The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2502 GATEWAY RD; ; CBC2016-0093; PermitPrint Date: 07/06/2017 Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel No: Valuation: Occupancy Group: # Dwelling Units: Bedrooms: Project Title: 2502 Gateway Rd BLDG-Commercial' 2132612000 $50,498.57 ,/ I City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 Commercial Permit www.carlsbadca.gov WorkCl,Jss: Patio Lot#: Reference#: Construction Typ(!: Bathrooms: Orig. Plc!n Check#: Plan Ch(!ck #: Status: Applied: Issued: Finaled: Inspector: Permit ~o: CBC2016-0093 Closed -Finaled 12/23/2016 02/10/2017 MColl Description: VIASAT: 3 TRELLIS STRUCTURES FOR A TOTAL"OF 3,277 SF OF COVERED AREA// 1 STRUCTURE TO HOUSE SELF~SERVICE CAFE WITH PLUMB & ELEC Applicant: Owner: SMITH CONSULTING ARCHITECTS MILOS MAKARIC PIVOTAL 650 CALIFORNIA St LLC 13280 Evening Creek Or S, 125 San piego, CA 92128-4101 858-793-4777 1702 E Highland Ave·Pacific Co, 310 PHOENIX, AZ 85016 BUILDING PERMIT FEE $2000+ BUILDING PLAN CHECK FEE (BLDG) ELECTRICAL BLDG COMMERCIAL NEW/ADDITION/REMODEL FIRE Expedited Plan-Review Per Hour -Office Hours PLUMBING BLDG COMMERCIA~ NEW/ADDITION/REMODEL 581473 BUILDING STANDARDS FEE STRONG MOTION-COMMERCIAL SW PPP INSPECTION FEE TIER 2 -HIGH BLDG SWPPP PLAN REVIEWTIER 2 -High Total Fees: $2,657.87 Total ·payments To Date: $2,657.87 Co-Applicant: LEVEL 10 CONSTRUCTION LP 408-663-2157 Balance Due: Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "Imposition"' of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as "fees/exaction." You have 90 days from the date this permit.was issued to protest imposition of these f~es/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030, Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your rightto protest the specified'fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees·and capacity changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application:processing or service fees in connection with this project. N()R DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been giv~n a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitation lias previously otherwise expired. $0.00 $410.43 $287.30 $60.00 $165.00 $71.00 $3.00 $14.14 $1,285.00 $362.00 THE FOLLOWING APPROVALS REQUIRED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE: 0PLANNING 0ENGINEERING 0BUILDING 0FIRE 0HEALTH 0HAZMAT/APCD «'~ Building Permit Application Plan Check No.~l\0-0013 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008 Est. Value ~I') 1 4C} '?) ~ CITY OF Ph: 760-602-2719 Fax: 760-602-8558 . CARLSBAD email: building@carlsbadca.gov Plan Ck. Deposit www.carlsbadca;gov Date IZ-&~I< o lsWPPP JOBADDRESS ,·--. --· --' SUllEf/SPACEf/UNITI IAPN 213 2502, _______ Gateway Rd., San Diego,CA. 92009 -261 -20 -QI) CT/PROJECT# ILOT# I PHASE# r OF UNITS r BEDROOMS #BATHROOMS I TENANT BUSINESS NAME I CONSTR. lYPE I occ. GROUP ViaSat V-B N/A DESCRIPTION OF WORK: Include Squ.e Ffft of Alfectfld Alu(•) Construct a 548 sq. ft. CMU self service cafe and related equipment and lighting. Miscellaneous plumbing and electrical ' work to service the equipment and lighting is included. 3 tr«l\LS *rudur~ :::: ~/l-7, ~F re-to.J) EXISTING USE I PROPOSED USE I GARAGE (SF) PATIOS (SF) I DECKS (SF) FIREPLACE 'AIR CONDITIONING rlRESPRINKLERS Leisure Leisure YES[J. Nol2] YES 0No [ZI YESO No[ZJ APPLICANT NAME (Primary Contact) Milos Makaric APPLICANTNAME (Secondary Contact) Mark Lanaan ADDRESS ADDRESS _ 13280 Evening Creek Drv South, Suite 125 13280 Evenina Creek Drv South, Suite 125 CITY STATE ZIP CITY STATE ZIP San Diego CA 92128 San Diego CA 92128 PHONE PHONE FAX 858.793.4777 rAX 858.793.4787 858. 793.4777 858. 793.4787 EMAIL EMAIL milosm@sca-sd.com markl@sca-sd.com PROPERTY OWNER NAME ViaSat CONTRACl'OR BUS. NAME Level 10 Construction ADDRESS ADDRESS 6155 El Camino Real 12555 High Bluff Dr. Suite 250 -CITY STATE ZIP CITY STATE ZIP Carlsbad CA 92009 San Dieao CA 92130 PHONE 'FAX PHONE FAX 760.476.2200 858.939.9780 EMAIL EMAIL Bart.Caruso@viasat.com jbunje a>.level1 Oge.com ARCH/DESIGNER NAME &ADDRESS rTATE UC, I . STATEU~\:, t'f9. ( ~ l0A~~lioc\ _ Smith Consulting Architects C-11701 (Sec. 7031.5 Business and Professions Code: Any Ci!Y or Coul!tY which raqulres a pe11nit to construct. alter, Improve, demolish or repair an~ structure, prior to Its Issuance, also r~ulres the applicant for such pe11nlt to file a Sll!ned statement ffiat. he Is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Contractor's License Law fChaoter 9, commending with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code} or that he Is exempt therefrom, and the basis for the alleged exemption. Any violation of Section 7031.5 by any applicant for a pe11nltsubJects the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five _hundred dollars {$500}). . _ ------------------------~-----, "il~' 1 '"~ • ..... ~ = '~ s;.--•• m: KiE-R'S]ii_:·!?.'>c'~ ~ E_N SAT f O llf· /·t ... '.'.'.i'~ w Wott111' Compilllltlon Declaratlon: / hetlby dm under p,n,lly of ptljlxy one of the following declarations: B I haw and will maintain a certlllcatt of COl!Mllt to Hlf-1111111'1 for worllerl' C0fflfl811181ion as pl0'lided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the perfonnance of the work for which this pennit Is issued. I haw and will maintain workers' COIIIPlllllllon, as IIQtirad by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the perfonnance of the work for which this ll8rmit is issued. My workers' compensation Insurance carrier and poUcy number are: lnsurance.Co •. _______ -,c-------.,..---Policy No. __________ Expiration Date ______ _ ')llil, section need not be compleled If the permit ii for one hundred dolars ($100) or less. LJ CertHlcatt of Extmpllon: I certify lhat In the pe,formance of the work for which this pennlt is Issued, I shall not employ.any person In any manner so as to become subject to the Workers' Compensation Laws of Callfomla. WARNING: Falhn to IICUl'l worbrl' compenllllon C!Mrlgl II unlawful, and lhall subject an tmploytrto criminal penalties and civil tints up to one hundred thousand dollars (&100,000), In addition to tilt cost of complllllllon, dlmagll as provided for In Stctlon 370I of tilt Labor code, lnterut and attorney's fees. ll5 CONTRACTOR SIGNATURE ••••••• 0AGENT DATE I IHl/8by affirm that I am exempt from Contnlctor'1 Ucfnlt Law for the followfng INIOtl: D I, as owner of lhe property or my emplo)'9II with wage1 as their sole compensation, will do lhe work and the structure Is not Intended or offered for sale (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contracto(s -License Law does not apply to an GWl)8I' of property who bulkls or improm thereon, and who does IUCh.'M>lk himself or through his own employees, provided that such Improvements are not intended or offered for sai,. If, however, the building or lmpnlVlfflenl Is IOkl within one yeat of completion, the owner-buljder will have the burden of proving that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale). I, as owner of the property, am exclusi't'ely c:ontracllng with lcented contractors to construct the project (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or Improves thereon, and contracts for IUCh projects with contractor(•) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law). D J am exempt under Section _ Business and Prormions Code for this reason: 1. I personally plan to provide lhe major labor and malellals for C0l1Slruction of the proposed property lmprovemenl 0Yes Oo 2. I (have/ have not) signed an appHcatlon for a bulking permit for the proposed work. 3. I have contracted with the~ person (firm) to provide the proposed C0l1Slruction fmciude name address/ phone/ contractors' license number): 4. I plan to provide portions of the work, but I have hired the following person to coordinate, aupeivise and provide the major work Qnclude name/ address/ phone/ contractors' license number): 5. I will provide some of the work, but I h contra<:ted (hired) the following persons to provide the 'MIik Indicated Qnclude name /address/ phone / type of work): ll5 PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE AGENT DATE '2._ 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 f ;No Is the applicant or future blilding oc;cupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control;[listrict or air q~ality management district? Yes • .-: No Is the facility to be constructed withi/11,000feet of the outer boundary of a school sit~? _. JYes ~!".,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 haw read the application and state that the above infonna1lon is correct and that the information on the plans is accurate. I agree to comply with all City ordinances and State law.I relating to building construction. I herebyau1horize representatiYe of 1he City of Catsbad '> en1er Upofl 1he above mentioned property for inspection purposes. I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE, INDEMNIFY ANO KEEP HARMLESS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AGAINST ALL LIABlffiES, JUDGMENTS, COSTS 00 EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANYWAYACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT. OSHA: M OSHA pennit is reqlied br excavations aver 5'0' deep and demoOOon or construction of slructures over 3 stories in height EXPIRATION: Eveiy pennit issued by 1he BuldiJg Official ooder1he J)IO'Jisk>ns of this Code shall expi'e by Imitation and become nul and void if the building or work authorized by such pennit is not commenced within 180 days fi'tim 1he date of such pennitor if 1he ing or work authorized by such · is suspended or abandoned at any time aftet1he work is commenced for a period of 180 days (Section 106.4.4 Unifoon Building Code). _,@S' APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE • STOP: THIS SECTION NOT REQUIRED FOR BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE. Complete the following ONLY if a Certificate of Occupancy will be requested at final inspection. CEl?Tlf!CATE OF OCCUPANCY (Commercial Projects 0 n I y I Fax (760) 602-8560, Email 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 P.g. 1) . MAil TO: CONTACT (Usted above) OCCUPANT (Listed above) ASSOCIATED CB# CONTRACTOR (On Pg.1) NO CHANGE IN USE/ NO CONSTRUCTION MAIL/ FAX TO OTHER: CHANGE OF USE/ NO CONSTRUCTION ·-.. .. .@S" APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE Permit Type: BLDG-Commercial Application Date: 12/23/2016 Owner: Work Class: Patio Issue Date: 02/10/2017 Subdivision: Status: Closed-Finalecj Expiration Date: 10/02/2017 Address: IVR Number: 1042 Scheduled Date Actual Start pate Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Status Primary Inspector 06/05/2017 06105/20.17 07/06/2017 07/06/2017 July 06, 2017 BLDG-Final Inspection BLDG-Final Inspection Checklii,t Item BLDG-Building·Deficiency 024975-2017 Checklist Item BLDG-Building Deficiency BLDG-Plumbing Finiil BLDG-Mechanical Final BLDG-Structural Final BLDG-Electrical Final 027952-2017 Checklist Item BLDG-Building Deficiency BLDG-Plumbing Final BLDG-Mechanical Finiil BLDG-Structural Final BLDG-Electrical Final COMMENTS EasUNorth Cafe CMU. Failed Michael Collins COMMENTS See card. Passed Paul Burnette .COMMENTS See card. PIVOTAL 650 CALIFORNIA ST LLC · 2502 Gateway Rd Carlsbad, CA 92009-1742 Reinspection Complete Passed Yes Reinspection Complete Passed No No No No No Complete Passed Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Page 2 of 2 < ~ j ,, ' . ':~ ;'/ ·}'r,i~)_;; . ' .... s, Permit Type: BLDG-Commercial . Application Date: 12/23/2016 Owner: Work Class: Patio Issue Date: 02/10/2017 Subdivision: Status: Closed -.Finaled \;:xpiration Date: 10/02/2017 Address: IVR Number: 1042 Scheduled Date Actual Start Date Inspection Type Inspection No. 03/07/2017 03/08/2017 03/08/2017 , 03/08/2017 03/13/2017 . 03/13/2017 03/23/2017 03/23/2017 BLDG-11 Foundation/Ftg/Pier s (Rebar) 015639-2017 Checklist lte_m BLDG-Building Deficiemcy BLDG-11 Foundation/Ftg/Pler s (Rebar) 015940-2017 Checklist Item BLDG-Building Deficiency BLDG-11 Foundation/Ftg/Pier s (Rebar) 016255-2017 Checklist Item BLDG-Building Deficiency BLDG-21 Underground/Underf loor Plumbing 017456-2017, Checklist Item BLDG-Building Deficiency BLDG-23 Gas/Test/Repairs 017457-2017 Checklist Item BLDG-Building Deficiency 03/24/2017 03/24/2017 . BLDG-23 017627-2017 . 03/29/2017 03/29/2017 · 04/04/2017 04/04/201.7 04/06/2017 04/05/2017 . July 06, 2017 Gas/Test/Repairs Checklist Item BLDG-Building Deficiency BLDG-11 Foundation/Ftg/Pier s (Rebar) 018099-2017 Checklist Item BLDG-Building Deficiency BLDG-11 Foundation/Ftg/Pier s (Rebar) 018671-2017 Ghecklist Item BLDG-Building Deficiency BLDG-66 Grout 018895-2017 Inspection Status Primary Inspector Cancelled Michael Collins COMME_NTS Passed Michael Collins COMMENTS Shade strµcture spread footings/steel only. Passed Michael Collins COMMENTS Failed Michael Collins COMMENTS Passed Michael Collins COMMENTS Partial-Pass Paul York COMMENTS Failed Michael Collins COMMENTS Passed Michael Collins COMMENTS South & west screen walls .. Passed Michael Collins PIVOTAL 650 CALIFORNIA ST LLC 2502 Gateway Rd Carlsbad, CA 92009-1742 Reinspection Complete Reinspection Complete Passed No Complete Passed Yes Complete Passed No Reinspection Complete Passed No Complete Passed No Reinspection Incomplete Passed No Reinspection Complete Passed No Complete Passed Yes Complete Page 1 ·ot 2 June 8, 2017 Pivotal c/ o PCG Construction 1121 West Warner Road #109 Tempe, Arizona 85284 Attention: Ryan Hatch Reference: ViaSat Grove w CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEER.ING 2508 Gateway Road, Carlsbad, California Permit Approval #CBC 2016-0093 Subject: Final Testing and Inspection Report Dear Mr. Hatch, CWE 2170157.01 Christian Wheeler Engineering has provided testing and special inspection of reinforced concrete, reinforced masonry, reinforcing steel, shop welding, field welding, high-strength bolting, high- strength grout, mechanical anchors, and epoxy dowels on the above referenced project as described in reports dated March 7, 2017 through April 13, 2017. The work requiring testing and special inspection was, to the best of my knowledge, in conformance to the approved plans, specifications, other construction documents, and applicable workmanship provisions of the California Building Code. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 619-550-1700. Sincerely, ENGINEERING Charlie G. Carter Jr., R.C.E. 61968 cc: c_ryan.hatch@viasat.com crich@level1Oge.com Cfry of Carlsbad 3980 Home Avenue+ San Diego, CA 92105 + 619-550-1700 + FAX 619-550-1701 ' May 4, 2017 Pivotal c/ o PCG Construction 1121 West Warner Road# 109 Tempe, Arizona 85284 Attention: Ryan Hatch w CHR.ISTIAN WHEELER_ ENGINEER.ING Subject: Special Inspection and Testing for the I beam columns in center shade area ViaSat Grove, 2508 Gateway Road, Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Hatch: CWE #2170157 As you are aware, Christian Wheeler Engineering has been providing special inspection and testing services during the construction of the subject project. Please find attached the 28-day compressive strength test results for concrete sampled 4/6/17 for the I beam columns in center shade area. The strength of this sample #9304 (6,310 psi) is below the specified 28-day strength (7,000 psi). Using the criteria in the CBC with the specified strength, fc = 7,000 psi, concrete shall be considered satisfactory if: 1. the average strength of all sets of three consecutive strength tests equals or exceeds fc; and, 2. no _single strength test falls below the f'c by more than 500 psi (6,500 psi). Based on these criteria, the concrete represented by these strength tests may not be considered satisfactory at this time for 7,000 psi design strength. The design engineer should examine these test results and determine if any additional testing of the existing concrete is required. The remaining sample (#9305) will be tested at 56 days, unless otherwise directed. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our office. Sincerely, cc: crich@leve11Oge.com 3980 Home Avenue + San Diego, CA 92105 + 619-550-1700 + FAX 6_19-550-1701 J \ ,1 CHR.ISTIAN WHEELER. ENGINEERING COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS Job Name: Job Address: Contractor: Subcontractor: Test Location: Req. Strength: Date Sampled: Date Received: Sampled by: Tested by: Sample Type: Notes: Sample# 9303 9304 · 9305 ViaSat Grove 2508 Gateway Rd., Carlsbad, CA Level 10 ConstnJ.ction Certified ·Concrete I beam columns @ cep.ter shade area c:mo:o ps() 4-6-17 4-7-17 DM NS 2" x 2" x 2" HSG Date Age T ested/lssued (days) 4-13-17 7 5-4-17 28 6-1-17 56 CWE#: Permit#: Architect: Engineer: Supplier: Mix#: Admixture(s): Truck#: Mix Temp: Slump: Min in Mixer: Dimensions/ Area Avg. Dia. (in.) (sq. in.) 2.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 2170157 CBC 2016-0093 SCA Steven D. Rohy HUB 100 II 75° Maximum Load (lbs.) 23,270 25,250 Client: Plan File#: Ticket#: Air Temp: 70° %Air: Wet Unit Wt: Comp. Strength (psi) Fracture Type 5,820 6,310 .. The sampling, handling, cunng and compressive strength testing were performed by Christian Wheeler Engineering in accordance with the applicable ASTM standards. No other warranties, express or implied. Distribution: c_ryan.hatch@viasat.com crich@levellOge.com City of Carlsbad Supplier • TJPii3 CdUUlruir\'llrlkaetackl~g ihrouoh!>alhOl'ds,1'owef',. fomte:1<:000S Reviewed by: ~ DD D T)l>04 Chagonalf~~\nhno ctaelor.g ttro'Jgh end,: lt'f>wlthhammvb ddi.191Jish ITOITl Type 1 T)ll!>5 Sidell:atlW'esa!topoi boltom {ooo.ir carmorly TrlUti.mbondcdc-;ip;} Tw>8 S,nlarloT,,,.,bulord ofqinderi!porlled Michael B. Wheeler, RCE #45358 ~ 3 9 8 0 Home· Avenue + San Di-ego, CA 9 2 1 0 5 + 6 1 9 -5 5 0 -1 7 0 0 + FAX 6 1 9 -5 5 0 -1 7 0 1 May 4, 2017 Pivotal c/ o PCG Construction 1121 West Warner Road# 109 Tempe, Arizona 85284 Attention: Ryan Hatch w CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEER.ING Subject: Speciallnspection and Testing Services at the West Piers ViaSat Grove, 2508 Gateway Road, Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Hatch: CWE #2170157 As you are aware, Christian Wheeler Engineering has been providing special inspection and testing services during the construction of the subject project. Please find attached the 28-day compressive strength test results for concrete sampled 4/5/17 at the West Piers. The strength of this sample #9280 (4,380 psi) is below the specified 28-day strength (7,000 psi). Using the criteria in the CBC with the specified strength, f'c = 7,000 psi, concrete shall be considered satisfactory if: 1. the average strength of all sets of t~ee consecutive strength tests equals or exceeds fc; and, 2. no single strength test falls below the fc by more than 500 psi (6,500 psi). Based on these criteria, the concrete represented by these strength tests may not be considered satisfactory at this time for 7,000 psi design strength. The design engineer should examine these test results and determine if any additional testing of the existing concrete is required. The remaining sample (#9281) will be tested at 56 days, unless otherwise directed. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our office. Sincerely, cc: crich@level10gc.com 3980 Home Avenue + San Diego, CA 92105 + 619-550-1700 + FAX 619-550-1701 ~~-"-' CHRISTIAN WHEELER. ENGINEER.ING COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS Job Name: Job Address: Contractor: Subcontractor:· Test Location: Req. Strength: Date Sampled: Date Received, Sampled by: Tested by: Sample Type: Notes: , .. Sample# 9279 9280 9281 ViaSat Grove 2508 Gateway Rd., Carlsbad, CA Level 10 Construction Certified Concrete West Piers ~i 4-5-17 4-6-17 DM NS 2"x2"x2"HSG Date Age Tested/Issued (days) 4-12-17 7 5°3-17 28 5-31-17 56 CWE#: Permit#: Architect: Engineer: Supplier: Mix#: Admixture(s): Truck#: Mix Temp: Slump: Min in Mixer: Dimensions/ Area Avg. Dia. (in.) (sq. in.) 1.90 X 1.88 3.57 1.92 X 1.90 3.65 - 2170157 CBC 2016-0093 SCA Steven D. Rohy 80° Maximum Load (lbs.) 13,560 15,990 Client: Plan File#: Ticket#: Air Temp: 70° %Air: Wet Unit Wt: Comp. Strength (psi) Fracture Type 3,800 4,380 . ' .. The sampling, handling, cunng and compressive strength testing were performed by Chnst1an Wheeler Engineenng in accordance with the applicable ASTM standards. No other warranties, express or implied. Distribution: c_ryan.hatch@viasat.com crich@levellOgc:com City of Carlsbad Supplier Typ,2 ~·lell,fonned tale 0.1 one. enl!:'Y~tn\W/\1:r.h!l thro~hcaps.,noweJJ. cefi{ledCMe:OIIOlherertd ~11mn/~ cracl4~9 lhrcughbolhetld.\~o·Nef,, tonnfrtcc,m Reviewed by: ~ DD D T)l>84 Oiagooal fraeluro w~ no ctae:kr.glllO'.Jghencfs: tapwlthhammerlo ddl:\guhhfromTypa1 Type5 s:dorract:resattopoi bottom {occur carrnoriy yd!hlJ'lb011dcd ta?S} Typo8 Slmlar lo Two~ bul erd ofC)indetisponted 3980 Home Avenue+ San Diego, CA 92105 + 619-550-1700 + FAX 619-550-1701 w CHR.ISTIAN WHEELER. ENGINEER.ING COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS Job Name: Job Address: Contractor: Subcontractor: Test Location: Req. Strength: Date Sampled: Date Received: Sampled by: Tested by: Sample Type: Notes: Sample# 9477 9478 9479 ViaSat Grove 2508 (¾teway Rd., Carlsbad, CA Level 10 Construction Certified Concrete Beam seats @ Barbeque area 7000 psi 4-13-17 4-14-17 DM NS 2" x 2" x 2" HSG Date Age Tested/Issued (days) 4-20-17 7 5-11-17 28 5-11-17 2$ CWE#: Permit#: Architect: Engineer: Supplier: Mix#: Admixture(s): True!<#: Mix Temp: Slump: Min in Mixer: Dimensions/ Area Avg. Dia. (in.) (sq. in.) 2.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 2170157 Client: CBC 2016-0093 SCA Steven D. Rohy HUB 100 II Maximum Load (lbs.) 38,820 44,110 45,430 Plan File#: Ticket#: Air Temp: %Air: Wet Unit Wt: Comp. Strength (psi) 9,700 11,030 11,360 Fracture Type .. The sampling, handling, cunng and compressive strength testing were performed.by Christian Wheeler Engineering in accordance with the applicable ASTM standards. No other warranties, express or implied. Distribution: c_ryan.hatch@viasat.com crich@level1Oge.com City of Carlsbad Supplier Ty)IJj ne.ii.UtcW.ily','fdtonrc.c C(,.esonbct~e'l<blb!.~ tl,rm1~1 (2nm11Jof trJCkn~ .hrnugticap$ Ti! li i 1,r 1 y T}';,a2 \'teHt1mt:i.lCOtl&~'l00o.t enr,•,r.t1r.:llc-:icl''\ru:irh9 th:t'(J~llcaps.ro11-elJ. Cefriweor.0011 o!her e:1d T;:,c3 c.~i.111u~· ~trlrcsl ~1,rl, --J '•n111oi':n1,erl!\nJ'l1!:.'I~ torw:1-c:::ics Reviewed by: ~ DD D T;,j11'14 Dl<¥:~1<3llrc!::l.Jr&~Uh"IO C"'aCK.!·!;10ht/J!;ll100!!'1; !?pwt!l1ha'lm1er•u dcii-ig,usti'orn i;,;,o1 T~~5 S:delnLWl~<1 l¢f101 ootrorn(ul.UlrCO'IIT'.(A",ly •111\hv:it>oncc-i ccp~) ly;tt',li s,m~rir tn T)'po 5 b.!1 ';l'ltl of(..')lil".00:'cSpoL'llej 3980 Home Avenu,e + San Diego, CA 92105 + 619-550-1700 + FAX 619-550-1701 ~~-"" CHRISTIAN WHEELER. ENGINEER.ING COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RES_ULTS Job Name: Job Address: Contractor: Subcontr!:lctor: Test Location: Req. Strength: Date Sampled: Date Received: Sampled by: Tested·by: Sample Type: Notes: Sample# 9282 9283 9284 9285 ViaSat Grove 2508 Gateway Rd., Carlsbad, CA Level 10 Construction Certified Concrete South Pier 8 x 18 footing 3000 psi 4-5-17 4-6-17 DM NS 4" x 8" concrete cylinder Date T ested/lssued 4-12-17 5-3-17 5-3-17 5-3-17 Age (days) 7 28 28 28 Dimensions/ Avg. Dia. (in.) 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 CWE#: Permit#: Architect: Engineer: Supplier: Mix#: Admixture(s): Truck#: Mix Temp: Slump: Min in Mixer: Area (sq. in.) 12.566 12.566 12.566 12.566 2170157 CBC 2016-0093 SCA Steven D. Rohy Robertson's 560C 1332 73° 5" 100 Client: Plan File#: Ticket#: 2588342 Air Temp: 60° %Air: Wet Unit Wt: Maximum Load Comp. Strength (lbs.) (psi) Fracture Type 37,120 2,950 3 56,360 4,490 4 57,400 4,570 2 55,980 4,460 3 .. . . The sampling, handling, cunng and compressive strength testing were performed by Chnst1an Wheeler Engmeenng m accordance with the applicable ASTM standards. No other warranties, express or implied. Distribution: c_ryan.hatch@viasat.com crich@level1Oge.com City ofCarlsbad Supplier ,.,,2 Well.fonnedc'ona1Y1one enc',Ylllt!~dl'ltksro:irln!] thnll)Jflcap~~owetf. Pdl(iideoneouolheterr.l • Tp3 Cdumn.at \'llrtkal c:acio'l{! it.:ou91tbalh6r.d~,~0'NeD- l(fl'l1edwi,.'.!S Reviewed by: ~ DD D T)1'"1 Diagonal frae~11'1) wih no erackr.gtwJghen<f!f: tapl'lithha.:Mlef~ ~uetifiomTypa1 Tl!)<)5 S:deftactUl'tl,altopo1 bol.tMl {OWJr corrmoriy l(llhunb011dcdc::ps} Typ<S SlmDatloT'JPO,(il}\llerd 1'I (;)1ntkv is pc hied Michael B. Wheeler, ACE #45358 ~ 3980 Home Avenue+-San Diego, CA 92105 +-619-550-1700 +-FAX 619-550-1701 . City ol.C~rlsbad MAY O 2 2017 BUILD!NG DIVISION FIELD REPORT ,. Project Name ViaSat Grove . ' Project Address 2508 Gateway Rd., Carlsbad, CA Contractor Level i 0 Construction Subcontractor :Minshew Brothers Steel D Reinforced· Co!}crete [i Pre-Stre~sed Co.ncrete D High Strength Bolts D Non-Destructive Testing D Footiog·Observation D Asphalt Obs/Testing .. Material/Equipment: ,. .!N CHR.ISTIAN WHEELER. ENGINEERING CWE# 2170157 . .Pennit# CBC 2016-0093 Architect SCA Engineer Steven D. Rohy [] Reinforced Masonry D Epoxy Anchors D IZI Mechanical Anchors D Fireproofing D D Soil Obs/Testing D Roofing D Arrived on site, as requested, to provide the following services: Date: 4/10/17 I Page 1 of 1 Project File # Shop Welding D Field Welding Wood/Metal Shear D Waterproofing Building Envelope IZI HS Grout Special Insp.ection -To observe the installation of mechanical anchors in lieu of ledger bolts that were left out of CMU wall surrounding BBQ area by , Williams and Son's masonry seven total Hilti Titen ¾" x 4" HSN wer~ placed no paper work or conformation from Engineer or manufacturer was provided. Superintendent provided installation for torque on anchors as 60' ft-lbs but after research Flilti called out 115 ft-lbs. More info1mation is needed. 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: As noted abov~. . 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 prO\'ided do not relieve the contractor from its obJigation to.meet contractual requirements. ICC.N0.8197364 (\ J\ d : ~). David A. Manlove SD No.1263 Inspector/Technician Name Certification # Inspector/Technician's Signature Initial Distribution: crich@level1Oge.com Charlie Carter RCE #61968 ax Reviewer Name Certification # Reviewer's Signature Reviewedl)istribution: City of Carlsbad 3980 Home Avenue <fl San Diego, CA 92105 <fl 619-550-1700 <fl FAX 619-550-1701 !R CHRISTIAN WHEELER. ENGINEER.ING FIELD REPORT Pro;ect Name Viasat Building 11 Grove CWE# 2170157 Date: 4111117 / Page 1 of 1 Pro;ect Address 2508 Gateway Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92009 Permit# CBC 2016-0093 File# Contractor Level 10 Construction Architect Smith Consulting Arch Subcontrµctor Jv.linshew Brothers Engineer Wiseman + Roby Eng. D Rejnforced Concrete [] Pre-Stressed Concrete D Reinforced Masonry D Epo>.·y Anchors D Shop Welding 0 Field Welding 0 Higp 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 Envelope D llfaterial/Equipment: A500-B, A36, A992 I E71T-8 I I A325TC Arrived on site, as requested, to provide the following services: 4 Hours Performed welding inspection of fillet welds in the following locations: 1. W beams with 5/16 inch plate to 112 inch embed plate, a total of five, per detail 10IS1.2, 16IS1.1, 5IS1.2, 20IS1.1, SIS1.1, 14IS1.2 at gridlines 1IB-D & 2IB-C. 2. HSS 3x3x1l4 inch tube steel to top ofW12x40 beam per detail 9ISD1.2 at gridlines 2IC, B & 1ID, A. Checked welder for procedures and techniques. Completed welds checked for conformance with design drawings. One welder working on project, work completed on cafe. Welder: Jeff Hamman: Amps-242, Volts-20 WPS: E71T-8 Fillet. Monitored snapping of A325 TC high strength bolts, one inch ~ameter bolts for cafe. Checked the faying surfaces were in snug fit contact. Checked diameter and length of bolts. Materials and installation were.in conformance with design drawings. Work completed. Final turn of the nut bolts in shade 'A' were checked for rotation, all accepted. 4x4x1 I 4 inch angle ledger mounted to 8 inch masonry wall with 518 inch HILT! KWIK HUS-EZ anchor bolts, torqued to 85 ft-lbs. per manufacturer's recommendations. Worked performed at gridlines 1 I A-D per detail 15IS1 .2 (David Maestas, P.E. of Wiseman + Rohy, approved change of anchor bolts and installation). 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 project documents. It should be noted that the work reported as b~ing observed, tested, and opinions expressed are solely for the benefit of our client and that our presence and the serv1ces provided do not relieve the contractor from its obligation to meet contractual requirements. CWI #12041271, ICC {) ( J •,,itl/) ' j \ • ; Michael T. Diaz #8165616, S.D CITY #1179 "'I\""' J' \ ·"\ \ ( ~ " ~"'v ,,,,,., _¾;,,,.. ~ Inspector/Technician Name Certification # Inspector/Technician's Signature Initial Distribution: crich@level1Oge.com Charlie Carter RCE #61968 ttF. 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 !R CHR.ISTIAN WHEELER. ENGINEERING FIELD REPORT .. .Project Name ViaSat Grove CWE# 2170157 Date: 4/13/17 I Page 1 of 1 Project Address 2508 Gateway Rd., Carlsbad, CA Pennit# CBC 2016-0093 Project File # Contractor Level 10 Construction Architect SCA Subcontractor Minshew Brothers. Steel Engineer Steven D. Rohy D Reinforced Concrete tJ Pre-Stressed Concrete D Reinforced Masonry D Epm,-y 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 Fo~ting·Observation D AsphaltObs/_Testin~ 0 Soil-Obs/Testing D Roofing D Building Envelope ~ HS Grout Material/B.quipment: HUB 100 II non shrink grout meets or exceeds ASTM C1107 Arrived on site, as requested, to provide the following services: Spec'ial ·Inspection -To observe the installation of high strength non slu111k grout ( dry pack method ) under the beam seats that support the shade st1ucture on the Civ[U wall surrounding BBQ area, 4 locations about 9 foot off-finished floor. ·~am,ples were ·taken to make compressive strength cube~ that wµ.l be tested. NOTED DISCREPANCIES -The items poted below were observed to be in non-conformance with the approved project documents and will require corr.ection or the design engineer's review for approval: NOTICE: Unless othet\v:ise stated, the work observed ,vas, to the best of my knowledge, in.compliance with the approved project documents. It should be noted that the work reported-as being observed, testecj, and opinions expressed.are solely for the benefit of our client and that our presence and the sen'lces provided do not relieve the contractor frqm its obligation to mei;t contractual requirements. ICC No.8197364 (\ A J11 B ~ ~,v David A. Manlove SD No.1263 . i). ' Inspector/Technician Name Certification # Inspector/Technician's Signature Initial Distdbution: crich@level10gc.com Charlie Carter RCE #61968 !!X 1,l.eviewer Name Certification # Reviewer's Signature .. P,eviewed Distribution: City of Carlsbad 3980 Home Avenue cIJ San Diego, CA 92105 cIJ 619-550-1700 cIJ FAX 619-550-1701 ,.~,J w CHRISTIAN WHEELER. ENGINEER.ING COMPRESSIVE _STRENGTH TEST RES UL TS Job Name: Job Address: Contractor: Subcontractor: Test Location: Req. Strength: Date ·Sampled:· ViaSat Grove 2508 Gateway Rd., Carlsbad, CA Level 10·Construction Certified Concrete Southwest column 5 x 6 footing. 3000 psi 3°947 CWE#: Permit#: Architect: E;:ngineer: Supplier: Mix#: -Admixture(s): - 2170157 CBC 2016-0093 SCA Steven D. Rohy Robertson's 560C Client: Plan File#: Date Received: 3-10-17 truck#: 1325 Ticket#: 2776441 Sampled by: DM Mix Temp: 69° Air Temp: 58° Tested by: NS . Slump: 3½" %Air: Sample Type: 4" x 8" concrete cylinder Min in Mixer: 100 Wet Unit Wt: Notes: Date Age Dimensions/ Area Maximum Load ·Comp. Strength Sample# ._ (days) (sq. in.) Fracture Type Tested/Issued .Avg. Dia. (in.) (lbs.) (psi) 8685 3-16-17 7 4.00 12.566 39,110 3,110 3 8686 4-6-17 28 4.00 12.566 54,610 4,350 6 -. ~687 4-6-17 28 4,00 12.566 56,770 4,520 3 8688 4-6-17 is. 4.00 12.566 57,140 4,550 4 ' -.. The sampljng, handling, curing and·compress1ve_ strengtMestmg were,performed by Christian-Wheeler Engineering in accordance with the applicable ASTM standards. No · other warranties, express or implied: ' Distribution: c_ryan:p.atch@viasat.cpm crich@level1 Ogc:com City of Carlsbad Supplier T)P<l2 Wei-formedtcfl.eMone. tri(v~.eratk$nft.t,g throo;ihcaps..nowell-ooflf!OO ccne off o_lher end • J)wl Cdwnner_~cracj(j'lll l'hrollf)ftbalhet:~flOwef,. fcmrat-corm RevieWE!d by: T)l>e5 Sloofrathlresattopor bol.ttm(OWJrcoo,nooly Ydlhwibo11dcdcnp:1} 3980 Hom·e Avenue+ San Diego, CA 92,105 + 619-550-1700 + FAX 619-550-1701 Type& S,nlatlOTIP<~bel,.-d o(cy311d..:vis.poiltoo FIELD REPORT .. Project Name Viasat Grove Project Address 2508 Gateway Rd. Carlsbad Contractor Level 10 Subcontractor CCI D Reinforced-Concrete D Pre-Stressed Concrete D D High Strength Bolts D Non-Destructive Testing D D Footing Observation D Asphalt Obs/Testing D . . w CHRJSTIAN WHEELER. City of Carlsbad APR 10 2017 ENGINEER.ING DI'" --·--· ~ J:Jnf\1N CWE# 2170157 Date: Permit# CBC 2016-0093 Project File # Architect SCA Engineer Wiseman & Rohy Reinforced Masonry lg] Epoxy Anchors D Shop Welding Mechanic,µ Anchors D Fireproofing D Wood/Metal Shear Soil Obs/Testing D Roofing D Building Envelope _Material/Equipmeil(: A615 Grade 60 Rebar, Hilti HY 200 Epoxy-ICC ESR 3187 w/ current date ' Arriv\'!d on site, as requested, to provide the following services: I Page 1 of 1 D Field Welding D Waterproofing D Special Inspection of t:h,e installation of 82 drilled and epoxied #5 rebar dowels for the steel frame foundation spread footings, tie beams. The holes ·were drilled with a carbide drill bit 4" into what appeared to be sound and cured concrete. The holes were cleaned by brushing and compres.secl air. The work has been done in general conformance with the plans. NOTED DJSCREPANCIES "The items noted below were observed to be in non-conformance with the approved project documents and will require cor.ection or the design engineer's review for approval: None - NOTICE: Unless otherwise stated, the work observep was, to-the best of my knowledge, in com,pliance 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 services provided do not relieve the contractor from its obligation to meet contractual requirements. . john Shirle;1c SD 10741'.'. ICC5258925 /J:!:;!!::::f:;._ Inspector/Technician Name Certification # Initial Distribution: crich@level1Oge.com Charlie Carter RCE #61968 ttK. Reviewer Name Certification# Reviewer's Signature Reviewed Distribution: City of Carlsbad 3 9 8 0 H o m e A v e nu e S a n D i.e·g b , C A 9 2 1 0 5 6 1 9 -5 5 0 -1 7 0 0 cJ> FAX 6 1 9 -5 5 0 -1 7 0 1 !N CHRISTIAN WHEELER. ENGINEER.ING FIELD REPORT Project Name ViaSat Grove CWE# 2170157 Date: 3/8/17 I Page 1 of 1 Project Address 2508 Gate Way Rd., Carlsbad, CA Permit# CBC 2016 0093 Project File # Contractor Level 10 Construction Architect SCA Subcontractor Certified Concrete Engmeer Steven D. Rohy IZI Reinforced Concrete D Pre-Stressed Concrete [] Reinforced Masonry D Epo>.--y 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 F_ooting Observation D Asphalt Obs/Testing D Soil Obs/Testing D Roofing D Building Envelope D Material/Equiprµent: Reinforcing steel #4, #5 & #6 grade 60/ A.B 3/4 x 12 & 7 /8 x 18 for templets Weather: Good/Sunny 75° Arrived on site, as requested, to provide the following sercices: Special inspection for footings and reinforcing steel. Footings were checked for dimensions, size and depth. Some were a· little bigger due to soil condition. Reinforcing steel was checked for size, grade, lap, jlnd correct .placement. All was as called out in construction -documents. NOTED DISCREP,\NCIES -The items noted.below were obse1-ved t~ be in non-wnformance with the approved project documents and will require correction or the design engineer's review for approval: Note: Loose materials in footings 11eed tel be removed prior to concrete placeme1,t. 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 observed, tested, and opinions expressed are soldy for the benefit of our client and that our presence and the services provided do not relieve the contractor from_its obligation to meet contrac_tual requirements. (\. ' ~ A f~ David A. Manlove SD #1263 ICC #8197364 . )~ Inspector/Technician Name Certification # Inspector/Technician's Signature Initia/Distiibution: Chris Rich Charlie Carter RCE #61968 ttX. Reviewer Name Certification# Reviewer's Signature Reviewed Distnbution: City of Carlsbad 3980 Home Avenue San Diego, CA 92105 619-550-1700 FAX 619-550-1701 FIELD REPORT ProjectNaine ViaSat Grove Project Address 2508 Gateway Rd., Carlsbad, CA Contractor Level 10 Construction . Sqbcontractor Certified Concrete .~ Reinforced Concrete D Pre-Stressed <;:onm,te D High Strength Bolts D Non-Destructive Testing D Footing Observation D Asphalt Obs/Testing D D D !N (HR.ISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEER.ING CWE# 2170157 Permit# CBC 2016-0093 Architect SCA Engineer Steven D. Rohy Reinforced Masonry. ,0 Epqxy Anchors D Mechanical Anchors D Fireproofing D ... Sqil Obs/Testing D Roofing D Material/Equipment: Roberson's concrete / Georgia buggy / vibrator/ hand tools ,Arrived on site, as requested, to provide the following services: Date: 3/9/17 I Page 1 of 1 Project File # Shop Welding D Field Welding Wood/Metal Shear D Waterproofing Building Envelope D Special Inspection -for concrete placement in Footings (18 column's & 2 Footings off existing masonry BBQ -extension) to observe & sample .. c.o.ncrete. -.. -. ----~ ~--- Two horizontal Reinforcing bars were added to each CMU footing at B:aQ that were missed on previous inspection. Concrete was placed buy Georgia buggy and consolidated with vibrator, about 38 cubic yards were placed. Concrete was sampled to check concrete temp, air temp, slump and compressive strength cylinders were made and recorded. NOTED DISCREPANCIES -The items noted below were observed to be in non-conformance with the approved project documents and will require , correction or the qesign engineer's :i;eview 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 observed, tested, and opinions expressed are solely for the benefit of our client and that our presence and the services provided do not relieve the contractor from its c;,bligation to meet contractual requirements. ICC No.8197364 ~ ~ i1Jt11~id "'" t David .A. Manlove SD No.1263 ·tJ. tt. 1 ·; Inspector/Technit;ian Name Certificatio.n # Inspector/Technidan's Signature Initial Distri_bution: crich@level1Oge.com Charlie Carter RCE #61968 ax · Reviewer Name Certification # Reviewer's Signature Reviewed Distribution: City of Carlsbad 3980 Home Avenue cJ) San Diego, CA 92105 cJ) 619-550-1700 cJ) FAX 619-550-1701 •• w • CHR.ISTIAN WHEELER. ENGINEERING DAILY REPOR;r', _.- Project Name l/ l/ j I -IV l i-.; I i ntl (:__ 'Project #A { '7 (_! I is-t' ProjectAddre,q 1-'-oc.i. /\ . .J,.. \ . /,1 ,') I ,., /.,I A Permit:/j-,/...,/·, ·-Jf,f'/.,""ID4-=?IPlanFile# .:::_:..1 u l:.?lllfe \.N/--c\/ ilC[,L-/t'"t5"t)A.,:i L )'-. ?-{.,/f::)t-,, t-,, Contractoz e t/ t i l b t__ oN5'ft-t:Jc+~ 0 A/ Architect s C H .. @' Reinforced Concrete O Pre-Stressed Concrete D Reinforced Masonry D Epoxy Anchors { D Shop Welding D Field Welding D Fireproofing o _______ _ Material/EquipmjtU · / , t' .-· · {' H""' .-' .I /' ,.. /l~., // _1 J_ /1~ ~--·_,:,,,.· ./] ..-J-\l• / A,· rcJ·e ,/v4 -.:i i:-'c:: .;,.\, L.f, :> -::r-0 ,.J..n 1t' t-:' b _ -1 0 ·, " ,__ v -,?. _.,..,. ,,.-., V / )-'' /• ,, . · C' ,,,.., ,..., 101 Date Time Start: 1 I Time End: I· Time Billed: j ;; /} r ;) / .c, f 5 (1 . I-· I. /\ ;::::: j • ,_JD€ ~I /7 / /V 1'J7f: (1(1 011 -t-0(1 r Oo T;~v,!('5 .J- V' 1 f. I / / ,.,. / /--··' / / / f' C' j (} i" £., /t( / /) 4· 3 re e l ,-, / / . , ,/ / ., -.J_J;' ' fl I u I I •. 1.7 1 / b,_ .. .:; 5 i-75 l',;r-Ji 1c·L o u-r 1 ,,1 (ic/J'31i ocT, z:·rt / .-· / .,. ,.,. / / ,· ./ / ./ _./ / .•. ; ' __. I Unless noted otherwise, the work observed is, to ~ best of my kn~~g~n 501J1fliance with.the approved plans an? JPecifi«:_ations. \'-(\ ,j:1j_ J ;l 11.:t !Vo. 'ol 1JT_::>b7. --~-;,;,/ rr·,?/.J ,.'("',,..,,... ~ .o.~1 .. /ll~l'l.11Jbl Oih ,\/,... l'lrc3 ___ //#' (.__ 3L_d/r"';.:,,_ lnspectpr/T~lclan's _Signature [ 1-•-. -. Reg.# (,,.._S-up,,,..e-rin-te-nd-e-nt-'s S-ig-n-at-ur-e --------~...,· Date · \ ./,Vi d .:/. _,:f,f AA/ f <>Vt lnsoector/Techniclan (Print or Type) 3980 Home Avenue + San Diego, CA 92105 + 619-550-1700 + FAX 619-550-1701 ·w CHRISTIAN WHEELER. ENGINEER.ING FIELD REPORT -' . . . Project _Name . Vfasat Grove CWE# 2170157 Date: 3/7/17 / Page 1 of 1 Project Address 250$ Gateway Rd. Carlsbad Permit# CBC 2016-0093 Project File # - · Contractor Level 10 Architect SCA Subcontractor CCI Engineer Wiseman & Rohy .. .. .. -- ·o Reinforced Concrete 0 Pre-Stressed Concrete D Reinforced Masonry ~ Epoxy Anchors D Shop Welding D Field Welding [j High Strength Bolt_s [] Non-Destructive Testing D Mechanical Anchors 0 Fireproofing D Wood/Metal Shear D Waterproofing --" D Footing Observation D Asphalt Obs/Testi_ng D Soil Obs/Testing D Roofing D Building Envelope D Matenal/Equipmeilt: A615 Grade 60 Rebar, Hilti HY 200 Epoxy~!CC ESR 3187 w/ current date -. -. Arrived on site, as requested, to provide the following services: Special Inspection of the installation of 82 drilled and epoxied #5. rebar dowels for the steel frame foundation spread footings, tie beams. The holes were drilled with a carbide drill bit 4" into what appeared to be sound and cured concrete. The holes were - cleaned by brushing and compressed air. The work has been done in general conformance with the plans. · 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: · None 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 observed, tested, and opinions expressed are solely for the benefit of our client and that our presence and the services provided do e ,. . .1 . '·.~ John Shirley SD 10'74/ ICC5258925 ·-n· o1 •. ~. .·. ·. -Qp:;t:;/Te~ci~ 's Si ature · inspector/Technician Name Certification # Initial Distribution: crich@levellOge.com ' Reviewer Name Certification # Reviewer's Signature .. Reviewed Distribution: ... -.. 3980 Home Avenue+ San Diego, CA 92105 + 619-550-1700 + FAX 619-550-1701 ~Nl CHR.ISTfAN WHEELER. ENGINEER.ING FIELD REPORT Project Name ViaSat -The Grove .CWE# 2170157 Date: 3/6/17 J Page 1 of 1 Project Address 2508 Gateway Road, Carlsbad Permit# Project File # Contractor Level 10 Architect .. Subcontractor Engineer b Reinforced Concrete [] Pre-Stressed;Concrete D Reinforced Masonry D Epoxy Anchors D Shop Welding D Field Welding :0 High Strength Bolts D Ngn-Destructive Testing. D Mechanical Anchors D Fireproo ting D Wood/Metal Shear D Waterproofing 131 Footing Obsen·ation D Asphalt Obs/Testing D Soil Obs/Testing D Roofing D Building Envelope D Matenal/Equipment: Arrived on site, as requested, to provide the following services: Observed the footing excavations for Shade Structure A located in the western portion of the project area. The excavations have exposed compet~nt formational soil ·at the bearing level and are suitable to support the planned structure. Also re-observed the soft area noted 3/3 for the Shade Structure B. The soft soils have been removed and competent formational soils are exposed. Based on our observati9ns, it is our opinion that the foundation excavations for Shade Structures A and B as well as the Cafe are suitable from a geotei::hnic,il standpoint. NOTED DISCREPANCIES -The items noted below were observed to be in non-conformance with the approved project documents and will require correction or the des.ign engineer's review for appr6val: . \ NOTICE: Unless otherwise stated, the workobserved was, to the-best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approved project documents. It should be noted that the ,vork.reported as being observed, tested, and opinions expressed are solely for the benefit of our client and that our presence and the services provided do not relieve the contractor from its obligation to meet contractual requirements. Shawn Ca~a ~A Inspector/Technician Name Certification# Inspector· . ec n1cian s 1., ature Initial Distribution: -c_ryan.hatch@viasatcom; crich@level10gc.com Reviewer Name Certification # Reviewer's Signature Revie.wed Distribution: 3980 Home Avenue ct> San Diego, CA 92105 ct> 619-550-1700 ct> FAX 619-550-1701 !NJ CHR.JSTIAN WHEELER. ENGINEER.ING FIELD REPORT Project Name ViaSat -TI1e Grove CWB# 2170157 Date: 3/3/17 Page 1 of1 Project Address 2508 Gateway Road, Carlsbad Permit# Project File # Contractor Level 10 Architect Subcontractor Engineer D Reinforced Concrete D Pre-Stressed Cpncrete D Reinforced Masonry D Epoxy Anchors D Shop Welding D Field Welding D High ~trength Bolts tJ Non-Destructive Testing 0 Mechanical Anchors 0 . Fireproofing D Wood/Metal Shear D Waterproofing l:8l Footing Observation 0 Asphalt Obs/Testing 0 Soil Obs/Testing 0 Roofing O Building Envelope D Malerial/Equipment: Arrived on site, as requested, to provide the following services: Observed the footing excavations for Shade Structure B located in the central portion of the project area. In general, the excavations have exposed competent formational soil at the bearing level and are suitable to support the planned structures; however one pad footing at the northern end of the structure has seepage entering the excavation and based on manual probing it appears that there is roughly 2 feet of soft material at the bottom. Discuss·ed with Chris Rich that the soft material should be removed to the contact with firm formational soil and be replaced with ¾" crushed· rock, slurry, or additional concrete. Also re-observed the soft area noted 3/2 for the Cafe. The soft soils have been removed and competent formational soils are exposed. Scheduled to return Monday (3 / 6) afternoon. 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 wodc obsen•ed was, to the.best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approved project work reported as being observed, tested, and ppinions·expressed are solely for the benefit of our client and that our presence and the contractor from its obli tion to mee.t co·ntractual requirements. Shawn Caya Inspector/Technician Name Certification # Initial Distribution: c_ryan.hatch@viasat.com; crich@level1Oge.com Reviewer Name • Certific;ation # Reviewed Distribution: ~A Inspector ~ Reviewer's Signature 3 98 0 Home Avenue cI> S·a n Diego, CA 9 2 105 cJ> 6 1 9 -5 5 0 -1700 cI> FAX 6 1 9 -5 5 0 -1701 ·!Nl CHRJSTIAN WHEELER ENGINEER,ING .FIELD REPORT Project Name ViaSat -The Grove CWE# 2170157 Date: 3/2/17 j Page 1 of 1 Project Address 2508 Gateway Road, Carlsbad Permit# Project File # Contractor Level 10 Architect Subcontractor Engineer 0 Reinforced Concrete d Pre-Stressed ConcrCcte 0 Reinforced Masonry 0 Epoxy Anchors 0 Shop Welding 0 Field Welding D High.Strength Bolts D Non-Destructive Testing 0 Mechanical Anchors D Fireproofing D Wood/Metal Shear D Waterproofing ~ Footing Observation D Asphalt Obs/Testing 0 Soil_ Obs/Testing 0 Roofing 0 Building Envelope D Material/Eq-,Jipment: Arrived <in site, as requested, to provide the following services: Observed the footing excavations for the new Grove Cafe structure located at the eastern end of the project area. The excavation along Lines 2 and A have exposed competent formational soil at the bearing level and are suitable to support the planned structures. The excavation at Gridline (1,D) has exposed soft fill soils at the bearirtg level. Based on manual probing it appears that there is roughly 2 feet of soft material. Discussed with Chris Rich that the soft material should be removed to the contact with firm formational soil and be replaced with properly compacted fill," slurry, or addition~ concrete. Scheduled to return tomorrow afternoon. NOTED DISCREPANCIES -The items noted below were observed ·to be in non-conformance with the approved project documents and will require correction ot 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 ·observed, tested, and opinions expressed are solely for the benefit of our client and that our presence and the services provided do not relieve the contractor from its obligation to meet contractual requirements. Shawn Ca~a ~A-Inspector/Technician Name Certification # In-:;:;tor . echn1c1an s ~ ature Initial Dis(nbution: c_ryan.hatch@viasat.com; crich@level1 Oge. com Reviewer Name Certification # Reviewer's Signature - Reviewed Disttibution: 3980 Hom.e Avenue San Diego, CA 92105 619-550-1700 cf) FAX 619-550-1701 June 8, 2017 Pivotal c/ o PCG Construction 1121 West Warner Road #109 Tempe, Arizona 85284 Attention: Ryan Hatch Reference: ViaSat Grove • CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING 2508 Gateway Road, Carlsbad, California Permit Approval #CBC 2016-0093 Subject: Final Soil Report Dear Mr. Hatch, CWE 2170157.02 In accordance with your request, a member of our engineering staff has observed the footing excavations for the new Grove Cafe structure, Shade Structures A & B, and two screen/ shade walls associated with the · subject project. The dimensions of the observed excavations met or exceeded the minimum geotechnical requiremep.ts and the exposed bearing soils consisted of competent formational soil. Based on these conditions, it is our opinion that the observed foundation excavations were suitable from a geotechnical standpoint. Additionally, it should be noted that the placement of fill soil was not necessary for this project so compaction tests were not performed. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 619-550-1700. Sincerely, CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING Email: c_ryan.hatch@viasatcom; crich@level10gc.com 3 9 8 0 Home .Avenue + San Diego, CA 9 2 1 0 5 + 61 9 -5 5 0 -1 7 0 0 + FAX 6 1 9 -5 5 0 -1 7 0 1 \ \ ~ ('.J!)Cd--011., -ooq3 )1&-SD~ Gwl--v,v~ R.oCA.cl . & Ub t-OA g_ I s, Z) . :)}. 4 i li6V1 s hL,o) A\Jh Am1rlean, W.lding Society· f;1204H11 ~xp.1 Apr2018 Without Eye Correction ·"·~ liJ ': "'·:: I ,', AWS President J~~ AWS Certiffcatfo~ Chair \ \ ( /11111111111!11( Scan for Status http:,f /v.er-·iw~:~;,tf ~:~1'8~il~: ~ ~ .. ,·~~ I llllll,lllll:lllll,lllllilllll!lllllilllli:llll1llll 8197!J:64 21:>0~ ~~ \Jl-0-6~ bl~ w/ ~ ,o (;.:i(\~t- '\ ~~i~a~:a~~~ Field Testing Technician_~ .' :: ; ¥ i}:Jtf . .sI:1&:1tlE;;~\, : : ' T ,.,/. iD.,A~l~I],. ~/ MAiN:E:fl:V:1E f ~~,~i!;;~ -, ··.· ',J C• ------~~ certificatfon :erify at CheckACl.or-g ) ~ l ,;1·,n~p!!<;tgr:™i,u:n~~r:, !j r2as _ _ ·.-:-.'. -· . :. __ · Expiratiom I: ' '°'*embe~ 31 201·9 • • • J -~ ,. - ;I -~ T --' -- ,. Sig~aty _ -. :~~-.-::-~' ' ,.; ·-~ :~~j i I ' . . --------------,. ,.;;: r:···. --'--~. lnspectqr-fa,p. 06/2712017 _: .-, f1 ' / Inspector-Exp. 06/27t2017ff,, ,,, lo ; I ~ ~ a IN RNATIONAL ., CODE COUNCIL:'; i ~CJ" .... ACI Concrete Fi~ld Testing Technician -- . Grade I I I /-.·~,·'t:l. I •, . JOHN SHIRLEY Certification 1D.#01036153 Expires on: 04/25/2020 Certification Verify at CheckACl.org . \ -5258925 pecial Inspector -Exp. 06/27/2017 ial Inspector -Exp. 06/27/2017 >I """""""""1?''"''''"~"'",_;;<'_""'Fll.~~-.,,--,, . ...,.s,, l \ lNTEHNATIONAL r::'.: (t'ii If';; ff: ~ 1~ t 11[\IU' .. ~ U t, .,,., \.....,___~L1..i/ J,,;, \.\,,.,, t.JJ U ~\1 ,.,.,, ii! " . CHRlSTlAN WHEELER ENGINEERING ~ H 2'?08 ~°'°'L.. Coc2.01u-coq3 \ . John Shirley . /" . · INSPECTOR ~ I 1 -Cf B O ·?-7. D G 3980 Home A-venue + San Diego, CA 92105 619-550-1700 + Ceil 619-571-1630 jsbirley@christian-wheeler.com ('Cityof Carlsbad SPECIAL INSPECTION AGREEMENT B-45 Development Services Building Division 1635 Faraday Avenue 760-602-2719 \VWw.carlsbadca.gov In accordance w.llh Chapter 17 of the California Building Co~e the fo!low,lng must be completed when work being performed requires special Inspection, slrucluraf observation and .construction material testing. Project/PermitaC:W/6 -t>Of3, ProjectAddress: ZSo2. (~ 1-P. ~I 4A-~, A. THIS SECTION MUST BE COMPLETED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER/AUTHORIZED AGENT. Please check if you are Owner-Builder o. (If you checked as owner-builder you-must also complete Section-B of this agreement.) Name: (Please print.,-) ____ K~v,,...Pmc.!J..MJ<---.,.-----'M--=-..;;..' ----,------.... U+-6-1t._.n ........ .h_.__ ___ _ -Jirst) (I.I 1) · (last) MalliogAddress· {,{f"S: El LAtntnO f<ea.l., 04,,./5t~c1., C!I 'il.009 Email· tya~8:pc.~<-onsfv\lc,ti'«M ,·ft c.. tO'Y',, Phone: l.flflJ-2..3 ~-?Sill, I am: DProperty Owner KProperty Owner's Agent of Record DArchitect of Record DEngineerof Record Sta~e .. of California Registration NUmbe ... ·----~------Expiration Date: _______ _ AGREEMENT: I, the undersigned, ·declare under penally ofperjury under the laws of the State of California, that I have read, understand, acknowledge and promise to comply With the City or Carlsbad requirements for special inspections, structural observations, construction materials testing and off-site fabrication of building components, as prescribed in the statement of special inspections d on the approved plans and, as required by the Caiifornia Building Code . . · .-Date: zMr 8. CONTRACTOR'S STATEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY (07 CBC, Ch 17, Section 1706). This section must be completed by the contractor I builder/ owner-builder. Contractor's Company Name: [{3.Vf;L l O ~tVSfl(ttG17tHv1 t; P. Please check If you are O.•mer-Builder a Name: (Please print) KI G/·IAa (First} (Ml.) (last) Mailing Address: \it;":i~ ~\t<..,n '&ul~ 1>12-. ,.S.:re 'l-'50, Stw Du:%10 1 lA q?.-{30 Email: V\lt.U,;tr"ot-j@ (e,~e.(1/J3c. eo,~ Phone: i?JS(o~ C('?ll-tf~BO State or California Contractor's License Ni.,mber: ·C\ lo 1° ::+91--Expiration Date: \ \ /"?>o J '2-0 rt- • I acknowledge and, am aware, of special requirements contained in the statement of special inspections noted on ~he 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 contr9I within 9ur (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.qu/illified person within our (the contractor's) organization to exercise such control. + wl/1 r.ovlde a final · ortlletter In com liance with CBC Section 1704.1.2 rior to re uestin final /11s ec on. g.45 Page1 of1 Rev. 08/11 EsGil Corporation ~ ' ,; In <Partnersliip witli government for (}Jui(aing Safety DATE: JAN. 11,2017 JURISDICTION: CARLSBAD PLAN CHECK NO.: C2016-0093 PROJECT ADDRESS: 2502 GATEWAY ROAD SET:I CJ APPLICANT CJ JURIS. CJ PLAN REVl9WER CJ FILE PROJECT NAME: SELF SERVICE CAFE & THREE T~ELLIS STRUCTURES D The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's codes. [Z] 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: [Z] 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 ~ REMARKS: ttl}: The P/E plans to be signed by the contractor installing the work & remove the "NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION" stamp on these sheets; #2,l: The City Policy requires that their Special Inspection Agreement Form be completed at the City. By: ALI SADRE, S.E. Enclosures: EsGil Corporation D GA D EJ D MB D PC 12/27 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 + (858) 560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 .. , {DO NOT PAY -THIS IS NOT AN INVOICE] VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: CARLSBAD PREPARED BY: ALI SADRE, S.E. PLAN CHECK NO.: C2016-0093 DATE: JAN. 11,2017 BUILDING ADDRESS: 2502 GATEWAY ROAD BUILDING OCCUPANCY: 8/ V-A BUILDING AREA Valuation PORTION ( Sq. Ft.) Multiplier CAFE (Trellis #1) 548 ' TRELLIS #2 520 TRELLIS #3 2209 - Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE Jurjsdiction Code cb By Ordinance Bldg. Permit Fee by Ordinance Plan Check.Fee by Ordinance Type of Review: Complete Review Reg. VALUE Mod. o Structural Only D Repetitive Fee ~ Repeats ,0 Other 0 Hourly EsGil fee I --IHr.@• Comments: ($) 50,498 $405.531 $263.591 $227.101 Sheet 1 of 1 macvalue.doc + 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 + (858) 560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 ' ' Cicyof Carlsbad DETERMINATION OF PROJECT'S SWPPP TIER LEVEL AND CONSTRUCTION THREAT LEVEL E-32 Development Services Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue 760-602-2750 www .carlsbadca.gov I'm applying for: D Grading Permit Ill Building Permit D Right-of-way permit D Other Project Name: Viasat Grove Improvements Address: 2508 Gateway Road, Carlsbad, CA 92009 Project ID: 16-09 DWG #/CB# ____ _ APN 213-261-20 thru 23 Disturbed Area: 0.36 Ac Section 1: Determination of Project's SWPPP Tier Level (Check applicable criteria and check the corresponding SWPPP Tier Level, then go to section 2) Exempt -No Threat Project Assessment Criteria My project is in a category of permit types exempt from City Construction SWPPP requirements. Provided no significant grading proposed, pursuant to Table1, section 3.2.2 of Storm Water Standards, the following permits are exempt from SWPPP requirements: D Electrical D Patio D Fire Sprinkler D Mechanical D Mobile Home D Re-Roofing D Plumbing D Sign D Spa (Factory-Made) D Roof-Mounted Solar Array Tier 3 -Significant Threat Assessment Criteria -(See. Construction General Permit.(CGP) Section 1.8)* D My project includes construction or demolition activity that results in a land disturbance of equal to or greater than one acre including but not limited to clearing, grading, grubbing or excavation; or, D My project includes construction activity that results in land disturbance of less than one acre but the construction activity is part of a larger common plan of development or the sale of one or more acres of disturbed land surface; or, D My Project is associated with construction activity related to residential, commercial, or industrial development on lands currently used for agriculture; or D My project is associated with construction activity associated with Linear Underground/Overhead Projects (LUP) including but not limited to those activities necessary for installation of underground and overhead linear facilities {e.g. conduits, substructures, pipelines, towers, poles, cables, wire, towers, poles, cables, wires, connectors, switching, regulating and transforming equipment and associated ancillary facilities) and include but not limited to underground utility mark out, potholing, concrete and asphalt cutting and removal, trenching, excavation, boring and drilling, access road, tower footings/foundation, pavement repair or replacement, stockpile/borrow locations. D Other per CGP ______________________ _ Tier 2 -Moderate Threat Assessment Criteria: My project does not meet any of the Significant Threat Assessment Criteria described above and meets one or more of the following criteria: D Project requires a grading plan pursuant to the Carlsbad Grading Ordinance (Chapter 15.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code); or, Ill Project will result in 2,500 sq. ft. 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 ft. 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 e, disturbed area is located along or within 30 ft. 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 -Apr. 30) Tier 1 -Low Threat Assessment Criteria D My project does not meet any of the Significant or Moderate Threat criteria above, is not an exempt permit type per above and the project meets one or more of the following criteria: • results in some soil disturbance; and/or • includes outdoor construction activities (such as roof framing, saw cutting, equipment washing, material stockpilinq, vehicle fuelinq, waste stockpiling) SWPPP Tier Level D Exempt D Tier3 Ill Tier 2 D Tier 1 * Items listed are excerpt from CGP. CGP governs cntena for triggers for Tier 3 SWPPP. Developer/owner shall confirm coverage under the current CGP and any amendments, revisions and reissuance thereof. E-32 Page 1 of2 REV. 02/16 ' SWPPP Section 2: Determination of Project's Construction Threat Level Construction Tier (Check applicable criteria under the Tier Level as determined in section 1, check the Threat Level corresponding Construction Threat Level, then complete the emergency contact and Level signature block below) Exempt -Not Applicable -Exempt Tier 3 -High Construction Threat Assessment Criteria: My: Project meets one or more of the following: D Project site is 50 acres or more and grading will occur during the rainy season D Project site 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 D High D Soil at site is moderately to highly erosive (defined as having a predominance of soils with Tier3 USDA-NRCS Erosion factors kt greater than or equal to 0.4) D Site slope is 5 to 1 or steeper D Construction is initiated during the rainy season or will extend into the rainy season (Oct. 1 -April 30) D Owner/contractor received a Storm Water Noti9e of Violation within past two years . Tier 3 -Medium Construction Threat Assessment Criteria D Medium D All projects not meeting Tier 3 High Construction Threat Assessment Criteria Tier 2 -High Construction Threat Assessment Criteria: My: Project meets one or more of the following: D Project il? 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 Cl Soil at site is moderately to highly erosive (defined as having a predominance of soils with Ill High USDA-NRCS Erosion factors kt greater than or equal to 0.4) Tier2 D Site slope is 5 to 1 or steeper D Construction is initiated during the rainy season or will extend into the rainy season (Oct. 1 -Apr. 30) D Owner/contractor received a Storm Water Notice of Violation within past two years Ill Site results in 10,000 sq. ft. or more of soil disturbance Tier 2 -Medium Construction Threat Assessment Criteria D Medium b My project does not meet Tier 2 High Threat Assessment Criteria listed above Tier 1 -Medium Construction Threat Assessment Criteria: My: Project meets one or more of the following: D Owner/contractor received a Storm Water Notice of Violation within past two years D Medium Tier1 [J Site results in 500 sq. ft. or more of soil disturbance D Construction will be initiated during the· rainy season or will extend into the rainy season (Oct.1 -April 30) Tier 1 .., Low Construction Threat Assessment Criteria .O Low D My project does not meet Tier 1 Medium Threat.Assessment Criteria listed above I certify to the best of my knowledge that the above statements are true and correct. I will prepare and submit an appropnate tier level SWPPP as determined above prepared in accordance with the City SWPPP Manual. I understand and acknowledge that I must adhere to and comply with the storm water best management practices pursuant to Title 15 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and to City Standards at all times during construction activities for the permit type(s) checked above. The CityEngineer/Building Official may authorize minor variances from the Construction Threat Assessment Criteria in special circumstances where it can be shown that a lesser or higher SWPPP Tier Level is warranted. Emergency Contact Name: John Burije Owner/Owner's Authorized Agent Name: Dan Loss, PE E-32 Page 2 of 2 Telephone No: 858-688-9147 Title: Project Manager Date: {t. :z_o lb FOR CITY USE ONLY Yes City Concurrence: ./ By: 1),.~\C.W.... Date: ,/6/11 . REV. 02/16 No , •. Ccityof Carlsbad STORM WATER STANDARDS QUESTIONNAIRE Development Services Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-2750 www.carlsbadca.gov E-34 j: iN~~~uc1:1~N$;., : . . . . .. , , : i _, ,_, J To a9dress 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 (BMPs) into the project design per Carlsbad BMP Design Manual (BMP Manual). To view the BMP Manual, refer to the Engineering Standards (Volume 5). 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 PROJECT' requirements or be subject to 'PRIORITY .DEVELOPMENT PROJECT' (PDP) requirements. Your responses to the questionnaire represent an initial assessment of the proposed project conditions and impacts. City staff· has responsibility for making the flnal 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 completed and signed questionnaire must be submitted with each development project application. Only one completed and signed questionnaire is required when multiple development applications for the same project are submitted concurrently. ;-,__,,, ,, \ -.,,_' > > },, ,·,,,, ,,,, ,"' "•,,,.,, PROJECT NAME: Viasat Grove Improvements PROJECT ID: 16-09 · ADDRESS: 2508 Gateway Road, Carlsbad, CA 92009 APN: 213-261-20 through 23 The project is (check one): D New Development Ill ~edevelopment The total proposed disturbed area is: 15,706 ft2 <..,_,o_.3_1? _ __,) acres The total proposed newly created and/or replaced impervious area is: 7,982 ) acres If your project is covered by an approved SWQMP as part of a larger development project, provide the project ID and the SWQMP # of the larger development project: Project ID MS 13-07 SWQMP #: _1_3_-1_8 _____________ _ Then, go to Step 1 and follow the instructions. When completed, sign the form at the end and submit this with your application to the city.* * Per the Planning Divisions Consistency Determination for CD 16-09 -Viasat Expansion dated 7/21/16, the proposed Viasat Grove Improvements will not need to provide a revised Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) as the existing basins on site were conservatively designed under existing SWMP #13-18. E-34 Page 1 of 4 REV 02/16 ,, ' ,, ' ,, ,, , _ To determine if your project is a "development project", please answer the following question: Is your project LIMITED TO routine maintenance activity and/or repair/improvements to an existing building or structure that do not alter the size (See Section 1.3 of the BMP Design Manual for guidance)? YES NO D D _ If you answered "yes" to the above question, provide justification below then go to Step 5, mark the third box stating "my -project is not a 'development project' and not subject to the requirements of the BMP manual" and complete applicant information. -Justification/discussion: (e.g. the project includes only interior remodels within an existing building): If vou answered "no" to the above question, the project is a 'development project', go to Step 2. ,: ',; '' :'.,!', To determine if your project is exempt from PDP requirements pursuant to MS4 Permit Provision E.3.b.(3), please answer the following questions: · Is your project LIMITED to, one or more of the following: YES NO 1. Constructing new or retrofitting paved sidewalks, bicycle lanes or trails that meet the following criteria: a) Designed and constructed to direct storm water runoff to adjacent vegetated areas, or other non- erodible permeable areas; D b) Designed and constructed to be hydraulically disconnected from paved streets or roads; c) Designed and constructed with permeable pavements or surfaces in accordance with USEPA Green Streets quidance? · 2. Retrofitting or redeveloping existing paved alleys, streets, or roads that are designed and constructed in D accordance with the USEPA Green Streets guidance? 3. Ground Mounted Solar Array that meets the criteria provided in section 1.4.2 of the BMP manual? D D D D If you answered "yes" to one or more of the above questions, provide discussion/justification below, then go to Step 5, mark the second box stating "my project is EXEMPT from PDP ... " and complete applicant information. Discussion to justify exemption ( e.g. the project redeveloping existing road designed and constructed in accordance with the USEPA Green Street guidance): If vouanswered "no" to the above questions, vour project is not exempt from PDP, go to Step 3. E-34 Page 2 of4 REV 02/16 ,,, , ,, ,' '~ : . . , . To determine if your project is a PDP, please answer the following questions (MS4 Permit Provision E.3.b.(1)): YES NO 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 development projects on public or private land. 2. Is your project a redevelopment project creating and/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 public development projects on public or private land. 3. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 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 (Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 5812). 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 tt,at is twenty-five percent or greater. 5. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 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 temporary parking· or storage of motor vehicles used personally for business or for commerce. 6. Is your project a-new or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site and supports a street, road, highway freeway or drivewc!y? 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 and/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 project to the ESA (i.e. not comminqled with flows from adjacent lands).* 8. Is your project a new development or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface that supports an automotive repair shop? An automotive repair shop is a facility that is categorized in any ohe ofthe following Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes: 5013, 5014, 5541, 7532-7534, or 7536-7539. 9. Is your project a new development or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 square feet or more of impervious area 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 perdav. D D D D D D D D D 10. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that results in the disturbance of one or more acres of land D and are expected to generate pollutants post construction? 11. Is 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%? (CMC 21.203.040) D D D D D D D D D D D D If you answered "yes" to one or more of the above questions, your project is a PDP. If your project is a redevelopment project, go to step 4. If your project is a new project, go to step 5, check t_he first box stating "My project is a PDP ... " and complete applicant information. If you answered "no" to all of the above questions, your project is a 'STANDARD PROJECT.' Go to step 5, check the second box statinQ "My project is a 'STANDARD PROJECT' ... " and complete applicant information. E-34 Page 3 of4 REV 02/16 ... 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 previously existing development? Complete the percent impervious calculation below: Existing impervious area (A) = ------~-----· sq. ft. Total proposed newly created or replaced impervious area (B) = ___________ sq. ft. Percent impervious area treated or replaced (B/A)*100 = _.;.._ ___ % D D If you answered "yes", the structural BMPs required for PDP apply only to the creation or replacement of impervious surface and not the entire development. Go to step 5, check the first box stating "My project is a PDP ... " and complete applicant information. If you answered "no," the structural BM P's required for PDP apply to the entire development. Go to step 5, check the check the first box stating "My project is a PDP ... " and complete applicant information. D My· project is a PDP and must comply with PDP stormwater· requirements of the BMP Manual. I understand I must prepare a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) for submittal at time of application. ~My project is a 'STANDARD PROJECT' OR EXEMPT from PDP and must only comply with 'STANDARD PROJECT' stormwater requirements of the BMP Manual. As part of these requirements, I will submit a "Standard Project Requirement Checklist Form E-36" and incorporate low impact development strategies throughout my project. Note: For projects that are close to meeting the PDP threshold, staff may require detailed impervious area calculations and exhibits to verify if 'STANDARD PROJECT' stormwater requirements apply. D My Project is NOT a 'development project' and is not subject to the requirements of the BMP Manual. Applicant Information and Signature Box Applicant Name: Dan Loss, PE . -Applicant Title: Project Manager Applicant Signatu-re-:-.z-.. -1:---~~~----------'--"--Date: ~!z=-1/~U>__,~,__../~/, _______ _ r I * Environmentally Sensitive Areas include but are not hm1ted 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 equivalent under the Multi Species Conservation Program within the Cities and County of San Diego; Habitat Management Plan; and any other equivalent environmentally sensitive areas which have been identified by the City. Th" B fl C"t U O I 1s ox or ry se nry YES NO City Concurrence: B"" D By: \>.~'-C..l( Date: ' I'/,' Project ID: l.€L 2.o\ b _ L)o 't J E-34 Page4 of4 REV 02/16 Ccicyaf Carlsbad STANDARD PROJECT REQUIREMENT CHECKLIST E-36 Project Name: Viasat Grove Improvements Project ID: 16-09 DWG No. or Building Permit No.: Cg l-2.~ \ ~ . o o ;;, Development Services Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-2750 www.carlsbadca.gov All development projects must implement source control BMPs SC-1 through SC-6' where applicable and feasible. See Chapter 4 and Appendix E.1 of the BMP Design Manual (Volume 5 of City Engineering Standards) for information to implement source control BMPs shown in this checklist. Answer each category below pursuant to the following. • "Yes" means the project will implement the source control BMP as described in Chapter 4 and/or Appendix E.1 of the Model BMP Design Manual. Discussion/justification. is not required. • "No" means the BMP is applicable to the project but it is not feasible to implement. Discussion/justification must be provided. Please add attachments if more space is needed. • "NIA" means the BMP is not applicable at the project site because the project does not include the feature that is addressed by th·e BMP (e.g., the project has no outdoor materials storage areas). Discussion/justification may be rovided. ~~i7?'Ti~~~ SC-1 Prevention of Illicit Discharges into the MS4 Discussion/justification if SC-1 not implemented: · SC-2 Storm Drain Stenciling or Signage Discussion/justification if SC-2 not implemented: SC-3 Protect Outdoor Materials Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal Discussion/justification if SC-3 not implemented: E-36 Page 1 of 4 ~ Yes D No D N/A ~Yes ONo D NIA Revised 09/16 ~11>' <r,ie:;:;t1,:~:,1(t\es\i:c1 , :} ,,::1~plif~1:S'l~ii>:nk9fR~~lu'.it~m'ijffN~tiliUu.1,foq~\l:s:}\;.-;;,;:,_;:1,~r,.(,,::l,:£J;;;c;1;~•X~'~J: ;;2-::,:~;f:~Jt~Q~,(i~~@J~f:¼f}f?,i~:-i;~ $C-4 Protect Materials Stored in Outdoor Work Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and li]Yes I 0 No ION/A Wind Dispersal Discussion/justification if SC-4 notimpleniented: SC-5 Protect Trash Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal li]Yes J ONo j ON/A Discussion/justification if SC-5 not implemented: SC-6 Additional BMPs based on Potential Sources of Runoff Pollutants must answer for each source listed below and identify additional BMPs. (See Table in Aooendix E.1 of BMP Manual for guidance). D On-site storm drain inlets_ Iii Yes 0 No ON/A O Interior floor drains and elevator shaft st,Jmp pumps OYes 0 No li]N/A O Interior parking garages OYes 0 No Iii N/A O Need for future indoor & structural pest control OYes 0 No ~ N/A O Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use Iii Yes ONo ON/A D Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features OYes ONo ~N/A o Food service OYes 0 No ~N/A D Refuse areas OYes 0 No Iii N/A O Industrial processes OYes D No Iii N/A O Outdoor storage of equipment or materials OYes 0 No ~N/A O Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning OYes ONo Iii N/A O Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance OYes 0 No Iii N/A O Fuel Dispensing Areas OYes 0 No ~N/A O Loading Docks OYes 0 No Iii N/A O Fire Sprinkler Test Water OYes 0 No Iii N/A O Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water ~Yes 0 No ON/A d Plaza_s, sidewalks, and parkinQ lots li]Yes 0 No ON/A For "Yes" answers, identify the additional BMP per Appendix E.1. Provide justification for "No" answers. E-36 Page 2 of4 Revised 09/16 All development projects must implement site design BMPs SD-1 through SD-8 where applicable and feasible. See Chapter 4 and Appendix E.2 thru E.6 of the BMP Design Manual (Volume 5 of City Engineering Standards) for information · to implement site design BMPs shown in this checklist. Answer each category below pursuant to the following. • "Yes" means the project will implement the site design BMPs as described in Chapter 4 and/or Appendix E.2 thru E.6 of the Model BMP Design Manual. Discussion / justification is not required. • "No" means the BMPs is applicable to the project but it is not feasible to implement. Discussion/justification must be provided. Please add attachments if more space is needed. • "N/A" means the BMPs is not applicable at the project site because the project does not include the feature that is addressed by the BMPs (e.g., the project site has no existing m,ltural areas to conserve). Discussion/justification may be provided. SD-2 Conserve Natura( Areas, Soils, and Vegetation D Yes D No ~ N/A Discussion/justification if SD-2 not implemented: SD-3 Minimize Im erviqus Area ~ Yes D No D N/A Discussion/justification if SD-3 not implemented: SD-4 Minimize Soil Comp;;iction lil Yes D No D N/A Discussion/justification if SD-4 not implemented: SD-5 Impervious Area Dispersion ~ Yes D No D N/A Discussion/justification if SD-5 not implemented: E-36 Page 3 of4 Revised 09/16 .. 5D06 Runoff Collection Discussion/justification if SD-6 not implemented: S.D-7 Landscaping with Native or Drought Tolerant Species i]Yes D No D N/A Discussion/justification if SD-7 not implemented: OYes il No D N/A Discussion/justification if SD-8 not implemented: Proposed site is decreasing impervious area from existing impervious area and the majority of impervious area is dn~ining to landscape. E-36 Page 4 of4 Revised 09/16 I • . , «~]> ~ CITY O°F CARLSBAD PLANNIN.G DIVISION . BUILDING PLAN CHECK REVIEW CHECKLIST P-28 Development Services Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-4610 www.carlsbadca.flOV DATE: January 3, 2017 PROJECT NAME: ViaSat Building 10 & 11.PROJECT ID: CD 16-?? PLAN CHECK NO: CBC2016-0093 SET#: 1 ADDRESS: 2502 Gateway Road APN: 213-261-20 D 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 [81 Yes [81 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. [gJ 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: Milos at Smith Consulting For questions or clarific~tions on the attache~ checklist piease contact the following reviewer-as marked: . .. .. PLANNING ENGINEERl:NG 'FIR!; PREVENTION . 760-602-4610 760-602-2750 ,', 76ci-602-466p ', . • < <. < .. . D Chris Sexton D Kathleen Lawrence D Greg Ryan 760-602-4624 760-602-27 41 760-602-4663 Ch'ris.Sexton@carlsbadca.gov Kathleen.Lawrence@carlsbadca.gov GregoQ'..Ryan@carlsbadca.gov D Gina Ruiz D Linda Ontiveros D Cindy Wong 760-602-4675 760-602-2773 760-602-4662 Gina.Ruiz@carlsbadca.gov Linda.Ontiveros@carlsbadca.gov Cynthia.Wong@carlsbadca.gov -~ D D Dominic Fieri Greg Fisher 760-602-4664 760-602-4629 Dominic.Fieri@carlsbadca.gov Remarks: Hi Milos, please receive CD approval from the planning division prior to issuance of building permit. Thanks Greg Sm ithConsu · ti ngArch itects July 25, .2014 Greg Fisher Planning Division City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: Dear Greg: Request for Modified Parking Standards ViaSat Building 10 Tenant Improvements CB 14-1546 - RECEIVED DEC 2-1 2016 CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DIVISION By copy of this letter we are requesting approval of modified parking standards for the 'Phase 1' ViaSat Building 1 0 tenant improvements. The pians reflect a parking calculation that differs from the ,approved SUP 13-03 and SDP 13-05. Specifically, the office-use floor area has increased and the manufacturing-use floor area has decreasec;I, resulting in a higher parking stall requirement for Phase 1. We offer the following background information and data for your consideration: 1. The tenant improvement-required parking calculation based on the off-street parking standards per Chapter 21.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code would be the following: Office use: 64,862 sq.ft. @4sp/1000gsf(gross sq.ft.)= Manufacturing use: 12,538 sq.ft. @ 2.5sp/1 000gsf = Delivery vehicle = · Company vehicle = Total spaces required per current parking standards 260 sp 32 sp 1 sp 1 sp 294sp 2. The Phase 1 parking calculation per the approved SUP 13-03 / SDP 13-05 is as follows: Office use: 58,345 sq.ft. @ 4sp/1 000gsf = Manufacturing use: 19,055 sq.ft. @ 2.5sp/1 000gsf = Delivery vehlcle = Company vehicle = Excess spaces = Total spaces provided 234sp 48 sp 1 sp 1 sp 3sp 287sp 3. ViaSat's tenant improvements include manufacturing areas specific to their commercial business unit. These areas are ·un-manneo, and employees monitoring the manufacturing areas do not reside there. Each employee has a private or shared office. The entire building will have 250 private offices and 13 shared offices to support a total employee count of 276. 4. Based on the use of Building 10, only ?76 parking spaces woulo be required if each employee were a solo commµter. However, per SUP 13-03/ SOP 13-05, we are providing 287 spaces and have a surplus of 11 spaces. ViaSat may elect to assign this surplus to future Building 11. Smith Consulting Architects 13280 Evening Creek Drive South, Suite 125 San Diego, CA 92128 P:~58.793:47.77 I F:858.793.4787 ViaSat .Building 1 O Parking Provisions July 25, 2014 · Page2 -Continued- 5. ViaSat embraces strategies designed to influence employ~e travel behavior with respect to mode and public transit services, and was recently recognized as one of the "Healthiest Large Companies" in San Diego by the San Diego Busin·ess Journal. In addition to advocating for their employees' wellness, ViaSat promotes a Bike-to-Work culture in which 18% of the surveyed respondents participate, and ·9% ofthe responding employees utilize mass transit and carpooling. Also, many ViaSat employees routinely telecommute. 6. Attached is a brief description from ViaSat stating the general nature of their business, facility use and number of employees to be located in Building 10. 7. Based on the information presented above, we request that the City approve modified parking standards to ~llow a count of 276 spaces to satisfy the Building 1 O parking requirements. Thank you for considering this request. Your prompt review and approval would be greatly appreciated, as we anticipate pulling the tenant.improvement building permit on approximately July 31. Submitted by: ~ 7) /} ~-/ p~)A~~ - SMITH CONSUL TING ARCHITECTS (Attachment: ViaSat Description) K:\2012Files\.t2085. TBressi Ranch Lots 10-13\Adfnin\Permit Processing\Parking Provisions 072514.doc lllaSat :$1·55 ~I ¢a_ming _R~al CarlsJJ1:1i;I\, CA $2009, USA Tel: {160) 795-6245 F~: {760) 929-3941 RE: Parking Modifications ViaSatBnilding 10, Vj.a$at produces inn9vative sateilite. and gth~r digital (;91!1W1Jllicafion products that e.p.able fast, secure, -~d efficient conw.J.uni<;;ati.o;ns to ~y l9ea,tion. ViaS'at brings new communication .appJi~ation~ to, people out of reach of terrestrial networks,, in both commercial and govemment -sectors~ \V.ith a variety ,of networkfogproducts and services. Products include satellite networks for fixed~site and mobile. commurifoati6tis, sate11ite .antenna systems, ·w.rreless datalinks and temililals, cybersecurify and liiformationAsS:mance.applic.ation .and.communication acceleration, and-satellite network and RF systetu design. Ser.vices inchtde _satellite interi-1et access and other btoadband services for cqnsmnet,, busine$$ and govetnnwnt c1;t~tomers in the Us. Bµi1ding 10 will house .operations m 5tlpport ofVJa$at~s commercial prodqcts. The employees in Bµilditig 10:-will have· ptivatp .office::;. Qt shate ~ o:ffic¢. 'The te;n~t imp~ovenie;nt$ have been d~sign~d to· ac~ommodat~ a totfllof 276 employees. These 276 employees will be workmg an<) cQll~b(;)ratirgin vario~ ''manufacnujng"·:areas ~01;1ghout the building, however, nQne of the ~iµployee~ r~si9.e in a manufacturing area. Typiea1 manufacturing areas in Building 10 include data/server rooms, terminal integration onto vehicles, hardware assessment areas and customer .dem0nstration areas. The total: of these mailufacturirtg areas equals approximately 12,538 square feet Since no employees reside in the manufacturing areas, there is no need to provide 2.5 _parking spaces pet 1,000 .square feet of ro,f,ifii,rt'acturing :space. The m,t<lnitnil number of parking ·Spaces required for Building 10 wot1kt be 276 patkipg. spate~,. if ev~ryone was_ a.solo com1nutet. ViaSat supports tnwti-n.10dal trMSportation fo:t its ~mploye~s-. h1cludn1g_mas.s/public tr~nsit, c · . · oolm · and bike-to-work. arp -'' -g, -. ---' -. -- GaryDbrri. Dkecti5r, Real Estate an4Developin¢nt Sm ithConsulti ngArch itects July 13, 2015 (Rev. July 16, 2015) Mr. Greg Fisher City of Carlsbad -Planner RE: ViaSat Building 10 and 11 RECEIVED DEC 21 2016 CITY OF CARL Greg, BUILDING 0iv1~r:o, I am writing to confirm that our approach to parking for ViaSat Building 11 can follow the same approach accepted for Building 10. Based on the letter from Smith Consulting Architects dated July 25, 2014, the City accepted an approach where proposed employee seats were counted and set the basis for the parking stall count. Building 10 synopsis is as follows: Proposed seats 276 (which included locations for future offices not in original Tl) Stalls provided 285 In order to confirm that this approach was valid we have beeh documenting vacant stalls over a 2 week period at 9:00 a.m. and again at 3:00 p.m. Attached Exhibit A is the result of this study. Note that there are numerous stalls vacant at any time. Building 11 differs slightly from Building 10·in that it has less anticipated manufacturing space, but it is similar in that the offices all have an open area between the offices for collaboration. This open area will be used by the occupants of the offices, not by additional building occupants. The proposed employee seat count and parking for Building 11 is as follows: Proposed seats 214 Proposed stalls 238 Similar to Building 10, we have anticipated the actual number of stalls used to be well under the stalls provided. The total site seat count to stalls will be as follows: Projected seat count 490 Proposed stalls provided on site 523 Please confirm that this approach will be acceptable. Respectfully, Mark Langan K:\12 Projects\12085.S12 Viasat Bldg 1 l Bart\Administrative\Parking\Letter 071315.doc 13280 Evening Creek Drive South• Suite 125 + San Diego, CA 92128 • Phone: 858-793-4777 + Fax: 858-793-4787 l --I SmithConsu tingArchitects Van, I have been discussing some modifications to the Grove between Bldgs 1 O and 11 at ViaSat. I was composing a response to Greg on his latest e-mail, but understand that he is out for a while. I asked Mike P. who would be best on this and he gave me your name, not sure if he spoke to you or not. I have attached a plan that shows what is being proposed for the Grove, that with the e-mail chain below should bring you up to speed. PLSA (Greg Lang) has been coordinating with David Rick on the stormwater side and I believe they are on the same page, Also note that this is being viewed somewhat as a prototype for what we might do at the new campus. Please let me know if you wish to discuss or if you would like to meet and review. Thank you, With respect to Bldg 10 there ended up being 8 excess stalls on the site originally using the "seat count" approach. At that time there was a pad area left on the site for a future antenna enclosure. When we recently did the antenna enclosure, it turned out to be smaller than anticipated so we were able to add 6 stalls on site for a total excess of 14 .. When we did Bldg 11, we maximized stalls on the remaining site area and arrived at 238. By using the "seat count" approach there are 214 required for the building. Keep in mind that there is approx. ½ of the first floor which :Is a combination of bike storage/locker room, lab space (with offices elsewhere in .building) and currently not occupied space (planned to be a demonstration area for clients). None of these areas have "seats". This difference results in 24 excess stalls. Note that possible future offices were Included in the sl;)at count; but it does not appear that ViaSat will be adding these offices. If they do, however, we have one parking stall for each office planned. ar(llitOOlft~ J)f<1@!r,g wf~.~1-ors ~...tdmbti! d;c~.u;,, Mark Langan I Vice President Smith Consulting Architects 13280 Evening Creek Drive South, Suite 125 San Diego, CA 92128 P:858.793.4777 I F:858.793.4787 www sc;a-sd.com &I;_ Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail From: Greg Fisher [mailto:Greg.Fisher@carlsbadca.gov] Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 8:08 AM To: Mark Langan; David Rick Cc: Milos Makarlc; Greg Lang (glang@plsaengineering.com) Subject: RE: ViaSat Grove Hi Mark, RECEIVED DEC 21 2016 CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DIVISION We could process these changes as a "Consistency Determination" application. However, I did not realize that there were so many surplus parking spaces for lots 10 & 11. The CD would need to provide parking calculations to justify the reduction. Thanks, Greg From: Mark Langan (mailto:MarkL@sca-sd.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 3:33 PM To: Greg Fisher <Greg.Fisher@carlsbadca.gov>; David Rick <David.Rick@carlsbadca.gov> Cc: Milos Makaric <MilosM@sca-sd.com> Subject: ViaSat Grove · Greg and David, ViaSat would like to redo what we refer to as The Grove, between Bldgs. 1 0 and 11. Currently it does not get much use and the feeling is that it is too "cold" and is an area in a field of parking rather than a lush oasis between the buildings. Attached is a preliminary plan of what we are proposing to do, which includes better landscaping, more amenity spaces, architectural wall elements, a couple of trellis elements, a food service venue and a an increase in area resulting in the loss of 21 parking stalls on the south side. I have the following questions: 1. The food service venue will be something like a grab and go type venue with prepackaged food, but is also planned to have an ice cream, gelato or yogurt shop which will bring people to the grove. I don't see any restrictions for this type of use, but want to make sure I am not missing something. 2. I have calculated the excess parking as 38 total spaces using the assessment below (Note that this was written for ViaSat so that is why it reads strange). If we take 21 of those stalls and absorb into the Grove, can will that be acceptable? Typically the City requires parking stalls based on gross square footage of use such as 1/250 s.f. for office, 1/400 s.f. for manufacturing and 1/1000 for storage, however for this ViaSat campus the City accepted an alternate means of parking assessment since there were office area and colab areas used by the same individuals which would require less parking than if all areas were occupied concurrently. The plans submitted for the buildings show proposed offices/cubicle areas and also potential future offices. The overall parking was based on the total of these. Note that we used the term "seat" to mean an occupant of the building since some occupants were not in offices. Assumptions: 1. City is allowing parking for B 10 and 811to be based on number of seats. 2. Accessible and EV stalls are included in all stall counts. Building 1 O: 1. Stalls Required by City: 2. Stalls Currently on Site: construction enclosure project) 3. Current# of Seats in B 1 0: Excess: Building 11: 1. Stalls .Required by City: 2. Stalls Currently on Site: 3. Current# of Seats in B11: Excess: Combined: 1. Stalls Required by City: 2. Stalls Currently on Site: Excess: 276 (includes seats designated as "future" on the plan) 290 (includes the 5 stalls added as part of the under 243 (for reference only) 14 stalls 214 (includes seats designated as "future" on the plan) 238 214 (for reference only) 24 490 528 38 stalls 3. Could this be done as a Consistency Determination? I do not see anything that would take us into a public hearing. 2 4. PL.SA (Greg Lang) believes we will not require a minor grading permit since we are keeping the existing bioretention basin in-tact and are not adding any pervious paving, in fact we are removing some. 5. Should we be submitting a Prelim Review? Thank you for your feedback. Mark Langan I Vice President Smith Consulting Architects 13280 Evening Creek Drive South, Suite 125 San Diego, CA 92128 P:858.793.4m I F:858.793.4787 www sca-sd.com 3 9915 Mira Mesa Blvd. TEL ·(858) 536-5166 WlSEiMA:N.+.ROHY ST:R UC T LfR AL E N .G l N E E RS ·STRUCTURAL CA~CULATION.S .FOR VIASAT-· G.ROVE SIJE· STRUCTURES CARLSBAD:, CA DECEMBER2l, 20'16 W + R JOl3-#16-081 2132612000 12/23/2016 ··· Suite200 j WRENGINEERS.1 l CBC2016-0093 ---- J LARGE $tJADE s·rRUCTURE DESIGN ~ WISEMAN+ROHY ~Ru·cru RAl ENGINEERS ~ Z X 8 12· 13 ~14 ~10 11 Envelope Only Solution Y-direction Reaction Units are k and k-ft (Enveloped) Wiseman + Rony Structural Engineer, DM /_/tf!-C:t_ e S tt,A b € $ \ fl..\/\...c_ 1"~ ~9 SK-1 eC2-f-- pAJ0f? L 19 5 Dec 21, 2016 at 10:04AM VlaSatGrove Main Trellis.r3d $, .... .,.~ 1 -Company II-_ . Designer • ' • M Job Number _ IRI.SA Mode!Name.- RISAConnection 'Code _ ·cord~Fofuil'f<i-Stee1 :coder. -· _· ;:, ; , · Woad Code 1Woo.liftre:rii· :'eratI1re-_ './:"'/0· ,,_-·•. Concrete. Code : Wiseman + Rohy Strupt1JfEil Engineers Dt\/1 -RISA.;30 Version 15.0;d [\,..\ ... \...\Projecfs\16\16-081 ViaSat Grov:e\ViaSat Grove Main Trellis.r3d] Dec 21, 2016 11:21 AM Checked By: __ Page 1 CompJ:1ny 11 . . . .., Desfgner · : · · · Job Number . '. I.R.ISA Model Name- Wi~emr;1n + Rohy Structur-af Engineers ,DM · . Other '1:.2-5J ''., , :, : 1,.2$ . :t ,-.·, .,, Joint ·Coordinates and temperatures Dec 21, 2016 11:21 ANI Chec;:ked By; __ Label X fftl YTftl z rftl Temo TE] __ Qetavb frgm Diao ... 1 N1 'O. -.1 0 O ;,2,-:_. :N'2~· :,-. _-,·. 1:1~r<-l·: ·-if·_;-~v ·-·:.:_::::> o;)i,:;;, .. ·:-.... :, .. ::.0::.,..,..';:,,::,::.,.;;_._ .:,;.;,,""'" 21 ~21 0 12 28:22 __ . _p I RISA-3D Version 15.0.0 ·[L\ .. ;\ .. J.Projects\16\16--081 ViaSat.Grove\ViaSat Grove Main Trellls;r3d] Page2 .. , . IIIRISA :Company Designef. Job Numbet Mo.de!Neim~ i Wiseman--r Rohr Structural Engineers .bM . Joint Coordinates and Temperatures (Continued) Dec 21, 2016 11:21AM Checked By:_._ RISA-3b Ver:sio.ri 15.0.O _[\.,.\:.:\ ... \Projects\16\1.6--08'1 v,asat Grove\Vi'aSat Grove Main Trellis.r3dJ Page3 -Company Desigrier Job Number Model Name Member Primary Data Wiseman+ RohyStructuralEngineers DM ',, .,,: Dec 21, 2016 11:21 AM Checked By: __ RISA-3D Version.15.0.0 [\ ... \...\...\Projeots\16\16-081 ViaSatGrove\ViaSat G'r,ove Main Trellis;r3d] Page4 J • IIIRISA Company-.r Wisemarr+·Roliy-Struclural_-Eng1neera Oesigner :. DM JobNoinb¢r " Mqdel Namef ., Member Primary .Data {Continued) [:abel I Joint JJoin KJoirit 57 M57 N5.7 N58 Dec 21, 2016 11:21 AM Checked By: __ _ RISA-3D \/E;3rsi0Ji 15.0.0 f\ .•. \.;;\ ... \Projects\16\16"081 Via·satGrove\ViaSat Grove Main Trellis.r3.d] Page5 Company 1·1· , ·. . ~· Dt;lsl~ner, ' -Job Number , :I-R:ISA Model Nam~ -~ . . -: Wiseman + Rohy Structural Engineers ;· DM Dec 21, 2016 11:21 AM Check~d By:_._ Inactive Seismic'Desl n ... one · RISA-3D Version 1!5,o.:o ~ .. ;\ ... \ ... \Projects\16\16-081 ViaSat Grov~\ViaSat-Grove Main Trellls.r3o] Page6 ., Company· 11 . _ . . .. Designer . · · : . · · Job Number . _.. ;IRIS.A Moqei·Name Wiseman +-Rohy Structurai .Engineers DM .MembetArea. Loads (BLC 1 :: .bead} Member-Area Loads (BLC. 2: Live} Basic Load.Cases .. Load .Combina·tfoJJs. . . .. .. .. .. RISA-3D Version 15:d.0 Direction Dec 21, 2016 11:21 AM Checked_ ay:_. __ _ lltRISA Company' Designer Job Number l\llode!Natne, Envelope ,Joint Reactions ~ Wiseman + RohyStructural Engineers l DM Envelope ,Joint Displacements <" ',,,. ,, :-:. '.,(, NB '6 0 6 Dec21-, 2016 11:21 AM Checked By: __ RISA.:30 Version 15.0.0 [\,..\ ... \ ... \Projects\ 16.\ 16:.081 ViaSat Grove\ViaSat Grove. Main Trellis.r3d) Pages --,.---,.-·-· ·----·---- ; Wiseman + Rohy Struc(ural Engineers; :. oM· . . ... ··-Dec 21, 2016 1'1:21 AM Ch!;!Cki?<;I f?y: __ Page9 I Company ; Wiseman + Rohy Structl:l~al Engineers ·1 .. Designer· : DM · · · : l;R1s• 1t JobNun:iber :, , ., . · I.I-I\ .ModelName : _ Envelope Member Section Force·s Member M1 " ' ! -~' , < ~ , ', i Dec 21, 2016 11:21 AM Checked_ By: __ RISA-30 Version 1-5.0;0 [\ ... \ ... \ ... \Projects\16\16-'081 ViaSat Grove\ViaSat Grove Main Trellis.r3d] Page 1-0 ., , CQri'ipahY· :1·1 . . . . . . . . ·>¼ Qesign$r · : · . · -. • · Job'Ni.lrriber-. : IRIS.A · Modef'Name. > <' -; • ; ~ .". ',. W8x31 -··-·-····----------·--·---·-·· -· ------",_ .. , -·-·------·· - \M.ser(lan + Rohy $ti1Jqtural Erigtri~i;m; OM Dec ;21, 2016 11:21 AM. CheGke.d By: __ _ RJSA-3D Version 15.Ci:O. [L\ .. ,\ ... \Pr~jects\;16\16-'081 ViaSaf Grove\ViaSat Grove Main Trellis.r3d] Page 20 I Compc;my : Wiseman + Rohy Stri,lcfural Engineer$ l:l·Rls· ll ~;;i~~:b~r ~ DM , I.I-\. Model Name ; .... • , .. ,< n" -~· ~T ,_ ---_, .. ,, t"' Dec 21, 2016 11,21 AM Checked By: __ RISA-3D Version 1:5.0.0 [\ .... \ ... \..:\Projects\16\16-,081 'ViaSat Grove\VlaSat Grove Main Trellis.r3dJ Page2t 1-:11:S:• i \YWW,hilfi.us Profis Anchor 2:.7.1 company: ?P~Cifj_!f~r: W+R-$ti1lctural Engineer$· Page: 1 Address: Phone. I -Fax: E-Mail~- Specifier"s comments: 1' Input data· Anchor type apdtjiamet~r: .Addil1an.ai'p1~~·or washer-(O.sJi.s): Effective Eimbedmentdepfh; Material: Proof, Stand-0ff installation: A_nchor,· pl~te: Profile: .Base material: Reinforcement: Se.ismicloads (cat. C,D; E, or'F) Geometf¥ [in.] & Loading Iib, fialb] Project: ViaSat Grove Sub·Pi'oject I Pos, No.: Date: large Shade Structure 12/21/2016 Heavy He)('H~d-~~tM F.1$54-GR. '55 7/8 . d~~t~"" -~O~"(n.; t;;i.;ie:.; 0.25CHri .. her= 14.0QO in._.h~.D.5.2,8 = 12,610 in. AST,M.F 1554 Design'-methog .AC!, 318-11 j CIP I . w'ithout·clampihg:(anchor.); restrJ!nt'level (anchor plate): 2.00; ~ = 1,500 in.; t = 1.000 in. Hil\i Grout: cs~G:E~. epoxy, f~.Grot/l-=·14.939 psi lx-X:ly ~ t·= 14,QPO' in. i 14.901:f'irt. X 1,000 in.; {Recommended plate thick_ness: not calculated Wsliape(AISC); (L x_Wx:T~FT) =8_.0QOII'). x 8,000 in. x0.285 in. x0.435 in. ·cracked concrete;3000, f.;! = 3·000 psi; h ·= w:oop ln . tension: condiiioh-B,. shear. .condition ·a; edge reiofotcement none·.or. <.No. 4 bar Tl:'lrtsion .load: yes {D:3.3.4,3 (cfj) 'Sh!,!arload:·yes (D.3.3.5;3 (c)) ' . LI · ·1np~ data ancires~lts must be checked for agreement with the exisllng·conditlpns·and for,t:ilausibilityl PROFIS Anchor (,c,)·200~2009 Hilti AG,:F.L-9494 Schaan iHilti is a reglslered Trademan, of Hj!fi AG,.Scnaan www.hiltl.us W+R Structural Engineers Page: Project: company:, Specifier. Address: s·ub-Project l Pos. No.: Phone I Fax: E-Mail: 2 Load case/Resulting anchor forces Load case: Design loads Anchor reactlons [lb} Tension force:·(+Tensfon, ,Compression) Date: Anchor Tension fotce Shear force Shear force x Shear force y 1 1$316 '625 2 0 625 625 625 3 15316 625 625 4 0 625 625 max. concrete compressive straim 0.36 [%6] - max. concrete compressive stress: 1574 [psil resulting tension force·iri (X/y)=(-5.500/0.000}: 30632·Pb] resulting compression force in (x/y)=(S.~98/0;000)_: 33132 pb] 3 Tension load Ste.el Strength* Pullout Strength* Concrete Breakout Strength** Concrete Side-Face Blowout, direction - Load Nua,[lb] 15316 30632 N/A "anchor having the.highest loading **anqhor-group (anchors in tension) 3.1 Steel Strength N.,, = Ase,N futa if! Nsa~Nua · Variables Ase,N [ln.2] 0.46, Calculations Nsa.Ub] 34650 Results N911 [lb] 34650 AC! 318-11 Eq. (D-2) ACI 318~11 Taol~D.4.1.1 fute [psi]' 7.5000 qi steel qi Nsa [lb] 0.750 . 25987 Nua {lb] 15316 .Input pat a and results must be checl(ed for agree,,nent wllh Um ex isling conditions.and ,for.pl'\~~ibililyl ·O 0 0 0 Capacity + N0 [lb] 25987 40849: NIA PROFIS Anchor ( c) 2003:2000 Hilli AG, Fl-9494 Schaan HUil is a registered Trademark ofHiltl AG, Schaan Q3 @ Tension 59 1.: 11 S •·,I Profis Anchor.2.7.1 2 VlaSat Grove Large Shade Structure 12/21/2016 y Status OK ~ l r-t::. w /\S. t\<:.'YL At.>t::., e-e> rofL :C. I.J c..lL~ ... P,S ~'f.> A,fc-e"~ Con:ipany: -~p~cifier: ··Pag!l, ·Prpjei,t -Address; Sul;>-Project I.Pos •. No.: Phone I Fax: ,E-IVl.ail: 3.~ pulfotit. Strength · -NpN =·i{i'c,p Np_ Nµ =8Ab«1..fc ,ji NpN:~N~a vana61es " " ,Vj,,p . 1,000 Calcul~JonS'- Nf[lbj ACl'31S.:ft Eq. (D-13J -:AC!.318-11 Eq0 (D-14) AQl3JIH,1 Tagle,t;).,j..1.1 Aior11:Cih", 2.1· . 'A,. 1,000 -- . '¥85_12 '·"' i 1t· sq Resulfs __ Ne._rr'U~l. concrete soismlo "28512 · 0.700 0.750 ·3,3. Concrete ~reakou~ Strength ·(··Awe-) · -Ncbg· = ANc0·· 'V' ec.N o/ ed.N 'II c,N 11' c:p,N Nb. -q, Ncbs1 :.?.N.;. _ ANc -see:AC].318-1'1, Part.o.s·.2.1,·Fig. RO,5;2.1(b) ~co =-~h!r . ('. 1 ) 1jf ec.N = :1 7>:eN .. S 1.0 · 3 Der lj/-ed,N = 0.7 + 0.3 G:stl:J S-1.0 'l' c:p,N. = MAX·(9a,;..,n, 1.;5h,;1) s :1.0 Cac Cac Nb = 1? i,-Ji ~ h,,51/ . Variables hern.s:z&' {i_n.J 12:670 -C!!lculations ANcUn:2J 1862.82 Results _ .... Ncbg;{lpl~- 77807 Sct,N [in.] 0,,000 1444.71 0,700 _ eo2,N[il1.] _ ·r.ooo- 11' ee1,l-l 1.000 , "~', 'P •Jttisml6 ... 0.750 Date:_ 30QO .4> rionduchle <ji Nen [lb] 1'.000" 14969 ACf31i;H1·Fq. (D-41 AQ! 318-'11 T!!ib!e D.4.1.1 ACi 318-11 ·Eq. (D-5} ACI 31.8-11 Eq. (D-8) ACI 31:8-11 Eq. (D-10). ACI 318:---11 Eq. {0-12) ACI 318-11 Eq. (D-7) Ca,min '[i,f'\.] 300,0 l!l"ec2,tl' 1·.00(f "'" 1JT c,N 1,000 1jJ ed,N 1.00.0 " 'P nornfocti!e ....... 4, Nci,g [lb] -1:000 40849 ·1nput.data-and-resulls mustbe checked for agreement with-the-existing pond1tions and for plausibility! PROFIS Anchor( c )_20W2009:Hilti-AG, FL-9494-Schaan ·HiltiJs a.registered Trademark of-HftliAG, Schaan 15316 1jJ cp,N 1.000 .Nua fib] 30632 I : 1 I S iil-f' Profis Anchor 2.7.1 3 ViaSat Grove Large Shade structure 12/21/2016 No PbJ 60343 .1:1,s~,1 www.hilti.us Company: W+R Structural Engineers Pag_e: Specifier: Project Address: Sub-ProjectJ Pos. No.: Phone·! Fax, E-Mail: 4 Shear l.oad Steel Strength* Steel faifure (with lever armt Pryout Strength•• Load Vu. {lbJ 625 625 2500 Concrete edge failure in direction *.. NIA * anchor .having, tne highest loading **anchoi,: group (relevant anchors)' 4.1, Steel Strength v$. = 0.6 A.av f.ita ~ Vs1ee1,.? Vua ' ACI 318w11 Eq. (Dw29) ACl'3.18-11 TableD.4.1.1 Variables· A.e.v .un.~J OA6 Calculations v .. [lb] --201scr-- Resu1ts V11a Pb]' 20790 fut.a [psi] 75000 4i steel -0,.650 4.2 Steel failure.(wit~ lever arm) _a.M. M,. -·Lb = M~ (1 -~NN:) M~ = (1.2') (S) (fu.mtn) 0.800 10811 bending equatron for stand-off resultant flexural resistance of anchor characteristic flexural resistance of anchor Date: Capacity + V n [lb] 10811 1296 140454 NIA Vua [lb] 625 6 49, 2 NIA (1-~) ipN,a redUctlt>n 'for tensile force acting simultaneouslywith a shear force on the anchor s _ 1t(d)3 -32 =z + (n)(do) Variables UM 2.00 Calculations M~ [ftlb] 493.271 Results ............. _ ....... v~,.Pbl 1994 fu min [psi}. 75000 (1-trt) 0.411 $-sleet 0.650 elastic section mpdulus of anchor bolt at conc;rete surface internal lever arm adjusted for spalllng of.the surface concrete ACI 318-11 Table D.4 •. 1-1 Nua [lb] $·Nu Pb]' z[in.] 15316 25987 2.000 Ms [ft.lb] i,bun,.J 202.557 2.438 $ v;:1[1b] Vua [lb] 1296 625· Input data·and results must be checked for agreement with the existing conditi9ns and for plauslbilityl •PROFJSAnchor { c) 2003-2009.Hiltl AG, FL-9494 Schaan Hilti is a ragfstered Trademark of Hilli AG, 'Schaan n 0.500 Profis Anchor 2.7.1 4 ViaSat Grove Large Shade Structure 12/21/2016 Status d0'[in.J 0.875 OK OK OK NIA yfy,iw.hjlti.us Company:· Specifier~. Address: W+R Structural Engine!;!rs Phone I Fax: E-Mail; 4,3 Pryoµt strength V Cf/fl· =··kcp [(t;) o/ ec,N·'o/ ed,N 11'· c,N 'I' cp,N Nb l q> Vq,g_2V~a ANo see· AC! 3:t 8:11, Part·D.5.2.1, Fig. RD.5,2.1 (b) ·A.. i: 9'h2' "NcO .. ef o/ec,N ~:(1.+i~:)s.1.0 .:.07~03 ('¢..min) .... 10 1jl ed,N -'· • 1.5her ::.· ' . = MAX(·.c,,,m1n 1.5h.,r)· 1 0 'J'cp,N .. ',Cac'·Cac-·S. Nb ·=16J..4.1t;;.n~ Van.ab/es. kse her.0.5.2.8 P.IJ.J ec1,N [in.] 2. 12:670 0:900 lj/"c;N c.c-u·n.] kc· 1.000 1(5 Calculatioos. ANc·Un.2}. At,co [iq.2J ljl ecf,N · 2401:.92 1444.71 1.000· Re&ults Vi;pg [lb] IP ccncrete 4' setsmic 200649 0.700 1.000 5 Combined tension and shear loads 1:023 ·0.482 1.000 J3wv"' (f3N+ J.Mj 1.2 <= 1 6Warnings Page: Proj!;!Ct Sub-Project I Pos. No.: Date: AG! ~18-'ffEq. (041) AC! 318-11' Table D.4.1J ,AC! 318--11 Eq. (P05) A91318-11 Eq.:(p-8) ACI 318-11 Eq. (D-10) N~I 318-1,1 Eq. (D-12) ACI 318-11' !=q. (0~7) Elc2.N {il'\.J .Q.000 ).;,. ·1.000 1V, ec2,N 1.000 Wnanduclile 1.000 C...m1n [in.J "' t' •. [psij 3000 )JI ea.N . 1.000 4> Vcr,g [lb] 140454 !Jtiliµtlon aw,v [%] $tatus 126 not recommended ~I Cl>,N 1.000 Vua Db] 2500 ,:,,s.-, Profis Ancho.r 2.7.1 5 ViaSat Grove Large Shalie Structure 12/21/2016 60343 • Load ·re-tiistrlb~ions·on the ahphors due to .elasti.c deformations of the anchor plate are not 09nsidered. The anchor plate is assumed to be 'Sufficiently stiff, in order not to be deformed when subjected to the 'loading! lhput data and results must be checked for agreement with the ·existing conditions anc.l 'for plausibllity!' • Condition.A applies when·suppiementa,y, reinforcement is.1.1sed. The 4> factor· is.increased for non-steel Design ,Strengths except Pullout Strength and Pry out strength. :condition B applies when s~pptementary .reinforcement:is not used and for Pullout-Strength and Pryout strength. Refer to .your local.standard.... .. . . .............. _. .... .. ..... ·-· . .. . ..... . • ACI 318 does ·not specifically address anchor benolng-wiien ·a stand-off condition exists. PROF.IS Anchor calculates a shear load corresponding .to anctior .i;lehding.when ·stand-off'·exists. and includes the results as a shear pe~ign $trength! • Checking 'the trari$fer of load$ into the··base maferiat and th~ shear·resfstan9e are required in accordance with ACI 318 or the relevant standard! • An anchor design approach for structures.assigned to ·seismic Design Category C, p, E or Fis given In ACI 318-11 Appendix D, Part D.3.3.4.3 (a) that reqµires the governing design strength-of.~n. anchor or group of anchors be limited .by ductile steel failure. If this is NOT the case, the cpnnectlon·design (tension) shall sa1i~fy theprovisicln(ii·of:Part-D.3:3.4.3 (b)., Part.0.-?,3.4.3 (c), or Part D.3.3.4.3 {d). The connection design (shear) shali'satisfy the provisions ofParto.3:3.5.3 (a), Part 0.3.3.5.3 (b), or·PartD.3.3.5.3 (c). Fa$t~oing does not meet the design criteria! Input data and results must re \:hecked for_ agreement Y{ith the existing conditions and forpJausibiiityf PROFIS Anchor ( c) 2003-2009 Billi AG, F.tAl494 Schaan .Hull ls a registered :rradema!k of.Hilti AG, Schaan www.hilti.us Company: W+R Structu~I Engineers Specifier: Address: Phone l'Floc :E-Mail: 7 lnst~llation data. Anchor·plate, steel:. Profile: W $hape-{AISC); 8.000 X 8:000 x 0.285 x 0.435 in. Hole dfameter in the fixture; d1 = 0.938 in. Plate thlc~ness (Input): 1.000 in. ·R,ecommended plate thicknei,s:.not calculated Drilling method, " Cleaning: No clearing of the drifted hole ts required 7.000 1 1.500 Coordinates Anchor in. Anchor :x; y ·'---,1----,,,.5.""='50.,..0:,---5.500 2 · 5.500 -5.500· 3 r5,500 5.500 4 5.500 5.500 r 11.000 l;iiSmil Pii19e: P.ri,ject . Sub-Project! Pos. No.: Datel Profis Anchor 2~7 ~1 6 ViaSat Grove Large Shade structure 12/21/2016 Anchortyp!'.l and diameter; Heavy Hex Head ASTM F 1554 GR. 55 7/8 lnstallationtorcjJJe: - Hole diameter In-the base material: -in. HQle·depth lh the·base material: 12.000 in. Minlmum thickness .of.the J:>ase material: 13.052 ln. 7.000 ( 0 ~ ,- 1.500 fnput data and results must be checked for agre~ment with the existing condifions and fer plauslbllityl PROFIS Anchor ( c ):2003-2009 Hllti AG,.FL-9494 Schaan Hi!U Is a registered Trademark of HIii( AG,,Schaan . www;hilti.us . company: Specift~r; Address: Phone.JFax; E~MaiJ,. 8 ·Remarks; -Your ,Cooperation Dufies " . . . :Page: Project Sub~Project I Pos. No.: Date:. I: 11 S i.i l Profis Anchor 2.7.1 . - 7 VlaSat Grove Large Shade Structure 12/21/2016 • Any and a!I information and data confainecJ.in the Software concern solely the.use-of'Hilti pro~ucits and are based .on the -prfnciples, formulas and _sec4nty·regµfa~oris in·acpprgance Witl:i--Hilti's tec.hni¢al,dir~c:tioos 'tine! operating,.mq_unting and assembly insf(-uctions, efc., that rnusfbe stricily ciomp!lecfWith·by the·US$l'. All figure~ ·contalned·_th~r~!r\,are:?,Verage·figure§, am:l th,erefore.use-specific tests are to be conducted priorfo using th,e r~hi!vfmt !'Jilti Hi'<?dUQt. Toe r~sy.lfs_·of. tne.-C<!lculaUons ca_rrlec,i ·.oµt t,y msans :of the,sottware are based e$sentially on the data you put in. · Tlietefore, you b_eadhe sole respor\sibilftyfor the'abs~nce.of erro'ts, tb~-completeness.and-the relevan~ oftlie data to be put in by you. :Mor~vet, yqi,i ·pf:laJ~pf~:iespon_sibi!ity fot:-{laving·the,re.ii.i\ts of th~ ca\culati;:m-c_h~cked ·~nd cJeared-byan·expetl, particularly with regard.to · compllaj'lce·wit!i.applicabTe'li.otms and permits; prior fo· uslntf t)l~fu for your'specific 'facility.' The Software servesi:mly as an aid to interpret norms ar:id:permifs'wjlh~ut any· g!Jaran~e ~, Jo 'the c'IQ.senc~ of errori,,'the. corr~cthess ~nd 1he rel1:wan·ce <;if the results or suitability for a. specific ~ppllcation. . . ', ; " . . .. . -. . . . . •. You mu:.t.take afiJ1~cessary ani;I reasonable-st~ps tp. p'ievent or ijrrilt darnc\ge causei(bf th¢ Softw~re. tn p$rticu!ar, you must arrange for the reguiar bl(lckqp·.of_p.rqgram~. and tlata·and, if f!P,plicable1. carr;y puHhe ·updates-onhe _Software offered .by Hilti on a reguJar basis. If you do not use the ,A'utoUpcfate :function ·or the. Softw~re, you. must.ensure tliat-yriu are using the current and -thus i.ip-to-date version,of the Software in each case by. 9<:1nyir\g·out manual ,up·d,tes via·tlie,Hilti· W~bsit{i, Hilti wm 110~:be,Uaofe for consequences, such as the ·recovery of lost or damaged data or p,rogram,s,,arising.fri;,m a culpable breach-pf cuty by-you. lnput data·and results must be checked for agreement.witt, lha exisling conditions .and-for prausibilityl PROFIS Anchor_( c) 2003-2009 Hfltt AG, FL-9494 Sl'baan· Hfili Isa registered Trademarlnif.Hilfi AG, Schaan Company : Wisem!ln + Rohy Structural Engineers December.21, 2016 Designer Joi;> Number ; ViaSat Grove, Checked By: __ Sketch 5 £:t Details A -·-·"" ___ :;;i~ - #5 .jJ tH @9in. -~=I~ I ~· ~· ~·~· ~· ~.II; lw C ('l)D Footing Elevation D C 5 ft Controlling Z direction steel requires the following placement: Region 1 (starts at A): 6 in Steel: .11 in\1 #5 @NA) Region 2 (midqle): 60 in Steel: 2.12 in (7·#5 @10 in) Region 3 (ends at D): 6 in Steel: .11 in2{1 #5@NA) Bottom Rebar Plan Geometry, Materials· and Criteria . Length :5 ft eX :O in Wldth -: 6 ft eZ : O .in Thickness :18 in pX :8 in Height : 0 in pZ :.8 in Footing Top Bar Cover : 3 in .Footing Bottom Bar Cover :.3 in. Pedes1;al Longitudinal Bar Cover : 1.5 in Loads •••••-•e•••..P..(k . Vx{k· DL 2.5 EL 2 17',e;~~ ~~: A D Gross Allow. Bearing Concrete Weight Concrete f'c Design Code :332.5 psf :14.5 pcf :3ksi :ACI 318-02 Overturning Safety Factor : 1.5 Coefficientof Friction . .: 0.3 Passive Resistance of Soil : 0 k ..... Vz(k Mx k-ft ~~0~ (.l+Mx ~ D C D C Mz Steel fy : 60 ksi Minimum Steel : .• 0018 Maximum Steel : .0075 Phi for Flexure : 0.9 Phi .for Shear -:.0.75 Phi for Bearing : 0.65 k0ft Overburden ps 100 24.5 ~+Mz +Over lH~!; l ~ A D RlSAFoot Version 2.0 [\\WRESERVER\Engineering\Projects\16\16-081 ViaSat Grove\Mafn Trellis Footinf,Ef§e 1 r . ---~~~y ~ Wlse:an+Ro~~~uct~ralE~l:e~~ 1 Designer ; J~.b-ffurnb:er : .. _·v,iaSc!i Grove .. . Sot! /3ear~ng_ -0~!3,criptipn-Ca't~gqri~s and .Fa9tors. Grq~s;All_pw.(psf) Max Bearing (psf} - 'AS.CE.2.4'..1i1 .. ASCE·2,4;1:.2- -AS.Of: 2,4:1~3b · AS'.c·E.2,4::l~d,' ·I . :MCE'2':4-~1 ~s: ... , A 101:. QA:; · 3_99·~3_5z psf Q$:-.399·.~s~:p~f . Q¢:: $99~35~ p~f QD~;-3$9.:352-ps.f· NAZ: -'1 in .. · N~{-.1 .in. o'--~---e-,-l ·1PL+.75L;~+.71;L- QA: 1146.-55 psf . QB~ 1'14(i':5S psf . QC: O psf QQ; o.·psf . NAZ,-1'·in _NAX;·5Q;1:56' in 1Dt.-.. • ' , 1.DLf1LL ·1Dlf )lS.L . -tot:+~75Llf .7El, -:~·sot.:+:1,et: . .. .. -A -8, D ·-c 10Lf<.1tl. ·Q,Af--~99,3!i2 p~.f QB:' -~.9.9,3~2 p:sf qc~ 399 .• 3?2 psf QD;. 399.~52. psf NAZ:·~t·in NAX:-1 in :o: .6DL+ .• 7EL. -QAi ·2a76.08 psf QB: 2976,08 ·psf QC: Opsf . ·00: Opsf :N:AZ:.-1 :in NA,)(:-11-.594.in .. .... .. J=ootinq Flexure .Design, (Bottom. Bars_l. 3:3:25' . ,.,. 3325 .. ,, .. 3~25· ,, . 3:325, ,, ., 3325 1DL:+.;7EL. Q,A.: 114(t,~s psf QB; 1'146.55 p,sf QC·: :o:p$f QP:. ·Q Jisf NAZ;-1·io' NNG:50.1:~6 hi a99._3st·'A :ggg.352· A 1146.55. A 11'46.55 .{A) 297(t.08 ~ December it 4016 Cheqked By: __ Max/Allowable· Ratio I ,12 I ·1 .12 I ! .345 ! I .. 345, ! I .895 j I Mu.,,:XX (k-f,t) . Z Dir As (in2 ) Mu-ZZ (k-ft) X Dir As (in2) Nate, Overpqrdert and f9otings;elf:weight ~re-ihPlu,d~d in thip DL load case. ·Footing-Shear .Che.ck · ... TwsWa'lj(Puo¢hing)Vc:·0282.022·k· .. -,oneWay'(:X:·Olr. :Out)Vc··1t5:843_:k · One Way,(Z D)r. Cut) Ve: 96.536· k P.unchiAg X Pir. 'Cut Z Dir. Cut D~s.cfipliPn Cate9ories. tij'rid Factors. Vu_(k) Va/ gNc Vu{k) Vu/gNc Vu(k) Vu/gNc N0te: bverl;iurden and fopijn~ s·elr-Wei'(;lhtar-e included in.the PL Jo;;:iq case . . Concre_te .Bear,ing Check (Vertical Loads __ Only) Beafin_g Be : .;32uA k .Oescr:iption . .Categori'es ahQ f=aQtors Bearing Bu (k) __ Bearing Bu/¢Bc · Note: -Overbur~en and footing self weight are included ih the DJ:. load case, RISAFoot Ven~fon :2~0 '[\\WRl;:SERVER\Engineeting\Pr:oj,e"cts\ f6\ 16-0.81 ViaSat Grove\MaihTrellis Footin!f.E'fle 2 Company : Wiseman + Rohy Structural Engineers Designer Job Nl!mber : ViaSat Grove Overturning Check (Service) Description Categories and Factors -Mo-XX (k-ft) ASCE 2.4.1-1 I 1DL .111 ASCE 2.4.1-2 f 1DL+1LL .1.11 · ASCE 2.4:1.-3b ~ 1DL+.7EL .111 ASCE 2A.1-3d 1 DL+.75LL+.7EL .111 ASCE 2.4.1-5 .,6DL+.7EL .067 Mo-XX: Governing Overt'urr.iing-Moment about AD or BC Ms-XX: Governing Stablizing Moment aboCJt AD or BC OSF.:XX:: Ratio of Ms-XX to Mo-XX Sliding Check (Service) Description Categories and Factors Va-XX (k) ASCE 2,4.1-1. 1.DL I 0 ASCE 2.4.1-2 1DL+1LL I 0 ASCE 2.4 .. 1-3b 1OL+.7EL l 1.4 I ASCE 2.4.1-3d 1DL+.75LL+.7EL I 1.4 ASCE 2.4.1-5 .6DL+.7EL .i 1.4 Va-XX:. Applied Laterc;JI Force to Cause Sliding Along XX Axis Vr-XX: Resisting Lateral Force Against Sliqing Along XX Axis .SR.,.XX: Ratio ofVr-XX:toVa-XX Ms-XX (k-ft) 30.0'62 . 30.062 30.062 30.062 18,037 Vr-XX (k) 3.594 3.594 3.594 3.594 2.156 Mo-ZZ (k-ft) .133 .133 19.383 t9.383 19.33 Va-ZZ (k) 0 0 0, 0 0 December 21, 2016 Checked By: __ Ms-zz (k-ft} OSF-XX OS'F-ZZ 36.075 270.563' >70.563 36.075 !70.563 !70.563 36.075 170:563 1.861 36.075 ~70.563 1.861 21.645 l70.563 1.12 Vr-ZZ (k) SR-XX SR-ZZ 3.594 NA NA 3.594 NA NA 3.594 2.567 NA 3.594 2.567 NA 2.156 1.54 NA RISAFoot Version 2.0 [\\WRESERVER\Engineering\Projects\16\16-081 ViaSat Grove\Main Trellis Footin!f.Efge 3 SEATING CANOPY DESIGN ~ ·WISEMAN+ROHY ~RUCTURAL ENGINEERS Ai Z X Envelope Only Solution Wiseman + Rohy Structural Engineer~ DM 5 6 s~~.~/0~ .. 2 4 SK-1 LA0vfY Dec21,.2016 at 1:32 PM ViaSat Grove Seating Tre!lis.r3d =· ---·-· ·--------. ··--·--------· .......... ---·-------------------------·---------------------.. """""" ..... . ·company 1•1-1-RIS-It ~::.~z:ber _ , _ : -~ Model Name : Wiseman-+ Rohy·Structural'Eng'ineers OM Dec 21, 2016 1:32PM Checked By: __ RISA-3D Version 15.0.0 [\ ... \..,\ ... \Projects\16\16-081 V[aSat Gr6ve\ViaSat Grove Seating Trellis.r3d] Page 1 . Gompany I,, _ ,. Oesigner , : :l·RIS···A .,l9b_Nurnber · . , . · Model Name :. Wiseman +-Rqhy·StructuraJ·Engineers DM (Global} Model Settings. Continued . ' . . ' ' ASOE7-t0 ;.: ,':: 'Nat\8nf ·reef:.: ·.Yes Joint Coordinates and Temperatures Dec 21, 2016 1:32PM Checked By: __ _ :1 "'beL x rtt1 v rftl t 0 f;f1] _________ 1 ______ Tom 0 1n1L_u. fFl,1..._-,-,D""'>e""""tacu.whFro'-"!.!.!m...,.D'""'i"',i,,.n.,.,_.,. 1 M O ~ . -:.:'i:-. -_::·:-: .': 3· '-N3 o -1 13 o 5 NS o -1 26 o _;:,-6>·--'-"-''> ',; __ ·-.·-tra::-~·:--·:'.' .:-:-. ·'·< -19 :;::~1'-,,_,:,,_:_-·-.-:?it-:--·,.;, .. :::~~; :t...:.o: .: ,'' -'.';'\ :t :·:· .. 7 N7 I O 12 ·o. 0 ::.,R --: :, ,-tiJs:,.-:., -.-, .. ~-:·--tl.9 ._-_; -~----_:-·1,z;; -:-::-· -.. --:CL_: .. .: __ .:..::_:\_:;_o-.::·.--_/:·: :,.,;,,.,_--.. : _ _.·-::>·::,- 17 N1'7' 9·;5 1'2 19.5 ·O -,-,-,-,. ___ -.-_.!_· ~---__ --~-·-_--_,:_~ __ ._;-_:_-_._ .·-. _ .9.5 . 1.2 6.5 . 0 Z\:1--~ • -· · ; : f'g, .... ;' · r'. , · -·, 12 -. . . . . .. 1:ts:~ ;_ . :.:: :?:?T~> er._-, _..,..._",,...._ · -+-, ...,.,..,..,,,.,.-,..--,-.-_-_ • .-:·:_-c1.., .21 _ .N2L_ ........... __ .. _ 'HL 1"2 19 . .5 _ J___ 0. RISA-3D Version f5.0.0 [\ ... \ ..• \ ... \Projects\1.6\16-~81 ViaSat Grove\ViaSatGrove Seating· Trellis.r3d] Page .2 .:. :Wisemap ,+:Rotiy·Strucfuraf Engineers DM . Member-A'-dvanced Data, Dec 21, 2016 1:32PM Checked By: __ R!SA-:SD Vetsjon 15.0.0 . [\ .. ,\.,.\ ... \PtPJects\16\·16~081 ViaSat Grove\ViaSat Grove Seating Trellis:r3d] Page 3 Company 11:IRIS K ~;b~~:beir · . !R, Model Name ··11 Basic Load Cases None Load Combinations Envelope Joint Reactions : Wiseman +Rohy Structurl:!I Enginee~ DM Dec 21, 2016 1:32 PM Checked By;_,___ Cb Function Lateral. ' • ,, , ; ,¥'I-~ , I 'y' , , ;,, :: ) ~ /", _,,~ '~ >, ' ' " ' ' ('!~ff', RISA-3D Version 1·5.0.0 [\ ... \ ... \...\Projects\16\16-081 ViaSat Grove\ViaSat Grove Seating Trellis.r3d] Page 4 \. lbRISA C9mpany ·: Wf:;;eriia.ir+ Rohy $t,ruc;turat Engineers r;>eslgner : D.M Job Number M"odel N'ame ., Dec 21, 2016 1:32 PM Checked By;_ .. _, R,ISA-3b Version 1$.0.O [\ ... \.,.\ ... \Project~\:16\:1'6-08'.l ViaSat Grove\ViaSat Grove Seating Trellis.r3dJ Page 5 ----------------·---·--- IIIRISA Company Desjgrier Job Number Model Name ·----·----·----·----·-·-·· ·--'-·-·--·· --·-· .... '' ' ' ' '' ' ' ; VVisernan + RohyStructyral Engineers : DM Dec 21, 2016 1:32 PM Checkect·By: __ RISA-3D Version 1-5.0.0 [\ ... L\...\Projects\16\16-081 VJaSat Grove\ViaSatGrove Seating Trellis.r3d] Page 6 r---------·------. ---------··-·-"·" -----·' . ,, 1 : -1 l S -•· I l WWW.fliftj,US, ProfisAnchor 2.7~1 Company: W+R Structural !=ngineers Page:- Project: 1 Specifier; Address: P.hor:ie·1 Fax: E~Mait ·Spec;ifier-'s comments: 1 Input data_ Anchor type -and diameter: Efferitlve embedment depth: Materii;d, Pr9of: Stancj-off inst~llatlon: Anchor prate: Profile: B<l!se materiai: Reinforc~mflnt: ·S,!,itsmiclcii!dS {c;at C', D, E, or F) .Geomeey {in.J &;Lpaaing lib, fUbj Heavy Hex t;ead ASTM F 1554 GR. 36 3{4 ·h., = 12'.060-in\ ASTM F 1554 .Design method AC1.·~1a"'11 J GIP Sub-Project J Pos. No.: Date: I ViaSat Grove Seating Canopy 12/21/2016 \i1ithol!f.~lamping-(anchot).; resJtajnt level (anchor plate): 2.00; e1, = 1.500 in.; t = 0.750 In. Hilti Grout: CB~G EG, .epoxy! fc,Groi!t = 14939 psi· 10 X~yx.t =·12.000'in. x 12:000 in. x 0.750·in.; (Recommended-plate thickness: not calculated w shape (AISC); (L x w xTx FT) = 6.380· in. x e:oao in. x 0.320 in. x o.455 in. cracked concrete,.-3000, (;' = 3000.psi;.h = '18.000 ·in. tensi9n: condition B, shear: CQndition B; edg~ relnf9r~meht i\0h~ or <_l\lo. 4 bar T~nsiori load: ye~ {D.S_.SA.~ .(d}) Shear !oac,l: yes (D._3.3,5.3 (c)) I z{ ' ., ! . . . •· : . . 1i I <;p(! ' Input cfata and .results ,;nustbe checked for ag~emen\ with-U1e exi'sling conditions and' for p:ausibihty! PROF.IS Anchor (_c·J 200~009 Hilti A,_G, FL-9494 Schaan Hi!fris a registered Trademark of,Ri!U AG, Schaan ___ ,,,.,,,,....,_,.,,,..,.,..,.,,.,.,, ..... , 1 :··! IS-.·1· ww_w.hilti,us Profis Anchor ~.7.1 Comp~uiy: Specifier: W+R Structural Engjneers Page: Project: 2 Addressi Phone l Fax: ,E-Mail: Sub-Project I Pos. No.: ViaSat Grove Seating Canopy· 12/21/2016 J. 2 Loctd ca~e/Resulting·a11chorforces Load pase: Design.loads: Anchpr: reactions (lb] TenslonJorce: (tTension, -Cpmpresslon) Date: Anchor Tension force Shearfori;e Shear.for<:;J:l.X Shear-force y . . 1 5678 222 222 2 0 222 222 3 5678 222 222 4 0 222 222 max. concrete coJnpressiye,strain: 0.40 .[%o] max. concrete·compressive stress: 859'.[psi] tesulting'tenslon force ln (xly)=(-4.500/0.000): 1135,7 .PbJ resulting compres$ion force ln '(x/y)=(S.11 !3/0.000): 13625 [lb] 3 Tension 'load Steer Strength~ Pullout Strength:-> Concrete :Sreakout Strength** Load N~a:[lbJ 5678 5678' 11357 Concrete.Slc;le-Face Blowout, direction -NIA "'anchor having·the.highest loading ·"*anchor group-(anchors In tension) 3.1 Steel Stre~gth N,a, = Ase,N fl!ta $ N,a~Ni/8 Variables Ase.l'l Ph.2J 0,3=3-'--- Calculations N,a [1.bJ 19372 Results Nsa.[lbJ 19372 ACI 318-11 Eq. (D-2) AC! 3il;l-11 Tc1b!e D.4.1.1 4i steel 0.750 14529 Nu.Ubl 5678 0 0 .0 0 Capacity + ~n .[lb] 14529 11479 36173 NIA Input.data and. results m!)st be check~d for agreement With lhe exlst,ng cond1UO!)s and fot plausibility I PROF!S Anchor ( c.) 2003-2009 Hiltl AG, FL-9494 Schaan Hilti is a registered Trademark of HIIU AG, Schaen y @ Tension Utilization f3N = NuJ+ Nn Status 40 OK 50 OK 32 OK NIA NIA r--.,-- ,_ I I Company: W+R Structural Eng}nt;!ers Specifier~ Adoress: Rt,one l Fax: E~Mail: ·s.2 PulloutStrength NpN :=: ·lf' C::p·.Np f\!p ·= 8 .Ai,,g fe '$, -NpN'2'Nuo. Variables ACl.318-11 Eq. (D-13) ACl-31'8-11 ;q. {D.-14) ACl31B-11. TabieoA,1.1 -'---,'I,-,.,' c"',P·.------~--~rgc.;.[.,.,iP,...-2-=-1----~"-=· ~"--'----f.-;.cci:Jp='i,£.ij __ 1,.000 0;91 1.000 . 3000 Cl:llculations N2 DbJ 21864 'R,esults Page: Project: Sub-Project I Pos. No.: Date: I:11Sii• Profis Anchor 2.7.1 3 Via$at Grove Seating Canopy 12/21/2016 __ ...,N""p;'.:n:'=pb-i'~------'<p-='<all\<:R!"=i:'i:'~'------~'='~"=•l"'sml'='~'--'~---'-<p~·no=.;;n;:;;du:;;,:cill=c--'---~"":~N.pnP,_,b],__· ___ .._,N='iua;:P;,,.b.:..J~-21864 0.700 0.750 1.000 11:479 5678 3.3 Concrete Brea~out Stren~th N. -(At.e) . ·N • !;bg 1 -,ANeO 'W';~c;.N lfed.N ~ c,N'o/ cp,N .b 'P· N~611 ~ Nu.~ ~c seeACI 318-11, Part.D.5:~.1, l;'ig • .RD,5:2.1(1:,1). Ai,i~ =9 ~~ . . . 'V=N· ={1·+i~:)s1.o \JI e<f,N =;0.7 f 0,3 ( ;fi~:)s 'f.0 \1/ cp,N = MAX(c•,min, 1.5h.r) s 1.0. 1 C'ac Cac Ni, = 161.a "4h;? Variable$ her pn.J ec1.N.lin.] 12:000 0.000 Cki: [in.] 'kc 16" · Calculations ec2,N.Pn.] -0:000 Aa 1.000 AC[ 318-1'1 Eq. (0-4) AC! 318-1{ Tabie.D.4.t1 ACi 318'-11 Eq. (D-5) AC! 3-18-1'1 ·Eq. (P-8) ACI 318-11-Eq. (0•10) Act 318~1'1 Eq. (D-12) ACl.31'8-H Eq. (D77:) Ca.min pn.j .. 300Q \jf.c.N 1.000 ANc [ln.2] -ANc0 pn,2] 'I' ee'f.N 1620.00 1296.00. 1.000 --~;,.;,...==-----,:.;;;...;,...,,..,:------\-..;;:;;',;!-.-~--'-"·\jf-=;e;:;c2,;,;,Nc_ ____ ljl ed,N 1.000 , 1.000 Results N Pbl . lp eonciet<>· • • --· 'P·se!.smlc • ~,nonduc!Ue 1 0.700 0.750 1,000 Input d?ta and results·mµst be checked for agreement with the existing conditions and foq,lausibUityl · PROFIS . .Anchor ( c) 2003-2009 Hilti AG, FL-9494,Schaan Hllti1s a·reglstered T~demarl< of Hilli.AG, ·Schaan <p J\/c!,g [lb l 36173 ljl cp.N 1.000 11357 N0 [lb] 55121 1:i,s.:1· www.hilti:us Company: Specifier: Address: Phone l Fax: E-Mail: 4Shearload W+R structural Engineers Page; Project Sub-Project 1-Pos. No.: ,Date: Load Vua [lb] ·Capacity·+ Vn fib] Steel Strength* Steel failure (with lever arm)" Pryout Strength** Concrete edge failure lri direction "*' 222 222 887 NIA * anchor having the.highest'loading ••anchor group (relevant anchors) 4.1 Steer Strength VSf!, =:0.6 Ase;Vfuta <j, V,steetl;!;Vu~ Variables ,Ase,v pn.2] 0.33 .Calculations v~ •. Ubl 11623 - Results ?,Cl 318-11 Eq. (D-29) AC! 318-11 T!',!ble 0,4.1.1 futa [psi] 58000, '6044 1015 120577 :NIA -v •• Ub] 'Psloel 'Peb ·qi Vsa:Ub] Vu.lib] ----,,_ 11e23·-----o"'".""'as""o,-------.o"".a""'o""'o~----~e""o4'i-'4,..--"-----2""22=------ 4,2 St~er .failure (with lever arm) -0.M. M,. ---i:;;- M, =M~ (1-.!k.) q, N,a ;= (1.2) (S) (fu,m1n) bending equation for stand-off resultantflexural resis1ance of anchor characteristic flexural resistance.of anchor 4 22 1 NIA ·(1 •. Nw) ip:Nsa reduction for tensile force acting simu!tarieously with:~ i;hear force on the anchor s -n:(d)3 -32 -elastic section modulus of.anchor bolt at concrete surface = :z + (n)(d0) internal lever arm adjusted for spalling. of the-surface concrete . AC! 318-1-1 Table D.4.1.1 Variables- u;,, fu,mln fp~i] Nua [lb] ~ N~ [lb] zpn.] n 2.00 58000 5678 14529 1.875 0.500 Calculations ¥~ [ft~lb] , (1-~-) . '$ .. "" Mi[ft.lq) ,Lb [in.J 240.221 0:609 146.337 2.250 Results v: [lb] IP steel $ v~1 [lb] Vuo [lb] '1561 0,650 1015 222 Input data and·results mUslbe checked for agroemenfwilh 1he existing condifions•and for-plauslbllflyl PROFIS Anchor { c) 2003--2009 HTT!i AG, FL-9494·Schaan Hilff!s a,egistered Tradem~rk of.Him AG, SCihaan Profis Anchor 2.7.1 4 Via Sat Grove Seating Canopy 12/21/2016 Status d0 [in.] 0.750 OK OK OK NIA www.!Jilti,us Qompany: Specifier; .. Address: Phone I Fax: E<Mai!: Variables kcp- 2 'l'·.c~N 1.000 Calculations ANc Un.2]- . 2025.00- Results Vcpg:01>] 172253 W+R StruqturaM=nglne~rs hei,Pn.J ec1,N,Pri.]. 12.000 0.000 ,Cao.fin,] ., 16 . ANco pn.2] IV, ectN 1296.00 1~000· f concrete 4> seiomle 0.700 1.000 5 Combined tension and shear loads C 0.,495 f3Nv= f3~ +pS <= 1 6Warnings 0.219 5l3 P~ge: -Project: Sub-Project I Pos. No.: Date: AC! 31!3-11 Eq. (D-41)_ AC[ 3'18-1 tTab(e D.4.1.1. AC! $J8-1fEq. {D-5), ACI 318~11_ Eq. (D-8) AOl 311H1]::q: (D-1Q) ACi 318'-11.Eq. (0~12) ACl 318011 Eq. (D-7) 0:000 ·1.000 '!'.ec:2.N ·1.000: ili.nondudne 1.,000 Ut\liz;ation f3N.V [%J 39 '"° 3000 'l! cd,N 1.000 ,j, ~CllJl[lbJ 120577 Status OK lllg;.N 1.000 Vua [lb] 887 I: 11 S ~--1 Profis Anchor 2.7.1 5 ViaSat Grove Seating Canopy 12/21/~016 Nb [lb] 55T2_1 __ • Loac! te-af$ftibutions on the anchors du~ to elastic deformations of the anchor plale are not considered. The anchor plate is assumed to be sufficiently stiff, in·ordernot"to b~ ):lefomJed when subjected to th~ loading! Input data and results must be checked for agreement with the existing conditions and for plausibility! • Condition.A applfes·when·supp!ementary_ reinforcement ls.used. Toe:¢> factor is·increased for non-steel Design Strengths except Pullout Strength and Pryout strength.-Condition B applies when sl,lpplementary·reinforcement is not used and for Pullout Strength and Pryout Strength. Refer to your:iooaJ standard. .. ... .. .. .. .. . ......... , .. ~ Abf31.8 does,not specifically address anchor bending when a standcbff:condilion exists. PROFIS Anchor calculates a,shear load corresponding to anchor bending. when stan_d-off exisls-aoi;lincludes the-results,as·a siiear Design Strength! • Checking the transfer of loads· into.the-base material and the. shear resistance .are,required in accordance with ACI 318 or the relevant standardf :• An.anchor design eipprpach .for structures assigned ·to .Seismic Design Category C, D, E or F ls·giyen in ACI 318-11 Appendix D, Part D.3.3A.3 · (a)-tliat requires the goverrtirig-design strength ·of an arichor·or group of anchors be limited by ductile steel failure. If this is NOT the case, the connection design (tens1on) shall satisfy-the-provis1ons of Part D.3;3.4.3 (b),.Part D.3,3.4.3 (c), or Part D.3.3.4.3 (d). The connection design (sh~ar) shall.satisfy the provisions of Part D.3.3.5.3 (a), Part D.3.3:5.3 ~b), or Part D.3.3.5.3 {c). Fastening meets the design criteria-! Input dall:! and results.must bi, checked for agreement wilh'the existing· condifions.and !or pl,ius1bility!: PROFIS'Anc~or.( c )~003-2009_ Huli AG, Fl,AM94·Schai;n Htttj is a registered Trademarlq>f.Hilti AG, Schaan www:hilti.us Company: W+R structura.l Enginlilers Specifier: Address: 'Phone J Fax: E-Mail: 7 Installation data Anchor plate, steel: - Profi(e; W shape (AISC); 6.389 x 6.080 x 0.320 x 0.455,in, Hole dic1meterin thefixture:.·dr= 0.813-ln; Plate thickness (fnput)r 0,750 In. Recommended pl~te, ·thickness: not calculated Drilling method: ~ Cleariing,: No cleaning ofthe-drilled hole is required 6.000 1 1.500 Coordinates Anchor in. Anchor X y c.,. C+x C.y 1 -4~500 -4.500 2 4.500 -4.500 3 -4.500 4.500 4 4.500 4.500 y 9.000 C+y .. ,,.,mm-" "••• • • :I ,:,11-;:;-1 Page: Project Sub-Project I Pos.No.: Date: Prafis Anchor 2.7~1 6 VlaSat Grove Seating Canopy 12/21/2016 Anchortype and diameter: Heavy Hex Head ASTM F 1554 GR. 36 3/4 Installation torque: - Hole diameter In the:base material: -In. Holedepth in the baslil material: 12.000 In. Minimum thickness offhe base.material: 13.000 In. 6.000 ~ ', ' ' 1.500 0 0 0 co, 0 g (0 -Input ditla and,results:must be checkj!d foragreemeht with the.existing conditions.and·for pl~usibmtyl PROFIS Anchor (,;;) :2003-2009,!-lllU A~ FUl494 Schaah Hilb 1s a regislered Trademark or:HilU AG, Schaan •.... ,, ........... _ .............. _,,,, .................................... --···············----------- www.tiilti,us Company: .Specifier~ Address: ptione I' Fax, E-Mail: W+R Structural Engineers 8 REHTJ~rks;· YQur Co~perationt>utfos .Page: Project: Sub,Project I Pos. No.: Date, 1: I I S . ..-·.:I Profis Anchor 2.7.1 7 Via$at Grove Seating Canopy 12/21/2016 • -Any al')d all information and· data contained·in.the Software concern solely the-use of Hilti-products and ·are based on the principles, formulas and se~urity regulations iri ?Ccordan~With Hllti's-tecJmlcal gireciiohs and operating, mounting and assembly instructions, etc., that must be strictly complied with ,by the user. All figures o.ontained therein a.re. averagi! figures, and therefore Liiie-speciflc-tests are to be conducted prior to using ·the reievantHilti product The·rest,tlts of fhe oalculations.carriet:i-cut-by-means of the Software are based essentially" on t_he data you put in. Therefore~ .you bear-the sole·responsioility·fcir the absence·of'errcfrs, ·frie·oompletene·ss.and.ffie relevance ofthe-data·to be put in by you. · Moreovl\lr; you··bear sole responsibility-for-~~ving tj,l:!-tesults·oMhe calculati?n·chet;ked.·and cleated by an expert, particularly with regard to comp{i~npe with.applicable ao:rms anc;I per.mlts, prior to uslrtg them for'youn~pecifi,>f~cil!ty. The Software serves only as an aid to interpret norms and permits without any guarantee as to the·abi;;~nce of errors, ·\fle correctness and the· relevance of the results,or.suitability for a specific application. ·• You rnusttaJ<e c!lf,,necel\~TY and reasonable-sfepsto prevent or·limit·da.mage caus$.d·tiy the Software. li:t wrticular, yoµ must arrange for the regular backup of programs anc;I data.arid, lf.applicable,.carry out'the updates oftne Software offered.by Hilti:on· a regular basis. If you dq not use the.A~ciUpdate-fghction ·of the-Software; you:must ensure"t!iat,you. ate· using the current and thus. up-to--Oate version of the Software in each. case by ·carrying O\.!t r,hant,ia! updat~ via the Hiltr\:'Vebsjte. t;ilti will· ni;,tbe li_i;ible for consequi:nces, such as the recovery of lost or damaged data or progn~ms,:ansing from:a culpable breach of duty by·yoµ; . . . ii:ii>ut: cfata and results: must be checked fof agreement with th& exisling <:anditions and'for plausib_i~tyl PROF!9 Anchor ( c) 2!)03-"2009 HOti A'?,, FL-9494 Schaan Hilti is a r,;gistered TrademlllkofHttti AG, .schaan Corhpc;i'riy : Wiseman + 'Rohy Structural Engineer:s Designer Job Nt1mber ; ViaSat. Grqve Sketch . D ~,: _____ ~ 3.7:!5 ft .Details D December 21, 2016 Checked.By:_._ C A :8 /l\X ; .1 D --#5' @~.15:ih .iJ1 '10 r:--. A ·('I) I I #5 @9,7:S 10. I '·c I . 3.75 ft X Dir. ,steek 1.46 in2 (5,#5). z Dir. :steel: 1.46 'hi2 (5 #5) s·ottom Rebar Plan Geometry, Materials and Criteria Lengtm. : 3.75 ft ex· ·:,O in. Width : 3.'1.5 ft eZ :.0 in Thi,ckness. : 18 in · pX : 6 Jn Hei_ght : O in ·pZ' : 6 in Footing Top Bar Cover :3 in Footing 'Bottom Bar Cover ~ 3 in ·Pedestal Longitudinal Bar Cover :·1 ;5 in · Loads p .k Vx k DL 2.268 EL .71 f:~~~PJ :Jf~v~ A D ~ Z, Gross Allow. Sec;:1rin,g Concrete.Weight. concrefe·fc ·;3325.psf :145 pcf :3ksi FoQting Elevation Steel fy : 60 .ksi Minimum Steel , .0018 Maximum Steel : ;0075 Design Code :.ACl 31 a.:02 .Overt1,1ming S'afety Factor : 1.5 Coeff[di1qnt of Friction : 0.3 Passive Resistance of Soil: · : O k Vz k Mx k-ft +Vz g+Mx ~ •• i::::2 D C D C Phi for Flexare :0.9 Phi f9r Shear : 0.75 Phi .. for Bearing ;·0.65 Mz k-ft· Overburden psf. 100 8.06 ~+Mz +Over t;.;'LJ ~ A D RISAFoq~ Version ~.O [\\W.R~SERVER\Engfneering\Prcijects\16\16-08~ Via$at Grove\SeaHng Trellis Fooffia\11ldt] Company ; Wiseiyian + Rohy Structural ·engineers December 21, ~W16 Designer Job·Number :--· ·viaSat Grove· Checked Sy: ___ _ Spi/--Bearing . Oesc(iptiori . ASC_E Z:4:1-1 ASCE'·2A.1 .. 2: ASCE 2_.4.1--3b. ASCE 2.4~1-3d . A$CE-2.4.1-5, -· . __ .,_._~ A o G 1:DL 'QA: 477~002·,psf QB:. 471.002 psf QC: 477 .OQ2' ·ps.f :QP: 47'7.002· psf NA,Z:,,,f 'in ,N,AX: .. 1 in C .__ __ __, 1DL+.75LL+.7EL QA: 1:292.33 psf -QB: 1292.33 psf QC·: 0 psf QD: 0 psf .NAZ:-1 in NN(:33~219 ht Categories and factors _ 10L 1DL+1LL 1DL+.7EL tDI,.+ .75LL +..7EL .6Dlt.1EL -~ -'."--) .:... --~ " A .0 ·1DL+1LL .. QA: 477.002:p_sf QBi 477 .002 psf QC: 477,002 psf :QO: 477.00_2 psf. N.Ai::-1 i'n NA?(:·.;1in ,6DL+.7EL. , QAr ~485,01· psf QB: 2485.01 psf QC; 0 psf QO, Opsf NAZ:-1 in r_.,t~; ~ o~:3t?5 in Fo.oting Fl~xur.e Desien (B:ottom Bats) Gross Allow:(psf} Max Bearing (psf) ,l ·3325·_· I 3325 :I $325- ' 3325 I 3325 fOL+.7El QA: 1292.33 psf QB: 1292.3~-psf QC. 0 psf Qt>: O psf NAZ:-1 in NAX::3~.21 ~-in 477.002-A 477.002 A 1292.33.·A 129~.-~!~ 2485.01 (A Max/ Allowable Ratio .143 .143 .389 .389 .747 Description Categories and Factors Mu-XK{k-ft) Z Dir As {in2 ) Mu-ZZ (k-ft) X Dir As {in2) Note: Overburden and footing self weight areHncluded in the. DL load case. Footing Shear, Check Two·Way{Punching)Vc: ·266;·27!fk·· .. One Way (X-Qir. Cut)-Vc;: ·12.402-k One Way (Z Dir. Cut) Ve: 72;402 k Punching Description ·Categories and Factors Vu(k) Vu/ .¢Ve Note: Overburden anq footing self weight, are included in }he DL load case. Concrete Beating Check (Vettical Loads Only) Bearing Sc: 1&3,6 k X Dir. Cut Vu(k} Vu/gJVc Descriptio_n Categories and Factors Bearing Bu (k) Bearing Bu/.¢Bc Note: Overburden and footing ~elf weight ate. in.eluded-in the DL load case. Z Dir. Cut Vu(k) Vu/;zl\/c RISAFoot Version 2.0 ~\WRESERVER\Engineering\Projects\16\ 16-081 ViaSat Grove\Seating T rems Fooffiaweffl Company ~ Wiseman + Rohy Structural Engineers Designer • Job Number : ViaSat Grove Overturning Check (Service) Description Categories and Factors Mo-XX (k-ft) AS.CE 2.4.1-1 1DL .047 ASCE-2.4.1-2 .. 1OL+1LL .047 ASCE 2.4.1-3b __ .... H_,¥..i....,, 1DL+.7EL .041 ASCE 2.4.1~3d 1DL+.75LL+.7EL .047 ASCE 2.4.1-5 .6DL+.7EL .028·. Mo-XX: Goverr,iing Overturning Moment about AD·-or BC Ms-XX: Governing Stablizing Mc;,menf. i;;tbout AD or BC OSF-XX: Ratio of Ms-XX to Mo-XX S./iding Check (Service) Description Categories and Factors Va-XX(k) ASCE 2.4.1-1 1-0L 0 ASCE 2.4 .. 1-2 1DL+1LL 0 ASCE 2.4.1-3b 1DL+.7EL .497 ASCE 2.4.1-3d· 1'DL+.75LL+.7EL .497 ASCE 2.4.1-5 .6DL+.7EL .497 Va-XX: Applied Lateral Force to Cause Sliding Alohg XX Axis Vr-XX: R~sisting Lateral Force. Against Sliding .Along XX Axis SR .. XX: Ratio of Vr-XX to Va-XX Ms-XX (l<-ft} 12;624 12.624 12.624 12~624 7.574 Vr-XX (k) 2.0'12 2.012 2.012 2.012 1,.207 Mo-ZZ (k-ft) .047 .047 6.434 6.434 6.416 Va-ZZ (k) 0 0 0 0 0 December 21, 2016 Checked :By: __ Ms-ZZ (k-ft) OSF-XX OSF-ZZ 12.624 269.314 269.314 12.624 )69.314 :269.314 12.624 269.314 1.962 12.624 )69.314 1.962 7.574 269.314 1.181 Vr-ZZ (k) SR-XX SR-ZZ 2.012 NA NA 2;012 NA NA 2.012 4.049 NA 2.012-·· '"4.049 NA 1.207 2.429 NA RISAFoot Version 2.0 [\\WRESERVER\Engineering\Projects\16\16~081 ViaSat Grove\Seating Trellis FooqefQ __________ ,,._.,.,_,. ___ .,,,_,., ____ .,,,.,.,.,,...,,_,. ---------______ .,_,.,_,__,,.,,_..,._,.,~,-,..,.,,,,,,....._...,,,.,,,._,, A¥ ' ¥,,,, ''"'''' CAFE DESIGN ----------..-illl--~~------------- Ii;: WISEMAN+ROHY ~RUCTURAL ENGINEERS ~ Z X Envelope Only Solution VViseman + Rohy Structural Enginee DM SK-1 V-:r:-A SA-T G(U)-vf;"-CAFE" Dec 20, 2016 at 1'2:58 PM ViaSat Grove Cafe,r3d ·"; I ' --------------------·---,_ ... ., .......... -··· WISEMANt!tOHY Strtictlli:.il Engii:leeis CMIH~LENDER WALL P!l0G.RAM.{AC1'530-:11 -3,3',5) Januar:Y, 2015-(201? IBCJ 2Q13.CBCl'/ ASCF::'T• 10): INPUTDATA:' Bcir.Size:: Bar Spacing:: Number of Bars-~ Stee[ Area =- ·Sos"' Importance Factor(!{= .Fp =·0.40'Sos 'JIN.,,= . Wind_.,,, ... 4 24!'/J:C, 0;50 0.10' o.w 1.00' ci.303 24,~- ih 1 foot 'pier {each.mait, ·in2'( center'·RiElf · · g xW.,,., (ASCE 7-10 [12{11.1]} ,psf:(LRFQ) .PROJECT: VlaSat-.Grove· LOCAT(ON: Carlsbad, CA J.OB NO: 16,08.1 12/21/2016 13:42:41 .Additional-Mass'to.Walls:= 5.00 psf($tucco, orywall; etc) CM(J Weight= M.Eldi_ll!TI Weight fy= 60.00 ksi fm-= 1.50 ks1 JY/N) Es= 29000 ksl Em.= ·1·350 ksi n= 21.48 phi'= o:~o. (bending] combined) PANE!;; DIMEN~JQNS: · ,,. .. , ......... ,. .. ,, ,.,.,.,,.,, .. -· .. ... . . .. Height18pc!n) = 13,00 ft r clear distance to bar-= Center I ·st~ef Dep~h = 3,8.1. 10 @. ·steel at Ce~tet (One M~t of Sfee/} ,0 S~e) at Face Parapet Hei$Jfll· = 0.00 ff 0 St¢el-.at face Inside (H},Bats # 4 (H)bars Q :other (Two Ma\5 of Steel}:· ti= 4.00 in -ParapetTh1cRnes'il .= .7;525 iri• -• · 'LeftJ)peQing :.Middle,Pier (design). 'Rlght:Opening .. -. Thic.~ness ·:::· t,e2~. inchJ:,s 7.~25 inchi*l· 7.~25 lnche.s Wei_ghtisf ,.• ,!lt3,0 psf ·86:0, psf 86.0 psf .Ft.ill O~nTng}f'jerWJgth= . 0 t'eet t foi:lt 0 f~~ o:'o -p!f .g5;p pjf 0.0 plf Solid'F'ane1 Above·: 1·3" feet . 13 feet ·. :) HeighUo to,p; : 0. fe,et, .. 0 feet bpenlhg . '.openfng·Ht: O· feet 0 ·feet . _ · , 8eii:!hl to··oti:il: . .o .. ·reet. 0 fee{ So!id,f>ar:iel-Belowi . 0' . f~t 0 feet SERVICE:LOADING: · Ecclihtric Loads: • ·(-Eccenli:icitY =; 7.,00 in) .. Concentric 1:.oads: .. Uriifoo:n: Point: Uniform: Point: Deadt:paa •soo;p,plf ·g.0JJ?, p:o plf 0.0 lb Fioor Live .Load 0;0-plf Oll'lb 0.0 plf 0,0 lb Roof'Liv.1fLoad 4!)0.0'plf o:o lb 0.0 •plf 0.0 lb so.ow.·-. 0 .. 0.plf 0.0,lb 0.0 plf 0.0 lb .. .. -· t:.OAD:.coMBIN;!\TJONS:. •' PerASGE 7-1012,3,21 · -.. D'. ·L L, s E w Cp111binafion t; . -· 1AD .. _ 1;4.0,0, Combinatii;m ,2a: -1.20'1-1.~1._ ,i-:o.s~, 1.200. 1,600 0.500 Comblnation·2b:--1'.20·+ 1'61._ :i-0.5S 1.200 :'1.600 0.500 ~ompination 3a; 1,20+ 1.6[,,+f1L ·1,.200 0.500 .1.600 Cornb1naiion.3b; -1.2D+H!S+f1l 1.200· 0.500 1.600 · Coinb)natiori .3c:. 1.2D + 1,64.-.,0:sW. 1.200 1,60Q 0,500 Combination 3d:' 1,lfo.t {es+ o.s'w· _ 1.200 1-.600 0.500 , Ccirnb,inp.tlofl;4a: 1.,20. t,-1,0W·+Jil +.O:pt.,. J',2QD· ().50~ ().500 1.000 Cornbination-4b: 1.2Dt 1.0W +f,L+O:ss. ·1.200 0:500 0,500 1.000, . comblriattoir 5: (1.2 +. E,)D t'f;L + tOE +.0.2S· '1:351 0.500. 0:200 1.000 . Combination 6: o,e.0~1.ow -0.900 -1.tlOO Corn9lnatio'n-7: (Q.9·-t,)Q--1.Qt,:. 0'.749 -1.000 .f1"' 0.5· !,.we l,.oa<ffact~r (.1.fJ'.qr 0.5} (ASCL'; 7-:10.(2.9.2].Exceptloq 1) ". " . -~ -· -· -. --·. !;,_':' __ ,Q;;:!§i,sQ.:= . _ .t15J .. __ .;p ---HH -·-~. JAS,91; ,MO ,(1_2,1,2,2J)_(_N_oi~: !f §0s <=. 9., 12§ then§," 0). SUl\l)~ARY: Vertie~! Mu/_ phi-~n. .Stress Alternate ASD load Combinations: .Combination 1, -20:5% 5.4% bornbir.i?tion 2\ii '23.4% 5,4%· A.= 0.1 in2 Combination 2b: 18,0% ;4;6% · Combination-3a: 34.p'!f;, i/i 7,Q,~.tf: comt>inatlo.n..Sb: '18.0% ·4,6% Cqinbiriation'3c: .34,5% ~.7_: Minimum Allow. Steel : 0.03 32.0% Maximum Allow. Steel : 0.31 32.8% Gornl:iin_atiqi'f3di ~;4 4.6% As max"" 1.09 in Conibiriatiqn.~: :';::4 -' :1 '5;4% As {in} Coiribinatibri' 4b: 39,:i%. 4.6% 2012 IBC'Eq (16·1.8): 0.02 2.2% Combination-5~ -41.8% 5.2% 2012 IBC Eq (16-21): 0.03 2.6% Combiria!ion-6: 37.8%-3,:5% Combinatioti'7: 38.4% 2.9% 'CHECK: QK -o~ CHECK: OK Company 1·1 . 11 Des1gner · Job Number · IRISA ModelName Wiseman + Rohy Structural Engineers DM ',, },/ ,. -',,,:,,~ ~ >' --,'fX , '·:,~'t't , "/ Dec 21, 2016 1:28 PM Checked By: __ RISA-3D Version 15.0.0 [\ ... \ ... \Engineering\Projects\ 16\ 16-081 ViaSat Grove\ViaSat Grove Cafe.r3d] Page 1 .{Global} Model Sett"ingsi Continued:_ , ,~. ' ,, '. .' ., ' ' -. -, . Joint Coordinates and .Temperatures 0 Dec 2·1, 2'011;3 1:28 PM. Check!:!d B_y:_·_ _ RISA-3D V.ersion 1 S,0.0 [\.:.\ ... \Ehgineering\Proj_ects\t6\~6~0i31 ViaSat Grove\ViaSat Grove Cafe.r3dJ Page 2 Company 11 " Designer .. ,IRIS,K J9bNuinber: · . IJW\ Model Name Wiseman + Rohy Structural Engineers DM Joint Coordinates and Temperatures (Continued) Joint Boundary Conditions Jo'nt Labe 1 N19 7 N8 Member Primary Data ~--~Label I Joint 1 M1 N1 ::2 __ ·/ ;rv,4:·._:· -, Ntt·,,_- 3 MS N21 r':4:-··-::--Ma : .. :: -_: '.N20 --- 13 Member Advanced Data 1 ==-r-"'-"'-!J:i-'!-'ll.Sl-r--"""-'--'-l.UJ.--,JP.?.zJ:t~l9-QIDP.JPPJfl L ! -> > ' ~ X Rot. k-ft/rad Dec 21, 2016 1:28 PM Checked By: __ FunctiQ.n Lateral Lateral ---i_ -' ' 'l.a:teral Ll'!teral RISA-3D Version 15.0.0 [\ ... \ .. :\Engineering\Projects\16\16-081 ViaSat Grove\ViaSat Grove Cafe.r3q] -Page 3 Company 11 ,. 'Designer -1:R-1s--"K job Number ,_ :_ · , _ K Model Name Wiseman +Rohy StructurEj[ En9ineers DM Member Area Loads (l:JLC 1 : Deadl joint A JointB ,joint c Joint D N10 N9 N25 N28 Member Area _Loads (BLC 2 : LiveJ JointC Jofn D N25 N28 Basic Load· Cases -Direction Distribution y A-B Di$Jribution y A-B Dec21,2016 1:28 PM Checked By: __ _ Ma nitude ks .:..014 RISA-3D Version 15.0.0 [\ ... \ .. ;\Engineering\Projects\16\16-b8_1 ViaSat Grove\ViaSat Grove Cafe.r3dJ -Page 4 Company Deslgner Job Number Model Name : Wiseman + Rohy Structural Engineers : OM Masonry Wall Panel .Parameters Envelope A/SC 14th(360-10): LRFD .Steel Code Checks Dec 21, 2016 1:28 PM Checked By: __ Wall Area Method NCMA RISA-3D Version 15.0.0 ~ ... \...\Engineering\Projects\16\1'6-081 ViaSat Grove\ViaSat Grove Cafe.r3d] Page 5 . SCREEN WALL DESl~N ·I§: WISEMAN+ROHY ~RU C TU RAL ENGINEERS : , . : I . l . i ' : ' ·. -. .,I --·-·· -i .. ~ i I • i l • .... '.!" "" ~-. l • • ·' ~ . ''. . : ! i !I{ : i:.;!_~i~~[~ __ · .:: ... ;_.· .. t, ... -·······:: ~ .. tr,.,·+·:~ : ! t : "1~EMAN: + RQHY .. , !· .: .-. . , , ; . I ; : .:'. 1 ; 1 ____ .. .,,...1 _, ---: ·--····· ............. :. -~----+\--·-"-··.. .... .: ..... i.~!,~~~JUR~~·:EN~ l~:---r ... '. ... ; .. l .. · · .......... ; ....... ~. '. ..... ! .... ~. ~_:,_--~~~ · av:-1 .. ;.:. .... !-oArE:-...,. .. ·_"_-_:_:: ~10,ic:r; V'z-~ ~A;-~::· ~-~~jj.. : .... :·i 4--;·' · stteEi:-tto, L:o, .. \ .1.: '. ~ ·.: ! ' . l . . . I ' ; ' l ; ' ' ·. l ' ' ' ' ' I ' l' ..:..,.,-.1!!!!.) l I . , ... : · ! · . , , · . · , · · : , .. , ' · . : · · ;· ··· · -~ .. · ' 'i' , : . · JOB' ,.p; t> '-","", . ' l ' . i . ' . f c l I . ' ! . ; . • I ~, . I : :.,-... -.-- I '• : : I·· 1 ' ._ ................... _ ....... ,&-.;..., -.. l .! r [" I , I I ' ! I . ..... ·-........ -.... _ .... ,, ... ______ .,__ , ........................ -... ·~···· .. ··--.. _ .... ---,---------,- I . I I J .. }"" "l ! I ! ' i ·: . I .. : l I . '\ -: ; ............ .( j.---· .... --.. ··-· -·· , ......... , ......... -----·----------·--.. _ ...... _ ---· ·-----I .] . .. i .. '"-.,.,,.·· l ! .. ! I ·1 .-...... _. __ ---........ , ............ ··- ' I i . : ' ...... _. __ , .... _,,...,_,,,,,, .. __ , .. , ' -· --~· --·-· j _, .. ,_ :-.. -...... -- . l· _ _.__,,,_.,_.,..._, ...... _ .. ~ '------..---··--............. -.. ~·-··-~. ·--' I -I ; l ! I I , . ~ ~ ' . -· ................... . r W!S~MAN+ROHY Structural Enqin~ers == P9/~ tmbedment :Footing Design == . , . . Per 2of3 csc iso1:3 . .... . . Constrain~d. Foot1ng (Y or N} .. .:.. JL,: ·""· P;::: /tt>i~P W?;:, ;: Lateraf:Force· .. Height·of Pple Diameter of Pole l:aterar Soil Bearing . . . :Isolated Pole Factor (CBC ,:).806.3:4) TriaJ Depth S1=FS at Depth::;:D/3 S3=FS at Depth· D A=2-;34p /(518} 1st Trial' .S1= .O.f? ksf/ft S3;=: 1.s::ksf/ft A= 1.30ft 2ndTricJl S1= 0,6 ksf /ft , -53= 1.5 ksf/ft A= 1.25.ft 3n;ITri,;1I ,51=: o~63 ksf/ft $3= 1;3 ksf/ft A= 1.l4ft 4th Trlal 51= 0.63 ksf/ft Sa= 1.~ !<sf/ft A= 1.24 ft 5th Trial H= :/G4)i:Jt?1f · 'B=i :;.,'Jti:$JF~:> S= :,:~~($.9-·ksf/f:t:; · . F= .. ::.:._ _;:2:>~>:::,: .. Nonconstralned D=.5Afl+ Jl +·(4.36H/A)]112}: P=. 3.lq ft D= 3.l,4 ft; D= 3.14ft Si= 0.63 ksf /ft D= 3.14 ft -53= -··1;-3·ksf/ft-· .. ----· -· .. A= 1.24 ft _ R~inforcing Longituqinal Transverse BarSize=F ... ;'.)t:.p_-:. ::;:], A.sR~q:d= 1.27 sq. in PROJECT: ViaSat Grove LOCATION: Carlsbad, CA ·. JQB NO: 16-081 Date: 12/21/20.16 U$e 1.s ft x ~-1~ ft deep footing w/ S-#6 (V) & #3 ties @ 9in. o.c. Constrained D= 1.86 ft D= 2.07 ft D= 2.15 ft D= 2.17 ft D= 2.18 ft # Req'd= 3 As Prov= 1.33 sq. in S.Req'd= 9.0in ' ·" .,,. -...,, , ... ~ '4-: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED BUSINESS PARK Bressi Ranch Lots 10-13 Planning Area 3 Carlsbad, California for Levine Investments [i ., t·] .; .• ,&~ ; CBC2016-0093 2502 GATEWAY RD VIASAT: 3 TRELLIS STRUCTURES FOR A TOTAL OF 3,277 SF OF COVERED AREA// 1 STRUCTURE TO HOUSE SELF-SERVICE CAFE WITH PLUMB & ELEC 2132612000 12/23/2016 CBC2016-0093 ------------------·-· . . . . March 19, 2015 ViaSat, Inc. SOUTHERN· CALIFORNIA G EOTECHNI CAL 6155 El Camino Real Carlsbad, California 92009 A Lal1fo111i<1 Cmpnrafio11 Attention: Mr. Bob Rota Vice President, Facilities & Security Project No.: 13G176-4 Subject: Plan Review and Update of Geotechnical Report Proposed Commercial Buildings Bressi Ranch, Planning Area 3, Lots 10-13 NWC Gateway Road and El Camino 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 10-13, NWC 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. 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 Project No. 06G252-1. . Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Business Park. Bressi Ranch Lots 10-13, Plannrng Area 3, NEC of Gateway Road and El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California, prepared by SCG, dated November 16, 2005, SCG Project No. 0SG273-1. In accordance with the request of Mr. Ryan Hatch of PCG Construction, Inc. (PCG), we have prepared this report to update the referenced geotechnical report with respect to site conditions and .changes in the building code since the original. report was prepared. This report contains updc1ted references to the 2013 California Building Code (CBC), including updated seismic design parameters. In order to prepare this update report, we have reviewed an updated site plan provided by PCG on March 18, 2015, · 22885 Savi Ranch Parkway ... Suite I: ... Yorba Linda ... California ... 92887 voice: (714) 685-1115 ... fax: (714) 685-1118 ... www.socalgeo.com 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/hour infiltration rate to be verified by a geotechnical engineer" and "MBP shall be reviewed and approved by geotechnicai 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 r:ion-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) .. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ,, GEOTECHNICAL ASPHALT PAVEMENTS Thickness (inches) Auto Parking Auto Drive Lanes (TI= 4.5) (TI= 5.5) 4 4 5 8 12 12 Light Truck Moderate Traffic Truck Traffic (TI= 6.0) (TI= 7.0) 4 4 10 13 12 12 Proposed Commercial Buildings -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 13G176-4 Page 2 - PQRTLAND 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 51h 7 ~ompacted Subgrade 12 12 12 (95% minirnum compaction) With the exception of the items presented above, the plans reviewed by this office are considered to have been prepared in_ accordance with the recommendations of the above referenced geotechnical reports. 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. Seismic Design Parameters Most municipalities in Southern California have adopted the 2013 CBC as of January 1, 2014. As the referenced report was prepared in 2013, only the applicable design parameters for the previous building code were provided. The seismic design 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 CBC provides procedur.es 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 2013 CBC Seismic Design Parameters have been generated using U.S. Seismic Design Maps, a web-based 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 2013 CBC, 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 as an enclosure to this letter. The enclosed USGS application output also includes a copy of the design response spectrum. Based on this output, the following parameters may be utili;zed for the subject site: Proposed Commercial Buildings -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 13G176-4 Page3 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 51. 0.409 Site Class ---D Sit~ 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 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA • GEOTECHNICAL No. 2655 Proposed Commercial Buildings -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 13G176-4 Page4 USGS-Provided Output 5 5 = 1.056 g 51 = 0.409 g SMs = 1.138 g SMl = . 0.650 g 5 05 = 0.759 g 501 = 0.434 g For information on how the 55 and 51 values above have been calculated from probabilistic (risk-targeted) and deterministic ground motions in the dir(;!ction of maximum horizontal response, please return to the application and select the "2009 NEHRP" building code reference document. MCEA Response Spectrum 1.20 1.08 0.96 0.84 -111 0.72 -II O.GO Ill 0.4ll 0.36 0.24 0.12 0.00 +-----t---+--t---+--+--+----+--t------1---t . 0.00 0.20 0.40 O.GO O.SO 1.00 1.20 1.40 I.GO l.SO 2.00 Pe..-iod, T (sec) 'a -II Ill Design Response Spectrum o.ss D.80 0.72 O.G4 0.56 0.48 0.40 0.32 0.24 O.lG O.OB 0.00 +-----t--+--+----+--+--t----+-+-----t--; o.oa 0.20 0,40 o.Go o.so 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.Go 1.so 2.00 Pe..-iod, T (sec) For PG~, TL, CR5, and CR1 values, please view the detailed report. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA . ., ~ -SOURCE: U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS) <http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php> DRAWN: JG CHKD: RGT SCGPROJECT 13G176-4 SOUTHER;N CALIFORNIA. GE:OTECiJNJCAt PLATEE-1 January 23, 2008 Levine Investments 1702 East Highlands Avenue, Number 310 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Attention: Mr. Andrew Cohn Project No.: 076227-1 Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Gentlemen: Proposed Commercial/Industrial Development Bressi Ranch Lots 10-13 Planning Area 3 NEC of Gateway Road and El Camino Real Carlsbad, California Ih accordance with ·your request, we have conducted a geotechnical investigation at the subject site. We are pleased to present this report summarizing the conclusions and recommendations developed from our investigation. · We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be of 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, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Q 5) Addressee 22885 East Savi Ranch Parkway ,.. Suite E ,.. Yorba Linda, CA 92887-4624 voice: (714) 685-1115,.. fax: (714) 685-1118,.. www.socalgeo.com L" 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 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 •• 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Presented below is a brief summary of the conclusions 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 preparation should include stripping of any surflcial vegetation and/or significant topsoil. Based on conditions encountered at the time of the subsurface exploration, stripping of moderate grass and weed growth is expected to be necessary. • The site is underlain by recently placed compacted fill soils and sandstone, siltstone and claystone bedrock. )"he fill soils extend to depths of up to 8± feet within the footprints of the proposed buildings and were placed under the .purview of a geotechnical engineer. The existing fill soils and bedrock 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 fill. Leighton indicates that the existing fill soils are suitable for support of the proposed development provided that the cut/fill transitions are mitig·ated during precise grading. • In order to provide for a new layer of structural fill that will help mitigate the variable support conditions due to the potential cut/fill transitions, it is recommended that remedial grading be performed within the.proposed building-pad areas. • Both building 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 overexcavation should be sufficient to provide at least 3 feet of new ·structural fill beneath the bearing grade of all foundations. •· In the remaining portions of the site, overexcavatlon should extend to a depth adequate to remove all surficial, weathered soils. • Following completion of the recommended overexcavation, exposed soils should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer. After the subgrade soils have been approved by the geotechnical engineer, the resulting soils may be replaced as compacted structural fill. • A precise grading plan review is recommended subsequent to preparation of the plan in order to confirm the recommendations contained herein. Building Foundations • Shallow foundations, supported in newly placed compacted fill. • 2,500 psf maximum· allowable soil bearing pressure. • Minimum longitudinal steel reinforcement within strip footings: Four ( 4) No. 5 rebars (2 top and 2 bottom), due to the medium expansive potential of the near surface soils. Building Floor Slabs • Slab-on-Grade, at least 5 inches thick. • Minimum slab reinforcement: No. 3 bars at 18-inches on-center, in both directions. Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G227-1 Page 1 Pavements ASPHALT PAVEMENTS Thi~kness (inches) Materials Auto Parking Auto Drive Light Truck Moderate Lanes Traffic Truck Traffic (TI= 4.5) m = s.s) m = 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) PO.RTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENTS Materials Automobile Parking (TI= 4.5) PCC 5 Compacted Subgrade 12 (95% minimum comoactlon) Thickness (inches) Drive Lanes (TI = Moderate Truck 5.5) and Light Truck Traffic Traffic (TI= 7.0) (TI= 6.0) 51/i 7 12 12 ·sressl Ranch, Lots 10-13 -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G227·1 Page 2 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services performed for this project was in accordance with our Proposal No. 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 geotechnical engineering analysis to provide criteria for preparing design of the building foundations, building floor slabs, and parking lot pavements along 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. ~--· SOUTHERN . . . • . CALIFORNIA '"?' G_E_c;n:~~!J~-~~i Bressi Ranch, Lots 10°13 -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G227-1 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) desllting 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 ms! 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 SOUTHERN ' . CALIFORNIA T. Q~QJ~CJtN.!~hL Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G227-1 Page4 .. current configuration under the purview of Leighton and Associates, Inc. The reports which are applicable to the entire site, including all of the Planning Areas, are summarized below: • 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 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 depth explored of 19½± feet below ground surface. Groundwater was reportedly not encountered in 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 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 selected buildings. . • Geotechnical 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. OSG273-1. 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 October 31, 2005 through November 16, 2005. This report states that eight (8) borings were drilled within the ·site to depths ranging from 10 to 1.9½± feet: The maximllm 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 engineering fill soils extending to depths of 2 to 2½± feet below existing grade. Below the fill soils, Santiago Formation bedrock materials were observed to ·the maximum depth explored of 19½± feet below ground surface. Groundwater was reportedly not encountered in any of the borings. The report identified corrective grading removals of shallow bedr:ock 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 of overexcavation was recommended to provide at least 3 feet of new structural fill beneath the bearing grade of all foundations for the selected buildings. • Geotechnical 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 our geotechnical investigation of Planning Areas 1 through 5 subsequent to the mass grading. Subsurface exploration performed as part of this geotechnical ~ SOUTHERN ~ I CALIFORNiA -.-...... GEOTECHNICAL Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 • Carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G227·1 Pages 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 geotechnlcal 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 1997. Subsurface exploration performed as part of the supplemental geotechnical investigation inclu<;led eight (8) large diameter borings and fifty-six (55) exploratory trenches. Logs of these supplemental borings and trenches as well as 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 sandstone 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 alluvial/colluvial 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 recommenclations contained in this report indicate that all undocumented fill and alluvialjcolluvial 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. 'Wlllf SOUTHERN ~ 1 • CALiFORNIA ,. __ -· GEOTECHNICAL Bressi Ranch, Lots 10·13 • Carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G22N Page 6 This report presents the results of a supplemental geotechnical landslide investigation for specific portions of the site. Subsurface exploration performed as part of the supplemental geotechnical landslide Investigation Included nine (9) ·large diameter borings and five (5) exploratory trenches in the areas of the previously mapped ancient landslides. Logs of these additional borings and trenches as well as revised cross sections are included in the report. The-area of the subject site addressed by this report includes the eastern portion of planning areas PA-1 and PA,-2 where several nested ancient landslides were mapped. Cross Sections E-E' and p..,p' depict the mapped geologic conditions 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 slope stability calculations to justify the proposed grading configurations. • Geotechnical Recommendations Concerning 95 Percent Relative Compaction of Fill Deeper than 40 Feet, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad, California, prepared for Lennar Communities by Leighton and Associates, Inc., dated February 13, 2003, Project No. 971009-007. This report addresses the settlement potential of deep fill areas and provides recommendations to reduce the time period 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 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-5 .. The report recommends that all structural fills below a depth of 40 feet from finish grade be compacted to at least 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 8+ months. Near surface settlement monuments were recommended to be instqlled immediately :after rough grading, with survey intervals of once a week for the first month, then twice a month for 3 months, and then monthly to determine completion 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. • Summary of the As-Graded Geotechnical Conditions and Partial Completion of Rough and Fine Grading. Planning -Areas PA-1 Through PA-5, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad, California, prepared for Lennar Communities by Leighton and Associates, Inc., dated January 20, 2004, Project No. 971009-014. This summary report indicates that grading of Planning Areas PA-1 through PA-3 is essentially complete, and that grading is ·ongoing in Planning Areas PA-4 and PA-5. Grading operations were reportedly performed in general accordance with the recommendations presented in Leighton's previous geotechnical reports. Geotechnical issues presented in this summary report Which were not discussed in the previous reports include the presence of inactive faults within PA-4 and PA-5, perched grol!ndwater within the overexcavated tributary canyons on the east · side of PA-1 and PA-2, oversize materi91s within the engineered fills, high to very high expansive soils at or near finish grade, and some severe sulfate concentrations which would require the use of specialized concrete mix designs. . ~--· SOUTHERN ' . . . CALIFORNIA T. GEOTECH}~J~AL Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G227-1 Page 7 • 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, Carisbad, California, prepared for Lennar Communities by Leighton and Associates, Inc., dated April 15, 2004, Project No. 971009-014 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 previous 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 • cartsbad, CA Project No. 07G227·1 Page 8 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 4.1 Scope of Exploration/Sampliraq Methods The subsurface exploration conducted for this project consisted of eight (8) borings advanced to depths of 19½± feet below currently existing. 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 Environmental Health (DEH). All of 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 Sampler" containing a series of one inch long, 2.416± inch diameter brass rings. This sampling method is described in ASTM Test Method D-3550. In-situ samples were also taken using a 1.4± inch inside diameter split spoon sampler, in general· accordance with ASTM D-1586. Both of these samplers are driven into the ground with successive blows of a 140-pound weight falling 30 inches. The' blow counts obtained during driving 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 moJsture content. The relatively undisturbed ring samples were placed in molded plastic sleeves that were then sealed and transported to our laboratory. The approximate locations of the borings are indicated on the Boring Location Plan, included as Plate 2 of this report. The Boring Logs, which illustrate the conditions encountered at the boring locations, as well as some of the results of the laboratory testing, are included in Appendix B. 4.2 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 Appendix B. Artificial Fill Artificial fill soils were encountered t'lt 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-3 are documented to have maximum depths of 40 to 50± feet. The fill soils encountered 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 on their color mottling and composition, appeared to be well mixed. SOUTHERN · . . CALiFORNIA T GEOTECHNICAL Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G227-1 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. · · Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G227-1 Page 10 5.0 LABORATORY TESTING ' The soil samples recovered from the subsurface exploration were returned to our laboratory for further testing to determine 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 locations and depths. Classification All recovered soil samples were classified using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), in accordance with ASTM D-2488. Field identifications were then supplemented with additional visual classifications and/or by laboratory testing. The uses classifications are shown on the Boring Logs and are periodically referen<::ed throughout this report. · In-situ _Density and Moisture Content The density has been determir.ied for selected relatively ur:idisturbed ring samples. These densities were determined in general accordance with the method presented in ASTM D-2937. The results are recorded as dry unit weight in pounds 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 Logs. Consolidation Selected soil samples have been tested to determine their consolidation potential, in accordance with ASTM D-2435. The testing apparatus is designed-to accept either natural or remolded samples in a one-inch high ring,. approximately 2.416 inches in diameter. Each sample is then loaded incrementally in a geometric progression and the resulting deflection is recorded at selected time intervals. Porous stones are in contact with the top and bottom of the sample to permit the addition or release of pore water. The samples are typically inundated with water at an intermediate load to determine their potential for collapse or heave. The results of the consolidation testing are plotted on Plates C-1 through C-8 in Appendix C of this report. Expansion Index The expansion potential of the on-site soils was determined in general accordance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standard 18-2. The testing apparatus is designed to accept a 4-inch diameter, 1-in high, remolded sample. The sample is initially remolded to SO± 1 percent saturation and then loaded with a surcharge equivalent to 144 pounds per square foot. The sample is then inundated 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: Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G227-1 Page 11 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. SOUTHERN ' ' CALIFORNIA .,., GEOTECHNICAL Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G227-1 Page 12 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of our review, field exploration, laboratory testing and geotechnical analysis, the proposed development is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The recommendations contained in this report should be taken into the design, construction, and grading considerations. The recommendations are contingent upon all grading and foundation construction activities being monitored by the geotechnical engineer of record. The Grading Guide Specifications, included as Appendix D, should be considered part of this report, and should be incorporated into the project specifications. The contractor a·nd/or owner of the development should bring to the attention of the geotechnical engineer any conditions that differ from 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 Considerations The subject site is located in an area which is subject to strohg ground motions due to earthquakes. The completion of a site specific seismic hazards analysis is beyond the scope of services for this geotechnical investigation. However, it should be noted that numerous faults capable of producing significant ground motions are located near the subject site. Due to economic considerations, it is not generally considered reasonable to design a structure that is not susceptible to earthquake damage. Therefore, significant damage to structures may be unavoidable during large earthquakes. The proposed structures should, however, be designed to resist structural collapse and thereby provide reasonable protection from serious injury, catastrophic 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 site is considered to be low. Seismic Design Parameters Based on standards in place at the time of .this report, the proposed development must be· designed in accordance 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 prQvides procedures for earthquake resistant structural design that include considerations for on-site soil conditions, occupancy, and the configuration of the structure including the structura! 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. SOUTHERN ' . . ' CALIFORNIA ~--~~QtePJNJ.(AL Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G227-1 Page 13 The 2006 IBC 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 S01 0.667 Liquefaction Liquefaction is the Io~s 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 grqundwater 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_ sells 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 Geotechnical Design Considerations General The subject site is underlain by fill soils and by sandstone and occasional siltstone and claystone bedrock. The fill soils, extending to maximum depths of up to 8± within the subject site generally consist of moderate strength sands, silty sands· and clayey sands. Laboratory testing indicates that these materials possess generally favorable consolidation and collapse characteristics. However, sev~ral cut/fill transitions between the fill and bedrock were created by the mass grading procedures. More importantly, the proposed grading to establish the new finished floor elevations is expected to result in the formation of additional cut/fill transitions. The resultant subsurface profile is expected to provide variable support characteristics for. the foundations of the proposed structures. Based on these considerations, it is recommended that remedial grading be performed within the new building areas in order to provide a subgrade suitable for support of the foundations and floor slabs of the new structures. The primary geotechnical. design consideration that will impact the proposed development is the fact that the proposed grading will create cut/fill transitions within some of the proposed building areas. These considerations are discussed in detail in the following sections of this report. Grading and Foundation Plan Review The conclusions and recommendations present~d in this report are based on the preliminary plans provided to our office. No grading plans were available at the time of this report. Once preliminary grading plans become available, it ·is recommended 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 recommendations contained in this report may be warranted. Settlement The results of the consolidation/colfapse testing indicate that the existing fill soils are not subject to significant collapse upon moisture infiltration. In addition, the existing fill soils do not exhibit significant consolidation when exposed to load increases in the range of those that will be imposed by the new foundations. Provided that the recommendations contained within this report are implemented in the structural design and construction of the proposed buildings, the post-construction settlements are expected to ·be within tolerable limits. Following completion of the recommended grading, the post-construction static settlements are expected to be within tolerable limits. Cut/Fill Transitions Both buildings are closely underlain by dense bedrock. It is expected that cuts and fills of up to 1 to 3± will be necessary within these building areas to achieve the proposed subgrade Bressi Ranch, Lots 10--13 -Carisbad, CA Project No. 07G227-1 Page 15 elevations. Therefore, cut/fill transitions are expected to exist within these building areas after completion of the proposed grading. This cut/fill 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 exparisive 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 c;is 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 O to 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 sandsto.ne 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 gre difficult to assess precisely. Setbacks In accordance with Uniform Building Code (USC) 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. SOUTHERN ' . ' CALIFORNIA 'T---~EOT~CHf,JI~~L Bressi-Ranch, Lots 10-13 -carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G227-1 Page 16 6.3 Site Grading Recommendations. The grading recommendations presented below are based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations and our understanding of the proposed development. We recommend that all grading activities be completed in accordance with the Grading Guide Specifications included as Appendix D of this report, unless superseded by site specific recommendations presented below. · Site Stripping and Demolition Initial site preparation should include stripping of any vegetation and organic debris. Based on conditions 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, silt deposits, water, or other unsuitable materials should be removed from the detention basin. Removals should extend to a depth of suitable structural compacted fill soils or bedrock. Where the detention basins are located within proposed building areas, the building pad overexcavation recommendations should also be implemented. Treatment of Existing Soils: Building Pads Remedial grading will be necessary 'in several of the building areas to mitigate potential variable suppoct conditions due to cut/fill transitions that will exist at or near the proposed foundation bearing 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 layer 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 overexcavation will be required throughout both buildings. In general, the overexcavations should extend at least 5 feet beyond the building perimeters. If the proposed structures incorporate any exterior columns (such as for a canopy or overhang) the area of overexcavation should also encompass these areas. Within areas of the proposed structures that do not require overexcavation per the 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 any existing weathered and/or softened fill soils, as well as to prepare the subgrade for ne":"' fill placement. Following completion of the overexcavations, the subgrade soils ( or bedrock) within the building areas should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to verify their suitability to serve as the structural fill subgrade, as well as to support the foundation loads of the new structure. This SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ,, .. ·-G~_DTECHNICAL ' Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 076227-1 Page 17 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 grc:ide 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 overexcavatlon 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 flit 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, Subgtade preparation in the remaining new parking areas should initially consist of completion of cuts where required. The geotechnlcal 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 lot subgrades may be immediately u~derlain 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. .....,. SOUTHERN ~ .. I CALiFORNIA ,. __ . GEOTECHNICAL Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G227-1 Page 18 • On~site soils may be used for fill provided they are cleaned of any debris or oversized materials to the 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 at discrete 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 specifications. Imported Structural Fill All imported structural fill should consist of-low expansive (EI < 30), well graded soils possessing at least 10 percent fines (that portion of the sample passing the No. 200 sieve). Additional specifications for structural . fill are presented iri the Grading Guide Specifications, included as Appendix D. Utility Trench Backfill In general, all utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-· 1557 maximum dry density. As an alternative, a clean sand (minimum Sand Equivalent of 30) may be placed. within trenches. and flooded in place. Compacted trench backfill should conform to the requirements of the local grading code, and more restrictive requirements may be indicated by the City of Carlsbad. Materia.ls used 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 by the geotechnical engineer. The trench backfill soils should be compaction tested where possible; probed and visu_ally evaluated elsewhere. Utility trenches which parallel a footing, and exten_ding below a lh: 1 v plane projected from the outside edge of the footing should be backfilled with structural fill soils, 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 used for these tr~nches. 6.4 Construction Considerations Moisture Sensitive Subgrade Soils Some of the near surface soils possess appreciable silt and clay content and may become · unstable if exposed to significant moisture infiltration or disturbance by construction traffic. In addition, pased on their granular content, the on-site soils will also be susceptible to erosion. The site should, therefore, be graded to prevent ponding of surface water and to prevent water from running into excavations. Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G227-1 Page 19 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 Eguipment 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. ...., SOUTHERN .,...,. 1 CALIFOR°NiA ,. ___ • _ GEOTECHNICAL . Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -cansbad, 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 below existing grade. Based on this information, groundwater is not expected· to impact the proposed grading or foundation construction activities. · 6.5 Foundation Design and Construction Based on the preceding preliminary grading recommendations, it is assumed that the new building pads will be immediately underlain by existing or newly placed structural fill soils extending to depths of at least 3± feet below foundation bearing grade. Based on this subsurface profile, the propQsed structures may be supported on conventional shallow foundation systems. Foundation Design Parameters New square and rectangular footings may be designed as follows: • Maximum, net allowable soil bearing pressure: 2,500 lbs/ft'. 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 inches • Minimum longitudinal st~el reinforcement within strip footings: Four (4) No. 5 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 adjacent exterior grade. Interior column footings may be placed immediately beneath the floor slab. • · It is recommended that the perimeter foundations be continuous across all exterior doorways. Flatwork adjacent 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 geotechnical considerations. Additional reinforcement may be necessary for .structural considerations. The actual design of the foundations should be determined by the structural engineer. Foundation Construction The fol!ndation subgrade soils should be .evaluated at the time of overexcavation, as discussed in Section 6.3 of this report. It is further recommended that the foundation subgrade soils be evaluated by the geotethnical engineer immediately prior to steel or concrete placement. Soils suitable for direct foundation support Should consist of newly placed structural fill, compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. Any unsuitable bearing SOUTHERN ' . . CALIFORNIA T .. GEOTECHNICAL Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G227-1 Page 21 materials should be removed to a dep~h 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' • 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/ft'. 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 Sitl# 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 • ' CALIFORNrA 'T GE_OTEql~!.~~L Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -cartsbad, CA Project No. 07G227-1 Page 22 • Moisture condition the floor slab 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 formation of excessive shrinkage cracks. 6.7 Retaining Wall Design Recommendations It is expected that some small retaining walls may be required to facilitate the new site grades. The parameters recommende~ for use in the design of these walls are presented below. Retaining Wall Design Parameters Based on the soil conditions encountered at the boring locations, the ,following parameters may be used in the design of new retaining walls for this site. We have provided parameters for two different types of wall backfill: on-site soils ~onsisting of silty sands and clayey sands; and imported select granular material. In order to use the design parameters for the imported select fill, this material must be placed within the entire active failure wedge. This wedge is defined as extending from the base of the retaining wall upwards at a 59 degree angle of inclination. RETAINING WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS Soil T fpe Design Parameter Imported On-Site · Aggregate Base Silty Sands and Clavev Sands Internal Friction Angle (cp) 38° 28° Unit Weight 130 lbs/fl:3 125 lbs/fl:3 Active Condition 31 lbs/fl:3 45 lbs/fl:3 (level backfill) Equivalent Fluid Active Conditlon Pressure: (2h:1v backfill) 44 lbs/ft' 79 lbs/ft' At-Rest Condition 48 lbs/ft' 66 lbs/ft' (level bac_kfill) Regardless of the backfill type, the walls should be designed using a soil-footing coefficient of . friction of 0.25 and an equivalent passive pressure of 250 lbs/tt:3. The active earth pressures may be used for the design of retaining walls which do not directly .support structures or support soils which 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 . .,,..,. ' I CALIFORNIA ,, ___ GEOTECHNICAL Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G227-l Page 23 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-lnch 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. SOUTHERN . • CALIFORNIA T. ~-EQI_E_q!.ti!~~~ Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G227-l Page 24 6.8 Pavement Design Parameters Site preparation in the pavement area should be completed as previously recommended in the Site Grading Recommendations section of this report. The subsequent preliminary pavement recommendations assume proper drainage and construction monitoring, and are based on either PCA or-CALTRANS design parameters for a twenty (20) year design period. These preliminary designs also assume a routine pavement maintenance program to obtain the 20-year pavement service life. Pavement Subgrades It is anticipated that the new pavements will be primarily supported on a layer of compacted structural" fill, consisting of scarified, thoroughly moisture conditioned and recompacted native . materials and/or fill soils. The on-site soils generally consist of sandy clays and sandy clays. These soils are considered to possess fair pavement support characteristics with R-values of 10 to 20. Since R-value testing was not included in the scope of services for this project, the subsequent pavement design is based upon an assumed R-value of 15. Any fill m?tterial imported to the site should have support characteristics equal to or greater than that of the on-site soils and be placed and compacted under engineering controlled conditions. It is recommended that R-value testing be performed after completion of rough grading. Depending upon the results of the R-value testing, it may be feasible to use thinner pavement sections in some areas of the site. Asphaltic Concrete The pavement designs are based on the traffic indices (Tl's) indicated. The client and/or civil engineer should verify that these TI'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 approximate daily traffic volumes over a 20-year design life, assuming 5 operational traffic days per week: Traffic Index No. of Heavv Trucks Der Dav 4.0 0 5.0 1 6.0. 3 7.0 11 For the purposes of the traffic volumes above, a truck is defined as 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 new flexible pavement structures consisting of asphaltic concrete over a granular base. It should be noted that the TI = 5.0 section only allows for 1 truck per day. Therefore, all significant heavy truck traffic must be excluded from areas where this thinner pavement section is used; otherwise premature pavement distress may occur. SOUTHERN • ' CALIFORNIA T. .. G~OTE_qt~JCA1 Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G227-1 Page 25 ASPHALT PAVEMENTS Thickness (Inches) Materials Auto Parking Auto Drive Light Truck Moderate Lanes Traffic Truck Traffic (TI= 4.5) (11 = 5.5) m = 6.o) (11 = 7.0) Asphalt Concrete 4 4 4 4 Aggregate Base 5 8 10 13 Compacted Subgrade 12 12 12 12 (90% minimum compaction) 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 CMS 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 wlll 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 (11 = 4.5) Traffic (TI= 7.0) (11 = 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 be increased to No. 4 bars at 18 inches on center. The maximum joint spacing within all of the PCC pavements is recommended to be equal to or ·1ess than 30 times the pavement thickness. Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G227-1 Page 27 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 utlllzed 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 detalled 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 th.e 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 I professional geotechnical engineering practice. No other warranty is implied or expressed. • SOUTHERN . ' CALIFORNIA . ~----.. G.EQTE(P.f'.JI~~~ Bressi Ranch, Lots 10-13 -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G227-1 Page 28 ... SOURCE: SAN DIEGO COUNTY THOMAS GUIDE, 2007 SITE LOCATION MAP BRESSI RANCH INDUSTRIAL PARK 1" = 2400' DRAWN: TRS CHKD:GKM SCGPROJECT 07G226-1 PLATE 1 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA • SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ~ GEOTECHNICAL \ \ \ I \ ·, \ I ---I \ / __ __j - . --·-+--' / ... ----,-. . ,' --. ~ \ . \ . \ I I -,-,--,·--·-/ ....____ . / \ I I -·---, ----\ , I I -•·---. ' . ---·-· -,--·---\ I I ----. ·. ·/ .. -,, .... ~ ----------- '1· \ \ \ \I>\\ I I I I 111111· 11 I --~----.-~·:_ ----~ ·. _ ... ,...,...---~-~~MPBELL.·PL··A···e ... _.---._ ---" \ I __i_ I I I I I ri \ . --.--. ·-· E· . ' I , \ + . 8 4 · . . Ir ,\· :.-. . ---~--------· · --" \ I~ ,u-. --,·· __,._ ' I • 'c'.?j1) ' '. -' I \·. . I -r-I \J . • ... J_,.-. . -.. . . .. . --.._ . ' 1···· I --t--. ·.· ~ .--------. .. .. ' \ 1 , __ ;''I.-+ 1111 -~ ~I _ 5 ----------_,. __ -::::::-:.::...·...:._-:..._.:_ __ .:.:..:._:,·~-:··~-::::.,..::·::···· · '\ -. _ \ I ··1 ~ 9 . ' -_ _;_c:c_--~-' _, ' \ - . I . . I :n--. \ . I ---.=.--'-~ ....,.. ~ ,·. . ·. \ _,;.· -- . '"l' \ t ,:·-1 · ; ~; --. . ~ 'illJ Af e --r----+l=~ ~-,-,-,--~_____,,.,-__ .-.,.;;.-.~~~-----,,--=-(. . . \~ \ 1-::::, ! _/ °t:)4 I "B" . ~ •. '\.\ \. I \ \_:,-:1'TT ·: . : ~ Lill l \ \'' . : • rn I \': J : '. · -· -· -·-· I , -\ r \Y \ r;J ;,:,, ~ __.,.UL• \,\ . :::·.\ I () , 'IV \ 1 .:·(; !::i' .,_. _',. ii~ij~~~JJ~~~~~; ,-. . ·. I \ I· . , ., ~~~LJ_~ \' , \ . . w . ' -_1,:-', .__ ___ _, . . . . ,: . •• )> . ,,... \ _,, _I : I·· -~,___ ,., . ,• I +' '? .... \Y. \ I'' ·I . . . ___...JL---.... \ , . : ,. . "" -,~ ___ ,.-,.-' . __ , .. ' _,· ·" -,v ,,.,.;' ,,,,_,,,_.. '. . __,_-.\'· :0 .-:-·\· -, z , . .,. \ . ,, .. , .. --'-'" ---. e·, __ .___ .. \. -r.s , .• · I \ \ \- \ . v,:·· I ~-·_., • •• • ..... • ., \ 0 ·. ,i:: ,,,,._c;:-+ ··-'-6 _ __,__ \·.1· '-?. '· \' , \ v. \ . ,.--,,~ -, -.. -, :-:-::.-::.~-::.-:-!•~ -''--~ ,,-_---··: .::::.-. . . • I ....:,. ;,-. •.-__ ......---. I • ; • ,. . \ ;o ,,,-+-:-1-~-\-.\.· ·~-' .. , . m . .. . . . _,,-_i-\"--~:,_-.·. , ... r_·. ;\ ;' \ ._ \\:, ' '·--~ c~'.::::::::. . \·\"-. '.~ :, , , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ' \ ,. i ~ ,.-, ' --,: .. · .. ,\ , , · 1 1 \ 1-;l,'.Tt ~~~=-=··.: _ _j---~--,·· • .t'7 ·, -, · • , V I . ,-... , • . , .-, I • . I .,. " I . -••• ~::..t=---" --· . ~ '' I ,,J : 1 Y, \ · 1 ,' ,-+--~ 11,UILDIN::C", . ·: . .--_.--M ·_ ;_ ' ' -, ,,4 \ ,,. ~-B , ·-"', -"" . \ "'\ I ' • ' ·_; ' • -.. ' ·1 . I, -. , ' ·, \ ·\ I ,,, ;·. _\ . ~ \_ ~\B <p',_,...q, . ,' \: \ \ v .· I . I/ ;~ . _-. _; '\ \ • -4 'i-.,,-. , r, ,, -----r-l=:--, -·. , s --"' ·. -· sa : .,. \ Y I ' 1 : f -J-!-\ ' -· -\ :· -7 ·. 0 · ' . ' I . " I ' • -\ .,_. · · , ' _ .. ,., , , t I __ , Af e, , 1 ,L • -_.q,\·'.\ { tf.r-· ,~·:, 1 \h, ·. , , ... \ \ 1 _,v \ •,_/.----·, \'f"" .-[;(\\, . l_!'i( :t;;j\ \'_ il< ,~, = \( \ · ,__.,,...-, · .._ ,\,\\ t,rA,1!;;,11,--:·,./.,-i -:::!1 l . I / I / L...~ ~,.....-=-:..,....--.-·-. .-. ,,~fP"' ,, ,· ; ,-\ :'"' i 1 \ / · 1 / ~ '. ·. ~--· . ; '. \j;/,.,r{li}'<, '. ' ;}.x, L.GEOTECHNICAL LEGEND \ : . l v !I .. +-. -, s· . , '. . - I • . I I/ / I I / . . -,_,_,_.., . . . I '· 1'· I / / \' ' . . ·' / /. ·°""'' ·-; ·-. . . . ' I I ,.,._ I / . \ ' ,. . . / / .,. / [...-'· "•];...1--. -. \ ! ,f I I _,,, I , /\~~ " \ B-. 6 .... ~. E¼;r,'0-"'''' .-i I '1.;)-.,__:_ . t ! ij:: I ,';z:t ·-' ~\ \®\ . 1 . "-_,,,,--" ,,,1--:~itf,--~;:::,:,;--··' _; ____ ., _____ c-z',,;;: ' ! IY. . / I /,~-~ 9;:;;.:1 ~ , . . \ 1 / .;"' / <•..,Y:' .. ,--;-.:, .. ·CC" ., ' _-'·' ·. ' : I ; I;,--t· · ,I & , . . . -. .r ,,-,,pt,•'··\·"_ _ ___ ..... -· _ _ , = 1jj f I 1 -~ . \ \ \ · ,,-~"' ,c,,_y'-·· · --.. -_____ , __ _;,_ I ! IV \ !--'T . : ,,., • .,,,,-... · . . . . . ._,,... ----. -.: ... , . ---·--· -· / IV, / ;-,-,. C / ,,-', 17 -• ----. . --·--- 0 ------d : Jr,/ I ,--'--t JII~~ \ \ ~-~~i\ : · .. ·_:. _/. _.,/;j,•'. · . / .--<--=·'·······-·.;:;, "' I 1r, I. I lTT\_j • \ .. · -,/_./ .-. . _,-. ..... .. ... -- 1 : • W/ ! I . ·1 . . £ ... __ .. /. -'~ / .,/ ,•' . . ·-'.° .. ,,;_-/ I V \ · · / · •"-' · •· • •-··' • . ---, ,......., . ,/ . / . ---·-. ,.,/ ,·' . . . .--- 1 l ,r,, I '---1. -#t \ · ·\ · -1 ~-I 1• / .,,;4---,,.-, · ,,~-.-·· -· · ->,..-· l • It;? I I 1ft ,\ / _,,-/1/? " · ·/ ! I'{ II ~j. ·\ / . \\ ,,,, / > ';, 'j/ / ~/ 'I 1 1( I -,-. , /_ \ , / / . , _,-./ . / v i(t 1: -+-1 , 1/ \\\\ ,---~Jr ./JtY -~,.,. : / .. l I ,, I--+-·. ·' -/ \\ / ,, v.,,v, -,---.,/ . . ~,,., . . g U,;, I l / ~ 1 i · \ -\ \ / / ,?/ /.f 1·-1Yf.: ·.. ,, , / ,/' » ,, I • -'· / ,1/ . ,.. ,, · · -,/ 71 1f,, : L l 11 11 -~-:, I \ ---4ff'_.,., • · "-Q-· _;/ _,, p~ , I I , . _ --,,,JV ,,_or:.• / !I ,:>' .'.{ f--L __ 7,--:--..:::.. -1---.... -o.v :--t :,--·. ,,. . • ,4, . -. . . ' ,· .. / , I J • '<o-u-<-.·. ----,,. ' --,_;],v-' ~-"-.\ ~--/ :~ ~·' 'Z2 --------,,,, I --,-,<' :',11,-/ • I --<L?./'T7C:'--. . . . . .. . .. -..-,.-,-:,.----• './• ' ! , -_ -. =•.--Lff'=·----.-1.;-.~. ..,,~ _ r~~,. .... , J ,. __ ..,._) · · · ": .. c., _ .. "~.P-_T J/4_ _,,.,_,, -.. . . , y . --_,/ p I ;---'" .-----,/ /o' I ------. ,.-·"" ,/ :,',-/. I -.,.____ ,---· • ,_/ I ---------.- . .· ,,.,..,,. . . _/ ;~~-'.:---------__ .,,.,.,.- • APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION -$-PREVIOUS BORING LOCATION (SCG PROJECT NO. 06G252-1) + PREVIOUS BORING LOCATION (SCG PROJECT NO. 05G273-1) Afe -ENGINEERED FILL Tsa -SANTIAGO FORMATION ---GEOLOGIC CONTACT NOTE: BASE MAP PROVIDED BY SMITH CONSULTING ARCHITECTS BORING LOCATION PLAN BRESSI RANCH INDUST~IAL PARK SCALE: 1" = 80' DRAWN:TRS CHKD: RGT SCGPROJECT 07G227-1 PLATE2 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA G EOTECHNI CAL POOR QUALITY ORIGINAL S \ . ', l " BORING LOG 'LEGEND SAMPLE TYPE GRAPHICAL SYMBOL SAMPLE DESCRIPTION AUGER CORE GRAB cs NSR SPT SH VANE COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS DEPTH: SAMPLE: BLOW COUNT: POCKET PEN.: GRAPHIC LOG: DRY DENSITY: MOISTURE CONTENT: LIQUID LIMIT: PLASTIC LIMIT: PASSING #200 SIEVE: UNCONFINED SHEAR: [U SAMPLE COLLECTED FROM AUGER CUTTINGS, NO FIELD MEASUREMENT OF SOIL STRENGTH. (DISTURBED) ROCK CORE SAMPLE: TYPICALLY TAKEN WITH A DIAMOND-TIPPED CORE BARREL TYPICALLY USED ONLY IN HIGHLY CONSOLIOATED BEDROCK. SOIL SAMPLE TAKEN WITH NO SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT, SUCH AS FROM A STOCKPILE OR THE GROUND SURFACE. (DISTURBED) CALIFORNIA SAMPLER: 2-1/2 INCH I.D. 'SPLIT BARREL SAMPLER, LINED WITH 1-INCH HIGH BRASS RINGS, DRIVEN WITH SPT HAMMER. (RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED) NO RECOVER: THE SAMPLING ATTEMPT DID NOT RESULT IN RECOVERY OF ANY SIGNIFICANT SOIL . OR ROCK MATERIAL. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST: SAMPLER IS A 1.4 INCH INSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT BARREL, DRIVEN 18 INCHES WITH THE SPT HAMMER. (DISTURBED) SHEBtY TUBE: TAKEN WITH A THIN WALL SAMPLE TUBE, PUSHED INTO THE SOIL AND THEN EXTRACTED. (UNDISTURBED) VANE SHEAR TEST: SOIL STRENGH OBTAINED USING A 4 BLADED SHEAR DEVICE. TYPICALLY USED IN SOFT CLAYS-NO SAMPLE RECOVERED. Distance in feet below the ground surface. Sample Type as depicted above. Number of blow required to advance the sampler 12 inches using a 140 lb hammer with a 30-inch drop. 50/3" indicates penetration refusal (>50 blows) at 3 inches. WH indicates that the weight of the hammer was sufficient to push the sampler 6 inches or more. Approximate shear strength of a cohesive soil sample as measured by pocket penetrometer. Graphic Soil Symbol as depicted on the following page. Dry density of an undisturbed or relatively undisturbed sample. Moisture content of a soil sample, ex·pressed as a percentage of the dry weight. The moisture content above which a soil behaves as a liquid. The moisture content above which a soil behaves as a plastic. The percentage of the sample finer than the #200 standard sieve. The shear strength of a cohesive soil sample, as measured in the unconfined state. '. SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS LARGERTHAJIJ 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 I 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 AMOUNTOF FINES) CLEAN SANDS SANDS WITH FINES (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) LIQUID LIMIT LESSTHAN50 · LIQUID LIMIT GREAlER THAN 50 HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS SYMBOLS GRAPH LETTER ......... . . . . . . . . . ,-, ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... ......... :=:::=:=:=:=:::=:: ,, ;;_\ ,, ,, ,, ,\ ,, ' ,, ,, ,\ ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH PT NOTE: DUAL SY.MBOLS 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 ORNO FINES SIL TY 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 SIL TS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SIL TY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SIL TS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SIL TY 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 i b (!) ~ 5 0 'fl ~ (!) § I:, ..J JOB NO.: 07G227 • SOUTHERN CALIFO_R~IA .. GEOTE~HNI~_AL DRILLING DATE: 12/28/07 PROJECT: Bressi PA 3 Lots 10-13 LOCATION: Carlsbad, California DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY: Tim Smith FIELD RESULTS f I-z z !t :::) UJ 0 0.. w (.) tu :r: ..J ~ Ii: 0.. :..::~ ·:; (.) LL w ~ ..J ocn 0 co o..c 77 67 5 74 10 15 (!) 0 ..J (.) :i: 0.. ~ (!) ' DESCRIPTION SURFACE ELEVATION: 304 feet MSL SANTIAGO 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' BORING NO~ B-1 WATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: 13 feet REAPING TAKEN: At Completion LABORATORY RES UL TS 108 11 111 13 109 17 106 12 107 20 14 19 ~._____._.,_____..,'----'----'----------------------'---..,___..___.____._ _ __._ _ __._ ____ ___, TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-1 i b (!> c:i ~ 5 0 "' ii'. Cl ~ ...J ~ Y SOUTHERN ' CALIFORNIA • GEOTE~HN~~~A~ JOB NO.: 07G227 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 RESULTS f; I-z C) z 0 w DESCRIPTION w => Cl. ..J u. 0 C.) ...... w C.) I-:i: :c ..J w C. ~ ~~ Cl. l:i: :1: 0 C.) u. ~ w ~ ..J 1?~ SURFACE ELEVATION: 306 feet MSL a en 00 C) ,:·:~:··::-::" FILL: Light Brown to Brown fine Sand, trace medium Sand, (X 25 .-:·-::-::::-_:· trace Silt, trace Iron oxide staining, medium dense-moist il!i X 22 :\ft 5 l 45 \-}\ FILL: Orange to Gray Silty fine Sand, trace medium Sand, · dense-moist :· ·:· -:. rg SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Light Gray to Light 40 Brown Silty fine Sandstone, ·some Iron oxide staining, dense-moist 10- tx 26 15 ~ I Red Brown Siltstone, trace fine Sand, trace calcareous rx 39 veining, dense-moist to very moist Boring Terminated at 19½' TEST BORING LOG BORING NO. 6-2 WATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: 16 feet READING TAKEN:· At-Completion LABORATORY RESULTS ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ D UJ u. ~ 1i5 w ...... UJ zen z a:: I-o> -1-z w :::,Z C.) z!:!:! u. ...... UJ 1-W a j::: Za:: 0~ -en · 8uS :1: u:,1--1-~~ en o >-u. -Z =>-mo :1: a:: a: oo 0 :1: ~N z:c 0 a.._. :1:U ::i::i a.::i Cl.'11: => en C.) 12 16 14 16 21 28 Pl.ATE 6-2 I l5 (!) fij (!) 5 g ~ (!) i ...J JOB NO.: 07G227 • SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ~ GEOTE~HNI~-~~ BORING NO. 8-3 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 RESULTS i=-!z w w :::> !::. w 0, (.) ::i:: ...I ~ Ii: 0.. :E w c'3 0 m 65 45 5 10 15 DESCRIPTION SURFACE ELEVATION: 307 feet MSL FILL: Brown fine Sand, some Silt, some Shell fragments, little Clay, some Iron oxide staining, dense to very dense-damp to moist SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Light Gray Silty Sandstone, trace medium Sand, dense-moist SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Gray fine Sandy SIitstone, friable, dense-moist Boring Terminated at 19½' LABORATORY RESULTS 107 9 107 18 109 13 107 14 111 14 106 16 107 18 ~'------'-"----''----'----'-'--------------------.....,_-_.___J-.-...... 1....---... _ _.._....._ ____ __. TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-3 'JOB NO.: 07G227 • SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ~ GEOTE~HN~~-AL 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 RESUL rs i=' I-z (!) z 0 w w DESCRIPTION w :::> Cl. _, !:::. 0 (.) w I-(.) 5: J: _, ~ w Ii: Cl. -~~ Cl. ~ 0 (.) u. ~ w c{ _, ~~-. SURFACE ELEVATION: 304 feet MSL 0 en lD (!) ~-FILL: Brown Clayey fine Sand, trace medium Sand, trace ~ 18 : ~: Shell fragments, medium dense-moist I ~-20 ~ 5 i'· · .. ,__ . •.r.,t· -:· ~. FILL: Light Brown Silty fine Sand, trace 9alcareous veining, -~ 26 ... -. trace Iron oxide staining, medium dense-moist . . \~· rx SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Gray Silty Sandstqne, 23 little Clay, thinly bedded, friable, medium dense to dense-damp to moist 10- -lX 32 - Boring Terminated at 15' ·, ' TEST BORING LOG BORING NO. B-4 WATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: 12 feet READING TAKEN: At Completion LABORATORY RESULTS ~ >-~ ~ o~ I-~ ~ 0 wu. (/) <i5 w~ w zen I-z a::~ e9> -1-z (.) u.~ w =>w z!:l:! za: w 0~ l-1-0 ~I--en ~ -1-eno 0<{ >-u. !:Qz :::>-~:1E (/)0 ow ~ a:U oo 0~ ~~ ZJ: 0 oe::. ~(.) ::J ::J Cl. ::J :::> (/) u 19 17 . 15 12 24 PLATE 8-4 ' - L I 15 (!) ci w (!) 5 ~ ~ (!) ~ (!) ~ ..I JOB. NO.: 07G227 • SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ~ GEOTECHNIC_AL BORING NO. B-5 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: 15 feet LOGGED BY: Tirri Smith READING TAKEN: At Completion FIELD RES UL TS r:: I-z UJ z UJ w ::, a. !:=. ~ 0 I-t (.) UJ a. 3: :.::~ ~ 0 (.) u.. w c( ...J ~g 0 (/) ID 5 10 15 (!) 0 ...J (.) :i: a. ~ (.!) DESCRIPTION SURFACE ELEVATION: 309 feet MSL · FILL: Brown Clayey-fine Sand, some Silt, some Iron oxide staining, moderately cemented, medium dense-damp SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Brown Gray Sandstone, friable, some Iron oxide staining, medium dense-damp to moist SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Gray fine Sandy Siltstone, little Clay, some Iron oxide staining, medium dense-moist SANTIAGO' FORMATION BEDROCK: Gray Sandy Siltstone, friable, dense to very dense-moist SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Gray Silty Sandstone, trace Iron oxide staining, friable, dense-moist Boring Terminated at 19½' LABORATORY RESULTS 109 8 El = 54 @ 0 to 5' 107 8 99 15 101 20 111 15 14 ,18 ~.__ ....... _.,____J""---'----'---------------------...J--...___.,____. _ __,__....J.._-.L.. ____ _ TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-5 ~ .... 0 t,!) 0 w ~ 0 "' -, Q. t,!) § ::; _, JOB NO.: 07G227 ., SOUTHERN I CALIFORNIA ,, GEOTECHNI~~-L BORING NO . 8-6 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 RESULTS i=-I-z Cl w z 0 :::i w ...J w Q. LL 0 (.) ~ w (.) I-:i: J: ...J w I-Q. ~ ~~ Q. Q. :i? 0 (.) LL ~ w <( ...J or.n 0 (/) co Q. t:. Cl 5 10 15 DESCRI.PTION 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' I LABORATORY RESULTS ~ ~ ~ OU:-(/) -~ UJ w r.n WI-> zr.n I-z ~ z (.) Cl w ii:, t:. z w w Cl -z-zo:: w Cl~ l-1--I--r.n 0 :i? >-LL ~z :it:: r.nt: ~o otn :i? a'.~ 00 Q~ :'.5~ <(~ Z:t; 0 O~:EU . ...J...J Q....J Q.'I*; :::lr.n (.) I 20 11 19 20 18 23 ~L_J___J __ L_...L_.J _____________________ ...,,.. __ __,.+---''----'---'---'--~'----'------~ TEST BORING LOG PLATE 8-.6 '. .. J. JOB NO.: 07G227 • SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA • GEOTECHNIC_AL. DRILLING DATE: 12/28/07 ' PROJECT: Bressi PA 3 Lots 10-13 LOCATION: Carlsbad, California DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY: Tim Smith FIELD RESULTS i=' I-:i LU z LU :, LU a. !:!::. 0 LU u ili ~ ...J ~ a. !:o::~ a. ! uu. LU ...I' 0~ 0 Cl a.~ 5 10 15 a, ~ b (.!) Si 3 g 2 (.!) ~ .J (!) 0 ...J u :i: a. ~ (!) DESCRIPTION SURFACE ELEVATION: 312 feet MSL SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Gray Silty fine grained Sandstone, little Iron oxide staining, dense-moist SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Gray Silty fine grained Sandstone, some Iron oxide stain\ng,.trace mediuin Sand, very dense-damp to moist Boring Terminated at 19½' BORING NO. WATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: 15 feet READING TAKEN: At Completion B-7 LABORATORY RESULTS >-~ ~ o~ I-!!..., LUU. Cl) ~ LU~ (!)~ ~~ I-0:: I-z LU ::::)z u z-zo:: LU 0~ 1-LU 0 ~ .... -en :1!: cnl--.... ~8 8~ >-u. -Z ::::)_ ~~ :1!: o:;U oo 0::1!: ~~ z:c 0 oe::. :1!:U :J :J a. :J :)Cl) u 105 15 103 12 104 11 107 13 109 14 18 23 ~.__ ....... ___. _ ___.__...,__..,__ ___________________ _,______. ___ ___.__...,__..,___,______.. ____ __, TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-7 £: i ... _ Y SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BORING NO. ,, . GEOTESHNI~-~~ 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 RESUL ts LABORATORY RESULTS ~ j'.:" f-z C!) ~ ~ ~ o~ UJ z UJ g DESCRIPTION 0 wu. Cl) w ::> a. ci5 UJ ._. UJ ~~ f- . !::. 0 (.) z a::f-(!)> z UJ f-::,Z (.) u. ._. (.) :i: w z!:!:! za:: UJ :i: ..J ~ w 0~ 1-W 0 ~f--Cl) ~ Ii: a. ~~ a. Cl)f--1-Cl) 0 8;5 ~ uu. ~ >-u. -Z =>-:5~ enc ~ UJ ;,; ..J 0(/) SURFACE ELEVATION: 314 feet .MSL a:: (.) oo 0~ ~~ ZJ: 0 ·O m a.I::. C!) oe:. ~(.) :::i :::i a. :::i ::>Cl) t) SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Orange to Gray fine _grained Sandstone, some Silt, dense to very dense-moist 14 14 13 17 21 16 Boring Terminated at 19½' B-8 TEST BORING LOG PLATE ·B-8 ·POOR QUALITY - ORIGINAL S Consolidation/Collapse Test Results 0 T r=+im11,1 · -1 r 11 rr111, 1 .. , 1111111 24 I 1111mt:--i~7 I::;;:~~]:: I r 111 IITII 41 l I l l I l l I l *4:: ··.l l l: J. hl l L 1· l l I l 111·1 ~ 6 C :g i·C-P~-Httt:t:=fd ·.f.' ... en s o 10 I I I I .\ I I I \ .\.. . I . . \ .... \·.-.'I .I :1 !·!I . . . 7· f ::--. ,...:.....· f--1' .-I-JI I . . · I , \ I I :\Tl 12 1-------+---t-+---t-+-rrl-+-----~-t--+---t--t---t-,cHt-1'"-------t---t--t-t-+-I--H ,;1: I :~I-· . •• ~t I • • .... 14 -+-----+---t---+---i--+-t-++-+----+--'---t----ir-t-1-t--+-t-+----+---t--t--;--1-+-t-H 16 ~-..J..-___j_-L...J_LJ_Lj_~__:_1-_J_l..J.J_JJ-Wi----L1-UJJJJJ 0.1 10 100 Load (ksf) Classification: FILL: Br-own 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 Den$ity (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 Carlsbad, California 'Project No. 07G227 ~ SOUTHERN CA°LiFORNIA ~--·· _GEO.i"ECHNICAL PLATE C-1 .,.,.. • :\:·.-;.;iji;,,;;lll.1',:'•ll,::,,1, j, •• Consolidation/Collapse Test Results 0 ,.__ -.. ~~.:..:...:.., ... ··.<,"··.···. . ,. ... . :, •. ,, ·. --.;~ ... 4 +------t--l--+--+---1-+-++-1,----+-+--+t"------l"'-..,.....,;-H-+-----,r---+--+--+-++-t-H t4l '' ~I'-. l6+---~-~-+--+--~++-~--+-+-~~~~~--1--r--~-+~~ C £ 1/) g 8 -l-------+---+--+--+--+-+-++-1-c--r-+--"---+--+-+-1--t-1-++' ----t--t--+----,r-+--t-t--+-1 i :5! g C 8 10 -1---.-'---1-..c.4--l--1-.J-.. -1-1--1-+,..-~+.---+~--+-+--1-H-I--,---,,...+-.. ~f.-..+-h,++-+-H 12 "' -. 14 : .. 16 0.1 1 - ·,· .. .Load (ksf) 10 \ ··. .. . . . .. :_: .. :: ,• ,, 100 Classification: F·ILL: Brown fine Sand, some Silt, some Shell material 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-2 8-3 Initial Moisture Content(%) ---Final Moisture Content(%) 3 to 4 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf). 1.0 Percent Collapse(%) 18 25 104.9 110.6 0.37 Consolidation/Collapse Test Results 0 ~ .._ ----~-. I Water Added I 2 I at 1600 psf ........ I I ~ ~ : .. ·. ' . ,' .. 4 I ' •,. ···-.i. : . :'· •.::· :·.'\ .:.:: .. .,:.·:· ~ ~'. ··,• ... · .. . ,. ,. . . . ,•. ' . -~·;, , ... : . ' ,.: •• t •; . . ' ' .. : . . " >,~··: -6 ... =.: ; ~ - C I II) C 8 0 ;; :E 0 II) C s· 10 ' .. ' ' " ,, '. ,, 12 ' ,', 14 16 0.1 1 10 100 Load (ksf) Classification: BEDROCK: Light Gray Silty Sandstone Boring Number: 8-3 Initial Moisture Content(%) 13 Sample Number: ___ , Final Moisture Content(%) 19 Depth (ft) 5 to 6 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 108.9 Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 116.8 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse(%) 0.45 Bressi PA 3 Lots 10-13 ~cEJ}lJk\lt1t Carlsbad, California Project No. 07G227 PLATE C-3 ~-·· ' 0 i\·:!0:','i11i,i,tt;:;;i:•i,/ii,;,~ t •. i. . 0 . r-~ ,.--;~ Consolidation/Collapse Tes~ Results r,,""4~- . -~ ......... 2 -l----l----l--+--1-1:-l--l--l-P.....,-----:::..,:l:...-_--:..i-l----i-r'""""i:wfta:.':te:;:-:r A~dkde:::i°d -i- 1 -+-!-+_:_i-++!--H · 1 .. -I' at 1600 psf ...... ~ 4 +------+--+-+-+-+-H-H-~--+-~~::---,-+. -+-t-t-+-t--t-----+--t--+-+-t-HH-, r-..· 12 -l-----1--!---!---l--4-+--1-+-+-----'--1----4---+-+-+-l-t-+-+---l--+--+--!--+--+-t-H 14-1-----1--!---!---l--4-+--1-+-+------=---.1---l---+-+-+-1-t-+-+---+-,--+--+--!--+--+-t-+-, • I '! 16 -f-----,----J.---"---'---'-"---'--..J...J..1---''-----'--...___,__.....__,__,_~ __ __.__.L...-_.___,..__.__.....,_-'-I 0.1 10 Load {ksf) Classification: s·EDROCK: Light Gray Silty Sandstone Boring Number: Sample Number: Depth (ft) Specimen Diameter (in) Specimen Thickness (in) B-3 7 to 8 2.4 1.0 Initial Moisture Content(%) Final Moisture Content (%) Initial Dry Density (pcf) Final Dry Density (pcf) Percent Collapse (%) 100 13 19 108.1 117.2 0.62 Bressi PA 3 Lots 10-13 Carlsbad, California Project No. 07G227 PLATE C-4 SOUTHERN CA-LIFORNIA G EOTECHNI CAL • i\ ·! ':1/i,,•mit, C'c'rp;W(ltf1lll I ' Consolidation/Collapse Test Results 0 jL_ '~~;'.",ti~·.':, .' : ... ,, .. :.'·.;-.;:\:' ;· .·· .. : :·/.:. :: :-··' 2 ~--I---+--+--+.--!+. +:-,, .:r;., ~-,f;i;:: ---:-,,:--A:---'-i,c';f,,, _a!...,,----\-'-,+, .;,:.l,.,~1--'-', +;+.i+,--~+.._;_;,':-:-. -f.:·~-'-+--1-H::+l ·.··• : · ,':, . . ... /: Water Added I . . . .. .. l....,__,.a_t 1...-60,,_0..-ps,.....f ___.l1----+--+----1-i-+..,..f-'-t--1-1 ··.:. ··t 4 ~---1---1--1--l-+-l--!-,-l...f-'---4-"' -~! ----l---l--''l--l-'.,+-',.-1-1----'---l--+--4~--l-+-'+-H .. ,.: .. · ... ·:·· ... :· . ;.,-.. :_:,. : ' . . , .__ l 6+-----+~-+---+--+--l-l-+++---~--+--l--+-t-+--H-t--~-1---+--+---t---11-t-i-H C ~ "{! ~ I~~ 5 8 +--~--+--1----1--1--l-l-+++----+--+--111-"1, '-.,..+--1-+-+-t---+--+----f-+-l-t-l--H ~ 1,_ ;2 IWI~ 0 .r,·' ~ ... -~-8 10 +-----+--l--l-----\-,+-l--+-\-4-,---,----+--+----I--+-+-+:+· -1-' +--'r--...,._,· .-----m-~-+-=--.+-,+-1-1-::+-H ,. : : . ' •· .. ' . .. .. '., ...... ·· ' '., • • , •' 0 '• '' •, •~ :, , : 1 ' ' ' :: ,, : ~ ,' :~,' \ ' ' I •1 ' I • 0 0 ' ," ,'' 0 • . ·,.:· ';_. . IC .• .•. • • . ;i. .: .-:._ ·~::·.·· < ;:· 14 +---~----l---+--l-+-+---!-1-+-----+--+.-....:.·j-'-·-4'-+,-++-++----+---+----'-l--+---l--1-+--H 0.1 10 Load·(ksf) Classification: FILL: Brown fine Sand, some Silt Boring Number: Sampl'e Nurr:iber: 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 Initial Moisture Content(%) Final Moisture Content(%) Initial Dry Density (pcf) Final Dry Density (pcf) Percent Collapse(%) 100 9 17 104.2 117.3 3.04 Consolidation/Collapse Test Results ' . 0 ·.· '. ---, --· .. . , ... . :, : : ,, ... I I 1'··1.1 '. .. --~ .. I Water Added I 2 at 1600 psf I I .......... 4 ' .", .. ... ~ .. -6 ; \ ::: \ ~-~ ' •. 0 -~. -. .-\ C ,: . ·; ... .. :•\. .. .. . .. . .. . . ,t:I ' ~ .:-.: .. {" .. ~ . ·' ... , : ... \;;): /:{;-\;;; ·:::·: .• :·.:· U) ..... .-.. · . '' .. ·: \_,) __ ·· .. ·:, :~:~: C 8 : . ,:_ • ,-i • .:,, ,: .. ~ . ·' ··-· '• -: _; ... -. ~:. 0 ·. ... :; .. .,,_,::.:·· .· .. . •. '. ·, .,, ,.,:-•. .·-. i .. . . 32 0 ·. l/) C ., . =·.· 0 10 0 '. . . -. . ~;·;: . . . 12 .. 14 ., 16 0.,1 1 10 100 . Load (ksf) ' Classification: BEDROCK: Brown Gray Sandstone '. Boring Number: 8-5 Initial Moisture Content(%) 8 Sample Number: ---Final Moisture Content(%) 22 Depth (ft) 3 to 4 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 105.3 Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 -Final Dry Density (pcf) 111.1 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) 1.20 i.. Bressi PA 3 Lots 10-13 ~ SOUTHERN Carlsbad,. California . CALIFORNIA Project No. 07G227 GEOTECHNICAL PLATE C-6 ~ .-\ i. :difc},nm Cc:rpmr;::iu. Consolidation/Collapse Test Results 0 --l"--4 a... r-N ~, '-2 ""41 Water Added I ·. .. I at 1600 psf ! il., .. ' "; ~ '1 ,•, .... '' 4 ,, " :::· .. . ' '. .. ··: ~~: . : ·. ·:_.::::!~ ~ 'l ,.., ····~. :~:;:~·:· ~·::~:,<; ~:.'.1? .. ... ·, ;i_::. '.:.t ~:;:f,;i_; .. . ... I' :•, •: •' ' . :,,: .. . ., •'•'1, ,, ., • ! ' --6 ', r-:.' C '\ C ~ ~ I~ rn C 8 \ 0 '\ ~ :E ~ 0 "-f/1 C 0 10 CJ ., ,''I ·. ,, , .. ·.i-: ., .. ., . ' :· ·: ..... • •I., ;, ," ::·: ' .. ., .. .. .. "i' ::,:,,. :· •. .. . . ; ·.':, ·-·~ , !:,'. •' , . . .. ? ,'. ., ··'· ', ·'· 12 ::; .. . . . ·-·· 'I,••,:·:· . . . •' . ~ .. ·'··:· ,, .. '•., . \ ,, " 14 16 0.1 1 10 100 ' Load (ksf) Classification: BEDROCK: Brown Gray Sandstone Boring Number: B-5 Initial Moisture Content(%) 15 Sample Number: ---Final Moisture Content(%) 28 Depth (ft) 5 to 6 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 97.3 Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 107.4 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Coil apse (%) 1.47 '. Bressi PA 3 Lots 10-13 'Y: SOUTHERN Carlsbad, California .... ~AL_lf._Q.BNIA Project No. 07G227 ~ ........ G~o.:rn~H.N.l~A-~ PLATE C-7 ,1,1.·:,fi{.1111it1r.'1:ry1.m1!1riii Consolidation/Collapse Test Results 0 --N ~---,,-. 'r-----.,. ... I Water Added I 2 --...... I'--. . I at 1600 psf I • '"' 4 ' ~ !'-I', . 1, ~ 6 "-- C: ·e ... ti) ~ 8 ~ :5! 0 Ill C: 8 10 12 . 14 i ·1 I 16 I 0.1 1 10 100 · LO<!d (ksf) - Classification: BEDROCK: Gray fine Sandy Siltstone Boring Number: 8-5 Initial Moisture Content(%) 18 Sample Number: ---Final Moisture Content(%) 21 Depth (ft) 7 to 8 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 102.9 Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) · 108.8 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 . Percent Collapse (%) 0.14 t - Bressi PA 3 Lots 10-13 ~GEJJE~t\1~1i Carlsbad, California Project No. 07G227 PLATE C-8 • -·-·,ti.·:·b!111•t111°i'-,:r?;:,1i1:;,,, i ~ L POOR QUALITY ORIGINAL S ' ' L, Grading Guide Specifications Page 1 GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS These grading guide specifications are intended to provide typical procedures for grading operations. They are intended to supplement the recommendations contained in the geotechnical investigation report for this projeqt. Should the recommendations in the geotechnical investigation report conflict with the grading guide specifications, the more site specific recommendations in the geotechnical investigation report will govern. General • The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with the plans and geotechnical reports, and in accordance with city, county, and Uniform Building Codes. • The Geotechnical Engineer is the representative of the Owner/Builder for the purpose of implementing the report recommendations and guidelines. These duties are notintended to relieve the Earthwork Contractor of any responsibility to perform in a workman-like manner, nor is the Geotechnical Engineer to direct the grading equipment-or personnel employed by the Contractor. • The Earthwork Contractor is required to notify the Geotechnical Engineer of the anticipated work and schedule so that testing and inspections can be provided. If.necessary, work may be stopped and redone if personnel have not been scheduled in advance. • The Earthwork Contractor is required to have suitable and sufficient equipment on the job- site to process, moisture condition, mix and compact the amount of fill being placed to the approved compaction. In addition, suitable support equipment should be available to conform with recommendations and guidelines in this report. . • Canyon cleanouts, overexcavation ar<;ias, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains and benches should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer prior td placement of any fill. It is the Earthwork Contractor'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 provide drainage at 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 Geotechnical Engineer must be informed of springs or water 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 for all clearing; grubbing, stripping and site preparation for the project in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer. • If any materials or areas are encountered by the Earthwork Contractor which are suspected of having toxic or environmentally sensitive contamination, the Geotechnical Engineer and Owner/Builder should be notified immediately. • Major vegetation should be stripped and disposed of off-site. This includes trees, brush, heavy grasses and any materials considered unsuitable by the Geotechnical Engineer. L Grading Guide Specifications Page 2 • 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 $ite 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 1 Oto 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 Ge.otechnical 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 a!')d tested by the Geotechnical Engineer. Materials with high expansion 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. • 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 receive 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. Grading Guide Specifications Page 3 • Density and moisture content testing should be performed by the Geotechnical Engineer at random intervals and locations as determined by the Geotecbnical Engineer. These tests are intended as an aid to the Earthwork Contractor, so he can evaluate his workmanship, equipment effectiveness and site conditions. The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for compaction as required by the Geotechnical Report(s) and governmental agencies. • Fill areas unused for a period of time may require moisture conditioning, processing and recompaction prior to the start of additional filling. The Earthwork Contractor should notify the Geotechnical Engineer of his intent so that an evaluation can be made. • Fill placed on ground sloping at a 5-to-1 inclination (horizontal-to-vertical) or steeper should be benched into bedrock or other suitable materials, as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer. Typical details of benching are illustrated on Plates G-2, G-4, and G-5. • CuVfill transition lots should have the cut portion overexcavated to a depth of at least 3 feet and rebuilt with fill (see Plate G-1), as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. • All cut lots should be inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer for fracturing and other bedrock conditions. If necessary, the pads should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and rebuilt with a uniform, more cohesive soil type to impede moisture penetration. • Cut portions of pad areas above buttresses or stabilizations should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and rebuilt with uniform, more cohesive compacted fill to impede moisture penetration. • . Non~structural fill adjacent to structural fill should typically be placed in unison to provide lateral support. Backfill along walls must be placed and compacted with care to ensure that excessive unbalanced lateral pressures do not develop. The type of fill material placed adjacent to below grade walls must be properly tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer with consideration of the lateral earth pressure used in the design. Foundations • The foundation influence zone is defined as extending one foot horizontally from the outside edge of a footing, and proceeding downward at a½ horizontal to 1 vertical (0.5:1) inclination. • Where overexcavation beneath a footing subgrade is necessary, it should be conducted so as to encompass the entire foundation influence zone, as described above. • Compacted fill adjacent to exterior footings should extend at least 12 inches above foundation bearing grade. Compacted fill within the interior of structures should extend to the floor sub·grade elevation. Fill Slopes • The placement and compaction of fill described above applies to all fill slopes. Slope compaction should be accomplished by overfilling the slope, adequately compacting the fill in even layers, including the overfilled zone and cutting the slope back to expose the compacted core • Slope compaction may 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. Upon completion of slope construction, the slope face should be compacted with a sheepsfoot connected to a sideboom and then grid rolled. This method of slope compaction should only be used if approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. L 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 niade 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 excavc1tions 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 o'f the key. A typical stabilization fill detail is shown on Plate G-5. • Stabilizc:.!tion 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. -------------------------------------------.. ~- J I t CUTLOT -- 0RJI-DE. -----NA1URAL-----------::" __/ --------------- ~;'€.RIP-\.. .,,. ---5' MIN. ~---.. -~~--,-----,---,--~~~~~-J_ . :· ., . . . . •, 3'MIN. •. • • • i" .·.' ' ••• -t?tk ~ri.·:·::-..: :_::.·· . ....-:, . . . . OVEREXCAVATE AND RE COMPACT t . ·_.;;..,-._· ...,.....,-:-_ . ... •. .. · .... ;...,·: .. ·-~---.. ·. ~ .. .-:. ·\·. ::: -: .. COMPETENT MATERIAL, AS APPROVED BY THE GEOTECHNIGAL ENGINEER CUT/FILL LOT (TRANSITION) COMPETENT,MATERIAL, ASAPPROVED. BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER TRANSITION LOT DETAIL GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS NOTTO SCALE DRAWN: JAS CHKD: GKM PLATE D-1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL L COMPETENT MATERIAL CUT/FILL CONTACT TO BE SHOW~ ON "AS-BIJIL T" NATURAL GRADE ~ -- CUT SLOPE TO BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FILL MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF BENCHES IS 4 FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER ~ 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 PLATED-2 Y SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ~ GEOTECHNICAL '' : . : ! L, '' ' . ! ' . . ' \ ,, .. '. ·. . . . . : ... ... ·._ .... · . ··.· ·: . ~~TURAL:<;3~GUN~~--. , . : , / .. · .· · .. ,··. . . ' ' . ·1· .· ·.' : ·, . >.,: .. \: ... _:_·. ··, ... __ ·. ·. · ........ , ;; ' .. ' .... , ... / . . . . 7} : .. :co~~~CT.Eo'Fi~L __;.,< . . ·. . . :, . . . ' . . . . "fit' '•, .. '... . ... f:· ~ ·: : . ·. 6"~!N ... · ..... ,. ','" ... 4, . . ·. . ·· .... :·. ~---·.··· .··~ "' • • :4 ,., • • • • -.....:.~7=~~-i---...,: .. :~-~----; ·_(/.L·~.'·.·=~~ · ... I . -~~,~/~112 .: : · .... :: . . .. .. ·:· ,.,·, FIRM NATIVE SOIUBEDROCK ~ _:: •: .. ; :,4:,_~: k· 24" MIN. 18'L'MIN. ;:.:0.;:~ v~-7.~-~---·· ... .. · .. ,., .. ---~~ ~ MINUS 1" CRUSHED ROCK COMPLETELY SURROUNDED BY FILTER FABRIC, OR CLASS II PERMEABLE MATERIAL ~18"MIN.___j 4" MIN. 6" DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE -MINIMUM 1 % SLOPE ·PIPE DEPTH OF FILL MATERIAL OVER SUBDRAIN ADS (CORRUGATED POLETHYLENE) 8 TRANSITE UNDERDRAIN 20 PVC OR ABS: SOR 35 35 SOR 21 100 SCHEMATIC ONLY NOTTO SCALE CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS NOTTO SCALE DRAWN: JAS CHKD: GKM PLATE D-3 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL fl., _________________ .._ _______ ~-------.. ! I L . ,, ~ fl I FINISHED SLOPE FACE NEW COMPACTED FILL7 OVERFILL REQUIREMENTS \ PER PLATE N0.4 \ COMPETENT :::IAL.J . •. . TOE OF SLOPE SHOWN \ \ .. _ .. -. . . . . . . . ON GRADING PLAN f _-~<:·: ~. --~ ·,. __ ~--· ·: ·: ... _. :,_: .. !-_ _-__ :_,_:· :_:·-_-_ / ....... ·-· .. /4 .. -·- PROJECTS_LOPEGRADIENT ~ ~-·:·.' :·.,-__ :: :-_·., _··.:-_· _ _,_:.,-··-·_: _:-_-__ (1.1 MAX.) / __ / • .-.. · ....... ··.: ._ >":_.·. · .... _.,_ ,. _ · -~---.? PLACECOMPACTEDBACKFILL .. ,-_.· :··-·. ·-:.· .. · · .. · -." -:.:. · .•.. ~-:_..·· .-.·-. --~ TO ORIGINAL GRADE \ / .:_ ·:. · . ·. -.. ·.·-:···· .··::-.--:-:-. ·.' ·· --~~~IT BACKCUT-VARIES ~~ \ <_._.·:-.:: ._-:·.:'_.~---;->.-: -~-._· _--~--•. _--_. 4'MIN. / . . .-. . . . : ~MA11;fi.1.t-\-j ... :-. ..:..=:=": .. y~~~~t1;_..-:.-:· _.,.... __ ......... ..-l ./4· . . , ·. · .. , . . , \.)t,1S1.lli A~LE . ·. . . . , _-. . . . ___ .__ __,--* "\:, /,.,c:.uq\J'?, . . .. -.--,-._. I' / . . __y· """'" -,..,.:.,-. . . -------,~---__ · _-_. :_ :" ... :. .. : ·-: :-u MAXIMUM HEIGHT QF BENCHES . ------·· · .·.-·. · ·· ... __ : . . IS 4 FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED --Ji -BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER . IL MINIMUM 1' TILT BACK 2' MINIMUM ,. ., OR 2% SLOPE - KEY DEPTH-(WHICHEVER IS GREATER) KEYWA Y IN COMPE:J"ENT MATERIAL. MINIMUM WIDTH OF 15 FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNIAL ENGINEER. KEYWAY MAY NOT BE REQUIRED IF FILL SLOPE IS LESS THAN 5' IN HEIGHT AS RECOMMENDED BY -THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. 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 PLATED--4 Y ·SOUTHERN t CALIFORNIA .. G EOTECHNI CAL COMPETENT MATERIAL ACCEPTABLE TO THE SOIL ENGINEER 3'TYPICAL BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER TOP WIDTH OF FILL AS SPECIFIED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER FACE OF FINISHED SLOPE . . . . . .. .. /. .. . · .. : ..... ~: '.··. :· ·_:_ :_..··. '.---:(::·_ -~ .·.: :· · .. :•. :: .. '.· , .. ·:··.:·:· ·:·/: : : .. ·.·.· ....... :· .. ·.· .. :/.. ... ;. ":_ :· . _;· .. ·., .. ·:. . . VARIABLE MINIMUM HEIGHT OF BENCHES IS 4 FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER STABILIZATION FILL DETAIL GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS NOTTO SCALE DRAWN: JAS CHKD: GKM PLATED-5 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL ... ' j ' '. 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. ! 2'CLEAR ,< BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER DETAIL "A" \ 4-INCH DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED L OUTLET PIPE TO BE LOCATED IN FIELD BY THE SOIL ENGINEER. "FILTER MATERIAL" TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION 1'GRAVEL" TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT: OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT; {CONFORMS TO EMA STD. PLAN 323) MAXIMUM SIEVE SIZE 1" PERCENTAGE PASSING SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING 3/4" 3/8" NO.4 NO.8 NO. 30 N0.50 NO.200 OUTLET PIPE TO BE CON- NECTED TO SUBDRAIN PIPE WITH TEE OR ELBOW NOTES: 100 90-100 40-100 25-40 18-33 5-15 0-7 0-3 11/2" 100 N0.4 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. ALTERNATIVE: 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 A CRUSHING STRENGTH OF AT LEAST 1,000 POUNDS, WITH A MINIMUM DETAIL "A" 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 1. TRENCH FOR OUTLET PIPES TO BE BACKFILLED WIT:H ON-SITE SOIL. GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS NOTTO SCALE DRAWN: JAS CHKO: GKM PLATE 0-6. SOUTHERN ------------------------------------------~, ; J ',; ; ' 'j ' .. '.J t .... MINIMUM ONE FOOT THICK LAYER OF LOW PERMEABLILITY SOIL IF NOT COVERED WITH AN IMPERMEABLE SURFACE . ,•. q . 4 . ~ 4 q MINIMUM ONE FOOT WIDE LAYER OF FREE DRAINING MATERIAL (LESS THAN 5% PASSING THE #200 SIEVE) FILTER MATERIAL -MINIMUM OF TWO CUBIC FEET PER FOOT OF PIPE. SEE BELOW FOR FILTER MATERIAL SPECIFICATION . ALTERNATiVE: IN LIEU OF FILTER MATERIAL TWO CUBIC FEET OF GRAVEL PER FOOT OF PIPE MAY BE ENCASED IN FIL TE.R FABRIC. SEE BELOW FOR GRAVEL SPECIFICATION. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE MIRAFI 140 OR EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE LAPPEDA MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES ON ALL JOINTS. MINIMUM 4-INCH DIAMETER PVC SCH 40 OR ABS CLASS SDR 35 WITH 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 . . ·q 4 . ·.1 q. 4 . "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" 3/4" 3/8" N0.4 NO. 8 NO. 30 NO.50 NO. 200 PERCENTAGE PASSING 100 90-100 40-100 25-40 18-33 5-15 0-7 0-3 MAXIMUM SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING 1 1/2" 100 N0.4 50 NO. 200 · 8 SAND EQUIVALENT= MINIMUM OF 50 RETAINING WALL BACKDRAINS C3RADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS NOTTO SCALE DRAWN: JAS CHKO: GKM PLATE D-7 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL •',j POOR QUALITY ORIGINAL S 0.80 0.75 0.70 i 0.65; 0.60 · o.55 · I I I 0.50 : ! /. ..-0.45 , I ~ :I ~ 0.40 ;' . I 0.35 / I 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0 De~tg1;1~~peGtrum Sa Vs T ,- i i I j i I l I I j 0.1 \ \ ~-- 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0:7 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 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 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 8) Conterminous 48 States 2006 International Building Code Latitude= 33.12732. Longitude= -117.26537 Spectral Response Accelerations SMs and SM1 SMs = FclSs and SM1 = FvS1 Site Class D -Fa= 1.048 ,Fv == 1 . .572 Period Sa (sec) (g) o.~ 1.185 (SMs, Site Cl~ss D) 1.D 0.673 (SM1, Site Class D) Conterminous 48 States 2006 International Building Code Latitude= 33.12732 Longitude= -117.26537 S[)s = 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 (SD1, Site Class D) Conterminous 48 States