Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2633 BANBURY CT | 2635 BANBURY CT; ; PC2022-0007; Permit
Building Permit Finaled Plan Check Permit Print Date: 05/15/2024 Job Address: 2633 BANBURY CT, CARLSBAD, CA 92010-2888 Permit Type: BLDG-Plan Check Work Class: Residential Parcel#: 2081310800 Track#: Valuation: $54,577.60 Lot#: Occupancy Group: Project#: #of Dwelling Units: Plan#: Bedrooms: Construction Type: Bathrooms: Orig. Plan Check#: Occupant Load: Plan Check#: Code Edition: Sprinkled: Project Title: Permit No: Status: ( City of Carlsbad PC2022-0007 Closed -Finaled Applied: 01/25/2022 Issued: 09/28/2022 Fina led Close Out: 05/15/2024 Final Inspection: INSPECTOR: Description: 2633 BANBURY; NEW ATTACHED (385 SF) ADU, CONVERTING (222 SF) GARAGE CONVERSION WITH (179 SF) ADDITIONAL S ADDED TO NEW ADU Applicant: Property Owner: ANNE PARIZEAU 5304 ONTARIO ST OCEANSIDE, CA 92056-1810 (760) 201-3347 CO-OWNERS ANTHONY P AND GRIMES KELm 2633 BANBURY CT CARLSBAD, CA 92010-2888 FEE BUILDING PLAN CHECK BUILDING PLAN REVIEW -MINOR PROJECTS (LOE) BUILDING PLAN REVIEW -MINOR PROJECTS (PLN) SB1473 -GREEN BUILDING STATE STANDARDS FEE SFD & DUPLEXES STRONG MOTION -RESIDENTIAL (SMIP) SWPPP INSPECTION FEE TIER 1 -Medium BLDG SWPPP PLAN REVIEW FEE TIER 1 -Medium Total Fees: $2,554.40 Total Payments To Date: Building Division $2,554.40 Balance Due: 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad CA 92008-7314 I 442-339-2719 I 760-602-8560 f I www.carlsbadca.gov AMOUNT $755.30 $194.00 $98.00 $3.00 $1,162.00 $7.10 $271.00 $64.00 $0.00 Page 1 of 1 ( City of Carlsbad RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION B-1 Plan Check --------- Est. Value PC Deposit--------- Date --------- __ APN:V~ ,~, o e cLJ JobAddress ::Z:~33 kbvrr- CT/Project#: _________________ Lot#: ___ _ Fire Sprinklers: yes e BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF WORK: .:,,...,LL(..:-L.i..a...-"'-"i......:=;..._'--....110..u....;;;.;:;.L...;~--..:~""-=---=..:q__-==.:..-'--"-..:.;__...u...:_.....,, ___ Patio SF, ____ Garage SF New Fireplace ? Yes / No, If yes how many? __ 7.,,:Z, L-SF of affected area Is the area a conversion or change of us 0 Pool/Spa: ____ SF Additional Gas or Electrica l Features? ___________ _ D Solar: ___ KW, ___ Modules, Mounted: Roof/ Ground , Tilt: Yes / No, RMA: Yes/ No, Battery: Yes / No Panel Upgrade : Yes/ No D Reroof: -----------------------------------□ Plumblng/MechanicallElectrlcal Only: ______________________ _ D Other: ------------------------------------ Name:__,'4"uu.1A.~-J..,.,,!C:..!.,..:...=-=--:.:....:::..,... ___ _ Addr City: .:::;..i.::;=,~...io:.::;11..___ Phone· ~ !l 2.... 7;.!f. Emall:0 dMIR"fff~rcJ/\Je J-5ma,/, ClM\. DESIGN PROFESSIONAL Name: 6 f0'b,.e, t'> ..,~Ii~ I Address: _______________ _ City:. _______ State: __ Zlp: ___ _ Phone: ________________ _ Emall=----------,,....,...--..--=---- Archltect State License: _c __ l ... 1 .... & ....... B_z __ .,,, __ _ Phone:---------------.----- Email: __ t..,s:.::e:.:.re""b"'r"'ia:an"-y ... @=g,._m"'a:ai~l..:.co""m:.:.:... _______ _ CONTRACTOR BUSINESS Name: Musick Construction Inc Address: 1818 Peacock Blvd STE E City: Oceanside ~tate:~Zlp: 92056 Phone: 760-994-9699 Emall: kyle@musickinc.com State License: 923357 Bus. License: BLOS002487 -01 -2018 (Sec. 7031,S B slness and Professions Code: Any Crty or County wh,ch requ,r.s a permit to construct, airer, Improve, demolish or repair any structure, prior to Its lnuance, also requlrtn t e .ippllc.nt for such permit to flfe as antd statemtnt that he/she is lkens.d pu1"1u•nt to the prov 1,ons of the Contractor's Ucerue Law (Chaple 9, commending with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code) or that he/she Is ~mpt th refrom, and the basis for the allqed exemptlo . Any violation of Section 7031.S by an applicant for a permit sub ects the ippl cant to• civil penalty of not more than flve hundred doll.irs {$500ll 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ph: 760-602-2719 Fax: 760·602-8558 Email: _Building@carlsbadca.gov B-1 Page 1 of2 Rev. 06/18 ( OPTION A): WORKERS'COMPENSATION DECLARATION: I heorby affirm under penalty of perjury~ of the fallowing declarotions: 0 I have and will m1intain a cert,flcate of consent to stlf-lnsur for workus' compensation provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work which this permit ls ssued. JI I have and will malntaln worker's compensation, as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the ~rf mance oU~e war for which this permit Is Issued. My workers' compenmlon lnsunnce carrier and policy numb rare, Insurance Company Name: Am rU St f-Ina Polley No. WWC3580423 Expiration Date: 04/01/2023 -..:....a.:...:...:..:.:c.=.,:=-:.....:.:.:=........,....._ _____ _ □ Certificate of E emption: I certify th t In the performance of the work for which this permit Is ed, I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to be come subject to the workers' compensation Ulws ot ca1rtornli1. WARNIN.G: Fa lure to secure wor~e11 compensation coveraie ls unlawful, and sh,11 subject n employ r to criminal penal nd c vll fines up to $100,000,00, In ~ill n the to the cost of wmp nsation, d m ges ai provided for In Sect''" .. 3706 of the Labor Cod , Interest end attomey's fee.i. CONTRACTOR SIGNATURE: ~,__--+-.:..------------□AGENT DATE: 1-zfy,-z_ z ( OPTION B ): OWNER-BUILDER DECLARATION: I hereby off/rm that I am exempt from Contractor's License Law for the following reason: 1, as owner of the property or my employees with wages as th r sole tompensatlon, will do the work and the strutture is not intended or offued for sale (Se<:. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply 10 an own r of property who builds or Improves thereon, nd who does suth work h mself or throu h his own mp oyee , provided that udl lmpro ments ue not lnttf\ded or offtred for Silla. If, however, the b;lndm9 or improvement Is sold within one year of complellon, the own r-bullder will have the burden of proving thllt M did not build or mprove for the purpose of sal ). ' I, as own r of the property, am elusively contnctlns with lk:ensed contractors to construct the project (S c. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contrattor's UC!nse law does not apply to an owner of property who bu~d• or improves thereon, and contncts for sud, projects with contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law). I am exempt under Section _______ Business and Professions Cod for this reason: 1. I personally plan to provide ttl major labor and matertal for construction of the proposed property Improvement. □ Yes □ No 2. I (have/ have not) signed an appllc.1tion for a bulldlng permit for the proposed work. 3. I have contracted with the following person (firm) to provtdt the proposed construction (indude name address/ phone / conrr.ctors' license number); 4. I plan to provide portions of the war but I hav hired the following person to coordinate, uperv1se and provid the major work (Include name/ address/ phone / contractors' license number): S. I will prov d ome of the war but I have contncted (h red) the followin persons to provide the work Indicated (Include n.ime /address / phone/ type of wo<k): OWNER SJGNATURE: □AGENT DATE: _____ _ ----------------------- CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY, IF ANY: I hereby affirm that there ts a construction lending asency for the performance of tha worlt this permit Is issued {Sec. 3097 (I) CMI Code). Lender's Name: __________________ _ tender's Addreu: __________________ _ ONLY COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING SECTION FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS ONLY: Is the applicant or future bui d ng occupant requ red to submit a business p~n. acutefy haz rdous mat rials r &istratlon form orris managem nt and prevention prosnm under Sections 25505. 25533 or 25534 of the Pruley-Tanner Hai.rdous Substant! Account Act? Yes No • Is the appllc.1nt or future bulldin1 occupa11t r~u red to obtain iii perm! from the air pollution control d!strtct or atr quality managem~t district? Yes , o Is the faclllty to be constructed within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary o a school site? Yes No IF ANV OF THE ANSWERS ARE YES, A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY MAY NOT BE ISSUED UNLESS Tl-IE APPUCAN'T HAS MET OR IS ME£T1NG TH REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND TH AIR POUUTION CONTROL DISTRICT, APPLICANT CERTIFICATION: I certify that. I h ve rea.d the appl cation and 5tatl! that the above Information Is correct and that the Information on the plans 1s accurate. I agree to comply with all City ordinances and State l1w1 relating to building construction. I hereby authorrze presentativ. of the Otv or cartsbad to enter upon th above mentioned property for Inspection purpows. I AlSO AGREE TO SAVE, I OEMNIFY ANO KEEP HARMLESS ll-iE 01Y OF CAR!SBAD AGAINST AU. UABJUTIES, JUDGMElffS, COSTS AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CO EQUENCE OF TiiE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT.OSHA: "'1 OSHA permit Is requ red for el(cavatlons 011er 5'0' dllf'P and d morition or construction of structures ove.r 3 stories In he EXPIRATION; Every permit I ed by the BYildin, Official under the provisions oft COde sha. I e,cp bV llmltnton and become nuU and void If the building or work authorized by such permit 15 nQt commenced within 180 d.lys from the dite of such permit or if th bulldlne or WOflc authQrited by suc:h permit Is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is comment~ for a l)!riod of lBO days (s«tlon 106-4-nlform Butldi Code). 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 B-1 Ph : 760-602-2719 Fax: 760--602-8558 Page 2 of 2 Email: Building@caclsbadca.gov Rev. 06/18 RECORD c~9l¥bad w.o. J f; ~72 -13 DATE :f-'/"/"';J-9 NAME ~ 8JnY"-6Y" HOURS _____ _ Geotechnical • Coastal • Geologic •· Environmental MAY 2 5 2023 FOOTING TRENCH OB~V~~~~'l~v Client Name: --~---~-~_b_r_1_"_=_~ _______ Project Name: -~-J!-~ ___ ..;;.__r_iA_? __ ..... & ____ rt!_,,,,_~_, ___ _ Location/Tract: __ 2.:.__:G.:__3.:_'.=1_~~~~.,..~.6'jJ.~it~,-..6~i.c,.,"'~/~(4-:.!__~a::::·::!:~::...'~lj!....4/J'2-~J~------- Unit/Phase/Lot(s): _______________________________ _ Referenced Geotechnical Report(s): ____________________________ _ Observation Summary 81nitials ,,.s-~te ; ___ Initials ___ Date A representative of GeoSoils, Inc. observed onsite soil and footing trench conditions. Soil conditions in the trench are generally free of loose soil and debris, non-yielding and uniform, and plumb; and are in general conformance with those indicated in the geotechnical report. A representative of GeoSoils, Inc. observed and reviewed footing excavation depth/width. Footing excavations generally extend to proper depth and bearing strata, and are in general conformance with recommendations of ,the geotechnical report. A representative of GeoSoils, Inc. reviewed footing setbacks from slope face (if applicable). The setback was in general accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report. Notes to Superintendent/Foreman 1. Footing excavations should be cleaned of loose debris and thoroughly moistened just prior to placing concrete. 2. Based on expansion potential of underlying soils, presoaking of soil below slabs may be recommended. Consult the geotechnical report for presoaking recommendations. We note that clayey soils may take an extended period of time for such, and the contractor should schedule accordingly. 3. In the event of a site change subsequent to our footing observation and prior to concrete placement (i.e., heavy rain, etc.), we should be contacted to perform additional site observations and/or testing. 4. This memo does not confirm the minimum footing dimension as required by the project structural engineer's design, if different from the geotechnical report. Notes to Building Inspector Soil compaction test results, as well as depth of fill, relative compaction, bearing values, c sivity, and soil expansion index test results are contained in the As-Graded Geotechnical or Final Compactio eport p ovi t the completion of grading. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 438-3155 1446 E. Chestnut Ave. Santa Ana. CA 92701 {714) 647-0277 DATE: 02-11-2022 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK#.: CB-PC2022-0007 • lW INTERWEST A SAl'"Ebu11t COMPANY SET: I PROJ ECT ADDRESS: 2633 Banbury Court PROJECT NAME: Sterling-Remodel and Adding attached ADU □ APPLICANT □ JURIS. D 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 building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. D The check list transmitted herewith is for the applicant's information . The plans are being held at lnterwest until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. D 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 the jurisdiction at: ~ lnterwest staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. D lnterwest staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed . Person contacted: Date contacted : (by: Telephone#: ) Email: Mail Telephone Fax In Person ~ REM~S.. II A sheets to be stamped and sign By: Erich A. Kuchar, P.E. lnterwest 9320 Chesapeake Dri ve, Suite 208 ♦ San Diego, Californ ia 92123 ♦ (858) 560-1468 ♦ Fax (858) 560-1516 [DO NOT PAY -THIS IS NOT AN INVOICE] VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PREPARED BY : Erich A. Kuchar, P.E. BUILDING ADDRESS : 2633 Banbury Court BUILDING OCCUPANCY: R-3 BUILDING PORTION Remodel Adding Air Cond itioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE AREA ( Sq. Ft.) 222 179 Jurisdic tion Code cb \ 1997 UBC Buildi1ng Permit Fee iJ I 1,997 UBC PJ,m Check Fee· Type of Review: r Repetitive Fee -.. I ~I Repeats ~ ~ r Valuation Multiplier Hourly EsGil Fee ~ Reg . Mod . PLAN CHECK#.: r Structural Only ($) , 7 PFS:W Sheet 1 of 1 solidforms 9474 Kearny Villa Rd, Suite 215, San Diego, CA 92126 Evan Coles, P.E. (858) 376-7734 evan@solidformseng.com STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS Serebriany Ster•ling Residence 2633 Banbury Ct, Carlsbad, CA 92010 12-13-2021 : Project # 21-368 Table of Contents Design Criteria & Loads ......... . Gravity Analysis & Design .... . Lateral Analysis & Design ..... . Foundation Analysis & Desig PC2022-0007 2633 BANBURY CT 2633 BANBURY; NEW ATTACHED (385 SF) ADU , CONVERTING (222 SF) GARAGE CONVERSION WITH (179 SF) ADDITIONAL SF ADDED TO NEW ADU 2081310800 1/25/2022 PC2022-0007 Design Criteria Building Code: Concrete: Masonry: Mortar: Grout: Reinforcing Steel: Structural Steel: Bolting: Welding: Wood: Soil: Desig_n Loads Load 1 DL Asphalt Shingle Roof Plywood Joists Insulation Drywall Electrical/Mech./Misc. Other Total DL LL Residential Roo Total Load Load 3 solidforms engineering 2018 IBC/2019 CBC -ASCE / SEI 7-16 AC! 318-14 [fc = 2500 psi -No Special Inspection Req.'d (U.N.O.)] TMS 402-16/ACI 530-16 [Normal Wt.-ASTM C90-fm=1500 psi-Spec. Insp. Req.'d] ASTM C270 [fc = 1800 psi Type SJ ASTM C476 [fc = 2000 psi] ASTM A615 [Fy = 40 ksi For #4 Bars & Smaller/ Fy = 60 ksi For #5 Bars & Larger] AISC 360-16, 15th Edition W Shapes (I Beams): ASTM A992, High Strength, Low Alloy, Fy = 50 ksi HSS Shapes (Rect.): ASTM A500, Carbon Steel, Fy = 46 ksi HSS Shapes (Round): ASTM A500, Carbon Steel, Fy = 42 ksi Pipe Shapes: ASTM A53, Grade B, Carbon Steel, Fy = 35 ksi All other steel: ASTM A36, Fy = 36 ksi A307 / A325-N / A490-N (Single Plate Shear Conn.) E70 Series Typ. (E90 Series for A615 Grade 60 Reinforcing Bars) Shop welding to be done in an approved fabricator's shop. Field welding to have continuous Special Inspection. NDS-2018 Soil Classification (Table 1806.2): Allowable Bearing Pressure= Lateral Bearing Pressure = Active Pressure = At-rest Pressure = Coefficient of Friction = sf Load 2 4.0 DL carpet & Pad Floor 1.5 Plywood 3.5 Joists 1.5 Insulation 2.5 Drywall 1.0 Elec./Mech./Misc. 0.0 Other 14 Total DL 20 LL ·a1 Floor 34 Total Load Load 4 (SW, SP, SM, SC, GM, & GC) 1500 psf (Table 1806.2) 150 psf/ft (Table 1806.2) 30 psf/ft (Table 1610.1) 60 psf/ft (Table 1610.1) 0.25 (Table 1806.2) sf Int. Wall 4.0 DL D~all 1.5 2x4 Studs @ 16"o.c. 3.5 Misc. 1.5 Other 2.5 Total Load 1.0 0.0 Ext. Wall 1 14 DL Stucco 40 2x4 studs @ 16119.c, 54 Drywall Insulation Misc. Other Total Load Ext. Wall 2 Page 1 of 7 12/13/21 sf 5.0 1.0 1.0 7 sf 10.0 1.0 2.5 1.5 1.0 16 ... I Multiple Simple Beam LIC#: KW-06015083. Build:20.21 .11.30 Description: GRAVITY Wood Beam Design : FH-1 solidforms engineering Solid Forms Engineering Page 2 of 7 12/13/21 Project :=ne: Serebriany.ec6 (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 Calculations per ND$ 2018, IBC 2018, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 BEAM Size : Wood Species : Fb -Tension Fb -Compr Applied Loads 4x10, Sawn, Fully Unbraced Using Allowable Stress Design with ASCE 7-16 Load Combinations, Major Axis Bending Douglas Fir-Larch Wood Grade : No.2 875 psi Fe -Prll 600 psi Fv 170 psi Ebend-xx 875 psi Fe -Perp 625 psi Ft 425 psi Eminbend -xx Beam self weight calculated and added to loads Unif Load: D = 0.0140, L = 0.040 k/ft, Trib= 9.0 ft Unif Load: D = 0.0160 k/ft, Trib= 9.0 ft Unif Load: D = 0.0140, Lr = 0.020 k/ft, Trib= 15.0 ft 1300 ksi 470ksi Density 31.21 pcf Design Summary Max fb/Fb Ratio == fb : Actual : 0.884· 1 916.40 psf at 1,036.92 psi +D+L -----~ ........ 1:', ~ Fb : Allowable : Load Comb : Max fv/FvRatio == fv : Actual : Fv : Allowable : Load Comb : Max Reactions (k) Left Support Right Support 0.517 : 1 87.91 psi at 170.00 psi +D+L Q L 1.46 1.08 1.46 1.08 l.! 0.90 0.90 Wood Beam Design : RH-1 3.000 fl in Span# 1 5.240 fl in Span# 1 6.0 ft ax De ectIons 'ti. .E. l::!. Transient Downward 0.035 in Ratio 2047 LC: LOnly Transient Upward 0.000 in Ratio 9999 LC: I I Total Downward 0.096 in Ratio 750 LC: +D+0.750Lr+0.750L Total Upward Ratio 0.000 in 9999 LC: Calculations per NOS 2018, IBC 2018, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 BEAM Size : 4x8, Sawn, Fully Unbraced Using Allowable Stress Design with ASCE 7-16 Load Combinations, Major Axis Bending Wood Species : Douglas Fir-Larch Wood Grade : No.2 Fb -Tension Fb -Compr 875 psi Fe -Prll 600 psi Fv 170 psi Ebend-xx 875 psi Fe -Perp 625 psi Ft 425 psi Eminbend -xx Applied Loads Beam self weight calculated and added to loads Unif Load: D = 0.0140, Lr = 0.020 k/ft, Trib= 6.0 ft Design Summary Max fb/Fb Ratio == fb : Actual : 0.182· 1 256.23 psf at 1,406.80 psi +D+Lr Fb : Allowable : Load Comb : Max fv/FvRatio == fv : Actual : Fv : Allowable : Load Comb : Max Reactions (k) Left Support Right Support 0.111 : 1 23.53 psi at 212.50 psi +D+Lr Q L 0.22 0.22 Lr 0.30 0.30 2.500 fl in Span# 1 4.400 ft in Span# 1 .s. 'ti. l::!. ax e ect1ons Transient Downward Ratio 0.012 in 5110 LC: Lr Only Transient Upward 0.000 in Ratio 9999 LC: 1300 ksi 470ksi Density 31 .21 pcf Total Downward 0.020 in Ratio 2927 LC: +D+Lr Total Upward 0.000 in Ratio 9999 LC: Seismic Design solidforms engineering Page 3 of 7 12/13/21 Design Variables Base Shear Calculation (ASCE 7-16 Sec. 12.8 & Supplement 2) Latitude= 33.16 (12.8-2) V=C5W Cs= Sos*I/R Longitude= -117.31 Site Class= D (12.8-3) forT~TL: So1*I/(RT) Occupancy= II Where: Cs max. = forT>TL: So1*TL*l/(RT2) Table 1.5-1 (12.8-4) Seis. Category = D Table 11.6-1 & 2 I= 1.0 Tables 1-1 & 11.5-1 (12.8-5) for s, <0.6:0.0445051:e:0.01 Where: Cs min. = R= 6.5 Table 12.2·1 (12.8-6) for s,2:0.6: 0.551*1/R Ss = 0.990 Section 11.4.1 51 = 0.362 Section 11.4.1 DL Area Len. Fa= 1.200 Table 11.4-1 Material (psf) {ft2) (ft) F = V 1.938 Table 11.4-2 Load 1 14 1100 SMs = Ss*Fa = 1.188 .__ (11.4-1) Q) Q) a.> SMl = S1*Fv = 0.702 (11.4-2) a. Q) ::> ....J Ext. Wall 1 16 180 Sos = 2/3*5Ms = 0.792 (11.4-3) Int. Wall 7 100 501 = 2/3*SM1 = 0.468 (11.4-4) 1100 All other structural systems Table 12.8·2 Ct= 0.02 Table 12.8-2 1 Q) x= 0.75 Table 12.8-2 ....J Load 1 14 295 .... TL= 8 Figure 22-15 Q) Load 2 14 1360 ::: Ta= Ct*hnx = 0.182 (12.8-7) 0 Ext. Wall 1 16 210 ....J T =Ta= 0.182 Section 12.8.2 Int. Wall 7 100 1655 h = n 19.0 Section 12.8.2.1 Cs= 0.122 Section 12.8.1.1 k = 1 Section 12.8.3 Cci= 4 Table 12.2-1 /:,.a = hsx* 0.025 Table 12.12-1 Vertical Distribution of Forces & Allowable Elastic Drift (ASCE 7-16, Sec. 12.8.3 & 12,8.6) Level Wx hx h/ Wxh/ Fx Fx (psf) % P i5xe allow. Upper Level 31.5 19.0 19.0 599 5.8 5.3 64% Yes 0.750 Lower Level 55.5 9.0 9.0 500 4.8 2.9 100% Yes 0.675 87.0 1098 11 8 Level Forces (ASCE 7-16, Sec. 12.10.1.1) Level Wx IWx Fx IFx Fpx Fpx (ASD) Where: Roof 31.5 31.5 5.8 5.8 5.8 4.0 Fm1n, = 0.2ISosWx Lower Level 55.5 87.0 4.8 10.6 8.8 6.2 F max. = 0.4ISosWx 87.0 10.6 = = = Ht. (ft) 9 9 8 8 0.122 0.395 Max. 0.035 Min. Above w (kips) (kips) 15.4 13.0 3.2 31.5 4.1 19.0 13.0 + 13.4 3.2 + 2.8 55.5 Where: i5xe allow. = /:,.a *I/Cci (Section 12.8.6) p : Redundancy Check Required if story shear Is > 35% of base shear (Section 12.3.4.2) Wind Design solidforms engineering Page 4 of 7 12/13/21 Wind Pressures for MWFRS ASCE 7-16 -Envelope Procdedure Method 2 Design Variables Occupancy = II lw1nd = 1.00 Basic Wind Speed (mph) = 110 Exposure Category = B Topographic Kzt = 1 Width (ft) = 10.0 Length (ft) = 30.0 Roof Pitch 4 : 12 Eave Ht. (ft) = 9.0 Ridge Ht. (ft) = 10.7 Mean Roof Ht (ft) = 9.8 A = 1 8 = 18.4 AKztI = 1.0 2a (ft)= 6.0 Min. Design Load (psf) = 16.0 Table 1.5-1 Tables 1.5·2 Figure 26.5-lA Section 26. 7 .3 Section 26.8.2 Transverse Longitudinal Figure 28.6-1 Figure 28.6-1 Note 9 Section 28.'l.4 Lonaltuchlnal Ps = AKztIPs3o (28.6-1) Note: (-) Horiz. Pressures shall be zero. Horiz. Press. (psf) A B C D Transverse 25.8 -7.3 17.2 -4.1 Longitudinal 19.2 -10.0 12.7 -5.9 tttttttttt 1~ ,~,~f~t~,-,t~t~, -----Wldltt, W • Wind iw-ur•• ere in p1f •a-wind.,,.._ la"'"' lhan zaro (O) ..... O for dNign. Transverse Governing Design Force: Transverse Tributary Area: Transverse Governing Design Pressure: 11tttttt1t+,tttttttt+ V.r11cel 5.1 kips 320 ft2 16.O psf Wind preM,... -In p1f Longitudinal Governing Design Force: Longitudinal Tributary Area: Longitudinal Governing Design Pressure: 1.6 kips 98 tt2 16.7 psf E -23.1 -23.1 Vert. Press. Overhan s F G H ECH GCH -15.7 -16.0 -12.0 -32.3 -25.3 -13.1 -16.0 -10.1 -32.3 -25.3 Transverse Zone Ps Area Force (k) Total (k) A 25.8 54 1.4 B 0.0 10 0.0 5.1 C 17.2 216 3.7 D 0.0 40 0 Min. 16.0 320 5.1 5.1 E -23.1 30 -0.7 F -15.7 30 -0.5 -4.5 G -16.0 120 -1.9 H -12.0 120 -1.4 Min. -16.0 300 -4.8 -4.8 Longitudinal Zone Ps Area Force (k) Total (k) A 19.2 60 1.2 B C 12.7 38 0.5 1.6 D Min. 16.0 98 1.6 1.6 E -23.1 90 -2.1 F -13.1 90 G -16.0 60 -1.2 -1.0 -4.8 H -10.1 60 -0.6 Min. -16.0 300 -4.8 -4.8 solidforms engineering Lateral Design Cl C: .E :, ~ QJ > 0 Lower Level E-W Line: Seis. Area (fr) = 200 Shear Line Len.Tot. (ft) = 11 Wind Relative to Ridge = I Perpendicular Wind Lengths: LH = Vert.Trib Height (ft) = L., = Dist to Adj Gridline (ft) = Shear Above: Line = -- V=• (Seis/Wind) = 01.>rrlb. of Load = vxAbv.Trib. (Seis/Wind) = Strongwall capacity = gwalls = t Load Typ Shear Load (lbs) = Wall DLoist. (psf) = Resis. Dloist. (plf) = Resis. Dl.p0;01 (lbs) = DLPoint Dist {ft) = Momentor (lb-ft) = 1Momentp_es1st. (lb-ft) = Uplift (lbs) = Uplift:,.bove = Upli~et. = Left Holdown = Right Holdown = Seis. Area (fr) = Shear Line Len.rot. (ft) = Wind Relative to Ridge = Wind Lengths: LH = Vert.Trib Height (ft) = L., = Dist to Adj Gridline (ft) = Shear Above: Line = VxAbove (Seis/Wind) = 01i>rr1b. of Load = VxAbv.Trib. (Seis/Wind) = Left Right I 9.0 I 25.0 . -- 2480 2S60 1632 8640 70 86 1562 8554 1562 8554 Per Plan Per Plan E-W 380 30 Line: Parallel Left Right I 9.0 I 19.0 - -- 1 p = 1.0 Sos= 0.792 Plate Ht. (ft) = 8 LwallTot. (ft) = 1.5 -i• ,l -- W2 0 2 p = 1.0 Sos= 0.792 Plate Ht. (ft) = 9 Lwan Tot. (ft) = - -- ~ USED FOR LOADS ONL V - 0 - -- Shearwall Seis. Wind Strength Design Seis. Force: F x = 2, 9 psf Maximum Wind Pressure: Px = 16.0 psf Vx5e1s,( ASDJ = Area/2*Fx*p*0.7 = 204 lbs 1080 lbs lbs V xWlnd = LH*Lw/2*Px *0.6 = IVx (Above) = VxTotal = 204 1080 lbs V.,/L = 136 720 plf -0 Use Shearwall Type= with LTP<I clips @ 48 "o.c. 59% for entire length of grid line 1 W3 W4 Ws w 6 - 0 0 Strength Design Seis. Force: Fx = Maximum Wind Pressure: Px = VxSeis.( ASD) = Area/2*Fx*p*0.7 = xWlnd = LH*Lw/2*Px *0.6 = V I Vx (Above) = 0 Seis. 5.3 699 0 Wind VxTotal = 699 psf 16.7 psf lbs 855 lbs lbs 855 lbs -0 0 'Resisting Moment DL Is reduced by 0.6-0.14*Sos for Sels.(12.14.3.1.3) & 0.6 for Wind (2.4.1) Page 5 of 7 12/13/21 Lateral Design Lower Level E-W Line: Seis. Area (ff) = 600 Shear Line Len.Tot. (ft) = 9 Wind Relative to Ridge = Parallel Wind Lengths: Left Right LH = Vert.Trib Height (ft) = 9.0 _____ ....., Lw = Dist to Adj Gridline (ft) = 18.0 Shear Above: Line = Upper Level 2 VxAbove (Seis/Wind) = 699 855 0/o-rnb. of Load = VxAbv.Trib. (Seis/Wind) = Wood Shearwalls = 100% 699 855 solidforms engineering 2 p = 1.0 Sos= 0.792 Plate Ht. (ft) = 8 Lwan Tot. (ft) = 3.5 Shearwall Strength Design Seis. Force: F, = Maximum Wind Pressure: Px = Vx5•~-IASDJ = Area/2*F,*p*0.7 = V,wind = LH*Lw/2*P, *0.6 = r.v, (Above) = Vx Total = 3.5: 1 = (h/2L)* Vx/L = Use Shearwall Type= Seis. Wind 2.9 16.7 612 810 699 8!;5 1311 1665 428 476 © with LTP4 clips @ 32 "o.c. for entire length of grid line 2 psf psf lbs lbs lbs lbs plf 74% Page 6 of 7 12/13/21 ------+--------------------~-----------< Length = Load Type = f---="'-='------'----'-'-"-=-l------'---+---'----+------'----+----'-------;-----'-----, Shear Load (lbs) = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wall DL0I,t. (psf) = Resis. Dlo;s1. {plf) = , 280 Resis. Dl.p0Int (lbs) = DLPoint Dist (ft) = f---~~------1------'---,,...--+---.---~-+------"--+-~~....------;-"'~--.--~""-' Momento-r (lb-ft) = 10488 13320 1222 1499 1Momen~esist. (lb-ft} = t-----+----+----+----+----<t-----+-----+----+---+------1----+---Uplift (lbs) = 3089 3940 3089 3940 UpliftAbove = Upli~et. = Left Holdown = Right Holdown = Per Plan Per Plan UeP.!r Level E-W Line: Seis. Area (ff) = 440 Shear Line Len.Tot. (ft) = 10 Wind Lengths: Left Right LH = Vert.Trib Height (ft}= ----9_,0---1 lw = Dist to Adj Gridline (ft} = 18.0 Shear Above: Line = VxAoove (Seis/Wind} = 3 p = LO Sos = 0.792 Plate Ht. (ft) = 9 Lwau Tot. (ft) = Strength Design Seis. Force: F x = Maximum Wind Pressure: P, = v~.(ASD) = Area/2*F,*p*0.7 = V,wind = LH*lw/2*P.*0.6 = r.v. (Above) = V,Total = 0/o-rnb. of Load = ,..,.,. _______ _,_,~---........ ...,,.,---, vxAbv.Trib. (Seis/Wind) = USED FOR LOADS ONLY 1Resistlng Moment DL is reduced by 0.6-0.14*5.,. for Sels.(12.14.3.1.3) & 0.6 for Wind (2.4.1) Seis. Wind 5.3 psf 16.7 psf 809 lbs 810 lbs lbs 809 810 lbs 0 solidforms engineering Page 7 of7 12/1 3/21 Lateral Design °' C .E :::, ~ QJ 6 • Lower Level 800 s.s Line: Wind Relative to Ridge = Parallel Wind Lengths: Left Right LH = Vert.Trib Height (ft) = 8.0 -----Lw = Dist to Adj Gridline (ft) = 34.0 Shear Above: Line = Upper Level 3 Vx>bove (Seis/Wind) = 809 810 0/orrib. of Load = 100% ~ __ v_xA~w_.T~rlb_.(Seis/Wi_nd~) __ 8_09 810 Length= Load Type = Shear Load (lbs) = Wall DL01st. (psf) = Resis. DLDlst. (plf) = Resis. Dli,0101 (lbs) = DLPolnt Dist (ft) = Momentor (lb-ft) = 13003 17359 1Momenlilesist. (lb-ft) = 342 420 Uplift (lbs) = 2813 3764 Upli~bove = UpliftNet. = 2813 3764 Left Holdown = Per Plan Right Holdown = Per Plan 3 p = 1.0 Sos = 0.792 Plate Ht. (ft) = 8 Lwa!I Tot. (ft) = S W2 0 0 Shearwall Seis. Wind Strength Design Seis. Force: F x = 2.9 psf Maximum Wind Pressure: Px = 16.7 psf VxSe1s.cASDl = Area/2*F,*p*0.7 = 816 lbs Vxwlnd = ~*Lw/2*Px *0.6 = 1360 lbs r.v. (Above) = 809 810 lbs Vx Total = 1625 2170 lbs VJL= 325 434 plf Use Shearwall Type= @ with LTP4 clips @ 16 "o.c. 79% for entire length of grid line 3 w 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Foundation Design Distributed Loads q = _500 psf (Note: All loads are psf and lengths are ft) Ext. Wall*Ht. + Int. Wall*Ht. + R1*Span/2 + R2*Span/2 + F1*Span/2 + F2*Span/2= Total Load + 7 * + 34 * 12.Q /2 + 54 * /2+ * /2+ * /2= 332 plf Gov. Load: D+Lr = 332 plf Use: 12 "Wide x 12 "Deep w/ ( 2 ) #4 Bars T&B Loaded :W!M City of car\sbad MA'< 18 1013 BU\LO\NG O\VIS\ON RECORD COPY LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS 2633 BANBURY COURf, CARLSBAD SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 92010 APN 208-131-08-0 MR. JONY SEREBR~NY 2633 BANBURY COURT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92010 W.O. 8578-A-SC MAY 11 , 2023 • Geotechnical • Geo og·c • Co 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 93 -0915 • May 11 , 2023 • E ·ronmei11taJ .geosollsioc.com W.O. 8578-A-SC Mr. Tony Serebriany 2633 Banbury Court Carlsbad, California 9201 O Subject: Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Additional Improvements, 2633 Banbury Court, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California 92010, APN 208-131-08-00 Dear Mr. Serebriany: In accordance with your request, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has performed soil sampling and laboratory testing and analyses of representative soil samples obtained from the site by a representative from this office. The purpose of our testing was to evaluate soil parameters for the planned additional construction of an attached one-story additional dwelling unit (ADU) within the rear-yard area (northeast side) of an existing single-family residential property located at 2633 Banbury Court, in the City of Carlsbad, California (see Figure 1, Site Location Map). GSl's scope of services included a review of the referenced documents (see Appendix A, References), subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, engineering and geologic analyses, and preparation of this report. This report has been prepared for the sole purpose of providing a limited description of soil conditions onsite, and engineering parameters derived from testing of site soil samples in our laboratory, and does not constitute a geotechnical evaluation of the overall stability, or suitability of the site, as that would have been performed prior to original site development. Based on plans by Anne The Architect (ATA, 2021) and Solid Forms Engineering (SFE, 2021), the proposed one-story attached ADU structure will be located within the relatively flat-lying rear yard area of the property and within a portion (222 square feet) of the existing attached garage. It is anticipated that the proposed ADU will be a one-story structure supported by a conventional concrete slab-on-grade foundation system. Sewage disposal is anticipated to be tied into the existing regional system. PREVIOUS WORK Based on our review, the site is part of a master planned development referred to as "Tamarack Pointe". Mass grading of the site and the surrounding development was performed in during the periods of December 21 1984 through July 17, 1985, with observation and testing services provided by Shepardson Engineering Associates (SEA, 1985). In SEA (1985), the subject site is referred to as Lot 8 of Tamarack Pointe Units 1 & 2-Carlsbad TCT #84-14, Units 1 & 2 (SEA, 1985). SEA (1985) indicates the lot is an engineered fill lot, with a pad elevation of 164.3 feet and has "low" expansion potential. Base Map: TOPO! Copyright 2003 National Geographic, USGS Encinitas Quadrangle, California --San Diego Co., 7.5 Minute, map version 19974. EL CAMINO REAL • I ... • • Base Map: Map Data © 2023 Google, © Google Earth i - _ .. SITE i: TAMERACK AVE . - NOTTO SCALE w.o. 8578-A-SC • N This Map Is copyrighted by Google. II is unlawful to copy or reproduce ell or any part thereof, whether for personal use of resale, without permission. All rights reserved SITE LOCATION MAP May 2023 Figure 1 FIELD STUDIES Site-specific field studies were conducted by GSI on March 16, 2022, and consisted of reconnaissance geologic mapping, and the excavation of two (2) exploratory hand-auger excavations to a maximum depth of about 6 feet, for an evaluation of near-surface soil and geologic conditions onsite. The locations of the excavations are depicted on Figure 2 (Hand-Auger Boring Location Map). SOIL CONDITIONS General The earth materials that were observed and encountered at the subject site consisted of artificial fill. A general description of the material type is presented below. Geologic mapping (Kenny et al., 2009) indicates that the side is underlain by middle-Eocene Santiago Formation. Artificial Fill As observed, artificial fill occurs at the surface onsite, and primarily consists of layers of reddish brown and gray silty sand with gravel, silty sand, and clayey sand, that is moist to saturated and medium dense to dense in consistency. The depth of artificial fill appears to be greater than 6 feet across the addition's footprint. The artificial fill should be surficially treated as recommended herein. SEISMIC DESIGN General In the event of an upper bound (maximum probable) or credible earthquake occurring on any of the nearby major faults, strong ground shaking would occur in the subject site's general area. Potential damage to any structure(s) would likely be greatest from the vibrations and impelling force caused by the inertia of a structure's mass than from those induced by the hazards listed above. This potential would be no greater than that for other existing structures and improvements in the immediate vicinity. Seismic Shaking Parameters Based on the site conditions, the following table summarizes the evaluated site-specific design criteria obtained from the "simplified method" per ASCE 7-16, Section 12-14, and the 2022 CBC, Chapter 16 Structural Design, Section 1613, Earthquake Loads. The computer program Seismic Design Maps, provided by the California Office of Statewide Mr. Tony Serebriany 2633 Banbury Court, Carlsbad File:e :\wp21 \8500\8578a.lgi GeoSoils, C. W.O. 8578-A-SC May 11, 2023 Page3 Base Map: Anne the Architect 2022, SEREBRIANY/STERLING ADU, sheet A 1, dated 9-21 -22 GS/LEGEND /::)\_ Approximate Location of \(Y -Hand Auger Boring w.o. c. 8578-A-SC HAND-AUGER BORING LOCATION MAP Scale: unscaled May 2023 Figure 2 Health Planning and Development (OSHPD , 2023) has now been used to aid in design (https://seismicmaps.org). The short spectral response uses a period of 0.2 seconds. 2022 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS SIMPLIFIED METHOD (ASCE Section 12-14) and OSHPD (2023) VALUE PER PARAMETER SIMPLIFIED METHOD (ASCE SEC. 12-14) (see Note) Risk Category I, 11, or Ill Site Class D-Default Spectral Response -(0.2 sec), s. 0.99 g Spectral Response -0.362 g (1 sec), S, Site Coefficient, Fa 1.4 5% Damped Design Spectral Response 0.924 g Acceleration (0.2 sec), S0s PGAM -Probabilistic Vertical Ground 0.505 g Acceleration may be assumed as about 50% of these values. Seismic Design Category D NOTE: All the resulting parameters in this table may only be used for structures without seismic isolation or seismic damping systems and three stories or less in heloht. GENERAL SEISMIC PARAMETERS PARAMETER VALUE Distance to Seismic Source (Rose Canyon)<1l 6.7 mi (10.8 km)(2l Upper Bound Earthquake (Rose Canyon) Mw = 7.2 (1> I 111 -Cao, et al. (2003) 121 -Blake !2000) I Conformance to the criteria above for seismic design does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage, ground failure, or surface manifestations will not occur in the event of a large earthquake in this region. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to eliminate all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive. Cumulative effects of seismic events are not addressed in Mr. Tony Serebriany 2633 Banbury Court, Carlsbad File:e:\wp21 \8500\857Ba.lgi GeoSoils, lac. W.O. 8578-A-SC May 11, 2023 Page 5 the 2022 CBC (CBSC, 2022) and regular maintenance and repair following locally significant seismic events (i.e., Mw 5.5) will likely be necessary. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples of site earth materials in order to evaluate their physical characteristics. The resu lts of our evaluation are summarized as follows: Moisture-Density Relations The field moisture contents were determined for selected samples in the laboratory. Testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM D 2937. The field moisture content was determined as a percentage of the dry weight. The results of these tests are shown on the Hand-Auger Boring Logs (see Appendix B). Particle-Size Analysis A particle-size evaluation was performed on a representative soil sample (HA-1 @ 5-6 ft) in general accordance with ASTM D 422-63. The testing was used to evaluate the soil classification in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The results of the particle-size evaluation indicated that the soil sample evaluated is a clayey sand (SC), consisting of about 67 percent sand, and about 33 percent fines. Expansion Index Testing was performed on a representative soil sample in general accordance with ASTM D 4829. Test results and the soils expansion potential are presented in the following table: I SAMPLE LOCATION I DESCRIPTION EXPANSION INDEX I EXPANSION POTENTIAL! I HA-1 @ 3-4 ft I Silty Sand < 5 I Very Low I Atterberg Limits Testing of a representative soil sample to evaluate the liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index (P.I.) was performed in general accordance with ASTM D 4318. The test results are presented Appendix C, and in the following table. Mr. Tony Serebriany 2633 Banbury Court, Carlsbad File:e:\wp21 \8500\8578a.lgi GeoSoils lac. W.O. 8578-A-SC May 11 , 2023 Page6 SAMPLE LOCATION LIQUID LIMIT I PLASTIC LIMIT I PLASTICITY INDEX I HA-2 @ 5.0-5.5 feet 15 I 35 I 20 I Based on the relationship between Plasticity Index (P.I.) vs Liquid Limit (LL.), this soil is classified as a "Clayey Sand" (USCS symbol SC), per the uses Classification system, and is detrimentally expansive per Code. The P.I. of 20 indicates the soil tested has an Expansion Index of approximately 40, or low expansion potential. Saturated Resistivity, pH, and Soluble Sulfates, and Chlorides A representative sample of soil was tested for general soil corrosivity and soluble sulfates, and chlorides. Test results are presented in Appendix E, and the following table: SAMPLE LOCATION SATURATED SOLUBLE SOLUBLE AND DEPTH (FT) pH RESISTIVITY SULFATES CHLORIDES (ohm-cm) (% by Wt. (ppm) I HA-2, @ 2.0-2.5 I 7.7 I 1,000 I 0.021 I 280 I Corrosion Summary Laboratory testing indicates that tested samples of the onsite soils are mildly alkaline with respect to soil acidity/alkalinity, are corrosive to exposed, buried metals when saturated, present negligible ("not applicable" [or class SO) per American Concrete Institute [ACI] 318-14) sulfate exposure to concrete, and chloride exposure is somewhat elevated. Reinforced concrete mix design for foundations, slab-on-grade floors, and pavements should conform to "Exposure Classes SO, WO, and C1 " in Table 19.3.2.1 of ACI 318-14, as concrete would likely be exposed to moisture. GSI does not consult in the field of corrosion engineering. The client and project architect should agree on the level of corrosion protection required for the project and seek consultation from a qualified corrosion consultant. BEARING VALUE Based on our analysis, an allowable bearing value of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf) may be assumed for continuous footings, a minimum 12 inches wide and 18 inches deep (below lowest adjacent grade [ excluding soft soils, landscape zones, slab and underlayment thickness, etc.]), bearing on suitable, engineered fill , or approved formational soil. The allowable bearing value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional 12 inches in depth of proper embedment, or 6 inches in width, into approved Mr. Tony Serebriany 2633 Banbury Court, Carlsbad File :e:\wp21 \8500\8578a.lgi GeoSoils,I c. W.O. 8578-A-SC May 11 , 2023 Page 7 suitable bearing soil, to a maximum value of 2,500 psf. The above values may be increased by one-third when considering short duration seismic or wind loads. Total settlement may be assumed to be 1 inch. Differential settlement may be assumed as 1 inch in a 40-foot span, provided the footing bears on suitable, competent and similar earth materials. Foundations should be designed for all applicable surcharge loads and should consider the inherent corrosive coastal environment. Based on our understanding of the proposed construction, remedial grading, consisting of the removal and recompaction of near surface soils will be necessary. LATERAL PRESSURE Passive Pressure Total Lateral Resistance (TLR) for shallow foundations is provided by the friction along the footing bottoms and the passive pressure across footing faces in contact with either fill or natural soil deposits. The TLR is influenced by the depth of the footing and the cohesion (or apparent cohesion) friction coefficient of the soil material. The normal force or dead load on the footing from the overlying structure will influence the amount of frictional resistance. For sands, or predominantly sandy soils, this friction is higher than for clay or clayey/silty soils. Based on laboratory testing and analysis, as well as a review of Table 1806.2 of the 2022 CBC (CBSC, 2022), the TLR for the sandy soils on site may be taken as an equivalent fluid of 150 psf per foot (150 psf/ft) of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 1,500 psf/ft. An allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.25 may be used with the dead load forces. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. Active and At-Rest Pressure In accordance with our testing/analysis, and based on a review of Table 1610.1 of the 2022 CBC (CBSC, 2022), for drained conditions, active earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 45 psf per foot of depth (level backfill) and 55 psf per foot of depth (sloping backfill). At-rest, earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 60 psf pe r foot of depth for level backfill , and 70 psf per foot of depth for sloping backfill. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA General Grading All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in the 2022 CBC (CBSC, 2022), and the County. When code references are not equivalent, the more stringent code should Mr. Tony Serebriany 2633 Banbury Court, Carlsbad File:e:\wp21 \8500\8578a.lgi GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 8578-A-SC May 11 , 2023 Pages be followed . During earthwork construction, all site preparation and the general grading procedures of the contractor should be observed and the fill selectively tested by a representative(s) of GSI. If unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field , they should be reviewed by this office and if warranted, modified or additional recommendations will be offered. Al l applicable requirements of local and national construction and general industry safety orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Construction Safety Act should be met. Type B soils may be assumed per Cal-OSHA guidelines for temporary excavations. GSI does not consult in the area of safety engineering . The contractor is responsible for the safety of construction workers onsite. Remedial Grading In order to provide for the uniform support of the ADU foundation, the complete removal/recompaction of any unsuitable soi l should be performed , to provide a minimum 1-foot thick cap of compacted fill outside of the current foundation footprint. Removal/recompaction should be completed for a minimum lateral distance of at least 5 feet beyond the building footprint. Prior to fill placement, the exposed removal/undercut bottom should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted to a depth of at least 6 to 8 inches. Processed in-place soils, and engineered fill should be brought to at least optimum moisture content, placed in thin 6-to 8-inch lifts, and mechanically compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard per ASTM D 1557. This option will result in the building foundation and floor slab being supported uniformly by compacted fill, and should lower the potential for shallow perched groundwater to occur. Recompaction may result in soil shrinkage (resulting from densification) and an import soil may be needed. Any import should be compatible for the native site soil (i.e., very low expansive). If remedial grading is not performed, then the footing will need to extend completely through the loose surficial soil (about 1 foot below existing grades, total), and the slab will need to be designed as a structural slab, spanning between the footings, and not relying on the soil for support. Should complete removal and recompaction of unsuitable formation not occur, conventional concrete slabs would be subject to an elevated potential for settlement and subsequent distress. Foundations Current laboratory testing on one sample indicates that the onsite soils exhibit expansion index values of less than 21 . However, Atterberg limits testing indicates some on site soils are low expansive (P.I. of 20). As such, these soils do not appear to meet the criteria of detrimentally expansive soils as defined in Section 1803.5.3 of the 2022 CBC. From a geotechnical viewpoint, foundation construction should minimally conform to the following: Mr. Tony Serebriany 2633 Banbury Court, Carlsbad File:e:\wp21 \8500\8578a.lgl GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 8578-A-SC May 11 , 2023 Page 9 1. Exterior and interior footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches be low the lowest adjacent grade, or embedded at least 18 inches into suitable bearing material, whichever is deeper. Footing widths should be per Code. Isolated pad footings should be 24 inches square, by 24 inches deep, and embedded at least 18 inches into suitable bearing soil, whichever is deeper. 2. All footings should be reinforced with four No. 4 reinforcing bars, two placed near the top and two placed near the bottom of the footing. Isolated pad footing reinforcement should be per the structural engineer. 3. Interior and exterior column footings should be tied together via grade beams in at least one direction. The grade beam should be at least 12 inches square in cross section, and should be provided with a minimum of two No.4 reinforcing bars atthe top, and two No.4 reinforcing bars at the bottom of the grade beam. The base of the reinforced grade beam should be at the same elevation as the adjoining footings . 4. A minimum concrete slab-on-grade thickness of 5 inches is recommended. 5. Concrete slabs should be reinforced with a minimum of No. 3 reinforcement bars placed at 18 inches on center, in two horizontally perpendicular directions (i.e., long axis and short axis). 6. All slab reinforcement should be supported to ensure proper mid-slab height positioning during placement of the concrete. "Hooking" of reinforcement is not an acceptable method of positioning. 7. Slab subgrade pre-soaking is recommended for these soil conditions. Slab subgrade should be pre-wetted to at least the soils' optimum moisture content, to a depth of 18 inches, prior to the placement of the underlayment sand and vapor retarder. 8. New foundations should maintain a minimum 7-foot horizontal distance between the base of the footing and any adjacent descending slope, and minimally comply with the guidelines per the 2022 CBC (CBSC , 2022). This may result in a deeper footing than per plan. Floor Slabs GSI has evaluated the potential for vapor or water transmission through the concrete floor slabs, in light of typical floor coverings, improvements, and use. Please note that slab moisture emission rates range from about 2 to 27 lbs/24 hours/1 ,000 square feet from a typical slab (Kanare , 2005), while floor covering manufacturers generally recommend about 3 lbs/24 hours as an upper limit. The recommendations in this section are not intended to preclude the transmission of water or vapor through the foundation or slabs. Mr. Tony Serebriany W.O. 8578-A-SC 2633 Banbury Court, Carlsbad May 11 , 2023 File:e:\wp21 \8500\8578a.lgi GeoSoik, lac. Page 10 Foundation systems and slabs shall not allow water or water vapor to enter into the structure so as to cause damage to another building component or to limit the installation of the type of flooring materials typically used for the particular application (State of California, 2023). These recommendations may be exceeded or supplemented by a water "proofing" specialist, project architect, or structural consultant. Thus, the client will need to evaluate the following in light of a cost vs . benefit analysis (owner expectations and repairs/replacement), along with disclosure to all interested/affected parties. It should also be noted that vapor transmission will occur in new slab-on-grade floors as a result of chemical reactions taking place within the curing concrete. Vapor transmission through concrete floor slabs as a result of concrete curing has the potential to adversely affect sensitive floor coverings depending on the thickness of the concrete floor slab and the duration of time between the placement of concrete, and the floor covering. It is possible that a slab moisture sealant may be needed prior to the placement of sensitive floor coverings if a thick slab-on-grade floor is used and the time frame between concrete and floor covering placement is relatively short. Considering the E.I. test results presented herein, and known soil conditions in the region, the anticipated typical water vapor transmission rates , floor coverings, and improvements (to be chosen by the Client and/or project architect) that can tolerate vapor transmission rates without significant distress, the following alternatives are provided: • Non-vehicular concrete slab-on-grade floors should be thicker than 5 inches thick. • Concrete slab underlayment should consist of a 15-mil vapor retarder, or equivalent, with all laps sealed per the 2022 CBC and the manufacturer's recommendation. The vapor retarder should comply with the ASTM E 1745 -Class A criteria, and be installed in accordance with American Concrete Institute (ACI) 302.1 R-04 and ASTM E 1643. An example of a vapor retarder product that complies with ASTM E 1745 -Class A criteria is Stego Industries, LLC's Stego Wrap. • The 15-mil vapor retarder (ASTM E 1745 -Class A) should be installed per the recommendations of the manufacturer, including~penetrations (i.e., pipe, ducting, re bar, etc.). • Concrete slabs should be underlain by 2 inches of clean sand (SE > 30) above a 15-mil vapor retarder (ASTM E-17 45 -Class A, per Engineering Bulletin 119 [Kanare, 2005]) installed per the recommendations of the manufacturer, including all penetrations (i.e., pipe, ducting, rebar, etc.). The manufacturer should provide instructions for lap sealing, including minimum width of lap, method of sealing, and either supply or specify suitable products for lap sealing (ASTM E 1745), and per code. ACI 302.1 R-04 (2004) states, "If a cushion or sand layer is desired between the vapor retarder and the slab, care must be taken to protect the sand layer from taking on· additional water from a source such as rain, curing, cutting, or cleaning . Mr. Tony Serebriany 2633 Banbury Court, Carlsbad File:e:\wp21 \8500\8578a.lgi GeoSoils,lnc. W.O. 8578-A-SC May 11 , 2023 Page 11 Wet cushion or sand layer has been directly linked in the past to significant lengthening of time required for a slab to reach an acceptable level of dryness for floor covering applications." Therefore, additional observation and testing will be necessary for the cushion or sand layer for moisture content, and relatively uniform thicknesses, prior to the placement of concrete. • The vapor retarder should be underlain by a capillary break consisting of at least 2 inches of clean sand (SE 30 , or greater). The vapor retarder should be sealed to provide a continuous retarder under the entire slab, as discussed above. • Concrete should have a maximum water/cement ratio of 0.50. This does not supercede Table 19.3.1.1 of the ACI (2014a) for corrosion or other corrosive requirements (such as coastal, location, etc.). Site soils are classified as SO, WO, and C1 per ACI (2014a). Additional concrete mix design recommendations should be provided by the structural consultant or waterproofing specialist. Concrete finishing and workablity should be addressed by the structural consultant and a waterproofing specialist. • Where slab water/cement ratios are as indicated herein, or admixtures used, the structural consultant should also make changes to the concrete in the grade beams ana footings in kind, so that the concrete used in the foundation and slabs are designed and treated for more uniform moisture protection. • The owner(s) should be specifically advised which areas are suitable for tile flooring, vinyl flooring , or other types of water/vapor-sensitive flooring and which are not suitable. In all planned floor areas, flooring shall be installed per the manufacturer's recommendations. • Additional recommendations regarding water or vapor transmission should be provided by the architect/structural engineer/slab or foundation designer and should be consistent with the specified floor coverings indicated by the architect. Regardless of the mitigation, some limited moisture/moisture vapor transmission through the slab should be anticipated. Construction crews may require special training for installation of certain product(s), as well as concrete finishing techniques. The use of specialized product(s) should be approved by the slab designer and water-proofing consultant. A technical representative of the flooring contractor should review the slab and moisture retarder plans and provide comment prior to the construction of the foundations or improvements. The vapor retarder contractor should have representatives onsite during the initial installation. PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS Current laboratory testing indicates that some onsite soils meet the criteria of detrimentally expansive soils as defined in Section 1803.5.2 of the 2013 CBC. Foundations underlain Mr. Tony Serebriany 2633 Banbury Court, Carlsbad File:e:\wp21\8500\8578a.lgi GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 8578-A-SC May 11 , 2023 Page 12 by expansive soils require specific design to mitigate expansive soil effects as required in Sections 1808.6.1 or 1808.6.2 of the 2013 CBC. 1. Specific slab subgrade pre-soaking is recommended forthese soil conditions. Prior ;{ to the placement of underlayment sand and vapor retarder, GSI recommends that the slab subgrade materials be moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content to a minimum depth of 12 inches for very low to low expansive soil conditions. Slab subgrade pre-soaking should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant within 72 hours of the placement of the underlayment sand and vapor retarder. 2. Reinforced concrete mix design should conform to "Exposure Class C1" in Table 4.2.1 of ACI 318-11 since concrete would likely be exposed to moisture. Stiffened Slabs All foundations supported by expansive soils (as defined per Section 1803.5.3 of the 2013 CBC), shall be in compliance with Section 1808.6 of the 2013 CBC (CBSC, 2013), and the findings of this report. For a typical slab designed with interior ribs, or stiffeners, the slab should be at least 4 ½ inches thick, and as determined by the structural engineer. The ribs should be provided in both transverse and longitudinal directions. The interior rib spacing and depth should be provided by the project structural engineer. The perimeter beams, however, should be embedded at least 24 inches for soils with high expansion potential (should they exist at the conclusion of grading), and in consideration of the building type. The embedment depth should be measured downward from the lowest adjacent grade surface to the bottom of the beam. Structural Mat Foundations -Design/Construction The design of mat foundations should incorporate the vertical modulus of subgrade reaction. This value is a unit value for a 1-foot square footing and should be reduced in accordance with the following equation when used with the design of larger foundations. This is assumes that the bearing soils will consist of engineered fills with an average relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory (ASTM D 1557), overlying dense formational earth materials. K =K -[B+. 1]2 R s 2B where: Ks = unit subgrade modulus KR = reduced subgrade modulus B = foundation width (in feet) Mr. Tony Serebriany . 2633 Banbury Court, Carlsbad Flle:e:\wp21 \8500\8578a.lgi GeoSoils, I c. W.O. 8578-A-SC May 11 , 2023 Page 13 The modulus of subgrade reaction {K8) and effective plasticity index (Pl) to be used in mat foundation design for various expansive soil conditions are presented in the following table: LOW EXPANSION MEDIUM EXPANSION HIGH EXPANSION CE.I. = 0-50) CE.I. = 51-90) CE.I.= 91-130) K., = 100 Pei/inch Pl < 15 K., = 85 PCi/inch Pl = 25 K., = 70 PCi/inch Pl = 35 Reinforcement bar sizing and spacing for mat slab foundations should be provided by the structural engineer. Mat slabs may be uniform thickness foundations (UTF) or may incorporate the use of edge footings for moisture cut-off barriers as recommended herein for post-tension foundations. Edge footings should be a minimum of 6 inches thick. The bottom of the edge footing should be designed to resist tension, using reinforcement per the structural engineer. The need and arrangement of interior grade beams (stiffening beams) will be in accordance with the structural consultant's recommendations. The recommendations for a mat type of foundation assume that the soils below the slab are compacted fill overlying dense, unweathered formational earth materials. The parameters herein are to mitigate the effects of expansive soils and should be modified to mitigate the effects of the total and differential settlements reported earlier in this report. GSI recommends that the slab subgrade materials be moisture conditioned per recommendations presented in the previous section on general foundation construction. In order to mitigate the effects from post-development perched water and to impede water vapor transmission, structural mats, shall be in accordance with Table 4.2.1 of the ACI (2011) per the 2013 CBC (CBSC, 2013), for low permeability concrete (i.e., a maximum water-cement ratio of 0.50). Recommendations for slab underlayment and soil moisture transmission considerations are presented in a later section of this report. Nuisance cracking may be lessened by the addition of engineered reinforcing fibers in the concrete and careful control of water/cement ratios. For below grade structures (garages, etc.) epoxy-coated reinforcing bars should be considered and are dependent on the structural consultant's waterproofing and corrosion specialists' recommendations. Post-Tension Slab Foundations Post-tension (PT) slab foundation may also be used to support structures overlying expansive soils. PT slab foundations should be designed in accordance with 2013 CBC (CBSC, 2013), the criteria for the expansive soil conditions prevalent onsite, and per the PTI Method (3rd Edition). Mr. Tony Serebriany 2633 Banbury Court, Carlsbad Flle :e:\wp21\8500\8578a.lgi GeeSoils, Inc. W.O. 8578-A-SC May 11 , 2023 Page 14 The following table presents foundation design parameters for post-tensioned slab foundations relative to a specific range of soil expansion potential in accordance with the 2013 CBC and the PTI Method (3rd Edition). Correction Factor in Integration 20 inches/year Depth to Constant Soil Suction 7 feet or overexcavation depth to bedrock Constant Soil Suction (pf) 3.6 Moisture Velocity 0.7 inches/month Plasticity Index (P.1.)* 15-45 * The effective plasticity index should be evaluated for the upper 7 to 15 feet of earth materials. Based on the above, the recommended soil support parameters are tabulated below: POST-TENSION FOUNDATION DESIGN EXPANSION POTENTIAL DESIGN PARAMETER<3l VERY LOW TO LOW MEDIUM HIGH em center lift 9.0 feet 8.7 feet 8.5 feet em edge lift 5.2 feet 4.5 feet 4.0 feet y m center lift 0.4 inches 0.50 inches 0.66 inches Ym edge lift 0.7 inch 1.3 inch 1.7 inch Bearing Value <11 1,000 psf <11 1,000 psf Pl 1,000 psf <11 Lateral Pressure 250 psf 175 psf 150 psf Subgrade Modulus (k) 100 pci/inch 85 pci/inch 70 pci/inch Minimum Perimeter 12inches 18inches 24inches Footing Embedment 121 111 Internal bearing values within the perimeter of the post-tension slab may be increased to 2,000 psf for a minimum embedment of 12 inches, then by 20 percent for each additional foot of embedment to a maximum of 2,500 psf. <2l As measured below the lowest adjacent compacted subgrade surface (not Including slab underlayment layer thickness). !3! Post-tension slab design should also be evaluated with respect to the potential differential settlements provided in this report. Note: The use of ooen bottomed raised olanters adiacent to foundations will reauire more onerous desian oarameters. The parameters are considered minimums and may not be adequate to represent all expansive soils/drainage conditions such as adverse drainage and/or improper landscaping and maintenance. The above parameters are applicable provided the structure has positive drainage that is maintained away from the structure. In addition, no trees with significant root systems are to be planted within 15 feet of the perimeter of Mr. Tony Serebriany 2633 Banbury Court, Carlsbad File:e:\wp21 \8500\8578a.lgi GeoSoils,lnc. W.O. 8578-A-SC May 11 , 2023 Page 15 foundations. Therefore, it is important that information regarding drainage, site maintenance, trees, settlements, and effects of expansive soils be passed on to future owners. The values tabulated above may not be appropriate to account for possible differential settlement of the slab due to other factors, such as excessive settlements. If a stiffer slab is desired, alternative Post-Tensioning Institute ([PTI] third edition) parameters may be recommended. GSI recommends that the slab subgrade materials be moisture conditioned per recommendations presented in the previous section regarding general foundation construction. Post-Tensioned Foundations Post-tension foundations may be used to mitigate the damaging effects of expansive soils on the planned residential foundations and slab-on-grade floors. The post-tension foundation designer may elect to exceed these minimal recommendations to increase slab stiffness performance. Post-tension (PT) design may be either ribbed or mat-type. The latter is also referred to as uniform thickness foundation (UTF). The use of a UTF is an alternative to the traditional ribbed-type. The UTF offers a reduction in grade beams. That is to say a UTE typically uses a single perimeter grade beam and possible "shovel" footings, but has a thicker slab than the ribbed-type. The information and recommendations presented in this section are not meant to supercede design by a registered structural engineer or civil engineer qualified to perform post-tensioned design. Post-tensioned foundations should be designed using sound engineering practice and be in accordance with local and 2013 CBC requirements. Upon request, GSI can provide additional data/consultation regarding soil parameters as related to post-tensioned foundation design. From a soil expansion/shrinkage standpoint, a common contributing factor to distress of structures using post-tensioned slabs is a "dishing" or "arching" of the slabs. This is caused by the fluctuation of moisture content in the soils below the perimeter of the slab primarily due to onsite and offsite irrigation practices, climatic and seasonal changes, and the presence of expansive soils. When the soil environment surrounding the exterior of the slab has a higher moisture content than the area beneath the slab, moisture tends to migrate inward, underneath the slab edges to a distance beyond the slab edges referred to as the moisture variation distance. When this migration of water occurs, the volume of the soils beneath the slab edges expands and causes the slab edges to lift in response. This is referred to as an edge-lift condition. Conversely, when the outside soil environment is drier, the moisture transmission regime is reversed and the soils underneath the slab edges lose their moisture and shrink. This process leads to dropping of the slab at the edges, which leads to what is commonly referred to as the center lift condition. A well-designed, post-tensioned slab having sufficient stiffness and rigidity provides a resistance to excessive bending that results from non-uniform swelling and shrinking slab Mr. Tony Serebriany 2633 Banbury Court, Carlsbad File:e:\wp21 \8500\8578a.lgl GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 8578-A-SC May 11 , 2023 Page 16 subgrade soils, particularly within the moisture variation distance, near the slab edges. Other mitigation techniques typically used in conjunction with post-tensioned slabs consist of a combination of specific soil pre-saturation and the construction of a perimeter "cut-off" wall grade beam. Soil pre-saturation consists of moisture conditioning the slab subgrade soils prior to the post-tension slab construction. This effectively reduces soil moisture migration from the area located outside the building toward the soils underlying the post-tension slab. Perimeter cut-off walls are thickened edges of the concrete slab that impedes both outward and inward soil moisture migration. Retaining Walls General Cantilevered and restrained masonry retaining walls should be designed and constructed in accordance with the standard of practice and the soil parameters presented herein. The design parameters provided in this report assume that either very low expansive soils (typically Class 2 permeable filter material or Class 3 aggregate base) or native onsite materials with an expansion index less than 21 and a plasticity index less than 15 are used to backfill any retaining wall. The type of backfill (i.e., select or native), should be specified by the wall designer, and clearly shown on the plans. Building walls, below grade, should be water-proofed. As noted , the foundation system for the proposed retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the soil parameters provided herein. Footings should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade (excluding landscape or compressible layer, 6 to 20 inches) and should be 24 inches in width. Planned retaining wall footings may need to be deepened where loose surficial soils are present, or to provide for the recommended setback of at least 7 feet to the slope face. All retaining walls should be provided with subdrainage to mitigate the potential for the buildup of hydrostatic pressures. For additional mitigation, consideration should be given to applying a water- proof membrane to the back of all retaining structures. The use of a waterstop should be considered for all concrete and masonry joints. Any plans for engineered walls shall be reviewed by this office prior to construction. Recommendations for specialty walls (i.e., crib, earthstone, geogrid, etc.) can be provided upon request, and would be based on site specific conditions. Seismic Surcharge For engineered retaining walls, and if required, GSI recommends that the walls be evaluated for a seismic surcharge, in general accordance with 2022 CBC requirements. The site walls in this category should maintain an overturning Factor-of-Safety (FOS) of approximately 1.25 when the seismic surcharge (increment), is applied. For restrained walls, the seismic surcharge should be applied as a uniform surcharge load from the bottom of the footing (excluding shear keys) to the top of the backfill at the heel of the wall footing. This seismic surcharge pressure (seismic increment) may be taken as 16H where "H" for retained walls is the dimension previously noted as the height of the backfill Mr. Tony Serebriany 2633 Banbury Court, Carlsbad Flle:e:\wp21 \8500\8578a.lgi GeoSoils, I c. W.O. 8578-A-SC May 11, 2023 Page 17 measured from the bottom of the footing to daylight above the heel of the wall footing. The resultant force should be applied at a distance 0.6 H up from the bottom of the footing. For the evaluation of the seismic surcharge, the bearing pressure may exceed the static value by one-third , considering the transient nature of this surcharge. For cantilevered walls the pressure should be an inverted triangular distribution using 16H. Reference for the seismic surcharge for Seismic Design Category "D" is Section 1803.5 of the 2022 CBC. Please hate this is for local wall stability only. Landscape Maintenance Only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided. Over-watering the landscape areas will adversely affect existing and proposed site improvements. We would recommend that any proposed open-bottom planters adjacent to proposed structures be eliminated for a minimum distance of 1 O feet. As an alternative, closed-bottom type planters could be used. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter, could be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork. If planters are constructed adjacent to structures, the sides and bottom of the planter should be provided with a moisture retarder to prevent penetration of irrigation water into the subgrade. Provisions should be made to drain the excess irrigation water from the planters without saturating the subgrade below or adjacent to the planters. Consideration should be given to the type of vegetation chosen and their potential effect upon surface improvements (i.e., some trees will have an effect on concrete flatwork with their extensive root systems). From a geotechnical standpoint leaching is not recommended for establishing landscaping. If the surface soils are processed for the purpose of adding amendments, they should be recompacted to 90 percent minimum relative compaction. Subsurface and Surface Water Subsurface and surface water are generally not significantly anticipated to affect site development, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are properly incorporated into final design and construction and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions along zones of contrasting permeabilities may not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation , poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities, and should be anticipated. Should perched groundwater conditions develop, this office could assess the affected area(s) and provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater conditions. Groundwater conditions may change with the introduction of irrigation, rainfall, or other factors. Based on the available data, the proposed pool does not appear to require a subdrain. Planting Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of all earth materials. Over-watering should be avoided as it can adversely affect site improvements, and cause Mr. Tony Serebriany 2633 Banbury Court, Carlsbad File:e:\wp21 \8500\8578a.lgi GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 8578-A-SC May 11 , 2023 Page 18 perched groundwater conditions. Plants selected for landscaping should be light weight, deep rooted types that require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate. Using plants other than those recommended above will increase the potential for perched water, staining, mold, etc., to develop. A rodent control program to prevent burrowing should be implemented. These recommendations regarding plant type, irrigation practices, and rodent control should be provided to all interested/affected parties. Drainage Adequate lot surface drainage is a very important factor in reducing the likelihood of adverse performance offoundations and hardscape. Surface drainage should be sufficient to prevent ponding of water anywhere on the property, and especially near structures. Lot surface drainage should be carefully taken into consideration during landscaping. Therefore, care should be taken that future landscaping or construction activities do not create adverse drainage conditions. Positive site drainage within the property should be provided and maintained at al I times. Water should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond or seep into the ground. In general, the area within 5 feet around a structure should slope away from the structure. We recommend that unpaved lawn and landscape areas have a minimum gradient of 1 percent sloping away from structures, and whenever possible, should be above adjacent paved areas. Consideration should be given to avoiding construction of planters adjacent to structures. Site drainage should be directed toward the street or other approved area(s). Downspouts or drainage devices should outlet a minimum of 5 feet from structures or into a subsurface drainage system. Areas of seepage may develop due to irrigation or heavy rainfall, and should be anticipated. Minimizing irrigation will lessen th is potential. If areas of seepage develop, recommendations for minimizing this effect could be provided upon request. Tile Flooring Tile flooring can crack, reflecting cracks in the concrete slab below the tile, although small cracks in a conventional slab may not be significant. Therefore, the designer should consider additional steel reinforcement for concrete slabs-on-grade where tile wi ll be placed. The tile installer should consider installation methods that reduce possible cracking of the tile such as slipsheets. Slipsheets or a vinyl crack isolation membrane (approved by the Tile Council of America/Ceramic Tile Institute) are recommended between tile and concrete slabs on grade. Site Improvements Recommendations for exterior concrete flatwork design and construction can be provided upon request. If in the future, any additional improvements (e.g., pools, spas, etc.) are planned for the site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and construction of said improvements are recommended to be provided at that time. This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, grading of the site, or Mr. Tony Serebriany 2633 Banbury Court, Carlsbad File:e:\wp21 \8500\8578a.lgi W.O. 8578-A-SC May 11 , 2023 Page 19 trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed . This includes any grading, utility trench, and retaining wall backfills. Footing Trench Excavation All footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm subsequent to trenching and prior to concrete form and reinforcement placement. The purpose of the observations is to verify that the excavations are made into the recommended bearing material and to the minimum widths and depths recommended for construction . If loose or compressible materials are exposed within the footing excavation, a deeper footing or removal and recompaction of the subgrade materials would be recommended at that time. In general, deepened footings beyond the minimum depths shown on the plans will likely be recommended, and should be anticipated . The Client may want to consider having a representative of GSI onsite at the start of foundation trenching to evaluate the depth to competent bearing soils and provide recommendations for footing embedment to the contractor performing the work. Footing trench spoil and any excess soils generated from utility trench excavations should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent, if not removed from the site. Trenching Considering the nature of the onsite soils, it should be anticipated that caving or sloughing could be a factor in subsurface excavations and trenching. Shoring or excavating the trench walls at the angle of repose (typically 25 to 45 degrees) may be necessary and should be anticipated. All excavations should be observed by one of our representatives and minimally conform to Cal-OSHA and local safety codes. Utility Trench Backfill 1. All interior utility trench backfill should be brought to at least 2 percent above optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. As an alternative for shallow (12-to 18-inch) under-slab trenches, sand having a sand equivalent value of 30, or greater, may be used and jetted or flooded into place. Observation, probing, and testing should be provided to verify the desired results. 2. Exterior trenches adjacent to, and within, areas extending below a 1 :1 plane projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing, and all trenches beneath hardscape features and in slopes, should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Sand backfill, unless excavated from the trench, should not be used in these backfill areas. Compaction testing and observations, along with probing, should be accomplished to verify the desired results. Mr. Tony Serebriany 2633 Banbury Court, Carlsbad File:e:\wp21\8500\8578a.lgi GeoSoils, I c. W.O. 8578-A-SC May 11 , 2023 Page 20 3. All trench excavations should conform to Cal-OSHA and local safety codes. 4. Utilities crossing grade beams, perimeter beams, or footings should either pass below the footing or grade beam utilizing a hardened collar or foam spacer, or pass through the footing or grade beam in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING We recommend that observation and testing be performed by GSI at each of the following construction stages: • During grading/recertification. • During significant excavation (i.e., higher than 4 feet). • During placement of subdrains or other subdrainage devices, prior to placing fill and/or backfill. • After excavation of building footings, retaining wall footings, and free standing walls footings, prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. • Prior to pouring any slabs or flatwork, after presoaking/presaturation of building pads and other flatwork subgrade, before the placement of concrete, reinforcing steel, capillary break (i.e., sand, pea-gravel, etc.), or vapor retarders (i.e., Stego Wrap , Husky Guard, etc.). • During retaining wall subdrain installation, prior to backfill placement. • During placement of backfill for area drain, interior plumbing, utility line trenches, and retaining wall backfil l. • During slope construction/repair. • When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction operations, subsequent to the issuance of this report. • When any improvements, such as flatwork, spas, pools, walls, etc., are constructed. • A report of geotechnical observation and testing should be provided at the conclusion of each of the above stages, in order to provide concise and clear documentation of site work, and/or to comply with code requirements. Mr. Tony Serebriany 2633 Banbury Court, Carlsbad File:e:\wp21 \8500\8578a.lgi GeoSoila, C. W.O. 8578-A-SC May 11 , 2023 Page 21 PLAN REVIEW Final project plans (grading, precise grading, foundation, retaining wall, landscaping, etc.), should be reviewed by this office prior to construction, so that construction is in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of this report. Based on our review, supplemental recommendations orfurther geotechnical studies may be warranted. OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS The design civil engineer, structural engineer, architect, landscape architect, wall designer, etc., should review the recommendations provided herein, incorporate those recommendations into all their respective plans, and by explicit reference, make this report part of their project plans. This report presents minimum design criteria for the design of slabs, foundations and other elements possibly applicable to the project. These criteria should not be considered as substitutes for actual designs by the structural engineer/designer. The structural engineer/designer should analyze actual soil-structure interaction and consider, as needed , bearing, expansive soil influence, and strength, stiffness and deflections in the various slab, foundation, and other elements in order to develop appropriate, design-specific details. As conditions dictate, it is possible that other influences will also have to be considered. The structural engineer/designer should consider all applicable codes and authoritative sources where needed. If analyses by the structural engineer/designer result in less critical details than are provided herein as minimums, the minimums presented herein should be adopted. It is considered likely that some, more restrictive details will be required . If the structural engineer/designer has any questions or requires further assistance, they should not hesitate to call or otherwise transmit their requests to GSI. In order to mitigate potential distress, the foundation and/or improvement's designer should confirm to GSI and the governing agency, in writing, that the proposed foundations and/or improvements can tolerate the amount of differential settlement and/or expansion characteristics and design criteria specified herein. Mr. Tony Serebriany 2633 Banbury Court, Carlsbad File:e:\wp21 \8500\8578a.lgi GeoSoUs, Inc. W.O. 8578-A-SC May 11 , 2023 Page 22 LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the project site and used for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review, engineering analyses, and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations presented herein are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty is express or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. This report has been prepared for the purpose of providing soil design parameters derived from testing of a soil sample received at our laboratory, and does not represent an evaluation of the overall stability, suitability, or performance of the property for the proposed development. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. Mr. Tony Serebriany 2633 Banbury Court, Carlsbad File:e :\wp21 \8500\857Ba.lgi GeoSoila,lnc. W.O. 8578-A-SC May 11 , 2023 Page 23 The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact any of the undersigned . Respectfully submitt GeoSoils, Inc. n~ P. Franklin ~.t: ineering Geologist, CEG 1340 Geotechnical Engineer, GE 2057 DRE/SJC/JPF/sh Attachments: Distribution : Mr. Tony Serebriany Appendix A -References Appendix B -Hand-Auger Boring Logs Appendix C -Laboratory Data Appendix D -Seismicity Data Appendix E -General Earthwork, Grading Guidelines, and Preliminary Criteria (1) Addressee (PDF via email) 2633 Banbury Court, Carlsbad File:e:\wp21\8500\8578a.lgi GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 8578-A-SC May 11, 2023 Page 24 -----------------------------~- APPENDIX A REFERENCES GeoSoils, c. APPENDIX A REFERENCES American Concrete Institute, 2014a, Building code requirements tor structural concrete (ACI 318-14), and commentary (ACI 318R-14): reported by ACI Committee 318, dated September. __ , 2014b, Building code requirements tor concrete thin shells (ACI 318.2-14), and commentary (ACI 318.2R-14), dated September. __ , 2004, Guide for concrete floor and slab construction: reported by ACI Committee 302; Designation ACI 302.1 R-04, dated March 23. Anne the Architect, 2021, Serebrainy/Sterling ADU, 2633 Banbury Court, CA 92010, dated September 21. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 1998, Standard practice tor installation of water vapor retarder used in contact with earth or granular fill under concrete slabs, Designation : E 1643-98 (Reapproved 2005). __ , 1997, Standard specification for plastic water vapor retarders used in contact with soil or granular fill under concrete slabs, Designation: E 1745-97 (Reapproved 2004). American Society of Civil Engineers, 2018a, Supplement 1 to Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-16), first printing, dated December 13. __ , 2018b, Errata for Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria tor Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-1 6), by ASCE, dated July 9. __ , 2017, Minimum design loads and associated criteria and other structures, ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-16, published online June 19. __ , 2016, Minimum design loads tor buildings and other structures, ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-16. Blake, Thomas F., 2000, EQFAULT, A computer program tor the estimation of peak horizontal acceleration from 3-D fault sources; Windows 95/98 version. Building News, 1995, CAL-OSHA, State of California, Construction Safety Orders, Title 8, Chapter 4, Subchapter 4, amended October 1. California Building Standards Commission , 2022, California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2, based on the 2021 International Building Code, effective January 1, 2023. GeoSoila,lnc. California Geological Survey, 2018 , Earthquake fault zones, a guide for government agencies, property owners/developers, and geoscience practitioners for assessing fault rupture hazards in California, CGS Special Publication 42. California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), 2022, Seismic design maps, https://seismicmaps.org/. Cao , T., Bryant, W.A., Rowshandel, B., Branum, D., and Willis, C.J., 2003, The revised 2002 California probalistic seismic hazard maps, dated June, http://www.conversation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/psha/fault_parameters/pdf/documents /2002 ca hazardmaps.pdf Kanare, H.M., 2005, Concrete floors and moisture, Engineering Bulletin 119, Portland Cement Association . Kennedy, M.P ., and Tan, SS., 2008, Geologic map of the San Diego 30' by 60' quadrangle, California, regional geologic map series, scale 1: 100,000, California Geologic Survey Map No. 3. Kennedy, M.P., S.S. Tan, K.R. Bovard , R.M. Alvarez, M.J. Watson, and C.I. Gutierrez., 2007, Geologic map of the Oceanside 30 x 60 quadrangle and adjacent areas, California, , regional geologic map series, scale 1 : 100,000, California Geologic Survey Map No . 2. Shepard son Engineering Associates, 1985, Final Report of Observation and Compaction Testing Tamarack Pointe Subdivision , Unit 1, 2, and 3, Carlsbad, California, dated September 19. Solidforms Engineering, 2021 , Serebrainy Sterling Residence, 2633 Banbury Court, CA 92010, dated December 13. Sowers and Sowers, 1979, Unified soil classification system (After U. S. Waterways Experiment Station and ASTM 02487-667) in Introductory soil mechanics, New York. State of California, 2023, Civil Code, Sections 895 et seq. Mr. Tony Serebriany File:e:\wp21 \8500\8578a. lgi GeoSoils, C. Appendix A Page2 APPENDIX B HAND-AUGER BORING LOGS GeoSoils, lac. ~ ·;;; 0 0 .!!!. C\J ·15 . (/)~ al ill C: II) ~[ di Q) C: 0 ii: E 0 ~ lO UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Major Divisions Highly Organic Soils C: .!!!. "' Q) Q) > -"' (.) ~ <!l ai .c > ...... (1l ·-c, :?: la~ Q) C: -"' (.) (/) Cobbles 3" Group Symbols GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH PT Typical Names Well-graded gravels and gravel- sand mixtures, little or no fines Poorly graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Silty gravels gravel-sand-silt mixtures Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures Well-graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fines Poorly graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fines Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures Inorganic silts, very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sands or silts, elastic silts Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays Organic clays of medium to high plasticity Peat, mucic, and other highly organic soils 3/4" #4 Gravel CONSISTENCY OR RELATIVE DENSITY CRITERIA Standard Penetration Test Penetration Resistance N Relative (blows/ft) Density 0 -4 Very loose 4 -10 Loose 10 -30 Medium 30 -50 Dense > 50 Very dense Standard Penetration Test Penetration Resistance N (blows/ft) <2 2 -4 4 -8 8 -15 15 -30 >30 #10 Sand Consistency Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Very Stiff Hard #40 Unconfined Compressive Strength (tons/ft2) <0.25 0.25 -.050 0.50 -1.00 1.00 -2.00 2.00 -4.00 >4.00 #200 U.S. Standard Sieve Silt or Clay Unified Soil Classification coarse I fine coarse I medium I fine MOISTURE CONDITIONS Dry Slightly Moist Moist Very Moist Wet Absence of moisture: dusty, dry to the touch Below optimum moisture content for compaction Near optimum moisture content Above optimum moisture content Visible free water; below water table BASIC LOG FORMAT: MATERIAL QUANTITY trace 0 -5% few 5 -10 % little 10-25 % some 25 -45 % OTHER SYMBOLS C Core Sample S SPTSample B Bulk Sample : ... : Groundwater Qp Pocket Penetrometer Group name, Group symbol, (grain size), color, moisture, consistency or relative density. Additional comments: odor, presence of roots, mica, gypsum, coarse grained particles, etc. EXAMPLE: Sand (SP), fine to medium grained, brown, moist, loose, trace silt, little fine gravel, few cobbles up to 4" in size, some hair roots and rootlets. File:Mgr: c;\SoilClassif.wpd PLATE B-1 GeoSoils, Inc. PROJECT 2633 BANBURY CT., CARLSBAD Sample B 'O E Q) ,E, -e ~ >, 2 (/) §_ "' f (/) -"' '5 (.) Q) 3 C 0 (/) Cl co ::i iii ::i SM SM SC 10 15 20 25 30 U Standard Penetration Test I Undisturbed, Ring Sample C u .9, ~ ,!1 e.., !!! ·c ::i 2 "' ~ ·5 Cl ::!!: 11 .0 20.5 ,!1 e.., C 0 ~ 2 (ll (/) BORING LOG W.O. 8578-A-SC BORING ---'-'H'-'A--'1 __ SHEET 1 OF 1 DATE EXCAVATED 3-16-23 LOGGED BY: DRE APPROX. ELEV.: __ _ SAMPLE METHOD: -'-H=an"'"'d-'-a~u=ge~r ________________ _ Material Description ARTIFICIAL FILL: @ 0', SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, reddish brown, moist becoming wet, medium dense to dense; subrounded and angular gravel. @ 1.5', SILTY SAND/CLAYEY SAND, reddish brown, wet to saturated, medium dense to dense. @4', CLAYEY SAND, gray, wet, dense. Total Depth = 6' Seepage Encountered at 1.5'. No Caving Encountered. Backfilled 3-16-23. At 10:00 am water depth at 5'1 ". At 10:45 am water depth at 4'4". , Groundwater GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE 8-2 GeoSoils, Inc. BORING LOG PROJECT: 2633 BANBURY CT., CARLSBAD W.0. 8578-A-SC BORING HA-2 SHEET 1 OF 1 DA TE EXCAVATED 3-16-23 LOGGED BY: DRE APPROX. ELEV.: SAMPLE METHOD: Hand-auger Sample C :g .9, ~ al ~ ,le, Material Description ~ E e.... C -e >, ,s ~ (I) I!! 0 :::, 'i: ~ iii ~ (I) :::, ,6 ::, iii a. .,,_ i5 u ~ ~ :5 C 0 (I) c!' ·5 al ::, ai ::, 0 ~ (I) ~ SM 15.9 ■ ARTIFICIAL FILL: SM/ " @ O', SIL TY SAND with GRAVEL, gray and red brown, moist, loose; -SC 16.9 alternating gray and red brown layers. @ 1', SILTY SAND/CLAYEY SAND, gray and red brown, moist to saturated, dense; alternating gray and red brown layers. -22.2 @4', CLAYEY SAND, gray, moist, dense. 5--SC 22.3 ~zz'z· Total Depth= 5.5' Seepage Encountered at 1.5'. No Caving Encountered. Backfilled 3-16-23. 10- 15- 20- 25- 30- ~ Standard Penetration Test ~ Groundwater I Undisturbed, Ring Sample 9 Seepage GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE 8-3 APPENDIX C LABORATORY DATA GeoSoils, Inc. Particle Size Distribution Report-ASTM C136 .S .E c:' 8 0 8 .S .S .s :i: .S ~i ,t 0 0 ~ 0 i ... -~ " ~ .r " " N "' <'l N .. 100 I I I I I I ~ ~j I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 90 I I I I I I I I I I I I -I I I I I fl\~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 80 I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I :\ I I I I I 70 I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ a:: I I I I I I I w 60 I I I :, z I I u: I I I I I I I I I !z I I I \1 I I 50 I I \ I w I I I I 0 I I I I I a:: I I I I I I I I I I I I w 40 , c.. I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I 7 30 I I I I I I I I I I I 20 I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 I I I I I I I I 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 GRAIN SIZE -mm. %+3" % Gravel % Sand % Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium I Fine Silt Clay 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 19.0 I 45.3 32.7 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? SQil D~s!;rigtiQn SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) Light Yellowish Brown Clayey Sand 0.375 100.0 #4 100.0 #10 97.0 Atterberg Limits #20 90.9 #40 78.0 PL= LL= Pl= #60 61.8 cq~ffii;i~om #100 46.5 D90= 0.79 10 Da5= 0.5794 D50= 0.2368 #200 32.7 D50= 0.1708 D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= Classification USCS= SC AASHTO= Remark§ • (no specification provided) Source of Sample: HA-I Sample Number: HA-I Depth: 5-6 Date: 4-11-23 Ii:,,~~,~ Client: Tony Serebriany Project: 2633 Banbury Ct., Carlsbad ,~7~'-/u· Proiect No: 8578-A-SC Plate Tested By: ~T~R~---------Checked By: ~T~R _________ _ W.O. 8578-A-SC Plate C-1 0.001 LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT >< w 0 z 60 50 40 ~ 30 () F= (/) ~ Q. 20 10 Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils -+---+---, .... , I / I 30 I / I I / / 40 I I I I I I I I I I / I I / I I I I I I I 50 60 LIQUID LIMIT SOIL DATA NATURAL / I I / I I 70 I I I SYMBOL SOURCE SAMPLE DEPTH WATER PLASTIC NO. CONTENT LIMIT (%) (%) • HA-2 HA-2 5.0-5.5 -15 Client: Tony Serebriany Project: 2633 Banbury Ct., Carlsbad Pro'ect No.: 8578-A-SC MH or OH 80 LIQUID LIMIT (%) 35 Tested By: ~T~R~--------Checked By: ~T~R ________ _ 90 100 110 PLASTICITY uses INDEX (%) 20 SC Plate W.O. 8578-A-SC Plate C-2 5741 Palmer Way, Carlsbad CA 92010 Phone(760)438-3155 CORROSION REPORT SUMMARY Project No: Project Name: Report Date: 8578-A-SC Tony Serebriany April 13, 2023 SAMPLE ID pH Minimum Resistivity Sulfate Content Chloride Content (H+) HA-2, 2.0-2.Sft 7.7 Sample.testing in accordance with: Remarks: (ohm/cm) (wt%) 1000 0.021 pH -CTM 643, Resistivity -CTM 643 Sulfate -CTM 417, Chloride -CTM 422 ----------------------- (mg/kg) 280 W.O. 8578-A-SC Plate C-3 APPENDIX D SEISMICITY DATA GeoSoils, Inc. *********************** * * * * * E Q F A U L T Version 3.00 * * * * * *********************** DETERMINISTIC ESTIMAT ION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS JOB NUMBER: 8578-A-SC JOB NAME: 2633 Banbury Court, Carlsbad, CA CALCULATION NAME: Test Run Analysis DATE: 03-22-2023 FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: C:\Users\Matt \OneDrive\Desktop\EQFAULTl\CGSFLTE.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.1611 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3116 SEARCH RADIUS : 62 .1 mi ATTENUATION RELATION: 8) Bo zorgnia Campbell Niazi (1999) Hor.-Soft Rock-Uncor. UNCERTAINTY (M=Media n, S=Sigma): S Number of Sigmas: 1.0 DISTANCE MEASURE: cdist SCOND: 0 Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: 1 Campbell SHR: 0 COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION FAULT-DATA FILE USED: C:\Users\Matt\OneDri ve\Desktop\EQFAULTl\CGSFLTE.DAT MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 3.0 W.O. 8578-A-SC Plate D-1 EQFAULT SUMMARY DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS Page 1 ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT APPROXIMATE ----------------------------- ABBREVIATED DISTANCE MAXIMUM PEAK EST. SITE FAULT NAME mi (km ) EARTHQUAKE SITE INTENSITY MAG. (Mw) ACCEL. g MOD.MER(. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ROSE CANYON 6.7( 10.8) 7.2 0.618 X NEWP~RT -INGLEWOOD (Offshore) 7.1( 11.4) 7.1 0.579 X CORONADO BANK 22.6( 36.3) 7.6 0.279 IX ELSINORE (TEMECULA) 22.8( 36.7) 6.8 0.156 VIII ELSINORE (JULIAN) 22.9( 36.8) 7.1 0.194 VIII ELSINORE (GLEN IVY) 33.4( 53.8) 6.8 0.097 VII SAN JOAQUIN HILLS 36.2( 58.3) 6.6 0.101 VII PALOS VERD ES 37.3( 60.1) 7.3 0.124 VII EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 42.3( 68.1) 6.5 0.056 VI SAN JACINTO-ANZA 45.4( 73.1) 7.2 0.089 VII SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VA LLEY 46.1( 74.2) 6.9 0.069 VI NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) 47.0( 75.6) 7.1 0.079 VII CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) 48 .0( 77.2) 6.7 0.067 VI SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK 50.8( 81.8) 6.6 0.048 VI WHITTIER 51.8( 83.4) 6.8 0.055 VI ELSINORE (COYOTE MOUNTAIN) 56.6( 91.1) 6.8 0.049 VI WO. 8578-A-SC Plate D-2 SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO PUENTE HILLS BLIND THRUST 59.3( 95.S)I 62 . 0 < 99. 8 ) I 6.7 7.1 0.043 0.075 VI VII ******************************************************************************* -END OF SEARCH-18 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. THE ROSE CANYON FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. IT IS ABOUT 6.7 MILES (10.8 km) AWAY. LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.6177 g W.O. 8578-A-SC Plate D-3 APPENDIX E GENERAL EARTHWORK, GRADING GUIDELINES, AND PRELIMINARY CRITERIA GeoSoiJs, Inc. GENERAL EARTHWORK, GRADING GUIDELINES, AND PRELIMINARY CRITERIA General These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for earthwork and grading as shown on the approved grading plans, including preparation of areas to be filled, placement of fill, installation of subdrains, excavations, and appurtenant structures or flatwork. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are part of these earthwork and grading guidelines and would supercedethe provisions contained hereafter in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations which could supercede these guidelines or the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. Generalized details follow this text. The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with provisions of the project plans and specifications and latest adopted Code. In the case of conflict, the most onerous provisions shall prevail. The project geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist (geotechnical consultant), and/or their representatives, should provide observation and testing services, and geotechnical consultation during the duration of the project. EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING Geotechnical Consultant Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soil engineer and engineering geologist) should be employed fo r the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for general conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report(s), the approved grading plans, and applicable grading codes and ordinances. The geotechnical consultant should provide testing and observation so that an evaluation may be made that the work is being accomplished as specified. It is the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultants and keep them apprised of anticipated work schedules and changes, so that they may schedule their personnel accordingly. All remedial removals, clean -outs, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrain installation should be observed and documented by the geotechnical consultant prior to placing any fill . It is the contractor's responsibility to notify the geotechnical consultant when such areas are ready for observation. Laboratory and Field Tests Maximum dry density tests to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with American Standard Testing Materials test method ASTM designation D-1557 . Random or representative field compaction tests should be performed in accordance with test methods ASTM desi_gnation D-1556, D-2937 or D-2922, anp D-3017, GeoSOils, Inc. at intervals of approximately ±2 feet of fill height or approximately every 1,000 cubic yards placed. These criteria would vary depending on the soil conditions and the size of the project. The location and frequency of testing would be at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Contractor's Responsibility All clearing, site preparation, and earthwork performed on the project should be conducted by the contractor, with observation by a geotechnical consultant, and staged approval by the governing agencies, as applicable. It is the contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fill, to the satisfaction of the geotechnical consultant, and to place, spread, moisture condition, mix, and compact the fill in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. The contractor should also remove all non-earth material considered unsatisfactory by the geotechnical consultant. Notwithstanding the services provided by the geotechnical consultant, it is the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in strict accordance with applicable grading guidelines, latest adopted Code or agency ordinances, geotechnical report(s), and approved grading plans. Sufficient watering apparatus and compaction equipment should be provided by the contractor with due consideration for the fill material, rate of placement, and climatic conditions. If, in the opinion of the geotechnical consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable weather, excessive oversized rock or deleterious material, insufficient support equipment, etc., are resulting in a quality of work that is not acceptable, the consultant will inform the contractor, and the contractor is expected to rectify the conditions, and if necessary, stop work until conditions are satisfactory. During construction, the contractor shall properly grade all surfaces to maintain good drainage and prevent ponding of water. The contractor shall take remedial measures to control surface water and to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. SITE PREPARATION All major vegetation, including brush , trees, thick grasses, organic debris, and other deleterious material, should be removed and disposed of off-site. These removals must be concluded prior to placing fill. In-place existing fill, soil, alluvium, colluvium, or rock materials, as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant as being unsuitable, should be removed prior to any fill placement. Depending upon the soil conditions, these materials may be reused as compacted fills. Any materials incorporated as part of the compacted fills should be approved by the geotechnical consultant. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipelines, or other structures not located prior to grading, are to be removed or treated in a manner recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Soft, dry, spongy, Mr. Tony Serebriany File:e:\wp21 \8500\8578a.lgi GeoSoila,lac. Appendix E Page2 highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition, should be overexcavated down to firm ground and approved by the geotechnical consultant before compaction and filling operations continue. Overexcavated and processed soils, which have been properly mixed and moisture conditioned, should be re-compacted to the minimum relative compaction as specified in these guidelines. Existing ground, which is determined to be satisfactory for support of the fills, should be scarified (ripped) to a minimum depth of 6 to 8 inches, or as directed by the geotechnical consultant. After the scarified ground is brought to optimum moisture content, or greater and mixed, the materials should be compacted as specified herein. If the scarified zone is greater than 6 to 8 inches in depth, it may be necessary to remove the excess and place the material in lifts restricted to about 6 to 8 inches in compacted thickness. Existing ground which is not satisfactory to support compacted fill should be overexcavated as required in the geotechnical report, or by the on-site geotechnical consultant. Scarification, disc harrowing , or other acceptable forms of mixing should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large lumps or clods, until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, mounds, or other uneven features, which would inhibit compaction as described previously. Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5: 1 (horizontal to vertical [h:v]), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench, which will act as a key, should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and should be at least 2 feet deep into firm material, and approved by the geotechnical consultant. In fill-over-cut slope conditions, the recommended minimum width of the lowest bench or key is also 15 feet, with the key founded on firm material, as designated by the geotechnical consultant. As a general rule, unless specifically recommended otherwise by the geotechnical consultant, the minimum width of fill keys should be equal to ½ the height of the slope. Standard benching is generally 4 feet (minimum) vertically, exposing firm , acceptable material. Benching may be used to remove unsuitable materials, although it is understood that the vertical height of the bench may exceed 4 feet. Pre-stripping may be considered for unsuitable materials in excess of 4 feet in thickness. All areas to receive fill , including processed areas, removal areas, and the toes of fill benches, should be observed and approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement of fill. Fills may then be properly placed and compacted until design grades (elevations) are attained . COMPACTED FILLS Any earth materials imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill provided that each material has been evaluated to be suitable by the geotechnical consultant. These materials should be free of roots, tree branches, other organic matter, Mr. Tony Serebriany File:e:\wp21\8500\8578a.lgi CeoSoils, lac. Appendix E Page 3 or other deleterious materials. All unsuitable materials should be removed from the fill as directed by the geotechnical consultant. Soils of poor gradation, undesirable expansion potential , or substandard strength characteristi cs may be designated by the consultant as unsuitable and may require blending with other soils to serve as a satisfactory fill material. Fill materials derived from benching operations should be dispersed throughout the fill area and blended with other approved material. Benching operations should not result in the benched material being placed only within a single equipment width away from the fill/bedrock contact. Oversized materials defined as rock, or other irreducible materials, with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches, should not be buried or placed in fills unless the location of materials and disposal methods are specifically approved by the geotechnical consultant. Oversized material should be taken offsite, or placed in accordance with recommendations of the geotechnical consu ltant in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. GSI anticipates that soils to be utilized as fill material for the subject project may contain some rock. Appropriately, the need for rock disposal may be necessary during grading operations on the site. From a geotechnical standpoint, the depth of any rocks, rock fills, or rock blankets, should be a sufficient distance from finish grade. This depth is generally the same as any overexcavation due to cut-fill transitions in hard rock areas, and generally facilitates the excavation of structural footings and substructures. Should deeper excavations be proposed (i.e., deepened footings, utility trenching , swimming pools, spas, etc.), the developer may consider increasing the hold-down depth of any rocky fills to be placed, as appropriate. In addition, some agencies/jurisdictions mandate a specific hold-down depth for oversize materials placed in fills. The hold-down depth, and potential to encounter oversize rock, both within fills, and occurring in cut or natural areas, would need to be disclosed to all interested/affected parties. Once approved by the governing agency, the hold-down depth for oversized rock (i.e., greater than 12 inches) in fills on this project is provided as 1 O feet, unless specified differently in the text of this report. The governing agency may require that these materials need to be deeper, crushed, or reduced to less than 12 inches in maximum dimension, at their discretion. To facilitate future trenching, rock (or oversized material), should not be placed within the hold-down depth feet from finish grade, the range offoundation excavations, future utilities, or underground construction unless specifically approved by the governing agency, the geotechnical consultant, and/or the developer's representative. If import material is required for grading , representative samples of the materials to be utilized as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory by the geotechnical consultant to eva luate it's physical properties and suitability for use onsite. Such testing should be performed three (3) days prior to importation. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, an appropriate analysis of this material should be conducted by the geotechnical consultant as soon as possible. Approved fill material shou ld be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near horizontal layers, that when compacted, should not exceed about 6 to 8 inches in thickness. The Mr. Tony Serebriany File:e:\wp21\8500\8578a.lgi GeoSoils,lac. Appendix E Page 4 geotechnical consultant may approve thick lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and blended to attain uniformity of material and moisture suitable for compaction. Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers should be aerated by scarification, or should be blended with drier material. Moisture conditioning, blending, and mixing of the fill layer should continue until the fill materials have a uniform moisture content at, or above, optimum moisture. After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture conditioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density as evaluated by ASTM test designation D 1557, or as otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and should be specifically designed for soil compaction, or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction. Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill , or portion thereof, is below the required relative compaction, or improper moisture is in evidence, the particular layer or portion shall be re-worked until the required density and/or moisture content has been attained. No additional fill shall be placed in an area until the last placed lift of fill has been tested and found to meet the density and moisture requirements, and is approved by the geotechnical consultant. In general, per the latest adopted Code, fill slopes should be designed and constructed at a gradient of 2: 1 (h :v), or flatter. Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by over- building a minimum of 3 feet horizontally, and subsequently trimming back to the design slope configuration. Testing shall be performed as the fill is elevated to evaluate compaction as the fi ll core is being developed. Special efforts may be necessary to attain the specified compaction in the fill slope zone. Final slope shaping should be performed by trimming and removing loose materials with appropriate equipment. A final evaluation of fill slope compaction should be based on observation and/or testing of the finished slope face. Where compacted fill slopes are designed steeper than 2:1 (h:v), prior approval from the governing agency, specific material types, a higher minimum relative compaction, special reinforcement, and special grading procedures will be recommended. If an alternative to over-building and cutting back the compacted fill slopes is selected, then special effort should be made to achieve the required compaction in the outer 1 O feet of each lift of fill by undertaking the following: 1. An extra piece of equipment consisting of a heavy, short-shanked sheepsfoot should be used to roll (horizontal) parallel to the slopes continuously as fill is placed. The sheepsfoot roller should also be used to roll perpendicular to the slopes, and extend out over the slope to provide adequate compaction to the face of the slope. Mr. Tony Serebriany File:e :\wp21 \8500\8578a.lgi CeoSoila, I c. Appendix E Pages 2. Loose fill should not be spilled out over the face of the slope as each lift is compacted. Any loose fill spilled over a previously completed slope face should be trimmed off or be subject to re-rolling. 3. Field compaction tests will be made in the outer (horizontal) ±2 to ±8 feet of the slope at appropriate vertical intervals, subsequent to compaction operations. 4. After completion of the slope, the slope face should be shaped with a small tractor and then re-rolled with a sheepsfoot to achieve compaction to near the slope face. Subsequent to testing to evaluate compaction, the slopes should be grid-rolled to achieve compaction to the slope face. Final testing should be used to evaluate compaction after grid rolling. 5. Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction, the contractor will be responsible to rip, water, mix, and recompact the slope material as necessary to achieve compaction. Additional testing should be performed to evaluate compaction. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdrains should be installed in approved ground in accordance with the approximate alignment and details indicated by the geotechnical consultant. Subdrain locations or materials should not be changed or modified without approval of the geotechnical consultant. The geotechnical consultant may recommend and direct changes in subdrain line, grade, and drain material in the field , pending exposed conditions. The location of constructed subdrains, especially the outlets, should be recorded/surveyed by the project civil engineer. Drainage at the subdrain outlets should be provided by the project civil engineer. EXCAVATIONS Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading by the geotechnical consultant. If directed by the geotechnical consultant, further excavations or overexcavation and refilling of cut areas should be performed, and/or remedial grading of cut slopes should be performed. When fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope should be observed by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope. The geotechnical consultant should observe all cut slopes, and should be notified by the contractor when excavation of cut slopes commence. If, during the course of grading, unforeseen adverse or potentially adverse geologic conditions are encountered, the geotechnical consultant should investigate, evaluate, and make appropriate recommendations for mitigation of these conditions. The need for cut slope buttressing or stabilizing should be based on in-grading evaluation by the geotechnical consultant, whether anticipated or not. Mr. Tony Serebriany File :e:\wp21 \8500\8578a.lgi GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix E Page 6 Unless otherwise specified in geotechnical and geological report(s), no cut slopes should be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies. Additionally, short-term stability of temporary cut slopes is the contractor's responsibility. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer and should be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. COMPLETION Observation, testing, and consultation by the geotechnical consultant should be conducted during the grading operations in order to state an opinion that all cut and fill areas are graded in accordance with the approved project specifications. After completion of grading, and after the geotechnical consultant has finished observations of the work, final reports should be submitted, and may be subject to review by the controlling governmental agencies. No further excavation or filling should be undertaken without prior notification of the geotechnical consultant or approved plans. All finished cut and fill slopes should be protected from erosion and/or be planted in accordance with the project specifications and/or as recommended by a landscape architect. Such protection and/or planning should be undertaken as soon as practical after completion of grading. PRELIMINARY OUTDOOR POOL/SPA DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS The following preliminary recommendations are provided for consideration in pool/spa design and planning. Actual recommendations should be provided by a qualified geotechnical consultant, based on site specific geotechnical conditions, including a subsurface investigation, differential settlement potential, expansive and corrosive soil potential, proximity of the proposed pool/spa to any slopes with regard to slope creep and lateral fill extension, as well as slope setbacks per Code, and geometry of the proposed improvements. Recommendations for pools/spas and/or deck flatwork underlain by expansive soils, or for areas with differential settlement greater than ¼-inch over 40 feet horizontally, will be more onerous than the preliminary recommendations presented below. The 1 :1 (h:v) influence zone of any nearby retaining wall site structures should be delineated on the project civil drawings with the pool/spa. This 1 :1 (h :v) zone is defined as a plane up from the lower-most heel of the retaining structure, to the daylight grade of the nearby building pad or slope. If pools/spas or associated pool/spa improvements are constructed within this zone, they should be re-positioned (horizontally or vertically) so that they are supported by earth materials that are outside or below this 1 :1 plane. If this is not possible given the area of the building pad, the owner should consider eliminating these improvements or allow for increased potential for lateral/vertical deformations and Mr. Tony Serebriany File:e:\wp21 \8500\8578a.lgi GeoSoils, lac. Appendix E Page7 associated distress that may render these improvements unusable in the future, unless they are periodically repaired and maintained. The conditions and recommendations presented herein should be disclosed to al l homeowners and any interested/affected parties. General 1. The equivalent fluid pressure to be used for the pool/spa design should be 60 pounds per cubic foot (pct) for pool/spa walls with level backfill, and 75 pcf for a 2:1 sloped backfill condition. In addition , backdrains should be provided behind pool/spa walls subjacent to slopes. 2. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 150 pct, to a maximum lateral earth pressure of 1,000 pounds per square foot (psf}. 3. An allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.30 may be used with the dead load forces. 4. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. 5. Where pools/spas are planned near structures, appropriate surcharge loads need to be incorporated into design and construction by the pool/spa designer. This includes, but is not limited to landscape berms, decorative walls, footings, built-in barbeques, utility poles, etc. 6. All pool/spa walls should be designed as "free standing" and be capable of supporting the water in the pool/spa without soil support. The shape of pool/spa in cross section and plan view may affect the performance of the pool, from a geotechnical standpoint. Pools and spas should also be designed in accordance with the latest adopted Code. Minimally, the bottoms of the pools/spas, should maintain a distance H/3, where H is the height of the slope (in feet), from the slope face. This distance should not be less than 7 feet, nor need not be greater than 40 feet. 7. The soil beneath the pool/spa bottom should be uniformly moist with the same stiffness throughout. If a fill/cut transition occurs beneath the pool/spa bottom, the cut portion should be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 48 inches, and replaced with compacted fill, such that there is a uniform blanket that is a minimum of 48 inches below the pool/spa shell. If very low expansive soil is used for fill, the fill should be placed at a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction, at optimum moisture conditions. This requirement should be 90 percent relative compaction at over optimum moisture if the pool/spa is constructed within or near expansive soils. The potential for grading and/or re-grading of the pool/spa bottom, and attendant potential for shoring and/or slot excavation , needs to be considered during all aspects of pool/spa planning, design, and construction. Mr. Tony Serebriany File:e:\wp21 \8500\857Ba.lgi GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix E Pages 8. If the pool/spa is founded entirely in compacted fill placed during rough grading, the deepest portion of the pool/spa should correspond with the thickest fill on the lot. 9. Hydrostatic pressure relief valves should be incorporated into the pool and spa designs. A pool/spa under-drain system is also recommended, with an appropriate outlet for discharge. 10. All fittings and pipe joints, particularly fittings in the side of the pool or spa, should be properly sealed to prevent water from leaking into the adjacent soils materials, and be fitted with slip or expandible joints between connections transecting varying soil conditions. 11 . An elastic expansion joint (flexible waterproof sealant) should be installed to prevent water from seeping into the soil at all deck joints. 12. A reinforced grade beam should be placed around skimmer inlets to provide support and mitigate cracking around the skimmer face. 13. In order to reduce unsightly cracking, deck slabs should minimally be 4 inches thick, and reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars at 18 inches on-center. All slab reinforcement should be supported to ensure proper mid-slab positioning during the placement of concrete. Wire mesh reinforcing is specifically not recommended. Deck slabs should not be tied to the pool/spa structure. Pre-moistening and/or pre-soaking of the slab subgrade is recommended, to a depth of 12 inches (optimum moisture content), or 18 inches (120 percent of the soil 's optimum moisture content, or 3 percent over optimum moisture content, whichever is greater), for very low to low, and medium expansive soils, respectively. This moisture content should be maintained in the subgrade soils during concrete placement to promote uniform curing of the concrete and minimize the development of unsightly shrinkage cracks. Slab underlayment should consist of a 1-to 2-inch leveling course of sand (S. E. > 30) and a minimum of 4 to 6 inches of Class 2 base compacted to 90 percent. Deck slabs within the H/3 zone, where H is the height of the slope (in feet), will have an increased potential for distress relative to other areas outside of the H/3 zone. If distress is undesirable, improvements, deck slabs or flatwork should not be constructed closer than H/3 or 7 feet (whichever is greater) from the slope face , in order to reduce, but not eliminate, this potential. 14. Pool/spa bottom or deck slabs should be founded entirely on competent bedrock, or properly compacted fill. Fill should be compacted to achieve a minimum 90 percent relative compaction, as discussed above. Prior to pouring concrete, subgrade soils below the pool/spa decking should be throughly watered to achieve a moisture content that is at least 2 percent above optimum moisture content, to a depth of at least 18 inches below the bottom of slabs. This moisture content should be maintained in the subgrade soils during concrete placement to promote uniform curing of the concrete and minimize the development of unsightly shrinkage cracks. Mr. Tony Serebriany Flle:e:\wp21 \8500\8578a.lgl GeoSoils, lac. Appendix E Page 9 15. In order to reduce unsightly cracking, the outer edges of pool/spa decking to be bordered by landscaping, and the edges immediately adjacent to the pool/spa, should be underlain by an 8-inch wide concrete cutoff shoulder (thickened edge) extending to a depth of at least 12 inches below the bottoms of the slabs to mitigate excessive infiltration of water under the pool/spa deck. These thickened edges should be reinforced with two No. 4 bars, one at the top and one at the bottom. Deck slabs may be minimally reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 18 inches on-center, in both directions. All slab reinforcement should be supported on chairs to ensure proper mid-slab positioning during the placement of concrete. 16. Surface and shrinkage cracking of the finish slab may be reduced if a low slump and water-cement ratio are maintained during concrete placement. Concrete utilized should have a minimum compressive strength of4,000 psi. Excessive water added to concrete prior to placement is likely to cause shrinkage cracking, and should be avoided. Some concrete shrinkage cracking, however, is unavoidable. 17. Joint and sawcut locations for the pool/spa deck should be determined by the design engineer and/or contractor. However, spacings should not exceed 6 feet on center. 18. Considering the nature of the onsite earth materials, it should be anticipated that caving or sloughing could be a factor in subsurface excavations and trenching. Shoring or excavating the trench walls/backcuts at the angle of repose (typically 25 to 45 degrees), should be anticipated. All excavations should be observed by a representative of the geotechnical consultant, including the project geologist and/or geotechnical engineer, prior to workers entering the excavation or trench, and minimally conform to Cal/OSHA ("Type C" soils may be assumed), state, and local safety codes. Should adverse conditions exist, appropriate recommendations should be offered at that time by the geotechnical consultant. GSI does not consult in the area of safety engineering and the safety of the construction crew is the responsibility of the pool/spa builder. 19. It is imperative that adequate provisions for surface drainage are incorporated by the homeowners into their overall improvement scheme. Ponding water, ground saturation and flow over slope faces, are all situations which must be avoided to enhance long term performance of the pool/spa and associated improvements, and reduce the likelihood of distress. 20. Regardless of the methods employed, once the pool/spa is filled with water, should it be emptied, there exists some potential that if emptied, significant distress may occur. Accordingly, once filled, the pool/spa should not be emptied unless evaluated by the geotechnical consultant and the pool/spa builder. 21. For pools/spas built within (all or part) of the Code setback and/or geotechnical setback, as indicated in the site geotechnical documents, special foundations are recommended to mitigate the affects of creep, lateral fill extension, expansive soils and settlement on the proposed pool/spa. Most municipalities or County reviewers Mr. Tony Serebriany File:e:\wp21 \8500\8578a.lgi GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix E Page 10 do not consider these effects in pool/spa plan approvals. As such, where pools/spas are proposed on 20 feet or more of fill, medium or highly expansive soils, or rock fill with limited "cap soils" and built within Code setbacks, or within the influence of the creep zone, or lateral fill extension, the following should be considered during design and construction: OPTION A: Shallow foundations with or without overexcavation of the pool/spa "shell," such that the pool/spa is surrounded by 5 feet of very low to low expansive soils (without irreducible particles greater that 6 inches), and the pool/spa walls closer to the slope(s) are designed to be free standing. GSI recommends a pool/spa under-drain or blanket system (see attached Typical Pool/Spa Detail). The pool/spa builders and owner in this optional construction technique should be generally satisfied with pool/spa performance under this scenario; however, some settlement, tilting, cracking, and leakage of the pool/spa is likely over the life of the project. OPTION B: Pier supported pool/spa foundations with or without overexcavation of the pool/spa shell such thatthe pool/spa is surrounded by 5 feet of very low to low expansive soils (without irreducible particles greater than 6 inches), and the pool/spa walls closer to the slope(s) are designed to be free standing. The need for a pool/spa under-drain system may be installed for leak detection purposes. Piers that support the pool/spa should be a minimum of 12 inches in diameter and at a spacing to provide vertical and lateral support of the p9ol/spa, in accordance with the pool/spa designers recommendations current applicable Codes. The pool/spa builder and owner in this second scenario construction technique should be more satisfied with pool/spa performance. This construction will reduce settlement and creep effects on the pool/spa; however, it will not eliminate these potentials, nor make the pool/spa "leak-free." 22. The temperature of the water lines for spas and pools may affect the corrosion properties of site soils, thus, a corrosion specialist should be retained to review all spa and pool plans, and provide mitigative recommendations, as warranted. Concrete mix design should be reviewed by a qualified corrosion consultant and materials engineer. 23. All pool/spa utility trenches should be compacted to 90 percent of the laboratory standard, under the full-time observation and testing of a qualified geotechnical consultant. Utility trench bottoms should be sloped away from the primary structure on the property (typically the residence). 24. Pool and spa utility lines should not cross the primary structure's utility lines (i.e., not stacked, or sharing of trenches, etc.). 25. The pool/spa or associated utilities should not intercept, interrupt, or otherwise adversely impact any area drain, roof drain, or other drainage conveyances. If it is necessary to modify, move, or disrupt existing area drains, subdrains, or tightlines, Mr. Tony Serebriany File:e:\wp21 \8500\8578a.lgi GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix E Page 11 then the design civil engineer should be consulted, and mitigative measures provided. Such measures should be further reviewed and approved by the geotechnical consultant, prior to proceeding with any further construction. 26. The geotechnical consultant should review and approve all aspects of pool/spa and flatwork design prior to construction. A design civil engineer should review all aspects of such design, including drainage and setback conditions. Prior to acceptance of the pool/spa construction, the project builder, geotechnical consultant and civil designer should evaluate the performance of the area drains and other site drainage pipes, fo llowing pool/spa construction. 27. All aspects of construction should be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical consultant, including during excavation , prior to the placement of any additional fill, prior to the placement of any reinforcement or pouring of any concrete. 28. Any changes in design or location of the pool/spa should be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical and design civil engineer prior to construction . Field adjustments should not be allowed until written approval of the proposed field changes are obtained from the geotechnical and design civil engineer. 29. Disclosure should be made to homeowners and builders, contractors, and any interested/affected parties, that pools/spas built within about 15 feet of the top of a slope, and/or H/3, where H is the height of the slope (in feet), will experience some movement or tilting. While the pool/spa shell or coping may not necessarily crack, the levelness of the pool/spa will likely tilt toward the slope, and may not be esthetically pleasing. The same is true with decking, flatwork and other improvements in this zone. 30. Failure to adhere to the above recommendations will significantly increase the potential for distress to the pool/spa, flatwork, etc. 31. Local seismicity and/or the design earthquake wi ll cause some distress to the pool/spa and decking or flatwork, possibly including total functional and economic loss. 32. The information and recommendations discussed above should be provided to any contractors and/or subcontractors, or homeowners, interested/affected parties, etc., that may perform or may be affected by such work. JOB SAFETY General At GSI, getting the job done safely is of primary concern. The following is the company's safety considerations for use by all employees on multi-employer construction sites. On-ground personnel are at highest risk of injury, and possible fatality, on grading and Mr. Tony Serebriany File:e:\wp21 \8500\857Ba.lgi GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix E Page 12 construction projects. GSI recognizes that construction activities will vary on each site, and that site safety is the prime responsibility of the contractor; however, everyone must be safety conscious and responsible at all times. To achieve our goal of avoiding accidents, cooperation between the client, the contractor, and GSI personnel must be maintained. In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of field personnel on grading and construction projects: Safety Meetings: GSI field personnel are directed to attend contractor's regularly scheduled and documented safety meetings. Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for, and are to be worn by GSI personnel, at all times, when they are working in the field. Safety Flags: Two safety flags are provided to GSI field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits. Flashing Lights: All vehicles stationary in the grading area shall use rotating or flashing amber beacons, or strobe lights, on the vehicle during all field testing. While operating a vehicle in the grading area, the emergency flasher on the vehicle shall be activated. In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not following the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office. Test Pits Location, Orientation, and Clearance The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. A primary concern should be the technician's safety. Efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractor's authorized representative, and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractor's authorized representative (supervisor, grade checker, dump man, operator, etc.) should direct excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Of paramount concern should be the soil technician's safety, and obtaining enough tests to represent the fill. Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away from oncoming traffic, whenever possible. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil pile. This necessitates the fil l be maintained in a driveable condition. Alternatively, the contractor may wish to park a piece of equipment in front of the test holes, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access. A zone of non-encroachment should be established for all test pits. No grading equipment shpuld enter this zone during the testing procedure. The zone should extend approximately 50 feet outward from the center of the test pit. This zone is established for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration, which typically decreases test results. Mr. Tony Serebriany File: e:\wp21 \8500\8578a. lgi GeoSoila,lc. Appendix E Page 13 When taking slope tests, the technician should park the vehicle directly above or below the test location. If this is not possible, a prominent flag should be placed at the top of the slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operational distance (e.g., 50 feet) away from the slope during this testing. The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location, well away from the equipment traffic pattern. The contractor should inform our personnel of all changes to haul roads, cut and fill areas or other factors that may affect site access and site safety. In the event that the technician's safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the contractor's failure to comply with any of the above, the technician is required, by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The grading contractor's representative will be contacted in an effort to affect a solution. However, in the interim , no further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill placed can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction, or removal. In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety guidelines, we request that the contractor bring this to the technician 's attention and notify this office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractor's representative and the soil technician is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety plan. Trench and Vertical Excavation It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction testing is needed. Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation or vertical cut which: 1) is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back; 2) displays any evidence of instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the trench; or 3) displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth. All trench excavations or vertical cuts in excess of 5 feet deep, which any person enters, should be shored or laid back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with Cal/OSHA and/or state and local standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any trench by being lowered or "riding down" on the equipment. If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our company policy requires that the soil technician withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The contractor's representative will be contacted in an effort to affect a solution. All backfill not tested due to safety concerns or other reasons could be subject to reprocessing and/or removal . If GSI personnel become aware of anyone working beneath an unsafe trench wall or vertical excavation, we have a legal obligation to put the contractor and owner/developer on notice to immediately correct the situation. If corrective steps are not taken, GSI then has an obligation to notify Cal/OSHA and/or the proper controlling authorities. Mr. Tony Serebriany File:e:\wp21 \8500\8578a.lgl CeoSoils,I e. Appendix E Page 14 Proposed pad grade '•, ·; . ···~.·~= Natural grade . ' . . .•..• ~ . '·.··.·· .. :.····:.··· .. ~ aterial ···.···. · • .. ·. • .,,.-:---- • ":. • ~ ..... -~ __ J_ :(<x1/,, Y>-\ ;('(0;<:t~ y-\ \ =:--,\~,Y'/\ .,,,, \ \~-(\'1/v,..\\ ;((0x1/,.. y\ \ :<(0,~'\ y-\ \Y S::: 3-to 7-foot minimum- ~ overexcavate and recompact ~\ Bedrock or per text of report ,,, \ approved native material Typical benching CUT LOT OR MATERIAL -TYPE TRANSmON Natural grade ·. . ' . . . . . · ·· .. • .. ,_,..-v 3-to 7-foot minimum• .. · .. ·, •. • • ~ \\;; overexcavate and recompact b\e. 111a~ ...,.....,.,.,.....,......,.,......-,.,,..,....~')--::. per text of report sui\~ ~~ • \ ·' • Deeper overexcavation may be Typical benching (4-foot minimum) Bedrock or approved native material recommended by the geotechnical consultant in steep cut-fill transition areas, such that the underlying topography is no steeper than 3:1 (H:V) CUT-FILL LOT (DAYLIGHT TRANSmON) TRANSITION LOT DETAILS Plate E-12 MAP VIEW NOTTO SCALE Concrete cut-ott wall SEENITT~r_S __________ j Bl Top of slope Gravity-flow, nonperforated subdrain I=== pj:,e (transverse) Toe of slope 4 2-inch-thick sand layer I 1-sieet Pool 4-inch perforated subdrain pipe (longitudinal) Coping A' 4-inch perforated subdrain pipe (transverse) Pool B' Direction of drainage CROSS SECTION VIEW Coping NOTTO SCALE SEE NOTES Pool encapsulated in 5-foot thickness of sand --- 6-inch-thick gravel layer 4-inch perforated subdrain pipe B r H NOTES: Outlet per design civil engineer Gravity-flow nonperforated subdrain pipe Sleet Coping B' Pool 2-inch-thick sand layer Vapor retarder Perforated subdrain pipe 1. 6-inch-thick, clean gravel(¾ to 1½ inch) sub-base encapsulated in Mirafi 140N or equivalent, underlain by a 15-mil vapor retarder, with 4-inch-diameter perforated pipe longitudinal connected to 4-inch-diameter perforated pipe transverse. Connect transverse pipe to 4-inch-diameter nonperforated pipe at low point and outlet or to sump pump area. 2. Pools on fills thicker than 20 feet should be constructed on deep foundations; otherwise, distress (tilting, cracking, etc.) should be expected. 3. Design does not apply to infinity-edge pools/spas. TYPICAL POOL/SPA DETAIL Plate E-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 ™EN RAIN IS EMINENT. 2. THE OWNER/CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL EROSION CONTROL DEVlCES TO WORKING ORDER TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY INSPECTOR AFTER EACH RUN-OFF PRODUCING RAINFALL. 3. THE OWNER/CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE CITY INSPECTOR DUE TO INCOMPLETE GRADING OPERATIONS OR UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES ™ICH MAY ARISE. 4. ALL REMOVABLE PROTECTIVE DEVlCES SHALL BE IN PLACE AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY WHEN THE FIVE (5) DAY RAIN PROBABILITY FORECAST EXCEEDS FORTY PECENT ( 40%). SILT AND OTHER DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED AFTER EACH RAINFALL. 5. ALL GRAVEL BAGS SHALL CONTAIN 3/4 INCH MINIMUM AGGREGATE. 6. ADEOUA TE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ANO PERIMETER PROTECTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE MEASURES MUST BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED. 7. THE CITY INSPECTOR SHALL HA VE THE AUTHORITY TO ALTER THIS PLAN DURING OR BEFORE CONSTRUCTION AS NEEDED TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE l'i1TH CITY STORM WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS. OWNER'S CERTIFICATE: I UNDERSTAND AND ACKNOl'll.EDGE THAT I MUST: (1) IMPLEMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES {BMPS) DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTI\'1TIES 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 111TH THIS CITY APPROI/ED TIER 1 CONSTRUCTION SWPPP THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF TH£ CONSTRUCTION ACTI\'1TI£S UNTIL TH£ CONSTRUCTION WORK IS COMPLETE AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. ll '? L. G \J s::ec ti- PRINT E-29 STORM WATER COMPLIANC E FORM TIER 1 CONSTRUCTI ON SWPPP BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) SELECTION TABLE Erosion Coolrol Seclimenl Control BMPs Traclcing Non-Stlnn Waler Waste Management and Materials BMPs Cootrol BMPs Management BMPs PollUllon Control BMPs C: C: .§ 0 ~ --:? .2 :g "O C ., 0 0 g' E C: " "O 0 C: "' 0 E C 0 E ~ g 'a "E 0. " 0 ::. "O ., 5 "' ., .,;; 1 ·5 c:-"' C C:" _,;; ·E ~ "'"' 0 Q" ~ -~ 0"5 g. C:., C: ~ 0 w ~ .2 Bes! Management Practice' -<I ., m 0. 0., 0 " 0 c ii ., ~ C: ~ E "' !l c,, 0 .,;; '-' ~ '-' "O "' ~ ~ ~ "' ::,; "C: (BMP) Description ➔ ~ ., (/) ·e " ., m ~] "' C: 0 ::, ~ _., 3 ,l!,., 0 'is" 0 ~-i -g~ ~~ 0"' C: C: 0 " tl E u m "' Oo "' ., "' 0"' 0 ~ C: 0 '-'" ., :g g' c ·'[ ~] 3' ., E ct: 0 N u, u ~:;:; ~-~ i 0 -" ~ ~ E1 ~[ ~:i ~g J5 -~ -" "' "O .c C: " ~ ~ ~g :§8 cO 2 UC ~o " "O 0 0 ~·e 0. 'a ·s: :a; j~ :H g 0 0 " .c .0 e Jl .s e 0 Q 0 o-o ~ 'a.a C) 3' WO vi ~ (/) '-' t.:: C) VI> (/) a. V) C: (/)ct'. 3' ,t 0.0 a. ::,; (/) ::,; (/)t) CASQA Desiglalion ➔ ..... co O> ,,, ... "' <O ..... (0 0 N ,,, ..... co 'T N .,., ... "' I I I T T I I I I I I 'T 'T I 'T I I I I I I I '-' '-' '-' u w w w w w w w w I!, I!, (/) (/) (/) "' i i i 1 1 CoostructiOn Adi 'lily w w w w (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) z z z z Groding/SoU Disturbance Trenchlna/Excavotion Stockoilina Drnlina /Borina Concrete/Asohalt Sawcuttina Concrete Flotwork Povina Conduit/Pioe Installation Stucco/Mortar Work Waste Disoosol Stooino/Lov Down Area Eouiomenl Maintenance and Fuelino Hazardous Substance Use /Storone Dewolerlno Site Access Across Dirt Other (list); Instructions: 1. Check the box lo the left of all applicable construction activity (first column) expected to occur during construction. 2. Located along the tap of the BMP Tobie Is o list of BMP's with it's corresponding California Stormwoler Quality Association (CASOA) designation number. Choose one or more BMPs )')U intend lo use during construction from the list. Check the box where the chosen activity row intersects with the BMP column. 3. Refer lo the CASOA construction handbook for informolion and detons of the chosen BMPs and how to apply them to the project. PROJECT INFORMATION Sile Address: 2633 Banbury Ct, 92010 Assessor's Parcel Number: 208 131 08 00 Emergency Contact: ~ 0 3'-C: "'" 5~ ~ C, oo NC: 0 0 :,:::. <O I 1 Nome; ____________ _ 24 Hour Phone; _________ _ Construction Threat to Storm Water Quality (Check Box) 0 MEDIUM O LOW " t; iC " "E ~ g' CC: 00 u::, co I i Page 1 of 1 REV 11/17 ' City of Carlsbad Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist STEP 2: CAP ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS Completion of this checklist will document a project's compliance with CAP ordinances, and in turn, demonstrate consistency with the applicable measures and actions of the CAP, The compliance requirements in this Step 2 apply to development projects that require a building permit. All other development projects shall implement all emissions-related mitigation measures from the General Plan Update EIR. Property Address/APN: Applicant Name/Co.: Applicant Address: Contact Phone: {J 8 00 Contact information of person completing this checklist (if different than above): Name: Company name/address: Contact Phone: Contact Email : -Use the table below to determine which sections of the Ordinance Compliance checklist are applicable to your projecl' If'\ your project includes alterations or additions to an existing building, please contact the Carlsbad Building Division for\.J assistance In estimating building permit valuation, by phone at 760-602-2719 or by email at building@carlsbadca.gov. Estimated Building Permit Valuation (BPV): $ / '7 0 1 (j (J{J i ' - □ Alterations: □ BPV < $60,000 )it-.. BPV ~ $60,000 D Electrical service panel upgrade □ BPV ~ $200,000 □ New construction □ Alterations: P-3D N/A lA and 4A 4A lA and 4A Page 3 of 7 All residential alterations 1-2 family dwellings and townhouses with attached garages only Multi-family dwellings only where Interior finishes are removed and significant site work and upgrades to structural and mechanical, electrical, and/or plumbing systems are proposed Revised D7/21 City of Carlsbad Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist STEP 1: LAND USE CONSISTENCY The first step in determining CAP consistency for discretionary development is to assess the project's consistency with the growth projections used in the development of the CAP. This section allows the city to determine a project's consistency with the land use assumptions used in the CAP. Projects found not to be consistent with the CAP's land use assumptions and that are projected to emit at or above the CAP screening threshold of 900 metric tons of CO2 equiva lent (MTCO 2e) GHG will be subject to a project-specific analysis of GHG emissions' impact on the environment in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This may result in GHG-reducing mitigation measures applied as a condition of project approval in addition to compliance with the CAP ordinance requirements identified in Step 2 of this checklist. A. Is the proposed project consistent with the existing General Plan land use and specific/master plan or zoning designations? OR, If the proposed project is not consistent with the existing land use plan and zoning designations, does the project include a land use plan and/or specific plan, master plan or zoning designation amendment that would result in an equivalent or less GHG-intensive project when compared to the existing designations? □ If ''Yes", prvceed to Step 2 of the checklist. For the second option under Question A above, provide estimated project-related GHG emissions under both existing and prf!Osed designation(s) for comparison, GHG emissions must be estimated in accordance with the City of carlsbad Guidance to Demonstrating Consistency with the Climate Action Plan. If ''No", proceed to Question B. B. CAP established a screening threshold of 900 MTCOie/year for new development projects to assist in determining consistency with the CAP. The types and sizes of typical projects listed below have been determined to correspond to the CAP screening threshold. Will the proposed land use change result in the construction of less than any one of the following? • Single-Family Housing: 50 dwelling units • Multi-Family Housing: 70dwelling units • Office: 35,000 square feet • Retail Store: 11,000 square feet • Grocery Store: 6,300 square feet • Other: If the proposed project is not one of the above types, provide a project-specific GHG emissions analysis to determine whether it is below the 900 MTC02e/year screening threshold, If ''Yes', proceed to Step 2 of the checklist. □ □ If "No", the project's GHG impact is potentially significant and must be analyzed in accordance with CEOA. Applicant must prepare a Self-developed GHG emissions reduction program In accordance with the City of Carlsbad Guidance to Demonstrating Consistency with the Climate Action Plan to demonstrate how it would offset the increase in emissions over the existing designations. The project must incorporate each of the applicable measures identified in Step 2 to mitigate cumulative GHG emissions Impacts unless the decision maker finds that a measure is infeasible in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15091. Mitigation in lieu of or in addition to the measures in Step 2 may be required, depending on the results of the project-specific GHG impact analysis. Proceed and complete a project-specific Self-developed GHG emissions reduction program and Step 2 of the Checklist. P-30 Page 2 of 7 Revised 07/21 City of Carlsbad Climate Action Plan Consistency Ch ecklist D BPV 2: $2 00,000 or additions 2: 1B,5 1,000 square feet D BPV ~ $1,000,000 18, 2B and 5 Building alterations of?: 75% existing gross floor area D 2: 2,000 sq. ft. new roof addition 28 and 5 18 also applies if BPV 2: $200,000 Please refer to c.arlsbad Ordinance No. CS-347 and the (.alifomia Green Building Standards Code {CALGreen) for more information when completing this section. A. D Residential addition or alteration~ $60,000 building permit valuation. □ N/A __________ _ See Ord. CS-347, Section 8. D Exception: Home energy score~ 7 Year Built Single-family Requirements □ Before 1978 Select one: □ Duct sealing □ Attic insulation □Cool roof ~ 1978 and later Select one: ~ghting package D Water heating package . □ Between 1978 and 1990 D 1991 and later 8. D Nonresidential• new construction or alterations~ $200,000 building permit valuation, or additions ~ 1,000 square feet. See CALGreen Appendix AS, Discussion AS.2, as amended in CS-347, Section 3. AS.203.1.1.1 D Outdoor lighting: .90 Allowed Outdoor Lighting Power AS.203.1.1.2 D Restaurant service water heating {comply with (.alifornia Energy Code Section 140.S, as amended) AS.203.1.2.1 Choose one as applicable: D .95 Energy budget D .90 Energy budget AS.211.1.** D On-site renewable energy AS.211.3** D Green power (if offered by local utility provider, 50% minimum renewable sources) AS.212.l D Elevators and escalators AS.213.1 D Steel framin P-30 Page 4 of 7 {attach certification) Multi-family Requirements D Attic insulation Select one: D Attic insulation D Duct Sealing □Cool roof Select one: □ Lighting package D Water heating package 0 N/A _________ _ 0 N/A □ N/A □ N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A Revised 07/21 City of Carlsbad Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist D N/A * lndudes hotels/motels and high-rise residential buildings ** For alterations 2: $1,000,000 BPV and affecting> 75% existing gross floor area, or alterations that add 2,000 square feet of new roof addition: comply with California Energy Code section 120.10 instead. A. D Residential new construction (for building permit applications submitted after 1/1/Z0). Refer to 2019 California Energy Code section 150,l(c) 14 for requirements. Note: if project includes installation of an electric heat pump water heater pursuant to Carlsbad ordinance CS-348, increase system size by .3kWdc if PV offset option is selected. Floor Plan ID (use additional CFA #d.u. Calculated kWdc* sheets if necessary) Total System Size: kWdc = (CFAx.572) / 1,000 + (1.15 x #d.u.) *Formula calculation where CFA = conditional floor area, #du= number of dwellings per plan type If proposed system size is less than calculated size, please explain. Exception D D D D kWdc B. D Nonresidential new construction or a Iterations 2:$1,000,000 BPV and affecting 2:75% existing floor area, or addition that Increases roof area by 2:2,000 square feet. Please refer to Carlsbad Ordinance CS-347, Section 6 when completing this section. Choose one of the following methods: 0 Gross Floor Area (GFA) Method GFA: 0 If< 10,000s.f. Enter: 5 kWdc Min. System Size: ___ kWdc 0 If 2: 10,000s.f. calculate: 15 kWdc x (GFA/10,000) ** **Round building size factor to nearest tenth, and round system size to nearest whole number. 0 Time-Dependent Valuation Method Annual TDV Energy use:*** x .80= Min. system size: ___ kWdc ***Attach calculation documentation using modeling software approved by the California Energy Commission. P-30 Page 5 of 7 Revised 07/21 , City of Carlsbad Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist ! : I . A. Residential and hotel/motel new construction Please refer to Carlsbad Ordinance CS-347 and CS-348 when completing this section. f:,r systems serving individual dwelling units choose one: ·, Heat pump water heater AND compact hot water distribution AND drain water heat recovery (low-rise residential only) D Heat pump water heater AND PV system .3 kWdc larger than required in CA Energy Code Section 120.10 (for high rise residential hotel/motel) or 150.l(c) 14 (for low-rise residential) □ Heat pump water heater meeting Tier 3 or higher NEEA Advanced Water Heating Specification D Solar water heating system that is either .60 solar savings fraction or 40 s.f. solar collectors □ Exception: □ For systems serving multiple dwelling units, install a central water-heating system with all of the following: □ Gas or propane water heating system □ Recirculation system per CS-347 (high-rise residential, hotel/motel) or CS-348 (low-rise residential) □ Solar water heating system that is either: □ .60 solar savings fraction or 40 s.f. solar collectors □ .40 solar savings fraction, plus drain water heat recovery D Exception: B. D Nonresidential new construction Please refer to Carlsbad Ordinance CS-347 when completing this section. □ Water heating system derives at least 40% of its energy from one of the following (attach documentation): □ Solar-thermal □ Photovoltaics □ Recovered energy D Water heating system is (choose one): □ Heat pump water heater □ Electric resistance water heater(s) □ Solar water heating system with .40 solar savings fraction D Exception: / A. )(j Residential New construction and major alterations• Please refer to Carlsbad Ordinance CS-349 when completing this section. (.P One and two-family residential dwelling or townhouse with attached garage: ~ U □ One EVSE ready parking space required &Exception : ~ □ Multi-family residential· □ Exception • Total Parking Spaces EVSE Spaces Proposed Capable I Ready I Calculations: Total EVSE spaces= .10 xTotal parking (rounded up to nearest whole 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.") I I Installed I I Total P-30 Page 6 of 7 Revised 07/21 City of Carlsbad Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist *Major alterations are: (1) for one and two-family dwellings and townhouses with attached garages, alterations have a building permit valuation~ $60,000 or include an electrical service panel upgrade; (2) for multifamily dwellings (three units or more without attached garages), alterations have a building permit valuation~ $200,000, interior finishes are removed and significant site work and upgrades to structural and mechanical, electrical, and/or plumbing systems are proposed. B O Nonresidential new construction (includes hotels/motelsl D Exception • Total Parking Spaces EVSE Spaces Proposed Capable Ready Installed Total Calculation: Refer to the table below: Total Number of Parking Spaces provided Number of reauired EV Spaces Number of required EVSE Installed Spaces D 0-9 1 1 D 10-25 2 1 D 26-50 4 2 D 51-75 6 3 D 76-100 9 5 D 101-150 12 6 D 151-200 17 9 D 201 and over 10 percent of total 50 percent of Required EV Spaces A. List each proposed nonresidential use and gross floor area (GFA) allocated to each use. B. Employee ADT/1,000 square feet is selected from the City of Carlsbad Employee ADTTable. Use GFA Employee ADT /1,000 S.F. Total Employee ADT Total If total employee ADT is greater than or equal to 110 employee ADT, a TOM plan is required. ♦ *NOTE: Notwithstanding the 110 employee ADT threshold above, General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.ll requires new development that adds vehicle traffic to vehicle LOS-exempt street facilities to implement TDM and transportation system management strategies. Please consult with City of Carlsbad Land Development Engineering (LOE) staff to determine whether this policy applies to your project. TOM plan required: Yes □ No □ LOE Staff Verification: □ _____ (staff initials) P-30 Page 7 of 7 Revised 07/21 Building Permit Finaled Revision Permit Print Date: 05/15/2024 Job Address: 2633 BANBURY CT, CARLSBAD, CA 92010-2888 Permit No: Status: (city of Carlsbad PREV2023-0028 Closed -Finaled Permit Type: BLDG-Permit Revision Work Class: Residential Permit Revision Parcel#: Valuation: Occupancy Group: #of Dwelling Units: Bedrooms: Bathrooms: Occupant Load: Code Edition: Sprinkled: Project Title: 2081310800 Track #: $54,577.60 Lot#: Project#: Plan#: Construction Type: Orig. Plan Check#: PC2022-0007 Plan Check#: Applied: 03/09/2023 Issued: 03/05/2024 Finaled Close Out: 05/15/2024 Final Inspection: INSPECTOR: Description: 2633 BANBURY; REVISION TO ADU BATHROOM ORIENTATION// NEW ATTACHED (385 SF) ADU, CONVERTING {222 SF) GARAGE CONVERSION WITH (179 SF) ADDITIONAL SF ADDED TO NEW ADU Applicant: ANNE PARIZEAU 5304 ONTARIO ST OCEANSIDE, CA 92056-1810 (760) 201-3347 FEE BUILDING PLAN CHECK FEE (manual) Total Fees: $120.00 Building Division Property Owner: CO-OWNERS ANTHONY P AND GRIMES KELLE) 2633 BANBURY CT CARLSBAD, CA 92010-2888 Total Payments To Date: $120.00 Balance Due: 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad CA 92008-7314 I 442-339-2719 I 760-602-8560 f I www.carlsbadca.gov AMOUNT $120.00 $0.00 Page 1 of 1 ( City of Carlsbad PLAN CHECK REVISION OR DEFERRED SUBMITTAL APPLICATION B-15 Development Services Building Division 1635 FaradayAvenue 442-339-2719 www.carlsbadca.gov Original Plan Check Number f CZO Z?-Q(j(J 7 Plan Revision Number ?P-&.cJ z.02.g -Oo 28 Project Address 2-&:/22 ;a3a vi h 1 V' y a General Scope ofRevision/Deferred Submittal: c~ k ctk l(lj & In f \ Ci.,.._ Email Address -----"~-"-'-___,.__---1-..L.....::::.,,,__----='-"---'---'="==:+-1.-..L-L-"=-~'----'=,.,....:....---Af-'}n~0----'\'-4-.;._\ _C--=..._..1..--___ _ f Original plans prepared by an architect or engineer, revisions must be signed & stamped by that person. 1 . Elements revised: _¢-Pians D Calculations D Soils D Energy D Other 4. 5. 6. 7. 2. Describe revisions in detail 3. List page(s) where each revision is shown Does this revision, in any way, alter the exterior of the project? 125 Yes 0 No Does this revision add ANY new floor area(s)? D Yes Does this revision affect any fire related issues? D Yes www.carlsbadca.gov Date _3_---+J_' c_~3 __ _ Email: building@carlsbadca.gov