' ^,I� � C .. P� J „i�A1h �/ •.� t1t�I ip uim a L _ ••i. �� SE'A f,SJX71 �� IiL ® =• � .� DISPo L-, •�• s Ia, -. �...', Pa ��`� \ �• _ lrlJ . _nth S Sdi.. ILK'_'.:. ak� • \ C">'ty hl WT ,� izailer P , '\ �9� it _ '• w - Psr Newport.) •r- --eRervBR —i1 c', �J r .` . ACOE Santa All Pr k Marsh Restoration A • 1 ar = ' . „(m � SF,i' I I - (�gypp ewI ' 7WWS a ��' ,�hJlmonal HOSpd � / t 1 Y NOTES: 1) The Base Map is Computer Scanned lmagefrom U5G57.5 Minute Newport Beach, California Topographic Q uadrande, 1965, PhotoreNsed 1972. 2) All Locations and Dimensions are Approximate. 0 1000 2000 3000 Approximate G raphic Scale: North O ne Inch Equals 2000 Feet PLATE pr QW LOCATION MAP 1 Project Name: P Project No: Date: ate. GEOTECHNICA INC. L• Newport Banning Ranch 1 06- 163 -00 July 2011 . B° m � ,qN Suee �w O j p �D I' O Q Q ti 2 ;= IAN Street / ? �01' Urban Colony O > T Q � O I 17th SUW ACOE o o Wetlands � r +�D � ' - " Newhall S;rz Restoration '0 r Area z North Family Village m r—a I -L � - � \ •. NMUSD - , \ 16th Street City Us Yard LEGEND PmJx,.ane9o, , OPEN SPACE PRESERVE Up Open Space H..1 Corservauon. Resb., ard MNpamn Areaz OLoM13M Open $paw Hapaai CPnurvabm. ResbraGm, aM Mnipawn Areas OZitc ideryrtWe Tr is OC: ainape ManaprnentAreaz Conso4eaoetl 04 rra.mUx, _ Dr Srte Barters PARKLANDS ® ewk Cdnmunily PaA Oewkc Bluff pi Y PuDkc Neemr . Pans VILLAGES AND COLONES North arM Sputa Famly Wiapes unu Cdany Resort CO y ROADWAYS FZzq PuDkc Rases Pmate RO Apeys Tpp d Ed, &" EB map ar Edpe d BNR 1D . O,3D ICAm r West c a s r h Proposed 9 h tr d Pedestrian BnOge n y F 7 C PACIFIC y OCEAN 5i o rt: �- South Family Village Proposed Permanent Connection to Sunset Ridge Pan Resort Colony O Sunset Ridge Park rcv _ Exhibit 3 -1 NEWPORT BANNING RANCH Master Development Plan MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN t I I17 awn aunAnocw,u® � City or Newport LOP - California IIIIJJ 0.IM , 00.19•xn 0 n m SITE PLANNING AREA D�iO °w �i i° w� oo y � x °sn< ~oz w o y No. Descripli0n OPEN SPACE RReSepve 1. UPIANO NpRnaT COnSEgval lOa. gEStOgailOrv, aN0 YIIwISpN MFA9 UOSNTF la W rca Cone Wprway Bwll Nea +SA A.9 0 0 0 )eJ MO - UpyPTF 16 Swllmrn Mqq C35 /WBIIWOq+1e 0 0 0 IIOSPiF m sF.DF BLA OSSI WwY1NAw Iio uD - o D a uo.^.rPrF ie v.na Pod PleamugrNS 12 3.2 - 0 0 O urssmlF msaln uYFa tlSlWnebtlglm wA 1oi o. o -_o UOSIPIF 11 Nvurn Mqo WaJN Nm SA 5.5 - 0 _ 0 0 1I05RTi tp WrY UDYIOCSStWeabY qYE° 10.] 134 0 0 0 UpyP/F 10 M'av W ®sbb Nw 1.3 1.1 0 0 0 AErbY f0i! eL) 0 0 0 • LOWLNIO MMRAT COXEERVATpN, RESTpU1110Y, MIO YTINMIYIN AREAS LOS91F L Su01rIyXnIM MSgdYnTrgaclin ARB 758 )5.0 0 0 0 LOSN)F A M <26 bJ _ 0 . 0 0 luHOlal 110.1 1161 0 I 0 0 • wwx mRmETNE Tpu! LOS91F L B�11 Tn T.aY'^ - 0 0 LOSPIF JO Lnabb IMngmY.e T:mf" ) J ) 0 0 UosmlF Y sauvmm NmpT:el 01 0) I_ O 0 Lo- 0 0 UOWPIF b I MTry 11 I S i. EWpY !0 D,] I 0 0 p11WnY! WNgOEIEMgpE/S _ 33 33 I - 0 0 0 Lf)d91F M WYS OuvYy Ben UO&PIF M DFIMY eA1n /NtlI1tl ArY Oa p0 ! 0 0 0 lWIWtl 26 2! 0 0 0 6CdIWlLAI ®OLmS AOeb d b 9aWelYd OOeYbm Bi 40 a0 I- 0 0 0 OF b dq�aPaelHwF®mYMgar FamelQ.. JI JI OF b d YMFBIN Ofi 06 0 0 0 luplgal fe3 10.3 0 0 0 a2mwFFen _ UOSMF b 80YW0'd 911PIAnm:O BWIw 0.1 01 _ 0 0 0 diYfWlIy EUXa 3) 2) 0 0 0 awMel ie xe e 9 D SUBTOTAI OPEN SPACE PRESERVE z5z.l zu.D 0 0 0 PARKLANDS ). rlwl]c Dolrupm rgpR! CP )a SMSCamavYYPn 50 J] - 0 0 0 CP YO CenlN CanmulNPaA 5.9 1.5 - 0 D o GP )c NDM PIIY 10.0 136 0 0 0 aMYMr ae er.T o 0 0- i wouc auFF PMAO eP b 9PM BWIWrL 0 0 0 aP W NM EMB PYh A.! t08 0 p o luelpY M9 /Le 0 0 0 . rVBUC mTEpPpeTNE vgpcs Iv b Nmecew z.z 22 0 0 0 IP 3e vYw POM mIYpw:wNr to D.e 0 0 0 IP 9c Ta6b1 T1eIpFiONn O.1 O 0 0 i) L 0 0 0 5 BuNpY suerorau. vaRKLANDS sl.6 bz! 0 0 0 VRIAGEB AND COLONIES w. NOpTN FU1nv NLU3E RL 1M1 StyFlFeMI]OMwI ReYIeW O.1 131 e.J 1% 0 0 RUd 1006 +OIFFYIA /BYCme RNMFd :`.1 +A 0.1 )2 e5 0 0 pY D 0 10[ 4Yg1FFYlY/MYIYE pYgYW 33 0.0 100 Yl MI Be 59 t5.3 +>5 0 0 100 MMLLF AtleYYOROILIYW IaP ]z1 a) 0 0 11. BOOM FNILY VELM[ pL l+a 9AgsFan6•DIOLmORYIMY B.0 )8 0.0 CO 0 0 pM 11E S F OYSMepYYbtiY w2 0.0 BA el 0 0 OOYYII M2 /AI 11/ 0 0 a uArlx cdONr LIWR 13a MuRtFanryN IntRUAn1mVANtl.Uw CanmbCYl 9.0 85 373 ]05 ]).SW o MU_R_ 1i0 Mu4i.iyrwH gtrsMO ge]NFeiaYTlvM�UFDCanmwcYl 11 9tl 338 365 3),500 0 BWeltl IOD I0,3 )]0 16,000 0 v$RIR 13F .0 115 Gu31 R(vn45R'FiIMay LYIYe �IIYPFNI 51 33 0 0 )3 VSRIR ib MuAnF N Jee Rm'gbmal 55 Sa r5 6 07 0 0 3ltlldal 11.] 10.6 _ % 0 )3 SUBTOTAL NLLAGES AND COLONIES 9)A )6.) ),315 ]3.000 )3 TOTAL PROJECT 601.1 383.8 1,375 )5.000 7 :b rFjg6�MSlePr.. rcnr w .cm.rumsmJie_w�w/amP�A.a..w..,u inm. ve w.�o:im awe0maia•�m: cw iyl w'a w PIFmJAnemDmeµe n.ae. am..nm m.aMP,ek,m.mwe.cnm:me.nm.�.. m.I.w.o.+m+,. +Pl.,na.wm.. egma LMfMre6 puWM m tl. aAA Tm Tre n AayM.mDn Fm m�em aae. FAwOle.mbl s ePA 69, av a0. qmf !ll qn W/YAWNRrvamnb Ta IM ]Pm1 EYmy Imm Oe PRlbl BLa�larlybNmy blln SMa aq grvb. bmnp®seprtvnYIF 11 YY �� IrcYbpFryatlnaY)OOCedBPq 10. 2] eeM YA ID. M 0 )s:m dSPa b lal llpm2%Ogiaa AetlmbieW mrybYmWe:N ma RStlmW Lnm V:ePiklnsm0veeviu lM prw+wuJ5xCm 10.'ImpYVFM:v:b MmaNlrlm.'d MFHRICPwNN ma W F:wdammwmuembYw Mw OwMmv�l PlmmA.r a <w115.e0]gve4l nl?NIaWrtYS.lYAl1TlT+l$O1W _ pGRLb4mnnetlpe VfMbNp mrq ItlYea'9f ledb AI:OIM au.mp .n 1MD0:' LAND USE TABLE Plate GEOTECHNICAL,INC. 2.2 Project Name: Date: Newport Banning Ranch 06.163 -00 July 2011 5 dour At n la T` L ND r Sa n (tnM ' .H ogr«oo Pas =/ S °u I - fTl i To" ga p- fi1ahC �%Twa a Be � _ ''. Nl(ALE r e %Ery P f c / � YY �• ' - a �� sl:.: - -� - {w a away nut o 1 venlcec • :' - a ide ��Haclen a DlampBar c (I ref , D n �t "'Nor to a F{ (1 ) a r wt h f moo. r nda• r I Be: o arde_nr ' :i .. PI c — a a. r n r �l ••• ar rona _ova y' < R 1l ]OG NV trJ A 4 T in Sllvera0o r_� -- :los i au. 111 Mod,esk santiatc Pkl COMPTON �. .G"y �. c5£t�i THRUST RAMP — " NUNTINGTOF ,..M >) son I quin / Hills I ISS:' I / Nortn La aBeaeH Scale: 1500,000 �e�q Iffirn", "fill Reference: REGIONAL FAULTING: PLATE USGS/SCEC Fault Activity Database kr southern cal'rfnrnia � � /� T ��•LJI COMPTON THRUST RAMP GEOTECHNICAL.INC. 3.1 Project Name: Project No: Date: Newport Banning Ranch 1 06- 163 -00 1 July 2011 H HIIIS �� Woodland f�. Hill, ` asour �- r � � � L ND1 • ,w - W � {�o ' cRa a Lo a_ - , +} n t •H rllywoo P85 e 1 - rn T0'" ee 9 P I V •: <. I4 ao a ra Ga s '' t a ne - yI M O N I A o.5 Nidjt ,` J,' .• o Verry l'_r _ ��, rs a .W �. , 9 M — t M _.bona Ui �fEly P r s "'`-P usades �:c`�"�- .: z. 'fyl.. A �--,Y• r ..Y \'o La _ Ma�'n „oat•, 110 ,, c arvey,c� nu_t o 1 O Vii Injewood Faulty ., /Potrero Fault , Ma e Haden a Diamp d Bar Pe Q I' IfP 1 �,'� c '.: W e �;.� ,tt•er at♦t 2P n �t to e - H Norc lr EI Segun IW pl..\,'� �.- eda• irsf or omptonFaui MI d e. Avat in I' �;;,: Manhattan Beachy��` — /P� Hermosa Beach • Cherry Hill Fault - ar Redondo Beac� ” - Serra �y 9 / ;a- Palos Vera. - Reservov Hill Fault - P,erk \ q Qr - ��I /;c4;nt�tn I p g4fd� Northeast Flank Fault i- 4 , UI� GX a -.• - ".. \ Point Vican,+ ��' ^ ` °' Y' North - Branch Fault j jn `a_�SUveradu, Seal Beach Fault% %� _ rns• 'iUfA ill VVI Mod,esk saintiag ► l_ Zone of Deformation/ . ` �VIf•''C) - .. �G ^ / -_CS E.VE „4I.t re 114E C'Ji� 41 U Ca South Branch Fault -- I N i44 I 'l • San luaeein I trine North Scale: 1:500,000 •'�� Refere ce Compiled from, Geologc Map of California, California Division of Mines and G eolom (C DMG ), Long Beach (t %2), Los Angales and Sar�ta as �nncamedmeDMG Special R4port 114 (1974). T ■ \JV',11�1 ■yl REGIONAL FAULTING: NEWPORT INGLEWOOD FAULT ZONE PLATE GEOTECHNICAL.INC. 3.2 Project Name: Project No: Date: Newport Banning Ranch 06- 163 -00 July 2011 z a a1 1• `�' n Ji V � t ,t. MAP EXPLANATION --' — Tsunami Inundation Line West 19th St _ e ♦ Ca$+' of iexn sx Lowlantls I I ♦ Costa Men 7h S �f ♦ ,t t * _ f't ♦ �nds� 1fi1M1 4 ♦ IN Me ewosa) ♦ �. _ - 1 City Of Newport. Beach - + i H �x t >t_ Tsunami Inundation Area r NOTE: The haze map is an excerpt from the "Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning State of California, C aunty of O range, Newport Beach Q uadrande," prepared by C alifornia Emergency Managemenc Ag ncy, California Geological Survey, and University of Southern California, dated March 15, 2009 GW TSUNAMI INUNDATION MAP PLATE FOR EMERGENCY PLANNING 4 GEOTECHNICAL.INC. Project Name: Project No: Date: Newport Banning Ranch 1 06- 163 -00 July 2011 aT .A gs, 'IM.. ,ar + Santa Ana -r Gap +( y 4k�les North Branch Zone of the N ewport-Indewood Fault IN., PACIFIC OCEAN • Y. I Y% LI 4 law 3T tt + South Branch of the Newport-InJewood Fault r North No scale I I Reference. Faults and Fault Zones from Yerkes and Others (1965, p.A4), Castle (1966, fig,t), and Poland and Others (1956, pl.3), Oil-Field Boundaries from California Division of Oil and G (1961): As Contained in "Vertical Surface LOCAL GEOMORPHOLOGY as PLATE Displacements Alonga Part ofthe Newport Ind,wood F AND NORTH BRANCH OF THE PF (MU Zone of Faults and Folds..." Castle, Buchman-Ranks 1989. NEWPORT INGLEWOOD FAULT ZONE GEOTECHNICM.M. Project Name: Project No: Date: 5 Newport Banning Ranch 06-163-001 July 2011 .. a •,Ole Canyon J % / • srh —L Avg I r - ubala Wil' I rr.. i F.1 h'I� �- _ • ■ i r -- , ea - we i a. @111 87 • -:a Ll -Vi _ _ / 1, soh 7 —1 MAMrCYO _ AVE. L a1 i e 1 Po Th Lo J __ •/ / II a� E d J] G �I �h= Reso _ 1 I� ✓�r SY Y / •�T 7 £ O � Lowlands � d _ a,,. 18th �t n •• ID rT� 4" Cos esa P.f 1-17th ,5t pdR\ Gyi NA W. ♦ `.. 1 T, ,let •� \ \9�� l/. t •' f - -'\.. ♦ r. ,Park � 1 5� t i New ort ,\ / fl '� .. ♦♦ Mesa dam. ♦t ( ,+. 7e+aP ®HkQeac 11�/Ili�n� rgCOE Santa Ana River MMarsh Restoration Area '■ ry —{I— �� - y. •. r .. Hd� c 9/y�a �1 .��morral F1pSD�t EXPLANATION I'/ 1� Approximate Location of Surface Trace 1 a 2a North Branch Fault. (Converse, 1994). 0 1000 2000 3000 /Surface Trace of Active Strands Projected as 1 6 2b North Branch Splay Fault. Approximate Graphic Scale in Feet North Straight Lines from Site North of the Santa Ana River (Law /Crandall, 1994). 3 Newport Inglewood Fault NOTES: 111 // -._,' (Corwin, 1947). 1) Th,BaseWpisaCcmputer5canrdlm from Solid Line is Trace in Subsurface (Top of A Zone), J%S 7s minrrte Newport Beach, California III Dashed Line is Inferred Surface Trace as Projected i^ To is Qnddrarressio55,re /� IJ from the Subsurface (Earth Tech 1986). !4I Banning Fault, (Corwin, 1947) All 2) All Location and Dimensions are Approximate. Apoevisedte. '''/ /� /, Solid Line is Trace in Subsurface (Top of B Zone), OS W est Mesa rault REFERENCE: III (Corwin, 1947). "Fault Trenching lnvestiSation, Newport Bay Property, 1� Orange County, California, by Earth Consultants Interrational, dated N ownrEer 25, 1997. irlow FAULTS MAPPED IN THE NEWPORT BANNING RANCH AREA PLATE BY PREVIOUS INVESTIGATORS GEOTECHNICAL.INC. 6 Project Name: Project No: Date: Newport Banning Ranch 06- 163 -00 July 2011 1 1' ( West) (E ast) B -1 120 Existing Ground Surface (Pacific Soils) 120 80— y —80 w w _ .. Qtm 2 o ao of of _ -_ - - -- _— — -� �,` �— s 40 0 - w Q cal , — —� - -_ - - --— —_ _ -:- _ —_ - -- = Qsp � � w (MSQ 0 ___- _- ?_— :_ —____ �.__, —c= -- _ - - - -� _ _ -_ -f __- _ -_��- 0 WSW Qal _ - - - - -_ __� - - - -- —__ -- -40—'-' 40 -40 EXPLANATION Qal Alluvium -`� Notes: Geologic Contact, 1. All locations., approximate. Q ueried W here Unknown 2.Bcdd,g shown in Qsp is largely diagamatic and has 0 40 80 120 been drawn to illustrate the formations general structural Approximate Graphic Scale of F0 Man Made Fill a ,whore (i.e. geode folds, warpin cross bedding and minor Strike and Dip of Bed fault offsets. Horizontal: 1 Inch Equals 80 Feet col Collwium/Slopewash Deposits ❑i-- Groundwater Table 0tm 10 Marine Terrace Deposits San Pedro Formation GEOLOGIC u�w CROSS SECTION 1 -1' PLATE GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Project Name: Project No: Date: 8.1 Newport Banning Ranch 06- 163 -00 July 2011 2 21 ( West) (East) Existing Ground Surface 120 120 w 80 Qtm 80 " 78 .. ... f .. -- Z --- - — - — ---- Z O — — — -- -- -- ---- -- - - - - -- —40 O a w of � ��_ \ _ _ — -- _ - - _ _ _ -- — _ a w _' _ _ ]_(M8L 0 _______________ — _ _ _ __ ___L__ _- _ - w Qal -- - -- -QsP - - -" — - -_ -- ." �• - - - ___ —_ — — - - -- — —_ ---- - - - - - - -- " - - -- — — -- EXPLANATION Qal Alluvium Geologic Contact, Notes: .1 9 Not locztiors are approximate. Q wried W here D nknown 2 Bedding shown in Q sp is largely diegarranic and has 0 40 BO 720 of Man Made Fill been drawn to illustrate the formations general structural nature II.e. gentle folds, warpng cross bedding aiM mirror 6 Strike and Dip of Bed hurt a r.e.s. Approximate Graphic Scale Horizontal: 1 Inch Equals 80 Feet Qml Colluvium/Slopewash Deposits -❑t-- Groundwater Table IQ —I-] Q ;o Marine Terrace Deposits San Pedro Formation CW GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION 2 -2' PLATE GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Project Name: Project No: Date: 1 8.2 Newport Banning Ranch 06- 163 -00 July 2011 EXPLANATION 3 3' of Man Made Fill ( West) (East) Groundwater Table Deposits 120 120 0 ep San Pedro Formation Existing Ground Surface LL 80 Qtm 80 of LL Z Z O 40 ___- - - - - -- F Qsp- -- - - -_ —_ - -_ -- -- -- --- -- --- --_ (MSLJ 0— Qal i -__— -- - - _ _ — — _ -40 40 EXPLANATION Qal Alluvium of Man Made Fill Qml CollWum/Slopewash Groundwater Table Deposits Qtm Marine Terrace Deposits 0 ep San Pedro Formation LGeolojc Contact, Queried W here Unknown 5 Strike and Dip of Bed Groundwater Table Notes: 1. All locations are approximate. 2. Bedding shown in Qsp is largely diagaatic and has been drawn to illustrate the formations ¢ ral structural nature (i.e. entlefolds, warping cross Woklingand minor faun offsets. IMU GEOTECHNICAL,INC. C 40 80 120 Approximate Graphic Scale Horizontal: 1 Inch Equals 80 Feet PLATE GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION 3 -3' Project Name: Project No: Date: 8.3 Newport Banning Ranch 1 06- 163 -00 July 2011 4 4' (West) (East) 120— 120 Existing Ground Surface LL 80— Qtm . —80 7 — — — — — — — z z— 0 40— — — QIS — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 40 z > Qcol — — — — — — Q sp < > ---------- — — — — — — — — — — — — — __ ________2____________________— - F —', ----------------------- (MSL) ------ - _- - - - -- — — — — — — —_ — — — — — — - -- - - - - -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - ao —40 EXPLANATION qal Alluvium L Geologic Contact, Note 1. All locations we appoxinene. Q ueried W here Unknown 2. Heddingftw, in use is largely dir,rarr.tir.nd[ has 0 40 so 120 been drawn to illustrate the formations general structural Approximate Graphic Scale of I Man Made Fill a nature (i.e. gentle folds, warping cross bedding and rnnor Strike and Dip of Bed finult offsets. Horizontal: 1 Inch Equals 80 Feet C.ilumrn,Slope.ash Deposits Groundwater Table LMarine use] Terrace Deposits San Pedro Formation GEOLOGIC CROSS F]CMU SECTION 4-4' PLATE , LLandslide Deposits GEOTECHNICAL. INC. Project Name: Project No: Date: 8.4 Newport Banning Ranch 06-163-00 July 2011 EXPLANATION 5 5' of Man Made Fill (West) (East) Deposits 120 120 LSan Pedro Formation Existing Ground Surface of a0 80 F Z_ _Z z Qtm z 0 40 40 0 50_ -- - - -- _, i _� __ _ _ �� _--- - - - -__ -- — _._— EXPLANATION Qal Alluvium of Man Made Fill Q col Colluviun✓Slopewash Deposits Qtm Marine Terrace Deposits LSan Pedro Formation Ll Geolo cCOntacq 9 Notes: 1. All locations are approximate. Q ueried W here U nknown 2. Bedding shown in Q so is largely diagamntic and has been drawn to illustrate the formations ge eral structural T F Strike and Dip of Bed nature (i.e. garitle folds, warping cross bedding and minor fault onsets. -1 �I Groundwater Table PrImu GEOTECHNICAL, INC. N m Project a e. 0 40 80 120 Approximate Graphic Scale Horizontal: 1 Inch Equals 8o Feet PLATE GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION 5 -5' Project No: Date: 8.5 Ranch 1 06- 163 -00 July 2011 6 6' (West) (East) GB -11 120 (Projected 268') 3-4 120 (Projected 120') Existing Ground Surface of ea Bo z Otm 0 Qcol to ________ ________ 40 z 0 __ _�— _--- ____ -- of �� _ ___ _ __ _ ___ __ J — __ - - -- —__— -- < > W — WSU __ ___ __ ___ _ __ __ — _ _— 0 (MS-) W --- — - --- - - ---- a0 _ -40 EXPLANATION cal Alluvium Note a Geologic Contact, 1.All locatiore are approximate. laryl,.ors aticard has Q ueried Where Unkrwwn 2. Beddiigshto 0 120 of Man Made Fill 111 rare been drawn to Illustrate tM formatiorss gereral rtructural rature(La. gentle folds, waror, cross beddiiyand minor a Strike and Dip of Bed fauk onsets. xi hi Approximate Graphic Scale Horizontal: 1 Inch Equals 80 Feet F-11 Collunium/Slopewash Deposits I ._ Groundwater Table lul otm Marine Terrace Deposits San Pedro Formation FJGW GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION PLATE 6 -6' GEOTECHNICAL• INC. Project Name: Project No: Date: 8.6 Newport Banning Ranch 06- 163 -00 July 2011 7 7' ( West) (E aso 120 120 Existing Ground Surface GB -3 (Prol�ted 200') B -6 (Pacific Soils) H 80 w 80 H w Z z . -. Q. tm . _. Z z .... . o ao ---- - ----- — . -'- - �a . .. "—. - -- --.----_s_,.-. -—_..., _ ao 0 w of __�� -- _ -- -_ - -' w w — _ — J W ---------- _40 EXPLANATION Qal Alluvium :± Notes: Geologc Con[acq 1. All are approximate. Q ueried Where Unknown 2. is laeerroiagamatin and has 0 40 80 120 Approximate Graphic Scale of Man Made Fill 5 been dranto illustrate been drawn to tllumete the formations adding structural Strike and Dip of Bed �rcroe (i.e. gentle folds, warping cross bedding and minor Horizomal: 1 Inch Equals 80 Feet Q col Collumum/Slopewash Deposits 1�.�_ I1E Gromdwater Table Qtm a,P Marine Terrace Deposits San Pedro Formation � Q4U GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION PLATE 7 -7' GEOTECHNICAL.INC. Project Name: J Project No: 1 1 Date: 8.7 Newport Banning Ranch 06- 163 -00 July 2011 EXPLANATION Qal Alluvium of Man Made Fill Q col Colluvium/Slopewash Deposits IQ —1-1 Marine Terrace Deposits ;o San Pedro Formation 8 8' ( West) (East) 120 120 Existing Ground Surface w 80 80 w zof Qtm of z 0 40 - x,- v -.-- =- z f ___ < > of - - -_ - -_= -- - -- W _ _ - _ ____ ____ J --- Qal ,t. =-- --- — — — — — - - --- Qsp __ - - - - -- _ _ -ao -ao : Geologc contact, Notes I . All locations are approximate. 0 40 BO 120 Queried W here Unknown 2.seddirg shownln Qspis1wTlydt amaticandhas Approximate Graphic Scale been drawn to illustrate the formations creral structural Horizontal: 1 Inch Equals 80 Feet T nature (i.e. Write folds, warping cross bedding and minor e Strike and Dip of Bed fault offsets. Groundwater Table WU PLATE GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION 8 -8' GEOTECHNICAL.INC. Project Name: Project No: Date: 8.8 N ewport Banning Ranch 1 06- 163 -00 July 2011