Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1344 CYNTHIA LN; ; CB002112; Permit
09/13/2000 Job Address Permit Type Parcel No Valuation Occupancy Group # Dwelling Units Bedrooms Project Title Applicant SAM WRIGHT City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 Residential Permit Permit No CB002112 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 1344 CYNTHIA LNCBAD RESDNTL 1562306600 $48,902 00 0 0 Sub Type Lot# Construction Type Reference # Structure Type Bathrooms RAD 0 VN JACOBSON RES-499 SF 2ND STORY ADDITION Status Applied Entered By Plan Approved Issued Inspect Area Ong PC# Plan Check# Owner JACOBSON MARK E&CHERYL 1344CYNTHIALN CARLSBAD CA 92008 ISSUED 06/05/2000 RMA 09/13/2000 09/13/2000 BotJS 09/13 0001 01 32 C-PRnT -"J4-92 Total Fees $702 34 Total Payments To Date $257 42 Balance Due $444 92 Building Permit Add'l Building Permit Fee Plan Check Add'l Plan Check Fee Plan Check Discount Strong Motion Fee Park in Lieu Fee Park Fee LFM Fee Bridge Fee Other Bridge Fee BTD #2 Fee BTD #3 Fee Renewal Fee Add'l Renewal Fee Other Building Fee Pot Water Con Fee Meter Size Add'l Pot Water Con Fee Reel Water Con Fee $396 03 Meter Size $0 00 Add'l Reel Water Con Fee $257 42 Meter Fee $0 00 SDCWA Fee $0 00 CFD Payoff Fee $4 89 PFF $0 00 PFF (CFD Fund) $0 00 License Tax $0 00 License Tax (CFD Fund) $0 00 Traffic Impact Fee $0 00 Traffic Impact (CFD Fund) $0 00 LFMZ Transportation Fee $0 00 Sidewalk Fee $0 00 PLUMBING TOTAL $0 00 ELECTRICAL TOTAL $0 00 MECHANICAL TOTAL $0 00 Housing Impact Fee Housing InLieu Fee $0 00 Master Drainage Fee $0 00 Sewer Fee TOTAL PERMIT FEES $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $2000 $2400 $000 $000 $000 $000 $702 34 Inspector FINAL APPROVAL Date Clearance NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the Imposition of fees dedications reservations or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as fees/exactions You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions If you protest them you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a) and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3 32 030 Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack review set aside void or annul their imposition You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capactiy changes nor planning zoning grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1635 Faraday Ave , Carlsbad, CA 92008 Address (include Bldg/Sui/e #) FOR OFFICE USE PLAN CHECK NO EST VAL ( QI_ Plan Ck Deposit Vahdated^y Date Business Name (at this addressh 7;S)'I 7 "ji,. ",~ J;", J ^f Vi 02 Legal Description Lot No Subdivision Name/Number Unit No Phase No Total # of units' Assessor s Parcel # i Existing Use Proposed Use Description of Work SO. FT #of Stories # of Bedrooms # of Bathrooms CONTACT PERSON (if different from applicant) Name ;3 APPLICANT?.' Address City Contractor.: -i:,C] Agent for Contractor CD Owner Qj^gent f°l Owner" State/Zip Telephone # Name^ ,-rf PROPIERTYVOWNER Address City State/Zip r Telephone tt Name 5 CONTRACTOR Address City State/Zip Telephone # COMPANY NAME (Sec 7031 5 Business and Professions Code Any City or County which requires a permit to construct alter improve demolish or repair any structure prior to its issuance also requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Contractor s License Law [Chapter 9 commending with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code] ar that he is exempt therefrom and the basis for the alleged exemption Any violation of Section 7031 5 by any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars [$500]) Name State License # Address License Class City State/Zip City Business License # Telephone # Designer Name State License tt Address City State/Zip Telephone :6 WORKERS' COMPENSATION " * ;; ""' "'^ "'""" ;,,, «•.- " Workers Compensation Declaration I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations D I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self insure for workers compensation as provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued 0 I have and will maintain workers compensation as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued My worker s compensation insurance carrier and policy number are Insurance Company Policy No Expiration Date (THIS SECTION NEED NOT BE COMPLETED IF THE PERMIT IS FOR ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS [$100] OR LESS) fj] CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to become subject to the Workers Compensation Laws of California WARNING Failure to secure workers compensation coverage is unlawful and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to one hundred thousand dollars ($100 000) in addition to the cost of compensation damages as provided for in Section 3706 of the Labor code interest and attorney s fees SIGNATURE DATE 7 DOWNER BUILDERTDECLARATION "" '"^ •*» .:-; .. :, ip ^ "..i ' »"*•• ' V 1 hereby affirm that I am exempt from the Contractor s License Law for the following reason |~| I as owner of the property or my employees with wages as their sole compensation will do the work and the structure is not intended or offered for sale (Sec 7044 Business and Professions Code The Contractor s License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon and who does such work himself or through his own employees provided that such improvements are not intended or offered for sale If however the building or improvement is sold within one year of completion the owner builder will have the burden of proving that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale) |~| I as owner of the property am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec 7044 Business and Professions Code The Contractor s License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon and contracts for such projects with contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor s License Law) |~| | am exempt under Section Business and Professions Code for this reason 1 I personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed propeity improvement fj YES I~|NO 2 I (have / have not) signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work 3 I have contracted with the following person (firm) to provide the proposed construction (include name / address / phone number / contractors license number) 4 I plan to provide portions of the work but I have hired the following person to coordinate supeivise and provide the major work (include name / address / phone number / contractors license number) ________ 5 I will provide some of the work but I have contracted (hired) the following persons to provide the work indicated (include name / address / phone number / type of work) PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE DATE COMPLETE THIS'"SECTION FOR NON RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS ONLY*:H : , ::..,, i > "•"£ Is the applicant or future building occupant required to submit a business plan acutely hazardous materials registration form or risk management and prevention program under Sections 25505 25533 or 25534 of the Presley Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act? D YES fJ NO Is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district' l~l YES O NO Is the facility to be constructed within 1 000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? |~| YES l~1 NO IF ANY OF THE ANSWERS ARE YES A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY MAY NOT BE ISSUED UNLESS THE APPLICANT HAS MET OR IS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 8 CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY'?--. '.JlIiA 'S: !,i:;: ,:£ ^ <.: :=:' I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued (Sec 3097(i) Civil Code) LENDER S NAME LENDER S ADDRESS :9 APPLICANT CERTIFICATION: , ih:.h ;f..:h .."", ^.,,f * , ^..^' I certify that I have read the application and state that the above information is correct and that the information on the plans is accurate I agree to comply with all City ordinances and State laws relating to building construction I hereby authorize representatives of the CitV of Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned property for inspection purposes I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES JUDGMENTS COSTS AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY INAtlY?WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT OSHA An OSHA permit is required for excavations; EXPIRATION Every permit issued by thejjoilding authorized by such permit is not commenc at any time after the work is commenc^yfor a/( APPLICANT S SIGNATURE deep/and demolition or construction of structures over 3 stories in height under tbre-provisi^ns of this Code shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work r"days fronyne aarenpf such permit or if the building or work authorized by such hermit is suspended or abandoned 106 4 4 Uniform Building Code) DATE WKITE File YELLOW Applicant PINK I mance City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request For 03/11/2002 Permit# CB002112 Title JACOBSON RES-499 SF 2ND STORY Description ADDITION Inspector Assignment JC Type RESDNTL Sub Type RAD Job Address 1344 CYNTHIA LN Suite Lot 0 Location APPLICANT SAM WRIGHT Owner JACOBSON FAMILY TRUST 08-04-01 Remarks /' Phone 7607209150 Inspector Total Time Requested By MARK Entered By KAREN CD Description 19 Final Structural 29 Final Plumbing 39 Final Electrical 49 Final Mechanical Act Comments PCR01045 ISSUED Inspection History Date Description Act Insp 09/14/2001 89 Final Combo CO JC 03/21/2001 17 Interior Lath/Drywall AP AR 03/19/2001 16 Insulation AP JC 03/13/2001 14 Frame/Steel/Bolting/Welding AP JC 03/13/2001 34 Rough Electric AP JC 02/21/2001 13 Shear Panels/HD's AP JC 02/06/2001 13 Shear Panels/HDs CO JC 02/06/2001 14 Frame/Steel/Bolting/Weldmg CO JC 02/06/2001 15 Roof/Reroof PA JC 10/20/2000 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers AP TL 10/17/2000 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers CA TL Comments SEE NOTICE ATTACHED SEE CARD SEE NOTICE ATTACHED City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request For 02/06/2001 Permit# CB002112 Title JACOBSON RES-499 SF 2ND STORY Description ADDITION Type RESDNTL Sub Type RAD Job Address 1344 CYNTHIA LN Suite Lot 0 Location APPLICANT SAM WRIGHT Owner JACOBSON MARK E&CHERYL Remarks Inspector Assignment TL Phone 7603103935 Inspector Total Time CD Description Act Comments 14 Frame/Steel/Boltmg/Weldmg C-0 13 Shear Panels/HD's CO Roof/Reroof15 Requested By RICHARD Entered By CHRISTINE CfrUK) ft ft Associated PCRs Inspection History Date Description Act Insp Comments 10/20/2000 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers AP TL 10/17/2000 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers " CA TL NOTICECITY OF CARLSBAD (760) 602-2700 BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1635 FARADAY AVENUE DATE J? / t. /<9/ TIME. LOCATION A? vy <gv/y///y^) y/// PERMIT NO C.jR OO2 I / ? /:)/p/?/,y//v/£jrIL-r ' ' "* 7~ /X/ FOR INSPECTION CALL (760) 602 2725 RE-INSPECTION FEE DUE? L_ YES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT PHONE BUILDING INSPECTOR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ® City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request For 09/14/2001 Permit* CB002112 Title JACOBSON RES-499 SF 2ND STORY Description ADDITION Type RESDNTL Sub Type RAD Job Address 1344 CYNTHIA LN Suite Lot 0 Location APPLICANT SAM WRIGHT Owner JACOBSON MARK E&CHERYL Remarks CARD IS LOST Total Time Inspector Assignment JC Phone Inspector ^} Requested By MARK JACOBSON Entered By CHRISTINE CD Description 19 Final Structural 29 Final Plumbing 39 Final Electrical 49 Final Mechanical Act CommenteA Associated PCRs PCR01045 ISSUED Inspection History Date 03/21/200 03/19/200 03/13/200 03/13/200 02/21/200 02/06/200 02/06/200 02/06/200 10/20/200 10/17/200 Description 17 Interior Lath/Drywall 16 Insulation 1 4 Frame/Steel/Bolting/Welding 34 Rough Electric 13 Shear Panels/HDs 13 Shear Panels/HDs 14 Frame/Steel/Bolting/Welding 1 5 Roof/Reroof 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers Act AP AP AP AP AP CO CO PA AP CA Insp Comments AR JC JC JC JC JC JC SEE CARD SEE NOTICE ATTACHED JC TL TL NOTICECITY OF CARLSBAD (760) 602-2700 BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1635 FARADAY AVENUE DATE *?/*/ /#/ _ TIME LOCATION _ /3 ^y g W77^ / A/ PERMIT NO £?/?^g^ // 2 FOR INSPECTION CALL (760) 602 2725 RE-INSPECTION FEE DUE? !_ r'—Y£S_ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT ' BUILDING INSPECTOR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFI EsGii Corporation In Partners flip with government for 'Bu.iCtfmg Safety DATE JULY 27, 2000 JURISDICTION CARLSBAD Q PLAN REVIEWER Q FILE PLAN CHECK NO 00-2112 SET II PROJECT ADDRESS 1344 CYNTHIA LANE PROJECT NAME SFR ADDITION FOR JACOBSON The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes 2<J The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck The check list transmitted herewith is for your information The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to XI Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed Person contacted Telephone # Date contacted (by ) Fax # Mail Telephone Fax In Person 1X1 REMARKS # 1) Specify Special Inspection is required for the STS panels per A5 # 2) Submit the name & information of the Special Inspection team to the city for review & approval prior to the permit being issued r\0~^—~ # 3) The structural plans & calculations need to be signed by the project engineer or architect responsible for their preparation T\~ By All Sadre Enclosures Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ D PC 7/20 trnsmtldot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 + (858)560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 EsGil Corporation In fa.rtnersfi.ip Witfi. government for 'BuiCtfmg Safety DATE JUNE 14, 2000 a APPLICANT JURISDICTION CARLSBAD a PLAN REVIEWER a FILE PLAN CHECK NO 00-2112 SET I PROJECT ADDRESS 1344 CYNTHIA LANE PROJECT NAME SFR ADDITION FOR JACOBSON | | The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck 1X1 The check list transmitted herewith is for your information The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck | | The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person 2<| The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to SAM WRIGHT 2911 STATE STREET, CARLSBAD, CA 92008 Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed XI Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed Person contacted SAM CM.M^ Telephone* 760-720-7631 Date contacted uliqtafc (by tc~ ) Fax # Mail Telephone Fax In Person REMARKS By All Sadre Enclosures Esgil Corporation D GA n MB n EJ Q PC e/6 trnsmtldot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 * (858)560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 CARLSBAD 00-2112 JUNE 14, 2000 GENERAL PLAN CORRECTION LIST JURISDICTION CARLSBAD PLAN CHECK NO 00-2112 PROJECT ADDRESS 1344 CYNTHIA LANE DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY DATE REVIEW COMPLETED ESGIL CORPORATION 6/6 JUNE 14, 2000 REVIEWED BY All Sadre FOREWORD (PLEASE READ) This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and disabled access This plan review is based on regulations enforced by the Building Department You may have other corrections based on laws and ordinances enforced by the Planning Department, Engineering Department or other departments The following items listed need clarification, modification or change All items must be satisfied before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations Per Sec 10643, 1997 Uniform Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law • Please make all corrections on the original tracings and submit two new complete sets of prints to The building department • To facilitate recheckmg, please identify, next to each item, the sheet of the plans upon which each correction on this sheet has been made and return this sheet with the revised plans • Please indicate here if any changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of corrections from this list If there are other changes, please briefly describe them and where they are located on the plans Have changes been made not resulting from this list? Q Yes Q No 1 Please complete the building department notes on cover sheet of plans 2 Please note the floor area of the addition for living area, patio cover & deck 3 Please specify the size and type of kitchen windows to indicate there is adequate light and ventilation CARLSBAD 00-2112 JUNE 14, 2000 4 Please show battery operated S/D's in each existing bedroom and hallway leading to them 5 Specify 3' minimum stair width Also note the stairs rise and run on plans 6 Please show connection details as well as height and openings for the deck railing on plans 7 Please specify 3x framing and staggered nailing for the shear panels with capacity over 350 plf 8 Please show 4' minimum width for shear panel type B The new code requires 2 1 aspect ratios for the shear panels, so the 8' plate height requires 4' width 9 Provide a deck pier detail with references on plans 10 Please show 8" projection for the deck piers above grade Alternatively, show 1" projection above slab 11 Please show straps at 4' o c over the ridge beam on sheet A5 12 Please show lateral support (i e , knee bracing) for the deck 13 Please specify the soils classifications, bearing values and expansion index as well as Ca, Cv, Na, Nv & Si factors per soils report on plans 14 The structural calculations as well as the structural sheets of plans need to be signed by the project engineer 15 The jurisdiction has contracted with Esgil Corporation located at 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123, telephone number of 858/560-1468, to perform the plan review for your project If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact Ali Sadre at Esgil Corporation Thank you CARLSBAD 00-2112 JUNE 14, 2000 VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION CARLSBAD PREPARED BY Ali Sadre BUILDING ADDRESS 1344 CYNTHIA LANE BUILDING OCCUPANCY R3 PLAN CHECK NO 00-2112 DATE JUNE 14, 2000 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION VN BUILDING PORTION living deck patio Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE BUILDING AREA (Sq Ft) 480 300 480 VALUATION MULTIPLIER 9800 1200 725 VALUE ($) 47,040 3,600 3,480 54,120 £3 1994 UBC Building Permit Fee D Bldg Permit Fee by ordinance $ 42420 [X] 1994 UBC Plan Check Fee Q Plan Check Fee by ordinance $ 27573 Type of Review £<] Complete Review Q Structural Only G Hourly O Repetitive Fee Applicable fj] Other Esgil Plan Review Fee $ 220 58 Comments Sheet 1 of 1 macvaluedoc5100 JUL-31-2000 HON 09'20 AH CITY OF_CARLSBAD FAX NO. 760 602 8558 P, 04 SPECIAL INSPECTION PROGRAM ADDRESS OR LEQAL DESCRIPTION!A UU. PLAN CHECK NUMBER: ^ OWNER'S J I, as the owner, or agent of the owner (contractors may Dfll employ the special inspector), certify that I, or the archrtectfenglneer of record, will be responsible for employing the special inspector^) as reoulredb^lfomiifullding code (UBC) Section 1701.1 for the construction UBC Section 106 3.5, Signed */ I, as the engineer/architect of record, certify that I have prepared the fallowing special inspection program as required by UBC Section 106.3.5 for the construction project located et the site listed above JJL4toirt m Signed, 1 . List of work requiring special Inspection: Q Selte Compliance Prior to Foundation Inspection d Reid Welding a Structural Concrete Over 2500 PSI D High Strength Bolting D Praatraeeed Concrete P Expanalon/Epwiy Anchore D Structural Maaonry CLSprayed-On Fireproofing D Designer Specified 2. IMame(a) of Indlvldusl(s) or flrm(s) responalbie ror the epecial Inspection* listed ebove: A. a. c. 3 Duties of the special Inspector! for the work listed above: A. B. C. Spadal ln»paotcm chall ubiftk \n with lh« CNy and praMffl ««Hr erwtentltto Ibr appeal flDELbtoflbmlnfl work on thajflto alto SF4967 City of Carisbad PAiblic lAAorkSr-;En g i n e e r i n g b\\(eDATE BUILDING ADDRESS PROJECT DESCRIPTION ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST PLANCHECK NO CB ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL The item you have submitted for review has been approved The approval is based on plans, information and/or specifications provided in your submittal therefore any changes to these items after this date, including field modifications, must be reviewed by this office to insure continued conformance with applicable codes Please review carefully all comments attached, as failure to comply with instructions in this report can result in suspension of permit to build [& Right-of-Way permit is required prior to construction of the following improvements DENIAL Please see the attached report of deficiencies marked with D Make necessary corrections to plans or specifications for compliance with applicable codes and standards Submit corrected plans and/or specifications to this office for review By By By Date Date Date By FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY GINEERING AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE BUILDING PERMt Date ATTACHMENTS D Dedication Application D Dedication Checklist D Improvement Application D Improvement Checklist D Future Improvement Agreement D Grading Permit Application D Grading Submittal Checklist D Right-of-Way Permit Application [] Right-of-Way Permit Submittal Checklist and Information Sheet d Sewer Fee Information Sheet ENGINEERING DEPT CONTACT PERSON Name KATHLEEN M FARMER City of Carlsbad Address 1635 Faraday Avenue Phone (760) 602-2741 CFD INFORMATION Parcel Map No Lots Recordation Carlsbad Tract A-4 1635 Faraday Avenue « Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-272O • FAX (76O) 602-8562 BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST SITE PLAN 1 Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale Show Arrow B^'Property Lines & Proposed Structures E-^§asements JX'Existing Street Improvements P-^lRight-of-Way Width & Adjacent Streets 0^"Dnveway widths 2 Show on site plan A Drainage Patterns 1 Building pad surface drainage must maintain a minimum slope of one percent towards an adjoining street or an approved drainage course 2 ADD THE FOLLOWING NOTE "Finish grade will provide a minimum positive drainage of 2% to swale 5' away from building " B Existing & Proposed Slopes and Topography Q 3 Include on title sheet A Site address B Assessor's Parcel Number C Legal Description For commercial/industrial buildings and tenant improvement projects, include total building square footage with the square footage for each different use, existing sewer permits showing square footage of different uses (manufacturing, warehouse, office, etc ) previously approved EXISTING PERMIT NUMBER DESCRIPTION DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL COMPLIANCE Q Q Q 4a Project does not comply with the following Engineering Conditions of approval for Project No Q Q Q 4b All conditions are in compliance Date H \WORD\FARMER\KATHY\MASTERS\Buildine Plancneck CWst BP0001 Form KF doc O Rev tam BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS 3RD/ Q 5 Dedication for all street Rights-of-Way adjacent to the building site and any storm dram or utility easements on the building site is required for all new buildings and for remodels with a value at or exceeding $/?)/ iT^ , pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18 40 030 Dedication required as follows Dedication required Please have a registered Civil Engineer or Land Surveyor prepare the appropriate legal description together with an 8 1/2" x 11" plat map and submit with a title report All easement documents must be approved and signed by owner(s) prior to issuance of Building Permit Attached please find an application form and submittal checklist for the dedication process Submit the completed application form with the required checklist items and fees to the Engineering Department in person Applications will not be accept by mail or fax Dedication completed by Date IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS 6a All needed public improvements upon and adjacent to the building site must be constructed at time of building construction whenever the value of the construction exceeds $ C"fy (/ *^ , pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 1840040 Public improvements required as follows Attached please find an application form and submittal checklist for the public improvement requirements A registered Civil Engineer must prepare the appropriate improvement plans and submit them together with the requirements on the attached checklist to the Engineering Department through a separate plan check process The completed application form and the requirements on the checklist must be submitted in person Applications by mail or fax are not accepted Improvement plans must be approved, appropriate securities posted and fees paid prior to issuance of building permit Improvement Plans signed by Date 6b Construction of the public improvements may be deferred pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 1840 Please submit a recent property title report or current grant deed on the property and processing fee of $ so we may prepare the necessary Future Improvement Agreement This agreement must be signed, notarized and approved by the City prior to issuance of a Building permit Future public improvements required as follows H \WORD\FARMER\KATHr\MASTERS\BuMino Planctiec* Cklst BP0001 Forni KF doc BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST Q grd/ Q 6c Enclosed please find your Future Improvement Agreement agreement signed and notarized to the Engineering Department Future Improvement Agreement completed by Date Please return 6d No Public Improvements required SPECIAL NOTE Damaged or defective improvements found adiacent to building site must be repaired to the satisfaction of the City Inspector prior to occupancy GRADING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS The conditions that invoke the need for a grading permit are found in Section 11 06 030 of the Municipal Code 7a Inadequate information available on Site Plan to make a determination on grading requirements Include accurate grading quantities (cut, fill import, export) 7b Grading Permit required A separate grading plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer must be submitted togethei with the completed application form attached NOTE The Grading Permit must be issued and rough grading approval obtained prior to issuance of a Building Permit Q a Grading Inspector sign off by Date Q Q 7c Graded Pad Certification required (Note Pad certification may be required even if a grading permit is not required ) Q Q 7d No Grading Permit required Q Q 7e If grading is not required, write "No Grading" on plot plan MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS 8 A RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT is required to do work in City Right-of-Way and/or private work adjacent to the public Right-of-Way Types of work include, but are not limited to street improvements, tree trimming, driveway construction, tiemg into public storm dram, sewer and water utilities Right-of-Way permit required for H \WORD\FARMER\KATHY\MASTERS\Binldms Plancheck Odst BP0001 Form KF doc BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST Q Q 9 A SEWER PERMIT is required concurrent with the building permit issuance The fee is noted in the fees section on the following page Q Q 10 INDUSTRIAL WASTE PERMIT If your facility is located in the City of Carlsbad sewer service area, you need to contact the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, located at 5950 El Cammo Real, Carlsbad, CA 92008 District personnel can provide forms and assistance, and will check to see if your business enterprise is on the EWA Exempt List You may telephone (760) 438-2722, extension 153, for assistance Industrial Waste permit accepted by Date Q 11 NPDES PERMIT Complies with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit The applicant shall provide best management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading or building permit, whichever occurs first Q Q 12 Q Required-fees are attached Q—N6"fees required Q Q 13 Local Facilities Management Zone Transportation Fee Agmt Signed Q Q 14 Additional Comments H \WORD\FARMER\KATHY\MASTERS\BuiWing Plancheck Cklsl BP0001 Form KF doc •&Q 15 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BUILDING PLAN CHECK REVIEW CHECKLIST Plan Check No CB 00- Planner _ APN Address Greg Fisher Phone (760) 602-4629_ Type of Preject & Use Zoning CFD fin/nutl Circle One General Plan Net Project Density Facilities Management Zone DU/AC _Date of participation Remaining net dev acres (For non-residential development Type of land used created by this permit ) Legend Item Complete I I Environmental Review Required DATE OF COMPLETION YES Item Incomplete - Needs your action NO TYPE Compliance with conditions of approval7 If not, state conditions which require action Conditions of Approval I | Discretionary Action Required APPROVAL/RESO NO PROJECT NO YES NO TYPE DATE OTHER RELATED CASES Compliance with conditions or approval7 If not, state conditions which require action Conditions of Approval | | | | Coastal Zone Assessment/Compliance Project site located in Coastal Zone? YES CA Coastal Commission Authority' YES "Camino Del Rio North, Suite YES NO If California Coastal Commission Authority Contact them_at 200, San Diego CA 92108-1725, (619) 521-8036 Determine status (Coastal Permit Recjytreoor Exempt) Coastal Permit Determination F0rfn already completed7 If NO, complete Coastal Permitpe^fermmation Form now Coastal Permit DeterrjCHnation Log # Follow-Up Actions 1) ,Starpp Building Plans as "Exempt" or "Coastal Permit Required" (at minimum FJ06r Plans) Complete Coastal Permit Determination Log as needed H \ADMIN\COUNTER\BldgPlnchkRevChklst D Inclusionary Housing Fee required YES NO (Effective date of Inclusionary Housing Ordinance May 21 1993) Data Entry Completed? YES NO D (A/P/Ds Activity Maintenance enter CB0 toolbar Screens Housing Fees Construct Housing Y/N Enter Fee UPDATE1! Site Plan I I 1 Provide a fully dimensional site plan drawn to scale Show North arrow, property lines, easements, existing and proposed structures, streets, existing street improvements, right-of-way width, dimensional setbacks and existing topographical lines I | 2 Provide legal description of property and assessor's parcel number Zoning I| II 1 Setbacks Front Interior Side Street Side Rear Required _ Required Required •-•"• Required Shown Shown Shown Shown po D | | 2 Accessory structure setbacks Front Required Interior Side Ftej Street Side^—- Required Rear ^—*" Required separation Required / | | | | 3 Lot Coverage D D 4 Height Required Required to' I I 5 Parking Spaces Required Guest Spaces Required Shown Shown Shown Shown Shown Shown Shown Shown n Additional Comments OK TO ISSUE AND ENTERED APPROVAL INTO COMPUTER H \ADMIN\COUNTER\BldgPlnchkRevChklst ro-n Ed'/vard'iV fvarshall P _ Tc Sam Da e Zi '2003 fine 07 0£ 58 PH Page 3 of 6 ][ Edward W Ma-shall F E ] 2044 Wildho-se Lane, Big Bear C 8003377083 • 90958^1190 StrUCtURl CalCUl8tiOnS CA 92314 Q024 Fax 505 208 4981 SFR addition Proiect 1344 Cynthia Carlsbad CA Situs Jaccbson Owner SamWrtglr Designer | Sncvn Load: 1997 UBC recogneed national standard AMSI/ASCE 7-95 Minmm Design Loads for Bidding: and Othsr Structures A 000 500 2262 AOS 100 7 2 (Sloped) 100 100 100 000 n/a 000 000 000 B 000 500 2262 AOS 1 00 7 2 (Sloped! 1 00 1 00 100 000 rJe. 000 000 OOC' •c 000 500 2262 ACS 100 7 2 (Sloped) 1 00 1 00 100 000 n/a 000 000 000 D 0 00 = Pg Ground snow load 5 00 = Roof Pitch 2262 = Angle Ver 1 1a | AOS = Roof surface USS (Unobstructed slippery) or AOS (All other surfaces) 1 00 = i Table 7 4 Occupancy Importance Factor 081011 7-2 (Sloped) = Formula required Eq 7 1 72 1 00 = Ce Table 72091011 12 1 00 = Ct thermal factor Table 731011 12 1 00 = Cs Fig 7-2 Slope adjustment coefficient 0 00 = °f flat roof snow ioad n/a = Ps sloped roof snow laod 000 = Balanced snow load 0 03 = Unbalanced 0 00 = Balanced @ 75% (Seismic value) 12 Loads DLL 60 FDL 10 SnowA 0 UBSnowA a RoofA 38 UBRoofA 38 FLL 40 Floor 50 Sno/>B 0 UBSno/cB 0 RoofB 38 UBRoofB 36 RDL 15 CDL 7 SnowC 0 UBSnowC 0 RoofC 38 UBRoofC 38 Wall 56 RLL 16 SnowD 0 UBSnowD 0 RoofD 38 UBRoofD 38 Evaluate controlling load diratlon factor Case II controls Case I 244 (CDL+ROL)*(V9)Case I 30 4 (CDL+RDL+RLL|"(1/1 25) Abbreviations B Beam Bed Bedroom C Ceiling D Dormer F Floor Fam Family room H Header Hip Hip ratter Kit Kitchen L-DF TPI DF/L L ES TPI ES-LF-AF Llv Living room Master Master BR Mbath Master bath P Purlin Frem Premium R Rafter Ridge Ridge beam Rstc Rustic Sel Select UE Unbalanced V Valley WL40 WaD Log 40 rev 1 4 ALLOWABLE COLUMN LOADS 100 ODD-i Total Load (LB s)* 33 g3 0\ fefi ^0. TI I 6 10 14 18 22 26 Unbraced Length (Feat) In-House Post Max 4X4 10' 6x6 14' 8x8 18' 10x10 24' 12x12 28' Revised 01 Miv 2000 16 Standard K L Allowable 4,674 14,541 30,430 44,043 69,483 24 J ^ Jacobson Addition wb3 1 of 6 ll ro-n EdAardW fvarstiall PI To Sam Angt i .ocatlon Entire residense Da e S/ '200"~> T;nr 37 06 55 PH 52 3 6 Lateral Design & Analysis rev 2 2 Fault Rose Canyon Table 16-S(Na) Table 16 T(Nv) Source Type A B C Source Type A B C Type B <=2km 15 13 1 <=2km 2 16 1 5 Km 12 1 1 5km 16 12 1 Distance »=10km 1 1 1 10km 1 2 1 1 75km I >=15Km 1 1 I1 Map Page C-36 Na 1000 | Nv 1100 | 0440 Ca T 1E-Q Q 020 Q 163022 0704 Cv 15-R Location Typical I Table 16-K 1 R Table 16-N 16-R 55 Height uppermost 20 T Section 1 630 2 2 0189 Z Table 16-1 0 4 Eq 30-4AN Eq 30-5/W Eq 30-6AV Eq 30-7/W CvlflRT) 0577 25Cal/(R)(Lmitor»q.3(MI) 0200 011Cal 0048 08ZNvl/|R) OOoi CortrolEng joeffiaent 0 ZOO Basic Wind speed exposure Table 16-F Wind stagr>atlori pressure Reference 70mph SOmph SOmph 100 mph Calculation 70 mph exp C 126 164 208 25 S Height 15 2b 30 40 Table '6-F Ce T 16-G 1 06 1 13 123 131 Resisting vertical might, math and without snow Location Trtoutary roof span floor span Wall loading RDL CDL FDL Snow @ 75% Total \*/o snow with snow Factored total w/o snow • Reference Level Snow DL Total DL DL+snow Raw% Height with snow Gables 20 56 15 7 10 0 110 110 66 86 Bearing 60 10 55 15 7 10 0 288 288 173 173 Existing 80 4 112 16 7 iO C 323 328 197 197 Height 15 25 30 40 CqT 16-H 13 1 3 1 3 13 Adjustment factor HeichWecaleraticn dstnbuton 0 0 27 27 59 46% 11 1 0 32 32 59 54% 19 2 0 0 0 59 0% 0 Level TDL * Heighl Summation % @ level Total V % above Delte% Level factor Wind Load determination ver 1 5 1 D 139 145 154 162 qsT 16-F 126 126 126 126 oD% EQ Analysis 0 297 305 33% 100% 54% 48% 100% C 106 113 123 131 IwT 16-K 1 1 1 1 B 062 067 076 034 Wind Pres 1736 1851 2C15 2146 Reused 29 April, 2000 15 16 1 HughtMecelerador distribution ver 2 0 1| 1 608 905 67% 67% 0% 67% 124% 2 0 SOS 0% 0% 0% 0% JacobsonAddilion wb3 2 of 6 01-Jun 0705PM ro-n td/varaw fxarsnaii r_ 10 Da e ;/ '^WJ Ii-i6 || Reference. Various joisls girders beams etc Reference B1 Location Ridge Spare 220 Speed/fob 110 MofPIvs ) Load types: Roof Point load: C PLatahorc 1100 Unifonn: 38 Index # 318 Member S«arfJG» Defl. ertena 240 LDF 1 Loading U F-L 1 Dotr load: 418 Footing 28(2x=40) End reaction: 4598 FB 2400 FV 165 D 110 RMF 1 tfimr-cfft 100 FBVFb 146 FV'/Fv 209 D/d 111 B 14 Reference: B8 Location: Floor offset Spare 220 Spaced/Tnb 40 Load types- Floor CDLwalf2 Port load: C PL station: 1100 Unifonn 85 Index* 31 9 Member S12!xH3Gtb DeR criteria 360 LDF 1 Leading U F-L 1 Distr load: 3*0 Footing 24(2x=«) End reaction. 3740 FB 2400 FV 165 D 073 RMF 1 ktrWcPf-t 100 FBVFb 214 FV/Fv 287 D/d 119 B 12 B2 B1 support @ kit 140 4.9 1 Roof B1 4598 400 38 306 JfZffxttG* 240 1 U 1 152 28(2x=3B) 4348 2,400 165 070 1 100 143 124 156 2.2 89 Stair stnngcr BO 3D Exiting 0 4 DO 100 1C 4x12 DFLM 360 1 U 1 300 16(2x=20) 1200 875 95 027 1 100 118 2.74 6 '3 05 B3 B4 81 support ©popout Seebolow 100 40 / RoofBI 5434 500 38 306 ) 115x13 Gtb 240 1 U 1 152 24(2x=32) 3477 2400 165 050 1 100 150 157 303 18 R1 Typical 110 20 1 Roof 0 550 38 4 2x19 DFU2 240 1 U 1 76 J(2x=12) 418 875 95 055 115 127 135 248 334 04 Point* Uniform Load A4D LS001 Rev 44a|| B6 Deck upper ao 50 1 DLL FDL G 400 70 15 SxMDFLIK 360 1 U 1 350 16(2x=21) 1400 875 85 027 1 100 209 266 409 04 B7 Deck, transition 1DO 60 / DLL, FDL 0 500 70 15 MODFLia 3SO 1 U 1 420 20(2x=28) 2100 875 85 033 1 100 112 168 175 06 DJ Typical 100 2.0r DLL 0 500 60 4 2x10 OFLM 360 1 U 1 120 12(2x=16) 600 875 95 033 115 127 128 174 190 06 JacotsonAddition "vb3 3 of 6 01-Jun 0705PM Location Variots unlfcnnly loaded headers Header design ver 4 2a Header H1 Location Near ccmp desk span 3 0 Materiel index 1 Unif loaf Load 38 Tnb Span 8 0 Urnf Floor Load Tnb Span Header width 4 x depth 4 type DF-L Wi fb 875 fv 85 Linrrjng load 533 Dssijn load 304 F 0 a 1 75 Discrete fooling 12 «g Perm Footing 12 "wide (Keierence Reference Location Span Member Spaced/Trib ^oadtype TotalUmf LiveUrtf Meval Deval Distr load Ewpdl R1 R2 MX =I*DEFL SF1 SF2 index Shear Des'gn Allowble FOS Bending Design Allowable FOS Deflector Ratio Defl live Ratio Bridging Bridging spacing H2 French pair 100 1 38 80 4 x 12 DFL#Z B75 85 518 304 1 70 16 "«q 12 "wide J1 Typical 220 TJI/Pra/350/16 1 00 Floor 50 40 110 110 50 33 592 592 3255 3 42E+08 54 54 9 592 1970 333 3255 7205 221 043 619 034 774 7B27 1/3 points H3 H4 H5H6 W H8 Window seat Fan right window Patio left (2) Ratio, right (2) 80 60 70 70 1122 38 38 38 51 40 60 80 80 70 57 160 110 4.x 4.x 3125x 3125x 6 8. 12 9 DFL#2 DFL#2 GLB GLB 875 875 2400 2400 85 85 16E 165 185 611 1581 1138 152 304 1 424 1 036 122 201 111 110 12ncq 12 "sq 28 cq 24"cq 12 aide 12'wldD 18 "wide U wide tngineerea vvooa Joists Kevi: 5|| JacobsonAddition wb3 4 of 6 01-Jun 0705PM ro-n Edward W Marshall P ; To Sam Da e S/ '20»-> Tine 37 05 58 PH Page 5 cf 6 Location Wide patio opening below B3 Element B4 Loads 84 floor, CDL Length 160 Braced® 00 Wet/dry dry RepeP no Analysis Multiple point/uniform loads 3 125X16 5Gb Spaced® Uniform F Tnb 40 Vers on 1 Oe M eval 8 0 Deval 80 Analysis Tnb 4 0 Load Type Point Point Point Rect Rect Rect Triangular Pfo 3477 3477 0 228 0 0 0 Station 3 13 8 16 16 15 TOTALS R1 2825 652 0 1824 0 0 0 R2 652 2825 0 1824 0 0 0 MX 5216 5216 0 7285 0 0 0 EI*DEFL 2 75E+08 2 75E^03 0 OOE+00 3 36E+08 0 OOE+00 0 OOE+00 0 OOE+00 SF1/SF2 0 0 0 228 0 0 0 SF2 0 0 0 228 0 0 0 5301 5301 17727 8 86E+08 228 228 Design Index 307 * net 31 d net 165 Material |3125x165Gfc Fb Table 2 400 Modified 2 760 Design 1 500 Allow/Dsgn 1 84 Cs 915 Ck 2094 Cengr 1 00 Cm 1 00 Fv 165 190 145 131 S 141 8 I 11698 Cd 1 15 CF 1 00 E D 1600000 1/360 1600000 053 047 1 13 Shear Max Panel Anchor Bolt Calculation Panel ID Length Total shear Height Gross O T Gross uplift STS max shear transfer AISC 3/4" allo-v shear tension A5 design/alto Y shear • ' tension Combined FOS Panel FOS System FOS Sample Panel 9 20 30 1 265 2 060 SO 30 11385 16480 5693 5493 2860 2860 7 700 7 700 17500 17500 82% 134% 32 5% 31 4% 245 223 226 139 226 1 39 Panel 10 Panels 12 13 30 30 2 060 1 988 100 SC 20600 17892 6 86? 5 964 2 860 2 860 7 700 7 700 17500 17500 134% 129% 392% 341% 1SO 211 1 39 1 44 139 144 Area 51 56 la 413 Cs 100 Crep 100 Version 1 4 Panels 15 Panel 16 30 30 1 973 1 973 100 80 19730 15784 6 577 5 261 2 860 2 860 ' 700 7 700 17500 17500 128% 128% 37 6% 3D 1% 1 98 2 33 1 45 1 45 1 45 1 45 1) Panel shear from Section 1 of lateral analysis 2) 1 265 Ibs x 9 (panel height) = 11 385 ft Ibs 3) O T Moment / moment arm = uplift 11 385 ft lbs/2 ft = 5 6S3 Ibs 4)AB design shear/A.B allow shear = Panel shear/2/A.B allow shear = 1 265 fc s /2 bolts /7700lb s = 8 2% 5) A B tension /A B allow tension = Uplift /A B allow tension = 5 693 Ibs /17 500 fcs = 32 5% 6) Combined design/allow = 325% +82% = 407% 1/40 7% = 2 46 (Minor rounding difference from 2 45) 7) Panel shear transfer limit = 1 430lbs/bolt allow /Deagn = (1 430 Ibs * 2)/1 265 Ibs = 2 26 5) System FOS equals minimum i 2 26 2 45) = 2 26 JacobsonAddition wb3 5 of 6 01-Jun 0705PM "ro-n t£M=rd W t. arstisll P - To "am A igr -ajs o 31 o [(Reference Grade Beams /arious Location HD reaction Panel vidth Bending moment Adjusted momert Stem height above grade Depth of footing Cover rebar Eff rebar C2C spacing Tensile force Assumed steel allowable Factored Strength Area of steel required Rebar size Area per bar Bars required P910 6 60S 3 19818 33691 2 IS 3 14 28878 40000 36000 080 5 03066 3 P1213 6533 1 1959S 33318 S 18 3 17 23519 40000 36000 065 5 03068 3 Doubly reinforced grade beam analysis & design rev 2 1 1| P1516 6317 3 18951 3221? 2 18 3 14 27314 40000 36000 C77 5 03068 3 JacobsonAddition >vb3 6 of 6 01 Jun C7Q5PM rom LCM&QW wearsnau r - iw *am vngr i riy »o o^-c n i Fault Type Distance Map page # Na Nv Rose Cannon "B" 75km O-36 1000 1 100 t ][ Edward W Marshall PE Jacobson SFR Addition [ 1 2044 Wildhorse Lane, Big Bear City CA 92314-9024 1344 Cynthia Lane, Carlsbad, CA 8003377083 * 909^841190 * Fax 815 3279145 Revised 01 June, 2000 il 04 (Calculation!, Reference. Onl\> ta*aiaw ivarsridii *• _ 10 LOF 3 1 1 LOF 1 -r P3 Pi _ LOF 2 — - 1 1 'I P. r i L Upsl [ ][ Edward W Marshall P E [] 2044 Wildhone Lane Big Bear City C A 923 14-9024 8003377083 * 9095841190 * Fax 8 15 327 9145 LOF 4 1 1 P4 P5 Ii [A] P6 [1 0 1 nj tairs Schematic 0 ^i/ Xn \\ Jacobson SFR Addition 1344 Cynthia Lane, Carlsbad, CA Revised 01 June 2000 20 01 (Cukukiian.\ Reference Onl\) roTi tdward w fcarsridii K 10 iam 'uais o i/c.<sju : Tie w o<-orii LOP 5 - LOF 6 — - LOF 7 LOF 8 1 I 1 12 13 1|Upii pl4u P9 p!6 p!9 p!8 p!7 J [D] Downstairs Schematic ) / f v X [ ][ Edwaro W Marshall PE Jacobson SFR Addition [ I 2044 Wildhorse Lane Big Bear City CA 92314-9024 1344 Cynthia Lane Carlsbad, CA 800^377083 * 909 S84 1190 * Fax 815 327 9145 Revised 01 June 2000 20 01 (Ctikuutimu Reference Onlt) [][][] Project Jacobson SFR addition Section 0 [ ][ Edward W Marshall, P E 2000 Aug 02 18 20 [ ] 2044 Wildhorse Lane, Big Bear City CA 92314-9024 800 337 7083 * 909 584 1190 * Fax 815 327 9145 (c) 2000 E W Marshall Lateral Design Segment Table of Contents SECTION DESCRIPTION 1 Shear panel & holddown summary 2 Diaphragm, reliability factor, & line of force details 3 Shear panel detail, wind & EQ forces 4 Input data file 5 Shear schedule, tie down reference tables [][][] Project Jacobson SFR addition Section 1 [ ][ Edward W Marshall, P E 2000 Aug 02 18 20 [ ] 2044 Wildhorse Lane, Big Bear City CA 92314-9024 800 337 7083 * 909 584 1190 * Fax 815 327 9145 (c) 2000 E W Marshall Shear Panel & HD Summary ID 1 - 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -11 12 13 -14 15 16 17 18 1 Q EQ/ Length Wind 6 3 6 6 7 7 6 5 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 5 4 1 -5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 7 7 0 7 7 0 7 7 5 5 n EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wi nH 2 1 1 11 11 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 T Max V , 058 0 ,029 , 029 , 029 , 029 , 953 ,652 , 060 , 060 0 , 988 ,988 0 ,973 , 973 , 520 ,244 RQ/l Max Uplift 2 1 1 2 2 5 7 7 7 7 5 ,225 0 ,002 ,002 -18 -18 , 189 ,222 ,869 ,395 0 ,279 ,279 0 , 073 ,612 487 599 -•*R7 Shear Sched B A A A A B B SW32x8 SW32xlO SW32xlO SW32X10 SW32xlO SW32x8 A A a A B / [Hold Down Options] Mudsill AB ST mm 36/2X HTT16 STHD8 Panel excluded from calcs 48/2x HTT16' LSTHD8 48/2X HTT16' LSTHD8 A Q / O-y 36/2x HTT16 STHD8 36/2x HTT16 STHD8 (allowable shear 2865 0 (allowable shear 2460 0 Panel excluded from calcs (allowable shear 2460 0 (allowable shear 2460 0 Panel excluded from calcs (allowable shear 2460 0 (allowable shear 2865 0 4 o / 9 v 48/2x HTT161 LSTHD8 A. 0. 1 1 v ST max STHD8 LSTHD8 LSTHD8 STHD8 STHD8 Ibs ) Ibs ) Ibs ) Ibs ) Ibs ) Ibs ) LSTHD8 Straps MSTC52 MSTC40 MSTC40 MSTC52 MSTC52 LSTA36 Corner Tiedown Combinations ID COMBOS A B A B Uplift 2,364 1, 002 [Hold Down Options] AB ST mm ST max Straps HTT16 STHD8 STHD8 MSTC52 HTT16' LSTHD8 LSTHD8 MSTC40 Section 1 notes 1 HTT16' is an HTT16 installed on a 2x stud 2 ST mm is for ST straps installed within 1/2" of corner 3 ST max requires 2 x le minimum from corner 24" maximum 4 Simpson Strongwall panel per PFC-5485 5 Tiedown corner combinations calculated by SRSS method [][][] Project Jacobson SFR addition Section 2 [ ][ Edward W Marshall, P E 2000 Aug 02 18 20 [ ] 2044 Wildhorse Lane, Big Bear City CA 92314-9024 800 337 7083 * 909 584 1190 * Fax 815 327 9145 (c) 2000 E W Marshall jDiaphragm Detail ID Story Length N/S E/W Wind Exposure OA Gross LOF Sums N/S E/W Area Weight N/S E/W A 1 22 0 22 0 90 B 1 14 0 26 0 90 C 0 22 0 22 0 10 0 D 0 14 0 26 0 10 0 E 0 27 0 10 0 10 Reliability Factor Detail 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 1 0 484 364 484 364 270 15,488 11,648 13,068 9,828 2, 160 Story (Story Shear)(Max Unit Shear)(Shear Ratio) N/S E/W N/S E/W N/S E/W 1,229 768 1,658 1, 057 338 320 284 152 2 753 4 167 1 715 1 437 100 100 0 50 100 100 1 50 100 100 Reliability factors, N/S = 1 500 E/W = 1 500 (See notes below) Line of Force Detail ID Story 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Accel 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Alignment N/S E/W 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% Panel Avail 12 12 6 14 5 23 5 5 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 4 Shear Wind 1 2, 2, 2, 3, 6, 4, 3, 832 999 036 036 976 358 119 946 Shear EQ 1, 3, 1. 1, 3, 5, 3, 2, 921 365 921 921 072 219 288 856 Section 2 notes 1 Reliabilility/Redundacy factor calculated per 1997 UBC Section 1630 See formula (30-3), Sec 1630 1 1 Refer to Sec 1628 for notations [][][] Project Jacobson SFR addition Section 3 [ ][ Edward W Marshall, P E 2000 Aug 02 18 20 [ ] 2044 Wildhorse Lane, Big Bear City CA 92314-9024 800 337 7083 * 909 584 1190 * Fax 815 327 9145 (c) 2000 E W Marshall Shear panel Detail, Wind ID 1 -2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -11 12 13 -14 15 16 17 18 19 Len-Pier gth Level LOF Hgt 6 3 6 6 7 7 6 5 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 5 4 13 Shear 1 -2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -11 12 13 -14 15 16 17 18 19 6 3 6 6 7 7 6 5 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 5 4 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 7 7 0 7 7 0 7 7 5 5 0 panel 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 7 7 0 7 7 0 7 7 5 5 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 1 1 4 4 2 2 7 7 7 5 5 8 8 8 6 6 6 Detail 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 1 1 4 4 2 2 7 7 7 5 5 8 8 8 6 6 6 8 0 7 0 7 0 4 0 4 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 8 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 Unit V 339 153 153 145 145 250 250 763 763 736 736 731 731 276 276 276 Vert plf 173 66 66 173 173 66 66 173 173 63 63 173 173 225 225 225 Net OT RM OT 16,289 3,114 13,175 T^tr .-i "1 i i f3 n *3 w-m.-i"l 6,414 1,188 5,226 6,414 1,188 5,226 4,072 4,238 -166 4,072 4,238 -165 12,994 1,394 11,600 10,995 998 9,997 16,477 631 15,847 20,596 631 19,966 -,-i-ijj 1 19,882 230 19,653 19,882 230 19,653 T-jTJJ -1 19,728 631 19,098 15,783 631 15,152 6,081 3,403 2,678 4,976 2,278 2,698 14,374 19,012 -4,638 Solo Composite Uplift 2 1 1 5 7 7 7 7 5 ,196 871 871 -24 -24 ,785 , 818 ,869 ,395 ,279 ,279 , 073 ,612 487 599 -357 Uplift 2, 196 871 871 -24 -24 1, 785 1,818 5,869 7,395 7, 279 7,279 7, 073 5,612 487 599 -357 , Earthquake 8 0 7 0 7 0 4 0 4 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 8 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 343 171 171 147 147 300 300 652 652 609 609 567 567 243 243 243 173 66 66 173 173 66 66 173 173 63 63 173 173 225 225 225 16,462 3,114 13,348 •pTJJ -1 7,202 1,188 6,OD4 7,202 1,188 6,014 4,115 4,238 -l'>3 4,115 4,238 -123 15,623 1,394 14,228 13,219 998 12,221 14,090 631 13,459 17,612 631 16,982•^iTjj v» -, n 16,455 230 16,225 16,455 230 16,225 T-j-lJJ -1IIXC J. UQcQ. pctIle.L 15,298 631 14,667 12,238 631 11,608 5 349 3 403 1 946 4 376 2,278 2,098 12,643 19,012 -6,370 2 1 1 2 2 4 6 6 6 5 4 ,225 , 002 , 002 -18 -18 , 189 ,222 , 985 ,289 ,009 , 009 ,432 ,299 354 466 -490 2,225 1, 002 1, 002 -18 -18 2, 189 2,222 4, 985 6,289 6,009 6, 009 5,432 4,299 354 466 -490 [][][] Project Jacobson SFR addition Section 4 [ ][ Edward W Marshall, P E 2000 Aug 02 18 20 [ ] 2044 Wildhorse Lane, Big Bear City CA 92314-9024 800 337 7083 * 909 584 1190 * Fax 815 327 9145 (c) 2000 E W Marshall Input Data #### Project Data Project Jacobson SFR addition Run Description Initial floorplan, rev 02 August, 2000 18 19 #### Diaphragm Data ID Level A 1 B 1 C 0 D 0 E 0 #### DW 32 32 27 27 8 Snow 0 0 0 0 0 Wind 18 51 18 51 17 36 17 36 17 36 NSLeng 22 14 22 14 27 EWLeng 22 26 22 26 10 Plate 8 8 11 11 11 NSWind EWWind 9 10 9 10 10 10 10 10 1 1 Diaphragm Wind Integration Data Parent %,ID A 100, A B 100, B C 100, C D 100, D E 100, E #### Diaphragm EQ Parent % A 124, A B 124, B C 100, C D 100, D E 100, E #### Line of Force LOF NS% 1 0 2 0 3 100 4 100 5 0 6 0 7 100 8 100 #### Panel Data Panel LOF 1 3 -2 3 3 1 4 1 5 4 6 4 7 2 8 2 9 7 10 7 -11 7 12 5 13 5 -14 8 15 8 16 8 17 6 18 6 19 6 #### (%, ID 100, A 100, B Integration ID 100, A 100, B Data EW% 100 100 0 0 100 100 0 0 Length 6 3 6 6 7 7 6 5 5 5 2 7 2 7 3 2 7 2 7 3 2 7 2 7 5 5 4 5 13 ) Data (%,ID V/W 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 PLateH 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 8 8 8 ) %, ID 50, A 50, A 50,A 50, A 50, C 50, C 100, E 50, C OALeng 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (%, ID 50,B 50, E 50, D 50, C PierH 8 7 7 7 4 4 8 8 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 4 4 4 ) 50, E WVert 173 173 66 66 173 173 66 66 173 173 173 63 63 173 173 173 225 225 225 EVert 173 173 66 66 173 173 66 66 173 173 173 63 63 173 173 173 225 2.25 225 (%,ID ) Corner Tiedown Combinations ID Panel A 2 A Panel B 3 B 4 #### End of File [][][] Project Jacobson SFR addition Section 5 [ ][ Edward W Marshall, P E 2000 Aug 02 18 20 [ ] 2044 Wlldhorse Lane, Big Bear City CA 92314-9024 800 337 7083 * 909 584 1190 * Fax 815 327 9145 (c) 2000 E W Marshall Shear Schedule, Tie Down Table revised 22 April, 2000 11 05 Allowable Shear for Wind or Seismic Forces, Structural I Panels, Table 23-II-I-1 Values, 1997 UBC (notes 1, 2, 3) Panel Shear Call out Vmax A B C D E F D-D 1, E-E 1, F-F 1, 280 350 430 550 730 870 100 460 740 15/32" APA Struct I Mm Mudsill Sheathing /Panel edges 8d*-6 8d*-4 "0 11 0 8d*-4"o 8d*-3 8d*-2 10d-2 8d*-3 8d*-2 10d-2 11 0 "0 "0 11 0 "0 11 0 c c c c c c c c c 2x 2x 3x 3x 3x 3x 3x 3x 3x LTP4/A35 5/8" A B Std/Hl Sill (note 4) (note 5) 48 36 36 32 24 18 16 (6) 12 (6) 9 (6) 18/48 16/48 12/24 9/16 7/10 6/ 8 9/16 (7) 7/10 (7) 6/ 8 (7) Nailing I6d 8 5 5 4 3 3 4 3 3 (8) (8) (8) * Use lOd fasteners over G W B NOTES 1 Panel edges blocked with min 2"-nominal or wider framing, 16' spacing, common, not sinker, nails or galv box nails 2 5/8" Tl-11 nailed through 5/8" section may be used 3 12" o c spacing in field, typical all callouts 4 2 x 2 x 3/16 plate washers are required at all anchor bol;s 5 One each (1) HI seismic tie required at each truss 6 Staggered 7 Both sides of panel 8 (2) rows at table spacing Double blocking/double rim stud Allowable Tension, Simpson StrongTie Holddowns, Straps, Catalog C-99 (1, 2, 3) Anchor Threaded T max Holdown Stud Bolt CL SO Rod r max Strap Stud '16' 2x T6 4x 22 4x 6 4x 8 4x Oa 4x 4a (5) 4x SSTB20 SSTB20 SSTB24 SSTB28 SSTB28 SSTB28 1 x 42 1-3/8 1-3/8 1-3/8 1-3/8 1-3/8 2-1/16 2-3/16 1/2 1/2 1/2 1-5/8 1-5/8 9/16 5/8 (4) (4) (4) 5/8 5/8 5/8 7/8 7/8 7/8 1 1,656 3,480 4,565 5,585 PHD6 7,120 PHD8 8, 910 11,080 15 305 HD15 (5 6) 6x 1-1/4 x 44 2-1/8 3-5/8 1,000 LSTA36 2x 2,145 MSTC40 4x 3,375 MSTC52 4x 5,035 MSTC66 4x 5,855 MSTC78 4x 1-1/4 NOTES 1 See Simpson StrongTie Catalog for manufacturer's written instructions 2 Washers are required under stud bolt nuts 3 SO = Mm plate standoff height, CL = Stud face to bolt centerline 4 Estimated 5 36" minimum embedment 6 HD15 requires standard washer between base plate and nut Certificate of Compliance Residential CF-1R Jacobson Addition Project Title - Cynthia Lane Carlsbad Date 5/23/2000 Documentation Author Packqge_ D X7_6Q).._94Q-_QQ6_4_ Telephone 7 Compliance Method (Package Point System or Computer)Climate Zone Building Permit # Plan Check / Date Field Check / Dote Enforcement Agency Use Only GENERAL INFORMATION Total Conditioned Floor Area 499 sq ft Building Type (check one or more) Single Family Detached (SFD).Xj Addition Alone Single Family Attached (SFA) _] Existing Building Multi-Family ) Existing Plus Addition ALLOWED GLAZING 499 X 20% = 998sqft REMOVED GLAZING 4040(16) + 4036(14) = 30 Osq ft TOTAL ALLOWED = 129 8sq ft PROPOSED GLAZING 2-1660(18)+3040(12)+8040(32) 6068(40) + 6040(24) = 126 Osq ft Front Orientation South Number of Dwelling Units BUILDING SHELL INSULATION Component Type R-30 Roof 1 00 Floor Construction Type Raised Floor Raised Floor Const Assembly U-Value 0035 0 064 Location/Comments (attic, to garage, typical, etc ) Addition Addition Exterior Wall 0088 Addition FENESTRATION Fenestration Orientation BACK (North). RIGHT_ {Eos iL LEFT (West)_ LEFT (West) Area Fenestration (SF) U-Value SHGR 32 24 JO 40 075 075 075 075 NR NR NR NR Shading Devices Interior Exterior Overhang Side Fins Framing (roller blind,etc ) (shadescreen.etc ) Yes/No Yes/No Type Standard Drape Standard Drape Standard Drape Standard Drape Standard Bug Screen , Standard Bug Screen ' j Standard Bug Screen f Standard Bug Screen \^2 L Dr X r; x MTL MIL__...... WD' THERMAL MASS ^Pb/Covermg (slab/tile, etc ) Exposed Area Yes/No (SF) Thickness (inches)Location / Description (kitchen, bath, etc ) HVAC SYSTEMS Note Input Hydronic data under Water Heating Systems Heating Equipment Type (furnace, heat etc ) NOCHANGE Minimum Efficiency Distribution Type and Location (ducts/attic, etc ) Duct or Piping R-Value Thermostat Type Location / Comments Cooling Equipment Type (air conditioner, heat pump.evap cooling) Minimum Efficiency (SEER) Duct Location (attic.etc ) Duct or Piping Thermostat Location / R-Value Type Comments WATER HEATING SYSTEMS Water Heater System Name Existing No Change Water Heater Distribution # m Type Type Syst Rated Tank Input Cap (Btu/hr) (gal) Efficiency Energy Fact Standby Tank Insul or Recovery Loss (%) R-Value or Pilot Int Ext ' For small gas storage (rated input<=75000 Btu/hr), electric resistance and heat pump water heaters list energy factor For large gas storage water heaters (rated mput>75000 Btu/hr), list Rated Input, Recovery Efficiency and Standby Loss For instantaneous gas water heaters list Rated Input, Pilot and Recovery Efficiency SPECIAL FEATURES / REMARKS (Add extra sheets if necessary) COMPLIANCE STATEMENT This certificate of compliance lists the building features and performance specifications needed to comply with Title 24, Parts 1 and 6 of the California Code of Regulations, and the administrative regulations to implement them This certificate has been signed by the individual with overall design responsibility When this certificate of compliance is submitted for a single building plan to be built in multiple orientations, and shading feature that is varied is indicated in the Special Features/Remarks section Designer or Owner (Per Business & Professions code) Name Wright Design Address Telephone (260) 9A4-J...59A. Lic# __ _ Documentation Author Name Michael Dell DELL CO Address 1629 York Drive Vista, CA 92084 Telephone (Signature) Enforcement Agency Name (Date)(Signature)(Dote) Telephone (Signature)(Date) LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION PROPOSED SECOND-STORY ADDITION 3-it 2- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 PROJECT INFORMATION 2 • Project Authorization 2 • Project Description 2 • Purpose and Scope of Services 2 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3 • Site Location and Description 3 • Regional Geology 3 • Foundation and Subsurface Conditions 4 • Groundwater Information 5 SEISMICITY 5 • Regional Seismicity 5 • Seismic Analysis 5 • Earthquake Design Parameters 6 EVALUATION & RECOMMENDATIONS 7 • Site Preparation 7 • Foundation Recommendations 8 • Structural Setback 9 • Floor Slab Recommendations 9 • Lateral Earth Pressures and Resistance 10 • Pavement Recommendations 11 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 12 • Moisture Sensitive Soils/Weather Related Concerns 12 • Drainage and Groundwater Considerations 12 • Excavations 13 • Trench Backfill 13 REPORT LIMITATIONS 14 FIGURES • Figure 1 Site Location Map • Figure 2 Test Pit Location Map APPENDICES • Appendix A References • Appendix B Exploration Logs • Appendix C Laboratory Test Results • Appendix D Seismic Analysis - Computer Output • Appendix E Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A limited geotechmcal exploration of the subsurface conditions has been completed for the proposed second-story addition to the existing residence located at 1370 Pine Avenue in Carlsbad, California Three exploratory test pits have been excavated and selected soil samples were tested in the laboratory as part of our limited exploration In general, the subject residence appears to be underlain by soils comprising weathered Baypomt Formation/Topsoil materials, which are mantled by approximately 12 inches of existing fill soils The weathered formational/topsoil materials were observed in our test pits to consist of dark reddish-brown to medium orangish-brown silty sands with occasional rootlets (SM) These materials were generally observed to be moist to very moist and medium dense at the time of our limited exploration The encountered fill materials were observed to typically consist of dark brown silty sands with occasional rootlets (SM), which were damp to very moist and loose to medium dense at the time of our limited exploration Results of our laboratory testing indicate that the encountered upper soils possess a very low expansion potential Refusal/hard rock materials were not encountered within either of our three exploratory test pits As noted during our limited subsurface exploration, the encountered portions of the existing building foundation system were observed to have embedments of between 12 and 15 inches below existing site grades, which is within the current industry standards Since it is not known whether the foundations are adequately reinforced, it is recommended that the suitability of the existing foundations to receive the additional second-story loading be further evaluated by a structural engineer Based on the results of our limited subsurface exploration, the subsurface conditions at the site generally appear to be suitable for the use of shallow foundations for the support of the proposed structure loads, provided the recommendations contained herein are properly incorporated into the proposed construction Details related to site development, foundation design, seisirucity, and construction considerations are included in subsequent sections of this report The owner/designer should not rely solely on this Executive Summary and must read and evaluate the entire contents of this report prior to utilizing our engineering recommendations in preparation of design/construction documents 1370 Pine Avenue Carlsbad CA Professional Service Industries Inc PROJECT INFORMATION Project Authorization Professional Service Industries, Inc (PSI) has completed a limited geotechmcal exploration for the proposed second-story addition to the existing residence at 1370 Pine Avenue in Carlsbad, California Our services were authorized by Mrs Anne Sabala on August 8, 1999 by signing our proposal This exploration was accomplished in general accordance with PSI Proposal No 062-130 dated August 2, 1999 Project Description Preliminary project information was provided to us by Mr & Mrs Sabala on August 2, 1999 Based on our review of the provided information, we understand the proposed construction at the site will include a second-story addition onto the northern portion of the existing structure, an expansion of the existing kitchen, and other associated improvements In addition, we understand that no site grading is currently planned (beyond the clearing and grubbing of existing vegetation and surficial debris as necessary) The geotechmcal recommendations presented in this report are based on the provided project information, proposed building locations, and the subsurface materials described in this report If any of the noted information is incorrect, please inform PSI in writing so that we may amend the recommendations presented in this report if appropriate and if desired by the chent PSI will not be responsible for the implementation of its recommendations when it is not notified of changes in the project Purpose and Scope of Services The purpose of this limited geotechmcal exploration report was to explore the subsurface conditions at the site to enable an evaluation of acceptable foundation systems for the proposed construction This report briefly outlines the testing procedures, describes the site and subsurface conditions, and presents geotechmcal recommendations for foundation design and for general site development Our scope of services included the excavation, logging and sampling of three exploratory test pits at the site to depths on the order of ll/z to 2Vz feet below the existing ground surface, appropriate laboratory testing, and preparation of this geotechmcal report This report briefly outlines the testing procedures, presents available project information, describes the site and subsurface conditions, and presents recommendations regarding the following 1370 Pine Avenue Carlsbad, CA Professional Service Industries Inc • - Grading procedures for site development • - Suitable foundation types, depths, allowable bearing capacities, and an estimate of potential settlement • - Lateral earth pressures for retaining wall design (if proposed) • - Comments regarding factors that will impact construction and performance of the proposed construction Our scope of services did not include an environmental assessment for determining the presence or absence of wetlands, or hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, bedrock, surface water, groundwater, or air on or below, or around this site Any statements in this report or on the exploration logs regarding odors, colors, and unusual or suspicious items or conditions are strictly for informational purposes SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Site Location and Description The subject site is located at 1370 Pine Avenue in Carlsbad, California Current access to the site is off of Pine Avenue which bounds the property to the southeast The site is also bounded to the northeast, northwest and southwest by existing residential developments Existing development at the site includes a single-story detached residence of wood-frame and slab-on-grade construction and associated appurtenances Our observation of the exterior of the residence indicates that the existing foundation system appears to be performing reasonably well The ground surface elevation at the relatively level site is approximately 120 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) The approximate ground surface elevation was estimated from the San Luis Rey, California 7 5 minute Topographic Survey prepared by the U S Geologic Survey Regional Geology The subject site lies within the coastal portion of the Penmnsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of California According to pertinent regional geologic literature, the project site is underlain by Quaternary-aged Terrace Deposits associated with the Baypomt Formation (Kennedy and Tan, 1996) 1370 Pine Avenue Carlsbad, CA Professional Service Industries, Inc Foundation and Subsurface Conditions The site subsurface conditions were explored with three exploratory test pits, each directly adjacent to the existing residential structure (see Figure 2 - Test Pit Location Map) The test pits were advanced utilizing manual excavation equipment and representative disturbed and relatively undisturbed soil samples were routinely obtained during the excavation process Exploration and sampling techniques were accomplished generally in accordance with ASTM procedures As encountered in our exploratory test pits, the subject residence appears to be underlain by soils comprising weathered Baypoint Formation/Topsoil materials, which are mantled by approximately 12 inches of existing fill soils The weathered formational/topsoil materials were observed in our test pits to consist of dark reddish-brown to medium orangish-brown silty sands with occasional rootlets (SM) These materials were generally observed to be moist to very moist and medium dense at the time of our limited exploration The encountered fill soils were observed to typically consist of dark brown silty sands with occasional rootlets (SM), which were damp to very moist and loose to medium dense at the time of our limited exploration Results of our laboratory testing indicate a very low expansion potential (UBC 18-2) for the encountered upper soils Refusal/hard rock materials were not encountered within either of our three exploratory test pits The existing continuous foundations supporting the residence were observed in our test pits to have embedments of between 12 and 15 niches below existing grade, which is within the current Uniform Building Code Guidelines for footings supporting single-story structure Our scope of services did not include the evaluation of existing reinforcement (if any) within the footings As such, PSI cannot comment at this tune about whether the existing foundations have been adequately reinforced in accordance with industry standards The above subsurface description is of a generalized nature to highlight the major subsurface stratification features and material characteristics The exploration logs included in the appendix should be reviewed for specific information at the individual test pit locations These records include soil descriptions, stratifications, penetration resistances, locations of the samples and laboratory test data The stratifications shown on the exploration logs represent the conditions only at the actual test pit locations at the time of our exploration Variations may occur and should be expected at some distance from the test pits The stratifications which represent the approximate boundary between subsurface materials and the actual transition may be gradual The samples which were not altered by laboratory testing will be retained for 60 days from the date of this report and then will be discarded 1370 Pine Avenue, Carlsbad CA Professional Service Industries, Inc Select soil samples were tested in the laboratory to determine materials properties for our geotechnical evaluation Laboratory testing was accomplished generally in accordance with ASTM procedures A brief discussion of the laboratory tests performed and the results of our testing are presented m Appendix C Groundwater Information Groundwater was not encountered within the maximum explored depth of 2l/2 feet below the existing ground surface in our exploratory test pits, at the time of our exploration However, it is possible that transient oversaturated ground conditions at shallower depths could develop at a later time due to periods of heavy precipitation, landscape watering, leaking water lines, or other unforeseen causes SEISMICITY Reeional Seismicitv Generally, seisrmcity within California can be attributed to faulting due to regional tectonic movement This includes the San Andreas Fault, the Rose Canyon Fault, the offshore segment of the Newport-Inglewood Fault, and most parallel and subparallel faulting within the State The portion of California which includes the subject site is considered seisrmcally highly active (UBC Seismic Zone 4) Seismic hazards within the site can be attributed to potential groundshaking resulting from earthquake events along nearby or more distant faulting According to the regional geologic literature, the closest known Late-Quaternary fault is the Rose Canyon Fault located approximately 5 4 miles southwest of the site Several potentially active and pre-Quaternary faults also occur within the regional vicinity Currently, the seismological literature presents varying opinions regarding seisrmcity for nearby potentially active and pre-Quaternary faults As such, the following Seismic Analysis only considers the effects of active faultmg Seismic Analysis The seismicity of the site was evaluated utilizing deterministic methods for active Quaternary faults within the regional vicinity According to the Alquist-Pnolo Special Studies Zones Act of 1972 (revised 1994) Quaternary faults have been classified as active faults which show apparent surface rupture during the last 11,000 years (le , Holocene time) This site is not currently within a mapped Earthquake Fault Zone (Hart and Bryant, 1997) 1370 Pine Avenue Carlsbad CA Professional Service Industries Inc Deterministic Analysis - Deterministic seismicity at the site was evaluated with the Eqfault computer program (Blake, 1995), which utilizes a digitized map of known late Quaternary earthquake faults, a catalog of the estimated credible and potential earthquakes for each fault, and a user specified attenuation relationship (Campbell, et al , 1994) Output from the Eqfault program is presented in Appendix D Based on our analysis, 18 Late-Quaternary faults were located within a 62 mile radius of the site The site is subject to a Maximum Credible Earthquake of 6 9 Magnitude along the Rose Canyon Fault located approximately 5 4 miles southwest of the site, with a corresponding Peak Ground Acceleration on the order of 0 39g The Maximum Credible Earthquake is defined as the maximum earthquake that appears capable of occurring under the presently known tectonic framework Additionally, the site is subject to a Maximum Probable Earthquake of 5 8 Magnitude, along the offshore segment of the Newport-Inglewood Fault, with its southern terminus located approximately 5 miles northwest of the site, with a corresponding Peak Ground Acceleration of approximately 0 22g The Maximum Probable Earthquake is defined as the maximum earthquake that is considered likely to occur during a 100-year time interval Earthquake Design Parameters In accordance with the evaluation summarized in the Seismic Analysis section of this report, the Peak Ground Acceleration at the site ranges from 0 22g (Probable Earthquake sources) to 0 39g (Credible Earthquake sources) For structural design purposes, a damping ratio not greater than 5 percent of critical damping, and a soil profile type SD (UBC Table 16-J) are recommended Based upon a distance of approximately 8 5 km from the site to the Rose Canyon Fault Zone and the offshore segment of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone (Type B seismic sources per the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code), near source factors Na= 1 0 and Nv=l 06 are recommended for the seismic design of the proposed addition Other earthquake-resistant design parameters are recommended to be obtained from the Uniform Building Code (UBC) 1997 Edition, Volume 2, Chapter 16, Divisions IV and V, utilizing a Seismic Zone 4 and a Soil Profile Type SD If site-dependent earthquake response spectra or other specific design parameters are deemed necessary by the project structural engineer, or are required by the local governmental agency who has jurisdiction over the project, the geotechrucal engineer should be promptly informed for further evaluation In addition, design of structures should comply with the requirements of the governing jurisdiction's building codes and standard practices of the Structural Engineers Association of California 1370 Pine Avenue, Carlsbad, CA Professional Service Industries Inc EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed construction at the site should be performed in accordance with the following recommendations and the standard guidelines for grading projects included in Appendix E In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall supersede those in the appendix Site Preparation Initially, all trees, loose topsoil, undocumented fill and deleterious material, as well as any existing structures, foundations, slabs, pavements, retaining walls, and utilities, must be removed from the areas proposed for construction and the resulting excavations backfilled with engineered fill as described below The contractor should refer to local codes or ordinances for proper removal and disposal of any existing underground tanks, fuel lines and soil or other tank backfill material which may have been exposed to possible fuel leakage Stripping operations should extend a minimum of 5 feet beyond the proposed pavement and building limits After removal of any unsuitable materials as discussed above, the base of the resulting excavations should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 to 8 inches, moisture conditioned as necessary to achieve a near optimum moisture content, and recompacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM test method D-1557) The removed/replacement soils should be moisture conditioned to a near optimum moisture content and recompacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM test method D-1557) until finished grades are reached This earthwork should extend a minimum of 5 feet beyond the proposed building footprints Fill materials should be free of organic or other deleterious materials, have a maximum particle size of 3 inches or less, have a liquid limit of less than 45 and a plasticity index of less than 25 The on-site soils are generally considered suitable for use as structural fill, provided they are properly processed Fill should be placed in maximum loose lifts of 8 inches and should be compacted within the range of 3 percentage points below to 3 percentage points above the optimum moisture content value If water must be added, it should be uniformly applied and thoroughly mixed into the soil by discing or scarifying Each lift of compacted engineered fill should be tested by a representative of the geotechmcal engineer prior to placement of subsequent lifts The edges of compacted fill should extend at least 5 feet beyond the edges of buildings prior to sloping Structural fill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density (based on ASTM D1557) 1370 Pine Avenue Carlsbad CA Professional Service Industries, Inc Non-structural fill adjacent to structural fill should be placed in unison to provide lateral support Backfill along building walls must be placed and compacted with care to ensure excessive unbalanced lateral pressures do not develop The type of fill material placed adjacent to below grade walls must be properly tested by the geotechmcal engineer with consideration for the lateral earth pressure used in the wall design Foundation Recommendations As discussed previously, the observed portions of the existing foundation system supporting the single-story residence had embedments of between 12 and 15 niches below adjacent grade, which we note is within the current Uniform Building Code guidelines for footings supporting single-story structures It is not known if the existing footings are properly reinforced, as evaluation of the foundation reinforcement was not within our authorized scope of services As a result, further evaluation of the suitability of the existing foundations to receive second-story loading should be performed as necessary by a qualified structural engineer At that tune, supplemental recommendations to improve the footings' suitability can be made (if warranted) Additional structure loads imposed by the second story addition may be supported on conventional continuous or isolated spread footings which are entirely supported by firm natural soils or properly compacted fill soils Footings for the one- or two-story residential structure should be embedded at least 12 inches below the lowest adjacent finish grade At this depth, footings may be designed for an allowable soil bearing value of 2000 psf This bearing value may be increased by one-third for loads of short duration, such as wind or seismic forces Continuous footings should have a minimum width of twelve inches, while isolated spread footings should have a rrunimum width of 24 niches Appropriate footing reinforcement should be provided in accordance with the Structural Engineer's design Attention should be given in designing the foundation for the addition adjacent to the existing building It is advisable to place the foundations for the addition at the same level as the foundations for the existing building so that the new footings will not undercut the soil beneath the existing footings In spite of these precautions, small differential movements between the adjacent structures may be experienced Construction joints should be provided between the existing building and the addition The foundation excavations should be observed by a representative of PSI prior to steel or concrete placement to assess that the foundation materials are capable of supporting the design loads and are consistent with the materials discussed in this report Soft or loose soil zones encountered at the bottom of the footing excavations should be removed as directed by the geotechmcal engineer Cavities formed as a result of excavation of soft or loose soil zones should be backfilled with lean concrete or dense graded compacted crushed stone 1370 Pine Avenue Carlsbad CA Professional Service Industries, Inc After opening, footing excavations should be observed and concrete placed as quickly as possible to avoid exposure of the footing bottoms to wetting and drying Surface run-off water should be drained away from the excavations and not be allowed to pond If possible, the foundation concrete should be placed during the same day the excavation is made If it is required that footing excavations be left open for more than one day, they should be protected to reduce evaporation or entry of moisture Based on the known subsurface conditions and site geology, laboratory testing and past experience, we anticipate thaf^properly designed and constnicted footings supported on the recommended materials should experience maximum total and differential settlements between adjacent columns of less than one inch and l/2 inches, respectively While settlement of this magnitude is generally considered tolerable for structures of the type proposed, the design of masonry walls should include provisions for liberally spaced, vertical control joints to minimize the affects of cosmetic "cracking" Be advised that as a part of the foundation design election process, there is always a cost benefit evaluation Although we are recommending a specific foundation type, we have not accomplished the cost/benefit evaluation Structural Setback We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of descending slopes and retaining walls for all structural footings and settlement-sensitive structures This distance is measured from the outside bottom edge of the footing, horizontally to the slope face or the wall face and should be a minimum of H/2, where H is the wall height or slope height (in feet) The setback should not be less than 5 feet and need not be greater than 10 feet Please note that the soils within the structural setback area possess poor lateral stability, and improvements (such as retaining walls, sidewalks, fences, pavements, etc) constructed within this setback area may be subject to lateral movement and/or differential settlement Floor Slab Recommendations New floor slabs-on-grade within the existing structure may be designed by the structural engineer using a coefficient of subgrade reaction of 100 pci and assuming a very low expansion potential (UBC 18-2) Based on geotechmcal considerations, it is recommended that the interior slabs be at least 4 inches in nominal thickness, and minimally reinforced with 6x6 - 10/10 welded wire mesh, or in accordance with the structural engineer's requirements Care should be taken by the contractor to ensure that the reinforcement is placed and maintained at slab midheight Floor slabs should be suitably reinforced and jointed so that a small amount of independent movement can occur without causing damage 1370 Pine Avenue Carlsbad CA Professional Service Industries Inc 10 Slabs should be underlain by a capillary break at least 4 niches thick, consisting of coarse sand, gravel, or crushed rock In moisture sensitive flooring areas, such as carpeted or linoleum covered areas, the slab should be additionally underlain (between the slab and capillary break) by at least two (2) inches of clean sand and a minimum 6-mil visqueen barrier If the additional sand layer and visqueen are placed beneath the slab, the thickness of the capillary break layer may be reduced to 2 inches The visqueen sheet should be sealed along the edges to prevent lateral migration of soil moisture from adjacent non-visqueen areas Prior to placement of clean sand and slab-on-grade, the visqueen sheet should be thoroughly inspected for cracks, punctures, tears, and holes If necessary, the visqueen should be replaced or patched to assure a fully functional entity Some minor cracking of slabs can be expected due to shrinkage The potential for this slab cracking can be reduced by careful control of water/cement ratios in the concrete The contractor should take appropriate curing precautions during the pouring of concrete in hot weather to minimize the cracking of slabs We recommend that a shpsheet (or equivalent) be utilized if grouted fill, tile, or other floor sensitive floor covering is planned directly on concrete slabs All slabs should be designed in accordance with structural considerations Lateral Earth Pressures and Resistance The following preliminary lateral earth pressure values for level or sloping backfill are recommended for retaining walls backfilled (if proposed) with approved granular soils Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf) Conditions Active At-Rest Passive (Compacted Fill) Level Backfill 35 55 300 2 1 Sloping Backfill 55 70 150 (sloping downward) Unrestrained (yielding) cantilever walls should be designed for an active equivalent pressure value provided above In the design of walls restrained from movement at the top (non- yielding) such as basement walls, the at-rest pressures should be used The above values assume backfill soils will have a very low expansion potential and free-draining conditions If conditions other than those covered herein are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressures should be provided on an individual basis by the geotechnical engineer Wall footings should be designed in accordance with the Foundation Recommendations section of this report and reinforced in accordance with structural considerations For all retaining walls, we recommend a minimum horizontal distance from the outside base of the footing to daylight of eight feet 1370 Pine Avenue, Carlsbad CA Professional Service Industries, Inc 11 It is recommended that all below-grade walls and retaining walls be provided with a positive foundation drainage system A typical below-grade wall dram would consist of a minimum 4-inch flexible or rigid perforated pipe surrounded by 3/4 inch crushed rock and wrapped in a non-woven geotextile fabric (consisting of Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent) The subsurface drainage system should be tied to the storm drainage system, allowed to daylight downslope, or collected in a sump and pumped out This system typically is installed directly on top of the retaining wall footing Retaining wall backfill should consist of approved granular material This fill matenal should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density (as determined by ASTM D1557) Flooding or jetting of the backfill should not be permitted Granular backfill should be capped with relatively impervious fill to seal the backfill and reduce the potential for saturation Cantilever or restrained walls subject to uniform surcharge loads should be designed for an additional uniform lateral pressure equal to one-third the anticipated surcharge pressure in the case of the cantilevered walls (active conditions), and one-half the anticipated surcharge in the case of restrained walls (at-rest conditions) It should be noted that the use of heavy compaction equipment in close proximity to retaining structures can result in wall pressures exceeding design values and corresponding wall movement greater than normally associated with the development of active conditions In this regard, the contractor should take appropriate precautions during the backfill placement Lateral soil resistance developed against lateral structural movement can be obtained from the passive pressure value provided above Further, for sliding resistance, a friction coefficient of 0 35 may be used at the concrete and soil interface These values may be increased by one- third when considering loads of short duration including wind or seismic loads The total resistance may be taken as the sum of the factional and passive resistance provided that the passive portion does not exceed two-thirds of the total resistance Pavement Recommendations The providing of pavement design recommendations was not within our authorized scope of services Such recommendations, based upon additional laboratory testing of subgrade materials, can be provided by this office upon request 1370 Pine Avenue Carlsbad, CA Professional Service Industries, Inc 12 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS It is recommended that PSI be retained to provide observation and testing of construction activities involved in the foundation, earthwork, and related activities of this project PSI cannot accept any responsibility for any conditions which deviated from those described in this report, nor for the performance of the foundation if not engaged to also provide construction observation and testing for this project Moisture Sensitive Soils/Weather Related Concerns The upper soils encountered at this site may be sensitive to disturbances caused by construction traffic and to changes in moisture content During wet weather periods, increases in the moisture content of the soil can cause significant reduction in the soil strength and support capabilities In addition, soils which become wet may be slow to dry and thus significantly retard the progress of grading and compaction activities It will, therefore, be advantageous to perform earthwork and foundation construction activities during dry weather The nature of the encountered soils makes them particularly susceptible to erosion during periods of inclement weather As a result, the Project Engineer/Architect and Grading Contractor should take appropriate precautions to reduce the potential for erosion during and after construction Drainage and Groundwater Considerations Our experience indicates that surface or near-surface ground water conditions can develop in areas where ground water conditions did not exist prior to site development, especially in areas where a substantial increase in surface water infiltration results from landscape irrigation This sometimes occurs where relatively impermeable and/or cemented formational materials are overlain by fill soils In addition, during retaining wall excavations, seepage may be encountered We recommend that a representative of PSI be present during grading operations to evaluate areas of seepage Drainage devices for reduction of water accumulation can be recommended if these conditions occur 1370 Pine Avenue Carlsbad CA Professional Service Industries Inc 13 Water should not be allowed to collect in the foundation excavation, on floor slab areas, or on prepared subgrades of the construction area either during or after construction Undercut or excavated areas should be sloped toward one corner to facilitate removal of any collected rainwater, groundwater, or surface runoff Positive site drainage should be provided to reduce infiltration of surface water around the perimeter of the building and beneath the floor slabs The grades should be sloped away from the building and surface drainage should be collected and discharged such that water is not permitted to infiltrate the backfill and floor slab areas of the building Excavations .i"* In Federal Register, Volume 54, No 209 (October 1989), the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) amended its "Construction Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR, part 1926, Subpart P" This document was issued to better insure the safety of workmen entering trenches or excavations It is mandated by this federal regulation that excavations, whether they be utility trenches, basement excavation or footing excavations, be constructed in accordance with the new OSHA guidelines It is our understanding that these regulations are being strictly enforced and if they are not closely followed, the owner and the contractor could be liable for substantial penalties The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and should shore, slope, or bench the sides of the excavations as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom The contractor's "responsible person", as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor's safety procedures In no case should slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations We are providing this information solely as a service to our client PSI does not assume responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's or other parties compliance with local, state, and federal safety or other regulations Trench Backfill Except where extending perpendicular under proposed foundations, utility trenches should be constructed outside all projection from the base-of-footings Trench excavations for utility lines which extend under structural areas should be properly backfilled and compacted 1370 Pine Avenue Carlsbad CA Professional Service Industries Inc 14 Utilities should be bedded and backfilled with clean sand or approved granular soil to a depth of at least 1-foot over the pipe This backfill shall be uniformly watered and compacted to a firm condition for pipe support The remainder of the backfill shall be typical on-site soil, or imported soil, which shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness, watered or aerated to optimum moisture content, and mechanically compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density (based on ASTM D1557) REPORT LIMITATIONS The recommendations submitted are based on the available subsurface information obtained by PSI and design details furnished by Mr Guy Sabala and Mrs Anne Sabala for the proposed project If there are any revisions to the plans for this project or if deviations from the subsurface conditions noted in this report are encountered during construction, PSI should be notified immediately to determine if changes in the foundation recommendations are required If PSI is not retained to perform these functions, PSI will not be responsible for the impact of those conditions on the project The geotechmcal engineer warrants that the findings, recommendations, specifications, or professional advice contained herein have been made in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechmcal engineering practices in the local area No other warranties are implied or expressed After the plans and specifications are more complete, the geotechmcal engineer should be retained and provided the opportunity to review the final design plans and specifications to check that our engineering recommendations have been properly incorporated into the design documents At this tune, it may be necessary to submit supplementary recommendations This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Mr Guy Sabala and Mrs Anne Sabala for the specific application to the proposed second-story addition to the residence at 1370 Pine Avenue in Carlsbad, California 1370 Pine Avenue Carlsbad CA Professional Service Industries, Inc COAST GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS July 31, 2000 Mark Jacobson 1344 Cynthia Lane Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject FOUNDATION PIAN REVIEW Proposed Residential Addition 1344 Cynthia Lane Carlsbad, California Reference LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Residential Addition 1344 Cynthia Lane Carlsbad, California ^ Prepared by Coast Geotechmcal \ Dated June 19, 2000 J—- Dear Mr Jacobson As requested, we have reviewed the project foundation plans, dated June 2, 2000, prepared by Wright Design and observed that they have, in general, included the recommendations presented in our Preliminary Geotechmcal Investigation, (Job No P- 315050) COMMENTS 1) Proposed structural footings should be founded the designed depth into competent terrace deposits The depth to terrace deposits may vary across the site 779 ACADEMY DRIVE . SOLANA BEACH • CALIFORNIA 92075 (858) 755-8622 • FAX (858) 755-9126 Coast Geotechmcal July 31, 2000 WO P-315050 Page 2 2) Footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm prior to placement of steel and forms LIMITATIONS The findings and opinions presented herein have been made in accordance with generally accepted professional principals in the fields of geotechmcal engineering No warranty is provided If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact our office Reference to our Job No P-315050 will help expedite a response to your inquiry Respectfully submitte COAST GEOTECHNI Mark BurweU, C E G Engineering Geologist CERTIFIED ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST Vithayi Smghanet, P E Geotechmcal Engineer COAST GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS June 19, 2000 Mark Jacobson 1344 Cynthia Lane Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Residential Addition 1344 Cynthia Lane Carlsbad, California Dear Mr Jacobson In response to your request and in accordance with our Proposal and Agreement dated April 13, 2000, we have performed a preliminary geotechmcal investigation on the subject site for the proposed residential addition The findings of the investigation, laboratory test results and recommendations for foundation design are presented m this report From a geotechmcal point of view, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed development, provided the recommendations in this report are implemented during the design and construction phases If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at (858) 755-8622 opportunity to be of service is appreciated Respectfully submitti COAST GEOTECHN This 5-31-02 CERTIFIED ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST Mark Burwell, C E G Engineering Geologist Geotechmcal Engineer 779 ACADEMY DRIVE . SOLANA BEACH • CALIFORNIA 92075 (858) 755-8622 • FAX (858) 75'5-9I26 ^ LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Residential Addition 1344 Cynthia Lane Carlsbad, California Prepared For Mark Jacobson 1344 Cynthia Lane Carlsbad, CA 92008 June 19, 2000 WO P-315050 Prepared By COAST GEOTECHNICAL 779 Academy Drive Solana Beach, California 92075 3-DTopoQuads Copyright© 1999 DeLorme Yarmoulh, ME 04096 Source Data USGS | |4flflft Scak 1 10400 Detail 14-3 Datum. WGS84 Coast Geotechnical June 19, 2000 WO P-315050 Page 5 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering investigation on the subject property The purpose of this study is to evaluate the nature and characteristics of the surficial deposits underlying the property and their influence on the construction of the proposed residential addition SITE CONDITIONS The subject property is located east of Pio Pico Drive, along the northern side of Cynthia Lane, in the city of Carlsbad Development along the north side of Cynthia Lane includes graded developed residential lots which generally "step down" to the west The subject property includes a level graded pad which accommodates a two-story residence and attached garage A 4 Oj+ foot high wall is located along the eastern property line which supports the upper adjacent residential lot and a 2 0±_ foot high wall is located along the western property line for development of the lower adjacent lot The rear yard area includes a brick patio and a lawn area with residential landscaping consisting of plants and small tress Roof water is not collected and drainage is generally directed to the south around the structure PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Preliminary plans for the residential addition were prepared by Wright Design The Coast Geotechnical June 19, 2000 WO P-315050 Page 6 project includes the construction of a single-story addition with a deck above, along the rear portion of the structure The addition will be supported on conventional footings with a slab on grade floor SITE INVESTIGATION One 3 5 inch diameter exploratory boring was drilled in the rear yard area of the site to a maximum depth of 10 0 feet One test pit was excavated adjacent to the rear foundation The test pit was augmented by drilling to a depth of 4 5 feet Earth materials encountered were visually classified and logged by our field geologist Relatively undisturbed and bulk samples of earth materials were obtained at selected intervals Samples were obtained by driving a thin walled steel sampler into the desired strata, where possible The samples are retained in brass rings of 2 5 inches outside diameter and 1 0 inches in height The central portion of the sample is retained in close fitting, waterproof containers and transported to our laboratory for testing and analysis LABORATORY TESTING Classification The field classification was verified through laboratory examination, in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System The final classification is shown on the enclosed Exploratory Logs Coast Geotechmcal June 19, 2000 WO P-315050 Page 7 Moisture/Density The field moisture content and dry unit weight were determined for each of the undisturbed soil samples This information is useful in providing a gross picture of the soil consistency or variation among exploratory excavations The dry unit weight was determined in pounds per cubic foot The field moisture content was determined as a percentage of the dry unit weight Both are shown on the enclosed Laboratory Tests Results and Exploratory Logs Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were determined for selected samples of earth materials taken from the site The laboratory standard tests were in accordance with ASTM D-1557-91 The results of the tests are presented in the Laboratory Test Results GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS The subject property is underlain at shallow depths by Pleistocene terrace deposits The terrace deposits are underlain at depth by Eocene-age sedimentary rocks which have commonly been designated as the Santiago Formation on published geologic maps Where explored, the terrace deposits are overlain by a thin organic soil layer A brief description of the earth materials encountered on the site is discussed on the following page Coast Geotechmcal June 19, 2000 WO P-315050 Page 8 Organic Soil A thin veneer, approximately 4 0 inches, of organic sandy soil was encountered in the exploratory boring The soil is very damp and supports a well-established lawn In Test Pit No 1, approximately 1 0 foot of brown to reddish brown soil with organics was encountered The soil supports shrubs planted adjacent to the foundation Terrace Deposits Underlying the soil veneer, Pleistocene-age terrace deposits are present The sedimentary unit is composed of reddish brown, fine and medium-grained, slightly clayey sand The terrace deposits are dense but weakly cemented Regionally, the Pleistocene sands are considered flat-lying and are underlain at depth by Eocene-age sedimentary rock units Expansive Soil Based on our experience in the area and previous laboratory testing of selected samples, the terrace deposits reflect an expansion potential in the low range Ground Water No evidence of perched or high ground water tables were noted during exploration However, a relatively high moisture content was observed in the terrace deposits to the depth explored The high moisture content is probably the result of over-irrigation Based on our experience in the area, major ground water related problems are not Coast Geotechmcal June 19, 2000 WO P-315050 Page 9 anticipated during construction However, it should be noted that seepage problems can develop after completion of construction These seepage problems most often result from drainage alterations, landscaping and over-irrigation In the event that seepage or saturated ground does occur, it has been our experience that they are most effectively handled on an individual basis Existing Footing The Test Pit suggests that the rear footing is founded 18 inches below the exterior grade However, the upper 12 inches of soil is composed of wet, slightly organic sands The effective depth of embedment into terrace deposits is about 6 0 inches Tectonic Setting The site is located within the seismically active southern California region which is generally characterized by northwest trending Quaternary-age fault zones Several of these fault zones and fault segments are classified as active by the California Division of Mines and Geology (Alquist-Pnolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act) Based on a review of published geologic maps, no known faults transverse the site Several steeply dipping short fault segment have been mapped in the regional area of the site These northeast trending faults are exposed in the Eocene-age rocks of the Santiago Formation but not in the overlying Pleistocene terrace deposits and are presumably inactive Coast Geotechnical June 19, 2000 WO P-315050 Page 10 The nearest active fault is the offshore Rose Canyon/Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone located approximately 5 1 miles west of the site It should be noted that the Rose Canyon Fault is not a continuous, well-defined feature but rather a zone of right stepping en echelon faults The complex series of faults has been referred to as the Offshore Zone of Deformation (Woodward-Clyde, 1979) and is not fully understood Several studies suggest that the Newport-Inglewood and the Rose Canyon faults are a continuous zone of en echelon faults (Treiman, 1984) Further studies along the complex offshore zone of faulting may indicate a potentially greater seismic risk than current data suggests Other faults which could affect the site include the Coronado Bank, Elsmore, San Jacmto and San Andreas Faults The proximity of major faults to the site and site parameters are shown on the enclosed Earthquake Fault Analysis Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction is a process by which a sand mass loses its shearing strength completely and flows The temporary transformation of the material into a fluid mass is often associated with ground motion resulting from an earthquake Owing to the moderately dense nature of the Pleistocene terrace deposits and the anticipated depth to ground water, the potential for seisrmcally induced liquefaction and soil instability is considered low Coast Geotechnical June 19, 2000 WO P-315050 Page 11 CONCLUSIONS 1) The subject lot is located in an area that is relatively free of potential geologic hazards such as landshding, deep-canyon fills, ground water and seismically induced subsidence 2) The proposed addition should be supported entirely on new footings founded into competent terrace deposits Loads from the addition should not be transferred to the rear foundation of the residence unless the existing footing is underpinned by column pads or other alternatives recommended by the project structural engineer 3) All footings should penetrate surficial deposits and founded the designed depth into competent terrace deposits Surficial or undesirable materials in the addition area should be removed and replaced with imported sand for slab support RECOMMENDATIONS Foundations The following preliminary design parameters are based on footings founded into competent terrace deposits Footings for the proposed addition should be a minimum of 12 inches wide and founded a minimum of 12 inches and 18 inches below the lower most adjacent subgrade at the time of foundation construction for single-story and two- Coast Geotechmcal June 19, 2000 WO P-315050 Page 12 story structures, respectively Footings should be reinforced with a minimum of four No 4 bars, two along the top of the footing and two along the base Footing recommendations provided herein are based upon underlying soil conditions and are not intended to be in lieu of the project structural engineer's design For design purposes, an allowable bearing value of 1500 pounds per square foot may be used for foundations at the recommended footing depths The bearing value indicated above is for the total dead arid frequently applied live loads This value may be increased by 33 percent for short durations of loading, including the effects of wind and seismic forces | Resistance to lateral load may be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations • and by passive earth pressure A coefficient of friction of 0 35 may be used with dead- load forces A passive earth pressure of 250 pounds per square foot, per foot of depth | of fill penetrated to a maximum of 1500 pounds per square foot may be used I Slabs on Grade (Interior and Exterior) B Slabs on grade should be a minimum of 4 0 inches thick and reinforced in both I directions with No 3 bars placed 18 inches on center in both directions The slab should be underlain by a minimum 4 0-inch sand blanket or the thickness of organic soil removed Where moisture sensitive floors are used, a minimum 6 0-mil Visqueen or I I Coast Geotechnical June 19, 2000 WO P-315050 Page 13 equivalent moisture barrier should be placed over the sand blanket and covered by an additional two inches of sand Slabs including exterior concrete flatwork should be reinforced as indicated above and provided with saw cuts/expansion joints, as recommended by the project structural engineer All slabs should be cast over dense compacted subgrades free of organics Settlement Characteristics Estimated total and differential settlement should be considered minimal provided footings are founded into competent terrace deposits However, it should also be noted that long term secondary settlement due to irrigation and loads imposed by structures is anticipated to be 1/4 inch | Seismic Considerations • Although the likelihood of ground rupture on the site is remote, the property will be exposed to moderate to high levels of ground motion resulting from the release of energy • should an earthquake occur along the numerous known and unknown faults in the • region • The Rose Canyon/Newport-lnglewood Fault Zone is the nearest known active fault and is considered the design earthquake for the site A maximum probable event along the offshore segment of the Rose Canyon Fault is expected to produce a peak bedrock I horizontal acceleration of 0 35g and a repeatable ground acceleration of 0 23g I Coast Geotechnical June 19, 2000 WO P-315050 Page 14 Seismic Design Parameters (1997 Uniform Building Code) Soil Profile Type - Sc Seismic Zone - 4 Seismic Source - Type B Near Source Factor (Nv) -11 Near source Acceleration Factor (NJ - 1 0 Seismic Coefficients Ca = 0 40 Cv = 0 60 Design Response Spectrum Ts = 0 600 T = 0 120 Utility Trench We recommend that all utilities be bedded in clean sand to at least one foot above the top of the conduit The bedding should be flooded in place to fill all the voids around the conduit Imported or on-site granular material compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction may be utilized for backfill above the bedding The invert of subsurface utility excavations paralleling footings should be located above the zone of influence of these adjacent footings This zone of influence is defined as the area below a 45 degree plane projected down from the nearest bottom edge of an adjacent footing This can be accomplished by either deepening the footing, raising the invert elevation of the utility, or moving the utility or the footing away from one another Coast Geotechnical June 19, 2000 WO P-315050 Page 15 Drainage Specific drainage patterns should be designed by the project designer However, in general, pad water should be directed away from foundations and around the structure to the street Roof water should be collected and conducted to hardscape or the street, via non-erodible devices Pad water should not be allowed to pond Vegetation adjacent to foundations should be avoided If vegetation in these areas is desired, sealed planter boxes or drought resistant plants should be considered Other alternatives may be available, however, the intent is to reduce moisture from migrating into foundation subsoils Irrigation should be limited to that amount necessary to sustain plant life All drainage systems should be inspected and cleaned annually, prior to winter rams Geotechnical Observations Structural footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm, prior to the placement of steel and forms All fill should be placed while a representative of the geotechmcal engineer is present to observe and test Plan Review A copy of the final plans should be submitted to this office for review prior to the initiation of construction Additional recommendations may be necessary at that time Coast Geotechmcal June 19, 2000 WO P-315050 Page 16 LIMITATIONS This report is presented with the provision that it is the responsibility of the owner or the owner's representative to bring the information and recommendations given herein to the attention of the project's architects and/or engineers so that they may be incorporated into plans If conditions encountered during construction appear to differ from those described in this report, our office should be notified so that we may consider whether modifications are needed No responsibility for construction compliance with design concepts, specifications or recommendations given in this report is assumed unless on-site review is performed during the course of construction The subsurface conditions, excavation characteristics and geologic structure described herein are based on individual exploratory excavations made on the subject properly The subsurface conditions, excavation characteristics and geologic structure discussed should in no way be construed to reflect any variations which may occur among the exploratory excavations Please note that fluctuations in the level of ground water may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made and reported herein Coast Geotechmcal assumes no responsibility for variations which may occur across the site Coast Geotechnical June 19, 2000 WO P-315050 Page 17 The conclusions and recommendations of this report apply as of the current date In time, however, changes can occur on a properly whether caused by acts of man or nature on this or adjoining properties Additionally, changes in professional standards may be brought about by legislation or the expansion of knowledge Consequently, the conclusions and recommendations of this report may be rendered wholly or partially invalid by events beyond our control This report is therefore subject to review and should not be relied upon after the passage of two years The professional judgments presented herein are founded partly on our assessment of the technical data gathered, partly on our understanding of the proposed construction and partly on our general experience in the geotechmcal field Our engineering work and the judgments given meet present professional standards However, in no respect do we guarantee the outcome of the project Coast Geotechmcal June 19, 2000 WO P-315050 Page 18 REFERENCES 1 Petersen, M D , Bryant, W A , Cramer, C 11, Cao, T , Reichle, M S , Frankel, A D , Lienkaemper, J J , McCrory, P A , and Schwartz, D P , 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 96-08, 59 page 2 Hays, Walter W, 1980, Procedures for Estimating Earthquake Ground Motions, Geological Survey Professional Paper 1114, 77 pages 3 Seed, II B , and Idnss, I M , 1970, A Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential Earthquake Engineering Research Center 4 Tan, S S , and Giffen, D G , 1995, Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, Plate 35D, Open-File Report 95- 04, Map Scale 1 24,000 5 Treiman, J A , 1984, The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, A Review and Analysis, California Division of Mines and Geology MAPS/AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS 1 Aerial Photograph, 1982, Foto-Map D-7, Scale 1" = 2000' 2 California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California, Scale 1" = 750,000' 3 Geologic Map of the Oceanside, San Luis Rey and San Marcos 7 5' Quadrangles, 1996, DMG Open File Report 96-02 4 U S G S , 7 5 Minute Quadrangle Topographic Map, Digitized, Scale Variable 5 Wright Design, 2000, Site Plan, Jacobson Addition, Scale 1"=8' APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TABLE I Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content (Laboratory Standard ASTM D-1557-91) Sample Location B-l I1 -4 Max Dry Density (pcf) 128 5 Optimum Moisture Content 10 2 TABLE II Field Dry Density and Moisture Content Sample Location B-l @ 1 5' B-l @ 2 5' B-l @ 4 0' B-l @ 6 0' B-l @ 9 0' TP-1 @ 1 5' TP-1 @ 2 5' TP-1 @ 4 0' Field Dry Density (pcf) 121 2 120 9 118 3 114 9 Sample Disturbed 114 7 110 7 119 2 Field Moisture Content (%) 12 0 12 4 10 6 11 9 12 4 13 8 12 6 11 4 P-315050 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 1 DRILL RIG PORTABLE BUCKET AUGER PROJECT NO P-3 15050 BORING DIAMETER 3 5" DATE DRILLED 06-06-00 SURF ACE ELEV 130'(approx) LOGGED BY MB DRY DENSITY (pcf)121 2 1209 1183 1149 MOISTURE CONTENT (%)120 124 106 11 9 124 SUBSURFACE WATERNO GROUNDWATER OBSERVEDSAMPLE1 DEPTH /ELEVATIONS§— 000 — 129 00 100 = 12800 200 = 12700 i 300 = 126 00 400 — 12500 — 500 = 12400 — 600 — 123 00 — 700 1=1 122 00 — 800 — 121 00 — 900 8js O <V.{*JVl EIMI3HIIV ."•• Vn,',£,v£v ,"" x'-x'IIMIHHII Hfr if iff siIK SKil w*::xt x : .£&, ?'£"*"•" '£• _ISMSIXE I "•».' .".". it'lM'lEKIE ! if: XIIXIEKEE^ [IIMIEHtB • X XIS M MEIWkV.yAVAT .". •". ".,.£..*.., iv.S.^v,1 iitlTi'iiViiMII N:S9lt3 IEEMI M IEIH'IIM 1 •.SOIL CLASS (USCS)SM SM DESCRIPTION SOIL (Qs) Brown silty sand, v moist loose, slightly clayey organics TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) Reddish bm , fine and mcd -grained sand, slightly clayey, v moist End of Boring @ 10' SHEET i or i COAST GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF TEST PIT NO. 1 0& fcc/3I ^g 1147 1107 1192 £ Hio0 1 gi 138 126 11 4 ft <:£w3 m §C/5 QW 1W<yjCQO ff!s<£Q 1O Oz a& s — ZOpi EH Q 13000 000 12900 100 12800 200 12700 300 12600 — 400 A '\ & A§ ^ * A p 7 — V SI 111 1 IOI 1 §ua s 0 >}??iv?; >»>».- M%tw.tiC» !««!.'pSi;? '"IK S^ iwBw"•:".S>KS-'iIWUHtA ."JK.VV" HI fr iuJ-uSfH :"*X?vj !|S lIMv 11 /— x(/3 (JE/3 & 00 U d g SM SM PROJECT NO P-3 15050 DATE EXCAVATED 06-06-00 SURFACE FLEV 1 30' (approx ) LOGGED BY MB DESCRIPTION SOIL (Qs) Brown silty sand, v moist to wet, loose, slightly clayey, organics Grades to reddish brn fine and med -grained sand TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) Reddish brn , fine and med -grained sand, slightly clayey, v moist From 2' Test Pit augmented by 3 5" dia Boring PIT SKETCH >1 1 «" I — —l_ CV c 1 CZX. > COAST GEOTECHNICAL =•/" '.^-pwOr !is*S> ^ I—4 -\ i w-*-' li 2±ft WALL- g:14|V--Y i^&t-f £A l'W7'>>_a- &KTV—-*-^-°^-'.X --. ^ Exi-^fiiN-^T ?' "E ^: -V4^ i ftj (Nj -4±ft WALL LEGEND BORING LOCATION (approx) TEST PIT LOCATION (approx ) COAST GEOTECHNICAL P 315050 SITE PLAN 0 4 6 GRAPHIC SCALE APPENDIX B DATE: Thursday, June 15, 2000 ************************************* * * * EQFAULT * * * * Ver. 2.20 * * * * * (Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration From Digitized California Faults) SEARCH PERFORMED FOR: JACOBSON JOB NUMBER: P-315050 JOB NAME: P-315050 SITE COORDINATES: LATITUDE: 33.1682 N LONGITUDE: 117.3419 W SEARCH RADIUS: 60 mi ATTENUATION RELATION: 2) Campbell & Bozorgnia (1994) Horiz. - Soft Rock UNCERTAINTY (M=Mean, S=Mean+l-Sigma) : S SCOND: 0 COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION FAULT-DATA FILE USED: CDMGSCE.DAT SOURCE OF DEPTH VALUES (A=Attenuation File, F==Fault Data File): A DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS Page ABBREVIATED FAULT NAME SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK SAN JACINTO-ANZA SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VA SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN ELS INORE- JULIAN ELS INORE -TEMECULA ELSINORE-GLEN IVY WHITTIER CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsino EARTHQUAKE VALLEY CORONADO BANK NEWPORT- INGLEWOOD (Offshor ROSE CANYON NEWPORT- INGLEWOOD (L.A.Bas PALOS VERDES COMPTON THRUST ELYS IAN PARK THRUST npppny DISTANCE mi (km) 52 ( 84) 46 ( 74) 46 ( 75) 59 ( 94) 59 ( 94) 24 ( 38) 24 ( 38) 33 ( 53) 50 ( 81) 47 ( 76) 44 ( 71) 22 ( 35) 5 ( 8) 5 ( 9) 45 ( 73) 35 ( 57) 55 ( 88) 57 ( 92) MAX. ( MAX. CRED. MAG. 6.80 7.20 6.90 6.70 6.80 7.10 6.80 6.80 6.80 6.70 6.50 7.40 6.90 6.90 6.90 7.10 6.80 6.70 :REDIBLI PEAK SITE ACC. g 0.048 0.082 0.063 0.037 0.041 0.177 0.146 0.095 0.051 0.051 0.047 0.241 0.627 0.614 0.065 0.110 0.065 0.056 3 EVENT SITE INTENS MM VI VII VI V V VIII VIII VII VI VI VI IX X X VI VII VI VI MAX. ] MAX. PROB. MAG. 6.20 6.90 6.80 6.70 6.20 6.40 6.30 6.30 5.90 5.50 5.70 6.30 5.80 5.70 5.60 6.20 5.80 5.80 'ROBABLI PEAK SITE ACC. g 0.028 0.063 0.057 0.037 0.024 0.106 0.099 0.062 0.023 0.020 0.023 0.112 0.351 0.310 0.020 0.050 0.029 0.027 2 EVENT SITE INTENS MM V VI VI V IV VII VII VI IV IV IV VII IX IX IV VI V V -END OF SEARCH- 18 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. THE NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. IT IS ABOUT 5.1 MILES AWAY. LARGEST MAXIMUM-CREDIBLE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.627 g LARGEST MAXIMUM-PROBABLE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.351 g ifjiji s HU: i , ' !iiii HI i < 1 ^\ Ii •gfj] siJ j a!«I lit ill! I ^,"^'j v— — -*^^*^V *-«•"/ y t^v~*j T- " 1 ^V- n ^T^ M>H4 j«\ 11 s * r »7 H-[3.i _ I , -M * I? ' IX;.;' v'rJV" ;-^^o^i!<l/ COMPUTATION OF 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS JOB NUMBER P-315050 DATE 06-14-2000 JOB NAME JACOBSON FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME CDMGUBCR DAT SITE COORDINATES SITE LATITUDE 331682 SITE LONGITUDE 1173419 UBC SEISMIC ZONE 04 UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE SC NEAREST TYPE A FAULT NAME ELSINORE-JULIAN DISTANCE 384 km NEAREST TYPE B FAULT NAME NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) DISTANCE 82 km NEAREST TYPE C FAULT NAME DISTANCE 999990 km SELECTED UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS Na 1 0 Nv 1 1 Ca 040 Cv 060 Ts 0600 To 0120 I o I1W » o 00 I Tf O° o N o (D i1 ' I P 10 c\i q c\i - IT) - O o •o (6) UO!JBJ9|900V LO CO o CO IT) CM o CM 10 CO oo0 CO •ag 0) CL - o in•o o •o