The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2525 EL CAMINO REAL; ; CB163219; Permitft (,7c ityof Carlsbad L -----.- Comme ..-- -'- Print Date: 06/19/2018 Permit No: C8163219 Job Address: 2525 El Camino Real Permit Type: BLDG-Commercial Work Class: Tenant Improvement Status: Closed - Finaled Parcel No: 1563020900 Lot #: Applied: 08/19/2016 Valuation: $2,563,680.00 ' Reference #: Issued: 01/04/2017 Occupancy Group: ' Construction Type: - Permit Finale'd: U Dwelling Units: . Bathrooms: ' Inspector: MCoII Bedrooms: Orig. Plan Check U: Final Plan Check U: Inspection: 6/19/2018 2:54:58PM Project Title: Description: TI - COMM THE SHOPPES AT CARLSBAD FOUNDATION FOR FUTURE ELEVATION CHANGES Contractor: THE WHITING TURNER CONTRACTING CO 858-792-0600 BUILDING PERMIT FEE $2000+ $6,620.87 FIRE Expedited Plan Review Processing Fee $340.00 GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS PLAN CHECK $166.00 S81473 BUILDING STANDARDS FEE $103.00 STRONG MOTION-COMMERCIAL $717.83 SWPPP INSPECTION FEE TIER 2- Medium $883.00 SWPPP PLAN REVIEW FEE TIER 2- MEDIUM $362.00 Total Fees: $9,192.70 - TotalPayments ToDate:$9,192.70 BalanceDue: _$0.00 Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includs the "Imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as "fees/exaction." You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul-their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection' with this project. NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute df limitation has previously otherwise expired. 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 1760-602-2700 1760-602-8560 f I www.carlsbadca.gov PIl THE FOLLOWING APPROVALS REQUIRED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE: DPLANNING DENGINEERING DBUILDING DFIRE DHEALTH DHAZMAT!APCD Building Permit Application Plan Check No OsJ cr,"'City of 16 35 Faraday Ave.,Carlsbad, CA92OO8 Est. Value 2, ? 760-602-2719 Fax: 760-602-8558 Cdlsbad- email: building@carlsbadca.gov Plan Ck. , ,POSlt Date .$ / %'// , 108.18.16 I 5h5 I www.carlsbadca.gov JOB ADDRESS 2525 El Camino Real SUITE#/SPACE#/UN1# AP1f / 156 - 302 - 08 - CT/PROJECT # LOT # PHASE Il # OF UNITS # BEDROOMS # BATHROOMS CONSTR. TYPE GROUP I ITEMWBUSINEMMME The Shoppes at Carlsbad Ill-B JOCC. M DESCRIPTION OF WORK: Include Square Feet of Affected Areal's) Shell, structural, and existing upgrade. Demo existing tenant spaces @ their exit stairs, current mall offices & storage, family restrooms. Providing new exit stairs and freight elevator shafts & rerouting exit corridors. Upgrade structure & provide utility stubs for future tenants. Repair concrete deck water damage. 56,000sf EXISTING USE PROPOSED USE GARAGE (SF) PATIOS (SF) DECKS (SF) FIREPLACE AIR CONDITIONING Retail Mall Retail Mall I I I YESD*. NO YES NO IFIRESPRINKLERS YESNOE APPLICANT NAME Primary Contact Steven Ruiz, LDA Design Group PROPERTY OWNER NAME Kyle Godat, Rouse Properties ADDRESS 3500 W Burbank Blvd ADDRESS 555 Broadway Suite 1019 CITY STATE ZIP Burbank CA 91505 CITY STATE ZIP Chula Vista CA 91910 PRONE FAX PHONE FAX 818-972-5080 818-848-3895 619-427-6701 EMAIL stevenr(ldadesignqroup.com EMAIL kyle.qodat(rouseproperties.com DESIGN PROFESSIONAL CONTRACTOR Donald D. Linane AlA BUS. NAME Rob Prather Whitina Turner Contractina Co ADDRESS ADDRESS 3500W. Burbank Blvd 250 Commerce Street, Suite 150 CITY STATE ZIP CITY STATE ZIP Burbank CA 91505 Irvine CA 92602 PHONE FAX PHONE FAX 818-972-5080 818-848-3895 949-863-0800 EMAIL EMAIL donl(ldadesignqroup.com Rob.Pratherwhitinq-tumer.com STATE LIC. # STATE UC.# -. CLASS CITY BUS. LIC.# C-18772 - i ft CY7. lec. 'uji.o uusiness ana vroTessions coae: Any city or County which requires a permit to construct, alter, improve, demolish or repair any structure, prior to its issuance, also requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (Chapter 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 permit Subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars ($50011). 0IIK33000 (3@000®) Workers' Compensation Declaration: thereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations: RI have and wIll maIntain a certificate of consent to self-Insure for workers' compensation as provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for Which this pemift is issued. I have and wIlt maintain workers' comnensatton, as renuired by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. My workers' compensation Insurance carrier and policy number are: Insurance Co. Policy No. Expiration Date section need not be completed if the permit is for one hundred dollars ($100) or less. Certificate of Exemption: I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued, I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to become subject to the Workers' Compensation Laws of California. WARNING: Failure to secure worke 'compensation coverage Is unlawful, and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to one hundred thousand dollars (111,100,000), In addition to the cost of compensation, mages a provIded for In action 3706 of the Labor code, Interest and attorney's fees. CONTRACTOR SIGNATU . AGENT DATE DOoO(D0Q,E)G • 0 thereby affirm that! em exempt from Contractors Ucense Law for the following reason: [] I, as owner of the property or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work and the structure is not intended or offered for sale (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply loan owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who does such work himself or through his own employees, provided that such improvements are not intended or offered for sale. If, however, the building or improvement Is sold within one year of completion, the owner-builder 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 exclusively contracting with licensed 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 such projects with contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's license Law). [] I am exempt under Section BusIness and Professions Code for this reason: 1. I personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed property Improvement. I:J'fes DNo 2. I (have I have not) signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work. 3. I have contracted with the following person (firm) to provide the proposed construction (Include name address! phone! contractors' license number): 4. I plan to provide portions of the work, but I have hired the following person to coordinate, supervise and provide the major work (include name! address I phone /contractors' license number): 5. 1 will provide some of the work, but I have contracted (hired) the following persons to provide the work Indicated (include name! address! phone I type of work): .5PROPER1Y OWNER SIGNATURE []AGENT DATE rcnn urrnx TT: 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 25605, 25533 or 25534 of the Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act? L.,Yes t'_ No Is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district? 11:ves !i No Is the facility to be constructed within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? [ ,Yes / No IF ANY OF THE ANSWERS ARE YES, A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY MAY NOT BE ISSUED UNLESS THE APPLICANT HAS MET OR IS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT. I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work this permit is issued (Sec. 3097 (I) Civil Code). Lender's Name Lender's Address - - I certifythat I have read the application and state thatthe above information is correct and that the information on the plans Is accurate. I agreeto comptywith all City ordinances and State laws relattngto bulldIngconsbuon. I hereby authorize representative of the City of Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned property for inspection purposes. I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE, INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES, JUDGMENTS, COSTS AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT. OSHA: An OSHA permt is required for excavations over 69 deep andderrrolition or construction of structures over 3stories in height EXPIRATION: Every permit issued by the Building Official under the provisions of this Code shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within l8o days from the date of such permit orif the building or ymrk authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is commenced fora period of 180 days (Section 106.4.4 Uniform Building Code). iAPPLlCANT'S SIGNATURE : DATE - ) L / I STOP: THIS SECTION NOT REQUIRED FOR BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE. Complete the following ONLY if a Certificate of Occupancy will be requested at final inspection. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (Commercial Projects Only) Fax (760) 602-8560, Email buiIdingCar1sbadca.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 . FAX - EMAIL OCCUPANT'S BUS. LIC. No. DELIVERY OPTIONS PICK UP: - CONTACT (Listed above) OCCUPANT (Listed above) CONTRACTOR (On Pg. i) - 'MAIL TO: ". CONTACT (Listed above) OCCUPANT (Listed above) ASSOCIATED CS# 1 CONTRACTOR (On Pg. t) - NO CHANGE IN USE/ NO CONSTRUCTION MAIL/ FAX TO OTHER: - . . . CHANGE OF USE / NO CONSTRUCTION APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE PERMITdNSPECTION HISTORY1REPORT(CB163219) -- L. I5 I 'L t . , t 1 Permit Type: BLDG-Commercial Application Date: 08/19/2016 Owner: Work Class: Tenant Improvement Issue Date: 01/04/2017 Subdivision: CARLSBAD TCT#76-18 Status: , Closed - Finaled Expiration Date: 03/12/2018 Address: 2525 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 IVR Number: 716584 Scheduled Actual Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Status Primary Inspector Reinspection Complete Date Start Date Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed FIRE- Building Final Yes 06/19/2018 06/19/2018 BLDG-Final 061425.2018 Passed Michael Collins complete Inspection _\ Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Phase 1.5 only. - Yes - BLDG-Building Deficiency Not ready I No BLDG-Structural Final Yes BLDG-Structural Final , No BLDG-Electrical Final No BLDG-Building Deficiency Not ready - No BLDG-Plumbing Final . / No BLDG-Mechanical Final No ' 1 . - - . _•I - .., / 'I- June 19,2018 . Page 9of9 ( .) Permit Type: BLDG-Commercial Application Date: 08/19/2016 Owner: Work Class: Tenant Improvement Issue Date: 01/04/2017 Subdivision: CARLSBAD TCT#76-18 Status: Closed - Finaled Expiration Date: 03/12/2018 Address: 2525 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 IVR Number: 716584 Scheduled Actual Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Status Primary Inspector Reinspection Complete Date Start Date Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes BLDG-14 - Wall frame only at Line C-G & 19-23 at Yes Frame-Steel-Bolting-Welding Lower & Upper levels (Decks) 07/11/2017 07/11/2017 BLDG-14 028480.2017 Passed Michael Collins Complete Frame/Steel/Bolting! Welding (Decks) - Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Lower level kiosk storage, LineA.2-D & 6-9, Yes roof curbs at Line 17-23 & C-F(4) - 07/18/2017 07/18/2017 BLDG-16 Insulation 029052-2017 Passed Michael Collins Complete ( Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Walls only at Rm. 132,135 D, C-H Yes 09/11/2017 09/11/2017 BLDG-34 Rough 034191-2017 Partial Pass Michael Collins Reinspection Incomplete Electrical Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Questions No 12/20/2017 12/20/2017 BLDG-Final 043893-2017 Failed Michael Collins - Reinspection Complete Inspection - Checklist Item '- COMMENTS Passed I BLDG-Building Deficiency Not ready No BLDG-Plumbing Final No BLDG-Mechanical Final No BLDG-Structural Final - ' No BLDG-Electrical Final - - No 12/21/2017 12/21/2017 BLDG-Final 044113.2017 Failed Michael Collins Reinspection Complet& Inspection - rnMMFNT Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Not ready No ' 06/06/2018 06/06/2018 BLDG-Final 060113.2018 Failed Michael Collins Reinspection ' Complete Inspection Checklist Item COMMENTS ' Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Not ready No BLDG-Plumbing Final ' No - BLDG-Mechanical Final , No BLDG-Structural Final No BLDG-Electrical Final - No BLDG-Building Deficiency Not ready No BLDG-Fire Final , 060272-2018 Passed Cindy Wong Complete June 19,2018 - Page 8of9 . 1 Permit •j'iiiij Work Class: Tenant Improvement Issue Date: •Th.Y$('1t Status: Closed - Finaled Date:Addre;s: 2525 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 IVR Number: 716584 - Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Status Primary Inspector Reinspection Complete Date Start Date 06/27/2017 06/27/2017 BLDG-14 027406.2017 Passed Michael Collins Complete Frame/Steel/Bolting/ Welding (Decks) / Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency 1 HR corridor wall frame, Line Al-C & 6 Yes BLDG-17 Interior 027355-2017 Passed Michael Collins ' Complete Lath/Drywall • Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed - BLDG-Building Deficiency Second side 1 hr corridor, LineA.1-A.2 & Yes 1-13 BLDG-18 Exterior - 027287.2017 Cancelled Michael Collins Reinspection Complete Lath/Drywall - Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed - BLDG-Building Deficiency No ' 06/28/2017 06/28/2017 BLDG-14 027354-2017 Partial Pass Michael Collins Reinspection Incomplete Frame/Steel/Bolting/. - - Welding (Decks) - • Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency No 06/29/2017 06/29/2017 BLDG-12 Steel/Bond 027446.2017 Partial Pass Paul York Reinspection Incomplete Beam Checklist Item COMMENTS - Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency No BLDG-21 027471.2017 Partial Pass Paul York Reinspection Incomplete Underground/Underf loor Plumbinq BLDG-Building Deficiency 07/07/2017 07/07/2017 BLDG-18 Exterior 028179-2017 Passed Michael Collins Lath/Drywall Checklist Item COMMENTS BLDG-Building Deficiency Interior drywall at one side, Lower level at - Line C-G & 19-23. Drywall inspection code not available. BLDG-84 Rough 028046-2017 , Passed Michael Collins Combo(14,24,34,44) , No Complete Passed No Complete June 19,2018 . - . Page 7of9 Permit Type: . BLDG-Commercial Application bate: 08/19/2016 Owner: Work Class: Tenant Improvement Issue Date: 01/04/2017 Subdivision: CARLSBAD TCT#76-18 Status: Closed - Finaled Expiration Date: 03/12/2018 Address: 2525 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 lVR Number: 716584 Scheduled Actual Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Status Primary Inspector Reinspection Complete Date Start Date -I Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Recept./switch boxes at back house Yes corridor, Line 1-12 & A.2 BLDG-66 Grout 026736-2017 - Passed Michael Collins Complete Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Column dry pack at Line 21-234 C-F. Yes 06/21/2017 06/21/2017 BLDG-12 Steel/Bond 026786.2017 - ' Passed Michael Collins Complete Beam Checklist Item COMMENTS , Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Pan deck at Line 21-23 & C-F, column pour Yes back steel at Line21-22 & C-F, Stair #10, - - footing/steel. BLDG-Building Deficiency Shotcrete wall at Southwest, need engineer No approval for changes made. 06/22/2017 06/22/2017 BLDG.11 026883.2017 Passed Michael Collins / Complete Foundation/Ftg/Pier s (Rebar) Checklist Item COMMENTS . Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Deck topping at Line A-C & 9-11, beam Yes pockets at Line A.2 & 6-9. ( BLDG-16 Insulation 027012.2017 - Passed Michael Collins , Complete Checklist Item COMMENTS , Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Walls only at Line 1-13 & Al-C, lhr Yes 'corridor BLDG-24 026896-2017 Passed Michael Collins Complete Rough/Topout Checklist Item . COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency , Waste to POC at restrooms 214-215. Yes 06/26/2017 06/262017 BLDG-14 027239-2017 Passed Michael Collins Complete Frame/Steel/Bolting/ Welding (Decks) Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency 1 HR corridor frame, lower level at Line C & Yes 14-19. Dbl ck shot pins. BLDG-Building Deficiency Prelim wall frame at lower level ;hr Yes - corridor. See card. 7 BLDG-17 Interior 027243.2017 Passed Michael Collins . Complete Lath/Drywall , Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency One side (tenant side of 1 H R corridor)only Yes at Line C & 14-19. . I , June l9,2018 I • - Page 6of9 F Cl lull. I y Ftc. ...... Work Class: Tenant Improvement Issue Date: 01/04/2017 Subdivision: CARLSBAD TCT#76-18 Status: Closed - Finaled Expiration Date: 03/12/2018 Address: 2525 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 IVR Number: 716584 Schduled Actual I Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Status Primary Inspector - Reinspection Complete Date Start Date BLDG-66 Grout i 025287.2017 Failed Michael Collins Reinspection Complete Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency No BLDG-82 Drywall, 025403-2017 Failed Michael Collins Reinspection Complete Exterior Lath, Gas - Test, Hot Mop . . Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Lower level 1 hr corridors. i No BLDG-17 Interior Lath-Drywall . No 06/07/2017 -.1 - 06/07/2017 BLDG-11 025562-2017 Passed Michael Collins - Complete Foundation/Ftg/Pier , . s(Rebar). - Checklist Item COMMENTS ' Passed BLDG-17 Interior 025624-2017 Lath/Drywall Checklist Item I BLDG-Building Deficiency 06/13/2017 06/13/2017 BLDG-11 025984-2017 Foundation/Ftg/Pier S (Rebar) Checklist Item Stair #9 footing/steel and additional pour strip areas at columns, Line 6-A, C-D & 7-8. Passed Michael Collins COMMENTS One side 1 hr corridor wall at Line A2-C & 1-6, see card. Passed Michael Collins 4 COMMENTS Yes Complete Passed Yes Complete Passed - . . BLDG-Building Deficiency Pilaster steel, Line 23 & E.3-F Yes 06/14/2017 06/14/2017 BLDG-12 Steel/Bond 026217-2017 ' Failed Michael Collins ' Reinspection Complete Beam Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed OLUF.t-bUllalflg ueiicieriy !IUU..IClC WlI IIIWCI, IIcc approval for changes made. BLDG-84 Rough 026218.2017 Failed Michael Collins - Reinspection Complete Combo(1424,34,44) Checklist Item COMMENTS - Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency No / BLDG-14 . No Frame-Steel-Bolting-Welding (Decks) 06/20/2017 06/20/2017 BLDG-34 Rough 026734-2017 -) Passed ' Michael Collins - Complete Electrical - n -C- June l9,2018 , . Page 5of9 / Permit Type: BLDG-Commercial Application Date: 08/19/2016 Owner: Work Class: Tenant Improvement Issue Date: 01/04/2017 Subdivision: CARLSBAD TCT#76-18 Status: Closed - Finled Expiration Date: 03/12/2018 Address: 2525 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 IVR Number: 716584 Scheduled Actual Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Status Primary Inspector Reinspection Complete Date Start Date Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency CMU 1st at Line 7.5-12 & D, C-D & 4, 2nd Yes lift at Elevator #2 0513012017 05/30/2017 BLDG-21 024577.2017 Passed Michael Collins Complete Underground/Underf loor Plumbing - - Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Underground waste for future lower & upper Yes floor tenants. See card. BLDG-66 Grout . 024527-2017 Passed Michael Collins Complete Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency 2nd lift CMU at Line 0 & 7-9 Yes Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency 3rd lift CMU, Line D & 4 Yes 06/01/2017 06/01/2017 BLDG-12 Steel/Bond 024980.2017 Partial Pass Paul York Reinspection Incomplete Beam ChecklistItem COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Shotcrete wall at Southwest, need engineer No approval for changes made. BLDG-66 Grout 025020.2017 Partial Pass Paul York Reinspection Incomplete ChecklistItem COMMENTS _Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency No 06/02/2017 06/02/2017 BLDG-11 025149.2017 Partial Pass Paul York . Reinspection Incomplete Foundation/Ftg/Pier $ (Rebar) ChecklistItem COMMENTS _Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency No 06/06/2017 06/06/2017 BLDG-11 025402-2017 Passed Michael Collins Complete Foundation/Ftg/Pier 5 (Rebar) Checklist ItemI COMMENTS _Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Pour strips at Line 14-23 & C-F . Yes BLDG-14 025499-2017 Partial Pass Michael Collins Reinspection Incomplete Frame/Steel/Bolting/ - Welding (Decks) . ChecklistItem COMMENTS _.Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Pre lim wall frame at lower level 1 hr Yes corridor. See card. June 19, 2018 . . Page 4of9 Permit Type: BLDG-Commercial Application Date: 08/19/2016 Owner: Work Class: Tenant Improvement Issue Date: 01/04/2017 1 Subdivision: CARLSBAD TCT#76-18 Status: Closed -Finaled Expiration Date: 03/12/2018 Address: 2525 El Camino Real '. Carlsbad, CA 92008 \ IVR Number: 716584 Scheduled ### Actual Date Start Date Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Status Primary Inspector Reinspection Complete ( Complete Passed ' Yes 1 Complete Passed Yes Reinspection Incomplete Passed Yes • Complete Passed Yes 06/0212017 05/02/2017 BLDG-11 022131-2017 Passed Michael Collins Foundation/Ftg/Pier S (Rebar) Checklist Item COMMENTS - BLDG-Building Deficiency Spread footing at Line14 & D-F - BLDG-66 Grout 021855-2017 Passed - Michael Collins - ..rIeRlIbL uteji. '.ns flulVl Lii I BLDG-Building Deficiency CMU layup at Line 1 & F-Fl 05/08/2017 05/08/2017 BLDG-Il 022410-2017 Partial Pass Michael Collins Foundation/FtgiPier S (Rebar) Checklist Item COMMENTS BLDG-Building Deficiency - -- BLDG-66 Grout 022655.2017 Passed Michael Collins • Checklist Item COMMENTS • BLDG-Building Deficiency Final lift at lower level Line 1 & F-Fl. Upper level Line 1 & Fl, 2nd lift at Elev. #1. 05/12/2017 05/12/2017 BLDG-11 023141.2017 Passed Michael Collins FoundationiFtg/Pier $ (Rebar) ' - Checklist Item COMMENTS' • BLDG-Building Deficiency Line 1 & F-F.1 BLDG-66 Grout 023142-2017 Cancelled Michael Collins Checklist Item COMMENTS BLDG-Building Deficiency 05/15/2017 05/15/2017 BLDG-12 Steel/Bond 023352-2017 Passed Michael Collins Beam Checklist Item COMMENTS • BLDG-Building Deficiency Steel floor beams with reinforcement/studs at Line D $ 7-12. - 05/24/2017 05/24/2017 BLDG-12 Steel/Bond 024269-2017 Failed Michael Collins - Beam • Checklist Item COMMENTS / - BLDG-Building Deficiency Shotcrete wall at Southwest, need engineer approval for changes made, -i BLDG-66 Grout 024423-2017 - Passed Michael Collins Complete Passed - Yes • - Reinspection Complete Passed No Complete Passed Yes Reinspection Complete Passed No Complete June 19,2018 - 'I - - - Page 3of9 ( • Permit Type: BLDG-Commercial Application Date: 08,'19/2016 Owner: Work Class: Tenant Improvement Issue Date: 01/04/2017 Subdivision: CARLSBAD TCT#76-18 Status: Closed - Finaled Expiration Date: 03/12/2018 Address: 2525 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 IVR Number: 716584 Scheduled Actual Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Status Primary Inspector Reinspection Complete Date Start Date 04/18/2017 04/18/2017 BLDG-Il 0205272017 Passed Michael Collins . Complete Foundation/Ftg/Pier ) S (Rebar) Checklist Item COMMENTS - Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Lower level at Linel-6 & A.2-D and Elevator Yes 1, CIP walls. BLDG-Building Deficiency Lower level, ongoing Yes BLDG-15 020529-2017 - Passed Michael Collins Complete r . RoofiReRoof(Patio) I Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Diaphagm nailing at Line8-10 & D-G, 5-8 & Yes • F-G. 04/20/2017 04/20/2017 BLDG-lI 020674-2017 Passed Michael Collins complete Foundation/Ftg/Pier s (Rebar) Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Elev. pit #2, spread footings at Line 214-22 Yes &D-F 04/24/2017 04/24/2017 BLDG-Il 020951-2017 Passed Michael Collins Complete Foundation/Ftg/Pier S (Rebar) - Checklist Item COMMENTS . Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Fog/steel at Line 7-9 & A-D, SOG, Line Yes 21.4-22 & D-F. 04/26/2017 04/26/2017 BLDG-lI 021256-2017 Passed - Michael Collins complete Foundation/Ftg/Pier - $ (Rebar) - . Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Line 10-12 & A&D, Line D&14, Stair 9 @ Yes Line 7-8 & C-D 05/01/2017 05/01/2017 BLDG-11 021905.2017 Passed Michael Collins Complete Foundation/Ftg/Pier ( - S (Rebar) Checklist Item COMMENTS ., Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Ftg./Steel at Stair #10, Steel at Elev. #2 CIP Yes • wall. -, BLDG-66 Grout 021684-2017 Passed Michael Collins . Complete Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency '1st lift at Elev. #1 and CMU , lower level at Yes Line l&F-F.1 June l9,2018 ' • . Page 2of9 Permit Type: BLDG-Commercial Application Date: 08/19/2016 Owner: Work Class: Tenant Improvement Issue Date: 01/04/2017 Subdivision: CARLSBAD TCT#76-18 Status: Closed - Finaled Expiration Date: 03/12/2018 Address: 2525 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 lVR Number: 716584 - Scheduled Actual - Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Status Primary Inspector Reinspection Complete Date Start Date 03/21/2017 03/21/2017 BLDG-66 Grout 017157-2017 Passed Michael Collins Complete Checklist Item COMMENTS -. Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency CMU layup, lower level Line 1 & 0-F, Yes Second level Line 1 & 0-F, Lines 8/9 & A-D. 03/30/2017 03/30/2017 BLDG-66 Grout 018161-2017 Passed Michael Collins - Complete Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency 2nd lift, Line A-F & 1, Line 8-9 & A-D - Yes 04/05/2017 04/05/2017 BLDG-11 018898-2017 Passed Michael Collins Complete Foundation/FtglPier - - S (Rebar) - Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed - BLDG-Building Deficiency Elev pit 1 only Yes 04/07/2017 04/07/2017 BLDG-66 Grout 019337-2017 Partial Pass Paul York Reinspection Incomplete Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed - , BLDG-Building Deficiency No 04/10/2017 04/10/2017 BLDG-66 Grout 019444.2017 Passed Michael Collins Complete Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Lay up at Line 8/9 & A-D Yes 04/14/2017 04/14/2017 BLDG-11 020017.2017 Passed Michael Collins Complete Foundation/Ftg/Pier . I s(Rebar) Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Spread footings at Line B & 5-6, B.5 & 4 Yes BLDG-13 Shear 020016.2017 Failed Michael Collins Reinspection Complete Panels/HD (Ok to wrap) Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency No BLDG-83 Roof 020053-2017 Passed Michael Collins , Complete Sheating, Exterior Shear (1315) Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-15 Roof New diaphragm nailing at Line 5-8 & F-G, ' Yes Sheathing -Reroof Line 8-10 & D-G. - 04/17/2017 04/17/2017 BLDG-11 020224-2017 Partial Pass Michael Collins Reinspection Incomplete Foundation/Ftg/Pier s (Rebar) .. Checklist Item COMMENTS . Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency - Lower level, ongoing Yes June 19,2018 - Page lofg CB163219 2525 EL CAMINO REAL THE SHOPPES AT CARLSBAD FOUNDATION FOR FUTURE ELEVATION cHANGEs TI COMM Lct#; STEVEN RUIZ CARLSBAD INSPECTION RECORD Building Division El INSPECTION RECORD CARD WITH APPROVED PLANS MUST BE KEPT ON THE JOB El. CALL BEFORE 3:30 pm FOR NEXT WORK DAY INSPECTION El FOR BUILDING INSPECTION CALL. 760-6024725 OR GO TO www Cadb?dca goviRuHdj_ng AND CLICK ON Retiuet Insnpctitn" DATE: i:T1T717 - If DYES" Is checked below that Division's approval is requited prior to requestin a Final Building Inspection. if you have any questions please call the applicable divisions at the phone numbs provided below. After all required approvals are signed off- fax to 760-602-8560, email t.bJdinspections@carIsbadca±ov or bring in a COPY of this card to: 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad. For 1rwp3ct100 Iftna or 1,o npoatt to in Inspector ctill 60602-2700 b0twt*%n 730nm- 8:00am lhi day ol your InupccUon. ReAlulred Prior to Requesting Building Fir-allf Checkeid * Elm PlanTT1ThTiIrir4r.'.r.1 IL•Lr. II- I0llL91 Ii Tvoe of Insuectoi Type of inspection - Date #11 FOUNDATION /24( Inspector J4/ N. #31 DELECTRICUNDERGROUND DUFER fle Date Inspector #12 REINFORCED STEEL J'z9/fl '( #34 ROUGH ELECTRIC 46 MASONRY PRE GROUT 033 0 ELECTRIC SERVICE 0 TEMPORARY' OGROIJT OWAL.LDRMNS 1 035 PHOTOVOLTAIC #10 TILT PANELS 439 FINAL #11 POURS111IPS 041 UNDERGROUND DUCTS & PIPING, #jlL COLUMN FOOTINGS #14 SUBFRAME 0 FLOOR OCEILING 04 DDUCT&PWftJM DREF PIPING #15 ROOF SHEATHING /UG' )/ft/() f. 043 HEATAIRCOND SYSTEMS #13 EXT SHEAR PANELS #49 FINAL #16 INSULATION (tij!B./tl Nt-:. #18 EXTERIOR LATH _________ #81 UNDERGROUND-(2142,21,31) #11. INTERIOR LATH &DRYWMJ. r?(o7/1J t4 $t82 DRYWALL,EXT LATH, GAS TES (17,18,23) #51 POOL EXCA/STEEI./BONN/FENCE 083 ROOFSHEATING EXT SHEAR (1315) #55 PREP LASTER/FINAL 484 FRAME ROUGH COMBO (14,243444) #1:9 FINAL 085 T8ar(1.4,24,34,44) ________ Date #22 OSEWER&BL/CO OPt/CO Inspector #89 FINAL OCCUPANCY (1929;39,49) l;l Date Inspector' 021 UNDER-GROUNDOWASDWTR _______________________ 024 TOPOLIT OWASTE (]WIR A/S UNDERGROUNDVISUAL 427 TUB & SHOWER PAN A/S UNDERGROUND HYDRO #23 OGASTEST DGASPPlNG A/S UNDERGROUND FLUSH #25 WATER HEATER A/S OVERHEAD VISUAL #28 SOLAR WATER A/S OVERHEAD HYDROSTATIC #29 FINAL A/S FINAL F/A ROUGH-IN #600 PRE-CONS TRUCTION MEETING F/A FINAL 11603 FOLLOW UP INSPECTION FIXED EXTiNGUISHING SYSTEM ROUGH-IN' #605 NOT10ETOCLEAN FIXED EXTING SYSTEM HYDROSTAT1CTEST #607 WRITTEN WARNING FIXED EXTiNGUISHING SYSTEM FINAL 0609 NOTICE OF VIOLATION MEDICAL GAS PRESSURETESI' 11810 VERHALWARNING MEDICAL GAS FINAL tEVW2O2 SEE aAcK FOR SPECIAL IOIES kLEiNFELDER Bright People. Right Solutions. 20172781.001A FINAL REPORT FOR SPECIAL INSPECTION AND MATERIALS TESTING Date: December 20, 2017 To City of Carlsbad Building Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 SUBJECT SATISFACTORY COMPLETION OF WORK REQUIRING SPECIAL INSPECTION AND MATERIAL TESTING PERMIT NO CB163219 PROJECT ADDRESS 2525 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California We declare under penalty of perjury that, to the best of our knowledge, all the work: listed below requiring special inspection, material sampling and testing, including the off-site fabrication of building components for the structure/s constructed under the subject permits is in conformance with the approved plans, the inspection and observation program and other construction documents, and the applicable workmanship provisions of the California Building Code Executed on this -20th day of December 2017 MONTH YEAR Special Inspection and Materials Testing covered by this final report include the specific inspection and testing services described in our Daily. Field Reports summarized as Observation during field welding and high strength bolting, Observation during reinforcing steel placement, Observation during masonry construction, Observation during spray-applied fireproofing, Observation, sampling, and laboratory testing of concrete and grout test specimens observation during the placement of epoxied-in dowels, observation and testing of FRP applications and torque testing of wedge anchors A. If the inspection services were provided by an approved materials testing laboratory or special Inspection agency RESPONSIBLE MANAGING ENGINEER OF THE TESTING LABORATORY OR SPECIAL INSPECTION AGENCY; NAME (Print or Type) JAMES STIADY State of California registration Number 66243___Expiration Date 06/30/18 SIGNATURE v' --y1y41 C 66243 20172781.001A The Shoppes at Carlsbad Page 1 of I 'December 20 2017 bBergMectrW Torque Test Field Report Project Name: Shopppes ©Carlsbad Project Work Number: Address: 2525 El Camino Real , Carlsbad Ca WO# 114274.20 Date: 9-20-17 Recording torque test of conductor connections and terminations to manufacturers recommended values (or NETA Standard) by physical location(s). Type of Report: Location of Installation (Floor): 1 St floor Material Setting Identification (Room) Equipment Identification(s) Bolt/Lug Size Type/Gr ft.!b. Main E-room TMSB32 Main Lugs 3/8 Hex AL 32 TMSB31 Main Lugs 3/8 Hex AL 32 HMSB1 Main Lugs 3/8 Hex AL 32 Zara Main Brkr 5/16 Hex AL 32 Yard House Main Brkr 5/16 Hex Al 32 I hereby certify the torque test of said equipment meets manufacturer recommended value or NETA ATS- 2009 standard for the material type and size. Tool Calibration Date: 10/6/16 - 10/6/17 Tool lD# 36848 Authorized Signature: Roland P Title or Position: Foreman Date of Completion: 9-18-17 WHITING-TURNER Request For Information The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company 250 Commerce Street Suite 150 Irvine CA 92602 TEL: (949)863-0800 FAX: (949) 863-0864 TO: LDA Design Group Date: 05/04/2017 RFI#: 00205 Forwarded As: 3500 W. Bourbank Blvd. The Shoppes at Carlsbad W.T Job Number 016405 Burbank CA 91505 2525 El Camino Real ATIN: Steven Ruiz Carlsbad CA 92008 Tel: Fax: FROM: The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company Ph. 1.5.- D-Line Encased Rebar Terminationat Perpendicular John Helmuth t. Subject: Beams 250 Commerce Street Suite 150 Source: Phase 1.5 Irvine CA 92602 Affected Area: Discipline: Structural CC Company Name Contact Name Notes Related Objects Question Date Required: .05/18/2017 Reference: S1 .2C.1 and attached SK 001 RFI 00046 modified the encased steel beam detail long 0-line to include a revised rebar layout. The plans do not show how the encased steel beam is to interface with the existing perpendicular concrete beams The documents do not indicate that the horizontal rebar in the encased beam needs to dowel. into the existing concrete beams on either end. Please confirm the rebar in the encased steel beam along 0-line does not need to be doweled into perpendicular existing concrete beams. Suggestion Cost Impact Cost Amount Schedule Impact Days Potentially No No Suggestion Provided Notes Answer Date Answered: Cost Impact Cost Amount Schedule Impact Days Potentially No 2 Project Name The Shoppes at Carlsbad Project No. Project Address 2525 El Camino Real Client Contractor Whiting-Turner Equipment Observed n/a Weather a Reviewed By Date Reviewed Page 1 of Date 2017-03-22 DFR/Report No. n/a Time Arrived 0700 Time Departed 0900 Travel Time n/a Mileage n/a 4 hours Types of Tests/Observations AC Pavements 0 Fabrication Plant 0 Masonry 0 Sample Pickup 0 Other Anchor Bolts 0 Fireproofing 0 Metal Decking 0 Soil /Aggregates El Batch Plant 0 Foundations 0 Pre-Post Tension Steel Erection El Concrete 0 HS Bolting 0 Reinforcing Steel Welding Documents Referenced A6.1, 50.10, 50.01, 50.02, S1.00, ME301, ME302, , AISC, AWS D1.1 Observations / Remarks Encon / Surf City Periodic welding special inspection for installation of stairs At Gridline 6.5 and M.5 stairs are being erected per A6.1, ME301, and 1-7/ME302. 3/16" fillet, 3/16" flared bevel welds, and % puddle welds are being produced by certified welder James Husebo. Welds are being produced using submitted welding procedures #NR-232-Fillet-Weld, #NR-232- Flare-Bevel, #ABC05, and #02-5. Monitored current and voltage with a calibrated meter for compliance with the submitted welding procedure. Work is in progress. The Work 0 was 0 was not inspected in accordance with the requirements of the approved documents. The Work inspected Z met 0 did not meet the requirements of the approved documents. Material sampling 0 was 0 was not Z N/A performed in accordance with the approved documents. Acknowledged by Erik Roed CWI 14010561, ACI 1360478, ICC 8256285, NITC 12017702, SD 1240 Kleinfelder Representative Print Name / Certificate Number Representing / Kleinfelder Representative Signature 5015 Shoreham Place, San Diego, California 92122 Phone: (858) 320-2000 Project Name The Shoppes at Carlsbad Project No. (l6-32i Project Address 2525 El Camino Real Client Contractor Whiting-Turner Equipment Observed n/a Weather Page Date DFR/Report No. Time Arrived Time Departed Travel Time Mileage 1 of 2017-03-22 n/a 0700 0900 n/a n/a Reviewed By Date Reviewed 4 hours Types of Tests/Observations AC Pavements 0 Fabrication Plant 0 Masonry 0 Sample Pickup 0 Other E) Anchor Bolts 0 Fireproofing 0 Metal Decking 0 Soil / Aggregates E] Batch Plant 0 Foundations 0 Pre-Post Tension Z Steel Erection Concrete 0 HS Bolting 0 Reinforcing Steel Z Welding Documents Referenced A6.1, SO.10, SO.01, SO.02, S1.012, ME301, ME302, , AISC, AWS D1.1 Observations / Remarks Encon / Surf City Periodic welding special inspection for installation of stairs At Gridline 6.5 and M.5 stairs are being erected per A6.1, ME301, and 1-7/ME302. 3/16" fillet and flared bevel welds are being produced by certified welder James Husebo using .072" Lincoln 232 and submitted welding procedures #NR-232-Fillet-Weld and #NR-232-Flare-Bevel. Monitored current and voltage with a calibrated meter for compliance with the submitted welding procedure. Work is in progress. The Work Z was 0 was not inspected in accordance with the requirements of the approved documents. The Work inspected 0 met 0 did not meet the requirements of the approved documents. Material sampling 0 was 0 was not Z N/A performed in accordance with the approved documents. Acknowledged by Erik Roed CWI 14010561, ACI 1360478, ICC 8256285, NITC 12017702, SD 1240 Kleinfelder Representative Print Name/ Certificate Number Representing / Kleinfelder Representative Signature 5015 Shoreham Place, San Diego, California 92122 Phone: (858) 320-2000 Page 1 of Project Name The Shoppes at Carlsbad Date 2017-03-24 Project No. CB163249 DFR/Report No. n/a Project Address 2525 El Camino Real Time Arrived 0700 Client Equipment Observed - Weather Reviewed By Types of Tests/Observations Contractor Whiting-Turner Time Departed n/a Travel Time Mileage Date Reviewed 0900 n/a n/a 4 hours E] AC Pavements 0 Fabrication Plant 0 Masonry 0 Sample Pickup 0 Other 0 Anchor Bolts 0 Fireproofing 0 Metal Decking 0 Soil /Aggregates E] Batch Plant 0 Foundations 0 Pre-Post Tension Z Steel Erection o Concrete 0 HS Bolting 0 Reinforcing Steel Welding Documents Referenced A6.1, 50.10, 50.01, 50.02, S1.00, ME301, ME302, , AISC, AWS D1.1 Observations! Remarks Encon / Surf City At Gridline 6.5 and M.5 stairs are being erected per A6.1, ME301, and 1-7/ME302. Welding special inspection for installation of stairs 3/16" fillet, 3/16" flared bevel welds, and % puddle welds are being produced by certified welder James Husebo. Welds are being produced using submitted welding procedures #NR-232-Fillet-Weld, #NR-232- Flare-Bevel, #ABCOS, and #02-5. Monitored current and voltage with a calibrated meter for compliance with the submitted welding procedure. Torque testing for installation of stairs Torque tested (12) 3/4" Hilti KB-TZ wedge anchors to 110 ft-lbs. 100% were inspected per ESR-1917. Torque tested (22) 5/8" Hilti KB-TZ wedge anchors to 60 ft-lbs. 100% were inspected per ESR-1917. High strength bolting for installation of stairs Witnessed installation of (3) high strength bolts snug tight. All torque testing is complete and accepted. All high strength bolts are complete and accepted. With the exception of handrail all welds are compete and accepted. The Work Z was 0 was not inspected in accordance with the requirements of the approved documents. The Work inspected Z met 0 did not meet the requirements of the approved documents. Material sampling 0 was 0 was not Z N/A performed in accordance with the approved documents. Acknowledged by Representing Erik Roed Cwi 14010561, ACI 1360478, ICC 8256285, NlTC 12017702, SD 1240 Kleinfelder Representative Print Name / Certificate Number / Kleinfelder Representative Signature 5015 Shoreham Place, San Diego, California 92122 Phone: (858) 320-2000 will'. Request For Information The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company WHITING-TURNER 250 Commerce Street Suite 150 Irvine CA 92602 TEL: (949)863-0800 FAX: (949) 863-0864 TO: Thornton Tomasetti Date: 03/20/2017 RFI#:00131 Forwarded As: 925 Fort Stockton Dr Suite 200 The Shoppes at CarlSbad W-T Job Number 016405 San Diego CA 92103 2525 El Camino Real ATTh: Adam Yala - Carlsbad CA 92008 Tel: Fax: FROM: The WhItihg.Tumer Contracting Company . Sean R. Katord Ph. 3 - Confirming Thickness of Shotcrete Wall at ., Subject: Grid Lines 1/2 & L.3 per the City Inspector Request 250 Commerce Street Suite 150 .. Source Phase 3 Irvine CA 92602 Discipline Structural CC: Company Name Contéct Name Notes Related Objects: . Question . Date Required: 04/03/2017 Per the conversation between Rob Prather (Whiting Turner) and Adam Yala (Thornton Tomasetti) on 3/20/2017 the City Building Inspector identified a conflict with the call out of the thickness of shotcrete for wall along grid lines 1/2 & L.3 by the electrical switch gear yard. Sheet 1.00 arid 5/S3.10 direct Whiting Turner to install a 10 thick wall However, on sheet 7/S3.20, the detail directs Whiting Turner to install a 12 thick shoicrete wall After discussing this Issue with the Structural Engineer,'it was confirmed that this wall shall be a 1T thick shotcrete wall Please confirm Suggestion S . ---------------- Cost impact Cost Amount Schedule impact Days No No Confirm based on the conversation with the Structural Engineer and Whiting Turner the thickness of this shotcrete wall shall be 12 Noteè . Answer . . . Date Answered: Cost impact Cost Amount Schedule impact Days BECAUSE OF THE ELECTRICAL PANELS BETWEEN GRID LINES 1 AND 3 U HAD TO REDUCE THE LENGTH OF THE SHOTCRETE REINFORCING. REDUCING THE LENGTH RESULTED IN AN INCREASE IN THICKNESS OF THE REMAINING SHOTCRETE FROM 10 TO 12 AAY;3/21-17 I I 1 I I I 1 VIOI1Y3OVOS1Y3 z 13HONI?W13S 10M113HS90I#33VdS NOIIVAON3IU3SThd C..) So cqS auj I I I I I ojnv3aosmv flfl fl IM ONWWO 13 IM )1JOM 113HS SOW 33Vd9 Y. 1 mm I saddoqauj —, h k fil 0. I ; § ! I :kNHHHHHHH )*iOM11HS SOW 3VdS C') ,.• I NOLLVAM3V Ill 3SVHd P? saddoqau_ 4L4" - cxd LI EsGil Corporation In Partners flip with Government for Bui(iing Safety DATE: 10/18/2016 0 APPLICANT ¼ 'iURIS. JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad J LI PLAN REVIEWER Li FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: 16-3219 SET:!! PROJECT ADDRESS: 2525 El Camino Real PROJECT NAME: The Shoppers at Carlsbad Phase 1.5 Renovation Lower Level Shell The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at EsGil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. - The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: EsGil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. LIII EsGil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted:'—' ,-'. , Telephone #: Date contacted Mail Telephone LI REMARKS: (y) Email: Fax In Person By: David Yao Enclosures: - EsGil Corporation GA Z EJ LI MB LI PC 10/11 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (858) 560-1468 • Fax (858) 560-1576 EsGil Corporation In Partnership with government for(Building Safety DATE: 9/9/2016 JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad V PPLICANT URIS. LI PLAN REVIEWER LI FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: 16-3219 SET: I PROJECT ADDRESS: 2525 El Camino Real PROJECT NAME: The Shoppers at Carlsbad Phase 1.5 Renovation Lower Level Shell El The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's codes. El The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at EsGil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the.jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Steven Ruiz Lii EsGil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. EsGil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Steven Ruiz Date contacted: qf2_ h(by: JQMaiI ITeIephoneV4% Fax In Person Lii REMARKS: Telephone #: 818-972-5080 Email: stevenrldadesigngroup.cóm By: David Yao Enclosures: EsGil Corporation GA Z EJ LIMB F-1 PC 8/29 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (858) 560-1468 • Fax (858) 560-1576 City of Carlsbad 16-3219 9/9/2016 PLAN REVIEW CORRECTION LIST COMMERCIAL PLAN CHECK NO.: 16-3219 OCCUPANCY: M TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: Ill-B JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad USE: retail ACTUAL AREA: ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: unlimited STORIES: 2 HEIGHT: SPRINKLERS?: Y REMARKS: DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY JURISDICTION: 8/19 DATE INITIAL PLAN REVIEW COMPLETED: 9/9/2016 OCCUPANT LOAD: DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 8/29 PLAN REVIEWER: David Yao FOREWORD (PLEASE READ): This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the California version of the International Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and access for the disabled. This plan review is based on regulations enforced by the Building Department. You may have other corrections based on laws and ordinances enforced by the Planning Department, Engineering Department, Fire Department or other departments. Clearance from those departments may be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Code sections cited are based on the 2013 CBC, which adopts the 2012 IBC. The following items listed need clarification, modification or change. All items must be satisfied before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations. Per Sec. 105.4 of the 2012 International Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law. To speed up the recheck process, please note on this list (or a copy) where each correction item has been addressed, i.e., plan sheet number, specification section, etc. Be sure to enclose the marked up list when you submit the revised plans. City of Carlsbad 16-3219 9/9/2016 Please make all corrections, as requested in the correction list. Submit FOUR new complete sets of plans for commercial/industrial projects (THREE sets of plans for residential projects). For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways: Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department, 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008, (760) 602-2700. The City will route the plans to EsGil Corporation and the Carlsbad Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. Bring 1i W® corrected set of plans and calculations/reports to EsGil Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, CA 92123, (858) 560-1468. Deliver all remaining sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department for routing to their Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. NOTE: Plans that are submitted directly to EsGil Corporation only will not be reviewed by the City Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments until review by EsGil Corporation is complete. All sheets of the plans and the first sheet of the calculations are required to be signed by the licensed architect or engineer responsible for the plan preparation. California State Law. Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. Sec. 107.2. Include the following: a) Clearly dimension building setbacks from property lines, street centerlines, and from all adjacent buildings and structures on the site plan. Provide a statement on the site plan stating: "All property lines, easements and buildings, both existing and proposed, are shown on this site plan." Clearly designate any side yards used to justify increases in allowable area based on Section 506.2. Walls and soffits within enclosed usable spaces under stairways shall be protected by 1-hour fire-resistance rated construction (or the rating of the enclosure, whichever is greater). Section 1009.9.3. Per California law, additions or alternations of Commercial projects or Multifamily Residential projects (condos, apartments and hotels with kitchens) available for use before January 1, 1994 may require replacement of noncompliant plumbing fixtures *** by water conserving fixtures: All plumbing fixtures in the building where an addition will increase the floor area of the building by 10%. (Or) Plumbing fixtures that serve the alternations or improvement in which the building permit valuation exceeds $150,000.00. (Or) An alternation or improvement to a room containing noncompliant fixtures (regardless of valuation). City of Carlsbad 16-3219 9/9/2016 Please note on the plans the specific plumbing fixtures requiring replacement. "Noncompliant plumbing fixtures" are any of the following: Any water closet exceeding 1.6 gallons/flush. Any urinal manufactured to use more than 1.0 gallon/flush. Any showerhead exceeding 2.5 gallon/minute. Any interior faucet that emits more than a 2.2 gallons/minute. The plans show a proposed mall. Please provide a narrative to explain how all applicable code provisions are satisfied (Sections 402, 905.3.3, etc.). Additionally, please address the following specific concerns- 0 NON-RESIDENTIAL GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS (Additions and Alterations) The California Building Standards Commission (BSC) has adopted the Green Building Standards Code which became effective January 1, 2011, and must be enforced by the local building official. The Green Building Standards apply to nonresidential additions or tenant improvements throughout California. These standards apply to nonresidential additions of 1,000 sq. ft. or larger or alterations (tenant improvements) with a value of $200,000 or more. CGC Section 301.3. Provide a sheet on the plans labeled "Green Building Code Requirements" and include the following notes as applicable. Waste management. Note on the plans that the contractor must submit to the Engineering Department or other Agency that regulates construction waste management a Waste Management Plan that outlines the items listed in CGC Section 5.408.1.1. Recycling. Note on the plans that a minimum of 50% of construction waste is to be recycled. CGC 5.408.1. Documentation shall be provided to the enforcing agency which demonstrates compliance. CGC Section 5.408.1.4. Recycling. Note on the plans that an identified, readily accessible area shall be provided that serves the entire building for collecting recycling, such as paper, cardboard, glass, plastics, metals, etc. CGC Section 5.410.1. Documentation. Note on the plans that a building "Systems Manual" as listed in CGC Section 5.410.2.5 shall be delivered to the building owner or representative and the facilities operator. Further, note on the plans that the "Systems Manual" shall contain the required features listed in CGC Section 5.410.2.5.1. Pollutant control. Note on the plans that during construction, ends of duct openings are to be sealed, and mechanical equipment is to be covered. CGC 5.504.3. Pollutant control. Note on the plans that VOC's must comply with the limitations listed in Section 5.504.4 and Tables 4.504.1, 5.504.4.1 5.504.4.2, City of Carlsbad 16-3219 9/9/2016 5.504.4.3 and 5.504.4.5 for: Adhesives, Sealants, Paints and Coatings, Carpet and Composition Wood Products. CGC 5.504.4. Pollutant control. Note on the plans that mechanically ventilated buildings shall provide regularly occupied areas with air filtration media for outside and return air that provides at least a Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) of 8. MERV 8 filters shall be installed prior to occupancy. CGC Section 5.504.5.3. Pollutant control. Note on the plans that where outdoor areas are provided for smoking, such areas are prohibited within 25' of building entries, windows and outdoor air intakes. Signage shall be posted to inform occupants of the prohibitions. CGC Section 5.504.7. Water reduction. Show on the plans the following maximum fixture flow rates from Table 5.303.2.3 and Section 5.303.3, as shown below. Revise general notes, plumbing plans, etc. to match. CGC 5.303. For additions or alterations, this only applies to new fixtures. MAXIMUM FIXTURE FLOW RATES FIXTURE TYPE MAXIMUM FLOW RATE Lavatory faucets- nonresidential 0.5 gpm @60 psi Water closets 1.28 gallons/flush Urinals 0.5 gallons/flush Note on the plans that prior to final inspection the licensed 'contractor, architect or engineer in responsible charge of the overall construction must provide to the building department official written verification that all applicable provisions from the Green Building Standards Code have been implemented as part of the construction. CGC 102.3. . FOUNDATION Provide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the foundation plan, grading plan and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the soil report are properly incorporated into the plans (see page 28 of the soil report). . STRUCTURAL Please provide specification for the FRPX. Any special construction requirements? Note on the plan to provide special inspection for the FRPX. Detail 9/S4.02 shows t=2.5" for existing concrete beam (What is tin the detail?). It appears to FRP1 beam does not requires to add any FRPX(?). Please clarify. City of Carlsbad 16-3219 9/9/2016 Provide detail information to show how much the FRPX added to the strength of the beam and column? Sheet C6-3 of the calculation shows BI spacing 6.5 feet. The framing plan shows more than 6.5 feet. Still O.K.? . ADDITIONAL Please refer to the following corrections for electrical , energy, plumbing, and mechanical items. To speed up the review process, please note on this list (or a copy) where each correction item has been addressed, i.e., plan sheet, note or detail number, calculation page, etc. Please indicate here if any changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of corrections from this list. If there are other changes, please briefly describe them and where they are located in the plans. Have changes been made to the plans not resulting from this correction list? Please indicate: LJ Yes IJ No The jurisdiction has contracted with Esgil Corporation located at 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123; telephone number of 858/560-1468, to perform the plan review for your project. If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact David Yao at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. City of Carlsbad 16-3219 9/9/2016 ELECTRICAL and ENERGY COMMENTS PLAN REVIEWER: Eric Jensen ELECTRICAL (2013 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE) Clarify the lower level electrical rooms: It appears that two new sets of future feeder stub outs are being installed (oval 8 on sheet E5.0) and sheet E4.1 implying that "HMBS1" and "TMSB2" are "future" (sheet E4.1) or existing, fed from another source. The result of any of the above scenarios is that either the feeders to "1HBS1" & "IKLDPI" are routed to a nonexistent source? I don't follow the feeder schedule: Does 1600.3 have a neutral or not? (1HSB1) Why 1600 ampere for a 1200 ampere rated board? Describe the door hardware (117, 118, 126, and 127) demonstrating compliance with CEC 110.26(C) 3. Note: If you have any questions regarding this Electrical and Energy plan review list please contact Eric Jensen at (858) 560-1468. To speed the review process, note on this list (or a copy) where the corrected items have been addressed on the plans. PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL CORRECTIONS PLAN REVIEWER: Glen Adamek GENERAL AND ARCHITECTURAL PME ITEMS Each sheet of the plans must be signed by the person responsible for their preparation, even though there are no structural changes, before the permits are issued. Business and Professions Code. The final set of corrected drawings to be reviewed for signing and sealing just before the permits are to be issued. PLUMBING (2013 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE) Please provide calculations to show the existing on-site sewer and on-site water system are not undersized for the existing water and sewer demands plus the assumed future water and sewer demands. MECHANICAL (2013 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE) Mechanical plans for proposed shell substantially comply with the jurisdiction's mechanical codes. Note: If you have any questions regarding this Plumbing and Mechanical plan review list please contact Glen Adamek at (858) 560-1468. To speed the review process, note on this list (or a copy) where the corrected items have been addressed on the plans. END OF DOCUMENT City of Carlsbad 16-3219 9/9/2016 [DO NOT PAY - THIS IS NOT AN INVOICE] VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 16-3219 PREPARED BY: David Yao DATE: 9/9/2016 BUILDING ADDRESS: 2525 El Camino Real BUILDING OCCUPANCY: M BUILDING PORTION AREA (Sq. Ft.) Valuation Multiplier Reg. Mod. VALUE ($) remodel per city 2,563,680 Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE 2,563,680 Jurisdiction Code ICb IBY Ordinance I Bldg. Permit Fee by Ordinance W. Plait Check Fee by Ordinance Type of Review: El Complete Review El El Other Repetitive Fee I Hourly Repeats Li EsGil Fee I $6,645.871 I $4,319.821 El Structural Only Hr. @ * I $3,721.691 Comments: In addition tothe fee.àn-additibnal fee ue - - ! $86/hr. for the. CaiGreen review. Sheet 1 of 1 macvalue.doc + 41~1!01\_> PLAN CHECK Community Development Department CITY OF REVIEW 1635 Faraday Avenue D A ri TRANSMITTAL CAKSWA Carlsbad CA 92008 r www.carlsbadca.gov DATE: 10/24/2016 PROJE T NAME: The Shoppes at Carlsbad TI PROJECT ID: PLAN CHECK NO: C13163219 SET#: 1 ADDRESS: 2525 El Camino Real APN: 1563020800 VALUATION: $2,563,680 FXt This plan che9k review is complete and has been APPROVED by: LANàD DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION Final Inspection by the Construction Management Division is required Yes No 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 Co nrnents have been sent to:.stevenr@Idadesgngroup.corn PLANNING ENGINEERING FIRE PREVENTION 760-602-4610 : 760-602-2750 760-602-4665 Chris Sexton .ChrisGlassen Greg Ryan 760-602-4624 Chris.Sexton@carIsbadcagov 760-602-2784 Christopher.Glassen@carlsbadca.gov 760-602-4663 Gregory.Ryan@carlsbadca.gov [ Gina Ruiz Linda Ontiveros Cindy Wong 760-602-4675 760-602-2773 760-602-4662 Gina.Ruiz@carIsbadca.go Linda.Ontiveros@carlsbadca.gov Cynthia.Wong@carlsbadca.gov flT] U ValRay Nelson L'J 760-602-2741 fl Dominic Fieri L_J 760-602-4664 ValRay.Nelson@carlsbadca.gov Dominic.Fieri@carlsbadca.gov For questions or clarifications on the attached checklist please contact the reviewer as marked above. Remarks: All work is structu a! upgrading existing tenant spaces and elevator and stair accesses. Repair of concrete deck damages by water. ( - "-PIease-pci 'ide-TAer-ll SI Ejilaji for Building Staging area * * * * ** * * * Thic nPdLtobe reviewed- and ppjQyjcLhy1 ty-Ciiiil EngineerSteBoeIET - - The Shoppes at Carlsbad TI CB163219 -ase Read Outstanding issues are marked with E1. Please make the necessary corrections for InstrIINS(e1II compliance with applicable codes and standards and re-submit c(rrected plans and/or specifications to the Building division. Items that conform to per: jin it requirements are marked with 17 -or- have intentionally been left blhnk. 1. SITE PLAN Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. 'Show: LIII [71 North arrow L11 LZI Existing & proposed structures [II] [] Property line dimensions L1 =Easements TI on site plan: EIIIII Drainage patterns LIII Existing & proposed slopes Existing topography J Retaining Walls (location and height) El Indicate what will happen with soil excavated from pool area. retail to retail 56,000sf Include on title sheet: El LiJ Site address El EIZI Assessor's parcel number El El Legal description/lot number [_J F-71 For all commercial/industrial building and tenant improvement, include: total building square footage with the square footage fore each different use, showing square footage of different uses (manufacturing, storage, warehouse, office, etc.) Examp e: 10,900 sf of SHELL to 10,900 sf OFFICE 7,000 sf of SHELL to 7,000 sf STORAGE 3,900 sf of SHELL to 3900 sf MANUFACTUR NG Lot / Map No.: Subdivision/Tract: Reference No(s): E-37 Page 20f4 REV 6/2012 - ik The Shoppes at Carlsbad TI CB163219 2. GRADI MIT REQUIREMENTS The that require a grading permit are found in Section 11.06.030 of the Municipal Code. N/A EIII L1 Iradequate information available on site plan to make a determination on grading rquirements. Include accurate grading quantities-in cubic yards (cut, fill, import, export and rE medial). This information must be included on the plans. If no grading is proposed write: "NO GRADING" L11 Eli F nor Grading Permit required. NOTE: The grading permit must be issued and grading approval obtained prior to issuance of a building permit. A separate grading plan prepared a re I gistered civil engineer must be submitted together with the completed application form attached. LIII] LIII] G aded Pad Certification required. All required documentation must be provided to your Construction Management & Inspection division inspector, . The inspector will then provide the Land Development Engineering counter with a release for the building permit. See attached checklist for minimum submittal requirements. 3. MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS LIII 111211 RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT is required to do work in city right-of-way and/or private work adjacent to the public right-of-way. EIII LIII i separate right-of-way issued by the engineering division is required for the following: /A Attachments: Attachments: [] Engineering E-37 [I] Storm Water Form [J Right-of-Way Application/Info [Z] Reference Documents • Page 3of4 REV 6/2012 ***THIS *THIS CALCULATION WORKSHEET IS NOT ALL-INCLUSIVE OF FEES THAT MAY E L DUE FOR THIS PROJECT*** Fee Calculation Worksheet ENGINEERING DIVISION Prepared by: Date: GEO DATA Address: . Bldg. Pe Fees Update by: . Date: Fees Update by: EDU CALCULATIONS: List types and square footages for all uses. Types of Use: Sq.Ft./Units EDU's: 1, Types of Use: Sq.Ft./Units EDU's: Types of Use: Sq.Ft./Units EDU's: Types of Use: Sq.Ft./Units EDU's: ADT CALCULATIONS: List types and square footages for all uses. Types of Use: Sq.Ft./Units ADT's: Types of Use: Sq.Ft./Units ADT's: Types of Use: Sq.Ft./Units ADT's: Types of Use: Sq.Ft./Units ADT's: FEES REQUIRED: Within CFD:JYES (no bridge & thoroughfare fee in District #1, reduces Traffic lmp 1. PARK-IN-LIEU FEE:L]NW QUADRANT LINE QUADRANT L]SE QUADAR ADT'S/UNITS: X FEE/ADT: I 23RAFFIC IMPACT FEE: ADT'S/UNITS: X FEE/ADT: I = BRIDGE & THOROUGHFARE FEE: LTJ DIST. #1 EDIST.#2 ADT'S/UNITS: X FEE/ADT: FACILITIES MANAGEMENT FEE ZONE: ADT'S/UNITS: X FEE/SQ.FT./UNIT: SEWER FEE FMZ.: B&T: lit Date: Fee) [JNo F 05W QUADRANT F-1 DIST.#3 EDU's X FEE/EDU: I = BENEFIT AREA: EDU's X FEE/EDU: I DRAINAGE FEES: PLDA: LJHIGH F-1 MEDIUM EJLOW ACRES: X FEE/AC: POTABLE WATER FEES: UNITS I CODE I CONN. FEE I METER FEE I SDC WA FEE I TOTAL PLANNING DIVISION BUILDING PLAN CHECK Development Services <4:14k Planning Division CITY OF APPROVAL 1635 Faraday Avenue CARLSBAD P-29 (760) 602-4610 www.carIsbadca.ov DATE: 8-26-16 PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ID: PLAN CHECK NO: CB 16-3219 SET#: 1 ADDRESS: 2525 El Camino Real APN: 156-302-08-00 This plan check review is complete and has been APPROVED by the Planning Division. By: Chris Sexton A Final Inspection by the Planning Division is required El Yes 2 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. 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 APPROVAL has been sent to: stevenr@ldadesigngroup.com For questions or clarifications on the attached checklist please contact the following reviewer as ma r k e d : PLANNING ENGINEERING FIRE PREVENTION 760-6024610 76"02-2750 760-602-4665 VN Chris Sexton Chris Glassen Greg Ryan 760-602-4624 760-602-2784 760-602-4663 Chris.Sexton@carlsbadca.gov Christoøher.GIassen@carIsbadca.gov Gregorv.Ryan@carlsbadca.gov Gina Ruiz ValRay Marshall Cindy Wong 760-602-4675 760-602-2741 760-602-4662 Gina.Ruiz@carlsbadca.gov ValRay.Marshall@carlsbadca.gov Cynthia.Wong@carlsbadca.gov Veronica Morones Linda Ontiveros Dominic Fieri 760-602-4619 760-602-2773 760-602-4664 Veronica.Morones@carlsbadca.gov Linda.Ontiveros@carlsbadca.gov Dominic. Fieri@carlsbadcagov Remarks: a BLDG. of 2 CORRECTION LIST Daryl K. James & Associates, Inc. 205 Colina Terrace Vista, CA 92084 T. (760) 724-7001 Email: kitfire©sbcglobal.net APPLICANT: Steven Ruiz. Checked by: Daryl Kit James Date: September 1, 2016 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad Fire Department PROJECT NAME: The Shoppes at Carlsbad PROJECT ADDRESS: 2525 El Camino Real PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CB163219 Shell, structural and existing upgrade. Demo existing tenant .spaces @ - their exit stairs, current mall offices & storage, family restrooms. Providing new exit stair and freight elevator shafts & rerouting exit corridors. Upgrade structure & provide utility stubs for future tenants. Repair concrete deck water damage. 56.000 ci] IRESUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS TO AVOID DELAY IN EXPEDITED RECHECKSERV10E Corrections or modifications to the plans ust beclouded and provided with numbered deltas and revision dates. IProvide a written response, following each comment, On This Correction LisL explaining how and where each plan review comment has been addressed. . 1iide a copy of Building Department (EsGil) comment Input fire revisions onto the Building Dept. plàn'chéck. Please direct any questions regarding this review to: Daryl K.' James 760-724-7001 or kitfire@sbcglobal.net I 'COMMENTS MUST 'BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS DARYL K. JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 205 COLINA TERRACE VISTA, CA 92084 PLEASE DO NOT REQUIRE MY SIGNATURE TO ACCEPT 'DELIVERY OFREVISED PLAN1 COMMENTS GENERAL - Responses may generate additional comments EACH SHEET IN THE PLANS MUST BE STAMPED AND SIGNED BY THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR PREPARATION, EVEN IF THERE ARE NO STRUCTURAL CHANGES. BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE. AO.1 VI Fire Protection Revise the List of the Following Deferred Submittals Fire Sprinkler System 2013 CFC 903 and 2013 NFPA 13. Fire Alarm System 2013 CFC 907 including CFC 907.2 sections applicable to occupancy groups, and 2013 NFPA 72. Relocated Fire Department Connection. (A2.00 Reference Note 30). Page 2of2 AO.4 & AO.5 Plans must be to scale. Cleary illustrate the required 200 feet of travel from any point in the mail, within the scope of work, to an exit. CBC 402.8.5 Legend Provide a separate symbol specific to exit passageways. AI.OB, AI.00, AI.IB & AI.IC Provide a note: All demolition work shall be in accordance with CFC Chapter 33. A2.00 Reference #13 is denoted by the elevator. on the plan yet noted as Not Used under notes. Please clarify. Indicate the location of an elevator machine room. A2.5 Door Schedule Rating Door and Frame r Verify compliance with CBC 402.8.7, if applicable. See Path of Travel Legend comment. Interior Finish Materials Provide the following Notes: All finish materials shall comply with CBC Chapter 8. Specifications and California State Fire Marshal listings as well as other acceptance criteria for flame spread and smoke developed index will be provided upon request. Ceiling Plans Verify accuracy of exit sign directional symbols. 6/A6.1 Denote tread dimension. E- Lighting Plans Verify accuracy of exit sign directional symbols. SEE STRUCTURAL CALCS SCANNED SEPARATELY City of Carlsbad Valuation Worksheet Building Division Permit No: Address Assessor Parcel No. Date By 08/16/2016 SLE Type of Work Area of Work Multiplier VALUE SFD and Duplexes $139.52 $0.00 Residential Additions $166.81 $0.00 Remodels / Lofts 56,000 $45.78 $2,563,680.00 Apartments & Multi-family $124.35 $0.00 Garages/Sunrooms/Solariums $36.40 $0.00 Patio/Porch $12.13. $0.00 Enclosed Patio $19.71 $0.00 Decks/Balconies/Stairs $19.71 $0.00 Retaining Walls, concrete, masonry $24.26 $0.00 Pools/Spas-Gunite . $51.56 $0.00 TI/Stores, Offices $45.78 $0.00 TI/Medical, restaurant, H occupancies . $63.70 $0.00 Photovoltaic Systems/ # of panels $400.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Fire Sprinkler System $3.94 $0.00 Air Conditioning - commercial $637 $0.00 Air Conditioning - residential $5.31 $0.00 Fireplace/ concrete, masonry $4,883.11 $0.00 Fireplace/ prefabricated Metal $3,319.61 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $2,563,680.00 Valuation: $2,563,680 Comm/Res (CIR): C Building Fee $6,645.87 Plan Check Fee $4,652.111 Strong Motion Fee $538.00 Green Bldg. Stand. Fee $100.00 Green Bldg PC Fee $163.00 License Tax/PFF License Tax/PFF (in CFD) CFD SI 1st hour of Plan CheckF ire Expedite Plumbing TBD Mechanical TBD Electrical . TBD CFD Yes (PFF=1.82%) 0 No (PFF = 3.5%) Land Use: Density: Improve. Area: Fiscal Year: Annex. Year: Factor: CREDITS PFF and/or CFD Explanation: -j Thornton'Thmasetti Building Solutions A.Al - Geotechnical Report AA1-1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION, RECONFIGURATION AND ADDITIONAL RETAIL WESTFIELD PLAZA CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: PLAZA CAMINO REAL, GP 110601 Wilshire Boulevard, 11th Floor Los Angeles, California 90025 Project No. 603522-001 February 21, 2013 _ 4 _ Leighton Consulting, Inc.. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY AA1-2 No.45283 ExPi/'30/f,,) Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON CONSULTING, Leighton Consulting, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY February 21, 2013 Project No. 603522-001 Plaza Camino Real, GP 110601 Wilshire Boulevard, 11th Floor Los Angeles, California 90025 Attention: Mr. Mike Sheller Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Reconfiguration and Additional Retail Westfield Plaza Camino Real Carlsbad, California In accordance with your request and authorization, Leighton Consulting, Inc. (Leighton) has conducted a geotechnical investigation for the proposed Reconfiguration and Additions Retail project in Carlsbad, California. This report presents the results of our field investigation activities, review of previous reports, geotechnical analyses, and provides our conclusions and recommendations for the proposed improvements. Based on the result of our preliminary geotechnical investigation, the proposed project is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided our recommendations are implemented in the design and construction of the project. If you have any questions regarding our report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We appreciatethis opportunity to be of service. William D. Olson, RCE 452 Associate Engineer OPCA Distribution:. (5) Addressee Mike Jensen, GEG 2547 Project Geologist 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite B205 • San Diego, CA,?,13-4425 858.569.6914 • Fax 858.292.0771 • www.leightongroup.com 603522-001 - TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................i 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE..........................................................................................I 1.2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ........................................................................3 1.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT...................................................................................4 2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING .........5 2.1 SUBSURFACE FIELD INVESTIGATION......................................................................5 2.2 PREVIOUS GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS ......................................................................5 .3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS......................................7 3.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING.............................................................................................7 3.2 SITE-SPECIFIC GEOLOGY ..................................................................................... 7 3.2.1 Artificial Fill (Map Symbol - Af)......................................................................7 3.2.2 Quaternary - Aged Alluvium (Map Symbol - Qal)..........................................8 3.2.3 Tertiary-Aged Santiago Formation) ................................................................8 3.3 GROUNDWATER .................................................................................................8 3.4 LANDSLIDES ................................ ........................................................................8 3.5 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS OF ON-SITE SOIL ...............................................9 3.5.1 Soil Compressibility and Collapse Potential ..................................................9 3.5.2 Expansive Soils ............................................................................................. 9 3.5.3 Soil Corrosivity ..............................................................................................9 3.5.4 Excavation Characteristics ..........................................................................10 3.5.5 Infiltration ............................................... . ....................................................... .10 4.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY ..................................................................... 11 4.1 FAULTING .........................................................................................................11 4.2 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS ........................................................................... 11 4.3 SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS..........................................................................12 4.3.1 Shallow Ground Rupture ..............................................................................13 4.3.2 Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading .................................... .............. ........... 13 4.3.3 Tsunamis and Seiches ................................................................................ 14 5.0 CONCLUSIONS ........................ ....................................................................... 15 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... 17 6.1 EARTHWORK .......................................................... .................................. ........... 17 6.1.1 Site Preparation .... ....................................................................................... 17 6.1.2 Excavations and Removals ..........................................................................18 6.1.3 Engineered Fill Placement and Compaction 19 603522-001 S ' TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section ., Page 6.1.4 Import Soils ..................................................................................................19. 6.2 FOUNDATION AND SLAB CONSIDERATIONS...........................................................19 6.3 FLOOR SLAB CONSIDERATIONS ...........................................................................22 6.4 RETAINING WALL DESIGN .................................................................................... 23 6.5 SHORING OF EXCAVATIONS ................................................................................24 6.6 PIPE BEDDING AND PIPE ZONE BACKFILL ......................... .. .................................25 6.6.1 Trench Zone ................................................................................................ 25 6.7 SURFACE DRAINAGE AND EROSION.....................................................................26 6.8 VEHICULAR PAVEMENTS ....................................................................................26 6.9 CONCRETE FLATWORK ................... ................................................... .28 6.10 GEOCHEMICAL CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................... ..28 6.11 FOUNDATION REVIEW ................................................. . .................................. . ..... 28 6.12 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION...........................................................................28 7.0 LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................... 29 Tables . Table 1 - 2010 CBC Seismic Design Parameters - Page 12 Table 2 - Static Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf) - Page 22 Table 3 - Preliminary Pavement Sections - Page 26 Figure Figure 1 Site Location Map - Page 2 Plates Plate I - Geotechnical Map - In Pocket Plate 2 - Cross-Sections A-A' and B-B' - In Pocket Appendices Appendix A - References Appendix B - Boring Logs and CPT Sounding Logs Appendix C - Laboratory Testing Appendix D - Liquefaction Analyses Appendix E - General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Appendix F - CIDH Pile Data Appendix G - ASFE Geotechnical Insert 603522-001 1.0 INTRODUCTION 11 Purpose and Scope This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed reconfiguration and additions to the Westfield Plaza Camino Real in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1). The purpose of our investigation was to identify and evaluate the existing geotechnical conditions present at the site and to provide conclusions and recommendations relative to the proposed retail development. Our scope of services included: Review of existing project geotechnical reports, aerial photographs, and other geologic documents and maps. References are cited in Appendix A. A subsurface investigation consisting of two (2) small-diameter borings, four (4) field percolation tests, and advancement of four (13) cone penetration test (CPT) soundings in order to obtain site-specific subsurface information for the design of the site improvements. The logs of the borings and CPT soundings are presented in Appendix B. Field percolation test results are discussed in section 3.5.5. S Review of previous studies and as-graded reports that were prepared by others. Geotechnical evaluation of geotechnical data accumulated during our investigation including seismic, liquefaction, infiltration, and settlement analysis. Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommendations relative to the proposed retail development with respect to grading, foundation considerations for the proposed improvements. -1- 4. LeigMbh S : YJLAM - -. :" 4 01 4 L 46/ I _4p • \ '- L13 'S Approximate Site Boundary ;tyj-.4 SIA ti I :' ••tZ1 -z ;• x• .,. < a "° "•'' ° r" -' ••' S ' ftv 44 4 &\ 3 ,-ir- 0 2,000 4,000 Feet I I Project: 603522-001 I Eng/Geol: MDJ Scale: 1" = 2,000' I Date: February, 2013 Base Map: Microsoft Bing. 2013 Thematic Info: Leighton Author. Leighton Geomalics (cgiovando) Map Saved on V:idraft1ng18S3522B014MepatPt SITE LOCATION MAP Figure 1 Westfield Plaza Camino Real Robinsons-May Renovation Carlsbad, California Leighton on 242012013 5:27:50 PM 603522-001 1.2 Site Location and DescriDtion The focus of our study is the Westfield Plaza Camino Real shopping center which is proposed to receive renovation and additional development. ltn general, the Westfield Plaza Camino Real is bound by El Camino Real to the east, Highway 78 to the north, Marron Road to the South, and an existing retail center (North County Plaza) to the west in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1). The existing shopping center development, or mall, consists of 1,100,000 square feet of enclosed retail shops and department stores with one to two levels. he mall is centrally located and surrounded by parking lots. The site topography generally consists of gently sloping paved parking area converging on the southern portions of the site and to the northern portion of the mall parking area. In addition, the site includes two north sloping terraces separating the southern and northern parking areas that are located on the eastern central and the western central portions of the shopping center. The grade breaks between the terraces range from approximately 7 to 19 feet in height. Elevations across the kite range from approximately 46 feet mean sea level (msl) in the southeast to approximately 22 feet msl in the north-central portion of the site. The site is located in the alluvial valley previously known at the Buena Vista lagoon. The original grading of the development consisted of cutting the hillside south of Marron Road and filling the valley areas with up to 40 feet of compacted fill. I As described in the previous geotechnical reports section of the site prepared by Woodward-Clyde and Leroy Crandall (1967 through 1975), the site has experienced several phases of documented grading (i.e. mass grading, surcharge grading, fine grading). However, it should be noted that remedial grading of the underlying potentially compressible alluvial soils consisted of minor removals of alluvium and marsh vegetation prior to fill placement particularly at the eastern and western ends of the mall. In addition portions of the site were surcharged with approximately 30 feet of fill prior to building construction. Latitude: N33.1786 Longitude: Wi 17.3346 •. •• • . • -3- LeigMth 40 [] 603522-001 1.3 Proposed Development - It is our understanding that the proposed development will consist of renovations to existing structural elements across the entire site and constructing additional retail space in portions of the site. Associated site improvements will include underground utilities, paved parking and driveways, surface drainage facilities and landscaping. Proposed grades are generally anticipated to be within I to 2 feet of the existing site grades. I S 2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 2.1 Subsurface Field Investigation The subsurface investigation, which consisted of the advancement of two (2) small-diameter borings, four (4) field percolation tests, and thirteen (13) CPT soundings to depths ranging from 20 to 116 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). The approximate locations of the borings are presented on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). Logs of the borings and CPT soundings are presented in Appendix B. Field percolation test results are discussed in section 3.5.5. 2.2 Previous Geotechnical Reports As background, original geotechnical studies for the existing Westfeld Plaza Camino Real site were performed by Leroy Crandall (LC 1967, 1968, 1969) and Wood-Clyde (WC,1975). As discussed in the referenced reports, an initial foundation investigation report was also performed for the eastern half of the mall site by Leroy Crandall in 1966; however, that report was unavailable for our review. In addition, the Woodward-Clyde geotechnical investigation report, consisting of 10 small-diameter borings, was focused on the western portion of the mall site after the mass grading. The original sheet grading of general site was performed between July and October 1966, and Leroy Crandall provided observation of the excavation of formational material, alluvial deposits, and placement and compction of engineered fill. Documented fills up to 40 feet and cuts up to 100 feet were performed during sheet grading of the site. It was then determined that up to 3 feet of settlement could occur across the eastern site site over several years. Therefore, in order the use of corrventional foundations without waiting several years, a surcharge fill was placed to accelerate settlement. The surcharge fill, approximately 25 to 30 feet high, was placed over and 20 feet outside the building limits, and monitored to for 18 months. Subsequently, the anchor department stores building pads (i.e. Sears, J.C. Penney, Macy's (previously Broadway and May Co.), Robinsns) were individually fine graded. (see Appendix A). The limits of the surcharge fills are S 603522-001 3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS 3.1 GeolociicSettin The site is located in the coastal section of the Peninsular Range Province, a geomorphic province with a long and active geologic history throughout Southern California. Throughout the last 54 million years, the area known as "San Diego Embayment" has undergone several episodes of marine inundation and subsequent marine regression, resulting in the deposition of a thick sequence of marine and nonmarine sedimentary rocks on the basement rock of the Southern California batholith. Gradual emergence of the region from the sea occurred in Pleistocene time, and numerous wave-cut platforms, most of which were covered by relatively thin marine and nonmarine terrace deposits, formed as the sea receded from the land. Accelerated fluvial erosion during periods of heavy rainfall, coupled with the lowering of the base sea level during Quaternary times, resulted in the rolling hills, mesas, and deeply incised canyons which characterize the landforms we see in the general site area today. 3.2 Site-SDecific Geolo Based on our subsurface exploration, review of as-graded documents (LC, 1967, 1968a, 1968b, and 1969) and review of pertinent geologic literature and maps, the geologic units underlying the site consist of artificial fill soils, Quaternary-aged Alluvium, and the Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation. Brief descriptions of the geologic units present on the site are presented in the following sections. The approximate aerial distributions of those units are shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). In addition, geological cross-sections of the site are provided on Plate 2. 3.2.1 Artificial Fill (Man Symbol —Afi The proposed site generally consists of a previously filled alluvial area. Prior to placement of the compacted fills, alluvial soils were removed to approximately 2 feet below the existing grades. The depth of compacted fill on the eastern and western portions of the site is expected to be on the q -7- Leitd?i La 603522-001 order of 15 to 40 feet. Fills toward the center of the site, which is underlain by the Santiago Formation gradually reduce to as little as 5 ,feet below existing grade. Fills were reported to have been derived primarily from excavations from existing cut slope in the southern portion of Westfield Plaza Camino Real site. To improve stability of the alluvial soils to support construction traffic, granular soil was reportedly pushed into the existing subgrade soils prior to fill placement. Low to medium expansive soils that were reused as compacted fill were reported at pad grade elevation. Fill soils were described as silty sand with gravel, silty sand with clay, silty sand with traces of clay and gravel. 3.2.2 Quaternary - Aged Alluvium (Map Symbol - Qal) Alluvium is present beneath the compacted fill throughout the eastern and western protions of the site and to a lesser extent in the central portion of the site. The alluvium that was left in-place is considered to be saturated and increases in depth from south to north across the site, approximately 60 to 115 feet, respectively. The materials that comprise the alluvial materials were predominantly clayey with discontinuous interbedded layers of sands and silty sands to sandy silts. 3.2.3 Tertiary-Aged Santiago Formation) The Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation is considered to be present beneath the alluvial soils and directly below the fill in the center portion of the site. As encountered, the materials were damp to moist, dense to very dense as silty sand to clayey sand. 3.3 Ground Water Ground water was encountered at an elevation of 14 and 16 feet above mean sea level during our investigation and in previous geotechnical borings. Materials below this elevation are considered to be saturated: 3.4 Landslides Our investigation was limited primarily to the existing flat graded existing pad and parking lot areas. No ancient landslides or other slope instability problems have -8- .4 LeihtO S r L 603522-001 been mapped on the subject' site. In addition, no evidence of landsliding was encountered during our site investigation. Based on our review of geotechnical literature and our observations, landsliding is not a constraint to the currently proposed development. 3.5 Engineering Characteristics of On-Site Soil Based on the results of our geotechnical investigation, the current and previous laboratory testing of representative on-site soils (Appendix C), and our professional experience on adjacent sites with similar soils, the engineering characteristics of the on-site soils are discussed below. 3.5.1 Soil Compressibility and Collapse Potential The artificial fill soils are considered to have !ow compressibility and low collapse potential. The underlying alluvial materials encountered at the site have a generally low blow counts and localized porosity indicating an unconsolidated character, which is subject to potential settlement from heavy concentrated building loads or large amounts of additional fill. 3.5.2 Expansive Soils Based upon our laboratory testing, review of previous geotechnical reports, borings and CPT logs, and field observations performed for the preparation of this report, the near surface fill soils (within the upper 10 to 15 feet) are expected to generally possess a low to medium expansion potential. Alluvial materials below this zone are expected to range from low to highly expansive. 3.5.3 Soil Corrosivitv A preliminary corrosive soil screening for the on-site materials was completed during our previous investigations to evaluate their potential • effect on concrete and ferrous metals. The corrosion potential was evaluated using the results of laboratory testing on one representative soil sample obtained during our subsurface evaluation. -9- .•,.- - • LeitCPi 603522-001 Laboratory testing was performed to evaluate pH, minimum electrical resistivity, and chloride and soluble sulfate content. The sample tested had a measured pH of 7.39, and a measured minimum electrical resistivity of 340 ohm-cm. Test results also indicated that the sample had a chloride content of 123 ppm, and a soluble sulfate content of less than 0.03 percent (by weight in soil). S Soil resistivity test results indicate the soils are generally lower than 2,000 ohm-cm which indicates site soils are potentially corrosive to buried uncoated ferrous metals and should be mitigated. 3.5.4 Excavation Characteristics It is anticipated the on-site soils can be excavated with conventional heavy-duty construction equipment. Localized friable sand zones, if encountered, may require special excavation techniques (i.e. flattening of slopes) to prevent collapsing of the excavation. 3.5.5 Infiltration We performed four field percolation tests (three (P-i through P-3) on the existing compacted fill soils and one (P-4) on the existing native soil) to evaluate the soil for potential infiltration of storm water. The results of the field percolation tests indicated that the existing onsite soils generally have a percolation rates at 50 mpi (P-1),120 mpi (P-2), 120 (P-3) and 250 mpi (P-4) minutes per inch (mpi). It should be noted that generally, a percolation rate less than 120 mpi is considered necessary to consider a site suitable for onsite surface infiltration of storm water. However, the site artificial fill that consist of mixture of soils ranging from silty sands to clays with permeable and impermeable layers which can transmit and perched S ground water in unpredictable ways. Therefore, Low Impact Development (LID) measures may impact down gradient improvements and the use of some LID measures may not be appropriate for this project. Infiltration and Bioretention Stormwater Systems design should be reviewed by geotechnical consultant. • • 603522-001 4.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY S Faulting Our discussion of faults on the site is prefaced with a discussion of California legislation and policies concerning the classification and land-use criteria associated with faults. By definition of the California Mining and Geology Board, an active fault is a fault which has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). The state geologist has defined a potentially active fault as any fault considered to have been active during Quaternary time (last 1,600,000 years). This definition is used in delineating Earthquake Fault Zones as mandated by the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zones Act of 1972 and most recently revised in 2007 (Bryant and Hart, 2007). The intent of this act is to assure that unwise urban development and certain habitable structures do not occur across the traces of active faults. The subject site is not included within any Earthquake Fault Zones as created by the Alquist-Priolo Act. 1. San Diego County, like the rest of Southern California, is seismically active as a result of being located near the active margin between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates. The principal source of seismic activity is movement along the northwest-trending regional fault zones such as the San Andreas, San Jacinto and Elsinore Faults Zones, as well as along less active faults such as the Rose Canyon Fault Zone. Our review of geologic literature pertaining to the site and general vicinity indicates that there are no known major or active faults on the site (Jennings, 1994). Evidence for faulting was not encountered during our field investigation. The nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 5.7 miles (9.1 km) west of the site. Because of the lack of known active faults on the site, the potential for surface rupture at the site is considered low. Seismic Design Parameters The effect of seismic shaking may also be mitigated by adhering to the California Building Code or state-of-the-art seismic design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California. The following geotechnical design 15 -ii- Leitm 4.1 4.2 S S 603522-001 parameters have been determined in accordance with the 2010 CBC (CBSC, 2010) and the USGS Seismic Design Maps Application (Version 3.0.1): Table 1 CBC (2010) Seismic Code - Parameters for the Site Description Values CBC Reference Site Class D Table 1613.5.2 Short Period Spectral Acceleration S 1.234 Figure 1613.5(1) 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration S1 0.467 Figure 1613.5(2) Short Period Site Coefficient Table Fa 1.007 1613.5.3(1) 1-Second Period Site Coefficient TableF 1.533 1613.5.3(2) Adjusted Short Period Spectral Acceleration SMS 1.242 Equation 16-36 Adjusted 1-Second Period Acceleration SM1 0.716 Equation 16-37 Design Short Period Spectral Response Parameter Sos 0.828 Equation 16-38 Design 1-Second Period Spectral Response Parameter SW 0.477 Equation 16-39 4.3 Secondary Seismic Hazards Secondary effects that can be associated with severe ground shaking following a relatively large earthquake include shallow ground rupture, soil liquefaction and dynamic settlement, lateral spreading, seiches and tsunamis. These secondary effects of seismic shaking are discussed in the following sections. S -12- 603522-001 4.3.1 Shallow Ground Rupture No active faults are mapped crossing the site, and the site is not located within a mapped Aiquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007). Shallow ground rupture due to shaking from distant seismic events. is not considered a significant hazard, although it is a possibility at any site. 4.3.2 Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading Liquefaction and dynamic settlement of soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that loose granular soils underlain by a near surface ground watertable are most susceptible to liquefaction, while the most clayey materials are not susceptible to liquefaction. Liquefaction is characterized by a loss of shear strength in the affected soil layer, thereby causing the soil to behave as a viscous liquid. This effect may be manifested at the ground surface by settlement and, possibly, sand boils where insufficient confining overburden is present over liquefied layers. Where sloping ground conditions are present, liquefaction-induced instability can result. For consideration in liquefaction analysis, and based on deaggregation of the Maximum Considered Earthquake event, a magnitude M7.14 is associated with the Design Earthquake Ground Motion (i.e. peak ground acceleration of 0.33g). Liquefaction analysis was performed utilizing the program LiquefyPro with the procedures of Robertson and Wride and NCEER guidance. Based on our analysis, much of the alluvial soils encountered are considered too clay rich to experience liquefaction. Where liquefaction potential was identified, the potential was found to be within relatively thin discontinuous sand layers, with increasing thickness in some of the soundings and borings at greater depths. In addition, due to the thin, discontinuous nature of the liquefiable zones and the relatively flat site condition, the potential for lateral spreading is considered to be low. 4W 1 TO H . LeitdP 603522-001 Dynamic settlement was evaluated utilizing procedures outlined by Robertson and Wride, 1998 and the results of that analysis indicate a potential total liquefaction-induced settlement on the order of 1 inch may result from the design earthquake event. It should be noted that the potential differential settlement of the building due to liquefaction is anticipated to be less than 1/2 of an inch, and that the structural design of the new improvements can be used to mitigate potential differential movements. A plot of the liquefaction analysis is provided in Appendix D. 4.3.3 Tsunamis and Seiches Based on the distance between the site and large, open bodies of water, and the elevation of the site with respect to sea level, the possibility of seiches and/or tsunamis is considered to be low. In addition, review of the San Diego County Tsunami Inundation Maps for Emergency Planning, Oceanside/San Luis Rey Quadrangle, indicate that the site is outside of inundation zone. 4 S -14- LeitiPi 603522-001 5.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of our geotechnical study of the site, it is our opinion that the proposed improvements are feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the following conclusions and recommendations are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. The following is a summary of the significant geotechnical factors that we expect may affect development of the site. The shallow on-site soils are expected to generally possess a very low to moderate expansion potential with Expansion Index values less than 70. Based on our subsurface explorations and laboratory testing; the existing near surface soils in their current condition are not suitable for support of settlement sensitive structures. Remedial grading (i.e., removal, moisture conditioning and recompaction) of the upper 2 feet of materials will be required prior to construction of the proposed improvements. Onsite soils are expected to have a low potential for sulfate attack on concrete. However, buried metal pipes and conduits are susceptible to corrosion. The existing onsite soils appear to be suitable material for use as compacted fill provided they are free of organic material, debris, and rock fragments larger than 6 inches in maximum dimension. Materials placed within 5 feet of the pad grade should possess an expansion index less than 70. Our review of the geologic literature indicates there are no known major or active faults on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. In addition, evidence of active faulting was not encountered within the site during our field investigation or the prior grading operations. Because of the lack of known active faults on the site, the potential for surface rupture at the site is considered low. The main seismic hazard that may affect the site is ground shaking from one of the active regional faults. The nearest known active fault is the Newport- Inglewood, which is located approximately 5.7 miles (9.1 km) west of the site. The saturated granular alluvial soils beneath the eastern and western portions of the site have a potential for liquefaction due to a design earthquake loading. Therefore, V -15- Leit 603522-001 the near surface improvements, such as piping and conventional shallow foundations, may be subjected to dynamic differential settlements on the order of 1/2 inch. The structural design of the new improvements can be used to mitigate potential differential movements. Proposed grades are anticipated to be near or below the existing grades. As a result, settlement waiting period is not considered necessary. If grades are raised, revised recommendations may be warranted. 603522-001 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based in part upon data that were obtained from a limited number of observations, site visits, excavations, samples, and tests. Such information is by necessity incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing geotechnical or geological conditions can occur within small distances and under varying climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report can be relied upon only if Leighton has the opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions during earthwork operations and construction of the project, in order to confirm that our preliminary findings are representative for the site. 6.1 Earthwork We anticipate that earthwork at the site will consist of remedial grading of the near-surface soils; grading of the building pad additions and associated improvements; utility construction; subgrade preparation in pavement areas; foundation excavation; and retaining wall construction and backfill operations. We recommend that earthwork on the site be performed in accordance with the following recommendations and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading included in Appendix E. In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall supersede those in Appendix E. 6.1.1 Site Preparation If additional grading, such as fill placement, is planned on the site, the areas to receive structural fill, engineered structures, or hardscape should be cleared of surface and subsurface obstructions, including any existing debris and undocumented or loose fill soils, and stripped of vegetation. Removals should extend the competent documented fill soils and/or competent formational soils. Removed vegetation and debris should be properly disposed off site. Holes resulting from the removal of buried obstructions which extend below finish site grades should be replaced with suitable compacted fill material. All areas to receive fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 12 inches, brought to above optimum moisture conditions, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on. ASTM Test Method T17 Leit 603522-001 D1557. If clayey soils that are more expansive (El>70) are encountered, increased moisture and revised recommendations may be needed. 6.1.2 Excavations and Removals Excavations of the upper onsite materials (i.e., fill and alluvium soils) may generally be accomplished with conventional heavy-duty earthwork equipment. In accordance with OSHA requirements, excavations deeper than 5 feet should be shored or be laid back to if workers are to enter such excavations. Temporary sloping of excavations should be determined in the field by a "competent person" as defined by OSHA. For preliminary planning, sloping of excavations at 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) to a depth of 15 feet (or above ground water) may be assumed for soils and should remain stable for the period required to construct the utility, provided they are free of adverse geologic conditions or seeps. Note that excavations should not extend below a 2:1 plane extending down from existing footings unless properly designed by an engineer. We recommend some removal and recompaction be performed across the site. In parking areas and surface improvements 3 feet beyond proposed V additions, the minimum depth should be 1 foot, in proposed building areas the minimum depth should be 2 feet. The bottom of all removals should be proof rolled and uniformly compacted to 90% relative compaction prior to the placement of compacted fill soils. Note that loose or soft undocumented fill soils associated with previous underground utilities, landscaping, and retail construction may be encountered and localized deeper removals may be required. The actual depth and extent of the required removals should be determined during grading operations by the geotechnical consultant. The removal bottom should then be scarified a minimum of 6 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to at leist 90 percent relative compaction (based on American Standard of Testing and Materials (ASIM) Test Method D1557). Soil can then be placed to proposed finish or subgrade elevations. Expansion and sulfate testing should be performed on finish grade soils. Leighton should observe and test all fill placement during grading and observe footing excavations prior to concrete placement to confirm that the soil conditions are as anticipated. .4 Leiti 603522-001 C] 6.1.3 Engineered Fill Placement and Compaction The onsite existing fill soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill provided they are free of organic material, debris, and rock fragments larger than 8 inches in maximum dimension. All fill soils should be brought to 2 percent above optimum moisture conditions and compacted in uniform lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test Method D1557. The upper 12 inches ofsubgrade and all aggregate base should be compacted to at least 95 percent beneath vehicular pavements. The optimum lift thickness required to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend. on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in general accordance with the current City of Carlsbad grading ordinances, sound construction practice, and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading presented in Appendix E. 6.1.4 Import Soils Import soils, if necessary to bring the site up to the proposed grades, should be free of oversize material and debris. These soils should be granular and have an expansion index less than 50 (per ASTM Test Method D4829). Please contact this office for further evaluation of the import soils and/or borrow site prior to importation. 6.2 Foundation and Slab Considerations Foundations should be designed in accordance with structural considerations and the following recommendations. These recommendations assume that the soils encountered have a low to medium potential for expansion. Conventional Footings For support of proposed building loads and site retaining walls (i.e., anticipate to be less than 5 feet high), conventional spread and continuous footing may be used. The footings should extend a minimum of 24 inches beneath the lowest -19- Leiti 603522-001 adjacent finish grade. Foundation may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 3,500 pounds per square foot (psf) if founded in properly compacted fill soils over alluvium and 5,000 pounds per square foot (psf) if founded in properly compacted fill soils over Santiago Formation. The limits of alluvial material and Santiago Formation is depicted on site geotechnical map. The allowable pressures may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces. The minimum recommended width of footings is 18 inches for continuous footings and 24 inches for square or round footings, if used. The recommended allowable bearing capacity for spread footings is based on a maximum allowable total and differential settlements of 1-inch and 3/4-inch. Since settlements are functions of footing size and contact bearing pressures, some differential settlement can be expected between adjacent columns, where large differential loading conditions exist. With increased footing depth to width ratios, differential settlement should be less. An additional post-liquefaction 1/2 inch over a distance of 25 feet should be allowed for in the design of the structure (i.e., an angular distortion of 1/600). Deep Foundations For deep foundations, we recommend the use of Cast-In-Drilled-Hole (CIDH) piles. For the analysis and development of the capacities of CIDH piles, the computer program SHAFT (Version 2012.7.3) produced by Ensoft, Inc. was used. As shown in Appendix F, the CIDH allowable capacity curves were developed for 24- to 48-inch diameter piles penetrating into dense formational material. For tension or uplift capacity from the CIDH, we recommend using 0.7 of the allowable capacity. It should be noted that the data presented on the design curves are based on the supporting capacity of the earth materials. Design considerations should also be given to the pile as a structural member. CIDH piles should be spaced at a minimum of three (3) pile diameters if group action capacity reductions are to be neglected. For piles constructed at 1.5 diameters center to center spacing, a 50 percent reduction in capacity should be taken along the affected section of the pile for each adjacent pile. Reduction values for intermediate spacing may be determined by interpolation. Anticipated settlement of /2 inch is anticipated for • the proposed piles. • -20- Leith 603522-001 All pile installation should be performed under the observation of the geotechnical consultant and consistent with standard practice. Drilling equipment should be powerful enough to drill into the dense to very dense formational material to the design penetration depths. Once a pile excavation has been started, it shall be completed within 8 hours, which includes inspection, placement of the reinforcement, and placement of the concrete. Construction of piles should be sequenced such that the concrete of constructed piles are allowed to setup prior to construction of piles within 3 diameters. Ground water should be anticipated in the pile excavations and should be considered in the development of a Contractor's Pile Installation work plan. If CIDH pile excavations are filled with water or drilling mud, concrete must be placed through a pipe extending to the bottom of the pile excavation. Caving of friable, soft or loose soils may occur. Therefore, a starter casing should be used to protect the top of the borehole to mitigate caving conditions. In addition, the contractor should also be prepared to employ casing or other methods of advancing the drilled pile excavation (i.e., drilling mud) to mitigate caving. Use of casing should be at the contractor's discretion. If CIDH pile excavations become bell-shaped and cannot be advanced due to severe caving, the caved region may be filled with a sand/cement slurry and redrilled. Redrilling may continue when the slurry has reached suitable set and strength. In this case, it may be prudent to utilize casing or other special methods to facilitate continued drilling after the slurry has set. -21- Leith 603522-001 The lateral capacities for the CIDH piles were determined using the computer program LPILE (Ver, 6.0.08). For other deflections, depths to zero moment, maximum moment and inflection points, see data plots in Appendix F. For piles closer than 80, the lateral capacity should be reduced according to the values in the table below. CIDH Pile Group Capacity Reductions Pile Spacing (Center-to-Center) Reduction in Axial Capacity (Percent) 7 pile diameters 98 6 pile diameters 95 5 pile diameters 90 4 pile diameters 85 3 pile diameters 75 6.3 Floor Slab Considerations Slab on grade floors should be at least 5 inches thick and reinforced with a minimum of No. 3 rebars at 18 inches on center each way, placed at mid height in the slab. Slabs should be underlain by a 2-inch layer of clean sand or clean gravel. We recommend that the architect follow the guidance of ACI 302.2R-06 for design of the under slab moisture protection measures and development of construction specifications. We recommend control joints be provided across the slab at appropriate intervals as designed by the project architect. Prior to placement of the vapor barrier, the upper 6-inches of subgrade soil should be moisture conditioned to a moisture content. 2 percent above the laboratory optimum. The potential for slab cracking may be further reduced by careful control of water/cement ratios. The contractor should take the appropriate precautions during the pouring of concrete in hot weather to minimize cracking of slabs. We recommend that a slip-sheet (or equivalent) be utilized above the concrete slab if crack-sensitive floor coverings are to be placed directly on the concrete slab. If - • heavy vehicle or equipment loading is proposed for the slabs, greater thickness . and increased reinforcing may be required. - 603522-001 6.4 Retaining Wall Design For design purposes, the following lateral earth pressure values in Table 2 for level or sloping backfill are recommended for walls backfilled with very low to low expansion potential (Expansion Index less than 50). Table 2 Static Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf) Conditions ] Level 2:1 Slope Active • 35 55 At-Rest 55 85 Passive 300 (maximumof 3ksf) 150 (slopingdown) Retaining structures should be provided with a drainage system, as illustrated in Appendix E, to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. For sliding resistance, a friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used at the soil-concrete interface. The lateral passive resistance can be taken into account only if it is ensured that the soil against embedded structures will remain intact with time. Retaining wall footings should have a minimum embedment of 18 inches below the adjacent lowest grade unless deeper footings are needed for other reasons. If conditions other than those covered herein are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressure values should be provided on an individual case basis by the geotechnical engineer. A surcharge load for a restrained or unrestrained wall resulting from automobile traffic may be assumed to be equivalent to a uniform horizontal pressure of 75 psf which is in addition to the equivalent fluid pressure given above. For other uniform surcharge loads, a uniform horizontal pressure equal to 0.35q should be applied to the wall (where q is the surcharge pressure in psf). Wall backfill should be brought to optimum or above moisture content and compacted by mechanical methods to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557). Wall footings should be designed in accordance with the foundation design recommendations and reinforced in accordance with structural considerations. For all retaining walls, we recommend the previously discuss setback distance from the outside base of the footing to daylight. .4. -23 Leiotsh 603522-001 To account for potential redistribution of forces during a seismic event, the subterranean walls should also be checked considering an additional seismic pressure distribution equal to 10H-r psf, where Hi- equals the overall retained height in feet. - 6.5 Shoring of Excavations Based on our present understanding of the project, excavations on the order of 15 to 20 feet deep are anticipated. Accordingly, temporary shoring of vertical excavations may be required. We recommend that excavations be retained either by a cantilever or braced shoring system with cast-in-place soldier piles and sheeting or wood lagging, as needed. It should be noted that a tie-back restrained pile system may encounter a caving condition. Based on our experience with similar projects, if lateral movement of the shoring system on the order of 1 to 2 inches cannot be tolerated, we recommend the utilization of a braced pile system. . . Shoring of excavations of this size are typically performed by specialty contractors with knowledge of the San Diego County area soil conditions. Lateral earth pressures for design of shoring are presented below: Cantilever Shoring System Active pressure = 35H (psf), triangular distribution Passive Pressure = 300h (psf) H = wall height (active case) or h = embedment (passive case) Multi-Braced Shoring System Active Pressure = 29H (psf), rectangular distribution Passive Pressure = 300h (psf) H = wall height (active case) or h = embedment (passive case) General • All pressures are, based, on dewatered conditions, with the water table at least 4 feet below the base of the excavation. All shoring systems should consider additional loading of adjacent surcharging loads. Settlement monitoring of adjacent buildings, sidewalks andadjacent settlement sensitive structures should be considered to evaluate the performance of the . ' LeihtPi' 603522-001 shoring. Shoring of the excavation is the responsibility of the contractor. Extreme S caution should be used to minimize damage to existing pavement, utilities, and/or structures caused by settlement or reduction of lateral support 6.6 Pipe Bedding and Pipe Zone Backfill Pipe bedding should extend to a depth of at least 6 inches below the pipe bottom and the pipe zone backfill should extend from the top of the bedding to a height of at least 12 inches over the top of the pipe. In addition, there should be a range of ,6 to 12 inches of pipe zone backfill material on either side of the pipe. The bedding and pipe zone material may consist of compacted free draining sand, gravel or crushed rock (SE >30). The bedding layer should, be supported on firm, competent material, as determined by the Geotechnical Consultant and provisions of the above reference. Disturbed or loose materials at excavation bottom should be removed to expose firm native material. We anticipate that firm soil conditions exist at proposed invert depths, although some soft and/or loose soils may be encountered. Removals should be performed as previously described in Section 6.1.2 of this report and in accordance with therecommendations made during the 5 course of excavation. 6.6.1 Trench Zone , The onsite soils are generally suitable for use as compacted backfill provided they contain enough soil material to effectively create a fill matrix without voids and are free of oversize material, organic materials and debris. Processing or screening of the onsite excavated material may be require prior to reuse as fill. Saturated soils should be dried back and/or replaced with import soils. The optimum lift thickness required to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. Materials greater than 6 inches in maximum dimension should not be utilized in fills. Fill soils (onsite and import) should be placed near or above optimum moisture content and compacted to, a minimum of 90 percent relative 603522-001 compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557). Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with local grading ordinances under the observation and testing of a qualified geotechnical consultant. Densification by water jelling within the trench zone is not recommended. .6.7 Surface Drainage and Erosion Surface drainage should be controlled at all times. The proposed structures should have appropriate drainage systems to collect runoff. Positive surface drainage should be provided to direct surface water away from the structure toward suitable drainage facilities. In general, ponding of water should be avoided adjacent to the structure or pavements. Over-watering of the site should be avoided. Protective measures to mitigate excessive site erosion during construction should also be implemented in accordance with the latest City of, • Carlsbad grading ordinances. . 6.8 Vehicular Pavements The pavement section design below is based on the stated Traffic Index (TI) and our visual classification of the site soils. We assumed an R-Value of .14 for flexible pavement design. The TI values were chosen based on our experience - with similar projects. Actual pavement recommendations should be based on R- value tests performed on bulk, samples of the soils that are exposed at the. finished subgrade elevations across the site at the completion of the grading operations. Flexible pavement sections have been evaluated in general accordance with the Caltrans method for flexible pavement design and City of Carlsbad Standard GS-17. The recommended flexible pavement section for this condition is given in Table 3. . 603522-001 Table 3 Preliminary Pavement Sections Traffic Description Assumed Traffic Index (TI) Asphalt Concrete (inches) Aggregate Base (inches) Auto Parking 4.5 4 5 Auto Driveways 5.0 4 6 Truck Driveway 6.0 4 12 Flexible pavements should be constructed in accordance with current Caltrans Standard Specifications. Aggregate base should comply with the Caltrans Standard Specifications of Section 26. Aggregate base should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557). For areas subject to regular truck loading (i.e., trash truck apron), we recommend a full depth of Portland Cement Concrete (P.C.C.) section of 7 inches with appropriate steel reinforcement and crack-control joints as designed by the project structural engineer. We recommend that sections be as nearly square as possible. A 3,250-psi mix that produces a 550-psi modulus of rupture should be utilized. All pavement section materials conform to and be placed in accordance with the latest revision of the California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications (Caltrans) and American Concrete Institute (ACI) codes. The Upper 12 inches of subgrade soil and all aggregate base should be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 95 percent (based on ASTM Test Method D1557). If pavement areas are adjacent to heavily watered landscape areas, we recommend some measure of moisture control be taken to prevent the subgrade soils from becoming saturated. It is recommended that the concrete curing separating the landscaping area from the pavement extend below the aggregate base to help seal the ends of the sections where heavy landscape watering may have access to the aggregate base. Concrete swales should be designed in roadway or parking areas subject to concentrated surface runoff. -27- Leit 603522-001 .. Concrete Flatwork Concrete sidewalks and other flatwork (including construction joints) should be designed by the project civil engineer and should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches. For all concrete flatwork, the upper 12 inches of subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned to at least 2 percent above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. based on ASTM Test Method Dl 557 prior to the concrete placement. 6.10 Geochemical Considerations - Concrete in direct contact with soil or water that contains a high concentration of soluble sulfates can be subject to chemical deterioration commonly known as "sulfate attack." Soluble sulfate results (Appendix C) indicated negligible soluble sulfate content at the sites. We recommend that concrete in contact with earth materials be designed in accordance with Section 4 of ACI 318-08 (ACI, 2008). Based on our testing results, the soils at Westfield Plaza Camino Real site have a 'corrosion potential to buried uncoated metal conduits (Caltrans, 2003). Therefore, we recommend measures to mitigate corrosion be implemented during design and construction. 6.11 Foundation Review Foundation plans should be reviewed by Leighton to confirm that the recommendations in this report are incorporated in project plans. 6.12 Construction Observation The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design information, our experience during rough grading, and subsurface conditions disclosed by widely spaced excavations. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction. Construction observation of all onsite excavations and should be performed by a representative of this office so that construction is in accordance with the recommendations of this report. All footing excavations should be reviewed by this office prior to steel placement. I- 603522-001 . . 7.0 LIMITATIONS The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based in part upon data that were obtained from a limited number of observations, site visits, excavations, samples, and tests. Such information is by necessity incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing geotechnical or geological conditions can occur within small distances and under varying climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented .in this report can be relied upon only if Leighton has the opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions during grading and construction of the project, in order to confirm that our preliminary findings are representative for the site. A final geotechnical report will be provided once final grades are known. S APPENDIX A References AA1-36 f 1 S 603522-001 APPENDIX A References American Concrete Institute (Ad), 2006, Guide for Concrete Slabs that Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials. Bryant, W. A. and Hart, E. W., 2007, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zones Act of 1972 with Index to Special Study Zone Maps, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, dated 1997 with 2007 Interim Revision. California Building and Safety Commission (CBSC), 2007, California Building Code. California Division of Mines and Geology, CDMG, 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, Open File Report 96-08. California Division of Mining and Geology, 1996, Guidelines for Evaluating the Hazard of Surface Fault Rupture: Adopted by the Board on May 9, 1997, 6p. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada, dated February, 1998. California Geologic Survey (CGS), 2003, Revised 2002, California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps, June, 2003. 2007, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Interim Revisions. lshihara, K., 1985, "Stability of Natural Deposits during Earthquakes", Proceeding of the Eleventh International Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, A.A. Belkema Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands. Ishihara, K., and Yoshimine, M., 1992, "Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits Following Liquefaction of Sand Under Cyclic Stresses", Soils and Foundations, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 173-188. 0 603522-001 APPENDIX A (Continued) LeRoy Crandall and Associates (LC), 1967, Control of Compacted Fill, Proposed Plaza Camino Real Shopping Center, El Camino Real and Vista Way, Carlsbad, California for the Plaza Camino Real, Job No. B-66165, dated January 12, 1967. 1968a, Inspection and Testing of Compacted Fills, T.B.A. Building Areas, Plaza Camino Real Shopping Center Near El Camino Real and Vista Freeway, Carlsbad, California for the Plaza Camino Real, Job No. B-67067, dated February 15, 1968. 1968b, Final Report Settlement of Surcharged Area, Proposed Shopping Center, El Camino Real near the Vista Freeway, Carlsbad, California for Plaza Camino Real, Job No. B-66171, dated October 2, 1968. 1969, Inspection of Foundation Excavations, and Inspection and Testing of Compacted Backfill, Proposed Department Store and Maintenance Building, Plaza Camino Real Shopping Center, Carlsbad, California for the May Department Stores Company, Job No. B-68004-C, dated May 26, 1969. National Research Council, 1985, "Liquefaction of Soils during Earthquakes" Report No.: CETS-EE-001, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. NCEER, 1997, Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, edited by Youd and Idriss, Technical Report NCEER- 97-0022, December 31, 1997. Risk Engineering, 2008, EZ-FRISK Version 7.26, Software for Earthquake Ground Motion Estimation. Seed, H.B., and Idriss, l.M., 1971, "Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential", Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE 97 (SM9): 1249-1273. 1982, "Ground Motion and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquake", Monograph, Series, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, California AA1-38 603522-001 APPENDIX A (Continued) 1976, Relationships of Maximum Accelerations, Maximum Velocity, Distance from Source and Local Site Conditions for Moderately Strong Earthquakes, Bull Seism, Soc. Amer., 66:4, dated August. Seed, H.B., Murarkia, R., Lysmer, J., and Idriss, I., 1975, "Relationships Between Maximum Acceleration, Maximum Velocity, Distance from Source and Local Site Conditions for Moderately Strong Earthquake", Report No. EERC 75-17, University of California, Berkeley. Tan, S. S. and Kennedy, M. P., 2007, Geologic Maps of Oceanside Quadrangle, California, California Geological Survey (CGS). Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., and Others, 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report form the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 10, pp. 817-832. Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WC), 1975, Soil Investigation for the Proposed Plaza Camino Real, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 75-173, dated September 17, 1975. Zhang, G., Robertson, P.K. Brachman, R., 2002, Estimated Liquefaction Induced Ground Settlements from the CPT, Canadian Geotechnical Journal. ~lm APPENDIX B Boring Logs and CPT Sounding Logs AA1-40 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG KEY Project No. Project Drilling Co. Drilling Method Location KEY TO BORING LOG GRAPHICS Date Drilled Logged By Hole Diameter Ground Elevation nmnIrI Ru SOIL DESCRIPTION 2- U . CLO C U o C. .j This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the U) E -- 43 L) 0. time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations 0 Lu 21 0 o and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the CL U)C3 0 (/)' actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be >. 1N S gradual. - 0 Asphaltic concrete Portland cement concrete CL Inorganic clay of low to medium plasticity; gravelly clay; sandy ..clay; silty clay; lean clay CH Inorganic clay; high plasticity, fat clays OL Organic clay; medium to plasticity, organic silts ML Inorganic silt; clayey silt with low plasticity I Inorganic silt; diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils; elastic silt ML-CL Clayey silt to silty clay In ow Well-graded gravel; gravel-sand mixture, little or no fines DIJ GP Poorly graded gravel; gravel-sand mixture, little or no fines 0 GM Silty gravel; gravel-sand-silt mixtures oc Clayey gravel; gravel-sand-clay mixtures 6 SW Well-graded sand; gravelly sand, little or no fines sp Poorly graded sand; gravelly sand, little or no fines SM Silty sand; poorly graded sand-silt mixtures 15 ______ SC Clayey sand; sand-clay mixtures - Bedrock - Ground water encountered at time of drilling Bulk Sample 20— C-I Core Sample - 0-I Grab Sample R-I Modified California Sampler (3" O.D., 2.5 ID.) - SH-I Shelby Tube Sampler (3' O.D.) S-I Standard Penetration Test SPT (Sampler (2" O.D., 1.4" ID.) 25— PUSH Sampler Penetrates without Hammer Blow SAMP&TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE TYPE OF TESTS: .200 % FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS C CORE SAMPLE AL A1TERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER TR THERMAL RESISTIVITY 4 R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Page 1 of I AA1-41 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-I Project No. 603522-001 Date Drilled 8-31-12 Project Westfield PCR Logged By JTD Drilling Co. Bala Drilling Hole Diameter 8 Drilling Method CME-75 - 1401b - Autohammer - 30" Drop Ground Elevation 28' Location NE Building Corner Sampled By JTD o SOIL DESCRIPTION o . 0 Z fl L (flQ) 0 w .!j This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the LL a. E .2-0 a. time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations 0 . ILl c (D Mo and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the & U) CL0 o C.) C#)— actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types maybe > - I S gradual. 0 - 5.5 inches asphalt concrete - SC ARTIFICIAL FILL (Aft @5.5": Clayey SAND, olive, moist, fine to medium SAND 25 - 5— SM to rnediumsANiJ 8 olive-gray, few clay, no recovery on 1st sample .. .-------- 8 12 20 - - ----- - - ®5':SiltySAND,moist,rnedhmidense,flne 10— - - 5 @10SaCY,ov sf fine to medn DS, El B-I 10-15' 5 10 CR,SA, H - CL QUATERNARY AT (Oat) 15 ------- ci. ( 12': Sandy CLAY, olive-gray, moist to wet, fine to medium sand 15— - - 117 22 SM @ 15': Silty fine SAND, gray, moist, loose sandy clay, dark gray, - 4 Lo —~IoLst 9 CL @ 16': Sandy CLAY, dark gray, moist to wet, stiff 10- 20— 5 83 38 stiff,- dark gray,co -/ 10 5- 25— /---R-4 — To d @ 25': Clayey SAND, fight gray, wet, medium dense, fine sand 10 0 - SAMPL1YPES: B BULK SAMPLE TYPE OF TESTS: -200 % FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY R S RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE CR CORROSION MD PP MAXIMUM POCKET DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH - PENETROMETER T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Page 1 of 3 AA1-42 S GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-I Project No. 603522-001 Date Drilled 8-31-12 Project Westfield PCR Logged By JTD Drilling Co. Baja Drilling Hole Diameter 8" Drilling Method CME-75 - 1401b - Autohammer - 30" Drop Ground Elevation 28' Location NE Building Corner SamBled By JTfl LI SOIL DESCRIPTION 0 .! W Z This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the LL LL 0. E 2— a. jj time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations 0 and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the a cj cfl— actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types maybe > gradual. 30— R-6 4 SC QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Oal) (Continued' Co - —S 7 CH @31: CLAY, dark gray, wet, stiff -5-j • . ----- 6 )8 22 SC 35ayeySAD,htgray,wosetornediurndense,flnc - 8 sand 9 _10- 40- - 3 @40 CLAY thswd gray,w if, ,t CO -/ - -- --R-7 11 -15- /-- ---- R-8 45— -.- 6 CL @45 Sandy CLAY, dark gray, wet,slif,finesand - - -- CH -20- 50- - 105 SCSM e innnd SA,H 8 -R0 17 -25 - R-H — 7 -- — -- SC-CL @ 55': Sandy clay to clayey SAND, gray, wet hard to medium 8 dense, fine to medium sand 16 -30 - SAMPLrYPES: B BULK SAMPLE TYPE OF TESTS. -200 % FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY 4 R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE _J * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Page 2 of 3 AA1-43 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-I Project No. 603522-001 Date Drilled Project Westfield PCR Logged By Drilling Co. Baja Drilling Hole Diameter Drilling Method CME-75 - 1401b - Autohammer - 30' Drop Ground Elevation Location NE Building Corner Sampled By 8-31-12 JTD 8° 28' .ITfl S a SOIL DESCRIPTION o . .2 z . .. -coca 0 a ag .3 This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the a 2; a. 0rjj time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations 0 . UI Wa and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the CL actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be > I gradual. 60— R-12 6 112 II SC QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (OaD (Continued) - 12 @60': Clayey SAND, gray, wet, medium dense, fine to medium 15 sand -35- 65 — — — -- — — — — --- — — -- — — -- — — -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - R-13 8 CUCH ®65 Sandy CLAY t plastic clay: gray, wet, 12 overlying clay, dark gray, wet, hard - 14 40- 70 - TO To 23 SC-CL tg - 12 medium dense to hard, fine sand 15 -45 - --R-H — • I To sii. @ 75': SAND, olive-gray, wet, medium dense, fine SAND, with 8 interbedded clay layer _50- so— - i-i F ii - L gray, wet, de to medium nse, 10 10 Total Depth = 81.5 Feet - Groundwater encountered at 13 feet at time of drillin Backfilled with bentonite chips and cuttings on 8/31/1 85- -60 - SAMPLTYPES: TYPE OF TESTS. B BULK SAMPLE .200 WINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY 4 R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Page 3 of 3 M1-44 S GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2 Project No. 603522-001 Date Drilled 8-31-12 Project Westfield PCR Logged By JTD Drilling Co. Baia Drilling Hole Diameter 8" Drilling Method CME-75 - 1401b - Autohammer - 30" Drop Ground Elevation 40 Location SamDled By JTD a SOIL DESCRIPTION o • .2. a, Z W .S.' 1-10 0. This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the OIL 04) LL 1'_J E 2— a. 0q time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations 0 Ui .5 and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the a 0 Cj cO— IL actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be s gradual. I- 40 0— - _,4 inches concrete ARTIFICIAL FILL (Afl SM @0-5: Silty SAND, olive-brown, moist, fine to medium sand R-I 15 @5: Silty SAND, red-brown, moist, medium dense, fine sand, DS - -. - B-I 17 iron-oxide staining SA 5-10' 22 30 10 i R-2 16 113 8 @10': Silty SAND, olive-brown, moist, dense fine sand 24 30 25 15— -. R-3 14 109 9 @ 15: Silty SAND, dark yellow-brown and light gray-brown, - - - 20 moist, medium dense, tine sand, few clay 29 20 20--R-4 8 109 16 5(: @20 SAND with clay, light gray-brown, moist, medium dense, H, SA B-2 13 fine sand, few clay 20-25 13 15 R-5 8 106 22 SM/SC 25----------------- @25 Silty yellow-b moist, medium fine - 9 overlying 17 SM/SC QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (pal') - @27': Dark brown to dark gray, clayey SAND, moist, medium dense, fine to medium sand SAPLrYPES: B BULK SAMPLE TYPE OF TESTS. -200 % FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SO SPECIFIC GRAVITY R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Page 1 of 2 AA1-45 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2 Project No. 603522-001 Date Drilled Project Westfield PCR Logged By Drilling Co. Baja Drilling Hole Diameter Drilling Method CME-75 - 1401b - Autohammer - 30" Drop Ground Elevation Location Sampled By 8-31-12 JTD 8" 40' IT!" S SOIL DESCRIPTION 0 .c .! Z - w M 4)'a' jg) .5(3 This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the 0. E 2 a. time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations 0 Ui o .5 and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the w CL cj cO actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types maybe CL >, IN S ______ graduagradual. ------ - - 10 30— R-6 4 106 21 SP-SC QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Oat) (Continued) 6 (S. 30': SAND with clay, grayish brown, moist loose, fine sand 9 ' - - Co - 4 medium sand -- ---- R 4 0 40— -sC R-8 - . . . 9 21 dense, few clay - Total Depth = 41.5 Feet - Groundwater encountered at 24 feet below ground surface Backfilled with bentonite chips and capped with concrete on - 8/31/12 -5 45- -10 50- -15 55— S1PLrYPES: B BULK SAMPLE TYPE OF TESTS: .2 % FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-atone document. * * * Page 2 of 2 AA1-46 S fflithllcEanh 1. -i :;ui 11111 IIIE i;l'7M J1TIllum1ouIn!I1on___ :si1OOhI1IOUll GUMBO OMI L1illHfl___EM NUllh1IllOOIL!IiIllI_ _ I 111111PinIIIII1i1!1IIIL_- L. frlllhlllHUlllllhlllllllhlllll 11111110111 IIIh'&1iiFflrTflflT1 flhltId1cEai11 :1L! mrrrTm1inp I'll' luiululklluouop!I!::m____ 40 !llllIUUIOIOJIIOH___ L • I!Illllb!iIllIUhII1OI ii :IIIIIi E'u • I r I IiiuI MON 1 100 - ,IuuuuIIIIuIIIuIIIuIIIuIIIIuIuI 11111111111 flit. I[IJJpI1T!7I.I*1,i. icI'IthiLj.LIl1:J. Project WestheIdIPCR Job Number 603522-001 Hole Number CPT-03 EST GW Depth During Test Leighton & Associates Operator BH-JC Cone Number DSGII04 Date and Time 8/31/2012 12:39:34 PM 25.00 ft Filename SDF(086).cpt GPS Maximum Depth 80.87 ft Net Area Ratio .8 0 TIP TSF CPT DATA FRICTION Fs/Qt 50010 TSF 1010 SPT N 1010 250 5 111 12 20 40 60 80 ii iii III 1 H I I I 1 I I I I I I I i sensitive fine grained 11112 - organic material - clay 4 silty clay to clay 5 - clayey silt to silty clay 6 - sandy silt to clayey silt 7 silty sand to sandy silt D 8 - sand to silty sand 09 - sand 0 10- gravelly sand to sand 11 - very stiff fine grained (*) U 12 - sand to clayey sand (*) Cone Size 10cm squared S*Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 IflIdi11àEàili Job Number 603622-001 H EST GW ole Number CPT-04 Depth ______ Leighton &AssociF'k* Operator1 Cone Number DSG1104 Date and Time 8/3112012 2:24:02 PM Maximum Depth 112.53 ft GPS Not Area Ratio .8 10 TSF CPT lDATA huh , TSF 101 0 ['II' 2501, a iiii000ii000niiiim___ 40 I1 Ell 60 ISOM !UIUI1HOOO!IL11UIIfl___ I ! !!IONI1INIOHI 1I I - 0EiIIIIuIIE'iIHIUhIL11UUIJ_- ilUUUIUllUUUUiUIi.!liUit1________ - I!IIIIII!!!!IIIiiITIIII • •••• I_- sonMW HIIIIIIIIII - I .I1 U1TTl I iiI C !1 TTTT I T-Ti'1 i I.-tiii.FT11iTrTT I [.L I.i-i- I ii. II 11J!111 S ;T[iFI.I J. flIf!1.. II4.1 Job Number 603522-001 Hole Number CPT-05 Water Table Depth [ml fii Filename LeightoR Assoicates Cone Number DDG1185 Date and Time 12/17/2012 7:45:41 AM 26.00 ft GPS Maximum Depth Net Area Ratio .8 Is TIP CPT DATA FRICTION Fs/Qt ;lsl'IIs lulls SPT N I'll' 'I'I. 1;iiTflhIfLlIIIllhEI!!uIri2iIIIO F1" 40 ow— : ii 0 a-00011 00 [313[3E3 0 MOMMMME 1 13 0 ••• l moommo N I - sensitive fine grained 02- organic material _-i(- 0 4 - silty clay to 0 5 - clayey silt to silty clay 0 8 - sand to silty sand iIuI. R IO- i.Ito sand 0 11 - very stiff fine grained 0 12 - sand to clayey sand Cone ['Nuisquared S*Soll behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 Leighton & Assoicates Project Westfield - PCR Operator RA-JC Filename SDF(357).cpt Job Number 603522-001 Cone Number DDGII85 GPS Hole Number CPT-06 Date and Time 12/17/2012 9:25:08 AM Maximum Depth 6.73 ft Water Table Depth >6.00 ft Net Area Ratio .8 CPT DATA Of LU TIP FRICTION FsIQt SPT N _______ 0 TSF 50010 TSF 10 0 10 0 200 20 40 -- 60 80 100 I - sensitive fine grained 4 - silty clay to clay 7 - silty sand to sandy silt io - gravelly sand to sand 11111112 - organic material 5 - clayey silt to silty clay fl 8 - sand to silty sand 11 - very stiff fine grained (*) - CI 1116 - sandy silt to clayey silt lima- sand 12 - sand to clayey sand (*) coIN6 10cm squared S*Soil beHOWr type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 Now low Leighton & Assoicates Project Westfield - PCR Operator RA-JC Filename SDF(358).cpt Job Number 603522-001 Cone Number DDGII85 GPS Hole Number CPT-06A Date and Time 12/17/2012 9:51:41 AM Maximum Depth 6.23 ft Water Table Depth >6.00 ft Net Area Ratio .8 Qf CPT DATA 0 TIP TSF FRICTION Fs/Qt 50010 TSF 1010 % SPT N 1010 200 0 W 20 40 60 --- 80 100 > 40 - i - sensitive fine grained 4- silty clay to clay 7- silty sand to sandy silt io- gravelly sand to sand 2- organic material 5 - clayey silt to silty clay 8 - sand to silty sand E 1 - very stiff fine grained (*) 03- clay 6 - sandy silt to clayey silt 11119 - sand 12 - sand to clayey sand () Cone Size 10cm squared S*Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 z /H U J K W R Q 3URMHFW :HVWILHOG 3&5 2SHUDWRU -RE 1XPEHU &RQH 1XPEHU +ROH 1XPEHU &37 7 'DWH DOG 7LP :DWHU 7DEOH 'HSWK 1W $ V V R L F D W H V 5$ -& )LOHQDPH 6') " *36 $0 OD[LPXP 'HSWK - FSW 1W 1 HW $UHD 5DWLR CL 7,3 &37 '$7$ )5,&7,21 )V 4W 637 1 CL -- 76) ---76__ • • • VHQVLWLYH ILQH JUDLQH' VLOW\ FOD\ WR FOD\ M ^ VLOW\ VDQG WR VDQG\ VLSI JUDYHOO\ VDQG WR VDQG RUJDQLF PDWHULDO • FODH\ VLOW WR VLOW\ FO VDQG WR VLOW\ VDQG U YHU\ VWLII ILQH JUDLQHG FOD\ • VDQG\ VLOW WR FOD\H\ V - VDQG U VDQG WR FOD\ ' VDQG AAIIbk &W 6L]H FP VTXDUHG 6RL KDYLRU W\SH DOG 637 EDVHG RQ GDWD IURP 8%&Ip Adik AML AL l.JJI Project Westfield - PCR Job Number 603522-001 Hole Number CPT-07A Water Table Depth w. Leighton & Assoicates Operator RA-JC Cone Number DDGII85 Date and Time 12117/2012 1:05:46 PM 27.00 ft Filename SDF(361).cpt GPS Maximum Depth 39.37 ft Net Area Ratio .8 LLI 0 TIP TSF CPT DATA FRICTION FsIQt 50010 TSF 1010 SPT N 1010 2001c I W co co 12 0 20 - = - - 40 60 80 100 I - sensitive fine grained 12- organic material - clay M4 - silty clay to clay 5- clayey silt to silty clay 6 - sandy silt to clayey silt I 7 - silty sand to sandy silt 18- sand to silty sand 11119 - sand 0 10 - gravelly sand to sand E 1 very stiff fine grained (*) 12 - sand to clayey sand (*) Cone Size 10cm squared S*Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 ___ ________ _.__..i Project Westfield - PCR Job Number 603522-001 Hole Number CPT-08 Water Table Depth 22.00 Leighton & Assoicates Operator RA-JC Cone Number DDGII85 Date and Time 12117/2012 12:02:58 PM ft Filename SDF(360).cpt GPS Maximum Depth 63.16 ft Net Area Ratio .8 = as 0 TIP TSF CPT DATA FRICTION FsIQt 50010 1SF 10 0 % SPT N 1010 20010 Ix LLJ 02 20 - -:i -- II - ---i -- - 40 60 - - - - - - - -- - -- - __ - - - - - - - - - 80 ---- --- -- --- 100 1TTflTflTflTTPPflTflflTfl. I - sensitive fine grained 02- organic material 111114 - silty clay to clay 6 - clayey silt to silty clay E 6 - sandy silt to clayey silt 03- ci a (*) 7 - silty sand to sandy silt 8 - sand to silty sand - sand U 10 - gravelly sand to sand ii - very stiff fine grained (*) 12 - sand to clayey sand C 610cm squared S*Soii be1W type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 fflkmBè Eänrj .,IIl IU,Mllt rlTml,nm H'W!.11 20 I :n1TT1zrprp. is iIHIAhIbUUIUOLuiilllilllllllllJIO i;l.JM sI,Its iii Fun 60 Now 31 am I ru Ai I! -• iilillffi! -• 11111101!!! !!HIh1IIIIII i; , uiOUhIiIUOhuIiIIiIIuIIU:::=1 - cUuu•••.uii - , ONE I w MONSOON ..UIIIIIIIIIII IUIIUIIUIIIIIUUIIIIUIUIUIUIU .]F1uI[.Iuu1fl7F1 .ThA' t-tiut.T111UTR Fl F - t1u1. IIn&iirrT!TnnrTr IP--tiii. IT1 i-ii.i. lwm 'fl1?Iui.1•i.i.iui iii. - Leighton & Associates Project Westfield-PCR Operator BH-JC Job Number 603522-001 Cone Number DDGII85 Hole Number CPT-10 Date and Time 1212812012 7:40:18 AM Water Table Depth >53.97 ft Filename SDF(392).cpt GPS Maximum Depth 53.97 ft Net Area Ratio .8 III 0 TIP TSF FRICTION 50010 TSF CPT DATA Fs/Qt 18 0 % SPT N 1010 2001. LLI 0 00 12 0 20 ::F- - - - A lI ro i.j 40__ -- 60 80 - - 100 I - sensitive fine grained organic material Cl 11114 - silty clay to clay 5 - clayey silt to silty clay 6 - sandy silt to clayey silt 7 - silty sand to sandy silt 08 - sand to silty sand - sand 0 10 - gravelly sand to sand U 11 - very stiff fine grained () 12 - sand to clayey sand (*) cowze 10cm squared S*Soil boXIIlllIl5rtype and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 -11111. all Leighton & Associates Project Westfield-PCR Operator BH-JC Filename SDF(393).cpt - Job Number 603522-001 Cone Number DDGII85 GPS Hole Number CPT-11 Date and Time 12/28/2012 8:59:36 AM Maximum Depth 21.82 ft Water Table Depth >21.82 ft Net Area Ratio .8 CPT DATA 0 TIP TSF FRICTION FsIQt 60010 TSF 1810 SPT N 1010 200I W ') 0 _ II i-W1111 20 - - - - -- - - = - 40 - ---- ------ 60 -- --- 80 100 I - sensitive fine grained 04 - silty clay to clay 7 - silty sand to sandy silt m10- gravelly sand to sand 2 - organic material 5 - clayey silt to silty clay D 8 - sand to silty sand 0 1 - very stiff fine grained (*) - clay 6 - sandy silt to clayey silt 09 - sand 12 - sand to clayey sand () Cone Size 10cm squared 5*Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 IIIkhllc Eanhi :J;u LJ.rTp1 rnrmTm1.rrp flV7T1;rPrP. Is III, I'll' s]I • 20 1IIIIIOOIlIIlOIflPiiilliIIOuhI':iii 40!FiI1 60 MEN moil 80 - W1, 0 ME W 'Is - __EIuiBl•UU•••BUiIIuUUE1luIuuIrE I-1 [tT1i st i ft iFTYT L-11 II 'ZTTT I1TTT T1 I l -tist.I1ITFTT t.I. I I'!Lt I(1t1 IT. II'L ]Iv&-I,iIsrL.ttlITrrrW I7 [5IisLj.1'iiii 1IT - 144 1IidU1cEar1ft I Hole Number CPT-13 Water Table Depth r ri v--- :];i .GPS • 15.00 ft Maximum Depth 96.13 ft NetArea I 0~ I CPT DATA [sill 2001 • II oil :HI!!IIuhI!EtI1iiH son Iu===:1!1r 40 ON logo =owes=== [ 80 'I'i I .1.1111111 III II Ni1II 111, I: - iIit. FTclayey&-tii1. I APPENDIX B Previous Boring Logs (Woodward-Clyde, 1975) C C M1-62 Borinq 1 LEPTHI FEET TEST DATA TESTS JSOTHERI SAMPLE NUMBER L SOIL DESCRIPTION - 'MC I Compacted, damp, brown clayey sand FILL 1 121 1 103 1 18 10 26 21 15 - 16 Compacted, damp, dark gray silty clay with silty sand zones FILL 20 scattered gravel and rubble Firm, saturated, very dark gray silty clay (CH) 25 -I 134 1 82 GS , P1 CT 30 - Loose, saturated, brown silty sand with F interbedded sandy clay (SM-CL) 21 105 9 1-5 Firm, saturated, dark gray silty clay (CH) 35 - - - - - - - with thin interbeds ofsilty fine sand - Continued on next page For deicriplion of symbols. sea Figure 2. LOG OF TEST BORING 1 PLAZA CAI4INO REAL AA1-63 DRAWN By.- Al c I CHECKEOBV:1ttJ1 PROJECT NO: 7-.171 • - bATE: 95 j - I FtQWIE NO: Tn'ini 1 (flnfintrAfI DEPTH FEET . TESTOATh TESTS *OTHERSAMPLE -- SOIL DESCRIPTIONIN NUMBER MC 00 'BC 44 77 4 GS P1 ' - Finn, saturated, dark gray silty clay (CU) with thin interbeds of silty fine sand 40 - 8 1-7 45 - 36 9 1-8 Firm, saturated, dark gray silty clay (CL) tc loose, saturated, gray silty to clayey sand (sM-SC) 50 23 1-9 Very dense, saturated, gray fine to medium 55 - • 63 1-10 . sand (SP) Medium dense, saturated, gray to light olive . gray clayey fine sand (Sc) to stiff, sandy' 60 -. - - - - clay (CL) - - - - Continued -on next page For description of symbol,, see Figure LOG OF TEST BORING 1 PLAZA CAM1N0 REAL In &WSJ nv. A I ' 1 oi-rs,rs. 17'1 I ry. A ')1 I £InhIDL tM. It o.'. Boring 1. continued 26 Medium dense, saturated, gray to light olive I gray clayey fine sand (SC) to stiff, sandy clay (CL) 65 - 24 18 UCS= 1-12 1 - 3500 1' Stiff to very stiff, saturated, dark gray silty clay (CH) 70 - Medium dense, saturated, gray silty medium 27 1-13 to fine sand (SM) 75 - Medium dense, saturated, light olive gray c clayey medium to fine sand (SC) sand 80 1-14 - 82 Bottom of Hole IDEPTH L!ET TEST DATA OflIER TESTS 1bIPLEj NUM3ER - SOIL DESCRIPTION 7— MC DD BC 'For d,crJptIon & symbol,, see Figure 2. F LOG OF TEST BORING 1 PLAZA CAMINO REAL AA1-65 DRAWN BY ALS FC,lEcKEoBY WJi PflOJCTNO 75-in I DATE g-2-7 1 FIOURt NO 5 (DEPTH J IN FEET F TEST DATA 'OThERI f.ec1TESJVM8ER SNWLE - SOIL DESCRIPTION S -- J'MC (aDD Compacted, damp, brown clayey sand FILL. 10 15 - 20 - 24 103 22 25 - 30 Compacted, damp, brown silty to sandy clay with clayey sand interbeds FILL sand - Compacted, saturated, brown silty sand 2-1 FILL gravel Firm, saturated, dark gray silty clay (CH) with organic material brown I 65 55 IXT: 2-2 firm, saturated, gray to dark gray fine - sandy clay (CH) to loose, silty to clayey i: sand(SM-SC) 35 Continued on -next page For desCtfptlo4lol $Vmboig, see Figure 2. -- LOG OF TEST BORING 2 PLAZA CAMINO REAL AM-66 DflAWNDY:/LS I cHEcxEDoY:4h'df PROJECTNO: 75-173 I DATE: 9-2-75 J FIOUREP4O Boring 2, continued L IN FEET TEST DATA I 1 'OTHER TESTS [AMPLET NUMBER SOIL DESCRIPTiON LMC 0D J 2c Firm, saturated, gray to dark gray fine sandy clay (CH) to loose, silty to clayey sand (SM-SC) 40 1 33 I 91 45• - 50 - 1 24 TO3 21 . 55 - 60 - 1 24 I 18 LJCS = 2500 65 - 70 - S 2-3 rt Medium dense, saturated, gray silty fine sand (SM) 2-4 Stiff, saturated, dark .gray sandy clay to - clayey sand (CM-SC) 2-5 Medium dense, saturated, gray clayey sand gg (SC) 1 ContiriuetFon next page For dec,,pzion of ,vmbols see Figure p LOG OF TEST BORING 2 .PLAZA CAMINO REAL AA1-67 ORAWNllY ALSI cH€ckEoev4JI PMOJECTNO; 75..173 OATE; - 9-2-75 - FIGURE 7 Boring 2, continued I DEPTH I TEST DATA IN 1UOTHER! SAMPLE SOIL DESCRIPTION FEE -DO j5C 4 TESTS NUMBEM - 0 191 123 75 80 A 33 1 1 16 26 Medium dense, saturated, gray clayey sand 'r (Sc) Dense, saturated, gray silty sand (SM) gravel -- Stiff, saturated, gray silty clay with interbedded clayey sand (CU) with organic material CT,pfl 2-7 85 Medium dense, saturated, gray clayey sand (Sc) scattered fine well rounded gravel -139 1 83 1 15 UCS= 2-8 1700 S 95 100 - 30 94 1 15 GS,PI 2-9 102 some interbeds of sandy to clayey silt (ML) interbeds of silty clay(CL) Bottom of Hole *For dtcription of syn-bols. see Figure 2. LOG OF TEST BORING 2 PLAZA CAMDIO REAL AA1-68 DRAWN BY: ALS IctCKEoijy; WX PROJECINO: 75-173 I DATE: 9-2-75 I IOUHENO 8 13-1 FJ 3-2 5 - 25 10 - 22 20 Compacted, damp, light brown silty fine sand scattered medium grave] FILL Boring 3 }OEPTH[ TESTOATA MC 'OD (8c TESTS joT$4EFlj SAMPLE SOIL DESCRtPTIONI FEET NUMBER 15 I 22 t3_3 Pu W Compacted, damp) dark gray to black silty 20 - clay 22 [V, FILL 25 - Compacted; moist) brown clayey fine sand 21 23 3-5k FILL 30 - - - - - - - - - - Compacted, moist, brown silty sand FILL Continued on next page 'for description of symbols.see Fire 2. S [ LOG OF TEST BORING 3 PLAZA CAMINO REAL AA1-69 (I PRAWN DY ALS I CHECXQBY. PROJECT NO: 75-173 [DATE: q-2-7I I HOURENO: 28 3-6 Compacted, moist, brown silty sand FILL 35 - -- - Firm, saturated, gray-brown silty clay (Ca) 37 8 3-7 with roots and organic matter 40 - 31 93 7 (JCS 3-8 1200 • Very loose, saturated, gray sand (SP) 45 - - • 41 8 3-9 Firm, saturated, dark gray silty to sandy • clay (CH) • j Medium dense, saturated, gray silty sand 50 with interbedded clayey sand (SM-SC) - 22 105 16 3-10 52 Bottom of Hole _::j • - For description of symbol,. see F igure 2. LOG OF TEST BORING 3 PLAZA CAMINO REAL 1-70 OMAWNRY Al c I Pflfl.JECTNO 7-17 I OATE: 9-2-75 1FIGURE NO: ifl DEPTH TESTIJATA 'OTHER Boring 3, continued IN SAMPLE SOIL DESCRIPTION 1 MC on 'ac FEET TESTS NUMBER DEPTH IN ET - rESTDATA I ( 'DO He 114 15 20 22 18 50 Boring 4 - SOIL DESCRIPTION GS,ST 4-1 Compacted, damp, brown sandy clay 4-2 FILL 4-3 Compacted, damp, gray-brown silty clay 4-4 ( FILL Dense, damp, light brown sandy to clayey GS,PI silt (ML) Poorly to Moderately Indurated Siltstone4500 1 - Bottom of Hole HER SAMPLE —I icripton of symbols, see Figure 2. LOG OF TEST BORING 4 PLAZA CAMINO REAL AA NDY-/flS I CHECKEOQY kI! PROJECT NO: 75_j73 DATE: 9-2-75 - F IOU; No. IDEPTH IN FEET TEST DATA 'OTHER SAMPLE NUMBER SOIL DESCRIPTION 'D Compacted, damp, brown silty to clayey sand 5-1 E with clay zones FILL 5-2[ (- clay sandy clay - Compacted moist, dark gray silty clay FILL Continued on next page 5 'For description Of ;yn*ob see Figure 2. LOG OF TEST BORING 5 PLAZA CAMINO REAL AA1-72 ,.- .-.- - - 40 - 34 28 45 - 42 34 29 50 - 39 52 Boring 5, continued I DEPTH1 TEST DATA j.oTHERI$pLE SOIL DESCRIPTION 'MCIN VDD (.BC TE STS FEET NUMBER - - - Compacted, moist, dark gray silty clay FILL r Stiff, moist, black. silty clay (CH) 5-7l 35 ] 23 Firm, wet, olive sandy clay (CL) 5-8 5-9 Firm to stiff, saturated, olive silty clay (CH) 5-10 Medium dense, saturated, gray clayey sand - 5-11 _____ (SC) 5-12 Medium dense, saturated, brown clayey silt (ML) 5-13 Stiff, saturated, gray silty clay (CH) 5-14 Bottom of Hole H Hi i H 'For doscrlplion of symbnl,. ,e. Figure. 2. LOG OF TEST CORING 5 PLAZA CAMINO REAL AA1-73 OF%AVdNBY ALS I cHEcKeD BY P1o.lEcTNO 75-173 DATE 9-2-75 FIGURE NO 13 liirrH TEST DATA 140THER SOIL DESCRIPTION 1 JIMC I00Ic F IN EET — 6-111 Compacted, damp, brown silty to clayey sand FILL 5 6-2 r [ dark gray sandy clay 10 6-3 L1 - VCompacted, wet, dark gray silty clay FI LL -. 6-4 11 Stiff to medium dense, saturated, gray clayey sand to sandy clay (CH) 6-5 Firm, saturated, gray sandy clay (CH) Continued on next page ** Water level approximately 26 days after drilling. FO! description of wrnhols. sea Figure 2. LOG OF TEST BORING 6 L PLAZA CAMNO REAL MI-74 I OHAWN11Y Al S I CHECKIJ6YL'JLUJ PHOJECTNO: 7q-173 I DATE: .1-7-.7S I FIOUHENO: 14 45 3 - 35 30 40 - I DEPTH I IN V TEST DATA J'OTHEMfSAMPLE SOIL DESCRIPTION -MCT FCE TESTS NUMBER 28 30 52 37 6-6 E -- Firm, saturated, gray sandy clay (CH) 6-7[ 6-8 E Medium dense, saturated, gray clayey sand (SC) • Firm, saturated, gray sandy to silty clay (Cu) 6-9 Medium dense, saturated, gray clayey sand 6-bC (SC) Firm, saturated, gray silty clay (CH) with some Interbeds of clayey sand (SC) Boring 6 continued 50-j 1 6-14 ' ' shells 521 Bottom of Hole Ordscription of symboI,,eo fl0uro I • LOG OF TEST BORING 6 I PLAZA CAMN0 REAL. AA1-75 r AWNBv; At.SI CHEfKEOD'J PIOJTNQ 75-173 fDArE: 9-2-75 [IouNO 15 Boring 7 DE I TEST DATA 'OTI4ER SAMPLE SOIL DESCRIPTION 1 M (.Dot.t1TESrS FEET I' NUMBER - 5 10 4" Asphalt Concrete GS,PI 71 £ 411 Base Hard, damp, brown silty clay (CL) 7-2 E Poorly to Moderately Indurated Claystone . Ver dense, damp, light brown clayey sand (SC's' 7-3 L Poorly to Moderately Indurated Sandstone " Very dense, damp, brown clayey sand to sandy clay (SC-CL) 7-4 1 ' Poorly to Moderately indurated Sandstone and Claystone Bottom of Hole or descripanof symbols. see FIuro 2 r LOG OF TEST BORING 7 PLAZA CAMINO REAL M1-76 FORAWNtW:AI S I CHECKED UYfVI PROJECT NO: 7'-7 - I PATE: Q..2...76 I FIGURE NO: ... Borina 8 FL. 4" Asphalt Concrete GS FL_4It Base 12 117 1 -1 Very dense, damp tosaturated, gray clayey C -1440 sand (SC) with very thin interbeds of PI 8-2 sandy clay (CL) 95 8-3 d Poorly to Moderately Indurated Sandstone - and Claystone 10 0/6" 8-4 15- xz - is 85 Bottom of Hole Boring 9. -- L' As Concrete 4I, Base Very dense, damp to wet, brown silty to ciyey nu iri-j with scattered tnin 5 beds of sandy clay 9-1 [ ' Poorly to Moderately Indurated Sandstone O 23 37 9-2 - - Bottom of Hole 0 'For deicdpin of symbols. see Fi0ur 2. I LOGS OF TEST BORINGS 8 AND 9 I PLAZA CAMINO REAL 1-77 1T4AWNUV: AIS I CHECKED BY f,4GJI !AoJECTNO: - 75-173 - DATE; 9-2-75 Y10UREN0 17 DEPTH TEST DATA - 'OTHER SAMPLE SOIL DESCRIPTION FEET IN - TESTS NUMBER f Boring 10 - J DPTh[ iN FEET TEST DATA "OTHEn TESTS SAMPLE NUMØER SOIL DESCRIPTION 1 -- MC ( OD ('BC =Asphalt Concrete and Base Compacted, damp, brown silty sand with clay .23 FILL - Compacted, moist, brown to gray silty clay Fill Compacted, damp to saturated, gray silty 26 10-2 to clayey sand . 10 . . FILL :2 22 10-3 15 20.. Medium dense, saturated, gray medium to fine sand (SP) 21 10-4 25 k . I 30 Very dense, saturated, ol ive gray clayey 33 - - - sand (SC) Moderately Indurated Sandstone Bottom of Hole For description of symbols. see Figure 2. • • • • LOG.OF TEST BORING 10 PLAZA CAMINO REAL • M1-78 ORAWNOY: Al c ICIfECKEDSY V4PROJCTNOt 7c...171 I DATh a_,_ic I FIQURENO: IQ 0 - Borina 11 ( DEPTH IN TEST DATA km—C Ind I.OTHER1SAMPL SOIL DESCRIPTION 1 FEETJ D0 TESTS NUMBER For description of symbols. spa figure 2. LOGS OF TEST BORINGS 11 AND 12 PLAZA CAMINO REAL 179 IlLS 1 cHcKwev 4PROJECTNC) 7473 - J DATE: 9-27S• FIGURE NO: q Boring 13 1 DEPTH FEET ITEsTDATA SAMPLEJN TESTS NEfl I SOIL DESCRIPTION MC {.DD Compacted, damp to moist, light brown to light gray silty fine sand FILL 5. 10 - 15 - 20 25 TI 23 hoi 18 13-1 Soft, saturated, dark gray silty clay (CM) .: Medium dense, saturated, dark gray silty medium sand (SM) with slight organic odor 13-3 Soft to firm, saturated, gray silty clay (CM) with silt layers l3-4R. Very loose, saturated, very dark gray fine 30 - 39 83 6 UCS 13-5 sandy silt (ML) 1500 Soft to firm, saturated, dark gray silty clay (CM) 35 ._._____J' -- Lf, 00se to medium dense, saturated, gray silty irle_sand (SM) - - Continued on next page -- or description at symboli, See Figure, 2. LOG CE TEST BORING 13 PLAZA CAMINO REAL DflAMNOY:fSl cHEcKEDOY PRoJECTNO 7S-113 DATE: 92751FIGuH1 IOEpTHI I IN TESTDATA 160THR I OMC 1 •OD 4b 0C FEET 1 TESTS Boring 13, continued SOIL DESCRIPTION 136 Loose to medium dense, saturated, gray silty fine sand (SM) Medium dense to dense, saturated, gray silty ;-ZI fine sand (SM) 13-7 AMPLE NUMBER 9 8 15 UCS= 13-8 - 2600 19 Medium dense, saturated, very light olive gray silty very fine sand (SM-ML) 55 1 20 1110 1 lojpi I 13_lol : Stiff, saturated, olive gray medium to fine sandy clay (CL-SC) with scattered pieces of charcoal and a few well rounded pebbles 60 24 13_1f Hard, saturated, olive gray-brown fine sandy 65 - clay (CL-CH) 13-121 Poorly Indurated Claystone Hard, saturated, light olive gray silty 70 - 13-13 clay (CH;MII) Poorly to Moderately Indurated Claystone sandier 74 Bottom of Hole For dric,*pion of ,yrnbolz, tee Figure 2. LOG OF TEST BORING 13 PLAZA CAMINO REAL AA1-81 PRAWNUY: AIS PROJEcT NO 75-173 1 DATE: 9-2-75 FIGURE 21 APPENDIX C Laboratory Testing fl AA1-82 603522-001 n APPENDIX C Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results Chloride Content: Chloride content was tested in accordance with AASHTO 1-291. The results are presented below: Sample Location Chloride Content, ppm B-1@l0tol5feet 123 -7 Consolidation Tests: Consolidation tests were performed on selected, relatively undisturbed ring samples in accordance with Modified ASTM Test Method D2435. Samples were placed in a consolidometer and loads were applied in geometric progression. The percent consolidation for each load cycle was recorded as the ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original 1-inch height. The consolidation pressure curves are presented on the attached figures. Direct Shear Tests: A direct shear test (ASTM D 3080) was performed on selected sample which was soaked for a minimum of 24 hours under a surcharge equal to the applied normal force during testing. After transfer of the sample to the shear box and reloading of the sample, the pore pressures set up in the sample (due to the transfer) were allowed to dissipate for a period of approximately 1-hour prior to application of shearing force. The samples were tested under various normal loads utilizing a motor- driven, strain-controlled, direct-shear testing apparatus at a strain rate of 0.0025 inches per minute. After a shear strain of 0.2 inches, the motor was stopped and the sample was allowed to "relax" for approximately 15 minutes. The stress drop during the relaxation period was recorded. It is anticipated that, in a majority of samples tested, the 15 minutes relaxing of the samples is sufficient to allow dissipation of pore pressures that may have set up in the samples due to shearing. The drained peak strength was estimated by deducting the shear force reduction during the relaxation period from the peak shear values. The shear values at the end of shearing are considered to be ultimate values and are presented on the attached figure. The samples were either remolded to 90% relative compaction, undisturbed, or the samples were tested in a torsional shear -machine to evaluate the remolded clay seam properties. The test results are presented in the test data. 603522-001 APPENDIX C (Continued) Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of selected materials was evaluated by the Expansion Index Text, ASTM Test Method 4829. Specimens are molded under a given compactive energy to approximately 50 percent saturation. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with water until volumetric equilibrium is reached. The results of these tests are presented in the table below: Sample Location Description Expansion 1 Expansion IndexJ Potential B-i @ 10 to 15 feet Gray Brown Clayey SAND 46 J Low Minimum Resistivity and pH Tests: Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed in general accordance with California Test Method 643. The results are presented in the table below: Sample Location pH Minimum Resistivity (ohms-cm) B-1@10t015feet 7.39 340 Moisture and Density Determination Tests: Moisture content and dry density determinations were performed on relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the test borings. The results of these tests are presented in the boring logs. Where applicable, only moisture content was determined from "undisturbed" or disturbed samples. Particle Size Analysis: Particle size analysis was performed by mechanical sieving methods according to ASTM D 422. Plots of the sieve results are provided on the figure in this appendix. C-2 AA1-84 603522-001 APPENDIX C (Continued) Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate of a selected sample was determined by standard geochemical methods. The test results are presented in the table below: Sample Location Sulfate Content (%) B-1@lOtol5feet 0.030 APPENDIX C Previous Laboratory Testing (Woodward-Clyde, 1975) AA1-86 S 1c08Btt ESI GRAVEL SAND ICoarsJ 1 f SILT and CLAY Coarse Fine Mediuni I Fim lions'::::: Ia u.--R:.-. -i • 000 Mos I__= ____ INEW11001 WIN - Inalwalm w__ -----s' — — IN - - In In — onion ::: was • _____II!IUIIUIIMJU!I ON = IN ON all 01 _ ::::::: mamma lmlmm~ _____ __________ , 1 NONE____ 55::-__ :::: I __ azzing ___ 161K I•_I.__R__ U_____ , low Ir.1111111110 ...MIEN M ..a......EMMUM. -mmmmm IMEWIN MEMNON .:::: NOW milli s211m maziin • -- _- - - L. WMEMEMEMO _____ am = 100 50 10.0 5.0 110 . 0.1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MIILIIIETEES SAMPLE CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOL - *LL *PI 1 -4 SiltyclaLjcu) 60 39 1 -6 S 11 tyciayJçH) 88 64 2 -9 Si1tyçjy() 37 15 4 -1 Sand yclay (CL) --..._ 36 -- 10 4 -5 Sandysilt(ML) 7 - 1 Silty clay(CH) -56 . 30 *LL = Liquid Limit PI = Plasticity Index GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES PLAZA CAMINO REAL AA1-87 OPAWNOY ALS I_cHEcKEooY;lfpnoJEcTNa:75_173 _DATE: 9...i_75Irb0 E NO: 22 Mesh Opening - ins. Sieve Sizes lIydreter An..)ysjs - - I I 0 I • • •I I ..I I I 10 20. 30 0 UI qo U, ce — 50 ffi C.) UI 0- 60 70 80 90 100 0.01 0.005 0.001 GRAVEL I Coarse Fine SAND SILT and CLAY I] Fara1ed urn 1 Mesh Opening - Steve Sizes Hydr0m9t0r Analysiss I— I - 4 • Il I I ;, I I II ••l•• —____,j&11II_I_ ,:i:::__ :i::____ - - - LA M SON Now I M INS Is MM low MM in 1101 w I so an a BE M M= _ TI '. iu•s. ___a Imma MMMM b Mm _. -- 0 MM man _____ - 211011! NONE: M MMOMM 1101 age somas M AM ~i II•N ____ -_____ _ _-=- - _____------ --__________ ______ i• --,____ — II I II I I I II $1 P44 III S SAMPLE CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOL - *11- SRI 8 -1 silty sand (SM) -- 11 -1 Silty clay(CII) - 50 29 12 -1 Clayey sand - 13 -silty to c1aLsnd (SM-SC) -- B Sil ty to clayey sand (Si1-SC) -- -- *11 = Liquid Limit Plasticity Index [ GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES -- 03 PLAZA CAMINO REAL AA1-88 DRAWN DY;/\LS JCHECKEDUYff PROJCTPJo:75-173 DATE:•9-4-75 _FIGURE No- 23 PLASTICITY CHARACTERISTICS 12-1 Liquid Limit. % 31 Plasticity Index. % 13 Classficatiori by Unified Soil Classification System Sc [COBBLES I..QL 'EL II SAND J sir CLAYJ 100. V Vfl , __V • U z 80 150 AIR VOIDS CURVES —2.80 SC - 2.70 SC 2.60 SC —2.50 SC 60 a. w 40 C., w a. 20 0 1000 100 10 1.0 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE, mm V MECHANICAL. ANALYSIS 130 DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA 12-1 Dry Density. pcf 111.4 Initial Water Content, % 11,6 Final Water Content. 17.9 Apparent Cohesion, p5i fl 0 Apparent Friction Angle, degrees 20 SWELL TEST DATA Initial Dry lensity, pcf Initial Water Content, % Final Dry Density, pet Final Water Content, V Load, psf Swell, percent 9C I I I I I J \ Maximum Dry 121V - Oensity,pcf 124,0 Optimum Moisture Content, % 11.5 80 1 V I I I I MOISTURE CONTENT. % 0 10 20 30 LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST 40 LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST METHOD: ASTM U 157-70 V 0 I FILL SUITABILITY TESTS I PLAZA CAMINO REAL LOItAWN BY: MS I PROJECTNO 75-173 DATE 9-4-75 F$0Ur?c? 24 60 50 0.- 40 Ui 130 10 7 LI 0 NAM regaw PA. E, H~ 0 0 0 0 - ~=WMKM SEEM, 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 IXI Ito LlQtJtci LIMIT, LL PLASTICITY CHART. For Classification of Fi ne - Oralned Soils in Unified System Legend Cl. Inorganic clay of low to medium plasticity. CM Inorganic clay of high plasticity. ML Inorganic silt of low plasticity. 1411 Inorganic soil of high plasticity. CL Organic slit or clay of low plasticity. ON Organic clay of high plasticity, $14 Silty sand. SC Clayey sand. PLASTICITY CHART PLAZA CAMD1O REAL AA1-90 DflAWNOV ALSTCHECKED BVIIN PROJECT NO; 75-173 bAT: 9-4-75 IF1OUKENO 25 RESULTS OF LOADED SWELL TESTS Sample Number Initial - Final Pressure Expansion Dry Density Water Content * Saturat i or Dry Density Water Content * Saturation %% - pcf - % psf % of Initial Heigh 4-1 106.3 13.8 67 101.4 23.5 99 160 4.8 S Diameter of Samples: 1.94 inches *assumed specific gravity 2.65 Height of Samples: 029jnches LOADED SWELL TESTS PLAZA CAIIIMO REAL AM 01- DRAWN BY: AL S1 CHECKED BY: PROJECT NO: 75-173 J -DAT68-29-75 FOuRE NO: 26 SAMPLE 1-4 1 .24 1.16 1.08 I- 1.00 0.92 0 84 111111 Mhllull I 11111111 11111 1111111 11111111 11111 I 11111111 $1111 II oilrii'uuuiiiii 111111 uuli III iiiiuiiii 111111 liii II $1111111 ___I 111111 UIGLhUiiiH_11111111 ___ ___iIII1II1iEiIII_.1111111 ''•IIIIIIILHIIiiUII 1111111 0.1 1.0 10.0 100 PRESSURE - Tons per sq. ft. INITIAL DRY DENSITY, pcf 81 .5 SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF SOLIDS 2.80 flimAL WATER COWTthI, % 40.1 -INITIAL VOID RATIO,, e 1.15 INITIAL SATURATION, % ' 97.6 COMPRESSION INDEX, C, 0.340 FINAL DRY DENSITY, pcf 86.7 SWELL INDEX, C 0.094 FINAL WATER CONTENT, % 35•5 EFFECTIVE OVERBURDEN PRESS, P'0, tsf 1.5 FINAL SATURATION, 97.3 MAX. PAST PRESSURE, P, tsf .1 .6 CONSOLIDATION TEST PLAZA CAMINO REAL ,DRAWN BY. ALS I CEIECKEOBY$iPJ1 PROJECT NO: 75173 DATE: 9-4-75 FIGLJflENO: 2? p . 0,1 1.0 10.0 PRESSURE - Tons per sq. ft. 100 V oil I 111 11111111011111111 5!iiiIII11IIIO_11111111 - TUIIIUIIIMIIIIIII 11111111 11111111 11111111 1111111 11111111 1 IuI V ___ 1111111 11111 liii 11111111 ___hEll hI!IlI II 11111111 liii 9 I all 11111111 "!I1 1__11111111 1111111 V him 11111111 ... 2.2 2.0 1 .8 I- 1.6 • V 1.4 1') INITIAL DRY DENSITY, pcf 55.3 SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF SOLIDS 2.76 INITIAL WATER CONTENT. % 78.1 INITIAL VOID RATIO, e0 2.12 INITIAL SATURATION, % 100 COMPRESSION INDEX, C 0.93 FINAL DRY DENSITY, pcf 64.4 SWELL INDEX. C 0.23 FINAL WATER CONTENT, % - 60.8 - IEFFECTIVE OvEaBURDEN PRESS, P'0, tsf FINAL SATURATION, % 1 99.7 MAX. PAST PRESSURE, PC, tsf 1.3 I V CONSOLIDATION TEST 0 PLAZA CAMINO REAL V AA1-93 DRAWYN ILS 1 CHECICEOBY: PROJECT No- 75_173 J OATE: 9_4..75 jFIOuH NO: 28 SAMPLE 2 - 7 0.78 Po 0.76 eo 074 0.72 0.70 0.68 0.66 0.64 0.62 0.60 0.58 0.56 0.01 0.1 1.0 10.0 PRESSURE - Tons per sq. ft. INITIAL DRY DENSITY, pcf 954 SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF SOLIDS 767 INITIAL WATER CONTENT,_ 30.0 INITIAL. VOID RATIO, e0 0.75 INITIAL SATURATION, S - 100 - COMPRESSION INDEX, C,. 0.114 FINAL DRY DENSITY, pcf - 101 .8 ISWELL INDEX, C 0.031 FINAL WATER CONTENT, % _25.4 EFFECTIVE OVERBURDEN PRESS, P'0, tsf 2.56 - FINAL SATURATION, ? 100 MAX. PAST PRESSURE. P, tsf 0.79 [ CONSOLIDATION TEST L PLAZA CAMINO REAl AAI-94 IDRAWN BY: J1.S I cHEcKED BY' WWI PROJECT NO: 75-173 bATE: 9-4-75 IFiGURENO: 29 VPAN to jib Project No. 75-173 . ATTACWENT I Page lof2 (M=Q TESTING ENGINEERS — SAN DIEGO 3467 KURTZ ST., P.O. BOX 80985. SAN DIEGO. CA 9Z138 (714) 225.064* LABORATORY NUMBER sD30-3795 Job No. 1086 DATE August 8, 1975 JOB DATA Plaza Camino Real Expansion SAMPLE DATA Job No. 75-173) SIN ' 11-1, Woodward-Clyde Consultants Boring #11. Sample submitted to the 3467 Kurtz Street laboratory August 1., 1975. San Diego, California 92110 R. VALUE DATA GRAflING ANALYSIS A B C 0 COMPACTOR PREss. P.S.I. As 80 50 130 PERCENT PASSING MOIST @ COMPACTION. 25.8 27.1 23. DENSITY :Ø1CU.Fr. 96.2 92.8 99.3 R.VALUE. STADILOMETER - 8 5 15 tXuo, PRESSURE . P.S.I. 310 230 570 S STAB THICK . FEET EXPAN. PRESS. THICK-FEET 0.13 0.3.3 0.50 T. 1. (ASSUMED) zD -4. By STAB. @ 300 P.S.I. E*uo. g BY EXPANSION PRESSURE = AT EQUILIBRIUM = 8 6 ........ - . EQUIVALENT = SAND EQUIVALENT -- --.----. -- - ---.--- -- D4JI1A*JILITY (COARSE) = _______ LIQUID LIMIT DURABILITY (FINE) = . PLASTIC LIMn- 'Co - ----==----== . --- MARKS Ice. CSTING ENGINEERS. IN TUG: rm flY . . -. Thomas 11. iaj*ini/S, I4912882 E APPENDIX D Liquefaction Analysis 0 II 1 S=1.191n. Saturated Unsaturat. - LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Westfield Plaza Camino Real Hole No.=CPTI Water Depth=13 ft Surface Elev.=29 Magnitude=7. 14 Acceleratlon=0..33g Shear Stress Ratio Factor of Safety Settlement (ft) 0 5 01 5 fl 'in I In I IL- - -I I Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential U 30 45 60 75 90 I I-105 Leighton 803522-001 Plate D-1 AA1-97 S=1.03in. Saturated - Unsaturat. - LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Westfield Plaza Camino Real Hole No.=CPT-2 Water Depth=13 ft Surface Elev.=29 Magnitude=7. 14 Acceleration=.33g Shear Stress Ratio Factor of Safety Settlement 0 5 0 1 5 0(in.) 10 -. F-' 30 1— 45 I— 60 —75 E —90 I - Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential 2 u. —105 -a —15 Leighton 603522-001 Plate D-2 AA1-98 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Westheld Plaza Camino Real Hole No.=CPT-3 Water Depth=13 ft Surface Elev.=29 Magnitude=7. 14 Acceleratlon=.33g Shear Stress Ratio Factor of Safety Settlement 0 5 01 5 0(in.) 1 —15 —30 —45 —60 - 7c - Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential —90 -105 0.11 In. Saturated - Unsaturat. - Leighton . 603522-001 Plate U AA1-99 Saturated - Unsaturat. LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Westfield Plaza Camino Real Hole No.=CPT-4 Water Depth=13 ft Surface Elev.=29 Magnitude=7.14 Acceleration=.33g Shear Stress Ratio Factor of Safety Settlement (ft). 0 5 01 5 0(ln.) 1 El I I 20 10 - 50 H rn '00 11 - fs: F CRR - CSR fs1i 462 - - Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential —120 —140 Leighton - 603522001 Plate D-4 AA1-100 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Westfield Plaza Camino Real Hole No.=CPT5 Water Depth=26 ft Surface Elev.=45 Magnitude=7. 14 AcceIeration0.33g Shear Stress Ratio Factor of Safety Settlement 0 5 01 5 0(in.) 1 1-30 I I F 1— 45 I— 60 1-75 Leighton. 603522-001 . Plate D-5 AA1-1O1 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Westfield Plaza Camino Real Hole No. =CPT8 Water Depth=22 ft Surface Elev.=43 Magnitude=7. 14 Acceleration=0.33g • Shear Stress Ratio a Factor of Safety Settlement (fl)0, - 5 0 1 5 0(in.) 1 I I I I I I III I I I I I I I I ii -10 —20 T° I, —40 —50 —60 fsl 1 fS2 1.00 S0.63in. CRR - CSR fs1. fs2 - - Saturated Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential Unsaturat. - -70 UVLVU I ruaie u-o AA1-102 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Westfield Plaza Camino Real Hole No.=CPT9 Water Depth=16 ft Surface Elev.=29 Magnitude=7.14 Acceleration=033g Shear Stress Ratio Factor of Safety Settlement (ft) 0 5 01 5 0(in.) 10 20 F- ---. - -- 40 50 30 00 -- fol fs1 1.00 CRR - CSR fs fs2 - Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential 120 S= 1.04 in. Saturated - Unsaturat. - Leighton 603522-001 Plate 0-7 AA1-103 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Westfield Plaza Camino Real 4 Hole No.=CPTI2 Water Depth=18 ft Surface Elev.=29 Magnitude=7. 14 Acceleration=0.33g Shear Stress Ratio Factor of Safety Settlement LNo 0 5 0 5 0(in.) I I - r I I I I IuIiiiii,Tr - - —20 -- -40 - - rx —60 —80 - -_- - ___ -100 -- E 8 - 77 1500 -- .--- --.., S0.36In. - CRR— csR ts—fs2— - Saturated - 120Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential Unsaturat. 3- -140 I -- - - - riae u-o AA1-104 Acceleratlon=0.33g Factor of Safety Settlement 5 01 5 0(ln.) 10 ff-FTT-l' ~ d I I I I I I I I I I . Shear Stress Ratio 15 30 45 60 —75 1.19 in. Saturated —; Unsaturat. —90 -105 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Westheld Plaza Camino Real Hole No. =CPTI3 Water Depth=15 ft Surface Elev=29 Magnitude7 14 I Leighton 603522-001 Plate D-9 AA1 -105 APPENDIX E General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 11 AA1-106 LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 1.0 General 1.1 Intent These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s). 1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ the Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The Geotechnical Consultants shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading. Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing. During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required. Subsurface areas to be geotechnically observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground after it has been cleared for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial removal" areas, all key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill. The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to determine the attained level of compaction. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis. -1- AA1-107 LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 1.3 The Earthwork Contractor S The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the plans and specifications. The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware of all grading operations. The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. 2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled 2.1 Clearing and Grubbing Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant. The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent of organic matter. Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed. I -2- AA1-108 LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area. As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed. 2.2 Processing Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction. 2.3 Overexcavation In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. 2.4 Benching Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see the Standard Details for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill. 2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant S -3- LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications priOr to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches. 3.0 Fill Material 3.1 General Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material. 3.2 Oversize Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction. 3.3 Imort If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the requirements of Section 3.1. The potential import source shall be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed. 4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction 4.1 Fill Layers Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout. -4- AA1 -110 LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum. Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method D1557). 4.3 Compaction of Fill After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity. 4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method D1557. 4.5 Compaction Testing Field-tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches). 4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met S. -5- AA1-111 LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 4.7 Compaction Test Locations to The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided. 5.0 Subdrain Installation Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys. 6.0 Excavation Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. 7.0 Trench Backfills 7.1 Safety The Contractor shall follow all OSHA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations. -6- AA1-112 LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 7.2 Bedding and Backfill All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be performed in accordance with the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over the top of the conduit and densified. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of 90 percent of relative compaction from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface. The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill. 7.3 Lift Thickness • Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method. 7.4 Observation and Testing The densification of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant. ALL SLOPE PROJECTED PLANE 1: 1 (HORIZONTAL: VERTICAL) MAXIMUM FROM TOE : I!U OF SLOPE TO --: -:-- APPROVED GROUND :- REMOVE EXISTING -- UNSUITABLE GROUND SURFACE JBENCH I lIBENCHHHTMATERIM (4 FEET TYPICAL) 11.15 FEET MIN...I 2 FEET MIN. LOWEST KEY DEPTH BENCH (KEY) --------------- ALL-OVER-CUT SLOPE - :-FILL -~ EXISTING GROUND. SURFACE - I --:--- ---- - LBENCH HEIGHT I - (4 FEET TYPICAL) MIN 1 15 FEET MIN. - LOWEST REMOVE 2 FEET BENCH (KEY) UNSUITABLE - MIN. KEY MATERIAL DEPTH CUT FACE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT TO ALLOW VIEWING ,/,,- OF GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS GROUND CONSTRUCTED PRIOR CUT-OVER-FILL SLOPE SURFACE TO FILL PLACEMENT OVERBUILD AND TRIM BACK DESIGN SLOPE PROJECTED PLANE i.- 1 TO 1 MAXIMUM FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO APPROVED GROUND - - 15 FEET MIN. 2 FEET MIN- LOWEST KEY DEPTH BENCH (KEY) GENERAL EARTHWORK AND Awl KEYING AND.BENCHING GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAIL A .u.1_l 1t Ir -REMOVE UNSUITABLE I MATERIAL BENCH HEIGHT (4 FEET TYPICAL) BENCHING SHALL BE DONE WHEN SLOPES ANGLE IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 5:1. MINIMUM BENCH HEIGHT SHALL BE 4 FEET AND MINIMUM FILL WIDTH SHALL BE 9 FEET. vi S FINISH GRADE ------------------------ PE FACE ------------------------ ---------------- -------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- OVERSIZE WINDROW - - - —6°M e OVERSIZE ROCK IS LARGER THAN 8 INCHES IN LARGEST DIMENSION. -- -- EXCAVATE A TRENCH IN THE COMPACTED FILL DEEP ENOUGH TO BURY ALL THE ROCK. GRANULAR MATERIAL TO BE DENSIFIED IN PLACE BY DETAIL BACKFILL NTH GRANULAR SOIL JETTED FLOODING OR JETTING. OR FLOODED IN PLACE TO FILL ALL THE VOIDS. DO NOT BURY ROCK WITHIN 10 FEET OF FINISH GRADE. WINDROW OF BURIED ROCK SHALL BE PARALLEL TO THE FINISHED SLOPE. GRANULAR MATERIAL TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW OVERSIZE ROCK GENERAL EARTHWORK AND DISPOSAL GRADING SPECI FICATIONS ' _—EXISTING GROUND SURFACE / 2e 17 -CQMPACTED FILL . II- - w-'• WI REMOVE BENCHING UNSUIT ABLE AL SUBDRAIN TRENCH SEE DETAIL BELOW FILTER FABRIC (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED E4 EQUIVALENT)' OV CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE . 6" MIN. OR #2 ROCK (9FT"3/FT) WRAPPED ... COVER IN FILTER FABRIC / : f .:".:• BEDDING COLLECTOR PIPE SHALL 0 BE MINIMUM 6" DIAMETER SCHEDULE 40 PVC PERFORATED PIPE. SEE STANDARD DETAIL 0 FOR PIPE SPECIFICATIONS SUBDRAIN DETAIL I ul DES GRADE IGN FINISH 10' MIN FILTER FABRIC BACKFILL "(MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED COMPACTED FILL EQUIVALENT) ------------- __--CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE :• : :""OR IN FILTER 2 ROCK - WRAPPED I 20 MIN 5 MIN 6PERFORATED " øMIN. PIPE NONPERFORATED 6"0 MIN. DETAIL OF CANYON SUBDRAIN OUTLET GENERAL EARTHWORK AND CANYON SUBDRAINS GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAIL C AM—I 10 ul - 15' MIN. OUTLET PIPES . 4 0 NONPERFORATED PIPE r 100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY. 1 A 30 MAX D.C.VERTICALLY FLATTEROR - - BENCH -------- EE SUBDRAIN TRENCH ---------------- TAIl --------- --- -------------------------- - --------- - LOWEST SUBDRAIN SHOULD BE SITUATED AS LOW AS POSSIBLE TO ALLOW SUITABLE OUTLET KEY WIDTH AS KEY DEPTH NOTED ON ' GRADING PLANS 12* MIN. OVERLAP KEY DEPTH DEPTH 1 (2 MIN.) RING TIED EVERY I 6 FEET I 1—CONNECTION I FOR COLLECTOR CALTRANS CLASS II PIPE TO OUTLET PIPE PERMEABLE OR fl2 ROCK (3 FT'3/17T) WRAPPED IN FILTER ',l 6" MIN. FABRIC ". .1 COVER .. •. 4•0 V OO N—PERFORATED UTLET PIPE _ /j P PIPE ERFORATED T__4"MIN. BEDDING PROVIDE POSITIVE FILTER FABRIC SEAL AT THE ENVELOPE (MIRAFI JOINT 140 OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT) SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAIL SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION - subdrain collector pipe shall be installed with perforation down or. unless otherwise designated by the geotechnicol Consultant. Outlet pipes shall be non—perforated pipe. The subdroin pipe shall hove at least 8 perforations uniformly spaced per foot. Perforation shall be 1/4" to 1/2" if drill holes are used. All subdroin pipes shall have a gradient of at least 2% towards the outlet. SUBDRAIN PIPE - Subdrain pipe shall be ASTM 02751. SDR 23.5 or ASTM D1527, Schedule 40. or ASTM 03034, SDR 23.5, Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic (PVC) pipe. All outlet pipe shall be placed in a trench no wider than twice the subdrain pipe. .0 BUTTRESS OR Af' GENERAL EARTHWORK AND REPLACEMENT GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FILL SUBDRAINS STANDARD DETAIL D .49 1 CUT-FILL TRANSITION LOT OVEREXCAVATION REMOVE UNSUITABLE - GROUND-V ' - - - - 5 MIN.' TYPICAL AND RECOMPACT BENCHING - -I UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR MATERIAL APPROVED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT -___-- GENERAL EARTHWORK AND TRANSITION LOT FILLS GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAIL AA 1-il 3 S r-m SOIL BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION BASED ON ASTM 01557 -:-:-:-:-:-:-x-:-:-:-:-:- 2" TYP.:-:-:-:-y RETAINING WALL-. ------------- WALL WATERPROOFING I:06 0 . ii ( FILTER MIRI S PER ARCHITECT'S PECIFICATIONS F 140N OR APPROVED ABRIC ENVELOPE , 0 EQUIVALENT)-- I i MIN 3/4' TO 1-1/2" CLEAN GRAVEL . -- FINISH GRADE 4 (MIN.) DIAMETER PERFORATED / PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR / 0 -:-:-:-:• EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS ORIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTED CQMPACTE FILL,, I : I MINIMUM 1 PERCENT GRADIENT TO SUITABLE OUTLET. ----------------- L_ 3- MIN. WALL FOOTING-- COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT NOTE: UPON REVIEW BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT, COMPOSITE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS MIRADRAIN OR J-DRAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GRAVEL OR CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL.' INSTALLATION SHOULD BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. RETAINING WALL GENERAL EARTHWORK AND DRAINAGE GRADING SPECIFICATIO STANDARD DETAIL F NS 401 ALl 111 ACTIVE ZONE n GRAVEL— DRAINAGE FILL MIN 6 BELOW WALL MIN 12" BEHIND UNITS NOTES: 1) MATERIAL GRADATION AND PLASTICITY FILTER E . . . . . . . . . REINFORCED RETAINED / :i_---ZONE ---------------ZONE / I /BACKDRAIN / TO7O%OF f WALL HEIGHT -FILTER FABRIC CL —WALL SUBDRAIN REAR SUBDRAIN: 4" (MIN) DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS DOWN. SURROUNDED BY 1 CU. FT/FT OF 3/4" GRAVEL WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC (MIRAFI 140N OR EQUIVALENT) OUTLET SUBDRAINS EVERY 100 FEET, OR CLOSER, BY TIGHTLINE TO SUITABLE PROTECTED OUTLET I FOUNDATION SOILSI REINFORCED ZONE: SIEVE SIZE % PASSING 1 INCH 100 GRAVEL DRAINAGE SIEVE SIZE 1 INCH FILL: % PASSING 100 NO.4 20-100 3/4 INCH 75-100 NO. 40 0-60 NO. 4 0-60 NO. 200 0-35 NO. 40 0-50 FOR WALL HEIGHT < 10 FEET, PLASTICITY INDEX < 20 NO. 200 0-5 FOR WALL HEIGHT 10 TO 20 FEET, PLASTICITY INDEX < 10 FOR TIERED WALLS, USE COMBINED WALL HEIGHTS WALL DESIGNER TO REQUEST SITE-SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR WALL HEIGHT >20 FEET CONTRACTOR TO USE SOILS WITHIN THE RETAINED AND REINFORCED ZONES THAT MEET THE STRENGTH REQUIREMENTS OF WALL DESIGN. GEOGRID REINFORCEMENT TO BE DESIGNED BY WALL DESIGNER CONSIDERING INTERNAL, EXTERNAL, AND COMPOUND STABILITY. 3) GEOGRID TO BE PRETENSIONED DURING INSTALLATION. IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE ACTIVE ZONE ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO POST-CONSTRUCTION SETTLEMENT. ANGLE c-45+ct'/2, WHERE co IS THE FRICTION ANGLE OF THE MATERIAL IN THE RETAINED ZONE. BACKDRAIN SHOULD CONSIST OF J-DRAIN 302 (OR EQUIVALENT) OR 6-INCH THICK DRAINAGE FILL WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC. PERCENT COVERAGE OF BACKDRAIN TO BE PER GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW. GRADING SPECIFICATIONS SEGMENTAL GENERAL EARTHWORK AND 4 RETAINING WALLS STANDARD DETAIL G Appendix F, Vertical Capacities M1-122 IM fl(iID ucuIc,o : ii ,Ju!ciA — — •'-:. _4 _ 001 Ub us UL 09 Uc OP Oz (sum) su's1sanhloj '-3 tdb fl L ~Im Appendix F, LPile Analysis I I AA1-124 W Lateral Deflection (inches) -0.1 0 Di 0.2 0.3 04 0.5 06 0.7 0.8 09 1 liii 0 C 1• 0 ~m Shear Force (kips) -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 0 U•) 0 N CIDH 2 ft DIA AA1-126 Bending Moment (in-kips) -7000 -6000 -5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 a LO 0 ('1 C u, CL a C3 U, c) 0 U, 0 CIDH 2.6 ft DIA AA1-128 Lateral Deflection (inches) -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 07 0.8 0.9 0 0 IE Shear Force (kips) -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 '100 110 120 0 IlIIIlIIIIllIIITIIIlIIIIlIIITIIIIllIIIlIIllWIIIIlIltII.I'lutIl!.ItIIluIII,ItlJ1 0 C.,' v Case I a Case 2 Case 3 Bending Moment (in-kips) -1.2E4 -1E4 -8000 -6000 4000 -2000 0 2000 4000 - 11c ii I I ii! I I 1, 1 iii CV to 1. 1 - - vCasel oCe2 Case3 CIDH 2.5 ft DIA AA1 -130 Shear Force (kips) -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 iii 1 III! /_____ v Case l o Case 2 0 • Case3 In CIDH 3ftOIA AA1-132 [I Bending Moment (in-kips) -1.8E4 -1.6E4 -1.4E4 -1.2E4 -1E4 -8000 -6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000 S CIDH3ftDIA Lateral Deflection (inches) S 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 a liii III 11111111 'liii liii 111.1 liii tn / 04 v Case l o Case 2 A Case 3 CIDH 3.5ftDlA AA1-134 Shear Force (kips) -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0 CV CL . 0 0 0 () 0 Bending Moment (in-kips) -3E4 -25E4 -2E4 -1.5E4 -1E4 -5000 0 5000 1E4 04 77 In. \ _ • ___ _ .• __________ __ - vCasel aCase2 - • • ACase3 CI0H3.5ftDIA rl AA1-136 KI Lateral Deflection (inches) -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0 0 CIDH 4ftDlA AA1-137 0 c'J Shear Force (kips) -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 S CIDH4ftDIA AA1-138 Bending Moment (in-kips) -4E4 -3.5E4 -3E4 -2.5E4 •2E4 -1.5E4 -1E4 -5000 0 5000 1E4 I I I I I I I I I. I I I I I I" I I I I I I 1 I I' i, I •I I Ln c'1 0 Cl) 10 (I) 0 10 0 APPENDIX G ASFE Geotechnical Insert ~m [1 Important Information Rhoul Your Geotechnical Engineering Report Geoteclmical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi- neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnicai engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one - not even you -should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, composition of the design team, or project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes—even minor ones—and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. - time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnic,al engineering Subsurface conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. reportwhose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by Do not read selected elements only. man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific fac- tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: not prepared for you, not prepared for your project, not prepared for the specific site explored, or completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi- neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ—sometimes significantly— from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi- neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual AM- subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. A GeotechNlcal Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo- technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors car also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstructior conferences, and by providing construction observation. lie Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con- tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac- tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled limitations many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi- bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvlronmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviroii- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvi ron mental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoenvi- ronmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk manage- ment guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com- prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not mold prevention consultant; none of the services per- formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for the puipose of mold preven- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in thLc report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold (rem growing in or on the structure involved. Rely on Your ASif-Member GeotechNlcal Engineer for Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE/The Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with your ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. ASFE THE GEOPROFESSIONAL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tcicphonc: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017 e-mail: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org Copyright 2004 byASFE Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part by any means whatmver Is sti'icifyproltibfted, except wIthASFEk specific written permission. Exceipting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of AK and only for purposes of scholarly research or book ivwew. Only members 0MSFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geoteclinical engineering report Any other film, Individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be committing negligent or Intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. AA1-142 IlGEROl 115.OMRP Ilk- GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE LETTER THE SHOPPES AT CARLSBAD PHASE II RENOVATION AND CHEESECAKE FACTORY CARSLBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: ROUSE PROPERTIES 1114 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2800 New York, NY 10036-7703 Project No. 603522.003 July 14, 2016 wmt Leighton Consulting, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY AA1-143 Leighton Consulting, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY July 14, 2016 Project No. 603522.003 ROuse Properties 1114 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2800 New York, NY 10036-7703 Attention: Mr. Sean O'Brien Subject: Proposal for Geotechnical Update Report The Shoppes at Carlsbad Phase II Renovation and Cheesecake Factory Carlsbad, California Introduction In accordance with your request, we have prepared an update letter with recommendations for the proposed Phase II Renovation and Cheesecake Factory at The Shoppes at Carlsbad redevelopment located in Carlsbad, California. (Figure 1). The purpose of our geotechnical update study was to explore and evaluate the existing geotechnical conditions of the subject site, review the referenced geotechnical report (Leighton, 2013), update geotechnical foundation and seismic design parameters per the 2013 California Building Code (CBSC, 2013), and to provide appropriate conclusions and additional recommendations, as necessary for the proposed improvements 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 8205 a San Diego, CA 92123-4425 858.569.6914 • Fax 858.292.0771 a www.leightong,pi I 603522.003 Existing Site Conditions Based on our understanding of the site conditions, recent site observations, and review of the referenced geotechnical documents, the geotechnical conditions of the subject site have not changed. Therefore, it is our professional opinion that the geotechnical recommendations presented in the referenced geotechnical report (Leighton, 2013) are still applicable for its intended use, provided the following recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction of the proposed improvements. Based on a review of the Phase II expansion plans and discussions with the project structural engineer (Thornton Tomaselli, 2016), the existing column foundations will be utilized during renovation of the existing mall structure. The original structural plans by Krumm & Sorenson Architect and Winter Shay Associates indicates the existing column foundations (i.e., constructed in 1968, 48 years old) at the Phase II renovation range from 6- to 7-foot squares with a footing thickness of 18 to 20 inches thickness at a minimum depth of 36 inches below finish floor elevation. The existing column foundations (i.e., constructed in 1978, 38 years old) at the Cheesecake Factory renovation range from 5- to 8-foot squares with a footing thickness of 14 to 24 inches at a minimum depth of 36 inches. Proposed Improvements W. ' It is our understanding that the proposed improvements will consist of primarily of renovations to existing structural elements across an existing portions of the mall building. The proposed renovation will consist of reconfiguring retail and new restaurant space with associated improvements. It is our understanding that additional live loads are required at the proposed restaurant space from 75 psf to 100 psf, which constitutes an 11 percent increase. In addition, new conventional footings are anticipated for support of new structural loads. The approximate location of the proposed Phase II renovation area and the proposed Cheesecake Factory are located at the eastemsouth-central and eastern north-central portion of the Shoppes at Carlsbad, respectively, as delineated on the Geotechnical Map (Figure 2). Site Coordinates . . . . Latitude: N33.1779 . . Longitude: WI 17.3306 . 603522.003 C1. . Site-Specific Geology. Based on our subsurface exploration, review of as-graded documents and review of pertihent geologic literature and maps, the geologic units underlying the site consist of artificial fill soils, Quaternary-aged Alluvium, and the Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation. Brief descriptions of the geologic units present on the site are presented in the following sections. Artificial.Fill (Afu) 0 The majority of the proposed site consists of a previously filled alluvial area. Prior to placement of the compacted fills, alluvial soils were removed to approximately 1.5 to 2.5 'feet below 'the existing grades. Fills were reported to have been derived primarily from excavations from existing cut slope in the southern portion of The Shoppes at Carlsbad site. To improve stability of the alluvial soils to support construction traffic, granular soil was reportedly mixed into the existing subgrade soils prior to fill placement. Low to medium expansive soils reused as compacted fill were reported at pad grade elevation. Fill soils encountered in previous and recent explorations at the site were described as silty sand with gravel, silty sand with clay, silty sand with traces of clay and gravel. After placement of fill, the alluvial areas placed 15- to 20-foot-surcharge fill that was monitored until settlement was essentially complete. Quaternary-Aged Alluvium (Qal) Alluvium is present beneath the compacted fill throughout the majority portions of the site. The alluvium is considered to be saturated and increases in depth from south to north across the site. The extent of depths of alluvial material near the proposed site ranges from 15 feet in the North West to 27 feet east of the site. The materials that comprise the alluvial materials were predominantly clayey with discontinuous interbedded layers of sands and silty sands to sandy silts. Tertiary-Aged Santiago Formation The Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation is considered to be present beneath the alluvial soils and directly below the fill in the eastern portion of the site. As encountered' in previous site investigations, the materials were damp to moist, dense to very dense silty sand to clayey sand. The extent of depths to this material near the proposed site ranges from 8 feet North West of the site to 20 feet in the southeast. S -3- - Leighr146 603522.003 Conclusions and Recommendations Based on our recent site visit, review of the proposed improvements, review of the project geotechnical report (Leighton, 2013), it is our professional opinion that the conclusions and recommendations in the referenced geotechnical report are still considered applicable and should be adhered to during the design and construction phase of this project unless superseded by recommendations presented below. The following recommendations should supersede those presented in our referenced report (attached as Appendix B). 2013 CBC Seismic Design Parameters The following seismic design parameters for the site are the risk-targeted spectral acceleration parameters for the-project determined in accordance with the 2013 CBC and the USGS Seismic Design Map Web Application (Version 3.1.0). Table 1 2013 CBC Seismic Design Parameters Site Class Site Coefficients Fa = 1.056 F !______1'572 Mapped MCE Spectral Accelerations L = Site Modified MCE Spectral SMS = 1.173g Accelerations SM1 = 0.672g Design Spectral Accelerations SOS 0.782g S01 = 0.448g Utilizing ASCE Standard 7-10, in accordance with Section 11.8.3, the following additional parameters for the peak horizontal ground acceleration are associated with the Geometric Mean Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCEG). The mapped MCEG peak ground acceleration (PGA) is 0.432 for the site. For a. Site Class 0, the FPGA is 1.068 and the mapped ground acceleration adjusted for Site Class effects (PGAM) is 0.461g for the site. . ... 603522.003 Grading Recommendations For areas to receive fill or new structural improvements, limited remedial grading (i.e., removals and recompaction) will be required. In general, removal depths are recommended to be a minimum of 2 feet below the proposed footings or improvements subgrade. The bottom of all removals should be evaluated by a Certified Engineering Geologist to confirm conditions are as anticipated. Areas to receive fill and/or surface improvements should be scarified and moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and recompacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method 01557). All new fill soils should be moisture conditioned to above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum-dry density. Leighton should observe and test all fill placement during grading and observe footing excavations prior to concrete placement to confirm that the soil conditions are as anticipated. Grading should be performed in accordance with the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading in Appendix E of the attached geotechnical report (Leighton, 2013). cle Evaluation of Existing Foundations In our review of the original structural foundation plans (Krumm and Sorenson Architects), we found that the existing column foundations within the Phase II renovation area range from 6 to 7 feet in width and have a minimum embedment depth of 36 inches below finish floor. The existing column foundations within the Cheesecake Factory renovation area range from 5 to 8 feet in width and have a minimum embedment depth of 36 inches below finish floor. Given the age of the existing footings (i.e., consolidation/densification of underlying bearing soils due to historical loading of at least 38 years) and thesize of the footings along with a minimum embedment depth of 3 feet, we are of the opinion that an!allowable bearing capacity of 4,500 pounds per - - - - :'---------- fOotingsr - - • •-- • U -5- Leig%nl 148 603522.003 ( New Foundations and Slab-on-Grade Floors For new foundations and slab-on-grade floors recommendations outlined below, we assume that they will be underlain by properly compacted fill having a very low to medium expansion potential (i.e., an expansion index of less than 70). If highly expansive soils are encountered, additional foundation design may be necessary. The new structural loads may be supported by new- conventional continuous or isolated spread footingsThe footings should extend a5ijjLmum of 24 beneath the lowest adjacent finish grade. Foundation may be designed for ,a maximum allowable, bearing pressure of 3500JpQ per square foot (psO if founcied. in.properIycompactedfiIlsoils .4. .. -. overalluvium, and c5,Qpoundsper__squarefoot (psf) if founded in properlycompacted The limits of alluvial material and Santiago Formation a}é depicted on ite geotéchnical map (Figure 2). The IlbIessürés-ma'-be. - - - .-.- .- ireased:byne-third when .cong loads• qf ordurahon suchas wind orseismic. ,-- ----, fOrces:—The minimum recommended width of footings is 18 inches for continuous footings and 24 inches for square or round footings, if used. - The recommended allowable bearing capacity for spread footings is based on a maximum allowable total and differential settlement of 1-inch and 3/4-inch, respectively. . Since settlements are functions of footing size and contact bearing pressures, some differential settlement can be expected between adjacent columns, where large differential loading conditions exist. With increased footing depth to width ratios, differential settlement should be less. An additional post-liquefaction 1/2 inch over a distance of 25 feet should be allowed for in the design of the structure (i.e., an angular distortion of 1/600). Slab-on-grade floors should be at least 5 inches thick and reinforced with a minimum of No. 3 rebars at 18 inches on center each way, placed at mid height in the slab. Slabs should be underlain by a 2-inch layer of clean sand or clean gravel. We emphasize that this is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the slab reinforcement is placed at slab mid-height. We recommend control joints be provided across the slab at appropriate intervals as designed by the project architect. U . - Leigh 149 .. / 603522 003 Geochemical Considerations Chloride content, minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed during our previous geotechnical investigation on representative samples of site soils. Based on the results, the site soils are potentially moderately corrosive to structural elements. Exoansive Soils Based upon our review of previous geotechnical reports, borings and CPT logs, the near surface fill soils (within the upper 10 to 15 feet) are expected to generally possess a low to medium expansion potential. Alluvial materials below, this zone are expected to range from low to highly expansive. Construction Observation The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design information and subsurface disclosed by widely spaced excavations. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked by Leighton Consulting, Inc. in the field during construction. Construction observation of all onsite excavations and field density testing ,,-.. of all compacted fill should be performed by a representative of this office. We recommend that all excavations be mapped by the geotechnical consultant during grading to determine if any potentially adverse geologic conditions exist at the site. Plan Review Final project foundation plans should be reviewed by Leighton Consulting, Inc. to ensure that recommendations in this report are incorporated in project plans. Limitations Our analyses and recommendations were based in part on data obtained from a limited number of observations, site visits, soil excavations, samples and tests. Such information is, by necessity, incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing soil or geologic conditions can be present within small distances and under varying climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. Therefore, our findings, conclusions and recommendations are based on the assumption that we (Leighton Consulting, Inc.) will provide geotechnical observation and testing during construction as the Geotechnical Engineer of Record for this project C 4 . Leigh 150 - - - - -- - 1J 603522.003 If you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of servicé. Respectfully submitted, DG L8GHTON CONSULTING, INC.ca CERTIFIED GEOLOGIST ENGINEERING I t. Mike D. Jensen, CEG 2457 Senior Project Geologist Attachments: Figure 1 - Site Location Map ( Figure 2 - Geotechnical Map Appendix A - References• Appendix B - Geotechnical Investigation, dated February 21, 2013 Distribution: (1) Digital Copy .A&La a William D. Olson, RCE 45283 Associate Engineer C 8- 40 Leighp151 1I1 Scale:1 =2000' .- O' A pprotmite Localtan 01 satag Eacavatian of Precious Lkeits of the Tap Of the Swc9elgo (Lllrop Crandall. V- Gactoctirelcol Repel (LeIb96 2012) —. 1969 and URS. 1975) - _ . .. -, ,•. -4 . . .' () 5 c A96ree9nete Lecitital, of 801th9 Encavation(Woodward GoateglaContact (cindod where bulled) - 1Afo l' - Z Clyde, 197s p.p of CPT sulgeotcwrenl '. aI.4'V.. -;_,: ..,- -: •. •4.35/ A and Previous seoteclrelcel Report (L.igtrto, I2) Afu older Artificial Pta (Leroy Cranda 1969) - . :- -- c--' - - -- -• - '" ' - ® AppMXIM2toLacallcnofPcrcotatlonTort 01 OuatenmaryAnm(&ctodoo.bu,1ed) - V'V - V S •-v isa qaFon—bon(citc V , J -'V '%-/ ,•;.fr/,,. - •l - __ 'V - / A CPT-9 ,4" I A" CPT.13 V - ••,VV'V VV / "i f I.. V 1 CPTII - ' I-CPT- 2 -'•. I—! CPTI - (__•_') MAI. Proposed Q/- Cheesecake F.F.,28- - B.I0 Factory Afo tX Afo Afo A _______________________ ri .A ... .., 'V •, CPT IS .', "act S22.003 9911210VWD0iMDJ GEOTECHNICAL MAP IfZaure2 Scale:I=IX' Oate:July20l8 ShoppesatCarlsbad Phase II Renovations Th_o_ V Carlsbad, California Lc.ghtan *.S...Vpt...l311rfl...lcJ1nt, SLOJI Thornton"TO mas etti Building Solutions AA2 - GPR Investigation Report [1 S LA AA2-1 UI 'GROUND PENETRATING RADAR SYSTEMS. INC. Tuesday, August 02, 2016 Thornton Tomasetti Site: The Shoppes at Carlsbad, Carlsbad, CA Attn: Adam Yala We appreciate the opportunity to provide this report for our work completed on 7/26/16 at the above address in Carlsbad, CA. Purpose The purpose of this scan was to scan for reinforcing ma total of 15 areas in a shopping mall to identify spacing, and possible size of reinforcing in beams and walls. Equipment Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), Manufacturer: GSSI, Model: SIR-3000 processing unit with 1500 MHz antenna. GPR works by sending pulses of energy into a material and recording the strength and the time required for the return of the reflected signal. Reflections are produced when the energy pulses enter into a material with different electrcial conduction properties from the material it left. The strength of the reflection is determined by the contrast in conductivity between the two materials. The total depth achieved can be as much as 18" with this antenna but can vary depending on the dielectric properties of the materials. For more information, please visit: http://www.geophysical.com/structurescanstandard.htm Process Our process begins with collecting scans with GPR across the areas in a grid pattern. Scans are collected from north to south and east to west to detect all reinforcing running in these directions. The GPR data is interpreted in real time and anomalies in the data were located and notes were taken to show the location of reinforcing. Findings While onsite, we scanned 3 areas on walls and 7 areas on beams throughout the mall. We were not able to scan 4 areas on the proposed plan due to access issues. While scanning the walls, we found they were approximately 10" thick with two mats of rebar with #5 or #6 rebar approximately 12" on center vertically and horisontally. These mats of rebar were staggered and not directly over top of one another. While scanning the beams to locate the sturrups, we found they were spaced approximately 9"-12" on center. We did notice that in some places, the spacing between sturrips was up to 36" apart. It was difficult to determine the size of the sturrips in these locations, but they were believed to be either #3 or #4. Photos and further explanations of these findings will be shown below. S Page lof9 flntri Cirovn chn tc qxg L(r,n•q T VT, Ipu RIIN'1OI' Vi%l I I1MItACI 4MIL'I% DISPLAY DE1'Ift The data screenshot shown above shows typical data we collected while scanning the beams onsite. This data shows a cross section of the beam, with the depth scale on the left and the distance scale across the top. This data was collected while scanning horizontally across the beams to locate the vertical stirrups. The blue arrows show the stirrups located in the beams. Throughout all beams scanned, the 144 — —' — . . reinforcing was generally R I consistent. j - , ç ' lay rtn •Ir DrPYU Page 2of9 AA-2-3 S The right side screenshot red box) shows found with a stirrup spacing. with large gaps spacing random and consistencies. of this data (shown in the on area we 36" gap in These areas in reinforcing seemed to be had no The above photo shows data collected while scanning horizontally across the wall. The spacing of this reinforcing was 10" to 12" and the wall was approximately 10" thick. 0 Page 3 of 9 Site Photos The following will shows areas scanned onsite reinforcing these areas. Wall area #1 &#2 photos that we and found in Page 4of9 L -- Beam areas #2 and #3 Page 6 of 9 S Beam area #4 Beam area #5 Page 7 of 9 I Page 8 of 9 Beam area #6 F-j Beam area #7 Closing Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this project. I hope this report has answered all the questions you had regarding this survey. However, if there is anything you feel was omitted, or have questions about, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you, James Petersen Project Manager-Southern California GPRS, Inc. Direct: 909.609.5265 Fax: 419-843-5829 james.petersen@gp-radar.com www.gp-radar.com ~A Thornton"TOM asotti Building Solutions AA3 - Field Report [I AA3-1 Thornton Tomasetti PROJEtJFNO S16012.00 PROJECT The Shoppes at Carlsbad NAME PROJECT LOCATION San Diego, CA Field Report. 1 DATE August 8, 2016 FROM Aaron Beebe TITLE Vice President The following comments and observations are based upon a cursory review of the work only, and are not intended to be all inclusive. Project Site Contacts: Kendra (Rouse Properties) Site Conditions: 80° F and sunny Observations: 1) Destructive Concrete Testing Existing joists have #3 ties at 9" oc typically and match GPR testing results. (see photos 1-4) Existing concrete walls have #5@10" oc vertical each face and #4@10" oc horizontal each face and match GPR testing results. (see photos 5-6) Activities: 1) None. Outstanding Items: 1) None Discussions: 1) None . END OF REPORT 925 Fort Stockton Drive, Suite 200 I San Diego CA 92103 I T 619.550.5900 I www.ThorntonTomasetti.com . AA3-2 . ThortOtTOñiSetti Field Report 1 0 IT Project: S16012 The Shoppes at Carlsbad, San Diego, CA August 8, 2016 Page 2 Photo 1: Joist Location I Photo 2: Joist Location 2 AA3-3 S F- I C ThorntOn TOmaséfti Field Report 1 U Project: S16012 The Shoppes at Carlsbad, San Diego, CA August 8, 2016 Page 3 C * Photo 3: Joist Location 3 Photo 4: 4: Joist Location 4 AA3-4 MorntonTbgfikidtfi Field Report 1 IT Project: S16012 The Shoppes at Carlsbad, San Diego, CA August 8, 2016 Page 4 1 . ...;' ;. •_. ) :::: j •• : . / - 1 Photo 5: Wall Rebar Photo 6: Wag Rebar AA3-5 01 of (btyof Carlsbad Print Date: 06/21/2018 Permit No: PREV2017-0050 Job Address: 2525 El Camino Real Permit Type: BLDG-Permit Revision (\ Work Class: Residential Permit Revisi Status: Closed - Finaled Parcel No: 1563020900 Lot #: Applied: 03/17/2017 Valuation: $0.00 Reference #: Issued: 03/31/2017 Occupancy Group: Construction Type Permit 06/21/2018 Finaled: # Dwelling Units: Bathrooms: Inspector: Bedrooms: Orig. Plan Check #: Final Plan Check #: Inspection: Project Title: Description: THE SHOPPES AT CARLSBAD: FRP INSTALLATION SPECS FOR FOUNDATION Applicant: - Contractor: JOHN GHOBRIAL THE WHITING TURNERCONTRACTING CO 858-792-0600 FEE AMOUNT BUILDING PLAN CHECK ADMIN FEE $35.00 MANUAL BUILDING PERMIT FEE $375.00 Total Fees: $ 410.00 Total Payments To Date : $ 375.00 Balance Due: $35.00 1 I Building Division 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad CA 92008-7314 1 760-602-2700 1 760-602-8560 f I www.carlsbadca.gov (City of PLAN CHECK REVISION Development Services 16 APPLICATION Building Division 35 Faraday Avenue B-I 5 760-602-2719 Carlsbad www.carlsbadca.gov Plan Check Revision No. PE_VQOI1OO5O Original Plan Check No. B / 63i ' Project Address 2' vtO Date_______________ Contct 5L Ph 5 4 7Fax Email . Contact Address ,'IO 4Ok_S',_LZ CityL4' General Scope of Work Te ( 1/fr e/ç/ Original plans prepared *by an architect or engineer, revisions must be signed & stamped by that person. 1. Elements revised: Plans X1 Calculations Soils Energy 0 Other 2. Describe revisions in detail 3. List page(s) where each revision is shown 4. List revised sheets that replace existing sheets t1inQccIcb L( ______p Does this revision, in any way, alter the exterior of the project? Yes No Does this-revision add ANY new floor area(s)? Yes No Does this revision affect any fire related issues? Yes No Is this a comp t? Yes No . Signature 1635 Faraday Aven rlsbad, CA 92008 : 760-602- 27 19 Fax: 760-602-8558 Email: building@carlsbadca.gov - www.carlsbadca.gov . .'EsGil Corporation. In(Partnership with Government for Bui(din0 Safety DATE: 3/27/2017 JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: PREV2017-0050 PROJECT ADDRESS: 2525 El Camino Real SET: I U APPLICANT RI S. U PLAN REVIEWER U FILE PROJECT NAME: The Shoppes at Carlsbad-Column/Beam/Slab Strengthening The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. El The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at EsGil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. The.applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: EsGil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. EsGil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Date contacted: (L4 ?) Mail Telephone Fax In Person REMARKS: Telephone #: Email: By: David Yao Enclosures: approved plan cb16-3219 EsGil Corporation EGA EEJ [_1 MB EPC 3/20 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (858) 560-1468 • Fax (858) 560-576 City of Carlsbad PREV2017-0050 ' 3/27/2017 [DO NOT PAY- THIS IS NOTAN INVOICE] VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: PREV2017-0050 PREPARED BY: David Yao DATE: 3/27/2017 BUILDING ADDRESS: 2525 El Camino Real BUILDING OCCUPANCY: M BUILDING PORTION AREA (Sq. Ft.) Valuation Multiplier Reg. Mod. VALUE ($) FRP Installation Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE Jurisdiction Code Icb IBY Ordinance I Bldg. Permit Fee by Ordinance V Plan Check Fee by Ordinance I Type of Review: El Complete Review Repetitive Fee El Other Repeats Hourly EsGil Fee * Based on hourly rate I $375.001 El Structural Only 3 Hrs.@* $100.00 I $300.00I Comments: Sheet 1 of I macvalue.doc + WT WffflNG-Tu1NEk City of Carlsbad Building Division MI-\R 31.2017 APPROVED BY: ISSUED BY Whiting-Turner. Submittal Package #03G.2-001 FRP Shoo Drawins& Calculations REVIEWED BY THE WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING CO. DATE .... 03/10/2017_ BY Alex Inabnet FRP COMPOSITE SYSTEM - Calcualtions I WTSUBMITTAL NO. 200.039300-0002 Whiting-Turner Approval Architect Approval DELEGATED DESIGN SUBMITTAL REVIEW ROEX0041IFONS 0 E-- 6 055100 10*5505000. 00000 0500000 DV 1140 05000000000404015.1501000150*1 EFFECT 00 1140 10001 *50000 DV 1140 004055110 ORAl 00 TOO 5151010004. 5041004 0000500 DV 11, 00.00 0510051405. DINED TRED.Y 04 Till 000TF1000TITCS DV 1)40 CCOAIRXCV50 ITS RJO00NIRAC1053 ON fl,TMWI OR 10040 DRAWlER tNTOT00010WO 100*1 TOO TON 00405000 CONFORMS 0315 *100 041405*050 0000000040CR 0001000 051000500P TI ID 1140 051040011 0004001015 04504*0000100*1005000014400100001001*4 $140 000100CR W000TJIS. 9011*0140540000 NOT COTISTITIJRT 04 1051000Cm 001010104 ROOT 14401 WI RDIR0500IATIOTIS IHEC01000CTON 0540090 DO.ACV 001000040 000 00400000 0410 000 0000000114 00 OlD 051410*00 W40410TS *05000 00101D0.FONAIAI0 05011100 0004 0000401100 IllS ROTTER) 0505001 600*000 Oil WIE 00 000403 AR 000V000IT1000T000010S1010I40000CIJIA. Thornton Tomasetti SN mTF, 3115117 :nglneer Approva / PREV20I7-0050 2525 EL CAMINO REAL THE SHOPPES AT CARLSBAD: FRP INSTALLATION SPECS FOR FOUNDATION 1563020900 3/1712017 PREV20I 7-0050 03/03/2017 AEGION company The Shoppes at Carlsbad Calculations Date: 03/03/2017 Disclaimer: Fyfe Company did not analyze the capacity of the existing structural members or its condition, nor did Fyfe Company provide the loading demand values used for the FRPdesigi. The composite system was designed only to provide the additional capacity as noted in the calculations. Additionally, thermal gradation effects and repair conditions prior to application of the FRP were not considered in the FRP design. REFERENCES ICC AC 125 Acceptance Criteria for Concrete and Reinforced and Unreinforced Masonry Strengthening Using Externally Bonded Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Composite Systems (October 2013). ICC-ES Evaluation Report ESR-2 103 Concrete and Masonry Strengthening Using the Tyfo Fibrwrap Fiber-Reinforced Composite Systems (November 2016). ACI 440.2 R-08, Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures. ACT 318-11, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACT 318-11) and Commentary. Fyfe Co. LLC, Design Manual for the Tyfo Fibrwrap Systems, July 2010 (Rev. 9). FCJ#: AAJA-S9SGXT 1/16 03/03/2017 The Shoppes at Carlsbad ECCR-14 Column Axial Load Strengthening 1.0 DESIGN GOAL Design the Tyfo Fibrwrap System to provide an additional axial load strength of 170 kip to ECCR -14 columns as per 10/S4.02 of the bid documents as required by Thornton Tomasetti. 2.0 ASSUMPTIONS Unless otherwise noted, the design guidelines and equations from ACI 440.2R-08 will be used. 3.0 MATERIAL PROPERTIES Tyfo SCH-41-2X System Ultimate properties := l2lksi ultimate tensile stress := 0.01 ultimate rupture strain Reduction factors CE 0.95 environmental reduction factor for carbon := 0.95 compressive strength reduction factor 4) := ties 4) = 0.65 strength reduction factor ("spiral" or "ties") Design properties 1fu CE•f''fu = 114.9 ksi design ultimate tensile stress (eq. 9-3) fu := CE•E*fu = 0.0095 design rupture strain (eq. 9-4) Ef := fu = 12100ksi tensile modulus of elasticity (eq. 9-5) Efu Fyfe Co. recommends a more conservative design modulus Ef 1 1900ksi conservative design modulus tf := 0.08in thickness per layer Properties of Existing Materials := 3000psi compressive strength of concrete := 60ksi assumed yield strength of longitudinal steel FCJ#: AAJA-S9SGXT 2/16 03/03/2017 4 4.0 AXIAL LOAD STRENGTHENING CALCULATIONS 3.1 Column Properties b 14in column depth h I4in column width if[( <2.0) OK","no dod] = "OK" aspect ratio check (section 12.1.1) rc := 1.251n new corner radius flf := 2 number of layers offiberwrap Ag:= bh Ag= 196in2 gross area of column A5t O.OlAg = 1.96 in assumed longitudinal steel area cc = c + Wf•3.3Ka fl confined compressive strength, Ae = - Aec effective confined area ratio (Eq. 12-11) Ac Ast longitudinal steel reinforcement ratio - 0 01 Pg Ag - (assumed) )(h - 2rc)2 + ()(b - 2. )2 1— Pg 3•A Aec := 1 _g Aec =O.546 p Ka := Aec() Ka = 0.546 shape factor (Eq. 12-9) 0.5 Kb Aec (h) Kb = 0.546 shape factor (Eq. 12-9) D := ,1b2 + h2 D = 19.8- in diameter of an equivalent circular cross Section (Eq. 12-8) FCJ#: AAJA-S9SGXT 3/16 ñAEG.ION:'company 03/03/2017 strain efficiency factor := 0.58 (Harries and Carey 2003) fe KE*fu Efe = 0.0058 effective strain at failure (Eq. 12-5) 2Efnftf•efe maximum confinement pressure (Eq. 12-4) f1=1.116•ksi D J 0.45 maximum compressive strain of L5 + Eccu 0002[ 0 '2bT0.002] = 0.01 FRP-confined concrete (Eq. 12-6) c [ 1 := 0.85 if 4 ~! 0.75 0.80 otherwise 1 = 0.8 'cc := f + )f•3.3Ka fl 'cc = 4908. psi confined compressive strength (eq. 12-3) if(eccu :~ 0.0 1 ,"OK', "no good) = 'OK' strain limit (Eq. 12-7) I/fl if I - > 0.08,0K", no good ' ") = "OK' minimum confinement ratio C PU := 170kip axial load demand 14)[085fc(Ag)] = 259.9- kip axial capacity of column nf 1[0851 cc* (g)] = 425.2. kip axial capacity of column with fiberwrap 4nf - On = 165.3 kip axial strength provided by fiberwrap Pu demand capacity ratio :5 1.05 DCR := AP (WITHIN 5% OK) FCJ#: AAJA-S9SGXT 4/16 03/03/2017 YF=- an AEGIONcompany The Shöppes at Carlsbad ECCR 14 & ECCR 16 Column Shear Strengthening 1.0 DESIGN GOAL Design the Tyfo Fibrwrap System to provide additional shear reinforcement of 1.66 in2/ft to ECCR -14 columns and additional shear reinforcement of 1.63 in2/ft to ECCR -16 as per 10/S4.02 of the bid documents as required by Thornton Tomasetti. 2.0 ASSUMPTIONS Unless otherwise noted, the design guidelines and equations fromACl 440.2R-08 will be used. 3.0 MATERIAL PROPERTIES Tyfo SCH41-2X System Ef := 1 1900ksi conservative design modulus Ef 0.004 conservative design strain tf := 0.08in thickness per layer ff := Eff ff = 47.6 ksi effective design stress 3.0 SHEAR CALCULATIONS -ECCR-14 COLUMNS 3.1 Shear Requirement 2 AV := 1.66in steel reinforcement area required per foot f := 60ksi yield stress of steel := i Number of Steel Bars s := lft Spacing of Horizontal Steel Reinforcement := l4in h := 14in cc := 1.5in d := h - c = 12.5. in := 0.75 4v 2A fd 4W5 := = 155.6 kip 5 width of column depth of column assumed concrete cover effective depth of steel ties shear strength reduction factor shear strength required from fiberwrap FCJ#: AAJA-S9SGXT 5/16 JIM 03/03/2017 df := h = 14 in effective depth of composite Vf = V 2(n°tf)ff'h shear capacity provided by fiberwrap flf 2 number of layers 4Vf := 4V.2.(nf.tf).ff.h = 159.9-kip shear strength provided by fiberwrap demand capacity ratio DCR = 0.97 Of 4.0 SHEAR CALCULATIONS -ECCR-16 COLUMNS 4.1 Shear Requirement := 1.631n 2 steel reinforcement area required per foot fy 60ksi yield stress of steel := I Number of Steel Bars s := ift Spacing of Horizontal Steel Reinforcement b:= 16in width of column h := 16in depth of column cc := 1.5in assumed concrete cover d := h - cc = 14.5 in effective depth of steel ties kv := 0.75 shear strength reduction factor 4V5 := y = 177.3-kip shear strength required from fiberwrap S df := h = 16° in effective depth of composite Vf = v• 2 (n.tf). ff• h shear capacity provided by fiberwrap nf 2 number of layers 4Vf := 4v2(nftf)ffh = 182.8-kip shear strength provided by fiberwrap DCR := = 0.97 demand capacity ratio Of FCJ#: AAJA-S9SGXT 6/16 1 03/03/2017 - AEGION company The Shoppes at Carlsbad Beam Flexural Strengthening 1.0 DESIGN GOAL Design the Tyfo Fibrwrap System to provide a positive flexural strength of 1395 kip-in to deficient FRP-2 and 1100 kip-ft to deficient FRP-3 beams pet-9/S4.02 of the bid documents as required bylhomton Tomasetti. 2.0 GENERAL NOTES AND ASSUMPTIONS 1. Unless otherwise noted, design equations follow the recommendations ofACI 440.211-08. 3.0 PROPERTIES OF THE TWO SCH41 CARBON COMPOSITE SYSTEM Ultimate properties fu : 121ksi ultimate tensile stress 0.01 ultimate rupture strain Reduction factors CE := 0.95 environmental reduction factor for carbon (table 9.1) 0.85 additional FRPieduction factor (section 10.2.10) Design properties f = 114.9 ksi design ultimate tensile stress (eq. 9-3) fu := CE.e*fu Efu = 0.0095 design rupture strain (eq. 9-4) ff Ef Ef = 1.2x 104ksi tensile modulus of elasticity (eq. 9-5) Efu Fyfe Co. recommends a more conservative design modulus Ef := I 1900ksi conservative design modulus of elasticity tf := 0.04in thickness per layer 4.0 EXISTING SECTION PROPERTIES := 3000p5i assumed concrete compressive strength E := 57000.E = 3.1 x 103 ksi concrete modulus (ACI 318 section 8.5.1) )FPsC— FCJ#: AAJA-S9SGXT 7/16 03/03/2017 AEGION company 1 := 0.85 concrete stress block parameter (AC1318 section 10.2.7) := 150-lbf concrete density (normal weight concrete) ft := 0.003 concrete crushing strain f := 60ks1 assumed reinforcing steel yield strength E5 := 29000ksi modulus of steel b := 24in beam width h := 301n beam depth t5 := 2.5in slab thickness c := 1.5in assumed concrete cover 5.OAFLEXURAL STRENGTHENING CALCULATIONS (FRP-2) Mreq := I395kipin positive moment demand Wf := 24in width of fiberwrap n := 1 number of layers efd := 0.083 F n -Ef fd = 0.0066 in Cfe := min(Efd,0.9.efU) fe Ef•€fe ffe = 78.4 ksi Moment capacity oj'jiber-reinforced beam M = Af•ffe{h - 2) where: Af := fltfWf Af = 0.96- in (h - is taken as 0.90*h 2) FCJ#: AAJA-S9SGXT debonding strain (eq. 10-2) effective fiberwrap strain (eq. 10-3) effective fiberwrap stress (eq. 104) nominal moment capacity of fiber reinforced beam (eq. 10-13) effective composite area 8/16 03/03/2017 U U •;• AEGION.compaiiy 4) = 0.90 strength reduction factor 4)Mf := Y4)fAfffe(O.9Oh) = 1.6x 103 kip. in factored moment capacity of fiberwrap Mi.e DCR := = 0.9 <1.0 (OK) demand / capacity ratio ()Mf 5.OB FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING CALCULATIONS (FRP-3) Mreq := ilOOkipin positive moment demand Wf := 18in width of fiberwrap n := 1 number of layers I fd := 0.083 Efd = 0.0066 FI fl°tf°Ef in fe := min(fd,0.9.EfU) fe := Effe 1'fe = 78.4 ksi Moment capacity ofjlbe r-reinforced beam Mn = Af.ffe.(h - 01. 2) where: Af := n.tf.wf Af = 0.72 in (h - 31..) is taken as 0.90*h 4):= 0.90 4)Mf := 4Y4)f•Afffe(0.90h) = 1166. kip. in M DCR := - .eq = 0.94 <1.0 (OK) 4)Mf debonding strain (eq. 10-2) effective fiberwrap strain (eq. 10-3) effective fiberwrap stress (eq. 104) nominal moment capacity of fiber reinforced beam (eq. 10-13) effective composite area strength reduction factor factored moment capacity of fiberwrap demand / capacity ratio FCJ#: AAJA-S9SGXT 9/16 03/03/2017 AEG ION con,pany The Shoppes at Carlsbad Beam Shear Strengthening 1.0 DESIGN GOAL Design the Tyfo Fibrwrap System to provide an additional shear strength of 30 kip to deficient FRP-1 beams, 35 kip to deficient FRP-2 beams and 10 kip to deficient FRP-3 beams per 9/84.02 of the bid documents as required by Thornton Tomasetti. 2.0 GENERAL NOTES AND.ASSUMPTIONS 1. Unless otherwise noted, design equations follow the recommendations ofACI 440.2R-08. 3.0 PROPERTIES OF THE TWO SCH41 CARBON COMPOSITE SYSTEM Ultimate properties 'fu := 121ksi ultimate tensile stress E*fu := 0.01 ultimate rupture strain Reduction factors CE := 0.95 environmental reduction factor for carbon Design properties (table 9.1) fu CE•f'fu f = 1 14.9ksi design ultimate tensile stress (eq. 9-3) Efu CE•e*fu c = 0.0095 design rupture strain (eq. 9-4) Ef := ff -- Ef = 12100ksi tensile modulus of elasticity (eq. 9-5) fu Fyfe Co. recommends a more conservative design modulus Ef 1 1900ksi conservative design modulus of elasticity tf 0.04in 4.0 EXISTING SECTION PROPERTIES := 3000psi f := 60ksi b := 24in thickness per layer assumed concrete compressive strength assumed reinforcing steel yield strength beam width h 30in beam depth hf := 2.5in slab thickness FCJ#: AAJA-S9SGXT 10/16 03/03/2017 Ih rnh1.T c := 1.5in concrete cover (assumed) 5.0 SHEAR STRENGTHENING CALCULATIONS Vreq := max( lOkip, 30kip, 35kip) additional shear required := 0.85 additional reduction factor (three sided - table li-I) Wf := 24in width of fiberwrap n := I number of layers df := h - hf - cc df = 26 in effective FRP depth Bond reduction coefficient nn Le := Le = 1.3 active bond length (eq. 11-8) 0.58 in psi) k1 P51 k1 = 0.8 modification factor 1 (eq. 11-9) 4000 df - Le k2 := in k2 = 0.95 modification factor 2(eq. 11-10) df-- in ki•k2•Le Ic := = 0.22 v bond reduction coefficient (eq. 11-7) 468.Ef The effective strain in the fiberwrap is taken as the lesser value ofKe or 0.004 Efe min( Icvefu, 0.004) Efe = 0.00214 effective FRP strain (eq. 11 -6b) Shear capacity offt be rw rap s := 24in spacing of fiberwrap (full coverage) AA,:= 2.n.tf.wf Afv = 1.92in2 area of shear fiberwrap (eq. 11-4) fe Efe Ef ffe = 25.4•ksi effective fiberwrap stress (eq. 11-5) FCJ#: AAJA-SQSGXT 11/16 4)Vf = 33.7-kip I U • AEG ION company Shear capacity offiber-reinforced beam ():= 0.75 A, 'fe df 4)V f := 4).'kl)f. Sf DCR = 1.038 Of DCR := = 0.89 Of DCR := 2E = 0.3 4)Vf 03/03/2017 shear strength reduction factor (ACI 318 section 9.3) factored shear strength offiberwrap 35 kip demand (FRP-2) demand capacity ratio !~ 1.05 (WITHIN 5% OK) 30 kip demand (FRP-1) demand capacity ratio !~ 1.0 (OK) 10 kip demand (FRP-3) demand capacity ratio :5 1.0 (OK) FCJ#: AAJA-S9SGXT 12/16 AEGION company 03/03/2017 The Shoppes at Carlsbad Diaphragm Shear Strengthening 1.0 DESIGN GOAL Design the Tyfo Fibrmp Systems to provide shear strengthening at deficient diaphragm locations as specified on 1/SI.1B.1 bid documents as required by Thornton Tomasetti. 2.0 MATERIAL PROPERTIES Tyfo SEH-5 1A Uni-directional Glass Composite System Ef := 3030ksi Cf :=0.0015 tf := 0.05in ff := Efef = 4.5 ksi 4):= 0.75 conservative design modulus conservative design strain for shear thickness per layer conservative design stress strength reduction factor 3.0 SHEAR CALCULATION (0.20 KIP/FT SHEAR DEMAND kip additional shear capacity required - Vreq .- 0.20 ft between grid 22 & 23 I F&J3 Calculate the Shear Capacity Provided by One Layer of the Tyfo SEH-5 IA System H 12in unit length V k := 0.75 efficiency factor for one-sided n := 1 number of layers Wf := l8in width offiberwrap s := 36in spacing offiberwrap 4)kntfffHsin(90deg) (w() = 0.77.! shear capacity offiberwrap ft ft Vre DCR := 0.26 demand / capacity ratio = of FCJ#: AAJA-S9SGXT 13/16 03/03/2017 4.0 SHEAR CALCULATION (0.80 KIP/FT SHEAR DEMAND) kip additional shear capacity required - Vreq .= 0.80—— ft between grid 16.1 & 15 IC&G Calculate the Shear Capacity Provided by One Layer of the Tyfo SEH-5 IA System H 12in unit length efficiency factor for one-sided number of layers. width offiberwrap spacing offiberwrap k:= 0.75 n:= wf:= l8in Sf := 30in kntfffHsin(90deg) (wf kip =0.92— f . ft Sf) ft Vre DCR := = 0.87 Vf shear capacity of fiberwrap demand / capacity ratio FCJ#: AAJA-S9SGXT 14/16 L 03/03/2017 - . I -• AEGI 0 Ncampary The Shoppes at Carlsbad Drag Force Strengthening 1.0 DESIGN GOAL Design the Tyfo SCH41 System to provide the equivalent drag tension force of 50kip, 60 kip, 160 kip at specified top of slab locations on 1/SI .IB.1 & 1/S1.1 C.1 as required by Thornton Tomasetti 2.0 MATERIAL PROPERTIES Tyfo SCH4 1 System Ef := 1 1900ksi Conservative Design Modulus Efu := 0.0085 Min. Ultimate Design Strain tf := 0.04in Thickness Per Layer Slab Properties := 3000psi 3.0 CALCULATIONS - DRAG FORCE = 50 KIP & 60 KIP 3.1 Tension Reguirement Treq50 := 50kip Chord Tension Force Requirement Treq60 := 60kip Chord Tension Force Requirement 3.2 Find the Tension Capacity Provided by One Layer of the Tyfo SCH-4 1 System n := 1 Number of Layers wf:= 24in Width ofFiberwrap Conservatively limit the FRP design strain to 0.0 06: Cfe := min(0.9.EfU,0.006) Ff := Ef•Cfe Ff = 71.4ksi 0.90 4.n.tfwf.Ff = 61.7. kip max(Treq50,Treq60) DCR:= = 1 <1.0(0K) 4Tf Effective FRP Design Strain for drag force FRP Design Stress strength reduction factor Tension Capacity of Fiberwrap demand / capacity ratio FCJ#: AAJA-S9SGXT 15/16 03/03/2017 an AEG ION co: 4.0 CALCULATIONS - DRAG FORCE = 160 KIP 4.1 Tension Requirement Treq 160 := 160kip Chord Tension Force Requirement 4.2 Find the Tension Capacity Provided by Two Layers of the Tyfo SCH4 1 System n 3 Number of Layers wf:= 24in WidthofFiberwrap fe min(0.9.EfU, 0.006) Effective FRP Design Strain for drag force Ff := EfEfe Ff = 71.4ksi := 0.90 4 0 fl0 tf0WfFf = 185.1-kip DCR Treql6o = 0.9 <1.0 (OK) 4Tf FRP Design Stress strength reduction factor Tension Capacity of Fiberwrap demand / capacity ratio FCJ#: AAJA-S9SGXT 16/16 SHEET SET: Sheet 1 Lower Level Partial Foundation Plan Typical Column Elevation A Column Section 1 Sheet 2 Lower Level Partial Foundation Plan Typical Column Elevation A Column Section 1 Sheet 3 Upper Level Partial Framing Plan Typ. FRP Application Where Column Occurs City of Carlsbad Sheet 4 Upper Level Partial Framing Plan Building Division Sheet 5 Upper Level Partial Framing Plan Sheet 6 Beam Section 1 - FRP 1 Beam Section 2 - FRP 2 MAR 312017 Beam Elevation A APPROVED BY. Beam Elevation B Sheet 7 FRP Elevation C - FRP 4 ISSUE BY: Beam Section 3 - FRP 4 Sheet 8 Beam Elevation 0 Beam Section 4 Typical Slab Section 5 Typical Overlap of Tyfo Fibrwrap System Typical Overlap for Bonding New Tyfo Fibrwrap System to Existing A Revision No. Revised By Revision Date The Shoppes at Carlsbad Carlsbad, CA Column/Beam/Slab Strengthening GENERAL NOTES FOR BEAMS/SLAB (BOND CRITICAL): 1. Mark perimeter of areas to be strengthened. The perimeter line should extend beyond the exact limits to ensure that all required areas are roughened. . Prepare all surfaces to receive composite strengthening by grinding to provide a minimum of CSP-2 surface roughness. Remove dust and debris from surfaces using compressed air, brooms or vacuum. Clearly mark all locations. Apply one prime coat of Tyfe S Epoxy to all areas to receive composite strengthening (epoxy may be thickened with Cab-o-sil based on the site conditions as determined by the on-site FibrwrapO technician). Immediately apply the first layer of pre-cut Tyfo Fibrwrap System, pre-saturated with TyfoO S Epoxy, to the required locations as detailed. Install remaining layers of the Tyfo® Fibrwrap System as detailed. Finish all seams and edges with thickened Tyfo S Epoxy. Allow approximately 72 hours (time may be adjusted by the on-site Fibrwrap technician) of cure time prior to application of any finishes. GENERAL NOTES FOR COLUMNS (CONTACT-CRITICAL): Prepare all surfaces to receive composite strengthening by removing dust and debris from surfaces using compressed air, brooms or vacuum. Clearly mark all locations to receive composite. Apply one prime coat of Tyfo® S Epoxy to all areas to receive composite strengthening (epoxy may be thickened with Cab-o-sil based on the site conditions as determined by the on-site Fibrwrap® technician). Immediately apply the pre-cut Tyfo® Fibrwrap® System, pre-saturated with Tyfe S Epoxy, to the required locations as detailed. Finish all seams and edges with thickened Tyfo' S Epoxy. Allow approximately 72 hours (time may be adjusted by the on-site Fibrwrap® technician) of cure time prior to the application of any finishes. Engineer Stamp The Shoppes at Carlsbad Carlsbad, CA Column/Beam/Slab Strengthening FYFE 0 an AEG ION'company 3940 Ruffin Road, Suite C, San Diego, CA 92123 Tel: 858.642.0694_Eax:_858.444..2982 PREV20I7-0050 2525 EL CAMINO REAL THE SHOPPES AT CARLSBAD: FRP INSTALLATION SPECS FOR FOUNDATION Note: Removal of topping slab to be done by others to provide access to structural slab prior to top of slab fiberwrap strengthening 1563020900 3/17/2017 PREV20I 7-0050 IARY FIBER DIRECTION, TYP. YERS OF THE TYFOm SCH-41-2X SYSTEM, NTED HORIZONTALLY FULL HEIGHT OF JMN, W/ 12" MIN. OVERLAP, TYP. 1/2 GAP, TYP. Typical Column Elevation VARIES - 12" MIN. OVERLAP TYP. (E) COLUMN : 2 LAYERS OF THE TYFO SCH-41 -2X SYSTEM, ORIENTED HORIZONTALLY FULL HEIGHT OF COLUMN, W/ 12" MIN. OVERLAP, TYP. PROVIDE A 3/4" MIN. RADIUS AT ECCR-16 COLUMN CORNERS OR 1.25' MIN. RADIUS AT ECCR-14 COLUMN CORNERS, TYP. J-'~ ~ecfion ) N.T.S. Engineer Stamp IE) The Shoppes at Carlsbad Carlsbad, CA Column Strengthening FYFE®. an AEGION°company 3940 Ruffin Road, Suite C, San Diego, CA 92123 Tel: 858.642.0694 Fax: 858.444.2982 Email: info@fyfeco.com www.fyfeco.com Tyloc and Fibrwrapo we negislened t,adema,Fs Is, he godocls 01 Fy18 Co. (IC Project No.: Orig. Date: PAJA-S9SGxr 2017/01/13 Drafter: Rev. Date: E. Morrow 2017/03/03 Engineer: Rev. Time: J. Sanchez 1:30 PM Dwg. No.: Sheet: 3825-01 1 at 8 Revision No. Revised By Revision Date H- Efl F -D- ECCR-14 ECCR-14 E] I I • . 2 LAYERS OF THE TYFO® SCH-41 -2X SYSTE ORIENTED HORIZONTALLY FULL HEIGHT OF CCR-14 COLUMN, W/ 12" MIN. OVERLAP, TYP. (9 COLUMNS THIS SHEET) IlL ECCR-14 ECCR- c16 16 oil ——1 ]-1—R—El I ------ - I 61 6 5) '4 31 co I .-.''---' ,.-..j ..---. \.... Lower Level Partial Foundation Plan N.T.S. Note: IECCR-161 Denotes 16" x 16" columns. Provide a 3/4" mm. radius at column corners. IECCR-141 Denotes 14'x 14" Columns. Provide a 1.25" mm. radius at column corners. I I IARY FIBER DIRECTION, TYP. YERS OF THE TYFO® SCH-41-2X SYSTEM, NTED HORIZONTALLY FULL HEIGHT OF LIMN, WI 12" MIN. OVERLAP, TYP. 1/2 GAP, TYP. Typical Column Elevation (A) N.T.S. 12 OVER 2 LAYERS OF THE TYFOw SCH-41 -2X SYSTEM, ORIENTED HORIZONTALLY FULL HEIGHT OF COLUMN, W/ 12" MIN. OVERLAP,TiP. PROVIDE A 3/4' MIN. RADIUS AT ECCR-16 COLUMN CORNERS OR 1.25' MIN. RADIUS AT ECCR-14 COLUMN CORNERS, TYP. (E) COLUMN section Engineer Stamp The Shoppes at Carlsbad Carlsbad, CA Column Strengthening FYFE® F, an AEGION°company 3940 Ruffin Road, Suite C, San Diego, CA 92123 Tel: 858.642.0694 Fax: 858.444.2982 Email: info@fyfeco.com www.fyfeco.com Tyloe and Fibmape ye regislened Iraden,erks to, the pnoductS of Fyte Co. LIC Project No.: Orig. Date: MJA-S9SGXT 2017/01/13 Drafter: Rev. Date: E. Morrow 2017/03/03 Engineer: Rev. Time: J. Sanchez 1:30 PM 0w9. No.: Sheet: 3825-02 2 at 8 Revision No. Revised By Revision Date i F171 :' I] It F I d Ld +LTJ FL 71 14 jI _ - H_ -T- :G ) F') E) SCH-412X SYSTEM, 'FULL HEIGHT OF ERLAP, TYP. T) I A) - uJ (12) 0) Cn !. I caI C/) Lower Level Partial Foundation Plan N.T.S. Note: ECCR-16 Denotes 16' x 16" columns. Provide a 3/4" mm. radius at column Corners. ECCR-14 Denotes 14" x 14" columns. Provide a 1.25" mm. radius at column corners. 123] Engineer Stamp The Shoppes at . * Carlsbad Carlsbad, CA Beam/Slab Strengthening FYFE® Pr an AEGIONCompany 3940 Ruffin Road, Suite C, San Diego, CA 92123 Tel: 858.642.0694 Fax: 858.444.2982 Email: info@fyfeco.com www.fyfeco.com Tylo. and Flb,w,ap. are tegisleied l,aden,o,00 In, the products 01 Fy10 Co. LIC Project No.: Orig. Dale: MJA-S9SGXT 2017/01/13 Drafter: Rev. Dale: E.Morrow 2017/03/03 Engineer: . Rev. Time: J. Sanchez 1:30 PM Dwg. No.: Sheet: 3825-03 3ol8 * Revision No. Revised By Revision Date r LU U 71 1 LAYER OF THE TYFO® SEH-51A SYSTEM, 18' WIDE @36"O.C., TOP OFSLAB IF \NN R\q~ — \'- NOTE - WITH SHEET (E) COLUMN FRP AT DRAG LINES. LOCATIONS SEE TYP. MAY INTERFERE DETAILS, ORTHISCONDITION. = = THIS APPLIED TO TOP OF BEAM 3 LU PRIMARY FIBER DIRECTION, TYP. F- + H1 Irl 1 LAYER OF THE TYFOw SCH 41 APPLIEDTOTOPOF SYSTEM 24 WIDE BEAM 58'- I I I I I I I 4 1iI1iJ = = 1 = 4F~ - 30-0 30-0 30-0" __ 30-0" / 21-5" __ / 30 0 / r 20'_71/2'__i_17'_111/2",L_\ 1 LA' 18nV 30-0' @ CJi] ft±) Upper Level Partial Framing _Plan N.T.S. REF S1.1 13.1 I Note: Removal of topping slab to be done by others to provide access i _- (E)COLUMN to structural slab prior to top of slab fiberwrap trengthening WHERE OCCURS - 3 LAYERS TYFOm SCH-41 SYSTEM, (E) COLUMN 3 LAYERS TYFOm SCH-41 SYSTEM, 12' WIDE, APPLIED TO TOP OF SLAB WHERE OCCURS 12' WIDE, APPLIED TO TOP OF SLAB - WHERE COLUMN OCCURS WHERE COLUMN OCCURS Plan Elevation * T.FRP Application Where Column Occurs * * (ER OF THE TYFOw SEH-51A SYSTEM, VIDE @30' D.C., TOP OF SLAB Revision No. Revised By Revision Dale Engineer Stamp / 3 LAYERS OF THE TYFO® SCH-41 SYSTEM, 24 APPLIED TO TOP 0 / 1 The Shoppes at Carlsbad Carlsbad, CA Beam/ la Strengthening -W ll 7777'-~- 11 1UVYER OF THE ' Ie • I I I I i I ORIEk ' 17'-0" LONG AT MID-SPAN, jJJ&ii II I II _iii "Ui Ij_IIW 1 11 I--- I- I LJ IlI_Il I_- Iw l,. II I—IJ.± I ' ' OF WIDE,ii TOP • WA~Ml il — IU ó7 : E I- II —• 11____1 I_!_II__.! !I _I I_I ,Il I II I _________...I___IL.!_—Il_I_I • II 1 i ____ _________ I I I I II Ii iII I Ii. II Ii I I I I IUL 1 II II I __________________________ OW I I II I I I 1= I II 1 II! I FYFE® anAEGION°company 3940 Ruffin Road, Suite C, San Diego, CA 92123 Tel: 858.642.0694 Fax: 858.444.2982 Email: info@fyfeco.com www.fyfeco.com Tyfo, and Fibwap, ye registaled liademawo foi 1he poducIs of Fyfe Co. tIC Project No.: Orig. Dale: AAJA-S9SGXT 2017/01/13 Drafter: Rev. Dale: E.Morrow 2017/03/03 Engineer: Rev. Time: J. Sanchez 1:30 PM Dwg. No.: Sheet: 3825-04 4018 I:1219 i99 (89) Note: Removal of topping slab to be done by others to provide access per Level Partial Fra to structural slab prior to top of slab fiberwrap strengthening I REF. S1 .1 CA Engineer Stamp The Shoppes at Carlsbad Carlsbad, CA BeaiWSlab Strengthening FYFE® an AEGION°company 3940 Ruffin Road, Suite C, San Diego, CA 92123 Tel: 858.642.0694 Fax: 858.444.2982 Email: info@fyfeco.com www.fyfeco.com lylo. and Fibrwrap, are registered trademarks for the products at Pyle Co. LIC Project No.: Orig. Dale: AAJA-S9SGXT 2017/01/13 Drafter: Rev. Date: E. Morrow 2017/03/03 Engineer: Rev. Time: J. Sanchez 1:30 PM Dwg. No.: Sheet: 3825-05 5 of 8 NA AN, TYP. Revised By Revision Date Revision No. —4-0" D.C., V.I.F. 4 FIELD FIT tCt SEAM ICI SEAM 11/2" GAP, TYP. YER OF THE 1(F0m SCH-41 SYSTEM, NTED IN A U-WRAP, FULL COVERAGE, FULL SPAN, TIP. WITH EPDXY MORTAR, TYP. 1/2" GAP, TYP. YER OF THE TYFO® SCH-41 SYSTEM, NTED IN A U-WRAP, FULL COVERAGE, FULL SPAN, TIP. WITH EPDXY MORTAR, TIP. ND CORNERS TO MIN. liz' RADIUS, TYP. ® Beam Section - ERR 1 & 3 NO CORNERS TO MIN. 1/2 RADIUS, TYP. '(ER OF THE TYFOm SCH-41 SYSTEM, ORIENTED GITUDINALLY, 24' WIDE x 16-0 LONG, TYP. ©Beam Section - FRP 2 N.T.S. Revision No. Revised By Revision Date PRIMARY FIBER DIRECTION, TYP. SPAN VARIES, V.I.F. PRIMARY FIBER DIRECTION, TIP. 0 TO 1/2" GAP, TIP. Liii••1riii \ 010 1/2' BUTT SPLICE, TIP. 1 LAYER OF THE TYFOm SCH-41 SYSTEM, ORIENTED IN A U-WRAP, FULL COVERAGE, FULL SPAN, TIP. ®FRR Elevation - ERR 1 & 3 N.T.S. SPAN VARIES, V.I.F. 16-0" —40"O.C.,V.I.F. 0 T 1/2" GAP, TYP. - I LIII IltIllIllIll II i 1111 LI 11111111 IHH. 111111 LI liii IIHI 1111111 ,iHIIWHH III 11111t171111 1111111111 Engineer Stamp 0 TO 1/2' BUTT SPLICE, TYP. iIIIIJHIft lllluIII 1u1I.LI!!!!HI IL! .IIIJIl -1- ERPEIevation-FRP2 1 LAYER OF THE TYFO® SCH-41 SYSTEM, ORIENTED LONGITUDINALLY, 24 WIDE xl 6-0' LONG CENTERED AT L+ MID-SPAN, TYP. (APPLIED 1ST) & 1 LAYER OF THE TYFOw SCH-41 SYSTEM, ORIENTED IN A U-WRAP, FULL COVERAGE, FULL SPAN, TYP. (APPLIED 2ND) The Shoppes at Carlsbad Carlsbad, CA Beam/Slab Strengthening ~FYFE@ pr an AEGIONcompany 3940 Ruffin Road, Suite C, San Diego, CA 92123 Tel: 858.642.0694 Fax: 858.444.2982 Email: info@fyfeco.com www.fyfeco.com Tyio and Figrwrape are registered trademarks for the products of Fyte Co. LIC Project No.: Orig. Date: AAJA-S9SGXT 2017/01/13 Drafter: Rev. Date: E. Morrow 2017/03/03 Engineer: Rev. Time: J.Sanchez 1:30 PM Dwg. No.: Sheet: 3825-06 6 of 8 FRP Elevation - ERR 4 BEAM Revision No. Revised By Revision Date 1 LAYER OF THE TYFOO SCH-41 SYSTEM, ORIENTED 18', TP. LONGITUDINALLY 18" WIDE x17'-O" LONG, TYP. ©Beam Section N.T.S. Engineer Stamp The Shoppes at Carlsbad Carlsbad, CA Beam/Slab Strengthening FYFE , anAEGION°company 3940 Ruffin Road, Suite C, San Diego, CA 92123 Tel: 858.642.0694 Fax: 858.444.2982 Email: info@fyfeco.com www.fyfeco.com Tyto and FIbnoap, are registered trademarks lor the products or Fye Co. LIC Project No.: Orig. Date: MJA-SSSGXT 2011/01/13 Drafter: Rev. Date: E. Morrow 2011/03/03 Engineer: Rev. Time: J.Sanchez 1:30 PM Dwg. No.: Sheet: 3825-01 7 of 8 FRP Elevation N.T.S. YFOm SEH-51A SYSTEM, 18 WIDE, EE PLANS FOR DETAILS E) SLAB Typical Slab Section Engineer Stamp Typical Overlap of Tyfo Fibrwrap System 3940 Ruffin Road, Suite C, San Diego, CA 92123 Tel: 858.642.0694 Fax: 858.444.2982 Email: info@fyfeco.com www.fyfeco.com lyle. and Fihrwrap, are registered trademarks lot the products of Fyte Co. iiC Project No.: Orig. Dale: MJA-SPSGXT 2017/01/13 Drafter: Rev. Date: E. Morrow 2017/03/03 Engineer: Rev. Time: J. Sanchez 1:30 PM Dwg. No.: Sheet: 3825-08 8 01 8 Tical Overlap for Bonding New Tyfo Fibrwrap System-to Existing Note: Removal of topping slab to be done by others to provide access to structural slab prior to top of slab fiberwrap strengthening Revision No. Revised By Revision Date 24", TYp LAYER(S) OF THE TYFOm SCH-41 SYSTEM, ORIENTED LONGITUDINALLY, 24" WIDE, FULL SPAN, TYP., SEE PLANS FOR NUMBER OF LAYERS 3EAM The Shoppes at Carlsbad Carlsbad, CA Beam/Slab Strengthening Beam Section (A) N.T.S. SCUFF-SAND FIBRWRAP SURFACE IN LAP 12" MIN. LAP SPLICE, L SPLICE AREA TO RECEIVE (N) FIBRWRAP' (N) TYFO FIBRWRAP SYSTEM \ WHERE REQUIRED (E) TYFO' FIBRWRAP SYSTEM ,- (E) SUBSTRATE 12" MIN. LAP SPLICE, TYFO' FIBRWRAP.SEM WHERE REQUIRED /,/IFI* HBRWRAP' SYSTEM (E) SUBSTRATE FYFE® an AEGION'company