Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1655 CHESTNUT AVE; ; CB163118; Permitbty of Carlsbad .- - -. - -.-;--..- - 77 Residential Permit Print Date: 08/09/2019 Permit No: CB163 118 Job Address: . 1655 Chestnut Ave Permit Type: BLDG-Residential Work Class: Single Family Detached Status: Closed - Finaled Parcel No: 2052208600 Lot #: . Applied: 08/15/2016 Valuation: $312,234.00 Reference #: DEV16030 Issued: 06/22/2017 Occupancy Group: Construction Type: SB Permit Finaled: St Dwelling Units: 1 . Bathrooms: 3.00 . Inspector: TFraz Bedrooms: 3.00 Orig. Plan Check 55: Final Plan Check St. Inspection: 8/9/2019 12:24:38PM Project Title: OZAKI PARCEL 2 Description: OZAKI: NEW SFD 1,959 SF LIVING 572 SF GARAGE / 670 SF PATIO COVERS Applicant: Owner: KEVIN OZAKI TRUST OZAKI FAMILY TRUST 06-15-94 P0 Box 34 . P0 Box 34 DURANGO, CO. 81302 DURANGO, CA 81302 . 970-355-9489 BUILDING PERMIT FEE $2000+ $1,382.15 ELECTRICAL BLDG RESIDENTIAL NEW/ADDITION/REMODEL . $66.00 GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS PLAN CHECK $166.00 MECHANICAL BLDG RESIDENTIAL NEW/ADDITION/REMODEL . . . $92.00 PLUMBING BLDG RESIDENTIAL NEW/ADDITION/REMODEL . . $182.00 PUBLIC FACILITIES FEES - outside CFD . $10,928.19 5B1473 BUILDING STANDARDS FEE . $13.00 SOC WA SYSTEM CAPACITY CHARGE 5/8" Displacement $5,029.00 SEWER CONNECTION FEE (General Capacity all areas) . $899.00 STRONG MOTION-RESIDENTIAL . $40.59 SWPPP INSPECTION FEE TIER 1- Medium BLDG . . . $232.00 SWPPP PLAN REVIEW FEE TIER 1- MEDIUM . . . $55.00 TRAFFIC IMPACT Residential Single Fam: Outside CFD $3,230.00 WATER METER FEE 1" Displacement . $362.00 WATER SERVICE CONNECTION FEE 5/8" DISPLACEMENT (P) . $4,013.00 WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY CHARGE 5/8" Displacement $128.00 Total Fees: $26,817.93 Total Payments To Date: $26,817.93 Balance Due: $0.00 Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "Imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as "fees/exaction." You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(4 and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project. NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitation has previously otherwise expired. 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 1 760-602-2700 1 760-602-8560 f I www.carlsbadca.gov 06 '.DO ?)D ITHE FOLLOWING APPROVALS REQUIRED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE: 0 PLANNING 0 ENGINEERING 0 BUILDING 0 FIRE 0 HEALTH 0 HAZMATIAPCD C Z~Al Cit of Building Permit Application 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008 y C"Cefrisbad Ph: 760-602-2719 Fax: 760-602-8558 email: bUilding@cartsbadca.gov www.carlsbadca.gov Plan Check No. i Est. Value Plan Ck. Deposit Date On - Ifs- ft IswPPPJtt1 JOB ADDRESS c9gZ,?r I(.#' 'OK I I5uITEw5T9 I#BATHROOMS APN aos - 22-0- a -00 CT/PROJECT # LOT # PHASE# I # OF UNITS / C BEDROOMS I i J TENANT BUSINESS NAME CONSTR. 1YPE 0CC. GROUP DESCRIPTION OF WORK: include Square Feet of Affected Area(s) .JFdtlt) RN77D— S/(V6L4: pp1/y ,i'- -L'1N4 Il S 8. 5 So. fl- o4Pej 6-70.3 S. f. S72. EXISTING USE PROPOSEDUSE I IGARAGE (SF) PATIOS(SF) I DECKS(SF) FIREPLACE I 'sD NOEl lAIR CONDITIONING YESI:INOo FIRE SPRINKLERS I YESINOE APPLICANT NAME Primary Contact J'fV/1" 0?4/! PROPERTY OWNER 02I E4y'4 lL,.Y IItVJT ADDRESS /é'-iS ciQcsT,t''t X V42 ADDRESS rd Aog 3V CITY STATE ZIP CITY STATE ZIP Dv1P"J46 6.0 81362 PH ON ,7O3SS9/B FAX .9 PHONE 7D IFAX I EMAIL EMAIL i e ThI L (dO f' DESIGN PROFESSIONA CONTRACTOR BUS. NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CITY STATE ZIP PHONE FAX PHONE FAX EMAIL EMAIL STATE LIC. C STATE LICe CLASS CITY BUS. LIC.# (Sec. 7031.5 Business and Professions Code: Any City or County which requires a permit to construct, alter, improve, demolish or repair any structure, prior to its issuance, also requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Contractor's License Law jChapter 9, commending with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code) or that he is exempt therefrom, and the basis for the alleged exemption. Any violation of Section 7031.5 by any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars ($500)). e@ao° Workers' Compensation Declaration: thereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations: I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for workers' compensation as provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the wart for which this permit is issued. I have and will maintain workers' compensation, as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the wart for which this permit is issued. My workers' compensation insurance carrier and policy number are: Insurance Co. Policy No. Expiration Date This section need not be completed it the permit is for one hundred dollars ($100) or less. Certificate of Exemption: I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued, I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to become subject to the Workers' Compensation Laws of California. WARNING: Failure to secure workers compensation coverage is unlawful, and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to one hundred thousand dollars (&100,000), in addition to the cost of compensation, damages as provided for in Section 3706 of the Labor code, Interest and attorney's fees. CONTRACTOR SIGNATURE 0 AGENT DATE ®0000110G(D 1?000 I hereby affirm that I am exempt from Contracto?s Ucense Law for the following reason: [] I, as owner of the property or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the wart and the structure is not intended or offered for sale (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who does such work himself or through his own employees, provided that such Improvements are not intended or offered for sale. If, however, the building or improvement is sold within one year of completion, the owner-builder will have the burden of proving that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale). I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and contracts for such projects with contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law). [J I am exempt under Section _____________Business and Professions Code for this reason: 1. I personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed property improvement DYes I1No 2.1(have / have not) signed an application for a building permit for the proposed wart. I have contracted with the following person (firm) to provide the proposed construction (include name address! phone! contractors' license number): I plan to provide portions of the work, but I have hired the following person to coordinate, supervise and provide the major work (include name! address! phone !contractors' license number): I will provide some of the work, but I have contracted (hired) the following persons to provide the wart Indicated (include name! address! phone! type of work): 'PROPERTY tWNER SIGNATURE '2'—i--- DAGENT DATE 6° /~'.- Z,0/6, (®O?U VW00 000VOGG9 101D ®@6OD oc!)ar.®ow@ GWO (DW10 Is the applicant or future building occupant required to submit a business plan, acutely hazardous materials registration term or risk management and prevention program under Sections 25505, 25533 or 25534 of the Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act? 0 Yes 0 No k the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district? DYes 0 No Is the facility to be constructed within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? DYes 0 No IF ANY OF THE ANSWERS ARE YES, A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY MAY NOT BE ISSUED UNLESS THE APPLICANT HAS MET OR IS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT. (39G909000900159 100DOM MBOMOU I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work this permit is issued (Sec. 3097 (i) Civil Code). Lende?s Name Lender's Address G@OOGWO® IcertJfjrthatI have readtheapplication and stabsthatthe above information isconeotandthattheintbimalionontheplanslsaocuiate. IagmetocompIywith all Cityoidinances and SIateIase relatingtobuildingoonsbvction. I hereby authorize representative of the Ctiyof Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned property for inspection purposes. I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE, INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS THE CITY OF CARLSRAD AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES, JUDGMENTS, COSTS AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT. OSHA M OSHA permit is required for excavations over 5'O deep and demolition or construction of structures over 3stories is height EXPIRATION: Every permit issued by the Building OlthiaI under the visions is Code shall expire by tmilalion and become nut and void tithe building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 180days hem the date ofsuch permit or u gorwolka by pemift issuspended or abandoned at any time alter the work is commenced for a period of 180 days (Section 106.4.4 Uniform Building Code). APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE fS ZO/CQ 43 STOP: THIS SECTION NOT REQUIRED FOR BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE. Complete the following ONLY if a Certificate of Occupancy will be requested at final inspection. CERTIUFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (Com merc i aUr,. Fax (760) 602-8560, Email buiIdingCarIsbadca.gov or Mail the completed form to City of Carlsbad, Building Division 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. CO#: (Office Use Only) CONTACT NAME OCCUPANT NAME ADDRESS BUILDING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CITY STATE ZIP Carlsbad CA PHONE FAX EMAIL OCCUPANTS BUS. LIC. No. DELIVERY OPTIONS 0 PICKUP: o CONTACT (Listed above) D OCCUPANT (Listed above) CONTRACTOR (On P. 1) ASSOCIATED CB# O MAIL TO: o CONTACT (Listed above) 0 OCCUPANT (Listed above) CONTRACTOR (On Pt 1) NO CHANGE IN USE/ NO CONSTRUCTION 0 MAIL! FAX TO OTHER: 0 CHANGE OF USE / NO CONSTRUCTION APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE Permit Type: BLDG-Residential App!ication Date: 08/15/2016 Owner: TRUST OZAKI FAMILY TRUST 06-15-94 Work Class: Single Family Detached Issue Date: 06/22/2017 Subdivision: Status: Closed - Finaled Expiration Date: 0203/2020 Address: 1655 Chestnut Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 IVR Number: 716439 Scheduled Actual Date Start Date Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Status Primary Inspector Reinspection Complete 0510912018 0510912018 BLDG-84 Rough 057476-2018 Passed Andy Krogh Complete Comb6(14,24,34,44) Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-14 Yes Frame-Steel-Bolting-Welding (Decks) BLDG-24 Rough-Topout Yes BLDG-34 Rough Electrical . Yes BLDG-44 Yes Rough-Ducts-Dampers 05/18/2018 05/18/2018 BLDG-17 Interior 058410-2018 Passed Tim Frazee Complete Lath/Drywall Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes 03/25/2019 03/25/2019 BLDG-Gas Meter 086861-2019 Passed Tim Frazee Complete Release Checklist Item COMMENTS .1 Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Gas & Electric Meter release 3/25/19 Yes 08/06/2019 08106/2019 BLDG-Final 099798-2019 Failed Chris Renfro Reinspection Complete Inspection Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Final inspection. See back of card for No corrections . BLDG-Plumbing Final ' No BLDG-Mechanical Final No BLDG-Structural Final No BLDG-Electrical Final No 08/09/2019 08/09/2019 BLDG-Final 100383-2019 Passed Chris Renfro Complete Inspection Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Final inspection. See back of card for Yes corrections BLDG-Plumbing Final . Yes BLDG-Mechanical Final Yes BLDG-Structural Final . Yes BLDG-Electrical Final . Yes August 09, 2019 - Page 2of2 Permit Type: BLDG-Residential Application Date: 08/15/2016 Owner: TRUST OZAKI FAMILY TRUST 06-15-94 Work Class: Single Family Detached Issue Date: 06/22/2017 Subdivision: Status: Closed - Finaled Expiration Date: 02/03/2020 Address: 1655 Chestnut Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 IVR Number: 716439 Scheduled Date Actual Start Date Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Status Primary Inspector Reinspection Complete 0911912017 0911912017 BLDG-21 035026.2017 Partial Pass Andy Krogh Reinspection incomplete undergroundlUnderf bar Plumbing Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency From property line to outside building Yes 1113012017 1113012017 BLDG-21 041851-2017 Passed Andy Krogh Complete Underground/Underf bar Plumbing 1211512017 1211512017 BLDG-11 043559-2017 Failed Andy Krogh Reinspection Complete Foundatlon/Ftg/Pler s(Rebar) Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Form cart received, correct hardy frame No footings to RA details and add second bar - to front of garage footing 1212012017 12120/2017 BLDG-11 043862-2017 Passed Andy Krogh Complete FoundatlonlFtglPler S (Reber) 0111712018 01/17/2018 BLDG-11 046087.2018 FoundatlonlFtglPler S (Reber) 0311912018 03/1912018 BLDG-15 052090-2018 Roof/ReRoof (Patio) 0412512018 04125/2018 BLDG-83 Roof 055891-2018 Sheatlng, Exterior Shear (13,15) Checklist Item BLDG-Building Deficiency BLDG-1 3 Shear Panels-HD (Ok to wrap) BLDG-15 Roof Sheathing-Reroof 04127/2018 04/27/2018 BLDG-18 Exterior 056369-2018 Lath/Drywall 05/02/2018 05/02/2018 BLDG-22 056939-2018 Sewer/Water Service BLDG-23 056941.2018 Gas!TesURepalrs BLDG-24 056940-2018 Rough/Topout Passed Andy Krogh Complete Passed Andy Krogh Complete Passed Andy Krogh Complete COMMENTS Passed Yes Yes Yes Passed Andy Krogh Complete Passed Andy Krogh Complete Passed Andy Krogh Complete Passed Andy Krogh Complete August 09, 2019 Page 1 of 2 - .--------. ---- -- -- RECORD COPY C61 18 1655 CHESTNUTAV Aet~p OZAKI:V CITY OF NEW SF0 1,659 SF LIVING CARLSBAD INSPECTION RECORD: 572 SF GARAGE /670SF PATIO COVERS Building Division RESDNTL SFD Lot#: KEVIN OZAKI El INSPECTION RECORD CARD WITH APPROVED PLANS MUST BE KEPT ON THE JOB El CALL BEFORE 3:30 pm FOR NEXT WORK DAY INSPECTION El FOR BUILDING INSPECTION CALL: 760-602-2725 OR GO TO: www.Carlsbadca nov/Building ANQUCK ON "Request Inspection" DATE! - If YES' is checked please call 760•6028560: For Inspection below that Division's approval is required prior to requesting a Final Building Inspection. If you have any questions I It the applicable divisions at the phone numbers provided below.-After all required approvals are signed off- fax to email to jjlgj .ctions@carlsbadca.gpv or bring in a COPY of this card to: Faraday Ave., Carlsbad. time& or to speak to an Inspector call 7130-602-2700 between 7:30am-8:00e dof your liispectlon. Requestingtolm Required Prior to I - '1J.Lj.I4.l T 'fl Planningl/Landscape 760-944-8463 Allow 48 hours I.8I:91 Call Ilbefore 4.J. Timlp nf Iflcnprtinn lime or InsoecVofl .m:IUI I EtalI Ii!L.. #11 FOUNDATION Date j / h Inspector i j t..--U !l:l[.r.I _....i #31 I ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND 0 UFER Date Inspector #12 REINFORCED STEEL 1/17//I) k4 #34 ROUGH ELECTRIC #66 MASONRYPREGROUT #33 1LECTRICSERVICE OTEMPORARY o3t2S k1 -i-- 0 GROUT a WALL DRAINS #35 PHOTO VOLTAIC #10 TILT PANELS #39 FINAL #11 POUR STRIPS #41 UNDERGROUND DUCTS & PIPING #11 COLUMN FOOTINGS #14 SUBFRAME OFLOOR OCEILING DDUCT&PLENUM DREF.PIPING #15L ROOFSHEATRING f/f. #43 FEAT-AIR COND. SYSTEMS #13 EXT. SHEAR PANELS . #49 FINAL ____ #16 INSULATION #18 EXTERIOR LATH #81 UNDERGROUND (11,12,21,31) #17 INTERIOR LATH &DRYWALL #82 DRYWALL,EXT LATH, GASTES(17,18,23) #51 POOL EXCA/STEEL/BOND/FENCE #83 HOOF SHEATING, EXT SHEAR (13,15) #55 PREPLASTER/FINAL #84 FRAME ROUGH COMBO (14,24,34,44) 3/çf/ç #19 FINAL #85 T-Bar(14,24,34,44) I / #22 EWER & 81./CO -.A:FL/CO Date dl//f//-7 Inspector #89 FINAL OCCUPANCY (19,29,39,49) I:a Date / Inspector #21 UNDERGROUNIfVASTE OWTR l(t/i7 #24 TOP OUT .2SVASTE 4'WTR .57'?/I A/S UNDERGROUND VISUAL #27 TUB&SHOWERPAN . A/S UNDERGROUND HYDRO #23óASTEST 13GASPIPING ________ A/S UNDERGROUND FLUSH #25 WATER HEATER A/S OVERHEAD VISUAL #28 SOLAR WATER A/S OVERHEAD HYDROSTATIC #29 FINAL . A/S FINAL &A714P_S44 #600 PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING Cf//iif (7 F/A ROUGH-IN F/AFINAL #603 FOLLOW UP INSPECTION FIXED EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM ROUGH-IN #605 NOTICE TO CLEAN FIXED EXTING SYSTEM HYDROSTATIC TEST #607 WRITTEN WARNING FIXED EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM FINAL #609 NOTICE OF VIOLATION MEDICAL GAS PRESSURE TEST #610 VERBALWARNING MEDICALGASFINAL REV 1012012 SEE BACK FOR SPECIAL NOTES I.. Section 5416. Health and Safety Code, State of California There shall be not less than one water closet for each 20 employees or fractional part thereof working at a construction job site. The water closet shall consist of a patented chemical type toilet. For the purpose of this section the term construction site shall mean the location on which actual construction of a building is in progress. (C) A violation of this section shall constitute a misdemeanor. All construction or work for which a permit is required shall be subject to inspection and all such construction or work shall remain accessible and exposed for inspection purposes until approved by the inspector. Work shall not be done beyond the point indicated in each successive inspection without first obtaining the approval of the inspector. DME. ADDITIONAL NOTES jF o 7eFcIs ___ Q,r - c-ç 7 thc eQLQ- 1LaJ j44jJe c,/ee - 41eYk 0tL j,Jf(ç Carlsbad 16-3118 08/26/16 CITY OF CARLSBAD SPECIAL INSPECTION AGREEMENT B-45 Develooment Services Building Division 1635 Faraday Avenue 760-602-2719 www.carlsbadca.gov In accordance with Chapter 17 of the California Building Code the following must be completed when work being performed requires special inspection, structural observation and construction material testing. 'reject/Permit: Project THIS SECTION MUST BE COMPLETED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER/AUTHORIZED AGENT. Please check if you are 0wner-8u11der U. (If you checked as owner-builder you must also complete Section 8 of this agreement) Name: (Please print ft Mailing Addres/kY S(3AG' g7Abs EmaiIJVl N 07A11,11C L_61 eoi Ph 97 one____ -o- [ am: OProperty Owner 111Property Owners Agent of Record DArchitect of Record 0 Engineer of Record State of California Registration Number Expiration Date:___________________ AGREEMENT: I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that I have read, understand, acknowledge and promise to comply with the City of Carlsbad requirements for special inspections, structural observations, construction materials testing and off-site fabrication of building components, as prescribed in the statement of special impectiqls noted on the approved plans and, as required by the California Building Code. f Signature._...J ________________________________ Date: CONTRACTORS STATEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY (07 CBC, Ch 17, Section 1706). This section must be completed by the contractor! builder! owner-builder. Contractors Company Name: Please check if you are Owner-Builds? B Name: (Please print) iWt. tint) Mailing Address:--J .5.,frtir_4€ EmaiI:_lM _L4_4fl1 P 1 fr' Phone:_j.7O iT __f /? State of California Contractor's License Number: Expiration Date: I acknowledge and, am aware, of special requirements contained in the statement of special inspections noted on the approved plans; I acknowledge that control will be exercised to obtain conformance With the construction documents approved by the building official; I will have in-place procedures for exercising control within our (the contractor's) organization, for The method and frequency of reporting and the distribution of the reports; and I certify that I will have a qualified person within our (the contractors) organization to exercise such control. I will provide a final ,nofl / letterin compliance with CBC Section 1704.1.2 odor to request/np final inspection. Date: _J_J -_Z.o______ B.45 Page 1 ot 1 Rev. 06/11 December 13,2017 City of Carlsbad Building Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: 1655 Chestnut Aveiue - Ozaki City of Carl's bad Perm it# 163118 Inspector: Afield survey was performed on Deemr6, 2017 tofeld check the buildirg tooling forms at 1655 Chestnut Avenue. The results cr the feli survey reveal the footing forms :0 be within substantial conformance, both horizontally (0.10'±) and vertically (0.35'+) with tie City cf Carlsbad approved plans dated 2/27/17, permit. set dated 6'2211 7. Sincerely, Tim Thiele, P.E. Project Manager S GAMY 'JOCUMEH1SOZAKI CERT 12-13-17.DOC 4•I -. 4- .- . . - ..- - - .- -.- -.- -, -- — - v___.. .- - - - - s-.--- . .-- •- .. - - .4 ICZ-fi, t.E ' cr:1! ISECTUDB -A PIJVIDED SFIAL INSPECI'ICW OONMTE - [j S1EEIJ ASSLY/WELDncG SERVICES FOR THE FOLLOWING: 0 MSCNRY ! EFOXY AIFORS/IXWEIS 0 FIREPRFIN .SHE1R WALL FRAMING SYSTEM 760-846-1464 PO Box 900864 San Diego,CA 92190 D DATE: 04 U 0 TEST NG/SAMPLING 0 Oi'HER: PiO3r: (fry 5 : BL.PEIT:C FNFTIE: ADDRESS: (,eçç AuC_. CWNER H.4 ' 7C/'r1 . ADDRESS: .L-c drC Apqrmcv TLlc( TINS IN am: 'I 4 ILES ENLINEER !ERIAL )h d)Ic, ,ç RAClOR (? - 1ITT A - Qotvu c-c or, V) L), - I VA c-'c- QcrhZ-&3T( - . - \.tALL.. :••i I V5'4' #'w \ 3 f, i ' —& . "I.. -. . I CA AQ 4, 71 /z CCSQ ii — . PJa4u Q (Li 9 AQ.L. C tQc.-t.rt_W 4C - — 1 SPEtIAL INSPECTION IDES NG RELIEVE THE CWNER, (DNIWCrCR OR PAJILEER OF. THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. TO PERFORM ALL WORK PER THE APPROVED PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND APPLICABLE BUILDING CODE. FOR ANY NON-CONFORMING lIENS PLEASE -HEDUIE FOR RE- INSPrI. ALL WORK PERFORMED IS BILLED IN 4 HOUR n 4ENrSAaDRDIND 10 OUR CURRENT RATE SCHELIJLE. I AGREE TO ININNIFY AND HOLD HAPZBESS THE INSPECTOR. AND A(D[J1H AFFORDABLE INSPECICWS FOR ANY AND ALL DAS WHETHER ACIDEi.ITAL OR INTENTIONAL. I WILL PAY FOR ANY AND ALL ATIORNEYANP COURT COSTS. I WILL PAY. FOR ANY AND ALL JUIDMENTS BROUGHT AGP.fls1ST THE INSPECTOR AND/OR ADJ1ECH AFFORDABLE INSPIOWS DUE TO ANYTHING RELATED TO THIS PRCXJECT. INSPECTOR:3 -, IWER: f:i.Ci SIGNATURE: flATS: CERTIFICM'ICN: ONTRAC'1OR: J7L;_OVIE: _9-11-18 N. EsGil ( In (Partners/lip with U APPLICANT RIS. JURlSDlCTlON:-Car1sbad U PLAN REVIEWER :- U FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: 16-3118 SET'III PROJECT ADDRESS: 1655 Chestnut Drive PROJECT NAME: SFD/ Garage! Covered Porchesf iOzaki Residence The plans transmitted herewith have been correátdihere necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantiaJl when minor deficiencies identified below are rE Ij 41 The plans transmitted herewith have signific6k1 and should be corrected and resubmitted fc(ra The check list transmitted herewith is for yourii Corporation until corrected plans are subrrfittèc LI The applicant's copy of the check list is encl'oefor the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. F-1 The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Kevin Ozaki E Mail EsGil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. fl EsGil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Telephone #: (970) 355-9489 Email: kevindaki©gmail.com ils en in '5; rtificate" on sheet I of 4(city of so de er to sign "Declaration of Responsible Charge" on sheet I of 4(city carlsbadn eringshets) at city. By: Ryan Murphy (for Tamara ischer/R.F t Enclosures: EsGil Corporation •1 0 GA 0 EJ 0 MB 0 PC 02I21/2017 IL ,, t 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (858) 560-1468 • Fax(858)560-1576 ton! :1t1 i(dingSafrty DATE: 02/27/2017 wirn the jurisdiction ouiiaing coaes nd checked by building department staff. i&ncies identified on the enclosed check list .,Idte recheck. 'I ,ation. The plans are being held at EsGil recheck. Person contacted: Kevin OZdki -' Date contacted: ) Mail Telephone Fax In Person REMARKS: Have soils engineer si TI carlsbad engineering sheets) and res R 1 EsGil Corporation In (Partnership with government for Bui(iing Safety DATE: 12/22/16 U,APPLICANT ,JURIS. JURISDICTION: Carlsbad U PLAN REVIEWER U FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: 16-3118 SET: II PROJECT ADDRESS: 1655 Chestnut Drive PROJECT NAME: SFD/ Garage /Covered Porches for Ozaki Residence The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. D 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. Lii The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at EsGil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. LI The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to theapplicant contact person. The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Kevin Ozaki E Mail LI EsGil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. EsGil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Kevin Ozaki Telephone #: (970) 355-9489 Date contacted:V7/ (by:r)C._) Email: kevinozaki©gmail .com Mail 4phone Fax In Person LII REMARK—' By: Tamara Fischer for Ray Fuller Enclosures: EsGil Corporation D GA D EJ LI MB 0 Pc 12/15/16 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (858) 560-1468 • Fax(858)560-1576 Carlsbad 16-3118 12/22/16 NOTE: The items listed below are from the previous correction list. These remaining items have not been adequately addressed. The numbers of the items are from the previous check list and may not necessarily be in sequence. The notes in bold font are current. Please make all corrections, as requested in the correction list. Submit THREE sets of plans for residential projects). For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways: Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department, 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008, (760) 602-2700. The City will route the plans to EsGil Corporation and the Carlsbad Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. Bring two corrected set of plans and calculations/reports to EsGil Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, CA 92123, (858) 560-1468. Deliver all remaining sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department for routing to their Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. NOTE: Plans that are submitted directly to EsGil Corporation only will not be reviewed by the City Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments until review by EsGil Corporation is complete. 2. Verify final sets of architectural sheets will again be signed by designer and that the structural sheets and any new calculations will again be stamped and signed by engineer of record also. 9. The plans are reflecting a AC on sheet 3. Energy calculations state "No Cooling". Either revised energy or note AC to be "Future-Not Apart of this Permit". Energy caics now include cooling so A/C may be installed and notes on pages 3 and 8 about cooling being future can be removed. 26. Provide truss details and truss calculations for this project. Specify truss identification numbers on the plans. If applies: Drag truss calculations to reflect required axial loads. Cannot complete plan check with out this. Truss calcs were received and the following corrections apply: One of the locations where truss MGDRI 3x13is shown requires a drag force of 3.85 K. This truss is not designed for that. I do not see a design for the girder truss which is supported by MGDRI 3x13HlPC4. All truss hangers must be called out on the truss plans or structural plans. CONTINUED Carlsbad 16-3118 12/22/16 27. Please provide evidence that the engineer-of-record has reviewed the truss calculation package prepared by others (i.e., a "review" stamp on the truss layout or a letter). CBC Section 107.3.4.2 This review will again be required once truss packet is revised. 29. The depth of roof framing members must allow for R-30 insulation and wall framing for R-19. Could not determine how obtaining R-30 in ceiling with 2 x 6 roof framing members as generally requires 2 x1 O's allow for the 8 1/4" insulation and required 1 inch airspace above. I see 2x10 rafters have been called out, but please clarify that all walls between conditioned and non-conditioned space are to be 2x6 to accommodate R19 insulation per energy clacs. 31. Please verify lateral load path is complete. For example it is unclear how lateral loads are to be transferred to lower diaphragms/foundation below as could not locate type /length of shear at these locations? See clear story for example. Regarding lateral design: The tributary area used for line 5 seems too small (it should include some of patio cover). At grid 7 the wind load exceeds the capacity of the HFX frames. 32. Please verify that plans reflect details showing a complete vertical and lateral load transfer path from upper roof diaphragm's thru lower roofs to foundation below. How will drag force in trusses MGDR13x13HlPC4 be transferred into the SCL Rim? Detail 309, which shows a drag truss is referenced at locations above the service area which do not show drag trusses on the framing plan or truss caics. 33. Plans to detail reference how hips are supported where they intersect. No detail provided for hips top hips and if no king post to beam provided as shown then provide design calculations for tension and compression members. I see detail added for the intersection of hips, however, since there is no king post I beam to support the hips at the center of the roof, a tension ring design and detailing would be required. Please provide the necessary calculations and details. 34. The foundation plan does not comply with the soils report recommendations for this project. Please review the report and modify design, notes and details as required to show compliance: Soils report only address a two story condition and slab thickness is be minimum 5"with 15 mil visqueen. Recheck all locations. 100 on sheet SDI.0 is confusing. All footings must be 18" wide x 18" deep with the 5" slab. Please cross out all other columns. CONTINUED Carlsbad 16-3118 12/22/16 35. Provide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the foundation plan and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the soils report are properly incorporated into the construction (per page 33 of the soils report). Plans cannot be approved without this letter (simply imprinting the correction on the plans does not suffice). 39. Could not determine how covered porches to be laterally restrained? Response indicated EPCs to be used at corner posts. Please revise detail 413 to reflect this. PBs are not intended to resist rotation about the base. At a minimum, please strap the porch covers into the main diaphragm to provide additional lateral resistance. Please provide and reference a detail for this. CITY of CARLSBAD REQUIREMENTS 40. If special inspection is required, the designer shall complete the city's "Special Inspection Agreement". This was not received. 41. If CaiGreen requires a Waste Management Plan, the applicant shall submit the Carlsbad special form for this. This was not received. Note on this list (or a copy) where each correction item has been addressed, i.e., plan sheet, note or detail number, calculation page, etc. Please indicate here if any changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of corrections from this list. If there are other changes, please briefly describe them and where they are located in the plans. Have changes been made to the plans not resulting from this correction list? Please indicate: Yes () No () The jurisdiction has contracted with Esgil Corporation located at 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123; telephone number of 858/560-1468, to perform the plan review for your project. If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact Tamara Fischer at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. Carlsbad 16-3118 12/22/16 of WASTE MANAGEMENT Development Services C(~"City Building Division PLAN 1635 Faraday Avenue I1ar1sb.id. 760-602-2719 B Owner: Contractor Job Address:_______ Phone Number:______________________________________________ Permit # Estimated Cost of Project: $_______________________________________ Type of Project: [:]New Construction 0 Remodel or Ti. 0 Residential 0 Commercial 0 Demolition (check all that apply) 0 Other Non-hazardous construction waste generated during the course of this project shall be recycled and/or salvaged for re-use at a minimum of 50% per CALGreen Sec. 5.408.1. Failure to comply may result in a penalty lee up to $1.000. For projects which consist of mainly equipment and/or racking, that have a combined weight of new construction disposal that does not exceed 2 lbs per square foot of building area affected by this permit, may be deemed to meet the 50% minimum requirement upon approval of Building Department. ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF COMPLIANCE: (If selected, do not complete Tables 1 & 2 below) 0 Construction waste shall not exceed 2 lbs. per sf. of area. All receipts shall be provided to the Building Official prior to final. (This option not applicable for most construction projects.) Square feet, of construction area_________________ X 2 lbs. = ___________________ lbs. of allowable waste. 0 I plan on using a WASTE MANAGEMENT roll-oft bin. All receipts shall be provided to the Building Official prior to final. Table 1 - Estimated Waste (To be filled out prior to permit issuance. refer to example on Page 2.) MATERIALS lbs. of waste lobe taken to LANDFILL lbs. of waste to be RE-USED or RECYCLED Waste Hauling Company or Re-Use Method Asphalt/ Concrete Brick / Masonry Cardboard Drywall Landscape Debris Lumber f Wood Metals Mixed Waste Trash / Garbage Other: TOTAL lbs: Estimated Percentage to be Re-Used or Recycled % I certify that the information provided herein, to the best of my knowledge, is true and correct. Contiactar or Owner (print name) Oontiactor or Owner tsi$natuiel Oats Official Use Only 0 Plan Approved 0 Plan Denied 0 Project Valuation Approved Reviewed / Approved by: Page lot 2 I Carlsbad 16-3118 12/22/16 Table 2 - Actual Waste (TO be completed after construction.) MATERIALS lbs. of waste taken to LANDFILL lbs. of waste RE-USED or RECYCLED Waste Houling Company or Re-Use Method (complete only if different than Table 1) Asphalt/ Concrete Brick/ Masonry Cardboard Drywall Landscape Debris Lumber/ Wood Metals Mixed Waste Trash / Garbage Other: TOTAL lbs.: Actual Percentage Re-Used or Recycled Official Use Only 0 50% Goal Achieved 050% Goal Not Achieved [:]Alternative Compliance Achieved Penalty Paid $ Reviewed / Approved by EXAMPLE: Use the following example as a guide to completing this form. MATERIALS lbs. of waste to be taken to LANDFILL lbs. of waste to be RE-USED RECYCLED - Waste HauLag Company or Re-Use Method Asphalt I Concrete. o 2000 AC HUvt Co. Brick/Masonry .too WM Ev(& Ot-~3 Cardboard 0 V50 A1C. Hmq itth co. 50 A1tC Co. Landscape Debris 0 io Mt4lthlf ct -kSCt OVt-Skt Lumber fWood 500 0 w.cte -itstt Metals 300 200 WM / A.0 t.Uig Mixed Waste isoo o WM Trash / Garbage too 0 WM Other: Pool 4vtaUe 0 900 sts CrAsIlCtt oi's.-sit TOTAL lbs.: 00 30 Percentage to be Re-Used or Recycled 59 % Formula: Total Re-used or Recycled X 100 = % Re-Used or Recycled (Total Combined Waste) 3870 X 100 = 59% Re-Used or Recycled (2700 F 3870) - Since 59% exceeds the minimum requirement of 50%, this plan complies. Page 2 of 2 Carlsbad 16-3118 12/22/16 CITY OF CARLSBAD SPECIAL INSPECTION AGREEMENT B-45 Development Services Building Division 1635 Faraday Avenue 760-602-2719 www.carlsbadca.gov In accordance with Chapter 17 of the California Building Code the following must be completed when work being performed requires special inspection; structural observation and construction material testing. 'roject/Permit: Project Address: THIS SECTION MUST BE COMPLETED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERIAUTHORIZED AGENT. Please check if you are Owner-Builder 0. (If you checked as owner-builder you must also complete Section B of this agreement.) Name: (Please (First) (Lost) Mailing Address: Email____________________________________________________ Phone:_______________________ I am: oProperty Owner 13 Property Owners Agent of Record DArchitect of Record DEngineer of Record State of California Registration Number Expiration Date:____________________ AGREEMENT: I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I have-read, understand, acknowledge and promise to comply with the City of Carlsbad requirements for special inspections, structural observations, construction materials testing and off-site fabrication of building components, as prescribed in the statement of special inspections noted on the approved plans and, as required by the California Building Code. Signature: Date: CONTRACTOR'S STATEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY (07 CBC, Ch 17, Section 1706). This section must be completed by the 'contractor I builder / owner-builder. Contractor's Company Name:____________________________________________ Please check if you are Owner-Builder Name: (Please print) (First) (Last) 'Mailing Address: Email: Phone: State of California Contractor's License Number: Expiration Date: I acknowledge and, am aware, of special requirements contained in the statement of special inspections noted on the approved plans; I acknowledge that control will be exercised to obtain conformance with the construction documents approved by the building official; I will have in-place procedures for exercising control within our (the contractor's) organization, for the method and frequency of reporting and the distribution of the reports; and I certify that I will have a qualified person within our (the contractors) organization to exercise such control I will provide a final report/letter in compliance with CBC Section 1704.1.2 prior to requesting final inspectiOn. Signature: Date: B-45 Page 1 of 1 Rev. 08111 EsGil Corporation In Partners flip with government for (Bui(ding Safety DATE: 08/26/16 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 16-3118 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1655 Chestnut Drive SET:I VJU PPLICANT RIS. U PLAN REVIEWER U FILE PROJECT NAME: SFD/ Garage /Covered Porches for Ozaki Residence The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. El The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at EsGil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Kevin Ozaki E Mail EsGil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. EsGil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Kevin Ozaki Telephone #: (970) 355-9489 Date contacted: gf1I(by: Email: kevinozaki©gmail.com 4Q.iVlail dfeIephone VM Fax In Person LI] REMARKS: By: Ray Fuller Enclosures: EsGil Corporation 0 GA 0 EJ El MB El PC 08/18/16 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (858) 560-1468 • Fax (858)560-1576 Carlsbad 16-3118 08/26/16 PLAN REVIEW CORRECTION LIST SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND DUPLEXES PLAN CHECK NO.: 16-3118 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PROJECT ADDRESS: 1655 Chestnut Drive STORIES: 1 FLOOR AREA: Dwelling 1959 Garage 572 Covered Porches 670 REMARKS: Fire Sprinklered DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY JURISDICTION: 08/15/16 DATE INITIAL PLAN REVIEW COMPLETED: 08/26/16 HEIGHT: 21 ft per CRC DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 08/18/16 PLAN REVIEWER: Ray Fuller FOREWORD (PLEASE READ): This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the California version of the International Residential Code, International Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and access for the disabled. This plan review is based on regulations enforced by the Building Department. You may have other corrections based on laws and ordinance by the Planning Department, Engineering Department, Fire Department or other departments. Clearance from those departments may be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Present California law mandates that construction comply with the 2013 edition of the California Code of Regulations (Title 24), which adopts the following model codes: 2012 IRC, 2012 IBC, 2012 UPC, 2012 UMC and 2011 NEC. The above regulations apply, regardless of the code editions adopted by ordinance. The following items listed need clarification, modification or change. All items must be satisfied before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations. Per Sec. 105.4 of the 2012 International Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law. To speed up the recheck process, please note on this list (or a copy) where each correction item has been addressed, i.e., plan sheet number, specification section, etc. Be sure to enclose the marked up list when you submit the revised plans. Carlsbad 16-3118 08/26/16 Please make all corrections, as requested in the correction list. Submit THREE sets of plans for residential projects). For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways: 1. Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department, 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008, (760) 602-2700. The City will route the plans to EsGil Corporation and the Carlsbad Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. 2. Bring two corrected set of plans and calculations/reports to EsGil Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, CA 92123, (858) 560-1468. Deliver all remaining sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department for routing to their Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. NOTE: Plans that are submitted directly to EsGil Corporation only will not be reviewed by the City Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments until review by EsGil Corporation is complete. 2. Verify final sets of architectural sheets will again be signed by designer and that the structural sheets and any new calculations will again be stamped and signed by engineer of record also. 3. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in all new family dwellings/attached garages. Please clearly note this on the plans. Section R313.2. 4. Please add the words self-latching (per current code) to proposed fire door between garage and dwelling. Section R302.5.1 5. Sheet 3 to clearly reflect that water heater is to be tankless (as required by the energy calculations). In addition please provide the following: Provide on the plans a complete gas pipe design. The gas load for the water heater shall be a minimum of 200,000 BTU/hr .This cannot be a deferred item. Note on plans that a condensate drain installed no higher than 2" above the base of the heater that also allows for gravity drainage. Note on the plans that the "B" vent installed in a straight position (no bends) from the room containing the water heater to the roof termination (for future possible sleeving for high efficiency heater venting. Show on the electrical plan that a120 volt receptacle will be installed within 3 feet of the water heater. Note that a Pressure relief must extend to the exterior. Verify adequate combustion air is provided. The vent sizes shown on sheet 2 do not appear to be large enough for combined BTU's of the tankless water heater and FAU. 6. All hot water piping sized %" or larger is required to be insulated as follows: 1" pipe size or less: 1" thick insulation; larger pipe sizes require 11/2 ' thick insulation. Note: In addition, the 1/2" size hot water pipe to the kitchen sink is required to be insulated. ES 150.06) 2. Carlsbad 16-3118 08/26/16 Below grade hot water piping is required to be installed in a waterproof and non- crushable sleeve or casing that allows for replacement of both the piping and insulation. ES 150.00). The submitted energy calculations are requiring HERS field verification. Prior to initial plan check submittal the CF-1 R forms should have been Registered (filed with the HERS provider data registry and assigned a registration number). The submitted T-24 calculations were not registered with the State of California. If questions concerning this you can contact your energy consultant. The plans are reflecting a AC on sheet 3. Energy calculations state "No Cooling". Either revised energy or note AC to be "Future-Not Apart of this Permit". Clearly note that gas fireplace will be direct vented. Show or note on plans that a 100 sq inches of make up air is required in laundry room (to make up of exhaust air being vented out by dryer and for any exhaust fan if one was provided). Not a correction but could not determine why noted 3016 to be tempered at master bath and not the 4016 at bath 2? Residential ventilation requirements: Kitchens require exhaust fans with a minimum 100 cfm ducted to the exterior. Detail compliance by including a complying exhaust fan or a ducted range hood to the exterior .Specify cfm and sone level. Mechanical whole house ventilation must be provided. Specify location of whole house ventilation. Where on sheet 8 door the plans reflect location of whole house ventilation as shown on sheet 4? Not necessarily a correction but could not determine why used 3786 sq ft in design. 14. Plans to reflect garage floor to sloping towards main vehicle entry doorways or towards a approved drainage system. R309.1 RESIDENTIAL GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS The California Building Standards Commission has adopted the Green Building Standards Code which became effective January 1, 2011 and must be enforced by the local building official. The following mandatory requirements for residential construction must be included on your plans. CGC Section 101.3. The Standards apply to newly constructed residential buildings, along with additionslalterations that increasejt, building's.conditionecLarea, volume or size. CGC Section 303.1.1. Provide a sheet on the plans labeled "Green Building Code Requirements" and include the following notes as applicable. 15. Show on the electrical plan the location of the electrical vehicle supply equipment. CGC 4.106.4. Carlsbad 16-3118 08/26/16 Note on the plans that for new residential construction where landscape irrigation water is planned a water budget shall be developed that conforms to local landscape ordinance or the California Department of Water Resources Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), which ever is more stringent. To view the MWELO: hftp://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/docs/MWELO TbContent Law. Ddf For the local landscape ordinance check with City/County Planning Department. CGC 4.304.1. Recycling. Note on the plans that the contractor shall submit a Construction Waste Management Plan to the jurisdiction agency that regulates waste management, per CGC 4.408.2. Could not locate this note. Operation and maintenance manual. Note on the plans that the builder is to provide an operation manual (containing information for maintaining appliances, etc.) for the owner at the time of final inspection. CGC 4.410.1. Note on the plans that the gas fireplace(s) shall be a direct-vent sealed- combustion type. CGC 4.503.1. Pollutant control. Note on the plans that during construction, ends of duct openings are to be sealed, and mechanical equipment is to be covered. CGC 4.504.1. Could not locate this note. Note on the plans that prior to final inspection the licensed contractor, architect or engineer in responsible charge of the overall construction must provide to the building department official written verification that all applicable provisions from the Green Building Standards Code have been implemented as part of the construction. CGC 102.3. Could not locate this note. The 200 amp service panel is shown at a shear wall location and is reflected as being flush mounted. If flush mounted then detail opening in shear wall and engineer-of-record to address opening as well as top plate/ and or bottom plates where conduit and wiring will past thru. Specify window sizes at clear story and whether of not fixed. Plans and calculations need to be reviewed by engineer or record to verify that they are complete and that they reflect a complete vertical and lateral load path from roof sheathing to foundation below. Some examples are listed below. There are two foundation and roof framing plans (sheets 5 and 6 and SI-1.0 and SI-2.0. Please remove sheets 5 and 6 from plans and sheet index or verify that they are coordinated with the structural sheets. Provide truss details and truss calculations for this project. Specify truss identification numbers on the plans. If applies: Drag truss calculations to reflect required axial loads. Cannot complete plan check with out this. Carlsbad 16-3118 08/26/16 Please provide evidence that the engineer-of-record has reviewed the truss calculation package prepared by others (i.e., a "review" stamp on the truss layout or a letter). CBC Section 107.3.4.2 The framing plan is reflecting 4 and 5 point bearing trusses thru the great room. The cross section on sheet 7 is reflecting this to be vaulted clear story? Do not see how can you can stick framed the clear story above trusses as shown on framing plan? The depth of roof framing members must allow for R-30 insulation and wall framing for R-19. Could not determine how obtaining R-30 in ceiling with 2 x 6 roof framing members as generally requires 2 x1 O's allow for the 8 1/4" insulation and required 1 inch airspace above. The clear story must be reviewed closely and lacks a vertical and lateral load path. Please verify lateral load path is complete. For example it is unclear how lateral loads are to be transferred to lower diaphragms/foundation below as could not locate type /length of shear at these locations? See clear story for example. Please verify that plans reflect details showing a complete vertical and lateral load transfer path from upper roof diaphragm's thru lower roofs to foundation below. Plans to detail reference how hips are supported where they intersect. No detail provided for hips top hips and if no king post to beam provided as shown then provide design calculations for tension and compression members. The foundation plan does not comply with the soils report recommendations for this project. Please review the report and modify design, notes and details as required to show compliance: Soils report only address a two story condition and slab thickness is be minimum 5"with 15 mil visqueen. Recheck all locations. Provide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the foundation plan and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the soils report are properly incorporated into the construction (per page 33 of the soils report). The soils engineer recommended that he/she review the foundation excavations. Note on the foundation plan that "Prior to the contractor requesting a Building Department foundation inspection, the soils engineer shall advise the building official in writing that: The building pad was prepared in accordance with the soils report, The utility trenches have been properly backfilled and compacted, and The foundation excavations, the soils expansive characteristics and bearing capacity conform to the soils report." Carlsbad 16-3118 08/26/16 RB 3 to be a 5 1/4 x 16 and plans reflect 5 1/4 x 14" Recheck all locations. Detail 307 is reflecting various types of drag straps but could not locate on framing plan which one is be used? Could not determine how covered porches to be laterally restrained? . CITY of CARLSBAD REQUIREMENTS If special inspection is required, the designer shall complete the city's "Special Inspection Agreement". If CalGreen requires a Waste Management Plan, the applicant shall submit the Carlsbad special form for this. Complete recheck required when clear story framing clarified. Note on this list (or a copy) where each correction item has been addressed, i.e., plan sheet, note or detail number, calculation page, etc. Please indicate here if any changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of corrections from this list. If there are other changes, please briefly describe them and where they are located in the plans. Have changes been made to the plans not resulting from this correction list? Please indicate: Yes () No () The jurisdiction has contracted with Esgil Corporation located at 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123; telephone number of 858/560-1468, to perform the plan review for your project. If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact Ray Fuller at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. Carlsbad 16-3118 08/26/16 [DO NOT PAY - THIS IS NOT AN INVOICE] VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 16-3118 PREPARED BY: Ray Fuller DATE: 08/26/16 BUILDING ADDRESS: 1655 Chestnut Drive BUILDING OCCUPANCY: R3 U TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION VB BUILDING PORTION AREA (Sq. Ft.) Valuation Multiplier Reg. Mod. VALUE ($) Dwelling 1959 139.52 273,320 Garage 572 36.40 20,821 Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers 2531 3.94 9,972 TOTAL VALUE 304,113 Jurisdiction Code Icb IBY Ordinance I Bldg. Permit Fee by Ordinance Plan Check Fee by Ordinance V Type of Review: El Complete Review El Other El Repetitive Fee I Repeats El Hourly EsGil Fee El Structural Only Hr. © * I $1,353.811 I $879.981 I $758.131 Comments: 'in addition to the above itional fee of $86 is due (1 h 86/hr.) for the CalGreen review. Sheet 1 of I macvalue.doc + PLAN CHECK REVIEW TRANSMITTAL Community & Economic Development Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 www.carlsbadca.gov DATE: 08-23-2016 PROJECT NAME: OZAKI 2ND PARCEL NEW SFR PROJECT ID: PD 16-23 PLAN CHECK NO: CB163118 SET#: 1 ADDRESS: .1655 CHESTNUT AVE. APN: 205-220-86 VALUATION: $312,239 SCOPE OF WORK:, CONSTRUCT NEW 1,959 SQ. FT. SFR I I ThiS plan chepk review is complete and has been APPROVED by LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION Final lnspectior by Construction Management & Inspection Division is required: Yes r7 1Z No X This plan check review is NOT COMPLETE. Items missing or incorrect are listed on the attached checklist. Please resubmit amended plans as required. Plan Check Comments have been sent to: KEVINOZAKI@GMAIL.COM To determine stat9s by one of the divisions listed below, please contact 760-602-2719. 1J1 I LAND DEVELOPMENT I L!_ I 760-602 -2750 Chris Sexton . Chris Glassen LI Greg Ryan 760-602-4624 . 760-602-2784 . 760-602-4663 Chris.Sexton@carlsbadca.gov Christopher.Glassen@carlsbadca.gov Gregory.Ryan@carlsbadca.gov [I]Gina Ruiz F] Linda OntiverOs [] Cindy Wong . 760-602-4662 760-602-4675 . 760-602-2773 Gina.Ruiz@carisbadca.gov . Linda.Ontiveros@carlsbadca.gov . Cynthia.Wong@carlsbadca.gov F-f . ValRay Nelson Dominic Fieri 760-602-2741 760-602-4664 ValRay.Marshall@carlsbadca.gov Dominic.Fieri@carlsbadca.gov, Remarks: . . / I-I OZAKI 2ND PARCEL NEW SFR PLAN CHECK NO # CB16-3118 ' Outstanding issues are marked with • Items that conform to permit s imniii reqz.tirements are marked with EZI or have intentionally been left blank. 1. SITE PLAN TO BE SHOWN Provide a fully, dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. Show: ON SIGNED EJ E North arrow . - c: J Driveway widths APPROVED r:j =Existing & proposed structures J jJ Existing or proposed sewer lateral GRADING Lj . EJ Existing street improvements EJ LJ Existing or proposed water service PLANS EJ EJ Property lines (show all dimensions) EJ EJ Submit on signed approved plans: EJ :J EJ Easements DWG No. 494-6A EJ Right-of-way width & adjacent streets Show on site Ian: Drinage patterns and proposed site elevations. Show all high points. EJ E1 Building pad surface drainage must maintain a minimum slope of one percent towards an adjoining street or an approved drainage course. £J =ADD THE FOLLOWING NOTE: "Finish grade will provide a minimum positive drainage of 2% to swale 5' way from building". E1 i:J Existing & proposed slopes and topography 1 EJSIZ, location, alignment of existing or proposed sewer and water service(s) that serves the project Each unit requires a separate service; however, second dwelling units and apartment complexes are an exdeption. EJ EJ Sewer and water laterals should not be located within proposed driveways, per standards. Include on title sheet: . . LJ Site address Assessor's parcel number 2J Legal description/lot number i:i For commercial/industrial buildings and tenant improvement projects, include: total building square footage with the square footage for each different use, existing sewer permits stowing square footage of different uses (manufacturing, warehouse, office, etc.) previously improvement for 3500 SF of warehouse to 3500 SF of office. Lot/Map No.: 2, PM0734 Subdivision/Tract: Reference No(s): E-36 E REV 6/01/12 OZAKI 2ND PARCEL NEW SFR PLAN CHECK NO # CB16-3118 DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL COMPLIANCE MS 06-03 LI L:J Project-does not comply with the following engineering conditions of approval for project no.: DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS :J EJ Dbdication for all street rights-of-way adjacent to the building site and any storm drain or PR 08-56 utilityeasements on the building site is required for all new buildings and for remodels with a PR 08-55 value at or exceeding $ 24.000.00 , pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.40.030. El EJ Ddication required as follows: IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS All needed public improvements upon and adjacent to the building site must be constructed DWG 128-1 ati time of building construction whenever the value of the construction exceeds $120,000.00, pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.40.040. LJ LJ PLblic improvements required as follows: EJ Construction of the public improvements must be deferred pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.40. Please submit a recent property title report or current grant deed on the property and processing fee, so we may prepare the necessary Neighborhood lr'iproyement Agreement. This agreement must be signed, notarized and approved by the city prior to issuance of a building. permit. El El uture public improvements required asfollows: E-36 i REV 6/01/12 OZAKI 2ND PARCEL NEW SFR PLAN CHECK NO # CB16-3118 GR 16-23 5. GRADING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS The'conditions that require a grading permit are found in Section 15.16 of the Municipal Code. L1=Inadequate information available on site plan to make a determination on grading requirements. Include accurate grading quantities in cubic yards (cut, fill, import, export and remedial). This information must be included on the plans. If no grading is proposed write: "NO GRADING" c:i LZJ Grading Permit reuired. NOTE: The grading permit must be issued and rough grading approval obtained prior to issuance of a building permit. t:i IJ Graded Pad Certification required. (Note: Pad certification may be required even if a grading permit is not required.) All required documentation must be provided to your Engineering C?nstruction Inspector The inspector will then piovide the engineering counter with a release for.the bUilding permit. EJ EJ Nb grading permit required. E1 E:J Minor Grading Permit required. See additional comments for project- specific requirements. RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT is required to do work in city right-of-way and/or private work TO BE APPLIED adjacent to the public right-of-way. Types of wok include, but are not limited, to: street FOR improvements, tree trimming, -driveway construction., tying into public storm drain, sewer and SEPERATELY water utilities. EJ IZI Right-of-way permit required for: IISTALL WATER/SEWER SERVICES E-36 REV 6/01/12 OZAKI 2ND PARCEL NEW SFR - piri CHECK NO ft SW 16-272 7. STORM WATER Constuction Compliance J Project Threat Assessment Form complete. . • Enclosed Project Threat Assessment Form incomplete. . EJ Requires Tier 1 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (E-29). Please complete attached form and return (SW ) PLEASE SHOW L.I.D. Requires Tier 2 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Requires submittal of Tier 2 SWPPP, payment of processing fee and review by city. Storm Water Standards Questionnaire. Project is subject to Standard Storm Water Requirements. See city Best Management Practices (BMP) Design Manual for reference. J] Indicate areas of impervious surfaces (patios,walkway, etc. ) and pervious areas (landscaping). Project needs to incorporate low impact development strategies throughout in one or more of the following ways: • • J Rainwater harvesting (rain barrels or cistern) - • J Vegetated Roof • - • I Bio-retentions cell/rain garden I EJ Pervious pavement/payers • EJ Flow-through planter/vegetated or rock drip line El Vegetated swales or rock infiltration swales • • Downspouts disconnect and discharge over landscape • I EJ Other: - • E-36 • 1 • • • REV 6101/12 OZAKI 2ND PARCEL NEW SFR 8. WATER PLAN CHECK NO # CB16-3118 Domestic (potable) Use FS1" L11 What size meter is required? Where a residential unit is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system, the minimum meter size snail oe a u meter. NOTE: the connection fee, SDCWA system capacity charge and the water treatment capaáity charge will be based on the size of the meter necessary to meet the water use requirements. jVjJ For residential units the minimum size meter shall be 5/8", except where the residential unit is larger than 3,500 square feet or on a lot larger than one quarter (1/4) acre where the meter size shall be 9. FEES EJ [Ii Required fees have been entered in building permit. c:J Drainage fee applicable Added square feet Added square footage in last two years? EJ yes Ono Permit No. • Permit No. Project built after 1980 yes J no Impervious surface> 50% [J yes [Jno Impact unconstructed facility ayes E no [iZJ Fire sprinklers required Jyes j no (is addition over 150' from center line) Upgrade Jyes EJno No fees required ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 10. Attachments: [] E-36 Storm Water Form EJ Right-of-Way ApplIcation/Info. EJ Reference Documents REV 6/01/12 205-220-86-00 Fee Calculation Worksheet sss ENGINEERING DIVISION Prepared by: CG j Date: 8/23/16 GEO DATA: LFMZ: IB&T: Address: 1655 CHESTNUT AVE. Bldg. Permit #: CBI6-3118 Fees Update by: I Date: Fees Update by:. Date: EDU CALCULATIONS: List types and square footages for all uses. Types of Use: SFR Sq.Ft./Units i EDU's: I Types of Use: Sq.Ft./Units . EDU's: Types of Use: . Sq.Ft./Units EDU's: Types of Use: Sq.Ft./Units EDU's: ADT CALCULATIONS: List types and square footages for all uses. Types of Use: SFR Sq.Ft./Units I ADT's: 10 Types of Use: . Sq.Ft./Units . ADT's: Types of Use: I Sq.Ft./Units •. ADT's: Types of Use: . . Sq.Ft./Units ADT's: FEES REQUIRED: Within CFD:DYES (no bridge & thoroughfare fee in District #1, reduces Traffic Impact Fee) EZINO 1. PARK-IN-LIEU FEE: ['EINW QUADRANT ONE QUADRANT OSE QUADRANT 0,W QUADRANT ADT'/UN ITS: X FEE/ADT: 4 PAID ON PM06-03 23RAFFIC IMPACT FEE: ADT'S/UNITS: 10 X FEE/ADT: $316 4 3,160 BRIDGE & THOROUGHFARE FEE: DIST. #1 EDIST.#2 EDIST43 (USE SANDAG)ADT'S/UNITS X FEE/ADT: I FACILITIES MANAGEMENT FEE ZONE: I ADT'S/UNITS: . X FEE/SQ.FT./UNIT: I SEWER FEE EDU'9i I X FEE/EDU: $881 881 BENEFIT AREA: EDU's' . X FEE/EDU: I ...$ DRAINAGE FEES: PLDA: EHIGH EMEDIUM ELOW ACRES: X FEE/AC: 4. PAID ON PM06-03 POTABLE WATER FEES: UNITS i CODE CONN. FEE METER FEE SDCWA FEE TOTAL I FSI $3,934 $356 $4,963 $9,253 This may not represent a comprehensive list of fees due for this project. Please contact the Building division at (760) 60-2719 for a complete listing of feesss* 1 01 NE IL. SQN NGINE IE FIS Building Department Submittal Ozaki Residence 1655 Chestnut Ave Carlsbad, California Sign Date: February 2, 2017 oESSi0 EL m Exp. 6/18 J; kP Job #: 161275 43180 Business Park Dr., Suite 200, Temecula, CA 92590 Phone 951.695.7101 Fax 951.848.0917 Plan 1 [in Project #: 161275 Date: 2/7/2017 I General Notes for Structural Calculations: I Project #: 161275 Soils Report By: TBD Project Name: Ozaki Residence Soils Report #: TBD Designer: Aveen Saleh Soils Report Date: TBD Code: 2013 CBC Jurisdiction: TBD I Design Loads: I Roof: Tile Slope: 4 :12 Floor: Without Concrete Topping Roofing Material: Concrete Tile 10.0 Sheathing: 15/32" sheathing 1.5 Roof Framing: Trusses at 24" 0/c 3.0 Drywall: 5/8" drywall 2.5 Miscellaneous: Additional 3.0 rotal Dead Load =1 20.01 Finish Floor: Carpet/Tile 5.0 Sheathing: 23/32" sheathing 2.0 Floor Joist: I-joists at 19.2" 0/c 3.0 Drywall: 5/8" drywall 2.5 Miscellaneous: Additional 1.5 Total Dead Load = 1 14.0 Floor Roof Deck Live Loads (psf): 1 40 20 40 I Lateral Shear: 2013 California Building Code I Shear Wall Schedule Per AF & PA SDPWS Table 4.3A S.W.Type 6 4 3 2 1 Seismic Capacity (p11) 260 350 490 600 870 Wind Capacity (p11) 350 530 685 895 1215 5/8" Diameter Anchor Bolts 14" Long at 14" Long at 14" Long at 14" Long at 14" Long at Sheathing thickness 3/8" 3/8" 3/8" 3/8" 15/32" Struct. I Edge Nailing 8d at 6" o/c 8d at 4" 0/c 8d at 3" o/c 8d at 2" 0/c iod at 2" 0/c Field Nailing 8d at 12" o/c 8d at 12" o/c 8d at 12" 0/c 8d at 12" o/c iod at 12" 0/c Sill Plate 2x 2x 2x 2X 3x Notes: These values are for Douglas Fir-Larch with a stud spacing of 16" o.c. Wood structural panel shall meet the requirements of DOC PSi or PS2. All Panel edges to be backed with 2x or wider framing member. Where panels are applied to both faces of wall and nail spacing is less than 6" o.c., panel joints shall be offset to fall on different framing members or framing shall be 3x or wider and nails staggered on each side. For shear wall Type i, provide a single 3x minimum member for foundation sill plates. For shear wall Types 3, 2, and 1, provide minimum 3x posts or blocking at adjoining panel edges. Stagger nails at 2" o.c. Edge Nailing. Provide 3" x 3" X .229" steel plate washers at each Shear Wall anchor bolt. Nails for Sole Plate Nailing (S.P.N.) to be 16d sinker nails (3-1/4" x .148" dia.) or longer. 2 Project #: 161275 Date: 217/2017 I Horizontal: Roof and Floor Sheathing I Sheathing thickness Sheathing Edge/Boundary Nailing Field Nailing Roof at 24" 0/c Floor at 16" 0/c Floor at 19.2" 0/c Floor at 24" 0/c 15/32" 23/32" 23/32" 23/32" P112 T&G Sheathing, P11 32/16 T&G Sheathing, P1140/20 T&G Sheathing, P1148/24 8d at 6" o/c iod at 6" 0/c iod at 6" o/c iod at 6" o/c 8d at 12" o/c iod at 10" o/c iod at 10" o/c iod at 10" o/c Notes: All roof and floor sheathing to be Exposure I or Exterior. Refer to CBC Tables 2304.7(1), 2304.7(2), 2304.7(3), 2304.7(4) and 2304.7(5). Note, 7/16' sheathing is not structurally acceptable for roof sheathing. For floor sheathing, wood structural panel shall be underlayerment grade. All Floor sheathing shall be glued to framing. For floor sheathing, panel edges shall have approved T&G joints or shall be supported with blocking. Not required when light weight concrete is placed over subfloor. I Structural Composite Lumber (SCL) Structural Composite Lumber, "SCL," include engineered lumber by Trus Joist, Louisiana Pacific, Boise Cascade, or Roseburg Forest Products. All lumber noted as "SCL" must have the design values noted below. Beam Width <= 3.5" Fb Fv E BCI Versa-Lam 2800-LVL 2800 285 2.0 BCI Versa-Lam 3100-LVL 3100 285 2.0 BCI Versa-Lam 2650-LVL 2650 285 1.7 BCI Versa-Lam 2600-LVL 2600 285 1.9 1.9E LP Gang-Lam - LVL 2650 285 1.9 2.OE LP Gang-Lam - LVL 2950 290 2.0 TJI Parallam - PSL 2900 290 2.0 TO Timberstrand - LSL 2325 310 1.6 1.8E Roseburg-RigidLam-LVL 2600 285 1.8 2.OE Roseburg-RigidLam-LVL 2900 285 2.0 Beam Width > 3.5" Fb Fv E BCI Versa-Lam 3100-LVL 3100 285 2.0 2.OE LP Gang-Lam - LVL 2950 290 2.0 TJI Parallam - PSL 2900 290 2.0 2.OE Roseburg-RigidLam-LVL 2900 285 2.0 Project #: 161275 Date: 2/7/2017 Beam/Header Calculation Beam No. 1 Span Length: 9.5 ft. Uniform Distributed Load: Description: Left of kitchen DL (psf) LL (psf) Tributary (ft.) DL (p11) LL (plf) Total (pit) Roof: 20 20 2 /2+ 2 60 60 120 Floor: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Wall: 14 0 1 + 0 14 0 14 Deck: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Self Weight: 12.9 12.9 Total = 86.8906 6o 146.9 Partially Distributed Load: Distance from support 1 = 3.5 DL (psf) LL (psf) Tributary (ft.) DL (pit) LL (pit) Total (pit) Roof: 20 20 11 /2+ 0 105 105 210 Floor: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Wall: 14 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 Deck: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Total = 105 105 210 Point Loads: DL (pit) LL (pit) Total (pit) Dist. from support 1 (ft) Point Load 1: 1,313 0 1313.23 3.5 Point Load 2: 0 0 0 0 Load Results: Design Values: Support 1 (lbs.): 2,127 Fb = 1350 psi Support 2 (lbs.): 12317 Fv = 170 psi Max Moment (ft-lbs.): 5416 = 64.99 in-k E = 1.6 x io"6 psi Allowable Deflection = L / 36o = 0.32 in. Calc. Def. = 0.28 in. Section Properties: Actual Required % Used S (in') = 51.6 S (in') =Moment/ 1.25 * Fb = 38.5 75% A (in 2)= 41.3 A (in 2)= 1.5 * V / 1.25 * Fv = 15.0 36% I (inn) = 193.4 I (in4) = 5*M*Ld2 / 48*E*d = 173.7 90% I Provide: 1 - 6 x 8 DOUG FIR-L #1 I 4 Project #: 161275 Date: 217/2017 Beam/Header Calculation Beam No. 2 Description: Rear of kitchen Span Length: 6 ft. Uniform Distributed Load: DL (psf) LL (psf) Tributary (ft.) DL (p11) , LL (p11) Total (pif) Roof: 20 20 8 /2+ 2.3 125 125 250 Floor: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Wall: 14 0 1 + 0 14 0 14 Deck: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Self Weight: 95 9.5 Total = 148.453 125 273.5 Partially Distributed Load: . Distance from support 1 = 0.0 DL (psf) LL (psf) Tributary (ft.) DL (p11) LL (p11') Total (pif) Roof: 20 20 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Floor: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Wall: 14 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 Deck: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Total= 0 0 0 Point Loads: DL (plf) LL (p11) Total (p11) Dist. from support 1 (ft) Point Load i: 0 0 0 0 Point Load 2: 0 0 0 0 Load Results: Support 1 (lbs.): 820 Support 2 (lbs.): 820 Max Moment (ft-lbs.): 1231 = 14.77 in-k Allowable Deflection = L / 360 = 0.20 in. Section Properties: Design Values: Fb= 1350. psi Fv= 170 psi E= 1.6 xloA6 psi Calc. Def. = 0.07 in. Actual Required % Used S (in') = 27.7 - S On') =Moment/ 1.25 * Fb = 8.8 32% A (in 2)= 30.3 A (in 2)= 1.5 * V / 1.25 * Fv = 5.8 19% I (in4) = 76.3 I (in4) = 5*M*LA2 / 48*E*d = 24.9 33% I Provide: 1 - 6 x 6 DOUG FIR-L #1 • I' 5 Project #: 161275 Date: 2/7/2017 Beam/Header Calculation Beam No. 3 Description: Rear of great room Span Length: 20.5 ft. Uniform Distributed Load: DL (psf) LL (psf) Tributary (ft.) DL (p11) LL (p11) Total (pif) Roof: 20 20 13 /2+ 2.3 170 170 340 Floor: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Wall: 14 0 1 + 0 14 0 14 Deck: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Self Weight: 26.3 26.3 Total = 210.25 170 380.3 Partially Distributed Load: Distance from support 1 = 0.0 DL (psf) LL (psf) Tributary (ft.) DL (p11) LL (pif) Total (p11) Roof: 20 20 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Floor: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Wall: 14 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 Deck: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Total= 0 0 0 Point Loads: DL (plf) LL (p11) Total (p11) Dist. from support :L (ft) Point Load 1: 1,272 0 1272.2 1 Point Load 2: 1,272 0 1272.2 20 Load Results: Support '(lbs.): 5,139 Support 2 (lbs.): 5,201 Max Moment (ft-lbs.): 21806 = 261.67 in-k Allowable Deflection = L / 36o = 0.68 in. Section Properties: Design Values: Fb= 2900 psi Fv= 285 psi E= 2.0 xio"6 psi Cale. Def. = 0.46 in. Actual Required % Used S (in 3) = 224.0 S (in 3) =Moment/ 1.25 * Fb = 72.2 32% A (in 2)= 84.0 * V / 1.25 * Fv = 21.9 A (in 2)= 1.5 26% I (in 4) = 1792.0 I (in4) = 5*M*LA2 / 48*E*d = 1206.9 67% I Provide: 1 - 5.25 x 16 SCL I IZI Project #: 161275 Date: 2/7/2017 Beam/Header Calculation Beam No. 4 Description: Rear of great room SDan Length: 6 ft. Uniform Distributed Load: DL (psf) LL (psf) Tributary (ft.) DL (p1±) LL (p1±) Total (p11) Roof: 20 20 8 /2+ 2.3 125 125 250 Floor: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Wall: 14 0 1 + 0 14 0 14 Deck: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Self Weight: 9.5 9.5 Total = 148.453 125 273.5 Partially Distributed Load: . Distance from support i = 0.0 DL (psf) LL (psf) Tributary (ft.) DL (p11) LL (p1±) Total (p11) Roof: 20 20 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Floor: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Wall: 14 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 Deck: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Total= 0 0 0 Point Loads: DL (p1±) LL (p1±) Total (p1±) Dist. from support i (ft) Point Load :L: o 0 0 0 Point Load 2: 0 0 0 0 Load Results: Design Values: Support 1 (lbs.): 820 Fb = 1350 psi Support 2 (lbs.): 820 Fv = 170 psi Max Moment (ft-lbs.): 1231 = 14.77 in-k E = 1.6 x 10A psi Allowable Deflection = L / 360 = 0.20 in. Calc. Def. = 0.07 in. Section Properties: Actual Required % Used S (in3) = 27.7 S (in 3) =Moment/ 1.25 * Fb = 8.8 32% A (in2) = 30.3 A (in') = 1.5 * V / 1.25 * Fv = 5.8 19% I (in4) = 76.3 I (in4) = 5*M*LA2 / 48*E*d = 24.9 33% I Provide: 1 - 6 x 6 DOUG FIR-L #1 I 7 Project #: 161275 Date: 2/7/2017 Beam/Header Calculation Beam No. 5 Description: Rear of front porch Span Length: 5 ft. Uniform Distributed Load: DL (psf) LL (psf) Tributary (ft.) DL (pit) LL (pit) Total (pit) Roof: 20 20 8 /2+ 2.3 125 125 250 Floor: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Wall: 14 0 1 + 0 14 0 14 Deck: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Self Weight: 9.5 9.5 Total = 148.453 125 273.5 Partially Distributed Load: Distance from support 1= 0.0 DL (psf) LL (psf) Tributary (ft.) DL (pit) LL (pit) Total (pit) Roof: 20 20 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Floor: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Wail: 14 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 Deck: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Total = 0 0 0 Point Loads: DL (pit) LL (pit) Total (pit) Dist. from support 1 (ft) Point Load i: 0 0 0 0 Point Load 2: 0 0 0 0 Load Results: Design Values: Support 1 (lbs.): 684 Fl) = 1350 psi Support 2 (lbs.): 684 Fv = 170 psi Max Moment (ft-lbs.): 855 = 10.25 in-k E = 1.6 x 10A psi Allowable Deflection = L / 360 = 0.17 in. Caic. Def. = 0.03 in. Section Properties: Actual Required % Used S (in') = 27.7 S (in3) =Moment/ 1.25 * Pb = 6.1 22% A (in2) = 30.3 A (in2) =1-5 * V / 1.25 * Fv = 4.8 16% I (in) = 76.3 I (in4) = 5*M*L2 / 48*E*d = 14.4 19% I Provide: 1 - 6 x 6 DOUG FIR-L #1 I E;] Project #: 161275 Date: 2/7/2017 Beam/Header Calculation Beam No. 6 Description: front of garage Span Length: 16 ft. Uniform Distributed Load: DL (psf) LL (psf) Tributary (ft.) DL (pif) LL (p11) Total (p11) Roof: 20 20 8 /2+ 2 120 120 240 Floor: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Wall: 14 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 Deck: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Self Weight: 19.8 19.8 Total = 139.766 120 259.8 Partially Distributed Load: Distance from support 1 = 0.0 DL (psf) LL (psf) Tributary (ft.) DL (pif) LL (p11) Total (p1±) Roof: 20 20 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Floor: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Wall: 14 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 Deck: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Total= 0 0 0 Point Loads: DL (p11) LL (plO Total (pil) Dist. from support 1 (ft) Point Load 1: 0 0 0 0 Point Load 2: 0 0 0 0 Load Results: Design Values: Support 1 (lbs.): 2,078 Fb = 1350 psi Support 2 (lbs.): 2,078 Fv = 170 psi Max Moment (ft-lbs.): 8313 = 99.75 in-k E = 1.6 x io"6 psi Allowable Deflection = L / 360 = 0.53 in. Caic. Def. = 0.34 in. Section Properties: Actual Required % Used S (in 3) = 121.2 S (in3) =Moment/ 1.25 * Fb = 59.1 49% A (in2) = 63.3 A (in') = 1.5 * V / 1.25 * Fv = 14.7 23% I (inn) = 697.1 I (in4) = 5*M*L%2 / 48*E*d = 448.9 64% I Provide: 1 - 6 x 12 DOUG FIR-L #1 I IZI Project #: 161275 Date: 2/7/2017 Beam/Header Calculation Beam No. 7 Description: rear of great room Span Length: 12 ft. Uniform Distributed Load: DL (psi) LL (psi) Tributary (ft.) DL (p11) LL (p11) Total (p11) Roof: 20 20 22 /2+ 2 260 260 520 Floor: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Wall: 14 0 10 + 0 140 0 140 Deck: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Self Weight: 19.5 19.5 Total = 419.482 260 679.5 Partially Distributed Load: Distance from support 1 = 0.0 DL (psi) LL (psi) Tributary (ft.) DL (p11) LL (p11) Total (p11) Roof: 20 20 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Floor: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Wall: 14 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 Deck: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Total= 0 0 0 Point Loads: DL (p11) LL (p11) Total (p11) Dist. from support 1 (ft) Point Load 1: 0 0 0 0 Point Load 2: 0 0 0 0 Load Results: Design Values: Support 1 (lbs.): 4,077 Fb = 2900 psi Support 2(lbs.): 4,077 Fv= 285 psi Max Moment (ft-lbs.): 12231 = 146.77 in-k E = 2.0 x 10A psi Allowable Deflection = L / 36o = 0.40 in. Cale. Def. = 0.22 in. Section Properties: Actual Required % Used S (in 3) = 123.4 S (in 3) =Moment/ 1.25 * Fb = 40.5 33% A (in2) = 62.3 A (in 2)= 1.5 * V / 1.25 * Fv = 17.2 28% I (in 4) = 732.6 I (in4) = 5*M*LA2 / 48*E*d = 396.3 54% I Provide: 1 - 5.25 x 11.88 SCL I 10 Project #: 161275 Date: 2/7/2017 Beam/Header Calculation Beam No. 8 Description: Left of great room Span Length: 15 ft. Uniform Distributed Load: DL (psf) LL (psf) Tributary (ft.) DL (p11) LL (p11) Total (p11) Roof: 20 20 22 /2+ 2 255 255 510 Floor: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Wall: 14 0 10 + 0 140 0 140 Deck: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Self Weight: 23.0 23.0 Total = 417.969 255 673.0 Partially Distributed Load: Distance from support 1= 0.0 DL (psf) LL (psf) Tributary (ft.) DL (pif) LL (p1±) Total (pif) Roof: 20 20 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Floor: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 - Wall: 14 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 Deck: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Total= 0 0 0 Point Loads: DL (p11) LL (p11) Total (p1±) Dist. from support 1 (ft) Point Load i: 0 0 0 0 Point Load 2: 0 0 0 0 Load Results: Support 1 (lbs.): 5,047 Support 2 (lbs.): 5,047 Max Moment (ft-lbs.):• 18927 = 227.13 in-k Allowable Deflection = L / 36o = 0.50 in. Section Properties: Design Values: Fb = 2900 psi Fv= 285 psi E= 2.0 x1o"6 psi Cale. Def. = 0.32 in. Actual Required % Used S (in 3) = 171.5 S (in 3) =Moment/ 1.25 * Fb = 62.7 37% A (in2) = 73.5 A (in') =1-5 * V / 1.25 * Fv = 21.3 29% I (in 4) = 1200.5 I (in4) = 5*M*LA2 / 48*E*d = 766.6 64% I Provide: 1 - 5.25 x 14 SCL I 11 Project #: 161275 Date: 2/7/2017 Beam/Header Calculation Beam No. 9 Description: Hip beam at upper roof Span Length: 14.5 ft. Uniform Distributed Load: DL (psf) LL (psf) Tributary (ft.) DL (p11) LL (plo Total (pif) Roof: 20 20 27 /2+ 0 265 265 530 Floor: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Wall: 14 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 Deck: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Self Weight: 19.5 19.5 Total = 284.482 265 549.5 Partially Distributed Load: Distance from support 1= 0.0 DL (psf) LL (psf) Tributary (ft.) DL (p11) LL (p11) Total (p11) Roof: 20 20 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Floor: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Wall: 14 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 Deck: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Total= 0 0 0 Point Loads: DL (p11) LL (p11) Total (p11) Dist. from support 1 (ft) Point Load i: 0 0 0 0 Point Load 2: 0 0 0 0 Load Results: Design Values: Support 1 (lbs.): 3,984 Fb = 2900 psi Support 2 abs.): 3,984 Fv = 285 psi Max Moment (ft-lbs.): 14441 = 173.29 in-k E = 2.0 x 10A psi Allowable Deflection = L / 36o = 0.48 in. Calc. Def. = 0.37 in. Section Properties: Actual Required % Used S (in 3) = 123.4 S (in3) =Moment/ 1.25 * Fb = 47.8 39% A (in 2)= 62.3 A (in 2)= 1.5 * V / 1.25 * Fv = 16.8 27% I (in 4) = 732.6 I (in4) = 5*M*L%2 / 48*E*d = 565.4 77% I Provide: 1 - 5.25 x 11.88 SCL I 12 Project#: 151213 Date: 2/7/2017 I Stud Wall Size & Spacing Calculation I 1 Studs at clear neignr 01 wau (1t). I = L2JIt I Uniform Vertical Distributed Load (1)11): I Roof = 40 psf * ( 21.5 /2 + Wall= 14 psf *( o + Floor = 54 psf * ( o /2 + 2 ) = 510.0 plf ) = o.oplf ) = o.oplf Total Wi = I 510.0 Ipif IWmd Uniform Lateral Load (psi): I Basic Wind Speed = nO mph (3-Second Gust) Exposure = C I = 1.00 Mean Roof Height, (ft) = 17 K, = 1 C0 GCp = -1.3 qj, (psf) = 23.70 Wind Load, P= qh[(GC)-(GCI)] =1 35.1 Ipsf Douglas Fir Design Value: NDS Table 4A1 E = i.6 x 10° psi F_1_ = 625 psi Fb= 900 psi F= 1350 Psi Vertical Load Design: P = Axial Load on Stud = 680 lbs f=f= P/A= 41 psi l/d,= 41 E'= E (CM)(Ct)(Cj) = 1.6 x 106 pj KCE = 0.3 for Visually Graded Lumber C = 0.8 for Sawn Lumber FCE = KE E'/ (le / d)2= 279 psi F*c = Fc(CD)(CM)(Ct)(CF)(Ci) = 1856 psi Fca /F*c = 0.150 FcE = 0.719 C = 0.146 F'c = FC(CD)(CM)(C)(CF)(Cp)(Cj) Adjustment Factors, C Fb Fc E CD= 1.25 1.25 -- Wind = 1.6 1.6 -- CM = 1.0 1.0 1.0 Ct 1.0 1.0 1.0 CL= 1.0 -- -- CF = 1.30 1.10 -- Cr = 1.40 -- C. = 1.0 1.0 1.0 Wind Load Design: M=wL2 /8 = 2110.1 ft-lb fb=M/S= 1674 psi Fb'= Fb(CD)(CM)(Ct)(CL)(CF)(Cr)(C) 77-7-1 JFb'= 2621 psi> fb= 1674 pSi... OK! FCE = KcE E'/ (1e / d)'= 279 psi F*c = Fc(CD)(CM)(Ct)(CF)(C) F*c = 2376 psi FCE /F*C = o.i18 (1+FCE/rC)/2C = 0.698 C= 0.115 = FC(Co)(CM)(Cj(CF)(Cp)(Cj) = 272 PSi > t = 41 psi... OK! I'"c = 319 psi > fc= 41 psi... OK! Stud Lateral Reaction: I R 444 lbs Member Properties: Area = 16.50 in Combined Stress: S = 15.13 in3 {(fC/F'C)+(fb/(F'b(1-fC/FCs))} 0.77 <= i.o .... OK! Provi&( 2 ) 2 x 6 DFL#zStudat 16 "o.c. 13 IZI Project #: 161275 Date: 2/7/2017 Seismic Analysis Risk Category= II Site Class = D Importance Factor, IF = 1.00 Response Modification Factor, R = 6.5 S= 1.1250 (Per Soils Report) S1= 0.432 (Per Soils Report) Fa = 1.05 (Table 1613.3.3(1)) Fv = 1.57 (Table 1613.3.3(2)) 5MS = 1.i8 (Eq 16-37; Fa X S) 5M1 = 0.68 (Eq 16-38; Fv X S) SOS = 079 (Eq 16-39; 2/3 x SMS) 501 = 0.45 (Eq 16-40; 2/3 x SM1) SDC5 = D (Table 1613.3.5(1)) SDC1 = D (Table 1613.3.5(2)) I Seismic Design Category = DI 0r = 0.02 (Table 12.8-2) Cs = 0.12 (Eq 12.8-2; S05 / (R/lE)) h = i6 C.. = 0.43 (Eq 12.8-3 & 12.8-4; SD, / ((R/lE) x T)) T = o.16 (Eq 12.8-7; Gr x (hyc) Csmi.= 0.01 (Eq 12.8-5 & 12.8-6) TL = 6 (Figure 22-12) rho = 1.30 V = 0.12 x W (Eq 12.8-1; Cs x W) V / 1.4 = 0.086582 x W ASD 20 psf Dead Load at Roof = Dead Load at = 14 psf Roof Walls = 10 psf Floor _Floor Walls = 20 psf I 30 psf I 34 psf i!StThë'Difribiition Wi (ibs) hi(ft) Wi hi Fx (psf) Sum Roof: 30 9 270 3.38 3.38 Base: 30 0 270 3.38 14 Project #: 161275 Date: 2/7/2017 Seismic Analysis- Clear story Risk Category= II Site Class = D Importance Factor, 'E = 1.00 Response Modification Factor, R = 6.5 1.1250 (Per Soils Report) S1= 0.432 (Per Soils Report) Fa = 1.05 (Table 1613.3.3(1)) Fv = 1.57 (Table 1613.3.3(2)) 5MS = 1.18 (Eq 16-37; Fa X S) SM1 = 0.68 (Eq 16-38; F, X S1) 5DS = 0.79 (Eq 16-39; 2/3 x SMS) 5D1 = 0.45 (Eq 16-40; 2/3 x SM1) SDC5 = D (Table 1613.3.5(1)) SDC1 = D (Table 1613.3.5(2)) I Seismic Design Category = DI Cr = 0.02 (Table 12.8-2) C5 = o.i (Eq 12.8-2; SDS / (R/lE)) hn = 20.5 C max = 0.36 (Eq 12.8-3 & 12.8-4; S01/ ((R/lE) x T)) T = 0.193 (Eq 12.8-7; CT x (h)1) C = 0.01 (Eq 12.8-5 & 12.8-6) TL = 6 (Figure 22-12) rho = 1.30 V = 0.12 x W (Eq 12.8-1; Cs x W) Dead Load at_Roof = 20 psf Roof Walls = 10 psf I 3° psf V/ 1.4 = 0.086582 X ASD Dead Load at_Floor = 14 psf Floor Walls = 20 psf 134 psf 2-Story Force Distribution Wi abs) hi(ft) Wi hi Fx (psf) Sum Roof: 30 19 570 4.51 4.51 1st Floor: 34 10 340 2.69 7.20 Base: 64 0 910 7.20 15 Project #: 161275 Date: 2/7/2017 Wind Analysis Basic Wind Speed, V (mph) = 110 Topography Factor, K. = Importance Factor, I = 1.00 Length of Building, L (ft) = Exposure Category = C Width of Building, B (ft) = Mean Roof Height, h (ft) = 16 Roof Slope = Gust Effect Factor, G = 0.85 Wind Load Factor, = Horizontal - Roof g>lo' q, (psf) = 23.70 h/L = 0.35 q = 18.43 1 45.5 45 4 /12 1.3 Cp windward - Cp leeward Cp windward + P (windward-) P (windward+) P (leeward) P Total Roof -0.42 -0.57 0.14 -8.38 2.77 1 -11.45 14.22 Horizontal - Wall Height ïç K. qz Cp(wiodward) C0 (leeward) P (windward) P (leeward) P Total Wall 0-15 0.85 0.85 22.38 o.8o -0.50 15.22 -10.03 25.24 20 0.90 0.85 23.70 0.80 -0.50 16.11 -10.03 26.14 25 0.94 085 24.75 o.8o -0.50 16.83 -10.03 26.86 30 0.98 0.85 25.80 0.80 1 -0.50 17.55 1 -10.03 27.57 40 1.04 0.85 27.38 0.80 -0.50 18.62 -10.03 28.65 50 1.09 0.85 28.70 0.80 -0.50 19.52 -10.03 29.54 6o 1.13 0.85 29.75 0.80 -0.50 20.23 -10.03 30.26 (UPLIFT)Vertical - Roof and a<io° I 0 -h/2 h/2 - h h -!9h >2h I Pinternal I I -18.13 -18.13 -10.07 -6.04 I -3.63 I Wind Loads Roof I I Roof at 2nd Floor= P * * 16 - 9 ) = 77.7 plf I IWall at 2nd Floor = P* (j* 9 - 4.5 ) = 88.6 Of I Load I Sum at 2nd Floor = 166.3 Pif I 16 Project #: 141051 Date: 2/7/2017 Wind Analysis Basic Wind Speed, V (mph) = Importance Factor, I = Exposure Category = Mean Roof Height, h (ft) = Gust Effect Factor, G = q (psf) = 24.75 110 iopograpny ractor, ic, = 1.00 Length of Building, L (ft) = C Width of Building, B (ft) = 23.5 Roof Slope = 0.85 Wind Load Factor, c = Horizontal - Roof h/L = 0.67 q = 18.43 1 35 132 4 1.3 /12 Cp windward - Cp leeward I C windward + P (windward-) P (Windward+) P(leeward) I P Total Roof -0.60 1 -0.58 1 -0.10 -12.55 1 -2.08 1 -12.19 110.11 Horizontal - Wall Height K Kd qz Cp(windwarcll CD(leeward) P (windward) P (leeward) P Total Wall 0-15 0.85 0.85 22.38 o.80 -0.50 15.22 -10.52 25.74 20 0.90 0.85 23.70 0.80 -0.50 16.11 -10.52 26.63 25 0.94 0.85 24.75 0.80 -0.50 16.83 -10.52 27.35 30 0.98 08.5 25.80 0.80 -0.50 17.55 -10.52 28.06 40 1.04 085 27.38 0.80 -0.50 18.62 -10.52 29.14 50 1.09 I 0.85 1.131 o.851 28.70 0.80 -0.50 19.52 -10.52 30.03 1 6o 29.75 0.80 -0.50 20.23 -10.52 30.75 (UPLIFfl Vertical - Roof and g<io° I 0 h/2 I - h/2 - h I h - 2h I >2h I Pintemal I I -21.82 I -20.38 I -11.96 I -9.20 I I Wind Loads I I Roof I Roof at 2nd Floor= P * )* 21 - 19 ) = 11.8 Of I t I Wall at 2nd Floor = P * 63* 19 - 14 ) = 103.9 pif I I Load ISum at 2nd Floor = 115.7 PIf I I Floor Load listFloor = P * (j)* 14 - 4.5 ) = 190.7 Of 17 Project #: 161275 Date: 2/7/2017 Shear Wall Analysis Shear Line 1.1 Description: Left and right of clear story Wall A B C D E F G H I Total Length 1 Seismic Load Unit Load (psf) Tributary Load (lbs.) W(ft)FD (ft)/2 4.51 19.5 19.5/2 858 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Load This his Level = S5S Lateral Load From Above = _0 Total Load = 858 (1) HFX-12x9 Wind Load Unit Load (p11) Tributary Load (lbs.) D (ft)/2 115.70 19.5/2 1128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Load This Level = Lateral Load From Above = Total Load = 1128 0 1128 Overturning Moment Arm IResisting Dead Load L =1.0 ft. IH_=9.0 ft.I IR =20 ft./2 1W =9 ft.IF_=o ft./2 OTM (ft.-lbs.) RM (ft.-lbs.) Wind Uplift (lbs.) 7721 (E)I_10152 (W) 0.6 x DL =_I_96.3 -106 Net Moment (ft.-lbs.) Uplift From Above (lbs.) Total Uplift (lbs.) 7625 (E)I_10056 (W) o(E)I_o(W) 7625 (E)I_10163 (W) 18 IN] Shear Wall Analysis Shear Line 1.2 Description: Front and rear of clear story Project #: 161275 Date: 2/7/2017 Wall A B C D E F G H I Total Length 1 Seismic Load Unit Load (psf) Tributary Load (lbs.) W (ft) TD (ft)/2 4.51 19-51 19.5/2 858 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Load This Level = 8581 Lateral Load From Above = 0 Total Load = _858 *Provide (i) HFX-12x9 Wind Load Unit Load (p11) Tributary Load (lbs.) D (ft) /2 115.70 19.5/2 1128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Load This Level = Lateral Load From Above = Total Load = 1128 0 1128 Overturjijig Moment Arm Resisting Dead Load i.oft. IH= 9.0 ft. I R= 20ft./2 Iw 9ft. IF= 0ft./2 OTM (ft-lbs.) REv! (ft.-lbs.) Wind Uplift (lbs.) 7721 (E) I 10152 (W) 0.6 x DL = I 96.3 -106 Net Moment (ft.-lbs.) Uplift From Above (lbs.) Total Uplift (lbs.) 7625 (E) I 10056 (W) o (E) I o (W) 7625 (E) I 10163 (W) 19 Project #: 161275 Date: 2/7/2017 Shear Wall Analysis Shear Line 1.3 Description: Left of garage Wall A B C D E F G H I Total Length 8 8 Seismic Load Unit Load (psf) Tributary Load (lbs.) W (ft) TD (ft)/2 3.38 26 22/2 966 3.38 22 7/2 241 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Load This Level = 1207 Lateral Load From Above = _0 Total Load = 1207 Wind Load Unit Load (p11) Tributary Load (lbs.) D (ft)/2 166.26 29/2 2369 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Load This Level = Lateral Load From Above = Total Load= 2369 0 2369 Shear Wall Tve I Total I_Load (lbs.) Total Wall Length (ft) Line Load SW Type (plf) I I Capacity (p11) - Seismic I_1207 8.00 150.9 6 I_260 Gov. Wind I_2369 8.00 296.2 6 I_350 - Overturning Moment Arm Resisting Dead Load L=8.oft.IH_=9.oft. I IR=2ft./2 W=9ft. IF= _oft./2 OTM (ft.-lbs.) RM (ft.-lbs.) Wind Uplift (lbs.) 10864 (E) I 21323 (W) 0.6 x DL = I 2803.2 -87 Net Moment (ft.-lbs.) Uplift From Above (lbs.) Total Uplift (lbs.) L_8061(E)I_18520(W) 0(E) I o(W) io08 (E) L 2402 (W) Governing Load Strap or Hold Down Capacity (lbs.) Foundation I 2402 STHDIO/HTT4 3730 20 Project #: 161275 Date: 2/7/2017 Shear Wall Analysis Shear Line Description: left of bed Wall A B C D E F G H I Total Length 8 8 Seismic Load Unit Load (psi) Tributary Load (lbs.) W (ft) TD (ft)/2 3.38 26 22/2 966 3.38 22 7/2 241 3.38 55.5 14/2 1265 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Load This Level = 2472 Lateral Load From Above = _0 Total Load = 2472 Wind Load Unit Load (p11) Tributary Load (lbs.) D (ft)/2 190.71 42/2 4005 115.70 20/2 1128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Load This Level = Lateral Load From Above = Total Load= 5133 0 5133 Shear Wall Tvre - I Total I Load (lbs.) Total Wall Length (ft) Line Load (p11) 1 I SW Type I I I I Capacity (p1±) - Seismic 2472 8.00 309.0 I I 350 - Wind I 5133 8.00 641.6 I I 685 Gov. Overturning Moment Arm I Resisting Dead Load L= 8.o ft. IH= 9.0 ft. I IR= 4ft./2 IW 9ft. IF= oft./2 OTM (ft.-lbs.) 22249 (E) I 46197 (W) Net Moment (ft.-lbs.) 19062 (E) —L —A3010 (W) RM (ft.-lbs.) 0.6 x DL = I 3187.2 Uplift From Above (lbs.) 0 (E) I 0(W) Wind Uplift (lbs.) -175 Total Uplift (lbs.) 2383(E) I 5551(W) Governing Load Strap or Hold Down Capacity (lbs.) Foundation l 5551 1 HDU5 21 Project #: 161275 Date: 2/7/2017 Shear Wall Analysis Shear Line Description: Right of bedroom 3 Wall A B C D E F G H I Total Length 7 7 Seismic Load Unit Load (psf) Tributary Load (lbs.) W (ft) D (ft)/2 3.38 55.5 14/2 1312 3.38 36 20/2 1185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Load This Level = 2497 Lateral Load From Above = 858 Total Load = 3 _ 355 Wind Load Unit Load (p11) Tributary Load (lbs.) D (ft)/2 166.26 32.6/2 2706 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Load This Level = Lateral Load From Above = Total Load = 2706 1128 3834 Shear Wall Tvie I Total I Load (lbs.) Total Wall Length (ft) Line Load 1 I SW Type I I Capacity (p11) - Seismic I_ 7.00 (p11)i_I 479.3 I_I_490 Gov. Wind I_3834 7.00 547.7 I_I_685 Overturning Moment Arm Resisting Dead Load L=7.oft.IH= 9.o ft. I IR=4ft./2 IW_9ft. IF= oft./2 OTM (ft.-lbs.) 30194 (E) I 34506 (W) Net Moment (ft.-lbs.) 27754(E) I 32066(W) RM (ft.-lbs.) o.6 x DL = I 2440.2 Uplift From Above (lbs.) 0 (E) I o(W) Wind Uplift (lbs.) -153 Total Uplift (lbs.) 3965(E) I 4734(W) Governing Load I Strap or Hold Down Capacity (lbs.) Foundation I 4734 1 HDU5 22 Project #: 161275 Date: 2/7/2017 Shear Wall Analysis Shear Line 4 Description: Left of m. closet Wall A B C E F G H I Total Length 8 i Seismic Load Unit Load (psf) Tributary Load (lbs.) W(ft)7D(ft)/2 3.38 551 13/2 1207 3.38 36 20/2 1185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Load 'l'lus Level = 2392 Lateral Load From Above = 858 Total Load =_3250 Wind Load Unit Load (p11) Tributary Load (lbs.) D (ft)/2 166.26 33/2 2702 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Load This Level = Lateral Load From Above = Total Load= 2702 1128 3830 Shear Wall Tve I Total I Load (lbs.) Total Wall Length (ft) Line Load 1 I SW Type (pil) I I Capacity (p11) Seismic I 3250 8.00 406.3 I I 490 Gov. Wind I . 3830 8.00 478.7 I 530 - Overturning Moment Arm I Resisting Dead Load L = 8.o ft. IH = 9.0 ft. I IR = 22 ft./2 1W = 19 ft. IF = 0 ft./2 OTM (ft.-lbs.) RM (ft.-lbs.) Wind Uplift (lbs.) 29252 (E) I 34468 (1W) F—o6xDL =i 9235.2 -938 Net Moment (ft.-lbs.) Uplift From Above (lbs.) Total Uplift (lbs.) 20017 (E) I 25233 (W) 0(E) I 0 (W) 2502 (E) I 4092 (W) Governing Load Strap or Hold Down Capacity (lbs.) Foundation I 4092 STHDI0/HTT4 3730 23 Project #: 161275 Date: 2/7/2017 Shear Wall Analysis Shear Line 4.1 Description: Right of m. bedroom Wall A B C D E F G H I Total Length 4 4 Seismic Load Unit Load (psi) Tributary Load (lbs.) W (ft) TD (ft)/2 3.38 551 13/2 1207 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Load This Level = 1207 Lateral Load From Above = _0 Total Load = 1207 Plate Height = 9 Pier Length = 4 Wind Load Unit Load (p11) Tributary Load (lbs.) D (ft)/2 166.26 13/2 1081 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Load This Level = Lateral Load From Above = Total Load= 1081 0 1081 Reduction Factor = 0.89 Shear Wall Tvoe - Total ILoad abs.) Total Wall Length (ft) Line Load (p11) 1 __i I SW Type I I Capacity (p11) - - Seismic I_1207 4.00 301.8 I_I_311 Gov. Wind I_io8i 4.00 270.2 I_6 I_350 Overturning Moment Arm Resisting Dead Load L=4.oft.IH=_9.oft. I R=13ft./2 IW_9ft. IF= _oft./2 OTM (ft.-lbs.) RM (ft.-lbs.) Wind Uplift (lbs.) 10864(E)I_9726(W) o.6 x DL =_I_1204.8 -273 Net Moment (ft.-lbs.) Uplift From Above (lbs.) Total Uplift (lbs.) 9660(E)I_8522 (W) 0 (E)I_o (W) 2415 (E)I_2403 (W) Governing Load Strap or Hold Down Capacity (lbs.) Foundation I 2415 1 STHDIO!HTT4 3730 24 Project #: 161275 Date: 2/7/2017 Shear Wall Analysis Shear Line 5 Description: Rear of dining and m. bedroom Wall A B C D E F G H I Total Length 3.5 3.75 7.25 49 Seismic Load Unit Load (psf) Tributary Load (lbs.) W (ft) D (ft)/2 3.38 45.5 13/2 999 3.38 40.5 5/2 342 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Load This Level = 1341 Lateral Load From Above = _0 Total Load = 1341 Plate Height = g Pier Length = 3.5 Wind Load Unit Load (p11) Tributary Load (lbs.) D (ft)/2 166.26 18/2 1496 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Load This Level = Lateral Load From Above = Total Load = 1496 0 1496 Reduction Factor = 0.78 Shear Wall Type - I Total I Load (lbs.) Total Wall Length (ft) Line Load (p1k)I I SW Type I Capacity (p1k) - Seismic I_1341 7.25 184.9 I_6 _I 202 Gov. Wind I_1496 7.25 206.4 I_6 I 350 Overturning Moment Arm Resisting Dead Load L = 3.5 ft. IH = 9.0 ft. I R = 8 ft./2 1W = g ft. IF = 0 ft./2 OTM (ft.-lbs.) 5824(E) I 6501 (W) Net Moment (ft.-lbs.) 5067 (E) I 5744 (W) RM (ft.-lbs.) 0.6 x DL = I 757.05 Uplift From Above (lbs.) 0(E) I 0(W) Wind Uplift (lbs.) -153 Total Uplift (lbs.) 1448 (E) I 1794 (W) Governing Load I Strap or Hold Down Capacity (lbs.) Foundation I 1794 1 STHDIO!HTT4 3730 25 Project #: 161275 Date: 2/7/2017 Shear Wall Analysis Shear Line 5.1 Description: Rear of great room Wall A B C D E F G H I -- Total Length i 1.75 2.75 Seismic Load Unit Load (psf) Tributary Load(lbs.) W (ft)TD (ft)/2 3.38 45.5 13.5/2 1037 3.38 27 19.5/2 889 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Load This Level = 192b Lateral Load From Above = 858 Total Load = 2784 (i) HFX-12x9 & (i) HFX-21X9 Wind Load Unit Load (p11) Tributary Load (lbs.) D (ft)/2 166.26 33/2 2743 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Load This Level = Lateral Load From Above = Total Load = 2743 1128 3871 40 Overturning Moment Arm IResisting Dead Load L=i.oft.IH=_g.o ft. I IR=33ft./2 IW=i8ft. IF= _oft./2 OTM (ft.-lbs.) .RM (ft.-lbs.) Wind Uplift (lbs.) gin (E)I_12670 W) 0.6 x DL =_I_174.6 -180 Net Moment (ft.-lbs.) Po lift From Above (lbs.) Total Uplift (lbs.) 8936(E)I_12495 (W) (E)I_0 (W) 8936 (E)I_12675 (W) 26 Project #: 161275 Date: 2/7/2017 Shear Wall Analysis Shear Line Description: rear of garage Wall A B C D E F G H I Total Length 8 8 Seismic Load Unit Load (psf) Tributary Load (lbs.) W (ft) TD (ft)/2 3.38 221 26/2 966 3.38 6.5 22/2 241 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Load This Level = 1207 Lateral Load From Above = _0 Total Load = 1207 Wind Load Unit Load (p11) Tributary Load (lbs.) D (ft)/2 166.26 26/2 2161 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Load This Level = Lateral Load From Above = Total Load = 2161 0 2161 Shear Wall Tve - I Total I Load (lbs.) Total Wall Length (ft) Line Load (p11) I I SW Type I Capacity (p11) - Seismic I_1207 8.00 150.9 I_6 I_260 Gov. Wind I_2161 8.00 270.2 I_6 _350 - Overturning Moment Arm I Resisting Dead Load L = 8.o ft. IH = 9.0 ft. I J R = 8 ft./2 1W =. 9 ft. IF = 0 ft./2 OTM (ft.-lbs.) 10864 (E) I 19453 (W) Net Moment (ft.-lbs.) 6909 (E) F 15498 (W) RM (ft.-lbs.) 0.6 x DL = I 3955.2 Uplift From Above (lbs.) 0(E) I 0(W) Wind Uplift (lbs.) -349 Total Uplift (lbs.) 864(E) I 2286(W) Governing Load Strap or Hold Down Capacity (lbs.) Foundation I 2286 STHDIOIHTT4 1 3730 27 0 Project #: 161275 Date: 2/7/2017 Shear Wall Analysis El Shear Line 7 Description: Rear of closets Wall A B C D E F G H I Total Length i 1.75 2.75 Seismic Load Unit Load (psf) Tributary Load (lbs.) W (ft) TD (ft)/2 3.38 45.5 13.5/2 1037 3.38 27 19.5/2 889 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Load This Level = 1926 Lateral Load From Above = _858 Total Load = 2784 *Provide (1) HFX-12x9 & (1) HFX-21x9 Wind Load Unit Load (pif) Tributary Load abs.) D (ft)/2 166.26 33/2 2743 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Load This Level = Lateral Load From Above = Total Load = 2743 1128 3871 Overturning Moment Arm I Resisting Dead Load L= i.oft. IH= 9.0 ft. I IR= 33ft./2 IW= 18ft. IF= 0ft./2 OTM (ft.-lbs.) RM(ft.-lbs.) Wind Uplift (lbs.) gill (E)I_12670 (W) 0.6 x DL =_I_174.6 1 1 -180 Net Moment (ft.-lbs.) Uplift From Above (lbs.) I Total Uplift (lbs.) 8936(E)I_12495 (W) o (E)I_o(W) 8936 (E) _12675 (W) 28 Project #: 161275 Date: 2/7/2017 Shear Wall Analysis Shear Line 8 Description: Front of-garage and porch Wall A B C DEF G H I Total Length 4 4 4 12 Seismic Load Unit Load (psf) Tributary Load (lbs.) W (ft) TD (ft)/2 3.38 45.5 19/2 1421 3.38 6.5 22/2 241 3.38 22 26/2 966 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Load 'ills Level = 2b26 Lateral Load From Above = _0 Total Load= 2628 Plate Height = g Pier Length = 4 Wind Load Unit Load (p1±) Tributary Load (lbs.) D (ft)/2 166.26 30/2 2452 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Load This Level = Lateral Load From Above = Total Load= 2452 0 2452 Reduction Factor = 0.89 Shear Wall Tve - I Total 1 I Load (lbs.) Total Wall I Length (ft) Line Load ' (ll) Type I (p1±) - Seismic 2628 T 12.00 219.0 I_6 I_231 _SW _Capacity Wind 2452 12.00 204.4 I_6 I_350 Overturning Moment Arm I Resisting Dead Load L=4.oft.IH=_9.o ft. I IR=8ft./2 IW_9ft. IF= _ôft./2 OTM (ft.-Ibs.) RM (ft.-lbs.) Wind Uplift (lbs.) 7885(E)I_7357 (W) 0.6 x DL =_I_988.8 -175 Net Moment (ft.-lbs.) Uplift From Above (lbs.) Total Uplift (lbs.) 6896(E)I_6368(W) o(E)I_0 (W) 1724 (E) I 1767 (WI) Governing Load Strap or Hold Down Capacity (lbs.) Foundation I 1767 1 STHDI0/HTT4 3730 29 Project #: 161275 Date: 2/7/2017 Foundation Analysis Condition No. 1 Description: front and rear of great room A.B.P. = 2000 psf Slab Thickness = 4 " Footing Dimensions 1-Story Footing = 12 x 12 Post Width = 3.5 " 2-Story Footing = 18 x 18 Uniform Distributed Load: DL (psf) LL (psf) Tributary (ft.) DL (pit) LL (pit) Total (pit) Roof: 20 20 32 /2+ 4.5 405, 405 810 Floor: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Wall: 14 0 9 + 5 196 0 196 Deck: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Total= 601 405 , 1006 Continuous Footing Desi Required Footing Width: 1006 / ( 2000 - 50 ) = 0.52 ft Allowable Point Load at Continuous Footing: i-Story = 2000 * ((2* 12 + 4 )+ 3.5) * 12 / 144 = 5917 lbs. 2-Story = 2000 * ((2* 18 + 4 )+ 3.5) * 18 / 144 = 11875 lbs. Pad Footing Desi Pad Number Allowable Pt. Load Width! Length Depth Rebar Requirements 1 7100 LB 24 x 18 w/ () #4 Bottom Each Way 2 11075 LB 30 x i8 w/ (zr) #4 Bottom Each Way 3 15975 LB 36 x 18 w/ () #4 Bottom Each Way 4 21725 LB 42 x 18 w/ (6) #4 Bottom Each Way 5 28400 LB 48. x i8 w/ (7) #4 Bottom Each Way 6 35925 LB 54 x 18 w/ () #4 Bottom Each Way 7 44375 LB 6o x 18 w/ (8) ' #4 Bottom Each Way 30 Project #: 161275 Date: 2/7/2017 Foundation Analysis Condition No. 2 Description: Rear of great room A.B.P. = 2000 psf Slab Thickness = 4 Footing Dimensions 1-Story Footing = 12 x 12 Post Width = 3.5 I' 2-Story Footing = 18 x 18 Uniform Distributed Load: DL (psf) LL (psf) Tributary (ft.) DL (p11) LL (p11) Total (p11) Roof: 20 20 13 /2+ 2.3 170 170 340 Floor: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Wall: 14 0 9 + 0 126 0 126 Deck: 14 40 0 /2+ 0 0 0 0 Total= 296 170 466 Continuous Footing Design: Required Footing Width: 466 / ( 2000 - 50 ) = 0.24 ft Allowable Point Load at Continuous Footing: i-Story = 2000 * ((2* 12 + 4 )+ 3.5) * 12 / 144 = 5917 lbs. 2-Story = 2000 * ((2* 18 + 4 )+ 3.5) * i8 / 144 = 11875 lbs. Pad Footing Design: Pad Allowable Width/ Depth Rebar Requirements Number Pt. Load Length 1 7100 LB 24 x 18 w/ (.) #4 Bottom Each Way 2 11075 LB 30 x 18 w/ (4) #4 Bottom Each Way 3 15975 LB 36 x 18 w/ () #4 Bottom Each Way 4 21725 LB 42 x 18 w/ (6) #4 Bottom Each Way 5 28400 LB 48 x 18 w/ (7) #4 Bottom Each Way 6 35925 LB 54 x 18 w/ () #4 Bottom Each Way 7 44375 LB 6o x 18 w/ (8) #4 Bottom Each Way 31 7/25/2016 Design Maps Summary Report IJSGS Design Maps Summary Report User-Specified Input Report Title #1275- 1645 Chesnut Ave Mon July 25, 2016 18:38:56 UTC Building Code Reference Document ASCE 7-10 Standard (which utilizes USGS hazard data available In 2008) Site Coordinates 33.160970N, 117.33072°W Site Soil Classification Site Class D - "Stiff Soil" Risk Category 1/11/111 , ' t-:-•J. ov~ raw- 71,- - -' -V .3i• \'z ='-ir--. •r.,1i• ' - -.." tIIIdeMunI ceansi : . ., * •4 -- \ \, d. ••/,. S •\ .5 \• -I' Carlsba ' -'/' •\ •[:I ' -Sn Marcos '. ..( ( J1. _. --• Jrl 2tMIp0rIL ,.- \pPorr O( r'y1\ \ Escondi r-' : USGS-Provided Output S= 1.1259 SMS = 1.181g S 5 = 0.787g 51 = 0.432 g S,, = 0.678 g SDI = 0.452 g For information on how the SS and Si values above have been calculated from probabilistic (risk-targeted) and deterministic ground motions in the direction of maximum horizontal response, please return to the application and select the "2009 FSJEHRP" building code reference document. MCER Response Spectrum 1.20-- 1.08-- 0.9G-- 0.94-- 0.72. 0.60 0.48- 0.3G 0.24-- 0.12-- 0'00 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.90 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.90 2.00 Period, T (sec) Design Response Spectrum 0.99 0.90 0.72 0.64 0.56-- 0.48. 0.40 0.32 0.24 0.16 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.90 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.90 2.00 Period. T (sec) For PGAM, TL, CRs, and CR1 values, please view the detailed report. Although this information Is product of the U.S. Geological Survey, we provide no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy of the data contained therein. This tool is not a substitute for technical subject-matter knowledge. 1/1 Ttl~ L I.zo tcy .ls'r cn.caiiw..io'.. 2s').lcr os_ (.•\ i2 5° 2/2/2017 AS N El.. -O N OI*\a rur CiC,< IlE' ' L. 2b S4 -14 (2.5' ) 9.50? I f A1 p t2O(o21)iso ç(%LI ) 6I2 U~ G2?OST 4. 1.1.51 px MiMpr C Cç .&J! END ...e46Ti e 3I F 2/7/2017 O4S (2;) wXS ' ST Ft.A$€ 4dkb *f?c,Lc , rc AJ1- - 1- + (44 -?-J S "I V 5mlc;>Msr-~ cc?t/ ( tkkOc4 >2%7e$ CB163118 1655 CHESTNUT AVE OZAKI: NEW SFD 1.959 SF LIVING 572 SF GARAGE /670 SF PATIO COVERS Ozaki.jpg Page 1 of 1 flNM NELSON H ENGINEERS '011, proved 0 Approved as Corrected R iected 0 Revise and Resubmit S bmit Specified Item eview is only for 6eneral conformance he design concept of the project and al compliance with the information given Contract Documents. Corrections or mr .er,ts made on the shop drawings during eview do not relieve Contractor from arce with the requirements of the plans - pecificetions. Approval of a specific item . ..' not include approval of an assembly of .: . the item is a component. Contractor is t responsible for: dimensions to be confirmed and correlated at the jobsite: information that pertains solely to the fabrication processes or to The meambp methods, techniques, sequences and procedures of construction: coordination of the Work of all trades: and for performing all work in a safe and satisfactory manner. Date217/I '1 By . DEV16030 2052208600 L 2/1712017 http; CBI 63118 )uo4MnNQ02k.0/mmi,p... 2/7/2017 -. ----ij riur 1II11IIuiI IuiiiIII OZAKI Ply: 2 SEQN: 190021 ITl3 I MONO Qty: 1 FROM: DRW: MGD13X13HlPC4DRAG3850# Wgt 0.0 lbs ... / ... 12/05/16 I 7'l" I 13' I 71" I 511' I 71" IllAQ IIIA0 511" 71" I 13' Loading Criteria (psf) Wind Criteria TCLL: 20.00 Wind Std: ASCE 7-10 TCDL: 7.00 Speed: 110 mph BCLL: 0.00 Enclosure: Closed BCDL: 10.00 Risk Category: II Des Ld: 37.00 EXP: C NCBCLL: woo Mean Height: 15.00 ft I Soffit: 0.00 TCDL: 4.2 psf Load Duration: 1.25 BCDL: 6.0 psf Spacing: 24.0" MWFRS Parallel Dist: 0 to h/2 C&C Dist a: 3.00 ft GCpi: 0.18 Wind Duration: 1.33 Top chord 2x4 DF-L #1&Bet.(g) Bot chord 2x6 OF-L SS(g) Webs 2x4 DF-L #1&Bet.(g) Naiinote Nail Schedule:0.131"x3", mm. nails Top Chord: 1 Row © 8.50" o.c. Bot Chord: I Row @4.75" o.c. Webs :lRow @ 4" o.c. Use equal spacing between rows and stagger nails in each row to avoid splitting. Plating Notes Connectors in green lumber (g) designed using NDS/TPI reduction factors. Purlins In lieu of structural panels or rigid ceiling use purlins to laterally brace chords as follows: Chord Spacing(in cc) Start(ft) End(ft) BC 120 0.15 12.88 Apply purlins to any chords above or below fillers at 24" OC unless shown otherwise above. Loading Truss transfers a maximum horizontal load of 3850 # ( 296.15 plf) along top chord, from either direction, to supports where indicated. Diaphragm and connections are to be designed by Engineer of Record. Drag Loads: Force(#) (PLF) Mbr Start End Case 1: 3850 296.15 IC 0.00 13.00 3850 BC 0.00 Snow Criteria (Pg.Pf in PSF) DefiICSI Criteria Pg: NA Ct: NA CAT: N/ PP Deflection in bc L/defl LJ# P1 NA Ce: NA VERT(LL): 0.034 E 999 .240 Lu: NA Cs: NA VERT(TL): 0.083 E 999 180 Snow Duration: NA HORZ(LL): -0.019 C - - HORZ(TL): -0.032 C - - Code! Misc Criteria Creep Factor: 2.0 Bldg Code: CBC 2013 Max IC CSI: 0.159 IPI Std: 2007 Max BC CSI: 0.425 Rep Factors Used: No Max Web CSI: 0.371 FTIRT: 20.0%(0.0%)/10(0) Mfg Specified Camber. Plate Type(s): WAVE VIEW Ver. 13.02.05.0209.13 Wind Wind loads and reactions based on MWFRS. Right end vertical not exposed to wind pressure Additional Notes Negative reaction(s) of -794# MAX. (See below) Requires uplift connection. This girder designed to suppport a 13-0-0 span hipset With a 8-0-0 setback HIP MONO #1 hip framing to the bottom chord at 8-0-0 from the left end. The opposite side supports 2-0-0 jacks. Jacks have no webs. A Maximum Reactions (Ibs) Loc R IU /Rw IRh IRL 1W A 1073 /794 /1785/- /3850/3.5 D 1902 /123 /883 I- I- /1.5 Wind reactions based on MWFRS A Min Brg Width Req = 1.5 0 Min Brg Width Req = 1.5 Bearings A & Dare a rigid surface. Maximum Top Chord Forces Per Ply (Ibs) Chords Tens.Comp. Chords Tens. Comp. A-B 1125-2480 8-C 901 -914 Maximum Bot Chord Forces Per Ply (Ibs) Chords Tens.Comp. Chords Tens. Comp. A-E 1381 -90 E-D 1345 -89 Maximum Web Forces Per Ply (Ibs) Webs Tens.Comp. Webs Tens. Comp. E-B 847 -15 0-C 19 -65 B-D 97-1456 - —WARNING— READ AND FOLLOW ALL NOTES ON THIS DRAWING! —IMPORTANT— FURNISH THIS DRAWING TO ALL CONTRACTORS INCLUDING 1 ritjire Prtmirna care in fabricatino. handlina. shiocina. installina and bracina. Refer to ar as on INSTALLERS low the latest edition of BCSI (Building ins. Installers shall provide temporary and bottom chord shall have a properly lIed per SCSI sections B3. B7 or 10. Is. unless noted otherwise. efer to use Loading Criteria (psf) TCLL: 20.00 TCDL: 7.00 BCLL: 0.00 BCDL: 10.00 Des Ld: 37.00 NCBCLL: 10.00 Soffit: 0.00 Load Duration: 1.25 Spacing: 24.0 Wind Criteria Wind Std: ASCE 7-10 Speed: 110 mph Enclosure: Closed Risk Category: II EXP: C Mean Height: 15.00 ft TCDL: 4.2 psf BCDL: 6.0 psf MWFRS Parallel Dist: 0 to h/2 C&C Dist a: 3.00 It GCpi: 0.18 Wind Duration: 1.33 Lumber Top chord 2x4 DF-L #1&Bet.(g) Bot chord 2x6 OF-L SS(g) Webs 2x4 DF-L #1&8et.(g) OAKI PIy:2 SEQN: 186806/15/MONO Oty: 1 FROM: ORW: MGDRI3XI3HIPC4 Wgt: 0.0 lbs I I ... / ... 09/29/16 71" 13 71" 511" IIl2X4 I 71" Ill?W Ill 5X8 " 71" I 511 13' Snow Criteria (Pg.Pf in PSF) Deft/CSI Criteria P9: NA Ct: NA CAT: NA PP Deflection in bc L/defl L Pt: NA Ce: NA VERT(LL): 0.031 E 999 240 Lu: NA Cs: NA VERT(TL): 0.083 E 999 180 Snow Duration: NA HORZ(LL): -0.010 C - - HORZ(TL): -0.023 C - - Code I Misc Criteria Creep Factor: 2.0 Bldg Code: CBC2O13 MaxTCCSI: 0.133 TPI Std: 2007 Max BC CSI: 0.425 Rep Factors Used: No Max Web CSI: 0.371 FT/RI: 20.0%(0.0%)I10(0) Mfg Specified Camber: Plate Type(s): WAVE VIEW Ver: 13.02.05.0209.14 Wind Wind loads and reactions based on MWFRS. Right end vertical not exposed to wind pressure. A Maximum Reactions (Ibs) Loc R /U /Rw /Rh /RL /W A 1073 /175 /1165/- /2000/3.5 D 1902 /123 /881 I- I- /1.5 Wind reactions based on MWFRS A Min Beg Width Req= 1.5 0 Min Brg Width Req = 1.5 Bearings A & D are a rigid surface. Maximum Top Chord Forces Per Ply (Ibs) Chords Tens.Comp. Chords Tens. Comp. A-8 259-1614 B-C 465 -478 Maximum Bot Chord Forces Per Ply (Ibs) Chords Tens.Comp. Chords Tens. Comp. A-E 1381 -90 E-D 1345 -89 Nailnote Additional Notes Maximum Web Forces Per Ply (Ibs) This girder designed to suppport a 13-0-0 span hipset Webs Tens.Comp. Webs Tens. Comp. Nail Schedule:0.131"x3". mm. nails with a 8-0-0 setback HIP MONO #1 hip framing to the Top Chord: 1 Row @12.00"o.c. bottom chord at8-0-o from the left end. The opposite E-B 847 -15 D-C 19 .65 I Bot Chord: 1 Row © 4.75' o.c. side supports 2-0-0 jacks. Jacks have no webs. B - D 97 -1456 Webs : 1 Row © 4' O.C. Use equal spacing between rows and stagger nails in each row to avoid splitting. Plating Notes Connectors in green lumber (g) designed using NDS/TPI reduction factors. Purlins In lieu of structural panels or rigid ceiling use puilins to laterally brace chords as follows: Chord Spacing(in oc) Start(ft) End(ft) BC 120 0.15 12.88 Apply purlins to any chords above or below fillers at 24" OC unless shown otherwise above. Loading Truss transfers a maximum horizontal load of 2000 # (153.85 plf) along top chord, from either direction, to supports where indicated. Diaphragm and connections are to be designed by Engineer of Record. Drag Loads: Force(#) (PLF) Mbr Start End Case 1: 2000 153.85 IC 0.00 13.00 2000 BC 0.00 IMPORTANT_ ALL NOTES ON THIS DRAWING! LL CONTRACTORS INCLUDING THE INSTALLERS installing and bracing. Refer to and follow the latest edition of SCSI (Building actices pnor to performing these functions. Installers shall provide temporary property attached structural sheathing and bottom chord shall have a property nstraint of webs shall have bracing installed per BCSI sections B3. 87 or 10, as shown above and on the JoinfDetails, unless noted otherwise. Aefer to nc. shall not be responsible for any deviation from this drwing,a(iy failure to build thetruss in conformance - hipping, installation and bracing qt.trusses. A seal on this drawing or cover paqelisting this drawing, ;sional ennineering responsibility solely for the design shown. The suitability and use of this responsibility of the Building Designer per ANSIITPI 'FSec.2. OZAKI PIy:2 - I SEQN: 186815/T6/CHIP Qty: 1 FROM: DRW: MHT13C4 Wgt: 0.0 lbs ... / ... 09/29116 7612 I 13' 7612 -I-- -1 C IDT-3'll 12 4 T 90 cli X4cA1B =_4X4 1112(4 11 -2' j I Loading Criteria (psi) Wind Criteria TCLL: 20.00 Wind Std: ASCE 7-10 TCDL: 7.00 Speed: 110 mph BCLL: 0.00 Enclosure: Closed BCDL: 10.00 Risk Category: II Des Ld: 37.00 EXP: C NCBCLL: 10.00 Mean Height: 15.00 It Soffit: 0.00 TCDL: 4.2 psf Load Duration: 1.25 BCDL: 6.0 psf Spacing: 24.0" MWFRS Parallel Dist: 0 to h12 C&C Dist a: 3.00 ft GCpi: 0.18 Wind Duration: 1.33 Lumber Top chord 2x4 DF-L #1&Bet.(g) Sot chord 2x4 DF-L #1&Bet.(g) Webs 2x4 DF-L #1&Bet.(g) Snow Criteria (Pg.Pf in PSF) DefllCSl Criteria A Maximum Reactions (Ibs) Pg: NA Ct: NA CAT: NA PP Deflection in bc Udefi Li# Loc R / U / Rw / Rh / RL 1W Pf: NA Ce: NA VERT(LL): 0.023 F 999 240 B 1094 /48 /347 1- 181 13.5 Lu: NA Cs: NA VERT(TL): 0.060 C 999 180 E 1371 /35 /237 I- I- I- Snow Duration: NA HORZ(LL): 0.009 F - - Wind reactions based on MWFRS HORZ(TL): 0.021 F - - B Min Brg Width Req = 1.5 Code! Misc Criteria Creep Factor: 2.0 E Min Brg Width Req = - Bldg Code: CBC 2013 Max TC CSI: 0.433 Bearing B is a rigid surface. TPl Std: 2007 Max BC CSI: 0.289 Rep Factors Used: Yes Max Web CSI: 0.126 Maximum Top Chord Forces Per Ply (Ibs) FliRT: 20.0%(0.0%)/10(0) Mfg Specified Camber: Chords Tens.Comp. Chords Tens. Comp. PlateType(s): C-D 129 -935 B-C 106 -1006 WAVE VIEW Ver: 13.02.05.0209.14 A-B 17 -1 Wind Wind loads based on MWFRS with additional C&C Maximum Bot Chord Forces Per Ply (Ibs) member design. . Chords Tens.Comp. Chords Tens. Comp. Right end vertical not exposed to wind pressure. B - F 933 -130 F - E 23 -3 Nailnote Additional Notes Maximum Web Forces Per Ply (bbs) Nail Schedule:0.131"x3", mm. nails Building designer is responsible for conventional Webs Tens.Comp. Webs Tens. Comp. Top Chord: I Row @8.25 O.C. framing. Bot Chord: 1 Row @12.00" o.c. F - D 990 -137 E - D 104 -635 Webs :1 Row @ 4" o.c. C - F 89 -226 Use equal spacing between rows and stagger nails in each row to avoid splitting. Plating Notes Connectors in green lumber (g) designed using NDSITPI reduction factors. Hangers! Ties Hanger support required, by others. Loading #1 hip supports 8-0-0 jacks with no webs. Corner sets are conventionally framed. Use same design for one-ply common hip trusses @ 24.0" OC. Extend sloping TC of truss and jacks to hip rafter. Support extensions every 4.00 ft to flat IC. Spacing of supports originates from #1 hip. Attach 2x4 lateral bracing to flat TC @0', OC with 2-16d Box or Gun nails(0.135"x3.5".min.) and diagonally brace per DWG. BRCALHlPI213. Support hip rafter with cripples at 5-7-14 OC. p O9-3o20 "IMPORTANV FURNISH THIS DRAWING TO ALL CONTRACTORS INCLUDING THE INSTALLERS Duire extreme care in fabricatina. handlina. shiooina. installina and bracina. Refer to and follow the latest rsiraint or webs snail nave bracing instauea per i as shown above and on the JoiniDetauls. unless Inc. shall not be responsible for any deviation from this drwing,any failure to build the truss in this ;hippung. installation and bracing qt trusses. A seal on this drawing or cover page listing this drawing, sionaL engineering responsibility solely for the design shown. The suitability and use of this responsibility, of the Building Designer per ANSI/WI rSec.2. Snow Criteria (Pg.Pl in PSF) Pg: NA Ct: NA CAT: N/ Pf:NA Ce:NA Lu: NA Cs: NA Snow Duration: NA Code I Misc Criteria Bldg Code: CBC 2013 TPI Std: 2007 Rep Factors Used: Yes Fl/RT: 20.0%(0.0%)/10(0) Plate Type(s): WAVE DeflICSI Criteria PP Deflection in bc Udell L/# VERT(LL): 0.033 D 999 240 VERT(TL): 0.094 0 999 180 HORZ(LL): 0.013 0 - - HORZ(TL): 0.036 0 - - Creep Factor: 2.0 Max IC CSI: 0.381 Max BC CSI: 0.361 Max Web CSI: 0.000 Mfg Specified Camber: VIEW Ver: 13.02.05.0209.14 r O93O20 OzAKl -- Ply: I SEQN: 186791 /17/JACK * Qty: I FROM: I D . RW : JACK8C4 Wgt: 0.0 lbs / ... 09/29/16 C I -I I I 03 I Q14 _Lq ii8 Loading Criteria (psf) Wind Criteria TCLL: 20.00 Wind Std: ASCE 7-10 TCDL: 7.00 Speed: 110 mph BCLL: 0.00 Enclosure: Closed BCDL: 10.00 Risk Category: II Des Ld: 37.00 EXP: C NCBCLL: 10.00 Mean Height: 15.00 it Soffit: 0.00 TCDL: 4.2 psf Load Duration: 1.25 BCDL: 6.0 psf Spacing: 24.0" MWFRS Parallel Dist: 0 to h/2 C&C Dist a: 3.00 ft GCpi: 0.18 Wind Duration: 1.33 Lumber Top chord 20 DF-L #1&Bet.(g) 801 chord 20 DF-L #1&Bet.(g) Plating Notes Connectors in green lumber (g) designed using NDS/TPI reduction factors. Purlins In lieu of structural panels or rigid ceiling use purlins to laterally brace chords as follows: Chord Spacing(in oc) Start(ft) End(ft) BC 75 0.15 8.00 Apply purlins to any chords above or below fillers at 24 OC unless shown otherwise above. Loading Bottom chord checked for 10.00 psf non-concurrent live load. Wind Wind loads based on MWFRS with additional C&C member design. Additional Notes Shim all supports to solid bearing. A Maximum Reactions fibs) Loc R /U /Rw /Rh /RL /W B 401 /13 /233 /- /115 /3.5 D 138 I- /72 /- /- /1.5 E 408 /125 /182 /- I- /1.5 C 77 /32 /14 I- I- /1.5 Wind reactions based on MWFRS B Min Brg Width Req = 1.5 0 Min Brg Width Req = - E Min Brg Width Req = 0.0 C Min Brg Width Req = - Bearings B & E are a rigid surface. Maximum Top Chord Forces Per Ply (Ibs) Chords Tens.Comp. Chords Tens. Comp. A-B 35 0 B-C 98 -201 Maximum Bot Chord Forces Per Ply (Ibs) Chords Tens.Comp. 8-0 0 0 WARNING READ AND FOLLOW ALL NOTES ON THIS DRAWING! IMPORTANT FURNISH THIS DRAWING 10 ALL CONTRACTORS INCLUDING THE INSTALLERS quire extreme care in fabricating, handling. shipping, installing and bracing.. Refer to and follow the latest edition of BCSI (Building it Safety Information, by TPI ana SBCA) for satety practices pnor to performing these functions, Installers shall provide temporary BCSI., Unless noted o1herwisetop chord shall have properly attached structural sheathing and bottom chord shall have a properly id ceiling. Locations shown forpermanent bat aI restraint of webs shall have bracing installed per BCSI sections B3. B7 or BlO. tIe. AooTv obates to each face of truss and Oosition as shown above and on the JointDeta!Is. unless noted otheiwise. efer to n. shall not be responsible for any deviation from this drawing.any failure to build the truss in conformance hipping, installation and bracing of trusses. A seal on this drawing or cover pa listing this drawing, ,sionar engineering responsibility solely for the design shown. The suitability and use of this responsibiruty of the Building Designer per ANSIITPI 'rSec.2. 5'6' 11' 5'6" 56" 12 c 4x4 II QZAKI Ply: 1 SEQN: 186793 1T8/COMN Oty: 1 FROM: DRW: T1IC4 Wgt: 0.0 lbs I ... / ... 09/29/16 H-2' I :' Loading Criteria (pat) Wind Criteria TCLL: 20.00 Wind Std: ASCE 7-10 TCDL: 7.00 Speed: 110 mph BCLL: 0.00 Enclosure: Closed BCDL: 10.00 Risk Category: II Des Ld: 37.00 EXP: C NCBCLL: 10.00 Mean Height: 15.00 ft Soffit: 0.00 TCDL: 4.2 psf Load Duration: 1.25 BCDL: 6.0 psf Spacing: 24.0 MWFRS Parallel Dist: 0 to h12 C&C Dist a: 3.00 ft GCpi: 0.18 Wind Duration: 1.33 Lumber Top chord 2x4 DF-L #1&Bet.(g) Bot chord 2x4 DF-L #1&Bet.(g) Webs 2x4 DF-L #1&Bet.(g) Plating Notes Connectors in green lumber (g) designed using NDS/TPI reduction factors. Purlins In lieu of structural panels or rigid ceiling use purtins to laterally brace chords as follows: Chord Spacing(in oc) Start(ft) End(ft) BC 120 0.15 10.85 Apply purlins to any chords above or below fillers at 24" OC unless shown otherwise above. Loading Bottom chord checked for 10.00 psf non-concurrent live load. Wind Wind loads based on MWFRS with additional C&C member design. Snow Criteria (Pg.Pf in 5SF) DeflICSl Criteria Pg: NA Ct: NA CAT: NA PP Deflection in bc Udefi L/# Pf: NA Ce: NA VERT(LL): 0.014 F 999 240 Lu: NA Cs: NA VERT(TL): 0.034 F 999 180 Snow Duration: NA HORZ(LL): 0.004 F - - HORZ(TL): 0.011 F - - Code / Misc Criteria Creep Factor: 2.0 Bldg Code: CBC 2013 Max TC CSI: 0.230 TPI Std: 2007 Max BC CSI: 0.181 Rep Factors Used: Yes Max Web CSI: 0.029 FT/RT: 20.0%(0.0%)I10(0) Mfg Specified Camber: Plate Type(s): VIEW Ver: 13.02.05.0209.14 WAVE P O9-3o-2 A Maximum Reactions (lbs) Lac R /U ' /Rw /Rh /RL /W B 521 /47 /289 I- /52 /3.5 0 521 /47 /289 1- I- /3.5 Wind reactions based on MWFRS B Min Brg Width Req = 1.5 0 Min Brg Width Req = 1.5 Bearings B & D are a rigid surface. Maximum Top Chord Forces Per Ply (lbs) Chords Tens.Comp. Chords Tens. Comp. A-B 35 0 C-0 221 -653 B-C 221 -653 D-E 35 0 Maximum Bot Chord Forces Per Ply (lbs) Chords Tens.Comp. Chords Tens. Comp. B-F 582 -108 F-D 562 -108 Maximum Web Forces Per Ply fibs) Webs Tens.Comp. C-F 225 0 "WARNING READ AND FOLLOW ALL NOTES ON THIS DRAWING! —IMPORTANT'* FURNISH THIS DRAWING TO ALL CONTRACTORS INCLUDING THE INSTALLERS uire extreme care in fabricating, handling, shipping, installing and bracing.. Refer to and follow the latest edition of BCSI (Building it Safety Information, by TPI an SBCA) for safety practices pnor to performing these functions. Installers shall provide temporary BCS!. Unless noted olherwise,top chord shall have properly attached structural shathing and bottom chord shall have a properly id ceiling. Locations shown forpermanent lateral restraint of webs shall have bracinpjnslalled per BCSI sections B3. 87 or 10, lie. Apply plates to each face of truss and position as shown above and on the Joinruetails, unless noted otherwise. eferto 60 _Z for standard plate positions. allure to build the truss in conformance or cover page listing this drawing, The suitability and use of this 4 5'6" 7' 1 11' 4' 16" 1'6" 1 4 12 D,4x4 II 11' QZAKI Ply: 1 SEQN: 186810/T9IGABL Oty: 1 FROM: DRW: TI1C4GEF Wgt: 0.0 it's ... I ... 09/29/16 —2' I i 1' 7' ill 6" I 2'— Loading Criteria (psi) TCLL: 20.00 TCDL: 7.00 BCLL: 0.00 i BCDL: 10.00 Des Ld: 37.00 NCBCLL: 10.00 Soffit: 0.00 Load Duration: 1.25 Spacing: 24.0' Wind Criteria Wind Std: ASCE 7-10 Speed: 110 mph Enclosure: Closed Risk Category: II EXP: C Mean Height: 15.00 ft TCDL: 4.2 psf BCDL: 6.0 psf MWFRS Parallel Dist: 0 to h12 C&C Dist a: 3.00 It GCpi: 0.18 Wind Duration: 1.33 Snow Criteria (Pg,PI in PSF) Pg: NA Ct: NA CAT: N Pf: NA Ce: NA Lu: NA Cs: NA Snow Duration: NA Code! Misc Criteria Bldg Code: CBC 2013 TPI Std: 2007 Rep Factors Used: Yes FTIRT: 20.0%(0.0%)/10(0) Plate Type(s): WAVE DeflICSl Criteria PP Deflection in bc Udell LJ# VERT(LL): 0.003 J 999 240 VERT(TL): 0.007 H 999 180 HORZ(LL): 0.003 J - - HORZTL): 0.007 J - - Creep Factor. 2.0 Max TC CSI: 0.445 Max BC CSI: 0.108 Max Web CSI: 0.030 Mfg Specified Camber: VIEW Ver: 13.02.05.0209.14 A Maximum Reactions (Ibs), or "ePLF Loc R /U /Rw /Rh /RL /W B" 1890 /717 /690 I- /1000/132 1. /105 Wind reactions based on MWFRS B Min Brg Width Req = - Bearing B is a rigid surface. Maximum Top Chord Forces Per Ply (Ibs) Chords Tens.Comp. Chords Tens. Comp. A-B 69 0 D-E 357 -391 B - C 205 -249 E - F 661 -705 C-D 234 -fll F-G 69 0 Lumber Wind Top chord 2x4 DF-L #1&Bet.(g) Wind loads based on MWFRS with additional C&C Sot chord 2x4 DF-L #1&Bet.(g) member design. Webs 2x4 DF-L #1&Bet.(g) Additional Notes Plating Notes See DWGS A11515ENC1002012, GBLLETIN0212, & Connectors in green lumber (g) designed using GABRST1002I2 for more requirements. NDS!TPI reduction factors. All plates are 2X4 except as noted. Purlins O.K. TO NOTCH T/C 1 1/2" DEEP FOR OUTLOOKERS @32" O.C. In lieu of structural panels or rigid ceiling use puflins to laterally brace chords as follows: Chord Spacing(in oc) Start(ft) End(ft) BC 75 0.15 10.85 Apply purlins to any chords above or below fillers 17 at 24" OC unless shown otherwise above. Loading s. Truss transfers a maximum horizontal load of 1000#( 90.93 plf) along top chord, from either direction, to supports where indicated. Diaphragm and 0" 7ti connections are to be designed by Engineer of Record. Drag Loads: Force(#) (PLF) Mbr Start End Case 1: 1000 90.93 TC 0.00 11.00 1000 BC 0.00 oigiiaiiyseaiec Truss spaced at 24.0" OC designed to support 2-0-0 9) C Sept 29, 2016 top chord outbookers. Cladding load shall not exceed 10.00 PSF. Top chord must not be Cut or notched. Bottom chord checked for 10.00 psf non-concurrent "k!) 0g_30:0 live load. Maximum Bot Chord Forces Per Ply ((bs) Chords Tens.Comp. Chords Tens. Comp. B-J 288 -281 I-H 284 -286 J -1 284 -286 H - F 288 -282 Maximum Web Forces Per Ply (Ibs) Webs Tens.Comp. D-I 105 -177 Maximum Gable Forces Per Ply (Ibs) Gables Tens.Comp. Gables Tens. Comp. C-J 313 -338 H-E 313 -338 "WARNING READ AND FOLLOW ALL NOTES ON THIS DRAWING' —IMPORTANT** FURNISH THIS DRAWING TO ALL CONTRACTORS INCLUDING THE INSTALLERS uire extreme care in fabricating handling, shipping, installing and bracing.. Refer to and follow the latest edition of BCSI (Building (Safety Information, by TPI ana BCA) for safety practices pnor to performing these funct ions. Installers shall provide temporary BCSI. Unless noted otheiwise,top chord shall have properly attached structural sheathing and bottom chord shall have a properly jd ceiling. Locations shown forpermanent lateral restraint of webs shall have bracng instatled per BCSI sections B3, B7 or BIO. Se. AooTv olates to each face oltruss and position as shown above and on the JoinfDetails, unless noted otherwise. efer to failure to build the truss in conformance or cover page listing this drawing, The suitability and use of this 12 4 i' B5X6 H OZAKI Ply: 1 SEaN: 186804/110/ COMN Oty: 1 FROM: • DRW: G11X13C4 Wgt: 0.0 lbs I I ... 09/29/16 5'6' J.11' - 5h1 - III JlU 5'6 5'6' JA 5'6' 11' Loading Criteria (psI) Wind Criteria Snow Criteria (Pg.Pf in PSF) DeflICSI Criteria A Maximum Reactions (Ibs) TCLL: 20.00 Wind Std: ASCE 7-10 Pg: NA Ct: NA CAT: NA PP Deflection in bc Udell u# Lac R /U / Rw / Rh I RL 1W A 1512 /91 /872 / - /1000/3.5 C 1512 /91 /872 I- 1- /3.5 TCDL: 7.00 BCLL: 0.00 Speed: 110 mph Enclosure: Closed P1: NA Ce: NA Lu:NA Cs: NA VERT(LL): 0.053 D 999 240 VERT(TL): 0.146 D 881 180 BCDL: 10.00 Risk Category: II Snow Duration: NA HORZ(LL): 0.013 D - - Wind reactions based on MWFRS Des Ld: 37.00 EXP: C HORZTL): 0.035 0 - - A Min Brg Width Req = 1.6 Code! Misc Criteria NCBCLL: 10.00 Mean Height: 15.00 ft Creep Factor: 2.0 C Min Brg Width Req = 1.6 Soffit: 0.00 TCDL: 4.2 psf Bldg Code: CBC 2013 Max IC CSI: 0.360 Bearings A & C are a rigid surface. Load Duration: 1.25 BCDL: 6.0 psI IPI Std: 2007 Max BC CSI: 0.549 Spacing: 24.0 MWFRS Parallel Dist: 0 to h/2 C&C Dist a: 3.00 ft Rep Factors Used: No Fl/RT: 20.0%(0.0%)/10(0) Max Web CSI: 0.175 Mfg Specified Camber: Maximum Top Chord Forces Per Ply (Ibs) Chords Tens.Comp. Chords Tens. Comp. A - B 172-2743 B - C 172 -2743 GCpi: 0.18 Plate Type(s): I I VIEW Ver: 13.02.05.0209.14 Wind Duration: 1.33 WAVE Lumber Top chord 2x4 DF-L #1&Bet.(g) Bot chord 2x6 DF-L SS(g) Webs 2x4 DF-L #1&Bet.(g) Plating Notes Connectors in green lumber (g) designed using NDSITPI reduction factors. Purlins In lieu of structural panels or rigid ceiling use purlins to laterally brace chords as follows: Chord Spacing(in 00) Start(ft) End(ft) BC 120 0.15 10.85 Apply purlins to any chords above or below fillers at 24 OC unless shown otherwise above. Loading Truss transfers a maximum horizontal load of 1000 # ( 90.91 p11) along top chord, from either direction, to supports where indicated. Diaphragm and connections are to be designed by Engineer of Record. Drag Loads: Force(#) (PLF) Mbr Start End Case 1: 1000 90.91 TC 0.00 11.00 1000 BC 0.00 Girder supports 13-0-0 span to BC one face and 2-0-0 span to IC/BC split opposite face. Wind Wind loads and reactions based on MWFRS. Maximum Bot Chord Forces Per Ply (Ibs) Chords Tens.Comp. Chords Tens. Comp. A-D 2584 -154 D-C 2584 -154 Maximum Web Forces Per Ply (Ibs) Webs Tens.Comp. B-D 1380 -24 ** WARNING* READ AND FOLLOW ALL ON THIS DRAWING! IMPORTANT FURNISH THIS DRAWING TO ALL C TORS INCLUDING THE INSTALLERS d bracina. Refer to and follow the latest edition of Inc. shall not be responsible for any deviation from this drawing,aiy failure to build the truss in conformance ;hippinq. installation and bracing of trusses. A seal on this drawing or cover page listing this drawing, nsional engineering responsibility solely for the design shown. The suitability and use of this responsibility of the Building Designer per ANSI!TPI rSec.2. ozi . Ply: 1 SEQN: 186821 IT11/COMN Oty: 1 FROM: DRW: 122C4 Wgt: 0.0 lbs I I ... / ... 09/29/16 7104 I 14112 22 7104 ' 3112 3112 7104 0E4X4 7104 638 7104 A 7104 14112 22 Loading Criteria (psf) Wind Criteria TCLL: 20.00 Wind Std: ASCE 7-10 TCDL: 7.00 Speed: 110 mph BCLL: 0.00 Enclosure: Closed BCDL: 10.00 Risk Category: II Des Ld: 37.00 EXP: C NCBCLL: 10.00 Mean Height: 15.00 it Soffit: 0.00 TCDL: 4.2 psf Load Duration: 1.25 BCDL: 6.0 psf Spacing: 24.0 MWFRS Parallel Dist: 0 to h/2 C&C Dist a: 3.00 ft GCpi: 0.18 Wind Duration: 1.33 'Lumber Top chord 2x4 DF-L #1&Bet.(g) Bot chord 2x4 DF-L #1&Bet.(g) Webs 2x4 DF-L #1&Bet.(g) Plating Notes Connectors in green lumber (9) designed using NDS!TPI reduction factors. Purlins In lieu of structural panels or rigid ceiling use purlins to laterally brace chords as follows: Chord Spacing(in oc) Start(ft) End(ft) BC 120 0.15 21.85 Apply purlins to any chords above or below fillers at 24 OC unless shown otherwise above. Loading Bottom chord checked for 10.00 psf non-concurrent live load. Wind Wind loads based on MWFRS with additional C&C member design. Snow Criteria (Pg.Pf in PSF) Defl/CSI Criteria A Maximum Reactions (Ibs) Pg: NA Ct: NA CAT: NA PP Deflection in [cc L/defl ii# Loc R /U / Rw / Rh / RL 1W B 938 /73 /494 / - /72 /3.5 F 817 /47 /418 I- I- /3.5 P1: NA Ce: NA Lu:NA Cs: NA VERT(LL): 0.069 C 999 240 VERT(TL): 0.183 C 999 180 Snow Duration: NA HORZ(LL): 0.021 G - - Wind reactions based on MWFRS HORZ(TL): 0.056 C - - Creep Factor: 2.0 B Min Brg Width Req = 1.5 F Min Brg Width Req = 1.5 Code! Misc Criteria Bldg Code: CBC 2013 Max TC CSI: 0.388 Bearings B & F are a rigid surface. WI Std: 2007 Max BC CSI: 0.404 Rep Factors Used: Yes Max Web CSI: 0.087 Maximum Top Chord Forces Per Ply (Ibs) FT/RT: 20.0%(0.0%)/10(0) Mfg Specified Camber: Chords Tens.Comp. Chords Tens. Comp. A - B 35 0 D - E 578 -1737 Plate Type(s): VIEW Ver: 13.02.05.0209.14 WAVE B-C 489 -1739 E-F 515 -1768 C- D 554-1704 Maximum Bat Chord Forces Per Ply (Ibs) Chords Tens.Comp. Chords Tens. Comp. B-H 1596 -402 G-F 1627 -411 H-C 1170 -268 Maximum Web Forces Per Ply (Ibs) Webs Tens.Comp. Webs Tens. Comp. C-H 228 -352 D-G 682 -214 H-D 635 -187 G-E 236 -369 tm Digitally sealed Sept. 29. 2016 kp O93O20 —WARNING - -IMPORTANT— FURNISH INSTALLERS Inc. shall not be responsible for any deviation from this drwing.aIy failure to build the truss in this ;hippinq, installation and bracing of trusses. A seal on this drawing or cover le listing this drawing, sionaI engineering resp9nsiblllty solely for the desgn shown. The suitability and use of this responsibility of the Building Designer per ANSIITPI FSec.2. el, ,h iTWRi i.,th,,n TOP ,,,. injn n,,. SR(A ,,•. 5. D 213X4 C IDT-3"ll I II U, T I- I tZAI<I Ply: 2 SEON: 186826 /112/CHIP Qty: 1 FROM: DRW: H22C4 Wgt: 0.0 lbs I I ... / ... 09/29/16 I 7612 I 14 22' I 7612 3'5"4 3' I 8' 2' I 7612 6108 7612 A 7612 1454 22' Loading Criteria (psi) Wind Criteria Snow Criteria (Pg.Pf in PSF) DefIICSl Criteria A Maximum Reactions (Ibs) TCLL: 20.00 Wind Std: ASCE 7-10 P9: NA Ct: NA CAT: NA PP Deflection in bc L/defl Lj# Loc R /U / Rw / Rh / RL 1W TCDL: 7.00 Speed: 110 mph Pf: NA Ce: NA VERT(LL): 0.115 D 999 240 B 2011 /75 /494 /- /56 /3.5 BCLL: 0.00 Enclosure: Closed Lu:NA Cs: NA VERT(TL): 0.318 D 820 180 F 1890 /48 /418 /- I- /3.5 BCDL: 10.00 Risk Category: II Snow Duration: NA HORZ(LL): 0.034 G - - Wind reactions based on MWFRS Des Ld: 37.00 EXP: C HORZ(l'L): 0.693 G - - B Mitt Brg Width Req = 1.5 NCBCLL: 10.00 ' Mean Height: 15.00 ft Code / Misc Criteria Creep Factor: 2.0 F Mitt Brg Width Req = 1.5 Soffit: 0.00 TCDL: 4.2 psi Bldg Code: CBC 2013 Max TC CSI: 0.324 Bearings B & F are a rigid surface. Load Duration: 1.25 BCDL: 6.0 psi TPI Std: 2007 Max BC CSI: 0.491 Spacing: 24.0" MWFRS Parallel Dist: 0 to h/2 Rep Factors Used: Yes Max Web CSI: 0.078 Maximum Top Chord Forces Per Ply (Ibs) C&C Dist a: 3.00 ft FlIRT: 20.0%(0.0%)/10(0) Mfg Specified Camber: Chords Tens.Comp. Chords Tens. Comp. GCpi:0.18 PlateType(s): C-D 241 -2255 D-E 238 -2238 Wind Duration: 1.33 WAVE VlEWVer, 13.02.05.0209.14 J A-13 17 -1 E-F 222 -2372 Lumber Additional Notes B - C 226 - 2387 Top chord 2x4 DF-L #1&Bet.(g) Building designer is responsible for conventional Bot chord 2x4 DF-L #1&Bet.(g) framing. Maximum Bot Chord Forces Per Ply (Ibs) Webs 2x4 DF-L #1&Bet.(g) Chords Tens.Comp. Chords Tens. Comp. Nailnote B - H 2240 -181 G - F 2222 -178 Nail Schedule:0.131"x3". mm. nails H-G 2593 -215 Top Chord: I Row @ 8.00" o.c. Bot Chord: 1 Row @12.00" o.c. Maximum Web Forces Per Ply (Ibs) Webs :1 Row @ 4" O.C. • Webs Tens.Comp. Webs Tens. Comp. Use equal spacing between rows and stagger nails in each row to avoid splitting. H - D 77 422 D - G 58 -443 C-H 404 0 G-E 435 -2 Plating Notes Connectors in green lumber (g) designed using NOS/TPI reduction factors. Loading #1 hip supports 8-0.0 jacks with no webs. Corner sets are conventionally framed. Extend sloping top chord of truss and jacks to hip P!/ \ .1\ Spacing of supports originates from 91 hip. Attach 4 1 IIC 1287 lateral bracing to fiat TC @0" OC with 2-16d Box or Digitally sealed rafter. Support extensions every 4.00 ft to flat TC. Gun nails(0.135"x3.5".min.) and diagonally brace per * ii DWG. 8RCALH1P1213. Support hip rafter with \ \. - 11 cripples at 5-7-14 OC. Wind loads based on MWFRS with additional C&C Sept. 29. 2016 Wind OF cr ". member design. P 09-30- -WARNING— READ AND FOLLOW ALL NOTES ON THIS DRAWING! IMPORTANT FURNISH THIS DRAWING TO ALL CONTRACTORS INCLUDING THE INSTALLERS Trusses recuire extreme care in fabricating, handling, shipping, installing and bracing. Refer to and follow the latest edition of BCSI (Building Component Safety Information, by TPI an SBCA) for safety practices prior to performing these functions. Installers shall provide temporary bracing per BCSI. Unless noted olherwise,top chord shall have properly attached structural sheathing and bottom chord shall have a properly attached nid ceiling. Locations shown forpermanent lateral restraint of webs shall have bracng instIIed per BCSI sections 83, B7 or dID. as applicable. Apply plates to each face oFtwss and position as shown above and on the Join Details, unless noted otherwise. eferto drawings 160A-Z for standard plate positions. 11W Buildici Components Group In. shall not be responsible for any deviation from this drwing.a(iy failure to build thetruss in conformance with ANSIITPI 1, or for handling. Shipping, installation and bracing of trusses. A Seal on this drawing or cover page listing this drawing, indicates acceptance of prdfessuonaL engineering respçnsibihty solely for the desgn shown. The suitability and use of thus drawing for any structure is the responsibility of the Building Designer per ANSIITPI 'rSec.2. C... .1......--------------------..,m -----------a 4k ....,,. :,.. •Twnrfl. ...,.K.,h.,. .... 704. ------------..,. COrn. .._... .h.4,.A..C4.., .,,.,.. Fr. ,._,, I Iii A4 QZAXI Ply: 1 SEQN: 186808/ T4! MONO Qty: 1 FROM: DRW: MT13C4 Wgt: 0.0 lbs ... / ... 09/29/16 7.1" 13 I 71" ' 51111. llI2X4 -2 I 5'll" Loading Criteria (psi) Wind Criteria TCLL: 20.00 Wind Std: ASCE 7-10 TCDL: 7.00 Speed: 110 mph BCLL: 0.00 Enclosure: Closed BCDL: 10.00 Risk Category: II Des La: 37.00 EXP: C NCBCLL: 10.00 Mean Height: 15.00 ft Soffit: 0.00 TCDL: 4.2 psf Load Duration: 1.25 BCDL: 6.0 psf Spacing: 24.0 MWFRS Parallel Dist: 0 to h/2 C&C Dist a: 3.00 ft GCpi: 0.18 Wind Duration: 1.33 Lumber Top chord 2x4 DF-L #1&Bet.(g) Bot chord 20 DF-L #1&Bet.(g) Webs 2x4 DF-L #1&Bet.(g) Plating Notes Connectors in green lumber (g) designed using NDSITPI reduction factors. Purlins In lieu of structural panels or rigid ceiling use porlins to laterally brace chords as follows: Chord Spacing(in oc) Start(ft) End(ft) BC 120 0.15 12.88 Apply purtins to any chords above or below fillers at 24" OC unless shown otherwise above. Loading Truss transfers a maximum horizontal load of 2000#( 153.85 p11) along top chord, from either direction, to supports where indicated. Diaphragm and connections are to be designed by Engineer of Record. Drag Loads: Force(#) (PLF) Mbr Start End Case 1: 2000 153.85 TC 0.00 13.00 2000 BC 0.00 Bottom chord checked for 10.00 psf non-concurrent live toad. Wind Wind loads based on MWFRS with additional C&C member design. Right end vertical not exposed to wind pressure. Snow Criteria (Pg,Pf in PSF) Defl!CSI Criteria A Maximum Reactions (Ibs) Pg: NA Ct: NA CAT: NA PP Deflection in bc Udefl ii# Loc R / U I Rw I Rh I RL /W Pf: NA Ce: NA VERT(LL): 0.029 F 999 240 B 606 /418 /935 I- /2000/3.5 Lu: NA Cs: NA VERT(TL): 0.046 F 999 180 E 473 /47 /272 /- /- /1.5 Snow Duration: NA HORZ(LL): -0.018 D - - Wind reactions based on MWFRS HORZ(TL): -0.027 0 - - B Min Brg Width Req = 1.5 Code! Misc Criteria Creep Factor: 2.0 E Min Brg Width Reg = 1.5 Bldg Code: CBC 2013 Max TC CSI: 0.344 Bearings B & E are a rigid surface. TPI Std: 2007 Max BC CSI: 0.330 Rep Factors Used: Yes Max Web CSI: 0.408 . Maximum Top Chord Forces Per Ply (Ibs) FT/RT: 20.0%(0.0%)/10(0) Mfg Specified Camber: Chords Tens.Comp. Chords Tens. Comp. Plate Type(s): WAVE I VIEW Ver: 13.02.05.0209.14 Additional Notes Negative reaction(s) of -417# MAX. (See below) Requires uplift connection. Maximum Web Forces Per Ply (lbs) Webs Tens.Comp. Webs Tens. Comp. F-C 296 0 E-D 132 -121 C-E 285 -789 -ip O9-3O--2 A-B 35 0 C-D 926 -958 B-C 1566-2321 Maximum Bot Chord Forces Per Ply (Ibs) Chords Tens.Comp. Chords Tens. Comp. B-F 729 -255 F-E 722 -259 -IMPORTANT- ALL as INCLUDING THE INSTALLERS ., Refer to and follow the latest edition of BCS1 (Building mng these functions. Installers shall provide temporary jctural sheathing and bottom chord shall have a propeily have bracina installed per BCSI sections B3, Br or blO, on the JoinfDetails, unless noted otherwise. ftefer to this drawing,aiy failure to build the truss in conformance I on this drawing or cover page listing this drawing, L!9 shown. The suitability and use of this Loading Criteria (psf) TCLL: 20.00 TCDL: 7.00 BCLL: 0.00 BCDL: 10.00 Des Ld: 37.00 NCBCLL: 10.00 Soffit: 0.00 Load Duration: 1.25 Spacing: 24.0" Wind Criteria Wind Std: ASCE 7-10 Speed: 110 mph Enclosure: Closed Risk Category: II EXP: C Mean Height: 15.00 It TCDL: 4.2 psf BCDL: 6.0 psf MWFRS Parallel Dist: 0 to h/2 C&C Dist a: 3.00 ft GCpi: 0.18 Wind Duration: 1.33 Lumber Top chord 2x4 DF-L #1&Bet.(g) Bot chord 2x4 DF-L #1&Bet.(g) Webs 2x4 DF-L #1&Bet.(g) Plating Notes Connectors in green lumber (g) designed using I NDS/TPI reduction factors. QZAIKI Ply: 1 SEON: 190530/T14/MONO Qty: 1 FROM: DRW: MT13C4-DRAG385O# Wgt: 0.0 lbs ... / ... 12/12/16 7'l" 13' 71" I 511" 1112X4 C I .1 I 71" 511" 4X4 A 71" I 13' Snow Criteria (Pg,Pf in PSF) Pg: NA Ct: NA CAT: NA P1: NA Ce: NA DeflICSl Criteria PP Deflection in bc Udefi l.J# VERT(LL): 0.048 E 999 240 A Maximum Reactions (Ibs) Lac R I U / Rw / Rh / RL 1W A 487 /1075 /1528/- 13850/3.5 Lu: NA Cs: NA VERT(TL): 0.059 E 999 180 D 483 /49 /278 1- I- /1.5 Snow Duration: NA HORZ(LL): -0.037 C - - Wind reactions based on MWFRS HORZ(TL): -0.045 C - - Creep Factor: 2.0 A Min Brg Width Req = 1.6 0 Min Brg Width Req = 1.5 Code I MISC Criteria Bldg Code: CBC 2013 Max TC CSI: 0.489 Bearings A & D are a rigid surface. TPl Std: 2007 Max BC CSI: 0.337 Rep Factors Used: Yes Max Web CSI: 0.429 Maximum Top Chord Forces Per Ply (Ibs) FT/RT: 20.0%(0.0%)/10(0) Mfg Specified Camber: Chords Tens.Comp. Chords Tens. Comp. Plate Type(s): A-B 3354-4128 B-C 1797 -1830 WAVE I VIEW Ver 13.02.05.0209.13 Additional Notes Maximum Bot Chord Forces Per Ply (Ibs) Negative reaction(s) of -1075# MAX. (See below) Chords Tens.Comp. Chords Tens. Comp. Requires uplift connection. A-E 766 -279 E-D 759 -282 Purlins In lieu of structural panels or rigid Ceiling use purlins to laterally brace chords as follows: Chord Spacing(in oc) Start(ft) End(ft) BC 120 0.15 12.88 Apply purlins to any chords above or below fillers at 24" OC unless shown otherwise above. Loading Truss transfers a maximum horizontal load of 3850 # ( 296.15 p11) along top Chord, from either direction, to supports where indicated. Diaphragm and connections are to be designed by Engineer of Record. Drag Loads: Force(#) (PLF) Mbr Start End Case 1: 3850 296.15 TC 0.00 13.00 3850 BC 0.00 Bottom chord checked for 10.00 psf non-concurrent live load. Wind Wind loads based on MWFRS with additional C&C member design. Right end vertical not exposed to wind pressure. WARNING READ AND —IMPORTANr FURNISH THIS DRAV ic? O9.3O..2 Maximum Web Forces Per Ply (Ibs) Webs Tens.Comp. Webs Tens. Comp. E-B 300 0 D-C 130 -118 B-D 310 -829 ALL CONTRACTORS INCLUDING THE INSTALLERS 9, installing and bracing. Refer to and follow the latest edition of ractices pnor to performing these functions. Installers shall pros re property attached structural sheathing and bottom Chord shall restraint of webs shall have bracingjnsialled per BCSI sections I as shown above and on the Joinioetails. unless noted othena deviation from this drwing,ay failure to build the truss in conformance russes. A seal on this drawing or cover page listing this drawing, y solely for the deSgn shown. The suitability and use of this inner per ANSII'TPI FSec.2. GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION FOR PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AT 1645 CHESTNUT AVENUE CAR LSBAD3Ib1GO COU Y,CA'LIFOThA9 008 FOR 155 7th S FtE'V:T EJNAJ, CAL1FORNiA-92o14 W.O. 7014-A-SC FEBRUARY 22, 2016 Geotechnical. Geologic. Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com February 22, 2016 W.O. 7014-A-SC Mr. Ron Ozaki 155 7 th Street Del Mar, California 92014 Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation for Proposed Construction at 1645 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California Dear Mr. Ozaki: In accordance with your request and authorization, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is pleased to present the results of our preliminary geotechnical evaluation at the subject site. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the geologic and geotechnical conditions at the site, in order to develop preliminary recommendations for site earthwork and the design of foundations, walls, and pavements related to the proposed residential construction at the property. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Based upon our field exploration, geologic, and geotechnical engineering analysis, the proposed development appears feasible from a soils engineering and geologic viewpoint, provided that the recommendations presented in the text of this report are properly incorporated into the design and construction of the project. The most significant elements of our study are summarized below: In general, the site may be characterized as a existing, developed site, underlain colluvial soils developed on Quaternary-age, older paralic deposits. Due to their relatively low density and lack of uniformity, all surficial deposits of colluvium, and near surface, weathered older paralic deposits (if present) are considered unsuitable for the support of settlement-sensitive improvements (i.e., residential foundations, concrete slab-on-grade floors, site walls, exterior hardscape, etc.) and/or engineered fill in their existing state. Based on the available data, the thickness of these soils across the site is anticipated to vary between approximately 1½ to 3 feet. However, localized thicker sections of unsuitable soils cannot be precluded, and should be anticipated. Conversely, the underlying unweathered older paralic deposits are generally considered suitable for the support of settlement-sensitive improvements and/or engineered fill. It should be noted that the 2013 California Building Code ([2013 CBC], California Building Standards Commission [CBSCJ, 2013) indicates that removals of unsuitable soils be performed across all areas to be graded, under the purview of the grading permit, not just within the influence of the residential structure. Relatively deep removals may also necessitate a special zone of consideration, on perimeter/confining areas. This zone would be approximately equal to the depth of removals, if removals cannot be performed onsite or offsite. Thus, any settlement-sensitive improvements (walls, curbs, flatwork, etc.), constructed within this zone may require deepened foundations, reinforcement, etc., or will retain some potential for settlement and associated distress. This will also require proper disclosure to any owners and all interested/affected parties should this condition exist at the conclusion of grading. Expansion Index (E.l.), and Plasticity Index (P.1.) testing performed on a representative sample of the onsite soil indicates an E.I. of less than 20 (very low expansive), and non plastic soil conditions. As such, site soils are considered non-detrimentally expansive and no specific foundation design appears necessary to mitigate expansive.soil effects, on a preliminary basis. Soil expansion should be re-evaluated at the conclusion of grading. Laboratory testing indicates that site soils are relatively neutral with respect to pH, mildly corrosive to exposed buried metals when saturated, present negligible sulfate exposure to concrete and are below the action level for chloride exposure. Site soils are classified as "Exposure Class Cl." Corrosion testing at the completion of grading is recommended in order to obtain actual corrosion data specific to design grades. Neither a regional groundwater table nor perched water was encountered during our subsurface studies to the depth explored. As such, regional groundwater is not anticipated to significantly affect the planned improvements. Perched water may occur in the future along zones of contrasting permeability and/or density. This potential should be disclosed to all interested/affected parties. Our evaluation indicates there are no known active faults crossing the site and the natural slope upon which the site is located has very low susceptibility to deep-seated landslides. Owing to the depth to groundwater and the dense nature of the terrace (paralic) deposits, the potential for the site to be adversely affected by liquefaction is considered very low. Site soils are considered erosive. Thus, properly designed site drainage is necessary in reducing erosion damage to the planned improvements. The seismic acceleration values and design parameters provided herein should be considered during the design of the proposed development. The adverse effects of seismic shaking on the structure(s) will likely be wall cracks, some foundation/slab distress, and some seismic settlement. However, it is anticipated that the structure will be repairable in the event of the design seismic event. This potential should be disclosed to any owners and all interested/affected parties. Ron Ozaki W.O. 7014-A-SC File:e:\wpl2\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page Two Additional adverse geologic features that would preclude project feasibility were not encountered, based on the available data. The recommendations presented in this report should be incorporated into the design and construction considerations of the project. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. (4i ii (. tCE 4757 7) J Exp.jL2J * Civil Engineer; R E47857 Respectfully subm GeoSoils, Inc. - Certitieci No.1934 —4 Rob Geologist 'T -17 e Engineering i rt G. G. Crisman OPCAV Engineering Geologist, CEG 1934 RGC/JPF/DWS/jh Distribution: (3) Addressee Ron Ozaki W.O. 7014-A-SC File:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page Three TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE OF SERVICES . 1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .........................1 FIELD STUDIES .........................................................3 REGIONAL GEOLOGY ...................................................3 SITE GEOLOGIC UNITS ...................................................5 General..........................................................5 Colluvium (Not Mapped) .......................................5 Quaternary Older Paralic Deposits (Map Symbol - Qop2-4) ...........5 Structural Geology .................................................5 GROUNDWATER ........................................................5 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS EVALUATION .........................................6 Mass Wasting/Landslide Susceptibility .................................6 FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY .....................................6 Regional Faults ....................................................6 LocalFaulting ......................................................6 Seismicity........................................................7 Seismic Shaking Parameters .........................................7 SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS ..........................................9 SLOPESTABILITY ........................................................9 LABORATORY TESTING ..................................................9 Classification ......................................................9 Expansion Index ...................................................9 Particle-Size Analysis ..............................................10 Saturated Resistivity, pH, and Soluble Sulfates, and Chlorides .............10 Corrosion Summary .........................................10 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................10 EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS .......................13 General.........................................................13 Demolition/Grubbing ..............................................13 Treatment of Existing Ground .......................................14 Fill Suitability .....................................................14 Fill Placement .....................................................14 GeoSoils, Inc. Graded Slopes . 15 TemporarySlopes ................................................15 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS - FOUNDATIONS .......................15 General.........................................................15 Preliminary Foundation Design ......................................16 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS ...........16 Foundation Settlement .............................................18 SOIL MOISTURE TRANSMISSION CONSIDERATIONS ........................18 WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS ............................................20 General.........................................................20 Conventional Retaining Walls .......................................20 Preliminary Retaining Wall Foundation Design ....................20 Restrained Walls ..................................................21 Cantilevered Walls ...........................................21 Seismic Surcharge ................................................22 Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage ..................................23 Wall/Retaining Wall Footing Transitions ...............................27 DRIVEWAY/PARKING, FLATWORK, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ..............27 DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ...............................................29 Onsite Storm Water Treatment ......................................29 Slope Maintenance and Planting .....................................30 Drainage........................................................31 Erosion Control ...................................................31 Landscape Maintenance ...........................................31 Gutters and Downspouts ...........................................32 Subsurface and Surface Water .........................................32 Site Improvements ................................................32 Tile Flooring .....................................................33 Additional Grading ................................................33 Footing Trench Excavation ..........................................33 Trenching/Temporary Construction Backcuts ..........................33 Utility Trench Backfill ..............................................34 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING........................................................34 OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS ..........................35 PLANREVIEW ..........................................................36 Ron Ozaki . Table of Contents File:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page ii LIMITATIONS . 36 FIGURES: Figure 1 - Site Location Map .........................................2 Figure 2 - Geotechnical Map .........................................4 Detail 1 - Typical Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage Detail ..............24 Detail 2 - Retaining Wall Backfill and Subdrain Detail Geotextile Drain .......25 Detail 3 - Retaining Wall and Subdrain Detail Clean Sand Backfill ...........26 ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A - References ...................................Rear of Text Appendix B - Hand Auger Boring Logs ........................Rear of Text Appendix C - Seismicity ....................................Rear of Text Appendix D - General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines .........Rear of Text Ron Ozaki Table of Contents Fi1e:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page iii GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION FOR PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AT 1645 CHESTNUT AVENUE CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 92067 SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of our services has included the following: Reviewof readily available published literature, aerial photographs, and maps of the vicinity (see Appendix A), including proprietary in-house geologic/geotechnical reports for other nearby sites. Site reconnaissance mapping and the excavation of three (3) exploratory hand- auger borings to evaluate the soil/formation profiles, sample representative earth materials, and delineate the horizontal and vertical extent of earth material.units (see Appendix B). General areal seismicity evaluation (see Appendix C). Appropriate laboratory testing of relatively undisturbed and representative bulk soil samples collected during our geologic mapping and subsurface exploration program. Analysis of field and laboratory data relative to the proposed development. Appropriate engineering and geologic analyses of data collected, and the preparation of this summary report and accompaniments. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The subject site consists of a relatively flat-lying, "flag" lot property in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California (see Site Location Map, Figure 1). The property is bounded by residential property and Chestnut Avenue to the northwest, and existing residential property on the remaining sides. Access to subject property is via an existing easement from Chestnut Avenue to the property located south of an existing residential lot fronting Chestnut Avenue. Existing improvements to the property consist of a small storage structure. The site appears to be at an approximate elevation of 166 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). Drainage appears to be generally directed offsite to the south, toward the back (south) of the property. Vegetation onsite consists of scattered trees, and other typical residential landscaping. It is anticipated that the existing storage structure is to be removed, and the site will be prepared for the construction of a single family residential structure. The proposed development is not currently known (single or double story/detached garage, etc.). GeoSoils, Inc. Base Map: TOPO!® @2003 National Geographic, U.S.G.S. San Luis Rey Quadrangle, California -- San Diego Co., 7.5 Minute, dated 1997, current, 1999. Base Map: Google Maps, Copyright 2016 Google, Map Data Copyright 2016 Google This map Is copyrighted by Google 2016. It Is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any pail thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. All rights reserved. W.O. 7014-A-SC 4 SITE LOCATION MAP N Figure I However, GSI anticipates that the construction would consist of wood frames with typical foundations and slab-on-grade ground floors. Building loads are assumed to be typical for this type of relatively light construction. Sewage disposal is anticipated to be connected into the regional, municipal system. Storm water may be treated onsite prior to its delivery into the municipal system. FIELD STUDIES Site-specific field studies were conducted by GSI during January 2016, and consisted of reconnaissance geologic mapping and the excavation of three (3) exploratory test borings with a hand auger, for an evaluation of near-surface soil and geologic conditions onsite. The test borings were logged by a representative of this office who collected representative bulk and undisturbed soil samples for appropriate laboratory testing. The logs of the hand -auger borings are presented in Appendix B. The approximate location of the hand-auger borings are presented on the Geotechnical Map (see Figure 2). REGIONAL GEOLOGY The subject property lies within the coastal plain physiographic region of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of southern California. This region consists of dissected, mesa-like terraces that transition inland to rolling hills. The encompassing Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province is characterized as elongated mountain ranges and valleys that trend northwesterly. This geomorphic province extends from the base of the east-west aligned Santa Monica - San Gabriel Mountains, and continues south into Baja California. The mountain ranges within this province are underlain by basement rocks consisting of pre-Cretaceous metased imentary rocks, Jurassic metavolcan ic rocks, and Cretaceous plutonic (granitic) rocks. In the Southern California region, deposition occurred during the Cretaceous Period and Cenozoic Era in the continental margin of a forearc basin. Sediments, derived from Cretaceous-age plutonic rocks and Jurassic-age volcanic rocks, were deposited during the Tertiary Period (Eocene-age) into the narrow, steep, coastal plain and continental margin of the basin. These rocks have been uplifted, eroded, and deeply incised. During early Pleistocene time, a broad coastal plain was developed from the deposition of marine terrace deposits. During mid to late Pleistocene time, this plain was uplifted, eroded and incised. Alluvial deposits have since filled the lower valleys, and young marine sediments are currently being deposited/eroded within coastal and beach areas. Regional geologic mapping by Kennedy and Tan (2007) indicate the site is underlain by Quaternary-age older paralic deposits (formally known as "terrace deposits"), which is considered bedrock, or formational sediments, at the site. Based on our experience in the vicinity, older deposits of Eocene-age sedimentary bedrock likely underlie the site at depth. Ron Ozaki W.O. 7014-A-SC 1645 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad February 22 2016 F1Ie:e:\wp127000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 3 T _ - = ? I i jcT I *; • , J;;iia 1r 1 '• -, • .4 - L_ 0 cr - - — _ - •- -tK J 7. 1 •i( I %4 ____ _ - - - I • . • I -1 ROXIMATE LOCATION OF HA-3 Q DYEAfrROPERTY UNEI -7 on L4 lHA219 ' F HA-11 ('L, Ift GRAPHIC SCALE 50 0 25 50 100 1 ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE 1 I / This document or cilie is not a part of th Construction / Documents and should not be relied upon as being an a = 50' accurate depiction of design. GSi LEGEND HA-3 fr4}? - APPROXIMATE LOCA liON OF GEO TECHNICAL MAP HAND—AUGER BORING QOP - QUATERNARY OLD PARAUC DEPOSITS Figure 2 2.4 W.O. 7014-A$C DATE: 02/16 1SCALE: V'= 50 SITE GEOLOGIC UNITS General The earth material units that were observed and/or encountered at the subject site consist of surficial deposits of undifferentiated colluvium, overlying Quaternary-age older paralic deposits at shallow depth. A general description of each material type is presented as follows, from youngest to oldest. Colluvium (Not Mapped) As observed, colluvium (topsoil) occurs at the surface and consists of dark brown, moist, loose, and porous silty sand. Where encountered in our borings, the thickness of these earth materials was on the order of 1½ to 3 feet thick. All colluvium is considered prone to settlement under loading and therefore should be removed and reused as properly engineered fill, in areas proposed for settlements-sensitive improvements. Quaternary Older Paralic Deposits (Map Symbol - Qop2-4) Quaternary-age older paralic deposits (terrace deposits) were observed underlying existing colluvium at depths on the order of 11/2 to 3 feet below existing grades onsite. Where encountered, these sediments generally consisted of moist, medium dense, yellowish brown, silty sand. These deposits are considered to be suitable bearing materials for the support of new fills, or settlement-sensitive improvements. Structural Geology Bedding within older paralic deposits is generally flat lying to very gently dipping and should not affect site development. GROUNDWATER GSI did not observe evidence of a regional groundwater table nor perched water within our subsurface explorations. Regional groundwater is estimated to be generally within a few feet of sea level, and is not anticipated to significantly affect proposed site development, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are properly incorporated into final design and construction. These observations reflect site conditions at the time of our investigation and do not preclude future changes in local groundwater conditions from excessive irrigation, precipitation, or that were not obvious, at the time of our investigation. Seeps, springs, or other indications of subsurface water were not noted on the subject property during the time of our field investigation. However, perched water seepage may occur locally (as the result of heavy precipitation and/or irrigation, or damaged wet utilities) along zones of contrasting permeabilities/densities (colluvium/paralic deposit contacts, Ron Ozaki W.O. 7014-A-SC 1645 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad February 22, 2016 Fi1e:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 5 sandy/clayey fill lifts, etc.) or along geologic discontinuities. This potential should be anticipated and disclosed to all interested/affected parties. Due to the potential for post-development perched water to manifest near the surface, owing to as-graded permeability/density contrasts, more onerous slab design is necessary for any new slab-on-grade floor (State of California, 2016). Recommendations for reducing the amount of water and/or water vapor through slab-on-grade floors are provided in the "Soil Moisture Considerations" sections of this report. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS EVALUATION Mass Wasting/Landslide Susceptibility Due to the relatively flat lying condition of the site, and the nature of the underlying soils, the site is not considered susceptible to significant mass wasting or landsliding. The onsite soils are, however, considered erosive: Therefore, slopes comprised of these materials may be subject to rilling, gullying, sloughing, and surficial slope failures depending on rainfall severity and surface drainage. However, such risks can be minimized through properly designed and controlled surface drainage. FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY Regional Faults Our review indicates that there are no known active faults crossing the project and the site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007). However, the site is situated in an area of active faulting. The Rose Canyon fault is closest known active fault to the site (located at a distance of approximately 5.8 miles [9.3 kilometers]) and should have the greatest effect on the site in the form of strong ground shaking, should the design earthquake occur. A list and the location of theRose Canyon fault and other major faults relative to the site is provided in Appendix C. The possibility of ground acceleration, or shaking at the site, may be considered as approximately similar to the southern California region as a whole. Local Faulting Although active faults lie within a few miles of the site, no local active faulting was noted in our review, nor observed to specifically transect the site during the field investigation. Additionally, a review of available regional geologic maps does not indicate the presence of local active faults crossing the specific project site. Ron Ozaki W.O. 7014-A-SC 1645 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad February 22, 2016 FiIe:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 6 Seismicity It is our understanding that site-specific seismic design criteria from the 2013 California Building Code ([2013 CBC], California Building Standards Commission [CBSC], 2013), are to be utilized for foundation design. Much of the 2013 CBC relies on the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE Standard 7-10). The seismic design parameters provided herein are based on the 2013 CBC. The acceleration-attenuation relation of Bozorgnia, Campbell, and Niazi (1999) has been incorporated into EQFAULT (Blake, 2000a). EQFAULT is a computer program developed by Thomas F. Blake (2000a), which performs deterministic seismic hazard analyses using digitized California faults as earthquake sources. The program estimates the closest distance between each fault and a given site. If a fault is found to be within a user-selected radius, the program estimates peak horizontal ground acceleration that may occur at the site from an upper bound (formerly "maximum credible earthquake"), on that fault. Upper bound refers to the maximum èxpected.ground acceleration produced from a given fault. Site acceleration (g) was computed by one user-selected acceleration-attenuation relation that is contained in EQFAULT. Based on the EQFAULT program, a peak horizontal ground acceleration from an upper bound event on the Rose Canyon fault may be on the order of 0.53 g. The computer printouts of pertinent portions of the EQFAULT program are included within Appendix C. Historical site seismicity was evaluated with the acceleration-attenuation relation of Bozorgnia, Campbell, and Niazi (1999), and the computer program EQSEARCH (Blake, 2000b, updated to June 2013). This program performs a search of the historical earthquake records for magnitude 5.0 to 9.0 seismic events within a 100-kilometer radius, between the years 1800 through January 2016. Based on the selected acceleration-attenuation relationship, a peak horizontal ground acceleration is estimated, which may have affected the site during the specific event listed. Based on the available data and the attenuation relationship used, the estimated maximum (peak) site acceleration during the period 1800 through January 2016 -was about 0.24 g. A historic earthquake epicenter map and a seismic recurrence curve are also estimated/generated from the historical data. Computer printouts of the EQSEARCH program are presented in Appendix C. Seismic Shaking Parameters Based on the site conditions, the following table summarizes the updated site-specific design criteria obtained from the 2013 CBC (CBSC, 2013), Chapter 16 Structural Design, Section 1613, Earthquake Loads. The computer program "U.S. Seismic Design Maps, provided by the United States Geologic Survey (USGS, 2014) was utilized for design (hnp://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php). The short spectral response utilizes a period of 0.2 seconds. Ron Ozaki W.O. 7014-A-SC 1645 Chestnut Avenue Carlsbad February 22 2016 Fi1e:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 7 - 2013 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS PARAMETER VALUE 2013 CBC REFERENCE Risk Category I, II, or Ill Table 1604.5 Site Class D Section 1613.3.2/ASCE 7-10 (p. 203-205) Spectral Response -(0.2 sec), S. 1.125g Section 1613.3.1 Figure 1613.3.1 (1) Spectral Response -(1 sec), S 0.432g Section 1613.3.1 Figure 1613.3.1 (2) Site Coefficient, F8 1.050 Table 1613.3.3(1) Site Coefficient, F8 1.568 Table 1613.3.3(2) Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral 1.1819 Section 1613.3.3 Response Acceleration (0.2 sec), SMS (Eqn 16-37) Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral 0.677g Section 1613.3.3 Response Acceleration (1 sec), SM, (Eqn 16-38) 5% Damped Design Spectral Response 0.787g Section 1613.3.4 Acceleration (0.2 sec), S (Eqn 16-39) 5% Damped Design Spectral Response 0.452g Section 1613.3.4 Acceleration (1 sec), S0, (Eqn 16-40) PGA, (Probabilistic Vertical Ground Acceleration may be 0.467g ASCE 7-10 (Eqn 11.8.1) assumed as about 50% of this value) Seismic Design Category(')D Section 1613.3.5/ASCE 7-10 (Table 11.6-1 or 11.6-2) GENERAL SEISMIC PARAMETERS PARAMETER -- VALUE Distance to Seismic Source (Rose Canyon) 5.8 mi (9.3 km)" Upper Bound Earthquake (Rose Canyon fault) M =7.2(2) - From Blake (2000a) - Cao, et al. (2003) Conformance to the criteria above for seismic design does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur in the event of a large earthquake. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to eliminate all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive. Cumulative effects of seismic events are not addressed in the 2013 CBC (CBSC, 2013) and regular maintenance and repair following locally significant seismic events (i.e., M5.5) will likely be necessary, as is the case in all of southern California. Ron Ozaki W.O. 7014-A-SC 1645 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad February 22, 2016 Fi1e:e:wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils,. Inc. Page 8 SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS The following list includes other geologic/seismic related hazards that have been considered during our evaluation of the site. The hazards listed are considered negligible and/or mitigated as a result of site location, soil characteristics, and typical site development procedures: Liquefaction Lateral Spreading Subsidence Ground Lurching or Shallow Ground Rupture Tsunami Seiche SLOPE STABILITY Based on site conditions and planned improvements, significant cut and/or fill slopes are not anticipated. Therefore, no recommendations are deemed necessary. Temporary slopes for construction (i.e., trenching, etc.) are discussed in subsequent sections of our report. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples of site earth materials collected during our subsurface exploration in order to evaluate their physical characteristics. Test procedures used and results obtained are presented below. Classification Soils were visually classified with respect to the Unified Soil Classification System (U.S.C.S.) in general accordance with ASTM D 2487 and D 2488. The soil classifications of the onsite soils are provided on the Hand-Auger Logs in Appendix B. Expansion Index Tests were performed on a representative soil sample obtained from Hand-Auger HA-1 (composite sample) to evaluate expansion potential. Testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM D 4829, and indicates a very low expansion potential (Expansion Index [E.l.] = <5), where tested. Ron Ozaki W.O. 7014-A-SC 1645 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad February 22, 2016 Fi1e:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 9 Particle-Size Analysis A particle-size evaluation was performed on a representative, soil sample obtained from Hand-Auger HA-1 (composite sample) in general accordance with ASTM D 422-63. The testing was utilized to evaluate the soil classification in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The results of the particle-size evaluation indicate that the tested soil is a silty sand (SM). Results = 0.0% gravel, 76.2% sand, 23.8% silt/clay. Saturated Resistivity, pH, and Soluble Sulfates, and Chlorides GSI conducted sampling of onsite earth materials for general soil corrosivity and soluble sulfates, and chlorides testing. The testing (performed by an outside laboratory) included evaluation of soil pH, soluble sulfates, chlorides, and saturated resistivity. Test results are presented in the following table: SATURATED - SOLUBLE SOLUBLE - SAMPLE LOCATION pH RESISTIVITY SULFATES CHLORIDES AND DEPTH (FT) (ohm-cm) (pm) (PPM) HA-1 9 0-3 7.35 3,800 0.0135 62 Corrosion Summary Laboratory testing indicates that tested samples of the onsite soils are relatively neutral with respect to soil acidity/alkalinity, are mildly corrosive to exposed, buried metals when saturated, present negligible ("not applicable" per ACl 318-11) sulfate exposure to concrete, and although some what elevated, are below the action level for chloride exposure (per State of California Department of Transportation, 2003). Reinforced concrete mix design for foundations, slab-on-grade floors, and pavements should minimally conform to "Exposure Class Cl" in Table 4.2.1 of ACI 318-11, as concrete would likely be exposed to moisture. It should be noted that 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 as warranted. I PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing, and geotechnical engineering analysis, it is our opinion that the subject site is suitable for the proposed residential development from a geotechnical engineering and geologic viewpoint, provided that the recommendations presented in the following sections are incorporated into the design and Ron Ozaki 1645 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad Fi1e:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 7014-A-SC February 22, 2016 Page 10 construction phases of site development. The primary geotechnical concerns with respect to the proposed development and improvements are: Earth materials characteristics and depth to competent bearing material. On-going expansion and corrosion potential of site soils. Erosiveness of site earth materials. Potential for perched water during and following site development. Temporary slope stability. Regional seismic activity. The recommendations presented herein consider these as well as other aspects of the site. The engineering analyses performed concerning site preparation and the recommendations presented herein have been completed using the information provided and obtained during our field work. In the event that any significant changes are made to proposed site development, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the recommendations of this report verified or modified in writing by this office. Foundation design parameters are considered preliminary until the foundation design, layout, and structural loads are provided to this office for review. Soil engineering, observation, and testing services should be provided during grading to aid the contractor in removing unsuitable soils and in his effort to compact the fill. Geologic observations should be performed during any grading and foundation construction to verify and/orfurther evaluate geologic conditions. Although unlikely, if adverse geologic structures are encountered, supplemental recommendations and earthwork may be warranted. Surficial soils within approximately 1½ to 3 feet from surface grades are considered unsuitable for the support of the planned settlement-sensitive improvements (i.e., residential structure, walls, concrete slab-on-grade floors, and exterior pavements, etc.) or new planned fills. Unsuitable soils within the influence of planned settlement-sensitive improvements and/or planned fill should be removed to expose suitable older paralic deposits and then be reused as properly engineered fill. In order to provide for the uniform support of the structure, a minimum 3-foot thick later of compacted fill is recommended for the support of structure(s). Based on the recommended removal depths, it may be necessary to undercut the building pad areas in order to achieve the desired minimum fill thickness. Undercutting should be completed for a minimum lateral distance of at least 5 feet beyond the building footprint. Ron Ozaki W.O. 7014-A-SC 1645 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad February 22, 2016 FiIe:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSods, Inc. Page 11 Testing performed on a representative sample of the onsite soils indicates very low expansive soil conditions. On a preliminary basis, specific foundation design to resist expansive soil effects is not necessary. However, GSI suggests that the soil moisture within the underlying subgrade is near, or above optimum moisture content prior to the placement of the underlayment sand and vapor retarder. Laboratory testing indicates that site soils are relatively neutral (pH), and mildly corrosive to exposed buried metals when saturated. Testing also indicates that site soils present negligible ("not applicable" per ACI 318-11) sulfate exposure to concrete and are below the action level for chloride exposure. Site soils are classified as "Exposure Class Cl." 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 as warranted. Additional testing at the completion of remedial grading is recommended in order to verify these assumptions. Site soils are considered erosive. Surface drainage should be designed to eliminate the potential for concentrated flows. Positive surface drainage away from foundations and tops of slopes is recommended. Temporary erosion control measures should be implemented until vegetative covering is well established. The homeowner will need to maintain proper surface drainage over the life of the project. No evidence of a high regional groundwater table nor perched water was observed during our subsurface exploration within the property. However, due to the nature of site earth materials, there is a potential for perched water to occur both during and following site development. This potential should be disclosed to all interested/affected parties. Should perched water conditions be encountered, this office could provide recommendations for mitigation. Typical mitigation includes subdrainage system, cut-off barriers, etc. On a preliminary basis, temporary slopes should be constructed in accordance with CAL-OSHA guidelines for Type "B" soils. All temporary slopes should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant, prior to worker entry. Should adverse conditions be identified, the slope may need to be laid back to a flatter gradient or require the use of shoring. The seismicity-acceleration values provided herein should be considered during the design and construction of the proposed development. General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines are provided at the end of this report as Appendix D. Specific recommendations are provided below. Ron Ozaki W.O. 7014-A-SC 1645 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad February 22, 2016 File:e:\wp127000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 12 EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS General All earthwork should conform to the guidelines presented in the 2013 CBC (CBSC, 2013), the requirements of the City of Carlsbad, and the General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines presented in Appendix D, except where specifically superceded in the text of this report. Prior to earthwork, a GSI representative should be present at the preconstruction meeting to provide additional earthwork guidelines, if needed, and review the earthwork schedule. This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, supplemental regrading of the site, or backfilling underground utilitytrenches and retaining walls after rough earthwork has been completed. This includes grading for driveway approaches, driveways, and exterior hardscape. During earthwork construction, all site preparation and the general grading procedures of the contractor should be observed and the fill selectively tested by a representative(s) of GSI. If unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field, they should be reviewed by this office and, if warranted, modified and/or additional recommendations will be offered. All applicable requirements of local and national construction and general industry safety orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), and the Construction Safety Act should be met. It is the onsite general contractor and individual subcontractors responsibility to provide a save working environment for our field staff who are onsite. GSI does not consult in the area of safety engineering. Demolition/Grubbing Vegetation and any miscellaneous debris should be removed from the areas of proposed grading. Any existing subsurface structures uncovered during the recommended removal should be observed by GSI so that appropriate remedial recommendations can be provided. Cavities or loose soils remaining after demolition and site clearance should be cleaned out and observed by the soil engineer. The cavities should be replaced with fill materials that have been moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Onsite septic systems (if encountered) should be removed in accordance with San Diego County Department of Environmental Health standards/guidelines. Ron Ozaki W.O. 7014-A-SC 1645 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad February 22, 2016 Fi1e:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 13 Treatment of Existing Ground Removals should consist of all surficial deposits of fill, colluvium, and weathered paralic deposits. Based on our site work, removals depths on the order of 2 to 21/2 feet should be anticipated. These soils may be re-used as fill, provided that the soil is cleaned of any deleterious material and moisture conditioned, and compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D 1557. Removals should be completed throughout the entire building area. In addition to removals within the building envelopes, overexcavation/undercutting of the underlying formational soil should be performed in order to provide for at least 3 feet of compacted fill below finish grade. Undercutting should be completed for a minimum lateral distance of at least 5 feet beyond the building footprint. Once removals and overexcavation is completed, the fill should be cleaned of deleterious materials, moisture conditioned, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D 1557. Subsequent to the above removals/overexcavation, the exposed bottom should be scarified to a depth of at least 6 to 8 inches, brought to at least optimum moisture content, and recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard, prior to any fill placement. Existing fill and removed natural ground materials may be reused as compacted fill provided that major concentrations of vegetation and miscellaneous debris are removed from the site, prior to or during fill placement. Localized deeper removals may be necessary due to buried drainage channel meanders or dry porous materials, septic systems, etc. The project soils engineer/geologist should observe all removal areas during the grading. Fill Suitability Existing earth materials onsite should generate relativelyfine grained, granularfill material, and oversize material (i.e., greater than 12 inches in long dimension) is not anticipated. If soil importation is planned, samples of the soil import should be evaluated by this office prior to importing in order to assure compatibility with the onsite site soils and the recommendations presented in this report. Import soils, if used, should be relatively sandy and very low expansive (i.e., E.I. less than 20). Fill Placement Subsequent to ground preparation, fill materials should be brought to at least optimum moisture content, placed in thin 6- to 8-inch lifts, and mechanically compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Ron Ozaki 1645 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad File:e:\wp12\700O7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 7014-A-SC February 22, 2016 Page 14 Fill materials should be cleansed of major vegetation and debris prior to placement. Any import materials should be observed and deemed suitable by the soils engineer prior to placement on the site. Foundation designs may be altered if import materials have a greater expansion value than the onsite materials encountered in this investigation. Graded Slopes Significant graded slope are not planned, nor anticipated for this project. Temporary Slopes Temporary slopes for excavations greater than 4 feet, but less than 20 feet in overall height should conform to CAL-OSHA and/or OSHA requirements for Type "B" soils. Temporary slopes, up to a maximum height of ±20 feet, may be excavated at a 1:1 (h:v) gradient, or flatter, provided groundwater and/or running sands are not exposed. Construction materials or soil stockpiles should not be placed within 'H' of any temporary slope where 'H' equals the height of the temporary slope. All temporary slopes should be observed by a licensed engineering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer prior to worker entry into the excavation. PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS - FOUNDATIONS General Preliminary recommendations for foundation design and construction are provided in the following sections. These preliminary recommendations have been developed from our understanding of the currently planned site development, site observations, subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses. Foundation design should be re-evaluated at the conclusion of site grading/remedial earthwork for the as-graded soil conditions. Although not anticipated, revisions to these recommendations may be necessary. In the event that the information concerning the proposed development plan is not correct, or any changes in the design, location or loading conditions of the proposed additions are made, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are modified or approved in writing by this office. The information and recommendations presented in this section are not meant to supercede design by the project structural engineer or civil engineer specializing. in structural design. Upon request, GSI could provide additional input/consultation regarding soil parameters, as related to foundation design. Ron Ozaki W.O. 7014-A-SC 1645 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad February 22, 2016 File:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 15 Preliminary Foundation Design The foundation systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with guidelines presented in the 2013 CBC. An allowable bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for the design of footings that maintain a minimum width of 12 inches and a minimum depth of 12 inches (below the lowest adjacent grade) and are founded entirely into properly compacted, engineered fill. This value maybe increased by 20 percent for each additional 12 inches in footing depth to a maximum value of 2,500 psf. These values may be increased by one-third when considering short duration seismic or wind loads. Isolated pad footings should have a minimum dimension of at least 24 inches square and a minimum embedment of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent grade into properly engineered fill. Foundation embedment depth excludes concrete slabs-on-grade, and/or slab underlayment. Foundations should not simultaneously bear on unweathered .paralic deposits and engineered fill. For foundations deriving passive resistance from engineered fill, a passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 250 pcf, with a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 psf. The upper 6 inches of passive pressure should be neglected if not confined by slabs or pavement. For lateral sliding resistance, a 0.35 coefficient of friction may be utilized for a concrete to soil contact when multiplied by the dead load. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. All footing setbacks from slopes should comply with Figure 1808.7.1 of the 2013 CBC. GSI recommends a minimum horizontal setback distance of 7 feet as measured from the bottom, outboard edge of the footing to the slope face. Footings for structures adjacent to retaining walls should be deepened so as to extend below a 1:1 projection from the heel of the wall. Alternatively, walls may be designed to accommodate structural loads from buildings or appurtenances as described in the "Retaining Wall" section of this report. PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS The following foundation construction recommendations are presented as a minimum criteria from a soils engineering viewpoint. The following foundation construction recommendations are intended to support planned improvements underlain by at least Ron Ozaki W.O. 7014-A-SC 1645 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad February 22, 2016 Fi1e:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 16 7 feet of non-detrimentally expansive soils (i.e., E.l.<21 and P1 <15). Although not anticipated based on the available data, should foundations be underlain by expansive soils they will require specific design to mitigate expansive soil effects as required in Sections 1808.6.1 or 1808.6.2 of the 2013 CBC. Exterior and interior footings should be founded into engineered fill at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade, and a minimum width of 18 inches, for the planned, two story structure. Isolated, exterior column and panel pads, or wall footings, should be at least 24 inches, square, and founded at a minimum depth of 24 inches into properly engineered fill. All footings should be minimally reinforced with two No. 4 reinforcing bars, one placed near the top and one placed near the bottom of the footing. All interior and exterior column footings, and perimeter wall 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 one No.4 reinforcing barat the top, and one No.4 reinforcing bar at the bottom of the grade beam. The base of the reinforced grade beam should be at the same elevation as the adjoining footings. A grade beam, reinforced as previously recommended and at least 12 inches square, should be provided across large (garage) entrances. The base of the reinforced grade beam should be at the same elevation as the adjoining footings. A minimum concrete slab-on-grade thickness of 5 inches is recommended. Recommendations for floor slab underlayment are presented in a later section of this report. Concrete slabs should be reinforced with a minimum of No. 3 reinforcement bars placed at 18-inch on centers, in two horizontally perpendicular directions (i.e., long axis and short axis). 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. Specific slab subgrade pre-soaking is recommended for these 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. Slab subgrade pre-soaking should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant within 72 hours of the placement of the underlayment sand and vapor retarder. Soils generated from footing excavations to be used onsite should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard Ron Ozaki W.O. 7014-A-SC 1645 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad February 22, 2016 FiIe:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 17 (ASTM 0 1557), whether the soils are to be placed inside the foundation perimeter or in the yard/right-of-way areas. This material must not alter positive drainage patterns that direct drainage away from the structural areas and toward the Street. 9. Reinforced concrete mix design should conform to "Exposure Class Cl" in Table 4.2.1 of ACI-318-11 since concrete would likely be exposed to moisture. Foundation Settlement Provided that the earthwork and foundation recommendations in this reported are adhered foundations bearing on engineered fill should be minimally designed to accommodate a differential settlement of 3/4-iflCh over a 40-foot horizontal span (angular distortion = 1/640). SOIL MOISTURE TRANSMISSION CONSIDERATIONS GSl has evaluated the potential for vapor or water transmission through the concrete floor slab, in light of typical floor coverings and improvements. Please note that slab moisture emission rates range from about 2 to 27 lbs/ 24 hours/1,000 square feet from atypical slab (Kanare, 2005), while floor covering manufacturers generally recommend about 3 lbs/24 hours as an upper limit. The recommendations in this section are not intended to preclude the transmission of water or vapor through the foundation or slabs. Foundation systems and slabs 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, 2016). These recommendations may be exceeded or supplemented byawater "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: Concrete slabs should be thicker. Ron Ozaki W.O. 7014-A-SC 1645 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad February 22, 2016 File:e:\wpl2\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 18 Concrete slab underlayment should consist of a 15-mil vapor retarder, or equivalent, with all laps sealed per the 2013 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 ACI 302.1 R-04 and ASTM E 1643. The 10- to 15-mil vapor retarder (ASTM E 1745- Class A) shall be installed per the recommendations of the manufacturer, including all penetrations (i.e., pipe, ducting, rebar, etc.). Concrete slabs, including the garage areas, shall be underlain by 2 inches of clean, washed sand (SE > 30) above a 15-mil vapor retarder (ASTM E-1 745 - 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 shall 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. 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/ortesting 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 shall be underlain by 2 inches of sand (SE > 30) placed directly on the prepared, moisture conditioned, subgrade and should be sealed to provide a continuous retarder under the entire slab, as discussed above. As discussed previously, GSI indicated this layer of import sand may be eliminated below the vapor retarder, it laboratory testing indicates that the slab subgrade soil have a sand equivalent (SE) of 30 or greater, during site grading. Concrete should have a maximum water/cement ratio of 0.50. This does not supercede Table 4.2.1 of Chapter 4 of the ACI (2011) for corrosion or other corrosive requirements. Additional concrete mix design recommendations should be provided by the structural consultant and/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, and/or admixtures used, the structural consultant should also make changes to the concrete in the grade beams and footings in kind, so that the concrete used in the foundation and slabs are designed and/or treated for more uniform moisture protection. Ron Ozaki W.O. 7014-A-SC 1645 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad February 22, 2016 FiIe:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 19 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 manufactures 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. WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS General Recommendations for the design and construction of conventional masonry retaining walls are provided herein. Recommendations for specialty walls (i.e., crib, earthstone, geogrid, etc.) can be provided upon request, and would be based on site specific conditions. Conventional Retaining Walls The design parameters provided below 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 up to 20 are used to backfill any retaining wall. Please note that the onsite likely do not meet this criteria. 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. Waterproofing should also be provided for site retaining walls in order to reduce the potential for efflorescence staining. Preliminary Retaining Wall Foundation Design Preliminary foundation design for retaining walls should incorporate the following recommendations: Minimum Footing Embedment - 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade (excluding landscape layer [upper 6 inches]). Ron Ozaki W.O. 7014-A-SC 1645 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad February 22, 2016 File:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 20 Minimum Footing Width - 24 inches Allowable Bearing Pressure - An allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pcf may be used in the preliminary design of retaining wall foundations provided thatthe footing maintains a minimum width of 24 inches and extends at least 18 inches into approved engineered fill overlying dense formational materials. This pressure may be increased by one-third for short-term wind and/or seismic loads. Passive Earth Pressure - A passive earth pressure of 250 pcf with a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 psf may be used in the preliminary design of retaining wall foundations provided the foundation is embedded into properly compacted silty to clayey sand fill. Lateral Sliding Resistance - A 0.35 coefficient of friction may be utilized for a concrete to soil contact when multiplied by the dead load. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. Backfill Soil Density - Soil densities ranging between 110 pcf and 115 pcf may be used in the design of retaining wall foundations. This assumes an average engineered fill compaction of at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557). Any retaining wall footings near the perimeter of the site will likely need to be deepened into unweathered very old paralic deposits or unweathered Santiago Formation for adequate vertical and lateral bearing support. All retaining wall footing setbacks from slopes should complywith Figure 1808.7.1 of the 2013 CBC. GSI recommends a minimum horizontal setback distance of 7 feet as measured from the bottom, outboard edge of the footing to the slope face. Restrained Walls Any retaining walls that will be restrained prior to placing and compacting backfill material or that have re-entrant or male corners, should be designed for an at-rest equivalent fluid pressure (EFP) of 55 pcf and 65 pcf for select and very low expansive native backfill, respectively. The design should include any applicable surcharge loading. For areas of male or re-entrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance of twice the height of the wall (2H) laterally from the corner. Cantilevered Walls The recommendations presented below are for cantilevered retaining walls up to 10 feet high. Design parameters for walls less than 3 feet in height may be superceded by County of San Diego regional standard design. Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wall is not restrained from minor deflections. An Ron Ozaki W.O. 7014-A-SC 1645 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad February 22, 2016 FiIe:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 21 equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall. Appropriate fluid unit weights are given below for specific slope gradients of the retained material. These do not include other superimposed loading conditions due to traffic, structures, seismic events or adverse geologic conditions. When wall configurations are finalized, the appropriate loading conditions for superimposed loads can be provided upon request. For preliminary planning purposes, the structural consultant/wall designer should incorporate the surcharge of traffic on the back of retaining walls where vehicular traffic could occur within horizontal distance "H" from the back of the retaining wall (where "H" equals the wall height). The traffic surcharge may be taken as 100 psf/ft in the upper 5 feet of backfill for light truck and cars traffic. This does not include the surcharge of parked vehicles which should be evaluated at a higher surcharge to account for the effects of seismic loading. Equivalent fluid pressures for the design of cantilevered retaining walls are provided in the following table: SURFACESLOPE OF - RETAINED MATERIAL (HORIZONTAL:VERTICAL) EQUIVALENT FLUID WEIGHT P.C.F. (SELECT BAC KFILL)2 - EQUIVALENT - FLUID WEIGHT P.C.F. (NATIVE BACKFILL)3 Level(') 38 50 2tol 55 60 Level backfill behind a retaining wall is defined as compacted earth materials, properly drained, without a slope for a distance of 2H behind the wall, where H is the height of the wall. SE > 30, P.1. < 15, E.I. < 21, and < 10% passing No. 200 sieve. E.I. = 0 to 50, SE >30, P.1. < 15, E.I. < 21, and < 15% passing No. 200 sieve. Seismic Surcharge For engineered retaining walls with more than 6 feet of retained materials, as measured vertically from the bottom of the wall footing at the heel to daylight, GSI recommends that the walls be evaluated for a seismic surcharge (in general accordance with 2013 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 15H where "H" for retained walls is the dimension previously noted as the height of the backfill to the bottom of the 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 applied as an inverted triangular distribution using 15H. For restrained walls, the pressure should be applied as a rectangular distribution. Please note this is for local wall stability only. Ron Ozaki W.O. 7014-A-SC 1645 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad February 22 2016 FiIe:e:\wp127000\7014a.pQe GeoSoils, Inc. Page 22 The 15H is derived from a Mononobe-Okabe solution for both restrained cantilever walls. This accounts for the increased lateral pressure due to shakedown or movement of the sand fill soil in the zone of influence from the wall or roughly a 450 - 4)12 plane away from the back of the wall. The 15H seismic surcharge is derived from the formula: Ph = • a. yH Where: Ph = Seismic increment a, = Probabilistic horizontal site acceleration with a percentage of = total unit weight (115 to 125 pcf for site soils @ 90% relative compaction). H = Height of the wall from the bottom of the footing or point of pile fixity. Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage Positive drainage must be provided behind all retaining walls in the form of gravel wrapped in geofabric and outlets. A backdrain system is considered necessary for retaining walls that are 2 feet or greater in height. Details 1, 2, and 3, present the back drainage options discussed below. Backdrains should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated PVC or ABS pipe encased in either Class 2 permeable filter material or 3/4-inch to 1½-inch gravel wrapped in approved filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent). For low expansive backfill, the filter material should extend a minimum of 1 horizontal foot behind the base of the walls and upward at least 1 foot. For native backfill that has up to medium expansion potential, continuous Class 2 permeable drain materials should be used behind the wall. This material should be continuous (i.e., full height) behind the wall, and it should be constructed in accordance with the enclosed Detail 1 (Typical Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage Detail). For limited access and confined areas, (panel) drainage behind the wall may be constructed in accordance with Detail 2 (Retaining Wall Backfill and Subdrain Detail Geotextile Drain). Materials with an E.J. potential of greater than 50 should not be used as backfill for retaining walls. For more onerous expansive situations, backfill and drainage behind the retaining wall should conform with Detail 3 (Retaining Wall And Subdrain Detail Clean Sand Backfill). Drain outlets should consist of a 4-inch diameter solid PVC or ABS pipe spaced no greater than ± 100 feet apart, with a minimum of two outlets, one on each end. The use of weep holes, only, in walls higher than 2 feet, is not recommended. The surface of the backfill should be sealed by pavement or the top 18 inches compacted with native soil (E.l. <50). Proper surface drainage should also be provided. 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. Ron Ozaki W.O. 7014-A-SC 1645 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad February 22, 2016 FiIe:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 23 Structural footing or settlement-sensitive improvement Footing and wall design by others r Provide surface drainage via an / engineered V-ditch (see civil plans / for details) 2:1 (h:v) slope Slope or level' ..: .• •••. .2 12 inches ZQ (2) Gravel (3) Filter fa 1:1 (h:v) or flatter backcut to be properly benched (1) Waterproofing membrane CMU or reinforced-concrete wall -j ±12 inches - i— Proposed grade \ sloped to drain \ per precise civil \ drawings \ (5) Weep hole Native backfill 4 (6) Footing Waterproofing membrane. Gravel: Clean, crushed, 3/4 to 1Y2 inch. Filter fabric: Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent. Pipe: 4-inch-diameter perforated PVC, Schedule 40, or approved alternative with minimum of 1 percent gradient sloped to suitable, approved outlet point (perforations down). Weep hole: Minimum 2-inch diameter placed at 20-foot centers along the wall and placed 3 inches above finished surface. Design civil engineer to provide drainage at toe of wall. No weep holes for below-grade walls. Footing: If bench is created behind the footing greater than the footing width, use level fill or cut natural earth materials. An additional "heel" drain will likely be required by geotechnical consultant. .GénC. RETAINING WALL DETAIL -. ALTERNATIVE A Detail 1 Structural footing or (1) Waterproofing settlement-sensitive improvement - membrane (optional) r- Provide surface drainage via engineered / V-ditch (see civil plan details) CMUor slo 2:1 NO slope reinforced-concrete wall i,..or level Slope 6 inches - .... . .:. . :. T . .• . >- (2) Composite.. I drain . . ..: . (5) Weep hole \ . .' i— Proposed grade . :• - (3) Filter fábri ... •.. Native backfill / sloped to drain . . .. . . . / per precise civil j... ... drawings :. ... (4Y 1:1 NO or flatter backcut to be Footing and wall properly benched . design by others - (6) 1 cubic foot of /-inch crushed rock - (7) Footing Waterproofing membrane (optional): Liquid boot or approved mastic equivalent. Drain: Miradrain 6000 or J-drain 200 or equivalent for non-waterproofed walls; Miradrain 6200 or J-drain 200 or equivalent for waterproofed walls (all perforations down). Filter fabric: Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent; place fabric flap behind core. Pipe: 4-inch-diameter perforated PVC, Schedule 40, or approved alternative with minimum of 1 percent gradient to proper outlet point (perforations down). Weep hole: Minimum 2-inch diameter placed at 20-foot centers along the wall and placed 3 inches above finished surface. Design civil engineer to provide drainage at toe of wall. No weep holes for below-grade walls. Gravel: Clean, crushed, 3/4 to 13 inch. Footing: If bench is created behind the footing greater than the footing width, use level fill or cut natural earth materials. An additional "heel" drain will likely be required by geotechnical consultant. IG4$fZfle.I RETAINING WALL DETAIL - ALTERNATIVE B Detail 2 (1) Waterproofing membrane CMU or reinforced-concrete wall ±12 inches (5) Weep hole H Proposed grade I sloped to drain J per precise civil _L drawings Footing and wall design by others Structural footing or settlement-sensitive improvement Provide surface drainage Slope or level' ve 2.1 minimum,H • \• •.. •\• (8) Native backfill (6) Clean sand backfill 1:1 NO or flatter backcut to be properly benched - (7) Footing Waterproofing membrane: Liquid boot or approved masticequivalent. Gravel: Clean, crushed, 3/4 to iY2 inch. Filter fabric: Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent. Pipe: 4-inch-diameter perforated PVC, Schedule 40, or approved alternative with minimum of 1 percent gradient to proper outlet point (perforations down). Weep hole: Minimum 2-inch diameter placed at 20-foot centers along the wall and placed 3 inches above finished surface. Design civil engineer to provide drainage at toe of wall. No weep holes for below-grade walls. Clean sand backfill: Must have sand equivalent value (S.E.) of 35 or greater; can be densified by water jetting upon approval by geotechnical engineer. Footing: If bench is created behind the footing greater than the footing width, use level till or cut natural earth materials. An additional "heel" drain will likely be required by geotechnical consultant. Native backfill: If E.I. (21 and S.E. 35 then all sand requirements also may not be required and will be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant. Geo:e jc. RETAINING WALL DETAIL - ALTERNATIVE C Detail 3 Wall/Retaining Wall Footing Transitions Site walls are anticipated to be founded on footings designed in accordance with the recommendations in this report. Although not anticipated, should wall footings transition from cut to fill, the civil designer may specify either: A minimum of a 2-foot overexcavation and recompaction of cut materials for a distance of 2H, from the point of transition. Increase of the amount of reinforcing steel and wall detailing (i.e., expansion joints or crack control joints) such that a angular distortion of 1/360 for a distance of 211 on either side of the transition may be accommodated. Expansion joints should be placed no greater than 20 feet on-center, in accordance with the structural engineer's/wall designer's recommendations, regardless of whether or not transition conditions exist. Expansion joints should be sealed with aflexible, non-shrink grout. Embed the footings entirely into native formational material (i.e., deepened footings). If transitions from cut to fill transect the wall footing alignment at an angle of less than 45 degrees (plan view), then the designer should follow recommendation "a" (above) and until such transition is between 45 and 90 degrees to the wall alignment. DRIVEWAY/PARKING, FLATWORK, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS The effects of expansive soils are cumulative, and typically occur over the lifetime of any improvements. On relatively level areas, when the soils are allowed to dry, the dessication and swelling process tends to cause heaving and distress to flatwork and other improvements. The resulting potential for distress to improvements may be reduced, but not totally eliminated. To thatend, it is important that the homeowner be aware of this long-term potential for distress. To reduce the likelihood of distress, the following recommendations are presented for all exterior flatwork: The subgrade area for concrete slabs should be compacted to achieve a minimum 90 percent relative compaction (sidewalks, patios), and 95 percent relative compaction (traffic pavements), and then be presoaked to 2 to 3 percentage points above (or 125 percent of) the soils' optimum moisture content, to a depth of 18 inches below subgrade elevation. If very low expansive soils are present, only optimum moisture content, or greater, is required and specific presoaking is not warranted. The moisture content of the subgrade should be proof tested within 72 hours prior to pouring concrete. 2. Concrete slabs should be cast over a non-yielding surface, consisting of a 4-inch layer of crushed rock, gravel, or clean sand, that should be compacted and level Ron Ozaki W.O. 7014-A-SC 1645 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad February 22, 2016 File:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 27 prior to pouring concrete. If very low expansive soils are present, the rock or gravel or sand may be deleted. The layer or subgrade should be wet-down completely prior to pouring concrete, to minimize loss of concrete moisture to the surrounding earth materials. Exterior, non-vehicle slabs (sidewalks, patios, etc.) should be a minimum of 4 inches thick. Driveway and parking area concrete slabs and approaches should be at least 6 inches thick. A thickened edge (12 inches) should also be considered adjacent to all landscape areas, to help impede infiltration of landscape water under the slab(s). All pavement construction should minimally be performed in general accordance with industry standards and properly transitioned. Asphaltic parameters should minimally consist of 4 inches asphalt over 4 inches of compacted aggregate base per the City. Trash truck loading areas should be designed per Carlsbad City standard drawings (City of Carlsbad, 1993). The use of transverse and longitudinal control joints are recommended to help control slab cracking due to concrete shrinkage or expansion. Two ways to mitigate such cracking are: a) add a sufficient amount of reinforcing steel, increasing tensile strength of the slab; and, b) provide an adequate amount ol control and/or expansion joints to accommodate anticipated concrete shrinkage and expansion. In order to reduce the potential for unsightly cracks, slabs should be reinforced at mid-height with a minimum of No. 3 bars placed at 18 inches on center, in each direction. If subgrade soils within the top 7 feet from finish grade are very low expansive soils (i.e., E.I. :520), then 6x6-W1.4xW1.4 welded-wire mesh may be substituted for the rebar, provided the reinforcement is placed on chairs, at slab mid-height. The exterior slabs should be scored or saw cut, ½ to 3/a inches deep, often enough so that no section is greater than 10 feet by 10 feet. For sidewalks or narrow slabs, control joints should be provided at intervals of every 6 feet. The slabs should be separated from the foUndations and sidewalks with expansion joint filler material. No traffic should be allowed upon the newly poured concrete slabs until they have been properly cured to within 75 percent of design strength. Concrete compression strength should be a minimum of 2,500 psi for sidewalks and patios, and a minimum 3,250 psi for traffic pavements. Driveways, sidewalks, and patio slabs adjacent to the structure should be separated from the structure with thick expansion joint filler material. In areas directly adjacent Ron Ozaki W.O. 7014-A-SC 1645 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad February 22, 2016 Fi1e:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 28 to a continuous source of moisture (i.e., irrigation, planters, etc.), all joints should be additionally sealed with flexible mastic. Planters and walls should not be tied to the structure. Overhang structures should be supported on the slabs, or structurally designed with continuous footings tied in at least two directions. If very low expansion soils are present, footings need only be tied in one direction. Any masonry landscape walls that are to be constructed throughout the property should be grouted and articulated in segments no more than 20 feet long. These segments should be keyed or doweled together. Utilities should be enclosed within a closed utilidor (vault) or designed with flexible connections to accommodate differential settlement and expansive soil conditions. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Finish grade on the lot should provide a minimum of 1 to 2 percent fall to the street, as indicated herein. It should be kept in mind that drainage reversals could occur, including post-construction settlement, if relatively flat yard drainage gradients are not periodically maintained by the homeowner. Air conditioning (A/C) units should be supported by slabs that are incorporated into the building foundation or constructed on a rigid slab with flexible couplings for plumbing and electrical lines. NC waste water lines should be drained to a suitable non-erosive outlet. Shrinkage cracks could become excessive if proper finishing and curing practices are not followed. Finishing and curing practices should be performed per the Portland Cement Association Guidelines. Mix design should incorporate rate of curing for climate and time of year, sulfate content of soils, corrosion potential of soils, and fertilizers used on site. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA Onsite Storm Water Treatment Based on our evaluation, onsite storm water treatment systems should consider the following: Site soils (i.e., proposed compacted fill) are considered to belong to hydrologic subgroup "D." Ron Ozaki 1645 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad Fi1e:e:\wp12\70007014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 7014-A-SC February 22, 2016 Page 29 The presence of the thin surficial fill layer overlying dense formational soil will increase the potential for the development of a perched water table along the fill/formation contact. The will be an increased potential for the adverse performance of structures, should the engineered fills supporting the proposed structures become saturated, due to settlement, or water vapor transmission. Impermeable liners and subdrains should be used along the bottom of bioretention swales/basins located, within the influence of improvements on slopes. Impermeable liners used in conjunction with bioretention basins should consist of a 30-mil polyvinyl chloride (PVC) membrane that is covered by a minimum of 12 inches of clean soil, free from rocks and debris, with a maximum 4:1 (h:v) slope inclination, or flatter, and meets the following minimum specifications: Specific Gravity (ASTM D792): 1.2 (g/cc, mm.); Tensile (ASTM D882): 73 (lb/in-width, mm); Elongation at Break (ASTM D882): 380 (%, mm); Modulus (ASTM D882): 30 (lb/in-width, mm.); and Tear Strength (ASTM Dl 004):8 (lb/in, mm); Seam Shear Strength (ASTM D882) 58.4 (lb/in, mm); Seam Peel Strength (ASTM D882) 15 (lb/in, mm). Subdrains should consist of at least 4-inch diameter Schedule 40 or SDR 35 drain pipe with perforations oriented down. The drain pipe should be sleeved with a filter sock, then tight-lines, and directed to a suitable outlet. In practice, storm water BMP's are usually initially designed by the project design civil engineer. Selection of methods should include (but should not be limited to) review by licensed professionals including the geotechnical engineer, hydrogeologist, engineering geologist, project civil engineer, landscape architect, environmental professional, and industrial hygienist. Applicable governing agency requirements should be reviewed and included in design considerations. Slope Maintenance and Planting Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of all earth materials. Slope stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage away from slopes should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Over-watering should be avoided as it adversely affects site improvements, and causes perched groundwater conditions. Graded slopes constructed utilizing onsite materials would be erosive. Eroded debris may be minimized and surficial slope stability enhanced by establishing and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover soon after construction. Compaction to the face of fill slopes would tend to minimize short-term erosion until vegetation is established. Plants selected for landscaping should be light weight, deep rooted types that require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate. Jute-type matting or other fibrous covers may Ron Ozaki W.O. 7014-A-SC 1645 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad February 22, 2016 File:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 30 aid in allowing the establishment of a sparse plant cover. Utilizing 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. Irrigation of natural (ungraded) slope areas is generally not recommended. These recommendations regarding plant type, irrigation practices, and rodent control should be provided to all interested/affected parties. Over-steepening of slopes should be avoided during building construction activities and landscaping. Drainage Adequate surface drainage is a very important factor in reducing the likelihood of adverse performance of foundations, hardscape, and slopes. Surface drainage should be sufficient to mitigate ponding of water anywhere on the property, and especially near structures and tops of slopes. Surface drainage should be carefully taken into consideration during fine grading, landscaping, and building construction. Therefore, care should be taken that future landscaping or construction activities do not create adverse drainage conditions. Positive site drainage within the property should be provided and maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations and tops of slopes, and not allowed to pond and/or seep into the ground. In general, site drainage should conform to Section 1804.3 of the 2013 CBC. Consideration should be given to avoiding construction of planters adjacent to structures (buildings, pools, spas, etc.). Building pad drainage should be directed toward the street or other approved area(s). Although not a geotechnical requirement, roof gutters, down spouts, or other appropriate means may be utilized to control roof drainage. Down spouts, or drainage devices should outlet a minimum of 5 feet from structures or into a subsurface drainage system. Areas of seepage may develop due to irrigation or heavy rainfall, and should be anticipated. Minimizing irrigation will lessen this potential. If areas of seepage develop, recommendations for minimizing this effect could be provided upon request. Erosion Control Cut and fill slopes will be subject to surficial erosion during and after grading. Onsite earth materials have a moderate to high erosion potential. Consideration should be given to providing hay bales and silt fences for the temporary control of surface water, from a geotechnical viewpoint. Landscape Maintenance Only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided. Over-watering the landscape areas will adversely affect proposed site improvements. We would recommend that any proposed open-bottom planters adjacent to proposed structures be eliminated for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative, closed-bottom type planters could be utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter, could be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete Ron Ozaki W.O. 7014-A-SC 1645 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad February 22, 2016 File:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 31 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. Graded slope areas should be planted with drought resistant vegetation. 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. Gutters and Downspouts As previously discussed in the drainage section, the installation of gutters and downspouts should be considered to collect roof water that may otherwise infiltrate the soils adjacent to the structures. If utilized, the downspouts should be drained into PVC collector pipes or other non-erosive devices (e.g., paved swales or ditches; below grade, solid tight-lined PVC pipes; etc.), that will carry the water away from the structure, to an appropriate outlet, in accordance with the recommendations of the design civil engineer. Downspouts and gutters are not a requirement; however, from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided that positive drainage is incorporated into project design (as discussed previously). Subsurface and Surface Water Subsurface and surface water are not anticipated to affect site development, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions along zones of contrasting permeabilities may not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation, poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities, and should be anticipated. Should perched groundwater conditions develop, this office could assess the affected area(s) and provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater conditions. Groundwater conditions may change with the introduction of irrigation, rainfall, or other factors. Site Improvements 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 could be provided upon request. Pools and/or spas should not be constructed without specific design and construction recommendations from GSI, and this construction recommendation should be provided to all interested/affected parties. This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, grading of the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes any grading, utility trench and retaining wall backfills, flatwork, etc. Ron Ozaki W.O. 7014-A-SC 1645 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad February 22, 2016 FiIe:e:\wp127000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 32 Tile Flooring Tile flooring can crack, reflecting cracks in the concrete slab below the tile, although small cracks in a conventional slab may not be significant. Therefore, the designer should consider additional steel reinforcement for concrete slabs-on-grade where tile will be placed. The tile installer should consider installation methods that reduce possible cracking of the tile such as slipsheets. Slipsheets or a vinyl crack isolation membrane (approved by the Tile Council of America/Ceramic Tile Institute) are recommended between tile and concrete slabs on grade. Additional Grading This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, supplemental regrading of the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes completion of grading in the street, driveway approaches, driveways, parking areas, and 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 evaluate that the excavations have been 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. 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/Tem porary Construction Backcuts 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 [except as specifically superceded within the text of this report]), should be anticipated. All excavations should be observed by an engineering geologist or soil engineer from GSI, prior to workers entering the excavation or trench, and minimally conform to CAL-OSHA, state, and local safety codes. Should adverse conditions exist, appropriate recommendations would be offered at that time. The above recommendations should be provided to any contractors and/or subcontractors, or homeowners, etc., that may perform such work. Ron Ozaki W.O. 7014-A-SC 1645 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad February 22, 2016 File:e:\wpl2\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 33 Utility Trench Backfill 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-inch to 18-inch) under-slab trenches, sand having a sand equivalent value of 30 or greater may be utilized and jetted or flooded into place. Observation, probing and testing should be provided to evaluate the desired results. 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 evaluate the desired results. All trench excavations should conform to CAL-OSHA, state, and local safety codes. 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/or testing be performed by GSI at each of the following construction stages: During grading/recertification. During excavation. During placement of subdrains or other subdrainage devices, prior to placing fill and/or backfill. After excavation of building footings, retaining wall footings, and free standing walls footings, prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. Prior to pouring any slabs or flatwork, after presoaking/presaturation of building pads and other flatwork subgrade, before the placement of concrete, reinforcing steel, capillary break (i.e., sand, pea-gravel, etc.), or vapor retarders (i.e., visqueen, etc.). Ron Ozaki W.O. 7014-A-SC 1645 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad February 22, 2016 Fi1e:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 34 During retaining wall subdrain installation, prior to backfill placement. During placement of backfill for area drain, interior plumbing, utility line trenches, and retaining wall backfill. During slope construction/repair. When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction operations, subsequent to the issuance of this report. When any homeowner improvements, such asflatwork, spas, pools, walls, etc., are constructed, prior to construction. A report of geotechnical observation and testing should be provided at the conclusion of each of the above stages, in order to provide concise and clear documentation of site work, and/or to comply with code requirements. OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS The design civil engineer, structural engineer, post-tension designer, 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. Please note that the recommendations contained herein are not intended to preclude the transmission of water or vapor through the slab or foundation. The structural engineer/foundation and/or slab designer should provide recommendations to not allow water or vapor to enter into the structure so as to cause damage to another building component, or so as to limit the installation of the type of flooring materials typically used for the particular application. 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 Ron Ozaki W.O. 7014-A-SC 1645 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad February 22, 2016 Fi1e:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 35 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 other design criteria specified herein. 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 and/or further geotechnical studies may be warranted. LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our an 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 and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. 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. All samples will be disposed of after 30 days, unless specifically requested by the client, in writing. Ron Ozaki - W.O. 7014-A-SC 1645 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad February 22, 2016 FiIe:e:\wp127000\7014a.Pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 36 APPENDIX A REFERENCES:. GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX A REFERENCES American Concrete Institute, 2011, Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-11), an ACI standard and commentary: reported by ACI Committee 318; dated May 24. ACI Committee 302, 2004, Guide for concrete floor and slab construction, ACI 302.1 R-04, dated June. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM),1998, Standard practice for installation of water vapor retarder used in contact with earth or granular fill under concrete slabs, Designation: E 1643-98 (Reapproved 2005). 1997, Standard specification for plastic water vapor retarders used in contact with soil or granular fill under concrete slabs, Designation: E 1745-97 (Reapproved 2004). American Society of Civil Engineers, 2010, Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-10. Blake, Thomas F., 2000a, EQFAULT, A computer program for the estimation of peak horizontal acceleration from 3-D fault sources; Windows 95/98 version. 2000b, EQSEARCH, A computer program for the estimation of peak horizontal acceleration from California historical earthquake catalogs; Updated to December 2009, Windows 95/98 version. Bozorgnia, Y., Campbell K.W., and Niazi, M., 1999, Vertical ground motion: Characteristics, relationship with horizontal component, and building-code implications; Proceedings of the SM1P99 seminar on utilization of. strong-motion data, September 15, Oakland, pp. 23-49. Bryant, W.A., and Hart, E.W., 2007, Fault-rupture hazard zones in California, Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zoning act with index to earthquake fault zones maps; California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42, interim revision. California Building Standards Commission, 2013, California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2, Based on the 2012 International Building Code, 2013 California Historical Building Code, Title 24, Part 8; 2013 California Existing Building Code, Title 24, Part 10. Cao, T., Bryant, W.A., Rowshandel, B., Branum, D., and Wills, C.J., 2003, The revised 2002 California probabilistic seismic hazard maps, dated June, http ://www.conservation .ca.gov/cgs/rghm/psha/fault_parameters/pdf/DocumefltS /2002_CA_Hazard_Maps. pdf GeoSoils, Inc. Carlsbad, City of, 1993, Standards for design and construction of public works improvements in the City of Carlsbad. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet No. 6, scale 1:750,000. Kanare, H.M., 2005, Concrete floors and moisture, Engineering Bulletin 119, Portland Cement Association. Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, SS., 2007, Geologic map of the Oceanside 30' by 60' quadrangle, California, regional geologic map series, scale 1:100,000, California Geologic Survey Map No. 2. Romanoff, M., 1957, Underground corrosion, originally issued April 1. Seed, 2005, Evaluation and mitigation of. soil liquefaction- hazard "evaluation of field data and procedures for evaluating the risk of triggering (or inception) of liquefaction", in Geotechnical earthquake engineering; short course, San Diego, California, April 8-9. 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, 2016, Civil Code, Sections 895 et seq. State of California Department of Transportation, Division of Engineering Services, Materials Engineering, and Testing Services, Corrosion Technology Branch, 2003, Corrosion Guidelines, Version 1.0, dated September. Tan, S.S., and Giffen, D.G., 1995, Landslide hazards in the northern part of the San Diego Metropolitan area, San Diego County, California, Landslide hazard identification map no. 35, Plate 35G, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, DMG Open File Report 95-04. United States Geological Survey, 2014, U.S. Seismic design maps, earthquake hazards program, http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php. Version 3.1.0, dated July. Ron Ozaki Appendix A Fi1e:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 2 APPENDIX B HAND AUGER BORING LOGS GeoSoils, Inc. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CONSISTENCY OR RELATIVE DENSITY Major Divisions Group Symbols Typical Names CRITERIA Well-graded gravels and gravel- GW sand mixtures, little or no fines Standard Penetration Test Poorly graded gravels and cU) .2 Penetration a' GP gravel-sand mixtures, little or no Resistance N Relative U' 8 E , z fines (blows/ft) Density - Silty gravels gravel-sand-silt c'J a 0-4 Very loose 0 . > GM mixtures V 0 U' U'— _____ ______________ 4- 10 Loose GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay c mixtures 10-30 Medium SW Well-graded sands and gravelly 30-50 Dense 0 a, U, sands, little or no fines C)Ln U' c (U a, c —U' > 50 Very dense 15 U) U) 0(I) SID Poorly graded sands and , gravelly sands, little or no fines o U' SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures Inorganic silts, very fine sands, Standard Penetration Test ML rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands a, (I) _____ _______________ t= W Unconfined 5 E . Inorganic clays of low to Penetration Compressive V CL medium plasticity, gravelly clays, Resistance N Strength o o sandy clays, silty clays, lean (blows/ft) Consistency (tons/ft') -J U, clays 6 63 Organic silts and organic silty <2 VerySoft <0.25 C U) OL clays of low plasticity 2-4 Soft 0.25 -.050 MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sands or silts, d, a, .E 0 4-8 Medium 0.50 - 1.00 U.. E 0 it) elastic silts U' 8-15 Stiff 1.00-2.00 U' Inorganic clays of high plasticity, CH fat clays 15-30 Very Stiff 2.00 -4.00 0) Organic clays of medium to high >30 Hard >4.00 OH plasticity Highly Organic Soils PT Peat, mucic, and other highly organic soils 3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200 U.S. Standard Sieve Unified Soil Gravel I Sand I Silt or Clay I Cobbles I coarse fine coarse medium fine Classification MOISTURE CONDITIONS MATERIAL QUANTITY OTHER SYMBOLS Dry Absence of moisture: dusty, dry to the touch trace 0-5% C Core Sample Slightly Moist Below optimum moisture content for compaction few 5 -10% S SPT Sample Moist Near optimum moisture content little 10-25% B Bulk Sample Very Moist Above optimum moisture content some 25-45% V Groundwater Wet Visible free water; below water table Op Pocket Penetrometer BASIC LOG FORMAT: Group name, Group symbol, (grain size), color, moisture, consistency or relative density. Additional comments: odor, presence of roots, mica, gypsum, coarse grained particles, etc. EXAMPLE: and (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. Mgr: c;\SoilClassif.wpd PLATE B-i W.O. 7014-A-SC Ozaki 1645 Chestnut, Carlsbad Logged By: ATS January 19, 2016 LOG OF EXPLORATORY HAND AUGER HAND ELEV DEPTH SAMPLE MOISTURE FIEL: DRY 4UG' En SYMBOL DEPTH DENSITY DESCRIPTION HA-1 166 1/2 0-3 SM 1 COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, dark brown, moist, loose; medium to fine grained. 3 - 5 SM 3 - 5 OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, light red yellowish brown, damp, medium dense; fine grained. Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfilled 1/19/2016 HA-2 167 0 -21/2 SM 1 COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, dark brown, moist, loose; medium to fine grained. 21/2 -4 SM 3 - 4 OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, light red yellowish brown, moist, medium dense; fine grained. Total Depth = 4'. No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfilled 1/19/2016 HA-3 167 0- 11/2 SM 1 COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, dark brown, moist, loose; medium to fine grained. 11/2 -5 SM 3 - 5 OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, light red yellowish brown, moist, medium dense; fine grained. Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfilled 1/19/2016 PLATE B-2 APPENDIX C SEISMICITY GeoSoils, Inc. 7014EQF . OUT ** ** * *** * * ** * * * * *** * * * E Q F A U L T * * * * Version 3.00 * * ** * * * * * * * * * *** * **** * * * DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS JOB NUMBER: 7014-A-SC DATE: 01-27-2016 JOB NAME: Ozaki CALCULATION NAME: .7014 EQF FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: C:\PrograM Fi 1 es\EQFAULT1\CDMGFLTE .DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.1609 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3306 SEARCH RADIUS: 62.4 ml ATTENUATION RELATION: 11) Bozorgnia Campbell Niazi (1999) Hor.-Pleist. soil-Cor. UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma): S Number of Sigmas: 1.0 DISTANCE MEASURE: cdist SCOND: 1 Basement Depth: .01 km Campbell SSR: 0 Campbell SHR: 0 COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION FAULT-DATA FILE USED: C:\PrograM Fi 1 es\EQFAULT1\CDMGFLTE .DAT MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 3.0 Page 1 W.O. 7014-A-SC PLATE C-I 7014EQF . OUT --------------- EQFAULT SUMMARY --------------- ----------------------------- DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS ----------------------------- Page 1 ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT APPROXIMATE ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE MAXIMUM I PEAK JEST. SITE FAULT NAME I mi (km) J EARTHQUAKE1 SITE JINTENSITY MAG.(Mw) I ACCEL. g J MOD.MERC. ROSE CANYON 1 5.8( 9.3) 6.9 1 0.526 1 x NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) 1 6.0( 9.7)1 6.9 1 0.512 1 x CORONADO BANK 1 21.7( 35.0)1 7.4 1 0.232 1 Ix ELSINORE-TEMECULA 1 23.5( 37.9)1 6.8 1 0.144 1 VIII ELSINORE-JULIAN 1 23.7( 38.2)1 7.1 1 0.174 1 VIII ELSINORE-GLEN IVY 1 33.4( 53.7)1 6.8 1 0.100 1 VII PALOS VERDES J 36.2( 58.3)1 7.1 1 0.113 1 VII EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 1 43.4( 69-8)1 6.5 1 0.062 1 VI SAN JACINTO-ANZA 1 46.1( 74.2)1 7.2 1 0.094 1 VII NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) 1 46.2( 74.3)1 6.9 1 0.076 1 VII SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY 1 46.7( 75.1)1 6.9 1 0.075 1 VII CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) 1 47.6( 76.6)1 6.7 1 .0.091 1 VII WHITTIER 1 51.1( 82.2)1 6.8 1 0.064 1 VI SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK 1 51.8( .83.4)1 6.8 1 0.063 1 VI COMPTON THRUST 1 55.9( 89.9)1 6.8 1 0.083 1 VII ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN 1 57.7( 92.8)1 6.8 1 0.056 1 VI ELYSIAN PARK THRUST 1 58.7( 94.4)1 6.7 1 0.073 1 VII SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO 1 59.3( 95.5)1 6.7 1 0.051 1 VI -END OF SEARCH- 18 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. THE ROSE CANYON FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. IT IS ABOUT 5.8 MILES (9.3 km) AWAY. LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.5262 g Page 2 W.O. 7014-A-SC PLATE C-2 CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP Ozaki W.O. 7014-A-SC PLATE C-3 100 -100 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 1100 1000 400 500 900 WX 300 200 I .001 STRIKE-SLIP FAULTS 11) Bozorgnia Campbell Niazi (1999) Hor.-Pleist. Soil-Cor. M=5 M=6 M=7 M=8 1 10 100 Distance [adist] (km) W.O. 7014-A-SC PLATE C-4 C 0 Co I- ci) .001 DIP-SLIP FAULTS 11) Bozorgnia Campbell Niazi (1999) Hor.-Pleist. Soil-Cor. M=5 M=6 M=7 M=8 1 10 '100 Distance [adist] (km) W.O. 7014-A-SC PLATE C-5 M=5 M=6 M=7 I 01 .1 .01 .001 BLIND-THRUST FAULTS 11) Bozorgnia Campbell Niazi (1999) Hor.-Pleist. Soil-Cor. 1. 10 100 Distance [adist] (km) W.O. 7014-A-SC PLATE C-6 .001 C) I 0 Co a) 0 0 .01 MAXIMUM EARTHQUAKES Ozaki Distance (mi) W.O. 7014-A-SC PLATE C-7 7.4 7.3 7.2 7.1 6.7 me 6.5 EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDES & DISTANCES Ozaki Distance (mi) W.O. 7014-A-SC PLATE C-8 7014-EQS. OUT * * ***** * * * * * * **** * * * E Q S E A R C H * Version 3.00 **** ****** * * * * * * * * * * * * ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE CATALOGS JOB NUMBER: 7014-A-SC DATE: 01-27-2016 JOB NAME: Ozaki EARTHQUAKE-CATALOG-FILE NAME: C:\Program Fi 1 eS\EQSEARCH\ALLQUAKE.DAT MAGNITUDE RANGE: MINIMUM MAGNITUDE: 5.00 MAXIMUM MAGNITUDE: 9.00 SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.1609 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3306 SEARCH DATES: START DATE: 1800 END DATE: 2016 SEARCH RADIUS: 62.4 mi 100.4 km ATTENUATION RELATION: 11) BozOrgnia Campbell Niazi (1999) Hor.-Pleist. Soil-Cor. UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma): S Number of Sigmas: 1.0 ASSUMED SOURCE TYPE: SS [SS=Strike-slip, DS=Reverse-slip, BT=Blind-thrust] SCOND: 1 Depth Source: A Basement Depth: .01 km Campbell SSR: 0 Campbell SHR: 0 COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 3.0 Page 1 W.O. 7014-A-SC PLATE C-9 7014-EQS. OUT ------------------------- EARTHQUAKE SEARCH RESULTS ------------------------- Page 1 I I I I TIME I I I SITE ISITEl APPROX. FILE I LAT. I LONG. I DATE I (UTC) IDEPTHIQUAKEI ACC. I MM I DISTANCE CODEI NORTH I WEST I I H M Seci (km)I MAG.I g IINT.l mi [km] ----+-------+--------+----------+--------+-----+-----+-------+----+------------ DMG 133.000011173000111/22/180012130 0.01 0.01 6.501 0.244 I IX I .11.2( 18.1) MGI 133.00001117.0000109/21/18561 730 0.0.1 0.01 .5.001 0.050 I VI I 22.1( 35.6) MGI I32.80001117.1000105/25/18031 0 0 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.039 I V I 28.3( 45.5) DMG I32.70001117.2000105/27/1862120 0 0.01 0.01 5.901 0.057 I VI I 32.7( 52.6) PAS 132.97101117.8700107/13/198611347 8.21 6.01 5.301 0.038 I V I 33.8( 54.5) T-A 132.67001117.1700112/OO/18561 0 0 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.031 I V I 35.1( 56.6) T-A I32.67001117.1700110/21/18621 0 0 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.031 I V I 35.1( 56.6) T-A I32.67001117.1700105/24/18651 0 0 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.031 I V I 35.1( 56.6) DMG I33.20001116.7000101/01/19201 235 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.030 I V I 36.5( 58.8) DMG I33.70001117.4000105/13/19101 620 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.029 I V I 37.4( 60.2) DMG I33.70001117.4000104/11/19101 757 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.029 I v I 37.4( 60.2) DMG I33.70001117.4000105/15/191011547 0.01 0.01 6.001 0.053 I VI I 37.4( 60.2) DMG I33.69901117.5110105/31/19381 83455.41 10.01 5.501 0.037 I V I 38.6( 62.1) DMG I32.80001116.8000110/23/1894123 3 0.01 0.01 5.701 0.041 I V I 39.6( 63.7) MGI 133.20001116.6000110/12/192011748 0.01 0.01 5.301 0.030 I V I 42.3( 68.1) DMG I33.71001116.9250109/23/19631144152.61 16.51 5.001 0.024 I V I 44.5( 71.7) DMG I33.75001117.0000104/21/19181223225.0I 0.01 6.801 0.073 I VIII 44.9( 72.3) DMG I33.75001117.0000106/06/191812232 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.024 I Iv I 44.9( 72.3) MGI I33.80001117.6000104/22/191812115 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.023 I IV I 46.8( 75.3) DMG I33.57501117.9830103/11/19331 518 4.01 0.01 5.201 0.025 I V I 47.2( 76.0) DMG I33.80001117.0000112/25/189911225 0.01 0.01 6.401 0.052 I VI I 48.1( 77.3) DMG I33.61701117.9670103/11/19331 154 7.81 0.01 6.301 0.049 I VI I 48.3( 77.8) DMG I33.61701118.0170103/14/1933119 150.01 0.01 5.101. 0.022 I IV I 50.6( 81.4) DMG I33.90001117.2000112/19/18801 0 0 0.01 0.01 6.001 0.037 I V I 51.6( 83.0) PAS I33.50101116..5130102/25/19801104738.51 13.61 5.501 0.027 I V I 52.7( 84.8) PDP I33.50801116.5140110/31/20011075616.61 15.01 5.101 0.021 I IV I 52.8( 85.0) DMG 133.00001116.4330106/04/194011035 8.31 0.01 5.101 0.021 I IV I 53.1( 85.5) DMG I33.50001116.5000109/30/19161 211 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.020 I IV I 53.3( 85.8) DMG I33.68301118.0500103/11/19331 658 3.01 0.01 5.501 0.026 I V I 54.9( 88.4) DMG I33.70001118.0670103/11/19331 85457.01 0.01 5.101 0.020 I IV I 56.4( 90.8) DMG I33.70001118.0670103/i.1/19331 51022.01 0.01 5.101 0.020 I IV I 56.4( 90.8) DMG I34.00001117.2500107/23/19231 73026.01 0.01 6.251 0.039 I V I 58.1( 93.5) DMG I33.34301116.3460104/28/19691232042.91 20.01 5.801 0.029 I V I 58.2( 93.7) MGI I34.00001].17.5000112/16/1858110 0 0.01 0.01 7.001 0.063 I VI I 58.7( 94.5) DMG I33.75001118.0830103/11/19331 323 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.018 I iv I 59.4( 95.6) DMG I33.75001118.0830103/11/19331 230 0.01 0.01 5.101 0.019 I IV I 59.4( 95.6) DMG I33.75001118.0830103/13/19331131828.0I 0.01 5.301 0.021 I Iv I 59.4( 95.6) DMG I33.75001118.0830103/11/19331 910 0.01 0.01 5.101 0.019 I IV I 59.4( 95.6) DMG I33.75001118.0830103/11/19331 2 9 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.018 I IV I 59.4( 95.6) DMG I33.95001116.8500109/28/19461 719 9.01 0.01 5.001 0.017 I IV I 61.1( 98.3) DMG I33.40001116.3000102/09/1890112 6 0.01 0.01 6.301 0.038 I V I 61.7( 99.3) ** * ** * * * * * * * * * * Page 2 W.O. 7014-A-SC PLATE C-b 7014-EQS. OUT -END OF SEARCH- 41 EARTHQUAKES FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH AREA. TIME PERIOD OF SEARCH: 1800 TO 2016 LENGTH OF SEARCH TIME: 217 years THE EARTHQUAKE CLOSEST TO THE SITE IS ABOUT 11.2 MILES (18.1 km) AWAY. LARGEST EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE FOUND IN THE SEARCH RADIUS: 7.0 LARGEST EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION FROM THIS SEARCH: 0.244 g COEFFICIENTS FOR GUTENBERG & RICHTER RECURRENCE RELATION: a-value= 0.811 b-value= 0.351 beta-value= 0.808 ------------------------------------ TABLE OF MAGNITUDES AND EXCEEDANCES: ------------------------------------ Earthquake I Number of Times I Cumulative Magnitude I Exceeded I No. / Year --------+-----------------+------------ 4.0 I 41 I 0.18894 4.5 I 41 I 0.18894 5.0 I 41 I 0.18894 5.5 I 15 I 0.06912 6.0 I 9 I 0.04147 6.5 I 3 I 0.01382 7.0 I 1 I 0.00461 Page 3 W.O. 7014-A-SC PLATE C-Il 100 -100 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 1000 1100 900 400 800 500 700 300 200 .., EARTHQUAKE EPICENTER MAP Ozaki W.O. 7014-A-SC PLATE C-12 I .001 STRIKE-SLIP FAULTS 11) Bozorgnia Campbell Niazi (1999) Hor.-Pleist. Soil-Cor. L M=5 M=6 M=7 M=8 1 10 100 Distance [adist] (km) W.O. 7014-A-SC PLATE C-13 I C 0 Cu I- U) .001 DIP-SLIP FAULTS 11) Bozorgnia Campbell Niazi (1999) Hor.-Pleist. Soil-Cor. M=5 M=6 M=7 M=8 1 10 100 Distance [adist] (km) W.O. 7014-A-SC PLATE C-14 I a) C.) .01 .001 BLIND-THRUST FAULTS 11) Bozorgnia Campbell Niazi (1999) Hor.-Pleist. Soil-Cor. M=5 M=6 M=7 M=8 1 10 100 Distance [adist] (km) W.O. 7014-A-SC PLATE C-15 W.O. 7014-A-SC PLATE C-16 20 74 Number of Earthquakes (N) Above Magnitude (M) Ozaki 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 Magnitude (M) W.O. 7014-A-SC PLATE C-17 APPENDIX D GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES GeoSoils, Inc. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES General These guidelines present general procedures and requirementsfor earthwork and grading as shown on the approved grading plans, including preparation of areas to be filled, placement of fill, installation of subdrains, excavations, and appurtenant structures or flatwork. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are part of these earthwork and grading guidelines and would supercede the provisions contained hereafter in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations which could supercede these guidelines or the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. Generalized details follow this text. The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with provisions of the project plans and specifications and latest adopted code. In the case of conflict, the most onerous provisions shall prevail. The project geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist (geotechnical consultant), and/or their representatives, should provide observation and testing services, and geotechnical consultation during the duration of the project. EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING Geotechnical Consultant Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soil engineer and engineering geologist) should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for general conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report(s), the approved grading plans, and applicable grading codes and ordinances. The geotechnical consultant should provide testing and observation so that an evaluation may be made that the work is being accomplished as specified. It is the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultants and keep them apprised of anticipated work schedules and changes, so that they may schedule their personnel accordingly. All remedial removals, clean-outs, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrain installation should be observed and documented by the geotechnical consultant prior to placing any fill. It is the contractor's responsibility to notify the geotechnical consultant when such areas are ready for observation. Laboratory and Field Tests Maximum dry density tests to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with American Standard Testing Materials test method ASTM designation D-1557. Random or representative field compaction tests should be performed in GeoSoils, Inc. accordance with test methods ASTM designation 0-1556, D-2937 or D-2922, and D-3017, 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 contractorto provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in strict accordance with applicable grading guidelines, latest adopted codes 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 Ron Ozaki Appendix 0 Fi1e:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 2 or treated in a manner recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Soft, dry, spongy, 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 1/2 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 Ron Ozaki Appendix D Fi1e:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 3 . consultant. These materials should be free of roots, tree branches, other organic matter, or other deleterious materials. All unsuitable materials should be removed from the fill as directed by the geotechnical consultant. Soils of poor gradation, undesirable expansion potential, or substandard strength characteristics may be designated by the consultant as unsuitable and may require blending with other soils to serve as a satisfactory fill material. Fill materials derived from benching operations should be dispersed throughout the fill area and blended with other approved material. Benching operations should not result in the benched material being placed only within a single equipment width away from the fill/bedrock contact. Oversized materials defined as rock, or other irreducible materials, with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches, should not be buried or placed in fills unless the location of materials and disposal methods are specifically approved by the geotechnical consultant. Oversized material should be taken offsite, or placed in accordance with recommendations of the geotechnical consultant in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. GSl anticipates that soils to be utilized as fill material for the subject project may contain some rock. Appropriately, the need for rock disposal may be necessary during grading operations on the site. From a geotechnical standpoint, the depth of any rocks, rock fills, or rock blankets, should be a sufficient distance from finish grade. This depth is generally the same as any overexcavation due to cut-fill transitions in hard rock areas, and generally facilitates the excavation of structural footings and substructures. Should deeper excavations be proposed (i.e., deepened footings, utility trenching, swimming pools, spas, etc.), the developer may consider increasing the hold-down depth of any rocky fills to be placed, as appropriate. In addition, some agencies/jurisdictions mandate a specific hold-down depth for oversize materials placed in fills. The hold-down depth, and potential to encounter oversize rock, both within fills, and occurring in cut or natural areas, would need to be disclosed to all interested/affected parties. Once approved by the governing agency, the hold-down depth for oversized rock (i.e., greater than 12 inches) in fills on this project is provided as 10 feet, unless specified differently in the text of this report. The governing agency may require that these materials need to be deeper, crushed, or reduced to less than 12 inches in maximum dimension, at their discretion. To facilitate future trenching, rock (or oversized material), should not be placed within the hold-down depth feet from finish grade, the range of foundation excavations, future utilities, or underground construction unless specifically approved by the governing agency, the geotechnical consultant, and/or the developer's representative. If import material is required for grading, representative samples of the materials to be utilized as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory by the geotechnical consultant to evaluate it's physical properties and suitability for use onsite. Such testing should be performed three (3) days prior to importation. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, an appropriate analysis of this material should be conducted by the geotechnical consultant as soon as possible. Ron Ozaki Appendix D Fi1e:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 4 Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near horizontal layers, that when compacted, should not exceed about 6 to 8 inches in thickness. The 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 version of the California Building Code (CBC), fill slopes should be designed and constructed at a gradient of 2:1 (h:v), or flatter. Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by over-building a minimum of 3 feet horizontally, and subsequently trimming back to the design slope configuration. Testing shall be performed as the fill is elevated to evaluate compaction as the fill core is being developed. Special efforts may be necessary to attain the specified compaction in the fill slope zone. Final slope shaping should be performed by trimming and removing loose materials with appropriate equipment. A final evaluation of fill slope compaction should be based on observation and/or testing of the finished slope face. Where compacted fill slopes are designed steeper than 2:1 (h:v), prior approval from the governing agency, specific material types, a higher minimum relative compaction, special reinforcement, and special grading procedures will be recommended. If an alternative to over-building and cutting back the compacted fill slopes is selected, then special effort should be made to achieve the required compaction in the outer 10 feet of each lift of fill by undertaking the following: 1. An extra piece of equipment consisting of a heavy, short-shanked sheepsfoot should be used to roll (horizontal) parallel to the slopes continuously as fill is placed. The sheepsfoot roller should also be used to roll perpendicular to the Ron Ozaki Appendix D Fi1e:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 5 slopes, and extend out over the slope to provide adequate compaction to the face of the slope. 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. 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. 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. 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. Ron Ozaki Appendix D Fi1e:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 6 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. 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 orfilling 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 Ron Ozaki Appendix D Fi1e:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 7 as a plane up from the lower-most heel of the retaining structure, to the daylight grade of the nearby building pad or slope. If pools/spas or associated pool/spa improvements are constructed within this zone, they should be re-positioned (horizontally or vertically) so that they are supported by earth materials that are outside or below this 1:1 plane. If this is not possible given the area of the building pad, the owner should consider eliminating these improvements or allow for increased potential for lateral/vertical deformations and associated distress that may render these improvements unusable in the future, unless they are periodically repaired and maintained. The conditions and recommendations presented herein should be disclosed to all homeowners and any interested/affected parties. General The equivalent fluid pressure to be used for the pool/spa design should be 60 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for pool/spa walls with level backfill, and 75 pcf for a 2:1 sloped backfill condition. In addition, backdrains should be provided behind pool/spa walls subjacent to slopes. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 150 pcf, to a maximum lateral earth pressure of 1,000 pounds per square foot (psf). An allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.30 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. 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. 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. 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 Ron Ozaki Appendix D Fi1e:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 8 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. 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. 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. 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 befitted with slip or expandible joints between connections transecting varying soil conditions. An elastic expansion joint (flexible waterproof sealant) should be installed to prevent water from seeping into the soil at all deck joints. A reinforced grade beam should be placed around skimmer inlets to provide support and mitigate cracking around the skimmer face. 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 (SE.> 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. Ron Ozaki Appendix 0 File:e:\wpl2\7000\7014a.Pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 9 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. 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. Surface and shrinkage cracking of the finish slab may be reduced if a low slump and water-cement ratio are maintained during concrete placement. Concrete utilized should have a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi. Excessive water added to concrete prior to placement is likely to cause shrinkage cracking, and should be avoided. Some concrete shrinkage cracking, however, is unavoidable. 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. 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. 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. Ron Ozaki Appendix 0 Fi1e:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 10 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. For pools/spas built within (all or part) of the Code setback and/or geotechnical setback, as indicated in the site geotechnical documents, special foundations are recommended to mitigate the affects of creep, lateral fill extension, expansive soils and settlement on the proposed pool/spa. Most municipalities or County reviewers do not consider these effects in pool/spa plan approvals. As such, where pools/spas are proposed on 20 feet or more of fill, medium or highly expansive soils, or rock fill with limited "cap soils" and built within Code setbacks, or within the influence of the creep zone, or lateral fill extension, the following should be considered during design and construction: OPTION A: Shallow foundations with or without overexcavation of the pool/spa "shell," such that the pool/spa is surrounded by 5 feet of very low to low expansive soils (without irreducible particles greater that 6 inches), and the pool/spa walls closer to the slope(s) are designed to be free standing. GSI recommends a pool/spa under-drain or blanket system (see attached Typical Pool/Spa Detail). The pool/spa builders and owner in this optional construction technique should be generally satisfied with pool/spa performance under this scenario; however, some settlement, tilting, cracking, and leakage of the pool/spa is likely over the life of the project. OPTION B: Pier supported pool/spa foundations with or without overexcavation of the pool/spa shell such that the pool/spa is surrounded by 5 feet of very low to low expansive soils (without irreducible particles greater than 6 inches), and the pool/spa walls closer to the slope(s) are designed to be free standing. The need for a pool/spa under-drain system may be installed for leak detection purposes. Piers that support the pool/spa should be a minimum of 12 inches in diameter and at a spacing to provide vertical and lateral support of the pool/spa, in accordance with the pool/spa designers recommendations current applicable Codes. The pool/spa builder and owner in this second scenario construction technique should be more satisfied with pool/spa performance. This construction will reduce settlement and creep effects on the pool/spa; however, it will not eliminate these potentials, nor make the pool/spa "leak-free." 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. Ron Ozaki Appendix 0 Fi1e:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 11 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). Pool and spa utility lines should not cross the primary structure's utility lines (i.e., not stacked, or sharing of trenches, etc.). The pool/spa or associated utilities should not intercept, interrupt, or otherwise adversely impact any area drain, roof drain, or other drainage conveyances. If it is necessary to modify, move, or disrupt existing area drains, subdrains, or tightlines, then the design civil engineer should be consulted, and mitigative measures provided. Such measures should be further reviewed and approved by the geotechnical consultant, prior to proceeding with any further construction. The geotechnical consultant should review and approve all aspects of pool/spa and flatwork design prior to construction. A design civil engineer should review all aspects of such design, including drainage and setback conditions. Prior to acceptance of the pool/spa construction, the project builder, geotechnical consultant and civil designer should evaluate the performance of the area drains and other site drainage pipes, following pool/spa construction. 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. 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. 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. Failure to adhere to the above recommendations will significantly increase the potential for distress to the pool/spa, flatwork, etc. Local seismicity and/or the design earthquake will cause some distress to the pool/spa and decking or flatwork, possibly including total funótional and economic loss. Appendix 0 GeoSoils, Inc. Page 12 32. The information and recommendations discussed above should be provided to any contractors and/or subcontractors, or homeowners, interested/affected parties, etc., that may perform or may be affected by such work. JOB SAFETY General At GSI, getting the job done safely is of primary concern. The following is the company's safety considerations for use by all employees on multi-employer construction sites. On-ground personnel are at highest risk of injury, and possible fatality, on grading and construction projects. GSI recognizes that construction activities will vary on each site, and that site safety is the prime responsibility of the contractor; however, everyone must be safety conscious and responsible at all times. To achieve our goal of avoiding accidents, cooperation between the client, the contractor, and GSI personnel must be maintained. 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 Ron Ozaki Appendix D FiIe:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSods, Inc. Page 13 excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Of paramount concern should be the soil technician's safety, and obtaining enough tests to represent the fill. Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away from oncoming traffic, whenever possible. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil pile. This necessitates the fill be maintained in a driveable condition. Alternatively, the contractor may wish to park a piece of equipment in front of the test holes, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access. A zone of non-encroachment should be established for all test pits. No grading equipment should enter this zone during the testing procedure. The zone should extend approximately 50 feet outward from the center of the test pit. This zone is established for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration, which typically decreases test results. When taking slope tests, the technician should park the vehicle directly above or belowthe 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. Ron Ozaki Appendix 0 Fi1e:e:\wp12\7000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 14 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. Ron Ozaki Appendix 0 F1Ie:e:\wp127000\7014a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 15 ('CitY of cdlsbad Community & Economic Development CERTIFICATION OF SCHOOL FEES PAID This form must be completed by the City, the applicant, and the appropriate school districts and returned to the City prior to issuing a building permit. The City will not issue any building permit without a completed school fee form. Project No. & Name: DEVI6030, OZAKI PARCEL 2 Plan Check No.: CB163118 Project Address: 1655 CHESTNUT AVE Assessor's Parcel No.: 2052208600 Project Applicant: TRUST OZAKI FAMILY TRUST 06-15-94 (Owner Name) Residential Square Feet: New/Additions: 1,959 Second Dwelling Unit: Commercial Square Feet: New/Additions: City Certification: City of Carlsbad Building Division Date: 12/07/2016 Certification of Applicant/Owners. The person executing this declaration ("Owner) certifies under penalty of perjury that (1) the information provided above is correct and true to the best of the Owner's knowledge, and that the Owner will file an amended certification of payment and pay the additional fee if Owner requests an increase in the number of dwelling units or square footage after the building permit is issued or if the initial determination of units or square footage is found to be incorrect, and that (2) the Owner is the owner/developer of the above described project(s), or that the person executing this declaration is authorized to sign on behalf of the Owner. F71Carlsbad Unified School District 6225 El Camino Real Carlsbad CA 92009 Phone: (760) 331-5000 L1Encinitas Union School District 101 South Rancho Santa Fe Rd Encinitas, CA 92024 Phone: (760) 944-4300 xli 66 San Dieguito Union H.S. District 684 Requeza Dr. Encinitas, CA 92024 Phone: (760) 753-6491 Ext 5514 (By Appt. Only) San Marcos Unified Sch. District 255 Pico Ave Ste. 100 San Marcos, CA 92069 Phone: (760) 290-2649 Contact: Nancy Dolce (By Appt.only) Fl Vista Unified School District 1234 Arcadia Drive Vista CA 92083 Phone: (760) 726-2170 x2222 SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL FEE CERTIFICATION (To be completed by the school district(s)) THIS FORM INDICATES THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROJECT HAVE BEEN OR WILL BE SATISFIED. The undersigned, being duly authorized by the applicable School District, certifies that the developer, builder, or owner has satisfied the obligation for school facilities. This is to certify that the applicant listed on page 1 has paid all amounts or completed other applicable school mitigation determined by the School District. The City may issue building permits for this project Signs Title: Name of School District: 6225 EL CAMINO REAL. Phone: _jo, 9/' GO,3?)el CARLSBAD, CA 92009 Building Division 1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 1 760-602-2719 1 760-602-8558 fax I building@carlsbadca.gov Typèof.Wórk kea:ofWärk . ': Multiplier :VALVE... SFD and Duplexes 1,959 $139.52 . $273,319.68 Residential Additions. . . $166;81 . $0.00 Remodels / Lofts . 45.78 $0.00 Apartments & Multi-family . $124.35 $0.00 Garages/Sunrooms/Solariums 572 $36.40. . $20,820.80 Patio/Porch 670 $12.13 . $8,127.10 Enclosed Patio . $19.71 $0.00 Decks/Balconies/Stairs ... $19.71 . $0.00 Retaining Walls, concrete,masonry . $24.26 $0.00 • Pools/Spas-Gunite . . $51.56 . $0.00 TI/Stores, Offices . $45.78 $0.00 TI/Medical, restaurant, H occupancies $63.70• $0.00 Photovoltaic Systems/ # of panels . $400.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 . $0.00 Fire Sprinkler System . . 2,531 . $3.94 $9,972.14 Air Conditioning.- commercial . . $6.37 . $0.00 Air Conditioning - residential $5.31 $0.00 Fireplace/ concrete, masonry . $4,883.11 $0.00 Fireplace/ préfabriéated Metal $3,319.61 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $312,239.72 Valuation:. '$312,240 CornmlRes (C!R): 'C Building Fee $1,382.21 Plan Check Fee .. $967.55' Strong Motion Fee $66.00 Green Bldg. Stand. Fee $12.00 Green Bldg PC Fee . $163.00 License Tax/PFF . $10,928.39 License Tax/PFF '(in CFD) $5,682.76 CFD 1st hour of Plan checkFire Expedite Plumbing' ' TBD Mechanical . TBD Electrical TBD CFD Ed Yes.(PFF=1.82%) 0 No (PFF = 3.5%) Land Use: Density: Improve. Area: Fiscal Year: Annex. Year: Factor: CREDITS PFF and/or CFD Explanation: p.. 1' City of Carlsbad . Valuation' Worksheet Building Division Permit No: . Address At so:eTF!4i No., . .1.' 1655 CHESTNUT . 08/15/2016 SLE t City of Carlsbad DETERMINATION OF PROJECT'S SWPPP TIER LEVEL AND CONSTRUCTION THREAT LEVEL E-32 Development Services Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue 760-602-2750 www.carlsbadca.gov I'm applying for: 0 Grading Permit R Building Permit 0 Right-of-way ermit 0 Other Project Name: Project ID: _ DWG #ICB# QUSILOb 'l' Address: ,6.çç cwtSrtu'T Av( A P N ?6*5.ZZ0 16 Disturbed Area: 7 Ac Section 1: Determination of Project's SWPPP Tier Level SWPPP (Check applicable criteria and circle the corresponding SWPPP Tier Level, then go to section 2) Tier Level Exempt - No Threat Project Assessment Criteria My project is in a category of permit types exempt from City Construction SWPPP requirements. Provided no significant grading proposed, pursuant to Tablel, section 3.2.2 of Storm Water Standards, the low.ingp&m....ae exempt from SWPPP m.!!tS..Exempt > Electrical > Patio I > Mobile Home > Plumbing ) Spa (Factory Made) Fire Sprinkler > Mechanical > Re-Roofing > Sign > Roof-Mounted Solar Array Tier 3- Significant Threat Assessment Criteria - (See Construction General Permit (CGP) Section l.B)* 0 My project includes construction or demolition activity that results in a land disturbance of equal to or greater than one acre including but not limited to clearing, grading, grubbing or excavation; or, 0 My project includes construction activity that results in land disturbance of less than one acre but the construction activity is part of a larger common plan of development or the sale of one or more acres of disturbed land surface or, 0 My Project is associated with construction activity related to residential, commercial, or industrial Tier 3 development on lands currently used for agriculture; or U My project is associated with construction activity associated with Linear Underground/overhead Projects (LUP) including but not limited to those activities necessary for installation of underground and overhead linear facilities (e.g. conduits, substructures, pipelines, towers, poles, cables, wire, towers, poles, cables, wires, connectors, switching, regulating and transforming equipment and associated ancillary facilities) and include but not limited to underground utility mark out, potholing, concrete and asphalt cutting and removal, trenching, excavation, boring and drilling, access road, tower footings/foundation, pavement repair or replacement, stockpile/borrow locations. o Other per CGP Tier 2- Moderate Threat Assessment Criteria: My project does not meet any of the Significant Threat Assessment Criteria described above and meets one or more of the following criteria: 1 Project requires a grading plan pursuant to the Carlsbad Grading Ordinance (Chapter 15.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code); or, 0 Project will result in 2,500 square feet or more of soils disturbance including any associated construction staging, stockpiling, pavement removal, equipment storage, refueling and maintenance areas and project meets one or more of the additional following criteria: Tier 2 located within 200 feet of an environmentally sensitive area or the Pacific Ocean; and/or,' disturbed area is located on a slope with a grade at or exceeding 5 horizontal to I vertical; and/or disturbed area is located along or within 30 feet of a storm drain inlet, an open drainage channel or watercourse; and/or construction will be initiated during the rainy season or will extend into the rainy season (Oct. 1 through Apr. 30). Tjer 1- Low Threat Assessment Criteria Q My project does not meet any of the Significant or Moderate Threat criteria above, is not an exempt permit type per above and the project meets one or more of the following criteria: Tier I results in some soil disturbance; and/or includes outdoor construction activities (such as roof framing, saw cutting, equipment washing, material stockpiling, vehicle fueling, waste stockpiling) * Items listed are excerpt from CGP. CGP governs criteria for triggers for Tier 3 SWPPP. Developer/owner snail confirm coverage under the current CGP and any amendments, revisions and reissuance thereof. E-32 Page 1 of 2 Rev. 2/16/16 SWPPP Section 2: Determination of Project's Construction Threat Level (Check applicable criteria under the Tier Level as determined in section 1, circle Construction Te Level the corresponding Construction Threat Level, then complete the Threat Level signature block below) - Not Applicable - Exempt Exempt Tier 3— High Construction Threat Assessment Criteria: My Project meets one or more of the following: El Project site is 50 acres or more and grading will occur during the rainy season U Project site is located within the Buena Vista or Agua Hedionda Lagoon watershed, inside or within 200 feet of an environmentally sensitive area (ESA) or discharges directly toanESA High U Soil at site is moderately to highly erosive (defined as having a predominance of soils Tier 3 with USDA-NRCS Erosion factors kf greater than or equal to 0.4) U Site slope is 5 to 1 or steeper U Construction is initiated during the rainy season or will extend into the rainy season (Oct. 1 - April 30). U Owner/contractor received a Storm Water Notice of Violation within past two years Tier 3— Medium Construction Threat Assessment Criteria Medium U All projects not meeting Tier 3 High Construction Threat Assessment Criteria Tier 2— High Construction Threat Assessment Criteria: My Project meets one or more of the following: U Project is located within the Buena Vista or Agua Hedionda Lagoon watershed, inside or within 200 feet of an environmentally sensitive area (ESA) or discharges directly to an ESA o Soil at site is moderately to highly erosive (defined as having a predominance of soils High with USDA-NRCS Erosion factors kr greater than or equal to 0.4) Tier 2 0 Site slope is 5 to I or steeper U Construction is initiated during the rainy season or will extend into the rainy season (Oct. 1-Apr. 30). U Owner/contractor received a Storm Water Notice of Violation within past two years U Site results in 10,000 sq. ft. or more of soil disturbance Tier 2— Medium Construction Threat Assessment Criteria Medium e L My project does not meet Tier 2 High Threat Assessment Criteria listed above Tier I - Medium Construction Threat Assessment Criteria: My Proiect meets one or more of the following: U Owner/contractor received a Storm Water Notice of Violation within past two years M Medium U Site results in 500 sq. ft. or more of soil disturbance Tier I U Construction will be initiated during the rainy season or will extend into the rainy season (Oct. 1-April 30) Tier 1 - Low Construction Threat Assessment Criteria Low - JAy project does not meet Tier I Medium Threat Assessment Criteria listed above I certify to the best of my knowledge that the above statements are true and correct. I will prepare and submit an appropriate tier level SWPPP as determined above prepared in accordance with the City SWPPP Manual. I understand and acknowledge that I must adhere to and comply with the storm water best management practices pursuant to Title 15 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and to City Standards at all times during construction activities for the permit type(s) checked above. The City Engineer/Building Official may authorize minor variances from the Construction Threat Assessment Criteria in special circumstances where it can be shown that a lesser or higher SWPPP Tier Level is warranted. Owner/Owner's Authorized Agent Name: Title: Owner/Owner's Authorized Agent Signature: Date: City concurrence: (For City Use Only) Yes No By: Date: Project ID: E-32 Page 2 of 2 Rev. 2/16/16 (byof C, -is. STORM WATER STANDARDS QUESTIONNAIRE E-34 Development Services Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue 760-602-2750 www.carlsbadca.gov INSTRUCTIONS: To address post-development pollutants that may be generated from development projects, the City requires that new development and significant redevelopment priority projects incorporate Permanent Storm Water Best Management Practices (BMP's) into the project design per Carlsbad BMP Design Manual (BMP Manual). To view the BMP Manual, refer to the Engineering Standards (Volume 5). This questionnaire must be completed by the applicant in advance of submitting for a development application (subdivision, discretionary permits and/or construction permits). The results of the questionnaire determine the level of storm water standards that must be applied to a proposed development or redevelopment project. Depending on the outcome, your project will either be subject to STANDARD PROJECT' requirements or be subject to 'PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT' (PDP) requirements. Your responses to the questionnaire represent an initial assessment of the proposed project conditions and impacts. City staff has responsibility for making the final assessment after submission of the development application. If staff determines that the questionnaire was incorrectly filled out and is subject to more stringent storm water standards than initially assessed by you, this will result in the return of the development application as incomplete. In this case, please make the changes to the questionnaire and resubmit to the City. If you are unsure about the meaning of a question or need help in determining how to respond to one or more of the questions, please seek assistance from Land Development Engineering staff. A completed and signed questionnaire must be submitted with each development project application. Only one completed and signed questionnaire is required when multiple development applications for the same project are submitted concurrently. PROJECT. INFORMATION PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ID: The project is (check one):. W New Development 0 Redevelopment The total proposed disturbed area is: 17..b30 2 L -_7-i__) acres The total proposed newly created and/or replaced impervious area is: 6100 ft2 16 acres If your project is covered by an approved SWQMP as part of a larger development project, provide the project ID and the SWQMP # of the larger development project: Project ID: SWQMP #: Then, go to Step 1 and follow the instructions. When completed, sign the form at the end and submit this with your application to the City. E-34 Page 1 of 4 REV 02/16 STEP I TO BE COMPLETED FOR ALL PROJECTS To determine if your project is a "development project", please answer the following question: YES NO Is your project LIMITED TO routine maintenance activity and/or repair/improvements to an existing 1.3 BMP Design Manual for building or structure that do not alter the size (See Section of the guidance)? If you answered "yes" to the above question, provide justification below then Go to step 5, mark the third box stating "my project is not a 'development project' and not subject to the requirements of the BMP manual" and complete applicant information. Justification/discussion: (e.g. the project includes only interior remodels within an existing building): If you answered "no" to the above question, the project is a 'development project', go to Step 2. STEP 2 TO BE COMPLETED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS To determine if your project is exempt from PDP requirements pursuant to MS4 Permit Provision E.3.b.(3), please answer the following questions: Is your project LIMITED to one or more of the following: YES NO 1. Constructing new or retrofitting paved sidewalks, bicycle lanes or trails that meet the following criteria: Designed and constructed to direct storm water runoff to adjacent vegetated areas, or other non- erodible permeable areas; Designed and constructed to be hydraulically disconnected from paved streets or roads; Designed and constructed with permeable pavements or surfaces in accordance with USEPA Green Streets guidance? 2. Retrofitting or redeveloping existing paved alleys, streets, or roads that are designed and constructed in accordance with the USEPA Green Streets guidance? 3. Ground Mounted Solar Array that meets the criteria provided in section 1.4.2 of the BMP manual? If you answered "yes" to one or more of the above questions, provide discussion/justification below, then Go to step 5, mark the second box stating "my project is EXEMPT from PDP ..." and complete applicant information. Discussion to justify exemption (e.g. the project redeveloping existing road designed and constructed in accordance with the USEPA Green Street guidance): If you answered "no" to the above questions, your project is not exempt from PDP, go to Step 3. E-34 Page 2 of 4 REV. 02/16 STEP 3 TO BE COMPLETED FOR ALL NEW OR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS To determine if your project is a PDP, please answer the following questions (MS4 Permit Provision E.3.b.(1)): YES NO Is your project a new development that creates 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces collectively over the entire project site? This includes commercial, industrial, residential, mixed-use, and public development projects on public or private land. Is your project a redevelopment project creating and/or replacing 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site on an existing site of 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface? This includes commercial, industrial, residential, mixed-use, and public development projects on public or private land. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site and supports a restaurant? A restaurant is a facility that sells prepared foods and drinks for consumption, including stationary lunch counters and refreshment stands selling prepared foods and drinks for immediate consumption (Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 5812). Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site and supports a hillside development project? A hillside development project includes development on any natural slope that is twenty-five percent or greater. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site and supports a parking lot? A parking lot is a land area or facility for the temporary parking or storage of motor vehicles used personally for business or for commerce. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site and supports a street, road, highway freeway or driveway? A street, road, highway, freeway or driveway is any paved impervious surface used for the transportation of automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, and other vehicles. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire site, and discharges directly to an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA)? "Discharging Directly to" includes flow that is conveyed overland a distance of 200 feet or less from the project to the ESA, or conveyed in a pipe or open channel any distance as an isolated flow from the project to the ESA (i.e. not commingled with flows from adjacent lands).* Is your project a new development or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface that supports an automotive repair shop? An automotive repair shop is a facility that is categorized in any one of the following Standard Industrial Classification tX (SIC) codes: 5013, 5014, 5541, 7532-7534, or 7536-7539. Is your project a new development or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 square feet or more of impervious area that supports a retail gasoline outlet (RGO)? This category - includes RGO's that meet the following criteria: (a) 5, 000 square feet or more or (b) a project Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 100 or more vehicles per day. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that results in the disturbance of one or more acres of land and are expected to generate pollutants post construction? . Is your project located within 200 feet of the Pacific Ocean and (1) creates 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface or (2) increases impervious surface on the property by more than 10%? (CMC 21.203.040) If you answered "yes" to one or more of the above questions, your project is a PDP. If your project is a redevelopment project, Go to step 4. If your project is a new project, Go to step 5, check the first box stating "My project is a PDP ..." and complete applicant information. If you answered "no" to all of the above questions, your project is a 'STANDARD PROJECT', "Go to step 5, check the second box stating "My project is a 'STANDARD PROJECT'..." and complete applicant information. E-34 Page 3 of 4 REV. 02/16 STEP 4 TO BE COMPLETED FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THAT ARE PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (PDP) ONLY Complete the questions below regarding your redevelopment project (MS4 Permit Provision E.3.b.(2)): YES NO Does the redevelopment project result in the creation or replacement of impervious surface in an amount of less than 50% of the surface area of the previously existing development? Complete the percent impervious calculation below: Existing impervious area (A) = sq. ft. Total proposed newly created or replaced impervious area (B) = sq. ft. Percent impervious area created or replaced (B/A)*100 = % If you answered "yes", the structural BMP's required for PDP apply only to the creation or replacement of impervious surface and not the entire development. Go to step 5, check the first box stating "My project is a PDP ..." and complete applicant information. If you answered "no," the structural BMP's required for PDP apply to the entire development. Go to step 5, check the check the first box stating "My project is a PDP ..." and complete applicant information. STEP 5 CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX AND COMPLETE APPLICANT INFORMATION U My project is a PDP and must comply with PDP stormwater requirements of the BMP Manual. I understand I must prepare a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) for submittal at time of application. My project is a 'STANDARD PROJECT' OR EXEMPT from PDP and must only comply with 'STANDARD PROJECT' stormwater requirements of the BMP Manual. As part of these requirements, I will submit a "Standard Project Requirement Checklist Form E-36" and incorporate low impact development strategies throughout my project. Note: For projects that are close to meeting the PDP threshold, staff may require detailed impervious area calculations and exhibits to verify if 'STANDARD PROJECT' stormwater requirements apply. U My Project is NOT a 'development project' and is not subject to the requirements of the BMP Manual. Applicant Information and Signature Box Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 2-Os- 7--o-8& Applicant Name- Applicant Title: I4z'v lP ozAri Applicant .Si ure: Date: IC- * Environmentally Sensitive Areas include but are not limited to all Clean Water Act Section 303(d) impaired water bodies; areas designated as Areas of Special Biological Significance by the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (1994) and amendments); water bodies designated with the RARE beneficial use by the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (1994) and amendments); areas designated as preserves or their equivalent under the Multi Species Conservation Program within the Cities and County of San Diego; Habitat Management Plan; and any other equivalent environmentally sensitive areas which have been identified by the City. This Box for ON Use Only City Concurrence: YES NO By: Date: Project ID: E-34 Page 4 of 4 REV. 02/16 - ciwof Carlsbad STANDARD PROJECT REQUIREMENT CHECKLIST E-36 Development Services Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue 760-602-2750 www.carlsbadca.gov Project Information Project Name: Project ID: DWG No. or Building Permit No.: Source Control BMPs All development projects must implement source control BMPs SC-I through SC-6 where applicable and feasible. See Chapter 4 and Appendix E.1 of the BMP Design Manual for information to implement source control BMPs shown in this checklist. Answer each category below pursuant to the following. 'Yes" means the project will implement the source control BMP as described in Chapter 4 and/or Appendix E.l of the Model BMP Design Manual. Discussion/justification is not required. "No" means the BMP is applicable to the project but it is not feasible to implement. Discussion/justification must be provided. "N/A" means the BMP is not applicable at the project site because the project does not include the feature that is addressed by the BMP (e.g., the project has no outdoor materials storage areas). Discussion/justification may be provided. Source Control Requirement / Applied? SC-1 Prevention of Illicit Discharges into the MS4 , Yes I 0 No I 0 N/A Discussion/justification if SC-I not implemented: SC-2 Storm Drain Stenciling or Signage I 0 Yes I 0 No I19 N/A Discussion/justification if SC-2 not implemented: SC-3 Protect Outdoor Materials Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, 'Yes 0 No 0 N/A Runoff, and Wind Dispersal Discussion/justification if SC-3 not implemented: SC-4 Protect Materials Stored in Outdoor Work Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, I/ 'Yes 0 No 0 N/A Runoff, and Wind Dispersal Discussion/justification if SC4 not implemented: SC-5 Protect Trash Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind res 0 No. 0 N/A Dispersal I Discussion/justification if SC-5 not implemented: E-36 Page 1 0f3 REV 02/16 Source Control Requirement Applied? SC-6 Additional BMPs based on Potential Sources of Runoff Pollutants must answer for each source listed below and identify additional BMPs. (See Table in Appendix E.1 of BMP Manual for guidance). On-site storm drain inlets 0 Yes 0 No øN/A Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps 0 Yes 0 No N/A Interior parking garages 0 Yes 0 No p-N/A Need for future indoor & structural pest control 0 Yes 0 No Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use LI Yes 0 No WNIA Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features 0 Yes 0 No E'N/A Food service LI Yes 0 No J,N/A Refuse areas LI Yes 0 No Industrial processes 0 Yes 0 No Outdoor storage of equipment or materials 0 Yes 0 No LI Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning 0 Yes 0 No Ef N/A Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance 0 Yes 0 No p41/A Fuel Dispensing Areas 0 Yes 0 No 'N/A 0 Loading Docks 0 Yes 0 No SN/A Fire Sprinkler Test Water LI Yes 0 No ?N/A Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water 0 Yes 0 No ktiJA Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots 0 Yes 0 No p61/A For "Yes" answers, identify the additional BMP per Appendix E.1. Provide justification for "No" answers. E-36 Page 2 of 3 REV. 02/16 Site Design BMPs All development projects must implement site design BMPs SD-1 through SD-8 where applicable and feasible. See Chapter 4 and Appendix E.2 thru E.6 of the BMP Design Manual for information to implement site design BMPs shown in this checklist. Answer each category below pursuant to the following. "Yes" means the project will implement the site design BMPs as described in Chapter 4 and/or Appendix E.2 thru E.6 of the Model BMP Design Manual. Discussion /justification is not required. "No" means the BMPs is applicable to the project but it is not feasible to implement. Discussion/justification must be provided. "N/A" means the BMPs is not applicable at the project site because the project does not include the feature that is addressed by the BMPs (e.g., the project site has no existing natural areas to conserve). Discussion/justification may be provided. Site Design Requirement Applied? SD-1 Maintain Natural Drainage Pathways and Hydrologic Features Ees I 0 No I 0 N/A Discussion/justification if SD-1 not implemented: SD-2 Conserve Natural Areas, Soils, and Vegetation I Yes I 0 No I 0 N/A Discussion/justification if SD-2 not implemented: SD-3 Minimize Impervious Area I4Yes I 0 No I 0 N/A Discussion/justification if SD-3 not implemented: SD-4 Minimize Soil Compaction -Yes I 0 No I 0 N/A Discussion/justification if SD-4 not implemented: SD-5 Impervious Area Dispersion I 0 Yes I 0 No Hl N/A Discussion/justification if SD-5 not implemented: SD-6 Runoff Collection I 0 Yes I 41 No I 0 N/A Discussion/justification if SD-6 not implemented: SD-7 Landscaping with Native or Drought Tolerant Species I 0 Yes I []No I RN/A Discussion/justification if SD-7 not implemented: SD-8 Harvesting and Using Precipitation I 0 Yes I 0 No I N/A Discussion/justification if SD-8 not implemented: E-36 Page 3 of 3 REV. 02/16 RECEIVED AUG 162016 CITY OF CARLSBAD STORALOMPOREMOMMON PREVENTION NOTES ALL NECESSARY EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS SHALL BE AVAILABLE ON SITE TO FACILITATE RAPID INSTALLAllON OF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPs WHEN RAIN IS EMINENT. THE OWNER/CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES TO WORKING ORDER TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY INSPECTOR AFTER EACH RUN—OFF PRODUCING RAINFALL THE OWNER/CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE CITY INSPECTOR DUE TO INCOMPLETE GRADING OPERATIONS OR UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY ARISE. ALL REMOVABLE PROTECTIVE DEVICES SHALL BE IN PLACE AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY WHEN THE FIVE (5) DAY RAIN PROBABILITY FORECAST EXCEEDS FORTY PECENT (407.). SILT AND OTHER DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED AFTER EACH RAINFALL. ALL GRAVEL BAGS SHALL CONTAIN 3/4 INCH MINIMUM AGGREGATE. ADEQUATE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AND PERIMETER PROTECTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE MEASURES MUST BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED. THE CITY INSPECTOR SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ALTER THIS PLAN DURING OR BEFORE CONSTRUCTION AS. NEEDED TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH CITY STORM WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS. STORM WATER COMPLIANCE FORM TIER I CONSTRUCTION SWPPP E-29 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) SELECTION TABLE Erosion Control Tracking Non-Storm Water Waste Management and Materials BMPs Sediment t Control BMP e Control BMPs Management BMPs Pollution Control BMPs C C . 61 . .b c o .23 U) Best Management Practice* 0' . Do . - . C (BMP)Description—) . 5E o 0 .CL — o o 0 0 — — o o = C = C N C C C q) 0 a Ui .2 U) U) U U) . C. :Q U L- ( 4. 0 U)> 0 U) — U) 0 -' 0' U) . . 0 U) 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0. U .! > C.) 0 .,.. U) 0 .,. U) . 0 U) C.) 0 0 in m 0 0 = M 0 0 C.) CASQA Designation —) N 00 0) = It) to N 00 - C1 l r1- C) 7 PO'i LO co 00 Cfl W W W in U) . Construction Activity Ui Ui Ui Ui Cn Grading/SoilDisturbance Trenching/Excavation — — — — — — Stockpiling — — — — — —2q — Drilling/Boring — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Concrete/Asphalt Sawcutting ?',ConcreteFlatwork -- 1$ ? Paving — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Conduit/PipeInstalIation PIS --. Stucco/Mortar Work — — — — — .)c. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Waste Disposal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —>1 — — — y Staging/Lay Down Area — — — — — _-)4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Equipment Maintenance and Fueling — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Hazardous Substance Use/Storage — Dewatering — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1 X1 Site Access Across Dirt — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - Other (list): - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — — — — CB IUIt SW U - Instructions: Check the box to the left of all applicable construction activity (first column) expected to occur during construction. Located along the top of the BMP Table is a list of BMP's with it's corresponding California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) designation number. Choose one or more BMPs you intend to use during construction from the list. Check the box where the chosen activity row intersects with the BMP column. Refer to the CASQA construction handbook for information and details of the chosen BMPs and how to apply them to the project. OWNER'S CERTIFICATE: I UNDERSTAND AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I MUST: (1) IMPLEMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE TO AVOID THE MOBILIZATION OF POLLUTANTS SUCH AS SEDIMENT AND TO AVOID THE EXPOSURE OF STORM WATER TO CONSTRUCTION RELATED POLLUTANTS; AND (2) ADHERE TO, AND AT ALL TIMES, COMPLY WITH THIS CITY APPROVED TIER 1 CONSTRUCTION SWPPP THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES UNTIL THE CONSTRUCTION WORK IS COMPLETE AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. V1& 0L41c1 OWNER(S)/OWNERS AGENT NAME (PRINT OWNER(S)/*NER'S AGENT NAME (SIGNATURE) DATE E-29 SHOW THE LOCATIONS OF ALL CHOSEN BMPs ABOVE ON THE PROJECTS SITE PLAN/EROSION CONTROL PLAN. SEE THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS SHEET FOR A SAMPLE EROSION CONTROL PLAN. -BMP's are subject to field inspection- Page 1 of 1 PROJECT INFORMATION Site Address: !SS C457,VC,T SAYC Assessor's Parcel Number: Emergency Contact: Name: g4;/I%) 24 Hour Phone: q 7o;cc'?V'7 Construction Threat to Storm Water Quality MEDIUM REV 02/16