Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1653 BRADY CIR; ; CBR2019-1244; Permit
Building Permit Finaled (City of Carlsbad Residential Permit Print Date: 06/26/2020 Permit No: CBR2019-1244 Job Address: 1653 BRADY CIR, CARLSBAD, CA 92008 Status: Closed - Finaled Permit Type: BLDG-Residential Work Class: Single Family Detached Parcel #: 2052210200 Track #: Applied: 05/20/2019 Valuation: $427,432.23 Lot #: . Issued: 11/04/2019 Occupancy Group: Project #: DEv2018-0010 Finaled Close Out: #of Dwelling Units: Plan #: - -- Bedrooms: 5 Construction Type: Bathrooms: 3.5 Orig. Plan Check #: Inspector: LStor Plan Check#: Final Inspection: 06/26/2020 Project Title: MAGNOLIA-BRADY Description: MAGNOLIA-BRADY: (LOT 2) 2,589 SF LIVING /146 SF PORCH // 723 SF GARAGE// 203 SF CALIFORNIA ROOM Property Owner: MAGNOLIA A3 LLC 3394 CARMEL MOUNTAIN RD, # 200 SAN DIEGO, CA 92121-1065 (858) 794-1900 FEE AMOUNT BUILDING PERMIT FEE ($2000+) BUILDING PLAN CHECK FEE (BLDG) ELECTRICAL BLDG RESIDENTIAL NEW/ADDITION/REMODEL GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS PLAN CHECK & INSPECTION MECHANICAL BLDG RESIDENTIAL NEW/ADDITION/REMODEL PLUMBING BLDG RESIDENTIAL NEW/ADDITION/REMODEL PUBLIC FACILITI ES. FEES - outside CFD 5B1473 GREEN BUILDING STATE STANDARDS FEE SDCWA SYSTEM CAPACITY CHARGE 5/8" Displacement SEWER CONNECTION FEE (General Capacity all areas) STRONG MOTION-RESIDENTIAL SWPPP INSPECTION FEE TIER 1 - Medium BLDG SWPPP PLAN REVIEW FEE TIER 1 - MEDIUM TRAFFIC IMPACT Residential Single Fam. Outside çFD WATER METER FEE 1" Displacement (P) WATER SERVICE CONNECTION FEE 5/8" DISPLACEMENT (P) WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY CHARGE 5/8" Displacement 1, IU.4U . $1,255.76 $66.00 $175.00 $92.00 $182.00 $14,960.13 $18.00 $5,267.00 $982.00 $55.57 $246.00 $55.00 $3,820.00 $282.00 $4,385.00 $146.00 Total Fees: $33,777.86 Total Payments To Date: $33,777.86 Balance Due: $0.00 Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "Imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as "fees/exaction." You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. Youare hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection• fees and capacity changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project. NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitation has previously otherwise expired. Building Division - Page 1 of 1 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad CA 92008-7314 1 760-602-2700 1 760-602-8560 f I www.carlsbadca.gov (City of Carlsbad RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION B-I Plan Check t naulj T11LI Est. Value L g 219224 PC Deposit 1 15 Date Job Address Suite: f (Jc t - (/ CT/Project it: Lot it: Fire Sprinklers:e/no Air Conditioning:(y no BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF WORK: N C'.J Sf- ~' r) 7 rI. o4'L'c fC' )$, Addition/New: S °\ Living SF, __Beck SF, 9 (0 P SF. 1 l)Garage SF Is this to create an Accessory Dwelling Unit? Yesf New Fireplace. Ye - f yes how many? I U Remodel: SF of affected area Is the area a conversion or change of use? Yes / No 0 Pool/Spa: SF Additional Gas or Electrical Features? C] Solar: KW, ______ Modules, Mounted: Roof/Ground, Tilt: Yes / No, RMA: Yes I No, Battery: Yes! No Panel Upgrade: Yes! No 0 Reroof: 0 Plumbing/Mechanical/Electrical Only: 0 Other: APPLICANT (PRIMARY CONTACT) PROPERTY OWNER Name: S L9,WN C4, Name: ctcMc. k's LL C Address: Rb ___G Address:S City: &"twSA \K\< State: ...k Zip: °'S\\\ City: Lcci'o \J¼LO State: (.P Zip: Phone: \0. U4kc Phone: - 4 O Email: Q __ So r\\(%Q-C) Email:________________________________ DESIGN PROFESSIONAL CONTRACTOR BUSINESS Name:CX Name: Address: '-SS hit. Address:bO City: i e c, State: CA Zip: 1uS City: \\ State: CAS_Zip: Phone: °Y¼.°'—-~S() _O(ool Phone: _16 __ob\a Email: Email: Architect State License: State License: \2 b\ Bus. License: 3LO S k aq4( 1 \ (Sec. 7031.5 Business and Professions code: Any City or County which requires a permit to construct, alter, improve, demolish or rep a i r a n y s t r u c t u r e , p r i o r t o I t s Issuance, also requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he/she is licensed pursuant to the prov i s i o n s o f t h e C o n t r a c t o r ' s L i c e n s e L a w (Chapter 9, commending with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code) or that he/she 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 t h a n f i v e h u n d r e d d o l l a r s ( $ 5 0 0 ) ) . 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ph: 760-602-2719 Fax: 760-602-8558 Email: Building@carlsbadca.gov B-i Page 1 of 2 Rev. 06118 (OPTION A): WORKERS'COMPENSATION DECLARATION: I hearby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations: 0 I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for workers' compensation provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work which this permit is issued. .)4ve and will maintain worker's compensation, as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the en rmance of the work for which this permit is issued. ,workers' compensation insurance carrier and policy number are: Insurance Company Name: Policy No. Vt,..It kin I Expiration Date: (b \. C) 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 soas to be come subject to the workers' compensation Laws of California. fARNlNG: Failure to sjure workers compensation coverage is unlawful, and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to $100,000.00, in a ition the to the co#f compensation, damages as provided for In Section 3706 of the Labor Code, interest and attorney's fees. CONTRACTOR SIGNATURE: /7/" GENT DATE: (OPTION 0 ): OWNER-BUILDER DECLARATION: I hereby affirm that I am exempt from Contractor's License Law for the following reason: O 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). O I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and contracts for such projects with contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law). 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. DYes 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/ 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): S. 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): OWNER SIGNATURE: DAGENT DATE: CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY, IF ANY: I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work this permit is issued (Sec. 3097 (i) Civil Code). Lender's Name: Lender's Address: ONLY COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING SECTION FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS ONLY:' 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 11 Is the facility to be constructed within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? DYes 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 TF,E REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT. APPLICANT CERTIFICATION: I certify that I have read the application and state that the above information is correct and that the information on the plans is accurate. I agree to comply.with all City ordinances and State laws relating to building construction. I hereby authorize 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 AGAINSTALL LIABILITIES, JUDGMENTS, COST5,AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINSTSAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT.OSHA: An OSHA permit is required for excava)((ns over5'O' deep and demolition or construction of structures over 3 stories in height. EXPIRATION: Every permit issued by the Building Officia)'t'der the provisi)S 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 frhe date of sycJf(ermit or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is commenced for a period of 180 df ection 104.4IJniform Building Code). APPLICANT SIGNATURE: DATE:________ 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ph: 760-602-2719 Fax: 760-602-8558 Email: Building@carlsbadca.gov B-I Page 2 of 2 Rev. 06/18 Permit Type: BLDG-Residential Application Date: 05/20/2019 Owner: MAGNOLIA A3 LLC; TIM SEAMAN Work Class: Single Family Detached Issue Date: 11/04/2019 Subdivision: Status: Closed - Finaled Expiration Date:, 09/14/2020 Address: 1653 BRADY CIR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 IVR Number: 19178 Scheduled Actual Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Primary Inspector Reinspection Inspection Date Start Date Status Checklist Item COMMENTS . Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Not ready No • BLDG-Building Deficiency See card, top- out not ready Yes BLDG-14 - Yes Frame-Steel-Bolting-Welding (Decks) . BLDG-34 Rough Eleètrical ( Yes BLDG-44 Yes Rough-Ducts-Dampers 03I04/2020 03104/2020 BLDG-16 Insulation 121291-2020 - Passed Michael Collins Complete _j Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes 03/10/2020 03/1012020 BLDG-18 Exterior 122032-2020 Passed Tony Alvarado Complete ti/DrywaU ___ 03/18/2020 03118/2020 BLDG-22 Sewer/Water 122612-2020 Passed Paul Burnette Complete L Service _____ Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency . Yes 04/30/2020 04130/2020 BLDG-Electric Meter 126111-2020 Passed Peter Dreibelbis Complete Release_._,. Checklist Item COMMENTS . Passed BLDG-Building Defiàiency Yes 06/26/2020 06/2612020 BLDG-Final Inspection 131172-2020 - Passed Paul Burnette . - Complete] Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLbG-Building Dèficieñcy Yes BLDG-Plumbing Final . Yes BLDG-Mechanical Final i Yes BLDG-Structural Final . ( ) Yes BLDG-Electrical Final . Yes r Friday, June 26, 2020 - Page 2 of 2 Building Permit Inspection History Finaled Gity of Carlsbad Permit Type: BLDG-Residential Application Date: 05/20/2019 Owner: MAGNOLIA A3 LLC, TIM SEAMAN Work Class: Single Family Detached Issue Date: 11/04/2019 Subdivision: Status: Closed - Finaled Expiration Date: 09/14/2020 Address: 1653 BRADY CIR IVR Number: 19178 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 Scheduled Actual Inspection Type InsSection No. Inspection Primary Inspector Reinspection Inspection Date Start Date . Status 11/19/2019 11/19/2019 BLDG-21 111119-2019 Passed Luke Storno Complete Underground/Underflo or Plumbing Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency No 11/26/2019 11126/2019 BLDG-11 112079-2019 Cancelled Paul Burnette Reinspection Incomplete Foundation/Ftg/Piers (Reber) Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency No 12102/2019 12/02/2019 BLDG-Il 11 2344-2019 Failed Paul York Reinspection Incomplete Foundation/Ftg!Piers (Rebar) Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency No 12103/2019 12/03/2019 BLDG-11 112547-2019 Passed Paul Burnette Complete Foundation/Ftg/Piers (Reber) Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes 01/2712020 01/27/2020 BLDG-15 Roof/ReRoof 117530-2020 Passed Paul York Complete (Patio) Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes 02/07/2020 02/07/2020 BLDG-13 shear 118980-2020 Passed Paul York Complete Panels/HD (ok to wrap) Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes 02124/2020 02/2412020 BLDG-84 Rough 120141-2020 Failed Michael Collins Reinspection Incomplete Combo(14,24,34,44) - Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Not ready No 03/0212020 1 03102/2020 BLDG-84 Rough 120924-2020 Partial Pass Michael Collins Reinspection Incomplete Combo(14,24,34,44) Friday, June 26, 2020 . Page 1 of 2 o. CARLSOAD INSPECTION RECORD ANS MU WH APPt16VIIO ST liE I(EpTi '*l I! JOn £5 GAIL fl1FO on NFT wouc Il5PECTIOiI £5*r011EflflLblpjG lNirgj CALL; 760602272 on CO Iij0 L40cIwia AND CLICK ON CBI(201.1244 1053 BRADY dR w4wxI aWU IO4 51 IM!v201..O010 205221O2D 5QO/2O9 CBR2019-1244 (U'utr4l ptL1o_uQ F1n*I ta*.( IIo. I lot pf"fi, coil ls atkabI, lMjjt*, at ta ou s p;oo46;d Ie4.ot. AN., Ott tGqotioil ID oo CC" olthia Oara I Io1O]ki Rtt-PIfL Op oi*o so* 61a ON- I. to t2i 10.35 F.,ad4 t •i r - Irtr1 ! SI ___ ____ zi 51 ____ Iti FCtItW.flbN Doi rrn.*U,(.l:uI.q L1* IP!C1Of flL On1:cizC.w,afGi.'O DL'rta 615 T*LW j____ j _iiLIT - d" REW1,011MIDSHYL I4* IUS1EIrPRI!GNW3T 7w MT Pums Oil BLOS IlILIL 141 U11U3tCAPIP1I ill SI3flWft Onogs ... lit tOS1Th1NG - st4AflMl_ __sxr. VI 9 4 OUPtUI1IM t3sai.m4wo ______ _____ 2 Ili AWJJ cOImsysnMs HI IVIAI'IDII t -.•— 811 60 _sare 09 cramidoIATi1 ______ tzz ttWt!BiJCS pio_ _____ 2C41ESIL1 IN r 013 MR — ailk- - RL%t5LAL isv LSOIINCI ______ :_wtfI ioINAL ____ MUCH [IF jjlm— WPM r5l pact Ex IPLLIU . t° ___ !jL ____ aS ,atcjC.a!i/%t1mi10 _.._ ________________________________ tip ALAR nXBNNSsSTU4Hht4L I cuitW Field Report • Daily report mu SCST. LLC - Riverside LEA 262 Exp. 02125r2022 1130 Palmynta Ave., Suite 330a Riverside, CA 92507 Rhone, (877) 215-4321 Client: ProJe Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc. Pending Project Number Blank Pending Project Number Blank, Blank Blank See Notes See Notes, CA Report Number: 140 Technician: Estifanos, Aklilu Certification: 1CC5276085 Date: 11/26/2019 Authority Having Jurisdiction: Other Other Jurisdiction: City of Carlsbad Permit Number: CBR20I9-1249 and CBR20I9-1244 Architect: WHA Engineer SWANSON & ASSOCIATES Contractor: FOUR 'Comers Start lime 07:00 End Time: 11:00 Time (Hours): 4.00 Location Details: Lots I and 2 Service Being Performed: Special Inspection Type of Inspection: Other Other Type of Inspection: Post tension pre- inspection Inspection Frequency Is: Periodic Work Identified Within This Report Was Conducted: During my Time on Site Material Classification: A615 grade 60 reinforcement bars,tendons are A-416/270k ,1/2 7wire strand Detabs Amved on site at the request of the client to perform pre-inspection of post tension sla on grade and foundation. Verified the grade,type,size and clearance of the reinforcement bars placed at the slab on grade and foundation at lots 1 and 2,as per plans 2A and IA. Verified the type ,countspacing , positioning and clearance of the tendons placed at the slab on grade and foundation at lots I and 2,as per plans 2A and IA. Caption: Post tension tendons and reinforcement bars placed at lot 1. Status of Work Element: Work Element Inspection Completed, In Accordance with Approved Documents. Discrepancy: No cc: Project Architect; Page 1 of I Structural Engineer; Project Inspector; DSA Regional Office (If Applicable); C GEOCON FOUNDATION OBSERVATION REPORT PROJECT NAME: hthCNULI. I1114 - PROJECT NO. C C, -5 2 L)i LOCATION: LT j f 2.- AGENCY PROJECT NO: APPROVAL / PERMIT NOS: DATE IZ/3/2i - FOUNDATION TYPE: ç - 0 ADDITIONAL.OBSERVATION REQUIRED 0 CONVENTIONAL ).SUBSTANTIALCONFORMANCE M POST-TENSIONED PURPOSE OF OBSERVATION NL Check soil conditions exposed are similar to those expected . . ISLCheck footing excavations extend to minimum depth recommended in soil report St Check footings have been extended to an appropriate bearing strata 0 Other . . . APPLICABLE SOIL REPORT: TITLE: raI 9(fD(4- rr -rt V -4Cfi6 ,Q.,1r.n1rr iL.NC.l( ((rgh4, it rE Cti _ Dr 1fl,'(l'J1tt iC . r t4 DATE: it4 /2 f Ct SOIL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON: IC Expansion Condition ,I Very Low (0-20) 0 Low (21-50) 0 Medium (51-90) 0 High (91-130) 0 Very High (>130) LL Fill Geometry QLr I Qc . 0 Other: . . . MINIMUM FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS: . Footing Depth: )L 12 Inches 0 18 Inches 0 24 Inches OTHER: 2_I) Footing Reinforcement: 0 No.4 T&B 0 2-N6.4 T&B 0 2-No.5 T&B )A, Post-Tensioned OTHER:. Interior Slab Reinforcement: 0 6x6-10/10 0 6x6-6/6 0 No.3@24 Inches 0 No.3@18 Inches. 0 P6st-Tensioned FOUNDATION CATEGORY: DNA Oil ____________________ DIII . . .• OBSERVATIONS: . Substantial conformance with Soil Report. . [ELSubstantial conformance with Foundation Plans. Identify: VT i-J' mc LLit' 5rL.U7 I LLT2 (-J I U O Other . COMMENTS: Ut.t i(J IT ii • V VtZ - Or NOTE: FOOTING EXCAVATIONS SHOULD BE CLEANED OF LOOSE MATERIAL PRIOR TO PLACING CONCRETE AND THE SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT SHOULD BE MAINTAINED. FIELD COPIES TO. U '-1GEOCON REPRESNT4TIV Field Report Nil SCST, LLC - San Diego Client: Project: LEA: 47, Exp: 04/25/2021 6280 Riverdale St. Pebble Creek Companies 190318N San Diego, CA 92120 301 West 28th Street, Suite A Magnolia-Brady CMT - Pebble Creek Companies Phone: (619) 280-4321 National City, CA 91950 Brady Circle Fax: (619) 280-4717 . Carlsbad, CA 92008 Report Number: 8 Technician: Rosete, Edwin Certification: ICC #8325989 Date: 01/21/2020 Authority Having Jurisdiction: Other Other Jurisdiction: City of Carlsbad Permit Number: CBR2OI9- Architect: Wi-IA Engineer: Swanson & Associates Contractor: JD Reinforcing, Four Corners, BSA. Start Time 07:00 End Time: 15:30 Time (Hours): 8.00 Location Details: Lots #1 thru V. Service Being Performed: Special Inspection Type of Inspection: Prestressed Concrete / Structural Wood Inspection Frequency Is: Periodic Work Identified Within This Report Was Conducted: During my Time on Site Prestressed Concrete Report Type: Stressing of Tendons The Following Components are Covered in This Report: Wood Shear Walls / Anchor Bolts Fastener Type: Nail Components Identified Were Installed in Accordance With the Contract Documents: Yes Details: Lot #5: - Inspected the stressing of (1) PT cable (a replacing cable #12 from a previously broken cable). Cable is 35' long, stressed to 5,600 psi of gauge pressure. The elongation was measured 2 3/4". Stressing was performed by JD Reinforcing. The jack and ram is 2008-023, with calibration date of 11/18/2019. Lots #1 thru #7: - Inspected the installation of 5/8' diameter anchor bolts of sill plates of shear walls at the building foundations. Work was done by Jorge of Four Corners. Holes were pre-drilled. Ensured holes were of adequate depths. Holes were compressed air-blown to ensure for cleanliness and good bond. Simpson Set-313 was used as adhesives with expiration date of 07/11/21. (100) anchor bolts were installed including approximately 20 percent on non-shear walls. Work was in compliance with the cut-sheet CS-01 (from Post-Tension Engineering of Record - Typical retrofit detail for hold-downs and anchor bolts). Note: numerous anchor bolts and hold-downs were still missing. Notified Superintendent Rick Rizek of the matter. - Inspected nailing only of all shear walls that are mainly types 4 and 5, and (1) type 6 at the 1-story type building. All nailing were completed and in compliance with the shear wall schedule. Nailing was performed by BSA. cc: Project Architect; Page 1 of Structural Engineer; Project Inspector; DSA Regional Office (If Applicable); Caption: Ensuring holes were cleaned. Caption: Stressed (1) replacing PT cable. - s1I Field Report SCST, LLC - San Diego LEA: 47, Exp: 04/25/2021 6280 Riverdale St. San Diego, CA 92120 Phone: (619) 280-4321 Fax: (619) 280-4717 Client: Project: Pebble Creek Companies 190318N 301 West 28th Street, Suite A Magnolia-Brady CMT - Pebble Creek Companies National City, CA 91950 Brady Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 Caption: Added/installed 5/8" anchor bolt, typical. Caption: 1- r' - Missing anchor bolt on end of shear wall. Also, marked in orange A . shall be square washer. - 17 -p-- I -. cc: Project Architect; Page 2 of 3 Structural Engineer; Project Inspector; DSA Regional Office (If Applicable); Field Report SCST, LLC -San Diego LEA: 47, Exp: 04/25/2021 6280 Riverdale St. San Diego, CA 92120 Phone: (619) 280-4321 Fax: (619) 280-4717 Client: Project: Pebble Creek Companies 190318N 301 West 28th Street, Suite A Magnolia-Brady CMT - Pebble Creek Companies National City, CA 91950 Brady Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 Caption: Showing exterior shear walls of the 2-story building, typical. Status of Work Element: Work Element Inspected Pending Completion. Discrepancy: No cc: Project Architect; Page 3 of 3 Structural Engineer; Project Inspector; DSA Regional Office (If Applicable); Please input agency related information you want to display on the generated reports Cetlphone: XXX-XXX-XXXX. Address: XXX XXXXX BLVD XXXX Case Number: FPR2019-0240 Case Module: Permit Inspection Date: Fri May 29, 2020 Inspection Status: Passed Inspector: Felix Salcedo Inspection Type: FIRE-Res Single Fam Sprinkler Final(20) Job Address: 1653 BRADY CIR Parcel Number: 2052210200 Carlsbad, CA, 92008 Contact Type Company Name Name Fire Prevention Contractor INNOVATIVE FIRE PROTECTION INC Applicant INNOVATIVE FIRE PROTECTION INC PLASSMEYER, JOSEPH Checklist Item Status I1 4V John Salcedo, Felix May 29, 2020 Page (1) rnr\ott nwLj PAD CERTIFICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT PROJECT INSPECTOR-._L1t4.t DATE: 1,011 RECEIVED .(cityn-y °'SBAD cärlsbaa 0C1.3 1 2,019 CM&I DIVISION PROJECT ID C-TZO - o3 GRADING PERMIT NO. :RW OO.'4 LOT(S) REQUESTED FOR RELEASE: oval N/A = NOT APPLICABLE COMPLETE .O = Incomplete or unacceptable 1. As-Built (Redlines) are up to date and available onsite for refèrencë. All daily geotechnical observation reports, compactiqnreportsand lettersfromgeotechnical engineer submitted, including: pads, retaining walls, utility-trenches, slopes, paved access roads and parkiiig lots. Site security and fencing installed for separation of construction activity from. public. Letter from EOWdocumenting that-the-finished pad elevations match the plan elevations for specific lot(s). Letter from the project QSDcertitying that all construction related BMPsare installed in accordance with City of Carlsbad Storm Water-Standards. Site accessto requested lot(4)adequate and logically:grouped, including a designated staging area for building:phase of work. All onsite undergrqujd utilities installed and ready for service. :Identificatign and protection of city sewer infrastructure Is implemented, including manhole protection,. false bottoms and sediment traps. P.ermahentfrernporary Fire Access Plan approved by Fire Department rep resentativê, and implemented on site 10. Letter from Owner/Dev requesting padcertifi cation of the specific lot(s) .with 8Wtx 11'! site plan. Pad certification: for the above stated lots. Is approved for the purpose of building permit issuane. Issuance of building permits is still subject-to all city requirements; The abovestated lots are-conditionally approved for a building permit to:install retaining walls required for pad certifrcation only. The above stated lots are conditknalIy approved for a building permit to install foundations only.. tv4t ito' Project Inspector Date /of3i! Municipal ojects Manag Date Public Works construction Management & Inspection 1635 Faraday Avenie I Carlsbad, CA 92008 1 760-602-2790 1760-438-4178 fax December 2, 2019 City of Carlsbad Development Services Department 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA RE: Building Setback Verification Letter 1653 Brady Circle (Lot 2), Carlsbad, CA APN 205-221-02 To Whom It May Concern: Coastal Land Solutions, Inc. performed a land survey of the site on November 25, 2019. During our site visit, we verified that the building forms for the proposed structure were within the setback lines as depicted on the architectural plan 1A. The original building layout that was surveyed by this office was based upon the architectural plans prepared by William Hezmaihalch Architects dated May 14, 2019 and Precise Grading Plans, sheet 4 of 6 - City of Carlsbad Drawing # 515-3A for Project No. CT 2018-0003. Closest Measured Distance to Boundary Line Plan Dimension South Side 6.19' 6.18' SYSB North Side 6.56' 6.18' SYSB East Side 47.63' 12.36' RYSB West Side 32.02' 20.00' FYSB If you should have any questions in., reference to the information listed above, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Robert C. Ladwig L.S. 3189 President Ladwig Design Group, Inc. P.O. Box 2258 Carlsbad, CA 92018 Ph: (760) 438-3182 Fax: (760) 438-0173 (City of Carlsbad SPECIAL INSPECTION AGREEMENT BI4!CFFL _) OCT 152019 Development Services Building Division 1635 Faraday Avenue 760-602-2719 www.carlsbadca.gov In accordance with Chapter 17 of the California Building -must bejcompleted when work being performed requires special inspection, structural observation and c Itestin Project/Permit: Project Address: 1534 Magnolia Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008 THIS SECTION MUST BE COMPLETED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER/AUTHORIZED AGENT. Please check if you are Owner-Builder U. (If you checked as owner-builder you must also complete Section B of this agreement.) Name: (Please print) Taylor D Ashton (First) (MI.) (Last) Mailing Address: 30 Via Latigo, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 Email: Taykrashton3.com Phone: 949-584-2041 I am: Mf'roperty Owner OProperty Owner's Agent of Record 0Architect of Record DEngineer of Record State of California Registration Number: Expiration Date: AGREEMENT: I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that I have read, understand, acknowledge and promise to comply with the City of Carlsbad requirements for special inspections, structural observations, construction materials testing and off-site fabrication of building components, as prescribed in the statement of special inspections noted op thç approved plans and, as required by the California Building Code. Signatu Date: 10/11/2019 CONTRACTOR'S STATEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY (07 CBC, Ch 17, Section 1706). This section must be completed by the contractor I builder / owner-builder. Contractor's Company Name: Pebble Creek Companies Please check if you are Owner-Builder Name: (Please print) Gary L. Arnold (First) (MI.) (Last) Mailing Address: 3802 Main Street, Suite 10, Chula Vista, CA 91911 Email: gary@pebblecreekcompanies.com Phone: 619 0938-0312 State of California Contractor's License Number. 931309 Expiration Date: 04/30/2021 I acknowledge and, am aware, of special requirements contained in the statement of special inspections noted on the approved plans; I acknowledge that control will be exercised to obtain conformance with the construction documents approved by the building official; I will have in-place procedures for exercising control within our (the contractor's) organization, for the method and frequency of reporting and the distribution of the reports; and I certify that I will have a qualified person within our (the contractor's) organization to exercise such control. I will provide a final report / letter in compliance with CBC Section 1704.1.2 prior to requesting final Signatui Date: ocr a. ZCDl B-45 Page 1 of 1 Rev. 08/11 DATE; 10/22/2019 JURISDICTION: KCãrlibid\ EsGil A SAFEbuilttompany / U/APPLICANT 7 PLAN CHECK #.: CBR2019-1244 SET: IV PROJECT ADDRESS: 1653 Brady Circle PROJECT NAME: Custom SFR with Attached Garage for Magnolia A3, LLC The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building-codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. El 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. EJ The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. D The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: EsGil staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. LI EsGil staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Telephone #: Date contacted: IOI23Iq (by:/fl) Email: Mail Telephone Fax In Person REMARKS: Note to City: approvediiV. By: Ryan Murphy (for T.F.) Enclosures: EsGil 10/17/2019 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (858) 560-1468 • Fax (858) 560-1576 EsGil. A SAFEtuflrCompany DATE: 9/26119 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK #.: 19124 SEj PROJECT ADDRESS: 1653 Brady Circle I APPLICANT U JURIS. PROJECT NAME: Custom SFR with Attached Garage for Magnolia A3, LLC 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. Lii 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: Tim Seaman 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: Tim Seaman Telephone #: 619 993-8846 contace . 0-k-kO\ CC (by:p,) Email: tim@bhpsonline.com In Person F-1 (Z~R~ il By: Tamara Fischer Enclosures: EsGil 9/19/19 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (858) 560-1468 • Fax (858) 560-1576 Carlsbad CBR2019- 1244 9/26/19 NOTE: The items listed below are from the previous correction list. These remaining items have not been adequately addressed. The numbers of the items are from the previous check list and may not necessarily be in sequence. 9/26/19: The notes in bold, underlined font are current. 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. GENERAL A. 9/26/19: Please remove trusses from deferred submittal list as the truss designs were submitted. FOUNDATION 9. 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 (as required by the soil report). Also, in the letter (or a separate one) have the soil engineer comment on the lack of steel in the bottom of perimeter footings and interior stiffener beams, as section 7.8.7 of the soil report recommends this. 9/26/19: The requested letter(s) was/were not received. Please include with the next submittal, as this is one of the main items holding up approval by Esqil. CONTINUED Carlsbad CBR20 19-1244 9/26/19 11. Where expansive or collapsible soils are known to exist, show on the plans a controlled method of water disposal from roofs that will collect and discharge roof drainage to the ground surface at least 5' from the foundation. Section R801.3. 9/26/19: I do not see where it is shown on the Civil plans that roof drainage will be discharged at least 5' from the foundation, as indicated on the response. Please point out where this is shown on the next submittal. STRUCTURAL 18. Please complete the Carlsbad Special Inspection form, available at httlx//www.carlsbadca.Qovlcivicx/filebank/blobdload .aspx?BIoblD251 07 9/26/19: The completed form was not received. It will need to be included with the next submittal or presented to the City at permit issuance. B. 9/26/19: Some of the truss calculations are using a top chord dead load of 10 psf which does not match the structural calculations (and the roof covering is tile). PME 21. Show that kitchen and laundry outlets are AFCI protected (in addition to GFCI). NEC 210.12(A). ). I see the note referencing the code section, but these rooms need to be specifically called out or the information added to the legend (as it is for rooms without GFCI). 9/26/19: Response stated that the legend was updated on sheet AI.2.1. Please see the clouded note at the legend. I believe there is a typo, as it does not mention AFCI. CALIFORNIA GREEN CODE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION 26. Please complete the City of Carlsbad form for Construction Waste Management. Available at https://www.carlsbadca .cov/civicax/fiIebankIbIobdload .aspx?BIobl D34404. 9/26/19: The completed estimate portion of the form was not received. It will need to be included with the next submittal or presented to the City at permit issuance. CONTINUED Carlsbad CBR20 19-1244 9/26/19 MISCELLANEOUS 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. Please answer the question below and list any changes not due to our corrections since the original submittal. Have changes been made to the plans not resulting from this correction list? Please indicate: Yes E3 No L3 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 Tamara Fischer at EsGil. Thank you. V EsGil" A SAFEbuitCornpany DATE: 8/26/19 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK #.: PROJECT ADDRESS: 1653 Brady Circle SETIIj APPLICANT I JURIS. PROJECT NAME: Custom SFR with Attached Garage for Magnolia A3, LLC II The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's codes. EIII 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. III 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: Tim Seaman U 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: Tim Seaman Telephone #: 619 993-8846 Date contacted: (by: ) Email: tim©bhpsonline.com Mail Telephone Fax In Person F-1 REMARKS: By: Tamara Fischer Enclosures: EsGil 8/15/19 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (858) 560-1468 • Fax (858) 560-1576 Carlsbad CBR2019- 1244 8/26/19 NOTE: The items listed below are from the previous correction list. These remaining items have not been adequately addressed. The numbers of the items are from the previous check list and may not necessarily be in sequence. The notes in bold font are current. 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. GENERAL A. To avoid confusion, please remove interior railing from the deferred submittal list since this is a one story. FOUNDATION IMPORTANT NOTE: PER MY CONVERSATION WITH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, THE POST-TENSIONED SLAB DESIGN CANNOT BE A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL. ORIGINAL CORRECTIONS 6-11 BELOW MUST BE RESOLVED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE. Please remove post tensioned slab plans which do not apply to this permit. Also, final Post Tensioned Slab Plans will need to have the "Not for Construction" notes removed. Please provide a copy of the Post tensioned Slab calculations for review with the next submittal. The center reaction at the 3-point bearing girder truss at grid 6 appears to exceed the 4,000 lb concentrated load listed at the lower right corner of sheet SI.1, but it is not called out on the slab interaction plan on that sheet. Please verify that this load has been taken into account in the PT slab design. CONTINUED Carlsbad CBR2019- 1244 8/26/19 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 (as required by the soil report). Also, in the letter (or a separate one) have the soil engineer comment on the lack of steel in the bottom of perimeter footings and interior stiffener beams, as section 7.8.7 of the soil report recommends this. Show on plans that surface water will drain away from building and show drainage pattern. The grade shall fall a minimum of 6" within the first 10 feet. 2% of for impervious areas only. Civil plans do not show compliance in some areas. Section R401.3. Where expansive or collapsible soils are known to exist, show on the plans a controlled method of water disposal from roofs that will collect and discharge roof drainage to the ground surface at least 5' from the foundation. Section R801.3. STRUCTURAL 18. Please complete the Carlsbad Special Inspection form, available at http://www.carlsbadca.gov/civicx/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BIoblD=251 07 The completed form was not received. PME 21. Show that kitchen and laundry outlets are AFCI protected (in addition to GFCI). NEC 210.12(A). ). I see the note referencing the code section, but these rooms need to be specifically called out or the information added to the legend (as it is for rooms without GFCI). CALIFORNIA GREEN CODE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION 26. Please complete the City of Carlsbad form for Construction Waste Management. Available at https :I/www. carlsbadca .qov/civicax/filebank/blobd load .aspx?BlobI D34404. The completed estimate portion of the form was not received. 28. Please remove, cross out, or identify as N/A the CFI-Rs on Title 24 sheets which do not apply to this permit. Response was: "To be addressed by the Title 24 Engineer." I did not receive separate T24 responses and the requested change was not made. CONTINUED Carlsbad CBR2019-1244 8/26/19 29. Provide the following design requirements for gas water heaters installed to serve individual dwelling units: ES 150.0(n) a) A complete gas piping sizing design based upon a minimum input of 200,000 btu/hr for each water heater. The gas design could not be located. Please provide it. 32. Residential ventilation requirements: ES 150.0(o)/ASHRAE 62.2 Please specify minimum 63 CFM (73 with bedroom 5 opt) for whole building ventilation fan (per energy design) and a maximum noise rating of I Sone. Please specify maximum noise rating of 3 Sone for bathroom fans and kitchen range hood. I did not receive separate T24 responses MISCELLANEOUS 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. Please answer the question below and list any changes not due to our corrections since the original submittal. Have changes been made to the plans not resulting from this correction list? Please indicate: Yes 13 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 Tamara Fischer at EsGil. Thank you. EsGilV/S A SAFEbuitttompany DATE: 6/6/19 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad U APPLICANT U JURIS. PLAN CHECK#.: 01—C2Oiii244 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1653 Brady Circle PROJECT NAME: Custom SFR with Attached Garage and Guest Suite for Magnolia A3 LLC LI The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's codes. LI 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. LI The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on theenclosed 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. LI 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: Tim Seaman LI 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: Tim Seariai Telephone #: 619 993-8846 Date c,nactect4cj)ij (bk) ) Email: tim@bhpsonline.com - Mail ( Telephone) Fax In Person LI REMA'KS By: Tamara Fischer Enclosures: EsGil 5/21/19 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (858) 560-1468 • Fax (858)560-1576 Carlsbad CBR2019- 1244 6/6/19 PLAN REVIEW CORRECTION LIST SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND DUPLEXES PLAN CHECK #.: CBR2019-1244 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PROJECT ADDRESS: 1653 Brady Circle FLOOR AREA: 2589 sq ft SFR, 723 sq ft Gar HEIGHT: 14' approx. per CRC 249 sq ft Coy Porches REMARKS: DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY. JURISDICTION: ESGIL CORPORATION: 5/21/19 DATE INITIAL PLAN REVIEW PLAN REVIEWER: Tamara Fischer COMPLETED: 6/6/19 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 19-1244 6/6119 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: 1. 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. 2. 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. GENERAL All sheets of plans must be signed by the person responsible for their preparation. (California Business and Professions Code). 2. On the cover sheet of the plans, specify any items that will have a deferred submittal (trusses (if deferred), fire sprinklers, etc.). Additionally, provide the following note on the plans: "Submittal documents for deferred submittal items shall be submitted to the registered design professional in responsible charge, who shall review them and forward them to the building official with a notation indicating that the deferred submittal documents have been reviewed and that they have been found to be in general conformance with the design of the building. The deferred submittal items shall NOT be installed until their design and submittal documents have been approved by the building official." 3. Please specify that smoke alarm in hallway to master is to be an ionization alarm with a silencing switch or a photoelectric alarm (proximity to range) Section R314. 4. For optional bedroom 5, please show a smoke alarm inside the bedroom and a smoke alarm and carbon monoxide alarm in the hallway outside the bedroom. Section R314, R315. 5. For optional bonus room, please show a smoke alarm and carbon monoxide alarm in the bonus room since it gives access to bedroom 3. Section R314, R315. CONTINUED Carlsbad CBR20 19-1244 6/6/19 FOUNDATION Please remove post tensioned slab plans which do not apply to this permit. Also, final Post Tensioned Slab Plans will need to have the "Not for Construction" notes removed. Please provide a copy of the Post tensioned Slab calculations for review with the next submittal. The center reaction at the 3-point bearing girder truss at grid 6 appears to exceed the 4,000 lb concentrated load listed at the lower right corner of sheet S1.1, but it is not called out on the slab interaction plan on that sheet. Please verify that this load has been taken into account in the PT slab design. 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 (as required by the soil report). Also, in the letter (or a separate one) have the soil engineer comment on the lack of steel in the bottom of perimeter footings and interior stiffener beams, as section 7.8.7 of the soil report recommends this. Show on plans that surface water will drain away from building and show drainage pattern. The grade shall fall a minimum of 6" within the first 10 feet. 2% of for impervious areas only. Civil plans do not show compliance in some areas. Section R401.3. Where expansive or collapsible soils are known to exist, show on the plans a controlled method of water disposal from roofs that will collect and discharge roof drainage to the ground surface at least 5' from the foundation. Section R801.3. STRUCTURAL Provide truss details and truss calculations for this project. Specify truss identification numbers on the plans. (Unless they are to be a deferred submittal). Truss- to- truss connection hardware must be shown on structural plans or truss layout. Attic FAU should be considered in truss design. Please provide evidence that the engineer-of-record (or architect) has reviewed the truss calculation package prepared by others (i.e., a "review" stamp on the truss calculations or a letter). CBC Section 107.3.4.1. CONTINUED Carlsbad CBR2019- 1244 6/6/19 14. Please specify the size of the header at grid 7 which is supporting the girder truss on sheet S1.2. 15. Please call out the vertical support for the girder truss at grid 4 (right side) on sheet SI.2. 16. Will the top plates at grid 7 be discontinuous at family room slider? Architectural shows a 9' plate height. If so, please provide strapping from beam to top plates. 17. 7.5' height is used for the shear walls at grid 3, but I do not see strapping and blocking called out at the garage door header height. Please clarify. 18. Please complete the Carlsbad Special Inspection form, available at http://www.carlsbadca.gov/civicxtfilebank/blobdload.aspx?Blobi D=251 07 PME 19. Please complete the detail reference at floor plan keynote 322 for attic FAU. 20. Provide electrical service load calculations (including EVSE capability). Show on the plan the location of any sub-panels. If the service is over 200 amperes, submit a single line diagram and panel schedules. 21. Show that kitchen and laundry outlets are AFCI protected (in addition to GFCI). NEC 210.12(A). 22. Per CEC Article 210.11(C)3, note on the plans that bathroom circuiting shall be either: A 20-ampere circuit dedicated to each bathroom, or At least one 20 ampere circuit supplying only bathroom receptacle outlets. 23. Please specify that the tankless water heater in the garage will be mounted to be above the path of vehicles. CPC Section 507.13. CALIFORNIA GREEN CODE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION 24. Please revise California Green Code notes to indicate maximum 1.8 GPM for showers per current requirements. 25. 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. CONTINUED Carlsbad CBR20 19-1244 6/6/19 Please complete the City of Carlsbad form for Construction Waste Management. Available at https://www.carlsbadca .qov/civicax/filebank/blobd load .aspx?Blobl D34404. Per City Ordinance, the EVSE ready space shall have the following: Panel capability, 40A 2 pole breaker, 1" raceway, No. 8 conductors installed to the anticipated charger location. Please remove, cross out, or identify as N/A the CFI -Rs on Title 24 sheets which do not apply to this permit. Provide the following design requirements for gas water heaters installed to serve individual dwelling units: ES 150.0(n) a) A complete gas piping sizing design based upon a minimum input of 200,000 btu/hr for each water heater. All domestic hot water piping to have the following minimum insulation installed: 1/2" pipe (1/2" insulation); 34" pipe (1" insulation); 1" to 1_h/2" pipe (1_1/2' insulation). CPC 609.11 & ES 150.00). Additionally, the %" hot water pipe to the kitchen sink, and the cold water pipe within 5' of the water heater both require 1" minimum insulation. ES 150.00). Below grade hot water piping is required to be installed in a waterproof and non- crushable sleeve or casing that allows for replacement of both the piping and insulation. Residential ventilation requirements: ES I 50.0(o)/ASHRAE 62.2 ( Please specify minimum 63 CFM (73 with bedroom 5 opt) for whole building ventilation fan (per energy design) and a maximum noise rating of I Sone. Please specify maximum noise rating of 3 Sone for bathroom fans and kitchen range hood. CONTINUED Carlsbad CBR20 19-1244 6/6/19 MISCELLANEOUS To speed up the review process, note on this list (or a copy) where each correction item has been addressed, i.e., plansheet, 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: 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 Tamara Fischer at EsGil. Thank you. Carlsbad CBR2019-1244 6/6/19 [DO NOT PAY— THIS IS NOT AN INVOICE] VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK #.: CBR2019-1244 PREPARED BY: Tamara Fischer DATE: 6/6/19 BUILDING ADDRESS: 1653 Brady Circle BUILDING OCCUPANCY: R3 / U BUILDING PORTION AREA (Sq. Ft.) Valuation Multiplier Reg. Mod. VALUE ($) SFR 2589 141.76 367,017 Gar 723 36.98 26,737 Coy Porch 249 12.33 3,070 Prefab FP 1 3,373.05 3,373 Air Conditioning 2589 5.31 $13,748 Fire Sprinklers 3312 4.01 13281 TOTAL VALUE 427,225 Jurisdiction Code ICb IBY Ordinance 1997 UBC Building Permit Fee I "I 1997 UBC Plan Check Fee 'H Type of Review: LJ Complete Review Structural Only D Repetit Repe ive i-eeats El Other Hourly Hr. © * G1111 Fee I $1,092.181 Comments: Sheet 1 of 1 STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS r ______ 5Ep SUE DATE 05/08/19 I04 18 201g ('A J91111- [ PROJECT : Description: 2 Single Family Client: Magnolia A3 LLC Name: LOT27'PAN 1A P3-yB Dwellings Taylor Ashton, director Magonolia Tract DESIGN CRITERIA i Building Type: Bearing wall system Steel: ASTM A992 W-Shapes (if used) ASTM A36 rolled shapes, bars & plates Construction: Stud walls, sawn lumber ASTM A53 Grade B pipe columns wood timbers, plywood sheathing ASTM A500 Grade B HSS tube steel Grade 40 & 60 reinforcing bars Codes: 2016 CBC & 2016 CRC ASCE 07-10, 2015 N5 Concrete: 2.500 psi at 28 days. U.N.O. Higher strength where noted Wood: Studs - Stud grade, Standard & btr. Posts - 5tandard 4 better Masonry: 1,500 psi grade N standard weight Beams- bF#2 or better Concrete Masonry Units Joists - I-Joists GLBs - 24F-1.8E Soils 4 bearing: LSL - laminated strand rims and beams P/T slab design by others LVL - laminated veneer microlam beams and joists PSL - parallel strand beams BUILDING LOADS Roof Loads psf Floor Loads psf Lt. wt. topping Roofing (tile) 9.5 Floor Finish (carpet) 1.2 11.2 Sheathing 1.4 Sheathing 2.0 2.0 Rafters or trusses 3.2 Joists 2.6 2.6 Ceiling 2.2 Ceiling 2.6 2.6 Misc. & insulation 1.7 Misc. & insulation 3.6 3.6 Total Roof bL ............................................................18.0 psf Total Floor bL ..........................12.0 psf 22.0 psf Roof Live Load (less than 4:12 pitch) ...................20 psf Roof Live Load (4:12 pitch or steeper) ................16 psf Roof Live Load (12:12 pitch or steeper) ..............12 psf Exterior Walls psf Stucco or siding 10.0 Studs 1.1 Gypsum board 2.2 Misc. & insulation 1.7 Total Wall bL ............................................................15.0 psf Floor Live Load .........................40 psf Balcony Live Load .....................60 psf 1.5 x L Exit Live Load ...........................100 psf Interior Walls psf psf Shear panel 2.0 Studs 1.1 1.1 Gypsum board 4.4 4.4 Misc. & insulation 2.5 2.5 Total Wall DL ............................8.0 psf 10.0 psf (858) 487-70 Swanson & Associates 17055 Via Del Campo. Suite 100. San Magnolia 04/04/18 Calculation Commentary: These calculations as submitted on a lot by lot basis are an exerpt from a combined set of a two plan tract. When the plan is noted as a reverse plan, (example Plan 2AR), the beam reactions RI and R2 and the orientation of the loading will be reversed from standard convention. The calculation package is identical for the following lots Plan 1 calc package Lot 2 lot 4 lot 6 Plan 2 catc package Lot 1 Lot 3 Lot 5 Lot 7 0 Section Properties & Design Loads 2016 CBC/CRC Nominal Size Actual Size (b)x (d) inches - Area (A) in2 - Section Modulus (5) - in' Moment of Inertia (I) in4 Roof Loads LDF: 1.25 Floor Loads LbF: 1.00 (w) Allowable Uniform Loads (plf) Allowable Shear Moment (Ibs) (lb-ft) Allowable Shear Moment (lbs) (lb.ft) Span in feet for beam or joist sizes - Normal duration, Laterally fully braced, repetitive member increase for 2x members. 39. 4ft. 51. ''-t. 7 't. 8't 0't. 10 ft. lift. 12 ft. 13 it. 14ff. 15 ft. 16 ft. 17 ft. IS ft. 19 ft. 2x4 2*8 iö 2x12 1.5 x 3.5 1.5*7.25 Fa M15 R29. 12' 15* 1125 5.25 10.88 Th' 1688 3.06 5.36 788 211 630 169 1.305 1.360 11 8 7 5 4 3 3 2 2 62 48 37 29 23 19 15 13 11 9 '4 13.14 3164 08 47.63 17798 1,631 1,700 2,531 3,411 1,094 L. 43 35 30 25 21 10940k 9 , 2 2,025 2,729 1,094 820 656 547 44J 3 f' 701L 2i8Z 18O 44 766# 60 1094820 65 P547 469 410 362 b*I AQ WI ''à1 29O8 8J4b 4*4 4 4*8 44235* I 4x16 35*3 5 3.5x7.25 U 5 5 35 x 1525 1225 2538 I 3938 I 5338 715 5' 3066 7i 1383 13566 1251 , 11115 41528 103442 1838 1005 3,806 3,737 5 I 59068459 8 006 14,131 1470 804 3,045 2,989 4,725 6,768 6,405 11,305 154O 25 176 111 74 52 38 29 22 17 14 11 9 8 7 6 159 86 5'1 2*O41384 111 86 67 54 44 3630 2522 2,188 r49 2.42 122r 100 83 69 58 49 3 2J1 ç 1O14 ui1l1QQ 43753 281 150 4375 3281 1 34 4,375 3.281 2,625 2,188 9O47'628 ,535 6x4 6*6 8A 6*10 6x14 '5'5é'35 55 x 55 55*95 55 x 135 9r25 3025 I 5225 7425 1V2 2773 8273 16706 7626 39296 ~6- 112767 2813 4,265 3,466 - O1)15O 3,428 2,773 . 5,922 9,307 VD 57i536255)1 175 117 82 60 45 35 2722181512109 4538 S8871616 43c347 2f4üi 175 134 106 85 69 57 47 40 34 .., . - 3,438 W5 l65Oli46 842 45 5O9i4i3 3412844 1 175 144 120 101 86 7,402 11,634 6,675 L 29i 244 205 175 5,1 6 4,125 10519 23,188 8415 18550 6875 5156 4.125 3438 2 94 WE W 6.875 5,156 4,125 3,438 2,946 2,578 2 292 j:- 5165 ?5'TS I 4 6N i 33T75 ro 25)iöb 11' 'Timberstrwpd LSL rim board & 11" Timbersrand LSL___________ 11Jli"IM2.5 144 LSL 9ii 18 1 1.25*14.0 17.50 40.83 285.83 6,198 7,129 066 4,958 5,703 1035 777 621 518 444 388 345 311 27523i%1 197 157 128 105 88 74 63 1,035 777 621 518 444 388 345 311 282 -259 239 222 EM 173 144 121 103 1035 777 621 518 444 388 345 311 282 259 239 222 207 194 183 173 154 1 1* LSL 1316 LSL 1.75 x 11.88 20.78 41.13 244.21 5.368 9,971 4,295 7.977 1,838 1,378 1.103 919 788 689 613 551 501 404 318 254 207 170 142 120 102 1,838 1,378 1,103 919 788 689 613 551 501 459 424 394 339 279 233 196 167 1.75* 16.0 IM01 'Ta 28.00 1j 7467 597.33 j rl5ö 7,233 17,611 gjo 5.787 14.089 1,838 1.378 1,103 919 788 689 613 551 501 459 424 394 368 345 324 293 249 3' 'Timberstrcnd LSL - 3+X4* LSL 3x7* LSL LSL TTiEi 3x11* LSL 13 3+x16 LSL '375W 7 3x9f 3.5 x 4.38 35 x 725 35 x 95 35 xli 88 14'b 3.5*16.0 15.31 2538 19 3325 B 4156 11.17 3066 24,42 11115 5.423 2,170 8,987 5,687 4,339 1,736 7,190 4,550 484 280 176 118 83 60 45 35 28 22 18 15 12 10 9 a871I485 556 350 235 165 120 90 70 55 44 36 29 24 21 18 2.485 1,864.-ZOJlM 538 378 275 207 159 125 100 82 67 56 47 40 2485 1864 1491 12413 7.i261 463 348 268 211 169 137 113 94 79 68 5265 82 26 25007 48841 8.590 13027 10737 19941 6,872 10,422 6,300 4725 t21 1130 980 714 537 413 325 260 212 174 145 123 104 6300 4725 3780 3iö 23A 74 I1j 891 687 540 432 352 290 242 203 173 8.590 15953 6300 4725 3780 3,150 j i2T6 1048 808 635 509 413 341 284 239 203 6300 4725 3780 3150 2700 2363 1jàó1 833 678 558 465 392 333 J 56.00 149.33 1,194.67 -14,467 35,222 I 11,573 28,178 6,300 4,725 3,780 3,150 2,700 2,363 2,100 1,890 1,718VIJOU Y 1O2 833 695 585 498 At roof loading conditions where shear or bending governs, use 01.25 LbF adjustment to the above values. At roof loading conditions where deflection governs, use a 1.15 deflection adjustment factor to the above values. Shading in the span / allowable uniform load table indicates that bending (Fb) governs. Shear governs to the left of the shading, and deflection governs to the right. Hi Section Properites & Design Loads 2016C8C/C Moment Roof Loads Floor Loads (w) Allowable Uniform Loads Nominal Actual Area Section of LDF: 1.25 LbF = 1.00 Allowable Allowable Span in feet for beam or joist sizes Size Size Modulus Inertia (b) x (ci) (A) (5) (I) Shear Moment Shear Moment Normal duration, Laterally fully braced, repetitive member increase for 2x members. 0 inches in2 in' 0 (Ibs) (lb-ft) (lbs) (lb-ft) 10 ft. lift. 12 ft. 13 ft. 14 ft. 15 ft. 16 ft. 17 ft. 18 ft. 19 ft. 20 ft. 21 ft. 22 ft. 23 ft. 24 ft. 25 ft. 26 ft. PorallamP5L 34g91Rp'S&1'--' R10-1w Ic'52 6Y428Wn1305ZI 953 716 551 434 347 282 233 194 163 139 119 103 RQ 78 69 1.1 54 ..,. .. IWIf PSL 3.5 x 11.88 EA 5 ib: ji Ü rJr :u 3x16 PSL 3.5 x 16.0 56.00 149.33 1,194.67 13.533 43,693 10,827 34,955 5x11* PSL 5.25 x 11.88 A 123.39 I 732.62 15,066 37,317 12,053 29,854 54x16 PSL 1 5.25 x 16.0 84.00 1 224.00 11,792.00 20,300 65,540 16.240 52,432 316 1,077 847 678 551 454 379 319 271 233 201 175 153 135 119 106 Cl -WA 903 744 621 523 445 381 329 286 251 221 195 173 120 2.297 1,838 1,531 1,313 1,148 1.021 919 780 664 569 491 427 374 329 291 259 2.297 1,838 1,531 1,313 1.148 1,021 919 835 766 707 656 609 533 469 415 369 LQ . 1,074 827 650 521 423 349 291 245 208 179. 154 134 117 103 91 81 r- 91,615 1,270 1.017 827 681 568 479 407 349 301 262 229 202, 179 159 2694'23i 1,355 1.117 931 784 667 572 494 430 376 331 293 260 3629132 48' i40'i86'4"i391 1390 1,171 995 .' , , 853 737 641 561 494 437 388 UO-2 3292047c 1813 1417 1.215 1,050 913 799 703 622 553 tr,i 743 PSL ipb' "RO 746 PSL 7.0 x 11.88 140 70 x 160 83.13 jóo 11200 I 164.52 2867 29867 2t 976.83 i6'& 2,389.33 16.0713264Z 20.089 49.756 IiIT7iJ4 27,067 87,387 12B5726114. 1.905 1,431 1.103 867 694 565 465 388 327 278 238 206 179 157 138 122 108 16,071 39.805 WfJ' ;1842,632 2.153 1,694 1.356 1.103 909 757 638 543 465 402 349 306 269 238 212 4346_3,592 21807148912411046 889762658573 501441 _390 __347 21,653 69,909 5.593, 4 6 3 84 k3P92 853, 2'486 1,561 1,327 1.138 983 855 748 658 583 518 _69ü__1,8891.620 _1,399 . 1.2171,065938829737 óis'.o i& E _ I_rno &luiwn GLB (24F-1.8E or 24F-V4 with standard camber) [3y' 1l' I GLB IS ISmanA!P. 35 x 1188 35 x 160 äciii 4156 5600 &16b 82 26 14933 _____ 1 4X8 41 .19467 9178 20565 12 367 37333 i '11 _644 496390 _312 254 _209175147125 .107938170625549 734316452 I'1 316_1088'_914L 762610496 409 341287 244 209181 157 13812110795 20 670559471400 343 296258226198176156 x16 9,89329.867 12389 1lio9i.513 2 597 512 442 385 337 296 262 233 1,975 1,659' 1414 1219 106 933' 827i75. 0d2 482_2085_1777 __i039_92r'8i 729630 548 479422373332 &Iulam (ãLB (24F-1.8E or 24F-V4 with standur'1 camber) 54x14 II i 5x16 5xl8 GLB 55188 5.5 x 14.0 55 x 180 6531 77.00 8I 9900 13âTö. 12926 179.67 34 29700 1.257.67l 14 423 .31973 1153 25,579 A9,46 17,004 43.715 13,603 34.972 2798 1.053 878 739 629 539 466 405 354 312 276 245 840_1603 i4i11104938805695 604 529466412366 2,673.00 i3336i 121863 70469 17490 56,375 __ 200j, 156L1392i,249 128 990 861 753 663 587521 Z,790 6.2565.0054.1713.5753,128 2,781 2.5032.2752.0851,925 6* &lu-lam Girders &Beams (24F-1.8E or 24F-V4 withstandardcamber) 40,49W 6 U5i,821 19j57 4.597_37,99_31922720_345_2043 1796,1 590 1 419 12631083935814712627 554 493 6*x18GLB 11-Toists. ?5x16.5H am I 675xl8O 26831 6:75.x21O i3i5 84732 2146567786 43ö85a__600Z.O47/.:O1. 5423 j4823½6632O9 p767 2410 2'118 1876 1674 150'U12141056 924 814 720 640 I708i.3.23O d1 EiiiNT'11,1431.016 Sinale use as headers 6 beams 43 38 34 14 TJX 210 12.06 x 56 50 At roof loading conditions where shear or bending governs, use a 1.25 LDF adjustment to the above values. At roof loading conditions where deflection governs, use a 1.15 deflection adjustment factor to the above values. Shading in the span / allowable uniform load table indicates that bending (Fb) governs. Shear governs to the left of the shading, and deflection governs to the right. 0 0 Typical Framing Elements Magnolia 4/4/2019 r 47 Roof Framing Trusses @ 24" 0/c (bL: 18 psf, LL: 20 psf) Factory Manufacturer's design by others 2x Convetional Rafters & Fill Framing w:(24/12)(l8 psf +20 psf) : 76 psf 2x4 @ 24" o/c spans to 41-8" 2x6 @ 24" o/c spans to 9'-10" 2x8 @ 24" a/c spans to 13'-0" 2x10 @ 24" o/c spans to 16'-4" 2x12 @ 24" 0/c spans to 18'-11" Floor Framing I-Joist floor Joists (TrusJoist or equal) (Allowable spans per the latest span tables from iLevel, see the latest catalog & ICC-ES ESR-1387 & E5R-1153) Alternates such as Boise Cascade SCI and Louisiana Pacific LPR joists are allowed per plans, see catalogs. W = (16/12) (12 + 40 psf) = 69 psf W = (19.2/12)(12 psf + 40 psf): 83 psf Opening Headers £ Misc. Beams Hi (w i 170 plf) Roof Floor 6x4 (Max. Span:) 7'-5" 7'-O" 6x6 11'-8" 11'-i" 6x8 15,-11" 151-1" 6x10 20'-2" 191-2" 6x14 28'-B" 27'-2" 5*x94 PSL 21'-4" 20'-3" H2 (w 1370 plf) Roof Floor 6x4 (Max. Span:) 51-6" 4'-11" 6x6 8'-7" 7'-8" 6x8 11'-9" 10'-6" 6x10 15'-6" 14'-2" 5*x9f PSL 16'-6" 15'-8" 5*xlii PSL 20'-7" 19'-7" H3 (w 1570 plf) Roof Floor 6x4 (Max. Span:) 41-5" 41-0" 6x6 6'-11" 61-2" 6x8 9'-6" 8-6" 6x10 121-9" 11-5" 6x12 15'-5" 13'-10" 6x14 18'-0" 16'-1" 5*x9f PSL 14'-3" 13'-7" 5x11j PSL 17'-10" 16'-11" H4 (w 1770 plf) Roof Floor 6x4 (Max. Span:) 3'-10" 31_511 6x6 6'-O" 51-411 6x8 8-2" 714" 6x10 101-11" 9'-10" 6x12 13'-3" 11'-10" 6x14 15'-6" 13'-10" 5*x94 PSL 12'-1I" 12'-3" 5*x1l* PSL 161-2" 15'-4" H5 (w 1 970 plf) Roof Floor 6x4 (Max. Span:) V-511 3'-U' 6x6 51-4" 41-911 6x8 71-3" 61-6" 6x10 9-9" 81-9" 6x12 11-10" 10'-7" 6x14 13-9" 12'-4" 5*x94 PSL 11'-ll" 11'-4" 5*x1lf PSL 14'-11" 14-2" H6 (w 11170 plf) Roof Floor 6x10 (Max. Span:) 8'-11" 7-11" 6x12 101-9" 91711 5*x94 PSL 11-3" 10'-8" slxll* PSL 14-0" 13'-4" See uniform loads table on page 2 and 3 for additional spans or lo ad conditions not specifically addressed here. Magnolia 4/4/2019 Stud Column Capacity 2016 CBC/CC I F 5 I 34" Stud Wall Nominal Size Sill/Top Plate Max. Load 6 Ft. 7 Ft. 8 Ft. Stud Height 9 Ft. 10 Ft. 12 Ft. 14 Ft. 16 Ft. 2x4 Standard 3,281 lbs 14AU lbs 3 288 lbs N/A 2x4 Standard 6 563 lbs ;.--YS ,'27`2- lbs 6 577 lbs N/A 2x4 Standard 9,844 lbs 12409 lbs 9 865 lbs N/A 2x4 Stud 3,281 lbs 1,401 lbs 2,890 lbs 2,413 lbs 2,010 lbs 1,683 lbs N/A 2x4 Stud 6,563 lbs .6,891Ibs 5,781 lbs 4,826 lbs 4,019 lbs 3,367 lbs N/A 2x4 Stud 9,844 lbs 10 202 lbs 8,671 lbs 7,239 lbs 6,029 lbs 5,050 lbs N/A 2x4 bF#2 3,281 lbs 4666 lbs 3 721 lbs 2,983 lbs 2,424 lbs 1,999 lbs 1,419 lbs 1,055 lbs N/A 2x4 bF#2 6,563 lbs '-'9.-331 lbs 7441 lbs 5,965 lbs 4,847 lbs 3,999 lbs 2,838 lbs 2,110 lbs N/A 2x4 bF#2 9,844 lbs 13 997 lbs 11162 lbs 8,948 lbs 7,271 lbs 5,998 lbs 4,257 lbs 3,165 lbs N/A (1) 4x4 Standard 7,656 lbs 9 651 lbs 7673 lbs 6,141 lbs 4,985 lbs 4,110 lbs 2,914 lbs 2,166 lbs N/A (1) 4x4 bF#1 7656 lbs 11783 lbs 9 353 lbs 7,479 lbs 6,068 lbs 5,001 lbs 3,545 lbs 2,635 lbs N/A (1) 4x6 DF#1 12,031 lbs 48,252 lb 14565 lbs 11,681 lbs 9,494 lbs 7,833 lbs 5,560 lbs 4,134 lbs N/A (1) 4x8 bF#1 15,859 lbs 23 676 lbs 19005 lbs 15,294 lbs 12,454 lbs 10,288 lbs 7,312 lbs 5,441 lbs N/A (1) 4x10 bF#1 20,234 lbs '29,67Q lbs 23972 lbs 19,363 lbs 15,804 lbs 13,073 lbs 9,306 lbs 6,931 lbs N/A (1) 4x12 bF#1 24,609 lbs 136,685 lbs 29.155 lbs 23,550 lbs 19.221 lbs 15,900 lbs 11,318 lbs 8,429 lbs N/A 54" Stud Wall Nominal Size Sill/Top Plate Max. Load 8 Ft. 9 Ft. 10 Ft. Stud Height 12 Ft. 18 Ft. 20 Ft. 22 Ft. 24 Ft. (1) 2x6 bF#2 5.156 lbs 8,683 lbs 7,653 lbs. 6,669 lbs 5,035 lbs 2,430 lbs 1,989 lbs 1,655 lbs N/A (2) 2x6 bF#2 10,313 lbs 17367 lbs 15 306 lbs 13 338 lbs 10,070 lbs 4,860 lbs 3,977 lbs 3,311 lbs N/A (3) 2x6 DF#2 15,469 lbs 26,050 lbs 22959 lbs 20007 lbs 15,106 lbs 7,290 lbs 5,966 lbs 4,966 lbs N/A (1) 6x4 bF#1 12,031 lbs 22097 lbs 19,379 lbs 16 821 lbs '12,64i lbs 6,074 lbs 4,968 lbs 4,134 lbs N/A (1) 6x6 bF#1 18,906 lbs 24795 lbs 22955 lbs 20918 lbs 16,823 lbs 8,657 lbs 7,134 lbs 5,966 lbs N/A (1) 6x8 bF#1 25781 lbs 33 812 lbs 31 303 lbs 28 525 lbs 22 941 lbs 11804 lbs 9728 lbs 8,136 lbs N/A (1) 6x10 bF#1 32,656 lbs 40,425 lbs 37734 lbs 34 689 lbs 28,322 lbs 14,837 lbs 12,251 lbs 10,259 lbs N/A (1) 6x12 bF#1 39,531 lbs 48,936 lbè ' 45 ,678 lbs 41,992 lbs 34,285 lbs 17,960 lbs 14.830 lbs 12,419 lbs N/A LSL Studs Sill/Top Plate Stud Height Nominal Size Max. Load 8 Ft. 9 Ft. 10 Ft. 12 Ft. 18 Ft. 20 Ft. 22 Ft. 24 Ft. (1) 34x34 1.3E LSL 7,656 lbs 7,444 lbs 6,108 lbs 5,069 lbs 3,622 lbs N/A N/A N/A N/A (1) 34x44 1.3E LSL 9.570 lbs 9,304 lbs 7,635 lbs 6,336 lbs 4,527 lbs N/A N/A N/A N/A (1) 3fx5* 1.3E LSL 12,031 lbs 11,697 lbs 9,598 lbs 7,966 lbs 5,691 lbs 2,609 lbs 2,122 lbs 1,759 lbs N/A (1) 34x7* 1.3E LSL 15,859 lbs 15,419 lbs 12,652 lbs 10,500 lbs 7,502 lbs 3,439 lbs 2,798 lbs 2,319 lbs N/A (1) 34x81 1.3E LSL 1 18,867 lbs 1 18,343 lbs 15.051 lbs 12,492 lbs 8,925 lbs 4,091 lbs 3.328 lbs 2,759 lbs N/A PSL Studs Sill/Top Plate Stud Height Nominal Size Max. Load 8 Ft. 9 Ft. 10 Ft. 12 Ft. 18 Ft. 20 Ft. 22 Ft. 24 Ft. (1) 3jx3j 1 8E PSL 7,656 lbs 10730 lbs 8702 lbs 7,169 lbs 5,081 lbs N/A N/A N/A N/A (1) 3+4+ 1.8E PSL 11484 lbs 16,095 lbs 13052 lbs 10,754 lbs 7,622 lbs 3,466 lbs 2,816 lbs 2,333 lbs N/A (1) 34x7 1 8E PSL 15,313 lbs 21460 lbs 17403 lbs 14 339 lbs 10,162 lbs 4,621 lbs 3,755 lbs 3,110 lbs N/A (1) 54x5 1 8E PSL 17 227 lbs 44 269 lbs 38 114 lbs 32 639 lbs 24 142 lbs 11,432 lbs 9,336 lbs 7,760 lbs N/A (1) 54x7 LSE PSL 22,969 lbs 59026 lbs 50818 lbs '43,619 lbs :32;189 lbs 15 243 lbs 12448 lbs 10 347 lbs N/A (1) 7x7 1 8E PSL 30625 lbs 100 192 lbs 92 677 lbs 84 376 lbs 67757 lbs 34 806 lbs 28,678 lbs 23,982 lbs N/A Eh/1.4= 0.095W Ev/1.4: 0.113W Ev/1.4: 0.239W E/1.4: 0.113W Used 0.117W 0.113W Magnolia 4/4/2019 SEISMIC ANALYSIS, Wood Framed Dwellings ::1 ASCE 7-10 Section 12.14 Simplified Alternative Seismic Loads 55 1.130 le = 0.430 besign Category: SMS= (1.05)(1.13) 1.184 Site Class: SMI (1.57)(0.43) 0.675 SOS (2/3)(1.0)(1.13): 0.789 Lb 5b1 - (2/3)(0.68): 0.450 Cd 2016 CBC. Alternate Book Load Comblnatioi 1.00 2 Story Building b F: 1.1 b Fa: 1.0 6.5 (Fa per ASCE Table 11.4.1) 2.5 4.00 besian Loadina. Allowable Stress besian Base Shear Eh = (F)(SbS)(W)/R : 0.134W E (0.2)(5b5)(b): 0.158W Emh = (2.5)(QE): 0.334W Component Interconnection (ASCE section 12.14.7.1) Fp = 0.2(Sb5)W: 0.158W bistribution of Forces 1-Story Weight Roof 24.7 psf x 0.095 2.36 psf design at: 2.90 psf 2-Story Story Weight % Weight force (Fx Roof 24.7 psf 43% 2.90 psf Floor 33.3 psf 57% 3.90 psf 58.0 psf 6.80 psf Vbase: 58.0 psf x 0.117 : 6.80 psf Magnolia 4/4/2019 WINb ANALYSIS, One Story Transverse section I F I Wind Speed: 110 Vd (not used): 85 2016 CBC Basic Load Combinations Exposure: B K,: 0.85 z9 : 1.200 a: 7.0 Enclosure: Enclosed Kit: 1.0 G: 0.85 Risk: Cat. II pg Wind Pressures Element Z K & K. Oh & o, pf) pf) Windward Walls 10.0' 0.57 15.13 0.80 7.57 13.01 (not used) Eave Height: 10.0' (not used) Roof Height (h): 13.1' Leeward Wall BY 0.57 15.13 -0.50 -9.15 -3.71 Width (8): 60.0' Roof to ridge (a) BY 0.57 15.13 -0.40 -7.91 -2.46 Length(L): 40.0' Roof to ridge (b) 13.1' 0.57 15.13 -0.03 -3.12 2.33 Roof Angle (0): 18.4° Roof-Leeward 13.1' 0.57 15.13 -0.57 -10.04 -4.59 qh 15.13 (not used) (not used) Windward overhang bottoms 10.0' 0.57 15.13 0.80 10.29 10.29 Note: (not used) P1 has internal pressure (not used) P2 has internal suction Interior Pressure 13.1' 0.57 15.13 ±0.18 (2.72) (-2.72) Wind Left to Right Wind Right to Left Roof Elements Length P1a(Dlf) P1b(Dlfi P2a(plf) P2b(plf) P1a(plf) P1b(plf) P2a(plf) P2b(plf) Left Overhang 1.1' -16.3 -11.3 -16.3 -11.3 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 Left Sloping 20.0' -158.4 -62.4 -49.3 46.7 -201.1 -201.1 -91.9 -91.9 Flat Section 0.0' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Sloping 20.0' -201.1 -201.1 -91.9 -91.9 -158.4 -62.4 -49.3 46.7 Right Overhang 1.1' -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -16.3 -11.3 -16.3 -11.3 Roof Totals Horiz. Vert. Vertical Elements Left to Right Right to Left Plo (Left to Rt) 8.6 -357.4 Length P1 (plf) P2 (plf) P1 (plf) P2 (plf) Pib (Left to Rt) 40.6 -261.5 Left Walls-Upr 4.5' 34.0 58.6 41.2 16.7 P2a (Left to Rt) 8.6 -150.4 (not used) P2b (Left to Rt) 40.6 -54.5 (not used) Plo (Rt to Left) 8.6 -357.4 Right Walls-Upr 4.5' 41.2 16.7 34.0 58.6 Pib (Rt to Left) 40.6 -261.5 (not used) P2a (Rt to Left) 8.6 -150.4 (not used) P2b (Rt to Left) 40.6 -54.5 (not used) (not used) Code Mm. Horizontal Forces From Roof 40.6 40.6 40.6 40.6 (4.5')(16 psf)+(6.2')(8 psf) = 122 plf Total Horiz. Forces (W) = 116 116 116 116 0.6W: 73 plf 0.6W: 69 69 69 69 Wind Load besign Force: 0.6W: Left to Right: 73 plf Right to Left: 73 plf Seismic Force: 0.7E: (40.00) (2.90) : 116 plf Seism 0.64 16.73 -0.50 -10.12 -4.10 0.64 16.73 -0.55 -10.81 -4.79 0.64 16.73 -0.21 -6.02 0.00 0.64 16.73 -0.63 -11.90 -5.88 0.62 16.24 0.80 11.04 11.04 Magnolia 4/4/2019 WINb ANALYSIS, Two Story Kh&K, Qk&Q, 0.62 16.24 0.57 15.13 0.64 16.73 Wind Left to Right Length P1a(Dlf) P1b(plfl P2a(plf) P2b(plf) 1.1' -19.9 -14.8 -19.9 -14.8 13.7' -148.2 -82.5 -65.7 0.0 0.0' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 BY -163.1 -163.1 -80.6 -80.6 1.1' -1.9 -1.9 -1.9 -1.9 Wind Speed: 110 Vd (not used): 85 Exposure: B Kd : 0.85 Enclosure: Enclosed Kzt 1.0 Wind Pressures Element Windward Walls 19.2' Floor Height: 10.2' Windward Walls 10.2' Eave Height: 19.2' (not used) Roof Height (h): 21.3' Leeward Wall 21.3' Width (B): 36.0' Roof to ridge (a) 21.3' Length(L): 36.0' Roof to ridge (b) 21.3' Roof Angle (0): 18.4° Roof-Leeward 21.3' q: 16.73 (not used) (not used) Windward overhang bottoms 19.2' Note: (not used) P1 has internal pressure (not used) P2 has internal suction Interior Pressure 21.3' Roof Elements Left Overhang Left Sloping Flat Section Right Sloping Right Overhang 2016 CBC, Basic Load Combinations Z9 : 1,200 a: 7.0 0.85 Risk: Cot. II P-1 g2 CP th!f) IPf) 0.80 8.03 14.05 0.80 7.28 13.30 ±0.18 (3.01) (-3.01) Wind Right to Left P1a(plf) P1b(plf) P2a(plf) P2b(plf) -1.9 -1.9 -1.9 -1.9 -163.1 -163.1 -80.6 -80.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -148.2 -82.5 -65.7 0.0 -19.9 -14.8 -19.9 -14.8 Roof Totals Plo (Left to Pt) Pib (Left to Pt) P2a (Left to Pt) P2b (Left to Pt) Pla (Pt to Left) P1b (Pt to Left) P2a (Rt to Left) P2b (Pt to Left) Horiz. Vert. -1.0 -316.0 21.4 -248.9 -1.0 -159.4 21.4 -92.4 -1.0 -316.0 21.4 -248.9 -1.0 -159.4 21.4 -92.4 Code Mm. Horizontal Forces (14.7')(16 psf)+(4.2')(8 psf): 269 plf 0.6W: 161 plf Vertical Elements Left to Right Right to Left Length P1 (i1f) P2 (plf EL( P2 (plf) Left Walls-tipr 4.5' 36.1 63.2 45.5 18.4 Left Walls-Lwr 10.2' 74.2 135.7 103.2 41.8 (not used) Right Walls-Upr 4.5' 45.5 18.4 36.1 63.2 Right Walls-Lwr 10.2' 103.2 41.8 74.2 135.7 (not used) (not used) (not used) From Roof 21.4 21.4 21.4 21.4 Total Horiz. Forces (W) 281 281 281 281 0.6W: 168 168 168 168 Wind Load Design Force: 0.6W: Left to Right: 168 plf Right to Left: 168 Rif Seismic Force : 0.7E: (6.80) (34.00) : 231 plf Seismic Governs did 09 did 31 -47d *9 'd"(9 ä0Iä3JN/ 3 7d 06 3 7d 19 did 34 00041 ä0/2MN/ did 0*1 did 931 d7d 3/1 äo/~'31X3 did 06 did 19 did 34 NVd9 991/al 300ä .01 .6 .9 (41) 91H93M1 NO/J/läVd P d00ä 71V.41 Al 1l YO 'i'I/3 7W '3-1'0 frV0äd 11/7111 = 17 1H9/341 -4 739 77V41 10 OVO1 /4/YO1/N11 3409 V aGO 7110 ci Vol //äOd/Nf1 = Ml 3409 V 77V41 10 OVO7 //äOd/Nfl = AfM 3A09 V 100ä 10 ci Va 7 frV.YOd/Nu1 = -1111 frY V39 YO Y30 V31-1 fl0è'd C Vol = d / / \ / \ / \ / / \ / / / / / 'jp ------ ii N H äo frY9 0.d0lyC J 9ä17220 34y3H4I / 4 U92MV-70 3ä3HAi '7d 10-1 790 .LNO.2 islAl [Jj d '~'OHäO 'frvvagHgflid TTTTTTITTI ' 73N VS a V3H 9 I V 1N3frV0/4/ 34/i /3ä 10 9.LN3/413 73 7 V.2/SAl /29 9I0 IDd JDqS 0!dAj 6102/b/b' 01IOU6DW Magnolia 4/4/2019 Shearwall Schedule 2016 CBC/CRC U Magnolia 4/2/2019 Guards and Railings Interior Ballustrade Base 2016 CBC/CRC Railing Design Forces Height of Railing (location of Horiz. Force) 42 inches Vertical (Newel) Post Spacing : 60 inches Horizontal Force Along Railing : 20 plf Concentrated Load at Top of Post = 200 lbs. Design Rending Moment at Base of Post Assembly 8400 lb.-in. Connection-- Lag Screw in Pullout CRC Load Duration Factor Cb (wood connectors) : 1.60 Base Plate Size Moment Arm (x) of Lag Screws Lag Screw Pullout T: C: Mix/Cl) Quantity of Lag Screws at Tension / Compression side of Base Plate Pullout Force Per Screw From NOS Table 11.2A for Specific Gravity of 0.50. Pullout is (Der inch of embedment) 4.00 inches. 3.4 inches. 1527 lbs. total 3 Screws 509.1 lbs Each Screw Isteel Base Plate and (6)1/4" Screws Screw bIA. - Embedment of Screw (inches) 11 21 2.51 31 3.51 4 1/4 225 450 56E 675) 788 900 5/16 266 426. 665 98 931 1064 3/8 305 407 635 915 1068 1220 7/16 3421 391 611 879 1197 1368 1/2 1 3781 378 5 -Ir 8511 1158 1512 o T 3" embedment required Connection-- Wall mounted Handrail 2001b any direction CBC Load Duration Factor CD ( wood connectors) : 1.60 Total qty of connectors : 2 no. 8 Wood Screws Lag Screw Pullout Required Capacity T = 200/2/Cb Design pullout strength per inch for no. 8 wood screw NbS Table 11.28 Minimum Embedment Capacity of Anchorage = embed x Table value (per inch) 62.50 lbs. total 112.00 lb per inch 1.50 inch 168.00 > 62.50 Mm. (2) no. 8 wood screws into blocking Magnolia 04/18/18 Guards and Railings Interior Pony Wall 2016 CBC/CRC lm~ Railing besign Forces Height of Railing (location of Horiz. Force) 42 inches Vertical Support Post Spacing : 60 inches Horizontal Force Along Railing 20 lbs., Concentrated Load at Top of Post 200 lbs. Design Bending Moment at Base of Post Assembly 8400 lb.-in. 5r:M/Fb(CfU)(CF)Cb . 3.54 6x2* Flat OK Fb:900 CfU:1.5 C:1.1 5:4.64 Connection-- Lag Screw in Pullout CBC Load Duration Factor CD (wood connectors) : 1.60 Pullout Force Prying action M/Cb 5,250 lb.-in. Moment Arm (x) of Lag Screws 12.0 inches. Log Screw Pullout T: C: M/x/Cb 438 lbs. total Quantity of Log Screws at Tension / Compression side of Base Plate 3 Screws Pullout Force Per Screw 145.8 lbs Each Screw 1(6)1/4" Screws I From Nb5 Table 11.2A for Specific Gravity of 0.50. embed 1.25" into rim Pullout is (bar inch of embedment) 4 .......... Screw NA. - Embedment of Screw (inches) 21 2.51 31 3.51 1/4 225[,) 4501 5631 6751 7881 900 ROOF FRAMING PLAN 'A' 10 T 9 Magnolia . 4/2/2019 ROOF FRAMING, Plan 1 10 Typical Roof Framing: Factory Trusses @ 24" o/c 2016 CBC, Basic Load Combinations Typical Conventional Framing: 2x rafters @ 24" o/c, see calcs pg. 4 TYPICAL BEAMS & HEAbERS AT OPENINGS Grid line Uniform load Load Table (pg. 2) or Header Chart (pg. 4) (roof) (wall) (floor) (misc.) Gable Ends (3/2)(38) +10 : 67 Of Hi Hip Ends (9/2)(38) +10 : 181 plf H2 4/5 (9)(38) +10 = 352 plf H2 bIG (11)(38) +10 = 428 plf H3 PB-10 Span: 16.4' Garage boor (roof) (wall) (floor) (misc.) wl = (9/2)(38) +35 : 206 plf p1111111111111111111111 IRl 1R2 Ri = (Critical RI / 1.25 LbF: 1,351 lbs) Ri (max.): 1,689 lbs R2 = (Critical P2 / 1.25 LbF: 1,351 lbs) R2 (max.): 1,689 lbs Moment: (Critical M / 1.25 LbF: 5,541#ft) Moment (max.): 6,926#ft 34x1 lf LSL Deflection: (&L = L/984) 224/I: 0.46" : L/430 RB-11 Span: 16.0' Grid 7 Family room boor (roof) (wall) (floor) (misc.) (Live Load Reduction P:0.94) wl : (32/2)(38) +35 : 643 plf fllllIllllllllllllllIIll tRi tR2 RI : (Critical RI / 1.25 LbF: 4,001 lbs) RI (max.): 5,001 lbs P2: (Critical R2 / 1.25 LbF: 4,001 lbs) R2 (max.): 5,001 lbs Moment: (Critical M / 1.25 LbF: 16,002#ft) Moment (max.): 20,003#ft 5*x1 If PSL beflection: (ALL = L/632) 461/I: 0.63" : L/305 RB-12 Span: 15.4' Outdoor Room opening (roof) (wall) (floor) (misc.) wi = (12/2)(38) +35 : 263 plf 1111111111119 IllIllIllIll - IRl IR2 Ri: (Critical Ri / 1.25 LbF: 1,620 lbs) Ri (max.): 2,025 lbs P2: (Critical P2 / 1.25 LbF: 1,620 lbs) P2 (max.): 2,025 lbs Moment: (Critical M / 1.25 LDF: 6,238#ft) Moment (max.): 7,797#ft 5*x9f PSL beflection: (LLL: L/913) 166/I: 0.44" : L/417 Magnolia 08/12/19 LATERAL DISTRIBUTION-SEISMIC, Plan 1 One Story Dwelling 1-Story Load ~11 SHEARWAU. ANALYSIS-SEISMIC Grid I Shear lWall Net Wall Wall I Wall I Pier WALL O.T. lResisting Elements (plf) End (0.9-0.11)x Uplift Holdown I Line Force Lengths Length Shear Height H/B H/B TYPE Moment Self Roof Walls Floor Loads Resisting from Uplift Uplift Hardware m (Ibs) (feet) (feet) (plf) (feet) Ratio Ratio (#-FT) Wt. Above Above Above (Ibs) Moment Above (plf) I (Ibs) (Simpson or Eq.) One Story bwelling A 1.189 8 8.0 149 9 1.1 4 10,702 150 126 280 8,747 92 244 L5THb8 B 1.166 8 8.0 146 9 1.1 4 10,492 150 45 280 6.699 178 474 LSTH08 C 1,431 12 12.0 119 9 0.8 4 12,881 150 198 280 22,449 (797) none b 987 13.7 - 10.4 95 9 0.7 2.3 4 8,887 150 45 280 17,487 (628) none E 1,321 3.9 3.4 391 9 2.3 6 11,887 150 45 280 2,034 2,526 STH010 F 2,931 5.5 19.1 1549 2.3 4 4,921 150162 280 2,857_387 516 L5THb8__ r 1,281 12 12.0 107 9 0.8 4 11,532 150 81 280 none 1 392 5.5 5.5 71 9 1.6 4 3,528 150 108 280 4,299 (140) Sill Anchorage 479 12 12.0 _40 9 0.8 4 4,307 108108 280 14.940 (886)none 3 606 2.8 3 2.8 3 3.5 174 9 3.2 T 2,725 150 36 576 822 767 LSTHb8 4 2,030 12 2 7.8 260 9 0.8 1.8 4 18,270 108 162 200 17.254 50 Sill Anchorage m _j 11.5 11.5 16590.8 4 17.069 150171 280 19,312 --(195)none 6 1.966 3.2 13.9 16.2 122 9 2.8 4 2,489 150 144 280 1.897 174 185 L5TH08@3.2' 7 2,172 4 3 16 2 15.6 140 9 2.3 1.8 4 4.468 108 180 200 2.452 378 504 HTT4 @4' 8 333 3 3 3 4.0 83 9 3.0 4 1.498 150 36 661 279 279 LSTH08 9 436 3.7 3 3.7 3 6.1 72 9 2.4 4 1.960 150 36 1,006 209 258 LSTH08 ElevB Lot 6 1 392 3.8' 3.2 122 9 2.4 4 3.528 150 108 280 2.312 253 320 LSTHb8 0 (A -I. 0 --------------- Footnotes: (1) Net Length reduced-Force Transfer Around Opening(s) (2) Net Length reduced-Perforated Shearwall (3) Net Length reduced-H/B between 2:1 and 34:1 Comments: Magnolia 4/4/2019 LATERAL bISTRIBUTION-WIND, Plan 1 One Story bwelling WINb DISTRIBUTION Grid Line First Section Lineal Tributary Force Width (pif) (ft) Second Section Lineal Tributary Force Width (plf) (ft) Load From Above (Ibs) Wind Total Force (Ibs) Siesmic Force (pg. 11) (Ibs) Maximum Lateral Force (ibs) One Story bwelling A 73 10.0 730 1,189 1,189 8 73 10.0 730 1,166 1,166 C 73 11.0 803 1,431 1,431 b 73 11.0 803 987 987 E 73 14.0 1,022 1,321 1,321 F 73 23.0 1,679 2,931 2,931 & 73 9.0 657 1,281 1,281 1 73 6.0 438 392 438 2 73 11.0 803 479 803 3 73 8.0 584 606 606 4 73 14.0 1,022 2,030 2,030 5 73 9.0 657 1,897 1,897 6 73 10.0 730 1,966 1,966 7 73 15.0 1,095 2,172 2,172 8 73 5.0 365 333 365 9 73 8.0 584 436 584 SHEARWALL ANALYSIS-WIND 0.67 x Pesistyg Elements Grid Shear Wall Net Wall Wall Wall Pier WALL O.T. 067 xUplift Holdown of3 Walls Floor End Line Force Lengths Length Shear Height H/B H/B TYPE SeT MomentWove Above Above Loads Resisting from Uplift Uplift Hardware (lbs) (feet) (feet) (plf) (feet) Patio Patio (#-FT) (plf) (pif) (plf) (lbs) Moment Above (plf) (Ibs) (Simpson or Eq.) One Story bwelling A 730 8 8.0 91 10 1.3 4 7.300 101 84 188 7.418 (6) (15) LSThb8 B 730 8 8.0 91 10 1.3 4 7,300 101 30 188 5.682 76 202 LSThb8 C 803 12 12.0 67 10 0.8 4 8.030 101 133 188 19.039 (917) none b 803 13.7 2 9.4 86 10 0.7 2.5 4 8.030 101 30 188 14,831 (496) none E 1,022 3.9 3.0 336 10 2.6 6 10,220 101 30 188 1,725 2,178 STh010 F 1,679 4 15.5 18.7 90 10 2.5 4 2,873 101 109 188 2,423 84 113 LSTHb8@4 & 657 12 12.0 55 10 0.8 4 6,570 101 54 188 13,395 (569) none 1 438 5.5 5.5 80 10 1.8 4 4,380 101 72 188 3,646 133 Sill Anchorage 2 803 12 12.0 67 10 0.8 4 8,030 72 72 188 12,671 (387) none 3 584 3 2.5 4.1 144 7.5 3.0 4 2,585 101 24 561 675 675 L5TH08 4 1,022 12 7.7 133 10 0.8 2.0 5 10,220 72 109 134 14,633 (92) Sill Anchorage 5 657 11.5 11.5 57 10 0.9 1 4 6,570 101 115 188 16,379 () none 6 730 3.2 13.9 15.9 46 10 3.1 4 937 101 96 188 1,609 (197) (210) L5THb8@3.2' 7 1.095 4 16 2 14.2 77 10 2.5 2.0 4 2,468 72 121 134 2,080 73 97 HTT4 @4' 8 365 1 3 3 1 36 101 10 3.3 4 1.825 101 24 561 421 421 LSTHb8 9 584 1 3.7 3.7 1 5.5 107 10 2.7 4 1 2.920 101 24 853 453 559 LSTH08 Footnotes: (1) Net Length reduced-Force Transfer Around Opening(s) (2) Net Length Comments: PERFORATED SHEAR WALLS W V H/B BASED C.DI ON FULL HEIGHT j. ri/c i 1,C1 I OPENING I Li WIDTH L2 3, L Total Wall Opening Total SbPW Net Shear Ht. & Hf. & Max. Percent Max H/B Factored Table LengthI Shear Shear OTM W (V) Width Width Opening Full Ht. Pier Factor Full-Mt. 4.3.3.5 C0ZL1 V/CL Wall I M(H) 0.8 bL RM (lbs) Lx H Lx H Height Sheathing H/B 2L/H ZLi (ft) Co (ft) (plf) Type (lbs-ft) (plf) (lbs-ft 987 13.7x10.0 2.0x3.5 0.35H 85% 2.5 0.80 9.36 2.00 9.4 105 4 9.874 156 14,640 2,030 12.0x10.0 2.6x6.8 0.68H 78% 2.0 1.00 9.40 0.82 7.7 265 5 20,300 216 15,552 1,171 16.040.0 5.0x8.0 0.80H 69% 2.0 1.00 11.00 0.70 7.7 153 4 11,708 230 29,491 Wall Plan b 4 7 Uplift End OTM-PA Point Net Holdown C0ZL Load Uplift Hardware -348 224 -572 none 619 160 459 Sill Anchors OK -1,111 160 -1,271 none I* (.-'10 P~~e CTF1 California TrusFrame= "People, Drive, Honor... Our Formula for Success!" TRUSS PLACEMENT PLAN AND CALCULATIONS PROJECT: MAGNOLIA CARLSBAD LOCATION: CARLSBAD DEVELOPER: ASHTON 3 CUSTOMER: TIMBER RIDGE FRAMING Project No. 305751 CBR20I 9-1244 1653 BRADY CIR MAGNOLIA-BRADY (LOT 2) 2,589 SF LIVING 1146 SF PORCH 11723 SF GARAGE// 203 SF CALIFORNIA ROOM DEV201 8-0010 2052210200 10/15/2019 23665 Cajalco Roa' (951) 657-7491 phon I ESR#1311 I PRINT DATE CBR20I9-1244 Rf!NFDJilhINI INC. rUM TCNUW. U UC.N,00ClS STECI. COTR.CTOO CALCULATIONS FOR POST-TENSION SLAB ON GRADE FOUNDATION DESIGN Project Name: Magnolia SFD PTDU#3127 Date: April 08, 2019 422 Cribbage Ln. San Marcos, CA 92078 PH: 760-591-3236 TO *jj4D PROJECT D1STCTN INFORMATTON DTJ GENERAL INFORMATION DEVELOPER Asthon 3, LLC DEVELOPER LOCATION Rancho Mission Viejo, Ca PROJECT NAME - 1534 Magnolia PROJECT NUMBER 3127 PROJECT LOCATION Carlsbad Ca, CA. TENDON ENCAPSULATION Yes (Near Ocean) CONCRETE & FOOTING INFORMATION CONCRETE STRENGTH 2500 psi SLAB TYPE 5" Ribbed CATEGORY IA I II m PERIMETER FOOTING DEPTH 20" INTERIOR FOOTING DEPTH 15" SLAB THICKNESS 5" SOILS INFORMATION COMPANY Geocon, Inc. REPORT NUMBER G2192-52-01 REPORT DATE 10/30/17 CAPILLARY BREAK See Soils C SOIL BEARING CAPACITY 2000psf PTI METHOD (3 EDITION) DESIGN PARAMETERS CATEGORY (EXPANSION INDEX) CENTER LIFT (INCHES) EDGE LIFT (FEET) IA (<20) em ym *1 (0-50) em 9' 5.3' ym .3" .61" II (50-90) em HI (90-130) em ym *D11FFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT SETTLEMENT DISTANCE SLAB & FOOTING CAPACITIES' Input Pc = 250 concrete strength in psi ,W = 2000 soil bearing pressure in psf = 5 slab thickness in inches = 15 overall footing depth in inches S = 50 Fa = 360.00 M= 1.50 .65*w= 1300 Leff = 1.22 ISOLATED PAD FOOTING CAPACITIES Capacity 18" pad 4500 lbs 24" pad 8000 lbs 30" pad 12500 lbs 36" pad 18000 lbs 42" pad 24500 lbs 48" pad 32000 lbs 54" pad 40500 lbs 60" pad 50000 lbs 66" pad 60500 lbs 72" pad 72000 lbs 78" pad 84500 lbs 84" pad 98000 lbs 90" pad 112500 lbs PAD FOOTING CAPACITIES WI SLAB Capacity • X1 1.5 18" pad 9652 lbs 14.70 inches 2 24" pad 13519 lbs 14.70 inches 2.5 30" pad 18036 lbs 14.70 inches 3 36" pad 23203 lbs 14.70 inches 3.5 42" pad 29020 lbs 14.70 inches 4 48" pad 35487 lbs 14.70 inches 4.5 54" pad 42605 lbs 14.70 inches 5 60" pad .50372 lbs 14.70 inches 5.5 66 PAD 58789 lbs 14.70 inches 6 72 PAD 67856 lbs 14.70 inches 6.5 78 PAD 77573 lbs • 14.70 inches 7 84 PAD 87940 lbs 14.70 inches 7.5 90 PAD 98958 lbs 8 96 PAD 110625 lbs 8.5 102 PAD 122942 lbs 9 108 PAD 135909 lbs slab edge 14.70 inches 14.70 inches 14.70 inches 14.70 inches 1111 Slab Edge !Pad ! xi *)(j Denotes the mm. distance required to nearest glab edge in at least 2 adjacent direction (it can't be 2 opposite directions) in order for this chart to apply - otherwise use the isolated footing chart. The capacities are based on "L "action - not "T" action. *5B CAPACITY = 6!19] Kips M = 0.625 L'= 1.118 Leff = 1.264 ft AREA = 6.39 ftA2 width = 2.53 ft I width or2xLeff *NOTE There must be the width noted above (orLeff on all 4 sides) available and centered on the point load in both orthoganal directions. If not input the width that is available below to get the reduced capacity: Available Width = 2.25 ft REDUCED SLAB CAPACITY = 5!O] Kips POINT LOAD CAPACITY OF CONTINUOUS FOOTING = 8.34 KIPS* 2x ftg. Depth (d) Input . d= in. b= 121 in. Area = 5.56 sq. ft. *Note: There must be at least 2x the overall footing depth (d) of footing length available (cannot be at a corner). If not, reduce the capacity as follows: Available length = 24 in. Area = 4.45 ft. sq. Reduced Capacity = 6r67 Kips Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Too! Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Serial Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia -Plan I Area I Project Engineer: REM Projeot Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - DESIGN SUMMARY Slab Dimensions: 28.00 FT 83.00 FT 5.00 Inches Material Properties Concrete Strength, fc: 2,500 PSI Tendon Strength, Fpu: 270 KS! Tendon Diameter: 1/2 Inch Material Quantities Concrete Volume: 52.7 Cubic Yards Prestressing Tendon: 1,545 Linear Feet Number of End Anchorages: 70 In the LONG direction Type I Beam Type II Beam Quantity of Beams: 2 1 Depth of Beams: 18.0 Inches 15.0 Inches Width of Beams: 12.0 Inches 12.0 Inches Tendons per Beam: I I Beam Tendon Centroid: 3.25 Inches 3.25 Inches Beam Spacing: 14.00 Feet 0. C. Number of Slab Tendons: . 6 Slab Tendon Spacing: 4.80 Feet 0. C. Slab Tendon Centroid: 2.50 Inches from top of slab In the SHORT direction Type I Beam Type II Beam Quantity of Beams: 2 7 Depth of Beams: 18.0 Inches. 15.0 Inches Width of Beams: 12.0 Inches 12.0 Inches Tendons per Beam: I I Beam. Tendon Centroid:, 3.25 Inches 3.25 Inches Beam Spacing: 10.38 Feet 0. C. Number of Slab Tendons: 17 Slab Tendon Spacing: 4.94 Feet-O.C. Slab Tendon Centroid: 2.50 Inches from top of slab Page 1 of 7 Z:%CAD Files%3100.319913127 - Magnolia SFDCALCSlPlan I -AI.ptl 2:56:56 PM PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Project Title: Magnolia - Plan I -Area I Build 100712 Soda! Number: 100-320-075 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - RESULTS OF ANALYSIS Soil Bearing Analysis Total Applied Load 299,303 LB Bearing Area 2026 FT2 Applied Pressure on Soil 148 PSF Soil Pressure Safety Factor 13.54 Prestress Summa,v Subgrade Friction calculated by method prescribed in PT! Manual Number of Slab Tendons Number of Beam Tendons Spacing of Slab Tendons (Feet) Center of Gravity of Concrete (from top of slab) (Inch) Center of Gravity of Tendons (from top of slab) (Inch) Eccentricity of Prestressing (Inch) Minimum Effective Prestress Force (K) Beta Distance Effective Prestress Force (K) Minimum Effective Prestress (PS!) Beta .Distance Effective Prestress (PS!) Moment Analysis -Center Lift Mode Maximum Moment, Short Dir. (controlled by Em=5.0 per PT! 4.3.2) Maximum Moment, Long Dir. (controlled by Em=5.0 per PT! 4.3.2) Short Direction Long Direction 17 6 9 3 4.94 4.80 4.00 4.27 5.98 6.30 -1.98 -2.03 614.8 162.2 643.9 226.4 100 77 105 107 5.93 FT-K/FT 5.65 FT-K/FT Tension in Top Fiber (KSl). Compression in Bottom Fiber (KS!) Short Long Short Long Direction Direction Direction Direction Allowable Stress -0.300 -0.300 Allowable Stress Actual Stress -0.253 -0.200 Actual Stress Stiffness Analysis -Center Lift Mode Based on a Stiffness Coefficient of 350 Available Moment of Inertia (lnch) Required Moment of Inertia (Inch) Required Moment of Inertia controlled by Shear Analysis -Center Lift Mode Maximum Shear, Short Direction. Maximum Shear, Long Direction Allowable Shear Stress (PSI) Actual Shear Stress (PS!) 1.125 1.125 1.141 0.910 Short Long Direction Direction 80,763 34,406 39,687 19,299 Width 6*Beta 2.45 K/FT 2.35 K/FT Short Long Direction Direction 140 135 119 107 Page 2of7 ZtCAD Files%3100-319913127 - Magnolia SFDCALCSlPlen I -AI.pti 2:56:56 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Serial Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia - Plan I - Area I Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - RESULTS OF ANALYSIS continued Cracked Section Analysis -Center Lift Mode Short Long Direction Direction Cracked Section Capacity (FT-K) 464.6 181.1 0.5 Moment (FT-K) 246.1 79.1 Moment Analysis - Edge Lift Mode Maximum Moment, Short Direction 3.57 FT-K/FT Maximum Moment, Long Direction 3.23 FT-K/FT Tension in. Bottom Fiber (KS!) Compression in Top Fiber (KS!) Short Long Short Long Direction . Direction Direction Direction Allowable Stress -0.300 -0.300 Allowable Stress 1.125 1.125 Actual Stress -0.242 -0.206 Actual Stress 0.216 . 0.17 Stiffness Analysis - Edge Lift Mode Based on a Stiffness Coefficient of 720 Short Long Direction Direction Available Moment of Inertia (Inch) 80,763 34,406 Required Moment of Inertia (Inch) 47,801 . 22,074 Required Moment of Inertia controlled by Width 6*Beta Shear Analysis - Ede Lift Mode Maximum Shear, Short Direction 1.42 K/FT Maximum Shear, Long Direction 1.57 K/FT Short Long Direction Direction Allowable Shear Stress (PSI) . 140 135 Actual Shear Stress (PSI) . 69 .71 Cracked Section Analysis - Edqe Lift Mode Short Long Direction Direction Cracked Section Capacity (FT-K) 249.5 . 92.1 0.5 Moment (FT-K) . 148.2 45.2 Page 3of7 Z:ICAD Filest3100..319913127 -Magnolia SFDtCALCSlPlan I -AI.pti 2:56:56 PM PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Too! Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Project Title: Magnolia - Plan I -Area I Build 100712 Serial Number: 100-320-075 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnica! Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - SELECTED VARIABLES Short Long Direction Direction Cross Sectional Area (Inch2): 6,147 2,117 Moment of Inertia (Inch4): 80,763 34,406 Section Modulus, Top (Inch3): 20,190 8,055 Section Modulus, Bottom (inch 3). - 6,842 2,671 Center of Gravity of Concrete - from top (Inch): 4.00 427 Center of Gravity of Prestressing Tendons - from top (Inch): 5.98 6.30 Eccentricity of Prestress (Inch): -1.98 -2.03 Beta Distance (Feet): 8.74 7.06 Equivalent Beam Depth (Inches): 15.80 17.15 Note: All Calculations above and other reported values which depend on depths use the equivalent depths as shown above. Jacking Force: 33.05 KIPS Page 4of7 Z:CAD FiIes%3100-31993127 - Magnolia SFDtCALCSlPlan I -AI.pti 2:56:56 PM 2,500.0 PS! 1,500,000.0 PS! 145.0 PCF 270.0 KS! 1/2 Inch II 28.00 FT 83.00 FT 5.00 Inches Short Direction Long Direction 17 6 Long Direction Type I Type II 2 1 18.0 15.0 Inches 12.0 12.0 Inches I I 3.00 3.00 Inches Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructura! Too! Kit, Inc. Registemd To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Sedal Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia - Plan I - Area I Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnica! Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA Material Properties Concrete Strength, fc: Concrete Creep Modulus, Ec Concrete Unit Weight: Tendon Strength, Fpu: Tendon Diameter: Slab Properties Rectangle Geometry: Number of Slab Tendons: Beam Properties Short Direction Type / Type II Quantity: 2 7 Depth: 18.0 15.0 Width: 12.0 12.0 Tendons: I I Cover: 3.00 3.00 Average beam spacing used in analysis Page 5of7 Z:CAD Filesi3100-319913127 - Magnolia SFDlCALCStPIan 1-AI.pti 2:56:56 PM PTISIab 3.2 Geostructura! Too! Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Project Title: Magnolia - Plan I -Area I Project Engineer: REM Geotechnical. Report: Geocon, Inc. Build 100712 Serial Number: 100-320-075 Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA - Continued Soil ProDerties Allowable Bearing Pressure: 2,000.0 PSF Center Lift Edge Lift Edge Moisture Variation Distance, em: 9.00 Feet 5.30 Feet Differential Soil Movement, Ym 0.300 Inches 0.610 Inches Load. Deflection and Subqrade Properties Slab Loading Uniform Superimposed Total Load: 40.00 PSF Total Perimeter Load: 1,100.00 PLF Stiffness Coefficients Center Lift: 360 Edge Lift: 720 Prestress Calculation • Subgrade Friction calculated by method prescribed in PT! Manual Prestress Loss: 15.0 KS! Subgrade Friction Coefficient: • 0.75 Page 6 of 7 Z:%CAD FiIes3100-31993127 -Magnolia SFDiCALCSlPlan I -AI.pti • 2:56:56 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Seflal Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia - Plan I -Area I Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnica! Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 PT! EXCEPTION SUMMARY The following elements of the design are not in strict compliance with the Design of Post-Tensioned Slabs-On-Ground 3rd Edition manual published by the Post-Tensioning Institute. NO PTI EXCEPTIONS EXIST II Page 7of7 Z:%CAD Fiies13100-31993127 - Magnolia SFDtCALCSlP1an 1 -A1.pti 2:56:56 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Serial Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia - Plan I -Area 2 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, mo. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - DESIGN SUMMARY Slab Dimensions: 20.50 FT x 46.17 FT x 5.00 Inches Material Properties Concrete Strength, f'c: 2,500 PSI Tendon Strength, Fp: 270 KSI Tendon Diameter: 1/2 Inch Material Quantities Concrete Volume: 22.9 Cubic Yards Prestressing Tendon: 723 Linear Feet Number of End Anchorages: 46 In the LONG direction Type IBeam Type ilBeam Quantity of Beams: 2 1 Depth of Beams: 18.0 Inches 15.0 Inches Width of Beams: 12.0 Inches 12.0 Inches Tendons per Beam: I I Beam Tendon Centroid: 3.25 Inches 3.25 Inches Beam Spacing: 10.25 Feet 0. C. Number of Slab Tendons: 5 Slab Tendon Spacing: 4.13 Feet O.C. Slab Tendon Centroid: 2.50 Inches from top of slab In the SHORT direction Type I Beam Type II Beam Quantity of Beams: 2 3 Depth of Beams: 18.0 Inches 15.0 Inches Width Of Beams: 12.0 Inches 12.0 Inches Tendons per Beam: I I Beam Tendon Centroid: 3.25 Inches 3.25 Inches Beam Spacing: 11.54 Feet 0. C. Number of Slab Tendons: 10 Slab Tendon Spacing: 4.69 Feet 0. C. Slab Tendàn Centroid: 2.50 Inches from top of slab Page lof7 Z1 CAD Files3100-319913127 - Magnolia SFDCALCStP1an 1 -A2.pti 2:58:22 PM Shear Analysis - Center Lift Mode Maximum Shear, Short Direction. Maximum Shear, Long Direction Allowable Shear Stress (PSI) Actual Shear Stress (PSI) 2.44 K/FT 1.79 K/FT Short Long Direction Direction 141 . 142 114 59 Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Serial Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia - Plan I - Area 2 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical.Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - RESULTS OF ANALYSIS Soil Bearing Analysis Total Applied Load 127,420 LB Bearing Area 852 FT2 Applied Pressure on Soil 150 PSF Soil Pressure Safety Factor 13.38 Prestress Summary Subgrade Friction calculated by method prescribed in PTI Manual Short Long Direction Direction Number of Slab Tendons 10 5 Number of Beam Tendons 5 3 Spacing of Slab Tendons (Feet) 4.69 4.13 Center of Gravity of Concrete (from top of slab) (Inch) 4.12 4.75 Center of Gravity of Tendons (from top of slab) (Inch) 6.04. 6.78 Eccentricity of Prestressing (Inch) -1.92 -2.03 Minimum Effective Prestress Force (K) 365.7 179.4 Beta Distance Effective Prestress Force (K) 373.9 202.9 Minimum Effective Prestress (PS!) 106 108 Beta Distance Effective Prestress (PSI) 108 122 Moment Analysis -Center Lift Mode Maximum Moment, Short Dir. (controlled by Em=5.0 per PTI 4.3.2) 5.35 FT-K/FT Maximum Moment, Long Dir. (controlled by Em=5.0 per PT! 4.3.2) 5.10 FT-K/FT Tension in Top Fiber (KSl) Compression in Bottom Fiber (KS!) Short Long • Short Long Direction Direction Direction Direction Allowable Stress -0.300 -0.300 Allowable Stress 1.125 1.125 Actual Stress -0.197 -0.135 Actual Stress 1.008 0.740 Stiffness Analysis -Center Lift Mode Based on a Stiffness Coefficient of 360 Short Long Direction Direction Available Moment of Inertia (Inch) 49,874 31,706 Required Moment of Inertia (Inch) 14,584 12,491 Required Moment of Inertia controlled by Width 6*Beta Page 2 of 7 Z:CAD Files13100-319913127 - Magnolia SFDCALCSPIan 1 -A2.pti 2:58:22 PM PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Too! Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Project Title: Magnolia - Plan I -Area 2 Build 100712 Serial Number: 100-320-075 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report:. Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - RESULTS OF ANALYSIS continued Cracked Section Analysis - Center Lift Mode Short Innt,• Cracked Section Capacity (FT-K) 0.5 Moment (FT-K) Moment Analysis - Ede Lift Mode Maximum Moment, Short Direction Miximurn Moment, Long Direction Tension in Bottom Fiber (KSl). Short Long Direction Direction Direction --.. Direction 284.7 152.9 123.5 52.2 3.52 FT-K/FT 3.14 FT-K/FT 'Compression in Top Fiber (KS!) Short Long Direction Direction Allowable Stress -0.300 -0300 Allowable Stress 1.125 1.125 Actual Stress -0.200 -0.053 Actual Stress 0.209 0.169 Stiffness Analysis - EdQe Lift Mode Based on a Stiffness Coefficient of 720 Available Moment of Inertia (Inch) Required Moment of Inertia (Inch) Required Moment of Inertia controlled by Shear Analysis - Edae Lift Mode Maximum Shear, Short Direction Maximum Shear, Long Direction Allowable Shear Stress (PSI) Actual Shear Stress (PS!) Cracked Section Analysis - Ediae Lift Mode Cracked Section Capacity (FT-K) 0.5 Moment (FT-K) Short Long Direction Direction 49,874 31,706 19,185 15,411 Width 6*Beta 1.41 K/FT 1.52 K/FT Short Long Direction Direction 141 142. 66 50 Short Long Direction Direction 145.0 92.0 81.2 32.2 Page 3of7 Z:ICAD Files3100-31993127 - Magnolia SFDCALCSPlen 1 .A2.pti 2:58:22 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Serial Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia - Plan I -Area 2 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - SELECTED VARIABLES Short Long Direction Direction Cross Sectional Area (Inch2): • 3,453 1,668 Moment of Inertia (Inch4): 49,874 31,706 Section Modulus, Top (Inch3): •. 12107 6,673 Section Modulus, Bottom (Inch3) : 4,068 2556 Center of Gravity of Concrete - from top (Inch): 4.12 4.75 Center of Gravity of Prestressing Tendons -from top (Inch): 6.04 6.78 Eccentricity of Prestress (Inch): -1.92 -2.03. Beta Distance (Feet): • 7.75 6.92 Equivalent Beam Depth (Inches): •. 16.38 17.16 Note: All Calculations above and other reported values which depend on depths use the equivalent depths as shown above. Jacking Force: 33.05 KIPS Page 4of7 Z:ICAD Files3100-31993127 - Magnolia SFDCALCSlPlan I -A2.ptl 2:58:22PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Serial Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia - Plan I - Area 2 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc.'Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA Material Properties Concrete Strength, fc: Concrete Creep Modulus, Ec Concrete Unit Weight: Tendon Strength, Fpu: Tendon Diameter: Slab Properties Rectangle Geometry: Number of Slab Tendons: Beam Properties 2500.0 PSI 1,500,000.0 PSI 145.0 PCF 270.0 KSI 1/2 Inch 20.50 FTx 46.17 FTx 5.00 Inches Short Direction Long Direction 10 5 Long Direction Type I Type II 2 1 18.0 15.0 Inches 12.0 12.0 Inches I I 3.00 3.00 Inches Short Direction Type I Type II Quantity: 2 3 Depth: 18.0 15.0 Width: 12.0 12.0 Tendons: I I Cover: 3.00 3.00 Average beam spacing used in analysis Page 5of7 Z:%CAD FilesI3100-31993127 - Magnolia SFDICALCS%Plen I -A2.pti 2:58:22 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Sedal Number: 100-320.075 Project Title: Magnolia - Plan I - Area 2 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA - Continued Soil Properties Allowable Bearing Pressure: 2,000.0 PSF Center Lift Edge Lift Edge Moisture Variation Distance, em: 9.00 Feet 5.30 Feet Differential Soil Movement, Ym 0.300 Inches 0.610 Inches Load. Deflection and Subarade Properties Slab Loading Uniform Superimposed Total Load: 40.00 PSF Total Perimeter Load: 1,100.00 PLF Stiffness Coefficients Center Lift: 360 Edge Lift: 720 Prestress Calculation Subgrade Friction calculated by method prescribed in PT! Manual Prestress Loss: 15.0 KSI Subgrade Friction Coefficient: 0.75 Page 6of7 Z:%CAD Flles3100-319913127 - Magnolia SFDlCALCSlPlan 1 -A2.pti 2:58:22 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Serial Number: 100-320.075 Project Title: Magnolia -Plan I -Area 2 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-0I PTI EXCEPTION SUMMARY The following elements of the design are not in strict compliance with the Design of Post-Tensioned Slabs-On-Ground 3rd Edition manual published by the Post-Tensioning Institute. NO PTI EXCEPTIONS EXIST Page 7of7 Z:%CAD Files13100-319913127 - Magnolia SFDtCALCSP1an I -A2.ptl 2:58:22 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Poet-Tension Design Unlimited Senal Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia - Plan I -Area 3 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotéchnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - DESIGN SUMMARY Slab Dimensions: 13.00 FT 49.00 FT 5.00 Inches Material Prooerties Concrete Strength, f's: 2500 PSI Tendon Strength, Fpu: 270 KS! Tendon Diameter: 1/2 Inch Material Quantities Concrete Volume: 15.7 Cubic Yards Prestressing Tendon: 480 Linear Feet Number of End Anchorages: 40 In the LONG direction. Type I Beam Type II Beam Quantity of Beams: 2 0 Depth of Beams: 18.0 Inches . 15.0 Inöhes Width of Beams: 12.0 Inches 12.0 Inches Tendons per Beam: 1 1 Beam Tendon Centroid: 3.25 Inches 3.25 Inches Beam Spacing: 13.00 Feet 0. C. Number of Slab Tendons: . 3 Slab Tendon Spacing: 4.50 Feet 0. C. Slab Tendon Centroid: 2.50 Inches from top of slab In the SHORT direction Type I Beam • Type II Beam Quantity of Beams: 2 . 3 Depth of Beams: 18.0 Inches 15.0 Inches Width of Beams: 12.0 Inches 12.0 Inches Tendons per Beam: I I Beam Tendon Centroid: 3.25 Inches 3.25 Inches Beam Spacing:. • 12.25 Feet 0. C. Number of Slab Tendons:. 10 Slab Tendon Spacing: • 5.00 Feet 0. C. Slab Tendon Centroid: 2.50 Inches from top of slab Page lof7 Z%CAD Fllesl3loo-319913127 - Magnolia SFD%CALCSlPlan 1 -A3.pti • 2:58:45 PM PTISIab 3,2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Project Title: Magnolia - Plan I -Area 3 Build 100712 Sedal Number: 100-320-075 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - RESULTS OF ANALYSIS Soil Bearing Analysis Total Applied Load . 86,921 LB Bearing Area . 523 F7-2 Applied Pressure on Soil 166 PSF Soil Pressure Safety Factor . . 12.03 Prestress Summa Subgrade Friction calculated by method prescribed in PTI Manual Short Long Direction Direction Number of Slab Tendons 10 3 Number of Beam Tendons . 5 . 2 Spacing of Slab Tendons (Feet) 5.00 4.50 Center of Gravity of Concrete (from top of slab) (Inch) 4.04 5.07 Center of Gravity of Tendons (from top of slab) (Inch) 6.04 7.40. Eccentricity of Prestressing (Inch) -2.00 -2.33 Minimum Effective Prestress Force (K) 376.3 110.1 Beta Distance Effective Prestress Force (K) 371.8 127.0 Minimum Effective Prestress (PSI) 104 101 Beta Distance Effective Prestress (PSI) 103 116 Moment Analysis -Center Lift Mode Maximum Moment, Short Dir. (controlled by Em=5. 0 per PTI 4.3.2) 5.95 FT-K/FT Maximum Moment, Long Dir. (controlled by Em=5.0 per PTI 4.3.2) 5.67 FT-k/FT Tension in Top Fiber (KSl) Compression in Bottom Fiber (KSI) Short Long Short Long Direction Direction Direction Direction Allowable Stress -0.300 -0.300 Allowable Stress 1.125 1.125 Actual Stress -0.236 -0.140 Actual Stress 1.140 0.713 Stiffness Analysis -Center Lift Mode Based on a Stiffness Coefficient of 360 Short Long Direction Direction Available Moment of Inertia (Inch) 50,642 24,070 Required Moment of Inertia (Inch) 10,919 8,225 Required Moment of Inertia controlled by Width 6*Beta Shear Analysis -Center Lift Mode Maximum Shear, Short Direction. 2.30 K/FT Maximum Shear, Long Direction . 2.17 K/FT Short Long Direction Direction Allowable Shear Stress (PSI) 141 140 Actual Shear Stress (PSI) 114 65 Page 2of7 Z:CAD Files3100-3199I3127 - Magnolia SFDCALCS%Plan I -A3.pti 2:58:45 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Se,iel Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia - Plan I -Area 3 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnica! Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - RESULTS OF ANALYSIS continued Cracked Section Analysis -Center Lift Mode -0.300 Allowable Stress -0.041 Actual Stress Cracked Section Capacity (FT-K) 0.5 Moment (FT-K) Moment Analysis -.Edpe Lift Mode Maximum Moment, Short Direction Maximum Moment, Long Direction Tension in Bottom Fiber (KS!) Short Long Direction Direction. Allowable Stress -0.300 Actual Stress -0.248 Stiffness Analysis - Edge Lift Mode Based on a Stiffness Coefficient of 720 Available Moment of Inertia (Inch Required Moment of Inertia (Inch) Required Moment of Inertia controlled by Shear Analysis - Edge Lift Mode Maximum Shear, Short Direction Maximum Shear, Long Direction Allowable Shear Stress (PSI) Actual Shear Stress (PSI) Cracked Section Analysis - Edge Lift Mode Cracked Section Capacity (FT-K) 0.5 Moment (FT-K) Short Long Direction Direction 284.7 . 97.9 145.8 36.8 1.125 1.125 0.219 0.157 Short Long Direction Direction 50,642 24,070 13,721 9,694 Width . 6*Beta 1.36 K/FT 1.55 K/FT Short Long Direction Direction 141 140 68 47 - Short Long Direction Direction 145.0 65.1 91.6 21.7 3.74 FT-K/FT 3.34 FT-K/FT Compression in Top Fiber(KSI) Short Long Direction Direction Page 3of7 Z:%CAD File43100-3199I3127 - Magnolia SFDCALCStPlen 1 -A3.pti 2:58:45 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Serial Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia -Plan I -Area 3 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 - Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - SELECTED VARIABLES. Short Long Direction Direction Cross Sectional Area (Inch2): . 3,623 .1,092 Moment of Inertia (Inch4): 50,642 24,070 Section Modulus, Top (Inch3): . 12,525 4,746 Section Modulus, Bottom (inch 3): . 4,106 1,862 Center of Gravity of COncrete - fràm top (inch): 4.04 5.07' Center of Gravity of Prestressing Tendons - from top (Inch): 6.04 7.40 Eccentricity of Prestress (Inch): -2.00 -2.33 Beta Distance (Feet):. . 7.78 6.46 Equivalent Beam Depth (Inches): 16.38 Note: All Calculations above and other reported values which depend on depths use the equivalent depths as shown above. Jacking Force: 33.05 KIPS Page 4of7 ZiCAD Flles3100.319913127 -Magnolia SFD%CALCSlPIan I -A3.pti 2:58:45 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Serial Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia - Plan I - Area 3 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17. Report Number: G2192-52-01 SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA Material Properties Concrete Strength, f: Conôrete Creep Modulus, Ec: Concrete Unit Weight: Tendon Strength, Fpu: Tendon Diameter: Slab Properties Rectangle Geometry: Number of Slab Tendons: Beam Properties Short Direction Type I Type II Quantity: 2 , 3 Depth: 18.0 15.0 Width: 12.0 12.0 Tendons: I ' I Cover: 3.00 3.00 Average beam spacing used in analysis 2,500.0 PSI 1,500,000.0 PSI 145.0 PCF 270.0 KSI 1/2 Inch 13.00 FT 49.00 FT 5.00 'Inches Short Direction Long Direction 10 3 Long Direction Type I Type II 2 0 18.0 15.0 Inches 12.0 12.0 Inches I I 3.00 3.00 Inches II Page 50f7 l'%CAD Files3100-3199l3127 - Magnolia SFDtcALCSlPlan I -A3pti 2:58:45 PM OM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited. Se,iai Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia - Plan I -Area 3 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA - Continued Soil Properties Allowable Bearing Pressure: . 2,000.0 PSF CenterLift Edge Lift Edge Moisture Variation Distance, em: 9.00 Feet 5.30 Feet Differential Soil Movement, Ym 0.300 Inches 0.610 Inches Load. Deflection and Subqrade Properties Slab Loading Uniform Superimposed Total Load: 40.00 PSF Total Perimeter Load: 1,100.00 PLF Stiffness Coefficients Center Lift: 360 Edge Lift: 720 Prestress Calculation Sub grade Friction calculated by method prescribed in PT! Manual Prestress Loss: . 15.0 KS! Subgrade Friction Coefficient: 0.75 Page 6of7 Z:tCAD Files3100-31993127 - Magnolia SFDCALCSPlen I -A3.pti 2:58:45 PM . . Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Serial Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia - Plan I -Area 3. Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. . Report Date: 101301-17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 PT! EXCEPTION SUMMARY The following elements of the design are not in strict compliance with the Design of Post-Tensioned Slabs-On-Ground 3rd Edition manual published by the Post-Tensioning Institute. NO PTI EXCEPTIONS EXIST Page 7of7 Z:%CAD Flles3100-319913127 - Magnolia SFD%CALCSPlan 1 -A3.pti 2:58:45 PM PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registemd To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Project Title: Magnolia - Plan I -Area 4 Build 100712 Sedel Number: 100-320-075 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - DESIGN SUMMARY Slab Dimensions: 18.00 FTx 41.50 FTx 5.00 Inches Material Properties Concrete Strength, Cc 2500 PS! Tendon Strength, Fpu: 270 KSI Tendon Diameter: 1/2 Inch Material Quantities Concrete Volume: 18.4 Cubic Yards Prestressing Tendon: 565 Linear Feet Number of End Anchorages: 40 In the LONG direction Type I Beam Type II Beam Quantity of Beams: 2 1 Depth of Beams: 18.0 Inches 15.0 Inches Width of Beams: 12.0 Inches 12.0 Inches Tendons per Beam: I I Beam Tendon Centroid: 3.25 Inches 3.25 Inches Beam Spacing: • • 9.00 Feet O.C. Number of Slab Tendons: 4 Slab Tendon Spacing: 4.67 Feet O.C. Slab Tendon Centroid: 2.50 Inches from top of slab In the SHORT direction Type I Beam Type II Beam Quantity of Beams: 2 2 Depth of Beams: 18.0 Inches 15.0 Inches Width of Beams: 12.0 Inches 12.0 Inches Tendons per Beam: I I Beam Tendon Centroid: 3.25 Inches 3.25 Inches Beam Spacing: 13.83 Feet O.C. Number of Slab Tendons: 9 Slab Tendon Spacing: 4.69 Feet 0. C. Slab Tendon Centroid: 2.50 Inches from top of slab Page lof7 Z:tCAD Files%3100-319913127 - Magnolia SFD%CALCS%Plan 1 .A4.pti 2:59:09 PM PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Too! Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Project Title: Magnolia - Plan I - Area 4 Project Engineer: REM Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Build 100712 Señel Number: 100-320-075 Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - RESULTS OF ANALYSIS Soil Bearing Analysis Total Applied Load . 101,770 LB Bearing Area 683 F7'2 Applied Pressure on Soil 149 PSF Soil Pressure Safety Factor 13.42 Prestress Summaiy Subgrade Friction calculated by method prescribed in PT! Manual Short Long Direction Direction Number of Slab Tendons 9 . 4 Number of Beam Tendons 4 3 Spacing of Slab Tendons (Feet) 4.69 4.67 Center of Gravity of Concrete (from top of slab) (Inch) 4.03 4.97 Center of Gravity of Tendons (from top of slab) (Inch) 5.86 7.39 Eccentricity of Prestressing (Inch) -1.83 -2.42 Minimum Effective Prestress Force (K) 319.1 159.4 Beta Distance Effective Prestress Force (K) 323.7 177.4 Minimum Effective Prestress (PSI) 105 105 Beta Distance Effective Prestress (PSI) 106 117. Moment Analysis -Center Lift Mode Maximum Moment, Short Dir. (controlled by Em=5.0 per PT! 4.3.2) 5.13 FT-KJFT Maximum Moment, Long Dir. (controlled by Em5.0 per PT! 4.3.2) 4.89 FT-K/FT Tension in Top Fiber (KS!) Compression in Bottom Fiber (KS!) Short Long Short Long Direction Direction Diiection Direction Allowable Stress -0.300 -0.300 Actual Stress -0.187 -0.129 Available Moment of Inertia (inch ) Required Moment of Inertia (Inch) Required Moment of Inertia controlled by Allowable Stress 1.125 1.125 Actual Stress 1.020 0.679 Short Long Direction Direction 43,373 30,573 11,047 10,431 Width 6*Beta 2.59 K/FT 1.61 K/FT Short Long Direction Direction 141 141 134 47 Stiffness Analysis - Center Lift Mode Based on a Stiffness Coefficient of 360 Shear Analysis -Center Lift Mode Maximum Shear, Short Direction. - Maximum Shear, Long Direction Allowable Shear Stress (PSI) Actual Shear Stress (PSI) Page 2of7 Z:ICAD Files3100-319913127 - Magnolia SFD104LCSP1en I .A4.ptl . 2:59:09 PM Short Long Direction Direction 43,373 30,573 15,053 13,247. Width 6*Beta 1.40 K/FT 1.51 K/FT Short Long Direction Direction 141 141 73 44 Short Long Direction Direction 118.7 92.0 72.6 27.9 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Project Title: Magnolia - Plan I -Area 4 Build 100712 Sedal Number: 100-320-075 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - RESULTS OF ANALYSIS continued Cracked Section Analysis -Center Lift Mode Short Long Direction Direction Cracked Section Capacity (FT-K) 0.5 Moment (FT-K) Moment Analysis - EdQe Lift Mode Maximum Moment, Short Direction Maximum Moment, Lông Direction Tension in Bottom Fiber (KSI) Short Long Direction Direction 259.6 123.9 106.6 44.0 • 3.50 FT-K/FT • 3.11 FT-K/FT Compression in Top Fiber (KSI) Short Long Direction Direction Allowable Stress -0.300 -0.300 Allowable Stress 1.125 1.125 Actual Stress -0.233 -0.009 Actual Stress 0.212 0.152 Stiffness Analysis - Edge Lift Mode Based on a Stiffness Coefficient of 720 Available Moment of Inertia (Inch) Required Moment of Inertia (Inch) Required Moment of Inertia controlled by Shear Analysis - Edge Lift Mode Maximum Shear, Short Direction Maximum Shear, Long Direction Allowable Shear Stress (PSI) Actual Shear Stress (PSI). Cracked Section Analysis - Edqe Lift Mode Cracked Section Capacity (FT-K) 0.5 Moment (FT-K) Page 3of7 Z:tCAD FiIes3100-31993127 - Magnolia SFDICALCS%Plan 1 -A4.pti • 2:59:09 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Sedal Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia -Plan I -Area 4 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnica! Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 • Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - SELECTED VARIABLES • Short Long Direction Direction• Cross Sectional Area (Inch2): 3,051 1,518 Moment of Inertia (Inch4):• - 43,373 30,573 Section Modulus, Top (Inch3): 10,757 6,146 Section Modulus, Bottom (Inch3): 3,430 2,509 Center of Gravity of Concrete - from top (Inch): • 4.03 • 4.97 Center of Gravity of Prestressing Tendons - from top (Inch): 5.86 7.39 Eccentricity of Prestress (Inch): -1.83 -2.42 Beta Distance (Feet): 7.48 6.86 Equivalent Beam Depth (Inches): 16.68 17.16 Note: All Calculations above and other reported values which • depend on depths use the equivalent depths as shown above. Jacking Force: 33.05 KIPS Page 4of7 Z:ICAD Filesl3loo-319913127 - Magnolia SFDICALCS%Plan 1 -A4.pti 2:59:09 PM PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Too! Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Project Title: Magnolia - Plan I -Area 4 Build 100712 Serial Number: 100-320-075 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA Material Properties Concrete Strength, fc: 2,500.0 PSI Concrete Creep Modulus, E1 : 1,500,000.0 PSI Concrete Unit Weight: • 145.0 PCF Tendon Strength, Fpu: 270.0 KS! Tendon Diameter: • 1/2 Inch Slab Properties. Rectangle Geometry: 18.00 FTx 41.50 FTx 5.00 Inches Short Direction Long Direction Number of Slab Tendons: 9 4 Beam Properties Short Direction Long Direction Type I Type II Type I • Type II Quantity: • 2 2 2 1 Depth: 18.0 15.0 18.0 15.0 Inches Width: 12.0 • 12.0 12.0 12.0 Inches Tendons: I I I I Cover: 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Inches Average beam spacing used in analysis Page 5of7 Z:CAD Files3100-31993127 - Magnolia SFD%CALCStPlan 1 -A4.ptl 2:59:09 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Serial Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia - Plan I -Area 4 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA -Continued Soil Properties Allowable Bearing Pressure: 2,000:0 PSF Center Lift Edge Lift Edge Moisture Variation Distance, em: 9.00 Feet 5.30 Feet Differential Soil Movement, Ym- 0.300 Inches 0.610 Inches Load. Deflection and Subarade Properties Slab Loading Uniform Superimposed Total Load: 40.00 PSF Total Perimeter Load: . 1,100.00 PLF Stiffness Coefficients Center Lift: 360. Edge Lift: 720 Prestress Calculation Subgrade Friction calculated by method prescribed in PTI Manual Prestress Loss: 15.0 KSl Subgrade Friction Coefficient: 0.75 - . Page 6of7 Z:ICAD Fiies3100-319913127 - Magnolia SFDICALCS%Plan I -A4.pti . 2:59:09 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 32 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Pos1-Tension Design Unlimited Sedal Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia -Plan I -Area 4 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 PT! EXCEPTION SUMMARY The following elements of the design are not in strict compliance with the Design of Post-Tensioned Slabs-On-Ground 3rd Edition manual published by the Post-Tensioning Institute. NO PTI EXCEPTIONS EXIST Page 7 of 7 Z:CAD Flles3100-319913127 - Magnolia SFDtCALCStPlan I -A4.ptl 2:59:09 PM PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Project Title: Magnolia - Plan I -Area 4 Build 100712 Serial Number: 100-320-075 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - DESIGN SUMMARY Slab Dimensions: 12.75 FTx 20.17 FTx 5.00 Inches Material Properties Concrete Strength, Ic: 2500 PS! Tendon Strength, Fpu: 270 KS! Tendon Diameter: 1/2 Inch Material Quantities Concrete Volume: 8.8 Cubic Yards Prestressing Tendon: 229 Linear Feet Number of End Anchorages: 26 In the LONG direction Type I Beam Type II Beam Quantity of Beams: 2 0 Depth of Beams: 18.0 Inches 15.0 Inches Width of Beams: 12.0 Inches 12.0 Inches Tendons per Beam: I I Beam Tendon Centroid: 3.25 Inches 3.25 Inches Beam Spacing: 12.75 Feet 0. C. Number of Slab Tendons: 3 Slab Tendon Spacing: 4.38 Feet O.C. Slab Tendon Centroid: 2.50 Inches from top of slab In the SHORT direction Type I Beam Type II Beam Quantity of Beams: 2 1 Depth of Beams: 18.0 Inches 15.0 Inches Width of Beams: 12.0 Inches 12.0 Inches Tendons per Beam: 1 1 Beam Tendon Centroid: 3.25 Inches 3.25 Inches Beam Spacing: 10.09 Feet O.C. Number of Slab Tendons: 5 Slab Tendon Spacing: 4.04 Feet 0. C. Slab Tendon Centroid:• 2.50 Inches from top of slab Page lof7 Z:ICAD Files13100-319913127 - Magnolia SFD%CALCStPIan I -A5.pti 2:59:27 PM PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Project Title:. Magnolia - Plan I - Area 4 Project Engineer: REM Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Build 100712 Serial Number: 100-320-075 Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - RESULTS OF ANALYSIS Soil Bearing Analysis Total Applied Load 36,898 LB Bearing Area 226 FT2 Applied Pressure on Soil 164 PSF Soil Pressure Safety Factor 12.22 Prestress Summa Subgrade Friction calculated by method prescribed in PTI Manual . . . Short Long Direction Direction Number of Slab Tendons . 5 3 Number of Beam TendOns 3 2 Spacing of Slab Tendons (Feet) 4.04 4.38 Center of Gravity of Concrete (from top of slab) (Inch) 4.78 5.11 Center of Gravity of Tendons (from top of slab) (Inch) 6.78 7.40 Eccentricity of Prestressing (Inch) -2.00 -2.29 Minimum Effective Prestress Force (K) 203.0 123.1 Beta Distance Effective Prestress Force (K) 202.2 126.7 Minimum Effective Prestress (PSI) . . 123 114 Beta Distance Effective Prestress (PS!) 123 118 Moment Analysis - Center Lift Mode Maximum Moment, Short Dir. (controlled by Em=5.0 per PTI 4.3.2) 5.85 FT-K/FT Maximum Moment, Long Dir. (controlled by Em=5.0 per PTI 4.3.2) • 5.57 FT-KJFT Tension in Top Fiber (KS!) Compression in Bottom Fiber (KS!) Short Long Short Long Direction Direction Direction Direction Allowable Stress -0.300 -0.300 Allowable Stress 1.125 1.125 Actual Stress -0.153 • -0.128 Actual Stress 0.837 0.725 Stiffness Analysis -Center Lift Mode Based on a Stiffness Coefficient of 360 Short Long Direction Direction Available Moment of Inertia (Inch) 31,565 23,939 Required Moment of Inertia (Inch) 4,332 4,125 Required Moment of Inertia controlled by Width Length ShearAnalysis -Center Lift Mode Maximum. Shear, Short Direction. 2.11 K/FT Maximum Shear, Long Direction 1.98 K/FT Short. Long Direction Direction Allowable Shear Stress (PSI) • 145 143 Actual Shear Stress (PS!) 69 58 Page 2of7 ll CAD Fiies13100-31993127 - Magnolia SFDtCALCSlPIan I -A5.pti • . . • 2:59:27 PM Short Long Direction Direction 31,565 23,939 5,652 4,967 Width Length 1.39 k/FT 1.46 K/FT Short Long Direction Direction 145 143 45 43 Short Long Direction Direction 92.0 65.1 38.5 21.4 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructura! Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Project Title: Magnolia - Plan I - Area 4 Build 100712 Serial Number: 100-320.075 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - RESULTS OF ANALYSIS continued Cracked Section Analysis -Center Lift Mode Short Long Direction Direction Cracked Section Capacity (FT-K) 0.5 Moment (FT-K) Moment Analysis - Edge Lift Mode Maximum Moment, Short Direction Maximum Moment, Long Direction Tension in Bottom Fiber (KS!) Short Long Direction Direction 152.9 97.9 59.0 35.5 3.82 FT-k/FT 3.35 FT-K/FT Compression in Top Fiber (KS!) Short Long Direction Direction Allowable Stress -0.300 -0.300 Allowable Stress 1.125 - 1.125 Actual Stress -0.080 -0.010 Actual Stress 0.202 0.164 Stiffness Analysis - Edge Lift Mode Based on a Stiffness Coefficient of 720 Available Moment of Inertia (Inch) Required Moment of Inertia (Inch) Required Moment of Inertia controlled by Shear Analysis - Edqe Lift Mode Maximum Shear, Short Direction Maximum Shear, Long Direction Allowable Shear Stress (PSI) Actual Shear Stress (PSI) Cracked Section Analysis - Edqe Lift Mode Cracked Sedioñ Capacity (FT-K) 0.5 Moment (FT-K) Page 3of7 Z:ICAD FiIes3100-31993127 - Magnolia SFDCALCSPlan I -A5.pti 2:59:27 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited . . Sedal Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia - Plan 1.-Area 4 Project Engineer: REM . Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnica! Report: Geocon, Inc. . Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - SELECTED VARIABLES Short Long Direction Direction Cross Sectional Area (Inch2): 1,648 Moment of Inertia (Inch'): 31,565 Section Modulus, Top (Inch3): 6,606 Section Modulus, Bottom (Inch3): 2,550 Center of Gravity of Concrete - from top (Inch): 4.78 Center of Gravity of Prestressing Tendons - from top (Inch): 6.78 Eccentricity of Prestress (Inch): -2.00 Beta Distance (Feet): . . 6.91 Equivalent Beam Depth (Inches): . . 17.16 Note: All Calculations above and other reported values which depend on depths use the equivalent depths as shown above. .1,077 23,939 4,687 1,857 5.11 7.40 -2.29 6.45 Jacking Force: 33.05 KIPS Page 4of7 2%CAD Files3100-31993127 - Magnolia SFD%CALCSlPlan I -A5.pti - 2:59:27 PM PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Project Title: Magnolia - Plan I -Area 4 Build 100712 Serial Number: 100-320-075 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA Material Properties Concrete Strength, f'c: Concrete Creep Modulus, Ec: Concrete Unit Weight: Tendon Strength, Fpu: Tendon Diameter: Slab Properties Rectangle Geometry: Number of Slab Tendons: Beam Properties Short Direction Type! Type!! Quantity: 2 1 Depth: 18.0 • 15.0 Width: 12.0 12.0 Tendons: I I Cover: 3.00 3.00 Average beam spacing used in analysis 2500.0 PSI 1,500,000.0 PSI 145.0 PCF 270.0 KS! 1/2 Inch 12.75 FTx 20.17 FTx 5.00 Inches Short Direction Long Direction 3 Long Direction Type I Type II 2 0 18.0 15.0 Inches 12.0 12.0 Inches I I 3.00 3.00 Inches Page5of7 Z:%CAD Flles%3100-319913127 - Magnolia SFDlCALCSPlan I -A5.pti • . 2:59:27 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Serial Number: 100-320-075 Project Title.: Magnolia - Plan I -Area 4 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA - Continued Soil Properties Allowable Bearing Pressure: Edge Moisture Variation Distance, em: Differential Soil Movement, Ym: 2000.0 PSF Center Lift Edge Lift 9.00 Feet 5.30 Feet 0.300 Inches 0.610 Inches Load. Deflection and Subarade Properties Slab Loading Uniform Superimposed Total Load: 40.00 PSF Total Perimeter Load: 1,100.00 PLF Stiffness Coefficients Center Lift: 360 Edge Lift: 720 Prestress Calculation Subgrade Friction calculated by method prescribed in PTI Manual Prestress Loss: 15.0 KS! Subgrade Friction Coefficient: 0.75 Page 60f7 Z:tCAD Fiies3100-319913127 - Magnolia SFDlCALCSlPian I -A5.pti 2:59:27 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Sedal Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia - Plan I -Area 4 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date:• 10/30/17 Report Number :.G2192-52-01 PTI EXCEPTION SUMMARY The following elements of the design are not in strict compliance with the Design àf Post-Tensioned Slabs-On-Ground 3rd Edition manual published by the Post-Tensioning Institute. NO PTI EXCEPTIONS EXIST Page 70f7 Z:CAD Flles3100-3199%3127 - Magnolia SFD%CALCS%Plan I -A5.pli 2:59:27 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Too! Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Serial Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia - Plan 2-Area I Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - DESIGN SUMMARY Slab Dimensions: 35.50 FT 66.00 FT 5.00 Inches Material Properties Concrete Strength, fc: 2500 PS! Tendon Strength, Fpu: 270 KS! Tendon Diameter: 1/2 Inch Material Quantities Concrete Volume: 53.2 Cubic Yards Prestressing Tendon: 1,604 Linear Feet Number of End Anchorages: 66 In the LONG direction Type I Beam Type II Beam Quantity of Beams: 2 2 Depth of Beams: 18.0 Inches 15.0 Inches Width of Beams: 12.0 Inches 12.0 Inches Tendons per Beam: I I Beam Tendon Centroid: 3.25 Inches 3.25 Inches Beam Spacing: 11.83 Feet O.C. Number of Slab Tendons: 8 Slab Tendon Spacing: 4.50 Feet O.C. Slab Tendon Centroid: 2.50 Inches from top of slab In the SHORT direction Type I Beam Type II Beam Quantity of Beams: 2 5 Depth of Beams: 180 Inches 15.0 Inches Width of Beams: 12.0 Inches 12.0 Inches Tendons per Beam: 1 1 Beam Tendon Centroid: 3.25 Inches 3.25 Inches Beam Spacing: 11.00 Feet 0. C. Number of Slab Tendons: 14 Slab Tendon Spacing: 4.77 Feet 0. C. Slab Tendon Centroid: 2.50 Inches from top of slab Page 1 of 7 Z:CAD FiIes3100-31993127 - Magnolia SFDCALCS%Plen 2 -AI.ptl 2:59:51 PM Short Long Direction Direction 65,704 41,686 37,174 23,851 Width 6*Beta 2.64 K/FT 2.02 K/FT Short; Long Direction Direction 140 138 129 90 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Project Title: Magnolia - Plan 2-Area I Project Engineer: REM Geotechnica! Report: Geocon, Inc. Build 100712 Sedal Number: 100-320-075 Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - RESULTS OF ANALYSIS Soil Bearing Analysis Total Applied Load 301,887 LB Bearing Area 2,071 F7-2 Applied Pressure on Soil 146 PSF Soil Pressure Safety Factor 13.72 Prestress Summary Sub grade Friction calculated by method prescribed in PTI Manual Short Long Direction Direction Number of Slab Tendons 14 8 Number of Beam Tendons 7 4 Spacing of Slab Tendons (Feet) 4.77 4.50 Center of Gravity of Concrete (from top of slab) (Inch) 4.02 4.24 Center of Gravity of Tendons (from top of slab) (Inch) 5.92 6.14 Eccentricity of Prestressing (Inch) -1.91 491 Minimum Effective Prestress Force (K) 481.0 241.4 Beta Distance Effective Prestress Force (K) 522.5 301.9 Minimum Effective Prestress (PSI) 98 90 Beta Distance Effective Prestress (PSI) 107 112 Moment Analysis -Center Lift Mode Maximum Moment, Short Dir. (controlled by Em=5.0 per PTI 4.3.2) 5.51 FT-K/FT Maximum Moment, Long Dir. (controlled by Em=5.0 per PT! 4.3.2) 5.25 FT-K/FT Tension in Top Fiber (KS!) Compression in Bottom Fiber (KSl) Short Long Short Long Direction Direction Direction Direction Allowable Stress -0.300 -0.300 Allowable Stress 1.125 1.125 Actual Stress -0.224 -0.184 Actual Stress 1.063 0.894 Stiffness Analysis -Center Lift Mode Based on a Stiffness Coefficient of 360 Available Moment of Inertia (Inch) Required Moment of Inertia (Inch) Required Moment of Inertia controlled by Shear Analysis -Center Lift Mode Maximum Shear, Short Direction. Maximum Shear, Long Direction Allowable Shear Stress (PSI) Actual Shear Stress (PSI) Page 2 of 7 ZCAD Files3100-31993127 - Magnolia SFD%CALCSPlan 2 -AI.pti 2:59:51 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Serial Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia - Plan 2 -Area • I Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - RESULTS OFANALYSIS continued Cracked Section Analysis -Center Lift Mode Allowable Shear Stress (PS!) Actual Shear Stress (PSI) raàked Section Analysis - EdQe Lift Mode Cracked Section Capacity (FT-K) 0.5 Moment (FT-K) Short Long Direction Direction 387.4 233.1 181.8 93.1 3.46 FT-k/FT 3.11 FT-K/FT Compression in Top Fiber (KS!) Short Long Direction Direction Allowable Stress 1.125 1.125. Actual, Stress 0.21 0.178 Short Long Direction Direction 65,704 41,686 46,657 28,295 Width 6*Beta • 1.45 K/FT 1.54 K/FT Short Long • Direction Direction 140 138 71 68 Short Long ' • Direction Direction 197.4 118.7 114.1 55.2 Cracked Section Capacity (FT-K) 0.5 Moment (FT-K) Moment Analysis - Edge Lift Mode Maximum Moment, Short Direction Maximum Moment, Long Direction Tension in Bottom Fiber (KSI) Short Long Direction Direction Allowable Stress -0.300 -0.300 Actual Stress -0.234 -0.169 Stiffness Analysis - Edge Lift Mode Based on a Stiffness Coefficient of 720 Available Moment of Inertia (Inch:) Required Moment of Inertia (Inch) Required Moment of Inertia controlled by Shear Analysis - Edge Lift Mode Maximum Shear, Short Direction Maximum Shear, Long Direction Page 3of7 Z:ICAD Filest3100-31993127.- Magnolia SFDtCALCSlPlan 2 -AI.pti • • 2:59:51 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited - - Sedal Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia - Plan 2-Area I Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date April 8,2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - SELECTED VARIABLES Short Long Direction Direction Cross Sectional Area (Inch2): 4,885 2691 Moment of Inertia (Inch4): 65,704 41,686 Section Modulus, Top (Inch3): 16,358 9,837 Section Modulus, Bottom (Inch3): 5,476 3,350 Center of Gravity of Concrete - from top (Inch): 4.02 4.24 Center of Gravity of Prestressing Tendons - from top (Inch): 5.92 6.14 Eccentricity of Prestress (Inch): -1.91 -1.91 Beta Distance (Feet): 8.30 7.41 Equivalent Beam Depth (Inches): 16.02 16.68 Note: All Calculations above and other reported values which depend on depths use the equivalent depths as shown above. Jacking Force: 33.05 KIPS Page 40f7 Z:%CAD Files13100-319913127 - Magnolia SFDtCALCSPIan 2 -AI.pti 2:59:51 PM 35.50 FT 66.00 FT 5.00 Inches Short Direction Long Direction 14 8. Long Direction Type I Type II 2 2 18.0 15.0 Inches 12.0 12.0 Inches I 3.00 3.00 Inches PTISIab. 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Project Title: Magnolia - Plan 2-Area 1 Build 100712 Serfs! Number: 100-320-075 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA Material Properties Concrete Strength, tc . . 2,500.0 PSI Concrete Creep Modulus, Ec: 1,500,000.0 PSI Concrete Unit Weight: . . 145.0 PCF 2700 KS! 1/2 Inch Tendon Strength, Fpu Tendon Diameter: Slab Properties Rectangle Géometiy: Number of Slab Tendons: Beam Properties Short Direction Type! Type II Quantity: 2 5 Depth: 18.0 15.0 Width: 12.0 12.0 Tendons: I I Cover: 3.00 3.00 Average beam spacing used in analysis Page 5of7 Z:%CAD Files3100-31993127 - Magnolia SFDtCALCSiPlan 2 -Al.pti 2:59:51 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Serial Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia - Plan 2-Area I Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA - Continued Soil Properties Allowable Bearing Pressure: 2,000.0 PSF Center Lift Edge Lift Edge Moisture. Variation Distance, em: 9.00 Feet 5.30 Feet Differential Soil Movement, Ym. 0.300 Inches 0.610 Inches Load. Deflection and Subarade Proøerties Slab Loading Uniform Superimposed Total Load: 40.00 PSF Total Perimeter Load: 1,100.00 PLF Stiffness Coefficients Center Lift: 360 Edge Lift: 720 Prestress Calculation Subgrade Friction calculated by method prescribed in PTI Manual Prestress Loss: 15.0 KSI Subgrade Friction Coefficient: rDIrA1 Page 6of7 Z.ICAD Flles3100-3l99l3127-Magnolia SFDICALCS%Plan 2- AI.pti 2:59:51 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Serial Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia - Plan 2-Area I Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 PTI EXCEPTION SUMMARY The following elements of the design are not in strict compliance with the Design of Post-Tensioned Slabs-On-Ground 3rd Edition manual published by the Post-Tensioning Institute. NO PTI EXCEPTIONS EXIST Page 70f7 Z:CAD Filas13100-319913127 - Magnolia SFD%CALCSPlan 2- AI.pti 2:59:51 PM PTISIab 3.2 Geostructura! Too! Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Project Title: Magnolia - Plan 2-Area 2 Project Engineer: REM Project Number Project Date: Geotechnica! Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: Report Number RIBBED FOUNDATION - DESIGN SUMMARY Build 100712 Sedal Number: 100-320-075 3127 April. 8, 2019 10/30/17 G2192-52-01 Slab Dimensions: 36.00 FT 48.83 FT 5.00 Inches Material Properties Concrete Strength, fc: 2,500 PSI Tendon Strength, Fpu: 270 KS! Tendon Diameter: 1/2 Inch Material Quantities Concrete Volume: . 39.8 Cubic Yards Prestressing Tendon: 1,180 Linear Feet Number of End Anchorages: 54 In the LONG direction Type I Beam Type II Beam Quantity of Beams: 2 2 Depth of Beams: 18.0 Inches 15.0 Inches Width of Beams: 12.0 Inches 12.0 Inches Tendons per Beam: . I I Beam Tendon Centroid: 3.25 Inches 3.25 Inches Beam Spacing: 12.00 Feet 0. C. Number of Slab Tendons: . . 8 Slab Tendon Spacing: . 4.57 Feet 0. C. Slab Tendon Centroid: . 2.50 Inches from top of slab In the SHORT direction Type I Beam Type II Beam Quantity of Beams: 2 3 Depth of Beams: 18.0 Inches 15.0 Inches Width of Beams: 12.0 Inches 12.0 Inches Tendons per Beam: I I Beam Tendon Centroid: 3.25 Inches 3.25Inches Beam Spacing: 12.21 Feet 0. C. Number of Slab Tendons: 10 Slab Tendon Spacing: . 4.98 Feet 0.C. Slab Tendon Centroid: 2.50 Inches from top of slab Page lof7 Z:%CAD Filesi3100.319913127 - Magnolia SFD%CALC9P1en 2 -A2.pti 3:00:10 PM PTISIab 3,2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Project Title: Magnolia - Plan 2-Area 2 Build 100712 Sedal Number: 100-320.075 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - RESULTS OF ANALYSIS Soil Bearing Analysis Total Applied Load 226,085 LB Bearing Area 1,501 FT2 Applied Pressure on Soil 151 PSF Soil Pressure Safety Factor 13.27 Prestress Summary Subgrade Friction calculated by method prescribed in PT! Manual Short Long Direction Direction Number of Slab Tendons 10 .8 Number of Beam Tendons 5 4 Spacing of Slab Tendons (Feet) 4.98 4.57 Center of Gravity of Concrete (from top of slab) (Inch) 4.05 4.22 Center of Gravity of Tendons (from top of slab) (Inch) 6.04 6.14 Eccentricity of Prestressing (Inch) -2.00 -1.92 Minimum Effective Prestress Force (K) 340.9 261.1 Beta Distance Effective Prestress Force (K) 374.1 301.7 Minimum Effective Prestress (PSI) 94 96 Beta Distance Effective Prestress (PSI) 104 111 Moment Analysis -Center Lift Mode Maximum Moment, Short Dir. (controlled by Em5.0 per PT! 4.3.2) 5.51 FT-K/FT Maximum Moment, Long Dir. (controlled by Em=5.0 per PT! 4.3.2) 5.25 FT-K/FT Tension in Top Fiber (KS!) . Compression in Bottom Fiber (KS!) Short Long Short Long Direction Direction Direction Direction Allowable Stress -0.300 -0.300 Allowable Stress 1.125 1.125 Actual Stress -0.218 -0.183 Actual Stress 1.047 0.921 Stiffness Analysis -Center Lift Mode Based on a Stiffness Coefficient of 360 Short Long Direction Direction Available Moment of Inertia (Inch) . 50,597 41,836 Required Moment of Inertia (Inch) . 27,900 24,217 Required Moment of Inertia controlled by Width 6*Beta Shear Analysis - Center Lift Mode Maximum Shear, Short Direction. . 2.78 K/FT Maximum Shear, Long Direction. 1.99 K/FT Short Long Direction Direction Allowable Shear Stress (PSI) 139 139 Actual Shear Stress (PSI) 138 89 Page 2of7 Z:%CAD Filesl3100-319913127 . Magnolia SFDtCALCSlPlan 2 .A2.pti i 3:00:10 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Too! Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Serial Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia -Plan 2-Area 2 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - RESULTS OF ANALYSIS continued Cracked Section Analysis -Center Lift Mode Short Long Direction Direction Cracked Section Capacity (FT-K) 284.7 233.1 0.5 Moment (FT-K) 134.6 94.5 Moment A nalysis - Edge Lift Mode Maximum Moment, Short Direction 3.50 FT-K/FT Maximum Moment, Long Direction 3.12 FT-K/FT Tension in Bottom Fiber (KSl) Compression in Top Fiber (KS!) Short Long Short Long Direction Direction Direction Direction Allowable Stress -0.300 -0.300 Allowable Stress 1.125 1.125 Actual Stress -0.239 -0.156 Actual Stress 0.204 0.181 Stiffness Analysis - Edge Lift Mode Based on a Stiffness Coefficient of 720 Short Long Direction Direction Available Moment of Inertia (lnch) 50,597 41,836 Required Moment of Inertia (Inch) 35,398 28,816 • Required Moment of Inertia controlled by Width 6*Beta Shear Analysis - Edge Lift Mode Maximum Shear, Short Direction 1.46 K/FT Maximum Shear, Long Direction 1.50 K/FT Short Long Direction Direction Allowable Shear Stress (PSI) 139 139 Actual Shear Stress (PSI) 73 68 Cracked Section Analysis - Edge Lift Mode • Short Long Direction Direction Cracked Section Capacity (FT-K) 145.0 118.7 0.5 Moment (FT-K) 85.4 56.2 Page 3of7 Z:tCAD Files3100-319913127 - Magnolia SFD%CALCSPlan 2 -A2.pti 3:00:10 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Setial Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia - Plan 2-Area 2 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report? Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - SELECTED VARIABLES • Short Long Direction Direction Cross Sectional Area (Inch2): 3,612 2,721 Moment of Inertia (Inch4): 50,597 41,836 Section Modulus, Top (Inch 3) 12501 9,917 Section Modulus, Bottom (Inch3): 4,103 3,357 Center of Gravity of Concrete - from top (Inch): 4.05 4.22 Center of Gravity of Prestressing Tendons - from top (Inch): • 6.04 6.14 Eccentricity of Prestress (Inch): -2.00 -1.92 Beta Distance (Feet): 7.78 7.42 Equivalent Beam Depth (Inches): 16.38 16.68 Note: All Calculations above and other reported values which depend on depths use the equivalent depths as shown above. Jacking Force: • • • 33.05 KIPS Page 4of7 Z% CAD Files3100-31993127 - Magnolia SFDCALCSPlan 2 -A2.pti • 3:00:10 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registemd To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Seial Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolla - Plan 2-Area 2 Project Engineer: REM • Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. . Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA Material Properties Concrete Strength, f',: Concrete Creep Modulus, Ec: Concrete Unit Weight: Tendon Strength, Fpu: Tendon Diameter: Slab Properties Rectangle Geometry: Number of Slab Tendons: Beam Properties Short Direction Type I Type II Quantity: 2 3 Depth: 18.0 15.0 Width: .12.0 12.0 Tendons: I . I Cover: 3.00 3.00 Average beam spacing used in analysis. 2500.0 PS! 1,500,000.0 PSI 145.0 PCF 270.0 KS! 1/2 Inch 36.00 FT 48.83 FT 5.00 Inches Short Direction Long Direction 10 8 Long Direction Type I Type II 2 2 18.0 15.0 Inches 12.0 12.0 Inches I I 3.00 3.00 Inches Page 50f7 Z:%CAD FiIes3100-31993127 - Magnolia SFDlCALCSlPlan 2- A2.pti 3:00:10 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructura! Tool Kit, Inc Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Sedal Number: 100.320-075 Project Title: Magnolia - Plan 2-Area 2 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnica! Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA - Continued Soil Properties Allowable Bearing Pressure: 2,000.0 PSF Center Lift Edge Lift Edge Moisture Variation Distance, em: 9.00 Feet 5.30 Feet Differential Soil Movement, Ym: 0.300 Inches 0.610 Inches Load. Deflection and Subarade Prooerties Slab Loading Uniform Superimposed Total Load: 40.00 PSF Total Perimeter Load: 1,100.00 PLF Stiffness Coefficients Center Lift: 360 Edge Lift: • 720 Prestress Calculation Subgrade Friction calculated by method prescribed in PT! Manual Prestress Loss: • • 15.0 KS! Subgrade Friction Coefficient:' 0.75 Page 6of7 Z:%CAD Files3100-319913127 - Magnolia SFDICALCS%Plan 2- A2.ptl • 3:00:10 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Senal Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia -Plan 2 -Area 2 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnica! Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 PT! EXCEPTION SUMMARY The following elements of the design are not in strict compliance with the Design of Post-Tensioned Slabs-On-Ground 3rd Edition manual published by the Post-Tensioning Institute. NO PTI EXCEPTIONS EXIST Page 7of7 Z:CAD F0e313100-3I993127 - Magnolia SFDICALCS%Plan 2 -A2.pti 3:00:10 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural ToolKit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Serial Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia - Plan 2-Area 3 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - DESIGN SUMMARY Slab Dimensions: 16.00 FT 81.75 FT 5.00 Inches Material Properties Concrete Strength, f's: 2,500 PS! Tendon Strength, Fpu: 270 KS! Tendon Diameter: 1/2 Inch Material Quantities Concrete Volume: 32.9 Cubic Yards Prestressing Tendon: 1,036 Linear Feet Number of End Anchorages: 64 In the LONG direction Type I Beam Type II Beam Quantity of Beams: 2 1 Depth of Beams: 18.0 Inches 15.0 Inches Width of Beams: 12.0 Inches 12.0 Inches Tendons per Beam: . I I Beam Tendon Centroid: 3.25 Inches 3.25 Inches Beam Spacing : 8.00 Feet 0. C. Number of Slab Tendons: 4 Slab Tendon Spacing: . 400 Feet 0. C. Slab Tendon Centroid: 2.50 Inches from top of slab In the SHORT direction . Type I Beam Type II Beam Quantity of Beams: 2 . 6 Depth of Beams: 18.0 Inches 15.0 Inches Width of Beams: 12.0 Inches 12.0 Inches Tendons per Beam: Beam Tendon Centroid: . 3.25 Inches 3.25 Inches Beam Spacing: 11.68 Feet O.C. Number of Slab Tendons: 17 Slab Tendon Spacing: . 4.86 Feet 0. C. Slab. Tendon Centroid: 2.50 Inches from top of slab Page iof7 Z:tCAD Files3100-319913127 - Magnolia SFDCALCSlPIan 2 -A3.pti 3:00:29 PM PTISIab 3,2 Geostructura! Too! Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Project Title: Magnolia - Plan 2-Area 3 Project Engineer: REM Geotechnica! Report: Geocon, Inc. Build 100712 Senal Number: 100-320-075 Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - RESULTS OF ANALYSIS Soil Bearing Analysis Total Applied Load 181,080 LB Bearing Area 1,265 F7-2 Applied Pressure on Soil 143 PSF Soil Pressure Safety Factor 13.97 Prestress Summary Subgrade Friction calculated by method prescribed in PT! Manual • Short Long Direction Direction Number of Slab Tendons 17 4 Number of Beam Tendons 8 3 Spacing of Slab Tendons (Feet) 4.86 4.00 Center of Gravity of Concrete (from top of slab) (Inch) 3.90 5.19 Center of Gravity of Tendons (from top of slab) (Inch) 5.75 7.39 Eccentricity of Prestressing (Inch) -1.85 -2.20 Minimum Effective Prestress Force (K) 617.3 138.1 Beta Distance Effective Prestress Force (K) 613.7 178.3 Minimum Effective Prestress (PS!) 104 99 Beta Distance Effective Prestress (PSI) 103 128 Moment Analysis - Center Lift Mode Maximum Moment, Short Dir. (controlled by Em=5.0 per PT! 4.3:2) 5.00 FT-K/FT Maximum Moment, Long Dir. (controlled by Em=5.0 per PT! 4.3.2) 4.76 FT-K/FT Tension in Top Fiber (KS!) Compression in Bottom Fiber (KS!) Short Long • Short Long Direction Direction Direction Direction Allowable Stress -0.300 -0.300 Allowable Stress 1.125 1.125 Actual Stress -0.210 -0.115 • Actual Stress 1.070 0.593 Stiffness Analysis -Center Lift Mode Based on a Stiffness Coefficient of 360 Short Long Direction Direction Available Moment of Inertia (!nch) 75,037 29,539 Required Moment of Inertia (Inch) • 18,826 8,947 Required Moment of Inertia controlled by Width 6*B eta Shear Analysis -Center Lift Mode Maximum Shear, Short Direction. 2.32 K/FT Maximum Shear, Long Direction 1.58 K/FT Short Long Direction Direction Allowable Shear Stress (PSI) 141 140 Actual Shear Stress (PSI) 124 41 Page 2of7 Z:%CAD Files%3100.319913127.Magnolia SFD%CALCS%Plan 2 -A3.ptl 3:00:29 PM Short Long Direction Direction 75,037 29,539 25,506 11,488 Width 6*Be1a 1.36 K/FT 1.59 K/FT Short Long Direction Direction 141 140 73 41 Short -Long Direction Direction 223.5 91.9 138.4 24.4 PTISIab 3,2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Project Title: Magnolia - Plan 2-Area 3 Build 100712 Serial Number: 100-320-075 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - RESULTS OF ANALYSIS continued Cracked Section Analysis -Center Lift Mode Cracked Section Capacity (FT-K) 0.5 Moment (FT-K) Moment Analysis - Edge Lift Mode Maximum Moment, Short Direction Maximum Moment, Long Direction Tension in Bottom Fiber (KS!) Short Long Direction Direction Short Long Direction Direction 463.4 123.9 204.3 38.1 3.39 FT-K/FT 3.06 FT-K/FT Compression in Top Fiber (KS!) Short Long Direction Direction Allowable Stress -0.300 -0.300 Allowable Stress 1.125 1.125 3Actual Stress -0.245 -0.016 Actual Stress 0.217 0.148 Stiffness Analysis - Edge Lift Mode Based on a Stiffness Coefficient of 720 Available Moment of Inertia (Inch) Required Moment of Inertia (Inch) Required Moment of Inertia controlled by Shear Analysis - Ede Lift Mode Maximum Shear, Short Direction Maximum Shear, Long Direction Allowable Shear Stress (PSI) Actual Shear Stress (PSI) Cracked Section Analysis - Edge Lift Mode Cracked Section Capacity (FT-K) 0.5 Moment (FT-K) Page 3of7 Z:CAD Fies3100..319913127 - Magnolia SFDtCALCS%Plen 2 .A3.pti 3:00:29 PM PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Too! Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Build 100712 Señel Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia -Plan 2-Area 3 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - SELECTED VARIABLES Short Long Direction Direction Cross SectionalArea (inch 2) 5,951 1,398 Moment of Inertia (Inch4): 75,037 29,539 Section Modulus, Top (Inch3): 19,254 5,694 Section Modulus, Bottom (Inch3): 6,253 2,467 Center of Gravity of Concrete - from top (Inch): 3.90 5.19 Center of Gravity of Prestressing Tendons - from top (Inch): 5.75 7.39 Eccentricity of Prestress (Inch): -1.85 -2.20 Beta Distance (Feet): 8.58 6.80 Equivalent Beam Depth (Inches): 15.90 17.16 Note: All Calculthtions above and other reported values which depend on depths use the equivalent depths as shown above. Jacking Force: 33.05 KIPS Page 4 of 7 LtCAD FiIes%3100-31993127 - Magnolia SFD%CALCSlPIan 2 -A3.pti 3:00:29 PM PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited. Project Title: Magnolia - Plan 2-Area 3 Build 100712 Serial Number: 100-320-075 Project Engineer: REM . . Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA Material Properties Concrete Strength, f'c: 2,500.0 PS! Concrete Creep Modulus, E1 : 1,500,000.0 PSI Concrete Unit Weight: . . 145.0 PCF Tendon Strength, Fpu: . 270.0 KS! Tendon Diameter: . . 1/2 Inch Slab Properties Rectangle Geometry: 16.00 FT 81.75 FT 5.00 Inches Short Direction Long Direction Number of Slab Tendons: 17 4 Beam Properties Short Direction . Long Direction Type I Type II Type I Type II Quantity: 2 6 2 1 Depth: 18.0 15.0 18.0 15.0 Inches Width: 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Inches Tendons: .1 1 1 1 Cover: . 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Inches Average beam spacing used in analysis Page 5of7 Z:tCAD Files13100-3199027 - Magnolia SFDlCALCSPlan 2 -A3.pti 3:00:29 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Se,ial Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia - Plan 2-Area 3 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnica! Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA - Continued Soil Properties Allowable Bearing Pressure: 2000-0 PSF Center Lift Edge Lift Edge Moisture Variation Distance, em: 9.00 Feet 5.30 Feet Diffelential Soil Movement, Ym 0.300 Inches 0.610 Inches Load. Deflection and Sub grade Properties Slab Loading Uniform Superimposed Total Load: 40.00 PSF Total Perimeter Load: 1,100.00 PLF Stiffness Coefficients Center Lift: 360 Edge Lift: 720 Prestress Calculation Sub grade Friction calculated by method prescribed in PT! Manual Prestress Loss: 15.0 KSl Subgrade Friction Coefficient: o. 75 Page 6 of 7 Z:%CAD Flles3100-31993127 - Magnolia SFDtCALCS%Plan 2 -A3.pti 3:00:29 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Se,ieJ Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia - Plan 2-Area 3 Project Engineer: REM ) Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 - PT! EXCEPTION SUMMARY. The following elements of the design are not in strict compliance with the Design of Post-Tensioned Slabs-On-Ground 3rd Edition manual published by the Post-Tensioning Institute. NO PTI EXCEPTIONS EXIST Page 7of7 - Z:%CAD Files3100-319913127 - Magnolia SPDCALCSiPlan 2 -A3.pti. 3:00:29 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Se,ial Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia - Plan 2-Area 4 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - DESIGN SUMMARY Slab Dimensions: 15.00 FT 75.00 FT 5.00 Inches Material Properties Concrete Strength, f: 2,500 PS! Tendon Strength, Fpu: 270 KS! Tendon Diameter: 1/2 Inch Material Quantities Concrete Volume: 26.9 Cubic Yards Prestressing Tendon: 887 Linear Feet Number of End Anchorages: 62 In the LONG direction Type I Beam Type II Beam Quantity of Beams: 2 0 Depth of Beams: 18.0 Inches 15.0 Inches Width of Beams: 12.0.Inches 12.0 Inches Tendons per Beam: 1 0 Beam Tendon Centroid: 3.25 Inches 0.00 Inches Beam Spacing: 15.00 Feet 0. C. Number of Slab Tendons: 4 Slab Tendon Spacing: 3.67 Feet 0. C. Slab Tendon Centroid: 2.50 Inches from top of slab In the SHORT direction Type I Beam Type II Beam Quantity of Beams: 2 6 Depth of Beams: 18.0 Inches 15.0 Inches Width of Beams: 12.0 Inches 12.0 Inches Tendons per Beam: I I I Beam Tendon Centroid: 3.25 Inches 3.25 Inches Beam Spacing: 10.71 Feet 0. C. Number of Slab Tendons: 17 Slab Tendon Spacing: 4.44 Feet 0. C. Slab Tendon Centroid: 2.50 Inches from top of slab Page lof7 Z:tDAD Files3100-319913127 - Magnolia SFDICALCS%Plan 2 -A4.ptl 3:45:14 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Sedal Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia - Plan 2-Area 4 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - DESIGN COMPLIANCE SUMMARY The BOLD values exceed allowable or are less than minimum limits by the percentage indicated., SOIL BEARING : ALL VALUES WITHIN ALLOWABLE LIMITS. CENTER LIFT MODE: BENDING STRESS IN SHORT DIRECTION (COMPRESSION): 6.9% EDGE LIFT MODE: • • ALL VALUES WITHIN ALLOWABLE LIMITS. Page 2 of 7 Z:CAD Flles3100-3l993127 - Magnolia SFDCALCSlPIan 2 -A4.ptl 3:45:14 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Regislered. To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Satial Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia - Plan 2-Area 4 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number : G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - RESULTS OF ANALYSIS Soil Bearing Analysis Total Applied Load 150,226 LB Bearing Area 949 FT2 • Applied Pressure on Soil . 158 PSF Soil Pressure Safety Factor 12.63 Prestress Summary Subgrade Friction calculated by method prescribed in PT! Manual Short Long Direction Direction Number of Slab Tendons 17 4 Number of Beam Tendons . 8 2 Spacing of Slab Tendons (Feet) 4.44 3.67 Center of Gravity of Concrete (from top of slab) (Inch) 4.00 4.82 Center of Gravity of Tendons (from top of slab) (Inch) 5.75 6.58 Eccentricity of Prestressing (Inch) -1.75 -1.77 Minimum Effective Prestress Force (K) 626.1 120.3 Beta Distance Effective Prestress Force (K) 620.6 152.9 Minimum Effective Prestress (PSI) 113 99 Beta Distance Effective Prestress (PSI) 112 126. Moment Analysis -Center Lift Mode Maximum Moment Short Dir. (controlled by Em=5.0 per PT! 4.3.2) 6.25 FT-K/FT Maximum Moment, Long Dir. (controlled by Em=5.0 per PT! 4.3.2) 5.95 FT-K/FT. Tension in Top Fiber (KS!) Short Long Direction Direction Allowable Stress -0.300 -0.300 Actual Stress -0.254 -0.148 Stiffness Analysis -Center Lift Mode Based on a Stiffness Coefficient of 360 Available Moment of Inertia (inch 9. Required Moment of Inertia (Inch) Required Moment of Inertia controlled by Shear Analysis - Center Lift Mode Maximum Shear, Short Direction. Maximum Shear, Long Direction Allowable Shear Stress (PSI) Actual Shear Stress (PSI) Compression in Bottom Fiber (KS!) Short Long Direction Direction Allowable Stress 1.125 1.125 Actual Stress 1.203 0.776 Short Long Direction Direction 73,363 25,035 20,258 10,069 Width 6*Beta 2.21 K/FT 2.50 K/FT Short Long Direction Direction 143 140 108 87 Page 3 of 7 Z:%CAD Files3100-319913127 - Magnolia SFDCALCS%Plen 2 -A4.pti 3:45:14 PM PTISIab 3.2 Geostructura! Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Project Title: Magnolia - Plan 2-Area 4 Build 100712 Sedal Number: 100-320-075 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: Apr!! 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - RESULTS OF ANALYSIS continued Cracked Section Analysis -Center Lift Mode Allowable Shear Stress (PSI) Actual Shear Stress (PSI) Cracked Section Analysis - Edge Lift Mode Cracked Section Capacity (FT-K) 0.5 Moment (FT-K) Short Long Direction Direction 463.5 128.3 234.5 44.7 3.74 FT-K/FT 3.38 FT-K/FT Compression in Top Fiber (KS!) Short Long Direction • Direction Allowable Stress 1.125 1.125 Actual Stress 0.237 0.175 Short Long Direction Direction 73,363 25,035 24,260 11,427 Width 6*Beta 1.36 K/FT 1.59 K/FT Short Long Direction Direction 143 140 67 55 Short Long Direction Direction 223.5 65.1 140.4 25.3 Cracked Section Capacity (FT-K) 0.5 Moment (FT-K) Moment Analysis - Ede Lift Mode Maximum Moment, Short Direction Maximum Moment, Long Direction Tension in Bottom Fiber (KS!) Short Long Direction Direction Allowable Stress -0.300 -0.300 Actual Stress -0.256 -0.109 Stiffness Analysis - Edge Lift Mode Based on a Stiffness Coefficient of 720 Available Moment of Inertia (Inch Required Moment of Inertia (Inch) Required Moment of Inertia controlled by Shear Analysis - Ede Lift Mode Maximum Shear, Short Direction Maximum Shear, Long Direction Page 4of7 Z:%CAD Files13100-319913127 - Magnolia SFDlCALCStPlan 2 -A4.pti • 3:45:14 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Se,iel Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia -Plan 2-Area 4 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnica! Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - SELECTED VARIABLES Short Long Direction Direction Cross Sectional Area (Inch2): 5,546 1,212 Moment of Inertia (Inch 4): 73,363 25,035 Section Modulus, Top (Inch3): 18,343 5,197 Section Modulus, Bottom (Inch3): 6,166 1,899 Center of Gravity of Concrete - from top (Inch): 4.00 4.82 Center of Gravity of Prestressing Tendons - from top (Inch): 5.75 6.58 Eccentricity of Prestress (Inch): -1.75 .1.77 Beta Distance (Feet): 8.54 6.52 Equivalent Beam Depth (Inches): 15.90 Note: All Calculations above and other reported values which depend on depths use the equivalent depths as shown above. Jacking Force: 33.05 KIPS Page 5of7 Z:ICAD FiIe43100-319913127 - Magnolia SFD%CALCSPlan 2 -A4.pti 3:45:14 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructura! Too! Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Serial Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia - Plan 2-Area 4 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA Material Properties Concrete Strength fc: Concrete Creep Modulus, Ec Concrete Unit Weight: Tendon Strength, Fpu: Tendon Diameter: Slab Properties Rectangle Geometry: Number of Slab Tendons: Beam Properties 2500.0 PSI 1,500,000.0 PS! 145.0 PCF 270.0 KS! 1/2 Inch 1500 FT 75.00 FT 5.00. Inches Short Direction Long Direction 17 4 Long Direction Type Type I! 2 0 18.0 15.0 Inches 12.0 12.0 Inches 1 0 3.00 3.00 Inches Short Direction ypeI Type!! Quantity: 2 6 Depth: 18.0 150 Width: 12.0 12.0 Tendons: I I Cover: 3.00 3.00 Average beam spacing used in analysis Page 6of7 Z:ICAD Files3100-319913127 - Magnolia SFD%CALCS%Plan 2 -A4.ptl 3:45:14 PM PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Too! Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited - Project Title: Magnolia - Plan 2-Area 4 Project Engineer: REM Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Build 100712 Serial Number: 100-320075 Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA - Continued Soil Properties Allowable Bearing Pressure: 2000.0 PSF Center Lift Edge Lift Edge Moisture Variation Distance, em: 9.00 Feet 5.30 Feet Differential Soil Movement, Ym: 0.300 Inches 0.610 Inches LOad. Deflection and Subarade Proverties Slab Loading Uniform Superimposed Total Load: 40.00 PSF Total Perimeter Load: 1,100.00 PLF Stiffness Coefficients Center Lift: 360 Edge Lift: 720 Prestress Calculation Subgrade Friction calculated by method prescribed in PTI Manual Prestress Loss: 15.0 KS! Subgrade Friction Coefficient: 0.75 Page 7of7 Z:ICAD Flles3100-319913127 - Magnolia SFDICALCS%Plan 2- A4.pti 3:45:14 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Sedal Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia - Plan 2-Area 5 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019. Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - DESIGN SUMMARY Slab Dimensions: . 15.00 FTx 21.00 FTx 5.00 Inches Material Properties Concrete Strength, f'c: . 2,500 PSI Tendon Strength, Fpu: 270 KS! Tendon Diameter: . 1/2 Inch Material Quantities Concrete Volume: . 8.0 Cubic Yards Prestressing Tendon: 274 Linear Feet Number of End Anchorages: 28 In the LONG direction Type I Beam Type II Beam Quantity of Beams: 2 0 Depth of Beams: 18.0 Inches 15.0 Inches Width of Beams: 12.0 Inches 12.0 Inches Tendons per Beam: I . I Beam Tendon CentrOid: 3.25 Inches 3.25 Inches Beam Spacing: . 15.00 Feet 0. C. Number of Slab Tendons: . 4 Slab Tendon Spacing: 3.67 Feet 0. C. Slab Tendon Centroid: . 2.50 Inches from top of slab In the SHORT direction Type I Beam Type II Beam Quantity of Beams: 2 . I Depth of Beams: 18.0 Inches 15.0 Inches Width of Beams: 12.0 Inches 12.0 Inches Tendons per Beam: I I Beam Tendon Centroid: 3.25 Inches 3.25 Inches Beam Spacing: 10.50 Feet 0. C. Number of Slab Tendons: 5 Slab Tendon Spacing: . . 4.25 Feet 0. C. Slab Tendon Centroid: 2.50 Inches from top of slab Page 1 of 7 Z:DAD Fi1es%3100-31993127- Magnolia SFD%cALCSPlan 2 .A5.pti 3:01:11 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostruötural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Sedal Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia - Plan 2-Area 5 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnica! Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - RESULTS OF ANALYSIS Soil Bearing Analysis Total Applied Load 43,957 LB Bearing Area 264 FT2 Applied Pressure on Soil 166 PSF Soil Pressure Safety Factor 12.03 Prestress Summary Sub grade Friction calculated by method prescribed in PT! Manual Short Long Direction Direction Number of Slab Tendons 5 4 Number of Beam Tendons 3 2 Spacing of Slab Tendons (Feet) 4.25 3.67, Center of Gravity of Concrete (from top of slab) (Inch) 4.71 4.82 Center of Gravity of Tendons (from top of slab) (Inch) 6.78 6.58 Eccentricity of Prestressing (Inch) . -2.07 -1.77 Minimum Effective Prestress Force (K) . 201.2 148.0 Beta Distance Effective Prestress Force (K) 202.1 152.4 Minimum Effective Prestress (PSI) 119 122 Beta Distance Effective Prestress (PS!) 119 126 Moment Analysis - Center Lift Mode Maximum Moment, Short Dir. (controlled by Em5.0 per PT! 4.3.2) 6.15 FT-K/FT Maximum Moment, Long Dir. (controlled by Em=5.0 per PT! 4.3.2) 5.86 FT-K/FT Tension in Top Fiber (KS!) Compression in Bottom Fiber (KS!). Short Long Short Long Direction Direction Direction Direction Allowable Stress -0.300 -0.300 Allowable Stress 1.125 1.125 Actual Stress -0.172 -0.131 Actual Stress 0.885 0.815 Stiffness Analysis - Center Lift Mode Based on a Stiffness Coefficient of 360 Short Long Direction Direction Available Moment of Inertia (Inch) 31,915 .25,035 Required Moment of Inertia (Inch) 5,579 5,314 Required Moment of Inertia controlled by Width Length Shear Analysis - Center Lift Mode Maximum Shear, Short Direction. 2.22 K/FT Maximum Shear, Long Direction 2.23 K/FT Short• Long Direction Direction Allowable Shear Stress (PSI) 144 144 Actual Shear Stress (PSI) 76 77 Page 2of7 Z:tCA.D Files3100-319913127 - Magnolia SFD%CALCSPIan 2 -A5.pti 3:01:11 PM PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Project Title.: Magnolia - Plan 2-Area 5 Build 100712 Serial Number: 100-320-075 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - RESULTS OF ANALYSIS continued Cracked Section Analysis - Center Lift Mode Short Long Direction Direction Cracked Section Capacity (FT-K) 152.9 128.3 0.5 Moment (FT-K) 64.6 43.9 Moment Analysis - Edge Lift Mode Maximum Moment, Short Direction 3.88 FT-K/FT Maximum Moment, Long Direction 3.41 FT-K/FT Tension in Bottom Fiber (KSI) Compression in Top Fiber (KSl) Short Long Short Long Direction Direction Direction Direction Allowable Stress -0.300 -0.300 Allowable Stress 1.125 1.125 Actual Stress -0.100 -0.063 Actual Stress 0.201 0.19 Stiffness Analysis - Edge Lift Mode Based on a Stiffness Coefficient of 720 Short Long Direction Direction Available Moment of Inertia (Inc h) 31,915 25,035 Required Moment of Inertia (Inch) 7,034 6,182 Required Moment of Inertia controlled by Width Length Shear Analysis - Edge Lift Mode Maximum Shear, Short Direction 1.40 K/FT Maximum Shear, Long Direction 1.46 K/FT Short Long Direction Direction Allowable Shear Stress (PSI) 144 144 Actual Shear Stress (PSI) 48 51 Cracked Section Analysis - Edge Lift Mode Short Long Direction Direction Cracked Section Capacity (FT-K) 92.1 65.1 0.5 Moment (FT-K) 40.7 25.6 Page 3of7 ZtCAD Filesl3l0o-3199%3127 - Magnolia SFD%CALCSPlan 2 -A5.pti 3:01:11 PM LI Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Too! Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Sedal Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia -Plan 2-Area 5 Project Engineer: REM . Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 RIBBED FOUNDATION - SELECTED VARIABLES Short Long Direction Direction Cross Sectional Area (Inch2): 10698 1,212 Moment of Ihertia (Inch4): 31,915 25,035 Section Modulus, Top (Inch3): 6,774 5,197 Section Modulus, Bottom (Inch3): 2,565 1,899 Center of Gravity of Concrete - from top (Inch): 4.71 4.82 Center of Gravity of Prestressing Tendons - from top (Inch): 6.78 6.58 Eccentricity of Prestress (Inch): -2.07 -1.77 Beta Distance (Feet): 6.93 6.52 Equivalent Beam Depth (Inches): 17.16 Note: All Calculations above and other reported values which depend on depths use the equivalent depths as shown above. Jacking Force: 33.05 KIPS Page 4 of 7 Z:tCAD Filesl3100-319913127 - Magnolia SFDCALCStPlan 2 -A5.pti 3:01:11 PM PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Project Title: Magnolia - Plan 2-Area 5 Build 100712 Serial Number: 100-320-075 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA Material Properties Concrete Strength, f: 2,500.0 PSI Concrete Creep Modulus, Ec: 1,500,000.0 PSI Concrete Unit Weight: 145.0 PCF Tendon Strength, Fpu: 270.0 KSI Tendon Diameter: 1/2 Inch Slab Properties Rectangle Geometry: 15.00 FTx 21.00 FTx 5.00 Inches Short Direction Long Direction Number of Slab Tendons: 5 4 Beam Properties Short Direction Long Direction Type I Type II Type I Type II Quantity: 2 1 2 0 Depth: 18.0 15.0 18.0 15.0 Inches Width: 12.0 12.0 12;0 12.0 Inches Tendons: I I I I Cover: 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Inches Average beam spacing used in analysis. Page 5 of 7 Z:CAD Files3100-319913127 - Magnolia SFD%CALCStPIan 2- A5.pti 3:01:11 PM Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited SetfeJ Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia - Plan 2-Area 5 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA - Continued Soil Prooerties Allowable Bearing Pressure: 2000.0 PSF Center Lift Edge Lift Edge Moisture Variation Distance, em 9.00 Feet 5.30 Feet Differential Soil Movement, Ym 0.300 Inches 0.610 Inches Load. Deflection and Subarade Proøerties Slab Loading Uniform Superimposed Total Load: 40.00 PSF Total Perimeter Load: 1,100.00 PLF Stiffness Coefficients Center Lift: 360 Edge Lift: 720 Prestress Calculation Subgrade Friction calculated by method prescribed in PTI Manual Prestress Loss: 15.0 KSI 11 Subgrade Friction Coefficient: 0.75 Page 6 of 7 Z:ICAD File313100-319913127 - Magnolia SFD%CALCSlPlen 2 -A5.pti 3:01:11 PM - Build 100712 PTISIab 3.2 Geostructura! Tool Kit, Inc. 'Registered To: Post-Tension Design Unlimited Sells! Number: 100-320-075 Project Title: Magnolia - Plan 2-Area 5 Project Engineer: REM Project Number: 3127 Project Date: April 8, 2019 Geotechnical Report: Geocon, Inc. Report Date: 10/30/17 Report Number: G2192-52-01 PTI EXCEPTION SUMMARY The following elements of the design are not in strict compliance with the Design of Post-Tensioned Slabs-On-Ground 3rd Edition manual published by the Post-Tensioning Institute. NO PTI EXCEPTIONS EXIST Page 70f:7 Z:CAD Files3100-31993127 - Magnolia SFDICALCS%Plan 2- A5.ptl 3:01:11 PM GE CON INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • MATERIALS Project No. G2192-52-01 October 2, 2019 Ashton 3, LLC 5 Hoya Street Rancho Mission Viejo, California 92694 Attention: Mr. Taylor Ashton Subject: ROUGH GRADING PLAN REVIEW MAGNOLIA-BRADY DEVELOPMENT 1534 MAGNOLIA AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA References: 1. Geotechnical Investigation, 1534 Magnolia Avenue, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated January 17, 2017 (Project No. G2192-52-01). 2. Rough Grading Plans for: Magnolia-Brady, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Civil Landworks, dated June 27, 2019 (Grading Plan No. GR2018-0047; Project No. CT2018-0003). Dear Mr. Ashton: In accordance with the request of Mr. Gary Arnold with Pebble Creek Companies, we reviewed the referenced grading plans for the proposed Magnolia-Brady residential development in the City of Carlsbad, California. Based on our review of the referenced plans and the information contained within the referenced geotechnical report, we opine the grading plans and details have been prepared in substantial conformance with the recommendations presented in the referenced geotechnical report. We limited our review to geotechnical aspects of project development and the review did not include other details on the referenced plans. Geocon Incorporated has no opinion regarding other details found on the referenced plans, civil or otherwise, that do not directly pertain to geotechnical aspects of site development. If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED Ma ove PE 84154 MRL:SFW:dmc (e-mail) Addressee A0 , _—h oy Weedon GE 2714 6960 Flanders Drive U San Diego. California 92121-204 I Telephone 858.558.6900 U Fox 858.558.6159 .eMoiq. 'W 19 GEC CON INCORPORATED GE 0 TECH N IC AL E N VIRONMEN T AL • MAT ERIALS , ! 0~r) Project No. G2192-52-01 September 10, 2019 Revised October 2, 2019 Ashton 3, LLC 5 Hoya Street Rancho Mission Viejo, California 92694 Attention: Mr. Taylor Ashton Subject: POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW MAGNOLIA-BRADY DEVELOPMENT 1534 MAGNOLIA AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA References: 1. Geotechnical Investigation, 1534 Magnolia Avenue, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated January 17, 2017 (Project No. G2192-52-01). 2. Post-Tensioned Foundation Plans for: Magnolia SFD [Lots I Through 7], Carlsbad, California, prepared by PTDU, Inc., dated May 8, 2019, revised September 4, 2019 (Job No. 3127). Dear Mr. Ashton: In accordance with your request, we reviewed the referenced post-tensioned foundation plans for the C.) proposed Magnolia-Brady residential development in the City of Carlsbad, California. Based on our review of the referenced plans and the information contained within the referenced geotechnical report, we opine the post-tensioned foundation plans and details have been prepared in substantial conformance with the recommendations presented in the referenced geotechnical report. The referenced plans should include a reference to our finalized report for the project, dated January 17, 2019. Additionally, we understand that the foundation engineer has opted not to use reinforcing steel at the bottom of perimeter footings or interior stiffener beams, as we provided as an option in our referenced report. We limited our review to geotechnical aspects of project development and the review did not include other details on the referenced plans. Geocon Incorporated has no opinion regarding other details found on the referenced plans, structural or otherwise, that do not directly pertain to geotechnical aspects of site development. 6960 Flanders brive U San Diego,. California 92121.2974 • Telephone 88.86900 U Fox 858.558.6159 c9O1ci. 161144 PE 84154 MRL:SFW:dmc (e-mail) Addressee Shawn Foy Weedon GE 271 If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED Geocon Project No. G1966-52-01 -2- September 10, 2019 Revised October 2, 2019 HETHERUVGTON ENGINEERING, INC. SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • HYDROGEOLOGY April 18, 2019 Project No. 8769.1 Log No. 20412 City of Carlsbad Community & Economic Development 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: Ms. Jennifer Horodyski, T. B. RECEIVED MAY 2 1 2019 Subject: THIRD-PARTY GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW (SECOND) CITY OF CARLSBAD Proposed 7-Lot Residential Development BUILDING DIVISION 1534 Magnolia Avenue Carlsbad, California Project ID CT 2018-0003, OR 2018-0047, ROW 2018-0828 References; Attáôhed Dear Ms Hoiodyski: In accordance with your request, .Hetherington Engineering, Inc. his ,provided third-party geotechnical review of Reference :5. tprioicomments wand wejha OIadditionaIjrnmcnt As noted by the Geotechnical Consultant, the precise grading, structural and improvements plans should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant when available Observation and testing by the Geotechnical Coflsültañt during grading and construction should he required to verify anticipated conditions or to revise the geotechnical recommendations as considered necessary. A final geotechnical report of grading and construction should be required The ópportuñity to be Of service is sincerely qppreciateds If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact this Office at your convenience. 0 -I Sincerely, HETHERINT ENGrNEER1NG, INC. Civil Engineer 30 88 Geotechnical ?Xp.Date______ (expires 3/31/20) Distribution: 1-via e-mail 6A. Bogseth rrofessional Geologisi Eertffied Engineering .ertified Hydrogeolog expires 3/31/20) ca.gov) 5365 Avenida Enemas, Suite A • Carlsbad, CA 92008-4369 • (760) 931-1917 • Fax (760) 931-0545 333 Third Street, Suite 2 o Laguna Beach, CA 92651-2306 • (949) 715-5440 e Fax (760) 931.0545 www.hetheringtonengineering.com REFERENCES I, Qeótéchiical Investigation.. 1534 Magnolia Avenue, CàHbid,, California", iby O,flC.; 4a Janthr. 17,2018. 2 "Gradirg' Ians:fr i àgnolia &aci", by ivilLandwotks plot date November 17 2018, (3-Shëeth).. . '" prävë1èiit P1a For Brady,Circle a ft'Mqgholia. Avchu&",, by Ciiil Landworks, undated 3-Sheets) 4: "Third-Party Geotechnical: - Review (First), Propciëd 7 o Residential Development, 1534 .Maö]ia Avenue, Cai•lsbad, California, Project ID: CT 2018-003, GR 2018O047, ROW •20180828" by Hetheiingtoh Engineering, Inc., dated December 19, 2018. 5:; "Response XC Gàdihg ã1T, 1534: 'Magnolia Avenue,, California, California', bj Gëócon, Inc,.--. dated February 6, 2 19' 7 Project-No. 8769.1 Log No. 20412 HETHERINGTON EIRI, rn9C., RECEIVED MAY 2 12019 CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DIVISION GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 1534 MAGNOLIA AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR ASTHON 3, LLC RANCHO MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA JANUARY 17, 2018 PROJECT NO. G2192-52-01 GE000 INCORPORATED GE01ECHF4ICA.L • E 1NVIRONME4T1 • MATE RIALS Project No. G2192-52-01 January 17, 2018 Ashton 3, LLC 5 Hoya Street Rancho Mission Viejo, California 92694 Attention: Mr. Taylor Ashton Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 1534 MAGNOLIA AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Ashton: In accordance with your request, we performed this geotechnical investigation for the proposed 7-lot residential development in Carlsbad, California. The accompanying report presents the results of our study and our conclusions and recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of project development. The results of our study indicate that the site can be developed as planned, provided the recommendations of this report are followed. Should you have questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. - Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED Matt RCE 84154 Ahawn oWfeedon GE 2714 o I JOHN IOOBS No. 1524 Cl, CERTIFIED -, * ENGINEERING * k~G ~E OLOr "7 OrCAOV-00 01-1 MRL:SFW:JH:dmc (e-mail) Addressee (3) Mr. Robert C. Ladwig 6060 Ffond&s Drive • Sôfl Diego, California 9212 1-2974 • Telephone 888690O • Fax 85858.61 59 TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE ................................................................................................................. 1 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 1 GEOLOGIC SETTING .................................................................................................................... 2 SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ........................................................................................2 4.1 Undocumented Fill (Qudf) ....................................................................................................2 4.2 Old Paralic Deposits (Qop) ..................................... . .............................................................. 2 GROUNDWATER..........................................................................................................................3 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS .................................................................................................................3 6.1 Faulting and Seismicity.........................................................................................................3 6.2 Ground Rupture ..................................................................................................................... 5 6.3 Liquefaction...........................................................................................................................5 6.4 Seiches and Tsunamis ............................................................................................................ 6 6.5 Landslides..............................................................................................................................6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................7 7.1 General...................................................................................................................................7 7.2 Excavation and Soil Characteristics......................................................................................8 7.3 Grading..................................................................................................................................9 7.4 Temporary Excavations.......................................................................................................10 7.5 Seismic Design Criteria.......................................................................................................10 7.6 Shallow Foundations ...........................................................................................................12 7.7 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade ..................................................................................................... 13 7.8 Post-Tensioned Foundation System Recommendations......................................................14 7.9 Concrete Flatwork...............................................................................................................16 7.10 Retaining Walls...................................................................................................................17 7.11 Lateral Loading....................................................................................................................18 7.12 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations...........................................................................19 7.13 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection................................................................................22 7.14 Grading, Improvement and Foundation Plan Review..........................................................22 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1, Vicinity Map Figure 2, Geologic Map Figure 3, Wall/Column Footing Dimension Detail Figure 4, Typical Retaining Wall Drain Detail APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION Figures A-i - A-9, Exploratory Trench Logs TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded) APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Table B-I, Summary of Laboratory Maximum Density and Optimum Moisture Content Results Table B-H, Summary of Laboratory Direct Shear Results Table B-III, Summary of Laboratory Expansion Index Test Results Table B-N, Summary of Laboratory Water-Soluble Sulfate Test Results Table B-V, Summary of Laboratory Resistance Value (R-Value) Test Results Figure B-i, Gradation Curves APPENDIX C STORM WATER MANAGEMENT INVESTIGATION APPENDIX D RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS LIST OF REFERENCES GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed residential development located at 1534 Magnolia Avenue in the City of Carlsbad, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The purpose of this geotechnical investigation is to evaluate the surface and subsurface soil conditions, general site geology, and to identify geotechnical constraints that may impact the planned improvements to the property. In addition, this report provides recommendations for the 2016 CBC seismic design criteria, grading, pavement, shallow foundations, concrete slabs-on-grade, concrete flatwork, retaining walls, lateral loads, and storm water best management practices (BMP) recommendations; and discussions regarding the local geologic hazards including faulting and seismic shaking. This report is limited to the area proposed for the construction of the new development and associated improvements as shown on the Geologic Map, Figure 2. We used the preliminary grading plan prepared by Civil Landworks (2018) as the base for the Geologic Map. The scope of this investigation included reviewing readily available published and unpublished geologic literature (see List of References); performing engineering analyses; and preparing of this report. We also advanced 9 exploratory trenches to a maximum depth of about 12 feet, performed percolation/infiltration testing, sampled soil and performed laboratory testing. Appendix A presents the exploratory trench logs and details of the field investigation. The details of the laboratory tests and a summary of the test results are shown in Appendix B and on the trench logs in Appendix A. Appendix C presents a summary of our storm water management investigation. 2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site is located at the northeast corner of Magnolia Avenue and Brady Circle and can be accessed from both streets. A residential structure exists in the northeast corner of the site. The remainder of property is covered with seasonal grasses and shrubs and appears to have remained undeveloped for at least the last 50 years. The property is relatively flat and gently descends to the southwest at elevations of about 150 to 160 feet above mean sea level (MSL). We understand the planned development includes constructing 7 residential lots with associated utilities, driveways, storm water basins and landscaping. Access to the lots will be from Brady Circle. Maximum cut and fill depths are on the order of 2 feet across the site and up to 5 feet for the proposed biofiltration basins. We expect the proposed structures would likely be supported on conventional shallow or post-tensioned foundation systems founded in properly compacted fill. Project No. G2192-52-01 - 1 - January 17, 2018 Individual lot storm water management devices will be constructed on the property and will likely be extended into the Old Paralic Deposits materials. 3. GEOLOGIC SETTING The site is located in the western portion of the coastal plain within the southern portion of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of southern California. The Peninsular Ranges is a geologic and geomorphic province that extends from the Imperial Valley to the Pacific Ocean and from the Transverse Ranges to the north and into Baja California to the south. The coastal plain of San Diego County is underlain by a thick sequence of relatively undisturbed and non-conformable sedimentary rocks that thicken to the west and range in age from Upper Cretaceous through the Pleistocene with intermittent deposition. The sedimentary units are deposited on bedrock Cretaceous to Jurassic age igneous and metavolcamc rocks. Geomorphically, the coastal plain is characterized by a series of twenty-one, stair-stepped marine terraces (younger to the west) that have been dissected by west flowing rivers. The coastal plain is a relatively stable block that is dissected by relatively few faults consisting of the potentially active La Nacion Fault Zone and the active Rose Canyon Fault Zone. The Peninsular Ranges Province is also dissected by the Elsinore Fault Zone that is associated with and sub-parallel to the San Andreas Fault Zone, which is the plate boundary between the Pacific and North American Plates. 4. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS We encountered undocumented fill (Qudf) associated with the existing development overlying Old Paralic Deposits (Qop). The trench logs (Appendix A) and the Geologic Map (Figure 2), show the approximate occurrence, distribution, and description of each unit encountered during our field investigation. The surficial soil and geologic units are described herein in order of increasing age. 4.1 Undocumented Fill (Qudf) We encountered undocumented fill in all of our exploratory trenches that varied in thickness between Y2 and 3 feet. The fill generally consists of loose, dry to damp, light brown to reddish brown, silty sand and possess a "very low" to "low" expansion potential (expansion index of 50 or less). These materials are unsuitable in their present condition, and will require remedial grading in the areas of the proposed improvements. 4.2 Old Paralic Deposits (Qop) The Quaternary-age Old Paralic Deposits exist below the undocumented fill across the site. These deposits generally consist of medium dense to dense, light to dark reddish brown and olive brown, silty to clayey, fine to medium sand and stiff, olive brown, sandy clay. The Old Paralic Deposits typically possess a "very low" to "medium" expansion potential (expansion index of 90 or less) and a Project No. G2192-52-01 -2- January 17, 2018 "SO" sulfate class. The Old Paralic Deposits are considered acceptable to support the planned fill and foundation loads for the development. 5. GROUNDWATER We did not encountered groundwater during our field investigation to the maximum depth explored of 12 feet. We expect groundwater is present at depths of greater than 50 feet. We do not expect groundwater to significantly impact project development as presently proposed. It is not uncommon for groundwater or seepage conditions to develop where none previously existed. Groundwater and seepage is dependent on seasonal precipitation, irrigation, land use, among other factors, and varies as a result. Proper surface drainage will be important to future performance of the project. 6. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 6.1 Faulting and Seismicity Based on our site investigation and a review of published geologic maps and reports, the site is not located on known active, potentially active or inactive fault traces as defined by the California Geological Survey (CGS). The CGS considers a fault seismically active when evidence suggests seismic activity within roughly the last 11,000 years. According to the computer program EZ-FRISK (Version 7.65), 10 known active faults are located within a search radius of 50 miles from the property. We used the 2008 USGS fault database that provides several models and combinations of fault data to evaluate the fault information. The Rose Canyon Fault zone and the Newport-Inglewood Fault are the closest known active faults, located approximately 7 miles west of the site. Earthquakes that might occur on the Newport-Inglewood or Rose Canyon Fault Zones or other faults within the southern California and northern Baja California area are potential generators of significant ground motion at the site. The estimated deterministic maximum earthquake magnitude and peak ground acceleration for the Newport-Inglewood Fault are 7.5 and 0.36g, respectively. Table 6.1.1 lists the estimated maximum earthquake magnitude and peak ground acceleration for the most dominant faults in relationship to the site location. We calculated peak ground acceleration (PGA) using Boore-Atkinson (2008) NGA USGS 2008, Campbell-Bozorgnia (2008) NGA USGS 2008, and Chiou-Youngs (2007) NGA USGS 2008 acceleration-attenuation relationships. Project No. G2192-52-01 -3 - January 17, 2018 TABLE 6.1.1 DETERMINISTIC SPECTRA SITE PARAMETERS Fault Name Distance from Site (miles) Maximum Earthquake Magnitude (Mw) Peak Ground Acceleration Boore- Atkinson 2008 (g) Campbell- Bozorgnia 2008 (g) Chiou- Youngs 2007(g) Newport-Inglewood 7 7.50 0.30 0.29 0.36 Rose Canyon 7 6.90 0.26 0.28 0.30 Coronado Bank 21 7.40 0.15 0.11 0.13 Palos Verdes Connected 21 7.70 0.17 0.12 0.15 Elsinore 22 7.85 0.17 0.12 0.16 Palos Verdes 35 7.30 0.10 0.07 0.07 San Joaquin Hills 35 7.10 0.09 0.09 0.07 Earthquake Valley 43 6.80 0.06 0.05 0.04 San Jacinto 47 7.88 0.10 0.07 0.09 Chino 47 6.80 0.06 0.04 0.03 We used the computer program EZ-FRISK to perform a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. The computer program EZ-FRISK operates under the assumption that the occurrence rate of earthquakes on each mappable Quaternary fault is proportional to the faults slip rate. The program accounts for fault rupture length as a function of earthquake magnitude, and site acceleration estimates are made using the earthquake magnitude and distance from the site to the rupture zone. The program also accounts for uncertainty in each of following: (1) earthquake magnitude, (2) rupture length for a given magnitude, (3) location of the rupture zone, (4) maximum possible magnitude of a given earthquake, and (5) acceleration at the site from a given earthquake along each fault. By calculating the expected accelerations from considered earthquake sources, the program calculates the total average annual expected number of occurrences of site acceleration greater than a specified value. We utilized acceleration-attenuation relationships suggested by Boore-Atkinson (2008) NGA USGS 2008, Campbell-Bozorgnia (2008) NGA USGS 2008, and Chiou-Youngs (2007) NGA USGS 2008 in the analysis. Table 6.1.2 presents the site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard parameters including acceleration-attenuation relationships and the probability of exceedence. Project No. G2192-52-01 -4- January 17, 2018 TABLE 6.1.2 PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD PARAMETERS Probability of Exceedence Peak Ground Acceleration Boore-Atkinson, 2008 (g) Campbell-Bozorgnia, 2008 (g) Chiou-Youngs, - 2007 (g) 2% in a 50 Year Period 0.44 0.44 0.50 5% in a 50 Year Period 0.32 1 0.32 1 0.35 10% in a 50 Year Period 0.24 1 0.23 1 0.25 While listing peak accelerations is useful for comparison of potential effects of fault activity in a region, other considerations are important in seismic design, including the frequency and duration of motion and the soil conditions underlying the site. Seismic design of the structures should be evaluated in accordance with the 2016 California Building Code (CBC) guidelines currently adopted by the City of Carlsbad. The site could be subjected to moderate to severe ground shaking in the event of a major earthquake on any of the referenced faults or other faults in Southern California. With respect to seismic shaking, the site is considered comparable to the surrounding developed area. 6.2 Ground Rupture Ground surface rupture occurs when movement along a fault is sufficient to cause a gap or rupture where the upper edge of the fault zone intersects the earth surface. The potential for ground rupture is considered to be negligible due to the absence of active faults at the subject site. 6.3 Liquefaction Liquefaction typically occurs when a site is located in a zone with seismic activity, onsite soil is cohesionless or silt/clay with low plasticity, groundwater is encountered within 50 feet of the surface, and soil relative densities are less than about 70 percent. If the four of the previous criteria are met, a seismic event could result in a rapid pore-water pressure increase from the earthquake-generated ground accelerations. Seismically induced settlement may occur whether the potential for liquefaction exists or not. The potential for liquefaction and seismically induced settlement occurring within the site soil is considered to be very low due to the age and dense nature of the Old Paralic Deposits and the lack of a permanent groundwater table within the upper 50 feet. Project No. G2192-52-0I -5- January 17, 2018 6.4 Seiches and Tsunamis Seiches are free or standing-wave oscillations of an enclosed water body that continue, pendulum fashion, after the original driving forces have dissipated. Seiches usually propagate in the direction of longest axis of the basin. The site located approximately 1 mile from Agua Hedonia Lagoon and is at a minimum elevation of approximately 150 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL); therefore, the potential Of seiches to occur is considered to be very low. A tsunami is a series of long-period waves generated in the ocean by a sudden displacement of large volumes of water. Causes of tsunamis may include underwater earthquakes, volcanic eruptions or offshore slope failures. the property is at an elevation of above 150 feet MSL and about 1 mile from the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, the potential for the site to be affected by a tsunami is negligible. 6.5 LandSlides We did not observe evidence of ancient landslide deposits at the site during the geotechnical investigation. Based on observations during our field investigation, it is our opinion that landslides are not present at the subject property or at a location that could impact the proposed development. Project No. G2192-52-0I -6- January 17, 2018 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 General 7.1.1 From a geotechnical engineering standpoint, we opine the site is suitable for the proposed residential development provided the recommendations presented herein are implemented in design and construction of the project. 7.1.2 With the exception of possible moderate to strong seismic shaking, we did not observe significant geologic hazards or know of them to exist on the site that would adversely affect the proposed project. 7.1.3 Our field investigation indicates the site is underlain by undocumented fill overlying Old Paralic Deposits. The undocumented fill is unsuitable in the present condition and will require remedial grading where improvements are planned as discussed herein. We should evaluate the actual extent of unsuitable soil removal in the field during the grading operations. 7.1.4 We did not encounter groundwater during our field investigation to the maximum depth explored of 12 feet. We anticipate that groundwater is present at depths greater than 50 feet. We do not expect groundwater to significantly impact project development as presently proposed. 7.1.5 The proposed development can be supported on conventional shallow or post-tensioned foundations bearing in compacted fill materials. 7.1.6 We performed a storm water management investigation to help evaluate the potential for infiltration on the property. Based on the infiltration rates measured during our field investigation, we opine full infiltration on the property should be considered infeasible. However, partial infiltration may be considered feasible within the Old Paralic Deposits as discussed in Appendix C. 7.1.7 Based on our review of the conceptual project plans, we opine the planned development can be constructed in accordance with our recommendations provided herein. We do not expect the planned development will destabilize or result in settlement of adjacent properties. Project No. G2192-52-01 -7- January 17, 2018 7.2 Excavation and Soil Characteristics 7.2.1 Excavation of the undocumented fill and Old Paralic Deposits should be possible with light to moderate effort using conventional heavy-duty grading equipment. 7.2.2 The soil encountered in the field investigation is considered to be "non-expansive" to "expansive" (expansion index [El] of 20 or less or greater than 20, respectively) as defined by 2016 California Building Code (CBC) Section 1803.5.3 based on our test results. Table 7.2 presents soil classifications based on the expansion index. We expect the existing site materials possess a "very low" to "low" expansion potential (expansion index of 50 or less) in accordance with ASTM D 4829. TABLE 7.2 EXPANSION CLASSIFICATION BASED ON EXPANSION INDEX Expansion Index (El) ASTM D 4829 Soil Expansion Classification 2016 CBC Expansion Classification 0-20 Very Low Non-Expansive 21-50 Low Expansive Very High 51-90 Medium 91-130 High Greater Than 130 7.2.3 We performed laboratory tests on soil samples to evaluate the water-soluble sulfate content (California Test No. 417) to generally evaluate the corrosion potential to structures in contact with soil. Results from the laboratory water-soluble sulfate content tests indicate that the materials at the locations tested possesses "SO" sulfate exposure to concrete structures as defined by 2016 CBC Section 1904 and ACI 318-11 Sections 4.2 and 4.3. The presence of water-soluble sulfates is not a visually discernible characteristic; therefore, other soil samples from the site could yield different concentrations. Additionally, over time landscaping activities (i.e., addition of fertilizers and other soil nutrients) may affect the concentration. Appendix B presents the results of the laboratory tests. 7.2.4 Geocon Incorporated does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering; therefore, further evaluation by a corrosion engineer may be needed to incorporate the necessary precautions to avoid premature corrosion of underground pipes and buried metal in direct contact with the soils. Project No. G2192-52-01 - 8 - January 17, 2018 7.3 Grading 7.3.1 The grading operations should be performed in accordance with the attached Recommended Grading Specifications (Appendix D). Where the recommendations of this section conflict with Appendix D, the recommendations of this section take precedence. We should observe and test earthwork for proper compaction and moisture content. 7.3.2 A pre-construction meeting with the city inspector, owner, general contractor, civil engineer and geotechnical engineer should be held at the site prior to the beginning of grading and excavation operations. Special soil handling requirements can be discussed at that time, if necessary. 7.3.3 We should observe the earthwork operations and test the compacted fill. 7.3.4 Grading of the site should commence with the demolition of existing structures, removal of existing improvements, vegetation, and deleterious debris. Deleterious debris should be exported from the site and should not be mixed with the fill. Existing underground improvements within the proposed structure area that extend below the planned grading limits should be removed and properly backfilled. 7.3.5 The undocumented fill within the site boundaries should be removed to expose the underlying Old Paralic Deposits. We should evaluate the actual extent of unsuitable soil removals during the grading operations. Prior to fill soil being placed, the existing ground surface should be scarified, moisture conditioned as necessary, and compacted to a depth of at least 12 inches. 7.3.6 To reduce the potential for differential settlement of the compacted fill, the residential building pads with cut-fill transitions should be undercut at least 3 feet and replaced with properly compacted fill. In addition, cut pads that expose the Old Paralic Deposits should also be undercut at least 3 feet to facilitate future trenching and provide a more uniform finish grade soil condition. 7.3.7 The site should then be brought to final subgrade elevations with fill compacted in layers. In general, soil native to the site is suitable for use from a geotechnical engineering standpoint as fill if relatively free from vegetation, debris and other deleterious material. Layers of fill should be about 6 to 8 inches in loose thickness and no thicker than will allow for adequate bonding and compaction. Fill, including backfill and scarified ground surfaces, should be compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content in accordance with Project No. G2192-52-01 -9 - January 17, 2018 ASTM Test Procedure D 1557. Fill materials placed below optimum moisture content may require additional moisture conditioning prior to placing additional fill. The upper 12 inches of subgrade soil underlying pavement should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content shortly before paving operations. 7.3.8 Import fill (if necessary) should consist of granular materials with a "very low" to "low" expansion potential (El of 50 or less) free of deleterious material or stones larger than 3 inches and should be compacted as recommended above. Geocon Incorporated should be notified of the import soil source and should perform laboratory testing of import soil prior to its arrival at the site to determine its suitability as fill material. 7.4 Temporary Excavations 7.4.1 The recommendations included herein are provided for stable excavations. It is the responsibility of the contractor to provide a safe excavation during the construction of the proposed project. 7.4.2 Temporary excavations should be made in conformance with OSHA requirements. Undocumented fill should be considered a Type C soil in accordance with OSHA requirements. The Old Paralic Deposits and compacted fill materials can be considered a Type B soil (Type C soil if seepage or groundwater is encountered). In general, special shoring requirements will not be necessary if temporary excavations will be less than 4 feet in height and raveling of the excavations does not occur. Temporary excavations greater than 4 feet in height, however, should be sloped back at an appropriate inclination. These excavations should not be allowed to become saturated or to dry out. Surcharge loads should not be permitted to a distance equal to the height of the excavation from the top of the excavation. The top of the excavation should be a minimum of 15 feet from the edge of existing improvements. Excavations steeper than those recommended or closer than 15 feet from an existing surface improvement should be shored in accordance with applicable OSHA codes and regulations. Geocon can provide temporary shoring recommendations, if necessary. 7.5 Seismic Design Criteria 7.5.1 We used the computer program US. Seismic Design Maps, provided by the USGS. Table 7.5.1 summarizes site-specific design criteria obtained from the 2016 California Building Code (CBC; Based on the 2015 International Building Code [IBC] and ASCE 7- 10), Chapter 16 Structural Design, Section 1613 Earthquake Loads. The short spectral response uses a period of 0.2 second. The building structures and improvements should be Project No. G2192-52-01 _10- January 17, 2018 designed using a Site Class C. We evaluated the Site Class based on the discussion in Section 16 13.3.2 of the 2016 CBC and Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-10. The values presented in Table 7.5.1 are for the risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER). TABLE 7.5.1 2016 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameter Value 2016 CBC Reference Site Class C Section 16 13.3.2 NICER Ground Motion Spectral 1.127g Figure 1613.3.1(1) Response Acceleration - Class B (short), Ss NICER Ground Motion Spectral 0.433g Figure 1613.3.1(2) Response Acceleration - Class B (1 sec), Si Site Coefficient, FA 1.000 Table 1613.3.3(1) Site Coefficient, Fv 1.367 Table 16 13.3.3(2) Site Class Modified NICER Spectral 1. 127g Section 1613.3.3 (Eqn 16-37) Response Acceleration (short), SMS Site Class Modified NICER Spectral 0.592g - Section 1613.3.3 (Eqn 16-38) Response Acceleration (1 sec), SMI 5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SDS 0.751g Section 1613.3.4 (Eqn 16-39) 5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SDI 0.395g Section 1613.3.4 (Eqn 16-40) 7.5.2 Table 7.5.2 presents additional seismic design parameters for projects located in Seismic Design Categories of D through F in accordance with ASCE 7-10 for the mapped maximum considered geometric mean (MCE0). TABLE 7.5.2 2016 CBC SITE ACCELERATION DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameter Value ASCE 7-10 Reference Mapped MCEo Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA 0.443g Figure 22-7 Site Coefficient, FPGA 1.000 Table 11.8-1 Site Class Modified MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 0.443g Section 11.8.3 (Eqn 11.8-1) 7.5.3 Conformance to the criteria in Tables 7.5.1 and 7.5.2 for seismic design does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur if a large earthquake occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive. Project No. G2192-52-01 - 11 - January 17, 2018 7.6 Shallow Foundations 7.6.1 The foundation recommendations herein are for the proposed residential structures founded in compacted fill. Foundations for the structure should consist of continuous strip footings and/or isolated spread footings. Continuous footings should be at least 18 inches wide and extend at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade. Isolated spread footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches and should extend at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade. Figure 3 presents a footing dimension detail depicting the depth to lowest adjacent grade. 7.6.2 Steel reinforcement for continuous footings should consist of at least four No. 4 steel reinforcing bars placed horizontally in the footings, two near the top and two near the bottom. Steel reinforcement for the spread footings should be designed by the project structural engineer. The minimum reinforcement recommended herein is based on soil characteristics only (expansion index of 50 or less) and is not intended to replace reinforcement required for structural considerations. 7.6.3 The recommended allowable bearing capacity for foundations with minimum dimensions described herein and bearing in properly compacted fill is 2,000 pounds per square foot (psi). The values presented herein are for dead plus live loads and may be increased by one-third when considering transient loads due to wind or seismic forces. 7.6.4 Total and differential settlement of the building founded on compacted fill materials is expected to be less than V2-inch for 6-foot footings. 7.6.5 Where buildings or other improvements are planned near the top of a slope 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) or steeper, special foundation and/or design considerations are recommended due to the tendency for lateral soil movement to occur. Footings should be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope. Although other improvements, which are relatively rigid or brittle, such as concrete fiatwork or masonry walls, may experience some distress if located near the top of a slope, it is generally not economical to mitigate this potential. It may be possible, however, to incorporate design measures which would permit some lateral soil movement without causing extensive distress. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for specific recommendations. 7.6.6 We should observe the foundation excavations prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete to check that the exposed soil conditions are similar to those expected and that Project No. G2192-52-01 -12- January 17, 2018 they have been extended to the appropriate bearing strata. Foundation modifications may be required if unexpected soil conditions are encountered. 7.6.7 Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as required by the structural engineer. 7.7 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade 7.7.1 Concrete slabs-on-grade for the structures should be at least 4 inches thick and reinforced with No. 3 steel reinforcing bars at 24 inches on center in both horizontal directions. 7.7.2 Slabs that may receive moisture-sensitive floor coverings or may be used to store moisture- sensitive materials should be underlain by a vapor retarder. The vapor retarder design should be consistent with the guidelines presented in the American Concrete Institute's (AC!) Guide for Concrete Slabs that Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials (AC! 302.2R-06). In addition, the membrane should be installed in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations and ASTM requirements and installed in a manner that prevents puncture. The vapor retarder used should be specified by the project architect or developer based on the type of floor covering that will be installed and if the structure will possess a humidity controlled environment. 7.7.3 The bedding sand thickness should be determined by the project foundation engineer, architect, and/or developer. However, we should be contacted to provide recommendations if the bedding sand is thicker than 6 inches. It is common to see 3 to 4 inches of sand below the concrete slab-on-grade for 5-inch thick slabs in the southern California area. The foundation design engineer should provide appropriate concrete mix design criteria and curing measures to assure proper curing of the slab by reducing the potential for rapid moisture loss and subsequent cracking and/or slab curl. We suggest that the foundation design engineer present the concrete mix design and proper curing methods on the foundation plans. It is critical that the foundation contractor understands and follows the recommendations presented on the foundation plans. 7.7.4 Concrete slabs should be provided with adequate crack-control joints, construction joints and/or expansion joints to reduce unsightly shrinkage cracking. The design ofjoints should consider criteria of the American Concrete Institute (ACD when establishing crack-control spacing. Crack-control joints should be spaced at intervals no greater than 12 feet. Additional steel reinforcing, concrete admixtures and/or closer crack control joint spacing should be considered where concrete-exposed finished floors are planned. Project No. G2192-52-0I -13- January 17, 2018 7.7.5 The concrete slab-on-grade recommendations are based on soil support characteristics only. The project structural engineer should evaluate the structural requirements of the concrete slabs for supporting vehicle, equipment and storage loads. 7.7.6 The recommendations presented herein are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs and foundations as a result of differential movement. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations and slabs-on-grade will still exhibit some cracking. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the soil supporting characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, the use of crack-control joints and proper concrete placement and curing. Literature provided by the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and American Concrete Institute (ACI) present recommendations for proper concrete mix, construction, and curing practices, and should be incorporated into project construction. 7.8 Post-Tensioned Foundation System Recommendations 7.8.1 As an alternative to the conventional foundation recommendations, consideration should be given to the use of post-tensioned concrete slab and foundation systems for the support of the proposed structures. The post-tensioned systems should be designed by a structural engineer experienced in post-tensioned slab design and design criteria of the Post- Tensioning Institute (PT!) DC 10.5-12 Standard Requirements for Design and Analysis of Shallow Post-Tensioned Concrete Foundations on Expansive Soils or WRJ/CRSI Design of Slab-on-Ground Foundations, as required by the 2016 California Building Code (CBC Section 1808.6.2). Although this procedure was developed for expansive soil conditions, it can also be used to reduce the potential for foundation distress due to differential fill settlement. The post-tensioned design should incorporate the geotechnical parameters presented in Table 7.8. The parameters presented in Table 7.8 are based on the guidelines presented in the PTI DC 10.5 design manual. TABLE 7.8 POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS Post-Tensioning Institute (PT!) DC10.5 Design Parameters Value Thornthwaite Index -20 Equilibrium Suction 3.9 Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance, em (feet) 5.3 Edge Lift, yM (inches) 0.61 Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance, CM (feet) 9.0 Center Lift, yM (inches) 0.30 Project No. G2192-52-01 -14- January 17, 2018 7.8.2 Post-tensioned foundations may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) (dead plus live load). This bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for transient loads due to wind or seismic forces. The estimated maximum total and differential settlement for the planned structures due to foundation loads is 1/2 inch. 7.8.3 The foundations for the post-tensioned slabs should be embedded in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer. If a post-tensioned mat foundation system is planned, the slab should possess a thickened edge with a minimum width of 12 inches and extend below the clean sand or crushed rock layer. 7.8.4 Isolated footings, if present, should have the minimum embedment depth and width recommended for conventional foundations. The use of isolated footings, which are located beyond the perimeter of the building and support structural elements connected to the building, are not recommended. Where this condition cannot be avoided, the isolated footings should be connected to the building foundation system with grade beams. 7.8.5 Consideration should be given to using interior stiffening beams and connecting isolated footings and/or increasing the slab thickness. In addition, consideration should be given to connecting patio slabs, which exceed 5 feet in width, to the building foundation to reduce the potential for future separation to occur. 7.8.6 If the structural engineer proposes a post-tensioned foundation design method other than PTI, DC 10.5: The deflection criteria presented in Table 7.8 are still applicable. The width of the perimeter foundations should be at least 12 inches. The perimeter footing embedment depths should be at least 18 inches. The embedment depths should be measured from the lowest adjacent pad grade. 7.8.7 Our experience indicates post-tensioned slabs may be susceptible to excessive edge lift, regardless of the underlying soil conditions. Placing reinforcing steel at the bottom of the perimeter footings and the interior stiffener beams may mitigate this potential. The structural engineer should design the foundation system to reduce the potential of edge lift occurring for the proposed structures. 7.8.8 During the construction of the post-tension foundation system, the concrete should be placed monolithically. Under no circumstances should cold joints form between the Project No. G2192-52-01 -15- January 17, 2018 footings/grade beams and the slab during the construction of the post-tension foundation system unless designed by the structural engineer. 7.8.9 Special subgrade presaturation is not deemed necessary prior to placing concrete; however, the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soil should be moisturized to maintain a moist condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement. The slab underlayment should be the same as previously discussed. 7.9 Concrete Flatwork 7.9.1 Exterior concrete flatwork not subject to vehicular traffic should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations herein. Slab panels should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and, when in excess of 8 feet square, should be reinforced with 6 x 6 - W2.9/W2.9 (6 x 6 - 6/6) welded wire mesh or No. 3 reinforcing bars spaced at least 18 inches center-to-center in both directions to reduce the potential for cracking. In addition, concrete flatwork should be provided with crack control joints to reduce and/or control shrinkage cracking. Crack control spacing should be determined by the project structural engineer based upon the slab thickness and intended usage. Criteria of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) should be taken into' consideration when establishing crack control spacing. Subgrade soil for exterior slabs not subjected to vehicle loads should be compacted in accordance with criteria presented in the grading section prior to concrete placement. Subgrade soil should be properly compacted and the moisture content of subgrade soil should be checked prior to placing concrete. 7.9.2 Even with the incorporation of the recommendations within this report, the exterior concrete flatwork has a likelihood of experiencing some uplift due to expansive soil beneath grade; therefore, the steel reinforcement should overlap continuously in flatwork to reduce the potential for vertical offsets within flatwork. Additionally, flatwork should be structurally connected to the curbs, where possible, to reduce the potential for offsets between the curbs and the flatwork. 7.9.3 Where exterior flatwork abuts the structure at entrant or exit points, the exterior slab should be dowelled into the structure's foundation stemwall. This recommendation is intended to reduce the potential for differential elevations that could result from differential settlement or minor heave of the flatwork. Dowelling details should be designed by the project structural engineer. Project No. G2192-52-01 -16- January 17, 2018 7.10 Retaining Walls 7.10.1 Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid with a density of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pci). Where the backfill will be inclined at no steeper than 211: IV, an active soil pressure of 50 pcf is recommended. These soil pressures assume that the backfill materials within an area bounded by the wall and a 1:1 plane extending upward from the base of the wall possess an expansion index of 50 or less. 7.10.2 Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.001H (where H equals the height of the retaining portion of the wall) at the top of the wall. Where walls are restrained from movement at the top (at-rest condition), an additional uniform pressure of 7H psf should be added to the active soil pressure for walls 8 feet or less. For retaining walls subject to vehicular loads within a horizontal distance equal to two-thirds the wall height, a surcharge equivalent to 2 feet of fill soil should be added. 7.10.3 The structural engineer should determine the seismic design category for the project. If the project possesses a seismic design category of D, E, or F, the proposed retaining walls should be designed with seismic lateral pressure. A seismic load of 16H psf should be used for design of walls that support more than 6 feet of backfill in accordance with Section 1803.5.12 of the 2016 CBC. The seismic load is dependent on the retained height where H is the height of the wall, in feet, and the calculated loads result in pounds per square foot (psi) exerted at the base of the wall and zero at the top of the wall. We used the peak site acceleration, PGAM, of 0.443g calculated from ASCE 7-10 Section 11.8.3. 7.10.4 The retaining walls may be designed using either the active and restrained (at-rest) loading condition or the active and seismic loading condition as suggested by the structural engineer. Typically, it appears the design of the restrained condition for retaining wall loading may be adequate for the seismic design of the retaining walls. However, the active earth pressure combined with the seismic design load should be reviewed and also considered in the design of the retaining walls. 7.10.5 Retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the project architect. The use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes) is not recommended where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely affect the property adjacent to the base of the wall. The recommendations herein assume a properly compacted free- draining backfill material (El of 50 or less) with no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load. Figure 4 presents a typical retaining wall drain detail. If conditions different than Project No. G2192-52-01 -17 - January 17, 2018 those described are expected, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for additional recommendations. 7.10.6 Soil contemplated for use as retaining wall backfill, including import materials, should be identified in the field prior to backfill. At that time, Geocon Incorporated should obtain samples for laboratory testing to evaluate its suitability. Modified lateral earth pressures may be necessary if the backfill soil does not meet the required expansion index or shear strength. City or regional standard wall designs, if used, are based on a specific active lateral earth pressure and/or soil friction angle. In this regard, on-site soil to be used as backfill may or may not meet the values for standard wall designs. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to assess the suitability of the on-site soil for use as wall backfill if standard wall designs will be used. 7.10.7 In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of 1 foot may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. The proximity of the foundation to the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 could impact the allowable soil bearing pressure. Therefore, retaining wall foundations should be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope. 7.10.8 Unrestrained walls will move laterally when backfihled and loading is applied. The amount of lateral deflection is dependent on the wall height, the type of soil used for backfill, and loads acting on the wall. The retaining walls and improvements above the retaining walls should be designed to incorporate an appropriate amount of lateral deflection as determined by the structural engineer. 7.10.9 The recommendations presented herein are generally applicable to the design of rigid concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 8 feet. In the event that walls higher than 8 feet or other types of walls (such as mechanically stabilized earth [MSE] walls, soil nail walls, or soldier pile walls) are planned, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations. 7.11 Lateral Loading 7.11.1 To resist lateral loads, a passive pressure exerted by an equivalent fluid weight of 350 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) should be used for the design of footings or shear keys poured neat in compacted fill. The passive pressure assumes a horizontal surface extending at least 5 feet, or three times the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material in areas not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in design for passive resistance. Project No. G2192-52-01 -Is- January 17, 2018 7.11.2 If friction is to be used to resist lateral loads, an allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 should be used for design. The friction coefficient may be reduced to 0.2 to 0.25 depending on the vapor barrier or waterproofing material used for construction in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations 7.11.3 The passive and frictional resistant loads can be combined for design purposes. The lateral passive pressures may be increased by one-third when considering transient loads due to wind or seismic forces. 7.12 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations 7.12.1 We calculated the flexible pavement sections in general conformance with the Caltrans Method of Flexible Pavement Design (Highway Design Manual, Section 608.4) using an estimated Traffic Index (TI) of 5.0 and 6.0 for local and collector streets, respectively. The project civil engineer and owner should review the pavement designations to determine appropriate locations for pavement thickness. The final pavement sections for the parking lot should be based on the R-Value of the subgrade soil encountered at final subgrade elevation. 'Based on the results of our R-Value testing of the subgrade soils, we assumed an R-Value of 44 and 78 for the subgrade soil and base materials, respectively, for the purposes of this preliminary analysis. Table 7.12.1 presents the preliminary flexible pavement sections. TABLE 7.12.1 PRELIMINARY FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT SECTION Assumed Asphalt Class 2 Location Assumed Subgrade Concrete* Aggregate Traffic Index R-Value (inches) Base* (inches) Local Street 5.0 44 4 4 Collector Street 6.0 44 4 6 *per City of Carlsbad Engineering Standards (2016) 7.12.2 The subgrade soils for pavement areas should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above the optimum moisture content. The depth of subgrade compaction should be approximately 12 inches. 7.12.3 Class 2 aggregate base should conform to Section 26-1-02B of the Standard Specifications for The State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density at near optimum Project No. G2192-52-01 -19- January 17, 2018 moisture content. The asphalt concrete should conform to Section 203-6 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook). 7.12.4 The base thickness can be reduced if a reinforcement geogrid is used during the installation of the pavement. Geocon should be contact for additional recommendations, if requested. 7.12.5 A rigid Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement section should be placed in driveway entrance aprons. We calculated the rigid pavement section in general conformance with the procedure recommended by the American Concrete Institute report ACI 330R-08 Guide for Design and Construction of Concrete Parking Lots using the parameters presented in Table 7.12.2. TABLE 7.12.2 RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN PARAMETERS Design Parameter Design Value Modulus of subgrade reaction, k 100 pci Modulus of rupture for concrete, MR 500 psi Traffic Category, TC A and C Average daily truck traffic, ADTT 1 and 100 7.12.6 Based on the criteria presented herein, the PCC pavement sections should have a minimum thickness as presented in Table 7.12.3. TABLE 7.12.3 RIGID PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Location Portland Cement Concrete (inches) Driveways/Automobile Parking Areas (TC=A) 5.0 Heavy Truck and Fire Lane Areas (TC=C) 7.0 7.12.7 The PCC pavement should be placed over subgrade soil that is compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content. This pavement section is based on a minimum concrete compressive strength of approximately 3,000 psi (pounds per square inch). 7.12.8 A thickened edge or integral curb should be constructed on the outside of concrete slabs subjected to wheel loads. The thickened edge should be 1.2 times the slab thickness or a Project No. G2192-52-01 -20- January 17,2018 minimum thickness of 2 inches, whichever results in a thicker edge, and taper back to the recommended slab thickness 4 feet behind the face of the slab (e.g., a 7-inch-thick slab would have a 9-inch-thick edge). Reinforcing steel will not be necessary within the concrete for geotechnical purposes with the possible exception of dowels at construction joints as discussed herein. 7.12.9 To control the location and spread of concrete shrinkage cracks, crack-control joints (weakened plane joints) should be included in the design of the concrete pavement slab. Crack-control joints should not exceed 30 times the slab thickness with a maximum spacing of 12.5 feet for the 5-inch and 15 feet for 6-inch or thicker slabs and should be sealed with an appropriate sealant to prevent the migration of water through the control joint to the subgrade materials. The depth of the crack-control joints should be determined by the referenced AC! report. The depth of the crack-control joints should be at least 1/4 f the slab thickness when using a conventional saw, or at least 1 inch when using early-entry saws on slabs 9 inches or less in thickness, as determined by the referenced AC! report discussed in the pavement section herein. Cuts at least ¼ inch wide are required for sealed joints, and a % inch wide cut is commonly recommended. A narrow joint width of 1/io to 1/8 inch-wide is common for unsealed joints. 7.12.10 To provide load transfer between adjacent pavement slab sections, a butt-type construction joint should be constructed. The butt-type joint should be thickened by at least 20 percent at the edge and taper back at least 4 feet from the face of the slab. As an alternative to the butt-type construction joint, dowelling can be used between construction joints for pavements of 7 inches or thicker. As discussed in the referenced AC! guide, dowels should consist of smooth, 1-inch-diameter reinforcing steel 14 inches long embedded a minimum of 6 inches into the slab on either side of the construction joint. Dowels should be located at the midpoint of the slab, spaced at 12 inches on center and lubricated to allow joint movement while still transferring loads. In addition, tie bars should be installed at the as recommended in Section 3.8.3 of the referenced AC! guide. The structural engineer should provide other alternative recommendations for load transfer. 7.12.11 Concrete curb/gutter should be placed on soil subgrade compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content. Cross-gutters should be placed on subgrade soil compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content. Base materials should not be placed below the curb/gutter, cross-gutters, or sidewalk so water is not able to migrate from the adjacent parkways to the pavement sections. Where flatwork is located directly adjacent to the curb/gutter, the Project No. 02192-52-01 -21 - January 17, 2018 concrete flatwork should be structurally connected to the curbs to help reduce the potential for offsets between the curbs and the flatwork. 7.13 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection 7.13.1 Adequate site drainage is critical to reduce the potential for differential soil movement, erosion and subsurface seepage. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent to footings. The site should be graded and maintained such that surface drainage is directed away from structures in accordance with 2016 CBC 1804.3 or other applicable standards. In addition, surface drainage should be directed away from the top of slopes into swales or other controlled drainage devices. Roof and pavement drainage should be directed into conduits that carry runoff away from the proposed structure. Appendix C presents the results of the storm water management investigation. 7.13.2 The performance of pavements is highly dependent on providing positive surface drainage away from the edge of the pavement. Ponding of water on or adjacent to the pavement will likely result in pavement distress and subgrade failure. If planter islands are proposed, the perimeter curb should extend at least 12 inches below proposed subgrade elevations. In addition, the surface drainage within the planter should be such that ponding will not occur. 7.13.3 Underground utilities should be leak free. Utility and irrigation lines should be checked periodically for leaks, and detected leaks should be repaired promptly. Detrimental soil movement could occur if water is allowed to infiltrate the soil for prolonged periods of time. 7.13.4 Landscaping planters adjacent to paved areas are not recommended due to the potential for surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the pavement's subgrade and base course. Area drains to collect excess irrigation water and transmit it to drainage structures or impervious above-grade planter boxes can be used. In addition, where landscaping is planned adjacent to the pavement, construction of a cutoff wall along the edge of the pavement that extends at least 6 inches below the bottom of the base material should be considered. 7.14 Grading, Improvement and Foundation Plan Review 7.14.1 Geocon Incorporated should review the final grading, improvement and foundation plans prior to finalization to check their compliance with the recommendations of this report and evaluate the need for additional comments, recommendations, and/or analyses. Project No. G2192-52-01 - -22- January 17, 2018 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS The firm that performed the geotechnical investigation for the project should be retained to provide testing and observation services during construction to provide continuity of geotechnical interpretation and to check that the recommendations presented for geotechnical aspects of site development are incorporated during site grading, construction of improvements, and excavation of foundations. If another geotechnical firm is selected to perform the testing and observation services during construction operations, that firm should prepare a letter indicating their intent to assume the responsibilities of project geotechnical engineer of record. A copy of the letter should be provided to the regulatory agency for their records. In addition, that firm should provide revised recommendations concerning the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development, or a written acknowledgement of their concurrence with the recommendations presented in our report. They should also perform additional analyses deemed necessary to assume the role of Geotechnical Engineer of Record. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon Incorporated should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon Incorporated. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. Project No. G2192-52-01 January 17, 2018 GEOCON LEGEND UNDOCUMENTEDFILL Qop....OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS T-9 .APPROX. LOCATION OF TRENCH (P-2) APPROX. LOCATION OF PERCOLATION TEST .APPROX. THICKNESS OF UNDOCUMENTED Flu. GEOCON INCORPORATED GEOIECHNICAL• ENVI1ONMENTAL U MATERIMS 6960R.ASDRNE•S4NDEG4CAIFaHlR92l21•2974 P1CF58585586900FAX85855&6139 PROJECT NO. G2192.52-01 FIGURE 2 GEOLOGIC MAP 17.2018 OTT OT000*PHOAL IOOTUATONUAVALNOE FOR OORAYWR3AEAO BVO.E EARTH. RTlECTTOALEANSIRTAGfiEANENT.1AR IlPORTIATOTI OFOR IUmmATFO FORFOSESOR.r TB NOT ,neNoEoFoaa.nn9usEoRREI.RTaue5n.aNOTu REPRODUCED syaENT.aE,n EMAIL IcveIPy.OTOTNOANOHMADHW005300000N FREAINIYLEBLEW NaOREDASARESILT OF MICH USE OR RELENEA NY QUIT. 1534 MAGNOLIA AVENUE CARSBAD, CALIFORNIA 0. 60 120' SCALE 1= 60' (On 11x17) PUIdOlIlIORIETlINPRI lBY.RMETNMAIWLKB IFAILUSR,MPROITCTSORI9242OI TORNIWOHAARSHEETSIO2IET.RTOT OlobRbnNOARi CONCRETE SLAB 4 4 4 44 4 '4 ' SAND AND VAPOR 4 AD GRADE RETARDER IN ' ACCORDANCE WITH ACI 4 F-Le ILI 00 LL WIDTH • .4 .:::4:...:..•: .::. ..4. 4: .. :4..a.•.:: 4 4 4 UI II • fj• q A MIMI SAND AND VAPOR 4 RETARDER IN —' ACCORDANCE WITH ACI : p'): : 4 04 444 404 ). FOOTING WIDTH *....SEE REPORT FOR FOUNDATION WIDTH AND DEPTH RECOMMENDATION NO SCALE I WALL / COLUMN FOOTING DIMENSION DETAIL I GEOCON, INCORPORATED (07/) GEOTECHNICALU ENVIRONMENTAL U MATERIALS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2974 PHONE 858 558.6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 ML! CW DSK!GTVPD 1534 MAGNOLIA AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DATE 01-17-2018 7 PROJECT NO.G2192 - 52 - 01 FIG.3 Plotted:0111612018 4.08PM I ByJONThAN WILKINS I File Locaflon:Y:PROJECTSG2192-5201 1534 Magnolia AveDETALStWaUCoIamn Footing Dnenston Detail (COLFOOT2)4w9 CONCRETE BROWDITCH 1 PROPOSED RETAINING WALL GROUND SURFACE N'ISAUKrILL \ '\ _TEMPORARY BACKCUT WATER PROOFING - / PER OSHA PER ARCHITECT 213 H a a. MIRAFI 140N FILTER FABRIC I - ;. :.•; (OR EQUIVALENT) I OPEN GRADED I - : 1 MAX. AGGREGATE GROUND SURFACE WAR FOOTING 4 DIA. PERFORATED SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE EXTENDED TO I APPROVED OUTLET 12 CONCRETE i— GROUND SURFACE BROWDITCH RETAINING - WALL '. -'WAYWAYMMAV WATER PROOFING ~PERARCHITECT DRAINAGE PANEL - __- (MIRADRAIN 6000 OR EQUIVALENT) 2/3 H - 314 CRUSHED ROCK - (1 CU.FTJFT.) - ,- FILTER FABRIC PROPOSED ENVELOPE GRADE MIRAFI 140N OR - EQUIVALENT F007'1NG1 4 DIA. SCHEDULE 40 I PERFORATED PVC PIPE OR TOTAL DRAIN EXTENDED TO APPROVED OUTLET NOTE: DRAIN SHOULD BE UNIFORMLY SLOPED TO GRAVITY OUTLET OR TO A SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE REMOVED BY PUMPING CONCRETE BROWi 7PER GROUND SURFACE RETAINING WALL WATER PROOFING ARCHrrECT 2/3 H DRAINAGE PANEL (MIRADRAIN 6000 OR EQUIVALENT) 4 DIA. SCHEDULE 40 PROPOSED PERFORATED PVC PIPE - GRADE CIO" OR TOTAL DRAIN EXTENDED TO I . FOOTINl APPROVED OUTLET NO SCALE I I TYPICAL RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL I GEOCON d) INcORPORATED / GEOTECHNICAL• ENVIRONMENTAL U MATERIALS. 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2974 PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 ML/CW DSKJGTYPD 1534 MAGNOLIA AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA I DATE 01-17 -2018 1 PROJECT NO.G2192 - 52 - 01 1 FIG.4 I Pbtted:0111612018 4:07PM I By.JONAThAN WILKINS I FIle Locatlen:Y:PROJECTSG2192-52-01 1534 Magnelle Av&DETAILSTypIcaI Retaining Well Drainage Detail (RWDD7A).dwg APPENDIX APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION We performed our field investigation on September 27, 2017, that consisted of a visual site reconnaissance, excavating 9 exploratory trenches using a rubber-tire baókhoe and conducting 2 infiltration tests. The approximate locations of the trenches and infiltration tests are shown on the Geologic Map, Figure 2. As trenching proceeded, we logged and sampled the soil and geologic conditions encountered. Trench logs and an explanation of the geologic units encountered are presented on figures following the text in this appendix. We located the trenches in the field using existing reference points. Therefore, actual exploration locations may deviate slightly. We visually classified and logged the soil encountered in the excavations in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual Manual Procedure D 2488). Project No. G2192-52-01 January 17, 2018 PROJECT NO. G2192-52-01 TRENCH I uJ—. Lu DEPTH < SOIL Fz U)it SAMPLE NO. _j CLASS DATE COMPLETED 09-27-2017 ELEV. (MSL.)UJI ______ FEET U) EQUIPMENT BACKHOE W12 BUCKET BY: K. HAASE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - 0 - SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL (Qudi) Loose, dry Silty, fine to medium SAND: some roots 4E - SM OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop24) 2 - TI -1 Medium dense, damp, light reddish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND 4 - :.::•j:- CL Dense, moist, olive-brown, fine Sandy, CLAY; iron staining .-.______________________ -SC Medium dense, moist, reddish brown to olive brown, Clayey, fine to medium 6 - SAND; iron staining 11-2 8- - -Becomes denser TRENCH TERMINATED AT 9 FEET No groundwater encountered Figure A-I, Log of Trench I I, Page lot I ill SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL I] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE .. CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GEOCON PROJECT NO. G2192-52-01 Ir TRENCH DEPTH SAMPLE SOIL IN NO. o CLASS FEET (USCS)LU ELEV. (MSL.)______ DATE COMPLETED 09-27-2017 1-- MIMS it 20 Ir EQUIPMENT BACKHOE W!2 BUCKET BY: K. HAASE - 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL (Qudf) Loose, dry, light brown, Silty, fine SAND 41. SM OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop24) - 2 .I.J.: Medium dense, damp, brown, Silty, fine SAND CL Dense, moist, olive brown, fine Sandy, CLAY - . — — — — SC - ---------------------------------- Dense, moist, reddish brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND -6 TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6 FEET - ----------------------------------- No groundwater encountered Figure A-2, Log of Trench T 2, Page 1 of I Li] ... SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL I] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) 19 DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GEOCON PROJECT NO. G2192-52-01 LU TRENCH T3 z LU .. >- DEPTH >- I— < SOIL I— Z ! IN SAMPLE NO. CLASS ciss ELEV. (MSL.)_______ DATE COMPLETED 09.27-2017 I— o w FEET (USCS) . 0 uj EQUIPMENT BACKHOE W12' BUCKET BY: K. HAASE a. ac MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - TT - SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL (Qudf) Loose, dry, brown, Silty, fine SAND - SM OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop24) - Medium dense, damp, reddish to yellowish brown, Silty, fine to medium ::•.i::: SAND 2 - - SM Medium dense, moist, brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND - ::.....::J:: { - 73-1 CL - ________________________________--- Dense, wet, dark reddish brown, fine Sandy, CLAY 6- _ TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6 FEET -I: .t.___ No groundwater encountered Figure A-3, Log of Trench T 3, Page 1 of I [I SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL II STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE •.. CHUNK SAMPLE WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GEOCON PROJECT NO. G2192-52-01 Ir TRENCH >- DEPTH 8 SOIL z I- IN SAMPLE NO. _j > 13 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)______ DATE COMPLETED 09-27-2017 U) . LU FEET o EQUIPMENT BACKHOE W12 BUCKET BY: K. HAASE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - 0 SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL (Qudf) Loose, dry, light brown, Silty, fine SAND - SM . OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop24) - Medium dense, damp, light reddish brown, fine to coarse SAND -2- -a:- SC Dense, moist, olive brown to reddish brown, fine Sandy, CLAY - T4-1 Y. ______________ -6- TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6 FEET No groundwater encountered säAy________ Figure A-4, Log of Trench T 4, Page 1 of I SAMPLE SYMBOLS IjI ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL I] .:. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE .'..CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GEOCON PROJECT NO. G2192-52-01 TRENCH 5 00 It ILU DEPTH SAMPLE ..j SOIL Z U.C') . IN FEET NO. CLASS ELEV. (MSL)______ DATE COMPLETED 09-27-2017 R EQUIPMENT BACKHOE W12' BUCKET BY: K. HAASE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL (Qudi) Loose, dry, light brown, Silty, fine SAND SM OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop24) Medium dense, moist, dark brown, Silty fine to medium SAND -2 - E.T. 4 . • • LI::. :.J. ::l:.t: -Becomes brown - 6 -Becomes dense - 8 - 10 H: -. Id moist, CTayTo coarse oT staining 12 TRENCH TERMINATED AT 12 FEET No groundwater encountered Figure A-5, 02192-52-01.GPJ Log of Trench T 5, Page 1 of i II SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPJNG UNSUCCESSFUL I] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE . ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOiNN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE EPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GEOCON PROJECT NO. G2192-52-01 It TRENCH 6 z LU . DEPTH SOIL 0< ot Z Z LC IN SAMPLE NO. S 0 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)______ DATE COMPLETED 09-27-2017 FEET 0 EQUIPMENT BACKHOE W12' BUCKET BY: K HAASE a. MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - 0 - SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL (Qudf) • ;q - Loose, dry, light brown, Silty, fine SAND -. ___- SM Loose, damp, light reddish brown, Silty fine SAND; little gravel; deleterious material . ---------------------------------- it..I. - - - SM OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop24) Medium dense, moist, dark reddish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND 4 :.:4: . 6 - -Becomes dark brown • E1...1.E:E. -Becomes denser, finer grained 8 -. - SC Dense, moist, reddish brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND 10 TRENCH TERMINATED AT 10 FEET No groundwater encountered Figure A-6, G2192-52-01.GPJ Log of Trench T 6, Page 1 of I , (] ... SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL II ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE •.. CHUNK SAMPLE •.. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GEOCON PROJECT NO. G2192-52-01 > TRENCH T7 z. >. DEPTH < SOIL i Lauc SAMPLE IN NO. o CLASS ClASS ELEV. (MSL.)______ DATE COMPLETED 09-27-2017 Z LL: S2 P FEET 20 EQUIPMENT BACKHOE W!2' BUCKET BY: K. HAASE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL (Qudi) - • Loose, dry, light brown, Silty, fine SAND; roots - SM OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop24) 2 - , Medium dense, damp, light reddish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND - • - _______ - -Becomes dense TRENCH TERMINATED AT 5 FEET No groundwater encountered Figure A-7, Log of Trench T 7, Page 1 of I SAMPLE SYMBOLS II SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL I] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) 19 DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE 10 ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSJRFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GEOCON PROJECT NO. G2192-52-01 cc TRENCH >- DEPTH >- < SOIL i:z U) IN SAMPLE NO. CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)______ DATE COMPLETED 09-27-2017 S2 ZU W z FEET EQUIPMENT BACKHOE W12' BUCKET BY: K. HAASE a. MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - 0 - SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL (Qudi) Loose, dry, brown, Silty, fine SAND; roots - . - SM OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop24) Medium dense, damp, light yellowish brown, Silty, fine SAND - 2 -Becomes dense, moist, light reddish brown - 4 . ____ ____ ____________________________________ TRENCH TERMINATED AT 4 FEET No groundwater encountered Figure A-8, Log of Trench T 8, Page 1 of I (] SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL I] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GEOCON PROJECT NO. G2192-52-01 TRENCH DEPTH >- < SOIL I- Z Cl)' CI.ASS ELEV. (MSL.)______ DATE COMPLETED 09-27-2017 FEET EQUIPMENT BACKHOE W12' BUCKET BY: K. HAASE 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 - ____ - SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL (Qudi) Loose, dry, brown, Silty, fine SAND; roots - :1:t - SM OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop2) Dense, damp, light reddish to yellowish brown, Silty fine to medium SAND 2 .4 - TRENCH TERMINATED AT 4 FEET No groundwater encountered Figure A-9, Log of Trench T 9, Page 1 of I [I SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL I] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST . U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE X... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GEOCON F'A.lil 19 1 : I : Ul I Q KI APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING We performed laboratory tests in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. We selected samples to test for maximum density and optimum moisture content, direct shear, expansion potential, water-soluble sulfate content, R-Value and gradation. The results of our laboratory tests are summarized on Tables B-I through B-V, Figure B-i and on the trench logs in Appendix A. TABLE B-I SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS ASTM D 1557 Sample No. Description (Geologic Unit) Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Optimum Moisture Content (% dry wt.) TI-1 Light reddish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND (Qop) 132.8 8.1 T7-1 I Light reddish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND (Qop) 1 130.5 1 9.0 TABLE B-Il SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS ASTM D 3080 Sample No. Dry Density (,pcf) Moisture Content (%) Peak [Ultimate'] Cohesion (psi) Peak [Ultimate'] Angle of Shear Resistance (degrees) Initial I Final Ti-12 121.8 6.6 13.4 500 [400] 27 [26] T7-12 118.6 8.7 13.7 700 [550] 27 [24] 'Ultimate at end of test at 0.2-inch deflection. 2 RemoIded to a dry density of about 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. TABLE B-Ill SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS ASTM D 4829 Sample No. Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pCi) Expansion Index 2016 CBC Expansion Classification ASTM Soil Expansion Classification Before Test After Test T3-1 11.5 23.4 103.8 35 Expansive Low T4-1 8.7 17.2 115.6 18 Non-Expansive Very Low T7-1 7.8 14.1 117.2 0 Non-Expansive Very Low Project No. G2192-52-01 -B-1 - January 17, 2018 TABLE B-IV SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417 Sample No. Water Soluble Sulfate (%) AC! 318-14 Sulfate Class TI-1 0.032 SO T7-1 0.009 SO TABLE B-V SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESISTANCE VALUE (R-VALUE) TEST RESULTS ASTM D 2844 Sample No. Depth (feet) Description (Geologic Unit) R-Value Ti-I 2 -3 Light reddish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND (Qop) 44 Project No. G2192-52-01 - B-2 - January 17, 2018 PROJECT NO. G2192-52-0I 0 I iuui liii uii;!iuiIllHilul 11111111 JUl11_11111111_lllh!Il_11011111_11111111 $111111 11111111 IIIIIii1 111111111 11111111 11111_11111111_11111111_111111111_11111111 $ IIUI 11111111 IllIllIhi 11011111 11111111 , 111111 11111111_IllIllIENililhIlIl_11111111 • .111111_11111111_11111111_liriii!! 11111111 .111111_1111011_11111111_IlflUIIiH!!!!!I 111111_11111111_11111111_111111111_IIIIIiii $111111 11111111 IlIIlIlI-,-IIHIlIII 11111111 I [.1 CU RV el i '7'I I [•) I III 1534 MAGN E :'..] 'x. ii FORN i r i1Z-5Z.U1.PJ Figure B-I GEOCON IGRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COARSE _ FINE ICOARSEl_MEDIUM _FINE SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION NAT WC LL PL P1 Ti-I 2.0 Sc - clayey SAND T1-2 6.0 SM - Silty SAND APPENDIX APPENDIX C STORM WATER MANAGEMENT INVESTIGATION 1534 MAGNOLIA AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. G2192-52-01 APPENDIX C STORM WATER MANAGEMENT INVESTIGATION We understand storm water management devices will be used in accordance with the BMP Design Manual currently used by the City of Carlsbad. If not properly constructed, there is a potential for distress to improvements and properties located hydrologically down gradient or adjacent to these devices. Factors such as the amount of water to be detained, its residence time, and soil permeability have an important effect on seepage transmission and the potential adverse impacts that may occur if the storm water management features are not properly designed and constructed. We have not performed a hydrogeological study at the site. If infiltration of storm water runoff occurs, downstream properties may be subjected to seeps, springs, slope instability, raised groundwater, movement of foundations and slabs, or other undesirable impacts as a result of water infiltration. Hydrologic Soil Group The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Services, possesses general information regarding the existing soil conditions for areas within the United States. The USDA website also provides the Hydrologic Soil Group. Table C-I presents the descriptions of the hydrologic soil groups. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (AID, B/D, or CID), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. In addition, the USDA website also provides an estimated saturated hydraulic conductivity for the existing soil. TABLE C-I HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP DEFINITIONS Soil Group Soil Group Definition Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist A mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of B moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a C layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These D consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high-water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. The property is underlain by natural materials consisting of undocumented fill and Old Paralic Deposits and should be classified as Soil Group D. Table C-II presents the information from the USDA website for the subject property. The Hydrologic Soil Group Map, provided at the end of this appendix, presents output from the USDA website showing the limits of the soil units. TABLE C-Il USDA WEB SOIL SURVEY - HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP Map Unit Name Map Unit Approximate Percentage Hydrologic ICSAT of Most Limiting Symbol of Property (inches/hour) Soil GroupLayer Chesterton-Urban Land Complex, CgC 83 D 0.00 -0.06 2 to 9 percentslopes Marina Loamy Coarse Sand, M1C 17 B 0.57 -1.42 2 to 9 percentslopes In-Situ Testing The infiltration rate, percolation rates and saturated hydraulic conductivity are different and have different meanings. Percolation rates tend to overestimate infiltration rates and saturated hydraulic conductivities by a factor of 10 or more. Table C-il! describes the differences in the definitions. TABLE C-Ill SOIL PERMEABILITY DEFINITIONS Term Definition The observation of the flow of water through a material into the ground Infiltration Rate downward into a given soil structure under long term conditions. This is a function of layering of soil, density, pore space, discontinuities and initial moisture content. The observation of the flow of water through a material into the ground Percolation Rate downward and laterally into a given soil structure under long term i conditions. This s a function of layering of soil, density, pore space, discontinuities and initial moisture content. The volume of water that will move in a porous medium under a Saturated Hydraulic hydraulic gradient through a unit area. This is a function of density, Conductivity (ksAT, Permeability) structure, stratification, fines content and discontinuities. It is also a function of the properties of the liquid as well as of the porous medium. The degree of soil compaction or in-situ density has a significant impact on soil permeability and infiltration. Based on our experience and other studies we performed, an increase in compaction results in a decrease in soil permeability. We performed 2 percolation tests within Trenches T-2 and T-3 at the locations shown on the attached Geologic Map, Figure 2. The results of the tests provide parameters regarding the percolation rate and - C-2 - the saturated hydraulic conductivity/infiltration characteristics of on-site soil and geologic units. Table C-N presents the results of the estimated field saturated hydraulic conductivity and estimated infiltration rates obtained from the percolation tests. The calculation sheets are attached herein. We used a factor of safety applied to the test results on the worksheet values. The designer of storm water devices should apply an appropriate factor of safety. Soil infiltration rates from in-situ tests can vary significantly from one location to another due to the heterogeneous characteristics inherent to most soil. Based on a discussion in the County of Riverside Design Handbook for Low Impact Development Best Management Practices, the infiltration rate should be considered equal to the saturated hydraulic conductivity rate. TABLE CIV FIELD PERMEAMETER INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS Test Depth Geologic Percolation Field-Saturated C.4-1 Worksheet Test Location (feet) Unit Rate Infiltration Rate, Infiltration Rate', (minutes/inch) k,,t (inch/hour) ksat (inch/hour) P-i (1-2) 6 Qop 187.5 0.07 0.04 P-2 (T-3) 6 Qop 106.0 0.32 0.16 Average: 146.8 0.20 0.10 ' Using a factor of safety of 2. Infiltration categories include full infiltration, partial infiltration and no infiltration. Table C-V presents the commonly accepted definitions of the potential infiltration categories based on the infiltration rates. TABLE C-V INFILTRATION CATEGORIES Infiltration Category Field Infiltration Rate, I (inches/hour) Factored Infiltration Rate', I (inches/hour) Full Infiltration 1> 1.0 1>0.5 Partial Infiltration 0.10<I <1.0 0.05 <I < 0.5 No Infiltration (Infeasible) I < 0.10 I < 0.05 Using a Factor of Safety of 2. Groundwater Elevations We did not encounter groundwater or seepage during the site investigation. We expect groundwater exists at depths greater than 50 feet below existing grades. - C-3 - New or Existing Utilities Utilities will be constructed within the site boundaries. Full or partial infiltration should not be allowed in the areas of the utilities to help prevent potential damage/distress to improvements. Mitigation measures to prevent water from infiltrating the utilities consist of setbacks, installing cutoff walls around the utilities and installing subdrains and/or installing liners. The horizontal and vertical setbacks for infiltration devices should be a minimum of 10 feet and a 1:1 plane of 1 foot below the closest edge of the deepest adjacent utility, respectively. Existing and Planned Structures Existing residential and roadway structures exist adjacent to the site. Water should not be allowed to infiltrate in areas where it could affect the neighboring properties and existing adjacent structures, improvements and roadway. Mitigation for existing structures consists of not allowing water infiltration within a lateral distance of at least 10 feet from the new or existing foundations. Slopes Hazards Slopes are not currently planned or exist on the property that would be affected by potential infiltration locations. Therefore, infiltration in regards to slope concerns would be considered feasible. Storm Water Evaluation Narrative As discussed herein, the property consists of existing undocumented fill overlying Old Paralic Deposits (Qop). Water should not be allowed to infiltrate into the undocumented or compacted fill within the basins as it will allow for lateral migration to adjacent residences. We evaluated the infiltration rates within the Old Paralic Deposits within the proposed basin areas to help evaluate if infiltration is feasible. We performed the infiltration tests at location where the basins would be practical based on the topography of the property and discussions with the Client. We performed the percolation tests at the lower elevations of the property and adjacent to the existing storm drain system. Our in-place infiltration tests indicate an average of 0.10 inches/hour (including a factor of safety of 2); therefore, the site is considered feasible for partial infiltration. We do not expect geologic hazards to exist on the property. Therefore, partial infiltration may be considered feasible within the Old Paralic Deposits. Storm Water Management Devices Liners and subdrains should be incorporated into the design and construction of the planned storm water devices. The liners should be impermeable (e.g. High-density polyethylene, HDPE, with a thickness of about 30 mil or equivalent Polyvinyl Chloride, PVC) to prevent water migration. The subdrains should be perforated within the liner area, installed at the base and above the liner, be at least 3 inches in diameter and consist of Schedule 40 PVC pipe. The subdrains outside of the liner should consist of solid pipe. The penetration of the liners at the subdrains should be properly waterproofed. The subdrains should be connected to a proper outlet. The devices should also be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Liners should be installed on the side walls of the proposed basins in accordance with a partial infiltration design. Storm Water Standard Worksheets The BMP Design Manual requests the geotechnical engineer complete the Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition (Worksheet C.4-1 or 1-8) worksheet information to help evaluate the potential for infiltration on the property. The attached Worksheet C.4-1 presents the completed information for the submittal process. The regional storm water standards also have a worksheet (Worksheet D.5-1 or Form 1-9) that helps the project civil engineer estimate the factor of safety based on several factors. Table C-VI describes the suitability assessment input parameters related to the geotechnical engineering aspects for the factor of safety determination. TABLE C-VI SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT RELATED CONSIDERATIONS FOR INFILTRATION FACILITY SAFETY FACTORS Consideration High Medium Low Concern —3 Points Concern —2 Points Concern - 1 Point Use of soil survey maps or Use of well permeameter or simple texture analysis to borehole methods with . Direct measurement with estimate short-term accompanying continuous boring log. localized (i.e. small- infiltration rates. Use of Direct measurement of scale) infiltration testing Assessment Methods well permeameter or infiltration area with methods at relatively high borehole methods without localized infiltration resolution or use of accompanying continuous measurement methods extensive test pit boring log. Relatively (e.g., Infiltrometer). infiltration measurement sparse testing with direct Moderate spatial methods. infiltration methods resolution Predominant Soil Silty and clayey soils Loamy soils Granular to slightly Texture with significant fines loamy soils Highly variable soils Soil boring/test pits Soil boring/test pits Site Soil Variability indicated from site assessment or unknown indicate moderately indicate relatively variability homogenous soils homogenous soils Depth to Groundwater/ <5 feet below 5-15 feet below >15 feet below Impervious Layer facility bottom facility bottom facility bottom Based on our geotechnical investigation and the previous table, Table C-VII presents the estimated factor values for the evaluation of the factor of safety. This table only presents the suitability assessment safety factor (Part A) of the worksheet. The project civil engineer should evaluate the safety factor for design (Part B) and use the combined safety factor for the design infiltration rate. TABLE C-Vu FACTOR OF SAFETY WORKSHEET DESIGN VALUES - PART A1 Suitability Assessment Factor Category Assigned Weight (w) Factor Value (v) Product (p = w x v) Assessment Methods 0.25 2 0.50 Predominant Soil Texture 0.25 1 2 0.50 Site Soil Variability 0.25 2 0.50 Depth to Groundwater/ Impervious Layer 0.25 1 0.25 Suitability Assessment Safety Factor, SA = Ep 1.75 The project civil engineer should complete Worksheet D.5-1 or Form 1-9 using the data on this table. Additional information is required to evaluate the design factor of safety. Part 1- Full Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of the full design volume be feasible from a physical perspective without any undesirable consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria Screening Question Yes No Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed facility locations greater than 0.5 inches per hour? The response 1 to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive X evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. Provide basis: Based on the USGS Soil Survey, the property possesses Hydrologic Soil Group D classifications. In addition, we encountered field infiltration rates of: T-2/P-1: 0.07 inches/hour (0.04 with a FOS of 2.0) T-3/P-2: 0.32 inches/hour (0.16 with a FOS of 2.0) This results in an average infiltration rate of 0.20 inches/hour (0.10 with an FOS of 2.0). Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, 2 groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot x be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2. Provide basis: Undocumented fill and Old Paralic Deposits underlie the property. Water that would be allowed to infiltrate could migrate laterally outside of the property limits to the existing right-of-ways (located to the south and west) and toward existing and proposed structures (located to the north and east). However, we expect the basins would be setback a sufficient distance from the existing and proposed utilities and structures to help alleviate seepage and underground utility concerns. Additionally, the use of vertical cutoff walls or liners, as recommended herein, would prevent lateral migration of water. The bottom of the basins should expose Old Paralic Deposits. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. - C-7 - Criteria Screening Question Yes No Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of groundwater contamination (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: We did not encounter groundwater during the drilling operations on the property. We anticipate that groundwater is present at depths of greater than 50 feet. Therefore, infiltration due to groundwater elevations would be considered feasible Additionally, we understand that contaminated soil or groundwater has not been documented or identified at the property. Therefore, infiltration due to groundwater concerns would be considered feasible. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without causing potential water balance issues such as change of seasonality of ephemeral streams or increased discharge of x contaminated groundwater to surface waters? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: We do not expect full infiltration would cause water balance issues including change of ephemeral streams or discharge of contaminated water to surface waters. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. If all answers to rows 1 - 4 are "Yes" a full infiltration design is potentially feasible. Part I The feasibility screening category is Full Infiltration Result* Not Full If any answer from row 1-4 is "No", infiltration may be possible to some extent but Infiltration would not generally be feasible or desirable to achieve a "full infiltration" design. Proceed to Part 2 "To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by the City to substantiate findings. - C-8 - owfigoas @441 Part 2— Partial Infiltration vs. No Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of water in any appreciable amount be physically feasible without any negative consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria Screening Question Yes No Do soil and geologic conditions allow for infiltration in any appreciable rate or volume? The response to this Screening x Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. Provide basis: Based on the USGS Soil Survey, the property possesses Hydrologic Soil Group D classifications. In addition, we encountered field infiltration rates of- T-2/P-1: 0.07 inches/hour (0.04 with a FOS of 2.0) T-3/P-2: 0.32 inches/hour (0.16 with a FOS of 2.0) This results in an average infiltration rate of 0.20 inches/hour (0.10 with an FOS of 2.0). Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope 6 stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) x that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2. Provide basis: Undocumented fill and Old Paralic Deposits underlie the property. Water that would be allowed to infiltrate could migrate laterally outside of the property limits to the existing right-of-ways (located to the south and west) and toward existing and proposed structures (located to the north and east). However, we expect the basins would be setback a sufficient distance from the existing and proposed utilities and structures to help alleviate seepage and underground utility concerns. Additionally, the use of vertical cutoff walls or liners, as recommended herein, would prevent lateral migration of water. The bottom of the basins should expose Old Paralic Depoits. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. - C-9 - køi1Ifkw.i @A34J Criteria Screening Question Yes No Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without posing significant risk for groundwater related concerns (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other X factors)? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: We did not encounter groundwater during the drilling operations on the property. We anticipate that groundwater is present at depths of greater than 50 feet. Therefore, infiltration due to groundwater elevations would be considered feasible. Additionally, we understand that contaminated soil or groundwater has not been documented or identified at the property. Therefore, infiltration due to groundwater concerns would be considered feasible. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. Can infiltration be allowed without violating downstream 8 water rights? The response to this Screening Question shall be x based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: We did not provide a study regarding water rights. However, these rights are not typical in the San Diego area. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. If all answers from row 1-4 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible. The feasibility screening category is Partial Infiltration. Part 2 Partial Result* If any answer from row 5-8 is no, then infiltration of any volume is considered to be Infiltration infeasible within the drainage area. The feasibility screening category is No Infiltration. "To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by the City to substantiate findings. - C-b - OA-W GEOCON Excavation Percolation Test Project Name: [1534 Mii I Project Number: G2192-52-01 Open-Pit Location: T-2 (P-i) 1 Test Hole Length (in.) 14.0 Test Hole Width (in.) 1 12.0 or Test Hole Dia. (in.) Test Hole Depth (in.) 10.5 Date: r -9/27-/20-17-1 By:l JML Test Hole Area, A, (in .2) 168.0 At /D a v/At MIA) *60 Reading Tlme,t . (mm) Depth of Water, D (in.) At (mm) Cumulative Time, t (mm) AD (in.) Wetted Area, A wet (in .2) Change in Volume, A (in. 3) Percolation Rate (mm/in.) Flow Rate, Q (in.3/min) Infiltration Rate, I (in./hr) i 0.0 8.25 15.00 15.00 0.06 595.38 8.19 10.50 240.00 0.70 0.07 15.0 2 0.0 8.50 15.00 30.00 0.01 609.74 8.49 1.68 1500.00 0.11 0.01 15.0 0.0 8.50 15.00 45.00 0.25 603.50 42.00 60.00 2.80 0.28 15.0 8.25 0.0 8.50 15.00 60.00 0.01 609.74 1.68 1500.00 0.11 0.01 15.0 8.49 0.0 8.50 15.00 75.00 0.01 609.74 1.68 1500.00 0.11 0.01 15.0 8.49 6 0.0 8.50 15.00 90.00 0.06 608.38 8.44 10.50 240.00 0.70 0.07 15.0 0.0 9.00 15.00 105.00 0.01 635.74 8.99 1.68 1500.00 0.11 0.01 15.0 8 0.0 9.00 15.00 120.00 0.06 634.38 10.50 240.00 0.70 0.07 15.0 8.94 0.0 9.00 15.00 135.00 0.01 635.74 1.68 1500.00 0.11 0.01 15.0 8.99 10 0.0 9.00 15.00 150.00 0.07 634.18 11.76 214.29 0.78 0.07 8.93 11 0.0 9.00 15.00 165.00 0.08 633.92 13.44 187.50 0.90 0.08 15.0 8.92 12 0.0 9.25 15.00 180.00 0.05 647.70 9.20 8.40 300.00 0.56 0.05 15.0 13 14 2.00 C, 4- m 1.50 1.00 mc 0.50 0.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00 180.00 200.00 Time (mm) Percolation Rate (Minutes/Inch) Soil Infiltration Rate (Inches/Hour) GEOCON Excavation Percolation Test Project Name: 1534 Project Number: G2192-52-01 Open-Pit Location: r T-3 (P-2) Test Hole Length (In.) 14.0 Test Hole Width (in.)I 12.0 or Test Hole Dia. (in.) 1 Test Hole Depth (in.)I 11.0 Date: [ij27/2017 I By:I JML Test Hole Area, A, (in. 2) 168.0 At /AD A v/At (01A) *60 Reading Time, t (mm) Depth of Water, D (in.) At (mm) Cumulative Time, t (mm) AD (in.) Wetted Area, A wet (in.') Change in Volume, A (in .3) Percolation Rate (mm/in.) Flow Rate, Q (in.3/mmn) Infiltration Rate, I (in./hr) 1 0.0 8.50 15.00 15.00 0.50 597.00 8.00 84.00 30.00 5.60 0.56 15.0 2 0.0 8.50 15.00 30.00 0.06 608.38 8.44 10.50 240.00 0.70 0.07 15.0 3 0.0 8.50 15.00 45.00 0.13 8.38 606.75 21.00 120.00 1.40 0.14 15.0 4 0.0 8.50 15.00 60.00 0.01 609.74 1.68 1500.00 0.11 0.01 15.0 8.49 5 0.0 8.50 15.00 75.00 0.50 597.00 8.00 84.00 30.00 . 5.60 0.56 15.0 6 0.0 8.19 15.00 90.00 0.19 588.88 8.00 31.50 80.00 2.10 0.21 15.0 7 0.0 8.50 15.00 105.00 0.44 8.06 598.63 73.50 34.29 4.90 0.49 15.0 8 0.0 8.50 15.00 120.00 0.06 608.38 - 8.44 10.50 240.00 0.70 0.07 15.0 9 0.0 8.75 15.00 135.00 0.31 614.88 8.44 52.50 48.00 3.50 0.34 15.0 10 0.0 8.75 15.00 150.00 0.50 610.00 8.25 84.00 30.00 5.60 0.55 15.0 11 0.0 8.25 15.00 165.00 0.06 595.38 8.19 10.50 240.00 0.70 0.07 15.0 12 13 14 - 2.00 1.50 16, 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00 180.00 Time (mm) Percolation Rate (Minutes/Inch) Soil Infiltration Rate (Inches/Hour) I N SCALE I HYDROLOGIC SOIL SURVEY I GEOCON INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL• ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121- 2974 PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 ML! CW DSKIGTYPD 1534 MAGNOLIA AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA I DATE 01 - 17- 2018 1 PROJECT NO.G2192 -52-01 1 FIG. C-Il Pbtted:0111712018 8:10AM I By.JONATHAN WILKINS I File LacatIon:Y:PROJECTSG2192-52-01 1534 Magnolia AveDEtAILSG2192-52-01JlydroIogIcSourvey.dwg APPENDIX APPENDIX D RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR 1534 MAGNOLIA AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. G2192-52-01 RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 1. GENERAL 1.1 These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon. The recommendations contained in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. 1.2 Prior to the commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these specifications. The Consultant should provide adequate testing and observation services so that they may assess whether, in their opinion, the work was performed in substantial conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to assist the Consultant and keep them apprised of work schedules and changes so that personnel may be'scheduled accordingly. 1.3 It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, and/or adverse weather result in a quality of work not in conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend to the Owner that grading be stopped until the unacceptable conditions are corrected. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading performed. 2.2 Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work. 2.3 Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the California licensed Civil Engineer or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying as-graded topography. 2.4 Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm retained to provide geotechnical services for the project. GI rev. 07/2015 2.5 Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner, who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be responsible for having qualified representatives on-site to observe and test the Contractor's work for conformance with these specifications. 2.6 Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist retained by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site grading. 2.7 Geotechnical Report shall refer to a soil report (including all addenda) which may include a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for the development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are intended to apply. 3. MATERIALS 3.1 Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in construction of fills. In general, fill materials can be classified as soil fills, soil-rock fills or rock fills, as defined below. 3.1.1 Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of material smaller than 3/4 inch in size. 3.1.2 Soil-rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 4 feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to allow for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragments or hard lumps as specified in Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material greater than 12 inches. 3.1.3 Rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet in maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined as material smaller than 3% inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall be less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantity. 3.2 Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the Consultant shall not be used in fills. 3.3 Materials used for fill, either imported or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials as defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9 GI rev. 07/2015 and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to suspect the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner the termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations. 3.4 The outer 15 feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) and a soil layer no thicker than 12 inches is track-walked onto the face for landscaping purposes. This procedure may be utilized provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner and Consultant. 3.5 Samples of soil materials to be used for fill should be tested in the laboratory by the Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and, where appropriate, shear strength, expansion, and gradation characteristics of the soil. 3.6 During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be notified immediately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition. 4. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED 4.1 Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man-made structures, and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, roots, buried logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and other projections exceeding 1 /2 inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to provide suitable fill materials. 4.2 Asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly disposed at an approved off-site facility or in an acceptable area of the project evaluated by Geocon and the property owner. Concrete fragments that are free of reinforcing steel may be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of this document. GI rev. 07/2015 4.3 After clearing and grubbing of organic matter and other unsuitable material, loose or porous soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. The depth of removal and compaction should be observed and approved by a representative of the Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used. 4.4 Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 5:1 (horizontal:vertical), or where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in accordance with the following illustration. TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL Finish Grade Ground 2 Finish Slope Surface Remove All Unsuitable Material As Recommended By Slope To Be Such That Consultant Sloughing Or Sliding Does Not Occur Varies "B" See Note - See Note 2 No Scale DETAIL NOTES: (1) Key width "B" should be a minimum of 10 feet, or sufficiently wide to permit complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the key should be graded horizontal, or inclined slightly into the natural slope. (2) The outside of the key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial material and at least 2 feet into dense formational material. Where hard rock is exposed in the bottom of the key, the depth and configuration of the key may be modified as approved by the Consultant. 4.5 After areas to receive fill have been cleared and scarified, the surface should be moisture conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted as recommended in Section 6 of these specifications. GI rev. 07/2015 5. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT 5.1 Compaction of soil or soil-rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented-steel wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be capable of compacting the soil or soil-rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the specified moisture content. 5.2 Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3. 6. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL 6.1 Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: 6.1.1 Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts. Rock materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of these specifications. 6.1.2 In general, the soil fill, shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D 1557. 6.1.3 When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant, water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is in the range specified. 6.1.4 When the moisture content of the soil fill is above the range specified by the Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the soil fill shall be aerated by the Contractor by blading/mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is within the range specified. 6.1.5 After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent. Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of the in-place dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557. Compaction shall be continuous over the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that the specified minimum relative compaction has been achieved throughout the entire fill. GI rev. 07/2015 6.1.6 Where practical, soils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 should be placed at least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture content generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the material. 6.1.7 Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over-built by at least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph. 6.1.8 As an alternative to over-building of slopes, slope faces may be back-rolled with a heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fill height intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D-8 dozer or similar equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least twice. 6.2 Soil-rock fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: 6.2.1 Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be limited to the area measured 15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper. 6.2.2 Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension may either be individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock fragments up to 10 feet in maximum dimension may be placed using similar methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading as specific cases arise and shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement. 6.2.3 For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow for passage of compaction equipment. 6.2.4 For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and 4 feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an "open-face" method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, this method should first be approved by the Consultant. GI rev. 07/2015 6.2.5 Windrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site geometry. The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet center-to-center with a 5-foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next overlying course. The minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall be 2 feet from the top of a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher windrow. 6.2.6 Rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the windrows should be continuously observed by the Consultant. 6.3 Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.1.3, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: 6.3.1 The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2 percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable subdrainage outlet facilities. The rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during construction so that a hydrostatic pressure buildup does not develop. The subdrains shall be permanently connected to controlled drainage facilities to control post-construction infiltration of water. 6.3.2 Rock fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by rock trucks traversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the currently placed lift. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating of the rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavily during placement. Watering shall consist of water trucks traversing in front of the current rock lift face and spraying water continuously during rock placement. Compaction equipment with compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a 20-ton steel vibratory roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the required compaction or deflection as recommended in Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be utilized. The number of passes to be made should be determined as described in Paragraph 6.3.3. Once a rock fill lift has been covered with soil fill, no additional rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil fill. 6.3.3 Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM D 1196, may be performed in both the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the required minimum number of passes of the compaction equipment. If performed, a minimum of three plate bearing tests should be performed in the properly compacted soil fill (minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing tests shall then be performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes and six passes of the compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes required for the rock fill shall be determined by comparing the results of the plate bearing tests for the soil fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the deflection GI rev. 07/2015 variation with number of passes. The required number of passes of the compaction equipment will be performed as necessary until the plate bearing deflections are equal to or less than that determined for the properly compacted soil fill. In no case will the required number of passes be less than two. 6.3.4 A representative of the Consultant should be present during rock fill operations to observe that the minimum number of "passes" have been obtained, that water is being properly applied and that specified procedures are being followed. The actual number of plate bearing tests will be determined by the Consultant during grading. 6.3.5 Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that, in their opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between large rocks are properly filled with smaller rock, material. In-place density testing will not be required in the rock fills. 6.3.6 To reduce the potential for "piping" of fines into the rock fill from overlying soil fill material, a 2-foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the uppermost lift of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below the rock should be determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded filter prior to the commencement of rock fill placement. 6.3.7 Rock fill placement should be continuously observed during placement by the Consultant. 7. SUBDRAINS 7.1 The geologic units on the site may have permeability characteristics and/or fracture systems that could be susceptible under certain conditions to seepage. The use of canyon subdrains may be necessary to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts associated with seepage conditions. Canyon subdrains with lengths in excess of 500 feet or extensions of existing offsite subdrains should use 8-inch-diameter pipes. Canyon subdrains less than 500 feet in length should use 6-inch-diameter pipes. GI rev. 07/2015 TYPICAL CANYON DRAIN DETAIL WOO NOES DtRISq4cULg$O A'CPEJFO*A'rED PIPE FOR LESS ThANibO.elwf INtfl1 cRAPP MSMCk1tNThA1JSX fEEt NO SCALE 7.2 Slope drains within stability fill keyways should use 4-inch-diameter (or lager) pipes. GI rev. 07/2015 TYPICAL STABILITY FILL DETAIL - 41bIS4L 11 AN- Ei 7.3 The actual subdrain locations will be evaluated in the field during the remedial grading operations. Additional drains may be necessary depending on the conditions observed and the requirements of the local regulatory agencies. Appropriate subdrain outlets should be evaluated prior to finalizing 40-scale grading plans. 7.4 Rock fill or soil-rock.fihl areas may require subdrains along their down-slope perimeters to mitigate the potential for buildup of water.from construction or landscape irrigation. The subdrains should be at least 6-inch-diameter pipes encapsulated in gravel and filter fabric. Rock fill drains should be constructed using the same requirements as canyon subdrains. GI rev. 07/2015 7.5 Prior to outletting, the final 20-foot segment of a subdrain that will not be extended during future development should consist of non-perforated drainpipe. At the non-perforated/ perforated interface, a seepage cutoff wall should be constructed on the downslope side of the pipe. TYPICAL CUT OFF WALL DETAIL S1DEV4EW? - 7.6 Subdrains that discharge into a natural drainage course or open space area should be provided with a permanent headwall structure. GI rev. 07/2015 TYPICAL HEADWALL DETAIL O71M4nVOLL 7.7 The final grading plans should show the location of the proposed subdrains. After completion of remedial excavations and subdrain installation, the project civil engineer should survey the drain locations and prepare an "as-built" map showing the drain locations. The final outlet and connection locations should be determined during grading operations. Subdrains that will be extended on adjacent projects after grading can be placed on formational material and a vertical riser should be placed at the end of the subdrain. The grading contractor should consider videoing the subdrains shortly after burial to check proper installation and functionality. The contractor is responsible for the performance of the drains. GI rev. 07/2015 S. OBSERVATION AND TESTING• 8.1 The Consultant shall be the Owner's representative to observe and perform tests during clearing, grubbing, filling, and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in vertical elevation of soil or soil-rock fill should be placed without at least one field density test being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field density test should be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill placed and compacted. 8.2 The Consultant should perform a sufficient distribution of field density tests of the compacted soil or soil-rock fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion whether the fill material is compacted as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted materials below any disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion thereof is below that specified, the particular layer or areas represented by the test shall be reworked until the specified density has been achieved. 8.3 During placement of rock fill, the Consultant should observe that the minimum number of passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant should request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on the placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture has been applied to the material. When observations indicate that a layer of rock fill or any portion thereof is below that specified, the affected layer or area shall be reworked until the rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient moisture applied. 8.4 A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be as recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed during grading. 8.5 We should observe the placement of subdrains, to check that the drainage devices have been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project specifications. 8.6 Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate: 8.6.1 Soil and Soil-Rock Fills: 8.6.1.1 Field Density Test, ASTM D 1556, Density of Soil In-Place By the Sand-Cone Method. GI rev. 07/2015 8.6.1.2 Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D 6938, Density of Soil and Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth). 8.6.1.3 Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D 1557, Moisture-Density Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using 10-Pound Hammer and 18-Inch Drop. 8.6.1.4. Expansion Index Test, ASTM D 4829, Expansion Index Test. itI'1t[']['] AYL61zi 1 9.1 During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water shall be controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. Areas subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures. 9.2 After completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the Consultant. 10. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS 10.1 Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as-built plan of the subdrain location. The project Civil Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions. 10.2 The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as-graded soil and geologic report satisfactory to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies. The as-graded report should be prepared and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial conformance with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications. GI rev. 07/2015 LIST OF REFERENCES 2016 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, based on the 2015 International Building Code, prepared by California Building Standards Commission, dated July 1, 2016. A3 Development, Conceptual Plan, 6 Lots, 1534 Magnolia Avenue, Carlsbad, California, dated August 16, 2017. ASCE 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Second Printing, April 6, 2011. Boore, D. M., and U. M Atkinson (2008), Ground-Motion Prediction for the Average Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-Damped PSA at Spectral Periods Between 0.01 and 10.0 S, Earthquake Spectra, Volume 24, Issue 1, pages 99-138, February 2008. California Department of Water Resources, Water Data Library. http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrarv. California Geological Survey, Seismic Shaking Hazards in California, Based on the USGS/CGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Assessment (PSHA) Model, 2002 (revised April 2003). 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years. httn://redirect.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/pshamap/pshamain.html Campbell, K. W., and Y. Bozorgnia, NGA Ground Motion Model for the Geometric Mean Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% Damped Linear Elastic Response Spectra for Periods Ranging from 0.01 to 10 s, Preprint of version submitted for publication in the NGA Special Volume of Earthquake Spectra, Volume 24, Issue 1, pages 139-171, February 2008. Chiou, Brian S. J., and Robert R. Youngs, A NGA Model for the Average Horizontal Component of Peak Ground Motion and Response Spectra, preprint for article to be published in NGA Special Edition for Earthauake Snectra, Spring 2008. Civil Landworks, Magnolia-Brady Preliminary Tentative Map and Grading Plan, 1534 Magnolia Avenue, Carlsbad, California, dated January 5, 2018. Geocon Incorporated, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, 1534 Magnolia Avenue, Carlsbad, California, dated October 10, 2017 (Project No. G2192-62-02). Historical Aerial Photos. http://www.historicaerials.com Kennedy, M. P., and S. S. Tan, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30'x60' Quadrangle, California, USGS Regional Map Series Map No. 3, Scale 1:100,000, 2002. Risk Engineering EZ-FR!SK, 2016. Unpublished reports and maps on file with Geocon Incorporated. United States Geological Survey computer program, US. Seismic Design Maps, httn://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmans/us/application.php. Project No. G2192-52-01 January 17, 2018 Signature of Authorized School District Official: Title: L- Date: form must be cdmpleted by the City, the applicant, and the appropriate school districts and returned to the City prior - uir. a building permit. The City will not issue any building permit without a completed school fee form. Project # & Name: DEV2018-0010, MAGNOLIA-BRADY Permit #: CBR2019-1244 Project Address: 1653 BRADY CIR Assessors Parcel #: 2052210200 Project Applicant: TIM SEAMAN (Owner Name) Residential Square Feet: New/Additions: 2,589 Second Dwelling Unit: Commercial Square Feet: New/Additions: City Certification: City of Carlsbad Building Division Date: 06/18/2019 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 Owners knowledge, and that the Owner will file an amended certification of payment and pay the additional fee if Owner requests an increase in the number of dwelling units or square footage after the building permit is issued or if the initial determination of units or square footage is found to be incorrect, and that (2) the Owner is the owner/developer of the above described project(s), or that the person executing this declaration is authorized to sign on behalf of the Owner. Carlsbad Unified School District 6225 El Camino Real Carlsbad CA 92009 Phone: (760) 331-5000 E1 Encinitas Union School District 101 South Rancho Santa Fe Rd Encinitas, CA 92024 Phone: (760) 944-4300 x1166 FM--] San Dieguito Union H.S. District 684 Requeza Dr. Encinitas, CA 92024 Phone: (760) 753-6491 Ext 5514 (By Appt. Only) San Marcos Unified Sch. District 255 Pico Ave Ste. 100 San Marcos, CA 92069 Phone: (760) 290-2649 Contact: Katherine Marcelja (By Appt.only) Vista Unified School District 1234 Arcadia Drive Vista CA 92083 Phone: (760) 726-2170 x2222 RECEIVED OCT 30 2019 CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DIVISION SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL FEE CERTIFICATION (To be completed by the school district(s)) THIS FORM INDICATES THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROJECT HAVE BEEN OR WILL BE SATISFIED. The undersigned, being duly authorized by the applicable School District, certifies that the developer, builder, or owner has satisfied the obligation for school facilities. This is to certify that the applicant listed on page 1 has paid all amounts or completed other applicable school mitigation determined by the School District. The City may issue building permits for this project. Name of School District: 6225 El. CAIVIINO REAL Phone: CARLSBAD1 CA 92009 Community & Economic Development - Building Division 1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 920081 760-602-27191 760-602-8558 fax I building@carlsbadca.gov CF, City of Carlsbad CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST B-50 Development Services Building Division 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-2719 www.carlsbadca.gov PURPOSE This checklist is intended to assist building permit applicants identify which Climate Action Plan (CAP) ordinance requirements apply to their projects. Unless none of the requirements apply, the completed checklist must be included in the building permit application. It may be necessary to supplement the completed checklist with supporting materials, calculations or certifications, to demonstrate full compliance with CAP ordinance requirements. For example, projects that propose or require a performance approach to comply with energy- related measures will need to attach to this checklist separate calculations and documentation as specified by the ordinances. 4 If an item in the checklist is deemed to be not applicable to a project, or is less than the minimum required by ordinance, an explanation must be provided to the satisfaction of the Building Official. 4 Details on CAP ordinance requirements are available on.the city's website. Application Information Project Name/Building Permit No.: Property Address!APN: , ,5 ' '('t (,( al- BP No.: uggoldt JZLL ?,-oc- - ' — ci Applicant Name/Co.: C Lo.. 44N 0 Applicant Address: Contact Phone: ¼\'1..s(gYD Contact Email: Contact information of person completing this checklist (if different than above): Name: Contact Phone: Company name/address: Contact Email: Applicant Signature: Date:I tJ\ 5-50 Page 1 of 3 Revised 04/19 City of Carlsbad Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist Use the table below to determine which sections of the Ordinance Compliance -checklist are applicable to'your project. For residential alterations and additions to existing buildings, contact the building counter for the building permit valuation. Building Permit Valuation (BPV) $ Construction Type I Complete Section(s) I Notes; 9dential :• : : . : " 1JNew construction I 1A I O Alterations: 0 exempt BPV ~: $60,000 1A 1-2 family dwellings and townhouses with attached garages O Electrical service panel upgrade 1A only Multi-family dwellings only where interior finishes are removed BPV ~: $200,000 1A and significant site work and upgrades to structural and mechanical, electrical, and/or plumbing systems are proposed Nonresidential New construction lB and 2 O Alterations 2 i.ElectricVehiclèCharainci ,-.: -- 9esidential New construction and major alterations (or electric panel upgrade)* Pjease refer to Carlsbad Ordinance CS-349 when completing this section. One and two-family residential dwelling or townhouse with attached garage: One EVSE ready parking space required . 0 Exception: 0 Multi-family residential: 0 Exception: Total Parking Spaces Proposed EVSE Spaces Capable =Ready Installed . Total Calculations: Total EVSE spaces .10 x Total parking (rounded up to nearest wholp number) EVSE Installed = Total EVSE Spaces x.50 (rounded up to nearest whole number) EVSE other- Total EVSE spaces - EVSE Installed (EVSE other may be "Capable," "Ready" or "Installed.") *Major alterations are: (1.) for one and two-family dwellings and townhouses with attached garages, alterations have a building permit valuation ~t $60,000 or include an electrical service panel upgrade; (2) for multifamily dwellings (three units or more without attached garages), alterations have a building permit valuation ~ $200,000, interior finishes are removed and significant site work and upgrades to structural and mechanical, electrical, and/or plumbing systems are proposed. ,fl Nonresidential new construction (includes hotels/motels) 0 Exception Total Parking Spaces Proposed I EVSE Spaces Capable Ready Installed Total rIriiIitinn Rfr tn thp tahip hlnw Total Number of Parking Spaces provided Number of required EV Spaces Number of required EVSE Installed Spaces 0-9 1 1 10-25 2 1 26-50 4 2 51-75 6 3 76-100 9 . 5 101-150 12 6 151-200 17 9 201 and over 1 10 percent of total 50 percent of Required EV Spaces Updated 4/12/2019 2 Page 1 of 1 STORM WATER COMPLIANCE FORM TIER I CONSTRUCTION SWPPP BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) SELECTION TABLE Erosion Control Tracking Non-Storm Water Waste Management and Materials BMPs S BMPs Sediment Control Control BMPs Management BMPs Pollution Control BMPs g — - ii a, 1;; ' . . - C .0 t .. Best Management Practice* C E . ci g L. ( LaJ , Cl) . .!Q ig (BMP) Description _3 E g >, 0 Co E 0 : D.° . OC a, a- :a 40 L CP 0 0 0 i. 2 - ... -D 0 0 C 0 - E 0 C) o .b C D i... '• -.- C ..- 0 '' C 0 > C1 0 C .- 0 .0 a, -'-' 0 ., 0 ..- o. 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 W U) U) cn o (Z ( U) > U) U) Q. U) Cl) 0 0 0 Q. > () Cl) Cl) Cl) C) U) C) CASQA Designation —4 N 00 C) ,- r') * LO CD N .— '- N N T C7J F? I? co T iLLLJJJJiJiJJJi oc CflCflU)U) Construction Activity W UJ LiJ W U)Cl)CflCflU) U) Cl) U).. Ir . .. Grading/So ilDisturbance - Trenching/Excavation - - - - - - - — — - - - - - - Stockpiling - Drilling/Boring --- — Concrete/Asphalt Sawcutting - - -- - — - - - — - - Concrete Flatwork Paving - - -- -- - — — - — - — Conduit/Pipe Installation - - - - - - - - — -- - - - - - - Stucco/Mortar Work -- --- - Waste Disposal - - — - - - — - - - — — - - - - — - - - - - — Staging/Lay Down Area - — — - - - — . - - - — - — — - Equipment Maintenance and Fueling Hazardous Substance Use/Storage --- Dewatering I Site Access Across Dirt - Other (list): I - - - - - - - - - — - - - - - — - - - - 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. PROJECT INFORMATION Site Address:_f 53 r C..fr Assessor's Parcel Number: Emergency Contact: Name: ccM Prc\ 24 Hour Phone: (M - ckb3o b1I ' Construction Threat to Storm Water Quality (Check Box) 4 MEDIUM 0 LOW REV 11/17 STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION NOTES 1: ALL NECESSARY EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS SHALL BE AVAILABLE ON SITE TO FACILITATE RAPID INSTALLATION OF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPs WHEN RAIN IS EMINENT. 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 (407.). 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)/Of . ( OWNER(S)/O ''jT NAME (SIGNATURE) DATE E-29