Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout13-ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 N m d w N Q M o Z U v o Zv) O � � N Q Q LU > 0 Z LU � U V) 0 N L� Z r Q Z a W V) W V) o Z PLM 4 > O U r1 O L O V ° U C QJ�; - ^ul D Zo 0 N 0Pw Z V) � � � m = LU w J Z V) Or zw Z w ~ `l w V) 0 Z Q Z LU 37 V) V) LU V) V) Q V) Z O 0 Z O V Y C m T C O C N C N a L e < V) - Q \ z eLu § 2 < \ / - w - § 2 & p 2 LU § < 0 0 \ ° ) L © q : \ : * : j : : / : LU 0 : LU LU . . . . . \ o � g : : 6 : ƒ ( : \ z : u z i ) } & 2 / LU } : \ : § S z o / $ / z j L : k : § § L LU § Lu\ S \ § � LU L , : @ LU LU 0 k \ \ \ / \ � LU k § CL z o w \ K o ) % 2 § ° / § o / Q § \ LU � § § k o \ Z o e / b e z < g z g G 2 e a \ z X ( o j E § � J § \ § § ) § § [ $ § } k § C \ � u u < & } - E I o I u I I ) ) ■ ¢ ± K % \ ( J / \ ( \ � z }\ LU y \ z C) z r 0 � o � N U LU w U) m D 73; LU w ry ~ a LU z z cn Q I-- � w O 73; a U) w U W J (n Q (n z Q LL U) z O n z O O Y C m T C O C C N a L M 1� h O Q FW Z r ti 0 Q Q = U W Z Z H H U) U) ^d H H � N Q a ry O Z 1 Q0 1MMr Q Z () W S Z > U) N W vh 0 W z O 06 W O C > 0 — � N � D N O U O U. U) 0 a) E Qp N f/1 U '5 O Z > W W W M- n Q E 0 0 0 0 E Z_ C) U) o LU o Q Q o m rn w ~ a rn (� E I o EI: W > O a m Z L O Q cC �_ '� C Q N O C a) O` w U Lo a) 0 O_ o O r H a) o O N 0 m � O > Q � � m a) o O C Ln a� Ln iq a) n5 co o E .� v D E m N u, E ami o L d(� W (7 ri a) ° QQdQ m r N �° O Q J (D W N .� o W In X � (D p > F w (7 a M Q m LU MOU In (D a (No .� Q m 2 O v z rn U) in d LU LU Z (D Z LU (D Z_ [O c a CU — J a _ -O W O O a U W U J U O _ � N a O a) U U U U a) O O to U a) U (� C�o C O O O m d E L C O U C C U N 00 W W In a) O) a) f/) Z W a) W C m co o >' W Q '� O O O O d u, Z 0 O o �' a� Y O o a) co 'c E Lu 0 U O `m > oU a w Qo EQ dv NL M _I0n aa) LL La) vV (C6 O 0 QE Oo CO o = ad Q 0) w O W o > OYF. p O ULn C O) ) O) QQ W o) n 0) 0 `m L r v C_ 75 o � C W a LU a` a) � a U 0 d 0 C a a` Q LQL a � a a 0:! — m LU m LU Q M Q N 75 0 oDp W E u E Z O U O Ew U O U) O W U Q U U U) 0U J _ C 9 C 9 d LU = C (n O Q O Q 9 Z a) > O .� dLU Y W Y Y (n U U = rn Q E Q E W a ° N w o o D o N Q _ y -i Q (n D) U) H Q 9 (q 16 o o �' o ¢ w (j 1 v o O� a a p O a a o ( a o O O U_ _ N o N o N 9 L °� a o o0 °� a O m � oo ° j oo w �_ U S °� (7 (`�Q�� U 10 a� o (o a� (o a_�i m a W 0 (n Q N y N s N (n Q m LO Q m E LO 0 m CO O CO J z O Ln O r Ul M L M a M O O t/1 LO C M t/1 9 co C (- 9 O) w O) z O d a) o o �' o H o o o N a) o a) o E O d I d V J N N N Q om N N M J N U) N J � E N (� E (D d Q (p LL r Q o � N H LU LU LU m D 73; LU ry a_ Q w z cn Q I-- � w O 73; a U) w U W J (n Q (n z Q LL U) z O n z O C) U O � C � T C N O � O (p N L J N N Q OQ O 0_ O U w (n E E N O 0 Q Y O OU OU J Ll O LL U 0 to W' m O Y UO Q (� Y Y N d) O O U .� O (6 0 ' z_ N N � Q � � � > � ILLL O U � (� 0 O�j 0 LL LL Q U 'Z wcje 'Z Q m y0 J t- t- 0 N V NN Lu a C a C C O C N E Q C 0 E > Ml 0 Q , C O N N Q O Q O Pa C O O N C O O > Y O z Oz Z T o f v � Q ° E o o �• U � O U CC U E T Q 0 _ co .o O U E in U .� E U . m U I- C C aD z Q S C 0) N N d N f/1 O C O Qj N C E +O-' M Y O O C O S U LL Y Q M N (06 OM f/1 (06 .O. M U W M m (� M d M rW� (n (n 0 c U m `n `o �_ f/1 O m H H U H o H w U d U o D m W W Y Y Q N Q a Z 0 Ng8, e s < O v e a Q LL Q E z v Q z = z o E fl � o U) CO rn n o dm 0o 0 rWr�fi N.o o N Y V 0 m 0O E m Q y o46 o O O O L O Os m C m n a E w m o Q L o m O n a�o O m n N � O y O m N L N Z Q y N I 0 O L r CV M N � 0I � i A j 6 j 5 y j NA �- 0 EF L LL 10 LL LL Q 0 N 46 T a a �n C a) a a) o E.o > °; o f T a) o.� o o -°p y o y m > a) m Q L C Ul C a) U tin a m O O a) Q — >i m 0- '� m a) O C m m to C O E a Y t/j O C m E a N U U : a) Q a)�, a) C C a) O C N w ai E a.0 O O aO N >L 0 aOO N oOO OC Q a) a) U aO a p O OmECO CU CO OU > a)> O 6 U E ) 9 0 O a C to .UO ° m ° 0O 0Ca)Y a) U - C w n pfn ) mamC aO L 9 p ° a a) iC Lp > U y O ` 0U O ° Co ~ L Y Y 9 TC E O m E o a C m m O (6 Y ?� m't a).L-..O Y ° N p C a a) Q a a 9 C fn.� T N.Q a p E m fn O L.0 a a)._ C a._o `9 Ul m a) a) °U m —.0 L 9 U m Q o L C Q?� Ul m a C >i Q._ m >i Q U N E 0 m L T oma°a a).-. L E o m a-° ° o u, °L E m p >`o E m ° m U L a m O O > — a) U a a).� a)a C C m C >`C L a) a) a) O a) O C m m O a L L U i-. C O Q C m C C L C C m _ m a)9 a) -y U o a m C E o W o h m L L ° m ° C o o u, m.� a E E�.° E E p)o ° y ° �LmELu, o� Y ° Q a)LoQ.� E.OLmu,aa ° 0 0) DOC Om ou, a ? 0a a) mm T p)oC 'm. o E o E mE `mL � o °m oymo > �� � � ° `2o mo- EOo �ma � E O'-' C C O fn a O fn C U E O C a)a in y .0 0 a) N U C a)9 a) O-N in O C a) C a) m M O C a)C O.0'Q Q U f/) Q�+-. C 9 9 a) C'� C W O E Q U m to O a) T m m O a) C m Q Ul O O` Ul 9 m a) m N T O 9 Ul Q E (� � o °y 0 9%E o ° E a ° `o ° `m m c o °� y_ s.o a Ta �.o c a)y Op)mU � QaY ° ° Ca ma)> 0 °Y' m _ Ca� a� oa.-. a) C q�u, L C _T C C 9 a N O Q m O C 9 C a O a) C C °a °L N a 6)a)+L- E t a C �i Tm a) 0 0.Q a).>. C a) _ m O Ul °a C a) - C C a m O C p `.>'m p -to C m L >i Ul a) a) O 0 a) U 9 m Y a) p Q= o m 2 o L Q.�C E >m a C w a m ° U ° E c a ° 2 E L 0 �a T.y m aEa a) a) C coo a).° o00 ° oLa) EYwomm mm o ° a) �°_ C °L LQo .mCD o a L U m_a m o Y .� o a U T° o Q .y �.� m ° m '� o O-O N a).0 a) -O T a) Y ° L N E a) w E-O m 0 ~.O d) C m a) O a a) C.� T L L U 0 m a) O-p d' to Cd m y� o °'� `O E a) to O Y -O -0 Y Ul Ul N C to 0-y-• u O a a) > ° a) E-O a s O O a) 3 m a) N L o 9 U a) O O U a)a E m a) Q XO m O C U > C O m fn C O'm 0 C p T._ O T O L E a C C C O O L LL Yo .gym .°� c Qa)o - mSm--�' td m ) CLu.m°Yo w om 2 Ems- L3 W ° 0 0 N O y a N N m m C N a L N N N w m o L O O` N L-0 m >9 O O C-0 O-0 O U N.X L a)o Y � UUCU(� m > in QL._ m..� 2 QEU.. 3a)�.>.. m- ou, U C7._ °._ Um Cmoao HAW m w a m o__ m u, V1 -O � Ul C O fn O a) 0 a) p 0 ZW ra�9~ayEQo�wSmLmmaCo)mH0 3:moC mmCmC) �C YCfoQpCC 9oT yaafUC/l) O _ E6 a) aUa ° O Q o I O a) 0- af0mUU�/1 Caaati°�NQ>n)EaO' 0 a) O CC ° _O 0 m aa -T mO C oC y / (wD N Q m a) N N 0 a) m O � ` U m O O° � o °oo O0 pw ° o 0 E a) 2oQ CU 0 E Om CNTU 9 °0-- oU) o ° ' � o ) m 0 Y ySCrnn D m omE o mo° w � m> 15 m Eo o 9E °W Us a6O � O L C C 0 0L.s° m a o T a)L a m m 0- a) CD _nZ m' 2 >L 9O E E >L'T0o6OO E U) mN O w uo) ° m0 N o ° °DW mE ao a) p O� L ai O o O QH CO O CO O m OO — 0 ) ) oQ E r a.� o a L o N o C a o ° �m >a o > O m w y Q E -y � E a o) ° ° �_C L m a m o o U m p)a'm o C m m . E m .E ° - o W LU cQc ago in.oX °O � > E a)a � m Y o a)Ly ( ° o.Ymoa, L°�-�°o � L Y.w C o-E o 0 a)9 a) a a) a) O ) o C 0 O m a (D�O C m �E_0=t2 T.�'C `� m C `m m W 0-F N C m O 0 E a C a o a) 9 °a L a) N a) 75 LU a) ° a Ul 0 a) N 9 a) O C T O Q Ul ° O a N in Z U) (/) m m m.Q o o C p)m m a'-' C Q a) o Q p w a) '� E C o m a)O p)m w m m m m Q W E m Q m m �.�-o a �'a)W m -o ` `o o m Y E E c o E ' U m o ELN o a ° ° - U) � Cw,w EE 9 o �6m � � � � mm ° ° ��_ u, o � �a E° ami '' N .mo � CT � O O -L-.0 0 a m m U L o 0 0 ° ° U ? - ° ° o m Q T O m m a o o u o ° m a Z ° ° 0 9 d o a d 0 E T E 1 v U u, am u,.. a C7 X> ° E a L �� m Z E m.� a)+L- m m 2 0 ma c) � U u, m Q o m m m 0 a E ° o a) Q o.m C S L m a) J W �mE9 � �'� >o Z U.. o 0 0 0 � a>) O E � oa � a)mm2a)aEo °0 Q O x 0 0� Lin infn � fnaQC o 0 O W H.0y-Op m.L � rn Q0 m m m�6Y 0- � °� E o N �NLL Y C.0 CO 0 O °N �, C n a) a) O (D M O C C fl U) a) MI ID LOM O O t/1 W O L 3 E a C Z S 0 7 C O=+L-• � M - W LU O U m O O a) a) O— Efl a O.O ° E 9 a O �p - 07 W a 0 0 C N 0 N N �' E a M •�y m -O LU W > L_ �a0 0 `o my 0-aai a°i o oin Z. �' °_ 0 a o LL U C a a) O-U Q._ a) C a) 3 — y W z m(> Q Y a) a) a) 0 o O O-N d' t/`) mw a s E N - U) Q (Lj T a f/)O U 0 a) a) N 9 m r �p p a)9 a) C Q -E N a)y0 L'_ 3— U U N W p_09 a M O OL LY N N a Ha O (6L N.0 �^_ 0 cC M— fM/) M'C C 3 a) C U~9 f°/) .M y - d U) MS MPLa 0.>_ p-o0 U 0 M W U) `n CO a) 0)o Qy M aa) 0 v .� m o a a0 O m Q 0 a M N _ a 0 0 ° O. O M C E J In m aa0 0 E `� � 0)y � U O m - Q (n Z _ 0 `o E 0 o p o C - E U n o Z (n Z �y900 ` C.0 OTy LUM a) p �OyL � Z� W Z W O L 0 a Q E wO 0—a N Z `U w.0 M O U 0-p p 0 0 0 0 m 0 E m p a.E 0 M ° _y L p Lu 0 w 0 Y C 0)C `m E 0 x E a 0)0-E p)3 C� Z S' a) C U O M D w a H O M p C m a) W m a j y m 00 d M Qam (D D 0 M W.0 °L ° a.� �.E.�.u, M -.A roma - lo �5U a)a Ul a) y W .Q Q p p)-p a O T O C C`".0 w= O m (6 9 O L E b '�-' 0" c O OapLoOma °ao UM 5 (W,) 5Tpo y _ 00 CL 0 M Y 0 �. p p L E o 0 0 ° E 3 m a m o y 0' 0 0 m a a D E p o 0 c m m o v CLOii u M o)`m m els` 0 ' 10 Q O 9 C-O p-C M Z - m 0 O O 0 C N C'C U' OU t`1 _ 0� E.-Ti-p W u m a) m w p 9 Ul._ a N Y O O Y a)a m O z a a) M D a) f/) �M N M M M C C W v y Y 0 p E 0 .E.0.o 0.0 Q �a� .E Ln IICLi > O Y L f/)-- N a) p- C O M jn 0 I aI N ,L.. U W F u,d W E E �' O w O.E 3 E W O O T Y O T a) O O C O w (O - a a a m O O Q EO M M= (6 a) 0 °'m a O o 3 Q 00�0 _T u, 0 m E�a Y a E.w U.p o - 3 `m ° °) g �6 L 0 j.0 M M o w m o O N c o G 0 0 0 u m a a o m M p 0)0 E= E p 0= 3 E m N L a C C a) E.�w'--p 9 M w I� M N M L N m o E'w a) w p m M m a) E o f y M T C E O Q E M '_' M C L C= E � O o0E ° U / E `o m Z a s M C m O a L a O M 3 a 0 a O O w a 0 O ^m Ot/)a.0 Q a)a 0- a)Ha a)w..a 2 0 U m U.O M O) , M Q L_ U C B O O H o � 3oFzEa) � a)Ev ENa.EO � mL oa O� N 0 ° t/1,.C—m a C N y6 M O 0 9 N 3'N 0�-o a) p 0) .o rn a N M" 3 0 ,n Y o f WY C C a) M (6 N'-'m pC a F- .-• C D y p_ 00 Y 2 -O L.0 O N EO Co Y `p C p.O U M a L O f/) E O 0"�O 00 M C . 0 a) (6 a) 0.0 W v 0 00 W 00 O 3a0�yMa MYy > 0E (wl) 0 ° Mao-o - w U m w w m' o m o w E E�.�o a)o X � (0,) W � m o0 LU .LO..� c a o .o.� 9° 'Q L m ° fl-. W o w -o U E a)y Q C O C 3 a C 0 a) a)Y L(j a) C C 0I Z E w ML U O 0 as M C NLy.0 0 y U O U-O O L C C 1 (6 w C p 0 0 O O H M a) oo E Z U. 3 0 U C U.. - Ow -� U U 00 Mas LLQ C M C U a) ° ° M C.�a) C M O .. m C a)L a)-p a) 0 LL� m N Z L C 0 �9 Y U C O'y U a)L L 9 C E L o O Q .. t/) C E a O O '� Q O C t/)_F.• t/) a) p'� '- 3 M-_ U O aI N m C E L °U C m O M Q°U 0 0 2 W O Q E w O M E °) E LL a a O M T E Y C a 0 Qa C Y (>6 O -O O 0 a m 3 a W m E L Z o 0 o m c0i a 2m: m p ( C W M C Ul C U O U Y > w U Y C o m E m.O M 0 _O L O T-°a-O O C H a) N m a) a) M L C C w 3 M >Q m m 0 ._ Z (6 E L 0.0 a m 8 0 a) O a)a M M t/`)a O N .: Q 0 T-p C C= y N Z a) E� 0)0)0)E m Om.�y ULE 0U) Qm To.> o C _ a) M 0 , a) a) C C U f/) O Q E.y M E C M M O a Y 0 W 7 W t/).o U L (n CO o U L U.�N a U M .�y y a)m D m C -L ° O °N (p Y m)N .Q in o N 0 C-O a N O O � a) N w Y 0 = M C 3 a) m M N °)inm-omC a° 3 a0.` 3 E > a) M- C n . t/) Q M N a 0 ° M ° m o_0 S m Z N'w � N OME'm O- oom3 00. a)90y' 03oL�- sz O a M o `m Q ° y ° 0 E a0) �00 9mwm 6)00`o Ca.� Sa) 0 .. a T T C a) 0 M C S a) 0 C a)O'�S L E M C °a O w y W- a)C) d' u, M p�m0 oa 0 0 '`o yy �mm �a m E0 m � a) mmZQo � Mm � � tea) F a Q M C E(�2- 15 )L C L-. C 0 a) p a -a Z O s y E m o a)m c°i t/) M 0 m'�~ o O— O E a) O O N M O O N _ 0 Y w 2 O a O N U N M C'C Nam Y O M a) ° w Q _ �`� � °) 0)� OLZEp).0Z3 OL W. o N O C Q.�Y Q— O a)a a) p) Y fM/1 U TQ 0 Ul C a) C O.0 N V O Q 0mu,.�w0m 0 0 0 2 m o .0Mp] m`0�' °) 0 Ym0oOC o o W Z E �63axi °) a) aL) CO0)QL aml- �E=a���-, `0E� - tea 0- a) )- Q O �� w y M�� o �a �y in a a) �0 p - C o o 0 5 `m om U 0 0 (7 J Q a) Q 0 m a w - Y M w u, U co M 0 a o)C Q Q Ema°)ir_ ° ° �' o09 wa) °0 °0=9 �Cm ° c '0 0 m c' m o U O O >,Ul 9 O a O�p N CD L a) d p).-• -C) .Y a) M O C W C m t/)W O a Z U W O Q O U O a) t/) M a) m 0 C— O C o M rVh .5 w U a E a O U _ N O L - M a) H O C M a) C a) M� m a 3 y S S W m L M f/) N a)co >Y L:_ N a O M C > L N.�a C N 0 C S 3 s M S H s M 3 0 0 of g Q Q O W,z/ S Z e a F€ 4 H U) Pg Is, - -- U) F2 •C to oQ lo o LL O U OU i Qyca9 °O ° C to `O a5 O U Q O LL o a) a) C a) ° 'c o ° a5 -p o Qo ° o o V° �y Y a Eo I o. � oFt- rn oa�OE� °��°-M �n (,Dm >F:D �aQ i - cm LU .E m ° o y ° `o Z m o—a a 3 O ° E y y(D 0Q o M O U a5 C a5 E O o Q° o E u, Y C Ul O M a) o C C.0 U O` o?i ° a C Y CO C C Y O Ul � w Q Q— a) a) a)a C a N fn U ° Ul OIle a) a) m y U Cas a) > E y az.°°� az M -o o O'`� � �rn M o a5 M M °-W L ° 10 ° a) Q o m a5 M E-O E °Y c rn W U 9 L N T a 00 cn O E O U .� M M o °_T—in _ a) a5 a E -p m (r az o � o� °a U � `o ° m > Erno� C a) E ° o � rn (o 9 C a Q C C U L 9 o O C.0 W 0 f/) a) U 9 o N o D Q (ED O D y�Q N U O.0 N.0 >- Q H S a) y M E W.o p 75 o O.� °a paQ0 Q °W E o rnoM oL Q m O a5 a) a5.0 L a)._ Q a) C a) O O O Y O C U O ' []9 L a) C y 0 M a) (p M E O C O fn a) O A p fZ a 9 N E C U L a)J a `° E > S O a p 0 a > O�-EQ C a) C ) E -O a5 fn C a) o > a C C Q C a) ° 2 y ° o �U QE aD)" MME 5a) @ M ooyo ma .Lo.mao ° .L1) Em� EooEE m > °mma°ip_WL: (El) warn^QM °Y.� °-per ° m a °~ o) N o ) (WI) mma9 °� a)moI � oQE� Coro E .0 Ul C Ul a)y6 U °a C a) >`o a) a) p L u) U Q Q w o U E O o o az o T rn In 2 a o M c L-. ° �Uo �.�.Lo. � R � a)L � `� U �rn ,i u) � M m - _ a U C n C o Q a5 S a) o L O a5 a) a5 O U N Y d a5 O a)9 (y06 Ul N a5 C Q N 9 (T6 0'U o _ _ o°� o o `a) Min m u, o E .� u,o � a O W� az az t-.E t- O°�.E F-J °�O °w az o Y az °� d _. ... � m v♦ E O w C' -E o a5 0 a5 a) O O H C C o a) o °'` S �a`ni �' Q o UY p a)m O1a-o a) w op� p)E�) o ° '- p _ °U L N tOn L Q o m a U � o a a ° p 9�Z o TZ o--6, o 3 y, C o fn N a) _ N ��a U� N Y .0 o o p M Q M M .O N C Q O m C�L S (6 C O pU . a) Tm o ° a)o yaQ��O a �o Q� u) o a C QL in L C S o°' N M M j o 0 0 W M M Wm M * N O a L O Y >i o a)O U) ° o- ° az ° o a ° `m v L p'C C U M o M 0I T O Z T a) U a) o m L a) M V o m.m L ._.� a5 O a5 L N Q 9 o Q a)L L�L--' a)�. J fn CC O �_ Y =N W QY Z a)a M U a C L p .0 p O Cn-T O O O J o E 0 Lp m W C 2 M M a) to o C m H z >Y a)w E °' y y U) °� E Q co--S a a+L- C C T Y o In 9 LU O[] o o C In C "• _-. O 3 d W Z � � Q��I-(D a)(� om� ° oaa�i ° E �-OQT '1 0 W U) to T a a5 T E N w a) C =>a) o (�6 a): N U 9QoEo-oa`niN� � o cQoo ° axiL °..moo m E C Y m a) w Z; a5 o H Q'U O N [] 0 O o m o O a s O C 3 (>6 O tpn Y Cn C M a M Q LU d bA -O 00 Uma.O C to N ?i a o a5 co Y m z H a)O E a) a°i `n ° M-o m U m Y U)_M �a U) a�v E a z_ O Z aSC) OL > .� °oi o}` o u,D< �-2 o Q Ern' �rn O CO d m H Q -E N U m J wm Z E S LL Z'— 9 ♦ LL LL r o � N H LU w LU m D 73;L w LU a_ n w z U) Q I-- I-- w O 73; a U) w U W J U) Q U) z Q LL U) z O n z O C) 0 u a 60 a .Q .4 y L m aa))9 .> a a o 0 E 0 in o ° Y o ° Q M M p o D fl- C.> a) 3 0 0 0 a N °U p c 0 L 0 0 a) Day -O o " 9 m a E= 0 D Y OL a) O Q Y '� C O .0'L 0 '0 -O E O C a) 0 T U OLO a) a C N O Q a) 0 0 E U Ul O C O M p 'p a) a) t/`) a) U 9.O a E N O -p 0 C M a) U Q Oy � E Mo Q >. `� L �� b ° o E 0 EoE ° � N o C° °�L (6 ° 0 E - N M 9 O 0 -O N 3 p Y O L N.wn C N Ww E 0 � a) M C U M p _ `t O Q 3 M_T N C a)S Y t0/1 O a a) °� M'� a) U 0 N ° a) 0 0 0 -O a) L M E 0 M C M M a) O Y L U O d'ap o0 0 ` Eu, M -o u,L oEm t '� 0 E m M Ea) -o M °� 0 u, r ° 3 a m ° 0 .. o °� W, O Q in ami 0 °� MM mW090- °-�L.. Ma w .LO. a ° 0 � 9 E � � s Mai' m -O Y N-9 Y a) '� Q -O a M TC C O f/) o L-O M a w 0 0 0 a E`o o� a a)a o 0 9 m� � a 0 0 0 0_ a) C C ED U U M E M O E - > Y O o ° f/) 9 Q p C a y Q 0 m C O f`) C w 0 a) a O m L a) a) Z Q a)�a 0 0 E w a)0 d u, a 0 Z E M 0 a ° a.E 0 a) a L ° 0 °2 ° a) bA C a)L O Y O O a) C O a E M E a)a0 0 O a)C L M a U L M U O E U O p(n 't 9 a L Ul Ul M f/).L a) ` a) a) C ` Y L a) a) Q O .0 °a.�_O y Q E U M j O a) O 3 m a) O E (6 a C O 0 0 a)H m m C p oMM 00 of .� � >. a) m o.LO. > a ° o 9 0a) Ea ° `m W ° E S LNaim Oa � o �aE E of u, � 0 - E U) [)._ O N 3 o O O N N L a O 9 0 a N L O O 0 0 N w M L y 0 p 3 0 w '° a)M in a)M 0- -Z9 °-3 ° 0_ o °r 3 Q -o `o n 0 ° o M 0 a a V L o a °.� a > o ° m L E E a m Q (D.E _ U L a 0 a --F 0 m a) a) Q Q a):. N O0 v 0M L OL ° EOL ` 0 La) 2 ( X °pQ T o" o v w ,G- o 0 a) In 0 m L i a) >o z U o �:j (D C) LL m 0 > n 0 a E Q E a a M O H Y °U N C M • • • • F • • • • • • S C N m.E o a Y a a o > m°U) � 0 0 m o° D m u a o D a m M u, E E 0 a) m�'U�6 .O Q O p L M-p y U. ... ° L a) °00 Y->.-• f/1 L L 0 ° o �' 0 M a L 0 a~ 0 ° ° TE M ° o S E p)L Z_ O L a) M D p 0 a a) O O(6 °C� ` M a) (6 p H - O _ 3 C a)Cl C L t/`) O H d 9 M a) O - (� a) O Q y U a)9= 2)Y t`)f/)'m Ul Y O M" m f/) w M a E �N > M L U 0.0 L N N O a) O > Q O' t/) 0 O - O O a m U C0 aL O N OY o.Cda D O; O.L ( m 0a a)a M.L-. ENa M M m C L= L O M Lr 0+L L a N L a 2 _yp O a 9 CD M >i tm/1 3 o L=.° Ul N (D (D01- O a) T f/) M � M o yC O M L M O o0� � a) a OLmM x-00 .tea): rn0� a)o �0 s; oOOCUmLE M V L °) Q C 0 C (6 0 '01- a) H a D O -O N 9 M 9 m 0 - O M-f/)z L L ` p_w O a a) U T C) Y M U) M C a) O Y S Ul f/) 0 M (6 T LO H °L O'�(O M 0 S"L C U O (06 Q 0 L L 9 L a) O m a) a)a �D �La �'Lrnoina) myo3Z0 �.� 09U0 >C)� _ a) 0o0 ��a �t L L-y_ Z a)Q L O L a)cC L M O .L.., M U Ta) M N 00' a°)i �6 ���~ a 0D L0 � L93() Q� or D E a)OD�aErn� oa o a c o0a.° .LO.9 °) .0 a o U > Q,C U.0 f/) 3 d a) 0 d Ta > Q a) O M d `O .0 m. 9 0 .� U 0 o- U U) a) `p Z M 0 9 a) Q 0 M = L C M L t/)a t/) 6.0 O l M a1-_ 0 E d L O a) E Y rn a s U L O `p N L M O W C O a)Y a) a) C O O O O O O a)f/)-O O C E M O M a) C 9 Q (6 L'0]L'C a)S d a) 0 w Y C E L'�a M N U5 E m a).0 L 0 9 O 115 3 0 C O O Q M'0 a) > 0 3 O a a D O Y H Q y (D fl-0 a) 0 Q O N Q 9(D w Q Cn O t/) TOY Y ` .O o Y ° M °H Y L L O M.0 >.�T 0 a M 9 M O.L.. M,U a) 7 OZ W U O Y O O U In Z o a O C t/)U) O-O E M a M Z a)U a s O- O- < 0 , 0 (D 3:- a)W�'U a a) : N Q a O m Z 0 n o o ( < Q C90 �� 1i - O � Z U m o f I 4 z Z_ U) U) s LL L m -}, 0 W C O 0 i 1 o � N 0 Y o Q a N N O N � > N O N ap� N o 6 N O O O O A 0 3 � lw O ■ L O_ O N O � N N 6 E A E ~ N O ' 0 B N aJ�f 2i - N O - N O O N N N r r N N N LL LL � LL T fU N 15 > E O a a N at/) . CC a 6 yL m 0 0 O m N y Y O O C C a t/) p)0 o E 0 a m E a) C O N m m N U C U C a) m t/) �.0 C QL p C a L > o f/) p'Z p-C'L""' a).0 a m > +L-' O O f/) f/) C U O a X a) a O m a) N C~a C O m a) a 0 o E _(D Y W U. Q m m y a) C.- p C a p L Q O a m Q Ul H U m a m Q 0 Ul Ul O a Ul U 0 C a U m m N C ... a) a) a) m a 0 a) Q r a) oU a) o c C E 0 O C C U � � U a) a)y O L C � 0 C m a Q E ,L.. O O D O L C 0 T m OU a) �-a O a) a) O-O y0 > f/) C -p O W C L Y p Q m a o ` 0 0 W a D O w -O (6 (C6 C L W' a a) 0 0 Y-ap.0 U Q m N j� U 0 9 C N Ul C C U a a) N Y U) E p N N C V a) Q.0 m f/) m U m C p O C - m W t/) O a m E L't/) O C D+L-' > O - m t0/1 N y Q (6 > y a) p)° a) O W' C 9 m a) T Ep 0 Q O m � E N N L a L R U C T E a.0 Zi p `a a 0 U a) C a) Z a) m 0 C � m E—.0 O Ul 0 -O C a O N N °� a) m C a O tp/)w 0 (96 >' 0 m - O O Ul Q 9 o a) m N m N Q o C E E a) E o a) � N a) 0 y T mw o o Q p o CO) E a O Q a p E '� 0-SEE- �L-- aorn �m pa p-mrnmYa) (6mC WNQ a)in W Z -o Doom �mUo Q`aEom p)-p oQ..�.� � � W.4 � u, LU w Y - .Q m '� axi ° a m `m.p-o a .Ym.a.�L-moa o w E 15 W O d m L a) LL J W O O_m O U� (L6.�'Q m .Q Q U O)>i L O p W U V C p W p a) a L C a CO p M -N'O C m W C C a D O D U O O a) C a) f/) p.0 Q a H C > ` C O m m U a m C (6 .� O Q m C Y m 0 C Q L y-O T O N (n N O m a) Q Ul y E C N 9 0 0 a) > m a m O a U a) m f/) D O 0 9 C 4 0 C C U a) a)0 0 a) a) (6 C m S O N m C Ul Y T m O H 0 m C O'-O N d w Oa) Q> m a) oL> o o. E`o o C .YQ .Eo aYo o �S � mo �m � mooLE0' `o � � U � �m L r Z .� � E >�a :Ya �' � .�+ a)a ��aa a)W o.�in� � Q'— o �Q�a� � � oQ Z O m O a) O O C a) O m m C Q L p w L m Ul Q a L () F mwaUE (gym > U a�L � � —.. � E °� wwm — ) F---m � °� LL Q ` -' • ,' U N 1 LU LU W U) - D !! S { y W 0 W n LU WLU LU /T!ip■y N - Q V U) ` z Q • • •A I"1 U i U W O Y i ' U � �:� i -a •L F A 0 r co \ �� �•. S co AM + s o All - o AV Airf AV 1 .I • ! 40 �• F F o i o_ `)! r U y _ A y E2 16 O ° O o U N O U O (6 O) w C O N m y C d) >i N F N O N � 0 aL U OO V O 0 tw 0 O N Y 6 O 6 6 SO t/1 (6 C Q (6 N N� N .N U C U O U O O 9 C (6 V O N O` ° U N 0 0 �,� �6 E E Q rn 0 C a > a �-p Q 3 o U m .� ° Qa a 5 (D aim ° �9 Q Q U �-o E v" E m 09 E-`- � � co�.0 o °o p E N (6 E.0 f/) O ° N.� (6 z Q'C ° 0 >i in o 0 m Q o in o U 9 E.? s �' E Y ° E a�'i a�0 a.� o '� m E m o a° �' L =Um aa)o'E a� 9 m m-o ° o Qo o 0 0 L a m 0 0 0 Q U y a L 9 L Q O.E? 0 U) 0 Y 0 L 0�_ 0 0.LO. ° 0 Y E CD 75 9 y 0 a_T N 9 O ° O cC (6 a 9 C C C y C_ f/) ° C O O (6 9.0 Q .�O (6'0 O C O D t/1 t/1 N 07 m a -O N O N - a t/1 C O t/1 C O N U Q 0 (6 (6 O`a O 9 C O y C C .� O N a (6 t/1 fl- L p C N O Y �O j O O N 5' ` U L L_ C o O a 0 0 m 0 — Z E 0 _ o y E `. E 0 p C U N C L p Q Uj t/1 U o fp/) N E ° 'L (6 a 0 a O C O f/)f/) N C N .LO. � �°) mC co - m EE �' T m OC 0U 0-..a aw . . 00 E-pmLOa. L9 LE Q:. my L 'c EONS oo U0 E ommO�.Q o �� 00Q�. 0E 00o E � 0w °) In o ° U `ma '� oa0 -00.E 0° Ea °a U..a 0c.E ma E�°000a 0 w E o m :_ 0 T 0- U 0 E 0 m E 0 Y '� �' c ° aE E 0 0 m Q m 0 E � E � �� �_ � om �L (D a) �� m � m� ao °. �LoEo Q� 00 min a� E m0 �o .OEm �Q�Q 0 � c U 0 °S ° .. p .00y � 0 OTE ��9Lo `a a� mmo �o � 0o �'E FQ o Q m �. 0 Y E�°o.E 0�c 0 m Y -O 0 o Q � 0 a 0 0 o E y N O (6 C U U) °cC C C C Z N O C 9 C C j E 9 9 N z 0 (6 O L y Q 0. U H (6 Y H T y 0 0 (6 F I O O O N t/i.0`� �j (6� O O p O O O N a a p� -p Z` p N (6 w p�'- 0 0 O Z a~L ami° cE� > 0� 0 U � � �� oL'� � Q � m0�c 0�o ��0 � Eao00omoEm� O U) W C C O (6 (6 0 9 9 N 'C C O a C C O N C N (6 N z 0 �� 3 O L. p 0 U W a ° (6 C O (6 0 f` E O > (6 (6 L�.x.1 >p 0 0 (6 Y o C 0 y 0 0 L 0 0 0 SQ..Q W 0� YO�H O S m0 `o LL 0 ii— 0L (n; �— �— o Q0 0 iia` 3 w o m�Z..� 0 cj Q Q C = U 0 V '�N O W Z Z i O u m C t/1 V V Ln U) U) D D " oar ti in .. N T V T O r �1 F � Urn rn rn N g m 0 a O o - a) d' O M m °' f/1 N Q J to Q ai t/1 �, t/1 U M N N N FQ Z U � � a°i �6 °� o `�m� o o = z Y�9_.g o o.° 0 a Z E L f/`1 T O Z H 0 9 ° N C M N °- '-' C 5 U) °a `O N m N Z a�o a o a `n0E M 0 > 0 m U L C M NW W C y Q° N C L t/1 U C O N O s?° ~ N °`O U U C M O �4 a 0 Y a m M C N E °o ";Zr ON N > N NNCO O L EO Q o) 0 C T OC 9 N- N 10 t/1 X �: � O U N— a Uo -O _M s —-E O .0 Y 9 a o a s O'E o �Q -o S (D a 0 °— 0 0 'O CO C L a: 9 N t/1 ' M (6 0)Y.0 N S� M ?i3: CCF- O O O O coN O) O) O) O) O) O) Q O T -L O O Zn 02 T O O 0 N zn LL m of F Q X O O m ll y of r C o y ; Q L m �. Q Q o m N Z i N ♦: - 2 0 e o �I 2 w ' 010 s Z Y YEw 3 � oC Q � o Y � 0 N Y 0 N N — 3 N 3 U LL ° `o N O D ' aDtNo E O �iO ° O / O / _ 0 N d E Y-E o0 0 E aE N E .o F, piVL'TNX°M?�°cNCsO °N N ( O 0N °L E 0 � E ° EQ N . N9 16 _ O _ N a N U_ U M O M o aiic ` Q° a) EO0 ° � ma � OOO aMY OL L a N OCCW Na T'— a) o NLO W9�0 0 ( 0 O. O O M O °L — 0 NpE N p M M � O � M O y N O N _ LM ° ° Q° U C)0) oN 9EQoaEEN > O ( eQ O O N M 3: Oa m X Q i o` � 2U) E o m ai L 9 ' oLU N EO a m> 0 U) > cE aN � V -0, ° M C O p W /1MU > /19 ° N YN U O o - s ° o.0 O Q (Upo 90 (D 09M FN L/ CO / ° N NO °0 w C m E wU ` 0aO n- � I� w a - E QM aMo Nt`1 M X'C O. �O`—CMN aCp �N � N M -C2NO M 0-6.- OO ? E COy0L° LoO o Q ML p O tO 0OUO > U0 a U O aaQU :C '`.0 .- � yC0TOO W m O9E °W U O D O O CCW N> O N Oa E N n C Y Oa Nuj f.� Wm E o oa > 5 W U) O O > C aEN a aE OO ? O O Q°ao ° / 9 U OL 6 ?E o ` N E 3: 0 WW a a O - X N o U) E -E a 8 UOaaa) _RN E ooMm � a -0 �Q . i Ni E ° . °O N a MM '� /1NN Y� O .C .C OO OX X ` C Q EE Uoz ME E O O a W Z C M O V 0 (O m N r (O (O Q 0 U � d � � � � � � � � LLL r o � N H LU w LU m D 73;L w LU a_ n w z cn Q I-- � w O 73; a U) w U W J (n Q (n z Q LL U) z O n z O C) Y C m T C O C �O N C N a L M 1� h O Q FW Z r ti 0 Q Q _ U W Z Z rh U) U) ^dV H H � N g f) .0 am ° O u 02 a) (D ` a a 4 o z O 3: O a 15O )Y a Qz 0 9 C L �W 9 0 (6 9 O 6 O Q+� E M a) m m a 9 a a y a) O T.�L (p p 0 0 L m C m W E N O H m N Q a)y 0` C a) p-w O C U m L Q -O N 9> a) Y a U 9 C m m O`a a) �m L m J Y L U f/) O a m m C — a) N C m a) f/) m a) m a) N 9 = 0 - p L a) f/)Y Ul a)y FQ z U Ul J Y m p)m N C m 9 LD 0 O` m a'_' O L m 0-p)L L -O a) O m.0 a)a.0.0 D L Y O N O a,y Y p O� N a) f/) Q C f/) y6 U O a Q m f/)- f/) T.0 C H Ul 9 Qa m C C m 0 'C U C a QY Ul L 3j �z z E m 0 (6 C a Q a) m m O L T a C y tm/1 a)f/1 0 Ul 15 m Q m y0 E 0 Ul fn N p 0 15 Ul O O U z .0 O` LO Ul Ul 9 C 'O 9 C Q C a O U m-p O f/) a) C U a) m a)a a) a)a Y Q C a)U Ul m'� m C T N Ul a m L 0 9 f/) m O m Ul C U a)a m 0 L N >`p E Q �o o y a.E c a � E y m m`� o. o Q m .Lo. .�a a m � o a _ _ '0 o m - C H m o C 0 0 a) C f/) L C a N m a L_ O Y O U O w O m a) O O a) f/) `L N a C m O U `p m p X O O 0 a~ E m a m m p p)p a) O a) a)m a (6 L p°-a s C 0 W N a)-0 p m a t/) a t/) 9 p m a m a) a) U O C a.0 E m 0 Y a C a p m .�.-• m. o a a w L y f0/) X m (6 f/) C m O C C m fL/) N C f/)L.�U m a O.O >L_ O 0�L 0 L O L m D -0 L °O a°0 Y N H N (p a `m a)C a) p) E L mw N N-O N a) N Q a)-O m a) Q 0" C C C N Q 4 m a m a)° w > a�0 a�T O C Ul C a) p m U Ul Y `m -in m E awi� (D Q p o.N `o.m O--p ~ N M—Y ° E X m U O m U.Q a) O a) a)Y O`a L a) f/) O m X 0- (6 Q.L..- -O >� E O u,L X .. m E L o ' L o 9 0 o m E E Y_ p) o m m.+0'Y OW L a_ r °.Lo. a)w `m p-° 2 aai ° 0 f/)a >>i Q 0 0 m°L N O Y a E 0 p)t` O-00 m.0 N w w 0- a 0 �m-L- 0 f/) fC-/) a) . ,y 0 p 0 Vl >`Y m �QEo �L� u, p �y (D00p)- a`) ° `� m '' om' E ° oa ELaLmm�a (OD � m. Z m o m z ° m a a.� 0 0 o as u a a ° a m o m o m 3 E a ° m o ° ° ° 3: :1 O C ` Ul a Ul E Ul E m O C L m a) C m-p Zi C L f/) Ul 0 9 Y 0 E C O m O U m C f/) m'��.� �'a)� o-o a m o.i m a)� E �Y �° �.0 (D c°) 4La) E.� aa) a (D QL E o `m CL >i a) 9 p)p O U U m T m a m C m O m U m m m O L L L y 9 O Ul p p t/)m m O R ~o9U c6ammooE�° Oo9u, w � � `�.�L-°o`� a9i � �.�-oTp-xo � °� Oo �_. �a � �'� oa to V C L a)"' y C m m �.� O L O Q-F y0 m p O p p p m 9 a)H m E.0 a O`Y ? m a tL/) U C O W D) a C=L (D L y 0 0.. a) m 2 O H X t/i a) C a (6 H t/)L a p y -O Ul p p t/l O U >i'.a.N m a).0 O 0 N z U a)~ O m Ul a) a) C L a)a f/j O > O C (6� '� -O o a m a 9 Y 0-T a a)N O 'o a - T a) Eoim�amo.L.. aa_Laa) � a) 0E mQa) rn ° m °) °) m � m ° Ems °L mo ° Q W-42 a) C f/1 L O C t/) U .. p a)y0 m a L L U a) m N 3w a) N o ° >> m m O O t/) m a)'_' Q a) a a)W a) m m mo m p)w a) C C > a)L U C C O Q >i T 0 a)5')Q O L 2 a) U�O L a) 65 C f/) Of >15 �m N OC 0 O0 U a) 0 >j f/) a)f/)a m N a) m f/) Y Q m > N Q 0 a m ° " E C 0 0 L p 0 w U w m 0 E C C C O C � m m 0 J E E m f°n L o °� ° ° L m CD o.N ° °� o o ° o u, Y_ `� ° U Y L ° m o 9-o o Q r O a � o f U O �p L m m M O U a) m L O m a) X p 0 m N a) m p m U L N p L X O m 0 a a)L O 0 L m E p CO (�w 9 L O L 3:.0 O Y Q>i m H L Q w O w >i U.wn L Q�L.. f/)9 W 0 O- Q Ul�L.. H a) C L >j M w H U a H E f/) U O 1! r r. o L r of � I w z IQ U) Q W = W o Q O Q w ~ m W SS N a W U) a W = W Q `g H m 0 U)iC = O a N W N Q _ z ti Q 0 I LL LL o � N U) IW W ( m DLU W p © ... O w z cn Q LU O U) W U) U Q U) z Q -- — LL z O Z O O r. ■ O © O rn IQ l- a S ■ t 0 E' a� i O ■ O ■ A ■- A S N - O O UW M N N LL � a U N O C C O O E O N �(p m O E C O m a a) O t/) N a o a) o E 2 o o a) a) Q C y U 0 0 m C 0 0 a) C O 15 'J= O a a) O m - E t/) O O'a) C C m a) a C m E O m 9 a)H a a) E o o m y y rn o o a y. .� o a m o 0 o Q O L Q N m O .0 O m E a) m O Y >y O a L t0/1 m 9 a)a s m m U o(D 0 Ul a) m E Q9Ym Ul N > LLm COL OL LLQ m f/)f/) a) Q W M Y (6 L y U V U a C Q wyp .�U a) O m 9 Q EL 0 Ta C a 29 Tm -OLL a)y O Z O O O a) �,L O U'�f/1 O N U C �.(D -0 a O't/1 Y Im C U+9 a) O C a) ?i a) w w a) p Y m - a)y p t/) -O a y6 a) O 0 C O L o� E E > .o Q m o m 9 °o o.. U E E E a w L L o a) o oa `m a) a) m� o �aEo � L O Um a a) a) L O m L Y O O Q C m FQ �ooE. .� Q � u,� > wmL �z/ N Q ti W z z 5 f 0 a m ZQ Q U a) O L 07 9 () LL m W4 Z Z O C) 07 d In FV1Y � F-- w0 © © O N Q a) w h4 O z a)45a) > m p 9 O d' y p a y p Q a) m (6 C O O a)a +L- a)9 m U F+ Q C a O u, O y ° 9 a `m w a o E m E °a_ _ C _ p y z C) m E ° ° w O p u, p m a�p ° m y ° °_ o a p.� o p ° f-1 o m u y O S Z o o Q.� E Y 9 m o o L�'a o p E E�"- m O m m Q p m ° a o Z H p N 0 9 9 C (6 a) t/1 y C—L m L'� (n (6'C m X p Q a m p y6 L Q.•U D O C p N p (n T O m 0 a) a) t/1 y�'.N O.N U O y0 a) Y a m C ~ w a)2 Y Y a U E W O m C C N m L Q O L p W a)L LU a Ul Ul a) ~ ° E � o -O m -O-p U5 a) m p u, o m E �J ` X > L m p f/) O p p'—L O a p.0 E= a) 0 0 a N p X w N U Z m C a.0 W m a j L U O C E m w (6(0 U a Q Ul (C6 rr fifi L U y N '- L L f/) a) W °-C f/) U a) C a) V a°ip o.Lp.'y� a) � o�o �afl-� ao� p ��� d E p y E C L T O C'O ° a)9 a m E /1 L p a) a a) O a 9 2 0 0 2 N 2 m 9 p p HI p C ° E L w m a ° a �6 in a � p a E ° w Ea p�� m �mm.m - � pao Q>'oaT p °-m ° m.4 p� v m a a 'w o a` ami.� °� E'� m T a�o p a y a a 0 m� 2 w m o.> O � L o a�m � u, o 5 o f-W o o �m H p t/1 m L Q L (6 O H a w Q m m w Q W W H O \ + v O 3 D Ei E i m O z.. a) 3 U z f == LU © O O E-E up- co 9�= L / � 'sex o � c LU co m w r. a N � O Z A N Q 4 m W co W P� w U) 4 d � ui 7r U) : . _.... Q L U) z n O O a � N W J O ;rn.i;` o, z O s. ii LL r 0 � N U LU j lea L£Z ~ 3aa�0£ m LU o > 0 LU n a ~ o - --- - -- --- - --- - - - -- - - --- - w z cn Q 0 F-- 0 - - - ------ J O F-- LU LU J a U) ® - ® J az � - - - z a LL U) - - - J � �r O J J �- - - - - - - - - - - - - - � 0 - - - - J C U �- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'Jm E U L N - '0 O 9 O OD --__ - _ _ - Q-_ _ - _ _ _ - •_ O O N a O LU Q - O O O C o o S — jo)m O O J O a O (n O N N Co U L N 0088®AA T _ _ _ - - _ 3: oN O O 0 M N O x ^ pJ w m _ 0000000 (D J i Qa °o m - - --- - ------ --- --- --- 4h S v Q > W z z �� 0 F-- w '(� N Q C a O z a I z LL z U c 4 4 4 4 z = z x u) LU -- - -' O U o------- --- 0 H o- - - �o w az •• IEEE O O L ^ .0 O 1--1 EIE_ O z N O LL C_ m o------- ---- 7 .0 ) o- O o- it O o------- gg z -----0 0 Y � � = o o 0 a 0,02 LU Q N 2 Q L `p 0... 0 O p CO o- O O S - 8 m O O . O d O LL a o- U) m o---- -- -----0 as a v o (1) o-- ---� 0 z 0 C) in i o------- -----0 o------- Iii -----0 0 U) LU U D o------- -----0 LU o 15o W� o O � o---- -- -----0 O O n o m o C X CO C w o---- --- -----� -p (� an LU LU G- --- -- -o - cocoa00 w -- -- m0 a F_ � n J Z Q O ? O LL k o � \ N U) L W 1 W /- m W ... H LU � _ Q O W Z - Q °.t 8^ I I-- LU - O 73; W J U) Q < L O a 0 e CO O Z 0 W. o< A a� 2 m a 1 �„4 U� _- o M � r L N N T N mo 0 a) N C _0 az 0 — az o O a5 a5 L— O C C.— Q U O O N Mo Qa�Y.0 Q (6 N U L O N Q O w N N O 2 0 O 0 0 Q O O tN/1 O E N C OU x O 0 N U C fl- Q L 0 0 Y O a)a a) N O `U C U 2 N D a Q a) QO C O y OC 5 (D a N. a5 Y O U a — Q a O C O aY a) N O tU/1 U O �'9.. D O O a5 C a a) N U LO O O f/1 �i N a3 L a) 0 a) a a) a) N L O a5 0 a Q a o (D (D o o o o ° Q -0 Y_ C 0 W Y E 2 C O '> a5 O a) O OU a a) O jn C O m w I-1 N '0 Q O (D f0/)N O a5 Q(D O- Oa) N O- a5 O a) a) N 9 �N N a) o 5 0- O a) 0- o a E a) Q Y o O L N Q a) a) '> (D O H a5 Y H a5 H.0 O w O y O Q a) U) 105 N N Q . 00 1�-I Z Z U) 0LL 0 W U O v o Q LL N a) O L ` (6 N m Q Q v C m O CWL : = O u_ U m d In � S In 0 a 3I A,- O Oi3 e 1 I a5 W z z o Qa r ° z (6 C (6 C TO N'�Y C --F N LO � �Q L E S a (D 3: < LLowEaT m °� � o° Q �wm .E0 0 P� Z U ° o-° >= �Y ai 0a m a in EQ� E z N O Q N L C �p C O > ° a �.° m a�0arn � � E N Q L Y M C U t/1 (6 L Im zCO'C C °(6 , w ° m O Y O m l Y O U U) m 0 T N U N Y O O O (6 a L tom/)a � 9 C O � H Na 5 O C aL-O Q 9 9 (6 N E X L a Y a) (6 W C O N �mca Y0a �yO� W 15Q� d yQ o ° ._ 3m a °° 0in m O T C N W'° m a a.0 N t/1 (6 N t�/1 O � N 9 (6— w U L N O O W N N 9 U N y U O L N 0'C O y U N O+' N 0 N N U ° v Y 0 3 p D _ U - U) it f 7 4 ~ - w U) LULU Ir o LU LU LU W rn w U) U) H Q U) a O Z = d O LU Q C) L LL Q a o - W0 W In m 0 LU LU U) LUw LU o `o > z z Q In z0 - o Im cl � o � \\ Ji ° o 9 LL LL Y , � I w r - 3 0l w q u �Sh c pl p �q'E Z co_ o ;� �'O •� � 64;r. m d E 9 N � aI f`•�+N �a x T �L` �.M aI `o S `o Y H' in C C C O m t E 5 a � N CJ o `° (6 N C N j m O a y X S 0] N O C O O O W U) O N N mQ0 CD U -NU L LN O O O O L O O O z ( nQ W z z 04040 4 © 4O ' ' W U) 3 Oiw9 LL N Q W a o z � < LL Q oil 's o y E W V r LL -� ■off I.0 0 o 0 0 mm MM MW 1 LL .t v 1►k LL oM L ...r• / ^i •b. U W .� V - rya ��• m LU LU © / LU 73; /r :` W - • - -'1 a ui LL ..__. - _._._ _-__., m �n ! ! 4 7 o U) LL o o .. m LU o p a z U y LL Ll \ % 2 \ ) ( LU J ` \ \ \ / LU \ _ \ \ \ { } co \ \ d / \\ \ U) ® »\ < \ f ° d ^ \ « 0 0 0 ,\ <�\ » . • . \ . r \ % \ f{13 - | , - 01 CD ) \ \ \ ) Q \ 0 ) Q ® / / } \ / / _ " � f r \ ~ - / y d , \ / } } �a. . \ / ^ 2 { \ a $ ( ) { 6 : j \) z § } } \ H e G m . §� » } / \ ) / / « _ \ \ C) : ® E & $ } z ® \ G o o q } } 0 r • ZZ 0����/ � W 1 z LU O (n `q41010 V Q i��, llbs- fi % A:r - �``�' ".�•�� -, -.'�„'1 \ '�f��eye-� 1 Yf. 4 s s' - •Com_, V'�►,;. rr �� 44 • ` f Q o U) I .' NII m U) IIN�IfI D w1 as w ry o t} O a_ N a wl r�r g 3 � H �� O ~ � U) N a y W T LU 3 9 n Q L z Y 1 t oo7f L W 0 H 9 z AS $ w a V V O LL LL O — N T'^ O O O N . B ` LltLNH U w UQ m 0 )U _ m v L . � LL LL m N a T C _ � O O a) N N N N U a) m o0 a)W j O C N to a) C C O.� a) to o 0 Q p a a o Y >O a (6 a O f/) O O a oo ° >mQ —°° EE mLo ° � :�E �' mzoo'° °O '' oL ° o.° � mma o ELL `g m 0_�0 �Q >`m� m :� o °9 �a o�.2)m om 6)(ID ° o fin N H O a)'C a O O O m O a) ° O p Q m O 0, 'Q L Q m o o o ° E o p 0) L o v L a y Q E a °.0 U m °� a) �E m-`o .� o fnE m o 0 ° C L m Y f/1 C(�O.0 a) C a w o C p N fn E C2-E(D Q o)T°- a) to t°/1 omoa).L.._, am >.�� � Q(7oL15 moil R CD m �mmo.> � E ` 2 EY� Eoo '° rn"m o m o m w) °�o aoi o a m o a ° m a `m >.o a °� fn E m a'>a a)a fn 0999 Y m ° ° o a) o m 0 0 0 3 0)—Lam 090 E fn omo �o �a o� 0 �o `n a0i -a �a C °0 4C (Oj m.� m9 CHNO (C6No � �H M�O `O� o m m aai E `O U Q o 0 0)o m o o L `a a m o a)'O o m o C >O a ° m a) ''a y D.�o °� 0 0 E E 2° -5 m o O C O Q y E o Y_ ° '`� f°n a °o y cLi-moo -O `mm °a �' fon 000m � °�L-. `OEm >.2 m ° a o.Lm. ° 30: ' E � -om o m o O m o 0. c'�a Q :�° OYwm oUo a o C Q y N p s a) a) � E C C ) a) U O m s y— — y o U of O (6 C a) O U(D to'C O 0 0 to a) N O m N a` a)Y a C p)to a) p a) T.• C j O m N N C_ fn(n U N.CY to y m p a) inY TU ,LO. 03a)-om oo ao) Em 9 fn LU E m E a am EYEo m E Eom o.� -mom O H �.�O .� m p to Y W to H to �.0 -O O L to o~ a)a O °Y m O E12 0 C O y m L FD C C fn to a) .� a) U C T y U to a 0 U O N U O 3 a) O � X a) -p 3 O m a m C y0 O�i m a m C a O N w_ m m O �i U a a m m (6 a) C Y�jY N Q L 0 C2 O ° E a ,� o a O C O U N 2 N N m 0 (6 a) a) to 0 y a ` C m 9 �--' to 0 pC Z E Q O p 0 0` Y a a) m N O .m.0 3 2 C O m (6 Q 4E.-.>a m 0 m C C E O 0 f`)9 0 m n/ o Q o ° m m a O f � N ~ O O O N o C E C O a € m m'� m C O N C'C a 9 �n 0. W a o0o'E o ° y c a ym.L.. `o_ v °° E °aa0a) omm +L' ° mYmEmoEo+L- m Q O m.E-Ooo0fn fn-oEya�`o w —QaaiaOi oE � fn (7 ° Oar ° 0.4 am �o `naaiQO °� �a�o N z NaaiQE30o Qm2 21, oE � '" QofEnm amQm (7 .o.° Dom Qo.�om m a `mO9 c+J _ (a) 3o Q o�(1) a o y `o_ m uvi � fn E m a a � � � m T O (1) .�a 0 m 0 9 r.� o°- Z z oaaiafEn �.a o�o � oa Q .° on°� m .'OmomOn oamE5a—(D �LUn.aan � 6ll 0aa��aaEa W a o fn c m X `o_ o m o 0 m fn.� E 0)o E m o L `m c M �.�a (1) (1) '�" �mmfOnao oU � o as moo� 0 �a)�.>'co� �YYUOQ di > _ o a m m m > U U m Q 0 0 3.E m min m .E m m a > a Q�?> .E O o.L.. Q m.Q m m,L..ii a>i y r a v L w 0 a m m Q N z r FYl ,0- J .0 U'L"' Q V a-� S Z O° o `O w Y o O C OU 'low, a t/i >O v n o� (n Z fn Q f°n Kr' Z � ~ N E �M H I 3 a 0 O O C Y O >C C m O p C O a °O 0 N O m O N O t/1 1 Q "P— E N U o N a.oQ aa E p D N C E m N N Q � E E E o N C O ° O.O U O Q� to N-O Q O ° (D U o (D WL r v v — — C O O O L O C_ L m-O O 0I &H N (6 E C LL rt.._ LL a 0 o , C Q ° Y ° O2 w N o 9 M.o p U E ° °- C m o N N O C t/1 mO C >L aEm axi° EQ _ >> N E s o 0 0 0 9 47 Q Z O a E A- E-•o O Q � s Q.0.O N O W C p Q ESU Q'� `� a�E a) O 0 C C) Q N w C N W \\ .�° o .�.o r a o N M a N (D C W O Qa F.4 a) �-O 0~ C 3 "o 'U E 9 C m"_�" N O Q O O - o a (D ° 0 _ E4 Q w o m 3 O N O Q taxi fn fnp aw) o o �.... n 0 0 0 O O T CN � N ?i Ww T O O o W -o -o L m E N O Q N y a - N f E 0 o K K ' °Ufm/)'w C V V m t/1 O N E m a T O a a0 O N °-O C C 05 , & L Q CD E 2 3 m Q N N °-a�o o ° E a v aai�a (D— Q i E z ° T m O E N N °(6 O N > N (6 O Eo O o Z 3 Y E wV- w ` O p N N p (D O-OO m,L.. a.0 O U) Z m co H 0 0 N m a o W C T LU a U C O O O N _.•j•.� O � N y p m 0 mLU X p -o a ° O °- a ----- o z O C C N N Q U m m m Q m o m m a Wo w y a o E E E w W oa�� 0 ~ (n W m ° Q N > �o m .o Z Q (D > `m oy Ar c D a O v 0 p °-o E a2 T.� -.tel v w LU p Q° 0 o f J z U 0 E 0 O > U 3 3 Q �- ° m O o c aI `` 0 HH �a Q Qa - LL ■1► LL LL n o a) ~ ° N IYl W ( o3: y 0 • .P - _�__.� Q o .4 a - EE a3 0 Q W m ,a aa,:�ssxcsrs i 1 �p m15 o o ; .. o !_ 6` o :i E ° a) >0 o a U) t _ - •1 =3 E az c o C W LL M e, yq az — E z .'�. N to WW O 9 MLL O QASR r Y° f N C (D E E (6 0 15 .L-. 6 a5 Pl ® o o iii y o E � e o moo° �(D a Q O az o m o `o > 2-a a) a E U O0 01' C U-O C-p Ell (E pp Y w Ik a� H zo W W.E in O EE a�' o IM ILw o 01 € O Y (1) �.�J... ii, �' •y 'J �� a � I F® .[ 'N °)N Ea) p Q C C }I ' s� a v ww U E a-Oi o.o a) � EQ 4, o. a) oQ Ey mo® � u EOo °_ t0na O O SI N C N y Iiip'O a C (6 F- to E U 1 — E L =Y° az u, o `o— ° - ° yy t _ - C a)C i ar11I t i �al, Fo (WD Isnp Ym3: �3 ° 0 a Y� OIt �a L N i w E- a) o I 11 6 T f T C 1 Y L O .Ril.. 1- -�, o iy m E a°i ami.L-. cYi rn—W a rn E nis � `L' �ya oa '6-o �(L (1) o °t ar 0 rna c �aoam .o a�imm �ln Uj �= C w 0- a5 a a3 • •• N a) � a5 C Q o oQ�o� € ,aBa di� 4. `_ a oa Eu E D .._.xi_�:-�".'�'°:' __.....�.4i•.:':i:.,....,....... 3 lL(n C U WO O O d rn�° �6oa) a) QOEa) n V' .0 O Y Y Q u')u) 3: m °U E T O C .L.., E F N O � C Z L � Ea) x T N 3:.-W M a a u 0 O F a 0 C O O O'C C o a5 o�2.E 4a, 9 U a)> m o k LL gp O C'ON O-TO (6 2 V � 4jV a T� N i�aSM~ Oa -(D 75O O & D 3 O� > O Q Q (p a) a5 o (D a)o Wim- az dYa _T> 9 O N (D.�f�/)a ° E 09 0 a) m a0 a)L Y T o E F- C a) C t a a) -O U a a5 C L (D f/) E E M Ca5C >Ca) UO(ww fl- C C w E L � C h O OO C a5.. t'-I N Q L U C C O f f/) E , f/) w A z 0 z C N Q U Q C a o O(6 Q O-E yo C 7� Q0 LL S a).0 C a5 o Zi (D Cd O U a5 to a5 O 0 m S U ' Z U 13 C) maino �a � w m W t 15 a Y O a) U U) U y J _55 .(D a) C Y D W o U ° ° U U) U O Q O 0-O F- 2 N LL 1--1 N Q �m A FY z 0 QLL M z = z E x � � U) N W4 c� o � � o � N �s o � �o � N �o L LL LL A O 0I N � A � A E O O E A N B N A � O A N � M � � N O O 0I O 6 t O N O � A A N N O O O O M V LL� LL� N N LL� LL O N B A y w N y O Y O 41 � Q � � B w w \ Q �:�.. `O N O Q A LU LU z L m LU \ s LU w U) U) �\ s U) LU U) � \\ N z \ �- LL 0 O d w LL n 7 0 4 6 LU LU w U) o m D N LU w ry - ~ - 0 w U) Q i LU z fel; A d Coo w N w LU O_ O Q U) - z Q 0 0 m o � Q N n N w 0 m m U O � A N - S (n ro 6 aI� aI LL t LL ° a a E L a ° L (D ° m w� �O O Y� E Y� E � - L TD C d a) C a) m d' 1) m Y O Y M.0 LL 9 C LL 9 C Ul L a 0.0 a 0.0 o a)- a) Wo 4�0 - C L O C m m m m m m O O � a `o o `o 0�_ ��Q� U�a U�a Y Ul a C S C O S C O O 0_ a) 0_ Y'C .�LL C ° a) a) ° a) a) Y m m 0 0 a)w N 0 C 0 C V m o m o m U E a) U C U C I� N m °U a)'O-' T O T O O 0 Ul Q Ul Q Q ° a a O m U m-O �L N �L O U IQ 8-2 -2p CO C 0 'X a) Q 'X a) Q Q O U a) U a) S > O Q O W Q 0 W O O a) a) a) (D (n a E a o m ° 0 m U O ° CC m ° a) WO �N > 0m > > °-O ° CEE EOa C L- Ya I w0 m Q o a N N O a) •S o C ( M'U m N 0 Y L C N a) Q L L a 0 Q Q y WW W a) N _ �a m m'2- 5 m O m O N fes/) f/) 9 a)-E (p A C O f/)'�' 9 ° a m Q O Y O a) C O 0 �y U .� 0 C 9 a)Y a)a O > 0 9 a) ° a) f/`)Y m (6 - A C yo � O� m � ma y �� a) mmo o ° E4a UO O m a T E m L O a O X O L L-E a Q L C E N m m a O O o w a) a) 0't/) 0 O C m� w O C N Q Y O a) N m a) C Y CD Q O C O C O N y is Q u,y X o ° o >a m u,�°9 E E Q a E 9 m FQ o0oom�� aT r���a �� a) �.�° EE m Z N LL m m O C m t C a)L Y ` L_ LL Y R O m'� 0 m m 0 LL 0)Q w N 0 z a) 2 m 0 `O N � a 0 C (y C a) m N a) C - C E- O Q0 b9 O C N W a) m N Y Q a H m.2 m L N O (6 a)9 Q M.0 �- 0 i Q O L .- C L i+ L Q O n5 H O y (6 Z _a U � Qy ' 2 ° ° ° w u W wm � g °a -2 0 o ) o m 2 2 o� a O o m a) o f d a) m E ° 2 ° U u) 2L U Y U Q° �� uYr H °YC).EE LL N Q W 0 z C l 9 a)yN Q �0 m QU a 9 0 tC/1 N N fy S Z 9 w C O 9 'T C Z H O m a) 0.0 ) o Y O U) O U L U O U) Z � _ a M o E a)C fn L -6 a)— O O 0 0 N m C OW O _ N O to L O O E U U m m a) C O N N O r h y U fn 08 'X O C a) C a) 1 0 o O y o a m Ir p) C a) Ul O C U a 9a) m a a) C Oa �° Z aai m m m Q Q II s m C t0/) O- ttl m 9f/) a) 0'O O N �• O N ttl O-O C Q 0 YO fL/) U Y Y r A O N L E c w a C C N a m O m m O O E m 0 a) bq m m w— 09 C Q W a a) a+ a) O m a+ U 0 W W O 0 ` L_ C a LL d Y a) O ?i O � D p °o > oar o d m o o o X ty Q ccy w �a CC fA Um m Q LL m a) C C C C O X p E 00 m m'o o O a 1 0 U 9 fon O �+L-' N a) m m a)-p a o - m m C C A > Qa � m � °o Q 00Emo a�iami U o 0 _ m C � m Y Y 0 a' oO 0a C a 9 !� t LD f oU a) a)o O O � .. 0 m E m c 0 m C Q>' U O CD CD L L Q a N a) 0 9 0 E E N m m fn a E E `o Ul . O C O O m m O O a y 0 a U U O C p L = 0 0 0 a) N O O w (6 (6 N _ u, a) E O E u, u, Lo a)Y L a) a) L U m m E N C wE p y 0 C a) p a) p C C L a 0 c ma)mmm Uy mm o Es Es U N L U. O a) C a) C C C — L m > C O 9 m w m w 3 Q m L O 3 L -IDN N E'�9 Ul O a'TE U) m �Ya) m t y 15.O 0 O N N C y C'U m C C O'O C E m 0 0 0 0 aI bq — COp-m C 00 O .� UL S Q� o a)p) .+ E ♦+ V m oY oY �� c o E E to W 0 O C Y N � .0 .0 (n _ D a E a U o E E d o m o Y o Y 'o L, a)y E Q c m E a o c a O (C6 C m d) Ul C m O fn C m C m 0I rC fA� E H � �� cCZ E cC°) Z E � o � o m (Dp C C L E m a) --- c m E E E U m p a) -50808 C 0 a) U E 0 E o C y a)a > O O N C a) a) - QL ) m m T C _� a m L _ C y n a L 0 ` C 0 C0 0 C O O p Dye Ca) OE m a) C) U 3: (DE E u, E Q a) (D 0o m 0 �6 n 0 0 C U � � W m a a " Li o fn .0 m In m a ( Wl W 9 E.m .. LU E L o O p u `o U O N �' bQ a)y L a a) fn m m 0 m m C 0 0 �n p.' C 0- a) 0 Q E 0I Z C U 15- p) �,O C Q = O a C N Q CL Y O C a ME 00 0 a) a)-O a) r N a) EDL> a) m cm � E a W LU cC N 'C (6 fLn L U E M L O L Q O W U) -0 \ `m m m 0_0 C (C6 0 C C U N H U) Q ca).� Y> of°noo N a) p � � Q a m p).- C N N W Q E o m (D U) a) U to L C C m 0 Z U �a C mmEa) �-• ai a) C a a a C Q Q p_fn O m y i' V 0 C C C O U d 0 ao �inm U m.LoEp) aci o $ � Q o �m W c Eos ` aa) oy � E w = > o 'o >= :% � o a �� m� o c Q o Eo 'o Em Q (: ILU LU �a D 4i LU I w w z �C U) Q 1 h: LU o U) o d r LU s J Q ' m �' LL z U) z o H a 3 z0 Utf 3 f 0 f \ o U F i XLI� Li L o `o m E - � o - � m E o (D N N N N B O 4 etl Q t' O N ' o L O � O 0I � 41 A O 6 N �p LU 1 C7 `O ° O O a 0 L C L O N 2 N 2 C O '-' a3 O O 9 a) 9 a) O a C a)w Y C a C O0-2 9 o3: ° E -o o 4j) - O az 2.2 Q o m Q o m 0', a�6i Q c°ia baa baa 0 0 Y L 9C Q Ul 0 ° U ° U C O N T °� E N.`•(D a) 2 E C a) a) C'— C O Q O j o az aa))w u, a5 a Q o amu, Q= o ° m ID a) ° u, a5 L (�6 C a) C a5 a5 a) N Q a) N Q C U f/) a) N.O 9 C a) 9 C a) a5 — C 9 a -5--5 L a L X L (6 O U ° C a 5 E E o az ° o o � 2E o � 2E C f/) U � C a L W a) L w a) a) a5 a O y T C C E O U � Y Q C N tom/) �` tom/) �` M o a5 , a Qm a o >- ° $ ° o az ° E > °a Ua w m o u az o a o.o ° o o ° o.° o ° p UO Y a a) C O O a) a5 a) C a5 a) C F�jQ U N N ° O O > ° O L ° O N Qm 3 oao o �- c o O — o co c°) c°) azar ° � ° E ° .maa E° Baa Z Z C `m c az a)° a) °) c E o — a — C a) .0 a5 C a5 O E a) QOw Q) r -0 �°9 a o� a� a s a o m o m N Q U W � U C a C a a5 V fU/) N L O y 9 y 9 = 0� °a � ° E L d o E � � o s u,o o s u,o f4 Z z ° i o ° o oo c u, In In o � c o a o o Q° E °o ° cc E °o O d LC a) L L O L E E C U E E n H H rC V) fn U H M� H o.L. N Q a O Z i 1 r 3 o Q Q zC z = z x F-: U) fi ° # w � O a0I co ads s - 3 i 2, 1 O a) m U0 U0 .. O C y 3 C Oo Co p 0 a. o C L .0 E C a E '�Y '�Y O A N O N 9 0 9 0 y C ° > m ° a) a a) a O Y . O O C m 9 O O a U y O.�.a L L a) o n � `O O t/1 O Ul.° .° � t a) N o m Y O O w O w � O a o o-p o -ymo,Lo. -ymo,Lo. z m W E a 0 0 C C a E Eo C Qa� a)a a)a 1 0 a , W. C - Q ° 'C O O N O a) 1 y.Q a�a m 2 as as o-o C wE E N� U E U E o-2 ww(E' mo mo •.Q C O �i Ul C N"6 O L O m Y o (D o (1) ,\ N cC C cC C �,c EWao °a me me o¢ O E m o oaa o a �9a�m o� oma a m o o o m o am a) m E p t0 /1 N W U >.� .O U U 0 E c � oao° m _ � ° � ° o0 a+ :: O Y In u, :�.� a .o o _ Q Q - Itl c o L o c a� o 0 0 T O -8 ° t� - C w U a) m O C C -p a 9 15 Q cooaxiEm � o ° o0oro �� ° o �y � u, Qar= omOa ago' �Y Y U E m -22 0 a) O° a O a-O O Y f/) N 9 A A Y > Q Q a)CO C m w 9 L m O 15 a) o` O > Eo Q(6 Q U-Op Ya) ° mLUTw. ww xa ° Q I `EOO E U >OCm Lm aa O W O N coo C m'X �'m Y.0 9 a O j o � O C a t N W E ° o8oar= ° Z oUoo �� ,. mom' a) a� oyEom ° ° yam ,L.. °� ooamia�'� J o2 000i0000 � m EmnLQy.� `0 0 Q :oma u, 0-p-� o�ya u w EYm o^ W Z o a ° E m m ° ° 0 0 E Q>m w i m W c L `�a ( Er �'EEo � u, oo � ooa� `� r. 2 2 W O N m m U t/1 O m .. (n H y U Q O L O m a) O Il Q H Q° C m 0 e N aI 0o H LU c ° 0 0 3 0 (,W o Y w m w P O.� a l i� U o 0o cw m aYLL Ea Qo p o r o o y. „ L o U) RO. -Ls a)a mU) a� � m a Qo 0 0 3 o Q E o U a�a o m -o m-0 E Z J oW m ma a a La9�Lo 9TcL0 .. > 0� o�YUa UO O a D 9 yop�°-map-o o0LE y ao � p�oa f/) T C d) p Z () cc NopO� mm �Q,L.. 33m: ° (7 mmaii�°.� FL 'o LL p o 0 (D0 0 U) N U) O w W 0LU U fes/)H M C m co L N T C Q 0 W W ° –.� a � M H w �' �a rno d to C w U W z Z y L O a � a) coQ F-- U p C w 0 9M O Q N 0, U d Z O O >i > C to W m o O o O w a > d – O C U) C C 'C (6 m O W (n aw O'(6 w to W w > E Q C O J Q w C- w > E Q Q �M O`9 to O LL U) M w O N w ` o O > 0.-° o E (D > H O- O w M M p O m W o a w a o A Q C C O O O w ` L a M U �O a s lye 75 0 w 00 O J w O Q O C O a o E fl ° ° a) p W O E ° o C M O.O >.. Q w C V O W C M to Q N O E O C w L O r .0 D-2- V a C O C C O C N ltl o w t/`) w w C O w E w w 3:" m N lyd C (06 O O O (U6 N `o V 5 L w E Q> o sy E (DyZy Q CC fA O` >i U F- M L Z C C LL wa Y C O -0 M p O w U n C O M C L t E Qw w ° m C C O O`w O O 1 O 0 O E w E w wo E y6 N O O Y N C o m C E E E E .0 w C y6 O O N E ECO > E E p C c g O 9 C C N O o y O O O O` C E D S' w "O C N M (6 (6 N Y Q w =a E w w > w 0 C p w C N N +' u w 3 E o Q Q Q a0i o T o f o f . o E m.a) a y w (>Da). � o o -pesLY L tC oCo aC OY° 9M O ED /M a w.o E 0 '0 U M0-6-- 00 >i wC° U O U O _ w � 3 T L N(MD p O O C 0 0 M C.L.. O O O~ M M N to toC p O` O (D w M O`d a Q.-• w NY 90� �L - 0-0 Q Q(6 E to M a O) Q o•-' 00 E 0 Q O` 0 0 M C 2–U) 015 C Y M C M to LLa O Y MD B C 00---N O .0 d �6 0 9 O N CC >i O >i U) 0 E U N O0 �a(n M= D E O C C 9 L m E m w a w M w ° W M " to M to (°p O C w L.L.. U `0 M y m f/) Q J°- D 15.F(6-O M L aI } -2 C.� >i N a E >a to E Hyl C_-0 a > to.M f0/) > ° (�6 w C w (C6 w w M E m �' °0 9 a w `m E W Y o _ z o r a'E o(D`O.9 y a o ° W a w r E °) ° °m ° w.M�(n E a E w C O V ° N C z N � MawiEOE o Mrn °� M.Ew ° o OZ Z m N�o.Lw F a Q a.° `m E ° E aoi 0--to N ° w.� p C 0 m M C U M- .. Q O O D Q_-) ,a�° OQw r pE ° E4o = w (7 LL H — 'r- - rn = o �L .m° 2 o a =o2 Y ° E c° m Z � p wQ YO CJ O pwno °° > D �J F O Qm a) O (n9 in wL Mao W z z LL EML �.oQ wE M �03oa _ Q > > O o a ° a°'° o M w Lma �5 w > rC rC v) m o ° > LL o a) 0 P U Q M�°o N Q 1' a O CJ � � N �t/1 9 N Y Y "';:::...,..,� Y•� � (,1I�.,II r� II O C Y Z U a Q .0 2 E-o a O O Q (DN S Z O N C L E - N M ` Q J J a OL 3in� OO ~ L OL L C M O Q 2-0 `V o 0 o II O W N D C C C T 0 0 (6 C C � Y 3 a T !6 !6 EE o 0U -o �L � O O N 00 Y O C to to m 3 C'C O '� N _ N O N O to to J J J (6 Y 00 Y O'O �.0 Y L L O t/1 O-O c 3 O` O C N N O Q Q N N Y p O O = N N N . m o y y C O L L y .. '�a o o E L A O-O a} C rn RD w C E N LZ N Y O O C C Q.. r N E (6 U i+ .0. m o a � E'0 p- UO >(6 a) 'OC L O N O 0 Lo C J J a (6 O C 9 9 F yy O L > C a N E Q a+ V N O N N -E D N (6 U O_@ N -C C wN E C > OO YO a 6 O aN OE �� ( oO aE > OO UC� (6� (rO C)L LL w LL I x.l .�.�.. i a � j N r I J ii 3 lo i L y r C , I 0 y J � co07 W E a � t 1 y I? to a Y N U) S a O m v w H 1 r WZ Q LL LL W 0 o LU W U) m D LU W p w z U) Q LU O U) a U) �� r � W o J U Z Q 2 o L O o 0 i m o. E m a� c °a Al la.`PY N -�� j .� �; .• O a) ►y' .f- •ate S�: - ¢J N -°° .Lo. CO E O C a) O N a5 ..> .• N U U T a)a N a)9C 0 0'-' o a 0 3' O O O ' O a)-o �- - °oa) opo -ymo O 215—D2 W W o U Q9 0 - m o - (D Q o o o " N O in aU) a o E °) Cy O a)Y U m _ ° OM C N C O U O C.O-a5 O BO O �'X-O (>6 D .0 6 0 fn ul ° W L r— ° > u,maai °DE�w O �p p w C O a) O C Q � O- N E (xD m9 oQ2 ° E O E N f/1 O m w E O N - - C a"i 'a(y U �` �-o �M o ( o C o ani o m `ma� O °).oa o bEQ g o = ro E w j C E o Y 'a) c 2 E E a+ O E E ° a5 > -o C L E - F a) Q o 0.0 O N C Ll O Q Cn C (D o a m a) f/) a) 15 15 o2C mmo a) `m a5 � Q` a) o `m Yaaia mom. O L O (6 C a o y o °) Z C a) E ° o u3 L f/) C L E O a)L f/) a) wi a5 0 Y C 0 Y L a$ °tu °)o _ o0_ az O o o o `o a)o O 9 m.ami U o D C a U E T L a N O U a5 m a5 a) C -O C 9= ` ° o f/) 0- E Y L L o E O o w °a)0 ° o o ww o 0 ae+, .. ) U Y ° 9 Y C C °'L"' >O'L--' m T +g �S '� N m E u, O m 9.Lo. o Y eµ �*- '� {f vr: .L°'• orru° 0v o a) E o w m Ea5 m-y � h � °oaoo � o yoo � ° � mEmOr m >o Pa N d O (6 N a ° ° 0 L z C C N 9 y 9 0 (a-6 t`1 N CaL O N U Q �O U S 9 ° m y aai o m r X QL y o � E (D LLO — - o o ° 2 M 1 Q zZ ZcZc yU Q aaa5 .NN C YTO�.OO 0 HHC 2 f°/) a) N = Q 04oU > 0CJ Eo rW E F-L- woaC (OD 2 � O Rm Q °L COO° )C r* a q l 3 V H H = = fA Y Ul a5 a5 H'C 0 H.CHL 0 (D L > O a5 o � O z � < W My� zy z < z z / W 10 o 0 tom.. LL h 3 K F Q}t 9 E wwS- 6i P 1. 9 U y W z -- --- ` -- - [n tit- .d F-- Y--- „ II .I II 6 N I yI 4.Y 'y II I „ 11 li li t LU D 41 ry 4 1 4 16 n IC c ° - 4 W - LU 73; ---- �_-_-�'-"----��----��-------'�- --k---- -- - LU '! '! wco „ p co �� i Iii_ _ ____-_•�--'---�L_--_ U) �-1� !+ U) LU Q w a —p - z ° Q O a z () LL W o o � N U LU LLQ U) m 7 _ "006 W w r ~ a d n w Z U) Q F-- I-- � L ll� LU o0 a o W LU J U) r Q U) n Z Q _ n LL O H n - z m O C) i LL D CD _ C C (6 (6 (6 C S2 S2 ID.-0- -F, E 6 6 E p C p C p d Q E E (6 tll tll Q a x C C p C C O rli a a a :0 m o p - to o p �.. EDs ( s E 0 9 m 9 m Y N N N N Y � E E � Y N N N 6 C9 9 Q E T.� tll a a)a _ CU O (6.� O O G E E 9 E 9 E o (D a (D a rli m C O 6 p C C o ill N a 9 U O (6 to O (6 to N E ll L O YO N (6 O N (6 N 09 N 09 N - N C 9 0 (D 0 O Y V a) Q 0 O a)9 5 9 S 0 Y 0 (6 O -5 (6 M E C (6 (6 lG C Y (6 f/1 O O N C a O o > > O sy E a E a w6 U y (6 (6 aI C S U LL N E E � Eai-Ma a CD '� a�6im Y 0 9 > C C tll (6 f/1 N to 9 N 0 O T rp O L D O N H Q O E O(6 tll 9 L 8 0 (6 _ n L 9 O i2 0 to NC N 9 5 (6� N -O O C a YY O Y N M N 3i.0 `p '� 2 xp U y N tlla > Oa Cp p a U D N O y 0 N 0 0 o a C—y w (6 s L to 0 to i?tll O E a tll (D.L.. U E ��( C t6 a.� N p O tll O - O aL U 9 f2 0 m.fl-a-O M tll to H L (6= (6 O O 5 t` O a) N O N to Eo C a 9 to Q to O y N+L-• p'to lU y0 0.c E L (ll 0 w Q p a U E E 0 0 a)N y O N a W t�S2 C tll tll� N 9 w C (6 _ l to f?(6 E.�9 9 C a (6 0 0 0 - toil M C a L O X X— to p Q IC N to N N Y L.C a 9 9 9 N i?(6 Y 2- (D Y O M (6 to F-- O` 1�-I N E O O C (6 � 0 T) D N m o r a 0 0 to tll O 0 Q co ..� O O U N L a) E u1 m a s i?rli a A Z Z X C9 i?(6_T.- C (>D C O O tllL tll Q a�p�rli O RQ � a C O O o y U y E Q O °� aRto toa� TE E i, p�`op 3 `o Ur LL C (D 0 p C-9 'p to tll O y tll Q z J C u L E p Q w a rli C E >y O1 — o cj Q O V1 (6 L O O N y O (o (o a t2 m _ C] O 0 L w p L Y f/1 U (D L.0 N W fll Z Z Laa~ a�api >.E xY aaia m9 °� W E o Z M tll C n M i O C N E H H td r U C L y6 y 0 N Z to E O to O U (6 CO C �1 S S ttl �-O .� U d L N 9 0- 0-00 &N ^��4 H H S U) N (6 Cr.L.. A Ut H N 0 N L to a �; LL Q 1--1 ill O O O L 0 C .. O W w w L O Q Z Q O O 9 Ty y N Q U z U) m m M H U) E E O p E a E a 9 Y O ~ op (D op ao coi a) w w Q a m ^' W C C C o O N N O O C ° C ° 9 E N HI m a m a Q C C (D T 0 3 S Z Q O, m— L o mm a a (DY N rn m rn m p a y L C Q C Q E O = p N O N N m a m a E lo O C Q m - D w U E o am am O�C CO -O E -O E Q N U m Z O .O N O C N O °-p O r 06 E ° E ° N C m of'o E T 'O E T m m m L O y0 O O C to C d' (6 y�y O N O (6 Y "q C � m Qa.�O LLQ a 6 C m U >°O O 9mm w ` YC LE > a) .O N OO E w— ° Wa m N 0QO L O O > O OL m > ° m O 0'fN E'L-' C O C O to.>L a� oQ aE ° oar amo' atom L 0 (/i T a w.0 C � N 0 (6 O N a (p (6 N Sm E m Q I Q a m 9°m '� O m O p N U y O C E.-�. N to m O N o O C a L a O O Q C O °' '� O L N Qj w L Y °O` _�E 0 -Lo- 0 > m z O . to (6 m D Y L w a N O 0 a m a(I `m °O U O o Q o 2 o (n a C C C m C f/) f/)a m ° 9 C U C E N O o M m N L Q N m (6 O O Y m N m o l 0 Q t0/1 `p N Mm L N U Y C m a C O N Y ,.._ O- O O M L y m a N j E m O to C - Q .M 75 ° m w m o o E � c E ° a E N Y'> a'� 3 L O m Y'� 1%1 N CO H y30: O O a C Q L o ° 3 E p N Y p o o O (li a L to a H O O >`m a N L U.0 O (D p.E w 0 20 d N m 9 O Y O °-a m ° O J C N1 aI M m E� ° O W o m� ° mL�_ dim 'h m L QY C N tna Y V `.-. p Ty N U QO S 0 O m a.> O w d O m m O O N a N.m~ (D U 0 N O E N (D C C f/) - C of a m U N a N C Y C Q(/� p 9 O to .0 C N 0 L.0 L C Q Q'-Y N U (6.0 ((D f/1 01 m D 3 C_ U" m" �) O N Q 0 (D N C O'C to C a N U C C L 3 2 E o 0 iq 0 H H f0/1 9.L.. (a6 Q o w o a J L m 2 o (D m g� `o> O a L �h (DEa � � o o - aL �o`_ �aam i- OoO m N U O N O 0 0 m N U 9-0 L(n C N O C a a °~ O L o a'--' O.w Q m m N C L L .E o c ° T Q O m m E 3 W N m O) T y(D .6) a p�o m M 3 m m Y to C > 9 C N C w C m L a p Y y N C C r m L M 0 N W OU O O O'C 9 a L L U Q U O Q L_T a m a Y O N a m N to f/) O -O .. T C m O m U (D _ - O (n m W m Mm(D0 fl-�0--� ��.0 a) O 'a lw w N.X L m C (D fp/) m— > Y a O D f-LU m L L (6 N O (D C °m m �. O m s W' 3 U Q H O�(ID (6 9 m o-O�a OC U 0 N ° 0 0 aI I� -�in (n (nmmp� oo ° m � OaQa�oia9imQ-°o =0 0 0 Q �L o.L.. (D m E � cc-2 �Lin.Lo. f/) C C C >Lp N Q 9 to (6 O U O L L m C 0I W Z p Q Q T Y O L.0)w m m M N to MS(D (`p m W (D Q L p C 0 O (/1 3 2 0 C ` 2 3: - L W L C U ClL m o m -m W C m 0 0 . (n to m m L f/) O N N Q O > LU LU O C N W CO O X a O (6 O O y C m L a a (/1 ° "O W _ m U) 0 C a N L 0-N m O -O C-0 OL O m" N L'9 N O (D N Cn Q — Q'm m'�.E m Y 9 m p�m C O m m m-p o m o N L Mm Mm O'_-- Q�CyO d' Z O N p)3 15 °Y C (C6 m (C6 U U-0 o a.y m 3 ° Q O O d O C-O m f/) m 0 L E L - N-0 3 0—f/) O Y d D O Q to N V 0-m to ° O N u� W ~ a s m a C � � R w X w a C (D C�C -— O Y O 3 N O N X O m W bq r �.x O U -0 d 3 C 3 ° (D to Q N C.O E L J z C VI C (/1'"'m (D -E a N m N N.� ?i a N Q 2 mL 5L Q? wn3 t7 �o��EL 3a0o33 ii LL ° 0 c a o U) CO W U W (n tD N C N m D 0 3 LU W O N O W 6 c W Q O O Q U) O O O H H L O O 0 p n-_ O a C °_ L a 9 d Q 6 LU �ZH O N C O .. N ZU) aa Q NO O O W QQ O o ] � 0 O O-0 O O 0 C O O J_ .,.. aI 0 C O -2 Y o a E o 'ss _ 2 o (6 N ._ Q to.- d .0 C ` U DO O O ° t°il N O E w `o a u O 13,O V a.� C c a p a Co 0 O Cd (6 (6 O O O ClyCtl O Q a N 2 fA m l7 H H tY :2 tY c°C' Y t 4 j o L Y'- C (6 C C �i I 4 U .O a)C O Qa N ZQ v m o � V' i S fit o o ° aCi 3: a3 ° E o EC M 9 O C O O E -p rn U C U N U O 1 a• C C a N o (1) O (1) O C � fff �' - is � � V Q O Q ° '�'. o m rn rn Cy _ f ,Ei o$ (6 C (6 O E omE C C a C O y j O o 0 Ea o Ea TE t 00 'N y�y 00 Q O C d' (6 C d' (6 Q (6 °U a U f/1 f0/1 N a f/1 T U -O C - A �yQEm` o m m Ali o m m E o a.z rn y Q o °- w. I AI .y y (D 2j amoEammuj .� oo rn E C ° o O T a a o a.m O o m mo h 1 Ewoc °aco °~ a� °. aEi 3w a °O m E Q p rl {y � o '`W oama� E0Q .L.. `O � .ci �,o14 ,.dla,. - b m c..a o �aIJ ,. �a fl- a0 °o a o w O c y - +rr- - o M to °- i o C to o a Y L °� O ° E o .N. I � �•�. Y T to O a O L - O M 1, M aI O N N (6 N D N omm o ° - gym EOE �rip I � L Y �Y 'C N L O 9 O Y C.L.. (6 N Im ommQ�n laoc �� N L ZO° 0 O N / o N o ° °O Q ° CC 1 O O C L C ' 4 I� ' Q OW — Q'�� 22 y o ( E y o.Lo- c � w> QzQ o N= O CJ 0 DL ° Vo a oaw c6F Ysop W visro° O E 3 OO U) n N O (v�1 U '� Y.N ai C 2 Maxi �ro (7 � �° ILn IEn� � t ��a�. m ._ E N Q a o z 1-4 Z ry Q0 1MMr ( Q z = z x F-: U U) N W4 c� d M O C � O U L a D to a to C CYa O U N U U Q TD C C Q N :Ifu hlli•1� o - ai-oo T 6 Y X m m 9�p O O N m C O o E ° No p O O ° f/) N y0 to O O o U ° o o O o L a o E � E E L (n E O C a.-•+-' t/1 a E y O O y W E o > o m a a `m ° > Q�orn '' o 900 0 0 LU t/1 N N C O C w U N E t/1 : ` ` N o L a O L D O C o Q-ap Q Q C OL a C C o U m w a N Q N N fl O Q o -Q to C m N Y Y t�L a a A H U C Q O O O O �'a O N C+-' O L U z -° L f/) ° w '--4 m � E O L a U U N m LU p N-O ` E L O N 0 .�- YO Y a o C C W O a w � Y ~ o it o mw N C o O E N N (6 (a6 3 n -- LU U 0 C C L I N °L N E O y O L m m _-- _ - p U) a a < F 'Qy y .o y 9 ° 0 Q o a a 9 w E E — � � r� r o-o y rn y o 0 Q. E > m `m `m _ o Z o W � O O o U ° 0 (D--F 0 o E f0/1 Q o o).�� o).�� 0 0 0 o p.` U o p.` o EY c E °� ° - o ° c N ° w 0 a a y O E-O °_ dd c ° a°i �.� .� T � ttl y E d(D r 0 M`1 N Ow o m y Zo N 9 0_(D -0 a o_ a o_ d J 0 d L C L.-L ° O .� f/) E o t ` E C ` E oI z N a N L_ N C) 2 fA w 0Fa °F �F-E Q H S '-'r O cC°' d o �°' a o LL LL > a o c o o Q L fes/) M a) N y0 ° O C ON U) M M O L a Y L E a .0 O O a Y LU LU Y M N a) O Y 0 9 ° jp�? N o 07 (n ° ma)EEoa � ° ° E � °m Wm a o 0 0 M ° E L 0 3 ° w - C 9 Y "U"L C wn -O - W Z C C a)a L Q' 0 a) C 3 a U) Q M E a) ML U 0' Q LU o n ° M Q0� m a) E Q Q0 C C.- U) a) C O C jn a) O ° M�'� a) m m W U) 9 Q O�6 p N C O U CO U O U LU m o a a o O L o Q E 9 U) M 5 C L C C C O x _ E Q Q ° M ° M ° 3 E ° o z U Q O.W O-O a) C - O LL U) Ea)-O a a)—0 a) W C f/) M y M M Z U O O y M C M D O x O E Q &c Y L C ° W QM C Q U Y N C a) T C y O w C a M O C N Q E a)-O a) N Z a)L Y E U °C E M C M C 0 o 9 U o o .� E o 3 0 0 o m.o O w Q E O — L_O L_ Q a) .. 0 u Y(>Do m � u, �.rn 0 ° 3 (1) � `o 0 U m O M a) w C (6 O N 0 N C O o U 0 M L E In Q o o O E U In L Q Q Y Ul Ul Ul C a)L C Y O ° C — a)a r a) O M.. p a) a) M, d y -O a) a)'C N O a) U O C C M E O S 3 a) C O C O O t/) O E N d m M O Q Q W ° y a) y V M Q O a C C a 0 0 U D M O V a).0 N O C a) C C o ° M M O C M Eos m 5—L—E � �� � � � � � o >— a o m -O N m C > N o m 9 in lyd ,C Q Y O o O O (96 a L X °' d -0 L °f/)-O-OO O a) O = �n N a) m U' E 3 �L.w.E M M E H 3 cC°' �L.E O LL y0 N O 4 N CM C N > O O O O 0a 0 o > o 0 ° O O 9 N o M ' WD � U (a6 Q M Q O co I � M Y O Y N 9 > 9 > A N ° U N ° U O N O a O I E UU C U O O COC y U U M M E M E m o c (D E c E O ° in o a in o al 0 X X Y � O 0 C O Y a) M N Y M N Q c KD 3 0 .O a o Y o .O o o eialeindmi y "o o '� a°i a3) ° o ° al U) ° Q C°' Ina Q './✓'. I" 1. ii a) uj C u, y ° L.0 O Q O.0 Y W a) a) C M a a)'O o )` s. a t/) O UO Ul Y C O O / - - C E C 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ° --2 -° It x 'q -Mo.� a .Lo..E u,� . m ° ° °}o Amo°� ° � .,. U) M a) Z 3 N.�O C ( } It 4 Y 0 Q a� Q30E0Lo o a r� U ° oM ` E Pya L a) C ° E M — L (D M UO y N C a YO 3 N Q Y ~ O M OU Y M E O z > C °`o.(D .0 .D o.0 o °a Q Q Y �m a ° ° E * Z �J O = Q U TU 3-Oay 3`0 V Eoa m�o ° �°_ gam ' d U) 0 r Ul M C 8 — td)/1 N-O 0 N Q �4 o z < LLO z Q l 0 1 L s w • _ N tf — _ O TYA 0 \ m co E E n -- • - o 5 3 al in m O U T w 0-6oa5 -p a• C °m > o 0 0- o a o a a h fn wp �ro w E � � E . 1 I o C_ 9 !6 L ° >' E U 9 to O ID ° EO — ° — UN w ° D(6 �i C y to E w C to E-R 0 C C O E-p 0 C D U ° 0 U ° w to 0 C LN w O O.�T N U L T TT ' E w �'a s in w Z w.in m �$r�, ae I� '# #, # y w O 0 a5 -mo o p Q w C t aaa5 10Cw0 LrCpC atDo C aw0 C(6 a C 0CE p ( DE 00 L n O O 0.C� M Q 0 ♦ (0 C C9 w w 09 w w 0 0 L_ [ E Q 0> w w w O w._ w a a c a Q o Q° w a` Q o C C N 0 ° Lyw oa5y _ O N lG C w 0 (1)C O 0 O (>6 w C 0 fUn 0 v II 1_ - • r '. Q Oa Qa a [ w OL-0 -o a FL FE w C w 0 1 0 y a p to 2 a)La O (1) o to 2 w E.� O Q C N �i E N 2)w mox > °� - >& N3: ° m p p- a Q w O U M a (° ° E w 0 0 o w ° U w-O Y L O 3 YC E L C D �6-OO 0 C y 0 m °. E ° Q w L o ff' ° ® m to E w 0 0.6)f/i w Y 9 X Y 2 C A rn V w E a5 ° C O D to.0 w C— O L.0 r O)y w ?i D y °a w Y L C_ a5 0~ C Q w ° O a w p 0 w C p C 9 Q 0 a � L w w 9 O O O '-' 0 p In a.�Q ma o9 wy �yCa LU L w 0 M M O Q 0 L Cww wO�,L UL w � D 0 d'LU w U N w 0 a to 0+-• >i 0->i N fp r a > Q E C C 3: C 0--2 p a Q 9L to p)°-UL ?� O Na�6 a5 ` (>D O a a5 C L p 0 9 C O Q 000 a OL p w O ?� ��-Oy C w.- Q W _ 07 F-- C fn C p_�a (6 to a '- :. LU a s.� ° o N N w w O O O E O N(D c C E i O C a5 C (6 N " W X L O O O O Q L (6 a5 C O 0 9 f`p N H w p r- FMCO C 0 Q 3 Q Op Lo 15 6 2 9 0 6 0 0 0 ° °U 3: ° Y ° o' w� wo Dc Eva ° 3 ` _..• Z VI �i O T S a5 N L+L C C ° C 0 0 w C U O 3 0 O Y 0 V .� O � C C �_ _ °0 9 fn m fn ° fn a m m-p E Q E rn w m fn ` E _ a a '' fnEowaSowE w boa ° T a5w ° J O L a5 O a5 a L Q a C 0 w L 0 0 w w L O Q OI Z C) fn U) Q a > 3 0 a5 3 o 0 0 F__ Q 3 a a J5 LL li r o � N H LU U W W m D D W LU r � /'. W Z (n Q - w O � a LU LL Q I Z O - 4 Z - o 0 O E �J a� rL=== N ry, X W 0 FMLIo o ccIT ooLA I C MIN Y o o o z— o:z_ - o y s.. _. o o a' Q — o I I � o � a� m LU LL 75 5 j p N y p y N O 0az amu, �' � oa0 � EaOa E�� Oa � Lin p (6 a y 0 y o 0 T 0 Q 0 U a L a)o a °oma -°p 0 0 � 0 o m� c�6i L C a a - � 0 0 p- a5 - 0 o a � ai 0 .o 0 a 00 �� E az u, �a u, a�Y (D (D a axi p-� °o a� � � 0 a� . �a � m � Oa>iE `n aim °-:Q 02'' o -�Qa� �o �nOu, Qo a0 0av0 U U0 0 00 a) a O O a) p C p I� T E - a) T E T a5 U a5 U a5 C-a O-: to Q O fn W O E fn Q L O O 0� 0�a5 o a�a r a C C O Y C C O- (6 0 a5 w E O a5 m a3 N p p O C-O Ul L Ul a) C N L C L 00 Y7 O ` '-' Q a) (p o 0 a�C O O C a)Y az y a m 0 0 a w >uNaa))LC0 pp E(p6 T0(C6 .a5 aCOoO E O9 O 0 0 N aO 00 0 �O n o O O OC a)Y ' D pU0Ea)l ywCa`oCS5 )0 y Oa OO sp� NaNO0, 1 o E O m > Ea(Dz' rYaCamCa))ao O C Oj Q Y (N O 5 5) aPyfWay L >O C E a) to E a) X m O p X m L 0 9 O da �Yo C u,~ Q O E �oEE � OQ� � 0Q; (D Q O Q p�fl-a5 o a a 0 0 a+ �V N C 8 Ul O U to T O V O D N a) (J J En .0 C_ a) Ul C "O O L O-N to O (D C O `p m a) O p�U (6 U QQ O VI O a) O'� O a a a) O N O a3 a3 O C X N-Op E Ul X 'tn C Ul a3 = U OQ-pYYin U (D -F,�a � 0a�30 a0i 0a�aa °oW Z Z a) (C6 O O a ltl fn N D O C Y D V (6. C 9 O (6. D O a C L E C L a) r„ H H y Q a C a ltl C O E w.�y6 O O p O N O 0 0 E L a O L O O O d L a) fOn a)-O p)O-Ul = a Y S C a s O �4 �n NEu, a�a° (7 �� 0 H� � ma� a�� c['° Q°or °� Q Q° OE�m N Q - _ _ a O Q O P� 0 J z < Z z r� z U) ' O W ED F ` C) 7 � � LL \ t-4—I 0 o p N M __0 J -- A o o f/) m O C C a) � u, °mom° �' o'o'�vam E �6a o60) �'�� � rnmOQmrnm 1n � oaxi Ew `° C m a a E N y a) O a) m4 m a) m a 75 ° 3 L 9 a�w ° a -La(D oCm ° o .LECmC+L�°-•�'.o o i ° om o C oo U� ' O O ° O m ) D° DQ wm )C0m (DD' M��L) o oa E ° L ° 0E° , ° Emw U) w mmm mo ° w > Oa3 ° M W aEo9 o_ WW 94yn o ° � 39W W aam°°am)i- 30 o O m N 00 ZzOO tOwi 2r LCCw-mo°°U- 0m�LQ yaofm/i) a-aa) aOd' U / Y ` m° ao° a W o mUo a a y Q a° x o E aa U o9 ° Z Om 9 -oOLa) Y . E oW oo OoLo/ m Wn 0, mv ° wtN O m m0 O: i L InU `m NO3QQC L —0O OE . WaWU) N L V ' ° � C° o ` _ CQv03aE O (D Lo oa y 0 O 4E C amVio1 � o oDoU a3aLU ao oLmCiiE Ctl y U) 0o O / w 0p ON a) E Q O ° 0 Q Q0 L E E E E m sH � Q in oua 0 [Qo ° ai ° nOrmn LO NQaaE LL n 4F E a c 0.m U) p) m'0- E m m.4 aa)) E o w a) u, mE o u,mp) maw m U) — N 0 a) O O a) w a) > a) L L E p p 9 3 a) U o'E y 3 a W 01 Lo X Z 9 w Z o M o m a O - � o �L-p0ai � �� W z o as 3-o00�9 > o. � 0 oaa)i In o a )Z C C N Q O y f/`) N C O O L °N C 3 `O 0 O E a Q °o.E o� a m Q.� In a)a) -o E a ai a c i<a °m o E m LU d U) o o 's a'E 's U o Y L L N_T m a)y C �` a)9 Q U) (D a) 9u,9 0 9u,� z QY Y ° m 9 E 3 c° E E c a o f o LL O -oo O 'E-o°o D a 3 m �a a m u, D m T p.N a) m O m O Q W a m N 0 0 3 0 a) E U O 9 a C O O a'- o U � f°n .� m. � �' � -oo Q . .�_ � -oo Q p m (D U a Uy f2 C w o o a) O L U N a) W 9 O-O Oc M M C O U iil -O Q �+L-'.� CO W `m M_F 0 C L O a'mt O o °- (D M o a)Y M m o E a 0 p)c Q. O� Y , p y f/) =(D C U a O L c N OO `o (D a a"i u, u,L off. m ° O ° o � �'�.� EE 0 O � ow- ay x E w o �CaoQao oo ` M 4poMa)mmo c ooroO= E f) C Q ) E QocC OpwLapOrom °v E 3: co r m ._.. 0 N O s o o o o 0 0 p p LL A v �y LL C � a) O N o m E Q m y L C p C a) `m _ m'OEEwm m.4oXE o C m a o c ) Na) O (DN S0 ° E Y 0 0>yo° o.m E o o Q 3 Ec > 75 N 0a) a my�O 3aQ9 ll� Ny f.mc aa-o C -6 ° op L 30 N mQ a `�- o O ` 0aM p paQ) N `O 0- O N C 3 0 � E p-L a 0 0 o s c c E o m s O > U m 0 0 o.. �6 c 9 Ul N T m a)y C a) >`M. 0 5 a) a) C C N O 9 Ul 9 a) 9 9 a) ° c c c o ° 9 E 3 c° E E c a o o 'L--' QQ a0 ° m - a) omu, ° - a) Ocp y p 0(oco °o &a) a)ui wa �o wLL- o 0 00 ° c > Eo um'39cp � m ua m �] 0 w m— 0 Qa m (w ° a) m � T°'N�-FZ>2 75 r 3: om. ° > 3: wo 0Exw t>tl Q O� �' m 3 a m 9 0 0 3 0 a) E U o 9 a'C a) ° y N > C a) m f/) a Q.0 f/) m N a Q X c E y a f-I O m m m'C � O 01' C w o O m L ° C ° N m L O m O O c Oz z c 3 > � ° c a�� E maw a)"L ° � `m M_ 39 �� d' > C O m ° C C 3 0 a) C °-3 (C6 o Ul m t/`) c 0 0 a m 0 c Q O a a L a m .+ a u o L U O p o L E c p c o W ._ T.- Q a) f`) m d Ul Ul L N f`).- m C O p N f`) w'3.0 N E z J V 3 3 a C m 0 cC 3 y 0.� ° m-O N y 0 a 9 Q U Q N a 0 N a) O a) m a u y 3 a X E w a a t/) m O O = O r w ° EE.w U `o_ Qa)� c pc ° °) ommm c ° ompa-O o � `o'� 0) c.o c o o p)L-. 3 u, 3 ° Q 3. o a W F w `o_ 0 3 y a) c o Q +% °- Q a a) .c .� 0 0 o a) o.�w 0 > (� U) (� N VI N-O °M C a)L C N O .0 a L O m N m y `O a Q O m N 4 L o o d >, C a) a) L m m a) O a C O = L -2 )E p.f/).0 L p)Q f/) C E � � N - 3�,L.. 0 � wQ� H � QoU cCa) Oa) °) u,L3° cCa) OoOLOm °) � N Q a O Z 1 < 0 1Mr J N N z U � U) - - N W4 d 0 0 Q a 0 m a LL 0I B N Q Q O B 0 V O B N O A O LL� O N LL N w L 0 a U U C =p O O U O a w O O ago �a as v a Y Y w W.o oa In az m m U O U.� L CO - H LU d' O-a5 E 00:� O Ul U U r Q moo ` ao0,- .�o 0 0 Q >.a- o m w w a aa C a (D a L.� � oa -oc -oc W Z O a W w o rw o a m ai m m m m o7 LN+ w >, O C w w9 C C W (n C C L L O w�`L C f/) f/) O O U) .. a5.� T 1.1 y Ul w L a o W O O a� o C L w.L.. C Q.o W L - >acp O o c O E Qo Q Q Q- r QE +' 9 a�f°n - y W 6- a�� a�� U) v u o u c o.w w 0 cc ° m O O r w .°a.� U `g u � y o .x � .x a 0 N w C U C w w w w W H C C O i O T C C 0 C � .Z O� a)Z l' Q O E C w a u, U w .�-o a+ .: °in Q a o ai O ai J Z a`) in woo w w a � a-E s E m c E m Q C) E U) f n° 0 �� m H � Q o 00 �a � Q �a � Q LL r 0 � o � N U LU w U) m D 73; LU w ry ~ a LU z z cn Q I-- I-- w O 73; a U) w U W J (n Q (n Z Q LL U) Z O n z O O n fl- - Q f � o O N O s V y � Q Q A N N N N A N A S S r ro 0 0 m d a� a� LL LL a 9 C m � L fl- O O N C�.0 �Y O o m o a m m 0>`o o � m s Q Q m V1 O U (6 9 N N m.E O m a Y N (T6 O O �p O X O E a a ttl N fl-O L U O m C m m to > m N N O m U0 N N Q Y_ oar .L V = _ 0 a V1 O 0 0 C m O F- � m Q� � TL Q O bQ O E 75 = O m a N N L p N U > +' O"' O` U a ya 7 yQ O Q y6 N O C o o a O o � Oo CO DO W QSZ_ O pa C-ya=U a+ aU CmLO aYQ+ YOQo o cO 91U-LmQo 91(7 - Z o � Y Q ° te °;oO o (UD Q o (� o O acQE w0 o-om - � d 0 -LmmOo �W Z E OEE J H H m ra L U O O C o U) U) VN C C > UN - . dmo 0C S V) F- U� -0, m 0 U z OU OUU C7 N g 4 �4 o z z 0 Q O MM J 1 Z � z = z � z o U $ U) z z � o W Y � o d A t L 0 0 `m o o a yo m Q O m L y a) a) (C6 9 Y a) O Qu,L�aoa u, c m'�9 E m u,° °a - o a)y ami o a) 0 9 0 � °� u, 0 `U O >C y O y C L m 0 t`1 o m ° a) m E�p . C o ° (6 ` O a)'- 0 C� �� m '' a) Q y E 0 T�.0 a) � O L O m m O't/1 a) a) O C y a O C O -O C Q U O 9 9 9 H a 9 C m 0 E (D c 9 Y C.0 Ul y � O T y a) a) (6 N'_' Q O- w O m m O y f/)-0 9 L_ a) O m Om (D 0 YN a)) -= U ao O a) ° ° Y C Y E 0 ) a) EO f ` >a E> O > C /) a) a)9 ) aLm L c o O a) E m o a 0°Y E °� m mo3: D o (7` E O `L ° aa g N p _ C wU 0 > 0y0E T> N 0 0 m E L o omp o a 6twuco E ww E D 0, O ° ° � aoEoa > Oa)U L a) TO 00 CEa) > NN OaCaOo ° EyOEaiO E O m ) (D~ m mo) �O ) M V a) > C OO E ) E � °oQy y C C a) O a) ) ° m C °EO -L'awa9Oa (D a)-• 0 Q E a acv o °m.00o po�aCaC.i)- 15 v C f/)Y-O a) Q O Y _ a ° 0apEa ->a �Qo0 a) Q am ao0W 9WoQEi L O moo Ul L C> a 0a L� maN � Dy ) M o ow 0E - � p Q > UL a YC OC X O p Ea) m oa) w KD D M CO a) m r ?� o m s m U Ul O m a Q C Y `p E C a O 0 T-O T O_ a) a) a)9 m p p ` a.>L C O m U o 0 L E o o ° m o.E.0 0 0 0 a o y o o C L'9 ° m o a C O O m a)a O a E ° L_ O C O C o u, Z a=.� m o > ° ° o m m o E O a° o m-p m o -o u,r U o (D m o. o o c c o o a ° E E o E U E o E ° m o > U D > m a o � u, m C a o E m 0 w o w o Q o o u,.X E.X .x m u, a)o > ° .E °� a o N M L -O.(°-6 .a)'(6 O'�a N'C O CO C Y O.- O O C C a) C d m C H Y a)'0 Ul O Q U (6 Q C Q- Q Q Ul a C Q a) b t ° > ° O a' C L ` O m a) m y �' Y a)L O a a Q w O C t/) p-O Q a) Q a) t/) O y a a) a) a 0 a) T wp m3 n a > > U o au (7mo `m > m Qmpmamu m > (7�a (7c 3� O C C � m Ea mo -Ew o �a3a) LT�°a �a� EE � a QM�0 � o m.x � O ° O m a) ?� a) O.- O C L N LE a.� Eom�Y o-' �- Q m C(/) m L 0 f/)L 42 C L m m O O m C j a) m o m O-- 3 0 u, �.4 o9 E >,o � ao mEa Wa) oQ L >�� > m o 4Zwm maa°-i �Om o ° Eoo ° � >,� p (D w ao o �L �o as f/) y Y'° a O C m a Y Q f/) O>-O O m.E a)-L"' N O E LU m o a m a o m W a L�o C o a)oo a Cdf E w u,o o o a a)a Qa °rte o a) Qao 0 p 0? o ay aQooMLW X Q ° Co > m9 _ . oOMo > Qw 4JCy Em c� w :•_. WN id N U (Y6 N (C6 0 >a�' (C6 6 Eo (C6 9 O p 9 0�(6 N a �I m cC J Q U C f/)-• C p o m L L= N a) E 2 O E J C B w U) E � o.0rn '�' �` YaO � a) a) �-.o u, Eo ° EooCo > U) cn > o Qa� m-°o Z ra >'�y � Dye a > � E0 T< oy� oa) a) Q a LU v `o LU 00 LU � o�° � cn a men bra m->' (D a� E,°�. Ea o m �� 0 Q -0 > Ul a)w bE0 Co 0 0- CO� Y T a) N T-0 E N H E � c X .� a) a.� a ._ r _- a o 9 `o ff y m E a-o m a [O i C > ° O m m fn.x m o- a m w a m O a°iaUi�`9Q d� 3 � 0 ��� oo ° a) Xa.� m�� a y1 N E a (�° Q: o m 9 m m L>O a o w o Q m o� o' moa) w0 a) a`) O ° ooEo °� a W (j Q C�C (��aam y �aYa`�ip-aai � >'m � aEiamoE°cow J Z ld C O C a C C- O a) f/) f/)L a)a O C O m > C L y O C m Q O N O m a) 7 m C O a) L ` m C 0 L U a) ° p U m a a) Z O F Z C7 U) (A (7m °° 3 � �.. 3m ° u,a Wo Eo 3om.EmE iiLL r s p o 0 � N U) N LU LU ° m U) p LU2 w LU a_ o a p � w z cn Q N z w 0 O U w U LU LU J U) z (n Z_ Q o w U) Z � O o z E O U - E o 0 F m a LL w O a 0 to C (D to a)0 ° X E y N ° M O M a) -O C a U U 0 0 3 U a) C 9 a to a ` (o _(D-Lo- to N a s M +' U a) E O 3 a) C - Q N 3 y C T'C - N C a E f/`)L O ° w U m 0 °-E t`1 a O C a � a)-0 °-OL COQ a)C E O O "' -O O (6 E a) a) C O O L C W O N a) ° 9 0 C 9_T a) -O 9 0 9 a L D U > N M O M Y (6 O o E m a a) O aU M a) M E tOn C O O 3 U 3M 0EE - mm '. 0a) M �a 0-O to °a).}-T' ° 0.tn � E'0 curio °- E m 0- 0 m U 0 0 a E .°in a °_ 0 oa EmO W � ocMi E r 0)00 �a0 0 �' M L-. a � ° a � as to Mom .� m -y a(D) M M 0 a` Qin .L.. a) � QE Qm 0 L ° yaM � aa)i ° � ° Mtnw > o oin O N L E O O +L-• to 75 0 M a)C a) O U to to - O E - Y > a) to O E m L to a) a) 3 C N a) C_ to M to °) Y-4, a)9 O U °a O > C L L a to O M N D a) a) m a) a) O N Q 3 9 m.> C U D N to M L O O C M to M N .0 0-a E a Q 0 9 C tT U a) U 0 3 0 O Q M 30 to a a) C L a Y to Q S a) O C C a)a a) to E a M O L °- T p C a) to.- 0 M to'- O U O U.-.._0 E O U 0.• a) O V m �L�-° o Wu a- T: (Dorn ( to ME inU TI (D ° ° ° � M0 tn ° -o 0- v m� .°`.a)E 0-0 L �m 9 a) w 0 0 0 0�°.� aa) °9-0 0 �° � ° 0Q (D ED - � Mo �y oM> ° ° a+L' 0 a) MM0 09 too M � a �� 0a o E �o °a �' ° Q��L oa to .-y.oa 9 ° �' 0 tna to > -Z o o a o.� 0 � o L 0 E �' M o '' M 0 o aai F,2 y a) i.Y o M o D E F, wn� 0 M a) a)o M 9 a) y t o °� 0 a w aai o.0 a)a y 5 0.� M a o-o 5- W,(6 C O > f`)._ - to a) Q Y LL f`) O jn O U 9 E +-' O O M N O C75 t5 0 E in a) to C a M ` O . a)-o C 0 O a tT C ° > M M O O.o C U O a) C a a)-o a) to E- E (D toy > C 0 0 O 9 N a N C a) N -Q.0 O.� a C U 0 M C a) a) 3 a) O) O f°n 0 U O) C 9 a) N to p N M T E i� O C a M�>' to fn L M M ,y ._ t/`) > E a s U U O C 0 a)._ 9 a) C on 0 M O o a) a) a C a) D a a) C a) = O to E E a M-p N to Y 9 C to Y M >L N y C M w O C O D M L a) O to 0 a C a a)a � a to C Q °w O M O ° - O 9 O U E a) tT E a Cin C.� a)L 0 C -C to O CO_ C tli C O a) O N CO C E a) C t`) to a) (6 E w t`) ._ O O a)Y a)in H y M a) O.� M N 9 .O t/`) to >0 t`p. O-o 0 E O M U O- O a) >` !?'� 0 E y U a) E O C C a) t� a) m y 0 0 0 M 9 0 �' 0 0 to M E c 9 to'E 0 0 o E'E 0 a 0 E 0 E ` 0.0 �a Q>.0 o-a 0 .N .� '. E E a 0 m-°o a E 0 o L U 0 3 ° 0 0 0 0 0 '� 0 0 y E. > ' L O °R 0 > 0 O C L O L a 00 M C N (6a) FP ° O a L L O L L O O X0)0 FEZm3 () a) 0 a- m � � E i---o 0o o- O `m to Q UM stn F-- F-- o.- 0 0 0 a Y a) C Y M C O a) t� (D Z C T Q p) a) M O a C >, N C ° ° N a) a 0 C (6 Y to m� M a.W O fn 3:9 a)a N fOn M M M O L to a) y C.0 E T E- 0000of '� 0 tn' E0 in ° 0 6)m o M WD tn1° 0 wo6. .OYo �' o a M0 � 0 � ° > 0 a 0 9.> C _ _ M O 0 a) a a) ° � W O U+L O 3 M Q Ed) w U O M L a)9 X M .0 F a)'-,L.. M Q M M O to O E p).tn U a)N O L O N 9 t�C tom. m 0-2 t�2'o M ) .a) M Q T O 3 to C N .0 C O C M > to T E a a.0 0 to C N O- 0 0 0 0.0 &° M y to M 0 �L-. o m ° a) 9 9 a) O 0 a)> to T L > y N O to E 0 a) 0 E M ao L E a O M O O L a (D 2L a)a 5 mm a) 0 2 15 2 Q C 0 U L ° aw) O O 0 0 E C M a) M-O a) C M M O M t�> M o M L O a) a 0 0 a) 0 3 0 a m.. 0 a `.0 E C to m a) M 0 a) a) t U a 0-M r a _ a Q a > M O a) ° N fn.� U C a) Q a).w in Y O Y to w 3� C °) N M C ( a) 2.0 to O tom' M M 9'> C a) t� w a) .0 N M to-O to U L 9 0 C75 OL (6 O N0 (D a U U C E to O a a) M a) 9 a E a) (6 C W M 0 a }} O to M ° O L C a) O O a) N O � 0 to C '"' E M O Z C to '-� 0 ° ED a`n) Z 0 a.0 o E w 0 0 E 3 °-0.0 0 ° E 0 a) m 0 a)w a to w a E EoO 0Lp0o Mtn tL to to 0.O 0 -Mo M -0 E Q .L-.a `m o.� to M 9 0 �' 0i a) -M a'0 0 0:. E 0 °a m O 0 a .E t°n 0-in to 0tn.` 3 L tnOMO� > a _ U 0 Q 0 a) 00 � tn �a� EMo-a)m3: MQ� EO LLa 0 0 0 0Q aim L � a� to.0._ N 0- ma's �L=a�°L as ° Q .0 a>)0.0 -0 �0 '' o o. 0 m a) Din Z C E C C Y in~ E C to"'a.� ` C- '"' to o y O N N . 0_ a M 9 (>p D a 0 Z N fn 0 .O O t/`)�a 0 M w O M 9 0 M (6 a 3 0 Y M > w.`• to 9 Q O a) C L O a C o a.2a�� 09o-• o >yMEO °ma� �y baa c � a� a� E �` E oa 0 0.0 Q D H C O toy a)]°�-6L 0 a) N M a) a)Y-- _T OY M O M 3 0 L� O C a M 6 C CJ bq M U C a C 9 a H O E y » > M to to a s M a+ - E in 0 o 0 X 0 `0 0Ma) 0E 0 m m� E o a) E Q Q Q w a a)w M m E ° a� Q°�> :_y o o o i. E Q 'N L -Mo o Q o ai .� m a a o �J = O a0i �' °� Uj � a'o: N Q _ a O Z m C C z O O a O C a Q W a) a) w N Y w a5 ZU U '� a 0 ° �J Q Y 9 L 9 m Z C -Of/) O L W Z O a C C 0 H C O w C'O O O L U) O Z H a U > Ta U a) O O a5 C O U N^ t0/) 9 9 0 C N a5 9 O (D C c a E ?a + N M rW4 C 0 O Ul a) O a)= h O a5 9 L U W3: O0 Y O a E O d O °o m 9 � m O Y ° E a `°o r. > p) ° E O a O a O C L ° ° + > o O in az m o o api o `a) 0 L C �C y0 .O t`1 0 C a)jp N O 3a 4O (T6 (U6 N O Q 0 0 a) �. C_ T a O O 9O OO_ N >a ° 9 °- 2 O `off o a t t � E � OO O.c a O U p.E O D o m � � Q� 3:0 � 3 a � o 0 a) a a N U)Y �9 Z.0 Z Z � Z.0 yC C O U a) 0 C 0(6 U a) U C Q U a5 = O C O'— C a3` > N Ul a5 � Y � C ' N ?� ` ° C O 0 Z " a5 Q_ Z fp/1 C °- 9 9 9 9 0 a) — C U ° a5 C, O O 0 L O M jp O C O E t o � >I (OD O 0 . p O a5 L O C C(O N 9 Q C O`C° O.� a ° Q m E ° a o ° u, t 0 ° N a 0 N p �.� Lo u, E .� a 9 O .�= E a a O ° a u, V O o O a O X 9 9 O f/1 (6 a3 0.Q a5 9 C °a a5= a) a � 0 °) C .Q O O E O a) 00 0 N ° 0 Ul Y o.�Z N N O C a5 a C a) t/) C a) a) L a5 a5 a5 a) a) C C Y Ul O `9 C ` p 0() a) 6 a) ° O L 0 O Q Y Y/) .F (T6 a D N Su(>6 0 .m EO O d' 9 9 0 9 a) >-O Q L N E C a) ° (D E X O >i° U a5 a) L a) 0 C O a O a 0 a) C E C - °)a) a) L E > 10 0 0 w O N 0 0 0 C L Y L E O Q o )a — In Z.E m Z o In C Q s F- 0 0 �y O _ - n ° OaS oaa o O E O (D 0 C O Ea) ON C + U W (D ° -a LoC E a) N oO O a) L M O O! o ?Y ° > w -o Q C t/) O a) a) t/) O 0 t`1 p N Q N ww � 9 f/1 (p a -° H O Y 0 a) a5 ° E 9 m U U Y Ul m (6 a m f/) E Y C O O a) W E C C E °L �' a°i LF O in a E Q a DO O-ap a) a5 Q a5 O ° N , a X 0 a) 0- ) a LU a)-O -(D O y0 a a) C (6 tom/) N a5 Y .0 a) a5 w O OaF-w9 .� a).. E9 E aa)i u, u, o Z U U O w.— U C — E O E C C (6 Y C 9 N Q I`m (DM ° m W W O E Q aOi U ° m in a) W Z 0 C T.. E � y O O w c O O O E o7 W C O....t/) O a) O 2 9 a) Ul C O L N 9 C O a C 9 Q -IDO O a CU) 0 cC.�C a a M C 0 0 w a) a) ° 0 3 C U U U O E E a° �a._ E -O a`)) E (D E .Qin 9 > p) M M m a " O (n U) y 0 O a ( M a):. ° U .. O u,.� X O Y O a o a O Q O 0 a Q � � �roma) E 422E >.o 0w 0.O m `o a° a) E -oE .Qt ma`) 0 z Y V O L >i a -0 O a5 L > a) w C 0 C 9 >a 0- EO N E � 9 d O C C 0 H L a U C O O 0 U O U N U O U E Cd o o � ° ° ° ° a5 � ° ° ° - ° ° .F a .� 'F ° W ~ C N 0- �` N a) N N N.� N U O N s N N O N-O N E c Y a)9 a5 O O- W U) �a .c � o c o �in N � Z C, O J o O �C) Z aa))� az o Z Y C N y O0 _O0 3: aC 0_ 0 U) O CN C p ll'V / w O W LU ET0 a0O m U O� U aO _ LU W D L amOp15OU aO wM ° f2 LU LU zE o °>�a m �~� '9 E It1 Y U) m `a - LuEms ° oma �L.. �oC � � tO O `g O > °� -o m'E 9 Q m Y E Yr` W U) cry omL o � oL mo L `J� � -. L J Q W `2 W 4m� .. ( a`)�° a)am 5 W�L z — N a =w Y C C a• LL U) ° - Em m m as m9 r &c7 E O o a T w o `moo a) a)0 w (OD � �Z � a) 1 0 W > 0 71 =(D L a) O C 0 Y Oy a0 ��" O m O C = E O � ay oy m m Ua) O m m0 '. �. oq W W. C C C a) O T°.O a s y0 _ C Q m C� m ED ` O QT wa O a) E 0 p C C 0 0 y a) a v U W m m a N m 9 a) N Y O N C O C Op a- C »Sd O p — O O O O 3 -O m mN > wm m ° ° >am z 3 0-O 0 m `p � 0 `p © STq�yEY 4 5 v a) 3:�"' U N L m a E �'C 2 I- 'M T Ina0 a C a) a O app-p C 1 4 O W a.� N.� a) >p17 m 0 y w y N m f/) N 9 > E T 3:. a) O o U r. E o L a°) -m.�.m E o m ° D 09 = ° E E m �N E °ram ° o o 0 O (n Y m a C y an u � o°`o o W O _ Q m L m 0 ° w 0 0 T y Q D O C C 0 a) O O C N a)a 2 U 9 O m O w (6 a p) / F O m m m m .Lo. E L Q m N Yf0-/) C m Q C 9 ° N C y0 ` a) O C L 'O O a E N a) w O E H w a) O a) E A +�' Q E °w c m o oamya Q U2 U — a) C U) -p C o _ O' f/) m U) m a) f/) L m O U.0 U jn m W N w Y Q a p O >O >i Q W Y U 0 0= m m o.Y a E r l j a L ° W N o E ( m9a`) = wa� aci a aQXEmo E a W a) a)— aEi"'` o y m y m e.L-. T .. O °� E Y0ELin ° o'-L u,aaw) 0W0 � � o Q m D z L o- m o a p t/ )U m U (6 E -o 'o u, o..ym Qu, m .ti mF, 502a .�a � w o � -O amom `� Q� om � Q � m� a) � �o m �a `a)° oY ami oo-oY w � � m0 O� m o � oEET m 0om'E ° yam o L L (n L L O L a) L O a) a) C (6 O d H U)O d m H H J Y Q H 9 H O w Q9 m Q a LL U .0 w (6 a)O N m a _ N E C m C U a) ° W 0 a) a) E a Ul m o 2 ° �' 0 0 E'U o C W W O E E w D O ao a m ° o �' o m a ° ) ° E C o 0 W.+L-'a C p Q x0 O Y Z a ° m m T 0 Q 0 a °,-0pf/) >9 y Q Ul C m3: -oo >' 15 m c0 rnou, M a . o � m or. N L m E � m Q E _ 0 O` O 76 N W E C O C C m a p W a) m o C O I o °-U o 0 U E fE/) Ulm N W 00 ` > T f/) a -O� i T m 0 t0/) O D M Q C O L C F, O m C O a) O > U a U m a .2.0 � a)= 9 m Q.0 L W L o m t a 00 Ywu, � E ° � E ° o o' a) 0 C m C 0 00 p m 9 g C Y � 1 5. C m 0 U .0 m m U O w O f/) E 2 0 N Q -O wa °- 'w p O O( `p) O .• O Q a) O Ul a) ° z U 0Om aha `aW � o 00o g Q OW w v oar.0a .� o f W u, o 0 ... b N N Z c a Q o f Q or a 4r � LL Q N C C O N f/)C rn m a) mo U > O O N a r* E O m E t/) a) a) 00 L a) C N= O N Q O a) CN M4 o Z o m o ° Z l.� 1— OW o Lo o Q U Q °a o o0 0'�.0w S Z LL T C— m m S to E n O W Z H N O °+LN -- > M M N a) r u u ~ o W N ° ° N r M N s NIn O Qa)�..L > o >;Y— O ro rn 4h m m C a a) E U Q M M to 3 p XV1 Q a) O O O O O80 Mo C U L O ED C M O Uo .. N U N O a)D E M to a) O O w a)o u) C a � o M 9 O N o ° E rn ° a E n N a) U L C C A U N c6—OOa9cM o .mo te o C a) a) u) a) C rn O Mn E rn �.° a o a) M o O)o m N N C_ C'o L y (0 O Q.•M a a) (D a) pI N C to a) 9 y a) >9 y + C pI E C o G ° 3 m °C ° � wX "�6 L O O 3 a) O M Q C a1. p MaO E� EoOrn Qmo C O C C L+ L to a o C (O U) M C O C M o.� E O 9 &�Ij TIE m H < E a) O_ EE OUoo1Ox ......... &> O O '� 3 O a) (6 _ _ 9 X a Q C V 0 0 0'J= o (n C 9 E f/).O C �m.�a a U (D > 9 U o oa `m N O C a)a X(n X M M O U)N a O M a) a) N (6 o. -o°.0 U _ s L O oU O L Y L Y o 0 a m v O O(n N Mn a a) X a). % T L O.� M .L.. o m rn x.L o O �„ �r� Ou) E L o in—o o ° x ° (>D 9� o m E �.E ° 3 �aoQo -°° a) -°° ° `o o U �'x ° o E m ° °� c o o a ( a)a 0 Q w'x o a a T O L o a) o9.Xa. a a a O c— c�.X o �m U rn o mo o �9 C Y a) C '� '� '� N N > a) M a) to N o L.� C ° ° M (Da E .. .. .. M a M -°N a)CO L .O a� t`aXXX E a) a) O 9 m o a) M Q .z o a) o 0 o E Qo °-� o�. QO.— w.o a= o m °o N N-o°9 O O O o a N o fl-0 C (ap p � (p oo N a0i ° (C-6 N N N N o 'X H 'X In m `a)a) o-° o o N o o (D o ` o- O Lo a a)y a)y Q O o L Ems' (D o v rn a) o. a). E Q �L-O �m 5 �� o a) m> o E E E Y y 0 m o >' Q y M o °a N m>.0 Q U O O O a (6 5 to o (6 a-O o ° 3 to/) p` C C C E a a o 2:5 Q„ M O t`) C M to Y a).P) Y a) U N to M Mn i� N O' C w (DC `m a)o m ° E E E ,� o M11 11 11 o o � L.a) o M N a s o o to to to C E a) >. E 9 a)N a w.Z T, X 9 a > t`1 a co Q U to= to— C U O` O a) �_ O O o L N rn E— oo Q Q Q �' M3M Mia) .Eao 5 a)a to a) O U U U fes/) to.X N N to O L M N y0 V L.X Y °�'O'o)aai m 0 0 0 a) g o 3 ° 3 0 3 o a g o m z m p o m.X a) M a) U m °' O O O a) O C °- O C 0 3 O C O C t`) O N O a) (6 a)'. U O V a) a) a) M y a) a)-O'-' N o N C O a) y a) O O O Q W f°/)f/) w N OCD 8 N L° H Ln (n tL/).� Ln u) w Q N Ln (n Y oU a H Ln (n a°a°a° M LL. LL n a O n Ea Mrn a) 15 (D _ a) L a moEo Ln .E ° a) a) C U I Y C °) a) a) a)Y N�� C a)L_ C o _L O > a) � a)W � O a) .0 . E C C F to M i� a H O O) u a O T 'O O'o N a)9'� O a) C C .`.f/) C 3.� i�O 9 9 a)9 V-° E N i�d' O M a) to to M to. Q- - M a).0 U C M Y M a) (Y a) E a > T> O O C M a)a M a) C a N,C a) O C C to a a) E o a C o 1 to O C M U U O L a) O C a — O U N a) M T L N — C M a) M C U a) Q.O E R C Mn &"'9 M a) C M a T M a) N y6 to E C a) M C C to N a a) M a) m M L C_ ° !6 XO M w ° O O. .. 0 0 a � to o E Q L y t°/) Y a) to O M O (C6 E o a .� a)m M M a y °). o i5 a C C O O a)~ Lo Y E O m u) - C Y Q O E a)a) a) a)W to o m a) m O m o a) E a) 0 o a)"o O 0 0 C M C C M C ° to 9 a)a a O N O a w O m L rn E E m �,a O a o C °.o a ° °Y Mo.N ° .. F C E o o) Q o N U 9 M N M o 0 M Q(6 S o o to/1 Q° N j.XO °- Lin o ff C .�.y o tm/1 N C a) E wMOM Y � I - E � �� EO °aE °.� ° m ° U ° °�mw o 'x ° Z rn a)E E L E E m m w'— m.— a) a) C °-C m� > L E L ° u) o ry rn a m E a E o O o.Q o-o U a a T a-F, ° M `m E o ° E ° °�Q '� o f M c y C QQ Q �w E O Q E v > (n O o to a) to.> m U Mn M L E a)o .o T a C °-to/1 O 9 M (6 (D C° a) Y a) m is` O O W M U C O Y o 2 9.� M a) 0 0 a to a) 9 i� L.°)E to m a M L i�a) E C to O S a) ° E °- UL C m a i�a)w L T I 9 O U O.�a) C O a O to 9 O C +-. W w a C.`.� ° Q C a U E O ° i�T N �a (6� Y a o O a f/)L L a 0 a) fes/) O to Y M O to a) M O o O M M > (C6 a) a) C (6 a L `� E o Q a C X a) a) tV 0 9 a) C to O a a)L o Q 9 f`)-O a > 0 0 E O.N-a C a) -O a) O a 9 i� lY M O Z M O (C6-O U a) Q a C.� M a)9(n N Q M C C E O M O Q H U M N Q ° L ° M M M M a M° 'a) o f-O m a)T 'E cm).� ° o o aoi ° E o X M p a o 0 U a) C U).c o ° H C T a) E C 9 a a) N M' ._ ice— E a) a) > M C a LL to U a).o Q M a)Y i� W W E N a N C: T a h a) E -a0o a o N C a W auj0 M M a) 2 O- a) a) Q 07 C C O a) U C 9 y M-p y a f/) LU W- a)M f/1 O a) a)o.� C a) a M N w a c2e ED O a) O t tC/)9 0 M U p w Qa a o 0_ E ° �' E aI a)-E In p)a) a � �`oE EyQ E FoW � ) - 0 M o m MO y� N a d U) C_ (6 C p) N o O a a a) t/i O p t/i > w In U (wD N L f/) .0 a a� C U U a U U O` (Y �° � u, 0 � omaZia NooZQ NW M-� Q In m a M y o w o u, 5 'U5 �a w 'W a)rn z Q °� o o" 2 C) 0 W o—a w a aai LL '� a o Q o- 0 a M °� 0= ZO .LO. D 0 9 M=9 0 2 9 0 0 a) Q �'Z Q O o a a)a ,L.. c 47 m 0 C a I 0a) a) u, Co am aQ.Ea) c o mW._ >-- MU W 0� � W- po o .�aa).EL E.2 L mz a) m o aa) () 09 w" 0a) a) a) C � a) 0- a �m0Z c > E-p.� 0-a a) E m O1 > 0 0 C N w C='j ?� M o O C D U ° C U M a Co 0W C.�QL O_(D �LUQN � COa Y V C C O Q O O O `m o U 9 L c o E Q Q ani o TE w aLM a_° E o a_T wo.LO ° o a_T� o U N a) y O f/) >L a) M 9 O C N M 9'� C U (� 0 a) 'o 0 >0 a `m 0-o ai t 0 Qom' '� c 0 �.Qm H w P M M m (D W J5cC'° m o z cC°) m.Qa aai L o 0 'x '- U a Y O C O M O`O Q a) a O Q w C O O M M0 0000 �wa)'EyQ��� ooOEo-0oM __ 9a� �.LO. aaiam° Qom- o `wm.m y a (D Y Y 9 N O f/) 8.0 M j L O 0 a O M a Z y W a M m 0 `m ( M m� C C m a)LU E a 0 y .0 M 0 �.O--F f/) C O N L T O C N U Q T.� M 9 a) 9 f/)L_ M Q 0 Q M C C a)Y Q a) a) > C O a) M a M 9 E O M M O Y- N 0=L O Z Y >' 0�9.� a)a)�a�0i m- m a) E o (D a)o a u a E M M .in o o Y.a) o C o-CD o a 0 p Q C ED M 0 n E.�" � �Mm° o .Co '' oCMa) a) x0 � aa)� aa))— QQ M m U M a)9 Q N a)w M a) a) C C Q O O O E a) y �,Y Y a) O p_ Q W N M '0 L O t/) o L a) 4 9 0 � �`o in a E 2 E o a a m aa) � M - M ~ o � � �ay � WC � °'.. 00 inWQ� aai °'m � W 9L� M- a) QYa OyT a) NM9 QQY O U M o Y N a m.� .0. a) a) 0-M U N o a)W V � o � o V o� N L p �.,X-''-H U N A N 0 W~ C .X�MM0NWM9a)LO9 C N9MU9 `� EC N �M V (D>> cL) o Edo ��mym V yE � aZiOyE � a) bq V Ul N O O _N a) > O Y >j L O C A > N C a p-M E L N N 4) U O V>- Ul H Q'0>2. M r N U O` L= E O L O 'Q W a 0-9 N co NON~ C `9 O C O O-Ua) O pQ � O M- a) CD O C O .` a)>y-2p U C Q._ O y O p j ..O L O N O O M U y.V a) O L:.a s O - p Q L a E (Oj a ` V a) a) a) Q X �p N L V N O X M O O O D L L �p O a) O O a) f/) l,L H N M 9 a) 0. a) E U U M > a) a H H U 9 a 0 0 .0 M a) 9 W Y L a) a) j O a) M C a)+� C > N o M 90 C a) a)y ED a) p y0 p L a)E m (D U M M.Q M.0 aY_a 0 0 a 0 C Q C M N a) Q a) f/) C U a) U C a) M a Q W Q= M O- D a) a) T a 0 m a)a m _ (D C}' X0 w E m m w y 9 M o-� o T a) M 0 a)O 0 2 C C 2 - a O N .�'C a)iC C Q C 0 M `O .L.. E a M 04� U a L a (m M a) a) O X >-p a C 0 M a)Y a M a a a) C C f/) a)a C C C M T a) M f/) 0 L E a)a) C M a) ` C y 0 C C 0 E �2 a) > N (a)j O N (OU6 Q N o D a Z 3 O O.• O y7 w a)� a) Q .. C y E. X 0 d m a 0 M M 0 00 9 W M 0'z N o W j LU E.4Eo �L C.�� Ma)aM Ca)oo� a) E $ LU O U p a N a a) O M C U-2- D U M O L 0..9 a N U5 M a-L C 2 00 Q a) E 00 W M E C E w m c0i��° 0 0)a C (.D (D QY M o'�.LO. M'=m N �l C w C a p-f/) f/1 0)(yMj Ul O Y D C E L-o C a A 3 cC a) a):. C y O L U o M E 0O a) C E F-+ 0 E a E 0 a) 0 L 0 E U ) a U O FL 0 0 0 v u M 0 0 Y m pa c 0 woCE Z0~c > T >a !9 z N C C M CO a) L L y M 0 Q R C O > E 9 y a 9 a Ul U T 0 M Q M Q�Y M a X M Oz > (-D �j o� E�aooa a s ° Yu 5 0 ] d --F 0 a- M w X a � Q 0Low ¢ Eo �yayaE 0 �aMpm0Mr - N Jw �u co �� a) a) mEino � OM� �y aMMa)m � a) 'x QQ V a V f/)Y = t/Tl M L O > M�Y L a)9 C p 0.0 w _ () Cd V N 009 Tai 0 Ua H.O.� -- L L M.- a)M W C D F N U N Z Z C Q R N w Q C f/) Q E M C f/)_ N M.0 N t Q � aEio.� s =� mEE� 0na5ig� o � � EE (n (n a) E p a) C ZV a)._ E OU M Y N-E N a) F D (n N LL< w(7 w � .w Ya o o E L. � o 2Y� .Y iL P-1 g ss s` �4 O p LL 0 J z Q v N z = z � a H W Q w 0 � Z m E a W fl- 10 m 3 0 w _ _o a 0 v� E ° �I'D 000 e _Esq Ekx LLU�' LL m N O N m p 0 0 a Q U N D -E L U a C d aaiO Y O C m ° ° aTi Uac � � c a �Q o ° 0 ° Em L O C Z p m O 0 O Y O N 0 lw Q a) 0 a O C a) O a �' f/)m o 0 C C C C O W C a p_ E O p m m m r J m U N - _O m.� a H a C E N a p O O O 0 O N C N E O - 9 N '� Q.0 W m O` OO 9 Q 0 a s N N a tCn to m N.� U (6 L N C U C N N Uj N L y C E N Q N a)p- O.0 -O C fl-'L-' m _ - O --F U O L E C L 0' N m W _0 O -O / o m N p` to T O O O mo O to to 0 E m O a) to E C O > O Y O N 9 p m C O LL Q= C p O )p 4) L m N O to C p m U Q�- m O ° C O °>z N N V L_ L L O m O 0 �'-� m m O E N a� >i m L Y m Y O Y N 9 N m �.y O O f/) a 2L_ Cm C >i N Y N Q 0 9 N H N C y N (E6 T O O O U t/1.O O O C m C aC L a m O L N C N 'C Y Q N'C m 9U O O (C6 U N-_ O~ O L ° o m E 0 m a o M �a = EE a) a) 0m `a) C _ L T E d Y N m C f/) N N fn " Y C w a p ° y 0 o a C E 0 y - > 0 0 0 0 a 0 _ >i d) O (6 Y V N N m O m w m Y Y O- m T.� C m E 9 mLLL iOQn•- N -LC .N 9N a-NOO- 0 c ° � NOUJaJ -OQQ�C . O07 Q L CCmCa p iO.- 0 ° C om 75 6 15a 6w nm mm W O m ` 15 cD O U O m C '0 NOO 0 Y UC O O f L oo O U OO E0 m U m yCON o O C a) O Lm O O 0) FCO E m E 6 O O = ° w w � mO ) _000 -2 C)d) X � �rn Em0E o a) tzm mE0 OU JOdmZ Q mON Q Q .0 U H N Q Y.• T C N N °!n C_a 9y O N U -O C p N m O-N to r a E 5n m O to in O m O O_O O in S to N N N N C w 9 U N o O a N y N'_ d S (6 U 9 p.O N.O C O E}' E ° p o° o Z n o V 0 � 0 c E ' U E C o w a = N C E U N m N O N C O C to C m to 0 T-a C C o o.Z L Co .L°.a m .�.� 00 �° 00 0 �'9 a.c am > L U >m 0 Q o N 0-° >a o 0 9 0 c N a g C a fn QN N to m -T to d`Tj .� 0 L 0.0 ° a a `m N v.m '� > m O L> C C tea.( m �a C m N C fn (>D_C C S E .0 N fn 0 (` p W,0 E C O m O C O C m N N O Q O E C C a _a.. O C to _ > p E � o p)z L E a`m o E 9 .0.c Q m °-0o U d' to O'O C 9 O ° ° N -O w O p (C6 N C 0 M O.0 m N m �.omQa-p �m y 09L d m o m C 0 ._� � z > O a) C m C � U N p U n5 -N O O O O O N N O m w E O N O m U y m 0 _O Q CO a m Q C L to >i 0 N Q 9fn L Y 0 C 16 a)N L.0 U)O_ C U m y0 N'p)�i L 0 w W N E C O C to 15 O.0 y N.0-O O- O a O 0 y N C w U �0 �p N w y CO w m W �0 Baa Q E2Z:.N � = O na E _ � taa E ''�a y E p m- w �.m-' 0 0 o ° m m (D 0 W 2 -°o wa._ o E� O `m 0 o m w d U � N ° 9 Q >,� � � N � m '� mcmi E-00 �� E� jY � Y a .m 0Ss mQJO �m r d Q) L m'C E o 0 w E ° .E o °a W 0 9 m L Q .�9 0 L E a) _ in m Q a m o N C E Q C 0 y - o ° 0 +�' co wn o Q is 0 0 0 m m E Q p -L M m ---W m `a) 9 0 J �' 0 y rn-L- U) a) --F F 0 a) `o m� 0 � � o E Q mE a m0� 0 .. z 0 �o.y-. E � >. ._�o '�" m >�� E° 0 0 � �'� a a a.` m Qw, CE a�i.LO. � °� a O 3 N >,O N C O >i V C W C N m C 9 °a U 9 - t/i m O O 0 O.0 m O N W C O Q a W E a fn_T E `mt a 0 O a O C 9 N-p 0.m C m to C O N O m O N O ° N m z N °-0L0 a) �m (D Qa- E U) OE > JOE '> a)� 0� 00 � `oa Q O d L 2t a)a d m rm w E - E w r v m oa ti w m om ° z O 2 H--F m--F (C6--F om E d i QO mQ° a m o m-�- E Qm LL a t o Wto N m > m O Q`p w C.w I� W � � O n � 00 � g � g �Y D E to.L-. (6 C U p C a >i Q Q WC N O U C CU-2 22A N (6 = to to Y W -O O o m > M N.O �.O 1.� W z L o o n Z .> E U L O N O !' � Q m U to f`)w N C a �d d .I Z In O a m y N p U C 0 m C W a Q 0 3 o -0.o = Q m Q I O C w ° to 3 y0 >.0 O O U) N O O U C p p p LU O - o W a Oaa° Ep O .p C N D0a o J In r rn o s o T.m .�� 0 4� o Q U U.(WD C p N m fn 9 9 Q 9 x 9 x 9 I A LL m ° >a �O >Y Q (D r O ° O 0 9 Q m C N 9T O a m a ... N C'm 9 m T 3 N ~ da O C= �a o N'= m w to w to �� IIf 'Sv II Q >� 0 3 tin .L.. s.o rn m o W m o �' g o O_ a �b p ? N Q a 0 Z 1 Q0 1r (7 Q • z = z x U � U) N W4 d I r 0 U) W U) D W ry p o Z N Q F- W Z m W 73; W U) 1 W W - LU Q U) z a O W � � J Z � Z O LL r o � N H LU W W m D 73; LU W ry a n W z U) Q LU O a U) W W o J U) o Q U) 3 Z Q - LL U) o Z = O o � a z m O 0 o m K - o o m I y L _ Q U o v F N a• � � N C) m< ! m mQ F a ii C) _ m m o a _ Ea�pp o m I o mp -.. �L L p � X a C > ° p E > y �Q�-wo ° O E w' mw ■ i I ■ C 1 ■ k = - O 0 Y � U E w m N N f/1 m U m� m.m "6 > O U a N m p w- t/1 ` O O N 2)w wmmwo �zoa ° ° _ o Tm+L w c°) o a a�D m 9 y 0 `L U C N C C m U a a) O-O C L U L O .� .� O U C O O y Q N jn Zi m a p N N pjL-F,a E 0- 0 iO E o a S to m -�a N CCN w--F p�E O C E 0 y L >-E O O a y N M>i o 0 o O p o m o ? C N N N 9 O E -O m N V L N.0 m Y m E z.a O N r N O`a ` Y a m Y U (0) U U N _ C to Q00 O m m O m m w �' 0 4 ° C -O a -o v -o m y a y 4' m ° - Q ° m p m Y Q o a a Q .o o �a_ m Q '�.�in o .o a °� .Lo.o a m m.> m w > a �.o (D ( L ° o m o o m w 9 0 o a m 0) COD ° o ° ° w oQ > In ma E m o m �' a pTi aa>r (WD M 0 Q O,L-. � ° ° r W o o Q E °� o � ° o L O)°y a O .0� - moaU �m 62 .. a0 �Y � �rnU p�ovE ° � U0� o6o w '� N m a) U Q9 E m 2 O m -O C O 0 �O) O C �'L_' O-L° w a) O w a)L U--y jn C Y _ O - N m m O N a mom. mm �- � a�No ` ai p��.wEwmy m O g oo U C m f/) E �+�.0 m 2 O N E.o O.w E L-O m m °� ° N t/1 m C O N O.O Y C T- 0 a C Y L.O-O O Q L U Q U O L � a) E'� > m ° a°i-O E p) y m (6 Z w y6 m OmQ2�° m �` o � 0 Wa)o=Enm °O0m mo -N aE N C N O �9aat/1p Op �� LNm YO Ny � O � � � O� m � y �` N'L-' mN pO N U LU N a) w Q C N O N FC _ 0E C ww y OU �m wO m �/ OU C 0 O N OE (wD U O ww w' N > N mN aE --o- QN S - OmoYO Q° ` 9 00 Um S E zm o m O 'WD O D 0 ONyma) fE C U p 3: m w C m NO O E >E w E > Oa) O pCN) N L Q a N o UCU aE YNo9ai E °N .L°C'c Y ° m�m0ai ScUQW (DomEo oywo. ow >amL -o m m aOQ (OD E m m" ai n D ° >o o .U) 0 � > aa m m °— U C oo o Q 0 po N zWo o o O nZ O U.0 °W o r Ew U C N O EE L QQ O m CmU E O Q w O / OpQ N T.o" Ey ujLOC mC C m E po / m m0 > O . N C 0 E 0) QZaiEC ° wCQamsr3a� w >amQm ` EmwoU p w Q QW L p Uo m 0 o m ` 3Um m NaZcCi aiT1���ff�F����t/yy111i m Q 2 < W"7 - _. ji Y w Q _ J /J ���� 4�_ z C) Y _ w i t SIyy r vl '` R"► ► Q H WE W4 ir�r. r�i�"-r:a...:.. 4 L41111. �r n _ �� �,"ice�!•�,.Y=k..j;..b� '" .s`{`c►'�./`'°�a`?/�ya1`/a !,!°�gs�'t;� a r jF- w r b O r> y �' r n'�1'►�7' r• Vs VI Vi�i d +� � �i'��ttfw� ��l��'�3'_C�aeti��,_ art.. .. �.R ` n � .la�(ice, (n Q N N � p MA � N N / U) l �5 E UP to C aQ Y Y ma --F-6 ? gQ` .O Q(Z O. O 0�E0 3:O-yt/1 O> > °a °5 M U > O o (1)i Y > Q C 0'. (1) F i 0 m21 0Op O O L C ) a) O) to ° (6C QO = yyOO`- CYN '66 �U- Ct' C0 ° C E O O DZO U �3 ) Y E > 30: (D (DO xOm am > YQaU) O O )O O)9 ) Y � Q EE QLD N 0t a .9mE T - N o U- 10 ) C o ) $ 0aC m )iOQ E a0 o 0 O) O 60 ) 0 ( 0 a E o m a y °9 '� o n Y ip O� Q O ) N Oo O tOo y E y0 f/Tl 9 2�5 Q`'.� m- O!? N tY`m 15 I- -OCE�L O ° O) Om � ' ai LE Lo LEQOi oO ' m °i9'mTaYOoN� ° aiiYum ..m9°CQ6CQ0a- a0O°`00�mF-Cn�N U LCCO). n N n nmL Q 0 U �OSm ' m °E a) (D E n° Y ° 00 ° n�mE° UomaQ> (D 15 m 0U ° d o -o mC > ° i0 o N a ) C m 0 ) 0ON O ° 0n ) 0 mo � E ° > aa)io L E m N O D U M O O 00 ) m U > ° O E � o M on °� E �Y-E aoE m o Mo Q m Y> O �t ° on oEO � E moiao s° 0E nN o 0 � oa) m00 ° E d a m > - i2 � o mnS 0 ( o m QE 0.�aE a Y o iai cm -o O1= Q-a0QaE0 9o990 (m 0O> 0aEoO o E � a) ) 0m > 0OW> N ` m �a°a aQ) O -O oO M ° 0Qo 15 m � mm � .(D 3: � m �>Q � 3am > 15 an o 0 0 00 0 a � ° ° E ( 0 � 0a0 0no c� � mmo � o 0 )o0m 0p Q � cLi Q (D (D m o ` o 0 75 -oo w E E y ° E E E oio 0 E pQ0O T oCO a an Q (D C) O� > O O m OaN E 9m OC W Q nQ3 W n �La nm W o0 O > Q LM o rns N O o (OU a)L> Y .0 o O C n L MCaOC�)WC M C aO a O CaOa O U. n O ° RD 0 0 >- >VUU) M 0 O n) a) D o E ) M m E E o � Cm p) aO o � E nmroOYQao � o00 EQOo � �0aQ UM-3: o � O (.D C) 00 (OD u 0�> � o 0�!? O a) m Y a U m m L E w !?a) N a 0 m N m ° O .�Y E m Y C O U>O Q m �L ° a) m 0 O-9 a) p.0 C U > a) m a) O m E C O L o a) o -O to to a to m to E m m m a) C C Y6 > o p m E W° o)0 m\� Y m O m'� 0 m 0 � a m °)T 2-2 L _ 'M-0 T o a) 'O O` Y a) C fn fn C m m 9 C a)C — a) C a) -O E U ED.0 L o O U 0 C a) O .`. 0 m !? m 15 0 m 0 0 a3: M y E D.0 to a C a) m p 00 >'.' N a W m O L LU aE M N ) m O U) E C C H o O p a) M O M O mw f/)9 Ul a)L O °'C•O' a) O N M f/) � L LU U Q� �' o0 Mo ( a) QtW wv >.9 � 0.wME w W. _ O M U: O m S a O fl-(�6 3 ° °'T N a >O.t/1 N �6 C 9 M 9 O C a p a) 0 O W LU O 9 U a a) o m.�U C ° Q y c E w M 0)U.0 p W p �CD a (� EO ° -5 p)OOMM UEw E — ° a) 3r:T(D w w ° in m Y) 3 � Qy ° a).E O O O O E N M O O � O9 O o Z N C C a)L C O a W M w a a) Q( O p 3 L w In Q T D Y a) ° M > a) O w C Q p a)� V O a) O.0 Ul EOL Z a) O.O H O a 0 0 0.— 3 C 0 M M 0 9 a U t/) E C N wLU LU S a) t/) ° O '-' N M a) N Co OW O O O V O O Ul y O a)~ L O O d C M- O L E p a O T O y f/) M C C E N f/`) a) y Y O H p W 0 3 c a �v Q -S C) U) (D (D (1 00 E �� E ��.>���� o w S a o v o�Y m u, ( �o m � U) E N U- Q D y C Q (6-O a) O W' W ' T.-•a t/i 0.O CO O a Z Q LL +�• (�6 L M a '�.� m O O m m L ° '� O T �n o �.� O a E LL E 9 C p- M C 9 a) °y E C~ C a O X U D U O M.0 O L ° a w O E O Q° M a o ° a p v (D W a) o o p o O U E._ C U.O O Ute. OC ° y.E� (D C(ID a)�� O w SEM ° u, u, OMO Q E L O p M.O C -L -O a) f/) M a M C m a).0 C L 3 o a Q O z E 3 -.. 60 .E� wa)� O� Up)om E M E .O. = �m0m� O U (D .2.� � Moc ° MO °� E U) °� O - a) ° W0 O O (I U aoQ � Q � �a � �� � a>i� cn In o � � �>.�-o8 � aai > a) T a) p O & .0 a) C -O W a M m E O u, O. �m M ° E �a m a)y O `w 9 in.x M O U C 9 a) O a)9 > U N a) M a-°cC y C 0 J C Y ° p C C N M 9 d' O O �6 °)M L o E Q .L.. E a) > o a a Q 3 �, C ° O WW E M L o OOa~ f/) E E (D OO cd U a) Mw La Ua Ul O a) M M C O W C O E. M 9 M a) 9 L f/) )a a) M o a) o y d C ` C d ° f/) N U a) M L a) N C 0 .Q.0 T p) O �L C V O Z Q m 9 a) f/`) W E'�w a) p p �.. N L C 9 C a) M V C M O O p D L 0 O L N N M L U U f/) U_-O_T N'0 O L Q O U C a V O w E °y O Q O L Z `m O a O.. cOi v Q�- u .� O M o m Q Q O m i YY�°Ym0 � Q� � a `maa)) o U n O �.� Qow� � � Es Lu N C T m a) C O M.� 9 a) -O a)Y Y a) 3 O w a) (y06 (V-O Y Q.-• U y Y a) a) O E a a U a Ul O O Ul E O O U O p)3 C 0 a) M E.o o a O u °Y a M - x n o c.� M u a ° O O T_ r a9 9 mm ���Yom 2o)o °m °) E _To aoOa � Q O O O Q O C p a O m O 3 Y E a) M '� C C a) a) 0)L M Q M ° 9 O 0 (>6 M 0.X M O U D w L Q M 0-O �U-O Q a) N.� � M � M Y O T U y0 Q O 1) (D a) � MO aMa = Mm9 m QjYOD E.mEpT N M UC p) p)a c a E m `-E a)— w cOi `o L -O a) C 3 y a) ( L O -a C � C y M a) a).0 a) ° U j 9 M E 0)-O'� L E'� p L p 9 Y a M 3:.— Q O 0 9 a) M > C U fes/)a C O M T E C '� O C O U °-C M O a) M.0 m C -O V O a)O C C M m-O g.- M a) E d' o.� Q a)L_ M a) O O 3 O p L a) ° L C a) fes/)L °-O C a) M O 0�a m U'C U a+-� E a).0 0�--' T o O O N M M O- V)L M w M a) C U o f/) M C C C E o 0 9 O t/) a) O O M a) C ° ° ° N Q 9 y0 Y CO a) O p C C C a L a)-° O C_ pC ~_ .O c2 w ) `O C a U Q Ul Ul ° a M O a ° O+L T�-O Ul M (D O L M tp/) `E O U M O a O C 0 V O D M C f/) j 'O O a)a C 0 V M o a a -O a) M'C 0-p M M 3 N a) Ul O .� C t0/) E O O"T' E O D O o a 9 p L U 9 0 0 0 a) LO L � mM� °).� OO Oma. � MMQO �Oa)aM M. Oa)E Ey -Oo a 3 9 O O 0 E.E O ',0—w m -15M:9 E O O a) a :: Y O m a o 9 'L--' a) O N Q Ul 1'� M( � a) M Q C C a)' f/) L a U C C - O U M p L a) p 3 0 a) O_T M a Y C O Ul M M O y 9 M O'-' C O M O M a ° ° U O s o E M "' f/) f/) Q M O T O O ° N a) C L O Q°-- 0 0 C y C a O C C O C a p C C a) Q O a) C C -O M ° C s m)E o M O Q w M.�C T M M ?�'� T a ` O fes/) M T Y 0 M ° a) a)0 9 Ul aW (D) °- O O t/) T m-N a a 0 -O C �.� OO M U.:9 9.0 T U C w Q E O O N O O C a Q a) (6 Y V O m O a ?i M w a) N a) M M O a) _T O.�0 1 U C > E C 0 0 Y O N O M C EO O O U ° a).0'L"' M C L M H M M C y M 3 T 0_.0 O a) a) a) a) p'� M " Y 9 m f/) OU ° a) a) C f/) >`f/) a) 0-9 C p U y L L - T d) Y C Y Y U 9 a) a)L a) a)-p 0 9 C Ul m. M' O-O a). O T O^a)H (D EO o `o O a °— o~ o o M Z y.m 3 a 9 m o m I E E E°.� m in D m E Y m Q a) '_' M Ul OC N Y a O C M C f/) Q a) o C E O H L Q L U E .0 ._F C T a)yO p L L _ p O Y O a) a) a O°-O T C a) T C a) M w Yf/)'_'a L.0 a s' O O °a M C Q - p.� N M a O E E0_C O a a) a) C '� C C 9 M N E C U 9 o-o Om `m lnQ m a.� 3�� � E � -Moy Ea � �-YCC� E �° a) m9 � a) ° `oO0 Lj U o o `a O O u O _a U O� w E ° a)O E-O c u y T M a O O O O O - p N C a) ° a) V p O O C U M O M O -O M a) p M M V M � C p M L S U N Ul �n QYo� nM3 ° p O w°YEMO� ° UU QamCOL O �� OMQE o.EYM a 0 15 M Y o o a m ° a a N T E T a M m s E o (D Ma c a `o >a M. � � O.� OEE ..-6 (D °)�� L0 ° M CLQ M Ul p M 3 ` (,D a m a) T .� M C M C D C.0 a) N O D-Op M O L C .�.0 9- N 9 o a.� .f/) °-D a .0 0.- M N a a N M ° 0 U _ Q M n a) C 0)>`a s m U C a) O-O 0 Ul p C M 9'C 3m: a) a) a) O - M a Y M > ° O N C C (6 a) O C t/) O E M- a) a)-° ` N 9 O T ww a)9 Ul E ._ a)9 a a) O a) L L N'C °�.0 Ul M O U O a) C a N Y 0 ( 'N O m C O Q a a--F a)U C C U Y U C f/)f/) °�(6-O 0 > N O-O N M T N'C 0 t m L p a M C a) a) C Q °- C p O'-'O E a) M 9 O.> 0 0 O D 9+L-' E a)L T C. -O .� `O U Ti a) O Q m O C t/) �_m C N�a 9 O O a).�C p L a U f0/) fp/)N � ° f�M/)V aM C a `o O O Y E E S m L O Y/) M ai � U =m a o o _ C (D 0 0 0 .X 0 3p 0: Q a a o ° `o 01 0LL M O C a O M a) C C E L > C E.- O C m m fn (6 O Q J C U a) O a .- N m c a) O m a) a) U (6 m m L O L °-O fn 9 Q U .��° . °o °m x.� °off.� E aci° 0 9 U W� L U`a0 M Z z o0 o m c.iE o W -00 U a) E M O O O a) U L - E E 3 3 a U) c o y c L y my M`o o y o TEyL in M Z ,°t c � D W Z L � o o E c o a 0) m 0 o m m _ 3 o.�Y ° ,°t o N a 3 .0_m 0 0 °- O Q(6 L m S �E= cola ) a Eoa ai m-- °- 0a � cwY ° E a m ° c u, m ° E Z a ° �'-00 0 � o W o ° ° �' ° a '- E ° m m M M m L o ° -Y ° y6 O 0._ O_3 m Y o O C N (5 O C N M~ U N in a O C O 0.° `p a s m t/i -O-O.� Y �a) O 9X ° Wt` U E E m 0 . 0 N y omLy L- �� O O > T C oaOa) O aOM0 1--1 0 O ..>CMOO Y 6 U0 9/ o aU -F W : 0 0 EOLUS a) >O U 0 0 O mC O CO ` m C w W 0 U. O f >M Oa O0 a 0 U 5, 0.- OUa) n E w' fam W U 0 MO E oY00 C a 0 0CY > M a) U_ OU m O ) j U m OE _ C jQicaa) U O 0 E -E O U C O X a) E9W0 0E 0 o ° Ea ° . YpCOmpyOa aLp Ow °U aO 3 O05 - OaO O O O E 3a3 tOC�o/) MmU N Ul O O a >M o o ¢ a C m 0 a) c Y C EE `s �'Oaai `oo m ccEmEaci `o QE Qa) a) oQYa)-o o m' mmWR—° °)om 0 o L .4 a)m a° 0 +L-a. o a)o f Q o 0 o Q.�-a).� Y y °y aci 0 m°a) a3i c y0aE aoQaL ooaoaaOiW 2 o° � a o_aoo2a) m 01 E Q U c m. Z U Q 0 a Y n W o m Q O m U E w. N 0 `0u,a-O= o W Y a o a 0 a (6 c C � 0 -O L T m M a) a) a) N M-0 a) a 9 a H .0 °a 9 ° N 9 m fn M O C a)L U in m+L- O O 0 T C T f/)X O .t/) E Ul C U >Y M a)-° a) E C-O 0 a U m T> ° U 9 C fn -p C a)y L a)a a)L m O O Q Q W C L U L a LWO > m O a) to N O c to m p 3 0 c.°a U 0 O O c N= a 0 +L-a O D U m Q a N L O a)L to.: E a)a m E ° a) a)0 U - 0 m°.in-O Ula 3 Q.s Ula L y 0 0 E m c m 9 to a) M.- E L O- c a L m a) C c N w M°- a L C L M o-o N 9 C a) N O a) C a) a U O p a)a pj tin 0 O .. '� m N Q .� ° C (6 Y U N'. fn-p'� C N Ul ° fn T L E'- a U"' C C L m m °�L_ - a) fn fn in O O 0 � 0o ��a a) 3m °�.. � O1_EE0-m my �Z'm3.� o a O L M 0 0 ° c L ° -O o a) `m a °- O�L o 5 E E 0 a..W o a) o fl- 3 a ° m a)a C a) > m M, L M o a) O m U C C O o �n O D O U U C 0 4) °)a m a) m O N 0 C C-0 W O c a a C M a ° a) 3 >`-Eo-: -O to 3 E_ O O c O c O E L a) a) c c L in N fOn a s m N m a)9 MO L a.�U L L a Q S'� Q Y C m N a 0 a) o °�M,M O y E: ° a) a fOn 9 ° L fn a y m a) 9 C y0 O)L O C C ° a) Y M Ul O M a N oc LSL m a p `o. c0) E Q Eo °� m m U a) - O O °'m a) 0 a) M to N 9 .0 M Y m (6'� ° Z N C O M O L O 0 O p U a) 3 U - a) a) Q` O U a) C U a)a c L a) .`. to O a) V O m a Z LO _ m 9 C a Ul.> m O L Y U fn L O a) ) a)a f/`) 3 C N a fn N m Q a)` a) Q Ln Q y a O O O N M O to U T O L N C M O~m ° U a) O L j m O L m o a) to= Oc - O Y 3:.M C C E H Y C_ Ul O fn O :L O-o (6:E °-p E w a X 9 N Q L 2 C T Ul 3 ° M L m C O M S �- ° c� 0 L o 0 a �a Z L c �.O `m' M ��rn ` c a E �L °� 4 ° `�.LO. E '� ° E c a m m o m oLoO)Qma o> ° o °� � E W Oo ,°t.. ° ° o ff~ oamim °" � ° o � o a; Qa�a � a`) E C fn N a � o) m N O N oc N o) 0 0 U Y Q U 0'Q m mw o a) N Y E c .0'00 4 9.� Q .O U W 0 N a)U Q - C T B O c a)C 0)m O m m C a) N a) a)� m M °a a)9 L 9 0 ° M °o-o m Q m L o a)o: E .L0. m °.°- ° m ° ° a --F ° a)Y E a °'C O ` O_ ` E p M �j V j a)~ a) O a) a m o fn O 3 a) _cs N O a) a)L L Q .0 C L C O O L M O ° � 4 .�° o .. aQ� EE ° a' _a �r m > 0�U t 0)� u, E m .� u, u, m: om a) o � m o m o o u,m w m m 0)2 m O 0. o o u W m ) 0)— a c a 0 0 -o Ln -u, L'fin u, m. c o N C p) a) 0 L � o c fn c 0 3 M L E O-O L O.0 a) c a a o °-N a)N Ul Y a)a 0 >' y6 N (6 t/i-0 3 > a L Y'� ° U in E o W u, ° 0 9 T°� m E a Y o a) ° a 0 w o m o E 9 0)m M -o Q.c 0 a o 0 p 0 > 3 c 9 M �2Ew >L2 _ �9m m m ° a)--ymmM � Ea) m3-°y2mcow Via) W ¢ 03275a u,in m a) yfOn 0' LN 2 aN) a' o=2 ff yO O 75 NL Co CaO m LaCCO �n cOV am)om . Qa OSLH 2O N > ;ZrV o X aO N u a°-n�coM9 C /i E c U ` C NE N 0 O p C jO m c o 3O.0 O O oy OO p 0 Y - ° UomEY 3 Q � UUCiY ° Oo0OomEQ00 Omm a u Baa m C0O�2 _ mc� E O T ° Y 15 ° ) E YMQ Ua m Cfn -O E LM N ° CE- sc (Tn3: oNm C � OM °° -0 NO ° m N m oC U O° m ELE ° o L O cU m ` 7 w m ° Eao 6 0.ELLOC M am Qa)wYm ma Q. OE ° ° CQQ p my yO m aa ° aO c O o W O 00 YO 00 > O m C 0 w °° a 0 Ey O 9 - �p E° N SS O 30-5 Lo aT -F L a Y 0 o (1) - C a m 0 m 9 O a) D a) C O C m 0 C E o a ) ° E E y w 9 -__ >m m m o a > o a m °-U � L a M M 2 m °L ° -O �a _ oay a) 0w CL - N o u, a a)a H a)O U) 0L N to c m.> °.. O N C w > C O 0 m m O c O y CO .� a Q E.X't.- m O in U to in L_ E Y ° a)9 w a) O C U L w U U-m O O W O.O•_T U O O c a) O_-p Y 0 a) ` C a) C a) c m E a) O ° E N Y U a) O to Y y U U) a)9.-• O m E ° C-O O O a) 3 � a) E a � O O .• X °y_ a O L _ LL C a m a) N L O E fn fn�' m y C M m m Y a) C m--F Om m 0 m a O m N c a) in C'- m w > C L E't=C X C 9 Q W ° a M coca a) c3a) p0 cp - �. E a mMc E0o0m yME � w c ° CD p 10 �'. 5 o � 0)� Em`oQm `M_mM Eooaci � aa`ni � � u, Q9Yo5,m °� o �-M °o Lin `om� o D O a) ° C O C E `(6 9 O E w a E O O L a) O N Z my Eo.mDU > � Eo �'p� o 0 M m E300 � ( c.c °� c E y u, E y 0) o Q m y. o - U in M o fn c 0 m M o o W ~ ° �a) om �0 1) Fina)p0C0 �a0 Mmo �yrnrna R, w-w- �o -wyw LEoF m Z y U L a o 0 c E L a o f a w E c -O u,9 3 �'L m o °�>a 0) Q o W U � o yc >` �,� � o °a 000 E = Eom �awou, u,aa �' LMu, ° Y _� C O C - a a) L a) 3 - C LU Lou, MO ° c 0a Lo aQ. aOi aTr `mmc Ea).Ym. a�'iM� m3 � oa)90 ° o ca XXa U) y M Q a) a E a) 0'�C Q X y0 0 X C C fOn O LL a Q'O y C C Y Y a) N--F.2 C L, fn �Y L a) a) d W 3 a) 3 U c N m a ° ° M to Y O L_ O M > C O o o - a) X y 9 m Ul L N C a) ° ._ W U) a) to C O a) O a)a O O. U O a)r:m M Y °)Ul a)_ M E -° m O O O U) a)O 3 -S O w E C a) N E c m 3 °)m a) m C E a O 0- 00 C X O ° a) a) O L Y 9 O C Q Q m a L �� 39m Q� MO a .EL-0L000(1) � cL ma� a� cZUu, U) o.� �' m o o W o �L o Q-° i. w a L O a o U >.E o U5 a1') o M 3° �rn o o fl- .L0. W °v W Y c X� O O °a'- L y T fn C y aC 9 a O O Y E O C O O U (6 L m 'N C a a) 0 T C C a) N a) d tt_ c m m m m C m 0 0 a N fn E O N m a) E O C C fn 9 > M U Y a) O 9 fn. 'U 3 C a m W a) w C a a) m L 3 a a) a) Q Q c T N N O 3 o.c '� °o ma w o '' .°� °�~ �E c o �° c0i%a o o.`o_ c .(D v s z ° L.E n m E o .> u Y m a w E 0 c w m.� 0 o O Q 0 ° o u y o 0 9 U E o o Q 0 3 Q o ° o N O m c' a :_ U > E E 0 o c 0 a) M E °-p a O 0 L m °� L O a) 0 0 0 w 0 to E ° L O a) m M C N C ° a) O L Q O 3 0 ° c X O O C m C z U F- Q Q LL c c Q d a'- Q 15 O W O 3 H >L L E m W - E a U fn E o m U o (1) 2 LO C Q.- Q.- LL r o � N H LU w LU m D 73;L w LU a_ n w z cn Q I-- � w O 73; a U) w U W J (n Q (n z Q LL U) z O n z O C) Y C m T C O C (D N � C N a L M 1� h O Q FW Z r ti 0 Q Q _ U W Z Z rh U) U) ^dV H H � N Q Q) Z 0) -0 .0 O w G m a m o a-0i.g u)m m �a-a a o72 'm ow 3m r7 Q J ZEE6 E �ZE om "Iwn.c (7 Q m �:Emv)�ma, wamicc wa m.c_� Q U Za � o.c �w � 3mo5 E � 5a ` axi maao � � G n C U m a z �v m���o °oa m ate) 10 ° �o a� mew Qa =a U) .cm mi �-0ZEZ� 2 m -- _ `om v Ems ° U) a_Ei v°, c Q m cm) m °' ., o a o.m.- E '9 w a) o 0 v, � � oo � � nEcm) E-0 Q) o cw �� E� Qc � Q)) �� S o a E � m�.c a o= aQT im `o � � v °_ m 0 - Q �.c-o W Q W �a 3 � c mm m E� m � a o.°o o Q m o a c o m Q o m 3 i E E 'o o- c N Q m.o'� ° -°'UNmm r wm-� O¢ m W ° oa �O'z Q' a- w c m Z m m 3 o E Q) m v v T mm_ 0)m Em O °, Q) M � oma .v_;o �w � �0 °)u � cE_.c_ � de amvom F ma) 0 mQ m mm a) ,tea) � m w -0 '° 0 m0 m 'mQ) 1) o Q) Q) c � � Sm � o mcFc0 0 Q'Q)w w.c w o o m a O o m 0 m= ami ami- m o c m m m 0 m _ m E o _m z a Ocinaoa .cm'� vm, a opt m �.v_,� o v, � ma.m wa'�C 0)oo �,.Oo -.� �� m U0o Eo� E a00)Q) m Q)t5 F Seo `)Q,) Q) Z°��-.`o`rc m o m Q 1) w�.� U G Q m.,. L y Q a,m N U � E.oOcE�� � a a��oca- ami Q) Q,) �oQ))ZE o --mE- a� - aa)_ 0 � 0 m0 c o U i `°-° Q 0 0 o O.(? N F T .0 m m m o OU pm� om-m°aa � Q'm Qo co ami ��� o 0QT ZT rn ai .�_o�aw� Q) o m c c 0 o N .�.E .c 0 c.� m m m y co w -a m Q)).� m.c_ vi a.a)w � .� vi `m m m o ry w m m ^'. o w .c.0 m = a o m o CD �, E � o �,m c a .c c0 a.,.� m � .cm.,. 3 r co .v_,aa. co c-Mo O r rn � Q) mmam cd ¢ 0 '- QT 'co Ev, cd i-ocv, o U co = m °' co ¢ 00 `00 U co O" mca °'w m w a ) Q) `0 a0, E ° m c °im `° MDQ) a �r. � m mcU am m m e m.n 0 m m.E `o m m-0 a). c o,� orn ac'i �,m m � w� ma = zm � = ��� � z~ �, ° �m o .o `o o m 0 Q).o om v, Q)) o,m Q'c m.c o.Qzzz _ � , E � o mmm 3 v� ai 0 a0 °m O0a)-0-0 -0 maa-00 oac� � aaa a.m`mro cc.v, v, o m cmao ooa'o p Q) a D O 0 a ° N-m° O'° a N (0 (0 m U Q N comm m'� �mmm m� m° �� oma �_-mm._ Em=° v c w = m E 8 0 m ') 0 Q) a 3 m E a O ° mG ° G N m m a 0 mG a Q) m m a 0_ m'Oo am amva,) .mzsEw o m m oo4`° 0, °E) mN , o Oa ],o m n n y Q a aomcQ� cQ) g ammco 0 Q) 00ZQ) Q�=° m r ° E m O w H m o o U n a o ° w o m c �e a m o V O o w O G d N v_,,��,, m.,..t? N .c i m O o - G U p o , w o O.G E m O' m -m a °' �a� = m a ° 0 0 ° � �w Q) QT W � am� m ~ Q)m �wEQ iQ) Q) � �) oca'Q �,.Qm 2- vimm a 0�° mmw' ' 0 m o. ZE m a_ a) .�.a CU m Q).v m " 0 a'Ci a`o v m m o a'm Z o a in o o m a) U C U U� m='� i O`" a) N m j Q m O F Q to H i Q m .� Q 1. N O S �, C m c Qa as � '��,a'v_mi2m ani a,m a�0i a oin Q.Qa `� m Q) Q) m �a 0 m m U i u, c o m m m m o �a'o w,a)w .c co w `o o.o ami a) U `0 E w Q))ZE�, co �j 1) `�°, co �' o w ° o''_ c'° =m (7 0 w o,�a° 3 .�a m � Y NN N Q).O Y Q O a'N a 0 N i m Q Q m m U m L 0 -OG w Q 0 -Q) O O a L � O a L D )O a G� -Q).0 °�' i m N Q m w 1) U co a00m co 0 ° c U co am U co 0.om3 co civ ° co �wm� 3w co � a' Oa') C L ( >-O a) a) a) N N N E a) a C L U S -E Q > U O ` .� 0 m'C O u, rm8 (D rL u, � ° mmm ° m m' Z 0 D U m U C m a) a)w >j (O X -fn-O a L m L a)L O m m w m O (Dw mw -m ya0 ° mw ° as °QmY Eaa � cwN a mT 0Oa0` oc0)L� °�m °-° o ma 6)r.aW ro o a`�i y °O'�a c t-O a ° y-o C� co x(>D o � w m o'°�-� o Q ami v i a J2 N m Q f/) a) a) C V-.- C m m.�W U S L _ QT O m d y Z C H >.0 C C a E-O Y Ul C m}LO O O O m� m U S o m-O m O ° O O u O U °E a).� C C m m O .� m a Ul -`O a U m S O F a) ` O O . o.". >- Z C a (D m W Z °� fn'0 ° m O a) Z'C O O .�'L C (D O a) m fn Q 1)2!,U m m 0 p 0 = `m o.� U) o -` Q .m 9 y N O a y m O Q) m.c .Q H E E Q 0 L m m E a0i W O U L y ° a�a 3 m E a) w 5 m O Q m oma- D Wo w mY'ECie Y O� .Q (D 0 W (Di 3 0.0' � � ° ° � E o � O) Q)0 m U) w �_ � Qa=i `o �-�oaaioa0iooay m r `o >a (D o0 omocmirm rnoam ��o C (p T m 0 Y 0 W a m L °Y -.4 c m.� u,'�L cmi .-4 .� E .. o f 0 0 a m W in °� � °u)= -2 a) E' w 3= 0�-mo °) -o Q0 (DN OQv, 1) E Z EmC �� a�in `m ° a� 5E '' � mOEVa coma v ..-- a� mF SQomM O p 0 C (On a E O'� O 0 0-O-0 ° E ° a) m > C o fn O -O a m �00 .o in E N L o O O QT 0) m 0 Z C a) U m= m U O m ° fn a) Q O C'. E m C a) fn S O m U S N Q U .° a) m° . 0 a a In m ° a) ° u,'ou,a o m m Q U L m 0 ° co 'Oo vi_o p,.o U H Z Z O (6 0 0 Q y m to U O U ° Q O Li '_ ul U °U ul a m t Ca a) `U N m t y o o -,'OO O m y W z 0 a)'� a)V U .0 a 0 C y C O O ° >9 O X T m ° 'O 9 °_m () - 'U o' W y Q y -O a) a) O y C U U a)C L y6 m Y6-O C y m U O O O O O Q Q a O O O O W O m m.�to� �'�C S C C C a O O a) U a' (W Y y0 U Y6 U w m C U a a)P > U Q.+��. O o-G C a W W C E O'O-O E_T a a) O a) '� m L CO Q O C L O 0 LU a) (n Ul C a V (n.L-•U a).Y T a m a 0 a Q) N m U5 (n U) (n ° p Q m 0 (n Y L E C °� C N.�H a) -`O C O y m S G to zo G < W �w :-(� Y6 to C .O >,Q a) a) H O C m to U N m U j- `N Q T a) 0. Ul a) a m C Q- °- Y Y6 m Y W a) G C ° m m H (n d C-O '_' O V y 0 9 T H m O O L 9 C 0 2 O Y O M a.moi C- N +-' .v)a m.O S a O O O Z (C6 '�O U C Y S m Y a C Q•-• -C C C O U Ou, To o � m mm ° m �a) om LCmNC-m O,Q mm_,.,. m a d LU NE .Lm..Lm.a�c � °�� (1) ma) � cmi �� u,L � m� m�.m-° '� ymm � mmE aai mm� Q))�m � C? p 0 `m� Sm000-a0i m= oL L a)mmmao E(D aEmm� � S � rn0 c � m °) o Y U p °)In°in Q U ° Q a).�Y a m ° E m.� .�_ m m o Q .> �° U a) o.c o Y O m -W Y a) (D d C_Y 6 0 m S w w C.O U 0 m m L O Z O 2 S c N co Q 3 Q`m U 0 2 V U E a)L Q i-.c m o T a F 3 W r o o w U°o 0E ao oyo U) cmo ° a w° 4�0 m > °0 a) M a O a) 0 a) W O aO W U) o > ID S Q° oo L U Eo=L ao Hw W E E _ WD o ° C ° 0 ° E ° WE Y d Z E M° 1 Q O O Um) ° U C _ OY O Z Q M f/) T M LO L M O c LU a0.� > u oo a) ou �a ° u n 0 =cje w Eo ° m Ln O (n M a) N �.�a) O ° C.o M Y C E M C L a) M.>,°� Y W U) (n'L-' O t�/1(6 Y Q Y T E M Y E >. O a Y C N C W~ U o ° C O W cL C U c N y:• O M �y O M °)E J (n ° T N E M O_ N O C a) U o C t/)U) a) O o (Y t/) t/) Q (n >i M M c ° c °- (6 a) ° °- c a) a) Y L U d U f/) M o O C a) Z_ Q T N.0° j L Efl- cm oQ -oo ° o L3-°oz2L � E � ° a)'. W z 9 a) a) a) M N a) a) N O U a> a) a) C O L C Q a� O a) O O �� C - _ow Y a)--F Ma mao �'� YT �( U.2:-L- a ° E �_ C L a) O 't/) ° f/) U T °- C U.� a) a)'- O a O C a) a) O p a) o.Y a)'u O D a) C O L(D T L f/) m a) N = Q m C a O E m m U 0 Q U z0 y ° amid-o .m min amim Qrr Q >..E Q Q° -w waowE U a) °C C_ -C.� a) C Y fU/) a) M'-' '- y U E a).0 a O m 0 ° O C a) a) m 'o U 9a -° yQE .Lo. ° a)15 a. 09c �E E-w E E ° O E M 0 °- O M p) Ul a) O Y f/) C Q O a N a)N M a) Y �'.� oQin L-. o ° �y o ° Q,O oo L YEa ° oM .` oa mYLo a)� y� ° ° = o yQ = M o�az- (WD a)� u, L o a in y c o o a o a o R Q o a � o c o o c 0 m E -M a N M �.� (6 0 o u, M m w `o ff ,w m E y y a S�o r m Y- = OI>(D 5 `.� O a) = U V C N °- T U O c 0 'p .0 .o M Uy m $ w Q p- d H N N U a O N a)N >O a) �- � mo (Dmza J O � U).0 �a ° � c°i � M QQ �Q0 � °-a)a�: �9m O C— - C L (D OZa M--Fa F2 Lm o.�(D 2 _2 m w`o Qo (6 N a) 0 Y 0 a a > = a) M N - a > T >' ° m M ° s L m o °__ o 0 o a a°i.a) `o °) '' a)'�n m E ami 0' aa)� m >a — �6 � E o y o n �a 0(D o- Q a Q�y � � �� Lo �'m �.4ca�a mQo 99 .� �L �a -° _ Z N y O M 9 T f/) C = a) M E u, ° M a°i a m a ° Q ° °) o m a m m= � ° 0 (6 T 9 c (D M t/i o >.� N Y'C Y a) (6 L (6 a O a) N a) >i (6 O M L a ° Q L f/) o O T Q � Ul D O a) °- Y E w a)-° o m a) Q C -0 C o �— o o U 9 r ° a) m 2 a) E °-E o o M ° o cL � ° � 0 9 ��0 Qm mE Uyyrm ° mo 09 o0QO0E aE.. 9 ° o �a m �L-0 °-O �y > T C(6 N - N O a) a) Q D m M 0 M M cLi o � TO m � �� m m L (>D Qa)E _ E �.�+L-9a> E N O C f/) U M f/) WC-E 0— C C O O �' c U (6'� o M E ° N Y o M a) O Y ° a) O T,N M a) O O Q O L t/) N > 2 a) N 9 M �.� ° a ° E Q a j a) U a) O N >Y'� U C L O O M a) m M U M M c a a) LO M O N R L a)a L m f/) °' C 9 C Q E f/) a) a a w T 3: O C.� C °-°a L a) M M a)'. - M n E a)> C 0 N L O O U a) 0- ° a) a) N M M Q Q ° L w M o O r p p a - U o a) Q U z ° °.Lo-.N ° z a o ° M O Y M O y o N N a a)-6 M ° Q` V ll'l N 10 U a ° a) f-m E 00 W m a)'�Y E 1 Q C ° 'O a) M a 'O a) O O 'p 'O O Z 'O M M U 'O N m 'O—Y 'O ° N a) 'O � M a) M R M R Z O R.E a)f/) R C R w a) R °-o C F R a-° R M R O Q w Y R N C 9 L .p a) Q L a) > .p�. >L L .p a) ul L a) O)._ a) 'p a) .0 U a) L. L 9 a)a ° u, u, u, M 4-( C ° C q c C ° a C M a ° aai ° = ° R R a) R''-� L R.� R'C Q R M a)a N R 9 M R Q c R E c o Y R 3 O O fA N N Q 9 N o v o ) L9aT) A 6' E VRyR) .° �-O OC M ) RyCRU0c C c C > O 00E O ° ? a Ro O R — U O M o `c° yLa)' CC OO pO ( ) r O N U > E O / Y N - E O NUU / � U N wQ d QR R d E O wa > U) ) ) 'm M N o N KE 5 U ° N wua ° E E ° aC) c 0 L 0 0 CO C Y o (6 (6 X M a U O O C a) 0 0 0�°)N L ° O a O M(6 m N 0" a) C L L a) M O v,.c_a m'�m U)Z.0 M' o 2 0'> O aa)) Z (D wy`y o Z oo m ° ma c a s o N 0-O Y N t0/)Y a) M °) M a).o M a)j O_ 9 N w a G Z -M° °d 2 T a N N o c I� N O ?: N M O U O w E °i a m o.�d a ° °)U o_r �a m E '� c .� o.� Q o 0 _ y M.M.-M M o ° � O U c U U O C Y -O E T 9 C lw Q). c p a) O w O O U - m O Y m U) M (96 a)_ U C.L.. a) MZS W C= N D11 (D M C C O C>— Q) y a m9TNm a) oE0 M ° axiac 9a>'im C7 no�° na ° as mcQaL wa ° E =a=. a) MM 0 o c ° ) a o o r E m a 0 W u E m E ° L ° E ° 2 m a � (OD R C) Q o 5 ° o ' 6 -.w mm. ° aLi o m o m9 �4 � -O .M. N 0 a) �a) O 0 � m L Q>,0 M o W 0 � �L Q a C T E y O M ld Co a O'_E 0 X'W N M R Ul E Y N O w E.. O �->oo � � u, is _Q M (D N(6 U ° -Ocd N to N a)m Q> a)'C a `° 9 U T a) M ow (6.� M 5'2 C Q p O"L M D O Q.� L L C m O L C a) M U) a T L M O Z 0 `C C C ~9 (n L a) C f/) Q a) d' V).W a) -O W M O 5.o M N E— a) M C ) D Q Q O L o O' SLa � m�6 U)=(DEc o > m � Loa ooma�°i Mac z - v o m3 -C)03:: `m'�0m (Dt -2 m2 oaa Za9a m °° �J Q U = t/) 9 E N 4-- M m = M y 9 M O M U) U N S O d .y a) i c m M a) o a o a a �' ° in M U c a O V)Y N R - ° t/) a) M a) a)9 = O L N y C U 0 (D Z Z 2 cac) L O L L L _C )O OU) U) W M o ° T (� )aCM a)QO? 9=aL6 ° N UM a E() N Q o Z 0 0 LL s J N z � 1010z ZU) GI w Q d o a 0 N N N N LL LL a �Y 5 0 0 0 ° > o a 0 Q 'C O J O E a) O C.� C U C C 9 U O RS O C N a f/) L Y f/) >O Y RS O M- J C O >, a s M .0 O Z O f/1 9 O� E a) C a U o =a m C ° w u, E oar ° Qo u, C)J OU .� °C Y T U C M C M a) a) 0 9 J 9 (6 (1) O N.— N Y a) `O O T a) a m E M C O M 9 T (6 O (°p M U a).0 Ul N N a t/j U.� N U C •. Y _ mo Q aE�QQm � ai a) `_ � s� m'� Opoa°)i O S E a) E ° �O C Ya)E m N U C C U O O a) O M O O J O w N Z a) O U N y a),Y C O Ul a) O L° C w M O U O � .LM. E .Lo. m � `omoY_ Eo `o .Lo. (D �y�-mo°-o� �E� E aai .� °M o0� a m0o 75 o a) MW o � O wwa8mam O moE . Qy9J W mi. m ° E ` �ca) oa � L�oo m � ° 00 � � (D °J. ° -° a) a) E o a) o M M o E ° C O N ° � > w m Y m a° `m m 9 m 00 O C 11 -O `o_ 4 -° o axi --o a `m Q�' o U U U C N _ O C Q.� O L a m a C a)y O M L 3 ° E O C +:5 00 U V `U C M y E C 0C 9 O M.M ) O C O OmC E a) O O tl E E ° -O °� U O E ONO aO oQ Dn EiOE °oW E ° SY O ° oN O Uow OQa) 0 O O U) ° 2E Z DLOZZLmZ 0 a) C a) O mY C a) C 5 a a a E ° ° O C a O M - M (D _ O O O0 -O p ° � W.OL)T M a) E M M J O OMa �°� Y O T �� Q�y09 N _�m a C L C M N M 9 a) N (6 U5 a) H M O O U T M > � ELaJrM o yw � ° Oo � oa) ooo04 ao aO N E /)LCaO0 OL N m 0 U) aC) a N M N O W Ya �.�0 ( O C (p -O m tz N.° ° O O N O U NW O M M >�L.. E E fl- Z w (OD ° C C C E m �i a) Q Q .� ° Ul a).p) C M O C M W a.N U Ul a a) L M >j � f/) M M.�a M Z M L M 9 C Ula 9 T Ul U U a) M p a m L O a E O C C m W C C LU O C N a-° T a) M J O C O O M w E a) (C6 ° O >j E — N a) O O M cC m.NmL ° mEa� a)° Mmm o ° w a� E ° u, a > ° mU5ymaCi W (n m Z a) O Ul C E M U a)'0 Y TC Cn 9 O U 0 C O O Q O a) (p N a) U C ~ ul y C M O M !6 9 a_) (n w (n O o a) X M W aN � ao`� 2E `m °� omaZi pOv `m c c°) � ° -o - a Y ` c o �� °� E675 U) QW o M)o aC) a) a � a`)) a`)) m -o C� w Q u, E °o` M 9 o a) aCi o m o Q Z Q� � E� E ° � M ° a) Q oa)w E ° ° 'E � � ° o m 9 'c J � � JOJEmw 0 u, Q O J a oL� ._ l7 OJO Z Q C S O U L— M`�a C °-— C N ° bA C J M C M L O C O L a L Q O t/) U E C a) ~ ° J M M d (n Z to D U O ° m p a) E t/) `Ul O U f/) d U -°. LU Z 9 L.�O E L Q w CL (6 2 N O C 9 a C O C w 0 M 0 'U T C °� T C.`..��- Y a N M L (6 O O O O O — O O E (p Z m w U IM J Z .� ° �aa)mr a°iEE ° ( > E a O S O m O .� E (Dm L z 00 cn LL>° aa)) a`)) .� a L LL.E J J d D 0 ii . aL d Q E E Q 3,L.. Ii n 0 U) --------------------------------- --- - ----------------------------- LU LU U) D LU -------------------------- ------------------------------ --- LU ry I a_ n LU I? LU ------- LU U) U) LU U) ------- < U) z < ------- ------ LL U) n 0 0 U 0 —4�q f cd ------- --- E cd 0 15 cd Ecd ------- --- ------- --- o < Pyr ry a) < 0 --------- zJ — ----------------------------------------------------------------- < < ----------- A W4 -------------------- U) U) U) G G O O 2 0 z © « Q / J Q z y Q } \ / \ \ H ° \ % % m ! g - * { � ( E 2 15 ( ( » U) / \ U) \ ( J w / \ cd- j / / \ $ \ U) � 3 L \ § 0 y e 2 ) ) > \ ( C) ❑ z r o � N H LU w LU m D 73;L w LU a_ n w z cn Q I-- � w O 73; a U) w U W J (n Q (n z Q LL U) z O n z O O Y C m T C O C N N � C N a L M 1� h O Q FW Z r ti 0 Q Q _ U W Z Z rh U) U) ^dV H H � N Q a 0 ZLU 1 z d' t1----�1 Q0 1r Q � Z = z � U) zLUN W LU C� d • LU M A773 r , n -> U) / W U) Z - W ry D W W 73; r '�'"- _ W U) - >� _ a LU - w U) _ I? Q U) LU /= a z 0 r z Ax 0v // '7;r - _�1 E r o � N H LU w LU m D 73;L w LU a_ n w z cn Q I-- � w O 73; a U) w U W J (n Q (n z Q LL U) z O n z O C) Y C m T C O C � N � C N a L M 1� h O Q FW Z r ti 0 Q Q _ U W Z Z rh U) U) ^dV H H � N g w Y m a) � z N WW- C 2 O C .Y o +' C OZ 0 om °a.o 15aom (D(D °j E °� -O�omCa) rnY, C Q O o_ d N o' U �L Q N 0 � Ul d Go m C,oC o w.0 Z Q > C a j C Q 0 O o 3: a)� ?i O U a N O L 1-7 Q '-C-p.T O'o N m C C O w a `p(6 J Y 9 p m m ` a) a) f-I o=a m o.. E m o m o >.� -0 E a9.L.. Z H C a)L Q C.0 2 C E a U-O CO a)a) O C U w Y C C ._ � O.0 tp/1 E Y a) O C m 2 E.0 m 9 o O N O m o °-E'C H (D U L N U C 9 (6 C b o 9(D o ° n5 T C U N m a)a Y p ~ ty0/) o a) ° o N E O m C C o- 0 a o a) 0 m m O 9 a >i O Q _ ° m CO C a a C2 a) a-p ° E a)Y.� a) m.o '� C O ° p L m W Z C a) a) Q. m a) y O 9 a m N Q d C 9 y (D m N L C a C ° m Y C w a p O C a) X a Q a)(�'E m O V1 ° a N a f0/).o O t/) a) o (m, C w N H o >i a O N F- E 9 a) C o a a`) a) a) � O U Q-o - Q O '6 m E a) o m._ ^ p >i a)-O o a) (6 Q m a) O-L L N Y J N N o a° 2- 1--1 -O in.hoc ° °�Q° Q.� Q� �' u, �'= a) m9 m��� ca a) C (6 C a U E O Q w�, O a) U a=Y m a) ) 9 § 'o U a Y f/) N C C L C `ma)mCo o oa°i ��amEo �L a � Ou, moa) E u,- - a) oo ami.` °�u, o - oUo mo ° Eo~ m of E ° -off o_�a u, .0 aS°)m a U�° o.� ai o N o -o o m Q°N O a)a T m O L m N.0 m C a) a) o m m >(6 a) m m N m a a Q O O O C a)E f/)N O.0.` Q C T O 2)- N Y a) o o E �� a a o� �o E � - E(7 0 o a C �a� o L.° Q O U C o o in a) o ` mw Y N O.p 0 a)� w H ~ C E U�p >i ul E a) o _Za QQT E pinm`o rn ma m o o 0o L a) Ca o a) a°�i E Ul a E a) T U O �+ a)�(/)L+-' C L+-•Y C a) m Q C E Orn N o o �o o a)oo U NO m a O O D m H 2-2 (D 175 Y.° _w f/)O) O E o O O-C =a U � O �` O Q C �� � Uj ` o� a) E °o.. c in m a a o-O in .L-. ° uj a)a9C �',p� a)�QE �m9 actio ° ooa °Lo oY'oa ° E [7 (D c6N15 - °- �� o L'�`a E �'.Q 9 aa)).° o a E o uj o u, E in o° o N Q o )o 0 o a a V L U Q o O 2'- �'o U U N E- E L_ C a) U f/) L w O C a F- 3,L...� m m Q F-o °� 3in�° m m m E w.0 �.� E �.�(�� m o -•o w w m Caj a a) o O E '� N t`) O O .L. C 0 9 U ..- QL Ul f/)L O Q-_ Y a) a) a) y Q N f/) a)�' jn f`1 f/) -O a)o Ul o -O E ° C Y O a) L f0/) a)9 E o 9 _ Q> o m.o o o u,L m u, o o o m.0 E o `m m :- C E E ° .� w a.v o.�.Eo m ° o m Q c a C o A O a)15 (D p O1 Q x L ° o o Q o TE (D mQ L`o cq EEOoa � Qo9 E o 9 O E a)'`_' Q a) U Q O a) O a) .. U C a) L a) o ° E a) a) ° U a) fes/) '� o m o o Q ct 9 a0 T U m C (6 N f/j f0/)a °a L O U ` O C >i m f/) O C O O E a) m d a a) o m C m O C m Q a) C y6 C C N a) m 'O 3: m.w 0 d �. (6 C ° a) f/) colo ma)EaQ � oL aaiam E-2 Y a) .o o � � ocoi W Qo- E m � om9° aa) o a o `o U E 9 O: C m L .L. --o a) m p O a) O °-E Yaa).Cm Cm.0 mE � Co).� °� o mmYC room ou, omaQ O ° m O1 a)f/) a) C L_ (6 p) C L m m p N m C a) C 9 E a) _ _ p a) a-oQ.Co r. �-om mma ° -om �'�-o ° C p-o '_' ° u, w_'o c° Yo mmaam m aoo E a ° m9 u, U '� >oa) m.c oaf ° oo - O u, a) a)u, p� oQa) '° omC in E 4 ox u,oa) T OT Yo aoa) 2 o m m a`�i m E= _°L m 9 0 o o C E o o °9 �aci o m a o o-Q o f nmi E E nmi o w m o_ Loa)u, ° p- `g o Q y.o .� x a - �' o m m E C ° m E m � E a) 0 0 O m N w f`) Y E m a) -O N O C Q m U U T w N o o m w L O L N a) tV/) Y.-•L m a s p C ) .o O U C 4) o a) N 9 m U C o O Om. y 9 9 a E o o Y a m C (6 a) o o `.�L o O L E O m Q 0 O(n Y T 9 m'Oo O O U a �`p mom m a s o m E o c a o a)o ..�' o o E m m w 0 E L `g �' a).L-� o L 9 m m m E Q o_U C m w f/) Ul o E C a) - a)O -O a) a) m .o C Ul o N a Ul T L E f/) L N x a ° o) 9 m N m w L L C Y a) L m N Ul 9 o CL a °U E w 0 N a 9 o f a) L o.� a= >'° Q o o `� y -o m m .Q a)�' 75 o a °� ° axi o � o 0 o m O a.o o.o >>.`o_ � ax� oE ° ' > > a � > o ° � � .� o �� o ° o�� �o a �ooao_ � 90 >o ax) Ew-o oEQ mQ c Q Q Q° Qa ��� m Qo.� oC E o >.Q�.°� o ` .L. m E.E axi z.� Q .E U) m L �a o Q m -ooa E °' o- a`�i � a>i� u,inm H O O Q � pa.Cma L m o o o � °� Y -o o `gym o.Lo. `o �Y -o oo aE Y m o E o m L p N ° `o a ° S a a N p '�_ T C U C m- o a f/)f/) C(6 a) 3: O C m u, 00 m�, m � ° ° Co L� o o (D or m°-Oa m Q a 9 C a m a).0 o m ,(6 N C f/) O >i Q O m) 0 N ° E w C O O o Y 9x C f/) ° m a a) a)y O = T m E a) a) w w N a) a) a) ° j W m -O m L p x E Q L E p m 9 o a) a)> C O Q U t/) m O a) U a) Q Y Ul C Ula O m f/)Y C -m m a) p O O E (6 tom/) m t/) U a) C m Ul U E m O() ° -p m O.0 E.� O Ul N O m m O O a to/) C °9 O QQ a) .0 a) m C p N a (6 -O m a) N ° N o ° Q Y 0 D N � a D O X Y O L ° jn~ C E a) m N 9 U m > a O o a m 9 T E L H m a) U U a) O-.o E .�H U C a) m >o a)a C a U C O m E U m C Q m m o mL o.0 � a) m m o.. m o u, E o m '-' moo ° o Eomo �N-o u, � wY m w w ° wY w �� m (� .po.L..a oQ'Y-., .Lo.~ Qr `oom aEi= -Oo as oa o U > .� u, oEmx w U m U (p p 0 a)9 m C O'> C a) m- O W N C jm mQ m Ya >, aH C >,N o a) m Ul O` y °U °- O-o`o 09 wa a) -O N ° ` L (6 C N >i p a O >i a ° y�, ° O � C N ° a) o ° -°p a ° x Q C .-. zc m m C+' >i m a) a o - u p a) o - t/) O O t/) a) E m .' '-' a) a) O -0 9 Ul m o O Q O C(6.w p a)L >i N fo a) /1 T a) O`a C d p E w U a) U N Ul m E m t/) t/)y ° ° >i O d' C O O OLu Z -O f/) C m Y-a L .o w a L O a-OO 3: a) a) a) m °C a 9 a) o o ° m o p ° m W w aE ° °- �oa2 QaEi a) -� C Jo C � o ° o of m� .-.a ° �yU p C o :o a m .. y a C Q E Y a) C E Q- o E o W (n E o._ w E c'- o a'- o m o a) m '' o a) m o o o Lu CJ v. o T.. Q C E ° o) w w a E �' m a) `o o d (n E Eo Y° Cw (D a) c o o ° o EC a)aE E � � QC `O oEC W U) o m" o O E o o �r m .Lm. E > o-o 0 0 m'o .Q .Q a) �La �. E a`�i o < v CoE o my > o ° oC 09 y E ° E3: Q d ° ou, o you, moQ � Uo 9 0o m T U Cmy a) oL u, U ° Cie O > (6 a) L C f/) y L C_ C O C C Q Q m m Z V C N'(p O` T C- O O w a 0 o a o a m Uj a)~ N N L m w a).0 a).� O L a) ° a)Q N a) O O C O of ° p- �' - 3 ECaa - U.o m '' a oOa > a p�+L > � >o �9LCC m > a c � m-o a`�i.E a� o aai `o .� Lu m m m x a o Q E °�° Q .`� Q E m E a ° Q °oar c E o � a m a oaa `m �.� °� a Y `m - �'Y m o my a).. m o 0 0 o a o o Q E ° a`D) o Z C O Ctz C a) U >i o- a) O r C= (�f/) f/) 0 9 O W Ccd O N C C ` C.L. C Q 0 C a.0 m () m m a) !n U)L °U L (� w 15 C.L.L • • • • • • • • • LL r 0 � o H N U LU j lea L£Z ~ 3aa�0£ m LU o > LU � a ~ o - --- - -- -------------- - -- - - --- - w z cn Q O F-- - - - - J O F-- � - - - - J a LU U) ® - J az a LL O J - - J 0 O J LL C U Y a a o � O a E O L C a ~ n a) O Q O N 00 O 0 C y'Op O � a o T N C Oa O (D az - O �- �- O - - - - - o-- -- - - - 0"� w-Q .Y a° w o O ccoo LL O m n - Q—_ _ - _ _ _ _ V C N (6 N f0/1 0w 0m Y Qa _ C O E O C oO a Z a E— o as ao o o o az O in y a) a5 Y O C O t/) O` C m a) O C O o a) - U U 2 a) L C C Q o � T Q E wm D U o go W lo a U L Joo Q (15-2 C 09 0 u Q - - ------ - _ _ _ O N E�9 Y ( Y M E a y U L U YY a C.- O N U O i � J -Q� ° zO z p a m � oZ Z c _________ m OC ° . _ -------L -------- d �i O LL F�1 00 E a O a5 t/) CO a) J N SZ z N U �Q � -r- - - � 0� L�(6 LmE � W T ° Uma_ U) E U Q I 3 0 0 000 �, N Q U C 14 V � 0 N 0 0 U Fr Q � .� Q < �Cd 4 4 4 4 z Fr7 -7 ------ ------- Z -- - -- 0 v o------- ----0 N E o------- ---- 0 O L S —_ _ _._-- EFE ------0 d 0 W Z O O L ^ W O-1- 1--1 O G: —_ _------- _._._---0 z ml 6 —- ——- S- _._._---0 O O N LL C_ m O U @------- -----0 m o- III -------O 5 fU/1 O a L MEE m a o---- -- -----O a m o 9 Y 4�U) 'C L O ---0 U.0 E a E E OC O _ N 2 N 2 N cjeC O ^ U .Ea in m S .O 111o E a (n Q O (D O N 6— ) O O O o---- --- -----� O In Y N S o- o------- it -----0 � o o a o---- -- -----0 a O N '� O o o---- -- -----0 Q Q a E m m O o------- -----0 0 0 a o---- -- -----0 9 0 L Eo 0 (01) o > Um )- n .O .- In - o---- -- --O o a m = a o" uj o H a c C Q Q C LU �o- -----0 o m m .� o U L w 'x 0 E Q �-_ _ III O _ � o � (D Ery o 'p 0� �09 E N 0.0 � o--_ _ _._-- --O v (D L C E" E C C— Y N O.- E 9 O 0 Q o------- --O r �_ O E L y m < U a� Q-� W z o--_ _ _._-- _._._-- N O U o N U a (6 07 LU C 6 M C LU Q @------- --O C O 'U Q (D Y Lu In � a o - Qo LU a - --„ - w o------- O o 0 m a6'i Q° m Q n ` ` C ________' - Q (6 -- -r-------- O H cYi. oa'm� `� �� W F- o.� o�0aEa1 N H t6 ZO Z 0 w () J A A LL 0 � a C 0 � O U L f/) N (�6 N a)�o mw ao 0o a u, U) a`5i L m m a°a° m m m KI) ww LU w ° ma inr a) mo ? o a) m o z m a) E LU p O C C Y C (n Q y m o m 0 0 - -o a .X m LU o w (D U C N O 9 L.N a O O L L m w co -o X a aai: -- U a � U p) (C6 a) m C o E J Qo o U O1 E 3 m a Q o ° Z a o a o 0 0 --o Q L tZ m u o Z 0.. �� amain _ a° aX) o = �a (D .4 H aW .�a .0 Ul - - _� O — > N o a N ) > x'X a) 0- o o p — a `o ° O m o T o U.N O Q Q X .X o U C Ul a) y C y0 uj a) a) N T< 0_ > a a) a)L m O _�UX C O >O 9 '� a) F (RD m+L-• m C o a) a)a E O a X N a) N Y N a) p 0 a) ° a)d a) a) O a) a) a) LL' S a C C C C o a)>i E Q ° u, N o -O m E - CC � T C m a a.E a L O p) C a) m °- O C '� � 4E E C C O'N E L U ' a) X m 9 O` Q O` O O La) °- coiyo o > oL Q ao a 0 Ow o.� o m in m m Y U d O L LL N uj T O uj O ED C �--oa wwao EyL .(D o=(Do 3: U m E a) Ul O a U L p)O1E � a °ooEL og L Tm C m o.y.. X O- C a) m C— NC O Ul X 0 o a a Y O T U m W N N >i-F� y0 0 a) ° E—� amu, o:. `m � cTi L-moo (D Y 0] O C E C a ) ?i t/) a) U X p) y T Q f0/) a) O a) a) 0'�' N p Y p) a) L C U m C U Up a) (6 C Q a U Q N C C E o ° ° Q.E >'m Q cpi o >'Qao E m r o 3: 9 �E 9a` aEi o-�m m o �. N 09 a ° a) co y 0 X a) - a w O a O CO m, E E p C m CO w o C m ami _ U p O 0 a) N p O C a) ay a m o 0 T .X 0.f/1 o L °a Q - - .o L °- a X m>.aE ° Q� mao.L.. QED `° L m `o U C f/)Y s m.0 m C f/l E o U m m t/) m N ° a)X O U'C O t/) °� C C Y p N.-OU a O C a ° o o a) m o C j y O) -O L a) a) a) a) Q a) 0 N° m 9 m.� m.0 a O o a H 0 �� g y O z Qo s° E oomo0 y � Qo L EQo �. m -p (1) 9 L Qm O T(6 E E 9 L o O p o o p o o o C E o 2". 'S a) u,o� u, o o 0 E�oN 0 m°,L.. m,L.. °. iL z u u uj 15 L O T E >O C a O U >i o c 0 -E- 0 o ° U Y E.° Y p)o ° o m o o p X O o Q H C a) N Y Y Ul U 9 X N a) T O >N N t/) U (6 O a) O t/).O O Y C o m a p)a Ul'p p L 0 O a uj X m L C Y 3: p w N o C aO O O o 2 L (1) N° a.O o ° o 01 3: o X) E a0 WW T ° o Lo Y aX) Tpm) O w W ' ao 2 a) o o E L—Om 9Umo ~ 0 a m m Q o °) m Q o oo� o -o a Co �� o mX X� Sm��r Q -°p a `o Pya O U a L o) C w 0 Q fn a Y a X m o U a) Y N Ul o L N o ,f/) n5 0 0 U .� a) o W Q O w u,w E ° (D -O Q°)a)m `o - o ° o Q o z J N < o N a o W a) m U L— E a X a) C X a C C o a) a) W (p Q U ari _- o 0 o a)`m o � o °) F o 0 o S a c m a`D) u ° > ° E o--F 0 a m a m L a as �L a W Z z E o ° ° a s ° 6 O) > m o ° � E `o E .o ° o a o . Q a) f/) o O Y 0I a) m m In U. A m o W.— LL N Q U C 14 O Z z cd y Y _-_-------_-------------_a q MM Q J _____ __ ------_-----________�__------_-__------_-__ -- -_- Q � � � Z = z w � � � 0 v O E o 5 o -------ff --------- W4 C L �_�� az S - - - - - - - - - - - --o d O L ^ 8- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - _--�D �_ w O - - - - - - ----------- O - - - - - - ------------- Q - - - - - - - _� N - - - - - - - - - - - - O U - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — - - w Df ------------ ------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------ ------------ - - - - - - �~- - - - - - - - - - - - w O - - - - - - - - - - - o - -� a oa C 01 O O w 2L--- O a o ° _ o aQy E - - - - - - - - - - - - - – – o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -� O`a W a C. a x O 15O W�M - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 9 L o a C O O a p U _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - a o W j W M - - -- --- ------ ------------- ------------- \mMEMEN' W�M r o o - - - - - - - - - - - 9 0� °o° W Z O a U) m o 0 0 L - - - - - - - - - - - - - �o `g o15 W wwQ za°a vw ww \ O w J \ z m LU ---- U) --- -- -------------------- - - - - -- - - - -------------------- --- U 0 0 U- U O Z U O a a ~ ry z J Z Q O z O LL r o � N H LU w LU m D 73;L w LU a_ n w z cn Q I-- � w O 73; a U) w U W J (n Q (n z Q LL U) z O n z O O Y C m T C O C O N � C N a L M 1� h O Q FW Z r ti 0 Q Q _ U W Z Z rh U) U) ^dV H H � o r_. Q W CD ; P� U) W C� ~'I b'Y.��._• y�l�h' 'r i� �k:�,��[R FITC'.•y'.�. h r p U) W _ U) D W o Q LU z W w 07 a # � 4 u W LU LU 7y Of LL r 0 � o � N U LU w U) m D 73; LU w ry a n w z cn Q I-- � w O 73; a U) w U W J (n Q (n z Q LL U) z O n z O O Y C m T C O C N N � C N a L M 1� h O Q FW Z r ti 0 Q Q _ U W Z Z rh U) U) ^dV H H � N Q a O Z 1 Z 0 L F1 Q P� cD Q v "Q Z S z — z U) U) U) ~ E _ vh m W 2 t '*, U) �Q Y -- e _ E n 4 L 'U � o ID F(n m � LLE LL LL oD C f/`) a) .� a a Ul L O O U'Q° O ) m E E °�Y a L O Y °o C 0 O _a (6 O a a)L a) 9 O p Ul a ` a) a) a) a o m a) a)L m O E (/) (6�N °.� E L o o a � U E o a) C y m L a Y ° 9 �� u, m m (D O T ° m m ° aquiw-(D Qmm p) aE EEs °� omp)o aaami �' pym' > C C Q ° m o'E m a E a y a L iii a a a a o E E E y a m o Ina o m a) p m'� C m a) (/) O m p (/) m (/) C m a)9 O..a a) m (w/)a a) ° ° o o m p E `p - U Q a C m ° Y Y'-' m m (/) w w W p O f/1 L O m m Y L -E ° d a o a O L U f/).O Ul C N 9 �_L Ul N U > a) o a) m+-� C C L N O H o a) ° d' L o O'U Ul m �d m-2 U U�_ U C p ° (D m N o m a) U - C C O a m -O m f/) a) a) Y L a) a o Lu o m °9 (6 m-p N Q a) o>Y M C o_a N 2 Q o a) a 9 ° o 0 o L o ° ° o ° o o °-� � m v -- E T.E o O o U U o m Baa) oYp)�yo mamo° maE) a °tmy � _ � �aoo aa)) oo mw x ° om p ` m U U_y C U N a)L C >i a) a) C U o O-2 a) Q= . -p a) C p a) C a a)L_ ) C E� C O C d (D�. O U J O m a _ > _ O U `o a) E 9 a) m m O a) L 2 9 L Y C Q C O m (n O T 9 O O m O m E L U-O E -ap C O m y'"' C O_ f/) O m - m (D U C a O C T.0 N._ a)Y Q a) a) 2_ m W w U E a) (p p ul L oo L Y a m m M Eay ° tea mmo EQE � ° aaia) Qa.oa) >9 �y ° m �.��—� o m � (D-p 9.W Q.E o o ° a� m- u, m o a Q Q y '. o °w o.m Q— ° co" ai (D ELt ai9 (D EQ0000 ° (O1n° °oop)oo�.° coimv ° moo Qo '� � °-momma =_ ooao ooa�aa-o corm ° a).o TLvE � E oaLim� aai Qm °--O p O C a) a) Q >i Z U T° a) a) O a) O U > C C a) �'-' w U T O L a >j Y U wl U a) m9 ow O Q a) a C w m 0 Y p w a) m C C C C.0 a m a) o ° m o °�L a °a °.� '' o o E ° Q.. ° U a.. o m' Q a)- W m m m L �' p p 0 0 a) Z m m o m o m-p 9 Q a) O Q Q y OU `�,L N ° Z p` H'J= a) a) a) o o'-'w a) O .�°(6 A m N 9 j= T '-' O a) N °-40 m N m m Q L (/)-O 9 m U Q a o (/) (�j) U C m a) w N E m a) >i 9 H a °- T m C 9 L_ a) Q.0 °a a d C L C a) ° m �N O o C Ul o (D _ a)a � �Y E O o'�� V N � Y T O Q��C m m Q 3 w Cn U.0 9� p m ° w Q C o Ula 00 C E o_a)L E C w O a) a) N Ul V m Y °C m C L a) I Y Y Ul.0� a) L o m'o C 9 L C O 1+ U W m= f/) J C O T m C ° a) Q a Q C O U a)a O f/)=L a U E o u,-- oa j, ° of Q E -0 o aa) - E._ Ey w m V N o °.o m cpi o— ° o Q 'E o u, T o m 15 Q a° o o d L o Q o.4 o v m Q�9 o a) x B a a) w Q o m (D o m .° -oo ';. 'T W O T O p o_f/) f/) 0 _- O U �+ m C a) C.. C a p m a) a) O p p a) QUO ° LL CLa) 33w° D Om n Soam.�o ° wo 2 �yUW o a) - a T C a) C _a) - 0 a) a) o f/) (n E .O o y C O � o o E U C'C C.� a)E °9- omo-' O `o-o cou, u,� E om > m .�ym8 ° o m mLwp-�° oOU�.� m E � 0a) `m 24' o.a)-000 wo ° aQoa 9w �(D 2�L - a) .° a) - T 3 C N a) °cC a)Y Ul C m N °- O °-'(6 m N O C T mo Y a) a) O m m U m o-.�.N m Y O L.0 Y m a-O E E (D a) ° Ul-O a Y.0 Q C C 9 a) E Y L `w'- y6 > L Ul a) O O a) C O L - m C Fo p O C (� o o ° � a._.� o m p Y o Q o (n o o y a > .° m u, m E aai-O `m E a)°�o 0 o y' D= a. o o °' O E._ o ° o— n L °a o p ° E o coi maw E F° o= o ° OL tQa)w9 Q� �'mmE ° u,vaO ° Q a.� o o L m a w a a) a) E. O (�� m �.o a).E m m O E oLET000�9�a �a > �y �aai (mno ��-Oam ma(=jo5ami9 .O� m �om a)o � � pE ° `o m a)w 9 � ° °Y E a o E o Y `o E .o E ° (Ln a m ° (n.o ° >o E o .� Q a u, O m o-E � � ° o a>')o o �� °_T o �'o ) o L o 0 o a a) Q o m m.o a Z.� ° o ff 'x Q o 0 N o °m p p m L C E a O .. w U E °�-_F ` a) o f/) O._ m (/)jp p a) a)Y a) a) C u) ° 2Co m a O W m � `ypppC T YO - T�aO� C Cma W �a O C 'L"' f0/)o ° o a) m a.4 a s m Q C > 0 0 2 3: p)° fes/) N p Q 9 9 O Q a) a) Y.O C DZ a m a Q coi O o 2 p o- C-O U O E(V L °-o_.� Y a)-O O.`.= p) a)� () p-N~ a) o -- o (>6 Lu o �Ymcoi � QU �o �o ° ° a ° �— xu,. oZ � o -� o �.E KI) (1) u o o Q- ° a) Q'-m m a U o E in ° E E u,a o ._ o a a m o w o a ° o y � ° m.Lo.'E o m o'� a o u,a o m 0 o m y m in m o_ o L o o °a o o a o o o Z (n E a O N a) 9 E m O 9 C C U C L a)a O Q C m ` .0 CO~ >O a O Q d 'O O N a Q L (Lj a L O Q m a) Q m p Q o a) m 9 (/) ° °a m 0 O ° p-m m C (/) L N W Z W Q y C N a)~ U C U O C -E a)E N - C a)w C O a f/) C f°/)-U °'- Q o ()'-w w m O H ow m W U N w _ a) C O.� O m 0 � a) f/) (6 > C--'.Uj a)a °a E a O Q O S O m L a m C -p m a _m 9(6 `o a s o cC o Z O 2 Q E f/) U Q T° a)o Q C ° O y-a N (C6 a) O o C.0 f0/) a) o Q U a) O O L-0-O O m Q LU U) O mUoE;= Q.°L QE a ` E� oow ° ooQa � o � � � � o Eo � oa nu mom Emaao d LU U �jCo-EL3:.m- (n o oin °Q° o . °- a)mm pa)° a) mw Y mL o (�a)9 a o > w Lu 3 0 °.m o m °U o.o o a ° a)a m m a L. o Y °.� E ° m m °Y m U 9° m E o".� m m a E O Q5 a -Q m: E a) o o m o o a-o L C o o o �nY )a o `m Q .+ m a) m a�, op (n o.� m o tF a)° a)(` `o_ o.o Z � 9 0 9 `m m u, E o( o o u,.c p T c.f/1 U o '� aai u, v cn =o y-o Q a y.a) i a a (n° a o m m p m O O N C= - > U� O (/)f/) C 9 0 C Q._ 3 m p a) C L.. p a) 9 > d O d ~ moQ9>`(n -oEmp) � u,9 aa) Uoao moo 3 a) a).E v.o mL v E ma).� ao oa)v ° LU q'f Q C a-p'M._ m a C E f/) f/) f/)._ T C f/`) Ul 1+ L O (moo~o.� mm� omyYom o >,vo�mo °o9_LOo �.X2o-3ymo o-m.m0o `oa>'i °� O LL d N Q Y a m.E `m E m 2 m u, m Q.L Ego E 3 Q�.L cn � o Q 0-- n Q Q m E o U U C a).0 O U QF- LL r p o � N U) W W o m U m D o W W o H p W Z I? Q z F__ W m O U N W U A W J U = Z_ Q `o W O o F__ m p �n ZO a m 0 m � o Y `o y LL N O m.- m m Q � m a)L LL O C O _ O w U U m Q O w U C C a) U5 a) m 9 C T a O O 6 73 C a u _ _ CIDm m o 0 C C O U Q U m 6 a E 9 C Q a) a m O O O o -o u, a) TI o -o E TIL O O` O Q N C 9 O C O` to E U 0 C T O O N a a.0 0 3 Q C fes/) a) Y -O a C E C O 0- 0 :5 O m U a 0 U E a o o ° ° �o CID 0) a) -0 a m-F EC O a) T O O Efl m 73 ° E N uj a L N -O N a) C m ttl Z w m a u, m a m O.E -o a 1 U) a) E E f/) Y m Q a) C H C O O C m L �+ tL/) (6 9 Q ttl .0 O O E _ o m m N O o iy m N U H a) 'O T a y LJJ U U O` w C Ul a itl a m 0 b o o Qa in al o m v F m Eao U m —M a) _.� N J Y E U Ul O N N V Q m a) = U) Q Q a) ttl a) a) ry p a) C Q Q a) 0 a -O O fn 0 s p C L a) a z Z ° z to Z a m c) a) a °� U H�LCID .. Nm Y U U) C75 Y a C m 0 Y E O S m C O a) 3: O Om O O L U CID TI —m a m C a O O O U ° O fm O)o Co E L O o -oaoQa...O o L O N o Ul'� U Ul _ C U O E Q a.O.� `p U (6 =p� N M > (T6 m U °-C O f/).f/)9 a)-O 00 aC Y O-O a) O 9 a)r. O m O— a E O._ t/) N > m a) O m L m ° O to O N 9 9 0 9 Ul O t`) a 0 2)� a) m a)-O L L °L m Q Y C O a) f/) m O a).a) C m E .� o a a a a Q CIDm ° E 1-2, � m o o E.CID a) a) TI 0 M a)H y U a) U'� C 0 o O N m LO U 2 a)� — 3: S' o 9 L C O +L- o aQa To -o6 x o m Q� E .L..v ° Q m 3-O o a °-~ E �- (6 N O T`9 a 0 X - � N U 0 E coCID o 9 O C p �' a) f�/) a) m a) (7.� °- Ti� m F- o: E m m .Lo. 0 ( o � a o.4 a° rn °.` o L °)° -°m a m ._ Y N.+-' a) o 0 0 9 a a) `m N a' O m 9 0 f/) m a m 9 C f/) N 2 m N a) (6 OoQ � axiLm 9m 9 � �y °) a a) .�� -° �� � E o cII w � Qo 2- . m m= m m ° U a m ° a � o a �� o o � E o E o o � ° E o uj �6 0 E m o m .� a°i ' u, >. m �.� a u, 'X m -o-O°a o a _ z N o (�C C C— m a) m a) C O �i C V m m O f/) a)-p U a) a) O )a— a) .O .0 m U 9 m E °- O Q ° Q.� C °a a)a0 C N a O Q m O-O �� 0 Q 0 '� 0'° m 0 >j m Ul C W a `mwayC� o.o a°iYxoa) °Y o v °� mo a �' a) w .� 2 0T .�.E .�a T� Q O Q o o m L a o m aE o aT o a O O U u °o _ .a E ° E m n a.w 8 a o 1� zo moa)� ��a � aZi '� �L;� � Y E mY xm �R TI- coi Amo aai a°i m � �' a)LU mo.° = caj .1 o 1.- o E o �'m 9 Qa ° ° m 3 oa °o v9 °.4 m -o a ami > > `o +L' �� �J mLW a ma Eo s.. _ m u, y ° ai O m to ° .� u, o oa �� o o._ W a) (—C6 (C6.0 .0 N°N N a) Ul a)O ON N N N N N O E ate+ E 0 �N-O E'X N U) U) N p U.L °- L o o Y Q E 9.� a — Q O In? a in Z a° Z In a O m L a > > v Lm� (D -L— (D o� E °= ° 0 o y L o O z < d z— O z +° q-------- -- ----------------- ---- ----------------------------------------------- zr� U - o- ----------- - 0 W az O CO O Hy -- O O O U =, - - - - - - - - - - O 0 w (T6 Q R U II N Q 0 LL 1-- - -- - -—-—-—-— —- - - N ^ Q N LU U W a O -Q II 0 Q w a M O T (� O O C d 9 0_ _ - _ _ _ - - O II_ --- (D m m U) U) m n O (D O C) M O CO `6 0 - -- o -� I � LL Y E �---- - �---- E w U m O O (, — _ _ 0 U O zo Z - - - - - - -� (n m `O - - - r -- -- -- — - -- - - -- ---- ---------- - - -- - - - - - LJ m O - - - -!--- LU a LU ION -1 ry — Z a p o Q - - - ---��- - -- - -� = LL U, W. Il co o o F-- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -� O .w (9 ° - m LU o w O _ � w 0 00LU Q ------ - z � ` u ----------------------- ---------------------------- - ------ � f OaO LU o z Q O z O li Q � o > N ic U) ll� LU a` w U N m D LU w LU a - U) LU LL O U) a LU U ll� LU oJ (n Q U) Z_ Q U o w 0 Z � o g o _ _ o F LL 3 tttto 7 , > o o � o Y o o rte: i a �2 Z rrr FE _ E { ` o ion a fj _� . _a o 6 o 0 14 L � o o F7 s. >lo a � m > Pa - z oz , o ° - - ZQ _ W i (n U) H H Ytli �� LL LL"6 1� N Q a Z O � O Q LL t7 Q Q U Z H m = � W o m � T v ` W r U s N m � � _ m _ LL t 2 O N O C `o m U n� `m E x 3 m v W co LL T N A O O � O a C U U (6 a) 0 9 9 0 T N O C > C C T N 0 m p Q9 a) a) ° —p ° a a a L a d L O O O Q (1) f/) C C 0 �' f/) E -m O m O C 75 a E0 a a'� o a a) = O Ya O C E C C 0 (1) ° C -O m 0 0.0 _ O ` r C _ 9 m a uj ° 0 � m Q O N T ON m C _ -O a 9 Ul Ul S a) L E 9 a Efl m a c0i ° o m 00,L.. O wn -0 c0i r Q Q 0 m E a 0 0 °Q .Z o . m a l a09 0 0 N m QE 0 .wO Y a) 3 O O " O E Q0 9 CO V U Q `p (6 w o N U H a) a T-° �'' C(6 O 0 O O ttl .- C Ula itl a m 0 O W N > U a) .O C 0 s p m Q u °-W' ttl a) a) (6 a) a) Q N C Q Q (D a O H U (D p 'E L L z z Q w z o w to z a 0 to m m O Q U _ F-- (>D L N F--Y� .�_=agi0a0mQUp)�iaC°m(C-6•y0fQQmO/)C�w -Fya06 9O(Q0C6 F 0 /1W.060 0 E fayC°L'm -L.LLy°°mma./.�1 0 y0 m0U w0 w -amOU0a�Q � as.6 C0Cm�0a)') CN Q Q 9 p- E� > 00 w 0 w m00 °O 0 m 0im 00 o o -0 22 °0m�20 > 1) 0 O ° 03 E ° O ( ( CO a) 15 � 0o U9 > m 0 o a � Em N m a mOOC w 0 ` O O 0U 0 L° °N U) m8.E 0 o W p °�p C C LO OCaY O 0 0 O a m�0 0 u, C 0 o5 0 b 00'a � om00 ° ° ° 150 oa) 0 O ° s 0 E � � o x Q 0 � oa 75 oo mYo0U O y ` o m Q U U O ° L m T m °� YOV L O 0om uu E o=� ` 0 4 u o 0 ao W O E o— QE .0 0- Oo mO a a 0 Q mU 0 _ C Q CD m ° o mo O O O p w O 0 O EO O w O 0- 0EQm� 0E C O a) 0- 2 o C0NOO C `O O C 0 w 9U M w = 0 0— (1) : E 0 ` CD . O o oQo �Da) ma 2ciZ-oiZ ' a Z Z W 3: Z Q OU uo 0 w WalwwZ in QLL II II 0 0 co ui wm co 0II ui -----—---------------------------------—--—-------- -- -- --- ------- Uli 01 a_ n ui ---------- -------------------------------------------------------- 0 C? --- ------------ -- F-- z LU U) ------ z LU U) ly 0 LU -—- --- U) --- < LL< U) --- - 0 L- LL -------- -- --- .0 U) 0 ------- --- n z 0 C) 0 0 ID �5 --- --- 0 co U) a) > LL (1) -—-— ------- ------ — 0 0 co LU (D (D C, > 0> 0 C, II 1 (RD LU m LU D T I -------- ----- ------------ 0 co A I co bo cob z LL(D LL 0 U) U) U) -2 ------ — — ------ (D (D 1:2o o C, o m 0 C, > 0 0 0 co o -------- tt- co -A cg Iml Iml CO ----— --------- E (D LU U) 1-� 0 C) a) (D 2 o 0 .0 o U) T------------ I- CO CU- 0 0 0 U) ---------- o 0 0 E 0 C)0 A01W w(D 0 C) 2 f-1 T w 0 < o < C) LU z z < o-, 0 o ll� U) -------------------------- --- --- ------ ?: (D LL z L--Jl C) O OW4 co co O 4 s a LL Q _ P� Q - Z co � o U) D s � � = w o= � s o 1> o U 0 m m E m (n m > 0 O > n 0 _ E N m m n N A N Q O O o -- � UM 00 2 -- Q o So F)Q a o L LL a• Y N N O Q O O Q N � N O N jl N e'F� O 0I 0 0 � o U) o - W U) w - o10 0 Q m � Z Y y m W ® o o W no ~ a U) Q } LU � `o_ o m Q m N U) O 0 v v m W WZ Q O a a= z U LL LL Q W p o 0 � N U) LULU U) fl 0] D L W W O 0 LU u a p o Q W Z N C a) Q T o� � H LU O U L W LU U) Q Q U) = ON Z Q Y T W C � Z J 0 a a p a) u z 16Q U C U C) Q 2 U ° O p m a C C � `O C � � C C) C L O � O E ° M C N N W 11 N C-C° E � L �U � w a J ° U a) Q T U_ [) Z W I E a) Q U O Y E waim a u Z a) a C m J C C O a O W a rn rn m Q E ) o M m y ° U U Q C O Q O 'C a) O) C M T L L () w T U) Z O OO (6J O E Z H H U) a Q u .Y 0 a c .� o (r = a r E c a Q Q C) O TU N Q a) c0 `° M C � J O . C S = Q C) LL w d w a) O S rn rn - ° M () ° r M In p a rn of O o M a S Q 0) () Q O Y O a a 0) Q m Q oo `m ~ °)M aaa)i g O E 0) a a m E a � -o a a Q o U CO Q C C U C a) M C Q D M M 9 T mf/1 E > a W 61 (6 ° C f/)O O 9 CO CO E O a) U Ul C C N -0 N p °-O M a) O w M N C d C C N Q O a) M E >` a) a- a a S Q Q O a a a W O o LL o o r > a) O] O] W O16 a).� cC C m m M Ul Y M L U) 0 a) m O � a M E O E 0) M a O M p a Z M N W ° a O'� �p M O in p w ° S d Y ° N 7 a) a) ° o m 0 0 U — ° m 1� •- Q Q m a a)— 10 .� T C� Q N M > > In `o ° a a m 0 E aa)) E w N D Z Y ° O O c Q T f/) O °' C ` cC E ) Q O °T C ° CO N O 0 0 (' N o z M In S 0 m >_ O M a a C Q M J ° 61 M o M a) ° O >,M Z a) O °� M N a a) p g O m m E °) -o 75 ET W ~ o co v m a '� a) g .o O C M M U a)a C C C C (6 °-E m C U C C C '� .��_ S 'C > Z a) '� O a).O C) a) 0 a) O O U a) U O N a i6 i6 _T W W -o O v E 0 Z U) � a a) c a) T O 0 N o U LU m m 0 -o `o a)0 0) m a)'� Q m Q c°i Q a aE aDi m'E 0 W W 61 f/) a) C (� `O O 0] a M .� M ° O (D Q N C L W w d Q a C) Q a a° oo �p 9 0 0 rn m U ° °�o c o a)r U M o w Z m Pya v~i O O E U o 0 ~ r 0 r J J O 0 N= 'L--' Q ° 0 d ° a 0 fy N 0 U U Lu cz >, W a) M Q O Q C Q f15 15 /) M 0 a ° a) Ul z C ° Oz z H U) in m 0 a Ea U) C)- � � r r = 2 �a a~i °� �m 0 0) 0 z Q � H m uj N (6~ (6 9 Q Q O cC S L a) Q0 N 0 a)m N m C m C Q t/)9 C_ C C_ E a) a) M ~ Ul 61 L S O O O O w W Z d L L .O a) M O N E LL O W a) �' �' N Ul m a)d d () Z Z Z S zJo W .+' .+' O co T a d() M — ° (6(� C Q Q Q _ (� 0 to dN dN C 'o m a) C 0 (D aa) aZ a s M a Ul T 0O 61 W M O O Od O K E � E � O m a Q m Q m'E m m m Q o6'� Cj aa)) a m _ _ a s a W H H a)N M C C� Q (� O C� (� O L a) N L W' .N Ul S Q C O O O N U) U Y a Y a M > > a°i o a°i o ami °�0 oma? m o m m m m m.`� a m'� '�0 >� U a°) a°) a°) 0 /� H H d M Z m Z 0 W (�N S d S 0 J C� J C� J J Z Q a-0 (r� H 0 >(� Q M H \Z\ \\\ /\ /\( Z)\ \ \\\ j ti i II TUSTIN HANGAR 2 �- CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT AND REUSE STUDY VOLUME II, APPENDICES , TUSTIN, CA - [13243] Prepared for CITY OF TUSTIN PAGE & TURNBULL SEPTEMBER 2017 imagining change in historic environments through design,research,and technology Conditions Assessment and Reuse Study Tustin Hangar No.2 Volume ll, Appendices Tustin, California i iAdLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX I MEASURED BUILDING SURVEY& NON-DESTRUCTIVE EVALUATION (GBG, INC.) APPENDIX 2 ARCHITECTURE AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION (PAGE&TURNBULL) APPENDIX 3 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING (DEGENKOLB ENGINNERS) APPENDIX 4 WOOD SCIENCE(ANTHONY&ASSOCIATES, INC.) APPENDIX 5 FIRE&LIFE SAFTEY(JENSEN HUGHES) APPENDIX 6 MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING - MEP(DESIGN WEST ENGINEERING) APPENDIX 7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (OMEGA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.) APPENDIX 8 COST ESTIMATING (SEAROCK STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT) Final Report Page & Turnbull September 2017 Conditions Assessment and Reuse Study Tustin Hangar No.2 Volume ll, Appendices Tustin, California PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Final Report Page & Turnbull September 2017 Conditions Assessment and Reuse Study Tustin Hangar No.2 Volume ll, Appendices Tustin, California A. . tNGiz., i I Mb--,SURED BUILDING SURVEY & NON-DESTRU%. i ivy EVALUATION (GBG, INC.) Documents Included Measured Building Survey Non-Destructive Evaluation — Pilot Study Final Report Page & Turnbull September 2017 Conditions Assessment and Reuse Study Tustin Hangar No.2 Volume ll, Appendices Tustin, California PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Final Report Page & Turnbull September 2017 4 GBG INC GB GEOTECHNICS USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION www.gbg-us.com i t 4!E ti _f j. S ' r LTA Hangar No. 2, Tustin, CA Measured Building Survey Reported prepared by: GB Geotechnics USA Inc. GBG Project Ref: 14-063 417 SOUTH HILL ST. SUITE 211 1 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 1 awhife@gbg-us.com CAMBRIDGE LONDON NEW YORK LOS ANGELES PERTH SYDNEY © GB Geotechnics USA Inc.is incorporated in the states of New York and California&is a member of the GBG Group of Companies. GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL Sr.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awNte@gbg-us.ccm PROJECT: LTA Hangar No. 2, Tustin, CA TITLE: Measured Building Survey CLIENT: Page & Turnbull GBG Report No: 14-063 Compiled By: J. R.White MSc. &A. D.White BEng Issued on: October 10th,2014 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................. 4 1.1 Terms of Reference ...........................................................................................................4 1.2 General...............................................................................................................................4 1.3 Background Details...........................................................................................................4 1.4 Purpose of Study................................................................................................................5 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK.............................................................................................. 6 2.1 General...............................................................................................................................6 2.2 Survey Area ........................................................................................................................6 3.0 RESULTS............................................................................................................ 9 3.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................9 3.2 Calculating Correspondence between Design Drawings and Measured Data......9 3.3 Calculating Deformation and Deviation of Measured Trusses from Design ..............9 3.4 Deviation of Measured Trusses from Design.................................................................11 4.0 APPENDICES................................................................................................... 15 Appendix A Survey Control.................................................................................................15 Appendix B Survey Sessions................................................................................................16 Appendix C Design Specification......................................................................................18 Appendix D Truss Profiles and Deviation from Design Specification..............................19 Appendix E Truss Deviation Plots .......................................................................................20 Appendix F Truss Deformation Plots..................................................................................21 October 10, 2014 Measured Building Survey Page 2 REF: 14-063 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL Sr.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awNte@gbg-us.ccm Professional Building Surveyor's Declaration: I am a Chartered Building Surveyor, Professional Member of RICS USA, Register No. 1271252. This survey report represents a survey made under my supervision. The testing processes, data analysis, and conclusions drawn from this survey have been approved for issue. The findings presented in this report represent the best professional opinions of the authors based on their experience with similar investigations carried out on structures throughout the USA. These professional opinions are supported by the results of destructive methods of coring, drilling and probing carried out elsewhere on similar materials. Such tests have substantiated the conclusions that have been drawn. FZICS Charles S.A. Bransb -Zachar BSc MRICS Y Y Vice President/GBG USA Inc 10 October 2014 Professional Member, Register No.1271252 October 10, 2014 Measured Building Survey Page 1 3 REF: 14-063 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION 1N STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL ST.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awhite@gbg-us.ccm LTA Hangar 2, Tustin, CA Measured Building Survey 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Terms of Reference Structure: LTA Hangar No. 2 Location: Tustin, CA Consultants: GB Geotechnics USA Inc. [GBG] Instructed by: Page &Turnbull On Behalf of: Survey Date: August 13th & 14th, 2014 1.2 General Further to your instructions, GBG attended LTA Hangar No. 2, Tustin, CA to carry out a measured building survey [MBS] to provide laser scan data and analysis showing truss deformation, and deviation from design. GBG has completed analysis of the data collected and is pleased to provide a report of the investigation which forms GBG's final report and therefore supersedes any previous reports whether written or oral. 1.3 Background Details 'Lighter Than Air' [LTA] Hangar No. 2 is located in Tustin, CA. Another similar Hangar [Hangar 1] is located on the same site; two more Hangars are located in Northern3T'° a" California at Moffett Field. The Hangars were built during WWII as the threat to the West coast of the USA was k � f increasing. The US Navy was heavily invested � in 'Lighter Than Air' technology, specifically $ for the detection and removal of submarine �t threats. Sadly, the LTA program was curtailed before the hangars were ever used as originally intended. �X v • ?�. With steel supplies directed to other parts of the war effort, these giant structures were gy r built largely out of timber with modest?4� concrete portal frame structures along the perimeter and towering concrete supports F for the enormous sliding door arrangements at each end. Historic Photograph: Showing erection of the giant timber trusses [Image provided by P&T] October 10, 2014 Measured Building Survey Page 1 4 REF: 14-063 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL Sr.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awNte@gbg-us.ccm Each hangar is approximately 1000' long, 300' wide and 200' tall at the center. Encompassing more than 5 acres of unobstructed floor space, they are each regarded to be the largest self- supporting timber structures on the planet. The main structure is formed from timber trusses which span the full width of the building at approximately 20' on center; each hangar comprises 51 trusses. The use for the hangars has varied over the years, most recently providing storage for the various owners and tenants with some use for testing and development of future flight technologies. As plans are developed for new uses and tenants, attention is being given to the condition and suitability of the structures for rehabilitation. 1.4 Purpose of Study In order to progress the project, there is first a requirement to understand the condition of the structure. This phase of work has been identified as a Building reuse and Assessment Study of Hangar No.2, Former Tustin Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin, California. In addition to performing a non-destructive evaluation pilot study and associated data analysis to determine the suitability of various techniques to identify critical construction arrangement and condition data non-invasively [reported separately], GBG recommended a measured building survey [MBS] to provide laser scan data and analysis showing truss deformation, and deviation from design. October 10, 2014 Measured Building Survey Page 1 5 REF: 14-063 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL Sr.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awNte@gbg-us.ccm 7 n 'r1DC r1C IA/r1CLl 2.1 General The focus of the study was the timber truss members forming the interior 'parabolic' arches. 2.2 Survey Area The survey area extended the length of the hangar, comprising the full set of 51 timber trusses [starting from and finishing at the top of concrete bents, 24' above floor slab level], referred to hereafter as trusses 1 to 51, with truss 1 located at the east end of the hangar, as shown on the plan below: s N 11044 �AL t- Pointcloud Plan View: Indicating approximate truss locations [green] October 10, 2014 Measured Building Survey Page 6 REF: 14-063 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL Sr.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awNte@gbg-us.ccm 1 V 11 _ FF Section: Showing approximate truss position [Truss 26, looking North West] 2.3 Survey Methodology A brief explanation of the MBS techniques used is provided below: Total Station Control Network: On August 13th, a set of 8 HDS Black and White paper - targets were positioned around the hangar, attached to the concrete structure at ground level, and their . . positions acquired with a Total Station [see appendix A]. ,;i !"" ;Csq,,;h.'��y�¢, These targets formed the control network which allowed the high density laser scans : . taken at different times of day to be compared against each other. - Additional points were measured on the =` surface of the concrete bents to determine a longitudinal [Y] axis along the Black &White HDS Target [bottom left] hangar. October 10, 2014 Measured Building Survey Page 7 REF: 14-063 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL Sr.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awNte@gbg-us.ccm HDS Laser Scanning: At six hour intervals, on August 14th at 0600h, 1200h, 1800h and finally OOOOh on August 15th, a Leica P20 HDS scanner was stationed at 8 positions along the centerline of the hangar [starting at the north west and #� incrementing -165' toward the south east], and at a 9th position 'behind' theh - airship residing in the hangar at the time, £ 4 � to minimize gaps in the data. The position of each station was recorded so that at - ► ' each repeat scan the scanner was positioned within 1/8" of its initial horizontal _- position. Each scan 'session' took between 90 minutes and 2 hours. [See appendix B]. HDS Laser Scanner The scanner was configured with a scan density of 1/8" spacing between points at a range of 33'. The maximum distance from any truss apex to the nearest scan station [165' vertical distance, -82' horizontal distance] was 184', corresponding to a minimum scan density on the truss bottom surface of 11/16" between points. The true scan density is significantly higher, since each vertical scan line converges at a point directly above the scanner [like lines of longitude on a globe], and with a scanner range of over 300', each truss was generally scanned from 3 distinct positions, each adding to the density of points. The total number of data points collected within each 6 hour interval was -1.3billion. October 10, 2014 Measured Building Survey Page 1 8 REF: 14-063 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL Sr.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awNte@gbg-us.ccm 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Introduction The primary function of this study was to determine truss deformation over the course of a single day at 6 hour intervals, and deviation from the original design specification [Appendix C] through either improper construction or movement since construction. 3.2 Calculating Correspondence between Design Drawings and Measured Data Appendix C shows an original design document describing the typical geometry of each timber truss. The drawing has been scanned in from hard copy, with some distortions and so cannot be used directly to compare against the measured data. There are, however, explicit coordinates given relating the positions of every alternate intersection between truss and purlin centerlines to the floor slab and concrete bent. The floor slab and concrete bents are readily identifiable in the scan data, and so best fit planes for these two surfaces could be computed allowing the arch specification [given by coordinates a, c, e, g, I, k, m, o, q and s in appendix C] to be directly compared with the measured scan data. It must be noted that these coordinates define the designed centerline of each truss whereas most of the scan data on the trusses was acquired on the bottom surfaces [with none on top], making a precise estimate of the existing centerline impractical. 3.3 Calculating Deformation and Deviation of Measured Trusses from Design Data pertaining to the bottom surface of each truss [approximately 60 million points] was manually extracted from the point cloud, and imported into analysis software in order to .__ compute a continuous surface model. The surface model was refined until deviation from the ' point cloud data fell below 5/128" [1 mm], creating a `ribbed' surface model, where Extracted truss botTom su ace scan daTa [60m points- black] areas pertaining to the trusses Derived polygonal surface model [2m triangles -grey] were constrained to the scan data, whilst the surface between the trusses was constrained only by its own virtual 'surface tension', similar to a shrink wrap effect (see above). Planar sections were taken through the surface model at 20' intervals, generating a set of 51 polylines corresponding to the centerline of each truss, each comprising approximately 1200 vertices. October 10, 2014 Measured Building Survey Page 1 9 REF: 14-063 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL Sr.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awNte@gbg-us.ccm At each truss location, a polyline corresponding to the truss design specification was inserted, resulting in 51 polyline pairs of measured bottom surface polyline and designed centerline polyline. A deviation report was generated for each truss, indicating the shortest distance from each vertex on the measured bottom surface polyline to the design centerline polyline. Point cloud of deviation values overlaid on original The XYZ coordinate and deviation point cloud before unfolding values of the individual deviation reports were then compiled into a single point cloud of deviation values which could be folded out flat for dimensional presentation and analysis. The truss centerline design polyline was used as a reference to enable the point cloud of deviation values to be folded out flat, and presented as a 2 dimensional color deviation plot. The above process was carried out for each session of scans carried out at 0600h, 1200h, 1800h and 0000h to result in 4 distinct color deviation plots. A difference function was applied to pairs of consecutive plots, to show the difference in deviation from one scan session to the next, corresponding to movement of the trusses during the survey. Finally the truss design centerline polyline was used as a reference to enable the original point cloud of trusses and interconnecting timbers to be folded out flat, and overlaid on each 2D deviation plot to aid interpretation and relocation. 0600h Difference 1200h .j L a 5: . [ Section of 2D unfolded color deviation plots,showing deviation from design at 0600h [left], deviation from design at 1200h [right] and movement between 0600h and 1200h [center] October 10, 2014 Measured Building Survey Page 10 REF: 14-063 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION 1N STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL ST.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awhite@gbg-us.ccm 3.4 Deviation of Measured Trusses from Design Since it was not possible to determine the existing truss centerline, measurements could only be made between the existing truss bottom surface, and designed truss centerline. The designed truss centerline appeared to correspond closely with the apparent measured truss centerline at the bottom of each truss [based on visual interpretation only since the upper surface could not be measured], at which point the distance between design centerline and measured ; bottom surface was generally between 6" �--�"" [150mm] and 8" [200mm], corresponding to green and yellow respectively in the color deviation plots. Deviation between truss design centreline [magenta] and measured bottom surface [cyan] typically between 6" and 8" at base of truss The maximum distance between design centerline and measured bottom surface T was detected at the topmost segments of A each truss, where distances were generally r� measured to be between 10" [250mm] and r 12" [300mm]. At the very apex of each truss, a horizontal piece of timber has been installed, increasing the distance between It , VJ r- design centerline and measured bottom ' surface at that point. Deviation between truss design centreline [magenta] and measured bottom surface [cyan] typically between 10" and 12" at top segments of truss The minimum distance between design centerline and measured bottom surface "` was detected in a small number of areas identified below, where the measured distances were as low as 4.25" [1 l Omm]. Deviation between truss design centreline [magenta] and measured bottom surface [cyan] minimum of 4.25" October 10, 2014 Measured Building Survey Page 111 REF: 14-063 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL Sr.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awNte@gbg-us.ccm This plot (right) shows deviation of the measured truss bottom surface from the design truss centerline measured 2 O during the Gam scan session, using 1 the color scale below. IF Truss 01 is located at the bottom, and 3 Truss 51 at the top. The point cloud ` data at the trusses including i s catwalks, stairs and interconnecting - timbers has been unfolded, as well as1 the ground level structures and 1 - IF concrete bents, shown on either side to aid in relocation and interpretation. 1171 h- '64-1 The majority of the diagram is green/yellow indicating a deviation . of 6" to 8". - The upper truss segments ['1 '] show the maximum deviation, at between 10" and 12". y V } YJ Three additional areas ['2', `3' & `4'] r-� have been highlighted 1 corresponding to areas of minimum y deviation of around 4.25" �� 12" Full size plots for each survey session y � . can be found in the appendices. I. 4 Each truss shown in the deviation ta•' plots can be cross referenced with its respective 2D profile as well as the corresponding section of raw point cloud data [represented in high resolution TIFF format images within each drawing] at each survey session. f - t ca., e Unfolded 2D color deviation plot from Gam scan session, showing deviation between design truss centreline and measured truss bottom surface October 10, 2014 Measured Building Survey Page 12 REF: 14-063 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL Sr.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awNte@gbg-us.ccm 3.5 Deformation of Trusses between Survey Sessions Deformation of the trusses between each survey session was calculated by subtracting the deviation values at each survey session from those at the subsequent survey session, giving a temporal view of movement of the trusses over the 18 hour survey period. Movement was found to be at a maximum between the 0600h and 1200h survey sessions, with a maximum deformation of up ' to 10/16" occurring over a large portion of the I trusses below the catwalk level, in an 'inward' direction. This was accompanied by a deformation of up to 3/16", primarily above the catwalks in an 'outward' direction. The 2D color deformation plot to the right shows the distribution and magnitude of movement, with positive values [cyan, blue �: 1 and magenta] corresponding to 'inward' F Yi movement, and negative values [yellow, orange, red] corresponding to 'outward' movement. s .� Exceptions to the general rule of inward I movement below the catwalks, can be seen �h x 9116„ at truss 39 on the south west side, and truss 3 I on the north east side which shows outward � t movement below the level of the catwalks. l d 31s Polylines corresponding to the bottom surface of each truss overlaid at each time of day are available in the appendices for 1 ' more precise analysis. ! �I 3116" i o" r .. -3116" Unfolded 2D color deviation plot showing difference in truss positions between 0600h and 1200h scan sessions October 10, 2014 Measured Building Survey Page 13 REF: 14-063 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL Sr.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awNte@gbg-us.ccm Less movement was measured between 1200h and 1800h, and between 1800h and 0000h, and the movement that was measured was more evenly distributed across the entire area, in both the 'inward' and 'outward' directions, and with a magnitude of up to 3/16" in either direction. Below, note that the color scale has been exaggerated to better illustrate the distribution of smaller magnitude deformations in the 'inward' direction. Again, positive values [cyan, blue and magenta] corresponding to 'inward' movement, and negative values [yellow, orange, red] corresponding to 'outward' movement. k 1 I 1 �fI ' ' d S i 4 ► ',J►�i�■. cif a .FI•li IIJAJ I I i4 I I , I. I 3116" I� Ii I 114 I I.. ■'i ! :l � � 'IIl rii: elilt IIan - 'f�l Unfolded 2D color deviation plot showing Unfolded 2D color deviation plot showing difference in truss positions between 1200h difference in truss positions between 1800h and 1800h scan sessions and 0000h scan sessions October 10, 2014 Measured Building Survey Page 14 REF: 14-063 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL ST.SUITE 211 GBG W W W'GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awhite�4?gbg-us,ccm 4.0 APPENDICES Appendix A Survey Control Black and white paper HDS targets were positioned at the locations shown in the plan below for the duration of the survey, and the coordinates [in meters] given in the following table. 3 U �Y tB 7 t 0600h 1200h 1800h 0000h Target ID X Y Z X Y Z X Y Z X Y Z 1 966.3689 994.5935 101.5454 966.3688 994.5937 101.5456 966.3692 994.5935 101.5452 966.3687 994.5935 101.5454 2 1035.568 949.7883 101.4922 1035.568 949.7883 101.4922 1035.569 949.7887 101.4916 1035.568 949.788 101.4917 3 964.2194 893.1117 101.4727 964.2192 893.1119 101.4727 964.219 893.112 101.4733 964.219 893.112 101.4733 4 1 1020.262 847.1071 100.8474 1020.261 847.106 100.8477 1020.261 847.1061 100.849 1020.261 847.1061 100.8477 5 964.2802 798.3831 101.3941 964.2799 798.3832 101.3935 964.2798 798.383 1 101.3938 964.2799 798.3826 1 101.3935 6 1035.763 746.9224 101.524 1035.762 746.922 101.5236 1035.762 746.922 101.5236 1035.762 746.9225 101.524 7 1033.682 687.9295 101.4874 1033.682 687.9303 101.4874 1033.682 687.9296 101.4873 1033.681 687.9302 101.4875 8 964.2978 700.97 101.5121 964.2975 700.9706 101.5117 964.2972 700.9706 101.5119 964.2964 700.9702 101.5123 October 10, 2014 Measured Building Survey Page 1 15 REF: 14-063 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION 1N STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL ST.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awhite@gbg-us.ccm Appendix B Survey Sessions The plan below shows the positions at which the scanner was set up at every session. The subsequent tables give the exact time and coordinates [in meters] of the scanner at each position in each session. _ zM A ��+ � X., 7 SA October 10, 2014 Measured Building Survey Page 16 REF: 14-063 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL Sr.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awNte@gbg-us.ccm 0600h 0553h-0756h Station ID Time X Y Z 2 0553h 1000.001 1000.001 101.710 3 0610h 1000.584 949.698 101.672 4 0628h 1000.128 899.497 101.663 5 0701h 999.983 849.200 101.689 5a 0649h 972.070 919.977 101.742 6 0714h 1000.105 799.028 101.669 7 0727h 1000.072 748.250 101.648 8 0741h 1000.172 698.536 101.645 8a 0756h 1000.055 681.842 101.713 1200h[1149h-1339h] Station ID Time X Y Z 2 1149h 1000.001 1000.000 101.709 3 1202h 1000.584 949.698 101.675 4 1216h 1000.128 899.497 101.702 5 1243h 999.985 849.203 101.645 5a 1231h 972.071 919.977 101.741 6 1256h 1000.105 799.027 101.653 7 1311h 1 1000.073 748.250 101.666 8 1326h 1000.175 698.535 101.629 8a 1339h 1000.054 681.840 101.679 1800h[1802h-1945h] Station ID Time X Y Z 2 1802h 1000.000 1000.000 101.723 3 1814h 1000.584 949.698 101.707 4 1826h 1000.128 899.497 101.727 5 1851h 999.986 849.203 101.665 5a 1939h 972.070 919.977 101.763 6 1903h 1000.104 799.028 101.674 7 1916h 1000.073 748.250 101.670 8 1933h 1000.176 698.535 101.660 8a 1945h 1000.055 681.842 101.708 0000h[2338h-0114h] Station ID Time X Y Z 2 2338h 1000.001 1000.001 101.733 3 2349h 1000.584 949.697 101.709 4 0002h 1000.129 899.497 101.710 5 0025h 999.986 849.203 101.678 5a 0013h 972.071 919.977 101.805 6 0037h 1000.105 799.028 101.685 7 0051h 1000.074 748.250 101.739 8 0103h 1000.176 698.536 101.675 8a 0114h 1000.056 681.840 101.666 October 10, 2014 Measured Building Survey Page 17 REF: 14-063 oho � �Uo m Z o � O 01 C O 61 Q i ; .KIP Q s. o ��R O N Q j - C O) r c ` Q I o - _ C? � a a z a Q 0 y o \ pzj ID ZZ� � C) C) vQiO= 'v K 3� — o - y 0 03 mz3 a Q) Q) v u �V� EjGBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL ST,SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awhi#e@gbg-us.com Appendix D Truss Profiles and Deviation from Design Specification 2-dimensional truss profiles are given in the drawings listed below. Each truss is represented by a 500mm slice of point cloud data centered on that truss [high resolution TIFF image format], with the truss design centerline overlaid in magenta, and the measured bottom surface overlaid in cyan 14-063 Tustin Hangar 6am.dwg 14-063 Tustin Hangar 12noon.dwg 14-063 Tustin Hangar 6pm.dwg 14-063 Tustin Hangar 12midnight.dwg October 10, 2014 Measured Building Survey Page 1 19 REF: 14-063 EjGBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL ST,SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awhi#e@gbg-us.com Appendix E Truss Deviation Plots The following drawing contains 2D color deviation plots referenced in results section 3.4 above. 14-063 Tustin Hangar Deviation Plots.dwg October 10, 2014 Measured Building Survey Page 1 20 REF: 14-063 EjGBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL ST,SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awhi#e@gbg-us.com Appendix F Truss Deformation Plots The following drawing contains 2D color deformation plots referenced in results section 3.5 above, and the 2-dimensional truss bottom surface profiles from the 4 survey sessions overlaid at each truss to show deformation/movement between survey sessions. 14-063 Tustin Hangar Deformation Plots.dwg October 10, 2014 Measured Building Survey Page 1 21 REF: 14-063 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK GBG INC GB GEOTECHNICS USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION www.gbg-us.com r:t. LTA Hangar No. 2, Tustin, CA Non-Destructive Evaluation - PILOT STUDY Reported prepared by: GB Geotechnics USA Inc. GBG Project Ref: 14-063_Revl 417 SOUTH HILL ST. SUITE 211 1 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 1 awhife@gbg-us.com CAMBRIDGE LONDON NEW YORK LOS ANGELES PERTH SYDNEY © GB Geotechnics USA Inc.is incorporated in the states of New York and California&is a member of the GBG Group of Companies. GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL ST.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awhi#e@gbg-us.com PROJECT: LTA Hangar No. 2, Tustin, CA TITLE: Non-Destructive Evaluation - PILOT STUDY CLIENT: Page & Turnbull GBG Report No: 14-063_Revl Compiled By: A. D.White BEng Issued on: October 10th,2014 1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................4 1.1 Terms of Reference.........................................................................................4 1.2 General ............................................................................................................4 1.3 Background Details.........................................................................................4 1.4 Purpose of Study..............................................................................................5 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK...............................................................................6 2.1 General ............................................................................................................6 2.2 Survey Area......................................................................................................6 2.3 Survey Methodology.......................................................................................8 3.0 RESULTS..........................................................................................10 3.1 Introduction....................................................................................................10 3.2 Infrared Thermal Imaging [IRT].....................................................................10 3.3 Ground Penetrating Radar [GPR] ...............................................................16 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................21 October 10, 2014 Non-Destructive Evaluation - PILOT STUDY Page 2 REF: 14-063 5 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL ST.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awhi#e@gbg-us.com Professional Building Surveyor's Declaration: I am a Chartered Building Surveyor, Professional Member of RICS USA, Register No. 1271252. This survey report represents a survey made under my supervision. The testing processes, data analysis, and conclusions drawn from this survey have been approved for issue. The findings presented in this report represent the best professional opinions of the authors based on their experience with similar investigations carried out on structures throughout the USA. These professional opinions are supported by the results of destructive methods of coring, drilling and probing carried out elsewhere on similar materials. Such tests have substantiated the conclusions that have been drawn. Charles S.A. Bransby-Zachary BSc MRICS FZICS Vice President/GBG USA Inc 10 October 2014 Professional Member, Register No.1271252 Thermographic surveys have been carried out by: TM INFRARED TRAINING CENTER Alan D.White BEng Thermographer Senior Project Engineer/GBG USA Inc Certification No.40893 October 10, 2014 Non-Destructive Evaluation - PILOT STUDY Page 1 3 REF: 14-063 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL ST.SUITE 21 1 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awhite@gbg-us.com LTA Hangar 2, Tustin, CA Non-Destructive Evaluation - PILOT STUDY 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Terms of Reference Structure: LTA Hangar No. 2 Location: Tustin, CA Consultants: GB Geotechnics USA Inc. [GBG] Instructed by: Page &Turnbull On Behalf of: Survey Date: August 13th & 14th, 2014 1.2 General Further to your instructions, GBG attended LTA Hangar No. 2, Tustin, CA to carry out a non- destructive evaluation [NDE] Pilot Study to determine the suitability of various techniques to identify critical construction arrangement and condition data non-invasively. GBG has completed analysis of the data collected and is pleased to provide a report of the investigation which forms GBG's final report and therefore supersedes any previous reports whether written or oral. 1.3 Background Details 'Lighter Than Air' [LTA] Hangar No. 2 is located in Tustin, CA. Another similar Hangars [Hangar 1] is located on the same site; two �; � ` more Hangars are located in Northern California at Moffett Field. The Hangars were built during WWII as the threat to the West coast of the USA was increasing. The US Navy was heavily invested in 'Lighter Than Air' technology, specifically for the detection and removal of submarineR. ay - threats. Sadly, the LTA program was curtailed = before the hangars were ever used as - originally intended. 1 vv V With steel supplies directed to other parts of the war effort, these giant structures were built largely out of timber with modest concrete portal frame structures along the perimeter and towering concrete supports for the enormous slidingdoor arrangement gs /iL���; at each end. Historic Photograph: Showing erection of the giant timber trusses [Image provided by P&T] October 10, 2014 Non-Destructive Evaluation - PILOT STUDY Page 1 4 REF: 14-063 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL ST.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awhi#e@gbg-us.com Each hangar is approximately 1000' long, 300' wide and 200' tall at the center. Encompassing more than 5 acres of unobstructed floor space, they are each regarded to be the largest self- supporting timber structures on the planet. The main structure is formed from timber trusses which span the full width of the building at approximately 20' on center; each hangar comprises 51 trusses. The use for the hangars has varied over the years, most recently providing storage for the various owners and tenants with some use for testing and development of future flight technologies. As plans are developed for new uses and tenants, attention is being given to the condition and suitability of the structures for rehabilitation. 1.4 Purpose of Study In order to progress the project, there is first a requirement to understand the condition of the structure - this phase of work has been identified as a Building reuse and Assessment Study of Hangar No.2, Former Tustin Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin, California. In addition to performing a measured building survey and associated data analysis to identify the extent of deformation within the structure [reported separately], GBG recommended a pilot study to determine the suitability of Infrared Thermal Imaging [IRT] and Ground Penetrating Radar [GPR] for a potential, more comprehensive, non-destructive evaluation of the structure as the project progresses. October 10, 2014 Non-Destructive Evaluation - PILOT STUDY Page 1 5 REF: 14-063 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL ST.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awhite@gbg-us.com SCOPE OF WORK 2.1 General The main focus of the study was the timber roof structure, including the truss members and sheathing. Further evaluation was performed over the concrete floor slab, the concrete portal frames and the exterior door support towers. Evaluations were performed on a sample basis only. 2.2 Survey Area The plans below highlight the areas included within the study: J i F 1 I I N1 I S e [ I5F f q 403 7i 4 m iw-m(n'1 4 3 3 - -- o- rr a�now v " Partial Plan [East]: Indicating approximate survey locations [IRT= Green, GPR = Blue] 1. Trusses & Sheathing [Interior]: Between gridlines 7 & 10 2. Floor Slab: Between gridlines 8 & 9 3. Portal Frame: Frame S3 4. Door Tower: South East Tower October 10, 2014 Non-Destructive Evaluation - PILOT STUDY Page 6 REF: 14-063 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL ST.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awhi#e@gbg-us.com • i i I i i i I' I I i � I a I i 1�71 � c a�----- -- 1 � Partial Plan [West]: Indicating approximate survey locations [IRT= Green, GPR = Blue] 5. Door Tower: North West Tower 6. Door Tower: South West Tower October 10, 2014 Non-Destructive Evaluation - PILOT STUDY Page 7 REF: 14-063 5 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL ST.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awhite@gbg-us.com 2.3 Survey Methodology A brief explanation of the NDE techniques used is provided below: Infrared Thermal Imaging [IRT]: A long wave infrared thermal camera was used to assess thermal variations over the soffit and truss assemblies within the hangar. Variations in surface temperature can be attributed to a number of different factors such as active leakage and retained moisture. More subtle -ANN*— variations in heat signature can be used to identify variations in material integrity and thus serve as an indicator of material deterioration. It is variations from the ambient temperature ' which are mapped as part of a thermal review, therefore an understanding as to the reasons for thermal variations and also the survey conditions are critical to the results analyzed and presented. �- The thermal output of the various surfaces was recorded in high-resolution, still - thermographic images; these were recorded in digital format and assessed both on and off site. Images were collected from a tripod IRT Data collection at a similar project mounted position. Visual images were taken and compared to the thermal images to ensure that surface variations [such as stains, cracks, damp etc] were not misinterpreted during thermal analysis; this cross-check is of critical importance on a project of this nature where close access is not available. October 10, 2014 Non-Destructive Evaluation - PILOT STUDY Page 8 REF: 14-063 5 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL ST.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awhi#e@gbg-us.com Ground Penetrating Radar [GPR]: GPR provides a method for the internal - assessment of a wide variety of materials and is particularly appropriate for identifying the general arrangement of shallow buried objects and the internal elements of concrete, asphalt and masonry structures. _ The key advantage of this technique lies in the rapidity with which data can be gathered without the need for extensive opening up, and the small spaces within which it can be operated. �r The inspection was carried out by profiling the structure over a grid of survey lines which, following analysis, provide a three i dimensional reconstruction of the GPR Data collection at a similar project arrangement, form and condition of the Low Frequency [Left], High Frequency [Right] materials investigated. Recovered signals were recorded digitally, enabling both on site interpretation and a more detailed analysis of the data off site. For the purposes of this project, GPR was used to identify typical arrangement information including thickness, reinforcement placement and voiding. High frequency [1.6GHz] transducers were used to identify the assembly arrangement while low frequency [400 - 900MHz] transducers were used to identify general conditions such as material compaction below the slab and to identify areas of subsurface voiding. October 10, 2014 Non-Destructive Evaluation - PILOT STUDY Page 1 9 REF: 14-063 5 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL ST.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG—US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awhite@gbg-us.com 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Introduction The primary function of this pilot study was to verify the suitability of IRT and GPR for a larger- scale assessment of the structure. The sample data collected has been analyzed and presented below. 3.2 Infrared Thermal Imaging [IRT] Infrared Thermal Imaging was performed inside and outside of the structure, both prior to and following exposure to the sun. It was anticipated that variations in thermal response may lead to the identification of deterioration, elevated moisture [though unlikely in the SoCal climate] or a deeper understanding of the construction arrangement. Trusses & Sheathing [Interior]: Between gridlines 7 & 10 The thermal camera was mounted on a tripod to collect high resolution images through the full extent of 3 bays - a strip, approximately 60' wide - from one side of the hangar to the other. The first set of data collection was performed ,J1q�l M01111 IMM[ MA before the structure had been exposed to - — � �r the sun. An example of the typical images 1111 1P � _ �; r i collected is shown, right. At this time, the t„ , — y=_. ,_ �.. y sheathing in the background had cooled overnight and were therefore darker [cooler] �L _ _ _ W410 - _ _ a-+ in the thermal images; the heavier timber `� _��I i► �• • l '.�.. truss members had retained more heat from the previous day and were lighter [hotter]. - ,,,�, .::� .. ..� LV Analysis of the images revealed little ` �1 ,]P0 , T o� 1 evidence of thermal variation across the truss � �1 ! members and so it was established that no 1 �I WNW. practical assessment could be made of _�_t_� _,�►� I� _ ealeall�lw• those; certainly from this distance away from 6.30am: Interior Thermal Image, viewed North the surface. The responses from the sheathing were however far more varied. Ignoring the thick black, horizontal responses [caused by the windows], there are a number of subtle dark horizontal responses, most notable on the left hand side of the image. The cooler responses are unlikely to be caused by moisture and so can be attributed to cool air flow, less dense material or a combination of the two conditions. When a similar set of images was taken at noon, when the outside air temperature was far greater than the interior and when the roofing materials had warmed up through solar heating, the responses were inverted as shown in the image on the following page. October 10, 2014 Non-Destructive Evaluation - PILOT STUDY Page 1 10 REF: 14-063 5 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL ST.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awhi#e@gbg-us.com As before, the images taken at noon did not identify any significant variations across the - truss members but there were some clear variations in the sheathing data which appear to represent deteriorated material. 1 Given that the thermal responses became _ inverted once the outside of the building had been heated, it is considered most likely that the small anomalies are related to deterioration of the material but would have to be verified and quantified through , additional close visual inspection. 1 - 14 The images below, provided by Page and Noon: Interior Thermal Image, viewed South Turnbull, indicate two conditions which could cause the anomalies described above. The metal hardware penetrating the sheathing [left image] provides a conductive mechanical bridge between the exterior and the interior, allowing heat energy to transfer more readily than through the surrounding material. The image on the right shows buckled boards which create a series of voids will interrupt the heat exchange or allow airflow between the interior and exterior, causing further thermal anomalies. Severe deterioration and section loss within the boards would have a similar effect. Sheathing Conditions: Images provided by Page and Turnbull highlighting defects within the sheathing that may be the cause of the thermal anomalies discussed above October 10, 2014 Non-Destructive Evaluation - PILOT STUDY Page 11 REF: 14-063 5 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL ST.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awhite@gbg-us.com Reverting back to images taken earlier in the "�� 11� i� '���� JF�W�Lvw day, it was possible to adjust the level and span settings such that hot responses ■�� '`� 4W r �•`� ���� ►— . became visible at each of the major truss �;� r/, � member intersections / joints as shown in the �r�t �;Y1 !'4111111OW411 WWAWn&� image, right. ,�M i.� At Am The increased temperature response is due �� '�iK4,91 �rr IM ' to a larger mass of material where the ■W/A►�� I ,��� 1 , members are connected. This could be a useful means of assessment when trying to identify failed joints. If the timber members AP, are not tightly joined, they will not retain as � �" "' � ­0ALup much heat as neighboring intersections. 6.30am: Interior Thermal Image, viewed South Care should be taken though when using this r method of assessment as sometimes the hot response can be masked by a member in the foreground - see red highlight. Most of the thermal images collected were taken perpendicular to the surface of interest. Sample images taken at an angle, see image, right, quickly demonstrated that although visually appealing, sufficient focus could not be obtained across the images to identify the smaller variations in temperature / color contrast. For any large scale evaluation, all images should be taken perpendicular to the surface. Noon: Interior Thermal Image, viewed NW October 10, 2014 Non-Destructive Evaluation - PILOT STUDY Page 12 REF: 14-063 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL ST.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awhi#e@gbg-us.com Door Towers: South West and South East The condition of the North West and South West Door Towers was briefly assessed - visually, from ground level before performing any thermal imaging. Initial findings included exposed reinforcement bar ends, micro- _ cracking and evidence of poorly compacted concrete, see image, right. Further evidence of distress included a spall approximately 5' above ground level, see image, below, left, which may have been caused by an impact but it appears to be consistent with other spalls higher up and less vulnerable to impact. Exposed reinforcement, micro-cracking and poorly compacted concrete =.a Low level damage, possibly caused by impact High level damage less likely to have been caused by impact Thermal imaging was then performed across two faces of the South West Tower [completely shaded] and two faces of the South East Tower, one of which was completely exposed to the sun and one of which was shaded. The images collected are shown on the following pages. October 10, 2014 Non-Destructive Evaluation - PILOT STUDY Page 1 13 REF: 14-063 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL ST.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awhi#e@gbg-us.com The thermal image, right, is a composite image generated from a AA series of four thermal images taken from ground level. Both faces visible in the image have been shaded from the sun since the previous day and should, therefore, exhibit similar thermal responses to one another. The general response across the images is a relatively consistent temperature [orange in image] which i is to be expected and is generally indicative of a consistent material and condition. The darker, square response at the base of the tower is a geometric shape and is coincident with the change in color in the visual image and does not necessarily represent a change of material condition. The cooler, darker, responses along the corners and around the top of the tower are more likely to represent deterioration and should be inspected closely and sounded for loose or 1 damaged material for verification. 1 !r The dark corner responses could be indicative of incipient spalling, similar that that identified and explained on the previous page. North and West faces of the South West Door Tower Highlighting thermal responses consistent with condition variations October 10, 2014 Non-Destructive Evaluation - PILOT STUDY Page 1 14 REF: 14-063 5 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL ST.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awhi#e@gbg-us.com The thermal image, right, was produced in the same way as the image of the South West Tower. There is, however, a distinct difference between the two faces since the East [lighter] face is exposed to the sun and -4 the North [darker] is shaded. M There are also some distinct geometrically shaped anomalies which can be attributed to variations in color , [possibly a different concrete pour or r even a solid floor level within the otherwise hollow tower] and not changes in condition. ++�, 4 `4 Attention should be paid to the areas J �. y indicated with arrows during a visual or = . hands-on assessment of the tower. r Based on the results achieved at the exterior it is thought that with some calibration of the data [through close visual inspection, acoustic methods of NDE and sounding) a more thorough ' thermal review of the concrete structures would likely provide useful j information relating to the conditions of the concrete. This information could subsequently be used to determine the likely extent and type of repairs required. i East and North faces of the South East Door Tower October 10, 2014 Non-Destructive Evaluation - PILOT STUDY Page 15 REF: 14-063 5 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL ST.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awhi#e@gbg-us.com 3.3 Ground Penetrating Radar [GPR] Ground Penetrating Radar data was collected inside and outside of the structure, including the floor slab, the portal frames and the door towers in order to confirm the construction arrangement. Floor Slab: Between gridlines 8 & S A single slab, approximately 20' x 10' was selected for verification. Initial data collection and analysis suggested the slab simply consisted of an unreinforced topping slab, approximately 5" thick over a ground bearing slab approximately 7" - 8". Additional investigation also identified short reinforcement bars [dowels] placed at 4' o.c. between the slab and the slab adjacent, see image, below. The bars are placed at a depth of approximately 2" below the finished surface and are 30" long. Upon further review of the drawing archive, the slabs are described as being 20' x 20' slabs, in a checkerboard formation. It is assumed that each slab was comprised of two individual pours and connected using the dowels described above. Investigation of several adjacent slabs identified that this was common throughout but that there was no reinforcement between the 20' x 20' slabs. Inspection area [highlighted green] approximately 10' x 20', Approximate location of reinforcement dowels highlighted in blue October 10, 2014 Non-Destructive Evaluation - PILOT STUDY Page 16 REF: 14-063 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL ST.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awhi#e@gbg-us.com In some areas, small cracks were identified within the concrete surface, coincident with the reinforcement bars. In the case of the image shown, right, the depth of cover was found to be slightly less than 2"• - T Small crack in surface above reinforcement bar Field assessment of the data identified three variations in the data: 1 . Possible voiding between the topping slab and the ground bearing slab [approx. 5" - 6'] 2. Possible voiding below the ground bearing slab [approx. 12" - 13"] 3. Well compacted material through to the ground below An example of each case was identified in the field and marked up for core sampling if so desired by the client. P i Core 1: Core 2: Core 3: Possible voiding below 5" Possible voiding below 12" Well compacted to 12"+ October 10, 2014 Non-Destructive Evaluation - PILOT STUDY Page 17 REF: 14-063 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL ST.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awhite@gbg-us.com r _ - C.1' - Core locations C1, C2, C3: Viewed North October 10, 2014 Non-Destructive Evaluation - PILOT STUDY Page 18 REF: 14-063 5 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL ST.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awhi#e@gbg-us.com Portal Frame: Frame S3 GPR was used to assess the reinforcement arrangement within the North column of Portal Frame S3. Vertical reinforcement bars and horizontal stirrups were identified and marked directly onto the surfaces of the North and West faces using chalk and as shown in the images, below. 4 19 3 - - a Left Image: Indicating reinforcement arrangement within the North face of frame S3 Right Image: Indicating reinforcement arrangement within the West face of frame S3 • The column was rectangular in plan, approximately 29"x 19'/2". • Four vertical bars were identified on the short, North, face and two vertical bars were identified on the West face. • Vertical bars were located at approximately 4'/2" o.c. [North face] and 24" o.c. [West face] with 2" doc. [depth of cover] • Stirrups were located at approximately 1 1'/2" - 12" o.c. with 1'/2" doc. October 10, 2014 Non-Destructive Evaluation - PILOT STUDY Page 1 19 REF: 14-063 5 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL ST.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awhi#e@gbg-us.com Door Tower: North West GPR was used to assess the construction arrangement of the North West Door Tower. Vertical and horizontal reinforcement was identified at regular centers on all four sides of the tower, except in the small infill section shown in the image, right. The 'plug' was � . ., •wsd identified to be 10" thick and unreinforced. It is understood that the tower design calls for 10" thick walls with two layers of reinforcement. The second layer of reinforcement could not be identified during this pilot study, further evaluation and calibration through one of the walls with access would be required to confirm the Unreinforced plug, approximately 10" thick on reinforcement arrangement. East face Vertical reinforcement bars were typically located at 12" - 13" o.c., horizontal reinforcement was located at 17" - 18" o.c.; depth of cover was surprisingly low with less than 1" on the Horizontal bars and approximately 1'/2" on the vertical bars. Some surface damage was identified visually and found to coincide with reinforcement bar locations. The image below shows a surface crack and a small spall. ` 1 S Y .. Reinforcement arrangement [blue] identified within the North West Door Tower, South face, indicating the location of a spalled section of concrete and a surface crack [red] October 10, 2014 Non-Destructive Evaluation - PILOT STUDY Page 20 REF: 14-063 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL ST.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM L05 ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awhi#e@gbg-us.com 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The pilot study has successfully trialed two non-destructive evaluation methods and identified potential uses for them both in a larger-scale assessment, and also identified some of the technique limitations. Infrared Thermal Imaging Use of thermal imaging identified the following during this pilot assessment: 1. Sheathing - Thermal imaging would be an efficient method for identifying areas of deterioration in the sheathing, but only following a calibration via hands-on visual inspection. Identification of deterioration will be best achieved at and around midday, when the structure has been exposed to the sun for at least 4 - 6 hours. 2. Door Towers - The most effective use for thermal imaging will be in the assessment of the door towers condition. Significant thermal variations were identified across the concrete surfaces and should be calibrated during upcoming visual inspections both visually, through sounding and also potentially using other acoustic methods to verify incipient spall locations. It is expected that the anomalies identified will relate to spalls and poor compaction. Limitation - Thermal imaging was not found to be an effective method for identifying defects within the truss members. It is expected that the results of the measured building survey data analysis will identify any major deformation / defects. Ground Penetrating Radar& Metal Detection Use of GPR identified the following during this pilot assessment: 1. Floor Slab Arrangement - Sample assessment of the floor slab using GPR confirmed that the floor slab was built approximately per the design intent. NDE confirmed that reinforcement dowels [placed at Oft o.c.] connect two separate 20ft x 1Oft slabs [likely cast separately] to form the originally intended 20ft x 20ft bays [as specified in the original drawings]. 2. Voiding - Some evidence of voiding below the slab was identified and should be confirmed using the probe locations provided. If the results of the probing indicate a significant issue, the GPR study could be extended to cover the entire floor area and map areas lacking support to the slab. Further guidance on probe location can be provided if required. October 10, 2014 Non-Destructive Evaluation - PILOT STUDY Page 1 21 REF: 14-063 GBG USA INC. LA INNOVATION IN STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION 417 SOUTH HILL ST.SUITE 211 GBG W W W.GBG-US.COM LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 310.230.5441 INC awhi#e@gbg-us.com 3. Portal Frame - GPR was used to confirm the reinforcement arrangement within one of the portal frame structures. If a larger, representative sample is required, the GPR survey could be extended to incorporate more. 4. Door Towers - Assessment of the reinforcement arrangement in the door towers was partially successful. Identification of the second layer of reinforcement was not possible with the sample of data collected and would likely require access to the inside to confirm whether two layers are present or otherwise. Additional information regarding the depth of cover to the reinforcement in the exterior concrete elements may be of use in areas where surface cracking is an issue. GBG would welcome the opportunity to develop further programs of NDE based on the results of this pilot study, any findings from on-going visual assessments and also the results of coring, probing and other testing conducted. October 10, 2014 Non-Destructive Evaluation - PILOT STUDY Page 1 22 REF: 14-063 Conditions Assessment and Reuse Study Tustin Hangar No.2 Volume ll, Appendices Tustin, California /�►� tNGi.. ... ARCHITECTURE AND HISTORIC PRESERVATIGnN (PAGE & TURNBULL) Documents Included Code Appendix Architectural Visual Assessment Field Report UP-Close Visual Inspection Field Report Hazardous Materials Summary Memorandum Final Report Page & Turnbull September 2017 Conditions Assessment and Reuse Study Tustin Hangar No.2 Volume ll, Appendices Tustin, California PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Final Report Page & Turnbull September 2017 j ti i II TUSTIN HANGAR 2 �- CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT AND REUSE STUDY CODE APPENDIX , TUSTIN, CA - [13243] Prepared for CITY OF TUSTIN PAGE & TURNBULL FEBRUARY 2017 imagining change in historic environments through design,research,and technology This Page Intentionally Blank TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ CODE REVIEW FOR MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................2 PRELIMINARY CODE REVIEW FOR FUTURE REUSE CONCEPTS..................................8 This Page Intentionally Blank CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT AND REUSE STUDY CODE APPENDIX 'NTRODUCTION The Code Appendix was compiled by Page &Turnbull and includes additional analysis and details for code items summarized in the Tustin Hangar 2, Conditions Assessment and Reuse Study. The appendix documents the preliminary code analysis for the Maintenance Recommendations and two Future Reuse Scenarios. The observations, research, investigation and recommendations in this Report are intended to offer guidance on short and long term decision making on renovations and/or occupancy.All requests for use or applications for alterations or additions will be subject to case-by-case review and permitting by all agencies involved in the development review process. ,iemoaoio6; Page &Turnbull worked with the City of Tustin, the Building Official, and the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) to determine an approach to code review for the hangar.A number of meetings were held to discuss common code criteria with an emphasis on balancing the desire to use the hangar with fire and life safety items. While there is no code requirement that the hangar by bought up to current code during a maintenance and repair project, there was a desire by all participants to improve safety. Codes Consulted The following codes were consulted in preparing the code review and recommendations: • 2013 California Building Code (CBC) • 2013 California Historical Building Code (CNBC) • 2013 California Electrical Code • 2013 California Mechanical Code • 2013 California Plumbing Code • 2013 California Fire Code • 2013 California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen) • 2013 California Energy Code • City of Tustin Municipal Code, Ordinance No. 1469, Revision August 16, 2016 The 2016 CBC came into effect on January 1, 2017. Page &Turnbull compared code changes authored in CBC 2016 with those included in our review using the CBC 2013. It should be noted that 2016 CBC, Chapter 5, for General Building Heights and Areas, utilizes a simplified process to arrive at the same results as the 2013 CBC. Code sections cited in the text are from the 2013 codes. The hangar will be reviewed under the 2016 code cycle during the design phase. .fang—r Physical Lay%JuL acid Arta Hangar 2 is a Type V-B, non-rated building that has been under-used since the decommissioning of the Marine Corps Air Station Tustin in 1999. Hangar 2 consists of a large, rectangular, open central deck, measuring approximately 1000-feet long and 240-feet wide. A total of approximately 240,000 gross square feet is included in the hangar deck space. Sheds are located along the full-length of the hangar at both the north and south sides of the hangar deck. The sheds occupy the space beneath the concrete portal frames that form the base of the wood trusses. The sheds are approximately 30-feet wide and run the entire 1000-foot length of the hangar.A total of approximately 60,000 gross square feet is included in the shed spaces. The sheds to the south are single story and the sheds to the north are double-height space (Figure 1). 1 Page &Turnbull TUSTIN HANGAR NO. 2 Double-height Sheds Single-height Sheds 30,000 SF 30,000 SF I . I Hangar Deck . I . I 240,000 SF III . I LL I o I � i I N i I i I i I i I i I� iTHU Ifili JtNi EH HI R7 111 � 1000 Feet Figure- 1. Basic Physical Attributes of the Hangar Used for Code Analysis CODE RFVIFW FOR MAINTFNANC F- RF-COMMENDATIONS In addition to leasing the hangar to short-term tenants for activities including blimp maintenance and filming, the City is interested in having events at the hangar that would be open to the public. While the Building Official, OCFA, and Public Safety will review requests for special events on a case-by-case basis, analysis of fire and life safety standards is provided to create a framework for how the hangar fits within prescriptive code requirements. Occupancy Groups Page &Turnbull reviewed different occupancy groups to understand the activities and occupant loads permitted by code under different use groups. The main hangar deck was analyzed under three occupancy groups: Storage (S-1), Factory (F), and Assembly (A-3). Since the shed spaces will remain unoccupied, they were not analyzed. Under current code, the sheds would be considered a Business (B) Occupancy. Under current code the hangar deck would be classified as S-1, which permits aircraft hangar storage and repair. The current occupant load for storage occupancy is 480 people based on one person per 500 square feet over the hangar deck area of 240,000 square feet. (240,000 square feet/500 square feet per person = 480 people). 480 people is the code prescribed occupant load, but does not restrict the City from having additional people in the hangar on a case-by-case basis. Occupancy review also included analysis of the "risk category" per Table 1604.5 of the CBC. The risk category is determined from the nature of occupancy and the occupant load and represents the risk to life safety in the event of a failure, generally as the result of seismic activity in California. There are four risk categories, ranging from Risk Category I that contains buildings and structures that pose a low risk to human life in the event of a failure to Risk Category IV that includes essential facilities like hospitals, emergency shelters and power-generating stations, amongst others. Risk Category III includes facilities that pose a significant threat to human life in the event of failure, including, but not limited to, public assembly spaces with more than 300 occupants, schools, and any occupancy with over 5,000 people. Risk Category II covers facilities not covered under Risk Categories I, III, or IV. Under Occupant Group S, with a occupant load of 480 people, the hangar currently falls into Risk Category II. As mentioned above, occupant loads in excess of 300 people for public assembly uses typically trigger a change to Risk Category III.As no permanent change of use is proposed, and special uses of the hangar for public assembly will be reviewed by the building and fire officials, the hangar will remain in Risk Category II. Structural improvements required for Risk Category III are only proposed at the Future Reuse Page &Turnbull 2 CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT AND REUSE STUDY CODE APPENDIX Concepts. A general overview of how proposed activities in the hangar conform with other occupant groups follows: • Factory (F) Occupancy was considered because it includes uses consistent with the film industry. Allowable uses, per the State Fire Marshall, are motion picture and television production studios, studio sound stages, approved production facilities, and production locations. While uses consistent with filming are allowed under Group F, these are without a live audience. The presumption is that the people using the space are familiar with the life safety systems of the hangar. The occupant load factor for Factory occupancy is 1 person per 100 square feet, providing an occupant load of 2,400 people. (240,000 square feet/ 100 square feet per person = 2,400 people). Risk Category II remains in effect because the occupant load is less than 5,000 people and it is not an assembly use. • A number of near-term uses under consideration fall under Assembly (A) Occupancy.Assembly with fixed seats is Group A-1 and applies to motion picture and sound stages with a live audience. A-3 Assembly captures exhibition halls, community halls and museums. Occupant load factors are based on the type of seating provided. Standing room is quantified as one person per 5 square feet while tables and chairs is calculated at one person per 15 square feet. See CBC Table 1004.1.2 for additional occupant load factors that apply to assembly use. Determination of the occupant load used for the egress modelling is included below. Since assembly uses will be short in duration and reviewed on a case-by-case basis, there is no change in risk category. General Buildin¢ Hei¢hts, Areas, and Travel f)istances Page &Turnbull also reviewed code values for allowable area; stories and height; separation between occupancies; common path of egress travel; and exit access travel distance were analyzed. These items were analyzed to support decisions related to determining occupant loads used in the egress modeling shown in Appendix 5. Details of the code analysis are included in the calculations shown below and in Table 1 at the end of this appendix. Key items discerned from the analysis include: • Group B, F, M and S occupancies can be unlimited area buildings if 1-2 stories and surrounded by 60 foot public way. • Travel distances generally exceed code allowances. • For Group A occupancies, either the number of stories and height can be increased OR the area, but not both. For the hangar calculations, the area increase has been selected. See building area increase calculated below. • Per 506.2, the hangar can take advantage of the frontage increase. See frontage increase calculation below. • Per 506.3, the area increase for a one-story building in Group A occupancy is 300-percent. • Per CHBC, 8-302.5, the existing height may remain. • Requirement for automatic sprinkler system for unlimited area and allowable area increases will be addressed through alternative solution (smoke-control and egress modeling). • Allowable area for Group A with frontage and sprinkler increases is 28,500 square feet. • A maximum occupant load count of 5,700 people at the hangar deck was determined based on the allowable area (28,500 square feet) for Group A-3 Assembly and an occupant load factor 5 square feet per person (standing).An occupant load of 5,700 was used in the egress modelling. 3 Page &Turnbull TUSTIN HANGAR NO. 2 a eaa Considerations Strict compliance with the prescriptive elements of the code is not proposed for the hangar. Rather, a performance-based approach has been used to analyze and develop recommendations for egress. In conjunction with performance-based smoke control and egress modeling, fire and life safety conditions related to egress have been filtered through the prescriptive code to provide a general understanding of how the current conditions stack-up against the code. The following section provides a summary of existing conditions as well as recommendations for addressing any issues identified. Egress: Exiting from the Hangar Deck Exiting from the hangar deck does not meet all the prescriptive items of the current code. Issues to be considered are: • Lack of identification and visibility of existing egress components. • Number and width of exits is lacking. • Limited direct access to outside. Egress generally requires passing through shed spaces which do not contain required 1-hour rated corridors. Existing corridors through sheds that could be used for exiting are indiscernible. • Travel distances generally exceed code allowances. • Some doors at the interior hangar deck walls do not swing in the direction of path of travel. • Existing door openings consist of both pedestrian and roll-up doors. Roll-up doors are not a code- prescribed option for exiting. In general, existing exits are not located at a consistent distance along the length of the hangar making it difficult for occupants to understand the location of the nearest exit in the case of an emergency. Furthermore, there are no exits at the northwest and southwest corners of the hangar necessitating long travel distances to reach the nearest exit. Under the 2013 CBC, travel distance for a non-sprinklered building is limited to 200 feet for all occupancies under consideration. With sprinklers, this distance can be increased to 250 feet for Group S, F, M, and A occupancies. Egress width is inadequate for more intensive assembly uses involving the public. Under current conditions, "bottlenecks" could develop under certain egress situations due to lack of visibility of egress components, lack of exits, and diminished egress width. For an occupant load of 1,000 people, 17 feet of egress width is required. For an occupant load of 2,400 people, 40 feet of egress width is required.And, for an occupant load of 5,700 people, 95 feet of egress width is required. Recommended Approach: Recommended modifications to the existing egress system are based on egress modeling that takes into account a number of variables including detection, notification, movement and the location and size of exits. See Fire and Life Safety summary in the Conditions Assessment section and Appendix 5 for performance-based design of smoke control and egress. Based on the performance modeling, new exits to serve the hangar deck are recommended. New exits should be incorporated into the hangar interior and shell in a sensitive manner to preserve original historic fabric and to be compatible with the design and details of the hangar. On the exterior elevation, the exact location and design of new exits should be compatible with the historic features where feasible. Conceptual approaches to adding additional exits are included with the Maintenance Recommendations. In addition, the exits should be located so that their placement adds to the clarity of the egress plan within the hangar deck. A comprehensible and efficient system of egress will help compensate for the size of the hangar. Optimizing the visibility of exits from within the hangar deck will greatly improve life-safety. Finally, the exits should be well marked with new exit signage and egress path lighting. Page &Turnbull 4 CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT AND REUSE STUDY CODE APPENDIX Egress: Exiting from the enclosed shed spaces At this point in time, the shed spaces will not be occupied. For this reason, the shed spaces have not been included in the occupant load counts and no formal egress analysis or modeling was performed on the sheds. Items that do not meet the code include, but may not be limited to: • Unclear configuration of corridors and not all corridors lead to an exit. • Some egress paths within the shed spaces exit to the hangar deck and not directly to the exterior. • Fire rating for corridor walls and doors are deficient. • Some exiting occurs through intervening rooms. Code deficiencies will need to be addressed based on the reconfiguration and use of the sheds. Reconfiguration of the shed spaces should include historic preservation oversight to evaluate existing fabric for historic significance and to evaluate the locations of any new egress components. When possible, egress from the sheds should be coordinated with egress from the hangar deck to minimize the number of new openings at the exterior of the hangar. ,-ire Protection and Emergency Systema A suitable fire protection system will improve life safety in the hangar by compensating for the large scale of the building. There is currently no operable fire detection and notification system in the hangar. Emergency signage and lighting as well as systems for public use, including exit diagrams, extinguishers and fire alarm pulls is lacking. The shed areas have a nonfunctional overhead, automatic fire sprinkler system. Work to restore operability to the system is not included at this time. The hangar deck is not equipped with sprinklers. Code provisions that allow for area increases for a building that includes an automatic fire sprinkler system have been included in the code analysis. The sprinkler requirement will be met through alternative solutions derived from the fire and egress modeling. Accessibility Improving access to the hanger for persons with disabilities, to comply with Chapter 11 B of the CBC and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), should be completed at this time. While a complete review of disabled access items was not a part of this study, the following items are among the non-compliant issues: • Accessible parking and path of travel to the hangar. • Doors, hardware, thresholds and landings at exits and egress paths. • Restrooms and drinking fountains. • Signage. The City of Tustin Municipal Code will be used to determine parking counts for the hangar. Based on the overall parking count that applies to the hangar, the required number of accessible and van accessible parking spaces can be determined by consulting chapter 11 B of the California Building Code. It is anticipated that disabled access parking can be accommodated at the existing paved area at the south side of the hangar. 5 Page &Turnbull TUSTIN HANGAR NO. 2 Calculations Calculations for items related to building areas noted above and shown in Table 1 are shown below. Plumbing counts for uses proposed during the near-term are also included in this section. Frontage Increase Calculation (Section 506.2) If= [F/P-0.25]W/30 where: If=Area increase due to frontage F = Building perimeter that fronts on a public way or open space have 20 feet open minimum width (feet). P = Perimeter of entire building (feet). 2,600 feet is used for hangar perimeter. W= Width of public way or open space (feet) in accordance with Section 506.2.1. Since the value of W exceeds 30 feet for the entire perimeter of the hangar, 30 feet is used in the calculation. If= [2,600 feet/2,600 feet-0.25] 30/30 If= [1-.25] 1 = .75 The frontage increase is .75 Building Area Increase Calculation (Section 506.1) Aa ={At+[At x If] + [At x Is])where Aa =Allowable building area per story (square feet).At= 6,000 square feet per Table 503. At=Tabular building area per story in accordance with Table 503 (square feet). If=Area increase factor due to frontage. Determined to be .75 by calculation shown above. Is =Area increase factor due to sprinkler protection. 300-percent for one-story building. Aa ={6,000 square feet+ [6,000 square feet x.75] + [6,000 square feet x 3]}_ 6,000 square feet+ 4,500 square feet + 18,000 square feet = 28,500 square feet. The maximum allowable area is 28,500 square feet. The maximum allowable area was used to calculate a maximum occupant load for the hangar bay for assembly uses. The occupant load is calculated by dividing the maximum allowable area, 28,500 square feet, by the occupant load factor. Table 1004.1.2 lists different load factors. For an assembly use without fixed seats (standing) the occupant load factor is one person per 5 square feet (net). The occupant load for assembly use was calculated at 28,500 square feet/ 1 person per 5 square feet = 28,500/5 = 5,700 occupants. Using provision of the current code, a maximum of 5,700 occupants has been determined feasible for the hangar bay.An occupant load of 5,700 was used for the egress modelling. Plumbing Fixtures Plumbing fixtures were calculated for two scenarios, an assembly use and a warehouse use for blimp maintenance and repair. Assembly Use Minimum plumbing facilities for an assembly occupancy (A-3) are based on the ratios shown in Table 422.1 of the 2013 California Plumbing Code (CPC). The occupant load for plumbing fixtures for assembly use is calculated using the 28,500 square-feet calculated above and the occupant load factor of 1/15 per Table A of the CPC. 28,500 square feet/ 15 = 1,900 occupants. 950 males and 950 females. Page &Turnbull 6 CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT AND REUSE STUDY CODE APPENDIX Plumbing Fixture Counts for Assembly Occupancy Per Table 422.1 Male (950 people) Female (950 people) Water Closets 5 13 Urinals 6 N/A Lavatories 5 7 Drinking Fountain 4 drinking fountains Chapter 11 B provides the requirements for accessible plumbing facilities.At least 5-percent of water closets; 10-percent of urinals; and 10-percent of lavatories must be accessible.At least one accessible fixture or accessory of each type is required. Storage Use Minimum plumbing facilities for a storage occupancy (S-1) are based on the ratios shown in Table 422.1 of the 2013 California Plumbing Code (CPC). The occupant load for plumbing fixtures for assembly use is calculated using the 240,000 square-feet for the main hangar bay and the occupant load factor of 1/5,000 per Table A of the CPC. 240,000 square feet/5,000 = 48 occupants. 24 males and 24 females. Plumbing Fixture Counts for Storage Occupancy Per Table 422.1 Male (24 people) Female (24 people) Water Closets 1 1 Urinals 1 N/A Lavatories 1 1 Drinking Fountain 1 drinking fountain Chapter 11 B provides the requirements for accessible plumbing facilities.At least 5-percent of water closets; 10-percent of urinals; and 10-percent of lavatories must be accessible.At least one accessible fixture or accessory of each type is required. 7 Page &Turnbull TUSTIN HANGAR NO. 2 PRELIMINARY CODE REVIEW FOR FUTURE REUSE CONCEPTS Two future reuse concepts are included in the report. The concepts represent two possibilities for reusing the hangar. Because the concepts are very preliminary, code analysis focuses on major code criteria and concepts only. Code analysis consists of narratives that explain the design implications for the concepts. Rehabilitation Op...... The Rehabilitation Option is based on the General Development Plan for the Hangar No. 1. It assumes that the larger hangar bay will remain open and be used for special events. The shed spaces will be reused for uses in support of the main hangar bay, including exit corridors, concessions, restrooms, services entrances, storage, and office space. Calculations Occupant Load for Assembly Use The occupant load is derived by dividing the square-footage of the main hangar bay by the occupant load factor. For the Rehabilitation Concept, an assembly use without fixed seats is shown. The code mandates an occupant load factor of 15 square feet per occupant, based on the premise that tables and chairs will be spread throughout the assembly space.An occupant load factor of 15 is not as intensive a use as a standing use that uses an occupant load factor of only 5 square feet per occupant. Using an occupant load factor of 15, the occupant load of the assembly space is calculated to be approximately 16,000 occupants. The 16,000 occupants is calculated by dividing 240,000 square feet by 15 square feet per occupant. Exit Width Requirements for exit width are based on the occupant load count determined above. The code requires that there is sufficient exit width available for the occupant load. Our analysis assumes the hangar doors will be fully closed and that the exit width is accommodated through the sheds. The calculation is based on .2 inches of required exit width per occupant. For an occupant load of 16,000 the required exit width is equal to: 16,000 occupants x .2 inches/occupant= 3,200 inches. To convert 3,200 inches to feet, we divide by 12. The result is approximately 267 feet of exit width required at the sheds. 267 feet is about 13-percent of the exterior perimeter length of the sheds. The rehabilitation concept plan assumes that new exit corridors will be provided from the main hangar bay through the shed spaces. 20 of the concrete portal frame bays have been dedicated to exit corridors. It is assumed that approximately 15 feet of exit width can be accommodated at each portal frame. Egress width is assumed to be approximately 300 feet based on a calculation of 20 exit paths with a clear width of 15 feet= 20 x 15 = 300 feet. This amount exceeds the required egress width of 267 feet required for 16,000 people. Plumbing Fixtures Minimum plumbing facilities for an assembly occupancy (A-3) are based on the ratios shown in Table 422.1 of the 2013 California Plumbing Code (CPC). Fixtures counts are based on a plumbing occupant load factor of 1/15 per Table A of the CPC. This is calculated as 240,000 square feet/ 15 square feet per person = 16,000 occupants. 8,000 males and 8,000 females. Page &Turnbull 8 CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT AND REUSE STUDY CODE APPENDIX Plumbing Fixture Counts for A-3 Assembly Per Table 422.1 Male (8,000 people) Female (8,000 people) Water Closets 19 69 Urinals 29 N/A Lavatories 33 43 Drinking Fountain 34 drinking fountains Chapter 11-B provides the requirements for accessible plumbing facilities.At least 5-percent of water closets; 10-percent of urinals; and 10-percent of lavatories must be accessible.At least one accessible fixture or accessory of each type is required. The concept plan provides almost 11,000 square feet for new restrooms. Renovation Option The Renovation Option proposes adding new "buildings"within the hangar and a supplemental structural system consisting of steel towers to the interior of the hangar.Any new buildings would be located and designed to minimize visual impacts on the character-defining interior space. New buildings within the hangar will be designed to the current codes. Structural deficiencies to the hangar will be repaired with new steel towers being used to strengthen the hangar. Calculations Calculations have been provided for the assembly use at the main hangar bay and business uses at the new elevated office buildings. Assembly Use at Existing Hangar Deck Occupant Load The occupant load is derived by dividing the square-footage of the main hangar bay by the occupant load factor. For the Renovation Concept, an assembly use without fixed seats is shown. The code mandates an occupant load factor of 15 square feet per occupant based on the premise that tables and chairs will be spread throughout the assembly space.An occupant load factor of 15 is not as intensive a use as a standing use that uses an occupant load factor of only 5 square feet per occupant. Using an occupant load factor of 15, the occupant load of the assembly space is calculated to be approximately 16,000 occupants. 16,000 occupants is calculated by dividing 240,000 square feet by 15 square feet per occupant. Exit Width Requirements for exit width are based on the occupant load count determined above. The code requires that there is sufficient exit width available for the occupant load. Our analysis assumes the hangar doors will be fully closed and that the exit width is accommodated through the sheds. The calculation is based on .2 inches of required exit width per occupant. For an occupant load of 16,000 the required exit width is equal to: 16,000 occupants x.2 inches/occupant= 3,200 inches. To convert 3,200 inches to feet, we divide by 12. The result is approximately 267 feet of exit width required at the sheds. 267 feet is about 13-percent of the exterior perimeter length of the sheds. The renovation concept plan assumes that new exit corridors will be provided from the main hangar bay through the shed spaces. The renovation concept includes large openings at the center of the north and south facades. These openings are currently approximately 14 bays wide or 280 feet in length. The large central openings will need to be designed to provide code-compliant egress from the hangar bay. Approximately 75 feet of egress length (150 feet for both sides)will be required at both the north and south openings at the center of the hangar. Based on exit access travel distances, additional exit corridors have been added closer to the ends of the hangar. These additional corridors provide approximately 120 feet of egress width. The 150 feet at the center plus the 120 feet closer to the corners exceeds the 267 feet required for 16,000 occupants at the main hangar bay. 9 Page &Turnbull TUSTIN HANGAR NO. 2 Plumbing Fixtures The plumbing counts shown in the rehabilitation concept for assembly use also apply to the assembly use at the renovation concept. Elevated Office Use The elevated office buildings have a floor plate of 10,000 square feet. They are shown as 2 story with a roof deck above. The elevated office buildings will have their own restrooms and mechanical equipment. An efficiency factor of 80% has been used. Allowable building heights and areas will need to be confirmed based on construction type. Occupant Load Occupant load factor for business areas is 100 square-foot (gross).Assuming 8,000 square-foot of floor area is occupied, the occupant load is 80 people per floor. The total occupant load is 240, if the roof is included in the calculations. Two exits are required for an occupant load greater than 49 and up to 500 occupants. Each of the four elevated office buildings are provided with two exit stairs that connect directly into self-contained exit passageways that lead through the shed spaces to the exterior. Exit Width Requirements for exit width are based on the occupant load count determined above. The code requires that there is sufficient exit width available for the occupant load. The calculation is based on .2 inches of required exit width per occupant. For an occupant load of 240 people the required exit width is equal to 240 occupants x.2 inches/occupant= 48 inches. To convert 48 inches to feet, we divide by 12. The result is approximately 4 feet of exit width is required for the exit stairs and egress components. It is assumed that a pair of 3'-0"doors at each dedicated exit corridor can be used to satisfy the egress requirements. Plumbing Fixtures Minimum plumbing facilities for business occupancy (B) are based on the ratios shown in Table 422.1 of the 2013 California Plumbing Code (CPC).An occupant load of 120 people, including 60 females and 60 males based on the occupant load factor of 1/200 and a building area of 24,000 (8,000 square feet per floor times 3 floors) square-feet per Table A of the CPC. Plumbing Fixture Counts for Business Occupancy Per Table 422.1 Male (60 people) Female (60 people) Water Closets 2 4 Urinals 1 N/A Lavatories 1 2 Drinking Fountain 2 drinking fountains Chapter 11-B provides the requirements for accessible plumbing facilities.At least 5-percent of water closets; 10-percent of urinals; and 10-percent of lavatories must be accessible.At least one accessible fixture or accessory of each type is required. Page &Turnbull 10 N Q a a 0 0 a 0 0 LL o a O 0 Q u OO01� a) a) O sU p � a U z z o� z Io 0 o O 0 42 0 4 a p a P4 Z 00 o rn m Z_ U) U) W (n U) J m In �On N S Y z z U) (7 O ~ m E 7 ~ Vh Q w a rn M m m N o O L O �O �O(6 N 9 O W O 00 O O O N a E 0 0 0 m � T T C Cn N M N N N a)a C Z O W 99 a) mo — L 0 U-O E s Cn In 9 L'-' m a) a) 0 9.� In > O O O O O a) O J 2 a m'U a) J tin In a) Lp X m O O O O O 72 >.i C a)L Q Q m C Q H W Z N N N N N C m O C O N a m ') c T O m 0 C o o o C O O-U O p U C Ln O 2 O 2 O 2 O P O— O O O LO LO m C Q C �'C 9 O Ln 0 0 M 0 In 0 E > (� o f 4-- (D Q 0 0 E 0 a) O m CO O U a O C O Q Q m L T s C a) 0 M in o o C � 9 a)O In In (7 Q Q m W U)`p) Z M Q r L O N 0.0 N5 O O Y a L0 0 U s C C p 0 0 Q to a o ° 0 C N _ 9 L M O O O a) a) `U 0 C t/`) C a LL a) 0 Q H Q Z V Q N In(�'�In (DU Y m O C fn to T C C a) 0 T+' o 0 C O O C to m m O N m Q Q C C U a) .In 0 O O L Y7 0 (n X a) E �.— U Q T O O mL X �0 O a m a Z Z Z Z N a)9 N a m C U N H °U Q C Cn W M � T� Q O L U = m x O 9 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 N 9 9 N U O a)-O to C y a) C 0.— a fn a) 0 (p C (� z z z m E .� m C co o x % —'x y C 0 In (D 0) a) O U W O O E W O 0 m W O L C O E D 2 In 1 O U) N fn m O N C Q Cn.0 N CO Q C `p to O N O Y o s a) O Z N N N N C X a(n-O O' U T O- X Q w p a) 0 a) a) a rn o `o a)'�>> Q F- U) (n W (7 Q o rn to Y to m N LL U) m Q M 0 C 0 —Ll 9 O L m N m Q (n QU) Q DmyO N LOL9 m m Q O 0 n E 0 to D Y fOn O T O C to p O U p _C (n p C In-p L 0 O Q to O m jn Ztz Z Z N Eo N0 N 0 N Q0.— m 07 In N p 0 Y > 0 YU U LL U) Z Z O `0 �_ Q O mC O O O U C U m a � E� O C Q C Q O C fn Q-O m m Q-O O N N T O F N(j T a Lp m C f/1 m 0 N o O O C U to O O a) a) a) m (6 Z Z 4, Z N E9 U O In a OL Q I� CO m C m U C O 0 C) _ O Q Q O O Q (WD m a) T -O C U N m to 4 S S m m oo In a 00L a) E In C) a ` 0 m T m m U U.� ti �`U a (6 m co z z z Q Q Q Q LL.0 6 Il m e 0-E a .°�..� °- m O-a-O Q 0'0 ai C 0 �- 0 0 0 (� (� O 9 9 O C U 0 0 a) a)Y U 0 U -p Z Z Z Z N U O a) C(p E O C a) N U m 0 (� m 0 0 g rn o d a o o a) 0 0 a `o m LU (D w C m m E 0 0 Q0 E ~O 00mmyo .In (Dmm �9 0� Co � In In z Z Z z -o y o E in N 15 m N O o Y O L 0 U) LL C O Q U a) O a) Q 0 f`)O to to � to 5 Q m N L O O ` 0 aa O m 0 0 E 0 0 L 4) C Q O` a) a) a) o-O O a) O O` m ° O O O o W oYw o(7 (7 �YY 0)m igyin (7L m m O O O O s To � O p Wo Oom LL Q n UQ Q O Q O O O O O In O O O O O fn m 06 LO LO I� LO O (D C N I� M LO LO W U N N O N CO N 0 m + V V V V N O M Y C C y U U w O O o 0 0 0 00 In° Z H Q Z 0) 0) CO 0) CO y0 w to U a) a) C QWM _C_ W C p)O U C-p-Op O- �Oa a O N. In U 0-.-o m — X y p `a) o j 0 a EY n� �a 0 LEc mL.0 U m M a) C "� to m a) L fin In fn O O 9 �CLa'"' > E ON CC W In a) .�L 0 In (� N M N N N CO a `p'Q 2 T.0 T E N a).O.O fn C — (D 0 U U) 0 9 0 `0 O a Q a) a) O p m Z (C) Q in S Z N C ° N U.— f/1 (6 In `0 a) U O C W > In C C C (L% T° O C E a).O O a -.0 a) 'T O (6 to m to(0 a U W LU M m O Q.� °fn o t(WD n C O (D (D m O Q W w C) (7 U) m LL Q Q `° o a o T O rn T m E Q rn ° 2 0 In E o E.�Y o �.Z o LU Z D Q in Q f°n Q o o �-� In g o Q a) m W fn L .� .� a) C a).O C a In a) Q to In C LU O L m a) 0 a) N O a Q U (6 O Q m Y C >i a) o a O a Q p)m L a) In In C'�_'fn a .fn O w In U) m (� p O O 0 C — O- 0 m m W Q O m — C a) 9 m :�-'° to Q a E M a T 19 °a S n — U U m 0 0 0 (D m � `o U) C7 .0 ,. C C S E 0 a) o 0' 0-a o 0-a E C 0 In U Q QC (6 C T .0 9 a)L 0 m a0.0 O N to O a) to a)0 N =p ` to O 0 to(6— to to z _ — 0 0 o m E L m s Q 0 a)°� o Q�° (7.E m (7.E m m 0 Q o Z �' Q m U 0 Q 0) 0 C In X — m (D wa) m m a LLL Q ° S LL In o ° Q m W _ _ _ _ Ln ` J 0 In to to L >i >i >i a) N M 00 y0 W co — XX a) a) a) 9 r. (O COM — O O d (i a° w w.s z z z Q 0 o ii � o C� (DI Q Y C m T C O C N C N a L PAGE & rTURNBULL imogining change in historic environments through design,research,and technology TUSTIN HANGAR NO.2 I VISUAL CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT ARCHITECTURAL ASSESSMENT FIELD REPORT P&T NO. 13243 WEATHER Sunny and Warm OWNER NO. City of Tustin TEMPERATURE 80-90°F DATES July 24th and 29th BY D. Herrick and D. Gorski OVERVIEW Page and Turnbull completed a visual assessment of Hangar No. 2 on July 24 and 29, 2014. On July 24, John Lesak, Lindsey Miller and Dan Herrick walked the periphery of the hangar and the upper roof to evaluate the overall condition of the hangar's exterior enclosure system, including aluminum roof panels, windows and doors, plywood clad hangar doors, concrete base and cement asbestos wall panels. Information was gathered through direct observation and the use of binoculars and a camera with a telephoto lens to perceive areas inaccessible from grade. Information was recorded on architectural plans and elevations. On July 29th, John Lesak, Drew Gorski, Lindsey Miller and Dan Herrick completed the assessment of the hangar exterior. In addition, the assessment team recorded observations on the interior spaces, including the interior rooms of the side sheds. The most significant items discovered during the architectural visual assessment are: 1. Fiberglass panels at the skylights appear to have reached the end of their service life. 2. Paint on the plywood door cladding is in very poor condition. 3. Exterior aluminum windows are in poor condition. 4. Staining on interior surfaces indicates water infiltration —exact source of infiltration is unknown. 5. Spray polyurethane foam insulation (SPUF) roofing at the roof monitor is in poor location. There are numerous small holes that are leading to the decay of the wood roof decking. The Project Team will conduct a follow-up field investigation, using a truck-mounted platform lift to access the upper portions of the trusses and structure. The next phase will also include removal of wood samples for laboratory testing and the completion of inspection openings to confirm construction methods and condition of building components. ARCHITECTURE PLANNING & RESEARCH PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY 417 South bill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.7209 I www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 2 of 41 OBSERVATIONS EXTERIOR— GENERAL OBSERVATIONS Overall, the exterior of the hangar is in fair condition with materials exhibiting general deterioration consistent with their age. Generally, the north (Figure 1) and west elevations are in better overall condition than the south elevation (Figure 2) and east elevations due to there being less solar exposure and protection from prevailing winds. The top of the hangar is in the worst condition due to the additional exposure to the elements and materials that are less durable. Specific conditions are noted in the sub-sections contained within this field report. The following are some of the common conditions issues throughout the exterior: 1) Sealant that was used along joints, fasteners, and windows is in various stages of failure, ranging from relatively intact (minor cracking and crazing) to complete loss of materials (Figure 3). 2) Paint on most features is in fair condition. Paint is deteriorating and there is extensive chalking in some area (Figure 4). 3) The weathering of materials -sealant, fasteners, plumbing elements, etc. — has stained the corrugated aluminum panels (Figure 5). 4) Organic waste, particularly bird droppings, is present. The largest concentrations are near the concrete towers of the hangar door structure (Figure 6). Evidence of insects—ants, termites, bees, wasps, etc. — is also common throughout the exterior. (Figure 7). Figure 1: Partial north elevation looking east, note double height sheds PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 3 of 41 Figure 2: South elevation looking east w Figure 3: Sealant failure at concrete sill to wall joint PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 4 of 41 Figure 4: Water damaged and deteriorated paint at wood soffits and cement asbestos panels i t , li Figure 5: Corrugated aluminum panels exhibiting staining from vents and other attachments PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 5 of 41 Figure 6: Bird dropping at northeast corner at concrete tower sPj I' — v z, V Figure 7: Bee infestation PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 6 of 41 CORRUGATED ALUMINUM PANELS 1) Overall, the aluminum panel roof system appears to be in fair condition. The individual panels are in good condition. The deficiencies with the roof system are the combination of loose and missing fasteners and the ship-lap method of installation that sheds water but is prone to water infiltration. Additional investigation is required to verify existing construction and to evaluate the condition of the existing roof deck beneath the aluminum panels. 2) Metal panels are bowed, beveled, and lifted at the bottom. The presence of these open or "fishmouth"gaps can be seen throughout both elevations, but is more common at the south elevation (Figure 8). 3) Joint filler material at the bottom edge of the bottom row of panels is often falling out or missing entirely. These strips are lying on the roof of the exterior shed structures or along the base of the building (Figure 9). 4) The bottom edges of the corrugated panels, close to grade, are bent, lifted, and ripped, leaving portions of the wood decking exposed. The decking shows signs of degradation in areas of higher exposure (Figures 10, 11). 5) There are several areas where concentrations of the fasteners and their respective washers are loose, are protruding from the panels, or are lost entirely. The concentrations and instances of fastener failure are greater on the south elevation (Figure 12). 6) Sealant around the fasteners is in various states of deterioration, ranging from being intact to complete loss (Figure 13). Figure 8: "Fishmouth" gaps at bottom of corrugated aluminum panels PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 7 of 41 Figure 9: Loose joint-filler material at bottom edge of corrugated aluminum panels Figure 10: Torn edge at bottom of corrugated aluminum panels, Southwest corner PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 8 of 41 Figure 11: Weathered wood decking at damaged corrugated aluminum panel Figure 12: Loose and missing fasteners at corrugated aluminum roof panels PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 9 of 41 Figure 13: Deteriorated sealant at fasteners SKYLIGHT PANELS 1) From a distance, the skylight panels appear to have reached the end of their service life. The plastic resin has deteriorated causing individual glass fibers to separate from the panels. Up- close investigation of the panels is required to confirm their condition. 2) The skylight panels are bowing inwards with open or"fishmouth" gaps at their base. Skylight panels on the south elevation are exhibiting a greater degree of the concave bowing than are present on the north fagade. The bowing may be responsible for some of the lifting and "fishmouth"gaps. (Figure 14). 3) There is discoloration and staining at some of the skylight panels (Figure 15). 4) Several skylight panels are broken and have varying size penetrations to the interior of the hangar. Temporary repairs on the larger holes have failed are allowing moisture into the hangar (Figure 16). PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 10 of 41 Figure 14: "Fishmouth"separation and concave bowing of fiberglass skylight panels poop Figure 15: Staining and discoloration at second band of skylight panels on south elevation PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211. Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page I I of 41 Figure 16: Damaged skylight panel with failed temporary repair WINDOWS 1) There are numerous aluminum window sashes with broken glazing that are boarded-over with plywood (Figure 17). 2) Wood trim between windows is in fair condition. There are some instances of solar damage, "alligatored" finish and minor deterioration (Figure 18). 3) Wood trim is loose and lifted from window frames in several locations, leaving the wood sheathing, and - in the most advanced cases -the interior of the hangar exposed (Figure 19). 4) Some aluminum window screens are damaged or missing. The most common form of damage is warping of the frame. The remaining screen material is often ripped or weathered. In some instances, birds have built nests between the screen and the windows sash (Figure 20). 5) Original wood windows are present between supports S-26 and S-25. Windows are in poor condition, one retains its glazing, and the other is completely boarded up. The wood frames, mullions,jambs, and other components exhibit advanced deterioration (Figures 21). PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles. California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 12 of 41 �j�JlfljlllIII!f1f!{{(fgIgI11IIW!?fIIfRNIIIIIP«ullRllllua"glll11141ugl�llq�!�11��;�p��l"�II'� Figure 17: Boarded-up sashes at aluminum frame windows at north elevation � f 1 r I r Figure 18: Deteriorated finish at window trim PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles. California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 13 of 41 6 069i . ..... Figure 19: Missing wood trim at aluminum window jamb srt I Figure 20: Damaged window screen with birds nest PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 14 of 41 F _ *71 MLIF -ul111111111111.6. - i Figure 21: Original wood window with significant deterioration CEMENT ASBESTOS WALL PANELS 1) Discoloration and chalking of the paint is common throughout the cement asbestos wall panels (Figure 22). 2) Fasteners have become loose or have fallen out in some locations. There are concentrations of these loose or missing fasteners in certain locations. 3) Panels are installed in a ship-lap fashion. Panels are constructed of hard but brittle material. Panels are cracked where they are nailed (Figure 23). 4) At some panels, fragments of cement asbestos panel have spalled-off exposing the wood sheathing beneath (Figure 24). 5) Holes are present in panels where pipes, fixtures, and other installations were present. There are some instances of patching, but by and large these holes remain open and exposed (Figure 25). 6) Finish trim at the edge of panels and battens between panels are loose or missing, exposing the joints to moisture (Figure 26). PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 15 of 41 i M � ..e a. Figure 22: Discoloring of cement asbestos panels Figure 23: Broken panels adjacent TO fasteners at cement asbestos panels PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 16 of 41 9K 79 1 +L 9 Figure 24: Exposed wood decking where cement asbestos fragment has broken loose 1r Figure 25: Unsealed hole in panel from previous pipe penetration PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 17 of 41 1 e i 1 '0 -4 a Figure 26: Missing cement asbestos trim at metal door frame HANGAR DOORS 1) The east and west elevations are dominated by the large hangar doors and the supporting structures. The west elevation (Figure 27) is in better overall condition than the east elevation (Figure 28). The hangar is not sited perfectly north-south-east-west on the site, therefore the east hangar doors are exposed to more direct sun than the west doors. Paint is deteriorated, with minor(west doors)to severe (east doors) peeling and cracking. 2) The plywood panels are in fair to poor condition. Panels on the east elevation are more deteriorated, especially at panel edges. In a few cases, oriented strand board (OSB) panels have replaced the plywood (Figure 29). 3) Neoprene weather-stripping between operable door sleeves is in fair condition, exhibiting some weathering. Minor cracking and warping can be seen at some locations (Figure 30). PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 18 of 41 Figure 27: Hangar doors at west elevation exhibiting deteriorated paint i 111111,n'iiii1::11S4j[ - ,ii li Z1j 4 ` 1l n an im 1 mn ....un.top Figure 28: East elevation hangar doors showing advanced paint deterioration PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 19 of 41 Figure 29: Deteriorated plywood panel at the east hangar doors i Figure 30: Neoprene weather-stripping at edge of door PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 20 of 41 WIRE GLASS WINDOWS AT HANGAR DOORS 1) The windows are in fair condition, with minor to severe paint deterioration. Cracks and small holes in the glass are present at some locations. In some instances, large holes are present leaving the wire glass exposed (Figure 31). 2) Wood trim is deteriorated, loose and in some cases missing entirely. Fasteners in window frames are showing signs of corrosion, staining the surrounding materials. In advanced cases, wood trim is lifted, exposing the interior of the hangar(Figure 32). 3) Glazing putty is cracked and deteriorated and needs to be replaced (Figure 32). Figure 31: Wood-framed wire glass windows at west hangar doors with multiple holes in wire glass PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, Californio 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 21 of 41 J -L7 1 =1. ~ Figure 32: Loose wood trim at wood window showing deteriorated window putty PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 22 of 41 DOOR HARDWARE 1) Corrosion has occurred on much of the hangar door hardware, particularly the pulleys on the drive boxes, rail system, base panel, fasteners, and drive cables. Staining of surrounding materials has resulted (Figure 33). Corrosion and oxidization is much more advanced at the east elevation 7-4 r r Figure 33:Corrosion at bottom of east hangar doors PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 23 of 41 BOX BEAMS 1) There are holes in the wooden base of the box beam. Some of these appear to be from deterioration of the materials or penetration from birds, where others are set in pairs at regular intervals (Figures 34, 35). •�R r Figure 34: large openings at the bottom of box beam Figure 35: Multiple smaller openings in wood decking at bottom of box beam PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 24 of 41 CONCRETE SUPPORT TOWERS 1) The concrete support towers appear to be in good condition. 2) Reinforcing steel has oxidized in some locations at the west towers and has caused the concrete in the immediate area to spall. The damage is to a small area (Figures 36, 37). Figure 36: Areas of spalled concrete at concrete towers 1111"�dkf4; ".0".o Figure 37: Detail of spalled concrete PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 25 of 41 CONCRETE BASE WALLS 1) The concrete walls at the base of the hangar(Figure 38) are in good condition with only minor hairline cracks, particularly nearjoints and the supports (Figure 39). 2) Overall, the concrete sill that runs the length of the shed structure is in fair condition with deterioration limited to the paint finish, but cracking and loss of material has occurred (Figure 40). 3) The concrete at the north corner of the east elevation is spalled. The corroded material is evident where the concrete has failed and cracks spread throughout the adjacent concrete (Figure 41). r e Figure 38:Concrete wall base and sill below windows at north elevation PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 26 of 41 Figure 39: hairline concrete crack at concrete base . ,_ le O S - Figure 40: Damaged concrete sill at north elevation PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 27 of 41 z. Wi 4 ,0410- Figure 41: Spalled concrete at base of wall at northeast corner of hangar PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 28 of 41 CONCRETE SLABS AT EXTERIOR 1) Hairline cracks are present throughout the concrete slab at the base of the hangar doors (Figure 42). 2) The concrete slabs adjacent to the concrete towers show more deterioration and vegetation has encroached on the area. (Figure 43). Figure 42: Minor cracking at exterior concrete slab at hangar doors r - :' is Figure 43: Cracked concrete at base of concrete tower PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 29 of 41 ROOFING AT MONITOR The roof at the monitor at the apex of the arches consists of spray polyurethane foam (commercially known as a SPUF)with a top coating. The top coating has failed in multiple locations causing the foam and isolated areas of the roof deck to deteriorate. The assessment team encountered several areas where the deck may be completely deteriorated creating an unsafe condition. Extreme care should be taken on the roof until further investigation is completed. Common conditions include: 1. There are holes in the top coating which are allowing moisture and sun to breach the roof system (Figure 44). 2. The loss of spray foam is exposing the wood deck and metal roof edges to the environment, causing deterioration (Figure 45). 3. Patches have been applied to many of the holes, but many of the patches are also showing signs of deterioration (Figure 46). 4. Advanced deterioration of roof materials also appears to be in areas where there are large concentrations of bird droppings (Figure 47). � a no, Figure 44: SPUF roof showing multiple holes in the top coating PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 30 of 41 Figure 45: Loss of top coating at roof causing exposure and deterioration of spray foam Figure 46: SPUF roof with patches at holes. Patches are also failing PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, Californio 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 31 of 41 Y .iii,_ f Figure 47: Significant deterioration of spray foam at roof LOUVERS Screened louvers run the length of the roof monitor. The louvers have been covered over from the outside. Further investigation is required to investigate their condition and operations (Figure 48). z . r ; Figure 48: Louvers at roof monitor are closed off from the outside PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 32 of 41 ACCESS HATCH 1) The sliding hatch doors appear to be inoperable, leaving the roof area and interior spaces of the hangar exposed (Figure 49). 2) Much of the hardware is showing advanced oxidization and corrosion. 3) The wood framing is showing advanced deterioration. ---------- __� fi ��yN - Figure 49: Open roof hatch at west end of hangar roof FIRE HOSE SHEDS The two fire hose sheds are in poor condition, with the degradation of materials more advanced in the western shed. 1) The exterior asphalt roofing used to clad the sheds is in poor condition. The material has completely failed at the western shed (Figure 50). 2) Weathering, dry rot, and termite damage has resulted in the loss of materials in the wood paneling throughout the shed structures (Figure 51). PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 33 of 41 - Figure 50: Western shed with failed asphalt cladding, exposing wood sheathing [III Figure 51: Damage to wood framing and sheathing at hose sheds PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 34 of 41 ROOF-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT There is a variety of roof-mounted equipment, including obstruction-type lights for aviation control (Figure 52), plumbing vents and exhaust/ventilation hoods (Figure 53). Roof mounted equipment is generally in poor condition. Reuse options and current codes will dictate the extent of new and replacement equipment. APO-, Figure 52: Obstruction-type lights at rooftop. These lights appear to be non-operational fila Figure 53: Roof mounted exhaust hood at upper roof PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 35 of 41 INTERIOR— GENERAL OBSERVATIONS The interior of the hangar consists of the central open hangar deck(Figure 54) and multiple small interior spaces enclosed under the concrete portal frames at the north and south. The rooms at the south portal frames are one-story spaces (Figure 55) while the rooms on the north side largely occupy the entire height of the concrete portal frames. General Observations related to the interior space are as follows: 1. Though the hangar is generally clean and free from debris, there are some environmental concerns: a. Birds are able to enter the interior of the hangar through broken windows and the open roof hatches. Bird droppings are encountered through-out the interior. b. There is a large population of spiders, including black widows, especially in dark crevices. c. Surfaces are coated in a thick layer of dust. Due to the previous uses in the space, care should be taken to avoid disturbing and ingesting the dust. An environmental hygienist should be consulted to verify the content of the dust and establish safe protocols for working in the space. 2. Staining present on interior surfaces indicates the infiltration of water(Figure 56). Exact source(s) of the water is unknown and requires further investigation. It appears that the tops of the interior sheds have a waterproof decking to inhibit moisture from entering the spaces below. ®11 0 ,., Figure 54: Interior of the hangar looking east PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 36 of 41 I �i i1�C''�iI/� 1 ■[7�iI� +•i— �Ti� ��wiz i �i�•a�r Figure 55: Single-story rooms at the south concrete portal frames Figure 56: Staining at interior surfaces indicates infiltration of water PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 37 of 41 HANGAR DECK CONCRETE SLAB 1. Overall, the hangar deck concrete slab is in fair condition, with minor cracking and deformation except for in the areas noted below. 2. There are significant cracks where the concrete slab abuts the asphalt strip at the center of the hangar. The cracks appear mostly at the control joints and appear to be from settlement (Figure 57). 3. Cracking is pronounced adjacent to the hangar doors (Figure 58). Figure 57: Large cracks at the concrete slab adjacent to the asphalt strip at the center of the hangar PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 38 of 41 Figure 58: Multiple cracks at concrete slab adjacent to hangar doors HANGAR SIDE SHEDS The hangar concrete sheds have performed multiple uses during the history of the hangar. Some of the previous uses at the side sheds are offices, workshops, utility rooms, mechanical spaces and restrooms. The shed spaces are currently non-functioning with no operational electrical, plumbing or mechanical systems. 1. Rooms on the south side are in fair condition. Interior walls are in fair conditions (Figure 59). 2. Suspended lay-in ceiling grid and tiles are in poor condition (Figure 60). 3. Rooms at the north sheds contain half-height walls and no suspended ceiling. These spaces are in fair condition (Figure 61). 4. Restrooms finishes are in fair condition. Restrooms will need to be redesigned for future uses and to accommodate accessible design (Figure 62). PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 39 of 41 ...s3 I Figure 59: Typical interior finishes at offices at the south sheds Figure 60: Damaged and missing suspended ceiling tiles PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 40 of 41 A Figure 61: Typical interior finishes at offices at the double-height north sheds t Figure 62: Typical interior finishes at restrooms PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, Californio 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Visual Architectural Assessment Field Report[13243] Page 41 of 41 INTERIOR WINDOWS AND DOORS There are a variety of windows and doors at the interior of the hangar. 1. Wood windows and doors dating to the original period of construction are in fair condition. The majority of these windows and doors are located along the south sheds (Figure 61). 2. There are a number of wood windows with broken panes of glass (Figure 64). ogo gig NOR II! fol III III III m III III M Mon III Figure 63: Wood windows at the south sheds Figure 64: Typical interior wood window with broken and missing glazing PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com PAGE & TURNBULL imcigining change in historic environments through design,research,and technology TUSTIN HANGAR NO. 2 1 UP-CLOSE VISUAL INSPECTION FIELD REPORT NOVEMBER 13 - 26, 2014 GENERAL P&T NO. 13243 DATE PREPARED December 23, 2014 OWNER NO. City of Tustin VIA Email BY Drew Gorski CC Matt West OVERVIEW Up-close field investigation of Tustin Hangar No. 2 was completed November 13"to November 26th, 2014. The Project team utilized a 180 foot"Bronto" lift to compete the up-close assessment. In addition to utilizing the lift to inspect the hangar, a limited number of wood samples were removed by a framing contractor. The following field report summarizes the activities that occurred between November 13th and 26th.A more detailed report of findings from the up-close investigation will be produced following the completion of wood testing. � I zoo I ' I+fr i' i ti - Using the lift to access the trusses at the east end of the hangar. ARCHITECTURE PLANNING & RESEARCH PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Up-Close Investigation,Summary of Work[13243] Page 2 of 6 DATE WORK COMPLETED November 13, 2014 • Anthony&Associates selected final locations for PRESENT the six(6)wood samples to be removed. • Ron Anthony started visual grading of wood Ron Anthony Anthony&Assoc. members throughout the structure. Vicen AlvarezAnthony&Assoc. 0Page &Turnbull visually inspected the concrete --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Lesak I Page &Turnbull towers from grade. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alice Custance Baker I Page &Turnbull Drew Gorski Page &Turnbull SATE WORK COMPLETED November 14, 2014 0 Degenkolb Engineers confirmed that the final PRESENT wood sample locations were acceptable structurally. Ron AnthonyAnthony&Assoc. e Degenkolb and Ron Anthony used the lift to Vicen AlvarezAnthony&Assoc. access the upper portion of the trusses at both ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the east and west end of the structure. Michael Braund I Degenkolb --------------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Anthony continuing his visual grading of Peter Maloney I Degenkolb wood members. Drew Gorski Page &Turnbull DATE WORK (-(-)MPI PTFn November 15, 2014 • Anthony&Associates completed digital PRESENT radioscopy (x-rays) of wood connections to confirm presence of corrosion at hidden steel Ron Anthony Anthony&Assoc. anchors and the condition of wood around the ---- ------ - ------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vicen AlvarezAnthony&Assoc. connections. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Lesak Page &Turnbull Ron Anthony continuing his visual grading of --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- wood members. Drew Gorski I Page &Turnbull PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 21 1, Los Angeles, California 90013 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Up-Close Investigation,Summary of Work[13243] Page 3 of 6 s� Setting up digital radioscopy at the wood connections. Note location of imaging plate. DATE WORK COMPLETEL November 17, 2014 0 Page &Turnbull gained up-close access to the PRESENT concrete towers, aluminum cladding and box beam at the exterior, southeast corner of the John Lesak I Page &Turnbull hangar --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Drew Gorski I Page &Turnbull Alice Custance Baker Page &Turnbull PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 21 1, Los Angeles, California 90013 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Up-Close Investigation,Summary of Work[13243] Page 4 of 6 Assessing the concrete tower at the southeast corner of the hangar. DATE WORK COMPLETED November 18, 2014 0 Page &Turnbull assessed the condition of the PRESENT skylights and skylight framing at the south wall of the interior, between trusses 10 and 15. Dan Herrick I Page &Turnbull --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Drew Gorski I Page &Turnbull Alice Custance Baker Page &Turnbull DATE WORK COMPLETED November 21, 2014 0 Golden State Framers completed the first sample removal. PRESENT - - -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- • Degenkolb Engineers reviewed the first removal Matt Barnard I Degenkolb from start to finish. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Braund I Degenkolb --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Herrick I Page &Turnbull Drew Gorski I Page &Turnbull PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 21 1, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Up-Close Investigation,Summary of Work[13243] Page 5 of 6 DATE WORK COMPLETED November 24-25, 2014 0 Golden State Framers completed removal of PRESENT samples 2 through 5. - - -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- • Page &Turnbull tagged the samples after they Dan Herrick I Page &Turnbull were removed. � aG AOL OR Wood sample removal, including repair with steel plates. DATE WORK COMPLETED November 26, 2014 0 Golden State Framers completed the sample removal. PRESENT - - -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- • Page &Turnbull labeled all wood samples. John Lesak I Page &Turnbull 0 Page &Turnbull accessed the exterior of the --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Drew Gorski Page &Turnbull hangar at the northwest corner, focusing on the aluminum cladding, skylights and concrete tower. PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 21 1, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar No.2,Up-Close Investigation,Summary of Work[13243] Page 6 of 6 r Wood Samples following removal. Samples were packaged and shipped to a testing laboratory. H:\130xx\13243_City of Tustin Hangar\Docs\D Reports\D3 Sampling and Inspection Openings\Up- Close Inspection\13243_Field Memo_Draft_2014-12-18.docx PAGE & TURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 21 1, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com PAGE & TURNBULL imrygining change in histone environments through design,research,and technology MEMORANDUM DATE December 24, 2014 PROJECT NO. 13243 TO Matt West PROJECT Tustin Hangar 2 City of Tustin City Manager's Office FROM John Lesak, AIA 300 Centennial Way Alice Custance-Baker Tustin, CA 92780 CC VIA Email REGARDING: TUSTIN HANGAR (Hangar 2/ Building 29) Hazardous Materials Summary This memo summarizes Page &Turnbull's current understanding of hazardous materials present at Hangar 2. The information is based upon review of previously prepared reports related to the presence of hazardous materials in Hangar 2 (Building 29), as well as discussions with the City of Tustin. The reports were provided by the City and relate solely to asbestos and lead paint. Additionally, we note biological hazards observed during our field work. Following the summary, we identify additional hazardous materials that were observed and testing that may be required to have a full understanding of the abatement costs and impacts for a re-use project. SUMIiVIARY OF PREVIOUS REPORTS ASBESTOS Based upon the available material, it appears two surveys for asbestos containing material (ACM) were performed; one in 1988 by IT Corporation and one in 1997/8 by LAW Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. The reports surveyed the whole air station and tended to generalize between the two hangars. Both surveys included visual inspection and limited sampling of materials, as well as identified friable and non-friable material. Per the 1997 report, "`Friable' materials are those which when dry can be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure." Because asbestos ARCHITECTURE PLANNING & RESEARCH PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar-Summary of Hazardous Materials Reports[13243] Page 2 of 7 negatively affects the human respiratory system, friable ACMs can be more readily inhaled and are considered more hazardous than non-friable ACMs. According to the reports, the following ACMs are present in Hangar 2 (Building 29): Friable: • Steam pipe insulation inside the hangar above the north shed. Non-Friable: • 9x9-inch floor tiles within the north shed offices. • 12x12-inch floor tiles within south shed offices. • Pipe elbow insulation inside the hangar above the north shed. • Hand-applied insulation at pipe hangars inside the hangar above the north shed. • Roof felts inside the hangar above the north shed. • Roof mastic inside the hangar above both the north and south sheds. • Exterior roof underlayment below the corrugated metal panels. • Exterior Transite (cement-asbestos board) cladding at the sheds. While our visual assessment indicates that an effort was made to "tag and bag" asbestos insulated pipes, the material appears to still be on site. The full extent of asbestos remediation following the 1997 survey is currently unknown. Roof underlayment under metal panels Green,white and brown floor file Steam supply tine insulation; Pipe insulation Pipe hangar mud;elbow insulation Roof felts Figure 1:Site plan from 1997 report showing Building 29 Brdwn floor tie N locations of ACM in building 29(north is at the top of the image). Roof mastic PAGE & TTURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 21 1, Los Angeles, California 90013 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar-Summary of Hazardous Materials Reports[13243] Page 3 of 7 51 0 49 48 47 46 45 44 4312 41 40 39 38 37 3 35 34 Li x�An,�,lo(ttle} z9hlf;d2.13(t41eS z�Nla,ls,t6,1: N 29AlB,19,26 (abov first (mechanical area above ]st floor) floor) Figure 2:Northwest corner of hangar showing locations of ACMs,A5=green floor tiles,A819110= white floor tiles,A11112113=brown floor tiles,A14119120=hard elbow pipe insulation on the air conditioning lines present in the overhead space,A15=not ACM,A16117118=hard elbow insulation on the hot water lines. Drawing from the 1988 report. N 0 L I �7T , I --A ur A If.-- K _19_� 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 Figure 3: Central south side of hangar showing locations of ACM;A22=brown floor tiles. Drawing from the 1988 report. LEAD PAINT A `Report of Lead-Based Paint Testing'was produced by LAW/Crandall in May 1997 and documents the results of a survey undertaken to identify the presence of lead-based paint (`a paint or other surface coating which contains lead equal to or greater than 1.0 milligrams of lead per square centimeter of surface area') in the Tustin Hangar 2 (Building 29). In-situ non-destructive testing was undertaken on selected interior and exterior painted building components at random points that were considered to be representative of the general construction of the building. One reading was taken at each test spot. The sampling team was not able to access the upper portion of walls, structural columns, beams, beam supports, or the ceiling deck in the hangar areas, and the roof of the facility was specifically excluded from the scope of testing. PAGE & TTURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 21 1, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar-Summary of Hazardous Materials Reports[13243] Page 4 of 7 Readings were taken from a total of 777 test locations, and of these 260 gave positive results for the presence of lead. All of the results were found to be either positive or negative; none of the results were inconclusive. Therefore no paint chip samples were collected for further analysis. Extant lead-containing paints are listed in the following table: COMPONENT SUBSTRATE COLOURS Exterior building components Door frames Metal Black, Yellow Door frames for hangar doors Metal Gray Door stops for hangar doors Concrete White Man door in sliding hangar door Metal Gray Fire standpipes Metal Red Signage marked `Air Frames' on Concrete Red wall Sliding hangar doors Metal /Wood Gray Interior building components Beams cross bracing Wood brown, red, tan, white, yellow `Caution' signage on floor Concrete red, yellow Columns Metal tan Concrete Blue, brown, red, tan, white, Wood brown, tan, white Door Metal brown Doorjamb Metal dark gray Wood yellow Door frame Metal brown, dark gray Wood brown Floor covering Linoleum green Piping Metal red, tan, white Roll-up door trim Wood brown Roof joists Metal unknown Sliding door sides Metal brown Stairs Metal yellow Wood brown Stair handrail Wood brown PAGE & TTURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 21 1, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar-Summary of Hazardous Materials Reports[13243] Page 5 of 7 Wall Concrete blue, blue-green, brown, gray, green, red, tan, white Ceramic tile yellow Wall framing Metal tan Wood brown, tan Window apron Wood black, brown, tan, white Window frame Metal tan Wood tan, white Window sash Wood brown, dark brown, green, tan, white, POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL(PCBs) Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) were commonly used in electrical equipment and building sealants from as early as the 1930s through 1979, when they were banned from manufacture in the U.S. PCBs are potentially cancer-causing and can cause adverse effects to the human central nervous system, immune system, and endocrine system. A 1998 report by EDAW titled `Condition Assessment and Economic Analysis for Reuse of the Historic Blimp Hangars MCAF Tustin' noted, "A replacement of all transformers containing Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) in excess of 500 parts per million was completed in 1990." HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REPORTED BY THE CITY TRICHLOROETHYLENE The City has stated that the soil under and around Hangar 2 contains trichloroethylene (TCE), a volatile organic compound used primarily as an industrial solvent. Airborne TCE above a certain level can have adverse effects on the human central nervous system, immune system, and endocrine system. Reportedly, the Navy is to perform background testing to determine existing levels of TCE at Hangar 2 and follow with a monitoring and/or remediation strategy. LEAD AI MUFFETT FIELD HANGARS During the recent assessment of the Lighter-Than-Air (LTA) Hangars built at Moffett Field in Mountain View, it was discovered that lead-based fuels used in various aircraft over the life of the hangars had left a lead containing residue on the surfaces of building materials. The residue was of sufficient quantity to trigger abatement protocols for dust-generating PAGE & TTURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 21 1, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar-Summary of Hazardous Materials Reports[13243] Page 6 of 7 activities, such as drilling, sawing and cutting. For the investigative work currently underway, surfaces being affected are vacuumed using high efficiency particulate arrestance (HEPA) filters. Workers are equipped with personal lead monitors and general air monitoring is being performed. OBSERVED HAZARDS BIRD DROPPINGS A variety of birds have taken up residence in Hangar 2. A preponderance of bird droppings are present below roosts. Bird droppings can contain disease-carrying fungal spores. Droppings need to be abated and adjacent surfaces disinfected prior to any repair/stabilization work being performed (or an area being occupied). Unfortunately, many of the areas with concentrated levels of droppings are at the top of the hangar, adding the cost of access to the abatement costs. OWL PELLETS Barn owls are one of the birds residing in Hangar 2. Owl pellets (coughed up fur and bones of small animals and birds eaten by the owls) are readily found on the hangar floor. Owls are known carriers of Salmonella germs, which can cause diarrhea, vomiting, and fever in humans. Because the pellets may contain the germ, they should be periodically removed with care by a trained professional. ANIMAL DROPPINGS Animal droppings were observed throughout the lower levels of Hangar 2, particularly within the sheds and atop the interior shed roofs. The droppings are likely cat or raccoon droppings. Both can be disease carrying and should be periodically removed with care by a trained professional. Areas of animal droppings should be disinfected prior to any repair/stabilization working being performed. BLACK WIDOW SPIDERS Poisonous black widow spiders were regularly observed at the lower levels of Hangar 2, particularly within the sheds. In the near-term, people working within the hangars should be made aware of the spiders and dress accordingly (long-sleeved shirts, long pants, and PAGE & TTURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 21 1, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com Tustin Hangar-Summary of Hazardous Materials Reports[13243] Page 7 of 7 gloves). Prior to performing repair/stabilization work, the spiders should be exterminated by a trained professional. BEES AND WASPS Several bee hives and wasp nests were observed at the exterior of Hangar 2. For people with allergies, stings can be a serious health hazard. In the near-term, people working within the hangars should be made aware of the bees/wasps and avoid the hives/nests. Prior to performing repair/stabilization work, the bees and wasps should be exterminated by a trained professional. /HUUI I IUIV/HL I CJ I INN Page &Turnbull are not hazardous materials experts. To determine a full scope of supplemental hazardous materials testing for Hangar 2, we recommend contacting an environmental service specialist. Based upon our experience with older buildings and our review of testing to date, we recommend supplemental testing for the following: • LEAD RESIDUE: Similar to Moffett Field, test wood truss surfaces for accumulation due to years of servicing helicopters and aircraft in the Hangar that may have used lead-containing fuels. • ASBESTOS IN WINDOW PUTTY AND PLASTER: In addition to the materials already identified, asbestos was frequently used as filler in window putty and interior plasters. It does not appear window putty and interior plasters were tested for asbestos. • PCBs IN BUILDING SEALANTS: In addition to electronic equipment, PCBs were commonly used in building sealants (caulks). We noted that corrugated roof repair drawings specified polysulfide sealants, which more commonly used PCBs than other sealant types. H:\130xx\13243_City of Tustin Hangar\Docs\C Background and Research\C1.1 Summary of Previous Reports\13243_MMO_Haz Mat-Sum mary_2014-12-24.docx PAGE & TTURNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 21 1, Los Angeles, California 90013 1 T 213.221.1200 F 213.221.1209 1 www.page-turnbull.com Conditions Assessment and Reuse Study Tustin Hangar No.2 Volume ll, Appendices Tustin, California /�►� tNGiz.. 3 I STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING (DEGENKOLB ENGINNERS) Documents Included Structural Condition Assessment and Reuse Study Final Report Page & Turnbull September 2017 Conditions Assessment and Reuse Study Tustin Hangar No.2 Volume ll, Appendices Tustin, California PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Final Report Page & Turnbull September 2017 IIII ■MO IIIIiI 11� 11 . milli IIIL■.... MINIn11 V 1■ � IIII••••• I.. l I OWN ■ • • • • • - - - • • '' IIIIIIgm ./ IIIIIIIII IIS IIT /I III■■IIIIIIIII HIM • ..- � � . — =■�IIIIIIIIIIII1��111111111I11�� ' il.■■■■II I II�f�IIIIIIIIIII■■ III.��I�I■ISI■ %■�� ERIN-'„„„''i ■1111111111 �.ct:-. ■ �I■■■■■II I IIII IIII■��I�I■ISI■ Elm Is IIII'■■ii[11111 I-- 1 IN L� ..... • � ' ���� — �—■�IIIIIIIIIIII1��111111111 I11�� 11■■IIIIIIIII HIM _�,. . _� . �__ ���.�■Il��i� �ll��■IIII��I IIS■ ,ISI ........I■■ -�r.�^�.r. �[:- \�1 IIII-■I■■ :' _t- -[�_-;_ �_�■IIT■I I■ U11MIN I ���� ��`�= '� � IIII:► � I 1 ■. IIII IIII IIII ■� I■MIS 11 � IIII IIII . . M F11 515.0299 phone 1515.0298 fax1 IIII■■■■ :1111111 Structural Condition Assessment and Reuse Study-Tustin Hangar Number Two Signature Page This report and the structural calculations were prepared in accordance with 2013 California Historic Building Code. Respectfully submitted, tOr�ESf , � � afESSrp AS 63 No. 55569 c� Exp 1 Exp. 66 Or CALti OF GALS Michael T. Braund, Matthew Barnard, S.E. S.E. Principal Principal Degenkolb Engineers Degenkolb Engineers ♦ Degenkolb Engineers i Final Report Structural Condition Assessment and Reuse Study-Tustin Hangar Number Two Table of Contents SignaturePage............................................................................................................... i Tableof Contents.......................................................................................................... ii Listof Figures .............................................................................................................. iii ExecutiveSummary...................................................................................................... 1 1 Introduction......................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Background .................................................................................................. 2 1.2 Building Description...................................................................................... 2 1.3 Project Description ....................................................................................... 2 2 Structural Condition Assessment..................................................................... 3 2.1 Key Observations......................................................................................... 3 2.2 Sample Removal .......................................................................................... 8 3 Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 9 3.1 Overview and Design Criteria....................................................................... 9 3.2 Main Hangar............................................................................................... 12 3.2.1 Transverse Analysis .................................................................... 12 3.2.2 Longitudinal Analysis................................................................... 19 3.3 Door Towers and Box Beam Study ............................................................ 19 3.4 Pile Foundation Analysis ............................................................................ 20 3.5 Comparison of Loading .............................................................................. 23 4 Reuse Study...................................................................................................... 25 4.1 Summary of Repair Options ....................................................................... 25 4.2 Tier 1/2 Stabilization and Repair of Unsafe Conditions for Interim Use........ 26 4.3 Tier 3a: Rehabilitate for Long-Term Use within the Historic Building Code (Risk Category III — Historic)............................................................. 28 4.4 Tier 3b: Rehabilitate with New Buildings inside of Hangar with Interior Towers (Risk Category III — New Building)................................................. 30 Appendix A — Degenkolb Condition Assessment Site Reports .............................. 31 ♦ Degenkolb Engineers ii Final Report- 161010 Structural Condition Assessment and Reuse Study-Tustin Hangar Number Two List of Figures Figure 1: Defiberization of Wood Truss Member............................................................. 3 Figure 2: Defiberization of Outer Chord Member ............................................................ 3 Figure 3: Typical Condition of Wood Truss Members at Top of Truss............................. 4 Figure 4: Water Damage to Truss from Roof Leak.......................................................... 4 Figure 5: Cut X-Bracing between Concrete Portal Frames ............................................. 5 Figure 6: Split Gusset Connection................................................................................... 5 Figure 7: Split in Truss Member ...................................................................................... 6 Figure 8: Incised Wood Members ................................................................................... 6 Figure 9: Large End Split at Steel Stair Support.............................................................. 7 Figure 10: Fractured Bridging at Steel Stair Support....................................................... 7 Figure 11: Lateral Restraint at Top of Steel Door............................................................ 7 Figure 12: Lateral Restraint at Bottom of Steel Door....................................................... 7 Figure 13: Installation of Sistered Members Prior to Removal ........................................ 8 Figure 14: Truss Member After Repair............................................................................ 8 Figure 15: Rendered Isometric View of Truss Model .................................................... 13 Figure 16: Truss Section Elevation with Panel and Member Identification Labels ........ 14 Figure 17: Truss Member Connection at Inner Chord ................................................... 14 Figure 18: As-Built Detail of the Typical Portal Frame................................................... 17 Figure 19: P-M Interaction Check on Portal Frame Columns........................................ 18 Figure 20: As-Built Detail of the Typical Precast Pile .................................................... 20 Figure 21: Original Wind Loads vs Current Code.......................................................... 23 Figure 22: As-Built Notes with original Lateral Loads (Wind/ Seismic).......................... 24 ♦ Degenkolb Engineers iii Final Report- 161010 Structural Condition Assessment and Reuse Study-Tustin Hangar Number Two Executive Summary This report is a compilation of the structural condition assessment and reuse studies performed by Degenkolb Engineers for the former Marine Corps Air Station Hangar No. 2 or Building 29 in Tustin, California. The structural condition assessment is based on the observations made during three on-site condition assessments performed by Degenkolb Engineers. The first of which was focused on getting as much detail to the condition of the existing framing as possible while being restricted to only the areas accessible without use of special equipment. Observations were made from the ground, mezzanine, and steel stairs at the northwest corner of the building using binoculars as needed. The second evaluation was aided by the use of a 180 foot mobile boom lift, in which our engineers could get a closer look at the condition and details of the structure at locations previously unreachable. The truss framing, connections, and hanging catwalk were the focus of this portion of the assessment. Then the third visit was to observe the sample removal and repair, as well as, finish the visual assessment. In these site visits, the building was found to have several structural deficiencies that were visibly identifiable, many of which are critical to address prior to reuse of the building by the general public. In addition to the condition assessment, a structural evaluation was performed. Several assumptions were made in regard to the material properties to make this evaluation possible. A material testing program was conducted on select wood members to give insight to the existing material properties. Results of this evaluation identify several deficiencies in the structural system. After understanding the behavior of the existing structure, a reuse study was performed and each option was schematically evaluated for structural feasibility and safety. ♦ Degenkolb Engineers 1 Final Report- 161010 Structural Condition Assessment and Reuse Study-Tustin Hangar Number Two 1 Introduction 1.1 Background Hangar Number One and Two are located in Tustin, California. Hangar Number One or also referred to as Building 28 or North Hangar is not part of this study. The focus on this report is on Hangar Two or also referred as Building 29 or South Hangar. The purpose of the hangars was to house"Lighter-Than-Air" aircraft to support the Navy during World War II. The hangars were in active use for the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps Aviation until 1999 when MCAS Tustin was closed. The Navy is stills the owns the hangars, but planning to transfer Hangar Two to the City of Tustin and Hangar One to the County of Orange. The hangars are both listed in the National Register for Historic Places. In 1993, the hangars were designated National Civil Engineering Landmarks by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Reuse planning has been managed by the City of Tustin, and this report serves as a portion of the planning. 1.2 Building Description The approximate dimensions of the hangar are 1000' long, 300' wide and 200' tall at the center. The structure consists of 51 wood trussed arches spaced at approximately 20' on center that span the width of the building, each mounted on concrete portal frames. At each longitudinal end of the building, two massive sliding doors are stabilized by a frame consisting of two hollow concrete columns at each end of and a wood space truss box beam. The Tustin hangars are still two of the largest wooden structures ever built. 1.3 Project Description The purpose of the study is to determine the current structural condition of the building and structurally feasible reuse options. The condition assessment is based on observations made during multiple site visits and are limited by the amount of time and resources available to this project. The structural evaluation was based on the 2013 California Historic Building Code and initial wood values provided from Ron Anthony, Wood Scientist from Anthony & Associates, Inc. The reuse study will look at probable building uses for the immediate, interim and long term. ♦ Degenkolb Engineers 2 Final Report- 161010 Structural Condition Assessment and Reuse Study-Tustin Hangar Number Two 2 Structural Condition Assessment 2.1 Key Observations Over the course of the on-site condition assessments structural components were visually analyzed and measured for signs of deterioration, loss of strength, high stress or failure, missing/additional members, general inconsistencies, damage, and lack of a load path for gravity and lateral loads. For each of the on-site condition assessments, Degenkolb Engineers provided a report of all the pertinent findings; both reports have been included in Appendix A for reference. In this section the findings of the reports will be summarized to include the most critical observations made with regard to the hangars existing condition. Prior to the ons0ite structural survey, we also reviewed all provided historical records including as-built drawings and past evaluation reports for the hangar. Defiberization/Fuzzy Wood damage is apparent in many locations throughout the hangar. The fuzzy wood is more focused on the lower parts of the trusses where more FRT may have been applied and most dust has settled. Measurements were taken at a number of locations to quantify the loss of member dimensions in select locations and understand the magnitude of impact to the structural integrity. Figure 1 and Figure 2 show examples of defiberization and measurement of section loss. It is estimated that the worst locations have a 5-10%reduction in wood member dimensions and up to a 12%reduction in cross sectional area. There were no locations in the truss chords where more than 10% reduction in cross sectional area was measured. Approximately 25% of the members show some sign of defiberization ranging from a negligible section loss to a maximum of 12%loss in very few locations. The condition of the wood at the upper portion of the trusses appeared to be in great condition with very few locations showing any deterioration as can be seen in Figure 3. Figure 1:Defiberization of Wood Truss Member Figure 2:Defiberization of Outer Chord Member ♦ Degenkolb Engineers 3 Final Report- 161010 Structural Condition Assessment and Reuse Study-Tustin Hangar Number Two or 1 Figure 3: Typical Condition of Wood Truss Members at Top of Truss Water damage is present at a number of locations throughout the hangar. At the mezzanine level, the wall studs, roof joists, and the floor above have noticeable water damage that is likely to have affected the structural integrity of the members. Upon up close inspection of the roof sheathing, it was noticed that at a number of locations water intrusion from the exterior aluminum panels has damaged the sheathing and truss members below the roof. Water damage to a truss from a roof leak is shown in Figure 4. A Figure 4: Water Damage to Truss from Roof Leak Cut wood members were observed in three locations. Of the observed cut members, two were bridging members between the bottom cords of the truss and one was a diagonal X-brace between the concrete portal frames, which is shown in Figure 5 below. ♦ Degenkolb Engineers 4 Final Report- 161010 Structural Condition Assessment and Reuse Study-Tustin Hangar Number Two r �— _ • ��' 7�� �r - rr ' —`:� V Figure 5: Cuff-Bracing between Concrete Portal Frames Wood splitting is present in many areas of the hangar with a varying degree of structural impact. Wood splits were observed at the following locations: bolted connections of the portal frame X- braces, bridging members between the truss bottom cords, gusset plates for the space truss between truss chords and the purlins, and in very few cases truss members had section splits. In one case there is a fractured bridging member that is supporting the steel staircase. Approximately 5% of the truss members have end splits at the bolted connections that would require some type of repair. Figure 6:Split Gusset Connection ♦ Degenkolb Engineers 5 Final Report- 161010 Structural Condition Assessment and Reuse Study-Tustin Hangar Number Two r is S I � , i IIII Figure 7:Split in Truss Member Incised wood members are present at several locations within the structure. This is important because there is up to a 20%reduction in member capacity for members with incising. There did not appear to be a pattern to which members were incised, but incising appeared to be present in 10-20% of members with most being in the bridging members. An example of two incised wood members is shown below in Figure 8. 1 Figure 8:Incised Wood Members ♦ Degenkolb Engineers 6 Final Report- 161010 Structural Condition Assessment and Reuse Study-Tustin Hangar Number Two The recently installed steel staircases appear to be in good condition with little evidence of rust or deterioration, however their mass is much greater than the original wood staircases. This has caused the wood bridging support members to split and even fracture at several locations. Figure 9 and Figure 10 below show two examples of damaged bridging members supporting the stairs. Repairs such as chain tiebacks to the truss and added steel members on the existing wood have been used to attempt to take load out of previously failed wood members. Repairs and potential removal of the stairs should be considered in re-use options. I LOW Figure 9:Large End Split at Steel Stair Support Figure 10:Fractured Bridging at Steel Stair Support The steel doors appeared to be in good condition, however the lateral restraint of the doors is a concern that will need to be addressed in any reuse option that has the doors incorporated. The lip of the wheel and the wood guides at the top of each door is the only lateral restraint as can be seen in Figure 11 and Figure 12. F AL- Figure 11:Lateral Restraint at Top of Steel Door Figure 12:Lateral Restraint at Bottom of Steel Door Several of the structure's components appear to be relatively good condition such as the concrete tower door supports, concrete portal frames, the sliding steel doors, steel stairs, most bolts and fasteners and the box beams. Additionally, the buckled truss chord repairs appear to be effective at providing strength and buckling resistance. Some repairs including the steel rod bracing at the exterior purlins and steel angle clamps at member splits are likely to be only providing minimal benefit and are not sufficient as a long term solution. For all additional information on the condition assessment refer to the original reports in Appendix A. ♦ Degenkolb Engineers 7 Final Report- 161010 Structural Condition Assessment and Reuse Study-Tustin Hangar Number Two 2.2 Sample Removal The first sample was removed on 11/21/2014, and Degenkolb was onsite to review the removal and repair procedures with the contractor. Our structural observation was for sample 3 per Table 1 below. The removal and repair we observed met the intention of the permitted detail. Refer to Figure 13 and Figure 14 for photos of sample 3. The final location of the samples that were removed and tested are: Table 1:Sample Removal Details ID Member Type Member Size x Location/Truss # Panel Points Detail* Sample Length (Ref. fig. 1)* (Ref. fig. 2)* Truss Double Web 4x10 x 4'-0" TRUSS 14 / SOUTH Btw. 4 - 5 S1 4 Truss Double Web 4x8 x 4'-0" TRUSS 43/NORTH Btw. 6 - 7 S1 3 Truss Double Web 4x8 x 4'-0" TRUSS 10/NORTH Btw. 6 - 7 S1 6 Truss Double Web 4x8 x 4'-0" TRUSS 27/ SOUTH Btw. 6 - 7 S1 5 X-Bridging 3x8 x 4'-0" Btw. TRUSS 49-50/ Btw. 0 - 1 Replace (removing entire SOUTH in kind section 2 X-Bridging 3x8 x 4'-0" Btw. TRUSS 9-10/ Btw. 0 - 1 Replace (removing entire NORTH in kind section *References are from the permitted removal and repair procedures. Figure 13:Installation ofSisteredMembersPrior to Figure 14: Truss Member After Repair Removal ♦ Degenkolb Engineers 8 Final Report- 161010 Structural Condition Assessment and Reuse Study-Tustin Hangar Number Two 3 Evaluation 3.1 Overview and Design Criteria General Design Parameters Risk Category: III Governing Code: 2013 California Historic Building Code Design Methodology: LRFD {unless otherwise noted} Load Combinations: 2013 California Building Code Material Specific Codes: ACI 318-11 (Concrete) AISC 360-10 (Steel) 2012 National Design Standards (Wood) Seismic and Wind Loading: V= 0.40 W (Risk Category III, CHBC 8-706.1) Wind= 75% ASCE7-10 (CNBC 8-706.2) Material Properties Used in the Analysis Portal Frames and Piles: 2,500 psi Fy = 40,000 psi General Wood Properties: Douglas Fir C=0.50 Density=32 pcf Wood Truss Members: Fb = 1,400 psi (Initial Estimates per Anthony&Associates,Inc.) Fc = 1,100 psi E = 1,600,000 psi Emin = 1,200,000 psi Ft = 800 psi Other Wood Members: Fb = 1,200 psi (Initial Estimates per Anthony&Associates,Inc.) Fc = 1,000 psi E = 1,600,000 psi Emin = 1,200,000 psi Ft = 800 psi ♦ Degenkolb Engineers 9 Final Report- 161010 Structural Condition Assessment and Reuse Study—Tustin Hangar Number Two Effect of Material Testing Results The material testing results had an effect on the findings of our analysis. Based on the Anthony & Associates Inc. study and the results of the material testing, the wood in the hangar is equivalent to 2012 NDS Douglas Fir-Larch (north)planks and joists. For the modulus of elasticity, we took 10%reduction in the NDS values and a 25% reduction of the minimum test result for Emin rather than the NDS value after discussion with Anthony and Associates. The reason for higher Emin is that the members in the hangar are old growth members which tended to have much higher stiffness values from the plantation wood used to set the values in the current NDS. Bending and tension values were reduced by 25%, while the compression values had no reduction based on the recommendations in the Anthony and Associate report. General Wood Properties: Coastal Douglas Fir G=0.50 Density=36 pcf Primary Truss Members: Fb = 1,102 psi Grade: Select Structural Fc = 1,900 psi E = 1,425,000 psi Emin = 1,200,000 psi Ft = 618 psi Other Wood Members: Fb = 862 psi Grade: No.1 &Btr. Fc = 1,800 psi E = 1,425,000 psi Emin = 1,200,000 psi Ft = 562 psi There are three main effects on the structural evaluation. First the nominal compression stress will increase by approximately 35%. On the other hand, the bending and tension stresses will reduce by 20 to 30% depending on member type. Lastly, the density is just over 12% higher than our assumptions which will increase the seismic mass. Overall, the net effect of the positives and negatives won't result in major changes in our preliminary analysis. Below are additional testing results from previous reports for reference. Mange in Compression Average Compression Strength Wali Element strengths in psi in psi Door Columns 2760-4440 3790 Floor 6010-6300 6180 Bents 2610-4630 3550 Cross Beams 3800-3940 3870 Pile Caps $620-6840 6330 Results from the 1997 Law/Crandall Geotechnical and Material Testing Report ♦ Degenkolb Engineers 10 Final Report— 161010 Structural Condition Assessment and Reuse Study-Tustin Hangar Number Two Allowable Load Capacity,QaII In kips 0 5d 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 0 N) 10 20 30 n 5o 60 7V 4- Prepared By- HJB Checked By: Hangars 28 and 29 LAWICRANDALL Allowable Toad U.S.Marine Corps Air Station Building a Capacity vs.Depth Tustin,California division Law Engineering un and Environmental Serviws g 29 CLIENT: BECKER 3 PRrrCHETT PROJECT NO 70341-7.007& FIGURE 6B Allowable Pile Plot from the 1997 Law/ Crandall Geotechnical and Material Testing Report (These have a factor of safety of 2 from ultimate and uplift should be 112 plot values.) ♦ Degenkolb Engineers 11 Final Report- 161010 Structural Condition Assessment and Reuse Study-Tustin Hangar Number Two 3.2 Main Hangar 3.2.1 Transverse Analysis Transverse analysis of the Trusses The static linear elastic transverse analysis of the typical truss was conducted using the computer program RISA 3D. Dead, live, wind and seismic loads were considered in the analysis. Dead loads were accounted for in RISA using the self-weight of each member; plate elements to represent the exterior sheathing, aluminum roofing, and sub-purlins; and point loads to represent the hanging catwalks and roof strip walkway. Live loads were only considered at the catwalks and roof strip walkway as no other areas of the roof are assessable. The 2013 California Historic Building Code (CHBC)was used to determine the lateral force demand on the structure. Per 2013 CBHC 8-705.2, the wind loads need not exceed 75% of the wind loads prescribed by regular code. Thus, wind loads were calculated per Chapter 26 and 27 of ASCE 7-10, and then reduced to 75%. The monitor at the top of the hangar is not currently included in our preliminary model, but should be added prior to doing a detailed evaluation. Wind tunnel testing and site specific wind studies are recommended to better understand the wind loading on these unique structures. Similarly, the seismic demands need not exceed 75% of those determined using current code requirements using an appropriate R-value, however if an appropriate R-value does not exist the seismic base shear need not exceed 0.40W for Occupancy Category III or IV structures (0.30W for Occupancy Category I or II structures). Thus the seismic demand was taken as 0.40W and applied in RISA as a static lateral load. All load combinations from the 2013 CBC were analyzed for the governing demand on each element. The demands were taken from RISA and checked based on capacities determined using the 2012 NDS. A rendered isometric view of the model is shown in Figure 15. As can be seen in the figure, five truss bays were used to simulate the demand on a typical interior truss, thus the truss in the center of the model was the subject of this analysis. The truss members as well as the connections were checked for adequate capacity when subjected to the aforementioned loads. Member sizes are listed in Table 2 for the each truss member and are referred to as inner cords (IC), outer chords (OC), diagonals (D), and panel (P) members as shown in Figure 16. For the members denoted as 2-WxD (2-4x14 for example) these are double members connected to each side of the members within as can be seen in Figure 17. In the analysis the chord members were analyzed as spaced columns per NDS Section 15.2. ♦ Degenkolb Engineers 12 Final Report- 161010 Structural Condition Assessment and Reuse Study-Tustin Hangar Number Two � A 1 5 I Figure 15:Rendered Isometric View of Truss Model Truss Members The transverse analysis of the truss showed that most of the truss members have adequate strength however several members do not. Figure 16 is a reference that can be used to match the member identification codes in the tabulated results to the location in the in the truss. Table 2 shows the governing compression, tension, moment and shear demands as well as the demand- to-capacity ratio (DCR)for each truss member. As can be seen in the table, no members were overloaded in tension, shear, or moment however a total of 11 members are overloaded in compression (DCR> 1, highlighted in red). DCR's ranged from 1.01 in OC/2-3 and P/8-i to 2.12 in D/12-n. A total of 1 outer chord, 2 inner chords, 3 diagonals, and 5 panel members were found to be overloaded in compression based on the enveloped demands on each member. It is interesting to note that in most cases, wind was the governing demand on each member. Also, the dead load only load combination did not result in any demand capacity ratios over 1. A detailed report of the calculations can be found in Appendix C. ♦ Degenkolb Engineers 13 Final Report- 161010 Structural Condition Assessment and Reuse Study-Tustin Hangar Number Two oc:o„re.Cho d Ma bar 0 o ane ember 0 0 0 0 6 o:ora al Member 5 nV 04 S O r} g 0 1Jo o a , 0 0 Figure 16: Truss Section Elevation with Panel and Member Identification Labels w DIAGAI" MEMB 1z g (MIDDLE) 0 j U � �. -Wo Figure 17: Truss Member Connection at Inner Chord ♦ Degenkolb Engineers 14 Final Report- 161010 Structural Condition Assessment and Reuse Study-Tustin Hangar Number Two Table 2: Governing Demands on Truss Members Goy4mina Demands f4sm P tkj Phill"I :'y N OCR Coda Par.: PAW sa* T r4 o4 Myr S! OC 0 i U145 11(217 24Xr4 12%3 11Ax 3 01 0-A 092 11110 1041 QC 1 2 U146 11218 2.0X14 115.3 104.7 2A -1.7 01 Oxb 0.7} 0.W 4.01 Nx 2 3 U147 14219 2AXt4 9KV •72.5 1.211 -6.4) 02 1101 0.60 U.00 0.01 OC 3 4 M148 18720 24Xt4 7916 46.1 1A •1.0 02 0x2 0.12 OPKO 601 OC 4 5 41149 U221 24X14 64.1 •19.1 0.7 .94 02 0621 0.11 0[K+ PC4 QC 5 6 111710 11222 2-4XI4 419 46.S 0.7 _6.4 02 051 0-19 O-DO OVID 0C 6 1 475% 1(223 2-4X14 4x2 •34,3 13 4A 02 050 0.24 0,00 001 OC 7 E M152 111224 24X14 619 •)21.0 13 -IA 62 0.64 6.26 0.0E0 41.01 OC 6 9 U153 11225 24x14 hex .".Y 1.5 •29 03 071 0,27 nrK+ 1101 0C 9 10 11154 11226 2.4X14 641,3 47.2 13 •29 01 072 0.26 0001 001 oC 10 11 U155 11227 2.3X14 7.25 43.3 IA •2.1 03 066 0.42 U.UI 0.01 OC 11 12 M156 11228 2.3x14 41P.9 47,7 1A •2.1 0! 0-52 0.46 001 0.01 oC 12 13 11157 11229 2-3)612 415 -514 11 -06 02 050 0.51 Ohio not DC 13 14 M156 1(230 2-3X12 340 111.1 11 91.6 02 (W 0.31 0016 001 OC 14 15 M159 11231 2.3X12 317 do.3 13 .0.5 02 OAS 0,52 U.UU 0.01 OC %5 16 M160 11232 2.312 )IJ 44,6 13 -05 02 0.42 0.46 0.00 0.01 oC 16 17 M161 4233 24X14 295 4x1.4 03 60 04 069 0.14 6.05 004 OC 17 116 11162 11234 2-3X14 2621 _:12 9A -21.0 So 0.63 0.32 0.07 02.4 IC e b M163 U235 2.4x14 1191 x 4.0 4.9 06 1" 0,55 001 0.02 IC b C M164 U;35 ;4X14 1(0.1 -69.5 4.0 .2.9 06 120 OAR on) O02 IC 0 6 U165 71237 24X14 113.0 -53.6 1.9 -LI 02 164 0.41 1).W 0.01 IC d ■ U164 M238 2AX14 99.1 -47.1 1.1 •I.1 0: 0.14 0.33 U.P11 0.01 IC a 1 U167 .01239 2.3Xt4 x.47 -)5.1 0.6 -0A 01 0.75 0.74 0.00 001 IC T 0 M78E U240 2.31(14 49S -21.8 0.6 -0A 01 071 0.29 0.00 4001 IC 9 h 11169 111241 2.3X14 133 -11-% 1.0 -13 02 0-70 0.21 0.01P 4.01 IC h I 11170 .01242 2-3X%4 493 -44.1 1.0 -IJ 02 0.65 0.41 U.W 0.01 IC 1 i U171 4243 2.3X12 %.1 -60.3 0.7 •11 02 OMI 0.62 000 0.01 G J k M772 U244 2.3712 $10 b9.4 0: -1.2 02 066 0.71 010 001 IG k 1 1.0173 W45 2-3X%7 514 -74.2 0.7 -IA O: 0-70 0.76 CUP 0,01 IC I m 11179 .01246 2-3X12 "A •70.1 0.7 •I.1 02 667 0.72 U.W 0.01 1C m n M175 L1247 2-3X12 9100 -6.3.9 2,4 4.9 24 067 0.65 002 0.17 IC n 0 U176 4248 2.3712 491 41.4 24 00 01 016 0 511 011 002 IC 0 P U177 U,749 2~3X12 472 44A 0.9 -OA 02 05.1 0.19 O.W 0.01 1C P q 1117E 11250 2.3X12 41.7 42.4 U.v •OA 02 047 0.44 000 0.01 IC q r 11179 .01251 23X12 )53 -5).4 0.7 A.5 0.1 0.40 0,55 IN-00 0,01 IC r b M%80 X1252 2,4X12 259 ,%.4 0' .0.5 01 029 O.Sx 0110 0.01 0 0 b M181 LIM 24X%6 t5A -33.6 0.0 -1.9 0.4 0.711 0.13 U110 0.01 0 7 C 1110,7 U255 24X12 212 45.9 n0 -6.0 02 062 0,14 0141 101 n 2 0 M561 L1257 2 4X12 29A .56.9 0.0 .1.1 02 067 0.42 640 0.01 D 3 0 MIS? U259 24XI0 25.4 •523 0.0 -0A 0.2 0.61 0.43 U.W 0.01 0 4 f 1,11x)9 MMI 247610 21.9 -57.) 0.0 -01 0.2 0.56 0,47 000 0.01 0 5 9 x41191 81263 24X6 111 41 3 Do .0.6 01 036 0,43 n PIP 4101 0 6 h 0193 11265 2-4X6 146 M.5 00 .0.6 01 030 013 OPO 001 0 7 1 11195 111257 2.3%8 132 .,26.1 0.0 .OS *I 1Ad- 11.33 U.01 PAC 0 6 1 U197 11269 2.3%!1 10.5 •1S.Ig 0.(N -0S 0.1 0.99 0„1 0.01 0.01 0 9 k U199 111271 2.3x8 93 -).9 [1n -0$ 01 07$ 0,11 0.01 001 0 10 1 M201 1,1773 2.3x6 $4 •11.4 00 41.5 01 069 0.13 ON 001 0 11 m 11203 U275 2.3X5 IRA .15.0 U.0 .03 01 1.30 0.:1 U.U1 0.01 0 12 n (1205 1x1277 24%8 z3h -15,9 0.0 U.$ 0.1 2,12 0.21 U.01 U.OI 0 13 0 U207 11279 2.3)(6 201 -17.1 0.0 -0S 0.1 055 0.23 0.W tool D 14 P U209 11281 2.3x6 24E •14.1 00 -0.S OI 639 0.19 D-41 001 0 15 q U21a 11282 2.3x8 149 .15.1 0.0 .0.5 01 0.39 "I 0.W U.01 4 16 r 11211 111287 2-3x16 15.1 •19.1t n.0 •03 0.1 8.41 0.23 9.00 014 D 17 s 11212 11284 2.3x6 1114 -13.4 CIO -0.4 01 014 0.19 0110 0 01 P 1 b M182 4254 67114 444 •2x,1 U-0 •0.9 0.2 0.41 0.22 U.DU 0.01 P 2 C 14184 MM 6X14 511 •27.4 00 -0.7 02 096 0.21 000 401 P 3 0 11186 18253 6X1O 414 •21.0 00 .OA 01 098 641 DIM 001 P 4 0 11188 11x80 6X10 11.4 -1x.6 0.0 AA 01 097 0.21 0.00 0.01 P 5 f M190 UM EXE 1117 •14.1 0.0 9 S 0.1 OSS 0.11 U.110 CIA* P 8 9 14192 U264 60 101 •12.1 Do -03 01 0411 0-09 0 00 000 P 7 h U194 11205 4X12 241 .9.9 00 .O7 01 Um 015 OPEN 401 P 8 I 11196 UM 47x71 116 _7.1 0.0 .02 01 1.01 0.14 0.00 001 P 9 1 M798 !4270 421E IP3 •7,0 00 •UZ 0.1 0.76 0.13 U.UU DOI P 10 k U200 11272 4]66 11.1 -2,11 h.0 -02 0.1 0.97 6.17 0311 0.01 P 11 1 11202 111274 4X8 114 -9A CIO -0.2 00 099 CIS 0 00 901 P 12 m 41204 11776 4x10 142 -24.6 DO -02 01 098 0.4111 0.00 001 P 13 n MX115 1x1218 4x10 127 17.7 00 •03 0.1 096 029 0.00 0.01 P 14 0 U208 .01280 4761 O 1)! •14.6 U.0 412 01 0.41 0.12 0[KI 0.00 P 15 P U213 111285 416E 121 -139 90 41.1 00 1.05 0.25 nPKI 000 P 16 q M214 11196 4%8 1t5 -10.5 00 -0.1 00 w GIN 60D 000 P 17 r U215 U287 4768 0.1 .21,9 0.0 41.1 OO 1.13 0.17 U.Pq 4.00 P 1E s (4(218 .0121E 4%E 77 _►1 DO .0.1 00 0" 006 OPEN 0(O ♦ Degenkolb Engineers 15 Final Report- 161010 Structural Condition Assessment and Reuse Study-Tustin Hangar Number Two Truss Member Connections Connections in the truss vary depending on location, but consist of split rings, shear plates and bolts. Each connection in the truss was evaluated and a summary of the DCR's is listed below in Table 3. It was found that several connections did not have adequate capacity to carry the code specified loads. Table 3: Connection DCR Summary CONNECTION TYPE 1 .]nd 3 2 and 3 6 5 Joint a - - 0.81 Joint h cP 0.57 0.65 Joint c 10.57 0.81 1.12 Joint d LOS 1.21 - Joint e I 0.92 1.09 1.19 Joint f 1 0-R7 1.22 Joint g Hi 15 0-99 1.43 1.41 Joint h 1.28 1 13 1.36 - Joint i 0.64 0.116 0.97 0.96 Joint• 0.49 0.50 0.57 Joint k 0.62 1.17 0.90 1.19 Joint 1 0.63 0-39 0.52 Joint m 0.80 0.59 0.57 0.70 Joint n 0.98 0.76 0.96 Joint a 0-75 0.511 0.53 0.86 Joint P 0.72 0.67- 0.76 - Joint q 1A4 0181+ 0.89 0.44 Joint r 0.75 0.5t, 0.71 Joint s 0.61 0.94 Joint 0 0.6x 0.55 Joint 1 ()7.1 0.46 0.47 - Joint 2 0.66 0.92 1.12 Joint 3 t ' 0.77 1.22 Joint 4 1 O.R2 1.3; 0,90 Joint 5 1. 0.65 I.1' Joint 6 1 0.61 I.f1r 0.99 Joint 7 1 31 0.7x 1.08 - Joint x 0.63 0.4•: 0.57 0.71 Joint 9 0.48 0.3; 0.3*,1 Joint 10 0.41 0.47 0.64 0,91 Joint 11 0.62 0.611 0.62 Joint I' 0.79 0.3'1 0.53 0.64 Joint 13 0.96 O.Sx 0.80 Joint 14 O.SO 0.511 0.54 0,61 Joint 15 0.50 0 0.40 Joint 16 0.97 0.69 0.61 Joint 17 0.73 0.711 0.57 - Joint 18 - 1.07 ♦ Degenkolb Engineers 16 Final Report- 161010 Structural Condition Assessment and Reuse Study-Tustin Hangar Number Two Transverse Analysis of the Portal Frames The as-built detail of the typical portal frame is shown below in Figure 18. It was confirmed through non-destructive evaluation (NDE)tests that the rebar locations shown in the as-built detail matched those in the structure. r=c" ---' �•�8ands :� t li'ttrs, a 4_ -4 _z_� �� ,�- ♦!- pars✓in�r Cal y� Si-CT(ON O-a ALL COL&UNLESS NOTED 2 0 $tr I r � � f wd sa wh and•1-s'c►rs ! � Q Q Q i a - I r IO ''[>vre/{ all b:fits) (all �c r.ta3a "�Pe.wrr I �t:tn-trfopr y v. 7 �'`eacA drr♦[Iran W.0 * �- V C t Sfrut 1 A}.sJ4e I/M"L Col. WOO W fL!Jpv. za I c c-Cope a► MP of foot,n:, f rooting- 5 Cole I,x,3L�R IS 10 14 imc19 to 43 L r�= } s ewer✓ line) 4 set Pian for locolran L,iwi A•+�. �/ibfrr7f-times�sC. AA ECTI C O } iSicaIt 1=0' Q Figure 18:As-Built Detail of the Typical Portal Frame ♦ Degenkolb Engineers 17 Final Report- 161010 Structural Condition Assessment and Reuse Study-Tustin Hangar Number Two To analyze the portal frame, the columns were checked for adequate capacity when subjected to each load combination. The columns were checked for max/min axial load with concurrent moment and max/min moment with concurrent axial. Then a section analysis was performed to see if the columns had adequate capacity for P-M interaction. The results showed that the columns are not able to resist the simultaneous tension and moment caused by wind loads as is shown below in Figure 19. P(kip) Tuszxr+ '�o RU w Fak�+� 1000 Q 4 a o LUr+-N 60CIL (Pmax}_____ .......(Pmax) l.G�=r�c�t.awxy,{ �o5�r Y �G11 n 0.40*1.0 wtr: �. x fs fs-0 i5=0.5 fs=0.5fy 0 0 o 0 20x30 in Cade:ACI 318-11 Units:English Run axis:About X-axis Run option:Investigation Slenderness'Noll considered Column type:Structural Bars:ASTM A615 -450 450 Date:021n6115 Mx(k-ft) Time:11:51:55 pfMM��44� (Pmin�\— - -- --(Pmin) -ZOD 1,4 spCorumn v4.80.Licensed 1o:Llegenkolb Engineers.License ID:58883.102927[-4-MC7-2D546 File:C:1UserslamotzWDesktoplTuslin_PwalFrameCheck.col Project:Tustin Hangar No.2 Cdumn: Engineer:ASM Vc=2.5 ksl Ty =40 ksi Ag;600 irr^2 8 N6 bars EC=2850 ksi Es=29000 ksi As =3.52 OA2 rho =0.59% is=2.125 ksi Xo=0.00 in Ix=45M info e_u=0.003 inln Yo =0,00 in ly=20000 inA4 8etal=0.85 Min clear spacing=4.08 in Clear cover=2.38 in Confinement:Tied phi(a)-0.8,Phi(b)=0.9,phi(c)=0.65 Figure 19:P Mlnteracfion Check on Portal Frame Columns ♦ Degenkolb Engineers 18 Final Report- 161010 Structural Condition Assessment and Reuse Study-Tustin Hangar Number Two 3.2.2 Longitudinal Analysis In the longitudinal direction the seismic forces are resisted by the roof sheathing and truss bridging members along the length of the truss. The skylights interrupt the roof sheathing requiring the x-braced 3x6 bridging members to the primary load path for the roof and truss mass to the podium level. From previous studies, these members and their connections are overstressed for seismic loading. Based on our review of those studies and updates to the code, we agree with the previous recommendation to strengthen or supplement the "diaphragm" load path in this direction. Once the inertial force from the earthquake is in the podium, the forces are resisted by x-braced wood frames between the concrete portal frames. These members and their connection are also overstressed for seismic loading. 3.3 Door Towers and Box Beam Study The concrete towers appeared to be in good condition. There was limited observable cracking or spalling of the concrete, and there was no presence of visibly corroded rebar. From the lift, we were able to see a few areas of damage from spalling concrete. The spalls are fairly minor and appear to be related to embedded bolts that have corrosion. The exterior spalls should be repaired to eliminate the potential falling hazard from loose concrete. We also observed the interior of the concrete towers. The concrete was in excellent condition with no observed damage. In general, the condition of the existing concrete is good and we do not recommend any reductions in the concrete's capacity be considered in any analytical evaluations. The box beams were also in good condition although there were a few locations where water damage was observed. There was previously a detailed study of the box beam and concrete towers on each side of the doors. This detailed study evaluated these structural elements against the detailing requirements and the wind and seismic demands current at the time that study was completed. The study concluded that the concrete towers did not meet the detailing requirements but were generally able to resist the code wind and seismic loading except for the pile foundation. The study assumed the piles supporting the hangar could not take tension loading since the available as- built drawings are unclear if there is a connection between the piles and pile caps. If there is no connection as assumed, the report concluded that additional piles are required to resist global overturning. Updating the loading to current 2013 CHBC the wind loads increases the demands on the box beam, concrete towers, and foundations by approximately 5% to 10%relative to the loads used in the previous study. The seismic demands increased by 115%relative to the previous study, but only govern the foundations in the transverse direction. The box beams and concrete towers remain within an acceptable range before condition reductions. The extent of study on the box beams was limited in this study and should be further investigated before moving to any strengthening. ♦ Degenkolb Engineers 19 Final Report- 161010 Structural Condition Assessment and Reuse Study-Tustin Hangar Number Two 3.4 Pile Foundation Analysis The pile foundation analysis is based on the loads determined from transverse analysis and the 30 ton capacity listed in the as built drawings, refer to Figure 20. The as-built drawings precast 15 inch piles have a noted capacity of 30 tons. In analyzing the plies, a compressive capacity of 60 kips (30 tons) and an assumed uplift capacity of 30 kips was used. These values are consistent with the pile capacities provided in the 1997 Law/Crandall Geotechnical and Material Testing report. Since a lateral capacity was not given, the capacity is assumed based on a simplified analysis and is shown in the calculations attached. Compression Load Capacity: 60 kips Tension Load Capacity: 30 kips Lateral Load Capacity: See Calculations Varjeff + air=t`a ff--W r, r".�. *�C�irwfer-� i=s� ti Pie= Pile ►myth s*ad.,& incfute Z-O"cwf off A, provide Kw handshy .Sftef nM Awf;" L OF /5 CONCRETE PRECAST Pet ff - WO Figure 20:As-Built Detail of the Typical Precast Pile ♦ Degenkolb Engineers 20 Final Report- 161010 Structural Condition Assessment and Reuse Study-Tustin Hangar Number Two A& Desenkolb Suhjm4-- Pile Fmri-1 iiur C July Number-13.1: ''I I' D.I.- l..! 1-bi 9'ustln Hangar Nn. Ch-ked By: Pile Founds ion CI1eCk ZPurtalmc Portal Frame N222 N223 N7.27 N226 _ + demands from RISA Exterior Footi [ki S] Interior Footing,[kips] N222 N226 N229 N227 Load combo x Ik] Y It] x Iki r[k] X Wl Y[kl X[k] Y IM 1 LCL LAD 35.697 106.455 -35.696 166.45 -0.603 65.937 0-Sal 65.947 3 LC2: 1,2DrO.SLr 31.86 90-293 -31.659 94.229 -"7 55.834 0369 55.342 3 Ma: 1.2D+1-61r+0,SW 6lam(rasell -i.L15 18-078 41.901 113-736 -3.152 116.248 0-228 4-48 A LC#4: 1-2G+1.6Lr+O-S%_tran5lcwe2) -5.479 10-761 ,42.673 iib-956 -3.715 }38.204 0471 1206. 5 LC3r LZD+1,6Lr+D.5W_1ong 45,172 112.676 45,172 112-672 2.23 -0,675 -2.231 -0,619 6 LC4a: 1.21)+1.M _trans(casellap-SLr -$9.644 -71.214 -96.388 120-107 -6S8 162.369 0-733 7 LC4b; 1.2D+1.81H_trans�casc2]+O,SLr -48,371 •85.847 -47.932 136 546 -7,7U5 226,281 1,418 •78.014 8 LC4r: 1-2D+i.0W_IongtO.SLr 52.93 117.983 -52-93 117-979 4.184 -51-379 -4-185 -51.371 9 LCS: L4D+p'QE -4.514 25.942 =75,696 186-929 9,671 186.743 -9.467 -4.823 10 LC6a:0.9D*1.6W_tran34c39e1j -48.SS6 -97.612 -37.477 94.311 -6.597 169.423 0-751 -54.121 11 LC0b:0-13Q+1.Ow_tran6(Caw2) .57.383 -111.6'4'4 -39-03 104-749 -7.722 213.335 1,035 -38.W2 12 L06r:0-9+1.OW long 44.019 92-185 44.018 92.182 4.167 -64.325 4-168 •64.319 13 1.0i 0.71)a E -22.365 -27,286 -S3.048 133-704 -9.37 103.774 ,6-767 -37.796 €antrnll Demands Exterior Footing I nterior Footing Corxurrent Concurrent DemancliType MaxAbal Lateral LC Max Axial Lateral LC M81i Compression 1M.9 -75.9 9 236,3 .7-706 7 Max Tensiorr -111.6 -57.3 11 -64.3 4-168 12 Concurrent Concurrent Demand Type Max Lateral Athol LC Mex Lateral Anial LC Max lateral Towards Batter 57-3 -111.6 11 9-7 136.743 11 Max Lateral Away From BatWr 75 9 186.9 4 8 6 •37.796 13 Pile Capacity Axial[compression] 60 bps ASD Axial(TengYpnl 30 jpps A5D Lateral See Beluw LRF ♦ Degenkolb Engineers 21 Final Report- 161010 Structural Condition Assessment and Reuse Study-Tustin Hangar Number Two Check Prle Searing P Inte rio r F Goti ng Be a ri ng Check Dcmand T NOF Pier Axial Load OCR* Chests Max Compression 3 7SA 1.26 a 1 NG V Max Tension 3 •21,4 0.71 e 1 OK •aased on ASO capacmr and LRFD Demand Exterlm Footing Bearin:Checks Based an Risa Model with effeetive pile length of 6'-(Y',demands can be distributed as follovn PL-0.40 P 12 Piles P7=0.60 P 12 Piles V,-0.50 V 12 Piles Vr•0.40 V 12 Piles VI Exterior Fool ing Check Cansidrrinp AatSer V2 t Vertical Demand Per Pile P IldPsI DCR' Check P,;Compressron) 37.4 0,62 t 1 OK P-iCompression) 55.1 0.43 e1 OK P2 P,;Tension) •22.3 0.74 c 1 OK PI PjTesnion) .33.5 1.12 3--1 NG •based o�ASO capacrtr and LRsD,�,...... Check Pile in Lateral Load General Paramesen Pile Dimens:an 15 in 15"x 15" VC 2500 psi Fv 40000 psi As 3.16 in' (4)OF 8 Corer to Long bar cen( r 2.5 in Av 0.4 in' x4 hoops Max Hoop S acini' 8 in Check Shear Lateral Demand Per Pile P[UPS] Vr 17.2 V. 11.5 Ov 0.75 OX 14.06 kips =V2•sgrt(fC)•b•d OVV• 18.75 kips =¢•AvFWdls ON. 12,81 lops Max Lateral Demand Per pi,. 11.2 kips OCR 0.52 c 1 OK Check Moment Effective Length 6 h Exterior Footing Interior Footer;; Concurrent Concurrent Demand T Max Axial Moment LC Max Axial Moment LC Max Compression 56.1 91.1 9 75.4 15.4 7 Max Tension -33.5 68.7 11 -21.4 8.3 12 Max Concurrent Max Concurrent Demand Type Moment Axial LC Moment Aldal LC Max lateral Towards Batter 103.1 -22.3 11 19.3 45.6 11 Max Latera!Away From Batter 136.6 37.4 9 17.S -12.6 Vef SpColumn(reparts attached) H6 OK ♦ Degenkolb Engineers 22 Final Report- 161010 Structural Condition Assessment and Reuse Study-Tustin Hangar Number Two As noted in the previous detailed study of the pile foundations at the doors and as described under Section 3.3 of this report, it is unclear if there is a connection between the piles and pile caps. If there is no connection, additional piles are required to resist global overturning as the tension capacity of the piles cannot be realized. Relative to the past study, updating the loading to the 2013 CHBC increases the wind loads on the box beam, concrete towers, and foundations by approximately 5%to 10%. The seismic demands under the 2013 CHBC represent a 115% increase relative to the past studies and govern the loading on the foundations in the transverse direction. Foundation strengthening with new piles is expected. Before the foundation strengthening is fully developed, we recommend attempt to confirm if a physical connection between the pile and pile caps exists that is able to transmit tension forces. If the existing piles have a positive tension connection to the existing pile caps, the number and size of new piles needed will be reduced. 3.5 Comparison of Loading The original September 1943 drawing provided a summary of wood grade and lateral loading for the main truss design. Refer to Figure 22, which notes that the original structure was designed for wind loads ranging from 7.4 psf(pounds per square foot) of pressure to 24 psf suction. The distribution of those wind pressures are parabolic, varying over the arch shaped roof. Current code uses an approximation of pressures normal to the arch in quarter sections. For current code, the windward side has an average pressure of 14.8 psf, while the original distribution starts at 7.4 psf and decreases to 0 before becoming a suction pressure. Comparing the original wind pressures relative to new code, the windward section has a 172% increase in wind peak pressures and 346%increase in overall lateral force once differences in distribution are accounted for. The remaining areas of suction at the top and leeward side are much closer to the current code with 0- 25%larger wind loads in the current code while also having similar distributions. 6.$PF w —Wer-d 14.8PSF 1 AP F ^■"w. Figure 21: Original Wind Loads vs Current Code ♦ Degenkolb Engineers 23 Final Report- 161010 Structural Condition Assessment and Reuse Study-Tustin Hangar Number Two A next step of understanding site specific wind loads and studying alternate distribution patterns based on similar wind tunnel testing is recommended to capture expected wind loads versus the general provisions provided in the code. The 2013 CNBC, which is the basis of the current evaluation, also allows for a 75%reduction in the wind loads to give historic structures a break on the wind loads relative to the wind loads used in the design of a new building. Figure 22 also notes that the original design for the hangar is based on a seismic loading equal to 10% of weight of the hangar. Per the 2013 CNBC, the seismic loading that now must be considered equals 40% of the hangar weight(strength) or 0.7 times that(28% of the hangar weight)for comparable allowable strength. Therefore, the seismic demands under the 2013 CNBC represents a 280%increase in seismic loads versus what was used in the original design. Seismic is only likely to govern in the longitudinal direction of the hangar. Nntns . Dws i9n loads . Snnw 0.0 `/� . Wind - !91116'Mrmelp e,M r r as a 3uC tion, or pre a S ur a P/u3 '2o ozo, hr. 1ro"44ro ' drstrib(.o`e(Y as cer do4gro►n. hoi3f 5000 a' puns. poen t `rF" . Eer thquahe - 10 x a f deed ►o a4 5tre35ea ere shown !34.3 aft) .o�v .thousef)ds of :bg; and +re to be used in drfrri MV ,jWpIs�,4- lrb►s -- lonrlon A,ched tru3s member& err 6e Connected with split rin9e (.S. R). Unlea3 shown otherw1ar4"0 ,1. F' W ith �ebolts, and 4' Sheer plot&$ (5. A 'w;*'h bolts ,orr to be used. 71mber to be 1400 '0 Ir - 100'�C irsdo fcch'-d truss m4embe-.* . end h?00'00' - IOW G, else srt+arr. Mex. strrsbc. determined by, ►mss fojrow," c4osi- 6107eff0n6 of 0,9-A DL W.Ond, D-Z— Noll a Mynd, a r .7 L E1rlh4irelre. V Mrx t Wind:• —� .4, r. ❑tartt#eurzv,Y -vv LOAp P.marwa�a�� Figure 22:As-BuiltNotes with original Lateral Loads(Wind/Seismic) ♦ Degenkolb Engineers 24 Final Report- 161010 Structural Condition Assessment and Reuse Study-Tustin Hangar Number Two 4 Reuse Study 4.1 Summary of Repair Options The reuse options have been presented in a tiered model to give a prioritization of the repairs with goal of upgrading the hangar to Risk Category 3. Item presented in Tier 1 are addressing unsafe conditions that may be present in the hangars. This predominantly includes addressing failing hazards and repairing members with observed distress. The items in Tier 2 are also high priority, but are tied to load path demands from lateral loads such as high winds or an earthquake. The Tier 3 options build on the repairs in Tierl and 2 and continue with a full retrofit of the hangars to meet the requirements of the California Historic Building Code requiring upgrades and repairs throughout the hangar. ♦ Degenkolb Engineers 25 Final Report- 161010 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3, I a { ss '1► i CD N Q Li m U O t N O Q �C+ U NO OL +Q_ Lo 2 cmCL O E o o E m m E O O Q m O U LL O O cm O =3Q Q � � ^ O U N •1 N � �' U) Q j O m LO m M cm + (� O = to to m i a) m c ^ to E L to a) mto -0 U a — Q mo U i E a) E N to m U 1 Ma) �O +� a) E E U O a) O d +m Ch m N L LO p N to to cCh a) cm c •N d U O F_ _p O N U � a) O a) a) N m m L U .O L L U O O m a) (C N L .� } U co c Q O .m .� .Q M (� O O O U N O 0cu � Q a) L ^ m E ^ ^ ^ L ^ X ^ Q ^Q ^ U ^ U O L ^ U ^ N ONC'M �T mLO OQO f` V oo m O � I t � � L a) � � � to � a) � �� —� CL O r to N 0)C14 N F- D O a J H J W Z W s c �U 9 X C N 2 N i m LL • F x N ao o E r d � N 0 a _ i a 1 1••N f� � .y �� �E Z b � R •�f r� I. _ z s F � ��t # F �� ' ,ffi i♦ y.x1 �4V 4n 1V 0 G= z� z� 00 N � O � C6 c6 _ •i O O U a) a) Q C.0s O a) o ° o m � � cn � � •� v o - �p Fu c 0 cn p m 2 c U) a) U) °° > ° O � a) � SQL Ecco � Q N I -gyp— 0) `. � Q L .0) 0 a) L � O 0) O L i O U � a) o ; Q OV 6 % O H C OCO - -0p O Cmc _ o a) O C a) X O to C6 .— C6 O L fn C 0 O O O a) •L 2 c a) N O _ O N � U O M 76 C ~ •� O i O V c_ M O a) O a) O 0L OoL� °F >Opm M m � O � U O U C •L � C6 � � � L .-.� U .-. � � •C) to " C6 � U (D -0 -0 O a- Qi � O •� � TQC O Ho mQ� � � � � oLLc� o °, Q— moo � a--. U) � T2 •—� .-. Oa) 0) Zn U) ZU D �N Q O -0 .U -0 00 a) �O -0 � `/ 0)a--. m /"� Z � O as J o O j ; i V � f N ~ V) W O � ll� CD Q z CD Y �{ = O J Z Z O Z U ~ w Cl) V 7ui Y ❑ W Kw O F (�❑ JCD QO W ❑_ M > W O w�K U �z00 F030 aU Oz w- CO UwQ �> 00 ��2 ❑ > �w F� M� LiK0W LLJLU w Z co N Z CO W C(n W m C U)U) ijL + O C/) 0 > O aL+ > } _ _0O >' U C6 O L L U) O � Cc cc O Z O > N O C6 • 3 :-0O — N O O to 3 O N — to 3NO C CVO (1) N N +' O O C6 X — 4) O Z •i = U Q� 0 O C14 C6 }, = T! o C6 L D (c L > O N C a u� cn o o � u� a (c Cc � • � � m c� m m o � m o . m 0) � � cc QL � � �_ � � C/) coy (1) Cc =Zj � � o m _0 cc = L-- -O L � c sem — cc � � U � -0 -0 C: � m 2 = o -0 U —0 c U — C O O cn N = + 0O � ° m � FU -00 �' m OL- 0 — C6 C/) C6 C6 +r +r N N i N to 0 > O to C N O O V -o N N C) (Li Y C m T C O C N C N a L Structural Condition Assessment and Reuse Study-Tustin Hangar Number Two Appendix A — Degenkolb Condition Assessment Site Reports ♦ Degenkolb Engineers 31 Final Report— 161010 Degenkolb Engineers D e e n ko I b 225 Broadway,Suite 1325 San Diego, CA 92101 M� Phone:619.515.0299 Site Visit Report of 07/29/2014 Date July 29, 2014 Job Tustin Hangar#2 Evaluation Location Tustin, CA Job Number B4577002.01 By Michael Braund Project Status Preliminary Structural Condition Peter Maloney Assessment of Hangar#2 Chad Closs Alex Motzny Page/of 1 of 16 ❑ General structural observation ❑RFI investigation ❑Requested by Contractor ❑Observe As-built conditions ❑Requested by Owner ®Other: Condition Assessment Report: This report was prepared to document the site visit conducted on 7/29/2014. In attendance: See Above. Time: 8.00am to 3.30pm. OBSERVATIONS On July 29, 2014, Degenkolb Engineers conducted a preliminary structural condition assessment of Tustin Hangar#2. The assessment consisted of observation from the ground and mezzanine levels with binoculars, as well as a partial observation of the trusses and doors from the steel stairs at the Northwest corner of the building. Through the course of the site visit, the assessment was focused on verifying the condition of the key structural elements of the building including but not limited to: the concrete slab-on-grade, the concrete frames, the wood bracing between frames, the mezzanine walls and roofs, the wood truss/roof, the steel stairs, the steel doors, the wood box girder, and the concrete towers. Below is a summary of the visual condition of each element: 1) Concrete slab-on-grade/foundations: • In general, the slab-on-grade appears to be in decent condition with some cracking occurring throughout the hangar. The majority of the cracking seems to be concentrated near the asphalt strip running down the center of the hangar and around the door at the ends of the hangar. A&Degen kol b Tustin Hangar 2 Condition Assessment 1 • There is a strip of asphalt running down the center of the hangar that covers an existing railway. This strip of asphalt has many cracks and at many places does not follow the uniform height of the adjacent concrete slab. • No observable evidence of settlement of the hangar or tower foundations was noted. 2) Concrete portal frames: • The concrete frames appeared to be in very good condition with no observable cracking or spalling of the concrete, and no presence of visibly corroded rebar. • The accessible steel plates serving as the attachment for the truss and diagonal bracing between the frames appeared to be in good condition, with only minor amounts of rusting present in the visible areas. 3) Wood bracing between frames: • Vertical and horizontal braces are located throughout the hangar to stabilize the concrete frames at the base of the building. Near the large concrete vault at grids 4-12 and C-D some of the braces shown in the original plans were not visible in the field. Instead, large concrete walls occupy these bays. See Figure 1 in the attached references for a plan of all observed bracing locations. • One of the diagonal members of the vertical X-bracing has been cut at gridline B between grids 10 and 11 to accommodate a door to the mezzanine area (See Photo 1). • Many of the wood braces have experienced splitting at the bolted connections to the steel plates at the concrete frames (See Photo 2). The splitting is likely due to the steel plates which restrain the wood braces as they experience shrinkage. At many of these splits, angle clamps have been employed as an attempted repair in a previous retrofit(See Photo 3). • Defiberization was apparent in some of the diagonal and collector members; however, further investigation will be required to determine the extent of impact to the structural integrity of the members. 4) Mezzanine walls and mezzanine roof: • Water damage was noted on many of the wall studs and mezzanine roof joists. It is likely that this damage has affected the structural integrity of these members. The floor above the mezzanines had noticeable water damage as well. • The concrete portion of the mezzanines that was accessible was evaluated to be in fairly good condition. Most accessible walls and slabs had no signs of distress; however, there was one noted location where a large diagonal crack on the inside of an exterior wall exhibited signs of efflorescence (See Photo 4). In areas with apparent efflorescence it is possible that rebar in the wall is experiencing corrosion due to the presence of water in the walls. A&Degen kol b Tustin Hangar 2 Condition Assessment MENEw 2 5) Wood truss and roof: • Defiberization was apparent in some of the truss members; however, the amount of impact to the structural integrity of the members will need to be further investigated to determine the depth of this damage (See Photo 5). The condition of the wood at the upper portion of the trusses will need to be further investigated when access with a boom is possible. • Several chord members (66 total), and one web member of the trusses have been strengthened in previous repairs that addressed buckled truss members. The repair for these members consisted of infilling the void between members with blocking, and bolting large members to the outside of the truss members, thus keeping the members from buckling. See Photo 6 for an example of the strengthening. A complete table showing the locations of these retrofits has also been included as Table 1 in the references portion of this report. • Some of the truss and bridging members have splits near the end connections. A previous repair has attempted to mitigate this splitting through the use of angle clamps at the end of the members (See Photo 7). A partial list of the locations of the angle clamps has been included in Table 1. Further investigation of the upper truss members will be required when access to a boom is possible. • In several areas, the wood serving as the gusset plates for the space truss between the truss chords and the purlins was observed to be split near the connections (See Photo 8). Further investigation into this matter will be possible when access to a boom is possible. • The bridging between the bottom chords of the trusses appears to be in the same configuration as was detailed in the original as-built drawings. It does not appear that the recommended 1997 retrofit to add steel rods between the upper chords of the trusses was ever completed. In two locations, it was noted that the bridging between truss bays had been cut and was not continuous between the trusses (See Photo 9). • Most of the double member truss chords are stitched together with a piece of plywood running over the length of the member. In some areas this plywood was missing. • Sagging of the purlins spanning between the trusses was apparent at the lower portions of the arches. At these locations, the arch is at its steepest slope, and thus the purlins are loaded out-of-plane by the weight of the roof. It appears that a previous repair has attempted to limit further sagging by installing steel rod hangers in a V-shaped configuration as can be seen in Photo 10. • For the most part, the bolts and connectors appeared to be in good condition; however, there were a few areas where considerable corrosion was apparent(See Photo 11). In future work, measures will be taken to better evaluate the condition of these connections. A&Degen kol b Tustin Hangar 2 Condition Assessment MENEw 3 • From the ground inside of the hangar, the roof straight sheathing appeared to be in good condition. Due to possible water intrusion from the aluminum panels covering the sheathing, the full condition of this sheathing will not be fully understood until access with a boom is possible. 6) Steel stairs: • The accessible steel stairs seem to be in good condition with little evidence of rust or deterioration. • The stairs are supported by the wood bridging between trusses. Due to the higher weight of the steel stairs than the original wood stairs, the bridging supporting the stairs is experiencing significant sagging, and in one instance (at the base of the stairs) a member has fractured as can be seen in Photo 12. In some of the highly stressed areas, chains have been added to the stairs to tie them back to the truss members. 7) Steel doors: • The steel doors appeared to be in good condition, with minimal signs of rust and deterioration from the point of observation on the ground. The plywood sheathing on the exterior face of the door appeared to be weathering, however this is strictly an architectural element, and does not contribute to the structural integrity of the door frames. 8) Wood box girder: • The diagonal sheathing on the box girder supporting the doors appeared to be in good condition. Visibility of the trusses inside the girder was not possible from our vantage point on the stairs and floor, and further steps will need to be taken to evaluate this element from the booms in our future site visit. 9) Concrete door-supporting towers: • From the ground, the concrete towers appeared to be in good condition. There was no observable cracking or spalling of the concrete, and there was no presence of visibly corroded rebar. A&Degen kol b Tustin Hangar 2 Condition Assessment 4 FUTURE ACTION ITEMS In order to better understand the full condition of the hangar, Degenkolb Engineers will be visiting the site again at a later date. During this site visit there are several items that will be verified and evaluated including: 1) A boom will be brought in such that it is possible to observe the truss members from a higher elevation. In addition to observing the condition of the truss members and connections, the boom will allow Degenkolb access to the door-supporting box girder in order to further the evaluation of this element. 2) X-ray testing of wood connections will be undertaken in order to fully understand the interior condition of the connections between truss members. These connections are composed of steel elements that cannot be viewed externally, and thus this evaluation will allow a better assessment of the wood and steel conditions inside of the connections. 3) Sample removal of some truss members will be carried out such that mechanical testing can be completed and wood properties can be confirmed. 4) Concrete coring and testing will be carried out in order to confirm the strength and properties of the concrete frames and towers. A&Degen kol b Tustin Hangar 2 Condition Assessment 5 REFERENCES Photo 1: Cut X-bracing between concrete frames r Photo 2: Split vertical bracing at connection A&Degen kol b Tustin Hangar 2 Condition Assessment MENEW 6 1� ' �pp hr a, Photo 3: Angle repair at split connection �r 1 Photo 4: Crack with efflorescence at exterior wall A&Degen kol b Tustin Hangar 2 Condition Assessment �s r Photo 5: Defiberization of wood truss member 1 �r Photo 6: Buckled truss chord repair A&Degen kol b Tustin Hangar 2 Condition Assessment MENEW 8 Aw Photo 7: Angle repair of split truss chord connection y5 4 r r J - F Photo 8: Split gusset connection A&Degen kol b Tustin Hangar 2 Condition Assessment MMMMw 9 _r r Photo 9: Cut bridging between trusses 4 LiNd Photo 10: Steel rod bracing at exterior purlins A&Degen kol b Tustin Hangar 2 Condition Assessment MENEW- 10 v� �f 7 AIrlr Photo 11: Corrosion at connector bolts i �I MR Photo 12: Fractured bridging under stairs A&Degen kol b Tustin Hangar 2 Condition Assessment 11 ti Exx x z 0 __ttt XI, , e F 0 6 CJI X CIL_ n 1 �I xTI r-y•A x 3�— W � I LU LL a H LV -771 O XJ� C14 _k U xi CW �- 0 rx = F"T LL - -- TF Q �-x� x n 1 > m Q U U fUiO N f0 g LL, cc x 000 m o o 0 ° � � �� € X wo� o c�a��in a=— JIN: Ex/ LLL: -z Y C m T C O C N C N a L ----------------_.----_-__------------------------------ U) 0------------------------------------- 1 � b b " b b F- b z a LUJ zz a b _ z O F- LU W N J U i � N W W Q ------------------------------- ------------ ---------------------------------------- ---------------------------------=--- ❑e-gne kylb 13 �&De enkolb Degenkolb Engineers 9 TABLE 1: Damage Survey for Tustin Hangar 2 225 Broadway, Suite 1325 San Diego, CA 92101-5013 7/29/2014 Phone: 619.515.0299 Truss#* Location Deficiency Notes (Panel#, N/S*) (Code**) 1 4N -8N 1 Top Chord 1 8N - 10N 1 Bottom Chord 1 4S-8S 1 Bottom Chord 2 12N - 14N 1 Top Chord 5 16N - 18N 1 Bottom Chord 6 10N - 11N 1 Web Member 6 14N - 16N 1 Bottom Chord 6 16S- 18S 1 Top Chord 7 16N - 18N 1 Top Chord -Observed Difference. Looks Single-Sided 8 8N - 10N 1 Bottom Chord 8 16S- 18S 1 Top Chord 9 16S- 18S 1 Top Chord 10 12N - 14N 1 Top Chord 10 16S-18S 1 Top Chord 10 12S- 14S 1 Top Chord 10 4S-6S 1 Top Chord -Observed Difference. Looks Single-Sided 11 10N - 12N 1 Top Chord 11 14N - 16 N 1 Bottom Chord 11 8N - 10N 1 Bottom Chord 12 16N - 18N 1 Top Chord 12 16S- 18S 1 Top Chord 12 10S- 12S 1 Top Chord 12 ON - 1N 2 (1) Web Member 13 6N -8N 1 Bottom Chord 13 16S- 18N 1 Top Chord 14 ON - 1N 2 (1) Web Member 15 4N -6N 1 Bottom Chord 15 12N - 14N 1 Top Chord 15 ON - 1N 2 (2) Bottom Chord, (1)Web Member 16 2N -4N 1 Top Chord 16 ON - 1N 2 (1) Web Member 17 8S- 10S 1 Bottom Chord 18 16N - 18N 1 Bottom Chord 20 ON - 1N 2 (1) Web Member 21 4N -6N 1 Bottom Chord 21 ON - 1N 2 (1) Web Member 22 ON - 1N 2 (1)Web Member, (1) Bottom Chord 22 16N - 18N 1 Top Chord 22 16S- 18S 1 Top Chord 22 4S-6S 1 Bot. Chord -Observed Difference. Looks Single-Sided 23 16N - 18N 1 Bottom Chord 24 16S- 18S 1 Top Chord 24 ON - 1N 2 (2) Bottom Chord *Note:Truss and Panel Numbers per Truss Section Elevation Figure 1 **Deficiency Codes:1=13uckled Member Repaired by Others, 2=Clamped Member 14 Page 1 of 3 �&De enkolb Degenkolb Engineers 9 TABLE 1: Damage Survey for Tustin Hangar 2 225 Broadway, Suite 1325 San Diego, CA 92101-5013 7/29/2014 Phone: 619.515.0299 Truss#* Location Deficiency Notes (Panel#, N/S*) (Code**) 25 4N -6N 1 Top Chord 25 ON - 1N 2 (1) Web Member 26 16S- 18S 1 Top Chord 26 10S- 11S 2 (1) Bottom Chord 26 4S-6S 2 (3) Bottom Chord 27 10S- 11S 2 (1) Bottom Chord 28 16N - 16S 1 Top Chord 28 10S- 11S 2 (1) Bottom Chord 28 4S-5S 2 (2) Bottom Chord 28 2S-3S 2 (1) Bottom Chord 29 4N -6N 2 (3) Bottom Chord 29 13S- 14S 2 (1) Bottom Chord 29 ON - 1N 2 (2) Bottom Chord 30 ON - 1N 2 (1) Web Member 30 6N -8N 1 Bottom Chord 31 4N -6N 1 Bottom Chord 31 2S-4S 1 Top Chord 32 4N -5N 2 (1) Bottom Chord 32 ON - 1N 2 (3) Bottom Chord, (1) Web Member 33 4N -5N 2 (1) Bottom Chord 33 2S-3S 2 (1) Bottom Chord 33 ON - 1N 2 (1) Web Member 34 4N -6N 1 Top Chord 34 1N - 2N & 1S-2S 2 (1) Bottom Chord 34 3N -4N & 3S-4S 2 (1) Bottom Chord 35 4N -6N 1 Top Chord 35 16S- 18S 1 Top Chord 35 IS-2S 2 (2) Bottom Chord 35 4S-5S 2 (2) Bottom Chord 36 4N -6N 1 Bottom Chord 36 4S-5S 2 (1) Bottom Chord 36 ON - 1N 2 (2) Bottom Chord 37 16S- 18S 1 Top Chord 37 12S- 14S 1 Top Chord 37 5S-7S 2 (3) Bottom Chord 38 6S-8S 1 Bottom Chord 38 ON - 1N 2 (1) Web Member 39 6N -8N 1 Bottom Chord 39 16S- 18S 1 Top Chord 39 6N -7N 2 (1) Bottom Chord 39 6S-8S 1 Bottom Chord 39 6S-7S 2 (1) Bottom Chord 39 ON - 1N 2 (1) Bottom Chord *Note:Truss and Panel Numbers per Truss Section Elevation Figure 1 **Deficiency Codes:1=13uckled Member Repaired by Others, 2=Clamped Member 15 Page 2 of 3 �&De enkolb Degenkolb Engineers 9 TABLE 1: Damage Survey for Tustin Hangar 2 225 Broadway, Suite 1325 San Diego, CA 92101-5013 7/29/2014 Phone: 619.515.0299 Truss#* Location Deficiency Notes (Panel#, N/S*) (Code**) 40 16S- 18S 1 Top Chord 40 6S-9S 2 (3) Bottom Chord 41 16S- 18S 1 Top Chord 41 ON - 1N 2 (2) Bottom Chord 42 16S- 18S 1 Top Chord 42 4N -5N 2 (3) Bottom Chord 42 5N -7N 2 (2) Bottom Chord 43 16N - 18N 1 Top Chord 43 4S-6S 1 Top Chord 43 6S-8S 2 (2) Bottom Chord 44 6S-8S 1 Bottom Chord 44 1N 2 (2) Web Member 45 16S- 18S 1 Top Chord 45 8S-9S 2 (1) Bottom Chord 45 6S-7S 2 (1) Bottom Chord 45 3S-4S 2 (1) Bottom Chord 46 8N -9N 2 (2) Bottom Chord 46 7S-8S 2 (1) Bottom Chord 46 4S-5S 2 (1) Bottom Chord 46 OS- Is 2 (1) Bottom Chord 46 ON - 1N 2 (1) Web Member 47 16S- 18S 1 Top Chord 48 5N -7N 1 Top Chord 48 3N 1 Web Member Looks Different, Possibly New. 49 10S- 11S 2 (1) Bottom Chord 49 2S-3S 2 (1)Top Chord 50 6N -8N 1 Bottom Chord 50 16N - 18N 1 Bottom Chord 50 12S- 14S 1 Top Chord 50 2S-4S 1 Top Chord 50 OS- Is 2 (1) Bottom Chord 51 8N - 10N 1 Bottom Chord 51 6S-8S 1 Bottom Chord 51 4S-5S 2 (1) Bottom Chord *Note:Truss and Panel Numbers per Truss Section Elevation Figure 1 **Deficiency Codes:1=Buckled Member Repaired by Others, 2=Clamped Member 16 Page 3 of 3 Degenkolb Engineers D e e n ko I b 225 Broadway,Suite 1325 San Diego, CA 92101 M� Phone:619.515.0299 Site Visit Report of 11/14/2014 & 11/21/2014 Date December 22, 2014 Job Tustin Hangar#2 Evaluation Location Tustin, CA Job Number B4577002.01 By Michael Braund Project Status Preliminary Structural Condition Peter Maloney Assessment of Hangar#2 Matt Barnard Page/of 1 of 21 ❑ General structural observation ❑RFI investigation ❑Requested by Contractor ❑Observe As-built conditions ❑Requested by Owner ®Other: Condition Assessment Report: This report was prepared to document the site visit conducted on 11/14/2014& 11/21/2014. In attendance: See Above. OBSERVATIONS Degenkolb Engineers had previously conducted a preliminary structural condition assessment of Tustin Hangar#2. That assessment consisted of observation from the ground and mezzanine levels with binoculars, as well as a partial observation of the trusses and doors from the steel stairs at the Northwest corner of the building. We then visited the site on November 14th, 2014 to observe the conditions up close using a 180 foot boom lift. The up close assessment continued on November 21st along with the sample removal for laboratory testing. Below is an updated summary of the visual condition of each element from those two site visits: 1) Concrete slab-on-grade/foundations: No change from previous observations. 2) Concrete portal frames: No change from previous observations. 3) Wood bracing between frames: No change from previous observations. 4) Mezzanine walls and mezzanine roof: No change from previous observations. 5) Wood truss and roof: A&Degen kol b Tustin Hangar 2 Condition Assessment • Defiberization/Fuzzy Wood damage was apparent in many locations throughout the truss. During the up close observation, we noticed the fuzzy wood to be more focused on the lower parts of the truss where more FRT may have been applied or just most dust has settled. We measured a number of locations to try and understand the amount of impact to the structural integrity of the members. (See Photo 1 & 2). Based on these measurements, we've estimated the worst locations to have a 5-10%loss in the wood members' dimensions and up to 12% loss of cross sectional area. There were no locations in the truss chords where we measured more than 10%loss in cross sectional area. Approximately 25% of the members show some sign of defiberization ranging from no section loss to maximum of 12%in very few locations. The condition of the wood at the upper portion of the trusses appeared to be in great condition with very few locations showing any deterioration. (See Photo 3) • Several chord members (66 total or 3.6% of all chords), and one web member of the trusses have been strengthened in previous repairs that addressed buckled truss members. The repair for these members consisted of filling the void between members with blocking and bolting large members to the outside of the truss members, thus keeping the members from buckling. See Photo 4 for an example of the strengthening. A complete table showing the locations of these repairs was provided in the previous report. • Some of the truss and bridging members have splits near the end connections. A previous repair has attempted to mitigate this splitting through the use of angle clamps at the end of the members (See Photo 5). Upon further investigation of the upper truss members, it appears approximately 5% of members have end splits that would require some type of repairs. (See Photo 6) • There were very few (<1%) of truss members that were observed to have section splits (not seasonal checks)that extended at least half the members length. (See Photo 7) • In several areas, the wood serving as the gusset plates for the space truss between the truss chords and the purlins was observed to be split near the connections (See Photo 8). These areas will need to be repaired to have a complete load path for the lateral system in the longitudinal direction. From our limited observation, it appeared approximately 25% of these wood plates will require repairs to restore their original capacity. • The bridging/bracing between the bottom chords of the trusses appears to be in the same configuration as was detailed in the original as-built drawings. It does not appear that the recommended `97 retrofit to add steel rods between the upper chords of the trusses was ever completed. There are a number of locations that have end splits at these members. (See Photo 9) At the top of the truss where the bridging becomes flat, there were a number of locations where significant sagging from wood creep has occurred. (See Photo 10) A&Degen kol b Tustin Hangar 2 Condition Assessment • Most of the double member truss chords and some of the webs are stitched together with a piece of plywood or diagonal sheathing running over the length of the member. All of the bottom chords (expect the few locations that had repairs) have this plywood, and only select top chord and web members. (See Figure 1 for locations of sheathing) I I I I I I j I I b i I \—m Tkan d I i I I ! ! � Plywood Sheathing ! I ! � Diagonal Sheathing I I i , • s i i I I i I I {1]44MC Ppt111/IW! Figure 1 —Cross Section with Sheathing Locations • Sagging of the purlins spanning between the trusses was apparent at the lower portions of the arches. At these locations, the arch is at its steepest slope, and thus the purlins are loaded out-of-plane by the weight of the roof. It appears that a previous repair has attempted to limit further sagging by installing steel rod hangers in a V-shaped configuration as can be seen in Photo 11. • Bolts and connectors appeared to be in good condition; however, there were a few areas where considerable corrosion was apparent(See Photo 12). X-ray testing of wood connections was performed as part of this phase. The results indicated the wood around the bolts to be great condition with little deterioration or corrosion on the bolts below the observable surface. • There were a number of locations with limited edge distance (1.5" min., and typically 2") on the bolted connections. It was typically the last connection on the chord to chord connection with a non-split ring bolted connection. (See Photo 13) This will need to be considered in the evaluation of the connections. • The roof straight sheathing appeared to be in good condition. However, there are a number of locations where water intrusion from the aluminum panels covering the sheathing is damaging the sheathing and truss members below the roof. (See Photo 14) A&Degen kol b Tustin Hangar 2 Condition Assessment • We observed a number of incised wood members during this most recent site visit. This is important since there is up to a 20%reduction in member capacity for members with incising. There didn't appear to be a pattern to which members were incised, but incising appeared to be present in 10-20% of members with most being in the bridging members. (See Photo 15) 6) Steel stairs: • The steel stairs appeared to be in good condition with little evidence of rust or deterioration. • The stairs are supported by the wood bridging between trusses. Due to the higher weight of the steel stairs than the original wood stairs, the T-bridging supporting the stairs is experiencing significant sagging and fractures at a few locations. (See Photos 16-17) In some of the highly stressed areas, chains have been added to the stairs to tie them back to the truss members. There have also been a number of repairs to previously failed members (See Photo 18)Due to the significant sagging at each stair, replacement of the failed members with straight members doesn't appear to be feasible. • Repairs and potential removal of the stairs should be considered in re-use options. 7) Wood Catwalks: • The wood catwalks appear to be in fair to good condition, but there is concern with the limited redundancy of the structure if a single member or connection were to fail. The supports of the catwalks are hung from the truss at 20' on center by 2x6's, and there are a number of locations where the 2x members have end splits or connection corrosion. (See Photos 19 & 20) • Repairs and potential removal of the catwalks should be considered in re-use options. 8) Steel doors: • The steel doors appeared to be in good condition, with minimal signs of rust and deterioration from the point of observation on the ground. The plywood sheathing on the exterior face of the door appeared to be weathering, however this is strictly an architectural element, and does not contribute to the structural integrity of the door frames. • It was confirmed that the doors are not hung and they are supported at the base on the steel rails. (See Photo 21) • The lateral restraint of the doors is a concern and will need to be addressed in any re-use option that has the doors incorporated. The lip of the wheel at each door is the only lateral restraint. (See Photo 22) 9) Wood box girder: A&Degen kol b Tustin Hangar 2 Condition Assessment • The diagonal sheathing on the box girder supporting the doors appeared to be in good condition. There were a few locations where water damage was observed. We also observed that at least half of lumber used was incised on the box beams. (See Photo 23) • The steel angles serving as box girder chords were in good condition. (See Photo 24) 10)Concrete door-supporting towers: • From the ground, the concrete towers appeared to be in good condition. There was limited observable cracking or spalling of the concrete, and there was no presence of visibly corroded rebar. (See Photo 25) • From the lift, we were able to see a few areas of damage from spalling concrete. The spalls are fairly minor due and mostly root from embedded bolts that were previously cut off. (See Photo 26) • We also observed the interior of the concrete towers. The concrete was in excellent condition with no observed damage. (See Photo 27) • In general, the condition of the existing concrete is good and we don't recommend any reductions in the concrete's capacity. A&Degen kol b Tustin Hangar 2 Condition Assessment SAMPLE REMOVAL The first sample was removed on 11/21/2014, and Degenkolb was onsite to review the removal and repair procedures with the contractor. Our structural observation was for sample 3 (per table below). The removal and repair that we observed met the intention of the permitted detail. (Refer to Photos 28 and 29)for photos of the sample. The final location of the samples that were removed and test are: ID Member Type Member Size x Location/Truss # Panel Points Detail* Sample Len th Ref. fig. 1)* Ref. fig. 2)* 1 Truss Double Web 4x10 x 4'-0" TRUSS 14/ SOUTH Btw. 4 - 5 S1 4 Truss Double Web 4x8 x 4'-0" TRUSS 43/NORTH Btw. 6 - 7 S1 3 Truss Double Web 4x8 x 4'-0" TRUSS 10/NORTH Btw. 6 - 7 S1 6 Truss Double Web 4x8 x 4'-0" TRUSS 27/ SOUTH Btw. 6 - 7 S1 5 X-Bridging 3x8 x 4'-0" Btw. TRUSS 49-50/ Btw. 0 - 1 Replace (removing entire SOUTH in kind section) 2 X-Bridging 3x8 x 4'-0" Btw. TRUSS 9-10/ Btw. 0 - 1 Replace (removing entire NORTH in kind section *References are from the permitted removal and repair procedures. RECOMMENDED FUTURE ITEMS These are items that were not currently part of the scope of this project, but recommended to better understand the condition and performance of the hangar. 1) Investigation to confirm if foundation piles have tension connections to the pile caps 2) Additional sample removal should be carried out to obtain a higher confidence level on the wood properties prior to upgrade construction documents being developed for re-use. A&Degen kol b Tustin Hangar 2 Condition Assessment PHOTO REFERENCES 00 O p Photo 1: Defiberization of wood truss member 1 i - ��Q�4 a a M 1 Photo 2: Defiberization of wood truss member ADegenkolb Tustin Hangar 2 Condition Assessment i ,5 Photo 3: Typical condition of wood truss members at top of truss �A, 1. A � f Photo 4: Buckled truss chord repair A&Degen kol b Tustin Hangar 2 Condition Assessment 4 - 1 1 V Pda VI Photo 5: Angle repair of split truss chord connection t MOW ,. �� Photo 6: End Split at Truss Chord A&Degen kol b Tustin Hangar 2 Condition Assessment r �. a r� 11114f 2014 -- a, PhotoMembers A&Degenkolb Tustin Hangar 2 Condition J r� y Y f+ Photo 8: Split gusset connection !► R/ k 3 rl #des:. - "`�,', �a �. -.�,. • k c Photo 9: End Split at Bridging A&Degen kol b Tustin Hangar 2 Condition Assessment t1, 1 Photo 10: Sagging Bridging • 4 Photo 11: Steel rod bracing at exterior purlins A&Degen kol b Tustin Hangar 2 Condition Assessment I j MW �yyl Photo 1: Corrosion at connector bolts a 1w ` y , Photo 2: Edge Distance at connector bolts A&Degen kol b Tustin Hangar 2 Condition Assessment iw � I • a r' fy Photo 14: Water Damage to Truss from Roof leak f • • • •d Members � 4 r Photo 16: Split at Steel Support ,1 Photo 3: Fractured bridging at Stair Support A&Degen kol b Tustin Hangar 2 Condition Assessment a PhotobL IN loop - Support JMW a r/-- . f Photo .p Support A&DegenkolbCondition y -. Photo 20: Bottom Support of Catwalk t w. 8 31 � Photo 21: Lateral Support at Top of Doors A&Degen kol b Tustin Hangar 2 Condition Assessment uLO k Mz S- �NF- g 4w 46 JS Photo 22: Lateral Support at Bottom of Doors Ing MWAAMa Photo 23: Box Beam Wood Condition A&Degen kol b Tustin Hangar 2 Condition Assessment s . 'A `E;., Photo 24: Box Beam Chord Splice 1 1 Photo 25: Exterior Concrete Condition A&Degen kol b Tustin Hangar 2 Condition Assessment - . •fin. ��� •.\�`�, .iW`�. r; Photo 26: Concrete Spalling at abandoned bolt 11/21 /2014 PhotoCondition A&DegenkolbCondition �1 A � � 11 /2112014 PhotoOr 28: Installation of Sistered Members Prior to Removal Thi PhotoMember PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Conditions Assessment and Reuse Study Tustin Hangar No.2 Volume ll, Appendices Tustin, California Ark tNG..t -# I WOOD SCIENCE (ANTHONY &ASSOCIATES, INC.) Documents Included Wood Investigation Final Report Page & Turnbull September 2017 Conditions Assessment and Reuse Study Tustin Hangar No.2 Volume ll, Appendices Tustin, California PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Final Report Page & Turnbull September 2017 Wood Investigation, Hangar1 . 2, former Tustin Marine CorpsAir Station, California �" ''� �� �•� l� � �� � ._ moi.. Submitted • • • r ' ♦ Turnbull 417 S. Hill Street, Suite 211 Los Angeles, California911 AnthonySubmitted by: • Box 271400 Fort Collins, 80527-1400 11 Wood Investigation, Hangar No. 2, former Tustin Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin, California BACKGROUND Anthony & Associates, Inc. (A&A) was contacted by Mr. John Lesak and Mr. Drew Gorski of Page & Turnbull regarding a wood investigation of Hangar No. 2 at the former Tustin Marine Corps Air Station in Tustin, California (Hangar 2). Originally constructed for the U.S. Navy during its lighter-than-air program, Hangar 2 is being considered for adaptive reuse. The hangars are supported by large wood trusses that serve as arches. Prior to assembly, some of the wood members used in the wood trusses were treated with wood preservatives to prevent decay. The wood was also infused with fire retardant treatment (FRT) chemicals. The lumber in Hangar 2 was incised (small incisions were made on the surface at regular intervals) to facilitate the absorption of the FRT. The potential long-term effect of the FRT chemical on wood strength was unknown. SCOPE OF WORK In order that Hangar No. 2 at the former Tustin Marine Corps Air Station can be considered for adaptive reuse, numerous wood issues were investigated: the current overall condition of the wood, the species and structural grade of the wood members, and the strength of the wood considering the effects of duration of load and/or the FRT treatment. To address these issues, a scope of work was developed that included the following tasks: • Conditions Assessment: A&A was a part of the assessment team that performed an up-close visual inspection of the extant hangar construction from a truck-mounted hydraulic platform lift. • Species Identification: Identifying wood species makes it possible to determine material properties for conducting a structural analysis and to identify compatible material for repairs. • Lumber Grading: A&A conducted in-situ visual grading of a representative sample of various structural members in the trusses, based on discussions about load requirements with the assessment team. • Strength Tests: A&A assisted the assessment team with identifying wood members to be removed for wood testing. A&A coordinated the Anthony&Associates,Inc. 1 Hangar No. 2,Tustin, CA scheduling and execution of laboratory testing and provided a summary report of testing results. Six to ten wood members, approximately 3 feet in length, were removed to determine material properties. • Radioscopy of Connections: A&A used digital radioscopy on selected locations in the truss bottom chord panel points to determine the interior condition of the wood and metal connectors. An initial site visit was conducted on July 29, 2014 by Mr. Ronald Anthony, President and Wood Scientist for A&A. The purpose of the site visit was to conduct a preliminary visual assessment of the wood condition of the extant Hangar construction to establish a work plan for more detailed assessment and materials testing. Examination of the wood members was primarily limited to the mezzanine and hangar deck using binoculars. A second site visit was conducted from November 13-15, 2014 by Mr. Ronald Anthony and Mr. Vicen Alvarez of A&A. During this site visit, a more detailed examination of the wood condition was made. The wood members were accessed from a truck-mounted hydraulic platform lift, and information was gathered using a combination of visual inspection, species identification, lumber grading, identifying members for destructive testing and conducting digital radioscopy. These methods are described below. Representatives from Page & Turnbull and Degenkolb Engineers participated in both site visits. METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS General Construction A description of the general construction of Hangar 2 is provided in the companion report written by Page &Turnbull. However, to provide a basis for terminology used in this report, photographs showing general construction are provided below. The hangar is constructed using 51 timber trusses (Figure 1). The trusses are fabricated with built-up top and bottom chords and lumber and timber web members (Figure 2). Horizontal and V-braces connect adjacent trusses to provide lateral stability. Most of the wood members are Structural Joists and Planks (4-inch width or less), with the exception of the vertical web members which are slightly wider and are technically, therefore, classified as Beams and Stringers. However, for this investigation, the vertical web members are grouped with the diagonal web members since the dimensions are quite similar. The built-up top and bottom chords consist of two pieces of dimension lumber and plywood sheathing (Figure 3). Anthony&Associates,Inc. 2 Hangar No. 2,Tustin, CA Figure 1. View of the wood trusses in Hangar 2. Figure 2.View from the mezzanine of typical truss web members and V-braces (at the top of the photo) between the truss and the roof purlin. t,. a _ Figure 3. Plywood sheathing on a truss chord. Anthony&Associates,Inc. 3 Hangar No. 2,Tustin, CA Horizontal braces connect adjacent trusses at the panel points on the inner truss chords and the diagonal V-braces extend from the trusses to the roof purlins (Figure 4). The purlins support rafters and wood sheathing, making up the roof framing (Figures 4 and 5). � T Figure 4. Diagonal V-braces (shown by arrows) between truss members and purlins supporting the roof. Raft Purlin r Figure 5. Purlin and rafter configuration with wood sheathing that supports the metal roof covering. Catwalks provide access to the upper areas of the trusses and roof framing but the conditions of the wood and connections of the catwalks are unknown (Figure 6). Anthony&Associates,Inc. 4 Hangar No. 2,Tustin, CA Figure 6. Catwalk supported by 2-inch by 6-inch lumber of unknown condition. Condition Assessment Visual examination of wood allows for identifying components that are missing, broken, or in an advanced state of deterioration. Missing components are those which have been removed or have fallen away because of deterioration, structural failure, or vandalism. If missing components were intended to provide structural support or protection from the elements (i.e., to prevent moisture intrusion), their replacement may be essential to prevent long-term damage to the structure. Visual inspection also allows for the detection of past or current moisture problems, as evidenced by moisture stains on the exposed surface of the wood (Figure 7). Further, visual inspection enables detection of external wood decay fungi or insect activity as determined by the presence of decay fruiting bodies, fungal growth, insect bore holes or wood substance removed by wood-destroying insects. Figure 7. Moisture stains on the heel of a truss member. Anthony&Associates,Inc. 5 Hangar No. 2,Tustin, CA Internal decay and insect damage are often difficult to detect due to the lack of evidence on the exposed surface of the wood. Probing the wood with an awl enables rapid detection of voids in the wood that may not be visible on the surface. Probing can also indicate the approximate depth of any deterioration that is visible on the surface. Visual inspection and probing provide a rapid means of identifying areas that may need further investigation. The more comprehensive visual inspection was conducted using a Bronto Skylift S180 HDT. The overall impression after the initial site visit was that the wood in Hangar 2 is, generally, in good condition with little distress noted. The purpose of the more detailed survey during the second site visit was to identify conditions that could affect structural behavior. Below is a description of the conditions that were considered significant enough to note by the assessment team: Buckled Members Buckled members are members that are deformed out of plane. Buckled members included failed members or previous repairs. Failures in chord members were observed in Hangar 2 (Figure 8). The location and frequency of buckled members and other conditions noted were recorded by the structural engineer. The failures are likely the result of a combination of wood deterioration from the FRT, wood decay (due to localized roof leaks or condensation), or overloading (possibly due to wind). i Figure 8. Prior repair of a buckled bottom truss chord. Longitudinal Splits A longitudinal split is a separation extending from one wide face of the member to the other wide face of the member that is not limited to the end of the member; it may or may not be associated with a connection. Seasoning checks and longitudinal splits were observed in some of the timbers. Seasoning checks are a Anthony&Associates,Inc. 6 Hangar No. 2,Tustin, CA natural feature of wood that can develop as the wood dries (Figure 9). Seasoning checks do not extend through the thickness of the member and do not impact its strength or performance. Splits, which extend through the thickness of the member and are visible on opposite faces of the member, may impact strength or performance based on the type and extent of load in that member, particularly compression or bending loads. Figure 9. Clamp used as a repair to reduce splitting of the timber at a seasoning check. End Splits (Single and Double) An end split is a separation extending from one wide face of the member to the other wide face at the end of the member. These typically are associated with a connection. Splits at the ends of some of the wood members were noted during the site visits (Figures 10 and 11). This condition may be due to insufficient distance between the connectors (primarily bolts) and the end of the piece of lumber. This condition has likely been present since the early days of the hangars without any deleterious effect, but may impact load capacity in highly stressed members. Anthony&Associates,Inc. 7 Hangar No. 2,Tustin, CA Single end splits f i Figure 10. Single end splits in truss web members at the bottom chord. r Figure 11. Double end splits in truss web members at the bottom chord. Decay and Related Moisture Issues Decay refers to visible evidence of wood decay fungi activity. Decay was observed in the upper areas of Hangar 2 due to roof leaks. Decay was observed in roof framing and sheathing, but rarely in the structural members of the trusses and braces. Associated with areas of moisture intrusion, other conditions were observed, including delamination of the plywood sheathing between chord members (Figures 12 and 13). Anthony&Associates,Inc. 8 Hangar No. 2,Tustin, CA Figure 12. Delaminated plywood sheathing on the bottom chord of a truss. 1 Figure 13. Close up of delaminated plywood sheathing. Severe Fuzzy Wood Severe fuzzy wood occurs due to breakdown of wood surface due to fire- retardant chemicals resulting in a fibrous mat, as opposed to individual loose fibers on the wood surface. Reports indicate the wood is Douglas-fir and has been treated with Minalith, an FRT introduced in 1931, composed of ammonium sulfate, diammonium phosphate, boric acid and borax. The salts in the treatment can produce a condition known as fuzzy wood (Figure 14). Wood treated with other FRT chemicals are known to cause a significant reduction in strength of the wood. A brief review of the technical literature does not reveal any data that would indicate that Minalith has such an effect. However, it was uncommon to investigate the effect on mechanical properties of FRT wood until the 1990s so testing and research may not have been done. The presence of fuzzy wood by itself is not an indicator of wood deterioration, although there is evidence of corrosion of metal fasteners, likely due to the salts in the FRT (Figure 15). Anthony&Associates,Inc. 9 Hangar No. 2,Tustin, CA J Figure 14. Fuzzy wood on FRT lumber Corroded Fasteners During the wood investigation, it was noted that fasteners had corroded and exhibited built-up scale but not surface rust (Figure 15). The corrosion is most likely due to the presence of salts in the FRT, rather than exposure to high levels of moisture (water). The condition of the fasteners embedded in the timber joints was addressed using digital radioscopy, which is described later in the report. l r Figure 15. Corrosion of metal fasteners due to FRT chemicals. Species Identification and Lumber Grading The hangar makes extensive use of framing lumber. Identifying wood species, along with determining the structural grade, makes it possible to determine design properties for conducting a structural analysis and to identify compatible material for repairs. Wood species were identified by removing small samples from 4-6 members in various locations throughout the hangar from which the Anthony&Associates,Inc. 10 Hangar No. 2,Tustin, CA species or species group was determined under microscopic examination. Table 1 provides the summary of the wood species identification. Table 1. Species Identification for Samples from Hangar 2, Tustin, CA Sample Number Member Location* Species Douglas-fir 1 vertical web unknown (Pseudotsu a menziesii) 2 x-brace unknown Douglas-fir 3 h-brace unknown Douglas-fir 4 bottom chord T=S12, PP=2 Douglas-fir 5 east top chord T=S12, PP=4 Douglas-fir 6 vertical brace T=S12, PP=2 Douglas-fir 7 diagonal web T=S12, PP=2 Douglas-fir *For Location, T is truss number and PP is the panel point, as defined on the drawings by the structural engineer. Lumber and structural timbers used in new construction are intended to comply with the relevant building code for that jurisdiction. For wood construction, structural engineers rely on design values referenced in the building code to determine an acceptable species, size, and grade for a particular load condition. The design values given in the building code for solid wood products are established by the American Forest& Paper Association and published as the National Design Specification for Wood Construction.1 The published design values are based on test data and procedures published by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) that demonstrate the engineering performance of the material.2 Wood products such as dimension lumber and timber are graded in accordance with procedures promulgated by one of several forest products industry associations, such as the Western Wood Products Association (WWPA).3 For existing structures the engineer often relies on available species and current standards to determine the adequacy of the wood members to remain in service. Since many older buildings were built before building codes or design values for wood products were established (and, thus, before grade stamps were used), engineers are often in a quandary when determining what design values are 1 American Forest&Paper Association and American Wood Council,2012,National Design Specification for Wood Construction,Washington,D.C. 2American Society for Testing and Materials,2014,Annual Book of Standards,Vol.04.10:D245, Standard Practice for Establishing Structural Grades and Related Allowable Properties for Visually Graded Lumber;D2555,Standard Test Methods for Establishing Clear Wood Strength Values. ASTM,West Conshohocken,Pennsylvania. 3 Western Wood Products Association(2005), Western Lumber Grading Rules 05,Portland,OR Anthony&Associates,Inc. 11 Hangar No. 2,Tustin, CA appropriate. Frequently an assumed species and grade are assigned, only to show that the wood members are structurally deficient. The result is often an overly conservative estimate of design values and unnecessary replacement, repair, and retrofit decisions along with associated unnecessary project costs. In- situ visual grading following the procedures established by the various wood grading agencies and ASTM procedures can not only lead to the preservation of historic fabric but can also improve a project's bottom line by allowing engineers and project team members to make more informed decisions regarding the capacity of existing wood framing based on identified wood material properties. Lumber grade is determined by species (Table 1), size of the element(s), and growth characteristics such as knots and slope of grain. Knots and slope of grain tend to be the grade-limiting characteristics for lumber and timber in older buildings (Figure 16). Measurement of knots and slope-of-grain provides an indication of the allowable lumber grade for a given wood species. The visual grade provides essential data for structural analyses to assess the Hangar's ability to support current or future loading conditions and provides information critical for determining the extent of any necessary repairs. Visual grading was done on a representative sample of structural truss members. Figure 16. An example of small knots visible on the wide face of a truss member. The grading of members in Hangar 2 was based on a percentage of the total wood members but included all types of members used in the trusses and bracing between trusses. All structural wood members can be considered Douglas-fir Structural Joists and Planks in the 2012 NDS, although a few of the vertical web members are technically slightly thicker than Structural Joists and Planks and could be classified as Beams and Stringers. A summary of the grades is given in Table 2. All of the member types graded satisfy the requirements of either No.1 or Select Structural (SS). For those graded No. 1, many of the Anthony&Associates,Inc. 12 Hangar No. 2,Tustin, CA member types were very close to meeting the requirements for being assigned the grade of the grade of Select Structural. Table 2. Gradin Information for Hangar 2, Tustin, CA Percent Allowable Select Percent SS and Grade Member Ty e Structural #1 #2 #3 Total SS No.1 Diagonal-Web 93 2 2 0 97 95.9 97.9 SS Vertical-Web 92 5 0 0 97 94.9 100.0 SS Top Chord 72 1 0 0 73 98.6 100.0 SS Bottom Chord 65 5 0 0 70 92.9 100.0 No. 1 V-Brace 71 6 0 0 77 92.2 100.0 No. 1 X-Brace 58 7 1 0 66 87.9 98.5 No. 1 Horizontal Brace 44 8 0 1 53 83.0 98.1 No. 1 Total 495 34 3 1 533 Strength and Fire Testing The A&A staff identified and flagged wood truss members and bracing in Hangar 2 to be subjected to various strength tests after removal from the hangar. Members were removed from the trusses and x-braces. This was based, in part, on the size of members necessary to produce suitable test specimens from the samples and the need to have material representative of the structural wood members used in the hangar. Samples were identified based on visual observations of wood quality (e.g., a lack of knots or slope of grain). The individual samples were labeled based on location in the hangar and member type (Figures 17 and 18). Figure 17. Member from which sample 5 was removed for strength testing. Anthony&Associates,Inc. 13 Hangar No. 2,Tustin, CA Figure 18. Member from which sample 6 was removed for strength testing. Sample removal and subsequent repairs to the members from which samples were removed was performed by a contractor. Repairs were designed by Degenkolb Engineers. Repairs were implemented by the contractor as the samples were removed, before moving to the next sample location. Samples (Table 3) were shipped to the TECO laboratory in Eugene, Oregon where the samples were milled into test specimens, then tested according to ASTM standards ASTM D143-14 (for MOR, MOE, and compression parallel to grain and compression perpendicular to grain), ASTM D2395-14 (for density) and ASTM D4442-14 (for moisture content). Table 3. Sam les for Strength Tests from Hangar 2, Tustin, CA Sample Panel No. Size Member Truss Elevation points Direction truss double between 1 4x10 web 14 south 4&5 east between between 2 3x8 x-brace 9&10 north 0&1 3x8 or truss double between 3 4x8 web 10 north 6&7 east truss double between 4 4x8 web 43 north 6&7 west between between 5 3x8 x-brace 49&50 south 0&1 truss double between 6 4x8 web 27 south 6&7 west The results of the strength testing are given in Table 4. Anthony&Associates,Inc. 14 Hangar No. 2,Tustin, CA Table 4. Summary of Testing Results, Tustin Hangar Compression Compression Test Moisture Parallel to Perpendicular Density Content MOR MOE Grain Stress* to Grain lbf/ft3 % (psi) (psi) (psi) Stress" (psi) ASTM Standard ASTM ASTM ASTM ASTM ASTM ASTM D2395-14 D4442-14 D143-14 D143-14 D143-14 D143-14 Mean of All Samples 36.1 11.2 9,625 1,859,406 7,066 921 Standard Deviation 3.1 1.0 2,334 280,331 329 466 Mean Adjusted to Green Condition n/a n/a 5,787 1,471,166 3,562 424 Standard Deviation at Green Condition n/a n/a 1,467 245,144 122 213 Mean at Green Condition per ASTM D2555 28.1 26 7,665 1,560,000 3,784 382 Standard Deviation at Green Condition per ASTM D2555 3.6 n/a 1,317 315,000 734 107 Ratio of Adjusted Test Data to ASTM D2555 Data n/a n/a 0.76 0.94 0.94 1.11 *Only specimen no. 4 failed. The rest of the specimens reached the machine maximum capacity, therefore the tests stopped. **Compression Perpendicular to Grain Stress calculated at the proportional limit. Digital Radioscopy of Connections Digital radioscopy allows for non-intrusive examination of hidden construction and material condition. Some of the advantages of the digital radioscopy system are that images are gathered in real time (no film) and that the energy level used by the x-ray source is considerably less than that of traditional film x-ray. Digital radioscopy equipment is portable and field rugged, making it practical for historic preservation projects and forensic investigations. Also, the x-ray source and imaging plate (Figure 19) can be positioned to obtain a wide variety of images. The portable x-ray source used for this investigation was an XR2008 x-ray source manufactured by Golden Engineering, Inc. (Figure 19). This model is a single packaged, pulsed source, producing x-ray pulses of short duration (60 nanoseconds or 6 x 10-8 seconds each) with minimal dose (3.1 milliroentgens for each pulse at a distance of 12 inches from the front of the unit), with energy up to 150 W). For each image taken, the number of pulses can be set from 1-99. Two Anthony&Associates,Inc. 15 Hangar No. 2,Tustin, CA to six pulses were typically used to penetrate the truss members, depending on the thickness of the wood to be penetrated. 'tip i Figure 19. The x-ray source (XR2008) set up to take a radiograph of Truss 12, south side, Panel Point 4 in Hangar 2. The edge of the imaging plate can be seen on the back side of the truss element on the right (see arrow). The digital imaging system used was the EPIX Digital Imaging System manufactured by Logos Imaging LLC. The system is composed of imaging plates, the EPIX scanner and a laptop with software to import and save the scanned images. The imaging plates are reusable, photo-stimulatable phosphor imaging surfaces, 8" by 17" in size (Figure 19). X-ray images are created on the imaging plates as the phosphor crystals capture the energy of x-rays passing through the object of study. A small brass pin was placed on one corner of the imaging plate cover and three small nails were placed along the same edge. These were to provide reference for the orientation of the plate and aid in interpretation of the image. The second component of the EXIX Digital Imaging System is the EPIX scanner. After exposure, the imaging plate is mounted on a cylindrical carousel and inserted into the scanner. The scanner uses red laser light to cause the crystals to release their stored energy, which is released as blue light captured by the scanner. The scanning process can capture the image at either high or low resolution. The laptop and software associated with the EPIX system capture this image and save the file as a TIF image for post processing. This imaging system produces digital radiographs that are available for viewing in less than four minutes. It is easy to shift the imaging plate if needed when the area of concern is not included in the image, and this was done in several of the locations identified by shifting the plate along the truss. The images are stored to Anthony&Associates,Inc. 16 Hangar No. 2,Tustin, CA allow for post-processing to visually enhance features of interest within the recorded image. Since the images are TIF files, they can be manipulated by any standard photographic-enhancement software. However, the control unit (the software that is included on the laptop) includes a package that can also be used to enhance the images so that subtle details on the radiograph can be investigated. This software includes not only the standard image-enhancement techniques (such as image sharpening and contrast stretching), but also features designed to assist specifically with enhancement of the radiograph (such as the ability to transmit all the grey tones of the image into a full spectrum of colors). Although the radioscopic investigation involved low levels of radiation exposure, safety procedures were implemented to ensure the safety of the public and those participating in the investigation. Additionally, during the field investigation, pocket dosimeters were placed on truss members adjacent to those being x-rayed to monitor the radiation throughout the course of the day. The dosimeters record the total exposure during the work period. Calibrated prior to beginning any work each morning, the total radiation measured by the dosimeters at the end of the work period was recorded. The hangars were built using a combination of pre-fabricated arch segments and field connections to join the arch segments. Each of these joints has seven wood members that are attached by a variety of bolt/split ring/shear plate combinations, described below. The seven wood members include four bottom chord members, two diagonal web members, and a vertical web member (Figure 20). The vertical web member is in the center, flanked by diagonal members on either side, with a set of overlapping bottom chord members that make up the outer portion of the joint for the panel point. Long bolts that extend through the seven members in the center of the configuration and short bolts that connect only the overlapping bottom chord members are represented in these two types of joints. Anthony&Associates,Inc. 17 Hangar No. 2,Tustin, CA Pool \r�'�• 1 1 4 't i Figure 20. Configuration of wood members of in panel points. In the following interpretations of each image, the initial page has one or two photos at the top, and two enhanced versions of the raw radiograph below them. The photos show the general setup of the x-ray source and imaging plate at the panel point being investigated. The radiograph reflects the view as seen from the source. The radiograph on the left (or top) has been inverted (like a positive to a negative, so that darker areas represent more dense elements, such as metal fasteners), and the histogram has been adjusted to improve the ability to discern different elements in the radiograph. The radiograph on the right (or bottom) was also inverted, and then subjected to a specific Logos Imaging algorithm called ORATOS that improved image clarity. The second page has observations about each image. If this report is viewed as a PDF on screen, with a two-page view, these two pages should be facing pages. Each radiograph, referred to as an image throughout this report, can also be seen to have a small brass pin in one corner. This is attached to the imaging plate cover, and is used during interpretation of the radiograph for orientation. A total of five radiographs were taken in Hangar 2. Examination of these radiographs using custom software revealed that there was no severe corrosion on any of the bolts, washers or split rings. As in shown in the photographs below, build-up of corrosion on the visible bolt heads or washers could easily be removed, and does not affect the structural integrity of the connector. The wood surrounding the bolts and split rings exhibited no signs of deterioration due to Anthony&Associates,Inc. 18 Hangar No. 2,Tustin, CA wood decay, insect damage, or moisture. The clarity of the wood grain in the radiographs illustrates the lack of macroscopic deterioration. Anthony&Associates,Inc. 19 Hangar No. 2,Tustin, CA F t i Figure 21. Image 1 of Panel Point 2, Truss 12 South, east side lower chord. The photo shows the source in front of the truss with the imaging-plate visible on the back of the truss. Figure 22. Image 1 of Panel Point 2, Truss 12 South, east side lower chord. Anthony&Associates,Inc. 20 Hangar No. 2,Tustin, CA Observations for Image 1 1. The source and imager were positioned to capture the lower bolts in Panel Point 2. The setup was focused on the two overlapping bottom chord members on the left side when viewed from the source. 2. The two bolts in the middle of the image each have a split ring at the interface between the overlapping bottom chord members and a square plate washer on the outside of the joint (on the left). The lower of these two bolts appears smaller and more focused than the upper one since it is closer to the imaging plate. Both these bolts attach only the overlapping bottom chord members. 3. At the top of the image is the very edge of the square plate washer and split ring attached to another bolt(outside the image here). This bolt is likely one that extends through the entire seven-member joint. 4. The lowest bolt in the image has no other fasteners in this image - no shear plates and no split rings. This bolt connects the two sets of overlapping bottom chord members. 5. The edges of the metal fasteners are sharp and linear, with opposite sides of each fastener parallel to one another. This indicates that the fasteners have little or no rust or surface corrosion. 6. Wood grain on the image is consistent in appearance throughout the lumber. The uniformity of the growth rings indicates that the wood is sound in this image. Anthony&Associates,Inc. 21 Hangar No. 2,Tustin, CA I �WI; n_ Figure 23. Image 2 of Panel Point 2, Truss 12 South, east side lower chord. The photos show the source in front of the truss with the imaging-plate visible on the back of the truss. g _ } D z fie$ 8 f Ilei �, ai a- Y r Figure 24. Image 2 of Panel Point 2, Truss 12 South, east side lower chord. Anthony&Associates,Inc. 22 Hangar No. 2,Tustin, CA Observations for Image 2 1. The source and imager were positioned to capture the center bolts in Panel Point 2. These bolts extend through the entire joint. The setup was focused on the two overlapping bottom chord members on the left side when viewed from the source. 2. The three bolts captured in this image have split rings at the interface between the two overlapping bottom chord members on the left side of the joint (when viewed from the source) 3. The middle bolt appears smaller than the other two, since it is closer to the imaging plate, and you can also see on this bolt the square plate washer on the left and the edge of another split ring on the right (at the interface between the inner bottom chord member and a diagonal). 4. The edge of two split rings can be seen at the bottom of the image, and these are probably associated with the middle bolts in Image 1 above. 5. The edges of the metal fasteners are sharp and linear, with opposite sides of each fastener parallel to one another. This indicates that the fasteners have little or no rust or surface corrosion. 6. Wood grain on the image is consistent in appearance throughout the lumber. The uniformity of the growth rings indicates that the wood is sound in this image. Anthony&Associates,Inc. 23 Hangar No. 2,Tustin, CA 'x Figure 25. Image 3 of double web member (diagonal brace) at Truss 12 South, between Panel Point 4 (bottom chord) and Panel Point 3 (top chord). The photo shows the source on top of double web member with the imaging plate visible on the bottom of double web member. FI 3 Figure 26. Image 3 of double web member (diagonal brace) at Truss 12 South, between Panel Point 4 (bottom chord) and Panel Point 3 (top chord). Anthony&Associates,Inc. 24 Hangar No. 2,Tustin, CA Observations for Image 3 1. The source and imager were positioned to capture the connection details in the center of a double web member. The setup was focused on the right side of the double web member when viewed from the source. 2. The bolt captured in this image has no split rings at the interface between the blocking and the two double web members. The square plate washer can be seen on the right, and the very edge of the other square plate washer on the left. 3. The edges of the metal fasteners are sharp and linear, with opposite sides of each fastener parallel to one another. This indicates that the fasteners have little or no rust or surface corrosion. 4. Wood grain on the image is consistent in appearance throughout the lumber. The uniformity of the growth rings indicates that the wood is sound in this image. Anthony&Associates,Inc. 25 Hangar No. 2,Tustin, CA Ott y Figure 27. Image 4 of Panel Point 4, Truss 12 South, east side lower chord. The photos show the source in behind the truss with the imaging-plate visible on the front of the truss. F Figure 28. Image 4 of Panel Point 4, Truss 12 South, east side lower chord. Anthony&Associates,Inc. 26 Hangar No. 2,Tustin, CA Observations for Image 4 1. The source and imager were positioned to capture the center bolts in Panel Point 4. These bolts extend through the entire joint. The setup was focused on the two overlapping bottom chord members on the right side when viewed from the source. 2. The two bolts captured in this image have split rings at the interface between the two overlapping bottom chord members on the right side of the joint (when viewed from the source) 3. The top bolt appears smaller and more focused than the lower one, since it is closer to the imaging plate, and you can also see on this bolt the square plate washer on the right and the edge of another split ring on the left (at the interface between the inner bottom chord member and a diagonal). 4. On the top split ring, you can see the groove in the wood for the split ring is slightly larger than the split ring itself. 5. There is unidentified fastener between the two bolts, running parallel to them between the left side of the image and the split rings. 6. The edges of the metal fasteners are sharp and linear, with opposite sides of each fastener parallel to one another. This indicates that the fasteners have little or no rust or surface corrosion. 7. Wood grain on the image is consistent in appearance throughout the lumber. The uniformity of the growth rings indicates that the wood is sound in this image. Anthony&Associates,Inc. 27 Hangar No. 2,Tustin, CA ,l C; / F W Figure 29. Image 5 of Panel Point 4, Truss 12 South, east side lower chord. The photos show the source in behind the truss with the imaging-plate visible on the front of the truss. t R'A •:� s , s Figure 30. Image 5 of Panel Point 4, Truss 12 South, east side lower chord. Anthony&Associates,Inc. 28 Hangar No. 2,Tustin, CA Observations for Image 5 1. The source and imager were positioned to capture the lower bolts in Panel Point 4. The setup was focused on the inner bottom chord member and the adjacent diagonal web member on the right side when viewed from the source. 2. The bolt at the top of the image has a split ring at the interface between the overlapping bottom chord members and a square plate washer on the inside of the joint (on the left). This bolt attaches only the overlapping bottom chord members. 3. The lowest bolt has no fasteners in this image - no shear plates and no split rings. This bolt appears to extend through the entire joint. 4. The edges of the metal fasteners are sharp and linear, with opposite sides of each fastener parallel to one another. This indicates that the fasteners have little or no rust or surface corrosion. 5. Wood grain on the image is consistent in appearance throughout the lumber. The uniformity of the growth rings indicates that the wood is sound in this image. Anthony&Associates,Inc. 29 Hangar No. 2,Tustin, CA SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS The results of the wood investigation can be summarized as follows: • The wood species of members sampled in Hangar 2 are Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). • The grades of the truss and bracing members are either Select Structural or No.1 Douglas-fir Structural Joists and Planks. The size of most of the members would classify them as Structural Joists and Planks, although timbers greater than 5 inches thick could be classified as Beams and Stringers. • There appears to be little overall distress to the timbers in Hangar 2. There are some end splits where fasteners are close to the end grain. Longitudinal splits are present in a lesser number of wood members than those that have end splits. Seasoning checks are common, but not problematic. • There was evidence of visible deterioration due to wood decay fungi in Hangar 2. It is likely that there are several areas of decay where roof leaks have occurred, as evidenced by the limited survey conducted. • There are a few failed truss chord members; previous failures have been repaired. • The strength tests indicate that there is approximately a 25 percent reduction in modulus of rupture (tension parallel to grain would be similar), less than a 10 percent reduction in modulus of elasticity, and no reduction in compression perpendicular to grain or compression parallel to grain. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATIVE WORK The wood investigation of Hangar 2 provided data and information on the current condition, defects, relative strength, and structural grade of the wood members, as well as the condition of the metal fasteners. These data and their interpretation are sufficient for stakeholders to make more informed decisions about how to proceed with rehabilitation and use of Hangar 2. However, there are two areas of wood investigation that could be explored in more detail to refine the analysis and repair strategies. 1. Condition Survey - A more in-depth condition survey of all of the wood members in the hangar would provide quantities and locations of members needing repair. While the survey would be very Anthony&Associates,Inc. 30 Hangar No. 2,Tustin, CA comprehensive, it would be labor intensive and have a significantly higher cost than the current level of investigation. As an alternative, the data obtained to date can be extrapolated to estimate repair needs and costs. 2. Structural Performance of the Wood Members - There are three areas of investigation that can be explored in more detail to, possibly, allow for increases in the allowable design values that influence the design of any needed repairs. a. Visual grading of every wood member could improve the grade assigned to each member type (web members, truss chords, braces, etc.) since the sampling of grade conducted during this investigation identified sufficient members not of the highest grade to warrant assignment of lower design values for some member types. Determining the structural grade of each member would be labor-intensive and have a significantly higher cost than the current level of investigation. b. More rigorous data analysis of the existing grade data could allow for better definition of allowable design values, since Select Structural was the predominant grade regardless of member type. While not all members would be of the highest grade, the ratio of higher-grade members to lower-grade members would allow for increasing the design values (i.e., by pulling up the average the allowable design used on this phase could be increased). c. In addition to more rigorous data analysis, the other aspect for better defining structural performance would be to remove additional samples for destructive testing. This would allow for a better understanding of actual wood strength and other material properties that could be applied directly to the structural grade of wood members used in the hangar. Anthony&Associates,Inc. 31 Hangar No. 2,Tustin, CA Conditions Assessment and Reuse Study Tustin Hangar No.2 Volume ll, Appendices Tustin, California Ark tNrAA 5 1 FIRE & LIFE SAFTEY (JENSEN HUGHES) Documents Included Performance-Based Hangar Smoke Control Engineering Analysis Report Hangar Performance-Based Engineering Design Brief Final Report Page & Turnbull September 2017 Conditions Assessment and Reuse Study Tustin Hangar No.2 Volume ll, Appendices Tustin, California PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Final Report Page & Turnbull September 2017 CD JENSEN HUGHES 2099 South State College Blvd.,I Suite 540 Anaheim,CA 92806 USA jensenhughes.com O:+1714-4504700 Fax:+1714-4504701 PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT TUSTIN HANGAR Prepared For Page &Turnbull 417 S. Hill Street, Suite 211 Los Angeles, California 90013 Date: October 11, 2016 JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE ii TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................1 1.1. General............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Project Description........................................................................................................... 1 1.3. Acronyms........................................................................................................................... 1 2. APPLICABLE CODES AND STANDARDS....................................................................................2 3. DESIGN CONCEPTS ......................................................................................................................2 4. ENGINEERING EVALUATION METHOD.......................................................................................3 4.1. Evaluation Tools ...............................................................................................................3 4.2. Performance-Based Engineering Evaluation Criteria...................................................4 4.2.1. Visibility ...............................................................................................................4 4.2.2. Gas Concentrations ...............................................................................................5 4.2.3. Temperature...........................................................................................................6 4.3. Design Fires in Hangar.....................................................................................................7 4.3.1. Factors Considered................................................................................................7 4.3.2. Separation Distance...............................................................................................9 4.3.3. Heat-Release Assumptions ................................................................................. 10 4.3.4. Sprinkler Effectiveness Assumptions................................................................... 11 4.4. Hangar Timed Egress Engineering Analysis............................................................... 11 4.4.1. Detection Time..................................................................................................... 12 4.4.2. Notification Time .................................................................................................. 12 4.4.3. Pre-Movement Time ............................................................................................ 12 4.4.4. Movement Time ................................................................................................... 13 4.4.5. Required Safe Egress Time (RSET)....................................................................13 4.5. Hangar Smoke Control Engineering Analysis Assumptions..................................... 14 4.6. Hangar Smoke Control Engineering Analysis Scenarios........................................... 14 4.7. Hangar Smoke Control Engineering Analysis Results............................................... 15 4.8. Hangar Smoke Control Engineering Design Considerations..................................... 16 5. CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................................16 APPENDIX A. ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS AND DESIGN DIAGRAMS..............................................A APPENDIX B. FDS BEAM DETECTION CALCULATIONS........................................................................B APPENDIX C. PATHFINDER EGRESS MODELING ANALYSIS RESULTS.............................................0 APPENDIX D. FDS MODELING ANALYSIS RESULTS.............................................................................D APPENDIX E. REFERENCE........................................................................................................................E JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE 1 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 1. INTRODUCTION This Performance-Based Hangar Smoke Control Engineering Analysis Report has been prepared by JENSEN HUGHES for the Tustin Hangar project located in the City of Tustin, California. 1.1. General The purpose of this report is to evaluate effects of potential fires inside the hangar, calculate the required safe egress time (RSET) and the available safe egress time (ASET) based on the proposed architectural exiting designs, as well as to determine if occupants in the hangar would be able to safely evacuate and relocate during a fire emergency in compliance with or equivalent to the 2013 California Building Code (CBC). 1.2. Project Description The Tustin Hangar was established in 1942 as Naval Lighter-Than-Air Station Santa Ana, a base for airship operations in support of the United States Navy's coastal patrol efforts during World War II. It was the country's first air facility developed solely for helicopter operations. It was renamed Marine Corps Air Station Tustin in 1979. By the early 1990s, MCAS Tustin was a major center for Marine Corps helicopter aviation and radar on the Pacific Coast. Its primary purpose was to provide support services and material for the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing and for other units utilizing the base. In 1991 and again in 1993, under the authority of the Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1990, it was announced that MCAS Tustin would be closed. Operational closure of the base occurred in July 1999. However, the north hangar is still used as a storage and repair center for commercial blimps. Of the approximately 1,600 acres (6.5 km2), some 1,294 acres (now known collectively as "Tustin Legacy") have been conveyed to the City of Tustin, private developers and public institutions for a combination of residential, commercial, educational, and public recreational and open-space uses. The Tustin Hangar is approximately 1,072 feet (327 m) long by 292 feet (89 m) wide by 192 feet (59 m) tall. The hangar, built in 1942 of Oregon Douglas fir, is among the largest freestanding wooden structures in the world. Refer to the architectural drawings included in Appendix A for a graphical depiction of the hangar. 1.3. Acronyms The following acronyms are used in this report for the Tustin Hangar project. • CBC: California Building Code • CFC: California Fire Code • CEC: California Electrical Code • NFPA: National Fire Protection Association • ASHRAE: America Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers • UL: Underwriters Laboratory • NIST: National Institute of Standards and Technology • AHJ: Authority Having Jurisdiction • TCDD: Tustin Community Development Department • OCFA: Orange County Fire Authority JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE 2 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 2. APPLICABLE CODES AND STANDARDS The following codes and standards are applicable to the Tustin Hangar project. • California Building Code (CBC), 2013 Edition. • California Fire Code (CFC), 2013 Edition. • California Electrical Code (CEC), 2013 Edition. • City of Tustin Municipal Code, Ordinance No. 1453, Revision 9-2015. • OCFA Guideline G-12 for Smoke Control Systems, January 1, 2011. • National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 72, "Standard for National Fire Alarm Code,"2013 Edition adopted by the 2013 CBC. • NFPA 92 Standard for Smoke Control Systems, 2012 Edition adopted by the 2013 CBC. The Authorities Having Jurisdictions (AHJs) for the project will be the City of Tustin Community Development Department (TCDD) and Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). Unless otherwise indicated, all code references referred to in this report are from the 2013 Edition of the CBC. 3. DESIGN CONCEPTS As presented in Section 1.2 of this report, the City of Tustin plans to re-use the existing hangar to serve the local community. The Hangar will be designed as assembly use for public events (e.g., filming, recreational events, small-trade shows, etc.) based on the 75% Draft Reuse Study Report prepared by Page &Turnbull and dated July 2015. Therefore, potential fire hazards (i.e., fire and smoke hazard) caused by the planned reuse of the hangar need to be evaluated. Since occupancies of the hangar re-use are changed from Group S to Group A or mixed-use (i.e., high occupant loads, unfamiliarity, etc.), the fire life safety requirements associated with the hangar re-use need to be evaluated accordingly. The intent of this engineering analysis is to determine if occupants in the re-used hangar would be able to safely evacuate, before the hangar becomes untenable, during a fire emergency inside the hangar. In order to achieve the desired design goals and operational characteristics in the Tustin Hangar project, an alternate method of design utilizing an engineered performance-based approach is proposed. The proposed design method will consist of performance-based design features in lieu of compliance with the prescriptive requirements of Section 909 by maintaining an equivalent level of fire protection and life safety to that intended by the code. Large spaces (i.e., hangar high bay) in the United States are commonly provided with a smoke control system designed in accordance with the exhaust method of Section 909.8. According to Section 909.8.1, a smoke control system designed in accordance with the exhaust method should be able to maintain a height of the lowest accumulating smoke layer at least six (6) feet above any walking surface that forms a means of egress within the smoke zone. The required exhaust rate for the zone should be the largest of the calculated plume mass flow rates for the possible plume configurations (i.e., axisymmetric, balcony spill or window spill plumes). Additionally, provisions should be made for natural or mechanical supply of outside air to make up an equal volume of the air exhausted at flow rates not to exceed 200 feet per minute towards the fire unless an engineering analysis is performed. To achieve the performance criteria described in Section 909.8.1, a smoke management system will be provided within the high bay of the Tustin Hangar building. A smoke management system is defined in the Section 4.3.2 of NFPA 92, as a mechanical or gravity system intended to move smoke from the smoke zone to the exterior of the building, including natural smoke filling and natural smoke venting systems, as well as the function of exhaust fans. JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE 3 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 The smoke control proposed for the Tustin Hangar will be a natural smoke filling system. The natural smoke filling approach consists of allowing smoke to fill spaces without any smoke exhaust or other smoke removal. Typically, this approach requires performing a timed egress analysis to verify that the smoke filling time with the proposed design fire should be greater than the time required for safe evacuation and relocation of occupants. The smoke filling time is the time from ignition until the smoke descends to the pre-determined height (i.e., six feet above the highest walking surface). Furthermore, applications appropriate for the natural smoke filling will need a very large space above the highest occupied floor. Since the Tustin Hangar is approximately 1,072 feet long by 292 feet wide by 192 feet tall and the highest occupied level is the Ground Floor, the application of the natural smoke filling method should be appropriate. Consequently, the natural smoke filling system design will be analyzed with the aid of a Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) modeling and a timed egress modeling analysis using Pathfinder egress modeling tool. The proposed method of design will consist of applying an engineered performance-based smoke control design evaluation criteria that are equivalent to the smoke control requirements of the Section 909. The results of the FDS analysis are included in Section 4.6 and Appendix D of this report. 4. ENGINEERING EVALUATION METHOD In accordance with Section 104.11 of the 2013 CBC,the use of alternative designs and methods of construction are permitted, provided an equivalent level of fire protection and life safety to that intended by the prescriptive code requirements is demonstrated. As an alternate to the prescriptive requirements of Section 909, it is proposed to use the alternate design methods employing an engineered performance-based design approach in lieu of the prescriptive code requirements. The 2013 CBC Section 104.11 states that the provisions of the building code are not intended to prevent the use of materials, alternate designs or methods of construction not specifically prescribed therein provided a proposed alternate is approved and its use authorized by the building official. The 2013 CBC further clarifies the intent of Section 104.11: • "The code is not intended to inhibit innovative ideas or technological advances. A comprehensive regulatory document such as a building code cannot envision and then address all future innovations in the industry. As a result, a performance code must be applicable to and provide a basis for the approval of an increasing number of newly developed, innovative materials, systems and methods for which no code text or referenced standards yet exist." Collectively, the goal and objective of the applicable building code requirements corresponding to the smoke control design is related to maintaining a tenable environment within the egress path. Therefore, the goal of the performance-based design approach will be to: • Provide a tenable environment for the evacuation or relocation of occupants. In order to achieve the aforementioned goal, the following performance-based design objectives has been defined and stated in engineering terms that will serve to substantiate and justify the performance-based design approach. The performance-based design objective will be to: • Slow the smoke layer descent for a period of time sufficient to allow the occupants to safely egress from the spaces open to and within the hangar. 4.1. Evaluation Tools FDS [1] is a CFD model of fire-driven fluid flow that predicts the growth and spread of fire and its products of combustion. The software solves numerically a form of the Navier-Stokes equations appropriate for low-speed, thermally driven flow with an emphasis on smoke and heat transport from fires. In FDS, each JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE 4 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 space of interest is divided into small rectangular control volumes, or computational cells. The model is capable of computing the density, velocity, temperature, pressure, and species concentration (e.g., carbon monoxide concentration) of the gas in each cell based on the conservation laws of mass, momentum, and energy to model the movement of fire gases. The accuracy with which the fire dynamics can be simulated depends on the number of cells that can be incorporated into the simulation. This number is ultimately limited by the computing power available. FDS simulations can be evaluated utilizing the Smokeview program, which is a software tool designed to visualize numerical calculations generated by FDS. Smokeview visualizes FDS modeling results by displaying particle flow, two-dimensional or three-dimensional shaded contours of gas flow data such as temperature, and flow vectors showing flow direction and magnitude. FDS was used extensively by the scientific community for several years before it was released to the public in 2000. Both lab-scale and large-scale experiments have been conducted to determine the accuracy and capabilities of the FDS program with respect to predicting the temperature and velocity of toxic gases. Currently, FDS is extensively used worldwide for performance-based designs. Pathfinder[2] is an agent based egress and human movement simulator. Pathfinder can provide a graphical user interface for simulation design and execution as well as 2D and 3D visualization tools for results analysis. Pathfinder supports two movement simulation modes. In "Steering" mode, doors do not act to limit the flow of occupants; instead, occupants use the steering system to maintain a reasonable separation distance. In SFPE mode, occupants make no attempt to avoid one another and are allowed to interpenetrate, but doors impose a flow limit and velocity is controlled by density. Pathfinder does not provide support for complex behaviors (e.g., family grouping). 4.2. Performance-Based Engineering Evaluation Criteria In order to evaluate the proposed smoke control system design concept, it is necessary to establish baseline evaluation criteria. The evaluation criteria are values with which the performance of the proposed design can be measured and compared. In order for a potential design to be deemed successful (i.e., demonstrate equivalency to the code intent), the evaluation criteria must be attained. Numerous tenability criteria have been suggested and used in published fire hazard analyses and test studies over the past two decades. Criteria generally impacts occupants when the upper smoke layer descends to a level below six feet above the floor/walking surface, the transitional elevation below which untenable conditions would be considered a threat to life safety. The presence of smoke, however, within six feet above the floor does not necessarily yield an untenable environment. The concentration of the smoke and the duration of human exposure to the smoke affect the lethality. This performance-based analysis will consider the effect of only acute (short-term) exposures to toxic products; chronic (long-term) effects are not considered. Three conditions will be analyzed within the building, specifically the means of egress systems,to determine whether tenability is maintained: visibility, gas concentration within the breathing zone, and ambient temperature. The evaluation parameters of each condition are described below. 4.2.1. Visibility Concentration of soot will be analyzed when the smoke descended to within six feet above the floor. Smoke concentrations, related to the visibility, are classified as: • Insignificant Smoke—An insignificant smoke concentration is defined as not visible but the occupants may be able to smell something in the air. A soot concentration of less than 0.01 grams of soot per kilogram of air is considered insignificant. JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE 5 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 • Light Smoke—A light smoke concentration is defined as producing minimal visibility obscuration. Light smoke contains between 0.01 and 0.1 grams of soot per kilogram of air. • Moderate Smoke—A moderate smoke condition is defined as resulting in reduced visibility to approximately 100 feet and is one which people can pass through but may not be tolerable for long periods. Moderate smoke contains between 0.1 and 1.0 grams of soot per kilogram of air. • Heavy Smoke—A heavy smoke condition is defined as one that persons cannot enter without serious consequences. Heavy smoke contains more than 1.0 grams of soot per kilogram of air. The visibility (S) is directly related to the extinction coefficient (K), which is estimated by the fire model. Estimates of visibility through smoke can be made by using the equation, S = C/K, Where C is a nondimensional constant, characteristic of the type of object being viewed through the smoke, i.e., C=8 for a light-emitting sign and C=3 for a light-reflecting sign (Mulholland, SFPE Handbook) [3]. The constant C is 3 by default. Tenability criteria for visibility is recommended at 33 ft (10 m) for large spaces according to the 5th Edition SFPE Handbook [3]. 4.2.2. Gas Concentrations Gas concentrations within the breathing zone will be evaluated at six (6) feet above the walking floor as follows: • CO— 150 parts per million (ppm) for 60 minutes and 300 ppm for 30 minutes— As a reference, according to the SFPE Handbook, 5th ED [3], Chapt. 63, EQ-(63.16), for light work (25 L/min, 30%COHb) and at Flco (Fraction Equivalent Dose of CO) = 0.3, 150 ppm of CO corresponds to an exposure time of approximately 60 minutes, and 300 ppm of CO corresponds to an exposure time of approximately 30 minutes. Although it is generally considered that incapacitation would occur when Flco reaches 1.0, an Flco of 1.0 represents the median of the distribution of exposure dose resulting in incapacitation. Consequently, applying a smaller dose of 0.3 as suggested in SFPE Handbook [3] Chapter 63, would provide some conservatism to account for uncertainties in the population. • 02—less than 12% (0.12 mol 02/mol air)—A 12-percent oxygen (02) level represents a point between 15-percent oxygen, where only minor physiological effects may be encountered, and 10-percent oxygen, where muscular control and critical judgment process can be markedly affected. A detailed discussion on hypoxia is presented by Purser in the Society of Fire Protection Engineering (SFPE) Handbook [3]. • CO2—less than 6% (0.06 mol CO2/mol air)—The 6-percent criterion for carbon dioxide (CO2), as stated by Purser in the SFPE Handbook [3], represents a level where breathing is uncomfortable and dizziness can occur. 10-percent CO2 is cited as a point where unconsciousness can occur within 2 minutes. The aforementioned values are considered critical tenability indicators since inhalation fatalities generally have lethal values of CO. It should be recognized that other toxic gases, including hydrogen chloride and hydrogen cyanide, are not addressed since these products are not readily estimated and based on past experience have not affected tenability results. JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE 6 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 4.2.3. Temperature Temperatures in the space are limited to a maximum of 60°C (140°F) because this is the human tolerance on bare skin in humid conditions. This value comes from the Biology Data Book, Federation of American Societies For Experimental Biology[4] Short-term exposures to higher temperatures may be acceptable since it is assumed that the duration of an untenable exposure to occupants will be brief; and occupants are expected to move away from the areas of intense heat and smoke during the course of egress. A 200°F (93°C)temperature limit is a conservative value based on the effects of heat stroke or hyperthermia. If an occupant is exposed to a hot environment, especially if the humidity is high, there is a danger of incapacitation or death due to hyperthermia. Prolonged exposure (greater than 15 minutes)to heated environments at elevated temperatures too low to cause burns can inhibit an occupant in the course of egress. The combination of exposure duration and intensity must be considered to appropriately define the threshold criteria limits; this holds true for gas concentrations as well. A dry-bulb temperature of 200°F (93°C) is considered to correspond to an upper limit at which loss of consciousness will occur. Gas temperatures of more than 212°F (100°C) are capable of causing loss of consciousness and death within several minutes. The widely accepted 200°F value can be compared to the following data provided by the National Academy of Sciences (1978): Gas Temperature (°F) Tolerance Time (minutes) or Effect 220 25 240 25 248 15 260 Nasal breathing difficult 300 Mouth breathing difficult 320 Rapid unbearable pain to dry skin Table 1 summarizes the evaluation criteria used in the evaluation of the proposed smoke control system. These evaluation criteria will be utilized to analyze the results of the modeling simulations performed to evaluate if the proposed smoke control design concept will provide a tenable environment (i.e., maintain the height of the smoke layer at least six feet above the highest walking surface) for the duration of 20 minutes or 1.5 times the calculated egress time, whichever is greater. Untenable smoke is assumed to be smoke that exceeds the evaluation criteria included in Table 1. These evaluation criteria are also used to determine the location of the height of the smoke layer interface (i.e., it is assumed that the smoke layer interface is located at the height where the smoke becomes untenable). JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE 7 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Table 1 — Performance-based Design Evaluation Criteria Parameter Description of Criterion Value of Criterion Limit temperatures to a maximum of 140°F (60°C) Temperature at a height of six feet above the highest occupied 140°F walking surface 3, 4 Maintain visibility of at least 33 feet (10 meters)to Visibility an exit sign at a height of six feet above the highest 33 feet occupied walking surface [3] Limit CO concentration to 150 ppm for 60 minutes, Carbon Monoxide (CO) 300 ppm for 30 minutes and 365 ppm for 20 150-365 ppm minutes at a height of six feet above the highest occupied walking surface [3] Limit CO2 concentration to 6-percent (6%) at a Carbon Dioxide (CO2) height of six feet above the highest occupied 6% walking surface [3] Limit 02 concentration to 12-percent (12%) at a Oxygen (02) height of six feet above the highest occupied 12% walking surface 3 Evaluate trial design for 20 minutes or 1.5 times Duration Section 4.4 calculated egress time, whichever is greater. 4.3. Design Fires in Hangar Smoke production generated by a design fire is the basis of design for analyzing accumulation and movement of smoke and hot gases. As discussed in Section 909.9, design fires should be based on a rational analysis and should consider factors like the characteristics of the fuel, fuel load, fuel spacing, and fuel configuration, effects included by the fires and whether the fires are likely to be steady or unsteady. In addition, the analysis should consider heat release and sprinkler effectiveness assumptions. The following provides a synopsis of the factors and assumptions that will be used to justify a maximum design fire occurring in the open area of the Tustin Hangar building. 4.3.1. Factors Considered In accordance with Section 909.9.1, the engineering analysis of a design fire should consider factors like the characteristics of the fuel, fuel load, effects included by the fires and whether the fires are likely to be steady or unsteady. • Fuel Characteristics and Fuel Loads A fuel package could be considered as one or more objects that consist of design fires. In large spaces, a fuel package would consist of one or more items of transient fuel. For instance, in the open area of the Tustin Hangar that would be designed as assembly use for public events (e.g., filming, recreational events,small-trade shows, etc.) based on the 75% Draft Reuse Study Report prepared by Page &Turnbull and dated July 2015, the fuel package might include seats and decorations that are left temporarily in the large hanger area. The maximum design fire proposed for the open area of the Tustin Hangar will be based on data from actual fuel loads and fire tests. Therefore, it can be concluded that the characteristics of the fuel will be considered. • Effects of Fire In accordance with the requirements of Section 909.4.2, the buoyancy and expansion caused by the design fire should be analyzed to determine the likelihood of intermediate stratification. Intermediate stratification of smoke occurs when the smoke produced by a fire is not hot JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE 8 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 enough to reach the ceiling level. The potential for intermediate stratification correlates with the difference in temperature between the floor and ceiling of the space. Using a temperature gradient from the floor to the roof top of the hangar of 23.5°F, the minimum convective heat release rate of the fire necessary to overcome stratification below approximately 192-foot roof height is 1,391 Btu/sec. Qc,min = 2.39E-5 x H5/2 x AT03/2, (NFPA 92 Annex E Equation E.2b [5]) Qc,min = 2.39E-5 x (192 ft)5i2 x (23.5°F)3i2 Qc,min = 1,391 Btu/sec Qc,min = Minimum convective heat release rate to overcome stratification (Btu/sec). H = Ceiling height above fire (ft). ATo = Difference between ambient temperature at the ceiling (assumed to be 93.5°F, which is the 0.4% cooling DB temperature in the Tustin area from the 2009 ASHRAE Handbook [6]) and ambient temperature (assumed to be 70°F) at the level of fire surface (°F). Assuming a 30% loss to radiative and conductive heat transfer, the resultant total heat release rate (Qc,tot) will be: Qc,tot= Qc,min/0.7 Qc,tot= 1,391 /0.7 Qc,tot= 1,987 Btu/sec (2,096 KW) This fire is smaller than the contemplated design fires proposed in this brief(refer to Section 4.3.3 in this report). Therefore, intermediate stratification of smoke from a proposed design fire will not be expected to occur below about 192-foot roof height in the Tustin Hangar building. • Steady or Unsteady Fires Normally, the fuel consumption pattern in a fire scenario consists of three growth rate periods: growth; full development; and decay (refer to Figure 1). Although intensity and duration of a fire will be dependent on many variable factors, all fires will experience some variation of the typical heat release rate history indicated above. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the heat release rate history for the design fire discussed herein could have a naturally decaying period according to the assumed fuel loading and environmental conditions. Growth 10 Decay 10 Fully Developed Fire Ignition Figure 1: The Stages of Fire Development [7] JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE 9 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 The growth stage of an unsteady fire is often considered to increase with the square of time. Figure 2 is from the Handbook "A Guide to Smoke Control in IBC 2006"[7] and gives the expected heat release rate history for various combustible furnishings. According to this article, the slow curve is appropriate for fires involving thick, solid objects (solid wood table, bedroom dresser, or cabinet), the medium growth cure is typical of solid fuels of lower density (upholstered furniture and mattresses), and the fast fires are thin, combustible items (paper, cardboard boxes, draperies). Ultra-fast fires include flammable liquids, some older types of upholstered furniture and mattresses or other highly volatile fuels. In addition, this article indicates that in a highly mixed collection of fuels, selecting the medium-to-fast cure is appropriate as long as there is no particularly flammable item present. Based on the proposed activities in the hangar and the analysis shown in Figure 2, a conservative fast T-square fire growth rate will be used for the Tustin Hangar smoke control engineering analysis, and the June 18, 2015 Hangar Performance-Based Engineering Design Brief approved by OCFA and TCDD. Thin Plywood Wardrobe Corrigated Cardboard Full Mail Cartons 4.6 m(15 ft)High Bags Methyl Alcohol Pool Various Contents 1 m(3 ft)High Pallet Stack Wood Pallets 1.5 m(5 ft}High 6000 Upholstered Furniture 5000 w Cottmn Polyester �C Interspring 4000 Mattress m ~� Solid wood y 3000 �A cabinetry � 1 is 2000 = S�pVy 1000 0 0 200 400 600 800 Time From Ignition (s) Figure 2: t2-Fire Cures for Various Combustible Items [7] For the purpose of evaluating the proposed alternative design using computer modeling tools, the heat release rate will remain at a steady state condition after reaching its peak output for the duration of the fire modeling time period. This methodology is a conservative approach in that the fires are assumed to burn according to a steady state condition, rather than experiencing the decay period as evidenced in full-scale fire tests. This will present more conservative design fire scenarios that will generate higher sustained temperatures and radiative heat flux over the duration of the simulation. 4.3.2. Separation Distance The determination of design fires should include consideration of the type of fuel, fuel spacing and configuration. The design fires should be increased if other combustibles are within the separation distance (i.e., the potential of fire spread is expected). The maximum floor-to-roof height within the hangar will be approximately 192 feet and the lower occupied portion of the hangar(which is located on the Ground Floor) will primarily be used as Group A Assembly JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE 10 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 occupancy. Due to the area constraints within the lower portion of the hangar, the potential of fire spread throughout the upper portion of the hangar will not be expected. 4.3.3. Heat-Release Assumptions The rational analysis should make use of the best available data and should not be based on excessively stringent limitations of combustible materials. Section 909.9.3 requires that the design fire not be excessively limited in size as this could result in a smoke control system that may be ineffective from a fire involving transient object(s) (e.g., temporary decorations, displays, etc.) that are only located in the hangar for a short period of time. One of the suggested approaches to establish the minimum fire size using a heat release rate (HRR) per unit floor area is described in the Method of Predicting Smoke Movement in Atria with Application to Smoke Management written by John H. Klote and the Society of Fire Protection Engineers [8]. The selection of the minimum fire size is determined by applying the heat release rate per unit area to a fire occurring over 100 ftz of floor area. Using a heat release rate of 20-25 Btu/ftz.s applied over a maximum fire area of 100 ftz suggested for office occupancies, a minimum design fire size will be 2,000-2,500 Btu/sec. In addition, using a heat release rate of 44-50 Btu/ftz.s applied over a maximum fire area of 100 ftz suggested for mercantile occupancies, a minimum design fire size will be 4,400-5,000 Btu/sec. The open hangar area will be designed as assembly use for public events and therefore the fire size should also take into account of the proposed hangar functionality. The assembly use would be filming with or without audience, recreational events, small-trade shows in the open hangar area and could contain a lot of decorations, electronic equipment, paper materials and seats. Peak heat release rates for some of these and similar combustible items from the oxygen consumption calorimeter test [9, 10] are summarized in Table 2. As can be seen from Table 2, the maximum peak heat release rate measured for most of the combustible commodities expected within the hangar area will not exceed 10,000 Btu/sec. When combined with the methods of a typical HRR per unit floor area and the HRR data from the oxygen consumption calorimeter, to be conservative, a maximum 20,000 kW (about 19,000 Btu/sec) design fire with a fast T-square fire growth rate will be used for this performance-based hangar smoke control engineering design based on June 18, 2015 Hangar Performance-Based Engineering Design Brief approved by OCFA and TCDD. Table 2— Peak Heat Release Rates for Various Combustible Commodities Element Peak Heat Release Rate (Btu/sec) [reference] Upholstered chairs 80—2,480 [7,9, 10] Chairs with metal frame and 160—370 [9, 10] polyurethane padding Sofa 3,120 7, 9, 10 Loveseats 940—2,890 9, 10 Wastebaskets 100—350 9, 10 Smaller S ruce Trees 40—620 7, 9, 10 Live Scotch Pine Trees 1,800—5,000 7, 9, 10 Boxed Computers, 1 pallet of 12-16 1,400—8,190 [7, 9, 10] computers Boxed Computers, 2 pallets, 10-12 14,100— 17,300 [7,9, 10] computers per pallet However, since the hangar may be used for blimp maintenance, the potential fire size at the blimp maintenance area needs to be analyzed. Based on blimp data (i.e., Goodyear), the balloon-like body of the airship is typically made of Polyurethane and Polyester with an innovative film (Tedlar film) with a weight of 12,840-19,780 pounds (5,824-8,972 kilogram) [10]. JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE 11 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 According to Equation (26.1) in Chapter 26 of the 5th SFPE Handbook [10], the heat release rate can be calculated by the following equation: Q = he x MLR, (Equ.(26.1) in Chapter 26 of the 5th Edition SFPE Handbook) = [(18 g/mz.s x 19.5-20.6 KJ/g) x 50%] + [(32.0 g/mz.s x 23.5 KJ/g)x 50%] = 561.4 KW/m2 (49.44 Btu/ftz.$) Where: Q = Heat release rate per unit area (KW/M2) he = Heat of combustion (KJ/g or MJ/kg) [11] MLR = Mass loss rate (g/mz.$) [11] The unit heat release rate of the blimp balloon-like body falls in the heat release rate range of 44- 50 Btu/ftz.s suggested for mercantile occupancies. However, due to lack of actual blimp fire development data, it is conservatively assumed that a potential larger design fire size of 30,000 kW with fast T-square fire growth rate would be at the blimp maintenance area. A calculated soot yield and CO yield will be approximately 14% and 7.3% respectively based on the soot yield data provided by SFPE Handbook Tables A.39 [11]. For the long term/assembly and buildings within hangar scenarios, the 20,000 kW design fire or less is appropriate. 4.3.4. Sprinkler Effectiveness Assumptions The effect of the sprinkler system may be assumed to have halted the fire growth at time of activation when documented in an engineering analysis. However, according to the article Method of Predicting Smoke Movement in Atria with Application to Smoke Management written by John H. Klote [8], the ability of sprinklers to suppress fires in spaces with ceiling heights higher than 35 to 50 feet is limited [8]. Consequently, based on the maximum hangar ceiling height of approximately 192 feet, the 20,000 kW fire originating within the center of the hangar on the Ground Floor would not activate the sprinkler system. Furthermore, an automatic sprinkler system was not provided in the high ceiling hangar area. 4.4. Hangar Timed Egress Engineering Analysis A timed egress analysis is intended to estimate the time in which building occupants will reach a point of safety. This analysis will evaluate the time at which the last occupant of each floor enters the exit. Once the last occupant passes an exit, it is assumed that sufficient protection will be provided for the remainder of the occupant's egress time. This timed egress analysis will evaluate the following different egress variables [7, 12]: • Detection Time—Time from fire ignition to detection (td) • Notification time—Time from detection to notification of occupants of a fire emergency (tn) • Pre-movement Time—Time from notification until evacuation commences (te) • Movement Time—Time from start of evacuation movement until safety is reached (tm) • Calculated egress time=to + tm • Required safe egress time (IRS ET) =to +tn + 1.5 (te + tm) JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE 12 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 4.4.1. Detection Time To determine the time to detection, several factors must be considered. These include the type of fire detection device installed in the building, the layout of the building, and visual access throughout the building. Currently, the high bay area of the Tustin Hangar building is not equipped with any type of fire/smoke detection devices. Based on a meeting with OCFA and TCDD on September 8, 2016, at least beam smoke detectors should be provided within the high bay in order to early detect smoke/fire for evacuation and relocation of occupants. A detection time of 415 seconds is obtained from the FDS modeling analysis based on beam detectors placed 112 feet above the Ground Floor at a 60-foot spacing, and a detection time of 339 seconds for beam detectors placed 112 feet above the Ground Floor at a 48-foot spacing throughout the hangar for the 20 MW design fire. Refer to Appendix B for FDS modeling beam detection time calculation results. 4.4.2. Notification Time In accordance with NFPA 72, actuation of alarm notification appliances should normally occur within 10 seconds after the activation of an initiating device. However, in accordance with NFPA 72 Section 23.8.1.3, if a positive alarm sequence is provided and approved by the AHJ, the notification time can be extended up to a maximum of 180 seconds. Since the final fire alarm notification system design and sequence of operation is unknown, to be conservative, a notification time of 180 seconds will be used in the timed egress analysis. 4.4.3. Pre-Movement Time The pre-movement time is the time required for occupants to assess their situation and decide to proceed to an exit. There are numerous factors that may affect pre-movement time. Some of these factors include people's familiarity with the building, the frequency the individuals have been subjected to false alarms in the past, whether or not the occupant decides to collect belongings, etc. This is a very difficult variable to determine accurately because it involves the unquantifiable aspect of human behavior. A reasonable pre- movement time must be determined for the purpose of calculating a total egress time. The SFPE Handbook presents a study conducted by the British Standards Institute in 1997 [12]. This study gives several different times for the pre-movement time to start based on the type of notification system in the building. The first time (W1) is less than 1 minute for buildings with live directives through a voice communication system and trained, uniformed staff. The second time (W2) is 3 minutes for buildings with nondirective voice messages and trained staff. The third time (W3) is greater than 4 minutes for buildings with a fire alarm signal and staff with no relevant training. While the times presented above were related to the building's notification system, the British study went on to relate the pre-movement times to the occupants proximity to the fire. The study suggests that for occupants who are within a large room or space and can clearly see smoke and flames at a distance, the time W2 (3 minutes) should be used for the scenario. The high bay of the Tustin Hangar consists of a large open space having a direct line of sight to the almost anywhere of the hangar. Due to the hangar layout and the findings of this study, a pre-movement time (te) of 3 minutes may be considered appropriate for the purpose of this evaluation. JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE 13 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 4.4.4. Movement Time The movement time includes travel time to an exit component, flow time through that exit component, time of the last person to egress to safety and all associated queuing times. As discussed in Section 4.1 of this report, the Pathfinder egress modeling program developed by Thunderhead Engineering will be used to calculate the movement time. The movement time is the sum of the travel time to an exit component and the time to egress through that exit component. Table 3 summarizes the results of the movement time and calculated egress time for four (4) egress scenarios with different occupant loads provided by Page &Turnbull and dated September 13, 2016. Table 3-Calculated Egress Time in Hangar Occupant Load Calculated Egress Time 1.5 times Calculated Egress Scenario Pre-Movement Time Movement Time Egress Time (person) (sec) (sec) (sec) 1,000 180 281 692 1 2,400 180 495 1,013 5,700 180 1,041 1,832 1,000 180 257 656 2 2,400 180 462 963 5,700 180 881 1,592 1,000 180 140 480 3 2,400 180 297 716 5,700 180 699 1,319 1,000 180 128 462 4 2,400 180 228 612 5,700 180 488 1,002 Refer to Appendix C for Pathfinder egress modeling calculation results. 4.4.5. Required Safe Egress Time (RSET) The required safe egress time (RSET) is summarized in Table 4 for four (4) egress scenarios with different occupant loads. Table 4-Minimum Required Safe Egress Time in Hangar Detection plus 1.5 times Calculated Egress Scenario Occupant Load Notification Time Egress Time Minimum RSET (person) sec (sec) (sec) 1,000 519 692 1,211 1 2,400 519 1,013 1,532 5,700 519 1,832 2,351 1,000 519 656 1,175 2 2,400 519 963 1,482 5,700 519 1,592 2,111 1,000 519 480 999 3 2,400 519 716 1,235 5,700 519 1,319 11838 1,000 519 462 981 4 2,400 519 612 1,131 5,700 519 1,002 11521 JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE 14 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 *Note that a detection time of 339 seconds is used in Table 4 based on beam detectors placed 112 feet above the Ground Floor at a 48-foot spacing throughout the hangar. If any changes are made to the assumptions herein on the final fire alarm system design drawings,the timed egress analysis needs to be updated accordingly. Tenability needs to be maintained for duration of 2,351 seconds (39.2 minutes) on the Ground Floor of the hangar for the worst egress scenario as presented in Table 4. 4.5. Hangar Smoke Control Engineering Analysis Assumptions As discussed in Section 3.0 of this report, the proposed method of design will consist of applying an engineered performance-based smoke control design evaluation criteria. In addition to the design fire assumptions presented above, the following assumptions were included in the FDS modeling analysis of the proposed hangar smoke control. • The entire hangar building is included in the FDS modeling environment. • A maximum 20,000 kW design fire with a fast T-square fire growth rate is used for the normal hangar smoke control engineering analysis. • No smoke exhaust or normal HVAC ventilation systems is provided or operated during simulation duration. • The maximum design fire is assumed to be located within the footprint of the hangar area, and is not assumed to be sprinkler controlled due to the approximate 192 feet floor-to-roof height. Locating the fire in the center of the hangar high bay will be conservative, since the fire/smoke plume will be located away from walls and will be able to entrain more air. The more air entrained, the more smoke is produced, which will result in a more conservative evaluation. • The soot yield (i.e., the fraction of mass converted into smoke particulate) is assumed to be approximately 5% to accommodate mixed combustible materials (wood and plastics) that may be present in the hangar for the 20MW design fires. • The Carbon Monoxide (CO) yield is assumed to be approximately 3.8% for the mixed combustible materials in the hangar for the 20MW design fires. • A potential larger design fire size of 30,000 kW with fast T-square fire growth rate is at the blimp maintenance area. A calculated soot yield and CO yield is approximately 14% and 7.3%, respectively. • A default visibility factor of 3 for non-illuminated objects (i.e., light-reflecting signs) is used in the fire modeling evaluation per Mulholland, SPFE Handbook [3], a Guide to Smoke Control in the 2006 IBC Handbook [7] and Principles of Smoke Management handbook [13]. • The smoke layer needs to be maintained at six feet above the Ground Floor. 4.6. Hangar Smoke Control Engineering Analysis Scenarios Smoke production generated by a design fire is the basis of the performance-based design. As discussed in the previous sections of this report, design fires of 20,000 kW and 30,000 kW are used for the engineered performance-based design evaluation. Table 5 lists four (4) base fire scenarios that are proposed to be evaluated in the deterministic computer fire modeling analysis based on the proposed hangar operation schemes and the June 18, 2015 Hangar Performance-Based Engineering Design Brief approved by OCFA and TCDD. Refer to Appendix D for the FDS modeling simulation results of the four(4) fire scenarios. JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE 15 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Table 5- Proposed Design Fire Scenarios Smoke Sprinkler Fire Growth Max. HRR Exhaust and Fire Scenario Location Controlled Rate kW Makeup Air West of Hangar for Fast, 1 Temporary/ Interim No T-Square 30,000 No Use Scenario Unsteady East of Hangar for Fast, 2 Temporary/ Interim No T-Square 20,000 No Use Scenario Unsteady Center of Hangar for Fast, 3 Buildings within No T-Square 20,000 No Hangar Scenario Unsteady East of Hangar for Fast, 4 Buildings within No T-Square 20,000 No Hangar Scenario Unsteady 4.7. Hangar Smoke Control Engineering Analysis Results The hangar smoke control engineering analysis described in Section 4 of this report was evaluated using the CFD computer program FDS and a timed egress modeling tool Pathfinder. The primary factors included in the FDS and Pathfinder analysis of the hangar smoke control engineering design were: • Architectural building layout and egress scenarios • Proposed performance-based engineering analysis with key assumptions described in Sections 4.3 and 4.5 of this report • Evaluation criteria provided in Section 4.2 of this report • Evaluation fire scenarios 1 through 4 in Section 4.6 and egress scenarios 1 through 4 in Section 4.4 of this report As indicated in Appendix D, the FDS analysis results demonstrate that a tenable environment is able to be maintained for duration of at least 2,970 seconds (49.5 minutes) for all design fire scenarios, which means that the available safe egress time (ASET) of at least 2,970 seconds (49.5 minutes) can be achieved. Table 6 below summarizes the ASET and the RSET for all design fire and egress scenarios. Table 6-ASET and RSET of Design Fire and Egress Scenarios Design Fire RSET ASET Safe Evacuation for Scenario Egress Scenario sec sec Occupants in Hangar 1 2,351 3,000 Yes 1 2 2,111 3,000 Yes 3 1,838 3,000 Yes 4 1,521 3,000 Yes 1 2,351 2,970 Yes 2 2 2,111 2,970 Yes 3 1,838 2,970 Yes 4 1,521 2,970 Yes 1 2,351 3,600 Yes 3 2 2,111 3,600 Yes 3 1,838 3,600 Yes 4 1,521 3,600 Yes 1 2,351 31600 Yes 4 2 2,111 3,600 Yes 3 1,838 3,600 Yes 4 1,521 3,600 Yes JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE 16 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 4.8. Hangar Smoke Control Engineering Design Considerations As presented in Table 6 above, the ASET is greater than the RSET for all design fire and egress scenarios. When comparing and analyzing the engineering analysis results in Table 6, it is JENSEN HUGHES recommendation that the Egress Scenario 3 be designed for the proposed re-use of the hangar such that less RSET will be required for safe evacuation of occupants as well as less modifications will be needed to the existing hangar building. However, the final design is subject to review and approval of OCFA and TCDD. Note that the fire alarm system design may be prepared by a fire alarm contractor as a deferred submittal. The above-stated design requirements and considerations in this report shall be incorporated into the future fire alarm system design. 5. CONCLUSION This Performance-Based Hangar Smoke Control Engineering Analysis report details the smoke control design concept proposed for the Tustin Hangar project. This report describes the design methodology, modeling evaluation criteria and assumptions, and analysis results and considerations applicable for the hangar smoke control engineering design proposed for this project. The results of the hangar smoke control engineering analysis described herein demonstrate that the proposed hangar smoke control engineering design approach will provide occupants with a safe and tenable means of egress system in the event of a fire emergency. Consequently, based on the engineering analysis documented herein, the hangar smoke control approach proposed for the Tustin Hangar project will meet the goals of the 2013 CBC. Submitted by JENSEN HUGHES, Prepared by: Reviewed by: l rvk V6# (P;' Ning (Frank) Wang, P.E. Tuk Vorapani, P.E. Senior Fire Protection Engineer Associate Director—Anaheim Office fwancia-mensenhucihes.com tvorapani(d-Nensenhuahes.com NFW(r/TUK) JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT APPENDIX TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 APPENDIX A. ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS AND DESIGN DIAGRAMS JENSEN HUGHES PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK t T MEMM no LD -j z 0� 0 A z 00 < U) ))\ z z w< a� U) LLI (1) cy 0 2 < 629 U) 0 (1) CY) a) 0 00 CO 2 o) m \\\ a) < \}j U) W -i LU oo< LU cl M OW:�E j o U-) 0 0< > 0) z Z>-U) z W-j Z 0 U) LU LL, z�= 00 cow< m 00 0 L)of C-) Cl) t I�t r- W M 0 LLI F-- 0 Cj L6 0-1 4=-j < --(D 0 z 6 -ZO (OU V )& 7 w j\ \ co z :x w CD z z MDZ_ C, WX @ z CD .9 M (U LLJ LLJ Cl) \X C 0 00 LLJ < u F 7 1 ^ u CD z L CD -J > �\\ \ ° C) C.3 00 z u U LL, LLJ - pq 0� U 0 <Z U u, \ \ _ \ >L� <()f D v)r U U w w u w\�\��(�\\ R 0 LLJ D I-- LL -2: E3 E3 V) > E3 ow I--, pz -J L3 -j pq`f 3f:0� 0� /\ (D gw - }3\7§ /crew Lu Lx p0E3 wo -j V) CD LLJ 0-0�V)v) 0� LLJ 0 -W D —;L10jo�mP= U 5 0 ~ Q MEMEM 2 \ ® �\ \� 2 § / Lu ii e a 0 2 > \ , / Z g £ 0 a I 0 7 , h ® U k c ® E CIL \ k �0 2 )a n 7 -0 %gg / / ƒ }\ » \ \ / 000 0 ± C14 LO 0 ` 2 \/ n CO n / 06 ~ : o 0 z 0 2 \ ^ \ /\ / 55 Q $ m ` k = S 2 k/ / m : = m : 2 e CO I H2 \) 3 b / / \ . ; z \ Z-11 ^ \/ >uz\ � � � , ^ / >����\\ \ ° / \\2�-\j , 0\5u - - 3 �\ /\//\LLJ //\ / v [J J` \ \Je\ ®_ / \ & S I %K/CU } E3 w E3 E3 y \ L"JL±\&} \\\ / LD~ / IF LL \ L z /JD3 ( - ±*£ � } LL, z(,) /crew zx E3s ze j j }L-Lj \\ / LLJ � a(\(\/\/\\ c c s a 22ILL / 20 ° of\ \� R a ƒ b � ? \ / 3 / \ e 0 0 0 § f.§ , h ® U / I ) f » E J \ I R / 0- _ 0 0 2 � \ � 7 { %g g \\ » ° _ \ / / ƒ 0 « / ® \ / \\\ \\ w 0 _ m \ 0 2 27 72 \ f / _ \ - ® E < LU � 0 00cl 2 2 n - 3/ / R LU U m : 2 * : 2 $ \ ® ` m \ / m n : 0 , // e \/ \ \ \) / \j , m o !_ . \ / Q _ < _ / » e LS L = e W-J XNA \ ; ~ > / \ Ml \�no\j , \5///g\ �\ /\/\/(}\/\ ? ? ? ? 7 � D « « y v [JJ )I c ° z \JS a ƒ \/}gg=}/ \ _ D y f0y 3 3 y \ \\&® \\\ / ~ /\ &\ 0 j ]\ / /z z z LLJ <\w\\\\\/\ /}\\/ \\ \) 2 3 2\ / I\ ) 2\ \so=me=_,e . 0 <1 c c s a � 2 / 2 / ! §i, , § R ? _ ? \ b \ 2 \ ( , / Z § f/ ® 0 , m U 7 82 \ n » © a § E \ \ 0 § 0 e 2 7 { %gg \\ \ » \ ! \ _ \ / ƒ M - « « / 7 / 000 kk ? ? § r / / $\ \ \k n / G : : e E ! _ / ± ± $ 2 \ : \ j 2 / « \ /\ \ : : 22 O 2 8 -5- 3 /2 � a ? w ® " ® 2 « m ƒ g a ? 2 © R $ n : ) � c / \ • : 2 e \\ � 2j , ° / \ \ 7 ® �� -i « _ \ ¥ z ? ? o \\4 \ © ® \ | o / LLJ § _ 2/} } A \5///g\ - - 3 �\ /\/\/(}\/\ ? ? ? ? 7 LJJ « « y ° ! � 1 v [JJ )I 0 ° z \JS a ƒ \/}gg=}/ \ _ -.y f j y 3 3 y \ ow 0 ED \\\ / LD ~ /\ &\ 5CI j ]: / /z M \ )\ /0- Ljj <\�\\\\\/\ /}\\/ \\ \) 2 3 2\ / I\ ) 2\ z L \so=me=_,e . PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT APPENDIX B TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 APPENDIX B. FDS BEAM DETECTION CALCULATIONS JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE B—1 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 FDS MODELING BEAM DETECTION TIME CALCULATIONS The FDS model was also used to determine the detection time for activating beam detectors. The following additional assumptions were used in the FDS analysis to determine the beam detection time. • Obscuration set point was set up at 50% per meter for all beam detectors. • Beam detectors were provided at a height of 112-feet above Ground Floor. • Beam detectors were provided at a 48-foot spacing in the hangar. The following figures show the detection time for the normal hangar design fire of 20 MW. Since the 30 MW design fire uses larger values of soot and CO yield, the associated detection time should be faster than the normal 20 MW fire. B.1. Fire Scenarios — 20,000 kW T2-Fast Growth Fire in Hangar Frame:338 Time.338.0 -h Figure B.1: FDS output indicating where beam detectors (Green dot) are not activated at 338 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE B—2 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 F,a 339 Time.339.0 mesh.1 Figure B.2: FDS output indicating where beam detectors (Red dot) are activated at 339 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT APPENDIX C TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 APPENDIX C. PATHFINDER EGRESS MODELING ANALYSIS RESULTS JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE C— 1 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 PATHFINDER MODELING MOVEMENT TIME CALCULATIONS A timed egress analysis is intended to estimate the time in which building occupants will reach a point of safety. This analysis will evaluate the time at which the last occupant of the hangar area evacuates out of the hangar building during a fire emergency. Once the last occupant leaves the hangar, it is assumed that sufficient protection (i.e., outside the building)will be provided for the remainder of the occupant's egress time. As discussed in Section 4.4 of the report, Pathfinder egress modeling program developed by Thunderhead Engineering will be used for the project to calculate the movement time (6) —time from start of evacuation movement until safety is reached Time from start of evacuation movement until safety is reached. Pathfinder is an agent based egress and human movement simulator. Pathfinder can provide a graphical user interface for simulation design and execution as well as 2D and 3D visualization tools for results analysis. Pathfinder supports two movement simulation modes. In "Steering" mode, doors do not act to limit the flow of occupants; instead, occupants use the steering system to maintain a reasonable separation distance. In SFPE mode, occupants make no attempt to avoid one another and are allowed to interpenetrate, but doors impose a flow limit and velocity is controlled by density. Pathfinder does not provide support for complex behaviors (e.g., family grouping). The movement-time analysis assumed that the means of egress components serving the Ground Floor of the hangar building will be provided with exit widths, which are based on the egress width factors shown on the Egress Scenario Plans that were prepared for Page &Turnbull and dated September 13, 2016. C.1. Pathfinder Modeling Key Assumptions The following key assumptions were included in the Pathfinder egress modeling analysis of the proposed hangar smoke control. • A SFPE mode was used to calculate the movement time. • Occupants are assumed to be 60% adults, 25%junior and 15% senior. • The walking speed of adults was assumed to be 250 feet per minute, 212 feet per minute for the junior and 200 feet per minute for the senior. • The effective door width was assumed to be 32 inches for 3-foot by 7-foot single doors and 68 inches for 6-foot by 7-foot pair doors. C.2. Pathfinder Modeling Analysis Results The following figures provide a detailed summary of the Pathfinder modeling analysis results. JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE C-2 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 C.2.1. Egress Scenario 1 — Use of All Existing Hangar Pedestrian Doors Only Q T I - r..F t b i`:'® A 31' 't'@ Fnor s�raem(n,): o xl wat ne�gn¢U!', c f seo� fi nj Oensiry -d: 106/100 ^J Level of Se LwelMSe �LevelW Se Nmmalrze '�Spaad 0TimeNE Ll .Q Nsag$A" u,q.Onsl I II 21, II s-_<_ Tmc o-nia�o fiamvasell l" Figure C.1: Pathfinder screenshot showing 1,000 persons traveling inside hangar and egressing through exit doors to the exterior © Run Simula#ion-Tustin Hangar_Scenano-1-0L14o4.pth i .�. Sim Time(s): I Run Time(s); Occs Rem: Dccs Total: 1(100 ATG Max(m): p.p DTG Avg(m): 0.0 nor _ - r i_U Flour 0_0 ft-}Door22 1_0 53_7 31 0 Floor 0_0 ft->Door23 4_B B1_1 48 0 Floor 0_0 ft-�Door2S 1_2 109_9 71 0 Floor 0_0 ft-�Roomlll 0_0 0_0 0 Floor 0_0 ft-�Door26 12_B 252_4 102 0 Floor 0_0 ft-�Roomlll 0_0 0_0 0 Floor 0_0 ft->Roomlll 0_0 0_0 0 Floor 0_0 ft-}aoom111 0_0 0_0 0 Floor 0_0 ft-�Roomlll 0_0 0_0 0 Floor 0_0 ft-�Door27 7_5 140_0 90 0 Floor 0_0 ft-�Door2S 3_0 99_0 63 0 Floor 0_0 ft->Door29 S_S 102_6 64 0 Floor 0_0 ft-}Door30 5_2 280_7 185 0 Floor 0_0 ft-}Roomll 0_0 280_7 1000 -------------------- --------- --------- --------- ------IJ J]Show results when finished L]Pause if oca43ants appear to be&txk debug � Pause L `� Figure C.2: Pathfinder results indicate a movement time of 281 seconds is required for 1,000 persons to egress out of the hangar JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE C—3 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 ®v,�ne�erzoie.ca-n.Fuvw�geFX�.�.ao- o _ _ ®G.1®® ®8 ® [set waynim): o® fp -13 oewam cn" '.p Lerddse p Leveld5ei '.p Leveld5ei 13 Normalise t]Sped - - - — I;. ....I]UsagdAc p Uugeftu II II Paused ,.-_ ! --- Figure C.3: Pathfinder screenshot showing 2,400 persons traveling inside hangar and egressing through exit doors to the exterior © Run Simulation-Tustin Hangar Scenario-1_OL2A00.pth Sim Time(s): qgq Run Time(s): 25.2 Occs Rema docs Total: 2400 ATG Max(m): 0 0 ATG Avg(m): 0 0 Floor 0-0 £t-�600r22 1-8 218.7 144 0 Floor 0-0 £t->600r23 1-9 235.6 158 0 Floor 0-0 £t-}600r25 2-8 281.2 188 0 Floor 0_0 £t-}Room-111 0_0 0_0 0 Floor 0_0 £t-}1)oor26 4_1 494.0 327 0 Floor 0_0 £t->9oom111 0_0 0_0 0 Floor 0_0 £t->9oom111 0_0 0_0 0 Floor 0-0 £t-�Roomlll 0-0 0-0 0 Floor 0_0 £t-}Room-111 0_0 0_0 0 Floor 0_0 £t->1)oor27 6_9 286.8 189 0 Floor 0-0 £t-�600r28 5-4 211.4 139 0 Floor 0-0 £t->600r29 3-7 430.3 286 0 Floor 0_0 £t-}600r30 2_6 489.3 326 0 Floor 0_0 £t->Poom11 0_0 494.0 2400 - -------------------- --------- --------- --------- ------L_J I rrr 'J'Show results when finished d Pause if occupants appear to be shuck I Debuq Results Pause Lam] Figure C.4: Pathfinder results indicate a movement time of 495 seconds is required for 2,400 persons to egress out of the hangar JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE C-4 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 PMhfind 1 16,5z-"-.1i_—,.,.. 're i,.1l "t — _ 0� f3 File ants -,_ &bee JN 8 L'4Jx +a Fo P­ (� ): o U W.I,M,t�.r a kt n i.-p 0—,q Ex!ted: 155/5700 11L of --Q Level of 17 N-1 Q Speea t7 T-0 -13lkege[Ac ..Q llugelln II 21.2 vacua rme o-aiv:u F,ame,a�as,o 1ps Figure C.5: Pathfinder screenshot showing 5,700 persons traveling inside hangar and egressing through exit doors to the exterior © Run Simulation-Tustin Hangar-Scenario-1 4L5700.pth i Sim Time(s): F 1041.0 1 Run Time(s); 104,2 Occs Rem: 0 Occs Total: i 5700 DTG Max(m). F 0,0DTG Avg(m): 0.0 Floor 0-0 t-> rc _a 473-7 822 Floor 0.0 ft->1)Oor22 1.7 652_2 438 0 Floor 0.0 ft->Door23 0.6 465_0 313 0 Floor 0.0 ft->Daar2S 1.1 757_3 509 0 Floor 0.0 ft->1zOom111 0.0 0_0 0 Floor 0.0 ft->Door26 2.1 1040_9 695 0 Floor 0.0 ft->Room111 0.0 0_0 0 Floor 0.0 ft->Room111 0.0 0_0 0 Floor 0-0 =t->Roomlll 0.0 0_0 0 Floor 0-0 =t->Roomlll 0.0 0_0 0 Floor 0.0 ft->1)oor27 2.0 661_3 448 0 Floor 0.0 ft->Door28 1.6 473_5 318 0 Floor 0.0 ft->1)oor29 2.4 941_2 631 0 Floor 0.0 ft->1)oor30 1.1 1022_1 685 0 Floor 0.0 ft->Roomll ------0=0 1040_9 5700 �I -------------------- --------- ------U f Show results when finished d Pause if occupants appear to be st3xk Debug Results Pause Figure C.6: Pathfinder results indicate a movement time of 1,041 seconds is required for 5,700 persons to egress out of the hangar JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE C—5 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 C.2.2. Egress Scenario 2— Use of All Existing Doors and Some Roll-down Doors Converted r 4 4 ao«s :anm(m): o set ,o.,e�gm(ml: o L"cup-Cont ,7 o.es� -d: 147/1000 �.p tend en seg -p end m seg psNdms�� i...0 Hoem.raed Q Tim ro Exrt — t...p u:ag$A«eLi ti•. D Useg N�.sse RIP IT I� II f Figure C.7: Pathfinder screenshot showing 1,000 persons traveling inside hangar and egressing through exit doors to the exterior © Run Simulation-Tustin Hangar-Scenario-201-1000.pth Sim Time(s). Run Tme(s); y3 0 Occs Rem: =�o Occs Total: 1000 DTG Max(m); .0 DTG Avg(m): 0 0 4or 00 ft—>Doar22 16 478_ FlT r 0_0 ft->600r23 2.8 76.8 48 0 Fluor 0_0 ft->600r25 10.3 B7.7 53 0 Floor 0_0 ft-s Roomiii 0_0 0.0 0 Floor 0_0 ft-�Door26 9.3 256.4 167 0 Floor 0-0 ft-�Room111 0-0 0.0 0 Floor 0-0 ft-�Rccm111 0-0 0.0 0 Floor 0-0 =t->Rccm111 0-0 0.0 0 Floor 0_0 =t-�Door27 7_1 106_1 67 0 Floor 0_0 ft-�Ooor28 9.5 22_4 54 0 Floor 0-0 ft-�600r29 6_S 143.7 93 0 Floor 0-0 ft-�Ooor30 5.9 252.2 162 0 Floor 0-0 =t->600r32 1.9 48.8 25 0 Floor 0.0 =t-}600r33 14.2 44.5 20 0 FlT r 0.0 =t->Room11 0.0 256.4 1000 _ -------------------- --------- --------- --------- ------ f I rrr r W Show results when finished J Pause if occupants appear to be stuck Debug _ Results Pause Figure C.8: Pathfinder results indicate a movement time of 257 seconds is required for 1,000 persons to egress out of the hangar JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE C-6 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 &b®® UID V* - a steam cmr o O w� cmz v o«�Par 0Dam -00 o �e asn U iNei a sa -D Ho:m,rae O sp- - - p Ti.- 13.0 II II P-M Tim,:D 13; Figure C.9: Pathfinder screenshot showing 2,400 persons traveling inside hangar and egressing through - __'V exit doors to the exterior © Run Simulation-Tust nano-2.pth dL Sim Time(s): qE,l,� Run Time(s); 1 Occs Rem, F__ 0 Oecs Total: 2400 ATG Max(m). o,0 OTG Aug(m): 0,0 Floor 0.0 £t-}1)oor23 1.9 149_2 100 0 Fluor 0.0 £t->1)oor25 2_B 275_3 iB4 0 Floor 0.0 £t->Room111 0.0 0.0 0 Floor 0.0 £t-�Door26 4.1 461_3 305 0 Floor 0.0 £t-�Roomlll 0.0 0.0 0 Floor 0.0 £t-�ROom111 0.0 0.0 0 Floor 0.0 Ft->Roomlll 0.0 0.0 0 Floor 0_0 £t-}Door27 6_9 213_8 140 0 Floor 0.0 £t-�Door28 5.4 187_6 123 0 Floor 0.0 Ft->Door29 3.7 396_1 263 0 Floor 0.0 £t-}Door30 2.6 459_5 306 0 Floor 0.0 £t->1)oor32 10.5 108_8 67 0 Floor 0.0 £t-�Door33 10.2 179_2 114 0 Floor 0.0 £t-�ROomll 0.0 461_3 2400 �I -------------------- --------- --------- --------- ------LJ I I !!r r ❑J Show results n-hen finished J Pause if occupants appear to be studs Debug Results aac:se OK Figure CA 0: Pathfinder results indicate a movement time of 462 seconds is required for 2,400 persons to egress out of the hangar JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE C-7 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 File Ag� Score A..411 Y H* ®®®M ®o ®* R 'R' FF C 13 occupant Cor Exi ted: 82/5700 U uensm I..p car1"11:or s: ..p 1-of s: U sNa m se 13 N.-Ah. p speed s p Ti—h til t...p UsagejAcc — if 9.0 'p Usege(Nst II �I A©®®®®©— *0 P-M nm OM11au Figure CA 1: Pathfinder screenshot showing 5,700 persons traveling inside hangar and egressing through exit doors to the exterior ©Run Simulation-kstin Hangar_Scenario-'_0L5700.pth Sim Time(s): ��r &K.0 Run Time(s); 7 O«s Rem: Oc€s Total: gyp❑ DTG Max(m): F o❑ OTG Avg(m): ❑❑ nos 00 t-> r22 C-B 4S _ Fl nor 0.0 £t->1)aar23 1.7 349_8 202 0 y Fl oar 0-0 £t->1)aar25 0.6 762_B 517 0 Floor 0-0 £t->Raam111 0.0 0.0 0 Floor 0-0 =t->6a=26 1.7 259_5 575 0 Fl oar 0.0 =t->Raamlll 0.0 0.0 0 Fl oar 0.0 £t->Raam111 0.0 0.0 0 Fl oar 0.0 £t->Raam111 0.0 0.0 0 Floor 0.0 ft-�600r27 2.5 495_2 332 ❑ Floor 0.0 ft->600r28 4_B 412_7 275 ❑ Floor 0.0 ft->600r29 0.4 880_9 590 ❑ Floor 0.0 ft->600r30 4.7 836_8 560 ❑ Floor 0.0 ft->600r32 1.7 284_6 190 ❑ Floor 0.0 ft->600r33 0.9 580_0 390 ❑ Floor 0_0 ft->Roomll 0.0 - 880_9 --- 5700 -------------------- ------� � oFi t /I Show results when finished f Pause if occupants appear to be stuck Oe6ug Results_ Pause r OK Figure C.12: Pathfinder results indicate a movement time of 881 seconds is required for 5,700 persons to egress out of the hangar JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE C—8 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 C.2.3. Egress Scenario 3– Use of Selected Doors, New Doors and Roll-down Doors Converted ffPatl6,W,r 7016 6aT.1,,1-3�9a_Sceaa�io�=0110W >�j-�` � _— job. file Agents Scene A 1077®% ®IB # +@ 'r t -s�mem ln,l: o xo wat rkignc U�!' c f seo� fi EJ Occupant fon 7A o- 000 Si lerei m seg 1rd al se. �1e�nase Nmmalixe Q Time tv E,.Q Usa gejAcci - Usegeilna II II II A9®®®®m— O T M51MO Famves 4.4fpa Figure C.13: Pathfinder screenshot showing 1,000 persons traveling inside hangar and egressing through exit doors to the exterior © Run Simulation-Tustin Hangar-Scenario-3-QL1040.pth Sim Time(s): F 139.5 Run Time(s): 7.4 Occs Rem: 0 Occs Total: loop QTc Mair(m): F 0.0 DTc Avg(m): 0.0 Floor 0_0 £t—>Room111 0.0 0_0 0 Floor 0-0 Ft—>600rt7 0.9 116.5 Ic 0 Floor 0_0 Ft—}1)oor28 0.0 0.0 0 Floor 0-0 £t—>1)oor29 8.7 133.7 as 0 Floor 0_0 Ft-}1)oor32 1.6 79.3 49 0 Floor 0-0 £t->1)oor33 S_7 76.6 44 0 Floor 0_0 £t-}Room111 0.0 0_0 0 Floor 0-0 £t->Room04 0.0 0.0 0 Floor 0-0 £t->Room041 0.0 0-0 0 Floor 0_0 Ft-}1)oor34 1.9 83.4 139 1 Floor 0_0 £t-yDoor35 2.5 77.1 125 1 Floor 0-0 =t->Room283 4.0 4-0 4 Floor 0_0 =t-}Hangar 0.0 139.5 1000 Floor 0-0 =t->Roomlll 4.0 4-0 0 -------------------- --------- --------- --------- ------U I 4 r 0 Show results when finished Q Pause if 000upants appea to he sbxk Qe6ug Results Pause Figure CA 4: Pathfinder results indicate a movement time of 140 seconds is required for 1,000 persons to egress out of the hangar JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE C–9 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 aPMn 2016.1: r 1 1 _ File Agents S ,-.�.. � ®Q®M [0kE U '1'Q Fbor Separaam(m): 0 Set Wal lkr�tGn): D® R �.0 Ouap-Cont Dms�ry Nor— Ej('itdd' 11 '.;..Q Level W Ser r-Q Level d Ser Q Level W Ser U Speed ''. V--, y-a UugdAau U use9F[Iesta �I I� 7'11 :1L-1 - Figure C.15: Pathfinder screenshot showing 2,400 persons traveling inside hangar and egressing through exit doors to the exterior © Run Simulation-Tustin Hangar-Scenario-3-01-2400.pth Sim Time(s); 296,5 Run Time(s); y�,g Occs Rem: p Occs Total: 2400 DTG Max(m): 0,0 DTG Avg(m): 0,0 Floor 0.0 ft-tRnamlll 0_0 0_0 0 Floor 0.0 ft-tRoomlll 0_0 0_0 0 Floor 0.0 ft-t600r27 6_0 289_2 191 0 Floor 0.0 ft-t600r28 0_0 0_0 0 Floor 0.0 ft-t600r29 2_0 269_4 180 0 Floor 0.0 ft-t600r32 2_0 195_8 128 0 Floor 0.0 ft-t600r33 5_4 220_1 143 0 Floor 0.0 Ft-tRoomlll 0_0 0_0 0 Floor 0-0 =t->Rcom04 0-0 0-0 0 Floor 0-0 ft->Room041 0-0 0-0 0 Floor 0-0 ft->600r34 2-9 170-3 303 1 Floor 0-0 ft->600r35 0-7 169-4 315 1 Floor 0-0 ft->Room283 0-0 0-0 0 Floor 0-0 ft->Ha gar 0-0 296-4 2400 Floor 0-0 ft->Roomlll 0-0 0-0 - -------------------- --------- --------- --------- ------ � Ilf 1 ❑J Show results when finished J Pause if occupants appear to be stuck Debug Results F Pause r OK. Figure C.16: Pathfinder results indicate a movement time of 297 seconds is required for 2,400 persons to egress out of the hangar JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE C- 10 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 �oa Nage.sa�a.�oa ots�oo &b U® AID ®* '+'4 r a(aWl f5 =D o«wans[v -O De q - 152/5700 o­1 at gi Ll �.Q Nemal' o TmemE Q ilug$Ac Q Ylsege�lns II 00 0000 ra ,d ... Tim (hA/1139 rs.mete42.7fF; Figure C.17: Pathfinder screenshot showing 5,700 persons traveling inside hangar and egressing through exit doors to the exterior ©Run Simulation-Tustin Hangar_Scenario-3_01_5700.pth Sim Time(s): 699.0_ Run Time(s): 57.1 Occs Rem: 0 Occs Total: L X00 ATG Max(m): 0.0 ATG Avg(m): 0.0 Floor 0.0 ft-�Roomlll 0.0 0_0 0 Floor 0.0 ft->Room111 0.0 0_0 0 Floor 0-0 -t->Door27 1.1 550.9 437 0 Floor 0.0 ft-}Door28 0.0 0.0 0 Floor 0.0 ft-}Door29 0.8 552.4 438 0 Floor 0.0 ft->Door32 0.4 503.9 338 0 Floor 0.4 ft-�Door33 1.8 595.0 399 0 Floor 0.0 Ft-�Roomlll 0.0 0_0 0 Floor 0.0 ft-�Room04 0.0 0.0 0 Floor 0.0 ft-�Room041 0.4 0-0 9 Floor 0.0 ft-�Daar34 1.0 411.4 765 1 Floor 0.0 ft-�Door35 1.7 379.7 707 1 Floor 0.0 ft->Room283 0.0 0_0 0 Floor 0.0 ft->Ha gar 0.0 599.0 5700 Floor 0.0 ft->Room111 ----- -- -------0_0 ---_-----0 -------------------- ------a 0 Show results When finished 0 Pause if occupants appear to be stuck Debug Results_ FPa.se F OK Figure CA 8: Pathfinder results indicate a movement time of 699 seconds is required for 5,700 persons to egress out of the hangar JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE C- 11 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 C.2.4. Egress Scenario 4- Use of All Existing Pedestrian Doors, New Doors and Roll-Down Doors Converted QT,sfin Hen9er-SarrriaOL1J4JIL sef wx1HeigM p o��ay 95/1000 p free�rsE p fr�i�s p level x153 Normalke '...p Speetl U rmevoe, p u:a9en;� II U 000000L-e 0 ca�etl Tmc M/M Fnmerafc ll3bfps Figure C.19: Pathfinder screenshot showing 1,000 persons traveling inside hangar and egressing through exit doors to the exterior © Run Simulation-Tustin Ha ngar_Scena&4_01-1000.pth Sim Time(s): F 127.5 Run Time(s); 7. OcsRem: OcrsTotal: 1000 L ATG Max(m): p,p ATG Avg(m): 0,0 aar _ - arc _ _e c Fl nor 0.0 ft->6aar2a 10.7 B3.7 50 0 ~ Floor 0.0 ft->6aar29 11_S 120.5 74 0 Flaar 0.0 ft-�600r32 5.0 55.2 30 0 Floor 9.0 ft-}6aar33 7.1 49.3 27 0 Flaar 0.0 ft->Raam041 0.0 0.0 0 Flaar 0.0 ft-�600r34 2.5 71.2 114 1 Floor 9.0 ft-}6aar35 0_8 72.2 114 1 Flaar 0.0 ft->Raam223 0.0 0.0 0 Floor 9.0 ft->600r35 3.6 59.2 35 0 Floor 0.0 ft->Raam04 0.0 0.0 0 Flaar 0.0 ft->Raam041 0.0 0.0 0 Floor 0.0 ft->Uaar37 10.3 46.6 66 1 Floor 0.0 ft->600r38 3.5 51.4 65 1 Floor 9.0 ft-}Hangar 0.0 127.5 1000 ---- -- ! 1 Irr h Show results when finished J Pause if occupants appear to be studs debug Results Paut 4K Figure C.20: Pathfinder results indicate a movement time of 128 seconds is required for 1,000 persons to egress out of the hangar JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE C— 12 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 V : r_,., ,.g...«,,, oi _ &E®U AID LO _.p oe�Pa�tco, Exited: 167/2400 p oenem p tend or se ''.p te�nmse '..{�Normalrse p rmem�a p Useg'flat II II 71 II } I 000000-- 4o Pa 'd Figure C.21: Pathfinder screenshot showing 2,400 persons traveling inside hangar and egressing through exit doors to the exterior ©Run Simulation-Tustin Hangar_Scenano4_QL24M.pth Sim Time(s): F 227.3 Run Time(s); L I la.1. Occs Rem: Occs Total: 2900 ATG Max(m): 0,0 OTG Avg(m): 0.0 Floor 0.0 £t-�600r28 6_1 178.8 117 0 Floor 0.0 £t->600r29 2_6 218-5 141 0 Floor 0.0 £t-}Daar32 1_8 120.7 So 0 Floor 0.0 £t-}1)oor33 1_1 143.1 95 0 Floor 0.0 £t-}1Zoom041 0_0 0.0 0 Floor 0.0 £t->1)oor34 1_9 162.6 286 1 Floor 0.0 £t->1)oor35 2_7 147.6 267 1 Floor 0.0 £t—Room283 0_0 0.4 0 Floor 0.0 £t-}1)oor36 1_3 138.2 93 0 Floor 0.0 £t->Room04 0_0 0.0 0 Floor 0.0 £t-�Room041 0_0 0.0 0 Floor 0.0 £t->Uoor37 2_0 82.0 139 1 Floor 0.0 £t-}1)oor38 1_6 120.6 212 1 Floor 0.0 £t->Ha gar 0_0 227.2 2400 -------------------- --------- --------- --------- ? 1 !!F e J Shone results when finished W Pause if occupants appear to be stuck Results Pause Figure C.22: Pathfinder results indicate a movement time of 228 seconds is required for 2,400 persons to egress out of the hangar JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE C- 13 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Fde ®®®® lWID L ix a no yam cml: o®w� cmz o® re C 1 o-' «o pDam 00 I..p rid or s ..p rrd of a� p iNa m s 13 ¢ Nm E _ U Ti.-L t...p Usagej0.c U Useg au, II II Y71 11t] II II V v.a�a T-:om i a:m -_ Figure C.23: Pathfinder screenshot showing 5,700 persons traveling inside hangar and egressing through exit doors to the exterior ©Run Simulation-Tustin Hangar-Scenario-4 QL5704.pth Sim Time(s): gg7,5 Run Tme(s); qg Occs Rem: Occs Total: 5700 QTG Max(m): p,p QTG Avg(m): 0.0 Floor 0.0 ft-}600r28 1.2 397.2 266 0 Floor 0.0 ft-�600r29 5.7 485.0 323 0 Floor 0.0 ft->600r32 1.2 263.5 177 0 Floor 0.0 ft-}1)oor33 1.1 409.7 275 0 Floor 0.0 ft-�Room041 0.0 0_0 0 Floor 0.0 ft->600r34 1.3 284.3 530 1 Floor 0.0 ft-}1)oor35 2.0 333.3 620 1 Floor 0.0 =t-�Room283 0.0 0-0 0 Floor 0.0 =t->600r36 2.7 307.9 206 0 Floor 0.0 ft-�Room04 0.0 0.0 0 Floor 0.0 ft-}1Zoom041 0.0 0_0 0 Floor 0.0 ft->1)oor37 0.3 270.0 504 1 Floor 0.0 ft-�600r38 1.2 287.2 533 1 Floor 0.0 ft-}Hangar 0.0 487.3 5700 L 4 1 rrr r 0 Show results when finished 0 Pause if occupants appear to be sbxk Qe6ug Results Pause EaK Figure C.24: Pathfinder results indicate a movement time of 488 seconds is required for 5,700 persons to egress out of the hangar JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT APPENDIX D TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 APPENDIX D. FDS MODELING ANALYSIS RESULTS JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D— 1 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 FDS MODELING ANALYSIS RESULTS The Tustin Hangar building will be provided with an engineered smoke control designed using the exhaust method of Section 909.8. The proposed hangar smoke control will be designed to maintain the height of the smoke layer at least six feet above Ground Floor in the hangar for a period of 20 minutes or 1.5 times calculated egress time, whichever is greater. Since the natural smoke filling method is designed for the hangar, no mechanical smoke exhaust and makeup air supply will be provided. D.1. FDS Modeling Environment The FDS modeling environment is graphically depicted in Figure D.1. Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 --- --- --- ----z- -------- mesh:7 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 mesh:7 Figure D.1: FDS Hangar Smokeview JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D-2 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 D.2. FDS Modeling Evaluation Tools The results of the FDS analysis were evaluated using isosurfaces and slices. An isosurface is used to specify the output of gas phase scalar quantities (e.g., temperature, visibility, carbon monoxide concentration, etc.), as three dimensional animated contours at a particular time. For example, a 140°F temperature isosurface shows where the gas temperature is 140°F. A slice is used to specify the output of gas phase scalar quantities (e.g., temperature, visibility, carbon monoxide concentration, etc.), as two dimensional animated contours at any time of the simulation period. D.3. FDS Modeling Analysis Results The FDS analysis demonstrates that the proposed hangar smoke control design concept (i.e., natural smoke filling method) will be able to maintain the height of the smoke layer at least six (6) feet above Ground Floor in the hangar area for greater than 1.5 times calculated egress time. The following provides a detailed summary of the FDS modeling analysis results. D.3.1. Fire Scenario 1 — 30,000 kW T2-Fast Growth Blimp Fire in Hangar Smokeview 6.1.11-,Tus_Run1_30MW_0007_00003600_OO.q,Tus_Run1_30MW_0007_00003600_OO.q Plot3d temp oC 60.0 53.7 J47.4 r�k 41.1 34.8 28.4 22.1 15.8 9.48 3.16 mesh:7 Figure D.2: Isosurface indicating where the temperature is 140°F (60°C) at 3,600 seconds JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D—3 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-,Tus_Runl_30MW_0007_00003600_00.q,Tus_Runl_30MW_0007_00003600_00.q Plot3d VIS-Soot m I — 10.0 8.95 7.90 6.84 IL 5.79 4.74 3.69 2.63 1.58 1 0.53 mesh:7 Figure D.3: Isosurface indicating where the visibility is 33 ft (10m) at 3,600 seconds Smokeview 6.1.11-,Tus_Run1_30MW_0007_00003600_00.q Plot3d X co mollmol "10^-4 .Q ■ 1.50 1.34 1.18 -� 1.03 0.87 0.71 0.55 0.39 0.24 ' 0.08 mesh:6 z:3,1.83 m Figure DA: Isosurface indicating where the CO concentration is 150 ppm at 3,600 seconds JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D-4 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-,Tus_Runl_30MW_0007_00003600_00.q,Tus_Runl_30MW_0007_00003600_00.q Plot3d X CO2 mollmol 6.00 5.37 4.74 4.11 3.48 2.84 2.21 1.58 0.95 0.32 ■ mesh:7 Figure D.5: Isosurface indicating where the CO2 concentration is 6% at 3,600 seconds Smokeview 6.1.11-,Tus_Run1_30MW_0007_00003600_00.q,Tus_Runl_30MW_0007_00003600_00.q Plot3d X_02 mollmol 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 6.1E-3 mesh:7 Figure D.6: Isosurface indicating where the 02 concentration is 12% at 3,600 seconds Figures D.7 through D.26 below show the output of gas phase scalar quantities (e.g., temperature, visibility, carbon monoxide concentration, etc.), as two dimensional animated contours at any time of the simulation period. Comparing the FDS simulation results (Refer to Figures D.7—D.26)to the visibility, temperature, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and oxygen criteria, the proposed hangar smoke control will be able to maintain a tenable environment on the Ground Floor of the hangar area in the Tustin Hangar for the duration (ASET) of at least 3,000 seconds that is greater than the minimum required tenability time (RSET) of 2,351 seconds for all four egress scenarios. JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D—5 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice temp .c 60.0 56.7 53.4 50.1 46.8 43.5 n i 40.2 36.9 33.6 30.3 ' 27.0 Frame:1800 Time:3600.0 mesh:7 Figure D.7: Horizontal Slice indicating where temperature 6 feet above Ground Floor is 140°F (60°C) at 3,600 sec Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice temp oC 60.0 ■ 56.7 53.4 L_ 50.1 46.8 43.5 40.2 36.9 33.6 30.3 27.0 Frame:600 Time:1200.0 mesh:7 Figure D.B: Vertical Slice indicating where temperature 6 feet above Ground Floor is 140°F (60°C) at 1,200 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D-6 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice temp .c 60.0 56.7 53.4 50.1 46.8 43.5 i - 40.2 36.9 33.6 30.3 ' 27.0 Frame:1200 mesh:6 Time:2400.0 z:37,22.5599£ Figure DR Vertical Slice indicating where temperature 6 feet above Ground Floor is 140°F (60°C) at 2,400 sec Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice temp oC 60.0 ■ 56.7 53.4 50.1 46.8 43.5 40.2 36.9 33.6 30.3 ' 27.0 Frame:1800 mesh:6 Time:3600.0 z:26,15.85 m Figure D.10: Vertical Slice indicating where temperature 6 feet above Ground Floor is 140°F (60°C) at 3,600 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D-7 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice VIS-Soot m 10.0 ' i 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Frame:1500 Time:3000.0 mesh:7 Figure D.11: Horizontal Slice indicating where visibility 6 feet above Ground Floor is 33 ft (10m) at 3,000 sec Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice VIS-Soot m 10.0 ' 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 i 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 ■ Frame:1605 Time:3210.0 mesh:7 Figure D.12: Horizontal Slice indicating where visibility 6 feet above Ground Floor is 33 ft (10m) at 3,210 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D—8 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice VIS-Soot m 10.0 ' i 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 n � i 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Frame:1800 Time:3600.0 mesh:7 Figure D.13: Horizontal Slice indicating where visibility 6 feet above Ground Floor is 33 ft (10m) at 3,600 sec Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice VIS-Soot m 10.0 ' 9.00 8.00 _7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Frame:600 mesh:6 Time:1200.0 z:29,17.98 m Figure D.14: Vertical Slice indicating where visibility 6 feet above Ground Floor is 33 ft (10m) at 1,200 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D—9 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice VIS-Soot m 10.0 ' 9.00 8.00 Alamo 17.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Frame:1200 mesh:6 Time:2400.0 z:14,8.84 m Figure D.15: Vertical Slice indicating where visibility 6 feet above Ground Floor is 33 ft (10m) at 2,400 sec Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice VIS-Soot m ��A10.0 9.00 ' _ 8.00 r I + --1-7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Frame:1800 mesh:6 Time:3600.0 z:3,1.83 m Figure D.16: Vertical Slice indicating where visibility 6 feet above Ground Floor is 33 ft (10m) at 3,600 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D— 10 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice X co mollmol 1.50 ■ 1.35 1.20 1.05 0.90 0.75 u i 0.60 0.45 0.30 0.15 0.00 Frame:1608 Time:3216.0 mesh:7 Figure DAT Horizontal Slice indicating where the CO concentration 6 feet above Ground Floor is 150 ppm at 3,216 sec Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice X co mollmol "10^_4 1.50 ■ 1.35 1.20 1.05 0.90 0.75 0.60 0.45 0.30 0.15 0.00 Frame:1710 Time:3420.0 mesh:7 Figure D.18: Horizontal Slice indicating where the CO concentration 6 feet above Ground Floor is 150 ppm at 3,420 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D— 11 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice X co mollmol 1.50 ■ 1.35 M 1.20 1.05 0.90 0.75 0.60 0.45 0.30 0.15 0.00 Frame:1800 Time:3600.0 mesh:7 Figure D.19: Horizontal Slice indicating where the CO concentration 6 feet above Ground Floor is 150 ppm at 3,600 sec Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice X co mollmol "10^_4 1.50 ■ 1.35 1.20 1.05 0.90 0.75 ■ 0.60 0.45 0.30 0.15 0.00 Frame:600 Time:1200.0 mesh:7 Figure D.20: Vertical Slice indicating where the CO concentration 6 feet above Ground Floor is 150 ppm at 1,200 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D— 12 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice X co mollmol 1.50 ■ 1.35 1.20 1.05 0.90 0.75 0.60 0.45 0.30 0.15 0.00 Frame:1200 mesh:6 Time:2400.0 z:20,12.19 m Figure D.21: Vertical Slice indicating where the CO concentration 6 feet above Ground Floor is 150 ppm at 2,400 sec Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice X co mollmol "10^_4 1.50 ■ 1.35 1.20 1.05 0.90 0.75 0.60 0.45 0.30 0.15 0.00 Frame:1800 mesh:6 Time:3600.0 z:3,1.83 m Figure D.22: Vertical Slice indicating where the CO concentration 6 feet above Ground Floor is 150 ppm at 3,600 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D— 13 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice X CO2 mollmol 6.00 . i 5.40 4.80 4.20 3.60 3.00 i 2.40 1.80 1.20 0.60 ' 0.00 Frame:1800 Time:3600.0 mesh:7 Figure D.23: Horizontal Slice indicating where the CO2 concentration 6 feet above Ground Floor is 6% at 3,600 sec Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice X CO2 mollmol "10^_2 6.00 ■ 5.40 4.80 4.20 3.60 3.00 2.40 1.80 1.20 0.60 0.00 Frame:1800 Time:3600.0 mesh:7 Figure D.24: Vertical Slice indicating where the CO2 concentration 6 feet above Ground Floor is 6% at 3,600 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D— 14 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice X_02 mollmol 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.07 r ' 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.01 . 0.00 Frame:1800 Time:3600.0 mesh:7 Figure D.25: Horizontal Slice indicating where the Oz concentration 6 feet above Ground Floor is 12% at 3,600 sec Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice X_02 mollmol 0.1 0.11 1 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.01 C 0.00 Frame:1800 Time:3600.0 mesh:7 Figure D.26: Vertical Slice indicating where the Oz concentration 6 feet above Ground Floor is 12% at 3,600 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D— 15 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 D.3.2. Fire Scenario 2— 20,000 kW T2-Fast Growth Fire in East of Hangar with 10-Foot Separation Smokeview 6.1.11-,Tus_Run2_20MW_0007_00003600_OO.q,Tus_Run2_20MW_0007_00003600_OO.q Plot3d temp .0 55.8 51.6 —47.4 =mow43.2 38.9 34.7 30.5 26.3 1 22.1 mesh:7 Figure D.27: Isosurface indicating where the temperature is 140°F (60°C) at 3,600 seconds Smokeview 6.1.11-,Tus_Run2_20MW_0007_00003600_OO.q,Tus_Run2_20MW_0007_00003600_OO.q Plot3d VIS-Soot m 10.0 r 8.95 7.90 6.84 5.79 4.74 3.69 2.63 1.58 0.53 ■ mesh:7 Figure D.28: Isosurface indicating where the visibility is 33 ft (10m) at 3,600 seconds JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D— 16 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-,Tus_Run2_20MW_0007_00003600_00.q,Tus_Run2_20MW_0007_00003600_00.q Plot3d X CO mollmol 1.! 1.34 1.18 4 1.03 0.87 0.71 0.55 0.39 0.24 0.08 mesh:7 Figure D.29: Isosurface indicating where the CO concentration is 150 ppm at 3,600 seconds Smokeview 6.1.11-,Tus_Run2_20MW_0007_00003600_00.q,Tus_Run2_20MW_0007_00003600_00.q Plot3d X CO2 mollmol "10^_2 5.37 r 4.74 4.11 3.48 . 2.84 2.21 1.58 0.95 0.32 mesh:7 Figure D.30: Isosurface indicating where the CO2 concentration is 6% at 3,600 seconds JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D— 17 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-,Tus_Run2_20MW_0007_00003600_00.q,Tus_Run2_20MW_0007_00003600_00.q Plot3d X_02 mollmol 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.08 J 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02_ mesh:7 Figure D.31: Isosurface indicating where the 02 concentration is 12% at 3,600 seconds Figures D.32 through D.48 below show the output of gas phase scalar quantities (e.g., temperature, visibility, carbon monoxide concentration, etc.), as two dimensional animated contours at any time of the simulation period. Comparing the FDS simulation results (Refer to Figures D.32— D.48) to the visibility, temperature, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and oxygen criteria, the proposed hangar smoke control will be able to maintain a tenable environment on the Ground Floor of the hangar area in the Tustin Hangar for the duration (ASET) of at least 2,970 seconds that is greater than the minimum required tenability time (RSET) of 2,351 seconds for all four egress scenarios. Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice temp .c 60.0 ■ 56.7 53.4 50.1 46.8 43.5 i 40.2 36.9 33.6 30.3 ' 27.0 Frame:1800 Time:3600.0 mesh:7 Figure D.32: Horizontal Slice indicating where temperature 6 feet above Ground Floor is 140°F (60°C) at 3,600 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D— 18 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice temp .c 60.0 A. 56.7 _J t - _ r- 53.4 50.1 46.8 43.5 40.2 36.9 33.6 30.3 ' 27.0 Frame:1200 mesh:7 Time:2400.0 z:58,35.3600C Figure D.33: Vertical Slice indicating where temperature 6 feet above Ground Floor is 140°F (60°C) at 2,400 sec Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice temp oC 60.0 ■ a 1 56.7 - 53.4 50.1 46.8 43.5 40.2 36.9 33.6 30.3 ' 27.0 Frame:1800 mesh:7 Time:3600.0 z:36,21.95000 Figure D.34: Vertical Slice indicating where temperature 6 feet above Ground Floor is 140°F (60°C) at 3,600 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D— 19 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice VIS-Soot m 10.0 ' 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Frame:1485 Time:2970.0 mesh:7 Figure D.35: Horizontal Slice indicating where visibility 6 feet above Ground Floor is 33 ft (10m) at 2,970 sec Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice VIS-Soot m 10.0 ' 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 a 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 ■ Frame:1560 Time:3120.0 mesh:7 Figure D.36: Horizontal Slice indicating where visibility 6 feet above Ground Floor is 33 ft (10m) at 3,120 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D-20 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice VIS-Soot m 10.0 ' 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Frame:1620 Time:3240.0 mesh:7 Figure D.37: Horizontal Slice indicating where visibility 6 feet above Ground Floor is 33 ft (10m) at 3,240 sec Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice VIS-Soot m 10.0 ' 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 I 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 C 0.00 Frame:1800 Time:3600.0 mesh:7 Figure D.38: Horizontal Slice indicating where visibility 6 feet above Ground Floor is 33 ft (10m) at 3,600 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D-21 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice VIS-Soot m 10.0 ' 9.00 8.00 7.00 ' 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 . 0.00 Frame:600 mesh:6 Time:1200.0 z:36,21.9500C Figure D.39: Vertical Slice indicating where visibility 6 feet above Ground Floor is 33 ft (10m) at 1,200 sec Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice VIS-Soot m 10.0 ' 9.00 8.00 7.00 L 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Frame:1200 mesh:6 Time:2400.0 z:18,11.28 m Figure D.40: Vertical Slice indicating where visibility 6 feet above Ground Floor is 33 ft (10m) at 2,400 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D-22 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice VIS-Soot m 10.0 ' 9.00 L- 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 . 0.00 Frame:1800 mesh:7 Time:3600.0 z:10,6.4 m Figure D.41: Vertical Slice indicating where visibility 6 feet above Ground Floor is 33 ft (10m) at 3,600 sec Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice X CO2 mollmol 6.00 ■ 5.40 4.80 4.20 3.60 3.00 2.40 1.80 1.20 0.60 ' 0.00 Frame:1800 Time:3600.0 mesh:7 Figure D.42: Horizontal Slice indicating where the CO concentration 6 feet above Ground Floor is 150 ppm at 3,600 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D-23 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice X co mollmol 1.50 ■ 1.35 L- 1.20 1.05 0.90 0.75 0.60 0.45 0.30 0.15 0.00 Frame:1200 Time:2400.0 mesh:7 Figure D.43: Vertical Slice indicating where the CO concentration 6 feet above Ground Floor is 150 ppm at 2,400 sec Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice X co mollmol "10^_4 1.50 ■ a 1 1.35 1.20 1.05 0.90 0.75 0.60 0.45 0.30 0.15 ' 0.00 Frame:1800 mesh:7 Time:3600.0 z:30,18.29000 Figure D.44: Vertical Slice indicating where the CO concentration 6 feet above Ground Floor is 150 ppm at 3,600 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D-24 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice X CO2 mollmol 6.00 . 5.40 4.80 4.20 3.60 3.00 2.40 1.80 1.20 0.60 ' 0.00 Frame:1800 Time:3600.0 mesh:7 Figure D.45: Horizontal Slice indicating where the CO2 concentration 6 feet above Ground Floor is 6% at 3,600 sec Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice X CO2 mollmol "10^_2 6.00 ■ X41 5.40 4.80 4.20 3.60 3.00 2.40 1.80 1.20 0.60 0.00 Frame:1800 Time:3600.0 mesh:7 Figure D.46: Vertical Slice indicating where the CO2 concentration 6 feet above Ground Floor is 6% at 3,600 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D-25 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice X_02 mollmol 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.01 . 0.00 Frame:1800 Time:3600.0 mesh:7 Figure DAT Horizontal Slice indicating where the Oz concentration 6 feet above Ground Floor is 12% at 3,600 sec Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice X_02 mollmol 0.1 0.11 1 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.01 C 0.00 Frame:1800 Time:3600.0 mesh:7 Figure D.48: Vertical Slice indicating where the Oz concentration 6 feet above Ground Floor is 12% at 3,600 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D-26 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 D.3.3. Fire Scenario 3— 20,000 kW T2-Fast Growth Fire in Center of Hangar without Separation Smokeview 6.1.11-,Tus_Run3_20MW_0007_00003600_OO.q,Tus_Run3_20MW_0007_00003600_OO.q Plot3d temp oC - 60.0 55.8 PLr_ 51.6 47.4 43.2 38.9 34.7 30.5 26.3 1 22.1 mesh:7 z:43,26.2099E Figure D.49: Isosurface indicating where the temperature is 140°F (60°C) at 3,600 seconds Smokeview 6.1.11-,Tus_Run3_20MW_0007_00003600_OO.q,Tus_Run3_20MW_0007_00003600_OO.q Plot3d VIS-Soot M 10.0 , 8.95 7.90 6.84 5.79 4.74 3.69 2.63 1.58 ' 0.53 mesh:7 z:7,4.57 m Figure D.50: Isosurface indicating where the visibility is 33 ft (10m) at 3,600 seconds JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D-27 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-,Tus_Run3_20MW_0007_00003600_00.q,Tus_Run3_20MW_0007_00003600_00.q Plot3d X CO mollmol 1.50 1.34 j T 1.18 1.03 0.87 0.71 0.55 0.39 0.24 ' 0.08 mesh:7 z:27,16.76 m Figure D.51: Isosurface indicating where the CO concentration is 150 ppm at 3,600 seconds Smokeview 6.1.11-,Tus_Run3_20MW_0007_00003600_00.q,Tus_Run3_20MW_0007_00003600_00.q Plot3d X CO2 mollmol "10^_2 6.00 5.37 4.74 4.11 3.48 2.84 2.21 1.58 0.95 0.32 ■ mesh:7 Figure D.52: Isosurface indicating where the CO2 concentration is 6% at 3,600 seconds JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D-28 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-,Tus_Run3_20MW_0007_00003600_00.q,Tus_Run3_20MW_0007_00003600_00.q Plot3d X_02 mollmol 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.08 M LE 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02_ mesh:7 Figure D.53: Isosurface indicating where the 02 concentration is 12% at 3,600 seconds Figures D.54 through D.67 below show the output of gas phase scalar quantities (e.g., temperature, visibility, carbon monoxide concentration, etc.), as two dimensional animated contours at any time of the simulation period. Comparing the FDS simulation results (Refer to Figures D.54— D.67) to the visibility, temperature, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and oxygen criteria, the proposed hangar smoke control will be able to maintain a tenable environment on the Ground Floor of the hangar area in the Tustin Hangar for the duration (ASET) of at least 3,600 seconds (1 hour)that is greater than the minimum required tenability time (RSET) of 2,351 seconds for all four egress scenarios. Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice temp .c 60.0 ■ 56.7 53.4 50.1 46.8 43.5 40.2 36.9 fill 33.6 30.3 ' 27.0 Frame:1800 Time:3600.0 mesh:7 Figure D.54: Horizontal Slice indicating where temperature 6 feet above Ground Floor is 140°F (60°C) at 3,600 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D-29 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice temp .c 60.0 56.7 53.4 IL 50.1 1 46.8 43.5 r 40.2 36.9 33.6 30.3 ' 27.0 Frame:1200 Time:2400.0 mesh:7 Figure D.55: Vertical Slice indicating where temperature 6 feet above Ground Floor is 140°F (60°C) at 2,400 sec Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice temp oC 60.0 ■ 56.7 53.4 Man—,]% — - 50.1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -46.8 43.5 r - r 40.2 36.9 33.6 30.3 ' 27.0 Frame:1800 mesh:7 Time:3600.0 z:43,26.52 m Figure D.56: Vertical Slice indicating where temperature 6 feet above Ground Floor is 140°F (60°C) at 3,600 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D—30 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice VIS-Soot m 10.0 ' 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Frame:1800 Time:3600.0 mesh:7 Figure D.57: Horizontal Slice indicating where visibility 6 feet above Ground Floor is 33 ft (10m) at 3,600 sec Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice VIS-Soot m 10.0 '9.00 8.00 L 7.00 - ----------------------------------------------------6.00 5.00 i r 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 C 0.00 Frame:600 mesh:7 Time:1200.0 z:40,24.69000 Figure D.58: Vertical Slice indicating where visibility 6 feet above Ground Floor is 33 ft (10m) at 1,200 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D—31 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice VIS-Soot m 10.0 ' 9.00 8.00 IL 7.00 6.00 -5.00 r 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Frame:1200 mesh:7 Time:2400.0 z:19,11.89 m Figure D.59: Vertical Slice indicating where visibility 6 feet above Ground Floor is 33 ft (10m) at 2,400 sec Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice VIS-Soot m 10.0 L-9.00 ' 8.00 7.00 - ; 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 . 0.00 Frame:1800 mesh:7 Time:3600.0 z:9,5.79 m Figure D.60: Vertical Slice indicating where visibility 6 feet above Ground Floor is 33 ft (10m) at 3,600 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D—32 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice X co mollmol 1.50 ■ 1.35 1.20 1.05 0.90 0.75 0.60 0.45 0.30 0.15 0.00 Frame:1800 Time:3600.0 mesh:7 Figure D.61: Horizontal Slice indicating where the CO concentration 6 feet above Ground Floor is 150 ppm at 3,600 sec Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice X co mollmol "10^_4 1.50 ■ 1.35 i — - 1.20 L 1.05 0.90 0.75 0.60 0.45 0.30 0.15 0.00 Frame:1200 Time:2400.0 mesh:7 Figure D.62: Vertical Slice indicating where the CO concentration 6 feet above Ground Floor is 150 ppm at 2,400 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D—33 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice X CO mollmol 1.50 ■ 1.35 1.20 - 1.05 W60.90 � 0.75 ■ter �_ — - r 0.60 0.45 0.30 0.15 ' 0.00 Frame:1800 mesh:7 Time:3600.0 z:27,16.76 m Figure D.63: Vertical Slice indicating where the CO concentration 6 feet above Ground Floor is 150 ppm at 3,600 sec Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice X CO2 mollmol "10^_2 6.00 5.40 4.80 4.20 3.60 3.00 2.40 1.80 1.20 0.60 0.00 Frame:1800 Time:3600.0 mesh:7 Figure D.64: Horizontal Slice indicating where the CO2 concentration 6 feet above Ground Floor is 6% at 3,600 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D—34 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice X CO2 mollmol 6.00 . 5.40 4.80 4.20 3.60 3.00 r 2.40 1.80 1.20 0.60 ' 0.00 Frame:1800 Time:3600.0 mesh:7 Figure D.65: Vertical Slice indicating where the CO2 concentration 6 feet above Ground Floor is 6% at 3,600 sec Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice X_02 mollmol 0.1 0.11 1 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 Frame:1800 Time:3600.0 mesh:7 Figure D.66: Horizontal Slice indicating where the 02 concentration 6 feet above Ground Floor is 12% at 3,600 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D—35 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice X_02 mollmol 0.12 0.11 N 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.06 r 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 Frame:1800 Time:3600.0 mesh:7 Figure D.67: Vertical Slice indicating where the 02 concentration 6 feet above Ground Floor is 12% at 3,600 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D—36 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 D.3.4. Fire Scenario 4— 20,000 kW T2-Fast Growth Fire in East of Hangar without Separation Smokeview 6.1.11-,Tus_Run4_20MW_0007_00003600_OO.q,Tus_Run4_20MW_0007_00003600_OO.q Plot3d temp oC 60.0 - - - 55.8 + -51.6 47.4 ' 43.2 38.9 34.7 30.5 26.3 ' 22.1 mesh:6 z:46,28.04000 Figure D.68: Isosurface indicating where the temperature is 140°F (60°C) at 3,600 seconds Smokeview 6.1.11-,Tus_Run4_20MW_0007_00003600_OO.q,Tus_Run4_20MW_0007_00003600_OO.q Plot3d VIS-Soot M 10.0 8.95 7.90 6.84 5.79 4.74 3.69 2.63 1.58 ' 0.53 mesh:6 z:5,3.05 m Figure D.69: Isosurface indicating where the visibility is 33 ft (10m) at 3,600 seconds JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D—37 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-,Tus_Run4_20MW_0007_00003600_00.q,Tus_Run4_20MW_0007_00003600_00.q Plot3d X CO mollmol 1.50 1.34 1.18 1.03 D oil.._ ..��..�..,_..6a-.. 0.87 0.71 0.55 0.39 0.24 0.08 mesh:6 z:29,17.98 m Figure D.70: Isosurface indicating where the CO concentration is 150 ppm at 3,600 seconds Smokeview 6.1.11-,Tus_Run4_20MW_0007_00003600_00.q,Tus_Run4_20MW_0007_00003600_00.q Plot3d X CO2 mollmol "10^_2 6.00 , 5.37 4.74 4.11 3.48 2.84 2.21 1.58 0.95 0.32 ■ mesh:7 Figure D.71: Isosurface indicating where the CO2 concentration is 6% at 3,600 seconds JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D—38 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-,Tus_Run4_20MW_0007_00003600_00.q,Tus_Run4_20MW_0007_00003600_00.q Plot3d X_02 mollmol 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02_ mesh:7 Figure D.72: Isosurface indicating where the 02 concentration is 12% at 3,600 seconds Figures D.73 through D.84 below show the output of gas phase scalar quantities (e.g., temperature, visibility, carbon monoxide concentration, etc.), as two dimensional animated contours at any time of the simulation period. Comparing the FDS simulation results (Refer to Figures D.73— D.84) to the visibility, temperature, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and oxygen criteria, the proposed hangar smoke control will be able to maintain a tenable environment on the Ground Floor of the hangar area in the Tustin Hangar for the duration (ASET) of at least 3,600 seconds (1 hour)that is greater than the minimum required tenability time (RSET) of 2,351 seconds for all four egress scenarios. Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice temp .c 60.0 ■ 56.7 53.4 50.1 46.8 43.5 40.2 36.9 33.6 30.3 ' 27.0 Frame:1800 Time:3600.0 mesh:1 Figure D.73: Horizontal Slice indicating where temperature 6 feet above Ground Floor is 140°F (60°C) at 3,600 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D—39 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice temp .c 60.0 56.7 53.4 50.1 46.8 43.5 W. 40.2 AM 36.9 33.6 30.3 ' 27.0 Frame:1800 mesh:6 Time:3600.0 z:37,22.8600C Figure D.74: Vertical Slice indicating where temperature 6 feet above Ground Floor is 140°F (60°C) at 3,600 sec Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice VIS-Soot m 10.0 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 r 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Frame:1800 Time:3600.0 mesh:1 Figure D.75: Horizontal Slice indicating where visibility 6 feet above Ground Floor is 33 ft (10m) at 3,600 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D-40 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice VIS-Soot m 10.0 ' 9.00 8.00 7.00 L_ 6.00 I 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Frame:600 mesh:6 Time:1200.0 z:36,22.25 m Figure D.76: Vertical Slice indicating where visibility 6 feet above Ground Floor is 33 ft (10m) at 1,200 sec Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice VIS-Soot m 10.0 ' 9.00 8.00 7.00 L_ 6.00 5.00 r-4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Frame:1200 mesh:6 Time:2400.0 z:18,11.28 m Figure D.77: Vertical Slice indicating where visibility 6 feet above Ground Floor is 33 ft (10m) at 2,400 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D-41 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice VIS-Soot m 10.0 ' i_. 9.00 8.00 I 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Frame:1800 mesh:6 Time:3600.0 z:6,3.96 m Figure D.78: Vertical Slice indicating where visibility 6 feet above Ground Floor is 33 ft (10m) at 3,600 sec Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice X co mollmol 1.50 ■ 1.35 1.20 1.05 0.90 0.75 0.60 0.45 0.30 0.15 0.00 Frame:1800 Time:3600.0 mesh:1 Figure D.79: Horizontal Slice indicating where the CO concentration 6 feet above Ground Floor is 150 ppm at 3,600 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D-42 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice X CO mollmol 1.50 ■ 1.35 1.20 1.05 0.90 ------------------------------------------ -- -----------.a.�.,.,.--_.0.75 r 0.60 0.45 0.30 0.15 0.00 Frame:1800 mesh:6 Time:3600.0 z:31,19.2000C Figure D.80: Vertical Slice indicating where the CO concentration 6 feet above Ground Floor is 150 ppm at 3,600 sec Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice X CO2 mollmol "10^_2 6.00 5.40 4.80 4.20 3.60 3.00 2.40 1.80 1.20 0.60 0.00 Frame:1800 Time:3600.0 mesh:1 Figure D.81: Horizontal Slice indicating where the CO2 concentration 6 feet above Ground Floor is 6% at 3,600 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D-43 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice X CO2 mollmol 6.00 . 5.40 4.80 L 4.20 3.60 3.00 2.40 1.80 1.20 0.60 ' 0.00 Frame:1800 Time:3600.0 mesh:7 Figure D.82: Vertical Slice indicating where the CO2 concentration 6 feet above Ground Floor is 6% at 3,600 sec Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice X_02 mollmol 0.1 0.11 1 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.02 i 0.01 0.00 Frame:1800 Time:3600.0 mesh:1 Figure D.83: Horizontal Slice indicating where the 02 concentration 6 feet above Ground Floor is 12% at 3,600 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE D-44 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice X_02 mollmol 0.12 0.11 —W 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 Frame:1800 Time:3600.0 mesh:1 Figure D.84: Vertical Slice indicating where the 02 concentration 6 feet above Ground Floor is 12% at 3,600 sec JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT APPENDIX E TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 APPENDIX E. REFERENCE JENSEN HUGHES PERFORMANCE-BASED HANGAR SMOKE CONTROL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE E—1 TUSTIN HANGAR JENSEN HUGHES Project No.: 1TJL00183.000 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA October 11, 2016 REFERENCE 1. McGrattan, K.B. 2001. Fire Dynamics Simulator. NISTR 6784.NIST, Gaithersburg, MD. 2. Pathfinder, http://www.thunderheadeng.com/pathfinder/. 3. Volume II, Chapters 61, 62 and 63, 5th Edition of the SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, SFPE, Quincy, MA, 2016. 4. Altman, Philip L.; Dittmer, Dorothy S, 2nd Edition of the Biology Data Book, Federation of American Societies For Experimental Biology, 978-1-60119-107-6. 5. Annex E of NFPA 92, 2012 edition. 6. 2009 ASHRAE Handbook"Fundamentals", Inch-Pound Edition, Arican Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers, Inc., 1791 Tullie Circle, N.E., Atlanta, GA 30329. 7. Dr. John H. Klote and Douglas H. Evans,A Guide to Smoke Control in IBC 2006, International Code Council, 2007, ISBN 978-1-58001-659-9. 8. Klote, John H., "Method of Predicting Smoke Movement in Atria With Application to Smoke Management", Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, pp. 2, November 1994. 9. Annex B of NFPA 92, 2012 edition. 10. Volume I, Chapters 26, 27 and 28, 5th Edition of the SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, SFPE, Quincy, MA, 2016. 11. Appendix 3, 5th Edition of the SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, SFPE, Quincy, MA, 2016. 12. Volume II, Chapters 59 and 64, 5th Edition of the SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, SFPE, Quincy, MA, 2016. 13. Klote, John H. and Milke, James A., Principles of Smoke Management, The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. and Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Atlanta, GA 30329. JENSEN HUGHES C JENSEN HUGHES 2099 South State College Blvd.,I Suite 540 Anaheim,CA 92806 USA jensenhughes.com O:+1714-450-1700 Fax:+1 714-450-1701 HANGAR PERFORMANCE-BASED ENGINEERING DESIGN BRIEF TUSTIN HANGAR Prepared For Page & Turnbull 417 S. Hill Street, Suite 211 Los Angeles, California 90013 Date: June 18, 2015 JENSEN HUGHES Project#: 1 TJL001 83.000 Copyright©2015 JENSEN HUGHES, Inc. TUSTIN HANGAR 1TJL00183.000 PAGE ii TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA June 18, 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................1 1.1. Project Description.............................................................................................................. 1 1.2. Authority Having Jurisdictions............................................................................................. 1 1.3. Applicable Codes and Standards........................................................................................ 1 2. PROPOSED METHOD OF DESIGN...............................................................................................1 3. REQUEST FOR ALTERNATE METHOD OF DESIGN...................................................................2 4. APPLICABLE CODE REQUIREMENTS.........................................................................................2 5. PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN METHODOLOGY ..................................................................3 5.1. Goals...................................................................................................................................3 5.2. Design Objectives...............................................................................................................3 5.3. Performance-based Design Evaluation Criteria..................................................................3 5.3.1. Visibility ...............................................................................................................4 5.3.2. Gas Concentrations ...............................................................................................4 5.3.3. Temperature...........................................................................................................5 6. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS APPROCH..........................................................................................6 7. DETERMINATION OF PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN...........................................................7 7.1. Design Fire..........................................................................................................................7 7.1.1. Factors Considered................................................................................................7 7.1.2. Separation Distance...............................................................................................9 7.1.3. Heat-Release Assumptions ...................................................................................9 7.2. Sprinkler Effectiveness Assumptions................................................................................ 10 7.3. FDS Modeling Assumptions.............................................................................................. 10 7.4. Design Fire Scenarios....................................................................................................... 11 8. RESULTS OF PRELIMINARY FDS ANALYSIS...........................................................................11 8.1. FDS Modeling Environment.............................................................................................. 12 8.2. FDS Result Evaluation Tools............................................................................................ 12 8.3. Preliminary FDS Analysis Results .................................................................................... 13 8.3.1. Fire Scenario#1 ................................................................................................... 13 8.3.2. Fire Scenario#2................................................................................................... 15 9. FUTHER CONSIDERATION AND EVALUATION........................................................................17 9.1. Proposed Hangar Operation Schemes............................................................................. 17 9.2. Further Consideration and Evaluation .............................................................................. 18 9.2.1. Adjustment of Design Fire Size............................................................................ 18 9.2.2. Timed Egress Analysis ........................................................................................ 19 9.2.3. Effect of Fires on Unprotected Wood Frames and Trusses ................................20 JENSEN HUGHES TUSTIN HANGAR 1TJL00183.000 PAGE iii TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA June 18, 2015 9.2.4. Additional Fire Scenarios.....................................................................................20 10. CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................................21 APPENDIX A. REFERENCES......................................................................................................................A JENSEN HUGHES TUSTIN HANGAR 1TJL00183.000 PAGE 1 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA June 18, 2015 1. INTRODUCTION This Hangar Performance-Based Engineering Design Brief has been prepared by JENSEN HUGHES for the Tustin Hangar project. The scope of this brief is to identify the basis of design concepts for large spaces in the hangar building that will demonstrate a level of fire protection and life safety equal to that intended by the prescriptive code requirements and as deemed acceptable by all stakeholders (i.e., Owner, Design Team, Authority Having Jurisdictions (AHJs). 1.1. Project Description The Tustin Hangar was established in 1942 as Naval Lighter-Than-Air Station Santa Ana, a base for airship operations in support of the United States Navy's coastal patrol efforts during World War II. It was the country's first air facility developed solely for helicopter operations. It was renamed Marine Corps Air Station Tustin in 1979. By the early 1990s, MCAS Tustin was a major center for Marine Corps helicopter aviation and radar on the Pacific Coast. Its primary purpose was to provide support services and material for the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing and for other units utilizing the base. In 1991 and again in 1993, under the authority of the Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1990, it was announced that MCAS Tustin would be closed. Operational closure of the base occurred in July 1999. However, the north hangar is still used as a storage and repair center for commercial blimps. Of the approximately 1,600 acres (6.5 km2), some 1,294 acres (now known collectively as "Tustin Legacy") have been conveyed to the City of Tustin, private developers and public institutions for a combination of residential, commercial, educational, and public recreational and open-space uses. The Tustin Hangar is approximately 1,072 feet (327 m) long by 292 feet (89 m) wide by 192 feet (59 m) tall. The hangar, built in 1942 of Oregon Douglas fir, are among the largest freestanding wooden structures in the world. 1.2. Authority Having Jurisdictions The Authorities Having Jurisdictions (AHJs) for the project will be the City of Tustin Community Development Department (TCDD) and Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). 1.3. Applicable Codes and Standards The following codes and standards are referenced throughout this design brief. • California Building Code (CBC), 2013 Edition • California Fire Code (CFC), 2013 Edition • City of Tustin Municipal Code, Ordinance No. 1453, Revision 9-2015 • NFPA 92 Standard for Smoke Control Systems, 2012 Edition adopted by the 2013 CBC All code references are to the 2013 CBC, unless otherwise stated. 2. PROPOSED METHOD OF DESIGN In order to achieve the desired design and operational characteristics for the hangar smoke control in the existing Tustin Hangar project, an alternate method of design utilizing an engineered performance-based approach is proposed. The proposed design method will consist of performance-based design features in lieu of compliance with the prescriptive requirements of Sections 404 and 909 by maintaining an equivalent level of fire protection and life safety to that intended by the Code. Large spaces (i.e., hangar high bay) in the United States are commonly provided with a smoke control system designed in accordance with the exhaust method of Section 909.8. According to Section 909.8.1, a smoke control system designed in accordance with the exhaust method should be able to maintain a JENSEN HUGHES TUSTIN HANGAR 1TJL00183.000 PAGE 2 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA June 18, 2015 height of the lowest accumulating smoke layer at least six (6) feet above any walking surface that forms a means of egress within the smoke zone. The required exhaust rate for the zone should be the largest of the calculated plume mass flow rates for the possible plume configurations (i.e., axisymmetric, balcony spill or window spill plumes). Additionally, provisions should be made for natural or mechanical supply of outside air to make up an equal volume of the air exhausted at flow rates not to exceed 200 feet per minute towards the fire unless an engineering analysis is performed. To achieve the performance criteria described in Section 909.8.1, a smoke exhaust system will be provided within the high bay of the Tustin Hangar building. A smoke exhaust system is defined in the Section 4.3.2 of NFPA 92, as a mechanical or gravity system intended to move smoke from the smoke zone to the exterior of the building, including natural smoke filling and natural smoke venting systems, as well as the function of exhaust fans. The smoke control system proposed for the Tustin Hangar will be a natural smoke filling system. The natural smoke filling approach consists of allowing smoke to fill spaces without any smoke exhaust or other smoke removal. Typically, this approach requires performing a timed egress analysis to verify that the smoke filling time with the proposed design fire should be greater than the time required for evacuation and relocation of occupants. The smoke filling time is the time from ignition until the smoke descends to the pre-determined height (i.e., six feet above the highest walking surface). Furthermore, applications appropriate for the natural smoke filling will need a very large space above the highest occupied floor. Since the Tustin Hangar is approximately 1,072 feet long by 292 feet wide by 192 feet tall and the highest occupied level is the Ground Floor, the application of the natural smoke filling method should be appropriate. Consequently, the natural smoke filling system design will be analyzed with the aid of a Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) modeling and a timed egress modeling analyses. The proposed method of design will consist of applying an engineered performance-based smoke control design evaluation criteria that are equivalent to the smoke control requirements of the Sections 404 and 909. 3. REQUEST FOR ALTERNATE METHOD OF DESIGN In accordance with Section 104.11 of the 2013 CBC, the use of alternative designs and methods of construction are permitted, provided an equivalent level of fire protection and life safety to that intended by the prescriptive code requirements is demonstrated. As an alternate to the prescriptive requirements of Sections 404 and 909, it is proposed to use the alternate design methods employing an engineered performance-based design approach in lieu of the prescriptive code requirements. The 2013 CBC Section 104.11 states that the provisions of the building code are not intended to prevent the use of materials, alternate designs or methods of construction not specifically prescribed therein provided a proposed alternate is approved and its use authorized by the building official. The 2013 CBC further clarifies the intent of Section 104.11: • "The code is not intended to inhibit innovative ideas or technological advances. A comprehensive regulatory document such as a building code cannot envision and then address all future innovations in the industry. As a result, a performance code must be applicable to and provide a basis for the approval of an increasing number of newly developed, innovative materials, systems and methods for which no code text or referenced standards yet exist." 4. APPLICABLE CODE REQUIREMENTS Large Space Smoke Control (Prescriptive Code Objective) —The smoke control system for a large space is required to be designed to maintain the height of the lowest horizontal surface of the accumulating smoke layer at least six (6) feet above any walking surface that forms a portion of a required egress system within the smoke zone, and be capable of continued operation after detection of a fire event for JENSEN HUGHES TUSTIN HANGAR 1TJL00183.000 PAGE 3 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA June 18, 2015 not less than 20 minutes or 1.5 times calculated egress time, whichever is less. However, the 2015 International Building Code and the prospective 2016 California Building Code Section 909.4.6 requires the duration of smoke control system operation for not less than 20 minutes or 1.5 times calculated egress time, whichever is greater. When considering the short- and long-term use of the building, the smoke control system in the Tustin Hangar will be designed to be capable of continued operation after detection of a fire event for not less than 20 minutes or 1.5 times calculated egress time, whichever is greater. 5. PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN METHODOLOGY The methodology outlined in the SFPE Engineering Guide to Performance-Based Fire Protection will be used to evaluate the proposed equivalent design and demonstrate that the performance intent of the code will be attained [1]. The SFPE Engineering Guide to Performance-Based Fire Protection identifies a methodology to meet the intent of the prescriptive code requirements. Only by restating prescriptive code requirements in terms of their performance goal and intent is it possible to objectively evaluate equivalency to a prescriptive requirement. Accordingly, the proposed alternate design method will demonstrate equivalency to the level of safety and performance intended by code through the use a performance-based equivalency approach. The methodology of the analysis will follow the performance-based design of buildings guidelines as discussed in the Society of Fire Protection Engineers Guide to Performance-Based Fire Protection [1]. Essentially, the performance-based design approach consists of defining the project scope to identify the goals, objectives and performance criteria by which the alternate design will be evaluated. Included within the performance-based process is the development of design fires and design fire scenarios that will be used in the alternate design evaluation. 5.1. Goals Collectively, the goal and objective of the applicable building code requirements corresponding to the smoke control design is related to maintaining a tenable environment within the egress path. Therefore, the goal of the performance-based design approach will be to: • Provide a tenable environment for the evacuation or relocation of occupants. 5.2. Design Objectives In order to achieve the aforementioned goal, the following performance-based design objectives has been defined and stated in engineering terms that will serve to substantiate and justify the performance-based design approach. The performance-based design objective will be to: • Slow the smoke layer descent for a period of time sufficient to allow the occupants to safely egress from the spaces open to and within the hangar. 5.3. Performance-based Design Evaluation Criteria In order to evaluate the proposed smoke control system design concept, it is necessary to establish baseline evaluation criteria. The evaluation criteria are values with which the performance of the proposed design can be measured and compared. In order for a potential design to be deemed successful (i.e., demonstrate equivalency to the code intent), the evaluation criteria must be attained. Numerous tenability criteria have been suggested and used in published fire hazard analyses and test studies over the past two decades. Criteria generally impacts occupants when the upper smoke layer descends to a level below six feet above the floor/walking surface, the transitional elevation below which untenable conditions would be considered a threat to life safety. The presence of smoke, however, within JENSEN HUGHES TUSTIN HANGAR 1TJL00183.000 PAGE 4 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA June 18, 2015 six feet above the floor does not necessarily yield an untenable environment. The concentration of the smoke and the duration of human exposure to the smoke affect the lethality. This performance-based analysis will consider the effect of only acute (short-term) exposures to toxic products; chronic (long-term) effects are not considered. Three conditions will be analyzed within the building, specifically the means of egress systems, to determine whether tenability is maintained: visibility, gas concentration within the breathing zone, and ambient temperature. The evaluation parameters of each condition are described below. 5.3.1. Visibility Concentration of soot will be analyzed when the smoke descended to within six feet above the floor. Smoke concentrations, related to the visibility, are classified as: • Insignificant Smoke—An insignificant smoke concentration is defined as not visible but the occupants may be able to smell something in the air. A soot concentration of less than 0.01 grams of soot per kilogram of air is considered insignificant. • Light Smoke—A light smoke concentration is defined as producing minimal visibility obscuration. Light smoke contains between 0.01 and 0.1 grams of soot per kilogram of air. • Moderate Smoke—A moderate smoke condition is defined as resulting in reduced visibility to approximately 100 feet and is one which people can pass through but may not be tolerable for long periods. Moderate smoke contains between 0.1 and 1.0 grams of soot per kilogram of air. • Heavy Smoke—A heavy smoke condition is defined as one that persons cannot enter without serious consequences. Heavy smoke contains more than 1.0 grams of soot per kilogram of air. The visibility (S) is directly related to the extinction coefficient (K), which is estimated by the fire model. Estimates of visibility through smoke can be made by using the equation, S = C/K, Where C is a nondimensional constant, characteristic of the type of object being viewed through the smoke, i.e., C=8 for a light-emitting sign and C=3 for a light-reflecting sign (Mulholland, SFPE Handbook) [2]. The constant C is 3 by default. Tenability criteria for visibility is recommended at 33 ft (10 m) for large spaces according to the 4th Edition SFPE Handbook [2]. 5.3.2. Gas Concentrations Gas concentrations within the breathing zone will be evaluated at six (6) feet above the walking floor as follows: • CO— 150 parts per million (ppm) for 60 minutes and 300 ppm for 30 minutes— As a reference, according to the SFPE Handbook, 4th ED [2], Sec. 2, Chapt. 6, EQ-(7), for light work (25 L/min, 30%COHb) and at Flco (Fraction Equivalent Dose of CO) = 0.3, 150 ppm of CO corresponds to an exposure time of approximately 60 minutes, and 300 ppm of CO corresponds to an exposure time of approximately 30 minutes. Although it is generally considered that incapacitation would occur when Flco reaches 1.0, an Flco of 1.0 represents the median of the distribution of exposure dose resulting in incapacitation. Consequently, applying a smaller dose of 0.3 as suggested in SFPE Handbook [2], Sec. 2, Chapter 6, would provide some conservatism to account for uncertainties in the population. JENSEN HUGHES TUSTIN HANGAR 1TJL00183.000 PAGE 5 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA June 18, 2015 • 02—less than 12% (0.12 mol 02/mol air)—A 12-percent oxygen (02) level represents a point between 15-percent oxygen, where only minor physiological effects may be encountered, and 10-percent oxygen, where muscular control and critical judgment process can be markedly affected. A detailed discussion on hypoxia is presented by Purser in the Society of Fire Protection Engineering (SFPE) Handbook [2]. • CO2—less than 6% (0.06 mol CO2/mol air)—The 6-percent criterion for carbon dioxide (CO2), as stated by Purser in the SFPE Handbook [2], represents a level where breathing is uncomfortable and dizziness can occur. 10-percent CO2 is cited as a point where unconsciousness can occur within 2 minutes. The aforementioned values are considered critical tenability indicators since inhalation fatalities generally have lethal values of CO. It should be recognized that other toxic gases, including hydrogen chloride and hydrogen cyanide, are not addressed since these products are not readily estimated and based on past experience have not affected tenability results. 5.3.3. Temperature Temperatures in the space are limited to a maximum of 60°C (140°F) because this is the human tolerance on bare skin in humid conditions. This value comes from the Biology Data Book, Federation of American Societies For Experimental Biology[3] Short-term exposures to higher temperatures may be acceptable since it is assumed that the duration of an untenable exposure to occupants will be brief; and occupants are expected to move away from the areas of intense heat and smoke during the course of egress. A 200°F (93°C) temperature limit is a conservative value based on the effects of heat stroke or hyperthermia. If an occupant is exposed to a hot environment, especially if the humidity is high, there is a danger of incapacitation or death due to hyperthermia. Prolonged exposure (greater than 15 minutes)to heated environments at elevated temperatures too low to cause burns can inhibit an occupant in the course of egress. The combination of exposure duration and intensity must be considered to appropriately define the threshold criteria limits; this holds true for gas concentrations as well. A dry-bulb temperature of 200°F (93°C) is considered to correspond to an upper limit at which loss of consciousness will occur. Gas temperatures of more than 212°F (100°C) are capable of causing loss of consciousness and death within several minutes. The widely accepted 200°F value can be compared to the following data provided by the National Academy of Sciences (1978): Gas Temperature (°F) Tolerance Time (minutes) or Effect 220 25 240 25 248 15 260 Nasal breathing difficult 300 Mouth breathing difficult 320 Rapid unbearable pain to dry skin Table 1 summarizes the evaluation criteria used in the evaluation of the proposed smoke control system. These evaluation criteria will be utilized to analyze the results of the modeling simulations performed to evaluate if the proposed smoke control design concept will provide a tenable environment (i.e., maintain JENSEN HUGHES TUSTIN HANGAR 1TJL00183.000 PAGE 6 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA June 18, 2015 the height of the smoke layer at least six feet above the highest walking surface) for the duration of 20 minutes or 1.5 times the calculated egress time, whichever is greater. Untenable smoke is assumed to be smoke that exceeds the evaluation criteria included in Table 1. These evaluation criteria are also used to determine the location of the height of the smoke layer interface (i.e., it is assumed that the smoke layer interface is located at the height where the smoke becomes untenable). Table 1 — Performance-based Design Evaluation Criteria Parameter Description of Criterion Value of Criterion Limit temperatures to a maximum of 140°F (60°C) Temperature at a height of six feet above the highest occupied 140°F walking surface [2, 3, 7] Maintain visibility of at least 33 feet (10 meters) to Visibility an exit sign at a height of six feet above the highest 33 feet occupied walking surface [2] Limit CO concentration to 150 ppm for 60 minutes, Carbon Monoxide (CO) 300 ppm for 30 minutes and 365 ppm for 20 150-365 ppm minutes at a height of six feet above the highest occupied walking surface [2] Limit CO2 concentration to 6-percent (6%) at a Carbon Dioxide (CO2) height of six feet above the highest occupied 6% walking surface 2 Limit 02 concentration to 12-percent (12%) at a Oxygen (02) height of six feet above the highest occupied 12% walking surface [2] Evaluate trial design for 20 minutes or 1.5 times To be determined Duration calculated egress time, whichever is greater. by the timed egress analysis 6. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS APPROCH The performance-based design approach will be evaluated by means of a deterministic fire hazard analysis. The deterministic fire hazard analysis will be performed utilizing computer fire modeling to evaluate the toxic and thermal threat to which building occupants may be exposed. The deterministic analysis will identify fire exposure scenarios and characterize the fire exposure in terms of fire location, fuel load, heat-release rate, and fire temperatures within the large spaces. The performance-based design will be evaluated using the Fire Dynamics Simulator(FDS) computer fire- modeling program [4] developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Pathfinder egress modeling program [5] developed by Thunderhead Engineering. FDS is a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model of fire-driven fluid flow that predicts the growth and spread of fire and its products of combustion. The software solves numerically a form of the Navier- Stokes equations appropriate for low-speed, thermally driven flow with an emphasis on smoke and heat transport from fires. In FDS, each space of interest is divided into small rectangular control volumes or computational cells. The model then computes the density, velocity, temperature, pressure and species concentration (e.g., carbon monoxide concentration) of the gas in each cell, based on the conservation laws of mass, momentum, and energy, to model the movement of fire gases. Pathfinder is an agent based egress and human movement simulator. Pathfinder can provide a graphical user interface for simulation design and execution as well as 2D and 3D visualization tools for results analysis. Pathfinder supports two movement simulation modes. In "Steering" mode, doors do not act to limit the flow of occupants; instead, occupants use the steering system to maintain a reasonable separation distance. In SFPE mode, occupants make no attempt to avoid one another and are allowed to interpenetrate, but doors impose a flow limit and velocity is controlled by density. Pathfinder does not provide support for complex behaviors (e.g., family grouping). JENSEN HUGHES TUSTIN HANGAR 1TJL00183.000 PAGE 7 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA June 18, 2015 7. DETERMINATION OF PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN Based on the performance-based design methodology discussed in Section 5 of this brief, the determination for the large space performance-based design should consist of analysis of the potential design fire in the hangar, key assumptions of the FDS model, and the evaluated design fire scenarios. 7.1. Design Fire Smoke production generated by a design fire is the basis of design for analyzing accumulation and movement of smoke and hot gases. As discussed in Section 909.9, design fires should be based on a rational analysis and should consider factors like the characteristics of the fuel, fuel load, fuel spacing, and fuel configuration, effects included by the fires and whether the fires are likely to be steady or unsteady. In addition, the analysis should consider heat release and sprinkler effectiveness assumptions. The following provides a synopsis of the factors and assumptions that will be used to justify a maximum design fire occurring in the open area of the Tustin Hangar building. 7.1.1. Factors Considered In accordance with Section 909.9.1, the engineering analysis of a design fire should consider factors like the characteristics of the fuel, fuel load, effects included by the fires and whether the fires are likely to be steady or unsteady. • Fuel Characteristics and Fuel Loads A fuel package could be considered as one or more objects that consist of design fires. In large spaces, a fuel package would consist of one or more items of transient fuel. For instance, in the open area of the Tustin Hangar that would be designed as assembly use for public events (e.g., filming, recreational events, small-trade shows, etc.) based on the draft schemes proposed in 2014, the fuel package might include seats and decorations that are left temporarily in the large hanger area. The maximum design fire proposed for the open area of the Tustin Hangar will be based on data from actual fuel loads and fire tests. Therefore, it can be concluded that the characteristics of the fuel will be considered. • Effects of Fire In accordance with the requirements of Section 909.4.2, the buoyancy and expansion caused by the design fire should be analyzed to determine the likelihood of intermediate stratification. Intermediate stratification of smoke occurs when the smoke produced by a fire is not hot enough to reach the ceiling level. The potential for intermediate stratification correlates with the difference in temperature between the floor and ceiling of the space. Using a temperature gradient from the floor to the roof top of the hangar of 23.5°F, the minimum convective heat release rate of the fire necessary to overcome stratification below approximately 192-foot roof height is 1,391 Btu/sec. Qc,min = 2.39E-5 x H5i2 x AT03/2, (NFPA 92 Annex E Equation E.2b) Qc,min = 2.39E-5 x (192 ft)5/2 x (23.5°F)3i2 Qc,min = 1,391 Btu/sec Qc,min = Minimum convective heat release rate to overcome stratification (Btu/sec). H = Ceiling height above fire (ft). ATo = Difference between ambient temperature at the ceiling (assumed to be 93.5°F, which is the 0.4% cooling DB temperature in the Tustin area from the 2009 ASHRAE Handbook [6]) and ambient temperature (assumed to be 70°F) at the level of fire surface (°F). JENSEN HUGHES TUSTIN HANGAR 1TJL00183.000 PAGE 8 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA June 18, 2015 Assuming a 30% loss to radiative and conductive heat transfer, the resultant total heat release rate (Qc,tot) will be: Qc,tot= Qc,min/0.7 Qc,tot= 1,391 /0.7 Qc,tot= 1,987 Btu/sec (2,096 KW) This fire is smaller than the contemplated design fires proposed in this brief(refer to Section 7.1.3 in this brief). Therefore, intermediate stratification of smoke from a proposed design fire will not be expected to occur below about 192-foot roof height in the Tustin Hangar building. • Steady or Unsteady Fire Normally, the fuel consumption pattern in a fire scenario consists of three growth rate periods: growth; full development; and decay (refer to Figure 1). Although intensity and duration of a fire will be dependent on many variable factors, all fires will experience some variation of the typical heat release rate history indicated above. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the heat release rate history for the design fire discussed herein could have a naturally decaying period according to the assumed fuel loading and environment conditions. Growth Decay Fully Developed Fire Ignition Figure 1: The Stages of Fire Development [7] The growth stage of an unsteady fire is often considered to increase with the square of time. Figure 2 is from the Handbook "A Guide to Smoke Control in IBC 2006"[7] and gives the expected heat release rate history for various combustible furnishings. According to this article, the slow curve is appropriate for fires involving thick, solid objects (solid wood table, bedroom dresser, or cabinet), the medium growth curve is typical of solid fuels of lower density (upholstered furniture and mattresses), and the fast fires are thin, combustible items (paper, cardboard boxes, draperies). Ultra-fast fires include flammable liquids, some older types of upholstered furniture and mattresses or other highly volatile fuels. In addition, this article indicates that in a highly mixed collection of fuels, selecting the medium-to-fast curve is appropriate as long as there is no particularly flammable item present. Based on the proposed activities in the hangar and the analysis shown in Figure 2, a conservative fast T-square fire growth rate will be used for the Tustin Hangar smoke control system analysis. JENSEN HUGHES TUSTIN HANGAR 1TJL00183.000 PAGE 9 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA June 18, 2015 Thin Plywood`ddard,ub& Corrigated Cardboard Full Mail Bags Cartons 4.6 m(15 ft)High g Methyl Alcohol Pool Various Contents 1 m(3 ft)High "r-1 Pallet Stack Wood Pallets 1.5 m(5 ft)High COQQ Upholstered Furniture 5000 1 Cotton/Polyester 4000 J Interspring Mattress m Solid wood 3000 cabinetry 2000 1000 0 0 200 400 600 800 Time From Ignition (s) Figure 2: t2-Fire Curves for Various Combustible Items [7] For the purpose of evaluating the proposed smoke control system design using computer modeling tools, the heat release rate will remain at a steady state condition after reaching its peak output for the duration of the fire modeling time period. This methodology is a conservative approach in that the fires are assumed to burn according to a steady state condition, rather than experiencing the decay period as evidenced in full-scale fire tests. This will present more conservative design fire scenarios that will generate higher sustained temperatures and smoke production over the course of the simulation. 7.1.2. Separation Distance The determination of design fires should include consideration of the type of fuel, fuel spacing and configuration. The design fires should be increased if other combustibles are within the separation distance (i.e., the potential of fire spread is expected). The maximum floor-to-roof height within the hangar will be approximately 192 feet and the lower occupied portion of the hangar (which is located on the Ground Floor) will primarily be used as Group A Assembly occupancy. Due to the area constraints within the lower portion of the hangar, the potential of fire spread throughout the upper portion of the hangar will not be expected. 7.1.3. Heat-Release Assumptions The rational analysis should make use of the best available data and should not be based on excessively stringent limitations of combustible materials. Section 909.9.3 requires that the design fire not be excessively limited in size as this could result in a smoke control system that may be ineffective from a fire involving transient object(s) (e.g., temporary decorations, displays, etc.) that are only located in the hangar for a short period of time. One of the suggested approaches to establish the minimum fire size using a heat release rate (HRR) per unit floor area is described in the Method of Predicting Smoke Movement in Atria with Application to Smoke Management written by John H. Klote and the Society of Fire Protection Engineers [8]. The selection of the minimum fire size is determined by applying the heat release JENSEN HUGHES TUSTIN HANGAR 1TJL00183.000 PAGE 10 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA June 18, 2015 rate per unit area to a fire occurring over 100 ftz of floor area. Using a heat release rate of 20-25 Btu/ftz.s applied over a maximum fire area of 100 ftz suggested for office occupancies, a minimum design fire size will be 2,000-2,500 Btu/sec. In addition, using a heat release rate of 44-50 Btu/ftz.s applied over a maximum fire area of 100 ftz suggested for mercantile occupancies, a minimum design fire size will be 4,400-5,000 Btu/sec. The open hangar area will be designed as assembly use for public events and therefore the fire size should also take into account of the proposed hangar functionality. The assembly use would be filming with or without audience, recreational events, small-trade shows in the open hangar area and could contain a lot of decorations, electronic equipment, paper materials and seats. Peak heat release rates for some of these and similar combustible items from the oxygen consumption calorimeter test [9] are summarized in Table 2.As can be seen from Table 2, the maximum peak heat release rate measured for most of the combustible commodities expected within the hangar area will not exceed 10,000 Btu/sec. When combined with the methods of a typical HRR per unit floor area and the HRR data from the oxygen consumption calorimeter, to be conservative, a maximum 20,000 kW (about 19,000 Btu/sec) design fire with a fast T-square fire growth rate will be used for the preliminary performance- based design. Table 2— Proposed Design Fire Scenarios Element Peak Heat Release Rate (Btu/sec) [reference] Upholstered chairs 80—2,480 [9, 10] Chairs with metal frame and 160—370 [10] polyurethane padding Sofa 3,120 [9, 10] Loveseats 940—2,890 [9] Wastebaskets 100—350 [9] Smaller Spruce Trees 40—620 [9, 10] Live Scotch Pine Trees 1,800—5,000 [9, 10] Boxed Computers, 1 pallet of 12-16 1,400—8,190 [9, 10] computers Boxed Computers, 2 pallets, 10-12 14,100— 17,300 [9, 10] computers per pallet 7.2. Sprinkler Effectiveness Assumptions The effect of the sprinkler system may be assumed to have halted the fire growth at time of activation when documented in an engineering analysis. However, according to the article Method of Predicting Smoke Movement in Atria with Application to Smoke Management written by John H. Klote [8], the ability of sprinklers to suppress fires in spaces with ceiling heights higher than 35 to 50 feet is limited [6]. Consequently, based on the maximum hangar ceiling height of approximately 192 feet, the 20,000 kW fire originating within the center of the hangar on the Ground Floor would not activate the sprinkler system. Furthermore, an automatic sprinkler system was not provided in the high ceiling hangar area. 7.3. FDS Modeling Assumptions As discussed in Section 2.0 of this brief, the proposed method of design will consist of applying an engineered performance-based smoke control design evaluation criteria. In addition to the design fire assumptions presented above, the following assumptions were included in the FDS modeling analysis of the proposed hangar smoke control system. JENSEN HUGHES TUSTIN HANGAR 1TJL00183.000 PAGE 11 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA June 18, 2015 • The entire project will be included in the FDS modeling environment. • A maximum 20,000 kW design fire with a fast T-square fire growth rate will be used for the hangar smoke control system design. • The maximum design fire will be assumed to be located within the footprint of the hangar area, and will not be assumed to be sprinkler controlled due to the approximate 192 feet floor-to-roof height. Locating the fire in the center of the hangar high bay will be conservative, since the fire/smoke plume will be located away from walls and will be able to entrain more air. The more air entrained, the more smoke is produced, which will result in a more conservative evaluation. • The soot yield (i.e., the fraction of mass converted into smoke particulate) is assumed to be approximately 5% to accommodate mixed combustible materials (wood and plastics) that may be present in the hangar. • The Carbon Monoxide (CO) yield is assumed to be approximately 3.8% for the mixed combustible materials. • A default visibility factor of 3 for non-illuminated objects (i.e., light-reflecting signs) is used in the fire modeling evaluation per Mulholland, SPFE Handbook [2] and a Guide to Smoke Control in the 2006 IBC Handbook [7]. • The ambient outdoor temperatures are assumed to be 93.5°F per 2009 ASHRAE Handbook [6]. This will provide a conservative analysis since the hot gases are less buoyant in warmer air and smoke layer has a hotter temperature. • No make-up air is provided. • The smoke layer will be maintained at six feet above the Ground Floor. 7.4. Design Fire Scenarios Smoke production generated by a design fire is the basis of design for a smoke control system. As discussed in the previous sections of this report, a design fire of 20,000 kW has been used for the hangar smoke control system design. Table 3 lists two (2) base fire scenarios that are evaluated in the deterministic computer fire modeling analysis. Table 3— Proposed Design Fire Scenarios Smoke Sprinkler Fire Growth Max. HRR Exhaust and Fire Scenario Location Controlled Rate (kW) Makeup Air Fast, 1 Center of Hangar No T-Square 20,000 No Unsteady Fast, 2 East of Hangar No T-Square 20,000 No Unsteady 8. RESULTS OF PRELIMINARY FDS ANALYSIS The smoke control design concept described in Section 2 of this brief(i.e., natural smoke filling method) was evaluated using the CFD computer program FDS. JENSEN HUGHES TUSTIN HANGAR 1TJL00183.000 PAGE 12 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA June 18, 2015 8.1. FDS Modeling Environment The FDS modeling environment is graphically depicted in Figures 3 and 4. Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 ----- _ - --------------------------------- --- --- --- ----z- —--`-- mesh:7 Figure 3: FDS Overall Smokeview Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 mesh:7 Figure 4: FDS Interior Smokeview 8.2. FDS Result Evaluation Tools The results of the FDS analysis were evaluated using isosurfaces and slices. An isosurface is used to specify the output of gas phase scalar quantities (e.g., temperature, visibility, carbon monoxide concentration, etc.), as three dimensional animated contours at a particular time. For example, a 140°F temperature isosurface shows where the gas temperature is 140°F. A slice is used to specify the output of gas phase scalar quantities (e.g., temperature, visibility, carbon monoxide concentration, etc.), as two dimensional animated contours at any time of the simulation period. JENSEN HUGHES TUSTIN HANGAR 1TJL00183.000 PAGE 13 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA June 18, 2015 8.3. Preliminary FDS Analysis Results The preliminary FDS analysis demonstrated that the proposed smoke control design concept (i.e., natural smoke filling) will achieve the following: • Maintenance of the smoke layer at six (6) feet above the Ground Floor within the hangar for at least 1 hour (3,600 seconds). The following provides a summary of the preliminary FDS performance analysis results. 8.3.1. Fire Scenario#1 Smokeview 6.1.11- Tus_20MW_CtrX_CtrY_0007_00003600_01.q Plot3d temp F 134 1 4 126 lie 109 101 92.8 84.6 76.3 68.0 59.7 mesh:7 Figure 5: Isosurface indicating where the temperature is 140°F (60°C) at 3,600 seconds Smokeview 6.1.11- Tus_20MW_CtrX_CtrY_0007_00003600_01.q Plot3d VIS-Soot M 9.97 1 8.92 7.87 6.82 5.78 4.72 3.67 2.63 1.57 0.52 mesh:7 Figure 6: Isosurface indicating where the visibility is 33 ft (10m) at 3,600 seconds JENSEN HUGHES TUSTIN HANGAR 1TJL00183.000 PAGE 14 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA June 18, 2015 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice temp °F 140 133 126 118 111 104 96.8 89.6 82.4 75.2 68.0 Frame:1800 Time:3600.0 mesh:1 Figure 7: Slice indicating where the temperature is 140°F (60°C) at 3,600 seconds on Ground Floor Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice VIS Soot m 12.0 10.0 9.60 8.40 7.20 6.00 4.80 3.60 2.40 1.20 0.00 Frame:1800 Time:3600.0 mesh:7 Figure 8: Slice indicating where the visibility is 33 ft (10m) at 3,600 seconds on Ground Floor JENSEN HUGHES TUSTIN HANGAR 1TJL00183.000 PAGE 15 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA June 18, 2015 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice X Co mollmol "10^-4 1.50 ■ 1.35 1.20 1.05 0.90 TM — 0.75 0.60 0.45 0.30 0.15 0.00 Frame:1800 Time:3600.0 mesh:1 Figure 9: Slice indicating where the CO concentration is 365 ppm at 3,600 seconds on Ground Floor 8.3.2. Fire Scenario#2 Smokeview 6.1.11-,Tus_20MW_EastX_CtrY_0007_00003600_00.q,Tus_20MW_EastX_CtrY_0007_00003600_00.q Plot3d temp °F 134 126 118 Auk T7j. 109 101 92.8 84.6 76.3 68.0 59.7 mesh:7 Figure 10: Isosurface indicating where the temperature is 140°F (60°C) at 3,600 seconds JENSEN HUGHES TUSTIN HANGAR 1TJL00183.000 PAGE 16 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA June 18, 2015 Smokeview 6.1.11-,Tus_20MW_EastX_CtrY_0007_00003600_00.q Plot3d VIS—Soot m 9.97 8.92 7.87 6.82 5.78 4.72 3.67 2.63 1.57 0.52 mesh:7 Figure 11: Isosurface indicating where the visibility is 33 ft (10m) at 3,600 seconds Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice temp °F 140 ■ 133 126 118 k 111 104 96.8 89.6 82.4 75.2 1 68.0 Frame:1799 Time:3598.0 mesh:7 Figure 12: Slice indicating where the temperature is 140°F (60°C) at 3,600 seconds on Ground Floor JENSEN HUGHES TUSTIN HANGAR 1TJL00183.000 PAGE 17 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA June 18, 2015 Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice VIS—Soot m 10.0 ' 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 1 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Frame:1799 Time:3598.0 mesh:1 Figure 13: Slice indicating where the visibility is 33 ft (10m) at 3,600 seconds on Ground Floor Smokeview 6.1.11-Jul 16 2014 Slice X co mollmol "10^-4 1.50 ■ 1.35 1.20 1.05 0.90 0.75 0.60 0.45 0.30 0.15 0.00 Frame:1799 Time:3598.0 mesh:1 Figure 14: Slice indicating where the CO concentration is 365 ppm at 3,600 seconds on Ground Floor 9. FUTHER CONSIDERATION AND EVALUATION The above presented preliminary analysis results demonstrate that the proposed smoke control design concept using the natural smoke filling method may be appropriate for the Tustin Hangar building. However, further consideration and evaluation will be performed based on the detailed hangar operation schemes. 9.1. Proposed Hangar Operation Schemes Based on the hangar operation schemes provided by Page & Turnbull and dated May 2015, there are three proposed scenarios for the Tustin Hangar as follows: JENSEN HUGHES TUSTIN HANGAR 1TJL00183.000 PAGE 18 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA June 18, 2015 • Temporary/ Interim Use Scenario The temporary/interim use scenario shows how the Tustin Hangar will be operated for the next few years. The occupant load for this use scenario will be limited below 5,000 persons. Therefore, the assembly occupancy will be approximately 60,000 square feet located at the east end of the hangar. The assembly use could be filming with or without studio audience, recreational events, small trade shows, and so on. The majority portion of the hangar will be used for blimp maintenance located at the west side of the hangar. • Long Term/Assembly Use Scenario The entire hangar bay will be used for assembly occupancy in this scenario. The occupant load for this use scenario will be limited below 16,600 persons and the assembly use could include a performance stage and associated seating area. • Buildings within Hangar Scenario This use scenario will include 3 or 4 individual buildings located in the hangar bay that consist of 2-or 3-story with occupied roof deck. These interior buildings will be combined with a structural solution that introduces steel towers to provide support to the existing wood trusses. 9.2. Further Consideration and Evaluation Based on the proposed three hangar use scenarios, the following performance-based design assumptions and parameters discussed in the previous sections of this brief need to be refined. 9.2.1. Adjustment of Design Fire Size For the temporary/interim use scenario, the 20,000 kW design fire is appropriate for the assembly use area. Since the majority portion (west side) of the hangar is used for blimp maintenance, the potential fire size at the blimp maintenance area needs to be analyzed. Based on blimp data (i.e., Goodyear), the balloon-like body of the airship is typically made of Polyurethane and Polyester with an innovative film (Tedlar film)with a weight of 12,840-19,780 pounds (5,824-8,972 kilogram) [11]. According to Equation (1) in Chapter One of Section Three of the 4th SFPE Handbook [12], the heat release rate can be calculated by the following equation: Q = hc x MLR, (Equ.(1) in Chapter One of Section Three of the 4th Edition SFPE Handbook) = [(18 g/mz.s x 19.5-20.6 KJ/g)x 50%] + [(32.0 g/mz.s x 23.5 KJ/g) x 50%] = 561.4 KW/M2 (49.44 Btu/ftz.$) Where: Q = Heat release rate per unit area (KW/M2) hc = Heat of combustion (KJ/g or MJ/kg) [10] MLR = Mass loss rate (g/mz.$) [10, 13] The unit heat release rate of the blimp balloon-like body falls in the heat release rate range of 44- 50 Btu/ftz.s suggested for mercantile occupancies (refer to Section 7.1.3 of this brief). However, due to lack of actual blimp fire development data, to be conservative, it is assumed that a potential larger design fire size of 30,000 kW with fast T-square fire growth rate would be at the blimp maintenance area. A calculated soot yield and CO yield will be approximately 14% and 7.3% respectively based on the soot yield data provided by SFPE Handbook Tables 3.4-16 and 3.4-22 [10]. JENSEN HUGHES TUSTIN HANGAR 1TJL00183.000 PAGE 19 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA June 18, 2015 For the long term/assembly and buildings within hangar scenarios, the 20,000 kw design fire or less is appropriate. 9.2.2. Timed Egress Analysis A timed egress analysis is intended to estimate the time in which building occupants will reach a point of safety. This analysis will evaluate the time at which the last occupant of each floor enters the exit. Once the last occupant passes an exit, it is assumed that sufficient protection will be provided for the remainder of the occupant's egress time. This egress analysis will evaluate three following different egress variables [7, 14]: ■ Time to Detection -The time at which the fire is detected (td) ■ Delay or Pre-movement Time-The time required for occupants to begin evacuation (te) ■ Movement Time-The time required to egress from the specified floor (tm) ■ Total required egress time = td +to +tm ■ Calculated egress time=to + tm. 9.2.2.1. Time to Detection To determine the time to detection, several factors must be considered. These include the type of fire detection device installed in the building, the layout of the building, and visual access throughout the building. Currently, the high bay area of the Tustin Hangar building is not equipped with any type of fire detection devices. It is recommended to at least install beam smoke detectors within the high bay in order to early detect smoke/fire for evacuation and relocation of occupants in the building. Design criteria for a beam detection system in the high bay area needs to be discussed with the project team. A sub-model of FDS will be created to determine the time at which the beam detection system will detect the smoke. In accordance with NFPA 72 Section 6.8.1.1, actuation of alarm appliances should occur within 10 seconds after the activation of an initiating device. Accordingly, the response time of 10 seconds should be considered in the time that the beam smoke detection system detects smoke to the time that the system is sent into alarm. Using this information, the time to detection used for this project will be determined to be: td= beam detector response time + 10s (alarm signal trans-time) 9. 2.2.2. Delay/Pre-Movement Time The delay time is the time required for occupants to assess their situation and decide to proceed to an exit. There are numerous factors that may affect delay time. Some of these factors include people's familiarity with the building, the frequency the individuals have been subjected to false alarms in the past, whether or not the occupant decides to collect belongings, etc. This is a very difficult variable to determine accurately because it involves the unquantifiable aspect of human behavior. A reasonable delay time must be determined for the purpose of calculating a total egress time. The SFPE Handbook presents a study which was conducted by the British Standards Institute in 1997 [15]. The purpose of this study was to determine delay times to start evacuation based on occupancy type and factors such as the type of fire alarm JENSEN HUGHES TUSTIN HANGAR 1TJL00183.000 PAGE 20 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA June 18, 2015 notification system, the occupant's familiarity with the building, and the presence of trained staff. The study gives several different times for the delay time to start based on the type of notification system in the building. The first time (W1) being less than 1 minute for buildings with live directives from a voice communication system and trained, uniformed staff. The second time (W2) being 3 minutes for buildings with nondirective voice messages and trained staff. The third time (W3) being greater than 4 minutes for buildings with a fire alarm signal and staff with no relevant training. While the times presented above were related to the building's notification system, the British study went on to relate the delay times to the occupants proximity to the fire. The study suggests that for occupants who are within a large room or space and can clearly see smoke and flames at a distance, the time W2 (3 minutes) should be used for the scenario. The high bay of the Tustin Hangar consists of a large open space having a direct line of sight to the almost anywhere of the hangar. Due to the hangar layout and the findings of this study, a delay time (te) of 3 minutes may be considered appropriate for the purpose of this evaluation. to= 3 minutes 9. 2.2.3. Movement Time As discussed in Section 6 of this brief, the Pathfinder egress modeling program developed by Thunderhead Engineering will be used to calculate the movement time. Occupant load used in Pathfinder modeling are based on the three hangar operation schemes provided by Page &Turnbull and dated May 2015. 9.2.3. Effect of Fires on Unprotected Wood Frames and Trusses Based on JENSEN HUGHES site walk with Page &Turnbull on May 19, 2015, the entire wood frames and trusses located inside the high bay of the hangar may have fire-retardant treatment (no detailed information available now), but are not fire-resistance rated structure. Based on discussion with Page &Turnbull, it is proposed to simulate fires in close proximity to wood trusses to determine effect of fires on unprotected wood frames and trusses inside the high bay area of the hangar. The proposed concept is to determine the potential fire sizes at various distances at which fires would not ignite the unprotected wood. Based on the study results, the area use of the hangar high bay can be planned to avoid the unprotected wood frames and trusses from being exposed to fires that are too large to ignite and damage the unprotected wood structure. According to 4th edition SFPE handbook [10] and published research reports [16, 17], the ignition temperature is about 250-400°C (482-752°F) for exposed to the minimum heat flux possible for ignition, and the minimum radiation flux for wood ignition is approximately 10-13 kW/M2. The ignition temperature of 250°C (482°F) and the radiation flux of 10 kW/M2 will be used in JENSEN HUGHES fire modeling analysis to determine the fire sizes and distances that will not ignite the unprotected wood frames and trusses from being exposed to fires that are too large to ignite and damage the unprotected wood structure inside the high bay area of the hangar. 9.2.4. Additional Fire Scenarios Based on the three (3) proposed hangar operation schemes and discussion above, additional design fire scenarios, in addition to those fire scenarios presented in Table 3 of this brief, need to be included for further evaluation. Table 4 lists additional fire scenarios that are further evaluated in the deterministic computer fire modeling analysis. JENSEN HUGHES TUSTIN HANGAR 1TJL00183.000 PAGE 21 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA June 18, 2015 Table 4— Proposed Additional Design Fire Scenarios Smoke Sprinkler Fire Growth Max. HRR Exhaust and Fire Scenario Location Controlled Rate kW Makeup Air West of Hangar for Fast, 1 Temporary/Interim No T-Square 30,000 No Use Scenario Unsteady East of Hangar for Fast, 2 Temporary/Interim No T-Square 20,000 No Use Scenario Unsteady Center of Hangar for Fast, 3 Buildings within No T-Square 20,000 No Hangar Scenario Unsteady East of Hangar for Fast, 4 Buildings within No T-Square 20,000 No Hangar Scenario Unsteady Balcony of Hangar Fast, To be 5 for Buildings within Yes T-Square No Hangar Scenario Unsteady determined Multiple Fires in close Medium-Fast, To be 6 proximity to Wood No T-Square No Trusses Unsteady determined 10. CONCLUSION The information presented in this brief is intended to represent preliminary design information to be used for the planning and design efforts of the proposed hangar performance-based engineering design. The preliminary performance-based design concept will be presented to the City of Tustin Community Development Department (TCDD) and Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). Following conceptual approval, JENSEN HUGHES will continue to refine the design parameters with our modeling (FDS and Pathfinder software) and preparation of a formal Performance-Based Engineering Analysis report to be submitted to the Design Team, the TCDD and the OCFA. Submitted by JENSEN HUGHES, Prepared by: Reviewed by: DRAFT DRAFT Ning (Frank)Wang, P.E. Tuk Vorapani, P.E. Senior Fire Protection Engineer Senior Fire Protection Engineer fwancia-mensenhucihes.com tvorapani(d-Nensenhuahes.com NFW(r/TUK) JENSEN HUGHES TUSTIN HANGAR 1TJL00183.000 PAGE A TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA June 18, 2015 APPENDIX A. REFERENCES JENSEN HUGHES TUSTIN HANGAR 1TJL00183.000 APPENDIX A TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA June 18, 2015 REFERENCES 1. SFPE Engineering Guide to Performance-Based Fire Protection Analysis and Design of Buildings, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Mass., 2000. 2. Section 2, Chapters 4 and 6, 4th Edition of the SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, SFPE/NFPA, Quincy, MA, 2008. 3. Altman, Philip L.; Dittmer, Dorothy S, 2nd Edition of the Biology Data Book, Federation of American Societies For Experimental Biology, 978-1-60119-107-6. 4. McGrattan, K.B. 2001. Fire Dynamics Simulator. NISTR 6784.NIST, Gaithersburg, MD. 5. Pathfinder, http://www.thunderheadeng.com/pathfinder/. 6. 2009 ASHRAE Handbook"Fundamentals", Inch-Pound Edition, Arican Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers, Inc., 1791 Tullie Circle, N.E., Atlanta, GA 30329. 7. Dr. John H. Klote and Douglas H. Evans,A Guide to Smoke Control in IBC 2006, International Code Council, 2007, ISBN 978-1-58001-659-9. 8. Klote, John H., "Method of Predicting Smoke Movement in Atria With Application to Smoke Management", Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, pp. 2, November 1994. 9. Annex B of NFPA 92, 2012 edition. 10. Section 3, Chapters 1 and 4, 4th Edition of the SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, SFPE/NFPA, Quincy, MA, 2008. 11. http://www.goodyearblimp.com/behind-the-scenes/current-blimps.html. 12. Section 1, Chapters 3, 4th Edition of the SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, SFPE/NFPA, Quincy, MA, 2008. 13. Dougal Drysdale, 2nd Edition of the An Introduction to Fire Dynamics, University of Edinburgh, UK. 14. Klote, John H. and Milke, James A., Principles of Smoke Management, The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. and Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Atlanta, GA 30329. 15. Section 3, Chapters 11 and 12, 4th Edition of the SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, SFPE/NFPA, Quincy, MA, 2008. 16. Robert H. White and Mark A. Dietenberger, Chapter 17 Fire Safety of the 2010 edition Wood Handbook, Forest Products Laboratory. Wood handbook-Wood as an engineering material. General Technical Report FPL-GTR-190. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory: 508 p. 2010. 17. Vytenis Babrauskas, Ph.D., "`Pyrophoric Carbon'and Long-term, Low-temperature Ignition of Wood", Fire and Arson Investigator 51:2, 12-14, January 2001. JENSEN HUGHES Conditions Assessment and Reuse Study Tustin Hangar No.2 Volume ll, Appendices Tustin, California /�►� tNGiz., o I MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING - MEP (DESIGN WEST ENGINEERING) Documents Included MEP Reuse Assessment Report Visual Feasibility Study Final Report Page & Turnbull September 2017 Conditions Assessment and Reuse Study Tustin Hangar No.2 Volume ll, Appendices Tustin, California PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Final Report Page & Turnbull September 2017 5151 Shoreham Place,Suite 240 275 W.Hospitality Lane,Suite 100 San Diego,CA 92122 San Bernardino,CA 92408 Tel:619-330-6043 Tel:909-890-3700 Fax:909-890-3770 Email:cadd@designwesteng.com Email:info@designwesteng.com DESIGN WEST ENGINEERING . REUSE REPORT Rev1 6/26/2015 Prepared for: PAGE & TuRNBULL 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Prepared By: 0) DESIGN WEST ENGINEERING 275 West Hospitality Lane, Suite 100 San Bernardino, CA 92408 (909) 890-3700 DWE Project#14-228 • • • MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL : PLUMBING : ENERGY • • • Table of Contents Introduction....................................................................................................................................3 ProjectOverview.............................................................................................................................. 3 MEPBasis of Design ....................................................................................................................... 3 Stabilization of and Interim Use....................................................................................................... 5 Mechanical................................................................................................................................ 5 Plumbing................................................................................................................................... 5 Electrical ................................................................................................................................... 5 Rehabilitation ................................................................................................................................... 7 Mechanical................................................................................................................................ 7 Plumbing................................................................................................................................... 7 Electrical ................................................................................................................................... 7 Renovation....................................................................................................................................... 8 Mechanical................................................................................................................................ 8 Plumbing................................................................................................................................... 9 Electrical ................................................................................................................................... 9 Additional Recommendations for Testing or Analysis ..................................................................... 9 HVAC/Ventilation...................................................................................................................... 9 LifeSafety Evaluation............................................................................................................... 9 LightingSystem........................................................................................................................ 9 Fire Alarm for Elevated Offices............................................................................................... 10 LightningProtection................................................................................................................ 10 City of Tustin Hangar#2 P a g e 12 MEP Reuse Assessment Report G)) DESIGN WEST ENGINEERING Introduction Project Overview The purpose of this report is to describe and evaluate the necessary improvements required to the mechanical, plumbing and electrical system for the City of Tustin Hangar No. 2, Building Reuse Study and Assessment. This report will be divided into three options: 1. Stabilization and Interim Use 2. Rehabilitation 3. Renovation Faculty from Design West Engineering completed a survey of the building, collected equipment information on the existing systems based on visible name plate information and visual inspections and provided an existing conditions assessment report. We will describe throughout this report where we have made assumptions, so that if additional information becomes available,the data can be re-incorporated to achieve the most accurate results possible. MEP Basis of Design CODES AND STANDARDS 1. 2013 Building Standards Administrative Code,Part 1, Title 24 C.C.R. 2. 2013 California State Historical Building Code (CHBC),Part 8,Title 24 C.C.R. 3. 2013 California Electrical Code (CEC),Part 3, Title 24 C.C.R. (NEC with Amendments) 4. 2013 California Mechanical Code (CMC), Part 4, Title 24 C.C.R. (UMC With Amendments) 5. 2013 California Plumbing Code (Cpc),Part 5, Title 24 C.C.R. (UPC with Amendments) 6. 2013 California Fire Code,Part 9, Title 24 C.C.R. (UFC with Amendments) 7. 2013 California Referenced Standards, Part 12,Title 24 C.C.R. 8. 2013 Title 19 C.C.R., Public Safety, State Fire Marshal Regulations. 9. National Fire Protection Association(NFPA) Pamphlets, Latest Edition 10. ASHRAE 90.1, 62.2, 15 and all other applicable ASHRAE Standards 11. 2013 ASHRAE Refrigeration 12. SMACNA HVAC Duct System Design, 1995 Edition 13. Titles 8, 19 And 24 California Code of Regulations 14. California State Fire Marshall Regulations Including Applicable Provisions of NFPA 101. 15. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) 16. Local Air Quality Management District Requirements 17. Americans with Disabilities Act 18. All Other Applicable State and Local Codes and Ordinances 19. 2011 NFPA 780, Standard for the Installation of Lightning Protection Systems 20. 2013 NFPA 110 Standard for Emergency and Standby Power Systems City of Tustin Hangar#2 P a g e 13 MEP Reuse Assessment Report DESIGN WEST ENGINEERING • • • • • • DESIGN CONDITIONS General Location: Tustin, California 1. Latitude: 33.4235°min N 2. Longitude: 117.4929°min W 3. Elevation: 138 (+/-)ft. above Sea Level Indoor Design Conditions 1. 72-74°F DB, 30%-60%RH for all Common areas 2. 72-74°F DB, 30%-70%RH for Office Space Outdoor Design Conditions 1. Summer: 91°F DB, 68°F WB 2. Winter: 33°F DB Interior Loads 1. Occupant Densities: Unless otherwise noted on the architectural plans/program, use the following: a. 100 SF/person office areas b. 100 SF/person common areas and corridors c. 20 SF/person assembly areas 2. Lighting: Average 1.2 watts/SF Ventilation and Pressurization 1. For commercial and support areas, the minimum outside air supply will be 0.15 CFM/square foot or based on ASHRAE Standard 62. Noise and Vibration 1. Noise and Vibration criteria: The noise and vibration design of the HVAC system design are per accepted industry standards. (Equivalent to ASHRAE Applications 1999, Chapter 46, e.g. Table 34,Fig. 40, Table 43) Energy Considerations 1. Highest efficiency equipment will be specified for all components. City of Tustin Hangar#2 P a g e 14 MEP Reuse Assessment Report DESIGN WEST ENGINEERING Stabilization of and Interim Use Mechanical The HVAC system for the office areas has exceeded is useful life expectancy and may not be functioning correctly. Adequate comfort cooling and heating will not be provided within this area without an extensive remodel that would be unfeasible for this phase of work. Revising the ventilation for the large assembly area with the hangar to provide powered ventilation within the space would also be unfeasible for this phase of work. As part of the stabilization, the existing gravity vents should be replaced and put back into operation to allow for the natural convection to occur within the space of removing the hot air. A second option would be to restore the historic louvers during the rehabilitate phase of the project. The existing gravity vents then could be removed and the existing roof openings would be closed off and sealed when the roof is redone. As part of an interim use plan, the existing HVAC units serving the office area would need to be replaced as necessary for any office area that is going to be repaired and upgraded. The existing systems are DX units and could cause noise issues for the assembly areas as the units are located above the ceiling of the office area within the Hangar. It would be recommended that the HVAC units are changed out from DX units within the Hangar to Fan Coil Units located in the similar spot and a temporary chiller and boiler is utilized to provide the necessary heating and cooling needs. This temporary chiller and boiler could also feed to a temporary air handler that can be utilized to serve isolated areas of the hangar for special events as necessary. Based on the event within the hangar, would determine the size of the temporary chiller and how the ductwork would be routed. A temporary chiller and boiler system would need to be located on each side of the hangar to avoid piping and or ductwork crossing the hangar. An outside air duct would need to be provided to each unit to provide the necessary ventilation for the event or office spaces that are utilized. Plumbing The existing plumbing fixtures and piping would need to be removed and re-installed and put back into operation. The cost of this repair could make this unfeasible for this phase of work. Temporary portable facilities would be recommended to be utilized for the stabilization period. The temporary structure would need to be ADA compliant. Should the budget allow,the existing restrooms would be recommended for repair and upgrade for compliance for ADA for the interim use. Should the budget not allow for the restroom upgrade then a portable restrooms structure would continue to be used as recommended in the stabilization phase. For budgeting purpose, a rough order magnitude cost for the plumbing would be $2,200 per fixture within the restroom would provide an allowance for plumbing within the building. All necessary plumbing on the exterior of the building would be in addition to this estimate. Electrical The building has been disconnected from power utility, therefore there are no hazards related to power that are anticipated. However, it is recommended that power not be restored to the original City of Tustin Hangar#2 P a g e 15 MEP Reuse Assessment Report G)) DESIGN WEST ENGINEERING building electrical system as it is noted in previous studies that a ground fault condition exists that remains unrepaired. If any public assembly use is planned during stabilization of the building, a complete life safety system should be put in place including a fire alarm system, voice evac system (based on occupancy of 4,000) and emergency lighting. This would require a reliable power source such as utility or generator power to support these systems. Power for interim use could be provided by either a portable generator or a utility fed semi-temp power feed connected to grid. If a generator is used,the generator would need to be operational at all times that the building is occupied in order to support life safety systems such as emergency lighting and fire alarm system. It would also create complications if the fire alarm control panel lost power each time the generator is shut down or if battery backup is incorporated into the emergency lighting system as the required separate source of power. The batteries would see loss of power and turn on which would drain the batteries. A manual override would need to be in place,using a central battery system,that would turn on and off the system based on occupancy. It is recommended that for interim use, a new overhead feed from Southern California Edison (SCE) be provided to a new electrical service that could power at a minimum all life safety systems. It is recommended that a minimum 400A 480Y/277V electrical service be provided to support lighting and life safety systems. It would be a cost benefit to size the electrical service to support all projected loads and eliminate the need for a standby generator set. The electrical service size required would need to be determined based on proposed use. The existing lighting might be able to be reused for the interim use, with the possibility of additional portable lighting provided for special events. The existing lighting has been observed without power to the building, so it is not clear if the lighting system is fully operational. At a minimum,the lighting fixtures would need to be re-lamped. All existing wiring and branch circuits should be tested for damage and repaired as required. As a historic building, the lighting system would be exempt from compliance with Title 24 energy requirements. However, it is recommended that a programmable timeclock control system be installed to control lighting for energy savings at a minimum. Interim telephone service could be provided by use of wireless technology. The fire alarm control panel would need to be provided with a cell phone dialer to contact central station monitoring in case of a fire. A new fire alarm system should be put in place for any type occupancy during interim use. As mentioned above, the alarm system would need a communication line to a central monitoring station to notify emergency respondents in case of an alarm. If lightning protection is a concern to the City, a lightning risk assessment could be performed to evaluate the level of lightning protection required,however,the area is in a very low flash zone and typically lightning protection is not required for this area. City of Tustin Hangar#2 P a g e 16 MEP Reuse Assessment Report DESIGN WEST ENGINEERING Rehabilitation Mechanical Based on the size of the building and the potential for conditioned space, a central plant would be recommended for the building. The central plant could be located within the existing concrete maintenance building located outside of the North office area of the Hangar or in an outdoor mechanical yard, location to be determined. Chilled and hot water piping can then be routed to the existing office areas as well as any proposed elevated office areas as part of a renovation. The size of the plant would depend on the amount of conditioned space, for budgeting purpose; it can be assumed the plant would be sized at approximately 300 square foot per ton of cooling. Since the plant would be located on one side of the building, trenching would be required to distribute the piping from the north side of the hangar to the south side of the hangar. Once the piping is across the hangar, it can then be elevated above the existing office areas to provide the necessary distribution to all of the areas. Plumbing Restrooms would be provided as required for the new occupancy that complies with the California Plumbing code. It is not recommended to utilize temporary structure as a long term solution for the restrooms. All new plumbing would be provided for the building to serve any new restrooms, sinks, and other plumbing fixtures within the building. Electrical Based on the size of the building and potential uses, a minimum of 4000A 480Y/277V electrical service is recommended for the building. This would serve general assembly uses and support a central plant HVAC system that would serve the existing office areas as well as any proposed elevated office areas. A new power distribution system would need to be provided as follows: • 480V power to large HVAC equipment • 277V power to a new lighting system • 208Y/120V transformers and panels to power receptacles and equipment It is recommended to reuse the existing (4) substation electrical rooms at the following locations: • Substation 151 —Located at Northwest Corner—Grids C-D and 46-47 • Substation 153 —Located at Northeast Corner—Grids C-D and 4-5 • Substation 154—Located at Southeast Corner—Grids A-B and 8-9 • Substation 155 —Located at Southwest Comer—Grids A-B and 43-44 These rooms are adequately spaced at each corner of the building to limit voltage drop and long runs. Each room would contain the following: • 1200A or 1600A 480V distribution panelboard • 500kVA 480-208V step down transformer • 1200A 208V distribution panelboard • 3 or 4 225A 208V lighting and appliance panelboards for power distribution. City of Tustin Hangar#2 P a g e 17 MEP Reuse Assessment Report DESIGN WEST ENGINEERING • • • • • • As part of the new electrical installation, a new grounding system shall be installed including the following (minimum): • New ground ring consisting of(3) 8' driven ground rods spaced 6' apart • New 4' x 4"main copper ground bar • 44/0 bond to building steel • 44/0 bond to water pipes within 5' of entry to building • 44/0 bond to telecommunication ground bars within each telcom/data room Based on the size of the building, it is recommended that a new 30-40kW emergency diesel generator be installed to support life safety systems, at a minimum. The generator and automatic transfer switch should be located as close to the main electrical service as possible to reduce cost and long feeder runs. The generator would need to be sized for a minimum of 90 minutes run time, however, a longer run time is suggested if any other loads are intended to be placed on the generator. If other loads are placed on the generator, the size would need to be determined based on connected load. The life safety systems should be on a separate transfer switch from the optional backup loads. New telephone service should be established either at the existing Main Point of Entry (MPOE) located at the northeast or southeast exterior corners of the building, or to one central MPOE location within the building. A new telephone and data system should be provided as required including a fiber optic backbone to data rooms with head end equipment and fiber optic cabling to local data rooms with switching equipment located throughout the building. Any point requiring Cat 6E data drops would need to be within approx. 300' of an IDF. Each data room shall be provided with a copper ground bar bonded to the main electrical ground bar. As a historic building, the lighting system would be exempt from compliance with Title 24 energy requirements, however, a new energy efficient lighting and controls system should be installed as part of the rehabilitation. The existing high pressure sodium (HPS) fixtures within the open assembly areas should be replaced with LED fixtures. Additional lighting may be required in open area depending on use. The rehabbed offices should be provided with LED recessed lay-in type fixtures with occupancy sensor controls An automatic addressable fire alarm system should installed for the long term use that incorporates voice evacuation system as required for A occupancy. The alarm system would need a communication line to a central monitoring station to notify emergency respondents in case of an alarm. Renovation Mechanical For the proposed elevated office buildings, Fan coil units can be located either within the ceiling space as long as 3' of clearance is provided or on the roof of the elevated structure. Outside air ductwork would need to be routed from the new fan coil units to the exterior of the hangar along the existing corridors to provide the necessary fresh air for the new space. City of Tustin Hangar#2 P a g e 18 MEP Reuse Assessment Report G)) DESIGN WEST ENGINEERING • • • • • • Plumbing Additional restrooms would be provided as required for the new renovation buildings within the hangar building,that complies with the California Plumbing code. It is not recommended to utilize temporary structure as a long term solution for the restrooms. All new plumbing would be provided for the building to serve any new restrooms, sinks, and other plumbing fixtures within the building. Electrical For the elevated buildings concept, each building should have its own main disconnect which would require smaller electrical rooms within those buildings containing a 480V panelboard, transformer and 120/208V panelboard. Depending on the density of the proposed office buildings, a second 2000A-4000A electrical service may be required to support that type of use. The sheds areas would need all new lighting and power distribution with power coming from one of the four electrical rooms described above. A new telephone and data system should be provided for the elevated office buildings as required including a fiber optic backbone to data room with head end equipment and fiber optic cabling to local data rooms with switching equipment located throughout the elevated building area. Any point requiring Cat 6E data drops would need to be within approx. 300' of a data room. Each data room shall be provided with a copper ground bar bonded to the main electrical ground bar. New offices would require LED recessed lay-in type fixtures with occupancy sensor control. Additional Recommendations for Testing or Analysis HVACNentilation A complete building energy model is recommended along with Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) modeling to simulate air flow and heat transfer processes to gain greater understanding of the likely air flow and heat transfer processes occurring within and around the building spaces given the large hangar doors which may include the effects of climate, internal energy sources and HVAC systems. Life Safety Evaluation A complete evaluation of the life-safety hazards should be performed based on procedures similar to those contained in NFPA 909, Standard for the Protection of Cultural Resources, Appendix B, Fire Risk Assessment in Heritage Premises. Lighting System A point by point measurement of light levels is recommended to determine existing light levels once the power is restored to verify adequacy of existing lighting if intended to be reused. City of Tustin Hangar#2 P a g e 19 MEP Reuse Assessment Report G)) DESIGN WEST ENGINEERING • • • • • • Fire Alarm for Elevated Offices Further code research would be needed to determine if the elevated offices would require fire alarm coverage. Typically, a B occupancy does not require a fire alarm system, however, since the building will be equipped with a fire alarm system, the elevated shed type office buildings may need to be provided with a fire alarm system. Lightning Protection If further documentation is required, a complete Lightning Risk Assesment should be performed based on guidelines contained in NFPA 780, Standard for the Installation of Lightning Protection Systems. City of Tustin Hangar#2 P a g e 110 MEP Reuse Assessment Report DESIGN WEST ENGINEERING 5151 Shoreham Place,Suite 240 275 W.Hospitality Lane,Suite 100 San Diego,CA 92122 San Bernardino,CA 92408 Tel:619-330-6043 Tel:909-890-3700 Fax:909-890-3770 Email:cadd@designwesteng.com (0) Email:info@designwesteng.com DESIGN WEST ENGINEERING City of Tustin Hangar #2 Visual Feasibility Study 8/22/2012 Prepared for: Page & Turnbull 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Prepared By: 0) DESIGN WEST ENGINEERING 275 West Hospitality Lane, Suite 100 San Bernardino, CA 92408 (909) 890-3700 • • • MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL : PLUMBING : ENERGY • • • Table of Contents Introduction....................................................................................................................................3 ProjectOverview.............................................................................................................................. 3 MechancialOverview.......................................................................................................................4 SouthOffice Area .....................................................................................................................4 NorthOffice Area...................................................................................................................... 5 PlumbingOverview..........................................................................................................................6 ElectricalOverview ..........................................................................................................................6 ElectricalService......................................................................................................................6 Lighting .....................................................................................................................................6 FireAlarm ................................................................................................................................. 7 Telephone................................................................................................................................. 7 G)) DESIGN WEST ENGINEERING • • • • • • Introduction Project Overview The purpose of this report is to describe and evaluate the existing mechanical, plumbing and electrical system for the City of Tustin Hangar No. 2, Building Reuse Study and Assessment. The existing building has single story office space uses along the north and south side of the buildings. There are also mechanical rooms,machine rooms and utility rooms located within the building. Faculty from Design West Engineering completed a survey of the building, collected equipment information on the existing systems based on visible name plate information and visual inspections. We will describe throughout this report where we have made assumptions, so that if additional information becomes available,the data can be re-incorporated to achieve the most accurate results possible. DESIGN WEST ENGINEERING Mechancial Overview South Office Area The HVAC system for the south offices of the Hangar building has a combination of DX package units and wall mounted, steam generated heaters and two gas fire furnaces. Each office on the south side has a minimum of 1 wall heater, with the larger offices having two heaters. The steam boiler is located within a mechanical room at about the midpoint of the building. The steam boiler is very old and appears to be decommissioned and is not recommended for reuse. The steam piping is located above the office area on the mezzanine level and runs the length of the hangar, and only serves the east side offices area. On the same mezzanine level, there are seven packaged DX units that are serving portions of the office area. The DX units serve approximately 30% of the office area. There are (3) 3 ton units and (4) 3.5 ton units that all appear to be very old and beyond the useful life of this equipment. It is recommended that the HVAC system is removed and replaced with new high efficient equipment. 3 Typical Wall Mounted Steam Heater Typical DX Units on Mezzanine k. Steam Boiler within mechanical room Gas Fired Duct Furnace, Center Offices DESIGN WEST ENGINEERING North Office Area The office area on the north side has either a radiant space heater or a ducted fan coil unit. The areas that have a drop ceiling, approximately 25%of the area, are served by a DX split system unit. The condensing unit is located on the mezzanine and it is assumed the fan coil is located within the ceiling. The exact location of the fan coil was not able to be determined due to the unit being concealed above the ceiling. The condensing unit located on the mezzanine has been disconnected from service and appears to have exceeded its useful service life. The remaining area is served by a gas fired radiant space heater. There is one heater located within the center of each structural bay. It is recommended that the HVAC system is removed and replaced with new high efficient equipment. Outside of the hangar, there is a concrete building that appears to be once used as a mechanical room. This location would be a potential good location for a new central plant. Based on the new re-use of the building, a new chiller plant,boiler and pumps could be located within this room and a new cooling tower can be located just outside of the building. New piping would then be ran into the hangar building and distributed as necessary for the new HVAC system. JA 4 rt - Adajok, . Typical Gas Fired Radiant Heater Abandoned Condensing unit Potential Mechanical Building for Chiller Room DESIGN WEST ENGINEERING • • • • • • Plumbing Overview The building had three large restrooms and two smaller single occupant restrooms. All plumbing fixtures and piping appear to be in very old state. The existing main water line appeared to be an 8" line that has been capped off from service. The building appeared to have two gas meters, both of which have been capped off as well. Based on the location of the sewer manhole,the sewer appears to slope to the North East side of the building. It is recommended that any re-purpose of the building that all new plumbing piping is installed. Electrical Overview Electrical Service There are (5) existing substations within hangar 42 that were fed from the base 2.4kV electrical system. Substation 151: 100kVA Substation 152-1 and 2: 100kVA and 112.5kVA Substation 153: 100kVA Substation 154: 200kVA Substation 155: 200kVA Each substation consists of a 2.4kV disconnect, a 2.4kV:208Y/120V 3ph 4w transformer, and 208V 3ph distribution boards. The switchgear is aged and appears to be beyond its useful life expectancy of 30 years. The condition of the circuit breakers is poor and there are no longer replacement breakers of this type being manufactured. From each substation, 208V power is distributed throughout the building to multiple 208Y/120V 3ph 4w panels. The existing panels are also in poor conditioned and are beyond their useful life expectancy. Most of the feeder conductors have been cut and removed. Labeling of panels is sparse and the panels that have circuit labeling are most likely inaccurate due to various changes throughout the life of the building. It is anticipated that the entire electrical distribution system will need to be replaced as part of the renovation project. Lighting The lighting in the office spaces along the length of the hangars is provided from recessed and surface mount fluorescent fixtures. The fixtures are in poor condition and should not be reused. The hangar lighting is provided by 1000W flood lights and 100W HPS fixtures mounted on structure supports. The HPS fixtures will need to be reviewed further in conjunction with the proposed use to determine if they can be reused. The 1000W flood lights will need to be removed and replaced with a more efficient light source such as LED. DESIGN WEST ENGINEERING Fire Alarm There is an antiquated fire alarm system that currently serves the building with exposed cabling running to fire alarm devices in some locations. The current smoke detector coverage is deficient and does not meet code requirements. It is anticipated that the fire alarm system will need to be replaced with a code compliant, addressable, automatic fire alarm system. Telephone Telephone service enters the building at the northeast and southeast exterior corners of the building. From there, lines are run throughout the building to multiple terminal cabinets and to the sub telephone/IT room located in the office area. The existing telephone/data system appears to be in good working condition, however, there may be existing cabling and infrastructure that can be demolished or abandoned, based on the current telephone/data needs. It is recommended that the main phone system be upgraded as part of the new renovation. DESIGN WEST ENGINEERING PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Conditions Assessment and Reuse Study Tustin Hangar No.2 Volume ll, Appendices Tustin, California /�►� tNGiz., i I HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (OMEGA ENVIRONMcN i IAL SERVICES, INC.) Documents Included Limited Indoor Sampling Assessment Final Report Page & Turnbull September 2017 Conditions Assessment and Reuse Study Tustin Hangar No.2 Volume ll, Appendices Tustin, California PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Final Report Page & Turnbull September 2017 0 OMEGA ENVIRONMENTAL Litnited Indoor Sampling Assessment Former United States Marine Corps Air Station Hangar 2(Building 29) Tustin, California Omega Project#2016-2429PAG November 30, 2016 Prepared For: Prepared By: Drew Gorski Kumar Gunaratna, LRC UA#22432 Page and Turnbull Omega Environmental Services, Inc., 417 South Hill Street 4570 Campus Drive- Suite 30 Los Angeles, California 90013 Newport Beach, California 92660 004#0"0", pGF'!,t1a4RFaRAp�O' i SsP : C David Martine � :1 : �# 12-i-2UtQ #r EXPRO Certified Industria gienist 9��NHR17,YpK1A�•G w •araaa♦NH Richard Wade,PhD + Senior SeXientist Toxicologist i Leve Rosas Sena roject Manager 0 OMEGA I TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 3. SAMPLING DETAILS 2 4. LABORATORY ANALYTICAL RESULTS 5 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9 6. LIMITATIONS 10 APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 INDOOR AIR SAMPLING RESULTS:VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS METHOD-EPA TOI5/SUMMA CANISTERS)AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY APPENDIX 2 INDOOR AIR SAMPLING RESULTS: POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS METHOD-MODIFIED NIOSH 5506)AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY APPENDIX 3 COMPOSITE BULK SAMPLE RESULTS: TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS METHOD-EPA 8015D/GC)AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY APPENDIX 4 COMPOSITE BULK SAMPLE RESULTS:VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS METHOD-EPA 8260C)AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY APPENDIX S COMPOSITE BULK SAMPLE RESULTS:VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS- HEAD SPACE ANALYSIS METHOD-EPA 8260C)AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY APPENDIX 6 COMPOSITE SURFACE WIPE SAMPLE RESULTS: TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS METHOD-EPA 80150C)AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY APPENDIX 7 COMPOSITE BULK SAMPLE RESULTS: MOLD GROWTH METHOD-EMSL M041/DME)AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY APPENDIX 8 COMPOSITE BULK SAMPLE RESULTS: BACTERIA GROWTH METHOD-EMSL M009)AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY APPENDIX 9 WIPE SAMPLE RESULTS: LEAD IN DUST BY FLAME AAS METHOD-EPA SW 846 305013/700013, CHAIN OF CUSTODY AND INSPECTOR/ASSESSOR CERTIFICATION APPENDIX 10 LABORATORY ACCREDITATION 0 ewvie�wµeea�x� 1. INTRODUCTION On October 25, 2016, Omega Environmental Services, Inc. (Omega) conducted a limited sampling assessment at the former United States Marine Corps (USMC) Air Station located in Tustin California. Kenneth Piguee, Management Analyst with the City of Tustin provided site access and background information during the subject assessment. 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY According to Mr. Andrew Gorski with Page and Turnbull (the Client), renovations and interior improvement work has been proposed for Hangar 2 (Building 29) located within the subject USMC Air Station property. It is Omega's understanding that prior to the proposed renovations and improvement activities (proposed activities), Structural Engineers with the Client (the Engineers) would be evaluating the wood members supporting the roof structure of the building. Wood Investigation Report dated June 17, 2015 released to Omega suggested that the wood members have been treated with preservatives and infused with fire retardant chemicals. The evaluation methodology proposed by the Client included examining the wood members at close range with possible physical contact, therefore potentially exposing the Structural Engineers to contaminants including; off gassing Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPHs), Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and dust depositions (lead and microbial) which could be aerosolized on contact. The purpose of this sampling assessment was to identify the potential contaminants, which may impact the Structural Engineers performing the proposed activities. Based on the information provided by the Client, a Senior Scientist with Omega developed the following scope of work: • Conducting a limited sampling assessment for the following contaminants: o Air sampling for VOCs in the indoor air at floor level; and PAI-Is and VOCs near structural wood members at roof level; o Surface wipe samples for TPHs and lead (Pb) deposits on wooden trusses; and o Collecting bulk samples of wood members for VOCs, TPHs and microbial growth. • Based on the findings, developing and providing a Certified Industrial Hygienist and Senior Scientist peer reviewed final written report to the Client discussing the sampling methods, laboratory analytical results, conclusions and recommendations, if any. Omega Project Number:2016-2429PAG Page 1 of 10 Date:November 30,2016 Limited Indoor Sampling Assessment 0United States Marine Corps Air Station Hangar 2(Building 29) OMEGA Tustin,California ewv190-MMI IAL Laboratory analytical results indicated the following: • VOCs, PAHs and TPHs -present but at very low concentrations; • Mold and bacteria- concentrations found were negligible; and • Lead in dust— surface concentrations found were above the State of California `Lead Hazard' standard for indoor horizontal surfaces of 250 micrograms per square foot (µg/ft); Title 17, California Code of Regulations, Division 1, Chapter 8, Section 35035. Based on these findings Omega recommends the following: • Provide PPE1 to the Engineers; the PPE should include disposable protective clothing such as Tyvek® full-body coveralls with attached feet and head covers; non-sterile - non-powdered latex or vinyl gloves; eye protection goggles or safety glasses; and NIOSH2 approved half-face negative air- purifying respirator NAR3 equipped with HEPA4 filters to be used during the proposed activities. • Conduct a negative exposure assessment; personal air monitoring of the Structural Engineers to determine if the concentrations of airborne lead is less than the Cal-OSHA5 Action Level (AL: 30 µg/M3) and the Permissible Exposure Level (PEL: 50 µg/M)while performing the proposed activities. 3. SAMPLING DETAILS On October 25, 2016, Omega collected air, bulk, and surface wipe samples for VOCs, PAHs, TPHs, Lead and microbial analysis. Table 1 presents the summary sampling details: Table 1 Summary Sampling Details Field Sample Sample Location Constituents Sampling Media/ Analytical Identification Sample Type Method Hangar Floor— VOCs— 6 Liter Summa Canister(ID— 1 Northeast area(—4' Complete E15600)with 8 hour flow EPA 6 TO-15 above floor level) Registry controller(ID 7392)/Air Hangar Floor— VOCs— 6 Liter Summa Canister(ID— 2 Southeast area(—4' Complete E0348)with 8 hour flow EPA TO-15 above floor level) Registry controller(ID 7978)/Air Personal Protective Equipment National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health 'Negative Air-purifying Respirator 4 High Efficiency Particulate Air 5 California Occupational California Occupational Safety and Health Administration 6 United States Environmental Protection Agency Omega Project Number:2016-2429PAG Page 2 of 10 Date:November 30,2016 Limited Indoor Sampling Assessment 0United States Marine Corps Air Station Hangar 2(Building 29) OMEGA Tustin,California ewv190-MMI IAL Continuation of'Table 1... Field Sample Sampling Media/ Analytical Identification Sample Location Constituents Method Sample Type Hangar Floor— VOCs— 6 Liter Summa Canister(ID— 3 Center area(—4' Complete E0237)with 8 hour flow EPA TO-15 above floor level) Registry controller(ID 3834)/Air Hangar Floor— VOCs— 6 Liter Summa Canister(ID— 4 Northwest area(—4' Complete E0660)with 8 hour flow EPA TO-15 above floor level) Registry controller(ID 3829)/Air Hangar Floor— VOCs— 6 Liter Summa Canister(ID— 5 Southwest area(—4' Complete E0302)with 8 hour flow EPA TO-15 above floor level) Registry controller(ID 3530)/Air Hangar—Tier 3 Northwest(— 125 PAHs— 17 XAD/PTFE Combination Modified 6 feet above floor Compounds filters/Air NIOSH 5506 level—near wood trusses) Hangar—Tier 3 Southeast(— 125 PAHs— 17 XAD/PTFE Combination Modified 7 feet above floor Compounds filters/Air NIOSH 5506 level—near wood trusses) Hangar—Tier 3 8 Center(— 125 feet PAHs— 17 XAD/PTFE Combination Modified above floor level— Compounds filters/Air NIOSH 5506 near wood trusses) 9 Media Blank for PAHs— 17 XAD/PTFE Combination Modified Quality Assurance Compounds filters/Air NIOSH 5506 Hangar—Tier 2 Center(— 100 feet TPHs—(C10 to Bulk wood 10 above floor level— EPA 8015D wood beam and C44) samples/Composite trusses) Hangar—Tier 2 Center(— 100 feet Bulk wood 11 above floor level— VOCs—TO 15 EPA 8260C wood beam and samples/Composite trusses) Omega Project Number:2016-2429PAG Page 3 of 10 Date:November 30,2016 Limited Indoor Sampling Assessment 0United States Marine Corps Air Station Hangar 2(Building 29) OMEGA Tustin,California ewv190-MMI IAL Continuation of'Table 1... Field Sample Sample Location Constituents Sampling Media/Sample Analytical Identification Type Method Hangar—Tier 2 Center Bulk wood 12 (— 100 feet above floor VOCs— samples/Composite EPA 8260C level—wood beam and TO 15 trusses) Head Space-Air Hangar—Tier 2 Center TPHs -(C10 13 (— 100 feet above floor to C44) Sterile Gauze—Wipe EPA 8015C level—wood truss) 14 Media Blank—Quality TPHs -(C10 Sterile Gauze—wipe EPA 8015C Assurance to C44) Hangar—Tier 3 Center EMSL 15 (— 125 feet above floor Mold Bulk wood decay(fuzz) M041/Direct level—wood truss) Composite Microscopy Exam Hangar—Tier 3 Center Bulk wood decay(fuzz) EMSL 16 (— 125 feet above floor Bacteria Composite M009/Gram level—wood truss) Stain Hangar—Tier 3 EPA-Flame Northwest(— 125 feet 17 above floor level- Lead Dust Ghost wipe AAS (SW 846 305013/700013 wood cross beam) Hangar—Tier 2 center EPA-Flame 18 (— 100 feet above floor Lead Dust Ghost wipe AAS (SW 846 level—metal railing) 305013/700013 Hangar—Tier 3 Center EPA-Flame 19 (— 125 feet above floor Lead Dust Ghost wipe AAS (SW 846 level—near wood cross 305013/700013 beam) EPA-Flame 20 Media Blank—Quality Lead Dust Ghost wipe AAS (SW 846 Assurance 305013/700013 Omega Project Number:2016-2429PAG Page 4 of 10 Date:November 30,2016 Limited Indoor Sampling Assessment 0United States Marine Corps Air Station Hangar 2(Building 29) OMEGA Tustin,California ewv190-MMI IAL 4. LABORATORY ANALYTICAL RESULTS 4.1 Air Sample Results-Volatile Organic Compounds Samples #1 through #5; air sampling was conducted on the Hangar floor. The floor area was approximately divided into 5 sub areas; Northeast (NE), Southeast (SE), Center (C), Northwest (NW) and Southwest (SW). At each location using 6-liter evacuated stainless steel canisters with laboratory calibrated flow controllers set to sample for an approximate 8-hour period. Each canister with the attached flow controller was securely placed on a tripod at approximately four feet above the finished floor level. Table 2 presents the laboratory analytical results: Table 2 Air Sample Positive Results (Hangar Floor) by EPA Method T015 Constituent Sample ID 1 Sample ID 2 Sample ID 3 Sample ID 4 Sample ID 5 NE SE C NW SW Chloroethane 0.69 0.66 0.70 0.63 0.66 n-Butane 1.10 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.20 Ethanol 6.70 6.30 6.50 5.20 6.30 Isopropyl 3.50 1.10 1.30 0.98 1.50 Alcohol Acetone 6.60 6.30 5.9 5.40 6.40 Acetonitrile 0.53 ND ND ND ND Toluene 0.65 0.55 0.58 0.55 0.60 Results in parts per billion by volume-ppbv;Non detect-ND; Appendix 1 presents a copy of the laboratory analytical reports and the chain of custody. 4.2 Air Sample Results-Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) Samples #6 through #8; air-sampling pumps were calibrated at the site with the use of a Defender 510-Medium Flow (Serial Number 142552) primary calibrator before and after the air sampling assessment. The area samples were collected using laboratory provided media and were collected in proximity of the wood cross beams and trusses located at a height of approximately 125 feet above the hangar floor level. Sample 9; for quality assurance purposes batch blanks representing each type of sampling media was submitted for analysis. Sampling media, personal sampling pump flow rates and sampling times were determined Omega Project Number:2016-2429PAG Page 5 of 10 Date:November 30,2016 Limited Indoor Sampling Assessment 0United States Marine Corps Air Station Hangar 2(Building 29) OMEGA Tustin,California ewv1e0-w AMIAL based on the recommended and published criteria by test reference method - NIOSH 5506. The samples were given unique field identification numbers, recorded on a chain of custody and deposited into laboratory provided sterile glass containers and placed on ice. Laboratory analytical results detected concentrations below the laboratory- reporting limit(RL) and therefore considered non detect. Appendix 2 presents a copy of the laboratory analytical reports, the chain of custody and instrument calibration report. 4.3 Bulk Sample Results—Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPHs) Sample #10; a composite bulk sample was collected from wood cross beams and wood trusses located approximately, 100 feet from floor level; located at the center-south side of the subject Hangar. The sampled material was deposited into a laboratory provided sterile glass container, recorded on a laboratory chain of custody and placed on ice. Table 3 presents the laboratory analytical results: Table 3 TPH Results by EPA Method 8015D Sample ID Sample Location Analytical Result(mg/Kg) Hangar center south—at Tier 2 (approximately 100 feet from 10 170 floor level): Composite sample (cross beam/truss) Milligrams per Kilogram—mg/Kg; The sample analytical results were considered negligible. Appendix 3 presents a copy of the laboratory analytical report and the chain of custody. 4.4 Bulk Sample Results—Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Sample #11; a composite bulk sample was collected from wood cross beams and wood trusses located approximately, 100 feet from floor level; located at the center-south side of the subject hangar. The sampled material was deposited into a laboratory provided sterile glass container, recorded on a laboratory chain of custody and placed on ice. Laboratory analytical results by EPA Method 8260C did not detect any VOCs in the sample. Appendix 4 presents a copy of the laboratory analytical report and the chain of custody. Omega Project Number:2016-2429PAG Page 6 of 10 Date:November 30,2016 Limited Indoor Sampling Assessment 0United States Marine Corps Air Station Hangar 2(Building 29) OMEGA Tustin,California ewvieNdIAMIxL 4.5 Bulk Sample Results—Head Space Analysis (Air) Sample #12; a composite bulk sample was collected from wood cross beams and wood trusses located approximately, 100 feet from floor level; located at the center-south side of the subject hangar. The sampled material was deposited into a laboratory provided sterile glass container, recorded on a laboratory chain of custody and placed on ice. Laboratory analytical results by EPA Method 8260C did not detect any VOCs in the sample. Appendix 5 presents a copy of the laboratory analytical report and the chain of custody. 4.6 Wipe Sample Results— Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPHs) Samples #13 was collected using a laboratory supplied sterile gauze wipe. Composite surface wipe sampling was conducted on accessible wood cross beams and wood trusses at the center of the subject 100 feet from floor level; located at the center-south side of the subject hangar. Sample 14; for quality assurance purposes, laboratory provided unused gauze wipe was included into the sample mixture. Samples were deposited into sterile glass containers, recorded on a laboratory chain of custody and placed on ice. Table 4 presents the laboratory analytical results: Table 4 TPH Results by EPA Method 8015C Sample ID Sample Location Analytical Result(µg/100cm2) Hangar center south—at Tier 2 (located approximately 13 100 feet from floor level): Composite sample(cross 1,100 beam/truss) 14 Batch blank(QA) 260 Micrograms per 100 square centimeter—gg/cm'; The TPH concentrations found in Sample 13 were considered negligible.. Appendix 6 presents a copy of the laboratory analytical report and the chain of custody. Omega Project Number:2016-2429PAG Page 7 of 10 Date:November 30,2016 Limited Indoor Sampling Assessment 0United States Marine Corps Air Station Hangar 2(Building 29) OMEGA Tustin,California ewvieNdIAMIxL 4.7 Bulk Sample Results—Mold Growth Sample #15; a composite bulk sample of decaying wood product (brown soft rot) was collected from wood cross beams and wood trusses located approximately, 100 feet from floor level; located at the center-south side of the subject hangar. The collected sample material was deposited into a laboratory provided sterile glass container and recorded on a laboratory chain of custody. Laboratory analytical results by EMSL Direct Microscopy Exam (M041) method indicated that mold spores were rare and are considered to be insignificant. Appendix 7 presents a copy of the laboratory analytical report and the chain of custody. 4.8 Bulk Sample Results—Bacteria Growth Sample #16; a composite bulk sample of decaying wood product(brown soft rot) was collected from wood cross beams and wood trusses located approximately, 100 feet from floor level at the center of the subject hangar. The sample was deposited into a laboratory provided sterile glass container and recorded on a laboratory chain of custody. Laboratory analytical results by EMSL Gram Stain (M009) method indicated that bacteria growth detected was considered to be insignificant. Appendix 8 presents a copy of the laboratory analytical report and the chain of custody. 4.9 Wipe Sample Results—Lead Dust Samples #17, #18 and #19 were collected using laboratory supplied ghost wipes. Surface wipe sampling was conducted on various building components such as, wood cross beams, wood trusses and metal handrails at three (3) separate locations in the subject hangar. Sample #20; for quality assurance purposes, laboratory provided unused ghost wipe was included into the sample mixture. The samples were deposited into laboratory provided rigid sided sealable plastic containers and recorded on a chain of custody and delivered to LAT for analysis. Table 5 presents the laboratory analytical results: Omega Project Number:2016-2429PAG Page 8 of 10 Date:November 30,2016 Limited Indoor Sampling Assessment 0United States Marine Corps Air Station Hangar 2(Building 29) OMEGA Tustin,California ewv190-MMI IAL Table 5 Lead in Dust Results by Flame AAS (EPA SW 846 305013/700013) Method Sample ID Sample Location Analytical Result(µg/ftp) 17 Hangar Northwest—at Tier 3 (located approximately 125 800 feet from floor level): Wood cross beam 18 Hangar South-center—at Tier 2(located approximately 100 560 feet from floor level): Metal ladder 19 Hangar Southeast—at Tier 3 (located approximately 120 feet 1,400 from floor level):Wood cross beam 20 Batch Blank(QA) 10 Micrograms per square feet—gg/ft'; The lead dust surface wipes results were above the State of California `Lead Hazard' standard for indoor horizontal surfaces of 250 µg/ft2; Title 17, California Code of Regulations, Division 1, Chapter 8, Section 35035. Appendix 9 presents a copy of the laboratory analytical report, the chain of custody and Lead-Inspector certification. 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Laboratory analytical results indicated the presence of VOCs, PAHs and TPHs - present at very low concentrations. Mold and bacterial - concentrations found on wood decay product were also considered negligible. However, the lead in dust — sample concentrations were above the State of California `Lead Hazard' standard for indoor horizontal surfaces. According to Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard (Title 8 CCR Section 1532.1), prior to conducting any work, initial blood sampling and analysis for blood lead level (BLL) will be required to establish the Employee's (Structural Engineer) baseline levels. It is Omega's opinion that the Structural Engineers should be provided with adequate PPE when performing the proposed activities in the subject hangar. Omega also recommends that negative exposure assessments of the Structural Engineers should be conducted during an eight (8) hour work shift. Evaluate the airborne lead dust when performing the proposed activities and compare these results to the Cal-OSHA AL and the PEL. In the event the results are above the AL, follow Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard (Title 8 CCR Section 1532.1). Omega Project Number:2016-2429PAG Page 9 of 10 Date:November 30,2016 Limited Indoor Sampling Assessment 0United States Marine Corps Air Station Hangar 2(Building 29) OMEGA Tustin,California ewv190-MMI IAL 7. LIMITATIONS The results of this assessment and the opinions expressed herein are based upon visual observations of the specific work areas, a review of on site measurements and the limitations of the approved scope of services. Some of the observations and information have been provided by the Client's representative and serve as a basis for this report. The items discussed in this report are subject to revision as more information becomes available. Our services consist of interpreting laboratory analytical results; professional opinions, conclusions, and recommendations that are made in accordance with generally accepted consulting standards, principles, and practices. Reasonable attempts have been made to ensure that the report is complete and accurate with respect to Omega's authorized scope of investigation. Omega assumes no liability for damages, which might result from errors contained in the report or conditions, which the report fails to disclose. The problems noted in the report may be more severe than indicated and other undetected defects may exist. Omega Project Number:2016-2429PAG Page 10 of 10 Date:November 30,2016 0 OMEGA ENVIROMMINIAL APPENDIX 1 INDOOR AIR SAMPLING RESULTS:VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS METHOD-EPA TO 5/SUMMA CANISTERS)AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY EMSL Analytical EMSL Order#: 491601306 200 Route 130 North,Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 Customer ID: OMEG34 Phone/Fax: (856)858-4800/(856)858-4571 http://www.EMSL.com t015labe-EMSL.Com Customer PO: Not Available Attn: Kumar Gunaratna Phone: 949-262-2146 Omega Environmental Services, Inc. Fax: Not Available 4670 Campus Drive Suite 30 Newport Beach,CA 92660 Date Collected: 11/2/2016 Project: 2016-2429 PAG-USMCAS Date Received: 11/3/2016 Laboratory Report- Sample Summary EMSL Sample ID. Client Sample ID. Start Sampling Date Start Sampling Time 491601305-0001 1NE 11/2/2016 8:50 AM 491601305-0002 2SE 11/2/2016 8:55 AM 491601305-0003 3C 11/2/2016 9:00 AM 491601305-0004 4NW 11/2/2016 9:03 AM 491601305-0005 5SW 11/2/2016 9:05 AM If"Preliminary Report"is displayed in the signature box;this indicates that there are samples that have not yet been analyzed,that are in a prelim inarystate, or that analysis is in progress but not completed at the time of report issue. Report Date: Report Revision Revision Comments 11/14/2016 RO Initial Report Marjorie Howley,Laboratory Manager or other approved signatory Test results meet all NELAP requirements unless otherwise specified. 1 of 12 491601305-1_RO.xlsm V71 Page 1 of 1 EMSL Analytical EMSL Order#: 491601305 200 Route 130 North,Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 EMSL Sample#: 491601305-1 Phone/Fax: (856)858-4800/(856)858-4571 Customer ID: OMEG34 http://www.EMSL.com t015labe-EMSL.com Customer PO: Not Available Attn: Kumar Gunaratna Phone: 949-252-2145 Omega Environmental Services, Inc. Fax: Not Available 4570 Campus Drive Date Collected: 11/2/2016 Suite 30 Newport Beach,CA 92660 Date Received: 11/3/2016 Project: 2016-2429 PAG-USMCAS Sample ID: INE Analysis Analysis Date Analyst Init. Lab File ID Canister ID Sample Vol. Dil.Factor Initial 11/10/2016 KW K10560.1) E16600 250 cc 1 Target Compound Results Summary Result RL Result RL Target Compounds CAS# MW ppbv ppbv Q ug/m3 ug/m3 Comments Propylene 115-07-1 42.08 ND 1.0 ND 1.7 Freon 12(Dichlorodifluoromethane) 75-71-8 120.9 ND 0.50 ND 2.5 Freon 114(1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethan 76-14-2 170.9 ND 0.50 ND 3.5 Chloromethane 74-87-3 50.49 0.69 0.50 1 1.4 1.0 n-Butane 106-97-8 58.12 1.1 0.50 2.5 1.2 Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 62.50 ND 0.50 ND 1.3 1,3-Butadiene 106-99-0 54.09 ND 0.50 ND 1.1 Bromomethane 74-83-9 94.94 ND 0.50 ND 1.9 Chloroethane 75-00-3 64.52 ND 0.50 ND 1.3 Ethanol 64-17-5 46.07 6.7 0.50 1 13 0.94 Bromoethene(Vinyl bromide) 593-60-2 106.9 ND 0.50 ND 2.2 Freon 11(Trichlorofluoromethane) 75-69-4 137.4 ND 0.50 ND 2.8 Isopropyl alcohol(2-Propanol) 67-63-0 60.10 3.5 0.50 8.6 1.2 Freon 113(1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethan 76-13-1 187.4 ND 0.50 ND 3.8 Acetone 67-64-1 58.08 6.6 0.50 16 1.2 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 96.94 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 Acetonitrile 75-05-8 41.00 0.53 0.50 0.89 0.84 Tertiary butyl alcohol(TBA) 75-65-0 74.12 ND 0.50 ND 1.5 Bromoethane(Ethyl bromide) 74-96-4 108.0 ND 0.50 ND 2.2 3-Chloropropene(Allyl chloride) 107-05-1 76.53 ND 0.50 ND 1.6 Carbon disulfide 75-15-0 76.14 ND 0.50 ND 1.6 Methylene chloride 75-09-2 84.94 ND 0.50 ND 1.7 Acrylonitrile 107-13-1 53.00 ND 0.50 ND 1.1 Methyl-tert-butyl ether(MTBE) 1634-04-4 88.15 ND 0.50 ND 1.8 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5 96.94 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 n-Hexane 110-54-3 86.17 ND 0.50 ND 1.8 1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 98.96 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 Vinyl acetate 108-05-4 86.00 ND 0.50 ND 1.8 2-Butanone(MEK) 78-93-3 72.10 ND 0.50 ND 1.5 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 96.94 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 Ethyl acetate 141-78-6 88.10 ND 0.50 ND 1.8 Chloroform 67-66-3 119.4 ND 0.50 ND 2.4 Tetrahydrofuran 109-99-9 72.11 ND 0.50 ND 1.5 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 133.4 ND 0.50 ND 2.7 Cyclohexane 110-82-7 84.16 ND 0.50 ND 1.7 2,2,4-Trim ethyl pentane(lsooctane) 540-84-1 114.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.3 Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 153.8 ND 0.50 ND 3.1 n-Heptane 142-82-5 100.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 98.96 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 Benzene 71-43-2 78.11 ND 0.50 ND 1.6 Trichloroethene 79-01-6 131.4 ND 0.50 ND 2.7 1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 113.0 ND 0.50 ND 2.3 Methyl Methacrylate 80-62-6 100.12 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 Brom odichloromethane 75-27-4 163.8 ND 1 0.50 ND 3.3 1,4-Dioxane 123-91-1 88.12 ND 0.50 ND 1.8 4-Methyl-2-pentanone(MIBK) 108-10-1 100.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-01-5 111.0 ND 0.50 ND 2.3 2of12 491601305-1_RO.xlsm V71 Page 1 of 2 EMSL Analytical EMSL Order#: 491601305 200 Route 130 North,Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 EMSL Sample#: 491601305-1 Phone/Fax: (856)858-4800/(856)858-4571 Customer ID: OMEG34 http://www.EMSL.com t015labe-EMSL.com Customer PO: Not Available Attn: Kumar Gunaratna Phone: 949-252-2145 Omega Environmental Services, Inc. Fax: Not Available 4570 Campus Drive Date Collected: 11/2/2016 Suite 30 Newport Beach,CA 92660 Date Received: 11/3/2016 Project: 2016-2429 PAG-USMCAS Sample ID: INE Analysis Analysis Date Analyst Init. Lab File ID Canister ID Sample Vol. Dil.Factor Initial 11/10/2016 KW K10560.1) E16600 250 cc 1 Target Compound Results Summary Result RL Result RL Target Compounds CAS# MW ppbv ppbv Q ug/m3 ug/m3 Comments Toluene 108-88-3 92.14 0.65 0.50 2.4 1.9 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6 111.0 ND 0.50 ND 2.3 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 133.4 ND 0.50 ND 2.7 2-Hexanone(MBK) 591-78-6 100.1 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4 165.8 ND 0.50 ND 3.4 Dibromochloromethane 124-48-1 208.3 ND 0.50 ND 4.3 1,2-Dibromoethane 106-93-4 187.8 ND 0.50 ND 3.8 Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 112.6 ND 0.50 ND 2.3 Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 106.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.2 Xylene(p,m) 1330-20-7 106.2 ND 1.0 ND 4.3 Xylene(Ortho) 95-47-6 106.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.2 Styrene 100-42-5 104.1 ND 0.50 ND 2.1 Isopropylbenzene(cumene) 98-82-8 120.19 ND 0.50 ND 2.5 Bromoform 75-25-2 252.8 ND 0.50 ND 5.2 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 167.9 ND 0.50 ND 3.4 4-Ethyltoluene 622-96-8 120.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.5 1,3,5-Trim ethyl benzene 108-67-8 120.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.5 2-Chlorotoluene 95-49-8 126.6 ND 0.50 ND 2.6 1,2,4-Trim ethyl benzene 95-63-6 120.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.5 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 147.0 ND 0.50 ND 3.0 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 147.0 ND 0.50 ND 3.0 Benzyl chloride 100-44-7 126.0 ND 0.50 ND 2.6 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 147.0 ND 0.50 ND 3.0 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 181.5 ND 1 0.50 ND 1 3.7 Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene 87-68-3 260.8 ND 0.50 ND 5.3 Naphthalene 91-20-3 128.17 ND 0.50 ND 2.6 Total Target Compound Concentrations: 20 ppbv 45 ug/m3 Surrogate Result Spike Recovery 4-Bromofluorobenzene 12 10 120% Qualifier Definitions ND=Non Detect B=Compound also found in method blank. E=Estimated concentration exceeding upper calibration range. D=Result reported from diluted analysis. Method Reference USEPA:Compendium Method TO-15,"Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds(VOCs)in Air..."Collected in Specially-Prepared Canisters and Analyzed by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry(GC/MS),January 1999,(EPA/625/R-96/010b). 00k NJDEP Certification#:03036 3of12 491601305-1_RO.xlsm V71 Page 2 of 2 EMSL Analytical EMSL Order#: 491601305 200 Route 130 North,Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 EMSL Sample#: 491601305-2 Phone/Fax: (856)858-4800/(856)858-4571 Customer ID: OMEG34 http://www.EMSL.com t015labe-EMSL.com Customer PO: Not Available Attn: Kumar Gunaratna Phone: 949-252-2145 Omega Environmental Services, Inc. Fax: Not Available 4570 Campus Drive Date Collected: 11/2/2016 Suite 30 Newport Beach,CA 92660 Date Received: 11/3/2016 Project: 2016-2429 PAG-USMCAS Sample ID: 25E Analysis Analysis Date Analyst Init. Lab File ID Canister ID Sample Vol. Dil.Factor Initial 11/10/2016 KW K10561.1) E0348 250 cc 1 Target Compound Results Summary Result RL Result RL Target Compounds CAS# MW ppbv ppbv Q ug/m3 ug/m3 Comments Propylene 115-07-1 42.08 ND 1.0 ND 1.7 Freon 12(Dichlorodifluoromethane) 75-71-8 120.9 ND 0.50 ND 2.5 Freon 114(1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethan 76-14-2 170.9 ND 0.50 ND 3.5 Chloromethane 74-87-3 50.49 0.66 0.50 1 1.4 1.0 n-Butane 106-97-8 58.12 0.99 0.50 2.4 1.2 Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 62.50 ND 0.50 ND 1.3 1,3-Butadiene 106-99-0 54.09 ND 0.50 ND 1.1 Bromomethane 74-83-9 94.94 ND 0.50 ND 1.9 Chloroethane 75-00-3 64.52 ND 0.50 ND 1.3 Ethanol 64-17-5 46.07 6.3 0.50 1 12 0.94 Bromoethene(Vinyl bromide) 593-60-2 106.9 ND 0.50 ND 2.2 Freon 11(Trichlorofluoromethane) 75-69-4 137.4 ND 0.50 ND 2.8 Isopropyl alcohol(2-Propanol) 67-63-0 60.10 1.1 0.50 2.8 1.2 Freon 113(1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethan 76-13-1 187.4 ND 0.50 ND 3.8 Acetone 67-64-1 58.08 6.3 0.50 15 1.2 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 96.94 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 Acetonitrile 75-05-8 41.00 ND 0.50 ND 0.84 Tertiary butyl alcohol(TBA) 75-65-0 74.12 ND 0.50 ND 1.5 Bromoethane(Ethyl bromide) 74-96-4 108.0 ND 0.50 ND 2.2 3-Chloropropene(Allyl chloride) 107-05-1 76.53 ND 0.50 ND 1.6 Carbon disulfide 75-15-0 76.14 ND 0.50 ND 1.6 Methylene chloride 75-09-2 84.94 ND 0.50 ND 1.7 Acrylonitrile 107-13-1 53.00 ND 0.50 ND 1.1 Methyl-tert-butyl ether(MTBE) 1634-04-4 88.15 ND 0.50 ND 1.8 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5 96.94 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 n-Hexane 110-54-3 86.17 ND 0.50 ND 1.8 1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 98.96 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 Vinyl acetate 108-05-4 86.00 ND 0.50 ND 1.8 2-Butanone(MEK) 78-93-3 72.10 ND 0.50 ND 1.5 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 96.94 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 Ethyl acetate 141-78-6 88.10 ND 0.50 ND 1.8 Chloroform 67-66-3 119.4 ND 0.50 ND 2.4 Tetrahydrofuran 109-99-9 72.11 ND 0.50 ND 1.5 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 133.4 ND 0.50 ND 2.7 Cyclohexane 110-82-7 84.16 ND 0.50 ND 1.7 2,2,4-Trim ethyl pentane(lsooctane) 540-84-1 114.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.3 Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 153.8 ND 0.50 ND 3.1 n-Heptane 142-82-5 100.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 98.96 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 Benzene 71-43-2 78.11 ND 0.50 ND 1.6 Trichloroethene 79-01-6 131.4 ND 0.50 ND 2.7 1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 113.0 ND 0.50 ND 2.3 Methyl Methacrylate 80-62-6 100.12 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 Brom odichloromethane 75-27-4 163.8 ND 0.50 ND 3.3 1,4-Dioxane 123-91-1 88.12 ND 0.50 ND 1.8 4-Methyl-2-pentanone(MIBK) 108-10-1 100.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-01-5 111.0 ND 0.50 ND 2.3 491601305-2_RO.xlsm V71 Page 1 of 2 EMSL Analytical EMSL Order#: 491601305 200 Route 130 North,Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 EMSL Sample#: 491601305-2 Phone/Fax: (856)858-4800/(856)858-4571 Customer ID: OMEG34 http://www.EMSL.com t015labe-EMSL.com Customer PO: Not Available Attn: Kumar Gunaratna Phone: 949-252-2145 Omega Environmental Services, Inc. Fax: Not Available 4570 Campus Drive Date Collected: 11/2/2016 Suite 30 Newport Beach,CA 92660 Date Received: 11/3/2016 Project: 2016-2429 PAG-USMCAS Sample ID: 25E Analysis Analysis Date Analyst Init. Lab File ID Canister ID Sample Vol. Dil.Factor Initial 11/10/2016 KW K10561.1) E0348 250 cc 1 Target Compound Results Summary Result RL Result RL Target Compounds CAS# MW ppbv ppbv Q ug/m3 ug/m3 Comments Toluene 108-88-3 92.14 0.55 0.50 2.1 1.9 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6 111.0 ND 0.50 ND 2.3 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 133.4 ND 0.50 ND 2.7 2-Hexanone(MBK) 591-78-6 100.1 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4 165.8 ND 0.50 ND 3.4 Dibromochloromethane 124-48-1 208.3 ND 0.50 ND 4.3 1,2-Dibromoethane 106-93-4 187.8 ND 0.50 ND 3.8 Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 112.6 ND 0.50 ND 2.3 Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 106.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.2 Xylene(p,m) 1330-20-7 106.2 ND 1.0 ND 4.3 Xylene(Ortho) 95-47-6 106.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.2 Styrene 100-42-5 104.1 ND 0.50 ND 2.1 Isopropylbenzene(cumene) 98-82-8 120.19 ND 0.50 ND 2.5 Bromoform 75-25-2 252.8 ND 0.50 ND 5.2 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 167.9 ND 0.50 ND 3.4 4-Ethyltoluene 622-96-8 120.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.5 1,3,5-Trim ethyl benzene 108-67-8 120.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.5 2-Chlorotoluene 95-49-8 126.6 ND 0.50 ND 2.6 1,2,4-Trim ethyl benzene 95-63-6 120.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.5 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 147.0 ND 0.50 ND 3.0 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 147.0 ND 0.50 ND 3.0 Benzyl chloride 100-44-7 126.0 ND 0.50 ND 2.6 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 147.0 ND 0.50 ND 3.0 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 181.5 ND 1 0.50 ND 1 3.7 Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene 87-68-3 260.8 ND 0.50 ND 5.3 Naphthalene 91-20-3 128.17 ND 0.50 ND 2.6 Total Target Compound Concentrations: 16 ppbv 36 ug/m3 Surrogate Result Spike Recovery 4-Bromofluorobenzene 12 10 120% Qualifier Definitions ND=Non Detect B=Compound also found in method blank. E=Estimated concentration exceeding upper calibration range. D=Result reported from diluted analysis. Method Reference USEPA:Compendium Method TO-15,"Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds(VOCs)in Air..."Collected in Specially-Prepared Canisters and Analyzed by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry(GC/MS),January 1999,(EPA/625/R-96/010b). 00k NJDEP Certification#:03036 5of12 491601305-2_RO.xlsm V71 Page 2 of 2 EMSL Analytical EMSL Order#: 491601305 200 Route 130 North,Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 EMSL Sample#: 491601305-3 Phone/Fax: (856)858-4800/(856)858-4571 Customer ID: OMEG34 http://www.EMSL.com t015labe-EMSL.Com Customer PO: Not Available Attn: Kumar Gunaratna Phone: 949-252-2145 Omega Environmental Services, Inc. Fax: Not Available 4570 Campus Drive Date Collected: 11/2/2016 Suite 30 Newport Beach,CA 92660 Date Received: 11/3/2016 Project: 2016-2429 PAG-USMCAS Sample ID: 3C Analysis Analysis Date Analyst Init. Lab File ID Canister ID Sample Vol. Dil.Factor Initial 11/10/2016 KW K10564.D E0237 250 cc 1 Target Compound Results Summary Result RL Result RL Target Compounds CAS# MW ppbv ppbv Q ug/m3 ug/m3 Comments Propylene 115-07-1 42.08 ND 1.0 ND 1.7 Freon 12(Dichlorodifluoromethane) 75-71-8 120.9 ND 0.50 ND 2.5 Freon 114(1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethan 76-14-2 170.9 ND 0.50 ND 3.5 Chloromethane 74-87-3 50.49 0.70 0.50 1 1.4 1.0 n-Butane 106-97-8 58.12 1.0 0.50 2.4 1.2 Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 62.50 ND 0.50 ND 1.3 1,3-Butadiene 106-99-0 54.09 ND 0.50 ND 1.1 Bromomethane 74-83-9 94.94 ND 0.50 ND 1.9 Chloroethane 75-00-3 64.52 ND 0.50 ND 1.3 Ethanol 64-17-5 46.07 6.5 0.50 1 12 0.94 Bromoethene(Vinyl bromide) 593-60-2 106.9 ND 0.50 ND 2.2 Freon 11(Trichlorofluoromethane) 75-69-4 137.4 ND 0.50 ND 2.8 Isopropyl alcohol(2-Propanol) 67-63-0 60.10 1.3 0.50 3.2 1.2 Freon 113(1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethan 76-13-1 187.4 ND 0.50 ND 3.8 Acetone 67-64-1 58.08 5.9 0.50 14 1.2 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 96.94 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 Acetonitrile 75-05-8 41.00 ND 0.50 ND 0.84 Tertiary butyl alcohol(TBA) 75-65-0 74.12 ND 0.50 ND 1.5 Bromoethane(Ethyl bromide) 74-96-4 108.0 ND 0.50 ND 2.2 3-Chloropropene(Allyl chloride) 107-05-1 76.53 ND 0.50 ND 1.6 Carbon disulfide 75-15-0 76.14 ND 0.50 ND 1.6 Methylene chloride 75-09-2 84.94 ND 0.50 ND 1.7 Acrylonitrile 107-13-1 53.00 ND 0.50 ND 1.1 Methyl-tert-butyl ether(MTBE) 1634-04-4 88.15 ND 0.50 ND 1.8 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5 96.94 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 n-Hexane 110-54-3 86.17 ND 0.50 ND 1.8 1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 98.96 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 Vinyl acetate 108-05-4 86.00 ND 0.50 ND 1.8 2-Butanone(MEK) 78-93-3 72.10 ND 0.50 ND 1.5 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 96.94 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 Ethyl acetate 141-78-6 88.10 ND 0.50 ND 1.8 Chloroform 67-66-3 119.4 ND 0.50 ND 2.4 Tetrahydrofuran 109-99-9 72.11 ND 0.50 ND 1.5 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 133.4 ND 0.50 ND 2.7 Cyclohexane 110-82-7 84.16 ND 0.50 ND 1.7 2,2,4-Trim ethyl pentane(lsooctane) 540-84-1 114.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.3 Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 153.8 ND 0.50 ND 3.1 n-Heptane 142-82-5 100.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 98.96 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 Benzene 71-43-2 78.11 ND 0.50 ND 1.6 Trichloroethene 79-01-6 131.4 ND 0.50 ND 2.7 1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 113.0 ND 0.50 ND 2.3 Methyl Methacrylate 80-62-6 100.12 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 Brom odichloromethane 75-27-4 163.8 ND 0.50 ND 3.3 1,4-Dioxane 123-91-1 88.12 ND 0.50 ND 1.8 4-Methyl-2-pentanone(MIBK) 108-10-1 100.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-01-5 111.0 ND 0.50 ND 2.3 6of12 491601305-3_RO.xlsm V71 Page 1 of 2 EMSL Analytical EMSL Order#: 491601305 200 Route 130 North,Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 EMSL Sample#: 491601305-3 Phone/Fax: (856)858-4800/(856)858-4571 Customer ID: OMEG34 http://www.EMSL.com t015labe-EMSL.Com Customer PO: Not Available Attn: Kumar Gunaratna Phone: 949-252-2145 Omega Environmental Services, Inc. Fax: Not Available 4570 Campus Drive Date Collected: 11/2/2016 Suite 30 Newport Beach,CA 92660 Date Received: 11/3/2016 Project: 2016-2429 PAG-USMCAS Sample ID: 3C Analysis Analysis Date Analyst Init. Lab File ID Canister ID Sample Vol. Dil.Factor Initial 11/10/2016 KW K10564.D E0237 250 cc 1 Target Compound Results Summary Result RL Result RL Target Compounds CAS# MW ppbv ppbv Q ug/m3 ug/m3 Comments Toluene 108-88-3 92.14 0.58 0.50 2.2 1.9 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6 111.0 ND 0.50 ND 2.3 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 133.4 ND 0.50 ND 2.7 2-Hexanone(MBK) 591-78-6 100.1 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4 165.8 ND 0.50 ND 3.4 Dibromochloromethane 124-48-1 208.3 ND 0.50 ND 4.3 1,2-Dibromoethane 106-93-4 187.8 ND 0.50 ND 3.8 Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 112.6 ND 0.50 ND 2.3 Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 106.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.2 Xylene(p,m) 1330-20-7 106.2 ND 1.0 ND 4.3 Xylene(Ortho) 95-47-6 106.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.2 Styrene 100-42-5 104.1 ND 0.50 ND 2.1 Isopropylbenzene(cumene) 98-82-8 120.19 ND 0.50 ND 2.5 Bromoform 75-25-2 252.8 ND 0.50 ND 5.2 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 167.9 ND 0.50 ND 3.4 4-Ethyltoluene 622-96-8 120.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.5 1,3,5-Trim ethyl benzene 108-67-8 120.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.5 2-Chlorotoluene 95-49-8 126.6 ND 0.50 ND 2.6 1,2,4-Trim ethyl benzene 95-63-6 120.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.5 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 147.0 ND 0.50 ND 3.0 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 147.0 ND 0.50 ND 3.0 Benzyl chloride 100-44-7 126.0 ND 0.50 ND 2.6 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 147.0 ND 0.50 ND 3.0 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 181.5 ND 1 0.50 ND 1 3.7 Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene 87-68-3 260.8 ND 0.50 ND 5.3 Naphthalene 91-20-3 128.17 ND 0.50 ND 2.6 Total Target Compound Concentrations: 16 ppbv 35 ug/m3 Surrogate Result Spike Recovery 4-Bromofluorobenzene 12 10 120% Qualifier Definitions ND=Non Detect B=Compound also found in method blank. E=Estimated concentration exceeding upper calibration range. D=Result reported from diluted analysis. Method Reference USEPA:Compendium Method TO-15,"Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds(VOCs)in Air..."Collected in Specially-Prepared Canisters and Analyzed by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry(GC/MS),January 1999,(EPA/625/R-96/010b). 00k NJDEP Certification#:03036 7of12 491601305-3_RO.xlsm V71 Page 2 of 2 EMSL Analytical EMSL Order#: 491601305 200 Route 130 North,Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 EMSL Sample#: 491601305-4 Phone/Fax: (856)858-4800/(856)858-4571 Customer ID: OMEG34 http://www.EMSL.com t015labe-EMSL.com Customer PO: Not Available Attn: Kumar Gunaratna Phone: 949-252-2145 Omega Environmental Services, Inc. Fax: Not Available 4570 Campus Drive Date Collected: 11/2/2016 Suite 30 Newport Beach,CA 92660 Date Received: 11/3/2016 Project: 2016-2429 PAG-USMCAS Sample ID: 4NW Analysis Analysis Date Analyst Init. Lab File ID Canister ID Sample Vol. Dil.Factor Initial 11/10/2016 KW K10565.D E0660 250 cc 1 Target Compound Results Summary Result RL Result RL Target Compounds CAS# MW ppbv ppbv Q ug/m3 ug/m3 Comments Propylene 115-07-1 42.08 ND 1.0 ND 1.7 Freon 12(Dichlorodifluoromethane) 75-71-8 120.9 ND 0.50 ND 2.5 Freon 114(1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethan 76-14-2 170.9 ND 0.50 ND 3.5 Chloromethane 74-87-3 50.49 0.63 0.50 1 1.3 1.0 n-Butane 106-97-8 58.12 0.95 0.50 2.3 1.2 Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 62.50 ND 0.50 ND 1.3 1,3-Butadiene 106-99-0 54.09 ND 0.50 ND 1.1 Bromomethane 74-83-9 94.94 ND 0.50 ND 1.9 Chloroethane 75-00-3 64.52 ND 0.50 ND 1.3 Ethanol 64-17-5 46.07 5.2 0.50 1 10 0.94 Bromoethene(Vinyl bromide) 593-60-2 106.9 ND 0.50 ND 2.2 Freon 11(Trichlorofluoromethane) 75-69-4 137.4 ND 0.50 ND 2.8 Isopropyl alcohol(2-Propanol) 67-63-0 60.10 0.98 0.50 2.4 1.2 Freon 113(1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethan 76-13-1 187.4 ND 0.50 ND 3.8 Acetone 67-64-1 58.08 5.4 0.50 13 1.2 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 96.94 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 Acetonitrile 75-05-8 41.00 ND 0.50 ND 0.84 Tertiary butyl alcohol(TBA) 75-65-0 74.12 ND 0.50 ND 1.5 Bromoethane(Ethyl bromide) 74-96-4 108.0 ND 0.50 ND 2.2 3-Chloropropene(Allyl chloride) 107-05-1 76.53 ND 0.50 ND 1.6 Carbon disulfide 75-15-0 76.14 ND 0.50 ND 1.6 Methylene chloride 75-09-2 84.94 ND 0.50 ND 1.7 Acrylonitrile 107-13-1 53.00 ND 0.50 ND 1.1 Methyl-tert-butyl ether(MTBE) 1634-04-4 88.15 ND 0.50 ND 1.8 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5 96.94 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 n-Hexane 110-54-3 86.17 ND 0.50 ND 1.8 1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 98.96 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 Vinyl acetate 108-05-4 86.00 ND 0.50 ND 1.8 2-Butanone(MEK) 78-93-3 72.10 ND 0.50 ND 1.5 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 96.94 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 Ethyl acetate 141-78-6 88.10 ND 0.50 ND 1.8 Chloroform 67-66-3 119.4 ND 0.50 ND 2.4 Tetrahydrofuran 109-99-9 72.11 ND 0.50 ND 1.5 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 133.4 ND 0.50 ND 2.7 Cyclohexane 110-82-7 84.16 ND 0.50 ND 1.7 2,2,4-Trim ethyl pentane(lsooctane) 540-84-1 114.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.3 Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 153.8 ND 0.50 ND 3.1 n-Heptane 142-82-5 100.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 98.96 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 Benzene 71-43-2 78.11 ND 0.50 ND 1.6 Trichloroethene 79-01-6 131.4 ND 0.50 ND 2.7 1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 113.0 ND 0.50 ND 2.3 Methyl Methacrylate 80-62-6 100.12 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 Brom odichloromethane 75-27-4 163.8 ND 1 0.50 ND 3.3 1,4-Dioxane 123-91-1 88.12 ND 0.50 ND 1.8 4-Methyl-2-pentanone(MIBK) 108-10-1 100.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-01-5 111.0 ND 0.50 ND 2.3 8of12 491601305-4_RO.xlsm V71 Page 1 of 2 EMSL Analytical EMSL Order#: 491601305 200 Route 130 North,Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 EMSL Sample#: 491601305-4 Phone/Fax: (856)858-4800/(856)858-4571 Customer ID: OMEG34 http://www.EMSL.com t015labe-EMSL.com Customer PO: Not Available Attn: Kumar Gunaratna Phone: 949-252-2145 Omega Environmental Services, Inc. Fax: Not Available 4570 Campus Drive Date Collected: 11/2/2016 Suite 30 Newport Beach,CA 92660 Date Received: 11/3/2016 Project: 2016-2429 PAG-USMCAS Sample ID: 4NW Analysis Analysis Date Analyst Init. Lab File ID Canister ID Sample Vol. Dil.Factor Initial 11/10/2016 KW K10565.D E0660 250 cc 1 Target Compound Results Summary Result RL Result RL Target Compounds CAS# MW ppbv ppbv Q ug/m3 ug/m3 Comments Toluene 108-88-3 92.14 0.55 0.50 2.1 1.9 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6 111.0 ND 0.50 ND 2.3 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 133.4 ND 0.50 ND 2.7 2-Hexanone(MBK) 591-78-6 100.1 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4 165.8 ND 0.50 ND 3.4 Dibromochloromethane 124-48-1 208.3 ND 0.50 ND 4.3 1,2-Dibromoethane 106-93-4 187.8 ND 0.50 ND 3.8 Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 112.6 ND 0.50 ND 2.3 Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 106.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.2 Xylene(p,m) 1330-20-7 106.2 ND 1.0 ND 4.3 Xylene(Ortho) 95-47-6 106.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.2 Styrene 100-42-5 104.1 ND 0.50 ND 2.1 Isopropylbenzene(cumene) 98-82-8 120.19 ND 0.50 ND 2.5 Bromoform 75-25-2 252.8 ND 0.50 ND 5.2 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 167.9 ND 0.50 ND 3.4 4-Ethyltoluene 622-96-8 120.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.5 1,3,5-Trim ethyl benzene 108-67-8 120.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.5 2-Chlorotoluene 95-49-8 126.6 ND 0.50 ND 2.6 1,2,4-Trim ethyl benzene 95-63-6 120.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.5 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 147.0 ND 0.50 ND 3.0 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 147.0 ND 0.50 ND 3.0 Benzyl chloride 100-44-7 126.0 ND 0.50 ND 2.6 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 147.0 ND 0.50 ND 3.0 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 181.5 ND 1 0.50 ND 1 3.7 Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene 87-68-3 260.8 ND 0.50 ND 5.3 Naphthalene 91-20-3 128.17 ND 0.50 ND 2.6 Total Target Compound Concentrations: 14 ppbv 31 ug/m3 Surrogate Result Spike Recovery 4-Bromofluorobenzene 10 10 100% Qualifier Definitions ND=Non Detect B=Compound also found in method blank. E=Estimated concentration exceeding upper calibration range. D=Result reported from diluted analysis. Method Reference USEPA:Compendium Method TO-15,"Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds(VOCs)in Air..."Collected in Specially-Prepared Canisters and Analyzed by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry(GC/MS),January 1999,(EPA/625/R-96/010b). 00k NJDEP Certification#:03036 9of12 491601305-4_RO.xlsm V71 Page 2 of 2 EMSL Analytical EMSL Order#: 491601305 200 Route 130 North,Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 EMSL Sample#: 491601305-5 Phone/Fax: (856)858-4800/(856)858-4571 Customer ID: OMEG34 http://www.EMSL.com t015labe-EMSL.com Customer PO: Not Available Attn: Kumar Gunaratna Phone: 949-252-2145 Omega Environmental Services, Inc. Fax: Not Available 4570 Campus Drive Date Collected: 11/2/2016 Suite 30 Newport Beach,CA 92660 Date Received: 11/3/2016 Project: 2016-2429 PAG-USMCAS Sample ID: 55W Analysis Analysis Date Analyst Init. Lab File ID Canister ID Sample Vol. Dil.Factor Initial 11/10/2016 KW K10566.D E0302 250 cc 1 Target Compound Results Summary Result RL Result RL Target Compounds CAS# MW ppbv ppbv Q ug/m3 ug/m3 Comments Propylene 115-07-1 42.08 ND 1.0 ND 1.7 Freon 12(Dichlorodifluoromethane) 75-71-8 120.9 ND 0.50 ND 2.5 Freon 114(1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethan 76-14-2 170.9 ND 0.50 ND 3.5 Chloromethane 74-87-3 50.49 0.66 0.50 1 1.4 1.0 n-Butane 106-97-8 58.12 1.2 0.50 2.8 1.2 Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 62.50 ND 0.50 ND 1.3 1,3-Butadiene 106-99-0 54.09 ND 0.50 ND 1.1 Bromomethane 74-83-9 94.94 ND 0.50 ND 1.9 Chloroethane 75-00-3 64.52 ND 0.50 ND 1.3 Ethanol 64-17-5 46.07 6.3 0.50 1 12 0.94 Bromoethene(Vinyl bromide) 593-60-2 106.9 ND 0.50 ND 2.2 Freon 11(Trichlorofluoromethane) 75-69-4 137.4 ND 0.50 ND 2.8 Isopropyl alcohol(2-Propanol) 67-63-0 60.10 1.5 0.50 3.6 1.2 Freon 113(1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethan 76-13-1 187.4 ND 0.50 ND 3.8 Acetone 67-64-1 58.08 6.4 0.50 15 1.2 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 96.94 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 Acetonitrile 75-05-8 41.00 ND 0.50 ND 0.84 Tertiary butyl alcohol(TBA) 75-65-0 74.12 ND 0.50 ND 1.5 Bromoethane(Ethyl bromide) 74-96-4 108.0 ND 0.50 ND 2.2 3-Chloropropene(Allyl chloride) 107-05-1 76.53 ND 0.50 ND 1.6 Carbon disulfide 75-15-0 76.14 ND 0.50 ND 1.6 Methylene chloride 75-09-2 84.94 ND 0.50 ND 1.7 Acrylonitrile 107-13-1 53.00 ND 0.50 ND 1.1 Methyl-tert-butyl ether(MTBE) 1634-04-4 88.15 ND 0.50 ND 1.8 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5 96.94 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 n-Hexane 110-54-3 86.17 ND 0.50 ND 1.8 1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 98.96 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 Vinyl acetate 108-05-4 86.00 ND 0.50 ND 1.8 2-Butanone(MEK) 78-93-3 72.10 ND 0.50 ND 1.5 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 96.94 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 Ethyl acetate 141-78-6 88.10 ND 0.50 ND 1.8 Chloroform 67-66-3 119.4 ND 0.50 ND 2.4 Tetrahydrofuran 109-99-9 72.11 ND 0.50 ND 1.5 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 133.4 ND 0.50 ND 2.7 Cyclohexane 110-82-7 84.16 ND 0.50 ND 1.7 2,2,4-Trim ethyl pentane(lsooctane) 540-84-1 114.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.3 Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 153.8 ND 0.50 ND 3.1 n-Heptane 142-82-5 100.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 98.96 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 Benzene 71-43-2 78.11 ND 0.50 ND 1.6 Trichloroethene 79-01-6 131.4 ND 0.50 ND 2.7 1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 113.0 ND 0.50 ND 2.3 Methyl Methacrylate 80-62-6 100.12 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 Brom odichloromethane 75-27-4 163.8 ND 0.50 ND 3.3 1,4-Dioxane 123-91-1 88.12 ND 0.50 ND 1.8 4-Methyl-2-pentanone(MIBK) 108-10-1 100.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-01-5 111.0 ND 0.50 ND 2.3 10 of 12 491601305-5_RO.xlsm V71 Page 1 of 2 EMSL Analytical EMSL Order#: 491601306 200 Route 130 North,Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 EMSL Sample#: 491601306-6 Phone/Fax: (856)858-4800/(856)858-4571 Customer ID: OMEG34 http://www.EMSL.com t015labe-EMSL.com Customer PO: Not Available Attn: Kumar Gunaratna Phone: 949-262-2146 Omega Environmental Services, Inc. Fax: Not Available 4670 Campus Drive Date Collected: 11/2/2016 Suite 30 Newport Beach,CA 92660 Date Received: 11/3/2016 Project: 2016-2429 PAG-USMCAS Sample ID: 55W Analysis Analysis Date Analyst Init. Lab File ID Canister ID Sample Vol. Dil.Factor Initial 11/10/2016 KW K10666.D E0302 260 cc 1 Target Compound Results Summary Result RL Result RL Target Compounds CAS# MW ppbv ppbv Q ug/m3 ug/m3 Comments Toluene 108-88-3 92.14 0.60 0.50 2.2 1.9 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6 111.0 ND 0.50 ND 2.3 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 133.4 ND 0.50 ND 2.7 2-Hexanone(MBK) 591-78-6 100.1 ND 0.50 ND 2.0 Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4 165.8 ND 0.50 ND 3.4 Dibromochloromethane 124-48-1 208.3 ND 0.50 ND 4.3 1,2-Dibromoethane 106-93-4 187.8 ND 0.50 ND 3.8 Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 112.6 ND 0.50 ND 2.3 Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 106.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.2 Xylene(p,m) 1330-20-7 106.2 ND 1.0 ND 4.3 Xylene(Ortho) 95-47-6 106.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.2 Styrene 100-42-5 104.1 ND 0.50 ND 2.1 Isopropylbenzene(cumene) 98-82-8 120.19 ND 0.50 ND 2.5 Bromoform 75-25-2 252.8 ND 0.50 ND 5.2 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 167.9 ND 0.50 ND 3.4 4-Ethyltoluene 622-96-8 120.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.5 1,3,5-Trim ethyl benzene 108-67-8 120.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.5 2-Chlorotoluene 95-49-8 126.6 ND 0.50 ND 2.6 1,2,4-Trim ethyl benzene 95-63-6 120.2 ND 0.50 ND 2.5 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 147.0 ND 0.50 ND 3.0 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 147.0 ND 0.50 ND 3.0 Benzyl chloride 100-44-7 126.0 ND 0.50 ND 2.6 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 147.0 ND 0.50 ND 3.0 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 181.5 ND 1 0.50 ND 1 3.7 Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene 87-68-3 260.8 ND 0.50 ND 5.3 Naphthalene 91-20-3 128.17 ND 0.50 ND 2.6 Total Target Compound Concentrations: 17 ppbv 37 ug/m3 Surrogate Result Spike Recovery 4-Bromofluorobenzene 11 10 110% Qualifier Definitions ND=Non Detect B=Compound also found in method blank. E=Estimated concentration exceeding upper calibration range. D=Result reported from diluted analysis. Method Reference USEPA:Compendium Method TO-15,"Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds(VOCs)in Air..."Collected in Specially-Prepared Canisters and Analyzed by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry(GC/MS),January 1999,(EPA/625/R-96/010b). 00k NJDEP Certification#:03036 11 of 12 491601305-5_RO.xlsm V71 Page 2 of 2 w ;uan/p!Jpuel seO !! L a L cw i!y lua!gwV 1. N R• ° Nd a) (D r 0 N c o 0 0 0 0 0l ' ai y U) Z ntiu! aeaO EE m m -.� OMJVgS �l JVb J8!l � � �°' SL-011l d3 fN c Ca. E m .-- c 5 L-Ol bed�S @ o m E is — � ; o K m r Z 'a m 'C d LL E M M M 0 WxCO a o O 3 �E 0 .10 a pCL- U m c �, c c ° Q Q a a # a r v rn n M N M c co c a g c 3CL a- CL CL w wm cc i _O n coCD M co N ai vti vLi vLi vLi w F d J Q s a c 0 G1 m c ° x •� 7 O m w m = Cl) M M Cl) Q V/ c0 o a � L J O U p cM0 �Mp cM0 of x n C V O M ch Cl) Cl) m Rf t4 m m m M M M Cl) Q Q LL « vm = U U U U m cn E � rn }IAe N N cD co c0 c0 c0 W m L c6 v ~ j C r / � v Q co h O N m co co 0 a `J U W W W W W ;Z) .✓ m ;E a' v M c 7 m d F M c cc d ��+ E Z E CD Lu LLI O =. �- N C 4- o .. c C4 Ali A c 7 U c M W Z C x iia 4 ( e I E U cc w F L C '51 Q vYpnm o 'a V O aaa6 � � � � m Qe d r L <G E E o m E °' o \ ! 3 V ?(� J s� El El �mm/ m `n O C; T LL �.+ (D E E 9 X o .. 13 o O W ELL N C C = U 1 g{ ❑ ❑ � rL mS LL m cn �. m0 17 m + F m w C L U Z 7 iL a m ! ui � N r °U�j � N ° W_ � E V. k) era w m A m o m 0 O 0 V o O m ` s C. E 'O O O O � v Q a s w1= ❑ El 0 OMEGA ENVIROMMINIAL APPENDIX 2 INDOOR AIR SAMPLING RESULTS: POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS METHOD-MODIFIED NIOSH 5506)AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY EMSL Analytical, Inc.200 Route 130 North,Cinnaminson,NJ 08077 Order ID: 281603787 Attn: Kumar Gunaratna Customer ID: OMEG34 Omega Environmental Services,Inc. Customer PO: 4570 Campus Drive Date Received: 11/4/16 Suite 30 Newport Beach, CA 92660 EMSL Order: 281603787 Project: USMC AS Hanger 2/2016-2429 PAG Report Date: 11/10/2016 Date Analyzed: 11/7/16 Test Report - Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon Analysis by HPLC/FLD/UV of Air Samples via mod. NIOSH 5506, Issue 3, 1/15/98 EMSL ID 281603787 281603787- 281603787 Media Analytical -0001 0002 -0003 Blank Sample ID #6 #7 #8 Sensitivity Sample Volume(L) 800 792 804 Compound Conc. Conc. Conc. Conc. Conc. (ug) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug) Naphthalene <0.78 <0.79 <0.78 <0.62 0.62 Acenaphthylene <0.78 <0.79 <0.78 <0.62 0.62 Acenaphthene <0.39 <0.39 <0.39 <0.62 0.62 Fluorene <0.78 <0.79 <0.78 <0.62 0.62 Phenanthrene <0.39 <0.39 <0.39 <0.31 0.31 Anthracene <0.39 <0.39 <0.39 <0.62 0.62 Fluoranthene <0.39 <0.39 <0.39 <0.31 0.31 Pyrene <0.39 <0.39 <0.39 <0.31 0.31 Benzo(a)anthracene <0.39 <0.39 <0.39 <0.31 0.31 Chrysene <0.39 <0.39 <0.39 <0.31 0.31 Benzo(e)pyrene <0.39 <0.39 <0.39 <0.31 0.31 Benzo(b)fluoranthene <0.39 <0.39 <0.39 <0.31 0.31 Benzo(k)fluoranthene <0.39 <0.39 <0.39 <0.31 0.31 Benzo(a)pyrene <0.39 <0.39 <0.39 <0.31 0.31 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene <0.39 1 <0.39 1 <0.39 1 <0.31 1 0.31 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene <0.39 <0.39 <0.39 <0.31 0.31 Notes: 1. Samples were received in acceptable condition unless otherwise noted. 2. These results relate only to the samples tested. 3. Sample results are media blank corrected. 4. Discernible blank submitted with samples if listed. CF/SV Analyst Scott TVanEtten, CIH-Lab Manager Or other approved signatory AIHA-LAP, LLC-IHLAP Lab#100194 Page 1 of 1 Page 1 Of 2 OrderID: 281603787 R r.,cL 1V ;ACI zwo orn q �i� 14 30 4. U U) � � C? 9) < o0mN a� P! - 11: 9w F0 o r 5 ¢ o co -ma Go Z O N p {, a coo co U �✓ aoi icj]� ¢ iii m E N N co z u7Q OLL O p xa v V V1An CL N p v 3 a N L L w co = 3 mrL a �A l�J LL. E U) m m UK w a`i mC3d m m E � � y E c ECL o �m V p y 1p y R 9 L � 4DU) co ~ m m = O cis 'm to C3 N a p o m m - o 7 m re-+ Gb S. is 9 a 'b D -a w m c v o ca t rz 2 : Tr ., a j 03 mN N `` aaa.e `3 ❑ � m �r a iA m V' c a m �. I -.r C] � P o a G�1 t� N E LL m t ❑ rCL p E E @ o - m ¢ m co 13v z E v, ; OrderID: 281603787 Page 2 Of 2 Pitt, John �� w From: Kumar Gunaratna <kumar@omegaenv.com> Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 5:54 PM To: Pitt,John; EMSL Lab - Cinnaminson IH Subject: Re: EMSL receipt confirmation, COC for order(s) 281603787 (281603787 - USMC AS Hanger 2/2016-2429 PAG) John- I had informed the following to Randy this morning: Please analyze samples 6, 7 & 8. Hold off on analyzing 9 (batch blank)until further notice. Thanks Kumar Gunaratna Kumar Gunaratna Project Manager Omega Environmental Services,Inc. 4570 Campus Dr., Ste.30 Newport Beach,CA 92660 949-252-2145 -Office 949-230-4440-Mobile www.omeaaenv.com The information contained in this electronic message(E-mail)and the documents accompanying are privileged and confidential,and may be protected from disclosure. Please be aware that any use,printing,copying, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you think that you have received this E-mail message in error,please reply promptly to the sender. On Nov 4, 2016, at 1:31 PM, EMSL (Cinnaminson) <IndustrialHygienelabgemsl.com>wrote: Receipt confirmation, COC for order(s): 281603787 -USMC AS Hanger 2/2016-2429 PAG Please tell us how we are doing. Click here to fill out our Customer Survey 1 0 OMEGA APPENDIX 3 COMPOSITE BULK SAMPLE RESULTS: TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS METHOD-EPA 801 SD/GC)AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY EMSL Analytical, Inc. 200 Route 130 North, Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 Phone: (856)303-250 Fax: (856)858-4571 Email: EnvChemistry20)emsl.com Attn: Kumar Gunaratna 11/18/2016 Omega Environmental Services, Inc. 4570 Campus Drive Suite 30 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 252-2145 Fax: The following analytical report covers the analysis performed on samples submitted to EMSL Analytical, Inc. on 11/4/2016. The results are tabulated on the attached data pages for the following client designated project: USMCAS Hanger#2/2016-2429 DAG The reference number for these samples is EMSL Order#011607499. Please use this reference when calling about these samples. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (856) 303-2500. Approved By: 4A-Zly" Phillip Worby, Chemistry Laboratory Manager �e NCCRp6 a`` fia The test results contained within this report meet the requirements of NELAP and/or the specific certification program that is applicable,unless otherwise noted. f NELAP Certifications: NJ 03036, NY 10872, PA 68-00367 The samples associated with this report were received in good condition unless otherwise noted.This report relates only to those items tested as received by the laboratory.The QC data associated with the sample results meet the recovery and precision requirements established by the NELAP, unless specifically indicated.All results for soil samples are reported on a dry weight basis, unless otherwise noted.This report may not be reproduced except in full and without written approval by EMSL Analytical, Inc. Page 1 of 2 EMSL Analytical, Inc. EMSL Order: 011607499 CustomerlD: OMEG34 200 Route 130 North,Cinnaminson,NJ 08077 CUstomerPO: Phone/Fax: (856)303-2500/(856)858-4571 http://vwvw.EMSL.com EnvChemistry2(cbemsl.com ProjectlD: Attn: Kumar Gunaratna Phone: (949)252-2145 Omega Environmental Services, Inc. Fax: 4570 Campus Drive Received: 11/04/169:25 AM Suite 30 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Project: USMCAS Hanger#212016-2429 DAG Analytical Results Client Sample Description #10 Collected. 11/2/2016 Lab ID: 0001 South Center Tier 2-Wood Beams 11:00:00 AM Prep Analysis Method Parameter Result RL Units Date Analyst Date Analyst 8015D Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 170 10 mg/Kg 11/15/2016 TC 11/17/2016 EA by GC Definitions: ND-indicates that the analyte was not detected at the reporting limit RL-Reporting Limit(Analytical) ChemSmplw/RDL/NELAC-7.21.0 Printed: 11/18/2016 5:35:13 PM Page 2 of 2 OrderID: 011607499 t 14 r � C7 F Cr, , N G w Z W 00 • rTs•, Q O O N OCL T V CN x c a a in ¢ O LL V n a F- D E m � � C m w Co LL m m z E m � J (� p O y 0 4 _ O 0 H m } • a m Q v m � co, m oto Z Q Wm ! 0 W `o I s1 OC -,If C ( a VZ 0 � El le Z . �e iSNA 'p �2 Q o a m C ICA v m 0 CO C a aCA a me C> t D � LL m m _ E W +3 C q ma Cm r g W m CL m E E v ~ o m m m a S ° 12 c F4 ao c 13 �' m *y df 14 Ci •� Page 1 Of 1 0 OMEGA ENVIROMMINIAL APPENDIX 4 COMPOSITE BULK SAMPLE RESULTS:VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS METHOD-EPA 82600)AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY EMSL Analytical, Inc. 200 Route 130 North, Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 Phone: (856)303-250 Fax: (856)858-4571 Email: EnvChemistry20)emsl.com Attn: Kumar Gunaratna 11/18/2016 Omega Environmental Services, Inc. 4570 Campus Drive Suite 30 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 252-2145 Fax: The following analytical report covers the analysis performed on samples submitted to EMSL Analytical, Inc. on 11/4/2016. The results are tabulated on the attached data pages for the following client designated project: USMC AS Hanger#2/2016-2429 PAG The reference number for these samples is EMSL Order#011607503. Please use this reference when calling about these samples. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (856) 303-2500. Approved By: 4A-Zly" Phillip Worby, Chemistry Laboratory Manager �e NCCRp6 a`` fia The test results contained within this report meet the requirements of NELAP and/or the specific certification program that is applicable,unless otherwise noted. f NELAP Certifications: NJ 03036, NY 10872, PA 68-00367 The samples associated with this report were received in good condition unless otherwise noted.This report relates only to those items tested as received by the laboratory.The QC data associated with the sample results meet the recovery and precision requirements established by the NELAP, unless specifically indicated.All results for soil samples are reported on a dry weight basis, unless otherwise noted.This report may not be reproduced except in full and without written approval by EMSL Analytical, Inc. Page 1 of 4 EMSL Analytical, Inc. EMSL Order: 011607503 CustomerlD: OMEG34 200 Route 130 North,Cinnaminson,NJ 08077 CUstomerPO: Phone/Fax: (856)303-2500/(856)858-4571 http://vwvw.EMSL.com EnvChemistry2(cbemsl.com ProjectlD: Attn: Kumar Gunaratna Phone: (949)252-2145 Omega Environmental Services, Inc. Fax: 4570 Campus Drive Received: 11/04/169:25 AM Suite 30 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Project: USMC AS Hanger#212016-2429 PAG Analytical Results Client Sample Description #11 Collected. 11/2/2016 Lab ID: 0001 South Center Tier 2-Wood beam/shafter Prep Analysis Method Parameter Result RL Units Date Analyst Date Analyst 8260C 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2- ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF trifluoroethane 8260C 1,1-Dichloroethane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,1-Dichloroethene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,1-Dichloropropene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,2,3-Trichlo robe nzene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,2,4-Trichlo robe nzene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,2,4-Tri methylbenzene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 1300 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,2-Dibromoethane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,2-Dichloroethane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,2-Dichloropropane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,3,5-Tri methylbenzene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,3-Dichloropropane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 2,2-Dichloropropane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 2-Butanone ND 1300 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether ND 1300 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 2-Chlorotoluene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 2-Hexanone ND 1300 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 4-Chlorotoluene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 4-Isopropyltoluene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 4-Methyl-2-pentanone ND 1300 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Acetone ND 1300 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Acetonitrile ND 6300 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Acrolein ND 2500 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Acrylonitrile ND 1300 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Benzene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Bromobenzene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Bromochloromethane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF ChemSmplw/RDL/NELAC-7.21.0 Printed: 11/18/2016 1:44:54 PM Page 2 of 4 EMSL Analytical, Inc. EMSL Order: 011607503 CustomerlD: OMEG34 200 Route 130 North,Cinnaminson,NJ 08077 CUstomerPO: Phone/Fax: (856)303-2500/(856)858-4571 http://vwvw.EMSL.com EnvChemistry2(cbemsl.com ProjectlD: Attn: Kumar Gunaratna Phone: (949)252-2145 Omega Environmental Services, Inc. Fax: 4570 Campus Drive Received: 11/04/169:25 AM Suite 30 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Project: USMC AS Hanger#212016-2429 PAG Analytical Results Client Sample Description #11 Collected. 11/2/2016 Lab ID: 0001 South Center Tier 2-Wood beam/shafter Prep Analysis Method Parameter Result RL Units Date Analyst Date Analyst 8260C Bromodichloromethane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Bromoform ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Bromomethane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Carbon Disulfide ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Carbon Tetrachloride ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Chlorobenzene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Chloroethane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Chloroform ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Chloromethane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Cis-1,2-dichloroethene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Cis-1,3-dichloropropene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Dibromochlorom ethane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Dibromomethane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Dichlorodifluoromethane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Ethylbenzene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Hexachlorobutadiene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Hexachloroethane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Isopropylbenzene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C m&p-xylenes ND 1300 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Methyl-tert butyl ether ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Methylene Chloride ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C N-butylbenzene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C N-propylbenzene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Naphthalene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C o-xylene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Sec-butylbenzene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Styrene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C tert-Butyl Alcohol ND 2500 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Tert-butyl benzene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Tetrachloroethene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Tetrahydrofuran ND 1300 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Toluene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Trans-1,2-dichloroethene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Trans-1,3-dichloropropene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Trans-1,4-dichloro-2-butene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Trichloroethene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Trichlorofluoromethane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF ChemSmplw/RDL/NELAC-7.21.0 Printed: 11/18/2016 1:44:54 PM Page 3 of 4 EMSL Analytical, Inc. EMSL Order: 011607503 CustomerlD: OMEG34 200 Route 130 North,Cinnaminson,NJ 08077 CUstomerPO: Phone/Fax: (856)303-2500/(856)858-4571 http://vwvw.EMSL.com EnvChemistry2(cbemsl.com ProjectlD: Attn: Kumar Gunaratna Phone: (949)252-2145 Omega Environmental Services, Inc. Fax: 4570 Campus Drive Received: 11/04/169:25 AM Suite 30 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Project: USMC AS Hanger#212016-2429 PAG Analytical Results Client Sample Description #11 Collected. 11/2/2016 Lab ID: 0001 South Center Tier 2-Wood beam/shafter Prep Analysis Method Parameter Result RL Units Date Analyst Date Analyst 8260C Vinyl Acetate ND 1300 fag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Vinyl Chloride ND 630 fag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF Definitions: ND-indicates that the analyte was not detected at the reporting limit RL-Reporting Limit(Analytical) ChemSmplw/RDL/NELAC-7.21.0 Printed: 11/18/2016 1:44:54 PM Page 4 of 4 I OrderID: 011607503 N (D H r` N m Z wR CID � m E Q 0 ro cN o cnch a ❑ 00 c N i1 m a a LD Q _ N O m lo m ❑ _ a C I O m m d) V LL v m rr) � Z ui E y u, a m m r m C y y . ra El J ❑ E > tll p m V p o v a H N _ m m p p G > _ i w H 0 �'+ w .c .ti+ m m ¢ m v a .E 'p � O a m a VVt a a► ow: CID > U m E3 is --ip9w +, a W n, Z Z o d cT1 0 o LU d Z N m nV O . M O d ¢ L C O1 co 0 co m p w C w a7 O a 3 w m 5 W to 1100 W N 0 a) n m rn ar ER a. O 2 w m a w E H c!\ b — o O r u U- c [7 E Y w ori S y W w c p t� a m o £ E U 3 r c U. rr as 3 t E cs yiL C i!1 E c1 in ❑ 3 = m _ COL o W — m o E a U F+ cE m C m O Z _ N H C Z O C m p d •� 1 d fj a m = y a y a V E m p p E m e m en U t a m 2 a c Z a N — Page 1 Of 1 0 OMEGA ENVIROMMINIAL APPENDIX S COMPOSITE BULK SAMPLE RESULTS:VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS- HEAD SPACE ANALYSIS METHOD-EPA 82600)AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY EMSL Analytical, Inc. 200 Route 130 North, Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 Phone: (856)303-250 Fax: (856)858-4571 Email: EnvChemistry20)emsl.com Attn: Kumar Gunaratna 11/18/2016 Omega Environmental Services, Inc. 4570 Campus Drive Suite 30 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 252-2145 Fax: The following analytical report covers the analysis performed on samples submitted to EMSL Analytical, Inc. on 11/4/2016. The results are tabulated on the attached data pages for the following client designated project: USMC AS Hanger#2/2016-2429 PAG The reference number for these samples is EMSL Order#011607501. Please use this reference when calling about these samples. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (856) 303-2500. Approved By: 4A-Zly" Phillip Worby, Chemistry Laboratory Manager �e NCCRp6 a`` fia The test results contained within this report meet the requirements of NELAP and/or the specific certification program that is applicable,unless otherwise noted. f NELAP Certifications: NJ 03036, NY 10872, PA 68-00367 The samples associated with this report were received in good condition unless otherwise noted.This report relates only to those items tested as received by the laboratory.The QC data associated with the sample results meet the recovery and precision requirements established by the NELAP, unless specifically indicated.All results for soil samples are reported on a dry weight basis, unless otherwise noted.This report may not be reproduced except in full and without written approval by EMSL Analytical, Inc. Page 1 of 4 EMSL Analytical, Inc. EMSL Order: 011607501 CustomerlD: OMEG34 200 Route 130 North,Cinnaminson,NJ 08077 CUstomerPO: Phone/Fax: (856)303-2500/(856)858-4571 http://vwvw.EMSL.com EnvChemistry2(cbemsl.com ProjectlD: Attn: Kumar Gunaratna Phone: (949)252-2145 Omega Environmental Services, Inc. Fax: 4570 Campus Drive Received: 11/04/169:25 AM Suite 30 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Project: USMC AS Hanger#212016-2429 PAG Analytical Results Client Sample Description #12 Collected. 11/2/2016 Lab ID: 0001 South Center Tier 2 Prep Analysis Method Parameter Result RL Units Date Analyst Date Analyst 8260C 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2- ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF trifluoroethane 8260C 1,1-Dichloroethane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,1-Dichloroethene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,1-Dichloropropene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,2,3-Trichlo robe nzene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,2,4-Trichlo robe nzene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,2,4-Tri methylbenzene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 1300 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,2-Dibromoethane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,2-Dichloroethane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,2-Dichloropropane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,3,5-Tri methylbenzene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,3-Dichloropropane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 2,2-Dichloropropane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 2-Butanone ND 1300 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether ND 1300 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 2-Chlorotoluene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 2-Hexanone ND 1300 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 4-Chlorotoluene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 4-Isopropyltoluene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C 4-Methyl-2-pentanone ND 1300 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Acetone ND 1300 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Acetonitrile ND 6300 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Acrolein ND 2500 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Acrylonitrile ND 1300 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Benzene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Bromobenzene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Bromochloromethane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF ChemSmplw/RDL/NELAC-7.21.0 Printed: 11/18/2016 1:42:09 PM Page 2 of 4 EMSL Analytical, Inc. EMSL Order: 011607501 CustomerlD: OMEG34 200 Route 130 North,Cinnaminson,NJ 08077 CUstomerPO: Phone/Fax: (856)303-2500/(856)858-4571 http://vwvw.EMSL.com EnvChemistry2(cbemsl.com ProjectlD: Attn: Kumar Gunaratna Phone: (949)252-2145 Omega Environmental Services, Inc. Fax: 4570 Campus Drive Received: 11/04/169:25 AM Suite 30 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Project: USMC AS Hanger#212016-2429 PAG Analytical Results Client Sample Description #12 Collected. 11/2/2016 Lab ID: 0001 South Center Tier 2 Prep Analysis Method Parameter Result RL Units Date Analyst Date Analyst 8260C Bromodichloromethane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Bromoform ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Bromomethane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Carbon Disulfide ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Carbon Tetrachloride ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Chlorobenzene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Chloroethane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Chloroform ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Chloromethane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Cis-1,2-dichloroethene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Cis-1,3-dichloropropene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Dibromochlorom ethane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Dibromomethane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Dichlorodifluoromethane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Ethylbenzene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Hexachlorobutadiene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Hexachloroethane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Isopropylbenzene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C m&p-xylenes ND 1300 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Methyl-tert butyl ether ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Methylene Chloride ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C N-butylbenzene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C N-propylbenzene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Naphthalene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C o-xylene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Sec-butylbenzene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Styrene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C tert-Butyl Alcohol ND 2500 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Tert-butyl benzene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Tetrachloroethene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Tetrahydrofuran ND 1300 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Toluene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Trans-1,2-dichloroethene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Trans-1,3-dichloropropene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Trans-1,4-dichloro-2-butene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Trichloroethene ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Trichlorofluoromethane ND 630 tag/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF ChemSmplw/RDL/NELAC-7.21.0 Printed: 11/18/2016 1:42:09 PM Page 3 of 4 EMSL Analytical, Inc. EMSL Order: 011607501 CustomerlD: OMEG34 200 Route 130 North,Cinnaminson,NJ 08077 CUstomerPO: Phone/Fax: (856)303-2500/(856)858-4571 http://vwvw.EMSL.com EnvChemistry2(cbemsl.com ProjectlD: Attn: Kumar Gunaratna Phone: (949)252-2145 Omega Environmental Services, Inc. Fax: 4570 Campus Drive Received: 11/04/169:25 AM Suite 30 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Project: USMC AS Hanger#212016-2429 PAG Analytical Results Client Sample Description #12 Collected. 11/2/2016 Lab ID: 0001 South Center Tier 2 Prep Analysis Method Parameter Result RL Units Date Analyst Date Analyst 8260C Vinyl Acetate ND 1300 pg/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF 8260C Vinyl Chloride ND 630 pg/Kg 11/9/2016 WF 11/9/2016 WF Definitions: ND-indicates that the analyte was not detected at the reporting limit RL-Reporting Limit(Analytical) ChemSmplw/RDL/NELAC-7.21.0 Printed: 11/18/2016 1:42:09 PM Page 4 of 4 OrderID: 011607501 V aci JOa M � U T y -� 9 o E p o v � � Z NI- y0 r U (� t W Z U CO CL ❑ q F O O L p z 00 � - 7, 41 ! CL' 2 w X Q z aLL er WNU d d - ❑ CL H d A p �. n y C C } ' oA `a u1 a ❑ Id .a d CL � � Y a+ � 14 El� O ' U p a t> a 3 CZ d CD O yr VH y d! p L: p a y Ci = � . y 12 0. m Q U M .�! w .� 0 a o ��1'�s Qom}} d rn V N r m ] ✓� CL 7 ,c m ' C. m 3 E A � VQ��i `a �� I a 4if HU Cli ❑ ~ , w le 11 - . Q M r C4 Lo o M a a) C N -a U a d c 9 r L ro O V O + �"' rn x :' - Jaz d W N l a o U) J t r r- µ E T 7. cc m a _ ❑ E H cn d LL E i7 ZLl v W H C C � G m z o E C U d R N a V Al m �_ L d! 7 [/C E ❑ c itl tl`�i a d L a} y 045 c n E � � c, H 3 c °i m a E 0 o a d m y c CL b E ego � E o m u y U 06 'a o o c H c z o 3 c a m� C m CD m y c LL v ; 2 CD o s o a cc,Y �' c v rn a a z aa — Page 1 Of 1 0 OMEGA APPENDIX 6 COMPOSITE SURFACE WIPE SAMPLE RESULTS: TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS METHOD-EPA 8015OC/GC)AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY EMSL Analytical, Inc. 200 Route 130 North, Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 Phone: (856)303-250 Fax: (856)858-4571 Email: EnvChemistry20)emsl.com Attn: Kumar Gunaratna 11/18/2016 Omega Environmental Services, Inc. 4570 Campus Drive Suite 30 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 252-2145 Fax: The following analytical report covers the analysis performed on samples submitted to EMSL Analytical, Inc. on 11/4/2016. The results are tabulated on the attached data pages for the following client designated project: USMC AS Hanger#4/2016-2429 PAG The reference number for these samples is EMSL Order#011607500. Please use this reference when calling about these samples. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (856) 303-2500. Approved By: 4A-Zly" Phillip Worby, Chemistry Laboratory Manager �e NCCRp6 a`` fia The test results contained within this report meet the requirements of NELAP and/or the specific certification program that is applicable,unless otherwise noted. f NELAP Certifications: NJ 03036, NY 10872, PA 68-00367 The samples associated with this report were received in good condition unless otherwise noted.This report relates only to those items tested as received by the laboratory.The QC data associated with the sample results meet the recovery and precision requirements established by the NELAP, unless specifically indicated.All results for soil samples are reported on a dry weight basis, unless otherwise noted.This report may not be reproduced except in full and without written approval by EMSL Analytical, Inc. Page 1 of 2 EMSL Analytical, Inc. EMSL Order: 011607500 CustomerlD: OMEG34 200 Route 130 North,Cinnaminson,NJ 08077 CUstomerPO: Phone/Fax: (856)303-2500/(856)858-4571 http://vwvw.EMSL.com EnvChemistry2(cbemsl.com ProjectlD: Attn: Kumar Gunaratna Phone: (949)252-2145 Omega Environmental Services, Inc. Fax: 4570 Campus Drive Received: 11/04/169:25 AM Suite 30 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Project: USMC AS Hanger#412016-2429 PAG Analytical Results Client Sample Description #13 Collected. 11/2/2016 Lab ID: 0001 South Center Tier 2(wood) 11:00:00 AM Prep Analysis Method Parameter Result RL Units Date Analyst Date Analyst 8015C Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 1100 100 fag/100 cm2 11/16/2016 TC 11/17/2016 EA by GC Client Sample Description #14 Collected. 11/2/2016 Lab ID: 0002 Blank 11:00:00 AM Prep Analysis Method Parameter Result RL Units Date Analyst Date Analyst 8015C Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 260 100 fag/wipe 11/16/2016 TC 11/17/2016 EA by GC Definitions: ND-indicates that the analyte was not detected at the reporting limit RL-Reporting Limit(Analytical) ChemSmplw/RDL/NELAC-7.21.0 Printed: 11/18/2016 5:38:26 PM Page 2 of 2 OrderID: 011607500 F Z - 3 x — o 0 p O O W y 3 ti 3 O c w C7 m m m m ro com e CL w m Ein 0 m m v u�i m ✓� 1 .. p� 3 ° m C to El w• F v, S. ♦I m K 3 O N O 0 3 � w ElmTz fit O Q m tT w El w w _W cuQ N m w = m 1.� � 6 f7 -i o 03 3 ro fn 4.7 co O m rn #A3 C c m O = 0 r to 00 14 CIDL _ o D w 1,3m �' Z �. 3 o n to, 0- 0 Cb mOOr Q 3 m 0 i1 M m On t" � n m _ =7 cQ C p m m En Q 7� CP A �7D I s w e p a 3 \ to O O A :T w o Q" N aO�i 0 — 0 CL m r O cLdC rp CD4 O 0 a e— s C 6 ❑ fA CD Z N Z O. CD (D 0 03 O ElN Q y �� fA O fOe O 1 W 3 C C f Cl o ro z m 14 !� ?" 'vw o D vi `! r� .� Nw n m r' 3 y COw � fACDK CO CD � 3 N m N � WMZ r Page 1 Of 1 1J 0 OMEGA ENVIROMMINIAL APPENDIX 7 COMPOSITE BULK SAMPLE RESULTS:MOLD GROWTH METHOD-EMSL M041/DME)AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY LA Testing Order ID: 331619945 Customer ID: OMEG34 ATESTING 5431 Industrial Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Customer PO: Phone/Fax: (714)828-4999/(714) 828-4944 Project ID: http://www.LATesting.com/gardengrovelaba-latesting.com Attn: Kumar Gunaratna Phone: (949)252-2145 Omega Environmental Services, Inc. Fax: 4570 Campus Drive Collected: 11/02/2016 Suite 30 Received: 11/03/2016 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Analyzed: 11/15/2016 Proj: USMCAs Hanger#2/2016-2429 PAG Test Report: Microscopic Examination of Fungal Spores, Fungal Structures, Hyphae, and Other Particulates from Bulk Samples (EMSL Method: M041) Lab Sample Number: 31619945-0001 Client Sample ID: 15 Sample Location: soCenter Hanger/Tier 3/ ood Cross Beam Spore Types Category grocy a oprinus Alternaria Ascospores Aspergillus/Penicillium Rare Basidiospores Rare Bipolaris++ Chaetomium Cladosporium Rare Curvularia Epicoccum Fusarium Ganoderma Myxomycetes++ Rare Paecilomyces Rust Scopulariopsis Stachybotrys Rare Torula Ulocladium Unidentifiable Spores Zygomycetes Fibrous Particulate Medium Hyphal Fragment Rare Insect Fragment Pollen Rare Category:Count/per area analyzed Rare:1 to 10 Low:11 to 100 Medium:101 to 1000 High:>1000 Bipolaris++=Bipolaris/Dreschlera/Exserohilum Myxomycetes++=Myxomycetes/Periconia/Smut *=Sample contains fruiting structures and/or hyphae associated with the spores. Cecil Strait, Micro Laboratory Manager No discernable field blank was submitted with this group of samples. or Other Approved Signatory EMSL maintains liability limited to cost of analysis.This report relates only to the samples reported above and may not be reproduced,except in full,without written approval by EMSL.EMSL bears no responsibility for sample collection activities or analytical method limitations.Interpretation of the data contained in this report is the responsibility of the client. Samples received in good condition unless otherwise noted. Samples analyzed by LATesting Huntington Beach,CAAIHA-LAP,LLC--EM LAP Accredited#101650 Initial report from:11/15/2016 11:45:39 For Information on the fungi listed in this report please visit the Resources section at www.emsl.com Test Report DEVER1-7.30.1 Printed: 11/15/2016 11:45:39AM Page 1 of 1 OrderID: 331619945 Microbiology Chain of Custody LA TESTING LA TESTING Order Number (Lab use Only) 159 PASADENA AV=. S. PASADENA, CA 91036 � STfNG PHONE: (323)254-9960 w FAX:(323) 254-99F- G �' LA TESTING-Bill to: Same Different Com an v[ U t � If Bill to is Different note st tions in Comments" Street: 1 A 4 v�,i f� Third Party Billing requires written authorization from third paq Ci 4' State1Province: Zi !Postal Code: Country: Report To Nam Y CAA i\)W2] Telephone 9: Email Address: mi, ©LqDlci Q � • !t I Fax 9: Purchase Order: Project Name/Number:to -CAS �i'O `L r} 2`4 t r I Please Provide Results: ❑ Fax ❑ Email U.S. State Samples Taken: C k 7. VL- Connecticut Sam les: ❑Commercial ❑ Residential Turnaround Time TATO tions" -Please Check .00 3 Hour 6 Hour 24 Hour 48 Hour I LJ 72 Hour I ❑96 Hour ❑ 1 Week 1 2 Week "Analysis compieted in accordance with LA Teshng's Terms and Conditions located in the Analytical Price Guide. TATs are subject to methodoiogy roujre eats Non Culturable Air Samples (Spore Traps -Test Codes • M001 Air-O-Cell M173 Allegro M2 . M004 Allergenco M032 Allergenco-D M172 Versa Trap • M049 BioSIS • M003 Burkard • M043 Cyclex • M002 Cyclex-d • M030 Micro 5 M174 MoldSna • M176 Relle Smart M130 Via-Cell - ------- _. Other Microbiology Test Codes • M041 Fungal Direct Examination M014 Endotoxin Analysis M029 Enterococci + 05 Vla a ung! an M015 Heterotrophic Plate Count • M019 Fecal Coliform • M006 Viable Fungi ID and Count(Speciation) + M180 Real Time Q-PCR-ERMI 36 M133 MRSA Analysis • M007 Cuiturable Fungi a Panel . M028 Cryptococcus neoformans • M008 Culturable Fungi (Speciation) a M018 Total Coliform Detection • M009 Gram Stain Culturable Bacteria (Membrane Filtration) M120 Histoplasma capsulatum • MO 10 Bacterial Count and ID-3 Most 4 M020 Fecal Streptococcus Detection Prominent (Membrane Filtration) M033-39 Allergen Testing • M011 Bacterial Count and ID-5 Most 0 M210-215 Legionella Detection 0 M044 Group Allergen Prominent M026 Recreational Water Screen (Cat, Dog, Cockroach, Dustmites) • M013 Sewage Contamination in Buildings M027 Mycotoxin Analysis 0 Other See Analytical Price Guide Preservation Method(Water): IN �G �f�c Name of Sam ler: Signature of Sam ler- Sample 9 Sample Location STy pele Code Volume/Area Date/Time Collected I c en 1!1112 4:00 P Client Sample#(s): l Total#of//Sam les: f Relinquished Client Date: Time: Received JCfient : Date: i+ ? Time: Comments: Cwgrdiea Uacrmnnl—Hticobtiw<JY,:;C-Ha-� Page 1 of 4—pages Page 1 Of 1 0 OMEGA ENVIROMMINIAL APPENDIX 8 COMPOSITE BULK SAMPLE RESULTS:BACTERIAL GROWTH METHOD- EMSL M009)AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY EMSL Analytical, Inc. EMSL Order: 371621800 CustomerlD: OMEG34 200 Route 130 North,Cinnaminson,NJ 08077 Phone/Fax: (800)220-3675/(856)786-0262 CUstomerPO: htto://vwvw.EMSL.com cinnmicrolab(cbemsl.com ProjectlD: Attn: Kumar Gunaratna Phone: (949)252-2145 Omega Environmental Services, Inc. Fax: 4570 Campus Drive Received: 11/04/169:25 AM Suite 30 Analysis Date: 11/9/2016 Collected: 11/2/2016 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Project: USMC AS 1 Hangar H2 12016-2429 PAG Test Report: Identification and Enumeration of Culturable Bacteria by Bulk (Gram Stain (EMSL Method M009)) Sample Analytical Sample Temp Measure Sensitivity Colony CFOs Description Location Media (C) (g) (CFU/9) Dilution Bacteria Identification Count (CFU/g) #16 So. Center Hanger TSAB 35 0.1005 995 100 Gram negative rod 1 995 2/Tier 3 Wood Total 1 995 Cross Beau 371621800-0001 No discernable blank was submitted with this group of samples Analyst(s) � Michael Ross(1) Farbod Nekouei, M.S., Laboratory Director or other approved signatory EMSL maintains liability limited to cost of analysis.This report relates only to the samples reported above and may not be reproduced,except in full,without written approval by EMSL.EMSL bears no responsibility for sample collection activities or analytical method limitations.Interpretation of the data contained in this report is the responsibility of the client. Samples received in good condition unless otherwise noted. Samples analyzed by EMSL Analytical,Inc.Cinnaminson,NJ AIHA-LAP,LLC--EMLAP Accredited#100194 Initial report from 11/11/2016 11:36:14 1 Test Report CUItBact-7.21.0 Printed: 11/11/2016 11:36:14 AM THIS IS THE LAST PAGE OF THE REPORT. Page 1 OrderID: 371621800 Microbiology Chain of Custody LA TESTING LA TESTING Order Number (Lab use Only): 159 PASADENA AVE.i4 JAS. PASADENA, CA 91030 r�srrnrc PHONE:(323)254-9960 FAX: 323 254-9982 dd 7 LA TESTING-Bill to: K Same El Different Comp ny DAWM �G i�Z(.1i3 � If Bill to is Different note instr6ctions in Comments" Stree Third Pa Billingwires wriftert authorization from thudparty Ci . �-i State Province: Zi !Postal Code: Count Report To Name : 4VI 4 Ul /Ct 'f Telephone M Email Address: C Ge 1A V - lm Fax#: Purchase Order: Project Name/Number: y �{ qN Please Provide Results: ❑ Fax ❑ Email U.S.State Samples Taken: C1 Connecticut Samples: ❑Commercial ❑ Residential Turnaround Time TATO tions`-Please Check 3 Hour 6 Hour 24 Hour ❑48 Hour ❑72 Hour 9fi Hour 1 Week1 92 Week 'Analysts Completed in accordance with LA Testtng's Terms and Conditions located in the Analytical Pnce Guide_ TATs are subject to methodology mqihmrits Non Culturable Air Samples Spore raps)—Test Codes • M001 Air-O-Cell M173 Allegro M2 . M004 Allergenco M032 Allergenca-D . M772 Versa Trap • M049 BioSIS M003 Burkard • M043 Cyclex M002 Cyclex-d • M030 Micro 5 M174 MoldSna • M176 Relle Smart • M130 Via-Cell r. Other Microbiology Test Codes • M041 Fungal Direct Examination 0 M014 Endotoxin Analysis 0 M029 Enterococci - • M005 Viable Fungi ID and Count a M015 Heterotrophic Plate Count & M019 Fecal Coliform s. r- v • M006 Viable Fungi ID and Count(Speciation) • M180 Real Time Q-PCR-ERMI 36 • M133 MRSA Analysis G' • M007 Culturable Fungi • Pane) a M028 Cryptococcus net rrtani- �Gra ble Fungi(Speciation) M018 Total Coliform Detection • tain Culturable Bacteria (Membrane Filtration) M120 Njstoplasma capst gtrm i Count and ID--3 Most M020 Fecal Streptococcus Detection 1�0 Prominent (Membrane Filtration) • M033-39 Allergen Testing • M011 Bacterial Count and ID—5 Most - M210-215 Legionella Detection M044 Group Allergen Prominent • M026 Recreational Water Screen (Cat, Dog, Cockroach, Dustmites) • M013 Sewage Contamination in Buildings M027 Mycotoxin Analysis a Other See Analytical Price Guide Preservation Method(Water): Name of Sampler: Si nature of Sam ler: Sample# Sample Location Sam le Code Test Volume/Area Date/Time Collected Exam le:Al Kitchen Air M001 75L 111112 4:00 PM S0. I Client Sample#(s): - Total#of Samples: Relinquished(Client): Date: Time: [ Received(Client): C Date: �J 26 Time. Comments: � QI_QQ i �3 GonhWiAtl Uoc�&rent-MLaadangy GOC-R4-502C1: Page 1 of � pages Page 1 Of 1 0 OMEGA ENVIROMMINIAL APPENDIX 9 WIPE SAMPLE RESULTS: LEAD IN DUST BY FLAME AAS METHOD-EPA SW 846 305OB/7000B,CHAIN OF CUSTODY AND INSPECTOR/ASSESSOR CERTIFICATION LA Testing LA Testing Order: 331619946 CUStomerl D: OMEG34 5431 Industrial Drive,Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Phone/Fax: (714)828-4999/(714)828-4944 CUStomerPO: TEST1NGhtti)://www.LATestina.com aardenarovelabO-Iatestlna.com ProjectlD: Attn: Kumar Gunaratna Phone: (949)252-2145 Omega Environmental Services, Inc. Fax: 4570 Campus Drive Received: 11/03/1611:55 AM Suite 30 Collected: 11/2/2016 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Project: 2016-2429 PAG Test Report: Lead in Dust by Flame AAS (SW 846 30506/70006)* Client SampleDescription Collected Analyzed Area Sampled PDL Lead Concentration 17 11/2/2016 11/4/2016 144 int 20 tag/ft2 800 tag/ft2 331619946-0001 Site:Wood Cross beam @ NW Hanger 2 Tier 3 18 11/2/2016 11/4/2016 144 int 20 tag/ft2 560 tag/ft2 331619946-0002 Site: Metal Ladder Railing S/C Tier 2 19 11/2/2016 11/4/2016 144 int 50 tag/ft2 1400 tag/ft2 331619946-0003 Site:Wood Cross beam @ S/E Tier 3 20 11/2/2016 11/4/2016 n/a 10 tag/wipe <10 tag/wipe 331619946-0004 Site: Blank Michael Chapman, Laboratory Manager or other approved signatory Sample received in acceptable condition unless otherwise noted. Reporting limit is 10 ug/wipe. The QC data associated with these sample results included in this report meet the method quality control requirements,unless specifically indicated otherwise.Unless noted,results in this report are not blank corrected. This report relates only to the samples reported above and may not be reproduced, except in full,without written approval by EMSL.EMSL bears no responsibility for sample collection activities. *slight modifications to methods applied Samples analyzed by LA Testing Huntington Beach,CA AIHA-LAP,LLC--ELLAP Accredited#101650,CA ELAP 1406 Initial report from 11/04/2016 11:34:12 1 Test Report PB w/RDL-7.32.3 Printed: 11/4/2016 11:34:12 AM Page 1 of 1 OrderID: 331619946 ,-„1=5u11y Unit 1=5 Lead (Pb) Chain of Custody 11652 Knott Avenue AlE M S L Order ID to Use O y): Garden Grove, nunu92841 TESTING P' `1 (714)828-4999 714 828-4944 EMSL-Bill to: Different to Same company:Om a Environmental Services, Inc. If Bin to is Dffarent noM7.0hictior Mefg- Street-.4570 Campus Drive,Suite 30 Third Party Billing uires written authorization from thrid Ci Statelprovince: CA Zi octal Code: COuntrY:United States Re rt To Name Telephone#: Email Address: navid megaenv com Fax#: I Purchase Order: Project NamelNumber.� Please Provide Results: EDFAX ✓ -aail trail U.S.State Samples Taken:CA CT Samples: ❑Commercial/Taxable ❑ResidentiallTax Exempt u—..rnund Time ATO ions*-Please Check ❑3 Hour ❑6 Hour I ❑24 Hour 1 ❑48 Hour 1 ❑72 Hour ❑96 Hour I ❑1 Week 1 R12 Week *Analysis com eted in accordance with EMSL's Terms and Conditions locaied ii the Price Guide Matrix Method Instrument Reporting Limit Check Chips ❑%by wt ❑mgtcW ❑ppm SWM-7000B Flame Atomic Absorption 0.01% ❑ Air NIOSH 7082 Flame Atomic Absorption 4 pgM ter ❑ NIOSH 7105 Graphite Furnace AA 0.03 after NIOSH 7300 modified ICP-AES/ICP-MS 0.5 Vgffilter wipe* ASTM SW846-7000B Flame Atomic Absorption 10 pg/wipe non ASTM ❑ SW846-60108 or C ICP-AES 1.0 pg/wipe ❑ If no box Is checked.non-ASTM Wipe Is assumed SW846-7000817010 Graphite Furnace AA 0.075 pglwipe ❑ TCLP SW846-1311f7000BiSM 3111B Flame Atomic Absorption 0.4 m L m SW846-11311SW846-60108 or C ICP-AES 0.1 m /L m ❑ Soil SW846-7000B Flame Atomic Absorption 40 m R(Ppm)SW846-7010 Graphite Furnace AA 0.3m /k SW846-601013 or C ICP-AES 2 mgfkg(ppm) SM3111BISW846-70008 Flame Atomic Absorption 0.4 m Wastewater Unpreserved ❑ EPA 200.9 Graphite Furnace AA 0.003 m L Preserved with HNO3 pH <2 ❑ FPA 200.7 ICP-AFS 0.020 m L Drinking Water Unpreserved ❑ EPA 200.9 Graphite Furnace AA 0.003 (ppm) Preserved with HNO PH<2 ❑ EPA 200.8 ICP-MS 0.001 m ppm TSPISPM Filter 40 CFR Part 50 ICP-AES 12 fitter 40 CFR Part 50 Graphite Furnace AA 3.6 Iter Other: Name of Sam ler: Signature of Sampler: Sample# Location Voltu�me�t/Area 1D time Sampled �q��„�,, PAW l Mme- O(4tiu si� Tri 2. °I cess 64c -n r-a, 3 Client Sample#'s Total#of Samples. Relinquished(Client): Date: ' Time: Received(Lab): Date: i Time: Comments: rW Reports to Navid.Kumar&Irene! Birro:Omega Em won mer"Sen+cee.W_4570 Campus Drive.Suits 30,Newport Beach,CA 92666.United Stags Page 1 of_�__pages Page 1 Of 1 State of California Department of Public Health Inspector/Assessor 06/01/2017 i a ^ Indra K. Gunaratna a 22432 0 OMEGA ENVIROMMINIAL APPENDIX 10 LABORATORY ACCREDITATION NLIJ r��J � � � ANA Laboratory Accreditation Programs,LLC August 31,2016 Laboratory ID: 100194 Oommen Kappil EMSL Analytical,Inc. 200 Route 130 North Cinnaminson,NJ 08077 Dear Mr.Kappil: Congratulations! The AIHA Laboratory Accreditation Programs(AIHA-LAP),LLC's Analytical Accreditation Board(AAB)has approved EMSL Analytical,Inc. as an accredited Industrial Hygiene,Environmental Lead and Environmental Microbiology laboratory. Accreditation documentation includes the IHLAP,ELLAP and EMLAP accreditation certificate, scope of accreditation document and a copy of the current AIHA-LAP,LLC license agreement(if your completed agreement is not on file at AIHA-LAP,LLC). The accreditation symbol has been designed for use by all AIHA-LAP,LLC accredited laboratories. If your laboratory chooses to use the symbol in its advertising the laboratory's accreditation, you must complete and return the AIHA-LAP,LLC license agreement to a Laboratory Accreditation Specialist. Once submitted,an electronic copy of the accreditation symbol will be sent to you.Please inform us if your laboratory does not wish to use the symbol in advertising. Laboratory accreditation shall be maintained by continued compliance with IHLAP,ELLAP and EMLAP requirements (see Policy Modules 2B, 2C, 2D, and 6), which includes proficient participation in AIHA-LAP,LLC approved proficiency testing, demonstration of competency,or round robin program as indicated on the AIHA-LAP "Approved PT and Round Robin"webpage,its associated Scope/PT table,and as required in Policy Module 6,for all Fields of Testing(FoTs)for which the laboratory is accredited. An accredited laboratory that wishes to expand into a new FoT must submit an updated accreditation application to AIHA-LAP,LLC for review by the AAB. Any changes in ownership,laboratory location,personnel,FoTs/Methods,or significant procedural changes shall be reported to AIHA-LAP,LLC in writing within twenty(20)business days of the change. The accreditation certificate is the property of AIHA-LAP,LLC and must be returned to us should your laboratory withdraw or be removed from the IHLAP,ELLAP and EMLAP. Again,congratulations. If you have any questions,please contact Lauren Schnack,Laboratory Accreditation Specialist,at(703)846-0716. Sincerely, U. Cheryl O.Morton Managing Director AIHA Laboratory Accreditation Programs,LLC AIHA Laboratory Accreditation Programs, LLC 3141 Fairview Park Drive, Suite 777, Falls Church,VA 22042 USA main +1 703-846-0736 fax +1 703-207-8558 *Twitter:@4IHA_LAP LLC R3 05/05/2015 Page 1 of 1 i U N cz o co Ucz oc oc oc U U O O O O �•� O � N ,ct O Ste, O I� N in in in in in p U N N N N N U °° Q 2 � wwwww CZ 00000 uca Q 4.1 Iz • ti CSU -cot a ¢ a O cz N0 N Q� CV .cn > > > El El ons cz NCZ ti O ll' Ln O ~ bn U v� O i . A I H A Laboratory Accreditation Programs, LLC AIHA Laboratory Accreditation Programs, LLC SCOPE OF ACCREDITATION EMSL Analytical, Inc. Laboratory ID: 100194 200 Route 130 North, Cinnaminson,NJ 08077 Issue Date:08/31/2016 The laboratory is approved for those specific field(s)of testing/methods listed in the table below. Clients are urged to verify the laboratory's current accreditation status for the particular field(s)of testing/Methods, since these can change due to proficiency status, suspension and/or withdrawal of accreditation. Industrial Hygiene Laboratory Accreditation Program (IHLAP) Initial Accreditation Date: 02/01/1989 Field of Testing (FoT) Technology Published Reference Method Description IHLAP Scope or Analyte (Fors cover all relevant sub-type/ Method/Title of In- Category 1H matrices) Detector house Method (for internal methods only) NIOSH 1003 Modified NIOSH 1005 NIOSH 1400 Modified GC/FID NIOSH 1500 Modified NIOSH 1501 Modified Gas Chromatography NIOSH 1550 Modified NIOSH 1603 Modified NIOSH 2000 Modified NIOSH 5502 Modified GC/ECD NIOSH 5503 Modified Chromatography NIOSH 5510 Modified Core OSHA 1010 Modified GUMS GUMS EPA TO-15 Gas Chromatography NIOSH 1501 Modified (Diffusive Samplers) NIOSH 6004 Modified NIOSH 6011 Ion Chromatography(IC) NIOSH 7903 OSHA ID-165SG OSHA ID-214 OSHA ID-215 Modified Liquid Chromatography HPLC/FL NIOSH 2016 Modified HPLC/UV NIOSH 5506 Modified NIOSH 6009 Modified Spectrometry Core Atomic Absorption CVAA OSHA ID-140 Modified OSHA ID-145 Effective: 04/10/2015 100194_Scope_IHLAP_2016_08_31 Page I of 2 l ANA 01ILaboratory Accreditation Programs, LLC Field of Testing (FoT) Technology Published Reference Method Description IHLAP Scope or Analyte (Fors cover all relevant sub-type/ Method/Title of In- Category 1H matrices) Detector house Method (for internal methods only) FAA NIOSH 7082 Atomic Absorption GFAA NIOSH 7105 Inductively-Coupled ICP/MS NIOSH 7300 Modified Spectrometry Core Plasma ICP/AES NIOSH 7300 Modified X-ray Diffraction(XRD) NIOSH 7500 Modified OSHA ID-142 Modified UV/VIS (Colorimetric) NIOSH 6010 Modified Polarized Light EPA 600/R-93/116 Microscopy(PLM) Phase Contrast NIOSH 7400 Asbestos/Fiber Microscopy(PCM) Microscopy Core EPA AHERA Method(40 Transmission Electron EPA AHERA-40 CFR CFR 763, Subpart E, Microscopy(TEM) Part 763 Appendix A,Mandatory Method NIOSH 0500 Gravimetric NIOSH 0600 Miscellaneous Core NIOSH 5524 Thermo-optical Analysis NIOSH 5040 (TOA) Inductively-Coupled NIOSH 7300 Beryllium Testing Plasma ICP/MS NIOSH 7303 A complete listing of currently accredited Industrial Hygiene laboratories is available on the AIHA-LAP,LLC website at: hlt2://www.aihaaccreditedlabs.org Effective: 04/10/2015 100194_Scope_IHLAP_2016_08_31 Page 2 of 2 ANA Laboratory Accreditation Programs, LLC AIHA Laboratory Accreditation Programs, LLC SCOPE OF ACCREDITATION EMSL Analytical, Inc. Laboratory 1D: 100194 200 Route 130 North, Cinnaminson,NJ 08077 Issue Date: 08/31/2016 The laboratory is approved for those specific field(s)of testing/methods listed in the table below. Clients are urged to verify the laboratory's current accreditation status for the particular field(s)of testing/Methods, since these can change due to proficiency status, suspension and/or withdrawal of accreditation. The EPA recognizes the AIHA-LAP,LLC ELLAP program as meeting the requirements of the National Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program(NLLAP)established under Title X of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 and includes paint, soil and dust wipe analysis. Air analysis is not included as part of the NLLAP. Environmental Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELLAP) Initial Accreditation Date: 01/18/1995 Field of Testing (FoT) Technology sub-type/ Method Method Description Detector (for internal methods only) Paint EPA SW-846 3050B EPA SW-846 7000B Soil EPA SW-846 3050B EPA SW-846 7000B Settled Dust by Wipe EPA SW-846 3050B EPA SW-846 7000B Airborne Dust NIOSH 7082 Composited Wipes EPA SW-846 3050B EPA SW-846 7000B A complete listing of currently accredited Environmental Lead laboratories is available on the AIHA-LAP, LLC website at: hU://www.aihaaccreditedlabs.org Effective: 05/04/2015 100194_Scope_ELLAP_2016_08_31 Page 1 of 1 *,A AIHA Laboratory Accreditation Programs, LLC AIHA Laboratory Accreditation Programs, LLC SCOPE OF ACCREDITATION EMSL Analytical, Inc. Laboratory 1D: 100194 200 Route 130 North, Cinnaminson,NJ 08077 Issue Date: 08/31/2016 The laboratory is approved for those specific field(s)of testing/methods listed in the table below. Clients are urged to verify the laboratory's current accreditation status for the particular field(s)of testing/Methods, since these can change due to proficiency status, suspension and/or withdrawal of accreditation. Environmental Microbiology Laboratory Accreditation Program (EMLAP) Initial Accreditation Date: 09/01/2002 EMLAP Category Field(ofoTesting Method Method Description (for internal methods only) Air-Culturable M005 Detection and Enumeration of Culturable Fungi from Environmental Samples Bulk-Culturable M005 Detection and Enumeration of Culturable Fungi from Environmental Samples Surface-Culturable M005 Detection and Enumeration of Culturable Fungi from Environmental Samples Standard Operating Procedure for the Analysis of Airborne Fungal Spores, Air-Direct 05-TP-003.7 Hyphal Fragments,Pollen,Insect Examination Fragments, Skin Fragments and Fibrous Fungal Particulate by Optical Microscopy of Spore Trap Samples Standard Operating Procedure for the Bulk-Direct Microscopic Examination of Fungal Examination M041 Spores,Fungal Structures,Hyphae,Pollen, Insect Fragments,and Fibrous Material from Surface Samples Standard Operating Procedure for the Surface-Direct Microscopic Examination of Fungal Examination M041 Spores,Fungal Structures,Hyphae,Pollen, Insect Fragments,and Fibrous Material from Surface Samples Air-Culturable M009 Detection and Enumeration of Culturable Bacteria from Environmental Samples Bulk-Culturable M009 Detection and Enumeration of Culturable Bacterial Bacteria from Environmental Samples Detection and Enumeration of Culturable Surface-Culturable M009 Bacteria from Environmental Samples Effective: 03/12/2013 100194_Scope_EMLAP_2016_08_31 Page 1 of 2 AI HA 01"Laboratory Accreditation Programs, LLC EMLAP Category Field of Testing Method Method Description (FoT) (for internal methods only) Recovery of Legionella from the Bacterial Legionella 05-TP-002 Environment Using the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's Culture Method A complete listing of currently accredited Environmental Microbiology laboratories is available on the AlHA-LAP, LLC website at: http://www.aihaaccreditedlabs.org Effective: 03/12/2013 100194_Scope_EMLAP_2016_08_31 Page 2 of 2 i U cz N U O 0\0 O O cz i O � O O U c0 c0 c0 U O O O t ,� ISI U p) � •��..'� •��..'� •��..'� CC � W N a" i+ J yU Ucz o 0 0 0 o U U Q � Eca -E ons as ' cq op o U U U U U o o U ACZ C o o U cz � CZ U00 Q `�j � q V1 _CG IN O CA � W �� zWU0 U xzz a a Ct �. � .0 � zz 0 -cot > > Oa 00 o m a wCZ oa . El El CZ bA U v'1 O i *,/ AI HA 411'Laboratory Accreditation Programs, LLC AIHA Laboratory Accreditation Programs, LLC SCOPE OF ACCREDITATION LA Testing Huntington Beach Laboratory ID: 101650 5431 Industrial Drive,Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Issue Date: 08/10/2016 The laboratory is approved for those specific field(s)of testing/methods listed in the table below. Clients are urged to verify the laboratory's current accreditation status for the particular field(s)of testing/Methods, since these can change due to proficiency status, suspension and/or withdrawal of accreditation. Industrial Hygiene Laboratory Accreditation Program (IHLAP) Initial Accreditation Date: 08/01/1981 Field of Testing (FoT) Technology Published Reference Method Description IHLAP Scope or Analyte (Fors cover all relevant sub-type/ Method/Title of In- Category 1H matrices) Detector house Method (for internal methods only) NIOSH 1003 Modified NIOSH 1005 NIOSH 1007 NIOSH 1400 Modified NIOSH 1500 Gas Chromatography GC/FID NIOSH 1501 NIOSH 1550 NIOSH 2000 Modified NIOSH 2546 OSHA 07 OSHA 91 Chromatography Core Gas Chromatography (Diffusive Samplers) NIOSH 1501 NIOSH 6004 NIOSH 6011 NIOSH 6013 NIOSH 6016 Ion Chromatography(IC) NIOSH 7903 OSHA 1008 OSHA ID-113 OSHA ID-165SG OSHA ID-188 OSHA ID-214 Effective: 04/10/2015 101650_Scope_IHLAP(Facility Move)_2016_08_10 Page I of 2 AIHA Laboratory Accreditation Programs, LLC Field of Testing (FoT) Technology Published Reference Method Description IHLAP Scope or Analyte (Fors cover all relevant sub-type/ Method/Title of In- Category 1H matrices) Detector house Method (for internal methods only) NIOSH 2016 NIOSH 2532 NIOSH 5042 Modified NIOSH 5506 Modified Chromatography Liquid Chromatography HPLC/UV OSHA 1007 Core OSHA 42 OSHA 47 OSHA 58 Modified OSHA 64 Atomic Absorption CVAA NIOSH 6009 Modified Inductively-Coupled ICP/AES NIOSH 7300 Modified Plasma NIOSH 7303 Spectrometry Core NIOSH 6010 UV/VIS (Colorimetric) NIOSH 6014 NIOSH 7600 Asbestos/Fiber Phase Contrast NIOSH 7400 Microscopy Core Microscopy(PCM) NIOSH 0500 Miscellaneous Core Gravimetric NIOSH 0600 NIOSH 5524 Beryllium Testing Inductively-Coupled ICP/AES NIOSH 7300 Plasma A complete listing of currently accredited Industrial Hygiene laboratories is available on the AIHA-LAP,LLC website at: hU://www.aihaaccreditedlabs.org Effective: 04/10/2015 101650_Scope_IHLAP(Facility Move)_2016_08_10 Page 2 of 2 ANA Laboratory Accreditation Programs, LLC AIHA Laboratory Accreditation Programs, LLC SCOPE OF ACCREDITATION LA Testing Huntington Beach Laboratory ID: 101650 5431 Industrial Drive,Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Issue Date:08/10/2016 The laboratory is approved for those specific field(s)of testing/methods listed in the table below. Clients are urged to verify the laboratory's current accreditation status for the particular field(s)of testing/Methods, since these can change due to proficiency status, suspension and/or withdrawal of accreditation. The EPA recognizes the AIHA-LAP,LLC ELLAP program as meeting the requirements of the National Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program(NLLAP)established under Title X of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 and includes paint, soil and dust wipe analysis. Air analysis is not included as part of the NLLAP. Environmental Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELLAP) Initial Accreditation Date: 8/23/1994 Field of Testing (FoT) Technology sub-type/ Method Method Description Detector (for internal methods only) Paint EPA SW-846 3050B EPA SW-846 7000B Soil EPA SW-846 3050B EPA SW-846 7000B EPA SW-846 3050B Settled Dust by Wipe EPA SW-846 7000B Airborne Dust NIOSH 7082 A complete listing of currently accredited Environmental Lead laboratories is available on the AIHA-LAP, LLC website at: hU://www.aihaaccreditedlabs.org Effective: 05/04/2015 101650_Scope_ELLAP(Facility Move)_2016_08_10 Page 1 of 1 AI HA itaboratory Accreditation Programs, LLC AIHA Laboratory Accreditation Programs, LLC SCOPE OF ACCREDITATION LA Testing Huntington Beach Laboratory ID: 101650 5431 Industrial Drive,Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Issue Date:08/10/2016 The laboratory is approved for those specific field(s)of testing/methods listed in the table below. Clients are urged to verify the laboratory's current accreditation status for the particular field(s)of testing/Methods, since these can change due to proficiency status, suspension and/or withdrawal of accreditation. Environmental Microbiology Laboratory Accreditation Program (EMLAP) Initial Accreditation Date: 03/01/2004 EMLAP Category Field(ofoTesting Method Method Description (for internal methods only) Air-Culturable M005 Detection and Enumeration of Culturable Fungi From Environmental Samples Bulk-Culturable M005 Detection and Enumeration of Culturable Fungi From Environmental Samples Surface-Culturable M005 Detection and Enumeration of Culturable Fungi From Environmental Samples Standard Operating Procedure for the Analysis of Airborne Fungal Spores, Air-Direct Hyphal Fragments,Pollen,Insect Examination OS-TP-003.7 Fragments, Skin Fragments and Fibrous Particulate by Optical Microscopy of Spore Fungal Trap Samples Standard Operating Procedure for the Microscopic Examination of Fungal Bulk-Direct M041 Spores,Fungal Structures,Hyphae,Pollen, Examination Insect Fragments, and Fibrous Material from Surface Samples Standard Operating Procedure for the Microscopic Examination of Fungal Surface-Direct M041 Spores,Fungal Structures,Hyphae,Pollen, Examination Insect Fragments, and Fibrous Material from Surface Samples A complete listing of currently accredited Environmental Microbiology laboratories is available on the AIHA-LAP, LLC website at: http://www.aihaaccreditedlabs.org Effective: 03/12/2013 101650_Scope_EMLAP(Facility Move)_2016_08_10 Page 1 of 1 Conditions Assessment and Reuse Study Tustin Hangar No.2 Volume ll, Appendices Tustin, California /�►� tNGiz., o I SEAROCK STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (COST ESTIMATING) Documents Included Conceptual Budget — Maintenance Recommendations — October 17, 2016 Preliminary Conceptual Budget —July 2, 2015 Final Report Page & Turnbull September 2017 Conditions Assessment and Reuse Study Tustin Hangar No.2 Volume ll, Appendices Tustin, California PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Final Report Page & Turnbull September 2017 Tustin Hangar No. 2 Marine Corps Air Station Tustin, CA Conceptual Budget October 17, 2016 PREPARED FOR: Page&Turnbull 417 South Hill Street, Suite 211 Los Angeles, CA 90013 (213) 221-1200 Searock Stafford CM, Inc. 690 E. Green St., Suite 201, Pasadena, CA 91 101 626.773.8122 SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT www.searockstaffordcm.com Tustin Hangar No. 2 October 17,2016 Table of Contents Page(s) AreaCalculations .......................................................................................................... 3 - 3 Existing Hangar Area Project Scoping Summary ................................................................................................. 4 - 4 Direct Construction by Summarized Item Level Markups and Contingency Total Construction Add Alternates Inclusive of Markups and Contingency XY Summary ................................................................................................................ 5 - 5 Direct Construction by System Components by Tier/Option Markups,Contingency and Escalation by Tier/Option Total Construction by Tier/Option Detailed Breakdown - Systems ........................................................................................... 6 - 9 Direct Construction Quantities and Unit Costs Notable Quantities .............................................................................................. 10 - 11 Lineal feet and count quantites of trusses, lumber and connections SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 2of11 Austin Hangar No. 2 October 17, 2016 mmmlilliff� Area • Description Existing Hangar BUILDING Office Area - Sheds 61,000 Non-Office Area 240,574 Sub-Total: 301,574 SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 3 of I I Tustin Hangar No. 2 October 17,2016 VP Project Scoping LDG.AREA(SF) 301,574 TI Description Cost($) $/SF GR General Requirements 1,143,400 3.79 I-TI Concrete at Door Towers-Spall removal and treat steel 25,000 0.08 2a-T I Hangar Door Rails and Box Beam-East and West 672,600 2.23 2b-TI Hangar Door Operability-East and West 150,000 0.50 Trusses-Inspect blocking,repair loose blocking,repair fully split 3-T I 2,715,900 9.01 members,replace cut x-bracing Interior Steel Stairs and Catwalk-Remove 2 stairs,wood repair 4-T I 146,300 0.49 and strengthening 5-T I Exterior Shell-remove fall hazards 25,000 0.08 Exterior Sheds-new egress openings/retrofit existing openings. 8-T I 252,500 0.84 Scope still being defined 9-TI Fire 131,900 0.44 10-TI Interior-Remove later additions-(2)tan buildings only 20,000 0.07 1 I-TI Miscellaneous-Heavy Gauge Metal Plates&Hardware 45,200 0.15 12-TI Site-Accessible parking 45,000 0.15 13-TI Other COT Discussed Items - - u - GENERAL CONDITIONS 429,800 1.43 INSURANCE,TAXES&BONDS 122,500 0.41 FEE 296,300 0.98 CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY 20% 1,244,300 4.13 ESCALATION 3% 224,000 0.74 Tier I 25.M Tier 2 Alternates,with Markups, Contingency& Escalation I-T2 Concrete Repair at Door Towers 62,500 0.21 2c-T2 Hangar Door Cladding,Finishes and waterproofing 954,100 3.16 3-T2 Trusses-Repair split member ends 147,300 0.49 3-T2.1 Trusses-Repair split gusset plates 946,400 3.14 5-T2 Exterior Shell 289,200 0.96 6-T2 Monitor Roof 701,600 2.33 7-T2.1 Skylights-Mitigate Fall Hazards/Minor Patching 82,300 0.27 8-T2 Exterior Sheds 46,200 0.15 11-T2 Miscellaneous 148,900 0.49 Tier 2 3,378,500 $ 11.20 Optional Lower Priority,with Markups, Contingency& Escalation 6-02 Monitor Roof-Replace fire hose cabinets 10,700 0.04 7-02 Skylights-Replace 3,002,500 9.96 otal Optional Lower Priority Construction: SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 4of11 Tustin Hangar No. 2 October 17,2016 Construction Area: 301,574 T2 CSI DESCRIPTION Tier I $/SF Tier 2 $ISF Optional $/SF GENERAL WORK ITEMS 010000 General Requirements 1,143,400 3.79 INC.BELOW N/A INC.BELOW N/A DEMO AND ABATEMENT 024000 Demolition 81,000 0.27 026000 Abatement 1,297,800 4.30 - - CONCRETE 030000 Concrete 178,000 0.59 38,000 0.13 STRUCTURAL STEEL&MISC.METAL 051000 Structural Steel 560,500 1.86 - - 055000 Miscellaneous Metal 45,200 0.15 130,500 0.43 ROUGH CARPENTRY 061000 Rough Carpentry 1,532,400 5.08 796,800 2.64 EXTERIOR ENCLOSURE 071000 Waterproofing - - 136,500 0.45 075000 Membrane Roofing&Fagade Treatment 11,000 0.04 076000 Flashing and Sheet Metal 316,800 1.05 085000 Windows 36,300 0.12 - - 086000 Skylights - - 50,000 0.17 1,824,200 6.05 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 081000 Doors and Frames 252,500 0.84 - - - - 083000 Specialty Doors and Frames 150,000 7,500 FINISHES 099000 Painting and Coating - - 529,400 1.76 - - FIRE SUPPRESSION 210000 Fire Suppression&Detection 131,900 0.44 - - 6,500 0.02 Sub-Total Direct Costs 5,372,700 17.82 2,052,800 6.81 1,830,700 6.07 General Requirements INC.ABOVE N/A 307,900 1.02 274,600 0.91 General Conditions 8.0% 429,800 1.43 188,900 0.63 168,400 0.56 Insurance 1.0% 58,000 0.19 25,500 0.08 22,700 0.08 Taxes&Bonds 1.1% 64,500 0.21 28,300 0.09 25,300 0.08 Fee 5.0% 296,300 0.98 130,200 0.43 116,100 0.38 Sub-Total Construction Costs 6,221,300 20.63 2,733,600 9.06 2,437,800 8.08 Contingency 20% 1,244,300 4.13 546,700 1.81 487,600 1.62 Escalation to Mid-Point of Construction(9 months) 3.0% 224,000 0.74 98,400 0.33 87,800 0.29 Total Construction Costs 7,689,600 25.50 3,378,700 11.20 3,013,200 9.99 SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 5of11 Tustin Hangar No. 2 October 17,2016 Detailed Breakdown Systems — ConstructionCosts CSI Description Quantity Unit Rate($) Total($) GENERAL WORK ITEMS 010000 General Requirements Tier I General Site&Project Clean-Up-40 Hours Per Week 6 MOS $ 11,258.00 $ 67,548 Final Cleaning I ALLOW $ 35,000.00 $ 35,000 Safety Labor 6 MONTHS $ 5,629.00 $ 33,774 Safety Supplies 6 MONTHS $ 2,000.00 $ 12,000 General Debris Dumpsters-Average 2 Per Month 12 EA $ 750.00 $ 9,000 Dust Control 6 MONTHS $ 3,750.00 $ 22,500 Construction Signage I ALLOW $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500 Street Cleaning 6 MONTHS $ 2,000.00 $ 12,000 Temp Power 301,574 SF $ 0.30 $ 90,472 Crane,Gradall,Scissor Lift&Material Handling Equipment Rentals 6 MOS $ 15,000.00 $ 90,000 Telescopic Boom Lifts-Assumes Purchase Genie S-45-45'Platform Height(Assume 2 men per lift) - EA $ 93,000.00 $ - Genie S-80X-80'Platform Height(Assume 2 men per lift) - EA $ 167,400.00 $ - Genie SX-180-180'Platform Height(Assume 2 men per lift) I EA $ 465,000.00 $ 465,000 Lift Maintenance&Service EXCLUDED-OWNER'S SOFT COST $ - Safety Training&Safety Inspections 6 MOS $ 2,000.00 $ 12,000 Insurance EXCLUDED-OWNER'S SOFT COST $ - Scaffold at Exterior of Doors EXCLUDED-USE BOOM LIFT $ Scaffold at Towers&Box Beams EXCLUDED-USE BOOM LIFT $ Swing Stages-Spider Staging Quote Swing Stages for Exterior Improvements-4 Total @ 50 ft each- EXCLUDED $ - Rental Only Move&Re-Set Stages EXCLUDED $ Temporary Tie-Off Structure&Cable System EXCLUDED $ Man lift-Rental EXCLUDED $ Man lift-Operator EXCLUDED $ - Allowance for Training&OnGoing Safety for"Difficult Access Crew" 6 MOS $ 20,000.00 $ 120,000 Unforeseen Site Logistics 20% PREMIUM $ 852,794.20 $ 170,559 DEMO AND ABATEMENT 024000 Demolition Tier I Remove Misc Fall Hazards(2X hose sheds,rail with lights,temp roof, $ - misc.) Labor 160 HRS $ 75.00 $ 12,000 Debris Chute I ALLOW $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000 Disposal I ALLOW $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000 Tier I Remove Interior Steel Stairs(2 Total) Labor(5 Men,5 days each) 400 HRS $ 65.00 $ 26,000 Equipment 10 DAYS $ 1,000.00 $ 10,000 Demo Interiors additions I ALLOW $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000 026000 Abatement Tier I-Stabilization&Interior Use Spot Abatement-20%of Members 3,244 EA $ 400.00 $ 1,297,760 CONCRETE 030000 Concrete Tier I Disabled Access Parking,Path of Travel,Accessible Entry I ALLOW $ 45,000.00 $ 45,000 SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 6of11 Tustin Hangar No. 2 October 17,2016 Detailed Breakdown Systems — Construction • CSI Description Quantity Unit Rate($) Total($) Tier I-Stabilization&Interior Use Knock off Loose Concrete on Door Towers Allowance of 100 Locations per side 200 EA $ 125.00 $ 25,000 Allow for Concrete rework at Hangar Door Rail Repairs 2,488 SF $ 8.50 $ 21,148 Allow for Foundation Strengthening at Hangar Door Rails 204 CY $ 425.00 $ 86,889 Tier 2-Stabilization&Interior Use Additions Remove and Patch/Repair Loose Concrete on Door Towers Allowance of 100 Locations per side 200 EA $ 190.00 $ 38,000 STRUCTURAL STEEL&MISC.METAL 051000 Structural Steel Tier I-Stabilization&Interior Use Strengthen Truss Supports for(2)Steel Stairs 10 LOCATIONS Labor 320 HRS $ 75.00 $ 24,000 Steel @ 12 lbs/ft. 1.20 TONS $ 2,500.00 $ 3,000 Enhanced Connections at Truss 20 EA $ 1,450.00 $ 29,000 Refurbish Door Rails Jack Up and Temp Support Labor 768 HRS $ 75.00 $ 57,600 Material I LS $ 11,520.00 $ 11,520 Repair/Replace Door Bottom Rails&Rollers/Roller Frame&Install 1,244 LF $ 350.00 $ 435,400 New Clips for Stabilization 055000 Miscellaneous Metal Tier I Misc.Metal Allowance 301,574 SF $ 0.15 $ 45,236 Tier 2-Stabilization&Interior Use Misc.Metal Allowance 301,574 SF $ 0.30 $ 90,472 Tier 2-Stabilization&Interior Use Repair/Modify stairs from Roof Monitor to Box Beam 32 RISERS $ 1,250.00 $ 40,000 ROUGH CARPENTRY 061000 Rough Carpentry Tier I-Stabilization&Interior Use Eliminate Access to Catwalks and Stair to Box Beams Barricades 5 EA Labor-2 Men,8 Hrs.per Barricade 80 HRS $ 75.00 $ 6,000 Material I ALLOW $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000 Replace split members at removed steel stair locations 25 EA Labor-2 Men,8 Hrs.per member 400 HRS $ 75.00 $ 30,000 Lumber 500 LF $ 5.00 $ 2,500 End Connections-Hardware 50 EA $ 275.00 $ 13,750 Repair split members in truss 50 EA Labor-2 men 8 hours per member 800 HRS $ 75.00 $ 60,000 Sister new Member-Sandwich Existing-Material 2,000 LF $ 5.00 $ 10,000 End Connections-Hardware 100 EA $ 275.00 $ 27,500 Tier 2-Stabilization&Interior Use Replace water damaged members and decking at roof peak 10%Allowance @ Roof Monitor-(Includes Remove/Replace Panels) 1,520 SF $ 25.00 $ 38,000 10%Allowance @ Sloped Roof-(Includes Remove/Replace Panels) 3,770 SF $ 25.00 $ 94,250 Tier I-Stabilization&Interior Use SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 7of11 Tustin Hangar No. 2 October 17,2016 Detailed Breakdown Systems - Construction • CSI Description Quantity Unit Rate($) Total($) Replace Cut X-Braces in Podium and at 2 Bridging Locations 10 LOCATIONS Labor-2 Men,16 Hrs.per location 320 HRS $ 75.00 $ 24,000 Lumber 460 LF $ 5.00 $ 2,300 End Connections-Hardware 40 EA $ 275.00 $ 11,000 Tier 2-Stabilization&Interior Use Repair Split Gussett Connections 500 LOCATIONS Labor-2 Men,4 Hrs.per location 4,000 HRS $ 75.00 $ 300,000 Lumber EXCLUDED $ - End Connections-Hardware 1,000 EA $ 275.00 $ 275,000 Tier I-Stabilization&Interior Use Inspect Blocking in Existing Truss&Repair Loose Sections Labor Allowance-10 Men 3 Months 5,190 HRS $ 75.00 $ 389,250 Lumber Allowance(10%) 23,830 LF $ 5.00 $ 119,150 Hardware Allowance 357 PCS $ 275.00 $ 98,299 Tier 2-Stabilization&Interior Use Repair end split members 1,000 EA Labor 500 HRS $ 75.00 $ 37,500 Lumber NONE REPAIR IN PLACE $ - Hardware-MiTyCon Screws 8,000 EA $ 6.50 $ 52,000 Tier I-Stabilization&Interior Use Material Stocking&Handling-Labor-I Man 6 Mos 1,040 HRS $ 75.00 $ 78,000 Inefficiency Factor-Access/Scaffolding/Tie-Off of Workers-50% 6,782 HRS $ 75.00 $ 508,663 Inefficient Trade Specific Equipment,Trucks,Small Tools,Protection,Etc. 6 MOS $ 15,000.00 $ 90,000 Box Beam above Doors Repair 2 EA $ 30,000.00 $ 60,000 EXTERIOR ENCLOSURE 071000 Waterproofing Tier 2-Stabilization&Interior Use Roof Monitor Repair Remove Existing SPUF Roof 15,166 SF $ 2.50 $ 37,915 Remove/Replace Plywood IN FRAMING $ - New Single Ply Membrane Roof 15,166 SF $ 6.50 $ 98,579 075000 Membrane Roofing&Fa;ade Treatment Tier 2-Stabilization&Interior Use Clean&Patch Cement Panels adjacent to doors/conc.tower each end 1,000 SF $ 11.00 $ 11,000 076000 Flashing and Sheet Metal Tier 2-Stabilization&Interior Use Flashing and Sheet Metal @ Roof Monitor 2,000 LF $ 75.00 $ 150,000 Misc.Flashing Allowance @ Vertical/Horizontal Interfaces&Openings 301,574 SF $ 0.45 $ 135,708 Tier 2-Stabilization&Interior Use Additions Hangar Door Neoprene Weather stripping 1,888 LF $ 12.50 $ 23,600 Tier 2-Rehabilitation Project Replace Roof Access Hatches 2 EA $ 3,750.00 $ 7,500 085000 Windows Tier 2-Stabilization&Interior Use Replace Broken Glass&Repair Caulking-Assume 20%of Total 48 EA $ 200.00 $ 9,600 SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 8of11 Tustin Hangar No. 2 October 17,2016 Detailed Breakdown Systems — ConstructionCosts CSI Description Quantity Unit Rate($) Total($) Tier 2-Stabilization&Interior Use Additions Repair Existing windows at hangar doors 3,560 SF $ 7.50 $ 26,700 086000 Skylights Tier 2 Mitigate Fall hazards,Patch holes under skylights @ selected areas I ALLOW $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000 Option-Stabilization&Interior Use Clear FRP Skylights-Corrugated 67,563 SF $ 27.00 $ 1,824,201 Skylights-Alternate for Polycarbonate Skylights REFER TO EXEC SUMMARY $ - INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 081000 Doors and Frames Tier I-Stabilization&Interior Use New Fire Exits-(Bank of 20 ft.of exit doors,7 on each side)-HM door 14 EA $ 3,750.00 $ 52,500 with Panic Hardware Existing Wall Demo,Framing,Drywall,Plaster for new exit doors 1,600 SF $ 125.00 $ 200,000 083000 Specialty Doors and Frames Tier I-Stabilization&Interior Use Repair Electronics(Motor)in East Door. Assumes I Motor per Leaf 6 EA $ 25,000.00 $ 150,000 Repair Electronics(Motor)in West Door EXCLUDED $ - Tier 2-Stabilization&Interior Use Additions Replace Door hangar Rails IN STEEL Roll up door allowance-Repair 5 EA $ 1,500.00 $ 7,500 FINISHES 099000 Painting and Coating Tier 2-Stabilization&Interior Use Light Micro abrasion on Hangar Doors-Exterior 56,786 SF $ 2.50 $ 141,965 Allowance for 20%Repair/Replace 11,400 SF $ 4.50 $ 51,300 Paint Exterior of Doors 56,786 SF $ 1.75 $ 99,376 Clean&Paint Interior of Doors 47,346 SF $ 5.00 $ 236,730 FIRE SUPPRESSION 210000 Fire Suppression&Detection Tier I-Stabilization&Interior Use Fire Suppression&Detection EXCLUDED $ - Preliminary Fire Alarm Plan dated 9/27/2016 Beam Detectors 34 EA $ 750.00 $ 25,500 Wall Mounted Strobes 40 EA $ 150.00 $ 6,000 Wall Mounted Projection Speaker 34 EA $ 350.00 $ 1 1,900 Manual Fire Alarm Box 15 EA $ 150.00 $ 2,250 Fire Alarm Panel I EA $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000 Remote Panels 3 EA $ 1,250.00 $ 3,750 Annunciator I EA $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500 Conduit,Wiring,Installation I ALLOW $ 75,000.00 $ 75,000 Option-Stabilization&Interior Use Additions Replace Fire Hose Cabinets 2 EA $ 3,250.00 $ 6,500 SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 9of11 Tustin Hangar No. 2 October 17,2016 NOTABLE QUANTITIES Description Quantity Unit Notes General Counts Truss Count Per Section 51 EA Bays 1,800 EA Interior Bay of Truss surrounded by Chords and H Brace Truss X-Braces Truss X-Brace Full Height 36 EA (18)per Side x 2 sides=(36)Sets Truss X-Brace Half Height 16 EA (9)per Side x 2 sides=(16)Sets Subtotal Truss X-Braces 52 EA Truss Connections Truss Connection(good) 2,244 EA Truss Connection(DCR<1.3) 357 EA Reconciled to remove connections accounted for via chord or member replacement Truss Connection(DCR>1.3) 459 EA Reconciled to remove connections accounted for via chord or member replacement Subtotal Truss Connections 3,060 EA Member Count Truss Chords 3,621 EA Truss Vertical/Diagonal Members 3,621 EA Truss X-Braces 1,680 EA Truss V-Braces 3,600 EA Truss H-Braces 1,850 EA Truss Purlins 1,850 EA Subtotal Member Count = 16,222 EA Chords(Top and Bottom) Truss Chords(good) 38,607 LF Truss Chords(DCR<1.3) 2,091 LF Deficient Truss Chords(DCR>1.3) 663 LF Deficient Subtotal Chords(Top and Bottom) 41,361 LF Members(Vertical and Diagonal) Truss Members(good) 45,390 LF Truss Members(DCR<1.3) 5,610 LF Deficient Truss Members(DCR>1.3) 6,018 LF Deficient Subtotal Members(Vertical and Diagonal) 57,018 LF Truss X-Braces X-Brace Lumber is 3"x8"Douglas Fir Truss X-Brace-8'H x 201 4,472 LF Truss X-Brace- I TH x 201 23,920 LF Truss X-Brace- I I'H x 201(Full Height Only) 3,312 LF Truss X-Brace- 10'H x 201(Full Height Only) 6,336 LF Subtotal Truss X-Braces 38,040 LF Truss V-Braces Truss V-Brace Members 27,900 LF Includes(2)members per V-Brace Subtotal Truss V-Braces 27,900 LF SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 10 of 11 Tustin Hangar No. 2 October 17,2016 NOTABLE QUANTITIES Description Quantity Unit Notes Truss H-Braces Truss H-Brace Members 37,000 LF Subtotal Truss H-Braces 37,000 LF Truss Purlins(same as H-Brace) Truss Purlins(same as H-Brace) 37,000 LF Subtotal Truss Purlins(same as H-Brace) 37,000 LF 238,319 LF SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 11 of 11 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Tustin Hangar No. 2 Marine Corps Air Station Tustin, CA Conceptual B • - July 2, 2015 PREPARED FOR: Page&Turnbull 417 South Hill Street, Sutie 211 Los Angeles, CA 90013 (213) 221-1200 Searock Stafford CM, Inc. 690 E. Green St., Suite 100, Pasadena, CA 91 101 626.773.8122 SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT www.searockstaffordcm.com Tustin Hangar No. 2 July 2,2015 Table of Contents Page(s) Narrative ..................................................................................................................... 3 - 4 Project Description Project Documents Scope of Work Exclusions AreaCalculations .......................................................................................................... 5 - 5 Existing Hangar Area New Buildings Area(Rennovation Option Only) Graphs ....................................................................................................................... 6 - 9 Systems Breakdown by Cost,Summarized by Project($M) Systems Breakdown by Cost,Broken out by Project($M) ExecutiveSummary ........................................................................................................ 10 - 10 Direct Construction by Summarized Building Systems by Project Markups,Contingency and Escalation by Project Total Construction by Project XY Summary ................................................................................................................ 11 - 12 Direct Construction by System Components by Project Markups,Contingency and Escalation by Project Total Construction by Project Detailed Breakdown - Systems .......................................................................................... 13 - 27 Direct Construction Quantities and Unit Costs Notable Quantities .............................................................................................. 28 - 29 Lineal feet and count quantites of trusses, lumber and connections SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 2 of 29 Tustin Hangar No. 2 July 2,20 15 Commentary PROJECT DESCRIPTION Interior and exterior stabilization, rehabilitation and renovation options for the existing Tustin Hangar No.2(Building 29)at the former Marine Corps Air Station in Tustin, CA. In the stabilization option (I a& I b),critical structural issues will be addressed to stabilize the existing structure. In the rehabilitation option(I a, I b,&2),the project will be renovated for limited reuse and occupancy. The rehabilitation option includes all of the work in the stabilization option. - In the renovation option (I a, I b,&3),the project will be renovated for comprehensive reuse and occupancy and new buildings constructed within the Hangar. The renovation option includes all of the work in the stabilization option. PROJECT DOCUMENTS 1. Existing Drawings for Tustin Hangar and similar Hangars provided by Page&Turnbull 2.Conceptual Drawings for Tustin Hangar provided by Page&Turnbull 3. Revised Structural Options dated 7/2/2015 submitted by Degenkolb to Page&Turnbull 4. Draft Visual Conditions Assessment dated 6/24 and 6/29 provided by Page&Turnbull 5. Draft Wood Investigation dated 3/8/2015 submitted by Anthony&Associates to Page&Turnbull SCOPE OF WORK GENERAL WORK ITEMS All Options-All necessary general requirements items, including boom lifts, swing staging and hoists/crane in order for the workers to access the trusses and the roof. Options 2/3 -Interior scaffolding to access truss members. DEMO AND ABATEMENT All Options-Demolition necessary for structural upgrades and an allowance for abatement of anticipated hazardous materials. CONCRETE All Options-Foundations required for structural upgrades. Option 2-Foundation required for structural upgrades. Option 3 -Foundations for structural steel towers, new buildings and concrete decks at new buildings. STRUCTURAL STEEL&MISC. METAL All Options-Structural steel strengthening of truss at interior steel stairs, hangar door rail replacement and an allowance for miscellaneous metal. Option 2-Structural steel required for truss strengthening. An allowance for miscellaneous metal. Option 3 -Structural steel required for truss strengthening, internal steel towers and new buildings. An allowance for miscellaneous metal and new elevators. ROUGH CARPENTRY All Options-Structural lumber required for truss strengthening. Option 2-Additional structural lumber required for truss deficiencies. EXTERIOR ENCLOSURE All Options-Repair of the roof monitor, sheet metal flashing,and replacing skylights with clear corrugated FRP. Option 2-Repair of exterior roof, reusing existing corroguated metal panels. Replace in kind of hangar door windows. Option 3 -Repair of exterior roof,with new aluminum panel skin. A storefront system at new openings and a polycarbonate exterior on the hangar doors. INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION All Options-New fire exits, repair of roll up doors and a new 2-hour separation in main hangar area. Repair/replacement of east door motors. Option 2-New doors and partitions at the sheds. Option 3-New storefront doors for additional occupancy,doors/frames at new buildings and doors/frames and partitions at the sheds. FINISHES SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 3 of 29 Tustin Hangar No. 2 July 2,20 15 Commentary All Options-Light micro-abrasion and paint at exterior of Hangar Doors and paint at interior of Hangar Doors. Option 2-Ceramic tile at shed bathrooms,acoustical ceiling and flooring at sheds, new layer of paint at hangar doors,and painting of interior. Option 3-Ceramic tile at shed bathrooms,acoustical ceiling and flooring at sheds, new layer of paint at hangar doors,and painting of interior. SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION Option 2-An allowance of$125 per SF for renovation of Helium Plant for use as a central plant. Option 3 -An allowance of$125 per SF for renovation of Helium Plant for use as visitor center and an allowance of$175 per SF to construct a 2nd building to house new central plant CONVEYING EQUIPMENT Option 3 -Elevators at each of the new buildings. FIRE SUPPRESSION All Options-Beam detectors and fire alarm panel and monitoring. Option 2-Fire sprinklers and alarms at the sheds. Option 3 -Fire sprinklers and alarms at the sheds and the new buildings. PLUMBING Option 2-An allowance for plumbing and new bathrooms at the sheds. Option 3 -An allowance for plumbing and new bathrooms at the sheds and the new buildings. HEATING,VENTILATING&AIR CONDITIONING (HVAC) All Options-Remove existing exhaust fans and replace with sheet metal. Option 2-Repair of louvered vents(wood),a central plant boiler and chiller,and heating/cooling at the sheds only. Option 3 -Repair of louvered vents(aluminum),a central plant boiler and chiller,and heating/cooling at the sheds new buildings. ELECTRICAL All Options-Electrical required to provide power for fire life and safety. Option 2-New electrical service and lighting, inclusive of sheds and main hangar. Option 3 -New electrical service and lighting, inclusive of sheds, main hangar and new building. UTILITIES All Options-An allowance to provide electrical service to the Hangar from the adjacent street. Option 2-An allowance to provide electrical,water,gas and sewer service to the Hangar from the adjacent street. Option 3-An allowance to provide electrical,water,gas and sewer service to the Hangar from the adjacent street. EXCLUSIONS I Soft costs&design costs 2 FF&E 3 Plan check and/or permit fees 4 Land,financing, legal,tax,or accounting costs 5 Site or landscape work other than connections to public utilities SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 4 of 29 Tustin Hangar No. 2 July 2,2015 Area Calculations Description Existing Hangar New Buildings BUILDING Office Area - Sheds 61,000 Non-Office Area 240,574 New Buildings I st floor 39,000 New Buildings 2nd floor 39,000 Sub-Total: 301,574 78,000 Total Conditioned Area(Sheds&New Buildings) 139,000 RwIr 10 SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 5 of 29 Tustin Hangar No. 2 July 2,2015 eakdown Graphic All Projects Total Cost($M) $- $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0 $30.0 $7.3 GENERAL WORK ITEMS $20.2 $20.2 $1.9 DEMO AND ABATEMENT I $4.5 $4.7 $0.1 CONCRETE $2.2 $6.3 $0.7 STRUCTURAL STEEL&MISC.METAL $5.0 $13.0 $5.8 ROUGH CARPENTRY 9.4 $6.5 $2.3 EXTERIOR ENCLOSURE $17.8 $26.0 $0.9 � INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION $2.1 $2.2 $0.5 FINISHES $1.8 $1. $- SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION $0. $0.8 CONVEYING EQUIPMENT $- $0.1 FIRE SUPPRESSION $0.5 $1.5 PLUMBING $1.0 $1.0 $0.0 HVAC $1.6 $3. ELECTRICAL $0.4 $3 $5.3 $0.2 UTILITIES $0.4 $0.4 $2.0 GENERAL CONDITIONS $7.0 9.4 $0.5 INSURANCE,TAXES&BONDS $1.6 $2.2 $0.9 FEE $3.2 4.2 $3. CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY $12.3 $16.5 I ■Stabilization ■Rehabilitation Renovations SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 6 of 29 Tustin Hangar No. 2 July 2,2015 ic by Project Stabilization Project Total Cost($M) $- $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0 $30.0 GENERAL WORK ITEMS $7.3 DEMO AND ABATEMENT $1.9 CONCRETE $0.1 STRUCTURAL STEEL&MISC.METAL $0.7 ROUGH CARPENTRY $5.8 EXTERIOR ENCLOSURE $2.3 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION $0.9 FINISHES $0.5 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION $- CONVEYING EQUIPMENT FIRE SUPPRESSION $0.1 PLUMBING $- HVAC $0.0 ELECTRICAL $0.4 UTILITIES $0.2 GENERAL CONDITIONS $2.0 INSURANCE,TAXES&BONDS $0.5 FEE $0.9 CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY $3. SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 7 of 29 Tustin Hangar No. 2 July 2,2015 raphic by Project Rehabilitation Project Total Cost($M) $- $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0 $30.0 GENERAL WORK ITEMS $20.2 DEMO AND ABATEMENT $4.5 CONCRETE $2.2 STRUCTURAL STEEL&MISC.METAL $5.0 ROUGH CARPENTRY 9.4 AL EXTERIOR ENCLOSURE $17.8 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION $2.1 FINISHES $1.8 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION $0.2 CONVEYING EQUIPMENT FIRE SUPPRESSION $0.5 PLUMBING $1.0 HVAC $1.6 ELECTRICAL $3 UTILITIES $0.4 GENERAL CONDITIONS $7.0 INSURANCE,TAXES&BONDS $1.6 FEE $3.2 CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY $12.3 SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 8 of 29 Tustin Hangar No. 2 July 2,2015 by • Renovation Project Total Cost($M) $- $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0 $30.0 GENERAL WORK ITEMS $20.2 DEMO AND ABATEMENT $4.7 CONCRETE $6.3 STRUCTURAL STEEL&MISC.METAL $ .0 ROUGH CARPENTRY $6.5 EXTERIOR ENCLOSURE $26.0 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION $2.2 FINISHES $1.7 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION CONVEYING EQUIPMENT 0 FIRE SUPPRESSION $1.5 PLUMBING $1.0 HVAC $3. ELECTRICAL $5.3 UTILITIES $0.4 GENERAL CONDITIONS $9.4 INSURANCE,TAXES&BONDS $2.2 FEE 4.2 CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY $16.5 SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 9 of 29 m N o° o° o° o° Q `� O I� O M — 10 N M N M N M M N M M O O 0 p M ul O ul O — — 0 0 — O N T O I� — M M Z p N F� M dI Z LL — N N N ON O, OD O OD OD N N N M O Lr! OD 0 7 N — IO I'% — — 7 OD 7 7 NN O I� Q m O O M — 'o r, N M M — r, Z N 7 N oD — — M V Q � Z 0 Z 0 F Z O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W O O QD W o n 6 M tV o W W tV W O, to to o O, Q c o: 0 'v O oD oD O, ul O lO M 7 w lo N M — w M O, oD I� 0 N ID N o, 7 o, — I� O, ul O ul N 7 v — N 7 J u1 — (� o v .o nP .o uS rJ — — — M vS _ O: 14 v 16 X — N — N W ER ER 0 0 0 o Q o 0 7 QD M M O, w M O, N O lO O ul O 0 N 7 N ul O� OD N — O O O — — M O N, — M M Z 7 Oo X N caZ O oD 7 oD oD �o N N ul N O, N Q m O LL O o� N ul O — o� ul I" N 7 — 7 M 7 7 O� F I� 7 N ' — O, I� ul O — M ui N — M ui O O Z QlO — — M �/1 — N — 7 Q F fPr Z J Q ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Q o n .o F o o o o o 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 o o o O W o M oD a W O. — vn w - o 0 o o O n r1 O Ln M o of — - OD v M_ O� — — O� —_M N 'o O, N 7 O, M �/1 — Q O� Il 0 O O — O, oD 'O O M O 'O M w 7 v N M lo 7 — Il N L — O, M w — w O, lO lO VO 7 N 7 O� K N — — M M N U — — M N X W ER ER ER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Q 0 O ul ul M ul ul O, O O M O O �O I� 7 I� M O Z NB O N N OD M — O O O O O — ��OO X m Z �/1 I� M 7 N w 7 lO 7 N lO ca O LL O N 7 N N �O - I� N O 7 N Q F 7 to O N O, N M — O O — O lO — M = Z N — Z 0 J m Al— L Q bol. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Q O 0 V) I N O 7 O� — M 7 " ' ' L ' O� I� QD O N N W O N a, 14 m lo N N O, — 7 N I� 7 M OD N O V ^ QD — �O N N O 7 O, ri U X o_ J O' Lam./ l.L J 0 O LL LL W M 0 Q w 0 Q w d H ++ 7 Z N p Z a F z O ■ OJO I ~ w 0 U U xc � z Z ,~J„ D CC w = v z C7 N U 0 = T O O d � N O Z `n ~ z H 0 Z `n m H J O (-9 LL w 0 d d LL Q U o_ N N vi w w w H w rn 7 H w U H w 2 d w m d d [/] N O Q JQ z 0 Z U w J 0 uP F- Z v~i Q F- 0 +� H H d Q U O Z d U Q U U O H m LL ^ N N C Z w 7 U d N U } Z U `n < Z d H Q Q '� Q d O U �} 0 U v C7 O Q = Q > N m U H H W N a Z Z U O V Z Z C Z F Z 7 H F n w Z w Q w Z N w Z U ed w w a w Q 0 w w 0 O X Z a O d > H w w 0 ,,, C X w O Q o o !� y U Q U `n d w z LL `n U LL o_ 2 w 7 C7 Z LL U w w z d z o_ Q pp 0 0 Q D Q IBJ] fl m N w O a, � N O 7 t0 .-I N W m t 1 00 O 7 W O0� NN� �"� W O M N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 I� In t0 C M M O In C t0 7 O O W O Y lri t0 N O Ma, In W .--I � N W •y uIn n .--I In t0 7 W t0 I� O M W N M 7 0 W M ,O M 7 .--I n In 10 � N W O O Q N t0 O ti pi M c a � o LL N 0 Q a i i i i i i i i i i i i i O a0+ Oi W V) O n N fdto 7 n M 0 7 O O F W � n O W 0, 1:In 7 In W O N LL N O W 10 O M .ti t0 O M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I� In t0 O M M n C C O W .-- O .--I V In ti N In 7 Q, 10 7 W O 7 WI� n In - O C M n t0 M n OC N tp M 7 O W �--� +--� � � N � a s o 0 0 �° LL O O O O O ti Q O O O O O O y O O O O O O C p i i t0 O Q M 7 N N ^ N - O Q ab+ � M N t0 O O t0 � N In 7 In M � n 7 LL pa O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O N W 7 In 7 .--i In O n t0 N O 7 O Q? 7 N O t0 a, a, a, t0 n a, W N In In M 4J ed i N In N In n .--I N W N .0 ti v ti • a � ab+ J c > Q E F E c • 0 w ir F c o U U U N v Z v N N F E w LL , a 0 o H " Z oa a m Z F E -_ w W d VV) d H e — W E t w d d E n 0 Y w L ami coac VI in '0 W n Oa. z 0 d v in Z LL 0 U d U U v bQ 0 3 `0 0 LU O E w Q U w 2 ao u 3 H 0 0 y LL ao " "' d J c Z E is W D i u U o�9 O 4A E r i o0 0' 0 u .� VI cp LO oyc9 LL Q Q Q a o F = Q > ; > Y O 0 a - w u o QL ZQ W C7 F D O Q V U U n E V d W > E LL w > n 0 n LL = U Q LL LL r W W W O m D F F Z C D 0 o U V)i Oa w ? u + Z T CC0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D U O �/1 10 O — �/1 — — �/1 10 7 �/1 10 — M N M �/1 10 Ol N n n OD OD OD OD 00 O, O, O, O, O, O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N Lu 0 V) u m N w rn W Co W Co .� � M .� O O .� N � O O O W 7 W O W n O O M r? N N N M 7 M tip O N N N M .~-I 0 N O O 14 .--I 7 W9. N N M 7 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O C 7 O t0 t0 N In N 7 7 N p N r% 00 O Y N O In 00 00 M I� V 10 �p n N u1 O .--I O N N to J Q• 00 0 M b .O 00 O 7 O W N N M w O M N O U O .--i p Q• > ti ti ni 7 Q• ni M �i X M O i M ip .ti w pi N ip C 0_ 1� 00 Q• N d' ~ 1� co O N W N O G N n n n Go ^ .--I O O O O M M M O OO O O O O 0 O ¢ O O a0+ c n rn rn m 000` O p 000 z 000 �yLM m i M N X N N LM w O w co N 10 vii vMi I: m 7 m o m LMn N O .--i M to O f7 O N N N M O O O O O O O O O O O O O p O O O O O O O O O O 0O O O O O O O O O In C .--I O t0 0 N .--I .--I GoW 0 M V N N N 10 t0 00 O � O N In--i 7 N CO N 'MD p tNo tiM 7On pJU 0N IW.�--I N ti ni '� vi �i O 00 X O s a Ln Ln w N N t0 7 10 OY � NN N co O O O O O O W G � Q• O O OO O O O O O O p O O O O O o rl.O N IYI O oo O O M p N O >= M O+m 00t0 lri t0 ti p t0 O M Ln N � Q ti ti w ti N n Go Go N ab+ � O NN tOO W N rn O O LL O N 'D O O N M 0 Ri Ri N 0 N Go Go Da O O O O O O O O O ¢ O O O C � � OO N p z O J ed m j n m 00 a Ln Ln N .O 00 ti O M w M M • - 00 N Y1 Y1 N N N N ab+ O N 0 0 0 0 0 O O O p ' 7 U m V m L V V c • U-) O N +'D U U V z V f6 T 2 a i Z F r aci y y a0 y N O Z o 0 o w o F c w a V a V ¢ V 6 U o F o -o m o Z o o 0 o Z 2 D p p w c c ¢ L LLP Z Z p N C7 C7 ° A /''y z c 76 LL {� bJD U)� OU Z a va (7 a U Q i LL °.- Q a w n > ] ` Z ° w w Q Z Q cn w w N i.� m a V 2 F w F < Q 2a. w'^ U U Z w F QU V] C D vai uU u a 2 w D +/ O N S ! - N O O O O O O O U ! T N O O O O O O O 10 O N N N N M Ln + Tustin Hangar No. 2 July 2,2015 Detailed Breakdown Systems - Construction Costs CSI Description Rate($) Total($) GENERAL WORK ITEMS 010000 General Requirements �StabilizatMnterior Use- General Site&Project Clean-Up-40 Hours Per Week 24 MOS $ 11,258.00 $ 270,192 Final Cleaning I ALLOW $ 35,000.00 $ 35,000 Safety Labor 22 MONTHS $ 5,629.00 $ 123,838 Safety Supplies 24 MONTHS $ 2,000.00 $ 48,000 General Debris Dumpsters-Average 2 Per Month 48 EA $ 750.00 $ 36,000 Dust Control 24 MONTHS $ 3,750.00 $ 90,000 Construction Signage I ALLOW $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500 Street Cleaning 24 MONTHS $ 2,000.00 $ 48,000 Temp Power 301,574 SF $ 0.30 $ 90,472 Crane,Gradall&Material Handling Equipment Rentals 24 MOS $ 25,000.00 $ 600,000 Telescopic Boom Lifts-Assumes Purchase Genie S-45-45'Platform Height(Assume 2 men per lift) 2 EA $ Fo 0 $ Genie S-80X-80'Platform Height(Assume 2 men per lift) 2 EA $ 167,400.00 $ 334,800 Genie SX-180-180'Platform Height(Assume 2 men per lift) 2 EA $ 465,000.00 $ 930,000 Lift Maintenance&Service 24 MOS $ 6,000.00 $ 144,000 Safety Training&Safety Inspections 24 MOS $ 10,000.00 $ 240,000 Insurance 24 MOS $ 9,000.00 $ 216,000 Scaffold at Exterior of Doors 48,000 SF $ 18.76 $ 900,480 Scaffold at Towers&Box Beams 44,000 SF $ 18.76 $ 825,440 Swing Stages-Spider Staging Quote Swing Stages for Exterior Improvements-4 Total @ 50 ft each- 12 MOS $ 50,000.00 $ 600,000 Rental Only Move&Re-Set Stages 10 MOVES $ 11,000.00 $ 110,000 Temporary Tie-Off Structure&Cable System 2,000 LF $ 125.00 $ 250,000 Man lift-Rental 24 MOS $ 7,000.00 $ 168,000 Man lift-Operator 24 MOS $ 12,975.00 $ 31 1,400 Unforeseen Site Logistics 10% PREMIUM $ 6,561,122.20 $ 656,112 General Site&Project Clean-Up-40 Hours Per Week IN OPT. la $ - Final Cleaning IN OPT. la $ - Safety Labor IN OPT. la $ Safety Supplies IN OPT. la $ - General Debris Dumpsters-Average 3 Per Month-Add I to OPT. 24 EA $ 750.00 $ 18,000 la Dust Control IN OPT. la $ - Construction Signage IN OPT. la $ - Street Cleaning IN OPT. la $ Temp Power IN OPT. la $ Crane,Gradall&Material Handling Equipment Rentals IN OPT. la $ - Scaffolding-California Access Scaffolding Quote Scaffold-Rental 728 DAYS $ 2,226.00 $ 1,620,528 Initial Setting of Scaffold 10,775 HRS $ 75.00 $ 808,125 Re-Setting 121,219 HRS $ 75.00 $ 9,091,406 Dismantle and haul-off 13,469 HRS $ 75.00 $ 1,010,156 Maintenance&safety checks 5,433 HRS $ 75.00 $ 407,438 Temporary Stair Towers IN ABOVE $ - Material Staging Platform IN ABOVE $ Scaffold at Exterior of Doors IN OPT. I a $ - Scaffold at Towers&Box Beams IN OPT. I a $ - SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 13 of 29 Tustin Hangar No. 2 July 2,2015 Detailed Breakdown Systems - Construction Costs CSI Description Quantity Unit Rate($) Total($) Swing Stages for Exterior Improvements-4 Total @ 50 ft each- IN OPT. I a $ - Rental Only Move&Re-Set Stages IN OPT. la $ Temporary Tie-Off Structure&Cable System IN OPT. I a $ - TemporaryStairTowers IN OPT. la $ - Material Staging Platform IN OPT. I a $ Scaffold Maintenance&Re Setting IN OPT. I a $ - Man lift-Rental IN OPT. la $ Man lift-Operator IN OPT. la $ Unforeseen Mitigation Measures&Site Logistics IN OPT. I a $ - Option 3-Renovation Projection General Site&Project Clean-Up-40 Hours Per Week IN OPT. la $ - Final Cleaning IN OPT. la $ - Safety Labor IN OPT. I a $ Safety Supplies IN OPT. I a $ General Debris Dumpsters-Average 3 Per Month-Add I to OPT. 24 EA $ 750.00 $ 18,000 1 Dust Control IN OPT. la $ - Construction Signage IN OPT. I a $ - Street Cleaning IN OPT. la $ Temp Power IN OPT. la $ Crane,Gradall&Material Handling Equipment Rentals IN OPT. la $ - Scaffoldi alifornia Access Scaffolding Quote Scaffold-Rental 728 DAYS $ 2,226.00 $ 1,620,528 Initial Setting of Scaffold 10,775 HRS $ 75.00 $ 808,125 Re-Setting 121,219 HRS $ 75.00 $ 9,091,406 Dismantle and haul-off 13,469 HRS $ 75.00 $ 1,010,156 Maintenance&safety checks 5,433 HRS $ 75.00 $ 407,438 Temporary Stair Towers IN ABOVE $ - Material Staging Platform IN ABOVE $ Scaffold at Exterior of Doors IN OPT. I a $ - Scaffold at Towers&Box Beams IN OPT. la $ - Swing Stages for Exterior Improvements-4 Total @ 50 ft each- IN OPT. I a $ - Rental Only Move&Re-Set Stages IN OPT. la $ Temporary Tie-Off Structure&Cable System IN OPT. la $ - TemporaryStairTowers IN OPT. la $ - Material Staging Platform IN OPT. la $ Scaffold Maintenance&Re Setting IN OPT. la $ - Man lift-Rental IN OPT. la $ Man lift-Operator IN OPT. la $ Unforeseen Site Logistics IN OPT. la $ - 015000 Temporary Facilities and Controls Option I a-Stabilization&Interior Use Temporary Toilets&Hand washing Stations 24 MONTHS $ 1,500.00 $ 36,000 Option 2-Rehabilitation Project Temporary Toilets&Hand washing Stations IN OPT. 1 a $ - Option 3-Renovation Projection Temporary Toilets&Hand washing Stations IN OPT. 1 a $ - SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 14 of 29 Tustin Hangar No. 2 July 2,2015 Detailed Breakdown Systems - Construction Costs CSI Description Rate($) Total($) DEMO AND ABATEMENT 024000 Demolition Option 1 a-Stabilization&Interior Use IRemove Interior Steel Stairs(2 Total) NOT IN OPT. 1 a General Building Demolition 301,574 SF $ 1.00 $ 301,574 Fa4ade(Metal Panels&Skylights) IN ROOFING&SKYLIGHTS Specialty or"Surgical Demo" $ - AIIow 15 Man Crew I Month 2,598 HRS $ 65.00 $ 168,870 Equipment 22 DAYS $ 2,400.00 $ 51,960 Debris Disposal(Assume 4"of debris per SF of Floor Area) 3,723 CY $ 18.75 $ 69,809 Option 2-Rehabilitation Project Remove Interior Steel Stairs(2 Total) Labor(5 Men,5 400 HRS $ 65.00 $ 26,000 Equipment 10 DAYS $ 1,000.00 $ 10,000 Demo Interiors"to be removed at future phase" I ALLOW $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000 Partial Demo of Interior Walls for low level steel bracing& I ALLOW $ 95,000.00 $ 95,000 Reconfiguration of Shed Services General Building Demolition IN OPT. I a $ - Specialty or"Surgical Demo"-Beyond Opt. I a $ - AIIow 5 Man Crew 2 Weeks 400 HRS $ 65.00 $ 26,000 Equipment 10 DAYS $ 2,400.00 $ 24,000 Debris Disposal Beyond Opt.I a 558 CY $ 18.75 $ 10,471 Option 3-Renovation Projection Remove Interior Steel Stairs(2 Total Labor(5 Men,5 days each) 400 HRS $ 65.00 $ 26,000 Equipment 10 DAYS $ 1,000.00 $ 10,000 Demo Interiors"to be removed at future phase" I ALLOW $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000 Demo all interiors I ALLOW $ 190,000.00 $ 190,000 Demo Interior Stairs to Catwalk IN OPT. I a $ - Wall Demo for Central Openings(15'Height) 8,235 SF $ 8.50 $ 69,998 General Building Demolition IN OPT. I a $ - Specialty or"Surgical Demo"-Beyond Opt. I a $ - AIIow 5 Man Crew 2 Weeks 400 HRS $ 65.00 $ 26,000 Equipment 10 DAYS $ 2,400.00 $ 24,000 Debris Disposal Beyond Opt.I a 558 CY $ 18.75 $ 10,471 026000 Abatement Option I a-Stabilization&Interior Use Spot Abatement-20%of Member 3,244 ET%l $ 400.00 $ 1,297,760 Option 2-Rehabilitation Project Abatement Allowance-In Addition to Opt I a 301,574 $ 8.00 $ 2,412,592 Option 3-Renovation Projection Abatement Allowance-In Addition 301,574 S.WM $ 8.00 $ 2,412,592 CONCRETE 030000 Concrete Option I a-Stabilization&Interior Use Knock off Loose Concrete on Door Towers Allowance of 100 Locations per side 200 EA $ 65.00 $ 13,000 Allow for Concrete rework at Hangar Door Rail Repairs 2,488 SF $ 8.50 $ 21,148 SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 15 of 29 Tustin Hangar No. 2 July 2,2015 Detailed Breakdown Systems - Construction Costs CSI Description date($) Total($) Ilow for Foundation Strengthening at Hangar Door Rails 204 CY $ 275.00 $ 56,222 Option I b-Stabilization&Interior Use Additions Remove and Patch/Repair Loose Concrete on Door Towers Allowance of 100 Locations per side 200 EA $ 190.00 $ 38,000 Option 2-Rehabilitation Pr New Drilled Pier Foundations @ Door Towers Piles(20 each x 4 locations X 30 ft.Deep) 2,400 LF $ 60.00 $ 144,000 Pile Caps(1,060 SF x 4 Ft Thick) 628 CY $ 325.00 $ 204,148 Podium Strengthening Grade Beams-(4,000 LF x 4 ft.x 4 ft.) 2,370 CY $ 325.00 $ 770,370 Patch back slab at Grade Beams 24,000 SF $ 8.50 $ 204,000 Piles at Gradebeams(allow 2 per bay @ 30 Ft deep) 12,000 LF $ 60.00 $ 720,000 Allowance for Paint&Patch Existing Concrete Frames 346 HRS $ 65.00 $ 22,490 Option 3a-Exterior Steel Towers Exterior Steel Tower Foundations Pile Caps/Mat Foundation(25ft x 25ft x 4ft @ 20 locations) 1,852 CY $ 325.00 $ 601,852 Piles at Mat Foundation(Assume 4 per Tower @ 30 LF) 2,400 LF $ 60.00 $ 144,000 Option 3-Renovation Projection New Drilled Pier Foundations @ Door Towers Piles(20 each x 4 locations X 30 ft.Deep) , 2,400 LF $ 60.00 $ 144,000 Pile Caps(1,060 SF x 4 Ft Thick) 628 CY $ 325.00 $ 204,148 Podium Strengthening Grade Beams-(4,000 LF x 4 ft.x 4 ft.) 2,370 CY $ 325.00 $ 770,370 Patch back slab at Grade Beams 24,000 SF $ 8.50 $ 204,000 Piles at Gradebeams(allow 2 per bay @ 30 Ft deep) 12,000 LF $ 60.00 $ 720,000 Interior Steel Tower Foundations $ - Pile Caps/Mat Foundation(25ft x 25ft x 4ft @ 20 locations) 1,852 CY $ 325.00 $ 601,852 Piles at Mat Foundation(Assume 4 per Tower @ 30 LF) 2,400 LF $ 60.00 $ 144,000 Foundations for New Buildings in addition to tower foundations $ - 500 LF of Grade Beam x 3 ft.x 3 ft.per Building(4 Buildings) 667 CY $ 325.00 $ 216,667 Slab Patching 10,000 SF $ 8.50 $ 85,000 Elevated Decks @ New Buildings(Horizontal Structure-Conc.on 1 17,000 SF $ 15.00 $ 1,755,000 Metal Deck) Blast,Clean&Seal Existing Concrete Slab @ Hangar 301,574 SF $ 3.75 $ 1,130,903 Allow for Minor Slab Patching at Existing hangar Slab-5% 15,079 SF $ 6.00 $ 90,472 Concrete Elevator Pits 4 EA $ 15,500.00 $ 62,000 Allowance for Point&Patch Existing Concrete Frames 346 HRS $ 65.00 $ 22,490 STRUCTURAL STEEL&MISC.METAL 051000 Structural Steel Option I a-Stabilizat�terior Us Strengthen Truss Supports for(2)Steel Stairs 10 LOCATIONS Labor 320 HRS $ 75.00 $ 24,000 Steel @ 12 lbs/ft. 1.20 TONS $ 2,500.00 $ 3,000 Enhanced Connections at Truss 20 EA $ 1,450.00 $ 29,000 Refurbish Door Rails Jack Up and Temp Support Labor 768 HRS $ 75.00 $ 57,600 Material I LS $ 11,520.00 $ 11,520 SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 16 of 29 Tustin Hangar No. 2 July 2,2015 Detailed Breakdown Systems - Construction Costs CSI Description Quantity Rate($) Total($) Repair/Replace Door Bottom Rails&Rollers/Roller Frame&Install 1,244 LF $ 350.00 $ 435,400 New Clips for Stabilization Optiona ilitation Project Steel Rod X-Bracing at Wood Bridging Locations Between Trusses 1,000 BAYS,2 RODS PER BAY Labor-2 Men,2 Hrs.Per Rod(Remove Existing and Replace with 8,000 HRS $ 75.00 $ 600,000 Steel Rod) Steel Rods and Hardware(2 per bay)-Assume 2"Diameter Solid 38,040 LF $ 32.00 $ 1,217,280 Rod with Fabrication-Material @$1.25/LB+$100 in Labor&$75 in hardware&consumables Steel Bracing at Wood Bridging Locations Above Sheds 100 BAYS,2 RODS PER BAY Labor-2 Men, 1.5 Hrs.Per Rod(Remove Existing and Replace 600 HRS $ 75.00 $ 45,000 with Steel Brace) Steel Brace and Hardware(2 per bay)-Assume 2"Diameter Solid 5,500 LF $ 32.00 $ 176,000 Rod with Fabrication-Material @$1.25/LB+$100 in Labor&$75 in hardware&consumables Podium Strengthening New Steel Braces in Podium Level-33.25 LF each 400 BRACES Labor-2 Men,4 Hrs.Per Brace 3,200 HRS $ 75.00 $ 240,000 Steel Braces and Hardware-Assume 6x6x3/8 Tubes @ 400 EA $ 2,140.00 $ 856,000 $1.25/LB for Mat'l+$1,000 per brace for fab Option 3a-Rehabilitation Project Alternates External Towers Only Labor&Material-Assume steel at 30 LBS/FT average,each 576 TONS $ 5,750.00 $ 3,312,000 tower has 275 members totaling 1,920 LF of steel,20 towers Galvanized Steel for Exterior Use 1,152,000 LBS $ 0.40 $ 460,800 Allow for Cable Bracing of Towers 5 20 EA $ 15,000.00 $ 300,000 Steel Structure at Roof Peak for Tie In of Cable Bracing-Allow 1,000 LF $ 540.00 $ 540,000 91 Tons of Steel Option 3-Renovation Projection Steel Rod X-Bracing at Wood Bridging Locations Between Trusses 500 BAYS,2 RODS PER BAY Labor-2 Men,2 Hrs.Per Rod(Remove Existing and Replace with 4,000 HRS $ 75.00 $ 300,000 Steel Rod) Steel Rods and Hardware(2 per bay)-Assume 2"Diameter Solid 19,020 LF $ 32.00 $ 608,640 Rod with Fabrication-Material @$1.25/LB+$100 in Labor&$75 in hardware&consumables Steel Bracing at Wood Bridging Locations Above Sheds 100 BAYS,2 RODS PER BAY Labor-2 Men, 1.5 Hrs.Per Rod(Remove Existing and Replace 600 HRS $ 75.00 $ 45,000 with Steel Brace) Steel Brace and Hardware(2 per bay)-Assume 2"Diameter Solid 5,500 LF $ 32.00 $ 176,000 Rod with Fabrication-Material @$1.25/LB+$100 in Labor&$75 in hardware&consumables Podium Strengthening New Steel Braces in Podium Level-33.25 LF each 240 BRACES Labor 1,920 HRS $ 75.00 $ 144,000 Steel Braces and Hardware-Assume 6x6x3/8 Tubes @ 240 EA $ 2,100.00 $ 504,000 $1.25/LB for Mat'l+$1,000 per brace for fab Steel Towers Internal Towers Only Labor&Material-Assume steel at 30 LBS/FT average,each 405 TONS $ 5,750.00 $ 2,328,750 tower has 275 members totaling 1,350 LF of steel,20 towers SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 17 of 29 Tustin Hangar No. 2 July 2,2015 Detailed Breakdown Systems - Construction Costs CSI Description Rate($) Total($) Allow for Wood Truss Strengthening at Tower Top 20 EA $ 12,000.00 $ 240,000 Connection Horizontal Truss between towers,length of Building 2,000 LF $ 350.00 $ 700,000 New Building Steel 4 BLDGS Podium Level Vertical Steel-Labor&Material-Assume steel at 30 78 TONS $ 5,250.00 $ 409,500 LBS/FT average and 5,200 LF of Steel I st&2nd Floor Vertical Steel-Columns @ 30 Ib/If and one 26 TONS $ 5,250.00 $ 133,875 column per 700 SF=Approx.1,700 LF of Steel Horizontal Steel @ 16 LBS/SF 936 TONS $ 5,250.00 $ 4,914,000 Steel Frames for Central Entry Openings 18 TONS $ 5,250.00 $ 94,500 Canopy Framing Allowance @ 8 LBS/SF 44 TONS $ 3,750.00 $ 165,000 055000 Miscellaneous Metal Option I a-Stabilization&Interior Use Misc.Metal Allowance 301,574 SF $ 0.25 $ 75,394 Option I b-Stabilization&Interior Use Additions Repair/Modify stairs from Roof Monitor to Box Beam ` 32 RISERS $ 1,250.00 $ 40,000 Option 2-Rehabilitation Pro' Misc.Metal Allowance-In addition to Opt.I a 301,574 SF $ 2.75 $ 829,329 Replace monitor Guardrails 2,000 LF $ 175.00 $ 350,000 Replace stairs from Roof Monitor to Box Beam IN OPT lb $ - Option 3-Renovation Projection Elevator Pit Ladders 4 EA $ 1,550.00 $ 6,200 Elevator Embeds,Guide Rails&Sill Ang 12 STOPS $ 3,500.00 $ 42,000 Misc.Metal Allowance-In addition to Opt. 301,574 SF $ 2.75 $ 829,329 Replace monitor Guardrails 2,000 LF $ 175.00 $ 350,000 Misc.Metal Allowance-New Buildings 117,000 SF $ 2.75 $ 321,750 Replace stairs from Roof Monitor to Box Beam IN OPT I b $ - ROUGH CARPENTRY 061000 Rough Carpentry Option I a-Stab' terior Us Eliminate Access to Catwalks and Stair to Box Beams Barricades 5 EA Labor-2 Men,8 Hrs.per Barricade 80 HRS $ 75.00 $ 6,000 Material I ALLOW $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000 Replace split members at removed steel stair locations 25 EA Labor-2 Men,8 Hrs.per member 400 HRS $ 75.00 $ 30,000 Lumber 500 LF $ 5.00 $ 2,500 End Connections-Hardware 50 EA $ 275.00 $ 13,750 Repair split members in truss 50 EA Labor-2 men 8 hours per member 800 HRS $ 75.00 $ 60,000 Sister new Member-Sandwich Existing-Material 2,000 LF $ 5.00 $ 10,000 End Connections-Hardware 100 EA $ 275.00 $ 27,500 Re]Oon'.d mbers and decking at roof peak f Monitor-(Includes Remove/Replace Panels) 1,520 SF $ 25.00 $ 38,000 Roof- Includes Relace Panels) 3,770 SF $ 25.00 $ 94,250 Replace Cut X-Braces in Podium and at 2 Bridging Locations 10 LOCATIONS Labor-2 Men, 16 Hrs.per location 320 HRS $ 75.00 $ 24,000 Lumber 460 LF $ 5.00 $ 2,300 SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 18 of 29 Tustin Hangar No. 2 July 2,2015 Detailed Breakdown Systems - Construction Costs CSI Description tity Rate($) Tot-1 IQ' End Connections-Hardware 40 EA $ 275.00 $ 11,000 gr i LOCATIONS La7- ener oca i 4,000 HRS $ 75.00 $ 300,000 LuLUDE $ - nw 1,000 EA $ 275.00 $ 275,000 Inspect Blocking in Existing Truss&Repair Loose Sections Labor Allowance-20 Men 3 Months 10,380 HRS $ 75.00 $ 778,500 Lumber Allowance(10%) 23,830 LF $ 5.00 $ 119,150 Hardware Allowance 2,383 PCS $ 275.00 $ 655,325 Repair end split members EA Labor 500 HRS $ 75.00 $ 37,500 Lumber NONE REPAIR IN PLACE $ - ML Har 8,000 EA $ 6.50 $ 52,000 Material Stocking&Handling-Labor-4 Men 2 Years 16,6j HRS $ 75.00 $ 1,248,000 Inefficiency Factor-Access/Scaffolding/Tie-Off of Workers-50% 17,177 HRS $ 75.00 $ 1,288,288 Inefficient Equipment-Gradalls,Trucks,Small Tools,Etc. 24 MOS $ 30,000.00 $ 720,000 ANALYSIS OF FRAMING LABOR AND MAIL FOR OPTION I a Labor Hours Labor Cost 51,532 $3,864,863 12 Men for 2 yrs Material Cost: $1,930,200 Work will be performed utilizing 6 lifts,with 2 men per lift,operating continuously for 24 months. Option 2-Rehabilitation Project v Main Truss Member Strengthening Truss Chords(DCR<1.3) 204 CHORDS Labor-2 Men 8 Hours per member 3,264 HRS $ 75.00 $ 244,800 Lumber 2,091 LF $ 7.50 $ 15,683 End Connections-Hardware 408 EA $ 275.00 $ 112,200 Truss Chords(DCR>1.3) 102 CHORDS Labor-2 Men 8 Hours per member 1,632 HRS $ 75.00 $ 122,400 Lumber 663 LF $ 7.50 $ 4,973 End Connections-Hardware 204 EA $ 275.00 $ 56,100 Truss Members(DCR<1.3) 408 MEMBERS Labor-2 Men 8 Hours per member 6,528 HRS $ 75.00 $ 489,600 Lumber 5,610 LF $ 5.00 $ 28,050 End Connections-Hardware 816 EA $ 275.00 $ 224,400 Truss Members(DCR>1.3) 408 MEMBERS Labor-2 Men 8 Hours per member 6,528 HRS $ 75.00 $ 489,600 Lumber 6,018 LF $ 5.00 $ 30,090 End Connections-Hardware 816 EA $ 275.00 $ 224,400 Truss Connection(DCR<1.3)-Not associated with a member or 357 CONNECTIONS chord replacement Labor-2 Men 4 Hours per connection 2,856 HRS $ 75.00 $ 214,200 End Connections-Hardware 357 EA $ 275.00 $ 98,175 Truss Connection(DCR>1.3)-Not associated with a member or 459 CONNECTIONS chord replacement Labor-2 Men 4 Hours per connection 3,672 HRS $ 75.00 $ 275,400 End Connections-Hardware 459 EA $ 275.00 $ 126,225 SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 19 of 29 Tustin Hangar No. 2 July 2,2015 Detailed Breakdown Systems - Construction Costs CSI Description "*_ Unit Rate($) Total($) Replace Split Wood Bridging 500 LOCATIONS Labor-2 Men,4 Hrs.per location 4,000 HRS $ 75.00 $ 300,000 Lumber 10,000 ■ LF $ 50,000 End Connections-Hardware 1,000 EA $ 275.00 $ 275,000 Replace Strong-Back Repairs w/Compatible Wood Repair 66 LOCATIONS Labor-2 men 8 hours per repair 1,056 HRS $ 75.00 $ 79,200 Lumber-Material 1,320 LF $ 7.50 $ 9,900 End Connection-Hardware 132 EA $ 275.00 $ 36,300 Box Beam above Doors Repair 2 EA $ 30,000.00 $ 60,000 Option 3-Renovation Projection Box Beam above Doors Repair-Minor 2 EA $ 30,000.00 $ 60,000 lVeplace Split Wood Bridging 500 LOCATIONS Labor-2 Men,4 Hrs.per location 4,000 HRS $ 75.00 $ 300,000 Lumber 10,000 LF $ 5.00 $ 50,000 ELnd Connections-Hardware 1,000 EA $ 275.00 $ 275,000 All other Rough Carpentry IN OPTION I a $ - EXTERIOR ENCLOSURE 071000 Waterproofing r Option I a-Stabilization&Interior Use Roof Monitor Repair Remove Existing SPUF Roof 15,166 SF $ 2.50 $ 37,915 Remove/Replace Plywood IN FRAMING $ - New Single Ply Membrane Roof 15,166 SF $ 6.50 $ 98,579 Option IN MEMBRANE ROOFING Option 3-Renov IN MEMBRANE ROOFING 075000 Membrane Roofing&Fa4ade Treatment Wn I a-Stabilizati terior Use Clean&Patch Cement Panels adjacent to doors/conc.tower each end 1,000 SF $ 11.00 $ 11,000 Option 2-Rehabilitation Project ■ Remove/Reinstall Corrugated Metal Panels 372,534 SF $ 25.00 $ 9,313,350 Allowance for damaged panel replacement 10% 37,253 SF $ 15.00 $ 558,801 Allowance for corrugated Metal Repair/Replace at Box beams 12,567 SF $ 25.00 $ 314,175 New Bituminous Underlayment 372,534 SF $ 6.00 $ 2,235,204 Remove/Replace Shed Skins 38,375 SF $ 17.50 $ 671,563 Allow for Re-Roof of Clamshell Roofs at Each End-33x225 14,850 SF $ 7.25 $ 107,663 Allow for Re-Roof at Sheds 60,000 SF $ 6.50 $ 390,000 Remove&replace Cement Board @ Shed Walls with Peel and Stick 36,610 SF $ 1 1.00 $ 402,710 substrate waterproofing Cement Panels adjacent to doors/conc.tower each end 1,000 SF $ 1 1.00 $ 11,000 Allow for substrate Sheathing replacement-10% 37,253 SF $ 3.50 $ 130,387 Option 3-Renovation Projection New Aluminum Panels-Premium over Remove/Reinstall existing 372,534 SF $ 35.00 $ 13,038,690 New Aluminum panels at Box beams-Premium over 12,567 SF $ 35.00 $ 439,845 Remove/Reinstall existing New Bituminous Underlayment 372,534 SF $ 6.00 $ 2,235,204 Canopy Cladding 11,000 SF $ 25.00 $ 275,000 SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 20 of 29 Tustin Hangar No. 2 July 2,2015 Detailed Breakdown Systems - Construction Costs CSI Description Quantity U- Rate($) Total($) Fa4ade @ New Buildings 66,929 SF $ 35.00 $ 2,342,515 Remove/Replace Shed Skins 26,275 SF $ 17.50 $ 459,813 Allow for Re-Roof of Clamshell Roofs at Each End-33x225 14,850 SF $ 7.25 $ 107,663 Allow for Re-Roof at Sheds 60,000 SF $ 6.50 $ 390,000 Remove&replace Cement Board @ Shed Walls with Peel and Stick 22,035 SF $ 1 1.00 $ 242,385 substrate waterproofing Cement Panels adjacent to doors/conc.tower each end 1,000 SF $ 1 1.00 $ 11,000 Allow for substrate Sheathing replacement-10% 6,693 SF $ 3.50 $ 23,425 076000 Flashing and Sheet Metal Option I a-Stabilization&Interior Use Flashing and Sheet Metal @ Roof Monitor 2,000 LF $ 75.00 $ 150,000 Misc.Flashing Allowance @ Vertical/Horizontal Interfaces&Openings 301,574 SF $ 0.45 $ 135,708 Option I b-Stabilization&Interior Use Additions M , Hangar Door Neoprene Weather stripping 1,888 LF $ 12.50 $ 23,600 O Misc.Flashing Allowance @ Vertical/Horizontal Interfaces&Openings 1,574 SF $ 0.90 $ 271,417 -Beyond Opt. I a Replace Roof Access Hatches 2 EA $ 3,750.00 $ 7,500 Option 3-Renovation Projection Misc.Flashing Allowance @ Vertical/Horizontal Interfaces&Openings 301,574 SF $ 0.90 $ 271,417 -Beyond Opt. I a Replace Roof Access Hatches 2 EA $ 3,750.00 $ 7,500 084000 Entrances,Storefronts,and Curtain Walls Option I a-Stabilization&Interior Use EXCLUDED $ - Option 2-Rehabilitation Project EXCLUDED $ - Option 3-Renovation Projection - Store Front System at Central Access/Feature at Sheds 14,575 SF $ 55.00 $ 801,625 Store Front Door Allowance IN DOORS $ - 085000 Windows Option I a-Stabilization&Interior Use . Replace Broken Glass&Repair Caulking-Assume 20%of Total 48 EA $ 200.00 $ 9,600 Option I b-Stabilization&Interior Use Additions Repair Existing windows at hangar doors 3,560 SF $ 7.50 $ 26,700 New Windows at Sheds-16x14&16x8 depending on side-Match 10,560 SF $ 85.00 $ 897,600 Historic Modify Openings 60 EA $ 400.00 $ 24,000 Flash and Caulk New Windows 60 EA $ 100.00 $ 6,000 Replace Hangar Door Windows 3,560 EA $ 40.00 $ 142,400 Option 3-Renovation Projection New Windows at Sheds-16x14&16x8 depending on side-Punched 10,560 SF $ 60.00 $ 633,600 Aluminum SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 21 of 29 Tustin Hangar No. 2 July 2,2015 Detailed Breakdown Systems - Construction Costs CSI Description Rate($) Total($) Modify Openings 60 EA $ 400.00 $ 24,000 Flash and Caulk New Windows 60 EA $ 100.00 $ 6,000 Full Polycarbonate Door Skin 56,786 SF $ 40.00 $ 2,271,440 Remove Plywood at Doors 56,786 Sf $ 1.75 $ 99,376 086000 Skylights Option I a-Stabilization&Interior Use Clear FRP Skylights-Corrugated 67,563 SF $ 27.00 $ 1,824,201 Skylights-Alternate for Polycarbonate Skylights REFER TO EXEC SUMMARY $ - Option 2-Rehabilitation Project Clear FRP Skylights-Corrugated IN OPT. I a $ Skylights-Alternate for Polycarbonate Skylights REFER TO EXEC SUMMARY $ Option 3-Renovation Projection Clear FRP Skylights-Corrugated IN OPT. I a $ Skylights-Alternate for Polycarbonate Skylights REFER TO EXEC SUMMARY $ INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 081000 Doors and Frames r Option I a-Stabilization&Interior Use New Fire Exits-(Bank of 20 ft.of exit doors,7 on each side)-HM 14 EA $ 3,750.00 $ 52,500 door with Panic Hardware Option 2-Rehabilitation Project New Fire Exits-Upgrade Opt I a to be storefront d 14 EA $ 2,000.00 $ 28,000 New Doors/Frames/Hardware at Sheds 110,per 500 SF 122 EA $ 3,250.00 $ 396,500 Option 3-Renovation Projection v New Fire Exits-Upgrade Opt I a to be storefront doors 14 EA $ 7,250.00 $ 101,500 New Fire Exits-Add 14 more storefront doors for increased 14 EA $ 11,000.00 $ 154,000 occupancy New Doors/Frames/Hardware at Sheds-I per 500 SF 122 EA $ 3,250.00 $ 396,500 New Doors/Frames/Hardware for Core Shell-5 Per floor per bldg. 40 EA $ 3,250.00 $ 130,000 083000 Specialty Doors and Frames Option I a-Stabilization&Interior Use Repair Electronics(Motor)in East Door. Assumes I Motor per Leaf 6 EA $ 25,000.00 $ 150,000 Repair Electronics(Motor)in West Door EXCLUDED $ - Option I b-Stabilization&Interior Use Additions Replace Door hangar Rails IN STEEL Roll up door allowance-Repair 5 EA $ 1,500.00 $ 7,500 Option 2-Rehabilitation Project Replace Door hangar Rails IN STEEL Roll up door allowance IN OPT I a $ - Option 3-Renovation Projection Replace Door hangar Rails IN STEEL Roll up door allowance IN OPT I a $ - SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 22 of 29 Tustin Hangar No. 2 July 2,2015 Detailed Breakdown Systems - Construction Costs CSI Description Rate($) Total($) 092000 Plaster and Gypsum Board Option I a r Use 2 Hour Separation Wall(Metal Studs&GypBd)Full Height with Steel 28,052 SF $ 26.25 $ 736,365 Supports OptionEkoikl�abilitation Project DEMO-2 Hour Separation Wall(Metal Studs&GypBd)Full Height 28,052 SF $ 3.75 $ 105,195 with Steel Supports New Partitions at Sheds-0.97 SF of partition per SF of enclosed area 59,040 SF $ 10.00 $ 590,400 Drywall Lids at Sheds-10% 6,100 SF $ 12.00 $ 73,200 Option 3-Renovation Projection DEMO-2 Hour Separation Wall(Metal Studs&GypBd)Full Height 28,052 SF $ 3.75 $ 105,195 with Steel Supports New Core Shell partitions-0.15 SF of partition per SF of enclosed 11,700 SF $ 10.00 $ 117,000 area Drywall Lids at new Core/Shell 1,170 SF $ 12.00 $ 14,040 Allow for Enclosed&Rated Exit Corridors 16,013 SF $ 12.00 $ 192,156 FINISHES 093000 Ceramic Tile Option I a-Stabilization&Interior Use Ceramic Tile EXCLUDED $ - Option 2-Rehabilitation Project Ceramic Tile @ Shed Restrooms 13,500 SF $ 25.00 $ 337,500 Option 3-Renovation Projection Ceramic Tile @ Shed Restrooms 13,500 SF $ 25.00 $ 337,500 095000 Acoustical Ceilings JWn I a-Stabilization&Interior Use Acoustical Ceilings EXCLUDED $ - Option-Rehabilitation Project Ceilings at Sheds 54,900 SF $ 4.50 $ 247,050 Option 3-Renovation Projection Ceilings at Sheds 54,900 SF $ 4.50 $ 247,050 Ceilings at New Buildings NONE-CORE/SHELL ONLY $ - 096000 Flooring M-Stabilization&Interior Use EXCLUDED $ - rehabilitation Project Flooring at Sheds 61,000 SF $ 5.00 $ 305,000 Option 3-Renovation Projection Flooring at Sheds 61,000 SF $ 5.00 $ 305,000 Flooring at New Buildings NONE-CORE/SHELL ONLY $ - 099000 Painting and Coating Option I b-Stabilization&Interior Use Additions Light Micro abrasion on Hangar Doors-Exterior 56,786 SF $ 2.50 $ 141,965 SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 23 of 29 Tustin Hangar No. 2 July 2,2015 Detailed Breakdown Systems - Construction Costs CSI Description Quantity Allowance for 20%Repair/Replace 11,400 SF $ 4.50 $ 51,300 Paint Exterior of Doors 56,786 SF $ 1.75 $ 99,376 Clean&Paint Interior of Doors 47,346 SF $ 5.00 $ 236,730 �Reha Walls&Lids at Sheds 65,140 SF $ 1.10 $ 71,654 Prep&Repaint Hangar Doors Interior-assumes doors cleaned and 47,346 SF $ 2.25 $ 106,529 pained in Opt I a and repainted in Opt 2 Prep&repaint Hangar Doors Exterior-assumes doors cleaned and 56,786 SF $ 1.75 $ 99,376 pained in Opt I a and repainted in Opt 2 Allow for plywood Replacement IN OPT la $ - Prep and Paint Cement Panels adjacent to doors 1,000 SF $ 1.10 $ 1,100 Allow for Exterior Painting at Sheds I ALLOW $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000 Allow for Misc.Unforeseen painting 301,574 SF $ 0.30 $ 90,472 Option 3-Renovation Projection Walls&Lids at Sheds 65,140 SF $ 1.10 $ 71,654 Prep&Repaint Hangar Doors Interior-assumes doors cleaned and 47,346 SF $ 2.25 $ 106,529 pained in Opt I a and repainted in Opt 3 Prep&repaint Hangar Doors Exterior-assumes doors cleaned and EXCLUDED-POLYCARBONATE $ - pained in Opt I a and repainted in Opt 3 Allow for plywood Replacement EXCLUDED-POLYCARBONATE $ - Prep and Paint Cement Panels adjacent to doors 1,000 SF $ 1.10 $ 1,100 Allow for Exterior Painting at Sheds I ALLOW $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000 Allow for Misc.Unforeseen painting 301,574 SF $ 0.30 $ 90,472 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION 130000 Special Construction Option I a-Stabilization&I Special Construction EXCLUDED $ - Option 2-Rehabilitation Pr Allow for Renovation of Helium Plant for use as central Plant 1,296 SF $ 125.00 $ 162,000 Option 3-Renovation Projection Allow for Renovation of Helium Plant for use as visitor center 1,296 SF $ 125.00 $ 162,000 Construct 2nd Building to house New Building within Building Central Plant 3,888 SF $ 175.00 $ 680,400 CONVEYING EQUIPMENT 142000 Elevators Option I a-Stabilization&Interior Use Elevators EXCLUDED $ =2-Rehabilitation Project Elevators EXCLUDED $ - Option 3-Renovation Projection Electric Traction Elevator I (Level 0 to Level 2) 3 STOPS $ 75,000.00 $ 225,000 Electric Traction Elevator 2(Level 0 to Level 2) 3 STOPS $ 75,000.00 $ 225,000 Electric Traction Elevator 3(Level 0 to Level 2) 3 STOPS $ 75,000.00 $ 225,000 Electric Traction Elevator 4(Level 0 to Level 2) 3 STOPS $ 75,000.00 $ 225,000 Cab Finish Allowance 4 EA $ 15,000.00 $ 60,000 FIRE SUPPRESSION SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 24 of 29 Tustin Hangar No. 2 July 2,2015 Detailed Breakdown Systems - Construction Costs CSI Description Rate($) Total($) 210000 Fire Sprinklers Option I b-Stabilization&Interior Use Additions Fire Sprinklers EXCLUDED $ Beam Detectors @ High Bays(Assume I detector per 2,000 SF) 120 EA $ 475.00 $ 56,950 Fire Alarm Panel&Monitoring I ALLOW $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000 Replace Fire Hose Cabinets 2 EA $ 3,250.00 $ 6,500 O Fire Sprinklers @ Sheds 61,000 SF $ 4.75 $ 289,750 Fire Alarm @ Sheds 61,000 SF $ 2.75 $ 167,750 Expand I b monitoring panel I ALLOW $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000 Option 3-Renovation Projection Fire Sprinklers @ Sheds 61,000 SF $ 4.75 $ 289,750 Fire Sprinklers @ New Buildings(Assumes Sprinklers below podium) 1 17,000 SF $ 4.75 $ 555,750 Allow for F.S.at Exit Corridors 16,013 SF $ 4.75 $ 76,062 Fire Alarm @ Sheds 61,000 SF $ 2.75 $ 167,750 Fire Alarm @ New Buildings 1 17,000 SF $ 2.75 $ 321,750 Allow for Fire Alarm at Exit Corridors 16,013 SF $ 2.75 $ 44,036 Expand I b monitoring panel I ALLOW $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000 PLUMBING 220000 Plumbing General NEW-F'Stabilization&Interior Use EXCLUDED $ - rehabilitation Project Plumbing at Sheds 61,000 SF $ 7.00 $ 427,000 Minor Plumbing at Main Hangar 240,574 SF $ 1.50 $ 360,861 _ 1,110 LF $ 68.00 $ 75,480 - 1,110 LF $ 64.00 $ 71,040 O 1,110 LF $ 50.00 $ 55,500 Option 3-Renovation Projection Plumbing at sheds 61,000 SF $ 7.00 $ 427,000 Core/Shell Plumbing at New Buildings 78,000 SF $ 2.25 $ 175,500 Minor Plumbing at Main Hangar 162,574 SF $ 1.50 $ 243,861 LF $ 68.00 $ 75,480 e to Site-On Site LF $ 64.00 $ 71,040 o Site-On Site LF $ 50.00 $ 55,500 HVAC 230000 HVAC General Option I a-Stabilization&Interior Use Remove Existing Rooftop Exhaust Fan's and Sheet metal over Opening 10 EA $ 490.00 $ 4,900 Option I b-Stabilization&Interior Use Additions EXCLUDED Option-Rehabilitation Project - Repair Louvered Vents at Roof Ridge with Matching Wood 6,000 SF $ 8.50 $ 51,000 Central Plant Chiller 61,000 SF $ 3.00 $ 183,000 Central Plant Boiler 61,000 SF $ 2.75 $ 167,750 Central Plant Infrastructure Piping 61,000 SF $ 2.50 $ 152,500 SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 25 of 29 Tustin Hangar No. 2 July 2,2015 Detailed Breakdown Systems - Construction Costs CSI Description Quantity Unit Rate($) Total($) Heating&Cooling at Sheds(Assume I ton per 300 SF) 203 TONS $ 4,750.00 $ 965,833 Controls 61,000 SF $ 2.00 $ 122,000 Option 3-Renovation Projection Replace/Repair Louvered Vents at Roof Ridge 6,000 SF $ 17.50 $ 105,000 Allow for Thermostatic/Automatic control of Louvers I ALLOW $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000 Central Plant Chiller 139,000 SF $ 3.00 $ 417,000 Central Plant Boiler 139,000 SF $ 2.75 $ 382,250 Central Plant Infrastructure Piping 139,000 SF $ 2.50 $ 347,500 Heating&Cooling at Sheds(Assume I ton per 300 SF) 203 TONS $ 4,750.00 $ 965,833 Heating&Cooling at New Buildings(Assume I ton per 300 SF)- 260 TONS $ 3,200.00 $ 832,000 Equipment Only,no distribution-CORE SHELL ONLY Controls 139,000 SF $ 2.00 $ 278,000 ELECTRICAL 260000 Electrical General 'Option 1a-Stabilization&Interior Use EXCLUDED Option I b-Stabilization&Interior Use Additions New 400A Service @ 480/277 V for Emergency Power I ALLOW $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000 Transformer I ALLOW $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000 4 distribution Panels 4 EA $ 3,750.00 $ 15,000 Conduit,Boxes and Wire for distribution and power for Fire Life Safety 301,574 SF $ 0.30 $ 90,472 Allow for Egress Lighting 301,574 SF $ 0.60 $ 180,944 Allow for Incoming Service Infrastructure-On Site 1,083 LF $ 100.00 $ 108,300 Allow for Phone/Data infrastructure necessary for Fire Life Safety I ALLOW $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000 New Electrical Service 61,000 SF $ 3.00 $ 183,000 Transformers 61,000 SF $ 1.00 $ 61,000 Distribution Panels, I per 10,000 SF 6 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 30,000 Conduit,Boxes and Wire for distribution and power for Fire Life 61,000 SF $ 0.30 $ 18,300 Safety @ sheds Conduit,Boxes and Wire for distribution to Lighting&Power @ 61,000 SF $ 6.00 $ 366,000 sheds Convenience Power-I device per 100 SF @ sheds 610 EA $ 375.00 $ 228,750 Lighting-I Fixture per 200 SF on Average @ sheds 305 EA $ 550.00 $ 167,750 Allow for Incoming Service Infrastructure-On Site IN OPT. I b $ - AIIow for Phone/Data infrastructure necessary for Fire Life Safety @ 61,000 SF $ 2.75 $ 167,750 sheds Convenience Power and Egress Lighting for Main Hangar 301,574 SF $ 6.00 $ 1,809,444 Misc.Unforeseen Electrical at Sheds 61,000 SF $ 3.00 $ 183,000 Option 3-Renovation Projection New Electrical Service 139,000 SF $ 3.00 $ 417,000 Transformers 139,000 SF $ 1.00 $ 139,000 Distribution Panels, I per 10,000 SF @ sheds 6 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 30,000 Distribution Panels,2 per floor @ new Buildings-CORE SHELL 16 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 80,000 ONLY Conduit,Boxes and Wire for distribution and power for Fire Life Safety 139,000 SF $ 0.30 $ 41,700 Conduit,Boxes and Wire for distribution to Lighting&Power @ Sheds 61,000 SF $ 6.00 $ 366,000 Conduit,Boxes and Wire for distribution to Lighting&Power @ 78,000 SF $ 2.75 $ 214,500 New Buildings-CORE SHELL ONLY Convenience Power-I device per 100 SF @ Sheds 610 EA $ 375.00 $ 228,750 SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 26 of 29 Tustin Hangar No. 2 July 2,2015 Detailed Breakdown Systems - Construction Costs CSI Description Rate($) Total($) Convenience Power-I device per 1,000 SF @ new Buildings-CORE 78 EA $ 375.00 $ 29,250 SHELL ONLY Lighting-I Fixture per 200 SF on Average @ sheds 305 EA $ 550.00 $ 167,750 Lighting-I Fixture per 800 SF on Average @ new Buildings-CORE 98 EA $ 550.00 $ 53,625 SHELL ONLY Allow for Incoming Service Infrastructure-On Site IN OPT. I b $ - AIIow for Phone/Data infrastructure necessary for Fire Life Safety 139,000 SF $ 2.75 $ 382,250 Convenience Power and Lighting for Main Hangar 301,574 SF $ 7.50 $ 2,261,805 Misc.Unforeseen Electrical @ sheds&new building 139,000 SF $ 3.00 $ 417,000 UTILITIES 330000 Utilities _ EXCLUDED Option I b-Stabilization&Interior Use Additions Electrical Service $ - AIIow for City Service Fee&Service from Public Utility to Switchgear I ALLOW $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000 Allow for Incoming Service Infrastructure-In Street MMEF63 LF $ 75.00 $ 79,725 Allow for Public Utility Transformer I ALLOW $ 75,000.00 $ 75,000 Option Electrical Service-In Street IN OPT. I b $ - Water Service to Site-In Street 1,063 LF $ 85.30 $ 90,674 Sewer Service to Site-In Street - 1,063 LF $ 79.80 $ 84,827 Gas Service to Site-In Street 1,063 LF $ 65.00 $ 69,095 Option 3-Renovation Projection Electrical Service-In Street IN OPT. I b $ - Water Service to Site-In Street 1,063 LF $ 85.30 $ 90,674 Sewer Service to Site-In Street 1,063 LF $ 79.80 $ 84,827 Gas Service to Site-In Street 1,063 LF $ 65.00 $ 69,095 SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 27 of 29 Tustin Hangar No. 2 July 2,2015 NOTABLE QUANTITIES Description Quantity Unit Notes General Counts Truss Count Per Section 51 EA Bays 1,800 EA Interior Bay of Truss surrounded by Chords and H Brace Truss X-Braces Truss X-Brace Full Height 36 EA (18)per Side x 2 sides=(36)Sets Truss X-Brace Half Height 16 EA (9)per Side x 2 sides=(16)Sets Subtotal Truss X-Braces 52 EA Truss Connections Truss Connection(good) 2,244 EA Truss Connection(DCR<1.3) 357 EA Reconciled to remove connections accounted for via chord or member replacement Truss Connection(DCR>1.3) 459 EA Reconciled to remove connections accounted for via chord or member replacement Subtotal Truss Connections 3,060 EA Member Count Truss Chords 3,621 EA Truss Vertical/Diagonal Members 3,621 EA Truss X-Braces 1,680 EA Truss V-Braces 3,600 EA Truss H-Braces 1,850 EA Truss Purlins 1,850 EA Subtotal Member Count 16,222 EA Chords(Top and Bottom) Truss Chords(good) 38,607 LF Truss Chords(DCR<1.3) 2,091 LF Deficient Truss Chords(DCR>1.3) 663 LF Deficient Subtotal Chords(Top and Bottom) 41,361 LF Members(Vertical and Diagonal) Truss Members(good) 45,390 LF Truss Members(DCR<1.3) 5,610 LF Deficient Truss Members(DCR>1.3) 6,018 LF Deficient Subtotal Members(Vertical and Diagonal) 57,018 LF Truss X-Braces X-Brace Lumber is 3"x8"Douglas Fir Truss X-Brace-8'H x 201 4,472 LF Truss X-Brace- I TH x 201 23,920 LF Truss X-Brace- I I'H x 201(Full Height Only) 3,312 LF Truss X-Brace- 10'H x 201(Full Height Only) 6,336 LF Subtotal Truss X-Braces 38,040 LF Truss V-Braces Truss V-Brace Members 27,900 LF Includes(2)members per V-Brace Subtotal Truss V-Braces 27,900 LF SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 28 of 29 Tustin Hangar No. 2 July 2,2015 NOTABLE QUANTITIES Description Quantity Unit Notes Truss H-Braces Truss H-Brace Members 37,000 LF Subtotal Truss H-Braces 37,000 LF Truss Purlins(same as H-Brace) Truss Purlins(same as H-Brace) 37,000 LF Subtotal Truss Purlins(same as H-Brace) 37,000 LF Grand Total Lumber 238,319 LF SEAROCK + STAFFORD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 29 of 29 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK www.pa ge-turn bu II.com ARCHITECTURE- 417 S.Hill Street,Suite 211 417 Montgomery Street,8th Floor 2401 C Street,Suite B PLANNING&RESEARCH Los Angeles,California 90013 San Francisco,California 94111 Sacramento,California 95816 BUILDING TECHNOLOGY 213.221.1200/213.221.1209 fax 415.362.5154/415.362.5560 fax 916.930.9903/916.930.9904 fax