Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
160 MAPLE AVE; ; CBR2024-0404; Permit
Building Permit Final~d Residential Permit Print Date: 07/01/2025 Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel#: Valuation: 160 MAPLE AVE, BLDG-Residential 2042340600 $175,474.35 Occupancy Group: #of Dwelling Units: 1 Bedrooms: Bathrooms: Occupant Load: Code Edition: Sprinkled: Project Title: 158 MAPLE ADU CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3263 Work Class : Track#: Lot#: Project#: Plan#: Construction Type: Orig. Plan Check#: Plan Check #: Description: LIFE IS RAD IN CARLSBAD: NEW DETACHED 999 SF ADU Applicant: TYLER VAN STRIGHT 337 S CEDROS AVE, # STE J SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075-1951 (858) 436-7777 x2 FEE BUILDING PLAN CHECK Property Owner: LIFE IS RAD IN CARLSBAD LLC 147 MAPLE AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3264 (858) 342-5429 BUILDING PLAN REVIEW -MINOR PROJECTS (LDE) BUILDING PLAN REVIEW -MINOR PROJECTS (PLN) CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY PUBLIC FACILITIES FEES -outside CFO SB1473-GREEN BUILDING STATE STANDARDS FEE SFD & DUPLEXES STRONG MOTION -RESIDENTIAL (SMIP) SWPPP INSPECTION TIER 1 -Medium BLDG SWPPP PLAN REVIEW TIER 1 -Medium Second Dwelling Unit DEV2023-0139 Total Fees: $9,119.91 Total Payments To Date: $9,119.91 Permit No: Status: (cityof Carlsbad CBR2024-0404 Closed -Finaled Applied: 02/15/2024 Issued : 10/07/2024 Finaled Close Out: 07/01/2025 Final Inspection: 05/19/2025 INSPECTOR : McClane, Duncan Balance Due: Renfro, Chris AMOUNT $864.50 $204.00 $107.00 $21.00 $6,141.60 $8.00 $1,374.00 $22.81 $292.00 $85.00 $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 Carlsbad 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 spec ified 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, Carl sbad CA 92008-7314 I 442-339-2719 I 760-602-8560 f I www.carlsbadca.gov ( City of Carlsbad RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION 8-1 Unit: APN: 2042340600 ----~ Job Address 160 Maple Avenue CT/Project#: DEV2023-0139 Lot#: 9 Year Built: _l_q_:i ... · ... ~------ BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF WORK: Construction of ADU ~ New SF : Living SF, 999 Deck SF, Patio SF, 307 Garage SF __ _ Is this to create an Accessory Dwelling Unit~ N New Fireplace? O YG N , if yes how many? ___ _ D Remodel: _____ SF of affected area Is the area a conversion or change of use? 0 Y 0> N □ Pool/Spa: ____ SF Additional Gas or Electrical Features? _____________ _ □Solar: ___ KW, ___ Modules, Mounted:ORoofOGround, Tilt: 0Y0 N, RMA:OY ON, Battery:OYG N, Panel Upgrade: OY ON Electric Meter number: ------------- Other: APPLICANT (PRIMARY CONTACT) PROPERTY OWNER Name: Tyler Van Stright Name: Life is Rad in Carlsbad LLC (Austin and Rachel Petelski) Address: 337 S. Cedros Avenue, Suite J Address: 147 Maple Avenue City: Solana Beach State: CA Zip:_9_20_7_5 ___ City: Carlsbad State:_C_A __ .Zip:92008 Phone: (858) 436-7777 x2 Phone: (858) 342-5429 Email: tyler@j lcarchitecture.com Email: rapetelski@gmai l.com DESIGN PROFESSIONAL Name: Tyler Van Stright Address: 337 S. Cedros Avenue, Suite J City: Solana Beach State:_C_A __ Zip: 92075 Phone: (858) 436-7777 x2 Email: tyler@jlcarchitecture.com Architect State License: California ------------ CONTRACTOR OF RECORD Business Name: Petcam Engineering, Inc. Address: 19631 Yanan Road City: Apple Valley State: CA Zip:_9_2_03_7 ____ _ Phone: (760) 559-4040 Email: rgpequipment1@yahoo.com CSLB License #: 990536 Class: ABC-8 -------- 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 o/1 City ordinances and State lows relating to building construction. NAME (PRINT): Tyler Van Stright 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 s1GN: T ~ V a;i,, S~oATE: _D-+--' _ ___..__ Ph: 442-339-2719 {I Email: B ildin carlsbadca. ov 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: lherebyaffirmunderpenaltyofperjurythatlamlicensedunderprovisionsofChapter9(commencingwithSection7000JofDivision3 of the Business and Professions Code, and my license is in ful/forceandeffect. I a/so affirm under penal tyof 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- ~ 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: Insurance Company Name: _A_rr_o_w_he_a_d_G_e_ne_ra_1_1n_s_ur_an_ce _______________ 1 Policy No. 7600022154241 Expiration Date: _0_2-0_s-_2_02_s ______________ 1 -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 CERTIFICATION: 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. AU 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): Richard G. Petelski SIGNATURE: ~ q fJ~• DATE: 10/03/2024 Note: If the person signing above is an authorized agent for the contractor rovide a letter of authoKzation on contractor letterhead. (OPTION B): OWNER-BUILDER DECLARATION: I hereby affirm that I am exempt from Contractor's License Law for the following reason: D 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- DI, 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- DI am exempt under Business and Professions Code Division 3, Chapter 9, Article 3 for this reason: AND, D 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. I understand that a copy of the applicable law, Section 7044 of the Business and Professions Code, is available upon request when this application is submitted or at the fol/owing Web site: http:! lwww.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.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): SIGN: __________ DATE: ______ _ Note: If the erson si nin above is an authorized a ent for the ro ert owner include form B-62 si ned b ro ert owner. 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ph: 442-339-2719 Email: Bullding@carlsbadca.gov 2 REV. 04/22 (__ Cicyof Carlsbad RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION B-1 Plan Check Est. Value PC Deposit Date ce£)/J~y-(}J./04 ,±J~L(7lf. 85: $&/2'-/,,s:o Job Address~aple Ave Unit: APN: 204-234-06-00 -----· CT/ProJ·ect #: Lot#: Year Built: 1948 -------------------------------- BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF WORK: new detached ADU E] New SF: Living SF, 999 Deck SF, ___ Patio SF, na Garage SF _n_a __ Is this to create an Accessory Dwelling Unit? O Y O N New Fireplace? O YE) N, if yes how many? ___ _ D Remodel: _____ SF of affected area Is the area a conversion or change of use? O YO N □ Pool/Spa: _____ SF Additional Gas or Electrical Features? ____________ _ 0 Solar: ___ KW, ___ Modules, Mounted:0 Roof Q Ground, Tilt: 0 Y0 N, RMA:O Y O N, Battery:O YC N, Panel Upgrade: O v O N Electric Meter number: ------------- 0th er: APPLICANT (PRIMARY CONTACT) PROPERTY OWNER Name: JLC Architecture -Tyler Van Stright Name: Life is Rad in Carlsbad, LLC Address: 337 S Cedros Ave, Suite J Address: 147 Maple Ave City: Solana Beach State: CA Zip:_9_20_7_5 ___ City: Carlsbad State:_C_A __ Zip: 92008 Phone: 858-436-7777 Phone: 858-342-5429 Email: tyler@jlcarchitecture.com Email: raPetelski@gmail.com DESIGN PROFESSIONAL CONTRACTOR OF RECORD Name: __________________ Business Name:. ________________ _ Address: Address: __________________ _ City: ________ State: ___ Zip:_____ City: _______ State: ___ Zip: ______ _ Phone: Phone: __________________ _ Email: Email: ___________________ _ Architect State License: CSLB License #: _______ Class: _______ _ Carlsbad Business License# (Required): _______ _ APPLICANT CERT/FICA T/ON: I certify that I have read the appllcotian and state that the above informotio agree to comply with off City ordinances and State laws relating to building construction. ,~,~:~,~~:'.'.~:~.~,,JJ.1 u Vo" )1 ( &,:t,_,,~:GN.:...: -~f¥-~f'C,-~79s,,::;__-, Email: Building(aJc " st:-,-1~ REV. 04/22 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 PfRSON 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: lherebyaffirmunderpenaltyofperjurythatlamlicensedunderprovisionsofChapter9(commencingwithSection7000)ofDivision3 of the Business and Professions Code, and my license is in full force and effect. I also affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations (CHOOSE ONE): D1 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. Policy No. ___________________________________________ _ -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: Insurance Company Name: _______________________ _ Policy No. _____________________________ Expiration Date: ________________ _ -OR- O 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 ln 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 bu1ldlngs, 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 or each bu1ld1ng 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: _________ OATE:. _____ _ Note: If the person signing above is an authorized agent for the contractor rovide a letter of authorization on contractor letterhead. {OPTION B): OWNER-BUILDER DECLARATION: I hereby affirm that I am exempt from Contractor's License Law for the following reason: D 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- O 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-O I am exempt under Business and Professions Code Division 3, Chapter 9, Article 3 for this reason: .\ND. D FORM B-61 "Owner Builder Acknowledgement and Verification Form" is required for any permit issued to a property owner. Cly my signature below I acknowlf'dge that, exu,pt for 111v personal residence 1n which I must havP resided for Jt least one year pnor to completion of the improvements covered by this permit, I c .in not legally sell a structure th;it I have built as an owner-builder if it has not been constructed tn its entirety by licensed contractors./ understand that a copy of theapplicablelaw, Section 7044 of the Business and Professions Code, is availableupon request when this application is submitted or at the following Web site: http:! /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 util1t1es/utlllty 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 propertv, 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 ,n accordance with all regulations in existence at the time of their construction, unless otherwise noted. NAME (PRINT): SIGN: ___________ DATE: ______ _ Note: If the erson si nin above is an authorized a ent for the ro ert owner include form B-62 sl ned b ro ert owner. 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ph : 442-339-2719 Email: Build1ng@car sb,idc.d.flOI/ 2 REV. 04/22 ~ City cf Carlsbacl Project Name: Project Address: CONCURRENT PERMIT Communit D o_, __ Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue (442) 339-2610 www.carlsbadca.gov Refer to I~ 1 _ for eligibility PROCESSING AGREEME~i oF CARLSBAD P-34 FEB O 6 2024 p PLEASE REFER TO INFORMATION BULLETIN 1B-113 FOR ELIGIBILITY Permit#: 'lDPZIJ..~ .... Ou5>{oMoi..}-C,l1f) APN: 2--., '-f .... 2--2t -(j{p -00 It is requested that the above-named project be granted concurrent submittal and review of ministerial approvals pertaining to a pending discretionary permit action on the development. By signing this agreement, the applicant certifies that said owner(s) acknowledge and accepts that: 1. The construction drawings and documents that are part of the ministerial approval application may have to be revised as necessary to reflect required changes to the conditions and/or drawings and documents of the associated discretionary actions. This may require additional review time and costs. 2. No permits for work including demolition, grading, public improvement, or construction will be issued until: a. Final approval of the associated discretionary actions has occurred, and all appeal periods have ended. b. The city has received evidence that any subsequent approvals required by other Federal, State, or local agencies are obtained by the applicant/owner. Furthermore, the applicant certifies that said owner(s) acknowledge and accept all responsibilities for changes required to the submitted construction drawings and documents as a result of, and to achieve consistency with, the discretionary actions for the development. The applicant acknowledges and accepts that the City assumes no responsibility for said changes and the impacts that result to the development as a result. The applicant certifies that said owner(s) acknowledges and accepts that plan review fees and deposits expended by city staff during the processing and review of the construction drawings and documents are non-refundable, and that additional fees or deposits may be required if additional staff review of drawings and documents are necessary to reflect the final design of the development as approved in the corresponding discretionary actions. Applicant Name: Applicant Signature: CITY USE ONl Y Approved Denied P-34 Concurrent Permit Review Date: 2.0-ztf · DZ. -0? tit!z/2.1 Date: 3/22 C Cicyof Carlsbad Hold Harmless Agreement Development Services Building Division 1635 Faraday Avenue 760-602-2719 www.carfsbadca.gov Applicant Name _____ l-_i+i'--1!,,_(c..:c..-~ _._~--'-'~•-I\ _Uu_l-"---5 ~-'--~ __ L_~---- Application No. Project Address ADU SF °1°/ j ADU Style: D Contemporary D Farmhouse ~Spanish By using these Preapproved Accessory Dwelling Unit construction documents, identified above, the user agrees to release, hold harmless, and indemnify the City of Carlsbad, its elected officials and employees, and the Ar- chitect who prepared these construction documents from any and all claims, liabilities, suits and demands on account of any injury, damage or loss to persons or property, including injury or death, or economic losses, direct or consequential damages arising out of or related to the review, planning, project financing, selection of contrac- tor at • , suitability Q[ onsite conditions, job safety or any other use of these construction documents. 2/}3/2~ • r (Date) (MJy] Lf2. (Print Name) (Title) PERMIT INSPECTION HISTORY for (CBR2024-0404) Permit Type: BLDG-Residential Work Class: Second Dwelling Unit Status: Closed -Finaled Application Date: 02/15/2024 Owner: LIFE IS RAD IN CARLSBAD LLC Issue Date: 10/07/2024 Subdivision: PALISADES Expiration Date: 10/20/2025 IVR Number: 54772 Address: 160 MAPLE AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3263 Scheduled Actual Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Primary Inspector Reinspection Inspection Date Start Date Tuesday, July 1, 2025 Checklist Item BLDG-Building Deficiency BLDG-Plumbing Final BLDG-Mechanical Final BLDG-Structural Final BLDG-Electrical Final COMMENTS Status Passed Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Page 3 of 3 PERMIT INSPECTION HISTORY for (CBR2024-0404) Permit Type: BLDG-Residential Application Date: 02/15/2024 Owner: LIFE IS RAD IN CARLSBAD LLC Work Class: Second Dwelling Unit Issue Date: 10/07/2024 Subdivision: PALISADES Status: Closed -Finaled Expiration Date: 10/20/2025 Address: 160 MAPLE AVE IVR Number: 54772 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3263 Scheduled Actual Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Primary Inspector Reinspection Inspection Date Start Date Status BLDG-34 Rough 272423-2025 Partial Pass Chris Renfro Relnspection Incomplete Electrical Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Partial pass, need exterior wrapped and No watertight prior to rough combo. 01/09/2025 01/09/2025 BLDG-84 Rough 272922-2025 Passed Chris Renfro Complete Combo(14,24,34,44) Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes BLDG-14 Yes Frame-Steel-Bolting-Welding (Decks) BLDG-24 Rough-Topout Yes BLDG-34 Rough Electrical Yes BLDG-44 Yes Rough-Ducts-Dampers 01/24/2025 01/24/2025 BLDG-17 Interior 274331-2025 Passed Duncan McClane Complete Lath/Drywall Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes 03/20/2025 03/20/2025 BLDG-21 279100-2025 Partial Pass Chris Renfro Reinspection Incomplete Underground/Underflo or Plumbing Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Partial pass underground, gas line. Yes 04/21/2025 04/21/2025 BLDG-Electric Meter 282336-2025 Partial Pass Chris Renfro Re inspection Incomplete Release Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Need SDGE work order to verify proper No size panel, location and conductors 04/22/2025 04/21/2025 BLDG-33 Service 282335-2025 Partial Pass Chris Renfro Re inspection Incomplete Change/Upgrade Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Need SDGE work order to verify proper No size panel, location and conductors Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes 05/19/2025 05/19/2025 BLDG-Final Inspection 285169-2025 Passed Chris Renfro Complete Tuesday, July 1, 2025 Page 2 of 3 Building Permit Inspection History Finaled {cityof Carlsbad PERMIT INSPECTION HISTORY for (CBR2024-0404) Permit Type: BLDG-Residential Application Date: 02/15/2024 Owner: LIFE IS RAD IN CARLSBAD LLC Work Class: Second Dwelling Unit Issue Date: 10/07/2024 Subdivision: PALISADES Status: Closed -Finaled Expiration Date: 10/20/2025 Address: 160 MAPLE AVE IVR Number: 54772 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3263 Scheduled Actual Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Primary Inspector Reinspection Inspection Date Start Date Status 10/25/2024 10/25/2024 BLDG-21 265841-2024 Partial Pass Chris Renfro Re inspection Incomplete Underground/Underflo or Plumbing Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes BLDG-SW-Pre-Con 265842-2024 Passed Chris Renfro Complete Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes 10/30/2024 10/30/2024 BLDG-11 266152-2024 Passed Chris Renfro Complete Foundation/Ftg/Piers (Rebar) Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Double check HD bolts 3 inch minimum Yes clearance, verify LIFER location and HD bolt missing middle foundation. Soils report collected . BLDG-12 Steel/Bond 266153-2024 Passed Chris Renfro Complete Beam Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes 11/26/2024 11/26/2024 BLDG-14 269309-2024 Failed Chris Renfro Re inspection Incomplete Frame/Steel/Bolting/We lding (Decks) Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Not ready No 12/02/2024 12/02/2024 BLOG-83 Roof Sheating, 269742-2024 Passed Chris Renfro Complete Exterior Shear (13,15) Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes BLDG-13 Shear Panels-HD (ok Yes to wrap) BLDG-15 Roof Yes Sheathing-Reroof 01/03/2025 01/03/2025 BLDG-24 Rough/Topout 272422-2025 Partial Pass Chris Renfro Relnspectlon Incomplete Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Partial pass, need exterior wrapped and No watertight prior to rough combo. Tuesday, July 1, 2025 Page 1 of 3 ---------------------------------- .... V, ~ 0 UJ :I: u <( ~ :I: UJ z ~ a:, ~ a: <( u ~ ,q" UJ 0 0 >~ ,q" <( !£! 0 ~ I UJ .. ,q' ....J ·12 N Q.:::, 0 <(§ &! ~i mo ',:) CO B :::, U u 0 ~ ~ <( LOVELACE ENGINEERING S T RUCTURAL ENGINEERIN G SERVICES 0"-1"~ ONO (00 ON~ "-1" -('I') 0 0 N~ "-1" (J') I 0 ~ N N 0 N a:= aJ STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS DATE: PROJECT: ARCHITECT: JOB: ~ ) r ) ■ I ~ I I JANUARY 78, 2024 MAPLE AVENUE ADU 758 MAPLE AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JLC ARCHITECTURE 337 SOUTH CEDROS AVENUE, SUITE J SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 ]23772 (J') ('I") 0 ~ 0 I ('I') N 0 N > w 858.535.9111 I fax 858.535.1989 I www.lovelaceeng.com 10509 Vista Sorrento Pkwy, Suite 102 San Diego, CA 92121 0 LOVELACE ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SERVICES 10509 Vista Sorrento Parkway, Suite 102, San Diego, CA 92121 JOB J23112 -MAPLE AVE ADU SHEET NO. _________ T_G_-1_ OF------- CALCULATED BY F.D.A. DATE ------- CHECKEDBY __________ DATE ______ _ phone 858.535.9111 • fax 858.535.1989 • www.lovelaceeng.com SCALE ___________________ _ TABLE OF CONTENTS SUBJECT SHEET DESl6N CRITERIA ...................................................................................................................................................... DG-1 DESl6N LOADS........................................................................................................................................................... DL-1 VERTICAL ANALYSIS/DESl6N .............................................................................................................................. V-1/4 LATERAL ANAL YSIS/DESl6N ............................................................................................................................... L-1/20 FOUNDATIONS/ RETAININ6 HALLS ................................................................................................................... F-1/2 STRUCTURAL N<?TES /SCHEDULES/ DETAILS (V'lHERE APPLICABLE) ............................................. N/A TOTA L /2ci LOVELACE ENGINEERING JOB __________________ _ SHEET NO. DC.-I OF ------- CALCULATEDBY _________ DATE _____ _ STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SERVICES CHECKEOBY __________ DATE _____ _ 10509 Vista Sorrento Parkway, Su ite 102, San Diego, CA 92121 phone 858.535.9111 • fax 858.535.1989 • www.lovelaceeng.com SCALE _________________ _ DESIGN CRITERIA GOVERNING CODE: CBC. 2022 CONC."RETE: AC.I 318-19 f'c.=25OO psi, NO SPECIAL INSPECTION REQ'D. (U.N.O.) MASONRY, TMS 402-16 I AC.I 530-13 MEDIUM HEl<SHT, ASTM C.9O, f'm= 1500 psi, SPECIAL INSP. REQ'D MORTAR: ASTM C.21O, f 'c.=I8OO psl, TYPE S GROUT, ASTM C.416, f'c.=2OOO psi REINFORCING STEEL: ASTM A6I5, F~= 4Oksi FOR # 4 AND SMALLER ASTM A6I5, F~= 6Oksl FOR# 5 AND LAR<SER (U .N.O.) SrRUCTURAL STEEL: A ISC. 360-16, 15TH EDITION ASTM A512, F~= 50 ksl (STEEL SHAPES) U.N.O. ASTM A5OO, 6RADE B, F~= 46ksi (STRUCTURAL TUBE) ASTM A53, 6RADE B, F~= 35ksi (STRUCTURAL PIPE) ASTM A36, F~= 36 ksi (PLATES) BOLTING: A3O1, SIN<SLE PLATE SHEAR CONN . WELDING, v-400D: GLULAMS, SOIL: A325-N, A49O-N Hl<SH STREN<STH, SIN<SLE PLATE SHEAR CONN. ElOXX SERIES-TYP., E9O SERIES FOR A6I5 SR.ADE 60 REBAR SHOP HELDIN6 TO BE DONE IN AN APPROVED FABRICATOR'S SHOP FIELD HELDIN6 TO HAYE CONTINUOUS SPECIAL INSPECTION. NDS-I8, SDPHS-2I DOU<SLAS FIR LARCH 24F-V4 FOR SIMPLE SPAN CONDITIONS 24F-V8 FOR CANTILEVER CONDITION ALLOHABLE BEARIN6 PRESSURE = 1500 ACTIVE SOIL PRESSURE = __ _ AT-REST SOIL PRESSURE (RESTRAINED) = __ _ PASSIVE SOIL PRESSURE = __ _ LATERAL EARTHQUAKE PRESSURE = __ _ COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION = )(Ex tSTIN6 NATURAL SOIL PER CBC. TABLE 1806.2 SOILS REPORT BY: PROJEC. T NUMBER: DATED: psf pc.f pc.f pc.f pc.f 1;• ~ LOVELACE JOB __________________ _ ENGINEERING SHEET NO. DL-1 OF ------- CALCULATED BY _________ DATE _____ _ STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SERVICES 10509 Vista Sorrento Parkway, Suite 102, San Diego, CA 92121 CHECKEDBY __________ OATE _____ _ phone 858.535.9111 • fax 858.535.1989 • www.lovelaceeng.com SCALE __________________ _ DESIGN LOADS -ROOF DEAD LOAD: ROOFING ( COMP -------) ............................. . SHEATHING ................................................ . RAFTER/CEILING JOISTS OR TRUSSES ...................... . INSULATION ................................................ . DRY HALL ................................................. . OTHER (ELEC., MECH., MISC.) ............................... . TOTAL DEAD LOAD: LIVE LOAD: (ROOF USE PER IBC TABLE 1601.1) TOTAL LOAD: FLOOR DEAD LOAD: FLOORING ( HOOD I CARPET4PAD) ........................ . LT. HEIGHT CONCRETE .................................... . SHEATHING ......................................... . JOISTS ...................................... . DRY HALL ................................................ . OTHER (ELEC., MECH., MISC.) .. IAL USE PER IBC TABLE 1601.1) EXTERIOR HALL STUDS ..................................................... . DRY HALL ................................................. . INSULATION ................................................ . EXTERIOR FINISH (STUCCO ) .............................. . OTHER (MISC.) ............................................ . TOTAL LOAD: INTERIOR HALL STUDS ..................................................... . DRYHALL ................................................. . OTHER (MISC.) ............................................ . TOTAL LOAD: 4.0psf 1.5 3.5 1.5 2.5 1.0 14.0 psf 20.0psf 34.0psf 2.5 2.0 14.0 psf 40.0 psf 54.0 psf I.Opsf 2.5 1.5 10.0 1.0 16.0 psf I.Opsf 5.0 1.0 1.0 psf + SOLA-R 4.0 18.0 psf 20.0 psf 38.0psf 14.0 psf 0.0 2.0 3.5 2.5 2.0 24.0psf 60.0 psf 84.0psf Project Title: Engineer: Project ID: Project Descr: MAPLE AVENUE ADU F.D.A. J23712 Vl Project File: J23712.ec6 !Wood Beam UC#: KW-06013959, Build:20.23.08.30 DESCRIPTION: HEADER Lovelace Engineering, Inc. (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2023 CODE REFERENCES Calculations per NOS 2018, IBC 2021, ASCE 7-16 Load Combination Set: ASCE 7-16 Material Properties Analysis Method : Allowable Stress Design Load Combination • ASCE 7-16 Wood Species Wood Grade Beam Bracing Douglas Fir-Larch No.2 Completely Unbraced Fb + Fb- Fc -Prll Fe -Perp Fv Ft D 0.0540 Lr 0.060 4x4 Span = 3.50 ft 900.0 psi 900.0 psi 1,350.0 psi 625.0 psi 180.0 psi 575.0 psi E : Modulus of Elasticity Ebend-xx 1,600.0ksi Eminbend -xx 580.0ksi Density 31.210pcf Applied Loads Service loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Beam self weight calculated and added to loading Loads on all spans ... Uniform Load on ALL spans : D = 0.0540, Lr= 0.060 k/ft DESIGN SUMMARY Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = 0.178 1 Section used for this span 4x4 fb: Actual = 299.97psi F'b = 1,687.50psi Load Combination +D+Lr Location of maximum on span = 1.750ft Span # where maximum occurs = Span# 1 Maximum Deflection Max Downward Transient Deflection 0.010 in Ratio= Max Upward Transient Deflection 0 in Ratio = Max Downward Total Deflection 0.020 in Ratio= Max Upward Total Deflection O in Ratio= Maximum Shear Stress Ratio Section used for this span fv: Actual F'v Load Combination Location of maximum on span Span # where maximum occurs 4123 >=360 Span: 1 : Lr Only 0<360 n/a 2121 >=240 Span: 1 : +D+Lr 0<240 n/a Maximum Forces & Stresses for Load Combinations Load Combination axStress Rafios l'i)loment Values Segment Length Span# M V CD CM Ct CLx CF Cfu Ci Cr M fb DOnly Length = 3.50 ft 1 0.120 0.063 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.500 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 145.7 +D+Lr 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.500 1.00 1.00 1.00 Length = 3.50 ft 1 0.178 0.093 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.500 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.18 300.0 +D+0.750Lr 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.500 1.00 1.00 1.00 Length = 3.50 ft 1 0.155 0.081 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.500 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.16 261.4 +0.60D 1.00 1.00 1.00 1500 1.00 1.00 1.00 Length = 3.50 ft 1 0.040 0.021 1.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.500 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.05 87.4 Design OK = 0.093 : 1 4x4 = 20.98 psi = 225.00 psi +D+Lr = 3.219 ft = Span# 1 Shear Values F'b V fv F'v 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 1,215.0 0.08 10.2 162.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 1,687.5 0.17 21.0 225.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 1,687.5 0.15 18.3 225.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 2,160.0 0.05 6.1 288.0 [wood Beam UC#: KW-06013959, Build:20.23 08.30 DESCRIPTION: HEADER Overall Maximum Deflections Load Combination +D+Lr Vertical Reactions Load Combination Span 1 Max Upward from all Load Conditions Max Upward from Load Combinations Max Upward from Load Cases DOnly +D+Lr +D+0.750Lr +0.600 Lr Only Project Title: Engineer: Project ID: Project Descr: Lovelace Engineering, Inc. Max. "." Defl Location in Span Load Combination 0.0198 1.763 MAPLE AVENUE ADU F.D.A. V2 J23712 Project File: J23712.ec6 j (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2023 Max. "+" Defl Location in Span 0.0000 0.000 Support notation : Far left is #1 Values in KIPS ---Support 1 Support 2 0.204 0.204 0.204 0.204 0.105 0.105 0.099 0.099 0.204 0.204 0.178 0.178 0.059 0.059 0.105 0.105 Wood Beam LOVELACE ENGINEERING Structural Engineering Services 10509 Vista Sorrento Pkwy San Diego, CA 92121 Project Title: Engineer: Project ID: Project Descr: MAPLE AVENUE ADU F.D.A. J23712 V3 Project File: J23712.ec6 UC#: KW-0601 3959. Build:20.23.08.30 DESCRIPTION: RAFTERS Lovelace Engineering, Inc. (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2023 CODE REFERENCES Calculations per NOS 2018, IBC 2021, ASCE 7-16 Load Combination Set: ASCE 7-16 Material Properties Analysis Method : Allowable Stress Design Load Combination ASCE 7-16 Wood Species Wood Grade Douglas Fir-Larch No.2 Fb + Fb - Fe -Prll Fe -Perp Fv Ft 900.0 psi 900.0 psi 1,350.0 psi 625.0 psi 180.0 psi 575.0 psi E : Modulus of Elasticity Ebend-xx 1,600.0 ksi Eminbend -xx 580.0ksi Density 31.21 O pcf Beam Bracing Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsional buckling Repetitive Member Stress Increase D 0.0360 Lr 0.040 2x8 Span = 6.50 ft Applied Loads Service loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Beam self weight NOT internally calculated and added Loads on all spans ... Uniform Load on ALL spans : D = 0.0360, Lr= 0.040 k/ft DESIGN SUMMARY Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = 0.238 1 Section used for this span 2x8 fb: Actual = 366.54psi F'b = 1,552.50psi Load Combination +D+Lr Location of maximum on span = 3.250ft Span # where maximum occurs = Span# 1 Maximum Deflection Max Downward Transient Deflection 0.021 in Ratio= Max Upward Transient Deflection O in Ratio = Max Downward Total Deflection 0.040 in Ratio= Max Upward Total Deflection O in Ratio = Maximum Shear Stress Ratio Section used for this span fv: Actual F'v Load Combination Location of maximum on span Span # where maximum occurs 3678 >=360 Span: 1 : Lr Only 0<360 n/a 1936 >=240 Span: 1 : +D+Lr 0<240 nla Maximum Forces & Stresses for Load Combinations Load Combination ~ax Stress Ratios Moment Values Segment Length Span# M V CD CM Ct CLx CF Cfu Ci Cr M fb D Only Length = 6. 50 ft 1 0.155 0.081 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.200 1.00 1.00 1.15 0.19 173.6 +D+Lr 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.200 1.00 1.00 1.15 Length = 6. 50 ft 1 0.236 0.124 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.200 1.00 1.00 1.15 0.40 366.5 +D+0.750Lr 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.200 1.00 1.00 1.15 Length = 6.50 ft 1 0.205 0.107 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.200 1.00 1.00 1.15 0.35 318.3 +0.600 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.200 1.00 1.00 1.15 Length = 6. 50 ft 1 0.052 0.027 1.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.200 1.00 1.00 1.15 0.11 104.2 Design OK = 0.124: 1 2x8 = 27.85 psi = 225.00 psi +D+Lr = 5.907ft = Span# 1 Sllear Values F'b V fv F'v 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 1,117.8 0.10 13.2 162.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 1,552.5 0.20 27.9 225.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 1,552.5 0.18 24.2 225.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 1,987.2 0.06 7.9 288.0 [wood Beam UC#: KW-06013959, Build:20.23.08.30 DESCRIPTION: RAFTERS Overall Maximum Deflections Load Combination +D+Lr Vertical Reactions Load Combination Span 1 Max Upward from all Load Conditions Max Upward from Load Combinations Max Upward from Load Cases D Only +D+Lr +D+0.750Lr +0.60D Lr Only Project Title: Engineer: Project ID: Project Descr: Lovelace Engineering, Inc. Max. "-" Defl Location in Span Load Combination 0.0403 3.274 MAPLE AVENUE ADU F.D.A. V4 J23712 Project File: J23712.ec6 (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2023 Max. "+" Defl Location in Span 0.0000 0.000 Support notation : Far left is #1 Support 1 Support 2 Values in KIPS ~47 0.247 0.247 0.247 0.130 0.130 0.117 0.117 0.247 0.247 0.215 0.215 0.070 0.070 0.130 0.130 I~ LOVELACE ............_ ENGINEERING •TAUC'l'UAAL IHOIN■IAINO IIQY cs• Element Diaphragm Diaphragm Diaphragm Wall Wall Wall Misc./ Concentrated Level 1 Type ROOF EXTERIOR INTERIOR Total Weight (lbs.) MAPLE storage JLC J23712 !SEISMIC WEIGHT II ROOF Dead Load (psf) 18 Dead Load (psf) 16 7 Dead Load (lbs.) 5700 Typical Plate Ht. (ft.) Area (sf) so Length (ft.) 30 0 Seismic Weight (lbs.) 10 Weight 900 0 0 Weight 4800 0 0 Weight 0 3300 Ll F.D.A. 1/18/2024 Page: -~ LOVELACE ~ l!!NGINl!!l!!RING ltllfUCIUWAL 1!.NUUll!.~MINCJ ll~WVICU1 MAPLE storage JLC J23712 SEISMIC BASE SHEAR II Period Calculation Overall Ht. System 10 All Other Systems Ts = 0.572 s Ta= Ceh;'; Ta = 0.112 s TL = 8 s Base Shear System R Omega Wood Shear Walls 6.5 2.5 Site Class: ~ D 1 sos = ~ Cs= SDl = 0.503 Sl = 0.396 W = V =C5 W V = Ct X 0.02 0.75 1.5• Ts = 0.857774744 Cd 4.5 1.0 0.135 3.3 k 0.45 k Total Base Shear Vertical Distribution Wxh! Fx = CvxV Cvx = ~n k i=1 wihr Level ht. (ft.) wx (lbs.) hx k wx*hxAk Cvx 1 I I 1 1 I 10 3300 10 1 33000 1 10 ft. 33000 F.D.A. 1/18/2024 Page: per ASCE 7, Fig. 22-14 per ASCE 712.8.1.1 Fx k k 0.4 k L2 1/18/24, 7:55AM U.S. Seismic Design Maps L3 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. ~.,~ • OSHPD CAUF!HIMA J23712 -MAPLE AVE ADU 158 Maple Ave, Carlsbad, CA 92008, USA Latitude, Longitude: 33.1524743, -117.3481395 Lifeguard Tower 36 ,.,,,, .,... \\ \' c;~e~ '. \ ft The Village_ Apartments T Go gle Date Design Code Reference Document Risk Category Site Class Type Value Ss 1.098 S1 0.396 SMs 1.318 SM1 null -See Section 11.4.8 Sos 0.879 So1 null -See Section 11 .4.8 Type Value soc null -See Section 11.4.8 Fa 1.2 Fv null -See Section 11.4.8 PGA 0.486 FPGA 1.2 PGAM 0.583 TL 8 SsRT 1.098 SsUH 1.23 SsD 1.5 S1RT 0.396 S1UH 0.438 S1D 0.6 https://www.seismicmaps.org Seabreeze Apartments Ci) Lifeguar" Tower 37 c>\ \>-~e Cantleberry Creative\ n\e ' '1-~'C" '\ ' ' ' '1-, ' ' ' ' '. Map data ©2024 Google Description 1/18/2024, 7:54:54 AM ASCE7-16 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 Numeric seismic design value at 1.0 second 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 Long-period 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) Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (1.0 second) Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration. Factored deterministic acceleration value. (1 .0 second) 1/3 I~ LOVELACE ~ ENGINEERING PROJECT : MAPLE AVE ADU CLIENT : JLC JOB NO.: J23712 DATE : Wind Anal sis for Buildin with h < 60 ft, Based on 2018 IBC/ASCE 7-16 INPUT DATA Exposure category (B, c or D, ASCE 7-16 26.7.3) Importance factor (ASCE 7-16 Table 1.5-2) lw = Basic wind speed (ASCE 7-16 26.5.1 or 2018 IBC) V Topographic factor(ASCE 7-16 26.8 & Table 26.8-1) K,, Building height to roof H Building length L Building width B Natural frequency (ASCE 7-16 26.11) n, = D 1.00 110 10 9 6 8.95 for all Category mph, (177.03 kph) Flat ft, (3.05 m) ft, (2. 74 m) ft, (1.83 m) Hz, (1 / T) ..c L4 PAGE : DESIGN BY : F.D.A. REVIEW BY : 1:=tJ j B J Effective area of components (or Solar Panel area) A = 12 ft2, <== Overhang? (Yes or No) No ( 1.12 DESIGN SUMMARY Max building horizontal force normal to building length, L, face Max overturning moment at wind normal to building length, L. face Max building horizontal force normal to building length. B, face Max overturning moment at wind normal to building length, B, face Max building upward force Max building torsion force ANALYSIS Velocity pressures q, = 0.00256 K, K., Kd K0 V2 where: q, = velocity pressure at height, z. (Eq. 26.10-1, page 268) m2J 2.9 kips, (13 kN), SDILRFD level, Typ. 18.9 ft-kips, (26 kN-m) 1.8 kips, (8 kN) 14.2 ft-kips, (19 kN-m) 2.2 kips, (10 kN) 3.1 ft-kips, (4 kN-m) Pmin = 16 psf (ASCE 7-16 27.1.5) K, = velocity pressure exposure coefficient evaluated at height, z. (Tab. 26.10-1, page 268) Ko= wind directionality factor. (Tab. 26.6-1, for building, page 266) z = heiQht above Qround z (ft) 10 10 10 K, 1.03 1.03 1.03 q, (psf) 27.12 27.12 27.12 z (ft) 10 10 10 K, 1.03 1.03 1.03 q, (psf) 27.12 27.12 27.12 Design pressures for MWFRS p = q G c p -qh (G Cp;) 10 10 10 10 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 27.12 27.12 27.12 27.12 10 10 10 10 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 27.12 27.12 27.12 27.12 10 1.03 27.12 10 1.03 27.12 where: p = pressure on surface for rigid building with all h. (Eq. 27.3-1 , page 274). q = q, for windward wall at height z above the ground, see table above. G Cpi = internal pressure coefficient. (Tab. 26.13-1, Enclosed Building, page 271) % = q, value at mean roof height, h, for leeward wall. side walls. and roof. Cp = external pressure coefficient, see right down tables. (Tab. 27.3-1, page 275) G = gust effect factor (ASCE 7-16 26.11 , Page 269) 0.925 --~~---. for 11, < 1.0 ( I+ 1.7 / ,Jg~Q' + g!R' J G= 1+1.7gJ, 0.92s(l+l.7ggi:<?J, for n,~1.0 I+1.7g.J, = 0.909 q.GC P PLAN 7 o,CC, q.,GC , l l Fi . 27.3-1, a e 275 Wall Direction LIB Cp Windward Wall All All 0.80 Leeward Wall To L Dir 0.67 -0.50 Leeward Wall To B Dir 1.50 -0.40 Side Wall All All -0.70 I = z Zmin = = 0.85 10 10 10 10 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 27.12 27.12 27.12 27.12 10 10 1.03 1.03 27.12 27.12 0.18 or -0.18 0.19 z = Q = 0.97 7 9a = 3.4 Lz = 535 0.15 9R: 4.68 /J = 0.05 0.229 Re= 0.344 RL = 0.084 44.11 R n= 0.012 R = 0.105 10 g , = 3.4 Vz = 108.6 Fig. 27.3-1 toe< 10°. page 275 Roof h/B Distance Cp To L Face 1.67 5 -1.30 To L Face 1.67 6 -0.70 To L Face 1.67 6 -0.70 To L Face 1.67 6 Roof h /L Distance Cp To B Face 1.11 5 -1.30 To B Face 1.11 9 -0.70 To B Face 1.11 9 To B Face 1.11 9 Hence, MWFRS Net Pressures are given by following tables (ASCE 7-16 27.3.1, Page 274) Surface <ii ~ ~ ~ 'O C: ~ z (ft) 10 10 P (psf) with -Ge., 14.84 14.84 24.60 24.60 P (psf) with Surface z (ft) Side Wall All -22.14 -12.37 Normal to L Face P (psf) with Surface z (ft) Leeward All -17.21 -7.44 Normal to L Face P (psf) with Surface Dlst.(ft) GCp1 ·GCp, 0-5 -36.93 -27.16 Roor 6 -22.14 -12.37 " " -□] ~ 3 CASE 1 CASE 2 Base Forces Normal to L Face Normal to B Face Wind with Anale ASCE-7 Case 1 Case2 Case 1 Case 2 Vea,. (kips) 3 2 2 1 Mease (ft -kips) 19 14 14 11 Mr (ft · kips) a 3 a 1 Fupward (kips) 2 1 1 1 Vmin (kips) 1 1 1 1 Fuo,min (kips) 1 1 1 1 Design pressures for components and cladding p " qh[ (G Cp) • (G Cp;)] where: p = pressure on component. (Eq. 30.3-1, pg 334) Pmin = 16.00 psf (ASCE 7-16 30.2.2) G C0 = external pressure coefficient. see table below. (ASCE 7-16 30.3.2) 0= 0.02 0 Case 3 Case 4 3 25 a 2 2 1 2 13 3 1 2 1 Walls Fig. 27.4-8 Page 271 Min. wind 27.4,7 LS (cont'd) Normal to B Face P (psf) with Surface z(ft) Leeward All -14.74 -4.98 Normal to B Face P (psi) with Surface Dist. (ft) Ge., -Ge., 0 -5 -36.93 -27 .16 Roor 9 -22.14 -12.37 CASE 3 Figure 27.3-8, page 283 .r'.--,:, f 2, J:1l• 2n j --, --1--t.; I ' I ,: -;: '2•12•1:; ,, '-I I 2 1 ! I I I 1.§, 1.§1 ---;--P6•-I I I 's.._ Ql!U.:lY'' ~ 13-·Jr 2fl~~ a:: Roof 8s,. Roof fj),P Effective Zona 1 Zone 1' Zone 2 Zone 2e Zone 2n Zone 2r Area (ft2) Ge• -Ge• Ge• -Ge. Ge• -Ge, Ge• • Ge• Ge• • Ge• Ge, • Ge, Comp. 12 0.29 -1.67 Effective Zone 3 0.29 -0.90 0.29 -2.26 Zone 3e Zone 3r Zona4 Zones Area (ft2) Ge• -Gep Ge, • Ge, Ge, • Ge, Ge, • Ge, Ge, • Ge• 12 0.29 -3.12 0.89 -0.98 0.89 -1.23 Zona 1 Zone 1' Zone2 Zone 2e Zone 2n Zone 2r Comp, & Cladding Poshlv• Neaativ• Po5fflv• Neaativ• NeoatJv• Positive NIM'lativ• Pressure ( psf) 16.00 -50.10 16.00 -29.29 16.00 -66.12 Zone 3 Zone 3e Zone 3r Zone 4 Zone 5 f-','Po:;•:::111,:v;,.• +..:.N:,:='•'!:••:.:llv;:•:---ll-'P-=05::;1,:.tivc:•:_+-=-N= .. •:.:Uc:.V0=--1--.:..P::;••::::lf::.:lv.:.•-+_;Nc::'•=••Y:..:v.:.•-,1-.:,Po=;•::::":;:lv=•-l-'N'=":oa,:.:U,:v;,.• +-=-~~•'=1v'=.'-+--'N.:;• .. ~•U:;:v=•-, (The Max Pressure 16.00 -89.39 28.95 -31.39 28.95 -38.37 89.39 psf) L6 ~ MAPLE storage F.D.A. L OVELACE JLC 1/18/2024 ENGINEERING STH.CTU■AL 1:NOINl■RINO SIAVICIS J23712 Page: LATERAL STORY FORCES II Seismic Level Fx (lbs.) Diaphragm Area (sf) ASD Story Load (psf) 0 0.7 I 0 0.7 1 446 so 0.7 6.2 Wind Direction N-S A-D Force= 1.8 k Pressure= 30.0 psf Level Ht. length area Trib. Ht. ASD diaph. Load 0.6 plf Ridge/Parapet 1 0.5 0.6 9 plf 10 6 60 6 0.6 I 108 plf 60 sf Direction E-W 1-4 Force= 2.9 Pressure= 32.2 psf Level Ht. length area Trib. Ht. ASD diaph. Load 0.6 plf Ridge/Parapet 1 0.5 0.6 10 plf 1 I 10 9 90 6 0.6 116 plf 90 sf I~ LOVELACE ~ ENGINEERING •TAU CTUIIAl !NOINEEAINO se:11v1ce:s MAPLE storage JLC J23712 Level Name Level# Lateral Line ROOF 1 A WOOD SHEARWALL ANALYSIS & DESIGN Area 1 2 3 4 SEISMIC LOAD SDS = 0.879 p = 1.3 Story Load 6.2 SF Factor 50 1.0 psf Load (lbs) WIND LOAD "ll Load Type L Worst Case Load (plf) 108 Length L (ft.) 0 Load L (lbs.) 0 Direction N-S Load Type R I Load (plf) Length R (ft.) Load R (lbs.) F.D.A. 1/18/2024 Page: Worst Case 108 6 648 Total/2 = Seismic Load 1S6 lbs. Total/2 = Wind Load 324 lbs. ADDITIONAL SEISMIC LOAD ADDITIONAL WIND LOAD Line Load (lbs.) Offset Factor Adjust. Load Line Load (lbs.) Offset Factor Adjust. Load Total Add. Load 0 Total Add. Load 0 Total Seismic Load = 203 lbs. Total Wind Load= 324 lbs. SHEAR Segment 1 I I I I Total Shear --t-r -t---I Length (ft.) 4 I I 4 H 10 H/L Ratio 2.S .. .. Load Ratio 1.00 Load E 203 lbs. Adj. Load E 254 lbs. Load W 324 r-J__ lbs. ~ ~ Adj. Load W 231 --'--lbs. ---+- Unit Shear E 63 plf Unit Shear W 58 plf Max Shear 63 PLF I USE# 1 Shear Wall Capacity= 260 plf OVERTURNING OTM E 2030 L #-ft. OTMW 3240 #-ft. Wall Weight 16 I l I T psi Wall UDL 160 plf Unif. DL plf Concen. DL lbs. CDL Ice. ft. DL Moment 1280 #-ft. DL Mom. E 610 #-ft. DLMom.W 768 tft. Net OT E 1420 I I #-ft. Net OTW 2472 i #-ft. UPLIFT Uplift E 355 lbs. Add. Uplift E I + j lbs. Uplift W -618 ~ lbs. Add. Uplift W I I lbs. Tot. Uplift E 355 T I lbs. Tot. Uplift W 618 lbs . HD# . • -No HD required, by inspection •• -See Perforated/ Force-Transfer Shearwall calculation L7 8y Ratio CBC 2306 3 I~ LOVELACE ~ ENGINEERING ■TRUCTU AAL !NOINl!:l!AINO •r:11v1cr:s MAPLE storage JLC J23712 Level Name Level# Lateral Line ROOF 1 B Direction N-S F.D.A. 1/18/2024 Page: WOOD SHEARWALL ANALYSIS & DESIGN Area 1 2 3 4 SEISMIC LOAD sos= 0.879 p = 1.3 Story Load 6.2 SF Factor 50 1.0 Total/2 = Seismic Load psf Load (lbs) "11 Load Type L Worst Case Load (plf) 108 Length L (ft.) 6 Load L (lbs.) 648 156 lbs. Total/2 = Wind Load ADDITIONAL SEISMIC LOAD ADDITIONAL WIND LOAD Line Segment H H/L Ratio Load Ratio Load E Adj. Load E Load w Adj. Load W Unit Shear E Unit Shear W OTM E OTMW Wall Weight Wall UDL Unif. DL Concen. DL COL loc. DL Moment DL Mom. E DLMom.W Net OT E NetOTW Uplift E Add. Uplift E Uplift W Add. Uplift W Tot. Uplift E Tot. Uplift W HD# Load (lbs.) Offset Factor Adjust. Load Line Total Add. Load Total Seismic Load = 3.75 -t -t 10 2.7 1.00 203 271 -t-324 i 231 72 62 Max Shear 72 PLF 2030 ~3240 16 160 1125 537 675 t 1494 2565 398 684 I --398 I 684 • -No HD required, by inspection 0 203 lbs. SHEAR + j_ 1 I l- r-t USE# OVERTURNING I + UPLIFT I l t I •• -See Perforated/ Force-Transfer Shearwall calculation 1 Load (lbs.) Total Wind Load = I I Shear Wall ~ I WIND LOAD Load Type R I Worst Case Load (plf) 108 Length R (ft.) 0 Load R (lbs.) 0 324 lbs. Offset Factor Adjust. Load Total Add. Load 0 324 lbs. Total Shear Length (ft.) I 4 ~ t lbs. lbs. ... lbs. lbs. plf plf Capacity= 260 plf 1#-ft. #-ft. 1psf plf plf lbs. ft. #-ft. #-ft. #-ft. 1n-ft. #-ft. I lbs. lbs. lbs. 11bs. lbs. lbs. LS ev Ra110 C8C 2306.3 I~ LOVELACE ~ ENGINEERING STAUCTURA\. !NGINl!!:AINO Sl!IIVICl!S MAPLE storage JLC J23712 Level Name Level# Lateral Line ROOF 1 1 Direction E-W WOOD SHEARWALL ANALYSIS & DESIGN SEISMIC LOAD Area 2 3 4 sos= 0.879 p = 1.3 Story Load 6.2 SF Factor 50 1.0 Total/2 = Seismic Load ADDITIONAL SEISMIC LOAD Line Segment H H/L Ratio Load Ratio Load E Adj. Load E Load W Adj. Load W Unit Shear E Unit Shear W Load (lbs.) Offset Factor 1 5 10 2.0 1.00 203 522 373 41 75 Total Add. Load Total Seismic Load = psf Load (lbs) "11 156 lbs. Adjust. Load 0 203 lbs. I-l WIND LOAD Load Type L Worst Case Load Type R Load (plf) 116 Load (plf) Length L (ft.) I 9 Length R (ft.) Load L (lbs.) 1044 Load R (lbs.) Total/2 = Wind Load 522 lbs. ADDITIONAL WIND LOAD Line Load (lbs.) Offset Factor Adjust. Load I Total Add. Load 0 Total Wind Load = 522 lbs. SHEAR ' I T I + F.D.A. 1/18/2024 Page: Worst Case 116 0 0 Total Shear Length (ft.) 5 lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. plf plf Max Shear 75 PLF USE# 1 Shear Wall Capacity = 260 plf OTME OTMW Wall Weight Wall UDL Unif. DL Concen. DL CDL loc. DL Moment DL Mom. E DLMom.W Net OT E NetOTW Uplift E Add. Uplift E Uplift W Add. Uplift W Tot. Uplift E Tot. Uplift W HD# 2030 5220 16 160 2000 954 1200 1077 4020 215 804 215 804 - • -No HD required, by inspection OVERTURNING 1 UPLIFT •• -See Perforated/ Force-Transfer Shearwall calculation #-ft. ' #-ft. I I psf I ;:; 1bs. ft. #-ft. #-ft. ' #-ft. #-ft. I #-ft. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. I lbs. I I L9 By R.11t10 C8C 2306.l I~ LOVELACE ~ ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL !NOINEl!AINO Sl:IIVICl!S MAPLE storage JLC J23712 Level Name Level# Lateral Line ROOF 1 2 Direction E-W F.D.A. 1/18/2024 Page: WOOD SHEARWALL ANALYSIS & DESIGN Area 2 3 4 SEISMIC LOAD sos= 0.879 p = 1.3 Story Load 6.2 SF Factor so 1.0 Total/2 = Seismic Load psf Load (lbs) "11 156 lbs. WIND LOAD Load Type L Worst Case Load Type R I Worst Case Load (plf) 116 Load (plf) 116 Length L (ft.) 0 Length R (ft.) 9 Load L (lbs.) 0 Load R (lbs.) 1044 Total/2 = Wind Load 522 lbs. ADDITIONAL SEISMIC LOAD ADDITIONAL WIND LOAD Line Segment L H H/L Ratio Load Ratio Load E Adj. Load E Load W Adj. Load W Unit Shear E Unit Shear W OTM E OTMW Wall Weight Wall UDL Unit. DL Concen.DL CDL loc. DLMoment DL Mom. E DLMom.W Net OT E Net OTW Uplift E Add. Uplift E Uplift W Add. Uplift W Tot. Uplift E Tot. Uplift W HO# Load (lbs.) Offset Factor Adjust. Load Line Load (lbs.) Offset Factor Adjust. Load Total Add. Load 0 Total Add. Load 0 Total Seismic Load = 203 lbs. Total Wind Load = 522 lbs. SHEAR .l 2.33 10 ADU takes the load so this shear wall is not necessary. -----.-11 Total Shear Length (ft.) 2 1.00 203 436 522 --~--!- 373 187 r 160 Max Shear 2030 5220 -- 16 160 434 207 261 1823 4959 783 2129 783 2129 I 7 I- 187 PLF • -No HD required, by Inspection I + .. - USE# OVERTURNING t t I UPLIFT •• -See Perforated/ Force-Transfer Shearwall calculation I-I- i---t-+ .. I 1 Shear Wall Capacity= I T .. I ~ lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. 1 plf plf 260 plf #-ft. ---j #-ft. psf plf plf lbs. ft. #-ft. #-ft. ,#-ft. #-ft. 1#-ft. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. l ibs. lbs. LlO 8y Rauo CBC 2306.3 LATERAL ANALYSIS FOR PROPOSED ADU BY OTHERS I~ LO VELACE ~ ENGINEERING .T.UCTURAL •NOIN••••No l&AY c•• Element Diaphragm Diaphragm Diaphragm Wall Wall Wall Misc./ Concentrated Level 1 Type ROOF ROOF (FLAT) STORAGE EXTERIOR INTERIOR STORAGE Total Weight (lbs.) MAPLE ADU -MAIN JLC J23712 !SEISMIC WEIGHT II ROOF Typical Plate Ht. (ft.) Dead Load (psf) Area (sf) 34 650 18 500 Dead Load (psf) Length (ft.) 16 160 7 100 Dead Load (lbs.) 63700 Seismic Weight (lbs.) 10 Weight 22100 9000 0 Weight 25600 7000 0 Weight 0 47400 Lll F.D.A. 1/18/2024 Page: -~ LOVELACE ~ l!NGINl!l!RING lalNUCIUNAL 1!:NUlfll~l!:NINtl ltl!NVlt.:111!.li Overall Ht. 12.5 MAPLE ADU -MAIN JLC J23712 SEISMIC BASE SHEAR 11 Period Calculation System Ct All Other Systems 0.02 Ts= 0.572 s 1.5* Ts= X 0.75 0.857774744 Ta = Cth;i Ta= 0.133 s Level System Wood Shear Walls Site Class: sos= D 0.879 l TL= Base Shear R 6.5 SDl = 0.503 S1 = ht. (ft.) 12.5 12.5 ft. 0.396 ___J Vertical Distribution wx (lbs.) hx 47400 12.5 8 s Omega 2.5 k 1 1 Cs= W= V= Cd 4.5 1.0 0.135 47.4 k 6.41 k Total Base Shear Cvx 592500 1 592500 F.D.A. 1/18/2024 Page: per ASCE 7, Fig. 22-14 per ASCE 712.8.1.1 Fx 6.4 Ll2 I~ LOVELACE PROJECT : MAPLEAVE ADU - ........._ ENGINEERING CLIENT : JLC t,U t,;C.1VUL lHC.INUA♦N(; U ltVlCU JOB NO.: J23712 DATE ; Wind Anal sis for Low-rise Buildin , Based on 2018 IBC/ASCE 7-16 INPUT DATA Exposure category (B. c or D, ASCE 7-16 26.7.3) Importance factor (ASCE 7-16 Table 1.5-2) Basic wind speed (ASCE 7-16 26.5.1 or 2018 IBC) Topographic factor (ASCE 7-16 26.8 & Table 26.8-1) Building height to eave I = w V = Kz, = he = C 1.00 110 1 12 for all Category mph, (177.03 kph) Flat ft, (3.66 m) ~ J:: " J:: PAGE : DESIGN BY : F.D.A . REVIEW BY : Ll3 Building height to ridge Building length hr= 14 ft, (4.27 m) ~, L = 30 ft, (9.14 m) B Building width, including overhangs Overhang sloped width Effective area of components (or Solar Panel area) DESIGN SUMMARY Max horizontal force normal to building length, L, face Max horizontal force normal to building length, B, face Max total horizontal torsional load Max total u ward force ANALYSIS Velocity pressure qh = o.002ss K, K,1 Kd K. v2 B = Oh= A = ( 22.38 psi 48 1.5 12 1.12 ft, (14.63 m) ft, (0.46 m) tt2, <== Overhang? (Yes or No) YES m2) 6.18 kips, (27 kN), SD level (LRFD level), Typ. 10.21 kips, (45 kN) 63.3799 ft-kips, (86 kN-m) 25.32 ki s 113 kN where: qh = velocity pressure at mean roof height, h. (Eq. 26.1 0-1 page 268) K, = velocity pressure exposure coefficient evaluated at height, h, (Tab. 26.10-1. pg 268) Ka= wind directionality factor. (Tab. 26.6-1, for building, page 266) h = mean roof hei ht --~--------------~ Ka= ground elevation factor. (1.0 per Sec. 26.9, page 268) < 60 ft, [Satisfactory] .__ ___ <_M_i_n_._L~, B), [Satisfactory] 0.85 0.85 13.00 ft (ASCE 7-16 26.2.1) (ASCE 7-16 26.2.2) Design pressures for MWFRS p = qh [(G cp, )-(G cp1 )1 where: p = pressure in appropriate zone. (Eq. 28.3-1, page 311). Pmln = 16 psf (ASCE 7-16 28.3.4) G Cp 1 = product of gust effect factor and external pressure coefficient, see table below. (Fig. 28.3-1 , page 312 & 313) G Cp 1 = product of gust effect factor and internal pressure coefficient.(Tab. 26.13-1, Enclosed Building, page 271) = 0.18 or -0.18 a= width of edge strips, Fig 28.3-1 , page 312, MAX[ MIN(0.1B, 0.1L, 0.4h), MIN(0.04B, 0.04L). 3] = 3.00 ft Net Pressures (psf), Basic Load Cases Net Pressures (psf), Torsional Load Cases Roof anale e = 4.76 Roof anale 0 = 0.00 Roof an Jle e = 4.76 Surface Net Pressure with Net Pressure wilh GCpr (+GCpi) (-GCP i) G Cpr (+GCpi) (-GCp1) Surface Nel Pressure wijh GCpr (+GCpi) (-GCpi) 1 0.40 4.92 12.98 -0.45 -14.10 -6.04 1T 0.40 1.23 3.25 2 -0.69 -19.47 -11.41 -0.69 -19.47 -11.41 2T -0.69 -4.87 -2.85 3 -0.37 -12.31 -4.25 -0.37 -12.31 -4.25 3T -0.37 -3.08 -1.06 4 -0.29 -10.52 -2.46 -0.45 -14.10 -6.04 4T -0.29 -2.63 -0.62 5 0.40 4.92 12.98 Roof an~le e = 0.00 6 -0.29 -10.52 -2.46 1E 0.61 9.62 17.68 -0.48 -14.77 -6.71 Surface Net Pressure wilh GCpt (+GCe.J (-GCp,) 2E -1 .07 -27.98 -19.92 -1.07 -27.98 -19.92 ST 0.40 1.23 3.25 3E -0.53 -15.89 -7.83 -0.53 -15.89 -7.83 ST -0.29 -2.63 -0.62 4E -0.43 -13.65 -5.60 -0.48 -14.77 -6.71 5E 0.61 9.62 17.68 6E -0.43 -13.65 -5.60 Load Case A (Transverse) Load Case 8 (Longitudinal) Load Cose A (Transverse) Load Cose 8 (Longitudinal) Ll4 Basic Load Case A Transverse Direction) Basic Load Case B Longitudinal Direction) Area Pressure lk\ with Area Pressure /k\ with Surface (tt'J (+GCpI) (-GCpI) Surface (ft') (+GCp 1) (-GCp.) 1 288 1.42 3.74 Poverhang = -15.67 psf 2 578 -11 .25 -6.60 2 578 -11.25 -6.60 (ASCE 7-16 28.3.3) 3 578 -7.11 -2.46 3 578 -7.11 -2.46 5 551 2.71 7.16 4 288 -3.03 -0.71 6 551 -5.80 -1.36 1E 72 0.69 1.27 2E 144 -4.04 -2.88 2E 144 -4.04 -2.88 3E 144 -2.30 -1.13 3E 144 -2.30 -1.13 5E 73 0.70 1.29 4E 72 -0.98 -0.40 6E 73 -0.99 -0.41 r Horiz. 5.63 5.63 r Horiz. 10.21 10.21 Vert. -24.62 -13.02 Vert. -18.60 -8.15 Min. wind Horiz. 6.24 6.24 Min. wind Horiz. 9.98 9.98 28.4.4 Vert. -23.04 -23.04 28.4.4 Vert. -23.04 -23.04 Torsional Load Case A (Transverse Direction) Torsional Load Case B (LonQitudinal Direction) Area Pressure /k\ with Torsion tft-k \ Area Pressure /kl with Torsion lft-k\ Surface (ft') (+GCp,) (-GCp;) (+GCp1) (-GCpi) Surface (ft') (+GCpi) (-GCpi ) (+GCpi) (-GCpI) 1 108 0.53 1.40 3 8 2 578 -11 .25 -6.60 -1 -1 2 217 -4.22 -2.47 -2 -1 3 578 -7.11 -2.46 1 0 3 217 -2.67 -0.92 1 0 5 239 1.18 3.11 12 32 4 108 -1.14 -0.27 7 2 6 239 -2.52 -0.59 26 6 1E 72 0.69 1.27 8 15 2E 144 -4.04 -2.88 5 3 2E 144 -4.04 -2.88 -4 -3 3E 144 -2.30 -1.13 -3 -1 3E 144 -2.30 -1.13 2 1 SE 73 0.70 1.29 16 29 4E 72 -0.98 -0.40 12 5 6E 73 -0.99 -0.41 22 9 1T 180 0.22 0.58 -2 -4 5T 312 0.38 1.01 -4 -12 2T 361 -1 .76 -1 .03 1 1 6T 312 -0.82 -0.19 -10 -2 3T 361 -1.11 -0.38 -1 0 Total Horiz. Torsional Load, Mr 63.4 63.4 4T 180 -0.47 -0.11 -4 -1 Total Horiz. Torsional Load, Mr 23 23 Design pressures for components and cladding [ -~ -. --,'"t 3• ,, 3• 1 J, 2, 31 -.-,..... t---t· -, p = qh[ (G Cp) -(G Cpl)] ; ----;.o I r --7 I I I I 5 I I I I I I where: p = pressure on component. (Eq. 30.3-1, pg 334) o lon,:o 4 ~ ~ tone A Ii :, I 2,1 -12-:2,1 -2. 0 l ~ , , I~ IJ If Pmin = 16.00 psf (ASCE 7-16 30.2.2) I ~ I I..S I I~ 0 '----'--+-I I I G Cp = external pressure coefficient. L J 6h L --J~l&h ~ -1 -l---' -t ~ see table below. (ASCE 7-16 30.3.2) Walls 3e1 2~ .3r 31 21'1 3e 0 = 4.76 a Roof 9:i:7' Roof 0>7' Effective Zone 1 Zone 1' Zone 2 Zone 2e Zone 2n Zone 2r Area (ft21 Gep -Ge• Ge• -Ge• Gep -Gep Gep -Ge• Ge• -Gep Ge• -Ge. Comp. 12 0.29 -1.69 0.29 -1.69 0.29 -2.24 ------ Effective Zone J Zone Je Zone Jr Zone 4 Zone 5 Area (ft2) Gep -Gep Ge. -Gep Ge• -Gep Gep -Ge. Gep -Gep 12 0.29 -3.10 ----0.89 -0.98 0.89 -1.23 Zone 1 Zone 1' Zone 2 Zone 2e Zone 2n Zone 2r Comp. & Cladding Poaltlve N•g•tlve Posltiv• Negative Posllive Negative Positive Negative Po5itlve Negative Positive NegetJv• Pressure 16.00 -41 .90 16.00 -41 .90 16.00 -54.25 ( psf) Zone J Zone Je Zone Jr Zone 4 Zone 5 Pcnlrlve Neaatlve Positive Neaatlve Positive Negatlve Positive Neaative Positive Neaatlve (The Max Pressure 16.00 -73.45 23.89 -25.90 23.89 -31 .66 73.45 psf) LlS ~ MAPLE ADU -MAIN F.D.A. LOVELACE JLC 1/18/2024 ENGINEERING ST•t..CTU.AL KNDIN■EAING :l■AVIC■:I J23712 Page: LATERAL STORY FORCES JI Seismic Level Fx (lbs.) Diaphragm Area (sf) ASD Story Load (psf) 0 0.7 I 0 0.7 1 6410 1150 0.7 3.9 Wind Direction N-S 1-5 Force = 10.21 Pressure = 17.7 psf Level Ht. length area Trib. Ht. ASD diaph. Load 0.6 plf Ridge/Parapet 2 1 0.6 11 plf 1 12 48 576 8 0.6 85 plf 576 sf Direction E-W A-C Force= 6.18 k Pressure= 17.2 psf Level Ht. length area Trib. Ht. ASD diaph. Load 0.6 plf Ridge/Parapet 2 1 0.6 10 plf 1 12 30 360 8 0.6 82 plf 360 sf I~ LOVELACE ~ ENGINEERING STRUCTU AAL !NOINl!.EAINO 51!.SIVICES MAPLE ADU -MAIN JLC J23712 Level Name Level# Lateral Line ROOF 1 B Direction E-W F.D.A. 1/18/2024 Page: WOOD SHEARWALL ANALYSIS & DESIGN II Area 1 2 3 4 SEISMIC LOAD SDS = 0.879 p = 1.3 Story Load 3.9 SF Factor 1200 1.0 Total/2 = Seismic Load psf Load (lbs) ·~11 2341 lbs. WIND LOAD Load Type L Worst Case Load Type R Worst Case Load (plf) 82 Load (plf) 82 Length L (ft.) 17 Length R (ft.) 9 Load L (lbs.) 1401 Load R (lbs.) 742 Total/2 = Wind Load 1071 lbs. ADDITIONAL SEISMIC LOAD ADDITIONAL WIND LOAD Line Load (lbs.) Offset Factor Adjust. Load Line Load (lbs.) Offset Factor Adjust. Load Total Add. Load 0 Total Add. Load 0 LATERAL SU PPORT WITHOUT STORQAGE ADDED Total Seismic Load = 3043 lbs. Total Wind Load = 1071 lbs. SHEAR Segment 1 2 Total Shear I Length (ft.) 6.7 7.8 l 15 H 12.S 12.5 H/L Ratio 1.9 1.6 l .,.. Load Ratio 0.46 0.54 Load E 1406 1637 lbs. Adj. Load E I lbs. Load W 495 -~576 + I lbs. Adj. Load W 354 412 lbs. Unit Shear E 210 210 I 1plf Unit Shear W 53 53 plf Max Shear 210 PLF USE# 1 Shear Wall Capacity = 260 plf OVERTURNING OTM E 17578 20464---f #-ft. OTMW 6187 7203 #-ft. Wall Weight 16 16 lpsf Wall UDL 200 200 plf Unif. DL plf Concen. DL lbs. CDL Ice. ft. DL Moment 4489 6084 #-ft. DLMom. E 2141 2902 #-ft. DLMom.W 2693 3650 I I #-ft. Net OT E 15437 17562 r 1 #-ft. NetOT W 3494 3552 #-ft. UPLIFT Uplift E 2304 2252 libs. Add. Uplift E i lbs. Uplift W 521 455 libs. Add. UpliftW lbs. Tot. Uplift E 2304 2252 lbs. Tot. UpllftW 521 455 lbs. HD# 1 1 • • No HD required, by inspection •• -See Perforated / Force-Transfer Shearwall calculation Ll6 By Ratio C8C2306.3 LATERAL ANALYSIS FOR PROPOSED ADU BY OTHERS WITH STORAGE ROOM LOAD ADDED I~ LOVELACE ~ ENGINEERING HIIUCTUIIAL •NOIN.IIIINO IIIIY Cl■ Level Element Diaphragm Diaphragm Diaphragm Wall Wall I Wall Misc./ Concentrated MAPLE ADU -MAIN+ STG. 1 Type ROOF ROOF (FLAT) STORAGE EXTERIOR INTERIOR STORAGE Total Weight {lbs.) JLC J23712 SEISMIC WEIGHT II ROOF Typical Plate Ht. {ft.) Dead Load {psf) Area (sf) 34 650 18 500 18 50 Dead Load (psf) Length (ft.) 16 160 7 100 16 30 Dead Load {lbs.) 69400 Seismic Weight (lbs.) 10 Weight 22100 9000 900 Weight 25600 7000 4800 Weight 0 50700 Ll7 F.D.A. 1/18/2024 Page: -~ LOVELACE ~ l!NOIN ERING MAPLE ADU -MAIN+ STG. .. IIIUt:IUWAL ~NUUll-::1!:WINU h~WVIC~lli JLC J23712 SEISMIC BASE SHEAR 11 Period Calculation Overall Ht. System 12.5 All Other Systems Ts= 0.572 s Ta= Cth~ Ta= 0.133 s TL = 8 s Base Shear System R Omega Wood Shear Walls 6.5 2.5 Site Class: -D 7 SDS= ~ Cs = 5D1 = 0.503 51 = 0.3~ W = Ct 0.02 1.s• Ts= Cd 4.5 0.135 50.7 k X 0.75 0.857774744 1.0 V = 6.86 k Total Base Shear Vertical Distribution Wxh! Fx = C.,:x V C.,,e = L" I< i=l wihi Level ht. (ft.) wx (lbs.) hx k wx•hx~k Cvx 1 1 1 12.5 50700 12.5 1 633750 1 12.5 ft. 633750 I F.D.A. 1/18/2024 Page: per ASCE 7, Fig. 22-14 per ASCE 712.8.1.1 Fx k k 6.9 k LlB Ll9 ~ MAPLE ADU -MAIN + STG. F.D.A. LOVELACE JLC 1/18/2024 ENGINEERING ST■LCTU.AL 11:NOl•■■AINO :l■IIIVtCRS J23712 Page: LATERAL STORY FORCES II Seismic Level Fx (lbs.) Diaphragm Area (sf) ASD Story Load (psf) 0 0.7 0 0.7 1 6856 1200 0.7 4.0 Wind Direction N-S 1-5 Force= 10.21 k Pressure= 17.7 psf Level Ht. length area Trib. Ht. ASD diaph. Load 0.6 plf Ridge/Parapet 2 1 0.6 11 plf 1 12 48 576 8 0.6 85 plf 576 sf Direction E-W A-C Force= 6.18 k Pressure= 17.2 psf Level Ht. length area Trib.Ht. ASD diaph. Load 0.6 I plf Ridge/Parapet 2 1 0.6 10 plf 1 12 30 I 360 8 I 0.6 82 plf 360 sf I~ LOVELACE ~ ENGINEERING STAUCTUAAL !NOINl!eAI NO Sl!AVICl!S MAPLE ADU -MAIN+ STG. Level Name JLC Level# J23712 Lateral Line ROOF 1 B Direction E-W F.D.A. 1/18/2024 Page: WOOD SHEARWALL ANALYSIS & DESIGN Area 1 2 3 4 SEISMIC LOAD sos= 0.879 p = 1.3 Story Load 4.0 SF Factor 1200 1.0 so 1.0 Total/2 = Seismic Load psf Load (lbs) 4799 200 0 0 2500 lbs. WIND LOAD Load Type L I Worst Case Load Type R I Worst Case Load (plf) 82 Load (plf) 82 Length L (ft.) 17 I Length R (ft.) 9 Load L (lbs.) 1401 Load R (lbs.) 742 Total/2 = Wind Load 1071 lbs. ADDITIONAL SEISMIC LOAD ADDITIONAL WIND LOAD Line Segment L H H/L Ratio Load Ratio Load E Adj. Load E Load W Adj. Load W Unit Shear E Unit Shear W OTM E OTMW Wall Weight Wall UDL Unif. DL Concen. DL CDL Ice. DL Moment DLMom. E DLMom. W Net OT E NetOTW Uplift E Add. Uplift E Uplift W Add. Uplift W Tot. Uplift E Tot. Uplift W HD# Load (lbs.) Offset Factor Adjust. Load Line Load (lbs.) Offset Factor Adjust. Load I I Total Add. Load 0 Total Add. Load LATERAL SUPPORT WITH STORAGE ADDED Total Seismic Load = 3250 lbs. Total Wind Load = 1071 lbs. SHEAR 1 2 6.7 12.5 1.9 0.46 1502 7.8 12.5 1.6 0.54 1748 t EXISTING LOA□ WITHOUT sro~AGE = 3043 Ll1s I ALLOWABLE_!g¾ OA_D INCREA~__ffR CEBC =. 347 LBS 495 354 224 53 ~ 53 Max Shear 224 18769 21850 6187 1203 16 T 200 0 4489 6084 2141 2902 2693 3650 16628 18949 3494 3552 2482 2429 521 455 2482 2429 521 455 1 1 3250 LBS < 3347 LBS THEREFORE ADDED LOAD 15 ACCEPTABLE WITHOUT ANY ,m.,no, rn """"' soo,oa,. '""'°""'· w,,, ,pom co.a,'"]"'"' SPECIFIED IN PLANS BY OTHER ~XCEEDS WHA'I' 15 REQUIRED, . 0 ALSO OK. I ----+--I PLF USE# Shear Wall Capacity= OVERTURNING - I I UPLIFT • -No HD required, by inspection •• -See Perforated/ Force-Transfer Shearwall calculation 0 Total Shear Length (ft.) 15 lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. plf pit 260 plf _J::~: psf pit plf lbs. ft. #-ft. #-ft. 1#-ft. ------, #-ft. #-ft. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. -lbs. lbs. L20 av Ratio CBC 2306.3 Fl LOVELACE ENGINEERING JOB __________________ _ SHEET NO. __________ OF ______ _ CALCULATEDBY _________ DATE _____ _ STRUCTURAL E N GINEERING SERVICES CHECKEDBY __________ DATE _____ _ 10509 Vista Sorrento Parkway, Suite 102, San Diego, CA 92121 phone858.535.9111 • fax858.535.1989 • www.lovelaceeng.com SCALE __________________ _ FOUNDATION DESIGN ALLOHABLE BEARIN6 PRESSURE, q= 1500 PSF (PER DESl6N CRITERIA) CONTINUOUS PERIMETER 4 BEARIN6 ~LL FOOTIN6S: LOCATION: MAX CONTINUOUS FOOTING H1 = MAX LOAD = 1500 PLF HIDTH REQ'D= (H1/q x 12) = 1500 X 12 = 12 IN j USE: 12 11 HIDE X 12 11 DEEP HITH _2._ # ___i_ TOP 4 BOTTOM I LOCATION: ___________________ _ H1 = = PLF HIDTH REQ'D= (H1 /q x 12) = = IN jUSE: II HIDE X II DEEP HITH TOP 4 BOTTOM I LOCATION: ___________________ _ H1 = = PLF HIDTH REQ'D= (H1/q x 12) = = IN II HIDE X II DEEP HITH TOP 4 BOTTOM I ISOLATED SPREAD FOOTIN6S, ( I-STORY CONT. FTG. POINT LOADS ) MARK, (F-1) P= CONT. FT&. CAPACITY (MIDY'IALL) Areq'd = P /q x 144= _3_0_0_,0:.t.l'-'l.L....Cx.'----!..14_,._4_,___ _______ _____c:........:...._:____ = 3000 LBS ti If = 288 SQ IN 15<1 USE: IZI PER PAD FOOTIN6 SCHEDULE 12 11x24"=288in2 MARK: (f-2) P= CONT . FTG. CAPACITY (ENDV'IALL) A,,,q'd = P/q x 144= _22_5~0 '""""~x'-'---14.,___4_,__ _________ _ USE: IZI PER PAD FOOTIN6 SCHEDULE =2250 LBS C1 = 216 SQ IN MARK: (F-3) 12"xl8 "=216in2 P= 18" x 18" x 12" DEEP PAD FTG. CAPACITY = 3315 LBS = 324 A,,,q'd = P /q x 144= _3_3_,5LJ..a.&.<.-=x __,l__,4_,4'------------SQ IN USE, IZI PER PAD FOOTIN6 SCHEDULE 18"xl8"=324in2 F2 LOVELACE ENGINEERING JOB ___________________ _ SHEET NO. __________ OF ______ _ CALCULATEDBY _________ DATE _____ _ STRUCT U RA L ENGINEERING SERVICES CHECKEDBY __________ DATE _____ _ 10509 Vista Sorrento Parkway, Suite 102, San Diego, CA 92121 phone 858.535.911 1 • fax 858.535.1989 • www.lovelaceeng.com SCALE __________________ _ ALLOV'IABLE BEARING PRESSURE, q = 1500 PSF (PER DESIGN CRITERIA) ISOLA TED SPREAD FOOTINGS, MARK, (F-4) P= 24" x 24" SQ. PAD FTG. CAPACITY = 6000 LBS Areq'd = P/q X 144= _6_0_0_,0ci..o-,~X'-'----'-144-'--' _________ = _51_6_SQ IN 24"x24" = 5lbin2 USE, ~ PER PAD FOOTING SCHEDULE MARK, (F-5) P= 30" x 30" SQ. PAD FTG. CAPACITY = 'l315 LBS Areq'd = P /q x 144= _q_3_15.!.,l;;l,l.,ll.L_.C..O.x--'l'-4'-4'----------= _'l__:_O--=O_SQ IN 30 "x30" = Cl 00 in2 USE: @J PER PAD FOOTING SCHEDULE MARK, (F-b) P= 36" x 36" SQ. PAD FTG. CAPACITY = 13500 LBS Areq'd = P/q X 144= _1_35_0_,0""""'""'----'X:..o........,_I4___,___,4 _________ =_I.c...2--=6_<:l_SQ IN 3b"x3b"=l296in2 USE: @J PER PAD FOOTING SCHEDULE MARK: (F-1) P= 42" x 42" SQ. PAD FTG. CAPACITY = 18315 LBS Areq'd = P/q x 144= _1_e3_1....!.5~'"'-'-x-'---'-l4...!..4...,___ ________ =_11_6_4_SQ IN 42"x42"= 1164in2 USE, ~ PER PAD FOOTING SCHEDULE MARK: (F-8) P= 48" x 48" SQ. PAD FTG. CAPACITY =24OOOLBS Areq'd = P/q x 144= _2_40_0_,0.l-'-l.,_,J.L...!X..o_,_l4--'---'-4 ________ =_2=--3--=O_4..c..SQ IN 48"x48"=23O4in2 USE: [) PER PAD FOOTING SCHEDULE P.O. Box 402983 Hesperia, CA 92340-2983 October 18, 2024 PETCAM Engineering Inc. 1090631 Yanan Road. Apple Valley, CA 92307 Subject: New Grading Report New ADU 158 Maple Ave Carlsbad. CA City of Carlsbad OC1 3 0 2024 BUILDING DIVISION Phone: (760) 244-9936 Fax: (760) 513-9199 Project#: 24529.C Invoice #:A724448 Attached is a summary report of compaction tests made at 158 Maple Avenue, Carlsbad, CA. The compaction tests were made in conformance to in-place Density per the ASTM D-1557 testing procedure on October 18, 2024. This report is understood to be valid at the time of making the compaction test after the grading operation has been done. We did not perform any observation of the grading process, including but not limited to import or removal of soils, survey staking and grade control, etc. The test made to date has been found to conform to the requirements of the City/County approved plans and specifications (90% minimum relative compaction as compared to the optimum density). Stationing and/or paced distances from physical features on the site indicate approximate locations of the tests. A legend is included with this rep rt to dentify abbreviations and maximum density determinations used in the report summary Sincerely, ?5:~ Dave Fisher, P.E. Civil Engineer# 75727 ENE Services P.O. Box 402983 Hesperia, CA 92340-2983 Summary of Laboratory Test Results PETCAM Engineering Inc Project#: 24529.C Address: 158 Maple Ave. Description 1. Greyish Brown- Class II recycled base Test No. Column S = Sanitary Sewer W = Water Line Plain Number = Mass Fill SD =Storm Drain E = Electrical J = Joint Trench SG = Road Subgrade SOIL TYPE Max. (pcf) 130.0 Legend for Summary Sheet Note Column P = Pass F = Fail AB = Road Aggregate Subgrade SW = Sidewalk AC = Asphaltic Concrete G =Gas P = Plumbing Trench I = Irrigation Line Backfill R W = Retaining Wall Backfill B = Structural Backfill F = F coting Base DW = Driveway SF = Surface Carlsbad, CA Opt. % 9.0 Test Type Column N = Nuclear Gauge S = Sand Cone Compaction Test Report PETCAM Engineering Inc Test Test No. Date Test Location 1 10/15/24 East middle of new ADU oad ENE Services P.O. Box 402983 Hesperia, CA 92340-2983 Test Mat Elev./Datum Type Below 1 52.00 2 10/15/24 Northwest comer of new ADU oad 1 52.00 Project#: 24529.C Address: 158 Maple Ave. Carlsbad, CA Dry Density Field Relative Field MC Comp (pcO (%) (%) 123.1 8.6 94.6 125.2 8.7 96.3 Test Note Tvve p s p s Soil and Foundation Engineers C REPORT OF LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION House Addition and ADU/Garage 158 Maple Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 JOB NO. 22 7582 December 22, 2022 Prepared for: Austin and Rachel Petelski 147 Maple Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 0) (Y) T-o I (Y) N 0 ~ UJ 0 7840 EL CAJON BLVD., SUITE 200 ■ LA MESA, CALIFORNIA 91942 Phone: (619) 462-9861 ■ Email: Clamonte@Flash.Net ■ Fax: (619) 462-9859 LatMomte Soil and Foundation Engineers 7840 EL CAJON BLVD., SUITE 200 ■ LA MESA, CALIFORNIA 91942 Phone: (619) 462-9861 ■ Email: Clamonte@Flash.Net ■ Fax: (619) 462-9859 December 22, 2022 TO: Austin and Rachel Petelski 147 Maple Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: Report of Limited Geotechnical Investigation House Addition and ADU/Garage 158 Maple Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Job No. 22 7582 In accordance with your request, we have performed a geotechnical investigation for the proposed residential development. We are presenting herein our findings and recommendations. In general, we found the property suitable for the proposed project provided that the recommendations contained herein are adhered to. We found the proposed project site to be overlain with approximately 3 to 4 feet of loose topsoil. The property is underlain at depth with competent terrace deposits. These loose surface soils will require localized mitigation by remedial grading OR specialized foundation design. Detailed earthwork and foundation recommendations are provided in the ensuing report. If you should have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, C. W. La Monte Company Inc. Clifford W. La Monte, R.C.E. 25241, G.E. 0495 Exp. 12/31/2023 No . 25241 Exp. 12/31/2023 No. 495 TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... 1 SCOPE OF WORK ........................................................................................................... 1 FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................... 3 SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................ 3 DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS ........................................... 3 GROUND WATER .......................................................................................................... 4 SEISMICITY AND FAULTING ...................................................................................... 4 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS ................................................................................ 6 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS .................................................................................................. 6 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................... 8 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................. 9 EARTH WORK AND GRADING .................................................................................. 9 General ........................................................................................................................ 9 Specifications and Preconstruction ......................................................................... 9 Fill Suitability ............................................................................................................. 9 Observation of Grading ............................................................................................ 9 Site Preparation ....................................................................................................... 10 Excavation Characteristics ..................................................................................... 10 Compaction and Method of Filling ...................................................................... 10 Surface Drainage ..................................................................................................... 11 Erosion Control. ....................................................................................................... 11 Temporary Cut Slopes ............................................................................................ 12 FOUNDATIONS ............................................................................................................ 12 Soil Bearing Value ................................................................................................... 12 Dimensions and Embedment ................................................................................ 13 Reinforcement .......................................................................................................... 13 Lateral Pressure ....................................................................................................... 13 Anticipated Settlements ......................................................................................... 14 Moisture Conditioning ........................................................................................... 14 Foundation Plans Review ...................................................................................... 14 Foundation Excavation Observation .................................................................... 14 CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE ................................................................................ 14 SLAB MOISTURE BARRIERS ...................................................................................... 15 Interior Slab Curing Time ...................................................................................... 16 DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES .................... 17 Passive Pressure ...................................................................................................... 17 Soil Bearing Value ................................................................................................... 17 Active Pressure for Retaining Walls ..................................................................... 17 Waterproofing and Drainage ................................................................................. 18 Backfill ....................................................................................................................... 18 FIELD INVESTIGATION .............................................................................................. 18 LABORATORY TESTS AND SOIL INFORMATION ............................................... 19 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................ 20 TABLES Table I Table II Table III Mapped Spectral Acceleration Values and Design Soil Bearing Values Equivalent fluid weights ATTACHMENTS FIGURES Figure No.1 Figure No. 2 Site Location Map (Topo) Plot Plan and Geotechnical Map Test Boring Logs Page6 Page 14 Page 19 Figure No. 3 A and 3B Figure No. 4 Figure No. 5 Regional Geologic Map Excerpt (2005) Regional Fault Activity Map APPENDICES Appendix 11A11-Standard Grading Specifications Appendix 11B11 -Unified Soil Classification Chart REPORT OF LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION House Addition and ADU/Garage 158 Maple Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The following report presents the results of a limited geotechnical investigation performed for the proposed residential project. The project site is a developed residential lot located at 158 Maple A venue in the City of Carlsbad, California. Figure Number 1 (attached) provides a vicinity map showing the approximate location of the property and area topography. The property is rectangular lot, approximately 600 square feet in area. The site is improved with a one-story residential structure with a detached garage. We understand the existing garage will be demolished and removed. A new garage with an ADU above will be constructed in the rear yard. Additionally a lateral addition may be added to the rear of the existing home. The additions will be founded on conventional shallow foundations with slab-on-grade floors. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the stated client and his design consultants for specific application to the project described herein. Should the project be changed in any way, the modified plans should be submitted to C. W. La Monte Company, Inc. for review to determine their conformance with our recommendations and to determine if any additional subsurface investigation, laboratory testing and/ or recommendations are necessary. Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, expressed or implied. SCOPE OF WORK The scope of this investigation was limited to: surface reconnaissance, research of readily available geotechnical literature pertinent to the site, subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, engineering and geologic analysis of the field and laboratory data and preparation of this report. More specifically, the intent of this investigation was to: • Review available geotechnical reports and maps pertinent to the subject site. • Identify the subsurface conditions of the site to the depths influenced by the proposed construction. • Based on laboratory testing and our experience with similar sites in the area, identify the engineering properties of the various strata that may influence the proposed construction, including the allowable soil bearing pressures, expansive characteristics and settlement potential. • Describe possible geotechnical factors that could have an effect on the site development. • Provide mapped spectral acceleration parameters obtained from the USGS Seismic Design Maps. • Address potential construction difficulties that may be encountered due to soil conditions and groundwater, and provide recommendations concerning these problems. • Recommend an appropriate foundation system for the proposed structures and develop soil engineering design criteria for the recommended foundation designs. • Present our opinions in this written report, which includes in addition to our findings and recommendations, a site plan showing the location of our subsurface explorations, logs of the test trenches and a summary of our laboratory test results. It was not within our scope of work to evaluate the site for hazardous materials contamination. Further, we did not perform laboratory tests to evaluate the chemical characteristics of the on-site soils in regard to their potentially corrosive impact to on- grade concrete and below grade improvements. ADU Addition Carlsbad, CA December 22, 2022 Page2 FINDINGS SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is a developed residential lot located at 14 7-149 Maple A venue in the City of Carlsbad, California. The lot is skewed in a northwest-southeast direction; for discussion purposes south is assumed towards Maple Avenue, forming the south boundary. Based on this assumption the property is bounded on the east, west and south with multi-family residential development. A legal description of the property is Assessor's Parcel Number 204-234-06-00. The property is rectangular-shaped and is approximately 40 feet wide by 149 feet deep. The property is improved with a one- story residential structure with a detached garage. Vegetation consists of lawn grass, landscape shrubs and some trees. Topographically, the property is relatively level. According to Google Earth elevations are on the order of 55 feet MSL. DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS The site is located within the coastal plain section of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of California. The coastal plain generally consists of subdued landforms underlain by tertiary to quaternary aged marine sedimentary deposits. The property is setback approximately 250 feet from a coastal sea bluff located to the west. The site was found to be underlain Quaternary aged sedimentary formational deposits with associated surficial slope wash materials. These soil types are described individually below in order of increasing age. Refer the attached Test Boring Logs, Figure No. 3A and 3B. A Plot Plan and Geotechnical Map is attached as Figure No. 2 with the test boring locations and mapping of the encountered units. An excerpt from a regional geologic map is included as Figure No. 4. Topsoil: The site is overlain with about 3 to 4 feet of natural ground topsoil materials. The encountered topsoil consists primarily of dark brown, loose to medium dense, silty sand. Old Paralic Deposits (Qop): The site is underlain at depth with competent, Quaternary-aged, terrace deposits indentified as old paralic deposits in ADU Addition Carlsbad, CA December 22, 2022 Page3 current geologic literature. The encountered paralic deposits consist primarily of reddish brown, medium dense to dense, silty sands. The paralic materials are considered suitable foundation bearing material and generally possess a very low-expansion potential. GROUNDWATER No groundwater was encountered in our test excavations that extended to an approximate maximum depth of 7 feet below the existing grade. It should also be kept in mind, that any required grading operations might change surface drainage patterns and/ or reduce permeability due to the densification of compacted soils. Such changes of surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions, plus irrigation of landscaping or significant increases in rainfall, may result in the appearance of surface or near-surface water at locations where none existed previously. The damage from such water is expected to be minor and cosmetic in nature, only if good positive drainage is implemented at the completion of construction. Corrective action should be taken on a site-specific basis if, and when, it becomes necessary. SEISMICITY AND FAULTING No faults are known to traverse the site, thus it is not considered susceptible to surface rupture as a result of on-site faulting. The probability of soil cracking caused by shaking from close or distant fault sources is also considered to be low. It should be noted that much of Southern California, including the San Diego County area is characterized by a series of Quaternary-age fault zones, which typically consist of several individual, en echelon faults that generally strike in a northerly to north- westerly direction. Some of these fault zones (and the individual faults within the zones) are classified as active while others are classified as only potentially active, according to the criteria of the California Division of Mines and Geology (currently California Geological Survey). Active fault zones are those that have shown conclusive evidence of faulting during the Holocene Epoch (the most recent 11,000 years), while potentially active fault zones have demonstrated movement during the Pleistocene Epoch (11,000 to 2 million years before the present) but no movement during Holocene time. An excerpt from the Fault Activity Map of California (California Geological Survey) is attached as Figure No. 6 and provides the recency of faulting in the site vicinity. Current geologic literature indicates that the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon Fault Zone is the nearest active fault with the nearest segment mapped offshore about 3 miles west of the site. According to the 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps -Fault ADU Addition Carlsbad, CA December 22, 2022 Page4 Parameters (USGS website), the Maximum Magnitude earthquake on the Rose Canyon / Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone is 6.9 (Ellsworth) or 6.7 (Hanks) with a slip rate of 1.5. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone is currently classified as a Type 11B11 fault (California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps, June 2003. The active Coronado Bank/Palos Verdes Hills and San Diego Trough Fault Zones are located about 17 and 29 miles (respectively), offshore to the west. According to the San Diego County, Seismic Safety Element it is estimated that a magnitude of 7.7 earthquake could be generated by these nearby faults. The Elsinore and San Jacinto Fault Zones are located about 40 and 60 miles (respectively) northeast of the site. The City of San Diego Seismic Safety Element estimates the maximum probable earthquake for both the San Jacinto and the Elsinore Fault Zones is between M 6.9 and 7.3, with a repeat interval of approximately 100 years. The maximum credible earthquake for both fault zones is estimated at M 7.6. Other active fault zones in the region that could possibly affect the site include the San Clemente Fault Zone to the west and the Earthquake Valley and San Andreas Fault Zones to the east. However, a Maximum Magnitude Earthquake on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone are likely to generate ground accelerations on the site, greater than a maximum probable earthquake on any of these other nearby active fault zones. In addition to the active faults listed above, several fault breaks are located within a five mile radius of the site, several unnamed Pre-Quaternary (inactive) faults located within 5 miles of the site and located to the north, south and east. Also the La Nacion Fault Zone and other Quaternary faults are located over 30 miles south of the property. These faults are considered potentially active, inactive, presumed inactive, or activity unknown, by the City of San Diego Seismic Safety Study [potentially active faults have demonstrated movement during the Pleistocene Epoch (11,000 to 1.6 million years before the present) but no movement during Holocene (recent) times]. According to the Official Map of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones of California, by the California Division of Mines and Geology ( currently California Geological Survey) (CDMG, 1991) the site IS NOT located an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone map. ADU Addition Carlsbad, CA December 22, 2022 PageS SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS We have determined the mapped spectral acceleration values for the site utilizing current U.S. Seismic Design Maps. The analysis included the following input parameters: Design Code Reference Document: ASCE 7-16 Standard Site Soil Classification: Site Class D Risk Category: II The values generated by the Design Map Response are provided in the following table: TABLE I Mapped Spectral Acceleration Values and Design Parameters Ss S1 Fa Fv SMs SM1 Sos S01 PGA PGAM 0.958 0.344g 1.117 Null* 1.07g Null* 0.713g Null* 0.42g 0.496g *See ASCE 7-16 section 11.4.8, Exception 2 for calculation requirements Application to the criteria in Table I for seismic design does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur if ever seismic shaking occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS General: No geologic hazards of sufficient magnitude to preclude development of the site as currently proposed are known to exist. In our professional opinion and to the best of our knowledge, the site is suitable for the proposed development. Ground Shaking: A likely geologic hazard to affect the site is ground shaking resulting from movement along one of the major active fault zones mentioned above. Probable ground shaking levels at the site could range from slight to severe, depending on such factors as the magnitude of the seismic event and the distance to the epicenter. It is likely that the site will experience the effects of at least one moderate to large earthquake during the life of the proposed structures. Construction in accordance with the minimum requirements of the current building ADU Addition Carlsbad, CA December 22, 2022 Page6 codes and local governing agencies should minimize potential damage due to seismic activity. Landslide Potential and Slope Stability: A detailed, deterministic slope stability analysis was not included within our scope of services. However, as part of this investigation we reviewed the publication, "Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area" by Tan and Giffen, 1995. This reference is a comprehensive study that classifies San Diego County into areas of relative landslide susceptibility. The subject site is located in Area 2, which is assigned to areas that are "Marginally Susceptible" to slope failure. Landslides and other slope failures are rare within this area Due to the sites underlying stable bedrock and gentle topography, deep-seating landsliding does not appear to present a significant geotechnical hazard. The site is adequately setback from a nearby sea bluff. Liquefaction: The materials at the site are not subject to significant liquefaction due to such factors as soil density, grain-size distribution, and groundwater conditions. Soil Expansion: Generally, the soils encountered at the site are considered to possess a very low to moderate-expansive potential. Flooding: The site is located outside the boundaries of both the 100-year and the 500-year floodplains according to the maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Tsunamis and Seiches: Tsunamis are great sea waves produced by submarine earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. Seiches are periodic oscillations in large bodies of water such as lakes, harbors, bays or reservoirs. Based on the project's elevated location, the site is considered to possess a low risk potential from tsunamis or seiche activity. ADU Addition Carlsbad, CA December 22, 2022 Page7 CONCLUSIONS In general, our findings indicate that the project site is suitable for the proposed addition, provided the recommendations presented herein are followed. The most significant geotechnical conditions that will influence site development are summarized below. • The building site is overlain with about 3 to 4 feet of loose topsoil overlying competent paralic deposits. These upper topsoil materials are potentially compressible under foundation loads and require special consideration, which may include one of the following: leave the material in place and design a foundation system for nominal soil bearing conditions; or remedial grading to recompact the loose soil and increase the bearing value. Either of these options is an acceptable method of mitigation, however, remedial grading is a common method of loose soil mitigation and involves removing the loose topsoil materials within the footprint of the proposed addition and replacing the material to design grades as properly compacted fill. Refer to EARTHWORK section of this report for more detailed recommendations. The condition can also be mitigated by design without the mitigation summarized above. However, the conventional foundations would need to be designed for a nominal soil bearing value. • No groundwater or significant seepage was encountered in our test excavations. Therefore, groundwater should not present am immediate issue to the development as presently designed if proper site drainage is provided. • We do not anticipate any significant unretained slopes will be generated by the proposed development. • The foundation level materials encountered at the site are considered to possess a very low expansion potential ( expansion index [EI] less than 20) as defined by ASTM D4829. Recommendations for heaving soils are not required. ADU Addition Carlsbad, CA December 22, 2022 Page8 RECOMMENDATIONS EARTH WORK AND GRADING General The below earthwork and grading specifications and recommendations mainly apply to the project if it is opted to regrade the addition area using the optional removal and recompaction grading operation (discussed previously). However, if it is opted to construct the additions on a conventional foundation the recommendations provided in the "Foundations" section of this report are more applicable to the project. It should be kept in mind that any backfills (such as utility trench backfill) and pavement subgrade preparation should be processed in accordance with the provided Earthwork specifications. Specifications and Preconstruction Any grading should conform to the guidelines presented in this report, Sections 1804 and Appendix "J" of the current California Building Code, the minimum requirements of the City of Carlsbad, and the Standard Grading and Construction Specifications, Appendix "A", attached hereto, except where specifically superseded in the text of this report. Prior to any grading, a representative of C. W. La Monte Company Inc. should be present at the preconstruction meeting to provide additional grading guidelines, if necessary, and to review the earthwork schedule. Fill Suitability On-site excavated materials may be used as compacted fill material or backfill. The on-site materials are anticipated to possess a very low-to low-expansion potential. Any potential import soil sites should be evaluated and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to importation. At least two working days notice of a potential import source should be given to the Geotechnical Consultant so that appropriate testing can be accomplished. The type of material considered most desirable for import is a non-detrimentally expansive granular material with some silt or clay binder. Observation of Grading Observation and testing by the soil engineer is essential during the grading operations. This allows the soil engineer to confirm the conditions anticipated by our investigation, to allow adjustments in design criteria to reflect the actual field ADU Addition Carlsbad, CA December 22, 2022 Page9 conditions exposed, and to determine that the grading proceeds in general accordance with the recommendations contained herein. Site Preparation Site preparation should begin with the removal of the all improvements designated for removal, vegetation and other deleterious materials from the portion of lot that will be graded and that will receive improvements. This should include all root balls from the trees to be removed and all significant root material. The resulting materials should be disposed of off-site. After clearing and grubbing, the optional site preparation should continue with the removal all existing loose topsoil material from areas that will be graded or that will support settlement-sensitive improvements. As the project is presently planned, soil removals are expected to be about 4 feet in depth, but may be thicker in localized areas. The removals should extend at least 4 feet outside the addition perimeter, where possible. The loose soil shall be removed to expose firm natural ground as determined by our field representative during grading. Prior to placing any fill soils or constructing any new improvements, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of approximately 6 to 12 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Also the upper one-foot of pavement and floor slab areas should be processed and recompacted. Additionally, the upper 12 inches of all slab subgrade areas should be processed. Please note the above removal and surface preparation recommendations do not apply or will be significantly modified if it is opted to construct the building on a conventional, low-bearing foundation system in lieu of the grading alternative (See the following "Foundations" section of this report). Excavation Characteristics The on-site topsoil materials will excavate with easy to moderate effort using heavy equipment. No significant amounts of oversize materials (greater than 12 inches) are anticipated. Under wet conditions caving can be anticipated for deep excavations. Compaction and Method of Filling Any structural fill placed at the site should be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Laboratory Test D1557 guidelines. Fills should be placed at or slightly above optimum moisture content, in lifts six to eight inches thick, with each lift compacted by mechanical means. Fills should consist of approved earth material, free of trash or debris, roots, ADU Addition Carlsbad, CA December 22, 2022 Page 10 vegetation, or other materials determined to be unsuitable by our soil technicians or project geologist. All material should be free of rocks or lumps of soil in excess of twelve inches in maximum width. However, in the upper two feet of pad grade, no rocks or lumps of soil in excess of six inches should be allowed. Utility trench backfill within five feet of the proposed structure and beneath all pavements and concrete flatwork should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its maximum dry density. The upper one-foot of pavement subgrade and base material should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative density. All grading and fill placement should be performed in accordance with the local Grading Ordinance, the California Building Code, and the Recommended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions attached hereto as Appendix A. Surface Drainage Surface runoff into graded areas should be minimized. Where possible, drainage should be directed to suitable disposal areas via non-erodible devices such as paved swales, gunited brow ditches, and storm drains. Pad drainage should be designed to collect and direct surface water away from proposed structures and toward approved drainage areas and/ or LID systems. Section 1804.3 of the CBC specifies the following for site grading: The ground immediately adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped away from the building at a slope of not less than one unit vertical in 20 units horizontal (5-percent slope) for a minimum distance of 10 feet measured perpendicular to the face of the wall. If physical obstructions or lot lines prohibit 10 feet of horizontal distance, a 5- percent slope shall be provided to an approved alternative method of diverting water away from the foundation. Swales used for this purpose shall be sloped a minimum of 2 percent where located within 10 feet of the building foundation. Impervious surfaces within 10 feet of the building foundation shall be sloped at a minimum of 2 percent away from the building ... The procedure used to establish the final ground level adjacent to the foundation shall account for additional settlement of the backfill. Erosion Control In addition, appropriate erosion-control measures shall be taken at all times during construction to prevent surface runoff waters from entering footing excavations, ponding on finished building pad or pavement areas, or running uncontrolled over the tops of newly-constructed cut or fill slopes. Appropriate Best Management Practice (BMP) erosion control devices should be provided in accordance with local and federal governing agencies. ADU Addition Carlsbad, CA December 22, 2022 Page 11 Temporary Cut Slopes No temporary cuts over 4 feet in height are anticipated and, therefore, specific recommendations for temporary excavations are not included in this report. However, it should be noted that the contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and may need to shore, slope, or bench the sides of trench excavations as required to maintain the stability of the excavation sides where friable sands or loose soils are exposed. The contractor's "responsible person", as defined in the OSHA Construction Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR, Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor's safety process. In no case should slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations. FOUNDATIONS Soil Bearing Value Existing soil-bearing conditions are variable underlying the addition site. The site is overlain with 3 to 4 feet of low-bearing topsoil overlying competent Old Paralic Deposits. Soil bearing characteristics vary based on the soil strength and depth below the surface. The appropriate soil bearing values are described below and summarized in the below Table. A soil bearing value of at least 2000 psf (pounds per square foot) may be assigned to new foundations supported on properly recompacted fill (remedial grading option). However, the existing loose topsoil (upper 3 to 4 feet) can only be assigned a nominal soil bearing value of 1000 pounds per square foot. These bearing value recommendations are summarized in the below table: TABLE II Summary of Soil Bearing Values Material Type Bearing Value Foundation Embedment in 2000 psf recompacted fill or formational bedrock Foundation Embedment in Existing Topsoil: 1000 psf (existing bearing condition -no removal and recompaction) ADU Addition Carlsbad, CA December 22, 2022 Page 12 These bearing capacities may be increased by one-third, when considering wind and/ or seismic loading. Dimensions and Embedment Foundations should be constructed in accordance with the minimum requirements of the California Building Code and the recommendations of the project structural engineer or architect based on the parameters provided in this report. The recommended foundation embedment depends on the option (s) selected to mitigate the loose soil conditions and are listed below based on the site preparation conditions. Remedial Grading Option: All new footings founded in recompacted fill (remedial grading option) may be of standard dimensions per the table Allowable Foundation and Lateral Pressure from Section 1805.4.2 of the 2007 (CBC). One-story structures may be founded on 12-inch deep footings and two-story structures on 18-inch deep footings. One and two-story structures shall be founded on 12 and 15-inch wide footings (respectively). A minimum width of 24-inches s recommended for isolated footings. Existing Subgrade Conditions: We recommend all new footings founded in in-situ topsoil be embedded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade, regardless of the number of building stories. We recommend a minimum width of 15-inches. These values assume remedial grading is not performed. Reinforcement Any required foundation reinforcement shall be determined by the project structural engineer and architect. However, any new continuous footings, founded in competent natural ground or recompacted fill, should be reinforced with at least four No. 4 steel bars; two reinforcing bar shall be located near the top of the foundation, and two bars near the bottom. Any continuous footings founded in the in-situ topsoil should be reinforced with at least four No. 5 steel bars; two reinforcing bars shall be located near the top of the foundation, and two bars near the bottom. Lateral Pressure The passive earth pressure (lateral force) is provided below and summarized on the Table following this paragraph. New foundations founded may assigned an Equivalent Fluid Weight (EFW) of 200 pd (pounds per cubic foot). A Coefficient of ADU Addition Carlsbad, CA December 22, 2022 Page 13 Friction of 0.35 times the dead load may be used between the bearing soils and concrete wall foundations or structure foundations and floor slabs. Anticipated Settlements Based on our experience with the soil types on the subject site, the soils supporting the addition should experience settlement in the magnitude of less than 0.5 inch under proposed structural loads. It should be recognized that minor hairline cracks normally occur in concrete slabs and foundations due to shrinkage during curing and/ or redistribution of stresses and some cracks may be anticipated. Such cracks are not necessarily an indication of excessive vertical movements. Moisture Conditioning We recommend moisture conditioning any foundation excavations excavated within the loose topsoil profile (existing low bearing condition). The shallow excavations should be saturated prior to concrete placement. This will help "pre-consolidate" the topsoil material. If remedial grading is performed the pre-saturation is not needed .. Foundation Plans Review The finalized, foundation plans should be submitted to this office for review to ascertain that the recommendations provided in this report have been followed and that the assumptions utilized in its preparation are still valid. Additional or amended recommendations may be issued based on this review. Foundation Excavation Observation All foundation excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placing reinforcing steel and formwork in order to verify compliance with the foundation recommendations presented herein. All footing excavations should be excavated neat, level and square. All loose or unsuitable material should be removed prior to the placement of concrete. CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE It is our understanding that the floor system of the proposed structures will consist of concrete slab-on-grade floors. We anticipate that the concrete slabs-on-grade will be supported by non-detrimentally expansive, competent formation and/ or properly compacted fill material. The following recommendations assume that the subgrade ADU Addition Carlsbad, CA December 22, 2022 Page 14 soils have been prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in the "Grading and Earthwork" section of this report. In addition, the following recommendations are considered the minimum slab requirements based on the soil conditions and are not intended in lieu of structural considerations. Interior Floor Slabs: We recommend a minimum floor slab thickness of four inches (actual) is recommended for slab-on-grade floors. The floor slabs should be reinforced with at least No. 3 bars placed at 18 inches on center each way. Slab reinforcing should be supported by chairs and be positioned at mid-height in the floor slab. An expandable or compressible water stop is recommended at all foundation and floor slab joints and abutments that are below grade. Interior Slab Subgrade Preparation: If remedial grading is not performed and the addition is constructed on the existing soil conditions, additional slab subgrade preparation will be required. The upper 12 inches of floor slab shall be processed and recompacted to at least 90 percent of maximum density. Exterior Concrete Flatwork: On-grade exterior concrete slabs for walks and patios should have a thickness of four inches and should be reinforced with at least No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 24 inches on center each way. Exterior slab reinforcement should be placed approximately at mid-height of the slab. Reinforcement and control joints should be constructed in exterior concrete flatwork to reduce the potential for cracking and movement. Joints should be placed in exterior concrete flatwork to help control the location of shrinkage cracks. Spacing of control joints should be in accordance with the American Concrete Institute specifications. When slabs abut foundations they should be doweled into the footings. Vehicular traffic should be avoided until the slab concrete is adequately cured. SLAB MOISTURE BARRIERS A moisture barrier system is recommended beneath interior slab-on-grade floors with moisture sensitive floor coverings or coatings to help reduce the upward migration of moisture vapor from the underlying subgrade soil. A properly selected and installed vapor retarder or barrier is essential for long-term moisture resistance and can minimize the potential for flooring and environmental problems related to excessive moisture. "Below-grade", basement floor slabs should be underlain by a minimum 15-mil thick moisture retarder product over a four-inch thick layer of clean sand material. A 10 mil moisture retarder may be used for surface structure slab. (Please note ADU Addition Carlsbad, CA December 22, 2022 Page 15 additional moisture reduction and/ or prevention measures may be needed, depending on the performance requirements for future floor covering products). All moisture retarder/moisture barrier products used should meet or exceed the performance standards dictated by ASTM E 1745 Class A material and be properly installed in accordance with ACI publication 302 (Guide to Concrete Floor and Slab Construction) and ASTM E1643 (Standard Practice for Installation of Water Vapor Retarder Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs). The above described section is considered a moisture retarder and does not necessarily provide a waterproof floor system. If full waterproofing is desired, an appropriate moisture retarder product should be selected and incorporated into the overall basement waterproofing system. Moisture Retarders and Installation Vapor retarder joints must have at least 6-inch-wide (or as specified by manufacturer) overlaps and be sealed with mastic or the manufacturer's recommended tape or compound. No heavy equipment, stakes or other puncturing instruments should be used on top of the liner before or during concrete placement. In actual practice, stakes are often driven through the retarder material, equipment is dragged or rolled across the retarder, overlapping or jointing is not properly implemented, etc. All these construction deficiencies reduce the retarders' effectiveness. It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the moisture retarder is properly placed in accordance with the project plans and specifications and that the moisture retarder material is free of tears and punctures and is properly sealed prior to the placement of concrete. Interior Slab Curing Time Following placement of concrete floor slabs, sufficient drying time must be allowed prior to placement of floor coverings. Premature placement of floor coverings may result in degradation of adhesive materials and loosening of the finish floor materials. Prior to installation, standardized testing (calcium chloride test and/ or relative humidity) should be performed to determine if the slab moisture emissions are within the limits recommended by the manufacturer of the specified floor- covering product. ADU Addition Carlsbad, CA December 22, 2022 Page 16 DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES The below foundation values are provided for conventional shallow foundations. Passive Pressure The passive pressure for the prevailing soil conditions may be considered to be 200 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. This pressure may be increased one-third for seismic loading. The coefficient of friction for concrete to soil may be assumed to be 0.35 for the resistance to lateral movement. When combining frictional and passive resistance, the friction value should be reduced by one-third. Soil Bearing Value Refer to the foundations section of this report for soil bearing values. Active Pressure for Retaining Walls Lateral pressures acting against masonry and cast-in-place concrete retaining walls can be calculated using soil equivalent fluid weight. The equivalent fluid weight value used for design depends on allowable wall movement. Walls that are free to rotate at least 0.5 percent of the wall height can be designed for the active equivalent fluid weight. Retaining walls that are restrained at the top (such as basement walls), or are sensitive to movement and tilting should be designed for the at-rest equivalent fluid weight. Values given in the table below are in terms of equivalent fluid weight and assume a triangular distribution. The provided equivalent fluid weight values assume that onsite or imported, sandy soils (SP, SM, SC) with an Expansion Index (E.1.) of less than 20 will be used as backfill. No clay soils or silts (CL,CH, ML) should be used as retaining wall backfill. TABLE NO. Ill TABLE OF EQUIVALENT FLUID WEIGHTS FOR ACTIVE PRESSURE AND AT-REST PRESSURE BASED ONSITE BACKFILL CONDITON Surface slope of Retained material Horizontal to vertical* LEVEL 2 : I ADU Addition Carlsbad, CA Cantilever equivalent Fluid weight (active pressure) (pcf) 30 43 December 22, 2022 Restrained equivalent Fluid weight (at-rest pressure) (pcf) 60 76 Page 17 Waterproofing and Drainage In general, retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic forces and be waterproofed as specified by the design consultant. Also refer to American Concrete Institute ACI 515.R (A Guide to the Use of Waterproofing, Damp Proofing, Protective and Decorative Barriers Systems for Concrete). Retaining walls that are not properly waterproofed and drained are potentially subject to cosmetic staining (such as efflorescence), surficial spalling and decomposition of the masonry materials. Positive drainage for retaining walls should consist of a vertical layer of permeable material positioned between the retaining wall and the soil backfill. Such permeable material may be composed of a composite drainage geosynthetic or a natural permeable material such as crushed rock or clean sand at least 12 inches thick and capped with at least 12 inches of backfill soil. The gravel should be wrapped in a geosynthetic filter fabric. Provisions should be made for the discharge of any accumulated groundwater. The selected drainage system should be provided with a perforated collection and discharge pipe placed along the bottom of the permeable material near the base of the wall. The drain pipe should discharge to a suitable drainage facility. If lateral space (due to property line constraints) is insufficient to allow installation of the gravel-wrapped "burrito" drain, a geocomposite system may be used in lieu of the typical gravel and pipe subdrain system. TenCate's MiraDrain (and similar products) provide a "low-profile" drainage system that requires minimal lateral clearance for installation. MiraDRAIN and similar products may also be incorporated into a waterproofing system and provide a slab drainage system (Please note that supplemental manufacturer's details will be required to provide a waterproofed system). Backfill All backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. Imported or on-site sands, gravels, silty sand (SM) and clayey sand (SC) materials are suitable for retaining wall backfill. Soil with an expansion index (EI) of greater than 20 should not be used as backfill material behind retaining walls. The wall should not be backfilled until the masonry has reached an adequate strength. FIELD INVESTIGATION A total of two manually excavated test explorations were placed on the site using a hand auger system. The excavations were placed specifically in areas where representative soil conditions were expected and/ or where the proposed additions ADU Addition Carlsbad, CA December 22, 2022 Page 18 will be located. Our investigation also included a visual site reconnaissance. The excavations were visually inspected and logged by our field geologist, and samples were taken of the predominant soils throughout the field operation. Test excavation logs have been prepared on the basis of our inspection and the results have been summarized on Figure No. 3A and 3B. The predominant soils have been classified in conformance with the Unified Soil Classification System. In addition, a verbal textural description, the wet color, the apparent moisture and the density or consistency are provided. The density of granular soils is given as very loose, loose, medium dense, dense or very dense. The density of cohesive soils is given as either very soft, soft, medium stiff, stiff, very stiff, and hard. LABORATORY TESTS AND SOIL INFORMATION The Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. report (1998) included extensive laboratory testing. Refer to this document for laboratory characteristics and results. Our report also includes the following soil information: CLASSIFICATION: Field classifications were verified in the laboratory by visual examination. The final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. MOISTURE-DENSITY: In-place moisture contents and dry densities were determined for representative soil samples. This information was an aid to classification and permitted recognition of variations in material consistency with depth. The dry unit weight is determined in pounds per cubic foot, and the in-place moisture content is determined as a percentage of the soil's dry weight. The results are summarized in the test excavation logs. MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of a typical soil were determined in the laboratory in accordance with ASTM Standard Test Pounds per square foot-1557, Method A. The results of this test are presented on the following page. Sample Location: Sample Description: Maximum Density: Optimum Moisture: ADU Addition Carlsbad, CA B-1 @1' to 3' Brown, silty sand (SM) 124pcf 9.1% December 22, 2022 Page 19 LIMITATIONS The recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our review of final plans and specifications. Such plans and specifications should be made available to the Geotechnical Engineer and Engineering Geologist so that they may review and verify their compliance with this report and with California Building Code. It is recommended that C.W. La Monte Company Inc. be retained to provide soil engineering services during the construction operations. This is to verify compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to start of construction. The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report reflect our best estimate of the project requirements based on an evaluation of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the subsurface exploration locations and on the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those encountered. It should be recognized that the performance of the foundations and/ or cut and fill slopes may be influenced by undisclosed or unforeseen variations in the soil conditions that may occur in the intermediate and unexplored areas. Any unusual conditions not covered in this report that may be encountered during site development should be brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer so that he may make modifications if necessary. This office should be advised of any changes in the project scope or proposed site grading so that we may determine if the recommendations contained herein are appropriate. It should be verified in writing if the recommendations are found to be appropriate for the proposed changes or our recommendations should be modified by a written addendum. The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a property can occur, however, with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in the Standards-of-Practice and/ or Government Codes may occur. Due to such changes, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of two years without a review by us verifying the suitability of the conclusions and recommendations. In the performance of our professional services, we comply with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in the same locality. The client recognizes that ADU Addition Carlsbad, CA December 22, 2022 Page 20 subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the locations where our borings, surveys, and explorations are made, and that our data, interpretations, and recommendations are based solely on the information obtained by us. We will be responsible for those data, interpretations, and recommendations, but shall not be responsible for the interpretations by others of the information developed. Our services consist of professional consultation and observation only, and no warranty of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, is made or intended in connection with the work performed or to be performed by us, or by our proposal for consulting or other services, or by our furnishing of oral or written reports or findings. It is the responsibility of the stated client or their representatives to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the structural engineer and architect for the project and incorporated into the project's plans and specifications. It is further their responsibility to take the necessary measures to insure that the contractor and his subcontractors carry out such recommendations during construction. The firm of C.W. La Monte Co. Inc. shall not be held responsible for changes to the physical condition of the property, such as addition of fill soils or changing drainage patterns, which occur subsequent to the issuance of this report. Our firm will not be responsible for the safety of personnel other than our own on the site; the safety of others is the responsibility of the Owner and Contractor. The Contractor should notify the Owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. ADU Addition Carlsbad, CA December 22, 2022 Page 21 Scale: 1:9,028 Zoom Level: 16 600ft SITE LOCATION AND TOPOGRAPHIC MAP Ca State Park Tr 1fhe ' ·h-111.3s233_1s6Longut .,..,, Jefferson • Elem sci,· Excerpt from USGS Topographic Map Encinitas Quadrangle, 7.5-Minute Series, National Map Website C.W. La Monte Company Inc. Soil and Foundation Engineers Figure No. 1 PLOT PLAN AND GEOTECHNICAL MAP C: W' .. La Mr~te Company, h. Soil! andl FolQldatiQniEl.tgine@.S LEGEND Approximate Test Boring Location Geologic Units ~B-2 Qop = Old Paralic Deposits ' Surficial units not mapped Approximate Location of Proposed ADU Approximate Location of Lateral Addition ,----1 I I I ____ ~ 158 Maple Ave. Carlsbad, CA FIGURE NO. 2 rJ) Ii:' TEST BORING NO. B-1 ~ .,J ~ u z Q., E--, e.,., ~ 0 :-~ 0 a, 0 ~ b ~ VJ Surf ace Elevation: Date: 11/21/2022 Logged By: JBR a, rJ) ... r::i:: ~ -...... ;:i rJ) u~ ::c: Cl rJ) E--, :z -ti) Excavation Sampling J.t.< • "' s: rJ) cii ::i t "" ... ~ "' 0 0 Q ti) Method: Hand Auger Method: 2.5" I.D. Cal. Sampler (CA) IJJ ~ < )( .,J ~ ~ ~ 0 ..., <fl i:c r::i:: u ::, 6 "" ;z Q DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ::, -TOPSOIL 1 -SM Dark reddish brown, slightly moist, loose -~ 4.9 104 to medium dense , silty sand 2 - 3 -ES 6.3 OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop) 4 -~ ~ SM Reddish brown, slightly moist, medium dense to dense, 5 -~ silty sand ~ 6 - 7 -Excavation Bottom - 8 - - 9 - - 10 - - 11 - - 12 - C:. WJ .. ~M~n-C:QmJQ m£J. Proposed Addition and ADU 158 Maple Ave, Carlsbad, CA SQiJlandilfQtmda.ii~Rngjn~~ FIGURE NO. 3A . rJ') ~ TEST BORING NO. B-2 ,:Q -u ,-l ~ f,-< -,g_ ~ z 0 ~ 0 -z--Date: 11/21/2022 Logged By: JBR ~ 0 ,:Q ~ ~ II) Surf ace Elevation: ~ rJ') ... ii=: ~ ut-! ........ i: rJ') -t/l = @ rJ') z ~ . Excavation Sampling ~ rJ') iii :::i t: = -,:Q ~ 0 0 0 ~ Method: Hand Auger Method: 2.5" I.D. Cal. Sampler (CA) ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ,-l .... ,-l 6 ~ ii=: u = ~ 0 DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS TOPSOIL - 1 -SM Dark reddish brown, slightly moist, loose to medium dense, silty sand - 2 - - 3 - - 4 -OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS {Oo~) 5 - -SM Reddish brown, slightly moist, medium dense to dense, 6 -silty sand - 7 -Excavation Bottom 8 - - 9 - - 10 - - 11 - - 12 - C:. W! .. Ila M@~t~ Compmy ~-Proposed Addition and ADU 158 Maple Ave, Carlsbad, CA S'Qil1 ~ Jf0undau~ni Jin~~)ls FIGURE NO. 3B GEOLOGY MAP EXCERPT Kennedy, M.P., Tan, S.S., Bovard, K.R., Alvarez, R.M., Watson, M.J., and Gutierrez, 2007 Geologic map of the Oceanside 30x60-minute quadrangle, California, California Geological Survey, Regional Geologic Map No. 2, 1:100,000. LEGEND {Localized) Old paralic deposits, (middle Qop to early Pleistocene) Figure No. 4 FIGUREN0.5 Excerpt from: Fault Activity Map of California-CGS " '~J;\' '\'\ \ ~\,-::I "' \',. • \' \:. ~~ / ,..__ ~to.. r-·, ,,.,c •• ,.. \t . . ~1!__' ',._ ~, "" \< J "' . \ ,,..,_. / '-.... / ·~. ~~~, 1 \\ ~ ~'--~~ ~ ~ ''-o,. C•~Manm;' / ~ '?----, "-. " '>. ~• .. ..... ~ '1:) \ , .. \ ' .... ' d \ I \ , I I ~ ',' \ ~-~" '\-. ~ 3 ') . ' '®~'[]'~ Fcillbrook • ,\ --\. "-\ '~:, ·~~ ~ ,, fvel ':~ 4 '!"': "\~~:-'"'"~"'~. \ .. '-~ Y~'-.,_----::-"',;( .. ,, ~, ~' Aw•~~'; ~ ~. ~~26~"'"-. · _,/' ;: -" • ' '!'!, ~~!'.:~ ' --'•-. -' ·-' ( • .-:. 'J ···-~--, ::,.'" ~I .\, - ' '\' ~ I • \ ,, ' • -~-, \, , / .1/,~ ~0--'\: .. _ • d '\, ; ::. I \ ~O oreaos<o \ '\ "\1 \ 'lo . ~"" 1 -~,~ .......... •. . . / ;ro; .. , .... ,.,ln ~-. .--.. _ \ -<...._" va,,, ->.c, \--...: \ Center // ~ '--·.'I. ntaYaabel ~ ' \ ~\ ' '-.c ... @ ' .__ --I' '-'"I" ,, -. San Marcos \ --.., ,, .,. \ \ ~ ''? r.r \ ,\ ' ' >-. . ... ' '., I -, ' . , ' . , ' • I ' o ,. r--; • •• ' .... : '-..._ ~"''-} ,._ • \ " , ', ~ \. ; -. , •:'I' rvaton ·--~~~~ho.~ . ... : rh ' '\-.,~ \" e 5: .-.. ~-'~---·-~ ~ •• ,., ", ' ...,~ Escondido ' '-\ \ ' '\ '· I ,'), I ...._~ '~ ' "" ~ \ ~ 1t ...--~ ~~ "-, ·v'). ',( 'x .. , \ ' <6' ,. , •• I I J~,l~ ,, I I ,_/ '\. , If I/ 1 r" "" ' f;,~oo, I ,J, \. _-'\.. ' "! ---/ / • \\:\ ' " ... ' ,,\: \, ,'t * ~ • ', • ~ -._ -.-.. \1 ~ I ICAS ~liramar ~ .. ~) '\.~ ~ . ,,_ •• ' I ··\ .... '\ ~~ ~~+ ~ ,... \:, " ,,----,~<,, \' i ' ' / ,,_ I I ~,, ~\ _, -:.t._-:, ,\ I .•. ., 6~tt\. ~ \\ / J. ' \ I'll'., .. ' \I = ., ,,..,, \!_,,, /~;:'.,;;; I /\-~/;"_. 'i. t \\ \ ,, f t ~-.; r •.,.rYaton \\ \ ! j /,\: ,_ ii" / ' I I ~ ' , '1 / ~ \'. '~~~'P. /,/ \\I / l ' I "' I ' ~~ ''l> \ "' Santee -r I '\ t£ \ ~ ..i,. Pme Valley I l : -~A'lpt -:,_ -\L....J,:....:__ __ \', . ~ Fault traces on land are indicated by solid lines where well located, by dashed lines where approximately located or inferred, and by dotted lines where concealed by younger rocks or by lakes or bays. Fault traces are queried where continuation or existence is uncertain. FAULT CLASSIFICATION COLOR CODE (Indicating Recency of Movement) Historic Fault (last 200 years) Holocene fault (during past 11,700 years) I ---·-I without historic record. j I Quaternary fault (age undifferentiated) Late Quaternary fault (during past 700,000 years). ______ -···············Pre-Quaternary fault (older that 1.6 million years) or fault without recognized Quaternary displacement. Appendix "A" STANDARD GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS Appendix "A" ST AND ARD GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS These specifications present the usual and minimum requirements for projects on which C.W. La Monte Company is the geotechnical consultant. No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where specifically superseded in the preliminary geology and soils report or in other written communication signed by the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist of record. GENERAL A. The Soils Engineer and Engineering Geologist is the Owner's or Builders' representative on the Project. For the purpose of these specifications, participation by the Soils Engineer includes that observation performed by any person or persons employed by, and responsible to, the licensed Civil Engineer sigrung the soils reports. B. All clearing, site preparation, or earthwork performed on the project shall be conducted by the Contractor under the supervision of the Soils Engineer. C. It is the Contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fills to the satisfaction of the Soils Engineer and to place, spread, mix, water, and compact the fill in accordance with the specifications of the Soils Engineer. The Contractor shall also remove all material considered unsatisfactory by the Soils Engineer. D. It is also the Contractor's responsibility to have suitable and sufficient compaction equipment on the job site to handle the amount of fill being placed. If necessary, excavation equipment will be shut down to permit completion of compaction. Sufficient watering apparatus will also be provided by the Contractor, with due consideration for the fill material, rate of placement, and time of year. E. A final report shall be issued by the Soils Engineer attesting to the Contractor's conformance with these specifications. SITE PREPARATION A. All vegetation and deleterious material shall be disposed of off site. This removal shall be concluded prior to placing fill. B. Soil, alluvium, or bedrock materials determined by the Soils Engineer, as being unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall be removed from the site. The Soils Engineer must approve any material incorporated as a part of a compacted fill. C. After the ground surface to receive fill has been cleared, it shall be scarified, disced, or bladed by the Contractor until it is uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features which may prevent uniform compaction. The scarified ground surface shall then be brought to optimum moisture, mixed as required, and compacted as specified. If the scarified zone is greater than 12 inches in depth, the excess shall be removed and placed in lifts restricted to 6 inches. Prior to placing fill, the ground surface to receive fill shall be inspected, tested as necessary, and approved by the Soils Engineer. D. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipe lines, or others are to be removed or treated in a manner prescribed by the Soils Engineer and /or governing agency. E. In order to provide uniform bearing conditions in cut-fill transition lots and where cut lots are partially in soil, colluvium, or un-weathered bedrock materials, the bedrock portion of the lot extending a minimum of 3 feet outside of building lines shall be over excavated a minimum of3 feet and replaced with compacted fill. Appendix A Standard Grading and Construction Specifications Page 2 COMPACTED FILLS A Any material imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill, provided each material has been determined to be suitable by the Soils Engineer. Roots, tree branches, and other matter missed during clearing shall be removed from the fill as directed by the Soils Engineer. B. Rock fragments less than 6 inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided: 1. They are not placed in concentrated pockets. 2. There is a sufficient percentage of fine-grained material to surround the rocks. 3. The Soils Engineer shall supervise the distribution of rocks. C. Rocks greater than 6 inches in diameter shall be taken off site, or placed in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer in areas des ignated as suitable for rock disposal. D. Material that is spongy, subject to decay or otherwise considered unsuitable should not be used in the compacted fill. E. Representative samples of material to be utilized as compacted fill shall be analyzed by the laboratory of the Soils Engineer to determine their physical -properties. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, the appropriate analysis of this material shall be conducted by the Soils Engineer as soon as possible. F. Material used in the compaction process shall be evenly spread, watered processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed 6 inches in thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill shall be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane, unless otherwise approved by the Soils Engineer. G. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that required by the Soils Engineer, the Contractor should re-work the fill until the Soils Engineer approves it. H. Each layer shall be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. (In general, ASTM D-1557-91 , the five-layer method will be used.) If compaction to a lesser percentage is authorized by the controlling governmental agency because of a specific land use or expansive soils condition, the area to receive fill compacted to less than 90 percent shall either be delineated on the grading plan or appropriate reference made to the area in the soils report. H. All fills shall be keyed and benched through all topsoil, colluvium, alluvium or creep material, into sound bedrock or firm material except where the slope receiving fill exceeds a ratio of five horizontal to one vertical, in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer. l. The key for hillside fills should be a minimum of 15 feet in width and within bedrock or similar materials, unless otherwise specified in the soil report. K. Subdrainage devices shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency, or with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist. L. The contractor will be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finish slope face of fill slopes, buttresses, and stabilization fills. This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment, or by any other procedure which produces the required compaction. Appendix A Standard Grading and Construction Specifications Page 3 M. All fill slopes should be planted or protected from erosion or by other methods specified in the soils report. N. Fill-over-cut slopes shall be properly keyed through topsoil, colluvium or creep material into rock or firm materials, and the transition shall be stripped of all soil prior to placing fill. CUT SLOPES A. The Engineering Geologist shall inspect all cut slopes at vertical intervals not exceeding IO feet. B. If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are encountered during grading, these conditions shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Soils Engineer, and recommendations shall be made to treat these problems. C. Cut slopes that face in the same direction as the prevailing drainage shall be protected from slope wash by a non-erodible interceptor swale placed at the top of the slope. Unless otherwise specified in the soils and geological report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies. Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies, or with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist. GRADING CONTROL A. Observation of the fill placement shall be provided by the Soils Engineer during the progress of grading. B. In general, density tests should be made at intervals not exceeding 2 feet of fill height or every 500 cubic yards of fill placement. This criteria will vary, depending on soil conditions and the size of the job. In any event, an adequate number of field density tests shall be made to verily that the required compaction is being achieved. C. Density tests may also be conducted on the surface material to receive fills as determined by the Soils Engineer. D. All clean-outs, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains, and rock disposals must be inspected and approved by the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist prior to placing any fill. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Soils Engineer when such areas are ready for inspection. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS A. The Contractor shall provide necessary erosion control measures, during grading and prior to the completion and construction of permanent drainage controls. B. Upon completion of grading and termination of inspections by the Soils Engineer, no further filling or excavating, including that necessary for footings, foundations, large tree wells, retaining walls, or other features shall be performed without the approval of the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist. C. Care shall be taken by the Contractor during final grading to preserve any berms, drainage terraces, interceptor swales, or other devices of permanent nature on or adjacent to the property. D. In the event that temporary ramps or pads are constructed of uncontrolled fill soils during a future grading operation, the location and extent of the loose fill soils shall be noted by the on-site representative of a qualified soil engineering firm. These materials shall be removed and properly recompacted prior to completion of grading operations. E. Where not superseded by specific recommendations presented in this report, trenches, excavations, and temporary slopes at the subject site shall be constructed in accordance with section 1541 of Title 8, Construction Safety Orders, issued by OSHA. Appendix A Standard Grading and Construction Specifications Page 4 APPENDIX " B" UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART SOIL .DESC RI PTI ON I . COARSE GRAJ ED: More than half of material is larger than No. 200 sieve size. GRAVELS: More than half of coarse fraction is larger than No. 4 sieve size but smaller than 3". GROUP SYMBOL CLEAN GRAVELS GRAVELS WITH FINES (Appreciable amount of fines) GW GP GM GC TYPICAL AMES Well graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines. Poorly graded gravels, gravel sand mixtures, little or no fines Silty gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixtures Clayey gravels, poorly graded gravel ·and, clay mixtures. SANDS: More than half of coarse fraction is smaller than No. 4 ieve size CLEA SA DS SANDS WITH FINES (Appreciable amount of fin es SW SP SM SC Well graded sand. gravelly sands, little or no fines Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines Silty sands, poorly graded and and silty mixtures. Clayey sands, poorly graded sand and clay mixtures II . FINE GRAINE D: More than half of material is smaller than o. 200 sieve size SILTS A DCLAYS Liquid Limit Less than 50 SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid Limit greater than 50 HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS ML CL OL Ml-I CH OH PT Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, sandy silt -or clayey-silt with slight plasticity. Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays silty clays, lean clays Organic silts and organic silty clays oflow pla ticity Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty oils, elastic silt Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. Organic clays of medium to high plasticity. Peat and other highly organic soils. l_ City of Carlsbad CERTIFICATION OF SCHOOL FEES PAID This form must be completed by the City, the applicant, and the appropriate school districts and returned to the City prior to issuing a building permit. The City will not issue any building permit without a completed school fee form. Project# & Name: DEV2023-0139, 158 MAPLE ADU Permit#: CBR2024-0404 ------------------- Project Address: 160 MAPLE AVE ------------------- Assessor's Parcel #: 2042340600 Project Applicant: LIFE IS RAD IN CARLSBAD LLC (Owner Name) Residential Square Feet: New/Additions: Second Dwelling Unit: 999 ------------------- Commercial Square Feet: New/Additions: City Certification: City of Carlsbad Building Division Date: 09/30/2024 Certification of Applicant/Owners. The person executing this declaration ("Owner") certifies under penalty of perjury that ( 1) the information provided above is correct and true to the best of the Owner's knowledge, and that the Owner will file an amended certification of payment and pay the additional fee if Owner requests an increase in the number of dwelling units or square footage after the building permit is issued or if the initial determination of units or square footage is found to be incorrect, and that (2) the Owner is the owner/developer of the above described project(s), or that the person [Z] Carlsbad Unified School District 6225 El Camino Real Carlsbad CA 92009 Phone: (760) 331 -5000 D Encinitas Union School District 101 South Rancho Santa Fe Rd Encinitas, CA 92024 Phone: (760) 944-4300 x1166 D San Dieguito Union H.S. District 684 Requeza Dr. Encinitas, CA 92024 Phone: (760) 753-6491 Ext 5514 (By Appt. Only) D San Marcos Unified Sch. District 255 Pico Ave Ste. 100 San Marcos, CA 92069 Phone: (760) 290-2649 Contact: Katherine Marcelja (By Appt.only) D Vista Unified School District 1234 Arcadia Drive Vista CA 92083 Phone: (760) 726-2170 x2222 SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL FEE CERTIFICATION (To be completed by the school district(s)) THIS FORM I NDICATES THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROJECT HAVE BEEN OR WILL BE SATISFIED. The undersigned, being duly authorized by the applicable School District, certifies that the developer, builder, or owner has satisfied the obligation for school facilities. This is to certify that the applicant listed on page 1 has paid all amounts or completed other applicable school mitigation determined by the School District. The City may issue building permits for this project. ~. . Signature of Authorized School District Officia(Q,/\.. _ S3, e A~ QL, l,1 ,-1 ca Q!2 (_c bl A. r Title: 5 , p O IC ·, Y\:t~ cl~ Date: \ D -~ -8-Y • CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Name of School District: 6225 EL CAMINO REAL Phone: r,__ r.o C) 3 3 1-Soa:J COMMUNITY DEVELOP~~BW6Rbi~~~ivision 1635 Faraday Ave I Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 I 442-339-2719 I building@carlsbadca.gov I www.carlsbadca.gov STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION NOTES 1. ALL NECESSARY EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS SHALL BE AVAILABLE ON SITE TO FACILITATE RAPID INSTALLATION Of EROSION AN:D SEDIMENT CONlROL BMPs 'MiEN RAlt, IS EMINENT. 2. THE OWNER/CONlRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES TO WORKING ORDER TO THE SA TlSf ACTION or TH£ CllY INSPECTOR AFTER EACH RuN-OFF PRODUCING RAINFALL 3. THE OWNER/CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ADDlllONAL 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 DEv1CES SHAU. BE IN PLACE AT 11-IE ENO OF EACH WORKING DAY WHEN 11-IE FIVE (5) DAY RAIN PROBABILITY FORECAST EXCEEDS FORTY PECENT ( 40%). Sil T 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 MANAG£MENT PRACTICE klEASURES MUS BE INSTAll.ED AND MAINTAINED. 7. THE CITY INSPECTOR SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ALTER THIS PLAN DURING OR BEFORE CONSTRUCTION AS NEEDED TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE V.1TH CITY STORM WATER QlJALJTY REGULATIONS. OWNER' CERT!FlCATE: I UNDERSTAND ANO ACKNO'M.EDGE THAT I MUST: (1) IMPLEMENT BEST MANAGEMEI' T PRACTICES (BMPS) DURING CONSTRUCTI~l ACTiv111ES TO lHE UAX!MUU EXTENT PRACTICABLE TO AVOD 1\iE MOBILIZATION OF POU.UTANTS SUCH AS SEDIMENT AND TO AVOID THE EXPOSURE OF STORM WA'lER TO CONSTRUCTION RELATED POLLUTANTS: AND (2) ADHERE TO, ANO AT ALL TIMES, COMPLY WITH THIS CITY APPROVED TIER I CONSTRUCTION SV.f'PP THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONSlRUCTION ACTMTIES UNTIL THE CONSTRUCTlOO WORK IS COMPl£TE ANO APPROV£D BY THE OTY OF CARLSBAD. Austin & Rachel Petelski O'll'J~(S)/0 ER"S AGENT A~E {PRINT} hddA./J~· 10/3/2024 OWN£R{S}/OWNER'S AGENT NAME {SIGNATURE) DATE E-29 STORM WATER COMPLIANCE FORM TIER 1 CONSTRUCTION SWPPP E-29 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES {BMP) SELECTION TABLE CB SW Ero,lon Control Sediment Control DMPs Trad<ing Non-Slofm Waler Waste >.1ana,gement and Materials BMPs Control BMPs Management BMPs Pollution Conuot BMPs C i l C i g ,g "' [ g g 0 2 .Q i 'E [ :::> 'O ., ~ "' ·! ., ?::1 ;; lw ' ]. f "' Co, 0. C E ·c: 8 g Best Management Practice· -'<! .s De " :?c a, ·g-§ <.> ~ w ., :g -" -6 .. ~ s; E C u ~ u -0., ~ g ., ., ,. .!lij (BMP) Description ""' " g .,.,. a, ~:S 0 ~ ➔ ., e " 0 ~-i 5g ::, ~E ~ 3 c5 g, u C C '8 a, 0, 'i~ ]i "' " ::>. C C E a:: 0 NU, Ut: a,:Z " ~-S :g g I l LO """" _; 0 ,!: ~ .,, E Ii ~[ I..~ ii ~~ "' I :5 ·= " ~ ~ ., :, g :§8 .. 0 ·!i UC ~5 -0 D a. ] ""' 00 I~ -c 2 L 0 0 ~ e ;g ii:t 0 o-0.O oc 0 L ~ 0 Vl ct V) C in C, .... c in c;, V>> VJ """' C>.0 Cl. "'"' 2 VlU "'"' CASQA Deslgnalion ➔ ,._ "' "' ,,, ... "' "' ,._ 00 0 N ' ,., ,._ 00 ' N ., ; "' I I I t ' I I ~ I I I I 'i t I I I I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ...., .... u.J ~ u.J u.J e; ~ "' (/) "' "' ~ "' ~ ~ ::E Consuucoon Activny "' "' "' "' "' z z z z 3 3 IX Grodino/Soij Disturbance X X X X ~ X X X X n IX Trencllinn /Fxcavatlon Stockollino Orillino /Barino Concrete/ Asnhott So~cutlinQ I X Concrete Flot w0/1< Pcvina Conduit/Pipe Installation X Slucco/Mortor Wori< ... Waste Oisoosc:d Staoinq/Lov Down Area E.t"l.Uioment Mointenonce and fuelina Hozardous Substonce Use/Storooe Dewotemo S'"rte Access AaoD Dirt Other (list): lnstn.Jctlons: 1. Check the box to the left of all opplicoble construction ocllvily (first column) expected 10 occur durlng conslruc!ion. 2. Localed along the lop of the Bf.IP Tobie is o list oi BMP's with it's COO'espo,ding California Slormwaler Quality Association (CASOA) designation number o, mo,e BI.Ws you intend lo use during construction lrom the !isl Check the box where the r:hosen activity row intersects ,.ilh the 91,1p column. Choose one J. Reier lo the CASOA construction handbook for informot,on ond detoas of the chosen BMPs and how lo apply them lo the project. SHOW THE LOCATIONS OF ALL CHOSEN BMPs ABOVE ON THE PROJECTS SITE PLAN/EROSION CONTROL PLAN. SEE THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS SHEET FOR A SAMPLE EROSION CONTROL PLAN. Poge 1 of 1 PROJECI' INI-ORMATION Site Address,160 Maple Ave.Carlsbad, 92008 Assessor's Parcel Number: 2042340600 Emergency Contact Nome: Richard G. Petelski 24 Hour Phone: (760) 559-4040 Construction Threol lo Slorm Waler Quality (Che<:k Bo•) 0 MEDIUM [19 LOW .!l le ., " &E ~g' NC oo :c 2 "' I ~ ., o-~ii mE ]g 85 U::i! 00 I I REV 02/16