Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2612 VIA ASTUTO; ; CBR2024-1903; Permit
Print Date: 06/09/2025 Building Permit Finaled Residential Permit CBR2024-1903Permit No: Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel #: Valuation: Occupancy Group: 2612 VIA ASTUTO, CARLSBAD, CA 92010-8339 BLDG-Residential 1673000200 $3,112.56 Work Class: Lot #: Project #: Repair Status: Applied: Issued: 07/18/2024 01/27/2025 Finaled Close Out:06/09/2025 #of Dwelling Units: Track #: Plan #: Closed - Finaled Plan Check #: Orig. Plan Check #:Bathrooms: Final Inspection:02/19/2025Bedrooms:Construction Type: Occupant Load: Code Edition: Sprinkled: INSPECTOR:Kersch, Tim STUMP: FOUNDATION STABILIZATION // INSTALL HELICAL PILES (E-REVIEW)Description: Project Title: Applicant: PROFESSIONAL FOUNDATION REPAIR AND CONSTRUCTION INC DARIN WELLS 7441 ANACONDA AVEGARDEN GROVE, CA 92841-2911 (562) 212-6546 Property Owner: CO-OWNERS STUMP TRACY R AND MARLENE J HIGNITE MARY J 9001 N 60TH ST PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253-1760 Contractor: PROFESSIONAL FOUNDATION REPAIR AND CONSTRUCTION INC 7441 ANACONDA AVE GARDEN GROVE, CA 92841-2911(714) 867-4085 AMOUNTFEE BUILDING PLAN CHECK $341.25 FOUNDATION REPAIR – RESIDENTIAL $542.00 SB1473 – GREEN BUILDING STATE STANDARDS FEE $1.00 STRONG MOTION – RESIDENTIAL (SMIP)$0.50 Total Fees:$884.75 Total Payments To Date:$884.75 Balance Due:$0.00 Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "Imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as "fees/exaction." You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project. NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitation has previously otherwise expired. 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad CA 92008-7314 ï 442-339-2719 ï 760-602-8560 f ï www.carlsbadca.gov Building Division Page 1 of 1 {"Cityof Carlsbad ( City of Carlsbad RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION B-1 Plan Check _______ _ Est . Value PC Deposit Date Job Address 2612 Via Astute Unlt:. ____ APN:. _________ _ CT /Project #:. ________________ Lot #:. ____ Year Built: ________ _ BRIEF DESCRIPTION oF woRK: Foundation stabilization with installation of helical piles 0 New SF: Living SF, ____ Deck SF,. ___ Patio SF,, ____ Garage SF __ _ Is this to create an Accessory Dwelling Unit? OY O N New Fireplace? O YON, if yes how many? __ _ D Remodel: ____ SF of affected area Is the area a conversion or change of use? 0 YO N 0 Pool/Spa: ____ SF Additional Gas or Electrical Features? __________ _ O solar: ___ KW, ___ Modules, Mounted:ORoofQGround, Tilt: 0Y0N, RMA: OY ON, Battery:OYC> N, Panel Upgrade: Ov ON Electric Meter number: ----------- Other: APPLICANT (PRIMARY CONTACT) Name: Melanie Gray Address: 7 441 Anaconda Ave City: Garden Grove state: CA Zip: 92841 Phone: 714-867-4085 Email: Permjts@pfr-jnc.com PROPERTY OWNER Name: Janice Dunnigan Address: 2612 Vja Astuto City: Carlsbad State: CA Zip: 9201 o Phone: 602-757-9634 Email: Dunnjgan411 @gmajl.com DESIGN PROF ESSIONAL CONTRACTOR OF RECORD Name:. _______________ Business Name:Professional Foundation Repair and Construction Inc. Address: Address: 7 441 Anaconda Ave City: _______ State:. ___ Zip:.____ City: Garden Grove State: CA Zip:,..,9 .... 2.8..._.4...,1 __ _ Phone: Phone: 714-867-4085 Email: Email: Permjts@pfr-jnc com Architect State License: CSLB License #: 1061139 Class:. __ ... B1.....-__ _ Carlsbad Business License# (Required):. ______ _ APPLICANT CERTIFICATION: I ce,r,fy rhor I have read rht appl,car,an and srare 1h01 lhe obooe 1n/01molion ,s caffecr and lhor rhe informorion of rhc plans is occurore. I ugtl'~ ru comply w,rh all c,ry ordinances and Srore lows rrlarmg ro budding consrwcr,on. NAME (PRINT): Melanie Gray SIGN: /,q-~~-qs_. ,S:,·=:_DATE: 7/17/2024 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad,CA 92008 Ph: 442·339·2719 Email: Buildlng@carlsbadca.cov REV. 04122 Scanned with CamScanner THIS PAGE REQUIRED AT PERMIT ISSUANCE PLAN CHECK NUMBER: ______ _ /\ UUILDING PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED TO EITHER A STATE LICENSED CONTRACTOR OR A PROPERTY OWNER. IF THE PERSON SIGNING 1 HIS FOl"lM IS AN AGENT FOR EITHER ENTITY AN AUTHORIZATION FORM OR LETTER IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE. (OPTION A): LICENSED CONTRACTOR DECLARATION: I he, ebyaf Ji, m underpenaltyof perjury that I am licensedunderprovisionsof Chapter9 (commencing with Section 7000)of Division 3 of the Business and Prof essionsCode, and my license is in full forceandef{ect. / a/soaf{irmunder penalty of perjury one of the fallowing declarations (CHOOSE ONE): 0 I hJve and w,11 maintain a certificate of consent to self,,nsure for workers' compensation provided by Section 3700 of the labor Code. for the performance of the •.•.erk which th,s permit Is ,ssued. PohcyNo -OR- ~I have and w,11 maintain worker's compensation. as required bv Sewon 3700 of the labor Code, for the performance of the work fo, which this pcrmrt is issued. My workers' compensation 111surance earner and policy number are· Insurance Company Name: .,,!N""Y'-'OP"'-'E..,O.,_ __________________ _ Policy No. __________________________ Expiration Date: -OR- O Ccrt1hcatc of ucmpt,on: I certify that in the performance of the work for wh,ch thi.s pe,m,t ,s rssued, I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to become sullicct to the workers' compensation laws of California. WARNING: hilure to secure workers compenuitlon coveraae Is unlawful and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to $100,000.00, In addition the to the cost of compensation, damaIes ;as provided for in Section 3706 of the labor Code, interest and attorney's fees. CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY, IF ANY: I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work th,s permit is issued (Sec. 3097 (1) Civil Code). lender's Name: ______________________ t.nder's Address: ____ _ CONTP-ACTOR CERT/FICA TION· The applKant certifies lhat •II d0<um,nu and pl•n1 clearly •nd •ccu,at,ly show •II tAI\lIn1 and proposed b'"ld1ng1, structures, access ro•ds, and u:,h1,e,/u11l1ty ca,ements All p,oposed mod,fic•110ns •nd/or addItIons ••• d••rlv l•b•l•d on the •ii• pl•n. Any potentially ,m1in1 detail within these plan1 lncons,sten1 w,th the 1I1e plJn •re not •pp10•1<d for con111uct1on and m•y be requ11td 10 be •lttred or rtmovtd lht Clly's approv•I of th• •ppllut,on II butd on the prtmI1.e that the sobm,ned document! and plans show 1he t0trell d1mcn-,1on<,. of, the propert'y. b1.11ld1ngs. structures •nd lh,1, ~tb,a<.~i from prop,rty lint'\ •nd from on, •noth,r, •cc,s.s ro•ds/,•sement.s. i1nd utllllies The echtlng and propo~ed lJ'..t.' vi -~{,lch bu11ifo1e ..is stated u. true andco,rect; all t-,l\ementi .1nd oth,r ,ncumbr•nces to drvelopm,nt h•ve bttn .ltcur•trly ihown ..1nd l•btled •s wtll as all on-site gr.iding/slte prep•r~hon. :.n Inwrovt mcnts. e,I\t1ng on the property were completrd ,n accordJnct with all rrgulJhons m existrncr JI thr lImt of tht,r consttuction. unless ot:herw,se note-d. NAME (PRINT): MeJarne ocax SIGNATURE: , ~-.:-z _;:::-: DATE:.....;,;1I~11;.;.;120;.;;;2;;.;4 ___ _ Note: II the person sign inc above is an authorized aIent for the contractor ovide a letter of authorization on contractor letterhead. (OPTION B): OWNER-BUILDER DECLARATION: I hereby affirm chat I am exempt from Contractor's License Law for the following reason: 0 I, as owner of the property or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work and the structure is not Intended or offered for sale (Sec. 7044, Business and Proress:ons Code: The Contractor's License uw does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who does such wor~ h,mselr or through his own employees. provided that such improvements .ire not intended or offered for sale II, however. the building or improvement Is sold w,th1n one year or comple1,on, the owner-builder will have the burden or provrng that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale). -OR- D I, as owner or the property, am exclusively contrilctIng with licensed contractors to construct the pro1ect (Sec. 7044, Business and Proressions Code: The ConlrJctor's Llcense Law docs not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon. ;ind contracts for such projects with contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License uw). -OR-01 am exempt under Business and Professrons Code Division 3. Chapter 9, Article 3 for this reason: D r OA~\ B G 1 "Owner Builder Adcnowled1ement and Verification Form" t!.. required fo, any permit issued to a properly own~, IJy "'Y, gn,,tu1L• below I acknowledge that, e,cepl for my personal residence m which I must ha,e resided lo, JI led SI one year prior to completion of the 1111provP1Mnt1 covered by 1h11 permit, I cdnnot legally sell a structure that i have bu,lt as an owner-builder ,I ,t has not been constructed in its entirety by licensed , untr J , tor•. I understand that acopyof theopplicablelaw. Section 70440/ the Business and Professions Code. is available upon request when this application is submitted or at the fallowing Website: http:l lwww.l~info.ca.gov/calaw.html. OWNER CERT/FICA T/0N· lhe apphunt cert,fie, that all d0<umtnU and pl•ns clrarly anc accuratrly show •11 taislH'll and proposed buildln". structwes, access roads, and ullhtles/ut,hly c.1wn,en1, All proposed modifications and/or add111on, art clearly labrled on tht s,t, plan. Any pottnt1•ily ,,.11rn1 deu,I within these plans ,nconslsttnl with the iite plan are not approved f~, wnwuct1011 Jnd may Ile required 10 oe ,1tered or removrd. The city', •pprovai of the ,ppllcat,on Is ba><ed on the p,.m,., that lht subm11ttd documents and plans show the correct d,mcm,on> cf, the property, bu1ldlngs, 1tructure, and their srtbacks from proprny hne, and from one another; acces, road1/ea1tmtnls, and ut1htits rhe c•i>tlng and propo,ed use of each 1Ju1ldmg J\ \fJtt;>d ,., uue and ,orrect; 1111 tta\emrnt\ ~nd olhtr entumbr.1nu!.. to devtlopment h~11e been dClurtlt~ly shown and libeled ;,1,; well a, ~II on-~Ite griidlngblte prepiltiUion. All improvement\ ex-iS1Ing on the property were completed in accordance with ill re1uli1l10n, m eiuuence at thr time of their con,11uct1on, unleu otherwise noted. NAME (PRINT): _________ SIGN: _________ DATE: _____ _ Note: fl the erson si nin above is an authorized a ent for the o rt owner Include form 8-62 sl ned b owner. 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ph: 442-339·2719 Email: Su1ldlng@carlsbadra.gov 2 REV. 04/12 Scanned with CamScanner Building Permit Inspection History Finaled PERMIT INSPECTION HISTORY for (CBR2024-1903) BLDG-Residential 07/18/2024Application Date:Permit Type:Owner:CO-OWNERS STUMP TRACY R AND MARLENE J HIGNITE MARY J Repair 01/27/2025Work Class:Issue Date:Subdivision:CARLSBAD TCT#72-21 UNIT#01 08/11/2025Expiration Date:Status: IVR Number: 57779 Closed - Finaled 2612 VIA ASTUTO CARLSBAD, CA 92010-8339 Address: Scheduled Date Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Status Primary Inspector Reinspection InspectionActual Start Date 02/06/2025 02/06/2025 BLDG-SW-Inspection 275633-2025 Passed Tim Kersch Complete COMMENTS PassedChecklist Item Are erosion control BMPs functioning properly? Yes Are perimeter control BMPs maintained? Yes Is the entrance stabilized to prevent tracking? Yes Have sediments been tracked on to the street? Yes Has trash/debris accumulated throughout the site? Yes Are portable restrooms properly positioned? Yes Do portable restrooms have secondary containment? Yes 02/07/2025 BLDG-Final Inspection 275547-2025 Cancelled Tim Kersch Reinspection Incomplete COMMENTS PassedChecklist Item BLDG-Building Deficiency No BLDG-Plumbing Final No BLDG-Mechanical Final No BLDG-Structural Final No BLDG-Electrical Final No 02/10/2025 02/10/2025 BLDG-SW-Inspection 275655-2025 Passed Tim Kersch Complete COMMENTS PassedChecklist Item Are erosion control BMPs functioning properly? Yes Are perimeter control BMPs maintained? Yes Is the entrance stabilized to prevent tracking? Yes Have sediments been tracked on to the street? Yes Has trash/debris accumulated throughout the site? Yes Are portable restrooms properly positioned? Yes Do portable restrooms have secondary containment? Yes Monday, June 9, 2025 Page 1 of 2 {cityof Carlsbad PERMIT INSPECTION HISTORY for (CBR2024-1903) BLDG-Residential 07/18/2024Application Date:Permit Type:Owner:CO-OWNERS STUMP TRACY R AND MARLENE J HIGNITE MARY J Repair 01/27/2025Work Class:Issue Date:Subdivision:CARLSBAD TCT#72-21 UNIT#01 08/11/2025Expiration Date:Status: IVR Number: 57779 Closed - Finaled 2612 VIA ASTUTO CARLSBAD, CA 92010-8339 Address: Scheduled Date Inspection Type Inspection No.Inspection Status Primary Inspector Reinspection InspectionActual Start Date 02/11/2025 02/11/2025 BLDG-11 Foundation/Ftg/Piers (Rebar) 275431-2025 Passed Tim Kersch Incomplete COMMENTS PassedChecklist Item BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes 02/19/2025 02/19/2025 BLDG-Final Inspection 276283-2025 Passed Tim Kersch Complete COMMENTS PassedChecklist Item BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes BLDG-Plumbing Final Yes BLDG-Mechanical Final Yes BLDG-Structural Final Yes BLDG-Electrical Final Yes Monday, June 9, 2025 Page 2 of 2 True North Compliance Services, Inc. 8369 Vickers Street, Suite 207, San Diego, CA 92111 T | 562.733.8030 Transmittal Letter July 31, 2024 City of Carlsbad FIRST REVIEW Community Development Department - Building Division City Permit No: CBR2024-1903 1635 Faraday Ave. True North No.: 24-018-631 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Plan Review: Residential Repair Address: 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad CA Applicant Name: Melanie Gray Applicant Email: Permits@pfr-inc.com True North Compliance Services, Inc. has completed the review of the following documents for the project referenced above on behalf of the City of Carlsbad. Our comments can be found on the attached list. 1. Drawings: Electronic copy dated July 1, 2024, by Engineering Services & design of Socal. 2. Structural Calculations: Electronic copy dated July 1, 2024, by Engineering Services & design of Socal.. 3. Geotechnical Report: Electronic copy dated July 1, 2024, by Engineering Services & design of Socal. Attn: Permit Technician, the scope of work on the plans has been reviewed for coordination with the scope of work on the permit application. See below for information if the scope of work on plans differs from the permit application: Valuation: Confirmed Scope of Work: Confirmed Floor Area: Confirmed Our comments follow on the attached list. Please call if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, True North Compliance Services Review By: Ahmad Bashar - Plan Review Engineer Quality Review By: Mohammad Afaneh - Plan Review Engineer True orth '/. COMPLIANCE SERVICES Residential Repair City of Carlsbad– FIRST REVIEW 2612 Via Astuto City Permit No.: CBR2024-1903 July 31, 2024 True North No.: 24-018-631 Page 2 Plan Review Comments ELECTRONIC - RESUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS: Please do not resubmit plans until all departments have completed their reviews. For status, please contact building@carlsbadca.gov Please make all corrections, as requested in the correction list. Corrected sets can be submitted as follows: Email the revised plans and comment response letter(s) to building@carlsbadca.gov for continued review. Note: If this project requires FIRE PREVENTION review, ensure that you follow their specific instructions for resubmittal review. The city will not route plans back to Dennis Grubb & Associates for continued Fire Prevention review. GENERAL INFORMATION: A. The following comments are referred to the 2022 California Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical Codes, California Green Building Standards Code, and Energy Code (i.e., 2021 IBC, UMC, UPC, and 2020 NEC, as amended by the State of California). B. There may be other comments generated by the Building Division and/or other City departments that will also require your attention and response. This attached list of comments, then, is only a portion of the plan review. Contact the City for other items. C. Respond in writing to each comment by marking the attached comment list or creating a response letter. Indicate which details, specification, or calculation shows the required information. Your complete and clear responses will expedite the re-check. D. Where applicable, be sure to include the architect and engineer’s stamp and signature on all sheets of the drawings and on the coversheets of specifications and calculations per CBPC 5536.1 and CBPC 6735. This item will be verified prior to plan approval. E. If you have any questions regarding the comments below, please contact Ahmad Bashar via email ahmadb@tncservices.com or telephone (562) 733-8030. OCCUPANCY & BUILDING SUMMARY: Occupancy Groups: R/3. Occupant Load: N/A Type of Construction: V-B Sprinklers: No Stories: 1 Area of Work (sq. ft.): (Provide this information). COMMENTS: A1. Building is a town house, clarify if the work conducted will affect the adjacent house. a) Show the adjacent units on the left and right of the building. Residential Repair City of Carlsbad– FIRST REVIEW 2612 Via Astuto City Permit No.: CBR2024-1903 July 31, 2024 True North No.: 24-018-631 Page 3 A2. On Sheet 1 of 3, please address the following: a) The building appears to be an R2 (multifamily residence) or R3 (townhouse) not a SFD, Please revise accordingly. b) Verify the address for the building. c) Specify the total area of work in sq.ft. d) Provide which year the building is built. e) List the Applicable Codes (2022 CRC, CPC, CMC, CEC, CGBSC, CA Energy Code, local ordinances, etc.). f) Revise floor dead load, it appears to be 15 psf instead of 150 psf. g) Under the general notes revise the following: i) Under point 8, specify the foundation system used (shallow foundation). ii) Under point 12, revise outdated code section to be 2022 California Energy Code. 1 (;1::Nl::KAL INt-UKMA I IUN IS. ::;Ht:!:: I INU1::X 2 SITE PLAN AND FOUNDATION PLAN 3 PIER SPECIFICATIONS AND BMP NOTES ~ DESIGN CRITERIA / ~ 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC) DESIGN CRITERIA INDIVIDUAL SPREAD AND CONTINUOUS FOOTINGS a. RESIDENTIAL 8. ROOF LIVE LOAD a. MINIMUM ROOF C. FLOOR DEAD LOAD D. ROOF DEAD LOAD DDn ICl"'T ... ,cnc1.•ATlr"\I.I 40 PSF 20 PSF 150 PS~ 15 PSF 5. PLAN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALES SHOWN ON DRAWINGS. DO NOT SCALE PLANS DETAILS. 6. NOTES AND DETAILS ON DRAWINGS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER GENERAL NOTES AND STANDARD DETAILS. 7. CLARIFICATION SHALL BE REQUESTED FROM THE ENGINEER FOR ALL WORK INDICATED ON THE PLANS THA1 IS NOT SPECIFICALLY DETAILED AND IS NOT SIMILAR TO WORK THAT IS DETAILED. shallow 8. THIS BUILDING IS SUPPORTED BY A {{Type_Foundalion}} FOUNDATION SYSTEM foundation 9. CONTRACTOR, ENGINEER, ANO CITY PERSONNEL ARE LIMITED TO THE SCOPE OF WORi<-PRl:mtmJ BY THE LIMITATIONS OF THE INVESTIGATION. IF FURTHER INVESTIGATION CHANGES THE SCOPE OF WORK, THE PLANS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO CITY PERSONNEL FOR RE-REVIEW. Residential Repair City of Carlsbad– FIRST REVIEW 2612 Via Astuto City Permit No.: CBR2024-1903 July 31, 2024 True North No.: 24-018-631 Page 4 h) Under special inspection, please sign. A3. On Sheet 2 of 3, please address the following: a) Site plan indicate works out side the property line, please clarify and verify. b) Please specify and clarify the limit of the interior works to be done, is the kitchen and any other interior area going to be remodeled? More comments might be generated. c) Verify the limit of the SOG demo. provide retrofit details and SOG details. also show the connection between existing and proposed. UKIU1NAL l""t:KMII t"t:t: AMUUNI WMt:N IMt: l""t:KMII MA-3 t,t:t:N cAl""IKt:U t"UKAl""t:KIUU Ut" UI"" IU UNt: \'IJ Tt:AK. WHEN A PERMIT HAS BEEN EXPIRED FOR A PERIOD IN EXCESS OF ONE (1 ), THE RENEWAL FEE SHALL BE 100% Of THE ORIGINAL PERMIT FEE. (A105.5 CBC) 12. All CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE 2022 EDITIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE, CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE. CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE. A ENERGY CODE. SPECIAL NOTES: SPECIAL INSPECTION I, PABLO NARANJO AS THE REGISTERED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL IN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE, CERTIFY THAT I HAVE PREPARED THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL INSPECTION PROGRAM AS REQUIRED BY THE CBC SECTION 1704.2 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LOCATED AT: 2612 VIA ASTUTO, CARLSBAD, CA 92010 SIGNED: -----------~ iD 1. LIST OF WORK REQUIRING SPECIAL INSPECTION: A. METAL PIERS AS SHOWN ON UNDERPINNING PLANS ~ AREA OF WORK ~ SITE SITE PLAN a / Entrance 0.8 0.5 -.5 0.4 19 33' Bathroom Kitchen [Q]I Residential Repair City of Carlsbad– FIRST REVIEW 2612 Via Astuto City Permit No.: CBR2024-1903 July 31, 2024 True North No.: 24-018-631 Page 5 d) Area of work appears to be between units and appears to be an interior foundation. Please verify and coordinate with details. e) Revise the service load to be 14.5 Kips as per the calculation sheet 13 of 38. f) Verify the existence of a foundation between the kitchen and the patio. g) Please specify flooring system and any alterations to be done and provide details. Entr; 0. o. r= Bathroo ~ 0.4 Kitche"i Verify if llaliu:lation INSTALLATION SCHEDULE INSTALLATION PRESSURE SCHEDULE CONCENTRIC PIERS MUM INSTALLATION PRESSURE ,,....< n<o STALLATION PRESSURE 3005 PSI 14.5 SERVICE LOAD "' 14455 LBF J SERVICE LOAD 14KIPS / '--l \ \ \ ' } MINIMUM DEPTH 10 FEET MINIMUM DEPTH 10 FEET FACTOR OF SAFETY FS = 2 FACTOR OF SAFETY FS= 2 ULTIMATE LOAD 29 KIPS ULTIMATE LOAD 28910 LBF PIER SPACING 7 FEET PIER SPACING 7 FT Residential Repair City of Carlsbad– FIRST REVIEW 2612 Via Astuto City Permit No.: CBR2024-1903 July 31, 2024 True North No.: 24-018-631 Page 6 h) Please sign and stamp the revised plans. MEP COMMENTS: No comment at first submittal additional comments might be generated based on EOR response. If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact Ahmad Bashar via email ahmadb@tncservices.com or telephone (562) 733-8030. [END] 0.8 0.5 0.4 1S Bathroom ' 0.5 0.4 Kitchen 1 0.5 True North Compliance Services, Inc. 8369 Vickers Street, Suite 207, San Diego, CA 92111 T | 562.733.8030 Transmittal Letter November 17, 2024 City of Carlsbad SECOND REVIEW Community Development Department - Building Division City Permit No: CBR2024-1903 1635 Faraday Ave. True North No.: 24-018-631 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Plan Review: Residential Repair Address: 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad CA Applicant Name: Melanie Gray Applicant Email: Permits@pfr-inc.com True North Compliance Services, Inc. has completed the review of the following documents for the project referenced above on behalf of the City of Carlsbad. Our comments can be found on the attached list. 1. Drawings: Electronic copy dated July 1, 2024, by Engineering Services & design of Socal. 2. Structural Calculations: Electronic copy dated July 1, 2024, by Engineering Services & design of Socal.. 3. Geotechnical Report: Electronic copy dated July 1, 2024, by Engineering Services & design of Socal. Attn: Permit Technician, the scope of work on the plans has been reviewed for coordination with the scope of work on the permit application. See below for information if the scope of work on plans differs from the permit application: Valuation: Confirmed Scope of Work: Confirmed Floor Area: Confirmed Our comments follow on the attached list. Please call if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, True North Compliance Services Review By: Ahmad Bashar - Plan Review Engineer Quality Review By: Mohammad Afaneh - Plan Review Engineer True orth '/. COMPLIANCE SERVICES Residential Repair City of Carlsbad– SECOND REVIEW 2612 Via Astuto City Permit No.: CBR2024-1903 November 17, 2024 True North No.: 24-018-631 Page 2 Plan Review Comments ELECTRONIC - RESUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS: Please do not resubmit plans until all departments have completed their reviews. For status, please contact building@carlsbadca.gov Please make all corrections, as requested in the correction list. Corrected sets can be submitted as follows: Email the revised plans and comment response letter(s) to building@carlsbadca.gov for continued review. Note: If this project requires FIRE PREVENTION review, ensure that you follow their specific instructions for resubmittal review. The city will not route plans back to Dennis Grubb & Associates for continued Fire Prevention review. GENERAL INFORMATION: A. The following comments are referred to the 2022 California Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical Codes, California Green Building Standards Code, and Energy Code (i.e., 2021 IBC, UMC, UPC, and 2020 NEC, as amended by the State of California). B. There may be other comments generated by the Building Division and/or other City departments that will also require your attention and response. This attached list of comments, then, is only a portion of the plan review. Contact the City for other items. C. Respond in writing to each comment by marking the attached comment list or creating a response letter. Indicate which details, specification, or calculation shows the required information. Your complete and clear responses will expedite the re-check. D. Where applicable, be sure to include the architect and engineer’s stamp and signature on all sheets of the drawings and on the coversheets of specifications and calculations per CBPC 5536.1 and CBPC 6735. This item will be verified prior to plan approval. E. If you have any questions regarding the comments below, please contact Ahmad Bashar via email ahmadb@tncservices.com or telephone (562) 733-8030. OCCUPANCY & BUILDING SUMMARY: Occupancy Groups: R/3. Occupant Load: N/A Type of Construction: V-B Sprinklers: No Stories: 1 Area of Work (sq. ft.): (Provide this information). COMMENTS: A1. Building is a town house? , clarify if the work conducted will affect the adjacent house. a) Show the adjacent units on the left and right of the building. Residential Repair City of Carlsbad– SECOND REVIEW 2612 Via Astuto City Permit No.: CBR2024-1903 November 17, 2024 True North No.: 24-018-631 Page 3 PC2: No response provided, plans were not updated. Comment remains. A2. On Sheet 1 of 3, please address the following: a) The building appears to be an R2 (multifamily residence) or R3 (townhouse) not a SFD, Please revise accordingly. b) Verify the address for the building. PC2: No response provided, plans were not updated. Comment remains. c) Specify the total area of work in sq.ft. PC2: No response provided, plans were not updated. Comment remains. d) Provide which year the building is built. PC2: No response provided, plans were not updated. Comment remains. e) List the Applicable Codes (2022 CRC, CPC, CMC, CEC, CGBSC, CA Energy Code, local ordinances, etc.). PC2: No response provided, plans were not updated. Comment remains. f) Revise floor dead load, it appears to be 15 psf instead of 150 psf. PC2: No response provided, plans were not updated. Comment remains. LOCATION INFORMATION COUNTY: SAN DIEGO APN: 167-300-02-00 BUILDING DATA OCCUPANCY: GROUP R, DIV. 3, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDE CE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: VB SPRINKLED: NO STORIES: 1 ~-----1 Years built GENERAL NOT 1. CODE FOR DESIGN: 2022 CBC, All APPLICABLE CITY CODES 1 Gl::Nl::KAL INt-UKMA I IUN & :SHI::!:: I INUl::.X 2 SITE PLAN AND FOUNDATION PLAN the building seems to be an R2 (multifamily residence) or A3 (townhouse) not a SFD. please verify. 3 PIER SPECIFICATIONS AND BMP NOTES ~ DESIGN CRITERIA / ~ 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC) DESIGN CRITERIA INDIVIDUAL SPREAD AND CONTINUOUS FOOTINGS Residential Repair City of Carlsbad– SECOND REVIEW 2612 Via Astuto City Permit No.: CBR2024-1903 November 17, 2024 True North No.: 24-018-631 Page 4 g) Under the general notes revise the following: i) Under point 8, specify the foundation system used (shallow foundation). ii) Under point 12, revise outdated code section to be 2022 California Energy Code. PC2: No response provided, plans were not updated. Comment remains. h) Under special inspection, please sign. PC2: No response provided, plans were not updated. Comment remains. A3. On Sheet 2 of 3, please address the following: a) Site plan indicate works out side the property line, please clarify and verify. PC2: No response provided, plans were not updated. Comment remains. b) Please specify and clarify the limit of the interior works to be done, is the kitchen and any other interior area going to be remodeled? More comments might be generated. PC2: No response provided, plans were not updated. Comment remains. c) Verify the limit of the SOG demo. provide retrofit details and SOG details. also show the connection between existing and proposed. PC2: No response provided, plans were not updated. Comment remains. a. RESIDENTIAL B. ROOF LIVE LOAD a. MINIMUM ROOF C. FLOOR DEAD LOAD D. ROOF DEAD LOAD oc,n 1crT 1t..1cnc,1.aAT1n1.1 40PSF 20 PSF 150PS~ 15 PSF 5. PLAN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALES SHOWN ON DRAWINGS. DO NOT SCALE PLANS DETAILS. 6. NOTES AND DETAILS ON DRAWINGS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER GENERAL NOTES AND STANDARD DETAILS. 7. CLARIFICATION SHALL BE REQUESTED FROM THE ENGINEER FOR ALL WORK INDICATED ON THE PLANS THA' IS NOT SPECIFICALLY DETAILED AND IS NOT SIMILAR TO WORK THAT IS DETAILED. 8. THIS BUILDING IS SUPPORTED BY A ([Type_Foundation}) FOUNDATION SYSTEM 9. CONTRACTOR, ENGINEER, AND CITY PERSONNEL ARE LIMITED TO THE SCOPE OF WO BY THE LIMITATIONS OF THE INVESTIGATION. IF FURTHER INVESTIGATION CHANGES THE SCOPE OF WORK, THE PLANS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO CITY PERSONNEL FOR RE-REVIEW. Ul"'tll.::IINI-\L l""Cl"tMI I r-cc .... MUUl'I I YYMCl'I Inc t'Cl"'tMI I Ml-\.> DCCN CAl""ll"'tCU r-ul"'t .... l""Cl"UUU ur-Ut' I u UNC I,, 't:J-\1"'(, WHEN A PERMIT HAS BEEN EXPIRED FOR A PERIOD IN EXCESS OF ONE (1), THE RENEWAL FEE SHALL BE 100% 01 THE ORIGINAL PERMIT FEE. (A 105.5 CBC) 12. All CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE 2022 EDITIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA -~-f'"l,F:i't"- CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE, CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE. CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, A ENERGY CODE. SPECIAL NOTES: ~ AREA OF WORK ~ SITE SITE PLAN a Residential Repair City of Carlsbad– SECOND REVIEW 2612 Via Astuto City Permit No.: CBR2024-1903 November 17, 2024 True North No.: 24-018-631 Page 5 d) Area of work appears to be between units and appears to be an interior foundation. Please verify and coordinate with details. PC2: No response provided, plans were not updated. Comment remains. e) Revise the service load to be 14.5 Kips as per the calculation sheet 13 of 38. PC2: No response provided, plans were not updated. Comment remains. Enlrance 0.8 0.5 0.4 19 33' Bathroom Entr; 0. o. r= Bathroo ~ 0.4 Kitche"i Verify if llaliu:lation INSTALLATION SCHEDULE INSTALLATION PRESSURE SCHEDULE CONCENTRIC PIERS MUM INSTALLATION PRESSURE _ ~/'W'I~ 0<1 STALLATION PRESSURE 3005 PSI 14.5 SERVICE LOAD 14KIPS ✓ SERVICE LOAD " 14455 LBF ') '--l ' ' ' ' 7 MINIMUM DEPTH -1 0 FEET- MINIMUM DEPTH 10 FEET FACTOR OF SAFETY FS; 2 FACTOR OF SAFETY FS; 2 ULTIMATE LOAD 29 KIPS ULTIMATE LOAD 28910 LBF PIER SPACING 7 FEET PIER SPACING 7 FT Residential Repair City of Carlsbad– SECOND REVIEW 2612 Via Astuto City Permit No.: CBR2024-1903 November 17, 2024 True North No.: 24-018-631 Page 6 f) Verify the existence of a foundation between the kitchen and the patio. PC2: No response provided, plans were not updated. Comment remains. g) Please specify flooring system and any alterations to be done and provide details. PC2: No response provided, plans were not updated. Comment remains. h) Please sign and stamp the revised plans. PC2: No response provided, plans were not updated. Comment remains. MEP COMMENTS: No comment at first submittal additional comments might be generated based on EOR response. If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact Mohammad Afaneh via email mohammada@tncservices.com or telephone (562) 733-8030. [END] 0.8 0.5 0.4 1S Bathroom ' 0.4 Kitchen 1 True North Compliance Services, Inc. 8369 Vickers Street, Suite 207, San Diego, CA 92111 T | 562.733.8030 Transmittal Letter November 21, 2024 City of Carlsbad THIRD REVIEW Community Development Department - Building Division City Permit No: CBR2024-1903 1635 Faraday Ave. True North No.: 24-018-631 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Plan Review: Residential Repair Address: 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad CA Applicant Name: Melanie Gray Applicant Email: Permits@pfr-inc.com True North Compliance Services, Inc. has completed the review of the following documents for the project referenced above on behalf of the City of Carlsbad. Our comments can be found on the attached list. 1. Drawings: Electronic copy dated NOT DATED, by Engineering Services & design of Socal. Attn: Permit Technician, the scope of work on the plans has been reviewed for coordination with the scope of work on the permit application. See below for information if the scope of work on plans differs from the permit application: Valuation: Confirmed Scope of Work: Confirmed Floor Area: Confirmed Our comments follow on the attached list. Please call if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, True North Compliance Services Review By: Hiba Abu Omar - Plan Review Engineer Quality Review By: Mohammad Afaneh - Plan Review Engineer True orth '/. COMPLIANCE SERVICES Residential Repair City of Carlsbad– THIRD REVIEW 2612 Via Astuto City Permit No.: CBR2024-1903 November 21, 2024 True North No.: 24-018-631 Page 2 Plan Review Comments ELECTRONIC - RESUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS: Please do not resubmit plans until all departments have completed their reviews. For status, please contact building@carlsbadca.gov Please make all corrections, as requested in the correction list. Corrected sets can be submitted as follows: Email the revised plans and comment response letter(s) to building@carlsbadca.gov for continued review. Note: If this project requires FIRE PREVENTION review, ensure that you follow their specific instructions for resubmittal review. The city will not route plans back to Dennis Grubb & Associates for continued Fire Prevention review. GENERAL INFORMATION: A. The following comments are referred to the 2022 California Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical Codes, California Green Building Standards Code, and Energy Code (i.e., 2021 IBC, UMC, UPC, and 2020 NEC, as amended by the State of California). B. There may be other comments generated by the Building Division and/or other City departments that will also require your attention and response. This attached list of comments, then, is only a portion of the plan review. Contact the City for other items. C. Respond in writing to each comment by marking the attached comment list or creating a response letter. Indicate which details, specification, or calculation shows the required information. Your complete and clear responses will expedite the re-check. D. Where applicable, be sure to include the architect and engineer’s stamp and signature on all sheets of the drawings and on the coversheets of specifications and calculations per CBPC 5536.1 and CBPC 6735. This item will be verified prior to plan approval. E. If you have any questions regarding the comments below, please contact Hiba Abu Omar via email hibaa@tncservices.com or telephone (562) 733-8030. OCCUPANCY & BUILDING SUMMARY: Occupancy Groups: R/3. Occupant Load: N/A Type of Construction: V-B Sprinklers: No Stories: 1 Area of Work (sq. ft.): 54 sq ft. COMMENTS: A3. On Sheet 2 of 3, please address the following: c) Verify the limit of the SOG demo. provide retrofit details and SOG details. also show the connection between existing and proposed. Residential Repair City of Carlsbad– THIRD REVIEW 2612 Via Astuto City Permit No.: CBR2024-1903 November 21, 2024 True North No.: 24-018-631 Page 3 PC2: No response provided; plans were not updated. Comment remains. PC3: Based on the response, only a 3’by3’ opening is proposed, after the work is completed new SOG will be installed in openings. Provide details for the SOG repair. d) Area of work appears to be between units and appears to be an interior foundation. Please verify and coordinate with details. PC2: No response provided; plans were not updated. Comment remains. PC3: Response Acknowledge. Revise the provided detail to show interior foundation option instead of exterior. MEP COMMENTS: No comments. If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact Mohammad Afaneh via email mohammada@tncservices.com or telephone (562) 733-8030. [END] n. Dowe s )R [1mar1oroordbon.not•lleriof l \ \EJ STUD WAI.L 33' MINIML Patio 18' I STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS REPORT for Foundation Underpinning 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 Prepared For: John Marshall Professional Foundation Repair 7441 Anaconda Avenue, Garden Grove, CA 92841 Prepared By: Engineering Services & Design of SoCal Inc. 19827 Reedview Drive Rowland Heights, California 91748 Pablo C. Naranjo Project Engineer PE C69499 7/1/2024 24-080-GP1 THESE PLANS/DOCUMENTS HAVE BEENREVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THEAPPLICABLE CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDSCODES AS ADOPTED BY THE STATE OFCALIFORNIA AND AMENDED BY THEJURISDICTION. PLAN REVIEW ACCEPTANCE OFDOCUMENTS DOES NOT AUTHORIZECONSTRUCTION TO PROCEED IN VIOLATION OFANY FEDERAL, STATE, NOR LOCAL REGULATION. BY: _________________ DATE: ________________ True North Compliance Services, Inc. THIS SET OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONSMUST BE KEPT ON THE JOB SITE AT ALL TIMESAND IT IS UNLAWFUL TO MAKE ANY CHANGESOR ALTERATIONS WITHOUT PERMISSION FROMTHE CITY. OCCUPANCY OF STRUCTURE(S) ISNOT PERMITTED UNTIL FINAL APPROVAL ISGRANTED BY ALL APPLICABLE DEPARTMENTS. Hiba Abu Omar 1/20/2025 GEOTECHNICAL • STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION • ARCHITECTURE ~hln ENG I NEER I NG SERVICES&: DESIGN 19827 Reedview Dr. Rowland Heights, CA 917 48 I (714) 716-2189 I www.edsocal.com ~L!llu Structural Report July 1, 2024 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 24-080-GP1 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 SCOPE OF SERVICES 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 Site Location 1 Site Description 1 PROPOSED UNDERPINNING 1 SUMMARY 2 LIMITATIONS 2 CODES AND REFERENCES 3 FIGURES 1 Floor Level Survey Plan APPENDICES A Design Criteria B Design Calculations C Pier Data Sheet GEOTECHNICAL • STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION • ARCHITECTURE ~hln ENGINEERING SERVICES & DESIGN 19827 Reedview Dr. Rowland Heights, CA 917 48 I (714) 716-2189 I www.edsocal.com ULYUf Structural Report July 1, 2024 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 24-080-GP1 1. INTRODUCTION As requested, and in accordance with our agreement with Professional Foundation Repair, John Marshall (“Contractor”), Engineering Services & Design of SoCal Inc. (“EDSOCAL INC.”) has completed a structural calculation for the proposed foundation underpinning (Project) at 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010. Recommendations provided herein are in accordance with the 2022 California Building Code (CBC). 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of this structural report is to provide information to the “Contractor”, for its consideration and evaluation of the proposed Foundation Concentric Pier support system’s ability to adequately resist applied code prescribed loads. The recommendations provided in this report are based on our understanding of existing site conditions, information data provided by “Contractor”, and structural analysis. The following items are provided per our scope agreement: ● Structural analysis of site conditions in relation to observed distress and formulation of remedial foundation design recommendations. ● Preparation of this report. ● Preparation of Structural Foundation Repair Plans 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Site Location The subject site is located on the northern side of Via Astuto and crossing with Via Diego. the residence is located between 2-story units on the northern and southern sides. 3.2 Site Description The structure is two-stories, Single-Family Residence, which experienced differential settlement up to approximately – 0.8 inches mainly on the southern of the residence. The Single-Family Residence appears to be generally supported by shallow conventional footings with a slab on grade. There is a concrete slabe on the southern side of the residence.. 4. PROPOSED UNDERPINNING A proposed foundation remediation plan has been proposed by Professional Foundation Repair utilizing 6 Foundation Concentric Pier with 2-7/8 inch diameter and 0.196 inch wall thickness. The Foundation Concentric Piers will be underpinned by existing structure to lift to acceptable tolerance. The following structural calculations show the capacity of the Steel Foundation Piers to prevent further settlement presented in Appendix B. These calculations determine the worst-case loading condition based on the self-weight of existing foundations; roof, floor, wall framing, and tributary live loads. Page 1 of 36 GEOTECHNICAL • STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION • ARCHITECTURE ~hln ENGINEERING SERVICES fst DESIGN 19827 Reedview Dr. Rowland Heights, CA 917 48 I (714) 716-2189 I www.edsocal.com ~LYur Structural Report July 1, 2024 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 24-080-GP1 5. SUMMARY Per the calculations shown in the appendix, it is expected that the proposed Foundation Concentric Piers will reach a service carrying capacity of 14.5 kips. Due to potential soil conditions variability, the pier tip shall be installed to a minimum depth of 10 feet below grade to ensure the piers provide acceptable lateral bracing, 1810A.2.1. Additionally, all piers shall be installed at a minimum depth where the differential hydraulic pressure of 3005 psi has been reached while using a standard hydraulic ram (9.62 square inches (in2) cross-sectional area, thus ensuring a competent load-bearing stratum has been reached. 6. LIMITATIONS This Report has been prepared for Professional Foundation Repair based on information provided and data collected by “Contractor”. The sole purpose of this Report is to provide information to Professional Foundation Repair for its consideration and evaluation of the proposed Steel Foundation Pier support system’s ability to resist applied code-prescribed loads adequately. Engineering Services & Design of SoCal Inc. shall not be liable for any incorrect advice, judgment, or decision based on inaccurate information, in part or in whole, furnished by “Contractor,” and “Contractor” agrees to indemnify Engineering Services & Design of SoCal Inc. from claims, demands, or liability arising out of, or contributed to, by such information. The recommendations presented herein were prepared using methodologies and the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by professionals according to the standards in the community of their practice. No other warranties, either expressed or implied, are made or intended by this Report or other oral or written reports, findings, or conclusions provided by EDSOCAL INC. Engineering Services & Design of SoCal Inc. shall not be responsible for consequential, incidental, special, punitive or other damages (including without limitation loss of profit, sales, and time,), whether or not Engineering Services & Design of SoCal Inc. has been being advised of the possibility of such loss. This Report has not been prepared for use by other parties and should not be relied upon by other parties for any purpose or use to the extent allowed by law. “Contractor” agrees that Engineering Services & Design of SoCal Inc.’s liability to the Residence Owner or any Third Party, arising from or related to the services provided by “Contractor”, shall not exceed the amount paid to Engineering Services & Design of SoCal Inc. for this Report. Expansive soils swell or shrink when the moisture content of the soil changes. A soil’s moisture content can change through cyclic wet/dry weather cycles, variations in the groundwater level, installation of irrigation systems, change in landscape plantings, and changes in site grading. Leaking utilities can also drastically change soil moisture content. The Site should be designed and maintained to promote positive drainage away from the building footprints, and landscaping should consist of mainly drought-tolerant native planting that requires limited irrigation. The underpinning does not address the potential damage due to expansive soils if any. A geotechnical investigation is recommended in order to assess the soil’s expansive potential at the residence and to verify the subsurface properties related to potential further settlement. Page 2 of 36 GEOTECHNICAL • STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION • ARCHITECTURE ~hln ENGINEERING SERVICES fst DESIGN 19827 Reedview Dr. Rowland Heights, CA 917 48 I (714) 716-2189 I www.edsocal.com ~LYur Structural Report July 1, 2024 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 24-080-GP1 The owner and contractor are advised that settlement may occur in areas adjacent to or around the Steel Foundation Pier(s) to be installed and that the “Contractor” and EDSOCAL INC. are not responsible for such settlement should it occur. The number and locations of proposed piers were finally agreed and chosen by Professional Foundation Repair and the Owner, to minimize further settlement in the areas chosen. As such, the areas that are not underpinned could present further settlement. The primary purpose of this analysis and report is to evaluate the proposed Piers to resist applied loads adequately and EDSOCAL INC does not warrant further settlement. 7. CODES AND REFERENCES American Society of Civil Engineers (2017), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-16. American Institute of Steel Construction Manual, 15th Edition (AISC) (2017). Building Code Requirement for Structural Concrete, (ACI 318) (2019). California Building Code (CBC 2022). Design of Reinforced Concrete, 9th Edition, (2013). Page 3 of 36 GEOTECHNICAL • STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION • ARCHITECTURE ~hln ENGINEERING SERVICES fst DESIGN 19827 Reedview Dr. Rowland Heights, CA 917 48 I (714) 716-2189 I www.edsocal.com ~LYur Structural Report July 1, 2024 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 24-080-GP1 FIGURE Page 4 of 36 GEOTECHNICAL • STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION • ARCHITECTURE ~hln ENGINEERING SERVICES fst DESIGN 19827 Reedview Dr. Rowland Heights, CA 917 48 I (714) 716-2189 I www.edsocal.com ~LYur Structural Report July 1, 2024 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 24-080-GP1 Page 5 of 36 36' ,F----16' ---,/' Entrance 0.8 0.5 0.4 33' Bathroom 0.4 Kitchen 0.5 Patio fence LEGE ND ~ LOWEST ELEVATION (INCHES) ~ BASE ELEVATION (INCHES) C-1 © PROPOSED WELLS CONCENTRIC PIER LOCATION 1 CONCRETE CRACK GEOTECHNICAL • STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION • ARCHITECTURE 19.5' 13' 18' 19827 Reedview Dr. Rowland Heights, CA 917 48 I (714) 716-2189 I www.edsocal.com ~hln ENGINEERING SERVICES fst DESIGN ~LYur Structural Report July 1, 2024 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 24-080-GP1 APPENDIX A Design Criteria Page 6 of 36 GEOTECHNICAL • STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION • ARCHITECTURE ~hln ENGINEERING SERVICES fst DESIGN 19827 Reedview Dr. Rowland Heights, CA 917 48 I (714) 716-2189 I www.edsocal.com ~LYur Structural Report 07/01/2024 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 24080GP1 DESIGN CRITERIA Codes and References 2022 California Building Code (CBC 2022) 2017 ASCE Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 716) 2017 American InsƟtute of Steel ConstrucƟon Manual, 15th EdiƟon (AISC) 2019 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318) Page 7 of 36 Gravity: Design Loa ds Dead Roof Walls Concrete Live Roof First Floor Second Floor GEOUCHNICAL • STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION • ARCHITECTURE 19827 ReecMew Or. Rowlartd HeighlS, CA91748 I (714) 716-2189 I www.edsoca1.com 15 12 150 20 40 40 psf psf pcf psf psf psf rilhln NG INE RING SU.\ ICES -II! DUll'.:'1 7'.YYf Structural Report July 1, 2024 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 24-080-GP1 APPENDIX B Design Calculations Page 8 of 36 GEOTECHNICAL • STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION • ARCHITECTURE ~hln ENGINEERING SERVICES fst DESIGN 19827 Reedview Dr. Rowland Heights, CA 917 48 I (714) 716-2189 I www.edsocal.com ~LYur Structural Report 07/01/2024 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 24080GP1 CALCULATIONS Maximum VerƟcal Load =PT 14455 lbf Factor of Safety ≔FOS 2 UlƟmate Load ≔Pult =⋅PT FOS 28910 lbf Total Dead Load ≔DL =Totaldead 1065 ――lbf ft Total Live Load ≔LL =Totallive 1000 ――lbf ft Page 9 of 36 -0 ro Q,I 0 Q,I -~ _J Worst Case Vertical Design Loads l\/laximum Pile TributaryWidth = 7 ft Foundation St ructure Load Tributary Widths Linear Loading W orking Loads Roof 15 psf 10 ft 150 plf 1050 lbs Walls 12 psf 10 ft 120 plf 840 lbs 2nd Floor Wa 11 12 psf 10 ft 120 plf 840 lbs ConcFloor 150pcf fiin 12in 75 plf 525 lbs Footing 150 pcf 24 in 24 in 6(X) plf 4200, lbs Total Dead = 1065 plf 7455 lbs Roof 20 psf 10 ft 200,plf 14-(X) lbs 1st Floor 40 psf 10 ft 4(X), plf 28(X) lbs 2nd Floor 40 psf 10 ft 4(X), plf 28C:X) lbs Total Live = l(X:X:) plf 7C:XX) lbs CONTROUNG ASD Load Combination D+L Dead Load 7455 I bs Floor Live Load Roof Live Load M aximum Vertical Load to W orst Case Pier 5600, lbs 14-(X), lbs 14455 lbs ASD Load Com bin ati on D+O. 75L +0. 75Lr Dead Load 7455 I bs Floor Live Load 4200, lbs Roof Live Load 1050 I bs -------- TOTAL 12705 lbs GEOUCHNICAL • STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION • ARCHITECTURE 19827 ReecMew Or. Rowlartd HeighlS, CA91748 I (714) 716-2189 I www.edsoca1.com rilhln NGINE RING SU.\ ICES -II! DUll'.:'1 7'.YYf Structural Report 07/01/2024 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 24080GP1 Steel ProperƟes Pier Tensile Stress ≔Fu 58 ksi Pier Min Yield Stress ≔Fy 42 ksi Young Modulus ≔E 29000 ksi =Do 3 in Reinforcing Sleeve Diameter =Do 2.875 in Tube Length ≔Ls =36 in 3 ft Wall Thickness =Pt 0.196 in Design Results: Allowable Bracket Capacity =PAll 30000 lbf Max Axial Load/ Pile Design Load ≔PMAX =PT 14455 lbf Allowable Bracket Capacity > Max Axial Load = , OK=PAll 30000 lbf =PMAX 14455 lbf ∴ Page 10 of 36 PIER ANALYSIS Design Inputs: Model: Concentric Sacrifici al Design Life = 50 years Expected Corros ion Loss Pier Outer Diameter Pier Outer Diameter Pier Wall Thickness Reinf .. Sleeve Diam e1 Ate = 0 in Do= 2.875 in D;= 2.483 in pt = 0.196 in D = s 0.000 in PIERHAS GALVANIZED PROTECTION PUSH PIER CAPACITY Model: Product Designation: Co ncentric Bracket Allowable Bracket Capacity (PALL) = 30000 lbf (PER-2021-6024, Table 1, Appendix C) Ultimate Bracket Capacity (PULT) = 100000 lbf (PER-2021-6024, Table 2, Appendix C) GEOUCHNICAL • STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION • ARCHITECTURE 19827 ReecMew Or. Rowlartd HeighlS, CA91748 I (714) 716-2189 I www.edsoca1.com rilhln NGINE RING SU.\ ICES -II! DUll'.:'1 7'.YYf Structural Report 07/01/2024 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 24080GP1 Page 11 of 36 PRES-SU RE INSTALLATION ANAl VSIS Design Inputs: Hydraulic Cylender Area A:vi = 9.62 Ultimate Load ( P ult)= 28910 I bf Minimum Pressure Calculation I Pmin=Acyl/Pult-= T = 3005 psi IINSTAlLATION PRESSURESCHEOUlE MINIMUM INSTALLATION PRESSURE 3005 PSI SERVICE LOAD 14455 LBF Ml N IMUM DEPTH 10 FEET FACTOR OF SAFETY FS= 2 ULTI MATE LOAD 28910 LBF PIER SPACIN G 7 FT GEOUCHNICAL • STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION • ARCHITECTURE 19827 ReecMew Or. Rowlartd HeighlS. CA91748 I (714) 716-2189 I www.edsoca1.com rilhln NG INE RING SU.\ ICES -II! DUll'.:'1 7'.YYf Structural Report 07/01/2024 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 24080GP1 PIER CAPACITY (BUCKLING) ≔K 2.1 (FixedFree Restraint, AISC CC2.2) Unbraced Length ≔L 4 ft (2019 IBC 1810.2.1)≔r 0.939 in =⋅4.71 ‾‾‾ ―E Fy 123.76 =――⋅KL r 107.35 (AISC E3.a) Calculate ElasƟc Buckling ≔Fe =―――⋅π2 E ⎛ ⎜⎝ ――⋅KL r ⎞ ⎟⎠ 2 25 ksi =Do 2.88 in Since ≤――⋅KL r ⋅4.71 ‾‾‾―E Fy Then:≔Fcr =⋅ ⎛ ⎜⎝0.658 ――Fy Fe ⎞ ⎟⎠Fy 20.7 ksi Area of Steel Pier ≔Ashaft =-⋅π ⎛ ⎜⎝ ―Do 2 ⎞ ⎟⎠ 2 ⋅π ⎛ ⎜⎝ ―Di 2 ⎞ ⎟⎠ 2 1.65 in2 ≔Ashaft 1.262 in2 Safety Factor Compression ≔Ωc 1.67 Nominal Compressive Strength ≔Pn =⋅Fcr Ashaft 26117.41 lbf Allowable Compressive Strength ≔Pa =―Pn Ωc 15639 lbf Max Axial Load =PMAX 14455 lbf >Pa PMAX Allowable Capacity is Greater Than Max Axial Load OK=Pa 15639 lbf =PMAX 14455 lbf ∴ RESULTS Max Load To Pier =PMAX 14455 lbf Diameter Pipe Pier with Wall Thickness of =Do 2.875 in =Pt 0.196 in Reinforcing Sleeve Diameter , Length Tube Reinforcing insert of , =Ds 0 in =Ls 36 in with Wall Thickness of =Pt 0.196 in Minimum 10 feet InstallaƟon Depth Page 12 of 36 GEOUCHNICAL • STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION • ARCHITECTURE 19827 ReecMew Or. Rowlartd HeighlS, CA91748 I (714) 716-2189 I www.edsoca1.com rilhln NG INE RING SU.\ ICES -II! DUll'.:'1 7'.YYf D Structural Report 07/01/2024 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 24080GP1 CONCRETE FOOTING GRADE BEAM CALCULATION Material ProperƟes Concrete Strength ≔f'c =2.5 ksi 176 ――kgf cm2 =f'c 17 MPa Density ≔ψ 145 ――lbf ft3 Limit Wt Factor ≔λ 1 Span =Span 7 ft Concrete ElasƟc Modulus ≔Ec =17450 MPa 2531 ksi Table B.1 Design of Reinforced Concrete, 9th EdiƟon Concrete ProperƟes Phi Values = ≔ϕflex 0.90 ≔ϕshear 0.75 Beta Factor =≔β1 0.85 Main Rebar =≔fy 60 ksi Young Modulus Main Rebar = ≔Es 29000 ksi Main Bar Size # =≔#4 Number of Main Bars =≔nbars 2 SƟrrups Rebar =≔fys 60 ksi Young Modulus SƟrrups Rebar =≔Ess 29000 ksi SƟrrup Bar Size # =≔#s 3 Number of ResisƟng Legs Per SƟrrup =≔Lno 2 Cross SecƟon & Reinforcing Details Rectangular SecƟon ≔width 12 in ≔b =width 12 in ≔height 12 in ≔h =height 12 in Concrete coverage =≔cov 3 in Distance to Rebar =≔d =-hcov9 in Span Reinforcement: 2#4 at 3 in from boƩom, from 0.0 to in this span.=Span 7 ft Page 13 of 36 GEOUCHNICAL • STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION • ARCHITECTURE 19827 ReecMew Or. Rowlartd HeighlS, CA91748 I (714) 716-2189 I www.edsoca1.com rilhln NG INE RING SU.\ ICES -II! DUll'.:'1 7'.YYf b Structural Report 07/01/2024 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 24080GP1 Applied Loads Beam self weight calculated and added to loads Total Dead Load =DL 1065 ――lbf ftFrom Table Above: Total Live Load =LL 1000 ――lbf ft Uniform Load for Span :≔w =+DL LL 2065 ――lbf ft Location of maximum on span:≔Lmax =――Span 2 3.5 ft Beam Calculations / Existing Footing Reactions at supports =≔R =―――⋅wSpan 2 7228 lbf Maximum Moment Applied (ULTIMATE) =≔Mmax =――――⋅wSpan2 8 12648 ⋅lbf ft Maximum Moment = Ultimate Moment =≔Mu =Mmax 12648 ⋅lbf ft Calculation Nominal Moment (Allowable) Cross sectional area on main bar ==#4 ≔Ab 0.2 in2 Total cross sectional area of steel of bars ==nbars 2≔As =⋅nbars Ab 0.4 in2 Equivalent depth of the compression zone =≔a =――――⋅As fy ⋅⋅0.85 f'c b 0.94 in Nominal Moment (ALLOWABLE) = ≔ϕMn =⋅⋅As fy ⎛ ⎜⎝ -d ―a 2 ⎞ ⎟⎠ 17059 ⋅ft lbf RESULTS Nominal Mom. Allowable >Max Moment(UlƟmate) , =ϕMn 17059 ⋅ft lbf =Mu 12648 ⋅ft lbf ∴ OK Page 14 of 36 D GEOUCHNICAL • STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION • ARCHITECTURE 19827 ReecMew Or. Rowlartd HeighlS, CA91748 I (714) 716-2189 I www.edsoca1.com rilhln NG INE RING SU.\ ICES -II! DUll'.:'1 7'.YYf Structural Report 07/01/2024 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 24080GP1 CHECK SHEAR CAPACITY Reactions at supports =≔R =―――⋅wSpan 2 7228 lbf Maximum Applied Shear =≔Vmax =R 7228 lbf =f'c 2500 ――lbf in2 =b 12 in =h 12 in Concrete Shear Resistance Force lbf≔Vc =⋅⋅⋅2 ⎛⎝f'c⎞⎠0.5 bd 10800 Concrete Beam Shear Resistance lbf > Max. Applied Shear =Vc 10800 =Vmax 7228 lbf Therefore Proposed is OK=Span 7 ft Page 15 of 36 D GEOUCHNICAL • STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION • ARCHITECTURE 19827 ReecMew Or. Rowlartd HeighlS, CA91748 I (714) 716-2189 I www.edsoca1.com rilhln NG INE RING SU.\ ICES -II! DUll'.:'1 7'.YYf Structural Report July 1, 2024 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 24-080-GP1 APPENDIX C Steel Foundation Pier Data Sheet Page 16 of 36 GEOTECHNICAL • STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION • ARCHITECTURE ~hln ENGINEERING SERVICES fst DESIGN 19827 Reedview Dr. Rowland Heights, CA 917 48 I (714) 716-2189 I www.edsocal.com ~LYur Page 17 of 36 ftogressive <Engineering !lnc. PROFESSIONAL FOUNDATION REPAIR Bracket Capacity Test on a WELLS CONCENTRIC PIER 1/2912021 This test report contains twenty (20) pages, including t e cover sheet. Any additions to, alterations of, or unauthorized use of excerpts form this report are expressly forbidden. 2021-6024 Page 18 of 36 1. TITl:.E 13racket Capacity Test on a WELLS CONCENTRIC PIER 2. O.BJECTIVE To apply an axial compressive proof load to the WELLS CONCENTRIC PIER of 30,000 lbf, with 50% thread engagement to determine the bracket capacity. Secondly, to determine the maximum load the bracket can withstand witt, thread engagements of 50%, 75%, and 100%. The capacity of the push pier system is not under evaluation, only the bracket itself. This test report pertains onty to the specimens tested. It romains the sole responsibility of the manufacturer to provide· a product consistent to that which was tested. 3. TESTED FOR Professional Foundation Repair 12812 Valley View St. Unit 31 Garden Grove., CA 92845 4. 'TESTING ORGANIZATION 7:>rogressive (Engineering :Jnc. 58640 State Road 15 Goshen, IN 46528 www .p-e-i.com See /AS Evaluation Report TL-178 for /SO 17025 Accreditation. 5. TES'l"ING PE~SONNEL Test Engineer Director of Testing Project Manager Technician Technictan 6. REFERENCE ST ANt>ARDS -Evor F. Johns, P.E. -Jason R Holdeman -Jacob Bohtrager -Chris Stutzman -Emman!,lel Chijiok~ ASTM E8 -Standard Test Metnods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials, ASTM E72 -15 -Standard Test Methods of Conducting ·Strength Tests of Panels for Building Construction: Section 9 Compressive Load. 'ICC-ES AC 358 ACCEPTANCE CRITERtA FOR HELICAL PILE SYSTEMS AND DEVICES, APPROVED JUNE 2012 -FIGURE 6 -Type A bracket example laboratory test set-up. 7. TEST EQUIPMENT Universal Test Machine (PEI No. 144) Hydraulic Cylinder (PEI No. 668) Pre~sure Transdl:fcer (PEI Ng. 633) String. Pot (PEI No. 1079) Data Acquisition System (PEI No. 566) 2of2Q PEI Report No. 2021-6024 Page 19 of 36 8. TEST SPECIMEN The WELLS CONCENTRIC PIER manufactured by Professional Foundation Repair consisted of a 1 0" x 1 0" x ½" thick top plate and a 1 0" x 1 0" x 7 /8" thick bearing plate separated by three (3) 13" long 1.5" schedule 40 side pipe columns. The bearing plate had a 3-3/4" diameter hole. The cap plate was comprised of a 5-1/2" x 5-1/2" x ¼" thick plate fully welded to a 4-1/4" long section of 3" Schedule 80 threaded pipe. The cap plate and threaded pipe were installed in the hole in the bearing plate, with the threaded pipe extending below the bearing plate. A 3-1/2" nut was threaded onto the threaded pipe. A 12" section of 2-1/2" standard schedule 40 pipe shaft was inserted inside the threaded pipe, and came into contact with the inside of the cap plate. A section of 2" standard schedule 40 was installed inside the 2-1/2" pipe. Samples were provided to PEI by the client and tested as-received. See attached drawings and photographs for details. The Client provided specimen drawings to PEI. The drawings were verified to the test specimens by PEI personnel. 9. TEST SET-UP A. Proof Load The test sample was installed in a universal test machine, configured for compression. For ease of setup, the test sample was inverted. The top plate was fully supported by the rigid steel platen of the universal test machine. A single 12" section of push pier was installed, which included two (2) 6" sections of 2" pipe, and a single 12" section of 2-1/2" pipe. One end of the push pier was installed in the cap plate, the other end was captured in a rigid steel fixture which was secured to the universal test machine. The test sample was oriented vertically. The platen movement was used to measure deflection. B. Failure Load Due to the capacity of the universal test machine, a different test fixture was required to test the samples to failure. The WELLS CONCENTRIC PIER was installed in a rigid steel fixture, and secured in a similar manner as the Proof Load Test Setup. The top plate was fully supported, and the end of the push pier was captured in a rigid steel fixture which was attached to the rod of a hydraulic cylinder. The hydraulic cylinder was secured to the rigid steel fixture, such that the load path was horizontal, and was centered on the end of the WELLS CONCENTRIC PIER. A string potentiometer was used to measure the movement of the hydraulic cylinder rod. Note: See the appendix for details on how the thread engagement was determined. See attached fixture drawings for details. 10. TEST PROCEDURE A. Proof Load The data acquisition system was set to record load and displacement continuously throughout the test. The universal test machine was used to apply load to the push pier so that the target load of 30,000 lbf was reached within 2 to 3 minutes. Any observations of the test sample were recorded. B. Failure Load The data acquisition system was set to record load and displacement continuously throughout the test. The hydraulic cylinder was used to apply load to the push pier so that the maximum load was reached within 4 to 8 minutes. The maximum load and failure mode was recorded along with photographs of the failed specimen. 3 of 20 PEI Report No. 2021-6024 Page 20 of 36 11. TEST RESULTS See the· attached data sheets for test results and details. 12. CONCLUSION The WELLS CONCENTRIC PIER achieved a proof load of 30,000 lbf on three (3) test samples with 50% thread engagement. A single test sample with 50% thread engagement resulted in a maximum iload of 103,'800 lbf. A single test sample with 75% thread engagement resulted in a maximum load of 104,000 lbf. A single test sample with 100% thread engagement resulted in a maximum, load ef 1.04,700 lbf. 4 of2Q PEI Report No. 2021~6024 Page 21 of 36 ' ' '.Progressive <Engineering ::Inc. Bracket Capacity Proof Load Test Date: 1/28/2021 Client: Professional Foundation Repair Specimen: WELLS CONCENTRIC PIER Temp.: 68°F Humidity: 46% R.H. Load Rate: 550 lbf/sec Unsupported Length: <12" Load In Sample Number/ Cylinder Extension 1 pounds force Proof Load (50% Proof Load (50% Proof Load (50% Engagement)-1 Engagement)-2 Engagement)-3 0 .000" .000" .000" 5,000 .oso· .oso• .oso· 7,500 .059" .066" .059" 10,000 .068" .078" .069" 12,500 .077" .088" .078" 15,000 .085" .097" .oar 17,500 .092" .107" .098" 20.000 .100· .114" .106" 22,500 .107" .122" .1 15" 25,000 .114• .130• .125• 27,500 .122" .138" .136" 30,000 .131" .146" .146 .. . -. J-;t -. -----I -~-----. II ' Maximum Load: 30,300 lbf 30,400 lbf 30,300 lbf Average Yield Point: Average Maximum Load: NIA 30,333 lbf Comments/ Failure Mode: No failure occurred. Proof load was applied for at least 30 seconds, and then the load was released. Typical Test Setup Typical Test Sample During Loading 1 The deflection readings were zeroed such that 5,000 lbf loaci occurred at 0.050" deflection 2Yield Point was not able to be determined. 5of20 PEI Report No. 2021-6024 Page 22 of 36 "D 'Progressive <Engineering !Inc. Professional Foundation Repair Proof Load Test WELLS CONCENTRIC PIER with 50% Thread Engagement Load versus Deflection -Proof Load-1 -Proof Load-2 -Proof Load-3 ! 15,000 ---------------------------------------< ..J 0 -1-aii~==~.iiiiiiiiiii~;;;::;:,➔---~-=-----+----+-----' 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 Deflection (Inches) Note: Each plot was offset for clarity. 6 of20 PEI Report No. 2021-6024 Page 23 of 36 '.Progressive <Engineering !Inc. Bracket Capacity Load Test Date: 1/29/2021 Client: Professional Foundation Repair Specimen: WELLS CONCENTRIC PIER Temp.: 68°F Humidity: 46% R.H. Load Rate: 450 lbf/sec Unsupported Length: <12" Load In Sample Number/ Cylinder Extension 1 pounds force Fallure Load (50% Fallure Load (75% Fallure Load (100% Engagement)-1 Engagement)-2 Engagement)-3 0 .000" .000" .000" 10,000 .094• .095" .082" 20,000 .150" .150" .150" 30,000 .186" .194" .202· 40,000 .207" .244" .250" 50,000 .2or .35r .339" ' 60,000 .296" .434" .450" 70,000 .34r .47r .soo• 80,000 .425" .527" .551" 90,000 .sor .590" .622· 100,000 .613" .667" .712" -,.._ ..... -, . ' ' -1•-. , . I l -' , . ~ -,-)• -' _, .. -~___,. .. __ ---, --. -------~- Maximum Load: 103 800 lbf 104000 lbf 104 700 lbf Average Yleld Point: Average Maximum Load: N/A 104,167 lbf Comments/ Failure Mode: Load continiued to be applied until a failure occurred. The Cap Plate to Threaded Pipe welded connection failed through the weld. Cap Plate deformation was noted. rypical Test Setup Failure -Cap Plate to Threaded Pipe Weld 1 The deflection readings were zeroed such that 20,000 lbf load occurred at 0.150" deflection 2Yield Point was not able to be determined. 7 of20 PEI Report No. 2021-6024 Page 24 of 36 'Progressive <Engineering !Inc. Professional Foundation Repair Failure Load Test WELLS CONCENTRIC PIER with Differing Thread Engagements Load versus Deflection -Failure LoatJ (50% Engagement)-1 --Failure Load (75% Engagement)-2 --Fallure Load (100% Engagement)-3 I a;:-60,000 -------+-------+---___,,__ __ _____,f----+---#-----+--------.,f----+-------+------+--____, .a :;. "Cl ! 0 .ii,,ai;;;;;:;;::....,._ ... ;;;;;:;;;:;.,.. __ .... __ ...., __ ..,.. __ ..., __ ..., __ ....1, __ --,1, __ .....,t 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0. 700 0.800 0'.900 1.000 Deflection (Inches) Note: Each plot was offset for clarity. On the Failure Load (50% Engagement)-1 sample, the deflection gauge was affected during loading. The dotted line shows the affected region. 8 of20 PEI Report No. 2021-6024 Pa g e 2 5 o f 3 6 co a ~ "'O m I 0 ~ z !) I\) 0 I\) ....... 0) 0 ~ A .25 12,00 Three (3) 1-1/2" I.D. !Pipes (1.900" O.D) x I0.198" thick wall. -5 --10.00- Top Plate 10" X 10" X 1/2" thick Cap Plate A ~ .,_-3 ... 48=7=-" r=h-re.1...-a....Ld ___ O..L. D__J,. '€ 5-1/2" X 5-1/2" X 0.248" thick with 1/4" fillet weld. 5.50 I 13:38 12.00 0 3.so 1 3.439" 1 .875 0 Exterior Pipe Shaft: 2-7/8" O.D. 0.196" thick wall l nterior Pipe Shaft: 2-3/8" 0.D. 0.146" thick wall T 10.00 /2 ---:-'\. Bearing Plate L---,10" X 9-15/16" / ,,0) x o.872'' thick <D 0H6~~ .... I _3_.7_40_" ____ 1 ~ 10.00 2.2s -i--s.so--.---1- I 10.00 SECTION A-A SCALE I :6 Uitll!O~ll!CffO! 2 ITEM PARTNAME DESCRIPTION lmY. NO. I Top Plate lO''Xl0''X0.s' 2 Side Pipe. Column 1.5 SCH40 ·Pi~. Length " I 3 3 Bearing Pl.ate 1 0'X I O"X0.87 5'' 4 leap Pldte 5.5"X5.5"X0.2S' 5 Threaded 3 SCHOO Pipe, 4.25'' Long Pipe dnd Threoded. 7" 6 !Pipe Shaft 2 1 l2SCH40 Pipe, 12'' Lengfn 7 ~tJt 3.5' Dia Nut. 3.S' Thick and 8 Threads/Inch 5.50 NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES -oil£ ASSEMBlY LS'' ST5 TR!~~ PIPF 1 10 • 00::c 1.90''"0UTSIDE DIAM. I I 1 1.20" 11.: • I TYP PIPE J • ~ ··TOPlATE ..... 1 -~·-1~11 1 5~· -·= ~-""IIMCI-l.fG- JDl 12.l.202ll SfANDARD VERSION Jill 1u= WfUS CONCENTRIC PIER JQl 112.m -IY" I '2= I ,_,a,,,,,,,,.,.,<'! 1•12....,ye..11Q1. Dimensions in red verified by PEI personnel. & I 1.20,_,___.__ SECTION, 8-B SCALE I :6 Average 5/16" fillet weld 1..--OA l'Q.WIO!Glft l<XlMl,(9fl;; ·""""' MHOJ&, ifiiii' -001Q5CM.1W\IING' JOL 12.2.ilm Gc:rtfln~CJinsu: Q~,q ~ BZE IDWG. NO. 3 REV 2 IEIGHT: SHEEl1 OF 1 Page 26 of 36 ftogressive <Engineering :Jnc. Typical Proof Load Test Setup Typical Test Sample At Proof Load 10 of 20 PEI Report No. 2021-6024 Page 27 of 36 ftogressive <Engineering :Jnc. Typical Failure Load Test Setup Failure Load (50% Engagement)-1 Failure Picture 11 of 20 PEI Report No. 2021-6024 Page 28 of 36 JJrogressive <Engineering :Jnc. Failure Load (50% Engagement)-1 Failure Picture Failure Load (50% Engagement)-1 Close Up Failure Picture 12 of 20 PEI Report No. 2021-6024 Page 29 of 36 ftogressive <Engineering !lnc. Failure Load (75% Engagement)-2 Failure Picture Failure Load (100% Engagement)-3 Failure Picture 13 of 20 PEI Report No. 2021-6024 Page 30 of 36 7)-ogressive <Engineering :lnc. APPENDIX PROFESSIONAL FOUNDATION REPAIR 2021~6024 14 of20 PEI Report No. 2021-6024 Page 31 of 36 ftogressive <'Engineering :Jnc. Thread Engagement Details -Fully threaded Depth Measurement of 0.264" between the bottom of nut and pipe, when fully threaded 15 of 20 PEI Report No. 2021-6024 Page 32 of 36 ftogressive <Engineering :Jnc. Thickness of Nut 3.400" / 2 = 1.700 plus 0.264" = 1.964 target distance for half thread engagement Assembly with 1.964" gap (Half thread engagement) 16 of 20 PEI Report No. 2021-6024 Page 33 of 36 . . . .... 1011 X 1011 X 0.5" _ __,, TOP PLATE 3 TOTAL 1 1/2 STD SCH80 PIPES -- () .900' O.D.) SIDE PIPE COLUMNS 5.5' X 5.5° x 0.25" -~ CAP PLATE 3 SCH80 THREADED PIPE _ __,, (3.500" O.D,) 3.75" 0 HOLE -- 10" X 10" X 0.875" -- BEARING PLATE NUT-- 3.S' THK X 5.375" WIDE Drawing not verified ~=-1 ti II 11 11 11 II 11 II 11 II .__ CONCRETE FOOTING II H ~-"¥. I I I I J I I ~ l I J I J I I I I I l I I I J I I l l I I I ) ) I I t I I I i.~-----~.:..J , ' ~----.,, DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TOLERANCES: W.WN FRACTIONAL ± A,NGUlA~ MACtj ± BENO ± CHECKED TWO PlACE DECIMAL ± !HG-"lt TH~Ef PlACE DECIMAL ! Mf{i~. QA W,lEIII/J. ~NOllll com,EIIIS, flill!ll NONE" 00 NOT SCAl,E DRAl'(N; PUSH PIER EXTENSION OF SHAFT ABOVE SOIL NAME Jill n n 111'/ n TYPICAL SHAFT BELOW SOil (INTERNAL 2 STD SCH40 PIPE IS NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY) Dl,!E BRACKET & SHAFT DETAILS 12-.2-2020 STANDARD VERSION 12·2-2020 WELLS CONCENTRIC PIER 12-2-2020 Manutoci..e~ 12-2-2020 PROFElSIONAl [OIJNOA 110N REP AIR 12-2-'°70 12812 Volley ViewSl#31. Gaden Gove. CA 92845 IIX>,926JXJ58 r,fofl f~ corn Sil£ A OWG. NC. 1.1 le,.t,t£,-Nll WIIGlf1I lltlfllOf l l!EV. 2 Page 34 of 36 3/16 CAP PLATE 3 SCHBO THREADED PIPE (3.500" Q,.D.) 2 1/2 STD SCH40 ~---.::~_ PIPE (2.88" O.D.) 2STDSCH40 PIPE (2,38" O.D.)--?---I • 12' LONG PARTIAL ELEVATION (NEAR TOP) FULL HEIGHT' ELEVATION NOTE: NOT ALL SEGMENTS ARE SHOWN HERE Drawing not verified ,DIMENSIQIIS AAE IN INCHES fOLEAANCES: FRACTIONAi. r NlG0I.AR; MAC~ i BEND,! TWO PlACE DECIMAl f· lHREE PIACE DEOMAl ± IMIEIOAL ASNOJW ~ Db NOT $0/.E DRAWViG 12" LONG PIECES STACKS (NO WELDS) INTO SOIL 20'..Q" UNDERGROUND 611 LONG INITIAL INSIDE PJPE STARTER RING @BASE OF INITIAL OUTSIDE PIPE l<MIE ORA~ JI)(. CIIECWl .Ill ,NGAPPR, Jill ~""R-'.RI QA Ill COMMoH1l: 12·2-21110 12-2'21120 $j!E DWG,NO, A BRAC~ET & SHAFT DETAILS STANDARD VERSION ELLS CONCENTRIC I R Moo<IOCMer. PIK)ffSSIOIW FOUt«>AllON Rl'fAIR 12812ValeyVlewSI #31. GanonGt-oYe, CA 92a.5 800,!Utl)58 1.2 Page 35 of 36 I j I OTT 3/16 AC 3116 V 3/16 ~ENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TOlfRANCES: ltACTIQNAI. ± /INGUlAA; M.4.CH ± BEND ± 1WO PLACE DECIMAL ± THREE PIACE DECIMAL .t /MlEIW.. ~NOTED flN!III Drawing not verified NQtlE DO NOT SO.I! ORA~G DRAWN ClfC!ED &IG~R. MFGAP9l- QA. "'---W'X Ja'X 0.s'TOPPtATE --SIDE PIPE COLUMNS ~~ 5.5' X 5,5" X 0.25" CAP PLATE ---3 SCH80 THREADED PIPE (3.50011 0.D.) ----2 1 /2 STD SCH40 PIPE (2.88" O.D.) 12" LONG SEGMENTS NAME Jtl la. JD. ow Jtl .EXTENDS UP TO CAP PLATE (INTERNAL 2.STD SCH40 PIPE IS NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY) 1)/,lf BRACKET &SHAFT DETAILS 12-:1,lll'lO STANDARD VERSION 12-2,llX!O WELLS CONCENTRIC PIER 12·2-11120 MOflAociller. na.llX!IJ PROF£SSK>NAI. FOUNOA1!0N RfPAIR 12,2·2020 12812 Vale'/V.rewSI #-31, Go:den Grcwa, t:.., 92845 C0,\\Mllffi: 800.926.0J58 ilf t ' :com A llWG. NO. 1.3 if¥. 2 Page 36 of 36 T'fP PIPE TO PLATE 3/16 Drawing not verified l!==::;;:::==:;;:::==:;;::::==:=~---10'' X 10" X 0.5" C 10.00"-------'-'S-:7 BRACKET DETAIL 5Sx5Sx0.W' CAP PLATE ~ 3/16 CAP DETAIL IXM&ISIONS AAE I~ INCHES NAME TOLERANCES; lll!AY/N JJl FRACTIONAL t. 01ECI® JJl ANGULAR: IMCH ± BEND ± TWO PlACE DECIMAl :!: EJIGAPPR, JJl THREE PlACE OEOMAl ± M/GMl'W. rYN MA!BIA\ QA .Ill ·lliNOl!D ~ Ffr<llll HOME DO NOi $C/llE DRAWING TOP PLATE -SIDE PIPE COLUMNS 1 (J' X 10" X 0.875" / BEARING PLATE 3.7'5"¢ HOLE CENTERED -----3 SCH80 THREADED PIPE (3.50011 O.D.) CATE BRACKEI" & SHAFT DETAILS 12-2-lOlO STANDARD VERSION 12·2-IIO'lO ELLS CONCENTRIC PIER 12-2-lOlO MOoo!ocflnir: 12·2·20'l0 Pt!OFESSIONIII. FOIJI-IJATION RS'Ai 12-2-lOlO 1281ZVole)'Vlew St #31. Gaden QoYe. o.-92845 OOl.92~ Wo@ of ' fcui>dclooMl • .com • A O)!G, NO. 1.4 lllfl REV. 2 LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT for Foundation Underpinning Single-Family Residence 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 Prepared For: Professional Foundation Repair John Marshall 7441 Anaconda Avenue, Garden Grove, CA 92841 Prepared By: Engineering Services & Design of SoCal Inc. 19827 Reedview Drive Rowland Heights, California 91748 Pablo C. Naranjo Project Engineer PE, GE 2961 7/1/2024 24-080-GP1 GEOTECHNICAL • STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION • ARCHITECTURE ~hln ENG I NEER I NG SERVICES&: DESIGN 19827 Reedview Dr. Rowland Heights, CA 917 48 I (714) 716-2189 I www.edsocal.com ~L!llu Limited Geotechnical Report July 1, 2024 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 Job No: 24-080-GP1 Contents 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES 1 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 3.1 Site Location 1 4. FIELD EXPLORATION 2 4.1 Drilling Auger and Sampling 2 4.2 Field Vane Shear Testing 2 5. LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND TEST RESULTS 3 6. SUBSURFACE AND SURFACE CONDITIONS 3 6.1 Subsurface Conditions 3 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 7.1 Conclusions 4 7.2 Recommendations 4 7.3 Foundation Design – Concentric Piers / Push Piers 5 7.4 Foundation Design – Helical Piers 5 7.5 Drainage and Irrigation 6 7.6 Corrosion Considerations 6 8. LIMITATIONS 7 FIGURE 1 Site Vicinity Map 2 Boring Location Plan 3 Survey Elevation Map 4 Cross-Section Location 5 Cross-Section A-A’ APPENDICES A Boring Log B Vane Shear Test Log C Laboratory Test Results GEOTECHNICAL • STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION • ARCHITECTURE ~hln ENGINEERING SERVICES & DESIGN 19827 Reedview Dr. Rowland Heights, CA 917 48 I (714) 716-2189 I www.edsocal.com ULYUf Limited Geotechnical Report July 1, 2024 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 Job No: 24-080-GP1 1. INTRODUCTION As requested, and in accordance with our agreement with John Marshall, Professional Foundation Repair (“Client”), Engineering Services & Design of SoCal Inc. (EDSOCAL INC.) has completed a Limited Geotechnical Report for the foundation remedial (“Project”) at the existing site. The recommendations provided herein are in accordance with the 2022 California Building Code (CBC). This geotechnical investigation aimed to evaluate subsurface soil conditions related to the distress at the existing residence and provide recommendations for remedial foundation design and construction. The recommendations provided in this Report are based on our understanding of existing site conditions, limited soil sampling, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analysis. 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES ● Reconnaissance of the property. ● Excavation, logging, and sampling of two geotechnical borings to a maximum depth of 16 feet. ● Laboratory testing of soil samples to determine Moisture Content and Density (ASTM D2216 & ASTM D2937), Soluble Sulfate (CTM 417), Direct Shear Test (ASTM D3080) and Expansive Index (ASTM 4829). ● Geotechnical analysis of site conditions concerning observed distress and formulation of foundation design recommendations. ● Preparation of this report. This Report summarizes our understanding of the site's geotechnical aspects, including existing site conditions; summarizes our subsurface investigation and findings; and provides our geotechnical recommendations for the remedial foundation. 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Site Location The site is located on the northern side of Via Astuto and crosses with Via Diego. The residence is located between 2-story units on the northern and southern sides. The property extends for approximately 10 feet from the back wall, and then a downhill slope with an approximate gradient of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) extends to the end of the property, with a maximum slope height of 30 feet. All elevations and depths referenced will be in feet, and the project-specific vertical datum will be in feet. The Site location is shown on the Site Vicinity Map, Figure 1. 3.2 Site Description The structure is a single-family residence that experienced differential settlement up to approximately – 0.8 inches, mainly on the southern side of residence as shown in Figure 3. Page 1 of 26 GEOTECHNICAL • STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION • ARCHITECTURE ~hln ENGINEERING SERVICES fst DESIGN 19827 Reedview Dr. Rowland Heights, CA 917 48 I (714) 716-2189 I www.edsocal.com ~LYur Limited Geotechnical Report July 1, 2024 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 Job No: 24-080-GP1 The structure appears to be generally supported by shallow conventional footings and slab-on-grade. No foundation plans were available for the subject property, and the existing foundation's type and condition were not reviewed as a part of this investigation. 3.3 Distress The floor sloping of the lower-level floor is visible to the naked eye and is most pronounced on the southern side of the residence of the house, where the concrete slab presents a crack. A floor-level survey prepared by Professional Foundation Repair indicates vertical offsets of up to – 0.8 inches on the side of the residence, as shown in Figure 3, Survey Elevations. There are no indications of slope creep and lateral fill extension on the subject property. 4. FIELD EXPLORATION 4.1 Drilling Auger and Sampling EDSOCAL INC. performed two (2) boring to approximate depths of 11 and 16 feet using Hydraulic Portable Auger (Little Beaver), a tripod and hand-auger equipment. The borings were drilled on the on front yard and side within the near foundations of the existing footings. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) with 2-inch O.D., and “Relative Undisturbed” samples with 3-inch O.D. were taken at approximately 5-foot intervals. Borings were logged and sampled using Modified California Ring (Ring) and Standard Penetration Test (SPT) samplers at selected depth intervals. SPT was performed in the borings in general accordance with the American Standard Testing Method (ASTM) D1586 Standard Test Method. The sampler was driven into the ground with successive blows of a donut 140-pound weight falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the last 12 inches of the 18-inch Ring and SPT samplers is shown on the boring logs in the “blows/foot” column (Appendix A). Representative bulk soil samples were also obtained from our borings. Copies of the boring logs B-1 and B-2 are included in Appendix A. The boring was advanced to the approximate location shown in Boring Location Plan, Figure 2. DigAlert Underground Service Alert was contacted to mark out known utilities within the public right-of- way. The borings were drilled on 6/6/2024 under the full-time engineering observation of a field engineer from our office. Upon completion, the borings were backfilled with mechanically tamped soil cuttings. 4.2 Field Vane Shear Testing A Field Vane Shear Test (VS) was performed to obtain in-situ strength parameters of subsurface soils. The field vane test enables the direct measurement of the undrained shear resistance of cohesive soils. A Humboldt H-4227 instrument was used to perform the testing and depths as presented in Appendix B and on the boring logs. The test consists of forcing a vane with four orthogonal blades into the soil and then rotating it until soil failure, measuring the maximum torque value required to generate this. Afterward, the residual shear strength of the soil after significant deformation can be measured by continuing to rotate the vane several turns until the soil is completely mixed. Tests were carried out at the bottom of a borehole with stable walls. The vane must penetrate at least five times the hole diameter into undisturbed soil (ASTM D 2573). The test was carried out as follows: Page 2 of 26 GEOTECHNICAL • STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION • ARCHITECTURE ~hln ENGINEERING SERVICES fst DESIGN 19827 Reedview Dr. Rowland Heights, CA 917 48 I (714) 716-2189 I www.edsocal.com ~LYur Limited Geotechnical Report July 1, 2024 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 Job No: 24-080-GP1 ● drive the rod with the vane to the specified test depth; ● Lowering of the vane connected to the corresponding rods and driving the blade under pressure into the undisturbed soil at the bottom of the hole. ● rotate the vane from the surface at the specified speed using the dedicated torque wrench; ● measure the maximum torque required to obtain soil failure and continue regularly rotating the vane for at least 3 complete turns, measuring and recording the residual torque. The shear interpretation is recorded on the boring logs and is shown in Appendix B, Vane Shear Test Log. 5. LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND TEST RESULTS Soil samples obtained from the borings were visually examined in the field, and classifications were confirmed by re-examination in our office. A geotechnical laboratory test program was performed on select soil samples and included the following tests: Moisture Content and Density (ASTM D2216 & ASTM D2937), Soluble Sulfate (CTM 417), Direct Shear Test (ASTM D3080) and Expansive Index (ASTM 4829) The laboratory testing was performed by AP Engineering & Testing Inc. The laboratory test results are included in Appendix C. In-situ moisture content and dry density data are included on the geotechnical- boring logs (Appendix A). 6. SUBSURFACE AND SURFACE CONDITIONS 6.1 Subsurface Conditions Details regarding the subsurface materials encountered are presented in the boring logs included in Appendix A. The site subsurface conditions generally consist of near-surface soils characterized as fill stratum underlain by Native Soils. Our interpretation of the subsurface conditions observed in the borings is summarized below. Fill: Fill soils were observed in both borings B-1 and B-2. The fill stratum extends to depths up to 1 foot. These soils generally consist of sandy clay (CL), which is light brown, moist, and soft. Native Material: Underlain the fill soils, Sandy Clay (CL), light brown, overlain by Clayey Sand dense to very dense, was observed to the explored depths of 16 feet. Groundwater: Groundwater was not encountered within the maximum 16 feet depth explored in the deepest boring drilled for this study. Corrosion Consideration: The soluble sulfate content per the laboratory test results is 43 ppm. Based on the sulfate contents of 43 ppm, and based on the American Concrete Institute (ACI), the soils have low corrosivity to concrete and concrete mix with 2,500 psi is recommended. Additionally, the soils' sulfate content of 43 ppm indicates that they are moderately corrosive to metals, and corrosive protections, such as galvanization protection, should be provided. Page 3 of 26 GEOTECHNICAL • STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION • ARCHITECTURE ~hln ENGINEERING SERVICES fst DESIGN 19827 Reedview Dr. Rowland Heights, CA 917 48 I (714) 716-2189 I www.edsocal.com ~LYur Limited Geotechnical Report July 1, 2024 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 Job No: 24-080-GP1 Expansive Soil Consideration: The Expansive Index (EI) per the laboratory test results is EI = “43”. Therefore, the subsurface soils present medium expansive potential for the structure, therefore special recommendations are included on the report as follows on the report. . 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 Conclusions We believe the settlement experienced in the property was caused by poorly compacted fill that densified over time, including over-saturated soils in the past. Settlement might also be caused by new loads, soil wetting, and aging. Wetting could occur from wet periods and poor surficial drainage. Earthquakes could cause further densification and consequent settlement even if other environmental factors are mitigated. Additionally, expansive surficial soils were encountered that might have created movement over time between dry and wet seasons, bad drainage, and overly moist landscape plants. An increased load on the soil due to bearing wall footings increases the effective stress and either reduces the swelling stresses or, if the load is high enough, causes consolidation and eventually settling on the footings. The settlement, due to the expansiveness of the soils, is a long-term and slow process over dry and wet seasons. The proposed underpinning will lift and/or stabilize the existing foundation system to acceptable tolerance and minimize further settlement. Because the piers will be ended in hard soil, the foundation will not likely settle on the footings where the piers are installed. The Expansive Index (EI) is EI = “43”, and the subsurface soils present the medium expansive potential for the structure. Therefore, special recommendations are included in the report as follows on the report. 7.2 Recommendations In order to minimize future settlement of the residence due to deleterious and loose properties of subsurface soils, the footings should be underpinned with push piers or helical piers. Underpinning should extend existing foundations to a competent soil that is not prone to settlement. The competent soil is located at approximately 10 feet, and the piers should be ended at a minimum of 10 feet or deeper. The number, locations, depth, and diameters of piles needed to underpin the existing structures should be designed by the structural engineer Engineering Services & Design of SoCal Inc. The condition and adequacy of the onsite drainage should be reviewed. At a minimum, roof drains should be directed away from the structure and channeled offsite in a controlled, non-erosive manner. The site should be maintained to promote positive drainage away from the building footprints, and landscaping should consist of mainly drought-tolerant native planting that requires limited irrigation. Additionally, proper drainage should be maintained, as described in the following section, which will lower the potential expansiveness and contraction. Page 4 of 26 GEOTECHNICAL • STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION • ARCHITECTURE ~hln ENGINEERING SERVICES fst DESIGN 19827 Reedview Dr. Rowland Heights, CA 917 48 I (714) 716-2189 I www.edsocal.com ~LYur Limited Geotechnical Report July 1, 2024 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 Job No: 24-080-GP1 7.3 Foundation Design – Concentric Piers / Push Piers Concentric Piers / Push Piers may be used to underpin the residence. Push piers consist of hydraulically driven steel-tube sections (push pier) with steel foundation brackets that may be used for underpinning the residence. The residence structural loads will be transferred to competent hard native soil. Pipe piles are to be independently hydraulically driven to refusal into very dense soil with a force of two (2) times the ultimate service load of the pile, at a minimum of 10 feet. A geotechnical engineer should observe all hydraulically driven piles to verify embedment conditions. The design of the underpinning, spacing, and structural ties to the existing structural elements is the responsibility of the Structural Engineer. The support locations and the need for grade beams to supplement existing footings should be determined by the structural engineer based on the building loads and structural capacity of residence elements. An allowable vertical resistance of 15 to 20 kips for the underlying very dense sand at depths greater than 10 feet may be used in the design. An allowable lateral bearing of 400 psf and a coefficient of friction of 0.35 may also be used in the design. Additionally, Polyurethane (foam) injection might be used to fill the voids created when the structure is lifted and also to fill the voids that might exist under the concrete slab. 7.4 Foundation Design – Helical Piers As an optional to push piers, helical pier foundation elements should be designed by a qualified structural engineer to penetrate the upper fill materials and provide support in competent, very dense soil at a minimum of approximately 10 feet, as verified by the geotechnical consultants. Helical piles are to be independently installed into very dense soil with a force of two (2) times the ultimate service load of the pile. Helical piers should be designed in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. The ultimate helix load capacity may be derived from the following equation. Qh = Ah*q*Nq Where: Qh = ultimate individual helix capacity (tension or compression) Ah = individual helix cross-sectional area from manufacturer specification q = effective overburden pressure = yz y = unit weight of soil in the overburden zone = 110 pcf z = minimum embedment depth below lowest adjacent grade (feet) Nq = bearing capacity factor = 19.5* * based upon an assumed internal friction angle of 30-degrees for very dense material. Helical piers should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. Piers should be positioned vertically at the start of installation and should be installed in a smooth, continuous manner with sufficient down pressure to advance the pier. The rate of pier rotation shall be in the range of 5 to Page 5 of 26 GEOTECHNICAL • STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION • ARCHITECTURE ~hln ENGINEERING SERVICES fst DESIGN 19827 Reedview Dr. Rowland Heights, CA 917 48 I (714) 716-2189 I www.edsocal.com ~LYur Limited Geotechnical Report July 1, 2024 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 Job No: 24-080-GP1 20 rotations per minute unless otherwise specified. Installation torque should be monitored throughout the installation process. The pier installation should be terminated only when the minimum installation torque and the embedment/depth requirements have both been satisfied. If the maximum torque rating of the pier is reached prior to satisfying the minimum embedment requirement, then the pier shall either be completely removed and replaced or abandoned with an additional pier relocated by the structural engineer that is installed to the proper depth. In such a case, suitable embedment may necessitate pre- drilling. The Contractor shall provide appropriate instrumentation (torque gauge) and all pier installations shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant. An allowable vertical resistance of 15 to 20 kips for the underlying very dense sand at depths greater than 10 feet may be used in the design. An allowable lateral bearing of 400 psf and a coefficient of friction of 0.35 may also be used in the design. 7.5 Drainage and Irrigation The performance of the proposed underpinning foundation and improvements are dependent upon maintaining adequate surface drainage after piers were installed. The impact of heavy irrigation can artificially create perched water conditions. This may result in seepage or shallow groundwater conditions where previously none existed. Attention to surface drainage and controlled irrigation will significantly reduce the potential for future problems related to water infiltration. Irrigation should be well-controlled and minimized. Seasonal adjustments should be made to prevent excessive watering. Seasonal adjustments should be made to prevent excessive watering. Sources of uncontrolled water, such as leaky water pipes or drains, should be repaired if identified. The owner should be aware of the potential problems that could develop when drainage is altered through the construction of retaining walls, paved walkways, utility installations or other various improvements. Ponded water, incorrect drainage, leaky irrigation systems, overwatering or other conditions that could lead to unwanted groundwater infiltration must be avoided. 7.6 Corrosion Considerations Chemical analyses performed on selected samples obtained from the borings for this study show soluble sulfate content of 43 ppm. Based on the sulfate contents, the onsite soil at this site is considered low corrosive to concrete (ACI). A copy of the corrosion results is provided in Appendix C. Page 6 of 26 GEOTECHNICAL • STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION • ARCHITECTURE ~hln ENGINEERING SERVICES fst DESIGN 19827 Reedview Dr. Rowland Heights, CA 917 48 I (714) 716-2189 I www.edsocal.com ~LYur Limited Geotechnical Report July 1, 2024 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 Job No: 24-080-GP1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONCRETE EXPOSED TO SULFATE CONTAINING SOILS Sulfate Exposure Severity Clas s Water- soluble sulfate (SO4) in soil (% by weight) Sulfate (SO4) in water (ppm) Max Water to Cement Ratio by Weight Minimum Compressiv e Strength (psi) Cement Type Calcium Chloride Admixture Negligible S0 0.00 - 0.10 0-150 --- 2,500 --- No Restriction Moderate S1 0.10 - 0.20 150-1,500 0.50 4,000 II/V No Restriction Severe S2 0.20 - 2.00 1,500- 10,000 0.45 4,500 V Not Permitted Very Severe S3 Over 2.00 Over 10,000 0.45 4,500 V Plus Pozzolan Not Permitted 8. LIMITATIONS This Report has been prepared as a limited geotechnical study and data collected by Professional Foundation Repair. The sole purpose of this Report is to provide information to Professional Foundation Repair and or EDSOCAL INC for its consideration and evaluation of the proposed Helical/or Push Pier support system’s ability to resist applied code prescribed loads adequately. EDSOCAL INC. shall not be liable for any incorrect advice, judgment, or decision based on inaccurate information, in part or in whole, furnished by Professional Foundation Repair. Professional Foundation Repair agrees to indemnify EDSOCAL INC. from claims, demands, or liability arising out of, or contributed to, by such information. The recommendations presented herein were prepared using methodologies and the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by professionals according to the standards in the community of their practice. No other warranties, either expressed or implied, are made or intended by this Report or other oral or written reports, findings, or conclusions provided by EDSOCAL INC. EDSOCAL INC. shall not be responsible for consequential, incidental, special, punitive, or other damages (including without limitation loss of profit, sales, and time,), whether or not EDSOCAL INC. has been advised of the possibility of such loss. This Report has not been prepared for use by other parties and should not be relied upon by other parties for any purpose or use. To the extent allowed by law, Professional Foundation Repair agrees that EDSOCAL INC’s liability to Professional Foundation Repair. or any Third Party, arising from or related to the services provided by EDSOCAL INC., shall not exceed the amount paid to EDSOCAL INC. for this Report. The client is advised that settlement may occur in areas adjacent that were not underpinned/treated and that EDSOCAL INC. is not responsible for such settlement should it occur. Once the foundation is Page 7 of 26 GEOTECHNICAL • STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION • ARCHITECTURE ~hln ENGINEERING SERVICES fst DESIGN 19827 Reedview Dr. Rowland Heights, CA 917 48 I (714) 716-2189 I www.edsocal.com ~LYur Limited Geotechnical Report July 1, 2024 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 Job No: 24-080-GP1 improved, it is not anticipated future distress, however, because of high expansive soils, future movement heave and distress can still occur in the future. Page 8 of 26 GEOTECHNICAL • STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION • ARCHITECTURE ~hln ENGINEERING SERVICES fst DESIGN 19827 Reedview Dr. Rowland Heights, CA 917 48 I (714) 716-2189 I www.edsocal.com ~LYur Limited Geotechnical Report July 1, 2024 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 Job No: 24-080-GP1 FIGURES Page 9 of 26 GEOTECHNICAL • STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION • ARCHITECTURE ~hln ENGINEERING SERVICES fst DESIGN 19827 Reedview Dr. Rowland Heights, CA 917 48 I (714) 716-2189 I www.edsocal.com ~LYur APPROXIMATE LOCATION SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH. Project Number: Scale: Date: Figure No: SITE VICINITY MAP LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Not to Scale 1 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 24-080-GP1 7/1/2024 ENGINEERING SERVICES & DESIGN Page 10 of 26 CB LEGEND:REFERENCE: GOOGLE EARTH. B-1 BORING LOCATION B-1 Via Astuto B-2 Project Number: Scale: Date: Figure No: BORING LOCATION PLAN LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Not to Scale 2 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 24-080-GP1 7/1/2024 ENGINEERING SERVICES & DESIGN Page 11 of 26 I .,. • W!lll I I .' I • I # • I I /. SOURCE: Engineering Services Patio Kitchen Bathroom fence CARPORT Entrance Design of Socal inc., 2024. Project Number: Scale: Date: Figure No: SURVEY ELEVATION MAP LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Not to Scale 3 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 24-080-GP1 7/1/2024 ENGINEERING SERVICES & DESIGN Page 12 of 26 -0.1 0.8 -0.7 -0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 LEGEND ~ LOWEST ELEVATION (INCHES) I 0.0 I BASE ELEVATION (INCHES) L CONCRETE CRACK REFERENCE: USGS, TOPO MAP, SAN LUIS REY, 2022. Project Number: Scale: Date: Figure No: CROSS SECTION LOCATION LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Not to Scale 4 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 24-080-GP1 7/1/2024 ENGINEERING SERVICES & DESIGN Page 13 of 26 I I . d de f\n,ta -.#i ...!.~:~e:n~,~a~~~~~=-r~~# ' I 100'EL REFERENCE: USGS, TOPO MAP, SAN LUIS REY, 2022. Pr o j e c t N u m b e r : Sc a l e : Da t e : Fi g u r e N o : OV E R A L L C R O S S S E C T I O N A - A ' LI M I T E D G E O T E C H N I C A L I N V E S T I G A T I O N As S h o w n 5 26 1 2 V i a A s t u t o , C a r l s b a d , C A 9 2 0 1 0 24 - 0 8 0 - G P 1 7/ 1 / 2 0 2 4 EN G I N E E R I N G SE R V I C E S & D E S I G N Pa g e 1 4 o f 2 6 [c! ~ ;;J :!:] J A 105'EL 0 co +-' C: <( Q) ""C co ""C C: 0)7 ~ H:30' 50 CROSS SECTION A-A' 3=32/3=11' < 32' therefor, 100 2-Story Residence 1::'. 0 0. ,_ (ti (.) Proposed Piers Minimum Depth 10' Pier 150 DISTANCE (FEET) 0 +-' ::, +-' ~ co PL> 200 A' I 135' EL ...-.. 1-w w 130 ~ z 0 100 ~ > w _J w Limited Geotechnical Report July 1, 2024 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 Job No: 24-080-GP1 APPENDIX A Boring Log Page 15 of 26 GEOTECHNICAL • STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION • ARCHITECTURE ~hln ENGINEERING SERVICES fst DESIGN 19827 Reedview Dr. Rowland Heights, CA 917 48 I (714) 716-2189 I www.edsocal.com ~LYur Limited Geotechnical Report July 1, 2024 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 Job No: 24-080-GP1 Page 16 of 26 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ 1 11. LEGEINID Maj or D ivisions Clean G ravels (L ess than 5% pass.es No. 200 s ieve) Gravels w ith F ines (More than 12°/t11 passes No. 200 sieve) Limits plol belO'W "A .. llll8 & hate hed zone, on PJ98t1Clty Chart. L.lmlts plole above "_A." nne & h.a1tch ed zone on F-'la:etlclty Chart. C lean Sands (Less than .5°/4 passes No_ 200 sieve) Sand s w ith F ines (More than 12°/a passes No. 200 sieve) L.lmlte-plot:& belov,., "A" line & hate.hod :zono on F"tas.11c1ty Cha Limit& plote above "A" Une & haiche<l zonie on F>lastlclty Chart_ Silts of Low P lasticity (Liquid Limit Less T h.an 50) Silts of High Plasticity (Liquid Limit More Than 50) C lays of Low-Plasticity (Liquid Limit Less Than 50) C lays of H igh Plasticity (Liquid Limit More Than 50) Grou p Symbol GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML MH CL CH Typical N am e s Well Qr'Sldedl 01"8Vl&l:s., Qr"8V'8l,- 1:1,and mlxtu~, or 5and-g1uvo1- Cl0bbla mlxh.Jr-o5. Poorly gr.tded g r..ivel~. gravel• 5and mlxtu.-050 o r sand-gravel• COIJ.Dle mlxtU,.88, SIity· 01"8"v'81:S., Ot'8"'81>-88nd-ellt mlx.turoi:i,. Clayey gravels, grevel-sand- cl~y m ixtuRt5. Woll graclad 5Dnd!!II. gruvolly sand&, Poor'ly Dfflded eande. gravelly 1:1,ando.. SIity" 1:1oand1:1o. !t.aind..allt mlxtu:r05. Clay,f:ly eande, e.and-eley mlxtul'D5. lnorgc nlc !:'.lilt!:1. c.:1nyoy slits with !:'.lllght p'la!itlclty. lnCJl'"QDn lo !:'.lilt!I-, mlCDOOOU!:'.1 Cl'" dl8iri0r"r'\8090US. Silty 80118; '8198Ue ~llt!I-.. lnorg anic clayis of low lo modi um p,a8tlclty, oraveuy cl aye.. 8sridy cl;:1ytr.. islhy Ghi-y5. laon chsys. Inorganic Cl8Y8 Of high pl98t1Clty, fal clays, !!Sandy clayl!S of high pl99tJclty, Note: coare.e grained e.ons with between 5% & 12% passing tM N o , 200 8-l&ve and fine gre1ned sone. with Jim Its p lotUng In the hale.hod zone,-on tho Pln.slic.lty Chart to hnve double syn,bol. 80 50 40 30 20 ,. Plasticity Chart C\. / CL.ML i------, ..,.v ./, V ~, 10 20 30 "" .. LIQUID LIMIT / CH / / K A UN ,.H , . .. •• 1110 DEFINJTIONS OF SOIL FRACTIONS SOIL COMPONENT Cobbloe -CoaraeW'a'Y8:I Fina gr&YBI Sand Coe""' Medium Fina Fl,-(allt or dayl I PARTICLE SIZE RANGE AlxM>31n. 3 In.. to No. , aleve 3 In. to3/,j In. 314 In, lo No. 4 alavo No. 4 to No. 200 No. 4 to No. 10 No. 10 to No. 40 No. 40 to No. 200 Balow No. 200 alevo GEOTECHNICAL • STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION • ARCHITECTURE 19827 Reedview Dr. Rowland Heights, CA 917 48 I (714) 716-2189 I www.edsocal.com ~hln ENGINEERING SERVICES fst DESIGN ~LYur Project:Tracy Stump KEY LOG Project Location:2612 Via Astuti, Carlsbad, CA, 92012 Project Number:24-080-GP1 Date(s) Drilled Drilling Method Drill Rig Type Groundwater Level and Date Measured Borehole Backfill 06/06/24 Logged By:Pablo Naranjo Checked By:P.N. Soil Cuttings Location As Shown on Figure 2, Boring Location Plan feet Portable Hydraulic Auger Drilling Contractor Engineering Services & Design of SoCal Inc. Approximate Surface Elevation N.A. Tripode & Solid Auger Drill Bit Size Type 6" Solid Auger Total Depth of Borehole 16 Not Encountered Sampling Method(s)California, SPT Page 17 of 26 :;;, M~TERIAL DESCRIPTION B REMMKS .AND OTI-lER TESTS 11 COLIJMN DESCRilPTIONS i Eleo,ation (lieefl: B evation (MiSIL, feet). [l] Graphic Log: Graphic depiction of ihe sobsurfaae mate.rial Depth (fee,t): Dep in feet below the gru1md ,;urfaae. eneo<niered. Sarrf)le T:;pe: Type,of soil sample collected al the de;plh interval (!] MATERIAi.. O:ESGRIPTIONI: DeSC11)1ion ofmaleial encountered. ·shown_ Mai, includeconsisleney, mcisture. color. and oih<!I" descr.,tive [!] .Sarrf)le Nurrlber: Sample identification number_ texl [fil Sarrf)ling Resisranae, blows.llt: Nl!lmber of blows to advance dri..en [ru Waler Contenl. %: Wat<!I" ,ccntent of the soil sample, expressed as ·sampl<!I" one foot (or msl'anae sbovn•I beyond seating interval pereEni:age o dry weight of sample_ l!ISDg the hammer identified on the boring log. ruj Dry Unil Weigh!, pcf: D.ry weight per l!lnit Ydlmne oo soil sample [fil M!ateri Type: T:;pe of material enoointerad. meaSl!lred in laboratory. in pounds per cubic foot. lj[j REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS: Comments and observations rega,ding1 drilling1 or sampling1 rnade ti)' miller or ·-eld personnel_ FIELIO AND LABORATORY TEST .AB BRiE\l'IATIIONS CHEM!: Chemical tesis to assess. corrosiwty COMP: Compaction test CONS: One--dDlensional consolida1ion tesl LL: Liquid Li • pEf'Cefll ' IMATIERIAL GRAPHIC S'l'IMBOLS PI: Plas'iiicit;y Index. pEf'Cefll SA: Sieve. anaJysis. (perae.nt passing o. 2□0 Sieve:) UC: Uncon med compressiYe streng test. au. in tsf WA: Wash sieve (pereenl pas -g No. 200 Sieo,e) ~ Lean CLAY. CLAY w/SAND, SANDY GLAY {CL) Olayey SAND (SC} O w -~~ ... :;."' ~ Poorly gr:aded SAND (.SP) ........ " TYPICAL SAM PUBB GRAPHIC sYMBOLS OTHER GRA!Pl:HC SYMBOLS E Auger sampler I Bulk Sample l.i :i:-inch-0D C-aEom-w/ lil,IJ,-ass.mgs GENEIRAL N:OTES ra CIME .Sampler rn Grab Sarrf)le 12.5-inch-OO M'ocified California w/ brass liners ~ l?itmer Sample fvl :2-ft:h-0:0 m lined spl-10J ~poon (SP1} ~ water level (al ttme al dr!lltlg, AID) ~ Water llera {<il1S" 111301g} MWIIX Clla,ige In ~Et:lal i:mpe es wl'.llln a 1-51Jit.tm --llm'ffTel1~.r.Jooal cootad belJl,-e,en s.'.rata -•-Qoerted cootad lletll,-e,en s'.rata 1: Sau classlfleall<ms are IJa;sed an 1he· u Sau -Cla6afflcal!b sy.s1sn. De6crlp1!llll6 ,illild s'.ra1un lines are· lnte~e. and adlJid ltllllagle ,cliange,; may Ile ' grallll Ftekl 151!6Crt~s mB)' 110'o-e bee mo<1med 1D rened reSllts o,· Lall let>"'- • 2: De6cllp".Jans on ttlese IIOgS .iwiy· ooiy· al 1ne ~ne Dlll'.lng IOd.Jans ana at lhe lln.e Ille llOClnga were am,'alloe!L Tiley are 11ol warrarted 1D Ile re~e• al aibQJrtace cocu!lttoos at D".he.r klca: oos ar limes.. Project:Tracy Stump Log of Boring B-1 Project Location:2612 Via Astuti, Carlsbad, CA, 92012 Project Number:24-080-GP1 Date(s) Drilled Drilling Method Drill Rig Type Groundwater Level and Date Measured Borehole Backfill __0 __Fill Sandy Clay , (Fill), light brown, moist , Expansive Index (EI) __S- 1 25 CL Sandy Clay , (CL), light brown, moist , Very Stiff 12.2 NA __Soluble Sulfate= __Trace gravel Vane Shear Strenght (VS) __VS= __5 __Pocket Penetrometer (PP) __S- 2 25 CL Sandy Clay , (CL), light brown, moist , Very Stiff 11 98.4 PP= __ __Trace gravel __VS= __10 __PP= __S- 3 33 SC Clayey Sand, (SC), light brown, moist , Dense 16.2 106 Direct Shear __phi= __Trace gravel C= __ __15 __Trace cobbles __S- 4 55 SC Clayey Sand, (SC), light brown, moist , Very Dense 15.2 106 __Stopped at 16 Feet as Planned __ __ __20 __ __ __ __ __ __25 __ 29 deg 550 PSF 209 PSF 418 PSF 4 TSF 06/06/24 Logged By:Pablo Naranjo Checked By:P.N. feet Truck Mounted Drill Rig Drilling Contractor Engineering Services & Design of SoCal Inc. Approximate Surface Elevation N.A. Tripode & Solid Auger Drill Bit Size Type 6" Solid Auger Total Depth of Borehole 16 Ma t e r i a l T y p e Not Encountered Sampling Method(s)California, SPT Hammer Data Gr a p h i c L o g MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Wa t e r C o n t e n t , % Dr y U n i t W e i g h t , p c f REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS 140 lbs - 30 in Soil Cuttings Location As Shown on Figure 2, Boring Location Plan Ele v a t i o n ( f e e t ) De p t h ( f e e t ) Sa m p l e T y p e Sa m p l e N u m b e r Sa m p l i n g R e s i s t a n c e , b l o w s / f t 43 PPM 3 TSF =43 Page 18 of 26 Project:Tracy Stump Log of Boring B-2 Project Location:2612 Via Astuti, Carlsbad, CA, 92012 Project Number:24-080-GP1 Date(s) Drilled Drilling Method Drill Rig Type Groundwater Level and Date Measured Borehole Backfill __0 __Fill Sandy Clay , (Fill), light brown, moist , __27 CL Sandy Clay , (CL), light brown, moist , Very Stiff __ __ __ __5 __ __S- 1 27 CL Sandy Clay , (CL), light brown, moist , Very Stiff 9.7 NA __ __ __ __10 __ __S- 2 35 SC Clayey Sand, (SC), light brown, moist , Dense 15.7 NA __Stopped at 11 Feet as Planned __ __ __15 __ __ __ __ __ __20 __ __ __ __ __ __25 __ 06/06/24 Logged By:Pablo Naranjo Checked By:P.N. feet Truck Mounted Drill Rig Drilling Contractor Engineering Services & Design of SoCal Inc. Approximate Surface Elevation N.A. Tripode & Solid Auger Drill Bit Size Type 6" Solid Auger Total Depth of Borehole 11 Not Encountered Sampling Method(s)California, SPT Hammer Data Gr a p h i c L o g MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Wa t e r C o n t e n t , % Dr y U n i t W e i g h t , p c f REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS 140 lbs - 30 in Soil Cuttings Location As Shown on Figure 2, Boring Location Plan Ele v a t i o n ( f e e t ) De p t h ( f e e t ) Sa m p l e T y p e Sa m p l e N u m b e r Sa m p l i n g R e s i s t a n c e , b l o w s / f t Ma t e r i a l T y p e Page 19 of 26 -[JI ►◄ - ►◄ [JI - - Limited Geotechnical Report July 1, 2024 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 Job No: 24-080-GP1 APPENDIX B Vane Shear Test Log Page 20 of 26 GEOTECHNICAL • STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION • ARCHITECTURE ~hln ENGINEERING SERVICES fst DESIGN 19827 Reedview Dr. Rowland Heights, CA 917 48 I (714) 716-2189 I www.edsocal.com ~LYur Project:Tracy Stump VANE SHEAR TEST LOG Project Location:2612 Via Astuti, Carlsbad, CA, 92012 Project Number:24-080-GP1 Date(s) Test Test Method Instrumen Type B- 1 B- 1 06/06/24 Logged By:Pablo Naranjo Checked By:P.N. Humboldt H-4227 Vane Shear Test Shear Value (psf)Notes 4 16x32mm 5 2 10 209 Very Soft De p t h ( f e e t ) Bo r i n g Vane Size Direct Measurement (KPa) Multiply to Obtain Shear Resistance Shear Value (KPa) Soft816x32mm10220418 Page 21 of 26 Limited Geotechnical Report July 1, 2024 2612 Via Astuto, Carlsbad, CA 92010 Job No: 24-080-GP1 APPENDIX C Laboratory Test Results Page 22 of 26 GEOTECHNICAL • STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION • ARCHITECTURE ~hln ENGINEERING SERVICES fst DESIGN 19827 Reedview Dr. Rowland Heights, CA 917 48 I (714) 716-2189 I www.edsocal.com ~LYur ASTM D2216 and ASTM D7263 (Method B) Client:Engineering Services & Design of SoCal Inc.AP Lab No.:24-0616 Project Name:Tracy Stump Test Date:06/12/24 Project No.:24-080-GP1 Boring Sample Sample Moisture Dry Density No.No.Depth (ft.) Content (%) (pcf) B1 S1 0-3 12.2 NA B1 S2 5 11.0 98.4 B1 S3 10 16.2 105.6 B1 S4 15 15.2 106.3 B2 S1 5 9.7 NA B2 S2 10 15.7 NA MOISTURE AND DENSITY TEST RESULTS Page 23 of 26 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. DBE I MBE I SBE 2607 Pomona Boulevard I Pomona, CA 91768 t. 909.869.6316 I f. 909.869.6318 I www.aplaboratory.com EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS ASTM D 4829 Client Name: Engineering Services & Design of SoCal Inc. AP Job No.: 24-0616 Project Name: Tracy Stump Date: 06/17/24 Project No.: 24-080-GP1 Boring Sample Depth Soil Description Molded Molded Init. Degree Measured Corrected No. No. (ft)Dry Density Moisture Saturation Expansion Expansion (pcf) Content (%) (%) Index Index B1 S1 0-3 Sandy Clay 106.6 10.6 49.0 43 42 ASTM EXPANSION CLASSIFICATION Classification V. Low Low Medium High V. High Expansion Index 0-20 21-50 51-90 91-130 >130 Page 24 of 26 I -~ I AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. ;..r,6~ DBEIMBEISBE 2607 Pomona Boulevard I Pomona, CA 91768 -t. 909.869.6316 I f. 909.869.6318 I www.aplaboratory.com Project Name:Tracy Stump Tested By:AP Date:06/14/24 Project No.:24‐080‐GP1 Computed By:JP Date:06/19/24 Boring No.:B1 Checked by:AP Date:06/19/24 Sample No.:S3 Depth (ft):10 Sample Type:Mod. Cal. Soil Description:Sandy Clay Test Condition:Inundated Shear Type:Regular Wet Unit Weight (pcf) Dry Unit Weight (pcf) Initial Moisture Content (%) Final Moisture Content (%) Initial Degree Saturation (%) Final Degree Saturation (%) Normal Stress (ksf) Peak Shear Stress (ksf) Ultimate Shear Stress (ksf) 1 1.104 0.801 2 1.740 1.308 4 2.772 2.457 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS ASTM D 3080 122.2 105.2 16.2 22.3 73 100 0 1 2 3 4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Shear Deformation (Inches) 1 ksf 2 ksf 4 ksf 0 1 2 3 4 012345678 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Normal Stress (ksf) Peak: C=550 psf; ɸ=29˚ Ultimate: C=250 psf; ɸ=28˚ Normal Stress: Page 25 of 26 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. DBEI MBEISBE a1!f -.: -2607 Pomona Boulevard I Pomona, CA 91768 -t. 909.869.6316 I f. 909.869.6318 I www.aplaboratory.com • 0 --- CORROSION TEST RESULTS Client Name: Engineering Services & Design of SoCal Inc.AP Job No.: 24-0616 Project Name: Tracy Stump Date:06/17/24 Project No.: 24-080-GP1 Boring Sample Depth Soil pH Sulfate Content Chloride Content No. No. (feet) Description (ppm)(ppm) B1 S1 0-3 Sandy Clay NR 43 NR NOTES: Resistivity Test and pH: California Test Method 643 Sulfate Content : California Test Method 417 Chloride Content : California Test Method 422 ND = Not Detectable NA = Not Sufficient Sample NR = Not Requested Minimum (ohm-cm) NR Resistivity Page 26 of 26 l AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. 6' --DBEIMBEISBE :-===.,;..-2607 Pomona Boulevard I Pomona, CA 91768 t . 909.869.6316 I f. 909.869.6318 I www.a12laboratoD£.COm STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION NOTES 1. AU. NECESSARY EQUIPMENT ANO MA lERIAl.S SHAU. BE AVAJl.Alll£ ON SITE 10 FACUTATE RAPll ijSTAU.AllQj CF EROSION 00 SEDIMENT CONlROI. BWP1 YIHEN RAIN IS EMINENT. 2. THE ~/CONlRACTOR SHAU. RESTORE AU. EROSION CONlROI. DE"1CES 10 WORKING ORDER 10 THE SATISfACllQI CF THE QTY tjSf'ECTOR AFTER EAOI RUN-ITT PROOUCING RAINFAU.. J. lHE 0YINER/CONlRACTOR SHAU. tjSTAIJ. ADDITIONAL EROSION CONlROL MEASURES AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE QTY INSPECT()! DUE 10 INCOMPl.£TE GRADING OPERATIONS OR UNFORESEIH QROJMSTANW 'IHC>i IIAY ARISE. 4. AU. REMOVAll.E PROTECTI'l'E DE't1CES SHAl.l. BE fj Pl.ACE AT 1HE ENO CF EAOi WORKING DAY 1181 11£ FM: (5) DAY RAIN PROBABl.lTY Fa!ECAST EXCEEDS FORTY PECENT (40%). SILT 00 011£R DEBRIS SHAil. BE REll0'tel AFTER EAOI RAINF AU. 5. AU. GRA '<tl. BAGS SHAU. CONTAIN 3/4 INOi IIIUJII AGCllEGATE. 6. ADEQUATE EROSION 00 SEDIMENT CONlROI. 00 PERIMETER PROTECTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE MEASURES IIUST BE tjSfAIJ..ED ANO MAINTAINED. 7. THE QTY INSPECTOR SHAU. HAYE 1HE AUTHORITY 10 ALTER lHIS Pl.AN OURINC OR BEFORE CONSlRUCllQI AS NEEDED _ 10 ENSURE COIIPIJANCE WITH QTY STa!II WATER QUAIJTY REGULATIONS. OWNER'S CERTIFlCA 'IE: I UNOOISTANO ANO A0CNO'&.fDCE THAT I IIUST: (1) IIIPI.DDT IICST IIAHAGOIEMT PRACTICES (Bl,l>S) llURINC C0NS1RUC1l(JI ACIM'ln TO 11£ IIAlllWII DClDCT PRACTICAa£ TO A~ 11£ IIOIILIZAllON CE P<WJTAIITS SUOI AS SEDIDT ANO TO A~ 11£ ~ CE STtJIII WA1Ut TO CONS1RUCll0N REI.AltD PClWTANTS; ANO (2) ADIOE TO. ANO AT Al.I. TIES. CIM'l Y 11111 11tS QTY APPIIO\tO llR 1 <XlNSTRUC1ION SW'PP THROUQIOUT 11£ CURAllON CE 11£ COIS1RUC1ION ACTM1ES UN11. 1HE XilQI( IS COIPl£TE ANO APPIIO\tO BY 11£ QTY 1/;}s~~T) ,/,,_,h_ ~~-eAIDT N~Alliic) ~s E-29 I STORM WATER COMPLIANCE FORM TIER 1 CONSTRUCTION SWPPP E-29 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) SELECTlON TABl.f CB R 20 '.24-1~ SW_ -en.I -en.I-r.-. --_..,__ __ -en.I-...._,_,. .... -en.I- !I l I I I f t J l }; :i lf j f ,i j, I L il Bell Manlgenwil l'nlcb" .. f I 1 I ii Ii i i I n 0 (BMP) o.:ription ➔ 1:1 B -A . ti !J ::, t !i j I ! 1 "'ii If I ii I l ; I I I lt f ,_ u :et :e 0 1! -l id il'i.li -" il'i cit! l:11 :II"' :II ~~➔ ,._ .. ... ~ -... ... ., ,. ,._ .. 0 i N ~ ... ,._ .. i N ... ... ., .. .. e J J tJ, bl I I i I ~ ~ !Q i I I I I I ~--w w tJ, bl 1'I 1'I 1'I 1'I I! I! i i i i i i ~~-Trwldt~- s1~-- -·, •-t Scowa,ltlna Concnla Flol-11 --~-SluccotM«tlll' Worlt -· s1~•-o-.1no ,-~-· ..... 1--· , .. ~ Hazardoul 5"DolO'lot U..l'St- o..at- Sll•--DH X Ott,r /1111~ • lnllNctlano: 1. Chtdt lltt boa to lltt loft of ,. ..,.,._ conolNctlon octMty (flrot .....,.) npoclod lo _, u1n<j conolNctlon. 2. l.ocolld = 11tt ~ 11tt 811P Table lo o lot of BMP'o with 11°1 ~ Callfanlo Slormwolr ~y-.., (CASOA) ~ -· 0--or men )IOU In lo no CMtlg aonolNcllon tram lltt lot. a.a box -. lltt -oclhlly rw lnt.--u with IN 811P colurM. 3. Rmr lo lltt CAS0A conolnocllon -for 1nr.nnot1on and dololo of lltt -11111'1 ft! how lo apply -to tto. p,ojoct. rt~ 3 'holt'f'. s-co ctf-\)JO(~ ls ll"\Sidl f>r"t/Wr't' a no\ S'rn~ I { ccncr-<... t-e. te (A-\\ w()(k. 1n5w y@S1 ctence.) (\0 RVl'I ~<At. SHOW THE LOCATIONS OF AU. CHOSEN BMPI A80YI: ON THE PROJECTS SITE PU.Nlf.ROSION CONTROL Pl.AH. SEE THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS SHEET FOR A SAMPLE EROSION CONTROL Pl.AH. -BMP's are subject to field Inspection- Pogo 1 of 1 PROJECI'INFO(p\lATION Sito Ms..: '2 l'Z. I/ iC\As ±:vtQ ,._,,,,..,.., ------- ~ Conloct 6 -Mf.\O.rue «A.-/ 2• Hour Pllonc :J 14 -~1-40tiS Conolntctlon 1lnat lo Storm -~y (0>odt Box) □ ll£DUj .Iii LOIi REV 02/16 Scanned with ~ CamScanner-