The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCDP 2019-0015; SAUER RESIDENCE; GEOTECHNICAL GRADING PLAN REVIEW UPDATE AND RESPONSE TO THIRD PARTY REVIEW COMMENTS, PROPOSED NEW BUILDING ADDITIONS AND REAR YEAR SITE IMPROVEMENTS, 2465 JEFFERSON STREET, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA; 2021-06-28Project No. GI-17-09-139 June 28, 2021 Carefree Holdings, LLC Mr. Chris Sauer 2465 Jefferson Street Carlsbad, California 92008 §JI§ GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers 5931 Sea Lion Place, Suite 109 Carlsbad, California 92010 760-602-7815 smsgeosol.inc@gmail.com Geotechnical Grading Plan Review Update And Response to Third Party Review Comments, Proposed New Building Additions, 2465 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, California Project most current Grading Plans prepared by John L. Majocha, PE, dated February 15, 2021 for the proposed constructions at the above-referenced property, were provided to us for review and comments. A copy of the project plan (sheet 2 of 3) is reproduced herein and included with this report as a Geotechnical Map, Figure 1. We are also in receipt of a "Third-Party Geotechnical Review (First)" of our original report (Reference 4 of references below), prepared by Hetherington Engineering, Inc. dated May 25, 2021. A copy of the Hetherington Engineering, Inc. review letter is attached herein as an Appendix A. Reference is made to the following reports prepared by this office in support of this project: I. "Second Geotechnical Foundation Plan Review, Proposed New Building Additions, 2465 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, California," Project No. GI-17-09-139, dated June 11, 2021. 2. "Geotechnical Foundation Plan Review, Proposed New Building Additions, 2465 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, California," Project No. GI-17-09-139, dated June 2, 2021. 3. "Geotechnical Update And Site/Grading Plan Review, Proposed New Building Additions And Rear Site Improvements, 2465 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, California," Project No. GI- 17-09-139, dated April 30, 2020. 4. "Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed New Building Additions And Rear Yard Site Improvement, 2465 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, California," Project No. GI-17-09-13 9, dated October 2, 2017. Geotechnical Grading Plan Review Update And Response to Review Comments Proposed New Building Additions, 2465 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, California June 28, 2021 Page 2 The referenced reports are on file with our office and copies can be obtained upon request. The purpose of this effort was to review the project most current Grading Plans (Figure 1) from a geotechnical engineering viewpoint, and confirm its compatibility with the site indicated geotechnical conditions and recommendations given in the referenced reports. Updated/added recommendations and clarifications to the third-party review comments are also presented in the following sections. I. SITE DESCRIPTION/ GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS The project property remain substantially unchanged from those described in the referenced reports. Topographic conditions and proposed development at the project property are shown on the enclosed Geotechnical Map, Figure 1. As shown, the property is mostly characterized by a nearly level graded building surface terminated along the western perimeter by a relatively large descending graded slope developed over natural hillside terrain. Building pad surfaces were originally created by minor grading efforts with shallow filling primarily as wall backfills in the western reaches of the level building pad. The western descending hillside is a large graded slope with drainage terraces, which descends nearly 40 feet at 2: 1 (to locally steeper) gradients to natural hillside terrain and the Buena Vista Lagoon embankment below. Rear slope areas are heavily overgrown with trees and shrubs. Evidence of slope instability is not readily apparent. Detailed descriptions of the underlying geologic units at the project property are provided in the referenced reports. In general, very dense to very tight Pleistocene Age Old Paralic Deposits (Qop) which are widely spread in coastal areas of Carlsbad underlie the property and western descending slope at or very shallow depths. Below, the Eocene Age Santiago Formation which is known to be present beneath the Terrace Deposits. Approximate location of exploratory borings and hand-dug test pit, as well as distribution of the underlying geologic units, are transferred and depicted on the Figure 1. Pertinent geotechnical data and engineering properties of the underlying soils are provided in the referenced report(s). A new Geologic Cross-Sections A-A' depicting existing/proposed grades and site subsurface profile is included as Figure 2. 11. PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS Based on our review, project most current plans substantially propose a similar development concept that was used as a basis of our originally study. Proposed building addition pad and finish floor elevations have remained substantially unchanged and significant cut-fill grading and ground modifications are not proposed. Project earthwork operations are expected to mainly consist of minor remedial and subgrade soil preparation efforts, pool excavations, and minor filling for achieving rear patio grades. Building addition foundations will be embedded into the underlying competent undisturbed Old Palatic Deposits that occur at shallow depths underneath the property. However, based on the current plans, the proposed swimming pool is now moved eastward away Geotechnical Grading Plan Review Update And Response to Review Comments Proposed New Building Additions, 2465 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, California June 28, 2021 Page3 from the existing western perimeter short retaining wall (top of slope), and the existing wall is no longer incorporated into the pool designs. Building construction will consist of conventional wood frame structures with exterior stucco supported on perimeter and interior continuous strip footings at least 15 inches wide and embedded a minimum of 18 inches into the underlying dense and competent undisturbed Old Paralic Deposits, as approved in the field. Spread pad footings will at least 24 inches square and also embedded 18 inches into approved undisturbed Old Paralic Deposits. III. SITE CLASSIFICATION FOR SEISMIC DESIGN Site soils are classified based on the upper 100 feet maximum of site subsoil profiles. In the absence of sufficient or specific site data, appropriate soil properties are permitted to be estimated by the project geotechnical consultant based on known geotechnical conditions, and Site Class D is typically used as a "default," unless otherwise noted. Site Classes A and B shall not be assigned to a site, if there is more than 10 feet of soil ( or fill) between the top of the underlying rock surface and bottom of the foundation. Site Classes A and B are most commonly supported by shear wave velocity determination (us, ft/s). Site Class F, which may require a site response analysis, consists ofliquefiable or collapsible soils and highly sensitive clayey soil profile. Site Classes C, D, and E soils may be classified using an average field Standard Penetration Resistance (N) method for soil layers based on Section 20.4.2 of ASCE 7-16. Where refusal is met for a rock layer (blow counts of 50 or greater for 6 inches or less penetration), Ni is taken as 100 blows per foot. Site Classification is then established based on Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-16. Requirements provided below are also applicable and should be incorporated in the project designs where appropriate: A. Site specific hazard analysis is required (see Section 11.4.8) in accordance with Chapter 21.2 of ASCE 7-16 for structures on Site Class E sites with values of Ss greater than or equal to l .0g, and structures on Site Class D and E sites with values of S 1 greater than or equal to 0.2g. However, the following 3 exceptions are permitted for Equivalent Lateral Force design (ELF) using conservative values of seismic design parameters in lieu of performing a site specific ground motion analysis: 1. Structures on Site Class E sites with Ss greater than or equal to 1.0, provided the site coefficient Fa is taken as equal to that of Site Class C. 2. For structures on Site Class D sites with S 1 greater than or equal to 0.2, a long period coefficient (Fv) of 1. 7 may be utilized for calculation of Ts, provided that the value of Seismic Response Coefficient (Cs) is determined by Equation (12.8-2) for values of the fundamental period of the building (T) less than or equal to l .5Ts, and taken as 1.5 times the value computed in accordance with either Equation 12.8-3 for T greater than 1.5 Ts and less than or equal to TL or Equation 12.8-4 for T greater than TL. Geotecbnical Grading Plan Review Update And Response to Review Comments Proposed New Building Additions, 2465 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, California June 28, 2021 Page4 3. Structures on Site Class E sites with S 1 greater than or equal to 0.2, provided that T is less than or equal to Ts and the equivalent static force procedure is used for the design. B. Where Site Class B is recommended, and a site specific measurement is not provided, the site coefficients Fa, Fv, and FPGA shall be taken as unity (1 .0) in accordance to Section 11.4.3 of ASCE 7-16. C. Where Site Class D is selected as the "default" site class per Section 11.4.3 of ASCE 7-16, the value of Fa shall not be less than 1.2. Where the simplified procedure of Section 12.4 is used, the value of Fa shall be determined in accordance with Section 12.14.8.1 , and the values ofFv, SMS and SM ! need not to be determined. At the project property very dense to very tight Pleistocene Age Old Paralic Deposits (Qop) occur beneath site at shallow depths. Based on our analysis of available boring data and an in-situ average Standard Penetration Resistance (N) of greater than 50 presumed representative of the upper 100 feet of the site subsoil profile, Site Class C (Soft Rock), can be considered for the project site subsoil profile, unless otherwise noted. IV. SEISMIC DESIGN VALUES Seismic design values are presented in the ASCE 7 Hazard Report prepared in accordance with Chapter 16, Section 1613 of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) and ASCE 7-16 Standard, enclosed herein as an Appendix B. Presented values are generated using ASCE developed web interface that uses the United States Geological Survey (USGS) web services and retrieves the seismic design data in a report format. V. GEOTECHNICAL GRADING PLAN REVIEW Based on our review, project most current plans substantially propose a similar design concept and remain acceptable to us from a geotechnical viewpoint. New pool location away from the existing western perimeter short retaining wall (top of slope), in our opinion, has now improved project designs, and is expected to facilitate planned new constructions. VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS All conclusions and recommendations provided in the reference reports stay valid and should be incorporated on to the final plans and implemented during the construction phase, except where specifically superseded or amended below: A. Project designs and earthworks including excavations, grading, bearing soil preparations, foundation trenching and related constructions shall be completed in accordance with Chapter 18 (Soils and Foundations) and Appendix "J" (Grading) of the 2019 California Geotechnical Grading Plan Review Update And Response to Review Comments Proposed New Building Additions, 2465 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, California June 28, 2021 Page 5 Building Code (CBC), ASCE 7-16, the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, City of Carlsbad Ordinances, the requirements of the governing agencies, referenced documents and this update report, wherever relevant and as applicable. B. Site grading and earthworks are not expected to impact the adjacent properties, improvements and public right-of-ways provided development recommendations given in the referenced reports and this update transmittal are incorporated into the final designs and implemented during the construction phase. Added field recommendations, however, may also be necessary and should be given by the project geotechnical consultant for the protection of adjacent properties and improvements, and should be anticipated. C. Soil design parameters will stay the same as specified in the referenced reports (Referenced 4 report). An additional seismic force due to seismic increments of earth pressure should also be considered in the project designs, if appropriate and where applicable. A seismic lateral inverted triangular earth pressure of 20 pcf (EFP), acting at 0.6H (H is the retained height) above the base of the wall should be considered. Alternatively, seismic loading based on Mononobe-Okake (M-O) coefficients may be considered for seismic force due to seismic increments of earth pressure. The following relationships and design values are appropriate: Wall Total Seismic Lateral y Condition Lateral Pressure Pressure KA Ko Kb KAE KOE (pct) Unrestrained PAE=PA + PAE dPAE=%KhYH2 0.24 -0.16 0.40 -127 Restrained PoE=Po + POE dPOE=KhYH2 -0.38 0.16 -0.54 127 D. The project swimming pool is now located a minimum of 5 feet way from the existing western perimeter short retaining wall (top of slope), and the existing wall is not incorporated into the pool designs. Consequently, the concrete platform and drilled CIP caissons pool support, as specified in the referenced reports (Reference 4), is no longer required. However, as a minimum, the following should be considered in the project pool designs and construction: 1. Bottom of the pool excavation is expected to expose existing fills and cut ground as approximately shown on the attached Figure 2. All existing fills shall be removed and recompacted (minimum 90%), properly benched and keyed into the natural undisturbed ground. The cut portion of bottom of the pool excavation shall also be additionally undercut to a minimum depth of 18 inches and reconstructed to bottom of pool elevation with minimum 90% compacted fills to eliminate cut-fill transition and construct a uniform bearing soil conditions throughout. Bottom of pool remedial grading and recompaction should be observed and approved in the field by the project geotechnical consultant, prior to placing steel reinforcement. 2. Adequately reinforced extended perimeter pool wall type footing (key) shall be provided at the bottom of the pool excavations along the western perimeter, adjacent to the existing wall/top of descending slope (see Figure 2). The extended footing shall be at Geotechnical Grading Plan Review Update And Response to Review Comments Proposed New Building Additions, 2465 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, California June 28, 2021 Page 6 least 18 inches wide and embedded a minimum of 18 inches into the underlying Old Paralic Deposits, but not less than 30 inches deep minimum. There shall be a minimum of 15 feet horizontal distance from the bottom outside edge of the extended perimeter pool wall footings to daylight. Steel reinforcement requirements for the extended perimeter pool wall type footings (keys) should be provided by the project pool design consultant. 3. The back drainage system (perforated pipe surrounded with crushed rocks all wrapped in filter fabric) behind the existing western perimeter short retaining wall should be verified. A well-functioning back drainage system shall be provide, if there is no or an inadequate wall back drainage. 4. Pool excavations are expected to expose well-compacted sandy to silty sand (SP/SM) deposits with very low expansion potential ( expansion index less than 20) based on ASTM D4829 classification. However, due to pool location and overall site conditions, in our opinion, the project pool designs should be based on "very high" expansive soils (per ASTM D4829 classification). 5. Final pool designs should be provided by the project pool deign consultant based on an apparent "very high expansion" soil conditions and pertinent design parameters provided in the referenced reports. The pool should be designed empty ( counter pressure from water in the pool should be neglected). 6. The pool should also be provided with minimum 15 inches wide by 18 inches deep grade beam reinforced with minimum 2-#5 bars top and bottom around the top of the perimeter walls. VII. RESPONSE TO THIRD PARTY REVIEW The following provide added information, clarifications and our response to the review comments outlined in the "Third-Party Geotechnical Review (First)" by Hetherington Engineering, Inc. dated May 25, 2021. Our responses are provided in the same order as the Third-Party Geotechnical Review (see Appendix A): Item #1: This transmittal represents an updated geotechnical report of the previous work referenced herein. Additional and amended recommendations consistent of the current plan, 2019 CBC and ASCE 7-16 are provided herein. Item #2: An updated Geotechnical Map utilizing the most current Grading Plan showing the existing topography, proposed structures and final design grades, geologic conditions, and approximate locations of the exploratory test pit/borings is included with this transmittal as Figure 1. Item #3: Updated Cross-Section A-A utilizing the current grading plan showing the existing topography, proposed structures and final design grades, approximate geologic Geotechnical Grading Plan Review Update And Response to Review Comments Proposed New Building Additions, 2465 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, California June 28, 2021 Page 7 contacts, and pertinent geologic conditions is attached to this transmittal as Figure 2. Item #4: We have received the project most current Grading Plan (Figure 1) and reviewed it as a part of this effort. Based on our review, the project Grading Plan (Figure 1) is considered in substantial compliance with this transmittal and referenced reports, provided our comments and amended recommendations given herein are also incorporated into the final plans, where appropriate and as applicable. Item #5: Detail description of proposed site grading, structures and site improvements are provided herein, and remain substantially unchanged from those provided in the referenced reports .. Item #6: Major grading and earthworks are not planned in connection with the proposed building additions and site improvements, and significant grading and construction impacts on the adjacent private properties and improvements, and public right-of-way is not anticipated VII. L IMITATIONS This geotechnical plan review is not a "Plan Check Review" and does not relieve the responsibility of the project design consultant(s) and contractor(s) to get completely familiarized with the requirements of the project soil report(s) and fully incorporate its recommendations into the project design, plans and construction works, where appropriate, and as applicable. Our review and comments are for general geotechnical conformance of the project plans with the intent of the project soil reports and design recommendations. Review of structural and civil engineering calculations, architectural intent and structural and civil engineering design modeling and basis, verification of set back requirements, easements and right-of-ways, as well as code, city and county compliance are beyond geotechnical engineering services. It is the owner's or his (her) representative's responsibility to provided copies of all pertinent soil report( s ), updates, addendums and plan review letters to respective design consultant(s), and general contractor and his (her) subcontractor(s) for full compliance. Geotechnical Grading Plan Review Update And Response to Review Comments Proposed New Building Additions, 2465 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, California June 28, 2021 Page 8 This opportunity to be of service again is sincerely appreciated. Should any questions arise concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Reference to our Project No. GI- 17-09-139 will help to expedite our response to your inquiries. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. 6Jl6 Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. Geotechnical Engineer St~~ Engineering Geologist SMS/SM/vs Appendix A: Third-Party Geotechnical Review (First) dated May 25, 2021 , Hetherington Engineering, Inc. Appendix B: ASCE 7 Hazard Report. Distribution: Addressee (2, e-mail) Andrew Carlos Architect ( e-mail) John Majocha, PE (e-mail) Rick Somers, RSCA ( e-mail) SJIS GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. GEOTECHNICAL MAP 2465 JEFFERSON STREET, CARLBAD, CA SCALE: l" = 20' O' I I I I I I I I I I 20' Qop aEXIST.BOUNDARY .. j _ -----= ~~ _ ~ _j__ _ __ --:-' ___ _ -_ ---S87"00'19"W 269.35 ---- SMS GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS INC -· 1 5931 Sea Lion Place, Suite I 09 Carlsbad, CA 92010 Legend -----------------------1 - DIISTHi RESIDENC£ 1r.g.a1 155-140-10-00 Qop ..= .;-=,.=-c=..-:;_=. ';" ::--~ ----=-- Proposed Building Location ................ Approximate Geologic Contact Geologic Cross Section Approximate Location of Boring Approximate Location of Test Pit Qop af Fill (Primarily Wall Backfill) Qop Old Paralic Deposits § MIER SUiQliMOC ..,a, 1:9!. I ,1~ t8 ii{ ~ 11~~ 8 ~ I --rn .. :t I I I I I I I tu . wl ~I V) . z l O · V) I ~. ~I LL . ~I ~ I I I I I I I Project Number: GI-17-09-139 Figure Number: 1 CROSS SECTION A-A' 2465 JEFFERSON STREET, CARLBAD, CA SCALE: 1" = 20' SMS GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS INC 593 I Sea Lion Place, Suite 109 Carlsbad, CA 920 I 0 O' 80 60 40 20 0 20' A . . · .. .. .. · ·.·• . '• .. · . . . . . . ... · .. Legend D Proposed Building Location ----Existing Grade Proposed Grade Boring Location Approximated Li A' PL Proposed Residence Proposed Pavers ~ ~ Geologic Contact Approximated Artificial Fill Old Paralic Deposits Project Number: GI-17-09-139 Figure Number: 2 APPENDIX A HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • HYDROGEOLOGY May 25, 2021 City of Carlsbad Community and Economic Development 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008-73 14 Attention: Subject: References: Amy Wickerham THIRD-PARTY GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW (FIRST) 2465 Jefferson Street Carlsbad California Project ID: GR2021-0015/CDP2019-0015 Project No. 9358.1 Log No. 21432 I. "Limited Geotechnical Investigation Proposed New Building Additions, and Rear Yard Improvements, 2465 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, California" by Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. dated October 2, 2017. 2. "Grading Plan For: Sayer Residence, 2465 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, CA." by John L. Majocha, P.E. dated February 15, 2017 (Sheets 1,2, and 3 f.3). 3. "City Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Tier 2, Sayer Residence; by John L. Majocha; P.E., undated (sheets land 2 of 2) Dear Ms. Wickerham: In accordance with your request, Hetherington Engineering, Inc. has provided third-party geotechnical review of Reference l. The following comments are provided for analyses and/or response by the Geotechnical Consultant. REVIEW OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORT I . Due to the age of the "Limited Geo technical Investigation" (References 1 ), the Consultant should provide an updated geotechnical report addressing the plans and provide updated grading, foundation, and seismic design, consistent with the 2019 California Building Code, and ASCE 7-16 as necessary. 2. The Consultant should provide an updated geotechnical map/plot plan utilizing the latest grading plan for the project to clearly show (at a minimum) a) existing site topography, b) proposed structures/improvements, c) proposed finished grades, d) locations of the subsurface exploration, and e) temporary slopes. 3. The Consultant should provide updated geologic cross-sections showing (at a minimum) a) existing site topography, b) proposed structures/improvements, c) 5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite A • Carlsbad, CA 92008-4369 • (760) 931-1917 • Fax (760) 931-0545 333 Third Stree • Laguna Beach, CA 9265 • (949) 715-5440 • Fax (949) 715-5442 www.hetheringtonengineering.com THIRD-PARTY GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW (FIRST) Project No. 9358.1 Log No. 21432 May 25, 2021 Page2 proposed finished grades, d) geologic contacts, etc., e) locations of the subsurface exploration and t) temporary slopes. 4. The Consultant should review the project grading and foundation plans, provide any additional geotechnical recommendations considered necessary, and confirm that the plans have been prepared in accordance with the geotechnical recommendations. 5. The Consultant should provide an updated description of proposed site grading and development. 6. The Consultant should provide a statement as to the impact of the proposed grading and construction on adjacent properties. Please call if there are any questions. Sincerely, HETHERINGTON ENGIN Paul A. Bogseth Professional Geologist 3 Certified Engineering G Certified Hydrogeologist ( expires 3/31/22) Distribution: 1-via Mark D. Hetheringto Civil Engineer 3048 Geotechnical Engi eer 397 ( expires 3/31/22) HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. APPENDIXB ASCE. AMERICAN SOCIEIY Of CJlllt ENGJNEl!IS Address: No Address at This Location - " \ \ ,~ https://asce ?hazardtool.online/ ASCE 7 Hazards Report Standard: ASCE/SEI 7-16 Risk Category: II Soil Class: C -Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock _.,.,-. ., c'\A •• I 3/'. • . . ,, f: • : 11!' ) Page 1 of 3 Elevation: 63.23 ft (NAVO 88) Latitude: 33.1697 Longitude: -117 .3488 • 'II ..... " 1111 I l l l-l h ~ lh I.' 11·• Thu Jun 24 2021 \ ,., \ ti \ \ ASCE. AMERICAN SOCIETY Of CMl ENGINEERS Seismic Site Soil Class: Results: Ss s, Fa Fv SMs SM, Sos Seismic Design Category C -Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock 1.059 So, 0.384 0.384 TL : 8 1.2 PGA: 0.466 1.5 PGAM : 0.559 1.271 FPGA 1.2 0.576 le 1 0.847 Cv : 1.112 D 1 4 MCER Response Spectrum 09 Design Response Spectrum 1 2 • 1 0 • • • • 08 • -08 • r 7 • 0 6 • • • • 0 5 ♦ 05 04 • 04 0 3 • 02 02 0 1 0 0 0 ~ 3 4 Sa (g) vs T(s) 5 6 7 n 9 0 u --4 Sa (g) vs T(s) 5 6 7 s 9 '. 2 MCER Vertical Response Spectrum 08 Design Vertical Response Spectrum -· 1 0 • 08 • •••• • 04 0 2 • •• •• ••• ••••• 0 0 0 5 , J Sa(g) vs T(s) Data Accessed: Date Source: https://asce7hazardtool.online/ .... ••••••••••••• 1 5 20 Thu Jun 24 2021 -· 07 06 0 5 0 3 • 0 2 0 • • • ••• • • • •• ••• ••••• (: 5 I .J Sa (g) VS T(s) ••••• ••••••••••••• 1 5 USGS Seismic Design Maps based on ASCE/SEI 7-16 and ASCE/SEI 7-16 Table 1.5-2. Additional data for site-specific ground motion procedures in accordance with ASCE/SEI 7-16 Ch. 21 are available from USGS. Page 2 of 3 Thu Jun 24 2021 ASCE. AM8l1CAN SOCtf1Y Of CMI. ENGINEERS The ASCE 7 Hazard Tool is provided for your convenience, for informational purposes only, and is provided "as is" and without warranties of any kind. The location data included herein has been obtained from information developed, produced, and maintained by third party providers; or has been extrapolated from maps incorporated in the ASCE 7 standard. While ASCE has made every effort to use data obtained from reliable sources or methodologies, ASCE does not make any representations or warranties as to the accuracy, completeness, reliability, currency, or quality of any data provided herein. Any third-party links provided by this Tool should not be construed as an endorsement, affiliation, relationship, or sponsorship of such third-party content by or from ASCE. ASCE does not intend, nor should anyone interpret, the results provided by this Tool to replace the sound judgment of a competent professional, having knowledge and experience in the appropriate field(s) of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting and applying the contents of this Tool or the ASCE 7 standard. In using this Tool, you expressly assume all risks associated with your use. Under no circumstances shall ASCE or its officers, directors, employees, members, affiliates, or agents be liable to you or any other person for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages arising from or related to your use of, or reliance on, the Tool or any information obtained therein. To the fullest extent permitted by Jaw, you agree to release and hold harmless ASCE from any and all liability of any nature arising out of or resulting from any use of data provided by the ASCE 7 Hazard Tool. https://asce 7hazardtool.online/ Page 3 of 3 Thu Jun 24 2021