Loading...
08-0317 (CSCS) Geotechnical Reportw am® a.rr Kraz & ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING a ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION September 23, 2008 KA Project No. 112-07036 Mr. Thomas Middleton Regency Centers Inc. 36 Executive Park, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92614 RE: Report Update Letter Proposed Shopping Center Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive La Quinta, California Dear Mr. Middleton: ..In accordance with your request, we are providing this Addendum to our Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report (KA Project No. 112-07036) dated May 25, 2007 for the above -referenced project .site. This addendum provides additional information to conform with seismic design requirements of the 2007 California Building Code (2007 CBC). The site class, per Table 1613.5.2, 2007 CBC, is based upon the site soil conditions. It is our opinion that a Site Class D is appropriate for building design at this site. For seismic design of the structures, in accordance with the seismic provisions of the 2007 CBC, we recommend the following parameters: E. 2007 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE Seismic Item Value. CBC Reference Site Class D Table 1613.5.2 Fa 1.00 Table 1613.5.3 (1) Ss 1.51 Figure 1613.5 (3) SMS 1.51 Section 1613.5.3 SDS 1.00 Section 1613.5.4 Fv . 1.50 Table 1613.5.3 (2) S1 0.60 Figure 1613.5 (4) _SMI 0.90 Section 1613.5.3 SDI 0.60 Section 1613.5.4 The recommendations and limitations provided in our Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report (KA Project No, 112-07036) dated May 25, 2007 apply to this letter. With Offices Serving The Western United States 4221 Brickell Street o Ontario, California 91761 o (909) 974-4400 a Fax: (909) 974-4022 Rnised to CBC2007 leitmdoc KA Project No. 112-07036 Page No. 2 ?sem r If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (909) 974-4400. Respectfully submitted, KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. G �o Q�pFESSIOAl' !� RISTOPHER 1 2503 �-d jgMESSON M.KELLOGG Z Christo r Robin B@ ). es Kelloggrn W Project Manager ACERTIFIED roject Engine e cW� %0.65 10,200 9p2.2 oo C.E.G. No. 2503 ENGINEERICa Mites Sep. 9 G oLQ ST ��`� RCE No. 65092 CIVIL Krazan & Associates, Inc. Widi Offices Serving The Western United States Revisal to CDC2007later.dac <raZan &ASSOCIATES, INC GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONS TRUCTION'TESTING & INSPECTION September 25, 2008 KA No.: 126-08033 Regency Centers Mr. Tom Middleton 36 Executive Park, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92614 RE: Response to City of La Quinta Request For information Jefferson Square Retail Center Proposed Shop Buildings Fred Waring & Jefferson La Quinta, CA Reference: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Jefferson Square (Phase 1), Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive, La Quinta, California, dated May 25, 2007. Mr. Middleton: In accordance with your request and authorization, we have prepared this letter to respond to a request for information by the City of La Quinta. Based on information provided by the project Civil Engineer, DRC Engineering, it is our understanding that the City of La Quints has requested confirmation that the recommended remedial grading is suitable for the proposed shop buildings to be constructed at the project site. In addition, it is our understanding that the city has requested confirmation that the anticipated long term settlement of the proposed structures will be within the anticipated tolerable limits. Based on a review of Sheet STI, General Notes and Details, prepared by KTGY Structural Engineers, a maximum bearing capacity value of 3000 pounds per square foot has been used to design the proposed building foundation. This value is consistent with the recommendations presented in the referenced Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report for the subject site. As a result, the recommended remedial grading provided for the subjects development is considered suitable. The long term settlement of the proposed shop buildings is anticipated to be within the limits presented in the referenced Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report as well. We appreciate the opportunity to assist you on this project. If you have any questions regarding the reported test results or require additional information, please contact our office at (951) 694-0601 for assistance. Respectfully submitted, AN&A CoQ b, Q es M. el SMIELL0 Project Engin ' U W92 RCE 6509 as x 2012 Distribution: (A (1) JMK/dmw QFC Op" ER C10 C lsto SON P dbti 503 N1 Project eologist CERTIFIED • CEG 2503 ENGINEERING >► GEOL GIST �Y FOF CA`�FO Offices Serving The Western United States 43379 Business Park Drive, Suite 300 • Temecula, California 92590 • (951) 694-0601 • Fax: (951) 694-0701 fry Aza::z u. l �.,razan & ASSOCIATES, OC ATES, INC GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION September 25, 2008 Regency Centers Mr. Tom Middleton 36 Executive Park, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92614 RE: Response to City of La Quinta Request For information Jefferson Square Retail Center Proposed CVS and Fresh & Easy Buildings Fred Waring & Jefferson La Quinta, CA KA No.: 126-08033 Reference: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Jefferson Square (Phase 1), Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive, La Quinta, California, dated May 25, 2007. Mr. Middleton: In accordance with your request and authorization, we have prepared this letter to responsd to a request for information by the City of La Quinta. Based on information provided by the project Civil Engineer, DRC Engineering, it is our understanding that the City of La Quinta has requested confirmation that the recommended remedial grading is suitable for the proposed Fresh & Easy and CVS retail buildings to be constructed at the project site. In addition, it is our understanding that the city has requested confirmation that the anticipated long term settlement of the proposed structures will be within the anticipated tolerable limits. Based on a review of the structural foundation plans for the proposed structures, a maximum bearing capacity value of 3000 pounds per square foot has been used to design the proposed building foundations. This value is consistent with the recommendations presented in the referenced Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report for the subject site. As a result, the recommended remedial grading provided for the subjects development is considered suitable. The long term settlement of the proposed shop buildings is anticipated to be within the limits presented in the referenced Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report as well. We appreciate the opportunity to assist you on this project. If you have any questions regarding the reported test results or require additional information, please contact our office at (951) 694-0601 for assistance. Respectfully submitted, & ASS QUO 9��ij, AL QFO MESM.KELL000 PHER`�O� es . Kello No. 65092 Chnstop o n, Ci 2503 roject Engineer B*e3sq'30,20 Project logi CERTIFIED • RCE 65092 CIVIL CEG 2503 ENGINEERING Distribution: (1) A Q� A GEOL IST (1) DR 'i�• 0 08 Q` JMK/dmw EDF CA���O Offices Serving The Western United States 43379 Business Park Drive, Suite 300 • Temecula, California 92590 9 (951) 694-0601 . Fax: (951) 694-0701 sri . �� azari & ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION May 25, 2007 KA Project No. 112-07036 Mr. Thomas Middleton Regency Centers, Inc. 36 Executive Park, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92614 RE: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposed Jefferson Square (Phase n Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive La Quinta, California Dear Mr;. Middleton: In accordance with your request and authorization, we have completed our Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the above -referenced site. This report summarizes the results of our field investigation, laboratory, testing and engineering analyses. Based on the data obtained, our understanding of the proposed project and our engineering analyses, it is our opinion that it is feasible to develop the site as planned. As noted in our report, Krazan & Associates should be retained to review project plans and specifications prior to the start of construction, and to observe and test earthwork and foundation construction. Observation and testing services should also be performed by our field staff during construction activities which will allow us to compare conditions exposed during construction with those encountered during our investigation and to present supplemental recommendations if wan -anted by different site conditions. If you have -any questions regarding the information or recommendations presented in our report, or if we may be of further assistance, please contact our Ontario, California office at (909) 974-4400. 0 cc: Addressee (4) Respectfully submitted, KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. J�'�sKeiioc�- James M. Kellogg, PE Regional Manager � ECEIVE ,i►i� Offices Serving The Western United States 4221 Brickell Street • Ontario, California 91761 • (909) 9744400 • Fax: (909) 9744022 1I207036.doc t GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION PROPOSED JEFFERSON SQUARE JEFFERSON STREET AND FRED WARING DRIVE LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT No. 112-07036 MAY 25, 2007 PREPARED FOR: REGENCY CENTERS, INC. 36 EXECUTIVE PARK, SUITE 100 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614 ATTENTION: MR. THOMAS MIDDLETON PREPARED BY: KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4221 BRICKELL STREET ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91761 (909) 974-4400 Offices Serving the Western United States GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION PROPOSED JEFFERSON SQUARE LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES...............................................................................................1 PROPOSEDCONSTRUCTION..............................................................................................................2 SITE LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION.....................................................................................2 SITEMVESTIGATION...........................................................................................................................3 GEOLOGICSETTING..................................................................................................................................3 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS.............................................................................................3 SOIL PROFILE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS...............:........................................................................4 GROUNDWATER........................................................................................................................................4 SEISMICITY, LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL AND SEISMIC INDUCED SETTLEMENT......................................5 SOILCORROSIVITY...................................................................................................................................5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................6 ADMINISTRATIVESUMMARY...................................................................................................................6 GROUNDWATER INFLUENCE ON STRUCTURES/CONSTRUCTION..............................................................7 WEAKAND DISTURBED SOILS......................................................................................................:..........7 COLLAPSIBLESOILS.................................................................................................................................7 EARTHWORK............................................................................................................................................7 Site Preparation — Clearing and Stripping...... ..................................................................................... 7 Overexcavation and Recompaction..................................................................................................... 8 FillPlacement...................................................................................................................................... 8 ENGINEEREDFILL....................................................................................................................................8 TEMPORARY EXCAVATION STABILITY....................................................................................................9 UTILITYTRENCH BACKFILL.....................................................................................................................9 COMPACTED MATERIAL ACCEPTANCE....................................................................................................9 SURFACE DRAINAGE AND LANDSCAPING..............................................................................................10 FLOOR SLABS AND EXTERIOR FLATWORK.............................................................................................10 FOUNDATIONS........................................................................................................................................11 RETAININGWALLS.................................................................................................................................11 PAVEMENTDESIGN................................................................................................................................12 SITECOEFFICIENT..................................................................................................................................13 SOILCORROSIVITY.................................................................................................................................13 TESTINGAND INSPECTION......................................................................................................................13 LIMITATIONS........................................................................................................................................14 VICINITYMAP........................................................................................................................... Figure 1 SITEPLAN.................................................................. ................................................................. Figure 2 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS............................................................ Appendix A GENERAL EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS............................................................... Appendix B GENERAL PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS.................................................................... Appendix C Offices Serving The Western United States 4221 Brickell Street • Ontario, California 91761 • (909) 9744400 • Fax: (909) 9744022 11207036.doc � A�.bowm aZ & ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION May 25, 2007 INTRODUCTION KA Project No. 112-07036 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION PROPOSED JEFFERSON SQUARE JEFFERSON STREET AND FRED WARING DRIVE LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA This report presents the results of our Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the proposed Jefferson Square shopping center (Phase I) in La Quinta, California. Discussions regarding site conditions are presented herein, together with conclusions and recommendations pertaining to site preparation, grading, utility trench backfill, drainage and landscaping, foundations, concrete floor slabs and exterior concrete flatwork, retaining walls, soil corrosivity, and pavement design. A Vicinity Map showing the location of the site is presented on Figure 1. A Site Plan showing the approximate boring locations is presented on Figure 2. Descriptions of the field and laboratory investigations, boring log legend and boring logs are presented in Appendix A. Appendices B and C contain guides for general earthwork and flexible pavement specifications. If conflicts in the text of the report occur with the general specifications in the appendices, the recommendations in the text of the report have precedence. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES This geotechnical investigation was conducted to evaluate subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the project site. Engineering analysis of the field and laboratory data was performed for the purpose of developing and providing geotechnical recommendations for use in the preliminary design and construction of the earthwork, foundation and pavement aspects of the project. Our scope of services was outlined in our proposal dated May 1, 2007 (KA Proposal No. P112049-07) and included the following: A site reconnaissance by a member of our engineering staff to evaluate the surface conditions at the project site. o Review of selected published geologic maps, reports and literature pertinent to the site and surrounding area. Offices Serving The Western United States 4221 Brickell Street • Ontario, California 91761 • (909) 9744400 • Fax: (909) 9744022 11207036.doe KA No. 112-07036 Page No. 2 • A field investigation consisting of drilling sixteen (16) borings to depths of 11 to 51 feet below the existing ground surface for evaluation of the subsurface conditions at the project site. • Performing laboratory tests on representative soil samples obtained from the borings to evaluate the physical and index properties of the subsurface soils. • Evaluation of the data obtained from the investigation and engineering analyses of the data with respect to the geotechnical aspects of structural design, and site grading and paving. • Preparation of this report summarizing the results, conclusions, recommendations, and findings of our investigation. Environmental set -vices, such as chemical analyses of soil and groundwater for possible environmental contaminates, and geologic study were not in our scope of services. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION We understand that design of the proposed development is currently underway, structural load information and other final details pertaining to the structures are therefore unavailable. On a preliminary basis, it is understood that the project will include construction of a retail shopping center named Jefferson Square (Phase I). The shopping center will consist of a market, a drug store, two shops and two pads ranging in footprints from 4,500 to 13,900 square feet. The buildings are planned to be of one story wood frame/stucco or masonry construction with concrete slab -on -grade floors. Building loads are anticipated to be relatively light. Onsite parking and landscaping are also planned for the development. Mass grading of the majority of the site is expected to entail minor to moderate cuts and fills from existing grades to establish building pads and to provide for surface drainage of the site. In the event these structural or grading details are inconsistent with the final design criteria, we should be notified so that we can evaluate the potential impacts of the changes on the recommendations presented in this report and provide an updated report as necessary. SITE LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION The site is rectangular in shape and encompasses approximately 8.44 acres. The site is located on the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The site is predominately surrounded by residential developments and park/golf course lands. Presently, the site is vacant with sparse weeds and shrubs. A scoured wash is located at the northeast corner . of the site with a relief of approximately 4 to 6 feet. The remaining site is relatively flat with no major changes in grade. The average elevation of the site is approximately 60 feet above mean sea level. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States I1207036.doc KA No. 112-07036 Page No. 3 SITE INVESTIGATION GEOLOGIC SETTING Regionally the proposed site is situated at the base of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains within the northwest portion of the Coachella Valley of Southern California. Near -surface material consists of alluvial fan deposits 'of sand, silt, gravel, and cobbles derived from erosion of the Mesozoic granitic and metamorphic rocks of the adjacent San Jacinto Mountains. A significant feature within this geomorphic province is the Salton Trough. The Salton Trough is a Iarge northwest -trending structural depression that extends from the San Gorgonio Pass to the Gulf of California. A large portion of this depression in the vicinity of the Salton Sea is below sea level. The Coachella Valley forms the northerly portion of the Salton Trough and contains a thick sequence of sedimentary deposits that are Miocene to Recent in age. Mountains surrounding the Coachella Valley include the Little San Bernardino Mountains to the northeast, foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains to the northwest, and the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains to the southwest. These mountains expose primarily Precambrian metamorphic and Mesozoic granitic rocks. Tectonism of the region is dominated by the interaction of the East Pacific Plate and the North American Plate along a transform boundary. The Coachella Valley .has been filled with a variable thickness of relatively young, heterogeneous alluvial deposits. The Coachella Valley in the vicinity of the project site is drained by minor tributaries toward the Whitewater River, which is located approximately three miles southwest of the subject site. This drainage system trends towards the southeast in the vicinity of the subject site. Depth to groundwater in the vicinity of the subject site is reported to be approximately 100 feet below ground surface with a general direction of flow towards the southeast. Numerous moderate to large earthquakes have affected the area of the subject site within historic time. Based on the proximity of several dominant active faults and seismogenic structures, as well as the historic seismic record, the area of the subject site is considered subject to relatively high seismicity. The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is groundshaking due to a large earthquake on one of the major active regional faults. The San Andreas — Southern fault is the nearest active fault to the site and located approximately 6.3 kilometers northeast of the project site. The Burnt Mountain, Eureka Peak and San Jacinto — Anza faults are located approximately 26, 27.3, and 36.8 kilometers from the site, respectively. The subject site is located in Seismic Zone 4 as defined by the California Building Code. FIELD AND LABORA'T'ORY INVESTIGATIONS Subsurface soil conditions were explored by drilling sixteen (16) borings, using a truck -mounted drill rig, to depths ranging from approximately 11 to 51 feet below existing site grade. The approximate boring locations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. These approximate boring locations were estimated in the field based on pacing and measuring from the limits of existing site features. During drilling operations, penetration tests were performed at regular intervals to evaluate the soil consistency and to obtain information regarding the engineering properties of the subsurface soils. Soil samples were retained for laboratory testing. The soils encountered were continuously examined and visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. A more detailed description of the field investigation is presented in Appendix A. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States I1207036.doc KA No. 112-07036 Page No. 4 Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples to evaluate their physical characteristics and engineering properties. The laboratory -testing program was formulated with emphasis on the evaluation of in-situ moisture and dry density, gradation, shear strength, consolidation, R -value, maximum dry density, resistivity, sulfate and chloride of the materials encountered. Details of the laboratory -testing program are discussed in Appendix A. The results of the laboratory tests are presented on the boring logs or on the test reports, which are also included in Appendix A. This information, along with the field observations, was used to prepare the final boring logs in Appendix A. SOIL PROFILE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Based on our findings, the subsurface conditions encountered appear typical of those found in the geologic region of the site. In general, the subsurface soils consisted of 1 to 3 feet of loose/disturbed silty sands and sands underlain by denser alluvial deposits. The upper soils are disturbed, have low strength characteristics, and are highly compressible when saturated. Below the loose/disturbed upper soils, denser silty sands, sands and silts were encountered. Field and laboratory tests suggest that the deeper native soils are moderately strong and slightly compressible. Penetration resistance, measured by the number of blows required to drive a Modified California sampler or a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler, ranged from 7 to 54 blows per foot. Dry densities ranged from 90.8 to 112.6 pounds per cubic feet (pcf). Representative soil samples had angles of internal friction of 32 to 37 degrees. Representative soil samples consolidated approximately 0.7 to 1.7 percent under a 2-ksf load when saturated. Reprehensive soil samples had R -values of 52 to 58, maximum dry densities of 110 to 119 pcf and an Expansion Index of 0. One boring, Boring B-1, was advanced to a depth of 50 feet to obtain additional information for use in liquefaction potential evaluation. The profile is consistent with the majority of the borings drilled during this study. The above is a general description of soil conditions encountered at the site in the borings drilled for this investigation. For a more detailed description of the soil conditions encountered, please refer to the boring logs in Appendix A. GROUNDWATER Test boring locations were checked for the presence of groundwater during and after the drilling operations. Groundwater was not encountered at the time of this investigation. It should be recognized that water table elevation might fluctuate with time. The depth to groundwater can be expected to fluctuate both seasonally and from year to year. Fluctuations in the groundwater level may occur due to variations in precipitation, irrigation practices at the site and in the surrounding areas, climatic conditions, flow in adjacent or nearby canals, pumping from wells and possibly as the result of other factors that were not evident at the time of our investigation. Therefore, water level observations at the time of our field investigation may vary from those encountered during the construction phase of the project. The evaluation of such factors is beyond the scope of this report. Long-term monitoring in observation wells, sealed from the influence of surface water, is often required to more accurately define the potential range of groundwater conditions on a site. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States 11207036.doc KA No. 112-07036 Page No. 5 SEISMICITY, LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL AND SEISMIC INDUCED SETTLEMENT Seismicity is a, general term relating to the abrupt release of accumulated strain energy in the rock materials of the earth's crust in a given geographical area. The recurrence of accumulation and subsequent release of strain have resulted in faults and fault systems. Fault patterns and density reflect relative degrees of regional stress through time, but do not necessarily indicate recent seismic activity; therefore, the,degree of seismic risk must be determined or estimated by the seismic record in any given region. Soil liquefaction is a state of soil particle suspension caused by a complete loss of strength when the effective stress drops to zero. Liquefaction normally occurs under saturated conditions in soils such as sand in which the strength is purely frictional. However, liquefaction has occurred in soils other than clean sand. Liquefaction usually occurs under vibratory conditions such as those induced by seismic events. To evaluate the liquefaction potential of the site, the following items were evaluated: 1) Soil type 2) Groundwater depth 3) Relative density 4) Initial confining pressure 5) Intensity and duration of ground shaking The soils beneath the site consist predominately of dense and stiff materials. Groundwater is expected to be a depth of greater than 50 feet. The potential for liquefaction is considered to be low based on the absence of shallow groundwater and the relatively dense and stiff materials underlying the site. One of the most common phenomena during seismic shaking accompanying any earthquake is the induced settlement of loose unconsolidated soils. Based on site subsurface conditions and the moderate to high seismicity of the region, any loose granular materials at the site could be vulnerable to this potential hazard. Our analysis of dynamic densification of "dry" soil above the water table in the upper 50 feet of existing soil profile was performed. The seismic densification of dry to damp alluvial sandy soils due to onsite.seismic activity is calculated to have total settlements of approximately 2 to 3 inches. To reduce the effects and magnitude of the seismic induced settlements, remedial grading is recommended, as discussed later in this report. Following completion of the recommended remedial grading and foundation design, we estimate that differential settlements of approximately %i inch in 20 feet laterally may result from seismic densification. SOIL CORROSIVITY Corrosion tests were performed to evaluate the soil corrosivity to the buried structures. The results of the tests are m' cluded as follows: Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States 11207036.doe KA No. 112-07036 Page No. 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findings of our field and laboratory investigations, along with previous geotechnical experience in the project area, the following is a summary of our evaluations, conclusions, and recommendations. ADMINISTRATIVE SUMMARY Based on the data collected during this investigation, and from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, it is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible as presently anticipated provided that the recommendations presented in this report are considered in the design and construction of the project. In brief, the subject site and soil conditions, with the exception of the upper looselcollapsible soils and seismic induced settlement, appear to be conducive to the development of the project. Undocumented fill materials may be present onsite between our exploratory borehole locations. In general, these fill soils should be assumed uncompacted and unsuitable for support of foundations and pavements. These fill soils if encountered during grading should also be overexcavated and recompacted. The upper loose soils within the project. site are moderately compressible under saturated conditions. Accordingly, mitigation measures are recommended to reduce potential excessive soil settlement. Recommendations pertaining to the removal and recompaction of these moisture -sensitive soils are presented herein. After completion of the recommended site preparation, the site should be suitable for shallow footing support. Sandy soil conditions were encountered at the site. These cohesionless soils have a tendency to cave in trench wall excavations. Shoring or sloping back trench sidewalls may be required within these loose cohesionless soils. Due to the lack of fines for the onsite cohesionless soils, it is recommended that the subgrade and fill soils be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D1557-00 Test Method. The shrinkage on recompacted soil and fill placement is estimated at 15 to 20 percent. This value is an estimate and may vary significantly depending on several items including soil conditions, compaction effort, weather, etc. Subsidence within building areas will be less than 0.02 foot, due to the recommended over -excavation. Subsidence within parking areas, below the 12 -inch recompaction depth, is estimated at 0.05 foot. All grading and- earthwork should be performed in accordance with the Grading Ordinances of the City of La Quinta and the applicable portions of the General Earthwork Specifications in Appendix B, except as modified herein. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States 11207036.doc KA No. 112-07036 Page No. 7 GROUNDWATER INFLUENCE ON STRUCTURES/CONSTRUCTION Based on our findings and historical records, it is not anticipated that groundwater will rise within the zone of structural influence or affect the construction of foundations and pavements for the project. However, if earthwork is performed during or soon after periods of precipitation, the subgrade soils may become saturated, "pump," or not respond to densification techniques. Typical remedial measures include discing and aerating the soil during dry weather; mixing the soil with dryer materials; removing and replacing the soil with an approved fill material; or mixing the soil with an approved lime or cement ,product. Our firm should be consulted prior to implementing remedial measures to observe the unstable subgrade conditions and provide appropriate recommendations. WEAK AND DISTURBED SOILS Of primary importance in the development of this site is the removal/recompaction of potentially compressible soils from the areas of the proposed structures. This is discussed in detail in the Earthwork section of this report. - COLLAPSIBLE SOILS The upper onsite native soils are moisture -sensitive and are moderately compressible under saturated conditions. Structures within the project vicinity have experienced excessive post -construction settlement, when the foundation soils become near saturated. As recommended in the site preparation section of this report, the collapsible soils should be removed and recompacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D 1557-00 Test Method. EARTHWORK Site Preparation — Clearing and Stripping General site clearing should include removal of vegetation and existing utilities, structures, trees and associated root systems rubble, rubbish, and any loose and/or saturated materials. Site stripping should extend to a minimum depth of 2 to 4 inches, or until all organics in excess of 3 percent by volume are removed. Deeper stripping may be required in localized areas. These materials will not be suitable for reuse as Engineered Fill. However, stripped topsoil may be stockpiled and reused in landscape or non- structural areas with the approval of the owner and landscaper. Any excavations that result from clearing operations should be backfilled with engineered fill. Krazan & Associates' field staff should be present during site clearing operations to enable us to locate areas where depressions or disturbed soils are present and to allow our staff to observe and test the backfill as it is placed, Jf site clearing and backfilling operations occur without appropriate observation and testing by a qualified geotechnical consultant, there may be .the need to over -excavate the building area to identify uncontrolled fills prior to mass grading of the building pad. As with site clearing operations, any buried structures encountered during construction should be properly removed and backfilled. The resulting excavations should be backfilled with engineered fill. - Krazan & :Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States 11207036.doc KA No. 112-07036 Page No. 8 Overexcavation and Recompaction Building Pad Areas To minimize post -construction soil movement and provide uniform support for the proposed buildings, overexcavation and recompaction within the proposed building footprints should be performed to a minimum depth of five (5) feet below existing grade or four (4) feet below bottom of the proposed footings, whichever is deeper. The actual depth of overexcavation should be determined by our field representative during grading. The overexcavation and recompaction should also extend laterally 5 feet beyond the edges of the proposed footings. Any undocumented fill encountered during grading should be removed and replaced with engineered fill. Pavement Areas Within the pavement areas, it is recommended that overexcavation and recompaction should be performed to at least 12 inches below existing grade or finish grade, whichever is deeper. This compaction effort should stabilize the surface soils and locate any unsuitable or pliant areas not found during our field investigation. The actual depth of the overexcavation and recompaction should be determined by our field representative during construction. Fill Placement Prior to placement of fill soils, the upper 8 inches of native subgrade soils should be scarified, moisture - conditioned to no less than the optimum moisture content, and recompacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D1557-00 Test Method. Fill soils should be placed in loose lifts approximately 6 to 8 inches thick, moisture -conditioned to near optimum moisture content (t2%), and compacted to achieve at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557-00 Test Method. Additional lifts should not be placed if the previous lift did not meet the required dry density or if soil conditions are not stable. The upper soils, during wet winter months, may become very moist due to the absorptive characteristics of the soil. Earthwork operations performed during winter months may encounter very moist unstable soils, which may require removal to grade a stable building foundation. Project site winterization consisting of placement of aggregate base and protecting exposed soils during the construction phase should be performed. ENGINEERED FILL The upper organic -free, on-site, native soils are predominately silty sands and sands. These soils will be suitable for reuse as non -expansive Engineered Fill, provided they are cleansed of excessive organics and debris. The preferred materials specified for Engineered Fill are suitable for most applications with the exception of exposure to erosion. Project site winterization and protection of exposed soils during the Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States 11207036.doc KA No. 112-07036 Page No. 9 construction phase should be the sole responsibility of the contractor, since he has complete control of the project site at that time. Imported Fill material should be predominately non -expansive granular materials with a plasticity index less than 10, an Expansion Index less than 20 and 10 to 40 percent passing No. 200 sieve. Imported Fill should be free from rocks and clods greater than 4 inches in diameter. All Imported Fill material should be submitted to the Soils Engineer for approval at least 48 hours prior to delivery at the site. TEMPORARY EXCAVATION STABILITY ' All excavations should comply with the current OSHA requirements. All cuts greater than 2 feet in depth should be sloped or shored. Temporary excavations should be sloped at 1 %2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter up to a maximum depth of 8 feet below surrounding grade. Heavy construction equipment, building materials, excavated soil, and vehicular traffic should not be allowed within five (5) feet of the top (edge) of the excavation. Where sloped excavations are not feasible due to site constraints, the excavationsmay require shoring. The design of the shoring system is normally the responsibility of the contractor or shoring designer, and therefore, is outside the scope of this report. The design of the temporary shoring should take into account lateral pressures exerted by the adjacent soil, and, where anticipated, surcharge loads due to adjacent buildings and any construction equipment or traffic expected to operate alongside the excavation. The excavation/shoring recommendations provided herein are based on soil characteristics derived from our test borings within the area. Variations in soil conditions willlikely be encountered during the excavations. Krazan & Associates, Inc. should be afforded the opportunity to provide field review to evaluate the actual conditions and account for field condition variations, not otherwise anticipated in the preparation of this recommendation. UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL Sandy soil conditions were encountered at the site. These cohesionless soils have a tendency to cave in trench wall excavations. Shoring or sloping back trench sidewalls may be required within these sandy soils. Utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D1557-00 Test Method. Pipe bedding should be placed in accordance with pipe manufacturer recommendations. Depending upon the location and depth of some utility trenches, water flows into open excavations could be experienced, especially during or following periods of precipitation. The contractor is responsible for removing all water -sensitive soils from the trench regardless of the backfill location and compaction requirements. The contractor should use appropriate equipment and methods to avoid damage to the utilities_ and/or structures during fill placement and compaction. COMPACTED MATERIAL ACCEPTANCE Compaction specifications are not the only criteria for acceptance of the site grading or other such activities. However, the compaction test is the most universally recognized test method for assessing the performance of the Grading Contractor. The numerical test results from the compaction test cannot be Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States 11207036.doc KA No. 112-07036 Page No. 10 solely used to predict the engineering performance of the compacted material. Therefore, the acceptance of compacted materials will also be dependent on the moisture content and the stability of that material. The Geotechnical Engineer has the option of rejecting any compacted material regardless of the degree of compaction if that material is considered to be too dry or excessively wet, unstable or if future instability is suspected. A specific example of rejection of fill material passing the required percent compaction is a fill which has been compacted with in-situ moisture content significantly less than optimum moisture. Where expansive soils are present, heaving of the soils may occur with the introduction of water. Where the material is a lean clay or silt, this type of dry fill (brittle fill) is susceptible to future settlement if it becomes saturated or flooded. SURFACE DRAINAGE AND LANDSCAPING The ground surface should slope away from building and pavement areas toward appropriate drop inlets or other surface drainage devices. We recommended that adjacent paved exterior grades be sloped a minimum of 2 percent for a minimum distance of S feet away from structures. Ideally, asphalt concrete pavement areas should be sloped at a minimum of 2 percent, with Portland cement concrete sloped at a minimum of one percent toward drainage structures. These grades should be maintained for the life of the project. Roof drains should be designed to avoid discharging into landscape areas adjacent to the building. Downspouts should be directed to discharge directly onto paved surfaces to allow for surface drainage into the storm systems or should be connected directly to the on-site storm drain. FLOOR SLABS AND EXTERIOR FLATWORK Concrete slab -on -grade floors should be underlain by a water vapor retarder. The water vapor retarder should be installed in accordance with ASTM Specification E 1643-98. According to ASTM Guidelines, the water vapor retarder should consist of a vapor retarder sheeting underlain by a minimum of 3 inches of compacted, clean, gravel of 3/ -inch maximum size. To aide in concrete curing 2 to 4 inches of granular fill may be placed on top of the vapor retarder. The granular fill should consist of damp clean sand with at least 10 to 30 percent of the sand passing the No. 100 sieve. The sand should be free of clay, silt or organic material. Rock dust which is manufactured sand from rock crushing operations is typically suitable for the granular fill. This granular fill material should be compacted. The exterior floors should be poured separately in order to act independently of the walls and foundation system. All fills required to bring the building pads to grade should be Engineered Fills. Moisture within the structure may be derived from water vapors, which were transformed from the moisture within the soils. This moisture vapor can travel through the vapor membrane and penetrate the slab -on -grade. This moisture vapor penetration can affect floor coverings and produce mold and mildew in the structure. To minimize moisture vapor intrusion, it is recommended that a vapor retarder be installed in accordance with ASTM guidelines. It is recommended that the utility trenches within the structure be compacted, as specified in our report, to minimise the transmission of moisture through the utility trench backfill. Special attention to the immediate drainage and irrigation around the building is recommended. Positive drainage should be established away from the structure and should be Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States 11207036.doc KA No. 112-07036 Page No. 11 maintained throughout the life of the structure. Ponding of water should not be allowed adjacent to the structure. Over-irrigation.within landscaped areas adjacent to the structure should not be performed. In addition, ventilation of the structure (i.e. ventilation fans) is recommended to reduce the accumulation of interior moisture. FOUNDATIONS Provided that the site is prepared as recommended, the proposed structures may be supported on a shallow foundation system bearing on at least 4 feet of Engineered Fill. Spread and continuous footings can be designed for the following maximum allowable soil bearing pressures: The footings should have a minimum depth of 18 inches below pad subgrade (soil grade) or adjacent exterior grade, whichever is deeper. Footings should have minimum widths of 15 inches for continuous footings and 24 inches for isolated pad footings. The footing excavations should not be allowed to dry out any time prior to pouring concrete. It is recommended that footings be reinforced with at least one No. 5 reinforcing rebar in both top and bottom. Provided the site is prepared as recommended and that the foundations are designed and constructed in accordance with our recommendations, the total settlement due to static foundation loads is not expected to exceed 1 inch. The differential settlements are anticipated to be less than %2 inch in 40 feet due to static loading. Most of the settlement is expected to occur during construction as the loads are applied. However, additional post -construction settlement may occur if the foundation soils are flooded or saturated. The seismic induced differential settlements are anticipated to be less than '/2 inch in 20 feet due to a strong earthquake event. Resistance to lateral footing displacement can be computed using an allowable friction factor of 0.45 acting between the base of foundations and the supporting subgrade. Lateral resistance for footings can alternatively be developed using an allowable equivalent fluid passive pressure of 400 pounds per cubic foot acting against the appropriate vertical footing faces. The frictional and passive resistance of the soil may be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance. A one-third increase in the above value may be used for short duration, wind, or seismic loads. RETAINING WALLS Walls retaining horizontal backfill and capable of deflecting a minimum of 0.1 percent of its height at the top may be designed using an equivalent fluid active pressure of 32 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. Walls that are incapable of this deflection or walls that are fully constrained against deflection may be designed for an equivalent fluid at -rest pressure of 52 pounds per square foot per foot per depth. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States 11207036.doe `:All wt3tile'� Dead Load Only 2,500 psf Dead-PIus-Live Load 3,000 psf Total Load, including wind or seismic loads 4,000 psf The footings should have a minimum depth of 18 inches below pad subgrade (soil grade) or adjacent exterior grade, whichever is deeper. Footings should have minimum widths of 15 inches for continuous footings and 24 inches for isolated pad footings. The footing excavations should not be allowed to dry out any time prior to pouring concrete. It is recommended that footings be reinforced with at least one No. 5 reinforcing rebar in both top and bottom. Provided the site is prepared as recommended and that the foundations are designed and constructed in accordance with our recommendations, the total settlement due to static foundation loads is not expected to exceed 1 inch. The differential settlements are anticipated to be less than %2 inch in 40 feet due to static loading. Most of the settlement is expected to occur during construction as the loads are applied. However, additional post -construction settlement may occur if the foundation soils are flooded or saturated. The seismic induced differential settlements are anticipated to be less than '/2 inch in 20 feet due to a strong earthquake event. Resistance to lateral footing displacement can be computed using an allowable friction factor of 0.45 acting between the base of foundations and the supporting subgrade. Lateral resistance for footings can alternatively be developed using an allowable equivalent fluid passive pressure of 400 pounds per cubic foot acting against the appropriate vertical footing faces. The frictional and passive resistance of the soil may be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance. A one-third increase in the above value may be used for short duration, wind, or seismic loads. RETAINING WALLS Walls retaining horizontal backfill and capable of deflecting a minimum of 0.1 percent of its height at the top may be designed using an equivalent fluid active pressure of 32 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. Walls that are incapable of this deflection or walls that are fully constrained against deflection may be designed for an equivalent fluid at -rest pressure of 52 pounds per square foot per foot per depth. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States 11207036.doe KA No. 112-07036 Page No. 12 Expansive soils should not be used for backfill against walls. The wedge of non -expansive backfill material should extend from the bottom of each retaining wall outward and upward at a slope of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. The wall backfill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D1557-00 Test Method. The active and at -rest earth pressures do not include hydrostatic pressures. To reduce the build-up of hydrostatic pressures, drainage should be provided behind the retaining walls. Wall drain should consist of a minimum 12 -inch wide zone of drainage material, such as 3/4 -inch by 1/2 -inch drain rock wrapped in a non -woven polypropylene geotextile filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N or equivalent. Alternatively, drainage may be provided by the placement of a commercially produced composite drainage blanket, such as Miradrain, extending continuously up from the base of the wall. The drainage material should extend from the base of the wall to finished subgrade in paved areas and to within about 12 inches below the top of the wall in landscape areas. In landscape areas the top 12 inches should be backfilled with compacted native soil. A 4 -inch minimum diameter, perforated, Schedule 40 PVC drain pipe should be placed with holes facing down in the lower portion of the wall drainage material, surrounded with drain rock wrapped in filter fabric. A solid drainpipe leading to a suitable discharge point should provide drainage outlet. As an alternative, weep holes may be used to provide drainage. If weep holes are used the weep holes should be 3 inches in diameter and spaced about 8 feet on centers. The backside of the weep holes should be covered with a corrosion -resistant mesh to prevent loss of backfill and/or drainage material. PAVEMENT DESIGN Based on our laboratory test results, an R -value of 52 is used for the pavement design. If site grading exposes soil other than that assumed, we should perform additional tests to confirm or revise the recommended pavement sections for actual field conditions. The following table shows the recommended pavement sections for various traffic indices. R 95% compaction based on ASTM D1557 Test Method or CAL 216 If traffic indices are not available, an estimated (typical value) index of 5.0 may be used for automobile parking and an index of 7.0 may be used for light truck traffic. We recommend that the subgrade soil be prepared as discussed in this report. The compacted subgrade should be non -yielding when proof -rolled with a loaded ten -wheel truck, such as a water truck or dump truck, prior to pavement construction. Subgrade preparation should extend a minimum of 2 feet laterally behind the edge of pavement or back of curbs. Pavement areas should be sloped and drainage gradients maintained to carry all surface water off the site. A cross slope of 2 percent is recommended in asphalt concrete pavement areas to provide good surface drainage and to reduce the potential for water to penetrate into the pavement structure. Unless otherwise required by local jurisdictions, paving materials should comply with the materials specifications presented in the Caltrans Standard Specifications Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States 11207036.doe KA No. 112-07036 Page No. 13 Section. Class 2 aggregate should comply with the materials requirements for Class 2 base found in Section 26. SITE COEFFICIENT The site coefficient, per Table 16-J, California Building Code, is based upon the site soil conditions. It is our opinion that a site coefficient of soil type So is appropriate for building design at this site. For seismic design of the structures, in accordance with the seismic provisions of the California Building Code, we recommend the following parameters: smic= tem :, ...................... �..:.:...'. ...,:,..:,,. _.:.w.CBCI�.eference'�"-: Zone Factor 0.4 Table 16-I Source Type A Table 16-U Coefficient N, 1.1 Table 16-S Coefficient N,, 1.5 Table 16-T Coefficient C, 0.51 Table 16-Q Coefficient C,, 0.96 Table 16-R SOIL CORROSIVITY Excessive sulfate or chloride in either the soil 'or native water may result in an adverse reaction between the cement in concrete and the soil. California Building Code has developed criteria for evaluation of sulfate and chloride levels and how they relate to cement reactivity with soil and/or water. The soil samples from the subject site were tested to have a low sulfate and chloride concentrations. Therefore, no special design requirements are necessary to compensate for sulfate or chloride reactivity with the cement. Electrical resistivity testing of the soil indicates that the onsite soils may have a mild potential for metal loss from electrochemical corrosion process. A qualified corrosion engineer should be consulted regarding the corrosion effects of the onsite soils. on underground metal utilities. Additional chemical testing should be performed for each building pad after grading to verify the soil corrosivity condition and revised recommendations will be provided according. TESTING AND INSPECTION A representative of Krazan & Associates, Inc. should be present at the site during the earthwork activities to confirm that actual subsurface conditions are consistent with the exploratory fieldwork. This activity is an integral part, of our service, as acceptance of earthwork construction is dependent upon compaction testing and stability of ' the material. This representative can also verify that the intent of these recommendations is incorporated into the project design and construction. Krazan & Associates, Inc. will not be responsible for grades or staking, since this is the responsibility of the Prime Contractor. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States 11207036.doc KA No. 112-07036 Page No. 14 LEMTATIONS Geotechnical Engineering is one of the newest divisions of Civil Engineering. This branch of Civil Engineering is constantly improving as new technologies and understanding of earth sciences advance. Although your site was analyzed using appropriate and current techniques and methods, undoubtedly there will be substantial future improvements in this branch of engineering. In addition to advancements in the field of Geotechnical Engineering, physical changes in the site due to site clearing or grading activities, new agency regulations, or possible changes in the proposed structure or development after issuance of this report will result in the need for professional review of this report. Updating or revisions to the recommendations report, and possibly additional study of the site may be required at that time. In light of this, the Owner should be aware that there is a practical limit to the usefulness of this report without critical review. Although the time limit for this review is strictly arbitrary, it is suggested that two years be considered a reasonable time for the usefulness of this report. Foundation and earthwork construction is characterized by the presence of a calculated risk that soil and groundwater conditions have been fully revealed by the original foundation investigation. This risk is derived from the practical necessity of basing interpretations and design conclusions on limited sampling of the earth. The recommendations made in this report are based on the assumption that soil conditions do not vary significantly from those disclosed during our field investigation. The logs of the exploratory borings do not provide a warranty as to the conditions that may exist beneath the entire site. The extent and nature of subsurface soil and groundwater variations may not become evident until construction begins. It is possible that variations in soil conditions and depth to groundwater could exist beyond the points of exploration that may require additional studies, consultation, and possible design revisions. If conditions are encountered in the field during construction, which differ from those described in this report, our firm should be contacted immediately to provide any necessary revisions to these recommendations. This report presents the results of our Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, which was conducted for the purpose of evaluating the soil conditions in terms of foundation and retaining wall design, and grading and paving of the site. This report does not include reporting of any services related to environmental studies conducted to assessment the presence or absence of hazardous and/or toxic materials in the soil, groundwater, or atmosphere, or the presence of wetlands. Any statements in this report or on any boring log regarding odors, unusual or suspicious items, or conditions observed, are strictly for descriptive purposes and are not intended to convey professional judgment regarding the presence of potential hazardous or toxics substances. Conversely, the absence of statements in this report or on any boring log regarding odors, unusual or suspicious items, or conditions observed, does not constitute our rendering professional judgment regarding the absence of potentially hazardous or toxics substances. The conclusions of this report are based on the information provided regarding the proposed construction. We emphasize that this report is valid for the project as described in the text of this report and it should not be used for any other sites or projects. The geotechnical engineering information presented herein is based upon our understanding of the proposed project and professional interpretation of the data obtained in our studies of the site. It is not warranted that such information and interpretation cannot be superseded by future geotechnical engineering developments. The Geotechnical Engineer Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States 11207036.doc KA No. 112-07036 Page No. 15 should be notified of any changes to the proposed project so the recommendations may be reviewed and re-evaluated. The work conducted through the course of this investigation, including the preparation of this report, has been performed in,accordance with the generally accepted standards of geotechnical engineering practice, which existed in geographic area of the project at the time the report was written. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. This report is issued with the understanding that the owner chooses the risk they wish to bear by the expenditures involved with the construction alternatives and scheduling that are chosen. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (909) 974-4400. Respectfully submitted, KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Clarence Jiang, GE Project Manager R.G.E. No. 2477 CJ/JMK:rm Jam Xd1oft James M. Kellogg, PE Regional Manager R.C.E. No. 65092 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States 11207036.doc .. . .. Bermuda Dunes'* - 11, Airport 0 9 ,:r- -Ibn, A 421, B�R KU D A DUNCl 6MTRY C k. Siphoq. .7 1 4 -7—T' r B -N 0e, A IENLUX- S) 7 rm em a rr It X25 s 4, Tra Iler Park' 00, Well A 33 Co ............. T Yk 0%4 .10. At , 0 46 -IAVEN 30 L t 72 ........... 1-2 6m 61 ra P r �-7 P tz Trailg r T Palk Jul; at� Trailer :0 PROPOSED JEFFERSON SQUARE Scale- 1:24,000 Date$ MAY 2007 LA QUINTA, CA Drawn A)r — Approved by RM ci SITE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS Offices Serving the Western United States M= MAP 'F;;Fj-ect �Ho. 112-07036 Fg"—K& 1 1 .��nmi 'drmYm -I1TI� rf1111T? a i� j ,., I� +B. 0= DRUG .... Coo i LL ILI E o JCUFERSON ST. LEGEND r I B-16 APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION I ' PROPOSED JEFFERSON SQUARE LA QUINTA, CA _ Scales NTS Dates MAY 2007 I azxi yawn by, Approved bye RM Project No, 112-07036 CJ Flgure A. 2 SITE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS Offices Serving the Westem United States SITE PLAN APPENDIX A FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS Field Investigation Our field investigation consisted of a surface reconnaissance and a subsurface exploration program consisted of excavating, drilling, logging and sampling a total of 16 borings. Drilling was performed using a Simco 2800 drill rig. The depths of exploration ranged from about 11 feet to 51 feet below the existing site surface. A member of our staff visually classified the soils in the field as the excavating and drilling progressed and recorded a c ontinuous I og o f e ach b oring. V isual c lassification o f the s oils a ncountered i n o ur exploratory borings was made in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487). During drilling operations, penetration tests were performed at regular intervals to evaluate the soil consistency and to obtain information regarding the engineering properties of the subsurface soils. Samples were obtained from the borings by driving either a 2.5 -inch inside diameter Modified California tube sampler fitted with brass sleeves or a 2 -inch outside diameter, 1 -3/8 -inch inside diameter Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler without sleeves. Soil samples were retained for possible laboratory testing. The samplers were driven up to a depth of 18 inches into the underlying soil using a 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler was recorded for each 6 -inch penetration interval and the number of blows required driving the sampler the last 12 inches are shown as blows per foot on the boring logs. The approximate locations of our borings are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. These approximate locations were estimated by our staff in the field based on pacing and the limits of existing site features. Laboratory Investigation The laboratory investigation was programmed to determine the physical and mechanical properties of the soil underlying the site. The laboratory -testing program was formulated with emphasis on the evaluation of in-situ moisture, density, gradation, shear strength, consolidation and expansion potential, and R -value of the materials encountered. In addition, chemical tests were performed to evaluate the soil/cement reactivity and corrosivity. Test results were used in our engineering analysis with respect to site and building pad preparation through mass grading activities, foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, pavement section design, evaluation of the materials as possible fill materials and for possible exclusion of some soils from use at the structures as fill or backfill. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States t 1207036.doe & ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOL CHART COARSE-GRAINED SOILS (more than 50°% of material is larger than No. 200 sieve size.) Clean Gravels (Less than 5% fines) GW Weil -graded gravels, gravel -send GRAVELS , 6 mixtures, little or no fines More than 50% -'a GP Poorly -graded gravels, gravel -sand of coarse mixtures, little or no fines fraction larger Gravels with fines More than 12°% fines than No. 4 sieve size GM Silty gravels, gravel -sand -slit mixtures GC Clayey gravels, gravel -send -clay mixtures Cohesive Soils Clean Sands Less than 5% fines < 3 SW Well -graded sands, gravelly sands, Firm SANDS Stiff 11-20 little or no fines 21-40 Hard Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, 50% or moreSp of coarse Medium -grained No. 10 to No. 40 little or no fines fraction smaller Sands with fines More than 12°% fines than No. 4 Silt and Clay Below No. 200 Below 0.074 sieve size SM Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures SC Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures FINE-GRAINED SOILS (50% or more of material Is smaller than No. 200 sieve size.) LIQUID LIMIT ILL) I%) Inorganic slits and very fine sands, rock SILTS ML flour, silty of clayey fine sands or clayey AND silts with slight Plasticity Inorganic clays of low to medium CLAYS Liquid limit CL plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, less than silty clays, lean clays 50°% — OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity Inorganic silts, micaceous or MH diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, SILTS elastic silts AND CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat CLAYS Liquid limit clays 50°% or greater OH Organic ciaysof medium to high plasticity, organic silts HIGHLY ORGANIC PT Peat and other highly organic soils SOILS , ,t CONSISTENCY CLASSIFICATION Description Blows per Foot Granular Soils Very Loose < 5 Loose 5-15 Medium Dense 16-40 Dense 41-65 Very Dense I > 65 Cohesive Soils Very Soft < 3 Soft 3-5 Firm 6-10 Stiff 11-20 Very Stiff 21-40 Hard > 40 GRAIN SIZE CLASSIFICATION. Grain Type Standard Sieve Size Grain Size in 60 Millimeters Boulders Above 12 inches Above 305 Cobbles 12 to 13 inches 305 to 76.2 Gravel 3 inches to No. 4 76.2 to 4.76 Coarse-grained 3 to'/ inches 76.2 to 19.1 Fine-grained N inches to No. 4 19.1 to 4.76 Sand No. 4 to No. 200 4.76 to 0.074 Coarse-grained No. 4 to No. 10 4.76 to 2.00 Medium -grained No. 10 to No. 40 2.00 to 0.042 Fine-grained No. 40 to No. 200 0.042 to 0.074 Silt and Clay Below No. 200 Below 0.074 PLASTICITY CHART 60 50 NJ 40 a Z 30 0 20 010EL g 10 0 5D 60 70 80 90 100 LIQUID LIMIT ILL) I%) Log of Drill Hole 6-1 Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Project No: 112-07036 Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-1 Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: SK Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE U 8 a Water Content (%) Description CL 3 o cn p ECL i 10 20 30 40 Ground Surface SILTY SAND/SAND (SM/SP), fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist, 2 medium dense _ 104.3 2.2 I 17 4 6 105.5 3.0 18 8 0 10-1 Same as above, loose to medium dense 3.3 11 12- 214Same 14- Sameas above, medium dense e. . 16 2.6 14 18 ' 20 _ 4.1 18 22 24 26 o 3.9 16 28 30 Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig: Simco 2800 Driller: Williams Drilling Krazan and Associates Drill Date: 5/14/07 Hole Size: 8" Elevation: See Site Plan Sheet: 1 of 2 r Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Client: Regency Centers Location: La Quinta, CA r. Depth to Water> Log of Drill Hole B-1 Project No: 112-07036 Figure No.: A-1 Logged By: SK Initial: At Completion: SUBSURFACE PROFILE Drill-Method: SAMPLE Description aWater Content L CL E � 2 m 0 CO p g CL Co 10 20 30 40 SILTY SAND/SAND (SM/SP), 2.7 17 fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist, 32 medium dense 34 SILTY SAND (SM), fine grained, light brown, moist, medium dense a 5.8 15 36 38 SANDY SILT W/CLAY (ML), 40 fine grained, brown, very moist, very stiff 31.4 22 — 42 SILTY SAND (SM), fine grained, light brown, slightly moist, medium ' 44 dense 46 4.9 22 48 CLAYEY SILT (ML), tine grained, brown, very moist, stiff 50 31.9 16 End of Borehole 52 Total Depth = 51' , 54 No groundwater was encountered during drilling Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped 5/14/07 56- 6 58- 58 60 60— Drill_Method: Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig: Simco 2800 Driller: Williams Drilling Krazan and Associates Drill Date: 5/14/07 Hole Size: 8" Elevation: See Site Plan Sheet: 2 of 2 Log of Drill Hole B-2 Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Project No: 112-07036 Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-2 Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: SK Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE 16 CL �— o Water Content (%) v Description .y c � CL E w am 3 o co p � H 2 Co 10 20 30 40 Ground Surface SILTYSAND/SAND (SWSP), fine to medium grained, light brown, damp, medium 2 dense 94.7 1.6 17 _ 4 Same as above, loose to medium dense 101.31 1.2 10 6 8 10 2.7 10 12- 214Same 14- Sameas above, medium dense o 3.3 15 16 18 • 20Same as above, slightly moist 3.7 20 End of Borehole 22 Total Depth = 21' 24 No groundwater was encountered during drilling Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped 5/14/07 62830 26- 28- 30-1 Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig: Simco 2800 Driller: Williams Drilling Krazan and Associates Drill Date: 5/14/07 Hole Size: 8" Elevation: See Site Plan Sheet: 1 of 1 j Log of Drill Hole B-3 Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Project No: 112-07036 Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-3 Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: SK Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE Water Content (%) Description t CL 0 E C ina� 3 o cn p g CL F- m 10 20 30 40 Ground Surface SILTY SAND/SAND (SM/SP), fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist, 2 -dense 107.1 2.0 35 _ 4 Same as above, dense - 106.0 2.2 18 6 B 10 Same as above, loose e 2.0 8 12 14 Same as above, loose to medium dense 2.0 11 16 18 20 End of Borehole 22 Total Depth = 20' No groundwater was encountered during drilling 24 Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped 5/14107 628326- 28- 3 Drill Method: Hallow Stem Auger Drill Rig: Simco 2800 Driller: Williams Drilling Krazan and Associates Drill Date: 5/14107 Hole Size: 8" Elevation: See Site Plan Sheet: 1 of 1 1 Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Log of Drill Hole B-4 Project No: 112-07036 Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-4 Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: SK Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE Water Content (%) 10 20 30 40 t CL in a -6 E cn Description U v N o °�- 5 rn w CL 3 Ground Surface SILTY SAND/SAND (SWSP), 2 fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist, dense - _ .. 108.2 1.9 40 4 6 111.2 3.0 37 8 10 Same as above, loose to medium dense 2.1 12 12- 21416 14- 16- 2.6 11 18 20 :: Same as above, medium dense es....::..... . 2.1 15 End of Borehole 22 Total Depth = 21' 24 No groundwater was encountered during drilling Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped 5/14/07 26- 28- 7 307 1 Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig: Simco 2800 Driller: Williams Drilling Krazan and Associates Drill Date: 5/14/07 Hole Size: 8" Elevation: See Site Plan Sheet: 1 of 1 Drill Log of Drill Hole B-5 Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Project No: 112-07036 Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-5 Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: SK Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE , F U a Description N Water Content (%) CL o E c O N p "' g n. F- co 10 20 30 40 Ground Surface flj SILTY SAND (SM), fine grained, light brown, damp 2 -SILTY Q SAND/SAND (S1V!/SP), 111.5 2.8 45 fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist, 4 dense 6- 108.0 2.1 34 8- 10- Same as above, loose 2.7 8 _ End of Borehole 12 Total Depth = 11' 14 No groundwater was encountered during drilling Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped 5/14/07 , 16- 18 20- 022 22- 24- 24262830 26- 28- 30- Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig: Simco 2800 Driller: Williams Drilling Krazan and Associates Drill Date: 5/14/07 Hole Size: 8" Elevation: See Site Plan Sheet: 1 of 1 Log of Drill Hole B-6 Drill Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Project No: 112-07036 Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-6 Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: SK Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE Water Content (%) Description y CL 6 E c a m rnCL y 3 C3 p in 10 20 30 40 Ground Surface SILTY SAND (S", fine grained, light brown, damp 2 _ SILTY SAND/SAND (SM/SP), 111.1 1.6 X 54 fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist, 4 very dense Same as above, medium dense 110.5 2.2 26 6 _ 8- 10- 101.3 1.3 15 12 14 Same as above, 2.4 15 16 18- 20 End of Borehole 22 Total Depth = 20' No groundwater was encountered during drilling 24 Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped 5/14/07 26- 628 28- Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig: Simco 2800 Driller: Williams Drilling Krazan and Associates Drill Date: 5/14/07 Hole Size: 8" Elevation: See Site Plan Sheet: 1 of 1 i Log of Drill Hole B-7 Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Project No: 112-07036 Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-7 Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: SK Depth to Water> initial: At Completion: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE U -� Water Content (%) _ Description y d s c J3 E c m O y m 3 C3 cn o in 10 20 30 40 Ground Surface SILTY SAND (SM), fine grained, light brown, damp 2 SILTY SAND/SAND (SM/SP), fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist, 106.7 1.6 33 4- dense e SILTY SAND (SM), 104.0 2.5 11 g fine grained, light brown, slightly moist, loose to medium dense 8 SILTY SAND/SAND (SM/SP), fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist, 10 medium dense 2.2 15 End of Borehole 12 Total Depth = 11' 14 No groundwater was encountered during drilling Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped' 5/14107 16- 6202224262830 20- 22- 24- 26- 28- 30 Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig: Simco 2800 Driller: Williams Drilling Krazan and Associates Drill Date: 5/14/07 Hole Size: 8" Elevation: See Site Plan Sheet: 1 of 1 Log of Drill Hole B-8 Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Project No: 112-07036 Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-8 Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: SK Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE U Water Content (%) v Description L d E N j N m p cn o m 10 20 30 40 Ground Surface SILTY SAND (SM), fine grained, light brown, slightly moist, medium 2 dense o 102.2 2.4 17 4-- 6-- 96.8 2.6 11 8 SILTY SAND/SAND (SM/SP), fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist, loose to medium dense 10- 10 End of Borehole 12 Total Depth = 11' 14 No groundwater was encountered during drilling Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped 5/14/07 16- 6182022242628 18- 20- 22- 24- 26- 287 30 Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig: Simco 2800 Driller: Williams Drilling Krazan and Associates Drill Date: 5/14/07 Hole Size: 8" Elevation: See Site Plan Sheet: 1 of 1 .x. Log of Drill Hole B-9 Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Project No: 112-07036 Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-9 Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: SK Depth to Water> . Initial: At Completion: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE . c U g Z Water Content (%) � Description a E' ami N o U) p 2 m° 10 20 30 40 Ground Surface SILTY SAND/SAND (SM/SP), fine to medium grained, light brown, damp 2 -SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium grained, light brown, damp, medium 105.fi 1.3 24 4 dense g • e 97.3 3.0 17 8 SILTY SAND/SAND (SM/SP), n fine to medium grained, light brown, damp, loose to 10 medium dense p...... _ .... . 1.7 1 i 12 14 Same as above, medium dense c 2.2 17 16 ,18 20 End of Borehole 22 Total Depth = 20' No groundwater was encountered during drilling -24 Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped 5115/07 26- 28 30 Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rag: Simco 2800 Driller: Williams Drilling Krazan and Associates Drill Date: 5/15/07 Hole Size: 8" Elevation: See Site Plan Sheet: 1 of 1 Log of Drill Hole B-10 Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Project No: 112-07036 Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-10 Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: SK Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE U CL w -� o Water Content {%) v Description U, allr Q. E v, m 3 o rn p �T a—°v 10 20 30 40 Ground Surface SILTY SAND/SAND (SM/SP), fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist, 2 medium dense 107.7 4.8 20 r 4 6 a 105.4 2.0 15 8- 10- Same as above, loose 2.4 9 12- 214Same 14- Sameas above, medium dense a 2.9 16 16 18 20 End of Borehole 22 Total Depth = 20' No groundwater was encountered during drilling 24 Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped 5/15/07 62830 26- 28- 101 Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig: Simco 2800 Driller: Williams Drilling Krazan and Associates Drill Date: 5/15/07 Hole Size: 8" Elevation: See Site Plan Sheet: 1 of 1 I Log of Drill Hole B-11re Drill Project: Proposed Jefferson Squa Project No: 112-07036 C Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-11 Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: SK Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion: ` SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE U � a P o Water Content (%) v Description o CL E c m m 10 20 30 40 " Ground Surface SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist, 2 medium dense 105.7 3.5 24 4 SILTY SAND/SAND (SM/SP), fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist, — 106.7 2.7 18 6 medium dense a- r 10 1.9 15 End of Borehole 12 Total Depth = 11' 14 No groundwater was encountered during drilling Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped 5/15/07 16- 18 20- 02224 22- 24- 26- 262830 28- 30- Dill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig: Simco 2800 Driller: Williams Drilling Krazan and Associates Drill Date: 5/15/07 Hole Size: 8" Elevation: See Site Plan Sheet: 1 of 1 a f Log of Drill Hole 6-12 Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Project No: 112-07036 Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-12 Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: SK Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE Water Content Description 3 o En p �° in 10 20 30 40 Ground Surface SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist, 2 dense 112.6 2.4 44 _ 4 Same as above, medium dense 109.6 2,9 22 6 SILTY SAND/SAND (SM/SP), fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist, 8 medium dense 10 SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist, 5.4 loose 7 12 End of Borehole Total Depth = 11' 14 No groundwater was encountered during drilling Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped 5/15/07 16- 18 20- 022242628 22- 24- 26- 28 30 Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig: Simco 2800 Driller: Williams Drilling Krazan and Associates Drill Date: 5/15/07 Hole Size: 8" Elevation: See Site Plan Sheet: 1 of 1 Drill Log,of Drill Hole B-13 Project: Proposed Jefferson Square , 1 Project No: 112-07036 Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-13 Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: SK Depth to Watery Initial: At Completion: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE • c U a o Water Content (%) Description m 6 E c 0 3 p �T m 10 20 30 40 Ground Surface SILTY SAND (SM), fine grained, light brown, damp 2 m SILTY SAND/SAND (SWSP), 107 7 2 7 21 fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist, 4 medium dense 6 - n 107.0 2.0 17 8 • 10 .L Same as above, loose to medium dense 4.1 12 ' End of Borehole 12 Total Depth = 11' 14 No groundwater was encountered during drilling Hole backfilled with -soil cuttings and tamped 5115/07 16- 62022 20- 22- 24- 24262830 26- 28- 30- Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger, ' Drill Rig: Simco 2800 Driller: Williams Drilling* Krazan and Associates Drill Date: 5/15/07 Hole Size: 8" Elevation: See Site Plan Sheet: 1 of 1 Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig: Simco 2800 Driller: Williams Drilling Krazan and Associates Drill Date: 5/15/07 Hole Size: 8" Elevation: See Site Plan Sheet: 1 of 1 Log of Drill Hole B-14 Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Project No: 112-07036 Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-14 Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: SK Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE U Z Water Content (%} Description o. ECL N 0 to p in 10 20 30 40 Ground Surface SILTY SAND/SAND (SM/SP), fine to medium grained, light brown, damp 2 SILTY SAND (SM), 102.6 1.9 16 fine grained, light brown, slightly moist, medium 4 dense SILTY SAND/SAND (SWSP), 6 fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist, a 105.9 2.5 17 medium dense 8 SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist, 10 loose _ 3.8 9 12 SILTY SAND/SAND (SM/SP), fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist, 14 medium dense 16 a 3.3 19 18 20 End of Borehole 22 Total Depth = 20' No groundwater was encountered during drilling 24 Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped 5/15/07 26- 28 30 Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig: Simco 2800 Driller: Williams Drilling Krazan and Associates Drill Date: 5/15/07 Hole Size: 8" Elevation: See Site Plan Sheet: 1 of 1 i Log of Drill Hole B-15 Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Project No: 112-07036 Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-15 Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: SK Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE U CL yWater Content (%) Description Z `1- c CL E c (U � Va m p g° 10 20 30 40 Ground Surface SILTY SAND (SM), fine grained, light brown, slightly,moist, loose to 2 medium dense 95.6 2.5 13 4- 6- 90.8 3.5 10 8 SILTY SAND/SAND (SM/SP), fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist, loose to medium dense 10- 4.9 12- 14 Same as above, medium dense a 3.7 19 16 18 20 End of Borehole 22 Total Depth = 20' No groundwater was encountered during drilling 24 Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped 5/15107 62830 26- 28- 30-1 Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Drill Date: 5/15/07 Drill Rig: Simco 2800. Krazan and Associates Hole Size: 8" Driller: Williams Drilling Elevation: See Site Plan Sheet: 1 of 1 1 Log of Drill Hole B-16 Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Project No: 112-07036 Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-16 Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: SK Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE U Water Content (%) Description CL E y d N 3 o rn CL m 10 20 30 40 Ground Surface SILTY SAND (SM), fine grained, light brown, slightly moist, loose to ... ..:.. - 2 medium dense �.... 94.6 4.1 11 4-- 6-- 98.2 4.213 8 SILTY SAND/SAND (SM/SP), fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist, dense 10 e 3.1 21 12 14 Same as above, damp 1.2 23 16 18- 20 End of Borehole 22 Total Depth = 20' No groundwater was encountered during drilling 24 Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped 5/15/07 62830 26- 28- 30 Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig: Simco 2800 Driller: Williams Drilling Krazan and Associates Drill Date: 5/15/07 Hole Size: 8" Elevation: See Site Plan Sheet: 1 of 1 Shear Strength Diagram (Direct Shear) ASTM D - 3080 1 AASHTO T - 236 ........................ oject Nuiill�'I�Rl Borina No. & De th Soil Type 4�Date 112-07036 B-1 (SM -SP), Silty Sand -Sand 5118107 Krazan Testing Laboratory Shear Strength Dia -gram (Direct Shear) ASTM D - 3080 / AASHTO T - 236 Project Number Baring No. & Depfh -Soil Type Date 112-07036 B-2 @ 2'_ (SM -SP), Silty Sand -Sand 5/18/07 Cohesion: 0.0 Ksf Angle of Internal Friction: 35 IOWA IV= Krazan Testing Laboratory Shear Strength Diagram (Direct Shear) ASTM D - 3080 / AASHTO T - 236 oject Number Boring No. & De th Soil Type Date I'll I'll, "� .............. ....... 57 112-07036 -B-9 -R, (SM), Silty Sand 1181 5/18/07 Cohesion: 0. 0 =Sf Angle of Internal Friction: 32�c-�.���.• rte=.- -- .•:; Krazan Testing Laboratory Shear Strength Diagram (DirectShear) ASTM D - 3080 / AASHTO T - 236 oject Number I Boring No. & E 112-07036 1 8-15 0 2' Sand Date 5/18/07 Cohesi—on: !7070007sf Angle of Intemal Fricbon: 33 0 .fir ��-='����c"t�..- �� Krazan Testing Laboratory r Consolidation Test EProject No Boring No. & Depth Date Soil Classification 112-07036 B-1 2' 5/18/07 (SM -SP), Silty Sand -Sand 0.1 Load in Kips per Square Foot 1 0.00 10 10 I 17 Consolidation @ 2Ksf: 0.9% 1.00 r � w --- 2.00- 3.00 .00 3.00 -- 4.00 — e 0 m o ' c 5.00 V — — d C j 6.00 7.00 —.- 8.00 ----- 9.00 •-- 10.00 Krazan Testing Laboratory Consolidation Test Project No Boring No. &Depth Date 112-07036 B-3 5' 51181 07 Soil Classification SP), Silty Sand - Sand Krazan Testing Laboratory Consolidation Test Project No Boring No. & Depth Date Soil Classification 112-07036 B-15 @ 5' 5/18/07 IRMI coir„ ea�a Krazan Testing Laboratory Consolidation Test Project No Boring No. & Depth Date Soil cla 112-0703 B-16 (a)- 2' Date Soil (SM), S I 0.1 1 Load in Kips per Square Foot 10 0.00 100 1.( 2.0 3.0 4.0 0 fA 5.01 6,0( 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 % Consolidation @ 21(sf- 1.5% 10 0 Krazan Testing Laboratory Grain Size Analysis rrop. jetterson Square 112-07036 (SM -SP), Silty II�I��IAYII�NY►�A111�1�1■� Silt or Clay Coarse Flne Coarse Medium Fine RISEIIYN�M01■� IN IIN1E1IEIIN1111MII NE'llill1 VIII =MIEE1111I11 1111 INN1■■NYIIIrli'llingailillimmW-goM MINEY� . NN�I�YI�■■I�iUW�NNO■� Hilo 0=� . Gravel Sand rrop. jetterson Square 112-07036 (SM -SP), Silty Silt or Clay Coarse Flne Coarse Medium Fine rI uJQVI Imall IC Project Number Soil Classification Sample Number Sand -Sand B-1 @ 5' Kraz an Testing Laboratory Grain Size Analvsis Project Number Soil Classification (SM -SP), Silty Sand - Sand Sample Number B-1 @ 15, MIN El WIM „ MEN .,Silt MINIM �uin�n��tiu�i or Clay Krazan Testing Laboratory �uin�n��tiu�i 112-07036 Im Grain Size Analysis Sieve Openings In Inches U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers ' 3 1 1/2 Hydrometer qr- Grain Size in Millimeters Gravel Sand Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine (Unified Soils Classification) Project Name Pmn .Ipffarann Q--- Project Number 112-07036 l Soil Classification (SM -SP), Silty Sand - Sand Sample Number - B-1 @ 25' 0.01 Silt or Clay 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 (7 30.0 Z N ILa 50.0 & F Z W 10.0 w W IL 0.0 0.0 ).0 0 0.001 Krazan Testing Laboratory Sieve Openings In Inches 3 1 1/2 1-1/2 3/4 3/8 Grain Size Analvsis U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #10D #200 Hydrometer 0.1 0.01 Grain Size in Millimeters Gravel Sand Coarse Fine Silt or Clay (Unified Soils Classification) Project Name Project Number Soil Classification Sample Number 112-07036 (SM -ML), Silty Sand - Sandy Silt B-1 @ 35' 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 CD 30.0 z U) n<. 50.0 11— Z Z w Z.0 W IL 0.0 0.0 D.0 0.0 0.001 Krazan Testing Laboratory Ems fill Room NO 00 0.1 0.01 Grain Size in Millimeters Gravel Sand Coarse Fine Silt or Clay (Unified Soils Classification) Project Name Project Number Soil Classification Sample Number 112-07036 (SM -ML), Silty Sand - Sandy Silt B-1 @ 35' 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 CD 30.0 z U) n<. 50.0 11— Z Z w Z.0 W IL 0.0 0.0 D.0 0.0 0.001 Krazan Testing Laboratory 111 Grain Size Analysis Sieve Openings in Inches U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer 3 _ _ ._ 1 112 #4 *a AIR tan 4=n y. U., Grain Size In Millimeters Gravel Sand Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine (Unified Soils Classification) Proiect Nnma Project Number 112-07036 Soil Classification (ML), Sandy Silt w/ Clay Sample Number 8-1 @ 40' 0.01 Silt or Clay 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 C7 50.0 Z N U) nom. 50.0 1- Z w 10.0 w IL 10.0 !0.0 0.0 .0 0.001 Krazan Testing Laboratory Grain Size Analysis Sieve Openings in Inches U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer 3 1 1/2 ##4 ##8 #16 #30 Asn 7/4 nl1 � rl ILI= oil 11101111 lull N►�A11111■�I811� IWY■■SIN■■ \ INIYI■■ ��II�01 INS I�NII IYII����1�011■0■ 011111111INI111 IBM' u.' 0.01 Grain Size In Millimeters Gravel Sand Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine (Unified Soils Classification) Drn:a..i AI........ - • •-- ..� I-lup..irwiwisun square Project Number 112-07036 Soil Classification (SM), Silty Sand Sample Number B-1 @ 45' Silt or Clay 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 0.0 z 0.0 nom. Z w 0.0 LU a 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 0.001 Krazan Testing Laboratory Grain Size Analysis Sieve Openings in inches U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer 3 1 1/2 #4 #8 #16 #30 *Rn limn w,)nn NINON 11111110110NIIII■■I� mill aYl� �M0 YIr on INN on1�■�IINIIN�YNA�■�IAI��I I MEN NilII■�IAINI■� 11 0.1' Grain Size in Millimeters 0.01 Gravel Sand Sift or Clay Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine (Unified Soils Classification) Jam... 11 11rrvp. jerrersun square Project Number 112-07036 Soil Classification (ML), Clayey Silt Sample Number B-1 @ 60' 0.001 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 50.0 a 50.0 Z w 40.0 w w IL 10.0 '0.0 0.0 .0 Krazan Testing Laboratory R - VALUE TEST ASTM D - 2844 / CAL 301 Project Number 112-07036 Project Name Prop. Jefferson Square Date 5/18/07 Sample Location/Curve Number RV# 1 (B-1 @ 0-21) Soil Classification (SM -SP), Silty Sand -Sand TEST A B C Percent Moisture @ Compaction, % 12.6 13.5 14.4 Dry Density,Ibm/cu.ft. 107.8 108.1 109.0 Exudation Pressure si 740 330 160 Expansion Pressure, Dial Reading) 0 0 0 Ex ansion Pressure, psf 0 0 0 Resistance Value R 63 59 53 R Value at 300 PSI Exudation Pressure58 R Value by Expansion Pressure T1=): 5 Expansion Pressure nil �] iiii�i�iiu�i�iii►�i �iiin�i�iunu�in ." �Ell iiiiiiiIi'in�n iiii eiiuu ri'i°1�°milli ., �HIM u�nII�iuii�n ����n��nnun1��1 III "a1nl"1C1�iii � °u°niiuiiliuri unnMIN9n�III I11 , n����n��n��unnIrIIII11 111�� MIN 11111111111 MIN Krazan Testing Laboratory R Value at 300 PSI Exudation Pressure 52 R Value by Ex ansion Pressure(TI =): S Expansion Pressure nil w.1 3.E 3.: 2.E a E 2.4 v 1-2 0.8 0.4 0.0 Cover Thick. Exp. Pressure, ft J Son pSl 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 1 Exudation Pressure, PSI 7 Krazan Testing Laboratory R - VALUE TEST ASTM D - 28" / CAL 301 Project Number 112-07036 Project Name Prop. Jefferson Square Date 5/18/07 Sample Location/Curve Number RV# 2 (B-12 @ 0-21) Soil Classification (SM), Silty Sand TEST Percent Moisture 0 Compaction. % A 11.3 B C Dry Density; Ibm/cu.ft. 116.3 12.2 116.9 10.3 115.7 Exudation Pressure psi 350 140 700 Expansion Pressure Dial Readin 0 0 Expansion Pressure, psf 0 0 Resistance Value R 54 0 0 43 59 R Value at 300 PSI Exudation Pressure 52 R Value by Ex ansion Pressure(TI =): S Expansion Pressure nil w.1 3.E 3.: 2.E a E 2.4 v 1-2 0.8 0.4 0.0 Cover Thick. Exp. Pressure, ft J Son pSl 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 1 Exudation Pressure, PSI 7 Krazan Testing Laboratory Project Number Project Name Date Sample location/ Depth Sample Number Soil Classification Expansion Index Test ASTM D - 4829/ UBC Std. 18-2 : 112-07036 : Prop. Jefferson Square : 5/18/07 : B-1 @ 0-2' :1 : (SM -SP), Silty Sand - Sand Trial # 1 2 3 Wei ht ofi Soil & Mold, ms 560.3 24 hrs 0 Medium Weight of Mold, ms 170.7 >130 I Very High of Soil, gms 389.6 lWeight Wet Density, Lbs/cu.ft. 117.5 Weight of Moisture Sample (Wet), gms 300.0 Weight of Moisture Sample D ms 270.1 Moisture Content, % 11.1 Dry Density, Lbs/cu.ft. 105.8 Specific Gravity of Soil 2.7 Degree of Saturation, % 50.4 Time Dial Read Inital _ 30 min -1 _ 1 hr -_ 6hrs __ 12 hrs 24 hrs 0 Expansion Index measured Expansion Index 50 Expansion Index = 0 0 0.0 Expansion Potential Table Exp. Index Potential Exp. 0-20 Very Low 21-50 Low 51-90 Medium 91-130 High >130 I Very High Krazan Testing Laboratory Project Number Project Name Date Sample location/ Depth Sample Number Soil Classification Expansion Index Test ASTM D -48291 UBC Std. 18-2 112-07036 Prop. Jefferson Square 5/18/07 B-12 @ 0-2' :2 (SM), Silty Sand Trial # 1 2 3 Wei ht of Soil & Mold, ms 592.3 24 hrs Dial Readin Weight of Mold, ms 185.0 — -- I Weight of Soil, gms 407.3 Wet Density, Lbs/cu.ft. 122.8 Weight of Moisture Sample (Wet), gms 300.0 Weight of Moisture Sample D ms 275.6 Moisture Content, % 8.9 Dry Density,Lbs/cu.ft. 112.8 Specific Gravity of Soil 2.7 Degree of Saturation, % 48.5 Time Inital30 min 1 hr 6hrs 12 hrs 24 hrs Dial Readin -- -- — -- I -- T 0 Expansion Index measured Expansion Index so Expansion Index = c 0 0.0 0 Expansion Potential Table Exp. Index Potential Exp. 0-20 Very Low 21-50 Low 51-90 Medium 91-130 High >130 I Very Hi h Krazan Testing Laboratory MAY -21-2007 10:12 ENVIRO-CHEM INC 9795905905 P.02iO3 Enviro - Chem, Inc. 1214 E. Lexington Avenue, Pomona, CA 91766 Tel (909) 590-5905 Fax (909) 590-5907 LABORATORY REPORT CUSTOMER: Kra.zan & AS80Ciates, Inc. 4221 Brickell St. Ontario, CA 91761 T®1(909)974-4400 FaX(909)974-4022 PROJECT: La Quinta MATRIX:SOIL DATE RECEIVED:05/18107 SAMPLING DATE: -05114107 DATE ANALYZED:05118-19/07 REPORT TO:MR. CLARENCE JIAN'G DATE REPORTED:05/21107 ------------------------------------------ SAMPLE I.D.: 112-07036/B-IGO-2' LAB I.D.: 070518-62 PARANPJ', ZR SAMPLE REWILT UNIT PQL DF METHOD RESISTIVITY 12500 OHMS -CM 100000* CALTRANS -SULEA-T-Is__ ND MG/KG 10 5^„ EPA 9038 .CHLORIDE 23.4 MG/KG 10 1 EPA 9253 pH 9.02 PH/Unit EPA 9045C CODRU TS DF = DILUTION FACTOR PQL = PRACTICAL QUANTITATION LIMIT ACTUAL DETECTION LIMIT = DF X PQL = ACTUAL DETECTION LIMIT RAISED DUE TO MATRIX INTERFERENCE MG/KG = MILLIGRAM PER KILOGRAM = PPM OHMS -CM = OHMS -CENTIMETER RESISTIVITY = 1/CONDUCTIVITY * = HIGH LIMIT DATA REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY: CAL -DHS ELAP CERTIFICATE No.: 1555 APPENDIX B GENERAL EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS GENERAL Appendix B Page B. 1 When the text -of the report conflicts with the general specifications in this appendix, the recommendations in the report have precedence. SCOPE OF WORK: These specifications and applicable plans pertain to and include all earthwork associated with the site rough grading, including, but not limited to, the furnishing of all labor, tools and equipment necessary for site clearing and grubbing, stripping, preparation of foundation materials for receiving f ill, a xcavation, p rocessing, p lacement a nd c ompaction o f f ill a nd b ackfill in aterials t o t he lines and grades shown on the project grading plans and disposal of excess materials. PERFORMANCE: The Contractor shall be responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthworks in accordance with the project plans and specifications. This work shall be inspected and tested by a representative of Krazan and Associates, Incorporated, hereinafter referred to as the Soils Engineer and/or Testing Agency. Attainment of design grades, when achieved shall be certified by the project Civil Engineer: Both the Soils Engineer and the Civil Engineer are the Owner's. representatives. If the Contractor should fail to meet the technical or design requirements embodied in this document and on the applicable plans; he shall make the necessary adjustments until all work is deemed satisfactory as determined by both the Soils Engineer and the Civil Engineer. No deviation from these specifications, shall be made except upon written approval of the Soils Engineer, Civil Engineer, or project Architect. No earthwork shall be performed without the physical' presence or approval of the Soils Engineer. The Contractor shall notify the Soils Engineer at least 2 working days prior to the commencement of any aspect of the site earthwork. The Contractor agrees that he shall assume sole and complete responsibility for job site conditions during the course of construction of this project, including safety of all persons and property; that this requirement shall apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours; and that the Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the Owner and the Engineers harmless from any and all liability, real or alleged, in connection with the performance of work on this project, except for liability arising from the sole negligence of the Owner or the Engineers. TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS: All compacted materials shall be densified to no less that 95 percent of relative compaction based on ASTM D1557-00 Test Method, UBC or CAL -216, as specified in the technical portion of the Soil Engineer's report. The location and frequency of field density tests shall be as determined b y t he S oils E ngineer. T. he r esults o f t hese t ests a nd c ompliance w ith t hese specifications shall be the basis upon which satisfactory completion of work will be judged by the Soils Engineer. SOILS AND FOUNDATION CONDITIONS: The Contractor is presumed to have visited the site and to have familiarized himself with existing site conditions and the contents of the data presented in the Geotechnical Engineering Report. ' Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States 11207036.doc Appendix B Page B. 2 The Contractor shall make his own interpretation of the data contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Report and the Contractor shall not be relieved of liability under the Contractor for any loss sustained as a result of any variance between conditions indicated by or deduced from said report and the actual conditions encountered during the progress of the work. DUST CONTROL: The work includes dust control as required for the alleviation or prevention of any dust nuisance on or about the site or the borrow area, or off-site if caused by the Contractor's operation either during the performance of the earthwork or resulting from the conditions in which the Contractor leaves the site. The Contractor shall assume all liability, including court costs of codefendants, for all claims related to dust or wind-blown materials attributable to his work. SITE PREPARATION Site preparation shall consist of site clearing and grubbing and preparation of foundation materials for receiving fill. CLEARING AND GRUBBING: The Contractor shall accept the site in this present condition and shall demolish and/or remove from the area of designated project earthwork all structures, both surface and subsurface, trees, brush, roots, debris, organic matter and all other matter determined by the Soils Engineer to be deleterious. Such materials shall become the property of the Contractor and shall be removed from the site. Tree root systems in proposed building areas should be removed to a minimum depth of 3 feet and to such an extent, which would permit removal of all roots greater than 1 inch in diameter. Tree roots removed in parking areas may be limited to the upper 1% feet of the ground surface. Backfill or tree root excavation should not be permitted until all exposed surfaces have been inspected and the Soils Engineer is present for the proper control of backfill placement and compaction. Burning in areas, which are to receive fill materials, shall not be permitted. SUBGRADE PREPARATION: Surfaces to receive Engineered Fill, shall be prepared as, outlined above, excavated/scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches, moisture -conditioned as necessary, and recompacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Loose soil areas and/or areas of disturbed soil shall be moisture -conditioned as necessary and recompacted to 95 percent relative compaction. All ruts, hummocks, or other uneven surface features shall be removed by surface grading prior to placement of any fill materials. All areas, which are to receive fill materials, shall be approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of any of the fill material. EXCAVATION: All excavation shall be accomplished to the tolerance normally defined by the Civil Engineer as shown on the project grading plans. All over -excavation below the grades specified shall be backfilled at the Contractor's expense and shall be compacted in accordance with the applicable technical requirements. FILL AND BACKFILL MATERIAL: No material shall be moved or compacted without the presence of the Soils Engineer. Material from the required site excavation may be utilized for construction site fills, provided prior approval is given by the Soils Engineer. All materials utilized for constructing site fills shall be free from vegetation or other deleterious matter as determined by the Soils Engineer. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States II207036.doc , Appendix B Page B. 3 PLACEMENT, SPREADING AND COMPACTION: The placement and spreading of approved fill materials and the processing and compaction of approved fill and native materials shall be the responsibility of the Contractor. However, compaction of fill materials by flooding, ponding, or jetting shall not be permitted unless specifically approved by local code, as well as the Soils Engineer. Both cut and fill shall be surface -compacted to the satisfaction of the Soils Engineer prior to final acceptance. SEASONAL LIMITS: No fill material shall be placed, spread, or rolled while it is frozen or thawing, or during unfavorable wet weather conditions. When the work is interrupted by heavy rains, fill operations shall not resumed until the Soils Engineer indicates that the moisture content and density of previously placed fill is as specified. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States 11207036.doc Appendix C Page C. 1 APPENDIX C GENERAL PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS 1. DEFINITIONS - The term "pavement" shall include asphalt concrete surfacing, untreated aggregate base, and aggregate subbase. The term "subgrade" is that portion of the area on which surfacing, base, or subbase is to be placed. The term "Standard Specifications": hereinafter referred to is the January 1999 Standard Specifications of the State of California, Department of Transportation, and the "Materials Manual" is the Materials Manual of Testing and Control Procedures, State of California, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways. The term "relative compaction" refers to the field density expressed as a percentage of the maximum laboratory density as defined in the ASTM D1557-00. 2. SCOPE OF WORK - This portion of the work shall include all labor, materials, tools, and equipment necessary for, and reasonably incidental to the completion of the pavement shown on the plans and as herein specified, except work specifically notes as "Work Not Included." 3. PREPARATION OF THE SUBGRADE - The Contractor shall prepare the surface of the. various subgrades receiving subsequent pavement courses to the lines, grades, and dimensions given on the plans. The upper 12 inches of the soil subgrade beneath the pavement section shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent. The finished subgrades shall be tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to the placement of additional pavement courses. 4. UNTREATED AGGREGATE BASE - The aggregate base material shall be spread and compacted on the prepared subgrade in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The aggregate base material shall conform to the requirements of Section 26 of the Standard Specifications for Class 2 material, %-inches maximum size. The aggregate base material shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent. The aggregate base material shall be spread and compacted in accordance with Section 26 of the Standard Specifications. The aggregate base material shall be spread in layers not exceeding 6 inches and each layer of aggregate material course shall be tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to the placement of successive layers. 5. AGGREGATE SUBBASE - The aggregate subbase shall be spread and compacted on the prepared subgrade in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The aggregate subbase in aterial s hall c onform t o t he r equirements o f S ection 2 5 o f t he S tandard Specifications for Class II material. The aggregate subbase material shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent, and it shall be spread and c ompacted i n a ccordance w ith S ection 2 5 o f t he S tandard Specifications. Each layer of aggregate subbase shall be tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to the placement of successive layers. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States 11207036.doc 6 . 1 1 . a' 1 Appendix C Page C. 2 6. ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACING - Asphalt concrete surfacing shall consist of a mixture of mineral aggregate and paving grade asphalt, mixed at a central mixing plant and spread and compacted on a prepared base in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The viscosity grade of the asphalt shall be AR -8000. The mineral aggregate shall be Type B, '/z -inch or /4- inch maximum, medium grading, for the wearing course and'/4-inch maximum, medium grading for the base course, and -shall conform to the requirements set forth in Section 39 of the Standard Specifications. The drying, proportioning, and mixing of the materials shall conform to Section 39. The prime coat, spreading and compacting equipment, and spreading and compacting the mixture shall conform to the applicable chapters of Section 39, with the exception that no surface course shall be placed when the atmospheric temperature is below 50 degrees F. The surfacing shall be rolled with a combination steel -wheel and pneumatic rollers, as described in Section 39-6. The surface course shall be placed with an approved self-propelled mechanical spreading and finishing machine. 7. FOG SEAL COAT - The fog seal (mixing type asphalt emulsion) shall conform to and be applied in accordance with the requirements of Section 37. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving Tte western United States 11207036.doc 4�01<raZan & ASSOCIATES,INC, GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION i May 30, 2008 Mr. Thomas Middleton Regency Centers, Inc. 36 Executive Park, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92614 RE: Addendum Letter Proposed Jefferson Square (Phase 1) Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive La Quinta, California Dear Mr. Middleton: KA Project No. 112-07036 In accordance with Development Resource Consultants, Inc. request, we are supplying this letter to clarify recommendations and requirements as they pertain to the geotechnical aspects of the project. Comment i "Fill Placement: on page 8, fill material is called out to be placed at 95% relative compaction. This is often dijfijzicult to achieve in the field and exceeds the more common requirement of 90% relative compaction for general fill. Please confirm your recommendations. " Response to Comment 1 The on-site soils consist of sandy material, and such, it is our experience that these soils can be placed at a relative compaction of 95% with reasonable compaction effort. Comment 2 "Floor Slabs: On page 10 of the soils report, the recommendations is for floor slabs with 3 inches of compacted gravel, 3/e inch maximum size, below a vapor retarder sheeting and 2 " to 4 " of sand on top. Typical installations use sand, in lieu ofgravel, to avoid puncturing the vapor barrier (2" sand — vapor barrier — 2 " sand, is a common section). Please Clarify the recommended section. " Response to Comment 2 It is our recommendation that a capillary break be used, 4 inches of sand with a vapor barrier placed below the slabs -on -grade. The placement is at the discretion of the project owner. It is our understanding that the project owner does not intend to use a vapor barrier beneath the slabs -on -grade. The placement of the vapor barrier is our recommendation and not a requirement. If the vapor barrier system is eliminated, Krazan has no liability with regards to issues associated with moisture vapor transmission Offices Serving The Western United States 4221 Brickell Street, Ontario, California 91761 • (909) 974-4400 9 Fax: (909) 9744022 KA No. 112-07036 Page No. 2 Comment 3 Floor Slabs: The soils report does not make a recommendation for the minimum thickness of the concrete floor slab. Please add this to your report. Response to Comment 3 The thickness of the slabs must be determined by the structural engineer and the criteria he determines impacts the slab. It is our recommendation that a minimum slab thickness of five inches (5") with number three bars (#3) reinforcement, eighteen inches (18") on center, each way be placed. Comment 4 Pavement Design: The Developer would like to use Crushed Miscellaneous Base (CMB) in lieu of Class 2 Aggregate Base. I would recommend using Greenbook Standard Specification Section 200-2.4, 2006 edition, for CMB, unless an alternative Caltrans Specification is Available. Please Confirm this substitution changes the recommended pavement sections shown in Table on Page 12 of the Soils Report. Response to Comment 4 It is our recommendation that Class 2 Base be used. The placement and type of base used is at the discretion of the project owner. It is the project Civil Engineer's design that determines the actual needed thickness based on the proposed design loads for the pavement sections. It is recommended that if CMB is used in Iieu of Class 2 Aggregate Base, then Green -book Standard Specification Section 200- 2.4, 2006 edition be followed. Comment 5 Pavement Design: What is the life span of the current recommended pavement sections shown in the Table on page 12 of Soils Report? Response to Comment 5 The life span of the pavement section shown on Page 12 of the Initial Geotechnical investigation is 20 years. This considers regular and routine maintenance of the pavement areas. Comment 6 Pavement Design: The project will widen Fred Waring Drive as part of the Required Official Site Improvements. The City has Assigned a Traffic Index of 9 for this Major Arterial Street with a minimum section 5.5"AC over 6.5"CAB, based on an R -value of 50. I would like Krazan to confirm that the City's Minimum pavement section is appropriate for design purposes. Attached is a copy of the City's Structural section for AC paving" Handout. Response to Comment 6 The recommended minimum thickness of the AC and CAB was outlined in the initial geotechnical investigation based on an R -value of 50. The City's minimum thickness for a traffic index of 9 is greater than our recommendation. The minimum thickness of the AC and AB should be equal to or greater than Offices Serving The Western United States 4221 Brickell Street, Ontario, California 91761 • (909) 974-4400 Y Fax: (909) 974-4022 Review letter 1 y 47 , I KA No. 112-07036 Page No. 3 the City's minimum requirements. Our report listed a recommendation only, and it is the discretion of the project owner to meet or exceed our recommendations. The city that has jurisdiction over the project has the right to specify any requirement equal or greater than our recommendation, and those requirements should be followed as to conform to the local jurisdictions requirements and interpretation of the IBC or CBC or any addendum of said jurisdiction. Comment 7 City Review Comments: The precise Grading Plan First check submittal to the City of La Quinta was returned to us with Comments to the Krazan Soils Report. Attached with this letter are the Original comments provide to us by the City. Please Address these comments and provide us with a letter that we can submit to the City for 2°d Plan Check Include with this letter should be city plan check comments. Response to Comment 7 Attached is the addendum letter to the City of La Quinta Plan Review Comments. r The recommendations and limitations provided in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report apply to this letter. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (909) 974-4400. Respectfully submitted, KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Christopher Robinson, PG Project Geologist PG No. 8420 CRIJMK nn cc: . Addressee (4) VM. Kellog M, Project Manager RCE No. 65092 Offices Serving The Western United States 4221 Brickell Street, Ontario, California 91761 • (909) 974-4400 • Fax: (909) 9744022 Review letter I May 16, 2008 Mr. Jaynes Kellogg Krazan & Associates, Inc. 4221 Brickell Street Ontario, CA 91761 Tei. 909-974-4400 Development Resource Consultants, Inc. Civil Engineering - Land Surveying - Land Planning RE: Jefferson Square, La Quinta, SWC Jefferson St. & Fred Waring Dr. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation - Request for Information Dear Jim: Job No. C07-304 J DRC is requesting clarification of the following items in your Geotechnical Engineering Investigation (Soils Report) dated May 25, 2007 (Krazan Project No. 112-07036): 1. Fill Placement. On Page 8, fill material is called out to be placed at 95% relative compaction. This is often difficult to achieve in the field and exceeds the more common requirement of 90% relative compaction for general fill. Please confirm your recommendation. 2. Floor Slabs. On Page 10 of the Soils Report, the recommendation is for a floor slabs with 3 inches of compacted gravel, 1/4 -inch maximum size, below a vapor retarder sheeting and 2" to 4" of sand on top. Typical installations use sand, in lieu of the gravel, to avoid puncturing the vapor barrier (2" sand — vapor barrier — 2" sand, is a common section). Please clarify the recommended section. 3. Floor Slabs. The Soils Report does not make a recommendation for the minimum thickness of the concrete floor slab. Please add this to your report. 4. Pavement Design. The Developer would like to use Crushed Miscellaneous Base (CMB) in lieu of Class 2 Aggregate Base. 1 would recommend using Greenbook Standard Specification Section 200-2.4, 2006 Edition, for CMB, unless an alternative Caltrans Specification is available. Please confirm if this substitution changes the recommended pavement sections shown in the Table on Page 12 of the Soils Report. 5. Pavement Design. What is the life span of the current recommended pavement sections shown in the Table on Page 12 of Soils Report? 6. Pavement Design. The Project will widen Fred Waring Drive as part of the required off-site improvements. The City has assigned a Traffic Index of 9 for this Major Arterial Street with a minimum section 5.5" AC over 6.5" CAB, based on an R -Value of 50. 1 would like Krazan to confirm that the Gity's minimum pavement section is appropriate for design purposes. Attached is a copy of the City's "Structural Section for AC Paving" handout. 800 S. ROCHESTER AVENUE - SUITE 4C - ONTARIO, CA 91761 - PHONE: 909-230-5241 - FAX: 909-230-5246 ANAHEIM HILLS ONTARIO LAS VEGAS VALENCIA CORONA Mr. James Kellogg May 15, 2008 Page 2 7. City Review Comments. The Precise Grading Plan first check submittal to the City of La Quinta was returned to us with comments to the Krazan Soils Report. Attached with this letter are the original comments provided to us by the City. Please address these comments and provide us with a letter that we can submit to the City for 2nd plan check. Included with this letter should be city plan check comments. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Development Resource Consultants, Inc. Ronald W. Sklepko, P.E. Vice President RWS/rws Kellogg Jim Kramn ftr01.051608.doc c: Tom Middleton, Regency Centers Rob Grant, Regency Centers Mike Flynn, KTGY Architects If t 6X .L & ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING a ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION May 30, 2008 KA Project No. 112-07036 Mr. Thomas Middleton Regency Centers Inc. 36 Executive Park, Suite 100 Irvine; CA 92614 RE: Addendum Letter # 2 Proposed Shopping Center Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive La Quinta, California Dear Mr. Middleton: In accordance with your request and authorization, this letter has been prepared in order to respond to comments provided by the city of La Quinta following review of the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report prepared for the subject site. The referenced review sheet provided to our office is dated May 30, 2008. These comments were provided to our office by a representative of DRC Engineering. Following are our response to those comments considered applicable to our firm. Comment No. 6: Krazan Geotech Report and current letter dated March 21, 2008 a. Liquefaction historic groundwater elevation is not provided (2nd request). Geo states low but if historic is higher than probably significant. Please address what the historic water table is. Either get it from CVWD (760-398-2661 or Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Co. (760-345-2694),1 am not sure which one has authority here, " According to CVWD, the historic groundwater elevation for the 3 closest wells to the site is listed below: Offices Serving The Western United States 43379 Business Park Drive, Suite 300 u Temecula, CA 92590 9 (951) 694-0601 o Fax (951694-0701 1 TSS R 7E 20 A 177.8 Feet BGS 140.7 Feet BGS 2004 T 5S R 7E 20 G 201.8 Feet BGS 154.0 Feet BGS 2000 T 5S R 7E 20 H 1 185.0 Feet BGS 168.2 Feet BGS 2006 Offices Serving The Western United States 43379 Business Park Drive, Suite 300 u Temecula, CA 92590 9 (951) 694-0601 o Fax (951694-0701 KA Project No. 112-07036 Page No. 2 b. "Subsidence for volume talcs seem very low (0.02 ft). Has this been correlated with developments around the vicinity? Note, Project across Fred Waring had import volumes that increased. (Esplanade back in 2003). It is requested that the soils engineer define "subsidence" which should reflect lowering from the existing. " Subsidence does not apply to the volume calculation of the imported fill. The Civil engineer should determine the import volume calculations. Subsidence is defined as ground surface or soil material shifting downward relative to the existing datum. In other words, this state's how much the existing soils will consolidate when the imported fill material is compacted on top of these in-situ materials. c. "95% compaction requirement is above the typical 90% for this area. It is requested to indicate on the plaits that 95% compaction is required for these structural fills within the building areas ". It is Krazan & Associates recommendation that any fill be compacted to a minimum of 95% relative density. The sandy soils present at the site can be typically compacted to 95% relative density. d. "In the March 21 letter from Krazan, the geotech addressed past comment 14 but does not address existing walls, structures, pool.... etc as requested. Please address this issue especially near the retention areas like the park and section C area where the existing residential area exist. Also, northeast corner signal poles, sidewalks.... etc. " The proposed development should not impact any existing structures or improvement I if the recommendations of the initial geotechnical investigation report (May 25, 2007) and all subsequent addendums and letters are considered in the design and construction of the project. e. "The soils report indicates that sulfate containing soils were found to below on the site but import is required The soil engineer should provide information on proper import specifications. " It is recommended that any soils import for use as engineered fill shall be tested for sulfate content. It is recommended that the soils that are to be used for engineered fill contain negligible sulfate content according to ACI 318 Building Code. ' If you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (951) 694-0601. Respectfully submitted,, KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Christopher Robinson, PG Project Geologist PG No. 8420 CR/JMK;rm cc: Addressee (4) ect Manager RCE No. 65092 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States son Repot Response Letter# 2 Corporate: 2992 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite A, Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: (714) 632-2999 Fax: (714) 632-2974 Branch: 6295 Ferris Square, Suite C, San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: (858) 537-3999 Fax: (858) 537-3990 Branch: 14467 Meridian Parkway Bldg 2A, Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: (951) 6534999 Fax: (951) 6534666 Branch: 44917 Golf Center Parkway #1, Indio, CA 92201 Tel: (760) 3424677 Fax: (760) 3424525 Report of: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH -CONCRETE ASTM C39 s* CITY OF LA QUINTA-BLDG & SAFETY 78495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CA 92253 Client: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES A Set No.: 9-R0096 Date Printed: 3/12/2009 File No.: Permit No.: Project No.: 1412A16 Project Name: FRESH & EASY -LA QUINTA JEFFERSON & FRED WARING LA QUINTA, CA Age (Days) Date Tested Nominal Actual Area Size (Sq. Inch) Load (lbs.) Strength (psi) Type of Fracture 7.. 2/16/2009 6X 12 28.27 106,000 3,750 Columnar 28 3/9/2009 6X 12 28.27 130,500 4,620 Shear 28 3/9/2009 6X 12 28.27' 131,500 1 4,650 Shear H Specified Strength: 3,000 PSI Sampled By: MICHAEL WIELOGORSK ASTM C172 Date Sampled: 2/9/2009 Date Received: 2/11/2009 Location: FREEZER SLAB ON GRADE APPROX. LINES A.3 - D.6 AND 4.3 - 4.6 Concrete Supplier: ROBERTSON'S READY MIX Concrete Temp: 66 OF ASTM C1064 Mix.No.: 62321 Ambient Temp: 60 OF ASTM C1064 Ticket No.: 6488492 Water added at Site: 5.00 gal. By CONTRACTOR Slump: 3.00 in. ASTM C143 Cement Type: II Mix Time: 130 min. Tested at: Riverside Remarks: Distribution: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES Respectfully Submitted,MTGL, Inc. CITY OF LA QUINTA-BLDG & SAFETY **LAB COPY** Zafar Ahmed Engineer 4640 PSI 28 -day compression test complies with the specified strength. Corporate: 2992_ E. La Palma Avenue, Suite A, Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: (714) 632-2999 Fax: (714) 632-2974 Branch: 7313 Carroll Road, Suite G, San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: (858) 537-3999 Fax: (858) 537-3990 Branch: 14320 Elsworth Street, Suite C101, Moreno Valley, CA 92553 Tel: (909) 6534999 Fax: (909) 6534666 Branch: 13010 San Femando Road, Unit 1, Sylmar, CA 91342 Tel:(818)833-8100 Fax:(818)833-0085 Report of: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH -CONCRETE ASTM C39. CITY OF LA QUINTA-BLDG & SAFETY 78495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA; CA 92253 Client: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES ^. Set No.: 9-R0096 File No.: Permit No.: Project No.: 1412A16 Project Name: FRESH & EASY -LA QUINTA JEFFERSON & FRED WARING LA QUINTA, CA Age (Days) Date Tested Nominal Size Actual Area (Sq.Inch) Load (Ibs.) Strength (psi) Type of Fracture 7 2/16/2009 6X 12 28.27 106,000 3,750 Columnar 28 3/9/2009 6X 12 28.27 28 3/9/2009 6X 12 1 28.27' H Specified Strength: 3,000 PSI Sampled By: MICHAEL WIELOGORSKI ASTM C172 Date Sampled: 2/9/2009 Date Received: 2/11/2009 Location: FREEZER SLAB ON GRADE APPROX. LINES A.3 - D.6 AND 4.3 - 4.6 Concrete Supplier: ROBERTSON'S READY MIX Concrete Temp: 66 OF ASTM C1064 Mix No.: 62321 Ambient Temp: 60 OF ASTM C1064 Ticket No.: 6488492 Water added at Site: 5.00 gal. By CONTRACTOR Slump: 3.00 in. ASTM C143 Cement Type: Il Mix Time: 130 min. Tested at: Riverside Remarks:. h , Respectfully Submitted, Distribution: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES MTGL, Inc. CITY OF LA QUINTA-BLDG & SAFETY **LAB COPY** , M.B.(Ben) Lo Chief Engineer Corporate: 2992 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite A, Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: (714) 632-2999 Far: (714) 632-2974 Branch: 7313 Carroll Road, Suite G, San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: (858) 537-3999 Far: (858) 537-3990 Branch: 14467 Meridian Parkway Bldg 2A, Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: (951) 6534999 Fax: (951) 653-4666 Report of: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH -CONCRETE ASTM C39 File No.: .**LAB COPY** Permit No.: Project No.: ' 1412AI6 Project Name: FRESH & EASY -LA QUINTA JEFFERSON & FRED WARING LA QUINTA, CA Client: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES A Set No.: 9-R0077 L Age (Days) Date Tested Nominal Size Actual Area (Sq. Inch) Load (lbs.) Strength (psi) Type of Fracture 7 2/5/2009 6X 12 28.27 101,500 3,590 Shear 28 2/26/2009 6X 12 28.27 137,500 4,860 Shear 28 2/26/2009 6X 12 28.27 1 135,500 1 4,790 1 Shear H A Specified Strength: 3,000 PSI Sampled By: CAMERON KELLUM ASTM C172 Date Sampled: 1/29/2009 Date Received: 1/30/2009 Location: SLAB ON GRADE LINES 4 & 13.8 Concrete Supplier: ROBERTSON'S READY MIX Concrete Temp: 70 OF ASTM C1064 Mix No.: 62321 Ambient Temp: 67 OF ASTM C1064 Ticket No.: 6488269 r Water added at Site: 10.00 gal. By RUSS MARTIN Slump: 6.00 in. ASTM C143 Cement Type: Mix Time: min. Tested at: Riverside Remarks: Respectfully Submitted, Distribution: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES MTGL, Inc. CITY OF LA QUINTA-BLDG & SAFETY **LAB COPY** e Zafar Ahmed Engineer 4820 PSI 28 -day compression test complies with the specified strength. Corporate: 2992 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite A, Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: (714) 632-2999 Fax: (714) 632-2974 Branch: 7313 Carroll Road, Suite G, San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: (858) 537-3999 Fax: (858) 537-3990 Branch: 14467 Meridian Parkway Bldg 2A, Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: (951) 653-4999 Far: (951) 653-4666 Report of. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH -CONCRETE ASTM C39 **LAB COPY**' Client: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES Set No.: 9-R0078 File No.: Permit No.: Project No.: 1412A16 'Project Name: FRESH & EASY -LA QUINTA JEFFERSON & FRED WARING LA QUINTA, CA Age (Days) Date Tested Nominal Size Actual Area (Sq. Inch) Load (lbs.) Strength (psi) Type of Fracture 7 2/5/2009 6X 12 28.27 115,500 4,080 Shear 28 2/26/2009 6X 12 28.27 160,000 5,660 Shear 28 .2/26/2009. 6X 12 28.27 152,500 5,390 Columnar H Specified Strength: 3,000 PSI Sampled By: CAMERON KELLUM ASTM C172 Date Sampled: 1/29/2009 Date Received: 1/30/2009 Location: SLAB ON GRADE LINES 4.2 & E.2 Concrete Supplier: ROBERTSON'S READY MIX Concrete Temp: 75 OF ASTM C1064 Mix No.: 62321 Ambient Temp: 74 OF ASTM C1064 Ticket No.: 6488293 Water added at Site: 5.00 gal. By JEFF PLUMMER Slump: 5.00 in. ASTM C143 Cement Type: Mix Time: min. Tested at: Riverside Remarks: Distribution: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES CITY OF LA QUINTA-BLDG & SAFETY **LAB COPY** Respectfully Submitted, MTGL, Inc. Zafar Ahmed Engineer ' 5520 PSI 28 -day compression test complies with the specified strength. s Corporate: 2992 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite A, Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: (714) 632-2999 Fax: (714) 632-2974 Branch: 7313 Carroll Road, Suite G, San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: (858) 537-3999 Far: (858) 537-3990 Branch: 14467 Meridian Park -way Bldg 2A, Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: (951) 6534999 Far: (951) 6534666 Report of: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH -CONCRETE ASTM C39 **LAB COPY** Client: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES A Set No.: 9-R0079 File No.: Permit No.: Project No.: 1412A16 Project Name: FRESH & EASY -LA QUINTA JEFFERSON & FRED WARING LA QUINTA, CA Age (Days)' Date Tested Nominal Actual Area Size (Sq. Inch) Load Strength (lbs.) (psi) Type of Fracture 7 2/5/2009 6X 12 28.27 82,500 2,920 Shear 28 2/26/2009 6X 12 28.27 132,500 4,690 Shear 28 2/26/2009 6X 12 28.27 124,500 4,400 Shear H V A t Specified Strength: 3,000 PSI Sampled By: CAMERON KELLUM ASTM C172 Date Sampled: 1/29/2009 Date Received: 1/30/2009 Location: SLAB ON GRADE LINES 2.5 & 8.5 Concrete Supplier: ROBERTSON'S READY MIX Concrete Temp: 62 OF ASTM C1064 Mix No.: 62321 Ambient Temp: 58 OF ASTM C1064 Ticket No.: 6488255 Water added at Site: 17.00 gal. By ERNIE ESPINOZA Slump: 5.50 in. ASTM C143 Cement Type: Mix Time: min. Tested at: Riverside Remarks: Distribution:, THE BERGMAN COMPANIES CITY OF LA QUINTA-BLDG & SAFETY ' **LAB COPY** Respectfully Submitted, MTGL, Inc. Zafar Ahmed Engineer 4540 PSI 28 -day compression test complies with the specified strength. Corporate: 2992 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite A, Anaheim, CA 92806 r Tel: (714) 632-2999 Fax: (714) 632-2974 Branch: 7313 Carroll Road, Suite G, San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: (858) 537-3999 Far: (858) 537-3990 Branch: 14467 Meridian Parkway Bldg 2A, Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: (951) 653-4999 Fax: (951) 6534666 Report of: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH -CONCRETE ASTM C39 **LAB COPY** Client: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES A Set No.: 9-R0080 File No.: Permit No.: ' Project No.: 1412A 16 Project Name: FRESH & EASY -LA QUINTA JEFFERSON & FRED WARING LA QUINTA, CA Age (Days) Date Tested Nominal Size Actual Area (Sq. Inch) Load (lbs.) Strength (psi) Type of Fracture 7 2/5/2009 6 X 12 28.27 92,000 3,250 Shear 28 2/26/2009 6X 12 28.27 137,500 4,860 Shear 28 2/26/2009 6X 12 28.27 143,500 5,080 Shear H Specified Strength: 3,000 PSI Sampled By: CAMERON KELLUM ASTM C172 Date Sampled: 1/29/2009 Date Received: 1/30/2009 Location: SLAB ON GRADE LINES 3.0 & D Concrete Supplier: ROBERTSON'S READY MIX Concrete Temp: 73 OF ASTM C1064 Mix No.: 62321 Ambient Temp: 71 OF ASTM C1064 Ticket No.: 6488286 Water added at Site: 5.00 gal. By JEFF MILLER Slump: 6.00 in. ASTM C143 Cement Type: Mix Time: min. Tested at: Riverside Remarks: Distribution: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES CITY OF LA QUINTA-BLDG & SAFETY **LAB COPY** Respectfully Submitted, MTGL, Inc. Zafar Ahmed Engineer 4970 PSI 28 -day compression test complies with the specified strength. Corporate: 2992 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite A, Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: (714) 632-2999 Fax: (714) 632-2974 Branch: 7313 Carroll Road, Suite G, San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: (858) 537-3999 Fax: (858) 537-3990 Branch: 14320 Elsworth Street, Suite C101, Moreno Valley, CA 92553 Tel: (909) 6534999 Fax: (909) 653-4666 Branch: 13010 San Fernando Road, Unit I, Sylmar, CA 91342 Tel:(818)833-8100 Fax:(818)833-0085 Report of: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH -CONCRETE ASTM C39 **LAB COPY** Client: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES A Set No.: 9-R0077 File No.: Permit No.: Project No.: 1412A16 Project Name: FRESH & EASY -LA QUINTA JEFFERSON & FRED WARING LA QUINTA, CA Age (Days) Date Tested Nominal Size Actual Area (Sq. Inch) Load (lbs.) Strength (psi) Type of Fracture 7 2/5/2009. 6X 12 28.27 101,500 3,590 Shear 28 2/26/2009 6X 12 28.27 28 2/26/2009 6X 12 28.27 H Specified Strength: 3,000 PSI Sampled By: CAMERON KELLUM Location: SLAB ON GRADE LINES 4 & B.8 Concrete Supplier: ROBERTSON'S READY MIX Mix No.: 62321 Ticket No.: 6488269 Water added at Site: 10.00 gal. By RUSS MARTIN Cement Type: Mix Time: min. Remarks: Distribution: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES CITY OF LA QUINTA-BLDG & SAFETY **LAB COPY** ASTM C172 Date Sampled: 1/29/2009 Date Received: 1/30/2009 Concrete Temp: 70 OF ASTM C1064 Ambient Temp: 67 OF ASTM C1064 Slump: 6.00 in. ASTM C143 Tested at: Riverside Respectfully Submitted, MTGL, Inc. 1 M.B.(Ben) Lo Chief Engineer Corporate: Branch: Branch: Branch: 2992 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite A, Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: (714) 632-2999 Fax: (714) 632-2974 7313 Carroll Road, Suite G, San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: (858) 537-3999 Fax: (858) 537-3990 14320 Elsworth Street, Suite C101, Moreno Valley, CA 92553 Tel: (909) 653-4999 Fax: (909) 653-4666 13010 San Fernando Road, Unit 1, Sylmar, CA 91342 Tel: (818) 833-8100 Fax: (818) 833-0085 Report of: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH -CONCRETE ASTM C39 *s CITY OF LA QUINTA-BLDG & SAFETY 78495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CA 92253 Client: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES A Set No.: 9-R0078 File No.: Permit No.: Project No.: 1412A16 Project Name: FRESH & EASY -LA QUINTA JEFFERSON & FRED WARING LA QUINTA, CA Age (Days) Date Nominal Tested Size Actual Area (Sq. Inch) Load (lbs.) Strength Type of (psi) Fracture 7 2/5/2009 6X 12 28.27 115,500 4,080 Shear 28 2/26/2009 6X 12 28.27 28 2/26/2009 1 - 6X 12 28.27 H Specified Strength: 3,000 PSI Sampled By: CAMERON KELLUM Location: SLAB ON GRADE LINES 4.2 & E.2 Concrete Supplier: ROBERTSON'S READY MIX Mix No.: 62321 Ticket No.: 6488293 Water added at Site: 5.00 gal. By JEFF PLUMMER Cement Type: Mix Time: min. r Remarks: Distribution: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES CITY OF LA QUINTA-BLDG & SAFETY **LAB COPY** ASTM C172 Date Sampled: 1/29/2009 Date Received: 1/30/2009 Concrete Temp: 75 OF ASTM C1064 Ambient Temp: 74 OF ASTM C1064 Slump: 5.00 in. ASTM C143 Tested at: Riverside Respectfully Submitted, MTGL, Inc. M.B.(Ben) Lo Chief Engineer Corporate: 2992 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite A, Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: (714) 632-2999 Fax: (714) 632-2974 Branch: 7313 Carroll Road, Suite G, San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: (858) 537-3999 Fax: (858) 537-3990 Branch: 14320 Elsworth Street, Suite C101, Moreno Valley, CA 92553 Tel: (909) 6534999 Fax: (909) 653-4666 Branch: 13010 San Fernando Road, Unit I, Sylmar, CA 91342 Tel:(818)833-8100 Fax:(818)833-0085 Report of: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH -CONCRETE ASTM C39, CITY OF LA QUINTA-BLDG & SAFETY 78495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CA 92253 Client: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES ^. Set No.: 9-R0079 File No.: Permit No.: Project No.: 1412A16 Project Name: FRESH & EASY -LA QUINTA JEFFERSON & FRED WARING LA QUINTA, CA Age (Days) Date Tested Nominal Size Actual Area (Sq.Inch) Load (lbs.) Strength (psi) Type of Fracture 7 2/5/2009 6X 12 28.27 82,500 2,920 Shear 28 2/26/2009 6X 12 28.27 28 2/26/2009 6X 12 28.27 H Specified Strength: 3,000 PSI Sampled By: CAMERON KELLUM Location: SLAB ON GRADE LINES 2.5 & 8.5 Concrete Supplier: ROBERTSON'S READY MIX Mix No.: 62321 Ticket No.: 6488255 Water added at Site: 17.00 gal. By ERNIE ESPINOZA Cement Type: Mix Time: min. Remarks Distribution: THE BERG" COMPANIES CITY OF LA QUINTA-BLDG & SAFETY **LAB COPY** ASTM C172 Date Sampled: 1/29/2009 Date Received: 1/30/2009 Concrete Temp: 62 OF ASTM C1064 Ambient Temp: 58 OF ASTM C1064 Slump: 5.50 in. ASTM C143 Tested at: Riverside Respectfully Submitted, MTGL, Inc. 1 M.B.(Ben) Lo Chief Engineer Corporate: 2992 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite A, Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: (714) 632-2999 Fax: (714) 632-2974 Branch: 7313 Carroll Road, Suite G, San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: (858) 537-3999 Fax: (858) 537-3990 Branch: 14320 Elsworth Street, Suite C101, Moreno Valley, CA 92553 Tel: (909) 653-4999 Fax: (909) 653-4666 Branch: 13010 San Femando Road, Unit I, Sylmar, CA 91342 Tel:(818)833-8100 Fax:(818)833-0085 Report of. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH -CONCRETE ASTM C39 ** CITY OF LA QUINTA-BLDG & SAFETY 78495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CA 92253 Client: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES A Set No.: 9-R0080 File No.: Permit No.: Project No.: 1412A16 Project Name: FRESH & EASY -LA QUINTA JEFFERSON & FRED WARING LA QUINTA, CA Age (Days) Date Tested Nominal. Size Actual Area (Sq. Inch) Load (lbs.) Strength (psi) Type of Fracture 7 2/5/2009 6X 12 28.27 92,000 3,250 Shear 28 2/26/2009 6X 12 28.27 28 2/26/2009 6X 12 28.27 H Specified Strength: 3,000 PSI Sampled By: CAMERON KELLUM Location: SLAB ON GRADE LINES 3.0 &'D Concrete Supplier: ROBERTSON'S READY MIX Mix No.: 62321 Ticket No.: 6488286 Water added at Site: 5.00 gal. By JEFF MILLER Cement Type: Mix Time: min. Remarks: Distribution: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES CITY OF LA QUINTA-BLDG & SAFETY **LAB COPY** A ASTM C172 Date Sampled: 1/29/2009 Date Received: 1/30/2009 Concrete Temp: 73 OF ASTM C1064 Ambient Temp: 71 OF ASTM C1064 Slump: 6.00 in. ASTM C143 Tested at: Riverside Respectfully Submitted, MTGL, Inc. l M.B.(Ben) Lo Chief Engineer Corporate: 2992 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite A, Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: (714) 632-2999 Fax: (714) 632-2974 Branch: 7313 Carroll Road, Suite G, San Diego, CA 92121 1 Tel: (858) 537-3999 Fax: (858) 537-3990 Branch: 14320 Elsworth Street, Suite C101, Moreno Valley, CA 92553 Tel: (909) 653-4999 Fax: (909)653-4666 I Branch: 13010 San Femando Road, Unit 1, Sylmar, CA 91342 Tel:(818)833-8100 Fax:(818)833-00 5 Report of: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH -CONCRETE ASTM C39 CITY OF LA QUINTA-BLDG & SAFETY 78495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CA 92253 Client: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES Set No.: 9-R0070 File No.: Permit No.: Project No.: 1412A16 Project Name: FRESH & EASY -LA QUINTA JEFFERSON & FRED WARING LA QUINTA, CA Js� a.tiIIINTA Age (Days) Date Tested Nominal Size Actual Area Load (Sq.Inch) (lbs.) Strength (psi) Type of Fracture 7 1/30/2009 6X 12 28.27 84,500 2,990 Columnar 28 2/20/2009 6X 12 28.27 145,000 5,130 Shear 28 2/20/2009 6X 12 28.27. 1 138,500 4,900 Shear H Specified Strength: 3,000 PSI Sampled By: C VAN ALSTINE Location: TRUCK DOCK @ WEST SIDE OF BUILDING Concrete Supplier: ROBERTSON'S READY MIX Mix No.: 62321 Ticket No.: 6488070 Water added at Site: gal. By Cement Type: Mix Time: 39 min. Remarks: Distribution: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES CITY OF LA QUINTA-BLDG & SAFETY **LAB COPY** ASTM C172 Date Sampled: 1/23/2009 Date Received: 1/26/2009 Concrete Temp: 79 OF ASTM C1064 Ambient Temp: 73 OF ASTM C1064 Slump: 4.50 in. ASTM C143 Tested at: Riverside Respectfully Submitted, MTGL, Inc. 1 M.B.(Ben) Lo Chief Engineer 5020 PSI 28 -day compression test complies with the specified strength. Corporate: 2992 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite A, Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: (714) 632-2999 Fax: (714) 632-2974 Branch: 7313 Carroll Road, Suite G, San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: (858) 537-3999 Fax: (858) 537-3990 Branch: 14320 Elsworth Street, Suite C101, Moreno Valley, CA 92553 Tel: (909) 653-4999 Fax: (909) 653-4666 Branch: 13010 San Fernando Road, Unit 1, Sylmar, CA 91342 , Tel: (818) 833-8100 Fax: (818) 833-0085 Report of: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH -CONCRETE ASTM C39 CITY OF LA QUINTA-BLDG & SAFETY 78495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA; CA 92253 Client: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES A Set No.: 9-R0023 File No.: Permit. No.: Project No.: 1412A16 Project Name: FRESH & EASY -LA QUINTA JEFFERSON & FRED WARING LA QUINTA, CA Age (Days) Date Tested Nominal Size Actual Area (Sq.1nch) Load Strength (lbs.) (psi) Type of Fracture 7 1/12/2009 6X 12 28.27 113,500 4,010 Shear 28. 2/2/2009 6X 12 28.27 153,500 5,430 Shear 28 2/2/2009 6X 12 28.27 166,000 5,870 Shear H Specified Strength: 3,000 PSI Sampled By: LUKE ZUCKERMAN ASTM C172 Date Sampled: 1/5/2009 Date Received: 1/9/2009 Location: SLAB ON GRADE AT LINES E & 4.6 Concrete Supplier: ROBERTSON'S READY MIX Concrete Temp: 60 OF ASTM C1064 Mini No.: 62321 Ambient Temp: 50 OF ASTM C1064 Ticket No.: 6101470 Water added at Site: gal. By Slump: 5.00 in. ASTM C143 .Cement Type: IIN Mix Time: min. Tested at: Riverside " Remarks: ADMIX WRDA-64 Respectfully Submitted, . Distribution: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES MTGL, Inc. CITY OF LA QUINTA-BLDG & SAFETY **LAB COPY** A M.B.(Ben) Lo Chief Engineer 5650 PSI 28 -day compression test complies with the specified strength. Corporate: 2992 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite A, Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: (714) 632-2999 Fax: (714) 632-2974 Branch: 7313 Carroll Road, Suite G, San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: (858) 537-3999 Fax: (858) 537-3990 Branch: 14320 Elsworth Street, Suite C101, Moreno Valley, CA 92553 Tel: (909) 653-4999 Fax: (909) 653-4666 Branch: 13010 San Fernando Road, Unit 1, Sylmar, CA 91342 Tel: (818) 833-8100 Fax: (818) 833-0085 Report of: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH -CONCRETE ASTM C39 File No.: 'y / FF�iQ$O!✓ **LAB COPY** Permit No.: Project No.: 1412A16 Project Name: FRESH & EASY -LA QUINTA JEFFERSON & FRED WARING LA QUINTA, CA Client: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES A Set No.: 8-112546 n Age (Days) Date Nominal Tested Size Actual Area (Sq. Inch) Load (lbs.) Strength (psi) Type of Fracture 7 12/16/2008 6X 12 28.27 102,500 3,630 Shear 28 1/6/2009 6X 12 28.27 142,500 5,040 Cone 28 1/6/2009 6X 12 1 28.27. 139,500 1 4,930 1 Cone H 6X 12 28.27 n .Specified Strength: 3,000 PSI Sampled By: -LUKE ZUCKERMAN ASTM C172 Date Sampled: 12/9/2008 Date Received: 12/18/2008 Location: LINE 2/ B TO C GRADE BEAM . ,Y Concrete Supplier:, ROBERTSON'S READY MIX Concrete Temp: 63 OF ASTM C1064 Mix No.: 62321 Ambient Temp: 58 OF ASTM C1064 Ticket No.: 5802742 Water added at Site: gal. By Slump: 4.00 . in. ASTM C143 Cement Type: IIN Mix Time: min. Tested at: Riverside Remarks: • Respectfully Submitted, Distribution: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES MTGL, Inc. CITY OF LA QUINTA-BLDG & SAFETY 1 **LAB COPY** + M.B.(Ben) Lo Chief Engineer 4980 PSI 28 -day compression test complies with the specified strength. Corporate: 2992 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite A, Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: (714) 632-2999 Fax: (714) 632-2974 Branch: 7313 Carroll Road, Suite G, San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: (858) 537-3999 Fax: (858) 537-3990 Branch: 14467 Meridian Parkway Bldg 2A, Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: (951) 653-4999 Fax: (951) 653-4666 Report of. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH -MASONRY PRISM ASTM C1314 CITY OF LA QUINTA-BLDG & SAFETY , 78495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CA 92253 Client: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES Set No.: 8-3408 r File No.: Permit No.: Project No.: 1412A16 Project Name: FRESH & EASY -LA QUINTA JEFFERSON & FRED WARING LA QUINTA, CA Age (Days) Date Nominal Tested Size • Actual Area (Sq. Inch) Load (lbs.) Strength Type of (psi) Fracture 7 12/11/2008 8 X 8 X 8 58.52 133,305 2,280 N/A 28 1/1/2009 8 X 8 X 8 58.52 28 1/1/2009 Specified Strength: 2,000 PSI Sampled By: LUKE ZUCKERMAN ASTM C172 Date Sampled: 12/4/2008 Date Received: 12/8/2008 Location: 4TH LIFT LINE F/ 3TO 4 Concrete Supplier: ROBERTSON'S READY MIX Concrete Temp: 70 OF ASTM C1064 Mix No.: 43163 Ambient Temp: 74 OF ASTM C1064 Ticket No.: 5802649 Water added at Site: 20:00 gal. By Slump: 9.00 in. ASTM C143 _Cement Type; _ II/V _ _ Mix Time:. _ min. _ , _ _ Tested at: , Riverside Remarks: Distribution: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES CITY OF LA QUINTA-BLDG & SAFETY **LAB COPY** Respectfully Submitted, MTGL, Inc. 1 M.B.(Ben) Lo Chief Engineer Corporate: 2992 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite A, Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: (714) 632-2999 Fax: (714) 632-2974 Branch: 7313 Carroll Road, Suite G, San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: (858) 537-3999 Fax: (858) 537-3990 •Branch: 14467 Meridian Parkway Bldg 2A, Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: (951) 653-4999 Fax: (951) 653-4666 Report of. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH -CONCRETE ASTM C39 CITY OF LA QUINTA-BLDG & SAFETY 78495 CALLS TAMPIC0 LA QUINTA, CA 92253 Client: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES . A y _ Set No.: 8-112502 File No.: Permit No.: Project No.: 1412A16 ` Project Name: FRESH & EASY -LA QUINTA JEFFERSON & FRED WARING LA QUINTA, CA Age Date (Days) Tested Nominal Size • Actual Area (Sq. Inch) Load (lbs.) Strength (psi) Type of Fracture 7 12/1/2008 6X 12 28.27. 101,000 3,570 Shear 28 12/22/2008 6X 12 28.27 ' 116,000 4,100 Shear 28 1 12/22/2008 6X 12 1 28.27 118,500 1 4,190 Columnar H I 6X 12 1 28.27 Specified Strength: 3,000 PSI Sampled By: LUKE ZUCKERMAN Location: G13-2 9LINE 4.6/D.6 TO C.1 ASTM C172 Date Sampled: 11/24/2008 Date Received: 12/5/2008 Concrete Supplier: ROBERTSON'S READY MIX Concrete Temp: 68 OF ASTM C1064 Mix No.: 62321 Ambient Temp: 72 OF ASTM C1064 Ticket No.: Water added at Site: 0.00 gal. By Slump: 5.00 in. ASTM C143 Cement Type: Mix Time: min. Tested at: Riverside Remarks: Distribution: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES CITY OF LA QUINTA-BLDG & SAFETY **LAB COPY** Respectfully Submitted, MTGL, Inc. M.B.(Ben) Lo Chief Engineer 4140 PSI 28 -day compression test complies with the specified strength. Corporate: 2992 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite A, Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: (714) 632-2999 Fax: (714) 632-2974 Branch: 7313 Carroll Road, Suite G, San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: (858) 537-3999 Fax: (858) 537-3990 Branch: 14467 Meridian Parkway Bldg 2A, Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: (951) 653-4999 Fax: (951) 653-4666 Report of. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH -CONCRETE ASTM C39 CITY OF LA QUINTA-BLDG & SAFETY 78495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CA 92253 Client: - THE BERGMAN COMPANIES A Set No.: 8-R2464 File No.: Permit No.: , Project No.: 1412A16 Project Name: FRESH & EASY -LA QUINTA JEFFERSON & FRED WARING LA QUINTA, CA Age (Days) Date Nominal Tested Size Actual Area (Sq. Inch) Load (lbs.) Strength (psi) Type of Fracture 7 11/25/2008 6X 12 28.27 101,000 3,570 Shear 28 12/16/2008 6X 12 28.27 125,000 4,420 Columnar 28 12/16/2008 6X-12 28.27 123,500 4,370 Shear Specified Strength: 3,000 PSI Sampled By: GARY BRANSTETTER ASTM C172 Date Sampled: 11/18/2008 Date Received: 11/21/2008 Location: FOOTING AT B/5 Concrete Supplier: ROBERTSON'S READY MIX Concrete Temp: 88 OF ASTM C1064 Mix No.: 62321 Ambient Temp: 88 OF ASTM C1064 Ticket No.: 5802065 ' Water added at Site: 0.00 gal. By 0 Slump: 4.50 in. ASTM C143 Cement Type: Mix Time: 3,8—' min. Tested at: Riverside Remarks: Respectfully Submitted, Distribution: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES MTGL, Inc. CITY OF LA QUINTA-BLDG & SAFETY j **LAB COPY** + M.B.(Ben) Lo Chief Engineer 4400 PSI ' 28 -day compression test complies with the specified strength. i Corporate: 2992 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite A, Anaheim, CA 92806 i Tel: (714) 632-2999 Fax: (714) 632-2974 Branch: 7313 Carroll Road, Suite G, San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: (858) 537-3999 Fax: (858) 537-3990 Branch: 14467 Meridian Parkway Bldg 2A, Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: (951) 653-4999 Fax: (951) 653-4666 Report of. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH -CONCRETE ASTM C39 * * File No.: CITY OF LA QUINTA-BLDG & SAFETY Permit No.: 78495 CALLE TAMPICO Project No.: 1412A16 LA QUINTA, CA 92253 Project Name: FRESH & EASY -LA QUINTA JEFFERSON & FRED WARING LA QUINTA, CA Client: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES Set No.: 8-R2463 Age (Days) Date Tested Nominal Size Actual Area (Sq. Inch) Load Strength (lbs.) (psi) Type of Fracture 7 11/25/2008 6X 12 28.27 104,500 3,700 Shear •28 12/16/2008 6X 12 28.27 123,500 4,370 Shear 28 12/16/2008 6X 12 28.27 120,500 4,260 Shear Specified Strength: 3,000 PSI Sampled By: GARY BRANSTETTER ASTM C172 Date Sampled: 11/18/2008 Date Received: 11/21/2008 Location: COLUMN PAD FOOTING AT A.7/2 Concrete Supplier: ROBERTSON'S READY MIX Concrete Temp: 88 OF ASTM C1064 Mix No.: 62321 Ambient Temp: 86 OF ASTM C1064 Ticket No.: 5802060 Water added at Site: 10.00 gal. By GB Slump: 4.50 in. ASTM C143 Cement Type: _ _ Mix Time: 35 min. Tested at: Riverside Remarks: Respectfully Submitted, Distribution: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES MTGL, Inc. CITY OF LA QUINTA-BLDG & SAFETY 1 **LAB COPY** + M.B.(Ben) Lo Chief Engineer 4320 PSI 28 -day compression test complies with the specified strength. Corporate: San Diego/Imperial Count . 2992 E. La Palma Ave. Ste. A 7313 Carroll Rd. Ste. G Anaheim, CA 92806 San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: 714.632.2999 Tel: 858.537.3999 Fax: 714.632.2974 Fax: 858.537.3990 www.mtglinc.com Dispatch: 800.491.2990 Dispatch: 888.844.5060 MTGLProject #: l j42_41o� DAILY INSPECTION Permit#408-317 REPORT Report # PG DF Inland Empire: 14467 Meridian Pkwy., Bldg. 2-A Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: 951.653.4999 Fax: 951.653.4666 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 DSA/CITY File DSA/OSHPD APPL #: DSA / LEA #: Special Inspection Reports must be distributed to the parties listed below within 14 days of the inspection. Reports of non-compliant conditions must be distributed immediately. Separate reports shall be prepared for each type of special inspection, on a daily basis. Each report shall be completed and signed by the special inspector conducting the inspection. PROJECT NAM /1�.v i� DATE -/. i3- oS ARCHITECT TIME ARRIVED TI r EPARTED /d'30ALA*a �./^" ENGINEER TRAVEL TIME LUNCH TIME CONTRACT RD 0 4/i& 6� SUB CONjR*� • 04, G INSP�ECT}�oN yyDDRESS - /Z jr J�"d%�& �q y,N ADDRESS/ ROJECT TYPE OF INSPECTION ❑ BATCH PLANT ❑ ENGINEERED FILL ❑ PT CONCRETE ❑ FOUNDATION ❑ SHOTCRE.TE ❑ BACK FILL ❑ CONCRETE ❑ MASONRY ❑ FIREPROOFING ❑ CEILING WIRE ❑ HIGH STRENGTH BOLTING ❑ ANCHOR/DOWEL ❑ ❑ WELDING ❑ NDE FIELD ❑ ❑ SHOP WELD ❑ NDE SHOP ❑ DSA/OSHPO/PROJECT: AVAILABLE: APPROVED DOCUMENTS: APPROVED PLANS Y N ❑ SOIL REPORT Y ❑ N ❑ SPECS: Y ❑ N ❑ APPROVED SHOP DRAWING Y ❑ N ❑ MATERIALS USED BY C NTRACTOR (INC UDE RRESE CH REPORT NO. OR MATERIAL TESTEPORTS)�: / - /� C'� Lf Gf. . !� /t11JI7i .S/%/IJP !j/ /1af CONTRA TORS EQ UIP ENTCMANPO`WER USED: LT/�6Z32''1� Al-eTiGfSfL�//�//ls/wvf7K• �04o Qe. �+ fi oaf dl �c� �9 AREA, GRID LINES, PIECES INSPECTED: mal:¢ o >r< ,3 C•�ST Sd Z .s &A STRUCTURAL NOTES, DETA OR.RFIJUSED: REMARKS, INCLUDING ME&N ,#S: �'7 L S REWORK AS PERCENT OF ALL WORK TODAY: PERCENT PROJECT COMPLETE: THE WORK WAS ❑ WAS NOT❑ Inspected in accordance with the requirements of the DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. MATERIAL SAMPLING WASKWAS NOT❑ N/A❑ Performed in accordance with DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. cc Project Architect Contractor Structural Engineer Building Department DSA Regional Office Owner School District THE WORK INSPECTED MET ❑ DID NOT MEET ❑ THE requirements of the�DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. Samples taken: (+ Weather: .ai4.. Temp: /17LA aa!,s Signature of Special Inspector PrintName Certification #: A n ZJ Verified by: t ty Corporate: San Diego/Imperial County Inland Empire: 2992 E. La Palma Ave. Ste. A 7313 Carroll Rd. Ste. G 14467 Meridian Pkwy., Bldg. 2-A Anaheim, CA 92806 San Diego, CA 92121 Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: 714.632.2999 Tel: 858.537.3999 Tel: 951.653.4999 Fax: 714.632.2974 Fax: 858.537.3990 Fax: 951.653.4666 www.mtglinc.com Dispatch: 800.491.2990 Dispatch: 888.844.5060 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 MTGLProject#. l�i/�.�41'6 DAILY INSPECTION DSA/CITY File #: Permit # REPORT DSA/OSHPD APPL #: Report # PG OF DSA / LEA #: Special Inspection Reports must be distributed to the parties listed below within 14 days of the inspection. Reports of non-compliant conditions must be distributed immediately. Separate reports shall be prepared for each type of special inspection, on a daily basis. Each report shall be completed and signed by the special inspector conducting the inspection. PROJECT NAME DATE ARCHITECT TIME ARRIVED TIME DEPARTED ENGINEER TRAVEL-Tja5. foe LUNCH I E CONTRACTOR C� SUB CONTRACTOR INSPECTION ADDRESS ADDRESS OF PROJECT TYPE OF INSPECTION ❑ BATCH PLANT ❑ ENGINEERED FILL ❑ PT CONCRETE ❑ FOUNDATION ❑ SHOTCRETE ❑ BACK FILL ❑ CONCRETE ❑ MASONRY ❑ HIGH STRENGTH BOLTING ❑ WELDING ❑ SHOP WELD ❑ FIREPROOFING ❑ ANCHOR/DOWEL ❑ NDE FIELD ❑ NDE SHOP ❑ CEILING WIRE ❑ ❑ ❑ DSA/OSHPO/PROJECT: AVAILABLE: APPROVED DOCUMENTS: APPROVED PLANS Y ❑ SOIL REPORT Y N ❑ N ❑ SPECS: Y N ❑ APPROVED SHOP DRAWING Y ❑ N ❑ MATERIALS U D Y CONTRACTOR (INCLUDE RESEARCH REPORT NO. OR MATERIAL TEST REPORTS): 0/L r ' CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT/ MANPOWER US D: .� AREA, GRID LINES, PIECES INSPECTED: �Dw d✓i A;v—. ,E . o.,. c. STRUCTURAL NOTES, DETAIL, OR RAS USED: REMARKS, INCLUDING NEE77NGS: REWORK AS PERCENT OF ALL WORK TODAY: PERCENT PROJECT COMPLETE: THE WORK WAS ❑ WAS NOT ❑ Inspected in accordance with the requirements of the DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. MATERIAL SAMPLING WAS ❑ WAS NOT ❑ N/A ❑ Performed in accordance with DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. cc Project Architect. Contractor Structural Engineer Building Department DSA Regional Office Owner School District THE WORK INSPECTED MET ❑ DID NOT MEET ❑ THE requirements of the DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. Samples taken: Weather: Af Sign ure of Spec' Spector Print Name Certification #: Verified by: l l Corporate: San Diego/Imperial County 2992 E. La Palma Ave. Ste. A 7313 Carroll Rd. Ste. G Anaheim, CA 92806 San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: 714.632.2999 Tel: 858.537.3999 `-,.r 9 Fax: 714.632.2974 Fax: 858.537.3990 www.mtglinc.com Dispatch: 800.491.2990 Dispatch: 888.844.5060 MTGL Project #:/z�L-� DAILY INSPECTION Permit #_OS — —312 REPORT Report # PG OF Inland Empire: 14467 Meridian Pkwy., Bldg. 2-A Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: 951.653.4999 Fax: 951.653.4666 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 DSA/CITY File DSA/OSHPD APPL #: DSA / LEA #: Special Inspection Reports must be distributed to the parties listed below within 14 days of the inspection. Reports of non-compliant conditions must be distributed immediately. Separate reports shall be prepared for each type Of special inspection, on a daily basis. Each report shall be completed and signed by the special inspector conducting the inspection. PROJECT NAME G5 DATE Idlo �CA ARCHITECT L L. art TIME A RIVE (Dc,-•, TIME DEPARTED ENGINEER AJ TRAVEL TIME LUNCH T E CONTRACTOR SUB CONTRA TOR INSPECTION ADDRESS &- "l A, ADDRESS OF PROJECT TYPE OF INSPECTION ❑ BATCH PLANT ❑ ENGINEERED FILL ❑ PT CONCRETE ❑ FOUNDATION ❑ SHOTCRETE ❑ BACK FILL ❑ CONCRETE ❑ MASONRY ❑ HIGH STRENGTH BOLTING ❑ WELDING ❑ SHOP WELD ❑ FIREPROOFING ❑ ANCHOR/DOWEL ❑ NDE FIELD ❑ NDE SHOP O CEILING WIRE '❑ ❑ DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT.` AVAILABLE: APPROVED DOCUMENTS: APPROVED PLANS Y,l N ❑ SOIL REPORT Y ❑ N ❑ SPECS: Y 0< N ❑ APPROVE6 SHOP DRAWING Y ❑ N ❑ MATERI LS USED B CONTRACTOR (INCLUDE RESEARCH REPORT NO. OR MATERIAL TEST REPORTS): CONTRACTORS EOUIPMENT/MANPOWERUSE 6/ AREA, GRID LINES, PIECES INSPECTED: STRUCTURAL NOTES, DETAIL, OR RFIS USED: REM KS, INCLUDING MEETINGS., 6.1 wig REWORK AS PERCENT OF ALL WORK TODAY: PERCENT PROJECT COMPLETE: THE WORK WAS�WAS NOT❑ Inspected in accordance with the requirements of the DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. MATERIAL SAMPLING WASKsvOSHPD/PROJECT AS NOT ❑ WA ❑ Performed in accordance with approved documents. cc Project Architect Contractor Structural Engineer Building Department DSA Regional Office Owner School District THE WORK INSPECTED META( DID NOT MEET ❑ THE requirements of the DSA/OSHP /PROJECT approved documents. Samples taken: -e- Weather: P. of Signa re of Speci pector Zl/Z ,t 41" Print Name Q Certification #: p DC0 Verified bv:_ L� ` Corporate: San Diego/Imperial County Inland: Empire: 2992 E. La Palma Ave. Ste. A 7313 Carroll Rd. Ste. G14467 Meridian Pkwy., Bldg. 2-A Anaheim, CA 92806 San Diego, CA 92121 Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: 714.632.2999 Tel: 858.537.3999 Tel: '951.653.4999 Fax: 714.632.2974 Fax: 858.537.3990 Fax: 951.653.4666 www.mtglinc.com �f Dispatch: 800.491.2990 Dispatch: 888.844.5060 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 MTG L Project #: / y%Z A to 'DAILY INSPECTION DSA/CITY File #: Permit #_0% " 3 CI REPORT DSA/OSHPD APPL #: Report # PG OF DSA / LEA #: Special Inspection Reports must be distributed to the parties listed below within 14 days of the inspection. Reports of non-compliant conditions must be distributed immediately. Separate reports shall be prepared for each type of special inspection, on a daily basis. Each report shall be completed and signed by the special inspector conducting the inspection. PROJECT NAME DATE ARCHITECT L A s TIME A IV 3 a .�., TIME DEPARTED ENGINEER I 4 A/i TRAVEL TIME LUNCH TIME iV CONTRACT R , f a/ i . A& SUB CONTRACTOR � � �� INSPECTION ADDRESS ADDRESS OF PROJECT TYPE OF INSPECTION ❑ BATCH PLANT ❑ ENGINEERED FILL ❑ PT CONCRETE ❑ FOUNDATION ❑ SHOTCRETE ❑ BACK.FILL ❑ CONCRETE ❑ MASONRY ❑ HIGH STRENGTH BOLTING ❑ WELDING ❑ SHOP WELD ❑ FIREPROOFING ❑ ANCHOR/DOWEL ❑ NDE FIELD ❑ NDE SHOP O CEILING WIRE G / ❑ ❑ DSA/OSHPO/PROJECT: AVAILABLE: APPROVED DOCUMENTS: APPROVED PLANS Y N ❑ SOIL REPORT Y ❑ N ❑ SPECS: YA N ❑ APPROVED SHOP DRAWING Y ❑ N ❑ MAT IAS USED BY CONTRACTOR (INCLUDE RESEARCH REPORT NO. OR MATERIAL TEST REPORTS): I� CONT TORSEQUIPMENT /MANPOWER USED: AREA, RID LINES.PIECES IN ECTED: �- 16�. c ! ,m z . All l o'1 c iL�O+ .� 5 ��O �c b ,N G J40 ' -•=s Z .4 Z . S co % 4(.3 ic1, bA 4 KJ el el11:2 C` R ARKS, INCUGING ME GS:'' G / "n G �'h Ge / REWORK AS PERCENT OF ALL WORK TODAY: PERCENT PROJECT COMPLETE: THE WORK WAS>`WAS NOT❑ Inspected in accordance with the requirements of the DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. MATERIAL SAMPLING WAS WAS NOT ❑ N/A ❑ Performed in accordance wit D A/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. cc Project Architect ` Contractor Structural Engineer - Building Department DSA Regional Office Owner School District THE WORK INSPECTED MET4 DID NOT MEET ❑ THE requirements of the DSA/OSUPD(PROJECT approved documents. Samples taken: Weather: Te / '% SignatCriff ecial Insp or Print Name sD Certification #: 6 (/� Verified by: 2% MTG� Corporate: C 2992 E. La PAlma Ave. Ste. A Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714.632.2999 Fax: 714.632.2974 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 no San Diego/Imperial County 7313 Carroll Rd. Ste. G San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: 858.537.3999 Fax: 858.537.3990 Dispatch: 888.844.5060 FIELD REPORT Inland Empire: 14467 Meridian Pkw., Bldg. 2-A Riverside, CA 92508 Tel: 951.653.4999 Fax: 951.653.4666 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 TYP F WORKI SPECT OTE HNICIAN IV ®rL AVAILABLE: SOIL REPORT (Y) (N) SPECS (Y) (N) APPROVED PLANS (Y) (N) APPROVED SHOP DRAWING (Y) (N) ARCHITECT ' L FOR WEEK ENDING PR JET O� ENGINEER A ^ REPORT NO. PG OF CONTRACTORTK_0�. l /i PLAN FILE N0. PERMIT SUB CONTRACTOR PROJ7ME QS 7 INSPECTION ADDRESS 5k ADDRESS OF PROJECT - 2 e 6� REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: ICBO FIELD INSPECTION MANUAL/MTGL SOIL MANUAL - REVIEW PREVIOUS REPORTS AND LISTS IF THERE IS NON -CONFORMING WORK AT THE END OF THE WORK DAY, OR MISSING MTRS, AND RFIS, ETC., FILL OUT AND ATTACH A DEFICIENCY REPORT WHEN A DEFICIENCY, YOURS OR A PREVIOUS INSPECTOR'S, IS CORRECTED, SO NOTE ON THE ORIGINAL DEFICIENCY REPORT AND SUBMIT COPY WITH YOUR WEEK'S REPORTS. MA IALS �1SED BY CO CTTOR (11FLUDE RESEARC; REPORT NO. MATERIAL TEST `RREPOR Z -A g 41 CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT/ MANPOWER USED: N AREA, GRID LINES, PIECES OBSERVED: 2- 2- Qo -'t'. 1E -t.. 4 -71 00OC c•� 2 �.3 �r� B 3 3 �. 4, 3 .3 X42 � STRUCTURAL NOTES, DETAI OR RFISS%EG: vtx� REMARKS, INCLUDING MEETINGS: a LCI f ® B • At=. . a 15 -' o v- a k I POg bv.s REWORK AS PERCENT OF ALL WORK TODAY: PERCENT PROJECT COMPLETION: WEATHER: �11 U n n \ TEMPERATURE: SAMPLES TAKEN: TESTS REQUIRED: SITE TIME START: 16 3t) LUNCH PERIOD: SITE TIME FINISH: TRAVEL TIME: �� VERIFIED BY: I DO CE FY H HAVE PERS ALLY OB VED OF THE WORK LISTED ABOVE AND THAT THIS WORK COMPLIES WITH THE SOIL INVESTIGATION AN HE PROVED P ON D ADPLICABLE SECTION OF THE BUILDING CODE, UN SS OTHERWISE NOTED IN THE DEFICIENCY p1131bA S'g ture D e of Reporf ICBb Certifica Print Name City / County C Corporate: 2992 E. La Palma Ave. Ste. A Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714.632.2999 Fax: 714.632.2974 Dispatch: 800.491.29 90 MTGL Project #: !D LAS' (� Permit # Report # PG OF San Diego/Imperial County 7313 Carroll Rd. Ste. G San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: 858.537.3999 Fax: 858.537.3990 Dispatch: 888.844.5060 DAILY INSPECTION REPORT Inland Empire: 14467 Meridian Pkwy., Bldg. 2-A Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: 951.653.4999 Fax: 951.653.4666 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 DSA/CITY File #: DSA/OSHPD APPL #: DSA / LEA #: Special Inspection Reports must be distributed to the parties listed below within 14 days of the inspection. Reports of non-compliant conditions must be distributed immediately. Separate reports shall be prepared for each type of special inspection, on a daily basis..Each report shall be completed and signed by the special inspector conducting the inspection. PROJECT NAME DATE ARCHITECT 14, L G(� ;.,I ics TIME ARRIVED 7 'N TIME DEPARTED ENGINEER TRAVEL TIME LUNCH TIME 3� CONTRACTOR t70 SUBCONTRACTOR Il/"l O INSPECTION ADD ESS�+ S WC.- _S o ADDRESS OF PROJECT TYPE OF INSPECTION ❑ BATCH PLANT ❑ ENGINEERED FILL ❑ PT CONCRETE ❑ FOUNDATION ❑ SHOTCRETE ❑ BACK FILL ❑ CONCRETE MASONRY ❑ FIREPROOFING ❑ HIGH STRENGTH BOLTING ❑ ANCHOR/DOWEL ❑ WELDING ❑ NDE FIELD ❑ SHOP WELD ❑ NDE SHOP ❑ CEILING WIRE ❑ ❑ ❑ DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT: AVAILABLE: APPROVED DOCUMENTS: APPROVED PLANS YX NO SOIL REPORT Y O NO SPECS: YN❑ APPROVEADHOP DRAWING Y ❑ N ❑ MAT IALS USED BY NTRACTOR LSE RE$EARC REPORT NO. OR MATERIAL TEST REPORTS):. C/D SID C 1 -� '1TG 5 CONTRACTORS EOUIPMENT /MANPOWER USED: AREA, GRI LINES; PIECES; INSPE TED: GGA/r Q S y } t1f /'� / STRUCTURAL NOTES, DETAIL, OR RFIS USED: REMARKS, INCLUDING MEETINGS. REWORK AS PERCENT OF ALL WORK TODAY: PERCENT PROJECT COMPLETE: THE WORK WASWAS NOT ❑ Inspected in accordance with the requirements of the DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. MATERIAL SAMPLING WA$X WAS NOT ❑ N/A ❑ Performed in accordance with DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. cc Project Architect Contractor Structural Engineer Building Department DSA Regional Office Owner School District THE WORK INSPECTED MEKDID NOT MEET❑ THE requirements of the DSA//OOSHPP�D/PROJECT approved documents. Samples taken: � V if" -I— Weather: —Weather: em Signat of Special I 01tor Print Name Certification #: Z ..a b cc 5 Verified bv: Corporate: 2992 E. La Palma Ave. Ste. A Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714.632.2999 Fax: 714.632.2974 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 MTGL Project #: i q-1 Z /`f, , Permit # C San Diego/Imperial County 7313 Carroll Rd. Ste. G San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: 858.537.3999 Fax: 858.537.3990 Dispatch: 888.844.5060 DAILY INSPECTION REPORT Inland Empire: 14467 Meridian Pkwy., Bldg. 2-A Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: 951.653.4999 Fax: 951.653.4666 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 DSA/CITY File DSA/OSHPD APPL#: Report #__�_ PG 2 DF' DSA / LEA #: Special Inspection Reports must be distributed to the parties listed below within 14 days of the inspection. Reports of non-compliant conditions must be distributed immediately. Separate reports shall be prepared for each type of special inspection, on a daily basis. Each report shall be completed and signed by the special inspector conducting the inspection. i J PROJECT NAMEi�r-� `� 5 GATE ' ARCHITECT / /s �� f KM V 6.14 / _el� TIME ARRIVED w' TIME DEPARTED 3 3 a ..-. ENGINEER TRAVEL TIME LUNCH TIME 5 CONTRACTOR Oa `c, SUB CONTRACTOR G�i A4 vh INSPECTION ADDRESS S /s ADDRESS OF PROJECT TYPE OF INSPECTION ❑ BATCH PLANT ❑ ENGINEERED FILL ❑ PT CONCRETE ❑ FOUNDATION ❑ SHOTCRETE ❑ BACK FILL ❑ CONCRETE KMASONRY ❑ HIGH STRENGTH BOLTING ❑ WELDING ❑ SHOP WELD ❑ FIREPROOFING ❑ ANCHOR/DOWEL ❑ NDE FIELD ❑ NDE SHOP ❑ CEILING WIRE ❑ ❑ ❑ DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT: ' AVAILABLE: APPROVED DOCUMENTS: APPROVED PLANS Yp( N ❑ SOIL REPORT Y ❑ N ❑ SPECS: YN ❑ APPROVEXDHOP DRAWING Y ❑ N ❑ MAT IALS USED BY CONTRACTOR1 CL DE RESEARCH REPORj NO. OR MATERIAL TEST REPORTS): 1 /_ OH CONTR TORS EOUIPMENT/ MANPOWER USED: AREA, GRID LINES, PIECES INSPECTED' ev D s -x, 01- LAe 3 hx- EMARKS, INCLUDING MEETINGS.* REWORK AS PERCENT OF ALL WORK TODAY: PERCENT PROJECT COMPLETE: THE WORK WAS I& WAS NOT ❑ Inspected in accordance with the requirements of the DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. MATERIAL SAMPLING WAS [( WAS NOT ❑ N/A ❑ Performed in accordance with OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. cc Project Architect Structural Engineer DSA Regional Office School District Contractor Building Department Owner THE WORK INSPECTED METsKDID NOT MEET THE requirements of the DSA/OSliP.p/PR4ECT approved documents. Samples taken:�(� 7 e !C .Z .�-• S Weather: Temp: /Signature of Specfall In (� p Print Name Certification #: SZ [ o To 0 k Y'm QS Verified by Corporate: 2992 E. La Palma Ave. Ste. A ®Anaheim, CA 92806 .Tel: 714.632.2999 Fax: 714.632.2974 www.mtglinc.co/m Dispatch: 800.491.2990 MTGL Project #: Permit # O'd —Report #—Z PG —?-- OF San Diego/Imperial County 7313 Carroll Rd. Ste. G San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: 858.537.3999 Fax: 858.537.3990 Dispatch: 888.844.5060 DAILY INSPECTION REPORT. Inland Empire: 14467 Meridian Pkwy., Bldg. 2-A Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: 951.653.4999 Fax: 951.653.4666 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 DSA/CITY File #: DSA/OSHPD APPL #: DSA / LEA #: Special Inspection Reports must be distributed to the parties listed below within 14 days of the inspection. Reports of non-compliant conditions must be distributed immediately. Separate reports shall be prepared for each type of special inspection, on a daily basis. Each report shall be completed and signed by the special inspector conducting the inspection PROJECT NAME / DATE 1 ARCHITECT TIME ARRI D TIME DEPARTED ENGINEER TRAVEL TIME V V LUNCH TIME CONTRACTOR � 00/C -r < SUB CONTRACTOR a e INSPECTION ADDRESS ADDRESS OF PROJECT TYPE OF INSPECTION ❑ BATCH PLANT ❑ ENGINEERED FILL ❑ PT CONCRETE ❑ FOUNDATION ❑ SHOTCRETE ❑ BACK FILL ❑ CONCRETE ❑ MASONRY ❑ HIGH STRENGTH BOLTING ❑ WELDING ❑ SHOP WELD ❑ FIREPROOFING ❑ ANCHOR/DOWEL ❑ NDE FIELD ❑ NDE SHOP ❑ CEILING WIRE X o ❑ ❑ DSA/OSHPO/PROJECT: AVAILABLE: APPROVED DOCUMENTS: APPROVED PLANS Y LAN ❑ SOIL REPORT ,Y ❑ N ❑ SPECS: Y ❑ N ❑ APPROVED SHOP DRAWING Y ❑ N ❑ MATERIALS USED BY CONTRACTOR (INCLU E RESEARCH REPORT NO. OR MATERIAL TEST REPORTS CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT/ MANPOWER USED: le, 1261 -C.1 - AREA, GRID LINES, PIEC INSPEC ED: [ze �,, t o t to -I ox I, c aL Q i -01 9E ' /U STRUCTURAL NOTES, DETAIL, OR RFIS USED: REMARKS, INCLUDING MEETINGS: REWORK AS PERCENT OF ALL WORK TODAY: PERCENT PROJECT COMPLETE: THE WORK WAEX WAS NOT ❑ Inspected in accordance with the requirements of the DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. MATERIAL SAMPLING WAS WAS NOT❑ N/A❑ Performed in accordance with D A/OSHPD/.PROJECT approved documents. cc Project Architect Contractor Structural Engineer Building Department DSA Regional Office Owner School District THE WORK INSPECTED METK DID NOT MEET❑ THE requirements of the DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. Samples taken: Weather: Temp: ignatNuraof Speciallnspect (/V /Print Name = f. Certification #: 7 Z 409100 Verified by: Corporate: 2992 E. to Palma Ave. Ste. A Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714.632.2999 Fax: 714.632.2974 www.mtglinc.coo�mj Dispatch: 800.491.2990 MTr;I Prniact# I I 1 fC Permit # 3 1 7 Report # PG • OF I San Diego/Imperial County 7313 Carroll Rd. Ste. G San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: 858.537.3999 Fax: 858.537.3990 Dispatch: 888.844.5060 DAILY INSPECTION REPORT Inland Empire: 14467 Meridian Pkwy., Bldg. 2-A Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: 951.653.4999 Fax: 951.653.4666 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 DSA/CITY File DSA/OSHPD APPL DSA / LEA#: Special Inspection Reports must be distributed to the parties listed below within 14 days of the inspection. Reports of non-compliant conditions must be distributed immediately. Separate reports shall be prepared for each type of special inspection, on a daily basis. Each report shall be completed and signed by the special inspector conducting the inspection. PROJECT NAME � � DATE 0 ARCHITECT TIMEARRIVED TIME DEPARTED 3O �-+ ENGINEER N TRAVEL TIME LUNCH TIME CONTRACTOR /16 SUB C CTOR e A/k, IN ECTION ADDRESS ZS ADDRESS OF PROJECT TYPE OF INSPECTION ❑ BATCH PLANT ❑ ENGINEERED FILL ❑ PT CONCRETE ❑ FOUNDATION ❑ SHOTCRETE ❑ BACK FILL ❑ CONCRETE DKMASONRY ❑ FIREPROOFING ❑ CEILING WIRE ❑ HIGH STRENGTH BOLTING ❑ ANCHOR/DOWEL ❑ ❑ WELDING ❑ NDE FIELD ❑ ❑ SHOP WELD ❑ NDE SHOP ❑ OSA/OSHPD/PROJECT: AVAILABLE: APPROVED DOCUMENTS: APPROVED PLANS YA N ❑ SOIL REPORT Y❑ N ❑ SPECS: Yg. N ❑ APPROVED SHOP DRAWING Y ❑ N ❑ MAT RIALS USED Y CONTRACTOR INCLU E RES RCH REPORT NO. OR MATERIAL TEST : REPORTS) C�„ t -s v,4 o/c CONT ;TORS EO IPME / MANPOWER USED: AREA, GRI LINES, PIECES INSPEC D: r �� C4- 1w �' 3�d �r �'�- 4 C' kms-, (I k1A s i s 7 i 4 t..1c .Z.s R MARKS,INCLUDINGMEETINGS. R4 REWORK AS PERCENT OF ALL WORK TODAY: PERCENT PROJECT COMPLETE: THE WORK WAWAS NOT ❑ Inspected in acco(dance with the requirements of the DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. MATERIAL SAMPLING WAS)4 WAS NOT❑ N/A C3 Performed in accordance with DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. cc Project Architect Contractor Structural Engineer Building Department DSA Regional Office Owner School District THE WORK INSPECTED METK DID NOT MEET❑ THE requirements of the DSA/OSHBD/PROJECT approved documents. Samples taken: ,2% tint Weather: Temp: /Signature of Spe Ial Inspector (r"%Q v% Print Name 57 Certification.#: 7, d P� Verified bv:'/ri' /�� Corporate: 2992 E. La Palma Ave. Ste. A Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714.632.2999 Fax: 714.632.2974 www.mtglinc.com Dispatch: 800.491.2990 MTGL Project #:d-� Permit # O% Report # PG OF San Diego/Imperial County 7313 Carroll Rd. Ste. G San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: 858.537.3999 Fax: 858.537.3990 Dispatch: 888.844.5060 DAILY INSPECTION REPORT Inland Empire: 14467 Meridian Pkwy., Bldg. 2-A Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: 951.653.4999 Fax: 951.653.4666 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 DSA/CITY File #: DSA/OSHPD APPL DSA / LEA #: Special Inspection Reports must be distributed to the parties listed below within 14 days of the inspection. Reports of non-compliant conditions must be distributed immediately. Separate reports shall be prepared for each type of special inspection, on a daily basis. Each report shall be completed and signed by the special inspector conducting the inspection. PROJECT NAME GS 4 DATE ARCHITECT r �i TIME ARRI D 4-n TIME DEPARTED An ENGINEER TRAVEL TIME LUNCH TIME 30 CONTRACTOR SUB CONTRACTOR INSPECTION ADDRESS— ADDRESS OF PROJECT TYPE OF INSPECTION ❑ BATCH PLANT ❑ ENGINEERED FILL ❑ PT CONCRETE ❑ FOUNDATION ❑ SHOTCRETE ❑ BACK FILL ❑ CONCRETE $-MASONRY ❑ FIREPROOFING ❑ HIGH STRENGTH BOLTING ❑ ANCHOR/DOWEL ❑ WELDING ❑ NDE FIELD ❑ SHOP WELD ❑ NDE SHOP ❑ CEILING WIRE ❑ ❑ ❑ DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT: AVAILABLE: APPROVED DOCUMENTS: APPROVED PLANS Y IN ❑ SOIL REPORT Y N ❑ SPECS: YN ❑ APPROVE SHOP DRAWING Y O N ❑ MATERIALS USED BY CONTRACTOR (INCLUDE RESEARCH REPORT NO. OR MATERIAL TEST REPORTS): .� v l i14340gito f CONTgQCTORS ' ENT / MANPOWER U D: D Ap6Q, faRID LINES, PIECES I PECTED:/ or 15,4—r i Ilei e h ��/��,ra� or�'/-z� K Z 44 / I KL ��U Al 114-6 D 5A 4 1'.60%.rk E X •" , Z" EZ 7 e_nu-­seA (M 3_U 11;�CA 4 e- F& 0�n 2 .4 REWORK AS PERCENT OF ALL WORK TODAY: PERCENT PROJECT COMPLETE: THE WORK WASX WAS NOT ❑ Inspected in acco ance with the requirements of the DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. MATERIAL SAMPLING WAS j WAS NOT ❑ N/A ❑ Performed in accordance wit D A/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. cc Project Architect Contractor Structural Engineer Building Department DSA Regional Office Owner School District THE WORK INSPECTED MET j,DID NOT MEET❑ THE requirements of the DSA/OSHPDROJECT approved documents. Samples taken: I g G a 3 t `W 0& S M 5 Weather: Temp: SignattXe of Special Inspe Print Name Certification #: Verified by: ' Z_ .' K / I Corporate: } -2992 E. La Palma Ave. Ste. A TIME ARRIVED � Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714.632.2999 hh, TRAVEL TIME Fax: 714.632.2974 www.mtglinc.com Dispatch: 800.491.2990 MTGL Project #: NIT _ Al b Permit # �— 3 Report # PG OF San Diego/Imperial Count 7313 Carroll Rd. Ste. G San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: 858.537.3999 Fax: 858.537.3990 Dispatch: 888.844.5060 DAILY INSPECTION REPORT Inland Empire: 14467 Meridian Pkwy., Bldg. 2-A Riverside, CA 92518 ° Tel: 951.653.4999 Fax: 951.653.4666 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 DSA/CITY File #: DSA/OSHPD APPL DSA / LEA #: Special Inspection Reports must be distributed to the parties listed below within 14 days of the inspection. Reports of non-compliant conditions must be distributed immediately. Separate reports shall be prepared for each type of special inspection, on a daily basis. Each report shall be completgd and signed by the special inspector conducting the inspection PROJECT NAMEDATE Z_ .' K / I Osi ARCHITECT Q ss4 TIME ARRIVED TIME DEPARTED 0 .' ENGINEER j- TRAVEL TIME LUNCHTIME 3 d CONTRACTOR 00 / _ SUB CONTRACTOR / lI C IN PECTION ADDRESS ::37.� -Arh ADDRESS OF PROJECT TYPE OF INSPECTION O ENGINEERED FILL ❑ FOUNDATION ❑ BACK FILL ❑ BATCH PLANT ❑ PT CONCRETE ❑ SHOTCRETE C CONCRETE LVMASONRY O HIGH STRENGTH BOLTING ❑ WELDING ❑ SHOP WELD ❑ FIREPROOFING ❑ CEILING WIRE ❑ ANCHOR/DOWEL ❑ ❑ NDE FIELD ❑ ❑ NDE SHOP ❑ OSA/OSHPD/PROJECT: APPROVED DOCUMENTS: AVAILABLE: APPROVED PLANS Y N ❑ SOIL REPORT Y ❑ N ❑ SPECS: YX N ❑ APPROVED SHOP DRAWING Y ❑ N ❑ MATERIALS USED BY CO TRACTOR (INCLUDE RESEARCH PORT NO. OR MATERIAL TEST REPORTS): �i Y.T S / �.6 3 TA I L CONT ACTORSEQUIPMENT 7MAN PO USED: Wer AREA, GRjD LINES, PIECES INSP, TED: 54-4 .1 a V A c_- 5 , / -v c_ 7 e iI. OE 1� 6 H 3 S l REMARKS, INCLUDING MEETINGS. REWORK AS PERCENT OF ALL WORK TODAY: PERCENT PROJECT COMPLETE: THE WORK WASXWAS NOT❑ Inspected in accor ance with the requirements of the DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. MATERIAL SAMPLING WASkT WAS NOT ❑ N/A ❑ Performed in accordance with D A/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. cc Project Architect Contractor Structural Engineer Building Department DSA Regional Office Owner School District .. THE WORK INSPECTED MET 91D NOT MEET THE requirements of the DSA/OS PD/PROJECT approved documents. Samples taken: 6 G Weather: Tejnp: Sign ture of SpeciVspector Print Name Certification #: _ �1ri- 7(O t� X ^ Q Verified by 1 G 0.4/25/2014 18:41 FAX [1012/039 Special Inspection Reports must be distributed to the parties listed below within 14 days of the Inspection. Reports of non-compliant conditions must be distributed immediately. Separate reports shall be prepared for each type of special Inspection, on a daily basis. Each report shall be completed and signed by the special Inspector conducting the inspection. PROJECT NAME I stwb V E asp DATE %. I. e q ARCHITECT V L C4APA F4 Corporate: San Diego/Imperial County Inland Empire: TRAVELTIME 2992 E. La Palma Ave. Ste. A 7313 Carroll Rd. Ste. G 14467 Meridian Pkwy., Bldg. 2-A Anaheim, CA 92806 San Diego, CA 92121 Riverside, CA 92518 TYPE OF INSPECTION ❑ BATCH PLANT ❑ ENGINEERED FILL ❑ PT CONCRETE ❑ FOUNDATION ❑ SHOTCRETE 0 BACK FILL ❑ CONCRETE Tel: 714.632.2999 Tel: 858.537.3999 Tel: 951.653.4999 SOIL REPORT Y❑ N ❑ Fax: 714.632.2974 Fax: 858.537.3990 Fax: 951.653.4666 www.mtgline.com Dispatch: 800.491.2990 Dispatch: 888.844.5060 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 rvITGLProject . 11412114%%, DAILY INSPECTION DSA/CITYFile�: Permit # REPORT DSA/OSHPD APPLE: Report # -%" PG OF Tot it arw DSA / LEA #- Special Inspection Reports must be distributed to the parties listed below within 14 days of the Inspection. Reports of non-compliant conditions must be distributed immediately. Separate reports shall be prepared for each type of special Inspection, on a daily basis. Each report shall be completed and signed by the special Inspector conducting the inspection. PROJECT NAME I stwb V E asp DATE %. I. e q ARCHITECT V L C4APA F4 TIME ARRIVED oleo TIME DEPARTED 0900 ENGINEER ANF � I►35C TRAVELTIME LUNCHTIME CONTRACTOR rwtooeE Ftmo> SUBCONTRACTOR Ite l l'/ N►e.Sw INSPECTION ADDRESS -%*FF s e - reea wa ADDRESS OF PROJECT TYPE OF INSPECTION ❑ BATCH PLANT ❑ ENGINEERED FILL ❑ PT CONCRETE ❑ FOUNDATION ❑ SHOTCRETE 0 BACK FILL ❑ CONCRETE C-rTIASONRY ❑ HIGH STRENGTH BOLTING ❑ WELDING ❑ SHOP WELD ❑ FIREPROOFING ❑ CEILING WIRE ❑ ANCHOR/DOWEL ❑ ❑ NDE FIELD ❑ ❑ NDE SHOP ❑ DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT: AVAILABLE: APPROVED DOCUMENTS: APPROVED PLANS Y 200 ❑ SOIL REPORT Y❑ N ❑ SPECS: Y❑ N ❑ APPROVED SHOP DRAWING Y ❑ N ❑ MATERIALS USED BY CONTRACTOR (INCLUDE RESEARCH REPORT NO. OR MATERIAL TEST REPORTS): CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENTIMANPOWER USED: AREA, GRID LINES, PIECES INSPECTED: AA4t%VE0 o sa FE KST M fflio Tot it arw StIrm M � a ilii t.e u AC /Me SAM90ACA,L 8465 Caamm ALej A Pkilstaft STRUCTURAL NOTES, DETAIL, OR RRS USED: A . REMARKS, INCLWNG MFETINDS. REWORK AS PERCENT OF ALL WORK TODAY: PERCENT PROJECT COMPLETE: THE WORK WAS ❑ WAS NOT❑ ' Inspected in accordance with the requirements of the DSAiOSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. MATERIAL SAMPLING WAS ❑ WAS NOT ❑ N/A ❑ Performed In accordance with DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. cc Project Architect Contractor Structural Engineer Building Department DSA Regional Office Owner School District • THE WORK INSPECTED MET ❑ DID NOT MEET C THE requirements of the DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. Samples taken: Weather: s wv Temp: 10 'Fl -L- Signature of Special Inspector 1c•M. wtBLo6�aslri Print Name Certification #: e0'fr.8t9 - Sit Verified by: v.PLLIK www.mtglinc.com Corporate: 2992 E. La Palma Ave. Ste Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714.632.2999 Fax: 714.632.2974 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 MTGL Project #: tH `'17A \ U, Permit # � �� ow Report# PG OF�_ San DiegoAmperial County A 7313 Carroll Rd. Ste. G San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: 858.537.3999 Fax: 858.537.3990 Dispatch: 888.844.5060 DAILY INSPECTION REPORT Inland Empire: 14467 Meridian Pkwy., Bldg. 2-A Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: 951.653.4999 Fax: 951.653.4666 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 DSA/CITY File DSA/OSHPD APPL DSA / LEA #: Special Inspection Reports must be distributed to the parties listed below within 14 days of the inspection. Reports of non-compliant conditions must be distributed immediately. Separate reports shall be prepared for each type of special inspection, on a daily basis. Each report shall be completed and signed by the special inspector conducting the inspection. PROJECT NAMEDATE s' ARCHITECT ' ��� IL TIME ARRIVED TI E DEPART . ENGINEERS TRAVEL TIRE LUNCH TIME E`- CONTRACTOR SUB CONTRACTOR INSPECTION ADDRESS ADDRESS OF PROJECT TYPE OF INSPECTION ❑ BATCH PLANT ❑ ENGINEERED FILL ❑ PT CONCRETE ❑ FOUNDATION❑ HOTCRETE ❑ BACK FILL CONCRETE ❑ MASONRY ❑ FIREPROOFING ❑ HIGH STRENGTH BOLTING ❑ ANCHOR/DOWEL ❑ WELDING ❑ NDE FIELD ❑ SHOP WELD ❑ NDE SHOP ❑ CEILING WIRE ❑ ❑ ❑ DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT: AVAILABLE: APPROVED DOCUMENTS: APPROVED PLANS Y ❑ N ❑ SOIL REPORT Y ❑ N ❑ SPECS: Y ❑ N ❑ APPROVED SHOP DRAWING Y ❑ N ❑ MAT , IAALLS USED Y CONTRACTOR (INCLUDE RESEARCH R ORT NO. OR MATERIAL TEST REPORTS): V V CO TRACTORS EQUIPMENT/ MANPOWER USED: A AREA, GRID LINES, PIECES INSPECTED: -tLXK 6cckq STRUCTURAL NOTES, DETAIL, OR RFIS USED: REMARKS, IN 1�1EET/ S• I COX`► i ; I .� n .j REWORK AS PERCENT OF ALL WORK TODAY: PERCENT PROJECT COMPLETE: THE WORK WAS WAS NOT ❑ Inspected it accor nce ith the requirements of the DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. MATERIAL SAMPLING WASWAS NOT❑ N/A❑ Performed in accordance with OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. cc Project Architect Contractor Structural Engineer Building Department DSA Regional Office Owner School District THE WORK INSPECTED MET DID NOT MEET THE requirements of th DSA/O HP /P OJJECT approved documents. Samples taken:2 (T: `—C V2�� Weath Signature of Special Inspector Print Name Certification #: Verified by: www.mtglinc.com Corporate: C 2992 E. La Palma Ave. Ste. A Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714.632.2999 Fax: 714.632.2974 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 MTGL Project #: 1 q1 7—,A 1 6 Permit # 65-317 Report # PG - DF San Diego/Imperial Count 7313 Carroll Rd. Ste. G San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: 858.537.3999 Fax: 858.537.3990 Dispatch: 888.844.5060 DAILY INSPECTION REPORT Inland Empire: 14467 Meridian Pkwy., Bldg. 2-A Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: 951.653.4999 Fax: 951.653.4666 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 DSA/CITY File DSA/OSHPD APPL #: DSA / LEA #: Special Inspection Reports must be distributed to the parties listed below within 14 days of the inspection. Reports of non-compliant conditions must be distributed immediately. Separate reports shall be prepared for each type of special inspection, on a daily basis. Each report shall be completed and signed by the special inspector conducting the inSDection PROJECT NAME 5 L DATE IZ ` Qv T ^ / V �o/ Samples taken: ARCHITECT / � � K / TIME ARRIVEII Temp: TIME CJI ENGINEER TRAVEL TIME Si nature of Specia Inspector LUY IME CONTRACTORSUB �od•��';el CONTRACTOR INSPECTION ADDRESS y-1 a ADDRESS OF PROJECT o0Xy ( '�? g Verified by: TYPE OF INSPECTION ❑ BATCH PLANT ❑ ENGINEERED FILL ❑ PT CONCRETE ❑ FOUNDATION ❑ SHOTCRETE ❑ BACK FILL ❑ CONCRETE )(MASONRY ❑ HIGH STRENGTH BOLTING ❑ WELDING ❑ SHOP WELD ❑ FIREPROOFING ❑ ANCHOR/DOWEL ❑ NDE FIELD ❑ NDE SHOP ❑ CEILING WIRE ❑ ❑ ❑ DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT: AVAILABLE: APPROVED DOCUMENTS: APPROVED PLANS YN ❑ SOIL REPORT Y ❑ N ❑ SPECS: Y N ❑ APPROVED SHOP DRAWING Y ❑ N ❑ MAT IALS USED BY CONTRACTOR CLUDE RES ARC REPORT 0. OR MATERIAL TEST REPO' TS): tr CONT TORS EQUIPMENT/ MANP,0,WERUSED: /C. rf/. AREA, GRIq LINES, PIECES INSPECTE' 1 ^ )'�/ ' ^� / I ` `. So b Ali- r 41S , STRUCTURAL NOTES, DETAIL, OR RFIS USED: REMARKS, INCLUDING MEETINGS.- EETINGS.REWORK REWORKAS PERCENT OF ALL WORK TODAY: PERCENT PROJECT COMPLETE: THE WORK WAS WAS NOT Inspected in accorda ce with the requirements of the.DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. MATERIAL SAMPLING WAS WAS NOT ❑ N/A ❑ Performed in accordance with SA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. cc Project Architect Contractor Structural Engineer Building Department DSA Regional Office Owner School District THE WORK INSPECTED METY DID NOT MEET❑ THE requirements of the DSA/OJHPY/PROJECT approved documents. Samples taken: /Vd I L Weather: Temp: Si nature of Specia Inspector ZvG�-vim 11,10, a Print Name Certification #: 5 L IV o0Xy ( '�? g Verified by: Corporate: 2992 E. La Palma Ave. Ste Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714.632.2999 Fax: 714.632.2974 www.mtglinc.c'o[m Dispatch: 800.491.2990 MTGL Project #: Permit # Report # PG Z OF San Diego/Imperial Count 7313 Carroll Rd. Ste. G San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: 858.537.3999 Fax: 858.537.3990 Dispatch: 88 8.844.5060 DAILY INSPECTION REPORT Inland Empire: 14467 Meridian Pkwy., Bldg. 2-A Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: 951.653.4999 Fax: 951.653.4666 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 DSA/CITY File #: DSA/OSHPD APPL #: DSA / LEA #: Special Inspection Reports must be distributed to the parties listed below within 14 days of the inspection. Reports of non-compliant conditions must be distributed immediately. Separate reports shall be prepared for each type of special inspection, on a daily basis. Each report shall be completed and signed by the special inspector conducting the inspection PROJECT NAMEL DATE / eS n G [ 0 ARCHITECT TIME AR ED TIMED EPART D lj N" ENGINEER TRAVEL TIME LUNCH TIME CONTRACTOR SUBCONTRACTOR INSPECTION ADDRESS zs ADDRESS OF PROJECT TYPE OF INSPECTION ❑ BATCH PLANT AMASONRY ❑ FIREPROOFING ❑ CEILING WIRE ❑ ENGINEERED FILL ❑ PT CONCRETE ❑ HIGH STRENGTH BOLTING ❑ ANCHOR/DOWEL ❑ ❑ FOUNDATION ❑ SHOTCRETE ❑ WELDING ❑ NDE FIELD ❑ ❑ BACK FILL ❑ CONCRETE ❑ SHOP WELD ❑ NDE SHOP ❑ DSA/OSHPO/PROJECT: AVAILABLE: SOIL REPORT Y ❑ N ❑ SPECS: YX N ❑ APPROVED DOCUMENTS: APPROVED PLANS YA N ❑ APPROV D SHOP DRAWING Y ❑ N ❑ MAT RIALS USED BY CONTRACTOR (INCLUDE RESEAR H REPORT NO. OR MATERIAL TEST REPORTS): 6 l � Zc)o a CONTRA TORS EQUIPMENT/ MANPOWER USED: C AREA, GRID LINES, PIECES INSPECTED: ©fv & ' c JA ikGLr s �� �6 Lr�O G jjA /Le- REMARKS, INCLUDING MEETINGS. IF REWORK AS PERCENT OF ALL WORK TODAY: PERCENT PROJECT COMPLETE: THE WORK WA,OZ WAS NOT❑ Inspected in accordance with the requirements of the DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. MATERIAL SAMPLING WAS WAS NOT❑ N/A❑ Performed in accordance with DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. cc Project Architect Contractor Structural Engineer Building Department DSA Regional Office Owner School District THE WORK INSPECTED METX DID NOT MEET THE requirements of h DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved ocumentt Samples taken: �� // t,�„ � 5 G�_3y Weather: Temp: Signature of Spec' Inspector Print Name Certification #: �Z 0 ud G Verified by: Corporate: San Diego/Imperial County Inland Empire: 2992 E. La Palma Ave. Ste. A 7313 Carroll Rd. Ste. G 14467 Meridian Pkwy., Bldg. 2-A Anaheim, CA 92806 San Diego, CA 92121 Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: 714.632.2999 Tel: 858.537.3999 Tel: 951.653.4999 Fax: 714.632.2974 Fax: 858.537.3990 Fax: 951.653.4666 www.mtglinc.com Dispatch: 800.491.2990 Dispatch: 888.844.5060 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 MTGL Project .DAILY INSPECTION DSA/CITYFile#:, Permit# —9/ % REPORT DSA/OSHPD APPL #: Report #--Z— PG' Z DF DSA / LEA #: Special Inspection Reports must be distributed to the parties listed below within 14 days of the inspection. Reports of non-compliant conditions must be distributed immediately. Separate reports shall be prepared for each type of special inspection, on a daily basis. Each report shall be completed and signed by the special inspector conducting the inspection PROJECT NAME THE requirements of the DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approve documents. DATE 3 —' 6 C Weather: Temp: ARCHITECT TIME ARRIYED Sign ure of Special Inspector TIME DEPARTED ENGINEER I - �eG �.. TRAVEL TIME' Print Name UNCH TIME (r--0 5 Z 7! 9 CONTRACTOR Verified by: SUB CONTRACTOR INSPECTION ADDRESS c.. S d n ADDRESS OF PROJECT TYPE OF INSPECTION ❑ ENGINEERED FILL ❑ FOUNDATION ❑ BACK FILL ❑ BATCH PLANT ❑ PT CONCRETE ❑ SHOTCRETE YCONCRETE ❑ MASONRY ❑ HIGH STRENGTH BOLTING ❑ WELDING ❑ SHOP WELD ❑ FIREPROOFING ❑ ANCHOR/DOWEL ❑ NDE FIELD ❑ NDE SHOP CEILIN WIRE C ❑ DSA/OSHPO/PROJECT: APPROVED DOCUMENTS: AVAILABLE: APPROVED PLANS Y)(N ❑ SOIL REPORT Y ❑ N ❑ SPECS: YA N ❑ APPROVED S OP DRAWING Y ❑ N ❑ MATERIALS USED BY CONTRACTOR (INCLUD RESEARCH REPORT NO. OR MATERIAL TEST REPORTS): Zz "r 4,�� W 6�� so ?S �Z z 3 5 ' CONTRACTORS EOUI MENT / MANPOWER USE Z AREA, G D LINES, PIECES INSPECTED: A bIaw' LILJS lAkH A /0 w / Wea d 3 K 7$ /i Q �i a t �•.lj = tr Z L Z . d e- - ' S tam 33 3 �•,ri Co2fvt ' e REMARKS, INCLUDIM MEETINGS. REWORK AS PERCENT OF ALL WORK TODAY: PERCENT PROJECT COMPLETE: THE WORK WAS WAS.NOT ❑ Inspected in accordance with the requirements of the DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. MATERIAL SAMPLING WAS7WAS NOT❑ N/A❑ Performed in accordance with SA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. cc Project Architect Contractor Structural Engineer Building Department DSA Regional Office Owner School District THE WORK INSPECTED MET&,DID NOT MEET❑ THE requirements of the DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approve documents. Samples taken: 3 —' 6 C Weather: Temp: Sign ure of Special Inspector �eG �.. Print Name Certification #: (r--0 5 Z 7! 9 Verified by: MTG L Corporate: 2992 E. La Palma Ave. Ste. A Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714.632.2999 Fax: 714.632.2974 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 MTGL Project #: 1 `r 11,4116 Permit # o%— 3 t 7 Report # PG OF San Diego/Imperial County 7313 Carroll Rd. Ste. G San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: 858.537.3999 Fax: 858.537.3990 Dispatch: 888.844.5060 DAILY INSPECTION REPORT Inland Empire: 14467 Meridian Pkwy., Bldg. 2-A Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: 951.653.4999 Fax: 951.653.4666 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 DSA/CITY File DSA/OSHPD APPL DSA / LEA #: Special Inspection Reports must be distributed to the parties listed below within 14 days of the inspection. Reports of non-compliant conditions must be distributed immediately. Separate reports shall be prepared for each type of special inspection, on a daily basis. Each report shall be completed and signed by the special inspector conducting the inspection. PROJECT NAMECI 5 Ire h DATE Z Zo ARCHITECT L 4� S . TIME ARRIVED -7 4 TIME DEPARTED A, ENGINEER Nr - TRAVEL TIME LUNCH TIME CONTRACTOR oory SUB CONTRACTOR /-1,a 5,D,4 INSPECTION ADDRESSADDRESS - /ZS OF PROJECT TYPE OF INSPECTION ❑ BATCH PLANT ❑ ENGINEERED FILL ❑ PT CONCRETE ❑ FOUNDATION D SHOTCRETE D BACK FILL D CONCRETE TZMASONRY ❑ FIREPROOFING ❑ HIGH STRENGTH BOLTING ❑ ANCHOR/DOWEL ❑ WELDING ❑ NDE FIELD ❑ SHOP WELD O NDE SHOP ❑ CEILING WIRE ❑ ❑ ❑ DSA/OSHPO/PROJECT: AVAILABLE: APPROVED DOCUMENTS: APPROVED PLANS Y N ❑ SOIL REPORT Y ❑ . N ❑ SPECS: N ❑ APPROV D SHOP DRAWING Y ❑ N ❑ MAT IALS USED�,Y CONTRACTOR (INCLUDE RESEARCH REPO T NO. OR MATERIAL TEST REPORTS): l L a t/ do 3 14 3 Zoon C NTRACTORSEQUIPMENT/MANPOWER USED: ^� L I I,1 h AREtGRI LINES, PIECES INSPEC ED: rr l; z, s 3 o snh, &3 Z T UCTURAL NOTES, DETAIL, OR RAS USED: REMARKS, INCLUDING MEETINGS. REWORK AS PERCENT OF ALL WORK TODAY: PERCENT PROJECT COMPLETE: THE WORK WASj� WASAOT❑ Inspected in accor an a with the requirements of the DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. MATERIAL SAMPLING WAS)( WAS NOT El N/AD Performed in accordance with SA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. cc Project Architect Contractor Structural Engineer Building Department DSA Regional Office Owner School District THE WORK INSPECTED METK DID NOT MEETD THE requirements of the DSA/OSHPD/XR9JECT approved documents. Samples taken: PA7in Weather: Temp: S' ature of Special Inspector000, 7 (� Print Name Certification #: Verified bv: www.mtglinc.com Corporate: 2992 E. La Palma Ave. Ste. A Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714.632.2999 Fax: 714.632.2974 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 MTGL Project #: Permit # Report # PG- OF r San Diego/Imperial County 7313 Carroll Rd. Ste. G San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: 858.537.3999 Fax: 858.537.3990 Dispatch: 888.844.5060 DAILY INSPECTION REPORT Inland Empire: 14467 Meridian Pkwy., Bldg. 2-A Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: 951:653.4999 Fax: 951.653.4666 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 DSA/CITY File OSA/OSHPD APPL #: DSA / LEA #: Special Inspection Reports must be distributed to the parties listed below within 14 days of the inspection. Reports of non-compliant conditions must be distributed immediately. Separate reports shall be prepared for each type of special inspection, on a daily basis. Each report shall be completed and signed by the special inspector conducting the inspection PROJECT NAME DATE /Z L % ARCHITECT Li TIME ARRIVED 7 4 TIME DEPARTED D ENGINEER TRAVEL TIME LUNCH TIME 30 / SUB CONTRACTOR kONRACTOR N DDRESS /Z-� ADDRESS OF PROJECT TYPE OF INSPECTION ❑ BATCH PLANT MASONRY .❑ FIREPROOFING ❑ CEILING WIRE ❑ ENGINEERED FILL ❑ PT CONCRETE ❑ HIGH STRENGTH BOLTING ❑ ANCHOR/DOWEL ❑ ❑ FOUNDATION ❑ SHOTCRETE' ❑ WELDING ❑ NDE FIELD ❑ ❑ BACK FILL ❑ CONCRETE ❑ SHOP WELD ❑ NDE SHOP ❑ DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT. AVAILABLE: SOIL REPORT Y ❑ N ❑ SPECS: Y N ❑ APPROVED DOCUMENTS: APPROVED PLANS Yk N ❑ 1 APPROVED SHOP DRAWING Y ❑ N ❑ MAT IALS USED BY CONTRACTOR (INC DE RESEARCH REPO T NO. OR MATERIAL TEST REPORTS): v (� ►' c — S vir S 0 iA so X 316 3 Zod c r 5 cs ,' CONTRA ORS EQUIPMENT/ MANPOWER USED: AREA, GRID INES, PIECES INSPECT D: o / / �i�hL Z14! o -k d/5Gi ,'AC_ 2 ✓e If H So A,( J q otic, ..41z- �a tH Z/ e . z n a/M s . , V /tJ 457 • qq .fv Z /k w c i , c D Q W e." n D J REWORK AS PERCENT OF ALL WORK TODAY: PERCENT PROJECT COMPLETE: THE WORK WAB4 WAS NOT ❑ Inspected in accordance with the requirements of the DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. MATERIAL SAMPLING WAS WAS NOT ❑ N/A ❑ Performed in accordance with D A/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. cc Project Architect Contractor Structural Engineer Building Department DSA Regional Office Owner School District THE WORK INSPECTED METS( DID NOT MEET ❑ THE requirements of the DS SH /PROJECT approved documents. Samples taken:�� Weather: Temp: G f GSig ture of Special Inspector lir/Cii� Ei fn Print Name Certification #: V/A0'-s Verified bv: _ �� MTGL Project #:: I Z, Permit # n lY— C Corporate: 2992 E. La Palma Ave. Ste. A Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714.632.2999 Fax: 714.632.2974 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 Report# PG OF San DiegoAmperial County 7313 Carroll Rd. Ste. G San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: 858.537.3999 Fax: 858.537.3990 Dispatch: 888.844.5060 DAILY INSPECTION REPORT Inland Empire: 14467 Meridian Pkwy., Bldg. 2-A Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: 951.653.4999 Fax: 951.653.4666 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 DSA/CITY File DSA/OSHPD APPL #: DSA / LEA #: Special Inspection Reports must be distributed to the parties listed below within 14 days of the inspection. Reports of non-compliant conditions must be distributed immediately. Separate reports shall be prepared for each type of special inspection, on a daily basis. Each report shall be completed and signed by the special inspector conducting the inspection PROJECT NAME e— — r s DATE z, o ARCHITECT L l- TIME ARMED 74 P" TIME DEPARTED ' ENGINEER�� TRAVEL TIME LUNCHTIME CONTRACTOR t�DiG G/ SUB CONTRACTOR ^w G / v1< p INSPECTION ADDRESSADDRESS J h OF PROJECT TYPE OF INSPECTION ❑ BATCH PLANTMASONRY ❑ ENGINEERED FILL ❑ PT CONCRETE ❑ FOUNDATION ❑ SHOTCRETE ❑ BACK FILL ❑ CONCRETE ❑ HIGH STRENGTH BOLTING ❑ WELDING ❑ SHOP WELD ❑ FIREPROOFING ❑ ANCHOR/DOWEL ❑ NDE FIELD ❑ NDE SHOP ❑ CEILING WIRE ❑ ❑ ❑ DSA/OSHPO/PROJECT: AVAILABLE: APPROVED DOCUMENTS: APPROVED PLANS Y VN ❑ SOIL REPORT Y ❑ N ❑ SPECS: YN ❑ APPROVE S OP DRAWING Y ❑ N ❑ MATE IALS USED BY CONTRgTOR (INCLUDE RE$EAR�H REPORT NO. MAT RIAL TEST REPORTS): �Ib/7_/ G01 LX —S �a� / CONT CTORSEQUIPMENTIMANPOWERUSED: AREA, GRID LINES, PIECES I)PECTE ., d G Z 3 / ., z i O U i '' H, Q46 H 4 �• / 7 7,v 47 - REMARKS, REMARKS, INCLUDING.MEETIN S. Y REWORK AS PERCENT OF ALL WORK TODAY: PERCENT PROJECT COMPLETE: THE WORK WAS% WAS NOT❑ Inspected in accordance with the requirements of the DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. MATERIAL SAMPLING WASX WAS NOT ❑ N/A ❑ Performed in accordance with DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. cc Project Architect Contractor Structural Engineer Building Department DSA Regional Office Owner School District THE WORK INSPECTED MET75ZID NOT MEET THE requirements of the DSA/OS�IPLyPROJECT approved documents. Samples taken: �(/� t Weather: Temp: Signattere of Special Inspector U t/ Ci /'► e/(mac C ti c Print Name / / Certification #: J / D B C� S�i-x Ni C S Verified bv: iM'eA, .11 5 4l. www.mtglinc.com Corporate: 2992 E. La Palma Ave. Ste. A 'Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714.632.2999 Fax: 714.632.2974 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 MTGL Project #: �� zi_ �o Permit # 0 '� = 3 San Diego/Imperial County 7313 Carroll Rd. Ste. G San .Diego, CA 92121 Tel: 858.537.3999 Fax: 858.537.3990 . Dispatch: 888.844.5060 DAILY INSPECTION REPORT Inland Empire: 14467 Meridian Pkwy., Bldg. 2-A Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: 951.653.4999 Fax: 951.653.4666 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 DSA/CITY File #: DSA/OSHPD APPL Report # PG DF DSA / LEA #: Special Inspection Reports must be distributed to the parties listed below within 14 days of the inspection. Reports of non-compliant conditions must be distributed immediately. Separate reports shall be prepared for each type of special inspection, on a daily basis. Each report shall be completed and signed by the special inspector conducting the inspection. PROJECT NAMEDATE �r k s 17-11 S ARCHITECTTIME Ck ARRIVED -L, TIME DEPARTED I -_t) Q A— ENGINEER TRAVELTI LUNCHTIME CONTRACTOR SUB C061TRACTORO vrlr IN P_ECTION-ADDRESS- S0r7 ADDRESS OF PROJECT TYPE OF INSPECTION ❑ ENGINEERED FILL ❑ FOUNDATION ❑ BACK FILL O BATCH PLANT ❑ PT CONCRETE ❑ SHOTCRETE ❑ CONCRETE XMASONRY ❑ FIREPROOFING ❑ HIGH STRENGTH BOLTING ❑ ANCHOR/DOWEL ❑ WELDING ❑ NDE FIELD ❑ SHOP WELD ❑ NDE SHOP ❑ CEILING WIRE ❑ ❑ ❑ OSA/OSHPO/PROJECT: APPROVED DOCUMENTS: AVAILABLE: APPROVED PLANS Yl�(N ❑. SOIL REPORT Y ❑ N ❑ SPECS: YM N ❑ APPROVED SHOP DRAWING Y ❑ N ❑ MATE LS USED BY ONTRACTOR (INCLUDE RESEARCH REPORT N0.OR MATERIAL TEST flEPORTS): / lov 0^ c � ` 5�� C NTR TORS EQUIPMENT /MANPOWER USED: —/ AREA, GRID LINES, PIECES INSP ✓ CTED: C, C �1. 0 &1 l b' q l /'�,L Z f ` • KG t5 4 /[r..t Z..-5 (itis E_ 7�' o /�'► i c 2 g — li mac. (� • S7,— Li REWORK AS PERCENT OF ALL WORK TODAY: PERCENT PROJECT COMPLETE: THE WORK WASr'WAS NOT❑ Inspected in accor ance with the requirements of the DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. MATERIAL SAMPLING WAS XWAS NOT ❑ N/A ❑ Performed in accordance with DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. cc Project Architect Contractor Structural Engineer Building Department DSA Regional Office Owner School District THE WORK INSPECTED METXDID NOT MEET❑ THE requirements of the DSA/0 HPp/PROJECT approved documents. Samples taken: d,t t Weather: Temp: /�� %Signature f Spec al Inspector (if/ (. V C' mac co Print Name Certification #: v� Verified by: ` Corporate: San Diego/Imperial County 2992 E. La Palma Ave. Ste. A 7313 Carroll Rd. Ste. G Anaheim, CA 92806 San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: 714.632.2999 Tel: 858.537.3999 Fax: 714.632.2974 Fax: 858.537.3990 www.mtglinc.com Dispatch: 800.491.2990 Dispatch: 888.844.5060 MTGLProject #: I Z A I � DAILY INSPECTION Permit# � � ' 3 l 7 REPORT Report # PG OF Inland Empire: 14467 Meridian Pkwy., Bldg. 2-A Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: 951.653.4999 Fax: 951.653.4666 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 DSA/CITY File #: DSA/OSHPD APPL #: DSA / LEA #: Special Inspection Reports must be distributed to the parties listed below within 14 days of the inspection. Reports of non-compliant conditions must be distributed immediately. Separate reports shall be prepared for each type of special inspection, on a daily basis. Each report shall be completed and signed by the special inspector conducting the inspection. PROJECT NAMEDATE '+,tiS O ARCHITECT L TIME A VED X19 TIME DEPARTED w, ri 0061 ENGINEER 14 A/ ETRAVEL T LU CH TIM CONTRACTOR SUB CONTRACTOR `♦ V e 'a4 S5 INSPECTION ADDRESS S ADDRESS OF PROJECT TYPE OF INSPECTION ❑ BATCH PLANT Jul MASONRY ❑ FIREPROOFING ❑ CEILING WIRE ❑ ENGINEERED FILL ❑ PT CONCRETE ❑ HIGH STRENGTH BOLTING ❑ ANCHOR/DOWEL ❑ ❑ FOUNDATION ❑ SHOTCRETE ❑ WELDING ❑ NDE FIELD ❑ ❑ BACK FILL ❑ CONCRETE ❑ SHOP WELD ❑ NDE SHOP ❑ DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT-. AVAILABLE: SOIL REPORT Y ❑ N ❑ SPECS: Y AND APPROVED DOCUMENTS: APPROVED PLANS Y)< N ❑ APPROVED SHOP DRAWING Y ❑ N ❑ MATERIALS USED BY CONTRACTOR (INCLUDE RESEARCH REP/ORT NO. OR MATERIAL TEST REPORTS): %q 16 (0 kso J C**- 5 VK 0 or� I CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT/MANPOWER USED: AREA, GRID LINES, PIECIINSPE TED: ♦ 1 ( D , N u D uV% C a IIA O Zt 1 ✓� • 1'4%;,Ti • I • r t F I ► ( i i REMARKS, INCLUDING MEETINGS. T REWORK AS PERCENT OF ALL WORK TODAY:. PERCENT PROJECT COMPLETE: THE WORK WAS&WAS NOT❑ I i Inspected in accordance with the requirements of the DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT +f approved documents. I MATERIAL SAMPLING WASgWAS NOT ❑ N/An' Performed in accordance with S OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. j cc Project Architect t Contractor Structural Engineer Building Department DSA Regional Office Owner School District THE WORK INSPECTED METtK DID NOT MEET❑ + THE requirements of the DYVOSFIPD/PROJECT approved documents. ` Samples taken: Dn e Weather: Temp: Signature of Sp cial Inspec Print Name Certification #: Z O G Verified by: .� F� 1 Corporate: San Diego/Imperial County Inland Empire: 2992 E. La Palma Ave. Ste. A 7313 Carroll Rd. Ste. G 14467 Meridian Pkwy., Bldg. 2-A Anaheim, CA 92806 San Diego, CA 92121 Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: 714.632.2999 Tel: 858.537.3999 Tel: 951.653.4999 Fax: 714.632.2974 Fax: 858.537.3990 Fax: 951.653.4666 www.mtglinc.com Dispatch: 800.491.2990 Dispatch: 888.844.5060 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 MTGL Project #: IW Z�-4qa DSA/CITY Fite #: DAILY INSPECTION Permit# REPORT DSA/OSHPD APPL#: Report # t PG '7, DF DSA / LEA #: Special Inspection Reports must be distributed to the parties listed below within 14 days of the inspection. Reports of non-compliant conditions must be distributed immediately. Cann -to ronnrtc ehnil ho nrPnnrari fnr PACK tvnP of znprinl in znPr.flnn nn a daily hasis. Fach rennrt shall he completed and sianed by the soecial inspector conducting the inspection. PROJECT NAME 'F DATE ARCHITECT TIME ARRIVED Too TIME DEPARTED V-10 ENGINEER TRAVEL TAME �j LUNCH TIME CONTRACTOR �/� �• ` SU�NTRACTO INSPECTION ADDRESS ADDRESS OF PROJECT �. vvi TYPE OF INSPECTION ❑ BATCH PLAdr ❑ ENGINEERED FILL ❑ PT CONCRETE ❑ FOUNDATION ❑ SHOTCRETE BACK FILL ❑ CONCRETE ❑ MASONRY ❑ HIGH STRENGTH BOLTING ❑ WELDING ❑ SHOP WELD ❑ FIREPROOFING ❑ ANCHOR/DOWEL ❑ NDE FIELD • ❑ NDE SHOP ❑ CEILING WIRE ❑ ❑ ❑ DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT: AVAILABLE: APPROVED DOCUMENTS: APPROVED PLANS YX N ❑ SOIL REPORT YX N ❑ • SPECS: Y,29 N ❑ APPROVED SHOP DRAWING Y ❑ N� MATERIALS SED BY CONTRACTOR (INCLUDE RESEARCH REPORT NO. OR MATERIAL TEST REPORTS): CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT/ MANPOWER USED: C Q— AREA, GRI S, PIECES INSPECTED: , Ve,• • I STRUCTURAL NOTES, DETAIL, OR RFIS USED: ° C t t i 9 1 I t �'. R MARKS, INCLUDING MEETINGS: I i 'y n tl + `` _ / tl j ca,i C_ t s t� \ ., REWORK AS PE ENT OF ALL WORK TODAY: PERCENT PROJECT COMPLETE: THE WORKWAWAS NOT F1 Inspected in acc 'dance with the requirements of the DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. I MATERIAL SAMPLINGWAS�4D WAS NOT ❑ N/A ❑ Performed in accordance wi DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. I I cc Project Architect Contractor Structural Engineer Building Department DSA Regional Office Owner School District THE WORK INSPECTED MET DID NOT MEET ❑ 1 THE requirements of the DS OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. Samples taken: O Weather Temp: Xz;S(2_ t Signature of 4 \ / ( Print Name Certification #: v®o Verified y: V Corporate 2992 E. La Palma Ave. Ste. A Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714.632.2999 Fax: 714.632.2974 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 DAILY INSPECTION San Diego/imperial Cou(, Inland Empire 7313 Carroll Rd. Ste. G 14467 Meridian Pkwy., Bldg. 2-A San Diego, CA 92121 Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: 858.537.3999 Tel: 951.653.4999 Fax: 858.537.3990 Fax: 951.653..4666 Dispatch: 888.844.5060 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 REPORT CONTINUED REPORT NO: PAGE ---Z— OF Z PROJECT NAME,,,,RESS OF PROJECT �- MTGL PRJ N0. PERMI N0. DSA/CITY FILE # DSA/OSHPD AP L # MTGL PRJ NO. PER 4, NO. Z - o �S 1 i F s 7, 9 I 1 i N 1 • � i I 1 1 r l 1 a t r f i _ t j 1 t ' i< i / 0 ort Certification Number E4 En z W 0 a w w ml TOR NO • iut,7 CT VT - - . - - a i.. - L I *TEST NO. c�'t *DATE TEST DEPTH/ELEVATION u s� *LOCATION/LOT N0. ��.e-5 SOIL CLASSIFICATION WT.OF SOIL SAMPLE & TARE WT.OF TARE WT.OF SOIL WT.OF SAND BEFORE ' E+ Lo H WT.OF SAND RETURNED z WT.OF SAND USED O WT.OF SAND IN CONE & PLATE 0 z 4 WT.OF SAND IN HOLE Ln WET DENSITY WT.OF RING & SOIL (GMS) E• w WT.OF RING (GMS) ' E4 u WET WT.OF SOIL (GMS) z l i H a WET DENSITY f - s WT.OF TARE & WET SOIL (GMS) E w WT.OF TARE & DRY SOIL (GMS) E" z i t l 4 O , WT.OF MOISTURE U z TARE WT. { i 1 WT.OF SOIL -DRY (GMS) , E MOISTURE CONTENT-% DRY WT'. ! ! ! (. S o. Z.b MAXIMUM DENSITY (PCF) I i *OPTIMUM MOISTURE *DRY DENSITY *%COMPACTION T 9S •`f �s.llq&o , *SOIL TYPE ,r CORPORATE AM 2992 E. La Palma Ave., Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714.632.2999 Fax: 714.632.2974 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 San Diego / Imperial County 7313 Carroll Road, Suite G San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: 858.537.3999 Fax: 858.537.3990 Dispatch: 888.844.5056 FIELD REPORT Inland Empire 14467 Meridian Parkway Bldg. 2A Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: 951.653.4999 Fax: 951.653.4666 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 Type Of Work X INSPECTOR TECHNICIAN SSW AVAILABLE: SOIL REPORT m (N) SPECS. (Y) APPROVED PLANS (Y) APPROVED SHOP DRAWINGS (Y) ARCHITECT: K L Charles Architects, Inc. FOR WEEK ENDING: 12/13/2008 PROJECT NO: 1412A16 ENGINEER: ANF & Associates REPORT NO: 1 PG. 1 OF. 1 CONTRACTOR: Moorefield Construction, Inc. PLAN FILE NO: PERMIT NO: 08-317 SUB -CONTRACTOR: Remoo Machining & Fabrication, Inc. PROJECT NAME: Fresh &Easy INSPECTION ADDRESS: 44125 Jefferson Street La Quinta, CA 92253 ADDRESS OF PROJECT: 44125 Jefferson Street La Quinta, CA 92253 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: ICBO FIELD INSPECTION MANUAL / MTGL SOIL MANUAL -REVIEW PREVIOUS REPORTS AND LISTS IF THERE IS NON -CONFORMING WORK AT THE END OF THE WORK DAY, OR MISSING MTRS, AND RFIS, ETC., FILL OUT AND ATTACH A DEFICIENCY REPORT WHEN A DEFICIENCY, YOURS OR A PREVIOUS INSPECTORS, IS CORRECTED, SO NOTE ON THE ORIGINAL DEFICIENCY REPORT AND SUBMIT A COPY WITH YOUR WEEKS REPORTS. MATERIALS USED BY CONTRACTOR: (INCLUDE RESEARCH REPORT NO. OR MATERIAL TEST REPORTS): WELDING ELECTRODES: (FCAW) Lincoln NR -232, .072 diameter, E71T-8 Lincoln LN -25 Wire Feeders CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT / MANPOWER USED: WELDING MACHINE: Miller 402, Lincoln SAE -350 WELDERS: Richard Escobar, Miguel Medina AREA, GRIDLINES, PIECES OBSERVED: ITEMS IN PROGRESS: Complete joint penetration welding of the rigid frame moment connections on line 2 at the roof level. ITEMS COMPLETED: Welding of the 5/8" x 5" shear connector studs to the flanges of the rigid frame columns on lines 2/A.1, 2/A.6, 2B.2, 2/C.9 and 2/E.2. STRUCTURAL NOTES, DETAIL, OR RFIS USED: (PER APPROVED PLANS) r - REMARKS: INCLUDING MEE77NGS: f i REWORK AS PERCENT OF ALL WORK TODAY: s t PERCENT PROJECT COMPLETION: 1 WEATHER: ,HOT SAMPLES TAKEN: TEMPERATURE: 80 deg. F , TESTS REQUIRED: , SITE TIME START: 4 7:00 AM i SITE TIME FINISH: 3:30PM I I I I i LUNCH PERIOD: } 1/2 Hr. M TRAVEL TIME: ; ! VERIFI D B I DO BY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE PERSONALLY OBSERVED ALL OF THE WORK LISTED ABOVE AND THAT THIS WORK COMPLIES WITH r THE SOIL INVESTIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS, AND / OR THE APPROVED PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND APPLICABLE SECTION OF THE S t 4+ BUILDING CODE,. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED IN THE DEFICIENCY REPORT. I ?iU 0849264=85 Signature ICBO Certification Number Steve W. Bodnar I 12/10/2008 ; City of La Quinta Print Name Date Of Report City / County Certification Number I I 1 I 1 , R- 7/87 I • of Corporate: 2992 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite A, Anaheim, CA 92806 (psi) Tel: (714) 632-2999 Fax: (714) 632-2974 7 Branch: 7313 Carroll Road, Suite G, San Diego, CA 92121 133,305 2,280 Tel: (858) 537-3999 Fax: (858) 537-3990 23 Branch: 14320 Elsworth Street, Suite C101, Moreno Valley, CA 92553 149,985 2,560 Tel: (909) 653-4999 Fax: (909) 653-4666 23 Branch: 13010 San Fernando Road, Unit 1, Sylmar, CA 91342 1 154,730 1 2,640 Tel:(818)833-8100 Fax:(818)833-0085 Report of: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH -MASONRY PRISM ASTM C1314 File No.: **LAB COPY** Permit No.: Project No.: 1412A16 Project Name: FRESH & EASY -LA QUINTA JEFFERSON & FRED WARING LA QUINTA, CA Client: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES A Set No.: 8-3408 Age Date Nominal Actual Area Load Strength Type (Days) Tested Size (Sq.lnch) (lbs.) A Specified Strength: 2,000 PSI Sampled By: LUKE ZUCKERMAN ASTM C172 Date Sampled: 12/4/2008 Date Received: 12/8/2008 Location: 4TH LIFT LINE F/ 3TO 4 Concrete Supplier: ROBERTSON'S READY MIX Concrete Temp: 70 OF ASTM C1064 Mix No.: 43163 Ambient Temp: 74 OF ASTM C1064 Ticket No.: 5802649 Water added at Site: 20.00 gal. By Slump: 9.00 in. ASTM C143 Cement Type: II/V Mix Time: min. Tested at: Riverside Remarks: Respectfully Submitted, • Distribution: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES MTGL, Inc. CITY OF LA QUINTA-BLDG & SAFETY **LAB COPY** M.B.(Ben) Lo Chief Engineer (psi) Fracture 7 12/11/2008 8 X 8 X 8 58.52 133,305 2,280 N/A 23 12/27/2008 8 X 8 X 8 58.52 149,985 2,560 N/A 23 12/27/2008 8 X 8 1 58.52 1 154,730 1 2,640 1 N/A A Specified Strength: 2,000 PSI Sampled By: LUKE ZUCKERMAN ASTM C172 Date Sampled: 12/4/2008 Date Received: 12/8/2008 Location: 4TH LIFT LINE F/ 3TO 4 Concrete Supplier: ROBERTSON'S READY MIX Concrete Temp: 70 OF ASTM C1064 Mix No.: 43163 Ambient Temp: 74 OF ASTM C1064 Ticket No.: 5802649 Water added at Site: 20.00 gal. By Slump: 9.00 in. ASTM C143 Cement Type: II/V Mix Time: min. Tested at: Riverside Remarks: Respectfully Submitted, • Distribution: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES MTGL, Inc. CITY OF LA QUINTA-BLDG & SAFETY **LAB COPY** M.B.(Ben) Lo Chief Engineer Corporate: 2992 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite A, Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: (714) 632-2999 Fax: (714) 632-2974 Branch: 7313 Carroll Road, Suite G, San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: (858) 537-3999 Fax: (858) 537-3990 Branch: 14467 Meridian Parkway Bldg 2A, Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: (951) 653-4999 Fax: (951) 653-4666 Report of: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH -MASONRY PRISM ASTM C1314 CITY OF LA QUINTA-BLDG & SAFETY 78495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CA 92253 Client: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES Set No.: 8-3407 File No.: Permit No.: Project No.: 1412A 16 Project Name: FRESH & EASY -LA QUINTA JEFFERSON & FRED WARING LA QUINTA, CA Age (Days) Date Nominal Tested Size Actual Area (Sq. Inch) Load (lbs.) Strength (psi) Type of Fracture 8 12/10/2008 8 X 8 X 8 58.52 127,850 2,180 N/A 28 12/30/2008 8 X 8 X 8 58.52 138,985 2,370 N/A 28 1 12/30/2008 1 8 X 8 X 8 1 58.52 1 143,785 1 2,460 N/A Specified.Strength: 2,000 PSI Sampled By: LUKE ZUCKERMAN ASTM C172 Date Sampled: 12/2/2008 Date Received: 12/8/2008 Location: 2ND LIFT LINE A/5 TO 4 Concrete Supplier: ROBERTSON'S READY MIX Concrete Temp: 98 OF ASTM C1064 Mix No.: 43163 Ambient Temp: 60 OF ASTM C1064 Ticket No.: 5802566 Water added at Site: 10.00 gal. By Slump: 9.00 in. ASTM C143 _Cement Type: Mix Time: min. Tested at: Riverside Remarks: Distribution: THE BERGMAN COMPANIES CITY OF LA QUINTA-BLDG & SAFETY **LAB COPY** Respectfully Submitted, MTGL, Inc. 1 M.B.(Ben) Lo Chief Engineer 2420 PSI 28 -day compression test complies with the specified strength. Corporate: San Diego/Imperial County: Inland Empire: 2992 E. La Palma Ave., Suite A 7313 Carroll Road; Suite G 14320 Elsworth Street, Suite C 10 1 Anaheim. CA 92806 San Diego, CA 92121 Moreno Valley, CA 92553 Tel: 714.632.2999 TeL 858.537.3999 Tel -.'909.653.4999 e Fax: 71 4.632.2974 Fax: 858.537.3990 Fax: 909.653.4666 FIELD REPORT Ultrasonic TestingJ SOIL REPORT SPECIFICATIONS APPROVED PLANS APPROVED SHOP DRAWING .......................................................................... utcHfF'tii'........................ ............... ... t'dii'<4�E1:'�`.rfdtric.............. ................................. ................................................. . off CY.'Ho. 4 PG OF ' N 1 2 ....................... ...,. ....................... .......... i�N'IRA OR ......... ....... PIAN FE.E NO................... .................................. PERMITNO ........................................................ ► ..........G�� f , ��....................................................................................................:....1..... .::-... �....7................ 'UB CJ�O/�/7pt,ACTOR PROJECFNM7E 1� V-1 L� ........ .. .........1....... ...... .................................... ��i��.��'� ..t. .. ADDRERE SS OF PROJECT ... -. ..................... ......... ........ .....,. � � .. ... ., REPORT REQUIREMENTS: ICBO FIELD INSPECTION MANUAUMTG SOIL MANUAL -REVIEW PREVIOUS REPORTS AND LISTS IF THERE IS NON -CONFORMING WORK ATTHE END OF THE WORK DAY, OR MISSING MTRS.AND RFIS. ETCS., FILL OUT AND ATTACH A DEFICIENCY REPORT WHEN A DEFICIENCY, YOU ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................f T1USED- ..................... ........., ......... ONIRACTI)RSEQUlPA�TJr4NPOW'ER : ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ........., ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... .. .... ........................... ........... ......... ......--- ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. AREA GRID I.aJES. PACES OBSERVED: ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 'TRUCTIIRAi, NOTES. DETAa.. OR RFIS USED: ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. �tARI:S, r.NCLUD/NCAIEElJNCS: , See Attached UT Report .......:....................................................................................................:.................................................................................................................................................................................... WORK AS PERCENT OF ALL WORK TODAY: N/A PERCENT PROJECT COMPLETION: N/A WEATHER: ClC' cdy SAMPLESTAKEN: NIA TEMPERATURE: TESTS REQUIRED: UT FLLTETlME START SITE TIME FINISHNCH PERIOD -- TRAVEL TIME — VERIFIED BY �. I do certiA, that I have personally observed all the work listed above and that this work complies with soil urvestigation recommendations, and / or the approved plans, specifications and applicable section of the Building Codes unless otherwise noted on (� 2 _ UT Level II Signature Date of Report AWS / ICBO Certification Number Seth Helton ................................... ....... ..I...... ................................................... Print Name 4 .............. ................................... City / County Certification Number Corporate: San Diego/imperial County: Inland Empire: 2992 La Palma Ave., Suite A 7313 Carroll Road, Suite G 14320 Elsworth Street, Suite C101 Anaheim, CA 92806 San Diego, CA 92121 Moreno Valley, CA 92553 Tel: (714) 632-2999 Tel: (858) 537-3999 Tel: (909) 653-4999 i n Fax: (714) 632-2974 Fax: (858) 537-3990 Fax: (909) 653-4666 REPORT 'OF ULTRASONIC TESTING OF WELDS Page: 2 of 2 Project Name: Fd,—,ll 4- Architect: j< C G -k --f I e - Project Address: , Z j C• SC: ✓t 3 f- 1 C,nn.�sscc+�rir CC, Engineer: (J 1= ShopC1- Field X. Permit #:66 ' 7 Z 7 Contractor: mo, •`e pi `.7�t ✓� ' Specifications: AWS D1.1 Subcontractor: Signature: Scope: USN 50L Transducer: '5'x.75" & 1"@ 2.25 Mt Test Block: DSC Method Used: Shear@ 70° & 0° Procedure: CT012 Couplant: Sonotech Sensitivity Level: 71 d8 Work -New Repair ❑ Scan Level: 85 d8 Description ,& items tested: Performed ultrasonic testing of complete penetration welds @ I i -vbln r s3 > rTc,.-,N P(-LvEW.> ^ c-) a = Indication Level b = Reference Level c = Attenuation Factor d = a -b -c for instruments in Gain [(SP -1) x 2) rounded b -a -c for instruments in Attenuation Welding Process: ❑SMAW ❑rc w ❑GNAW [I SAW ❑ESW ❑EGW l)prihpls I Indicatinns i I Weld I Location Weld ID Angle Face 2 -;2.;z -051 Time in: 7"06 '-iPA L HOURS: Inspected By: Seth Helton `j■` Level: UT Level ll, SNT-TC-1A Authorized By: MTGL jJob No.: Signature: Signature: MMA ME' INTERPRETATION OF THE TEST RESULTS OBTAINED FROM THE TESTIS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED ASA GUARANTEE OR WARRANTY OF THE MATERIALS TESTED. CANYON TESTING SHALL NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR LOSS. DAMAGE. INJURY OR DEATH RESULTING FROM USE OF THE TESTED PART. FINAL RESPONSIBILITY -IN INTERPRETATION OF TEST RESULTS RESTS WITH THE CUSTOMER. We, the undersigned certify that the statements in this record are correct and that the welds were prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 6 Part F - ANSUAWS D1.1 Welding Specification. Test Date: 2 -;2.;z -051 Time in: 7"06 '-iPA L HOURS: Inspected By: Seth Helton rime out: G Level: UT Level ll, SNT-TC-1A Authorized By: MTGL jJob No.: Signature: Signature: t _ Corporate: San Diego/Imperial County 2992 E. La Palma Ave. Ste. A 7313 Carroll Rd. Ste. G Anaheim, CA 92806 San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: 714.632.2999 Tel: 858.537.3999 ,sem Fax: 714.632.2974 Fax: 858.537.3990 www.mtglinc.com Dispatch: 800.491.2990 Dispatch: 888.844.5060 MTGLProject #:� � � 416 ®HOLY INSPECTION Permit#�] O— (% REPORT Report # PG OF Inland Empire: 14467 Meridian Pkwy., Bldg. 2-A Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: 951.653.4999 Fax: 951.653.4666 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 DSA/CITY File #: DSA/OSHPD APPL DSA / LEA #: Special Inspection Reports must be distributed to the parties listed below within 14 days of the inspection. Reports of non-compliant conditions must be distributed immediately. Separate reports shall be prepared for each type of special inspection, on a daily basis. Each report shall be completed and signed by the special inspector conducting the inspection. PROJECT NAME r E� DATE [Q::� ARCHITECT TIMER IVED 30e; TIME DEPARTED 301-k" ENGINEER�� TRAVEL TIME LUN H TIM CONTRACTOR�` o 0 r SUB CONTRACTOR INSPECTION ADDRESS ^ ADDRESS OF PROJECT TYPE OF INSPECTION ❑ ENGINEERED FILL ❑ FOUNDATION ❑ BACK FILL ❑ BATCH PLANT ❑ PT CONCRETE SHOTCRETE CONCRETE ❑ MASONRY ❑ HIGH STRENGTH BOLTING ❑ WELDING ❑ SHOP WELD ❑ FIREPROOFING ❑ ANCHOR/DOWEL ❑ NDE FIELD ❑ NDE SHOP ❑ CEILING WIRE ❑ ❑ ❑ DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT: APPROVED DOCUMENTS: AVAILABLE: SOILREPORT Y ❑ N ❑ APPROVED PLANS Y,< N ❑ SPECS: Y X N ❑ APPROVE15 SHOP DRAWING Y ❑ N ❑ REPORT NO. oR M TERIAL TEST REPORTS): MA ER ALS USED BY CONTRACTOR (IN LUDE R SEAgtjoer J ? !fin �Z� � �da�gasl C,0,ftC,0e-e_1r_ CONT R CTORS EQUIPMENT/ MANPOWER USED: a ix� iS AREA, RID LINES, IECESINS ECTED: La/ Q r foo A Ir R ' �, r-,'•. c� 1� 4 5 0,; C1 C,. Z A-% . . 3 • 5 - Ir E g g (/ �S G H Sv A 073 ek REWORK AS PERCENT OF ALL WORK TODAY: PERCENT PROJECT COMPLETE: THE WORK WAS WAS NOT❑ Inspected in accorcrance with the requirements of the DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. MATERIAL SAMPLING WAS V WAS NOT ❑ N/A ❑ Performed in accordance with A/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. cc Project Architect Contractor Structural Engineer Building Department DSA Regional Office Owner School District ' THE WORK INSPECTED META DID NOT MEET THE requirements of the DSA/ SHPD/PROJECT approved documents. Samples taken:— V /... Weather: Te Signature of pecial Inspect zdLFit!f//"Qn �7 �/ Q Print Name/ In Certification #: 5'Z,7 0 U Od `j � Je• C . Verified by: �L -, Corporaie: san uiego/Imperial county 2992 E. La Palma Ave. Ste. A 7313 Carroll Rd. Ste. G ' Anaheim, CA 92806 San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: 714.632.2999 Tel: 858.537.3999 Fax: 714.632.2974 Fax: 858.537.3990 www.mtglinc.com Dispatch: 800.491.2990 Dispatch: 888.844.5060 MTGLProject #:Q(n DAILY INSPECTION Permit# REPORT Report # PG OF Inland Empire: 14467 Meridian Pkwy., Bldg. 2-A Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: 951.653.4999 Fax: 951.653.4666 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 DSA/CITY File #: DSA/OSHPD APPL #: DSA / LEA #: Special Inspection Reports must be distributed to the parties listed below within 14 days of the inspection. Reports of non-compliant conditions must be distributed immediately. Separate reports shall be prepared for each type of special inspection, on a daily basis. Each report shall be completed and signed by the special inspector conducting the inspection. PROJECT NAME DATE ARCHITECT I' I K L TIME ARRIVED , TIME DEPARTED 5-70 v� J ENGINEER TRAVELTI LUNCH ME CONTRACTOR 10D/ i L SUB CONTRACTOR 1""1430 i INSPECTION AD RES 8H ADDRESS OF PROJECT TYPE OF INSPECTION ❑ ENGINEERED FILL ❑ FOUNDATION ❑ BACK FILL ❑ BATCH PLANT ❑ PT CONCRETE ❑ SHOTCRETE ❑ CONCRETE MASONRY ❑ FIREPROOFING HIGH STRENGTH BOLTING JViANCHOR/DOWEL ❑ WELDING O NDE FIELD ❑ SHOP WELD ❑ NDE SHOP ❑ CEILING WIRE ❑ ❑ ❑ DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT: APPROVED DOCUMENTS: AVAILABLE: SOIL REPORT Y ❑ N ❑ SPECS: YX N ❑ APPROVED PLANS YA N ❑ APPROV D SHOP DRAWING Y ❑ N ❑ RIALS USED BYT N CONTRACTOR (INCLUDE RESEARCH REPO�RATE MATERIAL TEST REPORTS): I S M�RPNC /0 r/v i 141 rl"Al.r CONTR TORS EQUIPMENT/ MANPOWER USED: AREA, GRI LINES, PIECES INSP CTED: 1 3 'D 1"Ir, a-5 e e- Ch C �. r L r Aer l h q/ i -c RE RKS,IN C DINGMEETINGS: REWORK AS PERCENT OF ALL WORK TODAY: PERCENT PROJECT COMPLETE: THE WORK WAS}dl WAS NOT❑ Inspected in accordance with the requirements of the DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. MATERIAL SAMPLING WASbi WAS NOT ❑ N/A ❑ Performed in accordance with DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. cc Project Architect Contractor Structural Engineer Building Department DSA Regional Office Owner School District THE WORK INSPECTED MET10 DID NOT MEET ❑ THE requirements of the DSA/O/SHPD/PROJECT approved documents. Samples taken: /y aA -e- Weather: Weather: Temp S1 nature of Special Ins or VIC Print Name Certification #:2— 0 Verified by: T"' Corporaie: ban ulego/tmperlal uounry 2992 E. La Palma Ave. Ste. A 7313 Carroll Rd. Ste. G Anaheim, CA 92806 San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: 714.632.2999 Tel: 858.537.3999 .,. Fax: 714.632.2974 Fax: 858.537.3990 www.mtglinc.lc/om Dispatch: 800.491.2990 Dispatch: 888.844.5060 ' MTGLProject#: /�ILAI L, DAILY INSPECTION Permit # 05 '3 ( % REPORT Report # PG OF Inland Empire: 14467 Meridian Pkwy., Bldg. 2-A Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: 951.653.4999 Fax: 951.653.4666 Dispatch: 800.491.2990 DSA/CITY File DSA/OSHPD APPL #: DSA / LEA #: Special Inspection Reports must be distributed to the parties listed below within 14 days of the inspection. Reports of non-compliant conditions must be distributed immediately. Separate reports shall be prepared for each type of special inspection, on a daily basis. Each report shall be completed and signed by the special inspector conducting the inspection. PROJECT NAME C -S4 ��:5 V DATE (=O!; ARCHITECTTIME ARRIVED TIM D ARTED ENGINEER N TRAVEL TIME LUNCH TIME CONTRACTOR SUB CONTRACTOR ,n INSPECT ON ADDRESS /+ ADDRESS OF PROJECT TYPE OF INSPECTION ❑ ENGINEERED FILL ❑ FOUNDATION ❑ BACK FILL ❑ BATCH PLANT ❑ PT CONCRETE ❑'SHOTCRETE ❑ CONCRETE MASONRY ❑ HIGH STRENGTH BOLTING ❑ WELDING ❑ SHOP WELD ❑ FIREPROOFING XANCHOR/DOWEL ❑ NDE FIELD ❑ NDE SHOP ❑ CEILING WIRE ❑ ❑ ❑ DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT: APPROVED DOCUMENTS: AVAILABLE: APPROVED PLANS Y)( N ❑ SOIL REPORT Y NO SPECS: YK N APPROVED SHOP DRAWING Y N ❑ MAT RIALS USED BY CONTRACTOR (INCLUDE RESEARCH REPORT NO. OR MATERIAL TEST REPORTS): im o 2,7— i' X 17-11 aoa S� ONTRACTOR UIPMENT/MANPOWER USED: h d C/ AREA, GgIO LINES, PIECES INSPTED: / ' O G & ca 7/4 "'A lc5 it, 3 3 STRUCTURAL NOTES, DETAIL, OR RAS USED: REMARKS, INCLUDING MEETINGS: [REWORK AS PERCENT OF ALL WORK TODAY: PERCENT PROJECT COMPLETE: THE WORK WASH WAS NOT ❑ Inspected in acco ace with the requirements of the DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. MATERIAL SAMPLING WAS A WAS NOT ❑ N/A ❑ Performed in accordance with A/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents. cc Project Architect Contractor Structural Engineer Building Department DSA Regional Office Owner School District THE WORK INSPECTED METX DID NOT MEET ❑ THE requirements of the DS dA/ $HPD/PROJECT approved documents. Samples taken: Weather: Temp: Sif-e-t ure of Special pector V 14 r� Print Name Certification #: Z O Verified by: