5. Facility Condition Assessment — Anaheim City Council, June 11, 2024

700 South Flower Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com

STRUCTURAL
+ CIVIL

ENGINEERS
August 1, 2023
Tom Morton
Executive Director
Convention, Sports & Entertainment Department
City of Anaheim
800 W. Katella Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92802
Subject: Anaheim Convention Center
Carpark 2 – Facility Condition Assessment
B&J Proj. No: S22-0363
Dear Tom:

Brandow & Johnston has completed a Property Condition Assessment Report and Structural Building Evaluation of the parking structure known as “Carpark 2” for the Anaheim Convention Center.

Carpark 2 is the 4-story parking structure component of the Anaheim Hilton Hotel located at 777 West Convention Way, Anaheim, CA 92802. The parking structure and hotel are one building with no structural separation. The parking area, hotel lobby, conference rooms and ballrooms form a lower-level podium to the hotel. The car park is on the north half of this base. The hotel rooms and outdoor decks are above the podium.

The parking area is topped with the pool facilities and two 10-story wings of the hotel.

The parking area is jointly owned by the City of Anaheim and the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA). The remainder of the building (i.e., the hotel) is owned by ADIA. This report only addresses the parking structure.

The Report includes the following six sections:

1. Property Condition Assessment Report
 This study is based on ASTM E2018-15 with 10-Year Capital Expenditure Plan. The study was completed by a separate consultant who specializes in PCA Reports.

2. Alternate PT Slab Gravity Support System
 The alternate support system is in lieu of the existing external post-tensioned cable system.

The existing system is not deficient but is subject to vehicle impacts, requiring repairs, due to the depth it extends below the existing structure. The alternate system is shallower, so it is less likely to be damaged by passing vehicles. There is no requirement to install this system but would limit the potential for repairs caused by vehicle impacts.

3. Compiled document history of structural work by Brandow & Johnston  Brandow & Johnston has served as an advisory engineer to the City of Anaheim since 1997 and completed many projects for Carpark 2. The compiled list includes 17 significant projects ranging from site visits, observation reports, analysis, repairs, and structural evaluations.

4. Seismic Evaluation
 A seismic evaluation based on ASCE 41-17 Tier 1 & 2 procedures was completed. The seismic evaluation only addresses potential deficiencies of the parking portion of the structure.

5. Conceptual Seismic Retrofit
 A conceptual retrofit design for the potential seismic deficiencies identified in the seismic evaluation in Item #4 above.

6. Cost estimate of conceptual seismic retrofit
 Cost estimate of Item #5 above prepared by an independent cost estimator.

Carpark 2 Building Evaluation August 1, 2023
Cover Letter Page 2
S22-0363
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com Our professional services have been performed with the intent to meet the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by reputable structural engineers practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice or opinions included in this letter. This study does not address non-structural concerns, such as accessibility, fire & life safety regulations, or MEP systems.

We hope this provides the information needed at this time. We are available to discuss further at your convenience, please call if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
BRANDOW & JOHNSTON (B&J HBK, Inc.)
James Pearson, SE 4335
President
Michael Kreuzer, Inspection and Due Diligence Services (IDDS)

PROPERTY CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Car Park #2 at Anaheim Convention Center
777 West Convention Way
Anaheim, California
PREPARED FOR:

City of Anaheim
PREPARED BY:

Michael Kreuzer, Inspection and Due Diligence Services (IDDS) IDDS Project Number 2023-0107PCA
January 2023
PCA – Car Park #2 at Anaheim Convention Center
Anaheim, California
Michael Kreuzer Inspection and Due Diligence Service
January 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS
GENERAL ................................................................................................................................3

1.1 Property Reviewer(s) ................................................................................................................... 3

1.2 Interviews and Documentation Provided .................................................................................... 4

1.3 Local Agency Research ................................................................................................................ 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................5 SITE ........................................................................................................................................6

3.1 Utilities Providers ........................................................................................................................ 6

3.2 Floodplain Designation ................................................................................................................ 7

3.3 Topography & Stormwater .......................................................................................................... 7

3.4 Site Access ................................................................................................................................... 7

3.5 Paving, Curbing & Parking ........................................................................................................... 7

3.6 Loading Areas .............................................................................................................................. 8

3.7 Landscaping & Irrigation .............................................................................................................. 8

3.8 Amenities ..................................................................................................................................... 8

3.9 Signage ......................................................................................................................................... 8

3.10 Site Lighting ................................................................................................................................. 8 STRUCTURAL...........................................................................................................................9

4.1 Substructure ................................................................................................................................ 9

4.2 Superstructure ............................................................................................................................. 9 EXTERIOR ENVELOPE ...............................................................................................................9

5.1 Roofing ......................................................................................................................................... 9

5.2 Exteriors ....................................................................................................................................... 9

5.3 Soffits ........................................................................................................................................... 9

5.4 Windows & Doors ...................................................................................................................... 10

5.5 Exterior Stairs, Balconies & Terraces ......................................................................................... 10 PLUMBING ............................................................................................................................ 10

6.1 Domestic Water & Gas .............................................................................................................. 10

6.2 Sanitary and Storm Drainage ..................................................................................................... 10

6.3 Domestic Water Heating ........................................................................................................... 11

6.4 Plumbing Fixtures ...................................................................................................................... 11 MECHANICAL ........................................................................................................................ 11 PCA – Car Park #2 at Anaheim Convention Center
Anaheim, California
Michael Kreuzer Inspection and Due Diligence Services
January 2023

7.1 Heating & Cooling ...................................................................................................................... 11

7.2 Ventilation ................................................................................................................................. 11

7.3 Temperature Controls ............................................................................................................... 11 ELECTRICAL ........................................................................................................................... 12

8.1 Electrical Service & Distribution ................................................................................................ 12

8.2 Equipment & Lighting ................................................................................................................ 12

8.3 Emergency Power ...................................................................................................................... 12

8.4 Security & Communications ...................................................................................................... 12 VERTICAL TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................................. 12 LIFE SAFETY & FIRE PROTECTION ........................................................................................... 13

10.1 Building Egress ........................................................................................................................... 13

10.2 Fire Alarm System ...................................................................................................................... 13

10.3 Fire Sprinklers & Fire Extinguishers ........................................................................................... 13 INTERIORS ............................................................................................................................ 13

11.1 Common Area Finishes .............................................................................................................. 13

11.2 Tenant Area Finishes ................................................................................................................. 14 ACCESSIBILITY ....................................................................................................................... 14

12.1 Accessibility Codes ..................................................................................................................... 14

12.2 Exterior Path of Travel & Parking .............................................................................................. 15

12.3 Interior Areas ............................................................................................................................. 15 GENERAL INFORMATION ....................................................................................................... 15

13.1 Purpose and scope .................................................................................................................... 15

13.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 16

13.3 Terminology and Acronyms ....................................................................................................... 16

13.4 Opinions of Costs ....................................................................................................................... 18 EXHIBITS .......................................................................................................................................... 19 A. Site Plan ..................................................................................................................................... 19 B. Opinion of Probable Cost........................................................................................................... 19 C. Photographs .............................................................................................................................. 19 D. Flood Map, Zoning Map, Assessor Information ........................................................................ 19 E. ADA Screening Checklist ............................................................................................................ 19 PCA – Car Park #2 at Anaheim Convention Center
Anaheim, California
Michael Kreuzer Inspection and Due Diligence Services
January 2023

GENERAL
Michael Kreuzer, Inspection and Due Diligence Services (IDDS) has performed a property condition assessment (PCA) of the parcel and improvements defined in the following table (the “Subject Property”) for The City of Anaheim and each of their participants, successors and assigns (“Client”). The assessment was performed in general conformance with ASTM E2018-15 “Standard Guide for Property Condition Assessments: Baseline Property Condition Assessment Process,” including limitations as set forth therein.

The purpose of this Property Condition Assessment was to evaluate the general, overall physical condition of the subject property and observe and document readily visible material and building system deficiencies that might significantly affect the value of the subject property and determine if conditions exist which may have a significant impact on the continued operation of the facility during the evaluation term. This report is based upon the conditions observed at the time of the site visit and does not represent a guarantee of the overall condition or the functional suitability of the Subject Property.

This assessment was performed using that degree of skill and care consistent with good commercial or customary practice in conformance with acceptable industry standards. No other warranty is expressed or implied.

This report and the information contained herein are for the exclusive use of the Client. Third parties that obtain this report, or the information herein, shall have no rights of recourse or recovery against IDDS, its officers, employees, vendors, successors or assigns. Any such unauthorized user shall be responsible to protect, indemnify and hold IDDS, the Client, and their respective officers, employees, vendors, successors and assigns harmless from any and all claims, damages, losses, liabilities, expenses, and costs attributable to such use. Unauthorized use of this report shall constitute acceptance of these responsibilities, which shall be irrevocable and shall apply regardless of the cause of action or legal theory asserted.

1.1 Property Reviewer(s)
Michael Kreuzer, CPI performed both the site walk-through and report review for this assessment.

Mr. Kreuzer performed the site walk-through and observed site improvements, building exteriors components, plumbing, mechanical and electrical systems, fire and life safety systems, interior spaces, and cursory review of accessibility requirements.

GENERAL INFORMATION
Property Name Car Park #2 at Anaheim Convention Center
Property Address 777 Convention Way
Property Use Parking Structure
Number of Stories 5-level Parking Structure
Year of Construction 1983
Building Area 839,000
Reported Occupancy Used as parking facility
Site Area 8.6 acres, or approximately 374,616 square feet Zoning SP 92-2 – Anaheim Resort Specific Plan
PCA – Car Park #2 at Anaheim Convention Center
Anaheim, California
Michael Kreuzer Inspection and Due Diligence Sevices
January 2023
Flood Zone Flood Zone X (shaded) per FEMA Community Map Panel 06059C0141J, dated December 3, 2009.

Parking Spaces Surface Garage
Standard 0 3,234
Accessible 0 32
Total 0 3,266
Date of Site Visit January 20, 2023
Weather during site visit 68° Fahrenheit
Property Management Company NA
Property Contact (Site Escort) Unescorted

1.2 Interviews and Documentation Provided
During our site visit no personal associated with the property was interviewed.

We have performed a limited review of documentation provided along with readily available documentation located onsite. The objective of our limited document review and interview is to augment the walk-through survey and to assist with our understanding of the subject property and the identification of physical deficiencies. We relied on the information provided and have not independently verified that the information reviewed is accurate, nor have we attempted to identify mistakes or insufficiencies in the information. Such verification is not within our scope nor responsibility.

1.3 Local Agency Research
The availability of record or document information varies from information source to information source, including governmental jurisdictions. We have made appropriate inquiry to the Planning, Building and Fire Departments to obtain record information regarding the Subject property.

Information provided by government agencies has been listed below and are attached as an exhibit to this report as applicable.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Date of contact: January 24, 2023
Contact name: Planning Interactive Map
https://gis.anaheim.net/PropertyInfo/index.html?APN=13715105 Current zoning: SP 92-2 – Anaheim Resort Specific Plan
Outstanding zoning
violations:

No violations reported

BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Date of contact: January 24, 2023
Contact name: Online Record System
http://records.anaheim.net/CityClerk/CustomSearch.aspx?SearchName=S earchBuildingPermits&cr=1
PCA – Car Park #2 at Anaheim Convention Center
Anaheim, California
Michael Kreuzer Inspection and Due Diligence Services
January 2023
Outstanding
code violations:

No outstanding building code violations on file.

Certificate of
Occupancy:

A Certificate of Occupancy was not provided by the property or City of Anaheim

FIRE DEPARTMENT
Date of contact: January 24, 2023
Contact name: Lindsey Young, Anaheim Fire & Rescue; 714.765.4040 Date of last inspection: Inspections are conducted annually, the last date was not reported
Outstanding fire corrections: No outstanding fire code violations on file.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The subject property consists of a parking structure with related site improvements in the City of Anaheim, California. The property was constructed in 1983 and totals 839,000 gross square feet.

Freeway I-5 is located approximately 1 mile to the northeast. Disneyland is located approximately

0.9 miles to the north. Adjacent properties are: to the east is the Sheraton Park Hotel at the Anaheim Resort, the Hilton Anaheim is attached to the parking structure to the south, the Anaheim Convention Center to the west, The North Hall and parking structure for the Anaheim Convention Center. Overall, the subject property appears to be in good condition.

The property is composed of one 8.6 acre parcel, # 137-151-05, #930-01-490 – 930-01-492. The Hilton Hotel building is also located on the parcel.

The site is generally flat. No retaining walls were observed. Surface drainage from drive aisles and parking areas sheet flow to drains which collect and discharge stormwater into the municipal stormwater system. Pedestrian and vehicular access into the property is provided via public sidewalks along Hotel Way, and via ticket machines and automatic lift gates at the access points from Hotel Way and an unnamed drive on the west side of the building.

The drives and parking areas are generally paved with concrete. Concrete curbs are provided at the access points to the parking structure and along the landscaped area on the west elevation.

Concrete walkways are provided at the landscaped area along the western elevation. According to the architectural plans, there are approximately 3,266 parking spaces provided inside the parking structure, including 32 disabled-accessible spaces (site count).

Landscaping is generally provided along the west elevation of the building and in planters at the fifth floor. Landscape materials include mature trees, shrubs, draught resistant plants, and decomposed mulch ground cover. A pop-up sprinkler irrigation system is provided for this property. Landscaping generally appears to be in good condition and adequate for their intended purposes.

The low-slope roof consists of the upper floor of the parking structure with concrete driving surface, coated with a thin layer of a waterproof coating.

PCA – Car Park #2 at Anaheim Convention Center
Anaheim, California
Michael Kreuzer Inspection and Due Diligence Services
January 2023
The exterior shell consists of painted cast-in-place concrete and walls with painted stucco.

Openings in the structure provide access to the building. Windows are limited to fixed windows at the parking booths in the entrance areas. Doors are steel doors in metal frames or are painted wood in wood frames. Exterior stairs are steel framed with steel treads and risers, handrails are painted steel.

The property is provided with domestic water for the office and restroom areas. Supply piping appears to be copper, sewage piping consists of cast iron. The property is not provided with natural gas service. A water heater was not observed or reported.

A PTAC unit was observed at the parking manager office. The parking structures is open and vented, there are no subterranean levels which would require an exhaust system.

Primary electrical services extend below grade to a pad-mounted transformer at the northeast corner of the property. The main electrical service for the building is provided via a GE switchboard located in a chain-link enclosure on the first floor of the building. The service size is 277/480 V, 3 PH 4 W, it appears to be sufficient for the facility. Electrical distribution consists of copper conductors in rigid, metallic conduit. No emergency power is provided for this property.

A fire alarm system was not observed or reported at the building.

The building is fully protected with a wet pipe sprinkler and standpipe system utilizing steel piping. Wall and post-mounted fire extinguishers are provided throughout. Inspection tags observed show last inspection was performed on November 10, 2021, the observed tags were expired. Fire sprinkler systems appear to be functional. Tags dated November 1, 2022 were observed.

A parking management office area was observed on the first floor near the entrance from Hotel Way. Finishes consist of painted gypsum board walls and ceilings and carpet flooring. Typical office furnishings are provided. A restroom was provided at the first floor. Flooring consists of ceramic tile, the walls are tiled and the ceiling consists of acoustical tile.

An accessible path of travel appears to be provided from the parking area to hotel building entrances and the surface street. The number of disabled-accessible parking spaces provided at the property appears to be non-compliant, no van-accessible spaces were observed.

SITE

3.1 Utilities Providers

UTILITIES
Gas NA
Water Anaheim Public Utilities
Electricity Anaheim Public Utilities
Sewer City of Anaheim
Storm drain City of Anaheim
PCA – Car Park #2 at Anaheim Convention Center
Anaheim, California
Michael Kreuzer Inspection and Due Diligence Services
January 2023

3.2 Floodplain Designation
The Subject is not located within a Special Flood Hazard Area. According to FEMA Community Map Panel 06059C0141J, dated December 3, 2009, the site is located in Zone X (shaded). FEMA defines Zone X (shaded) as an area of 500-year flood; an area of 100- year flood with average depths of less than one foot or with drainage areas less than one square mile; or an area protected by levees from 100-year flood.

ISSUES
 No significant issues identified.

3.3 Topography & Stormwater
The site is generally flat. Surface drainage from drive aisles and parking areas sheet flow to area drains which collect and discharge stormwater into a municipal stormwater system. Stormwater drainage provisions for the property appear to be in good condition.

ISSUES
 No significant issues identified.

3.4 Site Access
Pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress to the property is provided by Hotel Way to the east and via an unnamed drive to the west. No traffic signals are located at entry points into the site.

Ingress and egress is via ticket machines and lift gate. Booth are provided at the access points, booth are manned on an as needed basis.

ISSUES
 No significant issues identified.

3.5 Paving, Curbing & Parking
The vehicular entrances and parking areas are generally paved with concrete. Concrete curbs are provided at the ingress/egress points to the parking structure and along parts of the west elevation. Concrete sidewalks are provided in the landscaped area along the west elevation. With the exception of issues described below, site paving systems for the property generally appear to be in good condition.

According to the original architectural plans, there are approximately 3,266 parking spaces, including 32 disabled-accessible spaces, provided inside the parking structure. There are no electric vehicle-charging stations provided for the property. Disabled-accessible parking requirements are discussed in Section 12.0 ACCESSIBILITY.

ISSUES
 The concrete paving was noted to be in fair condition; at every parking structure level widespread and extensive deep cracks were observed. The majority of the cracks were observed to have been sealed with what appeared to be an epoxy material. In addition the upper level open parking was coated with a thin layer of waterproofing.

The cracks were visible under the coating. Due to the severity of the condition, phased re-surfacing of the concrete pavement early in the term is recommended.

PCA – Car Park #2 at Anaheim Convention Center
Anaheim, California
Michael Kreuzer Inspection and Due Diligence Services
January 2023
Generally it was reported that the extensive cracking has not significantly worsened over more recent years. Maintenance of the new surface should be sufficiently covered by the below recommendations.
 Concrete pavement restriping and crack seal: Restriping and crack seal concretepaved areas after resurfacing is completed and again on a five-year cycle.

3.6 Loading Areas
There are no loading areas at the property.

ISSUES
 Not applicable

3.7 Landscaping & Irrigation
Landscaping is generally provided along the west elevation of the property and in planters at the fifth floor. Landscape materials include mature trees, shrubs, draught resistant plantings, and mulch ground cover. A pop-up sprinkler irrigation system is provided. Landscaping generally appears to be in good condition and adequate for their intended purposes.

ISSUES
 Trees and shrubs along the western elevation were observed to be overgrown and need trimming. No plant material should be in contact with building surfaces to prevent accelerated deterioration of facades. Trimming is recommended.  The concrete planter along the north elevation on the upper parking deck was observed with significant cracking and damage to the planter wall including exposure of rebar. Repairs are recommended.

3.8 Amenities
There are no notable site amenities at the property.

ISSUES
 Not applicable

3.9 Signage
Signage is limited to signage mounted to building exteriors near entrance areas.

ISSUES
 No significant issues identified.

3.10 Site Lighting
Lighting for building exteriors and parking areas is provided by ceiling mounted fluorescent light fixtures inside the parking structure and pole mounted light fixtures at the fifth level open parking deck. Exterior lighting levels were not observed after dusk. However, the number and placement of fixtures generally appears to be adequate.

ISSUES
 No significant issues identified.

PCA – Car Park #2 at Anaheim Convention Center
Anaheim, California
Michael Kreuzer Inspection and Due Diligence Services
January 2023

STRUCTURAL

4.1 Substructure
Not included

4.2 Superstructure
Not included
ISSUES
 Not included

EXTERIOR ENVELOPE

5.1 Roofing
The low-slope roof consists of the upper parking deck of the parking structure. Part of the upper parking deck is covered by the adjacent Hilton Hotel, which occupies the air space above. The parking deck appears to have been re-coated with a thin layer of waterproof coating.

ISSUES
 Isolated surface damage to the waterproof coating at the fifth floor open parking deck was observed. Areas of what appeared to be past water damage with evidence of repairs were observed at the 4th floor parking level ceiling. It is recommended to repair isolated damages immediately. Costs are entered in the Short Term Table.  Per research of past imaging on Google Earth it appears that the waterproof coating at the fifth level open parking deck was applied in 2008. EUL of the coating is approximately 20 years. Reapplication of the waterproofing material is recommended.

5.2 Exteriors
The exterior shell consists of painted cast-in-place concrete and painted stucco. Isolated areas of bubbling, cracked and peeling paint were observed. Isolated damage to the wall surface was also observed. Repairs of the damaged areas and paint touch ups are recommended, due to the limited scope, the repairs can be performed by routine maintenance at low cost.

ISSUES
 Building exterior repainting: The building exterior walls should be prepared and repainted every 8 years starting at year 2. Recaulking of sealants should be performed at the same time as exterior painting.

5.3 Soffits
Building soffits were not observed.

ISSUES
PCA – Car Park #2 at Anaheim Convention Center
Anaheim, California
Michael Kreuzer Inspection and Due Diligence Services
January 2023
 Not applicable.

5.4 Windows & Doors
The property is generally accessed via openings in the structure. The parking structure is mostly open at all levels.

Windows are limited to aluminum framed fixed and sliding windows at the parking booths.

Service doors are steel doors in steel frames.

Wood framed solid core wood doors were observed at the parking management office and the restroom. The doors appeared to be in good condition.

ISSUES
 No significant issues identified.

5.5 Exterior Stairs, Balconies & Terraces
Exterior steel framed stairs, landings and painted steel railings are provided for pedestrian access to the upper floors. Cast-in-place concrete ramps are provided at drives to access upper floors. In addition painted steel guardrails are installed at building openings at all levels. The property does not have any balconies or terraces. The exterior stairs and the ramps generally appear to be in good condition, guardrails will need to be maintained concurrent with other miscellaneous site metals. This work can be performed in conjunction with exterior painting of the building.

ISSUES
 Repair/replace exterior stairs and components as needed.

PLUMBING

6.1 Domestic Water & Gas
Domestic water is supplied to the parking office areas and the restroom. The domestic water is circulated at line pressure; no booster pumps are used. Domestic water supply piping is copper with soldered fittings and appears to be in good condition. Natural gas service was not provided.

ISSUES
 No significant issues identified.

6.2 Sanitary and Storm Drainage
According to observation, waste and vent lines are cast iron. Sanitary and storm drain piping appears to be in good condition. However, at the covered portion of the fifth floor parking area multiple leaks at the plumbing coming from above (the hotel) were observed. Leaks were active and have caused significant damage to the ceiling of the parking structure. Buckets were observed in the parking area to catch the dripping water. At the request of the Client, the City of Anaheim, no costs for repairs of the plumbing are included.

ISSUES
PCA – Car Park #2 at Anaheim Convention Center
Anaheim, California
Michael Kreuzer Inspection and Due Diligence Services
January 2023
 The defective plumbing is responsibility of the hotel, no other significant issues identified.

6.3 Domestic Water Heating
No water heaters were observed or reported.

ISSUES
 Not applicable.

6.4 Plumbing Fixtures
Plumbing fixtures for the restroom included a floor-mounted porcelain toilet and integral porcelain lavatories/countertop set in a vanity cabinet. Faucets were in place. The restroom is generally only accessible to personnel at the parking structure. Public restrooms are located inside the adjacent hotel.

ISSUES
 No significant issues identified.

MECHANICAL

7.1 Heating & Cooling
One PTAC unit was observed inside the parking management office. No other HVAC devises were observed. It is anticipated that the PTAC will require replacement during the term, however, due to the limited scope this work can be performed at low cost by routine maintenance.

ISSUES
 No significant issues identified.

7.2 Ventilation
The parking structure is open and vented, there are no subterranean or otherwise enclosed floors, therefore no exhaust or vent system is provided.

ISSUES
 Not applicable

7.3 Temperature Controls
The temperature controls for the PTAC are integrated into the units, no thermostats were observed.

ISSUES
 Not applicable.

PCA – Car Park #2 at Anaheim Convention Center
Anaheim, California
Michael Kreuzer Inspection and Due Diligence Services
January 2023

ELECTRICAL

8.1 Electrical Service & Distribution
Primary electrical services extend below grade to a pad-mounted transformer at the northeast corner of the property. The main electrical service for the building is provided via a GE switchboard located in a chain-link enclosure on the first floor of the building. The service size is 277/480 V, 3 PH 4 W, it appears to be sufficient for the facility. Breaker panels were observed on each floor. The panels were manufactured by GE. Typical capacity is 100-amp. It is assumed that the system is adequate for the needs of the facility. Electrical distribution consists of copper conductors in rigid, metallic conduit. GFCI outlets were not observed at the restroom.

ISSUES
 GFCI outlet: No GFCI outlet was observed in the wet area at the restroom. It is recommended to install a GFCI outlet as a life/safety measure.

8.2 Equipment & Lighting
Lighting in the office built-out and the parking area is provided by various types of light fixtures.

ISSUES
 No significant issues identified.

8.3 Emergency Power
Emergency power is not provided for this property.

ISSUES
 Not applicable

8.4 Security & Communications
There are access control lift gates at the property, which are tied into a parking ticket machine system. Security cameras that are monitored in the office are provided throughout the parking structure. The safety features appeared to be in good working order.

Telephone or wireless service was not observed.

ISSUES
 No significant issues identified.

VERTICAL TRANSPORTATION
Vertical transportation is not provided for this property.

ISSUES
 Not applicable
PCA – Car Park #2 at Anaheim Convention Center
Anaheim, California
Michael Kreuzer Inspection and Due Diligence Services
January 2023

LIFE SAFETY & FIRE PROTECTION

10.1 Building Egress
The building is served by open exit areas located along the east and west building elevations, as well to the adjacent hotel at the south elevation, which provide egress from the parking structure.

Exit signs are battery pack fixtures and are located to indicate the path of egress.

No significant issues were noted or reported with the life-safety and fire protection systems.

ISSUES
 No significant issues identified.

10.2 Fire Alarm System
A fire alarm system was not observed or reported at the building.

ISSUES
 Not applicable

10.3 Fire Sprinklers & Fire Extinguishers
The building is fully protected with a wet pipe sprinkler and standpipe system utilizing steel piping. Fire sprinkler systems appear to be functional. Tags dated November 1, 2022 were observed. Spare sprinkler head cabinets were not observed.

The system is supplemented with a fire pump, located in a designated structure at the northeast corner of the property. No access to the fire pump equipment was provided. Per parking attendant, the pump room is not part of the parking structure but maintained by the hotel.

Wall and post-mounted fire extinguishers are provided throughout. Inspection tags observed show last inspection was performed on November 10, 2021, the observed tags were expired. Fire hydrants are located along public surface streets.

ISSUES
 Fire extinguisher tags were observed to have expired. Inspect fire extinguishers immediately as a life/safety measure.
 Install spare sprinkler head cabinets at the main riser.

INTERIORS

11.1 Common Area Finishes
Significant water damage, caused by plumbing leaks at the hotel, was observed at the ceiling of the covered parking area on the 5th level. It is recommended to repair the ceiling damage once the plumbing issues have been repaired by the hotel.

ISSUES
 Repair water damage at ceiling on level 5 covered parking PCA – Car Park #2 at Anaheim Convention Center
Anaheim, California
Michael Kreuzer Inspection and Due Diligence Services
January 2023

11.2 Tenant Area Finishes
The parking management office includes office areas and storage space. It is located in a built-out with drywall walls, near the ingress/egress to Hotel Way. Parking management office area finishes were observed and generally consist of painted gypsum board walls and ceilings and carpet.

Various furnishings typical for office areas were observed.

The restroom has ceramic tile flooring, tiled walls and acoustical tile ceilings. A floor mounted toilet and a vanity cabinet with integral porcelain lavatory/countertop are provided.

ISSUES
 Replacements of carpet and re-painting of walls/ceilings is anticipated during the term. Due to the limited scope this work can be performed at low cost by routine maintenance.

ACCESSIBILITY

12.1 Accessibility Codes
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a civil rights law that was enacted in 1990 to provide persons with disabilities accommodations and equal access to, or similar to, that available to the general public. Title III of the ADA requires that owners of buildings that are considered to be places of public accommodations remove those architectural barriers and communications barriers that are considered readily achievable in accordance with the resources available to building ownership to allow use of the facility by the disabled. The obligation to remove barriers where readily achievable is an ongoing one. The determination as to whether removal of a barrier or an implementation of a component or system is readily achievable is often a financial decision, which is based on the resources available to the owner or tenants and contingent upon the timing of implementation.

The term “readily achievable” could be interpreted to mean that the work is accomplished without “undue hardship,” or unreasonable difficulty or expense to the property owner. Barriers should be removed within the facility to allow independent access and use by the disabled but a determination of what is "readily achievable" could be subjective and dependent upon a number of factors. Any identified or proposed modifications for the property should be reviewed with a certified access specialist (CASp) and legal counsel to determine which might be considered "readily achievable."
The scope of this assessment is not a comprehensive Americans with Disabilities Act review. The baseline ADA due diligence is a Visual Accessibility Survey consisting of a limited scope visual survey and completion of a screening checklist. We provide a review for general compliance with applicable Federal accessibility requirements under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The baseline scope of work excludes limited measurement and counts. Since our evaluation is limited in scope and based on representative sampling, all non-compliant conditions may not be identified as a result of the assessment. In addition, there may be grey areas regarding PCA – Car Park #2 at Anaheim Convention Center
Anaheim, California
Michael Kreuzer Inspection and Due Diligence Services
January 2023
the interpretation of ADA requirements and additional accessible requirements applicable to the property as determined by local or state authorities having jurisdiction.

12.2 Exterior Path of Travel & Parking
Our review is limited to the path of travel from public transportation stops, public sidewalk, and disabled-accessible parking spaces to areas open to the general public. An accessible path of travel appears to be provided from the public sidewalk to building entrances. Paved surfaces leading from onsite sidewalks to the front of the building appeared level and unobstructed.

Designated disabled-accessible parking spaces are located at the parking structure near hotel entrances at the south elevation of the parking structure. Based on a field count, there are 32 designated standard disabled-accessible parking spaces provided at the parking structure, there are no van-accessible parking spaces. The number of disabled-accessible parking spaces provided at the property is not compliant. In addition the ceiling height at the level with parking spaces, might not be ADA compliant (2nd level height 7’7”, 4th level height 8’1”, 5th level height 8’5”).

ISSUES
 Insufficient number of ADA designated parking spaces, for 3,266 spaces there should be a total of 43 ADA spaces.
 No van-accessible space were observed, eight out of the total number of required ADA spaces (43) should be van-accessible.
 ADA study to determine which parking levels meet height requirements for ADA and design potential re-location of ADA spaces.

12.3 Interior Areas
There are no publicly accessible restrooms at the parking structure.

ISSUES
 Not applicable

GENERAL INFORMATION

13.1 Purpose and scope
The purpose of this Property Condition Assessment is to evaluate the general, overall physical condition of the subject property and observe and document readily visible material and building system deficiencies that might significantly affect the value of the subject property and determine if conditions exist which may have a significant impact on the continued operation of the facility during the evaluation term. This report is based upon the conditions observed at the time of the site visit and does not represent a guarantee of the overall condition or the functional suitability of the Subject Property.

We performed a walk-through survey and conducted limited research. No materials sampling or testing, invasive or destructive investigations, or equipment or system testing was performed, and no capacity or other calculations were performed to determine the adequacy of the property.

The services provided do not take responsibility for design or engineering of the property, which PCA – Car Park #2 at Anaheim Convention Center
Anaheim, California
Michael Kreuzer Inspection and Due Diligence Services
January 2023
is the responsibility of the design professionals of record. The assessment is not exhaustive, is not a full and comprehensive survey of the building components and systems, does not provide a definitive opinion concerning compliance with all regulations, laws, or codes, and does not identify every existing deficiency or defect. Defects may exist that were not readily observable, readily apparent, or easily accessible at the time of the site visit, and some defects may develop with time.

During the course of this assignment, additional studies may have been recommended where observations of deficiencies warranted further assessment. The results of findings of these additional studies are generally not known during the course of our work and may or may not be incorporated into this report.

13.2 Methodology
Observations were made by the field observer during a walk-through survey to obtain information concerning the subject property’s readily accessible and easily visible components or systems.

This walk-through survey is not technically exhaustive and concealed physical deficiencies are excluded from the scope of our review. The survey also excludes the operation of equipment by the field observer and is conducted without the aid of special or protective equipment, exploratory probing, removal or relocation of materials, testing, or the use of equipment, such as ladders (except as may be required for roof access), stools, scaffolding, metering/testing equipment, or devices of any kind, etc.

13.3 Terminology and Acronyms
Listed below are standard property condition assessments terminology as defined by ASTM E2018-15.

Deferred maintenance: Physical deficiencies that could have been remedied with routine maintenance, normal operating maintenance, etc., excluding de minimis conditions that generally do not present a material physical deficiency to the subject property.

Effective age: The estimated age of a building component that considers actual age as affected by maintenance history, location, weather conditions, and other factors. Effective age may be more or less than actual age.

PCA – Car Park #2 at Anaheim Convention Center
Anaheim, California
Michael Kreuzer Inspection and Due Diligence Services
January 2023
Expected useful life (EUL): The average amount of time in years that an item, component, or system is estimated to function without material repair when installed new and assuming routine maintenance is practiced.

Immediate costs: Opinions of costs that require immediate action as a result of any of the following: (1) material existing or potentially unsafe conditions, (2) material building or fire code violations, or (3) physical deficiencies that if left uncorrected would be expected to result in or contribute to critical element or system failure within one year or will result most probably in a significant escalation of its remedial cost.

Physical condition: The physical state of a property, system, component, or piece of equipment.

Within the context of the assessment, the consultant may offer opinions of the physical condition of the property, or of systems, components and equipment observed. Such opinions commonly employ terms such as good, fair, and poor; though additional terms such as excellent, satisfactory, and unsatisfactory may also be used (see below).
 Good condition: In working condition and does not require immediate or short-term repairs above an agreed threshold.
 Fair condition: In working condition but may require immediate or short-term repairs above an agreed threshold.
 Poor condition: Not in working condition or requires immediate or short-term repairs substantially above an agreed threshold.

Remaining useful life (RUL): A subjective estimate based upon observations, or average estimates of similar items, components, or systems, or a combination thereof, of the number of remaining years that an item, component, or system is estimated to be able to function in accordance with its intended purpose before warranting replacement. Such period of time is affected by the initial quality of an item, component, or system, the quality of the initial installation, the quality and amount of preventive maintenance exercised, climatic conditions, extent of use, etc.

Routine maintenance: A repair that does not re-quire specialized equipment, professional services, or contractors, but rather can be corrected within the budget and skill set of typical property maintenance staff.

Short-term costs: Opinions of costs to remedy physical deficiencies, such as deferred maintenance, that may not warrant immediate attention, but require repairs or replacements that should be undertaken on a priority basis in addition to routine preventive maintenance.

Listed below typical acronyms used in property condition assessment reporting:

ADA: The Americans with Disabilities Act
ASTM: ASTM International
BOMA: Building Owners and Managers Association
BUR: Built-up Roofing
EIFS: Exterior Insulation and Finish System
PCA – Car Park #2 at Anaheim Convention Center
Anaheim, California
Michael Kreuzer Inspection and Due Diligence Services
January 2023
EMS: Energy Management System
EUL: Expected Useful Life
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHA: Fair Housing Act
FIRMS: Flood Insurance Rate Maps
HVAC: Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning
NFPA: National Fire Protection Association
PCA: Property Condition Assessment
PCR: Property Condition Report
PML: Probable Maximum Loss
RTU: Rooftop Unit
RUL: Remaining Useful Life

13.4 Opinions of Costs
Opinions of Costs are based on construction costs developed by construction resources such as RS Means, our experience with past costs for similar projects, or actual bids provided by property management. Opinions of Costs account for construction costs and should be used for rough budgeting purposes only. Additional costs may be incurred for design or engineering, hazardous materials removal, testing and inspection, permitting, and unforeseen building and/or site conditions.

ASTM E2018-15 does not require provision of detailed takeoffs or opinions of costs to remedy physical deficiencies that may require the opinions of specialty consultants or the results of testing, intrusive observations, exploratory probing, or further research to determine the cause of the physical deficiency and the appropriate remedy, scope, and scheme for repair or replacement.

PCA – Car Park #2 at Anaheim Convention Center
Anaheim, California
Michael Kreuzer Inspection and Due Diligence Services
January 2023

EXHIBITS
A. Site Plan
B. Opinion of Probable Cost
C. Photographs
D. Flood Map, Zoning Map, Assessor Information
E. ADA Screening Checklist
FIGURE 1: SITE LOCATION MAP
KEY:

Subject Property
Subject
Property
FIGURE 2: SITE PLAN
Project No.

KEY:

Subject Property
Subject
Property
ALERE - 1656 CUCAMONGA AVENUE, ONTARIO, CA
Report Section Photo No. Description EUL Age RUL Qty Unit Unit Cost Cost Immediate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total

3.5 Paving, Curbing & Parking
Concrete pavement overlay
25 25 0 755,000 SF 4.00 3,020,000 755,000 755,000 755,000 755,000 3,020,000

3.5 Paving, Curbing & Parking
Concrete pavement re-stripe and crack seal
5 1 4 3,266 EA 10.00 32,660 8,165 8,165 8,165 8,165 32,660

3.7 Landscaping & Irrigation
Repair damaged planters on 5th level parking deck
0 1 lump sum 3,000.00 3,000 3,000 3,000

3.7 Landscaping & Irrigation
Trim trees in contact with facades and roofs
0 1 lump sum 5,000.00 5,000 5,000 5,000
Site - Subtotal 8,000 763,165 763,165 763,165 763,165 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,060,660

4.0 Structural Not part of the report 0 0 0 0 N/A 0.00 0 0 Structural - Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.1 Roofing Spot repairs for damaged waterproofing at open parking deck 0 1 lump sum 2,500.00 2,500 2,500 2,500

5.1 Roofing
Rooftop open parking surface, re-coat
20 15 5 84,000 s.f. 2.50 210,000 210,000 210,000

5.2 Exteriors
Building exterior repainting: The exterior concrete tilt-up walls should be prepared and repainted every 8 years. 8 6 2 60,000 s.f. 1.00 60,000 60,000 60,000

5.5 Exterior Stairs, Balconies & Terrances
Maintenance and as needed repairs or replacements for exterior stairs and landings 10 5 5 1 lump sum 3,000.00 3,000 3,000 3,000
Exteriors - Subtotal 2,500 0 60,000 0 0 213,000 0 0 0 0 0 275,500

6.3 Domestic Water Heating No costs anticipated
12 1 11 each 1,000.00 0 0
Plumbing - Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7.1 Heating & Cooling
No costs anticipated
15 0 15 0 each 1,000.00 0 0
Mechanical - Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8.1 Electrical Service & Distribution
Install GFCI outlet at restroom, life/safety
0 1 each 100.00 100 100 100
Electrical - Subtotal 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

9.0 Vertical Transportation
There is no vertical transportation at the subject.
10 10 0 each 0 0 0
Vertical Transportation - Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10.3 Fire Sprinklers & Fire Extinguishers
Inspect fire extinguishers and update tags, life/safety 0 1 lump sum 500.00 500 500 500

10.3 Fire Sprinklers & Fire Extinguishers
Install spare sprinkler cabinet at main riser, life/safety 0 1 lump sum 50.00 50 50 50
Life Safety & Fire Protection - Subtotal 550 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 550

11.1 Common Areas Repair water damage at ceiling level 5 0 0 0 1 lump sum 5,000.00 5,000 5,000 5,000

11.2 Tenant Area Finishes No costs anticipated
10 0 10 lump sum 20,000.00
Interiors - Subtotal 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000

12.2 Exterior Path of Travel & Parking
Add standard ADA spaces and signage
0 3 each 500.00 1,500 1,500 1,500

12.2 Exterior Path of Travel & Parking
Provide eight van-accessible parking spaces and signage 0 8 each 500.00 4,000 4,000 4,000

12.2 Exterior Path of Travel & Parking
ADA study to determine if current parking levels with ADA parking fullfill ADA height requirements and design relocation of parking spaces if needed. 0 1 lump sum 1,500.00 1,500 1,500 1,500
Accessibility - Subtotal 7,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,000 Evaluation Period (years) 10 UNINFLATED TOTALS 23,150 763,165 823,165 763,165 763,165 213,000 0 0 0 0 0 3,348,810 Total SF: 839,000 UNINFLATED COST PER UNIT PER YR = $0.40 Inflation Rate: 3%
Inflation Factor 1.000 1.030 1.061 1.093 1.126 1.159 1.194 1.230 1.267 1.305 1.344 INFLATED TOTALS 23,150 786,060 873,296 833,931 858,949 246,925 0 0 0 0 0 3,622,311 INFLATED COST PER UNIT PER YR = $0.43

10.0 LIFE SAFETY & FIRE PROTECTION

11.0 INTERIORS

13.0 ACCESSIBILITY

OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS

3.0 SITE

4.0 STRUCTURAL

5.0 EXTERIOR ENVELOPE

6.0 PLUMBING

9.0 VERTICAL TRANSPORTATION

7.0 MECHANICAL

8.0 ELECTRICAL

Page 1 of 1 ends

Car Park #2 at Anaheim Convention Center
Anaheim, California
Michael Kreuzer Inspection and Due Diligence Services
January 2023
1 1. Building east elevation 2. Building west elevation

3. Drain 4. Ingress and egress with lift gates

5. Booth 6. Entrance apron
Car Park #2 at Anaheim Convention Center
Anaheim, California
Michael Kreuzer Inspection and Due Diligence Services
January 2023
2 7. Concrete paved drive and parking 8. Extensive cracks at level 2 Extensive cracks at level 3 9. Extensive cracks at level 4

10. Concrete curb 11. Concrete walkway
Car Park #2 at Anaheim Convention Center
Anaheim, California
Michael Kreuzer Inspection and Due Diligence Services
January 2023
3 12. Typical landscaping 13. Trees encroaching on building

14. Trees in contact with facade 15. Landscaping at planter on 5th level parking deck

16. Damaged planter at 5th level parking deck 17. Damaged planter wall with exposed rebar Car Park #2 at Anaheim Convention Center
Anaheim, California
Michael Kreuzer Inspection and Due Diligence Services
January 2023
4 18. Façade mounted signage 19. Ceiling mounted fluorescent light fixture

20. Pole-mounted light fixture 21. Open parking deck at 5th level with waterproof coating

22. Cracks visible under coating 23. Damage to waterproof coating at 5th level deck Car Park #2 at Anaheim Convention Center
Anaheim, California
Michael Kreuzer Inspection and Due Diligence Services
January 2023
5 24. Previous area of roof leaks on 4th level with repair evidence 25. Painted cast in place concrete exterior

26. Painted stucco exterior wall 27. Façade damage and bubbling paint

28. Peeling paint 29. Opening for pedestrian access
Car Park #2 at Anaheim Convention Center
Anaheim, California
Michael Kreuzer Inspection and Due Diligence Services
January 2023
6 30. Service door 31. Door at access to hotel

32. Entry door to office 33. Steel framed stairs

34. Stair landing 35. Concrete drive-up ramp
Car Park #2 at Anaheim Convention Center
Anaheim, California
Michael Kreuzer Inspection and Due Diligence Services
January 2023
7 36. Painted steel guardrails 37. Plumbing leaks at level 5

38. Plumbing fixtures in restroom 39. PTAC in office

40. Transformer 41. Main switchboard
Car Park #2 at Anaheim Convention Center
Anaheim, California
Michael Kreuzer Inspection and Due Diligence Services
January 2023
8 42. Breaker panel 43. GFCI missing in restroom

44. Ticket machines and lift gates 45. Security camera monitoring in office

46. Exit sign 47. Main riser
Car Park #2 at Anaheim Convention Center
Anaheim, California
Michael Kreuzer Inspection and Due Diligence Services
January 2023
9 48. Fire pump building 49. Fire extinguisher

50. Ceiling damage from plumbing leaks, level 5 51. Ceiling damage at level 5 from plumbing leaks

52. Carpet flooring at office 53. Painted drywall walls and ceiling at office Car Park #2 at Anaheim Convention Center
Anaheim, California
Michael Kreuzer Inspection and Due Diligence Services
January 2023
10 54. Employee break area at office 55. Tiled walls and acoustical tile ceiling at restroom

56. Restroom with lavatory and vanity cabinet 57. ADA parking

58. ADA path of travel 59. ADA access to hotel
National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette FEMA
0 250 500 1,000 1,500
Feet
2,000
Basemap: USGS National Map: Orthoimagery: Data refreshed October, 2020 Legend

SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT

SPECIAL FLOOD

HAZARD AREAS

OTHER AREAS OF

FLOOD HAZARD

OTHER AREAS
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A, V, A99
With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Regulatory Floodway

0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mile Zone x
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood Hazard zone x
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
Levee. See Notes. zone x
Area with Flood Risk due to Levee zone o
c:::::::J
NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X
Effective LOM Rs
Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone o
GENERAL Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
STRUCTURES I I I I I I I Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
OTHER

FEATURES

MAP PANELS
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance
Water Surface Elevation
a - - - Coastal Transect
-m- = Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Limit of Study
---Jurisdiction Boundary
Coastal Transect Baseline
Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
Digital Data Available [ N
[
rx
No Digital Data Available
Unmapped +
The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property location.

This map complies with FEM A's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.

The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 2/5/2023 at 3:37 PM and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or
become superseded by new data over time.

This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: base map imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for
regulatory purposes.
2/6/23, 2:24 PM
Property Info
Property Info - City of Anaheim Planning Dept.
�
Welcome
.
iillE3� . [ �
("��
nformation
_. � --· � I Clear Selection I
Parcel Number
13715105
Parcel Size

8.57 acres
Zoning
SP 92-2
Anaheim Resort s12ecific Plan
Development Area
PR District (SP92-2 DA2)
General Plan
Commercial Recreation
Land Use Permits (7) �
CUP2006-05067
request to allow a non-residential
condominium hotel for financing
purposes
CUP2130
Historical Permit RICl<Y' AVE
� m Historical Permit
Q.!.e1ill 3
_________ H_ist__ori_ca__lP__e_rm_it __ ... _
Demographic Information I �
https://gis.anaheim.neUPropertylnfo/index.html?APN=13715105

KATELLA AVE
search by address or 1
"'
0 al
c::
<(
::c
1/1

Uniform Abbreviated Checklist for the 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act Item Yes No N/A Comments
A. History

1. Has an ADA survey previously been completed for this property? 

2. Have any ADA improvements been made to the property since original construction?


3. Has building ownership/management reported any ADA complaints or litigation?  B. Parking

1. Does the required number of standard ADA-designated spaces appear to be provided?


2. Does the required number of van-accessible designated spaces appear to be provided?


3. Are accessible spaces part of the shortest accessible route to an accessible building entrance?


4. Is a sign with the International Symbol of Accessibility at the head of each space?


5. Does each accessible space have an adjacent access aisle? 

6. Do parking spaces and access aisles appear to be relatively level and without obstruction?

C. Exterior Accessible Route

1. Is an accessible route present from public transportation stops and municipal sidewalks on the property?


2. Are curb cut ramps present at transitions through curbs on an accessible route? 

3. Do the curb cut ramps appear to have the proper slope for all components? 

4. Do ramps on an accessible route appear to have a compliant slope? 

5. Do ramps on an accessible route appear to have a compliant length and width? 

6. Do ramps on an accessible route appear to have compliant end and intermediate landings?


7. Do ramps on an accessible route appear to have compliant handrails?  D. Building Entrances

1. Do a sufficient number of accessible entrances appear to be provided? 

2. If the main entrance is not accessible, is an alternate accessible entrance provided?


3. Is signage provided indicating the location of alternate accessible entrances? 

4. Do doors at accessible entrances appear to have compliant clear floor area on each side?


5. Do doors at accessible entrances appear to have compliant hardware? 

6. Do doors at accessible entrances appear to have a compliant clear opening width?


7. Do pairs of accessible entrance doors in series appear to have the minimum clear space between them?


8. Do thresholds at accessible entrances appear to have a compliant height?  E. Interior Accessible Routes and Amenities

1. Does an accessible route appear to connect with all public areas inside the building?


2. Do accessible routes appear free of obstructions and/or protruding objects? 

3. Do ramps on accessible routes appear to have a compliant slope? 

4. Do ramps on accessible routes appear to have a compliant length and width? 

5. Do ramps on accessible routes appear to have compliant end and intermediate landings?


6. Do ramps on accessible routes appear to have compliant handrails? 

7. Are adjoining public areas and areas of egress identified with accessible signage?


8. Do public transaction areas have an accessible, lowered counter section? 

9. Do public telephones appear mounted with an accessible height and location? 

10. Are publicly-accessible swimming pools equipped with an entrance lift?  Uniform Abbreviated Checklist for the 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act Item Yes No N/A Comments
F. Interior Doors

1. Do doors at interior accessible routes appear to have compliant clear floor area on each side?


2. Do doors at interior accessible routes appear to have compliant hardware? 

3. Do doors at interior accessible routes appear to have compliant opening force? 

4. Do doors at interior accessible routes appear to have a compliant clear opening width?

G. Elevators

1. Are hallway call buttons configured with the “UP” button above the “DOWN” button?
 No elevators

2. Is accessible floor identification signage present on the hoistway sidewalls? 

3. Do the elevators have audible and visual arrival indicators at the entrances? 

4. Do the elevator hoistway and car interior appear to have a minimum compliant clear floor area?


5. Do the elevator car doors have automatic re-opening devices to prevent closure on obstructions?


6. Do elevator car control buttons appear to be mounted at a compliant height? 

7. Are tactile and Braille characters mounted to the left of each elevator car control button?


8. Are audible and visual floor position indicators provided in the elevator car? 

9. Is the emergency call system at the base of the control panel and not require voice communication?

H. Toilet Rooms

1. Do publicly-accessible toilet rooms appear to have a minimum compliant floor area?
 No public restrooms

2. Does the lavatory appear to be mounted at a compliant height and with compliant knee area?


3. Does the lavatory faucet have compliant handles? 

4. Is the plumbing piping under lavatories configured to protect against contact? 

5. Are grab bars provided at compliant locations around the toilet? 

6. Do toilet stall doors appear to provide the minimum compliant clear width? 

7. Do toilet stalls appear to provide the minimum compliant clear floor area? 

8. Do urinals appear to be mounted at a compliant height and with compliant approach width?


9. Do accessories and mirrors appear to be mounted at a compliant height?  I. Hospitality Guestrooms

1. Does property management report the minimum required accessible guestrooms?


2. Does property management report the minimum required accessible guestrooms with roll-in showers?


GENERAL NOTES

GENERAL

1. PROJECT SYNOPSIS - THIS PROJECT REPLACES THE EXISTING POST TENSION SLAB STRENGTHENING BELOW THE LEVEL 3 WITH A STRUCTURAL STEEL SYSTEM OF WIDE FLANGE BEAMS. IT IS THE INTENT OF THIS PROJECT TO PROVIDE AN EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF STRENGTH AS THE EXISTING POST TENSION SYSTEMS WITH A LOWER MAINTENANCE SYSTEM THAT HAS A HIGHER PROFILE, REDUCING RISK OF VEHICLE COLLISIONS.

IT IS NOT THE INTENT OF THIS PROJECT TO INCREASE LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY OF THE STRUCTURE COMPARED TO THE CURRENT STRUCTURE.

2. WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 24, PART 2, VOLUME 2 OF 2 (INCLUDING ALL SUPPLEMENTS) AND ALL OTHER LOCAL OR STATE AGENCIES HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THIS PROJECT.

3. SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED ON THE DRAWINGS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. IF CLARIFICATION IS REQUIRED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.

4. DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWINGS. PRINTED DIMENSIONS HAVE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DRAWINGS AND LARGE SCALE OVER SMALL.

5. TYPICAL DETAILS SHALL APPLY IN GENERAL CONSTRUCTION UNLESS SPECIFICALLY DETAILED. WHERE NO DETAILS ARE GIVEN, CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE AS SHOWN FOR SIMILAR WORK.

6. SECTIONS AND DETAILS SPECIFY THE MAXIMUM SPACING PERMITTED BETWEEN DOWELS, REBAR, ANCHORS, BARS AND OTHER SIMILAR ITEMS. SPACING

BETWEEN ADJACENT DOWELS, REBAR, ANCHORS, BARS AND OTHER SIMILAR ITEMS SHALL BE REDUCED TO ACCOMMODATE EXISTING CONDITIONS SUCH AS EXISTING REBAR IN CONCRETE. MINIMUM SPACING SHALL BE 2/3 OF THE MAXIMUM SPACING CALLED OUT, BUT NOT LESS THAN 6 INCHES UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.

7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REVIEW AND COORDINATION OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, AND ANY OTHER PERTINENT DRAWINGS, PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. ANY CONFLICTS OR DISCREPANCIES THAT OCCUR SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AND ENGINEER OF RECORD PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION SO THAT A CLARIFICATION CAN BE ISSUED. ANY WORK

PERFORMED IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS OR ANY CODE REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE CORRECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT HIS OWN EXPENSE AND AT NO EXPENSE TO THE OWNER.

8. INFORMATION SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS RELATIVE TO EXISTING CONDITIONS IS GIVEN AS THE BEST PRESENT KNOWLEDGE FROM INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE OWNER, BUT WITHOUT GUARANTEE OF ACCURACY. WHERE ACTUAL CONDITIONS CONFLICT WITH DRAWINGS, THEY SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AND ENGINEER OF RECORD SO THAT PROPER CLARIFICATION MAY BE MADE. MODIFICATION OF DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.

9. RESPONSIBILITY
THE CONTRACTOR IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTION THIS PROJECT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. BEFORE

COMMENCING WITH CONSTUCTION AND FABRICATION DRAWINGS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY GOVERNING DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS, EXISTING CONDITIONS AT THE SITE, AND CONSTRUCTIBILITY OF THE PROJECT AS DEFINED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING:

I. THE SAFETY OF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND CONSTRUCTION PERSONNEL.

II. THE PROTECTION, PROPER HANDLING AND INSTALLATION OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS.

III. THE SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION (UNLESS SPECIFICALLY REFERENCED).

IV. THE MEANS, METHODS AND PROCEDURES EMPLOYED (UNLESS SPECIFICALLY SPECIFIED).

V. IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION (UNLESS SPECIFICALLY SPECIFIED).

VI. THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF ALL ITEMS USED IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE A PERMANENT PART THEREOF, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO HOISTING TOWERS.

VII.THE SCHEDULING OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.

VIII.THE SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION LOADS AND STORAGE AND TRANSPORT OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL ON THE PARTIALLY COMPLETED OR FULLY COMPLETED PROJECT.

IX. MAINTAINING THE STABILITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS.

X. PROTECTION AND REPAIR OF ADJACENT EXISTING SURFACES AND AREAS WHICH MAY BE DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF NEW WORK.

MATERIAL PROPERTIES

1. WELD ELECTRODE: E70XX, LOW HYDROGEN

2. NON-SHRINK GROUT: F'C = 4,000 PSI MIN. @ 28 DAYS
3 THREADED RODS: F1554 GRADE 55

NONSHRINK GROUT

1. GROUT SHALL BE PREMIXED, CEMENT BASED, NONSHRINK AND NONMETALLIC.

2. GROUT SHALL MEET REQUIREMENTS OF CRD C621 AND ASTM C1107, GRADES A, B & C.

3. GROUT SHALL HAVE CURRENT ICC RESEARCH REPORT. RESEARCH REPORT IS TO BE SENT TO ENGINEER OF RECORD FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES.

LEGEND 34

CAST-IN PLACE

CONCRETE

CONCRETE BLOCK
EARTH

NUMBER REFERENCE

SHEET REFERENCE

SECTION OR DETAIL

FULL HEIGHT SECTION

WALL ELEVATION

FINISH ELEVATION

SHEET REFERENCE

NUMBER REFERENCE

SHEET REFERENCE

NUMBER REFERENCE

ABBREVIATIONS
(E) - EXISTING
(N) - NEW
A.B. - ANCHOR BOLT
BLKG. - BLOCKING
BM. - BEAM
BOTT. - BOTTOM
BTWN. - BETWEEN
C.P. - COMPLETE PENETRATION
CLR. - CLEAR, CLEARANCE

CMU - CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT
COL. - COLUMN
CONC. - CONCRETE
CONN. - CONNECTION
CONT. - CONTINUOUS
DBL. - DOUBLE
DIAG. - DIAGONAL
DWG. - DRAWING
E.F. - EA. FACE
E.W. - EACH WAY
EA. - EACH
EMBED. - EMBEDMENT
EQ. - EQUAL
EXIST. - EXISTING
FLR. - FLOOR
FTG. - FOOTING
GA. - GAUGE

GLBM - GLULAM BEAM
FTG. - FOOTING

HSS - TUBE STEEL
HORIZ. - HORIZONTAL

LL - LIVE LOAD

LLH - LONG LEG HORIZONTAL

LLV - LONG LEG VERTICAL
LT.WT. - LIGHTWEIGHT
MAX. - MAXIMUM
MECH. - MECHANICAL
MIN. - MINIMUM

NS/FS - NEAR SIDE/FAR SIDE

NTS - NOT TO SCALE
O.C. - ON CENTER
O.H. - OPPOSITE HAND
OPN'G. - OPENING
OPP. - OPPOSITE
P.P. - PARTIAL PENETRATION
REINF. - REINFORCEMENT
REQ'D. - REQUIRED
SCHED. - SCHEDULE

SDL - SUPERIMPOSED DEAD LOAD
SHT'G. - SHEATHING
SIM. - SIMILAR
SPECS. - SPECIFICATIONS
SPCG. - SPACING
SQ. - SQUARE
STIFF. - STIFFENER
STL. - STEEL
STRUC. - STRUCTURAL
SYM. - SYMMETRICAL

T&B - TOP AND BOTTOM
THK. - THICK

TOC - TOP OF CONCRETE

TOF - TOP OF FOOTING

TOS - TOP OF STEEL
TYP. - TYPICAL
U.N.O. - UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE
VERT. - VERTICAL

W/ - WITH
W.P. - WORK POINT
WT. - WEIGHT

WWF - WELDED WIRE FABRIC
Ø - ROUND
~P - PLATE
~C - CENTERLINE
~< - ANGLE
# - POUNDS

STRUCTURAL OBSERVATIONS

1. VISUAL OBSERVATIONS OF STRUCTURAL WORK WILL BE PERFORMED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE OWNER’S REPRESENTATIVE AT SIGNIFICANT CONSTRUCTION MILESTONES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BUILDING CODE. VISUAL OBSERVATIONS ARE A SUBSTITUTE FOR SPECIAL INSPECTIONS.

2. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY AND

COORDINATE WITH THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AS TO WHEN EACH MAJOR

PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION WILL BE READY FOR OBSERVATION A MINIMUM OF FIVE (5) WORKING DAYS IN ADVANCE.

3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THAT ITEMS LISTED IN THE SCHEDULE ARE

VISIBLE FOR OBSERVATION WHEN THE SEOR IS ON SITE, PROVIDING ACCESS AND

FOR ANY SCHEDULING DELAYS DUE TO NONCOMPLIANT ITEMS FOUND DURING THE OBSERVATION.

4. AS MINIMUM, STRUCTURAL OBSERVATIONS WILL BE PERFORMED AT THE

FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION MILESTONES
STRUCTURAL OBSERVATIONS 2 1

1. STRUCTURAL AND MISCELLANEOUS STEEL SHALL BE ASTM A-992 OR ASTM A-572 GRADE 50. (UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, PLATES, ANGLE AND CHANNEL SHAPES SHALL BE ASTM A 36.) HOLLOW STRUCTURAL SECTIONS (HHS) SHALL ALSO SEE NOTE 8.

2. ALL MATERIAL, FABRICATION AND CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST A.I.S.C.

SPECIFICATIONS. THE FABRICATOR SHALL BE LICENSED BY AISC.

3. SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO FABRICATION

5. BOLTS SHALL BE HIGH STRENGTH BOLTS CONFORMING TO A.S.T.M. A-325 SLIP CRITICAL TYPE, (NOTED AS A325SC OR A325F) EXCEPT AS NOTED. ALL FAYING SURFACES SHALL COMPLY WITH CLASS A PER ASTM A-325 OR A-490 BOLTS. INSTALLATION OF HIGH STRENGTH BOLTS SHALL CONFORM TO "THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL JOINTS USING A.S.T.M. A-325 OR A-490 BOLTS", AND SHALL HAVE CONTINUOUS INSPECTION.

6. FILLET WELDS NOTED ARE FOR DESIGN LOADS. FOR WELDS TO HEAVIER SECTIONS USE PREHEAT OR INCREASE WELD SIZE PER AISC SPECIFICATIONS.

7. ALL GROOVE WELDS SHALL BE ULTRASONICALLY INSPECTED. MAGNETIC PARTICLE (OR DYE PENETRANT) 10% MIN. OF SHOP FILLET WELD AND PARTIAL PENETRATION WELDS. INSPECT 10% MIN. OF THE FABRICATION OF STRUCTURAL STEEL COMPONENTS. INCLUDE VISUAL INSPECTION OF COPES, ACCESS HOLES, BOLT HOLES ETC AND COMPLIANCE WITH APPROVED W.P.Ss.

STRUCTURAL STEEL & MISCELLANEOUS STEEL:

8. HSS & PIPE COLUMNS:

ALL MILL CERTIFICATES SHALL BE FULLY DOCUMENTED.

ALL SEAM WELDS OF HSS & PIPE COLUMNS SHALL BE INSPECTED.

ANY PIECES FOUND WITH CRACKS, SPLITS OR LACK OF FUSION SHALL BE REJECTED.

CONFORM TO ASTM A-500, GRADE B AND PIPE COLUMNS SHALL CONFORM TO A.S.T.M. A-53, GRADE B OR A.S.T.M. 501.

4. ALL WELDERS SHALL BE CERTIFIED BY THE GOVERNING JURISDICTION LICENSCES AND ALL SHALL HAVE IN HIS/HER POSSESSION AWSD1.1, DI.5 OR B2.1 (UNLIMITED THICKNESS, ALL POSITION QUALIFICATION'S). ALL WELDING SHALL HAVE CONTINUOUS ALL INSPECTION. WELDING SHALL CONFORM TO A.W.S. D.1.1.2010. SUBMIT WELDING PROCEDURE SPECIFICATIONS (W.P.S.) FORWELDS. ELECTRODES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM CHARPY VEE NOTCH TOUGHNESS OF 20 FT. LBS. AT O°F. DO NOT INTERMIX WELDS. ALL TACK WELDS AND TEMPORARY WELD SHALL BE PREHEATED PER AWS D1.1, 2010. W.P.S.s ARE REQUIRED

TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY AN AWS CERTIFIED SPECIAL INSPECTOR AND/OR LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA EMPLOYED BY THE QUALITY ASSURANCE AGENCY, PRIOR TO SUBMISSION FOR REVIEW BY THE ARCH.

AND SEOR. ALSO SEE NOTE 8.

9. DRILLED ANCHORS SHALL BE HILTI HIT-RE 500 V3 (ICC-ES ESR-3814) OR EQUAL

10. U.N.O. INSTALL DRILLED ANCHORS PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATIONS.

11. DRILLED ANCHORS SHALL BE INSTALLED UNDER CONTINUOUS INSPECTION BY INSPECTOR OF RECORD.

12. SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO FABRICATION.

ITEM OR CONSTRUCTION PHASE WHEN

PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING START OF CONSTRUCTION

REMOVAL OF POST TENSION SYSTEM AFTER FIRST SECTION IS REMOVED

INSTALLATION OF STRUCTURAL STEEL AFTER INITIAL SECTION OF STEEL INSTALLED

INSTALLATION OF STRUCTURAL STEEL NEAR COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION SEE SCHEDULE FOR MINIMUM HOLE DIAMETER

22.5°
(TYP)
FACE OF EXIST. CONCRETE
SEE SCHEDULE FOR MIN. HOLE DEPTH
ANCHOR

SLOPE HOLE WHERE INDICATED
NOTE: SURFACES TO RECEIVE

NEW CONCRETE TO

BE ROUGHENED PER
SPECIFICATIONS.

LOAD TEST:

1. THE FOLLOWING LOAD TESTING PROCEDURES APPLY TO EACH ANCHOR SIZE AND GROUT PRODUCT PLACED BY EACH INSTALLATION TEAM FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING INSTALLATIONS:
a.) VERTICAL SET OVERHEAD b.) VERTICAL SET DOWN c.) HORIZONTAL

2. PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK, PROOF TEST 3 ANCHORS TO A PROOF TEST LOAD OF 125% OF TABULATED TEST LOAD.

3. LOAD TEST INSTALLED ANCHORS AT A RATE OF 100% EXCEPT FOR THE 4 ANCHORS @ EA. CORNER OF THE (E) DROP PANEL (SEE 3/S3), THE RATE OF TESTING MAY BE REDUCED TO 10% SUBJECT TO NO FAILURES OCCURING AND APPROVAL BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER OF RECORD.

4. WHEN TEST LOAD IS NOT ACHIEVED, REPLACE THE DEFICIENT ANCHORS AND RETEST.

ASSOCIATED COSTS SHALL BE BORNE BY THE CONTRACTOR. BORNE BY TH CONTRACTOR.

5. WHERE EMBEDMENT NOTED ON SPECIFIC DETAILS IS LESS THAN EMBEDMENT NOTED ON THIS SCHEDULE, REDUCE TEST LOAD BY THE RATION OF THE EMBEDMENTS.

INSTALLATION NOTES:

2. FOR EPOXY GROUT, CLEAN HOLE THOROUGHLY BY VACUUM OR AIR PRESSURE, HOLE TO BE DRY BEFORE GROUTING. FOR CEMENT GROUT, CLEAN, AND PRE-WET HOLE 24 HOURS BEFORE GROUTING; REMOVE FREE WATER PRIOR TO GROUTING.

3. PLACE GROUT IN HOLE WITH CAULKING GUN OR SIMILAR EQUIPMENT.

APPROXIMATELY 2/3 FULL. STARTING AT BOTTOM, FILL HOLE.

4. INSERT DOWEL INTO HOLE FORCING MATERIAL AROUND SIDES OF BAR AND COMPLETELY FILLING VOIDS.

5. PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR ANCHOR UNTIL GROUT HAS CURED.

6. EPOXY GROUT: HIT- RE 500-V3 + HAS-V-36 ADHESIVE ANCHOR BY HILTI (ICC-ESR 3814) OR EQUAL.

7. ALL WORK SHALL BE INSTALLED UNDER CONTINUOUS INSPECTION BY INSPECTOR OF RECORD.

1. PROVIDE HOLE OF DEPTH AND DIAMETER AS SCHEDULED. AVOID ANY EXISTING REINFORCING STEEL BY RELOCATING HOLE SLIGHTLY. CONTRACTOR SHALL ALLOW FOR 5% REDRILLING. ABANDONED HOLES SHALL BE GROUTED. WHEN INSTALLING GROUTED ANCHOR INTO PRESTRESSED CONCRETE (PRE- OR POST-TENSIONED) LOCATE TENDONS BY NON-DESTRUCTIVE METHODS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. EXERCISE EXTREME CARE AND CAUTION TO AVOID DAMAGING THE TENDONS DURING INSTALLATION. MAINTAIN A MINIMUM CLEARANCE OF ONE INCH BETWEEN THE TENDON AND THE HOLE FOR THE GROUTED ANCHOR. COSTS TO REPAIR/REPLACE DAMAGED TENDONS WILL BE BORNE BY THE CONTRACTOR.

EPOXY GROUT

BAR SIZE,
ASTM A615
GRADE 60
MIN.

HOLE
DIAM
MIN.

DEPTH
TEST
LOAD

BAR SIZE,
ASTM A36
FULLY

THREADED
MIN.

HOLE
DIAM
MIN.

DEPTH
TEST
LOAD
#3 1/2 IN 6 IN 6.0 KIPS 1/2 IN 9/16 IN 6 IN 4.6 KIPS
#4 5/8 IN 8 IN 10.6 KIPS 5/8 IN 11/16 IN 8 IN 7.3 KIPS
#5 3/4 IN 10 IN 16.6 KIPS 3/4 IN 13/16 IN 10 IN 10.8 KIPS #6 1 IN 14 IN 23.8 KIPS 7/8 IN 15/16 IN 12 IN 15.0 KIPS #7 1 1/8 IN 16 IN 32.5 KIPS 1 IN 1 1/16 IN 14 IN 19.6 KIPS #8 1 1/4 IN 18 IN 42.4 KIPS 1 1/8 IN 1 3/16 IN 16 IN 24.7 KIPS #9 1 3/8 IN 21 IN 53.6 KIPS 1 1/4 IN 1 5/16 IN 18 IN 31.4 KIPS #10 1 1/2 IN 24 IN 66.2 KIPS - - - - #11 1 3/4 IN 28 IN 80.1 KIPS - - - - GROUTED ANCHOR DETAIL 5
REVISIONS:

SHEET NO.

SCALE:

DATE:

JOB NO.: SHEET TITLE:

DRAWN: JOB TITLE: JOB ADDRESS: BRANDOW & JOHNSTON STRUCTURAL+CIVIL ENGINEERS 700 S FLOWER ST #1800, LOS ANGELES, CA 90017 T: (213) 596-4500 EST. 1945 WWW.BJSCE.COM PRELIMINARY DRAWING 4-4-2023

AS NOTED
S20-0348
S.A. ANAHEIM CONVEVTION CENTER CAR PARK 2 POST-TENSION REPLACEMENT PROJECT BELOW LEVEL 3 Hotel Way Anaheim, CA 92802 REGISTEREDPROFESSIONALENGINEER STRUCTURA S L TATE OF CALIFORNIA DATE:

FOR BRANDOW & JOHNSTON JA
S4335
MES DALE N PEARSO GENERAL NOTES AND MISC. DETAILS
4/3/2023 G:\20\S20-0348 - ACC - CAR PARK 2, PT STRUCTURAL SURVEY\9 - CAD\CAD\_SHEETS\S1.0.DWG S1.0
[20'x6"x1/2"]
[4'x1"x1"]
(4)

CONSTRUCTION
JOINT
REINFORCE SLAB AT SHADED AREAS PER DETAILS ON S3
AFTER REMOVAL OF PT CABLES.

FOR PT CABLE REMOVAL, SEE DRAWING S2.3-PT
DESTRESSING SEQUENCE.

S33 TYP.

S3
17 TYP. @

CORNERS AND

INTERSECTING

CONDITIONS
S3
19 S3
19 SIM. THIRD FLOOR PLAN - BELOW DRIVE AISLES SLAB REINFORCEMENT 4/3/2023 G:\20\S20-0348 - ACC - CAR PARK 2, PT STRUCTURAL SURVEY\9 - CAD\CAD\_SHEETS\S2.3B.DWG S2.3B
REVISIONS:

SHEET NO.

SCALE:

DATE:

JOB NO.: SHEET TITLE:

DRAWN: JOB TITLE: JOB ADDRESS: BRANDOW & JOHNSTON STRUCTURAL+CIVIL ENGINEERS 700 S FLOWER ST #1800, LOS ANGELES, CA 90017 T: (213) 596-4500 EST. 1945 WWW.BJSCE.COM PRELIMINARY DRAWING 4-4-2023

AS NOTED
S20-0348
S.A. ANAHEIM CONVEVTION CENTER CAR PARK 2 POST-TENSION REPLACEMENT PROJECT BELOW LEVEL 3 Hotel Way Anaheim, CA 92802 REGISTEREDPROFESSIONALENGINEER SS TRUCTURAL TATE OF CALIFORNIA DATE:

FOR BRANDOW & JOHNSTON JA
S4335
MES

DALE N PEARSO
(E) PT
CABLES
(E) PT CABLES,
TYP
PT CABLE DESTRESSING SEQUENCE:

1. DO NOT ALLOW VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ON LEVEL 3 SLAB
WHILE DESTRESSING AND REMOVING THE CABLES.

2. DO NOT ALLOW VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ON LEVEL 3 SLAB
UNTILL STEEL REINFORCEMENT BELOW LEVEL 3 SLAB IS
COMPLETE.

3. DESTRESS EAST-WEST CABLES TO 75% OF CABLE
STRESS.

4. DESTRESS ALL NORTH-SOUTH CABLES TO 75% OF
CABLE STRESS.

5. DESTRESS EAST-WEST CABLES TO 50% OF CABLE
STRESS.

6. DESTRESS ALL NORTH-SOUTH CABLES TO 50% OF
CABLE STRESS.

7. DESTRESS EAST-WEST CABLES TO 25% OF CABLE
STRESS.

8. DESTRESS ALL NORTH-SOUTH CABLES TO 25% OF
CABLE STRESS.

9. DESTRESS EAST-WEST CABLES TO 0% OF CABLE
STRESS.

10. DESTRESS ALL NORTH-SOUTH CABLES TO 0% OF CABLE
STRESS.

REMOVAL OF STRUCTURAL STEEL HARDWARE:

1. FIELD VERIFY ACTUAL STRUCTURAL STEEL STANCHION,
BRACES AND PT LAYOUT.

2. REMOVE EXISTING STRUCTURAL STEEL STANCHIONS,
BRACES AND BRACKETS.

3. REMOVE OR CUT EXPANSION ANCHORS FLUSH WITH
SOFFIT.

4. PATCH SPALLS, EMPTY BOLT HOLES RELATED TO

REMOVED STRUCTURAL STEEL USING A STRUCTURAL
REPAIR MORTAR.

5. PAINT AS DIRECTED BY ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER
REPRESENTATIVE. THIRD FLOOR PLAN BELOW EXISTING PT CABLE REMOVAL 4/3/2023 G:\20\S20-0348 - ACC - CAR PARK 2, PT STRUCTURAL SURVEY\9 - CAD\CAD\_SHEETS\S2.3-PT THIRD FLOOR PLAN.DWG S2.3-PT
REVISIONS:

SHEET NO.

SCALE:

DATE:

JOB NO.: SHEET TITLE:

DRAWN: JOB TITLE: JOB ADDRESS: BRANDOW & JOHNSTON STRUCTURAL+CIVIL ENGINEERS 700 S FLOWER ST #1800, LOS ANGELES, CA 90017 T: (213) 596-4500 EST. 1945 WWW.BJSCE.COM PRELIMINARY DRAWING 4-4-2023

FOR BRANDOW & JOHNSTON JA
S4335
MES

DALE N PEARSO

TYPICAL SLAB JACKING/SUPPORT POINT
SCALE:
1 1/2"=1'-0" 5
12"x12"x1" PL
3/8" STIFF PL

EA SIDE
5/16
5/16
(4) 3/4" DIA ALL THREADED ROD
(2) 3/4" DIA
A325N BOLTS
W8x PER
PLAN
W8x PER
PLAN
1/4
1/4
REMAINING DETAILS SEE -10

SECTION
SCALE: TYPICAL BEAM ATTACHMENT POINT DETAIL 1 1/2"=1'-0" 10SCALE:
1 1/2"=1'-0" 15

PROVIDE HSS FILLER WHERE
REQUIRED TO MEET THE 3" MAX

GROUT THICKNESS
USE:

HSS 6x4x3/8x WIDTH OF PLATE
W8x PER
PLAN
1'-0"
PL TO
BEAM
WEB
3/4"x8" WIDE
PLATE
3/16
3/16
TYP
9" SQ BOLT
PATTERN 2"

STIFFENER

PLATES PER
-25
3" TO 8" MAX BETWEEN DROP PANEL

SOFFIT AT TOP PLATE
CASE 2
W8x PER
PLAN
(4) 3/4" DIA HILTI HIT-RE 500 V3 + HAS-V-36
(ICC-ES ESR-3814). TYP. PULL TEST
REQUIRED AT EA. ANCHOR.
1 1
2 " TYP.

NON-SHRINK GROUT

HIGH STRENGTH GROUT
12"x12"x1" PL 10" MIN, TYP. U.N.O.
5/16
5/16
TYP
3" MAX BETWEEN DROP PANEL

SOFFIT AT TOP PLATE
CASE 1 3" MIN 4" MAX
9" SQ BOLT

PATTERN
REFER TO CASE 1

FOR OTHER DETAILS
TYPICAL BEAM CONNECTION AND STIFFENER PLATE SCALE:
1 1/2"=1'-0" 25
W8x PER
PLAN
5/16
5/16
TYP
3/4" DIA A325N
BOLTS
3/8" FULL DEPTH STIFFENER

PLATE AND CONNECTION PLATE
1/4
TYP
3 3
TYP
*
SEE NOTES ON *
-3
3/8" STIFF PL

EA SIDE
1/4
1/4
EA. SIDE
20 GA ANGLE 4 SIDES.

TACK WELD TO STL. PL
-5
3/8" STIFF EA SIDE PL
@ OF ANCHORS

SEE FOR WELDS
CL

OVERHEAD PLAN
6'-6" EQ 6'-6" 3'-0" TYP
EQ

TYPICAL DRIVE AISLE BAY
SCALE:
1/2"=1'-0" 3 1'-0" TYP. W8x24 HIGH W8x24 HIGH
-4 1'-6" TYP.

W8x24 LOW
W8x24 HIGH
P4 Q4
26 25
-10
W8x24 HIGH
W8x24 LOW
TYP
TYP
-25

BEAM ATTACHMENT
POINTS, TYP 3'-0" TYP

SLAB SUPPORT

POINTS, TYP
4"
TYP.

CL 12"x6"x3/4" STEEL
TYP WHERE 2

GROUTED ANCHORS
OCCURS.
*
*
NOTES: REFERRING TO DETAIL

1. SNUG TIGHT ALL THREAD RODS TO UNDERSIDE OF PLATE.

2. INCREMENTALLY (4 STAGES MIN.) TIGHTEN UPPER NUTS @ ALL SIX JACKING/SUPPORT POINTS TO DEFLECT STEEL BEAMS TO PREDETERMINED DEFLECTIONS PROVIDED BY SEOR.

3. WELD ANCHOR RODS TO PLATE.
5 PL
-15 SIM.

EXCEPT

AS NOTED
SYMM
SCALE: ELEVATION 1"=1'-0" 4
LEVEL P3
W8x LOW PER PLAN
W8x HIGH BEYOND PER PLAN
-5 8" MAX
-15
-10
1'-6"
CL COLUMNS BEYOND 2 1/2" MIN 6" MAX

SLAB SUPPORT POINTS

SHOWN IN PLANS

BEAM ATTACHMENT

POINTS SHOWN IN
PLANS

DIMENSIONS AND TOP OF STEEL ELEVATION, HIGH AND LOW BEAMS

1. THE INTENT IS TO ESTABLISH ELEVATION OF HIGH AND LOW BEAMS

TO SUIT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, CONSIDERING VARIATIONS FROM TRUE SLAB AND DROP PANEL ELEVATIONS.

2. ADJUST TOS AS NEEDED, WITHIN THE MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM DIMENSIONS\SHOWN ON DETAILS.

3. PERFORM AND PLAN AN ELEVATION SURVEY SLAB AND DROP PANEL SOFFIT PRIOR TO FABRICATION. ACTUAL DIMENSIONS SHALL BE BASED ON THE SURVEY. 10" MIN. EMBEDMENT TYP. U.N.O. 8" EMBEDMENT 8" EMBEDMENT 2- 3/4" Ø GROUTED ANCHOR

PARTIAL PLAN
SCALE:
1/8"=1'-0" 17

PARTIAL PLAN
SCALE:
1/8"=1'-0" 19

FOR REMAINING DETAILS SEE
-3

FOR REMAINING DETAILS SEE
-3 W8x35 W8x35
T4 U4 V4
26 25

23.8 24
H6

14.3 G6

13.3 14
13 ALTERNATIVE SCHEME
4/3/2023 G:\20\S20-0348 - ACC - CAR PARK 2, PT STRUCTURAL SURVEY\9 - CAD\CAD\_SHEETS\S3.DWG S3
REVISIONS:

SHEET NO.

SCALE:

DATE:

JOB NO.: SHEET TITLE:

DRAWN: JOB TITLE: JOB ADDRESS: BRANDOW & JOHNSTON STRUCTURAL+CIVIL ENGINEERS 700 S FLOWER ST #1800, LOS ANGELES, CA 90017 T: (213) 596-4500 EST. 1945 WWW.BJSCE.COM PRELIMINARY DRAWING 4-4-2023

AS NOTED
S20-0348
S.A. ANAHEIM CONVEVTION CENTER CAR PARK 2 POST-TENSION REPLACEMENT PROJECT BELOW LEVEL 3 Hotel Way Anaheim, CA 92802
R

EGISTEREDPROFESSIONALENGINEER

STRUCTURA
S
L

TATE OF CALIFORNIA
DATE:

FOR BRANDOW & JOHNSTON
JA
S4335

MES DALE
N
PEARSO
History of Projects by Brandow & Johnston for Car Park 2 at the Anaheim Hilton/Convention Center
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com

STRUCTURAL
+ CIVIL

ENGINEERS
History of Projects by Brandow & Johnston for Car Park 2 at the Anaheim Hilton/Convention Center
The following is a list of significant projects since 1997 that Brandow & Johnston has completed for the Anaheim Convention Center related to Car Park 2. The projects include site visits, observation reports, analysis, repairs and structural evaluations. A copy of the deliverables is provided for these projects. This provides a consolidated summary for your records.

ACC Car Park 2 1
Document History of Known Structural Work
Table of Contents
Project #97196 – Anaheim Convention Center Car Park 2 Initial Survey and Observation • Periodic Observations / Site Visits
• Letters / Memos
• Reference Drawings
Project #97360 - Anaheim Convention Center Car Park 2 Removal of Potion of Slab • Drawings and Site Visit Notes
Project #98459 - Anaheim Convention Center Car Park 2 Inspection and Repair PT System
• Letters / Memos with Repair Drawings
Project #00351 – Anaheim Hilton Hotel & Towers Level P3 Strengthening • Level P3 Strengthening Drawing
Project #09053 – Anaheim Hilton Hotel Car Park 2 Remodel/Repairs • Letters / Memos with Repair Drawings & Calculations
Project #1310207 - Anaheim Hilton Hotel Car Park 2 Damaged PT Support Repairs • Letter / Memos
Project #1310361 - Anaheim Hilton Hotel & Car Park 2 Due Diligence & Seismic Analysis • Letters / Memos / Reports
Project #1410083 - Anaheim Hilton Hotel / Car Park 2 PT Cable Support Damage • Letters / Repair Drawings
Project #1710158 – ACC Car Park 2 Roof Repairs and Investigation of Cracks over PT Posts
• Letters / Repair Drawings
Project #S19-0059 – ACC Car Park 2 Damaged PT Cables
• Memo / Repair Drawings
ACC Car Park 2 2
Document History of Known Structural Work
Project #S20-0347 – ACC Car Park 2 Levels P3 & P4 Condition Assessment & Repair • Letter / Repair Drawings
Project #S20-0348 – ACC Car Park 2 Post Tension Survey
• Letter / Drawings
Project # S21-0237 – ACC Car Park 2 PT Post Damage
• Site Visit Report / Drawings
Project #S21-0254 – Hilton Hotel Car Park 2 Structural Evaluation Under Pool Area • Letter / Reference Drawings
Project #S21-0255 – ACC Car Park 2 Stair Repairs
• Repair Drawings & Photos
Project #S21-0414 – ACC Car Park 2 Column Damage on Level P2 • Damage Assessment Report
Project #S22-0131 – ACC Car Park 2 Post-Tension Cable Support Damage • Site Visit Report / Repair Drawings
Project # S20-0127 – ACC Car Park 2 PT Post Damage

PERIODIC OBSERVATIONS / SITE VISITS
Project:

Project #97196 – Anaheim Convention Center Car Park 2 Initial Survey and Observation

LETTERS / MEMOS
Project:

Project #97196 – Anaheim Convention Center Car Park 2 Initial Survey and Observation

August 25, 2016 B&J#97196
Mr. Brian Daniels
Anaheim Convention Center
800 West Katella Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92802
Subject: Seismic Retrofit Clarification: Slab Crack Lengths Anaheim Parking Structure Car Park 2
Dear Mr. Daniels:

This letter follows our site visit for Car Park 2, on 07/27/2016 to observe the concrete slabs to establish approximate estimates of cracks requiring repair, requested by your office.

Introduction
As you are aware Brandow and Johnston, Inc. has been monitoring the Car Park 2 portion of the building for several years. Our proposal dated April 25, 2016 provides a detailed scope of the work involved, including observation of existing cracks associated with a possible voluntary seismic retrofit. This follows our memo dated April 20, 2016 regarding Crack Repairs and Soil Testing. Included here are estimates of the length of cracks that should be repaired as part of the voluntary seismic retrofit. Also included is our estimate for crack repairs at the interior slab at Level 5, beyond that required for seismic strengthening, to address deterioration.

Our professional services have been performed with the intent to meet the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by reputable structural engineers practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice or opinions included in this report.

Observations resulting from our site visit on July 27, 2016 We conducted a site visit on July 27, 2016 (conducted by Norair Tcheurekjian and Jeff Lubberts) which was limited to representative areas as indicated in Table 1. The following are our observations:

1. Past epoxy injection was performed over much of the structure. It was observed, though, that at Level 5 (Parking Structure Roof) where exterior surfacing had not been applied, this past epoxy injection was not performed (part of Phase 2 of Car Park 2 Prioritization Drawings, not yet performed). As a result crack lengths were excessive in these areas. Although observation was limited at the exterior surfaces due to the presence of waterproofing, it appears that past epoxy injection was performed at the Level 5 exterior areas prior to application of exterior surfacing.

Crack lengths comparable with the remaining structure would be expected here.

Anaheim Convention Center August 25, 2016
Project: Anaheim Parking Structure Car Park 2 Page 2

2. Representative areas, including drive aisle and non-drive aisle, were observed at each floor of the structure for crack lengths. The areas observed were chosen from those identified in our Drawings dated 08/13/2015, representing specific areas to address integrity of the slab for seismic considerations.

3. Crack lengths recorded were only those observed to be greater than 0.030 inches in width per 9/S-1.0 of our Drawings dated 08/13/2015. Observation at the underside of the slab was limited due to past application of paint. The findings provided below are primarily determined from observation of the top side of concrete slabs.

4. Our findings, for potential areas for need of crack repair identified at specific areas according to the plans of our Preliminary DD Drawings (Partial Voluntary Seismic Upgrade) dated 08/13/2015, in linear feet (shown in full in Table 1) are as follows:

Crack Lengths for Voluntary Seismic Upgrade:
a. Typical values (compare with 9/S-1.0):
i. Typical (Levels 1,2,3,4): 16 ft / 1000 ft2
ii. Roof exterior (Level 5): 16 ft / 1000 ft2
iii. Roof interior (Level 5): 105 ft / 1000 ft2
b. Total crack length estimated per floor:
i. Level 1: 330 ft
ii. Level 2: 680 ft
iii. Level 3: 1020 ft
iv. Level 4: 1040 ft
v. Level 5 (Exterior): 450 ft
vi. Level 5 (Interior): 4110 ft
vii. TOTAL: 7630 ft
viii. Allow 10% increase for possibility of epoxy injection extending beyond estimated lengths: 8400 ft

5. Additional repair measures had been noted in Phase 2 of our Car Park 2 Prioritization Drawings provided to your office in 2012. This includes extensive cracking throughout the Level 5 interior slab. We estimate crack length repairs at Level 5 Interior to address deterioration for gravity only (excluding that noted above for seismic) to be 4400 ft (4840 ft with 10% increase for possibility of epoxy injection extending beyond estimated lengths).

6. From items 4 and 5, our estimated total crack length is 8400 ft + 4840 ft = 13240 ft.

Conclusions and Recommendations
It should be noted that the crack lengths provided above in point 4, from this limited survey, are for determination of crack lengths for voluntary seismic upgrade. The results provided here for seismic strengthening supersede those assumed previously in detail 9/S-1.0 of our Drawings dated 08/13/2015.

In order to maintain the integrity of the structure, we consider that the following steps/criteria should be adopted:

1. Voluntary seismic retrofit be performed per Drawings dated 08/13/2015.

2. Observation should be carried out regarding Phase 2 of the Car Park 2 Prioritization Drawings. The extensive cracks exceeding 0.030 inches throughout the top side of Level 5 interior slab should be epoxy injected within the next two years.

3. Continue the process of monitoring the structure on a bi-annual basis and repairing it as needed and/or further restricting access.

Should you have any questions or comments please contact the writers.

Sincerely,
BRANDOW & JOHNSTON, INC.

Jeff Lubberts, PE 81377 Norair Tcheurekjian, PE 59268
Project Engineer Project Engineer
Peter J. Maranian, SE 2720
Principal
G:\97\97196\DOC\LETTER\97196 2016-08-25 CAR PARK 2 - CRACK LENGTHS.DOC Anaheim Convention Center August 25, 2016
Project: Anaheim Parking Structure Car Park 2 Page 4

Photo 2. Typical cracks observed

Photo 3. Typical cracks observed
Anaheim Convention Center August 25, 2016
Project: Anaheim Parking Structure Car Park 2 Page 6

Photo 4. Cracks observed at Level 5 Interior
Table 1

MEMORANDUM
We refer to your email dated 4-18-2016 (attached for reference) regarding epoxy injection of cracks and soil and materials testing requirements, as well as recent discussions with our office.

Your email also included Slater Waterproofing Inc.’s letter dated October 5, 2015 for work shown on B&J’s drawings dated 8-13-2015 entitled, “Voluntary Seismic Upgrade”. These drawings, essentially at a Design Development Level, were provided for budgeting purposes.

Our responses to your email are as follows:

Inquiry 1: Epoxy Injection of Cracks
Slater’s estimate of 42,000 linear feet appears significantly excessive. Our drawings indicate specific “potential area(s) in need of crack repair” associated with the “Voluntary Seismic Upgrade”, with an engineer’s estimate of crack repair for pricing on the order of 9,000 linear feet.

As you are aware, repairs were carried out circa 2012. Cracks, repaired at that time, were selected based upon prioritization considering magnitude of the cracks and consequence of no repair (ref. B&J memo dated 11-26-2012). Our recent annual site visit, reported in our letter dated February 23, 2016, noted cracks and efflorescence at the 5th Level soffit. We also noted a spall at a guardrail post. These items were considered not of immediate concern. However, some repairs should be anticipated following the process of monitoring.

It is important to understand the following with regard to repair of cracks.

1. On-Going Maintenance
On-going maintenance following monitoring visits. As you are aware, the last significant maintenance including crack repairs were carried out circa 2012. As stated above, some repairs should be anticipated within the next two to three years or so.

2. Crack Repair as part of Voluntary Seismic Upgrade
The allowance for crack repairs (approximately 9,000 linear feet), shown on our drawings dated 8-13-2015 as stated above, was for specific areas to ensure integrity of the slab for seismic considerations.

JOB# 97196
DATE April 20, 2016
SUBJECT Anaheim Parking Structure – Car Park 2
Crack Repairs and Soil Testing
#PAGES 2
TO Brian Daniels (ACC)
FROM Peter Maranian, Josh Gebelein & Norair
Tcheurekjian
Anaheim Convention Center – Car Park 2 April 20, 2016
MEMO: Crack Repair & Soils Testing Page 2
Inquiry 2: Soils and Materials Testing Requirements
The soil testing information provided and the “Voluntary Seismic Upgrade” will be useful should we receive direction to proceed with the Construction Document Phase. Note, we were only authorized to work on the Design Development Phase.

However, AMEC, the Geotechnical Engineers for the project at the southwest corner of Katella Avenue and Hotel Way, will have to confirm in writing that their reports also apply to the Car Park 2/Hilton Hotel “Voluntary Seismic Upgrade” for the Construction Document Phase.

REFERENCE DRAWINGS
Project:

Project #97196 – Anaheim Convention Center Car Park 2 Initial Survey and Observation

DRAWINGS & SITE VISIT NOTES
Project:

Project #97360 - Anaheim Convention Center Car Park 2 Removal of Potion of Slab

LETTERS/MEMOS WITH REPAIR

DRAWINGS
Project:

Project #98459 - Anaheim Convention Center Car Park 2 Inspection and Repair PT System

LEVEL P3 STRENGTHENING DRAWING
Project:

Project #00351 – Anaheim Hilton Hotel & Towers Level P3 Strengthening

LETTERS/MEMOS WITH REPAIR

DRAWINGS AND CALCULATIONS
Project:

Project #09053 – Anaheim Hilton Hotel Car Park 2 Remodel/Repairs

January 15, 2013
Mr. Brian Daniels
Anaheim Convention Center
800 West Katella Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92802
Subject: Car Park 2 Repairs
Dear Mr. Daniels:

This letter follows completion of the repair work for Car Park II at the Anaheim Convention Center in Anaheim, California. It also follows the meeting and our site visit on January 10, 2012 at the above mentioned facility.

At the time of our site visit, the work has been completed. To the best of our knowledge, the work done by the contractor appears to be in accordance with the contract documents including latest amendments. Brandow & Johnston, Inc. (B&J) carried out several site visits during the course of the repairs. The revised criteria for the walls and the slabs are addressed in our memos dated November 6th and November 26th 2012 respectively. These documents are being used as basis of inspection along with the contract documents by the Deputy Inspector present on the site.

Following completion of the repairs, subject to constant monitoring including the pipe hangers by the facility and biannual inspections, in our opinion, the structure should be structurally adequate. Additional repairs may be found necessary following the biannual inspections.

As mentioned previously, the intent of the repair program is to address the areas of increased priority. Ongoing monitoring of the structure, which has taken place over many years, is recommended to continue indefinitely. Further repairs in the future may be required.

Also, as previously mentioned in our periodic site visit reports, we strongly recommend that an analysis and study of the structure should be conducted to obtain a greater understanding of the behavior of the structure. This will also help to better determine the anticipated performance of the structure and how best to address damage to the building.

Should you have any questions, please contact the writers.

Sincerely,
BRANDOW & JOHNSTON, INC.

Peter J. Maranian, SE Teodor Francu, PE
Principal Project Engineer
PJM/TF:ag
G:\09\0910053.101 - Car Park 2\Doc\Letter\0910053 2013-01-16 Repair Status.doc DRAFT
2013
G:\09\0910053.101 - Car Park 2\Doc\Memo\2013-09-06 MEMO seismic analysis proposal cost split.docx

MEMORANDUM
JOB# pending
DATE 09-06-13
SUBJECT Hilton Anaheim Hotel
Proposal for structural services
#PAGES 1
TO Jerome Annaloro
FROM Teo Francu; Peter Maranian
It was requested in our meeting on July 26, 2013 that the cost for the seismic analysis of the Hilton Hotel and the Parking Structure are split.

This memo follows recent correspondence between Jerome Annaloro (Hilton) and Peter Maranian (Brandow and Johnston) in regards to the Hilton Hotel/ Parking Structure Seismic Analysis proposal. Based on the information provided, our understanding is that the Hotel has a net total area of 1,489,000 square feet and its adjacent Parking Structure 882,258 square feet.

Please reference our fee proposal dated August 2, 2013. The following is the fee breakdown, as requested:
i) Hotel:
a. Seismic Analysis $37,800.00
b. Report & Preliminary Retrofit Option(s) $3,800.00
c. Site Visits $2,400.00
$44,000.00
ii) Parking Structure:
a. Seismic Analysis $22,200.00
b. Report & Preliminary Retrofit Option(s) $3,800.00
c. PT Evaluation $7,000.00
d. Site Visits $2,400.00
$35,400.00
TOTAL $79,400.00
We hope this provide the information you require at this time. Should you have any questions, please contact the writers.

TF/PJM
Cc: Tanya LaSoya; Brian Daniels
Connor Doss

MEMORANDUM
JOB# 0910053
DATE December 11, 2012
SUBJECT Car Park 2 Repairs
#PAGES 1
TO Brian Daniels
Anaheim Convention Center
FROM Peter Maranian/Teodor Francu
This memo is in regards to your email request that we provide a progress report for the ongoing construction at the Car Park 2, Anaheim Convention Center. It also follows the meeting and our site visit on December 10, 2012.

At the time of our site visit the repairs were being carried out at the 1st floor. Up to date, to the best of our knowledge, the work done by the contractor appears to be in accordance with the contract documents. The revised criteria for the walls and the slabs are addressed in our memos dated November 6th and November 26th 2012 respectively. These documents are being used as basis of inspection along with the contract documents by the Deputy Inspector present on the site.

Upon completion of the repairs identified in the construction documents and the amended prioritizations, the integrity of the structure should have been improved significantly along with its performance; subject to constant monitoring including the pipe hangers by the facility and biannual inspections, in our opinion, the facility should be structurally adequate. Additional repairs may be found necessary following the biannual inspections.

As mentioned previously, the intent of the repair program is to address the areas of increased priority. On going monitoring of the structure, which has taken place over many years, is recommended to continue indefinitely. Further repairs in the future may be required.

Should you have any questions please contact the writers.

TF/PJM
G:\09\0910053.101 - Car Park 2\Doc\Memo\0910053 2012-12-11 Memo Status.doc

MEMORANDUM
JOB# 0910053
DATE November 26, 2012
SUBJECT Car Park 2 Prioritization
#PAGES 1
TO Brian Daniels
Anaheim Convention Center
FROM Peter Maranian/Teodor Francu
This memo follows our recent conversation with Kelli Tunnicliff with regard to re-prioritizing repairs at Car Park 2 for the Anaheim Convention Center. It also updated our memo dated November 6, 2012 and is intended to control the construction costs.

We understand that the 3rd floor has been substantially completed along with entire height of North wall. We reviewed the feasibility of removing part of the repairs in an effort to maintain construction costs within the planned budget and the followings are our recommendations. The items in discussion in the order of their priority are the slabs, columns and walls. Also, for slabs, the priority should be the 5th floor followed by the 4th floor and so forth down to the 1st floor.

1. Epoxy injection at underside of concrete slabs:

Crack repairs for 0.030” and larger may be limited to within a 9 feet radius from the centerline of all columns. For slabs adjacent to walls, the above mentioned crack repairs may be limited to within 5 feet from the face of the wall.

2. Epoxy injection at top of concrete slabs:

Crack repairs for 0.030” and larger at the top of slab may be limited to within a 17’ x 17’ area centered on slab. See attached sketch for reference.

It is anticipated that this memo will be updated as the project progresses.

As mentioned previously, the intent of the repair program is to address the areas of increased priority. On going monitoring of the structure, which has taken place over many years, is recommended to continue indefinitely. Further repairs in the future may be required.

Should you have any questions please contact the writers.

TF/PJM
G:\09\0910053.101 - Car Park 2\Doc\Memo\0910053 2012-11-26 Re-Prioritize.doc

MEMORANDUM
JOB# 0910053
DATE November 06, 2012
SUBJECT Car Park 2 Prioritization
Site Visit – 10/29/2012
#PAGES 1
TO Brian Daniels
Anaheim Convention Center
FROM Peter Maranian/Teodor Francu
This memo is with regard to your request for us to re-prioritize the ongoing repairs at Car Park 2 for the Anaheim Convention Center. It also follows our site visit on October 29, 2012 at the above mentioned facility.

We reviewed the feasibility of removing part of the repairs in an effort to maintain construction costs within the planned budget and the followings are our recommendations:

1. Epoxy injection at concrete walls:

Plans 2.1A, 2.2A, 2.4A and 2.5A have been modified to reflect the omitted repairs identified with keynote P301. Provided that the entire North wall along gridline 28 has been epoxy injected, it is our opinion that the design intent of the repairs is not significantly affected by the above mentioned omissions. Please refer to the attached updated drawings.

2. Epoxy injection at underside of concrete slabs:

The possibility of reducing the amount of epoxy injections at the underside of the slabs has been discussed in the filed during our site visit on October 29, 2012. This repair is identified on our structural plans as P118. We recommend against omitting these repairs as they improve both the flexural and shear capacity of the slabs.

Periodic monitoring of the cracks identified for repairs should be performed to ensure that only the cracks 0.030” and larger in width are being injected.

As mentioned previously, the intent of the repair program is to address the areas of increased priority. On going monitoring of the structure, which has taken place over many years, is recommended to continue indefinitely. Further repairs in the future may be required.

Should you have any questions please contact the writers.

TF/PJM
G:\09\0910053.101 - Car Park 2\Doc\Memo\0910053 2012-11-06 Re-Prioritize.doc

MEMORANDUM
JOB# 0910053
DATE April 30, 2012
SUBJECT Car Park 2
Planters at fourth floor.
#PAGES 1
TO Brian Daniels
Anaheim Convention Center
FROM Teo Francu/Peter Maranian
This memo follows our visit on 4-26-12 primarily to assist with the prioritization of the repairs at Car Park2 of the Anaheim Convention Center in Anaheim, California. Our report, summarizing our recommendations, will be provided separately. However, we wish to advise you, based upon our structural observations on 4-26-12, of an area of concern at the 4th floor.

We noted on the south east corner of the 4th floor numerous planters stored on the cantilever portion of the slab, toward the exterior (adjacent to Hotel Way). The planters are filled with dirt which impose significant concentrated load to the slab causing visible deflection. Please refer to photos 1, 2 and 3.

Please refer to our memo dated March 03, 2009 regarding the loads imposed by planters. Also please note that based on the information provided by Marina Design Group, the planters should have been located along a column lines. In past structural observations we had seen them individually located near and adjacent to the exterior columns on the east side.

We recommend soil being removed from all planters and relocate between columns as indicated on the attached drawing.

Should you have any questions please contact the writer.

PJM:ag
G:\09\0910053.101 - Car Park 2\Doc\Memo\0910053 2012-04-30 CP2 4th floor planters.doc Anaheim Convention Center April 30, 2012
Car Park 2: Planters at fourth floor Page 2
Photo #1
Photo #2
Anaheim Convention Center April 30, 2012
Car Park 2: Planters at fourth floor Page 3
Photo #3

July 03, 2013 B&J#0910053
Mr. Brian Daniels
Anaheim Convention Center
800 West Katella Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92802
Subject: Site Visit – 05/02/2013
Anaheim Parking Structure Car Park 2
Dear Mr. Daniels:

This letter follows our periodic site visits for Car Park 2, dated 05/02/2013.

Introduction
As you are aware Brandow and Johnston, Inc. has been monitoring the Car Park 2 portion of the building for several years. Our last reports for the building were in our letters dated 01- 15-2013, 05-30-2012 and 12-16-2011. Our letter dated 01-15-2013 discussed the completion of the repair work for Car Park II.

Observations during our site visit on May 2, 2013.

We conducted a site visit on May 02, 2013 (conducted by Norair Tcheurekjian and Teodor Francu). Since our last visit on January 10, 2013 it appears that no visible signs of further deterioration are present. The followings are our observations, previously noted in our site visit reports:

1. Post Tensioned (PT) posts supporting the PT cables have plates at the underside of the slab connected with one bolt or two bolts on the same side of the plate. (e.g. between gridlines U and V, just south of gridline 22; between gridlines 25 and 26 at gridlines N and Q)

2. It was brought to our attention by Brian Daniels (ACC) that the elastomeric coating above the roof level has deteriorated in some areas.

Anaheim Convention Center July 03, 2013
Project: Anaheim Parking Structure Car Park 2 Page 2
Conclusions and Recommendations from May 2, 2013 Site Visit:

In order to maintain the integrity of the structure, we consider that the following steps/criteria should be adopted:

1. The plates supporting the Post Tensioned (PT) cables at the underside of the slab should have, at a minimum, two anchors (placed in diagonally opposite corners).

Please refer to item 8 of the attached report dated August 28, 2008 addressing the above mentioned PT plates.

2. We recommend further investigation is carried out by a specialized company to determine the cause and possible reduce its effect on the integrity of the elastomeric coating (waterproofing). We also recommend measures be taken to restore the waterproofing in the affected areas. Please note that waterproofing is not within the scope of our expertise.

3. Continue this process of monitoring the structure on a bi-annual basis and repairing it as needed and/or further restricting access.

4. We strongly recommend an analysis of the whole structure be carried out to assist with the above recommended on gong structural observations and repairs.

Should you have any questions or comments please contact the writer.

Sincerely,
BRANDOW & JOHNSTON, INC.

Peter J. Maranian, SE 2720
Principal
Teodor Francu, PE 75966
Project Engineer
G:\09\0910053.101 - CAR PARK 2\DOC\LETTER\0910053 2013-07-01 SITE VISIT 05-02-2013 CAR PARK 2.DOC cc: Tanya LaSoya

LETTERS/MEMOS
Project:

Project #1310207 - Anaheim Hilton Hotel Car Park 2 Damaged PT Support Repairs
June 10, 2013 B&J #1310207
Mr. Jerome Annaloro
Hilton Hotels Corporation
777 Convention Way
Anaheim, CA 92802
Ref.: Car Park 2 Damage at Post Tensioned Cable Support Dear Mr. Annaloro:

This letter follows the visit to the building by Teodor Francu on June 3, 2013 pertaining to the above property. It was then brought to our attention that one of the exterior Post Tensioned (PT) Cable supports, located at the second floor, has been damaged by vehicle impact.

We conducted neither structural analyses nor physical materials testing to confirm strength or quality of structural materials. These activities are outside the scope and your intent of this project. Although limited in scope, our evaluation and this report should be sufficient to provide the information you require and to determine direction for future evaluations, if appropriate.

Building Description:

The car park is part of a complex including the Anaheim Hilton Hotel. The building is approximately 600 feet by 640 feet. The car park, located on the north side of the hotel lobby, accommodates approximately half of the plan area of the lowest six floors of the building. Above the sixth floor, the building extends a further nine floors essentially containing the hotel suites.

The car park portion of the building typically consists of 4½ inch and 6 inch reinforced concrete flat slabs with thickened “drop” slabs at the columns. The lateral resisting system of the car park, up to the sixth floor, essentially comprises reinforced concrete shear walls.

Above the sixth floor, the lateral resisting system primarily consists of reinforced concrete moment frames.

As a result of the flat slab experiencing significant deflections in several areas, the structure, circa early 90’s, was strengthened in the aisle areas where frequent traffic occurs. The strengthening comprises external post-tensioning providing uplift at the center of the bay.

Observations and Findings:

During our site visit conducted on June 3, 2013 it was observed at the second floor that a Car Park 2 June 10, 2013
Damage at PT Support Page 2 of 5
support for the PT cables has sustained significant damage. Specifically, the stanchion located between gridlines Q4, R4 and 25, 26 has been completely detached from the slab above and it is currently held up by the post tensioned cables. Significant concrete spall was observed where the anchor connecting the PT support plate to the slab above has pulled out (see photos 1, 2, 3 and 4). Furthermore, the adjacent PT support to the west has shifted, shearing off the anchor that was connecting the support plate to the slab above (see photo 5). The PT cables, extending north-south over the above mentioned, shifted at their support and appear to have been displaced as well (see photo 6). It is possible that the PT cables may have been compromised.

Recommendations:

As requested, we are to provide structural repair drawings to address the issues described above under “Observations and Findings”. We will incorporate the following recommended measures on our drawings:

1. Shore areas affected as required to allow for step 2 below;

2. De-stress the affected cables;

3. Repair concrete spalls as required;

4. Fabricate/install new PT support to replace the affected ones;

5. Install at a minimum two anchors per PT connection plate at diagonally opposite corners throughout.

6. Replace affected PT cables and stress. Please see statement above regarding PT cables possibly being compromised.

7. Remove shoring.

It is our opinion that once the above steps are followed, the previous state of the affected areas will be restored.

We understand we are directed to provide drawing(s) for the remedial work.

We hope this provides the information you require at this time. Should you have any questions, please contact the writers.

Sincerely,
BRANDOW AND JOHNSTON, INC.

Teodor Francu, PE 75966
Project Engineer
Peter J. Maranian, SE 2720
Principal
G:\13\1310207 - Anaheim Hilton Damage to PT support\Doc\letter\2013-06-10 Anaheim Hilton damage to PT support LTR JA.doc 06-10-2013
Car Park 2 June 10, 2013
Damage at PT Support Page 3 of 5
Photo 1
Photo 2
Car Park 2 June 10, 2013
Damage at PT Support Page 4 of 5
Photo 3
Photo 4
Car Park 2 June 10, 2013
Damage at PT Support Page 5 of 5
Photo 5
Photo 6
G:\13\1310207 - Anaheim Hilton Damage to PT support\Doc\memo\2013-06-21 MEM PT at Hilton Hotel Parking.doc

MEMORANDUM
JOB# 1310207
DATE 06-21-2013
SUBJECT Anaheim Hilton Parking Structure
PT Damage
#PAGES 1
TO Rick Hillman (Synergetics Construction)
FROM Teo Francu / Peter Maranian
This memo follows your inquiry regarding the repair drawings for Anaheim Hilton Parking Structure, Post Tensioned support system. Specifically, the inquiry is about the stressing requirements.

As noted in the contract documents detail 2 on sheet S1.0, all strands shall be jacked to a maximum stress of 216 KSI which translates into 33Kips per ½” diameter strand. The strands shall be anchored at a maximum stress of 189 KSI which in turn translates to 29Kips per ½” diameter strand.

We hope this provides the information you require at this time.

Should you have any questions, please contact the writers.

TF/PJM
G:\13\1310207 - Anaheim Hilton Damage to PT support\Doc\memo\2013-07-16 MEM PT at Hilton Hotel Parking.doc

MEMORANDUM
JOB# 1310207
DATE 07-16-2013
SUBJECT Anaheim Hilton Parking Structure
Responses to comments
#PAGES 1
TO Giovanni Padilla (Synergetics)
FROM Teo Francu / Peter Maranian
This memo follows our site visit on July 15, 2013 and recent correspondence between Synergetics and Brandow and Johnston. Specifically, it follows the procedure sent on July 13, 2013 and July 16, 2013, both by All Star Post Tension. The memo addresses the procedure to be followed in carrying out the repairs at the Post Tensioned system due to impact damage.

Our recommended procedure is as follows:

1. Please provide the dimensions marked with (*) on the attached CSK-1 sketch.

2. De-stress to 5kips per cable the transverse bundle running north to south at gridline Q, between gridlines 25 and 26 as identified on the attached CSK-2 sketch.

3. De-stress the longitudinal cable running east-west between gridlines 25 and 26.

4. De-stress the three transverse cables at column lines M, P and R, as identified on the attached CSK-2 sketch.

5. Remove posts at the three column lines from item 2 above as required to remediate concrete spalls and anchorage.

6. Repair spalls at the posts from item 3 above.

7. Install minimum two anchors, in diagonally opposite corners for the posts from item 3 above.

8. Stress the transverse cables removed per item 2 above to 5kips per cable.

9. Site visit and report from B&J to follow on Wednesday, July 17, 2013 for further actions required.

Should you have any questions, please contact the writers.

TF/PJM

G:\13\1310207 - Anaheim Hilton Damage to PT support\Doc\memo\2013-07-24 MEM PT at Hilton Hotel Parking.doc

MEMORANDUM
JOB# 1310207
DATE 07-26-2013
SUBJECT Anaheim Hilton Parking Structure
PT repair at second floor
#PAGES 2
TO Jerome Annaloro (Hilton)
FROM Teo Francu / Peter Maranian
This memo follows completion of repairs carried out for the second floor Post Tensioned system of Anaheim Hilton Parking Structure in Anaheim, California. It is intended to memorialize the design approach and the procedure utilized for construction. The work has been carried out between July 12, 2013 and July 18, 2013 by Synergetics Construction Inc.

Brandow and Johnston (B&J) carried out site visits during and after completion of construction on July 16, 17 and 18, respectively.

Introduction:

We have been requested to provide structural services in regards to the Post Tensioned (PT) System at Anaheim Hilton Parking Structure located at 777 W. Convention Way in Anaheim, California. Specifically, one of the posts supporting the PT cables has been damaged and the PT system running east west between gridline 25 and 26 appears to have been compromised. B&J carried out a site visit to assess the site conditions and provided repair drawings, subsequently approved by the City of Anaheim.

Synergetics Construction, Inc. carried out the repairs per the procedure outlined in our memos dated July 16 and July 17.

Design approach:

The PT system at the above mentioned facility has been added in early 1990s to overcome excessive deflection in the cast in place concrete slabs. Particularly, the cables have been installed in the driving isles over a series of steel posts and anchored in the columns or concrete beams/slab at their ends. There are cables running along the driving isles and cable running in the adjacent direction, between columns.

Existing drawings for the added PT system have not been made available to us. The PT system appears to have been added to balance only a percentage of the concrete mass, hence our design approach to stress at 5kips the longitudinal cables and 14kips the transverse cables (driving isles and in between columns, respectively).

Anaheim Hilton July 26, 2013
Project: Anaheim Hilton Parking Structure PT Repair Page 2 Procedure:

Our recommended procedure, outlined in our memos dated 7-16-2013 and 7-17-2013, is as follows:
1) De-stress to 5kips per cable the transverse bundle running north to south at gridline Q, between gridlines 25 and 26 as identified on the attached CSK-2 sketch. 2) De-stress the longitudinal cable running east-west between gridlines 25 and 26. 3) De-stress the three transverse cables at column lines M, P and R, as identified on the attached CSK-2 sketch.
4) Remove posts at the three column lines from item 2 above as required to remediate concrete spalls and anchorage.
5) Repair spalls at the posts from item 2 above.
6) Install minimum two anchors, in diagonally opposite corners for the posts from item 2 above.
7) Stress the transverse cables removed per item 2 above to 5kips per cable. 8) Stress cables lines M, P and R to 5 kips each. Verify cables line Q are stressed to 5 kips each.
9) Stress longitudinal (east west) cables between lines 25 and 26 to 3kips each at two stress blocks located between grids I and J. Stress two cables simultaneously at a time to avoid eccentric forces on the post.
10) Stress longitudinal (east west) cables to 3kips each at two stress blocks located either side of grid line R.
11) Stress cables lines M, P, Q and R to 10 kips each.
12) Repeat item 11 to 5 kips each cable.
13) Repeat item 12 to 5 kips each cable.
14) Stress cables lines M, P, Q and R to 14kips each.

Conclusions:

Should you have any questions, please contact the writers.

Cc: Jerome Annaloro
Connor Doss
TF/PJM

LETTERS/MEMOS/REPORTS
Project:

Project #1310361 - Anaheim Hilton Hotel & Car Park 2 Due Diligence & Seismic Analysis
June 03, 2014 B&J #1310361
Mr. Connor Doss
Property Operations Manager
Hilton Anaheim
777 Convention Way
Anaheim, CA 92802
Ref.: Due Diligence Report/ Seismic Evaluation
Anaheim Hilton Hotel
777 Convention Way
Anaheim, CA 92802
Dear Mr. Doss:

This letter follows your request to structurally evaluate the building located at 777 Convention Way in Anaheim, California. Specifically, we have been requested to analyze the Anaheim Hilton Hotel and the Parking Structure to determine possible deficiencies and provide preliminary recommendations to mitigate them.

Original structural drawings have been made available to us for our analysis.

Synopsis:

A. Building Description
Based upon the original structural drawings provided to us and dated circa 1983, the existing structure is fifteen story high with a basement level. The existing building comprises reinforced concrete flat slab construction with thickened “drop” slabs at the DRAFT Anaheim Hilton and Parking Structure June 3, 2014
Seismic Analysis Page 2 of 9
columns. The lateral force resisting system comprises reinforced concrete shear walls and moment frames at the upper levels. The foundations consist of pile caps and piles.

The 600 feet by 640 feet Car Park, located on the north side of the hotel lobby, accommodates approximately one half of the plan area of the lowest six floors of the building. It typically consists of 4½ inch and 6 inch reinforced concrete flat slabs with thickened “drop” slabs at the columns. The lateral force resisting system of the car park, up to the sixth floor, essentially comprises reinforced concrete shear walls.

Above the sixth floor, the Hotel Tower extends a further nine floors essentially containing the hotel suites. The hotel comprises one long wing extending east-west approximately 600 feet in plan with 2 perpendicular wings to the north (approximately 200 feet in plan) and one perpendicular wing to the south (approximately 200 feet in plan). The width of the wings is approximately 60 feet in plan. The main structure typically consists of 4 ½ and 5½ inch reinforced concrete flat slabs with thickened “drop” slabs at the column.

The lateral force resisting system comprises concrete moment frames.

In between the Hotel Towers, at the 6th and 7th floors, a light gage metal structure has been added at the same time with the original construction of the main building. This structure is commonly referred to as the “Lanai Rooms”. This is separated from the Hotel Tower with 1 inch expansion joint.

The Kitchen Bar –same provisions as the Lanai Rooms.

As a result of the flat slab experiencing significant deflections in several areas of the parking structure, the structure was strengthened circa 1990 in the aisle areas where frequent traffic occurs. The strengthening consists of external pre-stressing (PT).

The PT system comprises ½” diameter steel cables extending over steel posts (HSS section) installed half way between the columns in the slab soffit. There are also cables perpendicular to the driving aisles, aligned with the column lines.

Essentially, the system provides uplift at the center of the bay in an effort to overcome the excessive deflection caused by the self-weight of the structure.

The posts are attached to the concrete slab soffit with mechanical anchors to prevent rotation. Previous recommendations included installing at a minimum two anchors at diagonally opposite corners. Polyethylene sheathing protects the steel cables against corrosion.

The driving aisle cables are anchored into the edge beam at the east side of the structure and into the thickened slab at the west side. Cables are also anchored to the columns or walls, depending upon their location.

Concrete “delayed” pour strips were provided during construction approximately 2’-6” wide for both the Hotel Towers and the Parking Structure. No seismic/ expansion joints are provided for the Hotel Tower nor for the Parking Structure.

B. Structural Observations/ Historical Discussions
As you are aware, B&J has been monitoring the Car Park portion of the building for several years since approximately 1997. This followed excessive deflections being found at the floor slabs primarily due to the use of thin slabs. Repairs, mostly involving epoxy injection, repair of spalls, etc., were carried out on the Parking Structure circa 1998, 2007 and 2012. We were also involved with the Pool Renovation project for the Hotel and repairs at the fifth floor ceiling circa 2012. To the best of our knowledge, the repairs Anaheim Hilton and Parking Structure June 3, 2014
Seismic Analysis Page 3 of 9
indicated on our drawings have been carried out for both parts of the building.

B&J also carried out a structural observation following the July 29, 2008 Chino Hills Earthquake. Minimal damage was noted including cracks at the columns, shear walls, slab soffit and edge of slab along with cracks in drywall and stucco walls.

The followings are synopses from our previous reports sent over the past 27 years following our observations and work carried out at the facility.  Waterproofing restoration recommended at the fifth floor to mitigate corrosion and efflorescence in the slab. Deflection in the parking structure slabs have been recorded for monitoring purposes. B&J report dated June 23, 1997.  Missing anchors at the external PT posts at parking structure. B&J report dated July 1, 1998.
 Deterioration of slab at pipe penetrations at the fifth floor. B&J report dated July 1, 1998.
 Slab rebar corrosion at the parking structure. B&J report dated June 16, 2000.  Excessive deflections at the hotel corridors at the 6th through 15 floors (up to 4 inches). B&J report dated December 10, 2012.
 Repairs carried out at the parking structure (epoxy injections for slabs and walls, column, etc) in 2012.
 Repairs to PT anchors damaged by vehicular impact in June 2013.  The addition of tie-back anchors at the roof circa 2013.

Based upon our experience with the building and numerous site visits including structural observations carried out on March 18, 2014 and March 31, 2014, the following are our observations:

B1. Roof:
(i) No significant equipment is located on the roof of the structure with the exception of the 5th floor east, where the cooling tower is located. (ii) The waterproofing appears to be in good condition.

B2. Levels 6 thru 15:
(i) Significant sag up to 4 inches in the floor slabs has been noted. To the best of our knowledge, the slabs at these levels have not been investigated for deterioration.
(ii) Damage at the seismic separation between the Lanai Rooms and the towers has been noted following recent earthquake activity. This includes spall of concrete underneath the carpet at the joint between the east-west and north-south wings.
(iii) Nonstructural cracks have been noted in the gypboard ceilings at the location indicated under item (ii) above. These are associated with recent earthquake activity.

Anaheim Hilton and Parking Structure June 3, 2014
Seismic Analysis Page 4 of 9
B3. 5th floor:
(i) At the east side of the 5th floor of the parking structure roof, there is a cooling tower assembly.
(ii) Significant number of pipes penetrating the ceiling above this level has been observed which appear to have caused concrete deterioration and/ or rebar corrosion throughout the years. Repairs have been carried out to minimize the effects of water leaks. This includes the pool area. (iii) No PT was added at the 5th floor driving aisles.
(iv) Cracks in the slab throughout the floor. Significant cracks have already been epoxy injected.

B4. 4th floor:
(i) Deterioration of concrete in the vicinity of the cooling tower above has been noted. Severe spall and efflorescence has been observed at this area. No repairs have been carried out.
(ii) No PT was added at the 4th floor.
(iii) Cracks in the slab throughout the floor. Significant cracks have already been epoxy injected.

B5. 3rd, 2nd and 1st Floors:
(i) Exterior PT system is present at the driving aisles at these levels. (ii) Cracks in the slab throughout the floor. Significant cracks have already been epoxy injected.

B6. Thermal, shrinkage and creep

Primarily due to the structure not having any expansion/seismic joints, some of the cracking/spalling of the structure, particularly at the parking levels, has been due to significant restraint afforded by stiff elements such as the concrete shear walls.

C. Analysis:

The standard used for our analysis of the structure is Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings SEI31-03 (ASCE31-03). This was published by the American Society of Civil Engineers with the intent to provide a standard to seismic evaluate existing buildings.

A structural analysis for the Building was performed for the Life Safety Performance Level, as defined by the ASCE31-03:
- Life Safety: Building performance that includes damage to both structural and Anaheim Hilton and Parking Structure June 3, 2014
Seismic Analysis Page 5 of 9
nonstructural components during a design earthquake, such that: (a) partial or total structural collapse does not occur, and (b) damage to nonstructural components is non-life-threatening.

A non-structural evaluation was not included in the scope for this analysis nor was there enough information provided. Miscellaneous signs, appendages, curtain wall, etc. may be deficient and pose a falling hazard threat. There is no information on the drawings provided with respect to the attachment used to the structure. Furthermore, the Building Code changed significantly since the original design of the building making most of the current attachments likely to be non-compliant.

The evaluation entailed two checklists identified by ASCE31-03 as Tier1 and Tier2 checklists. We carried out the requirements for Tier1 to identify deficiencies and subsequently carried out Tier2 to identify the deficiencies that require mitigation.

B&J have carried out an analysis of the building utilizing the ETABS finite element method computer program by Computers and Structures, Inc (CSI) of Berkeley to study the interaction between critical elements and further analyze possible deficiencies. A linear dynamic analysis has been run utilizing the ASCE31-03 response spectra.

The seismic demand is based on the 2008 USGS seismic maps. 75%of the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) spectral response acceleration values as specified in the ASCE31-03 has been the basis of our evaluation. The level of seismicity is based upon the site specific spectral response acceleration and has been determined in conformance with the current Standard requirements.

Elements/ components investigated include the following:
- Concrete moment frames;
- Concrete shear walls;
- Diaphragm and collectors (shear transfer)
- Concrete slab and beam subjected to earthquake movements; - Columns
- Piles and pile caps

D. Findings:

The upper structure moment frame system is flexible compared to the much stiffer system used at the lower levels (1 thru 5) for the Parking Structure.

Items found to be deficient include the following:

Foundation:

D1. Foundation soil bearing capacity could not be established due to lack of information on the soil condition. We suspect the piles are deficient in locations where there are large overturning forces from shear walls or moment frames.

Anaheim Hilton and Parking Structure June 3, 2014
Seismic Analysis Page 6 of 9
Shear walls in the Parking Structure:

D2. Shear wall edge reinforcing (jamb bars/ dowels at footings) are not adequate at several locations. The reinforcing bars used for the dowels are Grade 40 which affects their capacity in transferring forces to the foundation.

Parking Structure Slabs:

D3. Due to lack of reinforcing, the flat slabs are inadequate to transfer seismic forces (drags and chords). This is accentuated by significant deflections of the concrete slabs. Applicable to floors 1 thru 5.

D4. Lack of reinforcing in the slabs at large openings (i.e. loading dock area).

Applicable to floors 1 thru 5.

Upper Structure - Hotel:

D5. The lateral force resisting system for the two story “Lanai Rooms” above the 6th floor is not adequate for the seismic demands loads (steel straps over metal studs).

D6. The connection of “Lanai rooms” lateral force resisting system to the 6th floor is not adequate.

D7. The 6th floor flat slab is not adequate for overturning demands from “Lanai rooms” lateral force resisting system.

D8. Connection of the “Lanai Room” braces at the 7
th floor level is deficient
(insufficient capacity at the anchor rods).

D9. Seismic separations (i.e. Lanai Rooms separation from towers) are inadequate.

D10. Gravity columns are not adequate for axial loads combined with moments that result from seismic displacements.

D11 Moment Frames are not adequate for the design loads (insufficient stirrups in beams 15’ and shorter).

D12. Based on available information the load transfer from the floor slabs to the interior columns of the Hotel Tower is deficient. Concerns are inadequate reinforcing in bottom of drop panels and marginal punching shear capacity.

Given the size of the structure, the lack of expansion/ seismic joints favors significant restraint occur due to thermal changes, particularly at the parking structure levels.

It is not clear, from the information provided how the curtain wall is attached to the structure. If deficient, in a seismic event this may become a falling hazard issue.

A non-linear analysis may yield less demand but involves extensive effort on the design Anaheim Hilton and Parking Structure June 3, 2014
Seismic Analysis Page 7 of 9
part.

E. Preliminary Summary and Recommendations
Summary of Observations
Considering the age of the building, the structural components of the building appear to be generally in good condition except for the deterioration throughout of the flat slabs.

Small to moderate signs of damage from past earthquakes are visible and have been observed throughout the years (i.e. cracking at Lanai Rooms separation). However, it should be recognized that the seismic events the building has been subjected to during its life, may be regarded as moderate events. The building should be considered as generally lacking ductility and thus vulnerable to significant damage. Damage during a major seismic event may include cracking of walls, beams, columns and slabs or partial collapse.

Recommendations are as follows:

E1. We recommend obtaining a soils report to further investigate the adequacy of the foundation system in its interaction with the soil.

E2. We recommend material testing be carried out to determine as-built condition of the shear wall jambs (dowels to footings).

E3. The lack of drag and chord reinforcing can be mitigated by introducing steel straps (plates and angles) to adequately transfer forces between seismic force resisting elements. Alternatively reinforced shotcrete sections may be added to mitigate the issue.

E4. Openings in the concrete slabs can be addressed by adding steel straps at their edges. Refer to E3 above for alternative.

E5. The lateral force resisting system for the “Lanai Rooms” may be improved by adding straps on the opposite face of the wall (facing the existing steel straps).

E6. We recommend strengthening connections of “Lanai rooms” braced frames to the 6 th Floor by adding additional anchors.

E7. To more accurately assess the 6th floor flat slabs supporting the “Lanai Rooms” we recommend the following surveys:
a. Verify concrete and reinforcing strength of 6th Floor slab via a materials testing program.
b. Inspect representative sample of slab-column joints to establish typical crack patterns and extent and evaluate impact slab capacity. This entails removal of architectural finishes to expose the structural members.

If an evaluation based on the above surveys indicates 6th Floor flat slabs are inadequate most likely need enhancements include adding Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) strengthening to slab to address flexural issues and adding steel or Anaheim Hilton and Parking Structure June 3, 2014
Seismic Analysis Page 8 of 9
concrete shear heads to address shear issues.

E8. The Connection at the 7th floor braces for the “Lanai Rooms” can be improved by adding straps at the exterior of the structure. Alternatively, internal holdowns may be used.

E9. Damage between structures can be addressed by allowing for adequate seismic separations in conformance with the analysis results.

E10. Fiber reinforced Polymer to improve the performance of the gravity columns.

E11. Recommend fiber wrap around plastic hinge zone to strengthen the frame beam.

E12. In the Hotel Tower the slab-column joints have to transfer vertical loads while tolerating seismic displacements of the tower. These displacements generate frame action moments in slabs and columns resulting in moment reversal and increased punching shear demands. Based upon information on the drawings provided, it cannot be confirmed that there is sufficient reinforcing in the bottom of the drop panel to resist moment reversal demands.

Given the vertical deflections observed in the Hotel Tower corridors cracking patterns similar to that found in parking levels are anticipated. The concern is that excessive cracking will reduce the punching shear capacity which is already marginal per our evaluation which assumes reasonably monolithic concrete.

To more accurately assess the slab-column joints we recommend the following surveys:
a. Verify concrete and reinforcing strength of floor slabs via a materials testing program.
b. Inspect representative sample of slab-column joints to establish typical crack patterns and extent and evaluate impact on punching shear. This entails removal of architectural finishes to expose the structural members. c. Determine extent of reinforcing at the bottom of drop panels and portion of bottom reinforcing extending through column using a combination of nondestructive and destructive methods.

If an evaluation based on the above surveys indicates slab-column joints are still deficient three possible retrofit solutions are listed below:
a. Local strengthening of deficient slab-column joints. b. Add viscous dampers to 6th and possibly 7th stories to reduce Hotel Tower’s displacements. This approach is viable if a displacement reduction of 30% to 35% is sufficient.
c. Add steel buckling restrained braced frames or concrete shear walls from 6th floor to roof.

E13. We recommend that a materials testing program as outlined in ASCE 41 be undertaken for the entire structure. This will allow for the design of the most economical retrofits possible.

With regard to item E11 it should be noted that, whereas the parking levels have been Anaheim Hilton and Parking Structure June 3, 2014
Seismic Analysis Page 9 of 9
constantly monitored and repairs made (epoxy injection and spall repair), according to our knowledge, no extensive inspections were carried out at the Hotel floors followed by repairs.

We recommend a non-structural evaluation be carried out to determine the adequacy of non-structural components including curtain wall attachment and prepare details for strengthening as required.

It is our opinion, based upon our observations and drawings made available that the structure, with respect to current standards requirements, is deficient.

Refer to the attached preliminary sketches for proposed solutions to mitigate deficient sections of the structure.

Should you have any questions, please contact the writers.

Sincerely,
BRANDOW & JOHNSTON, INC.

Teodor Francu, P.E. 75966
Project Engineer
Kenneth Gebhart, S.E. 2713
Associate Project Manager
Peter J. Maranian, S.E. 2720
Principal
G:\13\1310361 - Anaheim Hilton Seismic Analysis\Doc\letter\draft 6_2014-06-02 Anaheim Hilton due diligence letter.doc 1ST FLOOR AND FOUNDATION PLAN
E1. We recommend obtaining a soils report to further investigate the adequacy of the foundation system in its interaction with the soil.

E2.We recommend material testing be carried out to determine as-built condition of the shear wall jambs and dowels to footings.

E3.The lack of drag and chord reinforcing can be mitigated by introducing steel straps (plates and angles) to adequately transfer forces between seismic force resisting elements. Alternatively reinforced shotcrete sections may be added to mitigate the issue.

E4.Openings in the concrete slabs can be addressed by adding steel straps at their edges. Refer to E3 above for alternative. E2 TYP.

E1 TYP. FOR 1ST FLOOR

AND BASEMENT LEVEL
FOUNDATIONS Seismic Rehabilitation Recommendations FIRST FLOOR AND FOUNDATION PLAN 2.1
2ND FLOOR FRAMING PLAN
E1. We recommend obtaining a soils report to further investigate the adequacy of the foundation system in its interaction with the soil.

E2.We recommend material testing be carried out to determine as-built condition of the shear wall jambs.

E3.The lack of drag and chord reinforcing can be mitigated by introducing steel straps (plates and angles) to adequately transfer forces between seismic force resisting elements. Alternatively reinforced shotcrete sections may be added to mitigate the issue.

E4.Openings in the concrete slabs can be addressed by adding steel straps at their edges. Refer to E3 above for alternative.

E4 TYP. E3) (N) STEEL STRAP BELOW TYP. Seismic Rehabilitation Recommendations 2ND FLOOR PLAN

2.2 3RD FLOOR FRAMING PLAN
E1. We recommend obtaining a soils report to further investigate the adequacy of the foundation system in its interaction with the soil.

E2.We recommend material testing be carried out to determine as-built condition of the shear wall jambs.

E3.The lack of drag and chord reinforcing can be mitigated by introducing steel straps (plates and angles) to adequately transfer forces between seismic force resisting elements. Alternatively reinforced shotcrete sections may be added to mitigate the issue.

E4.Openings in the concrete slabs can be addressed by adding steel straps at their edges. Refer to E3 above for alternative.

E4 TYP. E3) (N) STEEL STRAP BELOW TYP. Seismic Rehabilitation Recommendations 3RD FLOOR PLAN

2.3 4TH FLOOR FRAMING PLAN
E3) (N) STEEL STRAP BELOW TYP.

E1. We recommend obtaining a soils report to further investigate the adequacy of the foundation system in its interaction with the soil.

E2.We recommend material testing be carried out to determine as-built condition of the shear wall jambs.

E3.The lack of drag and chord reinforcing can be mitigated by introducing steel straps (plates and angles) to adequately transfer forces between seismic force resisting elements. Alternatively reinforced shotcrete sections may be added to mitigate the issue.

E4.Openings in the concrete slabs can be addressed by adding steel straps at their edges. Refer to E3 above for alternative.

E4 TYP. Seismic Rehabilitation Recommendations 4TH FLOOR PLAN

2.4 E3) (N) STEEL STRAP BELOW TYP.
5TH FLOOR FRAMING PLAN
E1. We recommend obtaining a soils report to further investigate the adequacy of the foundation system in its interaction with the soil.

E2.We recommend material testing be carried out to determine as-built condition of the shear wall jambs.

E3.The lack of drag and chord reinforcing can be mitigated by introducing steel straps (plates and angles) to adequately transfer forces between seismic force resisting elements. Alternatively reinforced shotcrete sections may be added to mitigate the issue.

E4.Openings in the concrete slabs can be addressed by adding steel straps at their edges. Refer to E3 above for alternative.

E4 TYP. Seismic Rehabilitation Recommendations 5TH FLOOR PLAN

2.5 6TH FLOOR FRAMING PLAN E3) (N) STEEL STRAP BELOW TYP.

E1. We recommend obtaining a soils report to further investigate the adequacy of the foundation system in its interaction with the soil.

E2.We recommend material testing be carried out to determine as-built condition of the shear wall jambs.

E3.The lack of drag and chord reinforcing can be mitigated by introducing steel straps (plates and angles) to adequately transfer forces between seismic force resisting elements. Alternatively reinforced shotcrete sections may be added to mitigate the issue.

E4.Openings in the concrete slabs can be addressed by adding steel straps at their edges. Refer to E3 above for alternative.

Seismic Rehabilitation Recommendations
E6 (N) ANCHOR AT BRACED FRAMES
E7 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
E6 (N) ANCHOR AT BRACED FRAMES
E7 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
E6 (N) ANCHOR AT BRACED FRAMES
E7 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
E6 (N) ANCHOR AT BRACED FRAMES
E7 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
6TH FLOOR PLAN

2.6 7TH THRU 15TH FLOOR FRAMING PLAN
E10) All interior columns PMM: Non-compliant.

Column strengthening required or dampers may
be added to reduce demands on all interior
columns.

Typical for all interior columns
E11) Moment frame beam shear: Non-compliant
Recommend fiber wrap around plastic hinge
zone.

Typical for each end of all short span (15 ft +/-)
moment frame beams
E12) Field investigation required for drop
panel bottom bars.

Seismic Rehabilitation Recommendations:

E10. Fiber reinforced Polymer to improve the performance of the gravity columns.

E11.Recommend fiber wrap around plastic hinge zone to strengthen the frame beam.

To more accurately assess the slab-column joints we recommend the following surveys:
a. Verify concrete and reinforcing strength of floor slabs via a materials testing program.
b. Inspect representative sample of slab-column joints to establish typical crack patterns and extent and evaluate impact on punching shear. This entails removal of architectural finishes to expose the structural members.
c. Determine extent of reinforcing at the bottom of drop panels and portion of bottom reinforcing extending through column using a combination of nondestructive and destructive methods.

E13. We recommend that a materials testing program as outlined in ASCE 41 be undertaken for the entire structure. This will allow for the design of the most economical retrofits possible.

E12) Field investigation required f
panel bottom bars.
7TH THRU 15TH FLOOR PLAN

2.7 7TH THRU 15TH FLOOR FRAMING PLAN
E9) 1" Seismic Separation: Non-compliant.

Provide min. 3" separation at 7th floor and min. 6"
separation at the 8th floor., Typical btwn. main hotel
and all Lanai Rooms.

E9)
E9)
E9) E9) E9) LANAI ROOMS, PLAN
E5 thru E8)
Strengthening of steel
strap bracing, jamb
studs, & connection to
floors are required.

Typical for wherever
details 9, 10 & 11/S7.2
are used.

E5 thru E8) Typical for
wherever details 9, 10
& 11/S7.2 are used. E5 thru E8) Typical for
wherever details 9, 10
& 11/S7.2 are used.

E5 thru E8) Typical for
wherever details 9, 10
& 11/S7.2 are used.

E5 thru E8) Typical for
wherever details 9, 10 &
11/S7.2 are used.

E5 thru E8) Typical
for wherever details
9, 10 & 11/S7.2 are
used.

E5 thru E8) Typical for
wherever details 9, 10
& 11/S7.2 are used.

Seismic Rehabilitation Recommendations:

E5. The lateral force resisting system for the “Lanai Rooms” may be improved by adding straps on the opposite face of the wall (facing the existing steel straps).

E6. We recommend strengthening connections of “Lanai rooms” braced frames to the 6th floor by adding additional anchors.

If an evaluation based on the above surveys indicates 6th floor flat slabs are inadequate most likely need enhancements include adding Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) strengthening to slab to address flexural issues and adding steel or concrete shear heads to address shear issues.

E8. The Connection at the 7th floor braces for the “Lanai Rooms” can be improved by adding straps at the exterior of the structure. Alternatively, internal hold-downs may be used.

E9. Damage between structures can be addressed by allowing for adequate seismic separations in conformance with the analysis results.

E5 AT KITCHEN/BAR

LANAI ROOMS AND KITCHEN/BAR PLANS LANAI ROOMS FLOOR PLAN

2.8 ROOF FRAMING PLAN
E10) All interior columns PMM: Non-compliant.

Column strengthening required or dampers may
be added to reduce demands on all interior
columns.

Typical for all interior columns
E11) Moment frame beam shear: Non-compliant
Recommend fiber wrap around plastic hinge
zone.

Typical for each end of all short span (15 ft +/-)
moment frame beams
E12) Field investigation required for drop
panel bottom bars.

Seismic Rehabilitation Recommendations:

E10. Fiber reinforced Polymer to improve the performance of the gravity columns.

E11.Recommend fiber wrap around plastic hinge zone to strengthen the frame beam.

To more accurately assess the slab-column joints we recommend the following surveys:
a. Verify concrete and reinforcing strength of floor slabs via a materials testing program.
b. Inspect representative sample of slab-column joints to establish typical crack patterns and extent and evaluate impact on punching shear. This entails removal of architectural finishes to expose the structural members.
c. Determine extent of reinforcing at the bottom of drop panels and portion of bottom reinforcing extending through column using a combination of nondestructive and destructive methods.

E13. We recommend that a materials testing program as outlined in ASCE 41 be undertaken for the entire structure. This will allow for the design of the most economical retrofits possible. ROOF PLAN

2.9 MEMORANDUM
JOB# 1310361
DATE 06-13-2014
SUBJECT Anaheim Hilton and Parking Structure
Seismic Analysis
#PAGES 3
TO Connor Doss (Anaheim Hilton)
FROM Teo Francu/Peter Maranian
This memo is with regard to your request that we proritize the work recommended in our report dated June 3, 2014 discussing the Hilton Hotel and Parking Structure in Anaheim, California. The report documents a seismic analysis we perfomred to identify possible deficiencies and provide preliminary recommendations to mitigate them. Subsequently, you requested that these recommendations be prioritized in the order of their importance and impact on the performance of the building.

It is our understanding that, for considerations of costs, it is expedient to the Anaheim Hilton to prioritize the recommended retrofit in order to phase the work.

The following are mitigations recommended in our report dated June 3, 2014:

E1. We recommend obtaining a soils report to further investigate the adequacy of the foundation system in its interaction with the soil.

E2. We recommend material testing be carried out to determine as-built condition of the shear wall jambs (dowels to footings).

E4. Openings in the concrete slabs can be addressed by adding steel straps at their edges.

Refer to E3 above for alternative.

E5. The lateral force resisting system for the “Lanai Rooms” may be improved by adding straps on the opposite face of the wall (facing the existing steel straps).

E6. We recommend strengthening connections of “Lanai rooms” braced frames to the 6th Floor by adding additional anchors.

E7. To more accurately assess the 6th floor flat slabs supporting the “Lanai Rooms” we recommend the following surveys:

Anaheim Hilton Hotel and Parking Structure June 13, 2014 Prioritizing Retrofit Page 2
a. Verify concrete and reinforcing strength of 6th Floor slab via a materials testing program.
b. Inspect representative sample of slab-column joints to establish typical crack patterns and extent and evaluate impact slab capacity. This entails removal of architectural finishes to expose the structural members.

E8. The Connection at the 7th floor braces for the “Lanai Rooms” can be improved by adding straps at the exterior of the structure. Alternatively, internal holdowns may be used.

E9. Damage between structures can be addressed by allowing for adequate seismic separations in conformance with the analysis results.

E10. Fiber reinforced Polymer to improve the performance of the gravity columns.

E11. Recommend fiber wrap around plastic hinge zone to strengthen the frame beam.

To more accurately assess the slab-column joints we recommend the following surveys:
a. Verify concrete and reinforcing strength of floor slabs via a materials testing program. b. Inspect representative sample of slab-column joints to establish typical crack patterns and extent and evaluate impact on punching shear. This entails removal of architectural finishes to expose the structural members. c. Determine extent of reinforcing at the bottom of drop panels and portion of bottom reinforcing extending through column using a combination of non-destructive and destructive methods.

If an evaluation based on the above surveys indicates slab-column joints are still deficient three possible retrofit solutions are listed below:
a. Local strengthening of deficient slab-column joints. b. Add viscous dampers to 6th and possibly 7th stories to reduce Hotel Tower’s displacements. This approach is viable if a displacement reduction of 30% to 35% is Anaheim Hilton Hotel and Parking Structure June 13, 2014 Prioritizing Retrofit Page 3
sufficient.
c. Add steel buckling restrained braced frames or concrete shear walls from 6th floor to roof.

E13. We recommend that a materials testing program as outlined in ASCE 41 be undertaken for the entire structure. This will allow for the design of the most economical retrofits possible.

The approach we adopted is to categorize the mitigations proposed for the identified deficiencies in the order of “highly recommended” and “recommended”. Based upon this criteria we prioritized the work to be carried out as follows:

Deficiency/ work proposed Highly Recommended Recommended E1H,P X
E2H,P X
E3 PX
E4 PX
E5 HX
E6HX
E7HX
E8HX
E9HX
E10HX
E11HX
E12HX
E13H,P X
H = deficiency and retrofit pertaining to the Hotel;
P = deficiency and retrofit pertaining to the Parking Structure H,P = deficiency and retrofit pertaining to the Hotel and Parking structure (common areas).

Should you have any questions please call the writers.

TF
G:\13\1310361 - Anaheim Hilton Seismic Analysis\Doc\memo\1310361 2014-06-13 MEM priorities final.doc

MEMORANDUM
JOB# 1310361
DATE 07-14-2014
SUBJECT Anaheim Hilton site visit
#PAGES 2
TO Connor Doss (Anaheim Hilton)
FROM Teo Francu/Peter Maranian
This memo is with regard to our site visit on July 1, 2014 at the Anaheim Hilton Hotel to observe the concrete slabs, carried out by Teo Francu. Specifically we were asked to observe the concrete slabs at the fifth floor hallways upon carpet removal. This memo also follows our draft report dated June 3, 2014 with regards to the seismic analysis for the Hotel and the Parking Structure.

Structural Observations
The observations were carried out at the east wing of the Hotel at the fifth floor where renovation was in progress. The carpet and locally the underlayment were removed revealing the concrete surface. At some locations, glue was still present which restricted observations of the concrete surface. Also please note that the cracks could not be traced beyond the rooms partition walls up to where the carpet and underlayment had been removed.

Upon removal of architectural finishes, cracking patterns similar to that found in parking levels have been observed. (See photos 1, and 2). Our observations noted the following:
i) Extensive cracking patterns similar to that found in parking levels. ii) Cracks, measuring up to 1/8” in width at discrete locations. iii) No remedial measures have been carried out such as epoxy injection.

Findings/ Recommendations

1. The concern is that excessive cracking will reduce the punching shear capacity which is already marginal per our evaluation which assumes reasonably monolithic concrete.

Please refer to item E12 from our draft report dated June 3, 2014.

2. Based upon these limited observations and knowledge from analysis these slabs may be condidered to have questionable capacity particularly during a seismic event. See item E12 from our draft report for further discussions.

3. We recommend further investigation be carried out to determine pattern of cracking and extent.

Should you have any questions, please contact the writers.

G:\13\1310361 - Anaheim Hilton Seismic Analysis\Doc\memo\1310361 2014-07-08 MEM site visit.docx Anaheim Hilton Hotel and Parking Structure June 14, 2014 Prioritizing Retrofit Page 2
[Type text]
Photo 1
Photo 2
August 13, 2015 B&J # 1310361

Mr. Connor Doss, Property Operations Manager
Hilton Anaheim
777 Convention Way
Anaheim, CA 92802
Mr. Steve Karwoski, Director of Property Operations
Hilton Anaheim
777 Convention Way
Anaheim, CA 92802
Subject: Preliminary Design Development Drawings for Pricing Purposes Only Anaheim Hilton Hotel Parking Garage Partial Voluntary Seismic Upgrade 777 Convention Way
Anaheim, CA 92802
Dear Mr. Doss and Mr. Karwoski:

At Anaheim Hilton’s request, B&J has included a Preliminary Design Development Set based on assumed as built construction expectations prior to receipt of testing results. The preliminary drawings propose a partial voluntary seismic upgrade for the Parking Garage only and not the Tower: North of Gridline 12 between Basement Level to Fifth Floor. Details are for the installation of steel plates with an alternate using FRP composite strip for designbuild. B&J has been in contact with four FRP manufacturers/installers: Simpson, Fyfe, Sika and Contech. At this stage, the drawings should provide sufficient information for preliminary pricing purposes. We recommend adding a contingency in the budget for this preliminary stage.

Please note, there is some risk that materials testing findings could alter the retrofit recommendations once they are available. Additionally, further recommendations may be made following receipt of a relevant geotechnical report, which B&J has yet to receive.

Should this occur, and revised design drawings are requested, we may need to negotiate additional services to cover that effort if it is significant in nature.

B&J # 1310361
Anaheim Hilton Hotel Parking Garage

Page 2 ends

We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project and endeavor to present our findings and recommendations in a clear and informative manner. Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

BRANDOW & JOHNSTON, INC
Josh Gebelein, S.E.

Associate Principal
Han Kim
Design Engineer
G:\13\1310361 - Anaheim Hilton Seismic Analysis\Doc\letter\2015-08-13 AHH Parking Garage Preliminary Design Development Drawings.doc Josh Gebelein, S.E.
08/13/2015
SK-1 7
(E)CONC. SLAB SOFFIT

OR TOP OF SLAB
PLAN VIEW OF CONC. SLAB SOFFIT OR TOP OF SLAB

SEE PLAN FOR EXTENTS

SLAB OPENING OR RE-ENTRANT

CORNER CONDITION, WHERE
OCCURS. SEE PLAN. SK-6 0" TO 12"
GAP, TYP.

SK-4 S-1.0 08/13/2015 GENERAL NOTES & DETAILS ANAHEIM HILTON HOTEL PARKING GARAGE PARTIAL VOLUNTARY SEISMIC UPGRADE COLLECTOR ELEMENT TYPE 1 - ANCHORAGE TO UNDERSIDE OF DROP CAPS SECTION AT CONC. SHEAR WALL TYP. SPLICE DETAIL FOR COLLECTOR ELEMENT TYPES 2&3 GENERAL NOTES 010000 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

1. GOAL OF THE PARTIAL VOLUNTARY SEISMIC UPGRADE IS TO REMEDIATE THE LACK OF DRAG

AND CHORD REINFORCING BY INTRODUCING STEEL STRAPS OR FRP COMPOSITE STRIPS TO

ADEQUATELY TRANSFER FORCES BETWEEN SEISMIC FORCE RESISTING ELEMENTS AND AROUND OPENINGS.

2. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS AT

THE SITE AND TO CROSS-CHECK DETAILS AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS.

3. EXISTING FLOOR AND WALL OPENING, SLEEVES, VARIATIONS IN THE STRUCTURAL SLAB

ELEVATIONS, AND OTHER EXISTING CONDITIONS MUST BE COORDINATED BEFORE THE CONTRACTOR PROCEEDS WITH CONSTRUCTION.

4. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR FURNISHING AND INSTALLING ADEQUATE

SHORING, BRACING OR ANY OTHERS MEANS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO SAFELY EXECUTE ALL WORK.

5. DETAILS NOTED AS TYP. OR TYPICAL APPLY IN ALL CASES WHETHER OR NOT SPECIFICALLY REFERENCED.

6. WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 2013 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE.

7. REMOVE ARCHITECTURAL FINISHES AS REQUIRED AND SUBSEQUENT TO MODIFICATIONS, RESTORE AS REQUIRED.

8. SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO FABRICATION. 017000 - EXISTING CONDITIONS

1. SEE ORIGINAL DRAWINGS FOR EXISTING BUILDING INFORMATION NOT SHOWN OR NOTED.

2. WHERE EXISTING CONDITIONS VARY SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THOSE SHOWN ON THESE

DRAWINGS, THE SEOR SHALL BE NOTIFIED PRIOR TO CONTINUED CONSTRUCTION RELATED TO SUBJECT CONDITIONS.

3. DO NOT CUT OR DAMAGE EXISTING CONCRETE EXCEPT AS CLEARLY INDICATED. MAINTAIN AT LEAST 2 INCHES CLEAR TO EXISTING REINFORCEMENT, CONDUIT AND OTHER EMBEDDED ITEMS FROM CUTS AND CORES. IN AREAS OF WORK, MARK LOCATIONS OF SUCH ITEMS USING NONDESTRUCTIVE METHODS SUCH AS GROUND PENETRATING RADAR OR X-RAY.

4. DURING THE COURSE OF WORK, NOTIFY THE SEOR OF EXISTING STRUCTURAL

DETERIORATION, APPARENT DISTRESS, WATER INTRUSION, OR COMPROMISED MEMBERS THAT ARE DISCOVERED.
032000 - REINFORCING STEEL

1. ALL WELDED BARS SHALL CONFORM TO A.S.T.M. A-706 GRADE 60.

2. ALL WELDING OF REINFORCING STEEL SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AWS D1.4.

WELDED REINFORCING TO CONFROM TO REQUIREMENTS OF THE 2013 CBC. INSPECTION BY QUALIFIED WELDING INSPECTOR REQUIRED.
050500 - POST INSTALLED ANCHORS

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS, THE FOLLOWING APPLIES TO ALL POST

INSTALLED ANCHORAGE INTO HARDENED CONCRETE WHICH INCLUDES TYPES SUCH AS EXPANSION, WEDGE, SLEEVE, ADHESIVE/EPOXY, SCREW AND UNDERCUT.

1. INSTALL PER THE MANUFACTURER'S PRINTED INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS (MPII) EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE STATED IN THE SPECIFIED PRODUCT REPORTS. USE INSTALLATION PROCEDURES FOR CRACKED CONCRETE CONDITIONS. DO NOT USE CORE DRILL BITS FOR ANCHOR HOLES WITHOUT PRIOR SEOR APPROVAL. COPIES OF INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE MAINTAINED ON SITE.

2. PROVIDE STAINLESS STEEL TYPE 304 OR 316 AT EXTERIOR / DAMP INTERIOR LOCATIONS.

DOWELS TO RECEIVE CONCRETE COVER MAY BE PLAIN CARBON STEEL. ANCHORS SHALL BE CLEAN AND FREE OF DEBONDING SUBSTANCES.

3. EMBEDMENT REFERS TO THE FINAL INSTALLED EFFECTIVE DEPTH “Hef” AS DEFINED IN THE PRODUCT REPORT, REQUIRED ANCHOR HOLE DEPTH FOR INSTALLATION MAY BE DEEPER.

4. MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 2 INCHES FROM EXISTING REINFORCEMENT, CONDUIT, POST TENSIONING (WHERE OCCURS), ETC. PRIOR TO DRILLING, CORING OR SHOOTING PINS INTO EXISTING CONCRETE OR MASONRY USE NON DESTRUCTIVE TESTING TO LOCATE SUCH ITEMS.

FOR INSTALLATION DEEPER THAN 3 INCHES USE GROUND PENETRATING RADAR OR X-RAY METHODS.

5. WHERE THE SPECIFIED ANCHOR EMBEDMENT DEPTH, SPACING OR EDGE DISTANCE CANNOT BE PROVIDED, NOTIFY THE SEOR AND lOR.

6. PATCH ABANDONED HOLES AND SPALLS USING NON-SHRINK GROUT AND REPAIR FINISHES AS REQUIRED. ANCHORS PENETRATING THROUGH WATER PROOFING OR VAPOR MEMBRANES SHALL BE SEALED OR FLASHED.
051200 - STRUCTURAL STEEL

1. DESIGN, FABRICATION AND ERECTION OF STRUCTURAL STEEL SHALL CONFORM TO THE

SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARD OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION (AISC), AS CONTAINED IN THE LATEST EDITION OF "AISC MANUAL OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION".

2. STEEL TYPE SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED IN THE STRUCTURAL STEEL SCHEDULE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.

3.ALL CONNECTIONS NOT SHOWN SHALL CONFORM TO THE "AISC MANUAL OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION" AND SHALL BE SUBMITTED ON SHOP DRAWINGS FOR REVIEW BY SEOR PRIOR TO FABRICATION.

4.FABRICATOR SHALL BE LICENSED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE BUILDING CODE AND LADBS.

5.STRUCTURAL MISCELLANEOUS STEEL NOT EXPOSED TO WEATHER OR MOISTURE SHALL BE PLAIN, SHOP PRIMED WITH GRAY COLOR.

6.COATED STEEL SURFACES SHALL BE PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIRED AS REQUIRED.

7.USE THE APPROPRIATE NUT AND WASHER TYPE, GRADE AND FINISH FOR THE SPECIFIED BOLT.

BOLTS WITH UPSET THREADS ARE NOT ALLOWED UNLESS EXPLICITLY SPECIFIED.

8.PLACE NONSHRINK GROUT UNDER ALL BASE PLATES AND ALLOW TO CURE BEFORE APPLYING LOADS. INDICATE GROUT VENT HOLES ON SHOP DRAWINGS WHERE REQUIRED. PRIMED OR

PLAIN STEEL TO BE IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH NONSHRINK GROUT SHALL BE CLEANED TO BARE METAL BEFORE GROUTING.

9.WELDED HEADED STUDS, THREADED STUDS, AND DEFORMED BARS SHALL COMPLY WITH ASTM A108 BY NELSON, OR EQUIVALENT, AND WELDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S

RECOMMENDATIONS BY CERTIFIED WELDERS SO AS TO FULLY DEVELOP THE TENSILE CAPACITY OF THE CONNECTOR.
1 SHAPE

PLATE, ANGLE

HOLLOW STRUCTURAL SECTION (HSS)

SQUARE OR RECTANGULAR

MACHINE BOLTS
ASTM
A36
A500
A307
GRADE
-
B
A
Fy MIN (ksi)
36 46
-
Fu MIN (ksi)
58 58
60 STRUCTURAL STEEL SCHEDULE

STEEL WELDING

1.WELDING PROCEDURES, ELECTRODES AND WELDER QUALIFICATIONS SHALL CONFORM TO THE “CODE FOR WELDING IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION,” AMERICAN WELDING SOCIETY (AWS), D1.1 AND THE AISC "SPECIFICATION FOR THE DESIGN, FABRICATION AND ERECTION OF STRUCTURAL STEEL FOR BUILDINGS”.

2.ALL WELDERS SHALL HAVE EVIDENCE OF PASSING THE AWS STANDARD QUALIFICATION TESTS, AND SHALL BE CERTIFIED FOR THE WORK THEY ARE PERFORMING BY LADBS.

3.PROJECT WELDING SHALL BE PERFORMED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH WELDING PROCEDURE

SPECIFICATIONS (WPS) SUBMITTED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND REVIEWED BY THE SEOR AND PROJECT WELDING INSPECTOR. THE WPS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH AWS D1.1-D1.4 CURRENT EDITION.

4.WELDING TO EXISTING STEEL SHALL BE PERFORMED USING MANUAL STICK ELECTRODES WITH THE SHIELDED METAL ARC WELDING (SMAW) PROCESS AND E60XX LOW HYDROGEN ELECTRODES ONLY.

5.HEADED STUDS AND DEFORMED BAR ANCHORS WELDED PER AWS D1.1 TO EXISTING STEEL

THAT HAS BEEN PREPARED TO BARE METAL BY WIRE BRUSH OR GRINDING MAY USE AUTOMATIC

STUD WELDING GUNS IN LIEU OF SMAW BY SUCCESSFULLY PASSING THE AWS APPLICATION TESTING WHICH CONSISTS OF 10 SPECIMENS SUBJECTED TO BEND TEST. COORDINATE LOCATION AND TYPE OF STUD SPECIMENS TO TEST WITH SEOR.

6.WELDING OF NEW STRUCTURAL STEEL SHALL BE PERFORMED PER AWS D1.1 USING E70XX ELECTRODES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

7.WELDING OF NEW REINFORCING BARS SHALL BE PERFORMED PER AWS D1.4 USING E90XX ELECTRODES.

8.WELDS SHALL BE TESTED PER AWS D1.1 WITH MAGNETIC PARTICLE TESTING AT A RATE OF 10%.

9.ALL FULL PENETRATION WELDS SHALL BE TESTED PER AWS D1.1 WITH ULTRASONIC TESTING.

10.FIELD WELDS HAVE BEEN INDICATED WHERE THEY ARE EXPECTED TO OCCUR. THE

CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE ACTUAL FIELD WELDING NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT AND INCLUDE ALL ASSOCIATED COSTS WITHIN THE BASE PRICE. 314000 - SHORING AND EXCAVATIONS

1.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE FOR THE DESIGN, APPROVALS, PERMITS, INSTALLATION AND

MONITORING OF ALL TEMPORARY SHORING AND BRACING AS REQUIRED TO SUPPORT EXISTING

FRAMING WHERE SUPPORT ELEMENTS (BEAMS, COLUMNS, AND BEARING WALLS) ARE TO BE REMOVED, EXCAVATIONS, AND WHERE INDICATED ON THE DESIGN DOCUMENTS.

2.DESIGN LOADS FOR SHORING AND BRACING OF FRAMING SHALL BE INDEPENDENTLY DETERMINED.

COMPOSITE STRENGTHENING SYSTEM GENERAL NOTES:

1. CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT PROJECT DATA SHEETS, MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEETS (MSDS), CALCULATIONS AND SHOP DRAWINGS FOR THE FRP SYSTEM.

2. CALCULATIONS AND SHOP DRAWINGS MUST BE STAMPED BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL

ENGINEER AND SHALL DETAIL THE NECESSARY SURFACE PREPARATION, MATERIALS TO BE

USED, NUMBER LAYERS, LOCATIONS, END DETAILS, PRIMARY FIBER DIRECTION AND FINISH REQUIREMENTS.

3. COMPOSITE SYSTEM MANUFACTURER TO PROVIDE WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION THAT THE

CONTRACTOR HAS SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED THE MANUFACTURER'S TRAINING PROGRAM AND IS QUALIFIED TO INSTALL THE PROPOSED SYSTEM.

EPOXY ADHESIVE INJECTION SPECIFICATIONS AND PROCEDURES FOR REPAIR OF CONCRETE CRACKS
PART 1 - GENERAL

1.01 SCOPE:

A. THE CONTRACTOR OR HIS SUB-CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH ALL MATERIALS, TOOLS,

EQUIPMENT, APPLIANCES, TRANSPORTATION, LABOR AND SUPERVISION REQUIRED TO REPAIR CRACKS BY THE INJECTION OF AN EPOXY RESIN ADHESIVE.

B. REPAIR EXPOSED CRACKS WHOSE WIDTHS EXCEED 0.030 INCHES IN AREAS DESIGNATED ON THESE DRAWINGS.

1.02 PRE-QUALIFICATION:

A. APPLICATOR'S QUALIFICATIONS. EPOXY INJECTION SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A CERTIFIED

APPLICATOR OF THE STRUCTURAL CONCRETE BONDING PROCESS AND HAVE A MINIMUM OF FIVE YEARS EXPERIENCE IN EPOXY INJECTION WORK.

PART 2 - MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT

2.01 EPOXY RESIN ADHESIVE FOR INJECTION:

A. ADHESIVE SHALL BE "SIKADUR 35, HI-MOD LV; SIKADUR 52; OR SIKADUR INJECTION GEL" OR APPROVED EQUAL. USE TYPE SPECIFIED BY THE MANUFACTURER FOR EACH CONDITION.

2.02 SURFACE SEAL:

A. DESCRIPTION: THE SURFACE SEAL MATERIAL IS THAT MATERIAL USED TO CONFINE THE INJECTION ADHESIVE IN THE FISSURE DURING INJECTION AND CURE.

B. PROPERTIES: THE SURFACE SEAL MATERIAL SHALL HAVE ADEQUATE STRENGTH TO HOLD

INJECTION FITTINGS FIRMLY IN PLACE AND TO RESIST INJECTION PRESSURES ADEQUATELY TO PREVENT LEAKAGE DURING INJECTION.

2.03 EQUIPMENT FOR INJECTION:

A. TYPE. THE EQUIPMENT USED TO METER AND MIX THE TWO INJECTION ADHESIVE COMPONENTS

AND INJECT THE MIXED ADHESIVE INTO THE CRACK SHALL BE PORTABLE, POSITIVE

DISPLACEMENT TYPE PUMPS WITH INTERLOCK TO PROVIDE POSITIVE RATIO CONTROL OF EXACT PROPORTIONS OF THE TWO COMPONENTS AT THE NOZZLE. THE PUMPS SHALL BE ELECTRIC OR AIR POWERED AND SHALL PROVIDE IN-LINE METERING AND MIXING.

B. DISCHARGE PRESSURE. THE INJECTION EQUIPMENT SHALL HAVE AUTOMATIC PRESSURE

CONTROL CAPABLE OF DISCHARGING THE MIXED ADHESIVE AT ANY PRE-SET PRESSURE UP TO 200 PSI PLUS/MINUS 5 PSI AND SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH A MANUAL PRESSURE CONTROL OVERRIDE.

C. RATIO TOLERANCE. THE EQUIPMENT SHALL HAVE THE CAPABILITY OF MAINTAINING THE

VOLUME RATIO FOR THE INJECTION ADHESIVE PRESCRIBED BY THE MANUFACTURER OF THE ADHESIVE WITHIN A TOLERANCE OF PLUS OR MINUS 5 PERCENT BY VOLUME AT ANY DISCHARGE PRESSURE UP TO 200 PSI.

D. AUTOMATIC SHUT-OFF CONTROL. THE INJECTION EQUIPMENT SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH

SENSORS ON BOTH THE COMPONENT A AND B RESERVOIRS THAT WILL AUTOMATICALLY STOP THE MACHINE WHEN ONLY ONE COMPONENT IS BEING PUMPED TO THE MIXING HEAD.

PART 3 - EXECUTION OF WORK

3.01 PREPARATION
A. SURFACES ADJACENT TO CRACKS OR OTHER AREAS OF APPLICATION SHALL BE CLEANED OF

DIRT, DUST, GREASE, OIL, EFFLORESCENCE OR OTHER FOREIGN MATTER DETRIMENTAL TO BOND OF EPOXY INJECTION SURFACE SEAL SYSTEM. ACIDS AND CORROSIVES SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED.

B. ENTRY PORTS SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG THE CRACK AT INTERVALS OF NOT LESS THAN THE THICKNESS OF THE CONCRETE AT THAT LOCATION.

C. SURFACE SEAL MATERIAL SHALL BE APPLIED TO THE FACE OF THE CRACK BETWEEN THE ENTRY PORTS. FOR THROUGH CRACKS, SURFACE SEAL SHALL BE APPLIED TO BOTH FACES.

D. ENOUGH TIME FOR THE SURFACE SEAL MATERIAL TO GAIN ADEQUATE STRENGTH SHALL PASS BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE INJECTION.

3.02 EPOXY INJECTION:

A. INJECTION OF EPOXY ADHESIVE SHALL BEGIN AT LOWER ENTRY PORT AND CONTINUE UNTIL

THERE IS AN APPEARANCE OF EPOXY ADHESIVE AT THE NEXT ENTRY PORT ADJACENT TO THE ENTRY PORT BEING PUMPED.

B. WHEN EPOXY ADHESIVE TRAVEL IS INDICATED BY APPEARANCE AT THE NEXT ADJACENT PORT,

INJECTION SHALL BE DISCONTINUED ON THE ENTRY PORT BEING PUMPED, AND EPOXY

INJECTION SHALL BE TRANSFERRED TO NEXT ADJACENT PORT WHERE EPOXY ADHESIVE HAS APPEARED.

C. PERFORM EPOXY ADHESIVE INJECTION CONTINUOUSLY UNTIL CRACKS ARE COMPLETELY FILLED.

D. IF PORT TO PORT TRAVEL OF EPOXY ADHESIVE IS NOT INDICATED, THE WORK IMMEDIATELY SHALL BE STOPPED AND THE ENGINEER NOTIFIED.

3.03 FINISHING:

A. WHEN CRACKS ARE COMPLETELY FILLED, EPOXY ADHESIVE SHALL BE CURED FOR SUFFICIENT

TIME TO ALLOW REMOVAL OF SURFACE SEAL WITHOUT ANY DRAINING OR RUNBACK OF EPOXY MATERIAL FROM CRACKS.

B. SURFACE SEAL MATERIAL AND INJECTION ADHESIVE RUNS OR SPILLS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM CONCRETE SURFACES.

C. THE FACE OF THE CRACK SHALL BE FINISHED FLUSH TO THE ADJACENT CONCRETE SHOWING NO INDENTATIONS OR PROTRUSIONS CAUSED BY THE PLACEMENT OF ENTRY PORTS. (E)18" THICK CONC. SHEAR WALL
(f'c = 5000PSI), TYP. U.N.O.
(E)4 1/2" THICK CONC. SLAB (ii)
(f'c = 3000 PSI), TYP.

U.N.O. PER PLAN
(i) HOLES AT STEEL PLATES AND ANGLES SHALL BE OVERSIZED PER AISC SECTION J3 WITH 2 1/2" SQUARE x 1/2" THICK WASHER PLATES WELDED USING 1/4" FILLET TWO SIDES PERPENDICULAR TO DIRECTION OF LOAD. (ii) FOR INSTALLATION OF PLATES, JACK UP THE SLAB AS REQUIRED.

MINIMUM TWO STORIES OF SHORING MAY BE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT FORCE DUE TO JACKING. JACKING UP OF SLAB IS NOT REQ'D FOR FRP COMPOSITE ALTERNATE.
(iii) SPLICE MAY ONLY OCCUR WHERE COMPRESSION STRUT OCCURS.

LOCATE SPLICE 4'-0" MIN. FROM FACE OF DROP CAP, TYP.

NO RESTRICTIONS ON LOCATION OF SPLICE FOR SHOP COMPLETE JOINT PENETRATION SPLICES.
(E)12 1/2" THICK CONC. DROP CAP
(f'c = 3000 PSI), TYP.

U.N.O. PER PLAN 4'-0"
MIN.

FOR SPLICE AT STEEL
PLATE, SEE 6/S-1.0 (iii)
4'-0"
MIN.

EXTEND STEEL PLATE TO NEXT DROP

CAP, AS REQUIRED PER EXTENTS SHOWN
ON PLAN. PROVIDE L6x6 BETWEEN DROP
CAPS PER 5/S-1.0, SIM.

EXTEND STEEL PLATE TO NEXT DROP

CAP, AS REQUIRED PER EXTENTS SHOWN
ON PLAN. PROVIDE COMPRESSION STRUT
BETWEEN DROP CAPS PER 4/S-1.0, SIM.

STEEL PL (i)
PER SCHED.

L6x6 (i)
PER 5/S-1.0
COLLECTOR ELEMENT TYPE 2 - ANCHORAGE TO UNDERSIDE OF SLAB 2 5 COLLECTOR ELEMENT TYPE 3 - LOAD TRANSFER THRU (E)WALL 3 TYP. SPLICE DETAIL FOR COLLECTOR ELEMENT TYPE 1 6
7 TYP. COMPOSITE STRENGTHENING DETAIL 8
TYP. REPAIR OF CRACKS ABOVE & BELOW SLAB 9
REPAIR (E)CRACKS LARGER THAN 0.030

INCHES IN WIDTH PER PROCEDURES
DESCRIBED IN GENERAL NOTES. (i) PROVIDE FRP STRIP EQUIVALENT TO 2-#6 EA. STRIP.

APPLY STRIP FROM TOPSIDE OF SLAB, U.N.O.

SEE COMPOSITE STRENGTHENING SYSTEM GENERAL
NOTES.
4 S-1.0
D
---
E
---
E
---

SECTION
D
---

SECTION
F
---

SECTION
F
---
5 S-1.0

SECTION
4 S-1.0

COMPRESSION STRUT SECTION
5 S-1.0
5 S-1.0
SIM.
1 S-1.0

ELEVATION VIEW
A
B ---
---
A
---

OVERHEAD PLAN VIEW
B
---

OVERHEAD PLAN VIEW
2 S-1.0

ELEVATION VIEW
L6x6x1/2 x 1'-0" LONG @24" O.C.

W/ (2) 3/4"f x 4 3/4" EMBED HILTI KBTZ ANCHORS
2 S-1.0
C
---
C
---

SECTION
L6x6 (i)
PER 5/S-1.0
1 S-1.0
(E)4 1/2" THICK CONC. SLAB (ii)
(f'c = 3000 PSI), TYP.

U.N.O. PER PLAN

FOR REMAINING

INFORMATION, SEE
1 S-1.0 FOR REMAINING

INFORMATION, SEE
(E)18" THICK CONC. SHEAR WALL
(f'c = 5000PSI), TYP. U.N.O.
(E)18" THICK CONC.

SHEAR WALL BEYOND
(f'c = 5000PSI), TYP.

U.N.O.

STEEL PL (i)
PER SCHED. FOR

SPLICE DETAIL,
SEE 7/S-1.0.
2 ROWS OF

POST-INSTALLED
ANCHORS @12" O.C.

PER SCHEDULE
STEEL PL (i)
PER SCHED.

DRILL THRU (E)CONC. WALL
FOR (3)-#10 A706 BARS.

GROUT IN PLACE, TYP.
(E)18" THICK CONC. SHEAR WALL
(f'c = 5000PSI), TYP. U.N.O.
2 ROWS OF

POST-INSTALLED
ANCHORS @12" O.C.

PER SCHEDULE
(E)4 1/2" THICK CONC. SLAB (ii)
(f'c = 3000 PSI), TYP.

U.N.O. PER PLAN STEEL PL (i)
PER SCHED. FOR

SPLICE DETAIL, SEE
7/S-1.0.

EXTEND STEEL

PLATE, AS REQUIRED

PER EXTENTS
SHOWN ON PLAN.

EXTEND STEEL PLATE AND
L6x6, AS REQUIRED PER
EXTENTS SHOWN ON PLAN.
6 S-1.0 ELEVATION VIEW OF TYP.

SPLICE DETAIL
7 S-1.0 OVERHEAD PLAN VIEW OF TYP.

SPLICE DETAIL
HILTI KBTZ ANCHORS2
1/2"f x 2" EMBED
RATED STRENGTH (KIP)1
225 TYPE
D

STEEL PLATE
12" WIDE x 3/4"

COLLECTOR STRENGTH SCHEDULE
NOTE:

1. RATED STRENGTH FORCES ARE IN OVERSTRENGTH, OMEGA LEVELS @ FACE OF SHEAR WALL.

2. HILTI "KWIK BOLT TZ" ANCHORS (ICC ESR-1917, LARR #25701) STAINLESS STEEL HILTI KBTZ ANCHORS2
1/2"f x 2" EMBED
1/2"f x 2" EMBED
RATED STRENGTH (KIP)1
150
300
TYPE
B
C

STEEL PLATE
12" WIDE x 1/2"
12" WIDE x 3/4"

COLLECTOR STRENGTH SCHEDULE
NOTE:

1. RATED STRENGTH FORCES ARE IN OVERSTRENGTH, OMEGA LEVELS @ FACE OF SHEAR WALL.

2. HILTI "KWIK BOLT TZ" ANCHORS (ICC ESR-1917, LARR #25701) STAINLESS STEEL HILTI KBTZ ANCHORS2
5/8"f x 4" EMBED
3/4"f x 4 3/4" EMBED
3/4"f x 4 3/4" EMBED
RATED STRENGTH (KIP)1
75 150
300

COMPRESSION STRUT
HSS6x6x5/16
HSS8x6x5/16 (FLAT)
HSS10x6x3/8 (FLAT)
TYPE
A
B
C

STEEL PLATE
8" WIDE x 3/8"
12" WIDE x 1/2"
12" WIDE x 3/4" COLLECTOR STRENGTH SCHEDULE
NOTE:

1. RATED STRENGTH FORCES ARE IN OVERSTRENGTH, OMEGA LEVELS @ FACE OF SHEAR WALL.

2. HILTI "KWIK BOLT TZ" ANCHORS (ICC ESR-1917, LARR #25701) STAINLESS STEEL N.T.S. 1310361 HK FRP COMPOSITE STRENGTHENING ALTERNATIVE DETAILS 10 9G
S-1.0

SECTION
9H
S-1.0

SECTION
9I
S-1.0

SECTION
9J
S-1.0

SECTION
FRP

COMPOSITE
BY MFR.

SOFT LEVELING,
TYP. 2'-0"
MAX. WIDTH
(E)CONC. SLAB

PER PLAN
(E)18" THICK
CONC. WALL
2 1/2" MIN. RADIUS

W/ EPOXY PASTE
AS REQ'D BY MFR.
2'-0"
MAX. WIDTH
SOFT

LEVELING,
TYP. (E)CONC. SLAB

PER PLAN
FRP

COMPOSITE
BY MFR.

DRILL THRU (E)WALL.

COMPOSITE
ANCHOR BY MFR.

FRP

COMPOSITE
BY MFR. (E)18" THICK
CONC. WALL
(E)CONC. SLAB

PER PLAN
(E)CONC. SLAB

PER PLAN
2'-0"
MAX. WIDTH
FRP

COMPOSITE
BY MFR.

SOFT

LEVELING,
TYP.

COMPRESSION
STRUT W/ L6x4
PER

CL OF COMPRESSION

STRUT TO ALIGN

W/ CL OF FRP COMPOSITE

COMPRESSION STRUT

BOTTOM FLANGE
NOTE:

1. BEVEL UNDERSIDE OF PLATE
NOTE:

1. SPLICE SHALL NOT OCCUR AT CONC. WALLS.

2. SPLICE SHALL OCCUR MIN. 4'-0" FROM FACE OF CONC. WALLS.

3. ALTERNATIVELY, NO RESTRICTIONS ON LOCATION OF SPLICE FOR SHOP COMPLETE JOINT PENETRATION SPLICES WITHOUT USE OF "LAP PLATE". 9I
S-1.0 FRP

COMPOSITE

ALTERNATE
9H
S-1.0 FRP

COMPOSITE

ALTERNATE
9G
S-1.0 FRP

COMPOSITE

ALTERNATE
9G
S-1.0 FRP

COMPOSITE

ALTERNATE
9H
S-1.0 FRP

COMPOSITE

ALTERNATE
9G
S-1.0 FRP

COMPOSITE

ALTERNATE
9H
S-1.0 FRP

COMPOSITE

ALTERNATE
9J
S-1.0 FRP

COMPOSITE

ALTERNATE
3-#10 BARS
x 3'-6" LONG 777 CONVENTION WAY ANAHEIM, CA 92802 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - FOR PRICING PURPOSES ONLY SECTION AT COMPRESSION STRUT 4
5 S-1.0 INSTALL DRYPACK GROUT
1/2" THICK MAX.

AS REQ'D
1/2" THICK END PL
W/ (2) 1/2"f HILTI

KBTZ ANCHORS W/
3 1/4" EMBED
NOTE:

1. FOR PRICING PURPOSES, ASSUME 25 LINEAR FEET PER 1000 SQ. FT. OF SLAB FOR REPAIR.

SEE PLANS FOR POTENTIAL AREAS WHERE CRACK REPAIR IS REQUIRED.

TO BE VERIFIED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR.
1ST FLOOR AND FOUNDATION PLAN
08/13/2015 N.T.S. 1310361 HK
A
1/S-1.0 S-2.1 FIRST FLOOR AND FOUNDATION PLAN ANAHEIM HILTON HOTEL PARKING GARAGE PARTIAL VOLUNTARY SEISMIC UPGRADE FLOOR FRAMING NOTES:

1. INDICATES DESIGN RATED STRENGTH TYPE AND COLLECTOR ELEMENT TYPE SPECIFIED ON S-1.0.

APPROXIMATE LENGTH INDICATED FOR PRICING PURPOSES ONLY. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ACTUAL LENGTH.

INDICATES COLLECTOR ELEMENT. SEE PLAN FOR EXTENT OF APPLICATION.

TYPICAL EXTENTS ARE FROM GRIDLINE TO GRIDLINE, U.N.O.

2. INDICATES FRP STRIP. SEE 8/S-1.0 FOR TYPICAL COMPOSITE STRENGTHENING DETAIL.

SEE PLAN FOR EXTENT OF APPLICATION. TYPICAL EXTENTS OCCUR FROM GRIDLINE TO GRIDLINE, U.N.O.

WHERE STRIP OCCURS ADJACENT TO DROP CAP/COLUMN, MAX. GAP OF UP TO 12" BET. STRIP AND DROP CAP/COLUMN IN THE DIRECTION PARALLEL TO STRIP LENGTH IS ALLOWED.

3. INDICATES POTENTIAL AREA FOR NEED OF CRACK REPAIR.

SEE 9/S-1.0 FOR CRACK REPAIR REQUIREMENTS.

4. INDICATES AREA OUTSIDE SCOPE OF WORK.
(i) EXTEND FRP STRIP TO FACE OF CONCRETE DROP CAP/BEAM/WALL. (ii) EXTEND FRP STRIP TO EDGE OF CONCRETE DROP CAP/SLAB. (iii) EXTEND COLLECTOR ELEMENT TO FACE OF CONCRETE DROP CAP/BEAM/WALL. (iv) EXTEND COLLECTOR ELEMENT TO EDGE OF CONCRETE DROP CAP/SLAB. OUTSIDE SCOPE OF WORK SLAB ON GRADE (i) (i)
(i) (i)
L = 100'-0" 777 CONVENTION WAY ANAHEIM, CA 92802 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - FOR PRICING PURPOSES ONLY 0 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 70' 80' 90' 100' 150' 200' 300' GRAPHIC SCALE BAR NOTE: SCALE IS APPROXIMATE FOR PRICING PURPOSES ONLY.

N
2ND FLOOR FRAMING PLAN
08/13/2015 N.T.S. 1310361 HK
FLOOR FRAMING NOTES:

REFER TO S-2.1 FOR FLOOR FRAMING NOTES. SECOND FLOOR PLAN ANAHEIM HILTON HOTEL PARKING GARAGE PARTIAL VOLUNTARY SEISMIC UPGRADE S-2.2 OUTSIDE SCOPE OF WORK
10'-0" 10'-0"
5'-0"
5'-0" SIM. @
WALL
(ii)
(ii)
(i) (i)
(i) (i)
(i)
(i) (ii)
(ii) (i)
(iv)
(iv) (iii) B
1/S-1.0
C
1/S-1.0
D
3/S-1.0
(iv)
B
2/S-1.0
B
2/S-1.0
D
3/S-1.0
D
3/S-1.0 (iii) D
3/S-1.0
D
3/S-1.0
C
2/S-1.0
C
1/S-1.0
C
1/S-1.0
(iii)
(iv) C
1/S-1.0 (iv) (iv) C
1/S-1.0 (iv) (iv) B
2/S-1.0
(iii)
(iii) B
2/S-1.0 L=80'-0" L=90'-0" L=140'-0" L=140'-0" L=90'-0" L=90'-0" L=90'-0" L=90'-0" L=90'-0" L=210'-0" L=210'-0" L=240'-0" L=240'-0" L=40'-0" L=40'-0" 777 CONVENTION WAY ANAHEIM, CA 92802 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - FOR PRICING PURPOSES ONLY 0 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 70' 80' 90' 100' 150' 200' 300' GRAPHIC SCALE BAR NOTE: SCALE IS APPROXIMATE FOR PRICING PURPOSES ONLY.

N
(ii)
3RD FLOOR FRAMING PLAN
08/13/2015 N.T.S. 1310361 HK S-2.3 THIRD FLOOR PLAN ANAHEIM HILTON HOTEL PARKING GARAGE PARTIAL VOLUNTARY SEISMIC UPGRADE

OUTSIDE SCOPE OF WORK
FLOOR FRAMING NOTES:

REFER TO S-2.1 FOR FLOOR FRAMING NOTES.
(i) (i)
(i)
(i)
(i)
(i) (i) (i)
(i)
(ii) (ii) B
1/S-1.0
B
1/S-1.0
C
1/S-1.0
C
1/S-1.0
(iv)(iv) (iv) (iv) (iv) (iv) C
1/S-1.0 (iv) C
1/S-1.0 (iv) (iv) C
1/S-1.0 (iv) (iv) C
1/S-1.0
C
1/S-1.0 (iv)
(iv) 5'-0"
5'-0"
C
2/S-1.0
(iii)
(iii) B
2/S-1.0 (iv)
(iv)
B
1/S-1.0
C
1/S-1.0 SIM. @
WALL
D
3/S-1.0
(iii) B
1/S-1.0
B
1/S-1.0
(iv)
(iv) B
2/S-1.0
B
2/S-1.0 10'-0" 10'-0"
D
3/S-1.0
D
3/S-1.0 (iii) D
3/S-1.0
D
3/S-1.0
B
B
1/S-1.0 1/S-1.0
(iii)
(iv) B
1/S-1.0
B
1/S-1.0 (iv)
(iv)
C
2/S-1.0
C
1/S-1.0
C
1/S-1.0 (iv)
(iii)
C
1/S-1.0
C
1/S-1.0 (iv) (iv)
(ii)
(iv)
(iii) B
1/S-1.0
B
1/S-1.0
(iv)
B
1/S-1.0
B
1/S-1.0
C
1/S-1.0
C
1/S-1.0 (iv)
(iv) C
1/S-1.0
C
1/S-1.0
(iv)
(iv) C
1/S-1.0
C
1/S-1.0 (iv) (iv) C
1/S-1.0 L=80'-0" L=90'-0" L=100'-0" L=100'-0" L=90'-0" L=90'-0" L=140'-0" L=140'-0" L=80'-0" L=80'-0" L=80'-0" L=80'-0" L=70'-0" L=70'-0" L=210'-0" L=210'-0" L=90'-0" L=90'-0" L=90'-0" L=240'-0" L=240'-0" L=40'-0" L=40'-0" L=90'-0" L=90'-0" L=90'-0" L=90'-0" L=90'-0" L=90'-0" L=90'-0" L=90'-0" L=60'-0" L=60'-0" L=90'-0" L=90'-0" L=100'-0" L=100'-0" L=80'-0" L=80'-0" L=90'-0" L=90'-0" 777 CONVENTION WAY ANAHEIM, CA 92802 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - FOR PRICING PURPOSES ONLY 0 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 70' 80' 90' 100' 150' 200' 300' GRAPHIC SCALE BAR NOTE: SCALE IS APPROXIMATE FOR PRICING PURPOSES ONLY.

N
(ii)
4TH FLOOR FRAMING PLAN
08/13/2015 N.T.S. 1310361 HK
C
1/S-1.0 S-2.4 FOURTH FLOOR PLAN ANAHEIM HILTON HOTEL PARKING GARAGE PARTIAL VOLUNTARY SEISMIC UPGRADE

OUTSIDE SCOPE OF WORK
FLOOR FRAMING NOTES:

REFER TO S-2.1 FOR FLOOR FRAMING NOTES.
(i) (i)
(i)
(i)
(i)
(i)
(i)
(ii) (ii) B
1/S-1.0
B
1/S-1.0
C
1/S-1.0
C
1/S-1.0
(iv)(iv) (iv) (iv) (iv) (iv)
(iv)
5'-0"
5'-0"
C
2/S-1.0
(iii)
(iii) B
2/S-1.0
C
1/S-1.0 (iv) (iv) C
1/S-1.0
C
1/S-1.0 (iv)
(iv)
C
1/S-1.0 (iv) (iv) (iv)
(iv)
B
1/S-1.0
C
1/S-1.0 (iii) C
1/S-1.0 (iv) (iv) C
2/S-1.0 10'-0" 10'-0"
D
3/S-1.0
D
3/S-1.0
D
3/S-1.0
D
3/S-1.0 (iii) C
1/S-1.0
C
1/S-1.0
(iii)
(iv) C
1/S-1.0
C
1/S-1.0 (iv) (iv) B
1/S-1.0
B
1/S-1.0 (iv)
(iv)
C
1/S-1.0
C
1/S-1.0 (iv)
(iii)
B
2/S-1.0
B
2/S-1.0
(iv)
(iii) B
1/S-1.0
B
1/S-1.0
(iv)
B
1/S-1.0
B
1/S-1.0 L=100'-0" L=100'-0" L=80'-0" L=80'-0"
C
1/S-1.0 L=60'-0"
C
1/S-1.0
C
1/S-1.0 (iv)
(iv)
L=90'-0" L=90'-0"
C
1/S-1.0
C
1/S-1.0
(iv)
L=90'-0" L=90'-0"
C
1/S-1.0
C
1/S-1.0 (iv) (iv)
L=90'-0" L=90'-0"
(ii)
L=90'-0" L=90'-0" L=90'-0" L=90'-0" L=60'-0" L=80'-0" L=90'-0" L=100'-0" L=90'-0" L=80'-0" L=80'-0" L=140'-0" L=140'-0" L=80'-0" L=80'-0" L=210'-0" L=210'-0" L=70'-0" L=70'-0" L=90'-0" L=90'-0"L=90'-0" L=90'-0" L=240'-0" L=240'-0" L=90'-0" L=90'-0" L=40'-0" L=40'-0" 777 CONVENTION WAY ANAHEIM, CA 92802 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - FOR PRICING PURPOSES ONLY 0 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 70' 80' 90' 100' 150' 200' 300' GRAPHIC SCALE BAR NOTE: SCALE IS APPROXIMATE FOR PRICING PURPOSES ONLY.

N
(ii)
5TH FLOOR FRAMING PLAN
08/13/2015 N.T.S. 1310361 HK S-2.5 FIFTH FLOOR FRAMING ANAHEIM HILTON HOTEL PARKING GARAGE PARTIAL VOLUNTARY SEISMIC UPGRADE

OUTSIDE SCOPE OF WORK
SIM. @
WALL
SIM. @
WALL
FLOOR FRAMING NOTES:

REFER TO S-2.1 FOR FLOOR FRAMING NOTES.
(i) (i)
(i)
(i) (ii) (ii) A
1/S-1.0
A
1/S-1.0
(iv)(iv) A
1/S-1.0
B
1/S-1.0
B
1/S-1.0
(iv) (iv) (iv) (iv)
(iv) B
1/S-1.0
B
1/S-1.0
(iv) (iv)
(iv) B
1/S-1.0
B
1/S-1.0
B
1/S-1.0
B
1/S-1.0
(iv) (iv)
B
1/S-1.0
B
1/S-1.0 (iv) B
2/S-1.0
(iii)
C
1/S-1.0
(iv)
(iv) C
1/S-1.0
(iv) (iv)
C
1/S-1.0
(iv) (iv)
C
1/S-1.0
(iv)
D
3/S-1.0
D
1/S-1.0
D
3/S-1.0
C
1/S-1.0
C
1/S-1.0 (iv)
(iv) (iv)
A
1/S-1.0 (iv)
(iv)
C
1/S-1.0
D
3/S-1.0
(iii)
10'-0" 10'-0"
D
3/S-1.0
D
3/S-1.0
D
3/S-1.0
D
3/S-1.0 (iii) C
1/S-1.0
C
1/S-1.0
B
2/S-1.0
B
2/S-1.0 (iv) (iv) (iv) B
1/S-1.0
B
1/S-1.0
(iii)
(iv) B
1/S-1.0
B
1/S-1.0 (iv)
(iv)
C
1/S-1.0
C
1/S-1.0 (iv)
(iii)
B
2/S-1.0
B
2/S-1.0
A
1/S-1.0 L=60'-0"
A
1/S-1.0
A
1/S-1.0 L=80'-0" L=80'-0"
(iii)
C
1/S-1.0 L=90'-0"
C
1/S-1.0 L=90'-0"
(iv)
L=80'-0" L=90'-0" L=90'-0" L=90'-0" L=80'-0" L=80'-0" L=80'-0" L=80'-0" L=70'-0" L=70'-0" L=90'-0" L=90'-0" L=90'-0" L=90'-0" L=210'-0" L=140'-0" L=210'-0" L=140'-0" L=240'-0" L=240'-0" L=100'-0" L=100'-0" L=100'-0" L=100'-0" L=90'-0" L=90'-0" L=40'-0" L=90'-0" L=90'-0" L=60'-0" L=60'-0" L=60'-0" L=60'-0" L=60'-0" L=60'-0" L=90'-0" L=90'-0" L=60'-0" L=90'-0" L=90'-0" 777 CONVENTION WAY ANAHEIM, CA 92802 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - FOR PRICING PURPOSES ONLY 0 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 70' 80' 90' 100' 150' 200' 300' GRAPHIC SCALE BAR NOTE: SCALE IS APPROXIMATE FOR PRICING PURPOSES ONLY.

N
(ii)
November 12, 2015

Mr. Steve Karwoski
Director of Property Operations
Hilton Anaheim
777 Convention Way
Anaheim, CA 92802
Subject: Due Diligence & Seismic Evaluation Report
Anaheim Hilton Hotel
777 Convention Way
Anaheim, CA 92802
Dear Mr. Karwoski:

Please find an updated draft of our due diligence & seismic evaluation report attached for your use. We are available to discuss the report at your convenience.

Sincerely,
BRANDOW & JOHNSTON INC.

Josh Gebelein, S.E. 5015 Peter J. Maranian, S.E. 2720
Associate Principal Principal
G:\13\1310361 - Anaheim Hilton Seismic Analysis\Doc\report\2015-11-12 AHH Due Diligence Report\2015-11-12 Anaheim Hilton Hotel - Due diligence.docx

1. INTRODUCTION
This due diligence and seismic evaluation report, as requested by your office, primarily relates to the Parking Structure portion of the building which also includes a hotel. The building, typically constructed of reinforced concrete slabs with concrete shear walls, essentially is one building without seismic/expansion joints. B&J has been conducting structural observations on the parking structure for the Anaheim Convention Center since 1997. B&J has also carried out structural engineering services for the Anaheim Hilton on various projects on the hotel portion of the building during this time.

This report, while primarily addressing the parking structure, also includes items associated with the hotel, which we are cognizant of and consider relevant.

2. SITE LOCATION
Ref: Google Maps 2015
Figure 1 - Site Plan
N
DRAFT
Anaheim Hilton Hotel November 12, 2015
Due Diligence & Seismic Evaluation Page 3
Ref: Google Maps 2015
Figure 2 - Site Aerial View
Figure 3 - Building Site Plan
DRAFT
Anaheim Hilton Hotel November 12, 2015
Due Diligence & Seismic Evaluation Page 4

3. BUILDING DESCRIPTION
The existing structure is fifteen stories in height with a basement level, constructed circa 1983. The lower six stories form a wide base podium, and a set-back occurs above this portion with a tower for the remainder of the height. The structure consists of reinforced concrete flat slab construction with thickened drop slabs at the columns.

The lateral force resisting system is comprised of reinforced concrete shear walls at the lower parking garage levels and moment frames at the upper tower levels. The foundations consist of pile caps and piles.

The 600 feet by 640 feet parking garage, located on the north side of the hotel lobby, accommodates approximately one half of the plan area of the lowest six floors of the building. It typically consists of 4½ inch and 6 inch reinforced concrete flat slabs with thickened drop slabs at the columns.

Above the sixth floor, the hotel tower extends a further nine floors. The hotel comprises one long wing extending east-west approximately 600 feet in plan with 2 perpendicular wings to the north (approximately 200 feet in plan) and one perpendicular wing to the south (approximately 200 feet in plan). The width of the wings is approximately 60 feet in plan. The main structure typically consists of 4 ½ and 5½ inch reinforced concrete flat slabs with thickened drop slabs at the column. The lateral force resisting system comprises of concrete moment frames.

In between the hotel towers, at the 6th and 7th floors, a light gauge metal structure has been added at the same time with the original construction of the main building.

This structure is commonly referred to as the “Lanai Rooms”. This is separated from the hotel tower with 1 inch expansion joint. The Kitchen Bar is similar in situation as the Lanai Rooms.

Concrete delayed pour strips were provided during construction approximately 2’-6” wide for both the hotel towers and the parking garage. No seismic/expansion joints are provided for the hotel tower nor for the parking garage.

4. STRUCTURAL OBSERVATIONS
Considering the age of the building, the structural components of the building appear to be generally in good condition except for the deterioration throughout the flat slabs.

Based upon our experience with the building and numerous site visits including structural observations carried out on March 18, 2014 and March 31, 2014, the following are our observations:

DRAFT
Anaheim Hilton Hotel November 12, 2015
Due Diligence & Seismic Evaluation Page 5
B2. Levels 6 through 15:
(i) Significant sag up to 4 inches in the floor slabs has been noted. To the best of our knowledge, the slabs at these levels have not been investigated for deterioration.
(ii) Damage at the seismic separation between the Lanai Rooms and the towers has been noted following recent earthquake activity. This includes spall of concrete underneath the carpet at the joint between the east-west and north-south wings.
(iii) Nonstructural cracks have been noted in the gypboard ceilings at the location indicated under item (ii) above. These are associated with recent earthquake activity.

B3. 5th floor:
(i) At the east side of the 5th floor of the parking structure roof, there is a cooling tower assembly.
(ii) Significant number of pipes penetrating the ceiling above this level has been observed which appear to have caused concrete deterioration and/or rebar corrosion throughout the years. Repairs have been carried out to minimize the effects of water leaks. This includes the pool area. (iii) Cracks in the slab throughout the floor. Significant cracks have already been epoxy injected.

B4. 4th floor:
(i) Deterioration of concrete in the vicinity of the cooling tower above has been noted. Severe spall and efflorescence have been observed at this area. No repairs have been carried out.
(ii) Cracks in the slab throughout the floor. Significant cracks have already been epoxy injected.

B5. 3rd, 2nd and 1st Floors:
(i) Cracks in the slab throughout the floor. Significant cracks have already been epoxy injected.

B6. Thermal, shrinkage and creep
Primarily due to the structure not having any expansion/seismic joints, some of the cracking/spalling of the structure, particularly at the parking levels, has been due to significant restraint afforded by stiff elements such as the concrete shear walls.

5. EVALUATION HISTORY
The followings are synopses from our previous reports sent over the past 18 years following our observations and work carried out at the facility.  Waterproofing restoration recommended at the fifth floor to mitigate corrosion and efflorescence in the slab. Deflection in the parking structure slabs has been recorded for monitoring purposes. B&J report sent to the Anaheim Convention DRAFT
Anaheim Hilton Hotel November 12, 2015
Due Diligence & Seismic Evaluation Page 6
Center dated June 23, 1997.
 Concrete cracks, spall repairs and missing anchors at the external post tensioning (PT) posts at the parking structure. B&J report sent to the Anaheim Convention Center dated July 1, 1998. B&J provided repair details; according to our knowledge, repairs were carried out circa 1999.
 Deterioration of slab at pipe penetrations at the fifth floor. B&J report sent to the Anaheim Convention Center dated July 1, 1998.
 Slab rebar corrosion at the parking structure. B&J report sent to the Anaheim Convention Center dated June 16, 2000. According to our knowledge, no action was carried out.
 Hotel pool deck renovation. This included added concrete beams, a diagonal wall at Level P5 and concrete masonry wall (circa 2011).
 Testing of 5th Floor ceiling for possible corrosion which was found to be superficial.

B&J memo sent to the Anaheim Hilton dated October 10, 2013.  Concrete crack repair with epoxy injection to the 5th Floor ceiling. B&J provided recommended repair plans and details. To the best of our knowledge, this work was carried out.
 Excessive deflections at the hotel corridors at the 6th through 15th floors (up to 4 inches). B&J report sent to the Anaheim Hilton dated December 10, 2012. We understand that leveling compound was added.
 Prioritized repairs carried out at the parking structure (epoxy injections for slabs and walls, column, etc.) circa 2012.
 Repairs to PT anchors damaged by vehicular impact (circa February 2014).  Repairs to PT anchors damaged by vehicular impact (circa June 2013).  The addition of tie-back anchors at the hotel roof (circa 2013).

B&J has been monitoring the Car Park portion of the building for several years since approximately 1997. This followed excessive deflections being found at the floor slabs primarily due to the use of thin slabs. Repairs, mostly involving epoxy injection, repair of spalls, etc., were carried out on the Parking Structure circa 1998, 2007 and 2012.

We were also involved with the Pool Renovation project for the Hotel and repairs at the fifth floor ceiling circa 2012. To the best of our knowledge, the repairs indicated on our drawings have been carried out for both parts of the building.

B&J carried out a structural observation following the July 29, 2008 Chino Hills Earthquake. Minimal damage was noted including cracks at the columns, shear walls, slab soffit and edge of slab along with cracks in drywall and stucco walls.

6. REPAIR HISTORY
Significant cracking has occurred as a result of the concrete slab experiencing significant deflections in several areas of the parking structure. This portion of the structure was strengthened circa 1990 in the aisle areas below the 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors where frequent traffic occurs. The strengthening consists of external post-tensioning (PT). The PT system comprises ½” diameter steel cables extending over steel posts installed halfway between the columns in the slab soffit. There are also cables DRAFT
Anaheim Hilton Hotel November 12, 2015
Due Diligence & Seismic Evaluation Page 7
perpendicular to the driving aisles, aligned with the column lines. The PT system provides uplift at the center of the concrete slab to reduce the existing excessive deflections. The posts are attached to the concrete slab soffit with mechanical anchors to prevent rotation. Previous recommendations included installing, at a minimum, two anchors at diagonally opposite corners. Polyethylene sheathing protects the steel cables against corrosion. The driving aisle cables are anchored into the edge beam at the east side of the structure and into the thickened slab at the west side. Cables are also anchored to the columns or walls, depending upon their location. To the best of our knowledge, the majority of the cracks found following deflection of the slabs were repaired circa 1990 by epoxy injection. As mentioned above, further repairs to concrete cracks and spalls, along with repairs to the PT system, have been carried out since the initial crack repair and PT installation.

7. SEISMIC EVALUATION
A seismic evaluation of this building was performed by B&J in 2014 in accordance with ASCE 31, the “Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings”, as requested by the Anaheim Hilton. The evaluation involved a Tier 1 and 2 analysis of the structural system. The analysis of the building was performed using ETABS finite element computer program by Computers and Structures, Inc. (CSI) of Berkeley to study the interaction between critical elements and further analyze possible deficiencies. A linear dynamic analysis was run utilizing the ASCE 31 response spectra. The seismic demand was based on 75% of the base shear resulting from the 2008 USGS seismic mapped hazard parameters as determined in conformance with the current standard requirements.

Elements/components investigated include the following:
 Concrete moment frames
 Concrete shear walls
 Diaphragm and collectors (shear transfer)
 Concrete slab and beam subjected to earthquake movements  Columns
 Piles and pile caps
The Tier 1 and Tier 2 analysis results indicate several structural conditions exist which do not meet the requirements for a Life Safety performance rating. In the current state, during a severe earthquake the building may experience damage which would exceed target limits for Life Safety performance in some areas. The building should be considered as generally lacking ductility and thus vulnerable to significant damage.

Damage during a major seismic event may include cracking of walls, beams, columns and slabs or partial collapse.
i) General Findings:
 The upper structure moment frame system is flexible compared to the much stiffer system used at the lower levels (1 through 5) for the parking garage.
 A non-linear comprehensive analysis (Tier 3) may yield less demand but involves extensive effort and the results are not guaranteed to improve.

DRAFT
Anaheim Hilton Hotel November 12, 2015
Due Diligence & Seismic Evaluation Page 8
 Given the size of the structure, the lack of expansion/seismic joints favors significant restraint for thermal changes, particularly at the parking structure levels.
ii) Seismic Deficiencies per ASCE 31 include the following:

Foundation:

Shear walls in the Parking Structure:

D2. Shear wall edge reinforcing (jamb bars/dowels at footings) are not adequate at several locations. The reinforcing bars used for the dowels are Grade 40 which affects their capacity in transferring forces to the foundation.

Parking Structure Slabs:

D4. Lack of reinforcing in the slabs at large openings (i.e. loading dock area).

Applicable to floors 1 through 5.

Upper Structure - Hotel:

D5. The lateral force resisting system for the two story “Lanai Rooms” above the 6 th floor is not adequate for the seismic demand loads (steel straps over metal studs).

D6. The connection of the “Lanai rooms” lateral force resisting system to the 6th floor is not adequate.

D7. The 6th floor flat slab is not adequate for overturning demands from the “Lanai rooms” lateral force resisting system.

D8. Connection of the “Lanai Room” braces at the 7th floor level is deficient (insufficient capacity at the anchor rods).

D9. Seismic separations (i.e. Lanai Rooms separation from towers) are inadequate.

D10. Gravity columns are not adequate for axial loads combined with moments that result from seismic displacements.

D11. Moment Frames are not adequate for the design loads (insufficient DRAFT
Anaheim Hilton Hotel November 12, 2015
Due Diligence & Seismic Evaluation Page 9
stirrups in beams 15’ and shorter).

D12. Based on available information, the load transfer from the floor slabs to the interior columns of the Hotel Tower is deficient. Concerns are inadequate reinforcing in bottom of drop panels and marginal punching shear capacity.

A non-structural evaluation was not performed as there was not enough information available. Miscellaneous signs, appendages, curtain wall, etc. may be deficient and pose a falling hazard threat. There is no information on the drawings provided with respect to the attachment used to the structure. Furthermore, the Building Code changed significantly since the original design of the building making most of the current attachments likely to be non-compliant. It is not clear from the information provided how the curtain wall is attached to the structure, and in a seismic event, if deficient, may become a falling hazard issue.

8. PROPOSED SEISMIC RETROFIT
Recommendations for addressing the evaluated seismic deficiencies and observed structural issues are as follows:

E1. We recommend obtaining a soils report to further investigate the adequacy of the foundation system in its interaction with the soil.

E2. We recommend material testing be carried out to determine as-built condition of the shear wall jambs (dowels to footings).

E3. The lack of drag and chord reinforcing can be mitigated by introducing steel straps (plates and angles) to adequately transfer forces between seismic force resisting elements. Alternatively, reinforced shotcrete sections may be added to mitigate the issue.

E4. Openings in the concrete slabs can be addressed by adding steel straps at their edges. Refer to E3 above for alternative.

E5. The lateral force resisting system for the “Lanai Rooms” may be improved by adding straps on the opposite face of the wall (facing the existing steel straps).

E6. We recommend strengthening connections of the “Lanai rooms” braced frames to the 6th Floor by adding additional anchors.

E7. To more accurately assess the 6th floor flat slabs supporting the “Lanai Rooms”, we recommend the following surveys:
a. Verify concrete and reinforcing strength of 6th Floor slab via a materials testing program.
b. Inspect representative sample of slab-column joints to establish typical crack patterns and extent, and evaluate impact on slab capacity. This entails removal of architectural finishes to expose the structural members.

If an evaluation based on the above surveys indicates 6th Floor flat slabs are inadequate and most likely need enhancements include adding Fiber Reinforced DRAFT
Anaheim Hilton Hotel November 12, 2015
Due Diligence & Seismic Evaluation Page 10
Polymer (FRP) strengthening to the slabs to address flexural issues and adding steel or concrete shear heads to address shear issues.

E8. The connection at the 7th floor braces for the “Lanai Rooms” can be improved by adding straps at the exterior of the structure. Alternatively, internal holdowns may be used.

E9. Damage between structures can be addressed by allowing for adequate seismic separations in conformance with the analysis results.

E10. Recommend Fiber Reinforced Polymer to improve the performance of the gravity columns.

E11. Recommend fiber wrap around plastic hinge zone to strengthen the frame beam.

E12. In the Hotel Tower, the slab-column joints have to transfer vertical loads while tolerating seismic displacements of the tower. These displacements generate frame action moments in slabs and columns resulting in moment reversal and increased punching shear demands. Based upon information on the drawings provided, it cannot be confirmed that there is sufficient reinforcing in the bottom of the drop panel to resist moment reversal demands.

Given the vertical deflections observed in the Hotel Tower corridors, cracking patterns similar to that found in parking levels are anticipated. The concern is that excessive cracking will reduce the punching shear capacity which is already marginal per our evaluation, which assumes reasonably monolithic concrete.

To more accurately assess the slab-column joints we recommend the following surveys:
a. Verify concrete and reinforcing strength of floor slabs via a materials testing program.
b. Inspect representative sample of slab-column joints to establish typical crack patterns and extent and evaluate impact on punching shear. This entails removal of architectural finishes to expose the structural members. c. Determine extent of reinforcing at the bottom of drop panels and a portion of the bottom reinforcing extending through columns using a combination of nondestructive and destructive methods.

If an evaluation based on the above surveys indicate slab-column joints are still deficient, three possible retrofit solutions are listed below:
a. Local strengthening of deficient slab-column joints. b. Add viscous dampers to 6th and possibly 7th stories to reduce the Hotel Tower’s displacements. This approach is viable if a displacement reduction of 30% to 35% is sufficient.
c. Add steel buckling restrained braced frames or concrete shear walls from 6th floor to roof.

E13. We recommend that a materials testing program as outlined in ASCE 41 be undertaken for the entire structure. This will allow for the design of the most economical retrofits possible.

DRAFT
Anaheim Hilton Hotel November 12, 2015
Due Diligence & Seismic Evaluation Page 11
With regard to item E11, it should be noted that whereas the parking levels have been constantly monitored and repairs made (epoxy injection and spall repair), according to our knowledge, no extensive inspections were carried out at the Hotel floors followed by repairs.

We recommend a non-structural evaluation be carried out to determine the adequacy of non-structural components including curtain wall attachment and prepare details for strengthening as required.

The approach we adopted is to categorize the mitigations proposed for the identified deficiencies in the order of “highly recommended” and “recommended”. Based upon these criteria we prioritized the work to be carried out as follows:

9. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT SEISMIC RETROFIT – PARKING STRUCTURE ONLY
Following the seismic evaluation carried out in 2015, at Anaheim Hilton’s request, B&J has developed a materials testing program and Preliminary Design Development set of retrofit drawings for a partial voluntary seismic upgrade at the Parking Garage only and not the Tower: that is addressing Items E2, E3, E4 and partially E13 listed in Section 8 DRAFT
Anaheim Hilton Hotel November 12, 2015
Due Diligence & Seismic Evaluation Page 12
for the structure north of Gridline 12 between the Basement Level to Fifth Floor. Details are for the installation of steel plates with an alternate using FRP composite strip for design-build. B&J has been in contact with four FRP manufacturers/installers: Simpson, Fyfe, Sika and Contech. At this stage, the drawings, recently provided to the Anaheim Hilton, should provide sufficient information for preliminary pricing purposes. We recommend adding a contingency in the budget for this preliminary stage.

Please note the materials testing program has not yet been carried out. Once the material testing has been carried out, findings could alter the retrofit recommendations once they are available. Additionally, further recommendations may be made following receipt of a relevant geotechnical report.

10. SUMMARY
Our professional services have been performed with the intent to meet the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by reputable structural engineers practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice or opinions included in this letter. This study does not address nonstructural concerns, such as accessibility, fire & life safety regulations, or MEP systems.

If there are any aspects of this report that requires further clarification or about which you have questions, please contact our office. We are pleased to have been able to provide to you our structural engineering services.

Sincerely,
BRANDOW & JOHNSTON, INC.

Josh Gebelein, S.E. 5015 Peter J. Maranian, S.E. 2720
Associate Principal Principal
DRAFT

APPENDIX A
Anaheim Hilton Hotel

Page 13 ends

Northwest View of the Hotel
Southeast View of the Parking Structure
DRAFT

LETTERS / REPAIR DRAWINGS
Project:

Project #1410083 - Anaheim Hilton Hotel / Car Park 2 PT Cable Support Damage
February 19, 2014 B&J #TBD
Mr. Allen Balian
Hilton Hotels Corporation
777 Convention Way
Anaheim, CA 92802
Ref.: Car Park 2 Damage at Post Tensioned Cable Support Dear Mr. Balian:

This letter follows the visit to the building by Teodor Francu on February 17, 2013 pertaining to the above property. It was then brought to our attention that one of the exterior Post Tensioned (PT) Cable supports, located at the second floor, has sustained damage.

Building Description:

Above the sixth floor, the lateral resisting system primarily consists of reinforced concrete moment frames.

Observations and Findings:

During our site visit conducted on February 17, 2013 it was observed at the second floor that a support for the PT cables has sustained significant damage. Specifically, the stanchion Car Park 2 February 19, 2014
Damage at PT Support Page 2 of 4
located between gridlines Q4, R4 and 25, 26 has been completely detached from the slab above and it is currently held up by the post tensioned cables (see photos 1, 2 and sketch SV-SK-1). Please note that our letter dated June 10, 2013 memorialized a similar incident at the same stanchion. Repair drawings have been provided along with a repair sequence to remediate the damage.

Note also in the recent incident, damage was noted to the underside of the slab about 12” away from the king post in discussion. This did not occur in the previous incident (see photo 3).

Recommendations:

1. Shore areas affected as required to allow for step 2 below;

2. De-stress the affected cables running East to West;

3. Repair concrete spalls as required;

4. Install PT support with bracing;

5. Install at a minimum two anchors per PT connection plate at diagonally opposite corners throughout.

6. Replace affected PT cables and stress.

7. Remove shoring.

It is our opinion that once the above steps are followed, the previous state of the affected areas will be restored.

We understand we are directed to provide drawing(s) for the remedial work.

We hope this provides the information you require at this time. Should you have any questions, please contact the writers.

Sincerely,
BRANDOW AND JOHNSTON, INC.

Teodor Francu, PE 75966
Project Engineer
Peter J. Maranian, SE 2720
Principal
G:\14\_No Job Number Yet\Anaheim Hilton PT\Doc\letter\2013-06-10 Anaheim Hilton damage to PT support LTR JA.doc Cc: Connor Doss (Anaheim Hilton)
Car Park 2 February 19, 2014
Damage at PT Support Page 3 of 4
Photo 1
Photo 2
Car Park 2 February 19, 2014
Damage at PT Support Page 4 of 4
Photo 3

PROJECT
CLIENT

LOCATION
ITEM SHEET #
JOB #
DATE

ENGINEER
BRANDOW & JOHNSTON, INC STRUCTURAL & CIVIL ENGINEERS | LOS ANGELES NEWPORT BEACH Q4 R4

AFFECTED KING POST
N

ANAHEIM HILTON PARKING PT

ANAHEIM HILTON ANAHEIM, CA TFANAHEIM HILTON TBD
SV-SK-1

SITE VISIT REPORT B&J #1410083
Date: 03-11-2014
TO: Allen Balian
FROM: Teo Francu and Peter Maranian
PROJECT: Anaheim Hilton Parking Structure
Car Park 2
PRESENT AT SITE:

Norair Tcheurekjian, PE - Brandow & Johnston, Inc.

Giovanni Padilla - Synergetics Construction, Inc.

DATE OF VISIT: 03-10-2014
STATUS:

The cables have been installed and the Post Tensioned system appears to have been restored.

OBSERVATIONS/DISCUSSIONS/ACTION ITEMS:

1. Post between gridlines Q and R has been installed.

2. The repairs of the spalls at the affected Post Tensioning post appear to have been carried out in accordance with the contract details.

3. It is our understanding, from the information provided that the braces have been installed after the PT stressing took place. This is not in accordance with the sequence provided on 22 from S-1.1.

4. The braces called out on the plan S-2.3 and Details 7 and 9 from S1.1 have not been installed in accordance with the drawings. Specifically, the orientation of the brace is not as shown on S-2.3B. Furthermore, at the west side, the braces have not been installed between gridlines I and J as per the drawings. Braces shall be installed as outlined on the structural drawings. Do not remove installed braces as this may affect prestressing already carried out. Add braces to satisfy structural drawings.

5. The Deputy Inspector Report identifies the stress blocks as being located between gridlines J and K and either side of gridline R. The stress blocks are located between gridlines I and J and either side of gridline R, where braces should be installed as well.

The report should be checked for accuracy and revised as required.

If there are any questions or clarifications required, do not hesitate to contact the writers. cc: Connor Doss (Anaheim Hilton)
Giovanni Padilla (Synergetics)
Jeff Geyer (Synergetics)
g:\14\1410083 - anaheim hilton pt\doc\site\2014-03-10 site visit report - tf.doc March 13, 2014 B&J #1410083
Mr. Allen Balian
Hilton Hotels Corporation
777 Convention Way
Anaheim, CA 92802
Ref.: Car Park 2 Damage at Post Tensioned Cable Support Dear Mr. Balian:

This letter follows completion of repairs for the Post Tensioning system at the second level of the parking structure for the Anaheim Hilton Hotel in Anaheim, California.

Based upon our site visit, photos sent by the Contractor and Deputy Inspector’s reports, we believe that the work done is in conformance with the structural drawings.

We hope this provides the information you require at this time. Should you have any questions, please contact the writers.

Sincerely,
BRANDOW AND JOHNSTON, INC.

Teodor Francu, PE 75966
Project Engineer
Peter J. Maranian, SE 2720
Principal
G:\14\1410083 - Anaheim Hilton PT\Doc\letter\2014-03-13 Anaheim Hilton damage to PT support LTR AB.doc Cc: Connor Doss (Anaheim Hilton)
/(77(565(3$,5'5$:,1*6
Project:

Project #1710158 – ACC Car Park 2 Roof Repairs and Investigation of Cracks over PT Posts

November 21, 2017 B&J #1710158
Mr. Brian Daniels
Anaheim Convention Center
800 West Katella Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92802
Subject: Site Visit – 11/03/2017
Anaheim Parking Structure Car Park 2: Leakage at Roof
Dear Mr. Daniels:

This letter follows your request for us to carry out a site visit to investigate where leakage through an area below an existing planter was reported.

Observations during our site visit on November 3, 2017
A site visit was conducted November 3, 2017 by Norair Tcheurekjian. The following are his observations:
i) Cracking in the soffit of the Level P5 slab, approximately in a square pattern, was observed south of grid 24 and to the west of grid G6. Cracks in the soffit of the slab, propogate from the corners of the cracks approximately in a square pattern were observed. The crack pattern occurs near the mid-span of the slab. See attached Photo 1, Photo 2 and SK1 & SK2.
ii) Leakage of water has occurred also on the east side of grid G6. See Photo 3. iii) A planter occurs on top of the slab. At the end of the planter, there is a pedestal and light pole. See Photo 4.

Conclusions and Recommendations
The leakage apparently occurred due to a broken irrigation line. It is unclear how long the pipe has been broken. The issue of the possibility of water leakage through the slab, particularly in the areas where planters occur, possibly causing corrosion has been a concern to us for some time. Testing carried out circa June 2002 indicates one location where corrosion has been measured to be 19.6%. See attached letter to Dick Day (ACC) dated 9/12/2002.

We recommend the following:

1. At two locations, concrete should be partially removed to expose the existing rebar.

2. Visual observation of the rebar should be carried out at the two locations.

3. Should the visual observation suggest significant corrosion has taken place, testing by an independent testing agency should be carried out to determine the amount of Anaheim Convention Center November 21, 2017
Project: ACC Car Park 2 Roof Leakage Page 2

corrosion.

4. Depending on the findings, remedial measures are then to be determined. Epoxy injection of the cracks should be carried out as part of the forthcoming repairs (see B&J’s drawings recently sent).

Should you have any questions or comments please contact the writers.

Sincerely,
BRANDOW & JOHNSTON, INC.

Peter J. Maranian, SE 2720
Principal
Norair Tcheurekjian, PE 59268
Project Engineer
Cc: Dan Lee (Deputy Director)
Randy Howser (Operations Manager)
Attachments
x Photographs
Photos 1, 2 & 3 (below Level P5)
Photo 4 (above P5 looking south)
x Sketches
SK1 – Enlarged partial 5th Floor plan above.

SK2 – Enlarged partial 5th Floor plan below.
x Letter to Dick Day Dated 9/12/2002
G:\17\1710158 - ACC CAR PARK 2 CRACK REPAIR\1_DOC\4_LETTER_MEMO_REPORT\2017-11-21 LETTER- SITE VISIT 11-03-2017 CP2-ROOF LEAKAGE.DOC
Anaheim Convention Center November 21, 2017
Project: ACC Car Park 2 Roof Leakage Page 3

PHOTO 1
Below Level P5
Anaheim Convention Center November 21, 2017
Project: ACC Car Park 2 Roof Leakage Page 4

PHOTO 2
Below Level P5
Anaheim Convention Center November 21, 2017
Project: ACC Car Park 2 Roof Leakage Page 5

PHOTO 3
Below Level P5
Anaheim Convention Center November 21, 2017
Project: ACC Car Park 2 Roof Leakage Page 6

PHOTO 4
Above P5, Looking South
B&JA #93497A
September 12, 2002
Mr. Richard Day
Anaheim Convention Center
800 West Katella Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92802
Subject: Anaheim Convention Center Car Parks 1 and 2
Dear Mr. Day:

We refer to the testing carried out by Consolidated Inspection and Engineering Group. This is in response to our recommendations given in our letter to you dated July 26, 1992 which was to advise you of possible requirements to maintain the structure for safe operations. This also follows our letter to you dated June 1, 2001 when we advised you that “in some areas of the structure, deterioration may have reached a level which gives cause for concern.”
We subsequently assembled Contract Documents for a corrosion investigation. A corrosion investigation was carried out by Consolidated Inspection and Engineering Group and reported in their report dated June 21, 2002.

CORROSION INVESTIGATION
The corrosion investigation consisted of abstraction of concrete cores to ascertain the concrete passivity levels (pH values) and also carry out a corrosion analysis of the rebar. This was carried out at the top and mid levels of Car Park 1 and the 5th floor of Car Park 2 on the north side mostly at the exposed roof areas.

Typically, locations selected were at areas which appeared in poor condition.

The conclusions by Consolidated Inspection and Engineering Group are as follows:
“CONCLUSIONS: 1. The corrosion of the reinforcing steel bars must be considered to be a general type which is normally caused by liquid and oxygen in contact with the steel.

2. Minimal local (pitting or crevice) corrosion was found, indicating that chemical or stagnant condition attack did not occur.

3. .02%. Based on these definitions, the severity of corrosion was found to lack a pattern regarding the locations in the structure, whether the reinforcing steel was a top or bottom bar, or which deck level from which the samples were removed. It would appear that the severity of corrosion is based on the time of exposure of the steel to the corrosives.

Anaheim Convention Center
Project: Anaheim Convention Center Car Parks 1 and 2
September 12, 2002

Page 2 ends

4. The largest loss of cross sectional area of the steel bars examined was 19.6%. The least loss of area was 0%. The average loss of area was 3.49% and the mean percentage loss of area was 1.18%.

5. No apparent relationship between the ph of the concrete and the severity of the corrosion was noted.

6. Samples at six (6) of the fourteen (14) test locations were found to have less than 1-in. of concrete cover.”
The pH levels, percentages of corrosion both surface area and loss of cross sectional area are noted on the attached plans. They are also noted in Table 1 along with concrete cover. The pH of the concrete, representing the passivity of the concrete, is also identified on plan. Please note that the threshold pH value of protecting the reinforcement is generally believed to be 9. New concrete normally has a pH of 12 or higher.

With regard to each structure, the corrosion investigation and concrete passivity may be summarized as follows:

Car Park 1
Top Level:

From six locations, we derive the following:

Lowest pH (occurs @ underside of slab, D/15.5; location 7) pH = 9.2;
Corresponding loss of cross sectional area = 3.99%;
Corresponding surface area corroded 100%.

Highest Loss of Cross Sectional Area (occurs @ top side of slab, K.3/15.8; location 10) Loss of cross sectional area = 7.28%,
Corresponding pH = 11.7,
Corresponding surface area corroded = 45.1%)
Highest Corroded Surface Area corroded is the same as the Lowest pH (see above).

Mid Level:

From two locations, the lowest pH, highest loss of cross sectional area and the highest surface area corroded occur at the underside of slab H.5/1.3 (location 3). The values are:
pH = 9.4
Loss of corroded area = 3.69%
Surface area corroded = 100%
Anaheim Convention Center
Project: Anaheim Convention Center Car Parks 1 and 2
September 12, 2002

Page 6 ends

Car Park 2
From six locations, we derive the following:

Lowest pH (occurs at underside of slab at N4.4/26.4; location 6) pH = 9.8
Corresponding loss of cross sectional area = 12.8%
Corresponding surface area corroded = 100%
Highest Loss of Cross Section Area (occurs at underside of slab, LL.5/26.4; Location 5) Loss of cross sectional area = 19.6%
Corresponding pH = 11.2
Corresponding surface area corroded = 94.4%
Highest Corroded Surface Area is the same as the lowest pH (see above)

CONCLUSIONS
General
We concur with Consolidated Inspection and Engineering Group that there does not appear to be any apparent relationship between the concrete passivity levels (pH) and the severity of the concrete.

The average loss of cross section area of the reinforcing steel, which is also a direct measure of loss of strength, is on average moderate.

Some areas have concrete cover less than required for exposed conditions. That is as low as 3/8 inch compared with the desired minimum of 1 inch. Less concrete cover leaves less protection to the steel reinforcing.

Car Park 1
The level of corrosion was typically moderate with the highest loss of 7.28% at the top level and 3.69% at the mid level. The average from 6 locations at the top level is 2.25%. The average from two locations at the mid level is less than 2%. The concrete passivity level (lowest 9.2) is marginally above the threshold level of 9 below which the concrete would not provide adequate protection to concrete.

Therefore, in our opinion, the structure may continue to operate subject to constant monitoring (as has taken place during the last several years) and the following:
(i) Apply elastomeric coating to the complete surface of the top level. The elastomeric coating is intended to prevent water leakage and further deterioration of the slab reinforcement. This should be carried out as soon as possible.
(ii) Carry out repair measures to address spalls, significant and minor cracking. The extent of these repairs, which would require a closer investigation of the building, is expected to be similar to the repairs carried out on the structure circa 1995. This should be carried out as soon as possible. (iii) Following continued monitoring, replace an area of significantly deteriorated and/or deflected slab, similar to that carried out in 1993.

Anaheim Convention Center
Project: Anaheim Convention Center Car Parks 1 and 2
September 12, 2002

Page 6 ends

Car Park 2
The level of corrosion at two locations is severe with loss of cross sectional areas of 19.6% and 12.8%.

The average loss of cross sectional area was 6.5% which may be considered as moderate. The concrete passivity level (lowest 9.8) is marginally above the lowest threshold level of 9 below which the concrete would not provide adequate protection to concrete.

Therefore, in our opinion, the structure at the roof at the fifth level may continue to operate subject to constant monitoring (as has taken place during the last several years) and the following:
(i) Apply elastomeric coating or similar to the complete surface of the roof at the 5th floor. The elastomeric coating is intended to prevent water leakage and further deterioration of the slab reinforcement. This should be carried out as soon as possible. (ii) Carry out repair measures to address spalls, significant and minor cracking primarily in the area of the roof. The extent of the repairs would require a closer investigation of the building. This should be carried out as soon as possible.
(iii) Investigate further the two areas where severe locations were found. Further investigation may include additional corrosion tests. It is possible that these areas may require replacement.

We trust this letter serves your purpose. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call.

Sincerely,

BRANDOW & JOHNSTON ASSOCIATES
Peter J. Maranian, S.E.

Associate
Gregg E. Brandow, PhD, S.E.

President
PJM/GEB:ag
Attachments: • Consolidation Inspection and Engineering Groups Report dated June 21, 2002. • Table 1 Findings from Consolidation Inspection and Engineering Group’s Investigation Plans SO.3 Car Park 1 Top Plan
SO.4 Car Park 1 Mid Level Plan
SO.6 Car Park 2 5th Level (Mid West)
SO.7 Car Park 2 5th Level (North West)
SO.8 Car Park 2 5th Level (North East)
cc: Tanya LaSoya (A.C.C.)
Michael Uren (A.C.C.)
Anaheim Convention Center
Project: Anaheim Convention Center Car Parks 1 and 2
September 12, 2002

Page 6 ends

TABLE 1: Findings from Consolidated Inspection and Engineering Groups Investigation Location
Sample
ID No. pH Value
Surface
Area
Corroded %
Loss of
Cross Sectional
Area %
Concrete
Cover
Inches
C.P.1, T.L, (E), (U) 1 11.8 0 0 1-1/8
C.P.1, T.L, (E), (U) 1A 11.8 11.4 0.02 1-1/8
C.P.1, T.L, (E), (U) 2 10.4 0 0 3/4
C.D.1, M.L, (I), (U) 3 9.4 100 3.69 3/4
C.P.2, 5th, (E), (U) 4 11.7 53.9 3.62 7/8
C.P.2, 5th, (E), (U) 5 11.2 94.4 19.6 3/4
C.P.2, 5th, (E), (U) 6 9.8 100 12.8 3/4
C.P.1, T.L, (E), (U) 7 9.2 100 3.99 3/8
C.P.1, T.L, (E), (T) 8 11.1 23.4 0.34 1-3/4
C.P.1, T.L, (E), (T) 8A 11.1 34.2 <0.01 1-3/4
C.P.1, T.L, (E), (T) 9 11.4 35.9 1.84 1-1/8
C.P.1, T.L, (E), (T) 10 11.7 45.1 7.28 1
C.P.1, M.L, (I), (U) 11 12.2 3 0 1-1/8
C.P.2, 5th, (I), (T) 12 10.8 13.6 0.53 1-7/8
C.P.2, 5th, (I), (T) 13 12.2 0 0 1-3/8
C.P.2, 5th, (E), (T) 14 12.0 13 2.19 2-1/4
Key
C.P.I. Car Park 1
C.P.2 Car Park 2
T.L Top Level
M.L Mid Level
(E) Exposed condition, i.e. roof
(I) Interior condition
(T) Core abstracted from topside of slab
(U) Core abstracted from underside of slab

700 South Flower Street Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 DRAFT
February 5, 2018 BNJ #1710158
Mr. Tim Cho
Anaheim Convention Center
800 West Katella Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92802
Subject: Anaheim Parking Structure – Car Park 2
B&J’s Scope of Work for Structural Observations
Dear Mr. Cho
This letter follows your request, per the telephone conversation between yourself and Peter Maranian on February 2, 2018, for B&J to describe our Scope of Work with regard to structural observations carried out on Car Park 2.

Per the agreements made between the City of Anaheim and Brandow & Johnston, our Scope of Work has been as follows:

1. Provide survey, observations and reports for the structural aspects of Car Park 2 on an annual basis.

2. Carry out a visit to survey and observe the structure on an annual basis and report our findings in writing.

3. Carry out an annual visit to monitor deflections and slab deflections at the 5th Level of the parking structure.

4. Provide structural engineering services as requested to develop scope of work to allow the Anaheim Convention Center to obtain proposals for minor structural repairs or alterations.

With regard to the scope of work listed above, more specific information on our scope of work is as follows:

1. Initial surveys were established circa 1997, along with report(s) to document known cracks observed at that time.

2. The annual visit typically involved one, sometimes two, civil or structural engineers carrying out structural observations of each bay at each floor (Levels 2, 3, 4 and 5) from below and above the top of the slabs. Where changes were observed, both with regard to crack widths and their extent, along with other observations such as efflorescence and spalls, these were noted accordingly in the report(s) following the observation. From time to time, the reports gave recommendations that repairs, typically involving epoxy injections and spall repairs, should be carried out.

3. Monitoring the deflection of the slab at representative bays of the parking structure were carried out for several years but more recently was discontinued as no significant changes were noted.

4. Structural engineering services, for repairs to Car Park 2, have been developed from time to time in response to recommendations made by B&J. The last set of drawings indicating repairs is dated 10-25-2017. We understand it is ACC’s intent to proceed with this repair work.

Mr. Tim Cho February 5, 2018
ACC Car Park 2 – Structural Services Page 2
700 South Flower Street Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599

STRUCTURAL
+ CIVIL

ENGINEERS
Should you have any questions, please contact the writers.

Sincerely,

BRANDOW & JOHNSTON
Peter J. Maranian, SE #2720
Principal
Norair Tcheurekjian, PE 59268
Project Engineer
Cc: Randy Hauser (Operations Manager)
G:\17\1710158 - ACC Car Park 2 Crack Repair\1_Doc\4_Letter_Memo_Report\2018-03-29 MEMO Tim Cho ACC Work To-Date (B&J).docx

MEMORANDUM
This memo follows our telephone conversation on 03-28-18 when you asked me to clarify work done by B&J this year to-date, work anticipated to be carried out the remainder of the year and anticipated costs.

1. Work Carried Out To-Date ( to 03-29-18)
(i) ACC Car Park 2: Letters dated 01-30-18 and 02-05-18 - $3,636* Please see the attached invoices.

2. Anticipated Work (Subject to ACC Approval)
(i) ACC Car Park 2
a) Repairs per B&J drawings dated 10-25-17
x Construction Administration – $5,000*
b) Repairs for cracks over PT posts (ref. B&J report dated 12-21-17) x Final drawings & Construction Administration - $8,000* (ii) ACC AHUs at Arena
a) See separate proposal dated 03-29-18 - $1,800*

3. Car Park 4 Repairs
(i) Drawings for repairs to all stairs along with alternative details for damaged parapet have been provided (sent again by Norair Tcheurekjian on 03-28-18) a) Construction Administration - $7,000*

*All fees approximate
JOB# 1710158
DATE March 29, 2018
SUBJECT B&J Costs on ACC Projects - 2018
#PAGES 1
TO Tim Cho (ACC)
FROM Peter Maranian
,QYRLFH1R

5DWH

7RWDO/DERU
dŽƚĂůƚŚŝƐ/ŶǀŽŝĐĞ
,QYRLFH
6)ORZHU6WUHHW
3URMHFW1R
6

$QDKHLP&RQYHQWLRQ&HQWHU
ƚƚĞŶƚŝŽŶ͗ĐĐŽƵŶƚƐWĂǇĂďůĞ
:HVW.DWHOOD$YH
ŶĂŚĞŝŵ͕ϵϮϴϬϮ
&DU3DUN5HPHGLDO0HDVXUHV
$QDKHLP&RQYHQWLRQ&HQWHU
+RXUV $PRXQW
5HPDLQLQJ
WRDGGUHVVGHWHULRUDWLRQLQFOXGLQJWKHVWDLUVSUHFDVWSDQHOVDQGFUDFNV
3KDVH 5HPHGLDO0HDVXUHV
7HO

0DUFK
%UDQGRZ -RKQVWRQ
6XLWH
/RV$QJHOHV&$

3URIHVVLRQDO6HUYLFHVIURP1RYHPEHUWR-DQXDU\
0DUDQLDQ3HWHU
%LOOLQJ/LPLWV &XUUHQW 7R'DWH
7RWDO%LOOLQJV
6WUXFWXUDO(QJLQHHULQJ6HUYLFHVLQFRQQHFWLRQZLWKSURYLGLQJUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVRQUHPHGLDOPHDVXUHV

7FKHXUHNMLDQ1RUDLU
/LPLW
3ULRU

3URIHVVLRQDO3HUVRQQHO
3OHDVHUHPLWSD\PHQWVWR

% -+%.,QF
0DLOWR

%UDQGRZ -RKQVWRQ
$WWQ
$5
6)ORZHU6XLWH
/RV$QJHOHV&DOLIRUQLD

Invoice No:

Rate
210.00
124.00
Total Labor
Total this Invoice
Invoice
700 S. Flower Street
Project No: S17-0192
00095098
Anaheim Convention Center
Attention: Accounts Payable
800 West Katella Ave.

Anaheim, CA 92802
Anaheim Convention Center Car Park 2
800 W. Katella Ave.

Hours Amount
Remaining
Anaheim, CA
1,298.00
Phase 100.33 Car Park #2 Roof Repairs
Tel: (213) 596-4500
March 7, 2018
Brandow & Johnston
Suite 1800
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Professional Services from January 1, 2018 to January 31, 2018 1,298.00
Maranian, Peter 5.00 1,050.00
Billing Limits Current To-Date
Total Billings 1,298.00 13,997.50
Structural Engineering Services in connection with car park #2 roof repairs. Services requested by Brian Daniels. 12,699.50
15,000.00
Tcheurekjian, Norair 2.00 248.00
Limit
Prior
1,002.50
Professional Personnel
December 21, 2017 B&J #1710158.20
Mr. Brian Daniels
Anaheim Convention Center
800 West Katella Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92802
Subject: Anaheim Parking Structure - Car Park 2
Cracks over PT Posts
Site Visit – 11/29/2017

Dear Mr. Daniels,
This letter follows our letter dated July 19, 2017 regarding your authorization given in your email dated 12-07-2017 to proceed with all proposals on Car Park 2 and our observations during a site visit on 11-29-2017.

Introduction
The concrete slabs are typically comprised of 5½ thick concrete slabs with 16” dropped slabs (caps) over the columns. B&J has been carrying out structural observations on the parking structure up to and including Level P5 since around 1997.

In our letter dated to you July 19, 2017, we noted that significant cracks were observed at the top of slabs over the posts which are part of the existing external post-tensioned (PT) systems that occurs at the drive aisles at Levels P2, P3 and P4. As you are aware, the existing external PT system was installed in the early 90s to address excessive deflection of the existing concrete flat slabs. The cracks over the posts appear to have become more significant over the course of the years. In our letter dated July 19, 2017, we mentioned that the significant cracks over the posts, for the PT system, are due to possible excessive prestress and/or constant vehicular traffic and we recommended further investigation.

Observations During Our Site Visit 11-29-2017
The writers walked Levels P1, P2, P3 and P4 in order to observe the PT installation layout and cracks over the tops of the posts. Our observations are summarized as follows:

1. The PT layout below Levels P4 and P3 were observed in order to establish the general layout of the systems. See Photos 1 & 2 for typical arrangement.

Approximate layout of the PT systems at Levels P3 and P4 are shown on the attached drawings, S2.3 and S2.4. Level P2 layout is similar but more complex, primarily due to the entry area.

2. The PT system essentially comprises the following:
i) Main run of PT cables typically extending the full length of the parking structure at the drive aisles. These are configured as shown on S-3, S-4 and S-1.0. Type Anaheim Convention Center December 21, 2017
Anaheim Parking Structure - Car Park 2 Page 2
Cracks Over PT Posts
G:\17\1710158.20 - ACC CAR PARK 2 (E) PT\1_DOC\4_LETTER_MEMO_REPORT\2017-12-21 LETTER CP2 CRACKS OVER PT POSTS.DOC MR1 is tight to the underside of the slab over a post at the column lines and slopes down to a post at the center of the slab span (see Photo 3). Type MR2 is horizontal and tight to the underside of the slab. Types MR1 and MR2 have four PT cables.
ii) Transfer cables CLT1 and CLT2 typically occur at column lines, are typically anchored at the columns, just below the soffit of the dropped slab (see Photo 4) and are inclined down to a post at the center of the slab span which reacts with the main cable type MR1 described in 2(i) above. CTL1 has four cables whereas CTL2 has two cables.
iii) Couplers occur at discreet locations along the main run cables (see Photo 5).

3. The sizes of the bearing plates below the slab above the posts were observed to be approximately 18”x18” at Levels P2 & P4 and 12”x12” at Level P3.

4. Cracks were typically observed at the top of both the posts at the center span of types MR1 and CLT1 and CLT2 (see Photos 5 & 6). The cracks appeared more prominent at type MR1. Locations where significant cracks were observed are shown on attached drawings S-3 and S-4 (Levels P3 & P4). Similar cracks also occur at Level P2.

Investigation

1. Drawings & Design: The original parking structure drawings are available to us. The original structural drawings and calculations for the external post-tensioned post apparently are not available.

2. Pre-stress Forces: Regarding Item 1, other than observing the number of cables and the post system, we cannot accurately determine what force levels the pre-stress cables were first stressed to and are now experiencing. The amount of pre-stress in the cables can also vary due to a number of factors which include the following:
i) Post Heights: Height of posts affecting the PT profile. The steeper the profile, the greater is the upward force on the slab. Some posts were observed to be higher than others.
ii) Long-Term Shrinkage & Creep: Long-term shrinkage, due to axial forces, could have marginally shortened the building, reducing the length of the cables thus reducing the pre-stress forces.
iii) Increased Sagging of Slabs: Increased sagging of the slabs, with time, may have occurred as a result of creep due to flexural behavior and on-going repetitive live loading. This may tend to increase the axial loads. iv) Relaxation of Strands: Over time, the pre-stress forces can relax due to creep of the steel material. We assume the PT cables used were “low relaxation” steel available at that time. Therefore, loss of pre-stress force, due to steel relaxation, is not anticipated to be significant. v) Anchorage Set: Anchorage set, which involves a small “give” at the anchorage, normally occurs immediately at the time of stressing. Therefore, loss of pre-stress from this phenomenon is not expected to change with time.
vi) Thermal Movements: The parking structure is an open structure subject to temperature variations. Increase in temperature will tend to cause an expansion of the structure, which will increase pre-stress forces particularly for the MR1 and MR2 pre-stressing types. Conversely, a reduction in temperature will tend to cause contraction of the structure, which reduce Anaheim Convention Center December 21, 2017
Anaheim Parking Structure - Car Park 2 Page 3
Cracks Over PT Posts
G:\17\1710158.20 - ACC CAR PARK 2 (E) PT\1_DOC\4_LETTER_MEMO_REPORT\2017-12-21 LETTER CP2 CRACKS OVER PT POSTS.DOC pre-stress forces particularly for the MR1 and MR2 pre-stressing types.

3. Cracking Over the Posts
i) The typical cracks observed over the posts at the top surface of the slabs are part of a “spider web” pattern similar to the well-known yield line cracking pattern. The original structural drawings indicate bottom reinforcement that is mostly continuous and top reinforcement over the columns and column strips. Where there are posts for Types MR1 and MR2 at the center of the slab span, there is typically no top reinforcement based upon review of the original structural drawings. This also occurs at the posts in the center span at the transfer cables CLT1 and CLT2. The upward force from the post tends to cause cracking at the top surface as shown on 14/S-1.0. ii) The cracking pattern is of concern, particularly with regard to it occurring on the top side of the slab where there is no top reinforcing. Based upon calculations, it would appear that there may be a potential for failure known as “punching shear” failure, particularly where the cracking is most significant. The concern for this increases where the bearing plates are only about 12”x12” at Level P3.

Recommendations
Based upon our observations and investigations, we recommend the following:

1. Remedial measures be carried out at selected locations where significant cracking at the top side was observed. Please see below for recommended remedial measures.

2. As part of the on-going annual structural observations, the cracking is continued to be observed and monitored to assess whether or not remedial measures be carried out at additional locations.

3. Remedial measures to be considered include the following:
i) Reduce the pre-stressing. This will require the following:
a) Assessment of acceptable levels of pre-stress based upon existing geometry.
b) Developing sequence to de-stress the cables.
c) Assessing where to de-stress. This may include end anchorages and/or at couplers. Reducing pre-stressing would be a complex operation required to be carried out with an increased degree of care.
ii) Strengthening the posts from below to prevent possible “punching shear” failure. See preliminary details 4, 5 9 & 10 on S-1.0.
iii) Adding fiber reinforcing on the top side of the slabs over the posts to provide flexural reinforcing and control further cracking. This would be carried out by a Specialist Subcontractor. The effects on wearing surface would been to be evaluated.

For all 3 recommended remedial measures, the significant cracks at the selected locations should be epoxy injected. Although epoxy injection of cracks over the posts will improve the condition, it would not, in our opinion, be considered on its own as a permanent remedial measure since, with time, cracks may still propagate.

You may wish to consider adding the remedial details for the selected locations to the forthcoming contract for Car Park 2 repairs (reference our drawings dated: 10-25-2017).

Anaheim Convention Center December 21, 2017
Anaheim Parking Structure - Car Park 2 Page 4
Cracks Over PT Posts
G:\17\1710158.20 - ACC CAR PARK 2 (E) PT\1_DOC\4_LETTER_MEMO_REPORT\2017-12-21 LETTER CP2 CRACKS OVER PT POSTS.DOC Should you have any questions or comments please contact the writers.

Sincerely,
BRANDOW & JOHNSTON, INC.

Peter J. Maranian, SE 2720
Principal
Norair Tcheurekjian, PE 59268
Project Engineer
Cc: Dan Lee (Deputy Director)
Randy Howser (Operations Manager)
Attachments:

Photographs
Photo 1: Below P4
Photo 2: Below P4
Photo 3: Typical Post at Main Run
Photo 4: Typical End Anchorage at Transfer Cables
Photo 5: Typical Coupler
Photo 6: Top of Slab Cracking Over Posts (2 photos)
Drawings
S-1.0 ACC CP2 – Remedial Measures for Cracking over Posts Details S-2.3 ACC CP2 – Existing PT Remedial Measures for Cracking over Posts – 3 rd Fl. Plan
S-2.4 ACC CP2 – Existing PT Remedial Measures for Cracking over Posts – 4 th Fl. Plan
Anaheim Convention Center December 21, 2017
Anaheim Parking Structure - Car Park 2 Page 5
Cracks Over PT Posts
G:\17\1710158.20 - ACC CAR PARK 2 (E) PT\1_DOC\4_LETTER_MEMO_REPORT\2017-12-21 LETTER CP2 CRACKS OVER PT POSTS.DOC PHOTOS
PHOTO 1 – BELOW P4
Anaheim Convention Center December 21, 2017
Anaheim Parking Structure - Car Park 2 Page 6
Cracks Over PT Posts
G:\17\1710158.20 - ACC CAR PARK 2 (E) PT\1_DOC\4_LETTER_MEMO_REPORT\2017-12-21 LETTER CP2 CRACKS OVER PT POSTS.DOC PHOTO 2 – BELOW P4
Anaheim Convention Center December 21, 2017
Anaheim Parking Structure - Car Park 2 Page 7
Cracks Over PT Posts
G:\17\1710158.20 - ACC CAR PARK 2 (E) PT\1_DOC\4_LETTER_MEMO_REPORT\2017-12-21 LETTER CP2 CRACKS OVER PT POSTS.DOC PHOTO 3 – TYPICAL POST AT MAIN RUN
Anaheim Convention Center December 21, 2017
Anaheim Parking Structure - Car Park 2 Page 8
Cracks Over PT Posts
G:\17\1710158.20 - ACC CAR PARK 2 (E) PT\1_DOC\4_LETTER_MEMO_REPORT\2017-12-21 LETTER CP2 CRACKS OVER PT POSTS.DOC PHOTO 4 – TYPICAL END ANCHORAGE AT TRANSFER CABLES
Anaheim Convention Center December 21, 2017
Anaheim Parking Structure - Car Park 2 Page 9
Cracks Over PT Posts
G:\17\1710158.20 - ACC CAR PARK 2 (E) PT\1_DOC\4_LETTER_MEMO_REPORT\2017-12-21 LETTER CP2 CRACKS OVER PT POSTS.DOC PHOTO 5 – TYPICAL COUPLER
Anaheim Convention Center December 21, 2017
Anaheim Parking Structure - Car Park 2 Page 10
Cracks Over PT Posts
G:\17\1710158.20 - ACC CAR PARK 2 (E) PT\1_DOC\4_LETTER_MEMO_REPORT\2017-12-21 LETTER CP2 CRACKS OVER PT POSTS.DOC PHOTO 6 - TOP OF SLAB CRACKING OVER POSTS
Anaheim Convention Center December 21, 2017
Anaheim Parking Structure - Car Park 2 Page 11
Cracks Over PT Posts
G:\17\1710158.20 - ACC CAR PARK 2 (E) PT\1_DOC\4_LETTER_MEMO_REPORT\2017-12-21 LETTER CP2 CRACKS OVER PT POSTS.DOC PHOTO 6 (2) – TOP OF SLAB CRACKING OVER POSTS
SCALE: 1 1/2"=1'-0" CLT2 - 2 CABLES CLT1 - 4 CABLES CABLES ANCHOR POST SCALE: 2 1/2"=1'-0" 4 CABLES POST POST TRANSFER POST TRANSFER 4 CABLES MR1 POST MR2 ANCHOR 4 CABLES STRAIGHT @ PT3 -8 @ P2 & P4 -3 @ PT3 -8 @ P2 & P4 -3 MAIN LINE CABLES - MR1 & MR2 TRANSFER LINE CABLES - CLT1 & CL2 SCALE: 3 1 1/2"=1'-0" (E) HSS SCALE: 4 SCALE: 1 1/2"=1'-0" 5 1 1/2"=1'-0" (E) 12"x12" LP (E) 18"x18" LP (E) LP P2 & P4 SCALE: 8 1 1/2"=1'-0" (E) HSS SCALE: 10 1 1/2"=1'-0" (E) LP P2 & P4 SCALE: 9 1 1/2"=1'-0" -10 P2 & P4 P2 & P4 2'-4" 2'-4" SECTION C6x TYP. ADDED LP-5A -5B SECTION A A P2 & P4 SECTION B C6x EA. SIDE C6x8.2 C6x EA. SIDE C6x8.2 P2 & P4 SECTION BEA. SIDE C6x8.2 C6x C6x 2'-4" 2'-4" TYP. ADDED LP - 10A - 10B C6x EA. SIDE C6x8.2 FOR STRENGTHENING FOR STRENGTHENING -5 -5 DETAILS SEE REMAINING TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. -4 DETAILS SEE REMAINING (E) 12"x12" LP SCALE: 13 1 1/2"=1'-0" 4'-0" ± 4'-0" ± CARBON FIBER EPOXIED (E) CRACKS TO BE SCALE: 14 1 1/2"=1'-0" (E) LP FORCE UPWARD TOP SURFACE CRACK PATTERN CRACKING FLEXURE E.W. TYP. #3 @ 9" O.C. REINFORCEMENT NO TOP PLAN SECTION (E) LP LP (E) STRENGTHENING FROM BELOW - PLAN @ P2 & P4 - TYP. STRENGTHENING FROM BELOW - PLAN @ P3 - TYP. CRACKING OVER POSTS EXISTING CONDITIONS OBSERVED ALTERNATIVE PLAN DETAIL - WITH CARBON FIBER TYP. PLATE @ P3 TYP. PLATE @ P2 & P4 STRENGTHENING FROM BELOW - SECTION @ P3 - TYP.

REVISIONS:

PRELIMINARY DRAWING

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
12-12-2017 AU E S R CF O TCURT DE ER GIST IA NROIF L LAR DATE: FOR BRANDOW & JOHNSTON, INC DETAILS ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER CAR PARK 2

EXISTING PT, REMEDIAL MEASURES
FOR CRACKING OVER POSTS S.A. 1/16"=1'-0" 1710158.20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 S S S S S S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S S SC SSSSSSSCSCSCSCSCSCSC 1A 2E 1B 1B 1B 1B 2E 2E 2C 1A2B 1B 2A 2A2A2A2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A S S S S S S S S S S S S S SSSSSSSSSSSSSS S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S BIG PATCHING AREA 1A 1A 1B 2E 1B 1A2A 2B 2A 2C 2A 2E2E2B2A2E 2E 1C 2A2A S 1C 2A 2E S 1A 1B 2E 2C 2C S S S S S S S S S S S S S SSCSCSCSCSCSCSC SC SC SC S S S S S S S S 2E 2C 2A 2A 2A 1C1B 1A 2A 2A S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S SCSCSCSSSSCSC SC SC SC SC S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 2E2A 2A 1A2A 1C 2A 2E 2E 2E (4) (8)
[20'x6"x1/2"]
[4'x1"x1"]
(12)
(4) JOINT CONSTRUCTION
MR2 CTL1
CTL1 U.N.O. TYP. CTL1 MR2 MR1 TYP. U.N.O.

CTL2 MR2 CTL2 CTL2 MR2 CTL2
MR1 MR1 TYP. U.N.O.

MR2 CTL2 CTL2
MR2 CTL2 CTL2
MR2 MR2 MR1
MR1
CTL2 MR2 CTL2 CTL2
CTL2
MR2 MR1 TYP. U.N.O. MR2 MR2
CTL1 U.N.O. TYP. CTL1 U.N.O. TYP. CTL1
MR2 U.N.O. TYP. MR1
CL1
CTL2
MR1 MR1 TYP. U.N.O. MR1
MR1 MR1 NOTES SEE S2.4 NOTES FOR PREVIOUS REPAIRS CARRIED OUT.

REVISIONS:

PRELIMINARY DRAWING

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
12-12-2017 AU E S R CF O TCURT DE ER GIST IA NROIF L LAR DATE: FOR BRANDOW & JOHNSTON, INC 1/16"=1'-0" S.A. 1710158.20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 S S S S S S S S S S S S SSSSSSCSCSCSCSCSC SCS SC SC S S S S S S S S SC 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 4 BOLTS SIM. PROVIDE S 2A2A 2E 1B SC S SCSCSCSCSCSCSCSCSC SC S S S S S S SC S S S SS S S S S S S S S S 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S SSSSSSCSSCSSCSCS S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 2A2A2A2A2A 4 BOLTS SIM. PROVIDE 2A 2A 2A 2A2A 2A 2A2A 2E 2A 4 BOLTS SIM. PROVIDE S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S SCSCSCSCSCSCSCSCSC S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 2A 2A 2A 2A 2E 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 1A 2B 1A P202 P202 P202 P202 P202 P201 P202
P202 P202 P202 P202
P202 P202
P202 P202
P202 P202P202 P202 P202 P202P202 P202
P202
P202
P202
P202
P202 P202
P202
P202
P202
P202
P202 P202 P202 P202 P202
P202
P205
P205 P202 P201 P202
P202 P202 P202P202 P202 P202 P202
P206 P201
P202 P206
P206P202
P206 P202 P206
P202
P202
P202
P202 P202 P202 P202
P202
P202
P202
P202 P202 P202 P202
P202 P102 (6) P102 (4) P105 (8) P102 (10) P102 (4) P102 (8) P111 (4) P111 (6) P102 (2) P115 P116 P116 P115 P115 P116 P115 P115 P116 P115 P115 P116 P116 P116 P116 P115 P118 P105 P105 2 22 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 22 222 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 22 2 2 222 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 P116 P116 S S S S S S S S S S S S SSSSSSCSCSCSCSCSC SCS SC SC S S S S S S S S SC 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 4 BOLTS SIM. PROVIDE S 2A2A 2E 1BP116 S S S S S S S S S S S S SSSSSSCSCSCSCSCSC SCS SC SC S S S S S S S S SC 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 4 BOLTS SIM. PROVIDE S 2A2A 2E 1BP116 P118 P118 P118 P118 P118 P118 P118 P118 P118 P118 P118 P118 P118 P118 P118 P118 P118 P118 P118 P118 P118 P118 P118 P118 2 P116 P116 2 2 2 P116 P118 P118 P118 P118 P118 P118 2 2 P118 P118 P118 P118 P118 CTL2
MR2 CTL2
CTL1 U.N.O. TYP. CTL1 MR2 MR2 MR1 MR1 TYP. U.N.O.

CTL2
MR2
CTL2 P202 CTL2 MR1 CTL2MR2
MR1 TYP. U.N.O. CTL2
CTL2 MR1 TYP. U.N.O.

MR2 U.N.O. TYP. CTL1 CTL2 CTL2
MR2 CTL2 CTL2MR1 MR2 MR1 CTL2
MR2 U.N.O. TYP. CTL1
MR1
CTL2 MR2 CTL2
MR1 TYP. U.N.O. U.N.O. TYP. CTL1 CTL2
CTL2
MR2
P206
P206 MR2 MR1 TYP. U.N.O. U.N.O. TYP. CTL1
CTL2 MR2
CTL2
CTL2 NO TRANSFER P202 2 MR2
CTL2
CTL2
CTL2
CTL2
CTL2
CTL2
CTL2
MR1 TYP. U.N.O. MR2 U.N.O. TYP. CTL1 MR1 TYP. U.N.O. NP100 (NOT COMPLETE) MIDDLE OF BAY BASED ON PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS THK REPRESENTS TYPICAL CRACKS ABOVE PT POST AT SIGNIFICANT CRACKS ABOVE AT TOP OF FLOOR SLABAT PT POSTS. NP100 NP100 NP100 NP100 (ii) MR1 & MR2 ARE MAIN LINE CABLES, SEE 2/S4.2 2. (i) CLT1 & CLT2 ARE TRANSFER LINE PT CABLES, SEE 1/S4.2 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS CARRIED OUT 11-29-2017. 1. INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING IS BASED UPON NOTES: NOTES FOR PREVIOUS REPAIRS CARRIED OUT.

REVISIONS:

PRELIMINARY DRAWING

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
12-12-2017 AU E S R CF O TCURT DE ER GIST IA NROIF L LAR DATE: FOR BRANDOW & JOHNSTON, INC S.A. 1/16"=1'-0" 1710158.20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 S1.0 GENERAL NOTES AND MISC. DETAILS S4.0 SLAB REPAIR DETAILS S2.5 FIFTH FLOOR PLAN S2.4A FOURTH FLOOR PLAN ABOVE S1.1 KEY NOTES AND TYPICAL DETAILS EPOXY INJECTION WEDGE ANCHORS GROUTED ANCHORS FIELD WELDING CONCRETE PLACEMENT REINFORCEMENT PLACEMENT REQUIRED FOR THE FOLLOWING: STRUCTURE PARKING FIVE STORY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AND ENGINEER OF RECORD. IF NECESSARY, SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILS WILL BE 2. DAMAGED CONDITIONS NOT ADDRESSED BY THESE DOCUMENTS, IF DISCOVERED, SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE MAINTAIN THE STABILITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE EXISITNG BUILDING. VISUAL EXAMINATIONS. THESE DOCUMENTS DO NOT INDICATE THE NECESSARY ELEMENTS OF CONSTRUCTION SAFETY. AT ALL TIMES, 1. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS REPRESENT THE REQUIRED REPAIRS FOR THE STRUCTURE BASED UPON ENGINEER OF RECORD'S GENERAL FUTURE WHICH WARRANT ATTENTION. DAMAGE MAY EXIST AND ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF DAMAGE AND DETERIORATION MAY DEVELOP IN THE PATCHED OVER, INHIBITING DETECTION OF DAMAGE AND DETERIORATION. CONCEALED AND UNDETECTED EXAMINATION. IN ADDITION, A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS HAVE BEEN PAINTED OR AREAS OF THE PARKING STRUCTURE, AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS, WERE NOT ACCESSIBLE FOR VISUAL PRETENSIONING SYSTEM, IS BASED UPON VISUAL EXAMINATION. NO TESTS WERE CONDUCTED. SOME DETECTION OF DAMAGE CONDITIONS, INCLUDING CRACKS, SPALLING OF CONCRETE AND ADEQUACY OF DOES NOT INCLUDE THE VISIBLE SLAB SOFFIT ABOVE THE FIFTH FLOOR. OF THE FIVE STORY PARKING STRUCTURE IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF AND ATTACHED TO THE HOTEL, BUT PARKING PORTION OF THE ANAHEIM HILTON HOTEL. SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDE THE ACCESSIBLE PORTIONS THE INTENT OF THIS PROJECT IS TO REPAIR VISIBLE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE AND DETERIORATION OF THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROVIDED. ACCOMMODATE EXISTING CONDITIONS SUCH AS EXISTING REBAR IN CONCRETE. MINIMUM SIMILAR ITEMS. SPACING BETWEEN ADJACENT DOWELS, REBAR, ANCHORS, BARS AND OTHER SIMILAR ITEMS SHALL BE REDUCED TO 7. SECTIONS AND DETAILS SPECIFY THE MAXIMUM SPACING PERMITTED BETWEEN DOWELS, REBAR, ANCHORS, BARS AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE AS SHOWN FOR SIMILAR WORK. 6. TYPICAL DETAILS SHALL APPLY IN GENERAL CONSTRUCTION UNLESS SPECIFICALLY DETAILED. WHERE NO DETAILS ARE GIVEN, SMALL. 5. DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWINGS. PRINTED DIMENSIONS HAVE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DRAWINGS AND LARGE SCALE OVER CLARIFICATION IS REQUIRED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. 4. SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED ON THE DRAWINGS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. IF HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THIS PROJECT. CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 24, PART 2, VOLUME 2 OF 2 (INCLUDING ALL SUPPLEMENTS) AND ALL OTHER LOCAL OR STATE AGENCIES 3. WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 2007 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, CALIFORNIA SPACING SHALL BE 2/3 OF THE MAXIMUM TO THE ATTENTION OF THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AND ENGINEER OF RECORD PRIOR PERTINENT DRAWINGS, PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. ANY CONFLICTS OR DISCREPANCIES THAT OCCUR SHALL BE BROUGHT 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REVIEW AND COORDINATION OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, AND ANY OTHER CITY OF ANAHEIM. STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. PROPOSED HOLES, NOTCHES, ETC. SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE 8. NO HOLES, NOTCHES, BLOCKOUTS, ETC. ARE ALLOWED IN STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS UNLESS SPECIFICALLY DETAILED ON THE SPACING CALLED OUT, BUT NOT LESS THAN 6 INCHES UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION SO THAT A 12. RESPONSIBILITY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. MAY BE MADE. MODIFICATION OF DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY DRAWINGS, THEY SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AND ENGINEER OF RECORD SO THAT PROPER CLARIFICATION INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE OWNER, BUT WITHOUT GUARANTEE OF ACCURACY. WHERE ACTUAL CONDITIONS CONFLICT WITH 11. INFORMATION SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS RELATIVE TO EXISTING CONDITIONS IS GIVEN AS THE BEST PRESENT KNOWLEDGE FROM STRUCTURAL AND OTHER DISCIPLINES. REPRESENTATIVE WILL INTERPRET THE INTENT OF THE DOCUMENTS IN CASE OF POSSIBLE CONFLICT OR DISCREPANCY BETWEEN 10. COORDINATE STRUCTURAL DETAILS AND DIMENSIONS WITH RELATED REQUIREMENTS ON OTHER DRAWINGS. THE OWNER'S SHALL BE CORRECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT HIS OWN EXPENSE AND AT NO EXPENSE TO THE OWNER. CLARIFICATION CAN BE ISSUED. ANY WORK PERFORMED IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS OR ANY CODE REQUIREMENTS THE CONTRACTOR IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTION THIS PROJECT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONTRACT III. THE SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION (UNLESS SPECIFICALLY REFERENCED). II. THE PROTECTION, PROPER HANDLING AND INSTALLATION OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS. I. THE SAFETY OF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND CONSTRUCTION PERSONNEL. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS, EXISTING CONDITIONS AT THE SITE, AND CONSTRUCTIBILITY OF THE PROJECT AS DEFINED IN THE DOCUMENTS. BEFORE COMMENCING WITH CONSTUCTION AND FABRICATION DRAWINGS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY GOVERNING IV. THE MEANS, METHODS AND PROCEDURES EMPLOYED (UNLESS SPECIFICALLY SPECIFIED). CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS: X. PROTECTION AND REPAIR OF ADJACENT EXISTING SURFACES AND AREAS WHICH MAY BE DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF NEW WORK. IX. MAINTAINING THE STABILITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS. MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL ON THE PARTIALLY COMPLETED OR FULLY COMPLETED PROJECT. VIII. THE SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION LOADS AND STORAGE AND TRANSPORT OF CONSTRUCTION VII. THE SCHEDULING OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. PART THEREOF, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO HOISTING TOWERS. VI. THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF ALL ITEMS USED IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE A PERMANENT V. IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION (UNLESS SPECIFICALLY SPECIFIED). ARE NOT LIMITED TO ADHERENCE TO THE FOLLOWING: CLEAN WATER ACT RELATED REQUIREMENTS (COMMONLY KNOWN AS NPDES REGULATIONS). THESE REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE BUT MAINTENANCE, MATERIAL HANDLING AND TRANSPORTATION, ETC.) SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN CONFORMANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE PREPARATION, CONCRETE MIXING, STORAGE OF MATERIALS AND STOCKPILING, STAGING, VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT OPERATION AND 9. ALL CONSTRUCTION AND CONSTRUCTION RELATED ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: PAINTING, SITE 8. CONTRACTOR MUST CONTROL DUST AND BE RESPONSIBLE TO CLEAN AREA AT END OF EACH WORK DAY. LESSEN IMPACT TO FACILITY CLIENTS. 7. CONTRACTOR MUST COORDINATE ANY NOISY ACTIVITY (DEMOLITION OF SLAB, JACK HAMMERING, ETC.) WITH OWNER TO 6. A RESTROOM WILL BE AVAILABLE ON TOP DECK (NORTHEAST CORNER) OF CARPARK 1. VIA THE EAST EXIT RAMP FOR VEHICLES WITH A WIDTH IN EXCESS OF 8 FEET (THIS WILL REQUIRE LOWERING TIRE BUSTERS). 5. ACCESS TO THE WORK SITE WILL BE VIA THE KATELLA ENTRANCE GATE (LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CARPARK 1) AND 4. THE CONVENTION CENTER WILL FURNISH CONSTRUCTION WATER AND POWER. 3. THE CONSTRUCTION AREA IS TO BE SECURED AND FENCED AND SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR. EQUIPMENT. COMPLETE. CONSTRUCTION PARKING WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE WITHIN THE DESIGNATED AREA RESERVED FOR MATERIALS AND 2. ACCEPTABLE WORK HOURS ARE DAILY 7:00 AM THROUGH 5:00 PM. CONSTRUCTION REPAIRS AND PROJECT MUST BE 1. AN AREA WILL BE DETERMINED FOR USE BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT BY THE CONVENTION CENTER. -CALIFORNIA STORM WATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE HANDBOOK (1993 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY). WITH PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON BMPS CA3, CA10, CA11, CA, 12, CA20, CA 21 AND CA 24 -OTHER APPLICABLE STATE AND FEDERAL WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS -ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 10.09 -STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION (GREEN BOOK) SECTIONS 7-8.1 AND 7-8.6 SIGNAGE MUST REMAIN IN SERVICE DURING CONSTRUCTION. EXISTING UTILITIES AND THEIR SUPPORTS, WHERE 11. ALL EXISTING UTILITIES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO FIRE SPRINKLERS, ELECTRICAL, LIGHTING, PLUMBING AND TESTING & INSPECTION AND ACTIVITIES WITH THE CITY AND TESTING AGENCY. 10. CONTRACTOR WILL PROVIDE REQUIRED INSPECTION AND CONCRETE-TESTING REQUIREMENTS; CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE REQUIRED TO BE 13. PROVIDE UNIT RATES INCLUDING ALL MATERIALS, LABOR AND EQUIPMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: 12. ALL WORK TO BE SCHEDULED AROUND THE CONVENTION CENTER'S SCHEDULE OF EVENTS. TEMPORARILY REMOVED, SHALL BE REINSTALLED TO ORIGINAL CONDITION. CRACK REPAIR BY: FOOT. (i) EPOXY INJECTION TO BE MEASURED TOP & BOTTOM OF SLAB OR EACH SIDE OF WALL OR COLUMN AS APPLICABLE; PER LINEAR (ii) REPAIR OF SPALLS PER DETAIL 2/S1.1; PER UNIT (ASSUME 12" X 12" X 3" DEEP SPALL)

22. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALL LABOR, TOOLS, LIFTS, AND EQUIPMENT NEEDED FOR COMPLETION OF PROJECT.21. ANY WORK NOT INCLUDED IN SCOPE MUST BE AUTHORIZED BY CONVENTION CENTER, FACILITY MAINTENANCE MANAGER. TO OWNER. REPRESENTATIVE(S). ANY DISCREPANCIES OR CORRECTIONS TO BE CORRECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT NO ADDITIONAL EXPENSE20. ALL WORK TO BE INSPECTED BY THE CONVENTION CENTER, FACILITY MAINTENANCE MANAGER AND/OR HIS DESIGNATED DISABLED BY THE CONVENTION CENTER IF THERE IS INTERFERENCE WITH THE REPAIR WORK. 19. WATER SERVICE FOR LANDSCAPE AREAS TO REMAIN IN OPERATION DURING CONSTRUCTION BUT WILL BE TEMPORARILY PROJECT. 18. REPLACE OR REPAIR ALL EQUIPMENT, SIGNS AND PLANTS DAMAGED OR DESTROYED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION BUILDING." 17. SIGNAGE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AREA IS REQUIRED, I.E., "SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. WE ARE IMPROVING THE SHORING. EXCEED 50 LBS. PER SQUARE FOOT. ANY ADDITIONAL LOADING WILL REQUIRE CONTRACTOR TO DESIGN AND INSTALL REQUIRED 16. CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES AND COMBINED LOAD WEIGHT OF EQUIPMENT USED ON TOP OF PARKING STRUCTURES MUST NOT 15. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO PROVIDE ALL PERMITS, FEES, AND CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE. 14. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT EXISTING LANDSCAPING. CONDUCT THEIR OWN SURVEY AND, IF FOUND, IDENTIFY ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS NOT SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS FOR REVIEW 1. THESE DRAWINGS IDENTIFY THE LOCATION OF KNOWN CONCRETE SPALLS IN STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR IS EXPECTED TO CONCRETE REPAIR BY THE OWNER. 1. STRUCTURAL STEEL: MATERIAL PROPERTIES CONDITIONS SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE BID AMOUNT. 2. CONTRACTOR IS TO SURVEY DAMAGED CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED ON THESE DRAWINGS AS PART OF BID PREPARATION. REPAIR OF THESE AS WELL AS FOR INSPECTION AND REPAIR OF LOOSE BOLTS. FOR REVIEW BY THE OWNER. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT AT BID TIME A LIST OF UNIT PRICES FOR INSPECTION AND REPAIRS OF DAMAGED CABLES, CONTRACTOR IS EXPECTED TO CONDUCT THEIR OWN SURVEY AND, IF FOUND, IDENTIFY ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS NOT SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS 1. THESE DRAWINGS IDENTIFY THE LOCATION OF KNOWN DAMAGE OR DETERIORATION OF THE PRETENSIONED CABLE SYSTEM. THE PRETENSIONED CABLE SYSTEM CONDITIONS SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE BID AMOUNT. 3. CONTRACTOR IS TO SURVEY DAMAGED CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED ON THESE DRAWINGS AS PART OF BID PREPARATION. REPAIR OF THESE CRACKS. LINEAR FEET OF CRACKS REQUIRING EPOXY INJECTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT AT BID TIME A LIST OF UNIT PRICES FOR EPOXY INJECTION OF LINEAR FEET OF CRACKS REQUIRING EPOXY INJECTION. THE CONTRACTOR IS EXPECTED TO CONDUCT THEIR OWN SURVEY TO DETERMINE THE ACTUAL 2. THESE DRAWINGS PROVIDE CRITERIA FOR EPOXY INJECTION OF STRUCTURAL WALLS AND SLABS, ALONG WITH AN APPROXIMATE ESTIMATE OF THE OF UNIT PRICES FOR REPAIRS OF SPALLS. CONCRETE SPALLS SUBJECT TO REPAIR: SPALLS WITH LOOSE CONCRETE OR DEPTH EXCEEDING ½ INCH. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT AT BID TIME A LIST ASTM A36, U.N.O. 2. WELD ELECTRODE: E70XX, LOW HYDROGEN 3. CONCRETE: F'C = 4,000 PSI MIN. @ 28 DAYS TYPE II OR V CEMENT ASTM C-33-03 WATER CONTENT = 0.45 MAX INFORMATION PURPOSES. 3. GROUT SHALL HAVE CURRENT ICC RESEARCH REPORT. RESEARCH REPORT IS TO BE SENT TO ENGINEER OF RECORD FOR 2. GROUT SHALL MEET REQUIREMENTS OF CRD C621 AND ASTM C1107, GRADES A, B & C. 1. GROUT SHALL BE PREMIXED, CEMENT BASED, NONSHRINK AND NONMETALLIC. NONSHRINK GROUT RECORD. WELDING PROCEDURE SPECIFICATIONS (WPS) SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW TO THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AND ENGINEER OF REQUIREMENTS OF THE GOVERNING CODE. INSPECTION BY A CERTIFIED WELDING INSPECTOR IS REQUIRED. LOCATIONS OF WELDING AND 5. ALL WELDING OF REINFORCING STEEL SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH AWS D1.4-05. WELDED REINFORCING SHALL CONFORM TO 4. PLACING OF REINFORCING SHALL BE DONE UNDER INSPECTION BY A QUALIFIED INSPECTOR. THE DRAWINGS. 3. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ALL REINFORCING SHALL BE CONTINUOUS. REINFORCING STEEL MAY ONLY BE LAPPED WHEN INDICATED ON CONSTRUCTION, BY WCRSI. 2. PLACING TOLERANCES AND BAR SUPPORTS SHALL CONFORM TO THE MANUAL OF STANDARD PRACTICE FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE 1. USE OF REINFORCING STEEL SHALL CONFORM TO REQUIREMENTS OF ACD 318-05. REINFORCING STEEL C. MIX DESIGNS SHALL CLEARLY STATE THE LOCATIONS/AREAS FOR USE. B. NEW MIX DESIGNS ARE REQUIRED WHEN THERE IS A CHANGE IN MATERIALS USED. SIGNED BY A CALIFORNIA REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER. A. SUBMIT TO THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AND ENGINEER OF RECORD TWO RECORD COPIES OF EACH MIX DESIGN GOVERNING CODE. 5. RETAIN AN APPROVED TESTING LABORATORY, ACCEPTABLE TO THE OWNER, TO PREPARE MIX DESIGNS ACCORDING TO THE 4. CONTINUOUS INSPECTION SHALL BE REQUIRED DURING PLACING OF CONCRETE. 3. NO PIPES OR DUCTS SHALL BE PLACED IN STRUCTURAL CONCRETE UNLESS SPECIFICALLY DETAILED ON STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. CONCRETE. 2. ALL REINFORCING STEEL DOWELS, ANCHOR BOLTS, AND OTHER INSERTS SHALL BE SECURED IN POSITION PRIOR TO POURING 1. CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO REQUIREMENTS OF ACI 318-05. CONCRETE PARTICLE TESTING. PART C. PARTIAL PENETRATION AND COMPLETE PENETRATION WELDS SHALL BE CHECKED USING ULTRASONIC TESTING AND MAGNETIC J. FILLET WELDS SHALL BE VERIFIED USING MAGNETIC PARTICLE OF DYE PENETRANT TESTING. COMPLY WITH AWS D1.1, 2000 SECTION 6, TRANSITIONS BETWEEN SURFACES. I. REMOVE WELD BACKUP BARS AND RUNOFF TABS. GRIND WELD SURFACE SMOOTH AND FLUSH TO GRADUAL WITH OTHER VARIABLES AS WELDING PROCEEDS. UPON MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDED VARIABLES OF QUALIFICATION TESTS. HEAT INPUT SHALL BE CALCULATED AND RECORDED ALONG H. WPS'S SHALL INDICATE HEAT INPUT, WHICH SHALL BE MAINTAINED WITHIN AWS TOLERANCE UNLESS NEW WPS IS PREPARED BASED MINUS 0 DEGREES F, AS DETERMINED BY AWS ELECTRODE RATING AND MANUFACTURER'S CERTIFICATION. G. USE ELECTRODES THAT PRODUCE WELDS WITH A MINIMUM CHARPY VEE NOTCH TOUGHNESS OF 20 FT-LBS AT F. INTERMIXED WELDS AND COPPER BACKUP PLATES ARE NOT PERMITTED. ENGINEER OF RECORD AND OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO FABRICATION. E. ALL WELDING PROCEDURE SPECIFICATIONS (WPS) (SHOP AND FIELD) SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW TO THE D. ALL WELDING SHALL HAVE CONTINUOUS INSPECTION. C. SHOP WELDS MUST BE PERFORMED IN AN AISC LICENSED FABRICATOR'S SHOP. THICKNESS IN ALL POSITION QUALIFICATION(S). B. ALL WELDERS SHALL BE CERTIFIED AND SHALL HAVE IN HIS/HER POSSESSION QUALIFICATION AWS D1.1, D1.5 OR B2.1 UNLIMITED A. ALL WELDING SHALL CONFORM TO REQUIREMENTS OF AWS-D1.1-06 3. WELDING ETC.) SHALL BE CHROMIUM PLATED. 2. ALL STEEL EXPOSED TO OUTSIDE AIR SHALL BE GALVANIZED. FASTENERS AND ATTACHMENTS (SUCH AS NUTS, BOLTS, RODS, CLEVIS, STRUCTURAL STEEL BUILDINGS, AND AISC 303-05, CODE OF STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STEEL BUILDINGS AND BRIDGES. 1. ALL MATERIAL, FABRICATION, CONSTRUCTION AND ERECTION SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH AISC 360-05, SPECIFICATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL 5. NON-SHRINK GROUT: F'C = 4,000 PSI MIN. @ 28 DAYS 4. REINFORCING STEEL: ASTM A615 OR A706 EARTH CONCRETE BLOCK CONCRETE CAST-IN PLACE FINISH ELEVATION SHEET REFERENCE WALL ELEVATION NUMBER REFERENCE SHEET REFERENCE FULL HEIGHT SECTION NUMBER REFERENCE SHEET REFERENCE SECTION OR DETAIL NUMBER REFERENCE LLV - LONG LEG VERTICAL LLH - LONG LEG HORIZONTAL LL - LIVE LOAD HORIZ. - HORIZONTAL HSS - TUBE STEEL FTG. - FOOTING GLBM - GLULAM BEAM GA. - GAUGE FTG. - FOOTING FLR. - FLOOR EXIST. - EXISTING EQ. - EQUAL EMBED. - EMBEDMENT EA. - EACH E.W. - EACH WAY E.F. - EA. FACE DWG. - DRAWING DIAG. - DIAGONAL DBL. - DOUBLE CONT. - CONTINUOUS CONN. - CONNECTION CONC. - CONCRETE COL. - COLUMN CMU - CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT CLR. - CLEAR, CLEARANCE C.P. - COMPLETE PENETRATION BTWN. - BETWEEN BOTT. - BOTTOM BM. - BEAM BLKG. - BLOCKING A.B. - ANCHOR BOLT (N) - NEW (E) - EXISTING VERT. - VERTICAL U.N.O. - UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE TYP. - TYPICAL TOS - TOP OF STEEL TOF - TOP OF FOOTING TOC - TOP OF CONCRETE THK. - THICK T&B - TOP AND BOTTOM SYM. - SYMMETRICAL STRUC. - STRUCTURAL STL. - STEEL STIFF. - STIFFENER SQ. - SQUARE SPCG. - SPACING SPECS. - SPECIFICATIONS SIM. - SIMILAR SHT'G. - SHEATHING SDL - SUPERIMPOSED DEAD LOAD SCHED. - SCHEDULE REQ'D. - REQUIRED REINF. - REINFORCEMENT P.P. - PARTIAL PENETRATION OPP. - OPPOSITE OPN'G. - OPENING O.H. - OPPOSITE HAND O.C. - ON CENTER NTS - NOT TO SCALE NS/FS - NEAR SIDE/FAR SIDE MIN. - MINIMUM MECH. - MECHANICAL MAX. - MAXIMUM LT.WT. - LIGHTWEIGHT # - POUNDS ~< - ANGLE ~C - CENTERLINE ~P - PLATE Ø - ROUND WWF - WELDED WIRE FABRIC WT. - WEIGHT W.P. - WORK POINT W/ - WITH HOTEL HILTON REMOVE (E) SPALL AND REPAIR SIM. S1.1 2 DRIVE AISLE WITH NO ELASTOMERIC TOPPING ESTIMATED LENGTH OF CRACKS, L = 2430 FT. ESTIMATED NO. OF BAYS = 27 EPOXY INJECT CRACKS LARGER THAN 0.030 INCHES, SEE S4.0 2 NON-DRIVE ISLE WITH NO ELASTOMERIC TOPPING ESTIMATED LENGTH OF CRACKS, L = 2600 FT. ESTIMATED NO. OF BAYS = 52 EPOXY INJECT CRACKS LARGER THAN 0.030 INCHES, SEE SIM. S4.0 2 EPOXY INJECTION EXTENDING BEYOND ESTIMATED LENGTHS) (5533 FT. WITH 10% INCREASE FOR POSSIBILITY OF ESTIMATED TOTAL CRACK REPAIR LENGTH, L = 5030 FT. TOTAL REPAIR SPALLS AT SLAB SOFFIT, SEE S4.0 1 REVISIONS: 10-25-2017 AU E S R CF O TCURT
DE
ER GIST IA NROIF L LAR DATE: FOR BRANDOW & JOHNSTON, INC 10-25-2017 1710158 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1/16"=1'-0" S.A.

DRILLED 1. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. NOT USED 10-25-2017 AU
E
S
R
C
F O
TCURT
DE ER
GIST

IA NROIF
L
LAR DATE: FOR BRANDOW & JOHNSTON, INC
S S S S S S S S S S S S SSSSSSCSCSCSCSCSC SCS SC SC S S S S S S S S SC 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 4 BOLTS SIM. PROVIDE S 2A2A 2E 1B SC S SCSCSCSCSCSCSCSCSC SC S S S S S S SC S S S SS S S S S S S S S S 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S SSSSSSCSSCSSCSCS S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 2A2A2A2A2A 4 BOLTS SIM. PROVIDE 2A 2A 2A 2A2A 2A 2A2A 2E 2A 4 BOLTS SIM. PROVIDE S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S SCSCSCSCSCSCSCSCSC S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 2A 2A 2A 2A 2E 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 1A 2B 1A 3. PLAN ABOVE INCLUDES WORK AT TOP OF SLAB, AT EDGE 2. FOR KEY NOTES SEE . 1. FOR GENERAL NOTES SEE S1.0 NOTES: OF SLAB, AND AT COLUMNS AND WALLS ABOVE. 4. REPAIR DAMAGE AT CONCRETE WALLS PER DETAIL CALLOUTS. EACH WALL IS AS SHOWN ON P301 KEYNOTE TOTAL LINEAR FEET CRACKS TO BE EPOXIED AT S4.1 7 S1.1 1 (4) (6) (4) (10) (4) (6) (6) (6)
(6)
[4'x1 1/2"x1"] WALL OPENINGS TYP. AT ALL (150) EA. SIDE (950)
(40)
(150) EA. SIDE
(40) EA. SIDE
(150) EA. SIDE
(100) EA. SIDE
(40) EA. SIDE
(45) EA. SIDE
(45) EA. SIDE
(125)
(45) EA. SIDE
(180)
(80)
(45) EA. SIDE
(40) EA. SIDE
(190) EA. SIDE
(40) EA. SIDE
(190) EA. SIDE
(45) EA. SIDE
(150) EA. SIDE (150) EA. SIDE
(12)
(18) 2. FOR KEY NOTES SEE 1. FOR GENERAL NOTES SEE S1.0 NOTES: (NEW REPAIR) S1.0 6 (PREVIOUS REPAIR) REVISIONS: 10-25-2017 AU E S R CF O TCURT
DE
ER IST G IA NROIF L LAR DATE: FOR BRANDOW & JOHNSTON, INC 10-25-2017 1710158 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1/16"=1'-0" S.A. 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1C1C 1A 1B 1B 1B 1A 1A 1B 1A 1B 1A 1B 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1B OF COL. @ TOP 1A 1C 1A1A 1A 1A 1B 1B 1B 1A 1A 1B 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1B 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A1A1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1B 1A 1B 1B 1A 1B 1B 1B 1A 1A 1A 1A 1C 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1B 1A 1B P403 P401 P405 P401 P401 P401 P405 P401 P405 P405 P405 P405 P403 P403 P403 P401 3. PLAN ABOVE INCLUDES WORK AT TOP OF SLAB, AT EDGE 2. FOR KEY NOTES SEE . 1. FOR GENERAL NOTES SEE S1.0 NOTES: OF SLAB, AND AT COLUMNS AND WALLS ABOVE. 4. REPAIR DAMAGE AT CONCRETE WALLS PER DETAIL CALLOUTS. EACH WALL IS AS SHOWN ON P301 KEYNOTE TOTAL LINEAR FEET CRACKS TO BE EPOXIED AT S4.1 7 S1.1 1 P101 (4) P103 (4) P106 P114 P104 P114 P112 (6) [2"x2"x1/2"] [2"x2"x1/2"] P107 P103 P103 P401 CONCRETE WALLS TYP. AT ALL P401 P401 P401 P401 P301 (10) EA. SIDE P304 WALL OPENINGS TYP. AT ALL P301 (25) EA. SIDE P301 (125) EA. SIDE P301 (5) (55) P301 P301 (70) P301 (25) P301 (35) EA. SIDE P301 (5) EA. SIDE P301 (55) EA. SIDE (50) P301 P301 (50) EA. SIDE P301 (125) EA. SIDE P301 (15) EA. SIDE P303 (3 SPALLS) P301 (15) EA. SIDE P301 (15) EA. SIDE P303 TOP OF WALL [4'x6"x~8"] P303 P303 5. REPAIR DAMAGE AT TOP OF SLAB NOT COVERED BY ELASTOMERIC 4,300 ft. BASED UPON LIMITED OBSERVATION. TO BE EPOXIED AT THIS LEVEL IS ESTIMATED TO BE TOPPING PER DETAIL 21/S4.0. TOTAL LINEAR FEET OF CRACKS P303 P303 P303 P303 TOP OF WALL TOPPING AT ROOF (E) ELASTOMETRIC (E) ELASTOMETRIC

TOPPING AT ROOF
TOPPING PER DETAIL , TYP. NOT COVERED BY ELASTOMERIC REPAIR DAMAGE AT TOP OF SLAB S4.0 21 (6) P103 P112 P106 2 22 2 22 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 22 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 TYP. PARKING RESTRICT 2 P107 P107 NP101 NP302 TYP. REPAIR , TYP. INDICATES PREVIOUS DRIVE AISLE NP301 TYP. (PREVIOUS REPAIR) REVISIONS: 10-25-2017 AU E S R CF O TCURT
DE
ER IST G IA NROIFL LAR DATE: FOR BRANDOW & JOHNSTON, INC 10-25-2017 1710158 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1/16"=1'-0" S.A.

REMOVE EXISTING SPALLS AND REPAIR SIM. S1.1 2 SOFFIT (E) CONC. SLAB WHERE OCCURS EXPOSED REBAR (E) CONC. SLAB DETAIL REPAIR PER IN CONCRETE, (E) CRACKSS1.1 5 REVISIONS: 10-25-2017 AU E S R CF O TCURT
DE
ER GIST IA NROIF L LAR DATE: FOR BRANDOW & JOHNSTON, INC 10-25-2017 1710158 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1/16"=1'-0" S.A.

MEMO / REPAIR DRAWINGS
Project:

Project #S19-0059 – ACC Car Park 2 Damaged PT Cables
G:\19\S19-0059 - ACC CP2 (Ardurra-AndersonPartners)\Doc\memo\2019-03-13 MEMO ACC CP2 Damaged PT Cable_DRAFT.docx

STRUCTURAL
+ CIVIL

ENGINEERS

DRAFT MEMORANDUM
This memo follows the site visit to the building by Jefferson Hang on March 5, 2019 pertaining to the above property. It was then brought to our attention that one of the exterior posttensioned (PT) cable supports located above the 2nd Floor had sustained damage. From the visit by Jefferson Hang, two more posts above the 2nd Floor were found to have been damaged.

Our professional services have been performed with the intent to meet the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by reputable structural engineers practicing in this or similar localities.

No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice or opinions included in this report.

Building Description
The car park is part of a complex including the Anaheim Hilton Hotel. The building is approximately 600 feet by 640 feet. The car park, located on the north side of the hotel lobby, accommodates approximately half of the plan area of the lowest six floors of the building.

Above the sixth floor, the building extends a further nine floors essentially containing the hotel suites.

Because of the flat slab experiencing significant deflections in several areas, the structure, circa early 90’s, was strengthened in the aisle areas where frequent traffic occurs. The strengthening comprises external post-tensioning providing uplift at the center of the bay.

JOB# S19-0059
DATE March 13, 2019
SUBJECT Anaheim Convention Center
Car Park 2: Damage at Post-Tensioned Cable
Support
#PAGES 4
TO Tim Cho (ACC)
FROM Peter Maranian & Jefferson Hang
Anaheim Convention Center March 13, 2019
Car Park 2 – Damage to Post-Tensioned Cable Page 2

STRUCTURAL
+ CIVIL

ENGINEERS
Observations & Preliminary Findings
During our site visit conducted on March 5, 2019, Jefferson Hang carried out structural observations at the 2nd and 3rd Floors. His findings were as follows:

1. The post support below the 3rd Floor, for the post-tensioned (PT) cables running in the North-South direction, located on grid 18 between grids U.4 and V.4 had sustained significant damage. The post has been impacted such that the anchor bolts have pulled out, the anchor plate has shifted, and the post has rotated, the bottom of the post moved to the west (see Photo 1).

2. Observations from the top surface of the slab over the post on grid 18 between grids U.4 and V.4 did not show any indication of damage at the top of slab. Please note that as previously reported by Brandow and Johnston, the parking structure slabs have extensive cracks, including over the posts. See Photo 2.

3. The sheathing of the PT cables, running in the east-west transverse direction, for the post located on grid 18, has sustained damage; see Photo 3.

4. Although not previously reported by ACC, it was observed that the post at H.6 between grids 25 and 26 has been impacted such that the underside of the concrete slab has spalled, and one anchor bolt has pried out. The bottom of the post has tilted east, despite an existing installed brace; see Photo 4.

5. Although not previously reported by ACC, the post at grid Q.4 between grids 25 and 26, appears to have been impacted such that the anchor bolts have pulled out, and the post has tilted south-east despite the presence of two braces, one in each direction; see Photo 5.

6. A letter to Anaheim Hilton, dated February 29, 2014, memorialized a similar incident in 2014 at a post at grid Q.4, R.4 and 25, 26. Damage also occurred in 2013 and is the subject of our letter to Anaheim Hilton dated June 10, 2013. Repair drawings were provided along with a repair sequence to remediate the damage.

Anaheim Convention Center March 13, 2019
Car Park 2 – Damage to Post-Tensioned Cable Page 3

STRUCTURAL
+ CIVIL

ENGINEERS
Photo 1 – Post at Grid 18 Looking North
Anaheim Convention Center March 13, 2019
Car Park 2 – Damage to Post-Tensioned Cable Page 4

STRUCTURAL
+ CIVIL

ENGINEERS
Photo 2 - Slab Above Post at Grid 19

LETTER / DRAWINGS
Project:

Project #S20-0348 – ACC Car Park 2 Post Tension Survey
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com

STRUCTURAL
+ CIVIL

ENGINEERS
June 15, 2021
Mr. Tim Cho
Facility Maintenance Manager
Anaheim Convention Center
800 West Katella Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92802
Subject: Anaheim Convention Center
Car Park 2, PT Structural Survey - October 2020
B&J Project No: #S20-0348

Dear Mr. Cho:

This letter follows our site visits for Car Park 2, carried out in October 2020, relating to the existing external prestressing (PT) system at the driving aisles at Levels P2, P3, and P4. The primary purpose is to establish the existing layout and details of the PT system and develop preliminary recommendations for remedial measures.

Introduction and Brief Historical Overview:

This section is intended to provide a brief historical overview of the PT system in order to assist with decision regarding its future benefit to the structure and associated maintenance of the structure.

The car park portion of the building typically consists typically of 4½-inch and 8-inch reinforced concrete two way spanning flat slabs with thickened “drop” slabs at the columns. The lateral resisting system of the car park, up to the sixth floor, essentially comprises reinforced concrete shear walls.

The flat slab experienced significant deflections in several areas following construction of the structure in the mid-1980s. Circa early 90’s, it was decided to strengthen the structure at driving aisle areas where frequent Anaheim Convention Center June 15, 2021
Car Park 2, PT Structural Survey Page 2
#S20-0348
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com traffic occurs. The strengthening comprises external post-tensioning providing uplift at the center of each slab span such as to reduce the slab deflections. Typically, the PT system consists of longitudinal cables extending most of the length of the driving aisle profiled such that, at their lowest level, the cables react at posts located at the center of the two-way spanning slabs. The longitudinal cables, at their highest level, react on posts which push down onto transverse profiled cables that are typically anchored at the columns. The original structural drawings and associated calculations are apparently not available.

Some deterioration has occurred over the course of time which has necessitated remedial measures. Also, there has been several incidences, during the lifetime of the cables where vehicles, typically trucks, have impacted the posts. During the last decade, this occurred in 2013, 2014, 2018 and 2019, all at Level P2, for which B&J provided structural engineering services for the remedial measures. Repairs typically have required the full length of the longitudinal cables to be reinstalled along with the associated transverse cables, at each line of columns, thus involving extensive and costly repairs.

B&J carried out preliminary observations of the structure and PT system in 2017 and noted that cracks were typically occurring at the top surface at the center of the two-way spanning slabs over the posts. At these locations, there is no top reinforcement in the slab, only bottom reinforcement such that deflection of the slabs, over the posts, tends to cause the cracking we have observed. We reported our findings in our letter dated 12-21-2017 and following our concern for the cracks observed over the posts for the PT system, provided recommendations.

Observations:

We conducted site visits on 09/30/2020, 10/07/2020, 10/14/2020, and 10/21/2020 (conducted by Norair Tcheurekjian and Jefferson Hang). A visual observation was carried out to review the existing condition of the PT systems at the soffit of Level P2, P3, and P4.

Various deficiencies were noted at all three levels where the PT system occurs. The deficiencies can be categorized into three levels of severity: minor, moderate, and major. Table 1 below lists all the deficiencies that were observed during the site visits, along with their probable cause and the risks associated with each deficiency. It is not uncommon for multiple deficiencies to occur at a single PT post.

A minor level of severity implies that there is no immediate risk to the integrity of the structure but could become one in the future, while a moderate level of severity implies that there currently is a small risk to the integrity of the structure with continued normal operation. Lastly, a major level of severity implies that there is an immediate risk to the integrity of the structure.

Anaheim Convention Center June 15, 2021
Car Park 2, PT Structural Survey Page 3
#S20-0348
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com Table 1 – Deficiencies of existing PT system
Deficiency Probable Cause Possible Risks Associated
with Deficiency
Level of Severity: Minor
Damaged PT sleeve or exposed
PT tendon
Deterioration of PT sleeves from
wear and tear. Corrosion of PT tendons
Level of Severity: Moderate
Missing, or loose nut and washer
for anchors at base plate
Floor vibration of slab from
vehicular traffic.

Gap between base plate and
concrete slab; localized cracking
of concrete slab
Both anchor bolts installed on
same side of base plate Incorrect installation.

Potential twisting of PT post
assembly, which could lead to
damaged anchors, spalling in
concrete slab, or damaged PT
post.

Gap between base plate and
concrete slab
Byproduct of incorrect installation
of anchor bolts, damaged anchor
bolts, or missing/loose nut and
washer that occurs over time.

Potential bending of base plate
and PT post, which could lead to
damaged PT post.

Damaged anchors at base plate,
where there are more than two
anchors that are not damaged.

Unbalanced forces in PT cables
wanting to twist the PT post.

Potential twisting of PT post
assembly, which could lead to
damaged anchors, spalling in
concrete slab, or damaged PT
post.

Level of Severity: Major
Damaged anchors at base plate,
where there are only two anchors
Insufficient number of anchors.

Unbalanced forces in PT cables
wanting to twist the PT post.

Displacement, rotation, and/or
bending of PT post, which could
lead to damaged PT post. Also,
local spalling of concrete slab.

Damaged PT Post PT post hit by vehicular traffic.

Compromised integrity of
structural PT system, which could
lead to significant deflection of
structural slab. Also, local
spalling of concrete slab.

Missing anchors at base plate Incorrect installation.

Displacement, rotation, and/or
bending of PT post, which could
lead to damaged PT post.

Refer to our drawings for locations of where these deficiencies occur. Photos with examples of these types of deficiencies, along with where they occur, can be found in the Appendix of this report.

Conclusions and Recommendations:

As mentioned above the PT system has experienced deterioration and damage over the course of its life and continues to experience some level of deterioration and damage as indicated in our observations. We recommend the deficiencies noted above be repaired within the following time frame:

Minor: Within the next two years.

Moderate: Within the next year.

Major: As soon as possible, or no later than the parking structure is operational again.

Anaheim Convention Center June 15, 2021
Car Park 2, PT Structural Survey Page 4
#S20-0348
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com Preliminary repair details for deficiencies noted in Table 1 above can be found on our drawings. There is concern that, similar to previous years, vehicles will continue to hit the PT posts after repairs have been carried out.

Additionally, a main concern with the PT system involves cracking that typically occurs over the posts and the center of the two-way spanning slabs, as reported in 2017 and our latest report on cracks at Level P3 & P4.

Repair of the cracks in the top surface of the slab over the posts, although providing some short-term integrity, would not be sufficient to provide a long-term solution. This is because with time, due to repetitive loading, the cracks are likely to open up again. This is also mentioned in our report on Levels P3 and P4 repairs. Two solutions appear feasible to mitigate cracking, which are as follows:

Option 1: Enhancing the bearing plate at the top of the posts as shown on our drawings.

Option 2: Replacing the PT system at the driving aisles with a steel beam system as shown on our drawings.

Option 2 will also help mitigate the problem of vehicles hitting the PT posts in the future. With regard to budgetary concerns, consideration may be given to carrying out Option 2 on a floor by floor, or drive-aisle by drive-aisle basis extended over several years. The first floor to consider this be carried out on should be Level P2 based on the evidence that the damage to cables has typically happened at that Level.

Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the writers.

Sincerely,
BRANDOW & JOHNSTON (B&J HBK, Inc.)
Bob Lyons, SE 2719
Principal
Peter Maranian, SE 2720
Principal
Jefferson Hang, SE 6675
Project Manager
G:\20\S20-0348 - ACC - CAR PARK 2, PT STRUCTURAL SURVEY\3 - DOCUMENTS\REPORTS\2021-06-14 CAR PARK 2 PT REPORT.DOCX Anaheim Convention Center June 15, 2021
Car Park 2, PT Structural Survey Page 5
#S20-0348
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com Appendix
Photo 1 – Exposed PT Tendon (Lvl P2 by GL 14/J.6)
Photo 2 – Damaged PT sleeve (Lvl P4 by GL 14/R)
Anaheim Convention Center June 15, 2021
Car Park 2, PT Structural Survey Page 6
#S20-0348
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com Photo 3 – Missing nut and washer and gap between base plate and concrete slab (Lvl P3 by GL 22/N.4)
Photo 4 – Both anchor bolts on same side (Lvl P2 by GL 26/Q.4) Anaheim Convention Center June 15, 2021
Car Park 2, PT Structural Survey Page 7
#S20-0348
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com Photo 5 – Damaged anchor at base plate, where there are more than 2 anchors (Lvl P2 by GL 22/J.6)
Photo 6 – Damaged PT Post (Lvl P2 by GL 22/S.4)
Anaheim Convention Center June 15, 2021
Car Park 2, PT Structural Survey Page 8
#S20-0348
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com Photo 7 – Damaged PT Post (Lvl P3 by GL 26/P.4)
Photo 8 – Damaged PT (Lvl P3 by GL 26/L)
Anaheim Convention Center June 15, 2021
Car Park 2, PT Structural Survey Page 9
#S20-0348
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com Photo 9 – Damaged anchors at base plate, where there are only two anchors (Lvl P3 by GL 18/R)
Photo 10 – Missing anchors at base plate (Lvl P2 by GL 16/P) CTL2
MR2 CTL2
CTL1 U.N.O. TYP. CTL1 MR2 MR1 TYP. U.N.O.

CTL2
MR2
CTL2 CTL2 MR1 CTL2 MR2
MR1 TYP. U.N.O. CTL2
CTL2 MR1 TYP. U.N.O.

MR2 U.N.O. TYP. CTL1 CTL2 CTL2
MR2
MR2 U.N.O. TYP. CTL1
MR1
CTL2 MR2CTL2
MR1 TYP. U.N.O. U.N.O. TYP. CTL1 CTL2
CTL2
MR2 MR2 MR1 TYP. U.N.O. U.N.O. TYP. CTL1
CTL2 MR2
CTL2
CTL2
CTL2U.N.O. TYP. CTL1 WORK OFSCOPE 2018) (APRIL POST DAMAGED NOTES: 2. REPAIR WORK DONE CIRCA 2011. 1. MR1, MR2, CTL1 & CTL2, SEE S1.1 (SEE 10/S1.1) INSTALLED ANCHORS INSTALL MISSING POST CTL2 MR2
CTL2
CTL2
CTL2
CTL2 CTL1
MR2
MR2 MR2
CTL2
MR1 CTL2
MR2 CTL2 CTL1 CTL1 MR2 MR2 LEGEND: MISSING ANCHORS AT BASE PLATE DAMAGED PT POST WHERE THERE ARE ONLY TWO ANCHORS DAMAGED ANCHORS AT BASE PLATE, ANCHORS THAT ARE NOT DAMAGED. WHERE THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO DAMAGED ANCHORS AT BASE PLATE, CONCRETE SLAB GAP BETWEEN BASE PLATE AND ON SAME SIDE OF BASE PLATE BOTH ANCHOR BOLTS INSTALLED FOR ANCHORS AT BASE PLATE MISSING, OR LOOSE NUT AND WASHER PT TENDON DAMAGED PT SLEEVE OR EXPOSED D8 D7 D6 D5 D4 D3 D2 D1 D6 D3 D5 D3 D1 D3 D7 D2 D4 D5 D4 D3 D8 D2 D1 D1 D1 D1 SECOND FLOOR PLAN BELOW G:\20\S20-0348 - ACC - CAR PARK 2, PT STRUCTURAL SURVEY\9 - CAD\CAD\_SHEETS\S2.2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN.DWG 11/20/2020 S2.2 REVISIONS: SHEET NO. DATE: SCALE: JOB NO.: SHEET TITLE: DRAWN: JOB TITLE:

JOB ADDRESS: BRANDOW & JOHNSTON
STRUCTURAL+CIVIL ENGINEERS (B&J HBK, INC.)
700 S FLOWER ST #1800, LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
T: (213) 596-4500
EST. 1945
WWW.BJSCE.COM

PRELIMINARY DRAWING
11-24-2020
AU
S
E
ET
SATS
R
C
F O
TCURT
PDE ER
GIST
EFOR
E

IA NROIF
L
LAR
R

NELANOI S
ENI GNo. 2719
ROBERT
T. SNOYLDATE:

FOR

BRANDOW
&
JOHNSTON AS NOTED S20-0348 S.A.

ANAHEIM CONVEVTION CENTER CAR PARK 2

PT STRUCTURAL SURVEY

CABLES (E) PT
CTL2
MR2 CTL1
CTL1 U.N.O. TYP. CTL1 MR2 MR1 TYP. U.N.O.

CTL2
MR2
CTL2 CTL2
MR1 CTL2 MR2
MR1 TYP. U.N.O. CTL2
CTL2 MR1 TYP. U.N.O.

MR2 U.N.O. TYP. CTL1 CTL2 CTL2 MR2 CTL1 CTL1
MR2 MR1 MR1 U.N.O. TYP. CTL1
MR1
CTL2 MR2 CTL2
MR1 TYP. U.N.O. U.N.O. TYP. CTL1 CTL2
CTL2
MR2
MR2 MR1 TYP. U.N.O. U.N.O. TYP. CTL1
CTL2 MR2
CTL2
CTL2
MR2
CTL2 MR1 TYP. U.N.O.

CTL2 MR2 NOTES: 2. REPAIR WORK DONE CIRCA 2011. 1. MR1, MR2, CTL1 & CTL2, SEE S1.1 (MARCH 2019) DAMAGED POST (MARCH 2019) DAMAGED POST CTL2 CTL2 MR2 CTL1 CTL1
CTL2
CTL2
CTL2
CTL2 CTL1
CTL1
CTL2 MR2
CTL1 MR1 CTL2
CTL2
CTL2
CTL1
CTL2
CTL2
CTL2
CTL2
MR2 LEGEND: MISSING ANCHORS AT BASE PLATE DAMAGED PT POST WHERE THERE ARE ONLY TWO ANCHORS DAMAGED ANCHORS AT BASE PLATE, ANCHORS THAT ARE NOT DAMAGED. WHERE THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO DAMAGED ANCHORS AT BASE PLATE, CONCRETE SLAB GAP BETWEEN BASE PLATE AND ON SAME SIDE OF BASE PLATE BOTH ANCHOR BOLTS INSTALLED FOR ANCHORS AT BASE PLATE MISSING, OR LOOSE NUT AND WASHER PT TENDON DAMAGED PT SLEEVE OR EXPOSED D8 D7 D6 D5 D4 D3 D2 D1 D7 D1 D4 D1 D4 D4 D4 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D6 D1 D7 D6 D5 D2 D2 D4 D7 THIRD FLOOR PLAN BELOW G:\20\S20-0348 - ACC - CAR PARK 2, PT STRUCTURAL SURVEY\9 - CAD\CAD\_SHEETS\S2.3 THIRD FLOOR PLAN.DWG 11/20/2020 S2.3 REVISIONS: SHEET NO. DATE: SCALE: JOB NO.: SHEET TITLE: DRAWN: JOB TITLE:

JOB ADDRESS: BRANDOW & JOHNSTON
STRUCTURAL+CIVIL ENGINEERS (B&J HBK, INC.)
700 S FLOWER ST #1800, LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
T: (213) 596-4500
EST. 1945
WWW.BJSCE.COM

PRELIMINARY DRAWING
11-24-2020
AU
S
E
ET
SATS
R
C
F O
TCURT
PDE ER
GIST
EFOR
E

IA NROIF
L
LAR
R

NELANOI S
ENI GNo. 2719
ROBERT
T. SNOYLDATE:

FOR

BRANDOW
&
JOHNSTON AS NOTED S20-0348 S.A.

ANAHEIM CONVEVTION CENTER CAR PARK 2

PT STRUCTURAL SURVEY
CTL2
MR2 CTL2
CTL1 U.N.O. TYP. CTL1 MR2 MR2 MR1 MR1 TYP. U.N.O.

CTL2
MR2
CTL2 CTL2 MR1 CTL2MR2
MR1 TYP. U.N.O. CTL2
CTL2 MR1 TYP. U.N.O.

MR2 U.N.O. TYP. CTL1
CTL2 CTL2 MR2 CTL2 CTL2
MR1 MR2 MR1 CTL2
MR2 U.N.O. TYP. CTL1
MR1
CTL2 MR2 CTL2
MR1 TYP. U.N.O. U.N.O. TYP. CTL1 CTL2
CTL2
MR2 MR2 MR1 TYP. U.N.O. U.N.O. TYP. CTL1
CTL2 MR2
CTL2
CTL2 NO TRANSFER MR2
CTL2
CTL2
CTL2
CTL2
CTL2
CTL2
CTL2 MR1 TYP. U.N.O. MR2 U.N.O. TYP. CTL1 MR1 TYP. U.N.O. (NOT COMPLETE) MIDDLE OF BAY BASED ON PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS THK REPRESENTS TYPICAL CRACKS ABOVE PT POST AT SIGNIFICANT CRACKS ABOVE AT TOP OF FLOOR SLABAT PT POSTS. (ii) MR1 & MR2 ARE MAIN LINE CABLES, SEE 2/S4.2 2. (i) CLT1 & CLT2 ARE TRANSFER LINE PT CABLES, SEE 1/S4.2 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS CARRIED OUT 11-29-2017. 1. INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING IS BASED UPON NOTES: NOTES FOR PREVIOUS REPAIRS CARRIED OUT.

CTL2
CTL2 CTL2
CTL1
CTL2
CTL2
CTL2 LEGEND: MISSING ANCHORS AT BASE PLATE DAMAGED PT POST WHERE THERE ARE ONLY TWO ANCHORS DAMAGED ANCHORS AT BASE PLATE, ANCHORS THAT ARE NOT DAMAGED. WHERE THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO DAMAGED ANCHORS AT BASE PLATE, CONCRETE SLAB GAP BETWEEN BASE PLATE AND ON SAME SIDE OF BASE PLATE BOTH ANCHOR BOLTS INSTALLED FOR ANCHORS AT BASE PLATE MISSING, OR LOOSE NUT AND WASHER PT TENDON DAMAGED PT SLEEVE OR EXPOSED D8 D7 D6 D5 D4 D3 D2 D1 D1 D2 D1 D1 D1 MR2 D2 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D3 D1 D1 D1 D2 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 FOURTH FLOOR PLAN G:\20\S20-0348 - ACC - CAR PARK 2, PT STRUCTURAL SURVEY\9 - CAD\CAD\_SHEETS\S2.4 FOURTH FLOOR PLAN.DWG 11/20/2020 S2.4 REVISIONS: SHEET NO. DATE: SCALE: JOB NO.: SHEET TITLE: DRAWN: JOB TITLE:

JOB ADDRESS: BRANDOW & JOHNSTON
STRUCTURAL+CIVIL ENGINEERS (B&J HBK, INC.)
700 S FLOWER ST #1800, LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
T: (213) 596-4500
EST. 1945
WWW.BJSCE.COM

PRELIMINARY DRAWING
11-24-2020
AU
S
E
ET
SATS
R
C
F O
TCURT
PDE ER
GIST
EFOR
E

IA NROIF
L
LAR
R

NELANOI S
ENI GNo. 2719
ROBERT
T. SNOYLDATE:

FOR

BRANDOW
&
JOHNSTON AS NOTED S20-0348 S.A.

ANAHEIM CONVEVTION CENTER CAR PARK 2

PT STRUCTURAL SURVEY
DETAIL
A DETAILB C8x W8xSHIM DETAIL
C DETAILD C8x 3"x4 1/2"x3/8" LP C8x W8x DETAIL
E W8x 1 1/2"=1'-0" 1 1/2"=1'-0" 1 1/2"=1'-0" 1 1/2"=1'-0" 1 1/2"=1'-0" 1 ALTERNATIVE TO PT SYSTEM (OPTION 2) SCALE: 16 1 1/2"=1'-0" (E) HSS SCALE: 17 SCALE: 1 1/2"=1'-0" 18 1 1/2"=1'-0" (E) 12"x12" LP (E) 18"x18" LP (E) LP P2 & P4 SCALE: 21 1 1/2"=1'-0" (E) HSS SCALE: 23 1 1/2"=1'-0" (E) LP P3 SCALE: 22 1 1/2"=1'-0" P2 & P4 P2 & P4 2'-4" 2'-4" SECTION C6x TYP. ADDED LP SECTION
A
A P2 & P4 SECTION
B C6x EA. SIDE C6x8.2 C6x EA. SIDE C6x8.2 P2 & P4 SECTION BEA. SIDE C6x8.2 C6x C6x 2'-4"
2'-4" TYP. ADDED LP C6x EA. SIDE C6x8.2 FOR STRENGTHENING FOR STRENGTHENING DETAILS SEE REMAINING TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. DETAILS SEE REMAINING (E) LP LP (E) STRENGTHENING FROM BELOW - SECTION @ P2 & P4 - TYP. STRENGTHENING FROM BELOW - PLAN @ P2 & P4 - TYP. STRENGTHENING FROM BELOW - PLAN @ P3 - TYP. TYP. PLATE @ P3 TYP. PLATE @ P2 & P4 STRENGTHENING FROM BELOW - SECTION @ P3 - TYP. OVERHEAD PLAN TYP A TYP
C TYP
B TYP
D TYP
E 1/2"=1'-0"
ALTERNATIVE SCHEME G:\20\S20-0348 - ACC - CAR PARK 2, PT STRUCTURAL SURVEY\9 - CAD\CAD\_SHEETS\S3.DWG 11/20/2020 S3 REVISIONS: SHEET NO. DATE: SCALE: JOB NO.: SHEET TITLE: DRAWN: JOB TITLE:

JOB ADDRESS: BRANDOW & JOHNSTON
STRUCTURAL+CIVIL ENGINEERS (B&J HBK, INC.)
700 S FLOWER ST #1800, LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
T: (213) 596-4500
EST. 1945
WWW.BJSCE.COM

PRELIMINARY DRAWING
11-24-2020
AU
S
E
ET
SATS
R
C
FO
TCURT
PDE ER
GIST
EFOR
E

IA NROIF
L
LAR
R

NELANOI S
ENI GNo. 2719
ROBERT
T. SNOYLDATE:

FOR

BRANDOW
&
JOHNSTON AS NOTED S20-0348 S.A.

ANAHEIM CONVEVTION CENTER CAR PARK 2

PT STRUCTURAL SURVEY
SCALE: 1 1/2"=1'-0" CLT2 - 2 CABLES CLT1 - 4 CABLES CABLES ANCHOR POST SCALE: 2 1/2"=1'-0" 4 CABLES POST POST TRANSFER POST TRANSFER 4 CABLES MR1 POST MR2 ANCHOR 4 CABLES STRAIGHT @ PT3 -3 @ PT3 -3 MAIN LINE CABLES - MR1 & MR2 (FOR INFORMATION ONLY) TRANSFER LINE CABLES - CLT1 & CL2 (FOR INFORMATION ONLY) E1 E2 E1E1 (E) CONC. SLAB (E) PLATE (E) P.T. -B (E) 7/8" x1'-6" SQ. TYP. -19 SCALE: 5 1"=1'-0" SCALE: 10 1"=1'-0" (E) P.T. STRANDS (E) PLATE (E) HSS 9" (E) P.T. STRANDS 1/8 OF PIPE. SEE NOTE 1 TILTING OF (E) TS. TO PREVENT FURTHER (N) 2"Ø STD. PIPE BRACE PER WEDGE ANCHORS 3/8" W/2- 1/8"Øx3 1/4" EMBED 1 1 MAX. DETAIL AT LEANING PT POST BOLT REPLACEMENT DETAIL AT PT POST (E) HSS STRANDS W.P. 2" 2" 4~8" TYP.

FIELD VERIFY (E) PT STRANDS (E) PT STRANDS 1/8 1" WELD 1/4"x1 1/2" SQ. (E) CONC. SLAB (E) PLATE 4" 3/16 (E) PLATE PER 1/2"Øx3 1/4" EMBED L4x3x1/4 WITH -B 4" MIN. 4" STRANDS (E) PT STRANDS (E) PT WASHER 4x4 STRANDS DURING WELDING. PROTECTION FOR THE (E) PT PROVIDE TEMPORARY FIREPROOFING MIN. INSTALL BOLTS PER 1/S0.3. BACK TO A VERTICAL POSITION & ALTERNATIVELY TAP LEANING POST LEANING. SEE NOTE 2. TOWARD WHICH TS IS LOCATE BRACE ON SIDE NOTE 1: NOTE 1: TYP. @ EA. END NOTE 2: @3rd. FLR. SOFFIT. (E) 3/4" x1'-0" SQ. TYP. @2nd. & 4th. FLR. SOFFIT. -19 B B -19 REPAIR @ DAMAGED POST SCALE: 15 1"=1'-0" 1. SIKATOP 122 FOR HORIZONTAL APPLICATIONS: SURFACE SPALLING. 2. SIKATOP 123 FOR VERTICAL/ OVERHEAD SURFACE SPALLING. SURFACE COATING SIKATOP 144 TYP.
"D", SEE
NOTE 1 (E) CONCRETE NOTES: SPALL ABOVE OF PT POST B SPALL @ BEAM/SLAB SOFFIT A GROUT. STAR GROUT", OR "EMBECO 636" W/ "SIKAGROUT 212", "FIVE PRESSURE INJECT SPALL AREA SUFFICIENT ACCESS DOES NOT EXIST. BEHIND EXPOSED REBARS MAY BE OMITTED WHERE DETAIL UNO. ROUGHENING OF SURFACE & CHIPPING PREPARE SURFACE AND REPAIR SPALL PER NOTE: A 9" TILTING OF (E) TS. TO PREVENT FURTHER (N) 2"Ø STD. PIPE BRACE 1 1 MAX. 2" 2" LEANING.SEE NOTE 2. TOWARD WHICH TS IS LOCATE BRACE ON SIDE -19 NOTE 1 SEE WASHERS. SPECIFIED ANCHOR, USE WELD (E) STL. EXCEEDS THE SIZE OF THE DETAIL C . WHERE (E) BOLT HOLE IN OBSTRUCT BOLT INSTALLATION). USE STRANDS OR (E) SLAB REINF. ABANDONED OR WHERE (E) PT SOFFIT WHICH HAVE BEEN DRILLED HOLES IN CONC. SLAB ANCHORS (E.G., @ PREVIOUSLY PREVENT INSTALLATION OF NEW HSL WHERE EXISTING CONDITIONS OPPOSITE CORNERS OF THE PLATE. A MIN. OF 2 BOLTS AT DIAGONALLY ANCHORS PER TO PROVIDE LOOSE, INSTALL 1/2"Øx3 1/4" EMBED WHERE (E) BOLTS ARE MISSING OR LP (E) CONC. SLAB 1. WHEN "D" < 1 1/2" SEE APPLICATIONS ABOVE. 4" > "D" > 1 1/2", a. ADD 3/8" COARSE AGGREGATE b. APPLY SIKATOP 123 IN LIFTS. FOR SIKATOP 122 APPLICATIONS. 3. SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR OTHER REQUIREMENTS. SHALL BE FOLLOWED. 2. ALL MANUFACTURERS PRINTED INSTRUCTIONS (1/2" MIN.) TYP. APPROVED MATERIAL DEPTH OF THE THE MIN. PLACEMENT REBARS TO AT LEAST OFF CONC. BEHIND ARE EXPOSED, CHIP WHERE (E) REBARS AGENT, TYP. SEE NOTE 2. PROVIDE EPOXY BONDING TO 1/4"± AMPLITUDE & ROUGHEN & CLEAN SURFACE (E) SPALL SURFACE. SPALL. DO NOT DAMAGE (E) REBARS. DEPRESSION AT PERIMETER OF PERIMETER TO CREATE 1/2" MIN. DEEP FACE OF (E) SURFACE CHIP (E) REBAR 1/2" MIN.

TYP. TS 4x4 (E) LEANING NOTE 1 SEE LP WEDGE ANCHORS PER 3/8" W/2- 1/2"Øx3 1/4" EMBED PER 6/S1.1. REPAIR/REPLACE LOOSE OR MISSING BOLTS 1/4". SEE NOTE 2. INJECT W/ SIKADUR 35 HI-MOD LV WHERE GAP < PLATE & SOFFIT OF (E) CONC. SLAB. PRESSURE GROUT", OR "EMBECO 636" GROUT BETWEEN (E) PRESSURE INJECT "SIKAGROUT 212", "FIVE STAR DURING WELDING. PROTECTION FOR THE (E) PT STRANDS PROVIDE TEMPORARY FIREPROOFING LP E1 E1 17 12 2143 34 R I J STRESS BLOCKS EITHER SIDE OF LINE STRESS BLOCKS BETWEEN LINES & STRESS BLOCK, TYP. KING POST, TYP. R I PT STRESS BLOCK DETAIL C DRILLED ANCHOR DETAIL 19 INSTALATION:WEDGE ANCHOR RELOCATION DETAIL DRILLED TO ACCOMODATE RELOCATION ON DETAILS MAY BE LARGER EDGE DISTANCES SHOWN SLIGHTLY HOLE RELOCATE TO CLR. REINF. STEEL RELOCATE BOLT IF REQ'D. NOTE: 3"SQ.x 1/4" PLATE EDGE OF STEEL PLATE CONC. ALLOWABLE ANCHOR TYPES: HILTI KWIK BOLT TZ (ICC-ES ESR-1917). 1. MINIMUM VALUES. WHERE EDGE DISTANCE AND SPACING IS NOT SHOWN ON DETAILS, REFER TO ICC-ES ESR-1912 FOR MINIMUM CLEARANCE OF ONE INCH BETWEEN THE REINFORCEMENT AND THE DRILLED-IN ANCHOR. PRESTRESSED CONCRETE (PRE- OR POST-TENSIONED), LOCATE TENDONS DURING INSTALLATION. MAINTAIN A ELECTRICAL/TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONDUIT AND GAS LINES. WHEN INSTALLING DRILLED-IN ANCHORS INTO CAUTION TO AVOID CUTTING OR DAMAGING THE REINFORCING BARS OR OTHER EMBEDDED ITEMS SUCH AS WHEN INSTALLING DRILLED-IN ANCHORS IN NON-PRESTRESSED REINFORCED CONCRETE, USE CARE AND SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM STRENGTH OF 3000 P.S.I. CONSIST OF 20 GA. MIN. METAL DECK WITH EITHER HARD ROCK OR LIGHT WEIGHT CONCRETE. CONCRETE WEIGHT CONCRETE AND CONCRETE FILL OVER METAL DECK. CONCRETE FILL OVER METAL DECK SHALL THE TABULATED INSTALLATION AND TEST VALUES PERTAIN TO USE IN HARDROCK CONRETE, LIGHT- 5. DRILLED EXPANSION TYPE ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL BE USED ONLY WHERE DETAILED OR FOR ATTACHMENT OF 4. 3. MECH., ELEC., OR MISC. ACCESSORIES OR EQUIPMENT TO THE STRUCTURE. 6. OF CONCRETE FILL OVER METAL DECK NOT APPLICABLE TO INSTALLATION INTO UNDERSIDE U.N.O. INSTALL ANCHORS PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATIONS. INSPECTION: 2. ALL WORK SHALL BE INSTALLED UNDER CONTINUOUS INSPECTION BY INSPECTOR OF RECORD. 1. TORQUE TEST: OF INSPECTOR OF RECORD. (I.O.R.) TEST INSTALLED ANCHORS AT A RATE OF 100% IN THE PRESENCE 1. THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER OF RECORD. REDUCED SUBJECT TO NO FAILURES OCCURING AND APPROVAL BY MORE THAN 1/2 TURN OF THE NUT. THE RATE OF TESTING MAY BE RETESTED A MINIMUM OF 24 HOURS LATER AND SHALL NOT HAVE THE DRILLED BOLT SCHEDULE. TORQUED BOLTS SHALL BE IN EITHER PULLOUT OR SHEAR ) SHALL BE TORQUED AS NOTED IN ALL CONCRETE ANCHOR BOLTS OF THE EXPANSION TYPE (LOADED 2. RETEST. ASSOCIATED COSTS SHALL BE BORNE BY THE CONTRACTOR. WHERE ANCHORS FAIL TESTING, REPLACE DEFICIENT ANCHORS AND 3. 1 1/4" MIN. ~4 EDGES OPPOSITE * * REVISIONS: SHEET NO. DATE: SCALE: JOB NO.: SHEET TITLE: DRAWN: JOB TITLE:

JOB ADDRESS: BRANDOW & JOHNSTON
STRUCTURAL+CIVIL ENGINEERS (B&J HBK, INC.)
700 S FLOWER ST #1800, LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
T: (213) 596-4500
EST. 1945
WWW.BJSCE.COM

PRELIMINARY DRAWING
11-24-2020 AU S E ETSATS R CFO TCURT PDE ER GIST EFOR E IA NROIFL LAR R NELANOI S ENI GNo. 2719 ROBERT T. SNOYLDATE: FOR BRANDOW & JOHNSTON AS NOTED S20-0348 S.A.

ANAHEIM CONVEVTION CENTER CAR PARK 2

PT STRUCTURAL SURVEY
REPAIR DETAILS G:\20\S20-0348 - ACC - CAR PARK 2, PT STRUCTURAL SURVEY\9 - CAD\CAD\_SHEETS\S3.1.DWG 11/20/2020 S3.1 GENERAL NOTES 2. WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, IT IS NOT THE INTENT OF THIS PROJECT TO INCREASE LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY OF THE STRUCTURE COMPARED TO THE CURRENT STRUCTURE. POST TENSION SYSTEMS WITH A LOWER MAINTENANCE SYSTEM THAT HAS A HIGHER PROFILE, REDUCING RISK OF VEHICLE COLLISIONS. STEEL SYSTEM OF WIDE FLANGE BEAMS. IT IS THE INTENT OF THIS PROJECT TO PROVIDE AN EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF STRENGTH AS THE EXISTING 1. PROJECT SYNOPSIS - THIS PROJECT REPLACES THE EXISTING POST TENSION SLAB STRENGTHENING BELOW THE LEVEL 3 WITH A STRUCTURAL GENERAL TITLE 24, PART 2, VOLUME 2 OF 2 (INCLUDING ALL SUPPLEMENTS) AND ALL OTHER LOCAL OR STATE AGENCIES HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THIS PROJECT. 3. SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED ON THE DRAWINGS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. IF CLARIFICATION IS REQUIRED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. 5. TYPICAL DETAILS SHALL APPLY IN GENERAL CONSTRUCTION UNLESS SPECIFICALLY DETAILED. WHERE NO DETAILS ARE GIVEN, CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE 4. DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWINGS. PRINTED DIMENSIONS HAVE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DRAWINGS AND LARGE SCALE OVER SMALL. AS SHOWN FOR SIMILAR WORK. 6. SECTIONS AND DETAILS SPECIFY THE MAXIMUM SPACING PERMITTED BETWEEN DOWELS, REBAR, ANCHORS, BARS AND OTHER SIMILAR ITEMS. SPACING OTHERWISE. AS EXISTING REBAR IN CONCRETE. MINIMUM SPACING SHALL BE 2/3 OF THE MAXIMUM SPACING CALLED OUT, BUT NOT LESS THAN 6 INCHES UNLESS NOTED BETWEEN ADJACENT DOWELS, REBAR, ANCHORS, BARS AND OTHER SIMILAR ITEMS SHALL BE REDUCED TO ACCOMMODATE EXISTING CONDITIONS SUCH 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REVIEW AND COORDINATION OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, AND ANY OTHER PERTINENT EXPENSE AND AT NO EXPENSE TO THE OWNER. PERFORMED IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS OR ANY CODE REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE CORRECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT HIS OWN OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AND ENGINEER OF RECORD PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION SO THAT A CLARIFICATION CAN BE ISSUED. ANY WORK DRAWINGS, PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. ANY CONFLICTS OR DISCREPANCIES THAT OCCUR SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE 8. INFORMATION SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS RELATIVE TO EXISTING CONDITIONS IS GIVEN AS THE BEST PRESENT KNOWLEDGE FROM INFORMATION CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. TO THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AND ENGINEER OF RECORD SO THAT PROPER CLARIFICATION MAY BE MADE. MODIFICATION OF DETAILS OF SUPPLIED BY THE OWNER, BUT WITHOUT GUARANTEE OF ACCURACY. WHERE ACTUAL CONDITIONS CONFLICT WITH DRAWINGS, THEY SHALL BE REPORTED 9. RESPONSIBILITY INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: CONDITIONS AT THE SITE, AND CONSTRUCTIBILITY OF THE PROJECT AS DEFINED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES COMMENCING WITH CONSTUCTION AND FABRICATION DRAWINGS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY GOVERNING DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS, EXISTING THE CONTRACTOR IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTION THIS PROJECT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. BEFORE VI. THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF ALL ITEMS USED IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE A PERMANENT PART THEREOF, INCLUDING V. IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION (UNLESS SPECIFICALLY SPECIFIED). IV. THE MEANS, METHODS AND PROCEDURES EMPLOYED (UNLESS SPECIFICALLY SPECIFIED). III. THE SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION (UNLESS SPECIFICALLY REFERENCED). II. THE PROTECTION, PROPER HANDLING AND INSTALLATION OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS. I. THE SAFETY OF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND CONSTRUCTION PERSONNEL. BUT NOT LIMITED TO HOISTING TOWERS. VIII.THE SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION LOADS AND STORAGE AND TRANSPORT OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL ON VII.THE SCHEDULING OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. THE PARTIALLY COMPLETED OR FULLY COMPLETED PROJECT. X. PROTECTION AND REPAIR OF ADJACENT EXISTING SURFACES AND AREAS WHICH MAY BE DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF NEW WORK. IX. MAINTAINING THE STABILITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS. 1. WELD ELECTRODE: MATERIAL PROPERTIES E70XX, LOW HYDROGEN 2. NON-SHRINK GROUT: F'C = 4,000 PSI MIN. @ 28 DAYS 3 THREADED RODS: F1554 GRADE 55 3. GROUT SHALL HAVE CURRENT ICC RESEARCH REPORT. RESEARCH REPORT IS TO BE SENT TO ENGINEER OF RECORD FOR 2. GROUT SHALL MEET REQUIREMENTS OF CRD C621 AND ASTM C1107, GRADES A, B & C. 1. GROUT SHALL BE PREMIXED, CEMENT BASED, NONSHRINK AND NONMETALLIC. NONSHRINK GROUT INFORMATION PURPOSES. LEGEND 43 EARTH CONCRETE BLOCK CONCRETE CAST-IN PLACE FINISH ELEVATION SHEET REFERENCE WALL ELEVATION NUMBER REFERENCE SHEET REFERENCE FULL HEIGHT SECTION NUMBER REFERENCE SHEET REFERENCE SECTION OR DETAIL NUMBER REFERENCE ABBREVIATIONS LLV - LONG LEG VERTICAL LLH - LONG LEG HORIZONTAL LL - LIVE LOAD HORIZ. - HORIZONTAL HSS - TUBE STEEL FTG. - FOOTING GLBM - GLULAM BEAM GA. - GAUGE FTG. - FOOTING FLR. - FLOOR EXIST. - EXISTING EQ. - EQUAL EMBED. - EMBEDMENT EA. - EACH E.W. - EACH WAY E.F. - EA. FACE DWG. - DRAWING DIAG. - DIAGONAL DBL. - DOUBLE CONT. - CONTINUOUS CONN. - CONNECTION CONC. - CONCRETE COL. - COLUMN CMU - CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT CLR. - CLEAR, CLEARANCE C.P. - COMPLETE PENETRATION BTWN. - BETWEEN BOTT. - BOTTOM BM. - BEAM BLKG. - BLOCKING A.B. - ANCHOR BOLT (N) - NEW (E) - EXISTING VERT. - VERTICAL U.N.O. - UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE TYP. - TYPICAL TOS - TOP OF STEEL TOF - TOP OF FOOTING TOC - TOP OF CONCRETE THK. - THICK T&B - TOP AND BOTTOM SYM. - SYMMETRICAL STRUC. - STRUCTURAL STL. - STEEL STIFF. - STIFFENER SQ. - SQUARE SPCG. - SPACING SPECS. - SPECIFICATIONS SIM. - SIMILAR SHT'G. - SHEATHING SDL - SUPERIMPOSED DEAD LOAD SCHED. - SCHEDULE REQ'D. - REQUIRED REINF. - REINFORCEMENT P.P. - PARTIAL PENETRATION OPP. - OPPOSITE OPN'G. - OPENING O.H. - OPPOSITE HAND O.C. - ON CENTER NTS - NOT TO SCALE NS/FS - NEAR SIDE/FAR SIDE MIN. - MINIMUM MECH. - MECHANICAL MAX. - MAXIMUM LT.WT. - LIGHTWEIGHT # - POUNDS ~< - ANGLE ~C - CENTERLINE ~P - PLATE Ø - ROUND WWF - WELDED WIRE FABRIC WT. - WEIGHT W.P. - WORK POINT W/ - WITH 1. VISUAL OBSERVATIONS OF STRUCTURAL WORK WILL BE PERFORMED AT THE STRUCTURAL OBSERVATIONS ARE A SUBSTITUTE FOR SPECIAL INSPECTIONS. MILESTONES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BUILDING CODE. VISUAL OBSERVATIONS DISCRETION OF THE OWNER’S REPRESENTATIVE AT SIGNIFICANT CONSTRUCTION 2. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY AND (5) WORKING DAYS IN ADVANCE. PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION WILL BE READY FOR OBSERVATION A MINIMUM OF FIVE COORDINATE WITH THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AS TO WHEN EACH MAJOR 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THAT ITEMS LISTED IN THE SCHEDULE ARE OBSERVATION. FOR ANY SCHEDULING DELAYS DUE TO NONCOMPLIANT ITEMS FOUND DURING THE VISIBLE FOR OBSERVATION WHEN THE SEOR IS ON SITE, PROVIDING ACCESS AND 4. AS MINIMUM, STRUCTURAL OBSERVATIONS WILL BE PERFORMED AT THE FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION MILESTONES STRUCTURAL OBSERVATIONS 2 1 OTHERWISE, PLATES, ANGLE AND CHANNEL SHAPES SHALL BE ASTM A 36.) HOLLOW STRUCTURAL SECTIONS (HHS) SHALL

1. STRUCTURAL AND MISCELLANEOUS STEEL SHALL BE ASTM A-992 OR ASTM A-572 GRADE 50. (UNLESS NOTED ALSO SEE NOTE 8. 5. BOLTS SHALL BE HIGH STRENGTH BOLTS CONFORMING TO A.S.T.M. A-325 SLIP CRITICAL TYPE, (NOTED AS A325SC OR A325F) 3. SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO FABRICATION SPECIFICATIONS. THE FABRICATOR SHALL BE LICENSED BY AISC. 2. ALL MATERIAL, FABRICATION AND CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST A.I.S.C.

BOLTS", AND SHALL HAVE CONTINUOUS INSPECTION. HIGH STRENGTH BOLTS SHALL CONFORM TO "THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL JOINTS USING A.S.T.M. A-325 OR A-490 EXCEPT AS NOTED. ALL FAYING SURFACES SHALL COMPLY WITH CLASS A PER ASTM A-325 OR A-490 BOLTS. INSTALLATION OF APPROVED W.P.Ss. STEEL COMPONENTS. INCLUDE VISUAL INSPECTION OF COPES, ACCESS HOLES, BOLT HOLES ETC AND COMPLIANCE WITH SHOP FILLET WELD AND PARTIAL PENETRATION WELDS. INSPECT 10% MIN. OF THE FABRICATION OF STRUCTURAL 7. ALL GROOVE WELDS SHALL BE ULTRASONICALLY INSPECTED. MAGNETIC PARTICLE (OR DYE PENETRANT) 10% MIN. OF SIZE PER AISC SPECIFICATIONS. 6. FILLET WELDS NOTED ARE FOR DESIGN LOADS. FOR WELDS TO HEAVIER SECTIONS USE PREHEAT OR INCREASE WELD STRUCTURAL STEEL & MISCELLANEOUS STEEL: 8. HSS & PIPE COLUMNS: ANY PIECES FOUND WITH CRACKS, SPLITS OR LACK OF FUSION SHALL BE REJECTED. ALL SEAM WELDS OF HSS & PIPE COLUMNS SHALL BE INSPECTED. ALL MILL CERTIFICATES SHALL BE FULLY DOCUMENTED. CONFORM TO ASTM A-500, GRADE B AND PIPE COLUMNS SHALL CONFORM TO A.S.T.M. A-53, GRADE B OR A.S.T.M. 501. AND SEOR. ALSO SEE NOTE 8. STATE OF CALIFORNIA EMPLOYED BY THE QUALITY ASSURANCE AGENCY, PRIOR TO SUBMISSION FOR REVIEW BY THE ARCH. TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY AN AWS CERTIFIED SPECIAL INSPECTOR AND/OR LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER WITH THE WELDS. ALL TACK WELDS AND TEMPORARY WELD SHALL BE PREHEATED PER AWS D1.1, 2010. W.P.S.s ARE REQUIRED FORWELDS. ELECTRODES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM CHARPY VEE NOTCH TOUGHNESS OF 20 FT. LBS. AT O°F. DO NOT INTERMIX INSPECTION. WELDING SHALL CONFORM TO A.W.S. D.1.1.2010. SUBMIT WELDING PROCEDURE SPECIFICATIONS (W.P.S.) AWSD1.1, DI.5 OR B2.1 (UNLIMITED THICKNESS, ALL POSITION QUALIFICATION'S). ALL WELDING SHALL HAVE CONTINUOUS ALL 4. ALL WELDERS SHALL BE CERTIFIED BY THE GOVERNING JURISDICTION LICENSCES AND ALL SHALL HAVE IN HIS/HER POSSESSION 12. SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO FABRICATION. 11. DRILLED ANCHORS SHALL BE INSTALLED UNDER CONTINUOUS INSPECTION BY INSPECTOR OF RECORD. 10. U.N.O. INSTALL DRILLED ANCHORS PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATIONS. 9. DRILLED ANCHORS SHALL BE HILTI HIT-RE 500 V3 (ICC-ES ESR-3814) OR EQUAL ITEM OR CONSTRUCTION PHASE WHEN PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING START OF CONSTRUCTION REMOVAL OF POST TENSION SYSTEM AFTER FIRST SECTION IS REMOVED INSTALLATION OF STRUCTURAL STEEL AFTER INITIAL SECTION OF STEEL INSTALLED INSTALLATION OF STRUCTURAL STEEL NEAR COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION

SEE SCHEDULE

FOR MINIMUM

HOLE DIAMETER
(TYP) 22.5° FACE OF EXIST. CONCRETE SEE SCHEDULE FOR MIN. HOLE DEPTH ANCHOR SLOPE HOLE WHERE INDICATED NOTE: SURFACES TO RECEIVE SPECIFICATIONS. BE ROUGHENED PER NEW CONCRETE TO 1. THE FOLLOWING LOAD TESTING PROCEDURES APPLY TO EACH ANCHOR SIZE AND GROUT PRODUCT LOAD TEST: 2. PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK, PROOF TEST 3 ANCHORS TO A PROOF TEST LOAD OF 125% OF TABULATED a.) VERTICAL SET OVERHEAD b.) VERTICAL SET DOWN c.) HORIZONTAL PLACED BY EACH INSTALLATION TEAM FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING INSTALLATIONS: 2. FOR EPOXY GROUT, CLEAN HOLE THOROUGHLY BY VACUUM OR AIR PRESSURE, HOLE TO BE DRY BEFORE INSTALLATION NOTES: SCHEDULE, REDUCE TEST LOAD BY THE RATION OF THE EMBEDMENTS. 5. WHERE EMBEDMENT NOTED ON SPECIFIC DETAILS IS LESS THAN EMBEDMENT NOTED ON THIS ASSOCIATED COSTS SHALL BE BORNE BY THE CONTRACTOR. BORNE BY TH CONTRACTOR. 4. WHEN TEST LOAD IS NOT ACHIEVED, REPLACE THE DEFICIENT ANCHORS AND RETEST. SUBJECT TO NO FAILURES OCCURING AND APPROVAL BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER OF RECORD. 3. LOAD TEST INSTALLED ANCHORS AT A RATE OF 100%. THE RATE OF TESTING MAY BE REDUCED TO 10% TEST LOAD. 7. ALL WORK SHALL BE INSTALLED UNDER CONTINUOUS INSPECTION BY INSPECTOR OF RECORD. 6. EPOXY GROUT: HIT- RE 500-V3 ADHESIVE ANCHOR BY HILTI (ICC-ESR 3814) OR EQUAL. 5. PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR ANCHOR UNTIL GROUT HAS CURED. 4. INSERT DOWEL INTO HOLE FORCING MATERIAL AROUND SIDES OF BAR AND COMPLETELY FILLING VOIDS. APPROXIMATELY 2/3 FULL. STARTING AT BOTTOM, FILL HOLE. 3. PLACE GROUT IN HOLE WITH CAULKING GUN OR SIMILAR EQUIPMENT. WATER PRIOR TO GROUTING. GROUTING. FOR CEMENT GROUT, CLEAN, AND PRE-WET HOLE 24 HOURS BEFORE GROUTING; REMOVE FREE DAMAGED TENDONS WILL BE BORNE BY THE CONTRACTOR. ONE INCH BETWEEN THE TENDON AND THE HOLE FOR THE GROUTED ANCHOR. COSTS TO REPAIR/REPLACE CAUTION TO AVOID DAMAGING THE TENDONS DURING INSTALLATION. MAINTAIN A MINIMUM CLEARANCE OF LOCATE TENDONS BY NON-DESTRUCTIVE METHODS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. EXERCISE EXTREME CARE AND GROUTED. WHEN INSTALLING GROUTED ANCHOR INTO PRESTRESSED CONCRETE (PRE- OR POST-TENSIONED) RELOCATING HOLE SLIGHTLY. CONTRACTOR SHALL ALLOW FOR 5% REDRILLING. ABANDONED HOLES SHALL BE 1. PROVIDE HOLE OF DEPTH AND DIAMETER AS SCHEDULED. AVOID ANY EXISTING REINFORCING STEEL BY EPOXY GROUT GRADE 60 ASTM A615 BAR SIZE, DIAM HOLE MIN. MIN. DEPTH LOAD TEST ASTM A36 BAR SIZE, FULLY THREADED DIAM HOLE MIN. MIN. DEPTH LOAD TEST #3 1/2 IN 6 IN 6.0 KIPS 1/2 IN 9/16 IN 6 IN 4.6 KIPS #4 5/8 IN 8 IN 10.6 KIPS 5/8 IN 11/16 IN 8 IN 7.3 KIPS #5 3/4 IN 10 IN 16.6 KIPS 3/4 IN 13/16 IN 10 IN 10.8 KIPS #6 1 IN 14 IN 23.8 KIPS 7/8 IN 15/16 IN 12 IN 15.0 KIPS #7 1 1/8 IN 16 IN 32.5 KIPS 1 IN 1 1/16 IN 14 IN 19.6 KIPS #8 1 1/4 IN 18 IN 42.4 KIPS 1 1/8 IN 1 3/16 IN 16 IN 24.7 KIPS #9 1 3/8 IN 21 IN 53.6 KIPS 1 1/4 IN 1 5/16 IN 18 IN 31.4 KIPS #10 1 1/2 IN 24 IN 66.2 KIPS - - - - #11 1 3/4 IN 28 IN 80.1 KIPS - - - - GROUTED ANCHOR DETAIL 5 REVISIONS: SHEET NO. DATE: SCALE: JOB NO.:

SHEET TITLE: DRAWN:

JOB TITLE:

JOB ADDRESS:

BRANDOW & JOHNSTON
STRUCTURAL+CIVIL ENGINEERS
700 S FLOWER ST #1800, LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
T: (213) 596-4500
EST. 1945
WWW.BJSCE.COM

PRELIMINARY DRAWING
1-5-2022
AU
S
E
ET
SATS
R
C
F O
TCURT
PDE ER
GIST
EFOR
E

IA NROIF
L
LAR
R

NELANOI S
ENI GNo. 2719
ROBERT
T. SNOYLDATE:

FOR

BRANDOW
&
JOHNSTON AS NOTED S20-0348 S.A.

ANAHEIM CONVEVTION CENTER CAR PARK 2

POST-TENSION REPLACEMENT PROJECT
BELOW LEVEL 3
Hotel Way
Anaheim, CA 92802
GENERAL NOTES AND MISC.

DETAILS
G:\20\S20-0348 - ACC - CAR PARK 2, PT STRUCTURAL SURVEY\9 - CAD\CAD\_SHEETS\S1.0.DWG 1/5/2022 S1.0 [20'x6"x1/2"]
[4'x1"x1"]
(4) JOINT CONSTRUCTION DESTRESSING SEQUENCE. FOR PT CABLE REMOVAL, SEE DRAWING S2.3-PT AFTER REMOVAL OF PT CABLES. REINFORCE SLAB AT SHADED AREAS PER DETAILS ON S3 S3 3 TYP. S317 CONDITIONS INTERSECTING CORNERS AND TYP. @ S319 S319 SIM.

THIRD FLOOR PLAN - BELOW

DRIVE AISLES SLAB

REINFORCEMENT
G:\20\S20-0348 - ACC - CAR PARK 2, PT STRUCTURAL SURVEY\9 - CAD\CAD\_SHEETS\S2.3B.DWG 1/5/2022 S2.3B REVISIONS: SHEET NO. DATE: SCALE: JOB NO.:

SHEET TITLE: DRAWN:

JOB TITLE:

JOB ADDRESS:

BRANDOW & JOHNSTON
STRUCTURAL+CIVIL ENGINEERS
700 S FLOWER ST #1800, LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
T: (213) 596-4500
EST. 1945
WWW.BJSCE.COM

PRELIMINARY DRAWING
1-5-2022
AU
S
E
ET
SATS
R
C
FO
TCURT
PDE ER
GIST
EFOR
E

IA NROIF
L
LAR
R

NELANOI S
ENI GNo. 2719
ROBERT
T. SNOYLDATE:

FOR

BRANDOW
&
JOHNSTON AS NOTED S20-0348 S.A.

ANAHEIM CONVEVTION CENTER CAR PARK 2

POST-TENSION REPLACEMENT PROJECT
BELOW LEVEL 3
Hotel Way
Anaheim, CA 92802

TYPICAL SLAB ATTACHMENT POINT SCALE:
5 1 1/2"=1'-0"
LP 12"x12"x1"
LP STIFF EA SIDE 5/16 5/16 (4) 3/4" DIA THREADED ROD A325N BOLTS (2) 3/4" DIA PLAN W8x PER PLAN W8x PER 1/4 1/4 REMAINING DETAILS SEE -10 SECTION SCALE: 10 1 1/2"=1'-0" TYPICAL BEAM ATTACHMENT POINT DETAIL SCALE: 15 1 1/2"=1'-0" HSS 6x2x3/8x WIDTH OF PLATE USE: GROUT THICKNESS REQUIRED TO MEET THE 4" MAX PROVIDE HSS FILLER WHERE PLAN W8x PER 1'-0" PL TO BEAM WEB PLATE 3/4"x8" WIDE 3/16 3/16 TYP 9" SQ BOLT PATTERN 2" PLATES PER STIFFENER
-25 SOFFIT AT TOP PLATE 4" TO 8" MAX BETWEEN DROP PANEL CASE 2 PLAN W8x PER (ICC-ES ESR-3814) 500 V3 + HAS-V-36 (4) 3/4" DIA HILTI HIT-RE 1 2
1 " TYP. 12"x12"x1" HIGH STRENGTH GROUT NON-SHRINK GROUT LP
8", TYP 5/16 5/16 TYP SOFFIT AT TOP PLATE 4" MAX BETWEEN DROP PANEL CASE 1 1 1/2" MIN
4" MAX 9" SQ BOLT PATTERN FOR OTHER DETAILS REFER TO CASE 1 TYPICAL BEAM CONNECTION AND STIFFENER PLATE SCALE: 25 1 1/2"=1'-0" PLAN W8x PER 5/16 TYP BOLTS 3/4" DIA A325N PLATE AND CONNECTION PLATE 3/8" FULL DEPTH STIFFENER 1/4 TYP 33 TYP OVERHEAD PLAN 6'-6" 6'-6" EQ
EQ EQ TYPICAL DRIVE AISLE BAY SCALE:
3 1/2"=1'-0"
EQ
1'-0"
TYP. 6" TYP.

W8x24 HIGH
W8x24 HIGH
-4
1'-6"
TYP. W8x24 LOW W8x24 HIGH P4 Q4 2625
-10 W8x24 HIGH W8x24 LOW TYP TYP
-25 POINTS, TYP BEAM ATTACHMENT POINTS, TYP SLAB SUPPORT SYMM SCALE:
4 1"=1'-0" ELEVATION LEVEL P3 W8x LOW PER PLAN W8x HIGH BEYOND PER PLAN -5
8" MAX
-15
-10 1'-6"

LC COLUMNS BEYOND
2 1/2" MIN
6" MAX SHOWN IN PLANS SLAB SUPPORT POINTS PLANS POINTS SHOWN IN BEAM ATTACHMENT 1. THE INTENT IS TO ESTABLISH ELEVATION OF HIGH AND LOW BEAMS DIMENSIONS AND TOP OF STEEL ELEVATION, HIGH AND LOW BEAMS TRUE SLAB AND DROP PANEL ELEVATIONS. TO SUIT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, CONSIDERING VARIATIONS FROM 2. ADJUST TOS AS NEEDED, WITHIN THE MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM DIMENSIONS\SHOWN ON DETAILS. 3. PERFORM AND PLAN AN ELEVATION SURVEY SLAB AND DROP PANEL ON THE SURVEY. SOFFIT PRIOR TO FABRICATION. ACTUAL DIMENSIONS SHALL BE BASED PARTIAL PLAN SCALE: 17 1/8"=1'-0" PARTIAL PLAN SCALE: 19 1/8"=1'-0" FOR REMAINING DETAILS SEE -3
EQ. EQ. FOR REMAINING DETAILS SEE
-3
W8x35
W8x35 V4 U4 T4 2526 23.8 24 H6 14.3 G6 13.3 1314

ALTERNATIVE SCHEME
G:\20\S20-0348 - ACC - CAR PARK 2, PT STRUCTURAL SURVEY\9 - CAD\CAD\_SHEETS\S3.DWG 1/5/2022 S3 REVISIONS: SHEET NO. DATE: SCALE: JOB NO.:

SHEET TITLE: DRAWN:

JOB TITLE:

JOB ADDRESS:

BRANDOW & JOHNSTON
STRUCTURAL+CIVIL ENGINEERS
700 S FLOWER ST #1800, LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
T: (213) 596-4500
EST. 1945
WWW.BJSCE.COM

PRELIMINARY DRAWING
1-5-2022
AU
S
E
ET
SATS
R
C
F O
TCURT
PDE ER
GIST
EFOR
E

IA NROIF
L
LAR
R

NELANOI S
ENI GNo. 2719
ROBERT
T. SNOYLDATE:

FOR

BRANDOW
&
JOHNSTON AS NOTED S20-0348 S.A.

ANAHEIM CONVEVTION CENTER CAR PARK 2

POST-TENSION REPLACEMENT PROJECT
BELOW LEVEL 3
Hotel Way
Anaheim, CA 92802
GENERAL NOTES 2. WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, IT IS NOT THE INTENT OF THIS PROJECT TO INCREASE LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY OF THE STRUCTURE COMPARED TO THE CURRENT STRUCTURE. POST TENSION SYSTEMS WITH A LOWER MAINTENANCE SYSTEM THAT HAS A HIGHER PROFILE, REDUCING RISK OF VEHICLE COLLISIONS. STEEL SYSTEM OF WIDE FLANGE BEAMS. IT IS THE INTENT OF THIS PROJECT TO PROVIDE AN EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF STRENGTH AS THE EXISTING 1. PROJECT SYNOPSIS - THIS PROJECT REPLACES THE EXISTING POST TENSION SLAB STRENGTHENING BELOW THE LEVEL 3 WITH A STRUCTURAL GENERAL TITLE 24, PART 2, VOLUME 2 OF 2 (INCLUDING ALL SUPPLEMENTS) AND ALL OTHER LOCAL OR STATE AGENCIES HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THIS PROJECT. 3. SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED ON THE DRAWINGS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. IF CLARIFICATION IS REQUIRED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. 5. TYPICAL DETAILS SHALL APPLY IN GENERAL CONSTRUCTION UNLESS SPECIFICALLY DETAILED. WHERE NO DETAILS ARE GIVEN, CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE 4. DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWINGS. PRINTED DIMENSIONS HAVE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DRAWINGS AND LARGE SCALE OVER SMALL. AS SHOWN FOR SIMILAR WORK. 6. SECTIONS AND DETAILS SPECIFY THE MAXIMUM SPACING PERMITTED BETWEEN DOWELS, REBAR, ANCHORS, BARS AND OTHER SIMILAR ITEMS. SPACING OTHERWISE. AS EXISTING REBAR IN CONCRETE. MINIMUM SPACING SHALL BE 2/3 OF THE MAXIMUM SPACING CALLED OUT, BUT NOT LESS THAN 6 INCHES UNLESS NOTED BETWEEN ADJACENT DOWELS, REBAR, ANCHORS, BARS AND OTHER SIMILAR ITEMS SHALL BE REDUCED TO ACCOMMODATE EXISTING CONDITIONS SUCH 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REVIEW AND COORDINATION OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, AND ANY OTHER PERTINENT EXPENSE AND AT NO EXPENSE TO THE OWNER. PERFORMED IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS OR ANY CODE REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE CORRECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT HIS OWN OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AND ENGINEER OF RECORD PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION SO THAT A CLARIFICATION CAN BE ISSUED. ANY WORK DRAWINGS, PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. ANY CONFLICTS OR DISCREPANCIES THAT OCCUR SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE 8. INFORMATION SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS RELATIVE TO EXISTING CONDITIONS IS GIVEN AS THE BEST PRESENT KNOWLEDGE FROM INFORMATION CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. TO THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AND ENGINEER OF RECORD SO THAT PROPER CLARIFICATION MAY BE MADE. MODIFICATION OF DETAILS OF SUPPLIED BY THE OWNER, BUT WITHOUT GUARANTEE OF ACCURACY. WHERE ACTUAL CONDITIONS CONFLICT WITH DRAWINGS, THEY SHALL BE REPORTED 9. RESPONSIBILITY INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: CONDITIONS AT THE SITE, AND CONSTRUCTIBILITY OF THE PROJECT AS DEFINED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES COMMENCING WITH CONSTUCTION AND FABRICATION DRAWINGS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY GOVERNING DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS, EXISTING THE CONTRACTOR IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTION THIS PROJECT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. BEFORE VI. THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF ALL ITEMS USED IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE A PERMANENT PART THEREOF, INCLUDING V. IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION (UNLESS SPECIFICALLY SPECIFIED). IV. THE MEANS, METHODS AND PROCEDURES EMPLOYED (UNLESS SPECIFICALLY SPECIFIED). III. THE SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION (UNLESS SPECIFICALLY REFERENCED). II. THE PROTECTION, PROPER HANDLING AND INSTALLATION OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS. I. THE SAFETY OF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND CONSTRUCTION PERSONNEL. BUT NOT LIMITED TO HOISTING TOWERS. VIII.THE SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION LOADS AND STORAGE AND TRANSPORT OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL ON VII.THE SCHEDULING OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. THE PARTIALLY COMPLETED OR FULLY COMPLETED PROJECT. X. PROTECTION AND REPAIR OF ADJACENT EXISTING SURFACES AND AREAS WHICH MAY BE DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF NEW WORK. IX. MAINTAINING THE STABILITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS. 1. WELD ELECTRODE: MATERIAL PROPERTIES E70XX, LOW HYDROGEN 2. NON-SHRINK GROUT: F'C = 4,000 PSI MIN. @ 28 DAYS 3 THREADED RODS: F1554 GRADE 55 3. GROUT SHALL HAVE CURRENT ICC RESEARCH REPORT. RESEARCH REPORT IS TO BE SENT TO ENGINEER OF RECORD FOR 2. GROUT SHALL MEET REQUIREMENTS OF CRD C621 AND ASTM C1107, GRADES A, B & C. 1. GROUT SHALL BE PREMIXED, CEMENT BASED, NONSHRINK AND NONMETALLIC. NONSHRINK GROUT INFORMATION PURPOSES. LEGEND 43 EARTH CONCRETE BLOCK CONCRETE CAST-IN PLACE FINISH ELEVATION SHEET REFERENCE WALL ELEVATION NUMBER REFERENCE SHEET REFERENCE FULL HEIGHT SECTION NUMBER REFERENCE SHEET REFERENCE SECTION OR DETAIL NUMBER REFERENCE ABBREVIATIONS LLV - LONG LEG VERTICAL LLH - LONG LEG HORIZONTAL LL - LIVE LOAD HORIZ. - HORIZONTAL HSS - TUBE STEEL FTG. - FOOTING GLBM - GLULAM BEAM GA. - GAUGE FTG. - FOOTING FLR. - FLOOR EXIST. - EXISTING EQ. - EQUAL EMBED. - EMBEDMENT EA. - EACH E.W. - EACH WAY E.F. - EA. FACE DWG. - DRAWING DIAG. - DIAGONAL DBL. - DOUBLE CONT. - CONTINUOUS CONN. - CONNECTION CONC. - CONCRETE COL. - COLUMN CMU - CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT CLR. - CLEAR, CLEARANCE C.P. - COMPLETE PENETRATION BTWN. - BETWEEN BOTT. - BOTTOM BM. - BEAM BLKG. - BLOCKING A.B. - ANCHOR BOLT (N) - NEW (E) - EXISTING VERT. - VERTICAL U.N.O. - UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE TYP. - TYPICAL TOS - TOP OF STEEL TOF - TOP OF FOOTING TOC - TOP OF CONCRETE THK. - THICK T&B - TOP AND BOTTOM SYM. - SYMMETRICAL STRUC. - STRUCTURAL STL. - STEEL STIFF. - STIFFENER SQ. - SQUARE SPCG. - SPACING SPECS. - SPECIFICATIONS SIM. - SIMILAR SHT'G. - SHEATHING SDL - SUPERIMPOSED DEAD LOAD SCHED. - SCHEDULE REQ'D. - REQUIRED REINF. - REINFORCEMENT P.P. - PARTIAL PENETRATION OPP. - OPPOSITE OPN'G. - OPENING O.H. - OPPOSITE HAND O.C. - ON CENTER NTS - NOT TO SCALE NS/FS - NEAR SIDE/FAR SIDE MIN. - MINIMUM MECH. - MECHANICAL MAX. - MAXIMUM LT.WT. - LIGHTWEIGHT # - POUNDS ~< - ANGLE ~C - CENTERLINE ~P - PLATE Ø - ROUND WWF - WELDED WIRE FABRIC WT. - WEIGHT W.P. - WORK POINT W/ - WITH 1. VISUAL OBSERVATIONS OF STRUCTURAL WORK WILL BE PERFORMED AT THE STRUCTURAL OBSERVATIONS ARE A SUBSTITUTE FOR SPECIAL INSPECTIONS. MILESTONES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BUILDING CODE. VISUAL OBSERVATIONS DISCRETION OF THE OWNER’S REPRESENTATIVE AT SIGNIFICANT CONSTRUCTION 2. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY AND (5) WORKING DAYS IN ADVANCE. PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION WILL BE READY FOR OBSERVATION A MINIMUM OF FIVE COORDINATE WITH THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AS TO WHEN EACH MAJOR 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THAT ITEMS LISTED IN THE SCHEDULE ARE OBSERVATION. FOR ANY SCHEDULING DELAYS DUE TO NONCOMPLIANT ITEMS FOUND DURING THE VISIBLE FOR OBSERVATION WHEN THE SEOR IS ON SITE, PROVIDING ACCESS AND 4. AS MINIMUM, STRUCTURAL OBSERVATIONS WILL BE PERFORMED AT THE FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION MILESTONES STRUCTURAL OBSERVATIONS 2 1 OTHERWISE, PLATES, ANGLE AND CHANNEL SHAPES SHALL BE ASTM A 36.) HOLLOW STRUCTURAL SECTIONS (HHS) SHALL

SEE SCHEDULE

FOR MINIMUM

HOLE DIAMETER
(TYP) 22.5° FACE OF EXIST. CONCRETE SEE SCHEDULE FOR MIN. HOLE DEPTH ANCHOR SLOPE HOLE WHERE INDICATED NOTE: SURFACES TO RECEIVE SPECIFICATIONS. BE ROUGHENED PER NEW CONCRETE TO 1. THE FOLLOWING LOAD TESTING PROCEDURES APPLY TO EACH ANCHOR SIZE AND GROUT PRODUCT LOAD TEST: 2. PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK, PROOF TEST 3 ANCHORS TO A PROOF TEST LOAD OF 125% OF TABULATED a.) VERTICAL SET OVERHEAD b.) VERTICAL SET DOWN c.) HORIZONTAL PLACED BY EACH INSTALLATION TEAM FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING INSTALLATIONS: 2. FOR EPOXY GROUT, CLEAN HOLE THOROUGHLY BY VACUUM OR AIR PRESSURE, HOLE TO BE DRY BEFORE INSTALLATION NOTES: SCHEDULE, REDUCE TEST LOAD BY THE RATION OF THE EMBEDMENTS. 5. WHERE EMBEDMENT NOTED ON SPECIFIC DETAILS IS LESS THAN EMBEDMENT NOTED ON THIS ASSOCIATED COSTS SHALL BE BORNE BY THE CONTRACTOR. BORNE BY TH CONTRACTOR. 4. WHEN TEST LOAD IS NOT ACHIEVED, REPLACE THE DEFICIENT ANCHORS AND RETEST. SUBJECT TO NO FAILURES OCCURING AND APPROVAL BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER OF RECORD. THE (E) DROP PANEL (SEE 3/S3), THE RATE OF TESTING MAY BE REDUCED TO 10% 3. LOAD TEST INSTALLED ANCHORS AT A RATE OF 100% EXCEPT FOR THE 4 ANCHORS @ EA. CORNER OF TEST LOAD. 7. ALL WORK SHALL BE INSTALLED UNDER CONTINUOUS INSPECTION BY INSPECTOR OF RECORD. 6. EPOXY GROUT: HIT- RE 500-V3 + HAS-V-36 ADHESIVE ANCHOR BY HILTI (ICC-ESR 3814) OR EQUAL. 5. PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR ANCHOR UNTIL GROUT HAS CURED. 4. INSERT DOWEL INTO HOLE FORCING MATERIAL AROUND SIDES OF BAR AND COMPLETELY FILLING VOIDS. APPROXIMATELY 2/3 FULL. STARTING AT BOTTOM, FILL HOLE. 3. PLACE GROUT IN HOLE WITH CAULKING GUN OR SIMILAR EQUIPMENT. WATER PRIOR TO GROUTING. GROUTING. FOR CEMENT GROUT, CLEAN, AND PRE-WET HOLE 24 HOURS BEFORE GROUTING; REMOVE FREE DAMAGED TENDONS WILL BE BORNE BY THE CONTRACTOR. ONE INCH BETWEEN THE TENDON AND THE HOLE FOR THE GROUTED ANCHOR. COSTS TO REPAIR/REPLACE CAUTION TO AVOID DAMAGING THE TENDONS DURING INSTALLATION. MAINTAIN A MINIMUM CLEARANCE OF LOCATE TENDONS BY NON-DESTRUCTIVE METHODS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. EXERCISE EXTREME CARE AND GROUTED. WHEN INSTALLING GROUTED ANCHOR INTO PRESTRESSED CONCRETE (PRE- OR POST-TENSIONED) RELOCATING HOLE SLIGHTLY. CONTRACTOR SHALL ALLOW FOR 5% REDRILLING. ABANDONED HOLES SHALL BE 1. PROVIDE HOLE OF DEPTH AND DIAMETER AS SCHEDULED. AVOID ANY EXISTING REINFORCING STEEL BY EPOXY GROUT GRADE 60 ASTM A615 BAR SIZE, DIAM HOLE MIN. MIN. DEPTH LOAD TEST ASTM A36 BAR SIZE, FULLY THREADED DIAM HOLE MIN. MIN. DEPTH LOAD TEST #3 1/2 IN 6 IN 6.0 KIPS 1/2 IN 9/16 IN 6 IN 4.6 KIPS #4 5/8 IN 8 IN 10.6 KIPS 5/8 IN 11/16 IN 8 IN 7.3 KIPS #5 3/4 IN 10 IN 16.6 KIPS 3/4 IN 13/16 IN 10 IN 10.8 KIPS #6 1 IN 14 IN 23.8 KIPS 7/8 IN 15/16 IN 12 IN 15.0 KIPS #7 1 1/8 IN 16 IN 32.5 KIPS 1 IN 1 1/16 IN 14 IN 19.6 KIPS #8 1 1/4 IN 18 IN 42.4 KIPS 1 1/8 IN 1 3/16 IN 16 IN 24.7 KIPS #9 1 3/8 IN 21 IN 53.6 KIPS 1 1/4 IN 1 5/16 IN 18 IN 31.4 KIPS #10 1 1/2 IN 24 IN 66.2 KIPS - - - - #11 1 3/4 IN 28 IN 80.1 KIPS - - - - GROUTED ANCHOR DETAIL 5 REVISIONS: SHEET NO. DATE: SCALE: JOB NO.:

SHEET TITLE: DRAWN:

JOB TITLE:

JOB ADDRESS:

BRANDOW & JOHNSTON
STRUCTURAL+CIVIL ENGINEERS
700 S FLOWER ST #1800, LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
T: (213) 596-4500
EST. 1945
WWW.BJSCE.COM

PRELIMINARY DRAWING
4-4-2023 AS NOTED S20-0348 S.A.

ANAHEIM CONVEVTION CENTER CAR PARK 2

POST-TENSION REPLACEMENT PROJECT
BELOW LEVEL 3
Hotel Way
Anaheim, CA 92802

REGISTEREDPROFES

OI NALE GN
REENI

STRUCTURAL

STATE OF
CALIFORNIA DATE: FOR BRANDOW & JOHNSTON
JAS4335
MES
DALE
N

PEAR OS
GENERAL NOTES AND MISC.

DETAILS
G:\20\S20-0348 - ACC - CAR PARK 2, PT STRUCTURAL SURVEY\9 - CAD\CAD\_SHEETS\S1.0.DWG 4/3/2023 S1.0 [20'x6"x1/2"]
[4'x1"x1"]
(4) JOINT CONSTRUCTION DESTRESSING SEQUENCE. FOR PT CABLE REMOVAL, SEE DRAWING S2.3-PT AFTER REMOVAL OF PT CABLES. REINFORCE SLAB AT SHADED AREAS PER DETAILS ON S3 S3 3 TYP. S317 CONDITIONS INTERSECTING CORNERS AND TYP. @ S319 S319 SIM.

THIRD FLOOR PLAN - BELOW

DRIVE AISLES SLAB

REINFORCEMENT
G:\20\S20-0348 - ACC - CAR PARK 2, PT STRUCTURAL SURVEY\9 - CAD\CAD\_SHEETS\S2.3B.DWG 4/3/2023 S2.3B REVISIONS: SHEET NO. DATE: SCALE: JOB NO.:

SHEET TITLE: DRAWN:

JOB TITLE:

JOB ADDRESS:

BRANDOW & JOHNSTON
STRUCTURAL+CIVIL ENGINEERS
700 S FLOWER ST #1800, LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
T: (213) 596-4500
EST. 1945
WWW.BJSCE.COM

PRELIMINARY DRAWING
4-4-2023 AS NOTED S20-0348 S.A.

ANAHEIM CONVEVTION CENTER CAR PARK 2

POST-TENSION REPLACEMENT PROJECT
BELOW LEVEL 3
Hotel Way
Anaheim, CA 92802

REGISTEREDPROFES

OI NALE GN
REENI

STRUCTURAL

STATE OF
C
ALIFORNIA DATE: FOR BRANDOW & JOHNSTON
JAS4335
MES
DALE
N

PEAR OS
CABLES (E) PT TYP (E) PT CABLES, 1. DO NOT ALLOW VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ON LEVEL 3 SLAB PT CABLE DESTRESSING SEQUENCE: WHILE DESTRESSING AND REMOVING THE CABLES. 2. DO NOT ALLOW VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ON LEVEL 3 SLAB COMPLETE. UNTILL STEEL REINFORCEMENT BELOW LEVEL 3 SLAB IS 3. DESTRESS EAST-WEST CABLES TO 75% OF CABLE STRESS. 4. DESTRESS ALL NORTH-SOUTH CABLES TO 75% OF CABLE STRESS. 5. DESTRESS EAST-WEST CABLES TO 50% OF CABLE STRESS. 6. DESTRESS ALL NORTH-SOUTH CABLES TO 50% OF CABLE STRESS. 7. DESTRESS EAST-WEST CABLES TO 25% OF CABLE STRESS. 8. DESTRESS ALL NORTH-SOUTH CABLES TO 25% OF CABLE STRESS. 9. DESTRESS EAST-WEST CABLES TO 0% OF CABLE STRESS. 10. DESTRESS ALL NORTH-SOUTH CABLES TO 0% OF CABLE STRESS. 1. FIELD VERIFY ACTUAL STRUCTURAL STEEL STANCHION, REMOVAL OF STRUCTURAL STEEL HARDWARE: BRACES AND PT LAYOUT. 2. REMOVE EXISTING STRUCTURAL STEEL STANCHIONS, BRACES AND BRACKETS. 3. REMOVE OR CUT EXPANSION ANCHORS FLUSH WITH SOFFIT. 4. PATCH SPALLS, EMPTY BOLT HOLES RELATED TO REPAIR MORTAR. REMOVED STRUCTURAL STEEL USING A STRUCTURAL 5. PAINT AS DIRECTED BY ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER REPRESENTATIVE.

THIRD FLOOR PLAN BELOW

EXISTING PT CABLE REMOVAL
G:\20\S20-0348 - ACC - CAR PARK 2, PT STRUCTURAL SURVEY\9 - CAD\CAD\_SHEETS\S2.3-PT THIRD FLOOR PLAN.DWG 4/3/2023 S2.3-PT REVISIONS: SHEET NO. DATE: SCALE: JOB NO.:

SHEET TITLE: DRAWN:

JOB TITLE:

JOB ADDRESS:

BRANDOW & JOHNSTON
STRUCTURAL+CIVIL ENGINEERS
700 S FLOWER ST #1800, LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
T: (213) 596-4500
EST. 1945
WWW.BJSCE.COM

PRELIMINARY DRAWING
4-4-2023 AS NOTED S20-0348 S.A.

ANAHEIM CONVEVTION CENTER CAR PARK 2

POST-TENSION REPLACEMENT PROJECT
BELOW LEVEL 3
Hotel Way
Anaheim, CA 92802

REGISTEREDPROFES

OI NALE GN
REENI

STRUCTURAL

STATE OF
CALIFORNIA DATE: FOR BRANDOW & JOHNSTON
JAS4335
MES
DALE
N

PEAR OS
TYPICAL SLAB JACKING/SUPPORT POINT SCALE:
5 1 1/2"=1'-0"
LP 12"x12"x1"
LP EA SIDE 3/8" STIFF 5/16 5/16 (4) 3/4" DIA ALL THREADED ROD A325N BOLTS (2) 3/4" DIA PLAN W8x PER PLAN W8x PER 1/4 1/4 REMAINING DETAILS SEE -10 SECTION SCALE: 10 1 1/2"=1'-0" TYPICAL BEAM ATTACHMENT POINT DETAIL SCALE: 15 1 1/2"=1'-0" HSS 6x4x3/8x WIDTH OF PLATE USE: GROUT THICKNESS REQUIRED TO MEET THE 3" MAX PROVIDE HSS FILLER WHERE PLAN W8x PER 1'-0" PL TO BEAM WEB PLATE 3/4"x8" WIDE 3/16 3/16 TYP 9" SQ BOLT PATTERN 2" PLATES PER STIFFENER
-25 SOFFIT AT TOP PLATE 3" TO 8" MAX BETWEEN DROP PANEL CASE 2 PLAN W8x PER REQUIRED AT EA. ANCHOR. (ICC-ES ESR-3814). TYP. PULL TEST (4) 3/4" DIA HILTI HIT-RE 500 V3 + HAS-V-36
1 2
1 " TYP. 12"x12"x1" HIGH STRENGTH GROUT NON-SHRINK GROUT LP
10" MIN,
TYP. U.N.O. 5/16 5/16 TYP SOFFIT AT TOP PLATE 3" MAX BETWEEN DROP PANEL CASE 1 3" MIN
4" MAX 9" SQ BOLT PATTERN FOR OTHER DETAILS REFER TO CASE 1 TYPICAL BEAM CONNECTION AND STIFFENER PLATE SCALE: 25 1 1/2"=1'-0" PLAN W8x PER 5/16 5/16 TYP BOLTS 3/4" DIA A325N PLATE AND CONNECTION PLATE 3/8" FULL DEPTH STIFFENER 1/4 TYP 33 TYP
*
*SEE NOTES ON -3
LP EA SIDE 3/8" STIFF 1/4 1/4 EA. SIDE TACK WELD TO STL. 20 GA ANGLE 4 SIDES.LP -5
LP SEE FOR WELDS @ OF ANCHORS 3/8" STIFF EA SIDE
LC OVERHEAD PLAN 6'-6" 6'-6" EQ
3'-0" TYP EQ TYPICAL DRIVE AISLE BAY SCALE:
3 1/2"=1'-0"
1'-0"
TYP.

W8x24 HIGH
W8x24 HIGH
-4
1'-6"
TYP. W8x24 LOW W8x24 HIGH P4 Q4 2625
-10 W8x24 HIGH W8x24 LOW TYP TYP
-25 POINTS, TYP BEAM ATTACHMENT
3'-0" TYP
POINTS, TYP SLAB SUPPORT 4" TYP. LC OCCURS. GROUTED ANCHORS TYP WHERE 2 12"x6"x3/4" STEEL *
* 3. WELD ANCHOR RODS TO PLATE. TO DEFLECT STEEL BEAMS TO PREDETERMINED DEFLECTIONS PROVIDED BY SEOR. 2. INCREMENTALLY (4 STAGES MIN.) TIGHTEN UPPER NUTS @ ALL SIX JACKING/SUPPORT POINTS 1. SNUG TIGHT ALL THREAD RODS TO UNDERSIDE OF PLATE. NOTES: REFERRING TO DETAIL 5 LP
-15 AS NOTED EXCEPT SIM. SYMM
SCALE:
4 1"=1'-0" ELEVATION LEVEL P3 W8x LOW PER PLAN W8x HIGH BEYOND PER PLAN -5
8" MAX
-15
-10 1'-6" LC COLUMNS BEYOND
2 1/2" MIN
6" MAX SHOWN IN PLANS SLAB SUPPORT POINTS PLANS POINTS SHOWN IN BEAM ATTACHMENT 1. THE INTENT IS TO ESTABLISH ELEVATION OF HIGH AND LOW BEAMS DIMENSIONS AND TOP OF STEEL ELEVATION, HIGH AND LOW BEAMS TRUE SLAB AND DROP PANEL ELEVATIONS. TO SUIT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, CONSIDERING VARIATIONS FROM 2. ADJUST TOS AS NEEDED, WITHIN THE MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM DIMENSIONS\SHOWN ON DETAILS. 3. PERFORM AND PLAN AN ELEVATION SURVEY SLAB AND DROP PANEL ON THE SURVEY. SOFFIT PRIOR TO FABRICATION. ACTUAL DIMENSIONS SHALL BE BASED 10" MIN.

EMBEDMENT
TYP. U.N.O.
8" EMBEDMENT
8" EMBEDMENT 2- 3/4" Ø GROUTED ANCHOR PARTIAL PLAN SCALE: 17 1/8"=1'-0" PARTIAL PLAN SCALE: 19 1/8"=1'-0" FOR REMAINING DETAILS SEE -3 FOR REMAINING DETAILS SEE-3
W8x35
W8x35 V4 U4 T4 2526 23.8 24 H6 14.3 G6 13.3 1314

ALTERNATIVE SCHEME
G:\20\S20-0348 - ACC - CAR PARK 2, PT STRUCTURAL SURVEY\9 - CAD\CAD\_SHEETS\S3.DWG 4/3/2023 S3 REVISIONS: SHEET NO. DATE: SCALE: JOB NO.:

SHEET TITLE: DRAWN:

JOB TITLE:

JOB ADDRESS:

BRANDOW & JOHNSTON
STRUCTURAL+CIVIL ENGINEERS
700 S FLOWER ST #1800, LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
T: (213) 596-4500
EST. 1945
WWW.BJSCE.COM

PRELIMINARY DRAWING
4-4-2023 AS NOTED S20-0348 S.A.

ANAHEIM CONVEVTION CENTER CAR PARK 2

POST-TENSION REPLACEMENT PROJECT
BELOW LEVEL 3
Hotel Way
Anaheim, CA 92802

REGISTEREDPROFES

OI NALE GN
REENI

STRUCTURAL

STATE OF
CALIFORNIA DATE: FOR BRANDOW & JOHNSTON
JAS4335
MES
DALE
N

PEAR OS

SITE VISIT REPORT / REPAIR DRAWINGS
Project:

Project # S20-0127 – ACC Car Park 2 PT Post Damage
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com

STRUCTURAL
+ CIVIL

ENGINEERS

SITE VISIT REPORT
JOB# S20-0127
DATE REPORT PREPARED 08-18-2021
DATE OF SITE VISIT 08-06-2021
SUBJECT Anaheim Convention Center
Emergency PT Post Damage Repair
Grid Stations L-25.5 and P- 25.5
TO Tim Cho and Maribel Palmer
FROM R. Lyons, SE
PRESENT AT SITE:

Tim Cho - ACC
Randy Howser - ACC
Clint Sundeen - All Star
RT Lyons, SE - Brandow & Johnston
DATE OF VISIT: 07-27-2021

REASON FOR SITE VISIT
The purpose of this site visit is to observe PT post repairs. Structural work is essentially complete at the time of our site visit.

ITEMS OBSERVED
 Two repaired PT posts below Level P3 at grid stations L-25.5 and P-25.5  General area in vicinity of damaged posts

OBSERVATIONS/DISCUSSIONS/ACTION
Below is a summary of observations, discussions and recommendations. Refer to Photos 1 through 33 attached.

1. Refer to PT post repair drawings attached.

2. Posts at L-25.5 and P-25.5.
a. Both posts are repaired. Refer to attached Photos.
i. Posts are plumb.
ii. Braces installed.
iii. New anchors and clip angles installed.
iv. Post at L-25.5 is repositioned to align with building columns.

Anaheim Convention Center Page 2
Emergency PT Post Damage Repair
August 18, 2021
B&J Project No: S21-0237
August 6, 2021 Site Visit Report
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com v. Clint Sundeen with All Star explained the dimensioning and tensioning with preformed incrementally and longitudinal and transverse cables. Also, they were able to plumb and reposition without detensioning some cables b. Adjacent PT posts.
i. In addition to the adding braces to the two PT posts, braces were added to 16 adjacent posts.

3. Emergency shoring detail.
a. Shoring was not required.

4. Action Items.
a. At this time, the emergency structural repairs are essentially complete and pre-damage condition restored.

PROJECT SHEET TITLE PREPARED FOR ENGINEER CHECKED BY DATE 700 S. FLOWER ST. SUITE 1800, LA, CA 90017
TEL: (213) 596 - 4500 FAX: (213) 596 - 4599

BRANDOW & JOHNSTON (B&J HBK, INC)

S T R U C T U R A L & C I V I L E N G I N E E R S
S-001 ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER CAR PARK 2 PT POST REPAIRS BELOW LEVEL P3 ON GRIDS L AND P BETWEEN 25 AND 26 GENERAL NOTES RT LYONS, SE JULY 27, 2021 ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER

PROJECT SYNPOSIS
THE INTENT OF THIS PROJECT IS TO REPAIR DAMAGED PT POSTS AT GRID LINE L AND P BETWEEN 25 AND 26 BY

RESTORING THE ORIGINAL
REALIGNING POSTS AND RESTORING ORIGINAL STRENGTH. IT IS NOT THE INTENT OF THIS PROJECT TO IMPROVE TH PT SYSTEM.

GENERAL

1. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS REPRESENT THE REQUIRED REPAIRS FOR THE STRUCTURE BASED UPON ENGINEER OF RECORD'S VISUAL EXAMINATIONS. THESE DOCUMENTS DO NOT INDICATE THE NECESSARY ELEMENTS OF CONSTRUCTION SAFETY. AT ALL TIMES, MAINTAIN THE STABILITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE EXISITNG BUILDING.

2. DAMAGED CONDITIONS NOT ADDRESSED BY THESE DOCUMENTS, IF DISCOVERED, SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AND ENGINEER OF RECORD. IF NECESSARY, SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILS WILL BE PROVIDED.

3. WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 2007 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 24, PART 2, VOLUME 2 OF 2 (INCLUDING ALL SUPPLEMENTS) AND ALL OTHER LOCAL OR STATE AGENCIES HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THIS PROJECT.

11. INFORMATION SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS RELATIVE TO EXISTING CONDITIONS IS GIVEN AS THE BEST PRESENT KNOWLEDGE FROM INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE OWNER, BUT WITHOUT GUARANTEE OF ACCURACY. WHERE ACTUAL CONDITIONS CONFLICT WITH

DRAWINGS, THEY SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AND ENGINEER OF RECORD SO THAT PROPER CLARIFICATION MAY BE MADE. MODIFICATION OF DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.

12. RESPONSIBILITY

THE CONTRACTOR IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTION THIS PROJECT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. BEFORE COMMENCING WITH CONSTUCTION AND FABRICATION DRAWINGS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY GOVERNING

DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS, EXISTING CONDITIONS AT THE SITE, AND CONSTRUCTIBILITY OF THE PROJECT AS DEFINED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING:

I. THE SAFETY OF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND CONSTRUCTION PERSONNEL.

II. THE PROTECTION, PROPER HANDLING AND INSTALLATION OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS.

III. THE SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION (UNLESS SPECIFICALLY REFERENCED).

IV. THE MEANS, METHODS AND PROCEDURES EMPLOYED (UNLESS SPECIFICALLY SPECIFIED).

V. IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION (UNLESS SPECIFICALLY SPECIFIED).

VI. THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF ALL ITEMS USED IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE A PERMANENT PART THEREOF, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO HOISTING TOWERS.

VII. THE SCHEDULING OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.

VIII. THE SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION LOADS AND STORAGE AND TRANSPORT OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL ON THE PARTIALLY COMPLETED OR FULLY COMPLETED PROJECT.

IX. MAINTAINING THE STABILITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS.

X. PROTECTION AND REPAIR OF ADJACENT EXISTING SURFACES AND AREAS WHICH MAY BE DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF NEW WORK. 4 .

5. MATERIAL PROPERTIES

1. STRUCTURAL STEEL: ASTM A36, U.N.O.

2. WELD ELECTRODE: E70XX, LOW HYDROGEN 3. PIPE: ASTM A 53, GRADE B

STRUCTURAL STEEL

1. ALL MATERIAL, FABRICATION, CONSTRUCTION AND ERECTION SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH AISC 360-05, SPECIFICATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL BUILDINGS, AND AISC 303-05, CODE OF STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STEEL BUILDINGS AND BRIDGES.

2. ALL STEEL EXPOSED TO OUTSIDE AIR SHALL BE GALVANIZED. FASTENERS AND ATTACHMENTS (SUCH AS NUTS, BOLTS, RODS, CLEVIS, ETC.) SHALL BE CHROMIUM PLATED.

3. WELDING
A. ALL WELDING SHALL CONFORM TO REQUIREMENTS OF AWS-D1.1-06 B. ALL WELDERS SHALL BE CERTIFIED AND SHALL HAVE IN HIS/HER POSSESSION QUALIFICATION AWS D1.1, D1.5 OR B2.1 UNLIMITED THICKNESS IN ALL POSITION QUALIFICATION(S).

C. SHOP WELDS MUST BE PERFORMED IN AN AISC LICENSED FABRICATOR'S SHOP.

D. ALL WELDING SHALL HAVE CONTINUOUS INSPECTION.

E. ALL WELDING PROCEDURE SPECIFICATIONS (WPS) (SHOP AND FIELD) SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW TO THE ENGINEER OF RECORD AND OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO FABRICATION.

F. INTERMIXED WELDS AND COPPER BACKUP PLATES ARE NOT PERMITTED.

G. USE ELECTRODES THAT PRODUCE WELDS WITH A MINIMUM CHARPY VEE NOTCH TOUGHNESS OF 20 FT-LBS AT MINUS 0 DEGREES F, AS DETERMINED BY AWS ELECTRODE RATING AND MANUFACTURER'S CERTIFICATION.

H. WPS'S SHALL INDICATE HEAT INPUT, WHICH SHALL BE MAINTAINED WITHIN AWS TOLERANCE UNLESS NEW WPS IS PREPARED BASED UPON MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDED VARIABLES OF QUALIFICATION TESTS. HEAT INPUT SHALL BE CALCULATED AND RECORDED ALONG WITH OTHER VARIABLES AS WELDING PROCEEDS.

I. REMOVE WELD BACKUP BARS AND RUNOFF TABS. GRIND WELD SURFACE SMOOTH AND FLUSH TO GRADUAL TRANSITIONS BETWEEN SURFACES.

J. FILLET WELDS SHALL BE VERIFIED USING MAGNETIC PARTICLE OF DYE PENETRANT TESTING. COMPLY WITH AWS D1.1, 2000 SECTION 6, PART C. PARTIAL PENETRATION AND COMPLETE PENETRATION WELDS SHALL BE CHECKED USING ULTRASONIC TESTING AND MAGNETIC PARTICLE TESTING.

PROJECT SHEET TITLE PREPARED FOR ENGINEER CHECKED BY DATE 700 S. FLOWER ST. SUITE 1800, LA, CA 90017
TEL: (213) 596 - 4500 FAX: (213) 596 - 4599

BRANDOW & JOHNSTON (B&J HBK, INC)

S T R U C T U R A L & C I V I L E N G I N E E R S
S-002 CL POST
(E) HSS 4 X 4 POST

AT GRID LINE L

POST ORIGINALLY INSTALLED OFF CENTER OF BUILDING
COLUMNS AND TILTED 3 INCHES TOP TO BOTTOM.

REMOVE REMAINING WEDGE ANCHORS AND REINSTALL

POST ALIGNED WITH BUILDING COLUMNS AND PLUMB
AT GRID LINE. ANCHOR WITH FOUR NEW WEDGE
ANCHORS.

AT GRID LINE P
PLUMB POST AND REPLACE DAMAGED WEDGE ANCHORS.
1 3/4" TO 2 1/4" AT GRID LINE L 1/2" AT GRID LINE P
CL COLUMN LEVEL P3

REPAIR SPALL AT GRID LINE L
WITH SIKATOP 123
(N) 2" DIA STD PIPE BRACE. INSTALL
AFTER REPLUMBING POST 3/16 TYP 1
1 (E) PT STRANDS
(E) PT STRANDS
2 - 1/2"DIA WEDGE ANCHORS WITH
3 1/4" EMBEDMENT. REFER TO
S-003 4" TYP
(E) PT STRANDS
PL 3/8" X 4"

BRACE TOP CONNECTION

VIEWED LOOKING UP
(E) PT STRANDS
L 2 1/2 X 2 1/2 X 3/8 X 0'-4"
ANGLE WITH 1/2" DIA WEDGE
ANCHOR. REFER TO S-003
3/8

POST TOP CONNECTION REPAIR

VIEWED LOOKING UP

REPLACE MISSING AND DAMAGED ANCHORS
BY ADDING ANGLE AND REPLACEMENT WEDGE ANCHORS.

DO NOT RE-INSTALL IN ORIGINAL HOLES.

CONSIDER ANCHORS SHOWING EVIDENCE OF WITHDRAWEL

AS DAMAGED

PT POST REPAIR
GRID LINES L AND P BETWEEN 26 AND 25

VIEWED LOOKING NORTH
NOTE

PROVIDE HEAT PROITECTION FOR PT STRANDS TO PREVENT
DAMAGE DURING WELDING OPERATIONS. ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER CAR PARK 2 PT POST REPAIRS BELOW LEVEL P3 ON GRIDS L AND P BETWEEN 25 AND 26
ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER CAR PARK 2 PT POST REPAIRS
BELOW LEVEL P3 ON GRIDS L AND P BETWEEN 25 AND 26 REPAIR DETAILS RT LYONS, SE JULY 27, 2021 ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER JULY 27, 2021

PROJECT SHEET TITLE PREPARED FOR ENGINEER CHECKED BY DATE 700 S. FLOWER ST. SUITE 1800, LA, CA 90017
TEL: (213) 596 - 4500 FAX: (213) 596 - 4599

BRANDOW & JOHNSTON (B&J HBK, INC)

S T R U C T U R A L & C I V I L E N G I N E E R S
S-003
INSTALATION:
1 1/4" MIN.

WEDGE ANCHOR RELOCATION DETAIL DRILLED

EDGE DISTANCES SHOWN

ON DETAILS MAY BE LARGER

TO ACCOMODATE RELOCATION
1/4

OPPOSITE
EDGES

RELOCATE
HOLE

SLIGHTLY

EDGE OF STEEL PLATE
3"SQ.x 1/4" PLATE
NOTE:

RELOCATE BOLT IF REQ'D.

TO CLR. REINF. STEEL

HOLE DEPTH

USE STEEL

PIECE AS

TEMPLATE
CONC.

MIN. MEMBER

THICKNESS
1" MIN.

TYPICAL CARBON STEEL WEDGE ANCHOR INSTALLATION DESIGN AND TEST VALUES BOLT DIAMETER 3/8" 1/2" 5/8" 3/4"
MIN. EMBEDMENT 2" 2" 3-1/4" 3-1/8" 4" 3-3/4" 4-3/4"
MIN. HOLE DEPTH 2-5/8" 2-5/8" 4" 3-7/8" 4-3/4" 4-5/8" 5-3/4" MIN. MEMBER THICKNESS 4" 4" 6" 5" 6" 6" 8"
INSTALLATION TORQUE 25 FT-LBS 40 FT-LBS 60 FT-LBS 110 FT-LBS

1. ALLOWABLE ANCHOR TYPES: HILTI KWIK BOLT TZ (ICC-ES ESR-1917).

THE TABULATED INSTALLATION AND TEST VALUES PERTAIN TO USE IN HARDROCK CONRETE, LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE AND CONCRETE FILL OVER METAL DECK. CONCRETE FILL OVER METAL DECK SHALL CONSIST OF 20 GA. MIN. METAL DECK WITH EITHER HARD ROCK OR LIGHT WEIGHT CONCRETE. CONCRETE SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM STRENGTH OF 3000 P.S.I.

WHERE EDGE DISTANCE AND SPACING IS NOT SHOWN ON DETAILS, REFER TO ICC-ES ESR-1917 FOR MINIMUM VALUES.

3. 4.

6. DRILLED EXPANSION TYPE ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL BE USED ONLY WHERE DETAILED OR FOR ATTACHMENT OF MECH., ELEC., OR MISC. ACCESSORIES OR EQUIPMENT TO THE STRUCTURE.

7. 2. U.N.O. INSTALL ANCHORS PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATIONS.

INSPECTION:

1. ALL WORK SHALL BE INSTALLED UNDER CONTINUOUS INSPECTION BY INSPECTOR OF RECORD.

TORQUE TEST:

TEST INSTALLED ANCHORS AT A RATE OF 100% IN THE PRESENCE OF INSPECTOR OF RECORD. (I.O.R.)

1. ALL CONCRETE ANCHOR BOLTS OF THE EXPANSION TYPE (LOADED

IN EITHER PULLOUT OR SHEAR ) SHALL BE TORQUED AS NOTED IN THE DRILLED BOLT SCHEDULE. TORQUED BOLTS SHALL BE
RETESTED A MINIMUM OF 24 HOURS LATER AND SHALL NOT HAVE MORE THAN 1/2 TURN OF THE NUT. THE RATE OF TESTING MAY BE

REDUCED SUBJECT TO NO FAILURES OCCURING AND APPROVAL BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER OF RECORD.

2. WHERE ANCHORS FAIL TESTING, REPLACE DEFICIENT ANCHORS AND RETEST. ASSOCIATED COSTS SHALL BE BORNE BY THE CONTRACTOR.

3. EMBEDMENT

USE CARE AND CAUTION TO AVOID CUTTING OR DAMAGING THE REINFORCING BARS OR OTHER EMBEDDED ITEMS SUCH AS ELECTRICAL/TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONDUIT AND GAS LINES. WHEN INSTALLING DRILLED-IN

ANCHORS INTO PRESTRESSED CONCRETE (PRE- OR POST-TENSIONED), LOCATE TENDONS DURING INSTALLATION. MAINTAIN A MINIMUM CLEARANCE OF ONE INCH BETWEEN THE REINFORCEMENT AND THE DRILLED-IN ANCHOR.

5. CONCRETE BEAMS AND SLABS HAVE POST TESNIONED CABLES. DO NOT DRILL CLOSER THAN 3 INCHES FROM CABLES. USE POSITIVE, FULL DEPTH NON-DESTRUCTIVE MEANS TO LOCATE CABLES SUCH AS X-RAY.

LOCATION BY PACHOMETER IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

AT GRID LINE L

POST ORIGINALLY INSTALLED OFF CENTER OF BUILDING
COLUMNS AND TILTED 3 INCHES TOP TO BOTTOM.

REMOVE REMAINING WEDGE ANCHORS AND REINSTALL

POST ALIGNED WITH BUILDING COLUMNS AND PLUMB
AT GRID LINE. ANCHOR WITH FOUR NEW WEDGE
ANCHORS.

AT GRID LINE P
PLUMB POST AND REPLACE DAMAGED WEDGE ANCHORS. ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER CAR PARK 2 PT POST REPAIRS BELOW LEVEL P3 ON GRIDS L AND P BETWEEN 25 AND 26 TYPICAL WEDGE ANCHOR REQUIREMENTS RT LYONS, SE JULY 27, 2021 ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER ACC Car Park 2 Post Damage Repair August 6, 2021
Page: 1 / 2
Photo 1 Photo 2
Photo 3 Photo 4
Photo 5 Photo 6
ACC Car Park 2 Post Damage Repair August 6, 2021
Page: 2 / 2
Photo 7 Photo 8
Photo 9 Photo 10
Photo 11

PROJECT SHEET TITLE PREPARED FOR ENGINEER CHECKED BY DATE 700 S. FLOWER ST. SUITE 1800, LA, CA 90017
TEL: (213) 596 - 4500 FAX: (213) 596 - 4599

BRANDOW & JOHNSTON (B&J HBK, INC)

PROJECT SYNPOSIS
THE INTENT OF THIS PROJECT IS TO REPAIR DAMAGED PT POSTS AT GRID LINE L AND P BETWEEN 25 AND 26 BY

RESTORING THE ORIGINAL
REALIGNING POSTS AND RESTORING ORIGINAL STRENGTH. IT IS NOT THE INTENT OF THIS PROJECT TO IMPROVE TH PT SYSTEM.

GENERAL

12. RESPONSIBILITY

I. THE SAFETY OF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND CONSTRUCTION PERSONNEL.

II. THE PROTECTION, PROPER HANDLING AND INSTALLATION OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS.

III. THE SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION (UNLESS SPECIFICALLY REFERENCED).

IV. THE MEANS, METHODS AND PROCEDURES EMPLOYED (UNLESS SPECIFICALLY SPECIFIED).

V. IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION (UNLESS SPECIFICALLY SPECIFIED).

VI. THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF ALL ITEMS USED IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE A PERMANENT PART THEREOF, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO HOISTING TOWERS.

VII. THE SCHEDULING OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.

VIII. THE SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION LOADS AND STORAGE AND TRANSPORT OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL ON THE PARTIALLY COMPLETED OR FULLY COMPLETED PROJECT.

IX. MAINTAINING THE STABILITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS.

X. PROTECTION AND REPAIR OF ADJACENT EXISTING SURFACES AND AREAS WHICH MAY BE DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF NEW WORK. 4 .

5. MATERIAL PROPERTIES

1. STRUCTURAL STEEL: ASTM A36, U.N.O.

2. WELD ELECTRODE: E70XX, LOW HYDROGEN 3. PIPE: ASTM A 53, GRADE B

STRUCTURAL STEEL

2. ALL STEEL EXPOSED TO OUTSIDE AIR SHALL BE GALVANIZED. FASTENERS AND ATTACHMENTS (SUCH AS NUTS, BOLTS, RODS, CLEVIS, ETC.) SHALL BE CHROMIUM PLATED.

C. SHOP WELDS MUST BE PERFORMED IN AN AISC LICENSED FABRICATOR'S SHOP.

D. ALL WELDING SHALL HAVE CONTINUOUS INSPECTION.

E. ALL WELDING PROCEDURE SPECIFICATIONS (WPS) (SHOP AND FIELD) SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW TO THE ENGINEER OF RECORD AND OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO FABRICATION.

F. INTERMIXED WELDS AND COPPER BACKUP PLATES ARE NOT PERMITTED.

G. USE ELECTRODES THAT PRODUCE WELDS WITH A MINIMUM CHARPY VEE NOTCH TOUGHNESS OF 20 FT-LBS AT MINUS 0 DEGREES F, AS DETERMINED BY AWS ELECTRODE RATING AND MANUFACTURER'S CERTIFICATION.

I. REMOVE WELD BACKUP BARS AND RUNOFF TABS. GRIND WELD SURFACE SMOOTH AND FLUSH TO GRADUAL TRANSITIONS BETWEEN SURFACES.

PROJECT SHEET TITLE PREPARED FOR ENGINEER CHECKED BY DATE 700 S. FLOWER ST. SUITE 1800, LA, CA 90017
TEL: (213) 596 - 4500 FAX: (213) 596 - 4599

BRANDOW & JOHNSTON (B&J HBK, INC)

S T R U C T U R A L & C I V I L E N G I N E E R S
S-002 CL POST
(E) HSS 4 X 4 POST

AT GRID LINE L

POST ORIGINALLY INSTALLED OFF CENTER OF BUILDING
COLUMNS AND TILTED 3 INCHES TOP TO BOTTOM.

REMOVE REMAINING WEDGE ANCHORS AND REINSTALL

POST ALIGNED WITH BUILDING COLUMNS AND PLUMB
AT GRID LINE. ANCHOR WITH FOUR NEW WEDGE
ANCHORS.

AT GRID LINE P
PLUMB POST AND REPLACE DAMAGED WEDGE ANCHORS.
1 3/4" TO 2 1/4" AT GRID LINE L 1/2" AT GRID LINE P
CL COLUMN LEVEL P3

BRACE TOP CONNECTION

VIEWED LOOKING UP
(E) PT STRANDS
L 2 1/2 X 2 1/2 X 3/8 X 0'-4"
ANGLE WITH 1/2" DIA WEDGE
ANCHOR. REFER TO S-003
3/8

POST TOP CONNECTION REPAIR

VIEWED LOOKING UP

REPLACE MISSING AND DAMAGED ANCHORS
BY ADDING ANGLE AND REPLACEMENT WEDGE ANCHORS.

DO NOT RE-INSTALL IN ORIGINAL HOLES.

CONSIDER ANCHORS SHOWING EVIDENCE OF WITHDRAWEL

AS DAMAGED

PT POST REPAIR
GRID LINES L AND P BETWEEN 26 AND 25

VIEWED LOOKING NORTH
NOTE

PROJECT SHEET TITLE PREPARED FOR ENGINEER CHECKED BY DATE 700 S. FLOWER ST. SUITE 1800, LA, CA 90017
TEL: (213) 596 - 4500 FAX: (213) 596 - 4599

BRANDOW & JOHNSTON (B&J HBK, INC)

S T R U C T U R A L & C I V I L E N G I N E E R S
S-003
INSTALATION:
1 1/4" MIN.

WEDGE ANCHOR RELOCATION DETAIL DRILLED

EDGE DISTANCES SHOWN

ON DETAILS MAY BE LARGER

TO ACCOMODATE RELOCATION
1/4

OPPOSITE
EDGES

RELOCATE
HOLE

SLIGHTLY

EDGE OF STEEL PLATE
3"SQ.x 1/4" PLATE
NOTE:

RELOCATE BOLT IF REQ'D.

TO CLR. REINF. STEEL

HOLE DEPTH

USE STEEL

PIECE AS

TEMPLATE
CONC.

MIN. MEMBER

THICKNESS
1" MIN.

1. ALLOWABLE ANCHOR TYPES: HILTI KWIK BOLT TZ (ICC-ES ESR-1917).

WHERE EDGE DISTANCE AND SPACING IS NOT SHOWN ON DETAILS, REFER TO ICC-ES ESR-1917 FOR MINIMUM VALUES.

3. 4.

6. DRILLED EXPANSION TYPE ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL BE USED ONLY WHERE DETAILED OR FOR ATTACHMENT OF MECH., ELEC., OR MISC. ACCESSORIES OR EQUIPMENT TO THE STRUCTURE.

7. 2. U.N.O. INSTALL ANCHORS PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATIONS.

INSPECTION:

1. ALL WORK SHALL BE INSTALLED UNDER CONTINUOUS INSPECTION BY INSPECTOR OF RECORD.

TORQUE TEST:

TEST INSTALLED ANCHORS AT A RATE OF 100% IN THE PRESENCE OF INSPECTOR OF RECORD. (I.O.R.)

1. ALL CONCRETE ANCHOR BOLTS OF THE EXPANSION TYPE (LOADED

REDUCED SUBJECT TO NO FAILURES OCCURING AND APPROVAL BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER OF RECORD.

2. WHERE ANCHORS FAIL TESTING, REPLACE DEFICIENT ANCHORS AND RETEST. ASSOCIATED COSTS SHALL BE BORNE BY THE CONTRACTOR.

3. EMBEDMENT

USE CARE AND CAUTION TO AVOID CUTTING OR DAMAGING THE REINFORCING BARS OR OTHER EMBEDDED ITEMS SUCH AS ELECTRICAL/TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONDUIT AND GAS LINES. WHEN INSTALLING DRILLED-IN

ANCHORS INTO PRESTRESSED CONCRETE (PRE- OR POST-TENSIONED), LOCATE TENDONS DURING INSTALLATION. MAINTAIN A MINIMUM CLEARANCE OF ONE INCH BETWEEN THE REINFORCEMENT AND THE DRILLED-IN ANCHOR.

5. CONCRETE BEAMS AND SLABS HAVE POST TESNIONED CABLES. DO NOT DRILL CLOSER THAN 3 INCHES FROM CABLES. USE POSITIVE, FULL DEPTH NON-DESTRUCTIVE MEANS TO LOCATE CABLES SUCH AS X-RAY.

LOCATION BY PACHOMETER IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

AT GRID LINE L

POST ORIGINALLY INSTALLED OFF CENTER OF BUILDING
COLUMNS AND TILTED 3 INCHES TOP TO BOTTOM.

REMOVE REMAINING WEDGE ANCHORS AND REINSTALL

POST ALIGNED WITH BUILDING COLUMNS AND PLUMB
AT GRID LINE. ANCHOR WITH FOUR NEW WEDGE
ANCHORS.

CENTER ON POST
TAPERED SHIMS. 8" WIDE.

DRIVE TOGETHER TO ENSURE

A TIGHT FIT BETWEEN WOOD
POST AND STEEL. TRY TO

PRESTRESS THE POST
SLIGHTLY.

TWO 16d TOENAILS INTO BLOCK

AT TOP AFTER TIGHTENING
EACH SIDE OF POST.

SIMPSON A 35 OR
TWO 16d TOENAILS,

EACH SIDE DAMAGED

AND TILTED
POST. TWO

ANCHORS

MISSING AT
TOP
ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER, CAR PARK 2

DAMAGED POST TENSION POST

EMERGENCY SHORING RECOMMENDATION

BRANDOW & JOHNSTON
JULY 24, 2021/RT LYONS SE

THIS DETAIL IS INTENDED TO MINIMIZE RISK OF THE POST LOSING

STABILITY ASSOCIATED WITH THE DAMAGE UNTIL EVALUATED FURTHER

AND MORE PERMANENT REPAIRS ARE IMPLEMENTED
12 GA WIRE. WRAP

AROUND PIPE, TIGHEN

WITH THREE TWISTS
MIN. PASS THROUGH
HOLE IN BLOCK.

EACH SIDE OF POST
NOTES

1. USE DOUGLAS FIR NO. 2

2. AS AN ALTERNATE TO THE POST,
A SHORING SCREW JACK MAY BE USED.

CINCH TIGHTLY AND CONNECT TOP AND
BOTTOM TO 6 X

LETTER / REFERENCE DRAWINGS
Project:

Project #S21-0254 – Hilton Hotel Car Park 2 Structural Evaluation Under Pool Area
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com

STRUCTURAL
+ CIVIL

ENGINEERS
August 31, 2021
Mr. Randy Howser
Operations Manager
Anaheim Convention Center
800 West Katella Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92802
Subject: Anaheim Convention Center
Car Park 2 - Deck Evaluation Below Hilton Pool Area
B&J Project No: #S21-0254

Dear Mr. Howser:

This letter follows our site visit for Car Park 2, carried out in August 2021, relating to the investigation and evaluation of the concrete carpark deck below the Hilton pool area. The primary purpose of this investigation is to examine the exposed structure below the pool for conditions of possible distress, deterioration, or damage, and to examine conditions of past repairs. This letter presents our observations, findings, and recommendations based on this site visit.

We only examined conditions exposed to view. We conducted no physical materials testing to confirm strength or quality of the structural materials, nor did we perform any structural analyses. These activities are outside the scope and your intent of this project. Although limited in scope, our evaluation and this report should be sufficient to provide the information you require and to determine direction for future evaluations, if appropriate.

Background
Brandow & Johnston previously conducted the following investigations and prepared construction documents related to the area within this current investigation as follows:

1. Fifth Level Pool Deck Renovation and related repair drawings provided for Anaheim Hilton Hotel circa 2011.

Anaheim Convention Center August 31, 2021
Car Park 2 – Deck Evaluation Below Hilton Pool Area Page 2 #S21-0254
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com

2. Periodic observation reports dated 03/09/2004, 12/23/2005, 01/09/2007, and 10/20/2008 for Car Park 2 where limited observations were made to the carpark deck below the Hilton pool area.

Observations
Area of observation, and extent of this investigation, includes the carpark deck below the Hilton pool, as viewed from Level P5. We did walk through the Hilton Pool to gain a general understanding of features above the area of investigation.

Jefferson Hang, S.E. and Norair Tcheurekjian, P.E. conducted a site visit on August 10, 2021. A visual observation was performed to examine the existing condition of the underside of the carpark deck below the Hilton pool area. We only examined conditions exposed to view.

Refer to Figure 1 for a key plan indicating approximately where photos were taken. Photos are taken from Level P5 slab, typically looking overhead at the underside of the carpark deck.

The following summarizes our observations:

1. We observed water penetrating through concrete slab cracks and pipes in several areas. Refer to Photo 1 thru 11.

2. We observed water ponding at several areas on the Level P5 slab from water seeping through concrete slab cracks and pipe penetrations. We observed water actively dripping in these areas.

Refer to Photo 6, 8, and 10.

3. Several pipes exhibit rust, most likely caused by water leaking through the slabs and pipes. Rust stains are apparent at areas immediately adjacent to the pipes at the soffit of the slab as well.

Refer to Photo 2, 4, 7, 9, and 12 thru 15.

4. We notice several concrete slab spalls. Refer to Photo 16 and 17. Exposed rebar exhibit corrosion in Photo 16. Please note, spalled concrete can be an indication of corroding rebar since the rebar tends to expand when corrosion occurs.

5. Cracking and efflorescence, accompanied by rust stains, occur at various locations in the soffit of the concrete slab. This suggests corrosion of the existing internal reinforcing steel. The lack of spalls at these locations suggest corrosion of reinforcing steel is minor at this time. Refer to Photo 18 thru 25.

6. We cannot discern if cracks identified for repair in the 2011 repair drawings were repaired because of paint on the deck soffit. The 2011 repair drawings specify epoxy injection repair of cracks greater than 0.03 inches wide.

7. We cannot discern if spalls around the pipes at the soffit were repaired.

Anaheim Convention Center August 31, 2021
Car Park 2 – Deck Evaluation Below Hilton Pool Area Page 3 #S21-0254
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on our observations of exposed conditions, we do not find the area below the Hilton pool area in its current state to be in significant distress. However, recommendations below should be carried out in a timely manner, especially at areas where there are water intrusions through slab cracks, and where ponding occurs.

If left unattended, presence of water will result in continued corrosion of internal reinforcing steel that will further deteriorate concrete over time and may lead to greater spalling of concrete, increased deflection of the slabs, loss of strength, a reduced life span for the structure, may become infeasible to repair, and pose a risk to occupants.

The following are our recommendations based on our observation.

1. We recommend conducting an investigation of the pool support structure above the carpark deck and the pool level slab. Concealed corrosion related deterioration may exist between the carpark deck and the pool deck and must be considered in developing a repair plan.

2. We recommend the top surface of the carpark deck and pool level slab be waterproofed and penetrations for pipes and conduits be sealed to prevent further water intrusion. A waterproofing consultant should be retained to provide recommendations as part of a mitigation plan.

3. Cracks wider than 0.03 inch and cracks where water intrusion is evident should be repaired with epoxy injection. Furthermore, cracks where staining is observed should be repaired with epoxy injection.

4. The presence of water on the concrete deck should be prevented. Effort should be made to remove standing water.

5. We recommend leaking pipes be repaired. You may also wish to replace corroded pipes.

6. Concrete spalls should be repaired, which involves removing unsound concrete, removing corrosion from bars, and repairing with a suitable structural repair mortar. i. Repair construction documents should be prepared for these repairs.

7. Concrete and rebar should be tested by a specialty testing lab to sample, test, and determine potential for continued corrosion. Appropriate recommendations will be made considering test results.

8. The condition of the pool deck, pool support structure, carpark deck, and results of testing should be considered in developing a comprehensive mitigation plan and repair drawings. Long term exposure to chlorine can increase the potential for corrosion of reinforcing in concrete, even after removal of the source of the chlorinated water.

Anaheim Convention Center August 31, 2021
Car Park 2 – Deck Evaluation Below Hilton Pool Area Page 4 #S21-0254
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com

9. Annual observations to monitor the condition of the slab under the Hilton pool and support structure below the pool should be conducted.

We hope this provides the information you require.

Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the writers.

Sincerely,
BRANDOW & JOHNSTON (B&J HBK, Inc.)
Robert T Lyons, SE 2719
Principal
Peter Maranian, SE 2720
Principal
Jefferson Hang, SE 6675
Project Manager
G:\21\S21-0254 - ACC - ANAHEIM HILTON POOL\DOCUMENTS\REPORTS\2021-08-31 ACC CP2 - DECK EVALUATION BELOW HILTON POOL AREA.DOCX Anaheim Convention Center August 31, 2021
Car Park 2 – Deck Evaluation Below Hilton Pool Area Page 5 #S21-0254
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com Appendix
Figure 1 – Photo Key Plan
Anaheim Convention Center August 31, 2021
Car Park 2 – Deck Evaluation Below Hilton Pool Area Page 6 #S21-0254
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com Photo 1
Anaheim Convention Center August 31, 2021
Car Park 2 – Deck Evaluation Below Hilton Pool Area Page 7 #S21-0254
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com Photo 2
Anaheim Convention Center August 31, 2021
Car Park 2 – Deck Evaluation Below Hilton Pool Area Page 8 #S21-0254
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com Photo 3
Photo 4
Anaheim Convention Center August 31, 2021
Car Park 2 – Deck Evaluation Below Hilton Pool Area Page 9 #S21-0254
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com Photo 5
Photo 6
Anaheim Convention Center August 31, 2021
Car Park 2 – Deck Evaluation Below Hilton Pool Area Page 10 #S21-0254
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com Photo 7
Photo 8
Anaheim Convention Center August 31, 2021
Car Park 2 – Deck Evaluation Below Hilton Pool Area Page 11 #S21-0254
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com Photo 9
Anaheim Convention Center August 31, 2021
Car Park 2 – Deck Evaluation Below Hilton Pool Area Page 12 #S21-0254
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com Photo 10
Anaheim Convention Center August 31, 2021
Car Park 2 – Deck Evaluation Below Hilton Pool Area Page 13 #S21-0254
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com Photo 11
Photo 12
Anaheim Convention Center August 31, 2021
Car Park 2 – Deck Evaluation Below Hilton Pool Area Page 14 #S21-0254
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com Photo 13
Anaheim Convention Center August 31, 2021
Car Park 2 – Deck Evaluation Below Hilton Pool Area Page 15 #S21-0254
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com Photo 14
Anaheim Convention Center August 31, 2021
Car Park 2 – Deck Evaluation Below Hilton Pool Area Page 16 #S21-0254
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com Photo 15
Anaheim Convention Center August 31, 2021
Car Park 2 – Deck Evaluation Below Hilton Pool Area Page 17 #S21-0254
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com Photo 16
Anaheim Convention Center August 31, 2021
Car Park 2 – Deck Evaluation Below Hilton Pool Area Page 18 #S21-0254
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com Photo 17
Anaheim Convention Center August 31, 2021
Car Park 2 – Deck Evaluation Below Hilton Pool Area Page 19 #S21-0254
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com Photo 18
Photo 19
Anaheim Convention Center August 31, 2021
Car Park 2 – Deck Evaluation Below Hilton Pool Area Page 20 #S21-0254
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com Photo 20
Anaheim Convention Center August 31, 2021
Car Park 2 – Deck Evaluation Below Hilton Pool Area Page 21 #S21-0254
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com Photo 21
Anaheim Convention Center August 31, 2021
Car Park 2 – Deck Evaluation Below Hilton Pool Area Page 22 #S21-0254
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com Photo 22
Anaheim Convention Center August 31, 2021
Car Park 2 – Deck Evaluation Below Hilton Pool Area Page 23 #S21-0254
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com Photo 23
Anaheim Convention Center August 31, 2021
Car Park 2 – Deck Evaluation Below Hilton Pool Area Page 24 #S21-0254
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com Photo 24
Anaheim Convention Center August 31, 2021
Car Park 2 – Deck Evaluation Below Hilton Pool Area Page 25 #S21-0254
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com Photo 25

REPAIR DRAWINGS & PHOTOS
Project:

Project #S21-0255 – ACC Car Park 2 Stair Repairs

South West Stair (bot to top)
Page: 1 / 1
20210624_174002094_iOS 20210624_174013447_iOS
20210624_174043167_iOS 20210624_174046856_iOS
North East Stair (top to bot)
Page: 1 / 3
20210624_174529577_iOS 20210624_174556856_iOS
20210624_174639173_iOS 20210624_174652523_iOS
20210624_174735346_iOS 20210624_174802372_iOS
North East Stair (top to bot)
Page: 2 / 3
20210624_174806071_iOS 20210624_174906242_iOS
20210624_175008077_iOS 20210624_175018350_iOS
20210624_175021449_iOS 20210624_175051067_iOS
North East Stair (top to bot)
Page: 3 / 3
20210624_175135984_iOS 20210624_175156042_iOS
20210624_175218629_iOS 20210624_175227488_iOS
20210624_175239655_iOS 20210624_180017454_iOS
North West Stair (bot to top)
Page: 1 / 2
20210624_171717463_iOS 20210624_171717963_iOS
20210624_171727128_iOS 20210624_171736871_iOS
20210624_171748877_iOS 20210624_172007173_iOS
North West Stair (bot to top)
Page: 2 / 2
20210624_172107462_iOS 20210624_172146813_iOS
20210624_172157554_iOS 20210624_172459316_iOS
20210624_172527855_iOS

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT REPORT
Project:

Project #S21-0414 – ACC Car Park 2 Column Damage on Level P2 700 South Flower Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com

STRUCTURAL
+ CIVIL

ENGINEERS
December 20, 2021
Mr. Randy Howser
Operations Manager
Anaheim Convention Center
800 West Katella Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92802
Subject: Anaheim Convention Center
Carpark 2, Level P2 Concrete Column, Grid Station O.4 – 16.9 Collision Damage Assessment
B&J Project No: S21-0414
Dear Mr. Howser:

In response to your request, we reviewed available information concerning vehicle damage to the concrete column on Level P2 at grid station O.4 – 16.9. Refer to attached L2 structural plan for location. The intent of this review is to form an opinion of the significance of structural damage, suitability and effectiveness of repairs made and recommendations for further action if warranted.

We examined photos you provided, reports of repairs provided to you by SP+ and conducted post repair examinations. We conducted no physical materials testing to confirm strength or quality of the structural materials, nor did we perform any structural analyses. These activities are outside the scope and your intent of this project. Although limited in scope, our evaluation and this report should be sufficient to provide the information you require and to determine direction for future evaluations, if appropriate.

Background
A vehicle collided with and damaged the subject concrete column on or about November 30, 2021. You reported damage to us on December 1, 2021 and requested our assessment of structural damage.

Available information:

1. Photographs of damaged column and post-repair column. Refer to photos attached.

2. Verbal reporting of repairs made by the SP+.

Anaheim Convention Center December 20, 2021
Carpark 2, Level P2 Concrete Column, Grid Station O.4 – 16.9 Page 2 Collision Damage Assessment
S21-0414
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com

3. Post-repair site examinations made by Norair Tcheurekjian, PE on December 10, 2021. Refer to photos attached.

Observations, Findings and Recommendations.

We have the following comments:

1. Damaged Condition Photos 1 through 6 were taken at the time of the collision. Damaged Condition Photos 7 through 9 were taken later but before repair.
a. These photos reveal surface scuff marks and a damaged sign. There is no clear indication of damage to the concrete, other than superficial damage, shown in these photos.

2. Verbal reporting by SP+ staff.
a. There was no visual damage to reinforcing steel.
b. Column repair involved only painting and the replacing sign.

3. Repaired Condition Photos 1 and 2 were taken after the column was repaired but before the replacing the sign. There is no evidence of damage to the concrete.

4. Post-repair examination by Norair Tcheurekjian, PE
a. Refer to B&J Photos taken after repair.
b. Superficial gouges were painted over but are not repaired. These may be seen in several B&J photos, including close-up views Photos 9 and 10.
c. No damage was observed sufficient to reduce the load carrying capacity of the column.

Damage to concrete we noted is considered superficial and cosmetic.

5. Based on the forgoing, we conclude the concrete column sustained only cosmetic damage and no structural damage.

6. We conclude the collision did not reduce the ability of the column to serve it purpose in supporting load from floors above.

We hope this provides the information you require. Should you have any questions or comments, do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,
BRANDOW & JOHNSTON (B&J HBK, Inc.)
Robert T Lyons, SE 2719
Principal
o4
169

LOCATION OF THE
COLUMN

ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER
CARPARK 2, LEVEL 2

PLAN SHOWING DAMAGED

COLUMN LOCATION
DECEMBER 20, 202

OUTLINE OF

DAMAGED AND

REMOVED SIGN

APPARENT FOCUS

OF COLLISION

APPARENT FOCUS

OF COLLISION

SITE VISIT REPORT / REPAIR DRAWINGS
Project:

Project #S22-0131 – ACC Car Park 2 Post-Tension Cable Support Damage
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 21 3 59 6 4 50 0 F 21 3 59 6 4 59 9 W BJSCE.com

STRUCTURAL
+ CIVIL

ENGINEERS

SITE VISIT REPORT
JOB# S22-0131
DATE REPORT PREPARED 04-11-2022
DATE OF SITE VISIT 04-06-2022
SUBJECT Anaheim Convention Center
PT Post Damage at Level P2
Between Grids U4-21 and V4- 21.2
TO Maribel Palmer & Rudy Meyer
FROM Norair Tcheurekjian
PRESENT AT SITE:

Rudy Meyer - ACC
Dan Lee - ACC
Norair Tcheurekjian - Brandow & Johnston
DATE OF VISIT: 04-06-2022

REASON FOR SITE VISIT
On March 30, 2022, B&J was notified that a PT post was tilted and pulled off from its anchors in a suspected vehicle collision. The purpose of this site visit is to observe and document damage and provide recommendations for further action.

ITEMS OBSERVED
• Damaged PT posts below Level P3 between grids U4-21 and V4-21.2. • Damaged PT sleeve or exposed PT tendon at first floor between grids V4-25 and V4-26.

OBSERVATIONS/DISCUSSIONS/ACTION
Below is a summary of observations, discussions, and recommendations. Refer to Photos 1 through 10 attached.

1. Damaged PT Post below Level P3 between U4-21 and V4-21.2:
a. Post is tilted and out-of-plumb. Tilt is in the direction of aisle traffic flow. Refer to Photos 3 through 8.
b. One anchor is missing and assumed withdrawn as a result of the damage. No bolt was found on the deck below. One anchor is partially withdrawn and damaged. Refer to Photos 4 and 5.

Anaheim Convention Center Page 2
PT Post Damage Repair
April 11, 2022
B&J Project No: S22-0131
April 06, 2022 Site Visit Report
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 21 3 59 6 4 50 0 F 21 3 59 6 4 59 9 W BJSCE.com c. The post base plate, post and PT brackets are undamaged. d. Recommendations.
i. Remove and reinstall post with new anchors plumb and in alignment with building columns.
ii. Supplement the post with a diagonal brace aligned with flow of traffic. iii. B&J will prepare structural details for repair.
iv. At this time, post appears stable and there is no apparent cause to install emergency shoring to retain stability. If the stability appears to change, we recommend the emergency shoring be installed. See attached detail.

2. Damaged PT sleeve or exposed PT tendon at first floor between grids V4-25 and V4-26:

This damage was previously reported in our letter dated June 15, 2021. In this letter, the level of severity for this deficiency was listed as minor and it was recommended to be repaired within the next two years from the date of the letter.

3. Action Items.
a. B&J will prepare structural repair drawings as quickly as possible. 8x8 POST
4 x 10, 8 X 8 OR 6 x
8 X 2 FT LONG TOP
AND BOTTOM.

CENTER ON POST
TAPERED SHIMS. 8" WIDE.

DRIVE TOGETHER TO ENSURE

A TIGHT FIT BETWEEN WOOD
POST AND STEEL. TRY TO

PRESTRESS THE POST
SLIGHTLY.

TWO 16d TOENAILS INTO BLOCK

AT TOP AFTER TIGHTENING
EACH SIDE OF POST.

SIMPSON A 35 OR
TWO 16d TOENAILS,

EACH SIDE DAMAGED

AND TILTED
POST. TWO

ANCHORS

MISSING AT
TOP
ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER, CAR PARK 2

DAMAGED POST TENSION POST

EMERGENCY SHORING RECOMMENDATION

BRANDOW & JOHNSTON
JULY 24, 2021/RT LYONS SE

THIS DETAIL IS INTENDED TO MINIMIZE RISK OF THE POST LOSING

STABILITY ASSOCIATED WITH THE DAMAGE UNTIL EVALUATED FURTHER

AND MORE PERMANENT REPAIRS ARE IMPLEMENTED
12 GA WIRE. WRAP

AROUND PIPE, TIGHEN

WITH THREE TWISTS
MIN. PASS THROUGH
HOLE IN BLOCK.

EACH SIDE OF POST
NOTES

1. USE DOUGLAS FIR NO. 2

2. AS AN ALTERNATE TO THE POST,
A SHORING SCREW JACK MAY BE USED.

CINCH TIGHTLY AND CONNECT TOP AND
BOTTOM TO 6 X

PROJECT SHEET TITLE PREPARED FOR ENGINEER CHECKED BY DATE 700 S. FLOWER ST. SUITE 1800, LA, CA 90017
TEL: (213) 596 - 4500 FAX: (213) 596 - 4599

BRANDOW & JOHNSTON (B&J HBK, INC)

S T R U C T U R A L & C I V I L E N G I N E E R S
ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER CAR PARK 2 PT POST REPAIRS
BELOW LEVEL P3 ON GRID 21.1 BETWEEN U4 AND V4 GENERAL NOTES RT LYONS, SE MAY 19, 2022 ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER

PROJECT SYNPOSIS
THE INTENT OF THIS PROJECT IS TO REPAIR DAMAGED PT POSTS AT GRID LINE 21.1 BETWEEN U4 AND V4 BY RESTORING THE ORIGINAL REALIGNING POST AND RESTORING ORIGINAL STRENGTH. IT IS NOT THE INTENT OF THIS PROJECT TO IMPROVE THE PT SYSTEM.

GENERAL

12. RESPONSIBILITY

I. THE SAFETY OF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND CONSTRUCTION PERSONNEL.

II. THE PROTECTION, PROPER HANDLING AND INSTALLATION OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS.

III. THE SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION (UNLESS SPECIFICALLY REFERENCED).

IV. THE MEANS, METHODS AND PROCEDURES EMPLOYED (UNLESS SPECIFICALLY SPECIFIED).

V. IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION (UNLESS SPECIFICALLY SPECIFIED).

VI. THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF ALL ITEMS USED IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE A PERMANENT PART THEREOF, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO HOISTING TOWERS.

VII. THE SCHEDULING OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.

VIII. THE SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION LOADS AND STORAGE AND TRANSPORT OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL ON THE PARTIALLY COMPLETED OR FULLY COMPLETED PROJECT.

IX. MAINTAINING THE STABILITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS.

X. PROTECTION AND REPAIR OF ADJACENT EXISTING SURFACES AND AREAS WHICH MAY BE DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF NEW WORK. 4 .

5. MATERIAL PROPERTIES

1. STRUCTURAL STEEL: ASTM A36, U.N.O.

2. WELD ELECTRODE: E70XX, LOW HYDROGEN 3. PIPE: ASTM A 53, GRADE B

STRUCTURAL STEEL

2. ALL STEEL EXPOSED TO OUTSIDE AIR SHALL BE GALVANIZED. FASTENERS AND ATTACHMENTS (SUCH AS NUTS, BOLTS, RODS, CLEVIS, ETC.) SHALL BE CHROMIUM PLATED.

C. SHOP WELDS MUST BE PERFORMED IN AN AISC LICENSED FABRICATOR'S SHOP.

D. ALL WELDING SHALL HAVE CONTINUOUS INSPECTION.

E. ALL WELDING PROCEDURE SPECIFICATIONS (WPS) (SHOP AND FIELD) SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW TO THE ENGINEER OF RECORD AND OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO FABRICATION.

F. INTERMIXED WELDS AND COPPER BACKUP PLATES ARE NOT PERMITTED.

G. USE ELECTRODES THAT PRODUCE WELDS WITH A MINIMUM CHARPY VEE NOTCH TOUGHNESS OF 20 FT-LBS AT MINUS 0 DEGREES F, AS DETERMINED BY AWS ELECTRODE RATING AND MANUFACTURER'S CERTIFICATION.

I. REMOVE WELD BACKUP BARS AND RUNOFF TABS. GRIND WELD SURFACE SMOOTH AND FLUSH TO GRADUAL TRANSITIONS BETWEEN SURFACES.

LATEST EDITION.

MAY 19, 2022 S-001

PROJECT SHEET TITLE PREPARED FOR ENGINEER CHECKED BY DATE 700 S. FLOWER ST. SUITE 1800, LA, CA 90017
TEL: (213) 596 - 4500 FAX: (213) 596 - 4599

BRANDOW & JOHNSTON (B&J HBK, INC)

S T R U C T U R A L & C I V I L E N G I N E E R S
S-002 CL POST
(E) HSS 4 X 4 POST

PLUMB POST AND REPLACE DAMAGED WEDGE
ANCHORS.

CL COLUMN LEVEL P3
(N) 2" DIA STD PIPE BRACE. INSTALL
AFTER REPLUMBING POST 3/16 TYP 1
1 (E) PT STRANDS
(E) PT STRANDS
2 - 1/2"DIA WEDGE ANCHORS WITH
3 1/4" EMBEDMENT. REFER TO
S-003 4" TYP
(E) PT STRANDS
PL 3/8" X 4"

BRACE TOP CONNECTION

VIEWED LOOKING UP
(E) PT STRANDS
L 2 1/2 X 2 1/2 X 3/8 X 0'-4"
ANGLE WITH 1/2" DIA WEDGE
ANCHOR. REFER TO S-003
3/8

POST TOP CONNECTION REPAIR

VIEWED LOOKING UP

REPLACE MISSING AND DAMAGED ANCHORS
BY ADDING ANGLE AND REPLACEMENT WEDGE ANCHORS.

DO NOT RE-INSTALL IN ORIGINAL HOLES.

CONSIDER ANCHORS SHOWING EVIDENCE OF WITHDRAWEL

AS DAMAGED

PT POST REPAIR
GRID LINE 21.1 BETWEEN U4 AND V4

VIEWED LOOKING EAST
NOTE

PROVIDE HEAT PROTECTION FOR PT STRANDS TO PREVENT
DAMAGE DURING WELDING OPERATIONS. ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER CAR PARK 2 PT POST REPAIRS BELOW LEVEL P3 ON GRID 21.1 BETWEEN U4 AND V4
ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER CAR PARK 2 PT POST REPAIRS
BELOW LEVEL P3 ON GRID 21.1 BETWEEN U4 AND V4 REPAIR DETAILS RT LYONS, SE MAY 19, 2022 ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER MAY 19, 2022 9" MAX.

PROJECT SHEET TITLE PREPARED FOR ENGINEER CHECKED BY DATE 700 S. FLOWER ST. SUITE 1800, LA, CA 90017
TEL: (213) 596 - 4500 FAX: (213) 596 - 4599

BRANDOW & JOHNSTON (B&J HBK, INC)

S T R U C T U R A L & C I V I L E N G I N E E R S
S-003
INSTALATION:
1 1/4" MIN.

WEDGE ANCHOR RELOCATION DETAIL DRILLED

EDGE DISTANCES SHOWN

ON DETAILS MAY BE LARGER

TO ACCOMODATE RELOCATION
1/4

OPPOSITE
EDGES

RELOCATE
HOLE

SLIGHTLY

EDGE OF STEEL PLATE
3"SQ.x 1/4" PLATE
NOTE:

RELOCATE BOLT IF REQ'D.

TO CLR. REINF. STEEL

HOLE DEPTH

USE STEEL

PIECE AS

TEMPLATE
CONC.

MIN. MEMBER

THICKNESS
1" MIN.

1. ALLOWABLE ANCHOR TYPES: HILTI KWIK BOLT TZ (ICC-ES ESR-1917).

WHERE EDGE DISTANCE AND SPACING IS NOT SHOWN ON DETAILS, REFER TO ICC-ES ESR-1917 FOR MINIMUM VALUES.

3. 4.

6. DRILLED EXPANSION TYPE ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL BE USED ONLY WHERE DETAILED OR FOR ATTACHMENT OF MECH., ELEC., OR MISC. ACCESSORIES OR EQUIPMENT TO THE STRUCTURE.

7. 2. U.N.O. INSTALL ANCHORS PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATIONS.

INSPECTION:

1. ALL WORK SHALL BE INSTALLED UNDER CONTINUOUS INSPECTION BY INSPECTOR OF RECORD.

TORQUE TEST:

TEST INSTALLED ANCHORS AT A RATE OF 100% IN THE PRESENCE OF INSPECTOR OF RECORD. (I.O.R.)

1. ALL CONCRETE ANCHOR BOLTS OF THE EXPANSION TYPE (LOADED

REDUCED SUBJECT TO NO FAILURES OCCURING AND APPROVAL BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER OF RECORD.

2. WHERE ANCHORS FAIL TESTING, REPLACE DEFICIENT ANCHORS AND RETEST. ASSOCIATED COSTS SHALL BE BORNE BY THE CONTRACTOR.

3. EMBEDMENT

USE CARE AND CAUTION TO AVOID CUTTING OR DAMAGING THE REINFORCING BARS OR OTHER EMBEDDED ITEMS SUCH AS ELECTRICAL/TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONDUIT AND GAS LINES. WHEN INSTALLING DRILLED-IN

ANCHORS INTO PRESTRESSED CONCRETE (PRE- OR POST-TENSIONED), LOCATE TENDONS DURING INSTALLATION. MAINTAIN A MINIMUM CLEARANCE OF ONE INCH BETWEEN THE REINFORCEMENT AND THE DRILLED-IN ANCHOR.

5. CONCRETE BEAMS AND SLABS HAVE POST TESNIONED CABLES. DO NOT DRILL CLOSER THAN 3 INCHES FROM CABLES. USE POSITIVE, FULL DEPTH NON-DESTRUCTIVE MEANS TO LOCATE CABLES SUCH AS X-RAY.

LOCATION BY PACHOMETER IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER CAR PARK 2 PT POST REPAIRS
BELOW LEVEL P3 ON GRID 21.1 BETWEEN U4 AND V4 TYPICAL WEDGE ANCHOR REQUIREMENTS RT LYONS, SE MAY 19, 2022 ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER MAY 19, 2022 3/4
30 3/4 4-1/4 5-1/2"
50 3-1/4" 4-1/4" 5-1/2" 40 4-3/4" 2 (ICC-ES ESR-4266) 4266 700 South Flower Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com

SEISMIC EVALUATION AND
RETROFIT CONCEPT - CAR PARK 2

CITY OF ANAHEIM PARKING STRUCTURE
777 CONVENTION WAY, ANAHEIM, CA 92802
R

EGISTEREDPROFESSIONALENGINEER

STRUCTURA
S
L

TATE OF CALIFORNIA
JA
S4335

MES DALE
N
PEARSO
Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363 Page 1
Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit Concept City of Anaheim Parking Structure
B&J Project No: S22-0363
Date: 4/12/2023
Table of Contents

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................................2

2. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................3

3. BUILDING DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................5

4. SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES AND SEISMIC HAZARDS .........................................................16

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................24 Appendices
Appendix A – Excerpts from the Original Structural Drawings Appendix B – Seismic Hazard and Summary Data Sheet
Appendix C – ASCE 41-17 Tier 1 Checklists
Appendix D – Seismic Retrofit Concepts
Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363 Page 2

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following assessment is for the City of Anaheim seismic evaluation of Car Park 2, a five story cast-in-place concrete parking structure located at 777 Convention Way, Anaheim, California, part of the original Anaheim Hilton and Towers that opened circa 1984. The portion of structure accessible to vehicular traffic is herein defined as Car Park 2, excluding Towers and the elevated pool deck above the roof parking level, as well as appendage structures situated nearby for utility services to the Hotel.

The structural performance objective considered in this assessment is the Basic Performance Objective for Earthquakes. The seismic evaluation contained herein is limited to the unconditioned parking space of the original Anaheim Hilton and Towers, which overlaps with some areas at the north Towers, indicated in Figure

2. The anticipated seismic performance particular for this building with divided ownership, has elements that, at present, may depend largely on the remaining portion of the original construction, particularly in areas beneath the adjoining hotel Towers and elevated pool deck. A concerted effort may be required to address any existing seismic deficiencies discovered in the evaluation, and reducing seismic vulnerability inherent in the original design of the building, may require joint work in areas of separate ownership.

This report is a seismic evaluation for the City of Anaheim per the most recent ASCE 41 standard procedure.

The analysis uses a high level Tier 1 screening and more rigorous Tier 2 analysis to provide direction to practicing professional engineers the potential deficiencies that may require a retrofit. ASCE 41 designates each building as a specific construction type related to its lateral force resisting system. The primary lateral system for Car Park 2 is reinforced concrete shear wall with rigid diaphragm, namely the C2 type. The benchmark year for C2 buildings is the 1994 Uniform Building Code. The building code used for production of the structural drawings was most likely the 1979 Uniform Building Code, based on the drawing dates, although it the design code year is not specifically listed.

These outstanding list of structural deficiencies following the Tier 2 analysis related to the C2 building type are as follows:
 Openings at Shear Walls
 Transfer to Shear Walls
In summary, the main seismic deficiency for the building found from the Tier 1 and Tier 2 procedure involves the transfer of forces from each floor level to the walls. In other words, the connections of the horizontal lateral force resisting systems to the vertical lateral force resisting systems were determined to be inadequate.

Liquefaction, based on state hazard mapping is not a potential condition, and does not need to be reviewed by a site geotechnical investigation by a qualified geotechnical engineer but is always recommended.

Thus, similar to how these referenced projects have implemented FRP in areas where seismic forces were less severe. The original retrofit concept has been added to provide strengthening in lieu of the original bolted steel plates, angles, and tube sections in certain areas. Previously, the steel construction was intended for drag/collector lines used to increase force transfer between walls and floor slabs at openings at shear walls.

Updates to the length, locations and conceptual detailing have been provided in the retrofit concept, included in the appendix.

The decision to undertake the retrofit should consider other factors such as useful longevity of the retrofit structure, functionality of the retrofit structure, other possibly more attractive options, cost of phasing and other ancillary costs and cost to replace the structure.

Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363 Page 3

2. INTRODUCTION
Purpose
The purpose of this investigation is to evaluate the subject building using procedures prescribed in ASCE 41 - 17 - Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structures to determine if significant seismic deficiencies exist.

If such deficiencies are determined to exist, seismic retrofit concepts intended to mitigate these deficiencies are developed. Associated probable structural costs are then estimated and included in this report. The proposed retrofit concepts are intended to convey the order of magnitude of a future retrofit scheme and probable costs for preliminary budgeting and planning purposes. The actual future retrofit work will likely vary from these concepts.

The structural performance objective considered in this assessment is the Basic Performance Objective for Existing Buildings as defined in ASCE 41-17.

Scope of Engineering
This investigation and evaluation involve the following scope of engineering services:

1. Conduct a review of available documents such as construction plans and reports.

Conduct a site examination to observe overall building layout, visually compare structural framing to available drawings, and examine exposed structure for possible signs of distress or deterioration, damage, or unacceptable alterations.

Assess the building seismic performance using ASCE 41, Tier 1 screening procedures and USGS mapped seismic parameters in the current condition.

Note: Evaluation of non-structural building components is excluded from this evaluation.

2. Assess building elements determined noncompliant by ASCE 41 Tier 1 screening, using Tier 2 evaluation procedures.

Prepare retrofit concept plans and details for necessary mitigation of deficiencies based on the Tier 2 evaluation. Use of ASCE 41 prescribed Tier 3 retrofit design procedures is outside the scope of the evaluation.

Seismic retrofit concept plans and details are suitable for preliminary cost budgeting and construction planning.

We examined only conditions exposed to view. We conducted no physical materials testing or as-constructed detail investigation to confirm strength or quality of structural materials. These activities are outside the scope and your intent of this project. Although limited in scope, our evaluation and this report should be sufficient to provide the information you require and to determine direction for future action.

References
A site visit was performed by Milad Oliaee on January 22nd, 2022, accompanied by Michael Kreuzer, which consisted of visual, non-invasive observations. Original structural drawings for this project were available with exception to missing sheets. The sheets made available for review were carefully considered in the evaluation Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363 Page 4
and assumed to hold during the actual construction of the building in 1983. In general, the structure appears to conform with the original construction drawings. No substantial alterations or discrepancies were observed.

Building drawings made available for our review are listed below. They are assumed sufficiently accurate for this evaluation.

1. Pre-Construction Reference Materials:
a. Architectural Drawings
 Title - Anaheim Hilton
 Dated - December 3, 1982
 Architect - Redacted
 Drawings sheets – A-3.11-3.14
b. Structural Drawings
 Title – Anaheim Hilton Hotel
 Dated – November 23, 1982
 Structural Engineer – Ertzan Associates
 Drawings sheets – S-2.1 to S-2.43, S-3.1 to S-3.54 excluding S-3.9, S-4.1 to S4.4, S-5.1 to S5.6, and S-6.1 to S-6.5, to S-7.1 to S-7.4  Missing sheets – S-2.27, S-3.55 to S-3.68

2. Post-Construction Reference Materials
a. Materials Testing Report Letter
 Title – Materials Verification and Testing Letter Report  Dated – December 22, 2015
 Testing Agency – GMU Geotechnical, Inc.
 Undersigning Principal – David Atkinson
b. Geotechnical Report
 Title – Southwest Corner of Katella Avenue and Hotel Way  Dated – May 22, 2014
 Geotechnical Engineer – AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.  Undersigning Principal – Marshall Lew
In addition to original building drawings, the following documents were reviewed to understand the history and site conditions for this project:

1. Regulatory Maps Geo Application, California Geological Survey (2018).

2. Fault Activity Map of California, California Geological Survey (2010). http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/

3. MyHazards, California Office of Emergency Services (2015). https://myhazards.caloes.ca.gov/

4. Google Earth Pro, Google, Inc (2020)
This assessment report represents Brandow & Johnston’s professional engineering judgment as to the deficiencies which would be vulnerable in a moderate to severe seismic event. It must be acknowledged that deficiencies may exist in the structure that were not observed in this evaluation. The information and opinions provided in this report have been prepared in accordance with recognized engineering principles. These findings and opinions are not intended as a warranty by Brandow & Johnston, Inc. for the condition of the existing building and its performance in a major seismic event.

Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363 Page 5

3. BUILDING DESCRIPTION
Building Description (See Figures 1-19 below)
The site building consisted of a fifteen (15) story structure of which the bottom five (5) stories where parking occurs is the subject of this study. The building code most likely implemented in the production of the 1982 drawings was the 1979 Uniform Building Code (UBC). No seismic retrofit elements were reported or observed. However, post-construction external post-tensioned cables are found throughout the parking structure, specifically at drive aisles on parking levels P1 to P4 to support the deflected concrete slabs.

The overall footprint of Car Park 2 is approximately 571 feet by 387 feet. The total estimated square footage is 839,000 according to the property condition assessment completed in early 2023. Because the parking structure services the hotel occupants, which offers 1574 rooms and large public spaces, the expected maximum occupancy of this building most likely exceeds 5000, and therefore, the parking structure is subject to an elevated Risk Category III.

The vertical gravity load carrying system consists of reinforced concrete flat slabs with thickened drop column capitals and reinforced concrete shear walls. The columns are founded on pile caps that have one or more piles below each cap. Dropped soffits typically begin six (6) feet from column centerlines and are specified as twelve (12) inches thick, typical. Piles are typically 36” in diameter and range in height from 48 to 60 feet in height, below grade. Piles also occur below the reinforced concrete bearing walls with pile caps spaced at roughly 27 feet on center.

The horizontal lateral load carrying system was comprised of cast-in-place concrete slabs, measuring typically four (4) and a half inches to five (5) and half inches in thickness. This diaphragm distributes lateral loads generated by earthquakes acting upon the mass of the structure to the vertical lateral force-resisting elements.

The vertical lateral load carrying system is comprised of squat reinforced concrete shear walls, measuring approximately 18 inches in thickness. Some walls are over 200 feet in length with intermittent pile caps at their base spaced at typical column grid spacing, roughly 27 feet.

Wall anchorage was achieved by cast-in-place 90 degree hooked dowels at reinforced concrete shear walls, according to the original design drawings. According to the original design drawings, concrete walls are doweled at 45 degrees at their base to the with grade 40 steel. Wall reinforcing at the concrete wall curtains was specified a higher grade (60) steel that typically would not be acceptable per the 2022 California Building Code (CBC).

Plans identify floor levels as:
 Ground Floor – Parking Level P1
 Second Floor – Paring Level P2
 Third Floor – Paring Level P3
 Fourth Floor – Paring Level P4
 Fifth Floor – Paring Level P5
The original and current use of the building is passenger vehicle parking. See Figure 1 and 2 for a site plan and schematic plan showing extents of the Car Park, and Figure 3 to 20 for photos of the structure taken during the most recent site visit. Based on our site observations, we discovered no major structural modifications deviating from the original construction in 1982 with exception to the external post-tensioning cables.

Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363 Page 6
Figure 1 – Site Map of Car Park 2 at 777 Convention Way N
W. Katella Ave.

S. Harbor Blvd.

Convention Way
Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363 Page 7
Figure 2 – Schematic Plan Indicating the Extent of the Car Par 2 Footprint Figure 3 – East Elevation Overall View
Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363 Page 8
Figure 4 – North Drive Aisle on Level P1
Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363 Page 9
Figure 3 – Drive Aisle on Level P2
Figure 4 – Drive Aisle East Direction View on Level P2
Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363 Page 10
Figure 6 – Drive Aisle on Parking Level P4
Figure 5 – Drive Aisle on Parking Level P3
Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363 Page 11
Figure 8 – Drive Aisle on Parking Level 4
Figure 7 – Ramp to Daylight on Parking Level P4
Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363 Page 12
Figure 10 – Ponding near West Tower on Parking Level P5 Figure 9 – View of Towers, Lanai Rooms, and Pool Deck from Parking Level 5 Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363 Page 13
Figure 12 – Typical Reinforced Concrete Column Capital at Paring Level P5 Figure 11 – Parking Level P5 below West Tower
Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363 Page 14
Figure 14 – Parking Level 1 at Tower Columns above Pile Cap Foundations Figure 13 – Concrete Barrier at Ramp on Parking Level P5 Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363 Page 15
Figure 15 – Demising Wall at Entry Way Restroom on Parking Level P1 Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363 Page 16

4. SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES AND SEISMIC HAZARDS
The 2019 California Existing Building Code (CEBC) establishes minimum standards for seismic evaluation and retrofit design of existing buildings. Section 319.12 of CEBC pre-approves use of ASCE 41 Tier 1 and Tier 2 deficiency-only retrofit procedures for voluntary seismic evaluation and retrofit.

ASCE 41-17 states that if a building meets the benchmark building criteria, it shall be deemed to meet the provisions of the ASCE 41 standard for the structural performance level indicated. For reinforced concrete shear walls with concrete diaphragms and masonry bearing walls with concrete diaphragms, the seismic design provisions in 1994 edition of UBC (or subsequent editions) are recognized by ASCE 41-17 to meet the benchmark building criteria (refer to ASCE 41-17 table 3-2). The subject building was designed prior to 1994 UBC provisions and therefore would not be classified as a benchmark building and further ASCE 41-17 evaluation Tier 1 screening and Tier 2 deficiency-based retrofit was required.

Brandow and Johnston performed a Tier 1 seismic screening procedure following ASCE 41-17 methodology.

This procedure identifies potential seismic deficiencies with regard to whether a structure satisfies the structural performance requirements of ASCE 41-17. The target seismic hazard and performance levels considered for this building are those indicated by Table 2.2 (see Table 1 – Seismic Evaluation Criteria).

In general, Tier 1 checks are intended to conservatively identify non-conforming conditions to today’s standards and, in our experience, few existing buildings pass with no noncomplying condition. Structural engineers perform this screening to determine the severity and extent of the potential deficiencies related to seismic performance and use it to focus the efforts of further Tier 2 deficiency-based evaluation and retrofit or future Tier 3 systematic evaluation and retrofit procedures.

Performance Objective
The performance objective selected for this building is Basic Performance Objective for Existing building. Refer to ASCE Table 2.1 Basic Performance Objective for Existing Buildings (BPOE). For this building, required structural performance goal is Level S- 3 (Life Safety) when the building is subject to seismic hazard level 2 (BSE-2E). Evaluation of non-structural components were excluded from our scope.

The Basic Safety Earthquake Level 2 (BSE-2E) seismic hazard which has a 5% probability of exceedance in 50 years, or 975-year return period. The elevated risk category does not impact the level of earthquake hazard for existing buildings. However, the performance level is held to a more stringent standard, referred to as the Life Safety Performance Level, as opposed to the Collapse Prevention level which is unacceptable for the Basic Performance Objective. These performance levels have respective limits on the force or deformation levels that are acceptable for each building component.

It is important to note that the evaluation of non-structural components is excluded from our scope. The evaluation of non-structural components can be as time consuming and require just as much effort as the structural evaluation, but typically does not impact the structural performance objectives most pertinent to the overall collapse or damage to the structure. However, these components may still negatively impact the path of egress and encroach on the Basic Performance Objective for Earthquakes, and should be considered.

Table 1 – Seismic Evaluation Criteria
Standard ASCE 41-17
Risk Category III
Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363 Page 17
Site Classification D (Verified by Geotech for Car
Park 1, the adjacent structure)
Seismic Design Parameters
BSE-1E SXS = 0.735, SX1 = 0.412
BSE-2E SXS = 1.26, SX1 = 0.71
Seismic Performance Objectives
Seismic Hazard Level 1
Structural Performance
Objective
Non-Structural
Performance Objective
BSE-1E
(20%/50 years)
Not Evaluated
(per Table 2-2 of ASCE 41-17)
Not Evaluated
(per project scope) Tier 1 and 2
Evaluation
& Retrofit Seismic Hazard Level 2
Structural Performance
Objective
Non-Structural
Performance Objective
BSE-2E
(5%/50 years)
Collapse Prevention (S-5)
(per Table 2-2 of ASCE 41-17)
Not Evaluated
(per project scope)
The Tier 1 screening procedure was performed using BSE-2E seismic hazard level and the Collapse Prevention checklists. See Appendix C for the completed Tier 1 checklists with commentary. This is a single performance level basic assessment. The Life Safety Structural Performance Level (S-3) is defined by ASCE 41-17 as the post-earthquake damage state in which a structure damaged components but retains a margin of safety against the onset of partial or total collapse.

Tier 1 Screening Results
This first phase of the project is concluded with this section of the report. The Tier 1 checklists used to screen the building are included in the appendix. It is important to note that the basic checklist items pertaining to the seismic deficiencies beyond the control of City of Anaheim, were evaluated ignoring the towers and other appendage buildings, and therefore irregularities that may occur when considering the overall building are omitted from this list. The following are potential ASCE 41-17 seismic deficiencies identified from a Tier 1 checklists:

BASIC CHECKLIST NONCOMPLYING ITEMS

1. NONE
a. The screening items found in the basic checklists for Tier 1 were applied only to the lower parking structure.

C2 DETAILED CHECKLIST NONCOMPLYING ITEMS
Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363 Page 18

1. OPENINGS AT SHEAR WALLS: Diaphragm openings immediately adjacent to the shear walls are less than 25% the wall length.
a. The openings at ramps are greater than 25% the wall length.

2. SHEAR STRESS: The shear stress in the concrete shear walls, calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.3, is less than the greater of 100 psi or 2√f’c. a. The shear stress in the concrete shear walls per the quick procedure exceeds 100 psi.

3. TRANSFER TO SHEAR WALL: Diaphragms are connected for transfer of seismic forces to the shear walls, and the connections are able to develop the lesser of the shear strength of the walls or diaphragms.
a. The connections are not able to develop the lesser of the shear strength of the walls or diaphragms.

4. FOUNDATION DOWELS: Wall reinforcement is doweled into the foundation with vertical bars equal in size and spacing to the vertical wall reinforcing directly above the foundation. a. Although dowels match vertical reinforcement in size and spacing, dowels have a lower strength steel grade specified (40 ksi) than the wall reinforcing steel grade (60 ksi), thus from a capacity based approach, they are incapable of transferring the strength of the wall above.

Further investigation in the Tier 2 procedure is required to assess the capacity of the lower strength dowels provided is met with the level of demand considered for the evaluation.

5. FLAT SLABS: Flat slabs or plates not part of the seismic-force resisting system have continuous bottom steel through the column joints.
a. According to the original design drawings, continuous bottom steel with adequate lap splice lengths were not provided across the top of the columns at the capitals.

6. UPLIFT AT PILE CAPS: Pile caps have top reinforcement and piles are anchored to the pile caps. a. According to the original design drawings, the pile caps to not have top steel to resist uplift at the columns or the corners of walls in response to seismic forces.

Summary of Input Properties into the Analysis Model
Limited material testing from GMU geotechnical report reference was considered in the modeling of the parking structure. Core samples taken primarily from the concrete column capitals were processed. The coefficient of variation was determined to be 12%, which is under the 20% threshold typically used to reduce the characteristic strength one standard deviation below the mean strength to allow for uncertainty. Because of the low coefficient of variation from the test results, the mean strength of the concrete cores was used to assign expected strength values to the analytical model. The major impact that this property has on the building derives from the shell element elastic moduli attributed to the wall sections assigned in the analysis program. Because the analysis was limited to linear elastic ranges in the structural response and the elastic moduli assigned to all the shell elements were identical, the impact of the elastic modulus for the short period structure is negligible regardless of the compressive strength.  Analysis Program.
o Computers and Structures Inc. ETABS v20 used for analyses. o Tier 1 – Linear Static procedure ASCE 41-17 4.4.2
o Tier 2 - Linear static procedure ASCE 41-17, 7.4.1.
 Structure Seismic Weight = 90,000 k
 Seismic Base Shear
o V = 120,000 k (BSE-2E, N-S Direction & E-W Direction)  Diaphragm Assumption
Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363 Page 19
o Rigid diaphragm assumed at all suspended slabs, limited to the footprint north of gridline

12.  Knowledge Factor
o k = 1.0 for Tier 2 evaluation and for retrofit design. Refer to ASCE 41-17 5.2.6. Material strength noted on drawings due to the availability of a preliminary materials testing report in 2015.Material Properties
 Upper bound concrete compressive strength:
 f’c = 3000 psi (based on average of the material testing program from slab cores only with a coefficient of variation = 12%)
 Lower bound concrete compressive strength:
 f’c = 2000 psi
 Elements Analyzed:
o Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls – Deformation controlled, shear-controlled walls, mfactor = 3.0 and m- per ASCE 41-17 Table 10-22, respectively. 3D Renderings from the Analysis Model
Figure 16 – Southeast Isometric View of 3D Structural Model Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363 Page 20
Figure 17 – Southwest Isometric View of 3D Structural Model Figure 20 – Northeast Isometric View of 3D Structural Model Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363 Page 21
Tier 2 Analysis Results
This second phase of the project is concluded with this section of the report. The following seismic deficiencies are from a Tier 1 screening using a BSE-2E seismic hazard level and Collapse Prevention checklists, also applicable to the Life Safety performance level for this building type at the Tier 1 screening phase. There were some assumptions made to simplify the issues related to the subject structure only that should be mentioned.

Because the parking structure rigidity was found to be at least ten (10) times higher than the tower construction above, the dynamic behavior of the superstructure comprising of reinforced concrete moment frames may be considered to respond out of phase, allowing for a two-stage analysis procedure typically used for new design, defined more clearly in Section 12.2.3.2 of ASCE 7-16. According to this code section the podium level of the entire structure can be attributed to parking level P5 at which the lateral force resisting system changes from squat reinforced concrete shear wall to the ductile concrete moment frame system, more than a magnitude (or ten times) apart in lateral stiffness, and even more significant when considering the stark contrast of story mass above this level—which impacts the dynamic properties of the substructure also. Applying this procedure, the tributary mass of the overlapping structure above from the towers was applied to the resisting frame line at parking level P5 for assessing the wall-slab force transfer deficiency and the level measures required to mitigate the deficiency in the retrofit concept included in the appendix.

Another unique feature of the building that was used to reduce the complexity of Tier 2 analysis phase of the Car Park 2 was the plan division of the lower stories that divides the hotel and parking areas. For large area buildings, the relative in-plane rigidity of the diaphragms decrease when considering the thickness of the horizontal plate with respect to the total length. The buckling stiffness of these plates reduces significantly beyond a length-to-thickness ratio above 30 or more. This typically does not govern for design of floor Figure 21– Northwest Isometric View of 3D Structural Model Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363 Page 22
diaphragms for new construction in high seismic regions, but can be found in provisions for slender walls in ACI 318-19, in which second order effects from cracking under out-of-plane forces must be considered for determining the thickness of the walls, typically for tilt-up concrete wall construction for industrial and manufacturing facilities.

Thus the rigid diaphragm analogy among the practicing community may recognize this phenomenon to hold less true for floor diaphragms extending distances exceeding hundreds of feet in length, like that of Car Park 2, with such thin slab thicknesses. This may contribute to one of the reasons that new design typically allows for the division of the buildings with frequent seismic separation occurring in plan. The original design of this building does not offer seismic separation within the hotel or parking structure. The slab extends without seismic joints for the entire length and width of the building.

In order to simplify the Tier 2 procedure for examining wall-slab force transfer deficiencies more closely, but avoid including the entire building in the analysis, the relatively long structural demising wall between the lower hotel floors and the parking structure was considered as a cut-off point, that because of the long length of the wall with respect to others in the vicinity, would act as a central point where deformations in the direction under consideration would be least. Because deformations around this area in plan were expected to be the least, it could be assumed that ignoring the contribution of this wall to the parking level diaphragm forces north of gridline 12 would be conservative. Similarly the relatively long shear walls running in the north-south direction below the extents of the ballroom of the hotel area were ignored in the analysis of the parking levels to provide for a simplified, yet conservative approach in assessing the wall-slab force transfer seismic deficiencies for the parking structure flagged in the Tier 1 screening.

The story forces from the Tier 2 procedure to check wall-slab force transfer deficiency that contributed to the reduction in retrofit scope for the Car Park 2 involved the vertical distribution of seismic forces from the Linear Static Procedure in Section 7.4.1 of ASCE 41-17 bounded by the minimum diaphragm forces specified in Section 7.4.1.3.4. Equation 7-26 below governed for the parking level 2 strengthening scope in the recommended seismic retrofit.

Recommended Seismic Retrofits
After reviewing the available reference material and conducting a Tier 2 analysis, we conclude this building requires seismic retrofit to perform to the Life Safety Performance Level at the BSE-2E earthquake hazard.

Based on the analysis, only two (2) of the six (6) deficiencies identified in the Tier 1 screening remain deficient in the Tier 2 evaluation. We propose a deficiency based targeted retrofit scheme as shown on concept drawings Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363 Page 23
in Appendix C to mitigate these deficiencies. Refer to Table 2 below for a summary of the deficiencies and the proposed mitigation measures.

Table 2 – Deficiency Mitigation Summary:

Tier 1 Deficiency Tier 2 Analysis Retrofit Mitigation Requirement Openings At Shear Walls Deficiency Confirmed Steel plates, tube steel collectors at soffit Shear Stress Deficiency Eliminated None required
Transfer to Shear Walls Deficiency Confirmed Add bidirectional FRP, steel angles w/anchors Foundation Dowels Deficiency Eliminated None required
Flat Slabs Deficiency Eliminated None required
Uplift at Pile Caps Deficiency Eliminated None required The thickened slab and reinforcing steel plates shown on Parking Level P5 in the vicinity of the Hotel Towers are to mitigate potentially fatal consequences of the reinforce concrete slab undergoing inelastic deformations to transfer forces to the walls below adjacent end frames that undergo significant lateral deformations at the BSE-2E hazard that cantilever vertically above Parking Level P5, restrained from relatively more rigid squat concrete walls below. This phenomenon, know as the backstay effect, is more common for concrete core wall buildings that meet grade level concrete slabs in office buildings or residential towers. However, due to the significant change in stiffness from the Hotel Tower lateral force resisting system and that of the parking structure below, similar effects were observed and have been provided for in the seismic retrofit concept drawings.

Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363 Page 24

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The building does not meet the seismic evaluation criteria for the Basic Performance Objective for Earthquakes found in the latest edition of the national standard ASCE 41 (2017). Following the Tier 1 and Tier 2 procedure, the evaluation failed to meet the Life Safety performance level for the Basic Safety Earthquake Level 2 (BSE2E) seismic hazard. Brandow and Johnston recommend a seismic retrofit for the building to address the force transfer at walls and openings deficiencies. Based on the anticipated force levels required to transfer inertial loads acting on the mass of the floors where walls occur, the existing condition of the structure was deemed inadequate to provide for the demands to components from earthquake shaking at the aforementioned earthquake hazard level.

Our recommended retrofit scheme is described above and illustrated in Appendix D and may be summarized as follows:
 Strengthening of the slab-to-wall connections at critical locations, usually where large openings occur at rampways, or along the perimeter where transfer is only possible on one side of a shear wall that the original design overlooked by:
a. Adding FRP strip bidirectional layup between the wall and the slab above the floor level b. Adding bolted steel angles, tube steel, and cover plates to span across the dropped column capitals from below the floor slab
c. FRP confinement of the perimeter thickened slabs at ends of existing perimeter walls  Strengthening of the concrete roof slab (Level P5) at the ends of the hotel towers where significant stresses due to transition of the load path from moment frame to wall is anticipated a. New concrete thickened slab below existing concrete with epoxy hooked dowels b. Steel plates above the existing concrete slab with intermittent expansion anchors Since the original proposal for strengthening the diaphragm was provided in 2014 by Brandow and Johnston, the use of fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) to strengthen floor systems has become more commonly accepted by local and state authorities in California. Since the release of the previous retrofit concept, collaborative efforts between building material manufactures (Fyfe, Sika and Simpson) with nationally recognized certification organizations, International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO) and the International Code Council (ICC), have made the use of FRP to strengthen diaphragms, or floor systems, more common for addressing shear strength deficiencies. Seismic Retrofit programs have now implemented FRP for the strengthening of floor systems and been completed in jurisdictions governed by the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS), Division of State Architects (DSA), and the department of HealthCare Access and Information (HCAI).

The proposed retrofit scheme shown on the attached concept drawings are based on a preliminary evaluation intended to establish a likely rough order of magnitude of construction cost associated an eventual voluntary seismic retrofit. These drawings are not final, not complete and the final designs will vary. ASCE 41-17 Tier 3 procedures for the retrofit design may reduce strengthening requirements.

Nonstructural building components and finishes do not require replacement or modification to accommodate the proposed structural retrofit indicated. We recommend a separate evaluation for these components be studied to determine if egress, a life safety issue, may be an issue with brittle or unrestrained appurtenances in the vicinity of stairs, etc.

Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363 Page 25
Our professional services have been performed with the intent to meet the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by reputable structural engineers practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice or opinions included in this letter. If there are any aspects of this report that require further clarification or about which you have questions, please contact our office.

We are pleased to have been able to provide you with structural engineering services.

Sincerely,

BRANDOW & JOHNSTON
James Pearson, SE 4335 Milad Oliaee, PE 80901
President Senior Project Engineer

REGISTEREDPROFESSIONALENGINEER

STRUCTURA
S
L

TATE OF CALIFORNIA
JA
S4335

MES DALE
N
PEARSO
Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363

APPENDICES
Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363

APPENDIX A

EXCERPTS FROM ORIGINAL STRUCTURAL

DRAWINGS
Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363
Figure A.1 – Sheet List with Missing Sheets Indicated
Figure A.2 – General Notes for Reinforcing Steel Grades at Walls and Foundations Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363
Figure A.3 – Typical Pile Cap Detail without Top Steel Indicated in Red Figure A.4 – Typical Bottom Bar Lap Splice with Inadequate Length in Red Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363

APPENDIX B

SITE SEISMIC HAZARD SUMMARY
Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363
Figure B.1 – Fault Proximity
Figure B.2 – Geologic Survey Map
SITE
SITE
Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363
Figure B.3 – Liquefaction Potential
SITE
Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363
Figure B.4 – Seismic Hazard for Existing Buildings
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T 213 596 4500 F 213 596 4599 W BJSCE.com

APPENDIX C
TIER 1 SCREENING CHECKLISTS
Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363
ASCE 41-17 TIER 1 CHECKLIST: Collapse Prevention Basic Checklist SEISMICITY LEVEL: High Table 17-2
LEGEND: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, U = Unknown Low Seismicity
Building System - General
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.4.1.1 A.2.1.1
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.4.1.2 A.2.1.2
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.4.1.3 A.2.1.3
Building System - Building Configuration C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.4.2.1 A.2.2.2
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.4.2.2 A.2.2.3
SOFT STORY: The stiffness of the seismic-forceresisting system in any story is not less than 70% of the seismic-force-resisting system stiffness in an
adjacent story above or less than 80% of the
average seismic-force-resisting system stiffness of
the three stories above.

Limited to the Car Park 2 property structure
MEZZANINES: Interior mezzanine levels are braced
independently from the main structure or are
anchored to the seismic-force-resisting elements of
the main structure.

Limited to the Car Park 2 property structure
ADJACENT BUILDINGS: The clear distance
between the building being evaluated and any
adjacent building is greater than 0.25% of the height
of the shorter building in low seismicity, 0.5% in moderate seismicity and 1.5% in high seismicity.

Limited to the Car Park 2 property structure
WEAK STORY: The sum of the shear strengths of
the seismic-force-resisting system in any story in
each direction is not less than 80% of the strength in
the adjacent story above.

Limited to the Car Park 2 property structure
LOAD PATH: The structure contains a complete, well-defined load path, including structural elements and connections that serve to transfer the inertial
forces associated with the mass of all elements of
the building to the foundation.

Limited to the Car Park 2 property structure

PROJECT
PROJECT NO.

ITEM
Car Par k2
Basic Checklist ENGINEER
DATE
SHEET NO.
03/13/2023
MAO
S22-0363
Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363
ASCE 41-17 TIER 1 CHECKLIST: Collapse Prevention Basic Checklist SEISMICITY LEVEL: High Table 17-2
LEGEND: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, U = Unknown Low Seismicity
Building System - General
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.4.1.1 A.2.1.1
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.4.1.2 A.2.1.2
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.4.1.3 A.2.1.3
Building System - Building Configuration
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.4.2.1 A.2.2.2
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

Limited to the Car Park 2 property structure
LOAD PATH: The structure contains a complete,
well-defined load path, including structural elements
and connections that serve to transfer the inertial
forces associated with the mass of all elements of
the building to the foundation.

Limited to the Car Park 2 property structure

PROJECT
PROJECT NO.

ITEM
Car Par k2
Basic Checklist ENGINEER
DATE
SHEET NO.
03/13/2023
MAO
S22-0363
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.4.2.3 A.2.2.4
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.4.2.4 A.2.2.5
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.4.2.5 A.2.2.6
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.4.2.6 A.2.2.7
VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES: All vertical elements
in the seismic-force-resisting system are continuous
to the foundation.

Limited to the Car Park 2 property structure
GEOMETRY: These are no changes in the net
horizontal dimension of the seismic-force-resisting
system of more than 30% in a story relative to
adjacent stories, excluding on-story penthouses and mezzanines.

Limited to the Car Park 2 property structure
MASS: The is no change in effective mass of more Limited to the Car Park 2 property structure than 50% from one story to the next. Light roofs,
penthouses and mezzanines need not be
considered.

TORSION: The estimated distance between the
story center of mass and the story center of rigidity is less than 20% of the building width in either plan
dimension.

Limited to the Car Park 2 property structure
Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363
ASCE 41-17 TIER 1 CHECKLIST: Collapse Prevention Basic Checklist SEISMICITY LEVEL: High Table 17-2
LEGEND: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, U = Unknown Low Seismicity
Building System - General
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.4.1.1 A.2.1.1
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.4.1.2 A.2.1.2
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.4.1.3 A.2.1.3
Building System - Building Configuration
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.4.2.1 A.2.2.2
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

Limited to the Car Park 2 property structure
LOAD PATH: The structure contains a complete,
well-defined load path, including structural elements
and connections that serve to transfer the inertial
forces associated with the mass of all elements of
the building to the foundation.

Limited to the Car Park 2 property structure

PROJECT
PROJECT NO.

ITEM
Car Par k2
Basic Checklist ENGINEER
DATE
SHEET NO.
03/13/2023
MAO
S22-0363
Moderate Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Low Seismicity) Building System - Building Configuration
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.4.3.1 A.6.1.1
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.4.3.1 A.6.1.2
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.4.3.1 A.6.1.3
High Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Moderate Seismicity) Building System - Building Configuration
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.4.3.3 A.6.2.1
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.4.3.4 A.6.2.2
LIQUEFACTION: Liquefaction-susceptible,
saturated, loose granular soils that could jeopardize
the building's seismic performance do not exist in the
foundation soils at depths within 50 ft. (15.2m) under
the building.

SLOPE FAILURE: The building site is located away
from potential earthquake-induced slop failures or
rockfalls so that is it unaffected by such failures or is capable of accommodating any predicted movements without failure.

TIES BETWEEN FOUNDATION ELEMENTS: The
foundation has ties adequate to resist seismic forces
where footings, piles and piers are not restrained by
beams, slabs or soils classified as Site Class A, B or
C.

SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE: Surface fault rupture
and surface displacement at the building site are not
anticipated.

OVERTURNING: The ratio of the least horizontal
dimension of the seismic-force-resisting system at
the foundation level to the building height
(base/height) is greater than 0.6Sa
Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363
ASCE 41-17 TIER 1 CHECKLIST: Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist - C2 & C2a SEISMICITY LEVEL: High Table 17-24
LEGEND: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, U = Unknown Low and Moderate Seismicity
Seismic-Force-Resisting System
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.5.2.5.1 A.3.1.6.1
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.5.1.1 A.3.2.1.1
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.5.3.1.1 A.3.2.2.1
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.5.3.1.3 A.3.2.2.2
REINFORCING STEEL: The ratio of reinforcing
steel area to gross concrete area is not less than

0.0012 in the vertical direction and 0.0020 in the
horizontal direction.

Vertical and horizontal steel ratios meet minimum
requirements (#5@13" E.W.E.F.)
COMPLETE FRAMES: Steel or concrete frames
classified as secondary components form a complete
vertical-load-carrying system.

REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of shear walls
in each principal direction is greater than or equal to

2. Concrete column slab system capable of carrying
gravity loads
More than 2 lines of concrete sheawalls occur in
each principal direction
SHEAR STRESS CHECK: The shear stress in the
concrete shear walls, calculated using the Quick
Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.3, is less than the
greater of 100 psi or 2√f'c.

The shear stress in the concrete shearwalls per
the quick check procedure exceeds the greter of
100 psi or 2√f'c.

PROJECT
PROJECT NO.

ITEM
Car Park 2
Collapse Prevention C2 Checklists ENGINEER
DATE
SHEET NO.
04/12/2023
MAO
S22-0363
Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363
ASCE 41-17 TIER 1 CHECKLIST: Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist - C2 & C2a SEISMICITY LEVEL: High Table 17-24
LEGEND: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, U = Unknown Low and Moderate Seismicity
Seismic-Force-Resisting System
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.5.2.5.1 A.3.1.6.1
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.5.1.1 A.3.2.1.1
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.5.3.1.1 A.3.2.2.1
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.5.3.1.3 A.3.2.2.2
REINFORCING STEEL: The ratio of reinforcing
steel area to gross concrete area is not less than

0.0012 in the vertical direction and 0.0020 in the
horizontal direction.

REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of shear walls
in each principal direction is greater than or equal to

The shear stress in the concrete shearwalls per
the quick check procedure exceeds the greter of
100 psi or 2√f'c.

PROJECT
PROJECT NO.

ITEM
Car Park 2
Collapse Prevention C2 Checklists ENGINEER
DATE
SHEET NO.
04/12/2023
MAO
S22-0363
Connections
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.7.1.1 A.5.1.1
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.7.2 A.5.2.1
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.7.3.4 A.5.3.5
High Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Low and Moderate Seismicity) Seismic-Force-Resisting System
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.5.2.5.2 A.3.1.6.2
DEFLECTION COMPATIBILITY: Secondary
components have the shear capacity to develop the
flexural strength of the components.

Column slab drop caps and two way slabs have
shear capacity to develop the flexural strength of
the slab based on observation of the slab
reinforcing plans.

WALL ANCHORAGE AT FLEXIBLE DIAPHRAGMS:

Exterior concrete or masonry walls that are
dependent on flexible diaphragms for lateral support
are anchored for out-of-plane forces at each
diaphragm level with steel anchors, reinforcing
dowels, or straps that are developed into the
diaphragm. Connections have strength to resist the
connection force calculated in the Quick Check
procedure of Section 4.4.3.7.

Flexible diaphragms do not occur
FOUNDATION DOWELS: Wall reinforcement is
doweled into the foundation with vertical bars equal
in size and spacing to the vertical wall reinforcing
directly above the foundation.

See 1 S4.3 for dowels into foundation. Although
dowels match vertical reinforcement in size and
spacing, dowels are 40 ksi which does not match
the 60ksi vertical bars in the wall thus they are not
capable of transferring the wall shear capacity to
the foundation
TRANSFER TO SHEAR WALLS: Diaphragms are
connected for transfer of seismic forces to the shear
walls.

Continuous dowels from slabs to shear walls
across constructions joint occur.

Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363
ASCE 41-17 TIER 1 CHECKLIST: Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist - C2 & C2a SEISMICITY LEVEL: High Table 17-24
LEGEND: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, U = Unknown Low and Moderate Seismicity
Seismic-Force-Resisting System
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.5.2.5.1 A.3.1.6.1
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.5.1.1 A.3.2.1.1
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.5.3.1.1 A.3.2.2.1
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.5.3.1.3 A.3.2.2.2
REINFORCING STEEL: The ratio of reinforcing
steel area to gross concrete area is not less than

0.0012 in the vertical direction and 0.0020 in the
horizontal direction.

REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of shear walls
in each principal direction is greater than or equal to

The shear stress in the concrete shearwalls per
the quick check procedure exceeds the greter of
100 psi or 2√f'c.

PROJECT
PROJECT NO.

ITEM
Car Park 2
Collapse Prevention C2 Checklists ENGINEER
DATE
SHEET NO.
04/12/2023
MAO
S22-0363
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.5.2.5.3 A.3.1.6.3
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.5.3.2.1 A.3.2.2.3
Diaphragms (Stiff or Flexible)
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.6.1.1 A.4.1.1
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.6.1.3 A.4.1.4
FLAT SLABS: Flat slabs or plates not part of the
seismic-force-resisting system have continuous
bottom steel through the column joints.

Bottom steel not provided continuously across
column joints.

COUPLING BEAMS: The ends of both walls to
which the coupling beam is attached are supported
at each end to resist vertical loads caused by
overturning.

Coupling beams do not occur
DIAPHRAGM CONTINUITY: The diaphragms are
not composed of split-level floors and do not have
expansion joints.

No split level floors occur
OPENINGS AT SHEAR WALLS: Diaphragm
openings immediately adjacent to the shear walls
are less than 25% of the wall length.

Openings occur at the ramps adjacent to
shearwallsand exceed 25% the length, per sheets
S2.17 and S2.23 of the existing drawings.

5.5.2.5.1 A.3.1.6.1
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.5.1.1 A.3.2.1.1
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.5.3.1.1 A.3.2.2.1
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.5.3.1.3 A.3.2.2.2
REINFORCING STEEL: The ratio of reinforcing
steel area to gross concrete area is not less than

0.0012 in the vertical direction and 0.0020 in the
horizontal direction.

REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of shear walls
in each principal direction is greater than or equal to

The shear stress in the concrete shearwalls per
the quick check procedure exceeds the greter of
100 psi or 2√f'c.

PROJECT
PROJECT NO.

ITEM
Car Park 2
Collapse Prevention C2 Checklists ENGINEER
DATE
SHEET NO.
04/12/2023
MAO
S22-0363
Flexible Diaphragms
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.6.1.2 A.4.1.2
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.6.2 A.4.1
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.6.2 A.4.2.2
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.6.2 A.4.2.3
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.6.5 A.4.7.1
CROSS TIES: There are continuous cross ties
between diaphragm chords.

Flexible diaphragms do not occur
OTHER DIAPHRAGMS: Diaphragms do not consist
of a system other than wood, metal deck, concrete
or horizontal bracing.

No diaphragms other than wood, metal deck,
concrete, or horizontal bracing occurs.

STRAIGHT SHEATHING: All straight-sheathed
diaphragms have aspect ratios less than 2-to-1 in
the direction being considered.

Flexible diaphragms do not occur
SPANS: All wood diaphragms with spans great than
24 ft. (7.3m) consist of wood structural panels or
diagonal sheathing.

Flexible diaphragms do not occur

DIAGONALLY SHEATHED AND UNBLOCKED
DIAPHRAGMS: All diagonally sheathed or unblocked
wood structural panel diaphragms have horizontal
spans less than 40 ft. (12.2M) and aspect ratios less
than or equal to 4-to-1.

Flexible diaphragms do not occur
Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363
ASCE 41-17 TIER 1 CHECKLIST: Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist - C2 & C2a SEISMICITY LEVEL: High Table 17-24
LEGEND: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, U = Unknown Low and Moderate Seismicity
Seismic-Force-Resisting System
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.5.2.5.1 A.3.1.6.1
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.5.1.1 A.3.2.1.1
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.5.3.1.1 A.3.2.2.1
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.5.3.1.3 A.3.2.2.2
REINFORCING STEEL: The ratio of reinforcing
steel area to gross concrete area is not less than

0.0012 in the vertical direction and 0.0020 in the
horizontal direction.

REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of shear walls
in each principal direction is greater than or equal to

The shear stress in the concrete shearwalls per
the quick check procedure exceeds the greter of
100 psi or 2√f'c.

PROJECT
PROJECT NO.

ITEM
Car Park 2
Collapse Prevention C2 Checklists ENGINEER
DATE
SHEET NO.
04/12/2023
MAO
S22-0363
Connections
C NC N/A U Evaluation Statement Comments
X
Tier 2 Reference Commentary Reference

5.7.3.5 A.5.3.8
UPLIFT AT PILE CAPS: Pile caps have top
reinforcement and piles are anchored to the pile
caps.

Not all pile caps contain top reinforcement, see
details on S4.3
Car Park 2 - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluation 4/17/2023 S22-0363

APPENDIX D

SEISMIC RETROFIT CONCEPT PLANS
SK-1
SK-4
S-1.0 GENERAL NOTES & DETAILS ANAHEIM HILTON HOTEL PARKING GARAGE PARTIAL VOLUNTARY SEISMIC UPGRADE COLLECTOR ELEMENT TYPE 1 - ANCHORAGE TO UNDERSIDE OF DROP CAPS SECTION AT CONC. SHEAR WALL
TYP. SPLICE DETAIL FOR COLLECTOR ELEMENT TYPES 2&3
(E)18" THICK CONC. SHEAR WALL
(f'c = 5000PSI), TYP. U.N.O.
(E)4 1/2" THICK CONC. SLAB (ii)
(f'c = 3000 PSI), TYP.

LOCATE SPLICE 4'-0" MIN. FROM FACE OF DROP CAP, TYP.

NO RESTRICTIONS ON LOCATION OF SPLICE FOR SHOP COMPLETE JOINT PENETRATION SPLICES.
(E)12 1/2" THICK CONC. DROP CAP
(f'c = 3000 PSI), TYP.

U.N.O. PER PLAN
4'-0"
MIN.

FOR SPLICE AT STEEL
PLATE, SEE 6/S-1.0 (iii)
4'-0"
MIN.

EXTEND STEEL PLATE TO NEXT DROP

CAP, AS REQUIRED PER EXTENTS SHOWN
ON PLAN. PROVIDE L6x6 BETWEEN DROP
CAPS PER 5/S-1.0, SIM.

EXTEND STEEL PLATE TO NEXT DROP

CAP, AS REQUIRED PER EXTENTS SHOWN
ON PLAN. PROVIDE COMPRESSION STRUT
BETWEEN DROP CAPS PER 4/S-1.0, SIM.

STEEL PL (i)
PER SCHED.

L6x6 (i)
PER 5/S-1.0
COLLECTOR ELEMENT TYPE 2 - ANCHORAGE TO UNDERSIDE OF SLAB COLLECTOR ELEMENT TYPE 3 - LOAD TRANSFER THRU (E)WALL
TYP. SPLICE DETAIL FOR COLLECTOR ELEMENT TYPE 1
6 4
S-1.0
D
---
E
---
E
---

SECTION
D
---

SECTION
F
---

SECTION F
---
5 S-1.0
SECTION 4
S-1.0
COMPRESSION STRUT SECTION 5
S-1.0
5 S-1.0
SIM.
1 S-1.0

ELEVATION VIEW
A
B ---
---
A
---

OVERHEAD PLAN VIEW
B
---

OVERHEAD PLAN VIEW
2 S-1.0

ELEVATION VIEW
L6x6x1/2 x 1'-0" LONG @24" O.C.

W/ (2) 3/4"φ x 4 3/4" EMBED HILTI KBTZ ANCHORS
2 S-1.0
C
---
C
---

SECTION
L6x6 (i)
PER 5/S-1.0 1
S-1.0
(E)4 1/2" THICK CONC. SLAB (ii)
(f'c = 3000 PSI), TYP.

U.N.O. PER PLAN

FOR REMAINING

INFORMATION, SEE
1 S-1.0

FOR REMAINING

INFORMATION, SEE
(E)18" THICK CONC. SHEAR WALL
(f'c = 5000PSI), TYP. U.N.O.
(E)18" THICK CONC.

SHEAR WALL BEYOND
(f'c = 5000PSI), TYP.

U.N.O.

STEEL PL (i)
PER SCHED. FOR

SPLICE DETAIL,
SEE 7/S-1.0.
2 ROWS OF

POST-INSTALLED
ANCHORS @12" O.C.

PER SCHEDULE
STEEL PL (i)
PER SCHED.

DRILL THRU (E)CONC. WALL
FOR (3)-#10 A706 BARS.

GROUT IN PLACE, TYP.
(E)18" THICK CONC. SHEAR WALL
(f'c = 5000PSI), TYP. U.N.O.
2 ROWS OF

POST-INSTALLED
ANCHORS @12" O.C.

PER SCHEDULE
(E)4 1/2" THICK CONC. SLAB (ii)
(f'c = 3000 PSI), TYP.

U.N.O. PER PLAN
STEEL PL (i)
PER SCHED. FOR

SPLICE DETAIL, SEE
7/S-1.0.

EXTEND STEEL

PLATE, AS REQUIRED

PER EXTENTS
SHOWN ON PLAN.

EXTEND STEEL PLATE AND
L6x6, AS REQUIRED PER
EXTENTS SHOWN ON PLAN.
6 S-1.0
ELEVATION VIEW OF TYP.

SPLICE DETAIL
7 S-1.0
OVERHEAD PLAN VIEW OF TYP.

SPLICE DETAIL

HILTI KBTZ ANCHORS
2 1/2"φ x 2" EMBED

RATED STRENGTH (KIP)
1 225
TYPE D

STEEL PLATE
12" WIDE x 3/4"

COLLECTOR STRENGTH SCHEDULE
NOTE:

1. RATED STRENGTH FORCES ARE IN OVERSTRENGTH, OMEGA LEVELS @ FACE OF SHEAR WALL.

2. HILTI "KWIK BOLT TZ" ANCHORS (ICC ESR-1917, LARR #25701) STAINLESS STEEL

HILTI KBTZ ANCHORS
2 1/2"φ x 2" EMBED
1/2"φ x 2" EMBED

RATED STRENGTH (KIP)
1 150
300

TYPE BCSTEEL PLATE
12" WIDE x 1/2"
12" WIDE x 3/4"

COLLECTOR STRENGTH SCHEDULE
NOTE:

1. RATED STRENGTH FORCES ARE IN OVERSTRENGTH, OMEGA LEVELS @ FACE OF SHEAR WALL.

2. HILTI "KWIK BOLT TZ" ANCHORS (ICC ESR-1917, LARR #25701) STAINLESS STEEL

HILTI KBTZ ANCHORS
2 5/8"φ x 4" EMBED
3/4"φ x 4 3/4" EMBED
3/4"φ x 4 3/4" EMBED

RATED STRENGTH (KIP)
1 75
150
300

COMPRESSION STRUT
HSS6x6x5/16
HSS8x6x5/16 (FLAT)
HSS10x6x3/8 (FLAT)

TYPE ABC

STEEL PLATE
8" WIDE x 3/8"
12" WIDE x 1/2"
12" WIDE x 3/4"

COLLECTOR STRENGTH SCHEDULE
NOTE:

1. RATED STRENGTH FORCES ARE IN OVERSTRENGTH, OMEGA LEVELS @ FACE OF SHEAR WALL.

2. HILTI "KWIK BOLT TZ" ANCHORS (ICC ESR-1917, LARR #25701) STAINLESS STEEL N.T.S.

FRP COMPOSITE STRENGTHENING ALTERNATIVE DETAILS
9G
S-1.0
SECTION 9H
S-1.0

SECTION
9I
S-1.0
SECTION 9J
S-1.0

SECTION
FRP

COMPOSITE
BY MFR.

SOFT LEVELING,
TYP. 2'-0"
MAX. WIDTH
(E)CONC. SLAB
PER PLAN (E)18" THICK
CONC. WALL
2 1/2" MIN. RADIUS

W/ EPOXY PASTE
AS REQ'D BY MFR.
2'-0"
MAX. WIDTH
SOFT

LEVELING,
TYP.
(E)CONC. SLAB

PER PLAN
FRP

COMPOSITE
BY MFR.

DRILL THRU (E)WALL.

COMPOSITE
ANCHOR BY MFR.

FRP

COMPOSITE
BY MFR.
(E)18" THICK
CONC. WALL
(E)CONC. SLAB

PER PLAN
(E)CONC. SLAB

PER PLAN
2'-0"
MAX. WIDTH
FRP

COMPOSITE
BY MFR.

SOFT

LEVELING,
TYP.

COMPRESSION
STRUT W/ L6x4
PER

CL OF COMPRESSION

STRUT TO ALIGN

W/ CL OF FRP COMPOSITE

COMPRESSION STRUT

BOTTOM FLANGE
NOTE:

1. BEVEL UNDERSIDE OF PLATE
NOTE:

1. SPLICE SHALL NOT OCCUR AT CONC. WALLS.

2. SPLICE SHALL OCCUR MIN. 4'-0" FROM FACE OF CONC. WALLS.

3. ALTERNATIVELY, NO RESTRICTIONS ON LOCATION OF SPLICE FOR SHOP COMPLETE JOINT PENETRATION SPLICES WITHOUT USE OF "LAP PLATE". 9I
S-1.0
FRP

COMPOSITE

ALTERNATE
9H
S-1.0
FRP

COMPOSITE
ALTERNATE 9G
S-1.0
FRP

COMPOSITE

ALTERNATE
9G
S-1.0
FRP

COMPOSITE
ALTERNATE 9H
S-1.0
FRP

COMPOSITE

ALTERNATE
9G
S-1.0
FRP

COMPOSITE

ALTERNATE
9H
S-1.0
FRP

COMPOSITE

ALTERNATE
9J
S-1.0
FRP

COMPOSITE

ALTERNATE
3-#10 BARS
x 3'-6" LONG
777 CONVENTION WAY
ANAHEIM, CA 92802

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - FOR PRICING PURPOSES ONLY

SECTION AT COMPRESSION STRUT
5 S-1.0

INSTALL DRYPACK GROUT
1/2" THICK MAX.

AS REQ'D
1/2" THICK END PL
W/ (2) 1/2"φ HILTI

KBTZ ANCHORS W/
3 1/4" EMBED
1'-4"

ISOMETRIC VIEW OF FRP BIDIRECTION WALL-SLAB TRANSFER

SECTION FRP BIDIRECTION WALL-SLAB TRANSFER ABOVE
1'-4"

SECTION FRP BIDIRECTION WALL-SLAB TRANSFER BELOW
1'-4" 1'-4" 1'-4" 1'-4"
(N) STEEL PLATE BOLTED TO
(E) CONC. SLAB
5/8" SIMPSON KB-TZ

POST-INSTALLED EXPANSION
ANCHORS, 6" o.c., TYP.

SECTION CONCRETE TOPPING SLAB DIAPHRAGM RETROFIT

SECTION STEEL PLATE DIAPHRAGM STRENGTHENING
(E) CONC. SLAB
(E) CONC. SLAB
HOOKED #4 EPOXY DOWELS, MIN. 12"
EMBEDMENT @ 18" O.C. EA. WAY,
TYP.

ADD 5" THK CONCRETE

CONCRETE TOPPING SLAB,
#4@ 9" O.C. EA WAY
HOOKED #4 EPOXY DOWELS, MIN. 12"
EMBEDMENT @ 18" O.C. EA. WAY,
TYP.
6"
1'-1 1/2"
less than 11 psf without drop
cap
S22-0363
04/17/2023
MO
STRUCTURAL+CIVIL ENGINEERS
700 FLOWER STREET, SUITE 1200
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017
T:(213)596-4500 WWW.BJSCE.COM
JOB#:

SHEET NAME

SHEET NUMBER
DRAWN BY:

JOB NO:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

REVISIONS

REVISIONS
S1.1
P1 LEVEL
Issue Date
Author Checker
No. Revision Date
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
S1.1
PARKING STRUCTURE P1 1

NO WORK REQUIRED
LEVEL P1

MATCHLINE
04/17/2023
STRUCTURAL+CIVIL ENGINEERS
700 FLOWER STREET, SUITE 1200
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017
T:(213)596-4500 WWW.BJSCE.COM
JOB#:

SHEET NAME

SHEET NUMBER
DRAWN BY:

JOB NO:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

REVISIONS

REVISIONS
S1.2
P2-LEVEL
Issue Date
Author Checker
No. Revision Date
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
S1.2
PARKING STRUCTURE - P2 1

MATCHLINE
57'-5"
55'-2"
(N) BIDIRECTION FRP

ABOVE SLAB
(N) BIDIRECTION FRP

ABOVE SLAB, ONE SIDE
83'-4"
47'-6"
(N) BIDIR. FRP ABOVE

SLAB, ONE SIDE
(N) FRP BIDIR. ABOVE SLAB

ONE SIDE
36'-3"
33'-2"
67'-3"
LEGEND
(N) FRP BIDIRECTIONAL FIBER ABOVE SLAB
- EXTEND 2 FT BEYOND WALL/SLAB CORNER
NOTE: FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT EACH STRENGTHENING
MEASURE, REFER TO SHEET S-1.0
04/17/2023
STRUCTURAL+CIVIL ENGINEERS
700 FLOWER STREET, SUITE 1200
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017
T:(213)596-4500 WWW.BJSCE.COM
JOB#:

SHEET NAME

SHEET NUMBER
DRAWN BY:

JOB NO:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

REVISIONS

REVISIONS
S1.3
P3-LEVEL
Issue Date
Author Checker
No. Revision Date
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
S1.3
PARKING STRUCTURE - P3 1
LEGEND
(N) FRP BIDIRECTIONAL FIBER ABOVE SLAB
- EXTEND 2 FT BEYOND WALL/SLAB CORNER
(N) STEEL PLATE COLLECTOR,

POST-INSTALLED ANCHORS

NEW FRP TRANSVERSE DIRECTIONAL FIBER FOR

CONFINEMENT OF THICKNENED SLAB
79'-5"
214'-3"
57'-5"
55'-2"
36'-3"
33'-2"
83'-4"
47'-6"
(N) BIDIR. FRP ABOVE SLAB (N) BIDIR. FRP ABOVE SLAB
(N) BIDIR. FRP ABOVE SLAB
(N) BIDIRECTION FRP

ABOVE SLAB AT WALL
(N) FRP BIDIR. BELOW SLAB

ONE SIDE

MATCHLINE
67'-3"
(N) BIDIRECTION FRP

ABOVE SLAB AT WALL
NOTE: FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT EACH STRENGTHENING
MEASURE, REFER TO SHEET S-1.0
04/17/2023
STRUCTURAL+CIVIL ENGINEERS
700 FLOWER STREET, SUITE 1200
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017
T:(213)596-4500 WWW.BJSCE.COM
JOB#:

SHEET NAME

SHEET NUMBER
DRAWN BY:

JOB NO:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

REVISIONS

REVISIONS
S1.4
P4-LEVEL
Issue Date
Author Checker
No. Revision Date
LEGEND
(N) FRP BIDIRECTIONAL FIBER ABOVE SLAB
- EXTEND 2 FT BEYOND WALL/SLAB CORNER
(N) STEEL PLATE COLLECTOR,

POST-INSTALLED ANCHORS

NEW FRP TRANSVERSE DIRECTIONAL FIBER FOR

CONFINEMENT OF THICKNENED SLAB

NEW BOLTED STEEL ANGLE AT WALL-SLAB INTERFACE
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
S1.4
PARKING STRUCTURE - P4 1 80'-11"
80'-11"
69'-7"
81'-9"
107'-0"
20'-0"
11'-2" 8'-0" 15'-0" 6'-7" 14'-7"
20'-0" 83'-4"
105'-3" 105'-3"
68'-8"
47'-1" 59'-7"
54'-11" 46'-9"
33'-4"
69'-9"
69'-9"
59'-4"

FRP TRANSVERSE ORIENTATION, ANCHORS

AT EDGE OF THICKENED SLAB
47'-6"
57'-1" 58'-7"
58'-4" 58'-7"
13'-3"
19'-4"

FRP TRANSVERSE ORIENTATION, ANCHORS

AT EDGE OF THICKENED SLAB
69'-7"
(N) BIDIR. FRP ABOVE SLAB,

BOTH SIDES
(N) BIDIR. FRP ABV SLAB,

BOTH SIDES
(N) STEEL PLATE COLLECTOR,

POST-INSTALLED ANCHORS AT
RAMP, TYP.
(N) FRP BIDIRECTIONAL

FIBER ABOVE SLAB,

BOTH SIDES
(N) STEEL PLATE COLLECTOR,

POST-INSTALLED ANCHORS AT
RAMP, TYP.
(N) BOLTED STEEL ANGLE

ONE SIDE
(N) BIDIR. FRP ABOVE SLAB
(N) STEEL PLATE COLLECTOR,

POST-INSTALLED ANCHORS
(N) FRP BIDIRECTIONAL

FIBER ABOVE SLAB,

BOTH SIDES
(N) FRP BIDIR. ABOVE SLAB

ONE SIDE
(N) BOLTED STEEL ANGLE

B/T DROP CAPSONLY,

ONE SIDE ONLY
(N) BOLTED STEEL ANGLE

ONE SIDE
(N) BOLTED STEEL ANGLE

ONE SIDE
(N) FRP BIDIRECTIONAL

FIBER BELOW SLAB,

BOTH SIDES
NOTE: FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT EACH STRENGTHENING
MEASURE, REFER TO SHEET S-1.0
04/17/2023
14 L M W
12 13
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
D6 E3 E9 F3 F9 G6 H6 I6 J6 N4 O4 P4 Q4 R4 S4 T4 U4 V4 W6 X5

MATCHLINE
STRUCTURAL+CIVIL ENGINEERS
700 FLOWER STREET, SUITE 1200
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017
T:(213)596-4500 WWW.BJSCE.COM
JOB#:

SHEET NAME

SHEET NUMBER
DRAWN BY:

JOB NO:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

REVISIONS

REVISIONS
S1.5
P5-LEVEL
Issue Date
Author Checker
No. Revision Date
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
PARKING STRUCTURE - P5
LEGEND

NEW FRP BIDIRECTIONAL FIBER ABOVE SLAB
- EXTEND 2 FT BEYOND WALL/SLAB CORNER

NEW STEEL PLATE COLLECTOR,

POST-INSTALLED ANCHORS

NEW FRP TRANSVERSE DIRECTIONAL FIBER

FOR CONFINEMENT OF THICKNENED SLAB
(N) FRP TRANSVERSE ORIENTATION,

ANCHORS AT EDGE OF THICKENED SLAB
(N) FRP TRANSVERSE

ORIENTATION,

ANCHORS AT EDGE

OF THICKENED SLAB

NEW FRP BIDIRECTIONAL FIBER BELOW SLAB
- EXTEND 2 FT BEYOND WALL/SLAB INTERFACE

NEW BOLTED STEEL ANGLE AT WALL-SLAB

INTERFACE
(N)22"x 12" CONC. DRAG BEAM
2,172 sf
1,288 sf
(N) 5" CONC. TOPPING W/#4 8" o.c.,
HKD DOWELS @ 16" o.c.
(N) 7/8" THICK STEEL PLATES,
W/1/2" DIA. ANCHORS @ 6" GRID
SPACING, 2" MIN. EMBED
5,240 sf
(N)42"x 12" CONC. DRAG BEAM
13'-8"
17'-4"
20'-0" 20'-0"

NEW THICKENED SOFFIT W/ HKD EPOXY DWLS
(N)22"x 12" CONC. DRAG BEAM
(N) 7/8" THICK STEEL
PLATES, W/1/2" DIA.

ANCHORS @ 6" GRID
SPACING, 2" MIN. EMBED
69'-2"
69'-2"
55'-3" 58'-7"
70'-3"
49'-8"
11'-2" 8'-0" 15'-0" 6'-7" 14'-7"
80'-11"
80'-11"
11'-3"
81'-9"
55'-3" 58'-7"
105'-3"
83'-4"
11'-10"
(N) 5" CONC. TOPPING W/#4 8" o.c., HKD DOWELS
(N) 7/8" STEEL PLATE, POST-INSTALLED ANCHORS
(N) STEEL PLATE COLLECTOR,

POST-INSTALLED ANCHORS AT
RAMP BELOW, TYP.
(N) FRP BIDIRECTIONAL

FIBER BELOW SLAB,

BOTH SIDES
(N) BOLTED STEEL ANGLE

BOTH SIDES, BELOW
(N) BOLTED STEEL ANGLE

B/T DROP CAPS ONLY
(N) BOLTED STEEL ANGLE

BOTH SIDES, BELOW
62'-10"
(N) BOLTED STEEL ANGLE

BOTH SIDES
(N) STEEL PLATE COLLECTOR,

POST-INSTALLED ANCHORS AT
RAMP BELOW SLAB, TYP.
(N) BIDIR. FRP BELOW SLAB,

BOTH SIDES
(N) FRP BIDIRECTIONAL

FIBER BELOW SLAB,

BOTH SIDES
(N) STEEL PLATE COLLECTOR,

POST-INSTALLED ANCHORS
(N) BIDIR. FRP

BELOW SLAB
159'-7"
(N) FRP BIDIRECTIONAL

FIBER BELOW SLAB,

BOTH SIDES
(N) FRP BIDIR. BELOW SLAB

ONE SIDE
(N) 22"x 12" CONC. DRAG BEAM
10,3044 sf
(N) 42"x 12" CONC.

DRAG BEAM
11'-3" 11'-3"
NOTE: FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT EACH STRENGTHENING
MEASURE, REFER TO SHEET S-1.0
04/17/2023
( N) 18 IN THICK

CONCRETE WALL UP TO
LEVEL 6
Anaheim Parking Garage
Partial Voluntary Seismic Upgrade
Anaheim, CA
for
Brandow & Johnston
© KPJ Consulting
ph 213 800 1568, e [email protected]
July 18, 2023
100% Conceptual Cost Estimate
Anaheim Parking Garage
Anaheim, CA
100% Conceptual Cost Estimate July 18, 2023
Page Number

1. Project Introduction / Qualifications
Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………… 3

2. Cost Summaries
Construction Cost Summary……………………………………………………………… 7

3. Construction Cost Back Up
Parking P1-P4 Level………………………………………………………………………… 9
Parking P5 Level…………………………………………………………………………… 14

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Prepared By KPJ Consulting 2 of 18
Anaheim Parking Garage
Anaheim, CA
100% Conceptual Cost Estimate July 18, 2023
Scope of Cost Plan
Specific Inclusions - PC Allowances, Provisional & other allowances

AT A GLANCE
This Cost Plan Report
This report has been prepared to help establish, review and manage a realistic project scope, budget and cost. This report should be reviewed, revised and updated as the project progresses closer to bidding and construction.

This is a measured approximate-quantities cost plan based on conceptual design package information and some assumptions have been made - it has not been prepared on a simple dollars-per-square-foot basis. The content and purpose of this cost plan should be treated accordingly and reviewed as the documents, program and design progress. Assumptions and recommendations should be carefully checked.

The project scope is based on Brandow & Johnston's conceptual drawings dated April, 2023.

ADA upgrade allowance (code requires 20% of the total project cost). The 15% is assumed to be covered by the interior restoration cost. An additional 5% is covered in ADA upgrade for above and beyond the ADA upgrade to non-structural work such as ADA upgrades that may require modifications to the path of travel such as exterior ramps, enlargement of entrance door widths, compliance of door hardware, restriping handicap parking, and signage.

This report is based on competitive bidding market to three or more general/sub contractors. However, specific responses to documents, designs, and programs will vary, based on each contractor's assessment of the current market, material prices and workload. It is conceivable that local and smaller general contractors may offer more competitive bidding than other general contractors with higher offsite costs and employed supervisors. The goal of this Cost Plan Report is to help you establish a "fair price" price for each project in consideration. Actual bid prices may vary. The basis for this cost analysis is derived from experience, qualifications, and best practice judgements from KPJ Consulting, a professional cost consultant familiar with the construction industry. However, KPJ Consulting cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from this or subsequent cost estimates for these projects. In addition, this cost analysis does not include allowances for potential cost increase and/or decrease techniques of the construction process. Techniques such as the implementation of a negotiated bid contract, construction management contract, design-build, or a non-traditional form of procurement may assist in increasing or reducing project costs, based on accelerating the project schedule or limiting competitive risk for the selected contractor. However, these results are on a case by case basis specific to the general contractor and any County protocol that may exist regarding design and construction on your facility.

Prepared by KPJ Consulting Sheet 3 of 18
Anaheim Parking Garage
Anaheim, CA
100% Conceptual Cost Estimate July 18, 2023

AT A GLANCE
Assumptions made in the Cost Plan
This cost plan was prepared under the following assumptions:
1 3
4 Prevailing wage labor.
5 Trades with be competitive bids to 4 or more sub contractors or vendors. 6 This cost plan is based on a multiple mobilization phase. 7 8
9 Items Affecting the Cost Estimate in relation to “phasing allowance” but not limited to:

Staging limitations for General Contractor and Subcontractors.

GC and Subcontractors remote parking.

There is no allowance for Owner swing space.

Schedule
Exclusions
1 2
3 4
All repair/ replacement is a "guess-timate" at this point, and may change during construction after more of the deterioration is revealed.

Construction temporary equipment erect and remove after substantial completion all construction.

Construction start date and duration different to those established in the preparation of this report.

Suppling and rerouting temporary power and utilities to meet Owner’s operation There is no allowance general maintenance costs during or after construction.

We assumed a construction start date of January 2025 for 12 months.

Costs for the following items are excluded from this report. These items should be considered, checked and confirmed during design, and prior to bidding and construction. Allowances for their costs may need to be added to the project cost. Please refer also to the 'Detailed Trade Costs' section of this Cost Plan report for other specific exclusions.

Work will be done in occupied space.

Work can take place during normal business hours.

Localized repairs and refinishes only.

All furniture will be remove, relocate and store by Owner.

General building fees including plan checks and building permits.

Furnishings, fixtures and equipment (FF&E) / Group II.

Testing and inspection fees.

All Owner soft costs including but not limited to AE design fees, construction management fees, design build fees, etc.

Prepared by KPJ Consulting Sheet 4 of 18
Anaheim Parking Garage
Anaheim, CA
100% Conceptual Cost Estimate July 18, 2023

AT A GLANCE
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 13
14 15
Contingency
Overtime and night-time shift work.

Financing, land and due diligence costs.

Future escalation of 8% p.a to the midpoint of construction is included.

Many projects change & grow - during design and documentation (and, even during construction) - having items and costs added. To help maintain the budget, the 15% design contingency allowances are included in this report for some of these unexpected or undefined costs.

Contractors “are projecting 2023 construction staff wages to increase an average of 4.42% (excludes 0% projections), reported by over 360 companies,” construction compensation consultant PAS reported on Wednesday in its Construction/Construction Management Staff Salary Survey. “2023 staff pay predictions are increasing each month and will exceed 5% by fall. For pay increase comparison - according to WorldatWork, across all industries exempt professionals saw 2022 increases of 4.2% with initial projected 2023 increases of

4.2%.”
Construction employment, not seasonally adjusted, rose from May 2022 in 230 (64%) of the 358 metro areas (including divisions of larger metros) for which BLS posts construction employment data, fell in 79 (22%), and was unchanged in 49, according to an analysis AGC released on Wednesday. (AGC treats as constructiononly the totals for metros in which BLS reports only combined totals for mining, logging, and construction.) “Nationally, construction cost escalation remains problematic, and in the most recent quarter, rose from

1.35% in the January quarter to 1.55% in the [January 1-April 1, 2023] quarter,” Julian Anderson, president, North America, for construction consultancy Rider Levett Bucknall, wrote in RLB’s Quarterly Construction Cost Report. Costs are based on RLB’s calculations for 12 U.S. cities. “However, the year-over-year rate fell from

8.11% to 7.22%, a sign of an overall downward trend….Chicago, Denver, and Las Vegas all experienced increases above the quarterly national average during Q2 2023. Locations below the national average included Boston, Honolulu, Los Angeles, New York, Phoenix, Portland, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C.”
Material & Escalation Index
Owner-furnished items other than noted.

Fireproofing to FRP.

Major utilities relocation and site development.

Hazardous Material environmental testing and removal.

Building signage beyond code-required signage.

Move-in costs or maintenance costs after move-in.

New mechanical units or MEP system.

Tenant improvements.

Prepared by KPJ Consulting Sheet 5 of 18
Anaheim Parking Garage
Anaheim, CA
100% Conceptual Cost Estimate July 18, 2023

AT A GLANCE
We strongly recommend the Client to carry 4% design contingency even at 100% construction documents due to continual rising construction costs 1) compounded by continued labor shortages and growing demand for new development The strong demand for labor has allowed GC and Subs to become selective about which projects they choose and increase their costs. 2) The realization that growth eats cash. As revenues increase, accounts receivables and underbillings increase, which decrease cash balances (quoted from Kevin W. Birch, CNA Surety). Some contractors will use bank borrowings to fund growth as federal funds rate goes up, interest rates on variable-rate loans, business loans included, will go up as well; thereby increasing the cost of business 3) uncertainties in material pricing due to war and COVID-19 production delays 4) potential price increase due on lumber products due to wildfire and hurricane.

Prepared by KPJ Consulting Sheet 6 of 18
Anaheim Parking Garage
Anaheim, CA
100% Conceptual Cost Estimate

CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY
Construction
Element Area SF Cost / SF Total
1 Parking P1-P4 Level 554,784 SF $35.72 $19,814,282
2 Parking P5 Level 191,843 SF $82.71 $15,868,076
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST 746,627 SF $47.79 $35,682,358 Add Alternate
18" thick concrete wall, L5-L6 $439,471
July 18, 2023
Prepared By KPJ Consulting 7 of 18
Anaheim Parking Garage
Partial Voluntary Seismic Upgrade
Anaheim, CA
100% Conceptual Cost Estimate
Schedule of Areas SF SF
Enclosed Areas
P2 179,354
P3 188,220
P4 187,210
P5 191,843
Subtotal, Enclosed Areas 746,627
Covered Areas
Subtotal, Covered Areas
Covered Areas @ 50% 0
Total Gross Floor Area 746,627
Control Quantities Qty
Ratio to Gross
Area
Number of Levels 5 EA 0.007
Gross Area 746,627 GSF 1.000
Retrofit Area 32,000 SF 0.043
Schedule of Areas & Control Quantities
July 18, 2023
Prepared By KPJ Consulting 8 of 18
Anaheim Parking Garage
Anaheim, CA
100% Conceptual Cost Estimate
CSI MasterFormat™ Subtotal Total Cost / SF % ECC
Division 01 - General Requirements $450,000 $0.81 4%
Division 02 - Existing Conditions $151,460 $0.27 1%
Division 03 - Concrete $358,188 $0.65 3%
Division 04 - Masonry $0 $0.00 0%
Division 05 - Metals $2,392,485 $4.31 19%
Division 06 - Wood, Plastics, and Composites $3,184 $0.01 0% Division 07 - Thermal and Moisture Protection $6,368 $0.01 0% Division 08 - Openings $0 $0.00 0%
Division 09 - Finishes $300,000 $0.54 2%
Division 10 - Specialties $573,684 $1.03 5%
Division 11 - Equipment $0 $0.00 0%
Division 12 - Furnishings $0 $0.00 0%
Division 13 - Special Construction $0 $0.00 0%
Division 14 - Conveying Equipment $0 $0.00 0%
Division 21 - Fire Suppression $180,000 $0.32 1%
Division 22 - Plumbing $600,000 $1.08 5%
Division 23 - Heating, Ventilating, & Air Conditioning $3,971,000 $7.16 32% Division 25 - Integrated Automation $0 $0.00 0%
Division 26 - Electrical $3,151,000 $5.68 25%
Division 27 - Communications $180,000 $0.32 1%
Division 28 - Electronic Safety and Security $180,000 $0.32 1% Division 31 - Earthwork $0 $0.00 0%
Division 32 - Exterior Improvements $0 $0.00 0%
Division 33 - Utilities $0 $0.00 0%
Subtotal $12,497,369 $22.53
General Contractor's General Conditions 6.00% $722,842 $1.30 Subtotal $13,220,211 $23.83
Bonds 2.00% $240,947 $0.43
Subtotal $13,461,158 $24.26
Liability Insurance 2.00% $240,947 $0.43
Subtotal $13,702,105 $24.70
General Contractor's Overhead/Profit 8.00% $1,096,168 $1.98 Subtotal $14,798,274 $26.67
Design Contingency 15.00% $2,219,741 $4.00
Subtotal $17,018,015 $30.68
Escalation to midpoint of construction, 6/26 16.43% $2,796,267 $5.04 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $19,814,282 $35.72
Total Area: 554,784 SF
July 18, 2023
Parking P1-P4 Level Construction Cost Summary
Prepared by KPJ Consulting Sheet 9 of 18
Anaheim Parking Garage
Anaheim, CA
100% Conceptual Cost Estimate
CSI MasterFormat™ Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total
Division 01 - General Requirements
9 MTH $30,000.00 $270,000
9 MTH $20,000.00 $180,000
Total Division 01 - General Requirements $450,000
Division 02 - Existing Conditions
Demo slab on grade to expose are of new footing
Sawcut of SOG 5,000 LF $6.00 $30,000
Breakout slab on grade and load debris on carts 15,919 SF $4.00 $63,678 Move carts to loading area and load on trucks 15,919 SF $2.00 $31,839 Haul away concrete debris to dump site 1,179 CY $22.00 $25,943 Total Division 02 - Existing Conditions $151,460
Division 03 - Concrete
15,919 SF $18.00 $286,550
15,919 SF $4.50 $71,638
Total Division 03 - Concrete $358,188
Division 05 - Metals
FRP
FRP bidirectional fiber above slab, 2 layers 14,663 SF $104.50 $1,532,332 12" x 24" transverse directional fiber for confinement of thickened slab, 2 layers 312 SF $135.85 $42,385
Steel plate strengthening
New bolted steel angle at one sided, post installed expansion anchors, 6" o.c. 987 EA $575.00 $567,525
New steel plate collector. 8" wide 3 T $55,000.00 $152,566 July 18, 2023
Parking P1-P4 Level Construction CSI MasterFormat Detail Allowance for logistics, hoisting and material handling Roughen and apply bonding agent
Allowance for daily setup, cleaning and protection
Chip concrete slab & cols surface and clean surface
Prepared by KPJ Consulting Sheet 10 of 18
Anaheim Parking Garage
Anaheim, CA
100% Conceptual Cost Estimate
CSI MasterFormat™ Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total
July 18, 2023
Parking P1-P4 Level Construction CSI MasterFormat Detail Misc.

Remove and reconnect cable bracing 400 HR $85.00 $34,000 Coring, seal and firestopping 31,839 SF $1.00 $31,839
Misc. metals and welding 31,839 SF $1.00 $31,839
Total Division 05 - Metals $2,392,485
Division 06 - Wood, Plastics, and Composites
Misc. rough carpentry 31,839 SF $0.10 $3,184
Total Division 06 - Wood, Plastics, and Composites $3,184 Division 07 - Thermal and Moisture Protection
Caulking and sealants 31,839 SF $0.20 $6,368
Total Division 07 - Thermal and Moisture Protection $6,368 Division 09 - Finishes
60,000 SF $5.00 $300,000
Total Division 09 - Finishes $300,000
Division 10 - Specialties
ADA upgrade allowance (code requires 20% of the total
project cost). 15% is assumed to be covered by the
restoration cost and remaining 5% is covered in ADA upgrade as follows:
5% of the total project cost 5.00% $11,473,684 $573,684 Total Division 10 - Specialties $573,684
ADA upgrades
Patch and repair affected hairline cracks only affected due to demolition. Existing architectural exterior and interior finishes patch, repair and refinishes to match existing at affected area only
Prepared by KPJ Consulting Sheet 11 of 18
Anaheim Parking Garage
Anaheim, CA
100% Conceptual Cost Estimate
CSI MasterFormat™ Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total
July 18, 2023
Parking P1-P4 Level Construction CSI MasterFormat Detail Division 21 - Fire Suppression
Wet sprinklers system
Sprinkler heads modification and relocation 60,000 SF $3.00 $180,000 Total Division 21 - Fire Suppression $180,000
Division 22 - Plumbing
General plumbing equipment
Non ADA plumbing/drainage modification and relocation 60,000 SF $10.00 $600,000 Total Division 22 - Plumbing $600,000
Division 23 - Heating, Ventilating, & Air Conditioning
General HVAC equipment
Affected HVAC modification and relocation HVAC units,
exhaust fan, ductwork, controls and accessories 60,000 SF $65.00 $3,900,000 Miscellaneous
Test / balancing 400 HR $115.00 $46,000
Seismic supports 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000
Core drill and seal penetrations 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000 Total Division 23 - Heating, Ventilating, & Air Conditioning $3,971,000 Division 26 - Electrical
Service and distribution
Trace and tag out distribution 800 HR $145.00 $116,000
Arc flash requirements 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000
HVAC and equipment connections
Affected electrical replacement and/or reattachment of
support for the electrical connections to various devices, fixtures and coverplates etc. 60,000 SF $50.00 $3,000,000 Miscellaneous
Seismic supports 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000
Core drill and fire seal penetrations 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000 Total Division 26 - Electrical $3,151,000
Prepared by KPJ Consulting Sheet 12 of 18
Anaheim Parking Garage
Anaheim, CA
100% Conceptual Cost Estimate
CSI MasterFormat™ Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total
July 18, 2023
Parking P1-P4 Level Construction CSI MasterFormat Detail Division 27 - Communications
Affected fire alarm modification and relocation 60,000 SF $3.00 $180,000 Total Division 27 - Communications $180,000
Division 28 - Electronic Safety and Security
Affected AV/security modification and relocation 60,000 SF $3.00 $180,000 Total Division 28 - Electronic Safety and Security $180,000 Prepared by KPJ Consulting Sheet 13 of 18
Anaheim Parking Garage
Anaheim, CA
100% Conceptual Cost Estimate
CSI MasterFormat™ Subtotal Total Cost / SF % ECC
Division 01 - General Requirements $150,000 $0.78 2%
Division 02 - Existing Conditions $177,397 $0.92 2%
Division 03 - Concrete $847,520 $4.42 8%
Division 04 - Masonry $0 $0.00 0%
Division 05 - Metals $2,610,227 $13.61 26%
Division 06 - Wood, Plastics, and Composites $3,864 $0.02 0% Division 07 - Thermal and Moisture Protection $7,728 $0.04 0% Division 08 - Openings $0 $0.00 0%
Division 09 - Finishes $200,000 $1.04 2%
Division 10 - Specialties $468,537 $2.44 5%
Division 11 - Equipment $0 $0.00 0%
Division 12 - Furnishings $0 $0.00 0%
Division 13 - Special Construction $0 $0.00 0%
Division 14 - Conveying Equipment $0 $0.00 0%
Division 21 - Fire Suppression $120,000 $0.63 1%
Division 22 - Plumbing $400,000 $2.09 4%
Division 23 - Heating, Ventilating, & Air Conditioning $2,671,000 $13.92 27% Division 25 - Integrated Automation $0 $0.00 0%
Division 26 - Electrical $2,093,000 $10.91 21%
Division 27 - Communications $120,000 $0.63 1%
Division 28 - Electronic Safety and Security $120,000 $0.63 1% Division 31 - Earthwork $0 $0.00 0%
Division 32 - Exterior Improvements $0 $0.00 0%
Division 33 - Utilities $0 $0.00 0%
Subtotal $9,989,271 $52.07
General Contractor's General Conditions 6.00% $590,356 $3.08 Subtotal $10,579,627 $55.15
Bonds 2.00% $196,785 $1.03
Subtotal $10,776,413 $56.17
Liability Insurance 2.00% $196,785 $1.03
Subtotal $10,973,198 $57.20
General Contractor's Overhead/Profit 8.00% $877,856 $4.58 Subtotal $11,851,054 $61.77
Design Contingency 15.00% $1,777,658 $9.27
Subtotal $13,628,712 $71.04
Escalation to midpoint of construction, 6/26 16.43% $2,239,364 $11.67 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $15,868,076 $82.71
Total Area: 191,843 SF
July 18, 2023
Parking P5 Level Construction Cost Summary
Prepared by KPJ Consulting Sheet 14 of 18
Anaheim Parking Garage
Anaheim, CA
100% Conceptual Cost Estimate
CSI MasterFormat™ Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total
Division 01 - General Requirements
3 MTH $30,000.00 $90,000
3 MTH $20,000.00 $60,000
Total Division 01 - General Requirements $150,000
Division 02 - Existing Conditions
Demo slab on grade to expose are of new footing
Sawcut of SOG 5,000 LF $6.00 $30,000
Breakout slab on grade and load debris on carts 19,319 SF $4.00 $77,276 Move carts to loading area and load on trucks 19,319 SF $2.00 $38,638 Haul away concrete debris to dump site 1,431 CY $22.00 $31,483 Total Division 02 - Existing Conditions $177,397
Division 03 - Concrete
($3,724 / CY)
Concrete wall, 5000 PSI 40 CY $495.00 $19,837
Formwork, sides 2,164 SF $18.00 $38,952
Formwork, soffits 541 SF $25.00 $13,525
Reinforcement (200 LB/CY) 8,015 LB $3.35 $26,850
Finish to concrete 2,705 SF $3.50 $9,468
Dowels 232 EA $175.00 $40,600
19,319 SF $18.00 $347,742
19,319 SF $4.50 $86,936
5" thick concrete toping slab, #4 @ 9" o.c. ea way 7,412 SF $28.00 $207,536 Hooked #4 epoxy dowels min 12" o.c embedment @ 18" o.c
ea way 971 EA $57.77 $56,075
18" thick concrete wall, L5-L6
Shear wall 18" thick, 5,000 PSI ($86 / SF)
Concrete wall, 5000 PSI 178 CY add alt
Formwork 6,400 SF add alt
Reinforcement (200 LB/CY) 35,556 LB add alt
Finish to concrete 6,400 SF add alt
July 18, 2023
Parking P5 Level Construction CSI MasterFormat Detail
Allowance for logistics, hoisting and material handling Allowance for daily setup, cleaning and protection
Chip concrete slab & cols surface and clean surface
Roughen and apply bonding agent
Concrete topping
Concrete drag beam, 12" x 24"
Prepared by KPJ Consulting Sheet 15 of 18
Anaheim Parking Garage
Anaheim, CA
100% Conceptual Cost Estimate
CSI MasterFormat™ Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total
July 18, 2023
Parking P5 Level Construction CSI MasterFormat Detail
Dowels 60 EA add alt
Total Division 03 - Concrete $847,520
Division 05 - Metals
FRP
FRP bidirectional fiber above slab, 2 layers 8,472 SF $104.50 $885,324 12" x 24" transverse directional fiber for confinement of thickened slab, 2 layers 318 SF $135.85 $43,200
Steel plate strengthening
New bolted steel angle at both sided, post installed
expansion anchors, 6" o.c. 1,771 EA $575.00 $1,018,325
New steel plate collector. 8" wide 3 T $55,000.00 $146,477 Steel plate
New 7/8" steel plate bolted to existing concrete slab 1,288 SF $80.73 $103,980 5/8" simpson post installed expansion anchors, 6" o.c. 5,936 EA $53.68 $318,644 Misc.

Remove and reconnect cable bracing 200 HR $85.00 $17,000 Coring, seal and firestopping 38,638 SF $1.00 $38,638
Misc. metals and welding 38,638 SF $1.00 $38,638
Total Division 05 - Metals $2,610,227
Division 06 - Wood, Plastics, and Composites
Misc. rough carpentry 38,638 SF $0.10 $3,864
Total Division 06 - Wood, Plastics, and Composites $3,864 Division 07 - Thermal and Moisture Protection
Caulking and sealants 38,638 SF $0.20 $7,728
Total Division 07 - Thermal and Moisture Protection $7,728 Prepared by KPJ Consulting Sheet 16 of 18
Anaheim Parking Garage
Anaheim, CA
100% Conceptual Cost Estimate
CSI MasterFormat™ Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total
July 18, 2023
Parking P5 Level Construction CSI MasterFormat Detail
Division 09 - Finishes
40,000 SF $5.00 $200,000
Total Division 09 - Finishes $200,000
Division 10 - Specialties
ADA upgrade allowance (code requires 20% of the total
project cost). 15% is assumed to be covered by the
restoration cost and remaining 5% is covered in ADA upgrade as follows:
5% of the total project cost 5.00% $9,370,734 $468,537
Total Division 10 - Specialties $468,537
Division 21 - Fire Suppression
Wet sprinklers system
Sprinkler heads modification and relocation 40,000 SF $3.00 $120,000 Total Division 21 - Fire Suppression $120,000
Division 22 - Plumbing
General plumbing equipment
Non ADA plumbing/drainage modification and relocation 40,000 SF $10.00 $400,000 Total Division 22 - Plumbing $400,000
Division 23 - Heating, Ventilating, & Air Conditioning
General HVAC equipment
Affected HVAC modification and relocation HVAC units,
exhaust fan, ductwork, controls and accessories 40,000 SF $65.00 $2,600,000 Patch and repair affected hairline cracks only affected due to demolition. Existing architectural exterior and interior finishes patch, repair and refinishes to match existing at affected area only
ADA upgrades
Prepared by KPJ Consulting Sheet 17 of 18
Anaheim Parking Garage
Anaheim, CA
100% Conceptual Cost Estimate
CSI MasterFormat™ Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total
July 18, 2023
Parking P5 Level Construction CSI MasterFormat Detail
Miscellaneous
Test / balancing 400 HR $115.00 $46,000
Seismic supports 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000
Core drill and seal penetrations 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000 Total Division 23 - Heating, Ventilating, & Air Conditioning $2,671,000 Division 25 - Integrated Automation
Total Division 25 - Integrated Automation
Division 26 - Electrical
Service and distribution
Trace and tag out distribution 400 HR $145.00 $58,000
Arc flash requirements 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000
HVAC and equipment connections
Affected electrical replacement and/or reattachment of
support for the electrical connections to various devices, fixtures and coverplates etc. 40,000 SF $50.00 $2,000,000 Miscellaneous
Seismic supports 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000
Core drill and fire seal penetrations 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000 Total Division 26 - Electrical $2,093,000
Division 27 - Communications
Affected fire alarm modification and relocation 40,000 SF $3.00 $120,000 Total Division 27 - Communications $120,000
Division 28 - Electronic Safety and Security
Affected AV/security modification and relocation 40,000 SF $3.00 $120,000 Total Division 28 - Electronic Safety and Security $120,000 Prepared by KPJ Consulting Sheet 18 of 18

Anaheim City CouncilJune 11, 2024

Anaheim City Council
June 11, 2024