Agenda packet — San Anselmo City Council, September 26, 2023 (part 2 of 2)

196
Design Results Actual @ Location Allowed Result LDF Load: Combination (Pattern) Member Reaction (lbs) 564 @ 2 1/2" 1041 (2.25") Passed (54%) 1.00 1.0 D + 1.0 L (All Spans) Shear (lbs) 550 @ 3 1/2" 1560 Passed (35%) 1.00 1.0 D + 1.0 L (All Spans) Moment (Ft-lbs) 2109 @ 7' 9 1/2" 3160 Passed (67%) 1.00 1.0 D + 1.0 L (All Spans) Live Load Defl. (in) 0.217 @ 7' 9 1/2" 0.379 Passed (L/840) -- 1.0 D + 1.0 L (All Spans) Total Load Defl. (in) 0.298 @ 7' 9 1/2" 0.758 Passed (L/611) -- 1.0 D + 1.0 L (All Spans) TJ-Pro™ Rating 46 40 Passed -- --
System : Floor
Member Type : Joist
Building Use : Residential
Building Code : IBC 2015
Design Methodology : ASD
• Deflection criteria: LL (L/480) and TL (L/240). • Allowed moment does not reflect the adjustment for the beam stability factor. • A structural analysis of the deck has not been performed. • Deflection analysis is based on composite action with a single layer of 23/32" Weyerhaeuser Edge™ Panel (24" Span Rating) that is glued and nailed down. • Additional considerations for the TJ-Pro™ Rating include: None. • Rim Board is assumed to carry all loads applied directly above it, bypassing the member being designed.

Bearing Length Loads to Supports (lbs)
Supports Total Available Required Dead Floor Live Factored Accessories 1 - Stud wall - SPF 3.50" 2.25" 1.75" 156 416 571 1 1/4" Rim Board 2 - Stud wall - SPF 3.50" 2.25" 1.75" 156 416 571 1 1/4" Rim Board •TJI joists are only analyzed using Maximum Allowable bracing solutions. •Maximum allowable bracing intervals based on applied load.

Lateral Bracing Bracing Intervals Comments Top Edge (Lu) 3' 10" o/c Bottom Edge (Lu) 15' 5" o/c Dead Floor Live Vertical Load Location Spacing (0.90) (1.00) Comments 1 - Uniform (PSF) 0 to 15' 7" 16" 15.0 40.0 Default Load Member Notes 32 Fern Typical Floor Joist
Weyerhaeuser warrants that the sizing of its products will be in accordance with Weyerhaeuser product design criteria and published design values. Weyerhaeuser expressly disclaims any other warranties related to the software. Use of this software is not intended to circumvent the need for a design professional as determined by the authority having jurisdiction. The designer of record, builder or framer is responsible to assure that this calculation is compatible with the overall project. Accessories (Rim Board, Blocking Panels and Squash Blocks) are not designed by this software. Products manufactured at Weyerhaeuser facilities are third-party certified to sustainable forestry standards. Weyerhaeuser Engineered Lumber Products have been evaluated by ICC-ES under evaluation reports ESR-1153 and ESR-1387 and/or tested in accordance with applicable ASTM standards. For current code evaluation reports, Weyerhaeuser product literature and installation details refer to www.weyerhaeuser.com/woodproducts/document-library.

The product application, input design loads, dimensions and support information have been provided by ForteWEB Software Operator Weyerhaeuser Notes
All locations are measured from the outside face of left support (or left cantilever end). All dimensions are horizontal.

MEMBER REPORT PASSED
Deeter Entry roof check, Floor: Joist
1 piece(s) 11 7/8" TJI® 110 @ 16" OC
ForteWEB Software Operator Job Notes 8/22/2022 4:36:40 PM UTC Sean Westbrook ZFA Structural Engineers
(916) 924-7024
[email protected]
ForteWEB v3.4, Engine: V8.2.2.122, Data: V8.1.2.2
File Name: MiscChecks

Page 2 ends

197
Wood Beam
LIC# : KW-06015331, Build:20.22.8.17 ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 DESCRIPTION: FB1 Stair Head Out Beam
Project File: Enercalc.ec6
Project Title: 32 Fern Lane
Engineer: STW
Project ID:

Project Descr:

CODE REFERENCES
Calculations per NDS 2018, IBC 2018, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 Load Combination Set : IBC 2018
Material Properties
Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsional buckling Allowable Stress Design
iLevel Truss Joist
Parallam PSL 2.2E
2900
2900
2900
750
2200
1118.19
290
2025 45.07
Analysis Method :

Eminbend - xx ksi
Wood Species :

Wood Grade :

Fb +
psi
psi
Fv psi
Fb -
Ft psi
Fc - Prll psi
Fc - Perp psi
E : Modulus of Elasticity
Ebend- xx ksi
Density pcf
Load Combination : IBC 2018
. Applied Loads Service loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for calculations.

Beam self weight NOT internally calculated and added
Uniform Load : D = 0.0720, L = 0.040 ksf, Tributary Width = 7.50 ft, (Floor) . DESIGN SUMMARY Design OK
Maximum Bending Stress Ratio 0.477: 1
Load Combination +D+L
Span # where maximum occurs Span # 1
Location of maximum on span 4.750ft
= 114.57 psi
=
2,900.00psi
Section used for this span 3.5x11.875
Span # where maximum occurs
Location of maximum on span
= Span # 1
Load Combination +D+L
=
=
=
= = 290.00 psi
Section used for this span 3.5x11.875
Maximum Shear Stress Ratio 0.395 : 1
= 8.529 ft
=
1,382.40psi
Maximum Deflection
0 <360
791
Ratio = 0 <180
Max Downward Transient Deflection 0.051 in Ratio = 2215 >=360 Max Upward Transient Deflection 0 in Ratio =
Max Downward Total Deflection 0.144 in Ratio = >=180
Max Upward Total Deflection 0 in
fb: Actual
Fb: Allowable
fv: Actual
Fv: Allowable
Span: 1 : L Only
n/a
Span: 1 : +D+L
n/a
. Maximum Forces & Stresses for Load Combinations
Span #
Load Combination Moment Values
C i CLCF/V Cr Cm C d t
Max Stress Ratios Shear Values
Segment Length M V C M fb F'b V fv F'v
D Only 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Length = 9.50 ft 1 0.340 0.282 0.90 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.09 888.69 2610.00 2.04 73.65 261.00 +D+L 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length = 9.50 ft 1 0.477 0.395 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 9.48 1,382.40 2900.00 3.17 114.57 290.00 +D+0.750L 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length = 9.50 ft 1 0.347 0.288 1.25 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 8.63 1,258.97 3625.00 2.89 104.34 362.50 +0.60D 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length = 9.50 ft 1 0.115 0.095 1.60 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.66 533.21 4640.00 1.22 44.19 464.00 .

Load Combination Span Max. "-" Defl Location in Span Load Combination Max. "+" Defl Location in Span Overall Maximum Deflections
+D+L 1 0.1441 4.785 0.0000 0.000
.
198
Wood Beam
LIC# : KW-06015331, Build:20.22.8.17 ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 DESCRIPTION: FB1 Stair Head Out Beam
Project File: Enercalc.ec6
Project Title: 32 Fern Lane
Engineer: STW
Project ID:

Project Descr:

Load Combination Support 1 Support 2
Vertical Reactions Support notation : Far left is #1 Values in KIPS Overall MAXimum 3.990 3.990
Overall MINimum 1.425 1.425
D Only 2.565 2.565
+D+L 3.990 3.990
+D+0.750L 3.634 3.634
+0.60D 1.539 1.539
L Only 1.425 1.425
199
Wood Beam
LIC# : KW-06015331, Build:20.22.8.17 ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 DESCRIPTION: FB2 Stair Head out Carrying beam
Project File: Enercalc.ec6
Project Title: 32 Fern Lane
Engineer: STW
Project ID:

Project Descr:

CODE REFERENCES
Calculations per NDS 2018, IBC 2018, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 Load Combination Set : IBC 2018
Material Properties
Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsional buckling Allowable Stress Design
iLevel Truss Joist
Parallam PSL 2.2E
2,900.0
2,900.0
2,900.0
750.0
2,200.0
1,118.19
290.0
2,025.0 45.070
Analysis Method :

Eminbend - xx ksi
Wood Species :

Wood Grade :

Beam self weight NOT internally calculated and added
Uniform Load : D = 0.0720, L = 0.040 ksf, Tributary Width = 1.330 ft, (Floor) Point Load : D = 2.60, L = 1.50 k @ 3.0 ft, (FB1)
. DESIGN SUMMARY Design OK
Maximum Bending Stress Ratio 0.630: 1
Load Combination +D+L
Span # where maximum occurs Span # 1
Location of maximum on span 3.011ft
= 153.40 psi
=
2,900.00psi
Section used for this span 3.5x11.875
Span # where maximum occurs
Location of maximum on span
= Span # 1
Load Combination +D+L
=
=
=
= = 290.00 psi
Section used for this span 3.5x11.875
Maximum Shear Stress Ratio 0.529 : 1
= 0.000 ft
=
1,826.37psi
Maximum Deflection
0 <360
421
Ratio = 0 <180
Max Downward Transient Deflection 0.155 in Ratio = 1161 >=360 Max Upward Transient Deflection 0 in Ratio =
Max Downward Total Deflection 0.427 in Ratio = >=180
Max Upward Total Deflection 0 in
fb: Actual
Fb: Allowable
fv: Actual
Fv: Allowable
Span: 1 : L Only
n/a
Span: 1 : +D+L
n/a
. Maximum Forces & Stresses for Load Combinations
Span #
Load Combination Moment Values
C i CLCF/V Cr Cm C d t
Max Stress Ratios Shear Values
Segment Length M V C M fb F'b V fv F'v
D Only 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Length = 15.0 ft 1 0.445 0.374 0.90 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.96 1,161.60 2610.00 2.70 97.58 261.00 +D+L 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length = 15.0 ft 1 0.630 0.529 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 12.52 1,826.37 2900.00 4.25 153.40 290.00 +D+0.750L 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length = 15.0 ft 1 0.458 0.385 1.25 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 11.38 1,660.18 3625.00 3.86 139.44 362.50 +0.60D 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length = 15.0 ft 1 0.150 0.126 1.60 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.78 696.96 4640.00 1.62 58.55 464.00 .

Load Combination Span Max. "-" Defl Location in Span Load Combination Max. "+" Defl Location in Span Overall Maximum Deflections
+D+L 1 0.4273 6.898 0.0000 0.000
.
200
Wood Beam
LIC# : KW-06015331, Build:20.22.8.17 ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 DESCRIPTION: FB2 Stair Head out Carrying beam
Project File: Enercalc.ec6
Project Title: 32 Fern Lane
Engineer: STW
Project ID:

Project Descr:

Load Combination Support 1 Support 2
Vertical Reactions Support notation : Far left is #1 Values in KIPS Overall MAXimum 4.397 1.937
Overall MINimum 1.599 0.699
D Only 2.798 1.238
+D+L 4.397 1.937
+D+0.750L 3.997 1.762
+0.60D 1.679 0.743
L Only 1.599 0.699
201
Wood Beam
LIC# : KW-06015331, Build:20.22.8.17 ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 DESCRIPTION: RB1 Ridge Beam
Project File: Enercalc.ec6
Project Title: 32 Fern Lane
Engineer: STW
Project ID:

Project Descr:

CODE REFERENCES
Calculations per NDS 2018, IBC 2018, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 Load Combination Set : IBC 2018
Material Properties
Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsional buckling Allowable Stress Design
iLevel Truss Joist
MicroLam LVL 2.0 E
2600
2600
2510
750
2000
1016.535
285
1555 42.01
Analysis Method :

Eminbend - xx ksi
Wood Species :

Wood Grade :

Beam self weight NOT internally calculated and added
Uniform Load : D = 0.0170, Lr = 0.0120 ksf, Tributary Width = 7.50 ft, (Roof) . DESIGN SUMMARY Design OK
Maximum Bending Stress Ratio 0.591: 1
Load Combination +D+Lr
Span # where maximum occurs Span # 1
Location of maximum on span 11.000ft
= 78.78 psi
=
3,250.00psi
Section used for this span 2-1.75x11.87
Span # where maximum occurs
Location of maximum on span
= Span # 1
Load Combination +D+Lr
=
=
=
= = 356.25 psi
Section used for this span 2-1.75x11.87
Maximum Shear Stress Ratio 0.221 : 1
= 21.036 ft
=
1,919.60psi
Maximum Deflection
0 <360
223
Ratio = 0 <180
Max Downward Transient Deflection 0.488 in Ratio = 540 >=360 Max Upward Transient Deflection 0 in Ratio =
Max Downward Total Deflection 1.180 in Ratio = >=180
Max Upward Total Deflection 0 in
fb: Actual
Fb: Allowable
fv: Actual
Fv: Allowable
Span: 1 : Lr Only
n/a
Span: 1 : +D+Lr
n/a
. Maximum Forces & Stresses for Load Combinations
Span #
Load Combination Moment Values
C i CLCF/V Cr Cm C d t
Max Stress Ratios Shear Values
Segment Length M V C M fb F'b V fv F'v
D Only 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Length = 22.0 ft 1 0.481 0.180 0.90 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.71 1,125.29 2340.00 1.28 46.18 256.50 +D+Lr 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length = 22.0 ft 1 0.591 0.221 1.25 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 13.16 1,919.60 3250.00 2.18 78.78 356.25 +D+0.750Lr 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length = 22.0 ft 1 0.530 0.198 1.25 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 11.80 1,721.03 3250.00 1.96 70.63 356.25 +0.60D 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length = 22.0 ft 1 0.162 0.061 1.60 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.63 675.17 4160.00 0.77 27.71 456.00 .

Load Combination Span Max. "-" Defl Location in Span Load Combination Max. "+" Defl Location in Span Overall Maximum Deflections
+D+Lr 1 1.1804 11.080 0.0000 0.000
.
202
Wood Beam
LIC# : KW-06015331, Build:20.22.8.17 ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 DESCRIPTION: RB1 Ridge Beam
Project File: Enercalc.ec6
Project Title: 32 Fern Lane
Engineer: STW
Project ID:

Project Descr:

Load Combination Support 1 Support 2
Vertical Reactions Support notation : Far left is #1 Values in KIPS Overall MAXimum 2.393 2.393
Overall MINimum 0.990 0.990
D Only 1.403 1.403
+D+Lr 2.393 2.393
+D+0.750Lr 2.145 2.145
+0.60D 0.842 0.842
Lr Only 0.990 0.990
203
Wood Beam
LIC# : KW-06015331, Build:20.22.8.17 ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 DESCRIPTION: RJ1 Typical Roof Rafter
Project File: Enercalc.ec6
Project Title: 32 Fern Lane
Engineer: STW
Project ID:

Project Descr:

CODE REFERENCES
Calculations per NDS 2018, IBC 2018, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 Load Combination Set : IBC 2018
Material Properties
Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsional buckling Allowable Stress Design
Douglas Fir-Larch (North)
No. 1/No. 2
850
850
1400
625
1600
580
180
500 30.59
Analysis Method :

Eminbend - xx ksi
Wood Species :

Wood Grade :

Beam self weight NOT internally calculated and added
Uniform Load : D = 0.0170, Lr = 0.0120 ksf, Tributary Width = 2.0 ft, (Roof) . DESIGN SUMMARY Design OK
Maximum Bending Stress Ratio 0.292: 1
Load Combination +D+Lr
Span # where maximum occurs Span # 1
Location of maximum on span 3.750ft
= 25.18 psi
=
1,275.00psi
Section used for this span 2x8
Span # where maximum occurs
Location of maximum on span
= Span # 1
Load Combination +D+Lr
=
=
=
= = 225.00 psi
Section used for this span 2x8
Maximum Shear Stress Ratio 0.112 : 1
= 6.898 ft
=
372.41psi
Maximum Deflection
0 <360
1651
Ratio = 0 <180
Max Downward Transient Deflection 0.023 in Ratio = 3991 >=360 Max Upward Transient Deflection 0 in Ratio =
Max Downward Total Deflection 0.054 in Ratio = >=180
Max Upward Total Deflection 0 in
fb: Actual
Fb: Allowable
fv: Actual
Fv: Allowable
Span: 1 : Lr Only
n/a
Span: 1 : +D+Lr
n/a
. Maximum Forces & Stresses for Load Combinations
Span #
Load Combination Moment Values
C i CLCF/V Cr Cm C d t
Max Stress Ratios Shear Values
Segment Length M V C M fb F'b V fv F'v
D Only 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Length = 7.50 ft 1 0.238 0.091 0.90 1.200 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.24 218.31 918.00 0.11 14.76 162.00 +D+Lr 1.200 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length = 7.50 ft 1 0.292 0.112 1.25 1.200 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.41 372.41 1275.00 0.18 25.18 225.00 +D+0.750Lr 1.200 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length = 7.50 ft 1 0.262 0.100 1.25 1.200 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.37 333.89 1275.00 0.16 22.58 225.00 +0.60D 1.200 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length = 7.50 ft 1 0.080 0.031 1.60 1.200 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14 130.99 1632.00 0.06 8.86 288.00 .

Load Combination Span Max. "-" Defl Location in Span Load Combination Max. "+" Defl Location in Span Overall Maximum Deflections
+D+Lr 1 0.0545 3.777 0.0000 0.000
.
204
Wood Beam
LIC# : KW-06015331, Build:20.22.8.17 ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 DESCRIPTION: RJ1 Typical Roof Rafter
Project File: Enercalc.ec6
Project Title: 32 Fern Lane
Engineer: STW
Project ID:

Project Descr:

Load Combination Support 1 Support 2
Vertical Reactions Support notation : Far left is #1 Values in KIPS Overall MAXimum 0.218 0.218
Overall MINimum 0.090 0.090
D Only 0.128 0.128
+D+Lr 0.218 0.218
+D+0.750Lr 0.195 0.195
+0.60D 0.077 0.077
Lr Only 0.090 0.090
205
Wood Beam
LIC# : KW-06015331, Build:20.22.8.17 ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 DESCRIPTION: DJ1 Typical Deck Joist
Project File: Enercalc.ec6
Project Title: 32 Fern Lane
Engineer: STW
Project ID:

Project Descr:

CODE REFERENCES
Calculations per NDS 2018, IBC 2018, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 Load Combination Set : IBC 2018
Material Properties
Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsional buckling Repetitive Member Stress Increase Allowable Stress Design
Douglas Fir-Larch (North)
No. 1/No. 2
850.0
850.0
1,400.0
625.0
1,600.0
580.0
180.0
500.0 30.590
Analysis Method :

Eminbend - xx ksi
Wood Species :

Wood Grade :

Beam self weight NOT internally calculated and added
Load for Span Number 1
Uniform Load : D = 0.010, L = 0.060 ksf, Tributary Width = 1.330 ft, (Deck) . DESIGN SUMMARY Design OK
Maximum Bending Stress Ratio 0.361: 1
Load Combination +D+L
Span # where maximum occurs Span # 1
Location of maximum on span 4.022ft
= 25.71 psi
=
782.00psi
Section used for this span 2x12
Span # where maximum occurs
Location of maximum on span
= Span # 1
Load Combination +D+L
=
=
=
= = 144.00 psi
Section used for this span 2x12
Maximum Shear Stress Ratio 0.179 : 1
= 7.106 ft
=
282.46psi
Maximum Deflection
2206 >=360
2999
Ratio = 1890 >=180
Max Downward Transient Deflection 0.027 in Ratio = 3499 >=360 Max Upward Transient Deflection -0.043 in Ratio =
Max Downward Total Deflection 0.032 in Ratio = >=180
Max Upward Total Deflection -0.051 in
fb: Actual
Fb: Allowable
fv: Actual
Fv: Allowable
Span: 1 : L Only
Span: 2 : L Only
Span: 1 : +D+L
Span: 2 : +D+L
. Maximum Forces & Stresses for Load Combinations
Span #
Load Combination Moment Values
C i CLCF/V Cr Cm C d t
Max Stress Ratios Shear Values
Segment Length M V C M fb F'b V fv F'v
D Only 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Length = 8.0 ft 1 0.057 0.028 0.90 1.000 0.80 1.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.11 40.35 703.80 0.04 3.67 129.60 Length = 4.0 ft 2 0.028 0.90 1.000 0.80 1.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 703.80 0.00 3.67 129.60 +D+L 1.000 0.80 1.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length = 8.0 ft 1 0.361 0.179 1.00 1.000 0.80 1.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.74 282.46 782.00 0.29 25.71 144.00 Length = 4.0 ft 2 0.179 1.00 1.000 0.80 1.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 782.00 0.00 25.71 144.00 +D+0.750L 1.000 0.80 1.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length = 8.0 ft 1 0.227 0.112 1.25 1.000 0.80 1.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.59 221.94 977.50 0.23 20.20 180.00 Length = 4.0 ft 2 0.112 1.25 1.000 0.80 1.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 977.50 0.00 20.20 180.00 +0.60D 1.000 0.80 1.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length = 8.0 ft 1 0.019 0.010 1.60 1.000 0.80 1.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.06 24.21 1251.20 0.02 2.20 230.40 Length = 4.0 ft 2 0.010 1.60 1.000 0.80 1.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 1251.20 0.00 2.20 230.40 .
206
Wood Beam
LIC# : KW-06015331, Build:20.22.8.17 ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 DESCRIPTION: DJ1 Typical Deck Joist
Project File: Enercalc.ec6
Project Title: 32 Fern Lane
Engineer: STW
Project ID:

Project Descr:

Load Combination Span Max. "-" Defl Location in Span Load Combination Max. "+" Defl Location in Span Overall Maximum Deflections
+D+L 1 0.0320 4.022 0.0000 0.000
2 0.0000 4.022 +D+L -0.0507 4.000
.

Load Combination Support 1 Support 2 Support 3
Vertical Reactions Support notation : Far left is #1 Values in KIPS Overall MAXimum 0.372 0.372
Overall MINimum 0.319 0.319
D Only 0.053 0.053
+D+L 0.372 0.372
+D+0.750L 0.293 0.293
+0.60D 0.032 0.032
L Only 0.319 0.319
207
Wood Beam
LIC# : KW-06015331, Build:20.22.8.17 ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 DESCRIPTION: DB1 Typical Deck Beam
Project File: Enercalc.ec6
Project Title: 32 Fern Lane
Engineer: STW
Project ID:

Project Descr:

CODE REFERENCES
Calculations per NDS 2018, IBC 2018, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 Load Combination Set : IBC 2018
Material Properties
Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsional buckling Allowable Stress Design
Douglas Fir-Larch (North)
No. 1/No. 2
850
850
1400
625
1600
580
180
500 30.59
Analysis Method :

Eminbend - xx ksi
Wood Species :

Wood Grade :

Beam self weight NOT internally calculated and added
Uniform Load : D = 0.010, L = 0.060 ksf, Tributary Width = 9.0 ft, (Deck) . DESIGN SUMMARY Design OK
Maximum Bending Stress Ratio 0.734: 1
Load Combination +D+L
Span # where maximum occurs Span # 1
Location of maximum on span 4.000ft
= 45.80 psi
=
680.00psi
Section used for this span 6x12
Span # where maximum occurs
Location of maximum on span
= Span # 1
Load Combination +D+L
=
=
=
= = 144.00 psi
Section used for this span 6x12
Maximum Shear Stress Ratio 0.318 : 1
= 7.066 ft
=
498.89psi
Maximum Deflection
0 <360
1741
Ratio = 0 <180
Max Downward Transient Deflection 0.047 in Ratio = 2032 >=360 Max Upward Transient Deflection 0 in Ratio =
Max Downward Total Deflection 0.055 in Ratio = >=180
Max Upward Total Deflection 0 in
fb: Actual
Fb: Allowable
fv: Actual
Fv: Allowable
Span: 1 : L Only
n/a
Span: 1 : +D+L
n/a
. Maximum Forces & Stresses for Load Combinations
Span #
Load Combination Moment Values
C i CLCF/V Cr Cm C d t
Max Stress Ratios Shear Values
Segment Length M V C M fb F'b V fv F'v
D Only 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Length = 8.0 ft 1 0.116 0.050 0.90 1.000 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.72 71.27 612.00 0.28 6.54 129.60 +D+L 1.000 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length = 8.0 ft 1 0.734 0.318 1.00 1.000 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.04 498.89 680.00 1.93 45.80 144.00 +D+0.750L 1.000 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length = 8.0 ft 1 0.461 0.200 1.25 1.000 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.96 391.98 850.00 1.52 35.99 180.00 +0.60D 1.000 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length = 8.0 ft 1 0.039 0.017 1.60 1.000 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.43 42.76 1088.00 0.17 3.93 230.40 .

Load Combination Span Max. "-" Defl Location in Span Load Combination Max. "+" Defl Location in Span Overall Maximum Deflections
+D+L 1 0.0551 4.029 0.0000 0.000
.
208
Wood Beam
LIC# : KW-06015331, Build:20.22.8.17 ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 DESCRIPTION: DB1 Typical Deck Beam
Project File: Enercalc.ec6
Project Title: 32 Fern Lane
Engineer: STW
Project ID:

Project Descr:

Load Combination Support 1 Support 2
Vertical Reactions Support notation : Far left is #1 Values in KIPS Overall MAXimum 2.520 2.520
Overall MINimum 2.160 2.160
D Only 0.360 0.360
+D+L 2.520 2.520
+D+0.750L 1.980 1.980
+0.60D 0.216 0.216
L Only 2.160 2.160
209
210
U.S, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURI丁Y
Fede「ai Eme「gency Management Agency
National FIood lnsu「ance Program
ELEVATION CERT案円CATE
!mportant: FoIIowthe inst「uctions on pages l-9.

OMBN0.166○○0008
ExpirationDate:Novembe「30,2022
Copy aII pages ofthis EIevation Certificate and ali attachments fo「 (1 ) communfty offlciai. (2) insu「ance agent/company, and (3) buiiding owne「 SECTIONA-PROPERTYINFORMATION �FORiNSURANCECOMPANYUSE
Al.BuildingOwne「sName �PolicyNumber:

KenMaye「
俄.誌鵠St「eetAdd「ess(inCiudingAptlU時Suiteland/o「BIdg.No.)o「P・O.Routeand �CompanyNA!CNumber:
32Fe「nLane
Cfty　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　state �ZIPCode
SanAnselmo　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　ca冊omia　　　　　　　　　　94960
A3.P「opertyDescription(LotandBIockNllmbe「s,TaxParcelNumbe「,LegalDesc申ion,etC.) � 007-041-07
A4.BuiidingUse(e・g.,Residential'Non-Residential)Addition’Accessory,etC.)Accessorydwe冊ngunit A5.Latitude/Longitude:Lat.37・98240　Long.-122・57544　HorizontalDatum:□NAD1927図NAD1983 A6"A舶chatleast2photog「aphsofthebu冊ngiftheCe輔cateisbeingusedtoobtainfloodinsu「ance.

A7.BuiidingDjagramNumberlA
A8・Forabu皿ngwithac「awIspaceo「encIosu「e(S):
a)SquarefootageofcrawIspaceorencios=re(S)　　　　　　　　330Sq償 b)Numbe「ofpermanentfloodopeningsinthecrawIspaceo「encIosure(S)withinl.Ofootabovea句acentgrade　o C)Totaineta「eaoffroodopeningsinA8・b　　　　　　　osqin
d)Engineered¶oodopenings?□Yes　□No
A9・Forabu胴ngwithan∈請achedgarage:
a)Squarefootageofattachedgarage　　　　　　　　　　nasqft
b)Numberofpermanent¶oodopeningsintheattachedga「agew軸nl.Ofootaboveadjacentgradena C)Totalneta「eaoffloodope両ngsinA9・b　　　　　　　　nasqln
d)Enginee「edfioodopenings?　□Yes　□No
SECTIONB-FLOODINSURANCERATEMAP(F!R叩INFOR朋ATION
Bl.NFIPCommunityName&Commu面yNumbe「　　　　B2.CountyName　　　　　　　　　　　　B3.State SanAnselmoO60180　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Ma面　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Califo「nia B4標felB5Su簡xB6#一ndex　B7謀議。藍器d　B9覇乳誤藍De。th)
0452　　　　　　　E　　　　May42009　　　　Ma「ch17,2014　　AE　　　　　　75・5
BlO.1ndicatethesouroeoftheBaseFIoodElevation(BFE)datao「baseflooddepthenteredir=temB9:
□FISP「o冊e図FiRM□CommunityDete「mined□Other/Sou「ce: B=.lndicateeIevationdatumusedfo「BFEinltemB9二□NGVD1929図NAVD1988□other/Source:

B12.lsthebuiIdingIocatedinaCoastalBa面e「ResourcesSystem(CBRS)areaorO伽erviseP「otectedA「ea(OPA)?□Yes図No DesignafronDate:　　　　　　　　□CBRS　口OPA
FEMA Form O86巾33 (12/19)　　　　　　　RepIaces訓PreVious editions・　　　　　　　　　　　Form Page l of 6211 ELEVATION CERTIFICATE 0MB No. 1660-0008
Expiration Date: November 30, 2022
IMPORTANT: In these spaces, copy the corresponding information from Section A. FOR INSURANCE COMPANY USE Building Street Address (including Apt., Unit, Suite, and/or Bldg. No.) or P.O. Route and Box No. Policy Number:
3Q. Fer" LA�-e
City State ZIP Code Company NAIC Number
s�"' A,,,� et� r.A '7l.t e, ,ri

SECTION C- BUILDING ELEVATION INFORMATION (SURVEY REQUIRED) C1. Building elevations are based on: D Construction Drawings* D Building Under Construction* [8) Finished Construction *A new Elevation Certificate will be required when construction of the building is complete.

C2. Elevations - Zones A 1-A30, AE, AH, A (with BFE), VE, V1-V30, V (with BFE), AR, AR/A, AR/AE, AR/A 1-A30, AR/AH, AR/AO.

Complete Items C2.a-h below according to the building diagram specified in Item A?. In Puerto Rico only, enter meters.

Benchmark Utilized: c 108 Vertical Datum: 52.14
Indicate elevation datum used for the elevations in items a) through h) below. 0 NGVD 1929 [8) NAVO 1988 D Other/Source:

Datum used for building elevations must be the same as that used for the BFE.

Check the measurement used.
a) Top of bottom floor (including basement, crawlspace, or enclosure floor) 82.28 [8) feet D meters b) Top of the next higher floor 92.98 D feet D meters
c) Bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member (V Zones only) na D feet D meters d) Attached garage (top of slab) na 0 feet D meters
e) Lowest elevation of machinery or equipment servicing the building D feet D meters (Describe type of equipment and location in Comments) na f) Lowest adjacent (finished) grade next to building (LAG) 80.99 D feet 0 meters g) Highest adjacent (finished) grade next to building (HAG) 82.05 D feet D meters h) Lowest adjacent grade at lowest elevation of deck or stairs, including D feet D meters structural support na

SECTION D - SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, OR ARCHITECT CERTIFICATION This certification is to be signed and sealed by a land surveyor, engineer, or architect authorized by law to certify elevation information.

I certify that the information on this Certificate represents my best efforts to interpret the data available. I understand that any false statement may be punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S. Code, Section 1001.

Were latitude and longitude in Section A provided by a licensed land surveyor? DYes [8) No D Check here if attachments.

Certifier's Name License Number
Paul Krohn C 68363
Title
Company Name
Paul Krohn, PE
Address
1221 Santa Fe Avenue
City State
Albany California
Si� Date
12/7/21
ZIP Code
94706
Telephone
5303422926
Ext.

Copy all pages of this Elevation Certificate and all attachments for (1) community official, (2) insurance agent/company, and (3) building owner.

Comments (including type of equipment and location, per C2(e), if applicable) FEMA Form 086-0-33 (12/19) Replaces all previous editions. Form Page 2 of 6 212 213
214
215
216

EXHIBIT C

AFFIDAVIT
32 Fern Lane
APN 007-041-07
217
218

EXHIBIT D
COMPLIANCE ORDER LETTER #3
32 Fern Lane
APN 007-041-07
219
220
221
222
223
455 Golden Gate Avenue • San Francisco • CA • 94102
Telephone • • Email •
Karene I. Alvarado
Attorney at Law
Ms. Elise Semonian
Planning Director
Town of San Anselmo
525 San Anselmo Ave.

San Anselmo, CA 94960
VIA E-Mail Only: [email protected]
February 2, 2022
Corrected Letter Re: Un-Permitted Construction at 32 Fern Lane, San Anselmo Dear Ms. Semonian:

I am writing on behalf of Leslie Murphy, who lives at 28 Fern Lane, San Anselmo. Leslie lives next door to Ken Meyer, who owns the property at 32 Fern Lane in San Anselmo. As you know, Mr. Meyer has constructed a two-story, 600 square-foot, detached accessory building on his property. The building is intended as a residential unit and does not comply with one or more of the required setbacks. Because Mr. Meyer did not complete the required permit process prior to starting the work, the town red tagged this construction.

Ms. Murphy was not informed about the design of the construction before it was built. More importantly, she finds her enjoyment of her property negatively impacted by un-permitted structure. Consequently, she is opposed to the construction.

We request that the Town of San Anselmo review the un-permitted construction at 32 Fern Lane, San Anselmo and ensure that Mr. Meyer and any new construction at his property fully conform with Town policies, plans and regulations, including its impact on neighbors.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Very Truly Yours,
Karene I. Alvarado
Karene I. Alvarado, Esq.
224
225
226
227
228
229
455 Golden Gate Avenue • San Francisco • CA • 94102
Telephone • • Email • k
Karene I. Alvarado
Attorney at Law
Rick Smeaton
Contract Interim Planning Director
Town of San Anselmo
525 San Anselmo Ave.

San Anselmo, CA 94960
VIA E-Mail Only: [email protected]
May 23, 2022
Re: Un-Permitted Construction at 32 Fern Lane, San Anselmo Dear Mr. Smeaton:

Thank you for your email dated May 7, 2022, indicating that you forwarded my letter dated April 25, 2022 to the Building Department.

Recent correspondence from the Building Department to Mr. Mayer requesting building calculations and plans appears to suggest that the Planning Department has already approved Mr.

Mayer's project.

Please confirm whether the Town of San Anselmo Planning Department has reviewed Mr.

Mayer's project.

As an adjacent neighbor, Ms. Murphy would like to be afforded an opportunity to formally voice her concerns about the project to the Planning Department. This controversial and un-permitted construction has now been under review since fall 2021, and her concerns have yet to be heard.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Very Truly Yours,
Karene I. Alvarado
Karene I. Alvarado, Esq.
230
455 Golden Gate Avenue • San Francisco • CA • 94102
Telephone • • Email •
Karene I. Alvarado
Attorney at Law
Mr. Rick Smeaton
Contract Interim Planning Director
Town of San Anselmo
VIA E-Mail Only: [email protected]
July 11, 2022
Re: Un-Permitted Construction at 32 Fern Lane, San Anselmo Dear Mr. Smeaton:

Thank you for your email dated June 29, 2022, requesting photos of “the rear portion of their yard [at 32 Fern Lane] that would happen to show the structure that they are concerns [sic] about, from 5+ years ago”.

I am including with this letter several photos that may be helpful in demonstrating that although Mr. Mayer references an existing cottage on the site plan he submitted to the Town, no such structure existed prior to September 2021.

Serena Fisher-Gump rented the property at 32 Fern Lane prior to 2014. She took a photo in October 2011 from the second floor of the house that shows the entire backyard of that property.

It is clear from that photo that no structures were on the property, other than the original house.

See Attachment A.

Mr. Mayer started renting the property at 32 Fern Lane in or around 2014.

Mr. Mayer built a shed on the property in or around 2014.

A photo taken in November 2016 from the backyard of 28 Fern Lane looking southeast into the backyard of 32 Fern shows the shed and the original house (and detached garage), but no other structures on the property. See Attachment B.

Mr. Mayer purchased the property at 32 Fern Lane in 2017.

Rut Klempan lives at 159 Alder, which is located directly across San Anselmo Creek from 32 Fern. She took a photo on February 7, 2017 from her home looking northeast across the creek at 231
455 Golden Gate Avenue • San Francisco • CA • 94102
Telephone • • Email •
Mr. Rick Smeaton
July 11, 2022

Page 2 ends

the backyard of 32 Fern. That photo shows the original house on that property, and no backyard structures (the shed is not visible in the photo, and the cottage did not exist at that time). See Attachment C.

According to Ms. Klempan, Mr. Mayer built a deck over the creek at the back of his property in or around 2019.

A photo taken in November 2020 from the backyard of 28 Fern Lane looking southeast into the backyard of 32 Fern shows the shed and the original house (and detached garage), but no other structures on the property. See Attachment D
Mr. Mayer built the new construction (labeled “cottage” on the site plan) in late September 2021.

A photo taken in June 2022 from the backyard of 28 Fern Lane looking southeast into the backyard of 32 Fern shows the shed, the original house, and the new construction. See Attachment E.

A photo Ms. Klempan took on July 7, 2022 from the same angle as the photo she took from her property on Feb 7, 2017 shows both the deck that Mr. Mayer built in or around 2019 and the new construction that he built in 2021 (which was not present in 2017). See Attachment F.

I also attach with this letter my letters to Elise Semonian, Planning Director, dated February 2, 2022 and April 25, 2022, my most recent letter to you, dated May 23, 2022, and the Affidavit of Irene Johansson stating under oath that there was no cottage in the backyard of the property at 32 Fern Lane during the time she owned the property until she sold it in 2017.

In spite of the multiple stop work orders that the Town posted on the property at 32 Fern Lane, and the multiple compliance letters it sent to Mr. Mayer, it appears that construction continues on the cottage in the backyard of 32 Fern Lane. Windows were delivered to 32 Fern Lane on June 24, 2022, and appear to have been installed on the new construction on June 25, 2022.

I hereby restate my request, included in my May 23, 2022 letter to you, that my client be permitted the opportunity to formally voice her concerns to the Town about the construction at the 32 Fern Lane property. This controversial and un-permitted construction has now been under review since fall 2021, construction appears to be continuing, and her concerns have yet to be heard.
232
455 Golden Gate Avenue • San Francisco • CA • 94102
Telephone • • Email •
Mr. Rick Smeaton
July 11, 2022

Page 3 ends

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Very Truly Yours,
Karene I. Alvarado
Karene I. Alvarado, Esq.

Cc:

San Anselmo Town Council, [email protected] Angel Casillas, Code Enforcement Officer, Town of San Anselmo, [email protected]
Attachments
233
455 Golden Gate Avenue • San Francisco • CA • 94102
Telephone • • Email •
Attachment A
Photo taken October 2011 from the second floor of the house at 32 Fern Lane. Shows the entire backyard of that property.
234
455 Golden Gate Avenue • San Francisco • CA • 94102
Telephone • • Email •
Attachment B
Photo taken in November 2016 from the backyard of 28 Fern Lane looking southeast into the backyard of 32 Fern shows the shed and the original house (and detached garage), but no other structures on the property.
\
235
455 Golden Gate Avenue • San Francisco • CA • 94102
Telephone • • Email •
Attachment C
Photo taken on February 7, 2017 from 159 Alder looking northeast across San Anselmo Creek at the backyard of 32 Fern. Shows the original house on 32 Fern Lane, and no backyard structures (the shed is not visible in the photo, and the cottage did not exist at that time). 236
455 Golden Gate Avenue • San Francisco • CA • 94102
Telephone • • Email •
Attachment D
Photo taken in November 2020 from the backyard of 28 Fern Lane looking southeast into the backyard of 32 Fern shows the shed, but no other structures on the property. 237
455 Golden Gate Avenue • San Francisco • CA • 94102
Telephone • • Email •
Attachment E
Photo taken in June 2022 from the backyard of 28 Fern Lane looking southeast into the backyard of 32 Fern shows the shed, the original house, and the new construction (the cottage). 238
455 Golden Gate Avenue • San Francisco • CA • 94102
Telephone • Email •
Attachment F
Photo taken on July 7, 2022 from 159 Alder from the same vantage point as the photo in Attachment C shows both the deck that Mr. Mayer built in or around 2019 and the new construction that he built in 2021 (which was not present in 2017). 239
240
241
242
243
244
3 --
Walter Kopp
--
Walter Kopp
245
246
247
3 248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
From:

To: Heidi Scoble; Lindsey Klein
Subject: Mayer 32 Fern Ln “Rear yard cottage”
Date: Monday, November 7, 2022 5:56:15 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
HI Heidi and Lindsey,
I wanted to write in to support Ken Mayer and his cottage project. I have known Ken since moving to Merced Ave in San Anselmo in 2009. Ken and his wife helped us organize a yearly neighborhood potluck and have always been respectful neighbors.

While I know that the project was not begun with proper permits, I do believe the project fits the character of the neighborhood and helps with the housing needs of our community. We need more housing of moderate "starter" size. Our state has specifically allowed and encouraged this type of Infill housing. It is close to transportation and walkable to grocery and services.

Regards,
Peter Charles
Merced Ave.
278
279
From: permits
To: Lindsey Klein
Subject: FW: Support for 32 fern lane project
Date: Wednesday, November 16, 2022 10:49:55 AM
FYI
From: walter kopp < >
Date: Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 10:42 AM
To: Sean Condry <[email protected]>, Heidi Scoble <[email protected]>, permits <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Support for 32 fern lane project
CAUTION: External Sender
Here is my letter of support for ken Mayer and his project. Looking at buildings shown on google maps there is another building behind his current house. It is my understanding that there was an old foundation for an old garage in his back yard. His new structure is within the latest state requirements for a ADU. please consider approval. I live at 19 fern lane. ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: walter kopp < com>
Date: Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 3:51 PM
Subject: Support for 32 fern lane project
To: <[email protected]>
I support this project. We do not have enough housing in san anselmo and this will help san anselmo to reach our mandated housing goals.

The project is reasonable and consistent with the housing in the community. It is set back in the property and optimizes adequate space on a small foot print. Most of the neighbors who are impacted by this project have not registered significant objections. Some oppose the project because they don’t want more housing in our community. If we don’t allow projects like this san anselmo may be forced to build large block housing buildings to meet housing requirements.

Clearly Ken made a mistake by starting this project without approval but his heart was in the right place and he needed to keep his staff busy during the pandemic and he needed to build housing for his daughter who has been living in a trailer on site for the past few years Ken and Gwen are good people and good neighbors. They have raised good children. In a neighborhood of mostly professionals and executives it’s nice to have working people who have lived here their entire lives in marin
I would be glad to add additional comments in support of this project if requested 280
--
Walter Kopp
--
Walter Kopp
281
1 MINUTES

TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, November 21, 2022
This meeting was conducted via Zoom
Commissioners Chair Thomas Tunny

Present: Jennifer Asselstine
Tim Heiman
Kim Pipkin
Danny Krebs
Gary Smith
Peter Strauss
Staff Present: Planning Director Heidi Scoble
Public Works Director Sean Condry
Building Official Erica Freeman
Senior Planner Lindsay Kline

1. Call to Order
Chair Tunny opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.

2. Open Time for Public Expression
There were no comments.

3. Planning Directors Report
• Staff continues to work on the Housing Element and other housing initiatives. • The Town Council held a Public Hearing and voted to adopt the first reading of an ordinance regarding regulations for accessory dwelling units (ADU). The regulations will go into effect next year.

4. Approval of Minutes
A. Approve minutes from the June 23, 2022, October 17, 2022, and November 7, 2022 meeting
M/s, Krebs/Asselstine, motion to approve the June 23, 2022 minutes as submitted.

Ayes: Asselstine, Heiman, Krebs, Chair Tunny
Abstain: Pipkin, Smith, Strauss
M/s, Pipkin/Heiman, motion to approve the October 17, 2022 minutes as submitted.

Ayes: Asselstine, Heiman, Krebs, Pipkin, Smith, Strauss, Chair Tunny M/s, Krebs/Asselstine, motion to approve the November 7, 2022 minutes as submitted.

Ayes: Asselstine, Krebs, Pipkin, Smith, Chair Tunny
Abstain: Heiman, Strauss

6. Public Hearings
A. Accessory Dwelling Unit, 32 Fern Ln., Project # PRO 2022-0063 Conditional Use Permit to allow for the after-the-fact approval of a two-story 282
2 accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and associated structures. The project is not subject to categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA and required further environmental review and analysis.

Senior Planner Kline presented the staff report. Staff answered questions from the Commission regarding the transportation hub criteria; the sixteen foot vs. eighteen foot height limitation; major transportation centers other than the hub; whether the deck and the ADU cottage both encroach into the fifteen foot setback from the creek bank; if people who live on the creek on a small lot would face similar challenges; how the fifteen foot setback is measured; if the deck and storage shed were pre-existing; the September 27, 2021 Stop Work Order; the purpose of the Compliance Order; the evidence that work continued after the Stop Work Order was issued; if a ministerial ADU would require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP); if the encroachment into the 15-foot setback requires a CUP; watercourse permits and ADUs; the three Findings including the one related to Health and Safety; how the Town will communicate the new legislation; discretionary vs. ministerial review and approval.

Public Works Director Condry clarified that the deck was over the creek and the ADU structure is on the edge of the bank and well within the fifteen foot setback.

Chair Tunny opened the Public Hearing.

Mr. Kevin Mayer, applicant, made the following comments:
• He is not sure that the information coming from the Planning Department and the neighbors illustrates the project and where they are as a family. • He has a different point of view.
• He created a series of documents including communication with the Planning Department, the Compliance Letter, the Stop Work Order, the Conditional Use Permit, the recommendation, and Zoning Ordinance Compliance.
• There is an issue about whether this is a remodel of an ADU. It started as a remodel, and should have been limited to a second story, but it rolled into an ADU. • The laws are changing.
• There are people who support this.
• He should not have done this the way he did it. He is trying to fix things. • The structure was a one-story for a long time. He added a second story and matched the roof.
• There are no privacy issues with respect to the second story windows. • The neighbor’s complaints are unjustified.
• There has not been any work done after he got the September 27th Stop Work notice. • He would be happy to answer some questions.

Gwen made the following comments:
• The letters from the neighbors were overwhelming.
• Other neighbors have unpermitted ADUs.
• There was information missing in the staff report including letters of support. • The structure is not in the creek and they do not experience flooding.

Commissioner Smith asked if they met with the Building or Planning Department prior to starting any work on the site. Mr. Meyer stated “no”. There was a foundation in the back yard and they built in the same exact footprint as the previous garage. This was a mistake and he now would like it to be one of the Town’s RHNA units. 283
3 Commissioner Heiman asked if there was an existing foundation. Mr. Meyer stated “yes”.

They built the one story and then modified it to a two-story structure. He has a photograph of the existing foundation.

Commissioner Pipkin asked if it has been made clear to the applicant what needs to be done to bring the project into compliance. Building Official Freeman stated the applicant received a checklist from the Permit Technician. Work in the creek would require a Watercourse Permit. Public Works Director Condry stated Mr. Meyer, as a contractor, is familiar with the process.

Mr. Latine, Fern Lane, made the following comments:
• There has been a history of flooding and undermining of non-engineer structures in that part of the creek.
• The previous owner said in an affidavit that there was no other structure on the property. • He has asked the applicant to revise the structure so it is not an obstruction in terms of its height to the neighbors. He said “no”.
• He does not have a problem with an ADU on the property.

Ms. Leslie Murphy, Fern Lane, made the following comments:
• She obtained the affidavit from the prior owner.
• There was never a foundation or deck.
• The applicant built a shed next to her property line without consent.

A resident of Fern Lane made the following comments:
• The applicant is difficult to deal with.

Planning Director Scoble asked everyone to speak on the merits of the project.

Ms. Ruth Clempton, Alder Avenue, made the following comments:
• She lives across the creek from the subject property. • She had to build a retaining wall in the creek years ago and it was a major ordeal in terms of conforming to the regulations.
• The work the applicant has done without permits is unfortunate.

Mr. Peter Brasco, Fern Lane, made the following comments:
• Building has been going on up and down the creek for decades. • He is concerned about the view of the structure from his windows. • This project is another transgression on the creek.

Mr. Mayer made the following comment:
• The documents he submitted includes pictures of the creek.

Chair Tunny closed the Public Hearing.

Commissioner Pipken provided the following comments:
• She is familiar with Fern Avenue since she lived nearby. • Some of the neighbor’s comments were not relevant and a part of her thinks this is not a fair hearing- it is biased.

Commissioner Krebs provided the following comments:
• The hearing should be focused on the basis for granting the CUP. 284
4 • One of the goals of the Commission is for the applicant to meet with the neighbors and/or give notice about his or her plans and to find compromises. • The Commission is capable of giving a fair and unbiased decision.

Commissioner Asselstine provided the following comment:
• She agreed with Commissioner Krebs.

Commissioner Strauss provided the following comments:
• The issues are as follows: the history of construction (Stop Work Orders, etc.), the existing structure and when it was built, the merits of the ADU as currently proposed and constructed.
• Something was done illegally and was stopped and perhaps stopped again. This is not relevant to the current merits of what is on the property. • The presence of a foundation does not give a property owner the right to build a structure on the existing foundation.
• The Watercourse issue, the 15-foot setback from the top of the creek, the side yard setback (5 feet instead of 8 feet), and the height (23 feet vs. the allowable 16 feet) should be discussed.
• He asked the applicant why an excess of seven-feet, three- inches in height is appropriate. Mr. Mayer stated the question is whether they are looking at this in terms of a November or January date when everything changes. It is difficult to do two-stories at sixteen feet.

Commissioner Heiman provided the following comments:
• The issue regarding the Stop Work Order and whether or not work continued is not relevant.
• The project was built without plans submitted to or review by the Town. • The existence of a foundation does not give a property owner the right to build on it. • They need to look at the merits of the project as currently constructed. • He could not make the Findings for the Conditional Use Permit as outlined in the staff report.
• Perhaps the project could be modified to meet the ministerial requirements (one story for an ADU).
• SB 9 could provide an avenue for the applicant.

Commissioner Smith provided the following comments:
• He agreed with Commissioner Strauss and Heiman.
• He would find it difficult to approve a CUP since the project does not comply with current code or the anticipated 2023 code.
• He asked if the applicant would be able to modify the project after resubmitting compliant plans (either current or 2023 code). Planning Director Scoble stated staff offered this as a ministerial option in September. It would be allowed by right and require a Building Permit.

Commissioner Pipkin provided the following comments:
• The Town has a mandate to encourage ADUs and increase the housing stock. • She wants to see the project become compliant.

Chair Tunny provided the following comments:
• The issue before the Commission is the CUP.
• It is up to the applicant to figure out what could work. 285
5 Commissioner Asselstine provided the following comments:
• She cannot support the CUP since the Findings cannot be made. • The structure is located in critical area- 15-feet from the top of the bank of the creek.

She is concerned about the stability of the creek.
• She cannot make the Findings for a second story at this location. • Not approving this project does not mean they are not following the mandate for more housing.

Commissioner Krebs provided the following comments:
• There is no basis for granting the CUP.
• The structure is too close to the creek bank and it affects the health and safety of the Town.
• The height of the building far exceeds what is permitted under current as well as future law.
• One of the goals of the Commission is to promote housing, within the rules, as mandated by the State.
• This project does not follow the rules.
• He supported the staff report and would vote to deny the CUP.

Chair Tunny provided the following comments:
• He could not make the Findings to grant the CUP.
• He would vote to deny the application.

M/s, Krebs/Heiman, motion to approve the staff report and deny the Conditional Use Permit submitted for 32 Fern Ln., Project # PRO 2022-0063, based on the inability to make the Findings.

Ayes: Asselstine, Heiman, Krebs, Smith, Strauss, Chair Tunny Abstain: Pipkin
Chair Tunny stated there is a 10-day appeal period.

The Commission took a 5-minute break at 9:00 p.m.

B. Project Extension, 15 Yolanda Dr. Project No. PRO-2022-0082 A one-year extension to previously approved Project PRO2019-0010 subject to findings and conditions in the July 1, 2019 staff report. The project is CEQA Categorically Exempt under a Class 1 exemption for “Existing Facilities” and under Class 3 for “Conversion of small structures” pursuant to 14 CCR Sections 15301(l) and 15303(a)
Commissioner Krebs recused himself from this item.

Senior Planner Kline presented the staff report. She answered questions from the Commission regarding how the application was affected by the pandemic; how this application differs from another applications that missed its deadline; examples of “good cause”; what has to happen in the one year time period; if there were previous concerns about the project; if aspects of the project have changed.

Chair Tunny opened the Public Hearing.

Planning Director Scoble stated the applicant was not in the audience. 286
6 There were no comments from the public.

Chair Tunny closed the Public Hearing.

Commissioner Heiman provided the following comment:
• He supports the staff report and the request for a one-year extension.

Commissioner Strauss provided the following comment:
• He supports the extension- it makes sense.

Commissioner Smith provided the following comments:
• He discussed the conditions during COVID.
• Approving the extension is warranted.

Commissioner Pipkin provided the following comments:
• She asked about the rules when the applicant is not at the meeting. Planning Director Scoble stated the Commission can move forward and take action or continue the item. • She is concerned that she has no context.
• She is fine with the staff report.

M/s, Heiman/Pipkin, motion to approve the staff report and the request for an extension based on the findings and conditions set forth in the staff report.

Ayes: Asselstine, Heiman, Pipkin, Smith, Strauss, Chair Tunny Recused: Krebs
Chair Tunny stated there is a 10-day appeal period.

Commissioner Krebs returned to the meeting.

C. Conditional Use Permit, 570 San Anselmo Ave., Project No. PRO-2022-0067 Conditional Use Permit to allow for instructional on-site alcohol tasting as an ancillary use to the existing off-sale beer and wine use, an increase from two to four total employees at any one time on the site, and the extension of hours from 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday evenings. The project is categorically exempt under CEQA Class 1 exemption for “Existing Facilities” pursuant to 14 CCR Section 15301(a).

Senior Planner Kline presented the staff report. She answered questions from the Commission regarding instruction and educational tastings; location of bathrooms; how the shared bathroom would work; hours for tasting.

Chair Tunny opened the Public Hearing.

Margaret and David, applicants, made the following comments:
• This is a small tweak to what they are already doing. • This minor addition to the existing license would allow them more options including additional programming.
• This is a retail shop with to-go sales of wine, beer, and gifts. • The tasting aspect is minimal and very controlled- like a sample at Costco.

There were no comments from the public.
287
7 Chair Tunny closed the Public Hearing.

Commissioner Strauss provided the following comments:
• The business has been great for the downtown.
• He supports the request.

Commissioner Krebs provided the following comments:
• This is a minor change in the current use.
• The request will not result in crowds lining up looking for wine tastings. • He supports the application.

Commissioner Pipkin provided the following comments:
• This is unique and it would bring new people into Town. • She supports the application.

M/s, Krebs/Strauss, motion to approve the project based on the findings and conditions set forth in the staff report.

Ayes: Asselstine, Heiman, Krebs, Pipkin, Smith, Strauss, Chair Tunny Chair Tunny stated there is a 10-day appeal period.

D. Conditional Use Permit and Design Review, 1 Saunders Ave., Project No.

PRO-2022-0079 Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow a single-family dwelling on a commercially zoned property and Design Review for exterior modifications to windows and doors. The project is categorically exempt under CEQA Class 1 exemption for “Existing Facilities” pursuant to 14 CCR Section 15301(a).

Senior Planner Kline presented the staff report. She answered questions from the Commission regarding the elevations and the directions they face; if most of the work will be interior; the Construction Management Plan; proposed fenestration; the scope of the Commission’s review; if “live/work” units count towards the RHNA numbers.

Chair Tunny opened the Public Hearing.

Will, applicant made the following comments:
• They recently bought the building.
• They were incorrectly using the “live/work” designation. • They are changing the window on the Center side by replacing the glazing unit in the same opening. It will be replaced in kind.
• They moved the bathtub from the being in the window. The window movement will align with the bathtub.
• The small square bathroom window in the back parking lot yard area will shift slightly. • They are not creating a sliding door but rather adding a side window in the place of a rotted out French door.
• Design Review is required for any exterior changes in the C-1 Zoning District. • They want to submit for a Building Permit as soon as possible so they can call this place home.

Commissioner Asselstine asked for examples how the process would change going from “live/work” to strictly residential. The applicant responded there is not a lot of precedence for the “live/work” designation in Marin County. There are additional costs for commercial 288
8 renovations and there seems to be a different language among the various departments (Planning, Building, Fire, etc.).

Commissioner Asselstine referred to the parking and asked if clients would be coming to the property. Will stated that is not the plan.

Commissioner Heiman asked about the location of the parking. Will stated a Variance was required because they are parking in the side setback. The residential parking requirement is for two spots.

Commissioner Smith asked about access to the second story storage area. Will stated there will be an access door from a walk-in closet.

There were no comments from the public.

Chair Tunny closed the Public Hearing.

Commissioner Pipkin provided the following comments:
• She is excited about the project- she loves that building. • There are opportunities for the Town to look at adaptive reuse or conversion of commercial space into residential.
• People are working from home.
• Please keep the beautiful stained glass window.
• She supports the project.

Commissioner Asselstine provided the following comments:
• She was disappointed in losing a “live/work” category in this community since it would have set a precedent but she acknowledged the burden it would put on the applicants. • She supports the request.

Commissioner Strauss provided the following comments:
• This is a prominent building on Center Boulevard.
• This is a great reuse of the building.
• He supports the project.

Commissioner Heiman provided the following comments:
• This is essentially the same project that was reviewed by the Commission in March. • The exterior modifications are acceptable.
• Two parking spaces are sufficient for residential use. • He supports the project.

Commissioner Krebs provided the following comments:
• This is a great project that will fit in with the neighborhood. • He supports the project.

Commissioner Smith provided the following comment:
• This is a great neighborhood.

Chair Tunny provided the following comment:
• He supports the project.
289
9 M/s, Strauss/Pipkin, motion to approve the project based on the findings and conditions set forth in the staff report.

Ayes: Asselstine, Heiman, Krebs, Pipkin, Smith, Strauss, Chair Tunny Chair Tunny stated there is a 10-day appeal period.

6. Future Agenda Items and/or Commissioner Reports
Commissioner Asselstine asked staff to include a site plan during presentations. Senior Planner Kline stated staff is reviewing recent legislation that has to do with publishing copy writed architectural plans.

Commissioner Heiman thanked Senior Planner Kline for her thorough presentations.

Planning Director Scoble noted staff is caught up with current planning projects. She asked the Commission if it would like to cancel the December 5th meeting and have a presentation and review of the Draft Housing Element at the December 19th meeting.

It was the consensus of the Commission to cancel the December 5th meeting and review the Draft Housing Element on December 19th. The meeting on December 19th will be a Zoom meeting and not in-person.

Commissioner Strauss asked about the status of the Objective Development and Design Standards (ODDS) process and when the ad hoc committee would be meeting. Planning Director Scoble stated staff is waiting to hear back from the consultants regarding the kickoff meeting. Meetings will not occur until the beginning of next year.

7. Adjournment- Chair Tunny adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Toni DeFrancis
Recording Secretary
290

Page 1 ends

SAN ANSELMO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-13

DENIAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU) AND ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES AT 32 FERN LANE
(PRO2022-0063)
WHEREAS, an application has been filed by applicant and owner, Ken Mayer of Mayer & Company, requesting Planning Commission approval of a Conditional Use Permit at 32 Fern Lane APN 007-041-07 (herein referred to as the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the project site has a General Plan Single-Family Residential land use designation and is zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly-noticed public hearing on November 21, 2022 at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the staff reports as well as any and all oral and written testimony on the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the project plans titled “Remodel Cottage For: Ken Mayer” and dated April 10, 2022 and June 7, 2022; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the project is not consistent with the General Plan and does not comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Building Regulations as described in the staff report and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, denial of the project results in no project and therefore the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Planning Commission of the Town of San Anselmo hereby incorporates the recitals above; makes the findings set forth in Exhibit “A” denying the Project described herein, as 32 Fern Lane APN 007-041-07.

RESOLUTION PASSED AND ADOPTED, at the regular meeting of the San Anselmo Planning Commission on the 21st day of November 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: Commissioner: Strauss, Smith, Krebs, Heiman, Asselstine, Chair Tunny NOES: Commissioner: None
ABSENT: Commissioner: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner: Pipkin
Heidi Scoble, AICP
Secretary to the Planning Commission
291

Page 2 ends

EXHIBIT A

FINDINGS
32 Fern Lane
APN 007-041-07

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
In order to approve or conditionally approve the Conditional Use, the Planning Commission must determine whether the project is in conformance with the required Conditional Use Findings in Sections 10-3.1305 and 10-6.208 of the San Anselmo Municipal Code (SAMC) below. The required findings for a Conditional Use Permit cannot be made as set forth below:

(a) The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the Town.

The project is a public nuisance pursuant to SAMC Section 9-1.601 as:
• Any work commenced or continued in violation of this chapter shall be, and is hereby declared, unlawful and a public nuisance.
• A building or structure in a state of partial construction for an unreasonable period of time is a nuisance.

In addition, the project adversely impacts neighbors relative to privacy given failure to adhere to property and creek setback requirements and building height requirements, as evidenced by multiple neighbor complaints reported to the Town.

The size and location of the structure relative to the home is large and visibly intensifies development on the property from off-site vantage points. Furthermore, the proposed concrete foundations are visible to neighbors off-site and are not screened from view.

Furthermore, the project is not consistent with the following Town General Plan land use policies and zoning regulations:
• Land Use Goal 1: The small-town character, scale, and pace of life in San Anselmo shall be preserved, as shall the Town's close connection with the natural beauty of its setting.

The size and massing of the structure relative to the home is large and visibly intensifies development on the property from the street, thereby altering the character and scale of the existing neighborhood.
• Policy 2.1: All land use decisions within the Town and the planning area will take into consideration the protection and preservation of the area’s surrounding hillsides, ridges, water courses, and any unique natural habitats. 292

Page 3 ends

The project encroaches into the required 15-foot setback from San Anselmo Creek, and it therefore does not preserve or protect the water course and riparian habitat.
• Policy 11.1: New development, including rehabilitation and expansion projects, shall be of a scale, intensity, and design that integrates with the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood.

The size and massing of the structure relative to the home is large and visibly intensifies development on the property from the street, thereby altering the scale of the existing neighborhood.
• Policy 16.1: All new developments in the Town should be designed to minimize vegetation removal, soils compaction, and site coverage.

While a portion of the site is relatively flat and undeveloped, the structure is constructed on the slope of a creekbank and encroaches into the required 15-foot setback from San Anselmo Creek. The applicant has not provided a landscape plan, grading plan, or structural evidence to minimize vegetation removal or soils compaction due to the project.
• Policy 16.2: To only allow development within the 100-year floodplain which is consistent with the Town’s adopted Protection of Flood Hazard Areas and Water Course Ordinance.

The project site is located in the following FIRM Flood Zones: AE Floodway, AE, and X. Due to inaccuracies in submitted project plans, it is unclear whether the project is constructed within the 100-year floodplain. However, it is clear that the project encroaches into the 15-foot required setback from San Anselmo Creek. The applicant has not applied for a Watercourse Permit to be compliant with the Town’s adopted Protection of Flood Hazard Areas and Water Course Ordinance.

It is unclear whether the submitted project are structurally accurate and safe because:
• The project plans do not accurately represent structures and property improvements as reported by the previous property owner. • The submitted structural project plans and structural calculations are not consistent within the submitted plan set, as verified by the Town Building Official. Therefore, the Town does not have evidence from a structural engineer to demonstrate that the ADU and the related structures were built to meet the Town’s Building Codes.
• The submitted plans are not wet-stamped by a licensed architect or engineer.

In addition, the project infringes into the required 15-foot San Anselmo Creek setback, as measured from the top of bank, and therefore imposes potential hazards including:
293

Page 4 ends

• Obstruction of San Anselmo Creek which may divert or interfere with the flow of the watercourse to alter drainage patterns or cause flooding, resulting in loss, injury, or death on-site or to neighbors downstream of the project site. • Degradation of existing riparian habitat, including both flora and fauna, that may contribute to the destruction or displacement of any species. • Risk of loss, injury, or death due to landslides, seismic ground shaking, soil erosion, loss of topsoil, or other geologic and soils hazards resulting from the unpermitted movement of land or unpermitted construction on a steep slope.

Due to the many project components described above, the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the project would be detrimental to the persons residing or working in the neighborhood and injurious to the property and the general welfare of the Town.
294

Page 5 ends

EXHIBIT B

PROJECT PLANS
32 Fern Lane
APN 007-041-07
295
REMODEL COTTAGE FOR: 32 FERN LANE, SAN ANSELMO, CA. APN: 007-041-07 DATE:

DRAWN: KEN MAYER KEN MAYER DESIGNER BUILDER P.O, BOX 1142 FAIRFAX, CA 94978 (415) 730-5366

FOUNDATION AND SLAB

FRAMING PLAN
1/4 " = 1' - 0" S W N E 1 1 A A
3/4 " = 1' - 0"
FOUNDATION / 1 SLAB FRAMING
1/2 " = 1' - 0"

SECTION
(STAIR)
(CLOSET) (BATH)
(LIVING) A 1
(STORAGE ABOVE
BATH AND CLOSET) 2

SECOND FLOOR

FRAMING PLAN
1/4 " = 1' - 0" S W N E A A
ROOF

FRAMING PLAN
1/4 " = 1' - 0" S W N E
ROOF PITCH NOTES:

MAIN GABLE:
12" RISE IN 12" RUN
SHED DORMERS:
9" RISE IN 12" RUN A A 2 2 1
1/2 " = 1' - 0"

FRAMING

ELEVATION
AT SHED DORMER 2
1/2 " = 1' - 0"

ROOF FRAMING PLAN

DETAIL AT SHED DORMER
INTERSECTION 3 FRAMING PLANS SECTIONS DETAILS
S1
JUNE 7, 2022
LH
296
REMODEL COTTAGE FOR: 32 FERN LANE, SAN ANSELMO, CA. APN: 007-041-07 DATE:

DRAWN: KEN MAYER KEN MAYER DESIGNER BUILDER P.O, BOX 1142 FAIRFAX, CA 94978 (415) 730-5366 PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL NOTES: GENERAL, KITCHEN, BATHROOM, LAUNDRY AREAS, WATER HEATING

APPLIANCES, ALARMS, EXTERIOR DOORS AND LANDINGS
ELECTRICAL NOTES, GENERAL:

1. ALL LIGHTING SHALL BE HIGH EFFICACY (FLUORESCENT OR QUALIFTINH LED PER TABLE 150.0-A, CEC). ALL JA8-2016 OR JA8-2016-E LAMPS SHALL BE CONTROLLED BY A DIMMER OR VACANCY SENSOR. INTERIOR RECESSED LIGHT FIXTURES SHALL BE IC LISTED AND AIRTIGHT. SEE MF-1R FOR DETAILS AT HTTP://WWW.ENERGY.GOV/TITLE 24 / 2016 STANDARDS.

2. IN KITCHENS (NOT AT COUNTERTOPS), FAMILY, LIVING, DINING ROOMS,

BEDROOMS, HALLWAYS AND SIMILAR ROOMS, PROVIDE RECEPTACLE OUTLETS AT EACH WALL SPACE 2 FEET OR WIDER, MAXIMUM 12 FEET APART. NO POINT ALONG A WALL LINE WILL BE MORE THAN 6 FEET, MEASURED HORIZONTALLY FROM A RECEPTACLE OUTLET IN THAT SPACE.

3. ALL RESIDENTIAL 120 VOLT, SINGLE PHASE 15 AND 20 AMP BRANCH CIRCUITS

SUPPLYING OUTLETS AND DEVICES INSTALLED IN DWELLING UNIT KITCHENS,

FAMILY ROOMS, DINING ROOMS, LIVING ROOMS, PARLORS, LIBRARIES, DENS,

BEDROOMS, SUNROOMS, RECREATION ROOMS, CLOSETS, HALLWAYS, LAUNDRY

AREAS OR SIMILAR ROOMS SHALL BE PROTECTED BY A LISTED ARC-FAULT

CIRCUIT INTERRUPTER, COMBINATION TYPE, OR A LISTED OUTLET BRANCH CIRCUIT TYPE A.F.C.I. LOCATED AT THE FIRST RECEPTACLE OUTLET OF THE

EXISTING BRANCH CIRCUIT INSTALLED TO PROVIDE PROTECTION OF THE BRANCH CIRCUIT.

4. OUTLETS REQUIRED TO BE GFCI TYPE INCLUDE BATHROOMS, GARAGES, OUTDOORS, COUNTERTOPS IN KITCHENS AND LAUNDRY;

5. ALL NEW RECEPTACLES MUST BE TAMPER-RESISTANT.

6. ELECTRICAL PANELS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED IN BATHROOMS, CLOTHES

CLOSETS, LINEN CLOSETS OR STORAGE ROOMS WITH EASILY IGNITABLE COMBUSTIBLES, OR IN LOCATIONS NOT READILY ACCESSIBLE.

7. FLUORESCENT AND RECESSED LIGHT FIXTURES IN CLOSETS MUST MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE FROM THE EDGE OF SHELVES.

8. RECESSED LIGHT FIXTURES IN INSULATED CEILINGS SHALL BE APPROVED, ZERO CLEARANCE INSULATION COVER (IC) TYPE, CERTIFIED AIR TIGHT (A.S.T.M. E 283)

AND SEALED WITH A GASKET OR CAULKED BETWEEN HOUSING AND CEILING, AND SHALL BE CERTIFIED TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 110.9 AND ALLOW BALLAST

MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT TO BE READILY ACCESSIBLE TO RESIDENTS FROM BELOW.

PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL NOTES FOR SPECIFIC ROOMS:

KITCHEN NOTES:

SEE GENERAL ELECTRICAL NOTES IN ADDITION TO THE FOLLOWING:

1. PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF TWO 20 AMP SMALL APPLIANCE BRANCH CIRCUITS TO

SERVE TAMPER RESISTANT GFCI COUNTER RECEPTACLES IN KITCHENS, PANTRIES, BREAKFAST ROOMS, DINING ROOMS AND SIMILAR AREAS.

2. WHEN SEPARATE CIRCUITS FOR THE GARBAGE DISPOSAL AND DISHWASHER ARE TERMINATED IN THE SAME LOCATION, PROVIDE SEPARATE BOXES. LABEL RECEPTACLES FOR THE APPLIANCES THEY SERVE. PROVIDE A HANDLE TIE FOR THE CIRCUIT BREAKERS AT THE SERVICE PANEL. NO OTHER RECEPTACLE SHALL SHALL BE INSTALLED IN THIS BOX. DISHWASHERS REQUIRE A GFCI OUTLET.

3. INSTALL COUNTERTOP RECEPTACLE OUTLETS AT EACH COUNTER SPACE 12 INCHES OR MORE WIDE. INSTALL RECEPTACLES SO THAT NO POINT ALONG THE WALL LINE IS MORE THAN 24 INCHES, MEASURED HORIZONTALLY, FROM A RECEPTACLE OUTLET IN THAT SPACE. PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF ONE RECEPTACLE FOR PENINSULA COUNTERS AND ISLANDS. RECEPTACLES MUST BE WITHIN 24 INCHES OF THE EDGE OF THE SINK. MAKE CORRECTIONS FOR KITCHEN RECEPTACLES.

4. COUNTERTOP RECEPTACLES SHALL BE LOCATED A MAXIMUM OF 20 INCHES ABOVE OR 12 INCHES BELOW THE COUNTERTOP. RECEPTACLES SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED IN A FACE UP POSITION.

5. PROVIDE BACKFLOW PREVENTION FOR SPRAY HEADS ATTACHED TO HOSES.

6. CONNECT DISHWASHER WITH AN APPROVED AIR GAP DEVICE LOCATED ABOVE THE FLOOD LEVEL OF THE SINK.

7. PROVIDE A MINIMUM 100 CFM RANGE HOOD THAT VENTS TO THE EXTERIOR.

8. KITCHEN FAUCETS SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.8 GALLONS PER MINUTE.

9. EXHAUST FANS AND UNDER CABINET LIGHTS SHALL BE SWITCHED SEPARATELY FROM LIGHTING SYSTEM.

BATHROOM NOTES:

SEE GENERAL ELECTRICAL NOTES IN ADDITION TO THE FOLLOWING:

1. PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF ONE 20 AMP GFCI / AFCI CIRCUIT FOR EACH BATHROOM.

OUTLETS WITHIN 3 FEET OF EACH SINK ARE REQUIRED TO BE TAMPER RESISTANT.

EXCEPTION: ALL BATHROOM GFCI / AFCI RECEPTACLES CAN BE ON A SINGLE 20 AMP DEDICATED CIRCUIT.

BOTH NEW AND MODIFIED BRANCH WIRING CIRCUITS SHALL HAVE ARC-FAULT CIRCUIT PROTECTION FOR 120 VOLT , SINGLE PHASE, 15 AND 20 AMP BRANCH CIRCUITS SUPPLYING OUTLETS IN DWELLINGS.

2. LIGHT FIXTURES IN SHOWER ENCLOSURES SHALL BE APPROVES FOR WET LOCATIONS.

3. A MINIMUM OF ONE LIGHT FIXTURE SHALL BE CONTROLLED BY A VACANCY SENSOR.

4. PROVIDE A SEPARATELY SWITCHED MIN. 50 CFM FAN WITH A HUMIDITY CONTROL THAT VENTS TO THE EXTERIOR. VENTS SHALL TERMINATE A MINIMUM OF 3 FEET FROM OPENINGS INTO A BUILDING. IF THE FAN INCLUDES A LIGHT, IT MUST BE SWITCHED SEPARATELY.

EXCEPTION: HALF BATHS ( A WATER CLOSET AND LAVATORY ONLY) IF PROVIDED WITH A WINDOW THAT OPENS, DO NOT REQUIRE FANS.

5. WATER CLOSETS REQUIRE A MINIMUM OF 15 INCHES OF CLEARANCE FROM THE CENTER LINE TO A SIDE WALL OR OBSTRUCTION AND 24 INCHES OF CLEAR SPACE IN FRONT.

6. SHOWER COMPARTMENTS REQUIRE A MINIMUM FINISHED INTERIOR OF 1024 SQUARE INCHES, AND BE CAPABLE OF ENCOMPASSING A 30 INCH CIRCLE FROM FINISHED WALL TO FINISHED GLAZING. SURFACES SHALL BE WATERPROOF UP TO 72 INCHES ABOVE THE DRAIN OUTLET. MATERIAL BASE FOR TILE SHALL BE

GLASS MAT GYPSUM BACKING PANEL, NON-ASBESTOS FIBRE-CEMENT BACKER

BOARD OR NON-ASBESTOS FIBRE-MAT REINFORCED CEMENTITIOUS BACKER UNIT. PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 22 INCHES CLEAR OPENING AT THRESHOLDS.

PROVIDE A MINIMUM 22 INCH CLEAR OPENING FOR SHOWER DOOR EGRESS.

GLASS SHOWER DOORS AND PARTITIONS SHALL BE TEMPERED OR SAFETY GLASS, AND SHALL BE PROPERLY SUPPORTED ON ALL EDGES. WOOS WINDOWS ARE NOT ALLOWED WITHIN A SHOWER ENCLOSURE.

7. CONTROL VALVES AND SHOWERHEADS SHALL BE LOCATED SUCH THAT THE

SPRAY DOES NOT DISCHARGE DIRECTLY AT THE ENTRANCE, AND THE BATHER CAN ADJUST THE VALVE WITH OUT STEPPING INTO THE SPRAY.

8. SHOWERS AND TUB-SHOWER COMBINATIONS AND BATHTUBS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH CONTROL VALVES WITH ANTI-SCALD PROTECTION. SUCH

VALVES SHALL BE OF THE PRESSURE BALANCING AND / OR THERMOSTATICALLY CONTROLLED TYPE.

9. HAND HELD SHOWER HEADS ATTACHED TO FLEXIBLE HOSES SHALL BE

PROVIDED WITH AN APPROVED METHOD OF BACKFLOW PREVENTION IF THE HEAD CAN BE PLACED BELOW THE FLOOD LEVEL.

10. WATER CLOSETS REQUIRE A MIAXIMUM 1.28 GALLONS PER FLUSH, SHOWERHEADS A MAXIMUM 1.8 GALLONS PER MINUTE, LAVATORY FAUCETS A MAXIMUM OF 1.2 GALLONS PER MINUTE.

11. PROVIDE TEMPERED GLAZING FOR WINDOWS WHERE THE BOTTOM EDGE OF GLAZING IS LESS THAN 60 INCHES:
- ABOVE THE STANDING SURFACE IN A TUB OR SHOWER.
- WITHIN 60 INCHES MEASURED HORIZONTALLY FROM THE WATER'S EDGE OF A TUB OR SHOWER . PROVIDE EITHER TEMPERED OR
SAFETY GLAZING.

12. LIGHTING RECESSED INTO INSULATED CEILINGS MUST MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS NOTED IN ELECTRICAL NOTES, NOTE 6. JA 8-2016E CERTIFIED

AND MARKED LIGHT SOURCE, RATED FOR ELEVATED TEMPERATURE MUST BE INSTALLED BY FINAL INSPECTION.

BATHROOM EXHAUST FANS:

1. A BATH EXHAUST FAN WITH BACK DRAFT DAMPER AND HUMIDITY CONTROL IS REQUIRED.

2. ALL EXHAUST FANS SHALL BE SWITCHED SEPARATELY FROM LIGHTING SYSTEMS.

3. BATH AND TOILET ROOMS SHALL HAVE EXHAUST RATE OF 50 CFM INTERMITTENT OR 25 CFM CONTINUOUS (CMC TABLE 403.7).

4. UNLESS FUNCTIONING AS A PART OF A WHOLE HOUSE VENTILATION SYSTEM,

FANS MUST BE CONTROLLED BY A HUMIDITY CONTROL CAPABLE OF

ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN A RELATIVE HUMIDITY RANGE OF EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN 50 PERCENT TO A MAXIMUM OF 80 PERCENT.

5. EXHAUST MUST VENT TO THE OUTDOORS IN AN APPROVED DUCT. TERMINATE THE OUTLET A MINIMUM OF 3 FEET FROM AN OPENING OR PROPERTY LINE.

LAUNDRIES:

1. PROVIDE AT LEAST ONE SEPARATE 20 AMP CIRCUIT TO LAUNDRY APPLIANCES WITH NO OTHER OUTLETS ON THE CIRCUIT.

WATER HEATING APPLIANCES:

1. PROVIDE SEISMIC ANCHORAGE (STRAPS) FOR NEW AND / OR EXISTING WATER HEATING TANKS. LOCATE STRAPS WITHIN UPPER AND LOWER THIRD OF UNIT, WITH THE LOWER STRAP AT LEAST 4" ABOVE CONTROLS.

2. HOT WATER PIPE MUST BE INSULATED FROM THE WATER HEATER TO THE KITCHEN.

ALARMS:

1. PROVIDE HARDWIRED INTERCONNECTED SMOKE DETECTORS WITH A

BATTERY BACK UP IN EACH SLEEPING ROOM, AND AT A POINT CENTRALLY

LOCATED IN THE CORRIDOR OR AREA GIVING ACCESS TO EACH SLEEPING ROOM.

2. PROVIDE HARDWIRED, INTERCONNECTED CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS

WITH BATTERY BACKUP AT A POINT CENTRALLY LOCATED IN THE CORRIDOR OR AREA GIVING ACCESS TO EACH SLEEPING AREA.

EXTERIOR DOORS AND LANDINGS:

1. EXTERIOR DOORS AND LANDINGS REQUIRE AN EXTERIOR LIGHT SWITCHED FROM INSIDE THE RESIDENCE. LIGHTS SHALL BE EITHER L.E.D. OR

FLUORESCENT, OR CONTROLLED BY A MOTION SENSITIVE, DAYLIGHT SENSING DEVICE.

1. BUILDING CODES: WORK SHALL BE FULL ACCORDANCEWITH THE LATEST

RULES AND REGULATIONS OR PUBLICATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING

CODES, AND APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE SAN ANSELMO MUNICIPAL CODE. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS IS TO BE CONSTRUED TO PERMIT WORK NOT CONFORMING TO THESE CODES AND ORDINANCES. 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC)
2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC)
2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE
2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC)
2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE AND (CPC)

APPLICABLE REFERENCED STANDARDS PER CPC
TABLE 1701.1
2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE
2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE
2019 TITLE 24 CALIFORNIA ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS
2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS

TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO MUNICIP-AL CODE

2. A COMPLETE PROJECT IS INTENDED. THE BUILDING IS TO BE READY FOR OCCUPANCY WHEN COMPLETED.

3. THE GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION (A.I.A. LATEST EDITION) ARE A PART OF THESE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. A COPY IS ON FILE IN THE BUILDER'S OFFICE.

4. VERIFY ALL CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS IN THE FIELD. DO NOT SCALE THESE DRAWINGS, DIMENSIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE. THESE CONSTRUCTION

DOCUMENTS AND THE CONDITIONS ON THE SITE SHALL BE THOROUGHLY

REVIEWED BY AND ANY DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION OF THE BUILDER PRIOR TO ANY WORK.

GENERAL PROJECT NOTES

PLUMBING FIXTURE FLOW RATES

LOCATION FIXTURE FLOW RATE
KITCHEN SINK FAUCET 1.8 GPM @ 60 PSI

BATH TOILET

LAV FAUCET

SHOWER HEAD

1.28 GPM @ 60 PSI

FLOW MAY TEMPORARILY
INCREASE TO 2.2 MAX GPM AT 60

PSI, BUT MUST DEFAULT BACK TO

1.8 GPM AT 60 PSI.

1.2 GPM @ 60 PSI

1.8 GPM @ 80 PSI
S2
JUNE 7, 2022

LH FRAMING DETAILS AND NOTES
297
REMODEL COTTAGE FOR: 32 FERN LANE, SAN ANSELMO, CA. APN: 007-041-07 DATE:

DRAWN: KEN MAYER KEN MAYER DESIGNER BUILDER P.O, BOX 1142 FAIRFAX, CA 94978 (415) 730-5366

DECK FRAMING PLAN
1/4 " = 1' - 0" S W N E 11 3 2
1/2 " = 1' - 0"

FOUNDATION /
FRAMING SECTION 1 DECK #1

SOUTH ELEVATION
1/4 " = 1' - 0"
1/2 " = 1' - 0"

FOUNDATION /

FRAMING SECTION
1/2 " = 1' - 0" 2 DECK #2

FOUNDATION /
FRAMING SECTION 3 DECK #2
LH
JUNE 7, 2022 DECK FRAMING PLANS AND DETAILS
S3
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
RESIDENTIAL MEASURES SUMMARY RMS-1
Project Name Building Type  Single Family  Addition Alone Date  Multi Family  Existing+ Addition/Alteration
Project Address California Energy Climate Zone Total Cond. Floor Area Addition # of Units INSULATION Area
Construction Type Cavity (ft2
) Special Features Status
FENESTRATION Total Area: Glazing Percentage: New/Altered Average U-Factor:

Orientation Area(ft2
) U-Fac SHGC Overhang Sidefins Exterior Shades Status

HVAC SYSTEMS
Qty. Heating Min. Eff Cooling Min. Eff Thermostat Status HVAC DISTRIBUTION Duct
Location Heating Cooling Duct Location R-Value Status

WATER HEATING
Qty. Type Gallons Min. Eff Distribution Status
Mayer ADU E+A 32 Fern Lane San Anselmo Wood Framed 4/13/2022 ✔ ✔
CA Climate Zone 02 660 1
Wood Framed Roof Wall Wall Wall Wall Wall Wood Framed Rafter Wood Framed Wood Framed Wood Framed 330 122 18898 18882 R 21 R 22 R 21 R 21 R 21 - no insulation - New New New New New Existing 330 Front (NE) Left (SE) Rear (SW) Right (NW) 51.0 10.0 66.0 28.0 0.290 0.290 0.290 0.290 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 none none none none none none none none N/A N/A N/A N/A New New New New 1 Split Heat Pump 8.20 HSPF Split Heat Pump 14.0 SEER Setback New HVAC Ductless / with Fan Ductless n/a n/a New 1 Small Instantaneous Gas 0 0.82 Standard Altered EnergyPro 8.3 by EnergySoft Software User Number: 1005 ID: 0405MAY Page 1 of 2 Wall Wood Framed Wall Wood Framed 17691 - no insulation - - no insulation - Existing Existing 155 23.5% 0.29 305
RESIDENTIAL MEASURES SUMMARY RMS-1
Project Name Building Type  Single Family  Addition Alone Date  Multi Family  Existing+ Addition/Alteration
Project Address California Energy Climate Zone Total Cond. Floor Area Addition # of Units INSULATION Area
Construction Type Cavity (ft2
) Special Features Status
FENESTRATION Total Area: Glazing Percentage: New/Altered Average U-Factor:

Orientation Area(ft2
) U-Fac SHGC Overhang Sidefins Exterior Shades Status

HVAC SYSTEMS
Qty. Heating Min. Eff Cooling Min. Eff Thermostat Status HVAC DISTRIBUTION Duct
Location Heating Cooling Duct Location R-Value Status

WATER HEATING
Qty. Type Gallons Min. Eff Distribution Status
Mayer ADU E+A 32 Fern Lane San Anselmo 4/13/2022 ✔
✔
CA Climate Zone 02 660 1
Wood Framed Rafter Wall Slab Demising Wood Framed Unheated Slab-on-Grade 158 330 330 - no insulation - - no insulation - - no insulation - Existing Existing Existing Perim = 74' 330 EnergyPro 8.3 by EnergySoft Software User Number: 1005 ID: 0405MAY Page 2 of 2 155 23.5% 0.29 306
MARCH 2022
MAYER
NONE
DECEMBER 21 UTC -08:00
9 AM 12 PM 3 PM
MARCH 21 & SEPTEMBER 21 UTC -07:00
9 AM 12 PM 3 PM
JUNE 21 UTC -07:00
9 AM 12 PM 3 PM

SHADE STUDY
F E R N L A N E 32 36

PROPERTY KEY
N
S
W E
28 SHADE STUDY PREPARED BY

DIRK SMOLAK ARCHITECT USING
TRIMBLE SKETCHUP 2022
3/5/2022 707-235-9675

REMODELED

COTTAGE
DECEMBER 21 UTC -08:00
2 PM
307
308
309
Page of Title Report from County Records
310
32 Fern Lane
311
36 Fern Lane
312
28 Fern Lane
313
32 Fern Lane
Structural Calculations
San Anselmo, CA
Permit
Prepared For:

Ken Mayer
San Anselmo, CA
Prepared By:

Sean Westbrook, SE, Associate
San Francisco, California
August 22, 2022
601 montgomery street | suite 1450 | san francisco ca 94111 | 415 243 4091 zfa.com 314
Job #
Design Criteria
Engineer: STW
8/22/2022
32 Fern Lane

DETAILED DESIGN CRITERIA

BUILDING CODE

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT INFORMATION
100 pcf
110 pcf
350 pcf
50 pcf
70 pcf
1500 psf
2000 psf
700 psf
150 lbs/in

BUILDING SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
330 ft2
660 ft2
330 ft2

24.5 ft
12 :12
Mean Building Height:

Roof Pitch:

X
Residential
Wood Bearing Walls
Passive Soil Pressure =
Dry Soil Density =
Wet Soil Density =
At-Rest Soil Pressure =
Footprint:

Roof Area:

Building Use:

No. Stories:

NA
NA
Report Date
Governing Code:

Authority Having Jurisdiction:

Local Codes or Amendments:

Report Author:

Report Number:

Report Date:
2019 California Building Code
City of San Anselmo
2019 NA Building Code Amendments
Report Title: NA
Allowable Bearing Pressure, D+L =
Allowable Bearing Pressure, D+L+(E or W) =
Diaphragm System: Plywood Sheathing
Gravity System:

Floor Area:

Pier Skin Friction =
Coefficient of Friction =
Soil Spring Modulus =

0.25 2
Foundation System:

Soil Type:

Recommended Foundation System(s):

Predicted Settlement:

Seismic Hazards:

Liquefaction Risk:

D Default
Shallo Foundation
X
X
X
Expansive Soil Risk:

Concrete Footings
Active Soil Pressure =
315
Job #
Design Criteria
Engineer: STW
8/22/2022
32 Fern Lane

DETAILED DESIGN CRITERIA

SEOR STAMP

SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Section 12.6

37.9824 -122.5754 deg
Table 1.5-1
Table 1.5-1

13.1.3 Table 20.3-1

1.500 USGS

0.600 USGS
Table 11.4-1
Table 11.4-2

1.200 11.4-3

0.680 11.4-4
Seismic Design Category: Section 11.6
Table 12.2-1
Table 12.2-1

12.3.4 12.3.4
Table 12.2-1
Table 12.2-1
Table 12.2-1
Table 12.2-1
Table 12.2-1
Table 12.2-1

0.220 Section 12.8.2

0.220 Section 12.8.2
8 USGS

0.185 Section 12.8 or 12.14

0.129 Section 12.8 or 12.14

0.185 Section 12.8 or 12.14

0.129 Section 12.8 or 12.14
Horizontal: Table 12.3-1
Vertical: Table 12.3-2

WIND DESIGN PARAMETERS
Wind Method Used: Chapter 27
Basic Wind Speed = 1 Figure 26.5-1A,B or C
Exposure Category: 26.7.3

26.8 0.85 Table 26.6-1

SNOW LOAD
20 psf Section 7.3
T(N-S) =
T(E-W) =
TL =
V(N-S) (ULT) =
V(N-S) (ASD) =
V(E-W) (ULT) =
V(E-W) (ASD) =
*W
*W
*W
*W
Base Shear, N-S, LRFD
Base Shear, N-S, ASD
Base Shear, E-W, LRFD
Base Shear,E-W, LRFD
sec
Kzt = 1.00 Topographic Factor
Ground Snow Load =
A. BEARING WALL SYSTEMS

15. Light-framed (wood) walls sheathed with wood
structural panels rated for shear resistance
ρ(E-W) = 1.0
Deflection amplification factor, N-S
Response modification coefficient, E-W
Ultimate Design Wind Speed (3 second gust)
None
MPH
Response modification coefficient, N-S
Redundancy factor, N-S
Ωo(E-W) =
Overstrength factor, N-S
Cd(E-W) =
Directional Procedure

6.50 S1 =

15. Light-framed (wood) walls sheathed with wood
structural panels rated for shear resistance
Redundancy factor, E-W
Overstrength factor, E-W
sec
sec
Approximate Fundamental Period, N-S
Approximate Fundamental Period, E-W
Long Period Transistion Period
Diaphragm= Flexible Diaphragm
Cd(N-S) =
None
Building System, N-S:

Building System, E-W:

A. BEARING WALL SYSTEMS
Latitude: deg Longitude:

Risk Category:

SDS = Design spectral response acceleration parameter
Fa =
g
g
Mapped spectral response acceleration parameter

1.7 Soil Site Class = D (by default)

1.2 IE = 1.00 Importance Factor, Seismic
g
II Residential
Analysis Procedure Used: EQ (Equiv. Lat. Force, 12.8)
Per Geotech Report, Site Class D otherwise
SS =
ASCE 7-16 Reference
UNO:

Mapped spectral response acceleration parameter
Fv =
Site coefficient
Site coefficient

2.50 4.00
Structural Irregularities
C Open Terrain
SD1 = Design spectral response acceleration parameter
R(N-S) =
g
D
Deflection amplification factor, E-W
Plywood Sheathing
Ωo(N-S) =
R(E-W) =
ρ(N-S) =

2.50 1.0

4.00 6.50
IP = 1.00 Importance Factor, Nonstructural Components
Kd = Buildings Directionality Factor
316
Job #
Design Criteria
Engineer: STW
8/22/2022
32 Fern Lane

DETAILED DESIGN CRITERIA

SEOR STAMP

MATERIAL STRENGTH AND SPECIFICATIONS
CONCRETE:
2500 psi
3000 psi
3000 psi
3000 psi
3000 psi
3000 psi
150 pcf
120 pcf
CONCRETE REINFORCING:
60 ksi
60 ksi
STRUCTURAL STEEL:
50 ksi
65 ksi
36 ksi
58 ksi
36 ksi
58 ksi
50 ksi
65 ksi
50 ksi
65 ksi
46 ksi
62 ksi
50 ksi
62 ksi
35 ksi
60 ksi
STEEL CONNECTORS:
65 ksi
58 ksi
120 ksi
36 ksi
58 ksi
36 ksi
58 ksi
70 ksi
2000 psi
2000 psi
1800 psi
135 pcf
Slab on grade, f'c =
Foundations, f'c =
Angles and channels, fy =
Typical plates, fy =
Base plates & MF plates, fy =
ASTM A615, Grade 60
ASTM A615, Grade 60
ASTM A992 or A572 Grade 50
ASTM A572 or A529, Grade 50
ASTM C90
Machine Bolts, fu =
CMU, f'm =
ASTM A307
ASTM A325
ASTM F1554, Grade 36 or ASTM A307
Anchor Bolts, fu = ASTM F1554, Grade 36 or ASTM A307
Anchor Bolts, fy = ASTM F1554, Grade 36 or ASTM A307
Threaded Rods, fy = ASTM F1554, Grade 36 or ASTM A307
Weld, FEXX = Weld Strength
MASONRY:

Threaded Rods, fu =
Cementitious grout, f'm =
Mortar, f'm =
Unit Weight =
ASTM C270, Type S
ASTM C90, Normal Weight
Pipes, fy = ASTM A53, Grade B
ASTM A108
High Strength Bolts, fu =
Square/Rectangular HSS, fu = ASTM A500, Grade C
Pipes, fu = ASTM A53, Grade B
Shear stud connectors, fu =
ASTM A500, Grade C
Square/Rectangular HSS, fy = ASTM A500, Grade C
Gusset plates, fy = ASTM A572 or A529, Grade 50
Gusset plates, fu = ASTM A572 or A529, Grade 50
Structural walls, f'c =
Beams and Columns, f'c =
Fill over metal deck, f'c =
Elevated slabs, f'c =
Reinforcing Steel, fy =
Reinforcing Steel ties, fy =
Round HSS, fy =
Weight of normal weight concrete =
Weight of lightweight concrete =
W-Shapes, fu =
Angles and channels, fu = ASTM A36 or A572 Grade 50
Typical plates, fu = ASTM A36 or A572 Grade 50
Base plates & MF plates, fu = ASTM A572 or A529, Grade 50 Round HSS, fu = ASTM A500, Grade C
ASTM A36 or A572 Grade 50
ASTM A36 or A572 Grade 50
W-Shapes, fy =
ASTM A992 or A572 Grade 50
317
Job #
Design Criteria
Engineer: STW
8/22/2022
32 Fern Lane

DETAILED DESIGN CRITERIA

SEOR STAMP
1200 psi
1350 psi
1000 psi
900 psi
900 psi
2400 psi
2000 psi
2900 psi
2600 psi
1700 psi
33 ksi
50 ksi

DEFLECTION & VIBRATION DESIGN CRITERIA
Design Design Code Min Design Code Min
Roof Framing L/240 L/180 L/180 L/240 L/240
Floor Framing L/360 L/240 L/240 - -
Wall Framing - - - L/120 L/120

ADDITIONAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
(List anything out of the ordinary or important to remember for project) -
LIVE DEAD + LIVE 0.6 WIND
Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL), Fb =
Laminated Strand Lumber (LSL), Fb =
24F-V4 (DF/DF) simple span, 24F-V8 (DF/DF) continuous span 20F-V12 (AC/AC) simple span, 20F-V13 (AC/AC) continuous span Grade 2.0E
Grade 1.9E
Grade 1.3E
L/360
Flexible
Finish
Ceiling
-
Sheathing
Connections
Glued-Laminated Beam (GLB), Fb =
COLD FORMED METAL FRAMING:

Code Min
L/240
Exterior GLB, Fb =
Parallel Strand Lumber (PSL), Fb =
33 & 43 mils (20 & 18 ga), fy =
PS1 / PS2
Simpson Strong-Tie
Douglas Fir #1
Douglas Fir #2
6x Beam, Fb = Douglas Fir #1
6x Posts, Fb = Douglas Fir #1
WOOD CONSTRUCTION:
2x Studs, Fb =
2x Joists & Rafters, Fb =
4x Posts & Beams, Fb =
Douglas Fir #2
54, 68, & 97 mils (16, 14, & 12 ga), fy =
ASTM A1003, Grade ST33H or ST33L
ASTM A1003, Grade ST50H or ST50L
318
Job #
Flat Weights
Engineer: STW
8/22/2022
32 Fern Lane

GRAVITY / SEISMIC FLAT WEIGHT TAKEOFF (PSF)
Roof
CBC Live Load Category: [Table 1607.1]
Slope: 12.00:12 Balcony?: No
Thickness
(in) Sloped Deck Joists Girders Columns Model Seismic Model Seismic Roofing: 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Sheathing: 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
Decking: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Insulation: 8 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
Ceiling: 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8
Framing: 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Framing: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Framing: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
MEP: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
MEP: 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
MEP: 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

1.7 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5

13.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.1 17.1

13.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.1 17.1
No 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0

0.60 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 0.0 0.0

25.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 17.1 17.1
Floor
CBC Live Load Category: [Table 1607.1]
Slope: 0.00:12 Balcony?: No
Thickness
(in) Sloped Deck Joists Girders Columns Model Seismic Model Seismic Flooring: 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Sheathing: 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Decking: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Insulation: 8 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
Ceiling: 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8
Framing: 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1
Framing: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Framing: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
MEP: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
MEP: 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
MEP: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

9.1 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0

9.1 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0
No 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 0.0

1.00 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 0.0

49.1 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 14.0 14.0
Typical
Total Load
Miscellaneous
Dead Load
Dead Load - Horiz Projection
Live Load
Partitions (Office Buildings)

26. Roof: ordinary
Miscellaneous
Dead Load
Dead Load - Horiz Projection
Material
Asphalt Shingles
1/2 in. OSB
"Soft": Loose Fill, Blown-In, & Batt t =
5/8 in. Gypsum Board
DF-L 2x8 @ 24"oc
Typical
Solar
Live Load
Live Load - Reduced R2 =
Partitions (Office Buildings)
Total Load

25. Residential: Other
Material
Linoleum or Soft Tile
3/4 in. OSB
"Soft": Loose Fill, Blown-In, & Batt t =
5/8 in. Gypsum Board
11⅞" TJI 210 @ 16"oc
Live Load - Reduced R2 =
319
Job #
Wall Weights
Engineer: STW
8/22/2022
32 Fern Lane

GRAVITY / SEISMIC WALL WEIGHT TAKEOFF (PSF)
Material Weight Material Weight

2.0 1.5

1.0 1.7

2.2 TOTAL 9.0 TOTAL 0.0
Exterior Wall
Siding
Plywood
WRB
2x6 Stud
1/2 Gyp
320

!"#

$%
&'&(
$)
*%*&+(
!$,!-
.
!
"-

&/&+'-
0.
1
!
!
!
!2!!3

3!!
4
!
!

32!!
5
6 !

3!!3

!

!
.
7%)
,
3

89:;<=>?@AB;C:DEB@ FGG;9HHI ,!.
!
"
&/&+'0. JBB;GE@:D9HI %
&'&)
*%*&+ KL9M:DEB@I 2 NEC9HD:COI ')')
*/'
*P Q:R:;G>NSO9I .!" T9A9;9@<9 UB<VC9@DI .
7%)+ TEHW>J:D9XB;SI YY 8ED9>JL:HHI Z)!2

[:HE<>\:;:C9D9;H ]:C9 ^:LV9 U9H<;EODEB@ ..
*
7_
"`!$'
a . '
+
7_
"`!$
'a . .
.!)"2!!

!
!
b

! . c

.!)"2!!

!
!
b

! .Z.
d
"!!"!b

!
'
. .Z c

d
"!!"!b

!

'. c.!!.!
/
eFGGEDEB@:L>?@AB;C:DEB@ ]:C9 ^:LV9 U9H<;EODEB@ .Z
c

.!"!
! ,

.!
"
2
2

'
,b c

.!
"
2
2

'
_. '
&
!22!25`'
a
_ '
&
!22!25`
'a 4f '
*
7f!
5

!
!
,4f
.!
"
2
2

4f 4f '
+&% .!"2!!
5

!
!

)!
!`a . _
% 4
5 `'a
ghijk
lmnopmqmorstssouvvwxy
321

!"#

$%
&'&(
$)
*%*&+(
!$,!-
.
!
"-

&/&+'-
0.
.1

% 2

3)
!!
"4'
5 .0

&* ,
!
6")

!

!
!
4-

6 !7!!
!*'!
5 .8
* ,
!!!"
!
!
9

!4'
5 .1
'
%& 2

3)
!!
"4
'5 .0
'
' ,
!
6")

!

!
!
4-

6 !7!!
!*'!
5 .8 '
+ ,
!!!"
!
!
9

!4
'5 2: '
* ,
!!!"
!
!
9

!42:5 ;.!!.!
/
<=>?@>ABCDA?EFGEHID>G?=>@>?JK?LK<?@>MC>HD?IFN?ADID>?O@?COHIC?IP>FGP>FDA?DO?D=>?QICB>A?O@?IFN?G>CEF>IDEOF?CEF>A?PIG>?GB@EFR?D=>?SBECGEFR?HOG>?IGOTDEOF T@OH>AAU?VA>@A?A=OBCG?HOFME@P?IFN?OBDTBD?OSDIEF>G?M@OP?D=EA?DOOC?WED=?D=>?COHIC?XBD=O@EDN?YIQEFR?ZB@EAGEHDEOF?S>MO@>?T@OH>>GEFR?WED=?G>AERFU [C>IA>?FOD>?D=ID?D=>?X<\?YI]I@GA?SN?^OHIDEOF?W>SAED>?WECC?FOD?S>?BTGID>G?DO?ABTTO@D?X_\`?abccU?dEFG?OBD?W=NU efghijfklm

!9!!0
.
:!

.
9!.!"8!n!.!9!
n
!!6"
!!!o!!!
!9!!!

"!!

6

!"
!

!!!!!

!
!!
!
6
!6

o
"!!!7
"

9!6
6

!!!!
!!6!

!!
!
!66"
!

!!
p
"!6
"!!6!

9!7!!!
3o
!!!6!
6
!

!6!

6
!!q
!6
6!

!!

!!

6!!9!o!!
0!6!6"
6"o!!

"!

6"

!
0!6!

6o!!!"

9

!9!

!!!
!6

!
9

!!
6!

!!!

!

!

!!

322

#$
%&%'
#(
)$)%*'
+#,+-
.
+
/-

%0%*&-
1.
2
+
+
+
+3++!

!++
4
+
+

!3++
5
6 +

!++!

+

+
.
7$(
,
!

89:;<=>?@AB;C:DEB@ FGG;9HHI ,+.
+
/
%0%*&1. JBB;GE@:D9HI $
%&%(
)$)%* KL9M:DEB@I 3 NEC9HD:COI &(&(
)0%
&P Q:R:;G>NSO9I T F8JK>UVWX YZ&([+
*/ YZ)([+
$&/ YZ)&([+
$0/ YZ&&([+
$/ Y5

+Z */ Y5

+ZZ %/ Y5

+ZZZ %/ Y5

+Z\ &/
F8JK>UVW] YZ&([+
$/ YZ)([+
$%/ YZ)&([+
)/ YZ&&([+
%/ Y5

+Z &&/ Y5

+ZZ &/ Y5

+ZZZ(Z\ )/F8JK>UV]^ .
7$(&)T.++ )/
_`abcadefgdbhijhklgajb`acabmnbon_bcapfakgbliqbdglgabrcbfrklfblsaijsaigdbgrbg`abtlfeadbrcbliqbjafhialghribfhiadbsljabjechiubg`abvehfjhiubkrjabljrwghri wcrkaddxbydacdbd`refjbkriphcsbliqbregwegbrvglhiajbpcrsbg`hdbgrrfbzhg`bg`abfrklfb{eg`rchgqb|lthiub}echdjhkghribvaprcabwcrkaajhiubzhg`bjadhuix ~faldabirgabg`lgbg`ab{_b|llcjdbvqbrklghribzavdhgabzhffbirgbvabewjlgajbgrbdewwrcgb{b xbhijbregbz`qx EH<L:EC9;

+3/

+.
7$

+
++
+!
+++
4+.
7$

+

+ +

!++
3+

+
/+
+!++!

+
+

!++

++3++
!++

+

7,
+++
!(+++

+++

++/
++
!/

33+!+++++!
!(+++

+
++
/+
+

++
/+3

!
T
++3/
+++!+++
++++

/++

3

+/
+

+++++

+
++
+
3
+3

!
/+++
/

+3
3

++++
++3+

++
+
+33/
+

++

/+3
/++3+

++++
5!
+++3+
3
+

+3+

3
++
+3
3+

++

++

3+++!++
1+3+3/
3/!++

/+

3/

+
1+3+

3!+++/

++

+++
+3

+

++
3+

+++

+

+

++

¡¢
323
Job #
Story Masses
Engineer: STW
8/22/2022
32 Fern Lane
Story Masses and Distribution
Length Y (ft) Width X (ft) Height (ft) Area (ft2
) Weight (psf) Total Wt (k)
15 22 1 330 17 5.6
44 1 6 264 9 2.4
30 1 6 180 9 1.6

0.0 0.0

0.0 Σ = 10
Length Y (ft) Width X (ft) Height (ft) Area (ft2
) Weight (psf) Total Wt (k)
330 1 1 330 14 4.6
74 1 6 444 9 4.0
74 1 8.5 629 9 5.7
Σ = 14
V = 0.129 W k= 1.0
Level wx hx wxhx
k Fstory Fx
/V Vstory Base Shear Coeff
R 10 28.0 ft. 269 1.8 57.4% 2 0.184W
2 14 14.0 ft. 200 1.3 42.6% 3 0.092W
Total 24 469 3
VBase = 3 kips
Roof Level
Section
Roof
N-S Exterior Walls
E-W Exterior Walls
Mech Equipment
Second Floor Level
Section
Floor
Second Floor Exterior Walls
First Floor Exterior Walls
324
Job #
EQ (Equiv. Lat. Force,12.8)
Engineer: STW
8/22/2022
32 Fern Lane
CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 CHAPTER 11, 12, 13 SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA DSA Project? No
Soil Site Class: D (by default) Table 20.3-1
Response Spectral Acc. (0.2 sec) Ss = 1.500g = 150.0%g Figure 22-1, 22-3, 22-5, and 22-6 Response Spectral Acc. (1.0 sec) S1 = 0.600g = 60.0%g Figure 22-2, 22-4, 22-5, and 22-6 Site Coefficient Fa = 1.20 Table 11.4-1
Site Coefficient Fv = 1.70 Table 11.4-2
Max Considered Earthquake Acc. SMS = Fa(Ss) = 1.800 (11.4-1) Max Considered Earthquake Acc. SM1 = Fv(S1) = 1.530 (11.4-2) with Exception per §11.4.8 SDS = 2/3(SMS) = 1.200 (at 5% Damped Design) (11.4-3)
SD1 = 2/3(SM1) = 0.680 (11.4-4)
TS = 0.567 seconds
Building Risk Category: II Standard Table 1.5-1
Redundancy Factor ρ = 1.0 Section 12.3.4
Design Category Consideration: Section 12.3
Seismic Design Category for 0.1sec D Table 11.6-1
Seismic Design Category for 1.0sec D Table 11.6-2
S1 < .75g NA Section 11.6
Since Ta < .8Ts (see below), SDC = D exception of Section 11.6 does not apply CBC - Comply with Seismic Design Category D

12.8 Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure
Seismic Force Resisting System:

Ct = 0.02 x = 0.75 T-12.8-2
Building Height Hn = 25 ft Limited Building Height (ft) = 65 Cu = 1.4 for SD1 of 0.680g Table 12.8-1
Approx Fundamental Period, Ta = Ct
(hn)
x = 0.220 12.8-7 TL
= 8 Sec
Calculated T shall not exceed ≤ Cu*Ta = 0.308 Use T = 0.220 Sec

0.8Ts = 0.8(SD1/SDS) = 0.453 exception of Section 11.6 does not apply Is structure Regular & ≤ 5 stories? No 12.8.1.3
SDS to determine Cs & Ev = 1.200g 11.4-3
Response Modification Coef. R = 6.5 Table-12.2-1
Overstrength Factor Ωo = 2.5 Table-12.2-1 Footnote b
Deflection Amplification Factor Cd = 4 Table-12.2-1
Seismic Importance Factor Ie = 1.00 Table 1.5-1
Seismic Base Shear V = CsW
SDS (12.8-2)
R/Ie
SD1 (12.8-3)
(R/Ie)T
SD1TL (12.8-4)
T
2 (R/Ie)
Cs shall not be less than… 0.053 ≥ 0.01 (12.8-5)
Min Cs = 0.5S1Ie/R = 0.046 For S1 ≥ 0.6g (12.8-6)
Use Cs = 0.185
Design Base Shear V (ULT) = 0.185 W
Design Base Shear V (ASD) = 0.129 W
or Cs = N/A For T > TL
Flexible Diaphragm
A. BEARING WALL SYSTEMS

15. Light-framed (wood) walls sheathed with wood structural panels rated for shear resistance Cs = =0.185
or need not to exceed, Cs = = 0.475 For T≤ TL
T-12.2-1
325
Job #
Horizontal Distribution
Engineer: STW
8/22/2022
32 Fern Lane

FLEXIBLE DIAPHRAGM HORIZONTAL DISTRIBUTION

FX (ASD) FPX (ASD) FX (ASD) FPX (ASD)
Roof 1.8 kips 1.8 kips 1.8 kips 1.8 kips 330
Floor 3.1 kips 3.1 kips 3.1 kips 3.1 kips 330
C x x x x x
D x x x x x
Seismic Loading Level: Roof FX = 1.8 kips ( ASD )
Loading Direction: East/West FPX = 1.8 kips ( ASD )
Total Level Area = 330 ft2
% of Total Fx = 100
Gridline: A&B
Length Width Area Story
Force
Diaphragm
Force
Distributed
Load
Width if
Narrow
Diaphragm
Shear
TC
Couple
( ft ) ( ft ) ( ft2
) ( kips ) ( kips ) ( plf ) ( ft ) ( plf ) ( lbs )
A B 22.0 15.0 330 0.9 0.9 80 NA 59 325

0.9 0.9
Gridline: 1&2
Length Width Area Story
Force
Diaphragm
Force
Distributed
Load
Width if
Narrow
Diaphragm
Shear
TC
Couple
( ft ) ( ft ) ( ft2
) ( kips ) ( kips ) ( plf ) ( ft ) ( plf ) ( lbs )
1 2 15.0 22.0 330 0.9 0.9 118 NA 40 151

0.9 0.9
Seismic Loading Level: Floor FX = 3.1 kips ( ASD )
Loading Direction: East/West FPX = 3.1 kips ( ASD )
Total Level Area = 330 ft2
% of Total Fx = 100
Gridline: A&B
Length Width Area Story
Force
Diaphragm
Force
Distributed
Load
Width if
Narrow
Diaphragm
Shear
TC
Couple
( ft ) ( ft ) ( ft2
) ( kips ) ( kips ) ( plf ) ( ft ) ( plf ) ( lbs )
A B 22.0 15.0 330 1.5 1.5 140 NA 103 566
From Above 0.9

2.4 1.5
Gridline: 1&2
Length Width Area Story
Force
Diaphragm
Force
Distributed
Load
Width if
Narrow
Diaphragm
Shear
TC
Couple
( ft ) ( ft ) ( ft2
) ( kips ) ( kips ) ( plf ) ( ft ) ( plf ) ( lbs )
1 2 15.0 22.0 330 1.5 1.5 206 NA 70 263
From Above 0.9

2.4 1.5
Simple
Span Type Diaphragm Span
Simple
Span Type Diaphragm Span
Simple
Span Type Diaphragm Span
Simple
Level
North/South East/West
Area (sf)
Span Type Diaphragm Span
W
L
LOAD
326
Job #
1-Story Shear Wall
Engineer: STW
8/22/2022
32 Fern Lane
DSA? No
DIRECTION: N/S Ωo N/S 2.5
WALL LINE: Sds= 1.20 ρ N/S 1
Total Wall Line Shear (ASD)= V (lb) =
Wall Lengths = L (ft) = 22
Total Wall Length = L total (ft.) = 22
Minimum Wall Length = L min. (ft.) = 22
Wall Height = h (ft.) = 6
Wall shear per lineal foot = v (plf) = V / L = 40
Nail Size = 10d Ply Grade = 7
Use SW 10d@ 6"o.c. (Capacity = 310 plf) DCR = 0.13
Tributary Dead Load = DL (psf) = 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tributary Width = TW (ft.) = 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wall Dead Load = WDL (psf) = 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Dead Load at Wall = wDL (plf) = 113.5
Uplift Force at Tie Down for "L" noted above = 0
Minimum Holdown for each "L" noted above = No Uplift
Max. Uplift Force at Tie Down = UASD (lb) ={(v*h*L) - [(0.6-.14Sds)*wDL*L2/2]} / (L-1')= 0 Holdown Type = HDU
Use: (Capacity = 0 lb) DCR = 0.00
Max. LRFD Uplift Force = ULRFD (lb) 0
Max. Overstrength Uplift Force= ΩoULRFD (lb) 40
Max. Comp Force at End Post = CASD (lb) 1700
DIRECTION: N/S Ωo N/S 2.5
WALL LINE: Sds= 1.20 ρ N/S 1
Total Wall Line Shear (ASD)= V (lb) =
Wall Lengths = L (ft) = 22
Total Wall Length = L total (ft.) = 22
Minimum Wall Length = L min. (ft.) = 22
Wall Height = h (ft.) = 6
Wall shear per lineal foot = v (plf) = V / L = 40
Nail Size = 10d Ply Grade = 7
Use SW 10d@ 6"o.c. (Capacity = 310 plf) DCR = 0.13
Tributary Dead Load = DL (psf) = 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tributary Width = TW (ft.) = 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wall Dead Load = WDL (psf) = 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Dead Load at Wall = wDL (plf) = 113.5
Uplift Force at Tie Down for "L" noted above = 0
Minimum Holdown for each "L" noted above = No Uplift
Max. Uplift Force at Tie Down = UASD (lb) ={(v*h*L) - [(0.6-.14Sds)*wDL*L2/2]} / (L-1')= 0 Holdown Type = HDU
Use: (Capacity = 0 lb) DCR = 0.00
Max. LRFD Uplift Force = ULRFD (lb) 0
Max. Overstrength Uplift Force= ΩoULRFD (lb) 40
Max. Comp Force at End Post = CASD (lb) 1700
DIRECTION: E/W Ωo E/W 2.5

A SEISMIC
885
={(v/.7*h*L) - [(.9-.2Sds)*wDL*L2/2]} / (L-1')=
={(Ωo*v/.7/ρ*h*L) - [(.9-.2Sds)*wDL*L2/2]} / (L-1')=
={(v*h*L) + [(1.0+.14Sds)*wDL*L2/2]} / (L)=

B SEISMIC
CD / OSB CALC MARK:

CD / OSB w/
No Uplift
No Uplift
={(v/.7*h*L) - [(.9-.2Sds)*wDL*L2/2]} / (L-1')=
={(Ωo*v/.7/ρ*h*L) - [(.9-.2Sds)*wDL*L2/2]} / (L-1')=
={(v*h*L) + [(1.0+.14Sds)*wDL*L2/2]} / (L)=
885
CD / OSB CALC MARK:

CD / OSB w/
327
Job #
1-Story Shear Wall
Engineer: STW
8/22/2022
32 Fern Lane
WALL LINE: Sds= 1.20 ρ E/W 1
Total Wall Line Shear (ASD)= V (lb) =
Wall Lengths = L (ft) = 15
Total Wall Length = L total (ft.) = 15
Minimum Wall Length = L min. (ft.) = 15
Wall Height = h (ft.) = 6
Wall shear per lineal foot = v (plf) = V / L = 59
Nail Size = 10d Ply Grade = 7
Use SW 10d@ 6"o.c. (Capacity = 310 plf) DCR = 0.19
Tributary Dead Load = DL (psf) = 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tributary Width = TW (ft.) = 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wall Dead Load = WDL (psf) = 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Dead Load at Wall = wDL (plf) = 71
Uplift Force at Tie Down for "L" noted above = 133
Minimum Holdown for each "L" noted above = Neglect
Max. Uplift Force at Tie Down = UASD (lb) ={(v*h*L) - [(0.6-.14Sds)*wDL*L2/2]} / (L-1')= 133 Holdown Type = HDU
Use: (Capacity = 0 lb) DCR = 0.00
Max. LRFD Uplift Force = ULRFD (lb) 165
Max. Overstrength Uplift Force= ΩoULRFD (lb) 979
Max. Comp Force at End Post = CASD (lb) 976
DIRECTION: E/W Ωo E/W 2.5
WALL LINE: Sds= 1.20 ρ E/W 1
Total Wall Line Shear (ASD)= V (lb) =
Wall Lengths = L (ft) = 15
Total Wall Length = L total (ft.) = 15
Minimum Wall Length = L min. (ft.) = 15
Wall Height = h (ft.) = 6
Wall shear per lineal foot = v (plf) = V / L = 59
Nail Size = 10d Ply Grade = 7
Use SW 10d@ 6"o.c. (Capacity = 310 plf) DCR = 0.19
Tributary Dead Load = DL (psf) = 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tributary Width = TW (ft.) = 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wall Dead Load = WDL (psf) = 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Dead Load at Wall = wDL (plf) = 71
Uplift Force at Tie Down for "L" noted above = 133
Minimum Holdown for each "L" noted above = Neglect
Max. Uplift Force at Tie Down = UASD (lb) ={(v*h*L) - [(0.6-.14Sds)*wDL*L2/2]} / (L-1')= 133 Holdown Type = HDU
Use: (Capacity = 0 lb) DCR = 0.00
Max. LRFD Uplift Force = ULRFD (lb) 165
Max. Overstrength Uplift Force= ΩoULRFD (lb) 979
Max. Comp Force at End Post = CASD (lb) 976
1 SEISMIC
Neglect
={(v/.7*h*L) - [(.9-.2Sds)*wDL*L2/2]} / (L-1')=
={(Ωo*v/.7/ρ*h*L) - [(.9-.2Sds)*wDL*L2/2]} / (L-1')=
={(v*h*L) + [(1.0+.14Sds)*wDL*L2/2]} / (L)=
2 SEISMIC
885
CD / OSB CALC MARK:

CD / OSB w/
Neglect
={(v/.7*h*L) - [(.9-.2Sds)*wDL*L2/2]} / (L-1')=
={(Ωo*v/.7/ρ*h*L) - [(.9-.2Sds)*wDL*L2/2]} / (L-1')=
={(v*h*L) + [(1.0+.14Sds)*wDL*L2/2]} / (L)=
885
CD / OSB CALC MARK:

CD / OSB w/
328
Job #
Multi-Story Shear Wall
Engineer: STW
8/22/2022
32 Fern Lane
DSA? No
DIRECTION: N/S Ωo N/S 2.5
WALL LINE: Sds= 1.20 ρ N/S 1
Total Wall Line Shear (ASD)= V (lb) =
Wall Lengths = L (ft) = 22
Total Wall Length = L total (ft.) = 22
Minimum Wall Length = L min. (ft.) = 22
Wall Height = h (ft.) = 8.25
Wall shear per lineal foot = v (plf) = V / L = 110
Nail Size = 10d Ply Grade = 7
Use SW 10d@ 6"o.c. (Capacity = 310 plf) DCR = 0.36
ASD Uplift Force at Tie Down from story above = 0
LRFD Uplift Force at Tie Down from story above = 0
Omega Uplift Force at Tie Down from story above = 0
Tributary Dead Load = DL (psf) = 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tributary Width = TW (ft.) = 7.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wall Dead Load = WDL (psf) = 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Dead Load at Wall = wDL (plf) = 179
Uplift Force at Tie Down for "L" noted above = 62
Minimum Holdown for each "L" noted above = Neglect
Holdown Type = HDU Max. Uplift Force at Tie Down = UASD (lb) 62 Use: (Capacity = 0 lb) DCR = 0.00
Max. LRFD Uplift Force = ULRFD (lb) 0
Max. Overstrength Uplift Force= ΩoULRFD (lb) 2044
Max. Comp Force at End Post = C (lb) 3214
DIRECTION: N/S Ωo N/S 2.5
WALL LINE: Sds= 1.20 ρ N/S 1
Total Wall Line Shear (ASD)= V (lb) =
Wall Lengths = L (ft) = 22
Total Wall Length = L total (ft.) = 22
Minimum Wall Length = L min. (ft.) = 22
Wall Height = h (ft.) = 8.25
Wall shear per lineal foot = v (plf) = V / L = 110
Nail Size = 10d Ply Grade = 7
Use SW 10d@ 6"o.c. (Capacity = 310 plf) DCR = 0.36
ASD Uplift Force at Tie Down from story above = 0
LRFD Uplift Force at Tie Down from story above = 0
Omega Uplift Force at Tie Down from story above = 0
Tributary Dead Load = DL (psf) = 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tributary Width = TW (ft.) = 7.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wall Dead Load = WDL (psf) = 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Dead Load at Wall = wDL (plf) = 179
Uplift Force at Tie Down for "L" noted above = 62
Minimum Holdown for each "L" noted above = Neglect
Holdown Type = HDU Max. Uplift Force at Tie Down = UASD (lb) 62 Use: (Capacity = 0 lb) DCR = 0.00
Max. LRFD Uplift Force = ULRFD (lb) 0
Max. Overstrength Uplift Force= ΩoULRFD (lb) 2044
Max. Comp Force at End Post = C (lb) 3214
CD / OSB CALC MARK:

CD / OSB w/

A SEISMIC
2429
2429
CD / OSB CALC MARK:

CD / OSB w/
Neglect
={(v/.7*h*L) - [(.9-.2*Sds)*wDL*L2/2]} / (L-1')=
={(Ωo*v/.7/ρ*h*L) - [(.9-.2Sds)*wDL*L2/2]} / (L-1')=
={(v*h*Lmin) + [(1.0+.14Sds)*wDL*Lmin2/2]} / (Lmin)=

B SEISMIC
Neglect
={(v/.7*h*L) - [(.9-.2*Sds)*wDL*L2/2]} / (L-1')=
={(Ωo*v/.7/ρ*h*L) - [(.9-.2Sds)*wDL*L2/2]} / (L-1')=
={(v*h*Lmin) + [(1.0+.14Sds)*wDL*Lmin2/2]} / (Lmin)=
329
Job #
Multi-Story Shear Wall
Engineer: STW
8/22/2022
32 Fern Lane
DIRECTION: E/W Ωo E/W 2.5
WALL LINE: Sds= 1.20 ρ E/W 1
Total Wall Line Shear (ASD)= V (lb) =
Wall Lengths = L (ft) = 7.5
Total Wall Length = L total (ft.) = 7.5
Minimum Wall Length = L min. (ft.) = 7.5
Wall Height = h (ft.) = 8.25
Wall shear per lineal foot = v (plf) = V / L = 324
Nail Size = 10d Ply Grade = 8
Use SW 10d@ 4"o.c. (Capacity = 460 plf) DCR = 0.70
ASD Uplift Force at Tie Down from story above = 133
LRFD Uplift Force at Tie Down from story above = 190
Omega Uplift Force at Tie Down from story above = 475
Tributary Dead Load = DL (psf) = 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tributary Width = TW (ft.) = 1.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wall Dead Load = WDL (psf) = 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Dead Load at Wall = wDL (plf) = 92.9
Uplift Force at Tie Down for "L" noted above = 3042
Minimum Holdown for each "L" noted above = HDU2
Holdown Type = HDU Max. Uplift Force at Tie Down = UASD (lb) 3042 Use: (Capacity = 3075 lb) DCR = 0.99
Max. LRFD Uplift Force = ULRFD (lb) 4328
Max. Overstrength Uplift Force= ΩoULRFD (lb) 11218
Max. Comp Force at End Post = C (lb) 3078
DIRECTION: E/W Ωo E/W 2.5
WALL LINE: Sds= 1.20 ρ E/W 1
Total Wall Line Shear (ASD)= V (lb) =
Wall Lengths = L (ft) = 11
Total Wall Length = L total (ft.) = 11
Minimum Wall Length = L min. (ft.) = 11
Wall Height = h (ft.) = 8.25
Wall shear per lineal foot = v (plf) = V / L = 221
Nail Size = 10d Ply Grade = 7
Use SW 10d@ 6"o.c. (Capacity = 310 plf) DCR = 0.71
ASD Uplift Force at Tie Down from story above = 133
LRFD Uplift Force at Tie Down from story above = 190
Omega Uplift Force at Tie Down from story above = 475
Tributary Dead Load = DL (psf) = 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tributary Width = TW (ft.) = 1.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wall Dead Load = WDL (psf) = 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Dead Load at Wall = wDL (plf) = 92.9
Uplift Force at Tie Down for "L" noted above = 1894
Minimum Holdown for each "L" noted above = HDU2
Holdown Type = HDU Max. Uplift Force at Tie Down = UASD (lb) 1894 Use: (Capacity = 3075 lb) DCR = 0.62
Max. LRFD Uplift Force = ULRFD (lb) 2681
Max. Overstrength Uplift Force= ΩoULRFD (lb) 7259
Max. Comp Force at End Post = C (lb) 2418
2429
CD / OSB CALC MARK:

CD / OSB w/
HDU2
1 SEISMIC
2429
CD / OSB CALC MARK:

CD / OSB w/
={(v/.7*h*L) - [(.9-.2*Sds)*wDL*L2/2]} / (L-1')=
={(Ωo*v/.7/ρ*h*L) - [(.9-.2Sds)*wDL*L2/2]} / (L-1')=
={(v*h*Lmin) + [(1.0+.14Sds)*wDL*Lmin2/2]} / (Lmin)=
2 SEISMIC
HDU2
={(v/.7*h*L) - [(.9-.2*Sds)*wDL*L2/2]} / (L-1')=
={(Ωo*v/.7/ρ*h*L) - [(.9-.2Sds)*wDL*L2/2]} / (L-1')=
={(v*h*Lmin) + [(1.0+.14Sds)*wDL*Lmin2/2]} / (Lmin)=
330
Deeter Entry roof check
Member Name Results Current Solution Comments
Floor: Joist Passed 1 piece(s) 11 7/8" TJI® 110 @ 16" OC MiscChecks

JOB SUMMARY REPORT
ForteWEB Software Operator Job Notes 8/22/2022 4:36:40 PM UTC Sean Westbrook ZFA Structural Engineers
(916) 924-7024
[email protected]
ForteWEB v3.4
File Name: MiscChecks

Page 1 ends

331
Design Results Actual @ Location Allowed Result LDF Load: Combination (Pattern) Member Reaction (lbs) 564 @ 2 1/2" 1041 (2.25") Passed (54%) 1.00 1.0 D + 1.0 L (All Spans) Shear (lbs) 550 @ 3 1/2" 1560 Passed (35%) 1.00 1.0 D + 1.0 L (All Spans) Moment (Ft-lbs) 2109 @ 7' 9 1/2" 3160 Passed (67%) 1.00 1.0 D + 1.0 L (All Spans) Live Load Defl. (in) 0.217 @ 7' 9 1/2" 0.379 Passed (L/840) -- 1.0 D + 1.0 L (All Spans) Total Load Defl. (in) 0.298 @ 7' 9 1/2" 0.758 Passed (L/611) -- 1.0 D + 1.0 L (All Spans) TJ-Pro™ Rating 46 40 Passed -- --
System : Floor
Member Type : Joist
Building Use : Residential
Building Code : IBC 2015
Design Methodology : ASD
• Deflection criteria: LL (L/480) and TL (L/240). • Allowed moment does not reflect the adjustment for the beam stability factor. • A structural analysis of the deck has not been performed. • Deflection analysis is based on composite action with a single layer of 23/32" Weyerhaeuser Edge™ Panel (24" Span Rating) that is glued and nailed down. • Additional considerations for the TJ-Pro™ Rating include: None. • Rim Board is assumed to carry all loads applied directly above it, bypassing the member being designed.

Page 2 ends

332
Wood Beam
LIC# : KW-06015331, Build:20.22.8.17 ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 DESCRIPTION: FB1 Stair Head Out Beam
Project File: Enercalc.ec6
Project Title: 32 Fern Lane
Engineer: STW
Project ID:

Project Descr:

Eminbend - xx ksi
Wood Species :

Wood Grade :

Load Combination Span Max. "-" Defl Location in Span Load Combination Max. "+" Defl Location in Span Overall Maximum Deflections
+D+L 1 0.1441 4.785 0.0000 0.000
.
333
Wood Beam
LIC# : KW-06015331, Build:20.22.8.17 ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 DESCRIPTION: FB1 Stair Head Out Beam
Project File: Enercalc.ec6
Project Title: 32 Fern Lane
Engineer: STW
Project ID:

Project Descr:

Load Combination Support 1 Support 2
Vertical Reactions Support notation : Far left is #1 Values in KIPS Overall MAXimum 3.990 3.990
Overall MINimum 1.425 1.425
D Only 2.565 2.565
+D+L 3.990 3.990
+D+0.750L 3.634 3.634
+0.60D 1.539 1.539
L Only 1.425 1.425
334
Wood Beam
LIC# : KW-06015331, Build:20.22.8.17 ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 DESCRIPTION: FB2 Stair Head out Carrying beam
Project File: Enercalc.ec6
Project Title: 32 Fern Lane
Engineer: STW
Project ID:

Project Descr:

CODE REFERENCES
Calculations per NDS 2018, IBC 2018, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 Load Combination Set : IBC 2018
Material Properties
Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsional buckling Allowable Stress Design
iLevel Truss Joist
Parallam PSL 2.2E
2,900.0
2,900.0
2,900.0
750.0
2,200.0
1,118.19
290.0
2,025.0 45.070
Analysis Method :

Eminbend - xx ksi
Wood Species :

Wood Grade :

Load Combination Span Max. "-" Defl Location in Span Load Combination Max. "+" Defl Location in Span Overall Maximum Deflections
+D+L 1 0.4273 6.898 0.0000 0.000
.
335
Wood Beam
LIC# : KW-06015331, Build:20.22.8.17 ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 DESCRIPTION: FB2 Stair Head out Carrying beam
Project File: Enercalc.ec6
Project Title: 32 Fern Lane
Engineer: STW
Project ID:

Project Descr:

Load Combination Support 1 Support 2
Vertical Reactions Support notation : Far left is #1 Values in KIPS Overall MAXimum 4.397 1.937
Overall MINimum 1.599 0.699
D Only 2.798 1.238
+D+L 4.397 1.937
+D+0.750L 3.997 1.762
+0.60D 1.679 0.743
L Only 1.599 0.699
336
Wood Beam
LIC# : KW-06015331, Build:20.22.8.17 ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 DESCRIPTION: RB1 Ridge Beam
Project File: Enercalc.ec6
Project Title: 32 Fern Lane
Engineer: STW
Project ID:

Project Descr:

CODE REFERENCES
Calculations per NDS 2018, IBC 2018, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 Load Combination Set : IBC 2018
Material Properties
Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsional buckling Allowable Stress Design
iLevel Truss Joist
MicroLam LVL 2.0 E
2600
2600
2510
750
2000
1016.535
285
1555 42.01
Analysis Method :

Eminbend - xx ksi
Wood Species :

Wood Grade :

Load Combination Span Max. "-" Defl Location in Span Load Combination Max. "+" Defl Location in Span Overall Maximum Deflections
+D+Lr 1 1.1804 11.080 0.0000 0.000
.
337
Wood Beam
LIC# : KW-06015331, Build:20.22.8.17 ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 DESCRIPTION: RB1 Ridge Beam
Project File: Enercalc.ec6
Project Title: 32 Fern Lane
Engineer: STW
Project ID:

Project Descr:

Load Combination Support 1 Support 2
Vertical Reactions Support notation : Far left is #1 Values in KIPS Overall MAXimum 2.393 2.393
Overall MINimum 0.990 0.990
D Only 1.403 1.403
+D+Lr 2.393 2.393
+D+0.750Lr 2.145 2.145
+0.60D 0.842 0.842
Lr Only 0.990 0.990
338
Wood Beam
LIC# : KW-06015331, Build:20.22.8.17 ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 DESCRIPTION: RJ1 Typical Roof Rafter
Project File: Enercalc.ec6
Project Title: 32 Fern Lane
Engineer: STW
Project ID:

Project Descr:

CODE REFERENCES
Calculations per NDS 2018, IBC 2018, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 Load Combination Set : IBC 2018
Material Properties
Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsional buckling Allowable Stress Design
Douglas Fir-Larch (North)
No. 1/No. 2
850
850
1400
625
1600
580
180
500 30.59
Analysis Method :

Eminbend - xx ksi
Wood Species :

Wood Grade :

Load Combination Span Max. "-" Defl Location in Span Load Combination Max. "+" Defl Location in Span Overall Maximum Deflections
+D+Lr 1 0.0545 3.777 0.0000 0.000
.
339
Wood Beam
LIC# : KW-06015331, Build:20.22.8.17 ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 DESCRIPTION: RJ1 Typical Roof Rafter
Project File: Enercalc.ec6
Project Title: 32 Fern Lane
Engineer: STW
Project ID:

Project Descr:

Load Combination Support 1 Support 2
Vertical Reactions Support notation : Far left is #1 Values in KIPS Overall MAXimum 0.218 0.218
Overall MINimum 0.090 0.090
D Only 0.128 0.128
+D+Lr 0.218 0.218
+D+0.750Lr 0.195 0.195
+0.60D 0.077 0.077
Lr Only 0.090 0.090
340
Wood Beam
LIC# : KW-06015331, Build:20.22.8.17 ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 DESCRIPTION: DJ1 Typical Deck Joist
Project File: Enercalc.ec6
Project Title: 32 Fern Lane
Engineer: STW
Project ID:

Project Descr:

CODE REFERENCES
Calculations per NDS 2018, IBC 2018, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 Load Combination Set : IBC 2018
Material Properties
Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsional buckling Repetitive Member Stress Increase Allowable Stress Design
Douglas Fir-Larch (North)
No. 1/No. 2
850.0
850.0
1,400.0
625.0
1,600.0
580.0
180.0
500.0 30.590
Analysis Method :

Eminbend - xx ksi
Wood Species :

Wood Grade :

Beam self weight NOT internally calculated and added
Load for Span Number 1
Uniform Load : D = 0.010, L = 0.060 ksf, Tributary Width = 1.330 ft, (Deck) . DESIGN SUMMARY Design OK
Maximum Bending Stress Ratio 0.361: 1
Load Combination +D+L
Span # where maximum occurs Span # 1
Location of maximum on span 4.022ft
= 25.71 psi
=
782.00psi
Section used for this span 2x12
Span # where maximum occurs
Location of maximum on span
= Span # 1
Load Combination +D+L
=
=
=
= = 144.00 psi
Section used for this span 2x12
Maximum Shear Stress Ratio 0.179 : 1
= 7.106 ft
=
282.46psi
Maximum Deflection
2206 >=360
2999
Ratio = 1890 >=180
Max Downward Transient Deflection 0.027 in Ratio = 3499 >=360 Max Upward Transient Deflection -0.043 in Ratio =
Max Downward Total Deflection 0.032 in Ratio = >=180
Max Upward Total Deflection -0.051 in
fb: Actual
Fb: Allowable
fv: Actual
Fv: Allowable
Span: 1 : L Only
Span: 2 : L Only
Span: 1 : +D+L
Span: 2 : +D+L
. Maximum Forces & Stresses for Load Combinations
Span #
Load Combination Moment Values
C i CLCF/V Cr Cm C d t
Max Stress Ratios Shear Values
Segment Length M V C M fb F'b V fv F'v
D Only 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Length = 8.0 ft 1 0.057 0.028 0.90 1.000 0.80 1.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.11 40.35 703.80 0.04 3.67 129.60 Length = 4.0 ft 2 0.028 0.90 1.000 0.80 1.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 703.80 0.00 3.67 129.60 +D+L 1.000 0.80 1.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length = 8.0 ft 1 0.361 0.179 1.00 1.000 0.80 1.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.74 282.46 782.00 0.29 25.71 144.00 Length = 4.0 ft 2 0.179 1.00 1.000 0.80 1.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 782.00 0.00 25.71 144.00 +D+0.750L 1.000 0.80 1.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length = 8.0 ft 1 0.227 0.112 1.25 1.000 0.80 1.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.59 221.94 977.50 0.23 20.20 180.00 Length = 4.0 ft 2 0.112 1.25 1.000 0.80 1.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 977.50 0.00 20.20 180.00 +0.60D 1.000 0.80 1.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length = 8.0 ft 1 0.019 0.010 1.60 1.000 0.80 1.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.06 24.21 1251.20 0.02 2.20 230.40 Length = 4.0 ft 2 0.010 1.60 1.000 0.80 1.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 1251.20 0.00 2.20 230.40 .
341
Wood Beam
LIC# : KW-06015331, Build:20.22.8.17 ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 DESCRIPTION: DJ1 Typical Deck Joist
Project File: Enercalc.ec6
Project Title: 32 Fern Lane
Engineer: STW
Project ID:

Project Descr:

Load Combination Span Max. "-" Defl Location in Span Load Combination Max. "+" Defl Location in Span Overall Maximum Deflections
+D+L 1 0.0320 4.022 0.0000 0.000
2 0.0000 4.022 +D+L -0.0507 4.000
.

Load Combination Support 1 Support 2 Support 3
Vertical Reactions Support notation : Far left is #1 Values in KIPS Overall MAXimum 0.372 0.372
Overall MINimum 0.319 0.319
D Only 0.053 0.053
+D+L 0.372 0.372
+D+0.750L 0.293 0.293
+0.60D 0.032 0.032
L Only 0.319 0.319
342
Wood Beam
LIC# : KW-06015331, Build:20.22.8.17 ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 DESCRIPTION: DB1 Typical Deck Beam
Project File: Enercalc.ec6
Project Title: 32 Fern Lane
Engineer: STW
Project ID:

Project Descr:

CODE REFERENCES
Calculations per NDS 2018, IBC 2018, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 Load Combination Set : IBC 2018
Material Properties
Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsional buckling Allowable Stress Design
Douglas Fir-Larch (North)
No. 1/No. 2
850
850
1400
625
1600
580
180
500 30.59
Analysis Method :

Eminbend - xx ksi
Wood Species :

Wood Grade :

Load Combination Span Max. "-" Defl Location in Span Load Combination Max. "+" Defl Location in Span Overall Maximum Deflections
+D+L 1 0.0551 4.029 0.0000 0.000
.
343
Wood Beam
LIC# : KW-06015331, Build:20.22.8.17 ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 DESCRIPTION: DB1 Typical Deck Beam
Project File: Enercalc.ec6
Project Title: 32 Fern Lane
Engineer: STW
Project ID:

Project Descr:

Load Combination Support 1 Support 2
Vertical Reactions Support notation : Far left is #1 Values in KIPS Overall MAXimum 2.520 2.520
Overall MINimum 2.160 2.160
D Only 0.360 0.360
+D+L 2.520 2.520
+D+0.750L 1.980 1.980
+0.60D 0.216 0.216
L Only 2.160 2.160
344
345
U.S, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURI丁Y
Fede「ai Eme「gency Management Agency
National FIood lnsu「ance Program
ELEVATION CERT案円CATE
!mportant: FoIIowthe inst「uctions on pages l-9.

B12.lsthebuiIdingIocatedinaCoastalBa面e「ResourcesSystem(CBRS)areaorO伽erviseP「otectedA「ea(OPA)?□Yes図No DesignafronDate:　　　　　　　　□CBRS　口OPA
FEMA Form O86巾33 (12/19)　　　　　　　RepIaces訓PreVious editions・　　　　　　　　　　　Form Page l of 6346 ELEVATION CERTIFICATE 0MB No. 1660-0008
Expiration Date: November 30, 2022
IMPORTANT: In these spaces, copy the corresponding information from Section A. FOR INSURANCE COMPANY USE Building Street Address (including Apt., Unit, Suite, and/or Bldg. No.) or P.O. Route and Box No. Policy Number:
3Q. Fer" LA�-e
City State ZIP Code Company NAIC Number
s�"' A,,,� et� r.A '7l.t e, ,ri

C2. Elevations - Zones A 1-A30, AE, AH, A (with BFE), VE, V1-V30, V (with BFE), AR, AR/A, AR/AE, AR/A 1-A30, AR/AH, AR/AO.

Complete Items C2.a-h below according to the building diagram specified in Item A?. In Puerto Rico only, enter meters.

Benchmark Utilized: c 108 Vertical Datum: 52.14
Indicate elevation datum used for the elevations in items a) through h) below. 0 NGVD 1929 [8) NAVO 1988 D Other/Source:

Datum used for building elevations must be the same as that used for the BFE.

SECTION D - SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, OR ARCHITECT CERTIFICATION This certification is to be signed and sealed by a land surveyor, engineer, or architect authorized by law to certify elevation information.

Were latitude and longitude in Section A provided by a licensed land surveyor? DYes [8) No D Check here if attachments.

Copy all pages of this Elevation Certificate and all attachments for (1) community official, (2) insurance agent/company, and (3) building owner.

Comments (including type of equipment and location, per C2(e), if applicable) FEMA Form 086-0-33 (12/19) Replaces all previous editions. Form Page 2 of 6 347 348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
4 EXHIBIT 1
Chapter 6 ‐ ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
Article 1. ‐ Purpose, Applicability, Definitions.
10‐6.101 ‐ Purpose.

This chapter provides regulations for developing accessory dwelling units. The purpose of permitting accessory dwelling units is to expand the opportunity for small, lower cost, housing units in San Anselmo, while preserving the character of residential neighborhoods. 10‐6.102 ‐ Applicability.

An accessory dwelling unit may be constructed on a lot that meets all of the following minimum standards:
(a) Zoning district. A lot located within a single family or multifamily zoning district (R‐1‐C, R‐1‐ H, R‐1, R‐2 or R‐3) or any commercial zoning district (C‐1, C‐2, C‐3, C‐L or P). in any zoning district that allows for single family and multifamily development. (b) Existing or proposed primary dwelling unit. A lot that is presently developed with at least one (1) primary dwelling. In addition, an accessory dwelling unit may be approved in connection with a building permit to construct a new primary dwelling. 10‐6.103 ‐ Definitions.

In addition to the terms defined by Article 17 (Definitions), the following terms shall have the following meanings as used in this chapter:
“Accessory dwelling unit” means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on the same lot as the proposed or existing primary residence. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation. An accessory dwelling unit also includes an efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety Code, and a manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code. “Accessory structure” means a structure that is accessory and incidental to a dwelling located on the same lot.
“Junior accessory dwelling unit” is a unit that complies with the requirements of Government Code Section 65852.22, as amended from time to time. “Living area” means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit, including basements and attics, but does not include a garage or any accessory structure. 356
5 "Floorspace" means the gross floor area of a detached accessory dwelling unit as measured to the outside surface of exterior walls, including its living area, basement area whether conditioned or unconditioned, and any garage or other enclosed accessory structure attached to the detached accessory dwelling unit.
“Multifamily dwelling” means a dwelling on a site with more than one unit that is not within a single‐family residential district (R‐1, R‐1‐H, R‐1‐C) or a specific planned development district (SPD or PPD) with underlying single‐family residential zoning (“single family zoning district”). A site with more than one residential unit in a single‐family zoning district shall be considered a single‐family residence with accessory dwelling unit(s) that may be nonconforming in size, number, or other development standards.
“Nonconforming zoning condition” means a physical improvement on a property that does not conform with current zoning standards.
"Passageway" as defined in Government Code Section 65852.2, as amended, means a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to one entrance of an accessory dwelling unit.
“Proposed dwelling” means a dwelling that is the subject of a permit application and that meets the requirements for permitting.
“Public transit” means a location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station, where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public. “Tandem parking” as defined in Government Code Section 65852.2, as amended, means that two or more automobiles are parked on a driveway or in any other location on a lot, lined up behind one another.

Article 2. ‐ Standards for Accessory Dwelling Units
10‐6.201 – Permit required. The Town shall ministerially approve an application for a building permit to create any attached or detached accessory dwelling unit that meets the of the units described in this section, subject to the development requirements set forth in this chapter. A rRental of the accessory dwelling unit created pursuant to this section shall be for a term longer than 30 days.
10‐6.202 – Number of Accessory Dwelling Units Allowed.
(a) One attached or detached accessory dwelling unit or one junior accessory dwelling unit is allowed per lot with a proposed or existing single‐family dwelling. Alternatively, a lot with a proposed or existing single‐family dwelling can have one detached accessory dwelling unit and one junior accessory dwelling unit. if the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is within the proposed space of a single‐family dwelling or existing space of a single‐family dwelling or accessory structure. and may include an expansion of not more than 150 square feet 357
6 beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing accessory structure. An expansion beyond the physical dimensions of the existing accessory structure shall be limited to accommodating ingress and egress.
(b) One detached, new construction, accessory dwelling unit up to 800 square feet of floor area and up to 16 feet tall that does not exceed four‐foot side and rear yard setbacks for a lot with a proposed or existing single‐family dwelling. The accessory dwelling unit may be combined with a junior accessory dwelling unit described in 10‐6.201(a). (cb)(i) Sites developed with a Multifamily Dwelling may have up to two detached accessory dwelling units. Sites developed with a Multifamily Dwelling may also have at least one accessory dwelling unit and up to 25 percent of the number of existing permitted Multifamily Dwelling units, rounded down to the nearest whole number, Multiple accessory dwelling units within the portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if each unit will complyies with state building standards for dwellings. For example, an existing 10‐ unit Multifamily Dwelling can convert existing non‐living space into two accessory dwelling units and construct two detached accessory dwelling units.
(ii) The Town shall allow at least one accessory dwelling unit within an existing multifamily dwelling up to limits established in California Government Code Section 65852.2(e)(1)(C)(ii), as amended by the legislature or as interpreted by the State Department of Housing and Community Development.
(d) Not more than two accessory dwelling units that are located on a lot that has an existing multifamily dwelling, but are detached from that multifamily dwelling and are subject to a height limit of 16 feet and four‐foot rear yard and side setbacks. 10‐6.202 203 ‐ Parking.

Parking for accessory dwelling units on single‐family or Multifamily Dwelling sites shall be provided in compliance with the following provisions:
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), one (1) permanently surfaced parking space shall be provided for each attached or detached accessory dwelling unit in accordance with Sections

10.3.507, 10‐3.508 and 10‐3.511 of this Code. Said parking space may be Ttandem parking and within any of the setback areas, provided however that any such parking space within a public right‐of‐way must be approved by the Public Works Director to ensure that such parking location does not constitute a potential fire or life safety hazard. (b) No parking shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit in any of the following instances:
(1) The accessory dwelling unit is located within one‐half (1/2) mile walking distance of Ppublic Ttransit .
358
7 (2) The accessory dwelling unit is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district.
(3) The accessory dwelling unit is part of the proposed or existing primary residence (including an attached garage) or an accessory structure. (4) When on‐street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the accessory dwelling unit.
(5) When there is a pick up or drop off location for a car share vehicle (as defined by the California Vehicle Code) located within one (1) block of the accessory dwelling unit. (c) Demolition of existing covered parking and conversion of existing parking spaces to uses other than vehicle parking. See requirements at Article 5 Parking and Loading Regulations, Section 10‐3.504(b)(3).
10‐6.203 204 ‐ Height, location, and setbacks.

Accessory dwelling units shall either be attached to, or located within, the proposed or existing primary dwelling, including attached garages, storage areas or similar uses, or an accessory structure or detached from the proposed or existing primary dwelling and located on the same lot as the proposed or existing primary dwelling. Accessory dwelling units shall satisfy the required building height and setback standards applicable to a primary dwelling unit as specified by the zoning district in which the lot is located except that:
(a) (a) A newly constructed detached accessory dwelling unit shall be a maximum of sixteen (16) feet in overall building height, measured to the predevelopment ground elevations and islimited to a single, ground floor,story or basement. Accessory dwelling units newly constructed in Special Flood Hazard Areas on the adopted Town Flood Insurance Rate Map may be up to fourteen (14) feet in overall building height, measured from the Base Flood Elevation plus one (1) foot of freeboard, or sixteen (16) feet in overall building height, whichever is taller.
(b) No setback or height limit shall be required for the following as long as the existing building envelope remains unchanged (except additions allowed to detached structures for ingress and egress in Section 10‐6.206):
(1) An existing living area that is converted to an accessory dwelling unit or to a portion of an accessory dwelling unit; or
(2) An accessory structure that is converted to an accessory dwelling unit or to a portion of an accessory dwelling unit; or
(3) A structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure thatstructure that is converted to an accessory dwelling unit or to a portion of an accessory dwelling unit.
359
8 (c) The Town shall require a setback of no more than A setback of four feet from the side and rear lot lines shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit that is not converted from an existing structure or a new structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structurefor a new accessory dwelling unit that does not fall under Subsection (b).
10‐6.204 205 ‐ Lot coverage, floor area ratio, and density.

For the purposes of determining maximum lot coverage and floor area ratio requirements, residential second unit square footage shall be calculated as a part of the primary living unit, and subject to the limitations provided in this Title. The tTown shall not apply limits on lot coverage and floor area ratio for either attached or detached dwellings that does not permit at least an 800 square foot accessory dwelling unit that is at least 16 feet in height with four‐foot side and rear yard setbacks to be constructed in compliance with all other development standards.

Pursuant to state law, an accessory dwelling unit that conforms to this chapter shall be deemed to be an accessory use or an accessory building and shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to be a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designations for the lot. 10‐6.205 206 ‐ Minimum and Maximum size.

The minimum size of an accessory dwelling unit shall be the minimum necessary to comply with all adopted and applicable building codes and shall not exceed eight hundred fifty (850) square feet in floor area or one thousand (1,000) square feet for an accessory dwelling unit that provides more than one bedroom. Ifthere is an existing primary single‐ family dwelling over 1,600 square feet, the total floor area of an attached accessory dwelling unitshall not exceed fifty (50%) percent of the existing primary dwelling unit. Accessory dwelling unitsshall include no more than two (2) bedrooms. Notwithstanding the existing living area of the primary dwelling, attached or interior accessory dwelling unit may contain at least 800 square feet of floor area.3 An accessory dwelling unit created within the existing space of a detached accessory structure may be expanded in compliance with all applicable regulations. The Town shall allow an existing detached accessory structure to be expanded up to 150 square feet if necessary to accommodate ingress and egress.
10‐6.206 207 ‐ Architectural design standards.

Accessory dwelling unit construction shall be of complimentary materials, colors, and style as the exterior of the primary living unit including roof, eaves, windows, accents, and doors.

Further, new accessory dwelling units at or above one hundred fifty (150) mean sea level shall provide screening from off‐site views. Screening may include landscaping and/or natural forms.
360
9 Landscaping shall be included to screen mechanical and structural elements of the accessory dwelling unit, including, but not limited to, foundations, retaining walls, condensers, and transformers, provided that nothing in this provision shall require the accessory dwelling unit to be screened completely from view or require any screening that would conflict with Ross Valley Fire Department Vegetation Management Plan requirements. IAnyNo heritage tree (as defined in Title 4, Chapter 13) shall be removed in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit until a building permit has been issued for the accessory dwelling unit. must be replaced on site with a 48 inch box tree unless that would conflict with Ross Valley Fire Department Vegetation Management Plan requirements or if the Director of Public Works determinesthere is adequate existing trees on or offsite in the area where the tree wasremoved.

The following standards apply to newly constructed accessory dwelling units located within required side and rear setbacks for the district in which the unit is located under Development Standards Table 4A and not conversions of existing structures:
(a) The entrance to the accessory dwelling unit shall minimize noise and privacy impacts for neighbors by facing the entrance towards the interior of the lot and/or away from neighboring development where possible, unless the accessory dwelling unit is directly accessible from an alley, public path, or public street. (b) Any new windows that face an adjoining residential property shall be designed to protect the privacy of neighbors, such as by use of opaque glass or sill heights above eye level; alternatively, fencing or landscaping shall be required to provide screening. (bc) Wall heights shall be limited to a maximum height of eight (8) feet on the interior and eleven and one half (11.5)10 feet on the exterior. Planning Department Staff shall develop written standards that illustrate how wall height will be measured for various roof forms. 10‐6.207 208 ‐ Exceptions to standards.

Exceptions to Sections 10‐6.201 through 10‐6.206 207 may be permitted subject to approval of a conditional use permit in accordance with Article 13 of this Title. However, the total area of floor space for a detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed twelve hundred (1,200) square feet. The following design standards apply to units requesting a conditional use permit for an exception or design review:
(a) Accessory dwelling unit construction shall be of complimentary materials, colors, and style as the exterior of the primary living unit including roof, eaves, windows, accents, and doors.
(b) Further, nNew construction accessory dwelling units at or above one hundred fifty (150) mean sea level shall provide screening from off‐site views unless not possible under Ross Valley Fire Department Vegetation Management Plan requirements. Screening may include landscaping and/or natural forms.
361
10 Landscaping shall be included to screen mechanical and structural elements of the accessory dwelling unit from off‐site views, including, but not limited to, foundations, retaining walls, condensers, and transformers, provided that nothing in this provision shall require the accessory dwelling unit to be screened completely from view or require any screening that would conflict with Ross Valley Fire Department Vegetation Management Plan requirements.
(a)(c)
10‐6.208 209 ‐ General Requirements and Restrictions.

The following requirements and restrictions apply to accessory dwelling units:
(a) All accessory dwelling units shall satisfy all Title 9 Building Regulations and any objective applicable general performance, site development, landscaping, and other standards and objective requirements in the Town Municipal Code and adopted Town Council resolutions including, but not limited to, Title 4, Chapter 13, Private Trees; Title 6, Chapter 8, Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention and ; Title 7, Chapter 12, Watercourses; and Title 9, Building Regulations.
(b) The unit shall not be intended for sale separate from the primary residence (including creation of a stock cooperative orsimilar common interest ownership arrangement) and may be rented. Rental of accessory dwelling units approved after January 1, 2020, shall be for a term longer than 30 days.
(c) For sites within a Flood Hazard Area on the adopted Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map, the finished floor of any new or legalized accessory dwelling unit shall be elevated at least one (1) foot above the Base Flood Elevation as "new construction" under Title 7, Chapter 11, Protection of Flood Hazard Areas, even if the project would not be considered a "substantial improvement." The applicant shall submit an Elevation Certificate based on construction drawings with the building permit plans and a final Elevation Certificate shall be required prior to project final. (d) An accessory dwelling unit shall include separate exterior access from the primary dwelling unit and may include an interior connection. A passageway from the accessory dwelling unit to a public street may be created, but shall not be required by the Town. (e) The Building Department and Ross Valley Fire Department shall confirm that side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety.
(f) The Town shall not require the correction of any nonconforming zoning condition as a condition of approval for an accessory dwelling unit.
(f) A 20‐foot wide fire lane shall be provided within one hundred fifty (150) feet of the structure and a minimum fire flow of one thousand (1,000) gallons per minute shall be required. 362
11 (g) If construction or heritage tree removal is proposed within fifteen (15) feet of the top of the bank of any watercourse the applicant shall demonstrate they have received all applicable permits from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, The Army Corps of Engineers, State Water Resources Control board and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
(g) The installation of fire sprinklers shall not be required in an accessory dwelling unit if sprinklers are not required for the primary residence.
(h) The Town shall not impose any impact fee upon the development of an accessory dwelling unit lessthan 750 square feet. Any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.

Article 3. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
10‐6.401 Purpose. The purpose of this Article isto allow the creation of junior accessory dwelling units on lots zoned for single‐family residences in accordance with California Government Code Section 65852.22, as amended from time to time.
10‐6.402 Requirements for Junior Accessory Dwelling Units The following requirements and restrictions apply to junior accessory dwelling units:
(a) Limit of one junior accessory dwelling unit per residential lot zoned for single‐family residences with a single‐family residence built, or proposed to be built, on the lot. (b) Must be contained entirely within the walls of the proposed or existing single‐family residence, including within an attached garage but excluding detached structures. (c) Size must be 500 square feet or smaller, measured to interior walls. (d) Shall include:
(1) An efficiency kitchen, which shall include a cooking facility with appliances, and a food preparation counter and storage cabinetsthat are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the junior accessory dwelling unit.
(2) A separate entrance from the main entrance to the proposed or existing single‐family residence; and
(3) Sanitation facilities, which may be separate or shared with the existing structure. (e) Owner‐occupancy is required in the single‐family residence in which the Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit will be permitted. The owner may reside in either the remaining portion of the structure or the newly created Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit. Owner‐occupancy shall not be required if the owner is another governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization.
10‐6.403 Deed Restriction Required. A deed restriction shall be recorded prior to issuance of the building permit that restricts use of the junior accessory dwelling unit size and attributes that conforms with this Article.
363
12 10‐6.404 Parking. No parking shall be required for the junior accessory dwelling unit as a condition of granting the permit. If a junior accessory dwelling unit is created within an attached garage, the Town can require existing garage parking to be replaced pursuant to Section 10‐

3.504.
10‐6.405 Application of Fire or Life Protection Regulations. For purposes of any fire or life protection ordinance or regulation, a junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered a separate or new dwelling unit. The Town may apply requirements relating to fire and life protection within a single‐family residence that contains a junior accessory dwelling unit that apply uniformly to all single‐family residences within the zone, regardless of whether the single‐ family residence includes a junior accessory dwelling unit or not.

Article 34. ‐ Administration and Enforcement.
10‐6.301 401 ‐ Administration.

Any person proposing to create or construct an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit that complies with Sections 10‐6.201 through 10‐6.206 and 10‐6.208, or has received an exception with a use permit,shallsubmit a building permit application to the Building Department with a site plan, elevations, color and materials samples, and any other information deemed necessary to administer this chapter, even if no construction is proposed. The Town shall consider the building permit application ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing.

The Town shall act on the application to create an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit within 60 days from the date the Town receives a complete application if there is an existing single‐family or multifamily dwelling on the lot. If the permit application to create an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit is submitted with a permit application to create a new single‐family dwelling on the lot, the Town may delay acting on the permit application for the accessory dwelling unit or the junior accessory dwelling unit until the Town acts on the permit application to create the new single‐family dwelling, but the application to create the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall be considered without discretionary review or hearing. If the applicant requests a delay, the 60‐day time period shall be tolled for the period of the delay.

The Town Council may authorize by resolution a fee for conditional use permits and the ministerial review of accessory dwelling units.
10‐6.302 402 ‐ Prior conditions not applicable.

This chapter supersedes any Town conditions on existing accessory dwelling units that comply with Sections 10‐6.201 through 10‐6.205 and 10‐6.207, including owner occupancy or rent control, that were imposed as conditions of approval on accessory dwelling units that the Town approved prior to the effective date of this chapter if the conditions would not apply under 364
13 current regulations. The Planning Director is authorized to void recorded deed restrictions for accessory dwelling units that comply with this chapter at the request of a property owner. 10‐6.303 403 Requirements for Acts Actions to Eliminate ADU Entrance or Permanent Provisions for Eating, Cooking, and Sanitation.

It is the Town’s intent to preserve accessory dwelling units and discourage the conversion of accessory dwelling units for the use of the primary dwelling. To this end, the following are requirementsthat apply when taking actionsthat remove elements of an accessory dwelling unit. (a) A building permitshall be required to remove the separate entrance or permanent provisions for eating, cooking, and sanitation in an accessory dwelling unit. (b) No building permit shall be issued to remove permanent provisions for eating, cooking, and sanitation or the separate entrance for an accessory dwelling unit created by converting or demolishing a garage, carport, or covered parking structure in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit unless either: 1) the project includes restoring the garage for vehicle parking prior to the first inspection on the permit; or 2) the site has the required number of on‐site parking spaces as required by the Parking Standards Table, referred to as Table 5A, of the San Anselmo Municipal Code and the spaces comply with all provisions for setbacks, siting, configuration and size. (c) No building permit shall be issued to remove permanent provisions for eating, cooking, and sanitation or the separate entrance for an accessory dwelling unit created with an exception to lot coverage and/or floor area ratio unless the project includes theremoves the additional lot coverage and/or floor area granted for the accessory dwelling unit prior to issuance of the permit or a variance is approved.
(d) No building permit shall be issued to remove permanent provisions for eating, cooking, and sanitation or the separate entrance for an accessory dwelling unit created with side or rear yard setbacks that are less than required under the development standards Table 4A unless the project includes removing the area for the accessory dwelling unit where within the setback or a variance iswas approved.

Article 20 Objective Design Standards for Residential Developments. 10‐20.020 Applicability. The provisions of this Article apply to all residential projects. 10‐20.030 Objective Residential Design Standards.
(a) For new construction within 4 feet of a side property line or 4 feet of a rear property line, any new windows that face an adjoining residential property shall be designed to protect the privacy of neighbors, such as by use of opaque glass or sill heights above eye level; alternatively, fencing or landscaping shall be required to provide screening. 365
14 (b) Any tree 22 inches in diameter at breast height or larger removed for construction of a residential unit shall be replaced on‐ site with a 48” box tree. (c) An exception to this section may be permitted subject to approval of a conditional use permit in accordance with Article 13 of this Title.
366
From: Tommaso Latini
To: Town Council; Steve Burdo; Heidi Scoble; Lindsey Klein; Leslie Murphy; Carolyn & Peter Brastow; Rut and Scott Klempan; Karene Alvarado
Subject: 32 Fern Lane, San Anselmo
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 2:27:25 PM
Attachments: Town of San Anselmo Council Members.pdf
Oct 21 Letter to Town.pdf
Importance: High
CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Town Council Members,
While we are all aware of the increased pressure on the Town of San Anselmo to approve ADU's (which aside from increased traffic and water usage, we condone ), the project at 32 Fern lane SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED ! Please read my two attached documents for reference.

The owner, Ken Meyers, is a California Licensed General Contractor. He knows the Codes and Requirements for building. He also openly and readily admits that he took a risk and is willing to abide by the outcome. The majority of affected neighbors have repeatedly requested that he lower the illegal structure by 7 feet to comply with the "Detached ADU" Guidelines. He has repeatedly refused this simple solution and tried unsuccessfully to evade compliance through other "schemes".

Not only would approval for this project undermine the Town's Planning and Building Departments determinations, but also the neighbors who have been fighting it for 3 years or so. In addition, it would set a precedent for others to illegally build what they wanted and ask for forgiveness after the fact. Yes we need ADU's but not like this ! Sincerely, Tommaso Latini
Tommaso B. Latini AIA
International Project Management Consultant
Mobile: 1 415 730 2876
E Mail: [email protected]
22 Fern Lane
San Anselmo California, 94960
USA
Agenda Item 2.4, Attachment 7- Public Comments
367
Town of San Anselmo Council Members. January 9, 2023
Re: 32 Fern Lane Illegal / Non-conforming ADU Construction.

Dear Council Members,
I am writing to regarding the project at 32 Fern Lane. I hope you will support; (a.) The unanimous vote by the Planning Commission to deny a Conditional Use Permit for this project, and (b.) the adjacent neighbor’s complaints. Even with the new California State ADU Guidelines, the current illegal structure needs to be lowered by approximately 7 feet. While there are some neighbors who have written supporting the project, they cannot even see it! Our goal is not to block the construction of an ADU, but to have it be considerate of the neighbors who are impacted by it’s overwhelming and illegal height.

The other aspects of the project, which may or not be legal, are the Town’s Building and Planning Department issues.

Thank you,
Tommaso and Elsa Latini, 22 Fern Lane Residents for 38 years.

Agenda Item 2.4, Attachment 7- Public Comments
368
Reference: Illeeal Construction at 32 Fern Lane.

October 21, 2022
To The Mayor, Vice Mayor. Town Manager, Town Council, Planning Co1nmission. Building and Plannin!! Departments of San Anselmo:

Ken Mayer, owner of 32 Fem Lane, has built at least one large ne\v structure on his property ivithout a building permit and in violation of the municipal code. After these violations were reported, and the To\vn directed him to stop work, he is seeking a conditional use pe1mit ("CUP"). His CUP application is being heard by the Town Planning Commission next month, Noven1ber 7, 2022. I am \'lfiting to make the following points.

The Application Is Incomplete.

First, the Planning Commission . should not consider an application for a CUP for this nev.1 construction of a purported accessory dwelling unit ("ADU") until a complete building application has been submitted as required by Town Code, Section 10-6.40 I. Until the Tov.1n and the neighbors have a complete understanding of what is proposed to be constructed, the application cannot be properly reviewed.

I have been . nvolved in the Residential/ Commercial Design and Construction profession tor 46 years (36 while living in San Anselmo). In that time span, [ have participated in Building and Pla1u1ing Department meetings in the United States and around the world. They all have one common thread: they have established Rules, Regulations, Standards, Procedures and Protocols that must be strictly adhered to.

The To\vn of San Anselmo ("Town") has such requirements and procedures in place for addressing the construction of proposed AD Us-see, for example, Tovm Code, Title 10, Chapter 6, addressing ADUs.

The illegal construction at 32 Fem Lane violated Chapter 6, and other Town Code provisions, in the following respects:
• The work has occurred over the last year without a Building Permit(s) and Inspections. • The submitted drawings are at maximum 60% complete, inaccurate, and misleading.

Further, they are not signed and sealed by a Licensed Design Professional. • The Building and Planning DepartJnents required "Substantiating Documentation" has not been submitted.
• The required agency signofffor work within the creek setbacks has not been issued (or even applied for?).
• The O\vner has not complied with the Town Code Title I 0, Chapter 6, Article 2, Section I 0-6 governing new AD Us. Despite ihe owner's clai.in, this ADU is new \vork and not a remodel of existing work. (See attached affidavit from the property's former owner affinning there \vas no pre-existing structure in this location during her long tenure). l
Agenda Item 2.4, Attachment 7- Public Comments
369
• Because the building far exceeds permitted ADU standards, a CUP was required to be sought, but wasn't, and in the absence of a CUP pennitting process, neighbors were excluded from the process, meaning their justifiable objections have been ignored and gone unaddressed.
• Construction work has continued unabated, despite two "Stop \Vork" or "Red Tags" orders, and three "Compliance Orders" being issued by the San Anselmo Building Departmenl Minimal fines or penalties have been levied.

All of this has been going on for over a year now, and the efforts of the immediate neighbors (not the Town) to negotiate a less intrusive and compliant design have been repeatedly rejected by the owner of32 Fem Lane. Neighbors were also misled by Mr. Mayer's claims ofTo\vn approval and issued Building Permits.

The Town Cannot Grant a Conditional Use Permit Because this Project Will Be Detrimental to Both the Neighbors and the Town. The proposed project substantially exceeds pe1mitted ADU limitations set forth in Town Code Article 2 in numerous manners, including its excessive height. A CUP should not be granted because establishment of the use, which as noted above is far in excess of ADU standards set in Town Code, Title I 0, Chap. 6, Article 2, will be detrin1ental to property and in1provements in the neighborhood and to the general \Veltare of the to\vn. See Town Code, Section I 0-3.130 I (a). The neighbors' properties are diminished by having, n effect, a second large home built on this small property, with the nearly 30-foot height towering above them and blocking their lines of sight and, in so1ne cases, their sunlight. See attached: I) a figure showing locations of neighbors that object to the proposed project as currently built; 2) their joinders in this Jetter; 3) Photo of illegally constructed building. In short, the proposed second house is both functionally and aesthetically incompatible with adjacent real estate. More generally, if the Town grants a CUP for a project so far outside the �tated li1nitations on an ADU, it ,viii create a negative precedent which will likely inspire other homeowners, contractors, developers, etc. to seek to build similarly outsized second horn.es, thereby dainaging the general \Veltare of the town as it becomes overwhelmed v,ith construct.ion of oversized "AD Us" (i.e., large second houses, not AD Us) on properties throughout town.

Please do not misunderstand. I am a huge advocate for the Town's ADU expansion/ conversion program.

This is superb solution for increased housing without large and unwanted construction projects that \vii! change San Ansehno forever. Mai1y San Anselmo properties may have room for conforming units to be built, and there arc also many existing "legal non-conforming" units that if not overwhelmingly expensive to convert, would be.

However, for all ofus, the To\vn needs to set an example of how not to egregiously ga1ne the syste1n and alienate a neighborhood, but to build in compliance and harmony! Sincerely,
Tommaso B. Latini
22FernLane
2 Agenda Item 2.4, Attachment 7- Public Comments
370
Agenda Item 2.4, Attachment 7- Public Comments
371
�tt.lU
I I i Ii 8 � Q
::i:.,':Cl;i<:I
�It
l 1
,
'l.
,.:
,-:;;i_\. """-
rox Rote Areo
7-000
t\1
� \ ! \ �
7-01
\ I ..
'--
!l.
@
,� �- ,,,.- -.. ,, I
I . • ,,,. � r"EffN ��, L • @,. ;J � - '· ' ••. • ' W k · LANeG$t: �oo • �e6��• ii -',; @ . • � • to,' I '. "'-". � ... :t2 .i · :�· ® ® :w® ,
� 8,.,.,. .,.-:i,, ) a,;. 3'6A
/'� ,,t' @@ N #, •• .,, !ii, �.. • ., "!;I i:� 11
. � � � ""
� •.!,j:,., _, , _ \ . . ...-,.,1 r
BLVD
'.iiJ'.
�-- IW11141 7n-•,fl" •e�
,.....,...�fkL
_,,,,..,""''""
,:
-�4
,co
@ ,.
�,� ®,. �,lC �
j .. "-ii" 1Ut1, ..
f
llleg;!lt9.nstruction 32 Fern La11e_San Anselmo CA
The following neighbors oppose the project, as currently constructed due to Its excessive height:
• Susan Nelson and Teresa He ter, 21 Fern Lane.
• Tommaso and Elsa Latin , 22 Fern Lane.
• Peter Brastow and Caro yn Gencarella, 24 Fern Lane.
• Leslie Murphy, 28 Fern Lane.
• John and Laura Edgcomb, 64 Fern Lane. (Separate letter sent to Town) • Rut and Scott K empan, 159 Alder Ave
,..__ ./,........�,,.,,
.,.,.:....· .. ,., ;-. ��,
I \@ ·,�<•
i� J 'w,·
'ij� l
l l,.d ' ,
' • !..::?..

I I! .:
"'
�
iL -•1®�1
1 a ,. (f ,. � ,. �I
•
., ltJ ' 40 flt.-' z!# ALo{if•"lYENUE
'. \.
�!
··-,,
@" ..

CE:�
@
Agenda Item 2.4, Attachment 7- Public Comments
372
Agenda Item 2.4, Attachment 7- Public Comments
373
Reference: Illegal Construction at 32 Fern Lane
I/ We the undersigned, are the Owners and live
at: :Z. Z °Fg:Jq..l LAN/:-'. San Anselmo, CA.

We are aware of the construction at the above referenced address and that it has been halted by the Town of San Anselmo, for lack of Building Permits and violation of municipal codes.

I/ We support the concept of an owner's right to build on their own property and the Town's program to encourage "Ancillary Dwelling Units" (ADU's) as a solution to the State's mandate to build more housing.

We do not however, support or condone this construction project in its current design because it:

1. Violates the immediate neighbor's views, light, privacy, and wellbeing.

2. Violates the Town's ADU Guidelines for overall height, size, and location.

3. Flagrantly ignores the Town's requests for "Substantiating Documentation".

4. Ignores the requirements for San Anselmo Creek impact studies and agency approval.

5. Relies upon intentionally inaccurate and misleading information.

I / We believe that this project should either be removed or not allowed to move forward in its current design, until all of the points above have been thoroughly reviewed and resolved.

Agenda Item 2.4, Attachment 7- Public Comments
374
Reference: Illegal Construction at 32 Fern Lane
I/ We the undersigned, are the Owners and live
at: 2--r &,n L.c:zn. a San Anselmo, CA.

We are aware of the construction at the above referenced address and that it has been ha ted by the Town of San Anselmo, for lack of Building Permits and violation of municipal codes.

We do not however, support or condone this construction project in its current design because it:

1. Violates the immediate neighbor's views, light, privacy, and wellbeing.

2. Violates the Town's ADU Guidelines for overall height, size, and location.

3. Flagrantly ignores the Town's requests for "Substantiating Documentation".

4. Ignores the requirements for San Anselmo Creek impact studies and agency approval.

5. Relies upon intentionally inaccurate and misleading information.

I I We believe that this project should either be removed or not allowed to move forward in its current design, until all of the points above have been thoroughly reviewed and resolvee-:--..

Agenda Item 2.4, Attachment 7- Public Comments
375
. .

Reference: Illegal Construction at 32 Fern Lane
I/ We the undersigned, are the Owners and live
at: L&.S !. / /;< kl Ui< P /f Y San Anselmo, CA.

We are aware of the construction at the above referenced address and that it has been halted by the Town of San Anselmo, for lack of Building Permits and violation of municipal codes.

We do not however, support or condone this construction project in its current design because it:

1. Violates the immediate neighbor's views, light, privacy, and wellbeing.

2. Violates the Town's ADU Guidelines for overall height, size, and location.

3. Flagrantly ignores the Town's requests for "Substantiating Documentation".

4. Ignores the requirements for San Anselmo Creek impact studies and agency approval.

5. Relies upon intentionally inaccurate and misleading information.

I/ We believe that this project should either be removed or not allowed to move forward in its current design, until all of the points above have been thoroughly reviewed and resolved.

Agenda Item 2.4, Attachment 7- Public Comments
376
Reference: Illegal Construction at 32 Fern Lane
I/ We the undersigned, are the Owners and live
at: R II r w-d. SkP TT /(.l-E:11, f/¼:f.,/ San Anselmo, CA.