040423 CED Pointe Common Affordable Housing Geotechnical Investigation — City Council - Successor Agency

(818) 994-8895
www.GeoConceptsInc.com
14428 Hamlin St., Suite 200, Van Nuys, CA 91401 + 22601 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 235, Malibu, CA 92065

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL

ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION

Proposed Apartment Building

1600 West Commonwealth Avenue
Fullerton, CA

for

Meta Housing Corporation
11150 West Olympic Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90064

Project 22-02182

August 23, 2022

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 SCOPE ......................................................................................................................................... 1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................... 1 SITE DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................... 2 Location and Description .......................................................................................................... 2 Drainage ................................................................................................................................... 2 Groundwater ............................................................................................................................. 2 FIELD EXPLORATION ................................................................................................................. 2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ........................................................................................................... 3 Stratigraphy .............................................................................................................................. 3 Artificial Fill (Af) .................................................................................................................... 3 Quaternary Alluvium (Qal) .................................................................................................... 3 Excavation Characteristics ....................................................................................................... 3 Landslides ................................................................................................................................ 3 Seismic Hazards ...................................................................................................................... 4 Seismic Effects ..................................................................................................................... 4 Ground Rupture ............................................................................................................... 4 Ground Shaking ............................................................................................................... 4 Tsunamis & Seiches ........................................................................................................ 5 Earthquake Induced Landslides ....................................................................................... 6 Liquefaction ..................................................................................................................... 6 Seismically Induced Settlements ..................................................................................... 8 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................... 9 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................ 9 Specific ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Drainage and Maintenance ...................................................................................................... 9 Grading and Earthwork .......................................................................................................... 11 Flatland Grading ..................................................................................................................... 11 Foundations ............................................................................................................................ 12 Foundations ............................................................................................................................ 13 Settlement .............................................................................................................................. 14 Expansive Soils ...................................................................................................................... 14 Excavations ............................................................................................................................ 15 Excavations Maintenance – Erosion Control .......................................................................... 15 Slabs on Grade ...................................................................................................................... 16 Decking .................................................................................................................................. 17 REVIEWS ................................................................................................................................... 17 Plan Review and Plan Notes .................................................................................................. 17 Construction Review .............................................................................................................. 18 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................. 18 General ................................................................................................................................... 18 CONSTRUCTION NOTICE ........................................................................................................ 19

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I SITE INFORMATION

LOCATION MAP

GROUNDWATER MAP

USGS FAULT MAP

SEISMIC HAZARD MAP

PLOT MAP

FIELD EXPLORATION
BORINGS 1 THROUGH 4

APPENDIX II LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
LABORATORY RECAPITULATION - TABLE 1
LABORATORY RECAPITULATION - TABLE 2
FIGURES S.1 THROUGH S.3
FIGURES C.1 THROUGH C.11
FIGURES SV.1 THROUGH SV.4
FIGURE ATT. 1

APPENDIX III ANALYSES

L A T E R A L

LIQUEFACTION

SEISMIC EVALUATION

APPENDIX IV REFERENCES

August 23, 2022 Page 1
Project 22-02182

INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation on a portion of the subject property. The purpose of this investiga tion has been to ascertain the subsurface conditions pertaining to the proposed project. The work performed for the project included reconnaissance mapping, description of earth materials , obtaining representative samples of earth materials, laboratory testing, engineering ana lyses, and preparation of this report. Results of the project include findings, conclusions, and appropriate recommendations.

SCOPE

The scope of this investigation included the following:

 Review of preliminary plans by the client.
 Review of four borings. Explorations were backfilled with the excavated materials but not compacted.
 Preparation of the enclosed Plot Map, (see Appendix I).  Sampling of representative earth materials, laboratory testing , and engineering analyses (see Appendix II).
 Review of referenced materials (see Appendix V).
 Presentation of findings, conclusions, and recommendations for the proposed project.

Hahn & Associates, Inc. prepar ed the topographic base map utili zed in this investigation.

Preliminary building plans were prepared by studioneleven and i ncorporated onto the base map for this investigation.

The scope of this investigation is limited to the project area explored as depicted on the Plot Map. This report has not been pr epared for use by other partie s or for purposes other than the proposed project. GeoConcepts, Inc. should be consulted to dete rmine if additional work is required when our work is used by others or if the scope of the project has changed. If the project is delayed for more than one year, this office should b e contacted to verify the current site conditions and to prepare an update report.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
It is our understanding that the site will be developed with a three story at grade apartment building. Anticipated foundations will range from 4 to 5 kips p er lineal foot and 100-200 kips for column foundations. The proposed development is depicted on the enclosed Plot Map.

Grading will consist of conventional cut and fill methods. Fin al plans have not been prepared and await the conclusions and recommendations of this investiga tion. These plans should be reviewed by GeoConcepts, Inc. to ensure that our recommendations have been followed.

August 23, 2022 Page 2
Project 22-02182

SITE DESCRIPTION
Location and Description
Access to the property is via Commonwealth Avenue from Basque Avenue (see Location Map in Appendix I). The site is developed with a parking area and is otherwise vacant and generally unimproved.

The pad has a light growth of vegetation consisting of grasses, lawn areas, shrubs and trees.

Adjacent sites are developed wi th a gas station and parking are a to the east, bounded by Commonwealth Avenue to the nort h, and a rail line to the south and west. Adjacent structures to the east are greater than 20 feet from the property line.

Drainage

Surface water at the site consists of direct precipitation onto the property. Much of this water drains as sheet flow down descending slopes to low-lying areas, offsite, and/or to the street. No area drains and/or subdrain outlet pipes were observed on the property.

Groundwater
The subsurface exploration encountered groundwater at a depth o f 42 feet. The depth to groundwater, when encountered in t he explorations, is only vali d for the date of exploration.

Based on the Seismic Hazard Zone Report by the California Geolo gical Survey (formerly Division of Mines and Geology), the depth to historical high gr oundwater level is about 20 feet below the surface. Seasonal fluc tuations of groundwater levels may occur by varying amounts of rainfall, irrigation and recharge.

FIELD EXPLORATION
The scope of the field exploration was developed based on the p reliminary plans of the proposed development available at the time of the exploration and was limited to the area of the proposed development. The locations of the explorations are depicted on the Plot Map.

The field exploration of the si te was conducted on July 15, 202 2. The geotechnical conditions were mapped by a representative of this office (refer to Explor ation Logs). Subsurface exploration was performed by d rill rig into the underlying eart h materials. Explorations were excavated to a maximum depth of 50 feet. All explorations were backfilled and tamped upon completion of down-hole observation. However, some settlement within exploration areas should be anticipated.

Detailed descriptions of the earth materials encountered during the field exploration are provided in the Boring Logs in Appendix I.

Undisturbed and bulk samples repr esentative of the earth materi als were obtained and transported to our laboratory. U ndisturbed Modified California (MC) samples and Standard Penetration Test (SPT) samples were obtained within the explora tions through the use of a thin- walled steel sampler with successive blows of a 140 pound drop hammer dropped thirty inches August 23, 2022 Page 3
Project 22-02182

(30"). MC samples were retained in brass rings of two and one- half inches (2½") in diameter and one inch (1") in height. The samples were transported in m oisture tight containers. The results of the laboratory testi ng and a summary of the test pro cedures are included within Appendix II.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Stratigraphy
The site is underlain by Quaterna ry (Q) earth materials and art ificial fill. The earth materials encountered on the subject property are briefly described below. Approximate depths and more detailed descriptions are given in the enclosed Exploration Logs (see Appendix I).

Artificial Fill (Af)
Artificial fill was encountered on the subject site. Fill was encountered in all of the borings ranging from (0.25) to (0.33) feet in thickness. Contact betwee n the fill and the underlying soil was exposed within the explorat ory boring. Fill generally cons ists of sand with abundant rock fragments.

Quaternary Alluvium (Qal)

Alluvial deposits occupy the site. Alluvium is weathered bedro ck material and sediments that have been eroded from natural s lopes and deposited in generally flat lying areas. Alluvium primarily consists of medium to dark brown, moderately firm to stiff, silty sand to sandy silt.

These deposits were encountered within all the exploratory borings.

Excavation Characteristics
Subsurface exploration was performed through the use of hollow- stem drill rig excavating into generally fill and alluvium. Due to the nature of hollow stem d rilling, observation of the caving potential of the soil is not possible. Excavation difficulty is considered normal within the earth materials encountered and should not be limited to consideratio n of rippability of the earth material. Cohesionless sandy m aterial, although easy to remove , may be subject to sloughing and caving. Therefore difficulty may be encountered maintainin g an open excavation. Fine grained materials such as clays and silts may increase in densi ty with depth due to overburden pressure. Thus, difficulty excavating into the material may increase with depth.

Landslides

Landslides are a mass wasting phenomenon in mountainous and hil lside areas which include a wide range of movements. In S outhern California common slope m ovements include shallow surficial slumps and flows, deep- seated rotational and translat ional bedrock failures, and rock falls. Landslides occur when the stability of the slopes change to an unstable condition resulting from a number of factors. Comm on natural factors include the p hysical and/or chemical weathering of earth materials, unfavorable geologic structure r elative to the slope geometry, erosion at the toe of a slope, and precipitation. These factor s may be further aggravated by human activities such as excavations, removal of lateral support at the toe of a slope, surcharge at the top of a slope, clearing of vegetation, alteration of drainage, and the addition of water from irrigation and leaking pipes.

August 23, 2022 Page 4
Project 22-02182

The subject site is relatively flat with very little topography which precludes the potential for landslides and/or other hazards typically associated with hillside properties.

Seismic Hazards
Seismic Effects
During an earthquake there are se veral primary geologic hazards such as ground rupture, ground shaking, landslides, and li quefaction that can adversely affect property, structures, and improvements. On hillside proper ties, the potential exists for landsliding from ground shaking which may adversely affect property, structures, and improvemen ts. Properties near and along the coastline may potentially be affected by inundation due to tsunamis generated from a seismic event. The State of Cal ifornia has prepared maps that detail areas which may require assessment for ground rupture, l andsliding and/or liquefaction. Strong ground shaking is the primary hazard that causes damage from earthquakes and these areas have been zoned with a high level of seismic shaking ha zard. The historical earthquak e record in Southern California is less than 200 years; therefore, p otential damage from a seismic event is not limited areas that have experienced damage in the past. Based on the above discus sion, earthquake insurance with building code upgrades is suggested.

Although all of Souther n California is within a seismically act ive region, some areas have a higher potential for seismic dam age than others. The current s cientific technology does not provide for accurate prediction of the time, location, or magnitude of an earthquake event.

It should be understood that the following discussion is an eva luation of risk and degree of potential damage to a structure if a fault were to rupture on o r near the site and does not imply that a fault may or may not be present beneath the site. An as sessment of damage to the structure is based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale whi ch is correlated to observed damage from seismic events. Int ensity/damage associated with a n earthquake is not directly correlated to magnitude. For a given magnitude of an earthquak e, the intensity/damage to a structure may vary depending on t he subsurface earth materials, type of fault rupture, hypocenter depth, and local building practices in effect during the construction of a structure.

An evaluation of the seismic e ffects on a property is designed to provide the client with rational and believable seismic data that c ould affect the property duri ng the lifetime of the proposed improvements. The minimum design acceleration for a project is listed in the Building Code. It is recommended that the structur al design of the proposed proje ct be based on current design and acceleration practices of similar projects in the area. Th e project structural designer should review and verify all of the se ismic design parameters prior to utilizing the information for the design.

Ground Rupture
Ground rupture is the result of movement from a Holocene-active fault. A fault is a fracture in the crust of the earth along which rocks on one side have moved relative to those on the other side. No known Holocene-active fault is mapped on the subject site.

Ground Shaking
Ground shaking caused by an earthquake is likely to occur at th e site during the lifetime of the development due to the proximity of several Holocene-active and Pre-Holocene faults.

August 23, 2022 Page 5
Project 22-02182

Generally, on a regional scale, quantitative predictions of gro und motion values are linked to peak acceleration and repeatable acceleration, which are a resp onse to earthquake magnitudes relative to the fault distance from the subject property. Sout hern California major earthquakes are generally the result of large-scale earth processes in whic h the Paciﬁc plate slides northwestward relative to the North American plate at about 2 inches/year.

The potential for lurching, surface manifestations, landslides, and topographic related features from ground/seismic shaking can occur almost anywhere in Southe rn California. Proper maintenance of properties can mitigate some of the potential fo r these types of manifestations, but the potential cannot be completely eliminated. Many structures were built before earthquake codes were adopted; others were built according to codes formul ated when less was known about the intensity of near-fault shaking. Therefore, the margin of safety is difficult to quantify.

A publicly available computer program provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) was utilized for the probabilisti c prediction of peak horizonta l ground acceleration from digitized design maps of Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) ground respo nse. A summary of the seismic design parameters is p rovided in Appendix III. The pro ject structural designer should verify all of the input paramet ers and review all of the result ing seismic design parameters prior to utilizing the information for the design.

Tsunamis & Seiches
Properties located along the coastline have a potential for inundation from a tsunami. Tsunamis are ocean waves produced by sudden water displacement resulting generally from offshore earthquakes, large submarine lands lides or submarine volcanic e ruptions. Once generated, a tsunami can travel thousands of miles at high speeds up to 400 miles per hour. However, the topography of the sea floor and Channel Islands may minimize th e risk of a large tsunami generated from a distant offshore earthquake impacting the Southern California coast.

The 1964 Alaskan Earthquake produced sea waves of less than fou r feet in the Los Angeles Harbor. The 1960 Chilean Earthquak e produced sea waves of abou t five feet at Redondo Beach. Little data exists to evaluate the potential for a loca l tsunami generated off the coast of Southern California. Historically, two documented tsunamis hav e been generated off the coast of Southern California. The 1812 Santa Barbara Earthquake was reported to generate (10) to (12) foot high sea waves at Gaviota. The 1927 Point Arguello Ms 7.3 Earthquake produced run- up heights of (5) feet at Port San Luis.

The lower threshold for tsunami development is considered to be about a magnitude of M6.5.

Offshore faults and the Santa Monica faults appear capable of p roducing a magnitude of M6.5 earthquake and conceivably producing a sea wave. In their 2003 study, Evaluation of Tsunami Risk to Southern California Co astal Cities, Legg et al modeled tsunami propagation and run-up from a potential M7 to M7.4 ma gnitude earthquake on the offshor e Catalina fault near Santa Catalina Island. The report concluded that run-up heights along the coast of Southern California could be on the order of 2 to 4 meters. Their stated recurrenc e times are on the order of a few hundred years for a large earthquake on offshore faults.

Seiches are waves with low-energy within reservoirs, lakes, and bays that are generally produced by strong earthquake shak ing. The proposed project is not located near a reservoir, lake, or bay; therefore, the potential for damage to the site from a seiche is considered nil.

August 23, 2022 Page 6
Project 22-02182

Earthquake Induced Landslides
The State of California has pre pared Seismic Hazard Zone Report s to regionally map areas of potential increased risk of perm anent ground displacement based on historic occurrence of landslide movement, local topographic expression, and geologica l and geotechnical subsurface conditions. The maps may not identify all areas that have pote ntial for earthquake-induced landsliding, strong ground shakin g, or other earthquake-related geologic hazards. The subject site is not located within an earthquake-induced landslide hazard zone on the State of California Seismic Hazard Map.

The subject site is relatively flat with very little topography which precludes the potential for landslides and/or other hazards typically associated with hillside properties.

Liquefaction
The State of California has pre pared Seismic Hazard Zone Report s t o r e g i o n a l l y m a p a r e a s where historic occurrence of li quefaction, or local geological, geotechnical and groundwater conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displaceme nt. The maps may not identify all areas that have potential for liquefaction, strong ground s haking, and other earthquake and geologic hazards. The subject site is located within a liquefa ction hazard zone on the State of California Seismic Hazard Zone Map.

Liquefaction is a process by which sediments below the water ta ble temporarily lose strength and behave as a viscous liquid rather than a solid. The types of sediments most susceptible are clay-free deposits of sand and s ilts; occasionally gravel lique fies. Liquefaction can occur when seismic waves, primarily shear waves, pass through saturated gr anular layers distorting the granular structure, and causing loosely packed groups of partic les to collapse. These collapses increase the pore-water pressure between grains if drainage can not occur. If the pore-water pressure rises to a level approaching the weight of the overlyi ng soil, the granular layer temporarily behaves as a viscous liquid rather than a solid.

In the liquefied condition, soil may deform with little shear resistance; deformations large enough to cause damage to buildings and other structures are called gr ound failures. The ease with which a soil can be liquefied depends primarily on the loosenes s of the material, the depth, thickness and areal extent of the liquefied layer, the ground s lope and the distribution of loads applied by buildings and other structures.

Liquefaction induced ground deforma tions (detailed below) will have an effect on the proposed and existing development that can result in significant structu ral damage, collapse or partial collapse of a structure, especially if there is significant differential settlement or lateral spreading between adjacent structural el ements. Even without collapse, s ignificant settlement or lateral spreading could result in significant structural damage includi ng, but not limited to, blocked doors and windows that could trap occupants.

To quantify the potential for lique faction at the subject site two borings were drilled to test the soils and collect samples. Site liquefaction analysis of the s oils underlying the subject site was performed using the computer pr ogram LiquefyPro by CivilTech So ftware. LiquefyPro is software that evaluates liquef action potential and calculates t he settlement of soil deposits due to seismic loads. The program is based on the most recent publi cations of the NCEER Workshop and SP117 Implementation. The program requires in-sit u test data of the soils, laboratory soils data, and earthquake design input.

August 23, 2022 Page 7
Project 22-02182

For the PGA corresponding to the PGA M, seismic induced liquefaction settlements shall be determined. The predominant eart hquake magnitude may be obtaine d from the USGS Interactive Deaggregation web site: https://geohazards.usgs.gov /deaggint/2008/. A 2% probability of exceedance in 50 y ears (2475-year return period) shall be used (either modal or mean values may be used). Potent ial seismic-induced settlements shall be determined when the safety factor is less than 1.3. Deformations of any foundat ions shall be such that the foundations of the buildings or other structures do not lose their ability to carry gravity loads and that collapse of the building or other structures is prevented.

The following earthquake input parameters and groundwater condi tions were adopted for the analysis.

Earthquake Magnitude
Peak Horizontal
Ground
Acceleration
Groundwater
Level During
Testing
Groundwater
Level During
Earthquake

7.3 (2% probability of exceedance in
50 years)

0.734
(PGAm) 42 feet 20 feet

Based on Bray and Sancio’s 2006 publication regarding liquefaction potential of fine grained soils, layers that with a saturated wat er content to Liquid Limit rati o less than 80% and/or a Plasticity Index higher than 18 are not susceptible to liquefaction. The t able below presents which layers have been excluded from the liquefaction analysis based on the above guidelines.

Boring 1

Depth of Layer
(ft)
Fines
Content
(%)
Saturated
Wc (%)
Liquid
Limit Wc/LL Plasticity
Index

10.0 – 15.0 66 20.7 38 0.55 16
20 – 25.0 70 18.6 25 0.74 3

Boring 2

Depth of
Layer (ft)
Fines
Content (%)
Saturated
Wc (%)
Liquid
Limit Wc/LL Plasticity
Index

7.5 – 15.0 66 25.3 35 0.72 10

20.0 – 27.5 76 22.3 29 0.77 4

35.0 – 45.0 61 18.1 24 0.75 6

The results of the liquefaction analysis indicate a potential f or liquefaction with the design earthquake input parameters. The following are the results of our liquefaction analysis:

Total Settlement (in) Differential Settlement (in)

3.19 1.60
August 23, 2022 Page 8
Project 22-02182

Surface Manifestations
The determination of whether surfa ce manifestation of liquefact ion (such as sand boils, ground fissures etc.) will occur during earthquake shaking at a level-ground site can be made using the method outlined by Ishihara (1985). It is emphasized that sett lement may occur, even with the absence of surface manifestati on. Youd and Garris (1994 and 19 95) evaluated the Ishihara method and concluded that the method is not appropriate for level ground sites subject to lateral spreading and/or ground oscillation.

Based upon the depth to groundwater, surface manifestations of liquefaction should not pose any significant hazard to the proposed development provided the recommendations contained within this report are followed and maintained.

Lateral Spreads
Whereas the potential for flow sli des may exist at a building s ite, the degradation in undrained shear resistance arising from liquefaction may lead to limited lateral spreads (of the order of feet or less) induced by earthquake inertial loading. Such spreads can occur on gently sloping ground or where nearby drainage or stream channels can lead to static shear stress biases on essentially horizontal ground (Y oud, 1995). At larger cyclic s hear strains, the effects of dilation may significantly increase pos t liquefaction undrained shear re sistance. However, incremental permanent deformations will still accumulate during portions of the earthquake load cycles when low residual resistance is avai lable. Such low resistance will continue even while large permanent shear deformations accumulate through a ratcheting ef fect. Such effects have recently been demonstrated in cent rifuge tests to study liquefa ction induced lateral spreads, as described by Balakrishnan et al. (1998). Once earthquake loadi ng has ceased, the effects of dilation under static loading can mitigate the potential for a flow slide.

It is clear from past earthquakes that damage to structures can be severe, if permanent ground displacements on the order of se veral feet occur. However, dur ing the Northridge earthquake significant damage to building structures (floor slab and wall cracks) occurred with less than one (1) foot of lateral spread. The complexities of post-liquefact ion behavior of soils noted above, coupled with the additional compl exities of potential pore wate r pressure redistribution effects and the nature of earthquake loading on the sliding mass, lead to difficulties in providing specific guidelines for lateral spread evaluations.

Based upon the depth to groundwater , liquefaction lateral sprea ds should not pose any significant hazard to the proposed development.

Seismically Induced Settlements

Seismic settlement occurs when cohesionless soils densify as re sult of ground shaking.

Typically seismically induced settlement is greatest in loose c ohesionless sands. Lee and Albaisa (1974) and Yoshimi (1975) studied the volumetric strain s (or settlements) in saturated sands due to dissipation of exce ss pore pressures generated in saturated granular soils by the cyclic ground motions. The volumetric strain, in the absence of lateral flow or spreading, results in settlement. Liquefact ion-induced settlement could result in co llapse or partial collapse of a structure, especially if there is significant differential sett lement between adjacent structural elements. Even without collapse, significant settlement could result in blocked doors and windows that could trap occupants.

Based upon the liquefaction analysi s, liquefaction induced sett lement is estimated to be 3.19 inch and differential settlement of 1.60 inch.

August 23, 2022 Page 9
Project 22-02182

CONCLUSIONS

1. Based on the results of thi s investigation and a thorough re view of the proposed development, as discussed, the project is suitable for the inte nded use providing the following recommendations are incorporated into the design and subsequent construction of the project. Also, the dev elopment must be performed in an acceptable manner conforming to building code requirements of the controlling governing agency.

2. Based on the State of Califor nia Seismic Hazard Maps, the su bject site is located within a liquefaction hazard zone. Based upon the liquefaction analysis , liquefaction induced settlement is estimated to be 3.19 inch and differential settlement of 1.60 inch.

3. Based on the State of Califor nia Seismic Hazard Maps, the su bject site is not located within an earthquake-induced landslide hazard zone.

4. The SITE CLASS based on Calif ornia Building Code is D.

5. Based upon field observations, laboratory testing and analys is, the alluvium found in the exploratory borings should possess sufficient strength to support the compacted fill blanket for the proposed three story at grade apartment building.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Specific

1. To create a uniform building p ad for the proposed three stor y at grade apartment building, the existing fill and soil should be removed to competent alluv ium and replaced as compacted fill. In addition, the proposed removals should exte nd a minimum of four feet below the proposed foundations. G rading should be performed as outlined the Grading and Earthwork section below.

2. The proposed three story at g rade apartment building should be supported on foundations embedded into compacted fill. F oundations should be designed a s outlined the Foundations section below.

3. The soils chemistry results should be incorporated into the design of the proposed project.

4. The property owner shall main tain the site as outlined in th e Drainage and Maintenance Section.

Drainage and Maintenance
Maintenance of properties must be performed to minimize the chance of serious damage and/or instability to improvements. Mos t problems are associated with or triggered by water.

Therefore, a comprehensive drainage system should be designed and incorporated into the final plans. In addition, pad areas should be maintained and planted in a way that will allow this drainage system to function as i ntended. The property owner sha ll be fully responsible for dampness or water accumulation caus ed by alteration in grading, irrigation or installation of improper drainage system, and failure to maintain drain systems . The following are specific drainage, maintenance, and landscaping recommendations. Reduct ions in these recommendations will reduce their effectiveness and may lead to damage and/or instability to August 23, 2022 Page 10
Project 22-02182

the improvements. It is the res ponsibility of the property own er to ensure that improvements, structures and drainage devices a re maintained in accordance wi th the following recommendations and the requirements of all applicable government agencies.

Drainage

Positive pad drainage should be incorporated into the final pla ns. The pad should slope away from the footings at a minimum five percent slope for a horizon tal distance of ten feet. In areas where there is insufficient space for the recommended ten foot horizontal distance concrete or other impermeable surface should be provided for a minimum of t hree feet adjacent the structure. Pad drainage should be at a minimum of two percent slope where water flow over lawn or other planted areas. D rainage swales should be provide d with area drains about every fifteen feet. Area drains should be provided in the rear and s ide yards to collect drainage. All drainage from the pad should be dire cted so that water does not pond adjacent to the foundations or flow toward them. Roof gutters and downspouts a re required for the proposed structures and should be connected into a buried area drain sys tem. All drainage from the site should be collected and directed via non-erosive devices to a l ocation approved by the building official. Area drains, subdrains, weep holes, roof gutters and downspouts should be inspected periodically to ensure that they a re not clogged with debris or damaged. If they are clogged or damaged, they should be cleaned out or repaired.

Landscaping (Planting)

The property owner is advised not to develop planter areas betw een patios, sidewalk and structures. Planters placed imm ediately adjacent to the struct ures are not recommended. If planters are proposed immediately adjacent to structures, imper vious above-grade or below- grade planter boxes with solid bottoms and drainage pipes away from the structure are suggested. All slopes should be m aintained with a dense growth of plants, ground-covering vegetation, shrubs and trees that possess dense, deep root structures and require a minimum of irrigation. Plants surrounding the development should be of a v ariety that requires a minimum of watering. It is recommended that a landscape architect be cons ulted regarding planting adjacent to improvements. It will be the responsibility of the property owner to maintain the planting. Alterations of planting schemes should be reviewed by the landscape architect.

Irrigation

An adequate irrigation system is required to sustain landscapin g. Over-watering resulting in runoff and/or ground saturation must be avoided. Irrigation sy stems must be adjusted to account for natural rainfall c onditions. Any leaks or defectiv e sprinklers must be repaired immediately. To mitigate erosion and saturation, automatic sprinkling systems must be adjusted for rainy seasons. A landscape architect should be consulted t o determine the best times for landscape watering and the proper usage.

Pools/Plumbing

Leakage from a swimming pool or plumbing can produce a perched groundwater condition that may cause instability or damage to improvements. Therefore, all plumbing should be leak-free.

August 23, 2022 Page 11
Project 22-02182

Grading and Earthwork
Proposed grading will consist of remedial grading and foundation excavations.

Remedial grading is recommended within the building areas in or der to remove the existing fill and upper portion of the alluvial soils. Based on the conditio ns encountered in the explorations the recommended removals are anticipated to depths of about six feet from the existing grade.

The over-excavation should extend a minimum of four feet beyond the building perimeters, and to an extent equal to the depth of fill below the new foundatio ns. If the proposed structure incorporates exterior columns (such as for an overhang) the ove r-excavation should also encompass these areas.

Following the completion of the over-excavation, the subgrade soils should be evaluated by the project geotechnical engineer t o verify their suitability to su pport the structural fill as well as to support the foundation loads of the proposed development. This evaluation may include probing and proof-rolling to ident ify any soft, loose or otherw ise unstable soils that must be removed. Some localized areas of deeper excavation may be requ ired if additional fill materials or dry, loose, porous or otherwise unsuitable materials are enc ountered at the base of the over- excavation.

Flatland Grading

1. Prior to commencement of work, a pre-grading meeting shall b e held. Participants at this meeting will consist of the contractor, the owner or his representative, and the soils engineer.

The purpose of the meeting is to avoid misunderstanding of the recommendations set forth in this report that might cause delays in the project.

2. Prior to placement of fill, a ll vegetation, rubbish, and oth er deleterious material should be disposed of offsite. The proposed structures should be staked out in the field by a surveyor.

This staking should, as a minimu m, include areas for overexcavation, toes of slopes, tops of cuts, setbacks, and easements. All staking shall be offset from the proposed grading area at least five feet (5'). Line and grade verification is not provided by GeoConcepts, Inc.

3. The natural ground, that is determined to be satisfactory fo r the support of the filled ground, shall then be scarified to a depth of at least six inches (6") and moistened as required. The scarified ground should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum laboratory density (ASTM D 1557).

4. The fill soils shall consist of materials approved by the pr oject Soils Engineer or his representative. These materials may be obtained from the excava tion areas and any other approved sources, and by blending soils from one or more source s. The material used shall be free from organic vegetable matter and other deleterious substances, and shall not contain rocks greater than eight inches (8") in diameter nor of a quantity sufficient to make compaction difficult.

5. The approved fill material sh all be placed in approximately level layers six inches (6") thick, and moistened as required. Each layer shall be thoroughly mixe d to attain uniformity of moisture in each layer.

August 23, 2022 Page 12
Project 22-02182

When the moisture content is less than the optimum moisture con tent, as specified by the Soils Engineer, water shall be added and thoroughly mixed in un til the moisture content is a minimum of the optimum moisture content to (3) percent above the optimum moisture content.

When the moisture content of the fill is (3) percent or more ab ove the optimum moisture content as specified by the Soils Engineer, the fill material s hall be aerated by scarifying or shall be blended with additional materials and thoroughly mixed until the moisture content is within (3) percent above the optimum moisture content.

Each layer of fill material shal l be compacted to a minimum of (90) percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557, using approved compaction equipment. Where cohesionless soil having less than (15) percent finer than (0.005) millimeters is used for fill, the fill material shall be compacted to a minimum of (95) percent of the maximum dry density.

6. Review of the fill placement should be provided by the Soils Engineer or his representative during the progress of grading. In general, density tests (ASTM D 1556) and (ASTM D 2922 & 3017) will be made at intervals not e xceeding two feet (2') of fill height or every 500 cubic yards of fill placed.

7. During the inclement part of the year, or during periods when rain is threatening, all fill that has been spread and awaits compaction shall be compacted before stopping work for the day or before stopping because of incle ment weather. These fills, onc e compacted, shall have the surfaces sloped to drain to one area where water may be removed.

Work may start again, after the rainy period, once the site has been reviewed by the Soils Engineer and he has given his authorization to resume. Loose materials not compacted prior to the rain shall be removed a nd aerated so that the moisture c ontent of these fills will be within (3) percent of the optimum moisture content.

Surface materials previously com pacted before the rain, shall b e scarified, brought to the proper moisture content, and re-compacted prior to placing additional fill, if deemed necessary by the Soils Engineer.

8. Review of geotechnical data available for the local vicinity of the site indicates that septic tanks, seepage pits, or leach fields may be encountered during site grading. If encountered, these should be drained of effluent or drilled out if they have been backfilled. The cleaned-out area should be inspected by the soils engineer and governing in spector prior to backfill. The pool may be filled with approved compacted fill, lean concrete, or gravel. Whichever backfill material is selected, at least five feet (5') of approved manma de fill, placed at 90 percent relative compaction should cap the pool.

Foundations

It is recommended that the proposed structure be founded into compacted fill.

Conventional Foundations

The minimum continuous footing si ze is (18) inches wide and (24 ) inches deep into the compacted fill, measured from t he lowest adjacent grade. Contin uous footings may be proportioned, using a bearing va lue of (2000) pounds per square foot. Column footings placed into the compacted fill may be proportioned, using a bearing va lue of (2500) pounds per square August 23, 2022 Page 13
Project 22-02182

foot, and should be a minimum of (2) feet in width and (24) inc hes deep, below the lowest adjacent grade.

All continuous footings shall be reinforced with a minimum of ( 4) #(5) bars, two placed near the top and two near the bottom. Reinforcing recommendations are m inimums and may be revised by the structural engineer.

The bearing values given above are net bearing values; the weight of concrete below grade may be neglected. These bearing values may be increased by one-thi rd (1/3) for temporary loads, such as, wind and seismic forces.

Lateral loads may be resisted by friction at the base of the fo undations and by passive resistance within the compacted fill. A coefficient of frictio n of (0.4) may be used between the foundations and the compacted f ill. The passive resistance may be assumed to act as a fluid with a density of (300) pounds per square foot, with a maximum earth pressure of (3000) pounds per square foot. When combining passive and friction for resistance of lateral loads, the passive component should be reduced by one-third.

All footing excavation depths will be measured from the lowest adjacent grade of recommended bearing material. Footing depths will not be measured from any proposed elevations or grades.

Any foundation excavations that are not the recommended depth into the recommended bearing materials will not be acceptable to this office.

Mat Foundation Recommendations

The mat foundation may be prop ortioned using an average bearing value of (2,500) pounds per square foot, and the maximum allowable bearing capacity should not exceed (4,000) pounds per square foot. The mat foundati on structural design should be done by the project structural engineer.

The coefficient of static vertical subgrade reaction is defined as:

Granular Soil:

𝐾
௕ ൌ 𝐾 ௩ଵ ∗൤ 𝑚൅0 . 5

1.5𝑚 ൨∗൤ 𝐵൅1
2𝐵 ൨
ଶ

Kb: Coefficient of static vertical subgrade reaction
Kv1: Normalized subgrade reaction coefficient (namely, correspondi ng to a 1 foot square bearing plate), estimated at 125 pounds per cubic inch (pci) for engine ered fill subgrade. It should be noted that this value applies to dry or moist materials, with groundwater at a depth of at least

1.5B below the base of the footing. If groundwater is at the ba se of the footing, use K v1/2 to calculate settlements.

B: Width of the mat foundation measured in feet.
m: Ratio of length over width of a rectangular footing.

The mat foundation structural design should be done by the project structural engineer.

August 23, 2022 Page 14
Project 22-02182

Lateral loads may be resisted by friction at the base of the co nventional foundations and by passive resistance within the co mpacted fill. A coefficient of friction of (0.4) may be used between the foundations and the compacted fill. The passive resistance may be assumed to act as a fluid with a density of (300) pounds per cubic foot.

It is recommended that a vapor ret arder/waterproofing be placed below the concrete slab on grade. Vapor/moisture transmissi on through slabs does occur an d can impact various components of the structure.

Vapor retarder/waterproofing design and inspection of installat ion is not the responsibility of the geotechnical engineer (most often the responsibility of the arc hitect). GeoConcepts, Inc. does not practice in the field of water and moisture vapor transmiss ion evaluation/mitigation.

Therefore, we recommend that a qualified person/firm be engaged /consulted to evaluate the general and specific water and m oisture vapor transmission path s and any impact on the proposed development. This person/firm should provide recommen dations for mitigation of potential adverse impact of water and moisture vapor transmissi on on various components of the structure as deemed necessary . The actual waterproofing des ign shall be provided by the architect, structural engineer or contractor with experience in waterproofing

In order to promote good building practices and alert the rest of the design/construction team of some of the appropriate standards and expert recommendations pe rtaining to vapor barriers/retarders, the waterproofing designer should consider recommending and citing specific performance characteristics. T he following paragraph includes some of the standards and expert recommendations and should be considered for use waterpr oofing designer own recommendations:

Vapor barrier shall consist of a minimum 15 m il extruded polyolefin plastic (no recycled content or woven materials permitted). Permeance as tested before and after mandatory conditions (ASTM E 1745 Section 7.1 and Sub-Paragraph 7.1.1-7.1.5): less than 0.01 perms [grains/(ft 2-hr-
inHg)] and comply with the ASTM E 1745 Class A requi rements. Install vapor barrier according to ASTM E1643, including proper perimeter seal. Basis of design: Stego Wrap Vapor Barrier 15 mil and Stego Crete Claw Tape (per imeter seal tape). Approved Alternatives: Vaporguard by Reef Industries, Sundance 15 mil Vapor Barrier by Sundance Inc.

Settlement
Settlement of the proposed thr ee story at grade apartment build ing will occur. Settlement of (1/8) to (1/4) inches between walls, within 20 feet or less, of each other, and under similar loading conditions, are considered normal. Total settlement on the order of (1/2) inches should be anticipated.

Expansive Soils

Expansive soils were not encountered on the subject property. Expansive soils can be a problem, as variation in moistu re content will cause a volume c hange in the soil. Expansive soils heave when moisture is introduced and contract as they dr y. During inclement weather August 23, 2022 Page 15
Project 22-02182

and/or excessive landscape watering, moisture infiltrates the s oil and causes the soil to heave (expansion). When drying occurs the soils will shrink (contraction).

Repeated cycles of expansion and contraction of soils can cause pavement, concrete slabs on grade and foundations to crack. This movement can also result in misalignment of doors and windows. To reduce the effect of expansive soils, foundation s ystems are usually deepened and/or provided with additional rei nforcement design by the str uctural engineer. Planning of yard improvements should take int o consideration maintaining un iform moisture conditions around structures. Soils should be kept moist, but water shoul d not be allowed to pond. These designs are intended to reduce, but will not eliminate deflecti on and cracking and do not guarantee or warrant that cracking will not occur.

Excavations

Excavations ranging in vertical height up to six feet will be r equired for the remedial grading.

Conventional excavation equipment may be used to make these exc avations. Excavations should expose alluvium. These soils are suitable for vertical e xcavations up to five feet. This should be verified by the project geotechnical engineer during construction so that modifications can be made if variations in the soil occur.

Excavations located along the property line may be made by the slot-cutting method to six feet high. This method employs the us e of the earth as a buttress a nd allows the excavation to proceed in phases. The initial excavation is made at a slope o f 1:1 (h:v). Slots are cut, using the ABC method, in which all slot s are of the same width. The initial slot "A" is cut eight feet in width, leaving the "B" and "C" sl ots to buttress the excavation . The "A" slot is backfilled; the same procedure is used for the "B" slots; then the "C" slots.

All excavations should be stabilized within 10 days of initial excavation. If this time is exceeded, the project geotechnical engineer must be notified, and modific ations, such as shoring or slope trimming may be required. Water should not be allowed to pond on top of the excavation, nor to flow toward it. All excavations should be protected from incle ment weather. This is required to keep the surface of the open excavation from becoming saturated during rainfall. Saturation of the excavation may result in a relaxation of the soils which ma y result in failures. Excavations should be kept moist, not saturat ed, to reduce the potential fo r raveling and sloughing during construction. No vehicular surcharge should be allowed within three feet (3') of the top of cut.

Excavations Maintenance – Erosion Control

The following recommendations should be considered a part of th e excavation/erosion control plan for the subject site and are intended to supplement, but n ot supersede nor limit the erosion control plans produced by the Project Civil Engineer and/or Qua lified SWPPP Developer.

These recommendations should be implemented during periods requ ired by the Building Code (typically between the months o f October and April) or at any t ime of the year prior to a predicted rain event. Consideration should also be given to po tential local sources of water/runoff such as existing drainage pipes or irrigation systems that remain in operation during construction activities.

August 23, 2022 Page 16
Project 22-02182

Open Excavations:

All open excavations shall be prot ected from inclement weather, including areas above and at the toe of the excavation. This is required to keep the excava tions from becoming saturated.

Saturation of the excavation may result in a relaxation of the soils which may result in failures.

Water/runoff should be diverted away from the excavation and no t be allowed to flow over the excavation in a concentrated manner.

Open Trenches/Foundation Excavations:

No water should be allowed to pond adjacent to or flow into ope n trenches. All open trenches shall be covered with plastic sheeting that is anchored with sa ndbags. Areas around the trenches should be sloped away from the trenches to prevent wat er runoff from flowing into or ponding adjacent to the trenches.

After the inclement weather has ceased, the excavations shall b e reviewed by the project geotechnical engineer and geologist for safety prior to recomme ncement of work. Foundation excavations that remain open during inclement weather shall be reviewed by the project geotechnical engineer and geologist prior to the placement of s teel and concrete to ensure that proper embedment and contact with the bearing material have been maintained.

Grading In Progress:

During the inclement time of the year, or during periods prior to the onset of rain, all fill that has been spread and is awaiting compaction shall be compacted before stopping work for the day or before stopping work because of inclement weather. These fills , once compacted, shall have the surface sloped to drain to one area where water may be removed.

Additionally, it is suggested t hat all stock-piled fill materia ls be covered with plastic sheeting.

This action will reduce the potential for the moisture content of the fill from becoming too high for compaction. If the fill stockp ile is not covered during inclem ent weather, then aerating the fill to reduce the moisture content would be required. This action is generally very time consuming and may result in construction delays.

Work may recommence, after the ra in event, once the site has be en reviewed by the project geotechnical engineer.

Slabs on Grade
Slabs on grade should be reinforced with minimum #4 reinforcing bars, placed at (16) inches on center each way and supported on compacted fill. Provisions for cracks should be incorporated into the design and construction of the foundation system, slab s, and proposed floor coverings.

Concrete slabs should have sufficient control joints spaced at a maximum of approximately 8 feet.

August 23, 2022 Page 17
Project 22-02182

Vapor barrier shall consist of a minimum 15 mil extruded polyolefin plastic (no recycled content or woven materials permitted). Permeance as tested before and after mandatory conditions (ASTM E 1745 Section 7.1 and Sub-Paragraph 7.1.1-7.1.5): less than 0.01 perms [grains/(ft 2-hr-
inHg)] and comply with the ASTM E 1745 Class A requi rements. Install vapor barrier according to ASTM E1643, including proper perimeter seal. Basis of design: Stego Wrap Vapor Barrier 15 mil and Stego Crete Claw Tape (per imeter seal tape). Approved Alternatives: Vaporguard by Reef Industries, Sundance 15 mil Vapor Barrier by Sundance Inc.

Decking
Exterior decking slabs on grade should be reinforced with minim um #4 reinforcing bars, placed at (16) inches on center each way and supported on compacted fi ll. Provisions for cracks should be incorporated into the design and construction of the decking. Concrete slabs should have sufficient control joints spaced at a maximum of approxima tely 8 feet. Decking planned adjacent to lawns, planters or adjacent to descending slopes sh ould be provided with a 12-inch thickened edge. The deck reinforcement should be bent down int o the edge. These recommendations are considered minimums unless superseded by th e project structural engineer.

REVIEWS

Plan Review and Plan Notes
The final grading, building, and/or structural plans shall be r eviewed and approved by the consultants to ensure that all recommendations are incorporated into the design or shown as notes on the plan.

The final plans should reflect the following:

1. The Preliminary Geotechnical E ngineering Investigation by Ge oConcepts, Inc. is a part of the plans.

August 23, 2022 Page 18
Project 22-02182

2. Plans must be reviewed and signed by GeoConcepts, Inc.

3. The project geotechnical engi neer must review all grading.

4. The project geotechnical engi neer shall review all foundations.

Construction Review
Reviews will be required to verify all geotechnical work. It i s required that all footing excavations, seepage pits, and grading be reviewed by this office. This office should be notified at least two working days in advance of any field reviews so that staff personnel may be made available.

The property owner should take an active role in project safety by assigning responsibility and authority to individuals qualifie d in appropriate construction safety principles and practices.

Generally, site safety should be assigned to the general contractor or construction manager that is in control of the site and has the required expertise, which includes but not limited to construction means, methods and safety precautions.

LIMITATIONS

General
This report is intended to be used only in its entirety. No po rtion or section of the report, by itself, is designed to completely represent any aspect of the p roject described herein. If any reader requires additional information or has questions regarding this report, GeoConcepts, Inc. should be contacted.

Subsurface conditions were inter preted on the basis of our fiel d explorations and past experience. Although, between exploratory excavations, subsurface earth materials may vary in type, strength and many other proper ties from those interpreted. The findings, conclusions and recommendations presented herein ar e for the soil conditions en countered in the specific locations. Earth materials and conditions immediately adjacent to, or beneath those observed may have different characteristics, such as, earth type, physic al properties and strength. Other soil conditions due to non-uniformity of the soil conditions or manmade alterations may be revealed during construction. If subsurface conditions differ from those encountered in the described exploration, this o ffice should be advised immediatel y so that further recommendations may be made if required. If it is desired to m inimize the possibility of such changes, additional explorations and testing can/should be performed.

Findings, conclusions and recommendations presented herein are based on experience and background. Therefore, findings , conclusions and recommendatio ns are professional opinions and are not meant to indicate a control of nature.

This preliminary report provides information regarding the find ings on the subject property. It is not designed to provide a guaran tee that the site will be free of hazards in the future, such as but not limited to, landslides, slippage, liquefaction, expansi ve soils, differential settlement, debris flows, seepage, concentrated drainage or flooding. It may not be possible to eliminate all hazards, but homeowners must mai ntain their property and improv e deficiencies to minimize these hazards.

August 23, 2022 Page 19
Project 22-02182

This report may not be copied. If you wish to purchase additio nal copies, you may order them from this office.

CONSTRUCTION NOTICE

Construction can be challenging. GeoConcepts, Inc. has provide d this report to advise you of the general site conditions, geotec hnical feasibility of the pr oposed project, and overall site stability. It must be understood that the professional opinion s provided herein are based upon subsurface data, laboratory testing, analyses, and interpretati on thereof. Recommendations contained herein are based upon surface reconnaissance and minimum subsurface explorations deemed suitable by your consultants.

Although quantities for foundation concrete and steel may be es timated based on the findings provided in this report, provi sion should be made for possible changes in quantities during construction. If it is desired to minimize the possibility of such changes, additional exploration and testing should be considered. However, you must be aware t hat depths and magnitudes will most likely vary between explorations given in the report.

We appreciate the opportunity of serving you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report, please contact the undersigned.

Respectfully submitted,
GEOCONCEPTS, INC.

1 Raffi Dermendjian
Project Engineer
PE C. 88261
RD/HU: 22-02182-1

Distribution: (1) Addressee
August 23, 2022 Page 20
Project 22-02182

APPENDIX I

SITE INFORMATION

Location Map
Groundwater Map
USGS Fault Map
Earthquake Zone Map

Plot Map

Field Exploration
Borings 1 through 4

August 23, 2022 Page 21
Project 22-02182

LOCATION MAP

Reference: Los Angeles County of Public Works, GIS-Net3 Scale: As Shown August 23, 2022 Page 22
Project 22-02182

GROUNDWATER MAP

Reference: State of California Seismic Hazard Report, Fullerton Quadrangle

Scale: As Shown

August 23, 2022 Page 23
Project 22-02182

August 23, 2022 Page 24
Project 22-02182

EARTHQUAKE ZONE MAP

Reference: California Geological Survey, Seismic Hazard Map https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/DataViewer/index.html Scale: As
Shown

August 23, 2022 Page 25
Project 22-02182

August 23, 2022 Page 26
Project 22-02182

Page Intentionally Left Blank

August 23, 2022 Page 27
Project 22-02182

August 23, 2022 Page 28
Project 22-02182

August 23, 2022 Page 29
Project 22-02182

August 23, 2022 Page 30
Project 22-02182

August 23, 2022 Page 31
Project 22-02182

APPENDIX II

LABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory Procedures

Laboratory Recapitulation 1
Laboratory Recapitulation 2

Figures S.1 through S.3
Figures C.1 through C.11
Figures SV.1 through SV.4
Figure ATT. 1

August 23, 2022 Page 32
Project 22-02182

LABORATORY PROCEDURES

Laboratory testing was performed on samples obtained as outline d in the Field Exploration section of this report. All samples were sent to the laboratory for examination, testing in general conformance to specified test m ethods, and classification, usin g the Unified Soil Classification System and group symbol.

Moisture and Density Tests
The dry unit weight and moisture content of the undisturbed sam ples were determined. The results are tabulated in the Laboratory Recapitulation - Table 1.

Shear Tests
Direct single-shear tests were performed with a direct shear ma chine. The desired normal load is applied to the specimen and allo wed to come to equilibrium. The rate of deflection on the sample is approximately 0.005 inc hes per minute. The samples a re tested at higher and/or lower normal loads in order to determine the angle of internal friction and the cohesion. The results are plotted on the Shear Test Diagrams and the results tabulated in the Laboratory Recapitulation - Table 1.

Consolidation
Consolidation tests were perform ed on samples, within the brass ring, to predict the soils behavior under a specific load. Porous stones are placed in co ntact with top and bottom of the samples to permit to allow the addition or release of water. L oads are applied in several increments and the results are re corded at selected time interv als. Samples are tested at field and increased moisture content. T he results are plotted on the Consolidation Test Curve and the load at which the water is added as noted on the drawing.

Grain Size Analysis
Sieve
A group of sieves is assembled with a solid collecting pan at t he bottom. The sample is placed in top sieve. The assembly is placed in the sieve shaker. Upo n completion of the sieving operation the weight of the material retained on each is determined.

Atterbergs Limits
Liquid Limit
A sample at a specified moisture content is placed in the liqui d limit device. The cup drops required to close a groove in the sample is recorded. Three sa mples at varying moisture contents are tested.

Plastic Limit
A sample at a specified moisture content is rolled on a glass p late. The moisture content is varied until the sample crumbles at a diameter of 1/8".

August 23, 2022 Page 33
Project 22-02182

pH (CTM 643)
A sample of dry soil and distilled water are placed in a flask and allowed to stand for approximately an hour to stabiliz e. The pH is measured using a pH meter that has been compensated for temperature. The results are tabulated in the Laboratory Recapitulation - Table

2. Minimum Resistivity (CTM 643)
The electrical resistivity of each soil specimen is conducted in a two-stage process using the soil box method. The first stage measur es the resistivity of the soi l in its as-received condition and the second stage records the value after saturation with distil l e d w a t e r . T h e r e s u l t s a r e tabulated in the Laboratory Recapitulation - Table 2.

Chloride Content (CTM 422)
A sample of dry soil is mixed with distilled water and allowed to stand overnight. The top aliquot of the sample is mixed with chloride indicator and titrated ove r s i l v e r n i t r a t e s o l u t i o n . T h e chloride content is determined by the difference of the volumes required to complete titration.

The results are tabulated in the Laboratory Recapitulation - Table 2.

Sulfate Content (CTM 417)
A sample of dry soil is mixed with distilled water and allowed to stand overnight. The top aliquot is mixed with distilled water and a conditioning agent. The sol ution is then placed in a photometer and the value recor ded. The process is repeated with the addition of barium chloride. The sulfate content is determined by the difference o f the photometer readings. The results are tabulated in the Laboratory Recapitulation - Table 2.

August 23, 2022 Page 34
Project 22-02182

LABORATORY RECAPITULATION 1
PROJECT: 1600 W. Commonwealth Ave
PROJECT NO.: 22‐02182
Exploration Depth
(ft)
Material Dry Density In Situ
(P.C.F.)
Moisture Content
(%)
Cohesion
(K.S.F.)
Friction Angle
(degree)
B‐1 1 Qal
B‐1 2.5 Qal 101.8 13.3 0.15 28
B‐1 5 Qal

B‐1 7.5 Qal 104.6 16.4

B‐1 10 Qal

B‐1 12.5 Qal 107.9 18.4

B‐1 15 Qal

B‐1 17.5 Qal 113.8 15.9
B‐1 20 Qal
B‐1 22.5 Qal 112.4 16.9
B‐1 25 Qal
B‐1 27.5 Qal 108.4 18.2
B‐1 30 Qal
B‐1 32.5 Qal 111.8 16.9
B‐1 35 Qal
B‐1 37.5 Qal 112.2 18.1
B‐1 40 Qal
B‐1 42.5 Qal 108.1 15.2
B‐1 45 Qal
B‐1 47.5 Qal 120.1 14.6
B‐1 50 Qal
B‐2 2 Qal

B‐2 2.5 Qal

B‐2 5 Qal 107.6 9.5 0.15 29
B‐2 7.5 Qal
B‐2 10 Qal 99.6 20.7
B‐2 12.5 Qal
B‐2 15 Qal 117.6 15.2
B‐2 17.5 Qal
B‐2 20 Qal 105.4 19.3
B‐2 22.5 Qal
B‐2 25 Qal 104.6 21.1
B‐2 27.5 Qal
B‐2 30 Qal 108.3 16.9
B‐2 32.5 Qal
B‐2 35 Qal 113.0 16.4
B‐2 40 Qal
B‐2 45 Qal 110.1 14.1
August 23, 2022 Page 35
Project 22-02182

B‐2 50 Qal

B‐3 3 Qal

B‐3 5 Qal 104 16.9 0.15 28
B‐3 10 Qal 90.2 14.1

B‐3 15 Qal 109.4 14.6
B‐3 20 Qal 101.1 22

B‐3 25 Qal 101.7 24.2

B‐3 30 Qal 104.3 21.3

B‐4 5 Qal 101.3 23.5

B‐4 10 Qal 102.2 18.9

B‐4 15 Qal 107.2 6.2

B‐4 20 Qal 110.1 15.1
B‐4 25 Qal 117.3 4.4
B‐4 30 Qal 104.1 12

LABORATORY RECAPITULATION 2
PROJECT: 1600 W. Commonwealth Ave
PROJECT NO.: 22‐02182
Exploration Depth
(ft)
pH As‐Is Soil Resistivity
(ohm‐cm)
Minimum Soil Resistivity
(ohm‐cm)
Chloride
(%)
Sulphate
(%)
B‐1 1 7.49 820000 19000 0.004 0.024
B‐3 3 7.42 32000 2900 0.005 0.001
August 23, 2022 Page 36
Project 22-02182

August 23, 2022 Page 37
Project 22-02182

August 23, 2022 Page 38
Project 22-02182

August 23, 2022 Page 39
Project 22-02182

August 23, 2022 Page 40
Project 22-02182

August 23, 2022 Page 41
Project 22-02182

August 23, 2022 Page 42
Project 22-02182

August 23, 2022 Page 43
Project 22-02182

August 23, 2022 Page 44
Project 22-02182

August 23, 2022 Page 45
Project 22-02182

August 23, 2022 Page 46
Project 22-02182

August 23, 2022 Page 47
Project 22-02182

August 23, 2022 Page 48
Project 22-02182

August 23, 2022 Page 49
Project 22-02182

August 23, 2022 Page 50
Project 22-02182

August 23, 2022 Page 51
Project 22-02182

August 23, 2022 Page 52
Project 22-02182

August 23, 2022 Page 53
Project 22-02182

August 23, 2022 Page 54
Project 22-02182

August 23, 2022 Page 55
Project 22-02182

APPENDIX III

ANALYSES

Lateral Design

Liquefaction

Seismic Evaluation

August 23, 2022 Page 56
Project 22-02182

Maximum Vertical Cut Height
August 23, 2022 Page 57
Project 22-02182

Slot Cuts (Six Feet High with Level Backslope)
August 23, 2022 Page 58
Project 22-02182

LiquefyPro CivilTech Software USA www.civiltech.com CivilTech Corporation

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
1600 W Commonwealth Ave
22-02182 Plate A-1
Hole No.=B-1 Water Depth=20 ft Magnitude=7.3
Acceleration=0.734g
(ft)
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
71 1 5 N o L q
115 NoLq
75 2
122
11 NoLq
128 NoLq
23 14
132
9N o L q
131 NoLq
21 30
128
28 14
131 48
28 133
27 54
125
27 50 138 4
50 Raw Unit Fines
SPT Weight %
Shear Stres s Ratio
CRR CSR fs1
Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential
0 2
Factor of Safety
051
Settlement
Saturated
Unsaturat.

S = 2.99 in.
0 (in.) 10
fs 1=1.30
fs2=1
fs2

August 23, 2022 Page 59
Project 22-02182

*******************************************************************************************************

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS CALCULATION DETAILS
Copyright by CivilTech Software
www.civiltech.com

******************************************************************************************************* Font: Courier New, Regular, Size 8 is recommended for this report.

Licensed to , 8/18/2022 3:31:29 PM

Input File Name: Z:\OUR DOCUMENTS\Liquefaction Analysis\22-02182-1 B-1.liq Title: 1600 W Commonwealth Ave
Subtitle: 22-02182

Input Data:

Surface Elev.=
Hole No.=B-1
Depth of Hole=50.00 ft
Water Table during Earthquake= 20.00 ft
Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 45.00 ft
Max. Acceleration=0.73 g
Earthquake Magnitude=7.30
No-Liquefiable Soils: CL, OL are Non-Liq. Soil

1. SPT or BPT Calculation.

2. Settlement Analysis Method: Ishihara / Yoshimine

3. Fines Correction for Liquefaction: Stark/Olson et al.*

4. Fine Correction for Settlement: During Liquefaction*

5. Settlement Calculation in: All zones*

6. Hammer Energy Ratio, Ce = 1.25

7. Borehole Diameter, Cb= 1

8. Sampling Method, Cs= 1.2

9. User request factor of safety (apply to CSR) , User= 1.3 Plot two CSR (fs1=User, fs2=1)

10. Average two input data between two Depths: Yes*
* Recommended Options

In-Situ Test Data:

Depth SPT Gamma Fines
ft pcf %
__________________________________

0.00 7.00 115.00 NoLiq

2.50 7.00 115.00 NoLiq

5.00 7.00 115.00 52.00

7.50 7.00 122.00 52.00

10.00 11.00 122.00 NoLiq

12.50 11.00 128.00 NoLiq

15.00 23.00 128.00 14.00

17.50 23.00 132.00 14.00

20.00 9.00 132.00 NoLiq

22.50 9.00 131.00 NoLiq

25.00 21.00 131.00 30.00

27.50 21.00 128.00 30.00

30.00 28.00 128.00 14.00

32.50 28.00 131.00 48.00

35.00 28.00 131.00 48.00

37.50 28.00 133.00 48.00

40.00 27.00 133.00 54.00

42.50 27.00 125.00 54.00

45.00 27.00 125.00 54.00

47.50 50.00 138.00 4.00

50.00 50.00 138.00 4.00
__________________________________

Output Results:

Calculation segment, dz=0.050 ft
User defined Print Interval, dp=2.00 ft

Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA), a_max = 0.73g

CSR Calculation:

Depth gamma sigma gamma' sigma' rd mZ a(z) CSR x fs1 =CSRfs ft pcf atm pcf atm g g
August 23, 2022 Page 60
Project 22-02182

_____________________________________________________________________________________

0.00 115.00 0.000 115.00 0.000 1.00 0.000 0.734 0.48 1.30 0.62

2.00 115.00 0.109 115.00 0.109 1.00 0.000 0.734 0.47 1.30 0.62

4.00 115.00 0.217 115.00 0.217 0.99 0.000 0.734 0.47 1.30 0.61

6.00 117.80 0.327 117.80 0.327 0.99 0.000 0.734 0.47 1.30 0.61

8.00 122.00 0.440 122.00 0.440 0.98 0.000 0.734 0.47 1.30 0.61

10.00 122.00 0.556 122.00 0.556 0.98 0.000 0.734 0.47 1.30 0.61

12.00 126.80 0.673 126.80 0.673 0.97 0.000 0.734 0.46 1.30 0.60

14.00 128.00 0.794 128.00 0.794 0.97 0.000 0.734 0.46 1.30 0.60

16.00 129.60 0.915 129.60 0.915 0.96 0.000 0.734 0.46 1.30 0.60

18.00 132.00 1.039 132.00 1.039 0.96 0.000 0.734 0.46 1.30 0.59

20.00 132.00 1.164 132.00 1.164 0.95 0.000 0.734 0.45 1.30 0.59

22.00 131.20 1.288 68.80 1.231 0.95 0.000 0.734 0.47 1.30 0.62

24.00 131.00 1.412 68.60 1.296 0.94 0.000 0.734 0.49 1.30 0.64

26.00 129.80 1.536 67.40 1.360 0.94 0.000 0.734 0.51 1.30 0.66

28.00 128.00 1.657 65.60 1.423 0.93 0.000 0.734 0.52 1.30 0.68

30.00 128.00 1.778 65.60 1.485 0.93 0.000 0.734 0.53 1.30 0.69

32.00 130.40 1.900 68.00 1.548 0.91 0.000 0.734 0.54 1.30 0.70

34.00 131.00 2.024 68.60 1.613 0.90 0.000 0.734 0.54 1.30 0.70

36.00 131.80 2.148 69.40 1.678 0.88 0.000 0.734 0.54 1.30 0.70

38.00 133.00 2.273 70.60 1.744 0.86 0.000 0.734 0.54 1.30 0.70

40.00 133.00 2.399 70.60 1.811 0.85 0.000 0.734 0.54 1.30 0.70

42.00 126.60 2.522 64.20 1.875 0.83 0.000 0.734 0.53 1.30 0.69

44.00 125.00 2.640 62.60 1.934 0.82 0.000 0.734 0.53 1.30 0.69

46.00 130.20 2.760 67.80 1.994 0.80 0.000 0.734 0.53 1.30 0.69

48.00 138.00 2.887 75.60 2.063 0.78 0.000 0.734 0.52 1.30 0.68

50.00 138.00 3.018 75.60 2.134 0.77 0.000 0.734 0.52 1.30 0.67 _____________________________________________________________________________________ CSR is based on water table at 20.00 during earthquake

CRR Calculation from SPT or BPT data:

Depth SPT Cebs Cr sigma' Cn (N1)60 Fines d(N1)60 (N1)60f CRR7.5 ft atm %
_____________________________________________________________________________________

0.00 7.00 1.50 0.75 0.000 1.70 13.39 NoLiq 7.20 20.59 0.22

2.00 7.00 1.50 0.75 0.109 1.70 13.39 NoLiq 7.20 20.59 0.22

4.00 7.00 1.50 0.75 0.217 1.70 13.39 71.60 7.20 20.59 0.22

6.00 7.00 1.50 0.75 0.327 1.70 13.39 52.00 7.20 20.59 0.22

8.00 7.80 1.50 0.75 0.440 1.51 13.22 61.80 7.20 20.42 0.22

10.00 11.00 1.50 0.85 0.556 1.34 18.81 NoLiq 7.20 26.01 0.30

12.00 11.00 1.50 0.85 0.673 1.22 17.09 NoLiq 7.20 24.29 0.27

14.00 18.20 1.50 0.85 0.794 1.12 26.04 48.80 7.20 33.24 2.00

16.00 23.00 1.50 0.95 0.915 1.05 34.26 14.00 2.16 36.42 2.00

18.00 20.20 1.50 0.95 1.039 0.98 28.24 31.40 6.34 34.57 2.00

20.00 9.00 1.50 0.95 1.164 0.93 11.89 NoLiq 7.20 19.09 0.21

22.00 9.00 1.50 0.95 1.288 0.88 11.30 NoLiq 7.20 18.50 0.20

24.00 16.20 1.50 0.95 1.412 0.84 19.43 58.40 7.20 26.63 0.31

26.00 21.00 1.50 0.95 1.536 0.81 24.15 30.00 6.00 30.15 2.00

28.00 22.40 1.50 1.00 1.657 0.78 26.10 26.80 5.23 31.33 2.00

30.00 28.00 1.50 1.00 1.778 0.75 31.49 14.00 2.16 33.65 2.00

32.00 28.00 1.50 1.00 1.900 0.73 30.47 41.20 7.20 37.67 2.00

34.00 28.00 1.50 1.00 2.024 0.70 29.52 48.00 7.20 36.72 2.00

36.00 28.00 1.50 1.00 2.148 0.68 28.66 48.00 7.20 35.86 2.00

38.00 27.80 1.50 1.00 2.273 0.66 27.66 49.20 7.20 34.86 2.00

40.00 27.00 1.50 1.00 2.399 0.65 26.15 54.00 7.20 33.35 2.00

42.00 27.00 1.50 1.00 2.522 0.63 25.50 54.00 7.20 32.70 2.00

44.00 27.00 1.50 1.00 2.640 0.62 24.92 54.00 7.20 32.12 2.00

46.00 36.20 1.50 1.00 2.732 0.61 32.85 34.01 6.96 39.81 2.00

48.00 50.00 1.50 1.00 2.800 0.60 44.82 4.00 0.00 44.82 2.00

50.00 50.00 1.50 1.00 2.872 0.59 44.26 4.00 0.00 44.26 2.00 _____________________________________________________________________________________ CRR is based on water table at 45.00 during In-Situ Testing

Factor of Safety, - Earthquake Magnitude= 7.30:

Depth sigC' CRR7.5 x Ksig =CRRv x MSF =CRRm CSRfs F.S.=CRRm/CSRfs ft atm
________________________________________________________________________

0.00 0.00 0.22 1.00 0.22 1.07 2.00 0.62 5.00 ^

2.00 0.07 0.22 1.00 0.22 1.07 2.00 0.62 5.00 ^

4.00 0.14 0.22 1.00 0.22 1.07 0.24 0.61 5.00

6.00 0.21 0.22 1.00 0.22 1.07 0.24 0.61 5.00

8.00 0.29 0.22 1.00 0.22 1.07 0.24 0.61 5.00

10.00 0.36 0.30 1.00 0.30 1.07 2.00 0.61 5.00 ^
August 23, 2022 Page 61
Project 22-02182

12.00 0.44 0.27 1.00 0.27 1.07 2.00 0.60 5.00 ^

14.00 0.52 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.07 2.14 0.60 5.00

16.00 0.60 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.07 2.14 0.60 5.00

18.00 0.68 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.07 2.14 0.59 5.00

20.00 0.76 0.21 1.00 0.21 1.07 0.22 0.59 5.00

22.00 0.84 0.20 1.00 0.20 1.07 2.00 0.62 5.00 ^

24.00 0.92 0.31 1.00 0.31 1.07 0.33 0.64 0.52 *

26.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.07 2.14 0.66 3.26

28.00 1.08 2.00 0.99 1.99 1.07 2.13 0.68 3.15

30.00 1.16 2.00 0.98 1.96 1.07 2.10 0.69 3.05

32.00 1.24 2.00 0.97 1.94 1.07 2.08 0.70 2.99

34.00 1.32 2.00 0.96 1.92 1.07 2.05 0.70 2.94

36.00 1.40 2.00 0.95 1.89 1.07 2.03 0.70 2.90

38.00 1.48 2.00 0.94 1.87 1.07 2.00 0.70 2.87

40.00 1.56 2.00 0.92 1.85 1.07 1.98 0.70 2.84

42.00 1.64 2.00 0.91 1.83 1.07 1.96 0.69 2.82

44.00 1.72 2.00 0.90 1.81 1.07 1.94 0.69 2.81

46.00 1.78 2.00 0.90 1.80 1.07 1.92 0.69 2.80

48.00 1.82 2.00 0.89 1.78 1.07 1.91 0.68 2.81

50.00 1.87 2.00 0.89 1.77 1.07 1.90 0.67 2.83
________________________________________________________________________ * F.S.<1: Liquefaction Potential Zone. (If above water table: F.S.=5) ^ No-liquefiable Soils or above Water Table.
(F.S. is limited to 5, CRR is limited to 2, CSR is limited to 2)

CPT convert to SPT for Settlement Analysis:

Fines Correction for Settlement Analysis:

Depth Ic qc/N60 qc1 (N1)60 Fines d(N1)60 (N1)60s
ft atm %
________________________________________________________________

0.00 - - - 20.59 NoLiq 0.00 20.59

2.00 - - - 20.59 NoLiq 0.00 20.59

4.00 - - - 20.59 71.60 0.00 20.59

6.00 - - - 20.59 52.00 0.00 20.59

8.00 - - - 20.42 61.80 0.00 20.42

10.00 - - - 26.01 NoLiq 0.00 26.01

12.00 - - - 24.29 NoLiq 0.00 24.29

14.00 - - - 33.24 48.80 0.00 33.24

16.00 - - - 36.42 14.00 0.00 36.42

18.00 - - - 34.57 31.40 0.00 34.57

20.00 - - - 19.09 NoLiq 0.00 19.09

22.00 - - - 18.50 NoLiq 0.00 18.50

24.00 - - - 26.63 58.40 0.00 26.63

26.00 - - - 30.15 30.00 0.00 30.15

28.00 - - - 31.33 26.80 0.00 31.33

30.00 - - - 33.65 14.00 0.00 33.65

32.00 - - - 37.67 41.20 0.00 37.67

34.00 - - - 36.72 48.00 0.00 36.72

36.00 - - - 35.86 48.00 0.00 35.86

38.00 - - - 34.86 49.20 0.00 34.86

40.00 - - - 33.35 54.00 0.00 33.35

42.00 - - - 32.70 54.00 0.00 32.70

44.00 - - - 32.12 54.00 0.00 32.12

46.00 - - - 39.81 34.01 0.00 39.81

48.00 - - - 44.82 4.00 0.00 44.82

50.00 - - - 44.26 4.00 0.00 44.26
________________________________________________________________ (N1)60s has been fines corrected in liquefaction analysis, therefore d(N1)60=0.

Fines=NoLiq means the soils are not liquefiable.

Settlement of Saturated Sands:

Settlement Analysis Method: Ishihara / Yoshimine
Depth CSRsf / MSF* =CSRm F.S. Fines (N1)60s Dr ec dsz dsp S ft % % % in. in. in.
______________________________________________________________________________________________

49.95 0.67 1.00 0.67 2.82 4.00 44.27 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000

48.00 0.68 1.00 0.68 2.81 4.00 44.82 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000

46.00 0.69 1.00 0.69 2.80 34.01 39.81 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000

44.00 0.69 1.00 0.69 2.81 54.00 32.12 95.07 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000

42.00 0.69 1.00 0.69 2.82 54.00 32.70 96.51 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000

40.00 0.70 1.00 0.70 2.84 54.00 33.35 98.17 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 August 23, 2022 Page 62
Project 22-02182

38.00 0.70 1.00 0.70 2.87 49.20 34.86 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000

36.00 0.70 1.00 0.70 2.90 48.00 35.86 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000

34.00 0.70 1.00 0.70 2.94 48.00 36.72 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000

32.00 0.70 1.00 0.70 2.99 41.20 37.67 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000

30.00 0.69 1.00 0.69 3.05 14.00 33.65 98.97 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000

28.00 0.68 1.00 0.68 3.15 26.80 31.33 93.14 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000

26.00 0.66 1.00 0.66 3.26 30.00 30.15 90.39 0.000 0.0E0 0.219 0.219

24.00 0.64 1.00 0.64 0.52 58.40 26.63 82.90 1.590 9.5E-3 0.108 0.327

22.00 0.62 1.00 0.62 5.00 NoLiq 18.50 67.83 0.000 0.0E0 0.342 0.669

20.05 0.59 1.00 0.59 5.00 NoLiq 19.07 68.86 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.669 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Settlement of Saturated Sands=0.669 in.
qc1 and (N1)60 is after fines correction in liquefaction analysis dsz is per each segment, dz=0.05 ft
dsp is per each print interval, dp=2.00 ft
S is cumulated settlement at this depth

Settlement of Unsaturated Sands:

Depth sigma' sigC' (N1)60s CSRsf Gmax g*Ge/Gm g_eff ec7.5 Cec ec dsz dsp S ft atm atm atm % % in. in.
in.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________

20.00 1.16 0.76 19.09 0.59 1038.59 6.6E-4 0.7486 0.7833 1.01 0.7900 0.00E0 0.000

0.000

18.00 1.04 0.68 34.57 0.59 1196.01 5.2E-4 1.0000 0.4465 1.01 0.4503 5.40E-3 0.317

0.317

16.00 0.92 0.60 36.42 0.60 1142.06 4.8E-4 0.7778 0.3116 1.01 0.3143 3.77E-3 0.195

0.512

14.00 0.79 0.52 33.24 0.60 1031.86 4.6E-4 0.6217 0.2988 1.01 0.3013 3.62E-3 0.127

0.639

12.00 0.67 0.44 24.29 0.60 855.91 4.7E-4 0.7338 0.5606 1.01 0.5654 0.00E0 0.157

0.796

10.00 0.56 0.36 26.01 0.61 795.56 4.2E-4 0.3770 0.2629 1.01 0.2651 0.00E0 0.000

0.796

8.00 0.44 0.29 20.42 0.61 653.41 4.1E-4 1.0000 0.9584 1.01 0.9665 1.16E-2 0.345

1.141

6.00 0.33 0.21 20.59 0.61 564.25 3.5E-4 1.0000 0.9484 1.01 0.9564 1.15E-2 0.474

1.615

4.00 0.22 0.14 20.59 0.61 460.27 2.9E-4 1.0000 0.9484 1.01 0.9564 1.15E-2 0.391

2.006

2.00 0.11 0.07 20.59 0.62 325.47 2.1E-4 0.1056 0.1002 1.01 0.1010 0.00E0 0.319

2.325

0.00 0.00 0.00 20.59 0.62 3.12 2.0E-6 0.0010 0.0010 1.01 0.0010 0.00E0 0.000

2.325
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________
Settlement of Unsaturated Sands=2.325 in.
dsz is per each segment, dz=0.05 ft
dsp is per each print interval, dp=2.00 ft
S is cumulated settlement at this depth

Total Settlement of Saturated and Unsaturated Sands=2.994 in.

Differential Settlement=1.497 to 1.976 in.

Units: Unit: qc, fs, Stress or Pressure = atm (1.0581tsf); Unit Weight = pcf; Depth = ft; Settlement = in.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 atm (atmosphere) = 1.0581 tsf(1 tsf = 1 ton/ft2 = 2 kip/ft2) 1 atm (atmosphere) = 101.325 kPa(1 kPa = 1 kN/m2 = 0.001 Mpa) SPT Field data from Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
BPT Field data from Becker Penetration Test (BPT)
qc Field data from Cone Penetration Test (CPT) [atm (tsf)] fs Friction from CPT testing [atm (tsf)]
Rf Ratio of fs/qc (%)
gamma Total unit weight of soil
gamma' Effective unit weight of soil
Fines Fines content [%]
D50 Mean grain size
Dr Relative Density
sigma Total vertical stress [atm]
sigma' Effective vertical stress [atm]
sigC' Effective confining pressure [atm]
August 23, 2022 Page 63
Project 22-02182

rd Acceleration reduction coefficient by Seed
a_max. Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) in ground surface mZ Linear acceleration reduction coefficient X depth a_min. Minimum acceleration under linear reduction, mZ CRRv CRR after overburden stress correction, CRRv=CRR7.5 * Ksig CRR7.5 Cyclic resistance ratio (M=7.5)
Ksig Overburden stress correction factor for CRR7.5
CRRm After magnitude scaling correction CRRm=CRRv * MSF MSF Magnitude scaling factor from M=7.5 to user input M CSR Cyclic stress ratio induced by earthquake
CSRfs CSRfs=CSR*fs1 (Default fs1=1)
fs1 First CSR curve in graphic defined in #9 of Advanced page fs2 2nd CSR curve in graphic defined in #9 of Advanced page F.S. Calculated factor of safety against liquefaction F.S.=CRRm/CSRsf Cebs Energy Ratio, Borehole Dia., and Sampling Method Corrections Cr Rod Length Corrections
Cn Overburden Pressure Correction
(N1)60 SPT after corrections, (N1)60=SPT * Cr * Cn * Cebs d(N1)60 Fines correction of SPT
(N1)60f (N1)60 after fines corrections, (N1)60f=(N1)60 + d(N1)60 Cq Overburden stress correction factor
qc1 CPT after Overburden stress correction
dqc1 Fines correction of CPT
qc1f CPT after Fines and Overburden correction, qc1f=qc1 + dqc1 qc1n CPT after normalization in Robertson's method
Kc Fine correction factor in Robertson's Method
qc1f CPT after Fines correction in Robertson's Method
Ic Soil type index in Suzuki's and Robertson's Methods (N1)60s (N1)60 after settlement fines corrections
CSRm After magnitude scaling correction for Settlement calculation CSRm=CSRsf / MSF* CSRfs Cyclic stress ratio induced by earthquake with user inputed fs MSF* Scaling factor from CSR, MSF*=1, based on Item 2 of Page C. ec Volumetric strain for saturated sands
dz Calculation segment, dz=0.050 ft
dsz Settlement in each segment, dz
dp User defined print interval
dsp Settlement in each print interval, dp
Gmax Shear Modulus at low strain
g_eff gamma_eff, Effective shear Strain
g*Ge/Gm gamma_eff * G_eff/G_max, Strain-modulus ratio
ec7.5 Volumetric Strain for magnitude=7.5
Cec Magnitude correction factor for any magnitude
ec Volumetric strain for unsaturated sands, ec=Cec * ec7.5 NoLiq No-Liquefy Soils

References:
____________________________________________________________________________________

1. NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. Youd, T.L., and Idriss, I.M., eds., Technical Report NCEER 97-0022.

SP117. Southern California Earthquake Center. Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for
Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California. University of Southern California. March 1999.

2. RECENT ADVANCES IN SOIL LIQUEFACTION ENGINEERING AND SEISMIC SITE RESPONSE EVALUATION, Paper No. SPL-2, PROCEEDINGS: Fourth
International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, San Diego, CA, March 2001.

3. RECENT ADVANCES IN SOIL LIQUEFACTION ENGINEERING: A UNIFIED AND CONSISTENT FRAMEWORK, Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
Report No. EERC 2003-06 by R.B Seed and etc. April 2003.

Note: Print Interval you selected does not show complete results. To get complete results, you should select 'Segment' in Print Interval (Item 12, Page C).

August 23, 2022 Page 64
Project 22-02182

LiquefyPro CivilTech Software USA www.civiltech.com CivilTech Corporation

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
1600 W Commonwealth Ave
22-02182 Plate A-1
Hole No.=B-2 Water Depth=20 ft Magnitude=7.3
Acceleration=0.734g
(ft)
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
14 118 NoLq
14 NoLq
118 50
8N o L q
120 NoLq
8N o L q
135 33
22 126 NoLq
11 NoLq
127 NoLq
10 41
127
41 130 NoLq
NoLq
25 NoLq
NoLq
34 126 0
34 Raw Unit Fines
SPT Weight %
Shear Stres s Ratio
CRR CSR fs1
Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential
0 2
Factor of Safety
051
Settlement
Saturated
Unsaturat.

S = 3.19 in.
0 (in.) 10
fs 1=1.30
fs2=1
fs2

August 23, 2022 Page 65
Project 22-02182

*******************************************************************************************************

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS CALCULATION DETAILS
Copyright by CivilTech Software
www.civiltech.com

******************************************************************************************************* Font: Courier New, Regular, Size 8 is recommended for this report.

Licensed to , 8/18/2022 3:32:32 PM

Input File Name: Z:\OUR DOCUMENTS\Liquefaction Analysis\22-02182-1 B-2.liq Title: 1600 W Commonwealth Ave
Subtitle: 22-02182

Input Data:

Surface Elev.=
Hole No.=B-2
Depth of Hole=50.00 ft
Water Table during Earthquake= 20.00 ft
Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 42.00 ft
Max. Acceleration=0.73 g
Earthquake Magnitude=7.30
No-Liquefiable Soils: CL, OL are Non-Liq. Soil

1. SPT or BPT Calculation.

2. Settlement Analysis Method: Ishihara / Yoshimine

3. Fines Correction for Liquefaction: Stark/Olson et al.*

4. Fine Correction for Settlement: During Liquefaction*

5. Settlement Calculation in: All zones*

6. Hammer Energy Ratio, Ce = 1.25

7. Borehole Diameter, Cb= 1

8. Sampling Method, Cs= 1.2

9. User request factor of safety (apply to CSR) , User= 1.3 Plot two CSR (fs1=User, fs2=1)

10. Average two input data between two Depths: Yes*
* Recommended Options

In-Situ Test Data:

Depth SPT Gamma Fines
ft pcf %
__________________________________

0.00 14.00 118.00 NoLiq

2.50 14.00 118.00 NoLiq

5.00 14.00 118.00 50.00

7.50 8.00 118.00 NoLiq

10.00 8.00 120.00 NoLiq

12.50 8.00 120.00 NoLiq

15.00 8.00 135.00 33.00

17.50 22.00 135.00 33.00

20.00 22.00 126.00 NoLiq

22.50 11.00 126.00 NoLiq

25.00 11.00 127.00 NoLiq

27.50 10.00 127.00 41.00

30.00 10.00 127.00 41.00

32.50 41.00 127.00 41.00

35.00 41.00 130.00 NoLiq

37.50 41.00 130.00 NoLiq

40.00 25.00 130.00 NoLiq

42.50 25.00 130.00 NoLiq

45.00 34.00 126.00 0.00

47.50 34.00 126.00 0.00

50.00 34.00 126.00 0.00
__________________________________

Output Results:

Calculation segment, dz=0.050 ft
User defined Print Interval, dp=2.00 ft

Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA), a_max = 0.73g

CSR Calculation:

Depth gamma sigma gamma' sigma' rd mZ a(z) CSR x fs1 =CSRfs ft pcf atm pcf atm g g
August 23, 2022 Page 66
Project 22-02182

_____________________________________________________________________________________

0.00 118.00 0.000 118.00 0.000 1.00 0.000 0.734 0.48 1.30 0.62

2.00 118.00 0.112 118.00 0.112 1.00 0.000 0.734 0.47 1.30 0.62

4.00 118.00 0.223 118.00 0.223 0.99 0.000 0.734 0.47 1.30 0.61

6.00 118.00 0.335 118.00 0.335 0.99 0.000 0.734 0.47 1.30 0.61

8.00 118.40 0.446 118.40 0.446 0.98 0.000 0.734 0.47 1.30 0.61

10.00 120.00 0.559 120.00 0.559 0.98 0.000 0.734 0.47 1.30 0.61

12.00 120.00 0.672 120.00 0.672 0.97 0.000 0.734 0.46 1.30 0.60

14.00 129.00 0.789 129.00 0.789 0.97 0.000 0.734 0.46 1.30 0.60

16.00 135.00 0.915 135.00 0.915 0.96 0.000 0.734 0.46 1.30 0.60

18.00 133.20 1.042 133.20 1.042 0.96 0.000 0.734 0.46 1.30 0.59

20.00 126.00 1.165 126.00 1.165 0.95 0.000 0.734 0.45 1.30 0.59

22.00 126.00 1.284 63.60 1.226 0.95 0.000 0.734 0.47 1.30 0.62

24.00 126.60 1.403 64.20 1.287 0.94 0.000 0.734 0.49 1.30 0.64

26.00 127.00 1.523 64.60 1.348 0.94 0.000 0.734 0.51 1.30 0.66

28.00 127.00 1.643 64.60 1.409 0.93 0.000 0.734 0.52 1.30 0.68

30.00 127.00 1.763 64.60 1.470 0.93 0.000 0.734 0.53 1.30 0.69

32.00 127.00 1.883 64.60 1.531 0.91 0.000 0.734 0.54 1.30 0.70

34.00 128.80 2.004 66.40 1.592 0.90 0.000 0.734 0.54 1.30 0.70

36.00 130.00 2.126 67.60 1.656 0.88 0.000 0.734 0.54 1.30 0.70

38.00 130.00 2.249 67.60 1.720 0.86 0.000 0.734 0.54 1.30 0.70

40.00 130.00 2.372 67.60 1.784 0.85 0.000 0.734 0.54 1.30 0.70

42.00 130.00 2.495 67.60 1.848 0.83 0.000 0.734 0.54 1.30 0.70

44.00 127.60 2.617 65.20 1.911 0.82 0.000 0.734 0.53 1.30 0.69

46.00 126.00 2.736 63.60 1.971 0.80 0.000 0.734 0.53 1.30 0.69

48.00 126.00 2.856 63.60 2.031 0.78 0.000 0.734 0.53 1.30 0.68

50.00 126.00 2.975 63.60 2.091 0.77 0.000 0.734 0.52 1.30 0.68 _____________________________________________________________________________________ CSR is based on water table at 20.00 during earthquake

CRR Calculation from SPT or BPT data:

Depth SPT Cebs Cr sigma' Cn (N1)60 Fines d(N1)60 (N1)60f CRR7.5 ft atm %
_____________________________________________________________________________________

0.00 14.00 1.50 0.75 0.000 1.70 26.78 NoLiq 7.20 33.98 2.00

2.00 14.00 1.50 0.75 0.112 1.70 26.78 NoLiq 7.20 33.98 2.00

4.00 14.00 1.50 0.75 0.223 1.70 26.78 70.40 7.20 33.98 2.00

6.00 11.60 1.50 0.75 0.335 1.70 22.18 70.40 7.20 29.38 0.39

8.00 8.00 1.50 0.75 0.446 1.50 13.47 NoLiq 7.20 20.67 0.22

10.00 8.00 1.50 0.85 0.559 1.34 13.65 NoLiq 7.20 20.85 0.23

12.00 8.00 1.50 0.85 0.672 1.22 12.44 NoLiq 7.20 19.64 0.21

14.00 8.00 1.50 0.85 0.789 1.13 11.49 60.20 7.20 18.69 0.20

16.00 13.60 1.50 0.95 0.915 1.05 20.26 33.00 6.72 26.98 0.32

18.00 22.00 1.50 0.95 1.042 0.98 30.71 46.60 7.20 37.91 2.00

20.00 22.00 1.50 0.95 1.165 0.93 29.05 NoLiq 7.20 36.25 2.00

22.00 13.20 1.50 0.95 1.284 0.88 16.60 NoLiq 7.20 23.80 0.26

24.00 11.00 1.50 0.95 1.403 0.84 13.23 NoLiq 7.20 20.43 0.22

26.00 10.60 1.50 0.95 1.523 0.81 12.24 77.00 7.20 19.44 0.21

28.00 10.00 1.50 1.00 1.643 0.78 11.70 41.00 7.20 18.90 0.20

30.00 10.00 1.50 1.00 1.763 0.75 11.30 41.00 7.20 18.50 0.20

32.00 34.80 1.50 1.00 1.883 0.73 38.04 41.00 7.20 45.24 2.00

34.00 41.00 1.50 1.00 2.004 0.71 43.45 76.99 7.20 50.65 2.00

36.00 41.00 1.50 1.00 2.126 0.69 42.18 NoLiq 7.20 49.38 2.00

38.00 37.80 1.50 1.00 2.249 0.67 37.81 NoLiq 7.20 45.01 2.00

40.00 25.00 1.50 1.00 2.372 0.65 24.35 NoLiq 7.20 31.55 2.00

42.00 25.00 1.50 1.00 2.495 0.63 23.74 NoLiq 7.20 30.94 2.00

44.00 30.40 1.50 1.00 2.559 0.63 28.50 40.42 7.20 35.70 2.00

46.00 34.00 1.50 1.00 2.620 0.62 31.51 0.00 0.00 31.51 2.00

48.00 34.00 1.50 1.00 2.680 0.61 31.15 0.00 0.00 31.15 2.00

50.00 34.00 1.50 1.00 2.740 0.60 30.81 0.00 0.00 30.81 2.00 _____________________________________________________________________________________ CRR is based on water table at 42.00 during In-Situ Testing

Factor of Safety, - Earthquake Magnitude= 7.30:

Depth sigC' CRR7.5 x Ksig =CRRv x MSF =CRRm CSRfs F.S.=CRRm/CSRfs ft atm
________________________________________________________________________

0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.07 2.00 0.62 5.00 ^

2.00 0.07 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.07 2.00 0.62 5.00 ^

4.00 0.14 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.07 2.14 0.61 5.00

6.00 0.22 0.39 1.00 0.39 1.07 0.42 0.61 5.00

8.00 0.29 0.22 1.00 0.22 1.07 2.00 0.61 5.00 ^

10.00 0.36 0.23 1.00 0.23 1.07 2.00 0.61 5.00 ^
August 23, 2022 Page 67
Project 22-02182

12.00 0.44 0.21 1.00 0.21 1.07 2.00 0.60 5.00 ^

14.00 0.51 0.20 1.00 0.20 1.07 0.22 0.60 5.00

16.00 0.59 0.32 1.00 0.32 1.07 0.34 0.60 5.00

18.00 0.68 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.07 2.14 0.59 5.00

20.00 0.76 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.07 2.14 0.59 5.00

22.00 0.83 0.26 1.00 0.26 1.07 2.00 0.62 5.00 ^

24.00 0.91 0.22 1.00 0.22 1.07 2.00 0.64 5.00 ^

26.00 0.99 0.21 1.00 0.21 1.07 0.22 0.66 0.34 *

28.00 1.07 0.20 1.00 0.20 1.07 0.22 0.68 0.32 *

30.00 1.15 0.20 0.98 0.20 1.07 0.21 0.69 0.30 *

32.00 1.22 2.00 0.97 1.94 1.07 2.08 0.70 2.99

34.00 1.30 2.00 0.96 1.92 1.07 2.06 0.70 2.94

36.00 1.38 2.00 0.95 1.90 1.07 2.00 0.70 5.00 ^

38.00 1.46 2.00 0.94 1.88 1.07 2.00 0.70 5.00 ^

40.00 1.54 2.00 0.93 1.85 1.07 2.00 0.70 5.00 ^

42.00 1.62 2.00 0.92 1.83 1.07 2.00 0.70 5.00 ^

44.00 1.66 2.00 0.91 1.82 1.07 1.95 0.69 2.82

46.00 1.70 2.00 0.91 1.81 1.07 1.94 0.69 2.82

48.00 1.74 2.00 0.90 1.80 1.07 1.93 0.68 2.83

50.00 1.78 2.00 0.90 1.79 1.07 1.92 0.68 2.84
________________________________________________________________________ * F.S.<1: Liquefaction Potential Zone. (If above water table: F.S.=5) ^ No-liquefiable Soils or above Water Table.
(F.S. is limited to 5, CRR is limited to 2, CSR is limited to 2)

CPT convert to SPT for Settlement Analysis:

Fines Correction for Settlement Analysis:

Depth Ic qc/N60 qc1 (N1)60 Fines d(N1)60 (N1)60s
ft atm %
________________________________________________________________

0.00 - - - 33.98 NoLiq 0.00 33.98

2.00 - - - 33.98 NoLiq 0.00 33.98

4.00 - - - 33.98 70.40 0.00 33.98

6.00 - - - 29.38 70.40 0.00 29.38

8.00 - - - 20.67 NoLiq 0.00 20.67

10.00 - - - 20.85 NoLiq 0.00 20.85

12.00 - - - 19.64 NoLiq 0.00 19.64

14.00 - - - 18.69 60.20 0.00 18.69

16.00 - - - 26.98 33.00 0.00 26.98

18.00 - - - 37.91 46.60 0.00 37.91

20.00 - - - 36.25 NoLiq 0.00 36.25

22.00 - - - 23.80 NoLiq 0.00 23.80

24.00 - - - 20.43 NoLiq 0.00 20.43

26.00 - - - 19.44 77.00 0.00 19.44

28.00 - - - 18.90 41.00 0.00 18.90

30.00 - - - 18.50 41.00 0.00 18.50

32.00 - - - 45.24 41.00 0.00 45.24

34.00 - - - 50.65 76.99 0.00 50.65

36.00 - - - 49.38 NoLiq 0.00 49.38

38.00 - - - 45.01 NoLiq 0.00 45.01

40.00 - - - 31.55 NoLiq 0.00 31.55

42.00 - - - 30.94 NoLiq 0.00 30.94

44.00 - - - 35.70 40.42 0.00 35.70

46.00 - - - 31.51 0.00 0.00 31.51

48.00 - - - 31.15 0.00 0.00 31.15

50.00 - - - 30.81 0.00 0.00 30.81
________________________________________________________________ (N1)60s has been fines corrected in liquefaction analysis, therefore d(N1)60=0.

Fines=NoLiq means the soils are not liquefiable.

Settlement of Saturated Sands:

49.95 0.68 1.00 0.68 2.84 0.00 30.82 91.93 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000

48.00 0.68 1.00 0.68 2.83 0.00 31.15 92.72 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000

46.00 0.69 1.00 0.69 2.82 0.00 31.51 93.57 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000

44.00 0.69 1.00 0.69 2.82 40.42 35.70 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000

42.00 0.70 1.00 0.70 5.00 NoLiq 30.94 92.22 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000

40.00 0.70 1.00 0.70 5.00 NoLiq 31.55 93.67 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 August 23, 2022 Page 68
Project 22-02182

38.00 0.70 1.00 0.70 5.00 NoLiq 45.01 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000

36.00 0.70 1.00 0.70 5.00 NoLiq 49.38 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000

34.00 0.70 1.00 0.70 2.94 76.99 50.65 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000

32.00 0.70 1.00 0.70 2.99 41.00 45.24 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000

30.00 0.69 1.00 0.69 0.30 41.00 18.50 67.82 2.328 1.4E-2 0.191 0.191

28.00 0.68 1.00 0.68 0.32 41.00 18.90 68.56 2.284 1.4E-2 0.553 0.745

26.00 0.66 1.00 0.66 0.34 77.00 19.44 69.53 2.224 1.3E-2 0.550 1.295

24.00 0.64 1.00 0.64 5.00 NoLiq 20.43 71.32 0.000 0.0E0 0.250 1.544

22.00 0.62 1.00 0.62 5.00 NoLiq 23.80 77.46 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 1.544

20.05 0.59 1.00 0.59 5.00 NoLiq 35.92 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 1.544 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Settlement of Saturated Sands=1.544 in.
qc1 and (N1)60 is after fines correction in liquefaction analysis dsz is per each segment, dz=0.05 ft
dsp is per each print interval, dp=2.00 ft
S is cumulated settlement at this depth

Settlement of Unsaturated Sands:

20.00 1.16 0.76 36.25 0.59 1286.26 5.4E-4 0.2811 0.1138 1.01 0.1147 0.00E0 0.000

0.000

18.00 1.04 0.68 37.91 0.59 1234.99 5.0E-4 1.0000 0.3645 1.01 0.3676 4.41E-3 0.176

0.176

16.00 0.91 0.59 26.98 0.60 1033.19 5.3E-4 1.0000 0.6632 1.01 0.6689 8.03E-3 0.227

0.403

14.00 0.79 0.51 18.69 0.60 848.85 5.6E-4 1.0000 1.0756 1.01 1.0848 1.30E-2 0.463

0.865

12.00 0.67 0.44 19.64 0.60 796.78 5.1E-4 1.0000 1.0082 1.01 1.0167 0.00E0 0.369

1.234

10.00 0.56 0.36 20.85 0.61 741.00 4.6E-4 0.5826 0.5436 1.01 0.5482 0.00E0 0.000

1.234

8.00 0.45 0.29 20.67 0.61 660.30 4.1E-4 1.0000 0.9432 1.01 0.9512 0.00E0 0.000

1.234

6.00 0.33 0.22 29.38 0.61 642.84 3.2E-4 0.8200 0.4815 1.01 0.4856 5.83E-3 0.263

1.497

4.00 0.22 0.14 33.98 0.61 550.87 2.5E-4 1.0000 0.4617 1.01 0.4656 5.59E-3 0.073

1.571

2.00 0.11 0.07 33.98 0.62 389.53 1.8E-4 0.0408 0.0188 1.01 0.0190 0.00E0 0.078

1.649

0.00 0.00 0.00 33.98 0.62 3.69 1.7E-6 0.0010 0.0005 1.01 0.0005 0.00E0 0.000

1.649
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________
Settlement of Unsaturated Sands=1.649 in.
dsz is per each segment, dz=0.05 ft
dsp is per each print interval, dp=2.00 ft
S is cumulated settlement at this depth

Total Settlement of Saturated and Unsaturated Sands=3.193 in.

Differential Settlement=1.597 to 2.108 in.

References:
____________________________________________________________________________________

1. NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. Youd, T.L., and Idriss, I.M., eds., Technical Report NCEER 97-0022.

3. RECENT ADVANCES IN SOIL LIQUEFACTION ENGINEERING: A UNIFIED AND CONSISTENT FRAMEWORK, Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
Report No. EERC 2003-06 by R.B Seed and etc. April 2003.

Note: Print Interval you selected does not show complete results. To get complete results, you should select 'Segment' in Print Interval (Item 12, Page C).

August 23, 2022 Page 70
Project 22-02182

August 23, 2022 Page 71
Project 22-02182

August 23, 2022 Page 72
Project 22-02182

August 23, 2022 Page 73
Project 22-02182

August 23, 2022 Page 74
Project 22-02182

August 23, 2022 Page 75
Project 22-02182

August 23, 2022 Page 76
Project 22-02182

APPENDIX IV

REFERENCES

1. Bowles, Joseph, E., Foundation A nalysis and Design (McGraw-Hill, New York: 1988).

2. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada.

3. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, April 15, 1998, State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Map of the Anaheim Quadrangle.

4. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Anaheim 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California. Seismic Hazard Zone Report 03.

5. Monahan, Edward J., PE, Construction of and on Compacted Fil ls (Wiley & Sons, New York:
1986).

6. Naval Facilities Engineering Command Foundations and Earth S tructures - Design Manual 7.02 (Naval Publications and Forms Center, Philadelphia: 1986).

7. Taylor, Donald W., Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics (Wiley & S ons, New York: 1948).

8. Terzaghi, Karl, Peck, Ralph B., Mesri, Gholamreza, Soil Mech anics in Engineering Practice (Wiley & Sons, New York: 1996).

(818) 994-8895 www.GeoConceptsInc.com 14428 Hamlin St., Suite 200, Van Nuys, CA 91401 + 22601 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 235, Malibu, CA 92065 December 7, 2022 Project 22-02182 Meta Housing Corporation 11150 West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90064 Subject: SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT No. 1 1600 W Commonwealth Ave Fullerton, California References: 1) Geotechnical Review Sheet by LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. for the City of Fullerton, dated October 27, 2022. 2) Preliminary Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report by GeoConcepts, Inc. covering the subject site dated August 23, 2022. Dear Meta Housing Corporation: Pursuant to your request, presented herein is a response to Reference 1. A copy of the review sheet is attached. To facilitate the review, the following responses are provided per the review letter: Review Comment Responses: Item #1: It is our understanding that the structural engineer of record will design the structure to meet the requirements of the exception noted on Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16. Item #2: Based on the distance of the subject site to the ocean, the potential for tsunami inundation is nil. Item #3: A site specific ground motion hazard analysis is not anticipated to be conducted; therefore, the liquefaction analysis remains applicable. Item #4: It is generally accepted that structures may be designed for settlement limits of 4 inches total settlement and 2 inches differential settlement, which includes static and seismic settlements. Based on the calculated seismic settlements and the recommended static settlements, it is anticipated that the total will be less than the limits mentioned

December 7, 2022 Page 2 Project 22-02182
previously. Typically, mat foundations are used when settlements increase past 1.5 to 2 inches of total settlement and 0.75 to 1 inch of differential settlement. Foundation designs for conventional and mat foundations were provided previously and may be used by the project structural engineer. Item #5: The mention of suitability in the Grading and Earthwork section is for suitability of the fill after grading, not for the onsite soils to support the recommended structural fill and foundations. Maximum density testing and corresponding density tests during grading are recommended with a compilation of testing in a compaction report to properly assess the suitability of the future compacted fill blanket. Item #6: Based on lab testing and geologic observation of materials by the onsite engineer, the soils are anticipated to be primarily silty/sandy soils. A hydrometer test can be conducted by this office prior to grading in order to better understand the compaction effort required or the entire site can be graded to a 95% maximum density. Item #7: Based on lab testing and geologic observation of materials by the onsite engineer, the soils are anticipated to be primarily silty/sandy soils. An expansion index test can be conducted prior to grading to confirm expansion potential of the soils and ensure proper moisture control of the fill. Item #8: The Cal-OSHA type for the onsite soils is C. Should you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, GeoConcepts, Inc. Raffi Dermendjian Project Engineer PE C. 88261 RD: 22-02182-3 Enclosures: Geotechnical Review Sheet by the City of Fullerton Distribution: (1) Addressee December 7, 2022 Page 3 Project 22-02182

December 7, 2022 Page 4 Project 22-02182

City Council - Successor Agency - Housing AuthorityApril 4, 2023

City Council - Successor Agency - Housing Authority
April 4, 2023