Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2510 WEST RANCH ST; ; PC150073; Permit(City of Carlsbad Print Date: 03/26/2019 Permit No: PC150073 Job Address: 2510 West Ranch St Permit Type: BLDG-Migrated Work Class: Parcel No: 2081951000 Lot #: Valuation: $0.00 Reference #: Occupancy Group: Construction Type U Dwelling Units: Bathrooms: Bedrooms: Orig. Plan Check U: Plan Check U: Project Title: ROBERTSON RANCH WEST VILLAGE Description: MONTECITO: REC CENTER @ ROBERTSON RANCH BLDG-Migrated DEV].1017 m N-07 Status: Applied: Issued: Permit Finaled: Inspector: Final Inspection: Closed - Fina led 12/22/2015 09/27/2016 03/26/2019 FEE AMOUNT Total Fees: Total Payments To Date : Balance Due: Building Division 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad CA 92008-7314 1 760-602-2700 1 760-602-8560 f .1 www.carlsbadca.gov ty of cc Carlsbad Print Date: 03/26/2019 Permit No: 5W150499 Job Address: 2510 West Ranch St Permit Type: BLDG-Migrated Work Class: Parcel No: 2081951000 Lot #: Valuation: $0.00 Reference #: Occupancy Group: Construction Type # Dwelling Units: Bathrooms: Bedrooms: Orig. Plan Check #: Plan Check #: Project Title: ROBERTSON RANCH WEST VILLAGE Description: SWPPP - ROBERTSON RANCH REC BLDG BLDG-Migrated DEV11O17 Status: Applied: Issued: Permit Finaled: Inspector: Final Inspection: Closed - Finaled 12/28/2015 09/27/2016 03/26/2019 FEE AMOUNT Total Fees: Total Payments To Date : Balance Due: Building Division 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad CA 92008-7314 1 760-602-2700 1 760-602-8560 f I www.carlsbadca.gov LA THE FOLLOWING APPROVALS REQUIRED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE: []PLANNING 0 ENGINEERING D BUILDING 0 FIRE 0 HEALTH HAZMATIAPCD Building Permit Application Plan Check No. Est. Value 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008 (City of Ph: 760-602-2719 Fax: 760-602-8558 Plan Ck. Deposit Carlsbad email: building©carlsbadca.gov Date I Z.— &.- 1 57 IswPPP '2 0 \r'4. Pcu-cY www.carlsbadca.gov JOB ADDRESS I NW Corner- Robinson Rd. and West Ranch St. I sUrrE4i/SPACE4vuNiT# APN I 208 - 010 - 44 - 00 CT/PROJECT # LOT # PHASE # # OF UNITS [BEDROOMS # BATHROOMS TENANT BUSINESS NAME T I CON STR. TYPE 5-B 0CC. GROUP 14-08 342 8 NIA 2 TBD A & B DESCRIPTION OF WORK: Include Square Feet of Affected Area(s) The Robertson Ranch Recreational Center is 7,843 sq. ft. which will include a recllounge (3,165 sq. ft.), clubhouselconference (2,326 sq. ft.), exercise room (1,463 sq. ft.), and covered non air-conditioned space (889 sq.ft). The rec center will also include a women's & men's rest room and one fireplace. EXISTING USE I PROPOSED USE GARAGE (SF) 1 PATIOS (SF) DECKS(SF) E I FIRPLACE AIR CONDITIONING I FIRE SPRINKLERS Vacant I Rec. Center 1 ks# NOI I YES NO!1 YES NOEl APPLICANT NAME Alliance Land Planning & Engineering PROPERTY OWNER NAME LLL ' thia,v Contact _______________________________________________ ADDRESS 2248 Faraday Avenue ADDRESS 8383 Wilshire Blvd. CITY STATE ZIP Carlsbad CA 92008 CITY STATE ZIP Beverly Hills CA 90211 PHONE (760) 431-9896 IFJ( I (760) 431-8802 PHONE (323) 988-7590 FAX (323) 651-4349 EMAIL eshoemakercallianceenq.com EMAIL jloveshapell.com DESIGN PROFESSIONAL Architects Orange CONTRACTOR BUS. NAME--7— LLQ.... ADDRESS 144 North Orange Street N A-4 or'i5 - ADDRESS f)5 JAyNini-r . O 0 CITY STATE ZIP Orange CA 92666 CITY ,' b STATE ZIP PHONE (714)639-9860 FAX (714)639-5286 PHONE %S\ti FAX EMAIL kstovér(architectsorange.com EMAIL 'e,~sV' (çocc , STATE Lie. # R.CAllevIII C2598 STATE LJC # I CLASS Sf6\ I BUS. LIC.# I&o15 (Sec. 7031.5 Business and Professions Code: Any City or County which requires a permit to construct, alter, improve, demolish or repairhny structure, prior to its issugnce, also requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he is licensed pursuantto the provisions of the Contractor's License LawjChapt 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 pIlc ntjqr a ubjects the applicant to a cM! oenaltv of not more than five hundred dollars l$5001). n.. \ Q(S?0®(1) %ftlqurs'Compensation Declaration: I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations: I 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 permit is issued. I have and will maintain workers' compensation, as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. My workers' compensation insurance canter and policy number are: Insurance Co. Policy No, Expiration Date This section need not be completed if the permit is for one hundred dollars ($100) or less. 0 Certificate of Exemption: I certify that jr 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 workers' 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, dam es s p ad 1or Section 3706 of the Labor code, Interest and attorney's fees, / CONTRACTOR SIGNATURE GENT DATE I I l 00000 ~QQIJ-bf~ 0.90 G)(3C5Gn06390(DCJ I hereby afflnn Mat larn exempt from Contractor's License Law for the following mason: [J I, as owner of the property or my employees Oth wages as their sole comoensallon, will dc 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 to an owner of property who builds or hrrproves 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 are 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 properly, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Ccntractofs Ucense Law does riot apply to an owiner of Prop" who builds or improves thereon, and contracts for such projects with contractors) licensed pursuant to the Contractors license Law). 0 lam exempt under Section Business and Professions Code for this reason: 1.1 personally plan to provide the major labor and mateitais for construction of the proposed property improvement [-]Yes []No 2.1 (have / have not) signed an appicadon for a building permit for the proposed wedt 3.1 have contracted with the following person (firm) to provide the proposed constructicn (include name address I phone / contractors' license number): 4.1 plan to provide cortionsef the walk, but I have hired the following parson to coordinate, supervise and provide the mor work fndude name / address/phone Icontractors' license number): 5. I will provide some of the work, bull have con hired) the following persons to provide the wart indicated (include name / address (phone 1. type of work). ,PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE - DAGENT DATE 12/16/15 WD CQ®CJ (CX? c)® Ql)OJi1OQ(DCt)O(MDOlI)® OffMilOi1l3 (1)G9C Is the applicant or future b teng occupant required to submit a business plan, acutely hazardous materials registration tonn or risk management and prevention program under Sections 25505,25533 or 25534 of the Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act? DYes 0,40 Is the applicant orfuture building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district? DYes 0 No Is the facility to be constructed within 1000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? DYes Cl 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) CMI Code). Lenders Name Lende?s Address IceitrfjthatI have read the appllcatron and slWeWthe above Infonmaflonisconaand thattho Infonniatron on the plans Is aceaalatl agree mplywith all CiVordinanoes and State laws relating to building esnatnietion. I hereby authorize representativeof the CityofCarlsbad to enter upon the mentioned petty for Inspection pirposes. I ALSO AGREE TOSAW, INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS THE CITY OFCARLSaID AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES, JUDGMENTS, COSTS AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAD Cli? IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMff, OSHA: An. OSHA permit is reqthrmdtr excavations over 69 deep and demolition or construction of structures over stories in height. EXPIRATION: Every pennit Issued tithe Building Of1al under the provisions of this Code shah exureby Imitatim and become null and void 9 the buildingor KaLdhori?d by such pemritis not coirmenced4thin l8O days tom the date ofsuch permit or the building orikauthorized bysudi permit Is suspended abandoned al any time ar the uarkLs comm. en V17i a of 180 days (Section 1064.4 Uriforrn Building Code). .APPUCANT'S SIGNATURE DATE I 15 1 CARLSBAD PC15-73 3/30116 EsGil Corporation In (Partners/lip with Government for (Buitling Safety DATE: 3/30/16 LP AP LICANT RIS. JURISDICTION: CARLSBAD IJ PLAN REVIEWER EJ FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: PC15-73 SET: III PROJECT ADDRESS: NW CORNER - EL CAMINO REAL & WEST RANCH STREET PROJECT NAME: ROBERTSON RANCH - RECREATION FACILITY Lii The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. jjjj1 The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. Lii 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. El EsGil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted Telephone #: ,-. (-)n Date contacted Email: Mail Telephone Fax In Person REMARKS: City staff to verify that the City engineer has approved the site utilities (water and sewer) as part of the grading and site development civil plans. By: Chuck Mendenhall Enclosures: EsGil Corporation EGA LIEJ LIMB [I PC 3/28/16 EsGil Corporation In PartnersIiip with Government for Building Safety DATE: 02/18/2016 ePULAN 'LICANT IS. JURISDICTION: CARLSBAD REVIEWER D FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: PC15-73 SET: II PROJECT ADDRESS: NW CORNER - EL CAMINO REAL & WEST RANCH STREET PROJECT NAME: ROBERTSON RANCH - RECREATION FACILITY The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's codes. LII 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: ARCHITECTS ORANGE AlA 144 NORTH ORANGE STREET, ORANGE, CA 92666 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: AO AlA ,,. Telephone #: 714-639-9860 Date contacted: 21 (I ) Email: kstovercarchitectsoranqe.com tMaii)( TelephoneJA Fax In Person REMARKS: Scope of Work: Recreation Building is under this permit. By: Dwight Ashman (For AS) Enclosures: EsGil Corporation GA Z EJ LI MB LI PC 02/09/2016 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (858) 560-1468 • Fax(858)560-1576 CARLSBAD PC15-73 02/18/2016 NOTE: The items listed below are from the previous correction list. These remaining items have not been adequately addressed. The numbers of the items are from the previous check list and may not necessarily be in sequence. The notes in bold font are current. GENERAL 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 one corrected set of plans and calculations/reports to EsGil Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, CA 92123, (858) 560-1468. Deliver all remaining sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department for routing to their Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. NOTE: Plans that are submitted directly to EsGil Corporation only will not be reviewed by the City Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments until review by EsGil Corporation is complete. PLANS 2. A reminder that all sheets of the revised plans and the first sheet of any updated calculations are required to be signed by the licensed architect or engineer responsible for the plan preparation. California State Law. Structural sheets are not signed. Electrical sheets are not signed. RESIDENTIAL GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS 21. Interior moisture control. Note on plans that concrete slabs will be provided with a capillary break. CGC Section 4.505.2.1. Please show or note this on the plans. See item #36 for more information. STRUCTURAL 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. No letter provided. Note on plans that surface water will drain away from the building. The grade shall fall a minimum of 5% within the first 10 feet (2% for impervious surfaces). Section 1804.3. Please expand the note on sheet 7 on RSI.1 to include slope. CARLSBAD PC 15-73 02/18/2016 34. The City Policy requires that their Special Inspection Agreement be completed for the items noted on Sheet RS-CS. [This Form is available at the building department]. Response indicates that form was completed and attached. Unable to locate this in the submittal documents. The form is attached to this list for your convenience. Please specify the slab underlayment (i.e., 4" of sand with 10-mil. visqueen @ mid-depth, etc.) on 1IRSD1, etc. [Reference to the soils report is not sufficient]. Response and plans state that this will be per soils report. The soils report sections 3.6.3 & 3.6.4 indicate that the sand layer above barrier is responsibility of the structural engineer, and that the vapor retarder and capillary break must be confirmed or altered by the structural engineer. Please show the underlayment on the plans. Please show any pour strips, as per detail 3/RSD1, on the foundation plans. Response indicates that no pour strips required. Please omit this detail. Clarify detail 3/SRSD1, as referenced on Foundation Legend (keynote) #8, is incorrect, starting on Sheet RSI.1. See Item 37 above. Please provide a legend on foundation plans for the slab in the electrical room, starting on Sheet RSI.1. [This legend should match those shown in the margin of the foundation sheet]. Legend now shows non-structural flatwork per soils report. Please provide slab thickness, underlay, and reinforcement. 41. Please show slab thickness, reinforcement and underlayment information on Sheet RSI .1 for the pool equipment room. Also for all other areas not covered by the PT slab. Please provide on the plans. Reference to soils report flatwork is insufficient. ADDITIONAL Please see attached for P/ME 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: U Yes U 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 Dwight Ashman (For AS) at EsGil Corporation. Thank you. CARLSBAD PC 15-73 02/18/2016 ELECTRICAL and ENERGY COMMENTS PLAN REVIEWER: Eric Jensen ENERGY (2013 CALIFORNIA BUILDING ENERGY STANDARDS) o Describe control compliance with ES 130.2 for the site non-landscape light fixtures. 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. CARLSBAD PC15-73 02/18/2016 NOTE: The items listed below are from the previous correction list. These remaining items have not been adequately addressed. The numbers of the items are from the previous check list and may not necessarily be in sequence. The notes in bold font are current. PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL CORRECTIONS JURISDICTION: Carlsbad DATE: 2/17/2016 PLAN REVIEW NUMBER: PC15-73 SET: II PLAN REVIEWER: Glen Adamek GENERAL AND ARCHITECTURAL PME ITEMS The final set of corrected drawings to be reviewed for signing and sealing just before the permits are to be issued. 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. PLUMBING (2013 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE) Please provide complete plumbing site plans showing all property lines, water & sewer lines, and the required easements for public water and public sewer systems on private property. Sheet P-0.1 is incomplete as site plumbing construction plan. Provide the site plumbing plans showing the sizes and locations of the gas meters and water meter; and the sizes, routes, and slopes of the building sewer, storm drainage system, site gas lines, and site water lines. See item # 56. above. Please provide construction drawings for the Private Water Lines from Public Water Meter to connection to the building. Showing piping materials, routes, and piping sizes. Please show the limits of the private sewer system and the public sewer system on the required site plumbing plans. See item 56. above. Please provide construction drawings for the Private Sewer Lines from the building to the point of connection to Public Sewer system. Showing piping materials, routes, slopes, and piping sizes. See items # 56. & 58. above. Identify the extent of the private sewer, water, and gas systems on the plumbing site plan. Clearly specify, on the plans, which City Department is responsible for the permitting, plan check, and inspections for the private utility systems. If private, the responsibility of the City Building Department, and under the Uniform Plumbing Code, provide complete civil site utility plans for plan check, or obtain a separate permit from the City for the civil site plans. CARLSBAD PC15-73 02/1812016 60. The sheet P-1.1 does not show the next upstream manhole location and RIM elevation compared to the finished floor elevation of the building. For backwater valve review, please show the upstream sewer manhole rim elevation (manhole cover elevation) and finished floor elevations. CPC 710.0 Backwater valves are: Mandatory: Fixtures installed on a floor level below the next upstream manhole cover elevation require backwater protection. Not Allowed: For waste systems with fixtures installed on a floor level above the next upstream manhole cover elevation. 61. See item # 56. above. Show all private sub water meters sizes and locations. 62. See item # 56. above. Show public water meter sizes and locations. The water line sizing calculations show the water demand on the 4 inch public water meter is 961 fixture units. This does not match the plumbing drawings that shows a 21/2 inch water meter and only 218.5 fixture units in this building. Please correct. Provide complete water line sizing calculations: Include the water pressures, pressure loss calculations, water demands, developed pipe lengths and and sizing tables for each water piping material. CPC 610.0 or Appendix 'A'. See item #64. above. In waterline sizing calculations' include the maximum velocities allowed per material type. Copper (CPC 1S3:2.6) is: Cold 8 FPS & Hot 5 FPS (and) CPVC (IS 20-2005, section 2.10.1) 8 FPS & maximum fixture loading of Table 3. 68. Plans show no hot water for the kitchen sink in the Clubhouse and for the lavatories in the restrooms adjoining the Clubhouse. Hot water is required. Please correct. Hot water recirculating loop systems requirements (Not single family homes): Detail the following as per California Energy Efficiency Standard, Section 113(c)5: The installation of an air release valve on the inlet side of the recirculation pump, within 4' of the pump. A check valve is required between the recirculating pump and the water heating equipment to prevent the hot water from flowing backwards through the recirculation loop. A check valve is required on the cold water supply line between the hot water system and the next closest tee on the cold water supply line. (See CPC 608.3 for expansion tank requirements.) 710. Sheet P1.2 does not address the CSST gas lines still shown, in the Pipe Schedule on sheet P-O.O. Please correct. Provide gas line plans and calculations showing gas pressures, piping types, gas demands, pipe lengths, pipe sizing method used, and gas pipe sizing charts for iron piping material & CSST piping material. CPC 1216.0 CARLSBAD PC15-73 02/18/2016 The "Gas Fired Water Heater W/ Gravity Vent" detail on sheet P-0.0 still has not been corrected. The gas valve must be on the vertical gas supply line before it connects to the gas sediment trap. The plans still show the appliance gas shut off valve between the gas sediment trap and the water heater. Also, show required gas sediment trap for the pool heater. Please correct. Include the gas piping sediment trap installed downstream of the appliance shutoff valve as close to the inlet of the appliance as practical. Exceptions: Appliances with an internal sediment trap,(or) ranges, clothes dryers, gas fireplaces, and outdoor grilles. CPC 1211.8. The gas shut off valve shown in the Gas Fired Water Heater W/ Gravity Vent detail on sheet P-0.OA is on the incorrect side of the sediment trap. The response provided states: "No. CSST pipe is not being used to come into the building." But the Pipe Schedule on sheet P-0.0 shows no gas lines exterior of the building and both CSST and schedule 40 iron piping to be used inside the building. Please show the piping materials to be used outside the building and inside the building where CSST is to be used and where schedule 40 iron piping is to be used. Where the CSST gas piping enters the building it shall be bonded to the electrical service grounding electrode system with a minimum No. 6 copper conductor. CPC 1210.15.2 74. A complete review of the plumbing plans to be done when the complete corrected plumbing drawings and calculations are provided. The gas line plans in the plumbing drawings show two Fire Pits. Please provide cut-sheets, listing data, and installation instructions for the proposed Fire Pits including gas demands and location requirements. The plans seem to show the gas fired Fire Pits to be installed inside the building. But Fire Pits must be outdoors with nothing over head and clearances around the Fire Pits. Show vented pre fab gas fired fireplaces not Fire Pits. MECHANICAL (2013 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE) 77. The response by the mechanical response provided states: "Not in the mechanical scope of work, see plumbing drawings." But no plumbing response to this item provided. And no condensate waste system shown in the plumbing plans. Detail the primary and secondary mechanical condensate waste design: Pipe sizing, routing, and termination areas. CMC 309.0 & CPC 807.0 CARLSBAD Pci 5-73 02118/2016 78. A complete review of the mechanical plans to be done when the complete corrected mechanical drawings and calculations are provided. On sheets MR-I, MR-5, & MR-6 Please show the outside are ducting connections to the Fan Coil return air plenums. As per Key Notes #6 on sheets MR-5 & MR-6 the kitchen hood are not apart of this permit package. The kitchen hood exhaust ducting shown on the drawings can not be reviewed with out the kitchen hood system plans and calculations. CIVIC, Chapter 5, Part II The ventilation air supply shall be sufficient to provide make-up air for exhaust systems CIVIC 505.3 0) Include the requirements for attic or under floor installed mechanical equipment on the plans: access opening minimum sizing, the height of the passageway and distance from the access opening, passageway design (dimensions), the work platform sizing, and the lighting and convenience electrical outlets. CIVIC 904.10. E) The mechanical drawings do not show the make and model of the prefab fireplace. 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. EsGil Corporation In Partners flip wit/I government for Building Safety DATE: JAN. 08, 2016 ____ APPLICANT lrL\ JURISDICTION: CARLSBAD V L' I PLAN REVIEWER LI FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: PC 15-73 SET: I PROJECT ADDRESS: NW CORNER - EL CAMINO REAL & WEST RANCH STREET PROJECT NAME: ROBERTSON RANCH - RECREATION FACILITY The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's 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. Lii 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: ARCHITECTS ORANGE AlA 144 NORTH ORANGE STREET, ORANGE, CA 92666 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: AO AlA Telephone #: 714-639-9860 tDate cc acted: I /e) (by\C.) Email: kstoverarchitectsorange.com "iciaii tphone Fax In Person L - REMARK Scope of Work: Recreation Building is under this permit. By: ALl SADRE, S.E. Enclosures: EsGil Corporation GA Z EJ LI MB LI PC 12/24 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (858) 560-1468 • Fax (858) 560-1576 CARLSBAD PC15-73 JAN. 08, 2016 ELECTRICAL and ENERGY COMMENTS PLAN REVIEWER: Eric Jensen ELECTRICAL (2013 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE) Complete the site lighting sheet E1.2. Nothing is presently shown but be sure to include the structural base details and energy control design. What size are those branch circuits supplying the mechanical condensers? See floorplans; clarify by referencing to sheet EO.7. 51. Is it really a 2,000 ampere service that's going to be installed? The single line feeder symbols don't match any of the designations on the feeder schedule? There's an "EM" panel on the floorplan? (Not on the single line diagram?) Exterior landings of required exits are required to comply with CBC 1006.3. Please provide. ENERGY (2013 CALIFORNIA BUILDING ENERGY STANDARDS) o The energy is fine as submitted. 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 The final set of corrected drawings to be reviewed for signing and sealing just before the permits are to be issued. 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. PLUMBING (2013 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE) Sheet P-0.1 is incomplete as site plumbing construction plan. Provide the site plumbing plans showing the sizes and locations of the gas meters and water meter; and the sizes, routes, and slopes of the building sewer, storm drainage system, site gas lines, and site water lines. CARLSBAD PC15-73 JAN. 08, 2016 57. Please provide construction drawings for the Private Water Lines from Public Water Meter to connection to the building. Showing piping materials, routes, and piping sizes. 58. Please provide construction drawings for the Private Sewer Lines from the building to the point of connection to Public Sewer system. Showing piping materials, routes, slopes, and piping sizes. 59. Identify the extent of the private sewer, water, and gas systems on the plumbing site plan. Clearly specify, on the plans, which City Department is responsible for the permitting, plan check, and inspections for the private utility systems. If private, the responsibility of the City Building Department, and under the Uniform Plumbing Code, provide complete civil site utility plans for plan check, or obtain a separate permit from the City for the civil site plans. 60. For backwater valve review, please show the upstream sewer manhole rim elevation (manhole cover elevation) and finished floor elevations. CPC 710.0 Backwater valves are: Mandatory: Fixtures installed on a floor level below the next upstream manhole cover elevation require backwater protection. Not Allowed: For waste systems with fixtures installed on a floor level above the next upstream manhole cover elevation. 61. Show all private sub water meters sizes and locations. 62. Show public water meter sizes and locations. 63. Please provide to the Building Official, a copy of the required Certification of Compliance for the proposed CPVC water piping as per CPC, Section 604.1.1 (d), prior to issuing a building permit. 64. Provide complete water line sizing calculations: Include the water pressures, pressure loss calculations, water demands, developed pipe lengths and and sizing tables for each water piping material. CPC 610.0 or Appendix 'A'. 65. In the water line sizing calculations' include the maximum velocities allowed per material type. Copper (CPC lS3:2.6) is: Cold 8 FPS & Hot 5 FPS (and) CPVC (IS 20-2005, section 2.10.1)8 FPS and maximum fixture loading of Table 3. 66. As of July 1, 2011, new or relocated water closets and associated flushometer valves, if any, shall use no more than 1.28 gallons per flush, UPC, Sections 402.1 & 402.2.2; and shall meet performance standards, established by the American National Standards Institute Standard A112.19.2, H & S Code, Section 17921.3(b). Please correct all the proposed water closets. 67. As per the California Green Building Code, new or relocated urinals and associated flushometer valves, if any, shall use no more than 0.5 gallon per flush, and shall meet performance standards established by the American CARLSBAD PC15-73 JAN. 08, 2016 National Standards Institute Standard A112.19.2. H & S Code, Section 17921.3(b). 68. Hot water recirculating loop systems requirements (Not single family homes): Detail the following as per California Energy Efficiency Standard, Section 113(c)5: The installation of an air release valve on the inlet side of the recirculation pump, within 4' of the pump. A check valve is required between the recirculating pump and the water heating equipment to prevent the hot water from flowing backwards through the recirculation loop. A check valve is required on the cold water supply line between the hot water system and the next closest tee on the cold water supply line. (See CPC 608.3 for expansion tank requirements.) 69. Please provide gas line riser or isometric drawings for each public gas meter. 70. Provide gas line plans and calculations showing gas pressures, piping types, gas demands, pipe lengths, pipe sizing method used, and gas pipe sizing charts for iron piping material & CSST piping material. CPC 1216.0 71. Include the gas piping sediment trap installed downstream of the appliance shutoff valve as close to the inlet of the appliance as practical. Exceptions: Appliances with an internal sediment trap,(or) ranges, clothes dryers, gas fireplaces, and outdoor grilles. CPC 1211.8. The gas shut off valve shown in the Gas Fired Water Heater W/ Gravity Vent detail on sheet P-0.OA is on the incorrect side of the sediment trap. 72. Where the CSST gas piping enters the building it shall be bonded to the electrical service grounding electrode system with a minimum No. 6 copper conductor. CPC 1210.15.2 73. Plumbing fixtures to comply with the following water flow rates: Water closets: 1.28 GPF Urinals: .5 GPF C) Residential Lavatories: 1.5 GPM Residential kitchen faucets: 1.8 GPM. CGreenCode Table 5.303.6 & CPC 403.0 74. A complete review of the plumbing plans to be done when the complete corrected plumbing drawings and calculations are provided. MECHANICAL (2013 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE) 75. There are no mechanical equipment schedules on sheet MR-1, Legend, Symbols & Equipment Schedule. Please complete the mechanical drawings. CARLSBAD PC15-73 JAN. 08, 2016 Specify the make, model, type, and efficiency of the space heating and cooling systems in agreement with the energy design. Detail the primary and secondary mechanical condensate waste design: Pipe sizing, routing, and termination areas. CIVIC 309.0 & CPC 807.0 A complete review of the mechanical plans to be done when the complete corrected mechanical drawings and calculations are provided. 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. EsGil Corporation In (Partnership with Government for CBui(ding Safety DATE: JAN. 08, 2016 Li AYPLICANT iu RI S. JURISDICTION: CARLSBAD 'LJ PLAN REVIEWER Li FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: PC 15-73 SET: I PROJECT ADDRESS: NW CORNER - EL CAMINO REAL & WEST RANCH STREET PROJECT NAME: ROBERTSON RANCH - RECREATION FACILITY The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's 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: ARCHITECTS ORANGE AlA 144 NORTH ORANGE STREET, ORANGE, CA 92666 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: AO AlA Telephone #: 714-639-9860 ittD ate cotacted: 'I (b: 'C-') Email: kstoverarchitectsoranqe.com 'MaiI çIepho Fax In Person REMARkSScope of Work: Recreation Building is under this permit. By: ALl SADRE, S.E. Enclosures: EsGil Corporation GA Z EJ LI MB LI Pc 12/24 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (858) 560-1468 • Fax (858) 560-1576 CARLSBAD PC 15-73 JAN. 08, 2016 PLAN REVIEW CORRECTION LIST MULTI-FAMILY PLAN CHECK NO.: PC15-73 OCCUPANCY: B/A3 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V-B ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: 6K/FLR. SPRINKLERS?: Y REMARKS: DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY JURISDICTION: 12/22 DATE INITIAL PLAN REVIEW COMPLETED: JAN. 08, 2016 FOREWORD (PLEASE READ): JURISDICTION: CARLSBAD USE: RECREATIONAL FACILITY ACTUAL AREA: 7,140 STORIES: ONE HEIGHT: 22' OCCUPANT LOAD: 125 DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 12/24 PLAN REVIEWER: ALl SADRE, S.E. 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 ordinance 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. Present California law mandates that construction comply with the 2013 edition of the California Building Code (Title 24), which adopts the following model codes: 2012 IBC, 2012 UPC, 2012 UMC and 2011 NEC. The above regulations apply, regardless of the code editions adopted by ordinance. The following items listed need clarification, modification or change. All items must be satisfied before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations. Per Sec. 105.4 of the 2012 International Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law. To speed up the recheck process, please note on this list (or a copy) where each correction item has been addressed, i.e., plan sheet number, specification section, etc. Be sure to enclose the marked up list when you submit the revised plans. CARLSBAD PC 15-73 JAN. 08, 2016 . GENERAL 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 one corrected set of plans and calculations/reports to EsGil Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, CA 92123, (858) 560-1468. Deliver all remaining sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department for routing to their Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. NOTE: Plans that are submitted directly to EsGil Corporation only will not be reviewed by the City Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments until review by EsGil Corporation is complete. . PLANS 2. A reminder that all sheets of the revised plans and the first sheet of any updated calculations are required to be signed by the licensed architect or engineer responsible for the plan preparation. California State Law. Include the following code information for the proposed buildings on plans: Occupancy Classification(s): B(Miscellaneous)/A3(Assembly) - Ok as noted Type of Construction: V-B - Ok as noted Sprinklers: Yes - Ok as noted Stories: One - Ok as noted Height: 22'- Ok as noted Floor Areas: 7,140 - Ok as noted Occupant Load: 197 - Ok as noted Justify actual versus allowable area in Table 503 (as applicable) - Ok as noted Justify actual vs. allowable height or stories in Table 503 (as applicable) - Ok as noted . SITE PLAN Clearly designate any side yards used to justify increases in allowable area based on Section 506.2. Provide a statement on the site plan stating: "All property lines, easements and buildings, both existing and proposed, are shown on this site plan." Please complete Sheets RBD2.1 & RBD2.2 and label them on plans. Where is detail 5/RBD2.1, as called out on Sheet RB1.0, on plans? Where is detail 3/RBD2.1, as referenced on Sheet R131.0, on plans? CARLSBAD PC 15-73 JAN. 08, 2016 9. Please complete all references in the margin of Sheet R131.0. I.e., Sheet AT.X. 10. Where is Sheet AD2.2, as called out in the margin of Sheet RBI .0? . ROOFS 11. Specify on the plans the following information for the roof materials, per Section 1506.3: See Sheet RB1.4: Manufacturer's name and Product name/number. ICC approval number, or equal. . RESIDENTIAL GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS The California Building Standards Commission has adopted the Green Building Standards Code which became effective January 1, 2011 and must be enforced by the local building official. The following mandatory requirements for residential construction must be included on your plans. CGC Section 101.3. The Standards apply to newly constructed residential buildings, along with add itionsIaIterations that increase the building's conditioned area, volume or size. CGC Section 303.1.1. Provide a sheet on the plans labeled "Green Building Code Requirements" and include the following notes as applicable. 12. Storm water drainage/retention during construction. Note on plans: Projects which disturb less than one acre of soil shall manage storm water drainage during construction by one of the following: A. Retention basins. B. Where storm water is conveyed to a public drainage system, water shall be filtered by use of a barrier system, wattle or other approved method. CGC Section 4.106.2. 13. Grading and paving. Note on plans that site grading or drainage system will manage all surface water flows to keep water from entering buildings (swales, water collection, French drains, etc.). CGC Section 4.106.3. Exception: Additions not altering the drainage path. 14. Indoor water use. Show compliance with the following table, per CGC Section 4.303.1. FIXTURE FLOW RATES FIXTURE TYPE MAXIMUM FLOW RATE Water closets 11.28 gallons/flush Urinals 0.5 gallon/flush Showerheads 2 gpm @ 80 psi Lavatory faucets 1.5 gpm @ 60 psi' Kitchen faucets 1.8 gpm @60 psi Metering faucets 0.25 gallons per cycle 1. Lavatory faucets shall not have a flow rate less than 0.8 gpm at 20 psi. Note on plans that landscape irrigation water use shall have weather or soil based controllers. CGC Section 4.304.1. Recycling. Note on plans that a minimum of 50% of construction waste is to be recycled. CGC Section 4.408.1. Recycling. Note on plans that the contractor shall submit a Construction Waste Management Plan, per CGC Section 4.408.2. CARLSBAD PC15-73 JAN. 08, 2016 Operation and maintenance manual. Note on plans that the builder is to provide an operation manual (containing information for maintaining appliances, etc.) for the owner at the time of final inspection. CGC Section 4.41 0.1. Pollutant control. Note on plans that during construction, ends of duct openings are to be sealed, and mechanical equipment is to be covered. CGC Section 4.504.1. Pollutant control. Note on plans that VOC's must comply with the limitations listed in Section 4504.3 and Tables 4.504.1, 4.504.2, 4504.3 and 4504.5 for: Adhesives, Paints and Coatings, Carpet and Composition Wood Products. CGC Section 4.504.2. Interior moisture control. Note on plans that concrete slabs will be provided with a capillary break. CGC Section 4.505.2.1. Interior moisture control. Note on plans that the moisture content of wood shall not exceed 19% before it is enclosed in construction. The moisture content needs to be certified by one of 3 methods specified. Building materials with visible signs of water damage should not be used in construction. The moisture content must be determined by the contractor by one of the methods listed in CGC Section 4.505.3. Indoor air quality. Note on plans that bathroom fans shall be Energy Star rated, vented directly to the outside and controlled by a humidistat. CGC 4.506.1. Note on 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. . MISCELLANEOUS LIFE/SAFETY Please specify where window RE, as per window schedule, on Sheet R131.3, is referenced on floor plans, Sheet RBI.l. All the references on Sheet RBI .1, under floor plan keynotes & general notes are incorrect. I.e., Sheets A1.6, RBO.2.1, D1.2, etc., are either non-existent, or do not match their stated purpose. [E.g., there are no HC notes on Sheet R130.2.11, etc.]. Please specify panic hardware for door R2 in the Lounge, on Sheet R131.1 & 3. Sections 1008.1 and 1008.2. Please cross reference all details, as per Sheet RBD1.1, on floor plans. . STRUCTURAL 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. Note on plans that surface water will drain away from the building. The grade shall fall a minimum of 5% within the first 10 feet (2% for impervious surfaces). Section 1804.3. CARLSBAD PC 15-73 'JAN. 08, 2016 31. Note on the foundation plan that "Prior to the contractor requesting a Building Department foundation inspection, the soils engineer shall advise the building official in writing that: The building pad was prepared in accordance with the soils report, The utility trenches have been properly backfilled and compacted, and C) The foundation excavations comply with the intent of the soils report." 32. The following design loads shall be clearly indicated on the construction documents. (Section 1603.1): . Roof live load. Each roof live load used should be indicated. . Wind load. The following information should be provided, (Section 1603.1.4) Ultimate Wind speed (3-second gust), mph, and nominal design wind speed Risk category Wind exposure Applicable internal pressure coefficient Components and cladding (the design wind pressure in terms of psf to be used for the design of exterior component and cladding materials not specifically designed by the registered design professional) Seismic design data. The following information should be provided. (Section 1603.1.5) Risk category Seismic importance factor, 'e Mapped spectral response accelerations Ss and S1 Site Class Design spectral response coefficients SDS and SD1 Seismic design category Basic seismic-force-resisting system(s) Design base shear Seismic response coefficient(s), Cs Response modification factor(s), R Analysis procedure used. 33. Provide the following note on the plans: "The contractor responsible for the construction of the seismic-force-resisting system shall submit a written Statement of Responsibility to the building official prior to the commencement of work on the system." Section 1704.4. 34. The City Policy requires that their Special Inspection Agreement be completed for the items noted on Sheet RS-CS. [This Form is available at the building department]. 35. Please add minimum structural specifications sheet to the package to be resubmitted. CARLSBAD PC 15-73 JAN. 08, 2016 Please specify the slab underlayment (i.e., 4" of sand with lO-mil. visqueen @ mid-depth, etc.) on l/RSDI, etc. [Reference to the soils report is not sufficient]. Please show any pour strips, as per detail 3/RSDI, on the foundation plans. Please identify the 8" & 13" PT slab areas, as per structural calculations, on the foundation plans. Detail 5/RSDI, as referenced on Foundation Legend (keynote) #7 is incorrect, starting on Sheet RSI.l. Clarify detail 3/SRSDI, as referenced on Foundation Legend (keynote) #8, is incorrect, starting on Sheet RS1.1. Please provide a legend on foundation plans for the slab in the electrical room, starting on Sheet RS1.1. [This legend should match those shown in the margin of the foundation sheet]. On Sheet RS1.1, show HTT4 by the electrical room, near door R16 opening. Please show slab thickness, reinforcement and underlayment information on Sheet RS1.1 for the pool equipment room. Also for all other areas not covered by the PT slab. Please show drag loads on the roof framing plans for the design of roof trusses. . ADDITIONAL Please see attached for P/ME 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: U Yes U 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 ALl SADRE, S.E. at EsGil Corporation. Thank you. ELECTRICAL and ENERGY COMMENTS PLAN REVIEWER: Eric Jensen CARLSBAD PC 15-73 JAN. 08, 2016 ELECTRICAL (2013 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE) Complete the site lighting sheet E1.2. Nothing is presently shown but be sure to include the structural base details and energy control design. What size are those branch circuits supplying the mechanical condensers? See floorplans; clarify by referencing to sheet EO.7. Is it really a 2,000 ampere service that's going to be installed? The single line feeder symbols don't match any of the designations on the feeder schedule? There's an "EM" panel on the floorplan? (Not on the single line diagram?) Exterior landings of required exits are required to comply with CBC 1006.3. Please provide. ENERGY (2013 CALIFORNIA BUILDING ENERGY STANDARDS) o The energy is fine as submitted. 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. CARLSBAD PC15-73 JML 08, 2016 [DO NOT PAY— THIS IS NOTAN INVOICE] VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: CARLSBAD PLAN CHECK NO.: PC15-73 PREPARED BY: ALl SADRE, S.E. DATE: JAN. 08, 2016 BUILDING ADDRESS: NW CORNER - EL CAMINO REAL & WEST RANCH STREET BUILDING OCCUPANCY: R2/52; V-A/SPR. BLDGS: TYPE (I) BUILDING PORTION AREA (Sq. Ft.) Valuation Multiplier Reg. Mod. VALUE ($) RECREATION 7140 124.35 887,859 BLDG. Air Conditioning 7140 5.31 37,913 Fire Sprinklers 7140 3.94 28,132 TOTAL VALUE 953,904 Jurisdiction Code JCB By Ordinance Bldg. Permit Fee by Ordinance Plan Check Fee by Ordinance Type of Review: 121 D Repetitive Fee -_j Repeats V Complete Review E Other Hourly EsGil Fee Ei Structural Only Hr. @ * I $3,399.26 I $2,209.521 I $1,903.591 Comments: In addition to the above fee, an additional fee of $86 is due (1-hour @ $86/hr.) for the CalGreen review. Sheet 1 of 1 macvalue.doc + I Sustainable OpportiJnityrO. Green CONSULTING Green COMMISSIONING I . . .... Green TRAINING: Green ... . City of Carlsbad I 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 San Diego, CA 92123 I 23 February 2016 RE: Robertson Ranch - Recreation Facility - Residential CALGreen Corrections I Hello Dwight: I The following plan check corrections have been addressed in the plan set for the Robertson Ranch - Recreation Facility. As per our conversation on January 20th 2016 the project has chosen to pursue chapter 4 of the CALGrëen Building Code to reflect an ancillary space to the residential buildings. I Residential GREEN BUILDING Code Corrections 1. Referencing Plan Check Correction 21 J7CA GREEN - Structural plans indicate how concrete slabs will be provided in conjunction with a I capillary break on sheet RSDJ in Detail V. The Soils Report offers an acceptable means of compliance with the C'ALGreen Building Code Section 4.505.2.1 option 3 in concert with the structural slab design If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me anytime. Sincerely, I I I Luke Patruno Project Manager I I - 2200 West Orangewood Avenue, Suite 155 • Orange, California 92868 Tel: 774.363.4700 • Fax: 774.3634747 • www.vca-green.com ILffau LGC Valley, Inc. Geotechnical Consulting I February 29, 2016 Project No. 133023-07 I Mr. Andrew Dewar Shape// Properties, Inc. 8383 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 700 I Beverly Hills,, CA 90211 Subject: Geotechnical Foundation Plan Review for The Robertson Ranch West Village Recreation - Building within Planning Area 8 (PA-8), Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03, I Carlsbad, California. References: LGC Valley, Inc. 2015a, Preliminary foundation design for the proposed multi-family I residential development, Robertson Ranch Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8, 4980 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 133023-07, dated April 15, 2015. LGC Valley, Inc. 2015b, Update Geotechnical Report, Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development, Robertson Ranch Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 133023-07, dated December 15, 2015. Patel Burica & Associates, Inc., 2016, Robertson Ranch West Village Recreation Building, Foundation Plans, Details, and General Notes, 31( Building Department Submittal, Carlsbad, California. Project Number 1063A0, dated February 29, 2016. LGC Valley, Inc. (LGC) has reviewed the latest foundation plans for the Robertson Ranch West Village Recreation Building within PA-8 of the Robertson Ranch project in the city of Carlsbad, California. The latest (' Building Department Submittal) Foundation Plans, Details, and General Notes (PBA, 2016) prepared by Patel Burica & Associates, Inc. were the subject of our geotechnical review. Based on our review, it is our opinion that the recommendations included in the referenced geotechnical reports (LGC, 2015a and 2015b) have been properly incorporated in the project plans and specifications. Therefore, LGC finds the plans are acceptable from a geotechnical point of view provided the recommendations of the referenced reports are implemented during construction. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. The undersigned can be reached at (66 1) 702-8474. Sincerely, LGC Valley, Inc. No. 27 Exp. 6/30/1 :P_1 Principal Engineer 6 * Basil Hattar, GE 2734 OF I Distribution: (I) Addressee I 2420 Grand Avenue, Suite F2 • Vista • CA 92081 • (760) 599-7000 • Fax (760) 599-7007 I. f' Ii C 1 11 1 a 11 1 11 1, I I February 29, 2016 . . Attn: All Sadre, S.E. . . . . . . I . Esgil Corporation . . . . . 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208............ . . . . . San Diego, CA 92123 Re Roberston Ranch Recreation Building (Plan ( heck #15 73) I .. Dear Mr. Sadre, . . . ... . . . . . . We have.received and reviewed the structural plan review comments for the subject plan check. Below, please find a list of responses to each item. .The numbered .list .corresponds to the numbered comments. I STRUCTURAL . . . . . . . . . . .. . .... I .. . 29. Review .lçttcr will be provided by the peririit.applicant. 30.. Please see note 7 of the Foundation Notes o.n.slieet RSI.1. We have added a note that .spcifies to see the civiWarcliitecturalflandscapc plans loi slope Since structural does not determine or specrl' this slope and I . . . the stop can change. without our input and knowledge, we will not specifj a specific slope. Please refer to the attached sheet for example from civil drawings 34. Form is enclosed with this repo.nse letter. Iflease 900 page PCC.3 of the structural calculations. I .36. The slab underlay.ment is now specilied in .Delai.l l/RSDI. 37. Pour strip .has beenoimttcd frOm the foundation legend and noted 'SNOT USED" in the details. I . . 40. See itern #37 above.. . 41. The secondary late pour is per the soiIsrerts this slab i uon-str.uctnral to the building. Please refer to Section 3.12 of the approved sods report See structural plans, note was added.: I .42. Pool equipment room will be a secondary pour/flat'ork by others. Plee refer to Sctioii 3.12 of the approved soils See structuràPplans,•nOte WS added. If you have any questions, please call inc at (949) 94348080 extension 307. . . .. I 'Sincerely, . . . .. .. . I Pace] Burica & Associates Inc. I Brandon Brown. PE . . . . ... . . i ... .Euclosed: Civil plans .(l sheet), special iispection form 1 1hCCl) I .P:\Pn,jct&ilO63AO (Shapdl Robert'in Markct Ratc)t1Cc3 pC.0 ct - ic aidc ': 11iC, itt,iiii ' ' S FcL 940. -:.Co ::- 71 - ' 209 ww,PP. ' a.iui-akccnt i6 CITY OF CARLSBAD ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT :SHE 31 GRADING PLANS FOR ROBERTSON RANCH MULTI-FAMILY srrs PA? 8 PARCELS 1 2 PM 14-07 APPROVED; JASON .S. CELDER.1 CITY ENGINEER. RC 391 EXPRES 09/30/16 ATE OWN BY GA] RVWD BY E PROJECT NO MS 14-07 J DRAWNG NO 480 3E DATE U'flhlAL REVISION DESCRIPTION OATE INIllAL DATE 4I11AL ENGINEER OF WOR!< OTHER APPROVAL CITY APPROVAL r — In accordance with Chapter 17 of the California tBuilding Code the following must be completed when work being performed I requires special inspection, structural observation and construction material testing. Rob.erisonProject/Permit: _J___.._ Project Adcress:__505(3 El Can Ral2_Carkb4..ç_2010 A. THIS SECTION MUST BE COMPLETED BY THE,PROPERTY OWNERIAUTHORIZED AGENT. Please check if you are Owner-Builder 3. (If you checked as owner-builder you must also complete Section B of this agreement.) Name (Please print) Shapell SoCal Rental Properties, LLC iir Mailing Address, 00.J Hills, CA 9021......... Emai .ShaP.111 Phone: (323)_988-7594 I am: MProperty Owner QProperty Owner's Agent of Record DArchitect of Record DEngineer of Record State of California Registration Nurncec. - . .. Expiration Date:___________________ I AGREEMENT: I, the undersigned, declare nder penal)' of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that I have read, understand, acknowledge and promise to comply with the City of Carlsbad requirements for special inspections, structural observaUons, construction materials testing and off-site fabrication of building components, as prescribed in the statement of special inspections noted o apved plans and, as required by the California Building Code. I Signature:. - Date: Degmber 17,2015 AndrL uk.ar VP Construction, I B. CONTRACTOR'S STATEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY '07 CBC. Ch 17, Section 1706). This secnon mUst be completed by the I contractor] builder [owner-builder- Contractor's Company Name:. . . - PIe check if you arc Owrr-auilder 0 I Name. (Please print) I Mailing Address:.. ., Email:_ - Phone:________________________ State of California Contractor's License Number:,--- ... Expiration Date: I • I acknowledge and, am aware, of soeci' requirements contained in the statement of special inspections noted on the approved plans: I acknowledge that control will oe exercised to obtain conformance with the construction documents approved by the I building official; I will have in-place procedures for exercising control within our the contractorsj organization, for the method and frequency of reporting and the distribution of the reports: and I certify that I will have a qualified person within our (the contractor's) organization to exercise such control. I . Iwill providea _final report / letter in_compliance with __CBC Section 1704.1.2 prior to_qUtinrt find inspection. Signature... ..• - Date: I Page 1 of I - Rev. 08111 Jeffrey C. Overmyer Dennis E. McVay Mon= 0MB ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS, INC. Roy L. Lopez Date: February 29, 2016 To: Eric Jensen, S.E. EsGil Corporation 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 San Diego, CA 92123 From: Jimmy Torres Project: Robertson Ranch Apts., Rec. Building OMB Job No. 15419 Subject: Plan Check No. 15-73 Plans: 2. All Electrical Sheet are currently Signed, as required. Energy (2013 California Building energy Standards): 1. All non- landscape fixtures are currently controlled via Lighting Control panel Via Timeclock. Exterior Post Top Fixtures type "S3" are currently controlled via Photocell and Integral Motion Sensor as required per Energy Code. Please refer to Electrical Sheets: EO.3.1/E.0.5/EO.6/ & E1.2. Sincerely, Jimmy Torres OMB Electrical Engineers 8825 Research Drive • lrvine, California .•92618 • (949) 753-1553 • Fax (949) 753-1992 01 PLAN CHECK Community & Economic REVIEW Development Department 1635 Faraday Avenue * TRANSMITTAL Carlsbad CA 92008 www.carlsbadca.gov DATE: 09/27/2016 PROJ NAME: RR APARTMENT REC CENTER PROJECT ID:PC 15-73 PLAN CHECK NO: SET#: 2 ADDRESS: 2510 WEST RANCH CENTER APN: 2080104400 VALUATION: SCOPE OF WORK: REC CENTER FOR TH APARTMENT COMPLEX FE This plan check review is complete and has been APPROVED by: LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION Final Inspectionby Construction Management & Inspection Division is required Yes [1 No FE7 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 Ccmments have been sent to: ESHOEMAKER@ALLIANCEENG.COM To determine status by one of the divisions listed below, please contact 760-602-2719. LAND DEVELOPMENT 760-6022750 - I Chris Sexton Chris Glassen '[1 Greg Ryan 760-602-4624 1 760-602-2784 L......J. 760-602-4663 Chris.Sexton@cadsbadcagov Christopher.Glassen@carlsbadca.gov Gregory. Ryan@carlsbadca.gov Gina Ruiz Linda Ontiveros T Cindy Wong 760-602-4675 760-602-2773 - 760-602-4662 Gina.Ruiz@carlsbadca.gol, Linda.ontiveros@carlsbadca.gov Cynthia.Wong@carlsbadca.gov I ValRay Nelson iI Dominic Fieri J . . 760-602-2741 760-602-4664 ValRay.Marshall@carlsbadca.gov Dominic.Fieri@carlsbadca.gov Remarks: RR APARTMENT REC CENTER PLAN CHECK NO # 2 Please .I Outstanding issues are marked with 'X' Items that conform to permit Instructions: requirements are marked with 11 or have intentinally been left blank. 1. SITE PLAN EET Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. Show: r -i North arrow J Driv >APP ED L_J Existing & proposed structures L Exist 80 B LIII J Existing street improvements j LIII] Exist Li J Property lines (show all dimensions) LII] [71] Subr LIII] ! Easements DW( Right-of-way width & adjacent streets Show on site plan: LIIIIJ LIIIJ Drainage patterns and proposed site elevations. Show all high points. SIGNED APPROVED EIIII [I] Building pad surface drainage must maintain a minimum slope of one GRADING street or an approved drainage course. PLANS LIII ADD THE FOLLOWING NOTE Finish grade will provide a minimum 5' away from building". DWG 480-3B Existing & proposed slopes and topography Lull =size, location, alignment of existing or proposed sewer and water sery Each unit requires a separate service; however, second dwelling units exception. LIII] [] Sewer and water laterals should not be located within proposed drives Include on title sheet: EII%1 Site address LL] Assessor's parcel number [I] Legal description/lot number T For commercial/indu1strial buildings and tenant improvement square footage with the square footage for each differe showing square footage of different uses (manufacturing, w approved. LIII] [711] Show all existing use of SF and new proposed use of SF. Example: Tenant improvement for 3500 SF of warehouse to 3500 SI of office. iay widths ig or proposed sewer lateral ig or proposed water service on signed approved plans: No. 480-3B towards an adjoining drainage of 2% to swale ce(s) that serves the project. and apartment complexes are an per standards. Djects, include: total building use, existing sewer permits iouse, office, etc.) previously Lot/Map No.: Subdivision/Tract: MS 1407 Reference No(s): PA 7 & 8 E-36 Page 2 of 6 REV 6/01/12 RR APARTMENT REC CENTER PLAN CHECK NO# 2 DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL COMPLIANCE RES 7093 E1 Project does not comply with the following engineering conditions of approval for project no.: SDP 15-01 MAP 16092 DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS EIII J Dedication for all street rights-of-way adjacent to the building site and any storm drain or utility easements on the building site is required for all new buildings and for remodels with a value at or exceeding $ 24000.00 , pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.40.030. LJ Ddication required as follows: IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS All needed public improvements upon and adjacent to the building site must be constructed ati time of building construction whenever the value of the construction exceeds $120,000.00, pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.40.040. EIII LIII Public improvements required as follows: [111111 I Construction of the public improvements must be deferred pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.40. Please submit a recent property title report or current grant deed on the property and processing fee, so we may prepare the necessary Neighborhood Improvement Agreement. This agreement must be signed, notarized and approved by the city prior to issuance of a building permit. [11111 [ElI Future public improvements required as follows: E-36 Page 3 of 6 REV6/01/12 RR APARTMENT REC CENTER CHECK NO# 2 GRADING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS The conditions that require a grading permit are found in 15.16 of the Municipal Code. I. GR 15-30 ["]Inadequate information available on site plan to make a determination on grading requirements. Include accurate grading quantities in cubic yads (cut, fill, import, export and remedial). This information must be included on the plans. If no grading is proposed write: "NO GRADING" EZJ Grading Permit required. NOTE: The grading perm approval obtained prior to issuance of a building permit. E1211 Graded Pad Certification required. (Note: Pad certification my be required even if a grading permit is not required.) All required documentation must be provided to your Engineering Construction Inspector Clavier 06/15/2016 The inspector will then provide the engineering counter with a release for the building permit. L1 No grading permit required. EL Minor Grading Permit required. See additional comments for p specific requirements. MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS 11 LJ RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT is required to do' work in city adjacent to the public right-of-way. Types of work inc1u improvements, tree trimming, driveway construction, tying water utilities. ht-of-way and/or private work but are not limited to: street public storm drain, sewer and Right-of-way permit required for: E-36 Page 4of6 REV 6/01/12 RR APARTMENT REC CENTER PLAN CHECK NO #2 7. STORMIWATER SW 15-430 Project Threat Assessment Form complete. [11 Enclosed Project Threat Assessment Form incomplete Requires Tier 1 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (E-29). Please complete attached form and return (SW EEl Eli Requires Tier 2 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Requires submittal of Tier 2 SWPPP, payment of processing fee and review by city. Post-bevelopment (SUSMP) Compliance SWMP 15-20 [J Storm Water Standards Questionnaire. Project is subject to Standard Storm Water Requirements. See city Standard Urban Storm Water Management Plan (SUSMP) for reference. Indicate areas of impervious surfaces (patios,walkway, etc. ) and pervious areas (landscaping). U Project needs to incorporate low impact development strategies throughout in one or more of the following ways: I Rainwater harvesting (rain barrels or cistern) [] Vegetated Roof Bio-retentions cell/rain garden Pervious pavement/payers Flow-through planter/vegetated or rock drip line Vegetated swales or rock infiltration swales LI Downspouts disconnect and discharge over landscape Other: E-36 1 Page 5of6 REV 6/01/12 RR APARTMENT REC CENTER 'LAN CHECK NO #2 WATER METER REVIEW Domestic (potable) Use 2" METER LIJ E211 What size meter is required? INDICATED ON L.J=FYI Where a residential unit is required to have an automatic fire extihguishing system, the minimum meter size shall be a 1 meter. P2.1 SHEET NOTE: the connection fee, SDCWA system capacity charge and the water treatment capacity charge will be based on the size of the meter necessary to meet the water use requirements. Li FLY 1] For residential units the minimum size meter shall be 5/8", except where the residential unit is larger than 3,500 square feet or on a lot larger than one quarter (1/4) acre where the meter size shall be 3/4". FEES Required fees have been entered in building permit. Drainage fee applicable Added square feet Added square footage in last two years? I yes Li no Permit No. Permit No. Project built after 1980 ayes Limo Impervious surface > 50% Dyes E] no Impact unconstructed facility yes LII no Fire sprinklers required Jyes [mo (is addition over 150' from centerline) Upgrade jyes [Jn No fees required Li I- 10. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Attachments Engineering Application = Storm Water Form Right-of-Way Application/ into L Reference Documents E-36 Page 6of6 REV 6101/12 MS 14-07 PA 7 & 8 Fee Calculation Worksheet ENGINEERING DIVISION Prepared by: VALRAY hELSON Date: 01105/2016 GEO DATA: LFMZ: I B&T: Address: Bldg. Permit#: PC 15-73 Fees Update by: Date: Fees Update by: Date: EDU CALCULATIONS: List types and square footages for all uses. Types of Use: PRlV RC FACILITY Sq.Ft./Units EDU's: I 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: PRIV RC FACILITY Sq.Ft./Units ADT's: N/A Types of Use: NO EXT.A TRAFFIC Sq.Ft./Units RENTERS ONLY ADT's: Types of Use: Sq.Ft./Units ADT's: Types of Use: Sq.Ft./Units ADT's: FEES REQUIRED: Within CFD:flYES (no !bridge & thoroughfare fee in District #1, reduces Traffic Impact Fee) LINO 1. PARK-IN-LIEU FEE: [J,- QUADRANT El NE QUADRANT [T] SE QUADRANT [W QUADRANT ADT'$UNITS: X FEE/ADT: 4 N/A 23RAFFIC IMPACT FEE: ADT'/UNITS: X FEE/ADT: $ N/A BRIDGE & THOROUc3HFARE FEE: Lii DIST. #1 [IDIST.#2 [11111] DIST.#3 (USE SANDAG)ADT'/UNITS X FEE/ADT: $ N/A FACILITIES MANAGEMENT FEE ZONE: 14 ADT'/UNITS: X FEE/SQ.FT./UNIT: $ NO FEE SEWER FEE EDU's I X FEE/EDU: 881 $ 881 BENEFIT AREA: EDU'3 I X FEE/EDU: 1222 $ 1222 6 DRAINAGE FEES PLDA L iHIGH 1-1--] MEDIUM [1JLOW ACRES: X FEE/AC: 4 7. POTABLE WATER FEES: UNITS CODE CONN. FEE METER FEE SDCWA FEE TOTAL I D2.0 25182 823 25808 51813 ***This may not reprsent a comprehensive list of fees due for this project. Please contact the Building division at (760) 60719 for a complete listing of fees*** 4 PLAN CHECK REVIEW TRANSMITTAL Community & Economic Development Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 www.carlsbadca.gov DATE: 04/04/2016 PROJECT NAME: RR APARTMENT REC CENTER PROJECT ID:PC 15-73 PLAN CHECK NO-J, SET#: 2 ADDRESS: 2510 WEST RANCH CENTER APN: 2080104400 VALUATION: SCOPE OF WORK: REC CENTER FOR THE APARTMENT COMPLEX This plan check review is complete and has been APPROVED by: LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION Final Inspection by Construction Management & Inspection Division is required Yes IXI No I-I >< This plan check review is NOT COMPLETE. Items missing or incorrect are listed on the attached checklist. Please resubmit amended plans as required. Plan Check Comments have been sent to: ESHOEMAKER@ALLIANCEENG.COM To determine status by one of the divisions listed below, please contact 760-602-2719. LAND DEVELOPMENT JJ 760-602.2750 ' Chris Sexton r Chris Glassen Greg Ryan 760-602-4624 . 760-602-2784 760-602-4663 Chris.Sexton@carlsbadca.gov Christopher.Glassen@carlsbadca.gov Gregory.Ryan@carisbadca.gov Gina Ruiz Linda Ontiveros Cindy Wong . 760-602-4675 760-602-2773 760-602-4662 Gina. Ruiz@carlsbadca.gov Linda.Ontiveros@carisbadca.gov Cynth ia.Wong@carisbadca.gov IF177 VaiRay Nelson TI Dominic Fieri 760-602-2741 760-602-4664 VaiRay.Marshaii@carisbadca.gov Dominic.Fieri@carisbadca.gov Remarks: RR APARTMENT REC CENTER PLAN CHECK NO # 2 'rir.t1TU Outstanding issues are marked with LX . Items that conform to permit nnwrmins. requirements are marked with [71 or have intentionally been left blank. 1. SITE PLAN SLIP SHEET Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. Show: SIGNED North arrow E] Driveway widths APPROVED Existing & proposed structures i Existing or proposed sewer lateral DWG 480-3E L_j Existing street improvements Existing or proposed water service [111 Property lines (show all dimensions) LX . J Submit on signed approved plans U U Easements DWG No. 480-3E L_J L11 Right-of-way width & adjacent streets Show on site plan: Li [] Drainage patterns and proposed site elevations. Show all high points. SIGNED APPROVED Building pad surface drainage must maintain a minimum slope of one percent towards an adjoining GRADING street or an approved drainage course. PLANS LII EUIADD THE FOLLOWING NOTE: "Finish grade will provide a minimum positive drainage of 2% to swale 5' away from building". DWG 480-3E J [] Existing & proposed slopes and topography LIII =Size, location, alignment of existing or proposed sewer and water service(s) that serves the project. Each unit requires a separate service; however, second dwelling units and apartment complexes are an exception. LIII LIII Sewer and water laterals should not be located within proposed driveways, per standards. Include on title sheet: / Site address / Assessors parcel number [ Legal description/lot number El] For commercial/industrial buildings and tenant improvement projects, include: total building square footage with the square footage for each different use, existing sewer permits showing square footage of different uses (manufacturing, warehouse, office, etc.) previously approved. Show all existing use of SF and new proposed use of SF. Example: Tenant improvement for 3500 SF of warehouse to 3500 SF of office. Lot/Map No.: Subdivision/Tract: MS 14-07 Reference No(s): PA 7 & 8 E-36 Page 2 of 6 REV 6/01/12 RR APARTMENT REC CENTER PLAN CHECK NO # 2 DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL COMPLIANCE RES 7093 ''" J= Project does not comply with the following engineering conditions of approval for project no.: DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS Dedication for all street rights-of-way adjacent to the building site and any storm drain or MAP 16092 utility easements on the building site is required for all new buildings and for remodels with a value at or exceeding $ 24.000.00 , pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.40.030. = Dedication required as follows IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS r—All needed public improvements upon and adjacent to the building site must be constructed —at time of building construction whenever the value of the construction exceeds $120,000.00, pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.40.040. =1 El Public improvements required as follows: -I Construction of the public improvements must be deferred pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.40. Please submit a recent property title report or current grant deed on the property and processing fee, so we may prepare the necessary Neighborhood Improvement. Agreement. This agreement must be signed, notarized and approved by the city prior to issuance of a building permit. Future public improvements required as follows: E-36 Page 3 of 6 REV 6/01/12 RR APARTMENT REC CENTER PLAN CHECK NO # 2 GRADING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS The conditions that require a grading permit are found in Section 15.16 of the Municipal Code. IIIJ=Inadequate information available on site plan to make a determination on grading requirements. Include accurate grading quantities in cubic yards (cut, fill, import, export and remedial). This information must be included on the plans. If no grading is proposed write: "NO GRADING" [1 =Grading Permit required. NOTE: The grading permit must be issued and rough grading approval obtained prior to issuance of a building permit. [51 rj Graded Pad Certification required. (Note: Pad certification may be required even if a grading permit is not required.) All required documentation must be provided to your Engineering Construction Inspector The inspector will then provide the engineering counter with a release for the building permit. EJ EJ No grading permit required. LIII LIL Minor Grading Permit required. See additional comments for project- specific requirements. MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS 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. Types of work include, but are not limited to: street improvements, tree trimming, driveway construction, tying into public storm drain, sewer and water utilities. EIII Right-of-way permit required for: E-36 Page 4of6 REV 6/01/12 RR APARTMENT REC CENTER PLAN CHECK NO U 2 7. STORM WATER Construction Compliance SW 15-430 Project Threat Assessment Form complete. El El Enclosed Project Threat Assessment Form incomplete. El El Requires Tier I Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (E-29). Please complete attached forrr and return (SW El LIII Requires Tier 2 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Requires submittal of Tier 2 SWPPP, payment of processing fee and review by city. Post-Development (SUSMP) Compliance SWMP 15-20 LIII Storm Water Standards Questionnaire. El Project is subject to Standard Storm Water Requirements. See city Standard Urban Storm Water Management Plan (SUSMP) for reference. [1111 Indicate areas of impervious surfaces (patios,walkway, etc. ) and pervious areas (landscaping). El Project needs to incorporate low impact development strategies throughout in one or more of the following ways: LII Rainwater harvesting (rain barrels or cistern) LII Vegetated Roof [III] Bio-retentions cell/rain garden LII] Pervious pavement/payers LII Flow-through planter/vegetated or rock drip line LIII Vegetated swales or rock infiltration swales LII Downspouts disconnect and discharge over landscape LIII Other: E-36 Page 5 of 6 REV 6/01/12 RR APARTMENT REC CENTER PLAN CHECK NO # 2 WATER METER REVIEW Domestic (potable) Use 2" METER / j What size meter is required? INDICATED ON FYI I Where a residential unit is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system, the minimum meter size shall be a 1" meter. P2.1 SHEET NOTE: the connection fee, SDCWA system capacity charge and the water treatment capacity charge will be based on the size of the meter necessary to meet the water use requirements. fYL For residential units the minimum size meter shall be 5/8",except where the residential unit is larger than 3,500 square feet or on a lot larger than one quarter (1/4) acre where the meter size shall be %". FEES EIZI1I LI Required fees have been entered in building permit. EL EL Drainage fee applicable Added square feet Added square footage in last two years? Dyes 0 no Permit No. Permit No. Project built after 1980 [H yes no Impervious surface >50% []yes no Impact unconstructed facility jyes Ljn Fire sprinklers required Dyes [J no (is addition over 150 from center line) Upgrade flyes [:]no TI No fees required ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Attachments Engineering Application Storm Water Form _I Right-of-Way Application/ Info. Reference Documents E-36 Page 6of6 REV 6/01/12 MS 14-07 PA 7 & 8 Fee Calculation Worksheet ENGINEERING DIVISION Prepared by: VALRAY NELSON Date: 01105/2016 GEO DATA: LFMZ: I B&T: Address: Bldg. Permit#: PC 15-73 Fees Update by: Date: Fees Update by: Date: EDU CALCULATIONS: List types and square footages for all uses. Types of Use: PRIV REC FACILITY Sq.Ft./Units EDU's: I Types of Use: Sq.Ft./Units EDU's: Types of Use: Sq.Ft./Units EDU's: Types of Use: Sq.Ft./Units EDU's: AOl CALCULATIONS: List types and square footages for all uses. Types of Use: PRIV REC FACILITY Sq.Ft./Units ADT's: N/A Types of Use: NO EXTRA TRAFFIC Sq.Ft./Units RENTERS ONLY ADT's: Types of Use: Sq.Ft./Units ADT's: Types of Use: . Sq.Ft./Units ADT's: FEES REQUIRED: Within CFD YES (no bridge & thoroughfare fee in District #1, reduces Traffic Impact Fee) El NO 1 PARK-IN-LIEU FEE L NW QUADRANT LiNE QUADRANT L SE QUADRANT W QUADRANT ADT'S/UNITS: X FEE/ADT: $ N/A 23RAFFIC IMPACT FEE: ADT'S/UNITS: X FEE/ADT: $ N/A 3 BRIDGE & THOROUGHFARE FEE Li DIST #1 L7JDIST.#2 U DIST #3 F (USE SANDAG)ADT'S/UNITS I X FEE/ADT: =$ N/A 4. FACILITIES MANAGEMENT FEE ZONE: 14 ADT'S/UNITS: X FEE/SQ.FT./UNIT: $ NO FEE 15. SEWER FEE EDU's I BENEFIT AREA: B EDU's I DRAINAGE FEES: ACRES: POTABLE WATER FEES: UNITS I CODE X FEE/EDU: 881 $ 881 X FEE/EDU: 1222 1 =$ 1222 PLDA: [TIHIGH [I] MEDIUM [I]LOW X FEE/AC: I CON N. FEE I METER FEE I SDCWA FEE I TOTAL 1 I D2.0 I 25182 I 823 I 25808 I 51813 ***This may not represent a comprehensive list of fees due for this project. Please contact the Building division at (760) 602-719 for a complete listing of fees*** it cc w I qd C.dr .IdI PLAN CHECK REVIEW TRANSMITTAL Community & Economic Development Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 www.carlsbadca.gov DATE: 02/22/2016 PROJECT NAME: RR APARTMENT REC CENTER PROJECT ID:PC 15-73 PLAN CHECK NO: SET#: 1 ADDRESS: NW CORNER ROBINSON RD APN: 2080104400 VALUATION: SCOPE OF WORK: REC CENTER FOR THE APARTMENT COMPLEX F-1 This plan check review is complete and has been APPROVED by: LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION Final Inspection by Construction Management & Inspection Division is required: Yes ..No X This plan check review is NOT COMPLETE. Items missing or incorrect are listed on the attached checklist. Please resubmit amended plans as required. Plan Check Comments have been sent to: ESHOEMAKER@ALLIANCEENG.COM To determine status by one of the divisions listed below, please contact 760-602-2719. LAND DEVELOPMENT - - 76O2-275O Chris Sexton Chris Glassen Greg Ryan ... 760-602-4624 760-602-2784 760-602-4663 Chris.Sexton@carlsbadca.gov Christopher.Glassen@carlsbadca.gov Gregory.Ryan@carlsbadca.gov 1, Gina Ruiz T Linda Ontiveros Cindy Wong 760-602-4675 J 760-602-2773 760-602-4662 Gina.Ruiz@carlsbadca.gov Linda.Ontiveros@carlsbadca.gov Cynthia.wong@carlsbadca.gov ValRay Nelson Dominic Fieri k1N 760-602-2741 L. 760-602-4664 ValRay.Marshall@carlsbadca.gov Dominic.Fieri@carlsbadca.gov Remarks: RR APARTMENT REC CENTER PLAN CHECK NO# 1 a Outstanding issues are marked with [K! Items that conform to permit requirements are marked with [/1 or have intentionally been left blank. 1. SITE PLAN SLIP SHEET Provi SIGNED El APPROVED LI] DWG 480-3E Li Li Li Li de a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale Li North arrow Existing & proposed structures L J Existing street improvements Eli Property lines (show all dimensions) EI Easements El Right-of-way width & adjacent streets Show: Li Li Driveway widths rI] ["I]] Existing or proposed sewer lateral Lj 1111 Existing or proposed water service [i1 Li Submit on signed approved plans: DWG No. 480-3E Show on site plan: SIGNED [111.1 Li Drainage patterns and proposed site elevations. Show all high points. APPROVED Li =Building pad surface drainage must maintain a minimum slope of one percent towards an adjoining GRADING street or an approved drainage course. PLANS Li =ADD THE FOLLOWING NOTE: "Finish grade will provide a minimum positive drainage of 2% to swale 5' away from building". DWG 480-3E Li Eli Existing & proposed slopes and topography Li =Size, location, alignment of existing or proposed sewer and water service(s) that serves the project. Each unit requires a separate service; however, second dwelling units and apartment complexes are an exception. LII Li Sewer and water laterals should not be located within proposed driveways, per standards. Include on title sheet: Li Site address Li Assessor's parcel number Li Legal description/lot number LII] For commercial/industrial buildings and tenant improvement projects, include: total building square footage with the square footage for each different use, existing sewer permits showing square footage of different uses (manufacturing, warehouse, office, etc.) previously approved. Li E%l Show all existing use of SF and new proposed use of SF. Example: Tenant improvement for 3500 SF of warehouse to 3500 SF of office. Lot/Map No.: Subdivision/Tract: MS 14-07 Reference No(s): PA 7 & 8 E-36 Page 2 of 6 REV 6/01/12 RR APARTMENT REC CENTER PLAN CHECK NO # 1 DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL COMPLIANCE RES 7093 I1 J= Project does not comply with the following engineering conditions of approval for project no.: DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS Dedication for all street rights-of-way adjacent to the building site and any storm drain or MAP 16092 utility easements on the building site is required for all new buildings and for remodels with a value at or exceeding $ 24.00000 , pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.40.030. ii L_.J Dedication required as follows: 4. IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS needed public improvements upon and adjacent to the building site must be constructed at time of building construction whenever the value of the construction exceeds $120,000.00, pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.40.040. LIII Eli Public improvements required as follows: fl" Construction of the public improvements must be deferred pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.40. Please submit a recent property title report or current grant deed on the property and processing fee, so we may prepare the necessary Neighborhood Improvement Agreement. This agreement must be signed, notarized and approved by the city prior to issuance of a building permit. -I Li Future public improvements required as follows: E-36 Page 3 of 6 REV6I01/12 RR APARTMENT REC CENTER PLAN CHECK NO # 1 GRADING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS The conditions that require a grading permit are found in Section 15.16 of the Municipal Code. Jlnadequate information available on site plan to make a determination on grading requirements. Include accurate grading quantities in cubic yards (cut, fill, import, export and remedial). This information must be included on the plans. If no grading is proposed write: "NO GRADING" LXJ =Grading Permit required. NOTE: The grading permit must be issued and rough grading approval obtained prior to issuance of a building permit. 13] J Graded Pad Certification required. (Note: Pad certification may be required even if a grading permit is not required.) All required documentation must be provided to your Engineering Construction Inspector The inspector will then provide the engineering counter with a release for the building permit. LJ No grading permit required. LII]LiiJ Minor Grading Permit required. See additional comments for project- specific requirements. MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS 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. Types of work include, but are not limited to: street improvements, tree trimming, driveway construction, tying into public storm drain, sewer and water utilities. [hull Right-of-way permit required for: E-36 Page 4of6 REV 6/01/12 Ji RR APARTMENT REC CENTER PLAN CHECK NO # 1 7. STORM WATER Construction Compliance SW 15-430 LII I EIJ Project Threat Assessment Form complete. [j Enclosed Project Threat Assessment Form incomplete. L1 Requires Tier 1 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (E-29). Please complete attached form and return (SW Requires Tier 2 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Requires submittal of Tier 2 SWPPP, payment of processing fee and review by city. Post-Development (SUSMP) Compliance ri [] SWMP 15-20 Storm Water Standards Questionnaire. LIII LIII] Project is subject to Standard Storm Water Requirements. See city Standard Urban Storm Water Management Plan (SUSMP) for reference. LIII [1111 Indicate areas of impervious surfaces (patios,walkway, etc. ) and pervious areas (landscaping). LIIIF Project needs to incorporate low impact development strategies throughout in one or more of the following ways: LI Rainwater harvesting (rain barrels or cistern) LIII Vegetated Roof LI Bio-retentions cell/rain garden LII Pervious pavement/payers LII Flow-through planter/vegetated or rock drip line LIII Vegetated swales or rock infiltration swales LIII Downspouts disconnect and discharge over landscape LII Other: E-36 Page 5 of 6 REV 6/01/12 RR APARTMENT REC CENTER PLAN CHECK NO # 1 WATER METER REVIEW Domestic (potable) Use 2.5" SHT Eli] [] What size meter is required? VERIFY ITS i]J Where a residential unit is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system the minimum meter size shall be a 1" meter. EITHER A 1.5", NOTE: the connection fee, SDCWA system capacity charge and the 2" OR 3" NO water treatment capacity charge will be based on the size of the meter 2 5"METR/FEE necessary to meet the water use requirements. [J i] For residential units the minimum size meter shall be 5/8", except where the residential unit is larger than 3,500 square feet or on a lot larger than one quarter (1/4) acre where the meter size shall be %". FEES [:xii] I LEJ Required fees have been entered in building permit. Eli] El] Drainage fee applicable Added square feet Added square footage in last two years? LI yes no Permit No. Permit No. Project built after 1980 E] yes Limo Impervious surface> 50% EJ yes no Impact unconstructed facility Eyes Lino Liii LIIJ Fire sprinklers required Dyes [—]no (is addition over 150' from center line) Upgrade Jyes Lino Eli] [Li No fees required ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 01 Attachments: IT Engineering Application Storm Water Form Eli: Right-of-WayApplication/info. [ill] Reference Documents E-36 Page 6 of 6 REV 6/01/12 MS 14-07 PA 7 & 8 Fee Calculation Worksheet *8* ENGINEERING DIVISION Prepared by: VALRAY NELSON Date: 01/05/2016 GEO DATA: LFMZ: I B&T: Address: Bldg. Permit#: PC 15-73 Fees Update by: Date: Fees Update by: Date: EDU CALCULATIONS: List types and square footages for all uses. Types of Use: PRIV REC FACILITY Sq.Ft./Units EDU's: I 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: PRIV REC FACILITY Sq.Ft./Units ADT's: N/A Types of Use: NO EXTRA TRAFFIC Sq.Ft./Units RENTERS ONLY ADT's: Types of Use: Sq.Ft./Units ADT's: Types of Use: Sq.Ft./Units ADT's: FEES REQUIRED: Within CFD:flYES (no bridge & thoroughfare fee in District #1, reduces Traffic Impact Fee) [1N0 1 PARK-IN-LIEU FEE JNW QUADRANT JNE QUADRANT JSE QUADRANT OWQUADRANT ADT'S/UNITS: X FEE/ADT: $ N/A 23RAFFIC IMPACT FEE: ADT'S/UNITS: X FEE/ADT: $ N/A BRIDGE & THOROUGHFARE FEE: flDIST.#1 flDIST.#2 flDIST.#3 (USE SANDAG)ADT'S/UNITS X FEE/ADT: $ N/A FACILITIES MANAGEMENT FEE ZONE: 14 ADT'S/UNITS: X FEE/SQ.FT./UNIT: $ NO FEE SEWER FEE EDU's I X FEE/EDU: 881 $ 881 BENEFIT AREA: B EDU's I X FEE/EDU: 1222 $ 1222 6 DRAINAGE FEES PLDA ]HIGH 0 MEDIUM L LOW ACRES: X FEE/AC: I 7. POTABLE WATER FEES: UNITS I CODE I CONN. FEE I METER FEE I SDCWA FEE I TOTAL I I D2.0 I 25182 I 823 I 25808 I 51813 ***This may not represent a comprehensive list of fees due for this project. Please contact the Building division at (760) 60-719 for a complete listing of fees*** CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DIVISION Development Services BUILDING PLAN CHECK Planning Division REVIEW CHECKLIST 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-4610 P28 www.crIsbadca.ov DATE: 12/24/2015 PROJECT NAME: Robertson Ranch Recreation Bldg PROJECT ID: SDP 15-01 PLAN CHECK NO: PC 15-0073 SET#: I ADDRESS: Robinson Rd/WEST RANCH RD APN: 208-010-44 This plan check review is complete and has been APPROVED by the PLANNING Division. By: CHRISTER WESTMAN A Final Inspection by the PLANNING Division is required Z Yes F1 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 Comments have been sent to: eshoemaker@allianceeng.com For questions or clarifications on the attached checklist please contact the following reviewer as marked: PLANNING 760-602-4610 ENGINEERING 760-602-2750 FIRE PREVENTION 760-602-4665 Christer Westman 760-602-4614 Christer.Westman@carlsbadca.gov Li Chris Glassen 760-602-2784 Ch ristopher.Glassen@carlsbadca.gov Greg Ryan 760-602-4663 Gregory.Ryan@carlsbadca.gov Gina Ruiz 760-602-4675 Gina.Ruiz@carlsbadca.gov ValRay Marshall 760-602-2741 ValRay.Marshall@carlsbadca.gov Li Cindy Wong 760-602-4662 Cynthia.Wong@carlsbadca.gov Linda Ontiveros 760-602-2773 Linda.Ontiveros@carlsbadca.gov Dominic Fieri 760-602-4664 Dominic.Fieri@carlsbadca.gov Remarks: Plan Check No. PC 15-0073 Address ECRIWest Ranch Date 12/24/15 Review # 1 REVIEW #: 123 El F1 Planner Westman Phone(760)602-4614 APN: 208-010-44-00 Type of Project & Use: Recreation Bldg Net Project Density:N/A Zoning: RD-M General Plan: R-23 Facilities Management Zone: 14 CFD (in/out) #1 Date of participation:May 1991 Remaining net dev acres:zero (For non-residential development: Type of land use created by this permit:) Legend: Z Item Complete El Item Incomplete - Needs your action Environmental Review Required: YES Z NO El TYPE EIR DATE OF COMPLETION: NOVEMBER 2006 Compliance with conditions of approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval: N/A Discretionary Action Required: YES Z NO E] TYPE SDP APPROVAL/RESO. NO. PC 7117 DATE August 5, 2015 PROJECT NO. SDP 15-01 OTHER RELATED CASES: Compliance with conditions or approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval: N/A El El Coastal Zone Assess mentlCompliance Project site located in Coastal Zone? YES D NO CA Coastal Commission Authority? YES n NO D If California Coastal Commission Authority: Contact them at - 7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103, San Diego, CA 92108-4402; (619) 767-2370 Determine status (Coastal Permit Required or Exempt): El El Habitat Management Plan Data Entry Completed? YES Z NO El If property has Habitat Type identified in Table 11 of HMP, complete HMP Permit application and assess fees in Permits Plus (A/P/Ds, Activity Maintenance, enter CB#, toolbar, Screens, HMP Fees, Enter Acres of Habitat Type impacted/taken, UPDATE!) El El Inclusionary Housing Fee required: YES El NO (Effective date of Inclusionary Housing Ordinance - May 21, 1993.) Data Entry Completed? YES El NO El (A/P/Ds, Activity Maintenance, enter CB#, toolbar, Screens, Housing Fees, Construct Housing Y/N, Enter Fee, UPDATE!) El El Housing Tracking Form (form P-20) completed: YES El NO El N/A Site Plan: P-28 Page 2 of 3 07/11 WIM Zoning: 1. Setbacks: Front: Interior Side: Street Side: Rear: Top of slope: Required Shown Required Shown Required Shown Required Shown Required Shown N OD Provide a fully dimensional site plan drawn to scale. Show: North arrow, property lines, easements, existing and proposed structures, streets, existing street improvements, right-of- way width, dimensional setbacks and existing topographical lines (including all side and rear yard slopes). Provide legal description of property and assessor's parcel number. City Council Policy 44— Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines U U 1. Applicability: YES LI NO U U 2. Project complies: YES U NOD 4 U U 2. Accessory structure setbacks: Front: Required Shown Interior Side: Required Shown Street Side: Required Shown Rear: Required Shown Structure separation: Required Shown U U 3. Lot Coverage: Required Shown U U 4. Height: Required 25 Shown 25 U U 5. Parking: Spaces Required Shown (breakdown by uses for commercial and industrial projects required) Residential Guest Spaces Required Shown _ U U Additional Comments CT 13-03 has to record before permits can be issued. OK TO ISSUE AND ENTERED APPROVAL INTO COMPUTER DATE P-28 Page 3 of 3 07/11 <K01* CITY OF CARLSD/-%D13 PLAN CHECK REVIEW TRANSMITTAL Community & Economic Development Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 EPT CO www.carlsbadca.gov DATE: 03/28/16 JJECTNVlE: PROJECT ID: PLAN CHECK NO: F4?2 SET#: FIRE ADDRESS: 2510 W. Ranch St. DEPT COPY This plan check review is complete and has been APPROVED by the Fire Division. By: DARYL K. JAMES & ASSOCIATES A Final Inspection by the Fire Division is required Z Yes fl 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 Comments have been sent to: 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. For questions or clarifications on the attached checklist please contact the following reviewer as marked: PLANNING 760-602-4610 ENGINEERING 760-602-2750 FIRE PREVENTION 760-602-4665 Chris Sexton 760-602-4624 Chris.Sexton@carlsbadca.gov Kathleen Lawrence 760-602-2741 Kathleen.Lawrence@carlsbadca.gov iv' DARYL K JAMES Christina.wiIson@carlsbadca.gov Gina Ruiz 760-602-4675 Gina.Ruiz@carlsbadca.gov Linda Ontiveros 760-602-2773 Linda.Ontiveros@carIsbadca.gov Cindy Wong 760-602-4662 Cynthia.Won@carlsbadca.ov Dominic Fieri 760-602-4664 Dominic.Fieri@carlsbadca.gov BLDG. DEPT CO Page 1 of 1 PLAN APPROVED Daryl K. James & Associates, Inc. Checked by: Daryl Kit James 205 Colina Terrace Date: March 29, 2016 Vista, CA 92084 T. (760) 724-7001 Email: kithresbcqIobal.net JURISDICTION: Carlsbad Fire Department APPLICANT: Elizabeth Shoemaker PROJECT NAME: Robertson Ranch - Recreation Center PROJECT ADDRESS: 2510W. Ranch St. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PC15-73 7,843m Rec Center, which will include a rec/lounge (3,165u) clubhouse/conference (2,326w), exercise room (1 ,463u), and covered non air-conditioned space (889w). The rec center will also include a women's & men's rest room and one fireplace. Page 1 of RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL WITH NOTES Daryl K. James & Associates, Inc. Checked by: Daryl Kit James 205 Colina Terrace Date: February 12, 2016 Vista, CA 92084 T. (760) 724-7001 Email: kitfiresbcqIobaLnet JURISDICTION: Carlsbad Fire Department APPLICANT: Elizabeth Shoemaker PROJECT NAME: Robertson Ranch - Recreation Center PROJECT ADDRESS: 2510W. Ranch St. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PC15-73 7,843m Rec Center, which will include a rec/lounge (3,165Et) clubhouse/conference (2,326w), exercise room (1,463m), and covered non air-conditioned space (889:i). The rec center will also include a women's & men's rest room and one fireplace. PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 11130.0 i/Scope of Work Provide a descriptive scope of work specific to the project that resembles the Description of Work as indicated on the Building Permit Application. Verify that Pool/Spa building and a food prep kitchen is not within the scope of work. Stamp & Signature All sheets throughout the plan check set must be stamped and signed by the person responsible for their preparation, even if there are no structural changes. Business and professions code. Please revise Robertson Ranch Apartments to Robertson Ranch Recreation Building, including the street address on each sheet. see all sheets i/Provide the Following List of Applicable Codes 2013 California Building Code ....... .. based on the 2012 International Building Code 2013 California Fire Code .............based on the 2012 International Fire Code 2013 California Electrical Code ......based on the 2011 National Electrical Code 2013 California Mechanical Code based on the 2012 Uniform Mechanical Code 2013 California Plumbing Code based on the 2012 Uniform Plumbing Code 2013 California Energy Code i/Sheet Index Label Sheets R1303.2, RB03.6, RD2.1 & RD2.2. i/Revise conference room occupant load factor from 100 to 15. Coordinate with RBO.5.1. Justify use of Clubhouse as limited to un-concentrated seating. If other functions are anticipated for this room, revise occupant load factor to 7 feet per person. i/Deferred Submittals Add Fire Service Features 2013 CFC Chapter 5. Project Summary It appears that swimming pool and Jacuzzi plans will be submitted under a separate permit. Mark any references to or illustrations of pool/deck area "NlC" where applicable throughout the plan check set. RBI.1 Page 2 of 3 .,General Note 2. Provide finish specifications as noted. Denote Keynote 9 on Floor Plan. Denote additional F.E. location in accordance with CFC 906. i'Floor Plan see sheet RBiI Label all rooms/areas on the plan. VRBI.2 Keynote 10. Add this note to ceiling fan symbol: Manufacturer's specifications for big fans will be submitted with Fire Sprinkler System deferred submittal package in order to verify that the fire sprinkler spray pattern will not be obstructed. s'RBI.3 Door Schedule All additional group A3 occupancy exit doors in the path of egress to an exit discharge must be equipped with panic hardware. Indicate panic hardware on Door R2 as well as all additional doors equipped with panic hardware. List the hardware group for each door and gate. Describe hardware group specifications for each group in order to verify that hardware is readily openable from the egress side without the use of a key or special knowledge or effort. Identify the Main Exit Door. Exception CBC 1008.1.9.3.2.2 is applicable only to one main exterior door, designated as the main exit. State in the Remarks Column and in Door Hardware Notes the following note: A readily visible durable sign will be posted on the egress side on or adjacent to the door stating: This Door to Remain Unlocked When Building is Occupied CBC 1008.1.9.3. Clarify why exterior doors RI, R2, RI 1, R12, Ri 3 & R14 are rated. ,.'Window Types & Door Types Revise incorrect references to details. Gate hardware on illustration must resemble panic hardware. VRBI.4 Imprint Carlsbad Policy 80-6 on to roof plan. Provide this note: Intent B (Fireman Safety) will be maintained on the roof. E9.2 Means of ecress emergency lighting locations remain unclear. CBC 1006.2 & 1006.3. Symbols on Lighting Plan must match Lighting Fixture Schedule shown on Sheet E.0.5 EO.5 Emergency Lighting Notes indicate fixtures indicated as EM or shaded shall be provided with battery packs. Please indicate as EM or as Shaded on the drawing. Coordinate floor plans and exit sign location requirements with Sheet RBI.1. Sign all E sheets. see sheet electrical comment 'MR-3 Coordinate floor plans with Sheet RBi .1. fr'MR-6 Detail 2 - Clarify "Open Roof?" Mark as NIC. Page 3 of 3 'MR-7 & MR-8 Provide details as noted in Sheet Index s'P-O.l, P-i.! & P-2.1 Coordinate floor plans with Sheet RBI.1. M Jeffrey C. Overmyer Dennis E. McVay OMB ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS, INC. Roy L. Lopez Date: February 29, 2016 To: Daryl Kit James Daryl K. James & Associates, Inc. 205 Colina Terrace Vista, CA 92084 From: Jimmy Torres Project: Robertson Ranch Apts., Rec. Building OMB Job No. 15419 Subject: Plan Check No. 15-73 Plan Check Comments: E9.2. Emergency lighting currently matches fixtures schedule and are currently indicated by shaded fixtures, as required. Please refer to Electrical Sheets E.0.5/ & E9.2. Site lighting Emergency shaded fixtures are currently run via Emergency Inverter. Please refer to sheets: EO.10/& E1.2. All emergency exit sign locations have been coordinated with Architectural exiting plan Sheet RB 0.51 (not RB 1.1 floor plan). Sincerely, Jimmy Torres OMB Electrical Engineers 8825 Research Drive • Irvine, California 92618 • (949) 753-1553 • Fax (949) 753-1992 Page 1 of Daryl K. James & Associates, Inc. Checked by:. Daryl Kit James 205 Colina Terrace Date: January 28, 2016 Vista, CA 92084 T. (760) 724-7001 Email: kitfiresbcqlobal.net JURISDICTION: Carlsbad Fire Department APPLICANT: Elizabeth Shoemaker PROJECT NAME: Robertson Ranch - Recreation Center PROJECT ADDRESS: 2510 W. Ranch St. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PC15-73 7,843Efl Rec Center, which will include a rec/lounge (3,165n) clubhouse/conference (2,326a), exercise room (1,463s), and covered non air-conditioned space (889iv). The rec center will also include a women's & men's rest room and one fireplace. RESUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS Corrections or modifications to the plans rmustbe--clouded and include numbered deltas and revision dates. Provide a written response following each plan check comment, on Pages 1-4 of this document, explaining how and where each plan review comment has been addressed. Provide a copy of Building Department (EsGil) comments. Input fire revisions onto the Building Dept. plan check. Please direct any questions regarding this review to: Daryl K. James 760-724-7001 or kitfire@sbcglobal.net COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS DARYL K. JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 205 COLINA TERRACE VISTA, CA 92084 PoNpT REQUIRE MY SIGNATURE TO ACCEPT DELIVERY OF REVISED PLANS PLAN CHECK COMMENTS GENERAL Responses may generate additional comments Revise incorrect references to details on all applicable sheets, where applicable. RBO.O Scope of Work Provide a descriptive scope of work specific to the project that resembles the Description of Work as indicated on the Building Permit Application. Verify that Pool/Spa building and a food prep kitchen is not within the scope of work. Stamp & Signature All sheets throughout the plan check set must be stamped and signed by the person responsible for their preparation, even if there are no structural changes. Business and professions code. Please revise Robertson Ranch Apartments to Robertson Ranch Recreation Building, including the street address on each sheet. Page 2 of 3 Provide the Following List of Applicable Codes 2013 California Building Code ....... .. based on the 2012 International Building Code 2013 California Fire Code .............based on the 2012 International Fire Code 2013 California Electrical Code ......based on the 2011 National Electrical Code 2013 California Mechanical Code ... based on the 2012 Uniform Mechanical Code 2013 California Plumbing Code .....based on the 2012 Uniform Plumbing Code 2013 California Energy Code Sheet Index Label Sheets RB03.2, RB03.6, RD2.1 & RD2.2. Revise conference room occupant load factor from 100 to 15. Coordinate with RBO.5.1. v'Justify use of Clubhouse as limited to un-concentrated seating. If other functions are anticipated for this room, revise occupant load factor to 7 feet per person. Deferred Submittals Add Fire Service Features 2013 CFC Chapter 5. Submittal Requirements It appears that swimming pool and Jacuzzi plans will be submitted under a separate permit. Mark any references to or illustrations of pool/deck area "NIC" where applicable throughout the plan check set. RBI.1 General Note 2. Provide finish specifications as noted. Keynotes - Denote 6, 9 & 18 on the Floor Plan. Floor Plan Label all rooms/areas on the plan. RBI.2 Keynote 10. Add this note to ceiling fan symbol: Manufacturer's specifications for big fans will be submitted with Fire Sprinkler System deferred submittal package in order to verify that the fire sprinkler spray pattern will not be obstructed. RBI.3 Door Schedule All additional group A3 occupancy exit doors in the path of egress to an exit discharge must be equipped with panic hardware. Indicate panic hardware on Door R2 as well as all additional doors equipped with panic hardware. List the hardware group for each door and gate. Describe hardware group specifications for each group in order to verify that hardware is readily openable from the egress side without the use of a key or special knowledge or effort. Identify the Main Exit Door. Exception CBC 1008.1.9.3.2.2 is applicable only to one main exterior door, designated as the main exit. State in the Remarks Column and in Door Hardware Notes the following note: A readily visible durable sign will be posted on the egress side on or adjacent to the door stating: This Door to Remain Unlocked When Building is Occupied CBC 1008.1.9.3. Clarify why exterior doors Ri, R2, RI 1, R12, RI 3 & R14 are rated. Window Types & Door Types Revise incorrect references to details. Gate hardware on illustration must resemble panic hardware. Page 3 of 3 RBI.4 Imprint Carlsbad Policy 80-6 on to roof plan. Provide this note: Intent B (Fireman Safety) will be maintained on the roof. E9.2 Symbols on Lighting Plan must match Lighting Fixture Schedule shown on Sheet E.0.5 Coordinate floor plans and exit sign location requirements with Sheet RBI .1. MR-3 Coordinate floor plans with Sheet RB1. 1. MR-6 Detail 2— Clarify "Open Roof?" Mark as NIC. MR-7&MR-8 Provide details as noted in Sheet Index P-0.1, P-i.! & P-2.1 Coordinate floor plans with Sheet RBI .1. Table of Contents Patel Burica & Associates, Inc. r - I I Rev Descri Pa Plan Check Response Letter PC.1 - PC.3 Project Information i MI Gravity Load Analysis GR.O - GR.18 Foundation Analysis FR.l -FR. 13 Lateral Load Analysis LR.1 - LR.9 Soils Report Excerpts I El - Ell Patel Burica &. Associates, Inc. structural engineering I February 1, 2016 Attn: Ali Sadre, S.E. I Esgil Corporation 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 San Diego, CA 92123 Re: Roberston Ranch Recreation Building (Plan Check #15-73) ' Dear Mr. Sadre, We have received and reviewed the structural plan review comments for the subject plan check. Below, please I find a list of responses to each item. The numbered list corresponds to the numbered comments. STRUCTURAL I : 29. Review letter will be provided by the permit applicant. 30. Please see note 7 of the Foundation Notes on sheet RS1.l. .1 31. Note will be added to the foundation plans. Refer to sheet RS 1.1. Information is provided in the "Design Criteria" section of the cover sheet RS-CS. Note has been added to the structural cover sheet, RS-CS. Form is enclosed with this response letter. Structural specifications can be found on sheet RSDO. ' 36. The slab underlayment is specified by the geotechnical engineer. Since this information could be revised without our knowledge, we defer to his report so that there is no conflicting information in the construction documents. No pour strips occur for this building on the project. The PT slab is 13" per Note 5 of the structural drawings. Per code, the foundation is designed as a ripped I foundation (8" thick) which is then converted to a uniform thickness slab. Detail callout has been removed. I 40. Pour strips do not occur. Note 8 is not applicable for this portion of the project. The slab in the electrical room will be a secondary late pour slab per note 7 of the "Foundation Legend." Post and hold-down are shown and are visible with the corrected hatch at the electrical room. Pool equipment room will be a secondary pour/flatwork by others. We have shown the slab as such. ' 9283 Research, Drive Irvine, California 92618 Tel: 949.943.8080 • Fax: 714.352.2209 • www.PBAstructural.com Pate! Burica & Associates, Inc. 1063 AO - Robertson Ranch Recreation February 1, 2016 Page 2 of 2 44. Drag loads are specified on the drawings. For those trusses specified with boundary nailing, the drag load is 2000 pounds per note 8 of Section "H: Open Web Wood Trusses" on sheet SDO. If you have any questions, please call me at (949) 943-8080 extension 307. Sincerely, Patel Burica & Associates, Inc. ri Brandon Brown, Brown, PE P:\Projects\1063 AO (Shapell Robertson Market Rate)\1063 AO FCC 01 - Recreation.cloc (City of Carlsbad SPECIAL INSPECTION AGREEMENT B-45 Development Services Building Division 1635 Faraday Avenue 760-602-2719 www.carlsbadca.gov In accordance with Chapter 17 of the California Building Code the following must be completed when work being performed requires special inspection, structural observation and construction material testing. Project/Permit: Robertson Ranch Project Address: 5056 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, CA 92010 THIS SECTION MUST BE COMPLETED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERIAUTIIORIZED AGENT. Please check if you are Owner-Builder U. (If you checked as owner-builder you must also complete Section B of this agreement.) Name: (Please print) ShapeU SoCal Rental Properties, LLC (First) (MI.) (Last) Mailing Address: 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 700 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Email: adewar@shapell.com Phone: (323) 988-7594 I am: Property Owner UProperty Owner's Agent of Record UArchitect of Record ElEngineer of Record State of California Registration Number: Expiration Date:___________________ AGREEMENT: I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that I have read, understand, acknowledge and promise to comply with the City of Carlsbad requirements for special inspections, structural observations, construction materials te ting and off-site fabrication of building components, as prescribed in the statement of special inspections noted o ap oved plans and, as required by the California Building Code. Signature: 7' Date: December 17, 2015 Andre ewar, VP Construction CONTRACTOR'S STATEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY (07 CBC, Ch 17, Section 1706). This section must be completed by the contractor / builder / owner-builder Contractor's Company Name: Please check if you are Owner-Builder Name: (Please print) (First) (M(.) (Last) Mailing Add Email: Phone: State of California Contractor's License Number: Expiration Date: I acknowledge and, am aware, of special requirements contained in the statement of special inspections noted on the approved plans; I acknowledge that control will be exercised to obtain conformance with the construction documents approved by the building official; I will have in-place procedures for exercising control within our (the contractor's) organization, for the method and frequency of reporting and the distribution of the reports; and I certify that I will have a qualified person within our (the contractor's) organization to exercise such control. I will orovide a final reoort/ letter in comoliance with CBC Section 1704.1.2 oriorto reciuestina final I inspection. Signature: Date: B-45 Page 1 of 1 Rev. 08111 ROOM Patel Burica & Associates, Inc. structural engineering Project Information I I 9283 Research Drive • Irvine, California 92618 Tel: 949.943.8080 • Fax: 714.352.2209 • www.PBAstructural.com Patel Burièa and Associates, Inc. General Information: PBA Project #: PBA Designer: Project Name: Code: Risk Category: Jurisdiction: Basic Wind Speed (mph): Wind Exposure: Soils Report by: Soils Report #: Soils Report Dated: 1063A0 BB Robertson Ranch - Recreation 2013 CBC H ASCE 7-10 (Section 1.5) City of Carlsbad, California 110 ASCE 7-10 (Figure 26.5) Exp C ASCE 7-10 (Section 26.7.3) LGC Valley, Inc. 133023-07 Allowable Bearing (psf): 2000 4/15/2015 SMS = 1.155 These bound calculations have been prepared for Building Department review only. In addition to these calculations, the Engineer of Record has applied professional judgement and current standards of practice to prepare the construction drawings. These calculations shall not be used or applied independently of the approved structural drawings. Page 1 Patel Burica and Associates, Inc. Structural Loading: (Live Loads per ASCE 7-10, Table 4-1) Area: Floor 1 40 Deck Exit Corridor Roof Live Loads (psI): 40 1001 20 Roof Dead Loads - sloped Slope: 4 :12 Item Description We. (psf) x Slope factor Adj. We. (psj) Roofing Concrete tile - not boosted 12.0 1.05 12.6 Sheathing 1/2" Structural Sheathing 1.8 1.05 1.9 Framing Roof Trusses @ 24" o.c. 3.0 1.05 3.2 Ceiling 5/8" drywall 3.1 1.05 3.3 Additional Miscellaneous - 2 2.0 1.05 2.1 Reroof None 0.0 1.05 0.0 Other 1 None 0.0 1.05 0.0 DL Total: 1 23.1 Use: 24 Floor Dead Loads Slope: 0 :12 Item Description We. (psf) x Slope factor Adj. Wt. (psf) Flooring None 0.0 1.00 0.0 Sheathing None 0.0 1.00 0.0 Framing None 0.0 1.00 0.0 Ceiling None 0,0 1.00 0.0 Topping None 0.0 1.00 0.0 Other None 0.0 1.00 0.0 Other 1 None 0.0 1.00 0.0 DL Total: 0.0 Use: 0 Private Deck Dead Loads Slope: 0.25 :12 Item Description We. (psf) x Slope factor Adj. We. (psf) Flooring None 0.0 1.00 0.0 Sheathing None 0.0 1.00 0.0 Framing None 0.0 1.00 0.0 Ceiling None 0.0 1.00 0.0 Topping None 0.0 1.00 0.0 Other None 0.0 1.00 0.0 Other 1 None 0.0 1.00 0.0 I DL Total: 0.0 Use: 0 Page 2 Shear Schedule - 2013 CBC Shear wall designation None 6 4 3 2 1 D31 D2 Dl Capacity (pli) - 260 350 490 640 870 9801 1280 1740 Footnotes D B B A,B B,C B,C A,B,C Anchor diameter 5/8 5/8 5/8 5/8 5/8 5/8 5/8 3/4 3/4 Connection at Concrete Anchor spacing 481 16 16 16 16 12 12 16 12 Sill Plate 2x 2x 2x 3x 3x 3x 3x 3x 3x Plate washer size 2 x 2 3x3 3 x 3 3 x 3 3 x 3 3 x 3 3 x 3 3 x 3 3 x 3 Plate washer thickness 3/16 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 Panel and Framing APA Rated Sheathing - 3/8" 3/8" 3/8" 3/8" 15/32" 3/8" 3/8" 15/32" Sides - 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 Panel Edge Nailing - 8d @ 6" 8d @ 4" 8d @ 3" 8d @ 2" lOd @ 2" 8d @ 3" 8d @ 2" lOd @ 2' Panel Field Nailing - 8d @ 12" 8d @ 12" 8d @ 12" 8d @ 12" lOd @ 12" 8d @ 12" 8d @ 12" lOd @ 12" Adjoining Panel Edges - 2x 2x 3x 3x 3x 3x 3x 3x Sole Plate 2x 2x 2x 2x 2x 2x 3x 3xi 3x 12d 8 6 4 3 2.25 2 use SDS useSDSI. use SDS Shear transfer spacing, inches 16d 8 6 4 3 2.25 2 use SDS use SDS use SDS A35 32 32 24 17 13 10 9 7 5 LTP4 1/4" SDS - 25 19 13 101 81 7 5 4 General Notes: All shear panels shall be nailed with common nails A35's shall be installed with long direction parallel to plates 3/8" lag screws shall have a minimum 3" penetration into connecting members and minimum 3/4" edge distance SDS screws shall have a minimum 2" penetration into connecting members and minimum 3/8" edge distance Predrill nail holes if wood splitting occurs (or use alternate connectors, per schedule) Use Sd x 2.5" long nail if A35, LTP4 or LTP5 are installed over sheathing Footnotes: APA Struct I rated sheathing reqiured for all 15/32" panels Stagger shear panel edge nailing where spacing is 3" o.c. or less Offset adjoining panel edges on opposing faces of the wall Acceptable to use shot pins @ 24" o.c. at interior non-shear walls Page 3 Shear Connector Calculations for use with 2013 CBC Shear Schedule Anchor Bolt Capacity in 2x sills - Spacing Bolt Diameter Capacity in 2x (lbs.) Factor 12" o.c. 16" o.c. 24" o.c. 32" o.c. 48" o.c. 5/8" 930 1.6 1488 11161 7441 3491 233 3/4" 1270 1.6 2032 15241 10161 4761 318 Anchor Bolt Capacity in 3x sills Spacing Bolt Diameter Capacity in 3x (lbs.) Factor 12" o.c. 16" o.c. 24" o.c. 32" o.c. 48" o.c. 5/8" 1180 1.33 1569 1177 785 443 295 3/4" 1540 1.33 2048 1536 1024 578 385 Simpson Connector Required Spacing (inches o.c.) Required Load (pli) Connector Eq. Capacity (lbs.) 260 350 490 640 870 980 1280 1740 A35 695 32.1 23.8 17.0 13.0 9.6 8.5 6.5 4.8 RBC 435 20.5 15.3 10.9 8.3 6.1 5.4 4.2 3.1 LTP4 670 30.9 23.0 16.4 12.6 9.2 8.2 6.3 4.6 LTP5 545 25.2 18-71 13.31 10.21 7.5 6.7 5.11 3.8 1/4"SDS 1 3721 17.2 12.8 9-11 7.01 5.11 4.61 3.51 2.6 Page 4 Patel Burica & Associates, Inc. structural engineering Gravity Load Analysis 9283 Research Drive • Irvine, California 92618 TeL 949.943.8080 • Fax: 714.352.2209 • www.PBAstructural.com -. - - - - - - - - 0 DL (psf) LL (psf) Trib. (ft.) DL (plf) LL (plfl Total plf 24 20 6 144 120 25 40 0 0 0 15 0 4 60 0 35 40 0 0 0 7 211 120 331 DESCRIPTION: GEOMETRY: LOADING: Roof: Floor: Wall: Misc: Self Weight: BEAM I HEADER CALCULATION Exercise Room 6 Header at JT Span: 6 ft. Compression side braced? N Beam No. 01 Wall Width (in): 6 Post Height (ft): 10 Reaction (lb): 633 360 993 Moment (ftlb.) 949 540 1489 TRIAL SIZE: 6x6DF#1 SUPPORT: 2x6DF#2 Plies: I Plies: I BEAM PROPERTIES: STRESS FACTORS: Width 5.5 inches CD 1.25 Depth 5.5 inches Cr 1.00 Density 33 pcf Ct 1.00 Fb 1200 psi CM 1.00 F 170 psi Cv 1.00 E 1600000 psi CF 1.00 F (perp) 625 psi CL 1.00 SECTION PROPERTIES: DEFLECTIONS: Required Actual % used Area (in 2)5.9 30.3 20% Section Modulus (in 3)11.9 27,7 43% I (DL+LL) for L/240 (in 4)20.1 76.3 26%----------> IL (in.) 0.08 I (LL) for L1360 (in 4)10.9 76.3 14% - -----> LL (in.) 0.03 I (DL) for LJ480 (in 4)25.6 76.3 34°!-----------> DL (in.) 0.05 Bearing Area, (in 2)1.6 8.25 19% Use (mm.) Plies Beam Support 6x6DF#1 2x6 DF#2 I I GR.1 BEAM/HEADER CALCULATION Beam No. 02 DESCRIPTION: Exercise Room Popout Header at JT GEOMETRY: Span: 8.5 ft. Wall Width (in): 6 Compression side braced? N Post Height (It): 10 LOADING: DL (psi) LL (psi) Trib. (ft.) DL (plf) LL (p11) Total plf Roof: 24 20 3 72 60 Floor: 25 40 0 0 0 Wall: 15 0 4 60 0 Misc: 35 40 0 0 0 Self Weight: 9 141 60 201 Reaction (lb): 601 255 856 Moment (ftlb.) 1277 542 1819 TRIAL SIZE: 8x6DF#1 SUPPORT: 2x6DF#2 Plies: I Plies: 1 BEAM PROPERTIES: STRESS FACTORS: Width 7.5 inches CD 1.25 Depth 5.5 inches Cr 1.00 Density 33 pcI Ct 1.00 Fb 1200 psi CM 1.00 Fv 170 psi Cv 1.00 E 1600000 psi CF 1.00 F0 (perp) 625 psi CL 1.00 SECTION PROPERTIES: DEFLECTIONS: Required Actual % used Area (in 2)5.4 41.3 13% Section Modulus (in 3)14.6 37.8 39% I (DL+LL) for L/240 (in 4)34.8 104.0 33% --------> TL (in.) 0.14 I (LL) for U360 (in 4)15.5 104.0 15% -------> LL (in.) 0.04 I (DL) for U480 (in 4)48.9 104.0 470/----------> DL (in.) 0.10 Bearing Area, (in 2)1.4 8.25 17% I Use (mm.) I Plies Beam Support 8x6 DF #1 2x6 DF#2 1 I GR.2 Actual % used 41.3 35% 51.6 60% 193.4 27°!-----------> IL (in.) 193.4 17°!----------> LL (in.) 193.4 32% ----------> DL (in.) 8.25 50% 0.08 0.03 0.05 BEAM I HEADER CALCULATION Beam No. 03 DESCRIPTION: Exercise Room 6'Headerat RT GEOMETRY: Span: 6 ft. Wall Width (in): 6 Compression side braced? N Post Height (ft): 10 LOADING: DL (psf) LL (psf) Trib. (ft.) DL (pif) LL (pif) Total pif Roof: 24 20 18 432 360 Floor: 25 40 0 0 0 Wall: 15 0 4 60 0 Misc: 35 40 0 0 0 Self Weight: 9 501 360 861 Reaction (lb): 1504 1080 2584 Moment (ftlb.) 2257 1620 3877 TRIAL SIZE: 6x8 DF #1 Plies: V ii.iiaur*c Width 5.5 inches Depth 7.5 inches Density 33 pcI Fb 1200 psi F 170 psi E 1600000 psi F (perp) 625 psi SECTION PROPERTIES: Required Area (in 2)14.4 Section Modulus (in 3)31.1 I (DL+LL) for U240 (in 4)52.3 I (LL) for 11360 (in 4)32.8 I (DL) for 11480 (in 4)60.9 Bearing Area, (in 2)4.1 SUPPORT: 2x6DF#2 Plies: I STRESS FACTORS: CD 1.25 Cr 1.00 Ct 1.00 CM 1.00 Cv 1.00 CF 1.00 CL 1.00 DEFLECTIONS: Use (mm.) Plies Beam Support 6x8 DF #1 2x6 DF#2 1 I GR.3 BEAM I HEADER CALCULATION Beam No. 04 DESCRIPTION: Exercise Window Header at G SPAN LENGTH: Span: 6 ft. Wall Width (in): 6 Compression side braced? Y Post Height (ft): 10 Trib. (ft.) DL (plf) LL (plf) Total plf 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 60 0 0 0 0 12 72 0 72 PART UNIF. LOAD 1: From x= 0 To x= 4 DL (psf) LL (psi) Trib. (ft.) DL (plf) LL (plf) Total plf Roof: 24 20 18 432 360 Floor: 25 40 0 0 0 Wall: 15 0 0 0 0 Misc. 35 40 0 0 0 432 360 792 PART UNIF. LOAD 2: From x= 4 To x= 6 DL (psf) LL (psf) Trib. (ft.) DL (plf) LL (plO Total pif Roof: 24 20 6 144 120 Floor: 25 40 0 0 0 Wall: 10 0 0 0 0 Misc. 35 40 0 0 0 144 120 264 POINT LOAD 1: At = 4 'Span of supported member (ft) = 32 DL (psf) LL (psf) Trib. (ft.) DL (plf) LL (plf) Total Roof: 24 20 4 96 80 Floor: 25 40 0 0 0 Wall: 10 0 0 0 0 Misc. 35 40 0 0 0 Member Line load (plf): 96 80 176 Point Load to supporting beam (lb): 1536 1280 2816 POINT LOAD 2: At x = 0 Span of supported member (ft) = 0 DL (psf) LL (psi) Trib. (ft.) DL (plf) LL (plf) Total Roof: 24 20 0 0 0 Floor: 25 40 0 0 0 Wall: 10 0 0 0 0 Misc. 35 40 0 0 0 Member Line load (plf): 0 0 0 Point Load to supporting beam (lb): 0 0 0 UNIFORM LOAD: DL(psf) LL(psf) Roof: 24 20 Floor: 25 40 Wall: 15 0 Misc. 35 40 Self Weight: GR.4 BEAM I. HEADER CALCULATION (Cont'd) DESCRIPTION: Exercise Window Header at GT DL LL Total LOAD RESULTS: Left Reaction (lb): 1928 1427 3355 Right Reaction (lb): 2056 1533 3589 Max Moment (ft-lb.) 3688 2827 6512 (Total moment may be less than DL + LL due to loading configurations) TRIAL SIZE: 6xI0DF#1 SUPPORT: 2x6DF#2 Plies: I Plies: I BEAM PROPERTIES: STRESS FACTORS: Width 5.5 inches C0 1.25 Depth 9.5 inches Cr 1.00 Density 33 pcf Ct 1.00 Fb 1350 psi CM 1.00 F 170 psi Cv 1.00 E 1600000 psi CF 1.00 F (perp) 625 psi CL 1.00 SECTION PROPERTIES: DEFLECTIONS: Required. Actual % used Area (in 2)23.5 52.3 45% Section Modulus (in 3)46.3 82.7 56% I (DL+LL) for 11240 (in 4)78.7 393.0 20% --------> TL (in.) 0.06 I (LL) for L/360 (in 4)50.7 393.0 13°!-----------> LL (in.) 0.03 I (DL) for 11480 (in 4)89.8 393.0 23% -------> DL (in.) 0.03 Bearing Area, (in 2)5.7 8.25 70% Use (mm.) I Plies Beam Support 6x10 DF#1 2x6 DF#2 I I GR.5 Roof: Floor: Wail: Misc: Self Weight: 24 20 25 40 15 0 35 40 DESCRIPTION: GEOMETRY: BEAM I HEADER CALCULATION Unit Room Continuous Door Header Span: 9.5ft. Compression side braced? N Beam No. 05 Wall Width (in): 6 Post Height (ft): 10 LOADING: DL (psf) LL (psf) Trib. (ft.) DL (plf) LL (p11) Total pif 17 408 340 0 0 0 4 60 0 0 0 .0 12 480 340 820 Reaction (lb): 2280 1615 3895 Moment (ftib.) 5415 3836 9250 TRIAL SIZE: 6x10DF#1 Plies: I BEAM PROPERTIES: Width 5.5 inches Depth 9.5 inches Density 33 pcf Fb 1350 psi F 170 psi E 1600000 psi F(perp) 625 psi SECTION PROPERTIES: SUPPORT: 2x6DF#2 Plies: I STRESS FACTORS: CD 1.25 Cr 1.00 Ct 1.00 CM 1.00 Cv 1.00 CF 1.00 CL 0.99 DEFLECTIONS: Actual % used 52.3 44% 82.7 80% 393.0 500/-----------> IL (in.) 393.0 31°!-----------> LL (in.) 393.0 59% -------> DL (in.) 8.25 76% Use (mm.) 1 Plies Beam Support 6x10 DF#1 2x6 DF#2 I I Required Area (in 2)22.9 Section Modulus (in 3)66.4 I (DL+LL) for L1240 (in 4)197.7 I (LL) for L/360 (in 4)123.0 I (DL) for L/480 (in 4)231.5 Bearing Area, (in 2)6.2 0.24 0.10 0.14 GR.6 Required Area (in 2)20.6 Section Modulus (in 3)54.5 I (DL+LL) for LJ240 (in 4)145.4 I (LL) for U360 (in 4)90.7 I (DL) for L1480 (in 4)170.0 Bearing Area, (in 2)5.7 DESCRIPTION: GEOMETRY: BEAM I HEADER CALCULATION Breezeway Header Span: 8.5 ft Compression side braced? N Beam No. 06 Wall Width (in): 6 Post Height (ft): 10 LOADING: DL (nsf) LL (psfl Trib. (ft.) DL (plfl LL (pifi Total pif Roof: 24 20 17.5 420 350 Floor: 25 40 0 0 0 Wall: 15 0 4 60 0 Misc: .35 40 0 0 0 Self Weight: 12 492 350 842 Reaction (lb): 2091 1488 3578 Moment (ftlb.) 4443 3161 7604 TRIAL SIZE: 6x10 DF#1 Plies: I BEAM PROPERTIES: Width 5.5 inches Depth 9.5 inches Density . 33 pcf Fb 1350 psi F 170 psi E 1600000 psi F (perp) 625 psi SECTION PROPERTIES: SUPPORT: 2x6DF#2 Plies: I STRESS FACTORS: CD , 1.25 Cr 1.00 Ct 1.00 CM 1.00 Cv . ' 1.00 CF 1.00. CL 0.99 DEFLECTIONS: Actual % used 52.3 39% 82.7 66% 393.0 370/-----------> TL (in.) 393.0 23% ------> LL (in.) 393.0 43% ---------> DL (in.) 8.25 69% Use (mm.) I Plies Beam Support 6x10 DF#1 2x6DF#2 I I Alt: An 8x8 DF#1 may also be used. 0.16 0.07 0.09 GR.7 CD 1.25 Cr 1.00 Ct 1.00 CM 1.00 Cv 0.90 CF 1.00 CL 0.59 DEFLECTIONS: BEAM I HEADER CALCULATION Beam No. 07 DESCRIPTION: Clubhouse Main Wall Pocket Door Header GEOMETRY: Span: 28.5 ft. Wall Width (in): 6 Compression side braced? N Post Height (It): 10 LOADING: DL (p51) LL (psf) Trib. (ft.) DL (01) LL (p11) Total plf Roof: 24 20 5 120 100 Floor: 25 40 0 0 0 Wall: 15 0 5 75 0 Misc: 35 40 0 0 0 Self Weight: 30 225 100 325 Reaction (lb): 3205 1425 4630 Moment (ItIb.) 22834 10153 32987 TRIAL SIZE: GLB 5.125x24 SUPPORT: 2x6DF#2 Plies: I Plies: I BEAM PROPERTIES: STRESS FACTORS: Width 5.125 inches Depth 24 inches Density 35 pcf Fb 2400 psi Fv 240 psi E 1800000 psi F (perp) 625 psi SECTION PROPERTIES: Required Actual % used Area (in 2)19.9 123.0 16% Section Modulus (in 3)222.8 492.0 45% I (DL+LL) for L/240 (in 4)1880.3 5904.0 32°!-----------> IL (in.) I (LL) for LJ360 (in 4)868.1 5904.0 15°!-----------> LL (in.) I (DL) for L/480 (in 4)2603.1 5904.0 44°!-----------> DL (in.) Bearing Area, (in 2)7.4 8.25 90% I I Use (mm.) Plies Beam Support GLB 5.125 x 24 2x6 DF#2 1 I 0.45 0.14 0.31 GR.8 C0 1.25 Cr 1.00 Ct 1.00 CM 1.00 Cv 0.89 CF 1.00 CL 0.90 DEFLECTIONS: BEAM.! HEADER CALCULATION Beam No. 08 DESCRIPTION: Clubhouse Popout Wall Pocket Door Header GEOMETRY: Span: 30 ft. Wall Width (in): 6 Compression side braced? N Post Height (ft): 10 LOADING: DL (Dsf) LL (psf) Trib. (ft.) DL (qlf) LL (plf) Total Ilf Roof: 24 20 3 72 60 Floor: 25 40 0 0 0 Wall: 15 0 6 90 0 Misc: 35 40 0 0 0 Self Weight: 32 194 60 254 Reaction (lb): 2910 900 3810 Moment (ftlb.) 21824 6750 28574 TRIAL SIZE: GLB 6.75x 19.5 SUPPORT: 2x6DF#2 Plies: I Plies: I BEAM PROPERTIES: STRESS FACTORS: Width 6.75 inches Depth 19.5 inches Density 35 pd Fb . 2400 psi 240 psi E 1800000 psi F (perp) 625 psi SECTION PROPERTIES: Required Actual % used Area (in 2)17.0 131.6 13% Section Modulus (in 3)127.8 427.8 30% I (DL+LL) for L/240 (in 4)1714.4 4170.9 41°!-----------> TL (in.) 0.62 I (LL) for L/360 (in 4)607.5 4170.9 15°!-----------> LL (in.) 0.15 I(DL) for L/480 (in 4) 2618.9 4170.9 63°!-----------> DL (in.) 0.47 Bearing Area, (in 2)6.1 8.25 74% I I Use (mm.) I Plies Beam Support GLB 6.75 x 19.5 2x6 DF#2 1 I GR.9 BEAM / HEADER CALCULATION Beam No. 09 DESCRIPTION: Clubhouse/Breezeway Door Header GEOMETRY: Span: 6 ft. Wall Width (in): 6 Compression side braced? N Post Height (ft): 10 LOADING: DL (psI) LL (psI) Trib. (ft.) DL (plf) LL (p11) Total plf Roof: 24 20 21 504 420 Floor: 25 40 0 0 0 Wall: 15 0 8 120 0 Misc: 35 40 0 0 0 Self Weight: 9 633 420 1053 Reaction (lb): 1900 1260 3160 Moment (ftlb.) 2851 1890 4741 TRIAL SIZE: 6x8 DF #1 Plies: I BEAM PROPERTIES: Width 5.5 inches Depth 7.5 inches Density 33 pcf Fb 1200 psi F 170 psi E 1600000 psi F (perp) 625 psi SUPPORT: 2x6DF#2 Plies: I STRESS FACTORS: CD 1.25 Cr 1.00 CI 1.00 CM 1.00 Cv 1.00 CF 1.00 CL 1.00 SECTION PROPERTIES: DEFLECTIONS: Required Actual % used Area (in 2)17,7 41.3 43% Section Modulus (in 3)38.1 51.6 74% I (DL+LL) for L1240 (in 4)64.0 193.4 33°!-----------> TL (in.) 0.10 I (LL) for L/360 (in 4)38.3 193.4 20% --------> LL (in.) 0.04 I (DL) for L/480 (in 4)77.0 193.4 40% --------> DL (in.) 0.06 Bearing Area, (in 2)5.1 8.25 61% Use (mm.) Plies Beam Support 6x8 DF #1 2x6 DF#2 1 I GR.1O BEAM I HEADER CALCULATION Beam No. 10 DESCRIPTION: Clubhouse: Window Header below GT SPAN LENGTH: Span: 6 ft. Wall Width (in): 6 Compression side braced? Y Post Height (ft): 10 UNIFORM LOAD: Roof: Floor: Wall: Misc. Self Weight: DL (psf) LL (psf) Trib. (ft.) 24 20 0 25 40 0 10 0 8 35 40 0 DL (plf) LL (plfl Total plf o 0 o o 80 0 0 0 12 92 1 0 92 From x0 Tox=3 DL (p50 LL (psf) Trib. (ft.) DL (pip LL (pIP Total.pif 24 20 21.5 . 516 430 25 40 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 35 40 0 0 0 516 430 946 From x=3 Tox=6 DL (psf) LL (psf) Trib. (ft.) DL (plf) LL (pit) Total plf 24 20 5.5 132 110 25 40. 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 35 40 0 0 0 132 110 242 At x = 3 Span of supported member (ft) = 40 DL (psf) LL (psf) Trib. (ft.) DL (pIt) LL (pif) Total 24 20 4 96 80 25 40 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 35 40 0 0 0 Member Line load (pif): 96 80 176 Point Load to supporting beam (lb): 1920 1600 3520 PART UNIF. LOAD 1: Roof: Floor: Wall: Misc. PART UNIF. LOAD 2: Roof: Floor: Wall: Misc. POINT LOAD 1: Roof: Floor: Wall: Misc. POINT LOAD 2: At x = 0 Span of supported member (ft) = 0 DL (psf) LL (psi) Trib. (ft.) DL (pIt) LL (pit) Total Roof: 24 20 0 0 0 Floor: 25 40 0 0 0 Wall: 10 0 0 0 0 Misc. 35 40 0 0 0 Member Line load (pIt): 0 0 0 Point Load to supporting beam (lb): 0 0 0 GR.11 BEAM I HEADER CALCULATION (Cont'd) DESCRIPTION: Clubhouse: Window Header below GT DL LL Total LOAD RESULTS: Left Reaction (lb): 2496 1850 4346 Right Reaction (lb): 1920 1370 3290 Max Moment (ft-lb.) 4752 3615 8367 (Total moment may be less than DL + LL due to loading configurations) TRIAL SIZE: 6x10DF#1 SUPPORT: 2x6DF#2 Plies: I Plies: I BEAM PROPERTIES: STRESS FACTORS: Width 5.5 inches CD 1.25 Depth 9.5 inches Cr 1.00 Density 33 pcf Ct 1.00 Fb 1350 psi CM 1.00 F 170 psi Cv 1.00 E 1600000 psi CF 1.00 F (perp) 625 psi CL 1,00 SECTION PROPERTIES: DEFLECTIONS: Required Actual % used Area (in 2)24.9 .52.3 48% Section Modulus (in 3)59.5 82.7 72% I (DL+LL) for 11240 (in) 93.8 393.0 24°!----------> IL (in.) 0.07 I (LL) for 11360 (in 4)60.1 393.0 15°!-----------> LL (in.) 0.03 I (DL) for 11480 (in 4)107.4 393.0 27% --------> DL (in.) 0.04 Bearing Area, (in 2)7.0 8.25 84% I Use (mm.) Plies Beam Support I 6x10 DF#1 2x6DF#2 I I GR.12 BEAM! HEADER CALCULATION Beam No. 11 DESCRIPTION: Conference Room Breezeway Header GEOMETRY: Span: 8.5 ft. Wall Width (in): 6 Compression side braced? N Post Height (ft): 10 LOADING: DL (psf) LL (psf) Trib. (ft.) DL (p11) LL (p11) Total p11 Roof: 24 20 5 120 100 Floor: 25 40 0 0 0 Wall: 25 0 4 100 0 Misc: 35 40 0 0. 0 Self Weight:• 9 229 100 329 Reaction (lb): 975 425 1400 Moment (ftlb.) 2072 903 2975 TRIAL SIZE: 8x6DF#1 SUPPORT: 2x6DF#2 Plies: I Plies: I BEAM PROPERTIES: STRESS FACTORS: Width 7.5 inches C0 1.25 Depth 5.5 inches Cr . 1.00 Density 33 pcI Ct 1.00 Fb . 1200 psi CM 1.00 F . 170 psi Cs,, 1.00 E 1600000 psi CF 1.00 F (perp) 625 psi CL 1.00 SECTION PROPERTIES: . . DEFLECTIONS: Recluired Actual % used Area (in 2)8.8 . 41.3 21% Section Modulus (in) . 23.9 37.8 63% I (DL+LL) for L/240 (in 4)56.9 104.0 55%---------> TL (in.) 0.23 I (LL) for 11360 (in 4)25.9 104.0 25% ------> LL (in.) 0.07 I (DL) for 11480 (in 4)79.3 104.0 76% -----> DL (in.) 0.16 Bearing Area, (in 2)2.2 8.25 . 27% I Use (mm.) Plies Beam Support 8x6DF#1 2x6 DF#2 I I GR.13 Width 5.5 inches Depth 7.5 inches Density 33 pcf Fb 1200 psi F 170 psi E 1600000 psi F (perp) 625 psi SECTION PROPERTIES: Required Area (in 2)14.1 Section Modulus (in 3)30.3 I (DL+LL) for L1240 (in 4)51.0 I (LL) for L/360 (in 4)31.9 I (DL) for L/480 (in 4)59.5 Bearing Area, (in 2)4.0 CD 1.25 Cr 1.00 Ct. 1.00 CM 1.00 Cv 1.00 CF 1.00 CL . 1.00 DEFLECTIONS: Actual % used 41.3 34% 51.6 59% 193.4 260/-----------> TL (in.) 193.4 16°!-----------> LL (in.) 193.4 310!-----------> DL (in.) 8.25 49% 0.08 0.03 0.05 DESCRIPTION: GEOMETRY: LOADING: Roof: Floor: Wall: Misc: Self Weight: BEAM I HEADER CALCULATION Lounge: Main Door Header Span: 6 ft. Compression side braced? N Beam No. 12 Wall Width (in): 6 Post Height (ft): 10 DL (psf) LL (psf) Trib. (ft.) DL (p11) LL (plf) Total pif 24 20 17.5 420 350 25 40 0 0 0 15 0 4 60 0 35 40 0 0 0 9 489 350 839 Reaction (lb): 1468 1050 2518 Moment (ftlb.) 2203 1575 3778 TRIAL SIZE: 6x8 DF #1 SUPPORT: 2x6DF#2 Plies: I Plies: I BEAM PROPERTIES: I1 1it.]I Use (mm.) Plies Beam Support 6x8DF#1 2x6 DF#2 I I GR.14 BEAM HEADER CALCULATION Beam No. 13 DESCRIPTION: Lounge/Reception Beam SPAN LENGTH: 24 ft. Compression side braced? Y UNIFORM LOAD: Lower Roof and Wall DL (nsf) LL (psf) Trib. (ft.) DL (plf) LL (plf) Total pit Roof: 24 20 1 24 20 Floor: 25 40 0 0 0 Wall: 15 0 3 45 0 Misc. 35 40 0 0 0 69 20 89 PART UNIF. LOAD 1: From x= 0 To x= 7 Upper Roof DL (psf) LL (psfl Trib. (ft.) DL (plf) LL (plf) Total plf Roof: 24 20 12.5 300 250 Floor: 25 40 0 0 0 Wall: 10 0 0 0 0 Misc. 35 40 0 0 0 300 250 550 PART UNIF. LOAD 2: From x= 7 To x= 24 Upper Roof DL (psf) LL (psf) Trib. (ft.) DL (plf) LL (plf) Total plf Roof: 24 20 3 72 60 Floor: 25 40 0 0 0 Wall: 10 0 0 0 0 Misc. 35 40 0 0 0 72 60 132 POINT LOAD 1: At x = 0 Span of supported member (ft) = 0 DL (psf) LL (psfl Trib. (ft.) DL (plf) LL (pit) Total Roof: 24 20 0 0 0 Floor: 25 40 0 0 0 Wall: 10 0 0 0 0 Misc. 35. 40 0 0 0 Member Line load (plf): 0 0 .0 Point Load to supporting beam (lb): . . 0 0 0 POINT LOAD 2: At x = 0 Span of supported member (ft) = 0 DL (psf) LL (psf) Trib. (ft.) DL (plf) LL (plf) Total Roof: 24 20 0 0 0 Floor: 25 40 0 0 0 Wall: 10 0 0 0 0 Misc. 35 40 0 0 Member Line toad (plf): 0 0 0 Point Load to supporting beam (lb): 0 0 0 GR.15 '.AI vv oouL,eam . I : ENEROAL:4JC Description: Beam No. 13: LoungelRecepon Beam CODE REFERENCES Calculations per NDS 2012, IBC 2012, CBC 2013, ASCE 7-10 Load Combination Set : ASCE 7-10 Material Properties Analysis Method: Allowable Stress Design Fb - Tension 1,350.0 psi E: Modulus of Elasticity Load Combination ASCE 7-10 Fb - Compr 1,350.0 psi Ebend- xx 1,600.Oksi Fc - PrIl 925.0 psi Eminbend - xx 580.0ksi Wood Species : Douglas Fir - Larch Fc - Perp 625.0 psi Wood Grade : No-1 Fv 170.0 psi Ft 675.0 psi Density 31.20pcf Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsion buckling edLoad Service loadsentered. Factors will for calculations. Beam self weight calculated and added to loads Loads on all spans... Uniform Load on ALL spans: D = 0.0690, Lr 0.020 k/ft Partial Length Uniform Load: D = 0.30, Li = 0.250 k/ft, Extent = 0.0 ->> 7.0 ft Partial Length Uniform Load: D = 0.0720, Lr = 0.060 k)ft, Extent = 7.0 ->> 24.0 ft DE_$j.SUfjARY Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = 0.421: 1 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = 0.301 : I Section used for this span 6x12 Section used for this span 6x12 fb :Actual = 709.91 psi fv : Actual = 63.95 psi FB : Allowable = 1,687.50psi Fv : Allowable = 212.50 psi Load Combination +D+t_r+H Load Combination +D+Lr+H Location of maximum on span = 7.000ft Location of maximum on span 6.061 ft Span # where maximum occurs = Span # 1 Span # where maximum occurs Span # 1 Maximum Deflection Max Downward Transient Deflection 0.066 in Ratio = 3107 Max Upward Transient Deflection -0.002 in Ratio = 55769 Max Downward Total Deflection 0.199 in Ratio = 1023 Max Upward Total Deflection -0.007 in Ratio = 11427 MM ámurnFo!ces&Stes fq Load LLL______ Load Combination Max Stress Ratios Moment Values Shear Values Segment Length Span # M V C C FN C i Cr Cm C I C L M ----------------------------- tb Fb V Iv F'v +0+11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length 7.Oft 1 0.378 0,255 0.90 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.64 459.53 1215.00 1.64 38,98 153.00 Length =17.011 2 0.378 0.255 0.90 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.64 459.53 1215.00 1.44 38.98 153.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length =7.oft 1 0.340 0.229 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.64 459.53 1350.00 1.64 38.98 170.00 Length = 17.0 ft 2 0.340 0.229 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.64 459.53 1350.00 1.44 38.98 170.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length =7.oft 1 0,421 0.301 1.25 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.17 709.91 1687.50 2.70 63.95 212.50 Wood Beam ' EUERCAIC, C 1983-2015 Bui 15730, Ve6 157,30 I Description: Beam No. 13: Lounge/Reception Beam Load Combination Max Stress Ratios Moment Values Shear Values Segment Length Span# M V Cd CFN C1 Cr Cm C CL M fb Pb V fv Fv Length = 17.0 ft 2 I 0.421 0.301 1.25 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.17 709.91 1687.50 2.19 63.95 212.50 +D+S+H 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length 7.oft 1 0.296 0.199 1.15 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.64 459.53 1552,50 1.64 38.98 195.50 Length = 17.0 ft 2 0.296 0.199 1.15 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.64 459.53 1552.50 1.44 38.98 195.50 +D *O.750LrO,75OL'*I I 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length =7.oft 1 0.384 0.272 1.25 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.54 647.31 1687.50 2.43 57.70 212.50 Length = 17.0 ft 2 0.384 0.272 1.25 1.000 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.54 647.31 1687.50 2.01 57.70 212.50 D#0.750L40.750SfH 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length =7.0ft 1 I 0.296 0.199 1.15 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.64 459.53 1552.50 1.64 38.98 195.50 Length 17.0ft 2 0.296 0.199 1.15 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.64 459.53 1552.50 1.44 38.98 195.50 4040.60W'*l 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length =7.oft 1 0.213 0.143 1.60 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.64 459.53 2160.00 1.64 38,98 272.00 Length = 17.0 It 2 I 0.213 0.143 1.60 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.64 459.53 2160.00 1.44 38.98 272.00 +040.70E4H 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length =7.oft 1 0.213 0.143 1.60 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.64 459.53 2160.00 1.64 38.98 272.00 Length= 17.0 ft 2 0.213 0.143 1.60 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.64 459.53 2160.00 1.44 38.98 272.00 40+0.75OLr40.750L*0.450W41 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length =7.oft 1 I 0.300 0.212 1.60 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.54 647.31 2160.00 2.43 57.70 272.00 Length = 17.0 ft 2 0.300 0.212 1.60 1.000 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.54 647.31 2160.00 2.01 57.70 272.00 4+0.750L4O.750S40.450W+H 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length =7.0ft 1 0.213 0.143 1.60 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.64 459.53 2160.00 1.64 38.98 272,00 Length 17.oft 2 I 0.213 0.143 1.60 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.64 459.53 2160.00 1.44 38.98 272.00 'O+0,750L.+0.750S+0.5250E+H 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length 7.oft 1 0.213 0.143 1,60 1.000 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.64 459.53 2160.00 1.64 38.98 272.00 Length = 17.0 ft 2 0,213 0.143 1.60 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.64 459.53 2160.00 1.44 38.98 272.00 40.60D40.60W40.601-1 I , 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length =7.oft 1 0.128 0.086 1.60 1,000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.79 275.72 2160.00 0.99 23.39 272.00 Length= 17.0 ft 2 0.128 0.086 1.60 1,000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.79 275.72 , 2160.00 0.86 23.39 272.00 40.60D+0.70E40.60H 1.000 1:00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I Length =7.0ft 1 0.128 0.086 1.60 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.79 275.72 2160.00 0.99 23.39 272.00 Length = 17.0 ft 2 0.128 0.086 1.60 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.79 275.72 2160.00 0.86 23.39 272.00 Load Combination Span Max. Defi Location in Span Load Combination Max. Defi Location in Span LrOnly I 1 0.0019 2.190 4O+Lr*l -0.0074 ------------ 5.514 4OLr4H 2 0.1993 9.592 0.0000 5.514 Verticá Reactions ' , , Support notation Far left is#1 Values in KIPS I Load Combination Support 1 Support 2 Support 3 -A36-mum- -Overall M 1.260 5.726 1.573 Overall MINimum • • 0.406 2.135 0.531 0.676 3.591 1.042 .O+L..+I 0.676 3.591 1.042 +D+Lr+H I 1.260 5.726 • 1.573 +0+541 0.676 3.591 1.042 +040.7501-r40.750L+H 1.114 5.192 1.440 +0+0.750L+0.7505+H 0.676 3.591 1.042 +0+0.60W+H I 0.676 3.591 1.042 40+0.70E41 0.676 3.591 1,042 +0-'0.750Lr+0.750L+0.450W41 1.114 5.192 1.440 +O+0.750L+0.750S+0.450W+H 0.676 3.591 1.042 +040,750L40.7505+0.5250E*H I 0.676 3.591 1.042 40.60040.60W+0.60H 0.406 2.154 0.625 40,60D40.70E+0,60H 0.406 2.154 0.625 Only 0.676 3.591 1.042 LrOnly I D 0.584 2,135 0.531 L Only S Only WOnly I EOnly I BEAM I HEADER CALCULATION Beam No. 14 DESCRIPTION: Bathroom Hallway Opening Header SPAN LENGTH: Span: 4 ft. Wall Width (in): 4 Compression side braced? Y Post Height (ft): 9 UNIFORM LOAD: DL (psf) LL (rsfl Trib. (ft.) DL (plfl LL (plfi Total pif Roof: 24 20 0 0 0 Floor: 25 40 0 0 0 Wall: 10 0 0 0 0 Misc. 35 40 0 0 0 Self Weight: 6 6 0 6 PART UNIF. LOAD 1: From x= 0 To x= I DL (psfl LL (psf) Trib. (ft.) DL (plO LL (plO Total pif Roof: 24 20 10.5 252 210 Floor: 25 40 0 0 0 Wall: 15 0 2 30 0 Misc. 35 40 0 0 0 282 210 492 PART UNIF. LOAD 2: From x= I To x= 4 DL (psf) LL (psf) Trib. (ft.) DL (ott) LL (plf) Total plf Roof: 24 20 6.5 156 130 Floor: 25 40 0 0 0 Wall: 15 0 2 30 0 Misc. 35 40 0 0 0 186 130 316 POINT LOAD 1: At x I Span of supported member (ft) = 18 DL (psf) LL (psf) Trib. (if) DL (pit) LL (plO Total Roof: 24 20 4 96 80 Floor: 25 40 0 0 0 Wall: 10 0 0 0 0 Misc. 35 40 0 0 0 Member Line load (pit): 96 80 176 Point Load to supporting beam (lb): 864 720 1584 POINT LOAD 2: At x = 0 Span of supported member (ft) 0 DL (psf) LL (psf) Trib. (ft.) DL (pIt) LL (plf) Total Roof: 24 20 0 0 0 Floor: 25 40 0 0 0 Wall: 10 0 0 0 0 Misc, 35 40 0 0 0 Member Line load (pIt): 0 0 0 Point Load to supporting beam (lb): 0 0 0 GR.16 BEAM I HEADER CALCULATION (Cont'd) DESCRIPTION: Bathroom Hallway Opening Header DL LL Total LOAD RESULTS: Left Reaction (lb): 1116 870 1986 Right Reaction (lb): 612 450 1062 Max Moment (ft-lb.) 972 765 1737 (Total moment may be less than DL + LL due to loading configurations) TRIAL SIZE: 4x8DF#2 SUPPORT: 2x4 Stud Plies: I Plies: I BEAM PROPERTIES: STRESS FACTORS: Width 3.5 inches C0 1.25 Depth 7.25 inches C1 1.00 Density 33 pcf Ct 1.00 Fb 900 psi CM 1.00 F 180 psi C, 1.00 E 1600000 psi CF 1.30 F(perp) 625 psi CL 1.00. SECTION PROPERTIES: DEFLECTIONS: Required Actual % used Area (in 2)11.2 25.4 44% Section Modulus (in) 14.3 30.7 46% I (DL+LL) for L1240 (in 4)13.6 111.1 12°/----------> TL (in.) 0.02 I (LL) for 1J360 (in 4)8.8 111.1 8°!-----------> LL (in.) 0.01 I (DL) for L/480 (in 4)15.3 111.1 14°!----------> DL (in.) 0.01 Bearing Area, (in 2)3.2 5.25 61% I Use (mm.) Plies Beam Support 4x8 DF#2 2x4 Stud I I GR.17 Beam No. 15 DESCRIPTION: Pool Equipment Long Beam GEOMETRY: Span: 16 ft. Wall Width (in): 6 Compression side braced? Y Post Height (ft): 8 LOADING: DL (nsf) LL (psfl Trib. (ft.) DL (pif) LL (plfl Total pit Roof: 24 20 6.5 156 130 Floor: 25 40 0 0 0 Wall: 15 0 2 30 0 Misc: 35 40 0 0 0 Self Weight: 14 200..130 330 Reaction (lb): 1604 1040 2644 Moment (ftlb.) 6416 4160 10576 TRIAL SIZE: 6x12DF#1 SUPPORT: 2x6DF#2 Plies: I Plies: I BEAM PROPERTIES: STRESS FACTORS: Width 5.5 inches C0 1.25 Depth 11.5 inches Cr 1.00 Density 33 pcf Ct 1.00 Fb 1350 psi CM 1.00 F 170 psi Cv 1.00 E 1600000 psi CF 1.00 F (perp) 625 psi CL 1.00 SECTION PROPERTIES: DEFLECTIONS: Required Actual % used Area (in 2)16.4 63.3 26% Section Modulus (in 3)75.2 121.2 62% I (DL+LL) for L/240 (in 4)380.7 697.1 55% ----------> TL (in.) 0.44 I (LL) for U360 (in 4)224.6 697.1 32% --------> LL (in.) 0.17 I (DL) for U480 (in 4)461.9 697.1 66% ----------> DL (in.) 0.27 Bearing Area, (in 2)4,2 8.25 51% I Use (mm.) I Plies Beam Support 6x12 DF#1 2x6 DF#2 I I GR.18 MIMPOW Patel Burica & Associates, Inc. structural engineering Foundation Analysis 9283 Research Drive • Irvine, California 92618 Tel: 949.943.8080 • Fax; 714.352.2209 0 www.PBAstructural.com Build 060808 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Patel Burica & Associates Inc Serial Number: 100-320-192 Project Title: Shappell Robertson Project Engineer: KV Project Number: 1054 AO Project Date: August 27, 2015 Geotechnical Report: LGC Report Date: April 15, 2015 Report Number: 133023-07 RIBBED FOUNDATION - DESIGN SUMMARY Slab Dimensions: 35.00 FT x 60.00 FT x 8.00 Inches Material Properties Concrete Strength, f: 3,000 PSI Tendon Strength, Fpu: 270 KSI Tendon Diameter: 1/2 Inch I Material Quantities Concrete Volume: 73.5 Cubic Yards Prestressing Tendon: 1,645 Linear Feet Number of End Anchorages: 70 In the LONG direction Type I Beam Type II Beam Quantity of Beams: 9 0 Depth of Beams: 16.0 Inches 0.0 Inches Width of Beams: 10.0 Inches 0.0 Inches Tendons per Beam: 0 0 Beam Tendon Centroid: 0.00 Inches 0.00 Inches Beam Spacing: 6.00 Feet O.C. Number of Slab Tendons: 14 Slab Tendon Spacing: 2.38 Feet O.C. Slab Tendon Centroid: 4.00 Inches from top of slab In the SHORT direction Type I Beam Type II Beam Quantity of Beams: 15 0 I Depth of Beams: 17.5 Inches 0.0 Inches Width of Beams: 10.5 Inches 0,0 Inches Tendons per Beam: 0 0 I Beam Tendon Centroid: 0.00 Inches Beam Spacing: 6.00 Feet O.C. Number of Slab Tendons: 21 Slab Tendon Spacing: 2.80 Feet O.C. Slab Tendon Centroid: 4.00 Inches from top of slab I Page 1 of 13 P:Projocts\1063 AO (Shapell Robertson Market Rote)\1063 AO Calulations\RecreationtMATpti 11:23:31 AM I 1 Build 060808 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To Patel Burica & Associates Inc. Serial Number 100-320-192 Project Title: Shappell Robertson Project Engineer: KV Project Number: 1054 AO Project Date: August 27, 2015 Geotechnical Report: LGC Report Date: April 15, 2015 Report Number: 133023-07 RIBBED FOUNDATION - DESIGN COMPLIANCE SUMMARY The BOLD values exceed allowable or are less than minimum limits by the percentage indicated: SOIL BEARING: ALL VALUES WITHIN ALLOWABLE LIMITS. CENTER LIFT MODE: ALL VALUES WITHIN ALLOWABLE LIMITS. EDGE LIFT MODE: CRACKED MOMENT CAPACITY IN SHORT DIRECTION: COULD NOT BE CALCULATED CRACKED MOMENT CAPACITY IN LONG DIRECTION : COULD NOT BE CALCULATED Page 2 of 13 P:\Projacts\1063A0 (Shapell Robertson Market Rate)11063A0 CalcuIatione\RecreationMAT.pti 11:23:31 AM Build 060808 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Patel Burica & Associates Inc. Serial Number: 100-320-192 Project Title: Shappell Robertson Project Engineer: KV Project Number: 1054 AO Project Date: August 27, 2015 Geotechnical Report: LGC Report Date: April 15, 2015 Report Number: 133023-07 RIBBED FOUNDATION - RESULTS OF ANALYSIS Soil Bearing Analysis Total Applied Load 371,933 LB Bearing Area 2,100 FT2 Applied Pressure on Soil 177 PSF Soil Pressure Safety Factor 5.65 Prestress Summa Subgrade Friction calculated by method prescribed in PTI Manual Short Long Direction Direction Number of Slab Tendons 21 14 Number of Beam Tendons 0 0 Spacing of Slab Tendons (Feet) 2.80 2.38 Center of Gravity of Concrete (from top of slab) (Inch) 5.80 5.41 Center of Gravity of Tendons (from top of slab) (Inch) 4.00 4.00 Eccentricity of Prestressing (Inch) 1.80 1.41 Minimum Effective Prestress Force (K) 451.1 264.7 Beta Distance Effective Prestress Force (K) 498.0 343.5 Minimum Effective Prestress (PSI) 62 65 Beta Distance Effective Prestress (PSI) 69 84 Moment Analysis - Center Lift Mode Maximum Moment, Short Dir. (controlled by Em5.0 per PTI 4.3.2) 3.34 FT-K/FT Maximum Moment, Long Dir. (controlled by Em=5.0 per PTI 4.3.2) 3.00 FT-K/FT Tension in Top Fiber (KSI) Compression in Bottom Fiber (KSl) Short Long Short Long Direction Direction Direction Direction Allowable Stress -0.329 -0.329 Allowable Stress 1.350 1.350 Actual Stress -0.007 -0.015 Actual Stress 0.202 0.222 Stiffness Analysis - Center Lift Mode Based on a Stiffness Coefficient of 360 Short Long Direction Direction Available Moment of Inertia (Inch4) 132,908 59,708 Required Moment of Inertia (Inch4) 20,199 14,692 Required Moment of Inertia controlled by Width 6*Beta Shear Analysis - Center Lift Mode Maximum Shear, Short Direction. 1.36 K/FT Maximum Shear, Long Direction 0.93 K/FT Short Long Direction Direction Allowable Shear Stress (PSI) 144 144 Actual Shear Stress (PSI) 30 23 Page 3of13 P:tPrcjects11063A0 (Shapell Robertson Market Rate)11063A0 Calculations\Recreation\MAT,pti 11:23:31 AM I PTISIab3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Patel Burica & Associates Inc. Project Title: Shappell Robertson Build 060808 Serial Number: 100-320-192 Project Engineer: KV Project Number: 1054A0 Project Date: August 27, 2015 Geotechnical Report: LGC Report Date: April 15, 2015 Report Number: 133023-07 RIBBED FOUNDATION - RESULTS OF ANALYSIS continued Cracked Section Analysis - Center Lift Mode Short Long Direction Direction Cracked Section Capacity (FT-K) 596.5 347.5 0.5 Moment (FT-K) 100.2 52.4 Moment Analysis - Edge Lift Mode Maximum Moment, Short Direction 4.81 FT-K/FT Maximum Moment, Long Direction 4.25 FT-K/FT Tension in Bottom Fiber (KSl) Compression in Top Fiber (KSI) Short Long Short Long Direction Direction Direction Direction Allowable Stress -0.329 -0.329 Allowable Stress 1.350 1.350 Actual Stress -0.314 -0.318 Actual Stress 0.249 0.261 Stiffness Analysis - Edge Lift Mode Based on a Stiffness Coefficient of 720 Short Long Direction Direction Available Moment of Inertia (inch 4) 132,908 59,708 Required Moment of Inertia (Inch 4) 58,207 41,697 Required Moment of Inertia controlled by Width 6*Beta Shear Analysis - Edge Lift Mode Maximum Shear, Short Direction 2.11 K/FT Maximum Shear, Long Direction 2.12 K/FT Short Long Direction Direction Allowable Shear Stress (PSI) 144 144 Actual Shear Stress (PSI) 46 51 Cracked Section Analysis - Edge Lift Mode Short Long Direction Direction Cracked Section Capacity (FT-K) 0.0 0.0 0.5 Moment (FT-K) 144.4 74.4 Page 4 of 13 P:lProjects\I063AO (Shapell Robertson Market Rate)1063AO CalculationslRecteation\MAT.pli 11:23:31 AM Build 060808 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Patel Burica & Associates Inc. Serial Number 100-320192 Project Title: Shappell Robertson Project Engineer: KV Project Number: 1054 AO Project Date: August 27, 2015 Geotechnical Report: LGC Report Date: April 15, 2015 Report Number: 133023-07 RIBBED FOUNDATION - SELECTED VARIABLES Short Long Direction Direction Cross Sectional Area (Inch2): 7,256 4,080 Moment of Inertia (Inch4): 132,908 59,708 Section Modulus, Top (Inch3): 22,898 11,033 Section Modulus, Bottom (Inch): 11,364 5,639 Center of Gravity of Concrete - from top (Inch): 5.80 5.41 Center of Gravity of Prestressing Tendons - from top (Inch): 4.00 4.00 Eccentricity of Prestress (Inch): 1.80 1.41 Beta Distance (Feet): 9.90 8.11 Jacking Force: 33.05 KIPS Page 5 of 13 P:\Projects\1063A0 (Shapell Robertson Market Rate)11063A0 Catculations\Recreation\MATpti 11:23:31 AM Build 060808 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Patel Burica & Associates Inc. Serial Number: 100-320-192 Project Title: Shappell Robertson Project Engineer: KV Project Number: 1054A0 Project Date : August 27, 2015 Geotechnical Report: LGC Report Date: April 15, 2015 Report Number: 133023-07 UNIFORM THICKNESS FOUNDATION - DESIGN SUMMARY Slab Dimensions: 35.00 FT x 60.00 FT x 13.00 Inches Uniform Thickness Slab: 13.00 (13.04) Inches (rounded to the nearest 0.25 inch) Material Properties Concrete Strength, f: 3,000 PSI Tendon Strength, Fpu: 270 KSI Tendon Diameter: 1/2 Inch Material Quantities Concrete Volume: 84.3 Cubic Yards Prestressing Tendon: 2,115.0 Linear Feet Number of End Anchorages: 90 In the LONG direction Number of Slab Tendons: 18 Slab Tendon Spacing : 1.94 Feet O.C. Slab Tendon Centroid: 6.50 Inches from top of slab In the SHORT direction Number of Slab Tendons: 27 Slab Tendon Spacing: 2.23 Feet O.C. Slab Tendon Centroid: 6.50 Inches from top of slab Selected Variables Short Long Direction Direction Cross Sectional Area (Inch2): 9,360 5,460 Moment of Inertia (Inch4): 131,820 76,895 Section Modulus, Top and Bottom (Inch3): 20,280 11,830 Beta Distance (Feet): 9.88 8.64 Jacking Force: 33.05 KIPS Page 6 of 13 P:\Projects\1053A0 (Shapell Robertson Market Rate)11063A0 Calculations\RecreationtMAl.pti 11:23:31 AM Build 060808 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To Petal Burica & Associates Inc. Serial Number 100-320-192 Project Title: Shappell Robertson Project Engineer: KV Project Number: 1054A0 Project Date: August 27, 2015 Geotechnical Report: LGC Report Date: April 15, 2015 Report Number: 133023-07 UNIFORM THICKNESS FOUNDATION - DESIGN COMPLIANCE SUMMARY The BOLD values exceed allowable or are less than minimum limits by the percentage indicated: RIBBED FOUNDATION COMPLIANCE: RIBBED FOUNDATION IN COMPLIANCE. CENTER LIFT MODE: ALL VALUES WITHIN ALLOWABLE LIMITS. EDGE LIFT MODE: ALL VALUES WITHIN ALLOWABLE LIMITS. Page 7 of 13 P:\Projects\1 063 AO (Shapell Robertson Market Rate)I 063 AO Celculations\Recreation\MATpti 11:2331 AM PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Patel Burica & Associates Inc. Project Title: Shappell Robertson Build 060808 Serial Number: 100-320-192 Project Engineer: KV Project Number: 1054 AO Project Date: August 27, 2015 Geotechnical Report: LGC Report Date: April 15, 2015 Report Number: 133023-07 UNIFORM THICKNESS FOUNDATION - RESULTS OF ANALYSIS Uniform Thickness Slab 13.00 (13.04) Inches (rounded to nearest 0.25 inch) Prestress Summary Subgrade Friction calculated by method prescribed in PTI Manual Short Long Direction Direction Number of Tendons 27 18 Spacing of Tendons (FT) 2.23 1.94 Center of Gravity of Concrete (from top of slab) (Inch) 6.50 6.50 Center of Gravity of Tendons (from top of slab) (Inch) 6.50 6.50 Eccentricity of Prestressing (Inch) 0.00 0.00 Minimum Effective Prestress Force (K) 595.1 355.5 Beta Distance Effective Prestress Force (K) 648.9 443.6 Minimum Effective Prestress (PSI) 64 65 Beta Distance Effective Prestress (PSI) 69 81 Moment Analysis - Center Lift Mode Maximum Moment, Short Dir. (calculated with Em5.0 per PTI 4.3.2) 3.34 FT-K/FT I Maximum Moment, Long Dir. (calculated with Em=5.0 per PTI 4.3.2) . 3.00 FT-K/FT Tension in Top Fiber (KSl) Compression in Bottom Fiber (KSl) Short Long Short Long Direction Direction I Direction Direction Allowable Stress -0.329 -0.329 Allowable Stress 1.350 1.350 Actual Stress -0.055 -0.041 Actual Stress 0.182 0.171 I Stiffness Analysis - Center Lift Mode Based on a Stiffness Coefficient of 360 Short Long Direction Direction I . Available Moment of Inertia (Inch 4)131,820 76,895 Required Moment of Inertia (Inch 4) . 20,199 15,651 Required Moment of Inertia controlled by . Width 6*Beta I Shear Analysis - Center Lift Mode Maximum Shear, Short Direction 1.36 K/FT Maximum Shear, Long Direction 0.93 K/FT I Short Long Direction Direction Allowable Shear Stress (PSI) 144 144 Actual Shear Stress (PSI) 9 6 Page 8of13 P:\Projects1063AO (Shapell Robertson Market Rate)1063A0 Calculalions\Recteation'MAT.pti 11:23:31 AM Short Long Direction Direction 131,820 76,895 58,207 44,419 Width 6*Beta 2.11 K/FT 2.12 K/FT Short Long Direction Direction 144 144 14 14 Build 060808 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To : Patel Bunco & Associates Inc. Serial Number: 100-320-192 Project Title: Shappell Robertson Project Engineer: KV Project Number: 1054 AO Project Date: August 27, 2015 Geotechnical Report: LGC Report Date: April 15, 2015 Report Number: 133023-07 UNIFORM THICKNESS FOUNDATION - RESULTS OF ANALYSIS continued I Cracked Section Analysis - Center Lift Mode Cracked Section Capacity (FT-K) 0.5 Moment (FT-K) Moment Analysis - Edge Lift Mode Maximum Moment, Short Direction Maximum Moment, Long Direction Tension in Bottom Fiber (KSl) Short Long Direction Direction Allowable Stress -0.329 -0.329 Actual Stress -0.107 -0.086 Stiffness Analysis - Edge Lift Mode Based on a Stiffness Coeffióient of 720 Available Moment of Inertia (inch 4) Required Moment of Inertia (Inch4) Required Moment of Inertia controlled by Shear Stress Analysis - Edge Lift Mode Maximum Shear, Short Direction Maximum Shear, Long Direction Allowable Shear Stress (PSI) Actual Shear Stress (PSI) Cracked Section Analysis - Edge Lift Mode Short Long Direction Direction 377.6 250.6 100.2 52.4 4.81 FT-K/FT 4.25 FT-K/FT Compression in Top Fiber (KS I) Short Long Direction Direction Allowable Stress 1.350 1.350 Actual Stress 0.234 0.216 Short Long Direction Direction Cracked Section Capacity (FT-K) 377.6 250.6 0.5 Moment (FT-K) 144.4 74.4 I Page 9 of 13 P:tProiects\1063A0 (Shapell Robertson Market Rate)Nlo63AO CalcuIabons\RecreationMAT.pti 11:23:31 AM I Build 060808 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Patel Burica & Associates Inc. Serial Number: 100-320-192 Project Title: Shappell Robertson Project Engineer: KV Project Number: 1054 AO Project Date: August 27, 2015 Geotechnical Report: LGC Report Date: April 15, 2015 Report Number: 133023-07 SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA Material Properties Material Label: Concrete Strength, f: Concrete Creep Modulus, Ec: Concrete Unit Weight: Tendon Strength, Fpu: Tendon Diameter: Slab Properties Rectangle Label: Rectangle Geometry: Minimum Permissible Prestress Beam Properties Concrete 3,000.0 PSI 1,500,000.0 PSI 145.0 PCF 270.0 KSl 1/2 Inch Rec/Clubhouse Block 35.00 FT x 60.00 FT x 8.00 Inches Short Direction Long Direction 60.00 PSI 60.00 PSI Long Direction Type I Type II 9 0 16.0 0.0 Inches 10.0 0.0 Inches 0 0 0.00 0.00 Inches Short Direction Type I Type II Quantity: 15 0 Depth: 17.5 0.0 Width: 10.5 0.0 Tendons: 0 0 Cover: 300 0.00 Average beam spacing used in analysis Page 10 of 13 P:\Projects11063AO (ShapeD Robertson Market Rate)\1063A0 CalculationstRecreation'MAT.pti 11:23:31 AM Build 060809 PTISlab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Patel Burica & Associates Inc. Serial Number: 100-320-192 Project Title: Shappefi Robertson Project Engineer: Ky Project Number: 1054 AO Project Date: August 27, 2015 Geotechnical Report: LGC Report Date: April 15, 2015 Report Number: 133023-07 SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA - Continued Soil Properties Soil Label: Medium Expansive Allowable Bearing Pressure: 1,000.0 PSF Center Lift Edge Lift Edge Moisture Variation Distance, em: 9.00 Feet 5.00 Feet Differential Soil Movement, Ym 0.500 Inches 1.100 Inches Load. Deflection and Subarade ProDerties Slab Loading Uniform Superimposed Total Load: 40.00 PSF Total Perimeter Load: 500.00 PLF Smallest Load Intensity: 200.00 PLF Stiffness Coefficients Center Lift: 360 Edge Lift: 720 Prestress Calculation Subgrade Friction calculated by method prescribed in PTI Manual Prestress Loss: 15.0 KSI Subgrade Friction Coefficient: 0.75 I Page 11 of 13 P:lPrclects\1063A0 (Shspetl Robertson Market Rate)\1063A0 Calcutations\Recreation\MAT.pti 11:23:31 AM I Build 060808 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Patel Burica & Associates Inc. Serial Number 100-320-192 Project Title: ShappeU Robertson Project Engineer: K'J Project Number: 1054 AO Project Date August 27, 2015 Geotechnical Report: LGC Report Date: April 15, 2015 Report Number: 133023-07 PTI EXCEPTION SUMMARY The following elements of the design are not in strict compliance with the Design of Post-Tensioned Slabs-On-Ground 3rd Edition manual published by the Post-Tensioning Institute. NO PTI EXCEPTIONS EXIST Page 12 of 13 P:\Projects\1063A0 (Shapell Robertson Market Rate)\1063A0 Calculstions\Recreation\MAT.pti 11:23:31 AM Build 060808 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Patel Burica & Associates Inc. Project Title: Shappell Robertson Project Engineer: KV Geotechnical Report: LGC LINE LOAD ANALYSIS Summary of Input Data Serial Number: 100-320-192 Project Number: 1054A0 Project Date: August 27, 2015 Report Date: April 15, 2015 Report Number: 133023-07 Line Load: Direction Of Line Load: Prestress at Line Load: Soil Modulus, K5: Slab Thickness (Ribbed Slab): Slab Thickness (Uniform Thickness Foundation) Concrete Creep Modulus, E: Summary of Line Load Analysis Applied Moment (8.00 Inch Thick Slab): Applied Moment (Uniform Thickness Foundation): Bending Stresses (KSI) 3,500.0 lb/ft Parallel to Long Direction Minimum Effective Prestress 40 PCI 8.00 Inch 13.00 Inch 1,500,000.0 PSI 3.67 Ft-KJFt 7.92 Ft-K/Ft Tension in Extreme Fiber Compression in Extreme Fiber Allowable Stress: -0.329 1.350 Applied Stress (8.00 Inch Thick Slab): -0.282 0.406 Applied Stress (Uniform Thickness Foundation) :-0.218 0.345 Prestress at Line Load (8.00 In. Thick Slab): 62.2 PSI Prestress at Line Load (Uniform Thickness Foundation): 63.6 PSI Design Compliance Summary The BOLD values exceed allowable or are less than minimum limits by the percentage indicated: ALL VALUES WITHIN ALLOWABLE LIMITS. Page 13 of 13 P:\Prqjects11063 AO (ShapeD Robertson Market Rats)\1063 AO Calculations\Recreation\MATpti 11:23:31 AM Patel Burica & Associates, Inc. structural engineering Lateral. Load Analysis 9283 Research Drive Irvine, California 92618 Tel: 949.943.8080 Fax: 714.352.2209 • www.PBAstructural.com Geometry of Diaphragms - Recreation Diaphragm Level I Wt. (psf) 24 Wall Trib. To Level: 10 psf Block xl yl x2 Area x bar v bar Club/Exercise 0 - '0 '100 38 3800 50.0 19.0 ConflBath 0 0 40 24: 960 20.0 12.0 Lounge/Reception 0 ' __0 35 60 2100 17.5 30.0 Offices/Bath 0 1,51 6 20 1120 28.0 10.0 Level Area 7980 Level I Max x dim: 100 Center of Mass 34.8 19.8 Level i Max ydim: 60 DiaphragmLevel Wt(psf) PlateHeights(ft.) LevelThickness(ft.) AddHt ©_ top level (ft 4 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 11 24 13.5 2.25 2.25 Height ofFFoutof grade 0.66 Seismic(lateral): V = CW Where C = S / (Ril) and SDS = 2/3 x SMS SDS 0.77 SMS 1.155 Vu= 0.154xW 1= - 1.3 R= 6.5 Vw= 0.7xVu= 0.108xW Seismic (vertical): Ev = 0.2SDS x D = 0.154xW (ASD=) 0.108xW Deflection Amplification Factor Cd = 4 LR.1 SEISMIC LOAD CALCS - BOTH DIRECTIONS SEISMIC WEIGHTS ROOF Element Level Area 1. Wt. (psf) I Wt. (#) Average Height Level I Diaphragm Walls Tribto Level l 7980 7980 24 10 191520 79800 15.75 10.125 Total Wt: 271320 14.1 (Weighted Ave. Ht.) SEISMIC DISTRIBUTION Fx = V * (Wx / Hx) / (sum (Wx * Hx) Level Height (Feet) Wx (Pounds) Wx * Hx (lbs*ft) Fx . (Pounds) Unit Fx (psf) Level 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 Level 3 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 Level 2 1 0.01 01 01 0 0.0 Level 1 1 14AI 2713201 38244151 292481 3.7 TOTALS: 1 2713201 38244151 292481 3.7 WIND LOAD CALCS -BOTH DIRECTIONS: Per ASCE 7-10, Section 28.4.1 (Low rise building) Wind Speed 110 mph Exposure Exp C Roof Mean Height, h 16.41 so Kh 0.88 (Kh is K at. mean roof height) Wind qh= 0.00256xKh xKxKd xV2 x0.6 qh = 13.9 psf ROOF Height: 15.8 Kz = 0.88 Basic Pres. q (psf) Angle e wl surface GC f x Sin (0) Tributary height (feet) Load (P f) Above Level t Below Total Trib. Windward Wall 13.9 90.0 0.70 0 0 6.8 6.8 66 Leeward Wall 13.9 90.0 -0.24 0 0 6.8 6.8 22 Windward Roof, 13.91 18.4 -0.16 2.25 2.25 0.0 14.2 0 Leeward Roof 1 13.91 18.4 -0.09 2.25 2.25 0.01 14.2 . 18 Parapeti 13.91 01 2.5 0 0 01 0 0 1st LEVEL WIND LOAD (PLF) 106 LR.2 END ZONE WIND LOADS: ROOF (END ZONE) Height: 15.8 Kz = 0.88 Basic Pres. q (psf) Angle e wl surface GC 1 x Sin (9) Tributary height (feet) Load (plf) Total Trib. Above Level t Below Windward Wall 13.9 90.0 0.96 0 0 6.8 6.8 90 Leeward Wall 13.9 90.0 -0.44 0 0 6.8 6.8 41 Windward Roof 13.9 18.4 -0.28 2.25 2.25 0.0 14.2 0 Leeward Roof 13.9 18.4 -0.16 1 2.25 2.2510.01 14.2 31 Parapet 13.9 01 2.51 01 01 01 0 0 1st LEVEL END ZONE WIND LOAD (PLF) 162 SUMMARY OF LATERAL LOADS Diaphragm Seismic (psf)l Diaph (psf) I Wind (plfl lWind (end; ROOF I 3.71 3.71 1061 162 Totall 3.71 I 1 6 162 :ones) 11.111.3 N IP1 ik, i '5~ , Y i LL i1! I '1 ,II IIII I liii I I I I I (Th/' LIr L.P. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LATERAL LOAD DISTRIBUTION TO SHEAR LINES First Dianhr2am Level Line Lateral Load Adjacent Area Lateral Load Lateral Load From Above Total Lat. Load Govg Load Unit Loads Trib Area. Load Unit Loads Trib Area Load Seismic Wind (pit) W (ft) D (ft) Seismic Wind (lb) Seismic Wind (pit) W (ft) D (ft) Seismic Wind (lb) Seismic Wind (lb) Seismic Wind (lb) Type lbs A 3.7 162 11 30 1210 1783 0.0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 1210 1783 Wind 1783 B 3.7 162 11 28 1129 1783 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1129 1783 Wind 1783 C 3.7 162 11 30 1210 1783 3.7 162 12 37 1627 1945 0 0 - 2837 3728 Wind 3728 D - 3.7 162 12 371 1627 1945 3.7 162 17.5 35 2245 2836 0 0 3872 4781 Wind 4781 E 3.7 162 17.5 35 2245 2836 3.7 162 12 30 1319 1945 0 0 3564 4781 Wind 4781 F 3.7 162 12 30 1319 1945 3.7 162 12 42 1847 1945 0 0 3167 3890 Wind 3890 G 3.7 162 19 45 3134 3079 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3134 3079 Seismic 3134 H 3.7 162 17.5 58 3720 2836 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3720 2836 Seismic 3720 I 3.7 162 17.5 58 3720 2836 0.0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 3720 2836 Seismic 3720 J 3.7 162119 45 3134 30791 0.01 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 3134 3079 Seismic 3134 K 3.7 1621 121 421 1847 19451 0.01 01 01 01 0 0 01 0 1847 1945 Wind 1945 1 3.7 162 17 21 1308 2755 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 1308 2755 Wind 2755 2 3.7 162 11.5 21 885 1864 3.7 162 15 22 1210 2431 0 0 2095 4295 Wind 4295 3 3.7 162 15 22 1210 2431 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1210 2431 Wind 2431 4 3.7 162 18.5 27 1831 2998 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1831 2998 Wind 2998 5 3.7 162 18.5 27 1831 2998 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1831 2998 Wind . 2998 6 3.7 162 17.5 34 2181 2836 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 --2181 2836 Wind 2836 7 3.7 162 17.5 34 2181 2836 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2181 2836 Wind 2836 8 3.7 16221.5 27 2128 34850.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2128 3485 Wind 3485 9 3.7 162 21.5 27 2128 3485 3.7 - 162 21 42 3233 3404 0 0 5360 6888 Wind 6888 10 3.7 162 21 42 3233 3404 3.7 162 5.5 35 706 891 0 0 3938 4295 Wind 4295 11 3.7 162 5.5 35 706 891 3.7 162 23 35 2950 3728 0 0 3656 4619 - Wind 4619 12 3.7 162 23 35 2950 3728 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2950 3728 Wind 3728 LR.6 SHEAR WALLS - FLEX First Level Shear Walls, X-X Direction Line Wall Seg. FH Length Openg (ft.) W H Total Line Load (lbs.) Total Length EQ (plf) (Flex) Wind (pit) SW Type SW EQ Cap* SW Wind Cap Seismic Wind A A.1 12 0 0 1210 1783 20 8 14.75 16 12.5 11.5 12.5 19.5 22.5 1 14 1 12 60 89 6 260 364 A.2 8 0 0 60 89 - - 260 364 B B.1 8 0 0 1129 1783 141 223 6- 260 364 C C.1 14.75 17 8 2837 3728 192 253 6- 260 364 D Dl 16 0 0 3872 4781 242 299 -6 260 364 E E.1 12.5 0 0 3564 4781 285 382 4 350 490 F F.1 11.5 0 0 3167 3890 275 338 4 350 490 G G.1 6.25 0 0 3134 3079 251 246 - - 273 383 G.2 6.25 0 0 251 246 4- 273 383 H H.1 19.5 24 10.75 3720 2836 191 145 4 246 344 1.1 22.51 51 6 3720 1 2836 165 126 6 1 260 1 364 J J.1 14 Ol 0 3134 1 3079 224 1 220 1 -6 260 364 K K.1 121 01 Of 1847 1 1945 154 1 162 1 -6 260 364 First Level Shear Walls, Y-Y Direction Line Wall Seg. FH Length Openg (ft.) W H Total Line Load (lbs.) Total Length EQ (plf) (Flex) Wind (plf) SW Type SW EQ Cap* SW Wind Cap Seismic Wind 1.1 5.75 0 0 1308 2755 5.75 16 15.75 12.75 7 12.25 12.25 11.5 16 16 12 13.5 228 479 -4 350 490 2 2.1 16 0 0 2095 4295 131 268 6 260 364 3 3.1 15.75 5 4 1210 2431 77 154 6 260 364 4 - 4.1 6 0 0 1831 2998 144 235 6 195 273 4.2 6.75 0 0 144 235 6- 219 307 5 5.1 7 10 12.5 1831 2998 262 428 1 476 666 _6_ 6.1 12.25 12 6 2181 2836 178 232 4 - 321 450 7 7A 12.25 12 6 2181 2836 178 232 3 344 482 8 8.f 11.5 2.5 6 2128 3485 185 303 -6 260 364 9 9.1 16 0 0 5360 6888 335 431 -4 350 490 10 1o.i. 16 0 0 3938 4295 1 246 1 268 -6 260 1 364 11 11.1 12 Ol 0 3656 4619:1 1 305 1 385 4 350 490 12 121 13.5 161 11.671 2950 3728 1 219 1 276 4 260 364 LR.7 * SW EQ Capacities are proportionally reduced for H:W greater than 2:1 OTM AND HD's - FLEX First Level Shear Walls, X-X Direction Line Wall Seg. FH Length Open'g (ft.) W EQ (pip (Flex) Wind (pip Ht. (ft.) E, OTM (lbs.xft) W, OTM (lbs.xft) DL, RM (lbs.xft) LL, RM (lbs.xft) Tension Total Tension (lbs.) - - - Strap or Hold Down Capacity (lbs.) W (lbs.) EQ (lb) E, Abv W, Abv E, Total W, Total Added Gov'g A A.1 12 0 60 89 14 9797 14441 17460 2880 347 105 0 0 105 347 0 347 HTT4 4235 A.2 8 0 60 89 10 4838 7131 10560 5760 107 -48 0 0 -48 107 0 107 HTT4 4235 B 6.1 8 0 141 223 10 11289 17828 10560 5760 1549 821 0 0 821 1549 0 1549 HTT4 4235 C C.1 14.75 17 192 253 16 1 45390 596431 241935 120968 -2744 -2364 0 0 -2364 -2744 0 -2364 - 100 D D.1 16 0 242 299 16 61957 76498 61440 307201 2571 20571 0 01 2057 2571 0 2571 HTT4 4235 E E.1 12.5 0 285 382 14 48119 64545 18945 3125 4462 3255 0 01 3255 4462 0 4462 HTT5 5090 F F.1 11.5 0 275 338 14 42751 52511 1735 3968 3856 3134 0 0 3134 3856 0 3856 HTT4 4235 G G.1 6.25 0 251 246 16 25070 24635 5469 781 3768 3949 0 0 3949 3768 0 3949 HTT4 4235 G.2 6.25 0 251 246 16 25070 24635 5469 781 3768 3949 0 0 3949 3768 0 3949 HTT4 4235 H H.1 19.5 24 191 1 145 1 14 1 50222 38290 475428 283838 -5755 -4282 0 0 -4282 -5755 0 -4282 - 100 p 1.1 22.5 5 165 1 126 1 14 1 502221 382901 1900081 113438 -2813 -1609 0 0 -1609 -2813 0 -1609 - 100 J J.1 14 0 224 1 220 1 16 1 50140 492701 313601 78401 22701 25871 01 01 2587 2270 01 25871 HTT4 4235 K K.1 12 0 154 1 162 1 14 1 249381 262561 261001 115201 9281 10591 01 01 1059 928 01 10591 HTT4 4235 First Level Shear Walls, Y-Y Direction Line Wall Seg. FH Length Open'g (ft.) W EQ (pip (Flex) Wind (pip Ht. (ft.) E, OTM (lbs.xft) W, OTM (lbs.xft) DL, RM (lbs.xft) LL, RM (lbs.xft) Tension Total Tension (lbs.) - - - - Strap or Hold Down Capacity (lbs.) W (lbs.) EQ (lb) E, Abv W, Abv E, Total W, Total Added Govg 1 1.1 5.75 0 228 479 10 13085 27552 3141 661 4968 2233 0 0 2233 4968 0 4968 HTT5 5090 2 2.1 16 0 131 268 14 28278 57981 64320 38400 1258 -219 0 0 -219 1258 0 1258 HTT4 4235 3 3.1 15.75 5 77 154 14 16328 32820 108179 64584 -1591 -1831 0 0 -183 -1591 0 -159 - 100 4 4.1 6 0 144 1 235 16 1 13785 22576 5040 720 3610 2087 0 0 2087 3610 0 3610 HTT4 4235 4.2 6.75 0 144 235 16 15508 25398 6379 911 3498 2006 0 01 2006 3498 01 3498 HTT4 4235 5 5.1 7 10 262 428 16 29292 47973 40460 5780 1443 571 0 0 571 1443 0 1443 HTT4 4235 6 6.1 12.25 12 178 232 14 29441 38290 147751 88209 -2128 -1829 0 0 -1829 -2128 0 -1829 - 100 7 7.1 12.25 12 178 232 14 29441 38290 147751 88209 -2128 -1829 0 0 -1829 -2128 0 -1829 - 100 8 8.1 1 11.5 2.5 185 303 14 28723 47041 23765 3920 2443 1269 0 0 1269 2443 0 2443 HTT4 4235 9 9.1 16 0 335 1 431 1 16 1 85766 1102091 56320 256001 4957 3765 0 0 3765 4957 0 4957 HITS 5090 10 10.1 16 0 246 1 268 1 16 1 63012 68719 35840 5120 3063 2943 0 01 2943 3063 0 3063 HTT4 4235 11 11.1 12 0 305 385 1 14 1 49356 62357 17460 2880 4544 3570 0 01 3570 4544 0 4544 HITS 5090 12 12.1 13.5 16 219 1 276 1 14 1 39832 50323 105518 17405 -449 -419 0 0 -419 -449 0 -419 - 100 LR.8 SHEAR WALL DEFLECTIONS First Level Shear Walls, X-X Direction Line wn PostShear Wall inforr Shear Wall Deflection, inches E (in2) G (in2) Bending Shear & Nails Anchor Added TOTAL Delta m Delta All. A WallEl A.1 1600000 12 0.007 0.095 0.011 0.000 0.114 0.455 4.2 A.2 1600000 12 0.004 0.071 0.004 0.00 0.079 0.315 3.15 B B.1 1600000 12 0.010 0.165 0.056 0.000 0.231 0.924 3.15 C C.1 5.25 1600000 12 0.071 0.359 NA 0.000 0.430 1.721 4.95 D D.1 12.25 16000001 12 0.035 0.452 - 0.075 0.0001 0.562 2.247 4.95 E E.1 12.25 1600000 15 0.032 0.359 - 0.126 0.000 0.519 2.077 4.2 F F.1 12.25 1600000 15 0.034 0.347 - 0.131 0.000 0.512 2.048 4.2 G G.1 12.25 1600000 15 0.094 .374 - 0.294 0.000 0.762 3.048 4.95 G.2 12.25 1600000 15 0.094 0.374 0.294 0.000 0.762 3.048 4.95 H H.1 5.25 1600000 15 0.032 0.240 NA 0.000 0.272 1.090 4.2 1.1 5.25 16000001 12 0.024 0.260 NA 0.000 0.285 1.138 4.2 J Li 12.25 1600000 12 0.037 0.418 0.086 0.000 0.541 2.164 4.95 K K.1 12.25 16000001 12 0.018 0.242 0.035 0.000 0.295 1.180 4.2 First Level Shear Walls, Y-Y Direction Line Wall Hold down Post Eff. Ga Shear Wall Deflection, inches - - Area (1n2 E (i02) Ga (ksi) Bending Shear & Nails Anchor Added TOTAL Delta m Delta All. - 1 1.1 12.25 1600000 15 0.023 0.212 0.229 0.000 0.464 1.857 3.15 2 2.1 12.25 1600000 12 - .012 0.206 0.031 0.000 0.249 0.994 4.2 3 3.1 5.25 1600000 12 - .016 0.121 - NA 0.000 0.137 0.548 4.2 4 -4.1 12.25 1600000 12 - . 0.268 0.280 0.000 0.604 2.4141 4.95 4.2 12.25 1600000 12 - . 0.268 0.241 0.0001 0.559 2.235 4.95 5 5. - 12.25 1600000 28 - 0.087 0.209 0.096 0.000 0.393 1.570 4.95 6 6.1 5.25 1600000 15 -0.048 0.224 NA 0.000 0.272 1.088 4.2 7 7.1 5.25 1600000 17 -0.048 0.198 NA 0.000 0.246 0.982 4.2 a 8.1 12.25 1600000 12 -0.023 .291 0.083 0.000 0.397 1.589 4.2 9 9.1 12.25 1600000 15 0.049 0.500 0.131 0.000 0.681 2.723 4.95 10 10.1 12.25 1600000 12 - . .459 0.089 0.0001 0.584 2.338 4.95 11 11.1 12.25 1600000 15 -0.036 .384 0.136 0.0001 0.555 2.221 4.2 12 12.1 5.25 1600000 15 - . 0.275 NA 0.0001 0.328 1.314 4.2 LR.9 Patel Burica & Associates, Inc. structural engineering Soils Report Excerpts 9283 Research Drive • Irvine, California 92618 Tel: 949.943.8080 • Fax: 714.352.2209 • www.PBAstructural.com LGC Valley, Inc. Geotechnical Consulting April 15, 2015 Project No. 133023-07 Mr. Tae Dixon Shape!! Properties, Inc. 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700 Beverly Hills, California 90211 Subject: Preliminary Foundation Design for the Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development, Robertson Ranch Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8, 4980 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California Introduction In accordance with your request, LGC Valley, Inc., (LGC) has prepared this letter to provide preliminary foundation design and seismic design parameters for the future development of Planning Areas PA-7, and PA-8 of the Robertson Ranch project located in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purpose of this letter is to provide preliminary foundation design and seismic parameters to be in accordance with the latest adopted building code (i.e. 2013 California Building Code, which is based on the 2012 international Building Code). The recommendations contained herein should be verified by LGC at the completion of grading to confirm the interpretations used herein. Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8 are located in the south-central portion of the Robertson Ranch project and are approximately 6.5 and 14.5 acres in size, respectively. PA-8 is divided into two parcels: Parcel A is 4.8 acres in size and is planned for senior housing; while Parcel B is 9.7 acres in size, and along with PA-7, will contain a multi-family apartment complex. The site (PA-7 and PA-8) is bounded by El Camino Real to the south; proposed single-family communities (PA-3 and PA-6) on the west, northwest, and northeast; and a retail development (PA- 11), Gage Road and West Ranch Street on the southeast. Robertson Road separates PA-7 and PA-8 Parcel B. A future community recreation center (PA-4) is located at the southwest corner of PA-8 on the north side of Robertson Road but is not part of the multi-family development. It is our understanding that the proposed multi-family development will consist of 24 one- to three-story residential buildings with 263 units and 376 parking spaces. The project will include a leasing/recreation building, maintenance building, pool, landscape areas, appurtenant structures, and driveways. We also understand that the senior housing project will include the construction of one large building with 96 units and 143 parking spaces with associated driveways, landscape areas, and appurtenant structures. Based on review of the latest site grading plans, PA-7 will require approximately 7,700 cubic yards of fill while PA-8 will require 18,000 cubic yards. The precise or tine grading of the site will consist of minor cuts and fills of less than two to three feet to achieve the site design finish grades. Fills of up to six to eight feet will be necessary to backfill the existing storm drain retention basins. Once fine, grading is completed, finish grade expansion and CorrOSiOl1 testing should be performed to confirm the final as-graded pad properties. 2420 Grand Avenue, Suite F2-Vista • CA 92081 (760)699-7000 -Fax(760)599-7007 F~ I Current As-Graded Geotechnical Conditions Rough/mass grading of the Robertson Ranch started September 3, 2014 and is still on-going as of this date. The rough/mass grading operations within Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8 included: removal of potentially compressible soils such as alluvium, colluvium, topsoil, and weathered formational material; installation of canyon subdrains; excavation of cut materials; overexcavation of cut/fill transition conditions within the proposed building pad locations; and placement of fill. As recommended in the project geotechnical report, fill soils deeper than 40 feet below proposed grade were placed and compacted to a minimum 93 percent relative compaction. Fills soils placed within 40 feet of finished grade were compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction. Based on the as graded conditions, the building pads of Buildings 8, 9, 12, and 17 consist of cut while the remaining building pads consist of fill. Buildings 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, and 13 are cut/fill transition pads that were overexcavated a minimum of 5 feet to a distance of at least 10 feet outside the proposed building limits and replaced with compacted fill. During the rough/mass grading operations, remedial grading was performed so that the fill differential beneath the proposed building pads were less than a 3:1 (maximum fill thickness to the minimum fill thickness). Building pads having more than 40 feet of fill include Buildings 3, 4, 5, 16, and 20 through 25. Settlement monument monitoring was recommended in the project geotechnical report in these areas. A total of five settlement monuments have been installed and are currently being monitored. Buildings 3, 4, 5, 16, and 20 through 25 should not be constructed until the monitoring indicates the primary and secondary settlement of the fill is essentially complete. Based on our professional experience on the site, we anticipate that the finish grade soils within Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8 will have expansion potentials ranging from very low to medium (i.e. an expansion index of 0 to 90). The actual expansion potentials of the finish grade soils of the building pads should be determined after the site is fine-graded. In addition, based on limited soil testing prior to the grading of the site, the on-site soils are classified as having a negligible sulfate exposure condition in accordance with ACI 318R-08 Table 4.3.1. Concrete in contact with on-site soils should be designed in accordance with ACI 318R-08 Table 4.3.1 for the negligible category. It is also our opinion that on-site soils should be considered moderately to severely corrosive to buried metals. The actual corrosivity of the finish grade soils should be verified with confirmatory sampling and testing upon completion of the site rough and fine grading. Preliminary Foundation liesiRn I The following preliminary foundation designs are provided for your review and use and are based on the site conditions as currently understood and interpreted by .LGC, and are in accordance with the latest building code requirements (2013 California Building Code). I I Project No. 133023-0 7 Page 2 April 15, 2015 General Foundation Recommendation Preliminary recommendations for foundation design and foundation construction are presented herein. When the structural loads for the proposed structures are known they should be provided to our office to verify the recommendations presented herein. The following three foundation recommendations are provided. The foundations recommended for the proposed structures are: (1) Conventional foundation for very low expansion potential and shallow fills; (2) Post-Tension foundations; or (3) Mat Slabs. Based on the site geotechnical conditions after mass/rough grading, the site is considered suitable for the support of the anticipated structures using a conventional, post-tensioned, or mat slab-on-grade foundation system for very low to medium expansion potential (0-90 Expansion Index). The information and recommendations presented in this section are not meant to supersede design by the project structural engineer or civil engineer specializing in the structural design nor impede those recommendations by a corrosion consultant. Should conflict arise, modifications to the foundation design provided herein can be provided. Bearing Capacity Shallow foundations may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 lb/ft2 (gross), for U continuous footings a minimum of 12 inches wide and 18 inches deep, and spread footings 24 inches wide and 18 inches deep, into certified compacted fill or bedrock. A factor of safety greater than 3 was used in evaluating the above bearing capacity value. This value maybe increased by 250 psf for each additional foot in depth and 100 psf for each additional foot of width to a maximum value of 3,000 psf. Lateral forces on footings may be resisted by passive earth resistance and friction at the bottom of the footing. Foundations may be designed for a coefficient of friction of 0.35, and a passive earth pressure of 250 Ib/ft2/ft. The passive earth pressure incorporates a factor of safety of greater than 1.5. All footing excavations should be cut square and level as much as possible, and should be free of sloughed materials including sand, rocks and gravel, and trash debris. Subgrade soils should be pre-moistened for the assumed vey low to medium expansion potential (to be confirmed at the end of grading). These allowable bearing pressures are applicable for level (ground slope equal to or flatter than 5H: 1V) conditions only. Bearing values indicated above are for total dead loads and frequently applied live loads. The above vertical bearing may be increased by one-third for short durations of loading which will include the effect of wind or seismic forces. I Project No. 133023-07 Page 3 April 15, 2015 E Conventional Foundations Conventional foundations may be used to support proposed structures underlain by very low expansive soils (i.e. Expansion Index less that 20 and Plasticity Index less than 15) and with less than 30 feet of fills. Continuous footings should have minimum widths of 12 inches, 15 inches or 18 inches for one-story, two- story or three-story structures, respectively. Individual column footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches. Footings for proposed structure should have minimum depths (below lowest adjacent finish grade) of 18 inches and 12 inches for exterior and interior footings, respectively for a very low expansion potential (0-20 Expansion Index). The subgrade should be moisture-conditioned and proof-rolled just prior to construction to provide a firm, relatively unyielding surface, especially if the surface has been loosened by the passage of construction traffic. The underslab vapor/moisture retarder (i.e. an equivalent capillary break method) may consist of a minimum 15-mil thick vapor barrier in conformance with ASTM E 1745 Class A material, placed in general conformance with ASTM E1643, underlain by a minimum 1-inch of sand. The sand layer requirements above the vapor barrier are the purview of the foundation engineer/structural engineer, and should be provided in accordance with ACI Publication 302 "Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction". These recommendations must be confirmed (and/or altered) by the foundation engineer, based upon the performance expectations of the foundation. Ultimately, the design of the moisture retarder system and recommendations for concrete placement and concrete mix design, which will address bleeding, shrinkage, and curling are the purview of the foundation engineer, in consideration of the project requirements provided by the architect and developer. The underslab vapor/mOisture retarder described above is considered a suitable alternative in accordance with the Capillary Break Section 4.505.2.1 of the CALGreen code. Subgrade soils should be pre-saturated to optimum moisture content to a depth of 12 inches for a very low expansion potential. Expansion index testing should be performed at the end of grading for confirmation. The minimum thickness of the floor slabs should be at least 4.5 inches, and joints should be provided per usual practice. Post-Tension Foundations Based On the site geotechnical conditions and provided the previous remedial recommendations have been implemented during site grading, the site may be considered suitable for the support of the anticipated structures using a post-tensioned slab-on-grade foundation system, for the anticipated very low to medium expansive soils. The following section summaries our recommendations for the foundation system. The following table contains the geotechnical recommendations for the construction of PT slab on grade foundations. The structural engineer should design the foundation system based on these parameters including the foundation settlement as indicated in the following section to the allowable deflection criteria determined by the structural engineer/architect. Project No., 133023-0 7 Page 4 April 15, 2015 Preliminary Geotechnical Parameters for Post-Tensioned Foundation Design Parameter Value Expansion Classification (Assumed to be Very Low to Low and for Medium Expansion confirmed at the completion of grading): Thornthwaite Moisture Index (From -20 Figure 3.3): Constant Soil Suction (From Figure 3.4): PF 3.6 Center Lift Very Low to Low Medium Edge moisture variation distance (from Figure 3.6), em: 9.0 feet 9.0 feet Center lift, Ym 0.3 inches 0.5 inches Edge Lift Very Low to Low Medium Edge moisture variation distance (from Figure 3.6), em: 5.2 feet 5.0 feet Edge lift, Ym 0.7 inches 1.1 inches Soluble Sulfate Content for Design of Concrete Mix in Contact with Site Soils in Negligible Exposure Accordance with American Concrete (Based on preliminary testing - needs to be confirmed at the Institute standard 318, Section 4.3: completion of grading) Corrosivity of Earth Materials to Ferrous Metals: Moderately to Severely Corrosive Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k (assuming presaturation as indicated 100 pci (very low to low) below): 85 pci (medium) Additional Recommendations: Presaturate slab subgrade to at least optimum-moisture content, or to 1.2 times optimum moisture to minimum depths of 12 and 18 inches below ground surface, respectively for very low to low, and medium expansion potentials. Install a 15-mil moisture/vapor barrier in direct contact with the concrete (unless superseded by the Structural/Post-tension engineer*) with minimum 1 inches of sand below the moisture/vapor barrier. Minimum perimeter foundation embedment below finish grade for moisture cut off should be 12 and 18 inches, respectively for very low to low and medium expansion potentials. Minimum slab thickness should be 5 inches. Project No. 133023-07 Page 5 April 15, 2015 I The above sand and moisture/vapor barrier recommendations are traditionally included with geotechnical foundation recommendations although they are generally not a major factor influencing the geotechnical performance of the foundation. The sand and moisture/vapor barrier requirements are the purview of the foundation engineer/corrosion engineer (in accordance with ACT Publication 302 "Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction") and the homebuilder to ensure that the concrete cures more evenly than it would otherwise, is protected from corrosive environments, and moisture penetration of through the floor is acceptable to future homeowners. Therefore, the recommendations provided herein may be superseded by the requirements of the previously mentioned parties. The underslab vapor/moisture retarder (i.e. an equivalent capillary break method) may consist of a minimum 15-mil thick moisture/vapor barrier in conformance with ASTM E 1745 Class A material, placed in general conformance with ASTM E1643, underlain by a minimum 1-inch of sand, as needed. The sand layer requirements above the vapor barrier are the purview of the foundation engineer/structural engineer, and should be provided in accordance with ACI Publication 302 "Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction". These recommendations must be confirmed (and/or altered) by the foundation engineer, based upon the performance expectations of the foundation. Ultimately, the design of the moisture retarder system and recommendations for concrete placement and concrete mix design, which will address bleeding, shrinkage, and curling are the purview of the foundation engineer, in consideration of the project requirements provided by the architect and developer. The underslab vapor/moisture retarder described above is considered a suitable alternative in accordance with the Capillary Break Section 4.505.2.1 of the CALGreen code. Mat Foundations A mat foundation can be used for support of proposed residential buildings. An allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,000 psf may be used for the design of the mat at the surface under the slab area. The allowable bearing value is for total dead loads and frequently applied live loads and may be increased by one-third for short durations of loading which will include the effect of wind or seismic forces. A coefficient of vertical subgrade reaction, k, of 85 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used to evaluate the pressure distribution beneath the mat foundation. The magnitude of total and differential settlements of the mat foundation will be a function of the structural design and stiffness of the mat. Resistance to lateral loads can be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by passive earth pressure. Foundations may be designed for a coefficient of friction of 0.35. Minimum perimeter footing embedment provided in the previous sections maybe reduced for the mat slab design. The underslab vapor/moisture retarder should be installed as recommended above in the post-tension foundation section. Coordination with the structural engineer will be required in order to ensure structural loads are adequately distributed throughout the mat foundation to avoid localized stress concentrations resulting in potential settlement. The foundation plan should be reviewed by LGC to confirm preliminary estimated total and differential static settlements. Project No. 133023-07 Page 6 April 15, 2015 El, Foundation Settlement Based on the site design relative to native grades and the site remedial removals currently being performed during site rough grading to remove all unsuitable potentially compressible soils underlying the site, fill at the site will range from approximately 5 to a maximum depth of 75 feet (southeast corner of PA-7) in thickness with the majority of the fill thicknesses less than 40 feet in depth. The deepest fills located in the southeast corner of PA-7 along the north-south trending canyon. It is anticipated that most of the consolidation will be complete by the time final design grades are achieved due to the sandy nature of site soils. Settlement monuments have been installed in deeper fill areas (fills greater than 40 feet in thickness) at the completion of the rough/mass grading activities, to monitor the primary and secondary consolidation of deep fills. Deeper fill lots will be released when the primary and secondary consolidation is within acceptable limits. Based on the as-graded condition and our preliminary review of site grading plans, remedial grading was perfonned during rough/mass grading activities so that the fill differential beneath the proposed building pads were less than a 3:1 (maximum fill thickness to the minimum fill thickness); therefore, no major fill differentials are anticipated across the current building pad areas.' Based on our evaluation, the static post-construction settlements for the lots with less than 40 feet of fill, and deeper fill lots after they are released for construction is estimated to be up to a maximum differential settlement of approximately %-inch in 30 feet. I Foundation Setback - Top of Slope Building foundations located close to the top of descending slopes should have a minimum setback per Figure 1808.7.1 of the 2013 CBC. Figure 1808.7.1 of the 2013 CBC shows that the setback distance from the bottom edge of the building foundation to the slope surface is equal to the height of slope divided by 3 up to a maximum setback of 40 feet. The setback distances should be measured from competent materials on the outer slope face, excluding any weathered and loose materials. Toe of Slone Condition - Bulldinsi Clearance Section 1808.7.1 of the 2013 California Building Code (CBC) provides recommendations/discussion with U regards to the building clearance from ascending slopes. The intent of this section of the code is that the proposed building structure below slopes shall be set a sufficient distance from the slope to provide protection from slope drainage, erosion, and shallow failures. The code clearance for building foundations below slopes is equal to the smaller of the height of slope divided by 2 or 15 feet. CBC Section 1808.7.5 permits an alternate clearance subject to the approval of the building official provided a geotechnical evaluation is performed to demonstrate that the intent of Section 1808.7 would be satisfied. LGC can review the site plans once available to evaluate the proposed building clearances. I Project No. 133023-07 Page 7 April 15, 2015 1 Seismic .Desiffn Criteria The site seismic characteristics were evaluated per the guidelines set forth in Chapter 16, Section 1613 of the 2013 California Building Code (CBC). The maximum considered earthquake (MCE) spectral response accelerations (SMS and SM!) and adjusted design spectral response acceleration parameters (SDS and SD!) for Site Class D are provided in the following table. Seismic Design Parameters Selected Parameters from 2013 CBC, Section 1613- Earthquake Loads Seismic. Design Values Site Class per Chapter 20 of ASCE 7 D Risk-Targeted Spectral Acceleration for Short Periods (SS)* 1.083g Risk-Targeted Spectral Accelerations for I-Second Periods (5)* 0.417g Site Coefficient Fa per Table 1613.3.3(1) 1.067 Site Coefficient F per Table 1613.3.3(2) 1.583 Site Modified Spectral Acceleration for Short Periods (SMs) for Site Class D [Note: SMS = FaS5] 1155 g Site Modified Spectral Acceleration for 1-Second Periods (SM!) for Site Class D [Note: SM! = FvS11 0.66g g Design Spectral Acceleration for Short Periods (SDs) for Site Class D [Note: SDS = (2/3)SMS] 0.77g . g Design Spectral Acceleration for 1-Second Periods (SDI) for Site Class D [Note: SD! = (2/3)SMd 0 44 . g Mapped Risk Coefficient at 0.2 sec Spectral Response Period, CRS (per ASCE 7) 0.968 Mapped Risk Coefficient at 1 sec Spectral Response Period, CR! (per ASCE 7) 1.02 * From USGS, 2013 Section 1803.5.12 of the 2013 CBC (per Section 11.8.3 of ASCE 7) states that the maximum considered earthquake geometric mean (MCEG) Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) should be used for geotechnical evaluations. The PGAM for the site is equal to 0.453g (USGS, 2013). A deaggregation of the PGA based on a 2,475-year average return period indicates that an earthquake magnitude of 6.79 at a distance of approximately 11.4 km (7.1 mile) from the site would contribute the most to this ground motion (USGS, 2008b). Project No. 133023-07 Page 8 April 15, 2015 Corrosivitp to Concrete and Metal The National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) defines corrosion as "a deterioration of a substance or its properties because of .a reaction with its environment." From a geotechnical viewpoint, the "environment" is the prevailing foundation soils and the "substances" are the reinforced concrete foundations or various buried metallic elements such as rebar, piles, pipes, etc., which are in direct contact with or within close vicinity of the foundation soil. In general, soil environments that are detrimental to concrete have high concentrations of soluble sulfates and/or pH values of less than 5.5. ACI Criteria (ACI 318R-08 Table 4.3.1), provides specific guidelines for the concrete mix design when the soluble sulfate content of the soils exceeds 0.1 percent by weight or 1,000 ppm. The minimum amount of chloride ions in the soil environment that are corrosive to steel, either in the form of reinforcement protected by concrete cover, or plain steel substructures such as steel pipes or piles, is 500 ppm per California Test 532. Based on limited soil testing prior to the grading of the site, the onsite soils are classified as having a negligible sulfate exposure condition in accordance with ACI 318R-08 Table 4.3.1. Concrete in contact with onsite soils should be designed in accordance with ACI 318R-08 Table 4.3.1 for the negligible category. It is also our opinion that onsite soils should be considered moderately to severely corrosive to buried metals. Control of Surface Water and DrainaRe Control Positive drainage of surface water away from structures is very important. No water should be allowed to pond adjacent to buildings. Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing drainage away from buildings at a gradient of at least 2 percent for a distance of at least 5 feet, and further maintained by a swale or drainage path at a gradient of at least 1 percent. Where necessary, drainage paths may be shortened by use of area drains and collector pipes. Planters with open bottoms adjacent to buildings should be avoided. Planters should not be designed adjacent to buildings unless provisions for drainage, such as catch basins, liners, and/or area drains, are made. Overwatering must be avoided. Limitations Our services were performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. Changes in conditions must be evaluated by the project soils engineer and geologist and design(s) adjusted as required or alternate design(s) recommended. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his/her representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and/or project engineer and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and/or subcontractor properly implements the recommendations in the field. The contractor and/or subcontractor should notify the owner if they consider any of the recommendations presented herein to be unsafe. Project No. 133023-07 Page 9 April 15, 2015 I Closure This letter is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his/her representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the structural/foundation engineer and the necessary steps are taken to see that the information is implement in the structural/foundation design, as necessary. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. The undersigned can be reached at (661) 702-8474. Respectfully submitted, LGC Valley, Inc. HA $J,44T . 2734 E:°8 Basil Principal %ineer OFCAt RKW/BIH Attachments: References Distribution: (1) Addressee Project No. 133023-07 Page 10 April 15, 2015 rto References American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2013, Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, ASCE/SEI 7-10, Third Printing, 2013. California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), 2013a, California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume I and 2 of 2 (based on the 2012 International Building Code). CBSC, 2013b, California Residential Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2.5,(based on the 2012 International Residential Code). CBSC, 2013c, California Green Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. LGC Valley, Inc., LGC Valley, Inc., 2014, Geotechnical and environmental recommendations for Robertson Ranch West, Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03, Carlsbad, California, Project Number 133023-03, dated 4/29/14. O'Day Consultants, 2013, Grading plans for Rancho Costera, Robertson Ranch West Village, Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03, Drawing No. 480-3A, 26 sheets, dated November 25. O'Day Consultants, 2014, Vesting tentative map for Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03-2, 23 sheets, dated 1/16/2014. Post-Tensioning Institute, 2006, Design of post tensioned slabs-on-ground, Third Addition, Addendum 1 dated May 2007, and Addendum 2 dated May 2008, with errata February 4, 2010. United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2008a, "2008 National. Seismic Hazard Maps - Fault Parameters" retrieved from: ht!p:flizeohazards.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults search/hf search main.cfrn USGS, 2008b, "2008 Interactive Deaggregations (Beta)," retrieved from: https:/fgeohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/ USGS, 2013, U.S. Seismic Design Maps, retrieved from: http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/batch.phpksv Project No. 133023-07 Page 11 April 15, 2015 I LGC Valley, Inc. Geotechnical Consulting UPDATE GEO TECHNICAL REPORT, PROPOSED MUL TI-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, ROBERTSON RANCH PLANNING AREAS PA-7 AND PA-8, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Dated: December 15, 2015 Project No. 133023-07 Prepared For: Shapell Properties, Inc. 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700 Beverly Hills, California 90211 2510 WEST RANCH ST 2081951000 PLANCK 2420 Grand Avenue, Suite F2 • Vista • CA 9 MS140007 ?? 02-05-2016 PC 150073 Basil Hattar, GE 2734 Principal Engineer LGC Valley, Inc. Geotechnical Consulting December 15, 2015 Project No. 133023-07 Mr. Tae Dixon Shape!! Properties, Inc. 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700 Beverly Hills, California 90211 Subject: Update Geotechnical Report, Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development, Robertson Ranch Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8, Carlsbad, California In accord with your request and authorization, LGC Valley, Inc. (LGC) is providing this update geotechnical report for the proposed multi-residential development of Robertson Ranch Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8 located in Carlsbad, California. The purpose of this report is to provide a single geotechnical report incorporating the previous issued geotechnical recommendations, the as-graded conditions of the site after the completion of the mass/rough grading operations and the additional grading of Planning Area PA-8 and a portion of PA-7, and to provide updated geotechnical recommendations, as necessary, in light of the recently received site fine grading plans prepared by Alliance Land Planning and Engineering, dated December 4, 2015. Based on the results of our geotechnical evaluation and review, it is our opinion that the proposed site development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the recommendations included in this report are incorporated into the project plans and specifications, and followed during site grading and construction. If you have any questions regarding our report, please contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully Submitted, LGC Valley, Inc. : K Randall Wagner, CEG 1612 Senior Project Geologist Distribution: (3) Addressee (3) Alliance Land Planning and Engineering, Attn: Ms. Elizabeth Shoemaker 2420 Grand Avenue, Suite F2 • Vista • CA 92081 • (760) 599-7000 • Fax (760) 599-7007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services .................................................................................1 1.2 Site and Project Description......................................................................................1 1.3 Summary of Mass-Grading Operations.....................................................................3 1.3.1 As-Graded Conditions..................................................................................4 1.3.2 Site Preparation and Removals.....................................................................5 1.3.3 Stability Fills ................................................................................................6 1.3.4 Subdrain Installation .................................................................................... 6 1.3.5 Cut/Fill Transition Conditions......................................................................6 1.3.6 Fill Placement .............................................................................................. 7 1.3.7 Laboratory Testing ....................................................................................... 7 1.3.8 Field Density Testing....................................................................................7 1.3.9 Graded Slopes ..............................................................................................8 1.3.10 Settlement Monuments..................................................................................8 1.4 Seismicity, Faulting, and Related Effects ................................................................... 8 1.4.1 Faulting........................................................................................................8 1.4.2 Seismic Design Criteria...............................................................................9 1.4.3 Ground Rupture and Shaking.....................................................................10 1.4.4 Liquefaction ...............................................................................................11 1.4.5 Seismic Settlement and Differential Settlement...........................................11 1.4.6 Tsunami, Seiche, and Flooding (Earthquake Induced Dam Failure).......11 2.0 CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................................12 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................14 3.1 Earthwork ............................................................................................................... 14 3.2 Site Preparation......................................................................................................14 3.3 Cut/Fill Transition Conditions...............................................................................14 3.4 Excavations............................................................................................................15 3.5 Fill Placement and Compaction.............................................................................15 3.6 Foundations............................................................................................................15 3.6.1 General Foundation Design ......................................................................15 3.6.2 Bearing Capacity.......................................................................................16 3.6.3 Conventional Foundation Design..............................................................16 3.6.4 Post-Tension Foundation Design ..............................................................17 3.6.5 Mat Foundation Design.............................................................................19 20 3.6.6 Foundation Settlement .......................................................................... . .... 3.6.7 Foundation Setback - Top of Slope Condition..........................................20 3.6.8 Foundation Setback— Toe of Slope Condition ..........................................20 3.6.9 Seismic Design Criteria.............................................................................21 3.7 Lateral Earth Pressures for Retaining Walls..........................................................21 3.8 Slope Creep............................................................................................................22 3.9 Freestanding (Top-of-Slope) Walls.........................................................................23 Project No. 133023-07 Page ii December 15, 2015 I 3. 10 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations ...................... ......................................... 23 3.10.1 Asphalt Concrete Pavement Design ..........................................................24 I 3.10.2 Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Pavement Section Design...................26 3.10.3 Concrete Paver Section Design.................................................................26 3.11 Corrosivity to Concrete and Metal..........................................................................26 3.12 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork .......................................................... ................. 27 3.13 Pool Design Recommendations.............................................................................27 1 3.14 Slope Maintenance ......................... ........................................................................ 28 3.15 Subdrain Outlet Maintenance ........................................................................ . ....... 29 3.16 Control of Surface Water and Drainage ................................................................. 29 I 3.17 Construction Observation and Testing....................................................................29 4.0 LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................. 30 LIST OF TABLES. APPENDICES AND ILLUSTRATIONS Tables Table 1 - Seismic Design Parameters (Page 10) Table 2 - Preliminary Geotechnical Parameters for Post-Tensioned Foundation Design (Page 18) Table 3 - Lateral Earth Pressures for Retaining Walls (Page 21) Table 4 - R-Value Laboratory Test Results (Page 24) Table 5 - Preliminary Minimum Asphalt Concrete Pavement Design Sections Based on Preliminary R- Values (Page 25) Table 6 - Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork (Page 27) F&ures and Plates Figure 1 - Site Location Map (Page 2) I . Figure 2 - Retaining Wall Drainage Detail (rear of text) Figure 3 - Geotechnical Parameters for Top of Slope Walls (Rear of Text) I Figure 4 - Geotechnical Guidelines for Swimming Pool Construction (rear of text) Plate 1 —Geotechnical Map I Appendices Appendix A - References I Appendix B - Laboratory Testing Results Appendix C - General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Project No. 133023-07 Page iii December 15, 2015 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services The purpose of this report is to provide a single geotechnical report incorporating the previous issued geotechnical recommendations, the as-graded conditions of the site after the completion of the mass/rough grading operations and the additional grading of Planning Area PA-8 and a portion of PA-7, and to provide updated geotechnical recommendations, as necessary, in light of the recently received site fine grading plans prepared by Alliance Land Planning and Engineering, dated December 4, 2015. These items plus other geotechnical conditions are discussed and addressed within this document. As of this date, the mass-grading operations for Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8 are essentially complete. However, the two planning areas are currently sheet-graded and will need to be fine-graded in order, to construct the planned building pads, driveways/parking areas and other anticipated site improvements. A final as-graded report documenting the additional grading operations (i.e. fine grading) and providing addendum and/or additional geotechnical recommendations relative to the proposed development will be prepared upon completion of the future grading operations. Our scope of services for preparation of this document included: Review of the project geotechnical reports, geologic maps, and other documents relevant to the site (Appendix A). Review of the most recent version of the site development/precise grading plans prepared by Alliance Land Planning and Engineering, dated December 4, 2015 Updated geotechnical analysis and evaluation of site data. Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, opinions and recommendations with respect to the evaluated geologic and geotechnical conditions at the site. 1.2 Site and Project Description Robertson Ranch West Village or Rancho Costera, is approximately 211 acres in size and is located east of the intersection of El Camino Real and Tamarack Avenue in the northeastern portion of the City of Carlsbad (see Figure 1). The irregular-shaped site is bounded by El Camino Real on the south, Tamarack Avenue on the northwest, existing residential developments on the north and east, and by Cannon Road on the southeast. Topographically, Robertson Ranch generally consists of an arcuate ridgeline that somewhat parallels Tamarack Avenue to the north and a series of generally north-south trending subdued ridgelines and tributary drainages that slope from north to south. The site is bisected by two main drainages, one on the west side of the site that flows north to south from along Tamarack Avenue towards Kelly Drive; and another one that flows in a northeast to southwest direction along the southeast portion of the site. Elevations range from a high of approximately 224 feet mean sea level (msl) along the ridgeline overlooking Tamarack Avenue in the northwest portion of the site to a low of 33 feet msl at the southeast corner of the site along El Camino Real. Project No. 133023-07 Page 1 December 15, 2015 z - •\ T::. - j -.-- - ' r L T - ç - - - - - \ c - —71 4r - - 4 7 A c'p H i/-A SITE 1/ - -. -- -- \ -\:-- wt - - -,-- - 4 Base Map. USGS 1997 San Luis -- C \\ i Rey 7.5 Minute Quadrangle = -( -- - Project No. 133023-07 Figure 1 Site Location Map + Robertson Ranch Planning Areas PA-7 & PA-8 Carlsbad, California Not-to-Scale Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8 are located in the south-central portion of the Robertson Ranch project and are approximately 6.5 and 14.5 acres in size, respectively. PA-8 is divided into two parcels: Parcel A is 4.8 acres in size and is planned for senior housing; while Parcel B is 9.7 acres in size, and along with PA-7, will contain a multi-family apartment complex. The site (PA-7 and PA-8) is bounded by El Camino Real to the south; proposed single-family communities on the west, northwest, and northeast; and a retail development, Gage Road and West Ranch Street on the southeast. Robertson Road separates PA-7 and PA-8 Parcel B. A future community recreation center (PA-4) is located at the southwest corner of PA-8 on the north side of Robertson Road but is not part of the multi-family development and is not included/reported on as a part of this report. It is our understanding that the proposed multi-family development will consist of 24 one- to three- story residential buildings with 263 units and 376 parking spaces. The project will include a leasing/recreation building, maintenance building, pool, landscape areas, appurtenant structures, and driveways. We also understand that the senior housing project will include the construction of one large building with 96 units and 143 parking spaces with associated driveways, landscape areas, and appurtenant structures. Based on review of the latest site grading plans, fine-grading of the site will be required to grade the planned building pads, driveways/parking areas and other anticipated site improvements. The precise- or fine-grading of the site will consist of minor cuts and fills of less than one to three feet to achieve the site design finish grades. Fills of up to six to eight feet will be necessary to backfill the existing storm drain retention basins. 1.3 Summary of Mass-Grading Operations Mass-grading of Robertson Ranch began on September 15, 2014 and was essentially completed as of May 5, 2015. Additional grading including raising the sheet-graded pad of Planning Area-8 two-feet and construction of the driveway descending from Robertson Road in the northwest corner of Planning Area PA-7 was performed between October 8 and November 12, 2015. The grading operations were performed under the observation and testing services of LGC Valley, Inc. Our field technicians were onsite on a full-time basis during the grading operations while our field geologist was onsite on a periodic basis. The mass-grading operations included: Removal and off-site disposal of vegetation and miscellaneous debris; The removal of potentially compressible soils including alluvium, colluvium, topsoil, undocumented fill, and weathered soils to competent terrace deposits or formational material; Overexcavation of cut/fill transition conditions within the limits of the planned buildings; Overexcavation of buried cut/fill transition conditions such that the resulting fill differential beneath the proposed building pads was less than a 3:1 (maximum fill thickness to the minimum fill thickness); The excavation of stability fill keys; Preparation of areas to receive fill; The placement of subdrains in the canyon bottoms and stability fill keys; Excavation of formational material; and The placement of compacted fill soils creating the sheet-graded pads and adjacent slopes. Installation of settlement monuments in deep fill areas (considered to be fills greater than 40 feet below design finish grades). Project No. 133023-07 Page, 3 December 15, 2015 The mass-grading operations within the limits of Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8 consisted of the excavation of up to approximately 45 feet of cut and placement of a maximum thickness of approximately 75 feet of fill. The as-graded geotechnical conditions are presented on the latest fine grading plan, Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). I Based on the as-graded conditions, all of the planned building locations in Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8 will consist of fill. It should be noted that prior to the additional grading in' October and November 2015, the building locations in the northwestern portion of PA-8 consisted of cut; but now I consist of a minimum of 2 feet of fill over cut. The cut/fill transition conditions present within the limits of the building pads along the cut/fill transition in PA-8, as shown on the rough grading plans (O'Day, 2014b), were overexcavated a minimum of 5 feet in depth and to a distance of at least 10 feet outside I the planned building limits. During the mass-grading operations, remedial grading was also performed so that the fill differential beneath the proposed building pads was less than a 3:1 (maximum fill thickness to the minimum fill thickness). Building pads having more than 40 feet of fill include the I buildings along the side south of PA-7 and in the north-central portion of PA-8. A total of five settlement monuments have been installed and are currently being monitored. 1.3.1 As-Graded Conditions I The as-graded conditions encountered during grading of the site were essentially as anticipated: alluvium and colluvium were encountered within the lower portion of the canyons; and terrace deposits and formational material were encountered on the slopes and at design cut grades I below a thin veneer of topsoil and weathered soils. No translational, rotational, other unstable slope instabilities or landslides were observed during the site earthwork operations. I All unsuitable and potentially compressible soils were removed prior to fill placement. This included alluvium, colluvium, undocumented fill (associated with the past agricultural operations), and weathered terrace and formational materials. The alluvium and colluvium I typically consisted of light brown to brown silty fine sands, sandy clays and clayey sands derived from the terrace deposits and the formational material and were found to be low to highly expansive, porous, and contained scattered organics. Removals of up to approximately I 40 feet in depth were made within the alluvial soils mainly in the southwestern and southeastern portions of PA-7 and in the central portion of PA-8. Removals of the colluvium, on the order of 2 to 6 feet, were made on the middle and lower portions of the hillsides on the I site. Terrace or older alluvial flood-plain deposits were encountered in the eastern portion of PA-7 I and the southeast corner of PA-8. As encountered, these soils consisted of silty fine to medium sand to sandy-silty clay with minor gravels. Bedding within the terrace deposits was mainly massive to indistinct; however, a few sand beds that gently dipped to the west and I north on the order of 5 degrees of less were encountered. The nature of the contact between the terrace deposits and formational material, where observed, was a relatively sharp contact with a near horizontal orientation. Along the northern contact, east of PA-7, the terrace deposits I appeared to be deposited against a river bank with a moderately steep contact up to 5 to 10 feet in height. Project No. 133023-07 Page 4 December 15, 2015 The formational material encountered across thô entire site consisted of the Santiago Formation. The material was found to be massively bedded to cross-bedded silty sandstones and minor clayey sandstones and sandy claystones/siltstones. The siltstones and claystones generally were olive green and red brown to olive gray (unweathered), damp to moist, stiff to hard, moderately fractured and sheared. The sandstone generally consisted of light olive green, olive green, light brown and pale orange brown (where iron-oxidized stained), damp to moist, dense to very dense, silty very fine to medium grained sandstone. The majority of the Santiago material encountered within Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8 consisted of silty fine sands. Bedding within the Santiago Formation was highly variable, but overall, generally dipped 2 to 15 degrees to the west-southwest. Minor perched ground water was encountered along the alluvial/formational contact during the mass-grading operations within the main drainage in the central part of PA-8. Since the alluvial soils were completely removed during the mass-grading operations and subdrains installed in the canyon bottoms, groundwater conditions should not be a constraint to development. However, unanticipated seepage or ground water conditions may occur after the completion of grading and establishment of site irrigation and landscaping. If these conditions should occur, steps to mitigate the seepage should be made on a case-by-case basis. 1.3.2 Site Preparation and Removals Prior to grading, the site was cleared of light vegetation and other miscellaneous debris and the material was disposed of at an offsite facility. Undocumented fill, topsoil, alluvium, colluvium, weathered terrace soils and formational material were removed down to competent material (i.e. dense unweathered terrace or formational material). Remedial removals on site, below the existing ground surface, generally ranged from approximately 5 to 20 feet with a maximum depth of remedial removal of up to approximately 40 feet associated with the main north-south trending canyons in the southwestern and southeastern sides of PA-7 and in the central portion of PA-8. The thickness of compacted fills placed during this recent mass-grading operation, to achieve design rough grades (or the sheet-graded pad elevations), ranged from 0 to approximately 75 feet. Following the remedial removals or overexcavations, areas to receive fill were scarified approximately 6-inches, moisture-conditioned, as needed, to obtain a near-optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction (for fills of approximately 40 feet or less from design grades) or 93 percent relative compaction (for engineered fill below approximately 40 feet from design finish grades), as determined by ASTM Test Method D6938 (i.e. the nuclear gauge method). Project No. 133023-07 Page 5 December 15, 2015 1.3.3 Stability Fills Stability fills were constructed to stabilize the exposed blocky claystone/siltstone and/or adverse (i.e. out-of-slope) geologic conditions present within the Santiago Formation. The stability fill keys were excavated to a width ranging from 15 to 20 feet and a minimum depth of 3 to 5 feet below the toe-of-slope. The keyway bottom was angled at least 2 percent into-the- slope. The stability fill front cuts were excavated near vertical while the backcuts were excavated at an approximate 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope inclination. Stability fills were excavated along the proposed slope on the northwest, north and east sides of PA-8. The approximate locations of the stability fill keys are presented on the attached Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). 1.3.4 Subdrain Installation I Canyon and stability fill subdrains were installed under the observation of a representative of LGC in general accordance with the planned locations of the approved geotechnical report, and the standard details (LGC, 2014a). After the potentially compressible material in the canyons I were removed to competent material or when compacted fill was placed over competent material to obtain flow to a suitable outlet location, a subdrain was installed along the canyon I bottom. The canyon subdrains consisted of a 6-inch diameter perforated pipe surrounded by a minimum of 9-cubic feet (per linear foot) of crushed 3/4-inch gravel wrapped in Mirafi 140N filter fabric. I In addition to the canyon subdrains, subdrains were also installed along the bottom backside of the stability fill keys. The stability fill subdrains consisted of a 4-inch diameter perforated pipe surrounded by a minimum of 3-cubic feet (per linear foot) of clean 3/4-inch gravel wrapped in Mirafi 140N filter fabric. The canyon and stability fill subdrains were placed with a minimum 1-percent fall (2-percent or greater where possible) to a suitable outlet location. The locations of the subdrains placed during the mass-grading operations for the project were surveyed by the project civil engineer. The subdrain locations are presented on the attached Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). 1.3.5 Cut/Fill Transition Conditions The sheet-graded pads of Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8 consisted entirely of fills ranging from 2 to 75 feet in thickness. Based on the as-graded conditions, the cut/fill transition conditions present within the limits of the building pads along the cut/fill transitions in PA-8, as shown on the rough grading plans (O'Day, 2014b), were overexcavated a minimum of 5 feet in depth, to a distance of at least 10 feet outside the planned building limits, and replaced with compacted fill. During the mass-grading operations, remedial grading was also performed so that the fill differential beneath the proposed building pads was less than a 3:1 (maximum fill thickness to the minimum fill thickness). Project No. 133023-07 Page 6 December 15, 2015 1.3.6 Fill Placement After processing the areas to receive fill, native soil was generally spread in approximately 8- inch loose lifts, moisture-conditioned as needed to attain near-optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 or 93 percent of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557. Fill soils less than 40 feet below the design finish grades were compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction while fill soils greater than 40 feet below the design finish grades were compacted to a minimum 93 percent relative compaction. Compaction was achieved by use of heavy-duty construction equipment. Areas of fill in which either field density tests indicated less than 90 or 93 percent relative compaction or the soils exhibited nonuniformity and/or showed an inadequate or excessive moisture content, were reworked, recompacted, and retested until a minimum 90 or 93 percent relative compaction and near-optimum moisture content was achieved. 1.3.7 Laboratory Testing Expansion potential, soluble sulfate content, and corrosion testing of representative finish grade soils was not performed; however, based on laboratory testing of representative soils on adjacent portions of the Robertson Ranch project, the near-surface soils within PA-7 and PA-8 are expected to have a low to medium expansion potential; a negligible soluble sulfate content; are severely corrosive to buried metals based on the minimum soil resistivity values; and are corrosive to buried metals and reinforcing steel in concrete based on the chloride concentrations. Finish grade laboratory testing should be performed at the completion of fine- grading. 1.3.8 Field Density TestinR Field density testing was performed using the Nuclear-Gauge Method (ASTM Test Method D6938). The test results and approximate locations of the field density tests are presented in the As-Graded Report of Mass-Grading of Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8, dated August 7, 2015 (LGC, 2015b). The field density testing was performed in general accordance with the applicable ASTM standards and the current standard of care in the industry. In-situ soil density testing is intended to verify the effectiveness of the earthmoving operation in general and is performed on a spot-check basis; as such, some variations in relative compaction should be expected from the results documented herein. Project No. 133023-07 Page 7 December 15, 2015 1 I 1.3.9 Graded Slopes I Manufactured fill slopes within the subject area were surveyed by the civil engineer and constructed with slope inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. Permanent graded fill slopes within the subject area range from approximately 5 to 43 feet in height. There are no I permanently graded cut slopes within the subject area. The on-site fill slopes are considered grossly and surficially stable from a geotechnical I standpoint (under normal irrigation/precipitation patterns) provided the project geotechnical recommendations are incorporated into the fine-grading, post-grading, construction, and post- construction phases of site development. I I 1.3.10 Settlement Monuments The compacted fills within Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8 range from 0 to approximately 75 feet in depth. A total of five settlement monuments were installed/constructed at I . representative locations in the deep fill areas in general accordance with the project geotechnical report (LGC, 2014a), following the completion of the majority of fill placement operations in early February 2015. The settlement monuments were installed in deep fill I areas ranging from 50 to 75 feet in thickness. The approximate location of the five settlement monuments are shown on the attached Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). I The settlement monuments were surveyed by O'Day Consultants, with the first reading performed on February 10, 2015. Settlement Monument #5 was not able to be installed until late March 2015; as a result, the first reading of that monument wasn't until March 30, 2015. I Subsequent readings of the monuments were taken approximately weekly for the first month, every two weeks for the next three months, and monthly after that. 1.4 Seismicity, FaultinR, and Related Effects I The main seismic parameters to be considered when discussing the potential for earthquake-induced damage are the distances to the causative faults, earthquake magnitudes, and expected ground accelerations. We have performed site-specific analysis based on these seismic parameters for the I site and the onsite geologic conditions. The results of our analysis are discussed in terms of the potential seismic events that could be produced by the maximum probable earthquakes. A maximum probable earthquake is the maximum earthquake likely to occur given the known tectonic I framework. I 1.4.1 Faulting The southern California region has long been recognized as being seismically active. The seismic activity results from a number of active faults that cross the region, all of which are I related to the San Andreas transform system, a broad zone of right lateral faults that extend from Baja California to Cape Mendocino. The numerous faults in Southern California include active, potentially active, and inactive faults. The definitions of fault activity terms used here are based on those developed for the Aiquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act of 1972. Project No. 133023-07 Page 8 . December 15, 2015 Active faults are those faults that have had surface displacement within Holocene time (approximately the last 11,000 years) and/or have been included within an Aiquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. Faults are considered potentially active if they show evidence of surface displacement since the beginning of Quaternary time (about two million years ago), but not since Holocene time. Inactive faults are those which have not had surface movement since the beginning of Quaternary time. The site is not within a currently established Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for fault rupture hazard (formerly Special Studies Zones for fault rupture hazard). Based on a review of geologic literature, no active faults are known to occur beneath or in the general vicinity of the project site (LGC, 2014a). Accordingly, it appears that there is little probability of surface rupture due to faulting beneath the site. There are, however, several faults located in sufficiently close proximity that movement associated with them could cause significant ground motion at the site. Although active faulting is not present within the site, faults relative to the off-shore step-over of the Rose Canyon-Newport-Inglewood fault zone to the west and uplift of the Cretaceous sedimentary units to the south and southeast are known to exist in general vicinity of the site. Minor inactive faulting was encountered within Robertson Ranch; the faults generally trended in a north-south to northwest-southeast direction and were steeply dipping 60 to 80 degrees to the west. Geologic mapping also indicated the apparent offset of mappable features across the fault was down to the west. All of the mapped faults were located within the Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation. The majority of these inactive faults were located outside the limits of Planning Areas PA-7 or PA-8; however one of the faults was mapping along the northeastern side of Planning Area PA-8 (as indicated on the attached Geotechnical Map - Plate 1). Regional active faults that occur within the San Diego area includes the off-shore Rose Canyon- Newport Inglewood fault zone to the west, the Elsinore, San Jacinto, and San Andreas faults to the east, and the Coronado Bank and San Diego Trough faults offshore to the southwest. The local Rose Canyon fault zone trends north-northwest through San Diego Bay and downtown San Diego, crosses offshore at La Jolla Cove and continues northward off the coast of North San Diego County. The closest known active faults to the .site are the Rose Canyon fault zone located 3.7 miles (6.0 kilometers) to the west; the Coronado Bank fault zone located 20 miles (32 kilometers) to the southwest, and the Elsinore fault zone located approximately 21 miles(34 kilometers) to the northeast. 1. 4.2 Seismic Desk"n Criteria The site seismic characteristics were evaluated per the guidelines set forth in Chapter 16, Section 1613 of the 2013 California Building Code (CBC). The maximum considered earthquake (MCE) spectral response accelerations (SMS and SM1) and adjusted design spectral response acceleration parameters (SDS and SD!) for Site Class D are provided in Table 1. Project No. 133023-07 Page 9 December 15, 2015 Table 1 Seismic Design Parameters Selected Parameters from 2013 CBC, Section 1613 - Seismic Earthquake Loads Design Values Site Class per Chapter 20 of ASCE 7 D Risk-Targeted Spectral Acceleration for Short Periods (Ss)* 1.083g Risk-Targeted Spectral Accelerations for 1-Second Periods (S)* 0.417g Site Coefficient Fa per Table 1613.3.3(1) 1.067 Site Coefficient Fv per Table 1613.3.3(2) 1.583 Site Modified Spectral Acceleration for Short Periods (SMs) for Site Class 1.155g [Note: SMS = FaS] Site Modified Spectral Acceleration for 1-Second Periods (SM!) for Site Class D 0.66g [Note: SMI=FS!] Design Spectral Acceleration for Short Periods (SDs) for Site Class D 0 77 g [Note: SDS = (2/3)SMS] Design Spectral Acceleration for 1-Second Periods (SDI) for Site Class D 0.44g [Note: SDI = (213)SM1] Mapped Risk Coefficient at 0.2 sec Spectral Response Period, CRS 0.968 (per ASCE 7) Mapped Risk Coefficient at 1 sec Spectral Response Period, CR1 (per 1.02 ASCE 7) * From USGS, 2013 Section 1803.5.12 of the 2013 CBC (per Section 11.8.3 of ASCE 7) states that the maximum I considered earthquake geometric mean (MCEG) Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) should be used for geotechnical evaluations. The PGAM for the site is equal to 0.453g (USGS, 2013). A deaggregation of the PGA based on a 2,475-year average return period indicates that an earthquake magnitude of 6.79 at a distance of approximately 11.4 km (7.1 mile) from the site would contribute the most to this ground motion (USGS, 2008b). 1.4.3 Ground RuDture and Shakin — The principal seismic considerations for most structures in southern California are surface rupturing of fault traces and damage caused by ground shaking or seismically induced ground I settlement. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture at the site is considered low since active faults are not known to cross the site. Project No. 133023-07 Page 10 December 15, 2015 The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is ground-shaking resulting from an earthquake on one of the major regional faults. The effects of seismic shaking can be reduced by adhering to the most recent edition of the California Building Code and design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California. 1.4.4 Liquefaction Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subject to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions exist: 1) shallow groundwater; 2) low density non-cohesive (granular) soils; and 3) high-intensity ground motion. Liquefaction is typified by a buildup of pore-water pressure in the affected soil layer to a point where a total loss of shear strength occurs, causing the soil to behave as a liquid. Studies indicate that saturated, loose to medium dense, near surface cohesionless soils exhibit the highest liquefaction potential, while dry, dense, cohesionless soils and cohesive soils exhibit low to negligible liquefaction potential. The regional groundwater elevation in the general vicinity of the site is estimated to be at an approximate elevation of 45 feet mean sea level, or at a depth of 70 to 90 feet below the existing site grades. After mass grading operations, the project site is underlain by newly placed compacted fills and moderately to well-cemented formational materials. Based on the density and the degree of cementation of the underlying formational materials, and underlying newly placed compacted fills, and lack of a permanent shallow ground water elevation; the potential for generalized liquefaction in the event of a strong to moderate earthquake on a nearby fault is considered low. 1.4.5 Seismic Settlement and Differential Settlement Seismic settlement occurs when loose to medium dense granular soils densi1y during ground shaking. Such seismically induced settlement can occur in both dry and partially saturated granular soils, as well as in saturated granular soils. Due to lithologic variations, such settlement can occur differentially across a site. Differential settlement may also be induced by ground failures, such as liquefaction, flow slides, and surface ruptures. The materials beneath the site consist of dense to very dense sandstone and claystone, mantled by medium dense to dense clayey sand and stiff to hard clay fill soils. Seismically induced settlement is not expected to occur within the formational materials and the overburden fill soils. 1.4.6 Tsunami, Seiche, and Flooding (Earthquake Induced Dam Failure) Due to the distance of the site to the ocean, open body of waters and reservoirs, the impact of tsunamis, seiches, and earthquake-induced flooding to the site is considered low. Project No. 133023-07 Page 11 December 15, 2015 2.0 CONCLUSIONS I The previous site mass-grading of Robertson Ranch Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8 located within the City of Carlsbad, California was performed in general accordance with the project geotechnical report (LGC, 2014a), geotechnical recommendations made during the course of grading, and the City of Carlsbad grading I requirements. It is our professional opinion that the proposed fine grading and site development is feasible from a geotechnical point of view provided the conclusions and recommendations provided herein are incorporated into the design and construction and followed during the site grading operations, and that proper I landscaping, irrigation, and maintenance programs are implemented. The following is a summary of our conclusions for Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8. The previous mass-grading of Robertson Ranch Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8 is essentially complete. Geotechnical conditions encountered during the previous mass-grading operation were generally as anticipated, and unsuitable undocumented fill soils, topsoil, colluvium, alluvium, and weathered terrace deposits and formational material were removed to competent formational material within the limits of Planning Areas 7 and 8. The site is currently underlain by newly placed compacted fills over competent dense formational materials. No evidence of active faulting was encountered during the previous site mass-grading operations within PA-7 and PA-8. Minor perched ground water seepage conditions were encountered during the remedial grading operations within the main north-south trending canyon in the central portion of PA-8 but are not considered a constraint to development. Stability fills were constructed to improve the gross stability of the cut slopes exposing fractured and blocky formational material and/or adverse geologic conditions on the site. The stability fill keys were excavated in accordance with the project geotechnical recommendations. Subdrains were placed in the canyon bottoms and along the heel of the stability fill keys. The subdrains were (or should be during fine grading operations) outletted into suitable storm drain facilities or near the toe-of-slope of the stability fill slopes. The cut/fill transition conditions present within the limits of the building pads along the cut/fill transition in PA-8, as shown on the rough grading plans (O'Day, 2014b), were overexcavated a minimum of 5 feet in depth and to a distance of at least 10 feet outside the planned building limits. No cut/fill transitions currently exist. During the previous mass-grading operations, remedial grading was performed so that the fill differential beneath the proposed building pads was less than a 3:1 (maximum fill thickness to the minimum fill thickness). To mitigate post-construction settlement, deep fills (i.e. areas were the fill soils are generally deeper than approximately 40 feet below the finish grade elevations of the sheet-graded pads) were placed at a minimum relative compaction of 93 percent relative compaction. Deep fill areas are present in the southeastern and southwestern portions of PA-7 and in the central portion of PA-8. Due to the dense nature of the on-site soils (newly placed compacted fills or formational material), it is our professional opinion that the liquefaction hazard at the site is considered to be very low. Project No. 133023-07 Page 12 December 15, 2015 The expansion potential of the finish grade soils of the sheet-graded pads was not tested. However, we anticipate that the on-site soils possess a low to medium expansion potential. Highly expansive soils should not be placed as fill or left as cut within the limits of the proposed buildings or other movement sensitive improvements unless special foundation design considerations are implemented. Once final grades are reached, representative finish grade soils should be tested to determine the actual expansion potential of the soils. Corrosion testing of representative finish grade soils was not performed; however, based on laboratory testing of representative soils on adjacent portions of the Robertson Ranch project, the near-surface soils within PA-7 and PA-8 are expected to have: 1) a negligible soluble sulfate content; 2) are severely corrosive to buried metals based on the minimum soil resistivity values; and 3) are corrosive to buried metals and reinforcing steel in concrete based on the chloride concentrations It is our professional opinion that the slopes of the development are considered to be grossly and surficially stable, as constructed, under normal irrigation/precipitation patterns, provided the recommendations in the project geotechnical reports are incorporated into the post-grading, construction and post-construction phases of site development. Project No. 133023-07 Page 13 December 15, 2015 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 Earthwork We- anticipate that future earthwork at the site will consist of site preparation, fine-grading, utility I trench excavation and backfill, retaining wall construction, and street/driveway and parking area pavement section preparation and compaction. We recommend that the earthwork on site be performed in accordance with the geotechnical recommendations presented herein, or based on I recommendations provided after the completion of the fine-grading operations, and the City of Carlsbad grading requirements. 3.2 Site Preparation I During future grading, the areas to receive structural fill or engineered structures should be cleared of surface obstructions, potentially compressible material (such as desiccated fill soils or weathered formational material), and stripped of vegetation. Vegetation and debris should be removed and I properly disposed of off-site. Holes resulting from removal of buried obstructions that extend below finish site grades should be replaced with suitable compacted fill material. Areas to receive fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 12 inches, brought to I optimum moisture condition, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557). I If the length of time between the completion of grading and the construction of the development is longer than six months, we recommend that the building pads be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant and, if needed, the finish grade soils on the building pads should be scarified a minimum I of 12 inches, moisture-conditioned to optimum moisture-content and recompacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method Dl 557). 3.3 Cut/Fill Transition Conditions I Based on the proposed locations of the planned buildings of Planning Area PA-7 and PA-8, as shown on the PA-7 and PA-8 Site Development Plan (O'Day, 2015), the building pads having cut/fill transition conditions were mitigated by the overexcavation of the cut portion of the pad and I replacement with fill. The cut/fill transition conditions present within the limits of the building pads along the cut/fill transition in PA-8, as shown on the rough grading plans (O'Day, 2014b) were overexcavated a minimum of 5 feet in depth and to a distance of at least 10 feet outside the planned I building limits. No cut/fill transitions currently exist within the proposed building pad locations. If the building locations change, we recommend that the geotechnical conditions be evaluated, and if needed, the cut portion of the building pad be overexcavated a minimum of 5 feet below the proposed finish grade and/or 3 feet below the bottom of the proposed foundation. The overexcavation limits should also extend laterally at least 10 feet beyond the building perimeter or footprint. Additional or revised recommendations may be warranted based on the configuration and size of the proposed buildings. Project No. 133023-07 Page 14 December 15, 2015 3.4 Excavations Excavations of the on-site materials may generally be accomplished with conventional heavy-duty earthwork equipment. It is not anticipated that blasting will be required or that significant quantities of oversized rock (i.e. rock with maximum dimensions greater than 8 inches) will be generated during future grading and utility excavations. Temporary excavations maybe cut vertically up to five feet. Excavations over five feet should be slot- cut, shored, or cut to a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope gradient. Surface water should be diverted away from the exposed cut, and not be allowed to pond on top of the excavations. Temporary cuts should not be left open for an extended period of time. Planned temporary conditions should be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant in order to reduce the potential for sidewall failure. The geotechnical consultant may provide recommendations for controlling the length of sidewall exposed. 3.5 Fill Placement and Compaction The on-site 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. We do not recommend that highly expansive soils be utilized as fill for the building pads or as retaining wall backfill. All fill soils should be brought to 2-percent over the optimum moisture content and compacted in uniform lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on the laboratory maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557). 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 compacted thickness. Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in general accordance with current City of Carlsbad grading ordinances, sound construction practices, and the project geotechnical recommendations. If import soils are to be used as fill, they should be: 1) essentially free from organic matter and other deleterious substances; 2) contain no materials over 6 inches in maximum dimension; 3) have a very low to low expansion potential (i.e. an Expansion Index ranging from 0 to 50); and 4) have a negligible sulfate content. Representative samples of the desired import source should be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing grading begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed. 3.6 Foundations 3.6.1 General Foundation DesiRn Preliminary recommendations for foundation design and foundation construction are presented herein. When the structural loads for the proposed structures are known they should be provided to our office to verify the recommendations presented herein. Project No. 133023-07 Page 15 December 15, 2015 The following three foundation recommendations are provided. The foundations recommended for the proposed structures are: (1) Conventional foundation for very low expansion potential I and shallow fills; (2) Post-Tension foundations; or (3) Mat Slabs. Based on the site geotechnical conditions after mass/rough grading, the site is considered I suitable for the support of the anticipated structures using a conventional, post-tensioned, or mat slab-on-grade foundation system for very low to medium expansion potential (0-90 Expansion I Index). The information and recommendations presented in this section are not meant to supersede design by the project structural engineer or civil engineer specializing in the structural design I nor impede those recommendations by a corrosion consultant. Should conflict arise, modifications to the foundation design provided herein can be provided. 3.6.2 Bearing Capacity I Shallow foundations may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 lb/ft2 (gross), for continuous footings a minimum of 12 inches wide and 18 inches deep, and spread footings 24 inches wide and 18 inches deep, into certified compacted fill or bedrock. I A factor of safety greater than 3 was used in evaluating the above bearing capacity value. This value maybe increased by 250 psf for each additional foot in depth and 100 psf for each I additional foot of width to a maximum value of 3,000 psf. Lateral forces on footings may be resisted by passive earth resistance and friction at the bottom of the footing. Foundations may be designed for a coefficient of friction of 0.35, and I a passive earth pressure of 250 lb/ft2/ft. The passive earth pressure incorporates a factor of safety of greater than 1.5. I All footing excavations should be cut square and level as much as possible, and should be free of sloughed materials including sand, rocks and gravel, and trash debris. Subgrade soils should be pre-moistened for the assumed very low to medium expansion potential (to be I confirmed at the end of grading). These allowable bearing pressures are applicable for level (ground slope equal to or flatter than 5H: IV) conditions only. Bearing values indicated above are for total dead loads and frequently applied live loads. The above vertical bearing may be increased by one-third for short durations of loading which will include the effect of wind or seismic forces. 3.6.3 Conventional Foundation Design Conventional foundations may be used to support proposed structures underlain by very low expansive soils (i.e. Expansion Index less than 20 and Plasticity Index less than 15) and with less than 30 feet of fills. Project No. 133023-07 Page 16 December 15, 2015 Continuous footings should have minimum widths of 12 inches, 15 inches or 18 inches for one-story, two-story or three-story structures, respectively. Individual column footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches. Footings for proposed structure should have minimum depths (below lowest adjacent finish grade) of 18 inches and 12 inches for exterior and interior footings, respectively for a very low expansion potential (0-20 Expansion Index). The subgrade should be moisture- conditioned and proof-rolled just prior to construction to provide a firm, relatively unyielding surface, especially if the surface has been loosened by the passage of construction traffic. The underslab vapor/moisture retarder (i.e. an equivalent capillary break method) may consist of a minimum 15-mil thick vapor barrier in conformance with ASTM E 1745 Class A material, placed in general conformance with ASTM E1643, underlain by a minimum 1-inch of sand. The sand layer requirements above the vapor barrier are the purview of the foundation engineer/structural engineer, and should be provided in accordance with ACI Publication 302 "Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction". These recommendations must be confirmed (and/or altered) by the foundation engineer, based upon the performance expectations of the foundation. Ultimately, the design of the moisture retarder system and recommendations for concrete placement and concrete mix design, which will address bleeding, shrinkage, and curling are the purview of the foundation engineer, in consideration of the project requirements provided by the architect and developer. The underslab vapor/moisture retarder described above is considered a suitable alternative in accordance with the Capillary Break Section 4.505.2.1 of the CALGreen code. Subgrade soils should be pre-saturated to optimum moisture content to a depth of 12 inches for a very low expansion potential. Expansion index testing should be performed at the end of grading for confirmation. The minimum thickness of the floor slabs should be at least 4.5 inches, and joints should be provided per usual practice. 3.6.4 Post-Tension Foundation Desijin Based on the site geotechnical conditions and provided the previous remedial recommendations have been implemented during site grading, the site may be considered suitable for the support of the anticipated structures using a post-tensioned slab-on-grade foundation system, for the anticipated very low to medium expansive soils. The following section summaries our recommendations for the foundation system. Table 2 contains the geotechnical recommendations for the construction of PT slab on grade foundations. The structural engineer should design the foundation system based on these parameters including the foundation settlement as indicated in the following section to the allowable deflection criteria determined by the structural engineer/architect. I Project No. 133023-07 Page 17 December 15, 2015 Table 2 Preliminary Geotechnical Parameters for Post-Tensioned Foundation Design Parameter Value Expansion Classification (Assumed to be Very Low to Low and for Medium confirmed at the completion of grading): Expansion Thornthwaite Moisture Index (From Figure -20 3.3): Constant Soil Suction (From Figure 3.4): PF 3.6 Center Lift Very Low to Low Medium Edge moisture variation distance (from Figure 3.6), em: 9.0 feet 9.0 feet Center lift, ym: 0.3 inches 0.5 inches Edge Lift Very Low to Low Medium Edge moisture variation distance (from Figure 3.6), em: 5.2 feet 5.0 feet Edge lift, ym: 0.7 inches • 1.1 inches Soluble Sulfate Content for Design of Concrete Mix in Contact with Site Soils in Accordance Negligible Exposure with American Concrete Institute (Based on preliminary testing - needs to be standard 318, Section 4.3: confirmed at the completion of grading) Corrosivity of Earth Materials to Ferrous Metals: Moderately to Severely Corrosive Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k (assuming presaturation as indicated below): 100 pci (very low to low) 85 pci (medium) Additional Recommendations: Presaturate slab subgrade to at least optimum-moisture content, or to 1.2 times optimum moisture to minimum depths of 12 and 18 inches below ground surface, respectively for very low to low, and medium expansion potentials. Install a 15-mil moisture/vapor barrier in direct contact with the concrete (unless superseded by the Structural/Post-tension engineer*) with minimum 1 inches of sand below the moisture/vapor barrier. Minimum perimeter foundation embedment below finish grade for moisture cut off should be 12 and 18 inches, respectively for very low to low and medium expansion potentials. Minimum slab thickness should be 5 inches. Project No. 133023-07 Page 18 December 15, 2015 The above sand and moisture/vapor barrier recommendations are traditionally included with geotechnical foundation recommendations although they are generally not a major factor influencing the geotechnical performance of the foundation. The sand and moisture/vapor barrier requirements are the purview of the foundation engineer/corrosion engineer (in accordance with ACT Publication 302 "Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction") and the homebuilder to ensure that the concrete cures more evenly than it would otherwise, is protected from corrosive environments, and moisture penetration of through the floor is acceptable to future homeowners. Therefore, the recommendations provided herein may be superseded by the requirements of the previously mentioned parties. The underslab vapor/moisture retarder (i.e. an equivalent capillary break method) may consist of a minimum 15-mil thick moisture/vapor barrier in conformance with ASTM E 1745 Class A material, placed in general conformance with ASTM E1643, underlain by a minimum 1-inch of sand, as needed. The sand layer requirements above the vapor barrier are the purview of the foundation engineer/structural engineer, and should be provided in accordance with ACT Publication 302 "Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction". These recommendations must be confirmed (and/or altered) by the foundation engineer, based upon the performance expectations of the foundation. Ultimately, the design of the moisture retarder system and recommendations for concrete placement and concrete mix design, which will address bleeding, shrinkage, and curling are the purview of the foundation engineer, in consideration of the project requirements provided by the architect and developer. The underslab vapor/moisture retarder described above is considered a suitable alternative in accordance with the Capillary Break Section 4.505.2.1 of the CALGreen code. 3.6.5 Mat Foundation Desij'n A mat foundation can be used for support of proposed residential buildings. An allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,000 psf may be used for the design of the mat at the surface under the slab area. The allowable bearing value is for total dead loads and frequently applied live loads and may be increased by one-third for short durations of loading which will include the effect of wind or seismic forces. A coefficient of vertical subgrade reaction, k, of 85 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used to evaluate the pressure distribution beneath the mat foundation. The magnitude of total and differential settlements of the mat foundation will be a function of the structural design and stiffness of the mat. Minimum perimeter foundation embedment below finish grade for moisture cut off should be 12 inches, with a minimum perimeter footing width of 12-inches. Resistance to lateral loads can be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by passive earth pressure. Foundations may be designed for a coefficient of friction of 0.35. Minimum perimeter footing embedment provided in the previous sections maybe reduced for the mat slab design. The underslab vapor/moisture retarder should be installed as recommended above in the post-tension foundation section. Coordination with the structural engineer will be required in order to ensure structural loads are adequately distributed throughout the mat foundation to avoid localized stress concentrations resulting in potential settlement. The foundation plan should be reviewed by LGC to confirm preliminary estimated total and differential static settlements. Project No. 133023-07 Page 19 December 15, 2015 3.6.6 Foundation Settlement Based on the site design relative to native grades and the site remedial removals currently being performed during site rough grading to remove all unsuitable potentially compressible soils underlying the site, fill at the site will range from approximately 5 to a maximum depth of 75 feet (southeast corner of PA-7) in thickness with the majority of the fill thicknesses less than 40 feet in depth. The deepest fills located in the southeast corner of PA-7 along the north-south trending canyon. It is anticipated that most of the consolidation will be complete by the time final design grades are achieved due to the sandy nature of site soils. Settlement monuments have been installed in deeper fill areas (fills greater than 40 feet in thickness) at the completion of the rough/mass grading activities, to monitor the primary and secondary consolidation of deep fills. Deeper fill lots will be released when the primary and secondary consolidation is within acceptable limits. Based on the as-graded condition and our preliminary review of site grading plans, remedial grading was performed during rough/mass grading activities so that the fill differential beneath the proposed building pads were less than a 3:1 (maximum fill thickness to the minimum fill thickness); therefore, no major fill differentials are anticipated across the current building pad areas. U Based on our evaluation, the static post-construction settlements for the lots with less than 40 feet of fill, and deeper fill lots after they are released for construction is estimated to be up to I a maximum differential settlement of approximately 3/4-inch in 30 feet. 3.6.7 Foundation Setback - Toy of Slone Condition Building foundations located close to the top of descending slopes should have a minimum I setback per Figure 1808.7.1 of the 2013 CBC. Figure 1808.7.1 of the 2013 CBC shows that the setback distance from the bottom edge of the building foundation to the slope surface is equal to the height of slope divided by 3 up to a maximum setback of 40 feet. The setback I distances should be measured from competent materials on the outer slope face, excluding any weathered and loose materials. 3.6.8 Foundation Setback -Toe of Slope Condition Section 1808.7.1 of the 2013 California Building Code (CBC) provides recommendations/discussion with regards to the building clearance from ascending slopes. The intent of this section of the code is that the proposed building structure below slopes shall be set a sufficient distance from the slope to provide protection from slope drainage, erosion, and shallow failures. The code clearance for building foundations below slopes is equal to the smaller of the height of slope divided by 2 or 15 feet. CBC Section 1808.7.5 permits an alternate clearance subject to the approval of the building official provided a geotechnical evaluation is performed to demonstrate that the intent of Section 1808.7 would be satisfied. LGC can review the site plans once available to evaluate the proposed building clearances. Project No. 133023-07 Page 20 December 15, 2015 3.7 3.6.9 Seismic Design Criteria The seismic design criteria that should be used in the design of the proposed buildings are presented in Section 1.4.2. Lateral Earth Pressures for Retaining Walls The following lateral earth pressures presented in Table 3 may be used for the design of any future site retaining walls. We recommend low expansive soils for retaining wall backfill if no onsite soils fit the required minimum parameters (SE greater than 30). The recommended lateral pressures for approved soils (expansion index less than 30 per U.B.C. 18-I-B, less than 15 percent passing #200 sieve, and P1 less than 15) for level or sloping backfill are presented on the table below. The recommended lateral pressures for clean sand or approved select soils for level or sloping backfill are presented on the following table. Table 3 Lateral Earth Pressures for Retaining Walls Conditions Equivalent Fluid Weight (pci) Level Backfill 2:1 Backfill Sloping Upwards Seismic Earth Pressure (pci) * Approved Select Material Approved Select Material Level 2H:1V Active 35 55 10 20 At-Rest 50 75 - - Passive 250 - - - * For walls with greater than 6-feet in backfill height, the above seismic earth pressure should be added to the static pressures given in the table above. The seismic earth pressure should be considered as an inverted triangular distribution with the resultant acting at 0.6H in relation to the base of the retaining wall footing (where H is the retained height). The aforementioned incremental seismic load was determined in general accordance with the standard of practice in the industry (using the Mononobe-Okabe method for active and Woods method for at-rest) for determining earth pressures as a result of seismic events. Embedded structural walls should be designed for lateral earth pressures exerted on them. The magnitude of these pressures depends on the amount of deformation that the wall can yield under load. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the soil, it can be designed for "active" pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the shear strength of the soil cannot be mobilized and the earth pressure will be higher. Such walls should be designed for "at-rest" conditions. If a structure moves toward the soils, the resulting resistance developed by the soil is the "passive" resistance. Project No. 133023-07 Page 21 December 15, 2015 For design purposes, the recommended equivalent fluid pressure for each case for walls founded above the static groundwater and backfilled with low expansive onsite or import soils is provided in the table above. The equivalent fluid pressure values assume free-draining conditions. The backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. The walls should be constructed and backfihled as soon as possible after back-cut excavation. Prolonged exposure of back-cut slopes may result in some localized slope instability. If conditions other than those assumed above are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressure values should be provided on an individual-case basis by the geotechnical engineer. Surcharge loading effects from any adjacent structures should be evaluated by the geotechnical and structural engineers. Surcharge loading on retaining walls should be considered when any loads are I located within a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) projection from the base of the retaining wall and should be added to the applicable lateral earth pressures. Where applicable, a minimum uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf should be added to the appropriate lateral earth pressures to account for typical vehicle I traffic loading. All retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage and appropriately I waterproofed. The outlet pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. Typical wall drainage design is illustrated on the attached Figure 2. It should be noted that the recommended subdrain does not provide protection against seepage through the face of the wall and/or efflorescence. Efflorescence U is generally a white crystalline powder (discoloration) that results when water, which contains soluble salts, migrates over a period of time through the face of a retaining wall and evaporates. If such seepage I or efflorescence is undesirable, retaining walls should be waterproofed to reduce this potential. For sliding resistance, the friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used at the concrete and soil interface. Wall footings should be designed in accordance with structural considerations. The passive resistance U - value may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic loads. For short term loading (i.e. seismic) the allowable bearing capacity may be increased by one-third U for seismic loading. Foundations for retaining walls in properly compacted fill should be embedded at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade. At this depth and a minimum of 12 inches in width, an allowable bearing I capacity of 2,000 psf may be assumed. A factor of safety greater than 3 was used in evaluating the above bearing capacity value. This value maybe increased by 250 psf for each additional foot in depth and 100 psf for each additional foot of width to a maximum value of 3,000 psf. All excavations U should be made in accordance with Cal OSHA. Excavation safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor. 3.8 Slope Creep I Due to the potentially expansive nature of the fill soils within the site, the probability exists for development of a creep condition on the slopes within the site with the passage of time. Creep is a very slow nearly continuous downward and outward movement of slope soils. The movement is I minimal under small shear stresses, however sufficient to produce permanent deformation but not large enough to produce a shear failure as occurs in a landslide. Project No. 133023-07 Page 22 December 15, 2015 For the site slopes, the principal cause for development of a creep condition is a result of repeated cycles of swelling and contraction of expansive soils over a period of time due to seasonal variations in the moisture content and is an irreversible process resulting in a loss of shear strength and subsequent buildup of small shear stresses. Experience has shown that creep can affect surficial soils to vertical depths of several feet depending on the expansiveness of the soils and the slope height and inclination, as well as a number of other factors. Other factors which can contribute to development of a slope creep condition include overwatering and subsequent saturation of the slope soils, prolonged or intense rainfall, prolonged periods of drought, rodent activity, inadequate plant materials used for slope protection, inadequate drainage facilities, and/or lack of a proper slope maintenance program. Creep cannot be stopped or eliminated; however, proper foundation embedment and design can be provided such that the magnitude, depth and rate of creep movement can be mitigated for structures proposed on or near descending slopes. For slope heights greater than 10 feet, the slope creep will impact improvements within approximately 10 to 15 feet from the top of slope. Some settlement and tilting may occur in improvements located in this outer 10 to 15 feet of the pad. 3.9 Freestanding (Top-of-Slope) Walls Freestanding wall footings should be founded a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. To reduce the potential for unsightly cracks, we recommend inclusion of construction joints at 10- to 20-foot intervals. Due to the potential creep of soils, where free standing walls are constructed close to top-of-slope, some tilt of the wall should be anticipated. To reduce the amount of tilt, a combination of grade beam and caisson foundations may be used to support the wall. The system should consist of minimum 12-inch diameter caissons placed at 8 feet maximum on centers, and each 8 feet long and connected together at top with 12-inch by 12-inch grade beam. The geotechnical design parameters for the caisson are shown on the attached Figure 3. 3.10 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations The following preliminary pavement sections are based on three preliminary R-Value tests of representative driveway and parking area subgrade soils at the site; our review of the City of Carlsbad minimum standards for street pavement sections (Carlsbad, 2012); and our professional experience with respect to the anticipated R-value range of the soils that may be present at the driveway and parking area subgrade elevations after the completion of the fine-grading operations and underground utility installation. It should be noted that the actual pavement sections for the PA-7 and PA-8 driveways and parking areas will need to be based on R-value testing of the subgrade soils after fine grading and the installation of underground utilities, under the direction of the City of Carlsbad Inspector, and in accordance with the City of Carlsbad criteria. Based on the current testing, we anticipate that the R- Value test results of the driveway and parking area subgrade soils will likely range from 12 (PA-7) to 20 (PA-8); however, depending on the actual near subgrade soils at the completion of grading and utility installation an R-value lower than 12 may be possible. Project No. 133023-07 Page 23 December 15, 2015 The actual R-value of the driveway and parking area subgrade soils will depend upon the type of soil placed in the upper 3 feet of the driveway and parking area subgrade elevation. It should also be noted that a lime-treated subgrade/aggregate base material/asphalt concrete section design is required by the City of Carlsbad for streets having an R-value of 12 or less. Representative street subgrade soils were collected, at three locations across the site, and R-value testing was performed on the samples. The resistance or "R"-value was determined by the California Materials Method No. 301 for subgrade soils. The test results are summarized in Table 4. Table 4 R-Value Laboratory Test Results Sample Number Sample Location Sample Description R-Value R-1 PA-7 Light Brown Clayey to Silty fine SAND 12 R-2 PA-8 Southwest Side Light gray brown silty SAND 20 R-3 PA-8 Northeast Side Light yellow brown silty fine SAND 20 3.10.1 Asphalt Concrete Pavement Desiv Based on the Traffic Indices of 5, 5.5, and 6 (provided by the civil engineer) and the R-Value test results presented above, the preliminary asphalt concrete over aggregate base pavement sections were calculated using the computer program, NEWCON90 and in accordance with Chapter 600 of the California Highway Design Manual. The designs were then compared with the City of Carlsbad's minimum section thickness requirements and revised as necessary. The pavement sections are presented on Table 5. Project No. 133023-07. Page 24 December 15, 2015 Table 5 Preliminary Minimum Asphalt Concrete Pavement Design Sections Based on Preliminary R-Values Pavement Sections* Traffic Index Minimum Section* PA-7 PA-8 R-Value R=12** R-Value R=20** 4.0 inches AC 4.0 inches AC 4.0 inches AC over 5.0 4.0 inches AB over over 6.5 inches AB 5.0 inches AB 4.0 inches AC 4.0 inches AC 4.0 inches AC over 5.5 6.0 inches AB over over 8.5 inches AB 6.5 inches AB 4.0 inches AC 1 4.0 inches AC 4.0 inches AC over 6.0 6.0 inches JJ3 over over 10.0 inches AB i 8.5 inches AB * AC = Asphalt Concrete; AB = Aggregate Base ** Anticipated street subgrade R-Values based on the preliminary R-Value testing and our professional experience on the project Prior to placement of the street aggregate base material, the upper 12 inches of subgrade soils in the driveways and parking areas (including beneath the curb and gutter) should be scarified, moisture-conditioned (or dried back) as necessary to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum 95 percent relative compaction based on American Standard of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Method D1557. Caltrans Class 2 Aggregate Base (Class 2 AB) or Greenbook Crushed Miscellaneous Base (CMB) should then be placed and compacted at a minimum 95 percent relative compaction in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557. The aggregate base material should be a maximum of 6 inches thick (or equal to the thickness of aggregate base for the design pavement section if less than 6 inches) below the curb and gutter and extend a minimum of 6 inches behind the back of the curb (per the city requirements). The aggregate base should conform to and be placed in accordance with the latest revision of the California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications (Section 26), the "Greenbook" Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction specifications, and/or the City of Carlsbad requirements. Asphalt Concrete should conform to and be placed in accordance with the "Greenbook" Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction and the City of Carlsbad requirements. If pavement is planned adjacent to landscaped areas, we recommend that appropriate measures be taken (such as keeping the amount of landscape irrigation to a minimum, installing area drains or other devices, etc.) to reduce the possible adverse effects of water on the pavement subgrade. Project No. 133023-07 Page 25 December 15, 2015 3.10.2 Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Pavement Section Design I Based on an assumed R-Value of 12 and a TI of 6, we recommend a minimum of 6-inches of PCC over 6-inches of compacted aggregate base. The modulus of rupture of the concrete should be a minimum of 500 pounds per square inch (psi) at 28 days. Contraction joints should be I placed at maximum 15-foot spacings. Where the outer edge of the concrete pavement connects to an asphalt pavement, the concrete slab should be thickened by 50 percent at a taper not to exceed a slope of 1 in 10. In addition, additional PCC sections can be provided based on other I desired anticipated traffic loadings. The aggregate base should conform to the requirements of the latest edition of the California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications and/or the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction ("Greenbook"). Aggregate base I should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction over subgrade compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction per ASTM- D1557. 3.10.3 Concrete Paver Section Desk'n Based on review of the latest plans, proposed payers are designed for vehicular traffic. Based on ASCE 58-10 for interlocking payers, considering a Traffic Index (TI) of 6.0 and an value of 12 for the subgrade soils, we recommend the following minimum base section underlying the proposed payers. The proposed payers and 1-inch of sand should be underlain by a minimum 18-inches of crushed aggregate base. The aggregate base material should conform to the specifications for Crushed Aggregate Base (Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction) and be place and compacted in maximum 6-inch thick lifts. The base material should be compacted to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent. The subgrade should achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent through the upper 12 inches. Base and subgrade materials should be moisture-conditioned to a relatively uniform moisture content near optimum moisture. 3.11 Corrosivitv to Concrete and Metal The National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) defines corrosion as "a deterioration of a substance or its properties because of a reaction with its environment." From a geotechnical I viewpoint, the "environment" is the prevailing foundation soils and the "substances" are the reinforced concrete foundations or various buried metallic elements such as rebar, piles, pipes, etc., which are in direct contact with or within close vicinity of the foundation soil. In general, soil environments that are detrimental to concrete have high concentrations of soluble sulfates and/or pH values of less than 5.5. ACI Criteria (ACI 318R-08 Table 4.3.1), provides specific guidelines for the concrete mix design when the soluble sulfate content of the soils exceeds 0.1 percent by weight or 1,000 ppm. The minimum amount of chloride ions in the soil environment that are corrosive to steel, either in the form of reinforcement protected by concrete cover, or plain steel substructures such as steel pipes or piles, is 500 ppm per California Test 532. Based on limited soil testing prior to the grading of the site, the onsite soils are classified as having a negligible sulfate exposure condition in accordance with ACI 318R-08 Table 4.3.1. Concrete in contact with onsite soils should be designed in accordance with ACI 318R-08 Table 4.3.1 for the negligible category. It is also our opinion that onsite soils should be considered moderately to severely corrosive to buried metals. Project No. 133023-07 Page 26 December 15, 2015 3.12 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork Concrete flatwork (such as walkways, bicycle trails, etc.) have a high potential for cracking due to changes in soil volume related to soil-moisture fluctuations because these slabs are typically much thinner than foundation slabs and are not reinforced with the same dynamic as foundation elements. To reduce the potential for excessive cracking and lifting, concrete should be designed in accordance with the minimum guidelines outlined in Table 6. These guidelines will reduce the potential for irregular cracking and promote cracking along construction joints, but will not eliminate all cracking or lifting. Thickening the concrete and/or adding additional reinforcement will further reduce cosmetic distress. Table 6 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork Private Private Patio/Entryways Sidewalk, Curb, Sidewalks Driveways and Gutter Minimum City/Agency Thickness 4 5 5 Standard (in inches) Wet down Presoak to 12 City/Agency Presaturation subgrade soils . inches Presoak to 12 Standard prior to inches placement Reinforcement -- No. 3 at 24 inches No. 3 at 24 inches City/Agency on centers on centers Standard Thickened -.- 8" x 8" -- City/Agency Edge Standard Saw cut or deep Saw cut or deep Saw cut or deep City/Agency Crack Control tool joint to a tool joint to a tool joint to a Standard minimum of 1/3 minimum of 1/3 minimum of 1/3 the concrete the concrete the concrete thickness thickness thickness Maximum Joint 10 feet or quarter City/Agency Spacing 5 feet cut whichever is 6 feet Standard closer Aggregate Base -- 2 2 City/Agency Standard Project No. 133023-07 Page 27 December 15, 2015 3.13 Pool Desiz Recommendations I The proposed pool and associated improvements should be constructed in accordance with the attached Figure 4, Geotechnical Guidelines for Swimming Pool Construction. Pool excavation will occur in newly placed compacted fills and is anticipated to be relatively uniform. Consideration I should be given to the high expansive potential of onsite soils in design of the pool, and associated decking. Also concrete in contact with onsite soils should be designed in accordance with the I negligible category of ACT 318R-08 Table 4.3.1. Due to inherent differences in supporting capacity and expansive potential of different layers of the formational material/fill, it is undesirable to have structures partially supported on soils having I different geotechnical characteristics or materials having different engineering characteristics. If a cut/fill transition or highly expansive soil condition exists, the cut portion of the transition or highly expansive soil should be excavated (usually impractical for pool/spa construction), or the pool/spa I can be designed with additional reinforcement and/or a thicker shell in order to cope with potential differences in supporting capacity and expansive potential. Excavation and subsequent fill placement for pool including the placement of drains, outlets, water- proofing, etc. should be performed under the observation and testing of a geotechnical consultant. Observation and testing should be performed by the geotechnical consultant during pool excavation to verify that the exposed soil conditions are consistent with the design assumptions. Concrete flatwork adjacent to the pool should be a minimum of 5 inches thick reinforced with No. 3 rebar at 18-inches on center each way with a 12-inch deep perimeter cut-off footing. Construction joints or weakened plane joints should be provided in all flatwork to a minimum depth of 1.5 inches at frequent internals (5 feet or less). The concrete slab should be underlain by a minimum of 4 inches of clean sand or base underlain inturn by a minimum 10-mil Visqueen barrier. Presoaking of the subgrade prior to placing the Visqueen barrier should be performed to a minimum depth of 12 inches. The subgrade below the Visqueen barrier should be inclined so that any moisture that seeps through cracks in the concrete due to irrigation, rain, or pool splash will be directed away from the pool. The contractor must ensure that the Visqueen is properly lapped, sealed and not punctured during construction. 3.14 Slope Maintenance To reduce the potential for erosion and slumping of graded slopes, all slopes should be planted with ground cover and deep-rooted vegetation as soon as practical upon completion of grading. Surface water runoff and standing water at the top-of-slopes should be avoided. Oversteepening of slopes should be avoided during construction activities and landscaping. Maintenance of proper lot drainage, undertaking of property improvements in accordance with sound engineering practice, and proper maintenance of vegetation, including regular pad and slope irrigation, should be performed. Trenches excavated on a slope face for utility of irrigation lines and/or for any purpose should be properly backfilled and compacted by a vibratory plate, or equivalent, in order to obtain a minimum 90 percent relative compaction, in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557, to the slope face. Observation/testing and acceptance by the geotechnical consultant during trench backfill is recommended. A rodent control program should be established and maintained. Project No. 133023-07 Page 28 December 15, 2015 3.15 Subdrain Outlet Maintenance The approximate location of the subdrains and subdrain outlets constructed during the mass-grading operations are identified on the attached Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). All subdrain outlets should be periodically cleared of soil cover or other potential blockage that may have occurred since initial subdrain construction. If retaining walls are proposed along the toe-of-slope in the location of the stability fills/subdrain outlet locations, the existing subdrains should be tied into the retaining wall back-drain system and/or placed into an appropriate storm drain facility. I 3.16 Control of Surface Water and Drainarie Surface drainage should be carefully taken into consideration during fine-grading, landscaping, and building construction. Positive drainage of surface water away from structures is very important. No water should be allowed to pond adjacent to buildings or the top of slopes. Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing drainage away from buildings at a gradient of at least 2 percent for a distance of at least 5 feet, and further maintained by a swale of drainage path at a gradient of at least 1 percent. Where limited by 5-foot side yards, drainage should be directed away from foundations for a minimum of 3 feet and into a collective swale or pipe system. Where necessary, drainage paths may be shortened by use of area drains and collector pipes. Eave gutters also help reduce water infiltration into the subgrade soils if the downspouts are properly connected to appropriate outlets. I The impact of heavy irrigation or inadequate runoff gradient can create perched water conditions, resulting in seepage or shallow groundwater conditions where previously none existed. Maintaining adequate surface drainage and controlled irrigation will significantly reduce the potential for nuisance- type moisture problems. To reduce differential earth movements (such as heaving and shrinkage due to the change in moisture content of foundation soils, which may cause distress to a structure or improvement), the moisture content of the soils surrounding the structure should be kept as relatively constant as possible. All area drain inlets should be maintained and kept clear of debris in order to function properly. Rerouting of site drainage patterns and/or installation of area drains should be performed, if necessary. A qualified civil engineer or a landscape architect should be consulted prior to rerouting of drainage. 3.17 Construction Observation and Testinj The recommendations provided in this report are based on subsurface observations and geotechnical analysis by others. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction by a representative of LGC. Construction observation and testing should also be performed by the geotechnical consultant during future grading, excavations, backfill of utility trenches, preparation of pavement subgrade and placement of aggregate base, foundation or retaining wall construction or when an unusual soil condition is encountered at the site. Grading plans, foundation plans, and final project drawings should be reviewed by this office prior to construction. Project No. 133023-07 Page 29 December 15, 2015 I 4.0 LIMITATIONS Our services were performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar I circumstances, by reputable engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. The samples taken and submitted for laboratory testing, the observations made and the in-situ field testing performed are I believed representative of the entire project; however, soil and geologic conditions revealed by excavation may be different than our preliminary fmdings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by the I project soils engineer and geologist and design(s) adjusted as required or alternate design(s) recommended. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his/her representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the I attention of the architect and/or project engineer and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and/or subcontractor properly implements the recommendations in the field. The contractor and/or subcontractor should notify the owner if they consider any of the recommendations I presented herein to be unsafe. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property I can and do occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. I In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. I Project No. 133023-07 Page 30 December 15, 2015 FENCE EXTENT OF FREE DRAINING SAND BACKFILL, MINIMUM HEEL WIDTH OR H/2 WHICH EVER IS GREATER I NATIVE BACKFILL COMPACTED TO MINIMUM 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION PER ASTMI557-D I I I•-I I l 'I I I•--I I I l --I I II I 1' MINIMUM .L_IEf F .IlJ l.lI 1-1/ WATER PROOFING PER CIVIL ENGINEER -1 - FREE DRAINING SAND BACKFILL SE 30 OR GREATER \ ... . . .1 ..BACKCUT PER OSHA ii MINIMUM 1 CUBIC FOOT PER LINEAR FOOT BURRITO TYPE SUBDRAIN CONSISTING OF \ 14 3/4 INCH CRUSHED ROCK WRAPPED IN . . MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT 4 INCH DIAMETER SCHEDULE 40 PERFORATED PVC PIPE TO FLOW TO DRAINAGE DEVICE .4 FOOTING/WALL DESIGN PER CIVIL ENGINEER A . :... 4 . Figure 2: Project Name _________ Shapell/RobertsonRanch __________________ Retaining Wall Project No. 133023-07 Detail, Sand 112r3 Eng. / Geol. BIHJRKW Scale N/A Backfill I Date 1 12/15/15 on ALLOWABLE VERTICAL LOADS Allowable Bearing Pressures: 1,500 lbs/sq. ft at a Depth of 12 inches Below Creep Zone Allowable Increase: 250 lbs/sq. ft per foot of increased depth to a Maximum of 2,500 lbs/sq. ft (Neglecting the Top 5 Feet) Allowable Skin Friction: 600 lbs/sq. ft per foot of Depth (Neglecting the Top 5 Feet) 9 joC' c;cccc Perimeter Wall or Other Improvements 10-15' 'H f _--? 6-8' M Pier DRILLED PIER Ignore Passive Pressure in Upper 5' ALLOWABLE LATERAL LOADS Fa=(35x52 /2) x L = 438L, Where L=Caisson Spacing Pp=120psf/ft Fp=(600+120d)/ 2 x (d-5) x (3xD) Where D=Caisson Diameter and d=Depth Below Ground 120xd Fa "'Pa--35 psf/ft Figure 3: Geotechnical Parameters For Top of Slope Walls Project Name Shapell/Robertson Ranch Project No. 133023-07 Eng. / Geol. BIH/RKW Scale N/A Date 12/15/15 SCHEDULE Depth of Lateral Expansion moisture cut-off Slope creep Equivalent Index footing zone distance Fluid Pressure distance "B" "A" (pcf) low-very low 8 inches 7 feet 60 medium 12 inches 10 feet 85 high 18 inches 15 feet 105 very high 24 inches 20 feet 125 Portion of pad most susceptible to slope creep. Concrete deck, minimum of 5 inches thick with #3 bar 18 inch on center each way with construction joints 1.5 inches deep (minimum) with maximum spacing of 5 feet. Flexible sealant between pool coping and concrete decking - - clean sand backfill a, (4" minimum) 2 ... l0 mil visqueen moisture barrier Perimeter Drain (perforated pipe slope p zone - - wrapped in approved filter fabric and outletted). Pool Shell II Pressure relief valve 4. ••& Pool shell to be designed for any added load of adjacent structures. For pools adjacent to descending slopes, the pool shell should be designed assuming total loss of soil support for the portion of the pool located within the assumed "creep zone". For design purposes, the creep zone should be considered to extend a distance "A" from the top of slope (see schedule "A" above). The creep zone should be considered as parallel to the slope face. Concrete flatwork adjacent to the pool should be a minimum of 5 inches thick reinforced with No. 3 rebar at 18-inches on center each way with a perimeter cut-off footing per the above schedule. Construction joints or weakened plane joints should be provided in all flatwork to a minimum depth of 1.5 inches at frequent internals (5 feet or less). The concrete slab should be underlain by a minimum of 4 inches of clan sand underlain intum by a 10-mil Visqueen barrier. Presoaking of the subgrade prior to placing the Visqueen barrier should be performed in accordance with the recommendations included in the project geotechnical report. The presoaking should saturate the subgrade to a minimum depth of 12 inches. The subgrade below the Visqueen barrier should be inclined so that any moisture that seeps through cracks in the concrete due to irrigation, rain, or pool splash will be directed away from the pool. A perforated pipe wrapped in approved filter fabric should be installed to transport the collected moisture away from the pool area. The drain pipe is not considered necessary for soils of low to medium expansion potential. The contractor must ensure that the Visqueen is properly lapped, sealed and not punctured during construction. All pool design should be performed by a qualified designer, using the equivalent fluid pressures shown in the schedule. A geotechnical consultant should be contacted to review the final design which is based on the recommendations of this detail. This is not a design document and has been provided for INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY unless stamped and signed by LGC and pertaining to a specific pool. To reduce the potential of lifting and cracking of the pool decking, landscape planters should not be located in islands within the decking unless they are lined with a waterproof membrane and provided with a subdrainage system to prevent moisture variations below the decking. The pool shell should be designed to account for any additional loading due to improvements (building, raised planters, etc.) Raised planters should not be located at the top of slopes unless specially designed by the geotechnical consultant. The recommendations above will not eliminate all movement of the pool and associated improvements, however they should reduce the degree of movement, and promote cracking along construction joints, not flatwork. Version 12107/2001 Geotechnical Guidelines for Swimming Pool Construction I Project Name Project No. Eng. / Geol. Scale I Date Figure 4 hapell/Robertson Ranch 133023-07 BIH/RKW Not to Scale 12/15/15 APPENDIX A I References Alliance Land Planning & Engineering, Inc., 2015a, Robertson Ranch PA-7 and PA-8 site development plan, I dated July 13, 2015. Alliance Land Planning & Engineering, Inc., 2015b, Grading plans for Robertson Ranch, multi-family sites, I PA7, 8 Parcels 1,2, PM 14-07, City of Carlsbad, California, Project No. MS 14-07, Drawing No. 480- 3E, dated December 4, 2015. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2013, Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, ASCE/SEI 7-10, Third Printing, 2013. California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), 2013a, California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 1 and 2 of 2 (based on the 2012 International Building Code). CBSC, 2013b, California Residential Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2.5,(based on the 2012 International Residential Code). CBSC, 2013c, California Green Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Geological Survey, 2007, Fault rupture hazard zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with index to earthquake fault zone maps: California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42, dated 1997 with interim revision dated 2007. Carlsbad, City of, 2012, Engineering Standards, Volume 1 - General Design Standards, Carlsbad, California, 2004 Edition, revised November 21, 2012. GeoSoils, Inc., 2002, Geotechnical evaluation of the Robertson Ranch Property, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 3098-Al-SC, dated January 29, 2002. GeoSoils, Inc., 2004, Updated geotechnical evaluation of the Robertson Ranch property, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 3098-A2-SC, dated September 20, 2004. GeoSoils, Inc., 2008, Report of mass grading, Planning Area 11, Robertson Ranch habitat corridor and widening of El Camino Real at Cannon Road, Robertson Ranch West, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California 92010, City of Carlsbad Planning Department Application No. SUP 06-12/HDP 06-04, W.O. 5247-B2-SC, dated July 16, 2008. GeoSoils, Inc., 2010, Updated geotechnical investigation for Robertson Ranch West Village, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 6145-A-SC, dated October 10, 2010. GeoSoils, Inc., 2012, Preliminary geotechnical review of "vesting master tentative map for Rancho Costera," 40-scale plans, sheets 1 through 21, Job No. 101307, Revised May 1, 2012, by O'Day Consultants, W.O. 6145-A9-SC, dated May 24, 2012. Project No. 133023-07 Page A-i December 15, 2015 References (continued) GeoSoils, Inc., 2013, Addendum to the updated and supplemental geotechnical investigations for Rancho Costera (formerly Robertson Ranch West Village), Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 6145-A1O-SC, dated July 16, 2013. http://www.earth.google.com, http://www.historicaerials.com Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, S.S., 2005, Geologic map of the Oceanside 30' by 60' quadrangle, California: California Geological Survey, Regional Geologic Map No. 2, scale 1:100,000 LGC Valley, Inc., 2014a, Geotechnical and environmental recommendations for Robertson Ranch West, Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03, Carlsbad, California, Project Number 133023-03, dated April 29, 2014. LGC Valley, Inc., 2014b, Clarification of grading recommendations for Planning Areas PA-7, PA-8 and PA- 11, Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03, Carlsbad, California, Project Number 133023-03, dated October 1, 2014. LGC Valley, Inc. 2014c, Addendum remedial grading recommendations concerning overexcavation of the apartment building pads, Robertson Ranch PA-8, Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 133023-03, dated October 20, 2014. LGC Valley, Inc. 2014d, Addendum remedial grading recommendations concerning overexcavation of the apartment building pad, Buildings 3, 5 through 7, 10, 11, and 14, Robertson Ranch PA-8, Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 133023-03, dated October 27, 2014. LGC Valley, Inc. 2014e, Settlement monument recommendations for Robertson Ranch PA-7 and PA-8, Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 133023-03, dated November 13, 2014. LGC Valley, Inc. 2015a, Preliminary foundation design for the proposed multi-family residential development, Robertson Ranch Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8, 4980 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 133023-07, dated April 15, 2015. LGC Valley, Inc. 2015b, As-graded report of mass-grading, Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8, Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03, Carlsbad, California, California, Project No. 133023-03, dated August 7, 2015. LGC Valley, Inc. 2015c, Preliminary pavement design, Robertson Ranch Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8, Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03, 4980 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 133023-07, dated September 15, 2015. O'Day Consultants, 2014a, Vesting tentative map for Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03-2, 23 Sheets, dated January 16, 2014. Project No. 133023-07 Page A-2 December 15, 2015 References (continued) I O'Day Consultants, 2014b, Grading plans for Rancho Costera, Robertson Ranch West Village, Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03, Drawing No. 480-3A, 44 Sheets, dated August 25, 2014. I O'Day Consultants, 2015, Site development plan for PA7 & PA8 and tentative parcel map for minor subdivision for PA8 for Robertson Ranch West Apartments, 14 Sheets, dated February 25, 2015. I Post-Tensioning Institute, 2006, Design of post tensioned slabs-on-ground, Third Addition, Addendum 1 dated May 2007, and Addendum 2 dated May 2008, with errata February 4, 2010. I United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2008a, "2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps - Fault Parameters" retrieved from: http://geohazards.usgs.gov/cfusion!hazfaults search/hf search main.cfm USGS, 2008b, "2008 Interactive Deaggregations (Beta)," retrieved from: https://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/ USGS, 2013, U.S. Seismic Design Maps, retrieved from: http://geohazards.usgs.gov/desio-nma-ps/us/batch.phl)#csv Project No. 133023-07 Page A-3 December 15, 2015 APPENDIX B LGC VALLEY, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications For Rough Grading 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 a qualified Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The Geotechnical Consultant shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical fmdings, 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. The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to confirm that the attained level of compaction is being accomplished as specified. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis. LGC Valley, Inc. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Page 1of 6 1.3 The Earthwork Contractor: The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to I 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 I grading in accordance with the project 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 "equipment" of work and the estimated I 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 I appropriate personnel will be available for observation and testing. . The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware of all grading operations. I 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 I 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 I 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. It is the contractor's sole responsibility to provide proper fill compaction. I 2.0 Preparation ofAreas 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, I governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant. The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific I site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 10 percent of organic matter. Nesting of the I organic materials shall not be allowed. 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 I 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, I 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 fmes and/or imprisonment, and shall not I be allowed. The contractor is responsible for all hazardous waste relating to his work. The I LGC Valley, Inc. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Page2 of 6 Geotechnical Consultant does not have expertise in this area. If hazardous waste is a concern, then the Client should acquire the services of a qualified environmental assessor. 3.0 2.2 Processinv 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 from oversize material and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free from 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 Bench inv 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 prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches. Fill Material 3.1 General: Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free from 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. LGC Valley, Inc. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Page 3of6 I 3.3 Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet I 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. I I 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 I 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 I thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout. 4.2 Fill Moisture Condition in 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. I Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method D1557-91). I 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 D1557-91). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either I 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 D1557-91. 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). LGC Valley, Inc. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Page 4of6 4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testinz: 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. 4.7 Compaction Test Locations: 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. LGC Valley, Inc. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Pages of 7.0 Trench Backfills 7.1 The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations. 7.2 All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done 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 by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface. 7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant. 7.4 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. 7.5 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. LGC Valley, Inc. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Page 6of6 -T I IE3LGC Valley, Inc. Geotechnical Consulting UPDATE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, PROPOSED MULTI-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, ROBERTSON RANCH PLANNING AREAS PA- 7AND PA-8, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA No 1612 ( ENGINEERING I CERTIF * GEOLOGIST I * Dated: December 15, 2015 Project No. 133023-07 Prepared For: Shape!! Properties, Inc 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700 Beverly Hills, California 90211 2420 Grand Avenue, Suite F2 • Vista • CA 92081 • (760) 599-7000 • Fax (760) 599-7007 LGC Valley, Inc. Geotechnical Consulting December 15, 2015 Mr. Tae Dixon Shape!! Properties, Inc. 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700 Beverly Hills, California 90211 Project No. 133023-07 Subject: Update Geotechnical Report, Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development, Robertson Ranch Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8, Carlsbad, California In accord with your request and authorization, LGC Valley, Inc. (LGC) is providing this update geotechnical report for the proposed multi-residential development of Robertson Ranch Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8 located in Carlsbad, California. The purpose of this report is to provide a single geotechnical report incorporating the previous issued geotechnical recommendations, the as-graded conditions of the site after the completion of the mass/rough grading operations and the additional grading of Planning Area PA-8 and a portion of PA-7, and to provide updated geotechnical recommendations, as necessary, in light of the recently received site fine grading plans prepared by Alliance Land Planning and Engineering, dated December 4, 2015. Based on the results of our geotechnical evaluation and review, it is our opinion that the proposed site development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the recommendations included in this report are incorporated into the project plans and specifications, and followed during site grading and construction. If you have any questions regarding our report, please contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully Submitted, LGC Valley, Inc. Randall tWagneqr,YEG 1612 Senior Project Geologist ,40AL (6 K. o I No. 1612 f CERTIFIED \ ENGINEERING * GEOLOGIST * EXP.3/31/2oi Or c-' " qm- Basil Hattar, GE 2734 Principal Engineer ,oESSIo,v frr ( No. 2734LU \ 9 EXP.6136 ) \cil RKW/BIH Distribution: (3) Addressee (3) Alliance Land Planning and Engineering, Attn: Ms. Elizabeth Shoemaker 2420 Grand Avenue, Suite F2 • Vista • CA 92081 (760) 599-7000 • Fax (760) 599-7007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services .................................................................................1 1.2 Site and Project Description......................................................................................1 1.3 Summary of Mass-Grading Operations.....................................................................3 1.3.1 As-Graded Conditions..................................................................................4 1.3.2 Site Preparation and Removals.....................................................................5 1.3.3 Stability Fills ................................................................................................6 1.3.4 Subdrain Installation....................................................................................6 1.3.5 Cut/Fill Transition Conditions......................................................................6 1.3.6 Fill Placement..............................................................................................7 1.3.7 Laboratory Testing.......................................................................................7 1.3.8 Field Density Testing....................................................................................7 1.3.9 Graded Slopes ..............................................................................................8 1.3.10 Settlement Monuments..................................................................................8 1.4 Seismicity, Faulting, and Related Effects .................................................................. 8 1.4.1 Faulting........................................................................................................8 1.4.2 Seismic Design Criteria...............................................................................9 1.4.3 Ground Rupture and Shaking.....................................................................10 1.4.4 Liquefaction ............................................................................................... 11 1.4.5 Seismic Settlement and Differential Settlement...........................................11 1.4.6 Tsunami, Seiche, and Flooding (Earthquake Induced Dam Failure).......11 2.0 CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................................12 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................14 3.1 Earthwork ............................................................................................................... 14 3.2 Site Preparation......................................................................................................14 3.3 Cut/Fill Transition Conditions...............................................................................14 3.4 Excavations............................................................................................................15 3.5 Fill Placement and Compaction.............................................................................15 3.6 Foundations............................................................................................................15 3.6.1 General Foundation Design ......................................................................15 3.6.2 Bearing Capacity.......................................................................................16 3.6.3 Conventional Foundation Design..............................................................16 3.6.4 Post-Tension Foundation Design ..............................................................17 3.6.5 Mat Foundation Design.............................................................................19 3.6.6 Foundation Settlement...............................................................................20 3.6.7 Foundation Setback - Top of Slope Condition..........................................20 3.6.8 Foundation Setback - Toe of Slope Condition ..........................................20 3.6.9 Seismic Design Criteria ...................... ....................................................... 21 3.7 Lateral Earth Pressures for Retaining Walls ... ....................................................... 21 3.8 Slope Creep ..................................................... ....................................................... 22 3.9 Freestanding (Top-of-Slope) Walls.........................................................................23 I Project No. 133023-07 Page ii December 15, 2015 3.10 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations .23 3.10.1 Asphalt Concrete Pavement Design...........................................................24 3.10.2 Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Pavement Section Design...................26 3.10.3 Concrete Paver Section Design .................................................................26 1 4.0 3.11 Corrosivity to Concrete and Metal..........................................................................26 3.12 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork...........................................................................27 3.13 Pool Design Recommendations.............................................................................27 3.14 Slope Maintenance.................................................................................................28 3.15 Subdrain Outlet Maintenance ................................................................................29 3.16 Control of Surface Water and Drainage.................................................................29 3.17 Construction Observation and Testing....................................................................29 ll.tll'A iii]S..................................................................................................................30 LIST OF TABLES, APPENDICES AND ILLUSTRATIONS Tables Table 1 - Seismic Design Parameters (Page 10) Table 2 - Preliminary Geotechnical Parameters for Post-Tensioned Foundation Design (Page 18) Table 3 - Lateral Earth Pressures for Retaining Walls (Page 21) Table 4 - R-Value Laboratory Test Results (Page 24) Table 5 - Preliminary Minimum Asphalt Concrete Pavement Design Sections Based on Preliminary R- Values (Page 25) Table 6 - Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork (Page 27) Fk'ures and Plates Figure 1 - Site Location Map (Page 2) Figure 2 - Retaining Wall Drainage Detail (rear of text) Figure 3 - Geotechnical Parameters for Top of Slope Walls (Rear of Text) Figure 4 - Geotechnical Guidelines for Swimming Pool Construction (rear of text) Plate 1 —Geotechnical Map Appendices Appendix A - References Appendix B - Laboratory Testing Results Appendix C - General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading I Project No. 133023-07 Page iii December 15, 2015 LO INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Scope ofServices The purpose of this report is to provide a single geotechnical report incorporating the previous issued geotechnical recommendations, the as-graded conditions of the site after the completion of the mass/rough grading operations and the additional grading of Planning Area PA-8 and a portion of PA-7, and to provide updated geotechnical recommendations, as necessary, in light of the recently received site fine grading plans prepared by Alliance Land Planning and Engineering, dated December 4, 2015. These items plus other geotechnical conditions are discussed and addressed within this document. As of this date, the mass-grading operations for Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8 are essentially complete. However, the two planning areas are currently sheet-graded and will need to be fine-graded in order to construct the planned building pads, driveways/parking areas and other anticipated site improvements. A final as-graded report documenting the additional grading operations (i.e. fine grading) and providing addendum and/or additional geotechnical recommendations relative to the proposed development will be prepared upon completion of the future grading operations. Our scope of services for preparation of this document included: Review of the project geotechnical reports, geologic maps, and other documents relevant to the site (Appendix A). Review of the most recent version of the site development/precise grading plans prepared by Alliance Land Planning and Engineering, dated December 4, 2015 Updated geotechnical analysis and evaluation of site data. Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, opinions and recommendations with respect to the evaluated geologic and geotechnical conditions at the site. 1.2 Site and Project Description Robertson Ranch West Village or Rancho Costera, is approximately 211 acres in size and is located east of the intersection of El Camino Real and Tamarack Avenue in the northeastern portion of the City of Carlsbad (see Figure 1). The irregular-shaped site is bounded by El Camino Real on the south, Tamarack Avenue on the northwest, existing residential developments on the north and east, and by Cannon Road on the southeast. Topographically, Robertson Ranch generally consists of an arcuate ridgeline that somewhat parallels Tamarack Avenue to the north and a series of generally north-south trending subdued ridgelines and tributary drainages that slope from north to south. The site is bisected by two main drainages, one on the west side of the site that flows north to south from along Tamarack Avenue towards Kelly Drive; and another one that flows in a northeast to southwest direction along the southeast portion of the site. Elevations range from a high of approximately 224 feet mean sea level (msl) along the ridgeline overlooking Tamarack Avenue in the northwest portion of the site to a low of 33 feet msl at the southeast corner of the site along El Camino Real. I Project No. 133023-07 Page 1 December 15, 2015 I Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8 are located in the south-central portion of the Robertson Ranch project and are approximately 6.5 and 14.5 acres in size, respectively. PA-8 is divided into two I parcels: Parcel A is 4.8 acres in size and is planned for senior housing; while Parcel B is 9.7 acres in size, and along with PA-7, will contain a multi-family apartment complex. The site (PA-7 and PA-8) is bounded by El Camino Real to the south; proposed single-family communities on the west, I northwest, and northeast; and a retail development, Gage Road and West Ranch Street on the southeast. Robertson Road separates PA-7 and PA-8 Parcel B. A future community recreation center (PA-4) is located at the southwest corner of PA-8 on the north side of Robertson Road but is not part I of the multi-family development and is not included/reported on as a part of this report. It is our understanding that the proposed multi-family development will consist of 24 one- to three- story residential buildings with 263 units and 376 parking spaces. The project will include a leasing/recreation building, maintenance building, pool, landscape areas, appurtenant structures, and driveways. We also understand that the senior housing project will include the construction of one I large building with 96 units and 143 parking spaces with associated driveways, landscape areas, and appurtenant structures. Based on review of the latest site grading plans, fine-grading of the site will be required to grade the planned building pads, driveways/parking areas and other anticipated site l improvements. The precise- or fine-grading of the site will consist of minor cuts and fills of less than one to three feet to achieve the site design finish grades. Fills of up to six to eight feet will be necessary to backfill the existing storm drain retention basins. 1.3 Summary of Mass-Grading Operations Mass-grading of Robertson Ranch began on September 15, 2014 and was essentially completed as of May 5, 2015. Additional grading including raising the sheet-graded pad of Planning Area-8 two-feet and construction of the driveway descending from Robertson Road in the northwest corner of Planning Area PA-7 was performed between October 8 and November 12, 2015. The grading operations were performed under the observation and testing services of LGC Valley, Inc. Our field technicians were onsite on a full-time basis during the grading operations while our field geologist was onsite on a periodic basis. The mass-grading operations included: Removal and off-site disposal of vegetation and miscellaneous debris; The removal of potentially compressible soils including alluvium, colluvium, topsoil, undocumented fill, and weathered soils to competent terrace deposits or formational material; Overexcavation of cut/fill transition conditions within the limits of the planned buildings; Overexcavation of buried cut/fill transition conditions such that the resulting fill differential beneath the proposed building pads was less than a 3:1 (maximum fill thickness to the minimum fill thickness); The excavation of stability fill keys; Preparation of areas to receive fill; The placement of subdrains in the canyon bottoms and stability fill keys; Excavation of formational material; and The placement of compacted fill soils creating the sheet-graded pads and adjacent slopes. Installation of settlement monuments in deep fill areas (considered to be fills greater than 40 feet below design finish grades). I Project No. 133023-07 Page 3 December 15, 2015 I The mass-grading operations within the limits of Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8 consisted of the excavation of up to approximately 45 feet of cut and placement of a maximum thickness of I approximately 75 feet of fill. The as-graded geotechnical conditions are presented on the latest fine grading plan, Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). I Based on the as-graded conditions, all of the planned building locations in Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8 will consist of fill. It should be noted that prior to the additional grading in October and November 2015, the building locations in the northwestern portion of PA-8 consisted of cut; but now ' consist of a minimum of 2 feet of fill over cut. The cut/fill transition conditions present within the limits of the building pads along the cut/fill transition in PA-8, as shown on the rough grading plans (O'Day, 2014b), were overexcavated a minimum of 5 feet in depth and to a distance of at least 10 feet outside I the planned building limits. During the mass-grading operations, remedial grading was also performed so that the fill differential beneath the proposed building pads was less than a 3:1 (maximum fill thickness to the minimum fill thickness). Building pads having more than 40 feet of fill include the I buildings along the side south of PA-7 and in the north-central portion of PA-8. A total of five settlement monuments have been installed and are currently being monitored. 1.3.1 As-Graded Conditions I The as-graded conditions encountered during grading of the site were essentially as anticipated: alluvium and colluvium were encountered within the lower portion of the canyons; and terrace deposits and formational material were encountered on the slopes and at design cut grades below a thin veneer of topsoil and weathered soils. No translational, rotational, other unstable I slope instabilities or landslides were observed during the site earthwork operations. I All unsuitable and potentially compressible soils were removed prior to fill placement. This included alluvium, colluvium, undocumented fill (associated with the past agricultural operations), and weathered terrace and formational materials. The alluvium and colluvium I typically consisted of light brown to brown silty fine sands, sandy clays and clayey sands derived from the terrace deposits and the formational material and were found to be low to highly expansive, porous, and contained scattered organics. Removals of up to approximately I 40 feet in depth were made within the alluvial soils mainly in the southwestern and southeastern portions of PA-7 and in the central portion of PA-8. Removals of the colluvium, on the order of 2 to 6 feet, were made on the middle and lower portions of the hillsides on the I site. Terrace or older alluvial flood-plain deposits were encountered in the eastern portion of PA-7 and the southeast corner of PA-8. As encountered, these soils consisted of silty fine to I medium sand to sandy-silty clay with minor gravels. Bedding within the terrace deposits was mainly massive to indistinct; however, a few sand beds that gently dipped to the west and north on the order of 5 degrees of less were encountered. The nature of the contact between the terrace deposits and formational material, where observed, was a relatively sharp contact with a near horizontal orientation. Along the northern contact, east of PA-7, the terrace deposits appeared to be deposited against a river bank with a moderately steep contact up to 5 to 10 feet I in height. Project No. 133023-07 Page 4 December 15, 2015 I The formational material encountered across the entire site consisted of the Santiago I Formation. The material was found to be massively bedded to cross-bedded silty sandstones and minor clayey sandstones and sandy claystones/siltstones. The siltstones and claystones generally were olive green and red brown to olive gray (unweathered), damp to moist, stiff to I hard, moderately fractured and sheared. The sandstone generally consisted of light olive green, olive green, light brown and pale orange brown (where iron-oxidized stained), damp to moist, dense to very dense, silty very fine to medium grained sandstone. The majority of I the Santiago material encountered within Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8 consisted of silty fine sands. Bedding within the Santiago Formation was highly variable, but overall, generally dipped 2 to 15 degrees to the west-southwest. Minor perched ground water was encountered along the alluvial/formational contact during the mass-grading operations within the main drainage in the central part of PA-8. Since the alluvial soils were completely removed during the mass-grading operations and subdrains installed in the canyon bottoms, groundwater conditions should not be a constraint to development. However, unanticipated seepage or ground water conditions may occur after the completion of grading and establishment of site irrigation and landscaping. If these conditions should occur, steps to mitigate the seepage should be made on a case-by-case basis. 1.3.2 Site Preparation and Removals I Prior to grading, the site was cleared of light vegetation and other miscellaneous debris and the material was disposed of at an offsite facility. Undocumented fill, topsoil, alluvium, colluvium, I weathered terrace soils and formational material were removed down to competent material (i.e. dense unweathered terrace or formational material). Remedial removals on site, below the existing ground surface, generally ranged from approximately 5 to 20 feet with a maximum I depth of remedial removal of up to approximately 40 feet associated with the main north-south trending canyons in the southwestern and southeastern sides of PA-7 and in the central portion of PA-8. The thickness of compacted fills placed during this recent mass-grading operation, to achieve design rough grades (or the sheet-graded pad elevations), ranged from 0 to I approximately 75 feet. Following the remedial removals or overexcavations, areas to receive fill were scarified I approximately 6-inches, moisture-conditioned, as needed, to obtain a near-optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction (for fills of approximately 40 feet or less from design grades) or 93 percent relative compaction (for engineered fill below I approximately 40 feet from design finish grades), as determined by ASTM Test Method D6938 (i.e. the nuclear gauge method). I Project No. 133023-07 Page 5 December 15, 2015 1.3.3 Stability Fills Stability fills were constructed to stabilize the exposed blocky claystone/siltstone and/or adverse (i.e. out-of-slope) geologic conditions present within the Santiago Formation. The stability fill keys were excavated to a width ranging from 15 to 20 feet and a minimum depth of 3 to 5 feet below the toe-of-slope. The keyway bottom was angled at least 2 percent into-the- slope. The stability fill front cuts were excavated near vertical while the backcuts were excavated at an approximate 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope inclination. Stability fills were excavated along the proposed slope on the northwest, north and east sides of PA-8. The approximate locations of the stability fill keys are presented on the attached Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). 1.3.4 Subdrain Installation Canyon and stability fill subdrains were installed under the observation of a representative of LGC in general accordance with the planned locations of the approved geotechnical report, and the standard details (LGC, 2014a). After the potentially compressible material in the canyons were removed to competent material or when compacted fill was placed over competent material to obtain flow to a suitable outlet location, a subdrain was installed along the canyon bottom. The canyon subdrains consisted of a 6-inch diameter perforated pipe surrounded by a minimum of 9-cubic feet (per linear foot) of crushed 3/4-inch gravel wrapped in Mirafi 140N filter fabric. In addition to the canyon subdrains, subdrains were also installed along the bottom backside of the stability fill keys. The stability fill subdrains consisted of a 4-inch diameter perforated pipe surrounded by a minimum of 3-cubic feet (per linear foot) of clean 3/4-inch gravel wrapped in Mirafi 140N filter fabric. The canyon and stability fill subdrains were placed with a minimum 1-percent fall (2-percent or greater where possible) to a suitable outlet location. The locations of the subdrains placed during the mass-grading operations for the project were surveyed by the project civil engineer. The subdrain locations are presented on the attached Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). 1.3.5 Cut/Fill Transition Conditions The sheet-graded pads of Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8 consisted entirely of fills ranging from 2 to 75 feet in thickness. Based on the as-graded conditions, the cut/fill transition conditions present within the limits of the building pads along the cut/fill transitions in PA-8, as shown on the rough grading plans (O'Day, 2014b), were overexcavated a minimum of 5 feet in depth, to a distance of at least 10 feet outside the planned building limits, and replaced with compacted fill. During the mass-grading operations, remedial grading was also performed so that the fill differential beneath the proposed building pads was less than a 3:1 (maximum fill thickness to the minimum fill thickness). I Project No. 133023-07 Page 6 December 15, 2015 L3.6 Fill Placement I After processing the areas to receive fill, native soil was generally spread in approximately 8- inch loose lifts, moisture-conditioned as needed to attain near-optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 or 93 percent of the maximum dry density determined in accordance I with ASTM Test Method D1557. Fill soils less than 40 feet below the design finish grades were compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction while fill soils greater than 40 feet below the design finish grades were compacted to a minimum 93 percent relative I compaction. Compaction was achieved by use of heavy-duty construction equipment. Areas of fill in which either field density tests indicated less than 90 or 93 percent relative compaction or the soils exhibited nonuniformity and/or showed an inadequate or excessive moisture content, I were reworked, recompacted, and retested until a minimum 90 or 93 percent relative compaction and near-optimum moisture content was achieved. 1 1.3.7 Laboratory Testing I Expansion potential, soluble sulfate content, and corrosion testing of representative finish grade soils was not performed; however, based on laboratory testing of representative soils on adjacent portions of the Robertson Ranch project, the near-surface soils within PA-7 and PA-8 l are expected to have a low to medium expansion potential; a negligible soluble sulfate content; are severely corrosive to buried metals based on the minimum soil resistivity values; and are corrosive to buried metals and reinforcing steel in concrete based on the chloride I concentrations. Finish grade laboratory testing should be performed at the completion of fine-grading. I 1. 3.8 Field Density Testing I Field density testing was performed using the Nuclear-Gauge Method (ASTM Test Method D6938). The test results and approximate locations of the field density tests are presented in the As-Graded Report of Mass-Grading of Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8, dated August 7, I 2015 (LGC, 2015b). The field density testing was performed in general accordance with the applicable ASTM I standards and the current standard of care in the industry. In-situ soil density testing is intended to verify the effectiveness of the earthmoving operation in general and is performed on a spot-check basis; as such, some variations in relative compaction should be expected from the results documented herein. Project No. 133023-07 Page 7 December 15, 2015 I 1.3.9 Graded Slopes I Manufactured fill slopes within the subject area were surveyed by the civil engineer and constructed with slope inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. Permanent graded fill slopes within the subject area range from approximately 5 to 43 feet in height. There are no permanently graded cut slopes within the subject area. - The on-site fill slopes are considered grossly and surficially stable from a geotechnical I standpoint (under normal irrigation/precipitation patterns) provided the project geotechnical recommendations are incorporated into the fine-grading, post-grading, construction, and post-construction phases of site development. 1.3.10 Settlement Monuments The compacted fills within Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8 range from 0 to approximately 75 feet in depth. A total of five settlement monuments were installed/constructed at I . representative locations in the deep fill areas in general accordance with the project geotechnical report (LGC, 2014a), following the completion of the majority of fill placement operations in early February 2015. The settlement monuments were installed in deep fill areas ranging from 50 to 75 feet in thickness. The approximate location of the five settlement I monuments are shown on, the attached Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). The settlement monuments were surveyed by O'Day Consultants, with the first reading I performed on February 10, 2015. Settlement Monument #5 was not able to be installed until late March 2015; as a result, the first reading of that monument wasn't until March 30, 2015. Subsequent readings of the monuments were taken approximately weekly for the first month, I every two weeks for the next three months, and monthly after that. 1.4 Seismicity, FaultinR, and Related Effects The main seismic parameters to be considered when discussing the potential for earthquake-induced damage are the distances to the causative faults, earthquake magnitudes, and expected ground accelerations. We have performed site-specific analysis based on these seismic parameters for the site and the onsite geologic conditions. The results of our analysis are discussed in terms of the potential seismic events that could be produced by the maximum probable earthquakes. A maximum probable earthquake is the maximum earthquake likely to occur given the known tectonic framework. 1.4.1 FaultinL' I The southern California region has long been recognized as being seismically active. The seismic activity results from a number of active faults that cross the region, all of which are related to the San Andreas transform system, a broad zone of right lateral faults that extend I from Baja California to Cape Mendocino. The numerous faults in Southern California include active, potentially active, and inactive faults. The definitions of fault activity terms used here are based on those developed for the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act of 1972. Project No. 133023-07 Page 8 December 15, 2015 I Active faults are those faults that have had surface displacement within Holocene time I (approximately the last 11,000 years) and/or have been included within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. Faults are considered potentially active if they show evidence of surface displacement since the beginning of Quaternary time (about two million years ago), but not I since Holocene time. Inactive faults are those which have not had surface movement since the beginning of Quaternary time. I The site is not within a currently established Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for fault rupture hazard (formerly Special Studies Zones for fault rupture hazard). Based on a review of geologic literature, no active faults are known to occur beneath or in the general vicinity of the I project site (LGC, 2014a). Accordingly, it appears that there is little probability of surface rupture due to faulting beneath the site. There are, however, several faults located in sufficiently close proximity that movement associated with them could cause significant ground motion at the site. Although active faulting is not present within the site, faults relative to the off-shore step-over I of the Rose Canyon-Newport-Inglewood fault zone to the west and uplift of the Cretaceous sedimentary units to the south and southeast are known to exist in general vicinity of the site. Minor inactive faulting was encountered within Robertson Ranch; the faults generally trended I in a north-south to northwest-southeast direction and were steeply dipping 60 to 80 degrees to the west. Geologic mapping also indicated the apparent offset of mappable features across the fault was down to the west. All of the mapped faults were located within the Tertiary-aged I Santiago Formation. The majority of these inactive faults were located outside the limits of Planning Areas PA-7 or PA-8; however one of the faults was mapping along the northeastern side of Planning Area PA-8 (as indicated on the attached Geotechnical Map - Plate 1). I Regional active faults that occur within the San Diego area includes the off-shore Rose Canyon-Newport Inglewood fault zone to the west, the Elsinore, San Jacinto, and San Andreas I faults to the east, and the Coronado Bank and San Diego Trough faults offshore to the southwest. The local Rose Canyon fault zone trends north-northwest through San Diego Bay and downtown San Diego, crosses offshore at La Jolla Cove and continues northward off the I coast of North San Diego County. The closest known active faults to the site are the Rose Canyon fault zone located 3.7 miles (6.0 kilometers) to the west; the Coronado Bank fault zone located 20 miles (32 kilometers) to the southwest, and the Elsinore fault zone located approximately 21 miles(34 kilometers) to the northeast. 14.2 Seismic Desij'n Criteria - The site seismic characteristics were evaluated per the guidelines set forth in Chapter 16, I Section 1613 of the 2013 California Building Code (CBC). The maximum considered earthquake (MCE) spectral response accelerations (SMS and SMI) and adjusted design spectral response acceleration parameters (SDS and SDI) for Site Class D are provided in Table 1. I I Project No. 133023-07 Page 9 December 15, 2015 Table 1 Seismic Design Parameters Selected Parameters from 2013 CBC, Section 1613 - Seismic Earthquake Loads Design Values Site Class per Chapter 20 of ASCE 7 D Risk-Targeted Spectral Acceleration for Short Periods (Ss)* 1.083g Risk-Targeted Spectral Accelerations for 1-Second Periods (Si)* 0.417g Site Coefficient Fa per Table 1613.3.3(1) 1.067 Site Coefficient F per Table 1613.3.3(2) 1.583 Site Modified Spectral Acceleration for Short Periods (SMS) for Site Class 1.155g [Note: SMS = FaS] Site Modified Spectral Acceleration for 1-Second Periods (SM ') for Site Class D 0.66g [Note: SMI=FvS1] Design Spectral Acceleration for Short Periods (SDs) for Site Class D 0.77g g [Note: SDS = (2/3)SMsJ Design Spectral Acceleration for 1-Second Periods (SDI) for Site Class D 0.44g [Note: SDI = (2/3)SMI] Mapped Risk Coefficient at 0.2 sec Spectral Response Period, CRS 0.968 (per ASCE 7) Mapped Risk Coefficient at 1 sec Spectral Response Period, CR1 (per 1.02 ASCE 7) I From USGS, 2013 Section 1803.5.12 of the 2013 CBC (per Section 11.8.3 of ASCE 7) states that the maximum ' considered earthquake geometric mean (MCEG) Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) should be used for geotechnical evaluations. The PGAM for the site is equal to 0.453g (USGS, 2013). I A deaggregation of the PGA based on a 2,475-year average return period indicates that an earthquake magnitude of 6.79 at a distance of approximately 11.4 km (7.1 mile) from the site would contribute the most to this ground motion (USGS, 2008b). 1.4.3 Ground Rupture and Shaking I The principal seismic considerations for most structures in southern California are surface rupturing of fault traces and damage caused by ground shaking or seismically induced ground I settlement. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture at the site is considered low since active faults are not known to cross the site. Project No. 133023-07 Page 10 December 15, 2015 The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is ground-shaking resulting from an earthquake on one of the major regional faults. The effects of seismic shaking can be reduced by adhering to the most recent edition of the California Building Code and design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California. 1.4.4 Liquefaction I Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subject to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions exist: 1) shallow groundwater; 2) low density non-cohesive I (granular) soils; and 3) high-intensity ground motion. Liquefaction is typified by a buildup of pore-water pressure in the affected soil layer to a point where a total loss of shear strength occurs, causing the soil to behave as a liquid. Studies indicate that saturated, loose to I medium dense, near surface cohesionless soils exhibit the highest liquefaction potential, while dry, dense, cohesionless soils and cohesive soils exhibit low to negligible liquefaction potential. The regional groundwater elevation in the general vicinity of the site is estimated to be at an approximate elevation of 45 feet mean sea level, or at a depth of 70 to 90 feet below the existing site grades. After mass grading operations, the project site is underlain by newly placed compacted fills and moderately to well-cemented formational materials. Based on the density and the degree of cementation of the underlying formational materials, and underlying newly placed compacted fills, and lack of a permanent shallow ground water elevation; the potential for generalized liquefaction in the event of a strong to moderate earthquake on a nearby fault is considered low. 1.4.5 Seismic Settlement and Differential Settlement Seismic settlement occurs when loose to medium dense granular soils densify during ground shaking. Such seismically induced settlement can occur in both dry and partially saturated granular soils, as well as in saturated granular soils. Due to lithologic variations, such settlement can occur differentially across a site. Differential settlement may also be induced by ground failures, such as liquefaction, flow slides, and surface ruptures. The materials beneath the site consist of dense to very dense sandstone and claystone, mantled by medium dense to dense clayey sand and stiff to hard clay fill soils. Seismically induced settlement is not expected to occur within the formational materials and the overburden fill soils. 1.4.6 Tsunami, Seiche, and Floodinui (Earthquake Induced Dam Failure) Due to the distance of the site to the ocean, open body of waters and reservoirs, the impact of tsunamis, seiches, and earthquake-induced flooding to the site is considered low. I Project No. 133023-07 Page 11 December 15, 2015 2.0 CONCLUSIONS I The previous site mass-grading of Robertson Ranch Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8 located within the City of Carlsbad, California was performed in general accordance with the project geotechnical report (LGC, 2014a), geotechnical recommendations made during the course of grading, and the City of Carlsbad grading I requirements. It is our professional opinion that the proposed fine grading and site development is feasible from a geotechnical point of view provided the conclusions and recommendations provided herein are incorporated into the design and construction and followed during the site grading operations, and that proper I landscaping, irrigation, and maintenance programs are implemented. The following is a summary of our conclusions for Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8. I . The previous mass-grading of Robertson Ranch Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8 is essentially complete. Geotechnical conditions encountered during the previous mass-grading operation were generally as I anticipated, and unsuitable undocumented fill soils, topsoil, colluvium, alluvium, and weathered terrace deposits and formational material were removed to competent fônnational material within the limits of Planning Areas 7 and 8. I . The site is currently underlain by newly placed compacted fills over competent dense formational materials. No evidence of active faulting was encountered during the previous site mass-grading operations within I PA-7 and PA-8. Minor perched ground water seepage conditions were encountered during the remedial grading I operations within the main north-south trending canyon in the central portion of PA-8 but are not considered a constraint to development. Stability fills were constructed to improve the gross stability of the cut slopes exposing fractured and I blocky formational material and/or adverse geologic conditions on the site. The stability fill keys were excavated in accordance with the project geotechnical recommendations. I . Subdrains were placed in the canyon bottoms and along the heel of the stability fill keys. The subdrains were (or should be during fine grading operations) outletted into suitable storm drain facilities or near the toe-of-slope of the stability fill slopes. I . The cut/fill transition conditions present within the limits of the building pads along the cut/fill transition in PA-8, as shown on the rough grading plans (O'Day, 2014b), were overexcavated a minimum of 5 feet in depth and to a distance of at least 10 feet outside the planned building limits. No cut/fill transitions I currently exist. During the previous mass-grading operations, remedial grading was performed so that the fill differential beneath the proposed building pads was less than a 3:1 (maximum fill thickness to the minimum fill I thickness). To mitigate post-construction settlement, deep fills (i.e. areas were the fill soils are generally deeper than I approximately 40 feet below the finish grade elevations of the sheet-graded pads) were placed at a minimum relative compaction of 93 percent relative compaction. Deep fill areas are present in the southeastern and southwestern portions of PA-7 and in the central portion of PA-8. I . Due to the dense nature of the on-site soils (newly placed compacted fills or formational material), it is our professional opinion that the liquefaction hazard at the site is considered to be very low. Project No. 133023-07 Page 12 December 15, 2015 I I The expansion potential of the finish grade soils of the sheet-graded pads was not tested. However, we anticipate that the on-site soils possess a low to medium expansion potential. Highly expansive soils should not be placed as fill or left as cut within the limits of the proposed buildings or other movement sensitive improvements unless special foundation design considerations are implemented. Once final grades are reached, representative finish grade soils should be tested to determine the actual expansion potential of the soils. Corrosion testing of representative finish grade soils was not performed; however, based on laboratory testing of representative soils on adjacent portions of the Robertson Ranch project, the near-surface soils within PA-7 and PA-8 are expected to have: 1) a negligible soluble sulfate content; 2) are severely corrosive to buried metals based on the minimum soil resistivity values; and 3) are corrosive to buried metals and reinforcing steel in concrete based on the chloride concentrations It is our professional opinion that the slopes of the development are considered to be grossly and surficially stable, as constructed, under normal irrigation/precipitation patterns, provided the recommendations in the project geotechnical reports are incorporated into the post-grading, construction and post-construction phases of site development. I Project No. 133023-07 Page 13 December 15, 2015 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 Earthwork We anticipate that future earthwork at the site will consist of site preparation, fine-grading, utility I trench excavation and backfill, retaining wall construction, and street/driveway and parking area pavement section preparation and compaction. We recommend that the earthwork on site be performed in accordance with the geotechnical recommendations presented herein, or based on I recommendations provided after the completion of the fine-grading operations, and the City of Carlsbad grading requirements. I 3.2 Site Preparation I During future grading, the areas to receive structural fill or engineered structures should be cleared of surface obstructions, potentially compressible material (such as desiccated fill soils or weathered formational material), and stripped of vegetation. Vegetation and debris should be removed and I .properly disposed of off-site. Holes resulting from removal of buried obstructions that extend below finish site grades should be replaced with suitable compacted fill material. Areas to receive fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 12 inches, brought to ' optimum moisture condition, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557). I If the length of time between the completion of grading and the construction of the development is longer than six months, we recommend that the building pads be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant and, if needed, the finish grade soils on the building pads should be scarified a minimum of 12 inches, moisture-conditioned to optimum moisture-content and recompacted to a minimum 90 I percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D15 57). 3.3 Cut/Fill Transition Conditions Based on the proposed locations of the planned buildings of Planning Area PA-7 and PA-8, as shown on the PA-7 and PA-8 Site Development Plan (O'Day, 2015), the building pads having cut/fill transition conditions were mitigated by the overexcavation of the cut portion of the pad and I replacement with fill. The cut/fill transition conditions present within the limits of the building pads along the cut/fill transition in PA-8, as shown on the rough grading plans (O'Day, 2014b) were overexcavated a minimum of 5 feet in depth and to a distance of at least 10 feet outside the planned I building limits. No cut/fill transitions currently exist within the proposed building pad locations. If the building locations change, we recommend that the geotechnical conditions be evaluated, and if needed, the cut portion of the building pad be overexcavated a minimum of 5 feet below the I proposed finish grade and/or 3 feet below the bottom of the proposed foundation. The overexcavation limits should also extend laterally at least 10 feet beyond the building perimeter or footprint. Additional or revised recommendations may be warranted based on the configuration and 1 size of the proposed buildings. I Project No. 133023-07 Page 14 December 15, 2015 3.4 Excavations I Excavations of the on-site materials may generally be accomplished with conventional heavy-duty earthwork equipment. It is not anticipated that blasting will be required or that significant quantities of oversized rock (i.e. rock with maximum dimensions greater than 8 inches) will be generated during I future grading and utility excavations. Temporary excavations maybe cut vertically up to five feet. Excavations over five feet should be slot- cut, shored, or cut to a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope gradient. Surface water should be diverted away from the exposed cut, and not be allowed to pond on top of the excavations. Temporary cuts should not be left open for an extended period of time. Planned temporary conditions should be reviewed by the I geotechnical consultant in order to reduce the potential for sidewall failure. The geotechnical consultant may provide recommendations for controlling the length of sidewall exposed. 3.5 Fill Placement and Compaction I The on-site 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. We do not recommend that highly expansive soils be utilized as fill for the building pads or as retaining wall 1 backfill. All fill soils should be brought to 2-percent over the optimum moisture content and compacted in I uniform lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on the laboratory maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557). The optimum lift thickness required to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipmônt used. In general, fill should be placed in I lifts not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness. Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in general accordance with current City of Carlsbad grading ordinances, sound construction practices, and the project geotechnical recommendations. I If import soils are to be used as fill, they should be: 1) essentially free from organic matter and other deleterious substances; 2) contain no materials over 6 inches in maximum dimension; 3) have a very I low to low expansion potential (i.e. an Expansion Index ranging from 0 to 50); and 4) have a negligible sulfate content. Representative samples of the desired import source should be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing grading begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed. I 3.6 Foundations 3.6.1 General Foundation Design I Preliminary recommendations for foundation design and foundation construction are presented herein. When the structural loads for the proposed structures are known they should be provided to our office to verify the recommendations presented herein. Project No. 133023-07 Page 15 December 15, 2015 The following three foundation recommendations are provided. The foundations recommended for the proposed structures are: (1) Conventional foundation for very low expansion potential I and shallow fills; (2) Post-Tension foundations; or (3) Mat Slabs. Based on the site geotechnical conditions after mass/rough grading, the site is considered I suitable for the support of the anticipated structures using a conventional, post-tensioned, or mat slab-on-grade foundation system for very low to medium expansion potential (0-90 I Expansion Index). The information and recommendations presented in this section are not meant to supersede design by the project structural engineer or civil engineer specializing in the structural design I nor impede those recommendations by a corrosion consultant. Should conflict arise, modifications to the foundation design provided herein can be provided. 3.6.2 Bearing Capacity I Shallow foundations may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 lb/ft2 (gross), for continuous footings a minimum of 12 inches wide and 18 inches deep, and spread footings 24 inches wide and 18 inches deep, into certified compacted fill or bedrock. l A factor of safety greater than 3 was used in evaluating the above bearing capacity value. This value maybe increased by 250 psf for each additional foot in depth and 100 psf for each additional foot of width to a maximum value of 3,000 psf. Lateral forces, on footings may be resisted by passive earth resistance and friction at the bottom of the footing. Foundations may be designed for a coefficient of friction of 0.35, and l a passive earth pressure of 250 lb/ft2/ft. The passive earth pressure incorporates a factor of safety of greater than 1.5. All footing excavations should be cut square and level as much as possible, and should be free of sloughed materials including sand, rocks and gravel, and trash debris. Subgrade soils should be pre-moistened for the assumed very low to medium expansion potential (to be confirmed at the end of grading). These allowable bearing pressures are applicable for level (ground slope equal to or flatter than 5H: IV) conditions only. Bearing values indicated above are for total dead loads and frequently applied live loads. The above vertical bearing may be increased by one-third for short durations of loading which will include the effect of wind or seismic forces. - 3.6.3 Conventional Foundation Desiz I Conventional foundations may be used to support proposed structures underlain by very low expansive soils (i.e. Expansion Index less than 20 and Plasticity Index less than 15) and with less than 30 feet of fills. I Project No. 133023-07 Page 16 December 15, 2015 I Continuous footings should have minimum widths of 12 inches, 15 inches or 18 inches for one-story, two-story or three-story structures, respectively. Individual column footings I should have a minimum width of 24 inches. Footings for proposed structure should have minimum depths (below lowest adjacent finish I grade) of 18 inches and 12 inches for exterior and interior footings, respectively for a very low expansion potential (0-20 Expansion Index). The subgrade should be moisture- conditioned and proof-rolled just prior to construction to provide a firm, relatively unyielding I surface, especially if the surface has been loosened by the passage of construction traffic. The underslab vapor/moisture retarder (i.e. an equivalent capillary break method) may I consist of a minimum 15-mil thick vapor barrier in conformance with ASTM E 1745 Class A material, placed in general conformance with ASTM E1643, underlain by a minimum 1-inch of sand. The sand layer requirements above the vapor barrier are the purview of the ' foundation engineer/structural engineer, and should be provided in accordance with ACI Publication 302 "Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction". These recommendations must be confirmed (and/or altered) by the foundation engineer, based upon the performance I expectations of the foundation. Ultimately, the design of the moisture retarder system and recommendations for concrete placement and concrete mix design, which will address bleeding, shrinkage, and curling are the purview of the foundation engineer, in consideration ' of the project requirements provided by the architect and developer. The underslab vapor/moisture retarder described above is considered a suitable alternative in accordance with the Capillary Break Section 4.505.2.1 of the CALGreen code. I Subgrade soils should be pre-saturated to optimum moisture content to a depth of 12 inches for a very low expansion potential. Expansion index testing should be performed at the end ' of grading for confirmation. The minimum thickness of the floor slabs should be at least 4.5 inches, and joints should be provided per usual practice. 3.6.4 Post-Tension Foundation Desi2n I Based on the site geotechnical conditions and provided the previous remedial recommendations have been implemented during site grading, the site may be considered suitable for the support of the anticipated structures using a post-tensioned slab-on-grade foundation system, for the anticipated very low to medium expansive soils. The following I section summaries our recommendations for the foundation system. Table 2 contains the geotechnical recommendations for the construction of PT slab on grade foundations. The structural engineer should design the foundation system based on these parameters including the foundation settlement as indicated in the following section to the allowable deflection criteria determined by the structural engineer/architect. Project No. 133023-07 Page 17 December 15, 2015 Table 2 Preliminary Geotechnical Parameters for Post-Tensioned Foundation Design Parameter Value Expansion Classification (Assumed to be Very Low to Low and for Medium confirmed at the completion of grading): Expansion Thornthwaite Moisture Index (From Figure -20 3.3): Constant Soil Suction (From Figure 3.4): PF 3.6 Center Lift Very Low to Low Medium Edge moisture variation distance (from Figure 3.6), em: 9.0 feet 9.0 feet Center lift, ym: 0.3 inches 0.5 inches Edge Lift Very Low to Low Medium Edge moisture variation distance (from Figure 3.6), em: 5.2 feet 5.0 feet Edge lift, ym: 0.7 inches 1.1 inches Soluble Sulfate Content for Design of Concrete Mix in Contact with Site Soils in Accordance Negligible Exposure with American Concrete Institute (Based on preliminary testing - needs to be standard 318, Section 4.3: confirmed at the completion of grading) Corrosivity of Earth Materials to Ferrous Metals: Moderately to Severely Corrosive Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k (assuming presaturation as indicated below): 100 pci (very low to low) 85 pci_(medium) Additional Recommendations: Presaturate slab subgrade to at least optimum-moisture content, or to 1.2 times optimum moisture to minimum depths of 12 and 18 inches below ground surface, respectively for very low to low, and medium expansion potentials. Install a 15-mil moisture/vapor barrier in direct contact with the concrete (unless superseded by the Structural/Post-tension engineer*) with minimum 1 inches of sand below the moisture/vapor barrier. Minimum perimeter foundation embedment below finish grade for moisture cut off should be 12 and 18 inches, respectively for very low to low and medium expansion potentials. Minimum slab thickness should be 5 inches. I Project No. 133023-07 Page 18 December 15, 2015 The above sand and moisture/vapor barrier recommendations are traditionally included with geotechnical foundation recommendations although they are generally not a major factor influencing the geotechnical performance of the foundation. The sand and moisture/vapor barrier requirements are the purview of the foundation engineer/corrosion engineer (in accordance with ACT Publication 302 "Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction") and the homebuilder to ensure that the concrete cures more evenly than it would otherwise, is protected from corrosive environments, and moisture penetration of through the floor is acceptable to future homeowners. Therefore, the recommendations provided herein may be superseded by the requirements of the previously mentioned parties. The underslab vapor/moisture retarder (i.e. an equivalent capillary break method) may consist of a minimum 15-mil thick moisture/vapor barrier in conformance with ASTM E 1745 Class A material, placed in general conformance with ASTM E1643, underlain by a minimum 1-inch of sand, as needed. The sand layer requirements above the vapor barrier are the purview of the foundation engineer/structural engineer, and should be provided in accordance with AC! Publication 302 "Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction". These recommendations must be confirmed (and/or altered) by the foundation engineer, based upon the performance expectations of the foundation. Ultimately, the design of the moisture retarder system and recommendations for concrete placement and concrete mix design, which will address bleeding, shrinkage, and curling are the purview of the foundation engineer, in consideration of the project requirements provided by the architect and developer. The underslab vapor/moisture retarder described above is considered a suitable alternative in accordance with the Capillary Break Section 4.505.2.1 of the CALGreen code. 3.6.5 Mat Foundation Design A mat foundation can be used for support of proposed residential buildings. An allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,000 psf may be used for the design of the mat at the surface under the slab area. The allowable bearing value is for total dead loads and frequently applied live loads and may be increased by one-third for short durations of loading which will include the effect of wind or seismic forces. A coefficient of vertical subgrade reaction, k, of 85 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used to evaluate the pressure distribution beneath the mat foundation. The magnitude of total and differential settlements of the mat foundation will be a function of the structural design and stiffness of the mat. Minimum perimeter foundation embedment below finish grade for moisture cut off should be 12 inches, with a minimum perimeter footing width of 12-inches. Resistance to lateral loads can be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by passive earth pressure. Foundations may be designed for a coefficient of friction of 0.35. Minimum perimeter footing embedment provided in the previous sections maybe reduced for the mat slab design. The underslab vapor/moisture retarder should be installed as recommended above in the post-tension foundation section. Coordination with the structural engineer will be required in order to ensure structural loads are adequately distributed throughout the mat foundation to avoid localized stress concentrations resulting in potential settlement. The foundation plan should be reviewed by LGC to confirm preliminary estimated total and differential static settlements. Project No. 133023-07 Page 19 December 15, 2015 3.6.6 Foundation Settlement I Based on the site design relative to native grades and the site remedial removals currently being performed during site rough grading to remove all unsuitable potentially compressible soils underlying the site, fill at the site will range from approximately 5 to a maximum depth I of 75 feet (southeast corner of PA-7) in thickness with the majority of the fill thicknesses less than 40 feet in depth. The deepest fills located in the southeast corner of PA-7 along the north-south trending canyon. It is anticipated that most of the consolidation will be complete I by the time final design grades are achieved due to the sandy nature of site soils. Settlement monuments have been installed in deeper fill areas (fills greater than 40 feet in thickness) at the completion of the rough/mass grading activities, to monitor the primary and secondary consolidation of deep fills. Deeper fill lots will be released when the primary and secondary consolidation is within acceptable limits. Based on the as-graded condition and our preliminary review of site grading plans, remedial grading was performed during rough/mass grading activities so that the fill differential beneath the proposed building pads were less than a 3:1 (maximum fill thickness to the minimum fill thickness); therefore, no major fill differentials are anticipated across the current building pad areas. Based on our evaluation, the static post-construction settlements for the lots with less than 40 feet of fill, and deeper fill lots after they are released for construction is estimated to be up to a maximum differential settlement of approximately Y4-inch in 30 feet. 3.6.7 Foundation Setback -Top of Slope Condition Building foundations located close to the top of descending slopes should have a minimum setback per Figure 1808.7.1 of the 2013 CBC. Figure 1808.7.1 of the 2013 CBC shows that the setback distance from the bottom edge of the building foundation to the slope surface is equal to the height of slope divided by 3 up to a maximum setback of 40 feet. The setback distances should be measured from competent materials on the outer slope face, excluding any weathered and loose materials. 3.6.8 Foundation Setback -Toe of Slope Condition Section 1808.7.1 of the 2013 California Building Code (CBC) provides recommendations/discussion with regards to the building clearance from ascending slopes. The intent of this section of the code is that the proposed building structure below slopes shall be set a sufficient distance from the slope to provide protection from slope drainage, erosion, and shallow failures. The code clearance for building foundations below slopes is equal to the smaller of the height of slope divided by 2 or 15 feet. CBC Section 1808.7.5 permits an alternate clearance subject to the approval of the building official provided a geotechnical evaluation is performed to demonstrate that the intent of Section 1808.7 would be satisfied. LGC can review the site plans once available to evaluate the proposed building clearances. Project No. 133023-07 Page 20 December 15, 2015 3.6.9 Seismic Desiz Criteria The seismic design criteria that should be used in the design of the proposed buildings are presented in Section 1.4.2. 3.7 Lateral Earth Pressures for Retaining Walls The following lateral earth pressures presented in Table 3 may be used for the design of any future site retaining walls. We recommend low expansive soils for retaining wall backfill if no onsite soils fit the required minimum parameters (SE greater than 30). The recommended lateral pressures for approved soils (expansion index less than 30 per U.B.C. 18-I-13, less than 15 percent passing #200 sieve, and P1 less than 15) for level or sloping backfill are presented on the table below. The recommended lateral pressures for clean sand or approved select soils for level or sloping backfill are presented on the following table. Table 3 Lateral Earth Pressures for Retaining Walls Conditions Equivalent Fluid Weight (pci) Level Backfill 2:1 Backfill Sloping Upwards Seismic Earth Pressure (pci) * Approved Select Material Approved Select Material Level 2H:1V Active 35 55 10 20 At-Rest 50 75 - - Passive 250 - - - * For walls with greater than 6-feet in backfill height, the above seismic earth pressure should be added to the static pressures given in the table above. The seismic earth pressure should be considered as an inverted triangular distribution with the resultant acting at 0.6H in relation to the base of the retaining wall footing (where H is the retained height). The aforementioned incremental seismic load was determined in general accordance with the standard of practice in the industry (using the Mononobe-Okabe method for active and Woods method for at-rest) for determining earth pressures as a result of seismic events. Embedded structural walls should be designed for lateral earth pressures exerted on them. The magnitude of these pressures depends on the amount of deformation that the wall can yield under load. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the soil, it can be designed for "active" pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the shear strength of the soil cannot be mobilized and the earth pressure will be higher. Such walls should be designed for "at-rest" conditions. If a structure moves toward the soils, the resulting resistance developed by the soil is the "passive" resistance. I Project No. 133023-07 Page 21 December 15, 2015 For design purposes, the recommended equivalent fluid pressure for each case for walls founded above the static groundwater and backfilled with low expansive onsite or import soils is provided in the table I above. The equivalent fluid pressure values assume free-draining conditions. The backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. The walls should be constructed and backfilled as soon as possible after back-cut excavation. Prolonged exposure of back-cut slopes may result in I some localized slope instability. If conditions other than those assumed above are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressure values should be provided on an individual-case basis by the geotechnical engineer. Surcharge loading effects from any adjacent structures should be evaluated by the geotechnical and structural engineers. Surcharge loading on retaining walls should be considered when any loads are I located within a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) projection from the base of the retaining wall and should be added to the applicable lateral earth pressures. Where applicable, a minimum uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf should be added to the appropriate lateral earth pressures to account for typical vehicle I traffic loading. All retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage and appropriately I waterproofed. The outlet pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. Typical wall drainage design is illustrated on the attached Figure 2. It should be noted that the recommended subdrain does not provide protection against seepage through the face of the wall and/or efflorescence. Efflorescence I is generally a white crystalline powder (discoloration) that results when water, which contains soluble salts, migrates over a period of time through the face of a retaining wall and evaporates. If such seepage or efflorescence is undesirable, retaining walls should be waterproofed to reduce this potential. I For sliding resistance, the friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used at the concrete and soil interface. Wall footings should be designed in accordance with structural considerations. The passive resistance I value may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic loads. For short term loading (i.e. seismic) the allowable bearing capacity may be increased by one- third for seismic loading. I Foundations for retaining walls in properly compacted fill should be embedded at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade. At this depth and a minimum of 12 inches in width, an allowable bearing I capacity of 2,000 psf may be assumed. A factor of safety greater than 3 was used in evaluating the above bearing capacity value. This value maybe increased by 250 psf for each additional foot in depth and 100 psf for each additional foot of width to a maximum value of 3,000 psf. All excavations I should be made in accordance with Cal OSHA. Excavation safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor. 3.8 Slope Creep Due to the potentially expansive nature of the fill soils within the site, the probability exists for I development of a creep condition on the slopes within the site with the passage of time. Creep is a very slow nearly continuous downward and outward movement of slope soils. The movement is minimal under small shear stresses, however sufficient to produce permanent deformation but not I large enough to produce a shear failure as occurs in a landslide. I Project No. 133023-07 Page 22 December 15, 2015 For the site slopes, the principal cause for development of a creep condition is a result of repeated cycles of swelling and contraction of expansive soils over a period of time due to seasonal variations I in the moisture content and is an irreversible process resulting in a loss of shear strength and subsequent buildup of small shear stresses. Experience has shown that creep can affect surficial soils to vertical depths of several feet depending on the expansiveness of the soils and the slope height and I inclination, as well as a number of other factors. Other factors which can contribute to development of a slope creep condition include overwatering and subsequent saturation of the slope soils, prolonged or intense rainfall, prolonged periods of drought, rodent activity, inadequate plant I materials used for slope protection, inadequate drainage facilities, and/or lack of a proper slope maintenance program. Creep cannot be stopped or eliminated; however, proper foundation embedment and design can be provided such that the magnitude, depth and rate of creep movement I. can be mitigated for structures proposed on or near descending slopes. For slope heights greater than 10 feet, the slope creep will impact improvements within approximately 10 to 15 feet from the top of slope. Some settlement and tilting may occur in improvements located in this outer 10 to 15 feet of I the pad. 3.9 Freestandin' (Top-of-Slope) Walls Freestanding wall footings should be founded a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. To reduce the potential for unsightly cracks, we recommend inclusion of construction joints at 10- to 20-foot intervals. I Due to the potential creep of soils, where free standing walls are constructed close to top-of-slope, some tilt of the wall should be anticipated. To reduce the amount of tilt, a combination of grade beam and caisson foundations may be used to support the wall. The system should consist of I minimum 12-inch diameter caissons placed at 8 feet maximum on centers, and each 8 feet long and connected together at top with 12-inch by 12-inch grade beam. The geotechnical design parameters for the caisson are shown on the attached Figure 3. 3.10 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations I The following preliminary pavement sections are based on three preliminary R-Value tests of representative driveway and parking area subgrade soils at the site; our review of the City of Carlsbad I minimum standards for street pavement sections (Carlsbad, 2012); and our professional experience with respect to the anticipated R-value range of the soils that may be present at the driveway and parking area subgrade elevations after the completion of the fine-grading operations and underground I utility installation. It should be noted that the actual pavement sections for the PA-7 and PA-8 driveways and parking I areas will need to be based on R-value testing of the subgrade soils after fine grading and the installation of underground utilities, under the direction of the City of Carlsbad Inspector, and in accordance with the City of Carlsbad criteria. Based on the current testing, we anticipate that the R- I Value test results of the driveway and parking area subgrade soils will likely range from 12 (PA-7) to 20 (PA-8); however, depending on the actual near subgrade soils at the completion of grading and utility installation an R-value lower than 12 may be possible. Project No. 133023-07 Page 23 December 15, 2015 The actual R-value of the driveway and parking area subgrade soils will depend upon the type of soil placed in the upper 3 feet of the driveway and parking area subgrade elevation. It should also be noted that a lime-treated subgrade/aggregate base material/asphalt concrete section design is required by the City of Carlsbad for streets having an R-value of 12 or less. Representative street subgrade soils were collected, at three locations across the site, and R-value testing was performed on the samples. The resistance or "R"-value was determined by the California Materials Method No. 301 for subgrade soils. The test results are summarized in Table 4. Table 4 R-Value Laboratory Test Results Sample Number Sample Location Sample Description R-Value R-1 PA-7 Light Brown Clayey to Silty fine SAND 12 R-2 PA-8 Southwest Side Light gray brown silty SAND 20 R-3 PA-8 Northeast Side Light yellow brown silty fine SAND 20 3.10.1 Asphalt Concrete Pavement DesiQn Based on the Traffic Indices of 5, 5.5, and 6 (provided by the civil engineer) and the R-Value test results presented above, the preliminary asphalt concrete over aggregate base pavement sections were calculated using the computer program, NEWCON90 and in accordance with Chapter 600 of the California Highway Design Manual. The designs were then compared with the City of Carlsbad's minimum section thickness requirements and revised as necessary. The pavement sections are presented on Table 5. Project No. 133023-07 Page 24 December 15, 2015 Table 5 Preliminary Minimum Asphalt Concrete Pavement Design Sections Based on Preliminary R-Values Pavement Sections* Minimum Traffic Index Section* PA-7 PA-8 R-Value R=12** R-Value R=20** 4.0 inches AC 4.0 inches AC 4.0 inches AC over 5.0 4.0 inches AB over over 6.5 inches AB 5.0 inches AB 4.0 inches AC - 4.0 inches AC 4.0 inches AC over 5.5 6.0 inches AB over over 8.5 inches AB 6.5 inches AB 4.0 inches AC 4.0 inches AC 4.0 inches AC over 6.0 6.0 inches AB over over 10.0 inches AB 8.5 inches AB * AC = Asphalt Concrete; AB = Aggregate Base ** Anticipated street subgrade R-Values based on the preliminary R-Value testing and our professional experience on the project Prior to placement of the street aggregate base material, the upper 12 inches of subgrade soils in the driveways and parking areas (including beneath the curb and gutter) should be scarified, moisture-conditioned (or dried back) as necessary to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum 95 percent relative compaction based on American Standard of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Method D1557. Caltrans Class 2 Aggregate Base (Class 2 AB) or Greenbook Crushed Miscellaneous Base (CMB) should then be placed and compacted at a minimum 95 percent relative compaction in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557. The aggregate base material should be a maximum of 6 inches thick (or equal to the thickness of aggregate base for the design pavement section if less than 6 inches) below the curb and gutter and extend a minimum of 6 inches behind the back of the curb (per the city requirements). The aggregate base should conform to and be placed in accordance with the latest revision of the California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications (Section 26), the "Greenbook" Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction specifications, and/or the City of Carlsbad requirements. Asphalt Concrete should conform to and be placed in accordance with the "Greenbook" Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction and the City of Carlsbad requirements. If pavement is planned adjacent to landscaped areas, we recommend that appropriate measures be taken (such as keeping the amount of landscape irrigation to a minimum, installing area drains or other devices, etc.) to reduce the possible adverse effects of water on the pavement subgrade. Project No. 133023-07 Page 25 December 15, 2015 3.10.2 Portland Cement Concrete (FCC) Pavement Section Design I Based on an assumed R-Value of 12 and a TI of 6, we recommend a minimum of 6-inches of PCC over 6-inches of compacted aggregate base. The modulus of rupture of the concrete should be a minimum of 500 pounds per square inch (psi) at 28 days. Contraction joints should I be placed at maximum 15-foot spacings. Where the outer edge of the concrete pavement connects to an asphalt pavement, the concrete slab should be thickened by 50 percent at a taper not to exceed a slope of 1 in 10. In addition, additional PCC sections can be provided based on I other desired anticipated traffic loadings. The aggregate base should conform to the requirements of the latest edition of the California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications and/or the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction I ("Greenbook"). Aggregate base should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction over subgrade compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction per ASTM- D1557. 3.10.3 Concrete Paver Section Design Based on review of the latest plans, proposed payers are designed for vehicular traffic. Based on ASCE 58-10 for interlocking payers, considering a Traffic Index (TI) of 6.0 and an R- value of 12 for the subgrade soils, we recommend the following minimum base section underlying the proposed payers. The proposed payers and 1-inch of sand should be underlain by a minimum 18-inches of crushed aggregate base. The aggregate base material should conform to the specifications for Crushed Aggregate Base (Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction) and be place and compacted in maximum 6-inch thick lifts. The base material should be compacted to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent. The subgrade should achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent through the upper 12 inches. Base and subgrade materials should be moisture-conditioned to a relatively uniform moisture content near optimum moisture. 3.11 Corrosivitv to Concrete and Metal The National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) defines corrosion as "a deterioration of a substance or its properties because of a reaction with its environment." From a geotechnical viewpoint, the "environment" is the prevailing foundation soils and the "substances" are the reinforced concrete foundations or various buried metallic elements such as rebar, piles, pipes, etc., which are in direct contact with or within close vicinity of the foundation soil. In general, soil environments that are detrimental to concrete have high concentrations of soluble sulfates and/or pH values of less than 5.5. AC! Criteria (ACT 318R-08 Table 4.3.1), provides specific guidelines for the concrete mix design when the soluble sulfate content of the soils exceeds 0.1 percent by weight or 1,000 ppm. The minimum amount of chloride ions in the soil environment that are corrosive to steel, either in the form of reinforcement protected by concrete cover, or plain steel substructures such as steel pipes or piles, is 500 ppm per California Test 532. Based on limited soil testing prior to the grading of the site, the onsite soils are classified as having a negligible sulfate exposure condition in accordance with.ACI 318R-08 Table 4.3.1. Concrete in contact with onsite soils should be designed in accordance with ACT 318R-08 Table 4.3.1 for the negligible category. It is also our opinion that onsite soils should be considered moderately to severely corrosive to buried metals. Project No. 133023-07 Page 26 December 15, 2015 3.12 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork Concrete flatwork (such as walkways, bicycle trails, etc.) have a high potential for cracking due to changes in soil volume related to soil-moisture fluctuations because these slabs are typically much thinner than foundation slabs and are not reinforced with the same dynamic as foundation elements. To reduce the potential for excessive cracking and lifting, concrete should be designed in accordance with the minimum guidelines outlined in Table 6. These guidelines will reduce the potential for irregular cracking and promote cracking along construction joints, but will not eliminate all cracking or lifting. Thickening the concrete and/or adding additional reinforcement will further reduce cosmetic distress. Table 6 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork Private Private Patio/Entryways Sidewalk, Curb, Sidewalks Driveways and Gutter Minimum City/Agency Thickness 4 5 5 Standard (in inches) Wet down Presoak to 12 City/Agency Presaturation subgrade soils inches Presoak to 12 Standard prior to inches placement No. 3 at 24 inches No. 3 at 24 inches City/Agency Reinforcement -- on centers on centers Standard Thickened -- 8" x 8" -- City/Agency Edge Standard Saw cut or deep Saw cut or deep Saw cut or deep City/Agency Crack Control tool joint to a tool joint to a tool joint to a Standard minimum of 1/3 minimum of 1/3 minimum of 1/3 the concrete the concrete the concrete thickness thickness thickness Maximum Joint 10 feet or quarter City/Agency Spacing 5 feet cut whichever is 6 feet Standard closer Aggregate Base -- 2 2 City/Agency Standard Project No. 133023-07 Page 27 December 15, 2015 3.13 Pool Design Recommendations The proposed pool and associated improvements should be constructed in accordance with the attached Figure 4, Geotechnical Guidelines for Swimming Pool Construction. Pool excavation will occur in newly placed compacted fills and is anticipated to be relatively uniform. Consideration should be given to the high expansive potential of onsite soils in design of the pool, and associated decking. Also concrete in contact with onsite soils should be designed in accordance with the negligible category of ACI 318R-08 Table 4.3.1. Due to inherent differences in supporting capacity and expansive potential of different layers of the formational material/fill, it is undesirable to have structures partially supported on soils having different geotechnical characteristics or materials having different engineering characteristics. If a cut/fill transition or highly expansive soil condition exists, the cut portion of the transition or highly expansive soil should be excavated (usually impractical for pool/spa construction), or the pool/spa can be designed with additional reinforcement and/or a thicker shell in order to cope with potential differences in supporting capacity and expansive potential. Excavation and subsequent fill placement for pool including the placement of drains, outlets, water- proofing, etc. should be performed under the observation and testing of a geotechnical consultant. Observation and testing should be performed by the geotechnical consultant during pool excavation to verify that the exposed soil conditions are consistent with the design assumptions. Concrete flatwork adjacent to the pool should be a minimum of 5 inches thick reinforced with No. 3 rebar at 18-inches on center each way with a 12-inch deep perimeter cut-off footing. Construction joints or weakened plane joints should be provided in all flatwork to a minimum depth of 1.5 inches at frequent internals (5 feet or less). The concrete slab should be underlain by a minimum of 4 inches of clean sand or base underlain inturn by a minimum 10-mil Visqueen barrier. Presoaking of the subgrade prior to placing the Visqueen barrier should be performed to a minimum depth of 12 inches. The subgrade below the Visqueen barrier should be inclined so that any moisture that seeps through cracks in the concrete due to irrigation, rain, or pool splash will be directed away from the pool. The contractor must ensure that the Visqueen is properly lapped, sealed and not punctured during construction. 3.14 Slope Maintenance To reduce the potential for erosion and slumping of graded slopes, all slopes should be planted with ground cover and deep-rooted vegetation as soon as practical upon completion of grading. Surface water runoff and standing water at the top-of-slopes should be avoided. Oversteepening of slopes should be avoided during construction activities and landscaping. Maintenance of proper lot drainage, undertaking of property improvements in accordance with sound engineering practice, and proper maintenance of vegetation, including regular pad and slope irrigation, should be performed. Trenches excavated on a slope face for utility of irrigation lines and/or for any purpose should be properly backfihled and compacted by a vibratory plate, or equivalent, in order to obtain a minimum 90 percent relative compaction, in accordance with ASTM Test Method Dl 557, to the slope face. Observation/testing and acceptance by the geotechnical consultant during trench backfill is recommended. A rodent control program should be established and maintained. Project No. 133023-07 Page 28 December 15, 2015 3.15 Subdrain Outlet Maintenance U The approximate location of the subdrains and subdrain outlets constructed during the mass-grading operations are identified on the attached Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). All subdrain outlets should be ' periodically cleared of soil cover or other potential blockage that may have occurred since initial subdrain construction. If retaining walls are proposed along the toe-of-slope in the location of the stability fills/subdrain outlet locations, the existing subdrains should be tied into the retaining wall I back-drain system and/or placed into an appropriate storm drain facility. 3.16 Control of Surface Water and Dra iiici Surface drainage should be carefully taken into consideration during fine-grading, landscaping, and I building construction. Positive drainage of surface water away from structures is very important. No water should be allowed to pond adjacent to buildings or the top of slopes. Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing drainage away from buildings at a gradient of at least 2 percent for a I distance of at least 5 feet, and further maintained by a swale of drainage path at a gradient of at least 1 percent. Where limited by 5-foot side yards, drainage should be directed away from foundations for a minimum of 3 feet and into a collective swale or pipe system. Where necessary, drainage paths may be I shortened by use of area drains and collector pipes. Eave gutters also help reduce water infiltration into the subgrade soils if the downspouts are properly connected to appropriate outlets. I The impact of heavy irrigation or inadequate runoff gradient can create perched water conditions, resulting in seepage or shallow groundwater conditions where previously none existed. Maintaining adequate surface drainage and controlled irrigation will significantly reduce the potential for nuisance- type moisture problems. To reduce differential earth movements (such as heaving and shrinkage due to the change in moisture content of foundation soils, which may cause distress to a structure or improvement), the moisture content of the soils surrounding the structure should be kept as relatively I constant as possible. All area drain inlets should be maintained and kept clear of debris in order to function properly. I Rerouting of site drainage patterns and/or installation of area drains should be performed, if necessary. A qualified civil engineer or a landscape architect should be consulted prior to rerouting of drainage. 3.17 Construction Observation and Testin The recommendations provided in this report are based on subsurface observations and geotechnical analysis by others. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction by a representative of LGC. I Construction observation and testing should also be performed by the geotechnical consultant during future grading, excavations, backfill of utility trenches, preparation of pavement subgrade and I placement of aggregate base, foundation or retaining wall construction or when an unusual soil condition is encountered at the site. Grading plans, foundation plans, and final project drawings should be reviewed by this office prior to construction. Project No. 133023-07 Page 29 December 15, 2015 4.0 LIMITATIONS Our services were performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar I circumstances, by reputable engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. The samples taken and submitted for laboratory testing, the observations made and the in-situ field testing performed are I believed representative of the entire project; however, soil and geologic conditions revealed by excavation may be different than our preliminary findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by the project soils engineer and geologist and design(s) adjusted as required or alternate design(s) recommended. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his/her representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the I attention of the architect and/or project engineer and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and/or subcontractor properly implements the recommendations in the field. The contractor and/or subcontractor should notify the owner if they consider any of the recommendations I presented herein to be unsafe. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property I can and do occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. I In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. I I Project No. 133023-07 Page 30 December 15, 2015 FENCE EXTENT OF FREE DRAINING SAND BACKFILL, MINIMUM - HEEL WIDTH OR H/2 WHICH EVER IS GREATER - NATIVE BACKFILL COMPACTED TO MINIMUM 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION PER ASTM1557-D 'I 1' MINIMUM q=fflffl=ffl=ffl=ffl=ffl=ffl=frF f H WATER PROOFING PER CIVIL ENGINEER /1 /1 FREE DRAINING SAND BACKFILL SE 30 OR GREATER \ /1 /1 .........../I - /I BACKCUT PER OSHA /1 /1 BURRITO TYPE SUBDRAIN CONSISTING OFI_.\ ..:.'. ,;•/I- ./I MINIMUM I CUBIC FOOT PER EAR FOOT LINEAR \ \ 3/4 INCH CRUSHED ROCK WRAPPED IN . MIRAFI I40N OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT 4 / / ..:..•• /1 /1 4 INCH DIAMETER, SCHEDULE 40 PERFORATED \' ' .., . /. /1 PVC PIPE TO FLOW TO DRAINAGE DEVICE . ._•. _.'-. __.._<'I: H 4 4 . - FOOTING/WALL DESIGN PER CIVIL ENGINEER . _._ .4 . _._... '44 4 Figure 2: Retaining Wall Detail, Sand Backfill Project Name Shapell/Ro Project No. 133023-07 Eng. / Geol. BIHIRKW Scale N/A Date 12/15/15 I Ranch ALLOWABLE VERTICAL LOADS Allowable Bearing Pressures: 1,500 lbs/sq. ft at a Depth of 12 inches Below Creep Zone Allowable Increase: 250 lbs/sq. ft per foot of increased depth to a Maximum of 2,500 lbs/sq. ft (Neglecting the Top 5 Feet) Allowable Skin Friction: 600 lbs/sq. ft per foot of Depth (Neglecting the Top 5 Feet) 9 9— 6-8' Pier Wall or Other Improvements 10-15' Fl] DRILLED PIER Ignore Passive Pressure K in upper 120x5 Fa a=35 psf/ft l2Oxd / ALLOWABLE LATERAL LOADS Fa--(35x52 /2) x L = 438L, Where L=Caisson Spacing Pp= 120 psf/ft Fp=(600+120d)/ 2 x (d-5) x (3xD) Where D=Caisson Diameter and d=Depth Below Ground Figure 3: Geotechnical Parameters For Top of Slope Walls Project Name Shapell/Robertson Ranch Project No. 133023-07 Eng. / Geol. BIHIRKW Scale N/A Date 12/15/15 SCHEDULE Portion of pad most susceptible to slope creep. See Schedule A. Concrete deck, minimum of 5 inches thick with #3 bar 18 inch on center each way with construction joints 1.5 inches deep (minimum) with ma)dmum spacing of 5 feet. Fle)dble sealant between pool coping and concrete deckirig Clean sand backfill 10 mu 'isqueen moisture barrier slope creep zone tPedmeter <_PoslsheHtobeadded rim wrapped in approved filter fabric and load of adjacent structures Pool Shell II 'N Pressure relief valve For pools adjacent to descending slopes, the pool shell should be designed assuming total loss of soil support for the portion of the pool located within the assumed creep zone. For design purposes, the creep zone should be considered to extend a distance "A from the top of slope (see schedule "A° above). The creep zone should be considered as parallel to the slope face. Concrete flatwork adjacent to the pool should be a minimum of 5 inches thick reinforced with No. 3 rebar at 18-inches on center each way with a perimeter cut-off footing per the above schedule. Construction joints or weakened plane joints should be provided in all flatwork to a minimum depth of 1.5 inches at frequent internals (5 feet or less). The concrete slab should be underlain by a minimum of 4 inches of clean sand underlain intum by a 1 0-mu Visqueen barrier. Presoaking of the subgrade prior to placing the Visqueen barrier should be performed in accordance with the recommendations included in the project geotechnical report. The presoaking should saturate the subgrade to a minimum depth of 12 inches. The subgrade below the Visqueen barrier should be inclined so that any moisture that seeps through cracks in the concrete due to irrigation, rain, or pool splash will be directed away from the pool. A perforated pipe wrapped in approved filter fabric should be installed to transport the collected moisture away from the pool area. The drain pipe is not considered necessary for soils of low to medium expansion potential. The contractor must ensure that the Visqueen is properly lapped, sealed and not punctured during construction. All pool design should be performed by a qualified designer, using the equivalent fluid pressures shown in the schedule. A geotechnical consultant should be contacted to review the final design which is based on the recommendations of this detail. This is not a design document and has been provided for INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY unless stamped and signed by LGC and pertaining to a specific pool. To reduce the potential of lifting and cracking of the pool decking, landscape planters should not be located in islands within the decking unless they are lined with a waterproof membrane and provided with a subdrainage system to prevent moisture variations below the decking. The pool shell should be designed to account for any additional loading due to improvements (building, raised planters, etc.) Raised planters should not be located at the top of slopes unless specially designed by the geotechnical consultant. The recommendations above will not eliminate all movement of the pool and associated improvements, however they should reduce the degree of movement, and promote cracking along construction joints, not flatwork. Version 12/07/2001 F 4 Geotechnical Project Name Shapell/Robertson Ranch Guidelines for 133023-07 Swimming Pool Scale Not to Scale Construction Date 12/15/15 Depth of Latera l Expansion moisture cut-off Slope creep Equivalent Index footing zone distance Fluid Pressur X, e "A" distance "B" (pcf) low-very low 8 inches 7 feet 60 medium 12 inches 10 feet 85 high 18 inches 15 feet 105 very high 24 inches 20 feet 125 References Alliance Land Planning & Engineering, Inc., 2015a, Robertson Ranch PA-7 and PA-8 site development plan, dated July 13, 2015. Alliance Land Planning & Engineering, Inc., 2015b, Grading plans for Robertson Ranch, multi-family sites, PA7, 8 Parcels 1,2, PM 14-07, City of Carlsbad, California, Project No. MS 14-07, Drawing No. 480- 3E, dated December 4, 2015. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2013, Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, ASCE/SEI 7-10, Third Printing, 2013. California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), 2013a, California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 1 and 2 of 2 (based on the 2012 International Building Code). CBSC, 2013b, California Residential Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2.5,(based on the 2012 International Residential Code). CBSC, 2013c, California Green Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Geological Survey, 2007, Fault rupture hazard zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with index to earthquake fault zone maps: California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42, dated 1997 with interim revision dated 2007. Carlsbad, City of, 2012, Engineering Standards, Volume 1 - General Design Standards, Carlsbad, California, 2004 Edition, revised November 21, 2012. GeoSoils, Inc., 2002, Geotechnical evaluation of the Robertson Ranch Property, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 3098-Al-SC, dated January 29, 2002. GeoSoils, Inc., 2004, Updated geotechnical evaluation of the Robertson Ranch property, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 3098-A2-SC, dated September 20, 2004. GeoSoils, Inc., 2008, Report of mass grading, Planning Area 11, Robertson Ranch habitat corridor and widening of El Camino Real at Cannon Road, Robertson Ranch West, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California 92010, City of Carlsbad Planning Department Application No. SUP 06-12/HDP 06-04, W.O. 5247-B2-SC, dated July 16, 2008. GeoSoils, Inc., 2010, Updated geotechnical investigation for Robertson Ranch West Village, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 6145-A-SC, dated October 10, 2010. GeoSoils, Inc., 2012, Preliminary geotechnical review of "vesting master tentative map for Rancho Costera," 40-scale plans, sheets 1 through 21, Job No. 101307, Revised May 1, 2012, by O'Day Consultants, W.O. 6145-A9-SC, dated May 24, 2012. Project No. 133023-07 Page A-i December 15, 2015 References (continued) I GeoSoils, Inc., 2013, Addendum to the updated and supplemental geoteclmical investigations for Rancho Costera (formerly Robertson Ranch West Village), Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 6145-A1O-SC, dated July 16, 2013. I http://www.earth.google.com, http://www.historicaerials.com Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, S.S., 2005, Geologic map of the Oceanside 30' by 60' quadrangle, California: I California Geological Survey, Regional Geologic Map No. 2, scale 1:100,000 LGC Valley, Inc., 2014a, Geotechnical and environmental recommendations for Robertson Ranch West, I Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03, Carlsbad, California, Project Number 133023-03, dated April 29, 2014. LGC Valley, Inc., 2014b, Clarification of grading recommendations for Planning Areas PA-7, PA-8 and PA- I 11, Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03, Carlsbad, California, Project Number 133023-03, dated October, 1, 2014. I LGC Valley, Inc. 2014c, Addendum remedial grading recommendations concerning overexcavation of the apartment building pads, Robertson Ranch PA-8, Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 133023-03, dated October 20, 2014. I LGC Valley, Inc. 2014d,- Addendum remedial grading recommendations concerning overexcavation of the apartment building pad, Buildings 3, 5 through 7, 10, 11, and 14, Robertson Ranch PA-8, Carlsbad I Tract No. 13-03, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 133023-03, dated October 27, 2014. LGC Valley, Inc. 2014e, Settlement monument recommendations for Robertson Ranch PA-7 and PA-8, I Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 133023-03, dated November 13, 2014. LGC Valley, Inc. 2015a, Preliminary foundation design for the proposed multi-family residential development, Robertson Ranch Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8, 4980 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, I California, Project No. 133023-07, dated April 15, 2015. LGC Valley, Inc. 2015b, As-graded report of mass-grading, Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8, Robertson I Ranch, Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03, Carlsbad, California, California, Project No. 133023-03, dated August 7, 2015. LGC Valley, Inc. 2015c, Preliminary pavement design, Robertson Ranch Planning Areas PA-7 and PA-8, Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03, 4980 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 133023-07, dated I September 15, 2015. O'Day Consultants, 2014a, Vesting tentative map for Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03-2, 23 Sheets, dated January 16, 2014. I Project No. 133023-07 Page A-2 December 15, 2015 References (continued) O'Day Consultants, 2014b, Grading plans for Rancho Costera, Robertson Ranch West Village, Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03, Drawing No. 480-3A, 44 Sheets, dated August 25, 2014. O'Day Consultants, 2015, Site development plan for PA7 & PA8 and tentative parcel map for minor subdivision for PA8 for Robertson Ranch West Apartments, 14 Sheets, dated February 25, 2015. Post-Tensioning Institute, 2006, Design of post tensioned slabs-on-ground, Third Addition, Addendum 1 dated May 2007, and Addendum 2 dated May 2008, with errata February 4, 2010. I United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2008a, "2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps - Fault Parameters" retrieved from: http://geohazards.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults search/hf_ search _main.cfm I USGS, 2008b, "2008 Interactive Deaggregations (Beta)," retrieved from: I USGS, 2013, U.S. Seismic Design Maps, retrieved from: Project No. 133023-07 Page A-3 December 15, 2015 I APPENDIX B I LGC VALLEY, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications For Rough Gradin 1.0 General 1 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 I 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 I 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 1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record: Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ a qualified Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The I Geotechnical Consultant 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, I 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 I agency where required. The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to confirm that the attained level of compaction is being accomplished as specified. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis. LGC Valley, Inc. I General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Page lof 6 I 1.3 The Earthwork Contractor: The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground I 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 I the grading in accordance with the project 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 "equipment" of work and the estimated I 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 I . appropriate personnel will be available for observation and testing.. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware of all grading operations. I 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 I 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 I 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. It is the contractor's sole responsibility to provide proper fill compaction. 2.0 Preparation ofAreas to be Filled 1 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, I governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant. The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific I site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 10 percent of organic matter. Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed. I 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 I 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, I 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. The contractor is responsible for all hazardous waste relating to his work. The I Geotechnical Consultant does not have expertise in this area. If hazardous waste is a concern, then the Client should acquire the services of a qualified environmental assessor. l LGC Valley, Inc. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Page of 6 2.2 ProcessinR: 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 from oversize material and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free from uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction. 2.3 Overexcavation: In addition to removals and overexcavatiqns 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 Bench inv 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 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 from 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. LGC Valley, Inc. I General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Page 3of6 I ___ 3.3 Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet I 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 1 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 l 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. 1 4.2 Fill Moisture ConditioninR: 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. I Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method D1557-91). I 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 D1557-91). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either I specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity. I 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 I 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 D1557-91. 1 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 I 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). I LGC Valley, Inc. I General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Page 4of6 1 4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testinv 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 I 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 I Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met. I 4.7 Compaction Test Locations: 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 I 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 I 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 i surveys. 6.0 Excavation - Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical I 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 I 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. I LGC Valley, Inc. I General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Page 5 of 6 7.0 Trench Backfihls 7.1 The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations. 7.2 All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done 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 byjetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface. 7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant. 7.4 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. 7.5 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. LGC Valley, Inc. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Page 6of6 I BUILDING ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT I PROJECT: Robertson Ranch West Village PA7-PA8 Market Rate Carlsbad, CA Project Designer: Architects Orange 144 N Orange St Orange , CA 92866 7146399860 Report Prepared by: LDI Mechanical, Inc RECEIVED DEC 22 2015 CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DIVISION Job Number: Date: 12/17/2015 The EnergyPro computer program has been used to perform the calculations summarized in this compliance report. This program has approval and is authorized by the California Energy Commission for use with both the Residential and Nonresidential 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. This program developed by EnergySoft, LLC - www.energysoft.com. EnergyPro 6.7 by EnergySoft User Number: 4693 A ID: J:c 1 C5 _--12) I TABLE OF CONTENTS I Cover Page I Table of Contents 2 Form PRF-01-E Certificate of Compliance 3 Form ENV-MM Envelope Mandatory Measures 21 EnergyPro 6.7 by EnergySoft Job Number. ID: User Number: 4693 A Project Name: Robertson Ranch West Village PA7-PA8 Market Rate NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 1 of 18 Project Address: Carlsbad Calculation Date/Time: 11:27, Thu, Dec 17, 2015 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAnd Mechanical Input File Name: Robertson Ranch MarketRate T24.xml A. PROJECT GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Project Location (city) Carlsbad 7. # of dwelling units 0 2. CA Zip Code 8. Standards Version Compliance2015 3. Climate Zone 7 9. Compliance Software (version) EnergyPro 6.7 4. Total Conditioned Floor Area 5,816 ft2 10. Building Orientation (deg) (N) 0 deg 5. Total Unconditioned Floor Area 0ft2 11. Permitted Scope of Work NewEnvelopeAndMechanical 6. I#of Stories (Habitable Above Grade) 1 12 Building Type(s) Nonresidential B. COMPLIANCE RESULTS FOR PERFORMANCE COMPONENTS 140.1 BUILDING COMPLIES 1. Energy Component 2. Standard Design (TDV) 3. Proposed Design (TDV) 4. Compliance Margin (TDV) S. Percent Better than Standard Space Heating 3.0 34.3 -31.3 -1043.3% Space Cooling 86.2 92.8 -6.6 -7.7% Indoor Fans 149.0 64.7 84.3 56.6% Heat Rejection -- -- -- -- Pumps & Misc. -- -- -- -- Domestic Hot Water -- -- -- Indoor Lighting 79.9 79.9 -- 0.0% COMPLIANCE TOTAL 318.1 271.7 46.4 14.6% Receptacle 71.6 71.6 0.0 0.0% Process 5.5 5.5 0.0 0.0% Process Ltg -- -- -- -- TOTAL 395.2 348.8 46.4 11.7% CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2013 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-11302015-760 Report Generated at: 2015-12-17 11:28:19 Project Name: Robertson Ranch West Village PA7-PA8 Market Rate NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 2 of 18 Project Address: Carlsbad Calculation Date/Time: 11:27, Thu, Dec 17, 2015 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Robertson Ranch MarketRate T24.xml C. PRIORITY PLAN CHECK! INSPECTION ITEMS (in order of highest to lowest TDV energy savings) 1st Indoor Fans: Check envelope and mechanical Compliance Margin By Energy Component (from Table Indoor Fans Heat Rejection Pumps & Misc. Domestic Hot Water Indoor Lighting Space Cooling - Space Heating B column 4) Enei9yLCdl 2nd Heat Rejection: Check envelope and mechanical 3rd Pumps & Misc.: Check mechanical 4th Domestic Hot Water: Check mechanical 5th Indoor Lighting: Check lighting 6th Space Cooling: Check envelope and mechanical 7th Space Heating: Check envelope and mechanical ). EXCEPTIONAL CONDITIONS Ihe project shows partial compliance, either envelope only or mechanical only, excluding lighting systems. The building must show partial compliance including lighting or full new building -compliance or show prescriptive lighting compliance before operation Ihe building does not include service water heating. Verify that service water heating is not required and is not included in the design. E. HERS VERIFICATION Ihis Section Does Not Apply ADDITIONAL REMARKS 1one Provided CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2013 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-11302015-760 Report Generated at: 2015-12-17 11:28:19 Project Name: Robertson Ranch West Village PA7-PA8 Market Rate NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 3 of 18 Project Address: Carlsbad Calculation Date/Time: 11:27, Thu, Dec 17, 2015 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Robertson Ranch MarketRate T24.xml G. COMPLIANCE PATH & CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE SUMMARY Identify which building components use the performance or prescriptive path for compliance. "NA"=not in project For components that utilize the performance path, indicate the sheet number that includes mandatory notes on plans. Building Component Compliance Path Compliance Forms (required for submittal) Location of Mandatory Notes on Plans Envelope Z Performance NRCC-PRF-ENV-DETAILS (section of the NRCC-PRF-01-E) 0 Prescriptive NRCC-ENV-01 / 02 / 03 / 04 / 05 / 06-E NA Mechanical Z Performance NRCC-PRF-MCH-DETAILS (section of the NRCC-PRF-01-E) LI Prescriptive NRCC-MCH-01 / 02 / 03 / 04 / 05 / 06 / 07-E NA Domestic Hot Water LI Performance NRCC-PRF-PLB-DETAILS (section of the NRCC-PRF-01-E) 0 Prescriptive NRCC-PLB-01-E NA Lighting (Indoor Conditioned) O Performance NRCC-PRF-LTI-DETAILS (section of the NRCC-PRF-01-E) 0 Prescriptive NRCC-LTI-01 / 02 / 03 / 04 / 05-E Z NA Covered Process: Commercial Kitchens O Performance 52 (section of the NRCC-PRF-01-E) 0 Prescriptive NRCC-PRC-01/ 03-E - NA Covered Process: Computer Rooms O Performance S3 (section of the NRCC-PRF-01-E) El - Prescriptive NRCC-PRC-01/ 04-E NA Covered Process: 0 Performance 54 (section of the NRCC-PRF-01-E) LI Prescriptive Laboratory Exhaust NRCC-PRC-01/ 09-E 0 N CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2013 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-11302015-760 Report Generated at: 2015-12-17 11:28:19 Project Name: Robertson Ranch West Village PA7-PA8 Market Rate NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 4 of 18 Project Address: Carlsbad Calculation Date/Time: 11:27, Thu, Dec 17, 2015 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Robertson Ranch MarketRate T24.xml G. COMPLIANCE PATH & CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE SUMMARY The following building components are only eligible for prescriptive compliance. Indicate which are The following building components may have mandatory requirements per Port 6. Indicate relevant to the project. which are relevant to the project. Yes NA Prescriptive Requirement Compliance Forms Yes NA Mandatory Requirement Compliance Forms Commissioning: §120.8 E] Lighting (Indoor NRCC-LTI-01 / 02 / 03 / 04 / 05-E 0 Simple Systems NRCC-CXR-01 / 02 / 03 / 05-E Unconditioned) §140.6 0 Complex Systems NRCC-CXR-01 / 02 / 04 / 05-E 0 Lighting (Outdoor) §140.7 NRCC-LTO-01 / 02 / 03-E 0 Electrical: §130.5 NRCC-ELC-01-E OZ Lighting (Sign) §140.8 NRCC-LTS-01-E 0 Solar Ready: §110.10 NRCC-SRA-01 / 02-E Covered Process: §120.6 N RCC-PRC-01-E O z Parking Garage NRCC-PRC-02-E 0 z Solar Thermal Water NRCC-STH-01-E 0 0 Commercial Refrigeration NRCC-PRC-05-E Heating: §140.5 0 Warehouse Refrigeration NRCC-PRC-06/07/08-E O Compressed Air NRCC-PRC-10-E 0 Z Process Boilers NRCC-PRC-11-E CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2013 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-11302015-760 Report Generated at: 2015-12-17 11:28:19 Project Name: Robertson Ranch West Village PA7-PA8 Market Rate NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 5 of 18 Project Address: Carlsbad Calculation Date/Time: 11:27, Thu, Dec 17, 2015 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Robertson Ranch MarketRate T24.xml H. CERTIFICATE OF INSTALLATION, CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE & CERTIFICATE OF VERIFICATION SUMMARY (NRCl/NRCA/NRCV) - Documentation Author to indicate which Certificates must be submitted for the features to be recognized for compliance (Retain copies and verify forms are completed and signed to post in field for Field Inspector to verify). See Tables G. and H. in MCH and LTI Details Sections for Acceptance Tests and forms by equipment. Confirmed Building Component Compliance Forms (required for submittal) Pass Fail Envelope NRCI-ENV-01-E - For all buildings LI LI LI NRCA-ENV-02-F- NFRC label verification for fenestration 0 0 Mechanical NRCI-MCH-01-E - For all buildings with Mechanical Systems 0 LI NRCA-MCH-02-A- Outdoor Air LI 0 NRCA-MCH-03-A - Constant Volume Single Zone HVAC 0 0 NRCA-MCH-04-H- Air Distribution Duct Leakage 0 0 El NRCA-MCH-05-A- Air Economizer Controls 0 0 0 NRCA-MCH-06-A- Demand Control Ventilation LI LI El NRCA-MCH-07-A - Supply Fan Variable Flow Controls LI LI LI NRCA-MCH-08-A- Valve Leakage Test LI LI El NRCA-MCH-09-A— Supply Water Temp Reset Controls 0 0 0 NRCA-MCH-10-A- Hydronic System Variable Flow Controls LI 0 LI NRCA-MCH-11-A—Auto Demand Shed Controls LI LI 0 NRCA-MCH-12-A- Packaged Direct Expansion Units 0 0 El NRCA-MCH-13-A- Air Handling Units and Zone Terminal Units LI LI El NRCA-MCH-14-A- Distributed Energy Storage LI LI LI NRCA-MCH-15-A—Thermal Energy Storage 0 LI 0 NRCA-MCH-16-A- Supply Air Temp Reset Controls 0 LI 0 NRCA-MCH-17-A -Condensate Water Temp Reset Controls 0 0 0 NRCA-MCH-18-A- Energy Management Controls Systems 0 LI LI NRCV-MCH-04-H- Duct Leakage Test 0 LI CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2013 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-11302015-760 Report Generated at: 2015-12-17 11:28:19 Project Name: Robertson Ranch West Village PA7-PA8 Market Rate NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 6 of 18 Project Address: Carlsbad Calculation Date/Time: 11:27, Thu, Dec 17, 2015 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Robertson Ranch MarketRate T24.xml H. CERTIFICATE OF INSTALLATION, CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE & CERTIFICATE OF VERIFICATION SUMMARY (NRCl/NRCA/NRCV) - Documentation Author to indicate which Certificates must be submitted for the features to be recognized for compliance (Retain copies and verify forms are completed and signed to post in field for Field Inspector to verify). See Tables G. and H. in MCH and LTI Details Sections for Acceptance Tests and forms by equipment. Confirmed Building Component Compliance Forms (required for submittal) Pass Fail Plumbing El NRCl-PLB-01-E - For all buildings with Plumbing Systems 0 El El NRCl-PLB-02-E - required on central systems in high-rise residential, hotel/motel application. 0 El El NRCI-PLB-03-E - Single dwelling unit systems in high-rise residential, hotel/motel application. 0 0 El NRCI-PLB-21-E - HERS verified central systems in high-rise residential, hotel/motel application. 0 0 El NRCI-PLB-22-E - HERS verified single dwelling unit systems in high-rise residential, hotel/motel application. 0 0 El NRCV-PLB-21-H- HERS verified central systems in high-rise residential, hotel/motel application. El 0 El NRCV-PLB-22-H - HERS verified single dwelling unit systems in high-rise residential, hotel/motel application. El 0 El NRCl-STH-01-E - Any solar water heating El 0 Indoor Lighting El NRCI-LTI-01-E - For all buildings El El El NRCI-LTI-02-E - Lighting control system, or for an Energy Management Control System (EMCS) 0 El El NRCI-LTl-03-E - Line-voltage track lighting integral current limiter, or for a supplementary overcurrent protection panel used to energize only line-voltage track lighting El o El NRCI-LTl-04-E - Two interlocked systems serving an auditorium, a convention center, a conference room, or a theater El El El NRCl-LTI-05-E - Lighting Control Credit Power Adjustment Factor (PAF) 0 El El NRCI-LTl-06-E - Additional wattage installed in a video conferencing studio 0 El El NRCA-LTl-02-A - Occupancy sensors and automatic time switch controls. 0 0 El NRCA-LTl-03-A - Automatic daylighting controls 0 El El NRCA-LTl-04-A - Demand responsive lighting controls El El Outdoor Lighting El NRCI-LTO-01-E - Outdoor Lighting 0 El El NRCl-LTO-02-E- EMCS Lighting Control System El 0 El NRCA-LTO-02-A - Outdoor Lighting Control El 0 Sign Lighting 0 NRCI-LTS-01-E -Sign Lighting El El Electrical El NRCl-ELC-01-E - Electrical Power Distribution El 0 Photovoltaic El NRCl-SPV-01-E Photovoltaic Systems El El CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2013 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-11302015-760 Report Generated at: 2015-12-17 11:28:19 Project Name: Robertson Ranch West Village PA7-PA8 Market Rate NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 7 of 18 Project Address: Carlsbad Calculation Date/Time: 11:27, Thu, Dec 17, 2015 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Robertson Ranch MarketRate T24.xml CERTIFICATE OF INSTALLATION, CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE & CERTIFICATE OF VERIFICATION SUMMARY (NRCl/NRCA/NRCV) - Documentation Author to indicate which Certificates must be submitted for the features to be recognized for compliance (Retain copies and verify forms are completed and signed to post in field for Field Inspector to verify). See Tables G. and H. in MCH and LTI Details. Sections for Acceptance Tests and forms by equipment. Confirmed Building Component Compliance Forms (required for submittal) Pass Fail Covered Process D NRCI-PRC-01-E Refrigerated Warehouse 0 0 El NRCA-PRC-01-F- Compressed Air Systems 0 0 LI NRCA-PRC-02-F- Kitchen Exhaust 0 0 El NRCA-PRC-03-F- Garage Exhaust 0 0 0 NRCA-PRC-04-F- Refrigerated Warehouse- Evaporator Fan Motor Controls 0 0 E] NRCA-PRC-05-F- Refrigerated Warehouse- Evaporative Condenser Controls 0 0 E] NRCA-PRC-06-F- Refrigerated Warehouse- Air Cooled Condenser Controls 0 0 0 NRCA-PRC-07F- Refrigerated Warehouse- Variable Speed Compressor 0 0 El NRCA-PRC-08-F- Electrical Resistance Underslab Heating System 0 0 ENVELOPE GENERAL INFORMATION (See NRCC-PRF-ENV-DETAILS for more information) Total Conditioned Floor Area 5,816 ft2 S. Number of Floors Above Grade 1 Confirmed Total Unconditioned Floor Area 0 ft2 6. Number of Floors Below Grade 0 0 Addition Conditioned Floor Area 0ft2 Addition Unconditioned Floor Area 0ft2 1A = 7. Opaque Surfaces & Orientation 8. Total Gross Surface Area 9. Total Fenestration Area 10. Window to Wall Ratio North Wall 1,788 ft' 464 ft2 25.9% 0 0 East Wall 1,716 ft2 636 ft2 37.1% 0 0 South Wall 1,548 ft2 598 ft2 38.6% 0 0 West Wall 1,839 ft2 87 ft2 04.7% 0 0 Total 6,891 ft2 1,784 ft2 25.9% 0 0 Roof 1,291 ft2 Oft2 00.0% 0 0 CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2013 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-11302015-760 Report Generated at: 2015-12-17 11:28:19 Project Name: Robertson Ranch West Village PA7-PA8 Market Rate NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 8 of 18 Project Address: Carlsbad Calculation Date/Time: 11:27, Thu, Dec 17, 2015 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Robertson Ranch MarketRate T24.xml FENESTRATION ASSEMBLY SUMMARY § 110.6 Confirmed 1. I 2. 3. 4. S. I 6. I 7. 8. I . 'a I I Fenestration Assembly Name 1 Fenestration Type I Certification Method' I Assembly Method Area ft 2 I Overall Overall Overall n I Tag or I.D. I I I I I U-factor I SHGC VT Storefront Windows Vertical Fenestration NFRCRated Manufactured 1784 0.48 0.39 1 0.50 N 0 0 Newly installed fenestration shall have a certified NFRC Label Certificate or use the CEC default tables found in Table 110.6-A and Table 110.6-B. Site-built fenestration less than 1,U0UJt, or more than or equal to 1,uuujr see nejerence rjonres,oent,ol Appendix NA6. 2 Status: N - New, A - Altered, E - Existing Taking compliance credit for fenestration shading devices? (if "Yes", see NRCC-PRF-ENV-DETAILS for more information) I I OPAQUE SURFACE ASSEMBLY SUMMARY § 120.7/ § 140.3 Confirmed 1. 2. 3. 4. S. 6. 7. 8. Surface Name Surface Type Area (ft2) Framing Type Cavity R-Value Continuous R-Value U-Factor I F-Factor IC-Factor -UI- - C -I' Slab On Grade7 UndergroundFloor 5816 NA 0 NA F-Factor: 0.730 N 0 0 R-19 Wa119 ExteriorWall 6891 Wood 19 NA U-Factor: 0.072 N 0 0 R-30 Roof Attic25 Roof 1291 Wood 30 NA U-Factor: 0.038 N 0 0 Status: N - New, A - Altered, E - Existing ROOFING PRODUCT SUMMARY § 140.3 Confirmed 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 0 Product Type Product 25 lb ft2 Aged Solar I Thermal I SRI Cool Roof CRRC Product ID Number lu - Reflectance Emittance I Credit R-30 Roof Attic25 No 0.08 0.75 NA No NA El 0 CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2013 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-11302015-760 Report Generated at: 2015-12-17 11:28:19 Project Name: Robertson Ranch West Village PA7-PA8 Market Rate NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 9 of 18 Project Address: Carlsbad Calculation Date/Time: 11:27, Thu, Dec 17, 2015 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Robertson Ranch MarketRate T24.xml M. HVAC SYSTEM SUMMARY (see NRCC-PRF-MCH-DETAILS for more information) I § 110.1 / § 110.2 Dry System Equipment 1 (Fan & Economizer info included below in Table N) Confirmed 1. 2. 3. 4. S. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. System Type Total Heating Supp Heat Supp Heat Total Cooling Efficiency Acceptance Testing . T. Equip Name Equip Type (Simple or Qty Output Source (V/N) Output Output Required? (Y/N) In - Complex 4) (kBtu/h) (kBtuh) (kBtu/h) Cooling Heating Exercisel SZHP (Split3Phase) Simple 2 42 No 0 41 SEER-14.0 HSPF-8.2 Yes N El 0 Clubhouse26 SZHP (Split3Phase) Simple 2 46 No 0 47 SEER-14.0 HSPF-8.2 Yes N El 0 Conf Room & SZHP (Split3Phase) Simple 1 22 No 0 22 SEER-14.5 HSPF-8.2 Yes N 0 El Restroom45 Lounge65 SZHP (Split3Phase) Simple 1 55 No 0 54 SEER-14.0 HSPF-8.2 Yes N El El Reception/Offic SZHP (Split3Phase) Simple 1 46 No 0 47 SEER-14.0 HSPF-8.2 Yes N El El es / Work84 Wet System Equipment Pumps Confirmed 12. 13. 14. is. 16. 17. is. 19. 20.121. 22. 123. 24. I Rated Capacity Tank I VSD in I Equip Name Equip Type Qty Vol (gal) (kBtu/h) Efficiency Standby Loss Ext. R Qty GPM HP (V/N) C I Value Dry System Equipment includes furnaces, air handling units, heat pumps, etc. 2 Wet System Equipment includes boilers, chillers, cooling towers, water heaters, etc. 3 Simple Systems must complete NRCC-CXR-03-E commissioning design review form Complex Systems must complete NRCC-CXR-04-E commissioning design review form summary of which acceptance tests are applicable is provided in NRCC-PRF-MCH-DETAILS e Status: N - New, A - Altered, E - Existing Discrepancy between modeled and designed equipment sizing? (if Yes, see Table F. Additional Remarks for an explanation) No CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2013 Nonresidential Compliance . Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-11302015-760 Report Generated at: 2015-12-17 11:28:19 Project Name: Robertson Ranch West Village PA7-PA8 Market Rate NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 10 of 18 Project Address: Carlsbad Calculation Date/Time: 11:27, Thu, Dec 17, 2015 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Robertson Ranch MarketRate T24.xml N. ECONOMIZER & FAN SYSTEMS SUMMARY' § 140.4 Confirmed 1. 2. 3. 4. S. Outside Supply Fan Return Fan M Air Economizer Type in -n TSP TSP Equip Name (if present) CFM CFM HP BHP (inch Control CFM HP BHP (inch Control WC) WC) Exercisel 323 1400 0.400 0.400 0.91 ConstantVolume NA NA NA NA NA NoEconomizer El El Clubhouse26 344 1600 0.500 0.500 0.99 ConstantVolume NA NA NA NA NA NoEconomizer El 0 Conf Room & 194 800 0.200 0.200 0.79 ConstantVolume NA NA NA NA NA NoEconomizer El 0 Restroom45 Lounge65 411 2000 0.600 0.600 1.14 ConstantVolume NA NA NA NA NA NoEconomizer El 0 Reception/Office 237 1600 0.500 0.500 0.99 ConstantVolume NA NA NA NA NA NoEconomizer El El s/Work84 _______________ Mechanical ventilation calculations and exhaust fans are included in the NRCC-PRF-MCH-DETAILS section 0. EQUIPMENT CONTROLS § 120.2 Confirmed 1. 2. 3. CU —w. — Equip Name Equip Type Controls No DCV Controls Exercisel SZHP No Economizer El 0 No Supply Air Temp. Control No DCV Controls Clubhouse26 SZHP No Economizer El El No Supply Air Temp. Control No DCV Controls Conf Room & Restroom45 SZHP No Economizer El 0 No Supply Air Temp. Control No DCV Controls Lounge65 SZHP No Economizer 0 El No Supply Air Temp. Control No DCV Controls Reception/Offices / Work84 SZHP No Economizer 0 El No Supply Air Temp. Control CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2013 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-11302015-760 Report Generated at: 2015-12-17 11:28:19 Project Name: Robertson Ranch West Village PA7-PA8 Market Rate NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 11 of 18 Project Address: Carlsbad Calculation Date/Time: 11:27, Thu, Dec 17, 2015 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Robertson Ranch MarketRate T24.xml P. SYSTEM DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY § 120.4/ § 140.4(i) This Section Does Not Apply Does the Project Include Zonal Systems? (if 'Yes, see NRCC-PRF-MCH-DETAILS for system information) No Does the Project Include a Solar Hot Water System? (if Yes", see NRCC-PRF-MCH-DETAILS for system information) No Multifamily or Hotel/ Motel Occupancy? (if "Yes', see NRCC-PRF-MCH-DETAILS for DHW system information) No INDOOR CONDITIONED LIGHTING GENERAL INFO (see NRCC-PRF-LTI-DETAILS for more info) This Section Does Not Apply INDOOR CONDITIONED LIGHTING SCHEDULE (Adapted from NRCC-LTI-01-E)' § 130.0 This Section Does Not Apply Ill lighting power densities were used in the compliance model Building Departments will need to check prescriptive forms for Luminoire Schedule details. Si. COVERED PROCESS SUMMARY - ENCLOSED PARKING GARAGES § 140.9 This Section Does Not Apply S2. COVERED PROCESS SUMMARY - COMMERCIAL KITCHENS § 140.9 Space Name Exhaust Hood Style Exhaust Hood Duty Exhaust Length (ft) Exhaust Flow Rate (cfm) Confirmed Pass Fail S-6-Kitchen Light NaN D 0 Light NaN 0 0 Light NaN 0 0 Light NaN 0 0 Light NaN 0 0 53. COVERED PROCESS SUMMARY - COMPUTER ROOMS § 140.9 This Section Does Not Apply S4. COVERED PROCESS SUMMARY— LABORATORY EXHAUSTS § 140.9 This Section Does Not Apply CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2013 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-11302015-760 Report Generated at: 2015-12-17 11:28:19 Project Name: Robertson Ranch West Village PA7-PA8 Market Rate NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 12 of 18 Project Address: Carlsbad Calculation Date/Time: 11:27, Thu, Dec 17, 2015 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanicai Input File Name: Robertson Ranch MarketRate T24.xml UNMET LOAD HOURS Thermal Zone Name Cooling Unmet Load Hour Limit for Thermal Zone Proposed Cooling Unmet Load Hours met Load Hour Limit for Heating Unmet I Thermal Zone I 150 Proposed Heating Unmet Load Hours 3-Coni Room I 150 3640.5 0 7-Offices / Work / Break 150 3908 I 150 0 ENERGY USE SUMMARY Electric (kWh/yr) Natural Gas (therms/yr) Total Annual Baseline 88406.9 91.9578 Total Annual Proposed 77526.1 0 CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2013 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-11302015-760 Report Generated at: 2015-12-17 11:28:19 Project Name: Robertson Ranch West Village PA7-PA8 Market Rate NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 13 of 18 Project Address: Carlsbad Calculation Date/Time: 11:27, Thu, Dec 17, 2015 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Robertson Ranch MarketRate T24.xml DOCUMENTATION AUTHORS DECLARATION STATEMENT § 10-103 I certify that this Certificate of Compliance documentation is accurate and complete. Documentation Author Name: Signature: 11A 7iy C4'I Company: LDI Mechanical, Inc Address: Signature Date: 112-21-15 1 CEA Identification (If applicable): City/State/Zip: Phone: RESPONSIBLE PERSONS DECLARATION STATEMENT I certify the following under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California: I hereby affirm that I am eligible under the provisions of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code to sign this document as the person responsible for its preparation; and that I am 1 licensed in the State of California as a civil engineer, mechanical engineer, electrical engineer, or I am a licensed architect. I affirm that I am eligible under the provisions of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code by section 5537.2 or 6737.3 to sign this document as the person responsible for its 2 preparation; and that I am a licensed contractor performing this work. I affirm that I am eligible under Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code to sign this document because it pertains to a structure or type of work described as exempt pursuant to Business and Professions Code Sections 5537, 5538 and 6737.1. Responsible Envelope Designer Name: Signature: Company: Architects Orange Address: 144 N Orange St Date Signed: City/State/Zip: Orange CA 92866 Declaration Statement Type: Phone: 7146399860 Title: License #: Responsible Lighting Designer Name: Signature: NOT IN SCOPE Company: Address: Date Signed: City/State/Zip: Declaration Statement Type: Phone: Title: License #: Responsible Mechanical Designer Name: - specify - Signature: Company: LDI Mechanical Address: 1587 E Bentley Dr Date Signed: City/State/Zip: Corona CA 92879 Declaration Statement Type: Phone: 9513409685 Title: License #: CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2013 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-11302015-760 Report Generated at: 2015-12-17 11:28:19 Project Name: Robertson Ranch West Village PA7-PA8 Market Rate NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 14 of 18 Project Address: Carlsbad Calculation Date/Time: 11:27, Thu, Dec 17, 2015 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAnd Mechanical Input File Name: Robertson Ranch MarketRate T24.xml NRCC-PRF-ENV-DETAILS -SECTION START- A. OPAQUE SURFACE ASSEMBLY DETAILS Confirmed 1. 2. 3. 4. Notes Surface Name Surface Type Description of Assembly Layers Slab On Grade7 UndergroundFloor 0 0 Stucco - 7/8 in. R-19 Wall9 ExteriorWall Vapor permeable felt - 1/8 in. IJ El Wood framed wall, 16in. OC, 5.5in., R-19 Gypsum Board - 1/2 in. Asphalt shingles - 1/4 in. Vapor permeable felt - 1/8 in. R-30 Roof Attic25 Roof Plywood - 1/2 in. o o Air - Cavity - Wall Roof Ceiling -4 in. or more Wood framed roof, 24in. OC, 3.5in., R-30 Gypsum Board - 1/2 in. OVERHANG DETAILS (Adapted from NRCC-ENV-02-E) Confirmed 1. 2. 3. 4. Fenestration Tag/ID Fenestration Orientation Overhang Dimensions Side fin Horizontal Projection ___________________________ Distance Above Window Vertical Projection Storefront (3x8)34 North 6.0 ft. 0.1 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft. 0 0 Storefront (3x8)53 East 6.0 ft. 0.1 ft. Left: Oft., Right: 0 ft. 0 0 Storefront (3x8)62 East 6.0 ft. 0.1 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: Oft. 0 0 Storefront (3x8)63 East 6.0 ft. 0.1 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: Oft. 0 0 Storefront (3x8)112 South 6.0 ft. 0.1 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: Oft. 0 0 Storefront (3x8)113 South 6.0 ft. 0.1 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft. 0 0 OPAQUE DOOR SUMMARY This Section Does Not Apply CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2013 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-11302015-760 Report Generated at: 2015-12-17 11:28:19 Project Name: Robertson Ranch West Village PA7-PA8 Market Rate NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 15 of 18 Project Address: Carlsbad Calculation Date/Time: 11:27, Thu, Dec 17, 2015 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Robertson Ranch MarketRate T24.xml NRCC-PRF-MCH-DETAILS -SECTION START- A. MECHANICAL VENTILATION AND REHEAT (Adapted from 2013-NRCC-MCH-03-E) Confirmed 1. DESIGN AIR FLOWS 2. VENTILATION (§ 120.1) M 0 n' 9 rn C M —I > Z C1 >z _n C z z O " 0 2 —4 0 r -Tim z —4 2 ii, (1 CONDITIONED — 0 '1 -n 2 — z n, —4 C — "2 — = ZONE NAME CO . > _-..x rm >rn —i mm -'. r- -< 2 n> r> 0 ' rn M .v 0 -n o- -n —> 0 0> z —2 02 - — hi > - m at m " I— — I— > - '3 m 0 - o - 0 M 0 C . in 2 1-Exercise Exercisel 1,400 NA NA NA NA N Exercisel 1,291 0.50 86 7.5 646 646 NA N 0 0 2-Clubhouse CIubhouse26 1,600 NA NA NA NA N CIubhouse26 1,377 0.50 92 7.5 688 688 NA N 0 0 3-Conf Room Conf Room & 363 NA NA NA NA N Conf Room & 285 0.50 19 7.5 143 143 NA N 0 0 Restroom45 Restroom45 4-Restroom Conf Room & 437 NA NA NA NA N Conf Room & 343 0.15 3 15.0 51 51 NA N 0 0 Restroom45 Restroom45 5-Lounge Lounge65 1,637 NA NA NA NA N Lounge65 770 0.50 51 7.5 385 385 NA N 0 0 6-Kitchen Lounge65 363 NA NA NA NA N Lounge65 171 0.15 1 30.0 26 26 NA N 0 0 Reception/Of Reception/Of 7-Offices / Work / fices/ 557 NA NA NA NA N fices/ 550 0.15 6 15.0 83 83 NA N 0 0 Break Work84 Work84 Reception/Of Reception/Of 8-Reception fices / 1,043 NA NA NA NA N fices / 1,029 0.15 10 15.0 154 154 NA N 0 0 Work84 Work84 TOTAL 5,816 268 2,176 2,176 NA CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2013 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-11302015-760 Report Generated at: 2015-12-17 11:28:19 Project Name: Robertson Ranch West Village PA7-PA8 Market Rate NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 16 of 18 Project Address: Carlsbad Calculation Date/Time: 11:27, Thu, Dec 17, 2015 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Robertson Ranch MarketRate T24.xml B. ZONAL SYSTEM AND TERMINAL UNIT SUMMARY § 140.4 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Confirmed System ID System Type Qty Rated Capacity (kBtuh) Economizer Zone Name Airflow (cfm) Fan Heating Cooling Design Mm. Min. Ratio BHP Cycles ECM Motor Exercise3-TRM Uncontrolled 2 NA NA NA 1-Exercise 1400 NA NA NA NA 0 0 LII Clubhouse28-TRM Uncontrolled 2 NA NA NA 2-Clubhouse 1600 NA NA NA NA LII El 0 Restroom57-TRM Uncontrolled 1 NA NA NA 4-Restroom 437 NA NA NA NA 0 LII 0 ConfRoom47-TRM Uncontrolled 1 NA NA NA 3-Conf Room 363 NA NA NA NA 0 LII El Kitchen79-TRM Uncontrolled 1 NA NA NA 6-Kitchen 363 NA NA NA NA 0 0 0 Lounge67-TRM Uncontrolled 1 NA NA NA 5-Lounge 1637 NA NA NA NA 0 0 0 Reception97-TRM Uncontrolled 1 NA NA NA 8-Reception 1043 NA NA NA NA 0 0 0 Offices / Work Uncontrolled 1 NA NA NA 7-Offices / Work / Break 557 NA NA NA NA 0 0 0 :. EXHAUST FAN SUMMARY his Section Does Not Apply ). DHW EQUIPMENT SUMMARY - (Adapted from NRCC-PLB-01) his Section Does Not Apply E. MULTI-FAMILY CENTRAL DHW SYSTEM DETAILS 'his Section Does Not Apply : SOLAR HOT WATER HEATING SUMMARY (Adapted from NRCC-STH-01) Ehis Section Does Not Apply CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2013 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-11302015-760 Report Generated at: 2015-12-17 11:28:19 Fail D 11 000 Pass 00 000 LM . ECMS MCH-18A I 0) Condenser Water 0. MCH-17A Reset Controls 0 Supply Air Temp. Reset MCH-16A I TES Systems MCH-15A Dist. Energy Storage DX AC Auto FDD for Air & MCH-13A Zone F MCH-12A FDD for DX Units CL Auto Demand Shed MCH-11A Control CU - Hyd. Variable Flow - MCH-10A Control Supply Water Temp. MCH-09A Reset : I >. co Valve leakage MCH-08A Supply Fan VAV MCH-07A DCV U CU MCH-06A I . Economizer Controls I MH-05A 0 co MCH-04A Air Dist. Ducts >< z x ,< ,< CO LU Single Zone Unitary Uj MCH-03A Outdoor Air LU MCHOZA x x x x z 0> I .9t U - C o.9 cu r.) Lfl Ln W U LU 0 . ° o oo ° ° 'I 0 m '-I 0 '-I (0) LU 9 U 2 CL CA I Uj Cr LLI >- LU~ Z ft Z ft CL 2< 0< 0 z 0 z Z CCC Z r 0) C) 0 0 o o C C 0 .9 0 .2 0 0 00) j3 C) .E •E I.- Project Name: Robertson Ranch West Village PA7-PA8 Market Rate NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 18 of 18 Project Address: Carlsbad Calculation Date/Time: 11:27, Thu, Dec 17, 2015 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Robertson Ranch MarketRate T24.xml . TAILORED METHOD LIGHTING POWER ALLOWANCE SUMMARY AND CHECKLIST (Adapted from NRCC-LTI-04-E) § 140.6 Ihis Section Does Not Apply GENERAL LIGHTING POWER (Adapted from NRCC-LTI-04-E) § 140.6-D Ihis Section Does Not Apply GENERAL LIGHTING FROM SPECIAL FUNCTION AREAS (Adapted from NRCC-LTI-04-E) § 140.6(c) 3H 'his Section Does Not Apply : ROOM CAVITY RATIO (Adapted from NRCC-LTI-04-E) rhis Section Does Not Apply 3. ADDITIONAL "USE IT OR LOSE IT (Adapted from NRCC-LTI-04-E) rhis Section Does Not Apply A. INDOOR & OUTDOOR LIGHTING ACCEPTANCE TESTS & FORMS (Adapted from NRCC-LTI-01-E and NRCC-LTO-01-E) § 130.4 rhis Section Does Not Apply CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2013 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-11302015-760 Report Generated at: 2015-12-17 11:28:19 ENVELOPE MANDATORY MEASURES: NONRESIDENTIAL ENV-MM Project Name Date Robertson Ranch West Village PA 7-PA 8 Market Rate 12/17/2015 DESCRIPTION Building Envelope Measures: 110 8 Installed insulating material shall have been certified by the manufacturer to comply with the California Quality ' ' Standards for insulating material, Title 20 Chapter 4, Article 3. 110 8(c). All Insulating Materials shall be installed in compliance with the flame spread rating and smoke density requirements of Sections 2602 and 707 of Title 24, Part 2. The opaque portions of framed demising walls in nonresidential buildings shall have insulation with an installed R-value §110.8(f): of no less than R-13 between framing members. p110.7(a): All Exterior Joints and openings in the building that are observable sources of air leakage shall be caulked, gasketed, weatherstripped or otherwise sealed. Manufactured fenestration productsand exterior doors shall have air infiltration rates not exceeding 0.3 cfm/ft.2 of §110.6(a): window area, 0.3 cfm/ft.2 of door area for residential doors, 0.3 cfm/ft.2 of door area for nonresidential single doors (swinging and sliding), and 1.0 cfm/ft.2 for nonresidential double doors (swinging). §110.6(a): Fenestration U-factor shall be rated in accordance with NFRC 100, or the applicable default U-factor. p110.6(a) Fenestration SHGC shall be rated in accordance with NFRC 200, or NFRC 100 for site-built fenestration, or the applicable default SHGC. 10.6(b): Site Constructed Doors, Windows and Skylights shall be caulked between the unit and the building, and shall be weatherstripped (except for unframed glass doors and fire doors). EnergyPro 6.7 by EnergySoft User Number: 4693 A RunCode: 2015-12-17T11:28:42 ID: Page 21 of 21 CITY OF CARLSBAD COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. I NON-RESIDENTIAL B-32 Development Services Building Division 1635 Faraday Avenue 760-602-2719 www.carlsbadca.gov NON-RESIDENTIAL CERTIFICATE: Non-Residential land owner, please read this option carefully and be sure you thoroughly understand before signing. The option you chose will affect your payment of the developed Special Tax assessed on your property. This option is available only at the time of the first building permit issuance. Property owner signature is required before signing. Your signature is confirming the accuracy of all information shown. Shapell Montecito, LLC 323-988-7590 Name of Owner Telephone 8383 Wilshire Blvd 2510 West Ranch St Address Project Address Beverly Hill, CA 90211 Carlsbad, CA City, State Zip City, State Zip 208-195-10-00 Assessor Parcel Number(s) or APN(s) and Lot Numbers(s) if not yet subdivided by County Assessor PC150073 (CB154586 - Robertson Ranch Rec Center) Building Permit Number(s) As cited by Ordinance No. NS-155 and adopted by the City of Carlsbad, California, the City is authorized to levy a Special Tax in Community Facilities District No. 1. All non-residential property, upon the issuance of a building permit, shall have the option to (1) pay the SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT TAX ONE TIME or (2) assume the ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX - DEVELOPED PROPERTY for a period not to exceed twenty-five (25) years. Please indicate your choice by initializing the appropriate line below: OPTION (1): I elect to pay the SPECIAL TAX - ONE TIME now, as a one-time payment. Amount of One-Time Special Tax: $ 2,912.46 Owner's Initia OPTION (2): I elect to pay the SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT TAX ANNUALLY for a period not to exceed twenty- five (25) years. Maximum annual Special Tax: $ 402.21 Owner's Initials I DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE UNDERSIGNED IS THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE SUBJECT AND THAT I UNDERSTAND AND WILL COMPLY WITH THE PROVISION AS STATED ABOVE. President Signature of Property Owner Title William P. West September 22, 2016 Print Name Date The City of Carlsbad has not independently verified the information shown above. Therefore, we accept no responsibility as to the accuracy or completeness of this information. Land Use: ALL OTHER COMMERCIAL Imp.Area: II FY: 15/16 Annex date: 05/91 Factor 0.4842 X 6,015 Square Ft. = $ 2,912.46 B-32 Page 1 of 1 Rev. 07/09 2O -010- L zcs-R5- (0 ujw COLD) CITY OF CARLSBAD COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. I (. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT TAX - ONE-TIME IMPROVEMENT AREA 11(4 PAGES) (55% OF THE MAXIMUM FOR RESIDENTIAL - 25% OF THE MAXIMUM FOR NONRESIDENTIA IDENTIAL DEVELOPED LAND USE: PE..DtJ PERDU { PERDU PERDU PERDU PERDU NET DENSITY (0- 1.5 DUIAC) \. .$2836.8943 $2938.376J $29703471 $29703471 $29733145 $29910480 NET DENSITY (1.51 TO 4.0 DU/AC) $28368943 $2938.376J $29703471 $29703471 $29733145 $29910480 NET DENSITY (4.1 TO 8.0 DU/AC) $17102737 $1771.4542 $17907282 $17907282 $17925171 $18032081 NET DENSITY (8.1 TO 15.0 DU/AC) $17102737 $1771.45421J $17907282 $17907282 $17925171 $18032081 NET DENSITY (15.1 TO 23.0 DU/AC) $17102737 $1,771.4542 $17907282 $17907282 $17925171 $18032081 1-RESIDENTIAL LAND USE: PER SQ.FT. PER SQ.FT. PER SQ.FT. PER SQ.PT. PER SQ.FT. PER SQ.FT. AUTO - GASOLINE $09717 $10065 $10175 $10175 $10185 $10246 AUTO - REPAIR & SALES $05313 $05503 $05563 $05563 $05568 $05601 AUTO CAR WASH $08473 $08776 $08872 $08872 $08881 $08934 BANK -WALKIN $15467 $16021 $16195 $16195 $16211 $16308 BANK -WITH DRIVE THRU $19233 $19921 $20138 $20138 $20158 $20278 BOWLING ALLEY $09516 $09856 $09963 $09963 $09973 $1.0033 CAMPGROUND $16779 $17379 $17568 $17566 $17585 $17690 CHURCH $06523 $06756 $06830 $06830 $06837 $06878 COMMERCIAL SHOPS $05313 $05503 $05563 $05563 $05568 $05601 COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER $06052 $06269 $06337 $06337 $06343 $06381 CONVENIENCE MARKET $22663 $2.3474 $2.3729 $2.3729 $2.3753 $23894 DISCOUNT STORE $05313 $0.5503 $05563 $05563 $05568 $05601 GOLF COURSE $07196 $0.7453 $07534 $07534 $07542 $07587 R CERY STORE $08608 $0.8916 $09013 $09013 $09022 $09076 HEALTH CLUB $06221 $0.6443 $06513 $06513 $06520 $06559 HELIPORTS $12340 $1.2782 $12921 $12921 $12934 $13011 HOSPITAL - CONVALESCENT $07498 $0.7766 $07851 $07851 $07859 $07906 SPITAL - GENERAL $10693 $1.1075 $11196 $11196 $11207 $11274 TEL - CONy. FAC/COMM. $08473 $0.8776 $08872 $08872 $08881 $08934 DOOR SPORTS ARENA $07498 $0.7766 $07851 $07851 $07859 $07906 INDUSTRIAL - COMMERCIAL BUSINESS PARK (NOTE 1) $05077 $05259 $05316 $05316 $05321 $05353 JUNIOR COLLEGE $06389 $06617 $06689 $06689 $06696 $06736 LIBRARY $09617 $09961 $10069 $10069 $10079 $10139 UMBER/HARDWARE STORE $05313 $05503 $05563 $05563 $05568 $05601 MARINA $14828 $15359 $15526 $15526 $15541 $15634 MOTEL $06927 $07174 $07252 $07252 $07260 $07303 NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER $07633 $07906 $07992 $07992 $08000 $08048 OFFICE - COMMERCIAL (< 100,000 SF) $05884 $06095 $06161 $06161 $06167 $06204 OFFICE - GOVERNMENT $06321 $06548 $06619 $06619 $06625 $06665 OFFICE - HIGH RISE $06187 $06408 $06478 $06478 $06484 $06523 OFFICE - MEDICAL $06960 $07209 $07288 $07288 $07295 $07338 OUTDOOR TENNIS COURT $24411 $2.5285 $25560 $25560 $25585 $25738 RACE TRACK $07834 $08115 $08203 $08203 $08211 $08260 REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER $05414 $05607 $05668 $05668 $05674 $05708 RESORT HOTEL $06658 $06896 $06971 $06971 $06978 $07019 RESTAURANT - FAST FOOD $25487 $26399 $26686 $26686 $26713 $26872 RESTAURANT - QUALITY $10390 $10762 $10879 $10879 $10890 $10955 RESTAURANT - SIT DOWN $1.5904 $1.6473 $1.6653 $1.6653 $1.6669 $1.6769 &L - WALKIN $10188 $10553 $10667 $10667 $10678 $10742 & L - WITH DRIVE THRU $1.1701 $1.2120 $1.2252 $1.2252 $1.2264 $1.2337 UNIVERSITY $06422 $06652 $06724 $06724 $06731 $06771 ALL OTHER COMMERCIAL USES NOT IDENTIFIED ABOVE $04842 $05015 $05070 $05070 $05075 $05105 ALL OTHER INDUSTRIAL USES NOT IDENTIFIED ABOVE (NOTE 2) $04775 $04945 $04999 $04999 $05004 $05034 NOTE 1: THIS CATEGORY OF LAND USE CONTAINS PM AND CM ZONED PROPERTY. NOTE 2: THIS CATEGORY OF LAND USE CONTAINS M AND PU ZONED PROPERTY. Appendix E - Page 13 of 16 RES NOI ( (City of Carlsbad CERTIFICATION OF SCHOOL FEES PAID B-34 Development Services Building Department 1635 Faraday Avenue 760-602-2719 www.carlsbadca.gov This form must be completed by the City, the applicant, and the appropriate school districts and returned to the City prior to issuing a building permit. The City will not issue any building permit without a completed school fee form. Project Name Building Permit Plan Check Number Project Address: A.P.N Project Applicant (Owner Name) Robertson Ranch Recreation Building PC 15-73 2510 West Ranch St 208-195-10-00 Shapell Montecito, LLC Project Description: Recreational Center Building Type Community Recreation Residential: NEW DWELLING UNIT(S) Square Feet of Living Area in New Dwelling/s Second Dwelling Unit: Square Feet of Living Area in SDU Residential Additions: Net Square Feet New Area Commercial/Industrial: 6,015 Net Square Feet New Area City Certification of Applicant Information: Shay L Evevi, Date August 19, 2016 SCHOOL DISTRICTS WITHIN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD Carlsbad Unified School District Vista Unified School District fl San Marcos Unified School District 6225EI Camino Real 1234 Arcadia Drive 255 P i co Ave Ste. 100 Carlsbad CA 92009 (760-331-5000) Vista CA 92083 (760-726-2170) xt San Marcos, CA 92069 (760-290-2649) 2222 Contact: Nancy Dolce (By Appt. Only) El Encinitas Union School District- F1 San Dieguito Union High School District-By Appointment Only By appointment only 684 Requeza Dr. 101 South Rancho Santa Fe Rd Encinitas, CA 92024 Encinitas, CA 92024 (760-753-6491 x 5514) (760-944-4300 xli 66) Certification of Applicant/Owners. The person executing this declaration ('Owner") certifies under penalty of perjury that (1) the information provided above is correct and true to the best of the Owner's knowledge, and that the Owner will file an amended certification of payment and pay the additional fee if Owner requests an increase in the number of dwelling units or square footage after the building permit is issued or if the initial determination of units or square footage is found to be incorrect, and that (2) the Owner is the owner/developer of the above described project(s), or that the person executing this declaration is authorized to sign on behalf of the Owner. 6~Signature: Date: September 22, 2016 William P. West B-34 Page 1 of 2 Rev. 03/09 SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL FEE CERTIFICATION (To be completed by the school district(s)) THIS FORM INDICATES THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROJECT HAVE BEEN OR WILL BE SATISFIED. SCHOOL DISTRICT: The undersigned, being duly authorized by the applicable School District, certifies that the developer, builder, or owner has satisfied the obligation for school facilities. This is to certify that the applicant listed on page 1 has paid all amounts or completed other applicable school mitigation determined by the School District. The City may issue building permits for this project. SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICIAL TITLE NAME OF SCHOOL DISTRICT DATE [s]1i0Ji'l ;10 LL,JjQ , - \.A) \ CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 6225 ELCAM1NO REAl. CARLSBAD, CA 92009 11Lpii 33)-Seô6 8-34 Page 2 of 2 Rev. 03/09 4(it'I r -i Eli 1 All- EI U ,;I1 MUNI .01 Al IRMPWI t—&—ILD Cct* - FC (1:E4 to ".3LJLDX iiv O )(J\ cu3fl.-' @ bc C(QjØ X' -f - f CB154586 2510 WEST RANCH ST MONTECITO @ ROBERTSON RANCH: .- 22- 5 f p ijr, P t D73 CJda I uuII1H 21EO tJOLi Final Inspection required by: Plan 3 CM&l 3 Fire 3 SW % 1$UED I 0CV Approved Date By BUILDING PLANNING - 2'4- 15 QW ENGINEERING - ________ FIRE Expedite?(Y) DIGITAL FILES Required? Y N HazMat APCD Health Forms/Fees Sent Rec'd Due? By Encina V N Fire Y _ HazHealthAPCD V N PE&M ial-z&"S I2-I2r7V5 . 22' /b V N School Z-7/1 LP Y N Sewer V N _ Stormwater _________________ V N Special Inspection CFD:(y) N LanciUse: t/r21/l(i 9.Z7-/1t Density: ImpAreaL FY: 151 40 Annex: 5ickl Factor: .L'LL. PFF: (v) N Comments Date Date Date Date Building /8/o 2I7i(, Planning Engineering -1-ismo 2./2J/(i, '.4I0/lt...p Fire Need? done 1Done 0 Done 0 Done (City of Carlsbad Print Date: 03/26/2019 Permit No: PREV2016-0002 Job Address: 2510 West Ranch St Permit Type: BLDG-Permit Revision Work Class: Residential Permit Revisi Status: Closed - Finaled Parcel No: 2081951000 Lot #: Applied: 11/09/2016 Valuation: $0.00 Reference #: DEV11017 Issued: 01/11/2017 Occupancy Group: Construction Type Permit 03/26/2019 Finaled: # Dwelling Units: Bathrooms: Inspector: Bedrooms: Orig. Plan Check #: PC150073 Final Plan Check #: Inspection: Project Title: ROBERTSON RANCH WEST VILLAGE Description: MONTECITO: REC CENTER - REVISE PLUMBING PLANS Contractor: AM PAM PARKS MECHANICAL INC 17036 Avalon Blvd Carson, CA 90746-1241 310-835-1532 FEE AMOUNT MANUAL BUILDING PERMIT FEE $161.25 Total Fees: $ 161.25 Total Payments To Date : $ 161.25 Balance Due: $0.00 Building Division 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad CA 92008-7314 1 760-602-2700 1 760-602-8560 f I www.carlsbadca.gov PLAN CHECK REVISION Development Services Building Division CI TY OF APPLICATION 1635 Faraday Avenue CARLSBAD B-I 5 760-602-2719 www.carlsbadca.gov Plan Check Revision 0002- —Original Plan Check No. PC I5 13 Project Address MJ Co?rJL L Co 41410 ii&_ 0 h) 46*' rnate L-7 X2, g'z 4g Contact 4g-/#vr. 7eei'o Ph 3/0 - '/I —I' Fax Email —Odffr?. '*1 Contact Address 17aJd, 4'4e0ti 4 £10. City_C#94-J"-'' Zip _?O 70~4- General Scope of Work Original plans prepared by an architect or engineer, revisions must be signed & stamped by that person. 1. Elements revised: Plans El Calculations El Soils [I] Energy El Other 2. Describe revisions in detail 3. List page(s) where each revision is shown 4. List revised sheets that replace existing sheets Pôo 9 /1 / Does this revision, in anyway, alter the exterior of the project? Does this revision add ANY new floor area(s)? El Yes Does this revision affect any fire related issues? El Yes S. Is this a complete set? Yes El No 15Signature E] Yes ,No 1635 Faraday AvenuCCarlsbad, CA 92008 Ph: 760-602- 2719 f: 760-602-8558 Email: buHding@carlsbadca.gov www.carlsbadca.gov 491!0-00, "P" Parks Mechanical NARRATIVES OF CHANGES Robertson Ranch West Village Market Rate Apartments Rec Bldg October 17, 2016 Plan checker 1060 WILMINGTON BLVD WILMINGTON, CA 90744-3207 PHONE: 310.835.1532 FA)(: 310.835.1115 LIC: C36 740403 ~A~MA 4WM Parks Mechanical Re: Narrative of Changes Project Name: Robertston Ranch West Village Market Rate Apartments Dear Plan Checker, The following are revisions/changes to West Village Senior Affordable Apartments project. P-O.O: - Add the Sewer Ejector 1. P-1.1: - Revised the waste to match job site installation due to field conflicts. 1060 WILMINGTON BLVD WILMINGTON, CA 90744-3207 PHONE: 310.835.1532 FAX: 310835.1115 LIC:C36 740403 EsGil Corporation In Partners flip wit/i government for cBui1uing Safety DATE: December 27, 2016 0 APPLICANT U JURIS. JURISDICTION: Carlsbad U PLAN REVIEWER U FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: PC15-73 SET: REVI.rcl PROJECT ADDRESS: NW Corner/El Camino Real PE1qZ,01 .Q - OW 2- PROJECT NAME: Community Building Ejector Pump Addition The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's 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. F] The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at EsGil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. LII 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: cl 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: Alfonso Toledo Telephone #: Date contacted: (by: ) Email: Alfonso.Toledo@ampam.com Mail Telephone Fax In PErn REMARKS: By: Eric Jensen Enclosures: EsGil Corporation El GA El EJ El MB El PC 12/19 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (858) 560-1468 • Fax (858) 560-1576 EsGil Corporation In (Partners flip with government for Bui(iing Safety DATE: November 30, 2016 L3.,APPLICANT JURIS. JURISDICTION: Carlsbad J PLAN REVIEWER Pc 6 OCfl3 L3 FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: CBPG1"58 SET:-ROW pQ,V 2DR.- 00t 2 PROJECT ADDRESS: NW Corner/El Camino Real PROJECT NAME: Community Building Ejector Pump Addition The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's 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. LIII 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: Alfonso Toledo Telephone #: 7 4ate contacted: 'C) (by: Email: Alfonso.Toledoampam.com Telephone Fax In Person REMARKS: By: Eric Jensen Enclosures: EsGil Corporation fl GA LI EJ LI MB LI PC 11/15 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (858) 560-1468 • Fax (858) 560-1576 Carlsbad CBPC 15-73 November 30, 2016 GENERAL PLAN CORRECTION LIST JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: CBPC15-73 PROJECT ADDRESS: NW Corner/El Camino Real DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY DATE REVIEW COMPLETED: ESGIL CORPORATION: 11/15 November 30, 2016 REVIEWED BY: Eric Jensen FOREWORD (PLEASE READ): This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the International Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and disabled access. 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 or other departments. 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. The approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law. Please make all corrections, as requested in the correction list. Submit FOUR new complete set 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 TWO 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 set of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department for routing t their Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. NOTE: Plans that are submitted directly to EsGil Corporation only will not be reviewed by the Cit Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments until review by EsGil Corporation is complete. To facilitate rechecking, please identify, next to each item, the sheet of the plans upon which each correction on this sheet has been made and return this sheet with the revised plans. 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 on the plans. Have changes been made not resulting from this list? UYes UNo Carlsbad CBPC15-73 November 30, 2016 PLUMBING, MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, and ENERGY COMMENTS PLAN REVIEWER: Eric Jensen PLUMBING (2013 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE) The model sump specified is a simplex system: A dual system is required per CPC 710.9. 2. Provide the sizing calculations for the ejector pump(s). o 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 Eric Jensen at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. Carlsbad CBPC15-73 November 30, 2016 [DO NOT PAY- THIS IS NOT AN INVOICE] VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: CBPC15-73 PREPARED BY: Eric Jensen DATE: November 30, 2016 BUILDING ADDRESS: NW Corner/El Camino Real BUILDING OCCUPANCY: BUILDING PORTION AREA (Sq. Ft.) Valuation Multiplier Reg. Mod. VALUE ($) Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE Jurisdiction Code Icb IBY Ordinance I Bldg. Permit Fee by Ordinance Plan Check Fee by Ordinance I $161.251 Type of Review: 0 Complete Review E:] Structural Only E3 Repetitive Fee 1W I Repeats * Based on hourly rate O Other El Hourly 1.5 Hrs. @ * EsGil Fee $86.00 I $129.00I Comments: Sheet I of 1 macvalue.doc + (~7city of Carlsbad Print Date: 03/26/2019 Permit No: PREV2017-0076 Work Class: Residential Permit Revisi Status: Closed - Finaled Lot #: Applied: 04/25/2017 Reference #: DEV11017 Issued: 09/05/2017 Construction Type Permit 03/26/2019 Finaled: U Dwelling Units: Bathrooms: Inspector: Bedrooms: Orig. Plan Check U: PC150073 Final Plan Check #: Inspection: Project Title: ROBERTSON RANCH WEST VILLAGE Description: MONTECITO: REC CENTER ELECTRICAL REVISIONS Applicant: ROY BOLDT 619-572-7875 FEE AMOUNT, MANUAL BUILDING PERMIT FEE $125.00 Total Fees: $ 125.00 Total Payments To Date : $ 125.00 Balance Due: $0.00 Building Division 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad CA 92008-7314 1 760-602-2700 1 760-602-8560 f I www.carlsbadca.gov Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel No: Valuation: Occupancy Group: 2510 West Ranch St BLDG-Permit Revision 2081951000 $ 0.00 (City of PLAN CHECK REVISION Development Services Building Division Carlsbad (' APPLICATION 1635 Faraday Avenue B-I 5 760-602-2719 www.carlsbadca.gov Plan Check Revision No.f'RE)/.ZOI 7 —Xi1(O Original Plan Check N(Z'9- /5oo73 ProjectAddress _2ci o ti, ck( $1 te 317 7i7 Contact o R"o -'T Ph -57767$ Fax tv'VP-732,3 Email ce( Contact Address ( (p p L') City _L &LTcJ Zip 92o 2,Q General Scope of Work Original plans prepared by an architect or engineer, revisions must be signed & stamped by that person. 1. Elements revised: I'ians Calculations Soils LI Energy LII Other 2. Describe revisions in detail - 3. I 4. List page(s) where each revision is shown List revised sheets that replace existing sheets v b(1 Sl -.4 Does this revision, in any way, alter the exterior of the project? LI Yes LI No Does this revision add ANY new floor area(s)? LI Yes LI No Does this revision affect any fire related issues? LI Yes LI No S. Is this a complete set? LI Yes LI No ?~Signature 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ph: 760-602- 2719 E: 760-602-8558 Email: building@carlsbadca.gov www.carlsbadca.gov EsGil Corporation In Partners flip with government for cBui(ufing Safety DATE: August 14, 2017 LI APPLICANT /1 JURIS. JURISDICTION: Carlsbad Lj PLAN REVIEWER LI FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: PREV2017-0076 SET: I-REV 2.rcl PROJECT ADDRESS: 2510 West Ranch Street PROJECT NAME: Robertson Ranch Community Building Electrical Service Modifications IAttkQ 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. Lii EsGil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Telephone #: Date contacted: (by:1?L) Email: Mail Telephone Fax In Person REMARKS: By: Eric Jensen Enclosures: EsGil Corporation LI GA LI EJ El MB LI PC August 11 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (858) 560-1468 • Fax(858)560-1576 EsGil Corporation In Partners/lip with government for cliui(iing Safety DATE: 5/4/2017 U APPLICANT U JURIS. JURISDICTION: CARLSBAD U PLAN REVIEWER U FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: prev2017-0076 REV TO PC 15-73 SET: I PROJECT ADDRESS: NW CORNER - EL CAMINO REAL & WEST RANCH STREET PROJECT NAME: ROBERTSON RANCH - RECREATION FACILITY ELECTRICAL REVISIONS 2.510 Wet1ei C4L The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's 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: ARCHITECTS ORANGE AlA 144 NORTH ORANGE STREET, ORANGE, CA 92666 LI 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: AO AlA Telephone #: 714-639-9860 Date contacted: (b('(...L Email: kstoverarch itectsorange. corn ai Fax In Person REMARKS: scope of Work: Recreation Building is under this permit. 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (858) 560-1468 • Fax (858) 560-1576 CARLSBAD prev2017-0076 REV TO PC15-73 514/2017 By; Morteza Beheshti Enclosures: EsGil Corporation GA M EJ LI MB LI PC 5/27 PLAN REVIEW CORRECTION LIST MULTI-FAMILY PLAN CHECK NO.: prev2017-0076 REV TO PC15-73 JURISDICTION: CARLSBAD OCCUPANCY: B/A3 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V-B ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: 6K/FLR SPRINKLERS?: Y REMARKS: DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY JURISDICTION: 12/22 DATE INITIAL PLAN REVIEW COMPLETED: 5/4/2017 FOREWORD (PLEASE READ): USE: RECREATIONAL FACILITY ACTUAL AREA: 7,140 STORIES: ONE HEIGHT: 22' OCCUPANT LOAD: 125 DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 5/27 PLAN REVIEWER: Morteza Beheshti 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 ordinance 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. Present California law mandates that construction comply with the 2013 edition of the California Building Code (Title 24), which adopts the following model codes: 2012 IBC, 2012 UPC, 2012 UMC and 2011 NEC. The above regulations apply, regardless of the code editions adopted by ordinance. The following items listed need clarification, modification or change. All items must be satisfied before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations. Per Sec. 105.4 of the 2012 International Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law. To speed up the recheck process, please note on this list (or a copy) where each correction item has been addressed, i.e., plan sheet number, specification section, etc. Be sure to enclose the marked up list when you submit the revised plans. 'CARLSBAD prev2017-0076 REV TO PC15-73 5/4/2017 ELECTRICAL and ENERGY COMMENTS PLAN REVIEWER: Morteza Beheshti ELECTRICAL (2013 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE) Please detail the electrical room and the 1200 amp equipment service and demonstrate compliance with CEC 110.26 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. CARLSBAD prev2017-0076 REV TO PC15-73 5/4/2017 [DO NOT PAY - THIS IS NOT AN INVOICE] VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: CARLSBAD PLAN CHECK NO.: prev2017-0076 REV TO PC 15-73 PREPARED BY: Morteza Beheshti DATE: 5/4/2017 BUILDING ADDRESS: NW CORNER - EL CAMINO REAL & WEST RANCH STREET BUILDING OCCUPANCY: R2/S2; V-A/SPR. BLDGS: TYPE (I) BUILDING PORTION AREA (Sq. Ft.) Valuation Multiplier Reg. Mod. VALUE ($) TOTAL VALUE Jurisdiction Code 1CB IBy Ordinance ] Bldg. Permit Fee by Ordinance Plan Check Fee by Ordinance V Type of Review: Complete Review Structural Only Repetitive Fee Repeats * Based on hourly rate LII Other D—J Hourly I Hr. @* EsGil Fee $100.00 I $100.001 Comments: Sheet 1 of I macvalue.doc +