The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2502 GATEWAY RD; ; CB154124; PermitV City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 01-29-2016 Commercial/Industrial Permit Permit No: CB154124 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 Job Address: 2502 GATEWAY RD CBAD Permit Type: Tl Sub Type: INDUST Status: ISSUED Applied: 11/25/2015 Entered By: RMA Parcel No: 2132612000 Lot#: 0 Valuation: $150,000.00 Construction Type: 38 Occupancy Group: Reference# Project Title: VIASAT-NEW 3300 SF EQUIPMENT Plan Approved: 01/29/2016 Issued: 01/29/2016 Inspect Area Plan Check#: ENCLOSURE-CONCRETE TILT-UP-OPEN AT TOP-TO HOUSE NEW ANTENNA PAD & EQUIPMENT-WITH ELECTRIC Applicant: SMITH CONSUL TING ARCHITECTS STE 125 13280 EVENING CREEK DR SN DIEGO CA 92128 858 793-4 777 Building Permit Add'I Building Permit Fee Plan Check Add'I Building Permit Fee Plan Check Discount Strong Motion Fee Park Fee LFM Fee Bridge Fee BTD #2 Fee BTD #3 Fee Renewal Fee Add'I Renewal Fee . Other Building Fee Pot. Water Con. Fee Meter Size Add'I Pot. Water Con. Fee Reel. Water Con. Fee Green Bldg Stands (SB1473) Fee Fire Expedidted Plan Review $803.56 $0.00 $562.49 $0.00 $0.00 $42.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6.00 $0.00 Total Fees: $1,460.05 Total Payments To Date: Owner: Meter Size Add'I Reel. Water Con. Fee Meter Fee SDCWA Fee CFO Payoff Fee PFF (3105540) PFF (4305540) License Tax (3104193) License Tax (4304193) Traffic Impact Fee (3105541) Traffic Impact Fee (4305541) PLUMBING TOTAL ELECTRICAL TOTAL MECHANICAL TOTAL Master Drainage Fee Sewer Fee Redev Parking Fee Additional Fees HMP Fee Green Bldg Standards Plan Chk TOTAL PERMIT FEES $1,460.05 Balance Due: $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $46.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ?? ?? $1,460.05 $0.00 FINAL APPROVAL Date: fl) 'ZS-/? Clearance: ------ NOTICE: Rease take NOTICE that ai:pro.rai of ycu prtject irducles tre "lrrp;isition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exa:tions hereafter rolectively referred to as ''feeslexa:tions." You have 9'.ldaysfromthe datetlis pemitV10S issued to protest in,:mition ofthesefeeslexa:tions. If you p-otest them you nust fdlONtre p-otest prcx;edures set forth in 0:wemrent Ccde Secticn 60020(a), and file tre p-otest and arrJ other req..iroo infooraticn v..ith the Oty tv'anagerfcr µmessing in acxmlance wth Calsboo M.lridpal Cede Secticn 3.32030. Fall.re to tirrelyfdlONthat prcx;edure v..111 bar arrJ subsequent lega action to attack, review, set aside, void, cr annu their in,:mitim You are rereby R.JRTHERNOTIFIEDthatyour rig-it to protest thespecifiedfeeslexa:tions OCES NOf APPlYtowaterand se;;erconnecticnfees and capa:ity cta,ges, ncr plmng, zaing, gc:ding or other sirrilcr applicaticn pu:l3Ssing cr service fees in a:mecticn v..ith this prtject. f\ffi OCES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions cf widi have ·ous1 been ·ven a NOTICE sirrilar to tlis cr as to widi tre statute cf !irritations has 'ousi other'Mse ·roo. City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 01-29-2016 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Permit Permit No:SW150453 Jot;, Address: Permit Type: Parcel No: Reference #: CB#: Project Title: 2502 GATEWAY RD CBAD SWPPP 2132612000 Lot#: CB154124 VIASAT-3300 EQUIPMENT ENCLOSUR 0 Applicant: Owner: SMITH CONSUL TING ARCHITECTS Emergency Contact: RYAN HATCH 480 239-9586 SWPPP Plan Check SWPPP Inspections Additional Fees TOTAL PERMIT FEES Total Fees: $282.00 Total Payments To Date: Status: Applied: Entered By: Issued: Inspect Area: Tier: Priority: ISSUED 11/25/2015 RMA 01/29/2016 1 M $54.00 $228.00 $0.00 $282.00 $282.00 Balance Due: DATEjz--~EARANCE, SIGNATUR ----- $0.00 THE FOLLOWING APPROVALS REQUIRED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE: 0PLANNING 0ENGINEERING 0BUILDING 0FIRE 0HEALTH 0HAZMAT/APCD «i~ Building Permit Application Plan Check No. {t / S '-J. ( 7-4 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008 Est. Value / 5 (7 &&-tJ I ~ CITY OF Ph, 760-602-2719 Fax, 760-602-$558 ~ Plan Ck. Deposit~ CARLSBAD email: building@carlsbadca.gov www.carlsbadca.gov A-c-Date // /»-//;ISWPPP JOB ADDRESS 2502 Gateway Road SUITEI/SPACEI/UNIT r • 1213 -26 I -UJ 121, 2-21 Z.3 CT/PROJECT# ILOT# rHASE# I # OF UNITS I # BEOROOMS #BATHROOMS I TENANT BUSINESS NAME I coN~;~E I occ~;;uP ViaSat DESCRIPTION OF WORK: Include Square Feet of Affected Area(s) New 3,300 sf. open to the sky, concrete tilt-up equipment enclosure to house new antenna pad and related equipment. Misc. electrical work to feed the antenna equipment is included. EXISTING USE I PROPOSED USE I GARAGE (SF) PATIOS (SF) I DECKS (SF) FIREPLACE I AIR CONDITIONING I FIRE SPRINKLERS N/A N/A YES0, No0 YES0No0 YES0No0 APPLICANT NAME (Primary Contact) Milos Makaric APPLICANT NAME (Secondary Contact) Mark Langan ADDRESS ADDRESS 13280 Evening Creek Orv South, Suite 125 13280 Evening Creek Orv South, Suite 125 CITY STATE ZIP CITY STATE ZIP San Diego CA 92128 San Diego CA 92128 PHONE PHONE 858. 793.4777 rAX 858. 793.4787 858.793.4777 IFAX 858.793.4787 EMAIL EMAIL milosm@sca-sd.com markl@sca-sd.com PROPERTY OWNER NAME Pivotal 650 California St. LLC CONTRACTOR BUS. NAME Whitina-Turner Contracting Companv ADDRESS ADDRESS 2201 E. Camelback Rd. , Suite 650 4747 Executive Orv CITY STATE ZIP CITY STATE ZIP Phoenix AZ 85016 San Diego CA 92121 PHONE rAX PHONE rAX 602.248.8181 858.792.0600 EMAIL EMAIL tony@levineinvestments.com nick.schmidt@whiting-turner.com ARCH/DESIGNER NAME & ADDRESS 15TATELIC.# STATELIC3 // / 0 7 I CLASS 1cny;t:J7.;;,. c-0 Smith Consulting Architects C-11701 (Sec. 7031.5 Business and Professions Code: Any City or County which requires a permit to construc,tl alter, improve, demolish or repair an~ structure, prior to its issuance, also requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement tnat he is licensed pursuant to the provisions of me Contractor's License Law /Chapter 9, commending with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions code} or that he is exemP.t therefrom, and the basis for the alleged exemption. Any violation of Section 7031.5 by any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars ($500)), . . Workers' Compensation Declaration: / hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations: D I have and wlll maintain a certificate of consentto self-Insure for workers' compensation as provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the perfonnance of the work for which this pennit is issued. D I have and wlll maintain workers' compensation, as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the perfonnance of ~ork for ~ennit is issued. My workers' compensation insurance carrier and policy number are: Insurance Co. VT C. ~ k! .. iJ 8 ft, B ~ c ! J ~--<} Polley No. -I m.,v. :::5 Expiration Date £f1 I ~ This section need not be completed if the pennit is for one hundred dollars ($100) or less. 0 Certificate of Exemption: I certify that in the perfonnance of the work for which this pennit is issued, I shall not employ any person In any manner so as to become subject to the Workers' Compensation Laws of California. WARNING: Failure to secure workers' compensation c erag Is u wf I, and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to one hundred thousand dollars (&100,000), In addition to the cost of compensation, dam-:ts as provl~or In ectlon 3 6 the est and attorney's fees. _g CONTRACTORSIGNATUR'EJ{ =t(-?\ \\\) 1 -. -QAGENT DATE \ 1A I hereby affirm that I am exempt from Contractor's Ucense law for the following reason: D I, as owner of lhe property or my employees wilh wages as !heir sole compensation, will do lhe work and lhe structure Is not Intended or offered for sale (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractors License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who does such work himself or through his own employees, provided that such improvemenls are not intended or offered for sale. If, however, the building or improvementis sold wilhin one year of completion, the owner-builder will have the burden of proving Iha! he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale). D I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting wilh licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractors License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and contracts for such projects with contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Conlractors License Law). D I am exempt under Section ----'Business and Professions Code for this reason: 1.1 personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed property improvemenl 0Yes 0No 2. I (have / have not) signed an application for a building pennit for lhe proposed work. 3. I have contracted with the following person (finn) to provide the proposed construction Qnclude name address/ phone/ contractors' license number): 4. I plan to provide portions of lhe work, but I have hired the following person to coordinate, supervise and provide Iha major work (include name/ address / phone / contractors' license number): 5. I will provide some of lhe work, but I have contracted (hired) lhe following persons to provide Iha work indicated (include name / address I phone / type of work): Ji5 PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE OAGENT DATE Is the applicant or future building occupant required to submit a business plan, acutely hazardous materials registration form or risk management and prevention program under Sections 25505, 25533 or 25534 of the Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act? Yes ~ No Is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district? Yes ~ No Is the facility to be constructed within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? Yes ~ No IF ANY OF THE ANSWERS ARE YES, A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY MAY NOT BE ISSUED UNLESS THE APPLICANT HAS MET OR IS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT. I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work this permit is issued (Sec. 3097 (i} Civil Code). Lender's Name Lender's Address I certify that I have read the application and state that the above information is conect and that the information on the plans is accurate. I agree to comply with all City ordinances and State laws relating to building construction. I hereby authorize representative of the City of Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned property for inspection purposes. I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE, INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES, JUDGMENTS, COSTS AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT. OSHA: An OSHA permit is required for excavations over 5'0' deep and demolition or construction of structures over 3 stories in height EXPIRATION: Every permit issued by the Building Official under the provisions of this Code shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of such permit or if the build' or work authorized by su rmlt is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is commenced for a period of 180 days (Section 106.4.4 Uniform Building Code) . .-@S' APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE 11/19/2015 ~ ',,,., ' ' .. -STOP: THIS SECTION NOT REQUIRED FOR BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE. Complete the following ONLY if a Certificate of Occupancy will be requested at final inspection. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY fCommercial Projects only J Fax (760) 602-8560, E(llail building@carlsbadca.gov or Mail the completed form to City of Carlsbad, Building Division 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. CO#: (Office Use Only) CONTACT NAME OCCUPANT NAME ADDRESS BUILDING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CITY STATE ZIP Carlsbad CA PHONE I FAX EMAIL OCCUPANT'S BUS. LIC. No. DELIVERY OPTIONS PICKUP: CONTACT (Listed above) OCCUPANT (Listed above) CONTRACTOR (On Pg. 1) ASSOCIATED CB# MAIL TO: CONTACT (Listed above) OCCUPANT (Listed above) CONTRACTOR (On Pg. 1) NO CHANGE IN USE/ NO CONSTRUCTION MAIL/ FAX TO OTHER: CHANGE OF USE/ NO CONSTRUCTION /!5 APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE Inspection List Permit#: C8154124 Type: Tl Date Inspection Item 10/25/2016 89 Final Combo 10/25/2016 92 Compliance Investigation 07/11/2016 84 Rough Combo 04/27/2016 12 Steel/Bond Beam 04/20/2016 12 Steel/Bond Beam 04/12/2016 21 Underground/Under Floor 04/12/2016 31 Underground/Conduit-Wirin 04/11/2016 12 Steel/Bond Beam 03/24/2016 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers 03/10/2016 10 Structural -Tilt Up Panels 02/04/2016 31 Underground/Conduit-Wirin 02/04/2016 38 Signs 02/04/2016 39 Final Electrical Wednesday, October 26, 2016 INDUST Inspector Act PB AP RI PB PA PB AP PB AP PB NR PB NR PY AP PY PA PY AP PB AP PB AP PB AP VIASAT-NEW 3300 SF EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE-CONCRETE TILT-UP-OPEN Comments PRE FINAL Page 1 of 1 { City of Carlsbad SPECIAL INSPECTION AGREEMENT 8-45 Development Services Building Division 1635 Faraday Avenue 760-602-2719 www.carlsbadca.gov In accordance with Chapter 17 of the California Building Code the following must be completed when work being performed requires speci~I inspection, structural observation and construction material testing. Project/Permit: l.5i.f 12 ~ A. THIS SECTION MUST BE COMPLETED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER/AUTHORIZED AGENT. Please check if you are Owner-Builder 0. (If you checked as owner-builder you must also complete Section B of this agreement.) LI \ "[' Name: (Please print) I 1At UC\. M l~~tlli) L + .--,,, ... :.i.:. (~} ~£. (M.I.) r,·_,r Mailing Address: i y ± E " C Uff s+. ) o/4V\.O\. 'Get1LGh I LA I 92.01-,C Email·l-f~~V\,k":hJ,@. \/\v\,Sq,·bc.ovY\ Phone: 4iD-l,3~-i5'6Gi I am: DProperty Owner ~roperty Owner's Agent of Record DArchitect of Record DEngineer of Record State of California Registration Numbe · Expiration Date: _______ _ AGREEMENT: I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that I have read, understand, acknowledge and promise to comply with the City of Carlsbad requirements for special inspections, structural observations, construction materials testing and off-site fabrication of building components, as prescribed in the statement of special inspection~ d on the ap.12rov plans and, as require,d by the California Buildin~C/de. ! Signatur · ,,,......_r---v---,;~ o~MM Date: I l!:--'1 Lf l 8. MENT OF RESPONSIBILITY (07 CBC, Ch 17, Section 1706). This section must be completed by the contractor/ builder/ owner-builder. Contractor's Company Name: ·1'1# ; . n A-.fz • fl. ""F171111 1. 11~,1 la~W /{/\)A. Co . §JU \)\)VI\ {'J'-1 .... 1,,v1v,vc:,V\..... Please check if you are Owner-Builder D Name: (Please print) ___ _.j\J't'---]uk ___________________ ~_ .. ___ K}T"_J ____ _ (First) (M.I.) (Last) Mailing Address: 501 I S6~'\Jfl€-N1b · \¥'rLl:f?t/ Pl/'J/2, S'ff ~ l <{I) t ~ tDrfu DI C4 °f 2-J 2., I Email: n 16~/ sd'1W1 ~ elf e'vJ\lt 111\1\:':J --:t5flf\ef -co'{VL Phone: ~~> Z.O l o(o T\j State of California Contractor's License Number: ~ \ \'\ 0 ·1; Expiration Date: q I ~ \ { \ b • I acknowledge and, am aware, of special requirements contained in the statement of special inspections noted on the approved plans; • I acknowledge that control will be exercised to obtain conformance with the construction documents approved by the building official; • I will have in-place procedures for exercising control within our (the contractor's) organization, for the method and frequency of reporting and the distribution of the reports; and • I certify that I will have a qualified person within our (the contractor's) organization to exercise such control. • I will rovide a final re ort I etter in com /iance with CBC Section 1704.1.2 rior to re uestin final inspection. B-45 Page 1 of 1 Rev. 08/11 Last, First Ml: Dumas, Barney Certified under this name: Barney Dumas Address: 5171 bellvale ave. City, State Zip:san diego, CA92117 Certification Type(s): Reinforced Concrete Special Inspector ( expires 02/24/2019) Listings here may not reflect today's changes, additions, exam results, or certifications from organizations other than ICC (including BOCA, ICBO, and SBCCI). Listings are updated nightly on this web site, so please allow a fu 24 hours for changes to be reflected here. ICC certification for code enforcement professions attests to competent knowledge of construction codes and standards in effect on the date of certification or renewal. ICC does its best to maintain the privacy requests of its members and constituents. If you believe that phone number or address information listed here should not be displayed please contact us at 1-888-ICC-SAFE (422- 7233) between 8am and 7pm (CT) for personal assistance. Terms of Use: Thjs listing is provided as a service to the constituents of ICC for these purposes: locating a certified professional or contractor in your area, or confirming status for individuals. Any other use, sale, transfer or reproduction in any form without the express written consent of ICC is strictly prohibited. ICC reserves the rigl to incorporate some false names to detect improper use of this service. :.i~ldgflci;,¢ti-ii.triif: testi~g Te~htif'~ian~~; ~ · Grade I · ·: t. -C¢r.tification !D #CH022861 -· ·expires o~: 02/0:f ;2020 · ~ Certification Verify at Chec:kACLofg rJs~ £;41rVja1 {;615 lj/rJ, 1 .,, CHR.ISTIAN WHEELER. ENGINEER.ING FIELD REPORT Project Name Via Sat Building 10 CWE# 2160176 Date: 4/28/16 I Page 1 of1 Project Address 2508 Gateway Rd., Carlsbad, CA Permit# CB 154124 Project File # Contractor Whiting Turner Architect Smith Consulting Subcontractor Minegru: Concrete Engineer Wiseman & Rohy ~ Reinforced Concrete D Pre-Stressed Concrete D Reinforced Masonry D Epo>.7 Anchors D Shop Welding D Field Welding D High Strength Bolts D Non-Destructive Testing D Mechanical Anchors D Fireproofing D Wood/Metal Shear D Waterproofing D Footing Observation D Asphalt Obs/Testing D Soil Obs/Testing D Roofing D Building Em·elope D Material/Equipment: Concrete: Robertson's Mix #RS400P41 (4000 psi) Arrived on site, as requested, to provide the following services: -Provided continuous inspection during the placement of approximately Sey of concrete for the planter box wall outside the antenna enclosure building. Monitored truck tickets and-verified proper mix design, sampled concrete and tested fresh concrete properties, slump and temperature. Fabricated 1 set of four 4x8 compression test samples from the middle load during the placement. Concrete was placed via pump and consolidated with a vibrator. Placement of concrete was in substantial conformance with the approved plans referenced in, details RFI 3001/SX1 and the general notes, S.1. NOTED DISCREPANCIES -The items noted below were observed to be in non-conformance with the approved project documents and will require correction or the design engineer's review for approval: NOTICE: Unless otherwise stated, the work obserYed was, to the best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approved proiect documents. It should be noted that the work reported as being observed, tested, and opinions expressed are solely for the benefit of our client and that our presence and the sen-ices proYided do not relieve the contractor from its obligation to meet contractual requirements. Barney Dumas Ice 8327348 ~;·~~)e_.: ~ .· Inspector/Technician Name Certification # Inspector/IY:clJ.mcian's Signature Initial Distribution: Gary.nasca@whiting-turner.com Charlie Carter RCE #61968 t!K Reviewer Name Certification # Reviewer's :Signature Reviewed Distribution: City of Carlsbad 3980 Home Avenue+ San Diego, CA 92105 + 619-550-1700 + FAX 619-550-1701 i\!-001, Re,•. 4/16/14 .,, CHRISTIAN WHEELER. ENGINEER.ING FIELD REPORT n, rn n\N,:, -I Page Project Name Via Sat Building 10 CWE# 2160176 Date: 4/27/16 1 of 1 Project Address 2508 Gateway Rd., Carlsbad, CA Permit# CB 154124 Project File # Contractor Whiting Turner Architect Smith Consulting Subcontractor Minegar Concrete Engineer Wiseman & Rohy igj Reinforced Concrete 0 Pre-Stressed Concrete 0 Reinforced Masonry igj Epo:1.·y Anchors 0 Shop Welding 0 Field Welding 0 High Strength Bolts 0 Non-DestructiYe Testing 0 Mechanical Anchors 0 Fireproofing 0 Wood/Metal Shear 0 Waterproofing 0 Footing Obsen·ation 0 Asphalt Obs/Testing 0 Soil Obs/Testing 0 Roofing 0 Building Envelope 0 Material/Equipment: Arrived on site, as requested, to provide the following services: -Provided continuous inspection for the epoA·y dowels at the footing and wall for the proposed planter box on the exterior of the antenna enclosure building. Inspected the epo}..·y to be Simpson SET-XP. Observed the holes to be cleaned and clear of debris. The depths, spacing and tolerances were found to be in substantial conformance with the approved plans referenced in the RFI 3001 detail SXl and general notes. -Provided periodic inspection for the placement of reinforcing steel at the planter box wall for the antenna enclosure building. Inspected the grade, size, spacing and clearances and found it to be in substantial conformance with the approved plans referenced in, RFI 3001, detail SXl and the rebar schedule. NOTED DISCREPANCIES -The items noted below were observed to be in non-conformance with the approved project documents and will require correction or the design engineer's review for approval: NOTICE: Unless othenvise stated, the work observed was, to the best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approved project documents. It should be noted that the [ work reported as being observed, tested, and opinions expressed are solely for the benefit of our client and that our presence and the sencices pro,cided do not relieve the contractor from its obligation to meet contractual requirements. BamevDumas SD#1288 ICC 8327348 ~-,:;---2) '~-,t '--\ _,,,].('(""' ,/ ~ Inspector/Technician Name Certification # Inspector/ 1-ecn.mcian 's Signature Initial Distribution: Gary.nasca@whiting-tumer.com Charlie Carter RCE #61968 t!X Reviewer Name Certification # Reviewer's 'Signature Reviewed Distribution: City of Carlsbad 3980 Home Avenue+ San Diego, CA 92105 + 619-550-1700 + FAX 619-550-1701 M-001, Re,•, 4/16/14 !IJ CHRISTIAN WHEELER. ENGINEER.ING FIELD REPORT ' ' C II I J 1\1 ... Project Name Via Sat Building 10 CWE# 2160176 Date: 4/26/16 I Page 1 of 1 Project Address 2508 Gateway Rd., Carlsbad, CA Permit# CB 154124 Project File # Contractor Whiting Turner Architect Smith Consulting Subcontractor Minegar Concrete Engineer Wiseman & Rohy D Reinforced Concrete D Pre-Stressed Concrete D Reinforced Masonry ~ Epo>--y Anchors D Shop Welding D Field Welding D High Strength Bolts D Non-DestructiYe Testing D Mechanical Anchors D Fireproofing D Wood/Metal Shear D Waterproofing D Footing Obsen·ation D Asphalt Obs/Testing D Soil Obs/Testing D Roofing D Building EnYelope D Material/Equipment: Arrived on site, as requested, to provide the following services: -Provided inspection of the epm,-y dowels at the footing of the proposed planter box on the exterior of the antenna enclosure building. Inspected the epm,-y to be Simpson SET-XP. Observed the holes drilled in footing to not be in conformance with the details referenced in the RFI 3001 detail SX1. The crews spacing was observed to be at 24" apart and the details required the spacing to be at 18" apart. Info1med Gary Nasca from Whiting-Turner while on-site. I NOTED DISCREPANCIES -The items noted below were observed to be in non-conformance with the approved project documents and will require correction or the design engineer's review for approval: NOTICE: Unless otherwise stated, the work obsen•ed was, to the best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approved project documents. It should be noted that the work reported as being observed, tested, and opinions expressed are solely for the benefit of our client and that our presence and the sen-ices provided do not relieve the contractor from its obligation to meet contractual requirements. Barney Dumas ICC 8327348 SD#1288 ~',~f,w ~-- <.. _,,,.:~ -'~ Inspector/Technician Name Certification # Inspector I lY!Cll.TJtcian's Signature Initial Distribution: Gary.nasca@whiting-turner.com Charlie Carter RCE #61968 ax Reviewer Name Certification # Reviewer's 5tgnature Reviewed Distribution: City of Carlsbad 3980 Home Avenue+ San Diego, CA 92105 + 619-550-1700 + FAX 619-550-1701 M-001, Rev. 4/16/14 -~,, CHR.ISTIAN WHEB..,ER. ENGINEERING FIELD REPORT City of car\sbad \·A~f 1 6 2.0i6 M 11i n\NG D\\l\SiON --· J Page Project Name Via Sat Building 10 CWE# 2160176 Date: 4/21/16 1 of1 Project Address 2508 Gateway Rd., Carlsbad, CA Permit# CB 154124 Project File # Contractor Whiting Turner Architect Smith Consulting Subcontractor Minegar Concrete Engineer Wiseman & Rohy i;gJ Reinforced Concrete D Pre-Stressed Concrete D Reinforced Masonry D Epo>.·y Anchors D Shop Welding D Field Welding D High Strength Bolts D Non-DestructiYe Testing D Mechanical Anchors D Fireproofing D Wood/Metal Shear D Waterproofing D Footing Obsermtion D Asphalt Obs/Testing D Soil Obs/Testing D Roofing D Building EnYelope D Material/Equipment: Concrete: Robertson's Mix #54001 (4000 psi) Arrived on site, as requested, to provide the following services: -Provided continuous inspection during the placement of approximately 60cy of concrete for the Slab on grade for the antenna enclosure building. Monitored truck tickets and verified proper mix design, sampled concrete and tested fresh concrete properties, slump and temperature. Fabricated 1 set of four 4x8 compression test samples from the middle load dming the placement. Concrete was placed via pump and consolidated with a concrete tamp. Placement of concrete was in substantial conformance with the approved plans referenced in, details 10 /S2.0 and the general notes, S.1. NOTED DISCREPANCIES -The items noted below were observed to be in non-conformance with the approved project documents and will require correction or the design engineer's review for approval: NOTICE: Unless otherwise stated, the work observed was, to the best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approYed project documents. It should be noted that the work reported as being observed, tested, and opinions expressed are solely for the benefit of our client and that our presence and the serYices provided do not relieYe the contractor from its obligation to meet contractual requirements. Barney Dumas Ice 8327348 ~:.A~ ~r"7~ Inspector/Technician Name Certification # Inspector/J:e-eamcian's Signature Initial Distribution: Gary.nasca@whiting-turner.com Charlie Carter RCE #61968 ax Reviewer Name Certification # Reviewer's 'Signature Reviewed Distribution: City of Carlsbad 3980 Home Avenue+ San Diego, CA 92105 + 619-550-1700 + FAX 619-550-1701 M-001, Rev. 4/16/14 '' CHR.ISTIAN WHEELER. ENGINEER.ING FIELD REPORT Project Name Via Sat Building 10 CWE# 2160176 Date: 4/20/16 I Page 1 of1 Project Address 2508 Gateway Rd., Carlsbad, CA Permit# CB 154124 Project File# Contractor Whiting Turner Architect Smith Consulting Subcontractor Minegar Concrete Engineer Wiseman & Rohy lg] Reinforced Concrete D Pre-Stressed Concrete D Reinforced Masonry D Epo:,.·y Anchors D Shop Welding D Field Welding D High Strength Bolts D Non-Destructiye Testing D Mechanical Anchors D Fireproofing D Wood/Metal Shear D Waterproofing D Footing Obsermtion D Asphalt Obs/Testing D Soil Obs/Testing D Roofing D Building Em·elope D Material/Equipment: Arrived on site, as requested, to provide the following services: -Provided periodic inspection for the placement of reinforcing steel at the Slab on Grade for the antenna enclosure building. Inspected - the grade, size, spacing and clearances and found it to be in substantial confo1mance with the approved plans referenced in, details 10/S2.0 and the rebar schedule. C\t-y (',l)'i car\sbad M.~"i l €j 2G\o ·NG oN\SiON BU\LD\ NOTED DISCREPANCIES -The items noted below were observed to be in non-conformance with the approved project documents and will require correction or the design engineer's review for approval: NOTICE: Unless otherwise stated, the work observed was, to the best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approved project documents. It should be noted that the work reported as being obsen'ed, tested, and opinions expressed are solely for the benefit of our client and that our presence and the sen-ices provided do not relieve the contractor from its obligation to meet contractual requirements. ~"'><"°"!, ............ ~'·'_). Barney Dumas ICC 8327348 <" ___ /~-..-' <!- Inspector/Technician Name Certification # Inspector /T'eca.mctan 's Signature Initial Distribution: Gary.nasca@whiting-turner.com Charlie Carter RCE #61968 t!X. Reviewer Name Certification # Reviewer's "Signature Reviewed Distribution: City of Carlsbad 3980 Home Avenue+ San Diego, CA 92105 + 619-550-1700 + FAX 619-550-1701 M-001, Re,•. 4/16/14 .,, CHRJSTIAN WHEELER. City of Carlsbad APR 2 5 '2.Glo ENGINEERING FIELD REPORT Pi-ojectName Via Sat Building 10 CWE# 2160!76,11 r,,\t,.:\ 1?<BN\$\0,h!6 Project Address 2508 Gateway Rd., Carlsbad, CA Permit# \?_v,i--. CB 154124 Project File # Contractor \Xfb.iting Turner Architect Smith Consulting Subcontractor l'viinegar Concrete Engineer Wiseman & Rohy IZI Reinforced Concrete D Pre-Stressed Concrete D Reinforced MasomT D Epoxy Anchors D Shop Welding D High Strength Bolts D Non-DestructiYe Testing D :Mechanical Anchors D Fireproofing D Wood/Metal Shear D Footing ObserYation D Asphalt Obs/Testing D Soil Obs/Testing D Roofing D Building Em·elope Material/Eqztipment: Concrete: Robertson's Iviix #54001 (4000 psi) 1 Arrived on site, as requested, to provide the following services: I Page 1 of 1 D Field Welding D Waterproofing D -Provided continuous inspection dui-ing the placement of approximately 60cy of concrete for the pad footing for the dish foundation. j\fonitored tmck tickets and verified proper mix design, sampled concrete and tested fresh concrete properties, slump and temperatui-e. Fabricated 1 set of four 4x8 compression test samples from the middle load during the placement. Concrete was placed via pump and consolidated with a vibrator. Placement of concrete was in substantial conformance with the approved plans referenced in, details 1-4/S.2 and the general notes, S.1. NOTED DISCREPANCIES -The items noted below were observed to be in non-conformance with the approved project documents and will require correction or the design engineer's review for approval: NOTICE: Unless otherwise stated, the work obserYed was, to the best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approYed project documents. It should be noted that the work reported as being obsen-ed, tested, and opinions expressed are solely for the benefit of our client and that our presence and the sen-ices pro.-ided do not relieYe the contractor from its obligation to meet .contractual requirements. /"'~"· A Barney Dumas ICC #8327348 ' \ -'~t-/,:'._T Inspector/Technician Name Certification # Ins;~ctor/Thciucian's Signature Initial Distribution: Gary.nasca@whiting-~rner.com. Charlie Carter RCE #61968 ttX. Reviewer Name Certification # Reviewer's Signature Reviewed Distribution: City of Carlsbad 3980 Home Avenue+ San Diego, CA 92105 + 619-550-1700 + FAX 619-550-1701 ~l-001, Re,•. 4/16/14 FIELD REPORT ; ; ; Project Name Via Sat Building 10 Project Address 2508 Gateway Rd., Carlsbad, CA Contractor Whiting Turner S11bcontractor l'viinegar Concrete ~ Remforced Concrete D Pre-_Stressed Concrete D D High Strength Bolts D Non-Destructi,·e Testing D D Footing ObsetTation D Asphalt Obs/Testing D Material/Eqttipment: .,, CHR.ISTIAN \!\!HEELER. City of Carlsbad APR 25 '2.0'16 ENGINEER.ING _,. ,.,-,1AI\.I CWE# 2160:B~ILlJll\ ~LJIV _,,_ ate: 4/7 /16 Pennit# CB 154124 Project File # Architect Smith Consulting Engineer Wiseman & Rohy Reinforced Masonry D Epoxy Anchors D Shop Weldmg Mechanical Anchors D Fireproofing D Wood/Metal Shear Soil Obs/Testing D Roofing D Building Em·elope Arrived on site, as requested, to provide the following services: I Page 1 of 1 D Field Welding D Waterproofing D -Provided periodic inspection for the placement of reinforcing steel at the pad footing for the antenna inside the enclosed building. Inspected the grade, size, spacing and clearances and found it to be in substantial conformance with the approved plans referenced in, details 1-4/S.2 and the rebar scheduJ.e. NOTED DISCREPANCIES -The items noted below were observed to be in non-conformance with the approved project documents and will require correction or the design engineer's review for approval: NOTICE: Unless otherwise stated, the work observed was, to the best of my knowledge, 1n compliance with the approYed project documents. It should be noted that the orted as being observed, tested, and opinions expressed are solely for the benefit of our client and that our presence and the sen-ices proYided do not reheYe the or from its obligation to meet contractual requirements. ~ ;,,-<:::, r, Barnev Dumas ICC #8327348 ' ~1-~-~.L-'--. ..,,,._ . Inspector/Teclmician Name Certification # Inspector II'ecb.11.iczan 's Signature Initial Distribution: Gary.nasca@whiting-turner.c?m Charlie Carter RCE #61968 ax Reviewer Name Certification # Reviewer's "Szgnat11re Reviewed Distrib11tion: City of Carlsbad 3980 Home Avenue+ San Diego, CA 92105 + 619-550-1700 + FAX 619-550-1701 M-001, Rei·. 4/16/U FIELD REPORT ··,:;i' rfJ sr. c":IJ··11~bad CHR.ISTIAN WHEELER(;\ty 011 v.,\i ~.;i, E N G I N E E R. I N G ... O":: ~rR 2a 2 lu Project Name Viasat 10 ,-1,.ntenna Enclosure CWE# ~~q\{<n\NG D fiJJS,\0~25/16 I Page 1 of1 --Project Address 2508 Gateway Rd., Carlsbad, Ca. Permit# CB 154124 Project File # Contractor Whiting Turner Architect Smith Consulting Subcontractor J"vlinegar Concrete Engineer Wiseman & Rohy ~ Reinforced Concrete D Pre-Stressed Concrete D Reinforced J'vfasonry D Epo>.·y .Anchors n ShopWeldmg D Field Welding D High Strength Bolts D Non-DestructiYe Testing D l'dechanical Anchors D Fireproofing D Wood/Metal Shear D \X:laterproofing D Footing Obsen-atlon D Asphalt Obs/Testing D Soil Obs/Testmg D Roofing D Building Em·elope D Material/Equipment: ,Rebar ASTivI A706 Gr. 60 Arrived on site, as requested, to provide the following services: Provide continuous inspection for the placement of concrete to the Tilt-up panel footings of the antenna enclosure building. Placement of approximately 53 cu.yds. via 4" boom pump of Robertson's mix #54001 was monitored for proper mix, tlme and m.i.x temperature as it was delivered. Placement was consolidated by mechanical vibration. One set of four 4x8 cylinders was sampled for testing from west footing-center. Slump= 4.75"; l'vii.-x temp= 72 deg.F. NOTED DISCREPANCIES -The items noted below were observed to be in non-conformance with the approved project documents and will require correction or the design engineer's review for approval: :-Jone. NOTICE: Unless otherwise stated, the work obserYed was, to the best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approyed project documents. It should be noted that the work reported as being obsen·ed, tested, and opinions expressed are solely for the benefit of our client and that our presence and the sen·ices proYided do not relieYe the contractor from its obligation to meet contractual requirements. Paul Swanson ICC 5114230; City of SD #883 /--,ft: / ~ /, "i::'. f/ ---~,~~ f.>' :;;:L:J;:?~------,_ Inspector/Tecbnician Name Certification # Inspector/Teclmician's Signature Initial Distribution: J ohn.cc:mnolly@whiting-turner.com Charlie Carter RCE #61968 ax Reviewer Name Certification # · Reviewer's Signature Reviewed Distribution: City of Carlsbad 3980 Home Avenue+ San Diego, CA 92105 + 619-550-1700 + FAX 619-550-1701 l'il t/r, ca~\soad CHRJSTIAN WHEELER. C\t'j Ol ... ll /\PR 't 5 2G'l6 ENGINEER.ING FIELD REPORT -"t1C.\()' Project Name Viasat 10 Antenna Enclosure CWE# 21'@\U'\},J)\N\..::I .J• V Date: 3/24/16 I Page 1 ofl Project Address 2508 Gateway Rd., Carlsbad, Ca. Permit# CB 154124 Project File # Contractor Whiting Turner Arcbitect Smith Consulting Subcontractor 1v1inegar Concrete Engineer Wiseman & Rohy ~ Reinforced Concrete D Pre-Stressed Concrete D Reinforced l\fasonrr D Epoxy Anchors D Shop Welding D Field Weldmg D High Strength Bolts D Non-DestructiYe Testing D Mechanical Anchors D Fireproofing D Wood/l'vletal Shear D Waterproofing D Footing Obseffation D Asphalt Obs/Testing D Soil Obs/Testing D Roofing D Building Em·elope D Material/Equipment: ,Rebar ASTM A706 Gr. 60 ,. Arrived on site, as requested, to provide the folluwing services: Provide periodic inspection for the placement of reinforcing steel to the Tilt-up panel footings of the antenna enclosure building .. Inspected the size, spacing, quantity, clearances and coverage and found it in conformance with approved plans Ref; details 20/S2.0 and rebar schedule. NOTED DISCREPANCIES -The items noted below were observed to be in non-conformance with the approved project documents and will require correction or the design engineer's review for approval: >lone. NOTICE: Unless otherwise stated, the work obsen-ed was, to the best of my kno"·ledge, in compliance with the approYed project documents. It should be noted that the work reported as being obsen·ed, tested, and opinions expressed are solely for the benefit of our client and that our presence and the sen-ices pro,-ided do not relieYe the contractor from its obligation to meet contractual requirements. Paul Swanson ICC 5114230; City of SD #883 /~1/~ fl"~l/l' ~-t,..., # ~-- Inspector/Teclmician Name Certification # Inspector /Tecbnician 's Signature Initial Distribution: J ohn.connolly@whiting-turner.com Charlie Carter RCE #61968 ttX. Reviewer Name Certification # Reviewer's Signature Reviewed Distribution: City of Carlsbad 3980 Home Avenue+ San Diego, CA 92105 + 619-550-1700 + FAX 619-550-1701 w CHR.ISTIAN WHEELER. ENGINEER.ING DAILY REPORT Profect # -Z.l&,J/7/s, I Plan File# Contracto~ . _ I /,;,_,,½, f ,,._J /1,. .,-·.u ,r SubconJractor J , /"vl_-f.,,.. ... :_y, C~" ... ~/,/'.t(I:~,., L,, i;rr'Reinforced Concrete ID Pre-Stressed Concrete D Reinforced Masonry I D Epoxy Ari'~hors D Shop Welding D Field Welding D Fireproofing o _________ _ Material/Equipment, "i') , _ " 1 I f5e ,,._, fi,,_ ,,.,,j) r' ) , .-/ ,,., f ,., . 11,,, / Weather:..-,, ,. 1 I I/,---; ff • f 1,,.,,-,,j / ~-·uA Date Time Starf: I Time End: I Time Billed: ., .. -~,_~ ... _ ... /,;...1 •,, _/ r-/. -. ' _. -J ./: ../ (-, ) o. ~1-I./ . -r /.,:' ,. q V-1 ,· All , .... ,.,:,,{;'!,,~-j'__-· I /c,;;' I,)( C-·. · .,-,,./, _/, ./, ·.,,,.1 ,A f / .7>/,. • > I ~,-. -../- .;::: /_ ?/ :!/ ' • ... ~--_..,. ,,,..,,._ .. f ,, ·-) 'p . , .•. -/., r ,,.,. .-. --1 1.,: .. __ .,-_///, I , .. ,P"' I · I ']f/-,:-_, __ / A,,,,.__,,. , / I ...,,. , ' .>-/ j, _;7 t J~.., r ~ _, __ ~/;; / (,) I ;·-l I . I _,-.,,,.. ·r-(,.;/ --i. v,?. '.·,_,,/. . . , ~-~ c:-.-.,.,_:, }.""' __ .. ,,../·(~'tp .-4/l , , I ·.· f· .. , 'N r , / ~--/. ---1 / I Ii ,. \ r l I\ \ t \ Unless noted otherwise, the work observed is, to the best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approvtrtf\S r\d }pecifications. I ~z::e--4-~-~.C 9d,J~t71 \J \IA 51!11i/L Inspector/Technician's Signature....--Reg. #~ _,__S_u_p_e-rin-t-en_d_e-nt-,s-S-!i~"-n~a-tu-'ri/,.;' ....,,_\-----------=-Datil . ~~: ;q_ ,,,/"/ i ' Inspector/Technician (Print or Tyt)e) \ 3980 Home Avenue + San Diego, CA 92105 + 619-550-1700 + FAX 619-550-1701 ··~· 1"• CHR.ISTIAN WHEELER. ENGINEER.ING FIELD REPORT -• Hi li\t ..,-I Page Project Name Viasat 10 Antenna Enclosure CWE# 2160176 Date: 3/14/16 1 of1 Project Address 2508 Gateway Rd., Carlsbad, CA Pennit# CB 154124 Project File # Contractor \Xfhiting Turner Arcbitect Smith Consulting Architects Subcontractor l:Vlinegar Concrete Engineer Wiseman & Rohy Structural Engineers lgj Reinforced Concrete D Pre-Stressed Concrete D Reinforced Masontj' D Epoi,.-y Anchors D Shop Welding D Field Welding D High Strength Bolts D Non-Destructh-e Testing D l'viechanical Anchors D Fireproofing D \'(lood/J\Ietal Shear D Waterproofing D Footing Obsen-ation D Asphalt Obs/Testing D Soil Obs/Testing D Roofing D Building Em·elope lgj Reinforcing Steel Material/Equipment: (1) Boom pump, (1) IVIechanical vibrator, mix #62131, 4000 psi Weather: Partly cloudy/rain Arrived on site, as requested, to provide the following services: Special Inspection and testing of concrete for placement at (7) panels. Tilt up panels ranged in width; thickness of 9 ¼". All concrete placed was supplied by Robertson's. The 4000 psi mi.x #62131 was deposited using a boom pump and consolidation was performed using a mechanical vibrator. During placement I monitored batch tickets, performed slump, temperature testing and fabricated (1) set of ( 4) 4" x 8" cylinders for compressive strength testing. All work performed in an acceptable manner. Total of 85 cubic yards placed today. NOTED DISCREPANCIES -The items noted below were observed to be in non-conformance with the approved project documents and will require correction or the design engineer's review for approval: NOTICE: Unless otherwise stated, the work obserYed was, to the best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approYed project documents. It should be noted that the work reported as being obseryed, tested, and opinions expressed are solely for the benefit of our client and that our presence and the sen-ices proYided do not relieYe the contractor from its obligation to meet contractual requirements. :Mike Boid 8008173 p-'&;/;;t_ 6~ Inspector/Teclmician Name Certification # Inspector/Teclmician's Signattffe Initial Distribution: Charlie Carter RCE #61968 (!$. Reviewer Name Certification # Reviewer's Signature Reviewed Distribution: City of Carlsbad 3980 Home Avenue+ San Diego, CA 92105 + 619-550-1700 + FAX 619-550-1701 !ii CHR.ISTIAN WHEELER. ENGINEERING FIELD REPORT Project Name Viasat 10 Antenna Enclosure CWE# 2160176 Date: 3/11/16 I Page 1 of 1 Project Address 2508 Gateway Rd., Carlsbad, CA Pennit# CB 154124 Project File # Contractor Whiting Turner Architect Smith Consulting Architects Subcontractor Iviinegar Concrete Engineer Wiseman & Rohy Structural Engineers D Reinforced Concrete D Pre-Stressed Concrete D Reinforced l'vfasonry D Epoxy Anchors D Shop Welding D Field Welding D High Strength Bolts D Non-Destructh·e Testing D Mechanical Anchors D Fireproofing D Wood/lvietal Shear D Waterproofing D Footing ObserYation D Asphalt Obs/Testing D Soil Obs/Testing D Roofing D Building Em·elope 0 Reinforcing Steel Material/Equipment: A615 Grade 60 rebar \'.::leather: Partly cloudy Arrived on site, as requested, to provide the following services: Periodic special inspection of reinforcing steel at (7) tilt up panels per shop drawings. .--IJ.l panel reinforcement was checked for size, grade, spacing, bar count per detail. All steel was installed per plan. NOTED DISCREPANCIES -The items noted below were observed to be in non-conformance with the approved project documents and will require cprrection or the design engineer's review for approval: NOTICE: Unless othendse stated, the work obsen'ed was, to the best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approYed proiect documents. It should be noted that the work reported as bemg obsen-ed, tested, and opinions expressed are solely for the benefit of our client and that our presence and the sen-ices proY.ided do not reliere the contractor from its obligation to meet contractual requirements. :i'viike Boyd 8008173 ~ 73 /; --~ Inspector/Technician Name Certification # Inspector/Teclmician's Signature Initial Distribution: Charlie Carter RCE #61968 ax Reviewer Name Certification # Reviewer's Signature Reviewed Distribution: City of Carlsbad 3980 Home Avenue+ San Diego, CA 92105 + 619-550-1700 + FAX 619-550-1701 2 5DZ GAJl:fWA'f \f J /ii" . 1-/ J 1-<-( CHRISTIAN WHEELER. ENGINEER.ING DAILY REPORT Project# "2..lf ,,ol7{o Project Address "2..5"o'i? r_,.__./-l'!w~,/ 12-1. r .._,./.d,..,1 GA Pennit# /'".A I S''-1 I ,:u/ I Plan File# Contractor . 1 , / Wh;+; ... _ -r,A .,.ne..-Archite<..,. ,-J L Subcontractor J 1 M; .t,,,__,.,,,,,, r. ,,.,,,._c-..,,-r-,.-Engineer 1 .. 1,..r~-... o,{ + f!_J.,,,/ D Reinforced"Concrete D Pre-Stressed Concrete D Reinforced Masonry / 0 Shop Welding O Field Welding D Fireproofing Material/Equipment: A/../5 G,,,,,,./e /,,/J 2t-t4.J Weather: Date Time Start: ./ j Time End: j Time Billed: J J ~ ,._./-(-,) f-,·/./-u-o 'i'!-.Ae/f ,,,,_.,, rh,o d~.,_r,JL .... t d,r/.._,,/ AJ/ I I I Unless noted otherwise, the work observed is, to the best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approv~ ~ I s and specifications. lnspector/Tec~t~ ~:::ll.1 _S_u_p-er-in-te-n-de_n_C_s \ il-i\_,.g•n_a-1t-re------------~ Inspector/Technician (Print oi'Type) \ \ 3980 Home Avenue -+-San Diego, CA 92105 -+-619-550-1700 -+-FAX 619-550-1701 EsGil Corporation In (l'artnersliip witli <}overnment for (Bui{aing Safety DATE: 12/30/2015 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: CB15-4124 PROJECT ADDRESS: 2502 Gateway Rd. SET: II 0 APPLICANT D JURIS. 0 PLAN REVIEWER 0 FILE PROJECT NAME: Vasat "equipment enclosure for antenna Bldg. #11 D The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's codes. l:.8J The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. D The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. D The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. D The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. D The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: ~ EsGil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. D EsGil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Telephone#: Date contacted: (by: ) Email: Mail Telephone Fax In Person [gj REMARKS: Applicant to complete the city required special inspection form prior to issuing the permit By: John Le Vey EsGil Corporation D GA D EJ D MB D PC Enclosures: 12/22/2015 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 + (858) 560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 EsGil Co~poration In <Partnersliip witli (}overnmentfor<Buitifin9 Safety DATE: 12/08/2015 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: CB15-4124 PROJECT ADDRESS: 2502 Gateway Rd. SET:I RESPONSE CJ APPLICANT CJ JURIS. CJ PLAN REVIEWER CJ FILE PROJECT NAME: Vasat "equipment enclosure for antenna Bldg. # 11 D The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's codes. D The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. D The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies .identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. [gl The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. D The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. D The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: D EsGil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. [gj EsGil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Milos Makaric Telephone#: 858-793-4777 Date contacted: (by: ) Email: milosm@sca-sd.com Mail Telephone Fax In Person D REMARKS: By: John Le Vey EsGil Corporation D GA D EJ D MB D PC Enclosures: 11/30/2015 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 + (858) 560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 Carlsbad CB15-4124 12/08/2015 PLAN REVIEW CORRECTION LIST TENANT IMPROVEMENTS PLAN CHECK NO.: CB15-4124 OCCUPANCY: N / A outdoor TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: IIIB ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: SPRINKLERS?: No/Outdoor REMARKS: DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY JURISDICTION: 11/25/2015 DATE INITIAL PLAN REVIEW COMPLETED: 12/08/2015 FOREWORD (PLEASE READ): JURISDICTION: Carlsbad USE: N/A ACTUAL AREA: STORIES: 1 HEIGHT: OCCUPANTLOAD: N/A DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 11/30/2015 PLAN REVIEWER: John Le Vey This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the California version of the International Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and access for the disabled. This plan review is based on regulations enforced by the Building Department. You may have other corrections based on laws and ordinances enforced by the Planning Department, Engineering Department, Fire Department or other departments. Clearance from those departments may be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Code sections cited are based on the 2013 CBC, which adopts the 2012 IBC. The following items listed need clarification, modification or change. All items must be satisfied before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations. Per Sec. 105.4 of the 2012 International Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law. To speed up the recheck process, please note on this list {or a copy) where each correction item has been addressed, i.e., plan sheet number, specification section, etc. Be sure to enclose the marked up list when you submit the revised plans. ., ' . Carlsbad CBlS-4124 12/08/2015 Please make all corrections, as requested in the correction list. Submit FOUR new complete sets of plans for commercial/industrial projects (THREE sets of plans for residential projects). For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways: 1. Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department, 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008, (760) 602-2700. The City will route the plans to EsGil Corporation and the Carlsbad Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. 2. Bring one corrected set of plans and calculations/reports to EsGil Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, CA 92123, (858) 560-1468. Deliver all remaining sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department for routing to their Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. NOTE: Plans that are submitted directly to EsGil Corporation only will not be reviewed by the City Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments until review by EsGil Corporation is complete. See attached written responses dated 12/17/2015 1. Please provide the disconnect on the primary side of the transformer (structure) 2. Please show the building grounding to the new disconnect and to the transformer 3. Provide a Copy of the Soils Report. Additional corrections may follow. 4. Provide the manufacturer sheets including dimensions, weight, etc. for the Antenna. '5. Provide structural design calculations for the Light Pole. 6. Provide Special Inspection Note for all applicable items; a) Welding. Welding inspection should be provided in accordance with Section 1705.2. b) Concrete construction. Special inspections and verifications should be provided in accordance with Section 1705.3. 7. Additional corrections may follow. To speed up the review process, note on this list (or a copy) where each correction item has been addressed, i.e., plan sheet, note or detail number, calculation page, etc. Please indicate here if any changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of corrections from this list. If there are other changes, please briefly describe them and where they are located in the plans. Have changes been made to the plans not resulting from this correction list? Please indicate: D Yes !& No The jurisdiction has contracted with Esgil Corporation located at 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123; telephone number of 858/560-1468, to perform the plan review for your project. If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact John Le Vey at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. ViaSat Building #11 Tenant Improvements -Plan Check Comments: Plan Check Number: 15-4124 Project Address: 2502 Gateway Road All correction are clouded and noted with delta #ldated 12/11/2015 Comment Response Number 1 See attached response letter from Michael Wall Electrical Engineers dated 12/18/2015 2 See attached response letter from Michael Wall Electrical Engineers dated 12/18/2015 3 Copy of Soils Report with stamped and signed review letter dated 12/17/2015 from Soils Engineer attached. Please note that all the comments from the soils engineer have been addressed and noted on the structural plans. 4 See attached antenna cut sheets 5 See attached stamped and signed light pole calculation 6 See attached response letter from Wiseman+ Rohy Structural Engineers dated 12/9/2015 7 All correction have been clouded and noted with delta #1 dated 12/11/2015 Note: City of Carlsbad Fire, Planning and Engineering have already approved plans Prepared by: Milos Makaric, Project Architect Date: 12-17-2015 Sheet Number(s) SAN DIEGO 858-638-0600 858-638-0640 FAX 4115 Sorrento Valley Blvd. San Diego, CA 92121 ORANGE COUNTY 949-864-0600 949-864-0640 FAX 4770 Campus Drive Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 www.mwallen9.com MICHAEL WALL ENGINEERING December 18, 2015 John Le Vey EsGil Corporation 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 San Diego, CA 92123 Re: Project Name: ViaSat Antenna Enclosure Plan Check Number: CB15-4124 MWE Job No.: 15-207 We have received the comments from your plan review for the above referenced project. We have responded to each Issue (in Italics), and have included the original Issues (in boldface) for your reference. D 1. Please provide the disconnect on the primary side of the transformer (structure). Response: Disconnect provided,· see sheet E2.2 and E3. lfor changes made. D 2. Please show the building grounding to the new disconnect and the transformer. Response: Grounding added; See singeline diagram on sheet E3.l for added grounding. We trust that these responses, along with the corrections to the plans, meet with your approval. Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at 858-638-0600. Sincerely, Ray Thompson Michael Wall Engineering E: WISEMAN+ROHY ~RUCTU RAL ENGINEERS December 9, 2015 John Le Vey Esgil Corporation 9320 Chesapeake Dr #208 San Diego, CA 92123 RE: ViaSat Equipment Enclosure for Antenna Bldg. #11 Plan Check Responses PC# 15-4124 The following are responses to the structural plan check comments dated December 8, 2015. These responses are submitted along with a revised set of complete structural drawings. JAMES M. WISEMAN, S.E. PRINCIPAL STEVEN D. ROHY, S.E. PRINCIPAL BRANDON J. DEEMS, S.E. ASSOCIATE· PRINCIPAL STEVEN R. CROOK, S.E. ASSOCIATE 6a: There is no welding required for this project. Therefore, no Special Inspection Notes for Welding have been provided. 66: "Special Inspections and Testing" notes and "Required Verification and Inspection of Concrete Construction" table have been added to sheet Sl .0. Please feel free to contact our office if you have any further questions. ' Sincerely, WISEMAN + ROHY Structural Engineers 9915 MIRA MESA BLVD., SUITE 200 -SAN DIEGO, CA 92131 • TEL 858 536 5166 • FAX 858 536 5163 • WWW.WRENGINEERS.COM EsGil Corporation In cpartnersliip witli (}overnment for (}3uifaing Safety DATE: 12/08/2015 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: CB15-4124 PROJECT ADDRESS: 2502 Gateway Rd. SET: I D APPLICANT ~JURIS. D PLAN REVIEWER D FILE PROJECT NAME: Vasat "equipment enclosure for antenna Bldg. #11 D The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's codes. D The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. D The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. [ZI The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. D The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. D The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: D EsGil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. EsGil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Milos Makaric Telephone#: 858-793-4777 Date co~cted:f~/f ~ Mail \/Telephone Fax D REMARKS: By: John Le Vey EsGil Corporation (byr'£-1 Email: milosm@sca-sd.com In Person Enclosures: D GA D EJ D MB D PC 11/30/2015 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 + (858) 560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 Carlsbad CB15-4124 12/08/2015 PLAN REVIEW CORRECTION LIST TENANT IMPROVEMENTS PLAN CHECK NO.: CB15-4124 OCCUPANCY: N / A outdoor TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: IIIB ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: SPRINKLERS?: No/ Outdoor REMARKS: DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY JURISDICTION: 11/25/2015 DATE INITIAL PLAN REVIEW COMPLETED: 12/08/2015 FOREWORD (PLEASE READ): JURISDICTION: Carlsbad USE: N/A ACTUAL AREA: STORIES: 1 HEIGHT: OCCUPANT LOAD: N/A DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 11/30/2015 PLAN REVIEWER: John Le Vey This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the California version of the International Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and access for the disabled. This plan review is based on regulations enforced by the Building Department. You may have other corrections based on laws and ordinances enforced by the Planning Department, Engineering Department, Fire Department or other departments. Clearance from those departments may be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Code sections cited are based on the 2013 CBC, which adopts the 2012 IBC. The following items listed need clarification, modification or change. All items must be satisfied before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations. Per Sec. 105.4 of the 2012 International Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law. To speed up the recheck process, please note on this list (or a copy) where each correction item has been addressed, i.e., plan sheet number, specification section, etc. Be sure to enclose the marked up list when you submit the revised plans. f Carlsbad CBlS-4124 12/08/2015 Please make all corrections, as requested in the correction list. Submit FOUR new complete sets of plans for commercial/industrial projects (THREE sets of plans for residential projects). For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways: 1. Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department, 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008, (760) 602-2700. The City will route the plans to EsGil Corporation and the Carlsbad Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. 2. Bring one corrected set of plans and calculations/reports to EsGil Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, CA 92123, (858) 560-1468. Deliver all remaining sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department for routing to their Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. NOTE: Plans that are submitted directly to EsGil Corporation only will not be reviewed by the City Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments until review by EsGil Corporation is complete. 1. Please provide the disconnect on the primary side of the transformer (structure) 2. Please show the building grounding to the new disconnect and to the transformer 3. Provide a Copy of the Soils Report. Additional corrections may follow. 4. Provide the manufacturer sheets including dimensions, weight, etc. for the Antenna. 5. Provide structural design calculations for the Light Pole. 6. Provide Special Inspection Note for all applicable items; a) Welding. Welding inspection should be provided in accordance with Section 1705.2. b) Concrete construction. Special inspections and verifications should be provided in accordance with Section 1705.3. 7. Additional corrections may follow. To speed up the review process, note on this list (or a copy) where each correction item has been addressed, i.e., plan sheet, note or detail number, calculation page, etc. Please indicate here if any changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of corrections from this list. If there are other changes, please briefly describe them and where they are located in the plans. Have changes been made to the plans not resulting from this correction list? Please indicate: D Yes D No The jurisdiction has contracted with Esgil Corporation located at 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123; telephone number of 858/560-1468, to perform the plan review for your project. If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact John Le Vey at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. ' Cadsbad CB15-4124 12/08/2015 [DO NOT PAY -THIS IS NOT AN INVOICE] VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PREPARED BY: John Le Vey BUILDING ADDRESS: 2502 Gateway Rd. BUILDING OCCUPANCY: N/A BUILDING AREA Valuation PORTION ( Sq. Ft.) Multiplier Antenna enclouser Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE Jurisdiction Code cb By Ordinance Bldg. Permit Fee by Ordinance Plan Check Fee by Ordinance Type of Review: 0 Complete Review D Repetitive Fee 3 Repeats Comments: D Other D Hourly EsGil Fee PLAN CHECK NO.: CB15-4124 DATE: 12/08/2015 Reg. VALUE ($) Mod. 150,000 150,000 $803.561 $522.31 I D Structural Only i---------1,Hr. @ ' $449.991 Sheet of macvalue.doc + «,?, ~-·/CI TY OF PLAN CHECK REVIEW TRANSMITTAL Community & Economic Development Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 www.carlsbadca.gov CARLSBAD DATE: 12/08/201PROJECT NAME:VIASAT BUILDING 11 ANTENNA ENCLOSURE PROJECT ID: CB154124 PLAN CHECK NO: 1 SET#:1 ADDRESS: 2502 GATEWAY RD APN: 21326120 VALUATION: $150,000 A~PLICANT CONTACT: MILOSM@SCA-SD.COM D Tlis plan check review transmittal is to notify you of clearance by: LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION Final I.nspe ction by the Construction & Inspection Division is required: Yes NoX ~·For status from a division not marked below, please call 760-602-2719 This plan check review is NCI'COMPLETE Items missing or incorrect are listed on the attached checklist. Please resubmit amended plans as required . . ff ,.c.·c, :,-· ""'--~·-·_.··-·a·--· .... · ;;.;,~----,;;;;--. ·...:;,. •j: LAND DEVEtOPMENT.EN.G. , : 1) . 7_6,~--602~~~50 . .,.. . . 1 · Jfff~"; if{~~;(;l~'}TT))fil:~] ~{_;t§J.(~~J!t~ .l Chris Sexton 760-602-4624 Chris.Sexton@carlsbadca.gov. Kathleen Lawrence 760-602-27 41 -1 Greg Ryan I I 1so-Go2-4663 I , j Kathleen.Lawrence@carlsbadca.gov 11--_G_re_go_rv_.R_y_an_@_c_ar_ls_ba_d_ca_.g_o_v ~I n-----G-i-na_R_u-iz ____ ; jl D . Linda Ontiveros : Cindy Wong i 760-602-4675' i 1 760 -602-2773 1 760-602-4662 ! Gina.Ruiz@carlsbadca.gov 'I Linda.Ontiveros@carlsbadca.gov ; Cynthia.Wong@carlsbadca.gov i. 11-------------.·· !-----------~· , .1 /I VALRAY MARSHALL , V 760-602-27 41 1 ' I < -~~~~~ ~:~~-RS~~LL~C~~LSBADCA.GOV I . Dominic Fieri 760-602-4664 Dominic.Fieri@carlsbadca.gov Remarks: SHOWN ON SIGNED APPROVED GRADING PLANS DWG 480-2A. NO FEES ASSESSED SCREENING ONLY. SW13-361 «~b ~ CITY OF CARLSBAD STORM WATER COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT B-24 Development Services Building Division 1635 Faraday Avenue 760-602-2719 www.carlsbadca.gov I am applying to the City of Carlsbad for the following type(s) of construction permit: yj Building Permit Cl Right-of-Way Permit CJ My project is categorically EXEMPT from the requirement to prepare a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) because it only requires issuance of one or more of the following permit types: Electrical Fire Additional Fire Alarm Fixed Systems Mechanical Mobile Home Plumbing Patio/Deck Photo Voltaic Re-Roofing Sign Spa-Factory Sprinkler Water Discharge Project Storm Water Threat Assessment Criteria* No Threat Assessment Criteria CJ My project qualifies as NO THREAT and is exempt from the requirement to prepare a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) because it meets the 'no threat' assessment criteria on the City's Project Threat Assessment Worksheet for Determination of Construction SWPPP Tier Level. My project does not meet any of the High, Moderate or Low Threat criteria described below. Low Threat Assessment Criteria My project does not meet any of the Significant or Moderate Threat criteria, is not an exempt permit type (See list above) and the project meets one or more of the following criteria: · • Results in some soil disturbance; and/or • Includes outdoorconstruction activities (such as saw cutting, equipment washing, material stockpiling, vehicle fueling, waste stockpiling). Tier 2 -Moderate Threat Assessment Criteria CJ My project does not meet any of the Significant Threat assessment Criteria described below and meets one or more of the following criteria: • Project requires a grading plan pursuant to the Carlsbad Grading Ordinance (Chapter 15.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code); or, • Project will result in 2,500 square feet or more of soils disturbance including any associated construction staging, stockpiling, pavement removal, equipment storage, refueling and maintenance areas and project meets one or more of the additional following criteria: • Located within 200 feet of an environmentally sensitive area or the Pacific Ocean, and/or • Disturbed area is located on a slope with a grade at or exceeding 5 horizontal to 1 vertical, and/or • Disturbed area is located along or within 30 feet of a storm drain inlet, an open drainage channel or watercourse, and/or • Construction will be initiated during the rainy season or will extend into the rainy season (Oct 1 through April 30). Tier 3 -Significant Threat Assessment Criteria . CJ My project includes clearing, grading or other disturbances to the ground resulting in soil disturbance totaling one or more acres including any associated construction staging, equipment storage, stockpiling, pavement removal, refueling and maintenance areas: and/or ¢i. My project is part of a phased development plan that will cumulatively result in soil disturbance totaling one or more acres including any associated construction staging, equipment storage, refueling and maintenance areas: or, CJ My project is located inside or within 200 feet of an environmentally sensitive area (see City ESA Proximity map) and has a significant potential for contributing pollutants to nearby receiving waters by way of storm water runoff or non-storm water discharge(s). I certify to the best of my knowledge that the above checked statements are true and correct. I understand and acknowledge that even though this project does not require preparation of a construction SWPP, I must stll/ adhere to, and at all times during construction activities for the permit type(s} check above comply with the storm water best management practices pursuant to Title 15 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and to City Standards. Project Address: Assessor Parcel No. 'The City Engineer may authorize minor variances from the Storm Water Threat Assessment Criteria in special circumstances where it can be shown that a lesser or higher Construction SWPPP Tier Level is warranted. 8-24 25C>Z G-ATE:\.vA'( ~~ owner/Owner's Authorized Agent Name: Kt::.1rr-t µ,._N~DJ. By: Date: Page 1 of 1 Rev.03/09 ,, ; ~ «--~--~ ~ CITY OF CONSTRUCTION THREAT ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR DETERMINATION OF PROJECT'S PERCEIVED THREAT TO STORM WATER QUALITY E-33 Development Services Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue 760-602-2750 www .carlsbadca.gov CARLSBAD Construction Perceived SWPPPTier Construction Threat Assessment Criteria* Threat to Storm Water Level Qualitv Tier 3 -High Construction Threat Assessment Criteria CJ Project site is 50 acres or more and grading will occur during the rainy season 0 Project site is 1 acre or more in size and is located within the Buena Vista or Agua Hedionda Lagoon watershed, inside or within 200 feet of an environmentally sensitive area (ESA) or discharges directly to an ESA High 0 Soil at site is moderately to highly erosive (defined as having a predominance of soils with Tier3 i USDA-NRCS Erosion factors kt greater than or equal to 0.4) Site slope is 5 to 1 or steeper Construction is initiated during the rainy season or will extend into the rainy season (Oct. 1 0 through April 30). Owner/contractor received a Storm Water Notice of Violation within past two years Tier 3 -Medium Construction Threat Assessment Criteria Medium 0 All projects not meeting Tier 3 High Construction Threat Assessment Criteria Tier 2 High Construction Threat Assessment Criteria 0 Project is located within the Buena Vista or Agua Hedionda Lagoon watershed, inside or within 200 feet of an environmentally sensitive area (ESA) or discharges directly to an ESA 0 Soil at site is moderately to highly erosive (defined as having a predominance of soils with USDA-NRCS Erosion factors kt greater than or equal to 0.4) High 0 Site slope is 5 to 1 or steeper Tier2 0 Construction is initiated during the rainy season or will extend into the rainy season (Oct. 1 through April 30). 0 Owner/contractor received a Storm Water Notice of Violation within past two years 0 Site results in one half acre or more of soil disturbance --- Tier 2 -Medium Construction Threat Assessment Criteria Medium 0 All projects not meeting Tier 2 High Construction Threat Assessment Criteria Tier 1 -Medium lnsgection Threat Assessment Criteria 0 Project is located within the Buena Vista or Agua Hedionda Lagoon watershed, within or directly adjacent to an environmentally sensitive area (ESA) or discharges directly to an ESA 0 Soil at site is moderately to highly erosive (defined as having a predominance of soils with USDA-NRCS Erosion factors kt greater than or equal to 0.4) Medium 0 Site slope is 5 to 1 or steeper Tier 1 0 Construction is initiated during the rainy season or will extend into the rainy season (Oct. 1 through April 30). 0 Owner/contractor received a Storm Water Notice of Violation within past two years 0 Site results in one half acre or more of soil disturbance Tier 1 -Low lns(lection Threat Assessment Criteria Low 0 All projects not meeting Tier 1 Medium Construction Threat Assessment Criteria Exempt -Not Applicable -Exempt *The city engineer may authorize minor variances from the construction threat assessment criteria m special circumstances where it can be shown that a lesser or higher amount of storm water compliance inspection is warranted in the opinion of the city engineer E-33 Page 1 of 1 REV 4/30/10 «~)} ~ CITY OF CARLSBAD INSTR\;JC'f-lONSJ _ STORM WATER STANDARDS QUESTIONNAIRE E-34 Development Services Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue 760-602-2750 www.carlsbadca.gov To address post-development pollutants that may be generated from development projects, the City requires that new development and significant redevelopment priority projects incorporate Permanent Storm Water Best Management Practices (BMP's) into the project design per the City's Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP). To view the SUSMP, refer to the Engineering Standards (Volume 4, Chapter 2) at www.carlsbadca.gov/standards. Initially this questionnaire must be completed by the applicant in advance of submitting for a development application (subdivision, discretionary permits and/or construction permits). The results of the questionnaire determine the level of storm water standards that must be applied to a proposed development or redevelopment project. Depending on the outcome, your project will either be subject to 'Standard Stormwater Requirements' or be subject to additional criteria called 'Priority Development Project Requirements'. Many aspects of project site design are dependent upon the storm water standards applied to a project. Your responses to the questionnaire represent an initial assessment of the proposed project conditions and impacts. City staff has responsibility for making the final assessment after submission of the development application. If staff determines that the questionnaire was incorrectly filled out and is subject to more stringent storm water standards than initially assessed by you, this will result in the return of the development application as incomplete. In this case, please make the changes to the questionnaire and resubmit to the City. If you are unsure about the meaning of a question or need help in determining how to respond to one or more of the questions, please seek assistance from Land Development Engineering staff. A separate completed and signed questionnaire must be submitted for each new development application submission. Only one completed and signed questionnaire is required when multiple development applications for the same project are submitted concurrently. In addition to this questionnaire, you must also complete, sign and submit a Project Threat Assessment Form with construction permits for the project. Please start by completing Step 1 and follow the instructions. When completed, sign the form at the end and submit this with your application to the city. --·sreP 1 . - .. --------·---.. to-at: OOMPLETEO fQR_Al._L f>RQJf:GtiL ------------------'-----· ---To determine if your project is a priority development project, please answer the following questions: YES NO 1. Is your project LIMITED TO constructing new or retrofitting paved sidewalks, bicycle lanes or trails that meet the following criteria: ( 1) Designed and constructed to direct storm water runoff to adjacent vegetated areas, or other non-erodible permeable areas; OR (2) designed and constructed to be hydraulically disconnected from \l. paved streets or roads; OR (3) designed and constructed with permeable pavements or surfaces in accordance with USEPA Green Streets ouidance? 2. Is your project LIMITED TO retrofitting or redeveloping existing paved alleys, streets, or roads that are X designed and constructed in accordance with the USEPA Green Streets guidance? If you answered "yes" to one or more of the above questions, then your project is NOT a priority development project and therefore is NOT subject to the storm water criteria required for priority development projects. Go to step 4, mark the last box stating "my project does not meet PDP requirements" and complete applicant information. If you answered "no" to both Questions, then go to Step 2. E-34 Page 1 of 3 Effective 6/27/13 & ~ CITY OF CARLSBAD STORM WATER STANDARDS QUESTIONNAIRE E-34 Development Services Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue 760-602-2750 www.carlsbadca.gov . STEP? ---------~---._ __ ----to ee QQM.F'Lf:r:eo !=O.RAL_LJ~U~\IY.Q_~_~EO!;\{Eb.OPMEN:t.P.RQJE_C_:TS ··-------- To determine if your project is a priority development project, please answer the following questions: YES 1. Is your project a new development that creates 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces collectively over the entire project site? This includes commercial, industrial, residential, mixed-use, and public X. deve/ol)ment l)roiects on l)Ublic orl)rivate land. 2. Is your project creating or replacing 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site on an existing site of 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface? This includes commercial, industrial, residential, mixed-use, and l)Ublic deve/ol)rilent projects on public or private land. 3. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site and supports a restaurant? A restaurant is a facility that sells prepared foods and drinks for consumption, including stationary lunch counters and refreshment stands selling prepared foods and drinks for immediate consumption. 4. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site and supports a hillside development project? A hillside development project includes development on any natural slope that is twenty-five percent or greater. 5. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site and supports a parking lot. A parking lot is a land area or facility for the teml)orarv l)arkina or storaae of motor vehicles used oersonallv for business or for commerce. 6. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site and supports a street, road, highway freeway or driveway? A street, road, highway, freeway or driveway is any paved impervious surface used for the transportation of automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, and other vehicles. 7. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates or replaces 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire site, and discharges directly to an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA)? "Discharging Directly to" includes flow that is conveyed overland a distance of 200 feet or less from the project to the ESA, or conveyed in a pipe or open channel any distance as an isolated flow from the oroiect to the ESA (i.e. not comminales with flows from adiacent lands).* 8. Is your project a new development that supports an automotive repair shop? An automotive repair shop is a facility that is categorized in any one of the following Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes: 5013, 5014, 5541, 7532-7534, or 7536-7539. 9. Is your project a new development that supports a retail gasoline outlet (RGO)? This category includes RGO's that meet the following criteria: (a) 5,000 square feet or more or (b) a project Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 100 or more vehicles per day. 10. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that results in the disturbance of one or more acres of land and are expected to generate pollutants post construction? 11. ls your project located within 200 feet of the Pacific Ocean and (1) creates 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface or (2) increases impervious surface on the property by more than 10%? -------- NO If you answered "yes" to one or more of the above questions, you ARE a priority development project and are therefore subject to implementing structural Best Management Practices (BMP's) in addition to implementing Standard Storm Water Requirements such as source control and low impact development BMP's. A Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) must be submitted with your application(s) for development. Go to step 3 for redevelopment projects. For new projects, go to step 4 at the end of this questionnaire, check the "my project meets PDP requirements" box and complete applicant information. If you answered "no" to all of the above questions, you ARE NOT a priority development project and are therefore subject to implementing only Standard Storm Water Requirements such as source control and low impact development BMP's required for all development projects. A Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) is not required with your application(s) for development. Go to step 4 at the end of this questionnaire, check the "my project does not meet PDP requirements" box and complete applicant information. E-34 Page 2 of3 Effective 6/27/13 -· & ~ CITY OF CARLSBAD STORM WATER STANDARDS QUESTIONNAIRE E-34 -STEP-3 Development Services Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue 760-602-2750 www.carlsbadca.gov _···-to. a~ QQ.MeJ:.EtE_Q E_O_R 81:.QEY_E_t.Ql':M.l;N,f _eROJECJS_tHAtABE _ _R8,IQRII'(_PEVE_LQee_MENt eROJl;C.I~-Q~LY __ ---- Com lete the uestions below re ardin our redevelo ment ro·ect: YES NO Does the redevelopment project result in the creation or replacement of impervious surface in an amount of less than 50% of the surface area of the reviousl existin develo ment? If you answered "yes," the structural BM P's required for Priority Development Projects apply only to the creation or replacement of impervious surface and not the entire development. Go to step 4, check the "my project meets PDP requirements" box and complete applicant information. If you answered "no," the structural BMP's required for Priority Development Projects apply to the entire development. Go to step 4, check the "m ro·ect meets PDP re uirements" box and com lete a llcant information. --· -· .--· --STEP4 . --·· -. -~-" .. -.. CHE.CK THE,APPRQl:'RlA1E aoxANO C.OMJ~LE:rE AF'PLleANtJNi=ORM1'IION ---· ------____ .,. __ ---- ~ My project meets PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) requirements and must comply with additional stormwater criteria per the SUSMP and I understand I must prepare a Storm Water Management Plan for submittal at time of application. I understand flow control (hydromodification) requirements may apply to my project. Refer to SUSMP for details. 0 My project does not meet PDP requirements and must only comply with STANDARD STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS per the SUSMP. As part of these requirements, I will incorporate low impact development strategies throughout my project. Applicant Information and Signature Box Address: fa,/Jccessor's Parcel N~J:~/ '-/II ti £._cµ 11,1..s I/ 1-i4 ./J~,. GINJIJIJ../J Applicant Name: J:f;,;7r1 4 Applicant Title: •/ µ-Se,-/ A.6 A-~T Applicant Signature:~ ~ ' -Date: ~ /2 //3•(_/_S' This Box for City Use Only City Concurrence: I YES I NO I I By: Date: Project ID: * Environmentally Sensitive Areas include but are not limited to all Clean Water Act Section 303(d) impaired water bodies; areas designated as Areas of Special Biological Significance by the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (1994) and amendments); water bodies designated with the RARE beneficial use by the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (1994) and amendments); areas designated as preserves or their quivalent under the Multi Species Conservation Program within the Cities and County of San Diego; and any other equivalent environmentally sensitive areas which have been identified by the Copermittees. E-34 Page 3 of3 Effective 6/27/13 "° ~ & ~ CITY OF CARLSBAD STORM WATER COMPLIANCE FORM TIER 1 CONSTRUCTI.ON SWPPP E-29 STORM WATER COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE ./ My project is not in a category of permit types exempt from the Construction SWPPP requirements ./ My project is not located inside or within 200 feet of an environmentally sensitive area with a significant potential for contributing pollutants to nearby receiving waters by way of storm water runoff or non-storm water discharge(s). ./ My project does not require a grading plan pursuant to the Carlsbad Grading Ordinance (Chapter 15.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) ./ My project will not result in 2,500 square feet or more of soils disturbance including any associated construction staging, stockpiling, pavement removal, equipment storage, refueling and maintenance areas that meets one or more of the additional following criteria: • located within 200 feet of an environmentally sensitive area or the Pacific Ocean; and/or, • disturbed area is located on a slope with a grade at or exceeding 5 horizontal to 1 vertical; and/or • disturbed area is located along or within 30 feet of a storm drain inlet, an open drainage channel or watercourse; and/or • construction will be initiated during the rainy season or will extend into the rainy season (Oct. 1 through April 30). I CERTIFY TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE THAT ALL OF THE ABOVE CHECKED STATEMENTS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. I AM SUBMITTING FOR CITY APPROVAL A TIER 1 CONSTRUCTION SWPPP PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CITY STANDARDS. I UNDERSTAND AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I MUST: (1) IMPLEMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE TO MINIMIZE THE MOBILIZATION OF POLLUTANTS SUCH AS SEDIMENT AND TO MINIMIZE THE EXPOSURE OF STORM WATER TO CONSTRUCTION RELATED POLLUTANTS; AND, (2) ADHERE TO, AND AT ALL TIMES, COMPLY WITH THIS CITY APPROVED TIER 1 CONSTRUCTION SWPPP THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES UNTIL THE CONSTRUCTION WORK IS COMPLETE AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. E (SIGNATURE) E-29 llb4h.< DA~ STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION NOTES 1. ALL NECESSARY EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS SHALL BE AVAILABLE ON SITE TO FACILITATE RAPID INSTALLATION OF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS WHEN RAIN IS EMINENT. 2. THE OWNER/CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES TO WORKING ORDER TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER AFTER EACH RUN-OFF PRODUCING RAINFALL. 3. THE OWNER/CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE CITY ENGINEERING OR BUILDING INSPECTOR DUE TO UNCOMPLETED GRADING OPERATIONS OR UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY ARISE. 4. ALL REMOVABLE PROTECTIVE DEVICES SHALL BE IN PLACE AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY WHEN THE FIVE (5) DAY RAIN PROBABILITY FORECAST EXCEEDS FORTY PERCENT (40%). SILT AND OTHER DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED AFTER EACH RAINFALL. 5. ALL GRAVEL BAGS SHALL BE BURLAP TYPE WITH 3/4 INCH MINIMUM AGGREGATE. 6. ADEQUATE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AND PERIMETER PROTECTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE MEASURES MUST BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED. SPECIAL NOTES Page 1 of3 Development Services Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue 760-602-2750 www.carlsbadca.gov PROJECT INFORMATION Site Address: 2502 Gateway Road Assessor's Parcel Number: 213-261-l-t}Zf, I Project ID: ____________ _ Construction Permit No.: _______ _ Estimated Construction Start Date ~/2o16 Project Duration 6 Months Emergency Contact: Name: f'IA-N f/ftrCff 24 hour Phone: -j80. 239, g~ Perceived Threat to Storm Water Quality D Medium D Low If medium box is checked, must attach a site plan sheet showing proposed work area and location of proposed structural BMPs For City Use Only CITY OF CARLSBAD STANDARD TIER 1 SWPPP Approved By: ________ _ Date: _________ _ REV 4/30/10 t.3 Fvli.._ :5\AIPPf1,6 orJ ,:-,u:.. v1rJ1 -me -:!J>rm&- Erosion Control Tracking Non-Stonn Water Waste Management and Materials BMPs Sediment Control BMPs Control Management BMPs Pollution Control BMPs BMPs C C C c c 0 "Cl 0 .2 i II) "Cl II) C tJ 0 C Cl E C E "Cl rn 0 C Cl CII C CII .5 ~ "5 .e-0) s m rn e ai 15 ·e CII Cl ~ C ::, c'.' Cl s :!: Cl "g.9! rn rn 'E CII C rn C. C C: i:: ·c: CT II) ~ Best Management Practice C II) "ii -~ c: rn C: w C ~ rn o!I :2 CII CII rn !!! m -0 0) 0 a, Cl 2 .1:!: a, CII ~ (BMP) Description 7 :a~ C I-E :R g, C t) ... t) rn ~ "Cl ai rn :!: -~H rn u J!J. Cl m "iii C: C "Cl ~ rn .9! "3 -~ 8 c CII CII "Cl m "ti >, 0 C C C => ::, ,l!: G) i5 ll:--Cl '-O CII .9! ~ s 1 :!: C m rn E C·-a,_ a, CII t) CII ~J iii ~.l 0 C c, C C 0) a.: CII N Ul :!:!! :i: G) .9! . "ii -e ~ CII if E .><: ai -::, .a ei = U) .... Cl :c ·c: i -0 :l§.5 II) u ... > G) ::, -0 :s ~ ·--0 2 C ~ ij ~ ~ .>:: :g CII u 0 C. '6 G) G) I'!! ~u C .Q CII ·;; ~ u N C: G) ~ CII f!! 0 = 0) .c .a en~ CII .s e CII C> ~& ~ ~I ~ i5 CII 0 Cl WC en c;; rn () u: Cl rn Cl) IJ. cii.E IJ. ~L :!: z rn :c () CASQA Designation 7 I'; co ~ ... ... <? ;z :z co I'; IX) 0 ;f N ... <? I'; "I' ... ":' <? ""t ~ t9 co u ... LU LU w ... 0: I I ~ t) I w w LU rn rn rn rn I ~ i ~ :ii: w w w () rn rn U) U) Cl) rn rn I-I-z z z z :s: :s: Construction Activity w rn Gradina/Soil Disturbance Trenching/Excavation Stockpiling Drilling/Borina Concrete/Asphalt Saw cutting Concrete flatwork Pavina Conduit/Pipe Installation Stucco/Mortar Work Waste Disposal Stagina/Lay Down Area Equipment Maintenance and Fuelina Hazardous Substance Use/Storaae Dewaterina Site Access Across Dirt Other (listl: Instructions: Begin by reviewing the list of construction activities and checking the box to the left of any activity that will occur during the proposed construction. Add any other activity descriptions in the blank activity description boxes provided for that purpose and place a check in the box immediately to the left of the added activity description. For each activity descrribed, pick one or more best management practices (BMPs) from the list located along the top of the form. Then place an X in the box at the place where the activity row intersects with the BMP column. Do this for each activity that was checked off and for each of the selected BMPs selected from the list. For Example -If the project includes site access across dirt, then check the box to the left of "Site Access Across Dirt". Then review the list for something that applies such as "Stabilized Construction Ingress/Egress" under Tracking Control. Follow along the "Site Access Across Dirt" row until you get to the "Stabilized Construction Ingress/Egress" column and place an X in the box where the two meet. As another example say the project included a stockpile that you intend to cover with a plastic sheet. Since plastic sheeting is not on the list of BMPs, then write in "Cover with Plastic" in the blank column under the heading Erosion Control BMPs. Then place an X in the box where the "Stockpiling" row Intersects the new "Cover with Plastic" column • To learn more about what each BMP description means, you may wish to review the BMP Reference Handout prepared to assist applicants in the selection of appropriate Best Management Practice ~ measures. The reference also explains the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) designation and how to apply the various selected BMPs to a project. ... ,., E-29 Page 2of 3 REV 4/30/10 •" «~ ~ CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DIVISION BUILDING PLAN CHECK REVIEW CHECKLIST P-28 Development Services Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-4610 www.carlsbadca.Q"OV DATE: December 2, 2015 PROJECT NAME: ViaSat antenna pad enclosure PROJECT ID: SUP 13-03 CB 15-4124 PLAN CHECK NO: 1 SET#: 1 ADDRESS: 2502 Gateway Road APN: 213-261-20, 21, 22, 23 ~ This plan check review is complete and has been APPROVED by the Planning Division. By: Greg Fisher A Final Inspection by the Planning Division is required [8J Yes D No You may also have corrections from one or more of the divisions listed below. Approval from these divisions may be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Resubmitted plans should include corrections from all divisions. D This plan check review is NOT COMPLETE. Items missing or incorrect are listed on the attached checklist. Please resubmit amended plans as required. Plan Check Comments have been sent to: For questions or clarifications on the attached checklist please contact the following reviewer as marked: ,. -· .. .•' PLANNING ·ENGINEERING · . ' ,, ·. FIRE .PREVENTl;O.N 760-602-46.10 760-602-2750 760•602-4665 .. D Chris Sexton D Chris Glassen D Greg Ryan 760-602-4624 760-602-2784 760-602-4663 Chris.Sexton@carlsbadca.gov ChristoQher.Glassen@carlsbadca.gov Gregory.Ryan@carlsbadca.gov D Gina Ruiz D ValRay Marshall D Cindy Wong 760-602-4675 760-602-27 41 760-602-4662 Gina.Ruiz@carlsbadca.gov Va1Ray.Marshal1@carlsbadca.gov Cynthia.Wong@carlsbadca.gov [Z] Greg Fisher D Linda Ontiveros D Dominic Fieri 760-602-4629 760-602-2773 760-602-4664 Linda.Ontiveros@carlsbadca.gQy Dominic.Fieri@carlsbadca.gov Remarks: Consistent with SUP 13-03. Proposed structure is smaller in size, open on two sides with screening and adding additional parking spaces. C Cl WISEMAN+ROHY STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS 9915 Mira Mesa Blvd. TEL. (858) 536-5166 FOR ViaSat Antenna Enclosure Carlsbad, CA October 20, 2015 W+R Job #15-088 Suite 200 WRENGINEERS.COM San Diego, CA 92131 FAX. (858) 536-5163 -, C) c/J/S'-/ I l 'I ; : ~: ~t ____ .....;-----~----..;...------..;.----....;.-----------··f-· __ I • -I . WISEMAN + 1ROHY ·-·--, -·---··---I -• --STRUCTURAL EN9INEERS : ·BY :tcM r ·----~ tDATE q{tl IG ! ! · · · -1 -• • -• -1 -• ' -· PROJECT ,,1Mz&;r :/n\ft~I\INb: Ytff!/0 1 ----~ , i -· · r --· t • -' . .. ! 1 --I • I • -- SHEET NO. i OF JOB u§ .. }S ~U-12 e ' , ! i -'Z. I I \ :. '. ' . ' 't:-m -I -t I , I j . ! j - f j I . ' "-t t l ). ...j / su ' 0 <SI :::: 6 -- ___ ...,... ________ -------------------~-----~ -------------+---+----'---- -; ,_ ~--11---------------------------------·--------+-+--------+---+------ I I @·~,.J I -' ! WISEMAN + !ROHY ' ' ' . .. . l . ' i STRUCTURAL EN~INEERS .. -• C • • • .. ' • • • • • • I .. . . . . BY: W\ ! DATE-~ROJECT Vl~Pf( f(NTI;NN-Pf "f.ffll/Q f . j l . SHEET ·NO. ,;-! _. __ OF · l --· -· JOB No. : f 0-00&r 1.--------- 1 . ' . j ; l I • 1 ) . ' l ! -----1------------+-f---------~--------------· ------------------+---- . ' . fll\\. fLC())l. 0'{'1' r1' -----------------1--1-------__.__....,.-'--=~=---""'-+-l+'-I"-·---~------------------------- . I I , --i I I ~ VlW (.,\Z_fg)f; -:--_q II $ . .ao.fhOflru~ -Z1~~;1-, '-I" ' I ---------~---------------~------------...... -----·-·--------. ------------------------,..---: -' I PROJECT: ViaSat Antenna Yard LOCATION: Carlsbad, CA WISEMAN+ROHY Structural Engineers == SCREEN WALL DESIGN == January 2014 -2012 IBC / 2013 CBC JOB NO: 15-088 9/2/2015 15:59 Allowable bearing= Bearing with 1/3 increase = DSA/OSHPD? 2500 3325 N q~ ,, -¾ ,, 12..evetn.. Masonry or Concrete? C ~ Actual Thickness = 8.5 Wall Weight" 116 f'c= fv= f'c= added concentric vertical load = Seismic Point Load = Wind Point Load = Height to point loads = Height above ground = Length of wall = Length of return wall = Depth to T.O.F. = Footing width = Footing thickness = Footing Design: EQ+0.9 DL: Wall Weight= Added Stem Load = Soll above footing = Footing Weight = Total Weight= X= {fM•·Morl/fPror {ft) 1.40 4000 60000 3000 o o 0 o 18.00 71.0 8.0 1.00 5.75 1.25 2204 0 555 1078 3837 e = L/2-x (ft) 1.47 psf psf (Y /N) (M/C) in (subtract reveal) in ~Y4n···· . . . . . USE: @) inch Concrete wall with #5 (v) @ ·s inches o.c. at center (d=4,;z:; in.) with a 5,75' wide x 1,25' thick footing 1'ransverseftg.Relnf,= 0.44 in2 /fl Longlt\J.dlnal Ft!!. Relnf.= i,86 ln2 psf Seismic: (ASCE 7-10 Section 13,3) Wind: (ASCE 7-10 Section 29.4.1 and Figure 29.4-1) psi psi psi (footing) plf (assumed DL) lb(ASD) lb(ASD) fl (above ground) ft ft fl ft ft ft lb lb lb lb lb kern =L/6 In Kern? 0.96 N !i\, = ((0.4 ap SDS Wp))/((Rp/1 p)) (1+2 z/h) ap= rp = Ip= 2.5 2.5 1.00 Sos= 0.757 (1.0 or 1.5) Fr= 0.303 xW (LRFD) Fr= 0.216 xW (ASD) Fr= 25.09 psf (ASD) Morea= 5081 ft-lb (ASD) Morw1nd" 5388 ft-lb (ASDJ M•= 11031 ft-lb qmox (psf) Qmln (psf) Bearing OK? 1640 0 OK C 0.88 1.00 s/h = B/s= 1.00 3.94 Exposure= K,= K,.= Kd= V= 0.85 Check: Cases A & C c,= c,= 110 1.35 2.08 Case A case c qi, = 0.00256 K, K,1 Kd V2 qh = 23.23 psf Case A= Case C (max) = 26.65 psf 41.06 psf Wind Load= 24.64 psf {ASD) Wall Desiin: Mbasoeu= 4529 ft-lb (ASD) M•.,•Wlnd = 4834 ft-lb (ASD) Vertical Bars = II 5 0.625 In. dia. Vertical Bar Spacing= 8 In. o.c. Eq+_l.0 DL: . __ 1.55 1.32 0.~6 N 1649 o OK Steel in center or at face? C (C/F) 0.47 in2 steel/ft -W+0.GDL: 0.53 2.34 0.96 N 2872 o W+l.0DL: 1.47 1.40 0.96 N 1739 o --- DSA & OSHPD Only: ~ -- 2.0 EQ + 0.9 DL: Unstable - 2.0 EQ + 1.0 DL: 0.23 2.65 0.96 N 11287 0 If the basic Seismic load case is not in the kern, OSHPD & DSA require an additional stability load case _ where the ~elsmic overtumin)i moml'!nt is doubl.~d.and compared to twice allowable bearin!I P.re~!l!r.e, f = 0.90 for seismic f= 0.60 for wind OK OK NG(> 6650) NG(> 6650) d= 4.250 in clear to bar= Center MubaseMalC = 8056 ft-lb (LRFD) (Wind Governs) phi-M0= 8133 lb-ft (LRFD) Note: If controlled by Wind Case C, the reinforcing may be reduced away from the end of the wall OK l I I +iROHY i f . ,-, , r I !WISEMAN : I I i I t -I ' ' I i STRUCTURAL EN~INEERS j ; f ' ---!~ATE~ ---· l T -. ---! - fiJ\ ' -\1' N:zf;cr: A'11fl:Nf;JA: \/ fW_)) ' _, BY PROJECT J SHEET·NO. t OF i - JOB NO.: !G-000 -l --( 1 -: I + ... ------r --' I : . ~ ; o~&~N~ el1€o\t: -I : ' l ' ' ' -. ' i -'. ' ' ' : ' \ ww.c;-r-c-~£ w~ ! 91-0·' \f'JlVS t i I ' --·--, ~~-=-0,\0<o w ' f¥;'D I toe (nv f~f;(M 1)(9 1) ; -:;. 01 1 C$ . ! ' t-,, I ! -.. l°l04 , r-.. ~ LB ! i ""' ...:.. i ; ; -I ' i -.ti) WoL::: UtlJ ~0r '>( 1°1 11 2-204 --t\5 : -::: Pup vJpt.._iJ,,L. -I ~ l}J\.,L (too ~~rJ(E/) ~--VO PLF . +-J }-j -:: -=--' K----' -----------------------: II.' l I -----, t I I 1.i . j -l I ' -- f' (£1-<)1') ...,_(G)?''\-'IY' 1' ( ) '1,1' j -=7,li:alS' ' I ---- ~ I ' : ' ~ 1c;13e AYflfCttt?V 0p12,43~~1tft?r /tJ-J frt_:'f <;1 s ' ,_' i ~LJN/h,..L_~£(JL_Q_~T~NJNJ.t __ i i ---f --i -I i ' i I --l ' ----------y--------·----- ; I -: ---· ---i _, i ' ' i l ,-i i I ~----------------------------------i i ; ' I ! '. ' I ) ----------------~ ------------------------------~--~--------- I --i ' I : WISEMAN+ROHY Structural Engineers == GRADE BEAM DESIGN == SOIL: Allowable 801I Bearlng = 2500 psi (not Increased) Allowable Increase= 1,333 (for lateral loads In Alt Cases) rho= 1.00 (1.0 or 1.3) FOOTING: Extension at left= Extension at right= Length= 1 It (lo left of first load) 1 ft ll.19 ft July 2015 CONCRETE: re= fy= 3.00 ksi 60 kSI blended factor= 1.5 phi= phi= 0.75 (shear) 0.9 (bending) d = thickness • 3.0 In ij<=_ 1:(,Q_ In SHEAR IN EXTENSION (not between columns): max extension she;,r Vu = 6.1 kips phi Ve= 68.0 kips (shear steel not needed) distance from Slab to TOF = Thickness= Width= ft 1.25 ft 5.75 ft use n1ln steel exceptlon?(Y/N) Y ACJ 11.5.6,1 excepllon (a) Shear Rein!. Size= II 3 0.11 ln2 number of shear steel legs = 2 Grade-Beam Volume = 66.035 cu. II. Vs Req'd = _0.0 kips I Spacing= 0.00 In Added DL Surcharge = GB Concrete Weight= Soil Above Wel.9_ht = 0.00 kif BENDING IN EXTENSION (not between columns): 1.08 kif (concrete= 150 pcf) max extension moment= 3.07 k·fl 0.63 kif ~II= 110 pcf) As min= T olal GB Weight = 1.71 kif a= 0.02 In As= Beta= 0.05 1.33xAs= DSNOSHPD? N (YIN) [1908A.1.5J 0.75 rho balanced = 0.0160 Asuw:c= !NOTE: For 1-slorv liQht-framed DSNOSHPD bulldlnqs, choose NO] Longitudinal Bar = II 6 I 1 Alternate Load Combinations: GOOD Basic Load Combinations: GOOD [GOOD (either all basic or all ailernale cases must work) FORCE TOWARD RIGHT: o.T. Ro:!.lst. F~clor PTOT Mom. Mom, of {kip$) (k•fl) (k-ft) Satoly 35,15 0.0 161.5 lnflnllo 35.15 0.0 161.6 lnflnlle 35,15 0.0 161.5 Infinite 35.15 o.o 161.6 Infinite 35,15 0.0 161.5 lnflnlla 35,15 21.4 161.6 76-1 28.40 21.4 130.5 6.09 2114 00 971 inflnllo FORCE TOWARD RIGHT: O.T. Ruslttt, factor PTOT Moll\, Mom, of D L, S 1 E W (kip,) {k•fl) lk·II) Safoty 1_,mm 3158 0.0 145,0 Infinite 1.000 1.000 35.15 o.o 161.b lntlnita 1 000 t.000 31.b6 0.0 145.0 lnllrnla 1-QQQ_ _____ _j_JJ_QI) 31.66 00 1450 infinite 1.000 0.760 0.750 34.25 0,0 157.3 lnflmle 1.000 O 750 0 760 34.26 0.0 167.3 l11firntu 1,000 1.000 31 56 0.0 146.0 lntlrnto J,OOO ________ ~Q 750 31,56 16.1 145,0 9,02 1.00_. -·o···<f760 o.1so__ ··.1-o.tso 1.000 0,750 0 750 0.750 1,000 0 750 0 760 ___ Q 563 34 25 0.0 157.3 lnflnll• 34.25 0.0 1573 lnfirnto 34.25 12.0 157.3 13,IJ!l I o.soo I 1 ooo 0,600 0,750 --18.93 0.0 67.0 lnfin!ta 18,93 16.1 87.0 541 0 25 po, ASCE 12,13.4 Le9.end: Notes: 2.76 ln2 0.06 102 0.08 ln2 13.28 In' # 6 ba~_[ie_quired Xfrom eftom rinht cantor Ill) 1ft) 4.69 000 4.59 0.00 4.59 000 4.59 000 4.59 0,00 3.98 0.61 384 0.75 4.60 000 Xfrorn ofrotn rinht contor Ill) (II) 4,60 0.00 4 59 000 4.60 000 4.69 0.00 •1.59 000 4.59 ooo 4.59 0.00 408 061 4.59 000 •i,60 0,00 •124 035 4,69 000 375 085 PROJECT: ViaSatAntenna Yard LOCATION: Carlsbad, CA JOB NO: 15-088 VERTICAL LOADS (All A~· Load Load Load Load 1 2 3 4 Dist from Load 1 = 0.00ft 7.19ft D= O.OOk O.OOk L" O.OOk 0.00 k Lr= O.OOk 0.00 k S= O.OOk o.oo k E (+ lsup)= O.OOk O.OOk Wi+ is unl,a O.OOk O.OOk LATERAL LOADS (W & E both ASD): (multlply W by 0.6 and devlde Eby 1.4) Height Height Above Above Btm. Load Load Lond Load 5 6 7 8 Seismic Seismic Level Slablfll ofFtqtfl) fklos) Moment (k·ft) Roof 9.00ft 11.25 1.90k 21.4 -0.00 o.o -0.00 0.0 -0.00 0.0 -0.00 a.a -0.00 0.0 SurnofEO # Levels= 1 Moments= 21.4 k-ft FORCE TOWARD LEFT: In Baarinu Ma,c, Min, O.T, RoshsL factor Xfrom a from In Korn? Lonnth BonrlnA Bo.arlnn OK? ft1qm. Mum, of lefl cantor Korn? (YIN) (fl) (k,;fj (ksfj lk-11) (k-ft) Stifotv tfl) till (YIN) y 9.2 0,67 067 GOOD 00 1615 ulllnite 4.50 0.00 y y 02 0,67 0.67 GOOD 0.0 161.5 lnfin110 4.59 0.00 y y 9.2 0.67 0.67 GOOD 0.0 161,5 lnllrol• 4.59 0.00 y y 9.2 0,67 067 GOOD 0.0 161.5 lnrlnile 4.59 0.00 y y 02 0.67 0.67 GOOD 0.0 161.5 lnli11l1e 4.59 0.00 y y 0.2 0.93 040 GOOD 21..1 161.5 7,64 308 0.61 y y 9.2 o.eo 0.2/ GODO 21.4 130.6 6.09 3.84 0.75 y y 02 040 0.40 GOOD 00 07.1 lnfirntfJ 4 59 0,00 y FORCE TOWARD LEFT: In Bonrinu Max, Min. O.T. Roslst. Factor Xfront ofrom In Korn? Lonnth Buti;ring aoarlng OK? Mom. Mom, of lalt cantor Korn? (YIN) {fl) (ks!) lk•II lk·ll} lk-ft} snfoty !Ill (fl) (YIN} y 0.2 0.60 060 GOOD 0,0 145.0 lnfirnle 4,59 o.oo y y 0.2 067 067 GOOD 00 181.5 lnflnilo 4,69 0.00 y y 02 0.60 060 GOOD o.o 145.0 inftnlle 4.60 o.oo y y 9,2 0,60 060 GOOD 0.0 145,0 toflnltq 450 000 y y 9.2 0,66 0.65 GOOD 0.0 157,3 inlinlle 4.59 0,00 y y 9.2 0.65 065 GOOD 0.0 157.3 1t1flnlla 460 0.00 y y 9.2 060 060 GOOD 0,0 145.0 infinite 4,SO 0,00 y y 0.2 0,80 040 GOOD 161 145.0 002 4.08 051 y y 0,2 0.65 065 0000 00 157.3 l11flnllu 4 59 000 y y 9,2 065 065 GOOD 00 1573 lnflnfto 4.50 0.00 y y 92 080 0.60 GOOD 120 157.3 13.06 4.24 0.35 y y 9.2 0.36 0.36 GOOD 0.0 87.0 lnhnlto 4.oo 000 y y 9,2 0,56 0 16 GOOD 18.1 87,0 6.41 315 085 y 9/2/2015 17:25:09 Dist Load -1 Dist Lond -2 I Distance to: Distance to: Start/kif Endlklos Start End 0.00ft 7.19ft 0.00ft c..J!&Q.!L 2.204 kif 15.84 k O.OOk 0.500 kif 3.59 k O.OOk O.OOOklf O.OOk O.OOk O.OOOklf 0.00 k O.OOk 0.000 ~If O.OOk O.OOk 0.000 kif O.OOk O.OOk Wind Wind (kips\ Moment lk-ft\ O.OOk o.o 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 Sum of Wind Moments= 0.0 k•ft Boarlno Mox, Min, lonnth Soaring Bearlnn OK? Ill) (ksf) tk•fl 9.2 0.67 0,67 GOOD 9.2 0.67 0.07 GOOD 0.2 067 0,67 GOOD 9.2 0,67 0.67 GOOD 9.2 0.67 0,67 GOOD 92 0.93 OAO GOOD 9.2 0.60 0.27 GOOD 92 0.40 0.40 OOOD Bunr1no Max. Min, Lonnlh Donrlnn Bc"rtng . OK? {fl) (k•fl (iu;I) 9.2 0.60 0,60 GOOD 0.2 O,G7 0.67 GOOD 9.2 0.60 0.60 GOOD 0.2 0.60 0,60 0000 0.2 0.65 0.65 GOOD 9.2 0.65 O,llS 0000 0,2 0,60 0,60 GOOD 9.2 0.80 0.40 GOOD 92 0.65 a.GS GOOD 9.2 0.65 0,65 GOOD 9.2 0.80 0.50 GOOD 9.2 0.36 0.35 GOOD 9.2 0.58 0,16 GOOD D= Dead Load Ev= O per JBC (alternate) and ASCE (basic) No loads possible on extensions· model extension past last load L = Floor Live Load L, = Roof Live Load E = Earthquake Load S= Snow Load Overturning forces (W & E) x 0.75 for basic cases per ASCE 12.13.4 This spreadsheet considers bolh E and W as ASD Uses lowest of controlling case from basic or alternate load cases for Shear & Moment Load 1 = (lrst load from lefl afler left extension WISEMAN+ROHY Structural Engineers SEISMIC BASE SHEAR (ASCE 7-10 11.4) (2012 IBC / 2013 CBC I ASCE 7-10) 2012 IBC SEISMIC EQUATIONS Base Shear: Occupancy Category = Importance Factor (IE)= Site Class= TL= ii 2012 !BC Table 1604.5 (i,ii,iii,or iv) 1.00 ASCE7-10Table1.5-2 D (From Soils Engineer or 'D' if not known) 8 sec ASCE 7-10 Figure 22-12 Ss= 1.052 g S1 = 0.408 g R= 5 ASCE 7-10 Table 12.2-1 Maximum Height = 18 feet Number of Stories = 1 Fa= 1.08 Fv= 1.59 SMs= 1.135 SM1= 0.650 Sos= 0.757 S01 = 0.433 Short Period Seismic Design Category = I Sec Period Seismic Design Category= Cu= 1.4 CT= 0.020 T -a-0.17 Ta= Vu= 0.151 xW Vu= 0.496 xW Vu= xW Vu= xW D D Sec Sec (basic) (Used) ASCE 7-010 Table 11.4-1 ASCE 7-10 Table 11.4-2 ASCE 7-10 Eq 11.4-1 ASCE 7-10 Eq 11.4-2 ASCE 7-10 Eq 11.4-3 ASCE 7-10 Eq 11.4-4 ASCE 7-10 Table 11.6-1 ASCE 7-10 Table 11.6-2 x= 0.75 ASCE 7-10 Eq 12.8-7 ASCE 7-10 Eq 12.8-8 (Not Used) (for S1 >= 0.6g only) Vu= 0.151 xW V=V0 /1.4= 0.1081 xW Structural Wall Out-Of-Plane and Anchorage Forces: Out-of-Plane Wall Forces (ASCE 7-10 Sect 12.11.1} PROJECT: ViaSatAntenna Yard LOCATION: Carlsbad, CA JOB NO: 15-088 9/2/2015 16:58:49 0 Steel Moment Frame 0 Concrete Moment Frame 0 Eccentrically Braced Steel Frame @ All Other Structural Systems Use Category: D ASCE 7-10 Table 12.8-2 USE Ta= 0.17 sec Eq 12.8-2 Eq 12.8-3 & 5 Eq 12.8-4 &5 Eq 12.8-6 Fpu= 0.303 xWµ(LRFD) Fµ=Fµu/1.4= 0.216 xWµ(ASD) Anchorage Force for Walls at Flexible & Rigid Diaphragms (ASCE 7-10 Eq 12.11-1) Level: Roof 5th Floor 4th Floor 3rd Floor 2nd Floor Total Height: 17 ft Rigid 0.303 Flexible Diaphragm Spans: 50 ft 75 ft > 100 ft 0.454 0.530 0.606 xW0 (LRFD} xW0 (LRFD) xW0 (LRFD} xW0 (LRFD) xW, (LRFD) 11-16-2015 To: Mr. Sebastian Archer Croft & Associates 3400 Blue Springs Road Suite 200 Kennesaw, GA 30144 Re: Carlsbad, CA /pesTEK ENGINEERING 4.1M Microwave Dish Facilities Dear Sebastian, Please find attached the site specific calculations and drawings for the 4.1M Microwave Dish facility at Carlsbad, CA. The prototypical calculations and drawings have been modified to account for the site specific geotechnical conditions set forth in the geotechnical report prepared by Southern California Geotechnical dated March 19, 2015. If you have any questions regarding this site, please contact me at (770) 693-0835 or email to: ghanchar@destekengineering.com. Sincerely, Destek Engineering, LLC Joseph F. Frega, PE California License Number: C75261 Page 1 of 1 DESTEK ENGINEERING, LLC 1281 Kennestone Circle, Suite 100, Marietta, GA 30066-Tel: (770} 693-0835 Client: Croft&Associates CALCULATION SHEET Site Name: 4.lM Antenna Carlsbad, CA /oesTEK ENGINEERlNG PURPOSE The purpose of these calculations is to design the 72 inch Deep 4.lMAntenna Foundation at Carlsbad, CA ==x-l==l:l:!,:--*-I-X-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x x-x-x-x-x 13'·•' b'..f," X I X X I I X I X I X I X I I @I r-----, I I X I I I @ X ___ IC~[:-. '?,, ~-x _ ___.'-l---.<---1-4---1<--l-X -X -X -X -X -X -X -X _j @1 . <±>11 +, /11® 11 4'-o' 'v •1'-0' Prepared By: Destek Engineering, LLC 1 of24 Job #:1563001 Date: 11/16/2015 2:31 PM Client: Croft&Associates CALCULATION SHEET Site Name: 4. lM Antenna Carlsbad, CA Design Parameters for Antenna Pad Foundation Dimensions/ Geometry of Foundation Length of Foundation: Width of Foundation: Depth of Foundation: Depth above Ground: Eccentricity of Centroid a bout X-X Axis (Toe): Eccentricity of Centroid about Y-Y Axis (Toe): Pedestal Height (Antenna): Gross Factored Dead Load of Foundation Unit Weight of Concrete: Lfound : = 20-ft Wround := 12· ft Dfound := 6ft eround_xx_toe := -6-ft et"ound _yy _ toe : = -10-ft hpedestal : = Oft lbf "Yconc := 150-- ft3 /oeSTEK ENGINEERING Gross Dead Load of Foundation: DLfound_gross := Lfound' Wfound· Dfounct "Yconc = 216· kip Un-Factored Dead Load of Equipment Cabinet Dead Load of Equipment Cabinet: Un-Factored Live Load of Equipment Cabinet Live Load of Equipment Cabinet: Prepared By: Destek Engineering, LLC DLcabinet := 1.8· kip LLcabinet := O· kip 2 of24 Job #:1563001 Date: 11/16/2015 2:31 PM Client: Croft&Associates CALCULATION SHEET Site Name: 4.lM Antenna Carlsbad, CA Dimensions/Geometry of Equipment Cabinet Length of Cabinet: Lcabinet := 92· in Width of Cabinet: Wcabinet := 48· in Height of Cabinet: Hcabinet := 74in Eccentricity of cabinet about X-X Axis (Centroid): ecabinet xx centroid : = O· ft Eccentricity of Cabinet about Y-Y Axis (Centroid): ecabinet_yy _ centroid : = -7.S. ft Eccentricity of Cabinet about X-X Axis (Toe): ecabinet_xx_toe := -6· ft Eccentricity of Cabinet about Y-Y Axis (Toe): ecabinet_yy_toe := -17.5-ft Un-Factored Equipment Cabinet Wind Loads Computed at the Base of the Cabinet Maximum Overturning Moment about X-X Axis: Mwind_cabinet_xx := 1.131· kip· ft Maximum Horizontal Shear about X-XAxis: Vwind_cabinet__y := 0.367· kip Maximum Overturning Moment about Y-Y Axis: Mwind_cabinet_yy := 2.131· kip· ft Maximum Horizontal Shear about Y-Y Axis: Vwind_cabinet_x := 0.691· kip Un-Factored Equipment Cabinet EQ Loads Computed at the Base of the Shelter Maximum Overturning Moment: MEQ_cabinet := 13· kip· ft = 13· kip· ft Maximum Horizontal Shear: VEQ_cabinet := 4-kip Prepared By: 3of24 Destek Engineering, LLC &§sTEK ENGINEERING Job #:1563001 Date: 11/16/2015 2:31 PM Client: Croft&Associates CALCULATION SHEET Site Name: 4. lM Antenna Carlsbad, CA Un-Factored Dead Load of 4.1M Antenna Dead Load of 4.1M Antenna: DLant := 3-kip Dimensions/Geometry of 4.1M Antenna Rad Center Elevation of Antenna: Radant := 8ft Eccentricity of Antenna about X-X Axis (Centroid): eant_xx_centroid := 0-ft Eccentricity of Antenna about Y-Y Axis (Centroid): eant_yy_centroid := 3.5· ft Eccentricity of Antenna about X-X Axis (Toe): eant_xx_toe := -6· ft Eccentricity of Antenna about Y-Y Axis (Toe): eant_yy_toe := -6.5· ft Un-Factored 4.1M Antenna Wind Loads Computed at the Base of the Antenna Maximum Overturning Moment: Maximum Horizontal Shear: Maximum Compression: Maximum Torsion: Mwind_ant := 9(). kip-ft = 56.25· kip· ft 1.6 12-kip . Vwind ant:= --= 7.5-kip -1.6 Cwind_ant := 12"902" kip = 8.064· kip 1.6 24 kip-ft . T wind ant := ---= 15 ft. kip -1.6 Un-Factored 4.1M Antenna EQ Loads Computed at the Base of the Antenna Maximum Overturning Moment: MEQ_ant := 13.807· kip· ft Maximum Horizontal Shear: VEQ_ant := 1.841· kip Prepared By: 4of24 Destek Engineering, LLC /oeSTEK ENGINEERING Job #:1563001 Date: 11/16/2015 2:31 PM Client: Croft & Associates CALCULATION SHEET /oesTEK Site Name: 4.lM Antenna Carlsbad, CA Soil Design Propoerties Allowable Net Bearing Pressure (Based on Geotech Report) : Nominal/Ultimate Net Bearing Pressure (Based on G-Code Section 9.4) : Resistance Factor for Bearing on Soil (Based on G-Code Section 9.4.1): Minimum Coefficient of Friction: Unit Weight of Soil: Prepared By: Destek Engineering, LLC 5of24 ENGINEERlNG <lz_net_allowable := 2.5-ksf <lz_net_nominal := 2· <iz_net_allowable = 5-ksf <1>s := 0.75 µ. := 0.25 lbf "fsoil := 90· - ft3 Job #:1563001 Date: 11/16/2015 2:31 PM Client: Croft&Associates CALCULATION SHEET Site Name: 4. lM Antenna Carlsbad, CA /Q§sTEK ENGINEERING Wind Loads Compute Pressure Distribution at Bottom of Foundation about the X-X Axis Compute Area of Foundation: 2 Around:= Lround' Wround = 240ft Compute Foundation Section Modulus about X-X Axis: 2 S ·-Lfound' Wround _ 480 ft3 found_xx .-6 - Compute Summation of all Vertical Loads on Foundation Psum := 0.9DLround_gross + 0.9DLcabinet + l.6LLcabinet + 0.9DLant + l.6Cwind_ant = 211.622· kip Compute Summation of all P x e Moments on Foundation about the X-X Axis Msum_pe_xx := 0.9DLanr eant_xx_centroid + l.6Cwind_ant' eant_xx_centroid ... = 0-kip·ft + 0.9DLcabinet' ecabinet_xx_centroid + l.6LLcabinet' ecabinet_xx_centroid Compute Summation of all Direct Moments on Foundation about the X-X Axis Msum_direct_xx := l.6Mwind_ant + l.6Vwind_ant' (Dround + hpedestal) + l.6Mwind_cabinet_xx ... = 167.333· kip· ft + 1.6V wind_ cabinet_y Dround Compute Eccentricity at Base of Foundation Msum Pe xx + Msum direct xx ft e := ----= 0.791 Testeccentricity := Prepared By: Destek Engineering, LLC Psum "0.K." 'f Wround 1 O<e<--- 6 "Not O.K." otherwise < Wround = 2ft 6 = "0.K." 6of24 Job #:1563001 Date: 11/16/2015 2:31 PM .. Client: Croft & Associates CALCULATION SHEET Site Name: 4. lM Antenna Carlsbad, CA Compute Maximum Bearing Pressure <l>s· 'lz_net_nominal = 3.75-ksf P sum Msum Pe xx + Msum direct xx Pmax xx wind:= --+ ----= 1.23· ksf --Around Sround _ xx Pmax_xx_wind_net := Pmax_xx_wind -0.9· (Dround -da} "isoil = 0.798-ksf Testmax_bearing := "O.K." if O < Pmax_xx_wind_net < <l>s· 'lz_net_nominal = "O.K." "Not O.K." otherwise Compute Minimum Bearing Pressure P sum Msum Pe xx + Msum direct xx ksf Pmin xx wind:= -------= 0.533· --Around Sround_xx Pmin_xx_wind_net := Pmin_xx_wind -0.9· (Dround -da} "isoil = 0.101-ksf Testmin_bearing := "O.K." if O < Pmin_xx_wind_net < <l>s· 'lz_net_nominal = "O.K." "Not O.K." otherwise Prepared By: 7of24 Destek Engineering, LLC /oesTEK ENGINEERING Job #:1563001 Date: 11/16/2015 2:31 PM Client: Croft & Associates CALCULATION SHEET Site Name: 4. lM Antenna Carlsbad, CA /oesTEK Wind Loads Compute Pressure Distribution at Bottom of Foundation about the Y-Y Axis Compute Area of Foundation: 2 Afound := Lfound' Wfound = 240ft Compute Foundation Section Modulus about Y-Y Axis: 2 W found' Lfound 3 Sfound_yy := 6 = 800· ft Compute Summation of all Vertical Loads on Foundation ENGINEERING P sum:= 0.9DLfound_gross + 0.9DLcabinet + l.6LLcabinet + 0.9DLant + l.6Cwind_ant = 211.622· kip Compute Summation of all P x e Moments on Foundation about the Y-Y Axis Msum_Pe_yy := 0.9DLant' eant_yy_centroid + l.6Cwind_ant' eant_yy_centroid ... = 42.457· kip· ft + 0.9DLcabinet' ecabinet_yy_centroid + l.6LLcabinet' ecabinet_yy_centroid Compute Summation of all Direct Moments on Foundation about the Y-Y Axis Msum_direct_yy := l.6Mwind_ant + 1.6· Vwind_ant' {Dfound + hpedestal) ... = 172.043· kip· ft + 1.6· Mwmd_cabinet_yy + 1.6· Vwmd_cabinet_x· Dfound Compute Eccentricity at Base of Foundation Msum direct_yy + Msum Pe _yy ft e:= --= 1.014 Testeccentricity := Prepared By: Destek Engineering, LLC Psum "0.K." if Wfound 0< e<---6 "Not O.K." otherwise = "0.1(." 8of24 Lfound < --= 3.333 ft 6 Job #:1563001 Date: 11/16/2015 2:31 PM Client: Croft & Associates CALCULATION SHEET Site Name: 4. lM Antenna Carlsbad, CA Compute Maximum Bearing Pressure <1>s·4z net nominal= 3.75-ksf P sum Msum _Pe _yy + Msum _ direct_yy Pmax_yy wind:= --+ ----------= 1.15· ksf -Around Sround _yy Pmax_yy_wind_net := Pmax_yy_wind -0.9· (Dround -da} 1soil = 0.718· ksf Testmax_bearing := "O.K." if O < Pmax_yy_wind_net < <l>s· 4z_net_nominal = "O.K." "Not O.K." otherwise Compute Minimum Bearing Pressure P sum Msum Pe _yy + Msum direct_yy 4 f Pmin_yy wind:= -----= 0.61 · ks -Around Sround _yy Pmin_yy_wind_net := Pmin_yy_wind -0.9-(Dround-da}1soil = 0.182-ksf Testmm_bearing := "O.K." if O < Pmin_yy_wind_net < <1>s· 4z_net_nominal = "O.K." "Not O.K." otherwise Prepared By: 9 of24 Destek Engineering, LLC /oesTEK ENGINEERING Job #:1563001 Date: 11/16/2015 2:31 PM Client: Croft & Associates CALCULATION SHEET Site Name: 4. lM Antenna Carlsbad, CA /oesTEK Wind Loads Compute Factor of Safety against Overturning about the X-X Axis Compute Summation of Overturning Moments about the Toe of Foundation Msum_overturning_xx := l.6Mwind_ant + l.6Vwmd_anr{Dfound + hpedest.al) ... = 167.333-kip-ft + l.6Mwind_cabinet_xx + l.6Vwind_cabinet_y· Dround Compute Summation of all Stabilizing Moments on Foundation about the X-X Axis ENGINEERING Msum_st.abilizing_xx := 0.9DLfound_gross· et'ound_xx_toe ··· = -1269.732· kip· ft + 0.9DLanr eant_xx_toe + l.6Cwind_anr eant_xx_toe ··· + 0.9DLcabiner ecabinet_xx_toe + l.6LLcabiner ecabinet_xx_toe Compute Factor of Safety against Overturning about the X-X Axis Msum _ stabilizing xx FSoverturning_yy_wind := --------= 7.588 Msum _ overturning_ xx I !1!. Slab 0verturning Safety Factor$-(8y Item) I OVerturning_Sa!e~ ~~~ors I Sliding Safe~ Factors I __ ; III CE! Slab Mo-XX[k-ft] -ivrs=Xxik-iii" . iviO:.iziittj" rvis=-Zi!ic~ft] --. Ms-XX/Mo-XX -----. --~ ·------~ --~ - ,--=f--S1 167.333 1269-734 0 2073.766 7.588 L __ ·---·--------.. ------------·------------------··--· -------~---·-------"-·-----------. -----·---·--------· --·-- Ms-ZZJMo-ZZ 9.999+ Prepared By: Destek Engineering, LLC 10 of24 Job #:1563001 Date: 11/16/2015 2:31 PM ;. Client: Croft & Associates CALCULATION SHEET /oeSTEK Site Name: 4.lM Antenna Carlsbad, CA Wind Loads Compute Factor of Safety against Overturning about the Y-Y Axis Compute Summation of Overturning Moments about the Toe of Foundation Msum_overturning_yy := l.6Mwmd_ant + l.6Vwmd_anr{Dfound + hpedestal) ··· = 172.043· kip-ft + l.6Mwmd_cabinet_yy + l.6Vwind_cabinet_x· Dfound Compute Summation of all Stabilizing Moments on Foundation about the Y-Y Axis ENGINEERING Msum_stabilizing_yy := 0.9DLfound_gross· et'ound_yy_toe •.. = -2073.763-kip-ft + 0.9DLanr eant_yy_toe + l.6Cwmd_anf eant_yy_toe ··· + 0.9DLcabiner ecabinet_yy_toe + 1.6LLcabiner ecabinet_yy_toe Compute Factor of Safety against Overturning about the Y-Y Axis Msum stabilizing_yy FSoverturning_yy_wind := _____ ...;.___ = 12.054 Msum_ overturning_yy ~11!._·_Sl_ab_Ov_· _erl:_u_m_in_g_Sa_fe_ty_F .... act_o_rs_{_By_C_o_m_b_in_at_io_n) ________________ -'--__ .........,.., ··---·---·---· EEJ)[f@][OOJ j ~vertuming Sa~ety Factors I ~lid!ng Safefy Factors I .. . ill CE) I "--i~---. Slab . -----~;to--xxii-tti . ·-·1v1s:xxri-m . ·---~1<>:ZZ[k-ft] '"rviS::zZric~m . .. .. M;-XXJ!vlo:.xx·»• . Ms-ZZ/Mo-ZZ 9.999+ . ·1 S1 0 1269.734 172.043 2073.766 9.999+ Prepared By: 11 of 24 Destek Engineering, LLC Job #:1563001 Date: 11/16/2015 2:31 PM Client: Croft&Associates CALCULATION SHEET Site Name: 4.lM Antenna Carlsbad, CA Wind Loads Compute Factor of Safety against Sliding in the X Direction Compute Summation of Horizontal Forces in the X Direction Hsum_x := 1.6Vwmd_ant + 1.6Vwmd_cabinet_x = 13.106· kip Compute. Sliding Resistance in the X Direction Rs:= ( 0.9· DLround_gross + 0.9DLant + 0.9DLcabinet} µ, = 49.68· kip Compute F.S. of Sliding Resistance in the X Direction Rs FSsliding x := --= 3.791 -Hsum_x Wind Loads Compute Factor of Safety against Sliding in the Y Direction Compute Summation of Horizontal Forces in the Y Direction Hsum_y := l.6Vwmd_ant + l.6Vwind_cabinet_y = 12.587· kip Compute Sliding Resistance in the Y Direction Rs := ( 0.9· DLfound_gross + 0.9· DLant + 0.9· DLcabinet} µ, = 49.68· kip Compute F.S. of Sliding Resistance in the Y Direction Rs FSsliding x := --= 3.947 -Hsum_y Prepared By: 12 of 24 Destek Engineering, LLC /oesTEK ENGINEERING Job #:1563001 Date: 11/16/2015 2:31 PM Client: Croft&Associates CALCULATION SHEET Site Name: 4. lM Antenna Carlsbad, CA &§sTEK ENGINEERlNG EQLoads Compute Pressure Distribution at Bottom of Foundation about the X-X Axis Compute Area of Foundation: 2 Around : = Lfound· W found = 240 ft Compute Foundation Section Modulus about X-X Axis: 2 Lfound· W found 3 Sround_xx := 6 = 480-ft Compute Summation of all Vertical Loads on Foundation Psum := 0.9DLround_gross + 0.9DLcabinet + l.6LLcabinet + 0.9DLant = 198.72· kip Compute Summation of all P x e Moments on Foundation about the X-X Axis Msum_Pe_xx := 0.9DLanr eant_xx_centroid ··· + 0.9DLcabiner ecabinet_xx_centroid + l.6LLcabiner ecabinet_xx_centroid = (). kip• ft Compute Summation of all Direct Moments on Foundation about the X-X Axis Msum_direct_xx := MEQ_ant + VEQ_anr (Dround + hpedestal) + MEQ_cabinet + VEQ_cabiner Dround = 61.853· kip· ft Compute Eccentricity at Base of Foundation ( Msum Pe xx + Msum direct xx) e := -= 0.311 ft Testeccentricity := Prepared By: Destek Engineering, LLC Psum "0.K." if O Wround < e< ---6 "Not O.K." otherwise < Wround = 2 ft 6 ="0.K." 13 of24 Job #:1563001 Date: 11/16/2015 2:31 PM Client: Croft&Associates CALCULATION SHEET Site Name: 4.lM Antenna Carlsbad, CA Compute Maximum Bearing Pressure P sum Msum Pe xx + Msum direct xx Pmax xx EQ := --+ _ ____;;;;.._; ___ _..;:;;;_--=._ = 0.957· ksf --Around Sfound _ xx Pmax_xx_EQ_net:= Pmax_xx_EQ-0.9-(Dround-da)·"/soil = 0.525-ksf <l>s· 'lz_net_nominal = 3.75· ksf Testmax_bearing := "O.K." if 0 < Pmax_xx_EQ_net < <l>s· 'lz_net_nominal = "O.K." "Not 0.K." otherwise Compute Minimum Bearing Pressure P sum Msum Pe xx + Msum direct xx Pmin xx EQ := -------= 0.699· ksf --Around Sfound_xx Pmin_xx_EQ_net := Pmin_xx_EQ -0.9· (Dround -da} "/soil= 0.267· ksf Testmin_bearing := "O.K." if O < Pmin_xx_EQ_net < <l>s· 'lz_net_nominal = "O.K." "Not O.K." otherwise Prepared By: 14 of24 Destek Engineering, LLC /oesTEK ENGINEERING Job #:1563001 Date: 11/16/2015 2:31 PM '· . Client: Croft&Associates CALCULATION SHEET Site Name: 4. lM Antenna Carlsbad, CA /gesTEK ENGINEERING EQLoads Compute Pressure Distribution at Bottom of Foundation about the Y.. Y Axis Compute Area of Foundation: 2 Around : = Lfound· W found = 240 ft Compute Foundation Section Modulus about Y-Y Axis: 2 W found· Lfound 3 Sfound_yy := 6 = 800-ft Compute Summation of all Vertical Loads on Foundation Psum := 0.9DLround_gross + 0.9DLcabinet + l.6LLcabinet + 0.9DLant = 198.72· kip Compute Summation of all P x e Moments on Foundation about the Y-Y Axis Msum_Pe_yy := 0.9DLanr eant_yy_centroid ... = -2.7· kip• ft + 0.9DLcabinet" ecabinet_yy_centroid + l.6LLcabiner ecabinet_yy_centroid Compute Summation of all Direct Moments on Foundation about the Y-Y Axis Msum_direct_yy := MEQ_ant + VEQ_ant" (Dround + hpedestal) + MEQ_cabinet + VEQ_cabiner Dround = 61.853-kip· ft Compute Eccentricity at Base of Foundation Msum Pe_yy + Msum direct_yy e:= --= 0.298ft Testeccentricity := Prepared By: Destek Engineering, LLC Psum "0.K." "f O Wround 1 <e<--- 6 "Not O.K." otherwise < Lfound -6-= 3.333ft = "0.K." 15 of 24 Job #:1563001 Date: 11/16/2015 2:31 PM ,.. Client: Croft&Associates CALCULATION SHEET Site Name: 4.lM Antenna Carlsbad, CA Compute Maximum Bearing Pressure P M p +M clir t ._ sum sum_ e_yy sum_ ec;_yy _ 0 902·ksf Pmax_yy EQ .-+ -· -Afowd Sfowd_yy Pmax_yy_EQ_net := Pmax_yy_EQ -0.9· ( Dfowd -da)· "fsoil = 0.47· ksf <l>s·<lz_net_nominal = 3.75-ksf Testmax_bearing := "O.K." if 0 < Pmax_yy_EQ_net < <l>s· <h:_net_nominal = "O.K." "Not O.K." otherwise Compute Minimum Bearing Pressure Psum Msum_pe_yy + Msum_clirect_yy 0 754 ksf Pmin_yy EQ := ---= · · -Afowd Sfowd_yy Pmin_yy_EQ_net := Pmin_yy_wind -0.9· (Dfoood -da} "isoil = 0.182-ksf Testmm_bearing := "O.K." if 0 < Pmin_yy_EQ_net < <1>s· <h:_net_nominal = "O.K." "Not O.K." otherwise Prepared By: 16 of24 Destek Engineering, LLC foesTEK ENGINEERING Job #:1563001 Date: 11/16/2015 2:31 PM '-. Client: Croft&Associates CALCULATION SHEET Site Name: 4. lM Antenna Carlsbad, CA /oeSTEK ENGINEERING EQLoads Compute Factor of Safety against Overturning about the X-X Axis Compute Summation of Overturning Moments about the Toe of Foundation Msum_overturning_xx := MEQ_ant + VEQ_ant' {Dround + hpedestal) + MEQ_cabinet + VEQ_cabinet' Dfound = 61.853· kip· ft Compute Summation of all Stabilizing Moments on Foundation about the X-X Axis Msum_stabilizing_xx := 0.9DLround_gross· et'ound_xx_toe ... + 0.9DLanr eant_xx_toe ... = -1192.32· kip· ft + 0.9DLcabinet' ecabinet_xx_toe + l.6LLcabinet' ecabinet_xx_toe Compute Factor of Safety against Overturning about the X-X Axis Msum _stabilizing_ xx FSoverturning xx EQ := ------= 19.277 --Msum _ overturning_xx EQLoads Compute Factor of Safety against Overturning about the Y-Y Axis Compute Summation of Overturning Moments about the Toe of Foundation Msum_overturning_yy := MEQ_ant + VEQ_anr{Dround + hpedestal) + MEQ_cabinet + VEQ_cabinet' Dfound = 61.853· kip· ft Compute Summation of all Stabilizing Moments on Foundation about the Y-Y Axis Msum_stabilizing_yy := 0.9DLfound_gross· et'ound_yy_toe ... = -1989.9· kip· ft + 0.9DLanr eant_yy_toe ... + 0.9DLcabinet' ecabinet_yy_toe + l.6LLcabinet' ecabinet_yy_toe Compute Factor of Safety against Overturning about the Y-Y Axis Msum _stabilizing_yy FSoverturning_yy_EQ := -------= 32.171 Msum _ overturning_yy Prepared By: 17 of 24 Destek Engineering, LLC Job #:1563001 Date: 11/16/2015 2:31 PM Client: Croft & Associates CALCULATION SHEET Site Name: 4.lM Antenna Carlsbad, CA EQLoads Compute Factor of Safety against Sliding in the X Direction Compute Summation of Horiwntal Forces in the X Direction Hsum_x := VEQ_ant + VEQ_cabinet = 5.841 · kip Compute Sliding Resistance in the X Direction Rs:= ( 0.9· DLfound_gross + 0.9· DLant + 0.9· DLcabinet} µ = 49.68· kip Compute F.S. of Sliding Resistance in the X Direction Rs FSsliding_x := --= 8.505 Hsum_x EQLoads Compute Factor of Safety against Sliding in the Y Direction Compute Summation of Horiwntal Forces in the Y Direction Hsum_y:= VEQ_ant+ VEQ_cabinet = 5.841,kip Compute Sliding Resistance in the Y Direction Rs := ( 0.9· DLfound_gross + 0.9DLant + 0.9· DLcabinet} µ = 49.68· kip Compute F.S. of Sliding Resistance in the Y Direction Rs FSsliding x := --= 8.505 -Hsum_y /oesTEK ENGINEERING Due to the large exposed area of the antenna combined with the relatively small weight of the structure, wind loading controls the design of this foundation. Prepared By: Destek Engineering, LLC 18 of24 Job #:1563001 Date: 11/16/2015 2:31 PM Client: Croft & Associates CALCULATION SHEET Site Name: 4. lM Antenna Carlsbad, CA @sTEK ENGINEERING Base Pad Check: 'm,,.,...< --..-----,----------r------,.--r---r---,---r--.---------PN1 --'.-' N7 Maximum Factored Moment Computed by RISA Foundation (Per Foot Width) Maximum Factored Moment: Mu:= 33.6· kip· ft Maximum Factored Shear Computed by RISA Foundation (Per Foot Width) Maximum factored Shear: Vu:= 7.208-kip Maximum Factored Anchor Bolt Tension Force Computed by Hand Calculations Maximum factored Anchor Tension: Nua:= 16.6-kip Prepared By: 19·of24 Destek Engineering, LLC N3 Job #:1563001 Date: 11/16/2015 2:31 PM Client: Croft & Associates CALCULATION SHEET Site Name: 4. lM Antenna Carlsbad, CA Design Parameters for Antenna Pad Foundation Concrete Checks Compressive Strength of Concrete: Yield Strength of Rebar: Depth of Concrete Section: Effective Width Considered: Clear Cover (Per ACI 318 7.1.1: Diameter of #8 Main Rebar: Spacing of #8 Main Reinforcing: Number of #5 Skin Reinforcing: fc := 4000 psi fy := 60000 psi t := Dround = 72· in bw := 12in C := 3in diamain reinf : = 1 in Smain_reinf := 12in llUillskin_reinf := 5 /QesTEK ENGINEERING Diameter of #5 Anchorage Reinforcing: diaanch_reinf := 0.625in Number of #5 Anchorage Reinforcing Legs per Bar: Number of #5 Anchorage Bars per Anchor Bolt: <I .tl L\ . .4. <l . ..(!. i: . 4 .d -~-<I . "<1 --~~~ Prepared By: 20 of24 Destek Engineering, LLC d ' • c- llUillanch_legs := 2 llUillanch _ bars : = 2 Job #:1563001 Date: 11/16/2015 2:31 PM «. ' ' Client: Croft & Associates CALCULATION SHEET Site Name: 4.lM Antenna Carlsbad, CA Compute Minimum Shrinkage Steel (Per ACI 318 7.12.2.1} Pm.in:= 0.0018 /oesTEK ENGINEERING Check Minimum Shrinkage Steel Per Foot Width (Shrinkage Steel in Top and Bottom of Slab) ( -rr· diamain_rein/ l ( 12· in l . 2 Asbrinkage := 2· } = 1.571· m 4 Smain_reinf) Asbrinkage Psbrinkage := ---= 0.001818 bw·t > Pm.in:= 0.0018 Testsbrinkage := I "Steel amount is more than minimum shrinkage steel" if Psbrinkage > Pm.in "Increase steel amount" otherwise Testshrinkage = "Steel amount is more than minimum shrinkage steel" Compute Minimum Tension Steel Per Foot Width (Per ACI 31810.5.1} d := Dfound -c -diamain_reinf 0.5 = 68.5· in 200·bw·d 2 As min:= ---= 2.74-in fy Check Minimum Tension Steel Per Foot Width (Tension Steel in Bottom of Slab) ( 'IT· diamam_reinl l ( 12• in \ . 2 As:= } ) = 0.785· m 4 Smain reinf < As_min = 2.74· in2 Testtension := "Steel amount is more than minimum" if As> As_min "Must provide 33% more than required by analysis per ACI 318 10.5.3" otherwise Testtension = "Must provide 33% more than required by analysis per ACI 318 10.5.3" Prepared By: _ 21 of24 Destek Engineering, LLC Job #:1563001 Date: 11/16/2015 2:31 PM Client: Croft & Associates CALCULATION SHEET Site Name: 4. lM Antenna Carlsbad, CA Compute Slab Moment Capacity Per Foot Width (Tension Steel in Bottom of Slab) A8·fy a:= = 1.155· in 0.85·fc· bw <l>b := 0.9 <l>b· Mn= 240.058· kip-ft > 1.33· Mu = 44.688· kip· ft /oesTEK ENGINEERING Testmoment_capacity := "Moment Capacity is 33% more than required by analysis" if <l>b· Mn> l.33Mu "Change Section Properties " otherwise Testmoment_capacity = "Moment Capacity is 33% more than required by analysis" Compute Slab Shear Capacity Per Foot Width (No Shear Reinforcing Steel) <!>v := 0.75 Vu= 7.208· kip Testshear_capacity := "Shear Capacity is adequate" if <l>v· Vn > Vu "Change Section Properties " otherwise Tesfshear_capacity = "Shear Capacity is adequate" Prepared By: 22 of24 Destek Engineering, LLC Job #:1563001 Date: 11/16/2015 2:31 PM Client: Croft & Associates CALCULATION SHEET Site Name: 4.lM Antenna Carlsbad, CA Compute Skin Reinforcing Per ACI 318 10.6.7 f8 := ( Mu )l. fy· psi= 8397.973 psi <l>b·Mn ( 40000· psi l . . s1 := 15· fs j m-2.5· c = 63.946· m 12 ( 40000· psi l . 157 . 82 := . fs j m = 57. . m Sskin_max := min( s1, s2) = 57.157· in (t-2· c) . Sskin reinf := ( ) = 11· m -numskin _reinf + 1 Testskin_spacing := "Skin Reinforcing is adequate" if Sskin_reinf < Sskin_max "Add additional Skin Reinforcing Bars" otherwise Testskin _spacing = "Skin Reinforcing is adequate" Prepared By: 23 of24 Destek Engineering, LLC /QESTEK ENGINEERING Job #:1563001 Date: 11/16/2015 2:31 PM Client: Croft&Associates CALCULATION SHEET Site Name: 4. lM Autenna Carlsbad, CA Compute Anchorage Reinforcing Per ACI 318 D.5.2.9 (Appendix D) ( 7i· diaanch_rein/ l . 2 Aanch := 4 ) = 0.307· m <?b := 0.9 Nna := c!>b· numanch_legs· numanch_bars· Aanch· fy-psi = 66.268· kip c!>anch := 0.75 c!>anch·Nna = 49.701-kip > Nua = 16.6· kip Testanch_reinf := "Anchorage Reinforcing is adequate" if <?anch· Nna > Nua "Add additional Anchorage Reinforcing Bars" otherwise Test.mch reinf = "Anchorage Reinforcing is adequate" '¢e:= 1.0 A:= 1.0 Compute Required Lap Splice Length Per ACI 318 12.2 and 12.15 '¢e:= 1.0 A:= 1.0 Use a Class "A" lap splice per ACI 12.15.2 {b}. The total splice length is: lsplice := 1.0· ld = 61.664· in Prepared By: 24 of 24 Destek Engineering, LLC /oesTEK ENGINEERING Job #:1563001 Date: 11/16/2015 2:31 PM G F E D C B A '1:' ·< STRUCTURAL NOTES· 1 STRUCTURAL PESIGN 1,1 DESIGN CODES a. 2013 CAUFORNIA BUILDING CODE 2 3 b. MINIMUM DESIGN LOADS FOR BUILDINGS ANO OTliERSTRUCruRES,ASCE/SE! MO.AMERICAN SOCIETY OFCML ENGi~ c. STEEL CONSlRUCTION twruAL. 14TH EDmON, AMERICAN INSTlTIJTEOFSTEa CONSTRUCTION 4 d. STRUCTURAL STANDARDS FOR STEaANTENNA TOWERSANDANTENNA.SUPPORTINGSlRUCTIJRES,ANSIITIA-222-G, TElECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION o.. BUltDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, A.Cl 318-t 1 1.2 WINO DESIGN DATA a, ULTIMAlEVffiDSPEED, ,,,,, , ••• ,, ••••••••••••••••• 115MPH b. RISK CATEGORY •••••• , ••• , •••••• ,.,.,, •• , ........ , IV c.WINDEXPOSURE ••• , •• , •••••••••••••••••••••••••• "C" 1.3, EARTHQUAKE DESIGN DATA a. R1SK CATEGORY,,, •• ,, •••• , •••••••••••••••••••••• ,. 'N b. SEISMIC IMPORTANCE FACTOR. I, •••• , •••••••••• , •••• 1.5 c. MAPPED SPECTPJJ. RESPONSEACCELERA.TIONS.,,,. ,,Ss=t.1>53 S1=0.408 d. RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTOR ••••••••• , •• ,, •••••• R=3 e.ANALYSISPROCEDUREUSED ••••••••••••••••••••••••• EQUIVALENTLATERAI.FORCE 2 GENERALCOND111QNS 2.1 GENERAL 5 a. ALL DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON 11iE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS SHALL BE VERIFIED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND SlWJ. CONFORM TO THOSE SHOWN ON lHEARCHITECTURAL ORAWlNOS b. THESE STRUCTURAL.CONTRACT DOCUMENTS DO NOT ltmlCATElHC MEfHODOF CONSTRUCllON. lli!: CON'TRACTORSHAl.l. SUPERVISE AND O!Re:CTTHCWORKANDHCSHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION MEANS, METHODS, TECHNIOUeS, SEQUeNCES, Mm PROCEDURES. OBSERVATION VISITS TO THE SITE BY THE ENGINEER SIW.l NOT INCLUDE INSPECTIONS OF THE PROTECTIVE MEASURES OR THE CONSlRUCTION PROCEDURES. c. THECO!flRACTORSHAU.AB.DVERIFYAU.EXISTINGCONOlllONS,DIMENSIONS,ANDELEVATIONSBEFOREPROCEEOINGWllHlHEWORK.ARYDISCREPANCIESBElWEENTiiECONTRACT DOCUMEITTSANOTHEACTUALAaDCOtmmoNSMUSTBEREPORTEDIMMEDIATaVTOTHEARCHITECT. d.ALLIMTERIALSANDEQUIPMENTFURNISHEOwtLLBENEWANDOFGOODOUAUIY.FREEFROMFAULTSANDDEFECTSNlllNCONFORMANCEWlTHTHECONTRACTDOCUMENTS.ALL SU8STITIJT10NS MUST BE PROPERLY N'PROVED AND AlITHORIZED PRIOR TO lNSTAl.1ATION. THE COITTRACTOR SHAU. FURNISH SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE M TO THE KIND AAD OlJAUTY OF MATERIALS I.JfJ EQUIPMENT BElNG SUBSTITUTEO. - e. THECONTRACTORSHAllCOMPl.VwrTHTHEREQUIREMENTSOFTHESTATEBUILDINGCODE,IATESTEDITIONANDAl.LN'PUCABLEFEOERAl.ANDSTATECODES,STANDAROSANDREGUlATIONS. f. IN TliE CASE OF CONAJCTS BElWEEN SPECIFICATION, NOTES, AND DETAILS, 11iE MOST STRINGENT RBll.llREMENT SHAU. BE USED. g Tl£ COITTRACTORSHAU. TAAE NECESSARY PRECIJJTIONSTO PROTECT EXISmG FACIUllES. STRUCTURES AND UTl.nV LINES FROM DNMGE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME AJU. RESPONSmllllY, h,JOBSAFElY,CONSTRUCTIONPROCEDUREANOMEANSANDMETHOOSARETtERESPONSmllTYOFntECONTRACTOR. L COITTAACTCIRS SIWJ. PROVID51EMPORARY SHORING AND BRACING FORAll. STRIJCT1JRAL COMPONENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION. 3 SlRucnJRAL STEEL {APPLICABLE FOR STRUCTURAJ. STEEL SPECIEIED BY DESJEK) 3.1 MATERIALS a. SlRUCrURALSTEa •••••••••••• I-SfMA992 ANGLE& PLATE ••••••• ASTM A36 PIPE .. ,,, .. ,,,.,., .. ,ASlMAS3 GRADEB (ORFy>35KSI) HSSROUNO,,,,,,,,,, ASlM A500 GRAOEC(Fy,,161<$1) BARS (SOI.I) RODS) .. ,ASlMA512GRADE50 b. SOL TS ••••••••••••••••••••••••• ASTU A325X U.N.O. ~ WEI.OINO ELEC!ROOES., .......• AWSAS.1 (E70XX) d, STEEL CONSTRUCTION SHAU. CONFORM TO-sl'ECIRCATION FOR SlRUCTURAL STEB. BUILDINGS. ANSL'AISC 360-10" e. waDING SlW.l.CONFORMTOAWS D1.1/01.3/01,7 ASAPPUCABLE. f. THEFABRICATORS1W.LFURNISffCHECKEDSHOPANDERECT10NDRAWINGST01HEENGINEER.AADOBTAINAPPROVALPRIORTOFABRICATINGM«STRUCTURALSTEELSHOPDRAWINGSSHALL CONFORl..t TO "DETAIL.m FOR STEEL CONSTRUCTION, 2ND EOITlotr g, POOR MA.TailNG OF HOLES SHALL BE CORRECTED BY ORllltlG TO THE NEXT LARGER SIZE. WB.DING FOR RE-ORJtl.m WILL NOT BE PERMITTED. 3.2CONNECTIONS a.SHOPCONNECTIONSMAYBEBOLTEDORWElDED b.FlB.DCONNECTIONSBOLTEDWITHA325-XBOLTS,SHAU.SEINSTAU.EDSNUGTIGHTUNLESSOTHl:R'NISESPECIFIEDORIFwa.DEDCONNECTIONSARENOlEDONDRAWINGS c.FlB.DCONNECTJONSSHALLBEMADEWJTHA.125-XBOI.TSNlDHARDENEDWASHERSEXCEPTMtNDlCAlEDONlliEDESIGNDRAWINGS d. CONNECTIONS NOT SHOWN ON DRAWINGS SHALL BE DESIGNED BY 11iE STEEi. FJ.BRICAlOR. CONNECTIONS SHAU. BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AISC "SPECIFICATIONS FOR STRIJCTIJRAL JOIN'TSUSINGASTMA3250RMIIOSOl.Ts-AND·NSCCODEOFSTANDARDPP.ACTICEFORSTEELSUDDINGSANDBRIDGes" e,DONOTFIElOCln'ORALTERSlRUCruRAL.MEMBERSWJTHOUTPRIORWRITTENN'PROVALOFENGINEER. t.BOI.THOlESSHALLBECUT,DRIU£DORPUNaiEDATruGHTANGI.EST01HESURFACEOFTHEMETALOOSHALLNOTBEM\DEORENLARGEOBYBURNING.HOLESSHAU.BECl.EANCUT WITHOUT TORN OR RAGGED EDGES. OUTSIDE BURRS RESULTING FROM ORIWNG 08 REAMING OPERATION SHALL BE REMOVED WITH A TOOL MAKING A 1116 INCH BEVa.. BOLT HOLES SHALL BE 1/16 INCH 0VERSlZE. 3.3FINISHES a. STRUCTURALSTEB.SHALLBE HOTDIPGAl.VANIZEDAFTERFABRICA.TION PERASTMA123 b. SOL TS ANO NUTS SHALL BE HOT DIP GALVANIZED PERASTM A153. c.ALl.SURFACESDAMAGEODURINGTiiEWORKSHAU.BEPAINTEDwmtCOLOGAl.VANIZINGCOMPOUNOTWICE. lliEPAINTSHOll.DBEATLEAST93%PUREZINC.RIJST-OtEUMPROFESSIONAL, (MOOSJl7585838)0RSIMllAR. 6 4 REINFORCcD CQNCRETE 4.1 CONCRElE 7 8 9 10 a.ALLCONCRETEDESIGNANDCONSlRUCTIONSHALLBSJNACCORDANCEWITHAC1318-11,ACl301-10FORSTANDARD SPECIFJCATIONSFORSlRUCTURAL CONCRETE, ACI 305R-10 FOR I-IOTWEATliER CONCRETING, ANO AC/ 306R-10 FOR COLD WEATHER CONCRETING. b. CONCRETE SIW.L DEVB.OP A MINIMUM 28-0AY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 4000 PSI. BASB> ON SITE CONDITIONS, CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE CONCRETE PER TABLE 4.3.1 OF ACl-318. CONCRETE STRENGTH SHAil. BE INCREA.Sm ACCORDINGLY. c. TEST CYLINDERS SlWLSETAKEN/ltSAREPRESOOATIVESAMPLEOFCONmETEPI.ACED/ltS REQUIRED BY ACl-301. d, TEST RESULTSSHN.1.BEFORWARDEDlOTHEARaiITECT/ENGINEER, UNLESS NOTEDOntERWISE. e.NOru.w.WEIGHTCONCRETE(f50PCF)SHALLBEIJSEDwtmA.1•MAXCOURSEAGGREGATECONFORM!NGTOASTMC33. f, CONCRETE St.UMP SHALL BE 5" (MAX} FOR REGULAR MDC, WITH SIJPERPLASTICIZERAOMIXTURES INCREASING SLUMP TO 8" (MAX}. CONCRETE AIR-BflRAINMENT SIW.J.BE4.5%T07.5%. g UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, CONCRETE COVER FOR REINFORCING STEEL S1-W..L BE/.S FOi.LOWS: L CONCRETECMTAGA!NSTEARTii·3" l FORMED CONCRETE EXPOSED TOfARIB OR WEA11iER•2" h. ALL CONCRETE SHALL BE POURED MONOUTI-l!CALL Y, EXCEPT FOR REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION JOINTS. CONTRACTOR stW.LSUBMIT PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION JOINT LOCATIONS AND DETA!l.S TO THE ENGINEER FOR REVIEW. I. COITTRACTORSIWJ. PROVIDE3/4 INCH ~ON All EXPOSED CORNERS OF SLABS UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ONTHEARCHITECTIJRAL DRAWINGS. 4.2 REINFORCING STEEL a. ALL REINFORCING STEB. SIWL BE NEW DOMESTIC DEFORMED BUET STI:B. CONFORMING TO ASTM A-615 GRADE 60. b. ALL RElNf'ORCING DETAJlS SIWL CONFORM TO "MANUAL OF STANDARD PRACTICE FOR DETAILING RSNFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES-ACI 315, lATEST EDITION, UNlESS DETAILED OlHERWISS OH THE STRl.lCTURAl. DRAWINGS, c. CONTRACTOR SHAU. VERIFY LOCATIONS OF ANCHOR BOLTS, ETC.,M REQUIRED BY OIBERTRADES BEFORE CONCRETE IS Pl.ACED. d CONTRACTOR SIW.l. PROVDE BAR SUPPORT AS REQUIRED TO PROPERl Y SUPPORT REINFORCING STEB., INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: BOLSTERS, CAAIRS, SPACERS, AND OTHER DEVICES FOR SPACING, SUPPORTING, AND FASTENING REINFORCING BARS N Pl.ACE, CHAIRS WHICH BEAR ON EXPOSED CONCRETE SURFACESSHALLHAVEENDSWHICHAREPLASTICTIPPEDORSTAIM.ESSSTEB..CHAIRSWHICHBEARONEXPOSEOCONCRETESURFACESTORECEIVE SANOBl>ST ANISH SIW.1. BE STAJNI.ESS STEEL e DO NOTPI.ACE PIPES ORDUCTSwmtAfMXIMUMD!MENSION EXCEEDING ONE-THIRD TllESlAB OR WALL TlilCKNESSWITHIN lliESLAB OR WALL UNLESS SPECIFICAU. V SHOWN AND DETAll.ED ON 1He STRUCTIJRM.. OAAWINGS. t DONOTwa.D OR TACKWB.O REINFORCING STmUNlESSN"PROVED OR DIREClED BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER OF RECORD, PROVIDE REINFORCING STEaCONFORMINGTOAS1MA708,GAADE60WHEREWELDINGlSAPPROVEDORDIRECTED. g. PROVIDE BASIC Cl.ASS "B" TENSION LAPS IN All. ~FORCING BARS INDICAlED AS CONTINUOUS. h.DETAllCONCRETEREINFORCEMENTACCORDINGTOACISP-66DETAIUNGWJruAI...SUBMrrSHOPoRAW!NGSFORAPPROVAL.SHOW!NGALLFASRICATION IXMENSIONS ANO LOCATIONS FOR PlACl«3 CONCRETE REINFORC1NG AND ACCESSORIES. DO NOT BEGIN FABRICATION UNTIL SHOP DRAWINGS ARE COMPLETEDANDREVIEWEDBYTHESTRUClURAI..ENGINEEROFRECORD. ~ 5.1 FOUNDATION DESIGN a.ALL FOUNOI\TION DESIGNSASSUMELEVEl.GRADEATTHESITE. b. FOUNDATION DESIGNS ME BASED ON AN Al.LfYNNJLE NET SOL BEARING PRESSURE OF 2500 PSF PER THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED BY SOUTHERN CAUFORNIAGEOTECHNICAL,OATEDMARCH19,20f5. c.DESIGNOFFOUNDATIONSAREBASEDONiCDFOUNDATION.4,1PROOUC'rOATE00512&'2C115. d.THE.PLAlfORMFOOTPRINTSHALLNOTBELOCATEDa.OSERTKA.N10FEETFROMTHEmESTORTOEOFANADJACENTSLOPE.ADJACENTSLOPESHALLNOT EXCEED A 3H:1V SLOPE e FOUNDATIONINSTAI.LAT!ONSKALLBESUPERVISEOBVKNOWl.EOGEABLEPERSONNELCONSTRUCTIONSHALLBEINACCORDMICEWITHGENEP.AI.ACCEPTED INSTAllATION PRACTICES. f.CONTRAC1'0RSHAU.PlACECONCRETEINAWJiNERTHATPREVENTSSEGREGATI0NOFCONCRETEMATERIALS,lNFllTRATIONOFWATERORSOltANDOTHER OCCURRENCES WHICH !JAY DECREASETttESTRENOTtt ORllURA!lllllYOF TttEFOUNOATIDN. g. WB.DING OR TORCH CUTTING OF REINFORCING STE8.. ANO EMSEDMENT tS STRICllY PROHIBITED. 5.2 EXCAVATION ALLEARTHW'ORKSHAU.BE INSTRICT ACCORDANCEWITHTHEGEOTECHNICALREPORTPREPARED BY SOUTHERN CAUFORNIAGEOTECHNICAL, DATED fMRCH 19, 2015. ATAMINIMUMCONTRACTORSlw.LPERFORMlHEFOLlO'MNG; a.LOOSE MATERIAL TOBEREMOVEDFROMTHEBOTIOMOFEXCAVATIONPRIORTOCONCRETEPLACEMOO. b.EARTHWORK,INCl.UDINGBUTNOTUMITEDTO,FOUNDATIONSCOMPONENTINSTAllATION.BACKFUOPERATIONSANDSOILCOMPAGTION,stW.LBE PERFORMED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF AUCENSEDSOlL TEST COMPANY. c.REMOVEAl.1.EXISTINGPAVEMENT,STRUCWRESANDFOUNMTIONS, TOPSOIL,UNSUITABLEFILLS,AHDORGANICSOILSENCOUNTEREDWITHINANDBaON THE AREA TO BEOCCUPIEOBYSLASSONGRAOEANO FOUNDATIONS. d. THE C0MTRACT0R ISRESPONSlBLE FORANOSI-W.1.PROVIDETEMPORARV SHORING, BRACING. UNDERPINNING,ANDOTHERMEASURESNECESSARYTO WSURESTABUTYANDSAFETYDURINGERECTlONANOCONSTRIJCTIONANOTOPREVENTMOVEMEHTOFSOIL e.AFTEREXCA.VATINGFORSI.ABSONGRADE. THEEXPOSEDNATURALS01LSIW.LBETI-iOROUGHLYCOMPACTED. lCONTRACTORSIW.1.FIElllLOO\TEN<YEXISTINGUTI.ITIESINSITEAA9.MIDCONS1RUCTACCOROINOLY. 100% REVIEW SET -ARCHITECTURE c-E ~ i ij ~ l::;j " en a, (I).~ ~o m-gY"'o o .sd!~t::: m ~ ai-~ Oc g8C: :l~C) :!: Jg oil~ t~ § 0o C • ¢::m !lf,j ~-Ui~~ I:: C: Iii~ 0 'g_, ., a. ii iii 2i w (.) ~ @ z :§ a; ~ CJ) ... !!! !a .... -m ~ ~ i $ C < Ill ci z lllaSat PREPMED B't: /oeSTEK ENGINEERING Otsttl<ENG!NE[RIIIC,lLC 1281 )(DIN£5JOIIE tfl,STE 100 tt~:to:'e~l!I D£SltXPFIOJ£Cff1$6JOOI N Ill:: w,!; zi2 Ill:: 0 ::> ~ m ~i Ill:: .z ~ ii u. ii!" < 13;;_ DESIGNED: DRAWN! CHECKED: ., t5 z ~i u GH DK AC PROJECT NUMBER 2014-167.25 SHEETNO. S-1 G F E D C B A f:' .J .<( 2 3 4 5 EQUIPMmrCAS1NEr PEDESTAL l (3 SHEET METAL 000 HOUSE BY VlASAT --- ~ 4. . ·\··· 1·.) . 4 4 4 ·j < 44 -1 I~ &I 4 ~ .cl .a tt "-a 4 ~ !' 4 • -t t-i--LtJ~ 4 l---1-tl ~ 4 I• . J 4 .,, 4---y 44 .. . 4 4 4 4 I 4 4. ~ " 4 <1 I 4 4 • " 1 . . . . 4 4 " .. 4 " " I .. I • .. . _4 __ ~_ . .. I 4'<l' • ./1' .... _____:::! 2 - ~ l;i; ~ 4 ". 4 . d d~ G) DISH FOUNDATION PLAN SCALE: 1/4'=1'0" " " ·" " .. .. <4 " @ ELEVATION VIEW SCALE: 1/4'=1'0" NOTE: ANCHORA.GETENSION BARS NOTSHOO'N FORCLARITY ANCHORBOLT TEMPlAlE&ANCHOR BOLTS BY VIASAT " 4 " 4 • •4 ~ " " :l" ClEAR COVER (IYP.) BN.!fil:!GRADE "t:;MD.E (13) 15 BARS C!1 Ea. SPS. (IYP. AU SIDES) (6) 15 BARS @EQ. SPS. / (IYP.AUSIDES) B!SND 14 BARS AT ENOS (IYP. TOP&~ ----i1r MIN. (21)1l8BARS@E0 SPS. (IYP. TOP & BOTTOM) 6 7 8 9 e./1' 1 ~NISHGR@g !i: Ii 111 Jf~~m / (21)15BARS@EQ.SPS 4 {JYP,ALLSIDES) BENDIS BARS AT ENDS(lYP. ~ 4 4 ' __,.,-TOP & BOTTOM) , :a-~ 4 .a !S ---,12"MIN. ::: (13)'8BARS@EQ,SPS • (IYP. TOP & BOTTOM) . . .. " 4, " " " .-.. " .. g !3 @) ELEVATION VIEW . SCALE: 1/4'=1'0" NOTE: ANCHOP.AGE TelSION BAAS NOT SHOWN FOR ClARJTY e'O.D.CONDUIT 62'REQ'Dl>J>Sl'UCE ~BAR ~~ STN<DARDHOOK ~ '8MAINREINFORCINGBAR I EB '8MAINREINFORCINOBAR ~~A==~G~ EDGEOFFOUNDATION 1 @SPLICE DETAIL TO AVOID CONDUIT (TIP) NOTTO SCALE NOTE: DO NOT CUT TWO ADJACENT '8 MAIN REINFORCING BARS 10 100% REVIEW SET -ARCHITECTURE c-E ~ iij .!'l i:::~ ~ gj :§ a,-g"J~g .!&!~~~ ~a~-~ Oc o,SC Jic'3~~ ~~ ~~~ ='° Cl) &l i 28 2c o~~J:: I: C Iii jg 0 = a. ., ~ 11 rli !!i w 0 ~ ffi ~ ~ ~ (/) ... !!l !Q ., ., ~ ;i; J!! .. ~ ; C c( IXI 6 z lllaSat PREPARED B'I': loeSTEK ENGINEERING 0($1[1( 0«;11,!E[Rlff:,I.LC 12a\KOllrsrotltCR.ST£100 Jt.~~or:"&~3, D£STD::PIIOJCCT#,1"63001 ~ a: Iii W,i; zi2 ;!; a: 0 ~ .. ffi ~i ,__, a: ~ffi ~ ~~ ~ m~ lli!!:C u. i" .,g~ <C ;_ DESIGNED: GH DRAWN: DK CHECKED: AC PROJECT NUMBER 2014-167.25 SHEET NO. 5-2 G F E D C B A J 2 (B)ANCHOR BOLTS, PROVIDED BY VIASA.T INSTALLED BY CONTRACTOR ~ ~ (2)UGHTNING GROUND TO ANTENNA GROUND RING 'IP'~ .. .t-:-4,(8;~ 3 ~~G ~~ l----1'·1f--i 4 CD ANCHOR BOLT TEMPLATE SCALE: 1"=1'0" ~~ I ~ I ~TCRaEO~=~ ~--'-~~ >t~f-~\x·-?t- (]) ::~~;D BOLT CIRCLE LAYOUT 5 6 ANCHOR BOLTTEMPt.AlE PROVIDED BYVIASATINSTAltEOBY CONTRACTOR /SHEET METAL DOG / HOUSEBYVIASAT .... ~ CONDUITSlUBUPTEMPlAlE PROVIOB>BYVlASA.TINSTALLEDBY CONTRA.CTOR @ ANCHOR BOL TTEMPLATE SCALE: 1'=1'0" 7 8 LEVEL STEEL RISER PROVIOB) BY VJMAT DURING RISER INSTAUATION BY ANTENMAINSTAUATIONTEAM VIASATTO PROVIDE SHEET METAL RING ATFlNALINSTAll TOCOVERVOlOSl'ACE '\.,_ I BElWEENSTEELRISERANDTOPOFSU\B \ TOP OF CONCRETE PRETENSIONING NUT, M24X3 WI 2"X1/2"THKSQUAREWASHER THE PAD SURFACE AROUND THE SQUARE WASHERS SHALL BE SMOOTll TO ENSURE THATlHELOAOBEARINGWASHERSlAY FlAT.LEVB. TO J:J5" PER MARK-UP 24MM0BOlT (TYP) ANCHORAGEiENSlON BA.RS lEMPLATES, ANCHOR BOLTS, WASHERSANDNUTS PROVIOEDBYVIASAT ORIENT UPPER CONDUIT TEMPIATE SUCH TllAT THE&" CONOUITCUTOUTSAR!1 PlACEO FURTHEST AWAY FROM EQUIPMENT CABINET 9 10 ";/;' .. ,., 't ,., 100% REVIEW SET -ARCHITECTURE c-E ~ i~ l§ ~ i ~:i: &:f o flJ'g T'" c::i 0 ,~~(::~ u ~ g,_.l!J ~·2 gBij <t~C) ~ ¢: oil~~~§ =ID0~1· 28 2d o~~~ I: ti il! ., ~ 15 13 UJ 0 ~ @ z :§ ~ al en ... !!! !!? "'"' ~ ~ ~ ~ < Ill 0 z lllaSal ~"'' foesTEK ENGINEERING DESTEKOICIIIEtRlllC,U.C 1UIIKEUNtST0NtCR,Slt100 ra.~t~&9~~, OEST£K Pf!OJOOT/, 1!63001 N 0:: ~ W,i; e zll! 0:: a C ::> i~ !:i 0 m ·i Ill w;:l ~~ t-"' !ii i3 u.. r <( ~ ili :i DESIGNED: GH DRAWN: DK CHECKED: AC PROJECT NUMBER 2014-167.25 SHEET NO. S-3 G Fl El DI cl 01 A .pl j I- LIGHT FOOURE INWE (VFS-K~Sl}PROVIDEDBY VIASAT ~ TOPOFPOLE EI.EV.•15'..z'l\\jl.. ~ -·-·· -··-- 2 J.l I II L II VI 3 SECURITY CAMERA (SNCEB632R / ={SONYUNIBBBl)PROJ~~ ~~Jtl'UEDBY BASecoveR .. I I 314"CH.IMfEREDEDGES /SLOPEFROMBOUARO ~1 ·-·-:: ... :; ; ;111·, ·111· '·111~ -mw,11 '==' == == 11 111: q q ~:;;11,;;;11,;;;111 1==111 Ill ITT I I I I ~ I l-(3)TIESATTCP@3" q ~I~ I 6 I 4 _ _41 "I-----(6)'6VERTICA1.8ARS "<J I 11"~4 l 1a q 4, 4 <le J 4 I'--#3TIES@B"O.C. NEW LIGHT POLE FOUNDATION 4 "' , .... (D LIGHTPOST FOUNDATION ELEVATION VIEW 4 5 Nell DRILLED PIER FOUNOATlON I , .... , .... @~!;~~~VIEW 6 7 (6)'6VERTIQ\L BARSW/#3 TIES ON ,rca,rrns 8 9 10 -ARCHITECTURE E g ~8 B ~g •5 CJ> 1u ~i~·o °'°i ..-o 0 Ii:~ I u a,e,_-o ~-2 gBij ctM"(!) ;! ¢: <111! {~& ;::m ct>ftf i e8 2o o,H!I:: ... ~i w w ., 0. ;:: 0,: w 0 > u. Ill Q ~-~-~ ; ... , ... 4 ~ ~ * </lll C: i, ·51 w :ll (.) C z ~ C d z :5 en !!l VlaSat. PREPARED BY: /oesTEK ENGINEERING DESTEK ENetlEO!IIIC, U.C -------· 1191;~~~!:~ 100 100% REVIEW SET DESttKPROJtcTJ•156500I N 0:: ., w!! .., ~~ ~ ib ~ m ii ~~ u. ::i~ I"' <C 13:i. ., :J DESIGNED: GH DRAWN: DK CHecKEO: AC PROJECT NUMBER 2014-167.25 SHEET NO • S-4 CCI Foundation Tool Suite -Monopole Pier CCIFTS 1.2.108.14286 -Phase 1-2 BU: Site Name: App Number: Work Order: Monopole Drilled Pier Input Criteria TIA Revision: ACI 318 Revision: Seismic Category: Forces Compression Shear Moment Swelling Force Foundation Dimensions Pier Diameter: Ext. above grade: Depth below grade: Material Properties Number of Rebar: Rebar Size: Tie Size Rebar tensile strength: Concrete Strength: Ultimate Concrete Strain Clear Cover to Ties: Soil Profile: Soil Thickness Layer (ft) 1 0.8333 2 3,1667 Analysis Results Soil Lateral Capacity Depth to Zero Shear: Max Moment, Mu: Soil Safety Factor: Safety Factor Req'd: RATING: Soil Axial Capacity Skin Friction (k): End Bearing (k): Comp. Capacity (kl, ,pCn: Comp. (k), Cu: RATING: Carlsbad, CA (2014-167.2S) Light Pole Foundation G 2008 D 0.236 kips 0.251 kips 2.219 k-ft o kips 1.5 ft 0.166667 ft 3.986111 ft 6 6 3 60 ksi 3000 psi 0.003 In/in 3 in From (ft) To (ft) 0 0.8333 0.8333 -0.17 ft 0.65 k-ft 19.60 1.33 6.8% 0.00 kips 1.99 kips 1.99 kips 0.24 kips 11.9% 4 Ultimate Friction Uplift Skin Unit Weight Cohesion Angle Friction (pcf) (psf) (deg) (ksf) 47.6 0 0 0 47.6 130 0 0 ... 0 .... ... N "' U1 "" ... "! ..; rn Ultimate Ultimate Comp.Skin Bearing Friction Capacity (ksf) (ksf) 0 0 0 1.5 Concrete/Steel Check Mu (from soil analysis) <!>Mn rho provided rho required RATING: Rebar Spacing Spacing required Dev. Length required Dev. Length provided 1 ~· Date: 12/10/2015 o:CROWN .._,,, CASTLE ''\ I'--#3 Tie Size ~-(6)-#6 SPT'N' Counts 0.65 k-ft 68.87 k-ft 0.9% 1.04 0.50 OK 4.75 12.00 OK 3.90 32.86 OK Overall Foundation Rating: 11.9% ~ ~ G December 17, 2015 ViaSat, Inc. 6155 El Camino Real Carlsbad, California 92009 Attention: Mr. Bob Rota Vice President, Facilities & Security Project No.: 136176-5 Subject: Foundation Plan Review ViaSat Antenna Enclosure Building 11 2502 Gateway Road Carlsbad, California A Lirlif;,mrir Cmpm1ti,,11 References: Plan Review. Update of Geotechnical Report and Additional Subsurface Exploration and Laboratory Testing. Proposed Commercial Buildings. Bressi Ranch, Planning Area 3. Lots 10-13. NWC of Gateway Road and El Camino Real. Carlsbad. California, prepared by Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. (SCG), dated November 6, 2013, SCG Project No. 13G176-1. Gentlemen: Geotechnical Investigation. Proposed Commercial/Industrial Development. Bressi Ranch Lots 10-13, Planning Area 3, NEC of Gateway Road and El Camino Real. Carlsbad. California, prepared by SCG, dated January 23, 2008, SCG Project No. 07G227-1. Plan Review and Update of Geotechnical Report, Proposed Commercial Buildings. Bressi Ranch, Planning Area 3, Lots 10-13. NWC Gateway Road and El Camino Real. Carlsbad. California, prepared by SCG, dated March 19, 2015, SCG Project No. 13G176-4. In accordance with the request of Milos Makaric of Smith Consulting Architects, we have reviewed the foundation plans for the proposed development. These plans were reviewed for conformance with the assumptions, conclusions, and recommendations of the above referenced geotechnical report. The foundation plans for the proposed development were prepared by Wiseman+Rohy Structural Engineers. The plans reviewed by our office for conformance with the above referenced geotechnical reports are identified as follows: • Sheet Sl.0 Planning, Design Development, dated November 16, 2015. • Sheet S2.0 Planning, Design Development, dated November 16, 2015. Comments generated during our review of these plans as well as any items requiring correction are presented below: 22885 Savi Ranch Parkway .... Suite E .... Yorba Linda .... California .... 92887 voice: (714) 685-1115 .... fax: (714) 685-1118 .... www.socalgeo.com • Sheet Sl.O Planning, Design Development: Under Reinforced Concrete Section, Note No. 6, the minimum compressive strength of concrete should be 4,000 lbs/in2 as indicated on page 8 of the referenced geotechnical report SCG Project No. 13G176-1. • Sheet S1.0 Planning, Design Development: Under Foundation Section, Note No. 2, the referenced geotechnical report SCG Project No. 136176-1 should be stated. With the exception of the items presented above, the foundation plans are considered to have been prepared in accordance with the recommendations of the referenced geotechnical report. It should be noted that our review was limited to the geotechnical aspects of the project and no representations as to the suitability of the structural design are intended. We appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service on this project. If there are any questions concerning this matter, please contact our office at your convenience. Respectfully Submitted, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Wlozano Leon Staff Engineer ~J~ Robert G. Trazo, GE 2655 Principal Engineer Distribution: (1) Addressee No. 2655 (2) Smith Consulting Architects, Attn: Mr. Milos Makaric (1) Wiseman+Rohy Structural Engineers, Attn: Mr. Steven Rohy Proposed Commercial Buildings -carlsbad, CA Project No. 13G176-2 Page 2 ). GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED BUSINESS PARK Bressi Ranch Lots 10-13 Planning Area 3 Carlsbad, California for Levine Investments I. I I ' • -~-: :, ".:,(-:,.:-··~"'::'('"l, :,: ,. -... December 17, 2015 ViaSat, Inc. ~ -SOUTHERN· 4k,V CALIFORNIA ,_ z__ _ G~ OTECHNICAL 61!,}5 El Camino·Real: A Crrlijonui, C:orpOri!firm · Carlsbad, California 9200~ Attention: Mr. Bob Rota Vice .President, Facilities & Security Project No.: 136176-5 Subjec:t: Foundation Plan R,eview ViaSat ·Antenna: Enclosure -Building· 11 2502 Gateway Road Carlsbad, California · References: Plan Review, Update of Geotechnical Report and Additional Subsurface Exploration . and Laboratory ,Testing, .Proposed -Commercial Buildings, Bressi Ranch, Planning Area 3, Lots 10-i'.3; NWC of-Gateway Road and El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California, prepared by.Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. ($,CG), . -dated-November 6, 2013; SCG ProjeQ: No. 13G176-1. Gentlemen: ,Geotechnical· Investigation, Proposed Commercial/Industrial Development, Bressi- Ranch · Lots i0-13, Planning Area 3, NEC of Gateway Road and El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California, prepared· by SCG, dated January 23~. 2008, SCG Project ·No. 07G227-1. Plan Review and Update of Geotechnical Re·port, Proposed Commercial Buildings •. Bressi. RanGh, Planning Area 3, Lots 10:13, NWC Gateway Road and El Cam·1r10 Real, Carlsbad, .California, prepareo by SCG, dated March 19, 2015, SCG Project No. 13G176-4. . . . . In accordance with the request of Milos Mc;1karic. of Smith .Con$ulting Architects, we have reviewed the foundc1ti6n plans for the proposed development. These plans were reviewed for conformance with the assumptions,. conclusions, and recommendations of the above referenced geotechnical report. -The foundation plans for the proposed development were prepared by Wiseman+Rohy Structural ·Engineers. The plans. r~viewed by our office for conformance with the above .referenced geotechr}ical reports are identified as .follows: -• Sheet S1.0 Planning, Design Development, d~t~q November 16, 2015. • Sheet S2.0 Planning~ Desig~ Development, dated· November 16, 2015. Comments .generated. during our review of these plans as well as any items requiring correction are presented below: 22885 SaviRanct, Parkway ... Suite E . .,,,. Yorba Linda ... California ... 92887 voice: (714) (;!8$-1115 .... .fax: (714)-685-1118 ... www;socalgeo.com • Sheet Sl.O Planning, Design Development: Under Reinforced Concrete Section, Note No. 6, the minimum compressive strength of concrete should be 4,000 lbs/in2 as indicated on page 8 of the referenced geotechnical report SCG Project No. 13G176-1. • Sheet Sl.O Planning, Design Development: Under Foundation Section, Note No. 2, the referenced geotechnical report SCG Project No. 136176-1 should be stated. With the exception of the items presented above, the foundation plans are considered to have been prepared in accordance with the recommendations of the referenced geotechnical report. It should be noted that our review was limited to the geotechnical aspects of the project and no representations as to the suitability of the structural design are intended. We appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service on this project. If there are any questions concerning this matter, please contact our office at your convenience. Respectfully Submitted, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. · lii't.ozano Leon Staff Engineer f~-J} Robert G. Trazo, GE 2655 Principal Engineer Distribution: (1) Addressee No. 2655 (2) Smith Consulting Architects, Attn: Mr. Milos Makaric (1) Wiseman+Rohy Structural Engineers, Attn: Mr. Steven Rohy Proposed Commercial Buildings -carlsbad, CA Project No. 13G176-2 Page 2 -------- November .(5, 2013 ViaSat, Inc. a SOUTHERN ,awwv cA11FoRNlA · V GEOTECHNICAt 6155. El Camino Real .. A Cnlifomi1~ C:01por,1/ian Carlsbad, Cafifornia 92009 Attention: Proje-ct,No,: Subject: References: Gentlemen: Mr. Bob Rota Vite President, Facilities & Security 136176:-1 Plan :R~view, Updat~ .of Geotechnical at,eporl;.ancl Additi.onal Subsurface Exploration .and Laboratory Testing · Propo~ed Commertiai Buildings ·Bressi Ranch, Planning Area. 3, Lots 10:..13 NWC Gateway Road and El Camino Road Carlsbad~ California . 1) Geotechnical Investigation. Proposed .Commercial/Industrial Developmerit, Bressi Ranch Lots 10-13, Planning Area 3, NEC of Gateway Road and El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California, prepared· by Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. (SCG), dated.January 23, 2008, SCGProject NO. 07GZ27-1. 2) .Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Business .Park, Bressi Ranch Lots 10:..tJ, . Planning Area 3, N·Ec of Gateway Road and .El.Camino Real, Carlsbad, California, prepared by SCG, dc1ted December 19, ·2006, SC:G Project No. 06G252-1. 3) Geotechnical Investigation, ·Proposed Business: Park. Bressi Ranch Lots 10~13, Planning Area 3, NEC of Gateway Road and Ei Camino ·Real. Carlsbad, California; prepared by SCG, dated November.'l:6, 2005, SCG Project No. 05G273-1. . In accordance with yo1,:1r request, W$ have prepared this report to update the referenc:ed geotechnical report: with respect to site conclitions -and changes iii the building code since the original· report; was prepared; This report contains updated · references to the 2010 California Building Code (CBC), 'including updated seismic d¢sign parameters. In order to prepare this update ·report, we have reviewed :an updated site plan provided to us by Meracon Corporation on Septeml:>er 25, 2013. Current Site Conditions The subject site is l.ocated within the recently mass graded Bressi Ranch Industrial Parl< which is located southeast of the ·intersection of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real in the· city of Carlsbad, California. The specific site is a .portion of Planning Area 3, Lots 10 through 13, and is located northeast of the int~rsection of Gateway Road·,and: El -Camino Real. The general. location of the site· is .illustrateo on the Site Location Map, .included as Plate 1 of this ·letter; 22885. Savi Ranch Parkwciy . ..., Suite'E ..-Yorba Linda ..-Ccllifornia ..-92887 vqic~: (714)'68$-1115 ..-fax: (714) 685-i118 . .;,.. www-.socalgeo.com The subject site is an irregularly-shaped parcel, approximately 8± acres in size. Graded slopes ranging in height from 5 to 7± feet border the site to the north and east. Five (5) desilting basins were located throughout the site. The desilting basins were approximately 6 to 8± feet deep. At the time of this subsurface exploration, ground! surface cover consisted of exposed soil with moderate grass and weed growth. Abundant rodent burrows were observed throughout the ground surface. Prelimina1y1 topographic information was obtained from a plan prepared by ~mith Consulting Architects (SCA) for the referenced geotechnical report. The site plan indicates that site grades within Lots 10 through 13 range from elevation 325± feet mean sea level (msl) at the northeastern property corner to an elevation of 295± feet msl at the southwestern property corner. Previous Studies Southern California Geotechnical, Inc., (SCG) previously performed three (3) geotechnical investigation for this site, the results of which were presented in the above referenced geotechnical reports. The reports which are applicable to the subject site are summarized below: • Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Commercial/Industrial Development, Bressi Ranch Lots 10 -13, Planning Area 3, Carlsbad, California; prepared for Levine Investments by Southern California Geotechnical, Inc., dated January 23, 2008, Project No. 07G227-1. This report presents the results of our previous geotechnical investigation of the subject site. The work documented by this report occurred during the period of December 28, 2007 through January 23, 2008. This report states that eight (8) borings were drilled within the site to depths of 15 to 19½± feet. The maximum depth of the borings was limited to less than 20 feet due to permit restrictions imposed by the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health (DEH). The borings identified engineered fill soils extending to depths of up to 8± feet below existing grade. Below the fill soils and at the ground surface of several borings, Santiago Formation bedrock was observed to the maximum depth explored of 19½± feet below ground surface. Groundwater was reportedly not encountered during drilling of any of the borings. Corrective grading recommendations were provided in the report. It was recommended that corrective grading removals of shallow bedrock for the two proposed building pad areas on the order of 3 feet below existing grade and to a depth of 3 feet below proposed pad grade. In addition, the depth of overexcavation was recommended to provide at least 3 feet of new structural fill beneath the bearing grade of all foundations for the proposed buildings. • Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Business Park, Bressi Ranch Lots 10 -13, Planning Area 3, Carlsbad, California; prepared for Ascent Biltmore, LLC by Southern California Geotechnical, Inc., dated December 19, 2006, Project No. 06G252-1. This report presents the results of our previous geotechnical investigation of the subject site. The work documented by this report occurred during the period of December 1, 2006 through December 19, 2006. This report states that fifteen (15) borings were drilled within the site to a depth of 19½± feet. The maximum depth of the borings was limited to less than 20 feet due to permit restrictions imposed by the San Diego County DEH. The borings identified engineered fill soils extending to depths of 1 ½ to 12½± feet below existing grade. Below the fill soils, Santiago Formation bedrock was observed to the maximum depth explored of 19½± feet below ground Proposed Commercial Buildings -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 13G176-1 Page 2 I ' ' ' surface. Groundwater was. reportedly not encountered during drilling of any of the borings. The report ,identified corrective grading· removals of shallow bedrock for the twelve building pad ,areas on the order of 3 feet below existing grade and to a.. depth of 3 feet below propo$ed pad grade .. .Jn addition,, the depth. of overexc;:avation was ,recornme11ded: to provide at least 3 ·feet of new structural.fill beneathlhe-bearing grade of all.foundation$ for the ·selected buildings; • Geotechhical Investigation, Proposed Business Park. Bressi Ranch Lots 10 -13, Planning Area 3, .. Carlsbad, California~ prepared for St.. Croix Capital by Southern California Geotechnical, inc., dated November 16; 2005, Project No. 05G273-1. This report presents the. -results of our previous geotechnical investigation of the subject site, The workdac:umented by this report occurred during 'the period of October 31, 2005 through November 16, 2005. Thi$ r~port states· tha.t eight (8} borings Were drilled within the site to depths ranging-from 10 to ~9½± (eet. The maximum depth of the borings was limited· to ·1ess than 20 feet ,due to permit restrictions imposed by the SaJ'r Diego County DEH. The borings identified engineered fill sdils extending to depths of 2 to 2½± feet below existing grade. Below the fill soils, sa·ntiago Formation bedrock was observed to the maximum depth explored of 19½± · feet below ground surface. ·Groundwater was reporteoly not enc:ountered during drilling of any of the borings. The report identified c(m:ective grading removals of shallow bedrock for the two building pad' areas on the order of 3 feet below existing grade and to a depth of 3 feet below .proposed pad grade. ~n aooition, -the depth of. ovetexcavation was: rec:omrnended lo provide at least 3 feet of new str,uctural fill beneath the bearing, grade, of all foundations for the selected buildings. · , , , • Geotechnical Recommendations Cohcerning 95 Percent Relative Compaction of Fill Deeper than 40 Feet, Bressi· Ranch,. Carlsbad, California, prepared for Lennar Comrnunities by Leighton an·d-Associates1. Inc., dated February 13, 2003, Project No. 971009-007. The three (3J. ·SCG .reports listed-above all reference tnis, .ioo3. 'Leig_hton report which addresses, the, settlement ·potential of deep fill areas ,and provides r(;!commendations to reduce -the time period for the m~jorlty ofthe settlement to occur. In:,severai areas of the overall project, fills up to 40 fo 50± feet in thi~kness were planned to achieve the design grades. Deep fill areas on the subject site are located in the eastern portion of PA-2, and two small areas within PA.,.3 and PA- S. The report recommends that .all structural fills 'below ~ depth of 4iJ feet from finish grade be compacted to atfeast 95 percent of the, ASTM D-1557 .maximum dry density, and .estimates that . the time period for the majority of the ·settlement to occur Will be reduced from 6 to 12 months to 3 to· a+ mo-nths. Near surface settlement monuments were recommended to be .installed immediately: r,1fter roµgh grading, with survey· inter.val$ of onc;e-a: week .for the first month, then twice a month 'fc;>r 3 rrioritbs, ·and then monthly· to determine c:onipletion primary settlement of deep fills. The recommended locations of the near surface settlement monuments are indicated to be contained on an index map within this report, however, the copy provided to us does not contain this plan. · Plan ,Review A 'detailed g·ra(:ling plan was not availclble at the time .of :this teport opoate':. However, we -wer~. provided: with a proposed: .undated. site-.jJlcln which showed th$ generql location of the two. (2) Proposed Comrilerclal Buildings -Carlsbad; CA Project No. 13G176-1 . . Pag~ 3 , proposed buildings. The site plan the proposed development was reviewed with regard to the assumptions, conclusions, and recommendations of the above referenced geotechnical reports. The proposed site plan indicates that two (2) new three-story buildings will be constructed at the subject site. The plan indicates that the western-most building is identified as Building 10 with a total area of 77,400 ft:2 and the eastern-most building is identified as Building 11 with a total area of 65,700 ft:2. It is our assumed that the new buildings buildings will be of concrete tilt-up construction typically supported on conventional shallow foundation systems and concrete slabs on grade with no basement structures. Based on the assumed construction, maximum column and wall loads are expected to be on the order of 60 to 80 kips and 3 to 5 kips per linear foot, respectively. Comments generated during our review of these plans are presented below: • Based on information provided to us by the client, Building 10 is located in the same vicinity as Borings B-11 and B-13 of SCG report 06G252-1 and Boring B-1 of SCG report 07G227-1. • Based on information provided to us by the client, Building 11 is located in the same vicinity as Borings B-5 and B-10 of SCG report 06G252-1 and Boring B-7 of SCG report 07G227-1. • Based on information provided to us by the client and on our previous geotechnical investigations, the western half of proposed Building 10 is presently underlain by fill soils and the eastern half of Building 10 is presently underlain by Santiago Formation bedrock. • Based on information provided to us by the client and on our previous geotechnical investigations, proposed Building 11 is presently entirely underlain by Santiago formation bedrock. • The site plan indicates that several bioretention systems will be constructed throughout the site. Based on conversations with the project civil engineer, it is our understanding that the biorentention system will be designed such that no water entering the bioretention· system will be allowed to infiltrate and/or percolate into the surrounding soils via the properly designed and installed water-proof plastic liners. Once the full set of grading plans has been developed, it is recommended that the geotechnical engineer review these plans for conformance with the geotechnical report. Seismic Design Parameters As of January 1, 2011, the 2010 CBC was adopted by all municipalities within Southern california. The CBC provides procedures for earthquake resistant structural design that include considerations for on-site soil conditions, occupancy, and the configuration of the structure including the structural system and height. The seismic design parameters presented below are based on the soil profile and the proximity of known faults with respect to the subject site. The 2010 CBC Seismic Design Parameters have been generated using Earthquake Ground Motion Parameters, a software application developed by the United States Geological Survey. This software application, available at the USGS web site calculates seismic design parameters in ;j SOUTHERN 'ff W CALIFORNIA ...,., GEOTHCHNfCAL Proposed Commercial Buildings -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 13Gl76-1 Page 4 I I ', ' ~ ,. , accordance with the 2010 CBC, utilizing a database of deterministic site accelerations· at 0.01 degree .intervals. The table ·below is a compjlc;1tion of the-dc;1ta provided by the USGS application. 2010 CB(: S~ISMIC ·DESIGN PARAMETERS "' '" Para,meter Value -· •¥ " ,, ' ' ., .. . Mapped' Spec:tral Acceleration at 0.2 sec Period Ss. 1.129 Mapped Spectral Acc;eleration at 1.0 sec Period . S1 0.427 -"', Site Class. ---D ,, ' Short-Peri9d Site Coefficient at 0.2 .see Period Fa 1.048 Long-Period Site Coeffic;lent at LO sec Period Fv 1.573 , Site Modified Spectral· Ac;celeration at 0,2 st;ic P~rioq SMs· 1.183 '' Site Modified Spectral' Acceleration at 1.0 sec Period 'SM1 0.672 -. . - Design Spectral Acceleration c,1t Q.2 sec Period Sos 0.789 " · • Design Spec;t:ral A<::celeration at 1.0 :s~c .Period Soi: 0.448 Seismic Lateral Earth Pressures In addition to the l~teral earth pressures presented ·in· Section 6.7 of the above referenced report, the 2010 CBC · requires that for structures assigned to Seismic Design Categories D through F, retaining walls shouid be designed for lateral earth pressures due to earthquake motion. The recommended seismic pressure distribution. is triangular in shape, with a maximum magnitude of 16H ·lbs/ft2, where H is the overall ·height of the Wall. The maximum pressure should be assumed to occur at the top of the wall, detreasing to O at the base of the wall. The seismic pressure distribution is based on the Mononobe-Okabe equation, utilizing a peak ground acceleration of 0.32g, This peaK site acceleration was .obtained' in accordance with the 20!0 CBC, and is equal to. Sos/2.5. limited Exploration/SampUnq Methods We were .specificaily requested by Smith Consulting .Architects, th~ project architect, to perform laboratory testing· for sbils in the vicinity of the proposed buildings; Therefore, the subsurface exploration conducted for this phase of the project consisted of two (2) borings advanced to depths of 3 to 31/2± feet below c1,1rrently existing site grades in order to collect surficlal soil samples for 'laboratory testing. :Both bf the. borings were logged ·dUring excavation by a. member .of our staff. · Representative bulk and in~situ soil samples were taken during drilling. Relatively undisturbed .in~situ samples were taken with· a·split barrel "California $ampler;' .~ontainihg a series of Qn(;! inc:h· . long, 2.416'± inch 'diameter 'brass rings. The bulk samples were collected in plastic bags to retain their original moisture content. The relatively undisturbed ring samples were .placed in molded plastic sleeves that were then sealeq Jmd tran$ported ·to our laboratory. The approximate locations-·ofth~. borings are"ilidicated on the Boring :Location Plan, included· ·as · Plate 2 of this letter report. The. Boring Logs, Which illustrate the cqhditions encountered at the Propc:>~ed·Commerclal Bulldlngs -Carlsbad~,CA Project0No. ·1~G176'-1. Pages · J boring locations, as well as some of the results of the laboratory testing, are included in this report. Geotechnical Conditions Presented below is a generalized summary of the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations. More detailed descriptions of the conditions encountered are illustrated on the Boring Logs, included in this report. Artificial Fill Artificial fill soils were encountered at the ground surface at Boring B-1. These fill soils extend to depths of 2± feet below existing grade. As previously discussed, the fill soils within other areas of PA-3 are documented to have maximum depths of 40 to 50± feet. The fill soils encountered in this boring generally consist of dense silty fine sands. The fill soils possess moderately high strengths, moisture contents near or above optimum and based on their color mottling and composition, appeared to be well mixed. Bedrock Bedrock was encountered at the ground surface or beneath the fill soils at both of the boring locations. The bedrock encountered at this site consists of Tertiary age Santiago Formation, which is comprised of dense to very dense sandstone. Bedding within the Santiago Formation on site is generally massive with no significant planes of weakness or discontinuities. The sandstone unit is typically light gray in color, contains moderate iron oxide staining, and is comprised of weakly cemented silty fine sands. Groundwater Based on the water level measurements, and the moisture contents of the recovered soil samples, the static groundwater table is considered to have existed at a depth,in excess of 3½± feet at the time of the subsurface exploration. Further~ based on the conditions documented in the mass grading report by Leighton, no groundwater was encountered during grading. Therefore, groundwater is expected to be at depths greater than the extent of the fill soils, which are 40 to 50± feet thick within PA-3. Geologic Conditions Geologic research indicates that the site is underlain by sandstone mapped as the Santiago Formation (Map Symbol Tsa) with nearly horizontal bedding attitudes. The primary available reference applicable to the subject site is DMG Open-File Report 96-02. Geologic Map of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County. California, by California Division of Mines and Geology, 1996. . Based on the materials encountered in the exploratory borings, it is o'ur opinion the site is underlain by sandstone bedrock consisting of the Santiago Formation (Map Symbol Tsa). The bedrock encountered in the exploratory borings and observed at the ground surface is generally massively bedded with some moderately developed joints in the upper, less weathered portions of the bedrock. · Proposed Commercial Buildings -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 13G176-1 Page 6 Upclated_Laboratory Testing -- The· soil samples recovered fromthe subsurface exploration were returned to our laboratory for further testing_ to determine selected physical and engineering properties of the soils. The .tt;lsts are_ briefly discussed -below. It Should be noted that the test results are specific fo the actual samples tested, and variations could be expected' at other locations and depths . . Classification All recovered soil samples were classified using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), in -atcoroance With ASTM 0"'.2488. Fielo identifications Were. then supp!emented with a(:ldition~I visual classifi·cations and/or -by labotatory testing. · the uses classifications are shown .on the Boring Logs and. are, periodi~a!ly-referenced thr.ougheut this report., · In-situ_ Density and Moisture. ~ontent The· density has been determined for .selected relatively undisturbed ring samples. These densities were determined in general accordance With the method presented in ASTM q-2937. The resu.lts are recorded as dry unit weight in pounos per cubic foot. The moisture contents are determined in accordance With ASTM D-2216, and are expressed as a percentage of the dry weight. These test results are-presented on the Boring Lo~s . . Resistivity and pH.Testing · -. The resistivity of the soils is a measur~ of their potential to attack buried metal imp-rovements such as utility lines. The results of the resistivity and pHtest_irlg are presented below. These test results are as follows: -Sample Identification B-1@ o to _3½ feet B-2@ 0te> 3-feet Sohi1ble Sulfates Resistivity (ohm-cm) 1,400 9,700 ru:l 8.0 8.1 A n:!presentative sample of the near-surface soils was submitted to a subcontra.cted analytical laboratory for determination of soluble sulfate content.· Soluble sulfates are naturally present in soils, and if the concentrc!tion· .is high enough, can result in degradation of concrete which comes into contact with these Soils.· The results of the soluble sulfate testing are presented below, and -ijre discussed further in a subsequent section of this report. Sample Identification .S-1 @.o to 3½·feet B-2 @ o to 3 feet · Soluble Sulfates-(0/o) 0.14i . 0.003 CBC Classification· Moderate Negligible _-· Propqsed Commercial Buildings .., ·carlsbad, CA Project Np. 13G176._1 -.Pagi:!-7, ' " Updated Soluble Sulfate-related Recommendations The results of the soluble sulfate testing indicate that the selected sample of the on-site soils contains a level of soluble sulfates that is classified as having a moderate potential to attack concrete, in accordance with the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Publication 318-05 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, Section 4.3. Therefore, it is recommended that a sulfate-resistant concrete mix design be utilized for the foundations and 'floor slabs at this site. In accordance with the ACI requirements, it is recommended that this concrete incorporate the following characteristics: • • • Cement Type: Minimum Compressive Strength (f c) = Maximum Water/Cement Ratio: II (Five) 4,000 lbs/in2 0.50 It is recommended that additional sulfate testing be performed at the completion of rough grading to verify the concentrations which are present in the actual building pad subgrade soils. Corrosion Potential The results of the electrical resistivity and pH testing indicate that samples of the on-site soils have resistivities of 1400 to 9700 ohm-cm, and pH values of 8.0 and 8.1. These test results have been evaluated in accordance with guidelines published by the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association (DIPRA). The DIPRA guidelines consist of a point system by which characteristics of the soils are used to quantify the corrosivity characteristics of the site. Resistivity and pH are two of the five factors that enter into the evaluation procedure. Relative soil moisture content as well as redox potential and sulfides are also included. Although redox potential and sulfide testing were not part of the scope of services for this project, we have evaluated the corrosivity characteristics of the on-site soils using resistivity, pH and moisture content. Based on these factors, and utilizing the DIPRA procedure, some of the on-site soils are considered to be severely corrosive io ductile iron pipe. Therefore, it is expected that polyethylene encasement will be required for ductile iron pipe. The client may also wish to contact a corrosion engineer to provide a more thorough evaluation. Further Plan Reviews It is recommended that copies of the final grading plans, when they become available, also be provided to our office for review. We also recommend that our office review the foundations plans for the proposed development, as they become available. Geotechnical Report Update This letter may serve as an update to the original geotechnical report. Provided that the update recommendations contained within this letter are implemented, the original 07G227-1 geotechnical report dated January 23, 2008 is considered valid for the currently proposed development. SOUTHERN '1i@fa+f CALIFORNIA ..,.., Gl:OHCHNlCAL Proposed Commercial Buildings -carlsbad, CA Project No. 13Gl76-1 Page 8 Closure We sincerely appreciate th~ opportunity to be of .eontinued service ·-on. this project. We look forward to providing. additional consulting services during. the colir$e of the project. If we n,ay be of further assistance in any m,mner; please c:c;mtatt our office.· Respectfully Submitted; ~l}· Robert G. Trazo, M.Sc., GE 2655 Principal Engineer Distribution: ( 4) Addressee Enclosures: Plate 1 -Site Location Map· Plate 2. -Boring location Plan. No. 2655 Boring. Logs B-1 and s,.2 from turrentinvestig~tion Boring Logs B-1 and 8-5 fr.om SCG report 07G227-} earing-Logs B.;5, B-10, B-13, and B-i5 from $CG report 06G252-1 SeismicDesign Parameters (2·Page~) ' Pro.posed commercial Buildings ,:: Carl~bad;. CA Proje1:t.No: '13G.176-1 · Page:9' SOURCE: ORANGE COUNTY THOMAS GUIDE, 2008 SITE LOCATION MAP PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS SCALE: 1" = 2400' DRAWN: Bl CHKD: RGT SCGPROJECT 13G176--1 PLATE1 "" .Afe \. \ \ -13 \ ' --t:6,1 -·::~~-~;~;:~:Je- -~ / ---------_______ _£-- ~ ----- ___. ~ _-. ~;-;- ·------r--· GEOTECHNICAL LEGEND -¢= · APPROXIMATE B0RING LOCATION 4 • + PREVIOUS ,BORING LQGATION (SCG PROJECT NO, 07G277-1J PREVIOUS' BORING LOCATION. (SCGPROJi::CT NO. 068254-1) PREVIOU$ BORINGiOCATION (SCG PROJECT NO. 05G273-1} Afe -ENGINE!=RED FILL tsa -SANTIAGO FORMATION ---GEQLOGIC CONTACT NOTE: BASE MAP PROVIDED BY SMITH CONSUL TING ARCHITECTS SCALE:_1".;80' ORAWN:81 CHKDi RGT S~T 13G176-1 Pl:ATE,2 JOB NO.: 13G176 PROJECT: Commercial Buildings LOCATION: Carlsbad, California DRILLING DATE: 10/23/13 DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger LOGGED BY: Brett lsen FIELD RESULTS ~ I-z (!) z w g DESCRIPTION w ::> a. !:!::. w 0 Iii (.) :c ...J (.) :i: I-a. ~ ~ ........ a. a. :!E 0 (.) LL ~ w < ...J ~~ SURFACE ELEVATION: ---MSL C (/) OJ (!) ~- FILL: Orange Brown Silty fine Sand, little Silt, trace medium .... Sand, trace Shell fragments, dense-damp I -I ~ SANTIAGO FORMATION: Light Gray Silty fine grained Sandstone, very dense-damp '-- Boring Terminated at 3' BORING NO. WATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: 3 feet READING TAKEN: At Completion LABORATORY RESULTS 10 10 ~ 0-....... WLL w zcn C!)(ij u::t:. z-zo:: -cn 0< (/)0 ow ~o z:c a.~ ::> (/) ~ z w :!E :!E 0 (.) B-1 ~L-----1-L----L-...J....-,._ ___________________ 1...----1--...J....-,.____,JL....---L-....i....----.....l TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-1 , ; i· I I S. ·s01J.THERN ,JfJ@+, CALIFORNIA . ..,-. • GEOTECHNlCAL 1\ 0,/yi!iJ,iirCur}',m1ti111r _JOB NO.: 13G176 DRll,.LING DATE: 10/23/13 PROJECT: Comm1;1rcial Buildings DR_ILL:;JNG METHOD: Hand0Auger LOCATION:_ Carls\:)ap, Caljfomia LOGGED BY: 'Breitt lsen_ · i=iELD RESl:iLTS, . , ,, : " '' , "'· 't-a 'Cl @ ~ ,U 0 rn -~ ,Cl "' ..... ci ~ ..J .~ ·i=-I-. z (9 z· 0 'W w· DESCRIPTION -~ ::> a.. _J 0 u w u ·1-:E :c _J ~ ·W I-a. -~ ...... ~ a. --~' t)U. w Q:C/J _J SURi;"ACE E.LEVATION: ._ ___ MSL ·O (/J, co c,l-'c -~ SANTIAGO FORMATlON:-L:ight Gray Brown-to Llght:Gray · Silty fine grained :sandstqne, trace Iron oxlde·staining, dense to very dense-damp :, ~ ~ ' N Boring Terminated at 3½' , : ,. TEST 80RING LOG WATER DEPTH: BORING NO~ -B-2· Dry CAVE DEPTH: 3.5 feet READING TAKEN: At Completion :·LABORATORY RESULTS . ...... '~ ...... :,g ·@u::-'#-!:!., (/J ·w---w ZCIJ' I-:z 0:: !z ~ Q1. u::b z .W .~w u 5~ w O,....; 0 ~~ ~g ~ SQ !z -1->-·U. ::>-u , -~ 'o::·U oo 0~ z:c :o·e:. ~~-.~u :::i :::i a. :::i '::> (/J : () ,. . 10 , , ,, ,' ,, PLAT,E B-2 t b C! fil g g ~ (!) ~ "' ~ BORING NO. JOB NO.: 07G227 DRILLING DATE: 12/28/07 WATER DEPTH: Dry DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 13 feet PROJECT: Bressi PA3 Lots 10-13 LOCATION: Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY: Tim Smith READING TAKEN: At Completion FIELD RESULTS ~ I-z (!) z 0 w :J w ..J !::. 0 0. (.) w (.) tu :i: :c ..J I-0. ~ ~--~ 0. :::J: (.) u. w <( ..J ~~ 0 Cl) III (!) 5 10 15 DESCRIPTION SURFACE ELEVATION: 304feet MSL SANIIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: White Sandy Siltstone, some Iron oxide staining, friable, very dense-damp Light Gray to Light Brown Siltstone, trace fine Sandy Silt layers, some Clay, thinly bedded, some calcareous nodules, very dense-damp to moist Light Gray to Light Brown Silty Sandstone, some Iron oxide staining, friable, very dense-damp Light Brown Sandy Siltstone, some calcareous veining, friable, very dense-damp to moist Boring Terminated at 19½' LABORATORY RESULTS 108 11 111 13 109 17 106 12 107 20 14 19 ~ z w :::J: :::J: 0 (.) B-1 ~L.....---1-J...----1-.--J..-~--------------------J...----1----'--~--'---J...----''---------' TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-1 .. JOB NO.: 07G227 DR)LLING DATE: 1'2/28/07 PRO~ECT: Bressi PA 3 Lots 10-13 LOCATION: Carlsbad, California . DRILLING METHOD: Hq[l/:)w StJ:llT)·Auger LOGGED BY: Tim ~mith FIELD RE$U,LTS ·i=' :w ,W !:!::. ' :i: '~ 1-, O,; ·a.: ~' :w. <( 'C . C(J ·5 .. 10 · 15 g d w Cl ' ;;! ' 8 .u, . -, . a. Cl ~. ~ ..J ~- DESCRIPTION SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Gray Silty fine gralnecl Sandi;tone, lltthilroh,oxlde staining, dense~molst . SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: "Gray Silty fine_;gralned S;;ir'ldstonei, some Iraq oxide staining, tracei medium ·Sand, very.dense-d9mp to moist BoringTermioated at 19½' TE$T ,BORING LOG BORIN'GNO~ B-7'·· ', ,. ,1'' WATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: 15.feet READING TAKEN: At Gompletlon '\·: . LABORATORY RESULTS 105 15 103 12 10.:1-11 107 · 13 109 14 18 23, ~ z w ~ ::i: 0 u PLATE ·8~7 l:i (!) @ ~ g 2 (!) f;j ~ co 0 JOB NO.: 06G252 DRILLING DATE: 12/1/06 PROJECT: Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 LOCATION: Carlsbad, California DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY: Daryl Kas FIELD RESULTS 5 10 15 DESCRIPTION SURFACE ELEVATION: 311± ft MSL SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Light Gray Silty fine grained Sandstone, trace Iron oxide staining, dense to very dense-damp to moist Boring Terminated at 19½' BORING NO. WATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: 12 feet READING TAKEN: At Completion B-5 LABORATORY RESULTS ....... ~ ....... :,g o ....... "cf-~ WU.. en ci5 w--w zen I-z 0::: I-(!) Gi -1-z w ::, z u u..--w 1-W 0 ti I- z-zo::: o ....... -en 8u) ::.? f2t en I--1-eno ~ -Z ::,_ ::i :E ~o oo 0~ ZJ: 0 of!::. ~u ::J ::J a. ::J a.~ ::, en u 103 13 107 14 110 13 107 14 88 18 15 23 ~L----L---1-.....L.-...L...-.1-----------------------1-.....L.-...L...-.1----1-.....L.-...L...------' TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-5 JOB NO.: 06G252 DRILLING DATE: 12/.1/06· . PROJECT: Bressi Rl,\nch, Lots 1 Q -13 . L,OCATJON: Carlsbfi~, California DRILL:ING METHOD: Hollow·Stem Auger LOGGED BY, :D~ryl Ki;is, - . FIELD}~ESLlL TS b (!). d w (!). ~ 0 en ii (!) ~. ~ .., ~ w !::,., :c Ii w -Cl 5 10 15 I-z z ::> w. a: w.· 0 tu · . .;;..I' u Cl::· ~ ~...., ~-0 (.)'LL, ..J ow U) Ill a.I::- (!) 0 ..J (.) I _(!) DESCRIPTiON SURFACE EL~VATION: 311± ft M$L SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Light Gray Silty fine grained Sandstone, trace Iron.oxide staining, moderately. cemented, dense,di;imp to moist. -Boring Terminated··at 19½" BORING NO. WATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: - B-1,0 READING TAKEN; At Completion,' LABORATORY RESULTS ~ ~ (/) w 1-z .o:::z . ow -~w ·Cl .-.. ·,n I--1-, >-'LL !:!.:!Z ::>-o:::0 oo Q.~ oe:.. :aµ ..J..J . 11 · 11 16 15 16 19 [!:!.__....;..i.~--.i.--..L....---''-----....... ------,.,--.;....._--.a.--,.-------....,___....;...._.__...______. _ __.__...,__ __ .,--___, TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-10, l:i (!J @ ~ g ~ (!J fci l?l <D 0 JOB NO.: 06G252 DRILLING DATE: 12/1/06 PROJECT: Bressi Ranch, Lots 10 -13 LOCATION: Carlsbad, California DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY: Daryl Kas FIELD RESULTS ~ I-z z w ::i w '==-0 a. w I-::c ..I (.) w ~ a. ~ :::s::: ...... :lE (.) u. w c7s ..I ~~ 0 al 17 4.54- 11 4.0 5 10 15 (!) 0 ..I (.) :i: i (!) -:_:_ ~---~: : .... :-: '• : .. -:_:_ ~:. -:: :. ;. :-: .. : .. ?\/ .. : .. DESCRIPTION SURFACE ELEVATION: 301± ft MSL FILL: Gray Brown fine Sandy Clay, trace Silt, mottled, medium stiff-moist SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Light Gray Silty fine Sandy Siltstone, Iron oxide staining, dense-damp SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Green Gray Clayey Siltstone, Iron oxide staining, hard-damp SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Green Gray Silty Claystone, iron oxide staining, hard-damp SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Light Gray Silty fine grained Sandstone, iron oxide staining, dense-damp Boring Terminated at 19½' BORING NO. WATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: 12 feet B-13 READING TAKEN: At Completion LABORATORY RESULTS 101 18 95 19 106 18 101' 24 100 24 18 19 ~ z w ;:;E ;:;E 0 (.) El = 84 @ 0 to 5' ~,_____._.____._.....__ ........ ____________________ .__---1,_....J,._...I.._..J--_J..----I-----..I TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-13 ,JOB NO.: 06G252 DRILLING DATE:,. 1211/06 . PROJECT: Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 ; L9CATIQN: Carlsbad; C§lifomia . DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger _ LOGGED BY: DaryLKas FIE}..D R'ESUL TS. 5· DESCRIPTl'ON ·$U.Rff\CE-ELE,V,AT!O.N; 301± ft MSJ.. . -:: :;· ~= -f ILL: Mottled Black, Orange arid,Gray Silty fine Sand, some .-:: ::: :-; Clay,medium dense:.molst .. : , .. ·:.:.r.:::. ,• . ~ .. '•' : .• ::::-\r .. :~ .. SANTIAGO FORMATION: BEDROCK: .J;lght Gray Silty fine grained Sandstone, ·trace Iron oxide .staining, dens_e-dfY to damp BORING NO~, B-1$· WATER DEPTH: Dry GAVE DEPTH: 15 feet READING TAKEJ\I: At;Completion · LABORATORY RESULTS - ~ ~ ·en . w 1-z O::z ,.ow, ~w . ....,. en t->-u. -Z .o:: u oo :.o\:!:, :Ee,, 99 19 105 19 109. 16 ~11 13 ~·c ...., w u;:-_. w z·cn · u CJ([j 'U:: I:::. 0 -z-z""' I--CJ)· 0 ...... 5!:: ~~ ~o utti O:::JE ...J""' <C'~ z.:c., ::i ::i a. ::i a..=1=1:. ·::::i CJ)'' SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK:•Light Gray fine-Sandy Siltstpne,.some' !rori o?(ide,stalrilng, medium dens!:)-moist · . 105 21 .., j, ..... b Cl 0 w. C) ~ 0 en ~ C) I •O ..J 10 15 'SAN"flAGO· FORMATION· BEDROCK:-Llght ·Gray;Silty, fine gralned'Sanast9ne, trace Iron oxide-staining, med_ium · densl:i-moist Boring Terminated af19½' j' 17 19 _j ~'--'..,.;L---'"--..... ---'---L--------,.--,-'---------,...,.,....-.,..-'---,,-,-,----..,..,..,----"--'-----'--'-,---'---'--....;,..J,--.,,...,_--,.._,;..,.._-,-'-___. ; TEST BORING:LQG· -Pl.A-TE 'B-15 . . . ... --~~0;~~f ., .................. . .::_:=\=::···: . . . ~.:.· . ,1\: (._~.- '.;:::~.~;:·:\: .. ,~.n~i!It,~:t:!;~tf ,,C 0 .·!.< tt,(;t(foi,tl!;1Iliii1;i~~l:ll:t:',;:,ytJ\'IrH.tl.rr ··ti\··· .. ::t:,, ..• ; .•. ;_;'.1i··, Conterminqus 4$ St;ates 2009 International Building Code La.titude = 33 .127827 · Longitude = -117 .26458999999998· Spectral Response Accelerations Ss and s1 . . Ss and Sl = l'1appe·d Spectral Accelera,tion. vaiues Site Glass 'B -Fa :;:. 1.:0 , Fv = l. 0 Data are based on a O. 01 de.g .grid spacing Period Sa (.s~c) (g} 0.2 1.1-29 (::ss, Site Class LO 0.427 (Si., Site Cl;ass ·(;c:mtei:;rriinous 4.S States 2009 rnternatiohal Building Code Latitude= 33r127-027 Longitude = -117.2645899999-9998 ff) B.) Spectral Respons~ Accelerations SMs and SMl SMs = 'Fa X Ss and SMl = Fy X Sl Site C:1.ass o -Fa =. l .. 04'8, , Fv s 1..573 Period Sa (sec) (g) ·O.2 1.183 (SMs, site Class 1.0 0.672 (SMl, /site Class Cont$rrn~nous 48 States 200~ International Building Code Lat;i.t.ude = 3·3.12782'7 Longitude = -117 .264589.99999998 D) D) Oes·ign Spectral Respo1;1$e Accelerations sos and SD.l sos; 2/3 x SMs and SDl = 2/3 x SMl .Site Class o -Fa= 1.048 ,Fv = 1.573 .\ Period (sec) 0.2 :l. .0 Sa ( g.) o.789 {Sos, ~ite Class .Q~ 0.4·4.8 (SDl, Site Class DJ IIUS6S Design Maps Summary Report User-Specified Input Bllllnldling Code Reference Document ASCE 7-10 Standard (which utilizes USGS hazard data available in 2008) Site Coordinates 33.12677°N, 117.26699°W Site Soil Classification Site Class D -"Stiff Soil" Risk Category I/II/III !;,,:_ ... 'J· ,....._ -,: ·•--·. (~) ©2dl~!~~u~st Some data. ©20 J.5 'Up USGS-Provided Output S5 = 1.056 g SMS = 1.138 g s"'1 = o.650 g Sos= 0.759 g S01 = 0.434 g S1 = 0.409 g ©lltapQuest'. For information on how the 55 and 51 values above have been calculated from probabilistic (risk-targeted) and deterministic ground motions In the direction of maximum horizontal response, please return to the application and select the "2009 NEHRP" building code reference document. .., ~ !'I l:i'i um um :u:i; ~-.I~ :i.n !'l.ilm ~-~:! :J.::J~ :i.2i !'I.la ~.11:l +--+-+----i---+----i---+----1---l----+----l 1l.1l~ n.:m !Ull ll.im ll.i:m um 1.;;,.n l.cln 1.~n um ,uZI JllR!rimf, T ~liR!d ;:u1g ri.!m O.'l'l!. n.;;,. il.Si, ! i'l • .\A ~ Mi'J ri.;12 • i'l.~ i'l.i'lll Dii!sign Respons;e Spectrum n.rin -i---t---i----t---i----t---i----t--t----+----t n.M 11.:;,.,., ;un ll.i'ii:I ii.im 1.1m l.llil 1.41l um 1.~il 2.111"1 PP.rillld, T biP-d For PGA:-1, TL, CR51 and CR1 values, please view the detailed report. SOURCE: U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS) <http://geohazards.usgs.gov/deslgnmaps/us/appllcation.php> DRAWN: JG CHKD: RGT SCGPROJECT 13G176-4 PLATE E-1 • I January 23, 2008 Levine Investments 1702 East Highlands Avenue, ·Number 310 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Attention: Mr. Andrew Cohn Project No.: 07G227-.1 .Subject: Geotechnical Investigation ~entlemen: Proposed· Commercial/Industrial Development Bressi Ranch Lots 10-13 Planning Area 3 NEC-of Gateway .Road ahd fi Camino Real .Carlsbad, Cal!fornla, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GE0TECHNICAL A Califarni11 Corporation Ih atcordance with your request, we have c:ondl;!cted a -geotecbnical investigation at the subject site. We :are pleased to present this report summarizing the. tonclusiohs and recommendations developed from our investigation. We .. sinc~rely appre<;:iate the opportunity 'to be of service on this prqject. We look forward to providing additional consulting .services d1,1ring th~ course of the project. If we may be of further· assistance in any manner, please-contact our office, Respectfully Submitted, SJ Addressee --. . . .. - .22885' East Savi. Ranch :Parkway ,.. Suite· E !' Yorba Linda, :CA 92887-4624 voice: (714)' 685-UlS,.. fax: (714) 685-.111-8·,.. www.socaJgeo.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES 3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Site Description 3.2 Proposed Development 3.3 Previous Studies 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 4.1 Scope of Exploration/Sampling Methods 4.2 Geotechnical Conditions 4.3 Geologic Conditions 5.0 LABORATORY TESTING 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Seismic Design Considerations 6.2 Geotechnical Design Considerations 6.3 Site Grading Recommendations 6.4 Construction Considerations 6.5 Foundation Design and Construction 6.6 Floor Slab Design and Construction 6.7 Retaining Wall Design Recommendations 6.8 Pavement Design Parameters 7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS APPENDICES A Plate 1: Site Location Map Plate 2: Boring Location Plan B Boring Logs C Laboratory Test Results D Grading Guide Specifications E Seismic Design Parameters Y SOUTHERK CALIFORNIA ..._: GEOTECHNICAL 1 3 4 4 4 4 9 9 9 10 11 13 13 15 17 19 21 22 23 25 28 Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G227-1 ! ! ' ,_ ' I 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUM:MARY Presented-oelow is a .brief summary of the conc_lusions and recommendations of -this investigation. Since this summary is not all inclusive, it should be read in complete context with the entire report. Site Preparation • Initial site preparati'on shoutd include stripping of any sllrficial vegetation and/or significant topsoil. !3ased on condition~ enco.untered: at the time of the subsurface exploration, stripping of moderate grass and weed growth ·is expected to be necessi:)ry,. • The site is unc!erlain by recently placed compacted fill soils and sandstone, siltstone and clgystorie bedrock. The fill. soils extend to depths of up to 8:±: feet within the footprints of the proposed buildi'ngs and were .placed under the purview of a geotechnical englne·er.. The existing 'fill soils and bedroc!< possess moderate to high strengths and medium expansive potentials. • The compaction report prepared by Leighton_ and Associates indicates that the existing fill soils were placed as compacted structural-Ifill. leightori indicates that the existing fill solls, are suitable for support of the proposed development :prnvided that the cut/fill transitions' are- miti_gated dllr!ng precise grading. . -. • In order to provide for -a new layer of structurc;il fill that will help mitigate the variable support conditions due to the potential cut,ffill transitions, it is recommended that remedial grading .be performed within the proposed building pad areas. • 89th puilding pad areas are underlain by shallow bedrock and should be overexcavated to a depth .. of at least 3 feet below existing _grade and to a depth .of at least 3 feet below proposed pad grade. The depth of-qverexcavation should-be sufficientto provide at least 3 feet of new structural fill-beneatl:l tne beclring grade-of all foundations. • In the remaining portions of the. site, overexcavation should ·e*tend to a depth adequate to remove all sumcial, weathered soils. • Following completion of the· recommended overe~cavation, exposed soils should be evaluated by the geotechriical engineer. After the subgrade soils have been approved by the ·geotechnical engineer,-th~ resulting soils may be replaced as compactec! structural fill. • A precise grading ,plan-review is recommended .subsequent to preparation of the plan iii order to confirm the recommendations contained herein. Building Foundations • Shallow foundations, supported in newly placed compacted fill. • 2,500 psf maximum allowable soll bearing pressure. • Minimum longitudin~I· steel reinforcement within strip footings: Four ( 4) No. 5 rebars (2 top and 2 bottom), -due,to the medium expansive potentic1l of the near surface soils. · Building Floor Slabs • Slab-on-Grade, at le9st 5_ inches thick. • Minimum slab reinforcement: No. 3 bars at 18-inches on-center, in both directions. Y . SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA .. . .. GEQTE~Hf,fICAL l;lressr Ranch, Lots 10-13 -Carlsbi;!d, CA Project No. P7G227~1 Pagel :r Pavements ASPHALT PAVEMENTS Thickness (inches) Materials Auto Parking Auto Drive Light Truck Moderate Lanes Traffic Truck Traffic (TI= 4.5) (TI= 5.5) ITT= 6.0) (TI= 7.0) Asphalt Concrete 4 4 4 4 Aggregate Base 5 8 10 13 Compacted Subgrade 12 12 12 12 (90% minimum compaction) PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENTS Materials Automobile Parking (TI= 4.5) PCC 5 Compacted Subgrade 12 (95% minimum compaction) - Thickness (inches) Drive Lanes (TI = Moderate Truck 5.5) and Light Truck Traffic Traffic (TI= 7.0) (TI= 6.0) 5½ 7 12 12 Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G227·1 Page 2 ' ,. I 2.0. SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of servi~e$ _ performecl .for this .project was in .accordance with our Proposal l'Jo. 07P379, dated November 30, 2007 .. The scope of services included review of previous reports, a visual site reconnaissance, subsurface ·exploration, field and laboratory testing, and geotechnlcal engineering analysis to -provide criteria for prepcJring. design of the building foundations, building floor slab.s, and -parkl'ng lot . pavements . alorm with site .preparation recommendations and construction considerations for the :proposed development The evaluation of environmental aspects of this site was beyond the scope of services for this geotechnical:;investigation. f -SOUTHERN ,aa;. . . . CALIFORNIA " ~EQ~SB~)SA~ Bressl Rat'.ich, L:ots 10-.13 -·carlsbad,.CA Project No .. b7G227-1 Page 3 3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Site Description The subject site is located within the recently mass graded Bressi Ranch Industrial Park which is located southeast of the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real in the city of Carlsbad, California. The specific site is a portion of Planning Area 3, Lots 10 though 13, and is located northeast of the intersection of Gateway Road and El Camino Real. The general location of the site is illustrated on the Site Location Map, included as Plate 1 in Appendix A of this report. The subject site is an irregularly-shaped parcel, approximately 8± acres in size. Graded slopes ranging in height from 5 to 7± feet border the site to the north and east. Five (5) desilting basins were located throughout the site. The desilting basins were approximately 6 to 8± feet deep. At the time of the subsurface exploration, ground surface cover consisted of exposed soil with moderate grass and weed growth. Preliminary topographic information was obtained from a plan prepared by Smith Consulting Architects (SCA). The site plan indicates that site grades within Lots 10 through 13 range from El. 325± feet msl at the northeastern property corner to El. 295± feet msl at the southwestern property corner. 3.2 Proposed Development Preliminary information regarding the proposed development was obtained from the site plan prepared by Smith Consulting Architects. These plans have been provided to our office by the client. This plan indicates that the new development will consist of two (2) separate two-or three-story buildings. The proposed building footprints will be 21,700± ft2 and 25,600± ft2• Detailed structural information is not currently available. It is, however, assumed that the buildings will be of concrete tilt-up construction, typically supported on conventional shallow foundation systems and concrete slabs on grade. Based on the assumed construction, maximum column and wall loads are expected to be on the order of 60 to 80 kips and 3 to 5 kips per linear foot, respectively. 3.3 Previous Studies As part of our investigation of the overall site, including Planning Areas PA-1 through PA-5, we were provided with several geotechnical reports. The geotechnical reports provided to us consist of preliminary and supplemental geotechnical investigations, a summary report of mass grading, and as graded reports of mass grading. The subject site has been recently rough graded to its Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G227-1 Page 4 current configuratiqn under the purview of Leighton ,and Associates, Inc. The reports whi~h are applicable to the entire site, lmc;luding·,a11-ofthe Planni'ng Areas, are summarized below: • Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Business Park. Bressi Ranch Lots 10 -13, Planning Area 3. · Carlsbad. California; prepqred for Ascent .Biltmore, ~l-C by Southern California Geotechriical, Inc; dateo December 19, -2006, Project No. 0.6G252-1. This report presents the res1,1lts of our previous geotechnkal investigation of the subject site. The work dociJm~nted by this report occurred during the period of December 1, 2006 through December 19, 2006. This report stcJtes that ·fifteen .(15) boriqgs were drilled within the site to a depth of 19½± feet. The maximum depth of.the boringswas-limited to less than 20 feet due.to permit restrictions imposed by the sa·n Diego Cot1nty Department of Environmental Health (DEH). The borings identified engineering fill soils :extending to depths of 1 ½ to 12½± feet below .existing grade. Below the fill soils, Santiago Formation bedrock materials were observed to the maximum <;lepth explored of 19½±. feet below ground surface. Groundwater was reportedly riot encountereq Jh any of the borin,gs. The report: identified corrective grading removals of shallow .bedrock for the twelve b1:1ilding. pad ,areas· on the order of 3 feet below existing grade and to -a ,depth of 3 feet below ·proposed pad ·grade. In addition, the depth of overexcavation was recommended to provide at ·least 3 reet of new structural fill beneath the bearing grade of all foundations for the selected '.buildings. · • Geotechnical Investi0ation, Proposed Business Park, Bressi Ranch Lots 10 -13, Planning Area 3, · Carlsbad, cailfor-nla: prepared for St.· Croix Capital by Southern Cailfornia Geotechnical, Inc:., dated November 161 2005,. Project No,,,05G273-1. This report presents the results of our previous geQte¢hnical: investigation of the subject site. The work c:locumented by this report oc½urred during the period of October 31, ;mos through November 16, taos, This report states that eight (8) borings were drilled within the site to depths ranging from 10 to 19½:I:; fee.t. The ma.ximum d~pth of the .borings was limited to less than 20 feet due to permit restrictions imposed ·by the San Diego County Department of Environmental He?ilth, (DEH). The borings identified engineering fill soils extending to depth~ of 2 to 2½± feet below existing grade. Below the fill soils,. Santlago Formation bedrock materials were observed to the maximum depth explored of 19½± feet below ground surface. <;;roundwat~r was reportedly .not encountered in any of the borings. The report Identified corrective grading removals of shallow bedrock for the two building pad areas on the order of 3 feet below existing grade. and to .a depth of 3 feet ·below proposed pad grade. In addition, the depth 6,f overexcavation was recommended to provide at ·1east 3 feet of new structur:al fill beneath the bearing grade of al I foundation$ for the 'S$1ected building$. • Geatechnical Investigation. Bressi Ranch Corporate Center, Planning Areas 1 through. 5, SEC of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real,.Carlsbad, California; prepared for Sares- Regis Group by Southern California Geotechnical, Inc.~· dated May 3, 2004, Project No. 03G259-2. This report presents the results of .oLJr geotechriital investigation of Planning Areas 1 through 5 subsequent to the mass .grading .. Subsurface. ,explor;:ition performed as part of this geotechnk;al BressLRanc:h, Lots l.0-13 -Carlsbad; dA Project NO; 07G227-1 . PaQ¢·5 investigation included twenty (20) borings advanced to depths of 5 to 19½± feet below currently existing site grades. The maximum depth of the borings was limited to less than 20 feet due to permit restrictions imposed by the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health (DEH). . Based on the subsurface conditions, the site is underlain by recently placed compacted fill soils and sandstone and claystone bedrock. The fill soils extend to depths of up to 90± feet and were placed under the purview of a geotechnical engineer. The existing fill soils and bedrock possesses relatively high strengths, and highly variable expansive potentials. Based .on the variable expansive potentials and differing strengths of the engineered fill and bedrock, and in order to provide for a new layer of structural fill that will help mitigate the potential cut/fill transitions, it was recommended that remedial grading be performed within the proposed building pad areas. The building pad areas were recommended to be overexcavated to a depth of at least 5 feet below existing grade and to a depth of at least 4 feet below proposed pad grade. The depth of overexcavation should be sufficient to provide at least 3 feet of new structural fill beneath the bearing grade of all foundations. • Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation for Mass Grading, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad. California, prepared for Lennar Homes by Leighton and Associates, Inc., dated March 14, 2001, Project No. 971009-005. This report presents the results of a supplemental geotechnical investigation to update their earlier preliminary geotechnical report prepared in 199Z. Subsurface exploration performed as part of the supplemental ·geotechnical investigation included eight (8) large diameter borings and fifty-six (56) exploratory trenches. Logs of these supplemental borings and trenches as well as J previous work by Leighton and others is included in the report and summarized on the Geotechnical Map included therein. Based on the presented information, the subject site is primarily underlain by sandstope bedrock. The bedrock is indicated to consist of the Tertiary age Santiago formation, which is described as massively bedded sandstone with some zones of claystone and siltstone. Some minor areas of shallow undocumented fill, terrace deposits, and alluvialjcolluvial soils were also mapped within the boundaries of the subject site. Although the majority of the mapped, larger ancient landslides are located outside the boundaries of the subject site, two (2) small ancient landslides were mapped on the subject site, east of PA-1 and PA-2. Due to their small scale, they were recommended to be removed in their entirety and replaced as compacted fill. Remedial grading recommendations contained in this report indicate that all undocumented fill and alluvial/colluvial soils should be completely removed to competent material. ' • Supplemental Geotechnical Landslide Investigation. Planning Areas PA-1, PA-2, and PA- 10 through PA-12, Bressi Ranch. Carlsbad. California, prepared for Lennar Communities by Leighton and Associates, Inc., dated February 12, 2003, Project No. 971009-007. ~ SOUTHERN ,.,. I. CALiFORNIA ,. ____ . GEOTECHNICAL Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G227-1 Page 6 This report presents thEJ results, of ·a ~1,.1pplemental ·geotec.::hriical li;mdslide investigation for specific portions of the site. Subsurface expioration performed as pc1rt of the supplemental geotechnica.I landslide imtestigation included nhie· (9) ·Iarge diameter borings and five '(5) exploratory trenches in the areas of the ·prevlously mapped ancient landslides. Logs ·of these additional borings and trenches as well as revised cross sections are inch:ided in the report. ' ' '. ·) . The 'area .of the subject site ,apdressed oy tbis report lrklude~ the eastern portion of planning areas PA-1 and PA-2 where several. ne~ted ancient landslides were mapped. Cross Sections ·E..:E' and P-P' depict the mapped geologic c0nditlons and the recommended remedial grading, which consisted of complete removal of the landslides and replacement as engineered fill. This report restates the· previous remedial grading recommendations and provides. siope stability calculations to justify the. proposed grading-config~rations. • Geotechniaal Recommendatioms. Concerning. 95 Percent Relative Compaction of 'Fill Deeper than 40 Feet, Bressi Ranch. Carlsbad, California, .. prepared for Lennar · ,corilmunities by· Leighton and' Associates,· Inc., dated February 13, 2003, Project No. 971009-007. This report addresses the, settlement potential -of d(:ep fill areas and provides recommendations to reduce the time peridd for the 'majority of the settlement to occur. In several areas of the overall project, fills up to 40 to. 50±. feet in thickness Were plcmned to achieve the design grad~s. ·Deep fill areas on the subject site are'located in the e?istern portion of PA:-2, and two small areas . within :PA-3 and PA-5. The report recornmends that ?JII. ::;tructural fills below a depth of 40 feet from finish grade be compacted to at least 95 p·ercent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density, and estimates that the time period for the major;i,ty. of th.e s$ttlement to occur will. be reduced from 6 to 12 months to 3 to B+ months·. Near ·surface settlement monuments were recommended to be: installed immediately aftEJr rough grading, with survey intervals of once a week for the first month, then twice a montb for .3 months, .and then monthly to determine completion primary settlement of deep. fills. The r:ecommer:ided l'ocations of the near surface settlement monuments are-indicated to be contained on an index map within this report, however, the copy provided' to us does not contain this plan. , • Summary of the-As"'Graded· Geotechnital Conditions and Partial Co'mpletion of Rough and Fine .Grading. Planhing Area~ PA-"1 Through PA.,5, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad, California, prepar.ed .for Lenn~r Communities by. Leighton .and. Associates, Inc., dated January 20, 2004, Project No. 971009.,014. This summary report indicptes that grading of Planf:lin,g Arei;ls· PA-1 through PA-3 is essentially t'6mplete, and that grading is ongofng in Planning Area$ PA.,.4 and PA~s. Grading operations vvere reportedly performed in ge·ner:al a.ccordante .with the recommendations presented: In Leighton's previous geoteclmical reports. Geotechnical fssues presented' in this summary report which were not discussed .in the previous reports inc:l'ude the presence of inactive faults witbin PA-4 and PA-5, perched gr:oundwatE?r within the overexcavated tributary canyons on the east side of PA-1 and PA-2, oversize materials within the engin_eered· fills, '.high to very high expansive 'soils at or near finish grade, and some ·severe sulfate concentrations which WOlJld require the use of specialized, concrete mix :designs. · · ,-· SOUTHERN Wfll' CALIFORNIA . y. . GEOTECH.NJ½AL Bressi Ranch, Lots io-i3 -C:i;lrlsbad,·CA · Project No. ·07G2~N: 'Page 7 , ''l ,' • As Graded Report of Mass Grading, Planning Areas PA-1, PA-2, and PA-3, Metropolitan Street, and a Portion of Town Garden Road, Gateway Road, and Alicante. Road, Carlsbad Tract No. 00-06, Bressi Ranch. Carlsbad, California, prepared for Lennar Communities by Leighton and Associates, Inc., dated April 15, 2004, Project No. 97100~-014 This report documents the mass grading of Planning Areas PA-1, PA-2, and PA-3 as well as a portion of the interior streets. Most of the information contained in this report was presented in the January 20, 2004 summary report. The conclusions and recommendations are also similar to the pre~ious report. With respect to the deep fills on this portion of the site, Leighton concluded that most of the anticipated settlement is complete, but the seven settlement monuments should be continued to be monitored. Soluble sulfate test results range from negligible to severe, and expansion index test results range from low (EI = 46) to very high (EI = 163). Preliminary pavement sections are presented and are based on assumed R-value of 12. Maximum cuts and fills within Planning Areas PA-1, PA-2, and PA-3 are documented as 25 and 90 feet, respectively. Fill soils below a depth of 40 feet were compacted ,to at least 95% of ASTM 1557 maximum dry density. • Addendum to As-Graded Reports of Mass Grading Concerning the Completion of Settlement Monitoring, Planning Areas PA-1 through PA-5, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad, California, prepared for Lennar Communities by Leighton and Associates, Inc., dated October 11, 2004, Project No. 971009-014 This report presents the data collected from the settlement monitoring program for the deep fill (greater than 40 feet) areas of the entire site. The settlement monitoring data was collected over a period of 5 to 6 months. Based on the collected data, Leighton concludes that the primary settlement of the fill soils is essentially complete, and that construction of improvements within Planning Areas PA-1 through PA-5 may begin. Secondary consolidation settlement of deep fills is estimated to be less than 1 to 3 inches depending on the depth of fill. Differential settlements are estimated to be on the order of ½ inch in 25 feet. Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G227·1 Page 8 4.0 SU,BSU,RFACE EXPLO.RATlON.:. 4.1 _Scope of Exploration/Sampling Methods The subsurface expl9ratioh conducted for this project consisted of eight (8) borings advanced to depths of 191/2± feet ·below currently existir;Jg'-site ·grades. the maximum depth of our borings was limited to less than 20 feet due to permit restrictions imposed by the San Diego County Department of Environ·mental Health (DEH). All 'Of the borings were logged during excavation by ,a member pf our staff. , Representative bulk and in"'situ soil' samples were taken during drilling. Relatively undisturbed in-situ samples were taken with a split barrel "California, Sampler" containing a series of one inch long, 2.416± inch diameter brass· rings; This sampling method is described in ASTM test Method 0-3550. In-situ samples were qlso tak(;!rt using a 1..4± inch .inside diameter split spoon , sampler, in general accordance with ASTM D-1St;i6. Both of these samplers are driven into the ground with successive blows· of a 140-pound weight .fallir:ig 30 inches. The blow counts .obtained during drivirrg are recorded for further analysis. Bulk samples were taken at periodic locations in the trenches. The· bulk samples were collected in plastic bags to retain their. original moisture content. The relatively undisturbed ring samples were pfac;ed in molded plastic sleeves that were then sealed -and transported to our-'laboratory. The approximate locations of the borings are indicated on th!3 Boring Location Plan, included as Plate 2 of this report. The :Boring logs, whicn ·illustrate the conditions encountered at the boring locations, .as well as some -of the results of the laboratory testing, are incll!.ded in Appendix B. 4.2 Geotechnical Conditions Presentecl below is a· generaljzed summary of the subsurface conditions encountered at the. boring locations. More. detafl'ed dese::ript:ions of the conditions ehtountered are Illustrated on the Boring Logs,. induqed in Appendix B. Artificial FIii Artificial fill soils were encounterecl at the ground surface at many of·the boring locations. These fill soils extend to depths of up to 8± feet below existing grade. As previously discussed, the fill soils within other areas of PA-~ are documented to '.have· maximum depths of 40 to 50± feet; The fill soils encoul'.ltered in the borings generally consist of medium dense fine sands and clayey fine sands. The fill soils possess moderately high strengths, moisture contents near or above optimum and based oh their color 'mottlin_g and compQ'sition, app.eared to be well mixed. · ;pt SQ:UTHERN 'lllf" CALIF.ORNIA · ,. _______ GEOTECHNICAL Bressi ·Ranch, Lots 10-13 • Carlsbad, cA · Project No; 0?~227-1 ,Page,9 Bedrock Bedrock was encountered at or near ground surface or beneath the fill soils at all of the boring locations. The bedrock encountered at this site consists of Tertiary age Santiago formation, which is comprised of dense to very dense sandstone with some zones of claystone and siltstone. Bedding within the Santiago formation on site is generally massive with no significant planes of weakness or discontinuities. The sandstone unit is typically light gray in color, contains moderate iron oxide staining, and is comprised of weakly cemented silty fine sand. The siltstone unit is typically light gray to gray in color, contains moderate iron oxide staining, and is comprised of fine sandy silt. The claystone unit is typically dark gray to gray green in color, contains some shell fragments, gypsum veins, and is comprised of silts and clays. Groundwater Based on the water level measurements, and the moisture contents of the recovered soil samples, the static groundwater table is considered to have existed at a depth in excess of 20± feet at the time of the subsurface exploration. Further, based on the conditions documented in the mass grading report by Leighton, no groundwater was encountered during grading. Therefore, groundwater is expected to be at depths greater than the extent of the fill soils, which are 40 to 50± feet thick within PA-3. 4.3 Geologic Conditions Geologic research indicates that the site is underlain by sandstone mapped as the Santiago Formation (Map Symbol Tsa) with nearly horizontal bedding attitudes. The primary available reference applicable to the subject site is DMG Open-File Report 96-02, Geologic Map of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California, by California Division of Mines and Geology, 1996. Based on the materials encountered in the exploratory borings, it is our opinion the site is underlain by sandstone, siltstone and claystone bedrock consisting of the Santiago formation (Map Symbol Tsa). The bedrock encountered in the exploratory borings and observed at the ground surface is generally massively bedded and the structure is comprised of nearly horizontal bedding with some moderately developed joints in the upper, less weathered portions of the bedrock. • SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ... ___ .. ~EOTE~HNICA_L Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G227-1 Page 10 s.o· -LABORATORY TESTING The soil samples .recovered from the subsurface exploration were· r~turned to our laboratory for further testing to deterniin1: selected physical and engineering properties of the soils. The tests are briefly discussed :below. It should be noted that the· test results are specific to the actual samples tested, and variations could be expected at other locatiqns and· depths. Classification All -re.Govered soil samples, were classified. using the Unified Soil Classlficatlon System (USCS), ih accordance with ASTM D-2488. Field identlficc;ltlons were then supplemented with additional · visual classifications-and/or by laboratory -t~sting. The ·USCS classifications are shown on the Boring Logs and are perle>dically referenced throughout this report. In-situ Dens it' _and· Moisture -Content The density has .been determined .for selected relatively undisturbed ring samples. These densities were determined In general accordanc~ wit.h the method presented in ASTM D-2937; The results are :recordecl as 'dry ynlt weight in pounds .per ·cubic foot. The moisture contents are determined .in accordance with ASTM D-2216, and ar~ expr§'ssed as a percentage of the dry· weight. These·test:results ?ire presented on the Boring Logs. · Consolidation Selected soil samples have been tested to ,determine their consolidation potential, in accorqance with ASTfvl D-2435. The testing apparatas. is de.signed to accept. either natural or remolded samples in a one,.inch high ring, approximately 2.4.16 Inches in diameter. Each sample is then load1:d lnGrementally In a geometric progression· and the resulting deflection Is recorded at selected time ·intervals .. Porous $tones are·in ~ontactwlth, the-top and bottom of the sample to permit the addition or release of ,pore w?)ter. The .samples are typh:ally inundated with water at an intermediate load to determine their potential· for· collapse or heave. The results -of the consolidation te$ting are· plotted .on Plates_ C-1 thrOUf)h C.;8-:ln Appendix C of this report. Expansior~ Index Th~ ~xpansion potential of the on-site s_oils was determined in. general accordance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standard 18.;2. The testing appa'ratus is -designed to accept a 4-inch · diqmeter, 1-in high, remolded-sample. The sample Is-Initially rernolded to 50 ± 1 percent saturation and then loaded With a surcharge equivalent to l44 pounds per square foot. the sample is then intmdated with water, and allowed to swell against the surcharge. The resultant swell or consolidation is -recorded after a 24.,hour period. the· results of the EI testing are as follows: 7 ·., . .If SOUTHERN -· .• · CALiFORNIA' .__ GEOTECHNICAL ' ' ··,Bressi R~nch, Lots 10s13 -Carlsbad,q,.. Project.No. 'Q7G227~l Page lt ·'- Sample Identification B-5 @ O to 5 feet Soluble Sulfates Expansion Index 54 Expansive Potential Medium Representative samples of the near-surface soils have been submitted to a subcontracted analytical laboratory for determination of soluble sulfate content. Soluble sulfates are naturally present in soils, and if the concentration is high enough, can result in degradation of concrete which comes into contact with these soils. The results of the soluble sulfate testing are not yet available. These test results, along with recommendations for any appropriate sulfate resistant concrete mix designs will be presented in an addendum report. Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -carlsbad, CA Project No, 07G227-1 Page 12 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on. the results bf our review, field .exploration, lciboratory testing and geotechnical. analysis, the proposed development is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The recommendations contained in this report shoulc;I be taken into the design, construction,. ancl grading, considerations. The recommendations. are contingent upon all grading and foundation construction actiVities being monitored· by .the· geotecl;Jriical engineer·of record. The ·Grading Guide Specifications, included as Appendix D, shoi;jld be considered part of this report, and should oe incorporated into: the project specificati6ns. The contractor and/or owner of the development should bring to the attention of the geotechnical. engineer any conditions that differ frorn those stated in this report, or which may be detrimental for the development. Following. completion of the recommended grading and foundation construction procedures, the subject . site is considered suitable 'for its :intended use. · 6.1 Seismic Design Consid_erations The subject site is loccite~ in an area which is subject to strong ground motions due to earthquakes~ 'The· completion of a sit~ specific seismic. hazards analysis is beyond the scope of · services for this geotechnioal. investigation. However, it should ·be noted that numerous faults capable of producing· significant ground motions are located near the subject site. Due to economic c:onsideratioqs, it is not generally considered reasonable to design a structure that is not susceptible to earthqu9ke damage. Therefore, significant damage to structures may be· unavoidable during. 'large earthquakes. The pr,pposed structures should, however, be designed to resist structural coilapse and thereby provide reasonable protection from serious injury, catastroJ:)hic property damage· and loss of life. Faulting and Seismicity Research of available maps indicates that the subject site is not located within an Alquist..:Priolo Earthquake Fault .Zone. · Therefore, the possibility .of significant fault. rupture on the s.ite ls considered to ·be low. · Seismic Design Parameters Based on standards in plac~ at the time of this report, the proposed development must be designed .in :accor,da·nce with the requirements of the. latest edition of the 2007 California · Building :Code (CBC), which is based on the. 2006 International Building Code (IBC). The IBC provides procedures for earthquake resistant structural design that include considerations for on-site soil conditions, occupan~y, and the configuration of the structure including the structural: system and height. The seismic design parc1meters presented below are . based on the, soil profile, an·d the proximity pf known 'faults with respect to the subject site. · .\lllllljJ' SOUTHERN ~ I CALIFORNIA Y-·--_Q~Qt~~ijNKAL Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -carlsbag, CA Project.N.6. 07G.227·1 Pa$e'13 ,1, .. The 2006 !BC Seismic Design Parameters have been generated using Earthquake Ground Motion Parameters, a software application developed by the United States Geological Survey. This software application, available at the USGS web site calculates seismic design parameters in accordance with the 2006 IBC, utilizing a database of deterministic site accelerations at 0.01 degree intervals. The table below is a compilation of the data provided by the USGS application. A copy of the output generated from this program is included in Appendix E of this report. A copy of the Design Response Spectrum, as generated by the USGS application is also included in Appendix E. Based on this output, the following parameters may be utilized for the subject site: 2006 IBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameter Value Mapped Spectral Acceleration at 0.2 sec Period Ss 1.794 Mapped Spectral Acceleration at 1.0 sec Period S1 0.667 Site Class ---D Short-Period Site Coefficient at 0.2 sec Period Fa 1.0 Long-Period Site Coefficient at 1.0 sec Period Fv 1.5 Site Modified Spectral Acceleration at 0.2 sec Period SMs 1.794 Site Modified Spectral Acceleration at 1.0 sec Period SM1 1.0 Design Spectral Acceleration at 0.2 sec Period Sos 1.196 Design Spectral Acceleration at 1.0 sec Period So1 0.667 Liquefaction Liquefaction is the loss of strength in generally cohesionless, saturated soils when the pore- water pressure induced in the soil by a seismic event becomes equal to or exceeds the overburden pressure. The primary factors which influence the potential for liquefaction include groundwater table elevation, soil type and grain size characteristics, relative density of the soil, initial confining pressure, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. The depth within which the occurrence of liquefaction may impact surface improvements is generally identified as the upper 50 feet below the existing ground surface. Liquefaction potential is greater in saturated, loose, poorly graded fine sands with a mean (dso) grain size in the range of 0.075 to 0.2 mm (Seed and Idriss, 1971). Clayey (cohesive) soils or soils which possess clay particles (d<0.00Smm) in excess of 20 percent (Seed and Idriss, 1982) are generally not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction, nor are those soils which are above the historic static groundwater table. The subsurface conditions encountered at the subject site are not conducive to liquefaction. These conditions consist of compacted fill soils underlain by high strength sandstone and claystone bedrock, which is not susceptible to earthquake-induced liquefaction. Based on the subsurface conditions, liquefaction is not considered to be a significant design concern for this project. Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G227-1 Page 14 ,6.2 Geotec:hnical Design 'Considerations General The subject site is underlain by, fill soils and .by sandstone :and, occasional: siltstone and daystone. ·bedrock, The fill soils, extending. to ·maximum depths of up to .8± within the subject site . generally ·consist of m0derate strength sands, silty sands and clayey sands. Laboratory testing indicates that . these .. materials possess. ,generally favorable consolidation and collapse, characteristics. However, several cut/fill transitions between the fiil arid.bedrock were createc:l by the mass gradi11g procedures. More importantly, . the proposed gradlng to establish the new finished floor elevations is expected to result in the formati9n of .additional cut/fill transitions. The resultant subsurface profile is expected to provide variable support characteristics, for the foundations ·of the proposed structl;lres. Based on these considerations, it is recommended that remedial grading · be performed within the hew building areas· -in· ·order -to provide a subgrade. suitable for support of the foundations.a.nc:I floor slabs of the new struct1,Jres. The -primary geotechnical d~sign consideration that will impact the .proposed development is the fact that the proposed grading wmaeate cut/.fi!I transitions within some· of the proposed building areas! These consideratLons ate discussed. in-detail. ih. th.e f<;>llowing. sections of this report. Grading and Foundation Plan Review The cohdusions and re·comrnendations present~d in this report are bqsed on the preliminary plans provided, to our office. No grading pians were '.available at the tJme of this report. Onte preliminary gradilJg plans. become available; it is rt:?commended that they be provided to our office for review with regard to the .conclusions and recommendations presented herein. In addition, a foundation plan was not available at' the time .of this report. It is recommended that preliminary foundation plans be· provided to ·our office once they become available. Depending. on-the results of our review, some modifications to the recommend~tions contained in this report may be warranted. · · , Settlement The results of the -consolidation/collapse testing indicate that the -existing -fill soils are not subject to signific::ant collapse upon moisture infiltration. In additLoh, the existing fill soils do not exhibit . significant consolidc1tion when · exposed to load· iracreases in the range of those that will be imposed by the new ·fountlations. · Provided .that -the recommendations contained within this· report are implemented ir:i. the, struc:turc:il design and construction of the proposed buildings, the· post-construction settlements .are expected to be withi,ri tolerable limits. Following completion of the recommended grading; .. the post~construction :Static settl~nients are expected to be within tolerableJimi,ts. . Cut/Fill Transitions: Both buildings are closely underlain by dense bedrock. It is e~pected that cuts and fills of up to 1 to 3:i: will be necessary within these building areas to achieve the proposed subgrade . ,,r~ r SOUTHERN . %1121> CALIFORNIA .... ' GEOTECHNICAL . Bressi. Ranch, lots 10· 13 -Carlsbad;, CA . . Project No. 07G2ii 1 Page" 15 elevations. Therefore, cut/fill transitions are expected to exist within these building areas after completion of the proposed grading. This cut/flll transition condition at bearing grade raises a potential for additional differential settlement. This report contains recommendations for additional remedial grading within these building pads to remove this geologic and cut/fill transition. It should be noted that the extent of areas that will require overexcavation to mitigate cut/fill transitions will depend upon the final grades that are established throughout the site. Therefore, the extent of this remedial grading may change, following our review of the preliminary grading plan. Expansion Most of the on-site soils consist of medium expansive soils and bedrock (EI = 54). Based on the presence of expansive soils, special care should be taken to properly moisture condition and maintain adequate moisture content within all subgrade soils as well as newly placed fill soils. The foundation and floor slab design recommendations contained within this report are made in consideration of the expansion index test results. It is expected that significant blending of the on-site soils will occur during precise grading procedures, and that the resulting building pad subgrade soils will possess medium expansion potentials. It is recommended that additional expansion index testing be conducted at the completion of precise grading to verify the expansion potential of the as-graded building pads. Shrinkage/Subsidence Based on our experience with the on-site soils and rock materials, removal and recompaction of the existing near-surface engineered fill soils is estimated to result in average shrinkage or bulking of less than 5 percent. Where the existing bedrock is overexcavated and replaced as structural fill, bulking on the order of Oto 5 percent is expected. Minor ground subsidence is expected to occur in the soils below the zone of removal due to settlement and machinery working. The subsidence is estimated to be 0.1 feet. These estimates may be used for grading in areas that are underlain by existing engineered fill soils. No significant subsidence will occur in areas that are immediately underlain by sandstone bedrock. These estimates are based on previous experience and the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations. The actual amount of subsidence is expected to be variable and will be dependant on the type of machinery used, repetitions of use, and dynamic effects, all of which are difficult to assess precisely. Setbacks In accordance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements, all footings should maintain a minimum horizontal setback of H/3, where H equals the slope height, measured from the outside face of the footing to any descending slope face. This setback should not be less than 7 feet, nor need it be greater than 40 feet. q SOUTHERN 'lTI1'21'V CALIFORNIA ...f:_ ---~EOT~CHNI~AL Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G227-1 Page 16 6.3 Site-Grading Recomn:-e~ndations The grading recommendations presented-below ;3re based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the :boring locations and our understanding of the proposed development. ·we recommend that all grading actiVities be cbmpleted in accordance with the Grading Guide Specifications inc.luded i:lS Appendix D of this report; unless superseded by site specifi<; recommendations presented b.elow. · Site Stripping and Demolition Initial .site preparation should include stripping of any vegetation and organic debris. Based on conditic;ms observed at the time of the subsurface exploration, moderate .stripping of native grass. and weeds is expected to be necessary. Initial grading operations should also include abandonment of. the existing desilting basins, located throughout the site. Any softened soils, siltd~posits, water, or other unsuitable materials sho'uld be removed from the detention basin. Removals should extend to a depth of suiti:lble structural compgc;:ted fill soils or bedrock. Where· the. detention basins are located within prqposed building areas, the building. pad overexci:lvation ·recommendations should also .be implemented. Treatment: of Existing Soils: Building Pads R~medial grading will be necessary in -severa·1 of the l:>uilding areas to mitigate potential variable support conditions due to cut/fill transitions· that will exist at or near the proposed foundation bearir.ig /grade. Remedial grading should be performed within both· building areas to remove and replace a portion of the dense bedrock as engineered fill .. The existing· bedrock should be overexcavated to provide for a new lay.er of compacted .structural fill, .extending to a depth of at least 3 feet below proposed foundation bearing grade, throughout the building · areas. Based on conditions encountered at the boring locations, it is expected that such 6verexcavation will be required throughout both buildin9s. In general, the overexcavations should extend at ieast S feet beyond the building perimeters. If the. proposed structures incorporc::ite any exterior columns (such as. for a canopy or overhang) the area of overexcavatic;m should also ·encompass these areas. Within areas of the proposed · structures that do not require overexcavation per t.he recommendations presented above, it is recommended that the existing fills be overexcavated to a depth ·of at least .1 foot below existing-·grade, to remove ariy existing weathered and/or softened. fill soils, as well as to prepare the subgrade for new ·fill placement. Following completion -of the overexcavations, the.subgrade soils ,(or pedrock) within the bullding areas should be evaluated by the geo~echnical ·engineer to verify their suitability to serve as th·e structural fill subgrade,, as we.II as to support the foundation loads .of the new structure. This PW SOUTHERN . . CALIFORNIA ~. ·-G!PTECilil\cAi Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -Carlsbad, CA Project No.:Q?G227-1 . Page i7 evaluation should include proofrolling with a heavy rubber-tired vehicle to identify any soft, loose or otherwise unstable soils that must be removed. Some localized areas of deeper ,excavation may be required if loose, porous, or low density soils are encountered at the bottom of the overexcavation. The exposed subgrade soils should then be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned to 2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content, and recompacted. Treatment of Existing Soils: Retaining Walls and Site Walls The existing soils within the areas of any proposed retaining walls underlain by less than 2 feet of existing engineered fill soils should be overexcavated to a depth of 2 feet below foundation bearing grade and replaced as compacted structural fill, as discussed above for the proposed building pad. Subgrade soils in areas of non-retaining site walls should be overexcavated to a depth of 1 foot below proposed bearing grade, if not underlain by at lest 1 foot of existing engineered fill soils. In both cases, the overexcavation subgrade soils should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer prior to scarifying, moisture conditioning and recompacting the upper 12 inches of exposed subgrade soils. In areas where unsuitable fill soils are encountered at foundation subgrade level, additional overexcavation or deepened footings will be necessary. The previously excavated soils may then be replaced as compacted structural fill. Treatment of Existing Soils: Parking Areas Overexcavation of the existing fill soils in the new parking areas is generally not considered warranted, with the exception of any areas where lower strength soils are identified by the geotechnical engineer during grading. · Subgrade preparation in the remaining new parking areas should initially consist of completion of cuts where required. The geotect,nical engineer should then evaluate the subgrade to identify any areas of unsuitable soils. Based on conditions observed at the site at the time of drilling, no significant overexcavation is expected to be necessary within the new parking areas. The subgrade soils should then be scarified to a depth of 12± inches, moisture conditioned to 2 to 4± percent above optimum, and recompacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. Depending upon the actual finished grades, which have not yet been established, portions of the parking ·Iot subgrades may be immediately underlain by bedrock. These materials may be used for direct pavement subgrade support. However, the owner and/or developer of the project should understand that minor amounts of reflective cracking and/or minor differential movements should be expected to occur near the location of the transitions between these bedrock materials and the adjacent engineered fill. If such cracking or minor differential movements within the pavements is not considered acceptable, additional overexcavation should be performed within the cut portions of the parking areas. Fill Placement • Fill soils should be placed in thin (6± inches), near-horizontal lifts, moisture conditioned to 2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content, and compacted. ].11 SOUTHERN '3112& CALiFORNIA ? . GEOTliCHNICAL Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G227-1 Page 18 ' • . On-site soils may be. used Jar fill provided they are cleaned of any debris or overslied materials to th~ satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer. • All grading and fill placement activities should be completed in accordance with· the requirements of the -Uniform Building Code and the .grading code of the City of Carlsbad~ • All fill soils should be compacted to at :least 90 .percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. Fill soils. should be well mixed. · • Compaction tests should be performed· periodically by the geotechnical engineer as random verification of compaction and moisture content; These tests are intended to aid the contractor. Since·the tests are taken c1t discr<;te locations and depths, they may not be 'indicative of the entire fill and therefore should not relieve the contractor of his responsibility to meet the Job specificc1tions. Imported Structural Fill ' 1· • • , All .imported structural fill shot,1ld consist .of low expansive· :(EI < 30), well graded soils possessing at le?ist 10 p~rcent 'fin,es . .(that portion of the ,sample passing the ,No. 200 sieve). Additional speclfication,s for ·structural fill ar~ presented in tbe Grading Guide Specifications, Included as Appendix D. Utility Trench Backfill In .general, all l:.ltility trench . .backfill-should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM P- 1557 maximum dry density. As an alternative, a clean·sand (minimum Sand Equivalent of 30) may be placed within trenches and flooded in place. Compact~d trench backfill should conform t.o · the requirements of the local grading code, and more restrictive requirements may ·be indicated by the City of' Carlsbad. Mi:!teri?ils u~ed to backfill· trenches should consist of well graded ·granular soils with a maximum .particle size of 3 'inches. All utility trench backfills should .be witnessed PY the geotechhical engineer. The trench backfill soils should be compaction testep where possible; probed and visually evaluated .elsewhere. · Utility trenches which parallel a footing, and ·extending below a lh:lv plane projected from the. outside edge of the footing .should be backfilled with structural fill sciils, compacted to at least 90 percent ·of the ASTM D-1557 standard. · Sand or pea gravel. backfill, unless it is similar to the native soils, should not. be usec;I for these trenches. 6.4 Construction Considerations Moisture Sensitive· Subgrade Soils Some of the near surface soils posses$ appreciable siJt .and clay content and may become unstable if exposed to significant moisture infiltration or disturbance by construction traffic. In -addition, ba$ed on their granular content, the on-site soifs will also· be susceptible to erosion. The. site should, therefore, be graded .to prevent ponding ·of surface·wafor and to prevent water from running into excavations. · • SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA .. . . GEQT~~~NI.CAt :Bres~i Ranch, .Lots 10· 13 -Carlsbad, .CA Project No. 07G27r~1 P.age 19 , • , ~ l Excavation Considerations Based on conditions encountered at the boring locations, the bedrock that underlies the subject site possesses a dense to very dense relative density, but is somewhat friable. It is expected that it will be feasible to utilize conventional grading equipment within the depths that were· explored by the borings. However, some difficulty may be encountered during excavation, possibly requiring large single shank-equipped bulldozers, excavators, etc. The grading contractor should verify the need for special excavation equipment prior to bidding the project. Based on the presence of moderate granular content of the soils throughout the development area, minor to moderate caving of shallow excavations may occur. Flattened excavation slopes may be sufficient to mitigate caving of shallow excavations, although deeper excavations may require some form of external stabilization such as shoring or bracing. Temporary excavation slopes should be no steeper than lh:lv. All excavation activities on this site should be- conducted in accordance with Cal-OSHA regulations. Expansive Soils As previously discussed, the on site soils have been determined to possess a medium expansion potential. Therefore, care should be given to proper moisture conditioning of all building pad subgrade soils to a moisture content of 2 to 4 percent above the Modified Proctor optimum during site grading. All imported fill soils should have low to medium expansive characteristics. In addition to adequately moisture conditioning the subgrade soils and fill soils during grading, special care must be taken to maintain the moisture content of these soils at 2 to 4 percent above the Modified Proctor optimum. This will require the contractor to frequently moisture condition these soils throughout the grading process, unless ·grading occurs during a period of relatively wet weather. · Due to the presence of expansive soils at this site, provisions should be made to limit the potential for surface water to penetrate the soils immediately adjacent to the structures. These provisions should include directing surface runoff into rain gutters and area drains, reducing the extent of landscaped areas around the structures, and sloping the ground surface away from the buildings. Where possible, it is recommended that landscaped planters not be located immediately adjacent to the proposed buildings. If landscaped planters around the buildings are necessary, it is recommended that drought tolerant plants or a drip irrigation system be utilized, to minimize the potential for deep moisture penetration around the structure. Other provisions, as determined by the civil engineer may also be appropriate. Elevator Equipment Shafts It is expected that the proposed three story buildings will incorporate at least one elevator. Typically these elevators require installation of relatively large diameter steel pipes as part of the elevator counterweights. It is expected that the pipes will be installed within slightly oversized borings. Where these pipes are installed, · the annulus between the borehole wall and the elevator pipe should be backfilled with a lean concrete slurry or grout. Placement of loose backfill soils around these pipes could result in localized settlement of the structural fill soils and/or foundation elements. •@#IF c!~~~~t~~ ..... __ GEOTECHNICAL Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G227-1 Page 20 Groundwater Free water was not encountered within the depths explored by the borings drilled for· this project. These borings extended. to a maximum depth of 20± feet l:>elow existing grade. Based · on this information; groundwater is not expected. t<J impact the proposed grading or foundation construttiCin activities. 6.5 Foundation Design and-Construction·· Based on the preceding preliminary grading recommend:ations, it is assumed that the new building pads will be imniediat~ly un·derlain by ¢~isting, or newly placed structural fill s.oils extending to .depths of at least 3±· feet below found~tion bearing grade. Based on this subsurfc;1ce profile, the proposed structures may be supported. on conventional Shallow foundation systems. Foundation Design Parameters New squa·re and rectangular footings may be designed as'follows: • Maximum, net allowable -soil bearing pressure: 2,.500· -lbs/ft2• The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by 1/3 when considering short duration wind or seismic ;loads. • Minimum wall/column footing width: 14 inches/24. ii:lche$ • Minimum longitudinal, steel reinforcement within strip footings~ Four (4) No. S rebars (2 top and 2 bottom), due to medium expansive potential of near surface soils. ~ Minimum foundation embedment: 12 inches into suitable structural fill soils, and at least 18 .inches below adjc}cent exterior grade. Interior ·column footings may be placed immediately:benec}'th the floor slab. • It is recommended that the perimeter foundations l:>e continuous across all exterior doorways. Flatwork ac;ljacent to exterior doors should be doweled into the perimeter foundations in. a manner determined-by the structural engineer. The minimum steel, reinforcement recommended-above is based on geotethnical considerations; Additional reinforcement may be.necessary for structpral consid'eratiohs. The actual design of the foundations .should, be determined by the structural engineer. Foundation Constructiolil The fo.unda.tion sub.grade soils should. be evc1luated at th\::, time of overexcavation, as discussed in .Sect.ion. 6.3 of this :report. · It is ·further recommendec;I that the .foundation subgrade soils be evc1luated by the geotechnical·eogioeer immediately prior to steel or ·concrete placement. Soils suita.ble for direct foundcJtioh support should consist ,of newly placed structural fill, compacted: to c;1t. least 90 percent of tht:! ASTM D,-1557 maximum dry density; Any unsuitable bearing · ~ S.OUTHERN .,..,. 'I CALIFORNIA .. ,,, ___ , .:GEOTECHN.ICAt Bressi Ranch, Lots 10~13 • Carlsbad, GA Project.No. 07G227-1 P.aQ~ 21 ,I, •, , ' _; ' I materials should be removed to a depth of suitable bearing compacted structural fill, with the resulting excavations backfilled with compacted fill soils. As an alternative, lean concrete slurry (500 to 1,500 psi) may be used to backfill such isolated overexcavations. The foundation subgrade soils should also be properly moisture conditioned to 2 to 4 percent above the Modified Proctor optimum, to a depth of at least 12 inches below bearing grade. Estimated Foundation Settlements Post-construction total and differential settlements induced by the foundation loads of the new structures are estimated to be less than 1.0 and 0.5 inches, respectively, for shallow foundations designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided in this report. The differential movements are expected to occur over a 30-foot span, thereby resulting in an angular distortion of less than 0.002 inches per inch. Lateral Load Resistance Lateral load resistance will be developed by a combination of friction acting at the base of foundations and slabs and the passive earth pressure developed by footings below grade. The following friction and passive pressure may be used to resist lateral forces: • Passive Earth Pressure: 250 lbs/ft:3 • Friction Coefficient: 0.25 These are allowable values, and include a factor of safety. When combining friction and passive resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. These values assume that footings will be poured directly against suitable compacted structural fill. The maximum allowable passive pressure is 2500 lbs/ft2. 6.6 Floor Slab Design and Construction Subgrades which will support new floor slabs should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Site Grading Recommendations section of this report. Based on the anticipated grading which will occur at this site, the floors of the new structures may be constructed as conventional slabs-on-grade supported on newly placed structural fill. Based on geotechnical considerations, the floor slabs may be designed as follows: • Minimum slab thickness: 5 inches • Minimum slab reinforcement: No. 3 bars at 18-inches on-center, in both directions. • Slab underlayment: 10-mil vapor barrier, overlain by 2 inches of clean sand. Where moisture sensitive floor coverings are not anticipated, the vapor barrier and 2-inch layer of sand may be eliminated. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ...,= .. __ GE_OTE(~~K~L Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G227-1 Page 22 • I : • Mc;>i$ture condition the floor ·slc;1b subgrade soils· to 2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content, to a. depth of 12 inches. Proper concrete curing techniques should be utilized to .reduce the potential for slab curling or the form9tion of excessive shrinkage .c:_r:acks. 6.7 .Retaining Wall Design Recommendations It is-expected that some small reti:lining walls may be required to facilitate the new site grades. The parameters: recommended: for ,use· in the design ofthese walls are -presented below. Retaining Wall Design .Parameters Based on-the soil condit_ions encountered at the boring -locations, the following parameters may pe used in the design of new,retaining walls for this site. We have provided parameters for two different ·types of wall ,backfill: on-site sdils consisting of silty sands and clayey sands; and imported select granulc1rmaterial. In oroerto use-the.design parameters for the imported select fill,. this material must ,be plc1ced within: the entire active f~ilure wedge. This wedge is -defined as extending. from the base of the retaining wall upwards at a 59 degree angle of inclination. ~ETAINING WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS .. . .. Soil T•rpe Design Parameter Imported On-Site Aggregate Base SIity Sands and . Clavev Sands Internal Friction Angle (91} .38° 28° Unit Weight .130 lbs/ft' 125 lbs/ft' Aq:ive Condition 31 lbs/ft:3 45 lbs/ft3 {level backfill) Equivalent Fluid Active Condition. . . ~ ' - Pressure: {2h!lv backfill) 44 lbs/ft:3 79 lbs/ft:3 At-Rest Conditkin 48' lbs/ft'' 66 lbs/ft3' (level backfill) _Regardless of the backfill type, the walls .should be designed .using a soil-footing coefficient of friction of 0.25 a.nd an equivale.nt passive, pressure of 250. lbs/ft' .. The actjve earth pressures may be used for the design of retaining wi:!lls which do not directly support structures-or support soils whic.:h -in turn support. structures and which wlll be allowed. to deflect. The at-rest earth pressures should be· ,used for walls-which will not be allowed to deflect such. as those which will support foundation bearing soils, or which Will support foundation loads directly. · ....,.. SOUTHERN . ~ 1 CALIFORNIA ,, _ ~-GEOTECHNiCAL ... · B.ressl Ranch, Lots 10-i:3 • Carlsbad: CA ' Project No. 07G227·-l' Page23 -t .•. Where the soils on the toe side of the retaining wall are not covered by a "hard" surface such as a structure or pavement, the upper 1 foot of soil should be neglected when calculating passive resistance due to the potential for the material to become disturbed or degraded during the life of the structure. Retaining Wall Foundation Design Retaining walls should be supported within newly placed structural fill monitored during placement by the geotechnical engineer. Where retaining walls are also serving as building walls, they should be graded in accordance with the recommendations presented in Section 6.3 of this report for the proposed building pad areas. Foundations to support new retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the general Foundation Design Parameters presented in a previous section of this report. Backfill Material It is recommended that a minimum 1 foot thick layer of free-draining granular material (less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve) should be placed against the face of the retaining walls. This material should be approved by the geotechnical engineer. A suitable geotextile should be used to separate the layer of free draining granular material from the backfill soils. If the layer of free-draining material is not covered by an impermeable surface, such as a structure or pavement, a 12-inch thick layer of a low permeability soil should be placed over the backfill to reduce surface water migration to the underlying soils. All retaining wall backfill should be placed and compacted under engineering controlled conditions in the necessary layer thicknesses to ensure an in-place density between 90 and 93 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor test (ASTM D1557- 91). Care should be taken to avoid over-compaction of the soils behind the retaining walls, and the use of heavy compaction equipment should be avoided. Subsurface Drainage As previously indicated, the retaining wall design parameters are based upon drained backfill conditions. Consequently, some form of permanent drainage system will be necessary in conjunction with the appropriate backfill material. Subsurface drainage may consist of either: A weep hole drainage system typically consisting of a series of 4-inch diameter holes in the wall situated slightly above the ground surface elevation on the exposed side of the wall and at an approximate 8-foot on-center spacing. The weep holes should include a minimum 2 cubic foot gravel pocket surrounded by an appropriate geotextile fabric at each weep hole location. • A 4-inch diameter perforated pipe surrounded by 2 cubic feet of gravel per linear foot of drain placed behind the retaining wall, above the footing. The gravel drain should be wrapped in a suitable geotextile fabric to reduce the potential for migration of fines. The footing drain should be extended to daylight or tied into a storm drainage system. Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G227-1 Page 24 6.8 Pave·ment Design .Rarameters Slte. preparation in the pavement area should be completed as previously recommended in the -$ite Grading R,ecommehdatio(ls section. of this report:. The subsequent preliminary pavement recommendations assume proper drainage and construction monitorin_g, and are based on either PCA or ·CALTRANS design par13meters for a twenty (20) year design period. These preliminary designs also assume a routine, pavement rnaintenan~e prograr:n to ,obtain the 20-year pavement ·service life. · · · Pavement Subg_rades It is anticipated that the new pavements will be primarily supported on a layer of compacted structural fill, consisting of scarified, thorougtily· moisture conditioned and recompacted native materials and/or fill soils. _The on-site ~oil~· g~qerally consist of s.andy clays and sandy clay,s. These soils are considered to possess fair pavement :support characteristics with R-values bf 10 to 20.. Sine§! R-value testjng was r,iot included in the ~tape of services for this project, the subsequent .pavement design is based upon an assumed R.:.value of is. Any fill material imported to the site. should have support characteristj'cs equal to or greater than that of the on~site soils and. be placed and q>mp9~ted LJnder engineering controlled .conditions. It is recommended that R-value testing be performed after completion of rough grading. Depending upon the results .of the R-valtJe testing, it may be feasible to use thinner pavement sections in some areas of the site·. · Asphaltic C::oncrete The pavement designs are based on the traffic. indices (Tl's} indicated. The client and/or civil engineer should verify that these Tl's are representative of the; anticipated traffic volumes. If the client and/or civil engineer determine that the expected traffic volume will exceed those recommended herein, we should be contacted for supplementary recommendations. The design traffic .indices equate to the following approxi'mate dally traffic volomes over a 20-year design life, assµming 5 operational traffic c;lays. per week: ' -' .. Traffic tndex '·' No. ·of :Heavy Trucks per Day 4.0 .. 0 " 5.0 1 . ' .. 6.0· 3 ' 7.0 11 For the purposes of the tr13ffic volumes above, a true!< is defined ;:1s a 5,.axle tractor-trailer unit, with one 8-kip axle and two 32-kip tandem axles. All. of the traffic .indices allow for 1000 automobiles per day. Presented below are the recommended thicknesses for riew flexible pavement structures. consisting of asphaltic concrete over a ·gram,ilar base. · It should b_e noted that the TI = 5;:Q section only allows· for i truck per .day. Therefore,. .pll significant heavy truck traffic must be excluded from areas where this-thinner pavement section is w~eo;: otherwise premature pavement distress may occur. \;1111111' SOUTHERN ~ 1 CALIFORNIA ,. ._... ..G.~OTE_Q:!~.K!1 Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -Carl?bad, CA Project No. 0?G227-1 · Page,25 ., . ' ASPHALT PAVEMENTS Thickness (inches) Materials Auto Parking Auto Drive Light Truck Moderate Lanes Traffic Truck Traffic (TI= 4.5) ITT= 5.5) (11 = 6.0) (TI= 7.0) Asphalt Concrete 4 4 4 4 Aggregate Base 5 8 10 13 Compacted Subgrade 12 12 12 12 (90% minimum comoaction) The aggregate base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the Marshall maximum density, as determined by ASTM D-2726. The aggregate base course may consist of crushed aggregate base (CAB) or crushed miscellaneous base (CMB), which is a recycled gravel, asphalt and concrete material. The gradation, R-Value, Sand Equivalent, and Percentage Wear of the CAB or CMB should comply with appropriate specifications contained in the current edition of the "Greenbook" Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. Portland Cement Concrete The preparation of the subgrade soils within concrete pavement areas should be performed as previously described for proposed asphalt pavement areas. Since significant portions of the granitic bedrock are expected to be removed .around the perimeters of the proposed structures where the Portland cement concrete pavements will be located, the pavement design presented below is based on the presence of existing or newly placed compacted structural fill immediately beneath the proposed pavement subgrade elevation. The minimum recommended thicknesses for the Portland Cement Concrete pavement sections are as follows: PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENTS Thickness (inches) Materials Drive Lanes (TI = Moderate Truck Automobile Parking 5 .5) and Light Truck Traffic (TI =4.5) Traffic (TI= 7.0) (TI= 6.0) PCC 5 5½ 7 Compacted Subgrade 12 12 12 (95% minimum compaction) The concrete should have a 28-day compressive strength of at least 3,000 psi. Reinforcing within all pavements should consist of at least heavy welded wire mesh (6x6-W2.9xW2.9 WWF) placed at mid-height in the slab. In areas underlain by expansive soils, the reinforcement should Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G227-1 Page 26 j be increased to Nb. 4 bars .. at 18 inches on center. The maximurtl' joint :spacing within all ,of the PCC pavements i$ recommended to be equal to .or less than 30 times the pavement thickness. · PJjf · SOUTHERN' ,. -CALIFORNIA ...... _ .. :G~OT.m!N,I£~t· Bi-!!?Si Ranch, Lots 10-B -Carlstiad; CA -Project No. 07G227~1 PaQe,27 · l. 7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS This report has been prepared as an instrument of service for use by the client in order to aid in the evaluation of this property and to assist the architects and engineers in the design and preparation of the project plans and specifications. This report may be provided to the contractor(s) and other design consultants to disclose information relative to the project. However, this report is not intended to be utilized as a specification in and of itself, without appropriate interpretation by the project architect, structural engineer, and/or civil engineer. The reproduction and distribution of this report must be authorized by the client and Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. Furthermore, any reliance on this report by an unauthorized third party is at such party's sole risk, and we accept no responsibility for damage or loss which may occur. The analysis of this site was based on a subsurface profile interpolated from limited discrete soil samples. While the materials encountered in the project area are considered to be representative of the total area, some variations should be expected between boring locations and sample depths. If the conditions encountered during construction vary significantly from those detailed herein, we should be contacted immediately to determine if the conditions alter the recommendations contained herein. This report has been based on assumed or provided characteristics of the proposed development. It is recommended that the owner, client, architect, structural engineer, and civil engineer carefully review these assumptions to ensure that they are consistent with the characteristics of the proposed development. If discrepancies exist, they should be brought to our attention to verify that they do not affect the conclusions and recommendations contained herein. We also recommend that the project plans and specifications be submitted to our office for review to verify that our recommendations have been correctly interpreted. The analysis, conclusions, and recommendations contained within this report have been promulgated in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering practice. No other warranty is implied or expressed. ~ SOUTHERN .,.,., 1 CALIFORNIA ~ ······-··· G_EQTE@.JIU~~t Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G227-1 Page 28 POOR QUALITY ORIGINAL S SOURCE: SAN DIEGO COUNTY THOMAS GUIDE, 2007 SITE LOCATION MAP BRESSI RANCH INDUSTRIAL PARK 1" = 2400' DRAWN: TRS CHKO:GKM SCGPROJECT 07G226-1 PLATE1 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA ~ SOUTHERN "iltlV CALIFORNIA ~· GEOTECHNICAL -~, \ \'-.,_ rn ·.\' ' (') .\ -!' -~ ,>i\ -•Z \o : i-:;o 'I rn ' \ )::> ... r-·,~i ~\ ' l -.' ,. .. - ·i: ) ! +' i ;;q i ' i I , • ! . t ! . ., II 'i ., :Si i ~t J Ii ., 1, ,! if ~l 'fl Ir \ I \ I \ \ I \ __ ,,.,-- ,/ _,,_,.,..r--'" •• -:----:--"' :,:__,-'c--~----------- Afe -ENGINEERED FILL· . Tsa -SANTIAGO.FORMATION Gf;Ol,.PG!G CONTACT . NO~-BASE MAR PROVIDED BY ~MITH CON?ULTir-/G ARCHITECTS BORING LOCATION P.l:AN BRESSI RANCH INDUSTRIAL PARK . CARLSBAD, CAUFORNIA: _ . scm,,-..... • . SOUTHERN ~="~ ' · . ' CALIFORNIA -·~,:O~t · • . GEOTECHNl~AL • I, I i_ ... i . i I :BORlNG L·O·G LEGEND SAMPLE TYPE GRAPHICAL SYMBOL SAMPl;.E· DESCRIPTION AUGER . · .SAMPLE.COlLECJED FROM AUGER CUTTINGS, NO . FIEtb MEASUREMENT OF SOIL STRENGTH. (D!STURBEP), CORE GRAB cs SPT SH VANE COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS DEPTH: ·SAMPLE: BLOW COUNT-: POCKET PEN.:· GRAPHIC LOG: DRY DENSITY: MOISTURE CONTENT: LIQUID :L.IMiT: PLASTIC LIMIT: PASSING.#200. SIEVE: UNCONFINED SHEAR: . . co·.· . . . . R'QC::K CORE l3Al\1PLE: TYPICALLY TAKENWITH A 'DIAMOND-TIPPED CORE BARREL. TYPICALLY USED ONtY IN HIGHLY CONSOLIDATED BEDROCK. SOIL SAMPLE TAKENWITH NO SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT.'SUCH AS FROM A STOCKPILE OR THE GROUND SURFAC~. (DISTURBED) · CALIFORNIA SAMPLER: .2-1/2 INC!i I.D. SPLIT . . 'BARREL SAMPl:ER, LINED WITH 1-INCH HIGH BRASS RINGS.·DRIVENWITH SPT HAMMER. (REl,ATIVELY Ut-{DISTURBED) STANDARD PENETRATION T~ST· SAMPLER IS A 1.4 INCH INSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT BARREL, DRIVEN 18 INCHES'WITH THlfSPJ HAMMER (DISTURBED) SHEBLY TUBE: TAKEN WiTH A THIN WALL SAMPLE TUBE, PUSHED INTO TH.E SOIL AND THEN . EXTRAC::JED. (UNDISTUB.BED) · ·VANE SHEAR TEST: SOil STRENGH OBTAINED . USIN_G·A4 ~LADEQ' SHEAF(DEVICE. TYPICALLY .. USED. IN'SQFT·CLAYS,NO SAMPLE RECOVERED. Distance in feet belo\idhe ~rouno surf~ce. ·sample Type as depicted above. · Number of blow required to pdvance .the s~mpler 12 inches using a 14n lb hammer with a. 30;.inc:h: drop. 50/3" indicates penetration refusal E>50 'blows) at 3. jnches. WH ih.dic:ates· that tlw: weig'ht.of the hammer was sufficient to push the ·sampler 6 inches or more. Approxirnat~ shear strength of a cohesive soil'sample as measured, by .pocket penetrometer .. Gra·phic· Soit Symbol as depictecfon the following_ page. Dry 9ens.ity of an undisturbed.or relatively• un·disturbed sample. Moisture c:ontent df a soil sample,. expressed as a percentage of the dry weight.. fhe moisture content abo~e Which a .. sQil. beh·aves a~ a liquid. The moistµre cootent above·which a. soil behav~s as a plastic. Tt,e .percentage of the sample finer than the.#200 standard sieve . . The shear strength ofa cohesiye sou.sample, as.measured in the unconfined· state. ; t • SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS LARGER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE FINE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS SMALLER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE GRAVEL AND GRAVELLY SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4SIEVE SAND AND SANDY SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING ON NO. 4SIEVE SILTS AND CLAYS SILTS AND CLAYS CLEAN GRAVELS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) GRAVELS WITH FINES (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) CLEAN SANDS SANDS WITH FINES {APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50 LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50 HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS SYMBOLS GRAPH LETTER ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,,1, ' ,, I, ,\ 1, ,\ 1, ,, 1, GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH PT NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND- SILT MIXTURES CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND- CLAY MIXTURES WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO FINES SIL TY SANDS, SAND -SILT MIXTURES CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SIL TS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS ORGANIC SIL TS AND ORGANIC SIL TY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILTY SOILS INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS JOB NO.: 07G227 • . . . SOUTHERN CAUFORNtA ,. GEOTE~HNI~AL PROJECT: Bressi,PA 3 Lots 10-13 LOCATION: Carls~ad! CaUfor'nia DRILLING DATE: 12/28/07 DRILL'.INGMETHOD: Ho!low Stem Auger LOGGED BY: Tim Smith . FIELD RESULTS ~ I-:i z UJ' ~ :::> ·o... w 0 I-(.) ±I: it UJ I-.~ ~u::-, ::lE ·a:. UJ ' <( ~ ·o ti) Cl (/)_ ' Ill o..t:. 77 · 15 (!) 0 ..J (.) :i: a. ~ (!) DESCRIPTION. SURFACE ELEVATION: 304 feet M9~ . SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: White Sandy Siltstone, some lrori oxide staining, friaple, very,dense,damp tight Gray tp .Light Brown Siltstone, trace fine Sandy Si!t layers, ·soi:ne Clay, thinly bedded; some calcareous·.nodules, very dense-da.mp to moist Light Gray to Light Brown Silty. Sandstone, some Iron oxide staining, friable, very dense-damp · · Light 'Brown .Sandy Siltstone·, some calcareous veining, friable, very dense-damp to moist Bo_ring Terminated .at 19½'' BORING NO., a:-1 WATER DEPTH: pry CAVE DEPTH: j3feet READING TAKEN: At Completion · LABORATORY RES UL TS ~ ~ ~ CJ~ wu.: (/) u5 ' UJ~ (!)~ 'z //), I-z o:1-(.) ii: t:. z w ::,Z, z!:!d UJ ,-w Cl t;1-zo:: Cl~-ti) I--//)' 8uS ~ -1-ti) 0 -u. ::::,_ :r: >-(.) -Z :5 :iE ti) 0 :0: a. Oo O:E a:~ z:c 0 Cl-:Eu ::J :::i 0. ::J ::::,, ti) 0 ma· 11 . 111 13 109, 17 106 12 107: 20 14 19 PLATE B-1 JOB NO.: 07G227 • SOUTHERN CALJFORN)A • GEOTE~~~~~-~~ DRILLING DATE: 12/28/07 PROJECT: Bressi PA 3 Lots 10-13 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger LOCATION: Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY: Tim Smith FIELD RES UL TS r=-I-:i (!) z 0 w w DESCRIPTION w ::, a. .J !=, 0 I-t) w 0 :i: :c .J w ~ I-a. :?i:::-a. a. ~ 0 OLL ~ w ~ ...I ~~ SURFACE ELEVATION: 306 feet MSL 0 ro (!) ).-:_~./:::~ FILL: Light Brown to Brown fine Sand, trace medium Sand, X 25 :i::/?. trace Silt, trace Iron oxide staining, medium dense-moist -:·~'//:) ~ -:: ~\ ·::-:: 22 .-:·,::·::::-_: ·-· .. ·.· 5 ·:.::/·.~-::~ .· .. ,:. :. :.·' FILL: Orange to Gray Silty fine Sand, trace medium Sand, ...-· ... :·._::: ~ 45 ·, ... :-: dense-moist \(:\ 2S SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Light Gray to Light 40 Brown Silty fine Sandstone, some Iron oxide staining, dense-moist 10- ~ 26 15 « I Red Brown Siltstone, trace fine Sand, trace calcareous R 39 veining, dense-moist to very moist Boring Terminated at 19½' TEST BORING LOG WATER DEPTH: BORING NO. 8-2 Dry CAVE DEPTH: 16 feet READING TAKEN: At Completion LABORATORY RESULTS ->-~ ~ 0-I-~ WLL 0 (/) in w~ w Z(/) I- z a:'. I-t) (!)> u: I::, z ::,Z z!:!:! w w 1-W 0 j:: z 0:: 0--(/) :a: >-u. (/) I--1-(/) I-(/)0 8iti ~ -Z ::,_ ::s~ (/) 0 o;:O oo O::l: <(N z:c 0 oe:. ::l:O :J :J a.:J 0.'ll: ::, (/) 0 12 16 14 16 21 28 PLATE 8-2 • . SOUTHERN . CALIFORNIA y GEO!E~HNI~~~ JOB.NO.: .07G227 DRILLING DATE: 1'2/28/07 : PRO~ECT: Bressi PA 3 t:ots 10-13 LOCATION: C~rlsbad, Califqrnia· PRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger LOGGEp BY: Tim Sn,ith FIE~D RES UL TS ,:::-!z z 0 w LU g LU ::, . a.. !::. w 0 Iii (..) u· :i: ::c: ...J ~. t a..· ~= a.. ~· 0 (..) LL .c2 w c75 ..:J ow ('.:) cq q,. t::. .. 0 DESCRIPTION SURFAGE l;LEVATION:· 307 feet MSL BORING NO~ .. :B-3· WATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: 16feet READING TAKEN: At Com!)le\idn .. LABORATORY RESULTS .. · ~ ~ Cl) ·Wl-z :~z w :::lw O,..._ l-1- >-LL ~z .~u Oo oe:..:::;·u Cl) 1-z w ~ ~ 0 µ 65 · FILL:Brown fine Sand, som~ Silt, some Shell fra.gl'.l1ents, little Clay, some Iron oxide staining, dense·to very dense-damp-to moi1;,t . 107 9 "' ·o ~' l-g 0 l\l ;..J 5 0 (I) fu I ...J 5 10 15 SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Light Gray Silty Sandstone; fr~c~ rti'ediuni Sal')d,dense~moist SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: GrayfineSaridy Siltstone, fril3ble, dense-moist . . Boring Terminated.at 19½' 107 18 109 13 · 107 14 111 . 14 106 16 107 18 . g!.....___._,_.,... _ _.__.,..._--'--..__ ____ --' ____ "--______ __,_'--......... --........; ___ i.....;.. ......... _...:....,,.._....___..._____._-"-_-,... __ ___, TEST BORING LOG· PLAtE B-3 ~ SOUTHERN ~ CALIFORNIA ..., GEOTECHNICAL BORING NO. B-4 JOB NO.: 07G227 DRILLING DATE: 12/28/07 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: Bressi PA 3 Lots 10-13 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 12 feet LOCATION: Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY: Tim Smith READING TAKEN: At Completion FIELD RESULTS LABORATORY RESULTS ~ i=' I-z C!) ~ ~ ~ o~ w z w 0 DESCRIPTION 0 WLL (/) w ::, 0.. _J ci5 w~ w z(I) I- !::.. 0 (.) z a:: I-(.) e9> ii: t:. z w (.) I-:i: w ::,Z z!!! w :r: _J s w 0~ 1-W 0 ~I--(/) Za:: ~ I-0.. ~~ a. (/) I--1-(/)0 Oce 0.. ~ 0 (.) LL ~ >-LL -Z ::,_ ::s ~ ~o ow ~ w c( _J QC/) SURFACE ELEVATION: 304 feet MSL a::0 oo 0 :a: z:r: 0 0 (/) OJ 0. t:. C!) oe:.. ~(.) :::i ::J a. :::i o.~ ::, (/) l) ~ FILL: Brown Clayey fine Sand, trace medium Sand, trace [X 18 ~ Shell fragments, medium dense-moist 19 I t>< 20 17 5 ~-1- R -:· :: ,:: FILL: Light Brown Silty fine Sand, trace calcareous veining, 26 -:·::::-:· trace Iron oxide staining, medium dense-moist 15 '•: ,. '--·:· ::-:: :-·:·,.: x SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Gray Silty Sandstone, 23 little Clay, thinly bedded, friable, medium dense to 12 dense-damp to moist 10-I-- -[X 32 24 v Boring Terminated at 15' TEST BORING LOG PLATE 8-4 JOB NO:: 07G227 • SOUTHERN. . CALIFo'RNIA -,., . . GEOTtCHNICAL DRILLING DATE: 12/28/07 PROJECT; Bressi PA 3 Lots 10°·13 LOCATION: ¢arlsbad, GaJifqrnia· DRILLING METHOD: Hollov(Stem Auger LOGGED BY: Tim Smith FIELD R!=SULTS '. r=-·~ : z IJJ ::::i ·UJ ~ 0 a. ±: ' ...la.UJ ' u tu I-~ ·:.:: ~ a..~ o uu..· ,IJJ <( ..J ·Q(/) 0 , '(/) : OJ a.t_ 5 10 15 0 0 ,...1 u :i: a. ·~ ·O· .. D.ESCRIPTION SURFACE EL_EVATION: 309 Jeet MS!- FILL: Br.own Clayey fine Sand, some Silt; .some·lrori oxide staining, moderately cemehtei;I, medium ·dense-dar:np· SANTIAG0'F0RMAT10N·BEDR0CK:. Brown;Gray Sandstone, friable, some !ron oxide staining, medJur:n dense-damp .to moist SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Gray fine Sani;ly Siltstone, little Clay; some Iron oxide staining; medium den~e-moist SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: <;3ray Sani;ly Siltstone, ·friable, dense to very derise~molst , .. . SANTIAGOFORMATION,.BEDROCK: Gray Silty Sandstone, trace Iron oxide staining, fr'lable; dens~-moist Boring Terminated at. j 9½' TEST BQRIN.G LOG BORING NO~· B-5 WATER DEPTH: Dcy CAVE DEPTH: 15 feet .READING TAKEN: ,At Qompletioh . LABORATORY RESULTS >* I -~ 0-!:: · ~ .._., WLL (/) IJJI-~.~~ .Z 0:: Z U 0 UJ U.. ._, -~ ~IJJ .Q i= ~Ul ZO;tnO::: . ·~ (1)1-::::; '-·(I) I-:-.::a U · ,>,,IJ.. -z ..JI.. ,t;f'.-v, !i:& Oo O:E ..J~ c(~ z::c · ·o -· :E.u :J :::i a. :J · a.. ;i, , ::>. (/)· 109 8 107. 8 99 15 101 20 111 15 . 14 18 El·= 54 @ 0 to 5' CXl ~ l-o (.!) ci w ~ 0 Cl) -, a. (.!) ~ I:; .., :,. Y SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA BORING NO. ,, GEOTE~HNI~-~-L JOB NO.: 07G227 DRILLING DATE: 12/28/07 WATER DEPTH: Dry DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 16 feet PROJECT: Bressi PA 3 Lots 10-13 LOCATION: Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY: Tim Smith READING TAKEN: At Completion FIELD RESULTS j'.:" I-z UJ z UJ w ::::> 0.. !::-0 UJ (.) I- :i:: ...J UJ 0.. ~ ~~ I-0.. ~ (.) LL w <( ...I oen 0 en 0) o..l:::.. 5 10 15 0 0 ...J (.) r 0.. ~ (.') DESCRIPTION SURFACE ELEVATION: 308 feet MSL SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Gray Silty Sandstone, friable, abundant Iron oxide staining, dense-damp to moist SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Light Brown to Gray Claystone, trace to some fine Sand, some Iron oxide staining, friable, very stiff to hard-moist Boring Terminated at 19½' LABORATORY RESULTS ~ ~ C O~ 0 UJLL en ci5 w~ w zen I-z 0:: I-(.')> -1-z ::J z (.) z!:!:! LL~ LU LU 1-W 0 t:51- zo:: 0~ -en 8t5 ~ enl--1-eno >-LL -Z ::J_ ::i~ enc ~ 0:: (.) oo 0~ <CN z:c 0 oe::-:z (.) :::i:::i o..:J 0.. =1:1: ::::> en (.) 20 11 19 20 18 23 B-6 ~ ,....__......i_..____, _ ___... _ _..,_ ____________________ .____.,_ _ _..,_ _ _,__..,___.____,_ ____ ______ TEST BORING LOG PLATE 8-6 ! . ,.-· -sounrnRN , I • • • , CALIFORNIA ... · ,_ GEOTECHNIC_AL JOB NO., 07-G227 DRILLING DATE: 12/28/07 PROJECT, Bressi'PA 3 Lots 10-13 LOC:ATION: . Carlsbaq, California DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger l.,OGGED BY:,, 1!m Smith · FIEtD RESULTS co ~. ~ I-' c· (!) 0 w I ~, <( u 0 <JJ ~ (!) ~ ~ 0 .J a, r::-w UJ,. ~ lJj, ' i::: ...I a.: !l.., :!?! lJj <C 0 (/)" 5 10 15 .... :i z lJj :, a.: 0 ·i::-(:) § UJ . ::.i:~ .uu. -0·(£_, co , !l.. • .. (:) 0 ...I (.) :i: !l.. ~ (9 DESCRIPTION SURFACE EL,EVAT!ON: .312· feet 'MSL SANTIAGO FORMATION:BEDROCK: Gray Silty fjne·grained . Sandstone, little Iron oxide staining, dense-moist SANTIAGO-FORMATION BEDROCK:. Gray Silty fine Qr?ined Sandstone, some ·Iron oxide,staining, trace medium Sand, very ,qense-damp,to moist 13orir:ig,Terminated at 19½' , BORING NO.'l- 8--7 WATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: 15 feet READING TAKEN: At Corhpleiion LABORATORY RESUL ts . . 105 15 . 103 12 104 11 107 13 109 , 14 18 23 "~ d--..., LU U. .. lJj z ,(/) (9 (ij ii: ti z-_.z,.,,, -en o"'-~ 0 (.) u)' <Co ·z::r: a.: ~ , :, (/) 1-o..:.·_...,___......__.......,,__. ____ .....l..-'--........;;.------"'----------"'------------'-'--..J---'---:.....O....,.;,_--'--....i....--.__ ___ __. TEST BORING LOG PLATE 8-7 ~ ~ 5 (!) d w (!) ~ 0 <I) .., a. (!) § t, JOB NO.: 07G227 • SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ~ GEOTESHNI~-~~ BORING NO. 8~8 DRILLING DATE: 12/28/07 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: Bressi PA 3 Lots 10-13 LOCATION: Carlsbad, California DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 16 feet LOGGED BY: Tim Smith READING TAKEN: At Completion FIELD RES UL TS LABORATORY RESULTS ....... (!) i=-f-z ~ ~ ~ o ....... w z w 0 DESCRIPTION 0 wu. en w ::, a. ..J rn w~ UJ zcn f- !:::, w 0 f-(.) z 0:: f-(.) 0> iI: t:, z (.) :i: ::,Z z!:!:l UJ ::i:: ..J w w f-w 0 t3f- zo:: $ 0--(I) ~ f-a. li<::-a. rnf--f-C/)0 8~ a. ~ 0 (.) lJ. ~ >-u. -z ::,_ ~ w <( QC/) 0::0 oo 0~ :s~ C/)0 z:c 0 ..J SURFACE ELEVATION: 314 feet MSL ~~ 0 Cl) ro a.c (!) o!:!::. ~(.) :::i::::i a. ::::i :)(I) (.) SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Orange to Gray fine grained Sandstone, some Silt, dense to very dense-moist 14 14 5 13 17 10 21 15 16 Boring Terminated at 19½' ..J ID I-L-----'---JL....-__,J__...,1-._.L-__________________ ___,, _ _,___....L-_.l..-___. _ _,1,.,._..J._ ____ _, TEST BORING LOG PLATE 8-8 Consolidation/Collapse Test Results 0 -, ,__ -..... .. I' ~-~ I Water Added I 2 I at 1600 psf l 4 I 4~ ·, ... . :~ . ' .. . . ""' ' .. .. .. .. . . . . . . ~ 6 ... .. . . . ' 0 .......... .. . .. C ~ .. .. ' .. ·e l".' , .• . · . ... .. . .... .. ~ ~--, : .. .. ,· .. · --; .. .. '· . .. en .. .. . ;, .· :·· ' .• '· C .. ,.:: ;··: ::,-:· >r-.:. ... : · .. •., :.l .• ··: ,: ,Q 8 "'r-..... ro :E 0 -II) C I 0 10 .. (.) .. ... ·.·.· : .. : : 12 : :: •' ... :; . .. : .. .. : · . .. 14 16 • 0.1 1 10 100 Load (ksf) Classification: FILL: Brown fine Sand, some Silt, some Shell material Boring Number: B-3 Initial Moisture Content(%) 8 Sample Number: ---Final Moisture Content(%) 18 Depth (ft) 1 to 2 Initial Dry Density (pct) 109.3 Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pct) 119.5 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse(%) 2.40 Bressi PA 3 Lots 10-13 ~GEJ!~l~1~1~ Carlsbad, California Project No. 07G227 PLATE C-1 -.---· ·· :\:·.-;.7;j,;,,;;,n,·.,,,.,,-,::,11, · Consolidation/Collapse Test Results 0 +-. -~· ---,-,-~.,...,_,-,----,--,.--,-,'-,' ,-'-.,' ---,----,,,-,...,----.--....-,---,-,-,,------,---r---r----,.----.--,--r.-r--, lL _.---,~~,--... __ :_. ___ <,"'··.·L:-·. , .. •' I .... ;:: . . :, •. :-:;,._ ·, _-......;~-·_:. __ ·.· ,.• f"-,... ' 4 ---f----!--+--!--4---l-4-1-4----+----'--l--l--f'-<+--+-+-++----t--+---+---+--+-l-+-H ..... ,'' . I'-, • , 1. . ' ,'• .\• ',· . \: .:· ..... :, .. ·· . .'_!: . ~ .. 14 +------l--+---+--!--+-,l-+--,i-1-,-----,-+,--+---il--+--l-+-l--l'-+-~----'+--+,-+-+--'--l-,-I-H .. :'i'.'·. ·1 • • •• ' •• ,• '· .: .· 16 +'..:...· --,-'---'--'-_._-'--'----'--'--'-+-'-+-'-----'--.....,....,,..-,.,..--'------+_._~---t---_._-.,__~~_._~ 6.1 10 L9a1;I (!(sf)· Classificc1tion: Flt.L: Brown fine Sand, some Silt, some Shell material Boring Number:. ·sample Number; _Depth .(ft) Specimen ·Piameter (in) Specimen thickness (in) ,!3-3 $ to 4 2A 1,,.Q Initial' Mo.isture Content(%) Final Moisture Content(%) Initial Dry Oensity (pcf) Final Dry Density '(pcf) Percent Collapse (%) 100 18 25 104.9 110·.6 0.37 Bressi PA 3 Lots 10-13 · Carlsbad, -California ProJect No. 07G227 _ ~OUTHERN CALIFORNIA . -;PLAT~C-2 Consolidation/Collapse Test Results °ĎF====.:==i:-11TTTT1-1111TTTTI1-T111rrm ~ .._ i--,,__ '--r----....._ ··. : I I 1 --. Water Added I 2 +----+-+--+--+-+-+-1--H-----:l._1:-+--+-11 at 1600 psf 11----1---1----1-----l--1--1-+--1-i -.........'--- .. ·. ' ... 1 4 +--~-+--+-:--..+. -· .+-+-+--+-++' ---+---1-----+'-.i.-*':: ··,..,,· -'. ···r-· 'H-1----+----,f--t--+-+-++-H , ·:,. : .. :.::·:· .· .•. <\;'..;'· :_ ·:'._-'i0~i·::-,. .. ·. : : .. "':-; ·.· ~6+---~--+---+-~-1-14:-+-----4--~-+-~~~,·~~--~~·:·~-1--1--~--t--~~ ~ - . ; 12 +---+--+---l--~-I-IH-+--~----+~1--+--1-++-H------:-t---+--+--+-+-+-++-i 14 -l--------1----1---l---l--l----l-l--1---+----1-----+---l--+---!-~l-l------l----!--l-~l-+-++-l 0.1 Classification: Boring Number: Sample Number: Depth (ft) Specimen Diameter (in) Specimen Thickness (in) Bressi PA 3 Lots 10-13 Carlsbad, California Project No. 07G227 PLATE C-3 8-3 --- 5 to 6 2.4 1.0 10 100 Load (ksf) BEDROCK: Light Gray Silty Sandstone Initial Moisture Content(%) Final Moisture Content (%) Initial Dry Density (pcf) Final Dry Density (pcf) Percent Collapse (%) 13 19 108.9 116.8 0.45 .... ! Consolidation/Collapse i:est :Results 0 . --....";~:· 2 -1-----l-----+,--l-.:...J--.JL..' -l-l-:+r-.+=r---....:::,.."c"-.._.-=···--;.-4· =· =:±:::i~·v.'iw.:tai=er7Ad~dit:ed~1- 1 . --+---1---11-+-l--l-l--l-l · .J... ~ -I at 1600 psf '-....... ' 4 r"· ---,-----i---t--+-t-1-H-,--,-----i~r-. ·-'-,-. .,..,_·t:::--t--t,'---'!--+-r-i-t-~--i---;----i----;--t-t-t-t-t ,. ' I'. .. -• . •• '!• ~. . : -=·· 0:1 10 Load'(ksf) Classification: BEDROCK: 4igl:tt Gray 8ilty Sands.tone . Boring Number: S~mple N1.,1mber: ',D~pth (ft) : Specimen biameter (in) Specimen Thlckr,iess (in) · Bressi PA .3 Lots 1 o~1'3 · Carlsbad,. California Project No. 07G227 .PLATE C-4 ' J;3-3 7 to 8 2.4 1:0 Initial .Moisture Content(%) Final Moisture Content(%) ,Initial· Dry Density (pcf) Final Dry :D.ensity (pcry Percent Collapse·(%) ,100 13 ·t9 108.1 117.2 0.62 j Consolidation/Collapse Test Results 0 .,....-----,--~~-.-,-,--.--.-.-----,.--....---r--...,......-,----.---,.--,-,.---,---,--,--,--,----,--,.~ fL . . .... . · :~0,~ .-;, .... ;_:_,· .::--.;·{( ~-· ... :_-/i ._:. :' t· · 2 +-----+--t----1--'4----'l++-'+~-'-:, _---,c-+.--,-;;,.'r., . '--:--. -+-r,r-,rl,, .'-'-I. c-+-f._ -,t-. ---'~-· • .,-t:--"" '---:1--t:--t-t-+.-'H · ···; · .·:, . . .. , /: Water Added I . . . . . _.. l.....,__-,.a__,t 1.-60,_0,-ps ....... f _.,l1-----J-:--+-'-+--1-+--,.t--,--H :,! ··.: '··t ... 4 +-----+--+---+--+--1-+--i-,+-,f-'----+~ .. ,I.,-.: --,-_ • + ... ~ . .,+,. _--1---+-1-+-1 _ _. -+.. ----'--+--+--+--t-+-1--+-H ..... :_: .. . . . ... ... ~ . -~ . ,· .• : . . . ~ • =i·, :: •• •• . . .. . •' .... ·· . · .. :· ':_: : :· ·., ·i .: .· .. _ -:::·.·· ,·: :: 14 +-----+--+--+--+--f-l-++-t------1---+.---+"·-· +· --'-J-t-,--f-1--1----+---+--+-+--+-+-++-t 16 --~-~~~~--'--'--ct----~-~~~~'-'-;---~-~~~~--'--1 0.1 Classification: Boring Number: Sample Number: Depth (ft) Specimen Diameter (in) Specimen Thickness (in) Bressi PA 3 Lots 10-13 Carlsbad, California Project No. 07G227 PLATE C-5 8-5 1 to 2 2.4 1.0 10 100 Load (ksf) FILL: Brown fine Sand, some Silt Initial Moisture Content(%) Final Moisture Content (%) Initial Dry Density (pcf) Final Dry Density (pcf) Percent Collapse (%) 9 17 104.2 117.3 3.04 ' ., Consolidation/Collapse Test Results 0 ,----,.------,----,---.---,-.,---,-,-..--~----,-.---,,--',,-.,..,--,-,...,.,-,-,--,----,----,---,----,---,-.....--,--..,_,..c., : . : f .. · •.. •! .. :,,:'' :, : .. -,,-.r-,,,., . . ,·:··' 2 +-----+---,--+--+-'-+--'-c+-+--++-+-~---"-'--. ·,-'Ft'-· '!(_. ·-=--==:::::' Water Aqded )1----,----1-.c----+---+--+--1-+-+-l-'I .. 1 at 160Q psf 1 . . · .. : ,,,,:::-~K~ .... -l' 6-i----t---t---+--+--t-t-+++--,------t---+-'-1,--,,.rr. --111~:r-t-·t-t--.---+--+--t-+-+--+-t-~ C: ; .-1\: . . . . ·; ', •,' ··, . £ ... .· .. :·'-. .. .. , .. '_ '. ', . . i. 8 4-' ---'-'-,---1----l-4---!-+--+c+++---,--· ·"'+: ·_,_,: ='.,...+..::','-\;"-c':l'-'<;'-1'~' ''-,': :~+-:,:;+-: ::+~ \+-,:Jt+-,~,,>,;:~,~\:'- 0 ·'.':-:: _.·+>~-/'-;',.4:<_-'-'-..;),;.;..,(;,..:,,)~:2 ;-c.,;,..,:~:....,.:)-'l"">s-l,-; ::;--. :E· ~ ' . ' ~ . ~ . 8 10 +---,----,------t--+--t---b'--f-1-.,;-f--t-----,---f-. -t-:-, -:-.. t-:-, -l-1-t--t-t-t---. .. ,-,-, ----:r,, ,--..,, ~;,:-+."; :-· ,--:1-,-j-1-t-,t-t-1 12+----,--t,--+--+-c-+-+-+--++-+-,----+-.,..+--+--+-+-+--++-t---'---+--+--+--+--+-+-+--H 0.1 10 Load (ksf) Classification: Bt:DROCK: Brown Gray Sandstone ·Boring Number: Sample Number: Oepth (ft) • Specimen Diameter '(ln) Specimen ·thickness (in) B-'6 3-to 4 2.4 1.Q Initial-Moisture 'Content(%) Final.Moisture Content(%) Initial Dry Density(pcf) Final Dry Density· (pcf) Percent Collapse (%) 100 8 22 105.3 111; 1 .1.20 Bressi PA 3 Lots .1:0~ 13 · Carlsbad, California Project N.o .. 07G227 ·PLATE C-·6 -~ SOUTHERN ·_. • . • . . CALIFORNIA . ~ ____ .. -· .. ·cEorEcifi~R:Ai. · T .:H. ·,1Ufc1111111'('otp1J1·,a:i,,i • ' Consolidation/Collapse Test Results r---h~- ""'r--...._ 2 ~-----l---l----l----l-1--W-W-~""1.::--t i==.:±:::J1 w:1:i:a;;t.te~r A~d~de~d --,. 1 _-.J.-----4_!H-J--I-I-I-I .. I at1600psf ' 4 -t-----+---i-,,,-..,.,..._' +-+··, -,>j---t-,+. +·· ;----,-4_,,,l'-I"· .. --;--·,.~:·-t-, -:-' .,-,;-, ,,_····+. .. -::-t' ·~·r:-,t--1-+-----t~---+---t---t.-h.-+-+."-""H .. :::·_.:: .. ;: ,·--:<> _:'-·:.'):~_\i:<(·:)~1::>'·.;,:._· . ' : .. ,;/; . .::.::\;f,:i·. ·. . :-: •• :· ·! , .. : .. · :·:· -:: . . -,·· .. .. . . · .. ··:. ..._ :· , ..... ·;·::: ·,· -~; : .. ··'. . . : .. --~ ... ' .: :·; . . . ,, . . . ',• ;•" '· 12 +----+---+---+--1-+-+-+-++---+--.--l-..,.--f--+--+--,_.l---l'-I-+-~-~-+,--'--+'-_-,+. -+-.. _+-H 0.1 Classification: Boring Number: Sample Number: Depth (ft) Specimen Diameter (in) Specimen Thickness (in) Bressi PA 3 Lots 10-13 Carlsbad, California Project No. 07G227 PLATE C-7 B-5 --- 5 to 6 2.4 1.0 10 100 Load (ksf) BEDROCK: Brown Gray Sandstone Initial Moisture Content(%) Final Moisture Content (%) Initial Dry Density (pcf) Final Dry Density (pcf) Percent Collapse (%) 15 28 97.3 107.4 1.47 -. . --... -' . , , . ,I ! Con$olidation/Coll_apse Tet?t Resu Its : ' I 0, l ----~ : k '' • _i,,;;;,,.__ . -..... ---~-~-.. . I Water Added l 2 at 1600 psf --'-...... I I IA ' -.... ' ' ' ' I",_ 4 ·, ,--,1-. " ,. --1, ~ ,, "-6 , •. '• e! ,, ,5, ~ ... . ti) . C 8' 0 --~ " :S! i5 U) '. 'C 10: 0 0 --" '. ' ' ,. ' ·- 12 ·. -. ' ', - 1.4 ,, I '. ---: 16 ', ·, 0;1 1 10 1Q0 Load-{ksf} -- Classification:, BEDROCK: Gray fine S·andy Silt$tone Bori'ng Numbe_r: B.:5 Initial Moistur,e Content(%) 1-8 Satnple Number: ---Final Moisture Co11tent (%) 21 Oepth (ft) 7 to 8 l11iti~I Ory Density (pcf) 102.9 : Specimen l)iameter (in) 2.4 F.inal Ory Density (pcf) 108.8 : Specimen Thickness (in} -1.(;} Percent Collapse (%) 0-.14 Bressi PA 3 lots 10.,.13 Y: SOUTHERN , Carlsbad California-CA i°I-FOilNi'A , , I Project No: 07G227 • , .. . -GEQ}l~;~~t~i~-~ PLATl='C-8 -. ,'A• - Grading Guide.Sp·ec:ifications Page 1 GRADiNG GUID.E SPECIFl:CATIONS these grqding guide specifications are inter:ided to provide· typical procedures for grading operations. They are intended to supplement the recommendations contained ih the g.ebtechnical investigation report for this :project. Should the recommendations in the geotechhioal investigation report conflict with the grading guide specifications, the more site speeifi'c recommendation$ in the geotechr:iical ·investigation report Will govern. General •. The .Earthwork .Contractor is, responsible for the ~atisfactory completion of all earthwork in ac60rdc;i_nce-With the plans and :geotechni'cal rep.or:ts, and in accordance with city, county, and Uniform BuilcJing Codes, • The-Geotechr11ca1· Engineer is the representative of the Owner/Builder for the purpose of implementing"the report recommendations and guidelines. These duties are notintendedto relieve ttre Earthwork Contractor of any responsibility to perform in a workman-like manner, nor is the Geotechnic~I Engineer to direct-the grading equipment or personnel employed py the Contractor. · • The Earthwork Contractor is required to notify thE;l Geqtechnical Engineer of the aniicipated work anc;l schedu.te ~o thaf testing and inspections can.-be provided. If necessary, work may be· stopped ancl redone if persorinel:haVe not ·been scheduled in advance. • The Earthwork Contractor is required to helve suitable· a·nd sufficient equipmenf oh t_be job- site to-pr.ocess, moisture c0n<;lition, mix and compact the amount of fill being plcJced ,to the c1pproved compaction. In, addition, suitaple .support equipment should be available· to conform with recommendations and guidelines in this report. • Canyon clean9uts, overexcav.ation areas, processeq ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains and benches should be obsE;frved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement-of any fill. It i.s the !=arthwork Contr:ador's responsibility to notify the Geotechnical Engineer of areas that are ready for inspection. · · • Excavation, filling, and .subgrade preparation should be performed in a manner. and sequence that will pro\1ide dr,aina_ge.al all times and proper control of erosion. Precipitation, springs, and seepage Water encountered shall .be pumped or drained to provide a suitable . working surface. The Gebtechnical·Engineer mustbE? inforrned of springs orwc;1ter seepage encountered· during grading or foundation construction .. for possible revision to the recommended construction procedures and/or installation of subdrains. Site Preparation • The Earthwork Contractor is .responsible fot all clearing, grubbing, stripping and site preparation' for the project in'accordance with ·tbe recommendations of the $eotechnical l::ngineer. · · • If any materials or:areas are encountE?red l;Jy the ~arthwork Contta.ctor which are $0S pected of having toxjc.:or environmentaily sensitive.contamination, the Geotechnical Engineer and Owner/Builder should be nc>tified ,immediately-. · ' ' • Major vegetation should· be stripped and d[spo$ed of off-sit.e. This includes trees, brush, heavy was$$S and any tnaterials considered' un$\Jitable,by the GeotedhnicaLEngineer. . ",·-. ,. Grading Guide Specifications Page2 • Underground structures such as basements, cesspools or septic disposal systems, mining shafts, tunnels, wells and pipelines should be removed under the inspection of the Geotechnical Engineer and recommendations provided by the Geotechnical Engineer and/or city, county or state agencies. If such structures are known or found, the Geotechnical Engineer should be notified as soon as possible so that recommendations can be formulated. • Any topsoil, slopewash, colluvium, alluvium and rock materials which are considered unsuitable by the Geotechnical Engineer should be removed prior to fill placement. • Remaining voids created during site clearing caused by removal of trees, foundations basements, irrigation facilities, etc., should be excavated and filled with compacted fill. • Subsequent to clearing and removals, areas to receive fill should be scarified to a depth of 10 to 12 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted • The moisture condition of the processed ground should be at or slightly above the optimum moisture content as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. Depending upon field conditions, this may require air drying or watering together with mixing and/or discing. Compacted Fills • Soil materials imported to or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill, provided each material has been determined to be suitable in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer. Unless otherwise approved by the Geotechnical Engineer, all fill materials shall be free of deleterious, organic, or frozen matter, shall contain no chemicals that may result in the material being classified as "contaminated," and shall be very low to non-expansive with a maximum expansion index (El) of 50. The top 12 inches of the compacted fill should have a maximum particle size of 3 inches, and all underlying compacted fill material a maximum 6-inch particle size, except as noted below. • All soils should be evaluated and tested by the Geotechnical Engineer. Materials with high e_xpansion potential, low strength, poor gradation or containing organic materials may require removal from the site or selective placement and/or mixing to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer. • Rock fragments or rocks less than 6 inches in their largest dimensions, or as otherwise determined by the Geotechnical Engineer, may be used in compacted fill, provided the distribution and placement is satisfactory in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer. J • Rock fragments or rocks greater than 6 inches should be taken off-site or placed in accordance with recommendations and in areas designated as suitable by the Geotechnical Engineer. Acceptable methods typically include windrows. Oversize materials should not be placed within the, range of excavation for foundations, utilities, or pools to facilitate excavations. Rock placement should be kept away from slopes (minimum distance: 15 feet) to facilitate compaction near the slope. • Fill materials approved by the Geotechnical Engineer should be placed in areas previously prepared to r~ceive fill and in evenly placed, near horizontal layers at about 6 to 8 inches in loose thickness, or as otherwise determined by the Geotechnical Engineer for the project. • Each layer should be moisture conditioned to optimum moisture content, or slightly above, as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer. After proper mixing and/or drying, to evenly distribute the moisture, the layers should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density in compliance with ASTM D-1557-78 unless otherwise indicated. G[ading Guide Specifications ·1 Page 3 < • Denslty.and moisture content-testing should be:petform ed by the Geotechnical. En.gineer at random intervals ~ncJ locations as determined: by the Geotechnical Engineer. These tests are intended as cln aid tq·theEarthwork Qontractor, so he can evaluate his workmanship, equipment effectiveness and ·site conditions·. The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for compacticm as required by the Geotechnic.al Report(s) and governmental agencies. • Fill areas· unused for a period of time may reqqire moisture conditioning, processing and recompadion prior to the start of additional filling. The Earthwork Contractor should notify the-G.eotechnical Engineer of his intent ·so that an evaluation can be made. • Fill plated on ground.slo_pihg,c'lt a ~.,fo-1 inclination•(horizontal-to-vertical) or steeper should be benched into bedrock or other suital;>le materials, as directed by the Gebtechnical Engjneer .. Typical details of benching are illustrated on Plates G-2, G-4, and G~5. • Cutt.fill transition lots should. have .the cut portion overexcavated to a depth of i:\t least 3 feet andrebuilt with fi.11 (see Plate G-1), .as determir\e~fby the Geotechnical Engineer.. · • All cut lots should be inspected ·by the: Geotechnical E.ngineer for fracturing and other bedrock conditions. If necessary1 the pads Should be overexcavated to a depth of 3. feet and rebuilt with a uhifor~, more cohesive·soil type to impede moisture penetration. • Cut portions-of pad areas above buttress.es or stabilizations should be overexcavated :to a depth of 3 feet and rebuilt with uniform, more cohesive compacted fill to impede moisture penetration, • Non-struch,1raI: fill adjacent .to structural fill should typically be placed in unison. to provide lateral support. BackfiJl:along:walls must be placed and compacted with care to ensure that , exc,;essive unbalanced lateral pressures do ·not develop. The type of fill material placed· adjacent to 'below grade walls mu§t'l:>e properly tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer·with· consideration of:the lateral e;:irth pressure used in the design . .Foundations • The·toundation influenc,;e zone is defined as exten<:ling one foot horizontally from :the outside edge of a footing, and proceeding downward.ata ½.horizontalto 1 vertical (0.5:1)iriclim1tion. • Whereoverexcavati,on·beneath a footing subgrade is necessary, it should be.conducted-sq· as to encompass the entire·fqundation influence zone; .as described above. • Compacted fill adjacent to exterior .footings should extend at least 12 inches above foundation bearing grade. ·compacted fill within th·e interior of structures should·extend to the floor supgrade elevation. Fill Slopes • The placement and compaction of fill described al;>ove cippiies to all fill slopes. Slope compaction sho1,1ldbe accom:plished by overJilling the ~lope, adequately compacting the fill in even layers, including the overfilled zone and cutting the slope back to expose the compacted Qor~ • Slo.pe .com pactionmay also be achieved by backrolling the slope adequately every 2 to 4 vertical feet during:the filling process as well as requiring the earth moving and compaction equipment to work .close to the top of the slope. lJ.pon completion of slope construction,. the ,slope face: shoqld be,compacted with a .sheepsfoot connected to a sideboom and then gric! rolled. This method of slope compaction · ~ho!Jld 9nly be used if approved by the · Geotechnical En~ineer. .. Grading Guide Specifications Page4 • Sandy soils lacking in adequate cohesion may be unstable for a finished slope condition and therefore should not be placed within 15 horizontal feet of the slope face. • All fill slopes should be keyed into bedrock or other suitable material. Fill keys should be at least 15 feet wide and inclined at 2 percent into the slope. For slopes higher than 30 feet, the fill key width should be equal to one-half the height of the slope (see Plate G-5). • All fill keys should be cleared of loose slough material prior to geotechnical inspection and should be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and governmental agencies prior to filling. • The cut portion of fill over cut slopes should be made first and inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer for possible stabilization requirements. The fill portion should be adequately keyed through all surficial soils and into bedrock or suitable material. Soils should be removed from the transition zone between the cut and fill portions (see Plate G-2). Cut Slopes • All cut slopes should be inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer to determine the need for stabilization. The Earthwork Contractor should notify the Geotechnical Engineer when slope cutting is in progress at intervals of 10 vertical feet. Failure to notify may result in a delay in recommendations. • Cut slopes exposing loose, cohesionless sands should be reported to the Geotechnical Engineer for possible stabilization recommendations. • All stabilization excavations should be cleared of loose slough material prior to geotechnical inspection. Stakes should be provided by the Civil Engineer to verify the location and dimensions of the key. A typical stabilization fill detail is shown on Plate 'G-5. • Stabilization key excavations should be provided with subdrains. Typical subdrain details are shown on Plates G-6·. Subdrains • Subdrains may be required in canyons and swales where fill placement is proposed. Typical subdrain details for canyons are shown on Plate G-3. Subdrains should be installed after approval of removals and before filling, as determined by the Soils Engineer. • Plastic pipe may be used for subdrains provided it is Schedule 40 or SOR 35 or equivalent. Pipe should be protected against breakage, typically by placement in a square-cut (backhoe) trench or as recommended by the manufacturer. • Filter material for subdrains should conform to CAL TRANS Specification 68-1. 025 or as approved by the Geotechnical Engineer for the specific site conditions. Clean ¾-inch crushed rock may be used provided it is wrapped in an acceptable filter cloth and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. Pipe diameters should be 6 inches for runs up to 500 feet and 8 inches for the downstream continuations of longer runs. Four-inch diameter pipe may be used in buttress and stabilization fills. I ! l ·I I ·~· I l I\ ,1 ,! ti . -·l I :1 I: ; ,, CUT LOT -- --- ' ·,· ,. . . •: '• : • •' • • I 1:' .. • • • ,,' 3' MIN. . ~ :~??;v; ~r C : •.:~:_.,~: c,..+,,._,_'--'-'-'....,_,._._._......,_.,__'+~Y~'-'~-'-~-'-~-'-~C.:.,..AA.,_C~.,_A.,_T,_,E ._,AN_,,D-'--'---"-'-.,_.,_,_,_.._,_,,-'--'-_,.,, ----~t-"- ~. . •, .. ~ . COMPETENT MAT~RIAL, AS APPROVED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER C~T/FILL LOT (T~NSITION) 3'MIN. ·OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT t Co'MPETENT MATERIAL, AS ARPRbVEb BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER .DEEPER OVEREXCAVATION-MAY BE RECOMMENDED BY THE SOIL ENGINEER IN ST.EEP TRANSITIONS . TRANSITION LOT DETAIL GRAD[NG GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS NOTTO SCALE DRAWN: JAS' _CHKD: GKM PL.ATED-1 SOUTH'EltN CALlFORNlA GEOTECHNICA:L j ' , ....... ---.-------..---~---------... --~--.. ---... ---------.... ---........ -r L. • COMPETENT MATERIAL CUT/FILL CONTACT TO BE SHOWN ON "AS-BUILT'' NATURAL GRADE ~ -- CUT SLOPE TO BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FILL MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF BENCHES IS 4 FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICALENGINEER L MINIMUM 1' TILT BACK OR2% SLOPE (WHICHEVER IS GREATER) BEDROCK OR APPROVED COMPETENT MATERIAL KEYWAY IN COMPETENT MATERIAL MINIMUM WIDTH OF 15 FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. KEYWAY MAY NOT BE REQUIRED IF FILL SLOPE IS LESS THAN 5 FEET IN HEIGHT AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. FILL ABOVE CUT SLOPE DETAIL GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS NOTTO SCALE DRAWN: JAS CHKD; GKM PLATE D•2 ~ SOUTHERN ~ CALIFORNIA ~· GEOTECHNICAL ,, < 5 : I ~ / 'I .. ' /·· .. ·. ;··-·,, .. . . . . . . .' .. ·. :_·~ . . __.--:-. --.·:·,· / . . . / .· · .. : ~ ·, • • '.·; • • ••I;··• .. : • ·. . . . ' ·. . . ,• .. ''-,..__ . ·, 6" !',-1!N,,." .. , ....... _.··.· . .,.~---. ··, _ _.,.,·· .•• 4 .;· ~ • ,q • . ·: •,' .. · . : ~ .,., .4 . . . . . :f~},-; /~< .;~.·.::·· t· ~-.. I . FIRM NATIVE 'SOIL/BEDROCK . ,. .. ' . . ',,q', : i<-·: :.4.,\k· 24"MIN. 18"MIN. . : :t .·~--~· .: -"" L :0:B :. -..;·· ~-~. . . ~-·q :~ ·>', . MINUS 1" CRUSHED ROCK'COMPLsTELY · -~ . .'_ ~-n • .i' 4 • ~-, SURROUNDED BY FILTER FABRIC, OR , '" · . ·: ... : .. q. : ..... •. :: ~~-CLASS II PERMEABLE MATERIAL . ~18"MIN--l . 4"MIN. 6"'DIAMETER PERFORATED 'PIPE~ MINI.MUM 1% SLOPE PIPE DEPTH OF FILL . MATERIAL OVER,SUBDRAIN ADS (CORRUGATED POLETHYL:ENE)-. 8 TRANSITE UNDERDRAIN 20 PVC OR ABS: ·SOR 35 35 .. . SDR2'1 100 SCHEMATIC ONLY NOTTO SCALE CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL G.RADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS NOTTOSCf,LE QRAWN: .Jl')S ·cJ:lKp: GKM SOUTHERN C.ALJFORNIA .. GEOTECHNI CAL f FINISHED SLOPE FACE -- NOTE: BENCHING SHALL BE REQUIRED WHEN NATURAL SLOPES ARE EQUAL TO OR STEEPER THAN 5:1 OR WHEN RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. FILL ABOVE NATURAL SLOPE DETAIL GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS NOTTO SCALE DRAWN: JAS CHKO: GKM PLATE 0-4 ~ SOUTHERN ~ CALIFORNIA ...,. GEOTECHNICAL FACE OF FINISHEQ SLOPE I I. • 1 I i f g~~~Tlirr.r~~\J~;~ACGEPTABLi; 3' TYPICAL BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMEND.ED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER TOP WIDTH OF FIL:L AS SPECIFIED BY THE GEOTECHNICALENGINEER [7 .· ...•. j;.'·.•··' \<<;}. ... :: .. '.· ,·. ·:··.: · _-.. ·:·/..·: . '--_V;.,;..A.;;.:R:.:.:.IA..:::B;;;:L::;:.E..-.1 .. : .. ·.··< ... :· .. ·.· .. :/. ..... ·. ':__:; . -_;· ·. ·,\ .. ·:. . . . . STABILIZATION F.1.LL DETAIL GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATION$ NOTTOSCAL!: DRAWN:· jAS CHKO: GKM PLATE 1?·5 w SOUTHERN '-~ I CALIFORNIA . :;-s GEOTECHNICAL 1.---------------....... -....... ---lll!IB-----------... ----lll[IIII------------... DESIGN FINISH SLOPE OUTLETS TO BE SPACED AT 100' MAXIMUM INTERVALS. EXTEND 12 INCHES BEYOND FACE OF SLOPE AT TIME OF ROUGH GRADING CONSTRUCTION. BUTTRESS OR SIDEHILL FILL ~ t 15' MAX. l 2'CLEAR BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER . :_ ·:_,., .. \~:_MIN·. .. ·:'. : .. _':: .. : ... 25i_.f0AX .. : ,< DETAIL "A" \_ 4-lNCH DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE TO BE LOCATED IN FIELD BY THE SOIL ENGINEER. "FILTER MATERIAL" TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION "GRAVEL" TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT: OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT: (CONFORMS TO EMA STD. PLAN 323) SIEVE SIZE 1" PERCENTAGE PASSING 3/4" 3/8" NO.4 NO.8 NO. 30 NO. 50 NO. 200 OUTLET PIPE TO BE CON- NECTED TO SUBDRAIN PIPE l WITH TEE OR ELBOW l 100 90-100 40-100 25-40 18-33 5-15 0-7 0-3 MAXIMUM SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING 11/2" 100 NO. 4 50 NO.200 8 SAND EQUIVALENT= MINIMUM OF 50 FILTER MATERIAL -MINIMUM OF FIVE CUBIC FEET PER FOOT OF PIPE. SEE ABOVE FOR FILTER MATERIAL SPECIFICATION. ALTERNATlVE: IN LIEU OF FILTER MATERIAL FIVE CUBIC FEET OF GRAVEL PER FOOT OF PIPE MAY BE ENCASED IN FILTER FABRIC. SEE ABOVE FOR GRAVEL SPECIFICATION. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE MIRAFI 140 OR EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE LAPPED A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES ON ALL JOINTS. ~ MINIMUM 4-INCH DIAMETER PVC SCH 40 OR ABS CLASS SOR 35 WITH DETAIL "A" NOTES: 1. TRENCH FOR OUTLET PIPES TO BE BACKFILLED WITH ON-SITE SOIL. A CRUSHING STRENGTH OF AT LEAST 1,000 POUNDS, WITH A MINIMUM OF 8 UNIFORMLY SPACED PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPE INSTALLED WITH PERFORATIONS ON BOTTOM OF PIPE. PROVIDE CAP AT UPSTREAM END OF PIPE. SLOPE AT 2 PERCENT TO OUTLET PIPE. SLOPE FILL SUBDRAINS GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS NOTTO SCALE DRAWN: JAS CHKD: GKM PLATE D-6 'J ' ' ,i l MINIMUM ONE FOOT THICK LA YER OF ~~1:~~M0~H~~~T~t~~~~~[E SURFACE . "•'' ,4 ''FILTER.MATERIAL" TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATiON MINIMUM ONE FOOT-WIDE LAYER OF .FREE DRAINING MATERIAL (Ll;S$ THAN 5% PASSING THE #200 SIEVE) FILTER MATERIAL -MINIMUM OF TWO CUBIC'FEET PER FOOT OF PIPE. SEE BELOW FOR FILTER MATERIAL SPECIFICATION, At::TERNATIVE: IN LIEU OF FILTER MATERIAL TWO CUBIC FEET OF GRAVEL PER FOOT OF PIPE MAY BE ENCASED IN .FILTER FABRIC. SEE.BELOW FOR GRAVEL SPECIFICATION. • · flLTERFABRIC"SHALL BE MIRAFI 140 , OR f:QUIVP.,LENT. FILTER FABRIC SHALL .BE LAPPED AMIN IM.UM:OF 6 INCHES ON ALUOINTS; MINH\IIL}M' 4-!NCH DIAMETER PVC SCH 40 OR ABS CLASS,SDR 35WIT!-1 A CRUSHING STRENGTH OF AT,LEAST 1,000 POUNDS, WITH-A MINIMUM OF 8 UNIFORMLY•SPACED PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPE INSTALLED WITH PERFORATiONS dN"'BOTTOM OF PIPE. PROVIDE CAP AT UPSTREAM END OF 'Pl PE. SL:,OPE AT 2 PERCENT TO OUTLET PIPE . . . .,, LI OR APRROVED·EQUIVALENT: (QQNFORMS. TO EMA STD. PLAN 323) "GRAVEL" TO·MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED EQl:JIVALENT: SIEVE SIZE 1···' 3/4'!' '3/8" N0.4 Nb.a NO. 30 NO: 50 NO. 200 PERCENTAGE PAS.SING . . 190. 90-100 '40°100 25-40 Hl~33 5-15 0-7' 0-3, MAXIMUM •SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING 11/2" 100 ~04 W NO. 200 8 SAND EQUIVALENT= MINIMUM-OF 50 RETl:\ININ(3 WALL BACKORAINS. GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS NOTTO SCALE DRAWN: Ji,S 6,t-ll{Q: GKM. Pi.ATE ll-7 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNJCAL ·.r ' -~::. -- • 0.!30 0.75 0.70; 0.65; 0.60 · ' I ! /, ! j ! I i· I "! 0,55 · { I ' I . I 0.50 : .! /• f _.,..;._ o.45, / . O') ' . -·t ro . , W 0.40 . , ·.i J o_.35 r 0.30 Q.25 · 0,20- 0:15 0.10 0.05 0.00 . I 0 0.1 De~t9Q!i$p.ectru~ Sa Vs T -·-..... ~ .... --·-· . ~ --------~ -· . .. . . .. --. -... \\ \ . ~-" . ,,."'-, --....... ....._______________ ' ·------_.., ___ -------- -"--..., ____ -... -.. -.. M, ·--. M 0.2 . 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Q.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 T (sec) 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 . "'· .... M ~ 2 2.1 Conterminous 48 States 2006 International Building Code Latitude = 33.12732 Longitude= -117.26537 Spectral Response Accelerations Ss and S1 Ss and S1 = Mapped Spectral Acceleration Values ;l!, Site Class B -Fa= 1.0 ,Fv = 1.0 Data are based on a 0.01 deg grid spacing Period Sa (sec) (g) 0.2 1.131 (Ss, Site Class B) 1.0 0.428 (S1, Site Class B) Conterminous 48 States 2006 International Building Code Latitude = 33.12732 Longitude= -117.26537 Spectral Response Accelerations SMs and SM1 SMs = Fass and SM1 = FvS1 Site Class D -Fa= 1.048 ,Fv = 1.572 Period Sa (sec) (g) 0.2 1.185 (SMs, Site Class D) 1 . .0 0.673 (SM1, Site Class D) Conterminous 48 States 2006 International Building Code Latitude= 33.12732 Longitude = -117.26537 · sos = 2/3 x SMs and SD1 = 2/3 x SM1 Site Class D -Fa= 1.048 ,Fv = 1.572 Period Sa (sec)_ (g) 0.2 0. 790 (SDs, Site Class D) 1.0 0.449 (801, Site Class D) Conterminous 48 States ( ! . March 19, 2015 V1aSat, Inc. 6155· 'El Camino Real Carlsbad, California ·92009 Attention: Mr .. aob Rota Vic;e President, Facilities & Security Project No.: 136176-4 Sµbject: Plan Review and Updatt:! :of Geotechnical Report Prop·osed CommertialBuildings ·Bressi Ranc;h, Planning Area 3, .Lots 10-13 NWC Gateway Road and El Camino Road Carlsl:>ad, California · References: Plan Review, Update. of Geotechnical Report . and . Additional Subsurface Exploration:andlaboratory Testing, Proposed Commercial Buildings, Bressi Ranch Planning Area 3, Lots ib-13, ~NWC Gateway Road and El Camino Real. tatlsbad, California, prepared· by · Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. (SCG)~ · dated ·Gentlemen: _November 6, 2013,SCGProjectNo·. 13G176-1. Geotechnical: Investigation, Proposed Commercial/Industrial Development, Bressi Ranch Lots '10-13, Planning Area 3, NEC of Gateway· Road and El Camino ,Real; Carlsbad, Ca.lifornia, prepared by .SCG, dated. January 23, 2008, SCG Project No. 07G227-L · Geotechnical. Investigation, Proposed Business. Park, Bressi Ranch Lots 10-13, Planning Area 3, NEC of Gateway Road and El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California, prepared by SCG, dated December 19, 2006, :SCG Prqject No. 06G252~1. . Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Business Park, Bressi Ranch Lots 10-13, Planning Area 3, NEC of Gateway Road and El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California, prepared.by SCG, dated Nov:emberi6·, 2005, SCG Project No. 05G273-1. . ' . In accordance with the request of Mr. Ryan Hatch .of PCG Construction, Inc. (PCG), we hav~ prepared this report to update· the referenced geotethnical regbrt with respect to site conoitions and changes in the buiiding code sihce the orjgina1· report was prep~red. This report contains updated . .references to the 2013 California Building Code (CBC), lncluding updated seismic design: parameters. Iii order to prepare this up9ate report, we nave reviewed an updated site plan provided by'PCG on March 18, l01'5.. · . . 22885 Savi R,~nch ·Parl<Way ..-Suite E ..-'Yorba Linda, ..-.californfa ..-92887 voice: '(714) Gss .. 111s . ...,. fax: (714) 685-111-8,... www.socatgeo.com .'Oi ,· .,. ' ..,, \.; ,, ':) Grading Plan Review As requested by Mr. Ryan Hatch of PCG, we have reviewed the grading plans for the proposed development, received by this office on March 18, 2015. These plans were reviewed for conformance with the above-referenced geotechnical reports. The grading plans were prepared by O'Day Consultants, Inc. and are identified as Grading Plans for Viasat Building 10 at Bressi Ranch, Delta 1 Revision, Sheets 1 through 13. These plans are undated. Comments generated during our review of these plans as well as any items requiring correction are presented below: • Detail 'A' on Sheet 3 includes notes that state "install impermeable liner per geotechnical recommendations," "18 inch sand/composite mix 5 inches/~our infiltration rate to be verified by a geotechnical engineer" and "MBP shall be reviewed and approved by geotechnical engineer prior to and during construction." Please note that our input into the design of the BMP is strictly geotechnical engineering related. Our geotechnical recommendation was to have an impermeable layer present. The non-geotechnical details of the BMP including, but not limited to, selection of the impermeable layer, selection of the sand/compost mix, and the suitability of the BMP flow-through planter to serve its intended use, are outside the scope of the geotechnical engineer. It is our understanding that those non-geotechnical aspects of the design of the MBP flow- through planter will be performed by other members of the design team. Please also note that if infiltration testing is required to verify the 5 in/hr rate shown on the plan, SCG should be contacted to perform infiltration testing on the subject sand/compost material a sufficient amount of time prior to construction such that there will be no delays between the completion of testing and the start of construction of the BMP flow- through planter. Please also verify whether the 5 in/hr rate is a minimum rate, a maximum rate or an exact rate that will need to be achieved. • The design pavement sections on Sheets 1 and 9 for traffic aisles do not correspond with the sections recommended in our above-referenced geotechnical reports. In addition, it is not readily apparent what design traffic indices were used to model the parking areas and traffic aisles in the grading plans. The pavement sections recommended in the referenced geotechnical reports are as follows: Materials Asphalt Concrete Aggregate Base Compacted Subgrade (90% minimum compaction) ASPHALT PAVEMENTS Thickness (inches) Auto Parking Auto Drive Lanes (11 = 4.5) (11 = 5.5) 4 4 5 8 12 12 Light Truck Moderate Traffic Truck Traffic (11 = 6.0) (11 = 7.0) 4 4 10 13 12 12 Proposed Commercial Buildings -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 13G176-4 Page2 POR.TLAND CEr-1'5NT .CONCRETE PAVEMENTS Thickness (inches) '' Drive· 1.,anes (TI = Materials Moderate Truck Automobi1¢ Parking 5.5) and Light Truck Traffic · (TI= 4:5) Tr~ffic (TI= 7~0) (TI= 6.0) PCC 5 51h 7 ,,_. Compacted Sub'grade " ' (95% mji:1imum cqn,paction). .12 12 12 '' With the exception of· the items presented qbove, the plaos reviewed by this-office are considered to have been prepi!ired in accordance with the recommendations of the above referenced geotechnical reports. it should be: n<;>ted that our review was limited to the geotechniccJI aspects 'Of the _project and .rao represemtations as to the suitability of the stn.,1ctural design are intended. Seismic Design. Param_eters Most .n11,micipc1lities in Southern California have adopted the 2oi3 CBC as of January 1, 2014, As the referenced report WqS prepc;3r.ed 10 2013, ohly the applicable design parameters for the previous .building code were-provided. The seismic de.sign parameters provided in the above- referenced report are now considered obsolete and should not be used for seismic. design. It is our .understanding that this project will be subject to the adoption of the new code, and therefore we have provided the 2013' CBC seismic design -parameters herein. The· 2013-Cl3C provides procedures for earthquake resistant .struct1.1ral design that include consideratibns for off-site s9il conditions, oc;cupc1ncy, and the configuration of the structure includirtg the structural ·system and heignt. The seismic c:lesign parameters presented. below ate based on the soil profile and the proximity of known fa1;1Jtswith respect to the subject site. , I The ·2013 CBC Seismic Design Parameters, have been generated using U.S. Seismic Deslqn Maps, · a · web~based softwqre applic;ation: developed by .the United States Geological Survey. This software application, available at th~ 'USGS Web site; calculates seismic design parameters in accordance with the 2013-CBC, Utilizing a database of deterministic site accelerations at 0.01 degree Jntervals. The table below is· ?t compilation of the data provided by the USGS application. A ·copy of the output generated from this program is. included' as .an enclosure to this letter. The· encloset;l ·USGS c1pplication output ·also 'includes a copy of the design ·response spectrum. 13aSed on this output; the following parameters may be utilized for the subject site: Pr\)posed Commercial Buildings -C:arfsbad~ CA· · Project No. 13G17.6-4 · · Page_3 2013 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameter Value Mapped Spectral Acceleration at 0.2 sec Period Ss 1.056 Mapped Spectral Acceleration at 1.0 sec Period S1 0.409 Site Class ---D Site Modified Spectral Acceleration at 0.2 sec Period SMs 1.138 Site Modified Spectral Acceleration at 1.0 sec Period SM1 0.650 Design Spectral Acceleration at 0.2 sec Period Sos 0.759 Design Spectral Acceleration at 1.0 sec Period 501 0.434 Geotechnical Report Update This letter may serve as an update to the original geotechnical report. Provided that the update recommendations contained within this letter are implemented, the original 07G227-1 geotechnical report dated January 23, 2008 and the 13G176-1 updated letter dated November 6, 2013 are considered valid for the currently proposed development. Closure We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service on this project. We look forward to providing additional consulting services during the course of the project. If we may be of further assistance in any manner, please contact our office. Respectfully Submitted, Robert G. Trazo, M.Sc., GE 2655 Principal Engineer Distribution: ( 4) Addressee Enclosures: Seismic Design Parameters 1. : _S_Q{ffHERN -,)as1v -CALIFORNIA .., __ GEQTECHNI~~L No. 2655 Proposed Commercial Buildings -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 13G176-4 Page4 fl!USGS Desi,gn Maps Summary Report User-,.Specified Inpu~ B11JJTiidi11191 Code Referefl'.lce Docume!1t ASC[: 7--10 Standard, ,(which,utilizes,USGS hazard data available In 2008) Site Coordinates 33.12677°N, 117 .26699°W Site, Soil Classification Site Clc1s§i D -"Stlff Soil" · Risk Categor-y I/II/III i •1· .. -., -,_ ' { •A -.,, • ) ' ' .. ,;--, --~- U$GS-Provided Output S$= 1.056 g $1 = . 0.40~ g S;.,5 = 1.138 g SM1 = 0.650 .g S0 s = 0.759 g S01 = 0.434 g For infor:mation on how th\3 ss ahq 51 values above have b\3en calculated from probabilistic (risk-targeted) and deterministic ground motions In the direction. of maximum h6r.izontal response, please return to the appllcation and, select the."2009 'NEHRP" building code r~ference document. um um· n.!lii;- ~,>ll -~ 3.'il;;;!, IIJ t'l.,m ,Cfl' tU~- ~~ -. . -. ri.i'.I~ D . .!.l'.I n.~i'l n:r.r1 rum um ·1,.;:m 1.~o 1.;;il Ulll· ;;!.illl PR!rinrl, T l!iiR!rt) l'l.!lll ,11,!lD ·'"; D.:l~ .... ,~. ·o:ei11 li.::12 · O.Dll ·ii.rm.. . . . c.DD 11 . .!.il 11 . .in i'!.r.o o.im ·1.nn 1.~.11 1.~c 1.r.n 1.ml ::t;m,i Pir.ri1t1rf, T b,ir.r,:0 For PGA;.1, T., •CRs• and CR1 values, please view the·detailed report. SOURCE: U.S. GEOLOGICAi. SURVEY (USGS) <littp:1/geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/appllcaUon.php> S_EISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS . .. PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS '.DRAWN: JG CHKD: RGT SCG,PROJECT 13G{76-4 PLATE E01 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, . .•• · SOUTHERN --. • ... -CALIFORNIA -.. 14,r. GEQTBCHNifAL OFFICE USE ONLY SAN DIEGO REGIONAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS QUESTIONNAIRE UPFP# ______ _ HV# ________ _ BP DATE. _ __,_/ _ ___,/.___ Business Name Business Contact Telephone# ViaSat, Inc. Bob Rota f 760 \ 476.2202 Project Address City State Zip Code APN# 2502 Gateway Road -Carlsbad CA 92009 213-261-20,21,22,23 Mailing Address City State Zig Code Plan File# 6155 El Camino Real Carlsbad CA 2009 Project Contact Telephone# Bob Rota ( 760 \ 476 ?',:>n? The following questions represent the facility's activities, NOT the specific project description. PART I: FIRE DEPARTMENT-HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISION: OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: Indicate by circling the item, whether your business will use, process, or store any of the following hazardous materials. If any of the items are circled, applicant must contact the Fire Protection Agency with jurisdiction prior to plan submittal. Facility's Square Footage (including proposed project): N/ A Occupancy Rating: ---'N~/ A-=------- 1. Explosive or Blasting Agents 5. Organic Peroxides 9. Water Reactives 13. Corrosives 2. Compressed Gases 6. Oxidizers 10. Cryogenics 14. Other Health Hazards 3. Flammable/Combustible Liquids 7. Pyrophorics 11. Highly Toxic or Toxic Materials 15. None of These. 4. Flammable Solids 8. Unstable Reactives 12. Radioactives PART II: SAN DIEGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH -HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISIONS {HMD): If the answer to any of the questions is yes, applicant must contact the County of San Diego Hazardous Materials Division, 5500 Overland Ave., Suite 110, San Diego, CA 92123. Call (858) 505-6700 prior to the issuance of a building permit. FEES ARE REQUIRED. Project Completion Date: _3 __ ,1____jt_6 __ Expected Date of Occupancy: _§_}_1 __ 1_6 __ YES NO (for new construction or remodeling projects) 1. D 1X1 Is your business listed on the reverse side of this form? ( check all that apply). 2. D IXI Will your business dispose of Hazardous Substances or Medical Waste in any amount? 3. D 1X1 Will your business store or handle Hazardous Substances in quantities equal to or greater than 55 gallons, 500 pounds 200 cubic feet, or carcinogens/reproductive toxins in any quantity? 4. 5. 6. 7. D D D D 00 Will your business use an existing or install an underground storage tank? 00 Will your business store or handle Regulated Substances (CalARP)? IXI Will your business use or install a Hazardous Waste Tank System (Title 22, Article 10)? !Kl Will your business store petroleum in tanks or containers at your facility with a total storage capacity equal to or greater than 1,320 gallons? (California's Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act). 0 CalARP Exempt I Date Initials D CalARP Required I Date Initials 0 CalARP Complete I Date Initials PART Ill: SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT: If the answer to any of the questions below is yes, applicant must contact the Air Pollution Control District (APCD), 10124 Old Grove Road, San Diego, CA 92131-1649, telephone (858) 586-2600 prior to the issuance of a building or demolition permit. Note: if the answer to questions 4 or 5 is yes, applicant must also submit an asbestos notification form to the APCD at least 10 working days prior to commencing demolition or renovation, except demolition or renovation of residential structures of four units or less. Contact the APCD for more information. YES NO 1. D 00 Will the subject facility or construction activities include operations or equipment that emit or are capable of emitting an air contaminant? (See the APCD factsheet at http:flwww.sdapcd.org/info/facts/permits.pdf, and the list of typical equipment requiring an APCD permit on the reverse side of this from. Contact APCD if you have any questions). 2. D D (ANSWER ONLY IF QUESTION 1 IS YES) Will the subject facility be located within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school (K through 12)? (Search the California School Directory at http:flwww.cde.ca.gov/re/sd/ for public and private schools or contact the appropriate school district). 3. D 00 Has a survey been performed to determine the presence of Asbestos Containing Materials? 4. D IX! Will there be renovation that involves handling of any friable asbestos materials, or disturbing any material that contains non-friable asbestos? 5. D 00 Will there be demolition involving the removal of a load supporting structural member? Briefly describe business activities: Briefly describe proposed project: Telecommunication New -AN70VNA-_ 0JCUJ$(,l,8£ I declare under penalty of perjury that to the best of my knowledge and belief th Milos Makaric -~~~~_,,..~@~~~---11/ 19 /15 Name of Owner or Authorized Agent Si Date FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY: FIRE DEPARTMENT OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION:. _____________________________ _ BY: __________________________ _ DATE: __ _,_/ __ _,_/ __ _ EXEMPT OR NO FURTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED RELEASED FOR BUILDING PERMIT BUT NOT FOR OCCUPANCY RELEASED FOR OCCUPANCY COUNTY-HMO* APCO COUNTY-HMO APCO COUNTY-HMO APCO . . *A stamp in this box only exempts businesses from completing or updating a Hazardous Materials Business Plan. Other permitting requirements may still apply . HM-9171 (02/11) County of San Diego -DEH -Hazardous Materials Division «10]} ~ CITY OF PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL WORKSHEET Development Services Building Division 1635 Faraday Avenue 760-602-2719 www.carlsbadca.gov Building@carlsbadca.gov CARLSBAD B-18 Project Address: Permit No.: Information provided below refers to worR being done on the above mentioned permit only. This form must be completed and returned to the Building Division before the permit can be issued. 8-18 Building Dept. Fax: (760) 602-8558 ~ or relocated fixtures, traps, or floor drains ............................... _.. . •••••••••. __ ................................................................................. Yes __ No or replaced gas outlets?.................................. .. ............................ __ hose bibs? ................................................................................................... . Residential Permits: New/expanded service: Number of new amps: ______ _ Minor Remodel only: Ves__ No Commercial/Industrial: Tenant Improvement: Number of existing amps involved in this project: Number of new amps involved in this project: New Construction: Amps per Panel: OAmps 70 Amps Single Phase ............................................................... Number of new amperes ______ _ Three Phase ................................................................. Number of new amperes ______ _ Three Phase 480 ........................................................ Number of new amperes ______ _ w furnaces, A/C, or heat pumps? ................................................................ . oilers or compressors? ........................................................... Nu Page 1 of 1 Rev. 03/09 V(?SI 11/ ~--µJ- ):Z. I 2/ \S-P\ a.n --\-o ~ 'f:Rs("r( ~ -~)!)l;L ~fe1~0/ .J 7,}i/1s-~\-C . 1:'-.)!f /15 C., JJ--#-1I' -CJ;fi J-pc_ ~~Jl/v [fl/;_ If Lf }! f w J f{J)IWW ~ ~ 1 f ~ A111 ~ ~/tVJ )Mi~ f1¼:~I~ · An-1/J-w; n1-tf!r f~ J--fc 1J~q(1v 1":::i~ Final Inspection· required by: 0 Plan O CM&I O Fire 0 sw /VJ Lf. S? D1ssueo I Dev. Approved 1 Date By BUILDING w, !JvA1, ,..'A~ ' . .21~h11 r --:-t'LJ/ Pl.ANNING 1'2 -2-tS r ~ :P: ENGINEERING 12 -8 -fjS' l\ i fvJ FIRE. Expedite? ('j) N /1:fS.~, A/AA. J,~/-,/r t;" fl M DIGITAL FILES Required? Y N~ ' -• HazMat \ \ I )..5 h ') fl A-. ~D • Health Forms/Fees Sent Rec'd Due? By Encina v N Fire v N HazHealthAPCD -,, ,, I I y N PE&M ..wJ,{Jf;/J}p,d ///!JS'§$' Y N // ,f...,_ School • ' v N Sewer • v N Stormwater v N Special Inspection v N CFD: Y N LandUse: Density: lmpArea: FY: Annex: Factor: PFF: Y N Comments Date Date Date , Date Building 1?-/'6 /\S Planning Engineering Fire Need? /) ( ~t A ,ft,,ffr /) _ &:A AA O Done rMn/'AJ'Jo-1;,.AiJ 417.Al\ ODone -11 ~ I • v O Done DDone