Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1738 SCHOONER WAY; ; CBR2023-5062; Permit
Building Permit Finaled Print Date: 07/02/2025 Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel#: Valuation: Occupancy Group: #of Dwelling Units: Bedrooms: Bathrooms: Occupant Load : Code Edition: Sprinkled: 1738 SCHOONER WAY, BLDG-Residential 2073200600 $119,737.68 Residential Permit CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3623 Work Class: Track#: Lot#: Project#: Plan#: Construction Type: Orig. Plan Check #: Plan Check#: Addition Permit No: Status: (cityof Carlsbad CBR2023-5062 Closed -Finaled Applied: 11/16/2023 Issued: 05/10/2024 Finaled Close Out: 07/02/2025 Final Inspection: 05/19/2025 INSPECTOR: de Roggenbuke, Dirk Project Title: Description: SUNDSETH: 496 SQ FT ADDITION INCLUDING NEW BEDROOM, GUESTROOM,ENTRY HALL AND DINING ROOM. 270 SQ FT REMODEL INCLUDING NEW PATRY AND CONSTRUCTING NEW ENTRY COVER Applica nt: Property Owner: BA WORTHING INC ALENA BLASIO CO-OWNERS SUNDSETH KEONI J AND GEAN IE H 3864 WESTHAVEN DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2754 (760) 533-8380 FEE BUILDING PLAN CHECK 1738 SCHOONER WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008 BUILDING PLAN REVIEW-MINOR PROJECTS (LDE) BUILDING PLAN REVIEW-MINOR PROJECTS (PLN) REMODEL-RESIDENTIAL-OTHER SB1473 -GREEN BUILDING STATE STANDARDS FEE SFD & DUPLEXES STRONG MOTION -RESIDENTIAL (SMIP) SWPPP INSPECTION TIER 1-Medium BLDG SWPPP PLAN REVIEW TIER 1-Medium Total Fees: $3,441.07 Total Payments To Date: $3,441.07 Balance Due: AMOUNT $864.50 $197.00 $104.00 $551.00 $5.00 $1,330.00 $15.57 $292.00 $82.00 $0.00 Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "Imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as "fees/exaction." You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Ca rlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project. NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitation has previously otherwise expired. Building Division Page 1 of 1 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad CA 92008-7314 I 442-339-2719 I 760-602-8560 f I www.carlsbadca.gov ( City of Carlsbad RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION B-1 Plan Check CB r'2.. AO 2 g -~Ol_g Est. Value ~l()LJ , I H · 82 . PC Deposit Date 5/ {() / 2D2-➔ JobAddress \75~ 54,,uvif< ki/4 1 1 Unit: ____ .APN: "2-o7-}2 .. l)-U6-U0 CT /Project #:. _________________ Lot #: ____ Year Built: __,\._~......._7_6"------- BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF WORK: O.f(0e + YA±i O klda-,'tJir, Co-etf o,a,.,. 1 Hb II I i);.,, ,·A.,) ~ New SF : Living SF, L+-"! b Deck SF, ___ Patio SF, ____ Garage SF __ _ Is this to create an Accessory Dwelling Unit? O Y o N New Fireplace? O YO N , if yes how many? ___ _ 1159-Remodel: 1-7 0 SF of affected area Is the area a conversion or change of use? CY (5) N D Pool/Spa: ____ SF Additional Gas or Electrical Features? ____________ _ 0Solar: ___ KW, ___ Modules, Mounted:ORoofOGround, Tilt: 0Y0 N, RMA:OYO N, Battery:CY(l) N, Panel Upgrade: CY ON Electric Meter number: ------------ 0th er: APPLICANT (Primary Contact and Responsible Party) Name: K:e:czo ', {'<11n)<;,e~ Address:~~, 5d:7cJQY1ec l.J&.y City: '4 l State:CA Zip: g 20u~ Phone: ~ ~4 ~~ 2 7 b Email: K= Vl ';:<Av, /2N4 G> ,mt,;;/, lbW/ DESIGN PROFESSIONAL Name: }?a,,uk '5 1./,., ci:ht,43 Address: \f:i::A-en ;/4 ~ vi,i neas -s:: ◄ :.Jc ' City: 4~~~4 State: CA Zip: ____ _ Phone: 7f{u -7 2. .q -30, l;i Email: ________________ _ Architect State License: __________ _ CONTRACTOR OF RECORD Business Name: _______________ _ Address: ________________ _ City: _______ State: ___ .Zip:. ______ _ Phone: _________________ _ Email: _________________ _ CSLB License #: ______ Class: ______ _ Carlsbad Business License# (Required): _______ _ APPLICANT CERT/FICA TION: I certify that I have read the application and state that the above information is correct, and that the information of the plans is accurate. I agree to comply with all City ordinances and State laws relating to building construction. r'/ NAME (PRINT): K'{)?l'lj 5wals-etlc. SIGN:~--.::--DATE: 6Ao/1-oz.t1= 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ph: 442-339-2719 Email: Building@carlsbadca.gov REV. 04122 THIS PAGE REQUIRED AT PERMIT ISSUANCE PLAN CHECK NUMBER: ______ _ A BUILDING PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED TO EITHER A STATE LICENSED CONTRACTOR OR A PROPERTY OWNER. IF THE PERSON SIGNING THIS FORM IS AN AGENT FOR EITHER ENTITY AN AUTHORIZATION FORM OR LETTER IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE. (OPTION A): LICENSED CONTRACTOR DECLARATION: I herebyaffirmunderpenaltyofperjurythat I amlicensedunderprovisionsofChapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000)of0ivision 3 of the Business and Professions Code, and my license is in full force and effect. I a/soaffirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations (CHOOSE ONE): DI have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for workers' compensation provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work which this permit is issued. PolicyNo., ____________________________________________ _ -OR- D I have and will maintain worker's compensation, as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. My workers' compensation insurance carrier and policy number are: lnsuranceCompany Name: _______________________ _ Policy No. _____________________________ Expiration Date: ________________ _ -OR- D Certificate of Exemption: I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued, I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to become subject to the workers' compensation Laws of California. WARNING: Failure to secure workers compensation coverage Is unlawful and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to $100,000.00, in addition the to the cost of compensation, damages as provided for in Section 3706 of the Labor Code, interest and attorney's fees. CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY, IF ANY: I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work this permit is issued (Sec. 3097 (i) Civil Code). Lender's Name: _______________________ Lender's Address: _______________________ _ CONTRACTOR CERT/FICA TION: The applicant certifies that all documents and plans clearly and accurately show all existing and proposed buildings, structures, access roads, and utilities/utility easements. All proposed modifications and/or additions are clearly labeled on the site plan. Any potentially existing detail within these plans inconsistent with the site plan are not approved for construction and may be required to be altered or removed. The city's approval of the application is based on the premise that the submitted documents and plans show the correct dimensions of; the property, buildings, structures and their setbacks from property lines and from one another; access roads/easements, and utilities. The existing and proposed use of each building as stated is true and correct; all easements and other encumbrances to development have been accurately shown and labeled as well as all on-site grading/site preparation. All improvements existing on the property were completed in accordance with all regulations in existence at the time of their construction, unless otherwise noted. NAME (PRINT): ___,.~~--~~~~ SIGNATURE: DATE: Note: If the person signing above is an authorized agent for the contractor provide a letter of authorization on contractor letterhead. -OR- (OPTION B): OWNER-BUILDER DECLARATION: I hereby affirm that I am exempt from Contractor's License Law for the following reason: ~ I, as owner of the property or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work and the structure is not intended or offered for sale (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who does such work himself or through his own employees, provided that such improvements are not intended or offered for sale. If, however, the building or improvement is sold within one year of completion, the owner-builder will have the burden of proving that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale). -OR- □ I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and contracts for such projects with contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law). -OR- D I am exempt under Business and Professions Code Division 3, Chapter 9, Article 3 for this reason: AND, !21'FORM B-61 "Owner Builder Acknowledgement and Verification Form" is required for any permit issued to a property owner. By my signature below I acknowledge that, except for my personal residence in which I must have resided for at least one year prior to completion of the improvements covered by this permit, I cannot legally sell a structure that I have built as an owner-builder if it has not been constructed in its entirety by licensed contractors./ understandthat a copy oftheapplicablelaw, Section 7044 of the Businessand Professions Code, is availableuponrequestwhen this applicationis submitted or at the following Web site: http: I /www.leginfo.ca.gov/ ca/aw.html. OWNER CERT/FICA TION: The applicant certifies that all documents and plans clearly and accurately show all existing and proposed buildings, structures, access roads, and utilities/utility easements. All proposed modifications and/or additions are clearly labeled on the site plan. Any potentially existing detail within these plans inconsistent with the site plan are not approved for construction and may be required to be altered or removed. The city's approval of the application is based on the premise that the submitted documents and plans show the correct dimensions of; the property, buildings, structures and their setbacks from property lines and from one another; access roads/easements, and utilities. The existing and proposed use of each building as stated is true and correct; all easements and other encumbrances to development have been accurately shown and labeled as well as all on-site grading/site preparation. All improvements existing on the property were completed in accordance with all regulations in existence at the time of their construction, unless otherwise noted. NAME (PRINT): l½Jn; fu.n/'zC~ SIGN:--·~ DATE: 6jv /2,v 2-tf Note: If the person signing above is an authorized agent for the property owner inc~y ~roperty owner. 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ph: 442-339-2719 Email: Building@carlsbadca.gov 2 REV. 04/22 ( City of Carlsbad OWNER-BUILDER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM B-61 Development Services Building Division 1635 Faraday Avenue 442-339-2719 www.carlsbadca.gov OWNER-BUILDER ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM Pursuant to State of California Health a.nd Safety Code Section 19825-19829 To: Property Owner An application for construction permit(s) has been submitted in your name listing you as the owner-builder of the property located at: Site Address )7 :3~ )~hQCIV\t'r 4nsk.d CA 4 zoof( The City of Carlsbad ("City") is providing you with this Owner-Builder Acknowledgment and Verification form to inform you of the responsibilities and t he possible risks associated with typical construction activities issued in your name as the Owner-Builder. The City will not issue a construction permit until you have read and initialed your understanding of each provision in the Property Owner Acknowledgment section below and sign the form. An agent of the owner cannot execute this notice unless you, the property owner, complete the Owner's Authorized Agent form and it is accepted by the City of Carlsbad. INSTRUCTIONS: Pl ease read and initial each statement below to acknowledge your understanding and verification of this information by signature at the bottom of the form. These are very important construction related acknowledgments designed to inform the property owner of his/her obligations related to the requested permit activities. I. _Q_1 understand a frequent practice of unlicensed contractors is to have the property owner obtain an "Owner- -Builder" building permit that erroneously implies that the property owner is providing his or her own labor and material personally. I, as an Owner-Builder, may be held liable and subject to serious financial risk for any injuries sustained by an unlicensed contractor and his or her employees while working on my property. My homeowner's insurance may not provide coverage for those injuries. I am willfully acting as an Owner-Builder and am aware of t he limits of my insurance coverage for injuries to workers on my property. II. ~I understand building permits are not required to be signed by property owners unless they are responsible for the construction and are not hiring a licensed contractor to assume this responsibility. Ill. &_1 understand as an "Owner-Builder" I am the responsible party of record on the permit. I understand that I may protect myself from potential financial risk by hiring a licensed contractor and having the permit filed in his or her name instead of my own. IV. f.2_1 understand contractors are required by law to be licensed and bonded in California and to list their license numbers on permits and contracts. V. ~I understand if I employ or otherwise engage any persons, other than California licensed contractors, and the total value of my construction is at least five hundred dollars ($500), including labor and materials, I may be considered an "employer" under state and federal law. REV.05/22 Owner-Builder Acknowledgement Continued VI. 5-_1 understand if I am considered an "employer" under state and federal law, I must register with the state and federal government, w ithhold payroll t axes, provide workers' compensation disability insurance, and contribute to unemployment compensation for each "employee." I also understand my failure to abide by these laws may subject me to serious financial risk. VII. ~ I understand under California Contractors' State License Law, an Owner--Builder who builds single-family residential structures cannot legally build them with the intent to offer them for sale, unless all work is performed by licensed subcontractors and the number of structures does not exceed four within any calendar year, or all of the work is performed under contract with a licensed general building contractor. VIII. ~ I understand as an Owner--Builder if I sell the property for which this permit is issued, I may be held liable for any financial or personal injuries sustained by any subsequent owner(s) which result from any latent construction defects in the workmanship or materials. IX. .KS-I understand I may obtain more information regarding my obligations as an "employer" from the Internal Revenue Service, the United States Small Business Administration, the California Department of Benefit Payments, and the California Division of Industrial Accidents. I also understand I may contact the California Contractors' State License Board (CSLB) at 1···800-321-CSLB (2752) or www.cslb.ca.gov for more information about licensed contractors. X. .:iS2_1 am aware of and consent to an Owner-Builder building permit applied for in my name, and understand that I am the party legally and financially responsible for proposed construction activity at t he following address: 17 38: 54udVl(°( LA!y 6 c\slet.d CA XI. K.5..-1 agree that, as the party legally and financially responsible for this proposed construction activity, I w ill abide by all applicable laws and requirements that govern Owner--Builders as well as employers. XII. KS I agree to notify the issuer of this form immediately of any additions, deletions, or changes to any of the information I have provided on this form. Licensed contractors are regulated by laws designed to protect the public. If you contract with someone who does not have a license, the Contractor's State License Board may be unable to assist you with any financial loss you may sustain as a result of a complaint. Your only remedy against unlicensed Contractors may be in civil court. It is also important for you to understand that if an unlicensed Contractor or employee of t hat individual or firm is inj ured while working on your property, you may be held liable for damages. If you obtain a permit as Owner- Builder and wish to hire contractors, you will be responsible for verifying whether or not those contractors are properly licensed and the status of their workers' compensation coverage. Before a building permit can be issued, this form must be completed, signed by the property owner and returned to the City of Carlsbad Building Division. I declare under penalty of perjury that I have read and understand all of the information provided on this form and that my responses, including my authority to sign this form, is true and correct. I am aware that I have the option to consult with legal counsel prior to signing this form, and I have either (1) consulted with legal counsel prior to signing this form or (2) have waived this right in signing this form without the advice of legal counsel. Property Owner Name (PRINT) ;,,~ -roperty Owner Signature 3 REV.05/22 PERMIT INSPECTION HISTORY for (CBR2023-5062) Permit Type: BLDG-Residential Work Class: Addition Status: Closed -Finaled Application Date: 11/16/2023 Owner: CO-OWNERS SUNDSETH KEONI J AND GEANIE H Issue Date: 05/10/2024 Subdivision: CARLSBAD TCT#72-18 UNIT#01 Expiration Date: 04/21/2025 IVR Number: 53359 Address: 1738 SCHOONER WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3623 Scheduled Actual Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Primary Inspector Reinspection Inspection Date Start Date Wednesday, July 2, 2025 Checklist Item BLDG-Building Deficiency BLDG-Plumbing Final BLDG-Mechanical Final BLDG-Structural Final BLDG-Electrical Final Status COMMENTS 5-15-25 B-59 form pending 5/19/25 B-59 received Passed Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Page 4 of 4 PERMIT INSPECTION HISTORY for (CBR2023-5062) Permit Type: BLDG-Residential Application Date: 11/16/2023 Owner: CO-OWNERS SUNDSETH KEONI J AND GEANIE H Work Class: Addition Issue Date: 05/10/2024 Subdivision: CARLSBAD TCT#72-18 UNIT#01 Status: Closed -Finaled Expiration Date: 04/21/2025 Address: 1738 SCHOONER WAY IVR Number: 53359 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3623 Scheduled Actual Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Primary Inspector Re inspection Inspection Date Start Date Status Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed Are erosion control BMPs Yes functioning properly? Are perimeter control BMPs Yes maintained? Is the entrance stabilized to Yes prevent tracking? Have sediments been tracked Yes on to the street? Has trash/debris accumulated Yes throughout the site? Are portable restrooms Yes properly positioned? Do portable restrooms have Yes secondary containment? 10/23/2024 10/23/2024 BLDG-17 Interior 265448-2024 Passed Dirk de Roggenbuke Complete Lath/Drywall Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes BLDG-SW-Inspection 265655-2024 Partial Pass Dirk de Roggenbuke Re Inspection Incomplete Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed Are erosion control BMPs Yes functioning properly? Are perimeter control BMPs Yes maintained? Is the entrance stabilized to Yes prevent tracking? Have sediments been tracked Yes on to the street? Has trash/debris accumulated Yes throughout the site? Are portable restrooms Yes properly positioned? Do portable restrooms have Yes secondary containment? 05/15/2025 05/15/2025 BLDG-Final Inspection 284921-2025 Partial Pass Dirk de Roggenbuke Reinspection Incomplete Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency 5-15-25 B-59 form pending No BLDG-Plumbing Final Yes BLDG-Mechanical Final Yes BLDG-Structural Final Yes BLDG-Electrical Final Yes 05/19/2025 05/19/2025 BLDG-Final Inspection 285226-2025 Passed Dirk de Roggenbuke Complete Wednesday, July 2, 2025 Page 3 of 4 PERMIT INSPECTION HISTORY for (CBR2023-5062} Permit Type: BLDG-Residential Application Date: 11/16/2023 Owner: CO-OWNERS SUNDSETH KEONI J AND GEANIE H Work Class: Addition Issue Date: 05/10/2024 Subdivision: CARLSBAD TCT#72-18 UNIT#01 Status: Closed -Finaled Expiration Date: 04/21/2025 Address: 1738 SCHOONER WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3623 Scheduled Date 10/15/2024 IVR Number: Actual Inspection Type Start Date Inspection No. Checklist Item Are erosion control BMPs functioning properly? Are perimeter control BMPs maintained? Is the entrance stabilized to prevent tracking? Have sediments been tracked on to the street? Has trash/debris accumulated throughout the site? Are portable restrooms properly positioned? Do portable restrooms have secondary containment? COMMENTS 10/15/2024 BLDG-14 264242-2024 Frame/Steel/Bolting/We lding (Decks) Checklist Item COMMENTS BLDG-Building Deficiency BLDG-16 Insulation Checklist Item 264093-2024 COMMENTS TEXT 53359 Inspection Primary Inspector Status Passed Dirk de Roggenbuke Passed Dirk de Roggenbuke BLDG-Building Deficiency NOTES Created By Chris Renfro Keoni 1-310-988-0276 Wednesday, July 2, 2025 BLDG-18 Exterior Lath/Drywall Checklist Item 264243-2024 COMMENTS BLDG-Building Deficiency BLDG-SW-Inspection 264244-2024 Passed Dirk de Roggenbuke Partial Pass Dirk de Roggenbuke Reinspection Inspection Passed Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Passed Yes Passed Yes Created Date 10/15/2024 Passed Yes Complete Complete Complete Relnspection Incomplete Page 2 of 4 Building Permit Inspection History Finaled (Cityof Carlsbad PERMIT INSPECTION HISTORY for (CBR2023-5062) Permit Type: BLDG-Residential Application Date: 11/16/2023 Owner: CO-OWNERS SUNDSETH KEONI J AND GEANIE H Work Class: Addition Issue Date: 05/10/2024 Subdivision: CARLSBAD TCT#72-18 UNIT#01 Status: Closed -Finaled Expiration Date: 04/21/2025 Address: 1738 SCHOONER WAY IVR Number: 53359 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3623 Scheduled Actual Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Primary Inspector Reinspection Inspection Date Start Date Status 07/16/2024 07/16/2024 BLDG-11 254776-2024 Passed Dirk de Roggenbuke Complete Foundation/Ftg/Piers (Rebar) Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes BLDG-SW-Pre-Con 255036-2024 Passed Dirk de Roggenbuke Complete Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes 10/07/2024 10/07/2024 BLDG-13 Shear 263197-2024 Passed Dirk de Roggenbuke Complete Panels/HD (ok to wrap) Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes BLDG-15 Roof/ReRoof 263198-2024 Passed Dirk de Roggenbuke Complete (Patio) Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes 10/10/2024 10/10/2024 BLDG-24 Rough/Topout 263918-2024 Passed Dirk de Roggenbuke Complete Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes BLDG-34 Rough 263763-2024 Passed Dirk de Roggenbuke Complete Electrical Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes BLDG-SW-Inspection 263919-2024 Partial Pass Dirk de Roggenbuke Re inspection Incomplete Wednesday, July 2, 2025 Page 1 of 4 Transmittal Letter February 27, 2024 City of Carlsbad Community Development Department -Building Division 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Plan Review: Residential New Bedroom & Remodel Address: 1738 Schooner Way, Carlsbad CA ~ True Nort]1 •• •' COMP\.IANCE SERVICES , TillRD REVIEW City Permit No: CBR2023 .. 5062 Tnie North No.: 23-018-1161 Applicant Name: Alena Brooks Blasio Applicant Email: admin@thisisbawinc.com True North Compliance Services, Inc. has completed the review of the follow ing documents for the project referenced above on behalf of the City of Carlsbad. Our comments can be found on the attached list. 1. Drawings: Electronic copy dated September 19, 2023, by Paul S. Christenson. Attn: Permit Technician, the scope of work on the plans has been reviewed for coordination with the scope of work on the permit application. See below for info1mation if the scope of work on plans differs from the permit application: Valuation: Scope of Work: Floor Area: Confirmed Confirmed Confirmed Our comments follow on the attached list. Please call if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, True North Compliance Services Review By: Jasmine Safaqa -Plan Review Engineer QA/QC Review By: Ryan DeCastro -Plan Review Engineer True North Compliance Services, Inc. 8369 Vickers Street, Suite 207, San Diego, CA 92111 T / 562. 733.8030 Residential New Bedroom & Remodel 1738 Schooner Way February 27, 2024 Plan Review Comments HARD COPY -RIESUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIO~S: City of Carlsbad-THIRD REVIEW City Permit No.: CBR2023-5062 True North No.: 23-018-1161 Page2 Please do not resubmit plans until all departments have completed their reviews. For status, please contact building@carlsbadca.gov Please make all corrections, as requested in the correction list. Submit FOUR new complete sets of plans for commercial/industri al projects (THREE sets of plans for residential projects). Corrected sets can be submitted as follows: Deliver THREE corrected sets of plans and TWO corrected calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Division, 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008, ( 442). 339-2719. The city will route the plans to True North, Planning and Land Development Engineering Departments (if applicable) for continued review. Note: lf this project requires FTRE PREVENTION review, ensure that you follow their specific instmctions for resubmittal review. The city will not route plans back to Dennis Grubb & Associates for continued Fire Prevention review. GENERAL INFORMATION: A. The following comments are referred to the 2022 California Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical Codes, California Green Building Standards Code, and Energy Code (i.e., 2021 IBC, UMC, UPC, and 2020 NEC, as amended by the State of California). B. There may be other comments generated by the Building Division and/or other City departments that will also require your attention and response. This attached list of comments, then, is only a portion of the plan review. Contact the City for other items. C. Respond in writing to each comment by marking the attached comment list or creating a response letter. Indicate which details, specification, or calculation shows the required information. Your complete and clear responses will expedite the re-check. D. Where applicable, be sure to include the architect and engineer's stamp and signature on all sheets of the drawings and on the covcrsheets of specifications and calculations per CBPC 5536.1 and CBPC 6735. This item will be verified prior to plan approval. OCCUP A1'1CY & BUILDING SlL\1MARY: Occupancy Groups: Type of Construction: SprinkJers: Stories: Area of Work (sq. ft.): R3 V-B No I 496 sq. ft. ARCHITECTURAL AND MEP COMMENTS: No comments. Residential New Bedroom & Remodel 1738 Schooner Way February 27, 2024 GREEN BUILDING COMMENTS: No comments. ENERGY COMPLIANCE COMMENTS: No comments. STRUCTURAL COMMENTS: City of Carlsbad-THIRD REVIEW City Permit No.: CBR2023-5062 True North No.: 23-018-1161 Page3 S 1. Per city fonn B64, a soils report is required for all additions. Submit a soils ~eport and incorporate the recommendations of the report into the desi!,>n. a) Provide the geotechnical engineer's stamp and signature on the foundation plan and all sheets containing foundation details confirm ing that the foundation plan, details, and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been detem1ined that the recommendations in the geotechnical report are properly incorporated into the plans. PC2: Please provide documentation from the building official justifying the provided statement. PC3: The required documentation was not provided. Please provide documentatioll from the building o.ffzcial stating your response or provide the required soils rep011. If you have any questions regarding the above comments. pl ease contact Ryan Decastro via email ryand@tncservices.com or telephone (562) 733-8030. (END] Transmittal Letter January 17, 2024 City of Carlsbad Community Development Department -Building Division 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Plan Review: Residential New Bedroom & Remodel Address: 1738 Schooner Way, Carlsbad CA True No1th COMPLIANCE SERVICES SECOND REVIEW City Pem1it No: CBR2023-5062 True North No.: 23-018-1161 Applicant Name: Alena Brooks Blasio Applicant Email: admin@thisisbawioc.com True North Compliance Services, Inc. has completed the review of the following documents for the project referenced above on behalf of the City of Carlsbad. Our comments can be found on the attached list. I. Drawings: Electronic copy dated September 19, 2023, by Paul S. Christenson. Attn: Permit Technician, the scope of work on the plans has been reviewed for coordination with the scope of work on the permit application. See below for information if the scope of work on plans differs from the permit application: Valuation: Scope of Work: Floor Area: Confirmed Confirmed Confirmed Our comments follow on the attached list. Please call if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, True North Compliance Services Review By: Jasmine Safaqa -Plan Review Engineer QA/QC Review By: Ryan Decastro -Plan Review Engineer True North Compliance Services, Inc. 8369 Vickers Street, Suite 207, San Diego, CA 92111 T / 562. 733.8030 Residential New Bedroom & Remodel 1738 Schooner Way January 17, 2024 City of Carlsbad-SECOND REVIEW City Permit No.: CBR2023-5062 True North No.: 23-018-1161 Page2 Plan Review Comments HARD COPY -RESUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS: Please do not resubmit plans until all departments have completed their reviews. For status, please contact building@carlsbadca.gov Please make all corrections, as requested in the correction list. Submit FOUR new complete sets of plans for commercial/industrial projects (THREE sets of plans for residential projects). Corrected sets can be submitted as follows: Deliver THREE corrected sets of plans and TWO corrected calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Division, 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008, (442) 339-2719. The city will route the plans to True North, Planning and Land Development Engineering Departments (if applicable) for continued review. Note: If this project requires FIRE PREVENTION review, ensure that you follow their specific instructions for resubmittal review. The city will not route plans back to Dennis Gmbb & Associates for continued Fire Prevention review. GENERAL INFORMATION: A. The following comments are referred to the 2022 California Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical Codes, California Green Building Standards Code, and Energy Code (i.e., 2021 IBC, UMC, UPC, and 2020 NEC, as amended by the State of California). B. There may be other comments generated by the Building Division and/or other City departments that will also require your attention and response. This attached list of comments, then, is only a portion of the plan review. Contact the City for other items. C. Respond in writing to each comment by marking the attached comment list or creating a response letter. Indicate which details, specification, or calculation shows the required information. Your complete and clear responses will expedite the re-check. D. Where applicable, be sure to include the architect and engineer's stamp and signature on all sheets of the drawings and on the coversbeets of specifications and calculations per CBPC 5536.1 and CBPC 6735. This item will be verified prior to plan approval. OCCUPANCY & BUILDING SUMMARY: Occupancy Groups: Type of Construction: Sprinklers: Stories: Area of Work (sq. ft.): R3 V-B No 1 496 sq. ft. ARCIDTECTURAL AND MEP COMMENTS: No comments. Residential New Bedroom & Remodel 1738 Schooner Way City of Carlsbad-SECOND REVIEW City Permit No.: CBR2023-5062 True North No.: 23-018-1161 Page3 January 17, 2024 GREEN BUILDING COMMENTS: G l. CALGreen mandatory measures are required for residential projects that increases the conditioned space per CGBC 301. l. l. a) Incorporate mandatory measures specified in Chapter 4 of the 2022 CGBC onto the plan set or download the mandatory checklist from the following link: https://aiacalifornia.org/learn-grow- practice/practices/ calgreen-checkl ists/ b) Reproduce the residential occupancies application checklist onto the plan sheets. Please ensure to complete the checklist. PC2: Please complete the provided Ca/Green checklist by checking the boxes where applicable. ENERGY COMPLIANCE COMMENTS: T 1. Reflected Ceiling Plan/Sheet A4.0, address the following comments: b) Revise plan to show at least one luminaire in the pantry, walk-in closets, and other utility rooms to be controlled by a vacancy sensor. CEnergyC 150.0(k)2(E) PC2: The above comment was not addressed. Please show the vacancy sensor switches in the bathroom, walk-in closets and pantry room. STRUCTURAL COMMENTS: S 1. Per city form B64, a soils report is required for all additions. Submit a soils report and incorporate the recommendations of the report into the design. a) Provide the geotechnical engineer's stamp and signature on the foundation plan and all sheets containing foundation details confirming that the foundation plan, details, and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the geotechnical report are properly incorporated into the plans. PC2: Please provide documentation from the building official justifying the provided statement. S7. Balloon framing is proposed at the rear of the dwelling, please provide framing details for balloon framing with a roof height over 10 feet. Provide calculation for wall framing members. Conventional wood framing per CRC Table R602.3(5) limits the laterally unsupported stud height of 2x6 to 10 feet. PC2: The provided response references page 16 and 17 of structural calculations, while there are no structural calculations provided. Please ensure to provide structural calculations for the balloon framed members. Ensure to provide structural design for the posts taking into consideration slendemess ratio. If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact Ryan Decastro via email ryand@tncservices.com or telephone (562) 733-8030. [END] Transmittal Letter November 28, 2023 City of Carlsbad Community Development Department -Building Division 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Plan Review: Residential New Bedroom & Remodel Address: 1738 Schooner Way, Carlsbad CA True North COMPLIANCE SERVICES FIRST REVIEW City Permit No: CBR2023-5062 True North No.: 23-018-11 61 Applicant Name: Alena Brooks Blasio Applicant Email: admin@thisisbawinc.com True North Compliance Services, Inc. has completed the review of the following documents for the project referenced above on behalf of the City of Carlsbad. Our comments can be found on the attached I ist. I. Drawings: Electronic copy dated September 19, 2023, by Paul S. Christenson. Attn: Permit Technician, the scope of work on the plans has been reviewed for coordination with the scope of work on the permit application. See below for information if the scope of work on plans differs from the permit application: Valuation: Scope of Work: Floor Area: Confirmed Confirmed Confirmed Our comments follow on the attached list. Please call if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, True North CompJiance Services Review By: Jasmine Safaqa -Plan Review Engineer QA/QC Review By: Ryan Decastro -Plan Review Engineer True North Compliance Services~ Inc. 8369 Vickers Street, Suite 207, San Diego, CA 92111 T / 562. 733.8030 Residential New Bedroom & Remodel 1738 Schooner Way November 28, 2023 Plan Review Comments HARD COPY -RESUBMITT AL INSTRUCTIONS: City of Carlsbad-FffiST REVIEW City Permit No.: CBR2023-5062 True North No.: 23-018-1161 Page2 Please do not resubmit plans until all departments have completed their reviews. For status, please contact building@carlsbadca.gov Please make all corrections, as requested in the correction list. Submit FOUR new complete sets of plans for commercial/industrial projects (THREE sets of plans for residential projects). Corrected sets can be submitted as follows: Deliver THREE corrected sets of plans and TWO corrected calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Division, 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008, ( 442) 339-2719. The city will route the plans to True North, Planning and Land Development Engineering Departments (if applicable) for continued review. Note: Tf this project requires FIRE PREVENTION review, ensure that you follow their specific instructions for resubmittal review. The city will not route plans back to Dennis Grubb & Associates for continued Fire Prevention review. ELECTRONIC -RESUBMITT AL INSTRUCTIONS: Please do not resubmit plans until all departments have completed their reviews. For status, please contact building@carlsbadca.gov Please make all conections, as requested in the correction list. Conected sets can be submitted as follows: Email the revised plans and comment response letter(s) to building@carlsbadca.gov for continued review. Note: If this project requires FIRE PREVENTION review, ensure that you follow their specific instructions for resubmittal review. The city will not route plans back to Dennis Grubb & Associates for continued Fire Prevention review. GENERAL INFORMATION: A. The following comments are referred to the 2022 California Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical Codes, California Green Building Standards Code, and Energy Code (i.e., 2021 IBC, UMC, UPC, and 2020 NEC, as amended by the State of California). B. There may be other comments generated by the Building Division and/or other City departments that will also require your attention and response. This attached list of comments, then, is only a portion of the plan review. Contact the City for other items. C. Respond in writing to each comment by marking the attached comment list or creating a response letter. Indicate which details, specification, or calculation shows the requi1·ed information. Your complete and clear responses will expedite the re-check. D. Where applicable, be sure to include the architect and engineer's stamp and signature on all sheets of the drawings and on the coversheets of specifications and calculations per CBPC 5536. l and CBPC 6735. This item will be verified prior to plan approval. Residential New Bedroom & Remodel 1738 Schooner Way November 28, 2023 OCCUPANCY & BUILDING SUMMARY: Occupancy Groups: R3 Type of Construction: V-B Sprinklers: No Stories: I Area of Work (sq. ft.): 496 sq. ft. ARCIDTECTURAL COMMENTS: A 1. Sheet Tl .0: Address the following comments: City of Carlsbad-FIRST REVIEW City Permit No.: CBR2023-5062 True North No.: 23-018-1161 Page3 a) Please add the 2022 CGBSC to the list of applicable codes in Code Summary Notes. b) WSWHl and WSWH2 sheets specified in the sheet index are missing from the plan set, provide on next review. c) Revise the Required Special Features Summary and HERs Feature Summary to specify what is in the Energy Analysis. REQUIRED SPECIAL FEATURES SUMMARY 8 HERS FEATURE SUMMARY A2. Sheet A3.0: For the smoke alarm outside bedroom 4, revise the smoke alarm to be located at least 3 feet from the entry door to bathroom 3 that contains bathtub/shower. CRC R314.3.3 0 ~ BED4 A3. Sheet A6.0, please address the following: a) Submit detail for the exterior wall finishes. Details shall include the following: i) Flashing showing transition from the different exterior siding per CRC R703. l. ii) Water resistive barrier per CRC R703.2. iii) Clearance between the siding and the earth or paved surface per CRC R703. b) Specify stucco to be three coats minimum when applied over metal lath with 2 layers of grade D paper. CRC R703.6.2 & R703.6.3. Residential New Bedroom & Remodel 1738 Schooner Way November 28, 2023 City of Carlsbad-FIRST REVIEW City Permit No.: CBR2023-5062 True North No.: 23-018-1 161 Page4 c) Specify weep screed to be installed at the base of the stucco siding. Weep screed shall be a minimum of2 inches above concrete slabs and 4 inches above exposed earth. CRC R703.6.2. I . d) Provide ICC ESR Report number for proposed siding. A4. Provide attic ventilation calculation including the additional roof area. Show the number of vents and calculation to justify the quantity is adequate to provide l square feet of ventilation per 150 square feet of vented space. CRC R806.2. MECHANICAL COMMENTS: No comments. ELECTRICAL COMMENTS: El. Reflected Ceiling Plan/Sheet A4.0, address the following comments: a) Note on plans: Per city policy, wiring is not permitted on the roof of a building and wiring on the exterior of a building requires approval by the Building Official. b) Specify a minimum of one receptacle outlet in the hallways. CEC 210.52 :i: =-1-~ ~~~~ijr..~i-~~(=~--~.~~~~-~ . D ~ 4"°•1--I ilf,~-;rr==n c) Provide a GFCI, waterproof, and tamper resistant receptacle outlet at the rear of the building per CEC 2 I 0.8, 406.9(B), 406.12, and 210.52(E). d) Copy the following notes onto the plan. i) All 120-volt, single phase, 15-and 20-ampere branch circuits supplying outlets installed in dwelling unit kitchen, family rooms, dining rooms, living rooms, parlors, libraries, dens, bedrooms, sunrooms, recreation rooms, closets, hallways, or similar rooms or areas shall be protected by a listed arc-fault circuit interrupter, combination-type, installed to provide protection of the branch circuit. CEC 210.12 ii) All 125-volt, 15-and 20-ampere receptacle outlets shall be listed tamper-resistant receptacles per CEC 406.12. PLUMBING COMMENTS: No comments. GREEN BUILDING COMMENTS: G l. CALGreen mandatory measures are required for residential projects that increases the conditioned space per CGBC 301.l.l. Residential New Bedroom & Remodel 1738 Schooner Way November 28, 2023 City of Carlsbad-FIRST REVIEW City Permit No.: CBR2023-5062 True North No.: 23-018-1161 Page5 a) Incorporate mandatory measures specified in Chapter 4 of the 2022 CGBC onto the plan set or download the mandatory checklist from the following li nk: https://aiacalifornia.org/learn-grow- practice/practices/calgreen-checklists/ b) Reproduce the residential occupancies application checklist onto the plan sheets. Please ensure to complete the checklist. ENERGY COMPLIANCE COMMENTS: Tl. Reflected Ceiling Plan/Sheet A4.0, address the following comments: a) Note on plans: All lighting to be high efficacy. CEnergyC 150.0(k)l(A) b) Revise plan to show at least one luminaire in the pantry, walk-in closets, and other utility rooms to be controlled by a vacancy sensor. CEnergyC l 50.0(k)2(E) c) Revise plan to show interior lighting fixtures that are not controlled by occupancy or vacancy sensors to be equipped with dimming controls. CEnergyC 150.0 (K)(2)(F) d) For exterior lighting, specify luminaires to be high efficacy and shall meet the following requirements, as applicable per CEnergyC 150.0(k)(3): i) Controlled by a manual ON and OFF switch that does not override to ON the automatic actions of Items b) or c) below; and ii) Controlled by photocell and motion sensor. Controls that override to ON shall not be allowed unless the override automatically reactivates the motion sensor within 6 hours; or iii) Controlled by one of the following methods: ( 1) Photocontrol and automatic time switch control. (2) Astronomical time clock (3) Energy management control system. STRUCTURAL COMMENTS: SI. Per city form B64, a soils report is required for all additions. Submit a soils report and incorporate the recommendations of the report into the design. a) Provide the geotechnical engineer's stamp and signature on the foundation plan and all sheets containing foundation details confirming that the foundation plan, details, and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the geotechnical report are properly incorporated into the plans. S2. The pad footing schedule appears to be missing from the plans, please provide on next review. S3. Revise detail 1/SDl to reflect the enlarged footing for the strong wall. S4. Strong wall details sheet wasn't provided. Please provide details sheet for the proposed Simpson strong walls. SS. Detail 10/Sheet SDI, the provided detail is called-out for Simpson strong wall attachment to roof diaphragm, while the detail itself is not showing the strong wall. Please revise to show strong wall and its attachment to the roof. Residential New Bedroom & Remodel 1738 Schooner Way November 28, 2023 .................. ........ . ... . '#IWHlbl 0 ~~ ~ -ICCUUR-tm NEW T ..... . City of Carlsbad-FIRST REVIEW City Permit No.: CBR2023-5062 True North No.: 23-018-1161 Page6 S6. Trusses are being proposed, please identify the drag loads on the framing plans. S7. Balloon framing is proposed at the rear of the dwelling, please provide framing details for balloon framing with a roof height over 10 feet. Provide calculation for wall framing members. Conventional wood framing per CRC Table R602.3(5) limits the laterally unsupported stud height of 2x6 to 10 feet. NEWSCISS< TRUSSE! 24•oc !M',na,.,... 8B!IHUT1 lfyou have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact Ryan Decastro via email ryand@tncservices.com or telephone (562) 733-8030. fENDJ PCSD Engineering Corp 3529 Coastview Court Carlsbad, CA 92010 Ph: 760-207-1885 N (0 0 Lt) I M N 0 N ct: co (.) : ~=-!t-.i: ... ~ __ .,,. ____ ~ J Structural Deslgn Calculations Residential Addition Client Brooks Design Project Sundseth Residence 1738 Schooner Way Carlsba Paul S. Christenson RCE C57182, exp. 12/31/23 November 7, 2023 Rev. 12-10-23 PCSD File #: 23-523 p,,.,., l C-f..ri.,u,,.,u,,. 5 ,,.,,,. !>U," ~n,.:nu.n'.n' Paul Christenson San Diego Engineering 3529 Coastview Ct -Carlsbad, CA 92010 Telephone (760) 207-1885 -Email: paul.pcsd@gmail.com 1.0 Design Criteria: Sundseth Residence 23-523 Code: Timber: 2022 California Building Code -ASCE 7-16 Douglas Fir-Larch (DF-L), WWPA or WCLIB 2x Wall Framing: DF-L #2 (unless noted otherwise) 2x Rafters & Joists: DF-L #2 " " Posts & Beams: DF-L #1 • Glue-Lam Beams: Simple Span: Grade 24F-V4 (DF/DF) Grade 24F-V8 (DF/DF) Cantilevers: Sheathing: Min. APA-Rated Sheathing, Exposure 1, Plywood or OSB (U.N.O.) Engineered Framing Wood I-Joists: TJI 110,210,230,360,560 ICC ESR-1153 1.9E Microllam, 2.0E Parallam ICBO ER-4979 Concrete: Concrete Block: Mortar: Grout: LVL, PSL Compressive Strength @ 28 days per ASTM C39-96: Footings: f'c = 2500 psi Grade Beams: f'c = 3000 psi Grade N-1 per ASTM C90-95, f'm = 1500 psi per ASTM E447-92 Type S Mortar Cement per ASTM C270-95, Min. f'm = 1800 psi @ 28 days. Coarse Grout w/ 3/8" Max. Aggregate per ASTM C476-91, Min. fm = 2000 psi @ 28 days. Reinforcing Steel: "#4 & Larger: #3 & Smaller: ASTM A615-60 (Fy = 60 ksi) ASTM A615-40 (Fy = 40 ksi) Structural Steel: 'W' Shapes: ASTM A992, Fy= 50-65 ksi Plates, Angles, Channels ASTM A36, Fy = 36 ksi Tube Shapes: ASTM A500, Grade 8, Fy= 46 ksi Pipe Shapes: ASTM A53, Grade 8, Fy=35 ksi Welding Electrodes: Structural Steel: E70-T6 E90 Series Bolts: Soils: References: A615-60 Rebar: Sill Plate Anchor Botls & Threaded Rods: Steel Moment & Braced Frames: 1500 psf Bearing Pressure A307 Quality Minimum A325 (Bearing, U.N.O.) ' JOB 23-523 . . ? ,u./r;",tr/nen.ron 'ef nt ,tj,~o bfalNll'UIJ SHEET NO 1,. OF CALCULA TED_B_Y_...._P_S_C_ DA_T_E_1-1 /7-=-/2,....,3,- -I,:\ rv,,,i 1•·1 r. I ''\ '"',;.'i:-.,-:f.r· ·1 3529 Coastview Ct-Carlsbad, CA 92010 CHECK BY DATE SCALE rA,ML ~riJtlJUOK ~M.~fl 1!-,i"-., Telephone (760) 207-1885-Email: paul.pcsd@gmail.com 2.0 LOAD LIST 2.1 Roof (Vaulted) Roofing 15/32" Sheathing Roof Framing 5/8" Gyp. Bd. Insulation and Misc. IoL = ILL= Total Load = 2.2 Roof (w/ ceiling) Roofing 15/32" Sheathing Roof Framing lnsulation and Misc. 2.3 Ceiling Ceiling Joists 1:oL = ILL = Total Load= 5/8" Gyp. Bd. Insulation and Misc. 2.4 Walls IoL = ILL= Total Load= Exterior Wall 7/8" Stucco 15/32" Sheathing 2x4 Studs @ 16" o.c. 5/8" Gypsum Bd. Misc. ------·---------------· --·. ~ 5.0 psf 1.5 psf 2.8 psf 2.8 psf 1.9 psf 14.0 psf 20.0 psf 34.0 psf 5.0 psf 1.5 psf 2.8 psf 1.7 psf 11.0 psf 20.0 psf 31.0 psf 1.3 psf 2.8 psf 1.9 psf 6.0 psf IO.O psf 16.0 psf 9.0 psf 1.5 psf I.I psf 2.8 psf 0.6 psf 15.0 psf Interior Wall 1/2" Gyp. Bd. (2 Sides) 2x4 Studs @ 16" o.c. Misc. 4.6 psf I.I psf 2.3 psf 8.0 psf ---- ? ,ru/f;,tn'.,re:11.ro.n 'el'"' zju:f" bJVlet1MJ 3529 Coastview Ct -Carlsbad, CA 92010 JOB 23-523 SHEET NO ?, OF --------------CALCULATED BY PSC DATE 11/7/23 CHECK BY DATE ----SCALE Telephone (760) 207-1885 -Email: paul.pcsd@gmail.com 2.0 LOAD LIST (CONTIN) 2.5 Floor Floor Cover Sheathing 2x F.J. 5/8" Gyp. Bd. Insulation and Misc. IoL = ILL = Total Load= 5.5 psf 2.3 psf 3.5 psf 2.8 psf 0.9 psf 15.0 psf 40.0 psf (60.0 psf -Decks) 55.0 psf WIND PARAMETERS 2.6 Wind Basic Wind Speed = 110 mph Exposure Cat = B Ps = M(zt•l*Ps30 (ASCE 7-16 -Equation 28 5-1) P = 26.6 psf P = 16.0 psf (*0.6 -ASD) 2.7 Seismic SMs = 1.24 Sos = (2/3) SMs S05 = 0.826 Sos Cs= (R/l) Cs= 0.127 USE: V= 0.127 WoL ASD BASE SHEAR C..Wo1.. 1.4 (11.4.5) "-= I .00 (fig. 28.5.1-Ps30 = 26.6 psf Kzt =l.00 (fig.26.8-1) I = 1.0 USGS APPLICATION S,= 1.033 S1 = 0.375 F1 = 1.20 R = 6.5 h0 = 18.00 Occupancy Category: Site Class: F.= 0.00 r = 1.00 2 D SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY S1 < 0.1s S1 > o.o4 Ss > o.D (11.6 ASCE 7-16) ( 11.4.2 ASCE 7-16) (fig. 28.5-1) (table 1.5-2) T.= cl• (hJ0•15 = 0.11s Ts = S0 i/S0s = 0 k = 1.0 Sqn. 12.8-1 Not 01 Ta<0.5 Seismic Design Category: D 11/6/2'3, 4:14 PM U.S. Seismic Design Maps USGS web services were down for some period of time and as a result this tool wasn't operational, resulting in timeout error. USGS web services are now operational so this tool should work as expected. Sundseth 1738 Schooner Way, Carlsbad, CA 92008, USA Latitude, Longitude: 33.1519959, -117.323864 ABCTime~- Home Pres'chool Y ft Chaney Electric T .Carlsbad Electrici.an Building Blocks ft Home Daycare T 4> > <t' ()> 0.. 0 (.) ti) o.; QI Google Map data ©2023 Google I Date Design Code Reference Documan1 Riak Category 'Site Class Type V.lua Ss 1.033 . S1 0.375 's,...s 1.24 . s,...1 I null -See Section 11.4.8 ; Sos 0.826 S01 ·null •See-Section 11.4.-6 ·•. .... -.... ;Type Value soc null -See Section 11.4.8 : Fa 1.2 i Fv null -See Section 11.4.8 PGA 0.454 • FPGA 1.2 , PG"4 0.544 TL B SsRT 1.033 'SsUH 1.153 : SsD 1.5 1 S1RT 0.375 ! S1UH 0.413 S1O 0.6 https:/twww.selsmicmaps.org DeacripUon 11/6/2023, 4:13:58 PM ASCE7-1tl II D • Default (See Section 11.4.3) MCER ground motion. (for 0.2 second period) Description MCER ground motion. (for 1.0s period) Site-modified spectral acceleration value Site-modified spectral acceleration value Numeric seismic design value at 0.2 second SA -Ncrmeric-seismic -design -vahre at 1. O -secund SA Seismic design category Site amplification factor at 0.2 second Site amplification factor at 1.0 second MCEG peak ground acceleration Site amplification factor at PGA Site modified peak ground acceleration Longi)eriod transition period In seconds Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (0.2 second) Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance In 50 years) spectral acceleration Factored deterministic acceleration value. (0.2 second) Probablllstlcrlsk-targeted ground motion. (1.0 second) Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration. Factored detenninistic acceleration value. (1.0 second) 1/3 ~ f.ORTEWEB- ... 0 MEMBER REPORT Roof Framing, (RB-1) Hdr Bm 1 plece(s) 4 x 8 DF No.2 Overall Length: S' 1" PASSED + 0 All locatlons are measured rrom the outside race of len: support (or len: cantllever end). A~ dimensions are horizontal. Member Reactlon (lbs) 1679 @ 4' 11" 7656 (3. 50") Shear (lbs) 1595 @ 4' 2 1/4" 3806 Moment (Ft-lbs) 2516 @ 3' 4" 3737 L.Jve Load oen. In 0.028@ 2' 7 7/8" 0.237 Total Load Oefl. (In) 0.049@ 2' 7 7/8" 0.J17 • llefleciion crllieria: LL (l/240) and 'Tl (l/180), • Allowed moment does not reflect the adjustment for the beam stabiltty factor, • Aps,llcable calculatlons are based on NDS. Passed (22%) Passed 42%) 1.25 Passed (67%) 1.25 Passed (l/999+) Passed (l/999+) 1.0 D + 1.0 Lr (All Spans 1.0 D + 1.0 Lr (All Spans) 1.0 D + 1.0 Lr (All Spans) 1.0 D + 1.0 Lr (All Spans) 1.0 o + 1.0 Lr (All Spans) System : Roof Member Type : Drop Beam Buldlng Use : Residential Bulldlng Code : !BC 2021 Design Melhadalogy : ASD Member Pllx:h : 0/12 • Bloddng Panels are assumed to carry no loads applied dlrectly aix-them and the l'ul load Is applied to the member being designed, Bottom f.dQe (Lu) •Maximum allowable b<adng Intervals based on app41ed load. 1 -Uniform (PSF) 15.0 20,0 Default Load Z -Uniform (PSF) 15.0 zo.o Default Load 3 -Point (lb) 837 1U6 Default Load Weyerhaeuser wamonts that the sl;!l"ll of 115 proa,cts wffl be In acmrdance with Weyemaeuser product design crlt1!r1a and pullllshed clesq, values. Weyemaeuser e,cp,essty disclaims any other warranties related to the software. Use of this software Is not ln""1ded to circumvent the need for a design professional as determined by the authority having Jurtsdlcllon. The desloner of record, builder or framer Is responslbl@! to assure ttlat this calculaoon is compal!ble with the overall project. Acn!SSor1eS (Rim Board, Blodclng Panels and 5quaSh Blod<s) are not designed by this software. Products manufactured at Weyemaeuse, fadltles are third-party certffled ID sustainable forestry standards, Weyert,aeuser Engineered Lumber Products hav,, been evaluated by ICC-ES under evaluation reports ESIHIS3 and ESR-1387 and/or tested In aa:ordarce with applicable "5TM stllnilards. For WTeOI axle evaluation rep,rts, Wevert,aeuser product litlnture and Installation details refer to www.w,iverhae\lser.cxmvwoodproducts/documenHbrary. The product app!icatlon, Input design loads, dimensions and support Information have been provided by ForteWEB Software Operatcr l'ortaWEII Software Open,tl>r lobNolu Paul Oll'lstenson PCSD Engineering (760) 207-1885 A paul.pcsd@9md.com Weycrh•cuser 11/7/2023 7:22:29 PM UTC ForteWEB v3.6, Engine: va.3.1.S, Data: VS.1.4.1 File Name: Sundseth Page 1 / 1 '-'F'.ORTEWEB. 0 MEMBER REPORT Roof Framing, (RB-2) Hdr Bm 1 plece(s) 4 x 12 DF No.1 Overall length: 9' 1 • All locations are measured rrom the outside face or lert support (or left cantllever end). All dimensions are horizontal. t~·beulia~~rL1#/ ~ : ... T"{,~;'O~,,.;i;~.:.;::, 'f\Jr ... li',)Z,l'~'"" " ~· • ~ l \'tl :;~~:t;~<t-:.~·:;._ tr~t; ·~~.~ : •. :t~,:~is>..:.~<i?,/,:,§: Member Reaction (lbs) 3082 @2" 7656 (3.50") Passed (40%) --1.0 D + 1.0 Lr (All Spans) Shear (lbs) 22'18 (!J) 1' 2 3/4" 5906 Passed (38%) 1.25 1.0 D + 1.0 Lr (All Spans) Moment (Ft-lbs) 6495@ 4' 6 112· 8459 Passed (77%) 1.25 1.0 D + 1.0 Lr (AO Spans) Uve Load Deft. (In) 0.073 @ 4' 6 1/2" 0.438 Passed (l./999+) -1,0 D + 1.0 Lr (All Spans) Total Load DeM. (In) 0.127@ 4' 6 1/2" 0,583 Passed (l./828) -1.0 D + 1.0 Lr (All Spans) • Deflectlon criteria: LL (l./2-40) and TI. (l./180). • Alowed moment does not reflect the adjustment for the beam stability factor. • Applicable calculations are based on NOS. 2-Column -Of 3.50" 3.50" 1.50" 1296 1786 3082 Blocking • Blocldng Panels are assumed to any no loads applied di~ above them and the lull load Is appljed ID the member being de5lgned. Bottom ~ (Lu) 9' 1• o/c •Maxtmum allowable bt'aclno Intervals based on appled load. PASSED s1 .. 0 System : Roof Member Type : Drop Beam BuHdtng Use : Resldenllal Buldlng Code : l8C 2021 Design Methodology : ASD Member Pitch : 0/12 i.:i.~~-.J~!'. W~ wananlll that the s12lng ot Its ~ wilt be In accordance with Weyerhaeuser product deslQn a1ter1a and published deso, values. Weyerhaeuser expressly disclaims any other warranties related ID the sottwen,. Use of this software Is not Intended ID clo-cumvent the need for a design profe55ional as determined by the au1t>011ty having JuisdicUon. The designer of record, bulder or framer Is responslble to assure that this calaJlatJon is compaVble with the overall project Accessortes (Rim Board, Blocking Panels and Squash Blocks) are not designed by this soltware. Products manul'acturtd at Weyert,aeuser l'aCllllles are llilnl-pa,ty Cl!!1lfted ID suslillnable forestry standanls. weyemaeuser ?ngl-Lumber PtoclUct5 have been evaluall!d by lCC-1:S u,.,.,. evaluallon repon,, ?SR-1153 and ESR·l31l7 er,d/or testr:d In acx:ordence with applicable A5™ standards. For a.rrent a>de evaluatlon reports, Weyemaeuser product Hterature and installation detlllls refer to www.weyertiaeuser mm/woodproductsJdocument-library. The product appllcatJon, lf'4l\Jt design loads, dtmenstons and support lnfonnatton have been provided by ForteWEB Software Opera!Dr fortaWH Softwa,_ OparalDr Job Nollel Paul Ovisll!nson PCSD Engineer1no (760) 207-1885 A pauJ.pcsdOgmaH.com Weyerhaeuser 11(7/2023 7:24:27 PM lITC ForteWEB v3.6, Engine: VS.3.1.S, Data: VS.1.4.1 FIie Name: Sundseth Page 1 / 1 ~F·ORTEWEB. ♦ 0 MEMBER REPORT Roof Framing, (RB-3) Hdr Bm 1 plece(s) 4 x 8 OF No.1 Overall Length: 6' 3' PASSED .. 0 All locatlons are measured from the outside face of left support (or left cantilever end). All dimensions are horizontal. ~~:t~~i~.J", ~., < ·-·~~ ,';tif,~:t.t, Member Reaction (lbs) 2110@ 2" 7656 (3.50") Shear (lbs) 1505 @ 10 3/4" 3806 Moment (Ft·lbs) 2954 @ 3' 1 1/7." 4152 Live Load Oen. (In) 0.057 @ 3' 1 1/2" 0.296 Total Load Den. {In) 0.099 ~ 3' 1 1/2" 0.394 • Oelledlon criteria: U (1/240) and Tl (1/180). ~:;:;,,tJ.Jf•;.f;:ir J~f Passed (28%) .. Passed ( 40%) 1.25 Passed (71%) 1.25 Passed (L/999+) .. Passed (L/721) - t:&.iilliijj . ,., ,,, ·.·' ~T~~i'-ifJ~h;,_' 1.0 D + 1.0 Lr (All Spans) 1.0 D + 1.0 Lr (All Spans) 1.0 o + 1.0 Lr (An Spans) 1.0 D + 1.0 Lr (All Spans) 1.0 D + 1.0 Lr (All Spans) System : Roof Member TyPe : Drop eeam Building Use : Resldentlal Building Code : !BC 2021 Design Methodology : ASD Member Pitch : 0/12 • Allowed moment d°"5 not reflect the adjustment for the beam stability factor. • Applicabie calculattons are based on NOS. .SO" 881 1229 2 • Column • OF 1.50" 881 1229 2110 Bloddng • Blodclng Panels are assumed ID car,y no above them and the ruff load Is applied ID the member being designed. Top Edge (Lu) Bottom Edoc (Lu) 6' 3" o/c •Maldmum allowable bracing lnb!!rvals based on applied load. 1 • Uororm (PSF) Weyemaeuser warrants that the slz!ng of Its products wlH be In accordana! with Weyerhaeuser product deslon crf12l1a and published design values. W~ expressly dlsdalms any olher wan-anties related ID the software. Use of this software Is not Intended ID clf'cumvenl the need for a design professional as detennlned by the author1ty having jurisdiction. The designer of n!CO<d, builder or framer Is respons1b1e to assure that 1h15 calaJlatlon Is compatible wllh the overall project. Aecessones (Rim Board, Blocking Panels and Squash Blocks) are not designed by this sortware. Products manufactured at Weyertu,..,.... facllltle5 are thlrd-perty a,rtJ1'led 10 sustalnallle forestry stanclaltls. Weycmaeuser Engineered lumber Procluc:1'5 have been evaluated by lCC·l!S uncler evaluatlon reports ESR·115J and ~R-13117 and/or 11!:stl!:d In accordance with applk:able ASTM standards. For a..-rent axle evaluation reports, Weyertiae\Jser product iterature 1111d Installation detans refer ID www .weyerhaeuser .oom/woodl)roducts/doeum,,nt>-libraty. The product applk:atk>n, Input deslgn loads, dimensions and support lnlornlatlon have been provided by ForteWEB Software Operator ForteWE■ Softwanl (Jpenllor .JobNotu Paul Chrlstl!nson PCSD Englneertng (760) 207-1885 A paul.pcsd@gmal.com Wcytrhacuscr 11/7/2023 7:25:52 PM lJTC ForteWEB v3.6, Engine: va.3.1.5, Oat.a: VS.1.4.1 File Name: Sundseth Pagel/1 ~F'ORTEWEB 0 [TI MEMBER REPORT Roof Framing, (RB-4) Hdr Bm 1 piece(s) 4 x 8 DF No.1 0\/erall Length: i;· r All locatlons are measured rrom .the outside race or left support (or left cantilever end). All dimensions are horizontal. ffil '1Nuli:.f;~,~~t·)):~· ·9,1r~;·~~}¢ ,,.i;--1.-o'i' 'lll(I.\!?'r. ~~~,Z!:ll~ fw :· 1;~ ·~;u1 •~, ~·tt,,,<tf:~'A:;- Member Reaction (lbs) 2092@ 2" 7656 (3.50") Passed (27%) -1.0 D + 1.0 Lr (All Spans) Shear (lbs) 1522 @ 10 3/4" 3806 Passed (40%) 1.25 1.0 D + 1.0 Lr (All Spans) Moment (Ft-Ills) 3103 @ 3' 3 1(1." 4152 Passed (75%) 1.25 1.0 D + 1.0 Lr (AIT Spans\ Live Load Deft (In) 0.067 @ 3' 3 1/2" 0.313 Passed (l./999 +) .. 1.0 D + 1.0 Lr (All Spans) Total Load Den. (In) 0.115 @ 3' 3 1/2" 0.417 Passed fl./650) -1.0 D + 1.0 Lr (All Spans\ • Deflection oilffla: LL (l/2'40) and TL (l/180). • Alowed moment does not reflect the acttustment for the beam stability ractor. • Applbble Clllcu~tlons are based on NOS. 2 ·Column• Of 3.50' 3.50" I.SO" 874 1218 2092 lllodclng • Bloddng Panels are assumed to carty no loads applied directly above them and the fuN load Is applied to the fllffllber being designed, 6' 7" o/c 6' 7" o/C •Maximum allowable bracing Intervals based on applied load. PASSED ,J + 0 System : Roof Member Type: Drop Beam Buildlno Use : Resldentlal BUIiding C.ode : !BC 2021 Design Methodology : ASD Member Pitch : 0/12 Weyerhaeuser warrants that the sizing or 11s products will be In aa:ordance with Weyerf\aeuser produd design a1ter1a and published deslQn values. Weyerhaeuser e)(l)n!ssly dlsdalms any other warranties related to the software. Use of this software is not Intended to circumw,nt the need for a design professional as determined by the auth0<1ty having jurisdiction. The designer of record, builder or tnimer Is responslble to ilSSIJre that this calculatlon is compaUble with the overall project, Accessories (Rim Board, Blocking Panels and Squash Blocks) are not designed by this software. Products manufactured at Weyemaeuser ladllties = thln!-jwty ao1l1led to sustalnatlle ~ standar<ls. Weyemaeuser Englriee<ed 1.umt,e, Products haVe been evaluall!O by ICC-ES under evaluallon reports ESR-llS'.l and l:SR•l387 and/or tested In aanrdance with applicable ASTN standards, For current axle evaluatton reports, W~user pn:>duct literature and lnstallatton details rerer to WWW .weyertiaeuser.colll/woodpmcu:ts/documenHlbrary. The product appicatlon, Input design loads, dimensions and SUPfl()rt lnl'ormiltlon have been prowled by ForteWEB Software Operator ForteWH Softwllre Open,IDr .JobNotH Paul Christenson PCSD Engineering (760) 207-1885 A paul.pcsd@gmal.com Weycrhacu.,cr 11/7/2023 7:29:57 PM l!TC ForteWEB v3.6, Engine: VS.3.1.5, Data: VS.1.4.1 FIie Name: Sundseth Pagel /1 JOB 23-523 . SHEET NO I OF e?f guff;',f"r/.den,cn ';1,.,, ,1)/'!f" bfateermJ CALCULATED BY PSC DATE 1117/23 ';:_~(i!i WI£~~~ p-.,.L e-k,-,u,o,-s,.,. ~ :;"1'""""1 3529 Coastview Ct -Carlsbad, CA 92010 Telephone (760) 207-1885 -Email: paul.pcsd@gmail.com 5.0 Lateral Design & Analysis Wind: P = A Kzt I ps3o >.= 1.00 Kzt = LO PSJO-26.6 psf (ASCE 7-16-Equation 28 S-1) (ft~ 28 S 1-1) (Ii~ 26 8) CHECK BY SCALE . s = s 1.033 F = • 1.2 R= 6.50 DATE (ASCE 7-16 -Eqn 12.8--2) S1 = 0.375 Fv= 0.0 I = 1.00 I = 1.0 (fi¥ 2ij.S-IJ (lable I 5-2) V= 0.091 •Wt• p (p -Redundancy) P = 16.0 psf Criteria 1st Story 2nd Story Each Story Resists > 35% Base Shear: not satisfied satisfied Wind Loads Any Shear Wall wl (h/1)>1.0 is < 33% Story Force: P = 16.0 psfx Trib Area Roof Level Direction: N/S = 16.Q psf X ------641 sq. ft. = I 0230 lbs. 6 l5 sq.ft.== 9815 lbs. Direction: E /W -16.0 psf x ------ Roof Weight Roof Wt. = Exterior Wall Wt = Interior Wall Wt = Ceiling Wt = 11.0 psf x 3688 sq. ft.= 40568 lbs. 15.0 psf x 825 sq. ft.= 12375 lbs. 8.0 psf x 708 sq. ft. = 5664 lbs. 6.0 psf x 3048 sq. ft. = 18288 lbs. ------Total Trib. WR = 76895 lbs. Total Seismic Dead Load: W1 = 76895 lbs. ASD Base Shear: V = 0.091 * p *Wt = 9078 lbs. satisfied not satisfied p= 1 I p = 1.3 (Use for Design) ? n,/f;",trf.dtm.l'Oh 'efnt ,n,y-o bfaeerutJ 3529 Coastview Ct -Carlsbad, CA 92010 JOB 23-523 SHEET NO 0, OF CALCULA TED_B_Y-==t"--P_S_C_ DAT--E--1-1_{!_/2_3_ CHECK BY DATE -----SCALE Telephone (760) 207-1885 -Email: paul.pcsd@gmail.com 5.1 Lateral Design & Analysis -1st Story Shear Walls N I S E/W Gridline Length of Shearwa!Js Total Wall Ht. Type Gridline Length of Shearwalls Total Wall Ht. Type 3 1.0 1.0 2.0 8 ~ A 12 12 8 A 6 3.0 3.0 8 e, C 12 12 8 A 0.0 E 5.5 5.5 8 A 0.0 F 12 12 8 A 0.0 0 0.0 F E 0 # /0! 0.0 FA E 0 #5 /0! 0.0 F 0 #D~/0! 0.0 F SE 0 #o ~/0! 0.0 F LSE 0 #C ~/0! j ,?' ,u/r;',tr/,de.11,l'O.,, ;In, ~J" bfaeerbtJ 3529 Coastview Ct-Carlsbad, CA 92010 Telephone (760) 207-1885 -Email: paul.pcsd@gmail.com 5.1 Lateral Design & Analysis ( cont.) _...;G;;.;.n;,,;;'d;,,;;lin;,;,;e..,;_..li(});p;;-..,_3,.1= ..... ~-111111 .. 1 ........ '¾ ... o....,;;;;;;l;;;;io.iiiil0 ... 2~l£.x 0.11 1125 # ) 1125 . lbs. V = 2 ft. 563 plf Gridline G) 10 % ( 10230 X 0.10 997 #) 997 lbs JOB 23-523 SHEET NO __;\:.....b ___ OF ___ _ CALCULATED BY PSC DATE 11nt23 CHECK BY DATE ---SCALE ll-\ WSIJ\-tlt+'t, u~. \\-,1) V = 3 ft. 332 plf • tnt>t1"ll,,\: s,,,~ 7:1: OTF 2660 lbs. t.~o HDUZ ---------- SIMPSON STRONG-TIE COMPANY INC. (800) 999-5099 5956 W. Las Positas Blvd .. Pleasanton, CA 94588. www.strongtie.com Job Name: Sundseth WaJI Name: Wall Line 3 Application: Standard Wall on Concrete Design Criteria: • 2021 International Bldg Code *Wind • 2500 psi concrete * ASO Design Shear = 1125 lbs * Nominal wall height = 8 ft Selected Strong-Wall® Panel Solution: ---·----·---· ,---.. -_ .. _.~· -... I I Model 1 Type W I H T Sill ·--··--· ___ ---··----····--· ... _____ ; ........ I __ _(in) __ .. ,_(in) _____ (in) _______ Anchor WSWH12x8 : Wood 12 ' 93.25 . 3.5 N/A WSWH12x8 ! Wood 12 : 93.25 ! 3.5 N/A Actual Shear & Drift Distribution: r .... ---· I Model • 1--· RR--~ ·Aciuai i Relative Shear Rigidity (lbs) + Allowable • -! ictuai"i T Actual Shear Allow ' Drift (lbs) i Shear ' (in) --.~ --. 0.50 i 562 :$ 0.42 I 0.23 SIMPSON Strong-Tie End.. • ~-Tota!Axial • ..Actua'i-1 Anchor Load I ugntt ! Bolts ___ Q!?~L_ __ .L~L_! 2 -1" 1000 6379 lb I 2-1" 1000 ~-~37.9I_b 1 r·. Drift Limit (in) • r I 0.53 l__ • __ ••.• ·-:::~~~:: _ -; 0.50 562 :$ -••• l_ ·•---• ·•·-~-! --· -·-·••--•---- 1325 OK 1325 OK 0.42 0_.23 __ L ... 0.?_3 _ Notes: 1. Strong-Wall High-Strength Wood Shearwalls have been evaluated to the 2021 IBC/IRC. See www.strongtie.com for additional design and installation infonnation. 2. Anchor templates are recommended for proper anchor bolt placement, and are required in some jurisdictions. 3. The applied vertical load shall be a concentric point load or a uniformly distributed load not exceeding the allowable vertical load. Alternatively, the load may be applied anywhere along the width of the panel if Imposed by a continuous bearing vertlcal load transfer element such as a rimboard or beam. For eccentric axial loads applied directly to the panel, the allowable vertical load shall be divided by!wo. 4. Panels may be trimmed to a minimum height of 74½". Disclaimer: It Is the Designer's responsibility to verify product suitability under applicable building codes. In order to verify code listed applications please refer to the appropriate product code reports at www.strongtie.com or contact Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. at 1-800-999-5099. Page 1 of 3 SIMPSON STRONG-TIE COMPANY INC. (800) 999-5099 5956 W. Las Positas Blvd., Pleasanton, CA 94588. www.strongtie.com Job Name: Sundseth Wall Name: Wall Line 3 Application: Standard Wall on Concrete Design Criteria: • Slab on grade -Slab edge • 2021 International Bldg Code * Wind • 2500 psi concrete Anchor Solution Details: Slab-on-Grade Installation t WSWH-A& 611' I H I I I SIMPSON Strong-Tie t--------' -------,---~~ ,____ t • l ½W i w 6'min. ---w------ Slab-on-Grade Section View Perspective View Footing Plan Anchor Solution Assuming Cracked Concrete Design: Anchor Solution Assuming Uncracked Concrete Design: W ·:~ d~ ·---~ -: ~~:-~-B~;t·T ~~;~gth ·11 ..... ~~~--.. -~----~ .. -~~ ·;_----~---~--:n~h~-B~-·: -~tr~:g~ • 71 ! J ; • Model WSWH12x8 1 24 , 8 ! 8.125i WSWH-AB ! Standard 11 WSWH12x8 14 6 '. 8.125 ! WSWH-AB I Standard I -· ··--··--·-··-•-'--··-··--l·· ··-···--'•,..•"'·--•J ~ .. -----·--·····-·· ,_ .• • ---•--• • •---·-·•·••-·--•-·••..,.,. ___ ..,__ -.. ·•-• ·••---•..---•-·--•---· ---·-·•--· _j Notes: 1. Anchorage designs conform to ACI 318-19, ACI 318-14 and 318-11 Appendix D with no supplementary reinforcement for cracked and uncracked concrete as noted. 2. Anchorage strength indicates required grade of anchor bolt. Standard (ASTM F1554 grade 36) or High Strength (HS)(ASTM A193 Grade 87). 3. Wind includes Seismic Design Category A and B and detached 1 and 2 family dwellings in SDC C. 4. Foundation dimensions are for anchorage only. Foundation design (size and reinforcement) by others. The registered design professional may specify alternate embedment, footing size or anchor bolt. Paga 2 of 3 SIMPSON STRONG-TIE COMPANY INC. (800) 999-5099 5956 W. Las Positas Blvd., Pleasanton, CA 94588. www.strongtie.com -------Lt.min _____ ....,. i----·-----Lt ·------..S ,'--...... l :r I WSWI/-.I.B ! I fl hairpin orD 60rlblf (n>n.J RtllS Ut and StCUrt dtlrtng coocn11o"""""'IIL°""'P va11tS witn botl tpatJno. WSWH-AS '3 llt FWdtloW Nalrt duringconc,•,to Hairpin Shear Relnfo_,,t -.... · .. ' •• 4 Hairpin lmitllllattoh (O,nQ9 cub YlO"", OU,,, loot,ng types ""11/atJ Shear Anchorage Solutions --· -l,•'-t ------lift.) ------_ ... -°"' -""1 IYSV,li12 10¼ (11f3lle 6 5eeN~7 6 WS'Mi18 15 C!l #3ha,pilll'-' 6 (1)#3hupln 6 -2• 19 12)13~•,pin$' 6 (2) 131\M1lir1' J.~!1 --· T1o S'""'r Reinforcement -· ........ -~ .. (II,}' --1.oeo no ll&'JM reinforcement-.. mmoom _ _,loa<ldl!le Stroog--- 1. 3-~delOlleontonntoA0318•1<.Chal:,ta-17 n::IACl318--11 Mdlll6lUTJOnn,uTl2.~psl c::onc::nw. 2. --•no(,_.,,. ... ______ , ... _o1""'°""91·"'-""""""".,,.,._,,..· 3. ---"""9'-Ctml<91F. °'"""""ono·er,OIW<>t,,rly~1'1SOCC.....,,Ul!Owl'1d""""'"099Cll.Jlior<l._,..,llm, ___ .,,a31a.,,.-.11.2.353er,O-"Cf318-11-0.3.3.5. 4. W'ro--doeigr,-Aand8 and de«••"" one• and IWO•twrliy~"SOC C. 6. _.. .. ......,.,.,......,,t_Nbr.<s _ _,.,,...,..,..,....,._,b_..,..pe,~. 6. U!o(1)#3-b'wsv.1<18.....,_Sl""""18"<h><ll.-j. 1. l.lM(1)«l1Je10(,IS'l'/H12when.,...,.,_,,,_boe __ ......,, ... ___ _ t3. No.,~"° 11NW relnlttoernefC may bl U>tU!uted fo-WS\'M 8"188f rtd'lc:tllge ~- ~-Ccncnlf•~dli!litanceb'~mu&e00ftc,fywll'tA.Cf318•f4MC!lorl tT.T.2andK;f3Jd,-fr Nabi0.8.:Z 10.lhodeoVarr9/..-V .. ___ ege. SIMPSON I Strong-Tie STRONG-WALL® WSWH SHEAR ANCHORAGE SCHEDULE AND DETAILS Page 3 of 3 ttP. ? ,u/f,;,tn'.dn,.ro,t -;In, ~,.c, JOB 23-523 SHEET NO I '1 OF Sfaeem1J CALCULATED BY PSC DATE 11rrt23 CHECK BY DATE /l½'·'· '~! 3529 Coastview Ct-Carlsbad, CA 9201 0 SCALE ::...I:....l-~~.:t..i. ?Mttt:,1:;:;::; !Mff~, Telephone (760) 207-1885 • Email: paul.pcsd@gmail.com 5.1 Lateral Design & Analysis (cont.) Gridline ~ 15 % 9815 X 0.15 1472 #) 1472 lbs. & V = 12 ft. 123 plf OTF 981.5 lbs. HDU2 Gridline 0 25 % ( 9815 X 0.25 2454 #) 2454 lbs. 11 V = 12 ft. 204 plf OTF 1636 lbs. HDU2 Gridline ~ 19 % 9815 X 0.19 1816 #) 1816 lbs. & V = 5.5 ft. 330 plf OTF 2641 lbs. HDU2 Gridline G 13 % ( 9815 X 0.13 1276 #) 1276 lbs. & V = 12 ft. 106 plf OTF 851 lbs. t HDU2 ? mJ"G'r'rl.den,on 'efni 2JUIJo :£,JVleenhJ 3529 Coastview Ct -Carlsbad, CA 92010 Telephone (760) 207-1885 -Email: paul.pcsd@gmail.com 6.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN 6.1 CONTTNUOUS FOOTlNG JOB 23-523 SHEET NO \( OF CALCULATED BY PSC DATE CHECK BY DATE SCALE w = 1125 plf width =~ plf 1500 psf ASBP = 1500 psf 0.75 ft (MIN.) => 9 INCHES (MIN.) USE 12 "WIDE CONTIN. FTG WI 2 -# 4 TOP AND BOTTOM & EMBED. 12 " lNTO UNDISTURBED SOIL (MIN.) 6.2 MAX POINT LOAD ON FOOTING I, 6.3 PAU UESIUN PI I I SIZE 18 "SQUARE x 12 "THK WI 2 -# 4 EACH WAY Pa11 = 1500 • ...!3_ • ~ 12 12 P a11 = 4500 lbs Pmax= 1500 • 2 2 Pmax = 3375 lbs ,, 11/7/23 ··--.... --------·· --- .. PCSD Engineering 3529 Coastview Court Carlsbad, CA 92010 (760) 207-1885 paul.pcsd@gmail.com Project Title: Engineer: Project ID: Project Descr: Printed: 10 DEC 2023, 7:20AM Wood Column Project File: Fielding.ec6 , LI : K -06016684, Build:20.23.08.30 PCSD Engineering (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2023 lJESCRIPTION: ·2xo-Studs@ f6" (max. 14') Code References Calculations per NOS 2018, IBC 2018, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 Load Combinations Used : ASCE 7-16 General Information Analysis Method Allowable Stress Design End Fixities Top & Bottom Pinned Overall Column Height / Used for non-slender calculations} Wood Species Douglas Fir-Larch Wood Grade No.2 Fb + 900psi Fv Fb -900psi Ft Fe -Prll 1350 psi Density Fe-Perp 625psi E : Modulus of Elasticity ... x-x~ending Basic 1600 Minimum 580 14 ft 180 psi 575 psi 31 .21 pcf y-y"Bending 1600 580 Wood Section Name 2x6 Wood Gradirni/Manuf. Graded Lumber Wood Member Type Sawn Exact Width 1.50 in Allow Stress Modification Factors Exact Depth 5.50 in Cf or Cv for Bending 1.30 Area 8.250 inA2 Cf or Cv for Compressio 1.1 O Ix 20.797 inA4 Cf or Cv for Tension 1.30 ly 1.547 inA4 Cm : Wet Use Factor 1.0 Ct : Temperature Faci 1.0 Axial Cfu : Flat Use Factor 1.0 Kf : Built-up columns 1.0 1600 ksl Use Cr : Repetitive ? Yes Column Buckling Condition: ABOUT X-X Axis: Lux = 14.0 ft, Kx = 1.0 ABOUT Y-Y Axis: Luy = 6.0 ft, Ky : 1.0 I Applied Load:-:s-_,.__,..--,--,--,--:-::--::----:-::----:-:--------S...:e_rv_ic_e __ lo_a_d_s...:e_nt...:e...:re...:d...: • ..:.Lo...:a:..:d_F...:a..:.ct:..:o...:rs...:w...:il...:I b:.:e=-a=-'p:.!:p...:lie:.:d:_f:..:o:...r ca=lc:..:u.:.:la..:.tio:.:n.:.:s::._· Column self weight included : 25.033 lbs • Dead Load Factor AXIAL LOADS ... Axial Load at 14.0 ft, D = 0.3530, Lr= 0.0530 k BENDING LOADS ... Lat. Uniform Load creating Mx-x, W = 0.0210 k/ft DESIGN SUMMARY Bending & Shear Check Results PASS Max. Axial+Bending Stress Ratio = Load Combination 0.4950 : 1 +D+0.60W Comp+ Mxx, NOS Eq. 3.9-3 "6~953 ft Governing NOS Forumla Location of max.above base At maximum location values are . Applied Axial Applied Mx Applied My Fe : Allowable PASS Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = Load Combination Location of max.above base Appliedl)esign Shear Allowable Shear Load Combination Results 0.3780 k 0.3087 k-ft 0.0 k-ft 203.129 psi 0.05568 : 1 +D+0.60W 14.0 ft "24:055 psi 288.0 psi Maximum SERVICE Lateral Load Reactions .. Top along Y-'I 0.1470 k Bottom along Y-Y Top along X-X 0.0 k Bottom along X-X Maximum SERVICE Load Lateral Deflections ... 0.1470 k 0.0 k Along Y-Y 0.5514 in at 7.047 ft above base for load combination : W Only Along X-X 0.0 in at 0.0 ft above base for load combination : n/a Other Factors used to calculate allowable stresses ... Bending Compression Tension Maximum Axial + Ben~ing Sjress Ratios Maximum She~r Bl!lio~ Co Cp Load Combination Stress Ratio Status Location Stress Ratio Status Location D Only 0.900 0.150 0.2292 PASS 0.0ft 0.0 PASS 14.0 ft +D+Lr 1.250 0.109 0.2587 PASS 0.0ft 0.0 PASS 14.0ft +D+0.750Lr 1.250 0.109 0.2507 PASS 0.0ft 0.0 PASS 14.0ft +D+0:60W f-:600 0.085 0.4950 PASS -6.953ft 0.05568 PASS 14.0 ft +D+0.750Lr+0.450W 1.600 0.085 0.3987 PASS 6.953 ft 0.04176 PASS 14.0ft +D+0.450W 1.600 0.085 0.3840 PASS 6.953 ft 0.04176 PASS 14.0 ft +0.60D+0.60W 1.600 0.085 0.4456 PASS 6.953ft 0.05568 PASS 14.0 ft +0.60D 1.600 0.085 0.1353 PASS 0.0ft 0.0 PASS 14.0 ft Wood Column PCSD Engineering 3529 Coastview Court Carlsbad, CA 92010 (760) 207-1885 paul.pcsd@gmail.com L #: -06016684, Buitd:20.23.06.30 -DESCRIPTION: -2xo-Studs@ 1o" (max. 14') Maximum Reactions Load Combination DOnly +D+Lr +D+0.750Lr +D+0.60W +D+0.750Lr+0.450W +D+0.450W +0.60D+0.60W +0.600 Lr Only WOnly X-X Axis Reaction @ Base @Top Maximum Deflections for Load Combinations Project Title: Engineer: Project ID: Project Descr: PCso Engineering k Y-Y Axis Reaction @ Base @Top 0.088 0.088 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.088 0.088 0.147 0.147 Axial Reaction @Base 0.378 0.431 0.418 0.378 0:418 0.378 0.227 0.227 0.053 Printed: 10 DEC 2023. 7·20AM Project File: Fielding.ec6 (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2023 Note: Only non-zero reactions are listed. My -End Moments k-ft Mx -End Moments @ Base @ Top @ Base @ Top Load Combination Max. X-X Deflection Distance Max. Y-Y Deflection Distance D Only ffi+Lr +D+0.750Lr +D+0.60W +D+0.750Lr+0.450W +D+0.450W +0.60D+0.60W +0.600 Lr Only WOnly Sketches l- I .sl 0 II') LO O.0O00in O:U000in 0.O0O0in O.O0O0in O.O000in O.OO00in 0.OO00in 0.0O00in 0.0OO0in 0.0000 in L~ 1.50 in +X ·1 0.000ft 0:UO0ft 0.000ft 0.000ft 0.000ft 0.000ft 0.000ft 0.000ft 0.000ft 0.000ft 0.00O in -0:000 in O.0O0in 0.331 in 0.248In 0.248in 0.331 In 0.000 in 0.000 In 0.551 In .,,,. 0.000ft -o:aaott 0.000ft 7.047ft 7.047ft 7.047ft 7.047ft 0.000ft 0.000ft 7.047ft ,- I I L I ...... 7 EAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTATION AND ENGINEERING, INC. 10925 HARTLEY ROAD, SUITE "I" SANTEE, CALIFORNIA 92071 (619) 258-7901 Fax 258-7902 Keoni & Geanie Sundseth 1738 Schooner Way Carlsbad, California 92008 Subject: Limi led Geo technical Investigation Proposed Residential Additions (Sundseth Residence) 1738 Schooner Way Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Sundseth: September 6, 20 l 7 Project No. 17-l 106H6 In accordance with your request, wc have performed a limited geotechnical investigation at the subj ect site to di scuss the geotechnical aspects of the project and provide recommendations for the proposed residential improvement. Our investigation has found that the areas of the proposed additions are underlain by moderately dense fill soils to a depth of approximately 6 feet below existing grade. Dense terrace deposits were underlying these soils to the explored depth of 9 feet. It is our opinion that the construction of the proposed residential additions is geotechnically feasible provided the recommendations herein are implemented in the design and construction. Should you have any questions with regard to the contents of this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. M , .E. RCE 54071, GE 2704 MSD/md Keoni & Geanie Suncll'ethl I 738 Schooner Way/ Carlsbad Pr<Jject No. I 7-1061-16 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 3 SCOPE OF SERV[CES ...................................................................................................................................... 3 SITE DESCRIPTJON AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCT ION ........................................................................ 3 FIELD INVESTIGATlON AND LABORATORY TESTING ....................................................................... .4 GEOLOGY ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Geologic Selling .................................................................................................................................... 4 Sile Slratigraphy .................................................................................................................................... 4 SEISMICITY ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 Regiona l Seis1nicity ............................................................................................................................... 5 Seis1nic Ana lysis ................................................................................................................................... 5 2016 CBC Seismic Design Criteria ...................................................................................................... 5 Geologic Hazard Assessment. ............................................................................................................... 6 GEOTECHN ICAL EVALUATION .................................................................................................................. 7 Co1npressible Soils .............................................................................................................. : ................. 7 Expansive Soi ls ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Groundwater .......................................................................................................................................... 7 CONCLUS IONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ 7 CLEARING AND GRUBBING ......................................................................................................................... 8 FOUNDATIONS AND SLABS ........................................................................................................................ 8 SETTLEMENT ................................................................................................................................................... 9 PR ESATURATION OF SLAB SUBGRADE ................................................................................................... 9 TEMPORARY SLOPES .................................................................................................................................... 9 TRENCH BACKFILL ........................................................................................................................................ 9 DRAINAGE ........................................................................................................................................................ 9 FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW .................................................................................................................... 10 LLMITATJONS OF INVESTIGATION ......................................................................................................... 10 ADDITIONAL SERVICES ............................................................................................................................ 11 PLATES Plate I -Location of Exploratmy Boreholes Plate 2-Summary Sheet (Explorato1y Borehole Logs) ...................................................................... 12 Plate 3 -USCS Soil Classification Chart PAGE L-1, LABO RA TORY TEST RESULTS .............................................................................................. 13 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................. 14 2 Keoni & Geanie Sundseth/ /738 Schooner Way/ Carlsbad l'rojecl No. /7-/06H6 INTRODUCTION Thi s is to present the findings and conclusions of a limited geotechnical investigation for the proposed additions to the single-family residence located at 1738 Schooner Way, in the City of Carl sbad, California. The objectives of the investigation were to evaluate the existing soils conditions and provide recommendations for the proposed improvement. SCOPE OF SERVICES The following services were provided du1ing this investigation: 0 Site reconnaissance and review of published geologic, seismological and gcotechni cal reports and maps pertinent to the project area 0 Subsurface exploration consisting of three (3) boreholes within the limits of the proposed areas of improvement. The boreholes were logged by our Staff Geologist. 0 Collection of representative soil samples at selected depths. The obtained samples were sealed in moisture-resistant containers and transpo1ted to the laborat01y for subsequent analysis. 0 Laboratory testing of samples representative of the types of soils encountered during the field investigation 0 Geologic and engineering analysis of the field and laboratory data, which provided the basis for our conclusions and recommendations 0 Production of this report, which summarizes the results of the above analysis and presents our findings and recommendations for the proposed improvement SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The subject site is an in-egular-shaped resid.ential lot located on the north side of Schooner Way, in the City of Carlsbad, California. The properly which encompasses an area of approximately 24,000 square feet is occupied hy a one-story, single-family residence. The building pad is relatively level with descending slopes to the west and south. Vegetation consisted of grass, shrub and a few trees. The parcel is bordered by Schooner Way to the south and similar residential developments to the remaining directions. The preliminary plans prepared by Brooks Design of Carlsbad, California indicates that the proposed improvement will include an second dwelling unit and other additions to the east and west sides of the existing house. The structures will be one-story, wood-framed and founded on continuous footings with a slab-on-grade floor. 3 Keoni & Geanie S111ui1·ethl 17 38 Schooner Way/ Car/shad f'rojec:t No. 17-106/-16 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABO RA TORY TESTING On July 21, 2017, three (3) boreholes were excavated to a maximum depth of approximately 9 feet below existing grade with a hand auger. The approximate locations of the boreholes are shown on the attached Plate No. 1, entitled "Location of Exploratory Boreholes". A continuous log of the soils encountered was recorded at the time of excavation and is shown on Plate No. 2 entitled "Summary Sheet". The soils were visually and texturally classified according to the filed identification procedures set forth on Plate No. 3 entitled "U SCS Soil Classification". Following the field exploration, laboratory testing was performed lo evaluate the pertinent engineering properties of the foundation materials. The laboratory-testing program included moisture and density, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, paiticle size analysis and expansion index tests. These tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM standards and other accepted methods. Page L-1 and Plate No. 2 provide a summary of the laboratory test results. GEOLOGY Geologic Setting The subject site is located within the southern portion of what is known as the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of California. The geologic map pertaining to the area (Reference No. 5) indicates that the site is underlain by Pleistocene terrace deposits (QtJ). Site Stratigraphy The subsurface descriptions provided are interpreted from conditions exposed during the field investigation and/or inferred from the geologic literature. Detailed descriptions of the subsurface materials encountered during the field investigation are presented on the exploration logs provided on Plate No. 2. The following paragraphs provide general descriptions of the encountered soil types. Fill (Of) Pill soils were encountered in the boreholes to a depth of approximately 6 feet below existing grade. These soils generally consisted of tan to reddish brown, silty sand that was moist to wet and medium dense in consistency. Terrace Deposits (Ot1) Terrace deposits were underlying the fill soils to the explored depth of approximately 9 feet. They generally consisted of reddish brown, silty sand that was moist and dense in consistency. 4 Keoni & Geanie Sundseth/ 1738 Schooner Way/ Car/shad f'rojecl No. 17-1061-16 SEISMICITY Regional Scismicity Generally, Seismicity within California can be attributed to the regional tectonic movement taking place along the San Andreas Fault Zone, which includes the San Andreas Fault and most parallel and subparallel faults within the state. The portion of southern California where the subject site is located is considered seismically active. Seismic hazards are attributed to groundshaking from ea1thquake events a long nearby or more distant Quaternary faults. The primary factors in evaluating the effect an earthquake has on a site are the magnitude of the event, the distance from the epicenter to the site and the near surface soil profile. According to the fault-Rupture Hazard Zones Act of 1994 (revised Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act), quaternruy faults have been classified as "active" faults, which show apparent surface rupture during the last 11 ,000 yeru·s (i.e., Holocene time). "Potentially-active" faults are those faults with evidence of displacing Quaternary sediments between 11 ,000 and 1.6 million years old. Seismic Analysis Based on our evaluation, the closest known '·active" fault is the Rose Canyon Fault located approximately 5.5 miles (8.8 kilometers) to the west. The Rose Canyon fault is the design fault of the project due to the predicted credible fault magnitude and grow1d acceleration. The Seisrnicity of the site was evaluated utilizing the 2008 National Hazard Maps from the USGS website and Seed and Idriss methods for active Quaternary faults within a 50-mile radius of the subject site. The site may be subjected to a Maximum Probable Earthquake of 6.9 Magnitude along the Rose Canyon Fault, with a corresponding Peak Ground Acceleration of 0.43g. The maximum Probable Earthquake is defined as the maximum earthquake that is considered likely to occur within a I 00-year time period. The effective ground acceleration at the site is associated with the part of significant ground motion, which contains repetitive strong-energy shaking, and which may produce structural deformation. As such, the effective or "free field" ground acceleration is refened to as the Repeatable High Grotmd Acceleration (RHGA). It has been determined by Ploessel and Slosson (1974) that the RHGA is approximately equal to 65 percent of the Peak Ground Acceleration for earthquakes occun-ing within 20 miles of a site. Based on the above, the calculated Credible RHGA at the site is 0.28g. 2016 CBC Seismic Design Criteria A review of the active fault maps pertaining to the site indicates the location of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone approximately 8.8 km to the west. Ground shaking from this fault or one of the major active faults in the region is the most likely happening to affect the site. With respect to this hazard, the site is comparable to others in the general area. The proposed residential additions should be designed in accordance with seismic design requirements of the 2016 California Building 5 Keoni & Ueanie S11ml1·eth/ 1738 Schooner Way/ Car/shad Project No. 17-I 06116 Code or the Structural Engineers Association of California using the following seismic design parameters: PARAMETER " VALUE 2016 CBC & ASCE 7 REFERENCES ' Site Class D Table 20.3-1/ ASCE 7, Chaoter 20 Mapped Spectral Acceleration For Short Periods, 1.1 20g Figure 1613.3.1 (1) Ss Mapped Spectral Acceleration For a I-Second 0.430g Figure 1613.3.1(2) Period, S1 Site Coefficient, F0 1.052 Table 1613.3.3(1) Site Coefficient, Fv 1.570 Table 161 3.3.3(2) Adjusted Max. Considered Earthquake Spectral 1.1 78g Equation 16-37 Response Acceleration for Short Periods, SMs Adjusted Max. Considered Earthquake Spectral 0.675g Equation 16-38 Response Acceleration for I-Second Period, SM1 5 Percent Damped Design Spectral Response 0.786g Equation 16-39 Acceleration for Short Periods, Sos 5 Percent Damped Design Spectral Response 0.450g Equation 16-40 Acceleration for I-Second Period, S01 Geologic Hazard Assessment Ground Ruptw-e Ground rupture due to active faulting is not considered likely due to the absence of known fault traces within the vicinity of the project; however, this possibility cannot be completely ruled out. The unlikely hazard of ground rupture should not preclude consideration of ":flexible" design for on-site utility lines and connections. Liquefaction Liquefaction involves the substantial loss of shear strength in saturated soils, usually sandy soils with a loose consistency when subjected to earthquake shaking. Based on the absence of shallow groundwater and consistency of the underlying bedrock material, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction is very low. Landsliding There is no indication that landslides or unstable slope conditions exist on or adjacent to the project site. There are no obvious geologic hazards related to landsliding to the proposed improvement or adjacent properties. Tsunamis and Seiches The site is not subject to inundation by tsunan1is due to its elevation. The site is also not subject to seiches (waves in confined bodies of water). 6 Keo11i & Cieanie Sundseth/ 1738 Schooner Way/ Carlsbad f'roject No. 17-106116 GEOTECHNJCAL EVALUATION Based on our investigation and evaluation of the collected information, we conclude that the proposed residential improvement is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the reconunendations herein will be properly implemented during construction. Based on the consistency of the existing fill soils, it is our opinion that the proposed additions may be supported by these soils wiU10ut any detrimental settlement. The new fo undations may consist of reinforced continuous and/ or spread footings with reinforced slabs. Recommendations and criteria for foundation design are provided in the foundations and Slabs recommendations section of this repo11. Compressible Soils Our field observations and testing indicate low compressibility wi thin the moderately dense fill soi ls and dense terrace deposits, which underlie the site. Therefore, no remedial grading will be require~. Following implementation of the recommendations presented herein, the potential for soil compression resulting from the new development has been estimated to be low. The low-settlement assessment asswnes a well-planned and maintained site drainage system. Expansive Soils An expansion index test was performed on a representative sample of the fill soils to determine volumetric change characteristics with change in moisture content. An expansion index of 3 was obtained which indicates a_ye1y low expansion potential [Qr the foundation soils. Groundwater Static groundwater was not encountered to the depths of the boreholes. The building pad is located at an elevation of approximately 140 feet above Mean Sea Level. We do not expect groundwater to affect the proposed construction. Recommendations to prevent or mitigate the effects of poor surface drainage-are presented in the Drainage section of this report. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following conclusions and recommendations are based upon the analysis of the data and information obtained from our soil investigation. This includes site reconnaissance; field investigation; laboratory testing and our general knowledge of the soils native to the site. The site is suitable for the proposed residential improvement provided the recommendations set forth are implemented during construction. 7 Keuni & Cieanie S1111d1·ethl 17 38 Schooner Way/ Carlsbad froiect No. 17-I 06H6 CLEARING AND GRUBBING The areas of the proposed additions should be cleared of vegetation and deleterious materials. Vegetation and the debris from the clearing operation should be properly disposed of off-site. The areas should be thoroughly inspected for any possible buried objects, which need to be rerouted or removed prior to construction. All holes, trenches, or pockets left by the removal of these objects should be properly backfilled with compacted fill materials. Our field investigation indicates that moderately dense fill soils and dense terrace deposits underly the areas of the proposed additions. These soils will be adequate for support of the proposed residential additions. Therefore, no remedial grading will be required. Foundation excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm to verify competent bearing soils. FOUNDATIONS AND SLABS a. Continuous and spread footings are suitable for use and should extend to a minimum depth of~ inches for the proposed one-story additions into the moderately dense fill soils. Continuous footings should be at least 12 inches jn widtb and reinforced with a minimum of four #4 stJ;.eJ bars; two bars placed near the top of the footings and the other two bars placed near the bottom of the footings. Isolated or spread footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches. Their reinforcement should consist of a minimum of #4 bars spaced 12 inches on center (each way) and placed horizontally near the bottom. These recommendations are based on geotechnical considerations and are not intended to supersede the structural engineer requirements. b. Interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum 4 inches thick. Reinforcement should consist of #3 bars placed at 18 inches on center each way within the middle third of the slabs by supporting the steel on chairs or concrete blocks "dobies". The slabs should be underlain .Ql.1._ inches of clean sand over a 10-mil visqueen moisture barrier. The effect of concrete shrinkage will result m cracks in virtually all-concrete slabs. To reduce the extent of shrinkage, the concre.te should be placed at a maximum of 4-inch slump. The minimum steel recommended is not intended to prevent slu-inkage cracks. c. Where moisture • sensitive floor coverings are anticipated over the slabs, the I 0-mil plastic moisture barrier should be underlain by a capillary break at least 2 inches thick, consisting of coarse sand, gravel or crushed rock not exceeding 3/4 inch in size with no more than 5 percent passing the #200 sieve. d. An allowable soil bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot may be used for the design of continuous and spread footings at least 12 inches wide and founded a minimum of 12 inches into properly compacted fill soils as set forth in the 2016 California Building Code, Table 1806.2. This value may be increased by 400 psf for each additional foot of depth or width to a maximum value of 4,000 lb/ft2. 8 Ke011i & Gew1ie S1111d1·e1h/ 1738 Schooner Way/ Car/shad Project No. 17-/06116 c. Lateral resistance to horizontal movement may be provided by the soil passive pressure and the friction of concrete to soil. An allowable passive pressure of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth may be used. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 is recommended. The soils passive pressure as well as the bearing value may be increased by 1/3 for wind and seismic loading. SETTLEMENT Settlement of compacted fi ll soils is no1mal and should be anticipated. Because of the type and thickness of the fill soils anticipated under the proposed footings and the light building loads, total and differential settlement should be with in acceptable limits. PRESATURATJON OF SLAB SUBGRADE Due to the granular characteristics of the subgrade soils, presoaking of subgrade prior to concrete pour is not required. However, subgrade soils in areas receiving concrete should be watered prior to concrete placement to mitigate any drying shrinkage, which may occur following site preparation and foundation excavation. TEMPORARY SLOPES For the excavation of foundations and utility trenches, temporary vertical cuts to a maximum height of 4 feet may be constructed in fill or natural soil. Any temporary cuts beyond the above height constraints should be shored or further laid back following a I: 1 (horizontal to vc1tical) slope ratio. OSHA guidelines for trench excavation safety should be implemented dtu-ing construction. TRENCH BACKFILL Excavations for utility lines, which extend under structural areas should be properly backfilled and compacted. Utilities should be bedded and backfilled with clean sand or approved granular soil to a depth of at least one foot over the pipe. This backfill should be uniformly watered and compacted to a firm condition for pipe suppo11. The remainder of the backfill should be on-site soils or non-expansive imported soils, which shoukl be placed in thin lifts, moisture-conditioned and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. DRAINAGE Adequate measures should be undertaken to finish grade the site after the structw-es and other improvements are in place, such that the drainage water within the site and adjacent properties is directed away from the foundations, footings, floor slabs and the tops of slopes via rain gutters, downspouts, surface swaJes and subsurface drains towards the natural drainage for this area. In accordance with the 2016 California Building Code, a minimum · gradient of 2 percent is recommended in hardscape areas adjacent to the structures. In earth areas, a minimum gradient of 5 percent away from the structures for a distance of al least l O feet should be provided. If this requirement cannot be met due to site limitations, drainage can be done tlu-ough a swale in accordance with Section 1804.4 of the 2016 California Building Code. Earth swales should have a minimum gradient of 2 percent. Drainage should be directed to approved drainage facilities. 9 Keo11i & Geanie Sundseth/ 1738 Schooner Jllayl Carlsbad Proiect No. 17-/06/-16 Proper surface and subsurface drainage will be req uired to minimize the potential of water seeking the level of the bearing soils under the foundations, footings and floor slabs, which may otherwise result in undermining and differential settlement of the structures and other improvements. FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW Our firm should review the foundation plans and details during the design phase to assure conformance with the intent of this report. During construction, foundation excavations should be observed by our representative prior to the placement of forms, reinforcement or concrete for conformance with the plans and specifications. LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION Our investigation was performed using the skill and degree of care ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable soils engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this repo11. This repo11 is prepared for the sole use of our client and may not be assigned to others without the written consent of the client and ECSC&E, lnc. The samples collected and used for testing, and the observations made, are believed representative of site conditions; however, soil and geologic conditions can vruy significantly between exploration trenches, boreholes and surface exposures. As in most major projects, conditions revealed by construction excavations may vary with preliminary findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by a representative of ECSC&E and designs adjusted as required or alternate designs recommended. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the project architect and engineer. Appropriate recommendations should be incorporated into the structural plans. The necessary steps should be taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. The findings of this report are valid as of this present date. However, changes in the conditions of a prope1ty can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occm from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside of om control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should be updated after a period of two years. Keoni & Geanie S1111dwhl 1738 Sc:hooner Way/ Carlsbad Projec:I No. I 7-/06H6 ADDITIONAL SERVICES The review of plans and specifications, field observations and testing under our direction are integral parts of the recommendations made in this report. If East County Soil Consultation and Engineering, Inc. is not retained for these services, the client agrees to assume om· responsibility for any potential claims that may arise during construction. Observation and testing are additional services, which are provided by our firm, and should be budgeted within the cost of development. Plates No. 1 through 3, Page L-1 and References are parts of this report. 11 ~11-:i EAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTATION & ENGINEERING, INC. 10925 HAR11..BY RO., SUITE I, SANTEE, CA .92071 _(619) 258-7901 Pax (619) 258-79~ ~ /5,xl-U)Mi'Z:fiy' 36()£4v1 E- DEPTH Surface 1.5' 2.0' 3.0' 4.5' 5.5' 6.0' Keoni & Gea11ieSu11dreth/ 1738 Schooner Way/Car/shad Project No. /7-/06H6 PLATE NO. 2 SUMMARY SHEET BOREHOLE NO. I SOIL DESCRIPTION FILL (Qf) tan brown, moist, medium dense, silty sand reddish brown, moist, medium dense, silty sum! " " " tan brown, moist, medium dense, silty sand becomes wet TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt3) reddish brown, moist, dense, silty sand " bottom of borehole, no caving, no groundwater borehole backfilled 7/21/17 y 11 4.5 ____________ ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .. DEPTH Surface 0.5' 1.5' 2.5' 3.5' 6.0' 9.0' BOREHOLE NO. 2 SOIL DESCRIPTION FILL (Qt) _tan brown, moist, medium dense, silty sand reddish brown, moist, medium dense, silly sand " dark brown, moist to wet, medium dense, silly sand reddish brown, moist, medium dense, sand with silt TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt3) reddish brown, moist, dense, silty sand bottom of borehole, no caving, no groundwater borehole backfi lled 7 /2 111 7 y 109.1 112.7 M 11 .0 M 10.5 11.2 ---------------------------.. -.... ---------.. ----------------.. -·-···-------·-------------------------....................................................................................... .. DEPTH Surface 1.5' 3.0' 5.0' 6.0' 7.0' BOREHOLE NO. 3 SOIL DESCRIPTION FILL (Qf) tan brown, moist, medium dense, silty sand reddish brown, moist, medium dense, silty sand tan biown, moist, medium dense, silty sand dark brown, moist to wet, medium dense, sand with silt TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt3) reddish brown, moist, dense, silty sand bottom of borehole, no caving, no groundwater borehole backfilled 7/21/17 y M ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Y = DRY DENSIT Y IN PCF M = MOISTURE CONTENT IN% 12 ·-soil CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF MATERW.IS LARGER TI'.AN NO. 2:JOSIMSIZ.E GRAVEL ANO GRAVELLY SOILS MORE THAN SO% OF COARSE FRACTION RET AJNED ON NO. 4 CLEAN GRAVELS (llTT~E OR NO FINES) GRAVELS WITH FIN!:S SIEVE (APPRECW!LE AMOUNT SAND AND SANDY SOILS MORE THAN 5014 OFCOAASE FRACTION PASSING ONNO.•SIEVE OFFINES) CLEAN SANDS (time OR NO FINES) SANOS WITH FINES (APPRECIAl!LE AMOUNT OF~NES) rrh~~z,/~YFJ FINE GRAINED SOILS MORETW,.'150% OF MATERIAL IS SMALLER T><A.'1 NO. 200SIMSIZE SILTS AND CLAYS SILTS AND CLAYS LICUIOUMIT LESS T>'A'l6C LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN SO HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS 1:.:!UU t,i_!tt!!t!.c ~ ~ l!!l " NOTE: DU/IL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO 11\0iCATE BORDERLINE SOIL CIASSIFICATIOl\'S CLASSIFICATION RANGE OF GRAIN SIZES tJ.S. STANDARD GRAIN SIZE IN SIEVE SIZE MILLIMETERS BOULDERS Above 12 Inches Above 305 COBBLES 12 lnches To 3 Inches 30S To 76.2 GRAVEL 3 Inches to No. 4 76.2 to 4.76 Coarse 3 Inches to ¾ Inch 76.2to 19.1 Fine ¾ Inch to No. 4 19.1 to4.76 SAND No. 4 to No. 200 4. 76 to 0.074 Coarse No. 4 to No. 10 4.76 to 2.00 Medium No. )0 to No. 40 2.00 to 0.420 Fine No. 40 to No. 200 0.420 to 0.074 SILT AND CLAY Below No. 200 Bclow0.074 GRAIN SIZE CHART EAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTATION & ENGINEERING, INC. 10925 HARTI..EY RD., SUITE I, SANTEE, CA.92071 _(619) 258-?!0I Pu C619) 258-7902 LETTER GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH PT Wi:LL·GRAOEO GRAVELS, GRAVEL· SA.'10 MIXl\JRE5, LITTlE OR NO FINES POOR:. Y-GRAOEO GRAVELS, GRAVEL• SA.'10 MiXT\JRES, UTT\.E OR NO Flt,ES SILTY GRAVELS. GAAV!:l •SAND· SILT MIXTURES CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL· SA."IO • CLAY MIXTURES WELL-GRAOEO SANOS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FlNES POORL Y.-ORAOEO SA.'IOS, GRAVELLY SANO. LlffiE OR NO FL'IES SIL TY SANOS, SANO· S:\. T MIXTURES CLAYEY SANOS, SANO ·CLAY MIXT\JRES INORGANIC SILTS ANO VERY FINE SA.'10S, ROCK FLOUR, a1LTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANOS OR CLAYEY SILTS W!TH SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PtASTICITY. GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS ORGA.'IIC SlL TS ANO ORGANIC Sil TY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY INOIIGANIC S1L TS, MIC'-CEOUS CA OIATOt.'ACEOUS FINE SANO OR SILTY SOILS INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY ORGANIC CLA VS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PlASTICITY, ORGANIC SIL TS PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WlTll HIGH ORGANIC COITTENTII 70 •• I I V / V I/ CM LL V ·~ V i 10 I/ ...,r i ..,_itt .... ,;,r_._:.,,, I lilLA~L I OI ., I V V / WH&OM I I O 10 10 lO 4C " 10 10 &0 SO IQO I.IQU;Q UliilT (U.), ~ PLASTICITY CHART /(BJNI I &E//N/e :5t/NIJ:5nJ/ /7 3t3 !<5C,r/O()fv~ WAY Keoni & G'eanie Sundseth/ 17 38 Sc:hooner Way/ Carlsbad Projec:I Nu. 17-106116 PAGE L-1 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D1557) The maximum dry densities and optimum moisture contents of the fi ll materials as determined by ASTM D 1557, Procedures A and B which use 25 blows of a IO pound slide hammer falling from a height of 18 inches on each of 5 equal layers in a 4 inch diameter 1/30 cubic foot compaction cy linder and Procedure C which uses 56 blows of a IO pound slide hammer falling from a height of 18 inches on each of 5 equal layers in a 6 inch diameter 1/ 13.3 cubic foot compaction cylinder are presented as fo llows: SOIL TYPE/ OPTIM UM MOISTURE CONTENT PROCEDURE DESCRIPTION MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (PCF) {%) LOCATION 1/A REDDISH BROWN SILTY SAND 124.0 9.5 BH-2@ 1.5' INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT{%) 8.9 U.S. Standard Sieve Size I" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 uses EXPANSION INDEX TEST (ASTM D4829) SATURATED MOISTURE CONTENT(%) 17.2 INITIAL DRY DENSITY (PCF) 11 0.8 EXPANSION INDEX 3 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTM D422) Percent Passing Percent Passing Percent Passing BH-1 @2.0' BH-2@ 4.0' BH-3@4.5' Fill Fill fill --- --- 100 100 - 99 99 - 96 99 100 91 97 99 79 88 89 47 56 54 21 15 35 16 12 29 SM SP-SM SM 13 LOCATION BH-2 @ 1.5' Percent Passing BH-2@6.0' Terrace Deposits - - - - 100 99 82 42 23 17 SM Keo11i & Geanie Sund~eth/ 1738 Sc:hoo11er W<wl Carlsbad Prujec:I No. 17-106/-16 REFERENCES I. "2016 Californ ia Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of2", Published by lnternalional Code Council. 2. ''Geologic Map of the San Diego 30' x 60' Quadrangle, California", by Michael P. Kennedy and Siang S. Tan, 2008. 3. "Geotechnical and Foundation Engineering: Design and Construction", by Robert W. Day, 1999. 4. "Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada to be used with 1997 Uniform Building Code", Published by International Conference of Building Officials. 5. "Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California", Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, by Siang S. Tan and Michael P. Kennedy, I 996. 6. '·Bearing Capacity of Soils, Technical Engi neering and Design Guides as Adapted from the US Army Corps of Engineers, No . 7", Published by ASCE Press, 1994. 7. "Foundations and Earth Structures, Design Manual 7.2", by Department of Navy Naval Faciliti es Engineering Command, May 1982, Reva I idatcd by Change I September 1986. 8. "Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction during Earthquakes", by H.B. Seed and J.M . Idriss, 1982. 14 .. EAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTATION AND ENGINEER[NG, INC. 10925 HARTLEY ROAD, SUITE 441" SANTEE, CALIFORNIA 92071 (619) 258-7901 Fax 258-7902 Keoni & Geanie Sundseth l 73 8 Schooner Way Carlsbad, California 92008 Subject: Limited Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Residential Additions (Sundseth Residence) 1738 Schooner Way Carlsbad, Cal ifomia 92008 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Sundseth: September 6, 2017 ProjectNo. 17-1106H6 In accordance with your request, we have performed a limited geotechnical investigation at the subject site to discuss the geotechnical aspects of the project and provide recommendations for the proposed residential improvement. Our investigation has found that the areas of the proposed additions are underlain by moderately dense fill soils to a depth of approximately 6 feet below existing grade. Dense terrace deposits were underlying these soils to the explored depth of 9 feet. It is our opinion that the construction of the proposed residential additions is geotechnically foasihle provided the recommendations herein are implemented in the design and construction. Should you have any questions with regard to the contents of this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respect Mamadou Sahou iallo, P.E. RCE 54071 , GE 2704 MSD/md I- '. Keoni & Geanie Sundseth/ 1738 Schooner Way/ Carlsbad Projecl No. I 7-J06H6 TABLE OF CONTENTS 'INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 3 SCOPE OF SERVICES ...................................................................................................................................... 3 SITE DESCRlPTION AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 3 FIELD INVESTfGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ....................................................................... .4 GEOLOGY ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Geologic Setting .................................................................................................................................... 4 Site Stratigraphy .................................................................................................................................... 4 SE ISMICITY ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 Regional Seism icity ............................................................................................................................... 5 Seismic Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 5 2016 CBC Seismic Design Criteria ...................................................................................................... 5 Geologic Hazard Assessment ................................................................................................................ 6 GEOTECHN ICAL EVALUATION .................................................................................................................. 7 Compressible Soils ................................................................................................................................ 7 Expansive Soils ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Groundwater .......................................................................................................................................... 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ ? CLEARING AND GRUBBING ......................................................................................................................... 8 FOUNDATIONS AND SLABS ........................................................................................................................ 8 SETTLEMENT ................................................................................................................................................... 9 PRESATURATION OF SLAB SUBGRADE ................................................................................................... 9 TEMPORARY SLOPES .................................................................................................................................... 9 TRENCH BACKFILL ........................................................................................................................................ 9 DRAlNAGE ........................................................................................................................................................ 9 FOUNDATION PLAN. REVIEW .................................................................................................................... 10 LIMJTATlONS OF INVESTIGATION ......................................................................................................... 10 ADDITIONAL SERVICES ............................................................................................................................ 11 PLATES Plate I-Location of Exploratory Boreholes Plate 2-Summary Sheet (Exploratory Borehole Logs) ...................................................................... 12 Plate 3 -uses Soil Classification Chart PAGE L-1, LA BORA TORY TEST RESULTS .............................................................................................. 13 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................. 14 2 Keoni & Geanie Sundseth/ /738 Schooner Way/ Carlsbad Project No. 17-!06H6 INTRODUCTION This is to present the findings and conclusions of a limited geotechnical investigation for the proposed additions to the single-family residence located at 1738 Schooner Way, in the City of Carlsbad, California. The objectives of the investigation were to evaluate the existing soils conditions and provide recommendations for the proposed improvement. SCOPE OF SERVICES The following services were provided during this investigation: 0 Site reconnaissance and review of published geologic, seismological and geotechnical reports and maps pertinent to the project area 0 Subsurface exploration consisting of three (3) boreholes within the limits of the proposed areas of improvement. The boreholes were logged by our Staff Geologist. 0 Collection ofrepresentative soil samples at selected depths. The obtained samples were sealed in moisture-resistant containers and transported to the laboratory for subsequent analysis. 0 Laboratory testing of samples representative of the types of soils encountered during the field investigation 0 Geologic and engineering analysis of the field and laboratory data, which provided the basis for our conclusions and recommendations 0 Production of this report, which summarizes lhe results of the above analysis and presents our findings and recommendations for the proposed improvement SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The subject site is an irregular-shaped resid.ential lot located on the north side of Schooner Way, in the City of Carlsbad, Californ ia. The property which encompasses an area of approximately 24,000 square feet is occupied by a one-story, single-family residence. The building pad is relatively level with descending slopes to the west and south. Vegetation consisted of grass, shrub and a few trees. The parcel is bordered by Schooner Way to the south and simil ar residential developments to the remaining directions. The preliminary plans prepared by Brooks Design of Carlsbad, California indicates that the proposed improvement will include an second dwelling unit and other additions lo lhe east and west sides of the existing house. The structures will be one-story, wood-framed and founded on continuous footings with a slab-on-grade floor. 3 Keoni & Geanie Sundseth/ 1738 Schooner Way/ Carlsbad Project No. I 7-l06H6 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING On July 21 , 2017, three (3) boreholes were excavated to a maximum depth of approximately 9 feet below existing grade with a hand auger. The approximate locations of the boreholes are shown on the attached Plate No. 1, entitled "Location of Exploratory Boreholes". A continuous log of the soil s encountered was recorded at the time of excavation and is shown on Plate No. 2 entitled "Summary Sheet". The soils were visuaJly and texturally classified according to the filed identification procedures set forth on Plate No. 3 entitled "USCS Soil Classification". Following the field exploration, laboratory testing was performed to evaluate the pertinent engineering properties of the foundation materials. The laboratory-testing program included moisture and density, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, particle size analysis and expansion index tests. These tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM standards and other accepted methods. Page L-1 and Plate No. 2 provide a summary of the laboratory test results. GEOLOGY Geologic Setting The subject site is located within the southern portion of what is known as the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of California. The geologic map pertaining to the area (Reference No. 5) indicates that the site is underlain by Pleistocene terrace deposits (Qt3). Site Stratigraphy The subsurface descriptions provided are interpreted from conditions exposed during the field investigation and/or inferred from the geologic literature. Detailed descriptions of the subsurface materials encountered during the field investigation are presented on the exploration logs provided on Plate No. 2. The following paragraphs provide general descriptions of the encountered soil types. Fill {Of) Fill soils were encountered in the boreholes to a depth of approximately 6 feet below existing grade. These soils generally consisted of tan to reddish brown, silty sand that was moist to wet and medium dense in consistency. Terrace Deposits (Ot1} Terrace deposits were underlying the fill soils to the explored depth of approximately 9 feet. They generally consisted of reddish brown, si lty sand that was moist and dense in consistency. 4 Keoni & Geanie Sundseth/ 1738 Schooner Way/ Carlsbad Project No. I 7-I06H6 SElSMlCITY Regional Seismicity Generally, Seismicity within California can be attributed to the regional tectonic movement taking place along the San Andreas Fault Zone, which includes the San Andreas Fault and most parallel and subparallel faults within the state. The portion of southern California where the subject site is located is considered seismically active. Seismic hazards are attributed to groundshaking from earthquake events along nearby or more distant Quaternary faults. The primary factors in evaluating the effect an earthquake has on a site are the magnitude of the event, the distance from the epicenter to the site and the near surface soil profile. According to the Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones Act of 1994 (revised Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act), quaternary faults have been classified as "active" faults, which show apparent surface rupture during the last 11,000 years (i.e., Holocene time). "Potentially-active" faults are those faults with evidence of displacing Quaternary sediments between 11 ,000 and 1.6 million years old. Seismic Analysis Based on our evaluation, the closest known "active" fault is the Rose Canyon Fault located approximately 5.5 miles (8.8 kilometers) to the west. The Rose Canyon Fault is the design fault of the project due to the predicted credible fault magnitude and ground acceleration. The Seismicity of the site was evaluated utilizing the 2008 National Hazard Maps from the USGS website and Seed and Idriss methods for active Quaternary faults within a 50-mile radius of the subject site. The site may be subjected to a Maximum Probable Earthquake of 6.9 Magnitude along the Rose Canyon Fault, with a corresponding Peak Ground Acceleration of 0.43g. The maximum Probable Earthquake is defined as the maximum earthquake that is considered likely to occur within a I 00-year time period. The effective ground acceleration at the site is associated with the part of significant ground motion, which contains repetitive strong-energy shaking, and which may produce structural deformation. As such, the effective or "free field" ground acceleration is referred to as the Repeatable High Ground Acceleration (RHGA). It has been determined by Ploessel and Slosson (1974) that the RHGA is approximately equal to 65 percent of the Peak Ground Acceleration for earthquakes occurring within 20 miles of a site. Based on the above, the calculated Credible RHGA at the site is 0.28g. 2016 CBC Seismic Design Criteria A review of the active fault maps pertaining to the site indicates the location of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone approximately 8.8 km to the west. Ground shaki ng from this fault or one of the major active faults in the region is the most likely happening to affect the site. With respect to this hazard, the site is comparable to others in the general area. The proposed residential additions should be designed in accordance with seismic design requirements of the 2016 California Building 5 Keoni & Geanie Sundseth/ 1738 Schooner Way/ Carlsbad Project No. I 7-l 06H6 Code or the Structural Engi neers Association of California using the following seismic design parameters: PARAMETER -~ VALUE 2016 CBC & ASCE 7 REFERENCES : ~- Site Class D Table 20.3-1 / ASCE 7, Chapter 20 Mapped Spectral Acceleration For Short Periods, 1.120g Figure 1613.3.1(1) Ss Mapped Spectral Acceleration For a I -Second 0.430g Figure 16 13.3.1(2) Period, S1 Site Coefficient, Fa 1.052 Table 161 3.3.3(1) Site Coeffi cient, Fv 1.570 Table 161 3.3.3(2) Adjusted Max. Considered Earthquake Spectral 1.1 78g Equation 16-37 Response Acceleration for Short Periods, SMs Adjusted Max. Considered Earthquake Spectral 0.675g Equation 16-3 8 Response Accelerati on for I -Second Period, SM1 5 Percent Damped Design Spectral Response 0.786g Equation 16-39 Acceleration for Short Periods, Sos 5 Percent Damped Design Spectral Response 0.450g Equation 16-40 Acceleration for I -Second Period, S01 Geologic Hazard Assessment Ground Rupture Ground rupture due to active faulting is not considered likely due to the absence of known fault traces within the vicinity of the project; however, this possibility cannot be completely ruled out. The unlikely hazard of ground rupture should not preclude consideration of "flexible" design for on-site utility lines and connections. Liquefaction Liquefaction involves the substantial loss of shear strength in saturated soil s, usually sandy soils with a loose consistency when subj ected to earthquake shaking. Based on the absence of shallow gro undwater and consistency of the underlying bedrock material, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction is very low. Landsliding There is no indication that landslides or unstable slope conditions exist on or adjacent to the project site. There are no obvious geologic hazards related to landsliding to the proposed improvement or adjacent properties. Tsunamis and Seiches The site is not subject to inundation by tsunamis due to its elevation. The site is also not subject to seiches (waves in confined bodies of water). 6 Keoni & Geanie Sundreth/ 1738 Schooner Way/ Carlsbad Project No. l 7-l06H6 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Based on our investigation and evaluation of the collected information. we conclude that the proposed residential improvement is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the recommendations herein will be properly implemented during construction. Based on the consistency of the existing fill soils, it is our opinion that the proposed additions may be supported by these soils without any detrimental settlement. The new foundations may consist of reinforced continuous and/ or spread footings with reinforced slabs. Recommendations and criteria for foundation design are provided in the Foundations and Slabs recommendations section of this report. Compressible Soils Our field observations and testing indicate low compressibility within the moderately dense fiJI soils and dense terrace deposits, which underlie the site. Therefore, no remedial grading will be require~. Following implementation of the recommendations presented herein, the potential for soil compression resulting from the new development has been estimated to be low. The low-settlement assessment assumes a well-planned and maintained site drainage system. Expansive Soils An expansion index test was performed on a representative sample of the fill soils to determine volumetric change characteristics with change in moisture content. An expansion index of 3 was obtained which indicates a ye1y low expansion poteotial :fu.r the foundation soils. Groundwater Static groundwater was not encountered to the depths of the boreholes. The building pad is located at an elevation of approximately 140 feet above Mean Sea Level. We do not expect groundwater to affect the proposed construction. Recommendations to prevent or mitigate the effects of poor surface drainage are presented in the Drainage section of this report. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following conclusions and recommendations are based upon the analysis of the data and information obtained from our soil investigation. This includes site reconnaissance; field investigation; laboratory testing and our general .knowledge of the soils native to the site. The site is suitable for the proposed residential improvement provided the recommendations set forth are implemented during construction. 7 Keoni & Geanie Sund~ethl 1738 Schooner Way/ Carlsbad Project No. I 7-!06H6 CLEARING AND GRUBBING The areas of the proposed additions should be cleared of vegetation and deleterious materials. Vegetation and the debris from the clearing operation should be properly disposed of off-site. The areas should be thoroughly inspected for any possible buried objects, which need to be rerouted or removed prior to construction. All holes, trenches, or pockets left by the removal of these objects shouJd be properly backfilled with compacted fill materiaJs. Our field investigation indicates that moderately dense fi ll soils and dense terrace deposits underly the areas of the proposed additions. These soils will be adequate for support of the proposed residential additions. Therefore, no remedial grading will be required. Foundation excavati ons should be observed by a representative of this firm to verify competent bearing soils. FOUNDATIONS AND SLABS a. Continuous and spread footings are suitable for use and should extend to a minimum depth of 12 inches for the proposed one-story additions into the moderately dense fill soils. Continuous footings should be at least 12 inches jn width and re info rced with a minimum of four #4 st~I bars; two bars placed near the top of the footings and the other two bars placed near the bottom of the foo tings. Isolated or spread footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches. Their reinforcement should consist of a minimum of #4 bars spaced 12 inches on center (each way) and placed horizontally near the bottom. These recommendations are based on geotechnical considerations and are not intended to supersede the structural engineer requirements. b. Interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum 4 inches thick. Reinforcement should consist of #3 bars placed at 18 inches on center each way within the middle third of the slabs by supporting the steel on chairs or concrete blocks "dobies". The slabs should be underlain .!?i'..1__ inches of clean sand over a 10-mil visquecn moisture barrier. The effect of concrete shrinkage will result tn cracks in virtually all-concrete slabs. To reduce the extent of shrinkage, the concrete should be placed at a maximum of 4-inch slump. The minimum steel recommended is not intended to prevent shrinkage cracks. c. Where moisture sensitive floor coverings are anticipated over the slabs, the 10-mil plastic moisture barrier should be underlain by a capillary break at least 2 inches thick, consisting of coarse sand, gravel or crushed rock not exceeding 3/4 inch in size with no more than 5 percent passing the #200 sieve. d. An allowable soil bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot may be used for the design of continuous and spread footings at least 12 inches wide and founded a minimum of 12 inches into properly compacted fill soils as set forth in the 2016 California Bui lding Code, Table 1806.2. This value may be increased by 400 psf for each additional foot of depth or width to a maximum value of 4,000 lb/ft2. 8 Keoni & Geanie Sundseth/ 1738 Schooner Way/ Carlsbad Project No. I 7-106H6 e. Lateral resistance to horizontal movement may be provided by the soil passive pressure and the friction of concrete to soil. An allowable passive pressure of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth may be used. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 is recommended. The soils passive pressure as well as the bearing value may be increased by 1 /3 for wind and seismic loading. SETTLEMENT Settlement of compacted fill soils is normal and should be anticipated. Because of the type and thickness of the fill soils anticipated under the proposed footings and the light building loads, total and differential settlement should be within acceptable limits. PRESATURA TION OF SLAB SUBGRADE Due to the granular characteristics of the subgrade soil s, presoaking of subgrade prior to concrete pour is not required. However, subgrade soils in areas receiving concrete should be watered prior to concrete placement to mitigate any drying shrinkage, which may occur following site preparation and foundation excavation. TEMPORARY SLOPES For the excavation of foundations and utility trenches, temporary vertical cuts to a maximum height of 4 feet may be constructed in fill or natural soil. Any temporary cuts beyond the above height constraints should be shored or further laid back fo llowing a I: 1 (horizontal to vertical) slope ratio. OSHA guidelines for trench excavation safety should be implemented during construction. TRENCH BACKFILL Excavations for utility lines, which extend under structural areas should be properly backfilled and compacted. Utilities should be bedded and backfilled with clean sand or approved granular soil to a depth of at least one foot over the pipe. This backfill should be uniformly watered and compacted to a firm condition for pipe support. The remainder of the backfill should be on-site soils or non-expansive imported soils, which should be placed in thin lifts, moisture-conditioned and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. DRAINAGE Adequate measures should be undertaken to finish grade the site after the structures and other improvements are in place, such that the drainage water within the site and adjacent properties is directed away from the foundations, footings, floor slabs and the tops of slopes via rain gutters, downspouts, surface swales and subsurface drains towards the natural drainage for this area. In accordance with the 2016 California Building Code, a minimum gradient of 2 percent is recommended in hardscape areas adjacent to the structures. ln earth areas, a minimum gradient of 5 percent away from the structures for a distance of at least IO feet should be provided. [f this requirement cannot be met due to site limitations, drainage can be done through a swale in accordance with Section 1804.4 of the 2016 California Building Code. Earth swales should have a minimum gradient of 2 percent. Drainage should be directed to approved drainage facilities. 9 Keoni & Geanie Sundseth/ 1738 Schooner Way/ Carlsbad Project No. J 7-l06H6 Proper surface and subsurface drainage will be required to minimize the potential of water seeking the level of the bearing soil s under the fo undations, footings and floor slabs, which may otherwise result in undermining and differential settlement of the structures and other improvements. FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW Our firm should review the foundation plans and details during the design phase to assure conformance with the intent of this report. During construction, foundation excavations should be observed by our representative prior to the placement of forms, reinforcement or concrete for conformance with the plans and specifications. LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION Our investigation was performed using the skill and degree of care ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable soils engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. This report is prepared for the sole use of our client and may not be assigned to others without the written consent of the client and ECSC&E, Jnc. The samples collected and used for testing, and the observations made, are believed representative of site conditions; however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between exploration trenches, boreholes and surface exposures. As in most major projects, conditions revealed by construction excavations may vary with preliminary findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by a representative of ECSC&E and designs adjusted as required or alternate designs recommended. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the project architect and engineer. Appropriate recommendations should be incorporated into the structural plans. The necessary steps should be taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. The findings of this report are valid as of this present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside of our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should be updated after a period of two years. 10 Keoni & Geanie Sundseth/ 1738 Schooner Way/ Carlsbad Project No. I 7-/06H6 ADDITIONAL SERVICES The review of plans and specifications, field observations and testing under our direction are integral parts of the recommendations made in this report. If East County Soil Consultation and Engineering, Tnc. is not retained for these services, the client agrees to assume our responsibility for any potential claims that may arise during construction. Observation and testing are additional services, which are provided by our firm, and should be budgeted within the cost of development. Plates No. 1 through 3, Page L-1 and References are parts of this report. 11 ' > EAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTATION & ENGINEERING, INC. I 0925 HARTI..EY RD., SUITE I, SANTEE, CA .92071 (619) 258-7901 Fax (619) 258-7902 DEPT H Surface 1.5' 2.0' 3.0' 4.5' 5.5' 6.0' DEPTH Surface 0.5' 1.5' 2.5' 3.5' 6.0' 9.0' DEPTH Surface 1.5' 3.0' 5.0' 6.0' 7.0' Keoni & GeanieSundsethl 1738 Schooner Way/Carlsbad Project No. 17-/06H6 PLATE NO. 2 SUMMARY SHEET BOREHOLE NO. I SOIL DESCRIPTION FILL (Qf) tan brown, moist, medium dense, silty sand reddish brown, moist, medium dense, silty sand " tan brown, moist, medium dense, silty sand becomes wet TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt3) reddish brown, moist, dense, silty sand bottom of borehole, no caving, no groundwater borehole backfilled 7/21/17 BOREHOLE NO. 2 SOIL DESCRIPTION FILL (Qf) .tan brown, moist, medium dense, silty sand reddish brown, moist, medium dense, silty sand " dark brown, moist to wet, medium dense, silty sand reddish brown, moist, medium dense, sand with silt TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt3) reddish brown, moist, dense, silty sand bottom of borehole. no caving, no groundwater borehole backfilled 7/21/ I 7 BOREHOLE NO. 3 SOIL DESCRIPTION FILL (Qf) tan brown, moist, medium dense, silty sand reddish brown, moist, medium dense, si lty sand tan brown, moist, medium dense, silty sand dark brown, moist to wet, medium dense, sand with silt TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt3) reddish brown, moist, dense, silty sand bottom of borehole, no caving, no groundwater borehole backfilled 7/21/17 Y = DRY DENSITY IN PCF 12 y 11 4.5 y 109.1 112.7 y M = MOISTURE CONTENT IN% M I 1.0 M 10.5 11.2 M ·. SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORE Ttw<50% 01MATERIA!.IS v.RGERTHANNO. 200 SIEVE SIZE FINE GRA(NED SOILS MORE"IWl."150% Of' MA TERIA!. IS SMAU.Ell ™"-" NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAVEL ANO GRAVELLY SOILS C:..EAN GRAVELS (UiT ..£ OR NO "1NES) GRAVELS WITH M°tf ~f" FINES FRACTION R!ITAJNEC ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT SANO AND SANDY SOILS MORE THAN SO% OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING ON N0.4SIEVE SILTS AND CLAYS SILTS ANO CLAYS Of Flll:ES) SANOS WITH FINES (APPREc:ABL! AMOUl\'1' 011JNES) UCUIO LIMIT LESS THAN 50 LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN SO HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS SYMBOLS LETTER GW GP GM GC SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH p~uu I ,!!, t!t i.'t \ PT ~~t!!,,,J TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS W-c..L•GRACEC GRAVELS, GRAVEi. • SANO MIXTVRES, LITTLE OR NO FINES POOR:. Y-GRACED GRAVELS, GRAVEL • SA.,;O M:xnJRES, UTTl.E OR NO FINES Sil TY GRAVELS, GRAVCJ. • $A."IC • SILT M!XT\JRES CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL• SA...C • CLAY MIXT JRES WliU.-GRAOED SAN~. GRAVELLY SANOS. LITTLE OR NO FINES POORL Y-GRAOED SA."l!lS, GRAVELLY SA."10, UTTLE OR NO FL"IES SIL TY SA."105, SAND· Sil T MOCTURES ClAYEY SANCS, SAND· CLAY MIX'T\JRE$ INORGA."IIC SIL TS ANO VERY l'IN! SANOS, ROCK Fl.OUR, SILTY OR CLAVEY FINE SANO$ OR OLA YEY SILTS WlTM SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC c:.A YS OF LOW TO MEDIVM PLASTICITY, GRAVEi.LY ClAYS, SANCY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, L.eAN CLAYS ORGA."llC SIL TS ANO ORGANIC SIL TY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICJTV INORGANIC U TS, Ml~EOUS OR CIA TOMACEOUS FINE SANO OR SIL TY SOILS INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY I ORGA."l!C CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS PEAT, H'.!MUS, SWAMP SOILS WITll HIGH ORGAN1C CONTENTS NOTE: DUAL SYMIOLS AR£ USEC TO l'-ClCATE 80Rt:Eil"NE SOil C\.ASSl~,CATICNS CLASSIFICATION I RANCE Of CRAIN SIZES I I I U.S. STANDARD GRAIN SIZE !N I SIEVE SIZE MILLIMETERS BOULDERS Above 12 Inches Above 305 COBBLES 12 Inches To 3 Inches 305 To 76.2 GRAVEL 3 Inches to No. 4 76.2 10 4.76 Coarse 3 Inches to ¼ Inch 76.2to 19.1 Fine ¼ Inch to No 4 19.1 to4.76 SAND No. 4 to No 200 4 76 to O 074 Coarse No. 410 No. 10 4.76 to 2.00 Medium No. 10 to No. 40 2.00 to 0.420 Fine No. 40 10 No. 200 0.420 10 0.074 SILT ANO CLAY Below No. 200 Below 0.074 GRAIN SIZE CHART EAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTATION &. ENGINEERING, INC. I 0925 HARTI...EY RD .. SUITE I, SANTEE. CA .92071 (619) 258-7901 Pax (619) 258-7902 --- J I I IIO \Q I V I V / V c~ V / I/ L/ I/ CL V i i/ / I J ···t· l ~ ,~r:,:;:: ~:...:.y \ ML.t:~1.. I I ! I O 10 2.0 lO 40 SO ao 70 10 so CIO uau.a ua,iir (-). ,: PLASTICITY CHART /'BJNI I &E/4v/E 5t/N<J5f:71./ /7 3(3 !5CMOO~ WAY /1-/lt'bl/6 Keoni & Geanie Sundseth/ 1738 Schooner Way! Carlsbad Project No. I 7-I06H6 PAGE L-1 LABO RA TORY TEST RESULTS MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D1557) The maximum dry densities and optimum moisture contents of the till materials as determined by ASTM 0 1557, Procedures A and B which use 25 blows of a 10 pound slide hammer falling from a height of 18 inches on each of 5 equal layers in a 4 inch diameter 1/30 cubic foot compaction cylinder and Procedure C which uses 56 blows of a IO pound slide hammer falling from a height o f 18 inches on each of 5 equal layers in a 6 inch diameter 1 / 13 .3 cubic foot compaction cylinder are presented as fo llows: SOIL TYPE/ OPTIM UM MOISTURE CONTENT PROCEDURE DESCRlPTJON MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (PCF) (%) LOCATION I/A REDDISH BROWN SIL TY SAND 124.0 9.5 BH-2 @ 1.5' fNITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT(%) 8.9 U.S. Standard Sieve Size I ,, l/2" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 uses EXPANSION INDEX TEST (ASTM D4829) SATURATED MOISTURE CONTENT(%) 17.2 INITIAL DRY DENSITY EXPAN SION (PCF) fNDEX 110.8 3 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTM D422) Percent Passing Percent Passing Percent Passing BH-1 @ 2.0' BH-2 @ 4.0' BH-3 @4.5' Fill Fill Fill --- --- 100 100 - 99 99 - 96 99 100 91 97 99 79 88 89 47 56 54 21 15 35 16 12 29 SM SP-SM SM 13 LOCATION BH-2 @ 1.5' Percent Passing BH-2@6.0' Terrace Deposits - - - - 100 99 82 42 23 17 SM Keoni & Geanie Sundseth/ 1738 Schooner Way/ Carlsbad Project No. I 7-l06H6 REFERENCES I. "2016 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of2", Published by lnternalional Code Council. 2. ''Geologic Map of the San Diego 30' x 60' Quadrangle, California", by Michael P. Kennedy and Siang S. Tan, 2008. 3. "Geotechnical and Foundation Eng ineering: Design and Construction", by Robert W. Day, 1999. 4. "Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada to be used with 1997 Uniform Building Code", Published by International Conference of Building Officials. 5. "Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California", Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, by Siang S. Tan and Michael P. Kennedy, 1996. 6. "Bearing Capacity of Soi ls, Technical Engineering and Design Guides as Adapted from the US Am1y Corps of Engin eers, No. 7", Published by ASCE Press, 1994. 7. "Foundations and Earth Structures, Design Manual 7.2", by Department of Navy Naval Facilities Engineering Command, May 1982, Reva I idated by Change 1 September 1986. 8. "Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction during Earthquakes", by H.B. Seed and I.M. Idriss, 1982. 14 STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION NOTES 1. ALL NECESSARY EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS SHALL BE AVAILABLE ON SITE TO FACILITATE RAPID INSTALLATION OF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPs 'M-IEN RAIN IS EMINENT. 2. THE OWNER/CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES TO WORKING ORDER TO THE SA TI SF ACTION OF THE CITY INSPECTOR AFTER EACH RUN-OFF PRODUCING RAINFALL. 3. THE OWNER/CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE CITY INSPECTOR DUE TO INCOMPLETE GRADING OPERATIONS OR UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES 'M-IICH MAY ARISE. 4. ALL REMOVABLE PROTECTIVE DEVICES SHALL BE IN PLACE AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY 'M-IEN THE FIVE (5) DAY RAIN PROBABILITY FORECAST EXCEEDS FORTY PECENT ( 40%). SILT AND OTHER DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED AFTER EACH RAINFALL. 5. ALL GRAVEL BAGS SHALL CONTAIN 3/4 INCH MINIMUM AGGREGATE. 6. ADE QUA TE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AND PERIMETER PROTECTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE MEASURES MUST BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED. 7. THE CITY INSPECTOR SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ALTER THIS PLAN DURING OR BEFORE CONSTRUCTION AS NEEDED TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH CITY STORM WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS. OWNER'S CERTIFICATE: I UNDERSTAND AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I MUST: (1) IMPLEMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES {BMPS) DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE TO AVOID THE MOBILIZATION OF POLLUTANTS SUCH AS SEDIMENT AND TO AVOID THE EXPOSURE OF STORM WATER TO CONSTRUCTION RELATED POLLUTANTS; AND (2) ADHERE TO, AND AT ALL TIMES, COMPLY WITH THIS CITY APPROVED TIER 1 CONSTRUCTION S\WPP THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES UNTIL THE CONSTRUCTION WORK IS COMPLETE AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. DATE E-29 STORM WATER COMPLIANCE FORM TIER 1 CONSTRUCTION SWPPP BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) SELECTION TABLE Erosion Control Sediment Control BMPs Tracking Non-St>nn Wat.er Waste Management and Materials BMPs Control BMPs Management BMPs Pollution Control BMPs C C 5 0 c -.., 0 ., .., C :;:; :;:; "' 0 ., .., ., C u u C E C -0 .5 ·E' 0 E C 2 ::, .2 .9-0 0 E .; L .., ., ::E .., ., "' ~ c ., ., ., ] ~ '-::, t-"' C "' C Q) C. ., C CT 0 -'d Ocj Q. .E -5 ., 5 L L w !i C ~ Best Management Practice• C 0 CD ., :c ., . ., ~ ., 0 .5 (.)~ (.) ., i ~ ., 0 -., u ., V, C E "' "' ., "' CD "' ., .., ., .., ., ::E C Q) C (BMP) Description ➔ ·c ., Cc C C 0 :::> !i -., ., :i ~ I) ] 0 0 ~-~ 0~ il~ .., > 0., CC 0"' !'l E :;:; 5 u 0 c CD "' Co ., ~-::E 0"' C 0:: 0 ~o (.) ., ., c ., c ~ 3'-., >< N en u CJ"I:;:::; ~.s $ 0 ~ E .,c .; ..0 E~ :::: (f) :.=. ~:;:::; ~ -~ g ·.::: a.. e "' .., =·= ., u ~ ., ::, .., :0 ~ :0 -g ., u C 0 UC ., .,c ..,o 0 0 8-'g > ., u -~ ~ ·-0 Q) L u =] LO ., & C 00 -o i;~ -o 0 .B ~~ ., ~ CL .<: ~ ~o 0 0"' .Bo i~ 0 o_ (!) WO vi in V, (.) V>> V, VJ a: V> C v,cr a..o a.. >U ::EV, ::E V, bru CASQA Desiglation ➔ ,.._ a:, O> ' ' .,, ... "' <D ,.._ a:, ~ ' N 7 .,, ,.._ a:, ' N .,, ... "' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I (.) (.) (.) u w w w w w w w w ~ ~ V, V, V, V, i i j i i Construction Activity w w w w V, V, V, V, V, V, V, V, z z z z Gradino /Soil Disturbance X Trenchina/Excovotion ¥ X X. Stockoilina V V Drillina/Borino Concrete/Asoholt Sowcuttina Concrete Flotwork Povina Conduit/Pioe Installation Stucco /Mortar Work X Waste Disoosol y Staoino/Lav Down Area Enuioment Maintenance and Fuelino Hazardous Substance Use/Storoae Dewoterina Site Access Across Dirt Other (list): Instructions: 1. Check the box to the left of all applicable construction activity {first column) expected to occur during construction. 2. Located along the top of the BMP Table is a list of BMP's with it's corresponding California Stormwoter Quality Association (CASOA) designation number. Choose one or more BMPs you intend to use during construction from the list. Check the box where the chosen activity row intersects with the BMP column. 3. Refer to the CASQA construction handbook for information and details of the chosen BMPs and how to apply them to the project. PROJECT INFORMATION Site Address: 1738 Schooner Way . 207-320-06-00 Assessors Parcel Number: ________ _ Emergency Contact: Nome: Alena Blasjo 24 Hour Phone: (760) 729-3965 Construction Threat to Storm Water Quality {Check Box) □ MEDIUM )XI LOW ., .; 0 3'--C ~E .., ., L 0, oO NC 0 0 :i::::E <D I i ., .; o- 31': ~ ., E -., bg CC 0 O U::E a:, I i Page 1 of 1 REV 11/17 STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION NOTES 1. ALL NECESSARY EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS SHALL BE AVAILABLE ON SITE TO FACILITATE RAPID INSTALLATION OF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPs WHEN RAIN IS EMINENT. 2. THE OWNER/CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES TO WORKING ORDER TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY INSPECTOR AFTER EACH RUN-OFF PRODUCING RAINFALL. 3. THE OWNER/CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE CITY INSPECTOR DUE TO INCOMPLETE GRADING OPERATIONS OR UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY ARISE. 4. ALL REMOVABLE PROTECTIVE DEVICES SHALL BE IN PLACE AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY WHEN THE FIVE (5) DAY RAIN PROBABILITY FORECAST EXCEEDS FORTY PECENT ( 40%). SILT AND OTHER DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED AFTER EACH RAINFALL. 5. ALL GRAVEL BAGS SHALL CONTAIN 3/4 INCH MINIMUM AGGREGATE. 6, ADEQUATE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AND PERIMETER PROTECTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE MEASURES MUST BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED. 7. THE CITY INSPECTOR SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ALTER THIS PLAN DURING OR BEFORE CONSTRUCTION AS NEEDED TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH CITY STORM WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS. OWNER'S CERTIFICATE: I UNDERSTAND AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I MUST: (1) IMPLEMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE TO AVOID THE MOBILIZATION OF POLLUTANTS SUCH AS SEDIMENT AND TO AVOID THE EXPOSURE OF STORM WATER TO CONSTRUCTION RELATED POLLUTANTS; AND (2) ADHERE TO, AND AT ALL TIMES, COMPLY WITH THIS CITY APPROVED TIER 1 CONSTRUCTION SWPPP THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES UNTIL THE CONSTRUCTION WORK IS COMPLETE AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. iGNAlURE: DATE E-29 STORM WATER COMPLIANCE FORM TIER 1 CONSTRUCTION SWPPP BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) SELECTION TABLE Erosion Control Sediment Control BMPs Tracking Non-Si>rm Water Waste Management and Materials BMPs Control BMPs Management BMPs Pollution Control BMPs C -g § 0 -~ C -0 C -0 :;:; :;:; "' 0 ., ., -0 ., C u u C C "' E C E C 0 0 -2 ~ 0 'i5 .E 0. 0 0 E L ., L ·3 >.. ., ::E -0 ., "' ] C ~ "' "' C O> 0. C ., c ., ., ., ~ CT ~ 0 C ., .E -§ ., C w ~ Best Management Practice• -:ii C O o 0 00 ·a. ., C ., 0 ., ., 0 :c ., 'lie .s ,= E ., 0 C (.) ~ (.) ., i -0 ~ ., ::E C o, C (BMP) Description ➔ ., u ., "' ., ., "' ., "' 00 •o C "' C -0 ., C Cl :::, ., -., :5 :5 ~.., ~ u -0 15 0 )le C L O ~~ -0 ,., 0., CC 0"' ., > i!l E ::E Cl c,, Cl C C Cl 00 "'.E "' O:;:; ~o (.)., 0 0 ., ~g 0 = ~-)( ., 0::'. 0 N o, u CJ'I:;:; ~-E 3., ., 0 ~ E .,,_ l -~ ..0 E] :5 ~ :: 'lie ~~ :;; •;;:: 0. ~_g "' -0 =E-~ ., u L ., ~ -0 ~g C 0 .!! 6 -is -0 0 0 0 8-'i5 ., ~g -~ 8 0 ., L 1l ., 0 C 00 0"' 00 0 ii.!! -o 0 =a ~} ., ~ 0 L ., .c ~ ,5l o_ 0 (!) WCI ii\ V5 "' (.) <3 u,> in a: vi C "'0::'. 3ct Cl.0 Cl. >U ::E"' ::E vi ~(.) CASOA Desiglation ➔ ..... <X) O> ,,., ... .,., co ..... <X) 0 N ,,., ..... <X) ' N ,,., ... .,., I I I ' ' I I I I I I ' ' I ' I I I I I I I (.) (.) (.) (.) w w w w w w w w g; g; "' "' "' "' j j j j j Construction Activity w w w w "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' z z z z Gradina /Soil Disturbance x Trenchina/Excavation y X X Stockoilina y IV Drillin<i/Borina Concrete/ASDhalt Sawcuttina Concrete Flatwork Pavina Conduit!Pioe Installation Stucco /Mortar Work '>I Waste Disoosal X Staaina/Lav Down Area Eauioment Maintenance and Fuelina Hazardous Substance Use /Storoae Dewaterina Site Access Across Dirt Other flist ): Instructions: 1. Check the box to the left of all applicable construction activity (first column) expected to occur during construction. 2. Located along the top of the BMP Table is o list of BMP's with it's corresponding California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) designation number. Choose one or more BMPs you inlend to use during construction from the list. Check the box where the chosen activity row intersects with the BMP column. 3. Refer to the CASQA construction handbook for information and details of the chosen BMPs and how to apply them to the project. PROJECT INFORMATION Site Address: 1738 Schooner Way , 207-320-06-00 Assessors Parcel Number: --------- Emergency Contact: Name: Alena Blasjo 24 Hour Phone: {760} 729-3965 Construction Threat to Storm Water Quality (Check Box) 0 MEDIUM 181 LOW 1l ., 0 3-C ~e -0 ., L 0, O 0 NC 0 0 :c ::E <O I j 1l ., o-3c ., ., E -., ~ "' U 0 CC oo U::E <X) I j Page 1 of 1 REV 11/17