Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2665 WILSON ST; ; CBR2024-2295; Permit{"Cityof Carlsbad ~' (__ Cicyof Carlsbad RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION 8-1 Plan Check CBR2024-2295 Est. Value PC Deposit Date 8/28/24 Job Address2665 Wilson Street 92008 Unit:N/A APN: 156-130-17-00 ------ CT/Project #: __________________ Lot #:. ____ Year Built: _1_9_58 _______ _ BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF WORK: Proposed single story room addition 604 sq . ft. □ New SF: Living SF, ____ Deck SF, ___ Patio SF, ____ Garage SF __ _ Is this to create an Accessory Dwelling Unit? O Y e N New Fireplace? O YO N, if yes how many? ___ _ D Remodel:_6_04 ____ 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, ___ Modutes,Mounted:O Roof O Ground, Tilt:OYO N, RMA:OYON, Battery:OVG N, Panel Upgrade: Ov O N Electric Meter number: ------------ 0th er: APPLICANT (PRIMARY CONTACT) Name: Kristofer Sarkela Address:6195 Lambda Drive City:San Diego State:_C_A __ .Zip:92120 Phone: 619-905-1564 Email:kristofersarkela@gmail.com PROPERTY OWNER Name: Scott & Shelley Ashworth Address:2665 Wilson Street City: Carlsbad State: CA Zip:_9_20_0_8 __ _ Phone: 760-458-9406 Email: ss_ashworth@msn.com DESIGN PROFESSIONAL CONTRACTOR OF RECORD Name: ______________ Business Name: J/ppJ(=£1co,J I gj~f2._(Sc.~ Address: Address: 3 3 '&f: i:iR./ DUC Rpr;;-S, LJ.J City: _______ State: ___ Zip:____ City:'S4t{ YJ1f}/2Cc{,&tate: C,4 Zip: 9206 q Phone: Phone: 1 h'E> ~I S:-<i?:J21 Email: Email: B u 1tJ2E 1<..J.;¥1-1f"F'/IDr E/2.... @f;4(.41L, @?1 Architect State License: CSLB License #: 5699<-e 7 Class:._B _______ _ Carl bad Business License # (Required): _______ _ APPLICANT CERT/FICA T/ON: I certify that I have read the application and state that the above information is correct and that the information of the plans is accurate. I agree to comply with all City ordinances and State laws relating to building construction. NAME (PRINT): Kristofer Sarkela SIGN!(ristofer Sarkela DATE: 07/24/2024 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ph : 442-339-2719 Email: Building@carlsbadca.gov REV. 04122 THIS PAGE REQUIRED AT PERMIT ISSUANCE PLAN CHECK NUMBER: ______ _ A BUILDING PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED TO EITHER A STATE LICENSED CONTRACTOR OR A PROPERTY OWNER. IF THE PERSON SIGNING THIS FORM IS AN AGENT FOR EITHER ENTITY AN AUTHORIZATION FORM OR LETTER IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE. (OPTION A): LICENSED CONTRACTOR DECLARATION: lherebyaffirmunderpenaltyofperjurythatlamlicensedunderprovisionsofChapter9(commencingwithSectionl000)ofDivision3 oftheBusinessandProfessionsCode,andmylicenseisinfullforceandeffect. lalsoaffirmunderpenaltyofperjuryoneofthe following declarations (CHOOSE ONE): / v 01 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. ___________________________________________ _ ~~~:~and will maintain worker's compensation, as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the perfor~~:::;~~~ f_or which !~permit is issued .. My workers' compensation insurance carrier and policy number are: Insurance Company Name: (DRft:L po l)..F{ /IJ SV'f2..(t,J(1:::. (Koo) C/lfl2 OD54 Policy No. C. \A./ C. 0 0 Cf lf: 7 9 D ;Z.... Expiration Date: __ 7~~-'J~-~2_5""~--------• -0 R-CA R.fe-.1 ~ R ~ CL.Elf R.._ sPR.1;..J95 PJa.Pe:-£2.TY -?-<!49-J 4-Lry 0 Certificate of Exemption: I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued, (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, buildin.gs, structures and their setbacks from .Pro.perty lines and from one another; access roads/easements, and utilities. The existin.g 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. (OPTION B): OWNER-BUILDER DECLARATION: I hereby affirm that I am exempt from Contractor's License Law for the following reason: [j] 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- D I am exempt under Business and Professions Code Division 3, Chapter 9, Article 3 for this reason: AND, 0 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 7044of the Business and Professions Code, is available upon request when this application is submittedorat the following Website: http:l 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): Shelley Ashworth SIGN: ShelleyAshworth DATE: 7-24-24 Note: If the erson si nin above is an authorized a ent for the owner include form B-62 si ned b owner. 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ph: 442-339-2719 Email: Building@carlsbadca.gov 2 REV. 04/22 {cityof Carlsbad L1Fj co . From: nick narbeth nan2270@hotmail.com Subject; Ashworth Res_3-10-2025_Epoxy Report Date : Mar 10, 2025 at 5:39:37 PM To: builderdavehofer@gmail.com i~ECORD COP Sent from my iPad NSI City of Carlsbad MAR 12 2025 BUILDING DIVISION 420Gornpua ROid • OcNnriclt•CA•flOSt Offlce (711()) 271-0404• fu'(tto 4'S.2144 Inspection Services rHO. <DI~ 03/10 fi025 @ -· Authorized 0 ~COHCAETE □ STRUCC Sl&:L~ □ t!PP~l'IREPfl()OFIHB E)ACI fEI IC90 □ ~~ □ ~GYPSUM 0 CilH'R Epoxy, _ @ Spt,;ialln,pocror □ ffl!ffOflCl'I>~ □ ow FOUtCO'i0H J09ADOAESS ® r~---iNUMIIER @ 1 PLAN PU MMlll:f! ® 2665 'Nilson St, Carlsbad CBR2024-2295 ,_, ~ Ashworth Residence @ Sarkela Building Design @ ,~-(TYP'II.CIIWJI,~ ~ ®l~l)l'Ml'GII, ® ~ 9 . . ~1fflllNlml Mike Suprenant & Associates ~Mt\T'l.(MIX_De$1GN. Rl!.a.,IOIWX' •. MfflR. .ER>~ ® Homefn;,ntE'nterprlses s Simpson SET3G/1000469692/Exp-8/28/26 '""""'"'""',_ '""'"" @ Uo8.lleCEMHi1lll:IIIJl"'""'"°''"'"""'LWW'l.f:5 9 ASTM A615, A307 .. Af!IINM.9 l~OI' 1,00,ICIIONO,W01'1(~'1UT'W'l'NCIN,WQl!K~JOa......._:moa-.~,'7e. 8 . = q,l ~ 14CW)D~AIOUT'~01'MIITIRAL,v,cl!l)<JIW0M~QB\ '1Vf'l!IIDl!NT;NO'SOI' W0AK TUTWRta1JU<li'N. S'l1IIUCT. ~ (Wl!l.09 ~ H.'t 80Lffl TOA0UeDI rTn. TIM!! INSP'ec:; l!D . Arrived on site to observe Epoxy rebar doweling and anchoring. (a)-Epoxy rebar doweling (E) ftng to new ftng, Grid Unes-6/8-P, 8/5-6, 5/A-B, C/1-4 . -. . #4 turn down dowels @24-"o.c. 6"min embed into (E\ concrete footina .. Det-11/SO02. Det-8/SO02 calls for dowels to match new ftna reinforcement lE\ ftnn does not excist and can not install .. . (b)-Sill plate anchoring at (E) walls Grid Lines-C/1-4, 6/0-8, B/5-6, 5/A-B .. 5/8" threaded rod epoxied 7" into (E) ftngs, @48"o.c. 9/SO02 & SW schedule. Holes drilled, cleaned, and Installed per ESR-4057 -THIS RIPOR'f ~NOTREUIIVE Tifl OONT'AACTOfl OF .. RE8PON818a.JTYTO BUILD • • • PERntE PLANS, SPIC1'IQA110NSANO ALLAPPUCMLa CODD. . \ · :m>w~_.AOOOADANCi MPliOl'QR{IIIINTGl1'1N) Nicholas Narbeth TOl)&.DafCF~10IOWLS>Qf.WOAl{'"81'1(: 1;~ wmtfflea.~ ~ lHIAJIPIICMD·PI.MI, ~Ail) APPUCAILUecmo,~ Ot' THI U.B.C. IIUIIJlltG ooae. ~ . \Kl!$S(mllf(Wl8ENOIID, tMTIIIQNB) 3/10/20 ~~ 5220351 ICC CN-Mf -·Oonlnc:klr PINK• IIIMnsl Of1lclll . True North Compliance Services, Inc. 8369 Vickers Street, Suite 207, San Diego, CA 92111 T | 562.733.8030 Transmittal Letter November 20, 2024 City of Carlsbad FOURTH REVIEW Community Development Department - Building Division City Permit No: CBR2024-2295 1635 Faraday Ave. True North No.: 24-018-796 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Plan Review: Residential Addition Address: 2665 Wilson St, Carlsbad CA Applicant Name: Kristofer Sarkela. Applicant Email: kristofersarkela@gmail.com True North Compliance Services, Inc. has completed the review of the following documents for the project referenced above on behalf of the City of Carlsbad. Our comments can be found on the attached list. 1. Drawings: Electronic copy dated November 13, 2024, by SARKELA Building Design. 2. Soils Report: Electronic copy dated January 24, 2024, by GeoSoils, INC. Attn: Permit Technician, the scope of work on the plans has been reviewed for coordination with the scope of work on the permit application. See below for information if the scope of work on plans differs from the permit application: Valuation: See Notes Below Scope of Work: Confirmed Floor Area: Confirmed Notes: Valuation not provided in the permit application. Our comments follow on the attached list. Please call if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, True North Compliance Services Review By: Hiba Abu Omar - Plan Review Engineer Quality Review By: Alaa Atassi - Plan Review Engineer .JTrue North ~ COMPLI ANCE SERV ICES Residential Addition City of Carlsbad– FOURTH REVIEW 2665 Wilson St City Permit No.: CBR2024-2295 November 20, 2024 True North No.: 24-018-796 Page 2 Plan Review Comments ELECTRONIC - RESUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS: Please do not resubmit plans until all departments have completed their reviews. For status, please contact building@carlsbadca.gov Please make all corrections, as requested in the correction list. Corrected sets can be submitted as follows: Email the revised plans and comment response letter(s) to building@carlsbadca.gov for continued review. Note: If this project requires FIRE PREVENTION review, ensure that you follow their specific instructions for resubmittal review. The city will not route plans back to Dennis Grubb & Associates for continued Fire Prevention review. GENERAL INFORMATION: A. The following comments are referred to the 2022 California Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical Codes, California Green Building Standards Code, and Energy Code (i.e., 2021 IBC, UMC, UPC, and 2020 NEC, as amended by the State of California). B. There may be other comments generated by the Building Division and/or other City departments that will also require your attention and response. This attached list of comments, then, is only a portion of the plan review. Contact the City for other items. C. Respond in writing to each comment by marking the attached comment list or creating a response letter. Indicate which details, specification, or calculation shows the required information. Your complete and clear responses will expedite the re-check. D. Where applicable, be sure to include the architect and engineer’s stamp and signature on all sheets of the drawings and on the coversheets of specifications and calculations per CBPC 5536.1 and CBPC 6735. This item will be verified prior to plan approval. E. If you have any questions regarding the comments below, please contact Hiba Abu Omar via email hibaa@tncservices.com or telephone (562) 733-8030. OCCUPANCY & BUILDING SUMMARY: Occupancy Groups: R-3/U Occupant Load: N/A Type of Construction: V-B Sprinklers: No Stories: 1 Area of Work (sq. ft.): 604 sq. ft. NON-STRUCTURAL COMMENTS: No comments. Residential Addition City of Carlsbad– FOURTH REVIEW 2665 Wilson St City Permit No.: CBR2024-2295 November 20, 2024 True North No.: 24-018-796 Page 3 STRUCTURAL COMMENTS: - Provide the geotechnical engineer’s stamp and signature on the foundation plan and all sheets containing foundation details confirming that the foundation plan, details, and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the geotechnical report are properly incorporated into the plans. PC4: Comment remains. Please provide the geotechnical engineer’s stamp and signature on the foundation plan and all sheets containing foundation details confirming that the foundation plan, details, and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the geotechnical report are properly incorporated into the plans. If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact Hiba Abu Omar via email hibaa@tncservices.com or telephone (562) 733-8030. [END] R GeoSo I , Inc. 1st, True North Compliance Services, Inc. 8369 Vickers Street, Suite 207, San Diego, CA 92111 T | 562.733.8030 Transmittal Letter October 29, 2024 City of Carlsbad THIRD REVIEW Community Development Department - Building Division City Permit No: CBR2024-2295 1635 Faraday Ave. True North No.: 24-018-796 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Plan Review: Residential Addition Address: 2665 Wilson St, Carlsbad CA Applicant Name: Kristofer Sarkela. Applicant Email: kristofersarkela@gmail.com True North Compliance Services, Inc. has completed the review of the following documents for the project referenced above on behalf of the City of Carlsbad. Our comments can be found on the attached list. 1. Drawings: Electronic copy dated October 3, 2024, by SARKELA Building Design. 2. Structural Calculations: Electronic copy dated June 28, 2024, by Mike Surprenant. Attn: Permit Technician, the scope of work on the plans has been reviewed for coordination with the scope of work on the permit application. See below for information if the scope of work on plans differs from the permit application: Valuation: See Notes Below Scope of Work: Confirmed Floor Area: Confirmed Notes: Valuation not provided in the permit application. Our comments follow on the attached list. Please call if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, True North Compliance Services Review By: Hiba Abu Omar - Plan Review Engineer Quality Review By: Alaa Atassi - Plan Review Engineer .JTrue North ~ COMPLI ANCE SERV ICES Residential Addition City of Carlsbad– THIRD REVIEW 2665 Wilson St City Permit No.: CBR2024-2295 October 29, 2024 True North No.: 24-018-796 Page 2 Plan Review Comments ELECTRONIC - RESUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS: Please do not resubmit plans until all departments have completed their reviews. For status, please contact building@carlsbadca.gov Please make all corrections, as requested in the correction list. Corrected sets can be submitted as follows: Email the revised plans and comment response letter(s) to building@carlsbadca.gov for continued review. Note: If this project requires FIRE PREVENTION review, ensure that you follow their specific instructions for resubmittal review. The city will not route plans back to Dennis Grubb & Associates for continued Fire Prevention review. GENERAL INFORMATION: A. The following comments are referred to the 2022 California Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical Codes, California Green Building Standards Code, and Energy Code (i.e., 2021 IBC, UMC, UPC, and 2020 NEC, as amended by the State of California). B. There may be other comments generated by the Building Division and/or other City departments that will also require your attention and response. This attached list of comments, then, is only a portion of the plan review. Contact the City for other items. C. Respond in writing to each comment by marking the attached comment list or creating a response letter. Indicate which details, specification, or calculation shows the required information. Your complete and clear responses will expedite the re-check. D. Where applicable, be sure to include the architect and engineer’s stamp and signature on all sheets of the drawings and on the coversheets of specifications and calculations per CBPC 5536.1 and CBPC 6735. This item will be verified prior to plan approval. E. If you have any questions regarding the comments below, please contact Hiba Abu Omar via email hibaa@tncservices.com or telephone (562) 733-8030. OCCUPANCY & BUILDING SUMMARY: Occupancy Groups: R-3/U Occupant Load: N/A Type of Construction: V-B Sprinklers: No Stories: 1 Area of Work (sq. ft.): 604 sq. ft. NON STRUCTURAL COMMENTS: No comments. Residential Addition City of Carlsbad– THIRD REVIEW 2665 Wilson St City Permit No.: CBR2024-2295 October 29, 2024 True North No.: 24-018-796 Page 3 STRUCTURAL COMMENTS: PC3: The comments below remain. The response specifies that a soils report be provided, however no soils report was provided or attached to the new resubmittal. Please revise to include the soils report as specified in the response. - Provide the geotechnical engineer’s stamp and signature on the foundation plan and all sheets containing foundation details confirming that the foundation plan, details, and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the geotechnical report are properly incorporated into the plans. S1. Per city form B64, a soils report is required for all additions. To comply with the exception for not providing a geotechnical report, the following shall be addressed on plans: a) Depth of foundation below natural grade shall not be less than 24 inches for foundation. PC2: The above comment was not addressed and remains; please revise details 10, 11, and 12 on sheet SD02 to show compliance. c) Foundation construction shall be reinforced with at least four #5 reinforcing bars. Two bars shall be placed within four (4) inches of the bottom of a cleaned foundation footing and two bars shall be within four (4) inches of the top of the foundation. PC2: Please revise the foundation reinforcement to comply with the comment above. Foundation construction shall be reinforced with at least four #5 reinforcing bars. Two bars shall be placed within four (4) inches of the bottom of a cleaned foundation footing and two bars shall be within four (4) inches of the top of the foundation. d) Slab construction shall be a minimum five (5) inches thick, reinforced with #4 bars at eighteen (18) inches on center each way, over two (2) inches of sand over a minimum ten (10) ml. poly- ethylene vapor barrier and two (2) inches of sand over the barrier. PC2: Please revise the foundation reinforcement to comply with the comment above. Slab construction shall be reinforced at 18” O.C each way. f) Design shall be based on CBC Table 1806.2 Material Class 5 and using a maximum 1,500 psf bearing capacity and 100 psf passive resistance. When exposed to sulfates, structural concrete - (I) _J 0 (I) (l w IL -' >&.-000 . Q) 0.... ill oc Q) _j 0 Q) u~ .6 RS ;c 6TM. I .C. f> MID. _jJ CT> ~ w -I. .':ii (b L 0 (b .':ii w Jl Residential Addition City of Carlsbad– THIRD REVIEW 2665 Wilson St City Permit No.: CBR2024-2295 October 29, 2024 True North No.: 24-018-796 Page 4 should be based on a soluble sulfate exposure severity classification of “Severe” in accordance with ACI-318, Table 4.3.1, and consist of 4500 psi, water/cement ratio of 0.45, and Type V cement for all concrete in contact with soil. PC2: As no soils report was provided, please revise the allowable bearing pressure to be 1500 psf and the passive soil pressure to be 100 pcf. If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact Hiba Abu Omar via email hibaa@tncservices.com or telephone (562) 733-8030. [END] 5El5MIC SOIL PROFILE TYPE ALLOJJABLE BEARING PRESSURE ACTIVE SOIL PRESSURE (CANT) ACTIVE SOIL PRESSURE (RE5TR) PA551VE SOIL FRE55URE MAXIMUM PA551VE PRESSURE ~~ ~---PCF True North Compliance Services, Inc. 8369 Vickers Street, Suite 207, San Diego, CA 92111 T | 562.733.8030 Transmittal Letter October 13, 2024 City of Carlsbad SECOND REVIEW Community Development Department - Building Division City Permit No: CBR2024-2295 1635 Faraday Ave. True North No.: 24-018-796 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Plan Review: Residential Addition Address: 2665 Wilson St, Carlsbad CA Applicant Name: Kristofer Sarkela. Applicant Email: kristofersarkela@gmail.com True North Compliance Services, Inc. has completed the review of the following documents for the project referenced above on behalf of the City of Carlsbad. Our comments can be found on the attached list. 1. Drawings: Electronic copy dated October 3, 2024, by SARKELA Building Design. 2. Structural Calculations: Electronic copy dated June 28, 2024, by Mike Surprenant. Attn: Permit Technician, the scope of work on the plans has been reviewed for coordination with the scope of work on the permit application. See below for information if the scope of work on plans differs from the permit application: Valuation: See Notes Below Scope of Work: Confirmed Floor Area: Confirmed Notes: Valuation not provided in the permit application. Our comments follow on the attached list. Please call if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, True North Compliance Services Review By: Hiba Abu Omar - Plan Review Engineer Quality Review By: Alaa Atassi - Plan Review Engineer True orth '/. COMPLIANCE SERVICES Residential Addition City of Carlsbad– SECOND REVIEW 2665 Wilson St City Permit No.: CBR2024-2295 October 13, 2024 True North No.: 24-018-796 Page 2 Plan Review Comments ELECTRONIC - RESUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS: Please do not resubmit plans until all departments have completed their reviews. For status, please contact building@carlsbadca.gov Please make all corrections, as requested in the correction list. Corrected sets can be submitted as follows: Email the revised plans and comment response letter(s) to building@carlsbadca.gov for continued review. Note: If this project requires FIRE PREVENTION review, ensure that you follow their specific instructions for resubmittal review. The city will not route plans back to Dennis Grubb & Associates for continued Fire Prevention review. GENERAL INFORMATION: A. The following comments are referred to the 2022 California Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical Codes, California Green Building Standards Code, and Energy Code (i.e., 2021 IBC, UMC, UPC, and 2020 NEC, as amended by the State of California). B. There may be other comments generated by the Building Division and/or other City departments that will also require your attention and response. This attached list of comments, then, is only a portion of the plan review. Contact the City for other items. C. Respond in writing to each comment by marking the attached comment list or creating a response letter. Indicate which details, specification, or calculation shows the required information. Your complete and clear responses will expedite the re-check. D. Where applicable, be sure to include the architect and engineer’s stamp and signature on all sheets of the drawings and on the coversheets of specifications and calculations per CBPC 5536.1 and CBPC 6735. This item will be verified prior to plan approval. E. If you have any questions regarding the comments below, please contact Hiba Abu Omar via email hibaa@tncservices.com or telephone (562) 733-8030. OCCUPANCY & BUILDING SUMMARY: Occupancy Groups: R-3/U Occupant Load: N/A Type of Construction: V-B Sprinklers: No Stories: 1 Area of Work (sq. ft.): 604 sq. ft. ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS: No comments. Residential Addition City of Carlsbad– SECOND REVIEW 2665 Wilson St City Permit No.: CBR2024-2295 October 13, 2024 True North No.: 24-018-796 Page 3 MECHANICAL COMMENTS: No comments. ELECTRICAL COMMENTS: No comments. PLUMBING COMMENTS: PC2: Comments below are not addressed and remain outstanding. Please revise to show on the plans. P2. Sheet A-8: a) At showers, address the following: i) Specify the shower door to be 22” minimum per CPC 408.5. ii) Shower door shall open so as to maintain a 22” minimum unobstructed opening for egress per CPC 408.5. iii) Specify the shower stall to be 1024 square inches minimum and capable of encompassing a 30" diameter circle. CPC 408.6 iv) Showers are required to have a minimum 2” curb per CPC 408.5. Revise the plans to show compliance. b) Provide the following dimensions on the plan for the water closets per CPC 402.5: i) Side clearances – 15” from the centerline of the water closet to the walls ii) Front clearance - 24" in front of the water closet. c) Note on plan the following water-conserving plumbing fixtures: i) Water closet to be 1.28 gallons per flush maximum or dual flush per CPC 411.2. ii) Kitchen faucet to be 1.8 gallons per minute, maximum, per CPC 407.2.1.1. iii) Lavatory faucet to be 1.2 gallons per minute, maximum, per CPC 407.2.1.2. iv) Showerheads to be 1.8 gallons per minute, maximum, per CPC 408.2. GREEN BUILDING COMMENTS: G1. Climate Action Plan requirements apply to all new structures, residential additions/remodels equal to or exceeding $60,000 in valuation, and commercial City of Carlsbad requires that all projects that qualify for CAP compliance will require a completed Climate Action Plan (CAP) Consistency Checklists (city forms B-50) to be completed by the APPLICANT. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6878/638225157825900000 a) For plans submitted to the City the following Climate Action Plan requirements apply, per Carlsbad ordinance: b) The applicant is to fill out the B-50 CAP Consistency Checklist. The scope of work and project valuation will determine which sections of the CAP are required. Residential Addition City of Carlsbad– SECOND REVIEW 2665 Wilson St City Permit No.: CBR2024-2295 October 13, 2024 True North No.: 24-018-796 Page 4 c) Plan examiners review the B-50 CAP Consistency Checklist for completion. For example: If new residential construction is the scope of work, CAP sections 2A, 3A, and 4A are required to be filled on the B-50 checklist. PC2: Clarify the valuation of this project. G2. Please complete the CALGreen mandatory measures by identifying the items applicable to this project. PC2 Comment above was not addressed and remains. ENERGY COMPLIANCE COMMENTS: T1. Sheet A-8: a) Revise plan to show interior lighting fixtures that are not controlled by occupancy or vacancy sensors to be equipped with dimming controls. CEnergyC 150.0 (K)(2)(F) PC2: Revise the electrical plan provide interior lighting fixtures in the bedrooms to be controlled by with dimming controls. STRUCTURAL COMMENTS: S1. Per city form B64, a soils report is required for all additions. To comply with the exception for not providing a geotechnical report, the following shall be addressed on plans: a) Depth of foundation below natural grade shall not be less than 24 inches for foundation. PC2: The above comment was not addressed and remains; please revise details 10, 11, and 12 on sheet SD02 to show compliance. c) Foundation construction shall be reinforced with at least four #5 reinforcing bars. Two bars shall be placed within four (4) inches of the bottom of a cleaned foundation footing and two bars shall be within four (4) inches of the top of the foundation. PC2: Please revise the foundation reinforcement to comply with the comment above. Foundation construction shall be reinforced with at least four #5 reinforcing bars. Two bars shall be placed within four (4) inches of the bottom of a cleaned foundation footing and two bars shall be within four (4) inches of the top of the foundation. I I I I ' ' Dimmer -' ..... oOO . 1-o){L w oc d) o) _J _j 6 0 d) o) (l w 0~ IL ...1J Cl> ~ w -I • .'ll (l., L 0 (l., .'ll w _o Residential Addition City of Carlsbad– SECOND REVIEW 2665 Wilson St City Permit No.: CBR2024-2295 October 13, 2024 True North No.: 24-018-796 Page 5 d) Slab construction shall be a minimum five (5) inches thick, reinforced with #4 bars at eighteen (18) inches on center each way, over two (2) inches of sand over a minimum ten (10) ml. poly- ethylene vapor barrier and two (2) inches of sand over the barrier. PC2: Please revise the foundation reinforcement to comply with the comment above. Slab construction shall be reinforced at 18” O.C each way. f) Design shall be based on CBC Table 1806.2 Material Class 5 and using a maximum 1,500 psf bearing capacity and 100 psf passive resistance. When exposed to sulfates, structural concrete should be based on a soluble sulfate exposure severity classification of “Severe” in accordance with ACI-318, Table 4.3.1, and consist of 4500 psi, water/cement ratio of 0.45, and Type V cement for all concrete in contact with soil. PC2: As no soils report was provided, please revise the allowable bearing pressure to be 1500 psf and the passive soil pressure to be 100 pcf. S2. Please revise the foundation plan to show new footings coordinating with the structural calculations. PC2: The calculations proposed a new pad footings schedule while all the new proposed footings on the foundation plan are continuous. Please revise to show on the plans if new pad footings are proposed and coordinate with the structural calculations. If no pad footings are proposed, please remove the pad footings schedule from the structural calculations. Structural Calculations: S4. Page 31 of 38 shows concrete beam, please revise the structure plans to show it. - 5El5MIC SOIL PROFILE TYPE ALLOWABLE BEAR! C:s PRE55URE ACTIVE SOIL PRE55URE (CANTJ ACTIVE SOIL PRE55URE (RE5TR) PA551VE SOIL PRE55URE MAXIMUM PA551VE PRE55URE SYMBOL SIZE AND REINFORCEMENT trc•l,5el0 pal • ~•HIMIJ <€l> 24' SQUARE X Z,~ ' DEEP WI (2) • 4 EAC!l WAY <E3> 30' SQUARE X 7..4 ' DEEP WI (3) • 4 EACH WAY <6> 3'' SQUARE Xt'I-' DEEP WI(◄) • 4 EAC!l WAY <E3> 42' SQUARE XVI-' DEEP WI (s) • 4 EAC!l WAY <E)> 48' SQUARE X i4 ' DEEP WI (,) • 4 EAC!l WAY Residential Addition City of Carlsbad– SECOND REVIEW 2665 Wilson St City Permit No.: CBR2024-2295 October 13, 2024 True North No.: 24-018-796 Page 6 PC2: Comment above was not addressed and remains. Please revise the structural plans to show If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact Hiba Abu Omar via email hibaa@tncservices.com or telephone (562) 733-8030. [END] Concrete ~rHJ'lnv----...-----..,,,.....,.,,,.......,,-._,,.......,,........,,.-v-.......,.-.....----...-----..,,......,_ -uo,: KW--060164 DESCRIPTI .24.06.04------,m-roSR'E';rorn~rn<::iiTEs Thick Flush Concrete B CODE REFER·~.r-c-.,.._.,.._.,,..__.,,..__..,,..._..,,..._....,,......,,.._.._.._..-...,/'.._.._....._,, True North Compliance Services, Inc. 8369 Vickers Street, Suite 207, San Diego, CA 92111 T | 562.733.8030 Transmittal Letter September 17, 2024 City of Carlsbad FIRST REVIEW Community Development Department - Building Division City Permit No: CBR2024-2295 1635 Faraday Ave. True North No.: 24-018-796 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Plan Review: Residential Addition Address: 2665 Wilson St, Carlsbad CA Applicant Name: Kristofer Sarkela. Applicant Email: kristofersarkela@gmail.com True North Compliance Services, Inc. has completed the review of the following documents for the project referenced above on behalf of the City of Carlsbad. Our comments can be found on the attached list. 1. Drawings: Electronic copy dated July 23, 2024, by SARKELA Building Design. 2. Structural Calculations: Electronic copy dated June 28, 2024, by Mike Surprenant. Attn: Permit Technician, the scope of work on the plans has been reviewed for coordination with the scope of work on the permit application. See below for information if the scope of work on plans differs from the permit application: Valuation: See Notes Below Scope of Work: Confirmed Floor Area: Confirmed Notes: Valuation not provided in the permit application. Our comments follow on the attached list. Please call if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, True North Compliance Services Review By: Hiba Abu Omar - Plan Review Engineer Quality Review By: Alaa Atassi - Plan Review Engineer .JTrue North ~ COMPLI ANCE SERV ICES Residential Addition City of Carlsbad– FIRST REVIEW 2665 Wilson St City Permit No.: CBR2024-2295 September 17, 2024 True North No.: 24-018-796 Page 2 Plan Review Comments HARD COPY - RESUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS: Please do not resubmit plans until all departments have completed their reviews. For status, please contact building@carlsbadca.gov Please make all corrections, as requested in the correction list. Submit FOUR new complete sets of plans for commercial/industrial projects (THREE sets of plans for residential projects). Corrected sets can be submitted as follows: Deliver THREE corrected sets of plans and TWO corrected calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Division, 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008, (442) 339-2719. The city will route the plans to True North, Planning and Land Development Engineering Departments (if applicable) for continued review. Note: If this project requires FIRE PREVENTION review, ensure that you follow their specific instructions for resubmittal review. The city will not route plans back to Dennis Grubb & Associates for continued Fire Prevention review. ELECTRONIC - RESUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS: Please do not resubmit plans until all departments have completed their reviews. For status, please contact building@carlsbadca.gov Please make all corrections, as requested in the correction list. Corrected sets can be submitted as follows: Email the revised plans and comment response letter(s) to building@carlsbadca.gov for continued review. Note: If this project requires FIRE PREVENTION review, ensure that you follow their specific instructions for resubmittal review. The city will not route plans back to Dennis Grubb & Associates for continued Fire Prevention review. GENERAL INFORMATION: A. The following comments are referred to the 2022 California Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical Codes, California Green Building Standards Code, and Energy Code (i.e., 2021 IBC, UMC, UPC, and 2020 NEC, as amended by the State of California). B. There may be other comments generated by the Building Division and/or other City departments that will also require your attention and response. This attached list of comments, then, is only a portion of the plan review. Contact the City for other items. C. Respond in writing to each comment by marking the attached comment list or creating a response letter. Indicate which details, specification, or calculation shows the required information. Your complete and clear responses will expedite the re-check. D. Where applicable, be sure to include the architect and engineer’s stamp and signature on all sheets of the drawings and on the coversheets of specifications and calculations per CBPC 5536.1 and CBPC 6735. This item will be verified prior to plan approval. Residential Addition City of Carlsbad– FIRST REVIEW 2665 Wilson St City Permit No.: CBR2024-2295 September 17, 2024 True North No.: 24-018-796 Page 3 E. If you have any questions regarding the comments below, please contact Hiba Abu Omar via email hibaa@tncservices.com or telephone (562) 733-8030. OCCUPANCY & BUILDING SUMMARY: Occupancy Groups: R-3/U Occupant Load: N/A Type of Construction: V-B Sprinklers: No Stories: 1 Area of Work (sq. ft.): 604 sq. ft. ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS: A1. Sheet A-1: On the site plan, Dimension the distance between the roof eave projections to the property lines. Specify eaves within 5 feet of the property line to be provided with one-hour fire resistive construction on the underside. Provide details to show compliance. CRC Table R302.1(1). A2. Sheet A-4: a) Specify the walls separating the new addition and the garage to be provided with ½” minimum gypsum board applied on interior side. CRC R302.6 b) Note on the plan: i) The bathtub and shower floors and walls above bathtubs with installed shower heads and in shower compartments shall be finished with a nonabsorbent surface. Such wall surfaces shall extend to a height of not less than 6 feet above the floor. CRC R307.2 ii) Gypsum board shall not be used where there will be direct exposure to water, or in areas subject to continuous high humidity. CRC R702.3.7.1 c) Provide a 3 ft minimum landing at the exterior side of exterior doors per CRC R311.3. Landing shall comply with the following: i) Landing elevation shall not be more than 7.75” lower than the top of the threshold where door does not swing over the landing. ii) The slope of the landing shall not exceed 2%. l ><llflNG PEIN?«P Gt:,eeoe !><l&T~ J.'•O'><J.'.e,• &.M. V,0-L "'"X). Residential Addition City of Carlsbad– FIRST REVIEW 2665 Wilson St City Permit No.: CBR2024-2295 September 17, 2024 True North No.: 24-018-796 Page 4 d) Revise the plan to show the location of the attic access. Attic access shall not be less than 22 inches by 30 inches and shall be located in a hallway or other readily accessible location. CRC R807.1. A3. Sheet A-7: Indicate on the plans, the type, location, and size of the building address which must be clearly visible and legible from the adjacent public way or street. Address letters/numbers shall be minimum 4 inches high, with a minimum stroke width of 1/2 inch, and shall contrast with their background. CRC R319.1 A4. Sheet A-12: Submit details for the exterior wall finishes. Details shall include the following: a) Flashing showing transition from the different exterior siding per CRC R703.1. b) Water resistive barrier per CRC R703.2. A5. Sheets A-6, A-7, A-12 and S004: For roof slopes from 2:12 to 4:12, double underlayment application is required. CRC R905.2.2. A6. Sheet A-12: On the plan, show attic ventilation per CRC R806.1. a) Show the number of vents and calculation to justify the quantity is adequate to provide 1 square feet of ventilation per 150 square feet of vented space. CRC R806.2. b) Ensure cross-ventilation is provided where the addition and existing roof occurs. MECHANICAL COMMENTS: M1. Sheet A-8: Show the location of the bathroom exhaust duct termination. Air ducts shall exhaust 3’-0” from property line and 3’-0” from openings into the building. CMC 504.5. ELECTRICAL COMMENTS: E1. Sheet A-8: Note on the plan: a) All 120-volt, single phase, 15- and 20- ampere branch circuits supplying outlets installed in dwelling unit kitchen, family rooms, dining rooms, living rooms, parlors, libraries, dens, bedrooms, Residential Addition City of Carlsbad– FIRST REVIEW 2665 Wilson St City Permit No.: CBR2024-2295 September 17, 2024 True North No.: 24-018-796 Page 5 sunrooms, recreation rooms, closets, hallways, or similar rooms or areas shall be protected by a listed arc-fault circuit interrupter, combination-type, installed to provide protection of the branch circuit. CEC 210.12 b) All 125-volt, 15- and 20- ampere receptacle outlets shall be listed tamper-resistant receptacles per CEC 406.12. PLUMBING COMMENTS: P1. Overflow roof drains shall terminate in an area where they will be readily visible and will not cause damage to the building. If the roof drain terminates through a wall, the overflow drain shall terminate 12" minimum above the roof drain. City Policy 84-35 P2. Sheet A-8: a) At showers, address the following: i) Specify the shower door to be 22” minimum per CPC 408.5. ii) Shower door shall open so as to maintain a 22” minimum unobstructed opening for egress per CPC 408.5. iii) Specify the shower stall to be 1024 square inches minimum and capable of encompassing a 30" diameter circle. CPC 408.6 iv) Showers are required to have a minimum 2” curb per CPC 408.5. Revise the plans to show compliance. b) Provide the following dimensions on the plan for the water closets per CPC 402.5: i) Side clearances – 15” from the centerline of the water closet to the walls ii) Front clearance - 24" in front of the water closet. c) Note on plan the following water-conserving plumbing fixtures: i) Water closet to be 1.28 gallons per flush maximum or dual flush per CPC 411.2. ii) Kitchen faucet to be 1.8 gallons per minute, maximum, per CPC 407.2.1.1. iii) Lavatory faucet to be 1.2 gallons per minute, maximum, per CPC 407.2.1.2. iv) Showerheads to be 1.8 gallons per minute, maximum, per CPC 408.2. GREEN BUILDING COMMENTS: G1. Climate Action Plan requirements apply to all new structures, residential additions/remodels equal to or exceeding $60,000 in valuation, and commercial City of Carlsbad requires that all projects that qualify for CAP compliance will require a completed Climate Action Plan (CAP) Consistency Checklists (city forms B-50) to be completed by the APPLICANT. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6878/638225157825900000 a) For plans submitted to the City the following Climate Action Plan requirements apply, per Carlsbad ordinance: b) The applicant is to fill out the B-50 CAP Consistency Checklist. The scope of work and project valuation will determine which sections of the CAP are required. Residential Addition City of Carlsbad– FIRST REVIEW 2665 Wilson St City Permit No.: CBR2024-2295 September 17, 2024 True North No.: 24-018-796 Page 6 c) Plan examiners review the B-50 CAP Consistency Checklist for completion. For example: If new residential construction is the scope of work, CAP sections 2A, 3A, and 4A are required to be filled on the B-50 checklist. G2. Please complete the CALGreen mandatory measures by identifying the items applicable to this project. ENERGY COMPLIANCE COMMENTS: T1. Sheet A-8: a) Revise plan to show interior lighting fixtures that are not controlled by occupancy or vacancy sensors to be equipped with dimming controls. CEnergyC 150.0 (K)(2)(F) b) Revise plan to show at least one luminaire in the bathroom to be controlled by a vacancy sensor. CEnergyC 150.0(k)2(E) c) On the cover sheet, list all HERS inspection features and special features required. Please coordinate with the Energy Report. STRUCTURAL COMMENTS: S1. Per city form B64, a soils report is required for all additions. To comply with the exception for not providing a geotechnical report, the following shall be addressed on plans: a) Depth of foundation below natural grade shall not be less than 24 inches for foundation. b) Exterior walls and interior bearing walls shall be supported on continuous foundations. (Interior bearing walls on raised floor systems require a continuous footing. c) Foundation construction shall be reinforced with at least four #5 reinforcing bars. Two bars shall be placed within four (4) inches of the bottom of a cleaned foundation footing and two bars shall be within four (4) inches of the top of the foundation. d) Slab construction shall be a minimum five (5) inches thick, reinforced with #4 bars at eighteen (18) inches on center each way, over two (2) inches of sand over a minimum ten (10) ml. poly- ethylene vapor barrier and two (2) inches of sand over the barrier. e) Isolated footings shall be tied with a grade beam. I I .I I Dimmer V.S IUQUIMO Sf'(CW, FtANRlS Thi-followlnt: ~"' fHturt, th~ "'VJt bt lnt.ultd! H o,nd, lion tor fflfttlnt 1111! modtled ffllf1Y ot(forrnfn(t fOt thlt COMt)i.llet' ~ 1 NIW duc1work ldc!td rs, Im, thtn 2S Ii. lft HERS F[ATUIU SUMMAQ Thi! tal!owlnt Ii I IR.ltl'll'Nry cf the fHtUrH th.It n,u,t btt field vtr.tiNI by a tl'n.W HEM !tit., H .II mndit CHI for mtttlfll the mock-led cnotv w!rorrn1na-b thl1 computer •n~ Add tlonll degd h pnwld@d In tt'-t buildinil 'UlblH IMIOW A.tgiS:ered Cf2R1 ftldCF-l!U •re ,-q1,1im1 tolNCO!nPkled in the H(M«fsi1trv Residential Addition City of Carlsbad– FIRST REVIEW 2665 Wilson St City Permit No.: CBR2024-2295 September 17, 2024 True North No.: 24-018-796 Page 7 f) Design shall be based on CBC Table 1806.2 Material Class 5 and using a maximum 1,500 psf bearing capacity and 100 psf passive resistance. When exposed to sulfates, structural concrete should be based on a soluble sulfate exposure severity classification of “Severe” in accordance with ACI-318, Table 4.3.1, and consist of 4500 psi, water/cement ratio of 0.45, and Type V cement for all concrete in contact with soil. g) Doweling of the new foundation and slabs into existing foundation and slabs to resist the movements of expansive soil is required. Dowels shall be a minimum of six (6) inches into the existing concrete and a minimum of 24 inches into the new concrete with number three (3) bars at 18 inches on center, each way. S2. Please revise the foundation plan to show new footings coordinating with the structural calculations. S3. Sheet SD02: a) Detail 11, The Simpson Set XP is no longer available or used. Please provide alternative and update the set type. Structural Calculations: S4. Page 31 of 38 shows concrete beam, please revise the structure plans to show it. If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact Hiba Abu Omar via email hibaa@tncservices.com or telephone (562) 733-8030. [END] Concrete r-.Hffl~._,.......,,.......,......_.,.....,_,,...._,~~......,...._,......._,......_,..-.._,...,_,......_ -uc,: KW.()6016' 04------=:K:TF"><l==......-,...,..,...v<rr1......- DESCRIPTI 1ck Flush Concrete Bea CODE REFER True North-RESPONSE LIST 10-23-24 City permit No.:CBR2024-2295 True North No.: 24-018-796 P2. Sheet A-8- A) No shower shall is proposed. Tub/shower combo shown on plans B) Toilet dimensions shown on plans. 15” side clearance from center line & 24” front clearance C) Sheet A-4- water-conserving plumbing fixtures G1. Attached CAP-50 form- The valuation of this project is $150,000 G2. Sheet A-13-A-14-CALGreen mandatory measures items checked T1. Sheet A-8- Dimmer switch shown in bedrooms S1,S2 & S-4-See Mike Surprenant & Associates structural response pg.2 & pg.3 ~------~------------- 1 : Sarkela I BUILDING DESIGN I I -,------,------, , , , , , , ----· , , P.O . Box 15024 San Diego, CA 92175 .. 619 .905 .1564 kristofersarkela@gmai I. com STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS 6WUXFWXUDO&RUUHFWLRQV  3URMHFW $VKZRUWK$GGLWLRQ :LOVRQ6WUHHW &DUOVEDG&$ 3UHSDUHGIRU 6FRWW 6KHOOH\$VKZRUWK :LOVRQ6WUHHW &DUOVEDG&$ 3URMHFW1R  Date: October , 2024 Mike Surprenant & Associates Consulting Structural Engineers Job t\~t] WO V-T\:\ 2--3 lb4 Sheet No. ______ I ____ of __ _;_! __ _ Calculated by ____ T~Gt=+---Date ID, Zl . * Checked by _____ M.,____A-'----Date ____ _ Scale _________________ _ Correction Response □ Correction #S1: The EOR understands that a soils report was provided by GeoSoils, Inc dated January 24, 2024 for the project as already noted under the "Reinforced Concrete Foundations" notes on sheet S001 and the "Structural Design Basis" notes on sheet S002. Therefore, all proposed foundation work to comply with the recommendations set out in the soils report. EOR to confirm with client to attach the soils report at resubmittal. A) Per note 1 on page 12 of the provided soils report, the depth of foundation should be "founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade", which is denoted on details 10, 11, and 12 on sheet SD02. C) Per note 3 on page 12 of the provided soils report, foundation construction should be "provided with a minimum of two No. 4 reinforcing bars at the top, and two No. 4 reinforcing bars at the bottom ... ". Detail 10 denotes the reinforcement placed within three (3) inches of the bottom of the footing and top of the foundation. D) Per note 5 on page 12 of the provided soils report, new slabs should be "reinforced with a minimum of No. 3 reinforcement bars placed at 18 inches on center ... " Detail 10 on sheet SD02 denotes No. 5 bars placed at 16" O.C. F) Per page 11 of the provided soils report, the allowable bearing pressure and passive soil pressure are denoted at values of 2,000 psf and 1 SO pcf, respectively. D Correction #S2: Noted. The EOR has reviewed the current foundation plans on sheet S003 and the foundation details on sheet SD02 and verified that the plans comply with the structural calculations and soils report recommendations already provided. Per email correspondence with Plan Reviewer, comment resolved. □ Correction #S4: As noted in the title of the concrete beam calculation, the beam is "flush" within the structural slab. Because the structural slab and the beam are both 12" deep it appears as one monolithic section, and instead the structural slab has additional reinforcement at the location of the beam. Please see detail 13/SD02 already noted on the plans. Per email correspondence with Plan Reviewer, comment resolved. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS Project: Ashworth Addition 2665 Wilson Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 Prepared for: Scott & Shelley Ashworth 2665 Wilson Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 Project No.: 23154 Date: June 28, 2024 THESE PLANS/DOCUMENTS HAVE BEENREVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THEAPPLICABLE CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDSCODES AS ADOPTED BY THE STATE OFCALIFORNIA AND AMENDED BY THEJURISDICTION. PLAN REVIEW ACCEPTANCE OFDOCUMENTS DOES NOT AUTHORIZECONSTRUCTION TO PROCEED IN VIOLATION OFANY FEDERAL, STATE, NOR LOCAL REGULATION.BY: _________________ DATE: ________________ True North Compliance Services, Inc. THIS SET OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONSMUST BE KEPT ON THE JOB SITE AT ALL TIMESAND IT IS UNLAWFUL TO MAKE ANY CHANGESOR ALTERATIONS WITHOUT PERMISSION FROMTHE CITY. OCCUPANCY OF STRUCTURE(S) ISNOT PERMITTED UNTIL FINAL APPROVAL ISGRANTED BY ALL APPLICABLE DEPARTMENTS. Hiba Abu Omar 12/13/24 As;\-\ \I\/ O \2-Tl-\ 2-3 l 54 JOB_'--'--'--------------------'-- MIKE SURPRENANT & ASSOCIATES '--...--¥""""'-,-Consulting Structural Engineers SHEETNO. _____ I ----OF 3--:r-- CALCULATEDBY ___ :r~~+-----DATE ~ k? 'i1=, 24 CHECKED 8Y ____ J~1~---DATE ______ _ SCALE _________________ _ • / {. I ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1. PROJECT SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. .. . .. . .. . . 2 2. DESIGN CRITERIA SUMMARY ..................... : .................................................. -~-- 3. DESIGN LOADS . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. :f: 4. VERTICAL ANAL YSlS: A. HORIZONTAL MEMBER DESIGN (BEAMS, HEADERS, JOISTS, ETC.) ......... _£ __ B. VERTICAL MEMBER DESIGN (COLUMNS, STUDS, ETC.) ......................... __ _ 5. LATERAL ANALYSIS: A. SEISMIC/ WIND COEFFICIENTS......................................................... I ( B. W1 , (DEAD LOADS)........................................................................... 1':f C. LATERAL LOAD DISTRIBUTION......................................................... __ _ D. LATERAL LOAD-RESISTING DESIGN: I. SHEARWALL DESIGN.............................................................. 1,,o II. CANTILEVERED STEEL COLUMN ELEMENTS ............................ . III. STEEL MOMENT FRAMES ......................................................... __ _ 6. FOUNDATION DESIGN: A. CONTINUOUS FOOTINGS................................................................... 2'3 B. SPREAD FOOTINGS........................................................................... Z,-5' C. RETAINING WALLS .......................................................................... __ _ D. SPECIAL SYSTEMS .............................................. : ............................ __ _ I. GRADE BEAMS....................................................................... 2,.v II. DEEPENED PIERS .................................................................... __ _ 7. SCHEDULES ......................... , ....................................................................... _M._ A. SHEARWALL SCHEDULE ................................................................... __2L B. HOLD DOWN SCHEDULE................................................................... :>Co C. SPREAD FOOTING SCHEDULE . . . . .. .. .. . . . .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . . . . .. . .. .. .. . .. ~7: D PRODUCT 207 Mike Surprenant Job Z.315"4 & Associates Sheet No. z of -;--:y Consulting Structural Engineers Calculated by Date Checked by Date Scale PROJECT SCOPE □ Provide vertical & lateral load calculations for a proposed one-story ADU between an existing single-family residence and an existing detached garage located at 2665 Wilson Street, Carlsbad, California 92008. Residence to be constructed utilizing primarily wood-frame construction. Roof framing to consist of conventional stick- frame, and the foundation system to consist of a concrete structural slab with perimeter footings deepened into competent soils. A soils report was provided for this project. Therefore, the foundation design will be based on the minimum soil bearing capacity as specified in the soils report. Mike Surprenant & Associates makes no representations concerning the suitability of the soils and/ or minimum soil values allowed by the CBC. These calculations have been prepared for the exclusive use of Scott & Shelley Ashworth and their design consultants for the specific site listed above. Should modifications be made to the project subsequent to the preparation of these calculations, Mike Surprenant & Associates should be notified to review the modifications with respect to the recommendations/ conclusions provided herein, to determine if any additional calculations 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. JOB __________ ~_S----'-'( 5~1:--1--_ MIKE SURPRENANT & ASSOCIATES Consulting Structural Engineers SHEETNQ. ____ ---='-----OF_....:.?_~ ____ _ CALCULATEDBY ________ DATE ______ _ CHECKEDBY ________ DATE ______ _ SCALE _________________ _ DESIGN CRITERIA SUMMARY GOVERNING CODE: 2022 C.B.C. CONCRETE: f c = 2500 PSI, NO SPECIAL INSPECTION REQ'D, (U.N.O.) MASONRY: ASTM C90, fm = 1500 PSI, SPECIAL INSPECTION REQ'D (U.N.O.) MORT AR: ASTM C270, f c = 1900 PSI, TYPE S GROUT: ASTM C1019, fc = 2000 PSI REINFORCING STEEL: ASTM A615, Fy = 40 KS! FOR #3 AND SMALLER ASTM A615, Fy = 60 KSI FOR #4 AND LARGER (U.N.O.) STRUCTURAL STEEL: ASTM A992, Fy = 50 KSI (ALL 'W' SHAPES, ONLY) ASTM A36, Fy = 36 KSI (STRUCTURAL PLATES, ANGLES, CHANNELS) ASTM A500, GRADE B, Fy = 46 KSI (STRUCTURAL TUBES-HSS) ASTM A53, GRADE B, Fy = 35 KSI (STRUCTURAL PIPES) WELDING: E70-T6-TYP. FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL E90 SERIES FOR A615 GRADE 60 REINFORCING BARS SAWN LUMBER: DOUG FIR LARCH, ALLOWABLE UNIT STRESSES PER THE NOS. I-JOISTS: BOISE CASCADE -ICC ESR-1336 -(BCI JOIST) MICRO LLAMS/ BOISE CASCADE -ICC ESR-1040 -(VERSA-LAM) PARALLAMS/ TIMBERSTRAND GLULAMS: DOUGLAS FIR OR DOUGLAS FIR/HEM SOIL: GRADE 24F-V4 (SIMPLE SPANS) GRADE 24F-V8 (CANTILEVERS) □ EXISTING NATURAL SOIL VALVES PER CBC TABLE 1806.2 SOIL CLASSIFICATION · ______ _ ~SOILS REPORT BY: _G_E_O_~....:...O....:...l _L.-_~_,_, _l _N_C_. ______ _ DATED: \ /2.4/ ioz1 ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE ACTIVE SOIL PRESSURE (CANTILEVER) ACTIVE SOIL PRESSURE (RESTRAINED) PASSIVE SOIL PRESSURE COEFFICIENT OF FRJCTION 2000 PSF _____ PCF _____ PCF \~O PCF = Q. -i~ D PRODUCT'lfJ7 JOB ____________ ..:..._J,_3_\_5_4__,___ MIKE SURPRENANT & ASSOCIATES Consulting Structural Engineers SHEET NO·------'-----OF ?f"' CALCULATED BY ________ DATE ______ _ CHECKEDBY ________ DATE ______ _ SCALE _________________ _ DESIGN LOADS CASE 1 MATERIAL: CO't--'\P ROOF SLOPE: 2:r2 DEAD LOAD: ROOFING MATERIAL .................................................................................... .. <i.o PSF SHEATHING .................................................................................................................. . 1.5 RAFTERS/C.J. (or) TRUSSES ............................................. : ............................................. . 4.0 INSULATION .................................................................................................................... . 1.5 DRYWALL ......................................................................................................................... . 2.5 OTHER (ELEC., MECH., MISC.) ..................................................................................... . 0.5 TOTAL DEAD LOAD: \ 'i .0 PSF LIVE LOAD: z.o .0 PSF TOTAL LOAD: 3t .0 PSF FLOOR FLOOR MATERIAL: NA DEAD LOAD: FLOORING FINISH ...................................................................................................... . PSF LT. WEIGHT CONCRETE ~in.) ............................................................................ . SHEATHING .................................................................................................................. . 2.0 JOISTS ............................................................................................................................ .. 3.5 DRYWALL ...................................................................................................................... . 2.5 OTHER (ELEC., MECH., MISC.) ....................................................................................... _ __,'-'-"-_ 3.0 TOTAL DEAD LOAD: LIVE LOAD: TOTAL LOAD: EXTERIOR WALL FINISH: STUDS ........................................................................................................................... .. DRYWALL ..................................................................................................................... . INSULATION .................................................................................................................. . EXTERIOR FINISH ............................................................................................... . OTHER ........................................................................................................................... .. TOTAL LOAD: INTERIOR WALL .0 PSF .0 PSF -.o PSF STVc..c.o 1.0 PSF 2.5 1.5 lo .o 1.0 I(, .0 PSF CASE II PSF 1.5 4.0 1.5 2.5 0.5 .0 PSF .0 PSF .O PSF DECK PSF 2.0 3.5 2.5 3.0 .0 PSF .0 PSF .0 PSF 1.0 PSF 2.5 1.5 .0 1.0 .0 PSF STUDS .......... ..................................................................................................................................... ........... 1.0 PSF DRYWALL .................................................................................................................................................... 5.0 OTHER ........................................................................................................................................................... ____LQ TOT AL LOAD: 7. 0 PSF 0 PRODUCT 207 JOB __________ _____."k~3~15_4~_ SHEET NO. s OF ) :y' ---------MIKE SURPRENANT & ASSOCIATES Consulting Structural Engineers CALCULATED B Y ____ l(_~;-----DATE ______ _ CHECKED BY _________ DATE ______ _ SCALE _________________ _ HO RIZO NT AL MEMBER DESIGN LEVEL: jZ.-0 0 f MEMBERS: (2..Af~ LABEL: 1? ~-\ SPAN= 16 cg/' UNIFORM LOAD 0 POINT LOAD (CENTERED) • 0 CUSTOM LOADING (SEE DIAGRAM) FT. W1 = 3<t f~f @_ 16 110.c. (\<t; P/i.DL-r) W2= P1 = P2 = II USE: 2,)(\1.. (3 \h 0 .C. GRADE: ~1. O~ ,,11-. C: __ _ ALT: ______ GRADE: _____ C: __ _ LABEL: ___ _ SPAN= FT. ---- 0 UNIFORM LOAD 0 POINT LOAD (CENTERED) 0 CUSTOM LOADING (SEE DIAGRAM) W1= W2= P1 = P2 = USE: _______ GRADE: _____ C: ___ _ ALT: GRADE: C: __ _ LABEL: ___ _ SPAN= ____ FT. □ UNIFORM LOAD □ POINT LOAD (CENTERED) □ CUSTOM LOADING (SEE DIAGRAM) W1= W2= P1 = P2 = USE: _______ GRADE: _____ C: ___ _ ALT: GRADE: C: __ _ ~ 1 RL= 4~4 lbs DL= lbs LLR= lbs LL= lbs ~ 1 RL= lbs DL= lbs LLR= lbs LL= lbs ~ 1 RL= lbs DL= lbs LLR= lbs LL= lbs ~ 1 R.a = 434 lbs DL= lbs LLR= lbs LL= lbs ~ 1 RR= lbs DL= lbs LLR = lbs LL= lbs ~ 1 RR= lbs DL= lbs LLR= lbs LL= lbs D PRODUCT 207 Project Title: Engineer: Ashworth TG Project ID: Project Descr: 23154 Sheet No.+ of ? ::r" I Wood Beam LIC#: KW--06016476, Build:20.24.06.04 DESCRIPTION: RR-1 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 MIKE SUPRENANT & ASSOCIATES Fb + Fb - Fe-Prll Fe -Perp Fv Ft Beam Bracing Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsional buckling <i D(0 023994~ Lr(0.02666) 2x12 Span= 16.0 ft Project File: Ashworth.ec6 I (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2023 900 psi E : Modulus of Elasticity 900psi Ebend-xx 1600ksi 1350 psi Eminbend -xx 580ksi 625psi 180 psi 575psi Density 31.21 pcf 2 Applied Loads Service loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Beam self weight calculated and added to loading Uniform Load : D = 0.0180, Lr= 0.020 ksf, Tributary Width= 1.333 ft, (W1) DESIGN SUMMARY Desi n OK Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = 0.586: 1 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = 0.152 : 1 Section used for this span 2x12 Section used for this span 2x12 fb: Actual = 659.14psi fv: Actual = 34.11 psi F'b = 1,125.00 psi F'v = 225.00 psi Load Combination +D+Lr Load Combination +D+Lr Location of maximum on span = 8.000ft Location of maximum on span = 15.066 ft Span # where maximum occurs = Span# 1 Span # where maximum occurs = Span# 1 Maximum Deflection Max Downward Transient Deflection 0.139 in Ratio= 0 >=360 Span: 1 : Lr Only Max Upward Transient Deflection O in Ratio= 1382<360 nla Max Downward Total Deflection 0.283 in Ratio = 678 >=240 Span: 1 : +D+Lr Max Upward Total Deflection 0 in Ratio= 0 <240 n/a Maximum Forces & Stresses for Load Combinations Load Combination l'v'lax Stress Rabos lv'lomen! 'i7alues Sfiear 'i7alues Segment Length Span# M V CD CM Ct CLx CE Cfu Ci Cr M fb F'b V fv F'v DOnly 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 Length = 16.0 ft 1 0.414 0.107 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 335.6 810.0 0.20 17.4 162.0 +D+Lr 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 Length = 16.0 ft 1 0.586 0.152 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.74 659.1 1,125.0 0.38 34.1 225.0 +D+0.750Lr 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 Length = 16.0 ft 1 0.514 0.133 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.52 578.3 1,125.0 0.34 29.9 225.0 +0.600 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 Length = 16.0 ft 1 0.140 0.036 1.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.53 201.4 1,440.0 0.12 10.4 288.0 I Wood Beam UC#: KW-06016476, Build:20.24.06.04 DESCRIPTION: RR-1 Overall Maximum Deflections Load Combination Span +D+Lr Vertical Reactions Load Combination Max Upward from all Load Conditions Max Upward from Load Combinations Max Upward from Load Cases D Only +D+Lr +D+0.750Lr +0.600 Lr Only Project Title: Engineer: Project ID: Project Descr: MIKE SUPRENANT & ASSOCIATES Max. "-" Defl Location in Span Load Combination 0.2829 8.058 Ashworth TG 23154 t'L '7./L,· Sheet No. _f__ of~ Project File: Ashworth.ec6 (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2023 Max. "+" Defl Location in Span 0.000 Support notation : Far left is #1 0.0000 Values in KIPS Support 1 Support 2 0.434 0.434 0.434 0.434 0.221 0.221 0.221 0.221 0.434 0.434 0.381 0.381 0.133 0.133 0.213 0.213 JOB ___________ =--Z,-=--3_{..::c...5_,'-f: __ MIKE SURPRENANT & ASSOCIATES Consulting Structural Engineers SHEETNQ, ________ ~i-OF 31--' CALCULATED BY ___ =n~9+-----DATE ______ _ CHECKED BY _________ DATE ______ _ SCALE ------------------ LEVEL: V-;0 Of 2,. C,(\ L\ N § MEMBERS:~e.-~ .... ~ ..... M .... c:.__ ___ _ LABEL~fL=~~-='=~----'-L.L~---========="T. ~ UNIFORM LOAD 0 POINT LOAD (CENTERED) 0 CUSTOM LOADING (SEE DIAGRAM) W1 = (1.s/z.-)l;q; p~R}· 4:r-5" ylf (-z.:iGV /i-50Lr) LABEL: C~-\ SPAN= I f FT. 0 UNIFORM LOAD □ POINT LOAD (CENTERED) • @"" CUSTOM LOADING (SEE DIAGRAM) W1 = W 2= P1 = ( '½) l?,'l v~~) t' '½.),:; 3430 \bs: P 2 = (\ b'2-S p) \<i,05 Lr USE: _..,,....,b...,'i--=\=7,_.==----GRADE: __ ~_\ __ C: __ _ ALT: GRADE: C: ___ _ LABEL: ___ _ SPAN= ____ .FT. 0 UNIFORM LOAD 0 POINT LOAD (CENTERED) 0 CUSTOM LOADING (SEE DIAGRAM) W 1= W2 = P1 = P2 = USE: _______ GRADE: _____ C: ___ _ ALT: GRADE: C: __ _ ~ 1 RL= 2 bi'6 DL= LLR= Lb ~ 1 RL= 132.I DL= LLR = LL= ~ 1 RL = DL = LLR= LL= • :,. 4 L I 1 f' ; • 1 ~ 1 lbs RR= -Z.b'tii lbs lbs DL = lbs lbs LLR = lbs lbs LL = lbs t ,r ~ 4' 5' 1 lbs RR= 2-301 lbs lbs DL = lbs lbs LLR = lbs lbs LL= lbs ~ 1· lbs RR= lbs lbs DL = lbs lbs LLR = lbs lbs LL= lbs D PRODUCT 207 Project Title: Engineer: Project ID: Project Descr: !wood Beam Ashworth TG 23154 a Sheet No._-,_ of~ Project File: Ashworth.ec6 LIC#: KW-06016476, Bulld:20.24.06.04 DESCRIPTION: RB-1 MIKE SUPRENANT & ASSOCIATES (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.1 Completely Unbraced Fb + Fb - Fe -Prll Fe -Perp Fv Ft 1,350.0 psi 1,350.0 psi 925.0psi 625.0psi 170.0 psi 675.0 psi E : Modulus of Elasticity Ebend-xx 1,600.0ksi Eminbend -xx 580.0ksi Density 31.210pcf 0(0.225~ Lr(0.25) 6x12 2 Span= 11.0 fl Applied Loads Service loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Beam self weight calculated and added to loading Uniform Load : D = 0.2250, Lr= 0.250 , Tributary Width= 1.0 ft, (W1) DESIGN SUMMARY Desi n OK Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = 0.44Ct 1 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = 0.250 : 1 Section used for this span 6x12 Section used for this span 6x12 fb: Actual = 731.68psi fv: Actual = 53.04 psi F'b = 1 ,663.11 psi F'v = 212.50 psi Load Combination +D+Lr Load Combination +D+Lr Location of maximum on span = 5.500ft Location of maximum on span = 10.077ft Span # where maximum occurs = Span# 1 Span# where maximum occurs = Span# 1 Maximum Deflection Max Downward Transient Deflection 0.074 in Ratio= 0 >=360 Span: 1 : Lr Only Max Upward Transient Deflection 0 in Ratio= 1777<360 nla Max Downward Total Deflection 0.145 in Ratio= 909>=240 Span: 1 : +D+Lr Max Upward Total Deflection 0 in Ratio= 0 <240 nla Maximum Forces & Stresses for Load Combinations Load Combination Max Stress Ra!ios Momeni 'values Sfiear 'values Segment Length Span# M V CD CM Ct CLx CE Cfu C . I Cr M fb F'b V fv F'v DOnly 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 Length = 11.0 ft 1 0.297 0.169 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.61 357.4 1,203.2 1.09 25.9 153.0 +D+Lr 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 Length = 11.0 ft 1 0.440 0.250 1.25 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.39 731.7 1,663.1 2.24 53.0 212.5 +D+0.750Lr 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 Length = 11.0 ft 1 0.384 0.218 1.25 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.45 638.1 1,663.1 1.95 46.3 212.5 +0.60D 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 Length = 11.0 ft 1 0.101 0.057 1.60 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.17 214.4 2,117.0 0.66 15.5 272.0 I Wood Beam UC#: KW-06016476, Build:20.24.06.04 DESCRIPTION: RB-1 Overall Maximum Deflections Load Combination Span +D+lr Vertical Reactions Load Combination Max Upward from all Load Conditions Max Upward from Load Combinations Max Upward from Load Cases DOnly +D+Lr +D+0.750Lr +0.60D Lr Only Project Title: Engineer: Project ID: Project Descr: MIKE SUPRENANT & ASSOCIATES Max."-" Defl Location in Span Load Combination 0.1452 5.540 Ashworth TG 23154 Sheet No.~ of ?1" Project File: Ashworth.ec6 I (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2023 Max. "+" Defl Location in Span 0.000 Support notation : Far left is #1 0.0000 Values in KIPS Support 1 Support 2 2.688 2.688 2.688 2.688 1.375 1.375 1.313 1.313 2.688 2.688 2.344 2.344 0.788 0.788 1.375 1.375 Project Title: Engineer: Project ID: Project Descr: I Wood Beam Ashworth TG 23154 SheetNo._ll_of ~1-" Project File: Ashworth.ec6 UC#: KW-06016476, Build:20.24.06.04 DESCRIPTION: CB-1 MIKE SUPRENANT & ASSOCIATES (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2023 CODE REFERENCES Calculations per NDS 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 Applied Loads Douglas Fir-Larch No.1 Completely Unbraced Beam self weight calculated and added to loading Point Load : D = 1.625, Lr= 1.805 k @ 9.0 ft, (P1) DESIGN SUMMARY Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = 0.677: 1 Section used for this span 6x12 fb: Actual = 1, 120.99psi F'b = 1,655.39psi Load Combination +D+Lr Location of maximum on span = 8.993ft Span # where maximum occurs = Span# 1 Maximum Deflection Max Downward Transient Deflection 0.144in Ratio= Max Upward Transient Deflection O in Ratio= Max Downward Total Deflection 0 .284 in Ratio= Max Upward Total Deflection O in Ratio= Fb + Fb- Fc -Prll Fe -Perp Fv Ft 6x12 Span= 14.0 ft 1,350.0 psi 1,350.0 psi 925.0 psi 625.0 psi 170.0 psi 675.0 psi D(1.625) Lr(1.805) E : Modulus of Elasticity Ebend-xx 1,600.0 ksi Eminbend -xx 580.0ksi Density 31.210pcf 2 Service loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Desi n OK Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = 0.255 : 1 Section used for this span 6x12 fv: Actual = 54.27 psi F'v = 212.50 psi Load Combination +D+Lr Location of maximum on span = 13.080 ft Span# where maximum occurs = Span# 1 0>=360 Span: 1 : Lr Only 1166 <360 n/a 591 >=240 Span: 1 : +D+Lr 0<240 n/a Maximum Forces & Stresses for Load Combinations Load Combination lv'lax Sfress Ralios lv'lomenl 'values Sliear 'values Segment Length Span# M V CD CM ct Clx CE Cfu Ci Cr M fb F'b V fv F'v DOnly 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 Length = 14.0 ft 0.456 0.175 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.53 547.2 1,199.8 1.13 26.8 153.0 +D+Lr 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 Length= 14.0 ft 1 0.677 0.255 1.25 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 11.32 1,121.0 1,655.4 2.29 54.3 212.5 +D+0.750Lr 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 Length = 14.0 ft 1 0.591 0.223 1.25 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 9.88 977.5 1,655.4 2.00 47.4 212.5 +0.60D 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 Length = 14.0 ft 1 0.156 0.059 1.60 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.32 328.3 2,102.2 0.68 16.1 272.0 I Wood Beam LIC#: KW-06016476, Build:20.24.06.04 DESCRIPTION: CB-1 Overall Maximum Deflections Load Combination Span +D+Lr Vertical Reactions Load Combination 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: MIKE SUPRENANT & ASSOCIATES Max. " -" Deft Location in Span Load Combination 0.2842 7.562 Ashworth TG 23154 Sheet No. Support notation : Far left is #1 Support 1 Support 2 1.321 2.301 1.321 2.301 0.676 1.160 0.676 1.141 1.321 2.301 1.160 2.011 0.406 0.684 0.645 1.160 111' of ','Y Project File: Ashworth.ec6 (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2023 Max. "+" Deft Location in Span 0.0000 Values in KIPS 0.000 LEVEL: f-0 0 f MIKE SURPRENANT & ASSOCIATES Consulting Strucrural Engineers .. MEMBERS:_,_._\.\ c.-=A.........,D __ E. ....... P: ____ _ LABEL: I ~~--1 SPAN= b-~ FT. □ UNIFORM LOAD □ POINT LOAD (CENTERED) 2,; \ 5' 4 JOB-----------------'---- SHEETNO, ________ /?J_ Of__,1'--:Y-_____ _ CALCUtATEDBY ___ \1-'-G=+-, ---DATE _____ _ CHECKEDBY ________ DATE _____ _ SCALE------------------ • ::, <I • I 1 f ; • • w\ f' i } g CUSTOM LOADING (SEE DIAGRAM) W1= (1?>·¾)(;({.?rR)~ 251 plf (11-'Z--P/t3 S-Gr) ~ * k 1 5' 1,5' 1 RL= I ~1.-, lbs RR = 23 q I lbs DL= lbs DL= lbs 4 '/.\'1. .H.\ USE: __ .;.._ ___ GRADE: -n C: __ _ LLR= -lbs LLR= -lbs LL,,; lbs LL= lbs ALT: GRADE: _____ C: __ _ LAJ IEL: ~\-\-'L SPAN= s.s FT. dt' □ UNIFORM LOAD W1 □ POINT LOAD (CENTERED) • J; J,, (3"" CUSTOM LOADING (SEE DIAGRAM) W1= (;')(lbf~R)=::4Cl pl.f (_D) ~ A ~ W2= 1 • Z.5' 3' 1 (1-~)-z,,)l;Q,p~fJ (lyz.,): 2.b t; \b~ P1 = ( 11-;~D /l?> 1-S'Lv) RL = I ~<t; 1 lbs RR= 1343 lbs P2 = DL= lbs DL= lbs 4)(\1-. :lt I LLR= lbs L~= -lbs USE: GRADE: C: LL= lbs LL= lbs ALT: GRADE: C: LABEL: SPAN= FT. □ UNIFORM LOAD □ POINT LOAD (CENTERED) □ CUSTOM LOADING (SEE DIAGRAM) ~ ~ W1= W2= 1 f P1 = RL= lbs RR= lbs P2 = DL= lbs DL= lbs LLR= lbs LLR = lbs USE: GRADE: C: LL= lbs LL= lbs ALT: GRADE: C: D PRODUCT 207 Project Title: Engineer: Project ID: Project Descr: j Wood Beam Ashworth TG 23154 d.-sheet No. ---4-of --; -:y- Project File: Ashworth.ec6 UC#: KW--06016476, Build:20.24.06.04 DESCRIPTION: RH-1 MIKE SUPRENANT &ASSOCIATES (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.1 Completely Unbraced V Fb + Fb- Fc -Prll Fe -Perp Fv Ft D10.122) Lr/0.1351 4x12 Span= 6.50ft 1350 psi 1350 psi g25psi 625psi 170 psi 675 psi D(0.941) Lr(1.045) V E : Modulus of Elasticity Ebend-xx 1600 ksi Eminbend -xx 580ksi Density 31.21 pcf V Applied Loads Service loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Beam self weight calculated and added to loading Uniform Load : D = 0.1220, Lr= 0.1350, Tributary Width= 1.0 ft, (W1) Point Load : D = 0.9410, Lr= 1.045 k @ 5.0 ft, (P1) DESIGN SUMMARY Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = 0.297: 1 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio Section used for this span 4x12 Section used for this span fb: Actual = 534.33psi fv: Actual F'b = 1,800.65psi. F'v Load Combination +D+Lr Load Combination Location of maximum on span = 4.982ft Location of maximum on span Span # where maximum occurs = Span# 1 Span# where maximum occurs Maximum Deflection Max Downward Transient Deflection 0.018in Ratio = 0 >=360 Span: 1 : Lr Only Max Upward Transient Deflection Qin Ratio= 4249<360 n/a Max Downward Total Deflection 0.035 in Ratio= 2201 >=240 Span: 1 : +D+Lr Max Upward Total Deflection Qin Ratio= 0 <240 n/a Maximum Forces & Stresses for Load Combinations Load Combination l'vlax Slress Ra!los Momeni IJalues Segment Length Span# M V CD CM Ct CLx CE Cfu Ci Cr M fb DOnly Length = 6.50 ft 1 0.195 0.256 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.58 256.1 +D+Lr 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.100 1.00 1.00 1.00 Length = 6.50 ft 1 0.297 0.385 1.25 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.100 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.29 534.3 +D+0.750Lr 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.100 1.00 1.00 1.00 Length = 6.50 ft 1 0.258 0.334 1.25 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.100 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.86 464.8 +0.60D 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.100 1.00 1.00 1.00 Length = 6.50 ft 1 0.068 0.086 1.60 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.100 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 153.7 Desi n OK = 0.385 : 1 4x12 = 81.71 psi = 212.50 psi +D+Lr = 5.575ft = Span# 1 Snear IJalues F'b V fv F'v 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 1,311.3 1.03 39.1 153.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 1,800.7 2.15 81.7 212.5 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 1,800.7 1.87 71.1 212.5 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 2,270.6 0.62 23.5 272.0 I Wood Beam LIC#: KW--06016476, Build:20.24.06.04 DESCRIPTION: RH-1 Overall Maximum Deflections Load Combination Span +D+Lr Vertical Reactions Load Combination Max Upward from all Load Conditions Max Upward from Load Combinations Max Upward from Load Cases DOnly +D+Lr +D+0.750Lr +0.60D Lr Only Project Title: Engineer: Project ID: Project Descr: MIKE SUPRENANT &ASSOCIATES Max. "•" Deft Location in Span Load Combination 0.0354 3.487 Ashworth TG 23154 1< "l-Sheet No. __ of~ Project File: Ashworth.ec6 {c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2023 Max. "+" Deft Location in Span 0.000 Support notation : Far left is #1 0.0000 Values in KIPS Support 1 Support 2 1.321 2.391 1.321 2.391 0.680 1.243 0.641 1.148 1.321 2.391 1.151 2.080 0.385 0.689 0.680 1.243 Project Title: Engineer: Project ID: Project Descr: I Wood Beam Ashworth TG 23154 "'.M...-Sheet No. _!!{_of __ ,,_., Project File: Ashworth.ec6 UC#: KW-06016476. Build:20.24.06.04 DESCRIPTION: RH-2 MIKE SUPRENANT & ASSOCIATES (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.1 Completely Unbraced Fb + Fb - Fe -Prll Fe -Perp Fv Ft 1350 psi 1350 psi 925 psi 625 psi 170psi 675 psi E : Modulus of Elasticity Ebend-xx 1600ksi Eminbend -xx 580ksi Density 31.21 pcf 0(1 238) Lr(1 375) V V b(0.04Bl V 4X12 Span = 5.50 ft V V Applied Loads Service loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Beam self weight calculated and added to loading Uniform Load : D = 0.0480 , Tributary Width = 1.0 ft, (W 1) Point Load : D = 1.238, Lr= 1.375 k @ 2.50 ft, (P1) DESIGN SUMMARY Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = 0.338: 1 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio Section used for this span 4x12 Section used for this span fb: Actual = 611.88psi fv: Actual F'b = 1,812.58psi F'v Load Combination +D+Lr Load Combination Location of maximum on span = 2.509ft Location of maximum on span Span# where maximum occurs = Span# 1 Span # where maximum occurs Maximum Deflection Max Downward Transient Deflection 0.012 in Ratio= 0 >=360 Span: 1 : Lr Only Max Upward Transient Deflection O in Ratio= 5353 <360 n/a Max Downward Total Deflection 0.025 in Ratio= 2620 >=240 Span: 1 : +D+Lr Max Upward Total Deflection 0 in Ratio= 0 <240 n/a Maximum Forces & Stresses for Load Combinations Load Combination 1111ax Suess RaI10s 1111omenl IJalues Segment Length Span# M V CD CM ct CLx CE Cfu c. I Cr M fb D Only Length = 5.50 ft 1 0.234 0.194 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.90 308.0 +D+Lr 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.100 1.00 1.00 1.00 Length = 5.50 ft 1 0.338 0.274 1.25 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.100 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.76 611 .9 +D+0.750Lr 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.100 1.00 1.00 1.00 Length = 5.50 ft 1 0.296 0.240 1.25 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.100 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.30 535.9 +0.60D 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.100 1.00 1.00 1.00 Length = 5.50 ft 1 0.081 0.065 1.60 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.14 184.8 Desi n OK = 0.274 : 1 4x12 = 58.23 psi = 212.50 psi +D+Lr = 0.000 ft = Span# 1 Sfiear IJalues F'b V fv F'v 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 1,316.2 0.78 29.7 153.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 1,812.6 1.53 58.2 212.5 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 1,812.6 1.34 51.1 212.5 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 2,295.6 0.47 17.8 272.0 I Wood Beam LIC#: KW-06016476, Build:20.24.06.04 DESCRIPTION: RH-2 Overall Maximum Deflections Load Combination Span +D+Lr Vertical Reactions Load Combination Max Upward from all Load Conditions Max Upward from Load Combinations Max Upward from Load Cases DOnly +D+Lr +D+0.750Lr +0.60D Lr Only Project Title: Engineer: Project ID: Project Descr: MIKE SUPRENANT & ASSOCIATES Max."." Dell Location in Span Load Combination 0.0252 2.690 Ashworth TG 23154 ,-:r Sheet No._ of Project File: Ashworth.ec6 (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2023 Max. "+" Dell Location in Span 0.000 Support notation : Far left is #1 0.0000 Values in KIPS Support 1 Support 2 1.581 1.343 1.581 1.343 0.831 0.718 0.831 0.718 1.581 1.343 1.393 1.187 0.498 0.431 0.750 0.625 J~ Mike Surprenant Job 'Z-315"4 rt [~7 & Associates Sheet No. of '11"' Consulting Structural Engineers ~ Calculated by Date '" . 1· • . . . . Checked by Date WIND DESIGN Main Wind Force Resisting System: Method Used = Analytical Procedure Maximum Building Height (z) =C""]Q]feet Design Wind Speed =c::::IQQ)mph (100 mph for California) l<,i = 0.85 I= 1.00 Exposure Category =I B! (per ASCE-7, 26.7.3) Kz = 0.70 Kzt = 1.00 G = 0.85 Gcp; = -0.18 Cp = 0.80 and -0.5 (windward and leeward walls) qh = 15.24 psi P =I 10.53jpsf (Note: Reduced by factor of 1.6 for ASD Design) Exposure a £.g a 811 6 6 c I I: Lmin CHOSENEXPOSURE=l-----,:,B-+-77.~0-+-----::1270~0--t---::o~.1~4----1---'-o-::.8~4-+-::o~.2~5-+-o~.~45::--l---=-0.~3-=--0-t--::3~20,c-,l-:::0-::.3~3-+---:3~0--t C 9.5 900 0.11 1.00 0.15 0.65 0.20 500 0.20 15 D 11.5 700 0.09 1.07 0.11 0.80 0.15 650 0.13 7 SEISMIC DESIGN Method used = Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 Occupancy Category =~2--~ R=~l6._5_~ I= 1.0 Site Class = D t------1 Ss = 1.032 S1 = 0.376 Seismic Design Category (SOS)= D ..,... __ -t Seismic Design Category (S01) =._D __ __, r. = 0.26 Cs= 0.15 Csmax = 0.29 Csmin = 0.04 Csact =1 .. 0-.1-4-8--. g g sec B 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 ( 1 ,2, 3,4) (Residential = 2) 1--::c:--+---,1c'-.5'--+-':"'1.~5-+--::1-=.5----1_1.;..;..-=--5-+---:1-'-:.5:--t (6.5 for wood shear walls) D 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.8 (Residential = 1.0) E 4.2 3.3 2.8 2.4 2.2 (A,B,C,D,E) (0.2 sec) Fa= (1 sec) Sos= 0.963 g So1 = 0.482 g (Use the worst case seismic design category) p =_I __ 1 ..... 31 q V =I 0.138!Wx (Csact*p)*Wxf1.4 JOB ________ _____:_i-_;_;__15_'f'--- MIKE SURPRENANT & ASSOCIATES Consulting Structural Engineers SHEETNO. ________ ,~_ OF 3"1'""' CALCULATEDBY ___ u~G-.---DATE _____ _ CHECKEDBY ________ DATE _____ _ SCALE _______________ _ ROOF WEIGHT: Wt (DEAD LOADS) (SEISMIC) Diaphragm = ci q 51 ~ P) ( \ q, V 5; R) :: Exterior Wall Weight= ( 1, 1.,,Q 1) (6• S ½,) ( \ b ?SR')=- Interior Wall Weight= ( 3 \§ ')l'l>.S li-) Ct v~.f) = S~i-ib LBS 14qbo LBS q31-z_ LBS t1S'£<3 Total Weight-(Tributary to Diaphragm)= ___________________ _ LBS -FLOOR WEIGHT: Diaphragm = __________________ _,,_ ________ LBS Exterior Wall Weight=----------'--------'-----------'------'---------LBS Interior Wall Weight = ----------------..---------LBS Total Weight (Tributary to Diaphragm)= ____________________ LBS __ FLOOR WEIGHT: Diaphragm= ___________________________ LBS Exterior Wall Weight= ________________________ LBS Interior Wall Weight = ________________________ LBS Total Weight (Tributary to Diaphragm)= ___________________ LBS TOTAL DEAD LOAD, Wt = 1' 15 5 <j$ LBS BASESHEAR,V = (Q.(?,'6) +(2.-0%Addn'IF.O.S.) Wt = (0.\6S6)(l--=t5~<i)= \2-<l# LBS UNIT SHEAR, v = V / Area (Applies to single level structures only)= ( \ 7.,'64 4:J / ( 2-~ 5-:=t') .::: 4. 3 f PSF WIND : (_lo.5$ p~f)( ~-½-+ 1')/(1,;5 '): i. is p{{ ~C-lS MIC ~ ovCTtJ~ u~e : 4. ~ p~~ D PRODUCT 207 J0B ___________ _:7.,,::.....c~=---...:_l ;-:__4...!__ MIKE SURPRENANT & ASSOCIATES SHEETN0. _________ 111)_ OF '1>-1- Consulting Structural Engineers CALCULATED BY ___ \~~"'-----DATE ______ _ CHECKED BY ________ _ DATE ______ _ SCALE __________________ _ • :., -' I • SHEARW ALL DESIGN 1st ___ Story Shearwalls 'N-~ Direction . Unit Lateral Load, v = _4 __ ._s __ psf Gridline ______ (\\ 1 ) Tributary Area (This Level): Yz + I. f; 1 { 'Z. ~ 1) = Lateral Load (This Level): I q b sq. ft. -Z. Lbs Lateral Load (Level Above): ___________________________ Lbs , Total Load (All Levels), Fx = Shearwall(s) Length, L = __ b_._5_~_b_' =-_I -z._. s ___ ft. Unit Wall Shear, v = FxfL = 3: I plf Shearwall Type: (I} Overturning: L = ____ ft. v""Okay by Inspection Uplift= _________________________ Lbs Holdown Anchor Type: D Gridline --~3 ____ ( l TributaryArea(ThisLevel): •32./'1,,){Z-5')=-'tOD sq.ft. Lateral Load (This Level): I 'b DO Lbs Lateral Load (Level Above): ___________________________ Lbs 0 Total Load (All Levels), Fx= Shearwall(s) Length, L = _____ l> _____ ft. Unit Wall Shear, v = Fx/L = 11-.S plf Shearwall Type: (I} Overturning: L = i · ~ Uplift = l 'l-1-$) ( q, . 5 ') :: ft. __ Okay by Inspection I q,oO Lbs Lbs Holdown Anchor Type: [E] , r\ p V 1. 1 __ :..;__ _________________ _ Gridline __ b ___ 1~4 l\(2-l-b') = Tributary Area (This Level): \... /'< z _ 3 b b sq. ft. Lateral Load (This Level): b 4 Lbs Lateral Load (Level Above): ___________________________ Lbs lh41-Lbs 'f>'+l.Cl/l,' ~ \O .<t<t Total Load (All Levels), Fx= Shearwall(s) Length, L =---.--,---------ft. 2 ( ;. 5')1•• 1 Unit Wall Shear, v = Fx/L = l 5 I plf :::-z..<i;<i <i .5 { Shearwall Type: @ Overturning: L = ____ ft. v--;kay by Inspection Uplift= _________________________ Lbs Holdown Anchor Type: □ --------------------- D PRODUCT 207 MIKE SURPRENANT & ASSOCIATES J0B __________ ---,-_,1,;,::_6=--..:...;1 ;-=--i...<f __ SHEET NQ. _________ 1;_1 _ OF __ ~_-:;--_____ _ Consulting Strucrural Engineers CALCULATED BY ____ :f~~+----DATE ______ _ CHECKED BY ________ _ DATE ______ _ SCALE ___________________ _ l(.t ___ Story Shearwalls _E-_W_ Direction Unit Lateral Load, v = _4,_._S __ psf [\ Gridline _____ (\Ll')(l-~ *1-')= Tributary Area (This Level): _ _ _ !,,:. i O 3 sq. ft. Lateral Load (This Level): ___________________________ _,__,__..__Lbs Lateral Load (Level Above): Lbs '114 Lbs Total Load (All Levels), F, = Shearwall(s) Length, L = -----,--,----q_. f; ____ ft. Unit Wall Shear, v = FxfL = --~q~b __ plf Shearwall Type: @ Overturning: L = ____ ft. v . __ Okay by Inspection Uplift= __________________________ Lbs Holdown Anchor Type: D Gridline ___ i____ I TributaryArea(ThisLevel): (1.,\')(4S/2,)::: 413 sq.ft. Lateral Load (This Level): 1,124' Lbs Lateral Load (Level Above): ____________________________ Lbs 'Z,,( 2--"I Lbs Total Load (All Levels), F, = Shearwall(s) Length, L :::: ____ \_1... ______ ft. Unit Wall Shear, v = F/L = l 3:3:: plf Shearwall Type: (I} Overturning: L = ____ ft. ✓Okay by Inspection Uplift :::: __________________________ Lbs Holdown Anchor Type: D Gridline __ C___ (2,?, ')( tl .S/,z) :- Tributary Area (This Level): _ :J 4ci9 sq. ft. Lateral Load (This Level): 2 0 I Lbs Lateral Load (Level Above): ____________________________ Lbs Total Load (All Levels), F,:::: Shearwall(s) Length, L :::: _____ 2,_0 _____ ft. 7-u> I Lbs Unit Wall Shear, v = F,/L = __ l~\~D __ plf Shearwa11 Type: (I) Overturning: L = ____ ft. ./ __ Okay by Inspection Uplift:::: __________________________ Lbs Holdown Anchor Type: D D PRODUCT 207 J0B ___________ -1,,,_~_:l_f;__,f __ MIKE SURPRENANT & ASSOCIATES Consulting Strucrural Engineers SHEETNO. _________ w_ OF __ ?_'1"" _____ _ CALCULATED BY ____ I_~--i-----DATE _______ _ CHECKED BY __________ DATE _______ _ SCALE ____________________ _ ~ 'j ,., 1 .! \ s-r Story Shearwalls £---N Direction Unit Lateral Load, v = 45 psf Gridline D I • Tributary Area (This Level): ( \1,'}(1½ + 1'1=-l3i sq. ft. Lateral Load (This Level): b-Z.....I Lbs Lateral Load (Level Above): Lbs Total Load (All Levels), F, = l-i, I Lbs Shearwall(s) Length, L = 3-~b ft. Z.(4')" Unit Wall Shear, v = FxfL = I (zt; plf "' 3.:t-i/ ~.5' @ Shearwall Type: Overturning: L= ft. ✓ __ Okay by Inspection Uplift= Lbs Holdown Anchor Type: □ Gridline Tributary Area (This Level): sq. ft. Lateral Load (This Level): Lbs Lateral Load (Level Above): Lbs Total Load (All Levels), F, = Lbs Shearwall(s) Length, L = ft. Unit Wall Shear, v = FxfL = plf Shearwall Type: 0 Overturning: L= ft: __ Okay by Inspection Uplift= Lbs Holdown Anchor Type: □ Gridline Tributary Area (This Level): sq. ft. Lateral Load (This Level): Lbs Lateral Load (Level Above): Lbs Total Load (All Levels), F,= Lbs Shearwall(s) Length, L = ft. Unit Wall Shear, v = F,/L = plf Shearwall Type: 0 Overturning: L= ft. __ Okay by Inspection Uplift= Lbs Holdown Anchor Type: □ 0 PRODUCT 207 MIKE SURPRENANT & ASSOCIATES L..,,.,.-----4===''--r-Consulting Structural Engineers JOB ____________ Z._3_/_6---'4'----- SHEET NO. 2,,3 Of _ ___,?'--~---- CALCULATED BY ___ ~~~-----DATE _____ _ CHECKEDBY ________ DATE _____ _ SCALE ________________ _ t, I .' J FOUNDATION DESIGN ALLOWABLE APPLIED LOADS Allowable Soil Bearing Pressure (ASBP) = I lO DD I psf (Per Design Criteria) CONTINUOUS FOOTINGS t LJ...------1t --h Depth of Ftg. (h) = j • S ft. w AllOW = ASBP Cb)=~( i,_o_o_o _) (_\._5~)-_-____ 3_D_D_o_p1r {q, "WIDE x \<p "DEEP. WITH 2,., #_±_TOP & BOTTOM l. S ft -----. w ALLOW = ASBP (b) = ( 7.,0 0 0 )(1. C)) :: 20 00 plf J USE: 12. "WIDE X l<l. "DEEP. WITH 7-# 4 TOP&BOTTOM WMAX@ Gridline /y'C(4-b)= 1-::t 1'1' plf USE: CF-2 -- WMAX @ Gridline B(~-l.) = 1--b5 2. plf USE: CF-I WMAX@ Gridline C(l-4) = -Z.5~<l> plf USE: CF-I --WMAX @ Gridline B(1-£J = 2551-plf USE: CF-_I_ D PRODUCT 207 MIKE SURPRENANT & ASSOCIATES Consulting Structural Engineers ' JOB SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY SCALE l o CONTINUOUS FOOTINGS -MAX POST LOADS lP-, 2h (ft.) MARK: CF-1 ~ -r~ PMAX = ASBP(b)(2h)-___ l-i_o_o_o--<-)---=(_1• s---=)=---(_i_1__:_\._~_)-_~ __ 9_o_o_o~LBs. MARK: CF-2 PMAX = ASBP(b )(2h) = boo o LBs. 2:31£;'4 OF :3'1-- DATE DATE ' , ' 1,, h (ft.) D PRODUCT 207 .. ' .. JOB _______ ___,. __ ------'-2_3_1....::;_~-----'41---- SHEETN0. ______ 17_ OF_.,,~4-:~---- MIKE SURPRENANT & ASSOCIATES ~~~ Consulting Strucru.ral Engineers CALCULATEDBY ___ fl--'---=-'G, ___ OATE ____ _ CHECKEOBY _______ DATE ____ _ SCALE ______________ _ . -•;•:,1<.f7 ~·;,1 ~•~i~1:'j~•t f •.·1 .: f !••l -''f"i SPREAD FOOTINGS -MAX. ALLOWABLE CONCENTRATED LOADS PMAX ~ , =l(ft.) --- l b (ft.} l MARK: P-1 1 1 ' PMAx =ASBP (b)2 = . l1-oo o) Lz.-)' :c '6000 LBS. I USE: 24" SQUARE x 2.4 "DEEP WITH (2) # 4 EACH WAY @ BOTTOM I MARK: P-2 PMAx =ASBP (b)2 = (.:z,,o o o J ( i..~ l =-l 1-5 0 0 LBS . I USE: 30" SQUARE x 1,4 "DEEP WITH (3) # 4 EACH WAY @ BOTTOM I MARK: P-3 PMAx = ASBP (b)2 = (1.-000)(3)~= \ iooo LBs. I USE: 36" SQUARE x 2,"\ "DEEP WITH (4) # 4 EACH WAY @ BOTTOM I MARK: P-4 PMAx = ASBP (b)2 = (1.-0 0 D)(.3.5)-i-.:: 2ASOO LBS. I USE: 42" SQUARE x 2-4 " DEEP WITH (5) # 4 EACH WAY @ BOTTOM I MARK: P-5 PMAx =ASBP (b)2 = ( io 002(4?= ?, io oo LBS.· I USE: 48" SQUARE x 1,4 "DEEP WITH (6) # 4 EACH WAY @ BOTTOM I 0 PRODUCT 207 ---·--------- JOB _________ Z.--=--3...:....::IS:..___J4L____ MIKE SURPRENANT & ASSOCIATES _ Consulting Structural Engineers SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY CHECKEDBY ______ DATE ___ _ SCALE ___________ _ s;,12vc1V\2-AL S:LAB ON£ WA\( r1Hf'L'< ~VPPD\2-TtD ~lA~ : l= \'t '-o" MIN. To\CK.N£~~ •• ½o = (1~'-12) = 1,.4 ,, 2-0 4 Jr )--' ----;r W/ t\ S @ lb ''o.c. l1ot>J At-JD :t\~ @q/o.c. l~1-'\.) w, ~ 5£> p~f or (ss ps-f). i '1 urv1-r ITT\f = '3:f y\f (lo D/2=r L) ft~ ENtf.CALC: Ql(. ~ ~(ACf\0N: 12:~o \by''6" l)Nl1" ~lf or CON1\NVOVS fi)OT\ Ng \9oS ylf @ ~~\O c : (3oii_)(~<Z>p~~)1-('l 'X1ps:f)-t \qo; pl~== z_S'3£l plf 0 GIZ--\ p ~: l3~)l~<i fS~)-\ lq')(1 f~J) t \qoS' v\f ~ t-b5L ylf 1\2-Y: \'t ,, WlDt CONT. F,9 w ,l\101,V:: u.1S')liooo p~-YJ :s 30DO plf / 1,53~ f If O\l AND 16;1 plf D PRODUCT 207 Project Title: Engineer: Ashworth TG Project ID: Project Descr: 23154 /Jr -i-:;--- sheet No.__!!__ of _2___ I Concrete Beam LIC#: KW-06016476, Build:20.24.06.04 MIKE SUPRENANT & ASSOCIATES DESCRIPTION: 12" Thick Structural Slab (8" Unit Strip) CODE REFERENCES Calculations per ACI 318-19, IBC 2021, ASCE 7-16 Load Combination Set : ASCE 7-16 General Information re = 2.50 ksi d> Phi Values Flexure : 0.90 fr= rd12 '7.50 = 375.0 psi Shear: 0.750 \j/ Density = 145.0 pcf p 1 = 'A. LtWt Factor = 1.0 Elastic Modulus= 2,850.0 ksi Fy -Stirrups E -Stirrups = fy -Main Rebar = 60.0 ksi E -Main Rebar = 29,000.0 ksi Stirrup Bar Size # Number of Resisting Legs Per Stirrup = Seismic Design Category = A I & 1 Cross Section & Reinforcing Details Rectanqular Section, Width= 8.0 in, Heiqht = 12.0 in Span #1 Reinforcinq .... 0.850 40.0 ksi 29,000.0 ksi 3 1.0 D 0.01 L 0.0 27 19.0 ft 8'"wx12"h 1-#5 at 3.0 in from Bottom, from 0.0 to 19.0 ft in this span Beam self weight calculated and added to loads Load for Span Number 1 Uniform Load : D = 0.010, L = 0.0270 k/ft, Tributary Width = 1.0 ft, (W1) DESIGN SUMMARY Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = Section used for this span Mu: Applied Mn * Phi : Allowable Location of maximum on span Span # where maximum occurs Maximum Deflection Max Downward Transient Deflection Max Upward Transient Deflection Max Downward Total Deflection Max Upward Total Deflection 0.655 : 1 Typical Section 7.725 k-ft 11 .792 k-ft 9.517 ft Span# 1 0.024 in 0.000 in 0.120 in 0.000 in Ratio = Ratio = Ratio = Ratio= 9458 >=600.0 0 <600.0 1906 >=400.0 0 <400.0 LOnly LOnly Span: 1 : +D+L Span: 1 : +D+L Vertical Reactions Support notation : Far left is #1 Load Combination Max Upward from all Load Conditions Max Upward from Load Combinations Max Upward from Load Cases DOnly +D+L +D+0.750L +0.60D Support 1 Support 2 1.270 1.270 1.270 1.270 1.013 1.013 1.013 1.013 1.270 1.270 1.206 1.206 0.608 0.608 Project File: Ashworth.ec6 (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2023 • . 2 Desi n OK Project Title: Ashworth Engineer: TG Project ID: 23154 1/£ 1:r-Project Descr: Sheet No. ---of --- j Concrete Beam Project File: Ashworth.ec6 UC#: KW-06016476, Build:20.24.06.04 MIKE SUPRENANT & ASSOCIATES {c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2023 DESCRIPTION: 12" Thick Structural Slab (8" Unit Strip) Vertical Reactions Support notation : Far left is #1 Load Combination Support 1 Support 2 LOnly 0.256 0.257 Shear Stirrup Requirements Entire Beam Span Length: Vu<= Phi*lambda*sqrt(fc)*bw*d, Req'd Vs= Not Reqd per 9.3.6.1, Stirrups are not required. Detailed Shear Information Span Distance 'd' Vu (k) Mu d*Vu/Mu Phi*Vc Comment Phi'Vs Phi'Vn Spacing (in) Load Combination Number (ft) (in) . Actual Design (k-ft) (k) (k) (k) Req'd +1.20D+1.60L 1 0.00 9.00 1.63 1.63 0.00 1.00 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambdlt Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 1 0.21 9.00 1.59 1.59 0.33 1.00 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 1 0.42 9.00 1.56 1.56 0.66 1.00 3.51 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 0.62 9.00 1.52 1.52 0.98 1.00 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 0.83 9.00 1.48 1.48 1.29 0.86 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 1.04 9.00 1.45 1.45 1.60 0.68 3.51 Vu <= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 1.25 9.00 1.41 1.41 1.89 0.56 3.51 Vu <= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 1 1.45 9.00 1.38 1.38 2.18 0.47 3.51 Vu <= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 1.66 9.00 1.34 1.34 2.47 0.41 3.51 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 1.87 9.00 1.31 1.31 2.74 0.36 3.51 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 2.08 9.00 1.27 1.27 3.01 0.32 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 2.28 9.00 1.24 1.24 3.27 0.28 3.51 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 2.49 9.00 1.20 1.20 3.52 0.26 3.51 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 2.70 9.00 1.16 1.16 3.77 0.23 3.51 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1 .60L 2.91 9.00 1.13 1.13 4.00 0.21 3.51 Vu <= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 3.1 1 9.00 1.09 1.09 4.24 0.19 3.51 Vu <= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1 .60L 3.32 9.00 1.06 1.06 4.46 0.18 3.51 Vu <= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 3.53 9.00 1.02 1.02 4.67 0.16 3.51 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 3.74 9.00 0.99 0.99 4.88 0.15 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 3.95 9.00 0.95 0.95 5.08 0.14 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 4.15 9.00 0.92 0.92 5.28 0.13 3.51 Vu <= Phi'lambdll Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 4.36 9.00 0.88 0.88 5.46 0.12 3.51 Vu <= Phi'lambd>I Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 4.57 9.00 0.84 0.84 5.64 0.11 3.51 Vu <= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 4.78 9.00 0.81 0.81 5.82 0.10 3.51 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 4.98 9.00 0.77 0.77 5.98 0.10 3.51 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 5.19 9.00 0.74 0.74 6.14 0.09 3.51 Vu <= Phi'lambd>I Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 5.40 9.00 0.70 0.70 6.29 0.08 3.51 Vu <= Phi'lambd>I Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 5.61 9.00 0.67 0.67 6.43 0.08 3.51 Vu <= Phi'lambd>I Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 5.81 9.00 0.63 0.63 6.56 0.07 3.51 Vu <= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 6.02 9.00 0.60 0.60 6.69 0.07 3.51 Vu <= Phi'lambd>I Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 6.23 9.00 0.56 0.56 6.81 0.06 3.51 Vu <= Phi'lambd>I Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 6.44 9.00 0.52 0.52 6.92 0.06 3.51 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 6.64 9.00 0.49 0.49 7.03 0.05 3.51 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 6.85 9.00 0.45 0.45 7.13 0.05 3.51 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 7.06 9.00 0.42 0.42 7.22 0.04 3.51 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 7.27 9.00 0.38 0.38 7.30 0.04 3.51 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd pe1 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 7.48 9.00 0.35 0.35 7.37 0.04 3.51 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 7.68 9.00 0.31 0.31 7.44 0.03 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 1 7.89 9.00 0.28 0.28 7.50 0.03 3.51 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd pe1 3.5 0.0 +1 .20D+1.60L 1 8.10 9.00 0.24 0.24 7.56 0.02 3.51 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 1 8.31 9.00 0.20 0.20 7.60 0.02 3.51 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1 .20D+1.60L 1 8.51 9.00 0.17 0.17 7.64 0.02 3.51 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1 .20D+1.60L 8.72 9.00 0.13 0.13 7.67 0.01 3.51 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 8.93 9.00 0.10 0.10 7.70 0.01 3.51 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 9.14 9.00 0.06 0.06 7.71 0.01 3.51 Vu <= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1 .20D+1.60L 9.34 9.00 0.03 0.03 7.72 0.00 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 9.55 9.00 -0.01 0.01 7.73 0.00 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 9.76 9.00 -0.04 0.04 7.72 0.00 3.51 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1 .20D+1 .60L 9.97 9.00 -0.08 0.08 7.71 0.01 3.51 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1 .20D+1.60L 10.17 9.00 -0.12 0.12 7.69 0.01 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 10.38 9.00 -0.15 0.15 7.66 0.01 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 +1.20D+1.60L 10.59 9.00 -0.19 0.19 7.62 0.02 3.51 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 Project Title: Engineer: Ashworth TG Project ID: 23154 1dl -, Project Descr: Sheet No._!/_ I of~ I Concrete Beam Project File: Ashworth.ec6 UC#: KW-06016476, Build:20.24.06.04 MIKE SUPRENANT & ASSOCIATES (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2023 DESCRIPTION: 12" Thick Structural Slab (8" Unit Strip) Detailed Shear Information Load Combination +1.20D+1.60L +1.20D+1.60L +1.20D+1.60L +1.20D+1.60L +1.20D+1.60L +1.20D+1.60L +1.20D+1.60L +1.20D+1.60L +1.20D+1.60L +1.20D+1.60L +1.20D+1.60L +1.20D+1.60L +1.20D+1.60L +1.20D+1.60L +1.20D+1.60L +1.20D+1.60L +1.20D+1.60L +1.20D+1.60L +1.20D+1.60L +1.20D+1.60L +1.20D+1.60L +1.20D+1.60L +1.20D+1 .60L +1.20D+1.60L +1.20D+1 .60L +1.20D+1.60L +1 .20D+1 .60L +1.20D+1 .60L +1.20D+1 .60L +1 .20D+1 .60L +1.20D+1.60L +1.20D+1 .60L +1.20D+1 .60L +1.20D+1.60L +1.20D+1.60L +1.20D+1.60L +1.20D+1.60L +1.20D+1.60L +1.20D+1 .60L +1.20D+1.60L Span Distance 'd' Number (ft) (in) 1 10.80 9.00 11.01 9.00 11.21 9.00 11.42 9.00 11.63 9.00 11.84 9.00 12.04 9.00 12.25 9.00 12.46 9.00 12.67 9.00 12.87 9.00 13.08 9.00 13.29 9.00 13.50 9.00 13.70 9.00 1 13.91 9.00 14.12 9.00 14.33 9.00 14.54 9.00 14.74 9.00 14.95 9.00 15.16 9.00 15.37 9.00 15.57 9.00 15.78 9.00 15.99 9.00 16.20 9.00 16.40 9.00 16.61 9.00 16.82 9.00 17.03 9.00 1 17.23 9.00 1 17.44 9.00 1 17.65 9.00 17.86 9.00 18.07 9.00 18.27 9.00 18.48 9.00 18.69 9.00 18.90 9.00 Vu (k) Actual Design -0.22 0.22 -0.26 0.26 -0.29 0.29 -0.33 0.33 -0.36 0.36 -0.40 0.40 -0.44 0.44 -0.47 0.47 -0.51 0.51 -0.54 0.54 -0.58 0.58 -0.61 0.61 -0.65 0.65 -0.68 0.68 -0.72 0.72 -0.76 0.76 -0.79 0.79 -0.83 0.83 -0.86 0.86 -0.90 0.90 -0.93 0.93 -0.97 0.97 -1.00 1.00 -1.04 1.04 -1.08 1.08 -1.11 1.11 -1.15 1.15 -1.18 1.18 -1.22 1.22 -1.25 1.25 -1.29 1.29 -1.32 1.32 -1.36 1.36 -1.40 1.40 -1.43 1.43 -1.47 1.47 -1.50 1.50 -1.54 1.54 -1.57 1.57 -1.61 1.61 Mu d*Vu/Mu (k-ft) 7.58 0.02 7.53 0.03 7.47 0.03 7.41 0.03 7.34 0.04 7.26 0.04 7.17 0.05 7.08 0.05 6.98 0.05 6.87 0.06 6.75 0.06 6.63 0,07 6.50 0.07 6.36 0.08 6.21 0.09 6.06 0.09 5.90 0.10 5.73 0.11 5.55 0.12 5.37 0.13 5.18 0.14 4.98 0.15 4.78 0.16 4.57 0.17 4.35 0.19 4.12 0.20 3.89 0.22 3.64 0.24 3.40 0.27 3.14 0.30 2.88 0.34 2.60 0.38 2.33 0.44 2.04 0.51 1.75 0.61 1.45 0.76 1.14 0.99 0.82 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.17 1.00 Maximum Forces & Stresses for Load Combinations Load Combination Segment MAXimum BENDING Envelope Span# 1 +1.40D Span# 1 +1.20D+1.60L Span# 1 +1.20D+L Span# 1 +1.20D Span# 1 +0.90D Span# 1 Overall Maximum Deflections Location (ft) Span # along Beam 19.000 19.000 19.000 19.000 19.000 19.000 Phi*Vc Comment Phi*Vs Phi*Vn Spacing (in) (k) (k) (k) Req'd 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>I Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>I Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>I Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>t Reqd pe1 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>I Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>I Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>I Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>I Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>I Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>I Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>I Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu<= Phi*lambd>I Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu<= Phi*lambd>I Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu <= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu<= Phi*lambd>I Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 3.51 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 3.5 0.0 Bending Stress Results ( k-ft ) Mu : Max Phi*Mnx Stress Ratio 7.73 11.79 0.66 6.74 11.79 0.57 7.73 11.79 0.66 6.99 11. 79 0.59 5.78 11.79 0.49 4.33 11. 79 0.37 Load Combination Span Max."-" Defl (in) .ocation in Span (ft Load Combination \i1ax. "+" Defl (in;ocation in Span (ft +D+L 1 0.1196 9.500 0.0000 0.000 Project Title: Engineer: Project ID: Project Descr: Ashworth TG 23154 /}_n "1,'l,.- Sheet No. _:!:_ of _22__ I Concrete Beam UC#: KW--06016476, Build:20.24.06.04 MIKE SUPRENANT & ASSOCIATES DESCRIPTION: 12" Thick Flush Concrete Beam (w/ Point Load) CODE REFERENCES Calculations per ACI 318-19, IBC 2021, ASCE 7-16 Load Combination Set : ASCE 7-16 General Information fc = 2.50 ksi d> Phi Values Flexure: 0.90 fr= rd'2 '7.50 = 375.0 psi 'I' Density = 145.0 pcf 13 1 = ').., LtWtFactor = 1.0 Elastic Modulus= 2,850.0 ksi Fy -Stirrups fy -Main Rebar = 60.0 ksi E • Stirrups = E -Main Rebar = 29,000.0 ksi Stirrup Bar Size# Number of Resisting Legs Per Stirrup= Seismic Design Category = A 1 Cross Section & Reinforcing Details Shear: 0.750 0.850 40.0 ksi 29,000.0 ksi 3 2.0 0(1.964 ) Lr(2 .183) D(0.015t L (0.04) 16.0 fl 20" W x 12" h Rectanqular Section, Width= 20.0 in, Heiqht = 12.0 in Span #1 Reinforcinq .... Project File: Ashworth.ec6 (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2023 • • • • • • 1 2 4-#5 at 3.0 in from Bottom, from 0.0 to 16.0 ft in this span 2-#5 at 3.0 in from Top, from 0.0 to 16.0 ft in this span Beam self weight calculated and added to loads Load for Span Number 1 Unifonn Load: D = 0.0150, L = 0.040 k/ft, Tributary Width= 1.0 ft, (W1) Point Load : D = 1.964, Lr= 2.183 k@ 8.0 ft, (P1) DESIGN SUMMARY Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = Section used for this span Mu: Applied Mn * Phi : Allowable Location of maximum on span Span # where maximum occurs Maximum Deflection Max Downward Transient Deflection Max Upward Transient Deflection Max Downward Total Deflection Max Upward Total Deflection 0.743 : 1 Typical Section 34.492 k-ft 46.403 k-ft 7.985 ft Span# 1 0.039 in Ratio= 0.000 in Ratio= 0.258 in Ratio= 0.000 in Ratio= 4897 >=600.0 0 <600.0 745 >=400.0 0 <400.0 LOnly Lr Only Span: 1 : +D+Lr Span: 1 : +D+Lr Vertical Reactions Support notation : Far left is #1 Load Combination Support 1 Support 2 M..,..ax.,...U..-,-pw_a_r----..d...,.fr_o_m_a----;;ll"L_o_a---.d "C.----o-nd-..i,..tio-n-s--------..,..4_-=<12·7 4.127 Max Upward from Load Combinations 4.127 4.127 Max Upward from Load Cases 3.035 3.035 D Only 3.035 3.035 +D+L 3.355 3.355 +D+Lr 4.127 4.127 Desi n OK Project Title: Ashworth Engineer: TG Project ID: 23154 it '?1---Project Descr: Sheet No. ---of Concrete Beam Project File: Ashworth.ec6 UC#: KW-06016476, Build:20.24.06.04 MIKE SUPRENANT &ASSOCIATES (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2023 DESCRIPTION: 12" Thick Flush Concrete Beam (w/ Point Load) Vertical Reactions Support notation : Far left is #1 Load Combination Support 1 Support 2 +D+0. 750Lr+0. 750L 4.094 4.094 +D+0.750L 3.275 3.275 +0.60D 1.821 1.821 Lr Only 1.091 1.091 LOnly 0.320 0.320 Shear Stirrup Requirements Entire Beam Span Length : Vu <= Phi*lambda'sqrt{fc)'bw'd, Req'd Vs = Not Reqd per 9.3.6.1, Stirrups are not required. Detailed Shear Information Span Distance 'd' Vu {k) Mu d'Vu/Mu Phi'Vc Comment Phi'Vs Phi'Vn Spacing {in) Load Combination Number {ft) {in) Actual Design {k-ft) {k) {k) (k) Req'd +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 1 0.00 9.00 5.71 5.71 0.00 1.00 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 0.17 9.00 5.65 5.65 0.99 1.00 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 0.35 9.00 5.59 5.59 1.98 1.00 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 0.52 9.00 5.53 5.53 2.95 1.00 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 0.70 9.00 5.47 5.47 3.91 1.00 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 0.87 9.00 5.40 5.40 4.86 0.83 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 1.05 9.00 5.34 5.34 5.80 0.69 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 1.22 9.00 5.28 5.28 6.73 0.59 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 1.40 9.00 5.22 5.22 7.65 0.51 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 1.57 9.00 5.16 5.16 8.55 0.45 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1 .20D+1.60Lr+L 1.75 9.00 5.10 5.10 9.45 0.40 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambdlt Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 1.92 9.00 5.04 5.04 10.34 0.37 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 2.10 9.00 4.98 4.98 11.21 0.33 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 2.27 9.00 4.92 4.92 12.08 0.31 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 2.45 9.00 4.86 4.86 12.93 0.28 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 2.62 9.00 4.80 4.80 13.78 0.26 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 2.80 9.00 4.74 4.74 14.61 0.24 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 2.97 9.00 4.67 4.67 15.43 0.23 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 3.15 9.00 4.61 4.61 16.24 0.21 10.27 Vu <= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 3.32 9.00 4.55 4.55 17.05 0.20 10.27 Vu <= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 3.50 9.00 4.49 4.49 17.84 0.19 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 3.67 9.00 4.43 4.43 18.62 0.18 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 1 3.85 9.00 4.37 4.37 19.39 0.17 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 1 4.02 9.00 4.31 4.31 20.15 0.16 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 1 4.20 9.00 4.25 4.25 20.89 0.15 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1 .60Lr+L 4.37 9.00 4.19 4.19 21 .63 0.15 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1 .60Lr+L 4.55 9.00 4.13 4.13 22.36 0.14 10.27 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 4.72 9.00 4.07 4.07 23.07 0.13 10.27 Vu <= Phi'lambd>t Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 4.90 9.00 4.00 4.00 23.78 0.13 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 5.07 9.00 3.94 3.94 24.48 0.12 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 5.25 9.00 3.88 3.88 25.16 0.12 10.27 Vu <= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1 .60Lr+L 5.42 9.00 3.82 3.82 25.83 0.11 10.27 Vu <= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 5.60 9.00 3.76 3.76 26.50 0.11 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 5.77 9.00 3.70 3.70 27.15 0.10 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambd>I Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20O+1.60Lr+L 5.95 9.00 3.64 3.64 27.79 0.10 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 6.12 9.00 3.58 3.58 28.42 0.09 10.27 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 6.30 9.00 3.52 3.52 29.04 0.09 10.27 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 6.47 9.00 3.46 3.46 29.65 0.09 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 6.64 9.00 3.40 3.40 30.25 0.08 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 6.82 9.00 3.34 3.34 30.84 0.08 10.27 Vu <= Phi*lambd>t Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20O+1.60Lr+L 6.99 9.00 3.27 3.27 31.42 0.08 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambd>I Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 7.17 9.00 3.21 3.21 31.99 0.08 10.27 Vu <= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20O+1.60Lr+L 7.34 9.00 3.15 3.15 32.54 0.07 10.27 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 7.52 9.00 3.09 3.09 33.09 0.07 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 7.69 9.00 3.03 3.03 33.62 0.07 10.27 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 7.87 9.00 2.97 2.97 34.15 0.07 10.27 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 8.04 9.00 -2.94 2.94 34.41 0.06 10.27 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 8.22 9.00 -3.00 3.00 33.89 0.07 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 Project Title: Ashworth Engineer: TG 1/Vot Project ID: 23154 '?~ Project Descr: Sheet No. j Concrete Beam Project File: Ashworth.ec6 UC#: KW-06016476, Build:20.24.06.04 MIKE SUPRENANT & ASSOCIATES (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2023 DESCRIPTION: 12" T hick Flush Concrete Beam (w/ Point Load) Detailed Shear Information Span Distance 'd' Vu (k) Mu d•Vu/Mu Phi*Vc Comment Phi.Vs Phi•Vn Spacing (in) Load Combination Number (ft) (in) Actual Design (k-ft) (k) (k) (k) Req'd +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 1 8.39 9.00 -3.06 3.06 33.36 0.07 10.27 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1 .20D+1.60Lr+L 1 8.57 9.00 -3.12 3.12 32.82 0.07 10.27 Vu<= Phi•lambd>t Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1 .60Lr+L 8.74 9.00 -3.18 3.18 32.26 0.07 10.27 Vu<= Phi.lambd>t Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 8.92 9.00 -3.24 3.24 31.70 0.08 10.27 Vu<= Phi•lambd>t Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 1 9.09 9.00 -3.31 3.31 31.13 0.08 10.27 Vu <= Phi•lambd>I Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 1 9.27 9.00 -3.37 3.37 30.55 0.08 10.27 Vu<= Phi•lambd>t Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 9.44 9.00 -3.43 3.43 29.95 0.09 10.27 Vu<= Phi•lambd>I Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 9.62 9.00 -3.49 3.49 29.35 0.09 10.27 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 9.79 9.00 -3.55 3.55 28.73 0.09 10.27 Vu<= Phi*lambd>I Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 9.97 9.00 -3.61 3.61 28.11 0.10 10.27 Vu<= Phi*lambd>I Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 10.14 9.00 -3.67 3.67 27.47 0.10 10.27 Vu<= Phi*lambd>I Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 10.32 9.00 -3.73 3.73 26.82 0.10 10.27 Vu<= Phi•lambd>I Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 10.49 9.00 -3.79 3.79 26.17 0.11 10.27 Vu<= Phi•lambd>I Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 10.67 9.00 -3.85 3.85 25.50 0.11 10.27 Vu<= Phi•lambd>t Reqd peI 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 10.84 9.00 -3.91 3.91 24.82 0.12 10.27 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 11.02 9.00 -3.97 3.97 24.13 0.12 10.27 Vu<= Phi•lambd>I Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 11.19 9.00 -4.04 4.04 23.43 0.13 10.27 Vu <= Phi*lambd>t Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 11.37 9.00 -4.10 4.10 22.72 0.14 10.27 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 11.54 9.00 -4.16 4.16 22.00 0.14 10.27 Vu <= Phi•lambd>I Reqd per 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 11.72 9.00 -4.22 4.22 21.26 0.15 10.27 Vu<= Phi•lambd>I Reqd per 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 11.89 9.00 -4.28 4.28 20.52 0.16 10.27 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd per 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 12.07 9.00 -4.34 4.34 19.77 0.16 10.27 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd per 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 12.24 9.00 -4.40 4.40 19.00 0.17 10.27 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd per 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 12.42 9.00 -4.46 4.46 18.23 0.18 10.27 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd per 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 12.59 9.00 -4.52 4.52 17.44 0.19 10.27 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd per 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 12.77 9.00 -4.58 4.58 16.65 0.21 10.27 Vu<= Phi'lambd>t Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 12.94 9.00 -4.64 4.64 15.84 0.22 10.27 Vu<= Phi•lambd>t Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 13.11 9.00 -4.70 4.70 15.02 0.23 10.27 Vu<= Phi•lambd>t Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 13.29 9.00 -4.77 4.77 14.19 0.25 10.27 Vu<= Phi•lambd>t Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 13.46 9.00 -4.83 4.83 13.36 0.27 10.27 Vu<= Phi•lambd>t Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 13.64 9.00 -4.89 4.89 12.51 0.29 10.27 Vu<= Phi•lambd>I Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 13.81 9.00 -4.95 4.95 11.65 0.32 10.27 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 13.99 9.00 -5.01 5.01 10.78 0.35 10.27 Vu<= Phi•lambd>I Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 14.16 9.00 -5.07 5.07 9.90 0.38 10.27 Vu<= Phi•lambd>I Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 14.34 9.00 -5.13 5.13 9.00 0.43 10.27 Vu<= Phi•lambd>t Reqd per 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 14.51 9.00 -5.19 5.19 8.10 0.48 10.27 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd per 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 14.69 9.00 -5.25 5.25 7.19 0.55 10.27 Vu<= Phi•lambd>t Reqd per 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 1 14.86 9.00 -5.31 5.31 6.26 0.64 10.27 Vu<= Phi•lambd>I Reqd per 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 1 15.04 9.00 -5.37 5.37 5.33 0.76 10.27 Vu<= Phi*lambd>I Reqd per 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 1 15.21 9.00 -5.43 5.43 4.38 0.93 10.27 Vu<= Phi*lambd>I Reqd per 10.3 0.0 +1 .20D+1.60Lr+L 1 15.39 9.00 -5.50 5.50 3.43 1.00 10.27 Vu <= Phi*lambd>t Reqd per 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 15.56 9.00 -5.56 5.56 2.46 1.00 10.27 Vu <= Phi*lambd>I Reqd per 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 15.74 9.00 -5.62 5.62 1.49 1.00 10.27 Vu<= Phi*lambd>I Reqd pe1 10.3 0.0 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L 15.91 9.00 -5.68 5.68 0.50 1.00 10.27 Vu<= Phi*lambd>t Reqd per 10.3 0.0 Maximum Forces & Stresses for Load Combinations Load Combination Location (ft) Bending Stress Results ( k-ft ) Segment Span# along Beam Mu: Max Phi*Mnx Stress Ratio MAXimum BENDING Envelope Span# 1 16.000 34.49 46.40 0.74 +1.40D Span# 1 16.000 22.48 46.40 0.48 + 1.20D+0 .50Lr+1. 60L Span# 1 16.000 25.67 46.40 0.55 +1.20D+1.60L Span# 1 16.000 21.31 46.40 0.46 +1.20D+1.60Lr+L Span# 1 16.000 34.49 46.40 0.74 +1.20D+1.60Lr Span# 1 1 16.000 33.21 46.40 0.72 Project Title: Engineer: Project ID: Ashworth TG Project Descr: 23154 ~17 Sheet No. I Concrete Beam LIC#: KW-06016476, Build:20.24.06.04 MIKE SUPRENANT &ASSOCIATES DESCRIPTION: 12" Thick Flush Concrete Beam (w/ Point Load) Load Combination Segment +1.20D+L Span# 1 +1.20D Span# 1 +1.20D+0.50Lr+L Span# 1 +0.90D Span# 1 Overall Maximum Deflections Location (ft) Span # along Beam 16.000 16.000 16.000 16.000 Bending Stress Results Mu: Max Phi*Mnx 20.55 46.40 19.27 46.40 24.90 46.40 14.45 46.40 of 11--- Project File: Ashworth.ec6 (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2023 ( k-ft ) Stress Ratio 0.44 0.42 0.54 0.31 Load Combination Span Max."-" Defl (in) .ocation in Span (ft Load Combination \/lax. "+" Defl (in;ocation in Span (ft +D+Lr 0.2576 8.000 0.0000 0.000 MIKE SURPRENANT & ASSOCIATES Consulting Structural Engineers CALCULATED BY ________ _ DATE ______ _ CHECKED BY _________ _ DATE ______ _ SCALE ___________________ _ SCHEDULES D PRODUCT 207 RI: V. MARCH 2024 SHEARWALLSCHEDULE DE5CRIFTION 51-lEAR\IJALL NAILING®@ 51-lEAR TRANSFER SPEC.@ G)G)@@ 3x@ NAIL SILL ATTACI-NENT(i)Q)~ BOTTOM F'LATE@ TOP F'LATE S'l'HBOL VALUE INSP. MATERIAL i=RAHN::i B.N. 1 E.N. FN. (PLF/ SIZE ®© RfQ'D REO'D 5/8'~ A.8. SPACl!lk'.i NAILS I LA65 CLIPS 0 2&0 NO 3/8' APA RATED SHEATHIN6 NO 8d b' 12' 48' o.c. lbd G b ' OC. A35 t1 16' oc. 0 31121 NO 15/32' STRUCTURAL I NO 10d b ' 12' 32' o.c. lbd G b' OC. A35., 12' O.C. RATED SHEArnlNC:s 0 35121 YES 3/8' APA RATED SHEATHIN6 NO 8d 4' 12' 32' o.c. lbd .,-4• O.C. A35., 12' OC. 0 550 YES 3/8' S TRIJCTURAL I YES 8d 3' 12' 24' oc. 14'♦ X b' SDS t1 4' 0.C. A35 t1 8' OC. RATED SHEArnlNu (STAGGERED TO -4x BLK'G/ 0 730 YES 3/8' S TRIJCTURAL I YES 8d 2' 12' lb'O.C. 14'♦ X b' SDS t1 3' OC. L TP4 ., 8' O.C, RATED SHEAH11Nu /STAGGERED TO 4x BLK'GJ ~ ~ 0 ::, -~ Re~ a:~ Jg r:n ~ r:n d 20~ " C'":) '"d [>~ g-, 1-j z 113. trj ~ = r:n n n ii1 1-j 0 800 YES 15/32' STRlJCTURAL I YES 10d 2' 12' lb'O.C. 14'♦ X b' SDS • 2'12' O.C. LTP4., 8' OC. RATED 5HEATHIN6 /STAGGERED TO 4x BLK'GJ 0 15/32' STi;aJCTURAL I RATED 5/8't X 8' LAGS t!l 8' O.C. 1230 YES SHEATHING ( APPLIED TO ® YES 10d 2' 12' 8' o.c. LTP4 • &' O.C. BOTH SIDES a:-UJALLJ /STAGGERED TO -4x BLK'G/ u, C) ~ u, c.. C) I I 0 > fT1 fT1 m r C) !:j "' :,. C: "' ~ z 0 ~ 0 9 51--!EAR\IJALL 5Cl-lEDULE FOOTNOTES: m -< (i) A~i-lOR OOL TS MUST l3E EHeEDDED 1' HIN111.M INTO 1-EUJ ca-JC1<£TE, lNLE&5 NOTED OTHERWISE. W-lERE 5!-EAl<!llA1..L5 AA£ TO BE ATTAC:1-lED TO 1:XIST~ CO!sCRETE, S/8'♦ THREADED ROD ,l>J,ICl-lORS ~LL BE EPOXIED WITJ.11' HNIHIJ1 E116EDMEN1 INTO THE EXl5mt; FOOTIN(,5 AT THE 5F'ACN6 INDICATED IN A80\IE ~EDU..E. USE 51MFSG1'1 'SET•36' EPOXY. ISFECIAL INSF!:CTION REGlJIREDJ. Q) SILL R.ATES TO BE ATTAQjED U51Nes A MINll1JM OF (1) ANCllOR BOLTS FER PIECE WITH ANCl-lOR BOLTS LOCATED 4-3/8' HINll1.Jt1111' NAXlt!IN FFICl1 EACH END. ® ANCHOR 60L T HOLES TO 6E DRIU.ED 1/32' NAXNl.N OVERSIZED. (3) FaNDATION ,l>J,ICHOR BOLTS H ALL ~5 SHALL INCLUDE SiEa Fl.ATE UIASH:RS, A MNM..M Cf 0J2':I HCH BY 3 HCllES BY 3 INCHES H SIZE, BETUEEN THE SILL PLATE AND WJT. TT-IE llOLE N THE PLAiE UJA51.£R IS PEJ;t!lmD TO 6E DIAGCINALL Y 51.0TTED 111TH A UIDTH IP TO 3~b INCH l.AJ;!;ER TH,l>J,I THE BOLT DIA'-ETER AND A SLOT LENl'.:i1H NOT TO El<CEED 1-3/4 INCHES, FROY1DED A STANDARD CUT WASllER 15 PLACED BETUEEN THE R.AiE WA5llER AND THE NUT. THE PLATE UJA5HER SllALL EXTEND TO UITHIN 111' Cf THE EDGE Of THE BOTTCM PLATE~ Tl-IE SIDE(SJ 111TH SHEATHIN6. (Sl'f'SC!-1 ~-3' ACCEPTAeLEJ. THE t-lJTS SHALL 6E TIGHTENED .AJST FRIOR TO COVERINCs ll.lAl.l. FRAMING. SEE ALSO WOOD NOTE '31. @ USE DMLAS FIR NO. 1 ffiES&JRE TREATED SILL PLATES. OOINEER TO BE NOTflED FOR RE-DESIGN If OTHER 6PECIE5 Cf &ILL F'LATES ARE USED OR ARE PART Cf THE EXISTING 6llll.DIJII:;. @ UI-IERE NOTED, FRANINc; AT FOI.NDATIC!-1 SIU. f'LATE5, AND ALL FRAMINCs MEMBERS RECl:IVNG EDGE NAILING FRQ'1 ABIJTTING PANELS, SHALL 6E 3x NOMINAL OR THICKER. ALL SILL F'lATE AND SHEATHING JOINT NAIL~ SHALL 6E STK:uEl<l:D. NOTE, 3x SILL f'l.ATE NOT REGIJIRED FOR TYi'!: '3' SHfAl;aJJALLS PROVIDED RECUl1<£MENT5 Of FOOTNOTE •-4 ARE MET. I I I~ G) SHEAR P.loNEL5 &HALL BE APPLIED DIRECTLY TO STUD fRAl11Nc; AT lb' ON CENTER MAXlt1Ji. @ lall:RE 51-EATHINCs PANEL& AA£ Af'FI..IED CN BOTH FACES Cf T1-E 51lEA"'11JALL. SHeATHINc; PANEL JONT5 SHALL OCOJR AT 3x NCt'IINAL OR THICKER FRAMN5 MEJ113ER5 PANEL .JONTS ~ EAQj SIDE Cf' WALL SllALL BE ST AGC.ERED. @ ALI. WOOD SHEATHINc; PAI-EL EDGES &HALL BE BLOCKED WITH MINMJ1 2• BLOCKING, UNLESS NOTED OTI-E.a!IISE. @ SHEARWALLS l!JITH MO!<E THAN M YERTICAL PANEL IN HEIGf./T SHALL HAYE EITHER YERTICAL OR HORIZONTAL 5TA6(;ERED SR.ICED JOIN15. @ CN1. Y cot-t10N NAILS Al,£ TO 6E USED FOR ALL ~ATHl!G ATT ~. NAIL GI.NS USN6 'Cllf'f'ED HEAD' OR '511-KER' NAILS ARE NOT ACCEPT ABLE. O O 0 ~ ~ I I ~ ~ \N ~ <n @ PROVIDE 3/8' MJNIM.J1 EDGE Dl&T ANCES FOR ALL 51-!EATHINCs AND FRA/111'6 MEMBER EDGE NAIL1!'6. @ 51\ICCO AND/OR EXTERIOR VENEER OVER A WOOD Shl:ATHING SHEARIJALL SHALL 6E WATEf<PROa=ED UITJ.I A MINIMU1 Cf (1) LAYERS Cf b I:>. FELT PAFER @ f'ERIOOJC Sf'ECIAL INSF'ECT!a-1 15 REG!JIRED FER CBC SECTICN rwsm /\ol;RIFr w/ LOCAL BUILDING J..Rl5DICTICN IF EXEMPTICNS AF'PL YJ. REY. JI.NE 2019 HOLD-DOWN SCHEDULE HOLD-DOll.N POST HOLD-Dou.N ANCl-lORS (SYMOOL t ID) (MIN. TI-IICKNESS) DESIGN LOAD SLAB STEM EXISTI~ CONCRETE [Ij MSTC40 4x NA NA NA 2.h'35 lb& [fil MSTc&2 4x NA NA NA 4,23& lb& @J MSTChb 4x NA NA NA &,860 b& @J 50010 DBL. 2x NA (b' MIN. STEMJ NA 2.£,40 lb& 1,43& lb& <STEMJ II] STI-IDl4 DBL. 2x NA (b' MIN. STEMJ NA 3.£,'35 Iba 2,686 Iba (STEMJ II] I-IDLl2-SD52.& DBL.2x.QC 4x 55161b 561620 !Is'♦ ROD w/ 10' HIN. EHBEDHENT 3,015 lb& (b' MIN. STEMJ @] I-IDU4-SD52,!; DBL. 2x Qt. 4x 551620 SB\X24 l!t,'♦ ROD w/ 10' HIN. EHBEDHENT 4,&b& lb& (b' HIN. STEMJ [ill I-IDU&-5052,!; D6L.2x.QC 4x 551624 ~4 "'i,1♦ ROD w/ 12' HIN. El16EDMENT &,t,4& lb& (b' MIN. &TEMJ n t 0 ::, ~ ., Ro~ !=: > r.n r.n en r.n d ~o~ t~~ f. ~ ~ ~ ,.., QJ I-IDU8-SDS2.& 4X.QCbX 551628 56\X24 \'♦ ROD w/ I&' HIN. El16EDMENT b,'310 lb& ( 4x) (8' HIN. STEMJ 1,810 lb& (bx) [fil I-IDUII-SD&2.& bx .QC Bx 561><30 PA68 I'♦ ROD w/ 18' HIN. EHBEDHENT S,33& lb& ( bx) 11,n& lb& (BxJ II] I-IDU14-SD52.& Bx 561><30 PA68 I'♦ ROD w/ 18' HIN. EHBEDMENT I4,3'30 lb& GENE~ NOTE&: I. 1-IOLD DOllN ~ 11JST BE TIED IN PLACE PRIOR TO FOI.NDATION IN5FECTION. en n n u, c.... ~ :r: ~ :r: 0 rr, n rr, Ill ~ C !?:j tl ~ ~ ~ 0 • Ill -< 2. DEEPEN FOOT~ TO FROYIDE 3' MIN. CONCl<ETE COYER lU-lEFiE 1-lOLD DOllN ANCHORS Al<E L~ Tl-W-1 ™E FOOT~ DEPTH. H5TC NQTE&: L U5E lbd 5n+::ER5. 2. CENTER BE1UEEN LIPPER f Lo.I.ER R..OOR&. HAXIMtt1 CLEAR &PAN • 18'. NAIL&~ f<EQUll<ED IN CLEAR &PAN (RIM OOARDJ Al<EA 5JHP NOTE&, l USE <RJJ OPTION FOR RAISED 11.00D !lUB-R..OOR CONDITION. 2. NAIL STRAP FRCt1 60TTct1 UP. 3. STRAP HAY BE BENT ONE RILL CYCLE TO AID WALL PLACEMENT. NOTIFY E.OR IF CONCRETE &PALL BEHIND STRAP 15 Gl<EATER ™AN I'. 4. &TRAP 11JST et:,.661: ONE (I) '4 <HINll1J1J ~IZONTAL l<EBAR IN FOOT~. ll.ll™IN 3' TO S' Cf CONCl<ETE eui.fACE. ~· I I r HPLI NOTE&: l NOTED POST WIDTH I& PARALLa TO WALL. 2. POST HAY CONSIST Cf MULTIPLE MEMBERS PROVIDED THEY Al<E CONNECTED INDEPENDENTLY Cf 1-IOLD-DOUN FASTENER. 0 0 0 ~ ~ 'Tl I I vol 3. 1-IOLD-DOUNS HAY BE INSTALLED 18' HAXIMtt1 A60YE TOP Cf CONCRETE. 4. U5E: SIMPSON '&ET-XP' EPOXY (ICC-ESR-2&08J ~™ 5FECIAL IN5FECTION INTO EXIST~ CONCl<ETE <HINll'U1 P4' EDGE DISTANCE). ~ N w -(J\ -f:>, JQB ______ ~,..,....,....., ___ Z,_3_1_S___.4 __ MIKE SURPRENANT & ASSOCIATES Consulting Structural Engineers 'Jif -1,,o/ SHEETNQ. _________ OF--~----- CALCULATED BY ________ DATE ______ _ SYM:BOL <8> CHECKEDBY _________ DATE ______ _ SCALE _________________ _ HEDULE SIZE AND REINFORCEMENT (F'c•2p0(/) p&l 4 f~•6~1) 24• SQUARE X 2,4 11 DEEP WI (2) # 4 EAC\.l WAY 30P SQUARE X 11 II DEEP W/ (3) # 4 EACH WA y 3~1 SQUARE X'Z_t\· 11 DEEP W/ (4) # 4 EACH WAY 42u SQUARE X '2,1 11 DEEP W/ (5) # 4 EACH WAY 4811 SQUARE X '2-4 11 DEEP WI (~) # 4 EACI-J WAY D PRODUCT 207 (E ) FLOOR . FRAM'NG I I ) (E.l FOOTING i I \-. MfKE SURPRENANT & ASSOCIATES Con~ulting Structural Engineers 4i-· JDH Asµ, 'v\J o 12-m _______________ 2-3 1_5 1 _____ _ 2---':;r.r.fT <ID __________ _ 2 C'f ______________ _ CALCULATEO OY ___ ~_G--t,----DATE ____ 1-L~ r I i -s CHECKl:D!JY ______ _ DATE _______ _ SCALE _______ _ ,r---1::1~~-} /---FLASl-l!NG PER ARCf-i 'L. , I , CONC. &LAB /---· PER l0!5D0.t 1 ! j ,-··· · W CONT "4 BAR : I i i • '~. 1-~'"--------..,.,.,---...... -....,...--.,..----,-,---ei EPO:,<'r "4 DOWELS . MIN. A' iJ\lTO EXT FT G. ii' 10' 0.C. (5T t.C,C,.,' (5iMPSON '5ET-3G ' J (2 1 •4 RE11'.I= e -.iRS ,:.co,-CO:--!T TOP ~ B T\"' / l 10 ' 0.C.. u• M!C·, I i ___ J,. " i --------------------·-·· ---••• {. . I . u~ l "' d l I J-I ~ CONT. FOOTING DET~IL (ALT.) RECORD CO H' ' . • , C • . • .. • ',\1, ,,' Geotechriical • Coastal • Geologic;: • ~nyironmental FOOTING TRENCH OBSERVATION SUMMARY Client Name: ..A<..>it o~,\ \ n !l 'j A~ 1"_,r\-[,, Project Name: 1 fJ, S I.J\l ,v, J , l I / /" ' I J .,' (_"' I_(\ L t,· /T t' l ' c ~,. "-..J-. i _,1· ~ oca IOn rac : _ __.__..,.__.,....,,... _ ___.,\,,,..~.i-;J \04,...,",...l_ t----'-i·...:... ....... ,~=-,1..; _...::.\_,,~-h"'"{ .... l ..::.->..:..t ~-::;...,;:;;.;.4...,•_~....i,,...:;.... __________ _ Observation Summary fL,~ ~Initials ---~Jlfl, Date ___ Initials Date --- A representative of GeoSoils, Inc. observed onsite soil and footing trench conditions, Soil conditiom in the trench are generally free of loose s.oil and debris, non-yielding .and uniform, and plumb; anc are in general conformance with those indicated in the geotechnical report. • • A representative of GeoSoils, Inc. observed and reviewed footing excavation depth/width. Footin~ excavations generally extend to proper depth and pearing strata, and are in general conformance with recommendations of ~he geotechriical report. A representative of GeoSoils, Inc. reviewed footing setbacks from slope face (if applicable). The setback was in general accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report. Notes. to Superintendent/Foreman 1. Fo0ting excavations should be cleaned of loos~ debris and thoroughly moistened just prior to placing concrete 2. Based on expansion potential of underlying soils, presoaking of soil below slabs may be recommended. Consul· the geotechnical report for presoaking recommendations, We note that clayey soils may take an extendec period of time for such, and the contractor should schedule accordingly. 3, In the event of a site change subsequent to our footing observation and prior to concrete placement (i.e., heaV) rain, etc.), we should be contacted to perform additional site observations and/or testing. 4. This memo does not confirm the minimum footing dimension as required by the project structural engineer'f design, if different from the geotechnical report. Notes to Building Inspector 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 438-3155 1446 E. Chestnut Ave. Santa Ana, CA 92701 (714) 647-0277 26590 Madison Ave. Murrieta, CA 92562 (951) 677•9651 LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR PROPOSED ADDITIONS, 2665 WILSON STREET CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 92008 APN 156-130-17-00 FOR SCOTT AND SHELLEY ASHWORTH 2665 WILSON STREET CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 W.O. 8750-A-SC JANUARY 24, 2024 • Geotechnical C Geologic C Coastal C Environmental 5741 Palmer Way C Carlsbad, California 92010 C (760) 438-3155 C FAX (760) 931-0915 C www.geosoilsinc.com January 24, 2024 W.O. 8750-A-SC Scott and Shelley Ashworth 2665 Wilson Street Carlsbad, California 92008 Subject:Limited Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Additions, 2665 Wilson Street, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California 92008, APN 156-130-17-00 Dear Scott and Shelley Ashworth: In accordance with your request, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has evaluated the subject site and obtained representative samples of site soil for laboratory testing. The purpose of our limited investigation was to evaluate soil parameters with respect to a proposed attached garage with second floor living area in place of the existing detached garage to be demolished. The scope of our services included a review of documents presented in Appendix A (References), a site reconnaissance, soil sampling, laboratory testing, engineering analyses, and preparation of this report. According to architectural plans by SARKELA Building Design (SBD, 2023), the site appears to consist of a 19,020 square-foot rectangular-shaped lot on the northwest side of Wilson Street, in the City of Carlsbad, California (see Figure 1, Site Location Map). Existing improvements consist of a one-story residential structure, a rear (northwest) yard additional dwelling unit (ADU), and a detached garage. Based on the site plan by SBD (2023), the proposed improvements appear to consist of removing the existing detached garage and replacing it with a new 786 square-foot attached garage with a second floor living area. The new living area will have a total of 897 square feet of additional living space. The proposed construction also includes driveway flatwork and a covered patio area. Building loads are assumed to be typical for this type of relatively light construction. FIELD STUDIES Site-specific field studies were conducted by GSI during December 2023, and consisted of the excavation of three(3) exploratory excavations with a hand-auger, for an evaluation of near-surface soil and geologic conditions onsite. The excavations were performed in the vicinity of the proposed additional construction. All excavations were logged by a representative of this office who collected representative bulk soil samples for appropriate laboratory testing. Logs of the excavations are presented in Appendix B. The approximate location of each hand-auger excavation is shown on Figure 2 (Hand-Auger Boring Location Map) which uses sheet 1 of SBD (2023) as a base. Base Map: Map Data 2023 Google, Google Earth SITE LOCATION MAP Figure 1 W.O. 8750-A-SC This Map is copyrighted by Google. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use of resale, without permission. All rights reserved Base Map: TOPO! Copyright 2003 National Geographic, USGS San Luis Rey Quadrangle, California -- San Diego Co., 7.5 Minute, map version 1997. January 2024 Interstate 5 SITE c c NOT TO SCALE SITE • N Fine Woodwork ft By Gary Gilbert T YourellAve ft LION'S MOJO T DETAILING Forest Ave Las Flores Dr Hurst Orthodontics ' Q 0 £ .s 0. 0 Buena Vista Elementary School 9 Fore tAve Las Flores Dr 0 Las Flores Churchf ALPINE LANDSCAPE l,,,~,t:-1, q .,. 'o, Green Lotus ft Organic Farm T c: • Base Map: SARKELA, Building Design, 2023, Ashworth Residence, 2665 Wilson Street, Carlsbad, CA. 92008, Site Plan, sheet A-1, original scale 1” = 10’ dated October 16. HAND-AUGER BORING LOCATION MAP Figure 2 W.O. 8750-A-SC APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF HAND-AUGER BORINGS, WITH APPROXIMATE TOTAL DEPTH (FEET). GSI LEGEND Scale: 1” = 20’ HA-3 HA-1 HA-2 HA-3 ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE This document or e-file is not part of the Construction Documents and should not be relied upon as being an accurate depiction of design. TD=5.5’ TD=4’ TD=5.5’ TD=5’ ______ =r ----- 231 -0 11 20 -0 -~ E X ISTING S·NGLE ~ FAMIL Y RES:D ENC E ~ FRONT Y I BU IL D! I SETB A ------=r J ----------- - - • N r-ill lU I~ (j) 1z () (j) _J 3 GeoSoils, Inc. SOIL CONDITIONS General The earth material units that were observed or encountered at the subject site consist of surficial deposits of undocumented artificial fill overlaying Quaternary very old paralic deposits. A general description of each material type is presented as follows, from youngest to oldest: Artificial Fill - Undocumented As observed, undocumented artificial fill occurs at the surface throughout the site. This material generally consisted of brown to dark brown silty sand and silty sand with clay chunks that was characterized as dry to saturated and loose to medium dense in consistency. Roots, organics, gravel, and a generally chaotic texture/coloration were noted within portions of the fill material. Undocumented artificial fill was noted at the surface to a depth of about 1 to 4½ feet. Undocumented artificial fill materials are subject to settlement under loading and, therefore, should not be relied upon to support additional loading or new settlement-sensitive structures or engineered fill in its existing state. Quaternary Very Old Paralic Deposits Very old paralic deposits were observed underlaying the artificial fill at the subject site at a depth of about 1 to 4½ feet. The very old paralic deposits were described as sandstone that ground to silty sand to slightly clayey sand that was brown, brown to yellowish brown, and reddish brown in color, moist, and loose to very dense in consistency. Portions of the very old paralic deposits were noted to be weathered, loose to medium dense, for about 1 to 2 feet into the unit (about 3 feet below current grades). The very old paralic deposits were noted to become redder and fresher with depth becoming dense to very dense below the weathered zone. The very old paralic deposits were also noted to be contain oxidation staining. Fresh, dense to very dense very old paralic deposits are considered suitable for settlement-sensitive improvements and planned engineered fills in their existing state. SEISMIC DESIGN General In the event of an upper bound (maximum probable) or credible earthquake occurring on any of the nearby major faults, strong ground shaking would occur in the subject site's general area. Potential damage to any structure(s) would likely be greatest from the vibrations and impelling force caused by the inertia of a structure's mass than from those induced by the hazards listed above. This potential would be no greater than that for other existing structures and improvements in the immediate vicinity. Scott and Shelley Ashworth W.O. 8750-A-SC 2665 Wilson Street, Carlsbad January 24, 2024 File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 4 GeoSoils, Inc. Seismic Shaking Parameters The following table summarizes the reevaluated site-specific design criteria obtained from the 2022 CBC, Chapter 16 Structural Design, Section 1613, Earthquake Loads. The computer program Seismic Design Maps, provided by the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD, 2021) has now been used to aid in design (https://seismicmaps.org). The short spectral response uses a period of 0.2 seconds. 2022 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS PARAMETER SIMPLIFIED VALUE*2022 CBC or REFERENCE Risk Category I, II, III Table 1604.5 Site Class D Section 1613.2.2/Chap. 20 ASCE 7-16 (p. 203-204) Spectral Response - (0.2 sec), Ss 1.032 g Section 1613.2.1, Figure 1613.2.1 Spectral Response - (1 sec), S1 0.376 g Section 1613.2.1, Figure 1613.2.1 Site Coefficient, Fa 1.4 Table 1613.2.3 5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration (0.2 sec), SDS 0.963 g Section 1613.2.4 (Eqn 16-38) PGAM - Probabilistic Vertical Ground Acceleration may be assumed as about 50% of these values. 0.520 g ASCE 7-16 (Eqn 11.8.1) Seismic Design Category D Section 1613.2.5/ASCE 7-16 (p. 85: Table 11.6-1 or 11.6-2) * Site Class D, and all of the resulting parameters in this table may only be used for structures without seismic isolation or seismic damping systems, less than three stories in height. GENERAL SEISMIC PARAMETERS PARAMETER VALUE Distance to Seismic Source (Newport-Inglewood fault)(1)5.7 mi (9.1 km) Upper Bound Earthquake (Newport-Inglewood fault)MW = 7.1(2) (1) - From Blake (2000) (2) - Cao, et al. (2003) Conformance to the criteria above for seismic design does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur in the event of a large earthquake. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to eliminate all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive. Cumulative Scott and Shelley Ashworth W.O. 8750-A-SC 2665 Wilson Street, Carlsbad January 24, 2024 File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 5 GeoSoils, Inc. effects of seismic events are not addressed in the 2022 CBC (CBSC, 2022) and regular maintenance and repair following locally significant seismic events (i.e., Mw5.5) will likely be necessary, as is the case in all of Southern California. GROUNDWATER GSI did not observe evidence of a regional groundwater table within our subsurface explorations; however, a wet layer of soil was noted overlaying the very old paralic deposits. Regional groundwater is estimated to be generally within a few feet of sea level, and is not anticipated to significantly affect the proposed site development, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are properly incorporated into final design and construction. These observations reflect site conditions at the time of our investigation and do not preclude future changes in local groundwater conditions from excessive irrigation, precipitation, or that were not obvious at the time of our investigation. Perched water seepage may occur locally (as the result of heavy precipitation, irrigation, or damaged wet utilities) along zones of contrasting permeabilities/densities (fill/formation contacts, sandy/clayey fill lifts, etc.) or along geologic discontinuities. This potential should be anticipated and disclosed to all interested/affected parties. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples of site earth materials in order to evaluate their physical characteristics. The results of our evaluation are summarized as follows: Moisture Content The field moisture contents were determined for selected samples in the laboratory. Testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM D 2937. The field moisture content was determined as a percentage of the dry weight. The results of these tests are shown on the Hand-Auger Boring Logs in Appendix B. Expansion Index A representative sample of near-surface site soils was evaluated for expansion potential. Expansion index (E.I.) testing and expansion potential classification were performed in general accordance with ASTM Standard D 4829. The results of the expansion testing are presented in the following table: Scott and Shelley Ashworth W.O. 8750-A-SC 2665 Wilson Street, Carlsbad January 24, 2024 File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 6 GeoSoils, Inc. SAMPLE LOCATION AND DEPTH (ft)EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL HA-3 @ 3.0 - 4.0 5>Very Low Particle-Size Analysis A particle-size evaluation was performed on a representative soil sample (HA-2 @ 4.5 to 5.5 feet) in general accordance with ASTM D 422-63. The testing was used to evaluate the soil classification in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The results of the particle-size evaluation indicate that the tested soil is a Clayey Sand (0 percent gravel, 65.0 percent sand, 35.0 percent fines [USCS Symbol - SC]). Saturated Resistivity, pH, and Soluble Sulfates, and Chlorides Testing was performed on a representative sample of the onsite earth materials for general soil corrosivity and soluble sulfates, and chlorides testing. The testing included evaluation of soil pH, soluble sulfates, chlorides, and saturated resistivity. Test results are presented in Appendix C, and the following table: SAMPLE LOCATION AND DEPTH (FT)pH SATURATED RESISTIVITY (ohm-cm) SOLUBLE SULFATES (percent by wt) SOLUBLE CHLORIDES (ppm) HA-1 @ 1.0 - 2.0 7.4 7700 <0.003 21 Corrosion Summary Laboratory testing indicates that the tested sample of the onsite and near-site soils are generally mildly alkaline with respect to soil acidity/alkalinity; are moderately corrosive to exposed, buried metals when saturated; present negligible sulfate exposure to concrete (“S0,” per ACI 318-14); and the soluble chloride levels are below action levels. GSI does not consult in the field of corrosion engineering. Concentrations of soil chemicals can and do occur over time in development and can be transported by surface and subsurface water. Therefore, additional comments and recommendations may be obtained from a qualified corrosion engineer based on the level of corrosion protection required for the project, as determined by the project architect or structural engineer, minimally assuming “S0,” “W0,” and “C1” conditions, per ACI 318-14. Actual ACI classifications will be provided at the conclusion of grading. Scott and Shelley Ashworth W.O. 8750-A-SC 2665 Wilson Street, Carlsbad January 24, 2024 File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 7 l=====I ====:::::==========:::::========:11 l:=::===1 ======::::=======::::::=====::::======::::======:II GeoSoils, Inc. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA General All earthwork should conform to the guidelines presented in the 2022 CBC (CBSC, 2022) and the requirements of the City, except where specifically superceded in the text of this report. Prior to earthwork, a GSI representative should be present at the preconstruction meeting to provide additional earthwork guidelines, if needed, and review the earthwork schedule. This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, supplemental regrading of the site, or backfilling underground utility trenches and retaining walls after rough earthwork has been completed. This includes grading for pools, driveway approaches, driveways, and exterior hardscape. During earthwork construction, all site preparation and the general grading procedures of the contractor should be observed and the fill selectively tested by a representative(s) of GSI. If unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field, they should be reviewed by this office and, if warranted, modified and/or additional recommendations will be offered. All applicable requirements of local and national construction and general industry safety orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), and the Construction Safety Act should be met. It is the onsite general contractor and individual subcontractors responsibility to provide a safe working environment for our field staff who are onsite. GSI does not consult in the area of safety engineering. Demolition/Grubbing 1.Vegetation and any miscellaneous debris should be removed from the areas of proposed grading. 2.Any existing subsurface structures uncovered during the recommended removal should be observed by GSI so that appropriate remedial recommendations can be provided. 3.Cavities or loose soils remaining after demolition and site clearance should be cleaned out and observed by the soil engineer. The cavities should be replaced with fill materials that have been moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. 4.Onsite septic systems (if encountered) should be removed in accordance with San Diego County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) standards/guidelines. Treatment of Existing Ground 1.Removals in areas of new floor slabs or foundation systems should consist of all surficial deposits of undocumented fill and any weathered very old paralic deposits Scott and Shelley Ashworth W.O. 8750-A-SC 2665 Wilson Street, Carlsbad January 24, 2024 File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 8 GeoSoils, Inc. down to dense, relatively fresh very old paralic deposits. Based on our site work, removal depths ranging on the order of approximately 3 to 4½ feet below existing grades should be anticipated throughout the site. Removed onsite soils may be reused as engineered fill, provided that the soil is cleansed of any deleterious material, moisture conditioned, and compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D 1557. Removals should be completed throughout the site, and at least 5 feet beyond the limits of any settlement-sensitive improvement (where not constrained by the proximity of adjacent improvements), or to a lateral distance equal to the depth of the removal beneath the improvement, whichever is greater. Should the removal and recompaction of artificial fill/weathered very old paralic deposits not be performed, a structural slab, designed by the project structural engineer, spanning between deepened footings, and not relying on soil for support, but considering its expansion potential, will be required for any new slabs. 2.In addition to removals within the building envelope, overexcavation of the underlying soil should be performed in order to provide for at least 3 feet of compacted fill below finish grade, or 2 feet below the bottom of the deepest foundation, whichever is greater. 3.Due to the necessity for completing removals immediately adjacent to existing foundations that remain in place, remedial earthwork adjacent to the existing residence may need to use “alternating slot” excavation methodology, also referred to as the “A-B-C” method, so that the existing foundation system is not adversely undermined and exposed to an elevated potential for distress. On a preliminary basis, slot widths should not exceed 4 to 5 linear feet. This would be further evaluated during grading. 4.After the above removals/overexcavation, the exposed bottom should be scarified to a depth of at least 8 inches, brought to at least optimum moisture content, and recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard, prior to any fill placement. 5.Localized deeper removals may be necessary due to buried drainage channel meanders, dry porous materials, septic systems, etc. The project soils engineer/geologist should observe all removal areas during the grading. 6.Removed natural ground materials may be reused as compacted fill provided that major concentrations of vegetation and miscellaneous debris are removed from the site, prior to or during fill placement. Fill Suitability Surficial onsite soils (artificial fill/loose materials) generally appear to consist of silty sands and clayey sands. Oversize material (12-inch plus) is not expected but cannot be Scott and Shelley Ashworth W.O. 8750-A-SC 2665 Wilson Street, Carlsbad January 24, 2024 File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 9 GeoSoils, Inc. precluded. Existing fill soils are very low expansive. Any soil import should be evaluated by this office prior to importing in order to assure compatibility with the onsite soils and the recommendations presented in this report. Import soils, if used, should be relatively sandy and very low expansive (i.e., E.I. less than 21). Shrinkage/Bulking Based on our experience, a preliminary value of 5 to 10 percent shrinkage for undocumented fill may be considered. Cuts in very old paralic deposits may result in nominal shrinkage/bulk (ranging to about 5 percent). Fill Placement 1.After ground preparation, fill materials should be brought to at least optimum moisture content, placed in thin 6- to 8-inch lifts, and mechanically compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. 2.Fill materials should be cleansed of major vegetation and debris prior to placement. Perimeter Conditions The 2022 CBC (CBSC, 2022) indicates that removals of unsuitable soils be performed across all areas under the purview of the grading permit, not just within the influence of the proposed buildings. Relatively deep removals may also necessitate a special zone of consideration, on perimeter/confining areas. Any proposed improvement or future homeowner improvements such as walls, swimming pools, house additions, etc. that are located above a 1:1 (horizontal:vertical [h:v]) projection up from the outermost limit of the remedial grading excavations will require deepened foundations that extend below this plane. Other site improvements, such as pavements, constructed above the aforementioned plane would retain some potential for settlement and associated distress, which may require increased maintenance/repair or replacement. This potential should be disclosed to all interested/affected parties should remedial grading excavations be constrained by property lines. Temporary Slopes Temporary slopes for excavations greater than 4 feet, but less than 20 feet in overall height should conform to CAL-OSHA and/or OSHA requirements for Type “B” soils. Temporary slopes, up to a maximum height of about 20 feet, may be excavated at a 1:1 (h:v) gradient, or flatter, provided groundwater and/or running sands are not exposed. Construction materials or soil stockpiles should not be placed within ‘H’ of any temporary slope where ‘H’ equals the height of the temporary slope. All temporary slopes should be observed by a licensed engineering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer prior to worker entry into the excavation. Scott and Shelley Ashworth W.O. 8750-A-SC 2665 Wilson Street, Carlsbad January 24, 2024 File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 10 GeoSoils, Inc. Bearing Value Based on a review of Table 1806.2 of the 2022 California Building Code ([2022 CBC], California Building Standards Commission [CBSC], 2022), an allowable bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be assumed for shallow spread footings, bearing on suitable, approved formation (bedrock) or properly compacted fill. Actual footing depths would be based on conditions exposed within the footing excavation. The allowable bearing value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional 12 inches in depth of embedment, into approved suitable bearing soil, to a maximum value of 2,500 psf. The above values may be increased by one-third when considering short duration seismic or wind loads. Differential settlement may be assumed as 1 inch in a 40-foot span, provided the footing bears on suitable, competent and similar earth materials, approved by GSI. Foundations should be designed for all applicable surcharge loads. Conventional footings may be applicable where depth to competent fill is relatively shallow. It is anticipated that new foundations will be slab on grade on engineered fill with deepened footings if necessary to support new loads on the existing western wall. Lateral Pressure Total lateral resistance (TLR) for shallow foundations is provided by the friction along the footing bottoms and the passive pressure across footing faces in contact with either fill or natural soil deposits. The TLR is influenced by the depth of the footing and the frictional resistance of the soil material. The normal force or dead load on the footing from the overlying structure will influence the amount of frictional resistance. For sands or predominantly sandy soils, this friction is higher than clay or clayey/silty soils. The TLR and vertical bearing of the soil were derived from soil(s) descriptions, multiple laboratory tests, and the use of Table 1806.2 of the 2022 CBC (CBSC, 2022). The TLR for the clayey sands and silty sands onsite may be taken as an equivalent fluid of 150 pcf (150 psf/ft of depth) per foot of depth. This may be added to the frictional resistance of the sandy earth material using a coefficient of 0.25 when combined with the normal (dead load) force. When combining the frictional and passive components of the TLR, the passive value should be reduced by a (one-third). The total maximum lateral bearing pressure of 1,500 psf may be used for this site, unless further testing and analysis is performed. GSI believes this to be a reasonably conservative value, considering the limited scope of work. Please note that if foundations for either the main or appurtenant structures are pile or pier supported, the frictional value noted above should be neglected. FOUNDATIONS Current laboratory testing indicates that the onsite soils exhibit an expansion index value of less than 21, which is classified as very low expansive ([E.I.] range of 0-20). As such, site soils do not appear to meet the criteria of detrimentally expansive soils as defined in Scott and Shelley Ashworth W.O. 8750-A-SC 2665 Wilson Street, Carlsbad January 24, 2024 File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 11 GeoSoils, Inc. Section 1803.5.2 of the 2022 CBC (CBSC, 2022). The geotechnical recommendations provided below are considered minimal design criteria. Foundation systems constructed within the influence of detrimentally expansive soils (i.e., E.I. > 20 and P.I. > 15) will require specific design to resist expansive soil effects per Sections 1808.6.1 or 1808.6.2 of the 2022 CBC, and this should be provided by the project structural engineer. From a geotechnical viewpoint, foundation construction should conform to the following: 1.New exterior and interior footings for one-story floor loads should be founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade (excluding soft soils, landscape zones, slab and underlayment thickness) for a structure supporting one floor load (i.e., two story). Footing widths should be per Code. Isolated pad footings should be 24 inches square, by 24 inches deep. 2.All new footings should be reinforced with four No. 4 reinforcing bars, two placed near the top and two placed near the bottom of the footing. Isolated pad footing reinforcement should be per the structural engineer. 3.New interior and exterior column footings should be tied together via grade beams in at least one direction to the main foundation. The grade beam should be at least 12 inches square in cross section, and should be provided with a minimum of two No.4 reinforcing bars at the top, and two No.4 reinforcing bars at the bottom of the grade beam. The base of the reinforced grade beam should be at the same elevation as the adjoining footings. 4.A minimum concrete slab-on-grade thickness of 5.0 inches is recommended for any new concrete slabs. Please note that if the loose, existing surficial soil is not removed and recompacted, such soils, if left under the new slab, would be subject to excessive settlement. Accordingly, if this is the case, the slab should be designed as a structural slab, with the slab spanning between footings embedded into structural fill or bedrock, and not relying on the soil for support. 5.New concrete slabs should be reinforced with a minimum of No. 3 reinforcement bars placed at 18 inches on center, in two horizontally perpendicular directions (i.e., long axis and short axis). 6.All slab reinforcement should be supported to ensure proper mid-slab height positioning during placement of the concrete. “Hooking” of reinforcement is not an acceptable method of positioning. 7.Slab subgrade pre-soaking is recommended for these soil conditions. Slab subgrade should be pre-wetted to at least the soil’s optimum moisture content, to a depth of 12 inches, prior to the placement of the underlayment sand and vapor retarder. Scott and Shelley Ashworth W.O. 8750-A-SC 2665 Wilson Street, Carlsbad January 24, 2024 File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 12 GeoSoils, Inc. 8.New foundations should maintain a minimum 7-foot horizontal distance between the base of the footing and any adjacent descending slope, and comply with the guidelines per the 2022 CBC (CBSC, 2022). This may also result in a deeper footing. 9.Should the removal and recompaction of artificial fill/weathered very old paralic deposits not be performed, a structural slab, designed by the project structural engineer, spanning between deepened footings, and not relying on soil for support, but considering its expansion potential, will be required for any new slabs. Floor Slabs GSI has evaluated the potential for vapor or water transmission through the concrete floor slabs, in light of typical floor coverings, improvements, and use. Please note that slab moisture emission rates range from about 2 to 27 lbs/24 hours/1,000 square feet from a typical slab (Kanare, 2005), while floor covering manufacturers generally recommend about 3 lbs/24 hours as an upper limit. The recommendations in this section are not intended to preclude the transmission of water or vapor through the foundation or slabs. Foundation systems and slabs should not allow water or water vapor to enter into the structure so as to cause damage to another building component or to limit the installation of the type of flooring materials typically used for the particular application (State of California, 2024). These recommendations may be exceeded or supplemented by a water “proofing” specialist, project architect, or structural consultant. Thus, the client will need to evaluate the following in light of a cost versus benefit analysis (owner expectations and repairs/replacement), along with disclosure to all interested/affected parties. It should also be noted that vapor transmission will occur in new slab-on-grade floors as a result of chemical reactions taking place within the curing concrete. Vapor transmission through concrete floor slabs as a result of concrete curing has the potential to adversely affect sensitive floor coverings depending on the thickness of the concrete floor slab and the duration of time between the placement of concrete, and the floor covering. It is possible that a slab moisture sealant may be needed prior to the placement of sensitive floor coverings if a thick slab-on-grade floor is used and the time frame between concrete and floor covering placement is relatively short. Considering the E.I. test results presented herein, and known soil conditions in the region, the anticipated typical water vapor transmission rates, floor coverings, and improvements (to be chosen by the Client and/or project architect) that can tolerate vapor transmission rates without significant distress, the following alternatives are provided: •Non-vehicular concrete slab-on-grade floors should be thicker. •Concrete slab underlayment should consist of a 15-mil vapor retarder, or equivalent, with all laps sealed per the 2022 CBC and the manufacturer’s recommendation. The vapor retarder should comply with the ASTM E 1745 - Class A criteria, and be Scott and Shelley Ashworth W.O. 8750-A-SC 2665 Wilson Street, Carlsbad January 24, 2024 File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 13 GeoSoils, Inc. installed in accordance with American Concrete Institute (ACI) 302.1R-04 and ASTM E 1643. An example of a vapor retarder product that complies with ASTM E 1745 - Class A criteria is Stego Industries, LLC’s Stego Wrap. •The 15-mil vapor retarder (ASTM E 1745 - Class A) should be installed per the recommendations of the manufacturer, including all penetrations (i.e., pipe, ducting, rebar, etc.). •Concrete slabs should be underlain by 2 inches of clean sand (SE > 30) above a 15-mil vapor retarder (ASTM E-1745 - Class A, per Engineering Bulletin 119 [Kanare, 2005]) installed per the recommendations of the manufacturer, including all penetrations (i.e., pipe, ducting, rebar, etc.). The manufacturer should provide instructions for lap sealing, including minimum width of lap, method of sealing, and either supply or specify suitable products for lap sealing (ASTM E 1745), and per code. ACI 302.1R-04 (2004) states “If a cushion or sand layer is desired between the vapor retarder and the slab, care must be taken to protect the sand layer from taking on additional water from a source such as rain, curing, cutting, or cleaning. Wet cushion or sand layer has been directly linked in the past to significant lengthening of time required for a slab to reach an acceptable level of dryness for floor covering applications.” Therefore, additional observation and/or testing will be necessary for the cushion or sand layer for moisture content, and relatively uniform thicknesses, prior to the placement of concrete. •The vapor retarder should be underlain by a capillary break consisting of at least 2 inches of clean sand (SE 30, or greater). If highly expansive soils are present, the underlayment should consist of clean, ½- to ¾-inch gravel. The vapor retarder should be sealed to provide a continuous retarder under the entire slab, as discussed above. •Concrete should have a maximum water/cement ratio of 0.50. This does not supercede Table 19.3.1.1 of the ACI (2022) for corrosion or other corrosive requirements (such as coastal, location, etc.). Additional concrete mix design recommendations should be provided by the structural consultant and/or waterproofing specialist. Concrete finishing and workability should be addressed by the structural consultant and a waterproofing specialist. •Where slab water/cement ratios are as indicated herein, and/or admixtures used, the structural consultant should also make changes to the concrete in the grade beams and footings in kind, so that the concrete used in the foundation and slabs are designed and/or treated for more uniform moisture protection. Scott and Shelley Ashworth W.O. 8750-A-SC 2665 Wilson Street, Carlsbad January 24, 2024 File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 14 GeoSoils, Inc. •The owner(s) should be specifically advised which areas are suitable for tile flooring, vinyl flooring, or other types of water/vapor-sensitive flooring and which are not suitable. In all planned floor areas, flooring shall be installed per the manufacturer’s recommendations. •Additional recommendations regarding water or vapor transmission should be provided by the architect/structural engineer/slab or foundation designer and should be consistent with the specified floor coverings indicated by the architect. •Floor slabs design should consider the swell potential of site soils. Regardless of the mitigation, some limited moisture/moisture vapor transmission through the slab should be anticipated. Construction crews may require special training for installation of certain product(s), as well as concrete finishing techniques. The use of specialized product(s) should be approved by the slab designer and water-proofing consultant. A technical representative of the flooring contractor should review the slab and moisture retarder plans and provide comment prior to the construction of the foundations or improvements. The vapor retarder contractor should have representatives onsite during the initial installation. Corrosion and Concrete Mix Upon completion of grading, laboratory testing should be performed of site materials for corrosion to concrete and corrosion to steel. Additional comments may be obtained from a qualified corrosion engineer at that time. Open Excavations Construction materials and/or stockpiled soil should not be stored within “H” feet of the top of any temporary slope or trench wall (where “H” equals the slope or wall height). Temporary/permanent provisions should be made to direct any potential runoff away from the top of temporary excavations. It is the responsibility of the general contractor and his subcontractor to provide a safe working environment and to protect site improvements as well as adjacent existing improvements during construction. Excavation Observation and Monitoring (All Excavations) When excavations are made adjacent to an existing improvement (i.e., utility, wall, road, building, etc.) there is a risk of some damage even if a well designed system of excavation is planned and executed. We recommend, therefore, that a systematic program of observations be made before, during, and after construction to determine the effects (if any) of construction on existing improvements. Scott and Shelley Ashworth W.O. 8750-A-SC 2665 Wilson Street, Carlsbad January 24, 2024 File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 15 GeoSoils, Inc. We believe that this is necessary for two reasons: First, if excessive movements (i.e., more than ½ inch) are detected early enough, remedial measures can be taken which could possibly prevent serious damage to existing improvements. Second, the responsibility for damage to the existing improvement can be determined more equitably if the cause and extent of the damage can be determined more precisely. Monitoring should include the measurement of any horizontal and vertical movements of the existing structures/improvements. Locations and type of the monitoring devices should be selected prior to the start of construction. The program of monitoring should be agreed upon between the project team, the site surveyor and the Geotechnical Engineer-of-Record, prior to excavation. Reference points on existing walls, buildings, and other settlement-sensitive improvements. These points should be placed as low as possible on the wall and building adjacent to the excavation. Exact locations may be dictated by critical points, such as bearing walls or columns for buildings; and surface points on roadways or curbs near the top of the excavation. For a survey monitoring system, an accuracy of a least 0.01 foot should be required. Reference points should be installed and read initially prior to excavation. The readings should continue until all construction below ground has been completed and the permanent backfill has been brought to final grade. The frequency of readings will depend upon the results of previous readings and the rate of construction. Weekly readings could be assumed throughout the duration of construction with daily readings during rapid excavation near the bottom of the excavation. The reading should be plotted by the Surveyor and then reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineer. In addition to the monitoring system, it would be prudent for the Geotechnical Engineer and the Contractor to make a complete inspection of the existing structures both before and after construction. The inspection should be directed toward detecting any signs of damage, particularly those caused by settlement. Notes should be made and pictures should be taken where necessary. All excavations should be observed by the geologist and/or geotechnical engineer. Any fill which is placed in excavations should be tested and approved by the geotechnical consultant if used for engineered purposes. Should the observation reveal any unforseen hazard, the geologist or geotechnical engineer will recommend treatment. Please inform GSI at least 24 hours prior to any required site observation. SOIL MOISTURE CONSIDERATIONS Foundation systems and slabs should not allow water or water vapor to enter into the structure so as to cause damage to another building component, or to limit the Scott and Shelley Ashworth W.O. 8750-A-SC 2665 Wilson Street, Carlsbad January 24, 2024 File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 16 GeoSoils, Inc. installation of the type of flooring materials typically used for the particular application (State of California, 2023). Therefore, the following should be considered by the structural engineer/foundation/slab designer to mitigate the transmission of water or water vapor through the slab. GSI has evaluated the potential for vapor or water transmission through the slabs, in light of typical commercial floor coverings and improvements. Please note that slab moisture emission rates range from about 2 to 27 lbs/24 hours/1,000 square feet from a typical slab (Kanare, 2005), while typical floor covering manufacturers recommend about 3 lbs/24 hours as an upper limit. Thus, the client will need to evaluate the following in light of a cost v. benefit analysis (owner/tenant complaints and repairs/replacement), along with disclosures to owners/tenants. Considering the E.I. results indicating very low expansion potentials, anticipated typical water vapor transmission rates, floor coverings and improvements (to be chosen by the client) that can tolerate those rates without distress, the following alternatives are provided: •Concrete slabs should be a minimum of 5 inches thick. •Concrete mix design recommendations should be provided by the structural consultant and/or waterproofing specialist. Concrete finishing and workability should be addressed by the structural consultant and a waterproofing specialist. •Depending on the slab water/cement ratios, and admixtures used, the structural consultant should also make changes to the concrete in the grade beams and footings in kind, so that the concrete used in the foundation and slabs are designed or treated for more uniform moisture protection. •Owner(s)/tenants should be specifically advised which areas are suitable for tile flooring, wood flooring, or other types of water/vapor-sensitive flooring and which are not suitable. In all planned floor areas, flooring shall be installed per the manufacturer’s recommendations. Planting Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of all earth materials. Only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided. Over-watering should be avoided as it can adversely affect site improvements, and cause perched groundwater conditions. Plants selected for landscaping should be light weight, deep rooted types that require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate. Using plants other than those recommended above will increase the potential for perched water, staining, mold, etc., to develop. A rodent control program to prevent burrowing should be implemented. These recommendations regarding plant type, irrigation practices, and rodent control should be provided to all interested/affected parties. Scott and Shelley Ashworth W.O. 8750-A-SC 2665 Wilson Street, Carlsbad January 24, 2024 File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 17 GeoSoils, Inc. Drainage Adequate lot surface drainage is a very important factor in reducing the likelihood of adverse performance of foundations and hardscape. Surface drainage should be sufficient to prevent ponding of water anywhere on the property, and especially near structures. Lot surface drainage should be carefully taken into consideration during landscaping. Therefore, care should be taken that future landscaping or construction activities do not create adverse drainage conditions. Positive site drainage within the property should be provided and maintained at all times. Water should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond and/or seep into the ground. In general, the area within 5 feet around a structure should slope away from the structure. We recommend that unpaved lawn and landscape areas have a minimum gradient of 1 percent sloping away from structures, and whenever possible, should be above adjacent paved areas. Consideration should be given to avoiding construction of planters adjacent to structures. Site drainage should be directed toward the street or other approved area(s). Downspouts, or drainage devices should outlet a minimum of 5 feet from structures or into a subsurface drainage system. Areas of seepage may develop due to irrigation or heavy rainfall, and should be anticipated. Minimizing irrigation will lessen this potential. If areas of seepage develop, recommendations for minimizing this effect could be provided upon request. Landscape Maintenance Over-watering the landscape areas will adversely affect existing and proposed site improvements. We would recommend that any proposed open-bottom planters adjacent to proposed structures be eliminated for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative, closed-bottom type planters could be used. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter, could be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork. If planters are constructed adjacent to structures, the sides and bottom of the planter should be provided with a moisture retarder to prevent penetration of irrigation water into the subgrade. Provisions should be made to drain the excess irrigation water from the planters without saturating the subgrade below or adjacent to the planters. Consideration should be given to the type of vegetation chosen and their potential effect upon surface improvements (i.e., some trees will have an effect on concrete flatwork with their extensive root systems). From a geotechnical standpoint leaching is not recommended for establishing landscaping. If the surface soils are processed for the purpose of adding amendments, they should be recompacted to 90 percent minimum relative compaction. Tile Flooring Tile flooring can crack, reflecting cracks in the concrete slab below the tile, although small cracks in a conventional slab may not be significant. Therefore, the designer should consider additional steel reinforcement for concrete slabs-on-grade where tile will be placed. The tile installer should consider installation methods that reduce possible cracking of the tile such as slipsheets. Slipsheets or a vinyl crack isolation membrane Scott and Shelley Ashworth W.O. 8750-A-SC 2665 Wilson Street, Carlsbad January 24, 2024 File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 18 GeoSoils, Inc. (approved by the Tile Council of America/Ceramic Tile Institute) are recommended between tile and concrete slabs on grade. Subsurface and Surface Water Subsurface and surface water are generally anticipated to not significantly affect site development, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are properly incorporated into final design and construction and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions along zones of contrasting permeabilities may not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation, poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities, and should be anticipated. Should perched groundwater conditions develop, this office could assess the affected area(s) and provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater conditions. Groundwater conditions may change with the introduction of irrigation, rainfall, or other factors. Site Improvements Recommendations for exterior concrete flatwork design and construction can be provided upon request. If any additional improvements (e.g., pools, spas, etc.) are planned for the site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and construction of said improvements are recommended to be provided at that time. This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, grading of the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes any grading, utility trench, and retaining wall backfills. Footing Trench Excavation All footing excavations for any new foundation, should be observed by a representative of this firm after trenching and prior to concrete form and reinforcement placement. The purpose of the observations is to verify that the excavations are made into the recommended bearing material and to the minimum widths and depths recommended for construction. If loose or compressible materials are exposed within the footing excavation, a deeper footing or removal and recompaction of the subgrade materials would be recommended at that time. The Client may want to consider having a representative of GSI onsite at the start of foundation trenching to evaluate the depth to competent, bearing soils and to provide recommendations to the contractor for footing embedment of any new foundations. Trenching Considering the nature of the onsite soils, it should be anticipated that caving or sloughing could be a factor in subsurface excavations and trenching. Shoring or excavating the trench walls at the angle of repose (typically 25 to 45 degrees) may be necessary and Scott and Shelley Ashworth W.O. 8750-A-SC 2665 Wilson Street, Carlsbad January 24, 2024 File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 19 GeoSoils, Inc. should be anticipated. All excavations should be observed by one of our representatives and minimally conform to Cal-OSHA and local safety codes. Utility Trench Backfill 1.All interior utility trench backfill should be brought to at least optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. As an alternative for shallow (12-inch to 18-inch) under-slab trenches, sand having a sand equivalent value of 30, or greater, may be used and jetted or flooded into place. Observation, probing, and testing should be provided to verify the desired results. 2.Exterior trenches adjacent to, and within, areas extending below a 1:1 plane projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing, and all trenches beneath hardscape features and in slopes, should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Sand backfill, unless excavated from the trench, should not be used in these backfill areas. Compaction testing and observations, along with probing, should be accomplished to verify the desired results. 3.All trench excavations should conform to Cal-OSHA and local safety codes. 4.Utilities crossing grade beams, perimeter beams, or footings should either pass below the footing or grade beam using a hardened collar or foam spacer, or pass through the footing or grade beam in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer. EXPANSIVE SOILS, DRIVEWAY, FLATWORK, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS Some of the soil materials on site may be expansive. The effects of expansive soils are cumulative, and typically occur over the lifetime of any improvements. On relatively level areas, when the soils are allowed to dry, the dessication and swelling process tends to cause heaving and distress to flatwork and other improvements. The resulting potential for distress to improvements may be reduced, but not totally eliminated. To that end, it is recommended that the developer should notify all interested/affected parties of this long-term potential for distress. To reduce the likelihood of distress, the following recommendations are presented for all exterior flatwork: 1.The subgrade area for concrete slabs should be compacted to achieve a minimum 90 percent relative compaction, and then be pre-soaked to the soils’ optimum moisture content, to a depth of 12 inches below subgrade elevation. The moisture content of the subgrade should be proof tested within 72 hours prior to pouring concrete. Scott and Shelley Ashworth W.O. 8750-A-SC 2665 Wilson Street, Carlsbad January 24, 2024 File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 20 GeoSoils, Inc. 2.Concrete slabs should be cast over a relatively non-yielding surface, consisting of a 4-inch layer of crushed rock, gravel, or clean sand, that should be compacted and level prior to pouring concrete. The layer should wet-down completely prior to pouring concrete, to minimize loss of concrete moisture to the surrounding earth materials. 3.Exterior slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick. Driveway slabs and approaches should additionally have a thickened edge (12 inches) adjacent to all landscape areas, to help impede infiltration of landscape water under the slab. 4.The use of transverse and longitudinal control joints are recommended to help control slab cracking due to concrete shrinkage or expansion. Two ways to mitigate such cracking are: a) add a sufficient amount of reinforcing steel, increasing tensile strength of the slab; and, b) provide an adequate amount of control and/or expansion joints to accommodate anticipated concrete shrinkage and expansion. In order to reduce the potential for unsightly cracks, slabs should be reinforced at mid-height with a minimum of No. 3 bars placed at 18 inches on center, in each direction. The exterior slabs should be scored or saw cut, ½ to d inches deep, often enough so that no section is greater than 10 feet by 10 feet. For sidewalks or narrow slabs, control joints should be provided at intervals of every 6 feet. The slabs should be separated from the foundations and sidewalks with expansion joint filler material. 5.No traffic should be allowed upon the newly poured concrete slabs until they have been properly cured to within 75 percent of design strength. Concrete compression strength should be a minimum of 2,500 psi. 6.Driveways, sidewalks, and patio slabs adjacent to the house should be separated from the house with thick expansion joint filler material. In areas directly adjacent to a continuous source of moisture (i.e., irrigation, planters, etc.), all joints should be additionally sealed with flexible mastic. 7.Planters and walls should not be tied to the house. 8.Overhang structures should be supported on the slabs, or structurally designed with continuous footings tied in at least two directions. 9.Any masonry landscape walls that are to be constructed throughout the property should be grouted and articulated in segments no more than 20 feet long. These segments should be keyed or doweled together. 10.Utilities should be enclosed within a closed utilidor (vault) or designed with flexible connections to accommodate differential settlement and expansive soil conditions. Scott and Shelley Ashworth W.O. 8750-A-SC 2665 Wilson Street, Carlsbad January 24, 2024 File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 21 GeoSoils, Inc. 11.Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Finish grade on the lots should provide a minimum of 1 to 2 percent fall to the street, as indicated herein. It should be kept in mind that drainage reversals could occur, including post-construction settlement, if relatively flat yard drainage gradients are not periodically maintained by the homeowner or homeowners association. 12.Shrinkage cracks could become excessive if proper finishing and curing practices are not followed. Finishing and curing practices should be performed per the Portland Cement Association Guidelines. Mix design should incorporate rate of curing for climate and time of year, sulfate content of soils, corrosion potential of soils, and fertilizers used on site. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING We recommend that observation and testing be performed by GSI at each of the following construction stages: •During grading/recertification. •During significant excavation (i.e., higher than 4 feet). •During placement of subdrains or other subdrainage devices, prior to placing fill and/or backfill. •After excavation of building footings, retaining wall footings, and free standing walls footings, prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. •Prior to pouring any slabs or flatwork, after presoaking/presaturation of building pads and other flatwork subgrade, before the placement of concrete, reinforcing steel, capillary break (i.e., sand, pea-gravel, etc.), or vapor retarders (i.e., visqueen, etc.). •During retaining wall subdrain installation, prior to backfill placement. •During placement of backfill for area drain, interior plumbing, utility line trenches, and retaining wall backfill. •During slope construction/repair. •When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction operations, after the issuance of this report. Scott and Shelley Ashworth W.O. 8750-A-SC 2665 Wilson Street, Carlsbad January 24, 2024 File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 22 GeoSoils, Inc. •When any improvements, such as flatwork, spas, pools, walls, etc., are constructed. •A report of geotechnical observation and testing should be provided at the conclusion of each of the above stages, in order to provide concise and clear documentation of site work, and/or to comply with code requirements. OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS The design civil engineer, structural engineer, architect, landscape architect, wall designer, etc., should review the recommendations provided herein, incorporate those recommendations into all their respective plans, and by explicit reference, make this report part of their project plans. This report presents minimum design criteria for the design of slabs, foundations and other elements possibly applicable to the project. These criteria should not be considered as substitutes for actual designs by the structural engineer/designer. The structural engineer/designer should analyze actual soil-structure interaction and consider, as needed, bearing, expansive soil influence, and strength, stiffness and deflections in the various slab, foundation, and other elements in order to develop appropriate, design-specific details. As conditions dictate, it is possible that other influences will also have to be considered. The structural engineer/designer should consider all applicable codes and authoritative sources where needed. If analyses by the structural engineer/designer result in less critical details than are provided herein as minimums, the minimums presented herein should be adopted. It is considered likely that some, more restrictive details will be required. If the structural engineer/designer has any questions or requires further assistance, they should not hesitate to call or otherwise transmit their requests to GSI. In order to mitigate potential distress, the foundation and/or improvement’s designer should confirm to GSI and the governing agency, in writing, that the proposed foundations and/or improvements can tolerate the amount of differential settlement and/or expansion characteristics and design criteria specified herein. Scott and Shelley Ashworth W.O. 8750-A-SC 2665 Wilson Street, Carlsbad January 24, 2024 File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 23 GeoSoils, Inc. LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the project site and used for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review, engineering analyses, and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations presented herein are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. This report has been prepared for the purpose of providing soil design parameters derived from testing of a soil sample received at our laboratory, and does not represent an evaluation of the overall stability, suitability, or performance of the property for the proposed development. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. Scott and Shelley Ashworth W.O. 8750-A-SC 2665 Wilson Street, Carlsbad January 24, 2024 File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 24 The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully submitte GeoSoils, Inc. ~r-1:! ~~nearing Geologist, DRE/DG/SJC/JPF/sh Enclosures: Appendix A -References ~-~ Geotechnical Engineer, Appendix B -Hand-Auger Boring Logs Appendix C -Laboratory Data Appendix D -General Earthwork, Grading Guidelines, and Preliminary Criteria Distribution: (1) Addressee (PDF via email) Scott and Shelley Ashworth 2665 Wilson Street, Carlsbad File:e:\wp21 \8700\8750a.lgi GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 8750-A-SC January 24, 2024 Page 25 GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX A REFERENCES GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX A REFERENCES American Concrete Institute, 2015, Guide to concrete floor and slab construction (ACI 318-15): reported by ACI Committee 302, dated June. _____, 2014a, Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-14), and commentary (ACI 318R-14): reported by ACI Committee 318, dated September. _____, 2014b, Building code requirements for concrete thin shells (ACI 318.2-14), and commentary (ACI 318.2R-14), dated September. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 1998, Standard practice for installation of water vapor retarder used in contact with earth or granular fill under concrete slabs, Designation: E 1643-98 (Reapproved 2005). _____, 1997, Standard specification for plastic water vapor retarders used in contact with soil or granular fill under concrete slabs, Designation: E 1745-97 (Reapproved 2004). American Society of Civil Engineers, 2018a, Supplement 1 to Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-16), first printing, dated December 13. _____, 2018b, Errata for Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-16), by ASCE, dated July 9. _____, 2017, Minimum design loads and associated criteria and other structures, ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-16, published online June 19. _____, 2010, Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-10. Blake, Thomas F., 2000, EQFAULT, A computer program for the estimation of peak horizontal acceleration from 3-D fault sources; Windows 95/98 version. Building News, 1995, CAL-OSHA, State of California, Construction Safety Orders, Title 8, Chapter 4, Subchapter 4, amended October 1. California Building Standards Commission, 2022, California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2, based on the 2021 International Building Code, effective January 1, 2023. GeoSoils, Inc. California Code Of Regulations, 2021, CAL-OSHA State of California Construction and Safety Orders, dated February. California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey (CGS), 2018, Earthquake fault zones, a guide for government agencies, property owners/developers, and geoscience practitioners for assessing fault rupture hazard s in Cali fornia: California G eological Survey Special Publication 42 (revised 2018), 93 p. California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), 2021, Seismic design maps, https://seismicmaps.org/. Cao, T., Bryant, W.A., Rowshandel, B., Branum, D., and Willis, C.J., 2003, The revised 2002 Cal i fo rnia p ro bal i stic se i sm i c h a za rd m a ps, da t e d Jun e , http://www.conversation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/psha/fault_parameters/pdf/documents /2002_ca_hazardmaps.pdf. Kanare, H.M., 2005, Concrete floors and moisture, Engineering Bulletin 119, Portland Cement Association. Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, SS., 2007, Geologic map of the Oceanside 30' by 60' quadrangle, California, regional geologic map series, scale 1:100,000, California Geologic Survey Map No. 2. Sarkela, Building Design, 2023, Ashworth Residence, 2665 Wilson Street, Carlsbad, CA, 92008, 13 sheets, dated October 16, 2023. Sowers and Sowers, 1979, Unified soil classification system (After U. S. Waterways Experiment Station and ASTM 02487-667) in Introductory soil mechanics, New York. State of California, 2024, Civil Code, Sections 895 et seq. Scott and Shelley Ashworth Appendix A File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX B HAND-AUGER BORING LOGS UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CONSISTENCY OR RELATIVE DENSITY Major Divisions Group Symbols Typical Names CRITERIA Co a r s e - G r a i n e d S o i l s Mo r e t h a n 5 0 % r e t a i n e d o n N o . 2 0 0 s i e v e Gr a v e l s 50 % o r m o r e o f co a r s e f r a c t i o n re t a i n e d o n N o . 4 s i e v e Cl e a n Gr a v e l s GW Well-graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Standard Penetration Test Penetration Resistance N Relative (blows/ft)Density 0 - 4 Very loose 4 - 10 Loose 10 - 30 Medium 30 - 50 Dense > 50 Very dense GP Poorly graded gravels andgravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Gr a v e l wi t h GM Silty gravels gravel-sand-silt mixtures GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures Sa n d s mo r e t h a n 5 0 % o f co a r s e f r a c t i o n pa s s e s N o . 4 s i e v e Cle a n Sa n d s SW Well-graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fines SP Poorly graded sands andgravelly sands, little or no fines Sa n d s wi t h Fi n e s SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures Fi n e - G r a i n e d S o i l s 50 % o r m o r e p a s s e s N o . 2 0 0 s i e v e Sil t s a n d C l a y s Liq u i d l i m i t 50 % o r l e s s ML Inorganic silts, very fine sands,rock flour, silty or clayey finesands Standard Penetration Test Unconfined Penetration Compressive Resistance N Strength (blows/ft)Consistency (tons/ft2) <2 Very Soft <0.25 2 - 4 Soft 0.25 - .050 4 - 8 Medium 0.50 - 1.00 8 - 15 Stiff 1.00 - 2.00 15 - 30 Very Stiff 2.00 - 4.00 >30 Hard >4.00 CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity Si l t s a n d C l a y s Li q u i d l i m i t gr e a t e r t h a n 5 0 % MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sands or silts, elastic silts CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity Highly Organic Soils PT Peat, mucic, and other highly organic soils 3"3/4"#4 #10 #40 #200 U.S. Standard Sieve Unified Soil Classification Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt or Clay coarse fine coarse medium fine MOISTURE CONDITIONS MATERIAL QUANTITY OTHER SYMBOLS Dry Absence of moisture: dusty, dry to the touch trace 0 - 5 %C Core Sample Slightly Moist Below optimum moisture content for compaction few 5 - 10 %S SPT Sample Moist Near optimum moisture content little 10 - 25 %B Bulk Sample Very Moist Above optimum moisture content some 25 - 45 %–Groundwater Wet Visible free water; below water table Qp Pocket Penetrometer BASIC LOG FORMAT: Group name, Group symbol, (grain size), color, moisture, consistency or relative density. Additional comments: odor, presence of roots, mica, gypsum, coarse grained particles, etc. EXAMPLE: Sand (SP), fine to medium grained, brown, moist, loose, trace silt, little fine gravel, few cobbles up to 4" in size, some hair roots and rootlets. File:Mgr: c;\SoilClassif.wpd PLATE B-1 I I I I I I I I I - 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 SM SM 4.0 5.5 ARTIFICIAL FILL:@ 0', SILT SAND, brown, dry to damp, loose; roots, organic debris,gravel. OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS:@ 1', SILTY SANDSTONE, brown to yellowish brown, damp, loose tomedium dense; roots, weathered.@ 2', As per 1', dense to very dense; becomes fresh, fewer roots.@ 3', As per 2'; oxidation stains. Total Depth = 4'.No caving or groundwater encountered.Backfilled 12-13-23. GeoSoils, Inc.BORING LOG PROJECT:2665 WILSON STREET, CARLSBAD W.O.8750-A-SC BORING HA-1 SHEET 1 OF DATE EXCAVATED 12-13-23 LOGGED BY:DRE APPROX. ELEV.: SAMPLE METHOD:Hand-auger Standard Penetration Test Groundwater Undisturbed, Ring Sample Seepage GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE De p t h ( f t . ) Bu l k Sample Un d i s t u r b e d Bl o w s / F t . US C S S y m b o l Dr y U n i t W t . ( p c f ) Mo i s t u r e ( % ) Sa t u r a t i o n ( % ) Material Description 1 B-2 H ~ I I I I I I ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _. - - . J '( J •ii~ I I 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 SM SM/SC SM 16.7 11.5 ARTIFICIAL FILL:@ 0', SILTY SAND, dark brown, moist, loose; organic rich.@ 1', Becomes wet; becomes less organic. @ 2.5', As per 1', brown, wet to saturated; contains clayey sand chunks. OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS:@ 4.5', SILTY SANDSTONE, reddish brown, moist, dense. Total Depth = 5.5.No caving or groundwater encountered.Backfilled 12-13-23. GeoSoils, Inc.BORING LOG PROJECT:2665 WILSON STREET, CARLSBAD W.O.8750-A-SC BORING HA-2 SHEET 1 OF DATE EXCAVATED 12-13-23 LOGGED BY:DG APPROX. ELEV.: SAMPLE METHOD:Hand-auger Standard Penetration Test Groundwater Undisturbed, Ring Sample Seepage GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE De p t h ( f t . ) Bu l k Sample Un d i s t u r b e d Bl o w s / F t . US C S S y m b o l Dr y U n i t W t . ( p c f ) Mo i s t u r e ( % ) Sa t u r a t i o n ( % ) Material Description 1 B-3 H ~ • I I I I I ... . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . ... . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .-. · .. . ::: : : : · · · · · · · · '( J •ii~ I I 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 SM SM/SC 4.4 9.5 ARTIFICIAL FILL:@ 0', SILTY SAND, brown, moist, loose to medium dense; filter fabric androots.@ 2', As per 0'; chaotic coloration. OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS:@ 3', Slightly CLAYEY SANDSTONE, brown to reddish brown, moist,dense to very dense.@ 4', Grades to reddish brown. Total Depth = 5'.No caving or groundwater encountered.Backfilled 12-13-23. GeoSoils, Inc.BORING LOG PROJECT:2665 WILSON STREET, CARLSBAD W.O.8750-A-SC BORING HA-3 SHEET 1 OF DATE EXCAVATED 12-13-23 LOGGED BY:DRE APPROX. ELEV.: SAMPLE METHOD:Hand-auger Standard Penetration Test Groundwater Undisturbed, Ring Sample Seepage GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE De p t h ( f t . ) Bu l k Sample Un d i s t u r b e d Bl o w s / F t . US C S S y m b o l Dr y U n i t W t . ( p c f ) Mo i s t u r e ( % ) Sa t u r a t i o n ( % ) Material Description 1 B-4 H ~ d I I I I I ... . . . . . . . . ... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. - '( J •ii~ I I GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX C LABORATORY DATA Tested By: TR Checked By: TR 12-22-23 (no specification provided) PL=LL=PI= D90=D85=D60=D50=D30=D15=D10=Cu=Cc= USCS=AASHTO= * Dark Reddish Brown Clayey Sand 0.375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.1 80.8 53.8 40.9 35.0 0.5389 0.4682 0.2856 0.2261 SC F.M.=1.04 Ashworth 2655 Wilson Street 8750-A-SC Soil Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Source of Sample: HA-2 Depth: 4.5-5.5 Sample Number: HA-2 Date: Client: Project: Project No:Plate SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.*PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 19.1 45.8 35.0 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1½ i n . 1 i n . ¾ i n . ½ i n . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 Particle Size Distribution Report - ASTM D422 W.O. 8750-A-SC Plate C-1 ~ ~r'I I ~ : \ I I ~ \ ' \ ' \~ ~~~ ,,,, I I I I ~@H· 7.4 21 Sample testing in accordance with:pH - CTM 643, Resistivity - CTM 643 Sulfate - CTM 417, Chloride - CTM 422 Remarks: Chloride Content (mg/kg) 7700 <0.003HA-1, 1-2ft Report Date:December 20, 2023 SAMPLE ID pH (H+) Minimum Resistivity (ohm/cm) Sulfate Content (wt%) 5741 Palmer Way, Carlsbad CA 92010 Phone (760) 438-3155 CORROSION REPORT SUMMARY Project No:8750-A-SC Project Name:Ashworth W.O. 8750-A-SC Plate C-2 Jae. GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX D GENERAL EARTHWORK, GRADING GUIDELINES, AND PRELIMINARY CRITERIA GeoSoils, Inc. GENERAL EARTHWORK, GRADING GUIDELINES, AND PRELIMINARY CRITERIA General These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for earthwork and grading as shown on the approved grading plans, including preparation of areas to be filled, placement of fill, installation of subdrains, excavations, and appurtenant structures or flatwork. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are part of these earthwork and grading guidelines and would supercede the provisions contained hereafter in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations which could supercede these guidelines or the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. Generalized details follow this text. The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with provisions of the project plans and specifications and latest adopted Code. In the case of conflict, the most onerous provisions shall prevail. The project geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist (geotechnical consultant), and/or their representatives, should provide observation and testing services, and geotechnical consultation during the duration of the project. EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING Geotechnical Consultant Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soil engineer and engineering geologist) should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for general conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report(s), the approved grading plans, and applicable grading codes and ordinances. The geotechnical consultant should provide testing and observation so that an evaluation may be made that the work is being accomplished as specified. It is the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultants and keep them apprised of anticipated work schedules and changes, so that they may schedule their personnel accordingly. All remedial removals, clean-outs, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrain installation should be observed and documented by the geotechnical consultant prior to placing any fill. It is the contractor’s responsibility to notify the geotechnical consultant when such areas are ready for observation. Laboratory and Field Tests Maximum dry density tests to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with American Standard Testing Materials test method ASTM designation D-1557. Random or representative field compaction tests should be performed in accordance with test methods ASTM designation D-1556, D-2937 or D-2922, and D-3017, GeoSoils, Inc. at intervals of approximately ±2 feet of fill height or approximately every 1,000 cubic yards placed. These criteria would vary depending on the soil conditions and the size of the project. The location and frequency of testing would be at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Contractor's Responsibility All clearing, site preparation, and earthwork performed on the project should be conducted by the contractor, with observation by a geotechnical consultant, and staged approval by the governing agencies, as applicable. It is the contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fill, to the satisfaction of the geotechnical consultant, and to place, spread, moisture condition, mix, and compact the fill in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. The contractor should also remove all non-earth material considered unsatisfactory by the geotechnical consultant. Notwithstanding the services provided by the geotechnical consultant, it is the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in strict accordance with applicable grading guidelines, latest adopted Code or agency ordinances, geotechnical report(s), and approved grading plans. Sufficient watering apparatus and compaction equipment should be provided by the contractor with due consideration for the fill material, rate of placement, and climatic conditions. If, in the opinion of the geotechnical consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable weather, excessive oversized rock or deleterious material, insufficient support equipment, etc., are resulting in a quality of work that is not acceptable, the consultant will inform the contractor, and the contractor is expected to rectify the conditions, and if necessary, stop work until conditions are satisfactory. During construction, the contractor shall properly grade all surfaces to maintain good drainage and prevent ponding of water. The contractor shall take remedial measures to control surface water and to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. SITE PREPARATION All major vegetation, including brush, trees, thick grasses, organic debris, and other deleterious material, should be removed and disposed of off-site. These removals must be concluded prior to placing fill. In-place existing fill, soil, alluvium, colluvium, or rock materials, as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant as being unsuitable, should be removed prior to any fill placement. Depending upon the soil conditions, these materials may be reused as compacted fills. Any materials incorporated as part of the compacted fills should be approved by the geotechnical consultant. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipelines, or other structures not located prior to grading, are to be removed or treated in a manner recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Soft, dry, spongy, Scott and Shelley Ashworth Appendix D File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition, should be overexcavated down to firm ground and approved by the geotechnical consultant before compaction and filling operations continue. Overexcavated and processed soils, which have been properly mixed and moisture conditioned, should be re-compacted to the minimum relative compaction as specified in these guidelines. Existing ground, which is determined to be satisfactory for support of the fills, should be scarified (ripped) to a minimum depth of 6 to 8 inches, or as directed by the geotechnical consultant. After the scarified ground is brought to optimum moisture content, or greater and mixed, the materials should be compacted as specified herein. If the scarified zone is greater than 6 to 8 inches in depth, it may be necessary to remove the excess and place the material in lifts restricted to about 6 to 8 inches in compacted thickness. Existing ground which is not satisfactory to support compacted fill should be overexcavated as required in the geotechnical report, or by the on-site geotechnical consultant. Scarification, disc harrowing, or other acceptable forms of mixing should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large lumps or clods, until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, mounds, or other uneven features, which would inhibit compaction as described previously. Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical [h:v]), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench, which will act as a key, should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and should be at least 2 feet deep into firm material, and approved by the geotechnical consultant. In fill-over-cut slope conditions, the recommended minimum width of the lowest bench or key is also 15 feet, with the key founded on firm material, as designated by the geotechnical consultant. As a general rule, unless specifically recommended otherwise by the geotechnical consultant, the minimum width of fill keys should be equal to ½ the height of the slope. Standard benching is generally 4 feet (minimum) vertically, exposing firm, acceptable material. Benching may be used to remove unsuitable materials, although it is understood that the vertical height of the bench may exceed 4 feet. Pre-stripping may be considered for unsuitable materials in excess of 4 feet in thickness. All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and the toes of fill benches, should be observed and approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement of fill. Fills may then be properly placed and compacted until design grades (elevations) are attained. COMPACTED FILLS Any earth materials imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill provided that each material has been evaluated to be suitable by the geotechnical consultant. These materials should be free of roots, tree branches, other organic matter, Scott and Shelley Ashworth Appendix D File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. or other deleterious materials. All unsuitable materials should be removed from the fill as directed by the geotechnical consultant. Soils of poor gradation, undesirable expansion potential, or substandard strength characteristics may be designated by the consultant as unsuitable and may require blending with other soils to serve as a satisfactory fill material. Fill materials derived from benching operations should be dispersed throughout the fill area and blended with other approved material. Benching operations should not result in the benched material being placed only within a single equipment width away from the fill/bedrock contact. Oversized materials defined as rock, or other irreducible materials, with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches, should not be buried or placed in fills unless the location of materials and disposal methods are specifically approved by the geotechnical consultant. Oversized material should be taken offsite, or placed in accordance with recommendations of the geotechnical consultant in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. GSI anticipates that soils to be utilized as fill material for the subject project may contain some rock. Appropriately, the need for rock disposal may be necessary during grading operations on the site. From a geotechnical standpoint, the depth of any rocks, rock fills, or rock blankets, should be a sufficient distance from finish grade. This depth is generally the same as any overexcavation due to cut-fill transitions in hard rock areas, and generally facilitates the excavation of structural footings and substructures. Should deeper excavations be proposed (i.e., deepened footings, utility trenching, swimming pools, spas, etc.), the developer may consider increasing the hold-down depth of any rocky fills to be placed, as appropriate. In addition, some agencies/jurisdictions mandate a specific hold-down depth for oversize materials placed in fills. The hold-down depth, and potential to encounter oversize rock, both within fills, and occurring in cut or natural areas, would need to be disclosed to all interested/affected parties. Once approved by the governing agency, the hold-down depth for oversized rock (i.e., greater than 12 inches) in fills on this project is provided as 10 feet, unless specified differently in the text of this report. The governing agency may require that these materials need to be deeper, crushed, or reduced to less than 12 inches in maximum dimension, at their discretion. To facilitate future trenching, rock (or oversized material), should not be placed within the hold-down depth feet from finish grade, the range of foundation excavations, future utilities, or underground construction unless specifically approved by the governing agency, the geotechnical consultant, and/or the developer’s representative. If import material is required for grading, representative samples of the materials to be utilized as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory by the geotechnical consultant to evaluate it’s physical properties and suitability for use onsite. Such testing should be performed three (3) days prior to importation. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, an appropriate analysis of this material should be conducted by the geotechnical consultant as soon as possible. Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near horizontal layers, that when compacted, should not exceed about 6 to 8 inches in thickness. The Scott and Shelley Ashworth Appendix D File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 4 GeoSoils, Inc. geotechnical consultant may approve thick lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and blended to attain uniformity of material and moisture suitable for compaction. Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers should be aerated by scarification, or should be blended with drier material. Moisture conditioning, blending, and mixing of the fill layer should continue until the fill materials have a uniform moisture content at, or above, optimum moisture. After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture conditioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density as evaluated by ASTM test designation D 1557, or as otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and should be specifically designed for soil compaction, or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction. Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is below the required relative compaction, or improper moisture is in evidence, the particular layer or portion shall be re-worked until the required density and/or moisture content has been attained. No additional fill shall be placed in an area until the last placed lift of fill has been tested and found to meet the density and moisture requirements, and is approved by the geotechnical consultant. In general, per the latest adopted Code, fill slopes should be designed and constructed at a gradient of 2:1 (h:v), or flatter. Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by over- building a minimum of 3 feet horizontally, and subsequently trimming back to the design slope configuration. Testing shall be performed as the fill is elevated to evaluate compaction as the fill core is being developed. Special efforts may be necessary to attain the specified compaction in the fill slope zone. Final slope shaping should be performed by trimming and removing loose materials with appropriate equipment. A final evaluation of fill slope compaction should be based on observation and/or testing of the finished slope face. Where compacted fill slopes are designed steeper than 2:1 (h:v), prior approval from the governing agency, specific material types, a higher minimum relative compaction, special reinforcement, and special grading procedures will be recommended. If an alternative to over-building and cutting back the compacted fill slopes is selected, then special effort should be made to achieve the required compaction in the outer 10 feet of each lift of fill by undertaking the following: 1.An extra piece of equipment consisting of a heavy, short-shanked sheepsfoot should be used to roll (horizontal) parallel to the slopes continuously as fill is placed. The sheepsfoot roller should also be used to roll perpendicular to the slopes, and extend out over the slope to provide adequate compaction to the face of the slope. Scott and Shelley Ashworth Appendix D File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 5 GeoSoils, Inc. 2.Loose fill should not be spilled out over the face of the slope as each lift is compacted. Any loose fill spilled over a previously completed slope face should be trimmed off or be subject to re-rolling. 3.Field compaction tests will be made in the outer (horizontal) ±2 to ±8 feet of the slope at appropriate vertical intervals, subsequent to compaction operations. 4.After completion of the slope, the slope face should be shaped with a small tractor and then re-rolled with a sheepsfoot to achieve compaction to near the slope face. Subsequent to testing to evaluate compaction, the slopes should be grid-rolled to achieve compaction to the slope face. Final testing should be used to evaluate compaction after grid rolling. 5.Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction, the contractor will be responsible to rip, water, mix, and recompact the slope material as necessary to achieve compaction. Additional testing should be performed to evaluate compaction. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdrains should be installed in approved ground in accordance with the approximate alignment and details indicated by the geotechnical consultant. Subdrain locations or materials should not be changed or modified without approval of the geotechnical consultant. The geotechnical consultant may recommend and direct changes in subdrain line, grade, and drain material in the field, pending exposed conditions. The location of constructed subdrains, especially the outlets, should be recorded/surveyed by the project civil engineer. Drainage at the subdrain outlets should be provided by the project civil engineer. EXCAVATIONS Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading by the geotechnical consultant. If directed by the geotechnical consultant, further excavations or overexcavation and refilling of cut areas should be performed, and/or remedial grading of cut slopes should be performed. When fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope should be observed by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope. The geotechnical consultant should observe all cut slopes, and should be notified by the contractor when excavation of cut slopes commence. If, during the course of grading, unforeseen adverse or potentially adverse geologic conditions are encountered, the geotechnical consultant should investigate, evaluate, and make appropriate recommendations for mitigation of these conditions. The need for cut slope buttressing or stabilizing should be based on in-grading evaluation by the geotechnical consultant, whether anticipated or not. Scott and Shelley Ashworth Appendix D File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 6 GeoSoils, Inc. Unless otherwise specified in geotechnical and geological report(s), no cut slopes should be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies. Additionally, short-term stability of temporary cut slopes is the contractor’s responsibility. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer and should be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. COMPLETION Observation, testing, and consultation by the geotechnical consultant should be conducted during the grading operations in order to state an opinion that all cut and fill areas are graded in accordance with the approved project specifications. After completion of grading, and after the geotechnical consultant has finished observations of the work, final reports should be submitted, and may be subject to review by the controlling governmental agencies. No further excavation or filling should be undertaken without prior notification of the geotechnical consultant or approved plans. All finished cut and fill slopes should be protected from erosion and/or be planted in accordance with the project specifications and/or as recommended by a landscape architect. Such protection and/or planning should be undertaken as soon as practical after completion of grading. PRELIMINARY OUTDOOR POOL/SPA DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS The following preliminary recommendations are provided for consideration in pool/spa design and planning. Actual recommendations should be provided by a qualified geotechnical consultant, based on site specific geotechnical conditions, including a subsurface investigation, differential settlement potential, expansive and corrosive soil potential, proximity of the proposed pool/spa to any slopes with regard to slope creep and lateral fill extension, as well as slope setbacks per Code, and geometry of the proposed improvements. Recommendations for pools/spas and/or deck flatwork underlain by expansive soils, or for areas with differential settlement greater than ¼-inch over 40 feet horizontally, will be more onerous than the preliminary recommendations presented below. The 1:1 (h:v) influence zone of any nearby retaining wall site structures should be delineated on the project civil drawings with the pool/spa. This 1:1 (h:v) zone is defined as a plane up from the lower-most heel of the retaining structure, to the daylight grade of the nearby building pad or slope. If pools/spas or associated pool/spa improvements are constructed within this zone, they should be re-positioned (horizontally or vertically) so that they are supported by earth materials that are outside or below this 1:1 plane. If this is not possible given the area of the building pad, the owner should consider eliminating these improvements or allow for increased potential for lateral/vertical deformations and associated distress that may render these improvements unusable in the future, unless Scott and Shelley Ashworth Appendix D File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 7 GeoSoils, Inc. they are periodically repaired and maintained. The conditions and recommendations presented herein should be disclosed to all homeowners and any interested/affected parties. General 1.The equivalent fluid pressure to be used for the pool/spa design should be 60 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for pool/spa walls with level backfill, and 75 pcf for a 2:1 sloped backfill condition. In addition, backdrains should be provided behind pool/spa walls subjacent to slopes. 2.Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 150 pcf, to a maximum lateral earth pressure of 1,000 pounds per square foot (psf). 3.An allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.30 may be used with the dead load forces. 4.When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. 5.Where pools/spas are planned near structures, appropriate surcharge loads need to be incorporated into design and construction by the pool/spa designer. This includes, but is not limited to landscape berms, decorative walls, footings, built-in barbeques, utility poles, etc. 6.All pool/spa walls should be designed as “free standing” and be capable of supporting the water in the pool/spa without soil support. The shape of pool/spa in cross section and plan view may affect the performance of the pool, from a geotechnical standpoint. Pools and spas should also be designed in accordance with the latest adopted Code. Minimally, the bottoms of the pools/spas, should maintain a distance H/3, where H is the height of the slope (in feet), from the slope face. This distance should not be less than 7 feet, nor need not be greater than 40 feet. 7.The soil beneath the pool/spa bottom should be uniformly moist with the same stiffness throughout. If a fill/cut transition occurs beneath the pool/spa bottom, the cut portion should be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 48 inches, and replaced with compacted fill, such that there is a uniform blanket that is a minimum of 48 inches below the pool/spa shell. If very low expansive soil is used for fill, the fill should be placed at a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction, at optimum moisture conditions. This requirement should be 90 percent relative compaction at over optimum moisture if the pool/spa is constructed within or near expansive soils. The potential for grading and/or re-grading of the pool/spa bottom, and attendant potential for shoring and/or slot excavation, needs to be considered during all aspects of pool/spa planning, design, and construction. 8.If the pool/spa is founded entirely in compacted fill placed during rough grading, the deepest portion of the pool/spa should correspond with the thickest fill on the lot. Scott and Shelley Ashworth Appendix D File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 8 GeoSoils, Inc. 9.Hydrostatic pressure relief valves should be incorporated into the pool and spa designs. A pool/spa under-drain system is also recommended, with an appropriate outlet for discharge. 10.All fittings and pipe joints, particularly fittings in the side of the pool or spa, should be properly sealed to prevent water from leaking into the adjacent soils materials, and be fitted with slip or expandible joints between connections transecting varying soil conditions. 11.An elastic expansion joint (flexible waterproof sealant) should be installed to prevent water from seeping into the soil at all deck joints. 12.A reinforced grade beam should be placed around skimmer inlets to provide support and mitigate cracking around the skimmer face. 13.In order to reduce unsightly cracking, deck slabs should minimally be 4 inches thick, and reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars at 18 inches on-center. All slab reinforcement should be supported to ensure proper mid-slab positioning during the placement of concrete. Wire mesh reinforcing is specifically not recommended. Deck slabs should not be tied to the pool/spa structure. Pre-moistening and/or pre-soaking of the slab subgrade is recommended, to a depth of 12 inches (optimum moisture content), or 18 inches (120 percent of the soil’s optimum moisture content, or 3 percent over optimum moisture content, whichever is greater), for very low to low, and medium expansive soils, respectively. This moisture content should be maintained in the subgrade soils during concrete placement to promote uniform curing of the concrete and minimize the development of unsightly shrinkage cracks. Slab underlayment should consist of a 1- to 2-inch leveling course of sand (S.E.>30) and a minimum of 4 to 6 inches of Class 2 base compacted to 90 percent. Deck slabs within the H/3 zone, where H is the height of the slope (in feet), will have an increased potential for distress relative to other areas outside of the H/3 zone. If distress is undesirable, improvements, deck slabs or flatwork should not be constructed closer than H/3 or 7 feet (whichever is greater) from the slope face, in order to reduce, but not eliminate, this potential. 14.Pool/spa bottom or deck slabs should be founded entirely on competent bedrock, or properly compacted fill. Fill should be compacted to achieve a minimum 90 percent relative compaction, as discussed above. Prior to pouring concrete, subgrade soils below the pool/spa decking should be throughly watered to achieve a moisture content that is at least 2 percent above optimum moisture content, to a depth of at least 18 inches below the bottom of slabs. This moisture content should be maintained in the subgrade soils during concrete placement to promote uniform curing of the concrete and minimize the development of unsightly shrinkage cracks. 15.In order to reduce unsightly cracking, the outer edges of pool/spa decking to be bordered by landscaping, and the edges immediately adjacent to the pool/spa, should be underlain by an 8-inch wide concrete cutoff shoulder (thickened edge) Scott and Shelley Ashworth Appendix D File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 9 GeoSoils, Inc. extending to a depth of at least 12 inches below the bottoms of the slabs to mitigate excessive infiltration of water under the pool/spa deck. These thickened edges should be reinforced with two No. 4 bars, one at the top and one at the bottom. Deck slabs may be minimally reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 18 inches on-center, in both directions. All slab reinforcement should be supported on chairs to ensure proper mid-slab positioning during the placement of concrete. 16.Surface and shrinkage cracking of the finish slab may be reduced if a low slump and water-cement ratio are maintained during concrete placement. Concrete utilized should have a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi. Excessive water added to concrete prior to placement is likely to cause shrinkage cracking, and should be avoided. Some concrete shrinkage cracking, however, is unavoidable. 17.Joint and sawcut locations for the pool/spa deck should be determined by the design engineer and/or contractor. However, spacings should not exceed 6 feet on center. 18.Considering the nature of the onsite earth materials, it should be anticipated that caving or sloughing could be a factor in subsurface excavations and trenching. Shoring or excavating the trench walls/backcuts at the angle of repose (typically 25 to 45 degrees), should be anticipated. All excavations should be observed by a representative of the geotechnical consultant, including the project geologist and/or geotechnical engineer, prior to workers entering the excavation or trench, and minimally conform to Cal/OSHA (“Type C” soils may be assumed), state, and local safety codes. Should adverse conditions exist, appropriate recommendations should be offered at that time by the geotechnical consultant. GSI does not consult in the area of safety engineering and the safety of the construction crew is the responsibility of the pool/spa builder. 19.It is imperative that adequate provisions for surface drainage are incorporated by the homeowners into their overall improvement scheme. Ponding water, ground saturation and flow over slope faces, are all situations which must be avoided to enhance long term performance of the pool/spa and associated improvements, and reduce the likelihood of distress. 20.Regardless of the methods employed, once the pool/spa is filled with water, should it be emptied, there exists some potential that if emptied, significant distress may occur. Accordingly, once filled, the pool/spa should not be emptied unless evaluated by the geotechnical consultant and the pool/spa builder. 21.For pools/spas built within (all or part) of the Code setback and/or geotechnical setback, as indicated in the site geotechnical documents, special foundations are recommended to mitigate the affects of creep, lateral fill extension, expansive soils and settlement on the proposed pool/spa. Most municipalities or County reviewers do not consider these effects in pool/spa plan approvals. As such, where pools/spas are proposed on 20 feet or more of fill, medium or highly expansive soils, or rock fill with limited “cap soils” and built within Code setbacks, or within the Scott and Shelley Ashworth Appendix D File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 10 GeoSoils, Inc. influence of the creep zone, or lateral fill extension, the following should be considered during design and construction: OPTION A: Shallow foundations with or without overexcavation of the pool/spa “shell,” such that the pool/spa is surrounded by 5 feet of very low to low expansive soils (without irreducible particles greater that 6 inches), and the pool/spa walls closer to the slope(s) are designed to be free standing. GSI recommends a pool/spa under-drain or blanket system (see attached Typical Pool/Spa Detail). The pool/spa builders and owner in this optional construction technique should be generally satisfied with pool/spa performance under this scenario; however, some settlement, tilting, cracking, and leakage of the pool/spa is likely over the life of the project. OPTION B: Pier supported pool/spa foundations with or without overexcavation of the pool/spa shell such that the pool/spa is surrounded by 5 feet of very low to low expansive soils (without irreducible particles greater than 6 inches), and the pool/spa walls closer to the slope(s) are designed to be free standing. The need for a pool/spa under-drain system may be installed for leak detection purposes. Piers that support the pool/spa should be a minimum of 12 inches in diameter and at a spacing to provide vertical and lateral support of the pool/spa, in accordance with the pool/spa designers recommendations current applicable Codes. The pool/spa builder and owner in this second scenario construction technique should be more satisfied with pool/spa performance. This construction will reduce settlement and creep effects on the pool/spa; however, it will not eliminate these potentials, nor make the pool/spa “leak-free.” 22.The temperature of the water lines for spas and pools may affect the corrosion properties of site soils, thus, a corrosion specialist should be retained to review all spa and pool plans, and provide mitigative recommendations, as warranted. Concrete mix design should be reviewed by a qualified corrosion consultant and materials engineer. 23.All pool/spa utility trenches should be compacted to 90 percent of the laboratory standard, under the full-time observation and testing of a qualified geotechnical consultant. Utility trench bottoms should be sloped away from the primary structure on the property (typically the residence). 24.Pool and spa utility lines should not cross the primary structure’s utility lines (i.e., not stacked, or sharing of trenches, etc.). 25.The pool/spa or associated utilities should not intercept, interrupt, or otherwise adversely impact any area drain, roof drain, or other drainage conveyances. If it is necessary to modify, move, or disrupt existing area drains, subdrains, or tightlines, then the design civil engineer should be consulted, and mitigative measures provided. Such measures should be further reviewed and approved by the geotechnical consultant, prior to proceeding with any further construction. Scott and Shelley Ashworth Appendix D File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 11 GeoSoils, Inc. 26.The geotechnical consultant should review and approve all aspects of pool/spa and flatwork design prior to construction. A design civil engineer should review all aspects of such design, including drainage and setback conditions. Prior to acceptance of the pool/spa construction, the project builder, geotechnical consultant and civil designer should evaluate the performance of the area drains and other site drainage pipes, following pool/spa construction. 27.All aspects of construction should be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical consultant, including during excavation, prior to the placement of any additional fill, prior to the placement of any reinforcement or pouring of any concrete. 28.Any changes in design or location of the pool/spa should be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical and design civil engineer prior to construction. Field adjustments should not be allowed until written approval of the proposed field changes are obtained from the geotechnical and design civil engineer. 29.Disclosure should be made to homeowners and builders, contractors, and any interested/affected parties, that pools/spas built within about 15 feet of the top of a slope, and/or H/3, where H is the height of the slope (in feet), will experience some movement or tilting. While the pool/spa shell or coping may not necessarily crack, the levelness of the pool/spa will likely tilt toward the slope, and may not be esthetically pleasing. The same is true with decking, flatwork and other improvements in this zone. 30.Failure to adhere to the above recommendations will significantly increase the potential for distress to the pool/spa, flatwork, etc. 31.Local seismicity and/or the design earthquake will cause some distress to the pool/spa and decking or flatwork, possibly including total functional and economic loss. 32.The information and recommendations discussed above should be provided to any contractors and/or subcontractors, or homeowners, interested/affected parties, etc., that may perform or may be affected by such work. JOB SAFETY General At GSI, getting the job done safely is of primary concern. The following is the company's safety considerations for use by all employees on multi-employer construction sites. On-ground personnel are at highest risk of injury, and possible fatality, on grading and construction projects. GSI recognizes that construction activities will vary on each site, and that site safety is the prime responsibility of the contractor; however, everyone must be safety conscious and responsible at all times. To achieve our goal of avoiding accidents, cooperation between the client, the contractor, and GSI personnel must be maintained. Scott and Shelley Ashworth Appendix D File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 12 GeoSoils, Inc. In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of field personnel on grading and construction projects: Safety Meetings: GSI field personnel are directed to attend contractor’s regularly scheduled and documented safety meetings. Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for, and are to be worn by GSI personnel, at all times, when they are working in the field. Safety Flags:Two safety flags are provided to GSI field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits. Flashing Lights:All vehicles stationary in the grading area shall use rotating or flashing amber beacons, or strobe lights, on the vehicle during all field testing. While operating a vehicle in the grading area, the emergency flasher on the vehicle shall be activated. In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not following the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office. Test Pits Location, Orientation, and Clearance The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. A primary concern should be the technician’s safety. Efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractor’s authorized representative, and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractor’s authorized representative (supervisor, grade checker, dump man, operator, etc.) should direct excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Of paramount concern should be the soil technician’s safety, and obtaining enough tests to represent the fill. Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away from oncoming traffic, whenever possible. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil pile. This necessitates the fill be maintained in a driveable condition. Alternatively, the contractor may wish to park a piece of equipment in front of the test holes, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access. A zone of non-encroachment should be established for all test pits. No grading equipment should enter this zone during the testing procedure. The zone should extend approximately 50 feet outward from the center of the test pit. This zone is established for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration, which typically decreases test results. When taking slope tests, the technician should park the vehicle directly above or below the test location. If this is not possible, a prominent flag should be placed at the top of the slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operational distance (e.g., 50 feet) away from the slope during this testing. Scott and Shelley Ashworth Appendix D File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 13 GeoSoils, Inc. The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location, well away from the equipment traffic pattern. The contractor should inform our personnel of all changes to haul roads, cut and fill areas or other factors that may affect site access and site safety. In the event that the technician’s safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the contractor’s failure to comply with any of the above, the technician is required, by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The grading contractor’s representative will be contacted in an effort to affect a solution. However, in the interim, no further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill placed can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction, or removal. In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety guidelines, we request that the contractor bring this to the technician’s attention and notify this office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractor’s representative and the soil technician is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety plan. Trench and Vertical Excavation It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction testing is needed. Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation or vertical cut which: 1) is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back; 2) displays any evidence of instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the trench; or 3) displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth. All trench excavations or vertical cuts in excess of 5 feet deep, which any person enters, should be shored or laid back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with Cal/OSHA and/or state and local standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any trench by being lowered or “riding down” on the equipment. If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our company policy requires that the soil technician withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The contractor’s representative will be contacted in an effort to affect a solution. All backfill not tested due to safety concerns or other reasons could be subject to reprocessing and/or removal. If GSI personnel become aware of anyone working beneath an unsafe trench wall or vertical excavation, we have a legal obligation to put the contractor and owner/developer on notice to immediately correct the situation. If corrective steps are not taken, GSI then has an obligation to notify Cal/OSHA and/or the proper controlling authorities. Scott and Shelley Ashworth Appendix D File:e:\wp21\8700\8750a.lgi Page 14 Toe of slope as shown on grading plan Natural slope to be restored with compacted fill ~ Proposed grade \ / / / / Compacted fill / / .. / .• ~.: ... :•: ... •.•••·, :;~~(i,S\~: ::__5 ·~ .... ·.··· .. ·· .... •·· .. ··. oi\c~···· •••••• ••• ••••• ••••• L 2-foot m· · · ~ (. • '. \',et{\O'I~ \~ , • • 'y_;_ ' , ~·-✓: ":::::· ~· ·.~:. ~· .,.,.....__l,,,.)\ <(\~,, - in bedr 1n1mum ~. . . \ 1·, • . . ... "'"" . . . . . . . . . ' . : :. : ... i •• , •· ~ • • ~ r / ,y\' \, / -4-1001 nttnum Backcut varies / r ock or..-:'.:. ,. .. . . . . . ··.· . . .,, '§· .. • •: • · , . • ,_;;-. .,.--r, :.<'\,, /). y\ \ \::..<,-!\_-_ """'°""" : ·.. . ·. . '§; 'Y . . . • • ,;_--'· '" • -=-eorth materiel_· .o:..:· . ' ' ~< ' ~ • ~~~,......,-~f:~ y\ \ <\\0;>::C\ \\ I r r ----~ .; .. ,i<> ~ --\\;(\\'.:<~)/4' L Bench...., I __. '-\ \-,;;, C~\ 2-Pe,cent 0..ad-----~ _ • [ 3-foot minimum I may vary ~ ·1 ·' '\ :.c, /, y\"" ~ , ----<•-<oot -1 Bedrock 0 I , .,,\;..;\;,,: ---r 15-loot....., 'f --approved 1-----:2-•Hm•a I r native material slope height I Subdrain as recommended by geotechnical consultant NOTES= 1. Where the natural slope approaches or exceeds the design slope ratio, special recommendations would be provided by the geotechnical consultant. 2. The need for and disposition of drains should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant, based upon exposed conditions. c. FILL OVER NATURAL {SIDEHILL FILL) DETAIL Plate D-7 Natural grade Proposed pad grade _=::::a...-.,::-::-... · .... ··-: ; .. / .. : .-·<: .. =···-._;··~ ·. . ·: ... .-· : . ~ .• ::....::z_..::, • --__ l_ \<U,, y\\ ;((0~t\ y\ \\''\\\~>::::-\ ,,,\ \\~\/4;✓,,,\'\ ;((0u/ y)\ <0,;;,'\ y\ \Y ~ 3-to 7-foot minimum• \' B d k overexcavate and recompact \ ~~1/\ e roe or per text of report ,,\ \ \::--<, approved native material Typical benching CUT LOT OR MATERIAL -TYPE TRANSITION Natural grade . . . . . • •• • .:.....· ...,.-=:m-rFF7-~~~~~~~~~~~~~m-~ .-. •• •• :~ 3-to 7-foot minimum• ... ·.-. • =·· ~ overexcavate and recompact . b\8. ~;~ • • ....,......,.,...,.......,............,..,....,....,.............,..-11 ~ per text of report · ~~ \ \V • Deeper overexcavation may be Typical benching (4-foot minimum) Bedrock or approved native material recommended by the geotechnical consultant in steep cut-fill transition areas, such that the underlying topography is no steeper than 3:1 (H:V) CUT-FILL LOT (DAYLIGHT TRANSITION) c. TRANSITION LOT DETAILS Plate D-12 MAP VIEW NOTTO SCALE Concrete cut-off wall SEE NOTE_l _s __________ J B I Top of elope ~ 2-inch-thick sand layer Gravity-flow, nonperforated subdrain I=== pipe (tra.,...,,-eel Toe of slope 4 I 1--Sleet Pool 4-inch perforated subdrain pipe (longitudinal) Coping A' 4-inch perforated subdrain pipe (transverse) Pool B' Direction of drainage CROSS SECTION VIEW Coping NOTTO SCALE SEE NOTES Pool encapsulated in 5-foot thickness of sand --~ 6-inch-thick gravel layer B NOTES: r H Gravity-flow nonperforated subdrain pipe 4-inch perforated subdrain pipe I I 1 1--steet Coping B' Vapor retarder Perforated subdrain pipe 1. 6-inch-thick, clean gravel(¾ to 1½ inch) sub-base encapsulated in Mirafi 140N or equivalent, underlain by a 15-mil vapor retarder, with 4-inch-diameter perforated pipe longitudinal connected to 4-inch-diameter perforated pipe transverse. Connect transverse pipe to 4-inch-diameter nonperforated pipe at low point and outlet or to sump pump area. 2. Pools on fills thicker than 20 feet should be constructed on deep foundations; otherwise, distress (titting, cracking, etc.) should be expected. 3. Design does not apply to infinity-edge pools/ spas. c. TYPICAL POOL/SPA DETAIL Plate 0-17 SIDE VIEW Spoil pile Test pit TOP VIEW Flag Flag Spoil pile Test pit Light Vehicle -----50feet----------50feet----- -------------------lOOfee,1------------ c. TEST PIT SAFETY DIAGRAM Plate D-20 ~ 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: . AsJ_-,r,,v-tLlll_li--'--'-.,TJ,1--__ _ Permit#: CBR2024-2295 Project Address: 2665 WILSON ST Assessor's Parcel #: 1561301700 Project Applicant: CO-OWNERS SCOTT AND SHELLEY ASHWORTH (Owner Name) Residential Square Feet: New/Additions: 604 Second DwellinQ Unit: -------------------- Commercial Square Feet: New/ Additions: -------~------------ City Certification: City of Carlsbad Building Division Date: 12/17/2024 Certification of ApplicanVOwners. 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 Of 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 W Carlsbad Unified School District 6225 El Camino Real Cartsbad 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 625 N. Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 Phone: (760) 753-6491 Ext 5514 (By Appl Only) D San Marcos Unified Sch. District 255 Pico Ave Ste. 100 San Marcos, CA 92069 Phone: (760) 290-2649 Contact: schoolfees@smusd.org (By Appt.only) D Vista Unif"led 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 INDICATES 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. SiQnature of Authorized School District Official: Name of School District: __ 6~2~2~5~E_L_C_t,.~M~l~,_·c_r_.::_;'1_.L _________ Phone: ·17.o o -331 -5000 CARLSBA I CA 92 ~09 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT-Building Division l.635 Faraday Ave t Drlsbad, CA 92008-7314 I 442-339-2719Ibuifdmg@carlsbadca.govlwww.carlsbacJca.gov / STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION NOTES 1. ALL NECESSARY EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS SHALL BE AVAILABLE ON SITE TO FACILITATE RAPID INSTAllATION OF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPs WHEN RAIN IS EMINENT. 2. THE OWNER/CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES TO WORKING ORDER TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY INSPECTOR AFTER EACH RUN-OFF PRODUCING RAINFALL. 3. THE OWNER/CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE CITY INSPECTOR DUE TO INCOMPLETE GRADING OPERATIONS OR UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY ARISE. 4. ALL REMOVABLE PROTECTIVE DEVICES SHALL BE IN PLACE AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY WHEN THE FIVE (5) DAY RAIN PROBABILITY FORECAST EXCEEDS FORTY PECENT ( 40%). SILT AND OTHER DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED AFTER EACH RAINFALL 5. ALL GRAVEL BAGS SHALL CONTAIN 3/4 INCH MINIMUM AGGREGATE. 6. ADEQUATE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AND PERIMETER PROTECTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE MEASURES MUST BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED. 7. THE CITY INSPECTOR SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ALTER THIS PLAN DURING OR BEFORE CONSTRUCTION AS NEEDED TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH CITY STORM WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS. OWNER'S CERTIFICATE: I UNDERSTAND AND ACKNO'M.EDGE ll-lAT I MUST: (1) IMPLEMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES TO ll-lE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE TO AVOID ll-lE MOBILIZATION OF POLLUTANTS SUCH AS SEDIMENT AND TO AVOID ll-lE EXPOSURE OF STORM WATER TO CONSTRUCTION RELATED POLLUTANTS; AND (2) ADHERE TO, AND AT ALL TIMES, COMPLY 'Mlrl ll-llS CITY APPROVED TIER 1 CONSTRUCTION SWPPP ll-lROUGHOUT ll-lE DURATION OF ll-lE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES UNTIL ll-lE CONSTRUCTION WORK IS COMPLETE AND APPROVED BY ll-lE CITY OF CARLSBAD. F&2- ~ l/.z_t1.,/.,~ ~ E-29 STORM WATER COMPLIANCE FORM TIER 1 CONSTRUCTION SWPPP E-29 CB ___ _ SW BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) SELECTION TABLE Erosion Control Sediment Control BMPs Tracl<lng Non-Storm Water Waste Management and Mslerials BMPs Control BMPs Management BMPs PcUution Control BMPs C C C .!2 i -.., 0 0 0 .., C C "' ~ en 1 C " ,, .:i C u :8 ,ti ·E C E C C j -.5 .5 " C 2 ,, ., en ~ ~ ~ 1 ::, c:-g' 6 en CG> 0. fen '§ .E ., ., ~ ; i!:l" !? Best Management Practice' ~ .E Cc C Sc 6 :;::. c~ ., ,~ 8 i 'ii " ., ii .5 ~ ., i aJ ~ 5 u 6, ,, ., ,, ., 2 C G> C (BMP) Description ➔ .. e 8 C 8R Cc 15,,. Cl ::, " !? _., ;i 3 58. Cl ~ "'.E il~ ~~ Co 8E 2 Cl Iii " 1, ~ g c~ ., ~t ] = f15 3' 8, X C i! ] ,g s ~ ~! !:3: ii"' en"' :c ~-~ i!o. a. ~ i ,, =e-~ 8-..._ E :§1 cc :2 g 0 -'5 " _81 !: il 6 _e -8 15, -is ~~ ~ j~ -o 0 =] " i c~ " .r:: fa: o-0 15 o ..,, "-' Cl vi V, "' u t.: "'!t "' "'a. ii, C "'"' a. ::EV> 2 iii bro v,::,; CASQA Designation ➔ ,-.. CD "' .., .... It) "' ,-.. CD 0 N .., ,-.. CD 'T N ,,, .... It) I I I 'T 'T I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ 'T I 'T J, J, J, I I I I f;l f;l f;l f;l l;j l;j l;j I!:: I!:: en i i i i i Construction Activity z z z z Grodlno/So11 Disturbance Trenchina/Excavotion -w ")( Stockoilino Drllllno /Borlno Concrete/Asoholt Sawcuttino Concrete Flotworl< Povlna Conduit/Pioe Installation Stucco/Mortar Work Waste Disoosal Stoaino/Lav Down Area Enulnment Maintenance and Fuellnn Hazardous Substance Use/Storone Dewoterlna Site Access Across Dirt Other /list\: Instructions: 1. Check the box to the left of all oppllcoble construction activity (first column) expected to occur during construction. 2. Located along the top of the BMP Tobie is a list of BMP's with it's corresRonding Califomio Stormwoter Quality Association (CASQA) designation number. Choose one or more BMP-s you intend to use during construction from the list. Check the box where the chosen activity row intersects with the BMP column. 3. Refer to the CASQA construction handbook for Information and details of the chosen BMPs and how to apply them to the project. PROJECT INFORMATION Site Address: 2ls:foJ;' 11) ( L$t>/J $L ~ C 3:-C ., " 5E "E& 00 NC 00 :i:2 <D I i 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. Assessor's Parcel Number. I ~r(o -I 3D -117-Db Emergency Contact: ft Nome: DB I.I/}) f2E E L 24 Hour Phone: 7foD f/:£"-<39'J/ Construction Threat to Storm Water Quality (Check Box) 0 MEDIUM $l LOW ~ c-3' ii ..!l E ~g 156 U::::E a:, I i Page 1 of 1 REV 02/16 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST B-50 Development Services Building Division 1635 Faraday Avenue 442-339-2719 www.carlsbadca.gov PURPOSE This checklist is intended to help building permit applicants identify which Climate Action Plan (CAP) ordinance requirements apply to their project. This completed checklist (B-50) and summary (B-55) must be included with the building permit application. The Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) can be referenced during completion of this document. NOTE: The following type of permits are not required to fill out this form  Patio  Decks  PME (w/o panel upgrade)  Pool The B-50 checklist was originally developed several years ago to support implementation of the CAP. Recent updates to the California Building Standards Code have imposed newer performance standards on building permit applications. Therefore, the applicant is advised to review all applicable code sections and apply the maximum performance standard, which may exceed the CAP consistency checklist requirements Consultation with a certified Energy Consultant is encouraged to assist in filling out this document. Appropriate certification includes, but is not limited to: Licensed, practicing Architect, Engineer, or Contractor familiar with Energy compliance, IECC/HERS Compliance Specialist, ICC G8 Energy Code Specialist, RESNET HERS rater certified, certified ICC Residential Energy Inspector/Plans Examiner, ICC Commercial Energy Inspector and/or Plans Examiner, ICC CALgreen Inspector/Plans Examiner, or Green Building Residential Plan Examiner. If an item in the checklist is deemed to be not applicable to a project, or is less than the minimum required by ordinance, check N/A and provide an explanation or code section describing the exception. The project plans must show all details as stated in the applicable Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) and/or Energy Code and Green Code sections.  Application Information Project Name/Building Permit No.: BP No.: Date: Property Address/APN: Applicant Name/Co.: Applicant Address: Contact Phone: Contact Email: Contact information of person completing this checklist (if different than above): Name: Contact Phone: Company name/address: Contact Email: B-50 Page 1 of 7 Revised 12/22 Ashworth addition-CBR2024-2295 10-2-24 2665 Wilson Street Carlsbad CA 92008 APN# 156-130-17-00 Kristofer Sarkela- Sarkela Building Design P.O. Box 601094 San Diego CA 92160 619-905-1564 619-905-1564 Kristofer Sarkela 619-905-1564 Sarkela Building Design kristofersarkela@gmail.com C cityof Carlsbad I I I 3 Use the table below to determine which sections of the Ordinance checklist are applicable to your project. For alterations and additions to existing buildings, attach a Permit Valuation breakdown on a separate sheet. For purposes of determining valuation, the amount should be upon either the actual contract price for the work to be permitted or shall be determined with the use of the current “ICC Building Valuation Data” as published by the International Code Council, whichever is higher (refer to Section 18.04.035 of the CMC). Building Permit Valuation (BPV) $ breakdown Construction Type Complete Section(s) Notes: Residential ☐New construction 2A*, 3A*, 4A* *Includes detached, newly constructed ADU ☐Additions and alterations: ☐BPV < $60,000 N/A All residential additions and alterations ☐BPV ≥ $60,000☐Electrical service panel upgrade only 1A, 4A 1-2 family dwellings and townhouses with attached garagesonly. ☐BPV ≥ $200,000 1A, 4A* 2B* *Multi-family dwellings only where interior finishes areremoved and significant site work and upgrades to structuraland mechanical, electrical, and/or plumbing systems areproposed BPV ≥ $1,000,000 *Multi-family dwellings only where ≥$1,000,000 BPV ANDaffecting ≥75% existing floor area Nonresidential and hotels/motels ☐New construction 1B, 2B, 3B, 4B and 5 ☐Alterations: ☐BPV ≥ $200,000 or additions ≥1,000 square feet 1B, 5 ☐BPV ≥ $1,000,000 1B, 2B, 5 Building alterations of ≥ 75% existing gross floor area ≥ 2,000 sq. ft. new roof addition 2B, 5 1B also applies if BPV ≥ $200,000 Instructions: 1.Choose first between residential or non-residential based on the type of project being submitted.2.Next chose between new construction or addition/alteration for residential or non-residential.3.The columns to the right of your selection will determine which sections of the CAP program are applicable to your project.4.Appropriate details must be included on the plans for selections made. EXAMPLE: Scope of work includes a new, 2 story, single family residential structure. The selections would be: Residential and New construction in the table above. For a 2-story structure, CAP sections 2A, 3A and 4A would be applicable. (Solar PV, water heating, EV charging) The * indicates that new detached ADU’s are included. EXAMPLE: Scope of work includes a tenant improvement (i.e., alterations) valued at over one million dollars. The selections would be: Non-residential and Alteration BPV ≥ $1,000,000. CAP sections 1B, 2B and 5 would be applicable to this project. (Energy efficiency, Solar PV and Transportation Demand Management (TDM)*) It may be necessary to supplement the completed checklist with supporting materials, calculations or certifications, to demonstrate full compliance with CAP ordinance requirements. For example, projects that propose or require a performance approach to comply with energy-related measures will need to attach to this checklist separate calculations and documentation as specified by the ordinances. $150,000 Ii ■ ■ □ I 4 CAP Ordinance Compliance Checklist Item Check the appropriate boxes, explain all not applicable and exception items, and provide supporting calculations and documentation as necessary. 1. Energy Efficiency Please refer to Section 18.30.060 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) and Section 150.2 of the CEC for more information. Appropriate details and notes must be placed on the plans according to selections chosen in the design. A. Residential addition or alteration ≥ $60,000 building permit valuation. Details of selection chosen below must be placed on the plans referencing CMC 18.30.060. ☐ N/A ☐ Exception: Home energy score ≥ 7 (attach certification) B. New Nonresidential construction (including additions over 1,000sf), new hotel/motel construction AND alterations ≥ $200,000 building permit valuation. See Section 18.21.050 of the CMC and CALGreen Appendix A5. At least one measure from each applicable building component required. ☐ N/A A5.203.1.1 Choose one: ☐ Outdoor lighting ☐ Restaurant service water heating (Section 140.5 of the CEC) ☐ Warehouse dock seal doors ☐ Daylight design PAFs ☐ Exhaust air heat recovery ☐ N/A A5.203.1.2.1 Choose one: ☐ .95 Energy budget (Projects with indoor lighting OR mechanical) ☐ .90 Energy budget (Projects with indoor lighting AND mechanical) ☐ N/A A5.211.1** ☐ On-site renewable energy: A5.211.3** ☐ Green power: (If offered by local utility provider, 50% minimum renewable sources) A5.212.1 ☐ Elevators and escalators:(Project with more than one elevator or two escalators) A5.213.1 ☐ Steel framing: (Provide details on plans for options 1-4 chosen) * High-rise residential buildings are 4 or more stories. ☐ N/A _____________________ ☐ N/A ☐ N/A ☐ N/A ** For alterations≥ $1,000,000BPV and affecting> 75%existing gross floor area, OR alterations that add 2,000 square feet of new roof addition: comply with Section 18.030.040 of the CMC (section 2B below) instead. Year Built Single-family Requirements Multi-family Requirements ☐ Before 1978 Select one option: ☐ Duct sealing ☐ Attic insulation ☐ Cool roof ☐ Attic insulation ☐ 1978 and later Select one option: ☐ Lighting package ☐ Water heating package ☐ Between1978 -1991 Select one option: ☐ Duct sealing ☐ Attic insulation ☐ Cool roof ☐ 1992 and later Select one option: ☐ Lighting package ☐ Water- heating package r-- ,__ L Ii ■ ■ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 7 5 2.Photovoltaic Systems A. Residential new construction. Refer to Section 150.1(c)14 of the CEC for single-family requirements and Section 170.2(d) of the CEC for multi-family requirements. If project includes installation of an electric heat pump water heater pursuant to CAP section 3 below (residential water heating), increase system size by .3kWdc if PV offset option is selected. Floor Plan ID (use additional sheets if necessary) CFA or SARA #d.u. Calculated kWdc* Exception ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Total System Size: __________ kWdc kWdc = (CFAx.572) / 1,000 + (1.15 x #d.u.) *Formula calculation where CFA = conditional floor area, #du = number of dwellings per plan type If proposed system size is less than calculated size, please explain. B. Nonresidential, hotel/motel and multifamily additions, alterations and repairs of these projects ≥$1,000,000 BPV AND affecting ≥75% existing floor area, OR addition that increases roof area by ≥2,000 square feet. Please refer to Section 18.30.040 and 18.30.070 of the CMC when completing this section. Choose one of the following methods: (Gross floor area or Time-Dependent Valuation method) ☐Gross Floor Area (GFA)Method GFA: ☐If < 10,000s.f. Enter: 5 kWdc Min.System Size: kWd ☐If ≥ 10,000s.f. calculate: 15 kWdc x (GFA/10,000) ** **Round building size factor to nearest tenth, and round system size to nearest whole number. ☐Time- Dependent Valuation Method C. Annual TDV Energy use:*** x .80= Min. system size: kWdc ***Attach calculation documentation using modeling software approved by the California Energy Commission. *All newly constructed non residential, hotel/motel and highrise multifamily buildings that are required by CEC section140.10(a) to have a PV system shall also have a battery storage system meeting CEC section 140.10(b). Nonresidential, hotel/motel and multifamily additions, alterations or repairs that trigger solar due to the Carlsbad Climate ActionPlan will NOT require battery storage. Battery storage is required when triggered by CEC section 140.10(a) and/or 170.2(g). □ □ □ □ □ - □ □ 6 3.Water Heating A. Residential. Refer to Section 18.30.050 of the CMC and Sections 150.1(c)8 or 170.2(d) of the CEC when completing thissection. Provide complete details on the plans. Residential new construction and alterations: ☐Required: 60% of energy needed for service water heating from on-site solar or recovered energy. For systems serving individual units, choose one system: ☐Single 240-volt heat pump water heater AND compact hot water distribution AND Drain water heat recovery (low-riseresidential only)☐Single 240-volt heat pump water heater AND PV system .3 kWdc larger than required.☐Heat pump water heater meeting NEEA Advanced Water Heating Specification Tier 3 or higher.☐Solar water heating system that is either .60 solar savings fraction or 40 s.f. solar collectors☐Gas or propane system with a solar water hearing system and recirculation system. For systems serving multiple units, choose one system: ☐Heat pump water heating system with recirculation loop tank and electric backup.☐Solar water heating system that is either:☐.20 solar savings fraction ☐ .15 solar savings fraction, plus drain water heat recover OR: ☐System meets performance compliance requirements of section 150.1(d) or 170.2(d) and deriving at least 60% of energy fromon-site solar or recovered energy. ☐Exception: B.Nonresidential and hotel/motel new construction. This section also applies to high-rise residential. Refer to Sections 18.030.020 and 18.040.030 of the CMC and Sections 140.5 and 170.2 of the CEC when completing this section. Provide complete detailson the plans. 1.Non-residential:☐Required: Water heating system derives at least 40% of its energy from one of the following: ☐Solar-thermal ☐ Photovoltaics ☐ Recovered energy ☐Required: High-capacity service water heating system 2.Water heating system is (choose one):☐Heat pump water heater☐Electric resistance water heater(s)☐Solar water heating system with .40 solar savings fraction 3.Hotel/motel: ☐Required: High-capacity service water heating system (meeting Section 170.2(d) of the CEC) ☐Required: Located in garage or conditioned space Exception: □ □ 7 4.Electric Vehicle Charging A.Residential - New construction and major alterations.* This section also applies to hotel/motel projects. Refer to Section 18.21.030 of the CMC and Section 4.106.4 of the GBSC when completing this section. Choose one: ☐One EV Ready parking space required ☐Exception: ☐One and two-family residential dwelling alterations with attached private garage. (not required if a panel upgrade would be needed)☐New detached ADU. (no EV space required when no additional parking facilities are added)☐New one and two-family residential dwellings and townhouse with attached private garage. ☐New and major alterations to multi-family and hotel/motel projects: ☐ Exception: ______________________________________________ Total Parking Spaces Proposed EVSE Spaces EV Capable (10% of total) EV Ready (25% of Total) EV chargers (5% of Total) *Major alterations are: (1)for one and two-family dwellings and for town houses with an attached garage, alterations have a building permit valuation ≥ $60,000 or include an electrical service panel upgrade.(2) for multifamily dwellings (three units or more without attached garages), alterations have a building permit valuation ≥ $200,000, i nterior finishes are removed and significant site work and upgrades to structural and mechanical, electrical, a nd/or plumbing systems are proposed. B. Non-Residential - New construction ☐Exception : Please refer to Section 18.21.040 of the CMC when completing this section Total Parking Spaces Proposed EV Capable EVCS (Installed with EVSE) EV Ready (optional) EV Space (optional) Calculation: Refer to the table below: Total Number of Parking Spaces provided Number of required EV Capable Spaces Number of required EVCS (Installed with EVSE) ☐0-9 1 1 ☐10-25 4 1 ☐26-50 8 2 ☐51-75 13 3 ☐76-100 17 5 ☐101-150 25 6 ☐151-200 35 9 ☐201 and over 20 percent of total 25 percent of Required EV Spaces Calculations: Total EV Capable spaces = .20 x Total parking spaces proposed (rounded up to nearest whole number) EVSE Installed = Total EVSE Spaces x .25 (rounded up to nearest whole number) EVSE other may be “EV Ready” or “EV Space” existing 2 car garage proposed EV charging Iii ■ ■ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □