Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 MAGNOLIA AVE; ; CBR2018-0671; Permit(ity of Carlsbad Residential Permit Print Date: 01/30/2019 Permit No: CBR2018-0671 Job Address: 1995 Magnolia Ave Permit Type: BLDG-Residential Work Class: Addition Status: Closed - Finaled Parcel No: 2052203900 Lot U: Applied: 03/19/2018 Valuation: $116,951.58 Reference U: DEV2018-0053 Issued: 06/19/2018 Occupancy Group: Construction Type: Permit Finaled: U Dwelling Units: Bathrooms: Inspector: TFraz Bedrooms: Orig. Plan Check U: Final Plan Check U: Inspection: 1/30/2019 1:14:16PM Project Title: BAYARD FAMILY ADDITION Description: BAYARD: 640 SF ADDITION FOR SECOND STORY W/ 144 SF DECK Applicant: Owner: RICHARD HAEGER COOWNER BAYARD PETER F AND MARGARET 3531 Dove Hollow Rd A Encinitas, CA 92024-7244 1995 Magnolia Ave 760-753-0060 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 BUILDING PERMIT FEE ($2000+) $686.35 BUILDING PLAN CHECK FEE (BLDG) $480.44 ELECTRICAL BLDG RESIDENTIAL NEW/ADDITION/REMODEL $66.00 GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS PLAN CHECK & INSPECTION $170.00 MECHANICAL BLDG RESIDENTIAL NEW/ADDITION/REMODEL $92.00 PLUMBING BLDG RESIDENTIAL NEW/ADDITION/REMODEL $182.00 5B1473 GREEN BUILDING STATE STANDARDS FEE $5.00 STRONG MOTION-RESIDENTIAL $15.20 SWPPP INSPECTION FEE TIER 1 - Medium BLDG $238.00 SWPPP PLAN REVIEW FEE TIER 1- MEDIUM $56.00 Total Fees: $1,990.99 Total Payments To Date: $1,990.99 Balance Due: $0.00 Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "Imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as "fees/exaction." You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project. NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitation has previously otherwise expired. 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 1 760-602-2700 1 760-602-8560 f I www.carlsbadca.gov '4 4 ,Ø3 - •I •••• Plan Check No.CjRZD9j—O Cal I ( City of DUIIOIfl9 iermit appiicat.on 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ph: 760.602-271.9 Fax: 760-602-8558 Cdr-Isbad email: building@carlsbadca.gov www.carlsbadca.ov - Est. Value I K,1952- Plan Ck. Deposit Date 5 — JOB ADDRESS cc M* rsc SUITE#/SPACE#/UNIT# I APN CT/PROJECT# (.. I PHASE # I # OF UNITS I P BEDROOMS P BATHROO MS I TE NANT BUSINESS NAME I CONSTR. TYPE' I 0CC. GROUP DESCRIPTION OF WORK: 7rrehide.8quare Feet of Affected Area(s) 74 47E5 .r. 1A j- t,& _TA_ C_- -'--\ F EXISTING USE PROPOSED USE GARAGE (SF) PATIOS (SF) DECKS (SF) I FIREPLACE YES #.......... NOD I AIR CONDITIONING YES 0 NOD IFIRESPRINKLERS YES 0 NOD APPLICANTb[AME (Primary Contact) PROPERTY OWRM !4 . _V t— ADDRESS ADDRESS ME? _________________ CITY STATE ZIP -. 4 CITY STATE ZIP — EMAIL,' DESIGN PRO IOt?NAME CONTRACTOR BUS. NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CITY STATE ZIP PHONE FAX PHONE FAX EMAIL EMAIL STATE LIC. P STATE LiC.# CLASS CITY BUS. LIC.# (Sec 70315 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 jChapter 9, commending with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code) or 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)). e1®aa3oc1o° ®?O®tJ Workers' Compensation Declaration: I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations: IJ 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. 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 workers' compensation insurance carrier and policy number are: Insurance Co. Policy No. Expiration Date This section need not be completed if the permit is for one hundred dollars ($100) or less. O Certificate of Exemption: I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued, I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to become subject to the Workers' Compensation Laws of California. WARNING: Failure to secure workers' compensation coverage is unlawful, and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to one hundred thousand dollars (&100,000), in addition to the cost of compensation, damages as provided for in Section 3106 of the Labor code, interest and attorney's fees. CONTRACTOR SIGNATURE [JAGENT DATE ®GoOWOEM O®W thereby affirm that lam exempt from Contractor's License Law for the following reason: C3 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). O I am exempt under Section ______________Business and Professions Code for this reason: I personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed property improvement. 0 Yes 0 No I (have! have not) signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work. I have contracted with the following person (firm) to provide the proposed construction (include name address I phone / contractors' license number): I plan to provide portions of the work, but I have hired the following person to coordinate, supervise and provide the major work (include name! address / phone! contractors' license number): I will provide some of the work, but I have contracted (hired) the following persons to provide the work indicated (include name / address / phone! type of work): ,PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE DAGENT DATE , A q /2-0 1 H 4 MRK- T-71 RICHARD HAEGER A S S 0 C I A T E S ............ VT9' MA9Jc't- /t4tIe • 6-. Zo(e'- CA. '1 • A04 Zo5~- - T gp(-Tcs ¶o 7rnr,4 O Ur-11t4AT T ITJ . - TILrCV. F1pMr( ?r' WrrH ii4c7. . . 4 7flNC1 CoP444-'( tiztUr' frctx'til c,, re-. & [t4i 1Ecu4' ç J34Z ots:; '311 ) P1- c_L* 1W44 hIA ?117I £ 1t' .... &vv 1F/t4/ F' TWY ic /7 . - II% P1oT2 it4 T' 11't . j-b--T5~ >L.2-1.$ . • .. .ek.t. . . UT'cW , l.2- • . . . L'I-cv u) - 3531 DOVE Hou..ow ROAD • OuvENwuN.CA92024 RHAEGOE.RTHUNK.NEF . . ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN • PLANNING 2187 NEWCASTLE 'AVE. SUITE 100 CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CA 92007 • • C+ Fox 7Gb'753.0OG0 woGa®®®DcD1?a aa,®oa@ QE?O?8 ®1c!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? 0 Yes 0 No Is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district? 0 Yes 0 No Is the facility to be constructed within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? 0 Yes 0 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. (®(9(17o®( G®O&@ Z00009 I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work this permit is issued (Sec. 3097 (i) Civil Code). Lenders Name Lenders Address O()? I rtifythatI have read the application and state thatthe above information isconectand thatthe infomialion on the plans is accurate. I agree to complywtth all Cityordinances and State laws ieIatingto buildingconstniction. I hereby authorize representative of the City 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 IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CRY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT. OSHA: An 051-IA permit is required for excavations over 50' deep and demolition or construction of structures over 3 stories in height. EXPIRATION: Every permit issued by the Building Official under the pro ions of this Code shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of such permit or tithe builn - t ) rodz by such penuiti is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is commenced for a period of 180 days (Section 106.4.4 Uniform Building Code). ..APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE / j Permit Type: BLDG-Residential Application Date: 03/19/2018 Owner: COOWNER BAVARD PETER F AND MARGARET A Work Class: Addition Issue Date: 06/19/2018 Subdivision: THUM LANDS Status: Closed - Finaled Expiration Date: 04/22/2019 Address: 1995 Magnolia Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008-2632 IVR Number: 10205 Scheduled Actual Date Start Date Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Status Primary Inspector Reinspect,on Complete Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes BLDG-17 Interior Lath-Drywall Except Mstr. Bath, at tub Yes BLDG-18 Exterior Lath and Yes Drywall BLDG-23 Gas-Test-Repairs Yes 01/3012019 01/29/2019 BLDG-Final 082387.2019 Passed Tim Frazee Complete Inspection Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes BLDG-Plumbing Final no Sediment trap on water heater Yes BLDG-Mechanical Final Sediment trap is in the wrong location on Yes furnace BLDG-Structural Final Yes BLDG-Electrical Final Yes January 30, 2019 Page 3 of 3 Permit Type: BLDG-Residential Application Date: 03/19/2018 Owner: COOWNER BAYARD PETER F AND MARGARET A Work Class: Addition Issue Date: 06/19/2018 Subdivision: THUM LANDS Status: 'Closed - Finaled Expiration Date: 04/22/2019 Address: 1995 Magnolia Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008-2632 IVR Number: 10205 Scheduled Actual Date Start Date Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Status Primary Inspector -- Reinspection Complete Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes BLDG-14 Yes Frame-Steel-Bolting-Welding (Decks) BLDG-24 Rough-Topout Yes BLDG-34 Rough Electrical Yes BLDG-44 No Rough-Ducts-Dampers 09110/2018 09/10/2018 BLDG-Final 069432-2018 Failed Tim Frazee Reinspection Inspection Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency No BLDG-Plumbing Final No BLDG-Mechanical Final No BLDG-Structural Final No BLDG-Electrical Final No 09/11/2018 09/10/2018 BLDG-43 Air 069431-2018 Passed Tim Frazee Cond./Furnace Set Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed Complete Complete BLDG-Building Deficiency 10/11/2018 10/11/2018 BLDG-84 Rough 072693.2018 Combo(14,2434,44) Checklist Item BLDG-Building Deficiency BLDG-14 Frame-Steel-Bolting-Welding (Decks) BLDG-24 Rough-Topout BLDG-34 Rough Electrical BLDG-44 Rough-Ducts-Dampers 10/16/2018 10/16/2018 BLDG-16 Insulation 073294.2018 Checklist Item BLDG-Building Deficiency 10/23/2018 10/23/2018 BLDG-82 Drywall, 073997.2018 Exterior Lath, Gas Test, Hot Mop Need to check on vent location Yes Install according to manufacturer's specifications OK Finished HVAC duct work 9/11/18 Passed Tim Frazee COMMENTS Passed Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Passed Tim Frazee COMMENTS Passed Yes Passed Michael Collins Complete Complete Complete January 30, 2019 Page 2 of 3 Permit Type: BLDG-Residential Application Date: 03/19/2018 Owner: COOWNER BAYARD PETER F AND MARGARET A Work Class: Addition Issue Date: 06/19/2018 Subdivision: THUM LANDS Status: Closed - Finaled Expiration Date: 04/22/2019 Address: 1995 Magnolia Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008-2632 IVR Number: 10205 Scheduled Actual Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Status Primary Inspector Reinspection Complete Date Start Date 07/02/2018 07/02/2018 BLDG-SW-Pre-Con 062816.2018 Passed Tim Frazee Complete Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes 07/19/2018 07/19/2018 BLDG-11 064464-2018 Passed Tim Frazee Complete Foundation/Ftg/Pier s (Rebar) Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes BLDG-12 Steel/Bond 064463-2018 Passed Tim Frazee Complete Beam Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes 07/27/2018 07/27/2018 BLDG-14 065234.2018 Partial Pass Tim Frazee Reinspection Incomplete Frame/Steel/Bolting/ Welding (Decks) Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency 2nd floor floor nailing OK in living area Yes 08/14/2018 08/14/2018 BLDG-15 066934-2018 Partial Pass Michael Collins Reinspection Incomplete Roof/ReRoof (Patio) Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency East side upper roof, see card Yes 08/17/2018 08/17/2018 BLDG-15 067342-2018 Partial Pass Tim Frazee Reinspection Incomplete Roof/ReRoof (Patio) Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency East side upper roof, see card Yes Remaining 1st layer of roof sheathing OK 08/24/2018 08/24/2018 BLDG-15 068012.2018 Partial Pass Tim Frazee Reinspection Incomplete Roof/ReRoof (Patio) Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency East side upper roof, see card Yes Remaining 1St layer of roof sheathing OK Roof crickets OK 08/29/2018 08/29/2018 BLDG-84 Rough 068565.2018 Partial Pass Tim Frazee Reinspection Incomplete Combo(14,24,34,44) January 30, 2019 Page 1 of 3 EsGil A SAFEbuiItCompany DATE: 4/27/2018 D APPLICANT S. JURlSDlCTlON:CARLSBAD PLAN CHECK #.: CBR2018-0671 SET: II PROJECT ADDRESS: 1995 MAGNOLIA AVENUE PROJECT NAME: SFD ADDITION FOR BAYARD The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's 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 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: RICHARD HAEGER EsGil staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. EsGil staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted1CA Telephone #: 760 753 0060 Date contacted_ Email: RHAEGER@EARTHLINK.NET Mail Telephone Fax 1n Person LII REMARKS: By: Bert Domingo Enclosures: EsGil 4/19/2018 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (858) 560-1468 • Fax (858) 560-1576 EsGil A SAFEbuI(tCompary DATE: 4/2/2018 D APPLICANT JURISDICTION: CARLSBAD 111W JURIS. PLAN CHECK#.: CBR2018-0671 SET:I PROJECT ADDRESS: 1995 MAGNOLIA AVENUE PROJECT NAME: SFD ADDITION FOR BAYARD The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's 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 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: RICHARD HAEGER EsGil staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. EsGil staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: RICHARD Date contacted: t-J'' (by:—PS In Person Telephone #: 760 753 0060 Email: HAEGER@EARTHLINK.NET Jfl1IL £OL)WcD &4c-k. By: Bert Domingo Enclosures: EsGil 3/22/2018 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (858) 560-1468 • Fax (858) 560-1576 CARLSBAD CBR20 18-0671 4/2/2018 PLAN REVIEW CORRECTION LIST SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND DUPLEXES PLAN CHECK #.: CBR2018-0671 JURISDICTION: CARLSBAD PROJECT ADDRESS: 1995 MAGNOLIA AVENUE FLOOR AREA: STORIES: HEIGHT: REMARKS: DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY JURISDICTION: DATE INITIAL PLAN REVIEW COMPLETED: 4/2/2018 DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 3/22/2018 PLAN REVIEWER: Bert Domingo FOREWORD (PLEASE READ): This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the California version of the International Residential Code, International Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and access for the disabled. This plan review is based on regulations enforced by the Building Department. You may have other corrections based on laws and ordinance by the Planning Department, Engineering Department, Fire Department or other departments. Clearance from those departments may be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Present California law mandates that construction comply with the 2016 edition of the California Code of Regulations (Title 24), which adopts the following model codes: 2015 IRC, 2015 IBC, 2015 UPC, 2015 UMC and 2014 NEC. The above regulations apply, regardless of the code editions adopted by ordinance. 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. 105.4 of the 2015 International Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law. To speed up the recheck process, please note on this list (or a copy) where each correction item has been addressed, i.e., plan sheet number, specification section, etc. Be sure to enclose the marked up list when you submit the revised plans. CARLSBAD CBR20 18-0671 4/2/2018 PLANS Please make all corrections, as requested in the correction list. Submit FOUR new complete sets of plans for commercial/industrial projects (THREE sets of plans for residential projects). For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways: Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department, 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008, (760) 602-2700. The City will route the plans to EsGil and the Carlsbad Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. Bring TWO corrected set of plans and calculations/reports to EsGil, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, CA 92123, (858) 560-1468. Deliver all remaining sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department for routing to their Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. NOTE: Plans that are submitted directly to EsGil only will not be reviewed by the City Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments until review by EsGil is complete. 2. All sheets of plans must be signed by the person responsible for their preparation. (California Business and Professions Code). Plans deviating from conventional wood frame construction shall have the structural portions signed and sealed by the California state licensed engineer or architect responsible for their preparation, along with structural calculations. (California Business and Professions Code). This will be checked on the final. FIRE PROTECTION Please indicate on the plans whether the existing residence has a fire sprinkler system installed. If so, then provide a note stating that any additions/alterations will be provided with an automatic residential fire sprinkler system. Section R313.2. When alterations, repairs or additions are proposed for dwelling units within which fuel-burning appliances are installed (and in dwelling units having attached garages), the dwelling unit shall be provided with carbon monoxide alarms located as required for new dwellings; the carbon monoxide alarms shall be interconnected and hard wired. Exception: Carbon monoxide alarms in existing areas need not be interconnected and hard wired where the alterations or repairs do not result in the removal of interior wall or ceiling finishes exposing the structure, unless there is an attic, crawl space, or basement available which could provide access for hard wiring and interconnection without the removal of interior finishes. Section R315.2. CARLSBAD CBR20 18-0671 4/2/2018 EXITS, STAIRWAYS, AND RAILINGS 6. Guards (Section R312): Shall be installed along open-sided walking surfaces that are located more than 30" above the floor or grade below. Shall have a height of 4" (may be 34" along the sides of stairs). Openings between railings shall be less than 4". The triangular openings formed by the riser, tread and bottom element ofa guardrail at a stair shall be less than 6". Shall be detailed to show capability to resist a concentrated load of 200 pounds in any direction along the top rail. Table R301.5. 7. Provide details of winding stairway complying with Section R311.7.5.2. 1: Minimum tread is 6 inches at any point and minimum 10 inches at a point 12 inches from where the treads are narrowest. Maximum rise is 7-3/4 inches. Minimum width is 36 inches. GARAGE AND CARPORTS 8. Show a self-closing, self-latching door, either 1-3/8" solid core or a listed 20 - minute assembly, for openings between garage and dwelling. Section R302.5.1. ROOFS/DECKS/BALCONIES 9. Balconies and decks shall be designed for 150% of the live load required by Table 1607.1. CBC Table 1607.1, as amended by emergency building standards. 10. Specify on the plans the following information for the deck/balcony surfacing materials, per Section R106:1.1: Manufacturer's name and product name/number. ICC approval number, or equal. 11. Show the required ventilation for attics (or enclosed rafter spaces formed where ceilings are applied directly to the underside of roof rafters). The minimum vent area is 1/150 of attic area (or 1/300 of attic area if at least 40% (but not more than 50%) of the required vent is located no more than 3' below the ridge). Show on the plans the area required and area provided. Section R806.2. a) When using a radiant barrier, California energy design affects the attic ventilation area requirement: If using the Prescriptive method for energy compliance, then the attic vent area must be at the 1/150 area: If using the Performance method, either the 150 or 300 areas may be used, as documented on the energy forms. Section RA4.2.1. CARLSBAD CBR2018-0671 4/2/2018 12. Enclosed rafter spaces do not require venting if the following specific insulation design is used, per Sections R806.5/EM3.9.6: If the insulation is air-permeable and it is installed directly below the roof sheathing with rigid board or sheet insulation with a minimum R-4 value installed above the roof sheathing. (or) If the insulation is air-impermeable and it is in direct contact with the underside of the roof sheathing. (or) If two layers of insulation are installed below the roof sheathing: An air- impermeable layer in direct contact with the underside of the roof sheathing and an additional layer of air permeable insulation installed directly under the air- impermeable insulation. 13. Where eave vents are installed, insulation shall not block the free flow of air. A minimum of 1" of air space shall be provided between the insulation and the roof sheathing. To accommodate the thickness of insulation plus the required 1" clearance, member sizes may have to be increased for rafter-ceiling joists. Section R806.3. 14. Note on the plans: "Attic ventilation openings shall be covered with corrosion-resistant metal mesh with 1/16" minimum to %" maximum openings. Section R806.1. FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS 15. The soils engineer recommended that he/she review the foundation excavations. Note on the foundation plan that "Prior to the contractor requesting a Building Department foundation inspection, the soils engineer shall advise the building official in writing that: The building pad was prepared in accordance with the soils report, The utility trenches have been properly backfilled and compacted, and The foundation excavations, the soils expansive characteristics and bearing capacity conform to the soils report." 16. Provide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the foundation plan, grading plan and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the soils report are properly incorporated into the construction documents. PLUMBING 17. Show water heater size (1st hour rating), type, and location on plans. Note: For both new dwellings and additions the Energy Standards (150.0(n)) requires a gas input rating of 200,000 Btu for both tank and instantaneous gas water heaters. (Also) Provide a gas piping design for the gas system. CARLSBAD CBR20 18-0671 4/2/2018 An instantaneous water heater is shown on the plans. Please include a gas pipe sizing design (isometric or pipe layout) for all gas loads. a) The gas pipe sizing for a tank type water heater shall be based upon a minimum 199,000 Btu gas input rating. Energy Standards 150.0(n). Specify on the plans: Water conserving fixtures: New water closets shall use no more than 1.28 gallons of water per flush, kitchen faucets may not exceed 1.8 GPM, lavatories are limited to 1.2 GPM, and showerheads may not exceed 2.0 GPM of flow. CPC Sections 407, 408, 411, 412. Specify on the plans whether the existing house was built before or after 1994. For additions or improvements to a residence built before 1994, note on the plans that existing "noncompliant" fixtures (toilets that use more than 1.6 gallons of water per flush, urinals that use more than one gallon of water per flush, showerheads that have a flow capacity of more than 2.5 gallons of water per minute, and interior faucets that emit more than 2.2 gallons of water per minute) shall be replaced. Certification of compliance shall be given to the building inspector prior to final permit approval. California SB407. RESIDENTIAL GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS The California Building Standards Commission has adopted the Green Building Standards Code and must be enforced by the local building official. The following mandatory requirements for residential construction must be included on your plans. CGC Section 101.3. The Standards apply to newly constructed residential buildings, along with additions/alterations that increase the building's conditioned area, volume or size. CGC Section 301.1.1. Provide a sheet on the plans labeled "Green Building Code Requirements" and include the following notes as applicable. Indoor water use. Show compliance with the following table, per CGC Section 4.303.1. FIXTURE FLOW RATES FIXTURE TYPE MAXIMUM FLOW RATE Water closets 1.28 gallons/flush Urinals (wall-mounted) 0.125 gallon/flush Urinals (others) 0.5 gallon/flUsh Showerheads 2 gpm © 80 psi Lavatory faucets 1.2 gpm @ 60 psi' Kitchen faucets 1.8 gpm © 60 psi CARLSBAD CBR20 18-0671 4/2/2018 IMeterina faucets I 0.25 aallons . Lavatory faucets shall not have a flow rate less than 0.8 gpm at 20 psi. Note on the plans that when a shower is provided with multiple shower heads, the sum of flow to all the heads shall not exceed 2.0 gpm @ 80 psi, or the shower shall be designed so that only one head is on at a time. CGC Section 4.303.1.3.2. Note on the plans that landscape irrigation water use shall have weather or soil based controllers. CGC Section 4.304.1. Recycling. Note on the plans that a minimum of 65% of construction waste is to be recycled. CGC Section 4.408.1. Recycling. Note on the plans that the contractor shall submit a Construction Waste Management Plan, per CGC Section 4.408.2. Operation and maintenance manual. Note on the plans that the builder is to provide an operation manual (containing information for maintaining appliances, etc.) for the owner at the time of final inspection. CGC Section 4.410.1. Note on the plans that the gas fireplace(s) shall be a direct-vent sealed- combustion type. Woodstove or pellet stoves must be US EPA Phase II rated appliances. CGC Section 4.503.1. Pollutant control. Note on the plans that during construction, ends of duct openings are to be sealed, and mechanical equipment is to be covered. CGC Section 4.504.1. Pollutant control. Note on the plans that VOC's must comply with the limitations listed in Section 4504.3 and Tables 4.504.1, 4.504.2, 4.504.3 and 4.504.5 for: Adhesives, Paints and Coatings, Carpet and Composition Wood Products. CGC Section 4.504.2. Interior moisture control. Note on the plans that concrete slabs will be provided with a capillary break. CGC Section 4.505.2.1. Interior moisture control. Note on the plans that the moisture content of wood shall not exceed 19% before it is enclosed in construction. The moisture content needs to be certified by one of 3 methods specified. Building materials with visible signs of water damage should not be used in construction. The moisture content must be determined by the contractor by one of the methods listed in CGC Section 4.505.3. Indoor air quality. Note on the plans that bathroom fans shall be Energy Star rated, vented directly to the outside and controlled by a humidistat. CGC 4.506.1. CARLSBAD CBR20 18-0671 4/2/2018 Note on the plans that prior to final inspection the licensed contractor, architect or engineer in responsible charge of the overall construction must provide to the building department official written verification that all applicable provisions from the Green Building Standards Code have been implemented as part of the construction. CGC 102.3. ENERGY CONSERVATION Include on the Title Sheet of the plans the following statement: "Compliance with the documentation requirements of the 2016 Energy Efficiency Standards is necessary for this project. Registered, signed, and dated copies of the appropriate CF1R, CF2R, and CF3R forms shall be made available at necessary intervals for Building Inspector review. Final completed forms will be available for the building owner." Instantaneous water heaters shall have isolation valves on both the cold and the hot water piping leaving the water heater complete with hose bibs or other fittings on each valve for flushing the water heater when the valves are closed. ES 110.3 All domestic hot water piping to have the following minimum insulation installed: %" pipe (1/2" insulation); 3/4" pipe (1" insulation); 1" to 1-W' pipe (1-W insulation). CPC 609.11 & ES 150.00) a) Additionally, the 1/2" hot water pipe to the kitchen sink, and the cold water pipe within 5' of the water heater both require 1" minimum insulation. ES 150.0(j) MISCELLANEOUS Please show how the window 10 of the master's room framing would be supported. Please show how the stairs steps would be supported by the stringer. Please show the length of each shear wall. Please show how the existing trellis would be connected to the new framing of the addition. IV CARLSBAD CBR2018-0671 4/2/2018 To speed up the review process, note on this list (or a copy) where each correction item has been addressed, i.e., plan sheet, note or detail number, calculation page, etc. 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 in the plans. Have changes been made to the plans not resulting from this correction list? Please indicate: Yes E3 No The jurisdiction has contracted with EsGil, 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 Bert Domingo at EsGil. Thank you. CARLSBAD CBR20 18-0671 4/2/2018 [DO NOT PAY— THIS IS NOTAN INVOICE] VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: CARLSBAD PLAN CHECK #.: CBR2018-0671 PREPARED BY: Bert Domingo DATE: 4/2/2018 BUILDING ADDRESS: 1995 MAGNOLIA AVENUE BUILDING OCCUPANCY: R 3 BUILDING PORTION AREA (Sq. Ft.) Valuation Multiplier Reg. Mod. VALUE ($) CTY ESTIMATE 116,952 Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE 116,952 Jurisdiction Code ICB IBY Ordinance I 1997 UBC Building Permit Fee 1997 UBC Plan Check Fee Type of Review: Complete Review D Structural Only Eli Other Repetitive Fee I Repeats El Hourly Hr. @ * EsGil Fee Comments: [In addition to the above fee, an additional fee of /hr.) for the CalGreen review. I $391.251 is due ( hour@ Sheet 1 of I LQELTA ENGINEERING CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 8736 PRODUCTION AVE. SANDIEGO,92121' Tele: (858) 566-8855' Fax: (858) 566-8955' Project: By: Date: Sht. No. ... Of Subject: , - Job No., H . — SEC TIONA-A PLAN NEW . b ' _..— 115$ 2 2 115 STEEL POST 4.O(MAX)EEFYWI • • .5 ,,'• ARc*FL C iisl" S / 114.11111. 5 5 STEEL PLATE WI (4}.170 LAOS 1 8 MIN. / ,.. PLYWOOD SIIEATI$NG PENETRATION INTO BEAM A ' "A / PER PLAN BELOW 'I. L FLOOR JOIST PER PLAN "-'. SIMPSON imiz. — S FLOOR BEAM PER : Li pO7 .;41'l l t) r : -'' I'° r ___ c9 d ' : "S 9() '67 1 * S.. • 'r 0 re 4/1 L () . .4 .• I _ o. b • O r-r (• S S ' tdL • ___ fr•cc e. I TpdLT 'ai11 /L -. ./ _ (_• ( .1 ,.hO9 1__( A,I'IWt P T?kT16I ? r1t u,r 7Gç / SItS GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS. INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers & Geologists 5931 Sea Lion Plade, Suite 109 Carlsbad, CalifOrnia 92010 Office: 760-602-7815 smsgeosol.in'cgmail.com Project No. GI-1742-158 April 6, 2017 Peter & Margaret Bayard -- - --. Carlsbad, California 92008 Geotechnical Foundation Plan Review, Proposed Second Story Building Addition Bayard Residence, 1995 Magnolia Avenue, Carlsbad, Cahforma Project foundation plan and details, prepared by Delta Engineering, dated March 19, 2018 for the proposed secotid story building additions at the above-referenced property were provided to us for review and comment. The project property was the subject of a limited geotechnical study completed by this office. Our efforts resulted in the following technical report: Limited Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Second Story Building Addition Bayard Residence 1995 Magnolia Avenue Carlsbad, California Project No. GI-17-12-158, Dated January 18, 2018 The referenced report is on file with our office and copies can be obtained upon request. The purpose of this work was to review the project foundation plan and details, from a geotechnical engineering viewpoint, and confirm their compatibility with the site indicated geotechnical conditions, and recommendations given in the referenced report. Based on our review, the project foundation plan and details are in substantial conformance with the referenced Limited Geotechnical Investigation report, and are acceptable to us. The following comments are also appropriate and should be considered as necessary and reflected on the final plans, where applicable: - Peter & Margaret Bayard April 6, 2018 Page 2 The project Limited Geotechnical Investigation report shall be referenced on, and considered a part of the project foundation plans. Foundation trench over-excavations, preparations, stabilization and backfihling to the bottom of foundation level shall be carried out as specified in the referenced report, observed and approved by the project geotechnical consultant. Steel placement can only be proceeded after approval of the foundation trenches by the project geotechnical consultant. LIMITATIONS This geotechnical plan review is not a "Plan Check Review" and does not relieve the responsibility of the project design consultant(s) and contractor(s) to get completely familiarized with the requirements of the project soil report(s) and fully incorporate its recommendations into the project design, plans and construction works, where appropriate, and as applicable. Our review and comments are for general geotechnical conformance of the project plans with the intent of the project soil report and design recommendations. Review of structural and civil engineering calculations, architectural intent and structural and civil engineering design modeling and basis, verification of set back requirements, easements and right-of-ways, as well as code, city and county complianàe are beyond geotechnical engineering services. It is the owner's or his (her) representative's responsibility to provide copies of all pertinent soil report(s), updates, addendum letters and plan review letters to respective design consultant(s), and general contractor and his (her) subcontractor(s) for full compliance. Should any questions arise concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Reference to our Project No GI-17-12-158 will help to expedite our response to your inquiries. This opportunity to be of service again is sincerely appreciated. <S)PIN Geotechnical Solutions, No. 2885 idi S. Shariat #2885 Distribution: Addressee (e-mail) Richard Haeger Associates (1, e-mail) SJPIS GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. Limited Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Second Story Building Addition Bayard Residence 1995 Magnolia Avenue Carlsbad, California January 18, 2018 Prepared For: Peter & Margaret Bayard 1995 Magnolia Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Prepared By: Si!lSGeotechnical Solutions, Inc. 5931 Sea LiOn Place, Suite 109 Carlsbad, California 92010 Project No. GI-17-12-158 7\Z..2Oc6 -O('fl 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. INTRODUCTION . 1 II. SITE DESCRIPTION ...................................................1 III. PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION .......................................2 IV. SITE INVESTIGATION .................................................2 V. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ........................................2 Shallow Bearing Soils .................................................3 Groundwater and Surface Drainage .....................................3 Geologic Hazards .....................................................4 Faults/Seismicity .....................................................4 Seismic Ground Motion Values .........................................S Laboratory Tests and Test Results ......................................5 VI. SITE CORROSION ASSESSMENT .......................................9 VII. CONCLUSIONS .......................................................10 VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................11 Limited Earthworks and Remedial Bearing Soil Preparations ..............11 New Foundations ....................................................15 Soil Design Parameters ...............................................15 General Recommendations ............................................16 IX. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OF RECORD (GER) .......................17 X. LIMITATIONS ........................................................18 FIGURES RegionalIndex Map ............................................................1 Approximate Geotechnical Site Plan .............................................2 TestPit Logs ..............................................................3&4 Fault-Epicenter Map ..........................................................5 SieveAnalysis ................................................................6 Typical& Conceptual Detail ....................................................7 APPENDIX Sill GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers & GeolOgists 5931 Sea Lion Place, Suite 109 Carlsbad, California 92010 760-602-7815 smsgeosol.incgmail.com Project No. GI-17-12-158 January 18, 2018 Peter & Margaret Bayard 1995 Magnolia Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Second Story Building Addition Bayard Residence, 1995 Magnolia Avenue, Carlsbad, California Pursuant to your request, SIWS Geotechnical Solutions Inc. has completed the attached Limited Geotechnical Investigation report for the proposed second story building addition at the above- referenced residence. The following report summarizes the results of our shallow exploratory test pit excavations, field I sampling, laboratory testing, engineering analysis, and provides conclusions and recommendations for the proposed new second story building addition, as understood. From a geotechnical engineering standpoint, it is our opinion that construction of the proposed second story building I addition substantially as proposed, is feasible provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. The conclusions and recommendations provided in this study are consistent with the site indicated geotechnical conditions and are intended to aid in preparation of final construction plans and allow more accurate estimates of associated costs. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any questions or need clarification, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Reference to our Project No. 17-12-158 will help to expedite our response to your inquiries. NGcal Solutions, Inc. W. 28805 idi S. Shariat #2885 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................1 II. SITE DESCRIPTION ...................................................1 III. PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION ......................................2 IV. SITE INVESTIGATION .................................................2 V. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ........................................2 Shallow Bearing Soils .................................................3 Groundwater and Surface Drainage .....................................3 Geologic Hazards ....................................................4 Faults/Seismicity .....................................................4 Seismic Ground Motion Values .........................................5 Laboratory Tests and Test Results ......................................5 VI. SITE CORROSION ASSESSMENT .......................................9 VII. CONCLUSIONS .......................................................10 VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................11 Limited Earthworks and Remedial Bearing Soil Preparations ..............11 New Foundations ....................................................15 Soil Design Parameters ...............................................15 General Recommendations ............................................16 IX. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OF RECORD (GER) .......................17 X. LIMITATIONS ........................................................18 FIGURES RegionalIndex Map ...........................................................1 Approximate Geotechnical Site Plan .............................................2 TestPit Logs .............................................................3&4 Fault-Epicenter Map ..........................................................5 SieveAnalysis ................................................................6 Typical & Conceptual Detail .....................................................7 APPENDIX LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED SECOND STORY BUILDING ADDITION BAYARD RESIDENCE 1995 MAGNOLIA AVENUE I CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA I. INTRODUCTION I The project property consists of an existing single-family residence located on the southwest corner of Magnolia Avenue and Monroe Street, east of the Interstate 5 Freeway within the city limits of Carlsbad. Approximate property location is shown on a Regional Index Map attached to this report I as Figure 1. The approximate property coordinates are 33.1603°N latitude and -117.3258°W longitude. I We understand that a new second floor addition is planned above the western portions of the existing single-story building. Consequently, the purpose of this limited investigation was to evaluate shallow bearing and subgrade soil conditions near the project second floor addition areas, and to ascertain I their influence upon the planned new construction. Shallow exploratory test excavation and soil sampling, laboratory testing and engineering analysis were among the activities conducted in conjunction with this limited effort which has resulted in the foundation recommendations presented I herein. The scope of this work is limited to the planned second floor addition as specifically delineated in I this report. Other areas of the property including the existing residence, structures, and improvements, not investigated, were beyond the scope of this work. I II. SITE DESCRIPTION I An approximate Geotechnical Site Plan reproduced from the architectural site plan provided to us is included as Figure 2. In general, the property is an older development consisting of a nearly level graded building pad which currently supports an existing single-story residence with the associated I structures and improvements. Prior building additions and modifications to the original construction are apparent. Engineering and construction records pertaining to the original site development and subsequent modifications and additions were not available. A concrete driveway provides access to the property via Magnolia Avenue. A concrete patio with apparent different pour and construction episodes occur on the westside of the building. Elsewhere, the building's perimeter is generally provided with a narrow sidewalk that transitions to landscaping and grass covered surfaces. A short retaining wall, less that 3 feet in maximum height, also occurs along the western property line. Overall site drainage appears to be modestly developed and appears to be mostly sheetfiow toward Magnolia Avenue. However, site yard surfaces are locally irregular with no well-defined drainage pattern. Excessive scouring or erosion is not present. Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Second Story Building January 18, 2018 Addition, Bayard Residence, 1995 Magnolia Avenue, Carlsbad, California Page 2 I III. PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION A new second story will be added above the western portions of the existing single-story building, as shown on the enclosed Approximate Geotechnical Site Plan, Figure 2. Associated structures consist of an interior stair case. Major grading efforts or significant pad grade alterations are not proposed, nor are any extensive first floor modifications planned. Project earthwork operations will chiefly consist of foundation trench excavations and bearing soil precautions. Based on our understanding of the project, the planned second story construction will consist of a conventional wood-frame with exterior stucco similar to the existing building, supported on new spread pad type posts footings. For this purpose, local saw cutting of the existing interior floor and exterior concrete patio slabs at the new foundation locations will be necessary. New spread pad footings will be doweled and connected to the existing footings/floor slabs, or interconnected with new grading beams. R IV. SITE INVESTIGATION I Geotechnical conditions at the project property were chiefly evaluated by surface observations and limited subsurface explorations with an excavation of two shallow hand-dug exploratory test pits near the project's second story addition areas. Locations of the exploratory test pits were limited due to the existing site structures and imposements occupying the project areas. The test pits were first hand-dug to a depth of 3 feet, then a hand-auger was used to further advance to a maximum depth I of 5.5 feet below the existing ground surface (BGS). The exploratory test pits were logged by our project staff geologist, who also retained representative I samples of the site earth materials at selected locations and intervals for subsequent laboratory testing. Approximate test pit locations are shown on the enclosed Approximate Geotechnical Site Plan, Figure 2. Detailed logs of the test pits are attached as Figures 3 and 4. Test results and I engineering properties of the tested bearing soils representative samples are summarized in the following sections. V. GEOTECHMCAL CONDITIONS The property is an older development with existing level building pad surfaces originally created by I minor to modest conventional grading efforts. Apparently subsequent additions and construction activities have also been carried out. Records of engineering observations and compaction testing pertaining to the original level building pad development and building construction, as well as I subsequent additions are not available for our review. I Limited Geotechmcal Investigation, Proposed Second Story Building January 18, 2018 I Addition, Bayard Residence, 1995 Magnolia Avenue, Carlsbad, California Page 3 Shallow Bearini! Soils The project property is underlain at shallow depths by natural Terrace Deposits that are I exposed widely along coastal areas of Carlsbad. Based on our limited study, instability which could preclude construction of the planned second story addition supported on new I foundations, as currently proposed, was not readily in evidence at the time of this effort. Limited subsurface explorations completed suggest that the planned new footing areas at the I property are underlain by a section of artificial fills and local topsoils over natural Terrace Deposits below. A thin mantle of loose surficial gardening soils on the order of 6 inches overlay the site artificial fills topsoils. Overall, the upper fills chiefly consist of light to medium brown silty fine to medium sand in moist and loose to medium dense conditions. Locally, a thin section of brown to tan color, very moist to very wet soft sandy clay to clayey sand topsoil layer, on the order of 6 inches thick, was encountered below the fills in Test Pit TP-1 (see Figure 3). Below, tan orange to olive green clayey sand silt Terrace Deposits were exposed at the depths of 3.5 and 4.5 feet (BGS). The Terrace Deposits, as encountered in our subsurface explorations, chiefly occur in deeply weathered and medium dense to stiff conditions. Exploratory test excavations indicated wet to very wet soil conditions along the contact of the site fills/topsoils and Terrace Deposits. Groundwater and Surface Drainage Free subsurface water was not encountered in our shallow test pit exploratory excavations. However, wet to very wet soil conditions were encountered at the fills/topsoils contact with the underlying Terrace deposits at depths of 3.5 to 4 feet (BGS) suggesting potential for water seeps into the foundation trench excavations. The wet subsoil conditions are thought to represent irrigation or meteoric water infiltrating through upper sandy soils and traveling atop less permeable topsoil layers and Terrace Deposits. Consequently, some local dewatering efforts using a sump pump or similar techniques should be anticipated to complete trench excavation to the specified depths, and carry out bearing soil preparations, as specified herein. Bearing soils stabilization and mitigation measure should also incorporate placement of a section of well-consolidated and interlocked %-inch crushed rocks to a minimum of 6 inches above the wet soil contact, as recommended in the following sections, unless otherwise directed in the field. Wet soils generated from the site foundation trench excavations are also recommended for removal and export. We also recommend using good quality Class 2 crushed aggregate base materials for establishing the bottom of foundation levels in order to facilitate and expedite remedial bearing soil preparation and compaction in very limited access exposure areas. I I I I LI I Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Second Story Building January 18, 2018 I Addition, Bayard Residence, 1995 Magnolia Avenue, Carlsbad, California Page 4 Like all developed graded properties, proper control over surface drainage is an important factor in the continued stability of the existing and planned new structures. Surface water should not be allowed to occur on the finished pad and improvement surfaces or allowed to penetrate into the underlying foundation bearing and subgrade soils. Surface run off and roof waters should be collected and directed on the front street in a controlled manner. Over- watering of site vegetation should be avoided. Geologic Hazards 5 Significant geologic hazards are not presently indicated at the project site. Large graded and natural slopes are also not present on or in a very close proximity to the study areas, nor are I any planned for with the proposed building addition. The most significant geologic hazards at the property will be those associated with ground shaking in the event of a major seismic event. Liquefaction or related ground rupture failures are not anticipated. Faults/Seismici Based upon available seismic data, compiled from California Earthquake Catalogs, the most significant historical event in the area of the study site occurred in 1800 at an estimated distance of 11.2 miles from the project area. This event, which is thought to have occurred along an offshore fault, reached an estimated magnitude of 6.5 with an estimated bedrock acceleration value of 0.145g at the project site. The following list represents the most sig nificant faults which commonly impact the region. Estimated ground acceleration data compiled from Digitized California Faults (Computer Program EQFAULT VERSION 3.00 updated) typically associated with each fault is also tabulated. I I FAULT ZONE DISTANCE FROM SITE MAXIMUM PROBABLE ACCELERATION (RH.) Rose Canyon Fault 5.7 Miles 0.229g Newport-Inglewood Fault 6.0 Miles 0.222g Coronado Bank Fault 21.9 Miles 0.180g Elsinore-Julian Fault 23.5 Miles 0. 145g I Limited Geotechmcal Investigation, Proposed Second Story Building January 18, 2018 I Addition, Bayard Residence, 1995 Magnolia Avenue, Carlsbad, California Page 5 I The location of significant faults and earthquake events relative to the study site are depicted on a Fault - Epicenter Map attached to this report as Figure 5. I Fault zones tabulated in the preceding table are considered most likely to impact the region of the study site during the lifetime of the project. The faults are periodically active and capable of generating moderate to locally high levels of ground shaking at the site. Ground I separation as a result of seismic activity is not expected at the property. Seismic Ground Motion Values Seismic ground motion values were evaluated as part of this investigation in accordance with I Chapter 16, Section 1613 of the 2016 California Building Code (CBC) and ASCE 7-10 Standard using the web-based United States Geological Survey (USGS) ground motion calculator. Generated results including the Mapped (Ss, Si), Risk-Targeted Maximum I Considered Earthquake (MCER) adjusted for Site Class effects (SMs, SMI) and Design (SDs, SDI) Spectral Acceleration Parameters as well as Site Coefficients (Fa, Fv) for short periods (0.20 second) and 1-second period, Site Class, Design and Risk-Targeted Maximum I Considered Earthquake (MCER) Response Spectrum, Mapped Maximum Considered Geometric Mean (MCEG) Peak Ground Acceleration adjusted for Site Class effects (PGAM) and Seismic Design Category based on Risk Category and the severity of the design I earthquake ground motion at the site are summarized in the enclosed Appendix. Laboratory Tests and Test Results Representatives of near surface bearing soils encountered in our shallow exploratory test pit excavations were closely examined and sampled for subsequent laboratory testing. Based upon our shallow test pit exposures, site soils have been grouped into the following soil types: TABLE 2 Soil Type: Description Tan to medium brown silty fine sand (Fill) 2 Light brown sandy clay to clayey sand (Topsoil) 3 Tan orange to olive green clayey sand to sandy silt (Terrace Deposits) Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Second Story Building January 18, 2018 I Addition, Bayard Residence, 1995 Magnolia Avenue, Carlsbad, California Page 6 I The following tests were conducted in support of this investigation: I i. Grain Size Analysis: Grain size analyses were performed on representative samples of Soil Types I and 3. The test results are graphically presented on the attached Figure 6 and tabulated in Table 3 below. 1 TABLE 3 L Sieve Size F3-_T 1 V" I 1" I " I 'A" I #4 I no I #20 I #40 I #100 I #200 Location Soil Type I Percent Passing TP-1@3' 1 100 1 100 99 97 78 32 23 TP-12@4.5' 3 100 100 100 99 88 56 48 I 2. Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of Soil Type 1 was determined in accordance with ASTM Dl 557. I The results are presented in Table 4. TABLE 4 Location Soil Type Maximum Dry Density (Tm-.pcf) Optimum Moisture Content (opt-%) I TP-1@3' I 1 I 123 I 10 I 3. Unit Weight & Moisture Content Tests: In-place dry density and moisture content of collected representative soil samples were determined from in-place sand-cone density tests in accordance with ASTM Dl 556, and relatively undisturbed chunk samples using the Water I Displacement method (Method A) in accordance with ASTM D7263, and Water Content of Soil and Rock by Mass test method in accordance with ASTM D2216. The results are presented in Table 5 below and tabulated on the attached Test Pit logs. I Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Second Story Building January 18, 2018 Addition, Bayard Residence, 1995 Magnolia Avenue, Carlsbad, California Page 7 TABLE 5 Sample Soil Field Moisture Field Dry Max. Dry In-Place Degree of Location Type Content Density (Td-pcl) Density (tm-pci) Relative. . Compaction Saturation (%) TP- 1 @ 1' 1 6 103.2 123 84 27 TP-1@2' 1 9 109.1 123 89 49 TP-1@3' 1 11 106.8 123 87 55 TP- 1 @ 4.5' 3 16 109.3 - - 87 TP-2@2' 1 10 107.8 123 88 52 TP-2@4' 3 16 109.9 - - 87 Assumptions and Relationships: In-place Relative Compaction = (Td + Tm) X 10 Gs = 2.60 e= (Gs T~ Td) - I S = (w Gs) — e 4. Expansion Index Test: One expansion index test was performed on a representative sample of Soil Type 1 in accordance with ASTM D4829. The result is presented in Table 6. TABLE 6 Sample Location Soil Type Molded Co (%) Degree of Saturation (%) Final. Initial Dry Density Measured El El 0 50/0 Saturation TP-1@3' 1 8 41 ( 14 112.3 0 0 1 (w) = moisture content in percent. E150 = Elmeas - (50 - Sineas) ((65 + Elmeas) - (220 - Smeas)) Expansion Index (El) Expansion Potential 0-20 Very Low 21-50 Low 51-90 Medium 91 -130 High _____- >130 VervHinh Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Second Story Building January 18, 2018 Addition, Bayard Residence, 1995 Magnolia Avenue, Carlsbad, California Page 8 5. Direct Shear Test: One direct shear test was performed on a representative sample of Soil Type 1. The prepared specimen was soaked overnight, loaded with normal loads of 1, 2, and 4 kips per square foot respectively, and sheared to failure in an undrained condition. The result is presented in Table 7. TABLE 7 Sample Soil Sample Unit Angle of Apparent Location Type Condition Weight Int. Fnc Cohesion wpcf), (6-Deg.) TP I @ 3' 1 [ Remolded to 90% of Tm @.%o0pt 123.4 29 180 6. pH and Resistivity Test: pH and resistivity of a representative sample of Soil Type I was determined using "Method for Estimating the Service Life of Steel Culverts," in accordance with the California Test Method (CTM) 643. The result is tabulated in Table 8. TABLE 8 7. Sulfate Test: A sulfate test was performed on a representative sample of Soil Type 1 in accordance with the California Test Method (CTM) 417. The result is presented in Table 9. TABLE 9 Sample Location Soil Type Amount o 4 Water Soluble Sulfate In Soil (% by Weight)' TP-1 @ Y I I I 0.009 I 8. Chloride Test: A chloride test was performed on a representative sample of Soil Type 1 in accordance with the California Test Method (CTM) 422. The result is presented in Table 10. I Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Second Story Building January 18, 2018 Addition, Bayard Residence, 1995 Magnolia Avenue, Carlsbad, California Page 9 TABLE 10 Sample Location J Soil Type J Amount of Water Soluble Chloride In Soil (% by Weight) TP- 1 @ 1' I 1 I 0.005 1 VI. SITE CORROSION ASSESSMENT A site is considered to be corrosive to foundation elements, walls and drainage structures if one or more of the following conditions exist: * Sulfate concentration is greater than or equal to 2000 ppm (0.2% by weight). * Chloride concentration is greater than or equal to 500 ppm (0.05 % by weight). * pH is less than 5.5. For structural elements, the minimum resistivity of soil (or water) indicates the relative quantity of soluble salts present in the soil (or water). in general, a minimum resistivity value for soil (or water) less than 1000 ohm-cm indicates a potential for presence of high quantities of soluble salts and a higher propensity for corrosion. Appropriate corrosion mitigation measures for corrosive conditions should be selected depending on the service environment, amount of aggressive ion salts (chloride or sulfate), pH levels, and the desired service life of the structure. Results of limited laboratory tests performed on selected representative samples of onsite soils indicate that the minimum resistivity is greater than 1000 ohm-cm suggesting a presence of low quantities of soluble salts. Test results further indicate that pH levels are greater than 5.5, sulfate concentrations are less than 2000 ppm, and chloride concentration levels are less than 500 ppm. Based on the results of the available limited corrosion analyses, the project site is considered non- corrosive. The project site is located more than 1000 feet from salt or brackish water sources (approximately 1.5 mile from the Pacific Ocean). Based upon the result of the tested soil sample, the amount of water soluble sulfate (SO4) was found to be 0.009 percent by weight, which is considered negligible according to ACI 318 (SO Exposure Class with Not Applicable severity). Concrete consisting of Portland cement Type II with minimum 28 days compressive strength (f c) of 2500 psi and maximum 0.50 water-cement ratio is typically I considered adequate for SO Class exposure unless otherwise specified, or noted on the project plans. I Table 11 below is appropriate based on the pH-Resistivity test results, and protective measures should be considered for buried metal pipes, conduits and improvements, where appropriate and as necessary: I I I I I I I I I I I I Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Second Story Building January 18, 2018 Addition, Bayard Residence, 1995 Magnolia Avenue, Carlsbad, California Page 10 TABLE 11 Design Soil Type Gauge 16 - 14 12 10 8 1 Years to Perforation of Metal Culverts 11 1 15 20 26 31 I VII. CONCLUSIONS Based upon the foregoing investigation, construction of the proposed second story building addition, substantially as planned, is considered feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint. However, trench excavations for the new spread pad foundations planned for the support of the second story are expected to expose soft to loose and locally wet to very wet fills and topsoils at shallow depths, which are not considered suitable bearing soils. Consequently, adequate mitigation and stabilization work will be required in order to develop safe and stable bearing soils for structural support. The following factors are unique to the study portion of the property and will impact construction procedures of the second story building addition from a geotechnical viewpoint the most: Evidence of landslides, faults, liquefaction, seismically induced settlements or other significant adverse geologic hazards which could preclude construction of the new second story building addition were not indicated during our limited site study. The new building addition is planned above the western portion of the existing older single story residence, supported on new spread pad type post foundations. Records of engineering I . observation and testing pertaining to the original building pad development and subsequent building construction are unavailable. Major earthwork operations or extensive first floor modifications are not planned. Project earthworks associated with the planned construction will chiefly consist of saw cutting and removal of the existing interior floor and exterior patio slabs, where necessary at the new foundation locations, foundation trench excavations and bearing soil preparations. Wet to very wet soil conditions were encountered at the depths of 3.5 to 4 feet (BGS) which I suggest potential for water to seep into the foundation trench excavations, and may require some local dewatering efforts to complete trenching and stabilization works. I 5. Stabilization and mitigation of the existing soft to loose and locally wet to very wet soils are required to construct stable bearing soils suitable for the support of new second story I building addition foundations. Typical stabilization techniques include excavations and removal of the soft and wet soils at the foundation trench locations, placement of a section of well-consolidated and interlocked %-inch crushed rocks to a minimum of 6 inches above I the wet soil contact, and reconstruction of the bottom of the foundation trench with Class 2 crushed aggregate base materials, as specified below. Alternately, and in the absence of "free" groundwater intrusions, the over-excavated trenches may be backfilled with concrete I slurry to bottom of footing level(s) as recommended in the following sections. LI I Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Second Story Building January 18, 2018 I Addition, Bayard Residence, 1995 Magnolia Avenue, Carlsbad, California Page 11 I 6. Based on our limited field exploration and laboratory testing, existing shallow bearing soils at the project site chiefly consist of clayey to silty sandy(SM/SP) deposits with very low I expansion potential (expansion index less than 20) based on ASTM D4829 classification. Exporting the onsite soft to loose and wet soils and reconstruction of the bottom of foundation trenches with Class 2 crushed aggregate base materials (SW) is also I recommended in the following sections. Consequently, expensive soils will not be a major geotechnical concern in the construction of the planned new second story building addition. I 7. Added care will be required to avoid any damages to the existing building, nearby foundations, structures and improvements due to the site foundation trenching and bearing soils stabilization works. For this purpose, temporary foundation trench shoring support I using hydraulic jacks and metal rails (or similar techniques) may be necessary and should be anticipated, as discussed in the following sections. I 8. Post construction settlements are not expected to be a major geotechnical concern provided our stabilization and remedial foundation bearing soil preparations, and foundation recommendations are followed. Post construction settlements after bearing and subgrade soils preparation and recompaction works, as specified herein are not expected to exceed approximately 1-inch, and should occur below the heaviest loaded footings. The magnitude of post construction differential settlements, as expressed in terms of angular distortion, is I not anticipated to exceed ',4-inch between similar adjacent structural elements. I V!!!. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are provided based on the available geotechnical data generated during this limited effort, and scheme of the proposed second story building addition, as understood. Added or modified recommendations may also be appropriate and should be provided by the project geotechnical consultant at the time of engineering observations of foundation trench excavations, bearing soil preparation and compaction testing, and should be anticipated: A. Limited Earthworks and Remedial Bearing Soil PreDarations U The recommended stabilization and remedial bearing soil preparations with the associated earthworks and geotechnical foundation designs are schematically illustrated on the enclosed I Typical & Conceptual Detail, Figure 7. All excavations, trenching, earthworks, construction, and bearing soil preparation should be completed in accordance with Chapter 18 (Soils and Foundations) and Appendix "J" (Grading) of the 2016 California Building Code (CBC), City I of Carlsbad Ordinances, the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, and the requirements of the following sections wherever applicable. I Limited Geotechmcal Investigation, Proposed Second Story Building January 18, 2018 I Addition, Bayard Residence, 1995 Magnolia Avenue, Carlsbad, California Page 12 I 1. Existing Underground Utilities and Structures: All existing underground waterlines, sewer lines, pipes, storm drains, utilities, tanks, structures, and improvements at or I nearby the project excavations, trenching, remedial earthworks and new construction should be thoroughly potholed, identified and marked prior to the initiation of the actual works. Specific geotechnical engineering recommendations maybe required based on the I actual field locations, pipe invert elevations, and backfill conditions in the event of a conflict. I Utility lines may need to be temporarily redirected, if necessary, or permanently relocated, as appropriate and shown on the approved project plans. I Abandoned irrigation lines, pipes, and conduits should be properly removed, capped or sealed off to prevent any potential for future water infiltrations into the foundation bearing and subgrade soils. Voids created by the removals of the abandoned underground I pipes, tanks and structures should be properly backfilled with compacted fills in accordance with the requirements of this report. 2. Foundation Trenching, Bottom Stabilization and Dewatering: Existing interior floor and exterior slabs in the planned new foundation locations should be neatly saw cut and removed, where necessary and as appropriate. Saw cut concrete should be properly removed and all debris properly disposed of from the site. I Foundation trenching can then proceed at the each new spread pad footing location, as shown on the project plans. Foundation trenching should be adequately over-excavated to remove all soft to loose fills/topsoils, extended a minimum of 6 inches into the underlying Terrace Deposits, as approved in the field. Based on available limited subsurface exposures, foundation trench over-excavation depths ranging from 48 to 60 inches should be anticipated. However, locally deeper over-excavations maybe necessary based on actual field exposures and cannot be ruled out. Excessive wet soil conditions or significant moisture intrusions or water seeps into the over-excavated fo undation trenches are anticipated. In this case, the over-excavated trenches should be provided with a minimum 12-inch thick stabilization 3/4-inch crushed rock layer, extending to a minimum of 6 inches above the wet soil contact as directed in the field (also see Figure 7). Some dewatering efforts using a sump pump (or similar techniques) should also be anticipated to facilitate and complete foundation trench over- excavations to the specified depths, and carry out subsequent rock placement and backfilling. The 34-inch crushed rock layer should be well-consolidated and mechanically interlocked with limited excess construction equipment (whackers and/or tampers). A layer of soil separation fabric (Mirafi 140N or equal) should be placed over the crushed rock mat prior to placement of Class 2 aggregate base fill materials. Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Second Story Building January 18, 2018 Addition, Bayard Residence, 1995 Magnolia Avenue, Carlsbad, California Page 13 In the absence of "free" groundwater seeps, the foundation trench over-excavations may be backfilled with minimum 3 sack concrete slurry to bottom of footing level, as approved and directed in the field. The exposed bottom of all foundation over-excavations and grade beam trenches should be observed and approved by the project geotechnical consultant or his designated field representative. Interconnecting grades beam trenches, where they occur, should be excavated to the required widths and depths with the exposed bottom mechanically compacted in-place. Exploratory test pits excavated in connection with our study at the indicated locations were backfilled with loose and uncompacted deposits. The lbose/uncompacted backfill soils at the test pit locations should also be re-excavated and placed back as properly compacted fills as part of the project earthwork operations. Trenching and Temporary Excavation Slopes: Excavations and trenching for new foundations shall not cause undermining or adversely impact existing adjacent foundations, structures, improvements, and underground utilities. Project temporary excavations and trenching are expected to be on the order of 5 feet high maximum. However, locally overly wet soft soil exposures are anticipated. In general, foundation trenching less than the maximum of 5 feet and exposing stable deposits may be constructed at near vertical gradient, unless otherwise directed in the field. Temporary trench shoring support consisting of hydraulic jacks and metal rails (or similar techniques) will be required in the case of soft to loose and wet subsoil exposures. Trenching for interconnecting grade beams adjacent and parallel to the existing exterior continuous footings, if any, should be completed in limited sections less than 6 feet long maximum, unless otherwise approved in the field. Larger exposures will require temporary support for the existing continuous foundations and should be anticipated. All excavations and trenching works will require geotechnical observations during the construction operations. Additional recommendations include revising excavation slopes and setbacks, completing trenching and construction in more limited and/or alternating sections, and modifying temporary foundations support methods should be given at that time as necessary. The project contractor shall also obtain appropriate permits, as needed, and conform to Cal-Osha and local governing agencies' requirements for trenching and open excavations, as well as safety of the workmen during construction. Foundation Bearing Soils, Placement and Compaction: Soils generated from the foundation trenching/over-excavation are expected to be wet deposits, and also more difficult to moisture condition to near optimum levels and compact considering the project's limited access and small trench areas. These deposits are recommended for U removal and export from the site to allow for backfilling trenches to the bottom of I I I I I I I I I I I U U U I Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Second Story Building January 18, 2018 Addition, Bayard Residence, 1995 Magnolia Avenue, Carlsbad, California Page 14 I foundation levels with Class 2 crushed aggregate base import materials, facilitating placement and compaction procedures. The Class 2 crushed aggregate base materials I shall meet or exceed the requirements set forth in the current California Standard Specification (Caltrans Section 26-1.02). U Uniform bearing soil conditions should be constructed at the bottom of all new spread pad footings by the remedial bearing soil preparation. The Class 2 crushed aggregate base backfill materials should be pre-moisture conditioned to 2% to 3% above the optimum I levels as directed in the field, manufactured into a uniform mixture, placed in thin horizontal lifts (4 to 6 inches maximum) above the soil separation fabric and mechanically compacted to a minimum of 95% of the corresponding laboratory I maximum dry density (ASTM D-1 557), unless otherwise specified, to achieve bottom of footing level(s). Exposed trench bottoms for the interconnecting grade beams, if any and where they occur, should also be prepared, moisture conditioned as necessary, and mechanically compacted in-place to a minimum of 90% of the corresponding laboratory maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557) unless otherwise specified 5. Surface Drainage Control: Surface and storm water runoff should not be allowed to I pond over the graded building pad or penetrate into the building foundation bearing and subgrade soils. Surface runoff should be collected and directed away from the building I and site improvements onto front street in a positive manner. Area drains and building roof lines provided with roof gutters and down spouts should be installed. I 6. Engineering Observations: All foundation bearing soil preparations including trenching and excavations, bottom stabilization and crushed rocks/Class 2 placement and compaction should be continuously observed and tested by the project geotechnical I consultant and presented in the final bearing soil preparation report. Geotechnical engineering observations should include, but not be limited to, the following: * Trenching/Excavation/over-excavation observations -After the trenching/excavation is started and extended into the underlying Terrace Deposits, but before placement of the crushed rock. Trench shoring support may be required as specified. Local and Cal-OSHA safety requirements for open excavations apply. * Crushed rock placement/backfill observation - After the crushed rock placement is I started, and subsequent placement of soil separation fabric and backfilling fill Class 2 crushed aggregate base materials to achieve bottom of footing level. Class 2 aggregate base backfill materials should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of compaction levels, as specified. I Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Second Story Building January 18, 2018 Addition, Bayard Residence, 1995 Magnolia Avenue, Carlsbad, California Page 15 B. New Foundations The planned second story addition should be supported on new spread pad type post foundations, doweled and connected to the existing footings, or interconnected with new grading beams, as conceptually shown on the attached Figures 2 and 7. The following minimum design recommendations are appropriate from a geotechnical viewpoint: New spread pad footings should be at least 36 inches wide and 24 inches deep, and tied to the existing footings with minimum 18 inch long #4 dowels, top and bottom, at 18 inches on centers maximum with 6 inches drill and epoxy grouted to the existing footings and 12 inches into the new pad footing (see Figure 7). Footing depths are measured from the lowest adjacent subgrade level, as shown. Reinforcement details for the spread pad footings should be provided by the project structural engineer. New spread pad footing should be interconnected with the existing footings, or new grade beams where necessary (see Figure 2). The new interconnecting grade beams, where required, should be at least 12 inches wide by 18 inches deep and reinforced with at least 244 bars top and bottom and #3 ties at 24 inches on centers maximum. New footing in the slab saw cut areas, where they occur, should also be structurally tied to the surrounding slabs with minimum #4 dowels at 12 inches on centers maximum. Doweling requirements remain the same unless otherwise specified or shown on the project structural plans. C. Soil Design Parameters The following soil design parameters are based on the tested representative samples of onsite earth deposits and our experience with similar soil materials. Design soil unit weight = 123 pcf. Design angle of internal friction =29 degrees. Design active soil pressure for retaining structures = 43 pcf (EFP), level backfill, cantilever, unrestrained walls. Design at-rest soil pressure for retaining structures = 64 pcf (EFP), non-yielding, restrained walls. Design passive soil resistance for retaining structures = 352 pcf (EFP), level surface at the toe (soil mass on the toe side extends a minimum of 10 feet or 3 times the height of the surface generating passive resistance). Design coefficient of friction for concrete on compacted fills = 0.35. Net allowable foundation pressure = 2000 psf. I Li I I I I I I I Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Second Story Building January 18, 2018 Addition, Bayard Residence, 1995 Magnolia Avenue, Carlsbad, California Page 16 8. Allowable lateral bearing pressure (all structures except retaining walls) = 150 psffi. Notes: Use a minimum safety factor of 1.5 for wall overturning and sliding stability. However, because large movements must take place before maximum passive resistance can be developed, a safety factor of maybe used for sliding stability where sensitive structures and improvements are planned near or on top of retaining walls. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive component should be reduced by one-third. The net allowable foundation pressure provided herein, was determined for footings having a minimum width and depth of 12 inches and may be increased by 20% for each additional foot of depth and 20% for each additional foot of width to a maximum of 4000 psfifneeded. The allowable foundation pressures provided herein also apply to dead plus live loads and may be increased by one-third for wind and seismic loading. The lateral bearing earth pressure provided herein may be increased by the amount of designated value for each additional foot of depth to a maximum of 1500 pounds per square foot. D. General Recommendations The minimum foundation design and steel reinforcement provided herein are based on soil characteristics and are not intended to be in lieu of reinforcement necessary for structural considerations. Adequate staking and construction control is a critical factor in properly completing the recommended remedial and site grading operations. Construction control and staking should be provided by the project contractor or design consultant, and is beyond the geotechnical engineering services. Staking should apply the required setbacks shown on the approved plans and conform to setback requirements established by the governing agencies and applicable codes for off-site private and public properties and property lines, utility easements, right-of-ways, nearby structures and improvements, leach fields and septic systems, and graded embankments. inadequate staking and/or lack of construction control may result in illegal encroachments or unnecessary additional work which will increase construction costs. I I I I I Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Second Story Building January 18, 2018 I Addition, Bayard Residence, 1995 Magnolia Avenue, Carlsbad, California Page 17 I 3. Open or backfihled trenches parallel with a footing shall not be below a projected plane having a downward slope of 1-unit vertical to 2 units horizontal (50%) from a line 9 inches above the bottom edge of the footing, and not closer than 18 inches from the face I of such footing. I 4. Where pipes cross under-footings, the footings shall be specially designed. Pipe sleeves shall be provided where pipes cross through footings or footing walls, and sleeve clearances shall provide for possible footing settlement, but not less than 1-inch all I around the pipe. 5. All underground utility and plumbing trenches should be mechanically compacted to a I . minimum of 90% of the maximum dry density of the soil unless otherwise specified. Care should be taken not to crush the utilities or pipes during the compaction of the soil. Non-expansive, granular backfill soils should be used. Trench backfill materials and I compaction beneath pavements within the public right-of-way shall conform to the requirements of governing agencies. 1 6. Site drainage over the finished pad surfaces should flow away from structures onto approved locations in a positive manner. Care should be taken during the construction as not to disrupt the designed drainage patterns. Roof lines of the buildings should be I provided with roof gutters. Roof water should be collected and directed away from the buildings and structures to a suitable location. I 7. All foundation trenches should be observed to ensure adequate footing embedment and confirm competent bearing soils. Foundation and slab reinforcements should also be l observed and approved by the project geotechnical consultant. 8. A preconstruction meeting between representatives of this office, the property owner or I planner, city inspector as well as the contractor/builder is recommended in order to discuss construction details associated with the planned second story building addition. I IX. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OF RECORD (GER) £PIS Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. is the geotechnical engineer of record (GER) for providing a specific scope of work or professional service under a contractual agreement unless it is terminated or canceled by either the client or our firm. In the event a new geotechnical consultant or soils engineering firm is hired to provide added engineering services, professional consultations, engineering observations and compaction testing, SiP.tSGeotechnical Solutions, Inc. will no longer be the geotechnical engineer of the record. Project transfer should be completed in accordance with the California Geotechnical Engineering Association (CGEA) Recommended Practice for Transfer of Jobs Between Consultants. I Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Second Story Building January 18, 2018 I Addition, Bayard Residence, 1995 Magnolia Avenue, Carlsbad, California Page 18 The new geotechnical consultant or soils engineering firm should review all previous geotechnical documents, conduct an independent study, and provide appropriate confirmations, revisions or design modifications to his own satisfaction. The new geotechnical consultant or soils engineering firm should also notify in writing SlPISGeotechnica1 Solutions, Inc. and submit proper notification to the City of Carlsbad for the assumption of responsibility in accordance with the applicable codes and standards (1997 UBC Section 3317.8). X. LIMITATIONS I The conclusions and recommendations provided herein have been based on available data obtained from the review of pertinent reports and plans, limited subsurface exploratory excavations as well I as our experience with the soils and formational materials located in the general area. The materials encountered on the project site and utilized in our laboratory testing are believed representative of the total building addition area; however, earth materials may vary in characteristics between I excavations. Of necessity, we must assume a certain degree of continuity underneath the planned construction areas. Therefore, all observations, conclusions, and recommendations be field verified during the project constructions and earthwork operation. If discrepancies are noted, we should be contacted immediately so that an observation can be made and additional recommendations issued if required. - The recommendations made in this report are applicable to the site at the time this report was prepared. It is the responsibility of the owner/contractor to ensure that these recommendations are 1 carried out in the field. I It is almost impossible to predict with certainty the future performance of a new second story building addition above an existing older building. The future behavior of the new addition is also dependent on unpredictable variables such as earthquakes. I The firm of SJPIS Geotechmcal Solutions, Inc., shall not be held responsible for changes to the physical conditions of the property such as addition of fill soils or changing drainage patterns which occur without our observation or control. This report should be considered valid for a period of one year and is subject to review by our firm I following that time. If significant modifications are made to your tentative construction plan, especially with respect to finish elevations, building additions and final layouts, this report must be I presented to us for review and possible revision. This report is issued with the understanding that the owner or his representative is responsible for I ensuring that the information and recommendations are provided to the project architect/structural engineer so that they can be incorporated into the plans. Necessary steps shall be taken to ensure that the project general contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations during I construction. I Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Second Story Building January 18, 2018 I Addition, Bayard Residence, 1995 Magnolia Avenue, Carlsbad, California Page 19 I The project geotechnical engineer should be provided the opportunity for a general review of the project final design plans and specifications in order to ensure that the recommendations provided I in this report are properly interpreted and implemented. If the project geotechnical engineer is not provided the opportunity of making these reviews, he can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of his recommendations. SiP15 Geotechnical Solutions, Inc., warrants that this report has been prepared within the limits prescribed by our client with the usual thoroughness and competence of the engineering profession. No other warranty or representation, either expressed or implied, is included or intended. Once again, should any questions arise concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact this I office. Reference to our Project No. GI-17-12-158 will help to expedite our response to your inquiries. I We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. i S1PIS Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. - No.2885 I+hdiiShariat, GE #2885 Geotechnical Engineer p Mark Burwell, CEG #2109 CERTf: D I Chief Engineering Geologist ENGINEEHING tSGEOLOGIST I Wyiht E. Bartholomew I Staff Geologist Distribution: Addressee (2, e-mail) I Richard Haeger Associates (2, e-mail) Delta Engineering (e-mail) I SillS GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. I I REFERENCES - Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 4 - Construction, Volume 04.08: Soil and Rock (I); I D420 - D5876,2016. - Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 4- Construction, Volume 04.09: Soil and Rock (II); I D5877 - Latest, 2016. - Highway Design Manual, Caltrans. Fifth Edition. I - Corrosion Guidelines, Caltrans, Version 1.0, September 2003. I - California Building Code (CBC), California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 & 2, 2016, International Code Council. I - "The Green Book" Standard Specifications For Public Works Construction, Public Works Standards, Inc., BNi Building News, 2015 Edition. California Geological Survey, 2008 (Revised), Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 11 7A, 108p. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (California Geological Survey), 1986 (revised), Guidelines for Preparing Engineering Geology Reports: DMG Note 44. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (California Geological Survey), 1986 (revised), Guidelines to Geologic and Seismic Reports: DMG Note 42. EQFAULT, Ver. 3.00, 1997, Deterministic Estimation of Peak Acceleration from Digitized Faults, Computer Program, T. Blake Computer Services and Software. EQSEARCH, Ver 3.00, 1997, Estimation of Peak Acceleration from California Earthquake Catalogs, Computer Program, T. Blake Computer Services and Software. Tan S.S. and Kennedy, M.P., 1996, Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California, Plate(s) 1 and 2, Open File-Report 96-02, California Division of Mines and Geology, 1:24,000. - "Proceeding of The NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance Soils," Edited I by T. Leslie Youd and Izzat M. Idriss, Technical Report NCEER-97-0022, Dated December 31, 1997. I - "Recommended Procedures For Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines For Analyzing and Mitigation Liquefaction In California," Southern California Earthquake Center; USC, March 1999. I I I REFERENCES (continued) - "Soil Mechanics," Naval Facilities Engineering Command, DM 7.01. I - "Foundations & Earth Structures," Naval Facilities Engineering Command, DM 7.02. I - "Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering, Robert D. Holtz, William D. Kovacs. - "Introductory Soil Mechanics and Foundations: Geotechnical Engineering," George F. Sowers, U Fourth Edition. - "Foundation Analysis and Design," Joseph E. Bowels. - Caterpillar Performance Handbook, Edition 29, 1998. I - Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map Series, No. 6. I - Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California, Special Report 131, California Division of Mines and ' Geology, Plate 1 (East/West), 12p. - Kennedy, M.P. and Peterson, G.L., 1975, Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, I California: California Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 200, 56p. - Kennedy, M.P. and Tan, S.S., 1977, Geology of National City, Imperial Beach and Otay Mesa I Quadrangles, Southern San Diego Metropolitan Area, California, Map Sheet 24, California Division of Mines and Geology, 1:24,000. - Kennedy, M.P., Tan, S.S., Chapman, R.H., and Chase, G.W., 1975, Character and Recency of I Faulting, San Diego Metropolitan Areas, California: Special Report 123, 33p. I - "An Engineering Manual For Slope Stability Studies," J.M. Duncan, A.L. Buchignani and Marius De Wet, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, March 1987. I - "Procedure To Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements In Dry Sandy Soils," Daniel Pradel, ASCE Journal Of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, Volume 124, #4, 1998. - "Minimum Design Loads For Buildings and Other Structures," ASCE 7-10, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). I - "Seismic Constraints on The Architecture of The Newport-IngelwoodfRose Canyon Fault: Implications For The Length And Magnitude of Future Earthquakes," Sahakian, V., Bormann, J., Driscoll, N., Harding, A. Kent, G. Wesnousky, S. (2017), AGU. doi: 10.1002/2016 JB 013467. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TOPO! map printed on 01/09/18 from SanDiego.tpo" and "tlntitled.tpg iii..suutr' W 111.33jj3" W W(i554 11/.3166/° W MJREGIONAL INDEX MAP : \+--•_7 .•. Sewage Di I Isu PO (\ 7 Shop.g . Center ' - '- V - • .5-It . V . 5-'- N. 11 S Rbs ffug AVE 40 Ke ' • f' \\ H lid y \ Ø~f , \ 2 ark M 2 \\fi \% >iç\ I. • \' V'. '. se T I Op ZOO late i'kc; ZQQP q •,/ . -,4 eservoir FIGURE1 117.35000° W 117.333330 W WGSS4 117.3170 W ThS,I_ —_...L2FW __— _•3m — — pILL from TOPO! C 1999 Wild& tfPLoIctioas (I!topo.ccia) 11 NONFICIR 91T. - - LEGEND r IAPPRONONATIE (800712OHN OCAL 00TE PLAN ] L - Approximate Limits of Second Story I Addition Approximate Location of Exploratory Test Pit Approximate Location of New Pad Foundation (Actual Locations Per Struct. - . Eng.) Approximate Location of interconnecting Grade Beam (Actual Locations Per Struct. Uaf Artificial Fills Qs Topsoil Terrace Deposits (E) SINGLE STORY RESIDENCE Project No. GI-17-12-158 Report Dated January 2018 Ell 7 1? 4 H I coil I TP2 _ * Oaf Os OVER Qt Ii [ L1 (N)M. BATH RM 0 0 0 - (N) DECK ( MASTER BEDROOM (N) OFFICE f FIGURE 2 KEY TO BORING / TEST PIT LOGS DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS: H Split Spoon - 1— 3/8" I.D., 2" O.D., Unless otherwise noted HS: Hollow Stem Auger ST: Thin-Walled Tube - 2" O.D., Unless otherwise noted PA: Power Auger Ring Sampler— 2.375" ID., 2.5" O.D., Unless otherwise noted HA: Hand Auger DB: Diamond Bit Coring - 4", N, B RB: Rock Bit Bulk Sample or Auger Sample WB: Wash Boring or Mud Rotary i=i Chunk Sample Sandcone Density Test The number of blows required to advance a standard 2-inch O.D. split-spoon sample (SS) the last 12 inches of the total 18-inch penetration with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches is considered the "Standard Penetration" or "N-value". For 2.5" O.D. ring samplers (RS) the penetration value is reported as the number of blows required to advance the sampler 12 inches using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches, reported as "blows per foot" and is not considered equivalent to the "Standard Penetration" or "N-value". WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS WL: Water Level WS: While Sampling N/E: Not Encountered WCl: Wet Cave in WD: While Drilling DCI: Dry Cave in BCR: Before Casing Removal AB: After Boring ACR: After Casing Removal Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the times indicated. Groundwater levels at other times and other locations across the site could vary. In pervious soils, the indicated levels may reflect the location of groundwater. In low permeability soils, the accurate determination of groundwater levels may not be possible with only short-term observation. DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION: Soil classification is based on the unified classification system. Coarse Grained Soils have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be added according to relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are defined on the basis of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency. CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS Unconfined Standard Compressive Penetration or N- Strength, Qu, psf value (SS) Blows/Ft. Consistency <500 ; <2 Very Soft 500-1000 ,' 2-3 Soft 1001-2000 4-6 Medium Stiff 2001-4000 7-12 Stiff 4001 —8000 13-26 Very Stiff 8000+ 26+ Hard RELATIVE PROPORTION OF SAND AND GRAVEL RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS Standard Penetration or N- Ring Sampler (RS) value (SS) Blows/Ft. Blows/Ft. Relative Density 0-3 0-6 Very Loose 4-9 7-18 Loose 10-29 19-58 Medium Dense 30-49 59-98 Dense 50+ 99+ VeryDense GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY Descriptive Term(s) of other constituents Percent of Dry Weight Trace <15 With 15-29 Modifiers > 30 RELATIVE PROPORTION OF FINES Descriptive Term(s) of other constituents Percent of Dry Weight Trace <15 With 15-12 Modifiers > 12 Major Component of Sample Particle Size Boulders Over 12 in. (300 mm) Cobbles 12 in. to 3 in. (300 mm to 75 mm) Gravel 3 in. to #4 sieve (75 mm to 4.75 mm) Sand #4 Sieve to #200 Sieve (4.75 mm to 0.075 mm) Silt or Clay Passing #200 Sieve (0.075 mm) PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION Term Plasticity Index Non-plastic 0 Low 1-10 Medium 11-30 High 30+ SMS Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. 4 0 x a, 30 'a 0 20 10 7 4 0 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS) Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory TestsA Soil Classification Group Symbol Group Name Gravels Clean Gravels C0 2t 4 and 1:5 C, :s 3( GW Well-graded gravel' More than 50% of coarse Less than 5% fines' Cu <4 and/or 1 > C0 > 3E GP Poorly graded gravel' Coarse Grained Soils fraction retained on #4 Gravels with Fines Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty graveVGM More than 50% sieve More than 12% fines' Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravef' retained on #200 Clean Sands C. ~ 6 and 1!5 C0 SW Well-graded sand' sieve Sands Less than 5% fines0 C. <6 and/or 1 > C0> 3E SP Poorly graded sand' 50% or more of coarse fraction passes #4 sieve Sands with Fines Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sandG,l,I More than 12% fines" Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand0 " P1 >7 and plots on or above "A" Iin& CL Lean clayoLM Silts and Clays inorganic P1 <4 and plots below "A" lin& ML Silt0.IM Fine Grained Soils Liquid limit less than 50 organic Liquid Limit -oven dried <0.75 OL Organic clayK.tMJ 50% or more passes Liquid Limit - not dried "4 Organic silt'° the #200 sieve inorganic P1 plots on or above "A" line CH Fat clayK.LM Silts and Clays P1 plots below "A" line MH Liquid limit 50 or more Liquid Limit -oven dried Organic cIayl.L.M organic <0.75 Liquid Limit - not dried OH Organic silt''° Highly organic soils Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat A Based on the material passing the 3 in. (75 mm) sieve. B if field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add "with cobbles or boulders, or both" to group name. C Gravels with 5% to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay. D Sands with 5% to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand. Cu = = D3 2 D10* D60 60 50 F If soil contains 215% sand, add "with sand" to group name. G If fines classify as cL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM H If fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name. If soil contains 215% gravel, add "with gravel" to group name. If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay. K If soil contains 15% to 29% plus No. 200, add "with sand" or "with gravel" whichever is If soil contains 230% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add "sandy" to group name. M If soil contains a30% plus No. 200 predominantly gravel, add "gravelly" to group name. N P1 2:4 and plots on or above "A" line. o P1 <4 or plots below "A" line. P1 plots on or above "A" line. ° P1 plots below "A" line I H I I I I For classifications of fine-grained soils and fine grained fraction of coarse- grained soils. Equation of "A" line. Horizontal at P1=4 to LL=25.5, then P1=0.73 (LL-20). Equation of "U" line. Vertical at LL=16 to P1=7, then P1 = 0.9 (LL-8) 011 01 IV AV MH or OH --- LML ML or 01. 0 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid Limit (LL) SMS Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. SMS Geotechnical Solutions Inc Test Pit: TP-1 PROJECT: Proposed Second Story Building Addition CLIENT: Peter & Megan Bayard PROJECT No.: GI-17-12-158 PROJECT LOCATION: 1995 Magnolia Avenue, Carlsbad Date Excavated: 12/19/17 Logged By: W.B. Equipment: Hand—dig: Shove, Jackhammer & Hand Auger. Remarks: No caving. Wet to very wet condition at 4 feet. (ft) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - - LL 28 OWL 2D, GARDEN SOIL: I - X Silty fine sand. Dark brown color. Rootlets. Moist. Loose. >< Fl L L (Qaf): 1 !103.2 _ 84 !_ • X Silty finesand. Tan to medium brown color. Slightly moist to damp. Loose to medium dense. Fk)orly graded. 2>< At 2 feet, becomes moist. T 9 109.1 89 49 • Continues medi urn dense. —i--- IST-1 >< E 11 1 106.8 87 55 TOPSOIL (Qs): SC/Cl • Light brown colorwith darkr J ioist to very moist. Rastic. Soft. Becomes wet t L ndytoclayeysand. at contact with upper fills ML/S • ITERRACE DEPOSIT (Qt): Clayey sand to sandy silt. Tan-orange to olive green color with red-brown stains Moist. Medium dense to stiff. Deeply weathered in upper exposures. ST-3 bottom ot teS pit at b.b tea • BULK SAMPLE CHUNK SAND CONE DENSITY TEST FIGURE 3 I I SMS Geotechnical So1utions Inc Test Pit: TP-2 PROJECT: Proposed Second Story Building Addition CLIENT: Peter & Megan Bayard PROJECT No.: GI-17-12-158 PROJECT LOCATION: 1995 M agnolia Avenue Carlsbad Date Excavated: 12/19/17 Logged By: W.B. Equipment: Hand-dig : Shovel, Jakhanma- & Hand Auger. Remarks No caving. Wet condition at 3.5 feet. DEPTH 110 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION F 1. GARDEN SOIL: >< \ Silty fine sand. Dark brown color. Rootlets Moist. Loose. /X\ FILL(Qaf) I : X Silty fine sand. Medium brown color. Moist. Fk)orly graded. Loose to medium dense. ST-1 _X L101078 88 52 3 _X TERRACE DEPOSIT (Qt): 14 ML/S Clay, sand to sandy alt. Tan-orange to olive green [ 16 109.9 - 87 color with red-brown stains. Moist. weathered. Dense to —-1. stiff Very moist to wet at contact with upper fills ST-3 bottom 01 test pit at 4.b tea. U BULK CHUNK ITSANDCONE SAMPLE DENSITY TEST FIGURE 4 I LI FAULT-EPICENTER MAP SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGION Indicated Earthquake Events Through A 200 Year Period EPICENTER MP LEGEND 16,50 *ç(3. H 4• • . . . I I I I 0 Map is reproduced from California Division of Mines and Geology, "Epicenters of I and Areas Damaged by M > 5 California Earthquakes, 1800-1999". FIGURE 5 ISMS Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. Sieve Analysis 5931 Sea Lion place, Suite 109 ASTM D 691 3 - 0 4 Carlsbad, CA 92010 Project G147-12-158 I Peter & Megan Bayard J Job if Supervising Lab Tech S. B. J Address 1995 Magnolia Rd., Carlsbad I Supervising Lab Manager S.M.S. ] Date 1/2/2018 Tech I - 'C14 14,r1 0 0 C1 11111 1 1 fl ITn::II 11111 1111 1 1 liii liii I - 500 100 50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 Grain Size (mm) Cobbles Gravel Sand Coarse Fine Coarse Fine Silt or Clay Medium TP-1 @. 3' TP-1 @ 4.5' D60 D60 D60 D60 D30 D30 D30 D30 D10 D10 D10 D10 - -_Location Depth Symbol USCS NAT, o % LL PL P1 Cu (D60/D10) Cc (D230/ D60*1310) TP-1 3' SM/SP 10 TP-1 4.5'. • ML/SP 16 I Figure if 6 I - rnrt4 - Vri5 Owls 16 1'4. J N)r2i F4. ia" rn'r -f FILL/TOPSOIL ' .' r54nic. (9. mm) (Ma rl (1ffl 5/ Ccnipb! C( ; S?__po+e+at Wr 5etO vei 3/4' CruShe !ocS TERRACE DEPOSITS t€-\ J 3 (rnri.) Mc'arttc( m115. (Xn - "Free 6.W. 4. pprov.i ol 1°() 6c6 - S iLl rry •t ktm o ! ©'N1L 1OL I Note: Subject to modifications by Geotech. Eng. based on actual field exposures. I To be verified and approved by the project structural engineer. FIGURE 7 Design Maps Summary Report tJSGS Design Maps Summary Report User-Specified Input Report Title Bayard Second Story Addition Fri January 5, 2018 22:48:52 1flC Building Code Reference Document ASCE 7-10 Standard (which utilizes USGS hazard data available in 2008) Site Coordinates 33.16030N, 117.3258°W Site Soil Classification Site Class D - "Stiff Soil" Risk Category 1/11/111 USGS—Provided Output Ss = 1.117g SHS = 1.177g SDS= 0.784g S = 0.429 g SMI = 0.674 g SDI = 0.450 g For information on how the SS and Si values above have been calculated from probabilistic (risk-targeted) and deterministic ground motions in the direction of maximum horizontal response, please return to the application and select the "2009 NEHRP" building code reference document. MCp.Rit,rujc 0caun usu S'jt!:u7rl 1349 Feuo.i.l (;o0) For PGAM, IL, C, and CRI values, please view the detailed reøort. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cn2/designmaps/us/summary.php?tempJate=tjijma1&1atjd .. 1/5/2018 Design Maps Detailed Report Page 1 of USGS Design Maps Detailed Report ASCE 7-10 Standard (33.1603°N, 117.3258°W) Site Class D - "Stiff Soil", Risk Category 1/11/111 Section 11.4.1 - Mapped Acceleration Parameters Note: Ground motion values provided below are for the direction of maximum horizontal spectral response acceleration. They have been converted from corresponding geometric mean ground motions computed by the USGS by applying factors of 1.1 (to obtain S) and 1.3 (to obtain Si). Maps in the 2010 ASCE-7 Standard are provided for Site Class B. Adjustments for other Site Classes are made, as needed, in Section 11.4.3. From Figure 22-1 Ss = 1.117 g From Figure 22-2 (2] S1 = 0.429 g Section 11.4.2 - Site Class The authority having jurisdiction (not the USGS), site-specific geotechnical data, and/or the default has classified the site as Site Class D, based on the site soil properties in accordance with Chapter 20. Table 20.3-1 Site Classification Site Class VS Nor Nh s, Hard Rock >5,000 ft/s N/A N/A Rock 2,500 to 5,000 ft/s N/A N/A Very dense soil and soft rock 1,200 to 2,500 ft/s >50 >2,000 psf Stiff Soil 600 to 1,200 ft/s 15 to 50 1,000 to 2,000 psf Soft clay soil <600 ft/s <15 <1,000 psf Any profile with more than 10 ft of soil having the characteristics: Plasticity index P1> 20, Moisture content w ~! 40%, and Undrained shear strength S. < 500 psf F. Soils requiring site response I analysis in accordance with Section 21.1 See Section 20.3.1 For SI: lft/s = 0.3048 rn/s 1lb/ft2 = 0.0479 kN/m2 https ://earthquake.usgs.gov/cn2/designmaps/us/report.php?temp1ate=mjpjma1&latjdeg3 ... 1/5/2018 I I I I I I I I I I I Design Maps Detailed Report Page 2 of 6 Section 11.4.3 - Site Coefficients and Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters Table 11.4-1: Site Coefficient F, Site Class Maoned MCE Soectral Resoonse Acceleration Parameter at Short Period S :5 0.25 S5 = 0.50 S5 = 0.75 S5 = 1.00 Ss 2: 1.25 A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9 F See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7 Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of Sr For Site Class = D and S5 = 1.117 g, F. = 1.053 Table 11.4-2: Site Coefficient F. Site Class Mapped MCE R Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 1-s Period S :5 0.10 S1 = 0.20 S1 = 0.30 S = 0.40 S ~! 0.50 A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 C 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 D 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5 E 3.5 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.4 F See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7 Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of S1 For Site Class = D and S. = 0.429 g, F, = 1.571 https :1/earthquake .usgs.gov/cn2/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=33.... 1/5/2018 - --_--- -.--------. -j-- ----.--..--. Design Maps Detailed Report Page 3 of 6 Equation (11.4-1): Ss = FaS5 = 1.053 x 1.117 = 1.177 g Equation (11.4-2): SM1 FS1 = 1.571,x 0.429 = 0.674 g Section 11.4.4 '- Dsign Spectral Acceleration Parameters Equation (11.4-3): S0 = % SMS= % x 1.177 = 0.784 g Equation (11.4-4): S01 = % S 1 = % x 0.674 = 0.450 g Section 11.4.5 - Design Response Spectrum From Figure 22-12 T. = 8 seconds Figure 11.4-1: Design Response Spectrum T< TO : SSD$(O.4+O.6T/TD ) / \ TS <TS TL : SSDl (T \\\\ TTi:Sa SoiTi/12 S ____________________ * I 11 I.I 15 TZ'.57' 1.0) https I/earthquake usgs gov/cn2/designmaps/us/report php7template=mimmal&Iatitude=33 1/5/2018 Design Maps Detailed Report Page 4 of 6 Section 11.4.6 - Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Response Spectrum The MCER Response Spectrum is determined by multiplying the design response spectrum above by 1.5. S.- 1.177 Sw,' 0.574 It Period, I (se) 1/5/2018 Design Maps Detailed Report . . Page 5 of 6 Section 11.8.3 - Additional Geotechnical Investigation Report Requirements for Seismic Design Categories D through F From Figure 22-7 E41 . PGA = 0.437 Equation (11.8-1): PGA,, = FPGAPGA = 1.063 x 0.437 = 0.465 g Table 11.8-1: Site Coefficient F Site Mapped MCE Geometric Mean Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA Class PGA 15 PGA = PGA = PGA = PGA > 0.19 0.20 . 0.30 0.40 0.50 A 0.8 0.8 0.8 . 0.8 0.8 B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 E 2.5 . 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9 F . See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7 Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of PGA For Site Class = D and. PGA = 0.437 g, = 1.063 Section 21.2.1.1 - Method 1 (from Chapter 21 - Site-Specific Ground Motion Procedures for Seismic Design) From Figure 22-17 CRS = 0.956 From Figure 22-18 E63 C j = 1.008 1/5/2018 _.5... .--... >--..-----.. -...............--. .... Design Maps Detailed Report Page 6 of 6 Section 11.6 - Seismic Design Category Table 11.6-1 Seismic Desian Cateoory Based on Short Period Resoonse Acceleration Parameter VALUE OF SD, RISK CATEGORY loril III IV S00 <O.167g A A A 0.167g 5 Ss < 0.33g B B C 0.33g Ss < 0.50g C C D 0.5OgSDS D D D For Risk Category = I and S05 = 0.784 g, Seismic Design Category = D Table 11.6-2 Seismic Desian Cateaory Based on 1-S Period Resoonse Acceleration Parameter VALUE OF S01 RISK CATEGORY lorll III IV SDI < 0.067g A A A 0.0679 S01 < 0.133g B B C 0.133g <S01 < 0.20g C C D 0.20gSDL D D D For Risk Category = I and S01 =0.450 g, Seismic Design Category = D Note: When S is greater than or equal to 0.75g, the Seismic Design Category is E for buildings in Risk Categories I, II, and III, and F for those in Risk Category IV, irrespective of the above. Seismic Design Category "the more severe design category in accordance with Table 11.6-1 or 11.6-2" = D Note: See Section 11.6 for alternative approaches to calculating Seismic Design Category. References Figure 22-1: https ://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-1. pdf Figure 22-2: https :1/earthquake. usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-2 pdf Figure 22-12: https ://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-12 .pdf Figure 22-7: https://earthquake. usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-7. pdf Figure 22-17: https :1/earthquake. usgs.gov/hazards/designmàps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-17. pdf Figure 22-18: https ://earthquake. usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/20 1O_ASCE-7_Figure_22- 18. pdf https ://earthquake.usgs.gov/cn2/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=33 .... 1/5/2018 (,:city of Carlsbad This form must be completed by the City, the applicant, and the appropriate school districts and returned to the City prior to issuing a building permit. The City will not issue any building permit without a completed school fee form. Project No. & Name: DEV2018-0053, BAYARD FAMILY ADDITION Plan Check No.: CBR2018-0671 Project Address: 1995 MAGNOLIA AVE Assessor's Parcel No.: 2052203900 Project Applicant: COOWNER BAYARD PETEPJ AND MARGARET A I,Uwner arne) Residential Square Feet: Jo/v New/Additions: 640 Second Dwelling Unit: Commercial Square Feet: New/Additions: City Certification: city of Carlsbad Building Division Date: 05/02/2018 Certification of Applicant/Owners. The person executing this declaration (Owner") certifies under penalty of perjury that (1) the information provided above is correct and true to the best of the Owner's knowledge, and that the Owner will file an amended certification of payment and pay the adtkiiiai' ilee if Owner retests an kiase k the number at dwelling units or square footage after the building permit is issued or if the initial determination of units or square footage is found to be incorrect, and that (2) the Owner is the owner/developer of the above described project(s), or that the person executing this declaration is authorized 10 sign on benafl ol the Owner. Carlsbad Unified School District 6225 El Camino Real Carlsbad CA 92009 Phone: (760) 331-5000, Encinitas Union Schiool District 101 South Rancho Santa Fe Rd Encinitas, CA 92024 ioi'. 1,7) 9444'j)Pj 'ç San Dieguito Union Ii.S. District 4,u&ex?flr Encinitas, CA 92024 Phone: (760) 753-6491 Ext 5514 (ByAppt. Only) San Marcos Unified ch. District 255 Pico Ave Ste. 10() San Marcos, CA 9206;9 Phone: (760) 290-264.9 Contact: Katherine Marcelja y p.on'ry) LII Vista Unified School District 234 Arcadia Drive Vista CA 92083 Phone: (760) 726-2170 x2222 SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL FEE CERTIFICATION (To be completed by the school district (s)) THIS FORM INDICATES THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROJECT HAVE BEEN OR WILL BE SATISFIED. The undersigned, being duly authorized by the applicable School District, certfis tht tie des'el over, builder,, or owner has satVW tie o5 i StioriforscIi,oI fail itE . This is to certly tiet tie zppl kant listed a ege 1 has paid all amounts or completed other applicable school mittiai dernin W by tie Sthool Os trict . The City may issue building permits for this project. Signature of Authorized School District Official: ThJe: Name of School District: CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 6225 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD, CA 92009 Building Division 4,prYf t- 5)0 7 8" 1635 Faraday Avenue I CarIsLad, CA 92008 1 760-602-2719 Date. (--L3 Phone: 33 1S0Oà ,- ? /c 760-602-8558 fax I building@cIsba'ov BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) SELECTION TABLE Erosion Control Sediment Control BMPs T!BCkU1 Non-Storm Water Waste Management and Materials BMPs Control BMPs Management BMPs Pollution Control BMPs .2 .2 .9 — - (I) 0 o o o E .0 E cc -D U). (1) co . - 0) .2 — 6 _ E.2- 0) (D (I) Best Management Practice* J - SCL CD - 0 E . - - - - (BMP) Description - , -D - LZ . 'E C) (1) -o a) 0 Q) C) L. • .71 0 9 a - -0 0 0 0 0 ) 0 0 ._ 0 .. = -D a) a) C o L. . E 0 -- 0 0 0 0 I.- 0 ' -4-' o 0 . - a 0 L. > a 0 C -- 0 - 0 q) - 0 0 0 ... - 0 = 0 0 N 0 0 0 D WC) Cl) C/) Cl) () u c (n :> cn Ci)o cnE (n of o.. o0 o >c cn v, V)U En - CASQA Designation - r— 00 CY)._ r' - LC) co N- co r N- o I I I I If) I o I CO I L) I C). I C) I 0 . I Lii I W I W I W I Lii I W I UJ I IJ I I I C/) I C/) I C/) I U) Construction Activity . Lii W (I) Cl) Cl) Cl) (I) Cl) . Cl) C/) . Grading/Soil Disturbance - Trenching/Excavation - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Stockpiling - -- - - - - - - - - Drilling/Boring - -- - - - - - - - - - Concrete/Asphalt Sawcutting - i_ - - - - — - - - - - - - - - Concrete Flatwork - Paving Conduit/Pipelnstallation . -- X Stucco/Mortar Work - - Waste Disposal X Staging/Lay Down Area - - - - Equipment Maintenance and Fueling - - HazardousSubstanceUse/Storage -- Dewatering - - - - - - - Site Access Across Dirt . . - - Other (list): - Instructions: Check the box to the left of all applicable construction activity (first column) expected to occur during construction. Located along the top of the BMP. Table is a list of BMP's with it's: corresponding California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) designation number. Choose one or more BMPs you intend to use during construction from the list. Check the box where the chosen activity row intersects with the BMP column. Refer to the CASQA construction handbook for information and details of the chosen BMPs and how to apply them to the project. STORM WATER CPMPLIANCE FORM TIER I CONSTFUCTlONSWPPP -OoH STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION NOTES ALL NECESSARY EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS SHALL BE AVAILABLE ON SITE TO FACILITATE RAPID INSTALLATION OF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPs WHEN RAIN. IS EMINENT. THE OWNER/CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES TO WORKING ORDER TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY INSPECTOR AFTER EACH RUN—OFF PRODUCING RAINFALL. THE OWNER/CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE CITY INSPECTOR DUE TO INCOMPLETE GRADING OPERATIONS OR UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY ARISE. ALL REMOVABLE PROTECTIVE DEVICES SHALL BE IN PLACE AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY WHEN THE FIVE (5) DAY RAIN PROBABILITY FORECAST EXCEEDS FORTY PECENT SILT AND OTHER DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED AFTER EACH RAINFALL. ALL GRAVEL BAGS SHALL CONTAIN 3/4 INCH MINIMUM AGGREGATE. ADEQUATE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AND PERIMETER PROTECTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE MEASURES MUST BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED. -- THE CITY INSPECTOR SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ALTER THIS PLAN DURING OR BEFORE CONSTRUCTION AS NEEDED TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH CITY STORM WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS. OWNER'S CERTIFICATE: I UNDERSTAND AND. ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I MUST: (1) IMPLEMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE TO AVOID THE 'MOBILIZATION OF POLLUTANTS SUCH AS SEDIMENT AND TO AVOID THE EXPOSURE OF STORM WATER TO CONSTRUCTION RELATED POLLUTANTS; AND (2) ADHERE TO, AND AT ALL TIMES, COMPLY WITH THIS CITY APPROVED TIER 1 CONSTRUCTION SWPPP THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES UNTIL THE CONSTRUCTION WORK IS COMPLETE AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. OWNER(S)I)VNE ' _'NI_NAM LWNER(S)/QWS.AENT NAME (SIGNATURE) PATE; E-29 PROJECT INFORMATION - Site Address: C( 5 ta 'ke Assessor's Parcel Number: 2-03 22 3(9 Emergency Contact: Name: 24 Hour Phone: 7(00 i DS q s' Construction Threat to Storm Water Quality (Check Box) 'Rf S -MDIUM EJ LOW Page 1 of 1 REV 11/17