Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210521_Geotechnical Investigation_5-14-202123 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone 949 629 2539 | Email info@rmccarthyconsulting.com May 14, 2021 Mr. and Mrs. Bradley Lyman File No: 8543-00 411 North Bay Front Report No: R1-8543 Newport Beach, CA 92662 Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Residential Custom Home 411 North Bay Front Balboa Island Newport Beach, California Legal Description: LOT 6 OF BLOCK 8, MAP OF RESUBDIVISION OF SECTION ONE, OF BALBOA ISLAND, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 6, PAGES 30 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. APN: 050-031-01 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for 411 North Bay Front on Balboa Island in Newport Beach, California, which was performed to determine various site and regional geotechnical conditions pertinent to the residential construction currently proposed for the subject property. Analyses for this investigation are based upon a brief description of the project as a new, contemporary, 3-story custom home by Brandon Architects. The purpose of our review and investigation was to evaluate the subsurface conditions, determine the compatibility of the proposed development with respect to the geotechnical features of the site, and provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations and design parameters for site precise grading and planned improvements. Specific information and recommendations for site development are provided herein. The conclusions and recommendations of this report are considered preliminary due to the absence of specific foundation and grading plans, the preparation of which are partially dependent upon recommendations presented herein. Project Authorization The work performed was per your authorization based on our Proposal No: P1-8543, dated March 1, 2021. R McCARTHY ==== CONSULTING' INC PA2021-117 May 14, 2021 File No: 8543-00 Report No: R1-8543 Page No: 2 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Scope of Investigation The investigation included the following: 1. Review of collected geologic, geotechnical engineering and seismological reports and maps pertinent to the subject site. A reference list is included in Appendix A. 2. Subsurface exploration consisting of two exploratory borings advanced to depths of 12.5 to 13 feet by use of a limited access drill rig (Pacific Drilling Mini-Mole). The boring locations are shown on the Geotechnical Plot Plan, Figure 1. 3. Logging and sampling of the exploratory borings, including collection of soil samples for laboratory testing. The Logs of the exploration are included in Appendix B. 4. Laboratory testing of soil samples representative of subsurface conditions. The results are presented in Appendix C. 5. Geotechnical engineering and geologic analyses of collected data, including a liquefaction analysis and seismic settlement analysis. 6. Preparation of this report containing our geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction in accordance with the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) and for use by your design professionals and contractors. Site Description The subject property is located on the north side of Balboa Island facing Beacon Bay. The property is located at the intersection of North Bay Front and Agate Avenue as shown on the Location Map, Figure 1. The site is bounded on the southeast by Agate Avenue, on the northwest by a developed residential property, and on the southwest by the Bay Front Alley North. The North Bay Front “boardwalk” borders the northeast property line with a seawall and beach beyond along the Beacon Bay channel. The Topographic Map prepared by Apex Land Surveying, Inc (Reference 1) indicates that the lot has a skewed rectangular shape. Reference 1 was used as a base map for our Geotechnical Plot Plan, Figure 1. The lot size is roughly 2,731 square feet (redfin.com). Lot elevations are indicated as approximately 5.5 to 6.5 feet (NAVD88) in the area of the garage and alley. The patio deck along North Bay Front is at elevations above 8 feet. The yard areas vary from about 6 to 6.5 feet, with raised stairs to the house at about 8 feet, and the house finished floor slab is approximately elevation 8 to 9 feet. The site presently contains a two-story house with attached garage built around 1990. Concrete walkways and tile patios/decks cover much of the area around the existing house. Proposed Development We understand that the proposed development will consist of the demolition of the existing structure to build a new three-story single-family residence. Grading is expected to consist of PA2021-117 May 14, 2021 File No: 8543-00 Report No: R1-8543 Page No: 3 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 reprocessing surface soils following removal of existing foundation elements, residual soil and materials disturbed by demolition. Import soil may be required for the new building pad. Structural loads were not provided. We anticipate wood-frame and light steel construction that is typical of the area and relatively light construction loads. We assume that maximum column loads will be less than 22 kips and wall loads of 2 kip/foot. A mat slab-on-grade construction is anticipated. Our office should be notified when the structural design loads for foundation elements are available to check these preliminary assumptions. SITE HISTORY As reported by Geo-Etka, Inc (GEI) the subject site was previously graded in 1990 for construction of the current house, which was completed in 1991. Grading was observed and tested by GEI as reported in Reference 12, which indicates that the site was overexcavated to a minimum depth of 3 feet. The exposed soil was scarified and recompacted to a depth of 8- inches. Compacted, engineered fill soil was then placed to design grades. Their reports indicated that the fill materials were tested, with field density tests indicating relative compaction of 91 to 95 percent per ASTM D1557. On-site and imported silty sand is reported to be used in the fill. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS Geologic Setting The property is situated within the southeasterly edge of the Los Angeles Basin on an island within Newport Bay. This area is generally underlain by recent marine deposits consisting predominantly of silty sands, sands and occasional silt layers. The Pacific Ocean is about 3,000 feet southwest of the site. Historical topographic maps and accounts indicate that the Balboa Island areas were formerly low-lying, intertidal sand bars and island areas of the natural bay. The site is thought to be resting on a regionally extensive, relatively flat bench scoured by wave activity into bedrock. The bedrock lies below successive layers of beach and bay deposits. Earth Materials The site is underlain at the surface by several feet of engineered fill soil placed for the current house foundation support in 1990 (Reference 12). The fill soil is well compacted and reportedly exceeded 90 percent relative compaction at the time of placement. The fill materials are underlain by Marine deposits consisting of pale/light brown, grey-brown to grey silty sand. Clean sands were encountered in Boring B-2 at depths below approximately 8 feet. Marine deposits were generally loose at depths of 3 to 5 feet and medium dense to dense below. Laboratory test results and visual observations indicate that the on-site sands are non-plastic and non-expansive. PA2021-117 May 14, 2021 File No: 8543-00 Report No: R1-8543 Page No: 4 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Geologic Hazard The potential geologic hazards at the site are primarily from liquefaction, flooding and shaking due to movement of nearby or distant faults during earthquake events. These are discussed in greater detail below. Groundwater Groundwater was encountered at depths of approximately 3.5 to 4.5-feet in our exploratory borings. On-site groundwater conditions may additionally be affected by tidal conditions and fluctuate daily in conjunction with the incoming and outgoing tides. Collected reports (see references) generally indicate groundwater observed at similar depths in the vicinity. Portion of: PRELIMINARY DIGITAL GEOLOGICAL MAP OF THE 30’ X 60’ SANTA ANA QUADRANGLE, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, VERSION 2 U. S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 99-172 Compiled by D. M. Morton Version 2.0 Digital Preparation by Kelly R. Bovard and Rachel M. Alvarez – 2004 SITE PA2021-117 May 14, 2021 File No: 8543-00 Report No: R1-8543 Page No: 5 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Surficial Run-off Proposed development should incorporate engineering and landscape drainage designed to transmit surface and subsurface flow, including the potential for periodic flooding, if present, to the street and/or storm drain system via non-erosive pathways. Water Infiltration From a geotechnical standpoint, on-site water infiltration is allowable for dry weather runoff and light rain events. A minimum setback of 3 feet from the nearest foundation is recommended. Simple trench drains and permeable pavement surfaces may be allowable without setback with appropriate agency and geotechnical review and approvals. Proposed water infiltration features should be reviewed and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant. Faulting/Seismic Considerations The major concern relating to geologic faults is ground shaking that affects many properties over a wide area. Direct hazards from faulting are essentially due to surface rupture along fault lines that could occur during an earthquake. Therefore, geologists have mapped fault locations and established criteria for determining the risks of potential surface rupture based on the likelihood of renewed movement on faults that could be located under a site. Based on criteria established by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), now referred to as the California Geological Survey (CGS), faults are generally categorized as active, potentially active or inactive (Jennings, 1994). The basic principle of faulting concern is that existing faults could move again, and that faults which have moved more recently are the most likely faults to move again and affect us. As such, faults have been divided into categories based on their age of last movement. Although the likelihood of an earthquake or movement to occur on a given fault significantly decreases with inactivity over geologic time, the potential for such events to occur on any fault cannot be eliminated within the current level of understanding. By definition, faults with no evidence of surface displacement within the last 1.6 million years are considered inactive and generally pose no concern for earthquakes due renewed movement. Potentially-active faults are those with the surface displacement within the last 1.6 million years. Further refinement of potentially active faults are sometimes described based on the age of the last known movement such as late Quaternary (last 700,000 years) implying a greater potential for renewed movement. In fact, most potentially active faults have little likelihood of moving within the time frame of construction life, but the degree of understanding of fault age and activity is sometimes not well understood due to absence of geologic data or surface information, so geologists have acknowledged this doubt by using the term "potentially active." A few faults that were once thought to be potentially active, have later been found to be active based on new findings and mapping. Active faults are those with a surface displacement within the last 11,000 years and, therefore, most likely to move again. The State of California has, additionally, mapped known areas of active faulting as designated Alquist- Priolo (A-P) "Special Studies Zones,” which requires special investigations for fault rupture to limit construction over active faults. PA2021-117 May 14, 2021 File No: 8543-00 Report No: R1-8543 Page No: 6 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Based on our review of various published and unpublished reports, maps and documents, the site is located approximately 1 to 3 kilometers northeast of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone. This fault consists of a series of parallel and en-echelon, northwest-trending faults and folds extending from the southern edge of the Santa Monica Mountains to Huntington Beach and then offshore along Newport Beach. This fault zone has historically experienced moderate to high seismic activity. No active or potentially active faults are known to project through the site. In addition, the Newport-Inglewood Fault is not sufficiently well-defined in the area of the subject site to be placed within the boundaries of an “earthquake fault zone,” as defined by the State of California in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. A potential seismic source near the site is the San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust Fault (SJHBT), which is approximately 2 to 8 kilometers beneath the site at its closest point, based on the reported fault structure. The SJHBT is a postulated fault that is suspected to be responsible for uplift of the San Joaquin Hills. This fault is a blind thrust fault that does not intercept the ground surface and, therefore, presents no known potential for ground rupture at the property. The potential for surface rupture at the site is considered to be low and the property is not located within a special study zone for fault rupture. The site will experience shaking during earthquake events on nearby or distant faults. Site improvements should take into consideration the seismic design parameters outlined herein. SITE Fault Map New1>0rt Beach, California EXPLANATION Fault: !.Olid where location known, long da~hed where approximate, dotted where inferred '"'1-. ~z;~:1:::: e~c:;~~:s~':wn:'~:.A .. _ ba~ed on .geological srudie~. Southw.ud projection of active fault traces ba~ed on a ::.ubturface ~tudy on !he we~t bank ot the S.1n:.1AnaRiver. Miles 3 Sa:.e Map: uses Topographic M;ip from Sure!MAPS RASTER PA2021-117 May 14, 2021 File No: 8543-00 Report No: R1-8543 Page No: 7 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Site Classification for Seismic Design Seismic design parameters are provided in a later section of this report and in Appendix F for use by the Structural Engineer. The soil underlying the subject site has been classified in accordance with Chapter 21 of ASCE 7, per Section 1613 of the 2019 CBC. The results of our on-site field investigation, as well as nearby investigations by us and others, indicate that the site is directly underlain by Class D Engineered Fill, Marine and alluvial deposits. Based on the on-site test results, we recommend using a characterization of this property as a Class D (Default), “Stiff Soil,” Site Classification. Secondary Seismic Hazards Review of the Seismic Hazards Zones Map (CDMG, 1998) for the Newport Beach Quadrangle, 1997/1998 and the City of Newport Beach Seismic Safety Element (2008) indicates the site is located within a zone of required investigation for earthquake-induced liquefaction. The site is not located within a zone of required investigation for landsliding (Figure 3). Liquefaction Considerations The area along Newport Harbor and its channels, is in a Zone of Required Investigation for liquefaction on the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Newport Beach Quadrangle. Requirements for investigation are included in several documents including the City of Newport Beach Building Code Policy (Revised 7/3/2014), the CBC Section 1803.5 and the Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which the strength of a soil is reduced by earthquake shaking or other rapid loading. Liquefaction occurs in saturated soils, that is, soils in which the void space between individual sand particles is completely filled with water. This water exerts a pressure on the soil particles that influences how tightly the particles themselves are pressed together. Prior to an earthquake, the water pressure is relatively low. However, earthquake shaking can cause the water pressure to increase to the point where the soil particles can readily move with respect to each other. Liquefaction generally occurs in sandy, granular soils. When liquefaction occurs, the strength of the soil decreases and, the ability of a soil deposit to support foundations for buildings is reduced. The factors known to promote liquefaction potential include high groundwater level, degree of saturation, relative density, grain size, soil type, depth below the surface, and the magnitude and distance to the causative fault or seismic source. The subject site is in an area with potential for liquefaction (Morton and others, 1976; Toppozada and others, 1988). In order to address liquefaction potential, 2 exploratory soil borings were drilled to depths of 12.5 to 13 feet bgs. In addition, a liquefaction analysis was performed to evaluate seismically-induced settlement. The results of our analysis are included in Appendix E. Based on the results of our analysis, some of the soil layers below the site, in the locations tested below the water table, have safety factors of less than 1.0, indicating risk of liquefaction during a PA2021-117 May 14, 2021 File No: 8543-00 Report No: R1-8543 Page No: 8 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 seismic event strong enough to induce liquefaction. Layers exhibiting safety factors of 1.3 and less based on Boulanger and Idriss (2010-16) were evaluated for potential seismic settlement. Seismically-induced settlements were estimated by the procedures developed by Boulanger and Idriss (2010-16) and Tokimatsu and Seed (1987). Additionally, seismically-induced settlements were estimated by the procedures developed by Pradel (1998) for dry sand. The GeoAdvanced GeoSuite Software Version 2.4.2.21, developed by Fred Yi, was utilized for the analysis (Appendix E). The resultant potential total seismic settlement in the underlying upper 10 feet of soil is 0.86- inch within the borings. Additional settlement is possible below depths of 10 feet. It is our opinion that this settlement potential may be mitigated by the foundation system for support of the proposed structure. Lateral Impacts of Liquefaction Lateral impacts of liquefaction at the subject site such as lateral spreading and lateral loads on foundations are expected to be negligible due to lack of sloping ground on the property. Lateral impacts of liquefaction will also be reduced by the presence of the existing seawall along the North Bay Front boardwalk to confine the soil. SITE -,.._ ~~arb ~'1t I ) '\~~\ ,.<I'~ Ught ~ I _ 13 ------~s:::-.-~ ~s::t::=~-" -----4:_"--I I _,...:::--~ ZONES ,,.,.-...,a· IIY ~ .. 1 - 1 ·---10 \ :,,.,, -. ,_;:-_..,,__ .·· ----~ -:--• =o~-" •• _.lty -l • ---~.JaJU'--''"' ~-::.., 3 - """ ~·"~-...... ,. ,.· ..• . "' u.u "t"--' =•"'··"' ' ., ...... --= ..... '" • .:.-:::-.;::,:_•;;:: •• ..., ·-·•· •;c_ ~,., __ ~ rn~--J -..;.;: "-x"._,;:::i ~: . "" /f:.:._ -" ,1,;;" "~ -I;!. '.... ,,, -if~ -~-· ~ ...______ .•· .. ,•-, .. ---. . ·•·····,;,~ .. ,,, ..... \.,. \ \ ~\ \_ PA2021-117 May 14, 2021 File No: 8543-00 Report No: R1-8543 Page No: 9 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Flooding Seismically-induced flooding normally includes flooding from inland waters, which is not likely, and tsunami run-up from tidal wave energy. No specific tsunami analysis has been undertaken in this investigation. However, the “Evaluation of Tsunami Risk to Southern California Coastal Cities” (EERI, 2003) provides discussion of the impacts of locally seismic and/or landslide generated tsunamis. The typical maximum run-up heights were estimated from 1 to 2 meters in the Newport Beach area. Because of unknown bathymetry on wave field interactions and irregular coastal configurations, actual maximum run-up heights could range from 2 to 4 meters, or more. The City of Newport Beach, in their Seismic Safety Element, describe Newport Beach as somewhat protected from most distantly generated tsunamis by the Channel Islands and Point Arguello, except for those generated in the Aleutian Islands, those off the coast of Chile, and possibly off the coast of Central America. The publication also states that there may generally be adequate warning given within the time frames from such distant events. The warnings would allow for public safety but would not necessarily protect property improvements. Other Secondary Seismic Hazards Other secondary seismic hazards to the site include deep rupture and shallow ground cracking. With the absence of active faulting on-site, the potential for deep fault rupture is low. The potential for shallow ground cracking to occur during an earthquake is a possibility at any site, but does not pose a significant hazard to site development. CONCLUSIONS 1. Proposed remodel and renovation is considered feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided the recommendations of this report are followed during design, construction, and maintenance of the subject property. Proposed development should not adversely affect, or be adversely affected by, adjacent properties, providing appropriate engineering design, construction methods and care are utilized during construction. 2. Within the areas explored, existing fill and marine deposits were encountered. On-site materials generally consisted of silty sands with clean sands at depth. 3. Seismically-induced liquefaction has not historically been observed in the vicinity of the site; however, the liquefaction of soils in the general area is considered to be a possibility due to the presence of groundwater, underlying soil conditions and proximity of nearby earthquake faults. 4. Our calculations indicate that potential seismic settlement due to both liquefaction and consolidation of dry sand layers within the upper 10 feet is about 0.86-inch. 5. Groundwater was encountered at depths of about 3.5 to 4.5 feet below the site (elevation +1.5 to +2.5) and may be a factor during grading for the garage portion of the structure. Tidal effects on groundwater levels should be monitored and prepared for throughout the construction time period. Suitable drainage elements need to be installed within excavations and at retaining structures to mitigate possible transient seepage. PA2021-117 May 14, 2021 File No: 8543-00 Report No: R1-8543 Page No: 10 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Hydrostatic forces should be accounted for when building below grade structures, such as spas, wine cellars or elevators, and adequate waterproofing should be provided in sensitive areas. Groundwater conditions should be addressed in accordance with local ordinances and practices, as well as agency requirements. 6. The near surface materials that were encountered were expected to have a very low expansion potential. 7. Site grading is expected to include densification of the upper 3.5 feet of existing on-site soil. The proposed grading will provide a compacted fill cap that includes the re- compacted fill zone plus an additional imported fill zone to raise the existing site grades and top of slab to a projected elevation of about +9.0. 8. Densification of the on-site soil may generally be accomplished through conventional grading methods by removal and recompaction of the soil. Lightweight grading equipment is recommended for the garage area and when grading near the water table. 9. Although the probability of fault rupture across the property is low, ground shaking may be strong during a major earthquake. 10. Tsunami potential for this site is considered moderate; although historically such effects have been subdued in southern California due to topographic protection from distant seismic events and the rarity of significant offshore earthquakes. 11. Adverse surface discharge onto or off the site is not anticipated provided proper civil engineering design and post-construction site grading are implemented. The potential for street flooding is referred to the Civil Engineer. 12. Suitable drainage elements need to be installed within excavations and at retaining structures to mitigate possible transient seepage. 13. Care must be taken during construction to not disturb the existing off-site bulkhead and associated tie-back anchors, foundations, wall systems, etc, along the North Bay Front boardwalk. An appropriate setback limit should be established to protect the sidewalk and bulkhead along the north side of the site. Evaluation of the existing off-site bulkhead and determination of the structural configuration were not within the scope of this investigation. 14. Care must also be taken during construction to not disturb the adjoining properties, alley and street improvements. An appropriate monitoring program is recommended during construction. 15. The proposed structure should be supported by a mat slab foundation supported entirely within compacted fill materials. PA2021-117 May 14, 2021 File No: 8543-00 Report No: R1-8543 Page No: 11 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 RECOMMENDATIONS Site Preparation and Grading 1. General Site grading should be performed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach, the recommendations of this report, and the Standard Grading Guidelines of Appendix D. 2. Demolition and Clearing Deleterious materials, including those from the demolition, vegetation, organic matter and trash, should be removed and disposed of off-site. Subsurface elements of demolished structures should be removed. Agency requirements also apply as appropriate. Subsurface elements would also include any trench backfills, foundations, cisterns, abandoned utility lines, etc. Care should be taken during demolition and construction to not create excessive vibrations on off-site properties. 3. Subgrade Preparation The site preparation and fill placement should include the following components: 1. Excavation of the on-site materials to a depth of 3 feet within the structural footprint of the house. 2. Scarification and compaction of the removal bottom to a depth of 8-inches. 3. Stabilization of the exposed, scarified bottom materials at groundwater levels by deep mixing with cement. 4. Dewatering the excavation as necessary. 5. Placement of on-site and imported cement-treated fill to design grades. Excavations should be made to remove any soils disturbed by demolition, unsuitable soil and surficial materials where encountered within the planned building areas. Earth removals are recommended to allow densification of the sand deposits to provide uniform bearing conditions below foundation and slab areas. Removals should be followed by 8-inches of scarification and deep mixing with recompaction. These remedial excavations should be made within the planned building footprint. Due to the groundwater conditions observed in the area, excavations may become saturated. Groundwater levels were at a depth of about 3.5 to 4.5 feet bgs at the time of our field exploration. We anticipate that cement-treatment of the exposed soils will provide adequate stability for placement of additional fill where water is encountered in excavations. Note that the grading contractor should allow 24 to 48 hours for setup of the cement within the soil. Dewatering may also be necessary. For excavations that expose saturated materials (that are not stabilized by the cement- treatment) we recommend that geofabric (Mirafi 500X or similar) be placed on exposed PA2021-117 May 14, 2021 File No: 8543-00 Report No: R1-8543 Page No: 12 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 soil followed by a 1 to 1.5-foot-thick layer of CalTrans Class II filter rock prior to placement of fill soil, if necessary, to help stabilize the work area for compaction equipment and to bridge over soft areas. A 1- to 1.5-foot-thick layer of 3/4-inch crushed rock may be substituted for graded filter rock; however, the 3/4-inch rock should be fully enveloped within the geofabric to prevent migration of sand into the gravel layer. The top of the rock and fabric layer should be kept at least one foot below the bottom elevation of proposed foundations. Dewatering may be necessary to perform the grading to required depths. Excavations should be replaced with compacted, cement-treated engineered fill above the stabilized soil layer. Removal depths of 12-inches are expected to be adequate in exterior hardscape areas; however, boundary conditions for removals under exterior improvements may be better addressed subsequent to demolition when equipment can expose the site materials for evaluation and when improvement limits are identified on the plan. Light track propelled mini-loader-type equipment should be used for the grading. Rubber tire equipment shall not be used until a stable subgrade is achieved. The depths of overexcavation should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineer or Geologist during the actual construction. Any surface or subsurface obstructions, or questionable material encountered during grading, should be brought immediately to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer for recommendations. 4. Fill Soils (On-Site and Imported) The on-site soils are anticipated to be suitable for use as compacted fill, provided they are moisture conditioned to near optimum. Fill soils should be free of debris, organic matter, cobbles and concrete fragments greater than 6-inches in diameter. Cement- treatment is also recommended for all fill soils below the building pad. Soils, including gravels, imported to the site for use as fill below foundation and slab areas should be predominantly granular, non-expansive, non-plastic and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to importing. 5. Shrinkage Shrinkage losses are expected to be negligible. This does not include clearing losses from demolition that could result in volume reductions for available fill soils. These are preliminary rough estimates and actual field results may vary. 6. Expansive Soils Expansive soil evaluations should be performed during grading to determine the expansion potential of the processed fill materials. On-site soils encountered during our investigation were determined to be predominantly non-plastic, fine silty sands, with a very low expansion potential. PA2021-117 May 14, 2021 File No: 8543-00 Report No: R1-8543 Page No: 13 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 7. Compaction Standard The on-site soils are anticipated to be suitable for use as compacted fill. Fill materials should be placed at above optimum moisture content and compacted under the observation and testing of the Soil Engineer. The recommended minimum density for compacted material is 90 percent of the maximum density as determined by ASTM D1557. Cement-treatment is recommended as indicated above. 8. Temporary Construction Slopes Temporary slopes exposing on-site materials should be cut in accordance with Cal/OSHA Regulations. It is anticipated that the exposed on-site earth materials may be classified as Type C soil, and temporary cuts of 1:1 (horizontal:vertical) may be appropriate to heights of 4 feet or less; however, the material exposed in temporary excavations should be evaluated by the Contractor during construction. Shoring should be anticipated if deeper excavations for construction items such as utilities or elevator shafts, and where space limitations preclude temporary slope layback. Dry or running sands may require flatter laybacks. Saturated sands may require slot cuts, slurry walls or other appropriate methods. Temporary construction slopes should not be left exposed overnight unless approved in writing by the Geotechnical Consultant. Excavations should proceed in a manner so as not to remove lateral or bearing support of adjacent properties or structures. Care will be needed along the property lines. The soils exposed in the excavation cuts should be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant during excavation. The safety and stability of temporary construction slopes and cuts is deferred to the General Contractor, who should implement the safety practices as defined in Section 1541, Subchapter 4, of Cal/OSHA T8 Regulations (2006). The Geotechnical Consultant makes no warranties as to the stability of temporary cuts. Soil conditions may vary locally and the Contractor(s) should be prepared to remedy local instability if necessary. Contract Documents should be written in a manner that places the Contractor in the position of responsibility for the stability of all temporary excavations. Stability of excavations is also time dependent. If unsupported property line cuts are made, the Contractor should monitor the performance of adjacent structures and improvements during construction. If movement or distress is noted, appropriate remedial measures should be immediately implemented. 9. Dewatering Dewatering is not expected to be necessary during grading provided that excavations are promptly scarified, cement-treated, compacted and backfilled. The contractor should also check tide tables with the construction grading schedule to help facilitate efficient grading conditions. PA2021-117 May 14, 2021 File No: 8543-00 Report No: R1-8543 Page No: 14 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Control of groundwater can usually be achieved with the periodic use of portable pumps along with the placement of the crushed rock and geofabric for stabilization as described above. Longer term dewatering is not expected to be necessary; however, if needed, may be achieved with a well dewatering system around the interior perimeter of the below grade excavation. In order to reduce the potential for settlement of adjoining properties, groundwater drawdown should be controlled during pumping in order to limit the drawdown level outside of excavated areas. Drawdown limits should be based on elevation of the mean lowest low tide elevation of -0.2 feet (NAVD 1988). Permits may be required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for discharge of water. It is generally the responsibility of the Contractor for permitting and water quality testing. 10. Adjacent Property Assessments and Monitoring The following measures may be considered in order to reduce the potential risks of damage, and perceived damage, to adjoining improvements: • Visual inspections and walk-throughs of each of the adjacent properties should be arranged in order to document pre-existing conditions and damages. • Measurements of all existing damages observed, including crack lengths, widths and precise locations should be made. • Photographs should be taken to accompany written notes that refer to damages or even lack of damages. Video may also be considered; however, videos that attempt to show these types of damages are often lacking in detail. • Floor level surveys of nearby structures may be considered especially if pre- existing damage is evident. • Vibrations from construction equipment may be monitored with portable seismographs during excavation. • Surveys to monitor lateral and vertical position of adjacent improvements during excavation and dewatering is recommended. • It is recommended that the project Geologist be on-site during excavation in order to evaluate conditions as the project advances. Construction activities, particularly excavation equipment, produce vibrations that can be felt by occupants of adjoining properties. People will often be annoyed by the noise and vibration caused by construction activities, which prompts them to personally perform detailed inspections of their property for damage. Pre-existing damage, that previously went unnoticed, can be unfairly attributed to current construction activities, particularly when pre-construction property inspections are not performed. At that point it may be difficult to determine what caused the damage, especially damages such as wall separations, cracks in drywall, stucco and masonry. Other common problems that may be scrutinized can include uneven doors, sticking windows, tile cracks, leaning patio posts, fences, gates, etc. Implementation of measures such as those listed above can help avoid conflicts by monitoring construction activities that may be problematic as well as provide valuable data to defend against unwarranted claims. PA2021-117 May 14, 2021 File No: 8543-00 Report No: R1-8543 Page No: 15 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Foundation Design 1. General It is anticipated that foundation elements for the planned residential structure will bear in compacted fill and will utilize a mat slab foundation. The near surface materials are expected to exhibit a very low expansion potential. The following recommendations are based on the geotechnical data available and are subject to revision based on conditions actually encountered in the field. Foundations and slabs should be designed for the intended use and loading by the Structural Engineer. Our recommendations are considered to be generally consistent with the standards of practice. They are based on both analytical methods and empirical methods derived from experience with similar geotechnical conditions. These recommendations are considered the minimum necessary for the likely soil conditions and are not intended to supersede the design of the Structural Engineer or criteria of governing agencies. 2. Bearing Capacity for Foundations A mat slab may be utilized to support the proposed structure. The purpose of the mat slab system is to mitigate potential static and seismic settlement and to provide an appropriate foundation in the local marine environment. The allowable bearing capacity for a mat slab type system founded in re-compacted fill should not exceed 1,500 pounds per square foot. This value may be increased by one-third for short-term wind or seismic loading; however, there is no increase in bearing value with depth. A minimum slab thickness of 12-inches is recommended. For design of a mat foundation system, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 pounds per cubic inch may be considered (172 kips per cubic foot). The subgrade is expected to consist of sand. Actual thickness, depths and widths of the foundation and slab system should be governed by CBC requirements and the structural engineering design. 3. Settlement Static Static settlement is anticipated to be on the order of ½-inch total and ¼-inch differential between adjacent similarly loaded columns (approximately 30 feet assumed horizontal distance), provided that the recommended site grading is implemented first and that the bearing capacity values given above are not exceeded. These estimates should be confirmed when structural engineering plans are prepared and foundation load conditions are determined. PA2021-117 May 14, 2021 File No: 8543-00 Report No: R1-8543 Page No: 16 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dynamic Potential liquefaction-induced settlement based on current estimates of peak ground accelerations during an earthquake was calculated to be approximately 0.86-inch total within the upper 10 feet (see Appendix E). Additional seismic settlement is possible below that depth. In the absence of site-specific information for materials at depths of 10 to 50 feet below the foundation level it is conservatively assumed that an additional 3-inches of seismic settlement potential may occur during a design earthquake event. The underlying stratigraphy is fairly uniform below the planned development area; therefore, differential seismic settlement can be estimated as approximately one-half of the total estimated settlement, or approximately 2-inches across a span of about 30 feet (Martin and Lew, 1999). Seismically-induced settlements were estimated by using the procedure of Boulanger and Idriss (2010-16) and Tokimatsu and Seed (1987). These methods are based on empirical data from past seismic events that have been studied and are, therefore, approximate. 4. Lateral Resistance Lateral loads may be resisted by passive pressure forces developed in front of the slab/foundation system and by friction acting at the base of the mat slab. Allowable lateral resistance should not exceed 200 pounds per square foot per foot of depth equivalent fluid pressure. Resistance to sliding can be calculated using a coefficient of friction of 0.30. These values may be used in combination per CBC 2019 Section 1806.3.1. 5. Footing Reinforcement Two No. 5 bars should be placed at the top and two at the bottom of continuous footings in order to resist potential movement due to various factors such as subsurface imperfections and seismic shaking. Dowelled connections between the slab and footings should be provided and should consist of No. 4 bars at 24-inches on center maximum spacing. Quantity and placement of reinforcing steel should be determined by the structural engineer. Slab-On-Grade Construction Slabs should be designed in accordance with the 2019 CBC and the City of Newport Beach Building Code requirements. Static and dynamic settlements are the governing concerns with regard to slab design and soil expansion is not an issue on this site. Engineered, rigid slabs should be at least 12-inches thick (actual). Slab design and reinforcement should be determined by the Structural Engineer; however, the minimum slab reinforcement should consist of No. 4 bars at 12-inches on-center in each direction placed at the top and bottom of the slab (or approved equivalent). These recommendations assume that the subsurface soils have first been densified as recommended above. Slabs should be underlain by 4-inches of open-graded gravel. Slab underlayment is deferred to the project Architect; however, in accordance with the American Concrete Institute, we suggest PA2021-117 May 14, 2021 File No: 8543-00 Report No: R1-8543 Page No: 17 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 that slabs be underlain by a 15-mil thick vapor retarder/barrier (Stego Wrap or equivalent) placed over a layer of woven geofabric (such as Mirafi 140N) over the gravel in accordance with the requirements of ASTM E1745 and E1643. Slab subgrade soils should be well moistened prior to placement of the vapor retarder. All subgrade materials should be geotechnically approved prior to placing the gravel for the slab underlayment. The above recommendations are provided for vapor transmission considerations but do not provide for waterproofing of the slab in the local marine environment. If flooding is a concern, additional underlayment measures may be appropriate and should be addressed by the Civil Engineer and/or project Architect. Exterior flatwork elements should be a minimum 4-inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 3 bars 18-inches on center both ways. Subgrade soils should be well moistened prior to placing concrete. Seismic Design Based on the geotechnical data and site parameters, the following table is provided based on ASCE/SEI 7-16 using the ASCE Hazard Tool to satisfy the 2019 CBC design criteria. A site- specific Ground-Motion Hazard Analysis (GMHA) was not performed for the site. Site and Seismic Design Criteria For 2019 CBC Design Parameters Recommended Values Site Class D (Default)* (Stiff Soil) Site Longitude (degrees) -117.896691 W Site Latitude (degrees) 33.608345 N Ss (g) 1.383 S1 (g) 0.491 SMs (g) 1.659 SM1 (g) N/A SDs (g) 1.106 SD1 (g) N/A Fa 1.2 Fv N/A Seismic Design Category D I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PA2021-117 May 14, 2021 File No: 8543-00 Report No: R1-8543 Page No: 18 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 *Per ASCE 7-16, Section 11.4.8, the above values may be used provided the value of the seismic response coefficient Cs is determined by Eq. (12.8-2) for values of T ≤ 1.5Ts and taken as equal to 1.5 times the value computed in accordance with either Eq. (12.8-3) for TL ≥ T > 1.5Ts or Eq. (12.8-4) for T > TL. This is due to the value of S1 greater than or equal to 0.2 g for this site. The values above are generally applicable for typical residential structures. The Structural Engineer should verify that Section 11.4.8 is satisfied per the above. A Site-Specific Ground Motion Hazard Analysis (GMHA) may be beneficial for this project as part of the structural design. A Site-Specific GMHA can be performed at an additional cost if requested. Supporting documentation is also included in a previous section of this report, Site Classification for Seismic Design, and in Appendix F. Lateral Earth and Bearing Pressures for Retaining Walls Design lateral loading values for cantilevered retaining walls should be based upon the following: - Foundations Bearing Capacity = 1,800 psf (18-inch embedment into undisturbed approved soil) - Lateral Earth Pressures Active Earth Pressure = 35 psf/ft (level backfill/ on-site granular soil) Restrained Condition = 50 psf/ft at-rest loading (on-site soil) Passive Earth Pressure = 200 psf/ft Friction = 0.30 Other topographic and structural surcharges should be addressed by the Structural Engineer, as appropriate. Structural Design of Retaining Walls 1. Seismic Lateral Earth Pressure The Structural Engineer should determine which retaining walls at the site within their purview will be subject to design lateral loads due to earthquake events. Section 1803.5.12 of the 2019 CBC states that the geotechnical investigation shall include the determination of dynamic seismic lateral earth pressures on foundation walls and retaining walls supporting more than 6 feet (1.83 m) of backfill height due to design earthquake ground motions. No retaining walls are currently planned to this height and therefore the design requirements of Section 1803.5.12 do not apply for this report. PA2021-117 May 14, 2021 File No: 8543-00 Report No: R1-8543 Page No: 19 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 2. Wall Backfill The on-site granular (sandy) soils are suitable for use as retaining wall backfill. Imported backfill, if used, should consist of select, non-expansive soil or gravel. Gravel may consist of pea gravel or crushed rock. Where space for compaction equipment is adequate, on-site or imported granular, non-expansive sand materials may be compacted into place in thin lifts per the compaction requirements provided herein. Imported pea gravel or crushed rock should be placed in lifts and tamped or vibrated into place. The lift thickness for gravel is dependent on the type of material and method of compaction. Gravel lifts of 18- to 24-inches or less are recommended. The Geotechnical Engineer should observe the backfill placement of soil or gravel behind each wall following approval of wall backdrains. Gravel wall backfill material should be covered with a suitable filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N and capped with on-site soil or concrete. Fill and backfill soils should be free of debris, organic matter, cobbles and rock fragments greater than 6-inches in diameter. Fill materials should be placed in 6- to 8- inch maximum lifts at above optimum moisture content and compacted under the observation and testing of the Soil Engineer. The recommended minimum density for compacted material is 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM: D1557. Field density tests should be performed at intervals of 2 vertical feet or less within the backfill zone and in accordance with agency requirements at the time of grading. Gravel wall backfill material should be separated from on-site soil materials, along back cuts and at interfaces with other materials with a suitable filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N and capped with non-expansive soil or concrete. 3. Subdrains An approved exterior foundation subdrain system should be used to achieve control of seepage forces behind retaining walls. The details of such subdrain systems are deferred to the Wall Designer, Builder or Waterproofing Consultant. The subdrain is not a substitute for waterproofing. Water in subdrain systems should be collected and delivered to suitable disposal locations or facilities. Additional recommendations may be provided when plans are available. Retaining walls should be provided with an approved drain at the base of the backfill. Subdrains should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated pipe (Schedule 40 or similar) surrounded by at least 1 cubic feet per foot of 3/4-inch gravel wrapped in geofabric (Mirafi 140N or similar). Perforations should be placed down and filter fabric should be lapped at least 12-inches at seams. Weep holes or open head joints may be included for low-height garden retaining walls or site walls with a retained soil height of less than 30- inches as an alternative to a pipe subdrain. PA2021-117 May 14, 2021 File No: 8543-00 Report No: R1-8543 Page No: 20 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 4. Dampproofing and Waterproofing Waterproofing should be installed in accordance with the architectural specifications or those of a Waterproofing Consultant. The criteria in Section 1805 of the 2019 CBC should be followed as a minimum. Hardscape Design and Construction Hardscape improvements may utilize conventional foundations in compacted fill. Such improvements should be designed in accordance with the foundation recommendations presented above. Cracking and offsets at joints are possible; however, occurrence may be minimized by appropriate drainage and the use of thickened edge beams to limit moisture transfer below slabs. Concrete flatwork should be divided into as nearly square panels as possible. Joints should be provided at maximum 8-feet intervals to give articulation to the concrete panels (shorter spacing is recommended if needed to square the panels). Landscaping and planters adjacent to concrete flatwork should be designed in such a manner as to direct drainage away from concrete areas to approved outlets. Planters located adjacent to principle foundation elements should be sealed and drained; this is especially important if they are near retaining wall backfills. Exterior flatwork elements should be a minimum 4-inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 3 bars 18-inches on center both ways. Subgrade soils should be well moistened prior to placing concrete. Concrete Construction Components in Contact with Soil The results of our laboratory testing indicated a low soluble sulfate content; however, due to shallow sea water levels in the area, exposure to sulfate can be expected for concrete placed in contact with on-site soils. Various components within the concrete may be subject to corrosion over time when exposed to soluble sulfates. To help mitigate corrosion, sulfate resistant cement should be used in concrete that may be in contact with on-site soils, ground source water and tidal water. Attention to maximum water-cement ratio and the minimum compressive strength may also help mitigate deterioration of concrete components. The results of corrosivity tests on the on-site soil are provided in Appendix C. Type V cement is, therefore, recommended with a maximum water-cement ratio of 0.45 percent. The minimum concrete compressive strength should be at least 4,500 pounds per square inch. It is recommended that a Concrete Expert be retained to design an appropriate concrete mix to address the structural requirements. In lieu of retaining a Concrete Expert, it is recommended that the 2019 California Building Code, Section 1904 and 1905 be utilized, which refers to ACI 318. Testing should be performed during grading when fill materials are identified to confirm the sulfate concentration. PA2021-117 May 14, 2021 File No: 8543-00 Report No: R1-8543 Page No: 21 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Metal Construction Components in Contact with Soil Corrosivity testing was performed as part of our investigation. Test results indicate a severe potential for corrosion (Resistivity = 1,000 Ohm-cm when saturated). Metal rebar encased in concrete, iron pipes, copper pipes, lift shafts, air conditioner units, etc., that are in contact with soil or water that permeates the soil should be protected from corrosion that may result from salts contained in the soil. Recommendations to mitigate damage due to corrosive soils, if needed, should be provided by a qualified Corrosion Specialist. The corrosivity/ chemical testing results are presented in the attached Appendix C, Laboratory Test Results. Finished Grade and Surface Drainage Finished grades should be designed and constructed so that no water ponds in the vicinity of footings. Drainage design in accordance with the 2019 CBC, Section 1804.4, is recommended or per local City requirements. Roof gutters should be provided and outflow directed away from the house in a non-erosive manner as specified by the Project Civil Engineer or Landscape Architect. Surface and subsurface water should be directed away from building areas. Proper interception and disposal of on-site surface discharge is presumed to be a matter of civil engineering or landscape architectural design. Infiltration It is our opinion that typical shallow gravel trenches and permeable hardscape for periodic water infiltration into the on-site soil is acceptable from a geologic and geotechnical standpoint. The water levels are expected to be at a depth of about 3 to 5 feet below grade based on our borings. The water table is ultimately tidal in nature and introduction of incidental, periodic, infiltration water is not expected to raise the water level or create new perched water zones. These types of infiltration will, therefore, not be expected to create any geohazards due to modification of groundwater levels. Planned infiltration design and BMP devices should be reviewed by our office prior to construction. Foundation and Grading Plan Review The undersigned should review final foundation and grading plans and specifications prior to their submission to the Building Official for issuance of permits. The review is to be performed only for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with design concepts and the information provided herein. Review shall not include evaluation of the accuracy or completeness of details, such as quantities, dimensions, weights or gauges, fabrication processes, construction means or methods, coordination of the work with other trades or construction safety precautions, all of which are the sole responsibility of the Contractor. The R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. (RMC) review shall be conducted with reasonable promptness while allowing sufficient time in our judgment to permit adequate review. Review of a specific item shall not indicate that RMC has reviewed the entire system of which the item is a component. RMC shall not be responsible for any deviation from the Contract Documents not brought to our attention in writing by the Contractor. RMC shall not be required to review partial submissions or those for which submissions of correlated items have not been received. PA2021-117 May 14, 2021 File No: 8543-00 Report No: R1-8543 Page No: 22 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Utility Trench Backfill Utility trench backfill should be placed in accordance with Appendix D, Standard Grading Guidelines. It is the Owner’s and Contractor’s responsibility to inform Subcontractors of these requirements and to notify RMC when backfill placement is to begin. It has been our experience that trench backfill requirements are rigorously enforced by the City of Newport Beach. Pre-Grade Meeting A pre-job conference should be held with representative of the Owner, Contractor, Architect, Civil Engineer, Geotechnical Engineer, and Building Official prior to commencement of construction to clarify any questions relating to the intent of these recommendations or additional recommendations. Observation and Testing Geotechnical observation and testing during construction is required to verify proper removal of unsuitable materials, check that foundation excavations are clean and founded in competent material, to test for proper moisture content and proper degree of compaction of fill, to test and observe placement of wall and trench backfill materials, and to confirm design assumptions. It is noted that the CBC requires continuous verification and testing during placement of fill, pile driving, and pier/caisson drilling. An R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. (RMC), representative shall observe the site at intervals appropriate to the phase of construction, as notified by the Contractor, in order to observe the work completed by the Contractor. Such visits and observation are not intended to be an exhaustive check or a detailed inspection of the Contractor’s work but rather are to allow RMC as an experienced professional, to become generally familiar with the work in progress and to determine, in general, if the grading and construction is in accordance with the recommendations of this report. RMC shall not supervise, direct, or control the Contractor’s work. RMC shall have no responsibility for the construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures selected by the Contractor, the Contractor’s safety precautions or programs in connection with the work. These rights and responsibilities are solely those of the Contractor. RMC shall not be responsible for any acts or omission of any entity performing any portion of the work, including the Contractor, Subcontractor, or any agents or employees of any of them. RMC does not guarantee the performance of any other parties on the project site, including the Contractor, and shall not be responsible for the Contractor’s failure to perform its work in accordance with the Contract Documents or any applicable law, codes, rules or regulations. Construction-phase observations are beyond the scope of this investigation and budget and are conducted on a time and material basis. The responsibility for timely notification of the start of construction and ongoing geotechnically-involved phases of construction is that of the Owner and his Contractor. We request at least 48 hours’ notice when such services are required. PA2021-117 May 14, 2021 File No: 8543-00 Report No: R1-8543 Page No: 23 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 List of Guidelines The Geotechnical Consultant should be notified to observe and test the following activities during grading and construction: • To observe proper removal of unsuitable materials; • To observe the bottom of removals for all excavations for the building pad grading, trenching, exterior site improvements, etc.; • To observe side cut excavations for grading, retaining walls, trenches, etc.; • To test for proper moisture content and proper degree of compaction of fill; • To check that foundation excavations are clean and founded in competent material; • To check the slab subgrade materials prior to placing the gravel, vapor barrier and concrete; • To check retaining wall subdrain installation; • To test and observe placement of wall backfill materials; • To test and observe placement of all trench backfill materials; • To test and observe patio, driveway apron and sidewalk subgrade materials; • To observe any other fills or backfills that may be constructed at the site. It is noted that this list should be used as a guideline. Additional observations and testing may be required per local agency, code, project, Contractor and geotechnical requirements at the time of the actual construction. LIMITATIONS This investigation has been conducted in accordance with, and limited to, generally accepted practice in the engineering geologic and soils engineering field, and in accordance with services provided by geotechnical consultants practicing in the same or similar locality under the same or similar circumstances. No further warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. Conclusions and recommendations presented are based on subsurface conditions encountered and are not meant to imply that we have control over the natural site conditions. The samples taken and used for testing, the observations made and the field testing performed are believed representative of the general project area; however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between tested or observed locations. Site geotechnical conditions may change with time due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur as a result of the broadening of knowledge, new legislation, or agency requirements. The recommendations presented herein are, therefore, arbitrarily set as valid for one year from the report date. The recommendations are also specific to the current proposed development. Changes in proposed land use or development may require supplemental investigation or recommendations. Also, independent use of this report without appropriate geotechnical consultation is not approved or recommended. PA2021-117 May 14, 2021 File No: 8543-00 Report No: R1-8543 Page No: 24 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Respectfully submitted, R MCCARTHY CONSULTING, INC. Robert J. McCarthy Principal Engineer, G.E. 2490 Registration Expires 3-31-22 Date Signed: 5/14/21 Accompanying Illustrations and Appendices Text Figure - Geologic Map of Santa Ana Quadrangle Text Figure - Fault Map, Newport Beach, California Text Figure - CDMG Seismic Hazards Location Map Figure 1 - Geotechnical Plot Plan Figure 2 - Location Map Figure 3 - Geologic Hazards Map Appendix A - References Appendix B - Field Exploration Figures B-1 through B-3 Appendix C - Laboratory Testing Figures C-1 through C-12 Chemical Test Results Appendix D - Standard Grading Guidelines Appendix E - Results of Liquefaction Analysis Table E-1, Figures E-1 through E-4 Data Interpretations Appendix F - Seismicity Supporting Data PA2021-117 B-2B-1Ef/QmEf/Qm020SCALE, FEET40Figure 1 - Geotechnical Plot Plan411 N. Bay FrontNewport Beach, CAFile: 8543-10 May 2021Base map source: Topographic Map for 411 N. Bay Front, Newport Beach, CA,by Apex Land Surveying Inc., dated 12/23/2020.EXPLANATIONEstimated Location of Exploratory BoringEngineered FillMarine DepositsEfQmB-2PA2021-117 Feet Every reasonable effort has been made to assure the accuracy of the data provided, however, The City of Newport Beach and its employees and agents disclaim any and all responsibility from or relating to any results obtained in its use. Disclaimer: 0 200100 SITE: 411 N Bay Front FILE NO: 8543-00 MAY 2021 FIGURE 2 - LOCATION MAP PA2021-117 Feet Every reasonable effort has been made to assure the accuracy of the data provided, however, The City of Newport Beach and its employees and agents disclaim any and all responsibility from or relating to any results obtained in its use. Disclaimer: 0 200100 FILE NO: 8543-00 MAY 2021 FIGURE 3 - GEOLOGIC HAZARDS MAP SITE: 411 N Bay Front Liquefaction Hazard Zone PA2021-117 APPENDIX A REFERENCES PA2021-117 APPENDIX A REFERENCES (411 North Bay Front) R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 1. Apex Land Surveying, Inc., 2020, “Topographic Map, 411 N Bay Front, Newport Beach, CA, 92662,” Project No: 20164; dated 12/23/2020, APN: 050-031-01, Scale: 1” = 8’, Sheet 1 of 1. 2. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2019, AASCE 7 Hazard Tool, https://asce7hazardtool.online/ 3. 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. 4. BLUEWater Design Group, 2015, “Calculations for New Piles in Newport Beach, CA, Applicant: Joe Walter, 117 N. Bay Front, Newport Beach, CA 92662.,” File Number 2350-QQ, November 13. 5. Building Seismic Safety Council, 2004, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA 450), 2003 Edition, Part 2: Commentary, Washington, DC. 6. California Building Code, 2019 Edition. 7. California Division of Mines and Geology, 2008, “Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California,” Special Publication 117A. 8. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, “Seismic Hazards Zones Map, Newport Beach Quadrangle.” 9. City of Newport Beach, 2014, Community Development Department, Building Division, Building Code Policy, “Liquefaction Study Mitigation Measures,” revised July 14. 10. Department of the Navy, 1982, NAVFAC DM-7.1, Soil Mechanics, Design Manual 7.1, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 11. Geo-Etka, Inc, 1990, “Preliminary Foundation Soils Exploration at 411 North Bayfront at Agate Avenue, Balboa Island, Newport Beach, California,” Job No: F-5052-90, March 21. 12. Geo-Etka, Inc, 1990, “Compaction Report for the Building Pad Only, 411 North Bayfront at Agate Avenue, Balboa Island, Newport Beach, California,” Job No: C-5052-90, May 9. 13. Geo-Etka, Inc, 1991, “Exterior Utility Trench Backfill and Flatwork Area Testing, 411 North Bayfront at Agate Avenue, Balboa Island, Newport Beach, California,” Job No: D-5052A-90-91, January 21. 14. Geo-Etka, Inc, 1991, “Summary and Final Report Response, 411 North Bayfront at Agate Avenue, Balboa Island, Newport Beach, California,” Job No: Engr-5052-90-91, January 22. 15. Geo-Etka, Inc, 1991, “Preliminary Foundation Soils Exploration at 205 North Bayfront, Balboa Island, Newport Beach, California 92662,” Job No: F-5666-91, June 6. 16. Geo-Etka, Inc., 1997, “Preliminary Foundation Soils Exploration at 109 North Bayfront, Balboa Island, Newport Beach, California 92660,” Job No: F-8247-97, October 21. 17. Geo-Etka, Inc, 2000, “Preliminary Foundation Soils Exploration at 401 North Bayfront, “Balboa Island”, Newport Beach, California 92662,” Job No: F-9104-00, February 15. 18. Geo-Etka, Inc, 2000, “Preliminary Foundation Soils Exploration at 209 North Bay Front, Balboa Island, Newport Beach, California 92662,” Job No: F-9181-00, May 31. 19. Geofirm, 2009, “Updated Geotechnical Investigation for Foundation Design, Residence Addition, 201 North Bayfront, Newport Beach, California,” Project No: 71826-03, Report No: 09-6573, Sept 30. 20. Geofirm, 2009, “Response to City of Newport Beach Building Department, Geotechnical Report Review Checklist, dated August 19, 2009, Residence Addition, 201 North Bayfront, Newport Beach, California,” Project No. 71826-02, Report No: 09-6567, September 24. 21. Geofirm, 2009, “Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Foundation Design, Residence Addition, 201 North Bayfront, Newport Beach, California,” Project No: 71826-00, Report No: 09-6443, May 22. 22. Hart, E. W., and Bryant, W. A., 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42 (Interim Supplements and Revisions 1999, 2003, and 2007). 23. Jennings, Charles W., et al., 1994, “Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas,” California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map No. 6. 24. Legg, Mark R., Borrero, Jose C., and Synolakis, Costas E., 2003, “Evaluation of Tsunami Risk to Southern California Coastal Cities,” Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), 2002 NEHRP Professional Fellowship Report, Funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), January. PA2021-117 APPENDIX A REFERENCES (411 North Bay Front) R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 25. Martin, G. R. and Lew, M., 1999, “Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California,” Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), University of Southern California, March, 63 pages. 26. Morton and Miller, 1981, Geologic Map of Orange County, CDMG Bulletin 204. 27. Morton, P. K., Miller, R. V., and Evans, J. R., 1976, Environmental Geology of Orange County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 79-8 LA. 28. Morton, D. M., Bovard, Kelly H., and Alvarez, Rachel M., 2004, Preliminary Digital Geological Map of the 30’ X 60’ Santa Ana Quadrangle, Southern California, Version 2.0, Open-File Report 99-172, Version 2.0 – 2004. 29. Morton, Douglas M., and Miller, Fred K., compilers, 2006, “Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30’ X 60’ Quadrangles, California,” US Geological Survey Open File Report 2006-1217. 30. Petersen, M. D., Bryant, W. A., Cramer, C. H., Cao, T., Reichle, M. S., Frankel, A. D., Lienkaemper, J. J., McCrory, P. A., and Schwartz, D. P., 1996, “Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California,” Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, DMG Open-File Report 96- 08, USGS Open File Report 96-706. 31. Petra Geotechnical, Inc., 1996, “Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Proposed Single-Family Residence, 121 North Bayfront, Newport Beach, California,” J. N. 185-96, July 12. 32. Petra Geotechnical, Inc., 1996, “Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence, 121 North Bayfront, Newport Beach, California,” J. N. 185-96, April 8. 33. R McCarthy Consulting, Inc., 2017, “Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Residential Construction, 409 North Bay Front, Newport Beach, California,” File No: 8137-00, Report No: 20170309-1, March 9. 34. R McCarthy Consulting, Inc., 2019, “Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Residential Construction, 117 North Bay Front, Newport Beach, California,” File No: 8398-00, Report No: R1-8398, Dec 16. 35. Schmertmann, Dr. John H., 1977, “Guidelines for CPT Performance and Design,” prepared for the Federal Highway Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation, FHWA-TS-78-209, February. 36. Seed, Bolton H. and Idriss, I. M., 1974, “A Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential,” Journal of Soil Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM9, September, pp. 1249-1273. 37. Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), 2019, OSHPD Seismic Design Maps, https://seismicmaps.org/ 38. Tan, Siang, S., and Edgington, William J., 1976, "Geology and Engineering Geology of the Laguna Beach Quadrangle, Orange County, California,” California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 127. 39. Terzaghi, Karl, Peck, Ralph B., and Mesri, Ghoamreza, 1996, “Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, Third Edition,” John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 40. Tokimatsu, K., & Seed, H.B., 1987, “Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking,” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE,113(8), pp.861-878. 41. Vedder, J. G., Yerkes, R. F., and Schoellhamer, J. E., 1957, Geologic Map of the San Joaquin Hills-San Juan Capistrano Area, Orange County, California, U. S. Geological Survey, Oil and Gas Investigations Map OM-193. PA2021-117 APPENDIX B FIELD EXPLORATION PA2021-117 APPENDIX B FIELD EXPLORATION (411 N. Bay Front) R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 General Subsurface conditions were explored by excavating two auger borings at the site. Two flight auger borings were drilled to depths of 12.5 to 13 feet with the Pacific Drilling Mini-mole drill rig on April 7, 2021. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on the Geotechnical Plot Plan, Figure 1. The Boring Logs are included as Figures B-2 and B-3. A Key to Logs is included as Figure B-1. Excavation of the borings was observed by our field geologist who logged the soils and obtained samples for identification and laboratory testing. The exploratory excavations were located in the field by pacing from known landmarks. Their locations as shown are, therefore, within the accuracy of such measurements. Elevations were determined by interpolation between points on the Topographic Map prepared by Apex Land Surveying, Inc, Reference 1. Sample Program 1. Drill Rig - Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) may be performed to determine the in-place relative densities and consistencies of the underlying soils. The test involves the number of blows it takes for a 140-pound hammer falling 30-inches to drive a 2-inch (outer diameter)/ 1 3/8-inch inner diameter) split spoon sampler (ASTM D1586). These blow counts are given in blows per 6-inch driving interval for a sample with a length of 18- inches. SPT samples were immediately sealed in individual plastic bags. 2. Bulk samples representative of subsurface conditions were collected from the excavations and sealed in plastic bags. Summary The soils were classified based on field observations and laboratory tests. The classification is in accordance with ASTM D2487 (the Unified Soil Classification System). Collected samples were transported to the laboratory for testing. Groundwater was encountered at depths of approximately 3.5 to 4.5 feet below the site at the boring locations. PA2021-117 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART CLEANGRAVELS GRAVELWITHFINES CLEANSANDS SANDSWITHFINES GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH PT GROUPSYMBOLS SYMBOLMAJOR DIVISIONS TYPICAL NAMES HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS SILTS AND CLAYS: Liquid Limit 50% or less SILTS AND CLAYS: Liquid Limit greater than 50% Well graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little orno fines Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays Poorly graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, littleor no fines Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures Well graded sands and gravelly sand, little or no fines Poorly graded sands and gravelly sands, little or nofines Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures Inorganic silts, very fine sands, rock flour, silty orclayey fine sands Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandsor silts, elastic clays Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays Organic clays of medium to high plasticity Peat, muck, and other highly organic soils KEY TO LOGS COARSE-GRAINED SOILS: more than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve (based on the material passing the 3-inch [75mm] sieve) FINE-GRAINED SOILS: 50% or more passes No. 200 sieve* GRAVELS: 50% or more of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve SANDS:more than 50% ofcoarse fractionpasses No. 4 sieve Water level SYMBOL Figure B-1: Unied Soil Classication Chart / Key To Logs NOTATION SAMPLER TYPE C Core barrel CA California split-barrel sampler with 2.5-inch outside diameter and a 1.93-inch inside diameter D&M Dames & Moore piston sampler using 2.5-inch outside diameter, thin-walled tube O Osterberg piston sampler using 3.0-inch outside diameter, thin-walled Shelby tube PTB Pitcher tube sampler using 3.0-inch outside diameter, thin-walled Shelby tube S&H Sprague & Henwood split-barrel sampler with a 3.0-inch outside diameter and a 2.43-inch inside diameter SPT Standard Penetration Test (SPT) split-barrel sampler with a 2.0-inch outside diameter and a 1.5-inch inside diameter ST Shelby Tube (3.0-inch outside diameter, thin-walled tube) advanced with hydraulic pressure NR No Recovery Modified California Sampler (3" O.D.) Modified California Sampler, no recovery Standard Penetration Test, ASTM D 1586 Standard Penetration Test, no recovery Thin-walled tube sample using Pitcher barrel Thin-walled tube sample, pushed or used Osterberg sampler Disaggregated (bulk) sample PA2021-117 DEPTHUSCSBLOW COUNTIN-PLACE SAMPLEBAG SAMPLEMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)MATERIAL DESCRIPTION NOTES DEPTHLOG OF BORING R MCCARTHY CONSULTING, INC. 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 SM SM BORING NO: B-1 FILE NO: 8543-00 FIGURE B-2 EQUIPMENT: 6” Diam Flight Auger SURFACE ELEVATION: 6.0' +/- BY: GM Total Depth: 13 feet (terminated due to caving) Groundwater at 3.5 feet SITE LOCATION: 411 N. BayfrontNortheast side planterDATE: 4-7-21 Only cap first letter of sentence. Color, MATERIAL TYPE, moisture, stiffness, density, fineness, all other descriptions 224 268 SM 467 SM 81620 SM 91623 RESIDUAL SOIL (Af): Medium gray brown silty SAND, moist, loose (Planter soil to 6 inches)ENGINEERED FILL (Ef): Medium brown silty SAND, moist, compacted SPT1 at 3’: Dark gray silty SAND, wet, loose, fine grained, micaSPT2 at 5’: Dark gray silty SAND, wet, medium dense, scattered shell fragments SPT3 at 7’: Dark gray silty SAND, wet, medium dense, abundant large shell fragments SPT4 at 9’: Medium gray silty SAND, wet, dense, scattered shell fragments SPT5 at 11’: Medium gray silty SAND, wet, dense, abundant large shell fragments 34.1 30.6 25.6 24.2 21.0 SM Max Dry Density(109.0 pcf, 12.0 %) Expansion Index (EI = 0)Chemical Tests Remolded Shear Grain Size (22.8% passing #200) Grain Size(22.5% passing #200) Grain Size(14.8% passing #200) Grain Size (27.3% passing #200) Grain Size(26.3% passing #200) MARINE DEPOSITS (Qm): PA2021-117 DEPTHUSCSBLOW COUNTIN-PLACE SAMPLEBAG SAMPLEMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)MATERIAL DESCRIPTION NOTES DEPTHLOG OF BORING R MCCARTHY CONSULTING, INC. 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 SP/SM SP/SM EQUIPMENT: 6” Diam Flight Auger SURFACE ELEVATION: 6.0' +/- BORING NO: B-2 FILE NO: 8543-00 FIGURE B-3 BY: GM Total Depth: 12.5 feet Groundwater at 4.5 feet Heavy Caving at 12.5 feet SITE LOCATION: 411 N. BayfrontSouth side driveway apronDATE: 4-2-21 Only cap first letter of sentence. Color, MATERIAL TYPE, moisture, stiffness, density, fineness, all other descriptions 123 SP/ SM 355 SM 499 SP 91323 SP 4914 Concrete: 4-inches ENGINEERED FILL (Ef): Tan brown silty SAND, moist, compacted SPT1 at 3’: Medium brown SAND, moist, loose, scattered shell fragments SPT2 at 5’: Dark gray SAND, wet, medium dense, uniform SPT3 at 7’: Dark gray SAND, wet, medium dense, abundant large shell fragments SPT4 at 9’: Medium gray SAND, wet, dense, fine to medium grained SPT5 at 11’: Medium gray SAND, wet, medium dense, scattered shell fragments 13.1 29.0 24.5 24.3 24.6 Grain Size (7.3% passing #200) Grain Size (6.0%, passing #200) Grain Size (13.9% passing #200) Grain Size(4.5% passing #200) Grain Size(4.9% passing #200) MARINE DEPOSITS (Qm): PA2021-117 APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING PA2021-117 APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING (411 N. Bay Front) R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 The laboratory testing program was designed to fit the specific needs of this project and was limited to testing the soil samples collected during the on-site exploration. The test program was performed by our laboratory and supplemented with testing by HDR, Inc. Soils were classified visually and per the results of laboratory testing according to ASTM D2487, the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The field moisture content and dry densities of the soils encountered were determined by performing laboratory tests on the collected samples. The results of the moisture tests, density determinations and soil classifications are shown on the Boring Logs in Appendix B. Maximum Density The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content relationships were determined for representative samples of the on-site soil. The laboratory standard used was ASTM D1557. The test results are presented below in Table C-1 and on Figure C-1. TABLE C-1 RESULTS OF MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT ASTM D1557 Expansion Index Test Expansion index tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D4829. The results are summarized in Table C-2 below. TABLE C-2 RESULTS OF EXPANSION INDEX ASTM D4829 Test Location Soil Classification Soil Description Maximum Dry Density pcf Optimum Moisture Content % B-1 @ 0-5’ SM Gray Silty SAND 109.0 12.0 Test Location Soil Classification Expansion Index Expansion Potential Moisture Content % Saturation % B-1 @ 0-5’ SM 0 Very Low 12.0 Initial 20.0 Final 48 Initial 86 Final PA2021-117 APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING (411 N. Bay Front) R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Gradation Particle size analysis consisting of mechanical sieve analysis were performed on representative samples of the on-site soils in accordance with ASTM D1140 and C-136. The test results are presented graphically herein on Figures C-5 and C-6. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 (75μm) sieve are tabulated in Table C-3 below: TABLE C-3 GRAIN SIZE – FINES CONTENT Location Classification Percent Fines (Passing #200) Figure No. B-1 @ 3’SM 22.8 C-2 B-1 @ 5’SM 22.5 C-3 B-1 @ 7’SM 14.8 C-4 B-1 @ 9’SM 27.3 C-5 B-1 @ 11’SM 26.3 C-6 B-2 @ 3’SP-SM 7.3 C-7 B-2 @ 5’SP-SM 6.0 C-8 B-2 @ 7’SP-SM 13.9 C-9 B-2 @ 9’SP 4.5 C-10 B-2 @ 3’SP 4.9 C-11 PA2021-117 APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING (411 N. Bay Front) R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Direct Shear - Remolded Direct shear tests were performed on selected samples that were remolded to approximately 83 percent of the pre-determined maximum density of the test soil. The samples were then saturated under a surcharge equal to the applied normal force during testing. The apparatus used is in conformance with the requirements outlined in ASTM D3080. The test specimens, approximately 2.5-inches in diameter and 1-inch in height, were subjected to simple shear along a plane at mid- height after allowing time for pore pressure dissipation prior to application of shearing force. The samples were tested under various normal loads, a different specimen being used for each normal load. The samples were sheared at a constant rate of strain of 0.005-inches per minute. Shearing of the specimens was continued until the shear stress became essentially constant or until a deformation of approximately 10 percent of the original diameter was reached. The peak and ultimate shear stress values were plotted versus applied normal stress, and a best-fit straight line through the plotted points was determined to arrive at the cohesion and the angle of internal friction parameters of the soil samples. The direct shear test results are presented in Figure C-7. Sulfate Test A sulfate test was performed by HDR, Inc. The results are included in Table C-4 below: TABLE C-4 RESULTS OF SULFATE TESTS ASTM D4327 Test Location Soil Classification Soluble Sulfates (mg/kg) ASTM D4327 Sulfate Exposure B-1 @ 0-5’ SM 278 Low PA2021-117 APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING (411 N. Bay Front) R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Chemical Testing A series of chemical tests were performed on a representative sample of the on-site soils by HDR, Inc. The HDR test results are attached. A summary of selected test results is included in Table C-6. TABLE C-6 RESULTS OF SELECTED CHEMICAL TESTS Test Location Soil Classification pH Soluble Sulfates (mg/kg) ASTM D4327 Soluble Chlorides (mg/kg) ASTM D4327 Min. Resistivity (ohm-cm) ASTM G187 B-1 @ 0-5’ SM 8.5 278 23 1,080 PA2021-117 Date:C-1 Sample Identification B-1 @ 0-5' MAXIMUM DENSITY & OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATION File No.: 8543-00 May - 2021 Figure: Sample Description Gray Silty SAND Maximum Dry Density (pcf)109.0 Optimum Moisture Content (%)12.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 120.0 125.0 130.0 135.0 140.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30Dry Density (pcf)Moisture Content (%) 2.60 2.65 2.70 PA2021-117 DEPTH (FT)SOIL DESCRIPTION3'CCSMMedium Coarse22.8FineCUUSCSCLAYPASSING NO. 200 (%)Brown Silty SANDSAMPLE IDENTIFICATIONLOCATION COBBLEGRAVELSANDSILTC-2Figure No.:2.4 0.9May 2021B-1PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS COMPARISONFile No.: 8543-00 Date:01020304050607080901000.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000PERCENT PASSINGPARTICLE SIZE (MILLILMETERS)PARTICLE SIZE (INCHES OR SIEVE NO.)3" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 20 40 60 100 200PA2021-117 CUFile No.: 8543-00 Date:SILTSMSAMPLE IDENTIFICATION Coarse22.5FineMay 2021LOCATIONDEPTH (FT)SOIL DESCRIPTION5'SAND COBBLEGRAVELB-1PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS COMPARISONCCMediumC-3Figure No.:- - - -USCSCLAYPASSING NO. 200 (%)Gray Silty SAND01020304050607080901000.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000PERCENT PASSINGPARTICLE SIZE (MILLILMETERS)PARTICLE SIZE (INCHES OR SIEVE NO.)3" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 20 40 60 100 200PA2021-117 DEPTH (FT)SOIL DESCRIPTION7'CCSMMedium Coarse14.8FineCUUSCSCLAYPASSING NO. 200 (%)Gray Silty SANDSAMPLE IDENTIFICATIONLOCATION COBBLEGRAVELSANDSILTC-4Figure No.:5.5 1.6May 2021B-1PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS COMPARISONFile No.: 8543-00 Date:01020304050607080901000.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000PERCENT PASSINGPARTICLE SIZE (MILLILMETERS)PARTICLE SIZE (INCHES OR SIEVE NO.)3" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 20 40 60 100 200PA2021-117 CUFile No.: 8543-00 Date:SILTSMSAMPLE IDENTIFICATION Coarse27.3FineMay 2021LOCATIONDEPTH (FT)SOIL DESCRIPTION9'SAND COBBLEGRAVELB-1PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS COMPARISONCCMediumC-5Figure No.:- - - -USCSCLAYPASSING NO. 200 (%)Gray Silty SAND01020304050607080901000.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000PERCENT PASSINGPARTICLE SIZE (MILLILMETERS)PARTICLE SIZE (INCHES OR SIEVE NO.)3" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 20 40 60 100 200PA2021-117 CUFile No.: 8543-00 Date:SILTSMSAMPLE IDENTIFICATION Coarse26.3FineMay 2021LOCATIONDEPTH (FT)SOIL DESCRIPTION11'SAND COBBLEGRAVELB-1PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS COMPARISONCCMediumC-6Figure No.:- - - -USCSCLAYPASSING NO. 200 (%)Gray Silty SAND01020304050607080901000.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000PERCENT PASSINGPARTICLE SIZE (MILLILMETERS)PARTICLE SIZE (INCHES OR SIEVE NO.)3" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 20 40 60 100 200PA2021-117 DEPTH (FT)SOIL DESCRIPTION3'CCSP-SMMedium Coarse7.3FineCUUSCSCLAYPASSING NO. 200 (%)Gray Silty SANDSAMPLE IDENTIFICATIONLOCATION COBBLEGRAVELSANDSILTC-7Figure No.:3.1 1.2May 2021B-2PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS COMPARISONFile No.: 8543-00 Date:01020304050607080901000.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000PERCENT PASSINGPARTICLE SIZE (MILLILMETERS)PARTICLE SIZE (INCHES OR SIEVE NO.)3" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 20 40 60 100 200PA2021-117 C-8Figure No.:2.3 1.1USCSCLAYPASSING NO. 200 (%)SAND COBBLEGRAVELB-2PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS COMPARISONCCMediumGray Silty SANDMay 2021LOCATIONDEPTH (FT)SOIL DESCRIPTION5'CUFile No.: 8543-00 Date:SILTSP-SMSAMPLE IDENTIFICATION Coarse6.0Fine01020304050607080901000.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000PERCENT PASSINGPARTICLE SIZE (MILLILMETERS)PARTICLE SIZE (INCHES OR SIEVE NO.)3" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 20 40 60 100 200PA2021-117 DEPTH (FT)SOIL DESCRIPTION7'CCSP-SMMedium Coarse13.9FineCUUSCSCLAYPASSING NO. 200 (%)Gray Silty SANDSAMPLE IDENTIFICATIONLOCATION COBBLEGRAVELSANDSILTC-9Figure No.:36.3 11.0May 2021B-2PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS COMPARISONFile No.: 8543-00 Date:01020304050607080901000.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000PERCENT PASSINGPARTICLE SIZE (MILLILMETERS)PARTICLE SIZE (INCHES OR SIEVE NO.)3" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 20 40 60 100 200PA2021-117 CUFile No.: 8543-00 Date:SILTSPSAMPLE IDENTIFICATION Coarse4.5FineMay 2021LOCATIONDEPTH (FT)SOIL DESCRIPTION9'SAND COBBLEGRAVELB-2PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS COMPARISONCCMediumC-10Figure No.:1.8 1.0USCSCLAYPASSING NO. 200 (%)Gray Silty SAND01020304050607080901000.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000PERCENT PASSINGPARTICLE SIZE (MILLILMETERS)PARTICLE SIZE (INCHES OR SIEVE NO.)3" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 20 40 60 100 200PA2021-117 CUFile No.: 8543-00 Date:SILTSPSAMPLE IDENTIFICATION Coarse4.9FineMay 2021LOCATIONDEPTH (FT)SOIL DESCRIPTION11'SAND COBBLEGRAVELB-2PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS COMPARISONCCMediumC-11Figure No.:1.9 1.0USCSCLAYPASSING NO. 200 (%)Gray Silty SAND01020304050607080901000.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000PERCENT PASSINGPARTICLE SIZE (MILLILMETERS)PARTICLE SIZE (INCHES OR SIEVE NO.)3" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 20 40 60 100 200PA2021-117 Dry Density (pcf) Angle of Friction - degrees (Ultimate) 31.090.0 Moisture Content (%) 23.7 B-1 @ 0-5' Characteristics Cohesion - psf (Peak)100 Sample Identification Shear Strength Angle of Friction - degrees (Peak) Cohesion - psf (Ultimate)75 32.5 C-12Figure No.:May - 2021 Rate of Shear 0.005 in/min Sample Type Remolded (83% RC) Date:8543-00 DIRECT SHEAR TEST File No.: 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000Shearing Stress (psf)Normal Stress (psf) PA2021-117 DATE: ATTENTION: Rob McCarthy       TO:       SUBJECT:       COMMENTS: James T. Keegan, MD Corrosion and Lab Services Section Manager TRANSMITTAL LETTER 8543-00 - 411 N Bay Front Enclosed are the results for the subject project.   23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150 Laboratory Test Data Newport Beach, CA 92660 April 20, 2021 Your #8543-00, HDR Lab #21-0325LAB R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 431 West Baseline Road ∙ Claremont, CA 91711 Phone: 909.962.5485 ∙ Fax: 909.626.3316 PA2021-117 Sample ID B-1 @ 0-5' Resistivity Units as-received ohm-cm 1,400 saturated ohm-cm 1,000 pH 7.6 Electrical Conductivity mS/cm 0.31 Chemical Analyses Cations calcium  Ca2+mg/kg 55 magnesium Mg2+mg/kg 43 sodium Na1+mg/kg 198 potassium K1+mg/kg 25 ammonium NH41+mg/kg 31 Anions carbonate CO32-mg/kg 39 bicarbonate HCO31-mg/kg 76 fluoride F1-mg/kg 2.5 chloride Cl1-mg/kg 215 sulfate SO42-mg/kg 238 nitrate NO31-mg/kg 1.9 phosphate PO43-mg/kg ND Other Tests sulfide S2-qual na Redox mV na Resistivity per ASTM G187, pH per ASTM G51, Cations per ASTM D6919, Anions per ASTM D4327, and Alkalinity per APHA 2320-B. Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analyses were made on a 1:5 soil-to-water extract. mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil. Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts ND = not detected na = not analyzed Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples 8543-00 - 411 N Bay Front Your #8543-00, HDR Lab #21-0325LAB 20-Apr-21 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 431 West Baseline Road ∙ Claremont, CA 91711 Phone: 909.962.5485 ∙ Fax: 909.626.3316 Page 2 of 2 PA2021-117 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 APPENDIX D STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES PA2021-117 APPENDIX D STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES (411 North Bay Front) R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 GENERAL These Guidelines present the usual and minimum requirements for grading operations observed by R McCarthy Consulting, Inc., (RMC), or its designated representative. No deviation from these guidelines will be allowed, except where specifically superseded in the geotechnical report signed by a registered geotechnical engineer. The placement, spreading, mixing, watering, and compaction of the fills in strict accordance with these guidelines shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor. The construction, excavation, and placement of fill shall be under the direct observation of the Geotechnical Engineer or any person or persons employed by the licensed Geotechnical Engineer signing the soils report. If unsatisfactory soil-related conditions exist, the Geotechnical Engineer shall have the authority to reject the compacted fill ground and, if necessary, excavation equipment will be shut down to permit completion of compaction. Conformance with these specifications will be discussed in the final report issued by the Geotechnical Engineer. SITE PREPARATION All brush, vegetation and other deleterious material such as rubbish shall be collected, piled and removed from the site prior to placing fill, leaving the site clear and free from objectionable material. Soil, alluvium, or rock materials determined by the Geotechnical Engineer as being unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall be removed from the site. Any material incorporated as part of a compacted fill must be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. The surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6-inches until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment used. After the area to receive fill has been cleared and scarified, it shall be disced or bladed by the contractor until it is uniform and free from large clods, brought to the proper moisture content and compacted to minimum requirements. If the scarified zone is greater than 12- inches in depth, the excess shall be removed and placed in lifts restricted to 6-inches. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipe lines or others not located prior to grading are to be removed or treated in a manner prescribed by the Geotechnical Engineer. MATERIALS Materials for compacted fill shall consist of materials previously approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. Fill materials may be excavated from the cut area or imported from other approved sources, and soils from one or more sources may be blended. Fill soils shall be free from organic (vegetation) materials and other unsuitable substances. Normally, the material shall contain no rocks or hard lumps greater than 6-inches in size and shall contain at least 50 percent of material smaller than 1/4-inch in size. Materials greater than 4-inches in size shall be PA2021-117 APPENDIX D STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES (411 North Bay Front) R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 placed so that they are completely surrounded by compacted fines; no nesting of rocks shall be permitted. No material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise of an unsuitable nature shall be used in the fill soils. Representative samples of materials to be utilized, as compacted fill shall be analyzed in the laboratory by the Geotechnical Engineer to determine their physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, the appropriate analysis of this material shall be conducted by the Geotechnical Engineer in a timely manner. PLACING, SPREADING, AND COMPACTING FILL MATERIAL Soil materials shall be uniformly and evenly processed, spread, watered, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed 6-inches in thickness. Achievement of a uniformly dense and uniformly moisture conditioned compacted soil layer should be the objective of the equipment operators performing the work for the Owner and Contractor. When the moisture content of the fill material is below that specified by the Geotechnical Engineer, water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is near optimum as specified. Moisture levels should generally be at optimum moisture content or greater. When the moisture content of the fill material is above that specified by the Geotechnical Engineer, the fill material shall be aerated by the Contractor by blading, mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is near the specified level. After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted to 90 percent of the maximum laboratory density in compliance with ASTM D1557 (five layers). Compaction shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of acceptable compacting equipment. Equipment shall be of such design that it will be able to compact the fill to the specified density. Compaction shall be continuous over the entire area and the equipment shall make sufficient passes to obtain the desired density uniformly. A minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finished slope face of all fill slopes will be required. Compacting of the slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling the slopes in increments of 2 to 5 feet in elevation gain or by overbuilding and cutting back to the compacted inner core, or by any other procedure, which produces the required compaction. GRADING OBSERVATIONS The Geotechnical Engineer shall observe the fill placement during the course of the grading process and will prepare a written report upon completion of grading. The compaction report shall make a statement as to compliance with these guidelines. As a minimum, one density test shall be required for each 2 vertical feet of fill placed, or 1 for each 1,000 cubic yards of fill, whichever requires the greater number of tests; however, testing should not be limited based on these guidelines and more testing is generally preferable. PA2021-117 APPENDIX D STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES (411 North Bay Front) R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Processed ground to receive fill, including removal areas such as canyon or swale cleanouts, must be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer and/or Engineering Geologist prior to fill placement. The Contractor shall notify the Geotechnical Engineer when these areas are ready for observation. UTILITY LINE BACKFILL Utility line backfill beneath and adjacent to structures; beneath pavements; adjacent and parallel to the toe of a slope; and in sloping surfaces steeper than ten horizontal to one vertical (10:1), shall be compacted and tested in accordance with the criteria given in the text of this report. Alternately, relatively self-compacting material may be used. The material specification and method of placement shall be recommended and observed by the Soil Engineer, and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and Building Official before use and prior to backfilling. Utility line backfill in areas other than those stated above are generally subject to similar compaction standards and will require approval by the Soil Engineer. The final utility line backfill report from the Project Soil Engineer shall include an approval statement that the backfill is suitable for the intended use. PROTECTION OF WORK During the grading process and prior to the complete construction of permanent drainage controls, it shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to provide good drainage and prevent ponding of water and damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. After the Geotechnical Engineer has finished observations of the completed grading, no further excavations and/or filling shall be performed without the approval of the Geotechnical Engineer. PA2021-117 APPENDIX E RESULTS OF LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES PA2021-117 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Table E-1 Results of Seismic Hazard Analyses Summary 411 N Bay Front RMC File No: 8543-00 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement Potential Smax Figure Condition Boring # (inches) E-1/E-2 Post Grading B-1 0.86 E-3/E-4 Post Grading B-2 0.86 Smax = Calculated seismically induced settlement of potential liquefiable and dry sand layers Please see the associated figures and spreadsheet for additional details. Computation: GeoAdvanced GeoSuite Software Version 2.4.2.21, developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE www.geoadvanced.com PA2021-117 Project:Location:Job Number: Boring No.: Enclosure:Liquefaction Potential - SPT DataLyman411 N Bay Front8543-00 B-1 E-1GeoSuite© Version 2.4.2.21. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GECopyright© 2002 - 2021 GeoAdvanced . All rights reserved _Commercial CopyPrepared at 5/14/2021 8:47:27 AMC:\Users\robma\RMC Costa Mesa Dropbox\Employee List\Expansion\Projects\8500-8599-00 RMC Project Files\8543-00 - 411 N. Bay Front, Balboa Island\Liquefaction\GeoSuite_8543-00_B-1.csvSMEarthquake & Groundwater Information:Magnitude = 7.2Max. Acceleration = 0.75 gProject GW = 5 ftMaximum Settlement = 0.86 inSettl. at Bottom of Footing = 0.86 inLiquefaction: Boulanger & Idriss (2010-16)Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu & Seed (1987)Lateral spreading: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)M correction: [Sand] Boulanger & Idriss(2004)σv correction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)Stress reduction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)SMSMUSCS02040N60|(N1)6004080DR(%)024OCRG000.51CSR7.5|CRR7.501FS15|FS50|FS85510Depth (ft)Project GWBoring GWBottom of FootingPA2021-117 Project:Location:Job Number: Boring No.: Enclosure:Seismic Settlement Potential - SPT DataLyman411 N Bay Front8543-00 B-1 E-2GeoSuite© Version 2.4.2.21. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GECopyright© 2002 - 2021 GeoAdvanced . All rights reserved _Commercial CopyPrepared at 5/14/2021 8:47:27 AMC:\Users\robma\RMC Costa Mesa Dropbox\Employee List\Expansion\Projects\8500-8599-00 RMC Project Files\8543-00 - 411 N. Bay Front, Balboa Island\Liquefaction\GeoSuite_8543-00_B-1.csvSMEarthquake & Groundwater Information:Magnitude = 7.2Max. Acceleration = 0.75 gProject GW = 5 ftMaximum Settlement = 0.86 inSettl. at Bottom of Footing = 0.86 inLiquefaction: Boulanger & Idriss (2010-16)Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu & Seed (1987)Lateral spreading: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)M correction: [Sand] Boulanger & Idriss(2004)σv correction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)Stress reduction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)SMSMUSCS02040N60|(N1)6004080DR(%)024OCRG000.51CSR7.5|CRR7.501FS15|FS50|FS85024γmax(%)Pd012εv(%)Pd0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8ΣSi(in)Pd510Depth (ft)Project GWBoring GWBottom of FootingPA2021-117 SPT Data Interpretation Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu Seed (1987) Z b(ft)Zm(ft)γ (pcf)N 60 FC(%)CC(%)USCS φ (°)C' (tsf)σ v0 (tsf)σ v0 ' (tsf)CN C s (N 1 )60 (N1 )60cs DR (%)V s (m/s)V s (ft/s)G0 (kPa) 0.50 0.25 100.0 19.9 23.0 0.0 12 38.9 0.0 0.01 0.01 1.7 1.0 33.8 38.7 86.2 252.5 828.4 102,119.3 1.00 0.75 100.0 19.9 23.0 0.0 12 38.9 0.0 0.04 0.04 1.7 1.0 33.8 38.7 86.2 251.1 824.0 101,037.3 1.50 1.25 100.0 19.9 23.0 0.0 12 38.9 0.0 0.06 0.06 1.7 1.0 33.8 38.7 86.2 249.9 819.8 100,004.8 2.00 1.75 100.0 19.9 23.0 0.0 12 38.9 0.0 0.09 0.09 1.7 1.0 33.8 38.7 86.2 248.6 815.7 99,018.2 2.50 2.25 100.0 19.9 23.0 0.0 12 38.9 0.0 0.11 0.11 1.7 1.0 33.8 38.7 86.2 247.4 811.8 98,074.0 3.00 2.75 100.0 19.9 23.0 0.0 12 38.9 0.0 0.14 0.14 1.7 1.0 33.8 38.7 86.2 246.3 808.1 97,169.4 3.50 3.25 100.0 19.9 23.0 0.0 12 38.9 0.0 0.16 0.16 1.7 1.0 33.8 38.7 86.2 245.2 804.4 96,301.4 4.00 3.75 100.0 19.9 23.0 0.0 12 38.9 0.0 0.19 0.19 1.7 1.0 33.8 38.7 86.2 244.1 800.9 95,467.8 4.50 4.25 100.0 19.9 23.0 0.0 12 38.9 0.0 0.21 0.21 1.7 1.0 33.8 38.7 86.2 243.1 797.6 94,666.3 5.00 4.75 100.0 19.9 23.0 0.0 12 38.7 0.0 0.24 0.24 1.7 1.0 33.1 38.0 85.5 242.1 794.3 93,894.8 5.50 5.25 100.0 19.9 23.0 0.0 12 38.6 0.0 0.26 0.25 1.6 1.0 32.5 37.4 84.8 241.4 792.1 93,380.4 5.70 5.60 100.0 19.9 23.0 0.0 12 38.5 0.0 0.28 0.26 1.6 1.0 32.3 37.2 84.6 241.2 791.3 93,187.1 6.20 5.95 100.0 4.8 23.0 0.0 12 29.7 0.0 0.30 0.27 1.7 1.0 8.1 13.0 50.0 198.5 651.2 63,115.9 6.70 6.45 100.0 4.8 23.0 0.0 12 29.7 0.0 0.32 0.28 1.7 1.0 8.1 13.0 50.0 198.3 650.5 62,975.0 7.20 6.95 100.0 4.8 23.0 0.0 12 29.7 0.0 0.35 0.29 1.7 1.0 8.1 13.0 50.0 198.1 649.9 62,857.6 7.50 7.35 100.0 4.8 23.0 0.0 12 29.7 0.0 0.37 0.29 1.7 1.0 8.2 13.1 50.2 198.2 650.4 62,953.4 8.00 7.75 100.0 11.5 23.0 0.0 12 34.6 0.0 0.39 0.30 1.7 1.0 19.5 24.4 68.4 221.2 725.8 78,403.7 8.50 8.25 100.0 11.6 23.0 0.0 12 34.7 0.0 0.41 0.31 1.7 1.0 19.8 24.7 68.9 221.4 726.4 78,532.8 9.00 8.75 100.0 11.8 23.0 0.0 12 34.8 0.0 0.44 0.32 1.7 1.0 20.0 24.9 69.1 221.6 726.9 78,636.5 9.50 9.25 100.0 11.9 23.0 0.0 12 34.8 0.0 0.46 0.33 1.7 1.0 20.0 24.9 69.1 221.7 727.3 78,718.0 10.00 9.75 100.0 11.2 15.0 0.0 12 34.3 0.0 0.49 0.34 1.7 1.0 18.8 22.0 65.1 215.5 707.1 74,397.4 10.10 10.05 100.0 11.3 15.0 0.0 12 34.3 0.0 0.50 0.34 1.7 1.0 18.7 22.0 65.1 215.6 707.2 74,425.7 GeoSuite© Version 2.4.2.21. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright© 2002 - 2021 GeoAdvanced™. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 5/14/2021 8:47:27 AM PA2021-117 SPT Data Interpretation Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu Seed (1987) Z b (ft)Z m(ft) 0.50 0.25 1.00 0.75 1.50 1.25 2.00 1.75 2.50 2.25 3.00 2.75 3.50 3.25 4.00 3.75 4.50 4.25 5.00 4.75 5.50 5.25 5.70 5.60 6.20 5.95 6.70 6.45 7.20 6.95 7.50 7.35 8.00 7.75 8.50 8.25 9.00 8.75 9.50 9.25 10.00 9.75 10.10 10.05 G 0 (tsf)σp ' (tsf)OCR G0 S u /σ v0'K0 r d MSF K σ K α CSR 7.5 CRR 7.5 FS τ av(tsf)p (tsf)G/G0 γ max (%)ε v (%) 1,066.4 0.06 5.0 1.0 1.00 1.12 1.10 1.00 0.39 1.30 0.01 0.01 0.6574 0.001 0.0000 1,055.1 0.19 5.0 1.0 1.00 1.12 1.10 1.00 0.39 1.30 0.02 0.04 0.3925 0.002 0.0000 1,044.3 0.31 5.0 1.0 1.00 1.12 1.10 1.00 0.39 1.30 0.03 0.06 0.2529 0.003 0.0000 1,034.0 0.44 5.0 1.0 1.00 1.12 1.10 1.00 0.39 1.30 0.04 0.09 0.1714 0.005 0.0000 1,024.2 0.56 5.0 1.0 1.00 1.12 1.10 1.00 0.39 1.30 0.05 0.11 0.1209 0.007 0.0000 1,014.7 0.69 5.0 1.0 0.99 1.12 1.10 1.00 0.39 1.30 0.07 0.14 0.0801 0.009 0.0000 1,005.6 0.81 5.0 1.0 0.99 1.12 1.10 1.00 0.39 1.30 0.08 0.16 0.0542 0.011 0.0000 996.9 0.94 5.0 1.0 0.99 1.12 1.10 1.00 0.39 1.30 0.09 0.19 0.0375 0.013 0.0000 988.6 1.06 5.0 1.0 0.99 1.12 1.10 1.00 0.39 1.30 0.10 0.22 0.0322 0.016 0.0000 980.5 1.19 5.0 1.0 0.99 1.12 1.10 1.00 0.39 1.30 0.11 0.24 0.0359 0.019 0.0000 975.1 1.27 5.0 1.0 0.99 1.12 1.10 1.00 0.40 1.30 2.00 0.13 0.26 0.000 0.0000 973.1 1.31 5.0 1.0 0.99 1.12 1.10 1.00 0.42 1.30 2.00 0.13 0.27 0.000 0.0000 659.1 1.26 4.7 1.1 0.99 1.03 1.10 1.00 0.47 0.14 0.30 0.14 0.28 5.322 2.1110 657.6 1.28 4.6 1.1 0.98 1.03 1.10 1.00 0.49 0.14 0.28 0.15 0.29 5.321 2.1109 656.4 1.30 4.5 1.1 0.98 1.03 1.10 1.00 0.51 0.14 0.27 0.17 0.30 5.321 2.1095 657.4 1.32 4.5 1.1 0.98 1.03 1.10 1.00 0.53 0.14 0.27 0.18 0.31 5.321 2.0970 818.7 1.49 4.9 1.1 0.98 1.07 1.10 1.00 0.52 0.28 0.53 0.19 0.32 5.204 1.2633 820.1 1.51 4.9 1.1 0.98 1.07 1.10 1.00 0.54 0.28 0.53 0.20 0.32 5.177 1.2428 821.2 1.54 4.8 1.1 0.98 1.07 1.10 1.00 0.55 0.29 0.52 0.21 0.33 5.158 1.2291 822.0 1.56 4.7 1.0 0.97 1.07 1.10 1.00 0.56 0.29 0.51 0.22 0.34 5.158 1.2294 776.9 1.54 4.5 1.0 0.97 1.06 1.10 1.00 0.58 0.23 0.40 0.23 0.34 5.328 1.4148 777.2 1.55 4.5 1.0 0.97 1.06 1.10 1.00 0.59 0.23 0.39 0.24 0.35 5.329 1.4156 GeoSuite© Version 2.4.2.21. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright© 2002 - 2021 GeoAdvanced™. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 5/14/2021 8:47:27 AM PA2021-117 SPT Data Interpretation Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu Seed (1987) Z b(ft)Zm (ft) 0.50 0.25 1.00 0.75 1.50 1.25 2.00 1.75 2.50 2.25 3.00 2.75 3.50 3.25 4.00 3.75 4.50 4.25 5.00 4.75 5.50 5.25 5.70 5.60 6.20 5.95 6.70 6.45 7.20 6.95 7.50 7.35 8.00 7.75 8.50 8.25 9.00 8.75 9.50 9.25 10.00 9.75 10.10 10.05 ΔSi ΣS i (in)ΔD i ΣDi (in)G 0 (tsf)Pd G/G 0Pd γ max (%)Pd ε v (%)Pd ΔS i ΣS i (in)Pd γ max (%)TS ε v (%)TS ΔS i ΣSi (in)TS 0.00 0.86 1,066.4 0.9297 0.001 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.001 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.86 1,055.1 0.8767 0.002 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.002 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.86 1,044.3 0.8362 0.003 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.004 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.86 1,034.0 0.8005 0.005 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.005 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.86 1,024.2 0.7674 0.007 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.008 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.86 1,014.7 0.7361 0.009 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.010 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.86 1,005.6 0.7063 0.011 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.012 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.86 996.9 0.6776 0.013 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.014 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.86 988.6 0.6499 0.016 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.017 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.86 980.5 0.6237 0.019 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.020 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.86 975.1 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.86 973.1 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.13 0.73 659.1 5.322 2.1110 0.13 0.73 5.322 2.1110 0.13 0.73 0.13 0.60 657.6 5.321 2.1109 0.13 0.60 5.321 2.1109 0.13 0.60 0.13 0.48 656.4 5.321 2.1095 0.13 0.48 5.321 2.1095 0.13 0.48 0.08 0.40 657.4 5.321 2.0970 0.08 0.40 5.321 2.0970 0.08 0.40 0.08 0.32 818.7 5.204 1.2633 0.08 0.32 5.204 1.2633 0.08 0.32 0.07 0.25 820.1 5.177 1.2428 0.07 0.25 5.177 1.2428 0.07 0.25 0.07 0.18 821.2 5.158 1.2291 0.07 0.18 5.158 1.2291 0.07 0.18 0.07 0.10 822.0 5.158 1.2294 0.07 0.10 5.158 1.2294 0.07 0.10 0.08 0.02 776.9 5.328 1.4148 0.08 0.02 5.328 1.4148 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.00 777.2 5.329 1.4156 0.02 0.00 5.329 1.4156 0.02 0.00 GeoSuite© Version 2.4.2.21. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright© 2002 - 2021 GeoAdvanced™. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 5/14/2021 8:47:27 AM PA2021-117 SPT Data Interpretation Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu Seed (1987) Z b(ft)Zm(ft) 0.50 0.25 1.00 0.75 1.50 1.25 2.00 1.75 2.50 2.25 3.00 2.75 3.50 3.25 4.00 3.75 4.50 4.25 5.00 4.75 5.50 5.25 5.70 5.60 6.20 5.95 6.70 6.45 7.20 6.95 7.50 7.35 8.00 7.75 8.50 8.25 9.00 8.75 9.50 9.25 10.00 9.75 10.10 10.05 γ max (%)Yi ε v (%)Yi ΔS i ΣS i (in)Yi γ max (%)UC ε v (%)UC ΔS i ΣSi (in)UC σ p ' (tsf)OCR Dr σ p ' (tsf)OCR N60 N1jpcs V s (m/s)Ad V s (m/s)UC 0.003 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.001 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.06 5.0 0.12 9.5 56.2 169.6 78.8 0.015 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.002 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.19 5.0 0.36 9.5 54.5 169.6 102.1 0.038 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.003 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.31 5.0 0.59 9.5 52.8 169.6 115.2 0.078 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.005 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.44 5.0 0.83 9.5 51.3 169.6 124.7 0.142 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.007 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.56 5.0 1.07 9.5 49.8 169.6 132.3 0.261 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.009 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.69 5.0 1.30 9.5 48.4 169.6 138.7 0.456 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.011 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.81 5.0 1.54 9.5 47.2 169.6 144.3 0.758 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.013 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.94 5.0 1.78 9.5 45.9 169.6 149.2 1.000 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.016 0.0000 0.00 0.86 1.06 5.0 2.01 9.5 44.8 169.6 153.7 1.000 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.019 0.0000 0.00 0.86 1.19 5.0 2.25 9.5 43.7 168.9 157.8 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.86 1.27 5.0 2.42 9.5 43.0 168.2 160.4 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.86 1.31 5.0 2.48 9.5 42.7 167.9 161.4 5.322 2.1110 0.13 0.73 5.322 2.1110 0.13 0.73 0.75 2.8 1.00 3.8 13.3 128.7 135.1 5.321 2.1109 0.13 0.60 5.321 2.1109 0.13 0.60 0.78 2.8 1.04 3.8 13.2 128.7 136.2 5.321 2.1095 0.13 0.48 5.321 2.1095 0.13 0.48 0.80 2.8 1.08 3.8 13.1 128.7 137.3 5.321 2.0970 0.08 0.40 5.321 2.0970 0.08 0.40 0.83 2.8 1.11 3.8 13.2 129.0 138.4 5.204 1.2633 0.08 0.32 5.204 1.2633 0.08 0.32 1.51 5.0 2.00 6.6 25.5 150.9 155.5 5.177 1.2428 0.07 0.25 5.177 1.2428 0.07 0.25 1.56 5.0 2.08 6.7 25.6 151.3 156.9 5.158 1.2291 0.07 0.18 5.158 1.2291 0.07 0.18 1.60 5.0 2.16 6.8 25.7 151.6 158.3 5.158 1.2294 0.07 0.10 5.158 1.2294 0.07 0.10 1.65 5.0 2.25 6.8 25.8 151.6 159.6 5.328 1.4148 0.08 0.02 5.328 1.4148 0.08 0.02 1.60 4.7 2.22 6.5 21.7 147.1 163.8 5.329 1.4156 0.02 0.00 5.329 1.4156 0.02 0.00 1.62 4.7 2.27 6.6 21.8 147.0 164.6 GeoSuite© Version 2.4.2.21. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright© 2002 - 2021 GeoAdvanced™. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 5/14/2021 8:47:27 AM PA2021-117 SPT Data Interpretation Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu Seed (1987) Z b (ft)Z m(ft) 0.50 0.25 1.00 0.75 1.50 1.25 2.00 1.75 2.50 2.25 3.00 2.75 3.50 3.25 4.00 3.75 4.50 4.25 5.00 4.75 5.50 5.25 5.70 5.60 6.20 5.95 6.70 6.45 7.20 6.95 7.50 7.35 8.00 7.75 8.50 8.25 9.00 8.75 9.50 9.25 10.00 9.75 10.10 10.05 V s (m/s)UCSa V s (m/s)UCSi Vs (m/s)UCCly Vs (m/s)WDall Vs (m/s)WDSa Vs (m/s)WDSiC p/p a V sp (m/s)Yi Vsv (m/s)Yi σ m' (tsf)Yi OCR Yi G 0(tsf)Yi LDI (in) 79.4 78.5 111.4 59.94 62.19 45.78 0.012 138.01 187.37 0.013 5.00 318.62 103.3 101.0 133.4 81.09 80.06 65.07 0.036 138.01 187.37 0.038 5.00 318.62 116.7 113.6 145.0 93.31 90.04 76.62 0.060 138.01 187.37 0.063 5.00 318.62 126.5 122.7 153.3 102.36 97.29 85.33 0.084 138.01 187.37 0.089 5.00 318.62 134.3 130.0 159.7 109.69 103.08 92.48 0.108 138.01 187.37 0.114 5.00 318.62 140.9 136.1 165.1 115.91 107.95 98.61 0.132 138.01 187.37 0.134 4.57 318.62 146.6 141.5 169.6 121.36 112.18 104.03 0.156 138.01 187.37 0.154 4.22 318.62 151.7 146.2 173.7 126.23 115.93 108.90 0.180 138.01 187.37 0.172 3.94 318.62 156.4 150.5 177.3 130.65 119.32 113.35 0.204 138.01 187.37 0.191 3.71 318.62 160.6 154.4 180.5 134.71 122.41 117.46 0.228 138.01 187.37 0.209 3.52 318.62 163.3 156.9 182.6 137.32 124.39 120.11 0.245 138.01 187.37 0.222 3.40 318.62 164.3 157.8 183.4 138.29 125.12 121.10 0.252 138.01 187.37 0.227 3.36 318.62 144.1 122.9 132.6 102.45 90.63 95.77 0.268 135.93 166.42 0.251 3.27 309.07 145.3 123.9 133.4 103.42 91.35 96.83 0.276 137.67 166.42 0.260 3.26 317.04 146.5 124.9 134.1 104.41 92.09 97.90 0.283 139.38 166.44 0.268 3.25 324.97 147.6 126.0 135.2 105.48 92.94 98.95 0.289 140.73 166.63 0.275 3.24 331.30 161.3 147.8 165.4 127.80 113.94 115.47 0.298 142.02 178.99 0.270 3.23 337.38 162.7 149.2 166.8 129.30 115.15 116.91 0.306 143.61 179.21 0.277 3.21 344.97 164.1 150.6 168.2 130.76 116.31 118.31 0.313 145.18 179.42 0.285 3.20 352.59 165.4 152.0 169.5 132.17 117.43 119.67 0.321 146.78 179.61 0.293 3.19 360.37 165.5 151.3 167.9 131.42 116.52 119.48 0.326 146.41 174.32 0.301 3.14 358.59 166.3 152.0 168.6 132.21 117.14 120.25 0.330 147.33 174.41 0.306 3.13 363.08 GeoSuite© Version 2.4.2.21. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright© 2002 - 2021 GeoAdvanced™. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 5/14/2021 8:47:27 AM PA2021-117 SPT Data Interpretation Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu Seed (1987) Z b(ft)Zm(ft) 0.50 0.25 1.00 0.75 1.50 1.25 2.00 1.75 2.50 2.25 3.00 2.75 3.50 3.25 4.00 3.75 4.50 4.25 5.00 4.75 5.50 5.25 5.70 5.60 6.20 5.95 6.70 6.45 7.20 6.95 7.50 7.35 8.00 7.75 8.50 8.25 9.00 8.75 9.50 9.25 10.00 9.75 10.10 10.05 FS50 FS 85 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.34 0.38 0.32 0.37 0.31 0.35 0.30 0.35 0.60 0.69 0.60 0.68 0.59 0.68 0.58 0.66 0.45 0.52 0.45 0.51 GeoSuite© Version 2.4.2.21. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright© 2002 - 2021 GeoAdvanced™. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 5/14/2021 8:47:27 AM PA2021-117 Project:Location:Job Number: Boring No.: Enclosure:Liquefaction Potential - SPT DataLyman411 N Bay Front8543-00 B-2 E-3GeoSuite© Version 2.4.2.21. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GECopyright© 2002 - 2021 GeoAdvanced . All rights reserved _Commercial CopyPrepared at 5/14/2021 8:54:00 AMC:\Users\robma\RMC Costa Mesa Dropbox\Employee List\Expansion\Projects\8500-8599-00 RMC Project Files\8543-00 - 411 N. Bay Front, Balboa Island\Liquefaction\B-2\GeoSuite_8543-00_B-2.csvSMEarthquake & Groundwater Information:Magnitude = 7.2Max. Acceleration = 0.75 gProject GW = 5 ftMaximum Settlement = 0.86 inSettl. at Bottom of Footing = 0.86 inLiquefaction: Boulanger & Idriss (2010-16)Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu & Seed (1987)Lateral spreading: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)M correction: [Sand] Boulanger & Idriss(2004)σv correction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)Stress reduction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)SMSMUSCS02040N60|(N1)6004080DR(%)024OCRG000.51CSR7.5|CRR7.501FS15|FS50|FS85510Depth (ft)Project GWBoring GWBottom of FootingPA2021-117 Project:Location:Job Number: Boring No.: Enclosure:Seismic Settlement Potential - SPT DataLyman411 N Bay Front8543-00 B-2 E-4GeoSuite© Version 2.4.2.21. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GECopyright© 2002 - 2021 GeoAdvanced . All rights reserved _Commercial CopyPrepared at 5/14/2021 8:54:00 AMC:\Users\robma\RMC Costa Mesa Dropbox\Employee List\Expansion\Projects\8500-8599-00 RMC Project Files\8543-00 - 411 N. Bay Front, Balboa Island\Liquefaction\B-2\GeoSuite_8543-00_B-2.csvSMEarthquake & Groundwater Information:Magnitude = 7.2Max. Acceleration = 0.75 gProject GW = 5 ftMaximum Settlement = 0.86 inSettl. at Bottom of Footing = 0.86 inLiquefaction: Boulanger & Idriss (2010-16)Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu & Seed (1987)Lateral spreading: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)M correction: [Sand] Boulanger & Idriss(2004)σv correction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)Stress reduction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)SMSMUSCS02040N60|(N1)6004080DR(%)024OCRG000.51CSR7.5|CRR7.501FS15|FS50|FS85024γmax(%)Pd012εv(%)Pd0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8ΣSi(in)Pd510Depth (ft)Project GWBoring GWBottom of FootingPA2021-117 SPT Data Interpretation Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu Seed (1987) Z b(ft)Zm(ft)γ (pcf)N 60 FC(%)CC(%)USCS φ (°)C' (tsf)σ v0 (tsf)σ v0 ' (tsf)CN C s (N 1 )60 (N1 )60cs DR (%)V s (m/s)V s (ft/s)G0 (kPa) 0.50 0.25 100.0 19.9 23.0 0.0 12 38.9 0.0 0.01 0.01 1.7 1.0 33.8 38.7 86.2 252.5 828.4 102,119.3 1.00 0.75 100.0 19.9 23.0 0.0 12 38.9 0.0 0.04 0.04 1.7 1.0 33.8 38.7 86.2 251.1 824.0 101,037.3 1.50 1.25 100.0 19.9 23.0 0.0 12 38.9 0.0 0.06 0.06 1.7 1.0 33.8 38.7 86.2 249.9 819.8 100,004.8 2.00 1.75 100.0 19.9 23.0 0.0 12 38.9 0.0 0.09 0.09 1.7 1.0 33.8 38.7 86.2 248.6 815.7 99,018.2 2.50 2.25 100.0 19.9 23.0 0.0 12 38.9 0.0 0.11 0.11 1.7 1.0 33.8 38.7 86.2 247.4 811.8 98,074.0 3.00 2.75 100.0 19.9 23.0 0.0 12 38.9 0.0 0.14 0.14 1.7 1.0 33.8 38.7 86.2 246.3 808.1 97,169.4 3.50 3.25 100.0 19.9 23.0 0.0 12 38.9 0.0 0.16 0.16 1.7 1.0 33.8 38.7 86.2 245.2 804.4 96,301.4 4.00 3.75 100.0 19.9 23.0 0.0 12 38.9 0.0 0.19 0.19 1.7 1.0 33.8 38.7 86.2 244.1 800.9 95,467.8 4.50 4.25 100.0 19.9 23.0 0.0 12 38.9 0.0 0.21 0.21 1.7 1.0 33.8 38.7 86.2 243.1 797.6 94,666.3 5.00 4.75 100.0 19.9 23.0 0.0 12 38.7 0.0 0.24 0.24 1.7 1.0 33.1 38.0 85.5 242.1 794.3 93,894.8 5.50 5.25 100.0 19.9 23.0 0.0 12 38.6 0.0 0.26 0.25 1.6 1.0 32.5 37.4 84.8 241.4 792.1 93,380.4 5.70 5.60 100.0 19.9 23.0 0.0 12 38.5 0.0 0.28 0.26 1.6 1.0 32.3 37.2 84.6 241.2 791.3 93,187.1 6.20 5.95 100.0 4.8 23.0 0.0 12 29.7 0.0 0.30 0.27 1.7 1.0 8.1 13.0 50.0 198.5 651.2 63,115.9 6.70 6.45 100.0 4.8 23.0 0.0 12 29.7 0.0 0.32 0.28 1.7 1.0 8.1 13.0 50.0 198.3 650.5 62,975.0 7.20 6.95 100.0 4.8 23.0 0.0 12 29.7 0.0 0.35 0.29 1.7 1.0 8.1 13.0 50.0 198.1 649.9 62,857.6 7.50 7.35 100.0 4.8 23.0 0.0 12 29.7 0.0 0.37 0.29 1.7 1.0 8.2 13.1 50.2 198.2 650.4 62,953.4 8.00 7.75 100.0 11.5 23.0 0.0 12 34.6 0.0 0.39 0.30 1.7 1.0 19.5 24.4 68.4 221.2 725.8 78,403.7 8.50 8.25 100.0 11.6 23.0 0.0 12 34.7 0.0 0.41 0.31 1.7 1.0 19.8 24.7 68.9 221.4 726.4 78,532.8 9.00 8.75 100.0 11.8 23.0 0.0 12 34.8 0.0 0.44 0.32 1.7 1.0 20.0 24.9 69.1 221.6 726.9 78,636.5 9.50 9.25 100.0 11.9 23.0 0.0 12 34.8 0.0 0.46 0.33 1.7 1.0 20.0 24.9 69.1 221.7 727.3 78,718.0 10.00 9.75 100.0 11.2 15.0 0.0 12 34.3 0.0 0.49 0.34 1.7 1.0 18.8 22.0 65.1 215.5 707.1 74,397.4 10.10 10.05 100.0 11.3 15.0 0.0 12 34.3 0.0 0.50 0.34 1.7 1.0 18.7 22.0 65.1 215.6 707.2 74,425.7 GeoSuite© Version 2.4.2.21. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright© 2002 - 2021 GeoAdvanced™. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 5/14/2021 8:54:00 AM PA2021-117 SPT Data Interpretation Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu Seed (1987) Z b (ft)Z m(ft) 0.50 0.25 1.00 0.75 1.50 1.25 2.00 1.75 2.50 2.25 3.00 2.75 3.50 3.25 4.00 3.75 4.50 4.25 5.00 4.75 5.50 5.25 5.70 5.60 6.20 5.95 6.70 6.45 7.20 6.95 7.50 7.35 8.00 7.75 8.50 8.25 9.00 8.75 9.50 9.25 10.00 9.75 10.10 10.05 G 0 (tsf)σp ' (tsf)OCR G0 S u /σ v0'K0 r d MSF K σ K α CSR 7.5 CRR 7.5 FS τ av(tsf)p (tsf)G/G0 γ max (%)ε v (%) 1,066.4 0.06 5.0 1.0 1.00 1.12 1.10 1.00 0.39 1.30 0.01 0.01 0.6574 0.001 0.0000 1,055.1 0.19 5.0 1.0 1.00 1.12 1.10 1.00 0.39 1.30 0.02 0.04 0.3925 0.002 0.0000 1,044.3 0.31 5.0 1.0 1.00 1.12 1.10 1.00 0.39 1.30 0.03 0.06 0.2529 0.003 0.0000 1,034.0 0.44 5.0 1.0 1.00 1.12 1.10 1.00 0.39 1.30 0.04 0.09 0.1714 0.005 0.0000 1,024.2 0.56 5.0 1.0 1.00 1.12 1.10 1.00 0.39 1.30 0.05 0.11 0.1209 0.007 0.0000 1,014.7 0.69 5.0 1.0 0.99 1.12 1.10 1.00 0.39 1.30 0.07 0.14 0.0801 0.009 0.0000 1,005.6 0.81 5.0 1.0 0.99 1.12 1.10 1.00 0.39 1.30 0.08 0.16 0.0542 0.011 0.0000 996.9 0.94 5.0 1.0 0.99 1.12 1.10 1.00 0.39 1.30 0.09 0.19 0.0375 0.013 0.0000 988.6 1.06 5.0 1.0 0.99 1.12 1.10 1.00 0.39 1.30 0.10 0.22 0.0322 0.016 0.0000 980.5 1.19 5.0 1.0 0.99 1.12 1.10 1.00 0.39 1.30 0.11 0.24 0.0359 0.019 0.0000 975.1 1.27 5.0 1.0 0.99 1.12 1.10 1.00 0.40 1.30 2.00 0.13 0.26 0.000 0.0000 973.1 1.31 5.0 1.0 0.99 1.12 1.10 1.00 0.42 1.30 2.00 0.13 0.27 0.000 0.0000 659.1 1.26 4.7 1.1 0.99 1.03 1.10 1.00 0.47 0.14 0.30 0.14 0.28 5.322 2.1110 657.6 1.28 4.6 1.1 0.98 1.03 1.10 1.00 0.49 0.14 0.28 0.15 0.29 5.321 2.1109 656.4 1.30 4.5 1.1 0.98 1.03 1.10 1.00 0.51 0.14 0.27 0.17 0.30 5.321 2.1095 657.4 1.32 4.5 1.1 0.98 1.03 1.10 1.00 0.53 0.14 0.27 0.18 0.31 5.321 2.0970 818.7 1.49 4.9 1.1 0.98 1.07 1.10 1.00 0.52 0.28 0.53 0.19 0.32 5.204 1.2633 820.1 1.51 4.9 1.1 0.98 1.07 1.10 1.00 0.54 0.28 0.53 0.20 0.32 5.177 1.2428 821.2 1.54 4.8 1.1 0.98 1.07 1.10 1.00 0.55 0.29 0.52 0.21 0.33 5.158 1.2291 822.0 1.56 4.7 1.0 0.97 1.07 1.10 1.00 0.56 0.29 0.51 0.22 0.34 5.158 1.2294 776.9 1.54 4.5 1.0 0.97 1.06 1.10 1.00 0.58 0.23 0.40 0.23 0.34 5.328 1.4148 777.2 1.55 4.5 1.0 0.97 1.06 1.10 1.00 0.59 0.23 0.39 0.24 0.35 5.329 1.4156 GeoSuite© Version 2.4.2.21. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright© 2002 - 2021 GeoAdvanced™. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 5/14/2021 8:54:00 AM PA2021-117 SPT Data Interpretation Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu Seed (1987) Z b(ft)Zm (ft) 0.50 0.25 1.00 0.75 1.50 1.25 2.00 1.75 2.50 2.25 3.00 2.75 3.50 3.25 4.00 3.75 4.50 4.25 5.00 4.75 5.50 5.25 5.70 5.60 6.20 5.95 6.70 6.45 7.20 6.95 7.50 7.35 8.00 7.75 8.50 8.25 9.00 8.75 9.50 9.25 10.00 9.75 10.10 10.05 ΔSi ΣS i (in)ΔD i ΣDi (in)G 0 (tsf)Pd G/G 0Pd γ max (%)Pd ε v (%)Pd ΔS i ΣS i (in)Pd γ max (%)TS ε v (%)TS ΔS i ΣSi (in)TS 0.00 0.86 1,066.4 0.9297 0.001 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.001 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.86 1,055.1 0.8767 0.002 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.002 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.86 1,044.3 0.8362 0.003 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.004 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.86 1,034.0 0.8005 0.005 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.005 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.86 1,024.2 0.7674 0.007 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.008 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.86 1,014.7 0.7361 0.009 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.010 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.86 1,005.6 0.7063 0.011 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.012 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.86 996.9 0.6776 0.013 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.014 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.86 988.6 0.6499 0.016 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.017 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.86 980.5 0.6237 0.019 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.020 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.86 975.1 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.86 973.1 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.13 0.73 659.1 5.322 2.1110 0.13 0.73 5.322 2.1110 0.13 0.73 0.13 0.60 657.6 5.321 2.1109 0.13 0.60 5.321 2.1109 0.13 0.60 0.13 0.48 656.4 5.321 2.1095 0.13 0.48 5.321 2.1095 0.13 0.48 0.08 0.40 657.4 5.321 2.0970 0.08 0.40 5.321 2.0970 0.08 0.40 0.08 0.32 818.7 5.204 1.2633 0.08 0.32 5.204 1.2633 0.08 0.32 0.07 0.25 820.1 5.177 1.2428 0.07 0.25 5.177 1.2428 0.07 0.25 0.07 0.18 821.2 5.158 1.2291 0.07 0.18 5.158 1.2291 0.07 0.18 0.07 0.10 822.0 5.158 1.2294 0.07 0.10 5.158 1.2294 0.07 0.10 0.08 0.02 776.9 5.328 1.4148 0.08 0.02 5.328 1.4148 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.00 777.2 5.329 1.4156 0.02 0.00 5.329 1.4156 0.02 0.00 GeoSuite© Version 2.4.2.21. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright© 2002 - 2021 GeoAdvanced™. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 5/14/2021 8:54:00 AM PA2021-117 SPT Data Interpretation Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu Seed (1987) Z b(ft)Zm(ft) 0.50 0.25 1.00 0.75 1.50 1.25 2.00 1.75 2.50 2.25 3.00 2.75 3.50 3.25 4.00 3.75 4.50 4.25 5.00 4.75 5.50 5.25 5.70 5.60 6.20 5.95 6.70 6.45 7.20 6.95 7.50 7.35 8.00 7.75 8.50 8.25 9.00 8.75 9.50 9.25 10.00 9.75 10.10 10.05 γ max (%)Yi ε v (%)Yi ΔS i ΣS i (in)Yi γ max (%)UC ε v (%)UC ΔS i ΣSi (in)UC σ p ' (tsf)OCR Dr σ p ' (tsf)OCR N60 N1jpcs V s (m/s)Ad V s (m/s)UC 0.003 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.001 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.06 5.0 0.12 9.5 56.2 169.6 78.8 0.015 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.002 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.19 5.0 0.36 9.5 54.5 169.6 102.1 0.038 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.003 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.31 5.0 0.59 9.5 52.8 169.6 115.2 0.078 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.005 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.44 5.0 0.83 9.5 51.3 169.6 124.7 0.142 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.007 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.56 5.0 1.07 9.5 49.8 169.6 132.3 0.261 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.009 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.69 5.0 1.30 9.5 48.4 169.6 138.7 0.456 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.011 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.81 5.0 1.54 9.5 47.2 169.6 144.3 0.758 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.013 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.94 5.0 1.78 9.5 45.9 169.6 149.2 1.000 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.016 0.0000 0.00 0.86 1.06 5.0 2.01 9.5 44.8 169.6 153.7 1.000 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.019 0.0000 0.00 0.86 1.19 5.0 2.25 9.5 43.7 168.9 157.8 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.86 1.27 5.0 2.42 9.5 43.0 168.2 160.4 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.86 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.86 1.31 5.0 2.48 9.5 42.7 167.9 161.4 5.322 2.1110 0.13 0.73 5.322 2.1110 0.13 0.73 0.75 2.8 1.00 3.8 13.3 128.7 135.1 5.321 2.1109 0.13 0.60 5.321 2.1109 0.13 0.60 0.78 2.8 1.04 3.8 13.2 128.7 136.2 5.321 2.1095 0.13 0.48 5.321 2.1095 0.13 0.48 0.80 2.8 1.08 3.8 13.1 128.7 137.3 5.321 2.0970 0.08 0.40 5.321 2.0970 0.08 0.40 0.83 2.8 1.11 3.8 13.2 129.0 138.4 5.204 1.2633 0.08 0.32 5.204 1.2633 0.08 0.32 1.51 5.0 2.00 6.6 25.5 150.9 155.5 5.177 1.2428 0.07 0.25 5.177 1.2428 0.07 0.25 1.56 5.0 2.08 6.7 25.6 151.3 156.9 5.158 1.2291 0.07 0.18 5.158 1.2291 0.07 0.18 1.60 5.0 2.16 6.8 25.7 151.6 158.3 5.158 1.2294 0.07 0.10 5.158 1.2294 0.07 0.10 1.65 5.0 2.25 6.8 25.8 151.6 159.6 5.328 1.4148 0.08 0.02 5.328 1.4148 0.08 0.02 1.60 4.7 2.22 6.5 21.7 147.1 163.8 5.329 1.4156 0.02 0.00 5.329 1.4156 0.02 0.00 1.62 4.7 2.27 6.6 21.8 147.0 164.6 GeoSuite© Version 2.4.2.21. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright© 2002 - 2021 GeoAdvanced™. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 5/14/2021 8:54:00 AM PA2021-117 SPT Data Interpretation Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu Seed (1987) Z b (ft)Z m(ft) 0.50 0.25 1.00 0.75 1.50 1.25 2.00 1.75 2.50 2.25 3.00 2.75 3.50 3.25 4.00 3.75 4.50 4.25 5.00 4.75 5.50 5.25 5.70 5.60 6.20 5.95 6.70 6.45 7.20 6.95 7.50 7.35 8.00 7.75 8.50 8.25 9.00 8.75 9.50 9.25 10.00 9.75 10.10 10.05 V s (m/s)UCSa V s (m/s)UCSi Vs (m/s)UCCly Vs (m/s)WDall Vs (m/s)WDSa Vs (m/s)WDSiC p/p a V sp (m/s)Yi Vsv (m/s)Yi σ m' (tsf)Yi OCR Yi G 0(tsf)Yi LDI (in) 79.4 78.5 111.4 59.94 62.19 45.78 0.012 138.01 187.37 0.013 5.00 318.62 103.3 101.0 133.4 81.09 80.06 65.07 0.036 138.01 187.37 0.038 5.00 318.62 116.7 113.6 145.0 93.31 90.04 76.62 0.060 138.01 187.37 0.063 5.00 318.62 126.5 122.7 153.3 102.36 97.29 85.33 0.084 138.01 187.37 0.089 5.00 318.62 134.3 130.0 159.7 109.69 103.08 92.48 0.108 138.01 187.37 0.114 5.00 318.62 140.9 136.1 165.1 115.91 107.95 98.61 0.132 138.01 187.37 0.134 4.57 318.62 146.6 141.5 169.6 121.36 112.18 104.03 0.156 138.01 187.37 0.154 4.22 318.62 151.7 146.2 173.7 126.23 115.93 108.90 0.180 138.01 187.37 0.172 3.94 318.62 156.4 150.5 177.3 130.65 119.32 113.35 0.204 138.01 187.37 0.191 3.71 318.62 160.6 154.4 180.5 134.71 122.41 117.46 0.228 138.01 187.37 0.209 3.52 318.62 163.3 156.9 182.6 137.32 124.39 120.11 0.245 138.01 187.37 0.222 3.40 318.62 164.3 157.8 183.4 138.29 125.12 121.10 0.252 138.01 187.37 0.227 3.36 318.62 144.1 122.9 132.6 102.45 90.63 95.77 0.268 135.93 166.42 0.251 3.27 309.07 145.3 123.9 133.4 103.42 91.35 96.83 0.276 137.67 166.42 0.260 3.26 317.04 146.5 124.9 134.1 104.41 92.09 97.90 0.283 139.38 166.44 0.268 3.25 324.97 147.6 126.0 135.2 105.48 92.94 98.95 0.289 140.73 166.63 0.275 3.24 331.30 161.3 147.8 165.4 127.80 113.94 115.47 0.298 142.02 178.99 0.270 3.23 337.38 162.7 149.2 166.8 129.30 115.15 116.91 0.306 143.61 179.21 0.277 3.21 344.97 164.1 150.6 168.2 130.76 116.31 118.31 0.313 145.18 179.42 0.285 3.20 352.59 165.4 152.0 169.5 132.17 117.43 119.67 0.321 146.78 179.61 0.293 3.19 360.37 165.5 151.3 167.9 131.42 116.52 119.48 0.326 146.41 174.32 0.301 3.14 358.59 166.3 152.0 168.6 132.21 117.14 120.25 0.330 147.33 174.41 0.306 3.13 363.08 GeoSuite© Version 2.4.2.21. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright© 2002 - 2021 GeoAdvanced™. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 5/14/2021 8:54:00 AM PA2021-117 SPT Data Interpretation Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu Seed (1987) Z b(ft)Zm(ft) 0.50 0.25 1.00 0.75 1.50 1.25 2.00 1.75 2.50 2.25 3.00 2.75 3.50 3.25 4.00 3.75 4.50 4.25 5.00 4.75 5.50 5.25 5.70 5.60 6.20 5.95 6.70 6.45 7.20 6.95 7.50 7.35 8.00 7.75 8.50 8.25 9.00 8.75 9.50 9.25 10.00 9.75 10.10 10.05 FS50 FS 85 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.34 0.38 0.32 0.37 0.31 0.35 0.30 0.35 0.60 0.69 0.60 0.68 0.59 0.68 0.58 0.66 0.45 0.52 0.45 0.51 GeoSuite© Version 2.4.2.21. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright© 2002 - 2021 GeoAdvanced™. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 5/14/2021 8:54:00 AM PA2021-117 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone 949-629-2539 APPENDIX F SEISMICITY DATA PA2021-117 ASCE 7 Hazards Report Address: 411 N Bayfront Newport Beach, California 92662 Standard:ASCE/SEI 7-16 Risk Category:II Soil Class:D - Default (see Section 11.4.3) Elevation:7.26 ft (NAVD 88) Latitude: Longitude: 33.608345 -117.896691 Page 1 of 3https://asce7hazardtool.online/Fri May 14 2021 PA2021-117 SS : 1.383 S1 : 0.491 Fa : 1.2 Fv : N/A SMS : 1.659 SM1 : N/A SDS : 1.106 SD1 : N/A TL : 8 PGA : 0.605 PGA M : 0.726 FPGA : 1.2 Ie : 1 Cv : 1.377 Seismic Site Soil Class: Results: Data Accessed: Date Source: D - Default (see Section 11.4.3) USGS Seismic Design Maps Ground motion hazard analysis may be required. See ASCE/SEI 7-16 Section 11.4.8. Fri May 14 2021 Page 2 of 3https://asce7hazardtool.online/Fri May 14 2021 PA2021-117 The ASCE 7 Hazard Tool is provided for your convenience, for informational purposes only, and is provided “as is” and without warranties of any kind. The location data included herein has been obtained from information developed, produced, and maintained by third party providers; or has been extrapolated from maps incorporated in the ASCE 7 standard. While ASCE has made every effort to use data obtained from reliable sources or methodologies, ASCE does not make any representations or warranties as to the accuracy, completeness, reliability, currency, or quality of any data provided herein. Any third-party links provided by this Tool should not be construed as an endorsement, affiliation, relationship, or sponsorship of such third-party content by or from ASCE. ASCE does not intend, nor should anyone interpret, the results provided by this Tool to replace the sound judgment of a competent professional, having knowledge and experience in the appropriate field(s) of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting and applying the contents of this Tool or the ASCE 7 standard. In using this Tool, you expressly assume all risks associated with your use. Under no circumstances shall ASCE or its officers, directors, employees, members, affiliates, or agents be liable to you or any other person for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages arising from or related to your use of, or reliance on, the Tool or any information obtained therein. To the fullest extent permitted by law, you agree to release and hold harmless ASCE from any and all liability of any nature arising out of or resulting from any use of data provided by the ASCE 7 Hazard Tool. Page 3 of 3https://asce7hazardtool.online/Fri May 14 2021 PA2021-117