The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2308 ALTISMA WAY; STRUC REP; CB022544; Permit09-20-2002 Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel No: Valuation: Occupancy Group: # Dwelling Units: Bedrooms: Project Title: City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 Residential Permit Permit No: CB022544 2308 ALTISMA WY CBAD RESDNTL SubType: RAD Status: 2152402817 Lot#: 0 Applied: $0.00 Construction Type: NEW Entered By: Reference #: Plan Approved: 0 Structure Type: Issued: 0 Bathrooms: 0 Inspect Area: LACOSTA VlEWlUNlTS 117,118,119 Orig PC#: 120,123,124; STRUC REPAIRS-FTGS-SLAB Plan Check#: ISSUED 08/28/2002 CB 09/20/2002 09/20/2002 Applicant: NAUTILUS GENERAL CONTRACTORS SUITE H 9823 PACIFIC HEIGHTS BLVD SD CA 92121 858-457-031 6 Owner: WONG HELENA CHOl KENG TRUST 06-09-98 2308 ALTISMA WAY #117 CARLSBAD CA 92009 Total Fees: $120.00 Total Payments To Date: $120.00 Balance Due: $0.00 Building Permit Addl Building Permit Fee Plan Check Addl Plan Check Fee Plan Check Discount Strong Motion Fee Park in Lieu Fee Park Fee LFM Fee Bridge Fee Other Bridge Fee BTD #2 Fee BTD #3 Fee Renewal Fee Add‘l Renewal Fee Other Building Fee Pot. Water Con. Fee Meter Size Addl Pot. Water Con. Fee Recl. Water Con. Fee $0.00 $120.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Meter Size Add‘l Recl. Water Con. Fee Meter Fee SDCWA Fee CFD Payoff Fee PFF PFF (CFD Fund) License Tax License Tax (CFD Fund) Traffic lmpaci Fee Traffic ImDact CFD Fund) Sidewalk’Fee ’ PLUMBING TOTAL ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ELECTRICAL TOTAL MECHANiCAL TOTAL Housing Impact Fee Housing InLieu Fee Master Drainage Fee Sewer Fee Additional Fees TOTAL PERMIT FEES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $120.00 Clearance: Fyjyq9pL~ 7 lnspecto Date: NOTICE Please take NOTICE that aDDrovai of vour Droiect includes the “Imoosition” of fees. dedications, reservations. or other emctions hereafter collectively relerrea lo as Ieesemcions.‘ Yo. have 90 days from tne aate In s peim I Has :ss.ea 10 protesl mpDsd on 01 tnese feerexact.ons. I yo. proIes1 them. yo. mst lo .o* tne prolesl procw.res sel lonh n Government Cooe Sect on 66020(a), ana I. e tne protesl ana any otner req, rea nlormaion n In tne C ry Manager lor process ng n accoroance &.In Carlsbao M.n;cipa Coae Secl on 3 32 030 Fa l.ie IO I me { lor ow ha1 prma.re x;I oar any s.oseq.en1 lega act on to anacr. rev ew seI asm vo d or ann, mer impostion. VOJ am nemDy FJRTrlER NOT FlED that your I gnl 10 prolesl me specilea leesemctons DOES NOT APP-V Io waler ana FOR OFFICE USE ONLY PLAN CHECK NO.CbO Zzr44 EST. VAL. Plan Ck. Deposit f / Date &28-02 ! CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008 Validated By .. .. Name Address City StatelZip Telephone I Fax il 4. number I contractors license number): 5. of work): I plan to provide portions of the Work, but I have hired the following pereon to coordinate. supervise and provide the major work (include name I address I phone I will provide some of the work, but I have contracted Ihiredl the following perrons to provide the work indicated linciuds name I address I phons number I type Io the applicant or fmum building occupant required to Submit a business plan, acutely hazardous materials registration form or risk management and prevention program under Sections 25505. 25533 or 25534 of the Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act? YES 0 NO Io the applicant or future building occupant required to Obtain a permit from the air POllUtion Control district or air qualitv management district? 0 YES NO 1s the facility to be constrwtsd within 1,000 feet of the Outer boundary 01 a school site7 0 YES 0 NO IF ANY OF THE ANSWERS ARE YES. A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY MAY NOT BE ISSUED UNLESS THE APPLICANT HAS MET OR IS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT. ., , ,, , , ., . ,, , , , , ,:,.,. ,. that there is a construction lending for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued (Sec. 3097Ii) Civil Codel. LENDERS NAME LENDERS ADDRESS .. .. I certify that I have read the application end state that the above information is Correct and that the information on the plans is accurate. I agree to comply with all City ordinances and State laws relating to building construction. I hereby authorize repmsentativeS of the Cit). of Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned property for inspection DWPOSBS. I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE. INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES. JUDGMENTS, COSTS AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT. OSHA An OSHA permit is required for exCwBtiOnS over 5'0. deep and demolition or COnStrUCtion of strUCtUree over 3 stories in hsight. EXPIRATION: Every permit issued by the building Official under the provisions of this Code Shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authorized bv Such Dermit is not commenced within 180 dam from the date Of such Dermit or if the buildino or work authorized bv such Demit is SuSDended or abandoned at any lime alter the work is APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE 8-z&?-02 eclion 1m.4.4 Uniform Building Cod;). WHITE: File YELLOW: AppliCBnt PINK: Finance City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request For 06/24/2003 Permit# CEO22544 Inspector Assignment: PD Title: LACOSTA VIEW/UNITS 117,118,119 Description: 120,123,124; STRUC REPAIRS-FTG'S-SLAB Type: RESDNTL SubType: RAD Job Address: 2308 ALTISMA WY Suite: Lot 0 Location: APPLICANT NAUTILUS GENERAL CONTRACTORS Owner: Remarks: Phone: Inspector: Total Time: Requested By: PAUL CD Description Entered By: CHRISTINE 19 Final Structural 29 Final Plumbing 39 Final Electrical 49 Final Mechanical Associated PCRs/CVs lnwection History Date Description Act lnsp Comments 12/16/2002 11 FtglFoundatiodPiers PA PD 12/16/2002 14 Frame/SteeVBoltinglWelding WC PD 12/02/2002 11 FtgIFoundatiodPien AP RF OK TO PLACE CONCRETE #I 17,119,120. NEED SPECIAL REPORT 11/27/2002 11 FtgIFoundatiodPiers CO RF NEED #4 MAlTE FOR SLAB FOR COMPACTION AND EPOXY City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request FOI 1211 612002 Permit# CB022544 Inspector Assignment: RF Title: LACOSTAVlEWlUNlTS 117,118,119 Description: 120,123,124; STRUC REPAIRS-FTGSSLAB Type: RESDNTL SubType: RAD Job Address: 2308 ALTISMAWY Suite: Lot 0 Location: APPLICANT NAUTILUS GENERAL CONTRACTORS Owner: Remarks: GRADE (7) BEAMS Phone: 6198572833 lnspecto & . Total Time: Requested By: DANA CD Description Act Comment Entered By: KAREN 14 FramelSteellBoltlngMTelding - dJc rc.--*y - (e? - __ Associated PCRs/CVs InsDection History Date Description Act lnsp Comments 12/02/2002 11 Ftg/Foundation/Plers AP RF OK TO PLACE CONCRETE #117,119.120. NEED SPECIAL REPORT FOR COMPACTION AND EPOXY 11/27/2002 11 FtglFoundationlPlers CO RF NEED #4 MATTE FOR SLAB City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request For 12/02/2002 Permit# CEO22544 Inspector Assignment: RF Title: LACOSTA VlEWlUNlTS 117,118,119 Description: 120,123,124; STRUC REPAIRS-FTG’SSLAB Type: RESDNTL SubType: RAD Job Address: 2308 ALTISMA WY Suite: Lot 0 Location: APPLICANT NAUTILUS GENERAL CONTRACTORS Owner: Remarks: Total Time: Phone: 6198572833 Inspector: /fF Requested By: DANA Entered By: CHRISTINE CD Description Act Comments 11 FtglFoundationlPiers AP OK C, co~ckA #//7%/ I?. /lo PX7+ N-d :#Qpc, ‘CilPrcbdt4 SOP C‘OhP d e 42.d 4-Q Associated PCRslCVs InsDection History j/z7. 7 Date Description Act lnsp Comments ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS Gu~Cout AME &tm Diqo (Copmtr) 304 Enarprire street 53WMemorisl. US60 Esmndido. CA 92029 HO"I,O..TX 77007 f7601 738-8800 STRUCTURAL - GEOTECHNICAL ARCHITECTURE . PLANNING . CIVIL ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING * CEOTECHNICAL REMEDIATION . -ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS sann Dip (Cqmtt) Cvlf Gat Amu 304 Enterprise Suet 53W Memorial. 11560 , Ermndido. CA 92029 Hounm.TX 77007 17601 738-8800 ARCHITECTURE - PLANNING - CIVIL - STRUCTURAL - GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING - GEOTECHNICAL REMEDIATION RECOMMENDATIONS PERSONNEL ON SITE I I I I I w 8 2, I.' I I I I I HOURS TOTAL SPECIAL INSPECTION REPORT PROJECT: /b m dlml JOB START: ADDRESS: 330% fi(AXivlrY JOB STOP: CITY: c&&S%W PERMIT #: &6 OL25W PLAN FILE #: TYPE OF OBSERVATIONS: MASONRY- REINFORCED CONCRETE- FIELD WELDING- EPOXYX PRESTRESSED CONCRETE- SHOP WELDING- BOLTING- REINFORCING STEEL- FIREPROOFING- SAMPLES: NUMBER:- TYPE: MateriaWDeslgn Mix Numbers/PSI: REPORT ~ PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS UNLESS OTHERWlSE NOTED Prlnt Name Certlflcatlon# Phone: ( ) Fax:( 1 Inspectoh Slgnature J EsGil - Corporation DATE: September 5,2002 J URl SDl CTl ON : Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 02-2544 NT 0 PLAN REVIEWER 0 FILE SET: I PROJECT ADDRESS: 2308 Altisma Way PROJECT NAME: Compaction Grouting/Floor Leveling Transmitted herewith are plans for proposed foundation repairs, to attempt to mitigate continued settlement of the existing foundation and to further prevent resulting structural damage. Esgil Corporation cannot offer any guarantees that the proposed system will resolve the present problems, nor should the City offer such representation. However, acceptance of the proposed remedies should result in an enhanced foundation support system from the current situation. At the time of permit issuance, the following should be noted on the plans: “Prior to the City building inspector approving final inspection, the responsible design professional shall notify the building official, in writing, that the proposed foundation repairs have been installed in accordance with the design”. Sincerely, ESGlL CORPORATION By: Kurt Culver h‘ 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 * San Diego, California 92123 (858) 560-1468 Fax (858) 560-1576 VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE BUILDING AREA Valuation PORTION ( Sq. Ft.) bhltiplier JURIS DI CTI 0 N : Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 02-2544 Reg. VALUE ($1 Mod. I 1 I Fee by Ordinance & ......... .................... ,?. Pbn CheckFee by Ordinance :7 ....... - . .- ............. Type of Review: 0 Complete Review 0 Structural Only I $60.001 Other a Hourly 10.51 Hour * c] Repetitive Fee . Repeats Esgil Plan Review Fee * Based on hwrM rate Comments: Review of report for compaction grouting. Esgil fee = 1/2-hr. @ $96.00/hr. Sheet 1 of 1 rnacvalue.doc 304 Enterprise Street Exondido, CA 92029 (760) 738-8800 (760) 738-8232 fm 12-11-02 Project Memo: To: La Costa View HOA Board MembersDJautilus General Contracting C10 Ms. Suzanne Risser Fax: (760) 438-9348 Page 1 of 2 La Costa View Repairs -RecommendedRepairs and Additional Information (2308 & 23 10 Altisma Way, Units 124, 130 and driveway repairs west of Unit 124) - Anthony-Taylor Project No. 00-1800 The following information referenced below represents information provided to Nautilus General Contracting to assist them in performing the recommended work. A brief discussion is included below: 1) As part of our project report we recommended that following the releveling of the column footings beneath Unit # 130, a reinforced concrete grade beam be installed to connect the individual column footings together. m cavea*d that the column footingp at this location are connected to an existing cod IS appmximatcly 12 to Ir)-inchcs tttick, and approximately 16 to 18-iffik wider The top of the existing beam is approximately 12- to 16-inches below the ground surface. beam noted no evidence of cracking or damage)& that the beam caUy with the column footings. 4Ss>ch, the praiously~recommeaaed@iodebePm is no ccording, the existing excavation may be backfilled with e oylpsdwith.4-inches ofasphait, OT with ~amctca ,badr6llr The new concretdasp provide drainage away from the base of the columns and cover the steel base plates. agent be applied to &&xisting concrete to imp& adhcsionj F~,aaatmvstiOar ofthe stcel columa bas plates also noted that several anchor nuts were na! wm- 'OR. The steel anchor bolts at these locations extend flush with the surface of the base plate. Therefore, to provided an improved conndon where the anchoring nuts are missing, e recommend that the poorly connected studs be fastened to the existin ~,1solcrRcppir daail. dated 12-1002). 4 .3tm&lt%*thpl*t2 (clktha.rrtsched* 2) The area of greatest cracking and distress in the main driveway west of U,Nt 124, includes areas damaged during building releveling and damage caused by poor surface drainage an& high traffk loads. Mr. Dana Butts of Nautilus General Contractors has also noted that the main refuse dumpsters for the buildings are stored in the nw carport, and that the area also receives moderate trac from heavy trash trucks. Given the traffic loads 1 in this portion of the driveway. The increased slab thickness should improve the associated with the garbage truck accessing this area, we recommend previously outlined for general exterior slab replacements be enhanced .a performance of the driveway where the new slab is subjected to increased trafiic loads. Grademeam Repairs: South Side of Unit 124. As noted during the recent exposure of the foundation and masonry wall at the footing crack located along the south side of Unit 124, the concrete footing adjoining the masomy wall has no apparent dowelmg or transitional reinforcement. Further, the footing for the masonry wall extends well below the bottom of the adjacent spread footing. Therefore, this memo shall coniirm the the doweling at this location may instead rmnimum of three No 4 dowels shall be placed into the wall edge, while the remaining dowel shall be spacing to meet the previously recommended spacing interval. Per our field discussions, some wood form work is planned to be installed to avoid pouring concrete on and 3) ' Dowels shall be epoxy set a minimum e-* around nearby underground service pipes, ,, ,.,: , -....., 4) Relative to the seMce piping exposed during the excavation discussed in Item 3 above, it was observed tha- piping (irrigation type pipe) may have been used to provide natural gas to the fireplaces for Units 124 and 224. The actual function of the observed PVC and steel pipeline should be evaluated to confirm the operational purpose and condition. Should this seMce piping be found to transpon natural gas, than any sub-standard pipe materials exposed during repairs activities should be replaced with accepted materials under current plumbing Architects Engineers e Planners Construction Managers FWR 13 %l 01:39 RFIZEM?F)IER 760 747 0170 TO: P01 ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS 304 Enterprise Srrcet 9 bcondido. CA 92029 (760) 718-8800 (760) 738.8232 6ax San Diego, CA San Francisco, CA Howton, TX ? I r 9 r) n 3 3 - ......... ........ ...... ......... ......... / ALICANTE Report of Limited Geotechnical and Structural Investigation Units 117, 118,123,124,125,& 130 2308,2310 Altisma Way Carlsbad, California 92009 FOR: La Costa View HOA c/o S.H.E. Manages Properties 3990 Old Town Road, Suite 105-C San Diego, California 921 10 Attn: Mr. Lenny Kanarvogel DATE: BY *rq,P April 27,2001 SEP 2 0 2002 Project No. 00-1800 City of CHHLSBAD BUILDING DEPT. . . -. .. PREPARED BY: Anthony-Taylor Consultants 304 Enterprise Street Escondido, California 92029 (760) 738-8800 TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE OF WORK ......................... ................ PURPOSE .............................. ................ INTRODUCTION ... ................ ............... 2 SITE DESCRIPTION ..................................................... 2 SUMMARY OF FLOOR LEVEL SURVEYS ................ .................... 3 CONDITIONS OF OBSERVEDREPORTED DISTRESS ............................. 4 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION. ................................................ 9 LABORATORY TESTING .................................................... 14 REVIEW OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS ................................ FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................... RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 19 Comuaction Grouting Repairs Slab Repairs Grade Beam Foundation Repairs Structural Wood Floor Reuairs General RecommendationsIReuairs Mitigative DrainaEe Reuairs Irrigation Leak Detection Testing LIMITATIONS .............................................................. 27 I. 11. 111. IV. V. VI. VI1 VI11 IX. X. XI. XII. FIGURES: Site Plan: Figure I Relative Floor Elevation Surveys: Proposed Grout Point Location Map: Grade Beam Detail Figure IVa Slab Repair Detail Figure IVb Proposed Structural Floor Repair Floor Joist Repair Detail APPENDICES: A References B Site Photographs C Laboratory Tests Results D Grouting Specifications Figures Ita-IId Figures IIIa, IlIb Figures Va, Vb Figure VI ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS 304 Encrrpnre Streer E>uxnddn, CA 92029 (760) 738-8800 (760) 738-8232 f,ix April 27,2001 La Costa View Homeowners Association C/O S.H.E. Manages Properties 3990 Old Town Road, Suite 105-C San Diego, California 921 10 Attention: Mr. Lenny Kanarvogel Project No. 00-1800 Subject: Report of Limited Geotechnical and Structural Investigation Selected Units (117,118,123,124,125, and 130) La Costa View Condominiums 2308-2310 Altisma Way Carlsbad, California 92009 References: See Appendix A Dear Mr. Kanarvogel: In accordance with the Association’s authorization, we have performed a Phase I1 limited geotechnical and structural investigation of reported building distress within selected units at the subject site. The purpose of the evaluation was to review conditions of reported building distress reported as previous and/or recent damage that was noted by the property owners and/or others. Our scope of services was planned to be performed in two separate Phases. Our initial Phase I scope of work included; site observations, floor level surveys, discussions with the homeowners, and have been summarized within this evaluation report, with recommendations for further investigative studies, where and as considered appropriate. The findings of our Phase I1 scope of work as outlined below is presented herein. I. SCOPE OF WORK The following scope of services was performed as part of our evaluation: Review of various documents (see References, Appendix A) pertinent to the site, provided by the Associations management company; A relative floor elevation survey performed across a majority of the readily accessible living area floor ofthe Units authorized (Unit Nos. 117, 118, 123,124, 125, and 130); Site reconnaissance observations of distress features, and surface’drainage conditions, as evident within the readily visible portions of the site; Site reconnaissance observations of exposed building exterior conditions, and general site drainage; Rapor1 of Limited Ceoaebnieal and Struelural Inuuligntion Selrelrd Uniu(II7, 118,123, 124,125,md 130) La CMI. View R-w~n A-istion April 27.ZWi Page 2 Project NO W1800 . A limited geotechnical and structural evaluation of area of building distress and/or floor deflection, as determined by site observation and survey findings. The investigation included the excavation, logging and sampling of 3 (three) hand auger borings and 12 (twelve) exploratory test pits. . Preparation of this summary report of geotechnical and structural conditions noted during the investigation and document review. The report presents our findings, conclusions and recommendations relative to the observed distress, site conditions, and related repairs. 11. PURPOSE The purpose of our services was to evaluate reported site distress features within selected individual condominium units including Unit Nos. 117, 118,123, and 124 within Building 2308 Altisma Way and Unit Nos. 125 and 130 within Building 2310 Altisma Way. 111. INTRODUCTION As requested, representatives from Anthony-Taylor Consultants performed a program of initial site observations and interior floor elevation surveys within the subject units outlined above. Our Phase I field activities were performed on November 14, 2000, followed by our Phase I1 investigation performed between February and March, 2001. IV. SITE DESCRIPTION The project development is approximately 20 +years old, and consists of multi-unit, two- and three- story residential condominium structures. The project development has been constructed into terraced building pads, typically separated by a combination of slopes and parking level retaining walls. The elevation difference between a majority of the adjacent building pads range from approximately 8 to 15 feet in height. The building areas visited consist of double and triple-story attached units ranging from approximately to 1200 to IS00 square feet in size. The buildings are built of wood-frame and stucco construction founded on continuous perimeter masonry block wall foundation and concrete spread footings, with an apparent combination of slab-on-grade and light weight concrete floors. In the case of Building 2310 Altisma Way, the rear portions of the structures are cantilevered over carport parking areas. The three-story structure (including the carport level) are supported on a combination of perimeter masonry block foundation walls, and isolated concrete footings with steel column supports. In the case of Building 2308 Altisma Way, the front portions of the structure appear to be cantilevered over either enclosed crawlspace areas and/or backfilled wall cavities. - Report of Limited Cwteehniul and Structmrd Investigation Selected Units (117,118, 123, 124, 125,snd 130) La Casta View HOIIICOW~CIS Aaaoeiation April 27, 2001 - Pwe 3 V. SUMMARY OF FLOOR LEVEL SURVEYS Project No Wl8W In order to evaluate individual units for foundation and floor movement, we performed a relative floor elevation survey (manometer) across the living area floors within the lower units on November 14, 2000. A summary of the survey results and the characterization ofthe damagehilt observed has been summarized below. 2308-Units 117 & 118 A review of the survey findings as measured across these units notes that with respect to Units I17 & 118 combined, a total of approximately 4.1-inches of elevation difference was measured across the floor area of both units. Further, the floor elevation difference measured across the individual units was found to be approximately 3.3-inches across Unit 117, and approximately 2.4-inches across Unit 118. In the case of Unit 117, the survey measured approximately 3.3-inches of floor elevation difference measured across 23-feet horizontal. The downward tilt to the north-northwest extends from the high point (located within the front entry), towards the low point (located within the northerly portions of the master bedroom and bathroom). In the case of Unit 118, the survey measured approximately 2.4-inches of floor elevation difference across 33-feet horizontal. The downward tilt to the west-northwest extends from the high point (located within the kitchen), towards the low point (located within the westerly portions ofthe master bedroom and second bedroom). See the attached Relative Floor Elevation Survey, Figure IIa. 2308-Units 123 & 124 A review ofthe survey findings as measured across these units notes that with respect to Units 123 & 124 combined, a total ofapproximately 2.3-inches of elevation difference was measured across the floor area of both units. Further, the floor elevation difference measured across the individual units was found to be approximately 1.5-inches across Unit 123, and approximately I .2-inches across Unit 124. In the case of Unit 123, the survey measured approximately IS-inches of floor elevation difference across 27-feet horizontal, and directed downward towards the north-northwest from the high point (located withim the front entry and second bedroom), towards the low point (located within the northerly comer of the master bedroom). In the case of Unit 124, the survey measured approximately 1.2-inches of floor elevation difference across 22-feet horizontal, and directed downward towards the west-northwest from the high point (located along the southerly wall of the living room), towards the low point (located within the westerly portions of the master bedroom and second bedroom). See the attached Relative Floor Elevation Survey, Figure Ilb. 2310-Unit 125 A review of the survey findings as measured across Unit 125 found a total of approximately 2.2- inches of elevation difference. Further, the floor elevation difference measured equals approximately 2.2-inches across 33-feet horizontal, directed downward towards the northeast from high points (one located within the front entry, and one located within the easterly living room), towards the low point (located at the northeasterly comer of the master bedroom). See the attached Relative Floor Elevation Survey, Figure Ilc. Report of Limited Grotechnical and Slrurlural Investigation Sel~ledU~itr(117,118,123,124,125,nnd 130) la Costa View Homeownen Association April 27,2001 Page 4 2310-Unit 130 A review of the survey findings as measured across Unit 130 found a total of approximately 2.1- inches of elevation difference. Further, the floor elevation difference measured equals approximately 2.1-inches across 17-feet horizontal, directed downward towards the northeast from high points (one located either side of the living room fireplace), towards the low point (located within the dining room nook). See the attached Relative Floor Elevation Survey, Figures IId. VI. CONDITIONS OF OBSERVEDIREPORTED DISTRESS During our site visit, we perform reconnaissance observations of readily visible interior and exterior site conditions and features, and where possible held discussions with the property owner regarding their observation of distress conditions and/or site changes. The following represents a general summary of site distress observed to-date, supplemented by other reported distress conditions relative to the individual units. See also Photographs, Appendix B, attached. 2308 Altisma Way, Unit 117 Reported Distress: Based on the reports of Ms. Helen Wong, she purchased the unit in June, 1997. At that time, she reports that the previous owner disclosed conditions of previous earth movement damage and litigation related to her residence. Ms. Wong also repoh that she was informed that the Homeowner’s Association was going to be handling all soil related distress repairs, as they may develop. Since owning the residence, Ms. Wong reports noticing new and additional interior wall and ceiling cracks, especially withiin approximately the last two years. The reported areas of cracking include: cracks radiating from the living room sliding glass door; new stairstep cracking within the westerly wall of the living room, near the hallway; additional cracking in the living room ceiling over the entry hallway; the development of several raised floor areas located within the kitchen and reportedly near the coffee table; and horizontal cracking of the drywall located within the dining area nook. Observed Distress: During our site observations of readily visible site conditions, we noted the following distress features: . An approximately 1/4-inch wide stairstep crack located within the northerly masonry block foundation wall, near the northwesterly comer of the building; An apparent 1116-inch wide crack located within the northerly masonry block foundation wall; Evidence of previously patched and repaired exterior stucco, especially along the easterly and northerly sides of the residence, as well as along the foundation in the vicinity of the front walkway slab; Report of Limited Gcotrcboied and Struelural Invuligation Selected Unia (117,118, 123,124,125,md 130) L. Cmta View Eanrornen Auaeiition April 21,ZWl Page 5 Various hairline to 1116-inch wide cracks in the interior drywall, located in the living room and dining room. One of the cracks was noted to radiate from the upper comer of the sliding glass door, and a second crack was evident as a horizontal crack extending across the wall of the dining room nook; An approximately hairline to 1132-inch wide crack in the interior drywall, located near the hallway. The crack appears to have developed recently, as indicated by the unweathered condition of the crack surface; An approximately hairline to 1116-inch wide crack in the interior drywall ceiling, located over the entry into the living room; Various hairline to 1/16-inch wide cracks in the exterior stucco, generally radiating from the comer of windows of the unit and the unit above; A few hairline to 118-inch wide cracks in the exterior stucco, generally located near the juncture of the balconies and the building exterior walls; A few hairline to 1132-inch wide cracks in the surface of the exterior balcony; A few hairline to 118-inch wide cracks in the concrete exterior walkway slabs, adjacent to the front entry area. Evidence of previous repairs consisting of a limited program of soil compaction grouting, and evident as two lineal rows of patched grout holes noted within the parking area pavement located along the westerly side of the building, as well as the exposure of a localized bulb of cement grout beneath the comer of the wall footing located at the northeasterly comer of Unit 117. 2308 Altisma Way, Unit 118 Reported Distress: Based on the reports of Mr. Bill McTear, he purchased the unit approximately 1 -1iz years ago. At the time of purchase, the previous owner did not disclose or report any pre-existing damage or other defects within the unit. Soon after purchasing the residence, Mr. McTear reports having the existing carpet removed, and replaced with Pergo laminated wood flooring. During the carpet removal process, MI. McTear reports noticing only a few areas of minor cracking within the floor surface, and several areas where overlays appear to have been performed to repair the floor surface. Reportedly, some of the observed cracking appeared to have been associated with the deterioration of some of the overlay repairs, and some delaminating of the overlay areas were also noted. With the exception of floor condition noted above, Mr. McTear reported no other significant damage or conditions of concern. Observed Distress: During our site observations of readily visible site conditions, we noted the following distress features: Repart of Limited Geotechniul and Structural Investigation SelectedUniU(117,118,123, I24,125,md 130) La Colt. View Homeowners Association April 27,2001 Page 6 Project No CQ.1800 A hairline to 1116-inch wide crack in the interior drywall, located near the living room and entry. The crack appears to extend as a hairline to I/&inch wide crack within the ceiling over the entry hallway extending into the living room; A few hairline to US-inch wide cracks in the concrete exterior walkway slabs, adjacent to the front entry area; . A few areas of apparent exterior stucco repairs, especially along the easterly and northerly Various hairline cracks in the exterior stucco, generally radiating from the cnrners of sides of the residence; . windows. 2308 Altisma Way, Unit 123 Reported Distress: Based on the reports of Ms. Karen Beech, she purchased the unit approximately 2 -1/2 years ago. At the time of purchase, she reports that carpet removals exposed several cracks within the interior floor surface. One of the cracks reportedly extends from the toilet in the second bathroom, into the second bedroom and turns north towards the master bedroom. Reportedly, this crack was repaired by a contractor retained by the Association, prior to the installation of new flooring. Additionally, Ms. Beech also reports that she has noticed a few apparent pre-existing cracks in the front balcony deck and rear patio deck, which appear to have widened or changed slightly since the deck and patio surface had been painted, approximately 6-months ago. Observed Distress: During our site observations of readily visible site conditions, we noted the following distress features: A few hairline to 1/32-inch wide cracks in the interior drywall, generally radiating from the comers of a few interior doors; . A few hairline to IR-inch wide cracks in the concrete exterior walkway slabs, adjacent to the front entry area; A few areas of apparent exterior stucco repairs, especially along the easterly and northerly sides of the residence; . Various hairline cracks in the exterior stucco, generally radiating from the comer of windows and outside the unit above. 2308 Altisma Way, Unit 124 Reported Distress: Based on the reports of the owner, the unit was purchased within the last year or so. At the time of our site visit, we obtained access to the unit for the inspection and floor elevation SUNey. Rcporl of Limited Gcoterhnied and Slruetursl Invntigalion Selected Units (117,118,123, 124,125. md 130) Le Coat. View Homeownen Aimcialion April 11,ZWl Page 7 Project No W.18W Observed Distress: During our site observations of readily visible site conditions, we noted the following distress features: A few hairline cracks in the interior drywall, generally radiating from the comers of a few doors or windows; A few hairline to 3116-inch wide cracks in the concrete exterior walkway slabs, adjacent to the front entry area; A few areas of apparent exterior stucco repairs, especially along the southerly and easterly sides of the residence; Various hairline to U32-inch wide cracks in the exterior stucco, generally radiating from the corners of windows; An approximately hairline to 3/16-inch wide crack in the exterior building foundation, located on the southerly side of the residence. The crack was noted to radiate from near the circular foundation for the fireplace. 2310 Altisma Way, Unit 125 Reported Distress: Based on the reports of Ms. Pamela Carlson, she purchased the unit approximately I year ago. Since owning the property, the unit above (Unit 225);experienced a water leak which caused some interior damage to the interior drywall and ceiling within her unit. Repairs were performed to restore the damaged drywall areas. With the exception of this damage, Ms Carlson reports no other conditions of concem relative to her unit. Further, she reports that she has not noticed any interior damage or other distress since purchasing the property. Observed Distress: During our site observations of readily visible site conditions, we noted the following distress features: A hairline to 1/16-inch wide crack in the interior drywall ceiling, located in the front (second) bedroom, by the closet, and a few hairline drywall cracks radiating from the windows and doors in a few locations; . A few hairline to 118-inch wide cracks in the concrete exterior walkway slabs, leading to the front entry; A few areas of apparent exterior stucco repairs, especially along the easterly, northerly, and westerly sides of the residence; Various hairline to 1132-inch wide cracks in the exterior stucco, generally radiating from the comers of windows. Report of Limited Groteehnieal and Slruebrnl Investigation Selected Unilr (117,118,123, 124, 125, and 130) L. Costs View Homeowners Associalion Project No W18W - April 27,ZWI Page 8 Our site observations noted that this unit appears to have been retrofitted with supplemental structural and foundation supports, consisting of additional beams and columns visible from the carport beneath the building. The additional foundation elements appear to have been installed to support the central portion ofthe residence, and the cantilevered rear section of the building structure (located beneath the balcony and dining area nook). This supplemental support is evident as two beams and five columns, and appears consistent with structural elements designed to address structural sag and/or foundation deficiencies. Further, our observations noted what appears to be sag within the cantilevered building floor located beneath the dining room window. The sag is evident as a distortion of the exterior wall comer visible along the cantilevered portion of the stucco exterior. The observed condition appears to correspond to the location of concentrated floor tilt as measured within the floor elevation survey. 2310 Altisma Way, Unit 130 Reported Distress: Based on the reports of the owner’s neighbor and hoard member (Mr. Jim Lockhart), the current owner of the unit is Mr. Terry Flanagan, who has owned the property approximately I-year. Since purchasing the property, Mr. Flanagan has reportedly indicated that some interior wall cracking was previously evident and had been repaired, especially in the areas of the windows and doors within the master bedroom and living room. Further, it is our understanding that since these repairs only a very few additional interior wall cracks have become evident. Observed Distress: During our site observations of readily visible site conditions, we noted the following distress features: A few apparent hairline cracks in the interior drywall, generally radiating from the upper comers of doors or windows on the living room and master bedroom; A few hairline to lildinch wide cracks in the concrete exterior walkway slabs, adjacent to the front enhy walkway; A few areas of apparent exterior stucco repairs, especially along the southerly and easterly sides of the residence. Site observations also appear to suggest previous patch repairs to the exterior stucco along the masonry block foundation walls exposed within the carport area; Various hairline to 1/32-inch wide cracks in the exterior stucco, generally radiating from the comers of windows. Further, our observations noted what appears to be sag within the cantilevered building floor located beneath the dining room window. The sag is evident as a distortion visible along the cantilevered exterior stucco comer, on the underside of the building wall. The observed distortion appears to correspond to the location of concentrated floor tilt as measured by the floor elevation survey. - Report of Limited Ccoteehnical and Strueturd Investigation Selected Units (117,118,123,124,125. and 130) La Costa View Homeoxnrra Asraeiation April 27,2WI Page 9 - VII. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Project No OC-1800 Based on the observed distress, we performed three exploratory subsurface soil borings and twelve exploratory test pits to evaluate the underlying soil materials. Many of the additional test pits were excavated to examine the condition of the main surface drain system which extends along the central portion of the westerly driveway. The issue of concern regarding the operational condition of the drain was highlighted by Mr. Dennis Van Sickle, who has acted as construction consultanthanager on several previous site drainage repair operations at the project site. The excavation of the surface drain system was performed by O'Leary Construction, who excavated, backfilled, and repaired the excavations to expose the drain system. Additionally, our subsurface exploration included the excavation, logging and sampling of three exploratory test borings consisting of 4-inch diameter machine excavated and/or hand excavated borings and foundation area test pits, which were performed between February 1 and 19,2001, at the locations shown on the attached Site Plan, Figure No. I. A log of the soil conditions encountered within the individual borings is presented below: Boring B-1 (Corridor between Units 122 and 123) Soil Conditions Encountered: Fill: Olive Tan, very moist, soft, fine sandy silty clay with chunks of claystone. Boring terminated due to refusal on impenetrable obstruction. No water seepage or caving encountered. Total Depth: 1 .O foot. Boring B-2 (Corridor between Units 122 and 123) Soil Conditions Encountered Fill: Tan, gray and brown, wet, soft, fine sandy silty clay. @ 1.0' Moisture Content: = 25.3 %. @ 2.0 Moisture Content: = 21.8 %, Dry Density (DD) = 100.3 pcf. @ 4.0' Moisture Content: = 20.5 Yo. @ 5.0' Moisture Content: = 21.7 %, Dry Density (DD) = 101.8 pcf. @ 6.0' Moisture Content: = 22.4 %. @ 8.0 Gray and tan, very moist, medium dense, clayey fine to coarse sand, Moisture Content: = 20.3 %, Dry Density = 108.1 pcf. @ 1O.o'Moisture Content: = 18.6 %. @ 10.5' Becomes gray with chunks of claystone. @ 12.0'Moisture Content: = 22.5 %. @ 13.0' Becomes black and gray with rootlets and chunks of claystone. @ 13.0' Moisture Content: = 24.5 %. @ 13.75' Moisture Content: = 20.6 %. Boring terminated at 13.75 feet. No water seepage or caving encountered. Total Depth: 13.75 feet. Report of Limited Ceateehnieal and Structural IwestigaIim Selected UniD (117,118,123,124,115, and 130) La Cmts View Homeownen Associalion April 17.1001 Page 10 Project No 00-1800 Boring B-3 (Between Units 118 and 119) Soil Conditions Encountered: Fill: Olive tan, very moist, soft, fine sandy silty clay with chunks of claystone. @ 1.0'Moisture Content: = 21.0%. @ 2.5'Moisture Content: = 21.3 %, Dry Density (DD) = 102.2 pcf. @ 3.0 Becomes firm, Moisture Content = 20.7%. @ 4.0' Yellowish tan, moist, stiff, fine sandy clayey silt with chunks of claystone, Moisture Content: = 20.3 %, Dry Density (DD) = 104.9 pcf. @ 6.0' Moisture Content: = 19.7 %. @ 8.0' Moisture Content: = 17.2 %, Dry Density (DD) = 108.4 pcf. @ 9.0 Formation: Grayish tan and orange, very moist, medium stiff to stiff, fine sandy clayey siltstone, completely weathered. @ 10.0' Moisture Content: = 26.4 %. @ 10.25': Becomes Yellowish tan and moderately weathered with lenses of claystone. @ 11.0' Moisture Content: = 16.8 %. Boring terminated in very stiff formational material. No water seepage or caving encountered. Total Depth: 11.25 feet. Test Pit TP-1 (North of Unit 117) Soil Conditions Encountered: Fill: Tan, dry to damp, soft to medium stiff, fine sandy silty clay with chunks of claystone. @ 3.0' Moisture Content = 21.0 %, Dry Density (DD) = 99.4 pcf. @ 4.0 Moisture Content = 21. I %, Dry Density (DD) = 95.5 pcf. @ 6.0' Moisture Content = 22.8 %, Dry Density (DD) = 99.6 pcf. @ 6.25' Brown, very moist, medium stiff, slightly silty clay. @ 6.75' Formation: Tan, moist, dense, clayey silty sandstone. @ 7.0' Moisture Content = 11.6 %. Excavation terminated due to dense formational material. No water seepage or caving encountered. Total Depth: 7.25 feet. Report af Limited Geotechnied and Structural lnvnligstion Selected Unib (117,118,123,124,125, and 130) La Cmta View Homeowners Awoeiatian April 27,IWl Page I1 Test Pit TP-2 (Northeast of Unit 117) Soil Conditions Encountered: Fill: Tan and gray, very moist, soft, fine sandy silty clay with chunks of claystone. Encountered cement slurry grout bulb from previous compaction grouting operation, beneath wall footing. @ 1.0' Moisture Content = 20.0 %. @ 2.0' Becomes wet. @ 3.0' Becomes firm. @ 6.0' Moisture Content = 22.0 %, Dry Density (DD) = 94.9 pcf. @ 6.5' Dark brownish gray, very moist, stiff, silty clay. @ 7.0' Formation: Olive light gray, moist, very stiff, fine sandy clayey silt, Moisture Content = 24.0 %. @ 9.0' Moisture Content = 20.1 %. Excavation terminated due to dense formational material. No water seepage or caving encountered. Total Depth: 9.0 feet. Test Pit TP-3 (South of Unit 124) Soil Conditions Encountered: Fill: Dark brown, olive and gray, very moist to wet, medium stiff to stiff, fine sandy silty clay. @ 3.o'Gray and tan, moist, medium dense, clayey tine sandy silt. @ 3.0'Moisture Content = 18.4 %, DrS; Density (DD) = 109.5 pcf. @ 4.0'Moisture Content = 17.7 %. @ 5.0'Moisture Content = 17.5 %. Excavation terminated at 5.5 feet. No water seepage or caving encountered. Approximate Footing Depth: 16-inches Estimated Footing Width: 20-22-inches Approximate Embedment: 15-inches Total Depth: 5.5 feet. Test Pit TP-4 (East of Unit 124, near the entry) Soil Conditions Encountered: Fill: Dark brown to olive, wet to very wet, soft, tine sandy silty clay Excavation terminated at 2.7 feet. No water seepage or caving encountered. Soil probe used to approximate top of footing at 40-inches Total Depth: 2.7 feet. Repoil of Limiled CeDleehnieal and Slmet~rsl lrvntigrtion Selrelrd Unitl(ll7, 118,123,124, 125, and 130) Ls Coal. View Homeownen Assmielion April 27.2W1 Page 12 Project NO W-I8W Test Pit TP-5 (East of Unit 124, near balcony) Soil Conditions Encountered: Fill: Grayish brown, olive and gray, very moist to wet, medium stiff to stiff, fme sandy silty clay. @ 3.0'Gray, green and tan, very moist, medium dense, clayey fine sandy silt, Moisture Content = 19.2 %. (@ 4.0' Becomes wet and soft, Moisture Content = 24.6 Oh. @, 5.0' Becomes very moist and medium dense. @ 6.0'Moisture Content = 16.7 %. @ 7.0' Lenses of Gray, wet, soft, silty clay, Moisture Content = 19.9 %. @ 8.75' Formation: Gray, moist, dense, siltstone. Excavation terminated due to dense formational material. No water seepage or caving encountered. Approximate Footing Depth: 16-inches Estimated Footing Width: 18-20-inches Approximate Embedment: 28-inches Total Depth: 9.0 feet. Test Pit TP-6 (North of Unit 125) Soil Conditions Encountered: Fill: Dark brown to grayish brown, very wet to saturated, soft, fine sandy silty clay. Encounter oversized concrete.footing which appears to consist of previous foundation repairs as reportedly performed under Geocon repair observations. @ 1.5' Moisture Content = 20.5 %. @ 2.5' Moisture Content = 23.3 %. Excavation terminated at 2.6 feet. No water seepage or caving encountered. Approximate Footing Depth: 24-inches Estimated Footing Width: >26-inches Approximate Embedment: 32-inches Total Depth: 2.6 feet. Test Pit TP-7 (West of Unit 117) Soil Conditions Encountered Slab: 2%" - 4 %" Concrete with welded wire mesh located in lower %" overlying 3" decomposed granite. Fill: Grayish brown, olive and tan, moist to very moist, medium stiff, tine sandy clayey silt with dark brown and olive clay chunks. @ 2.0' Moisture Content = 19.7 %. @ 4.0 Moisture Content = 23.2 %. Excavation terminated at 5.2 feet. Evidence of grouting was also noted as patched grout holes found within the concrete slab located west of the building. - Repom of Limited Geotcehnieal and Slrunurd Invetigation Seleeled Uniu (117,118,123,124,115, and 130) Ln Cmu View Hmeowners A3rorirtion April 21,ZWI Page 13 - Project No 00-1800 No water seepage or caving encountered. Approximate Footing Depth: 16-inches Approximate Embedment: 24-inches Total Depth: 5.2 feet. Test Pit TP-8 (Drainage pipe exposure, Northwest parking area South of Unit 117) Soil Conditions Encountered: Slab: 3" - 4" Concrete with welded wire mesh. Fill: Olive brown, moist, medium stiff, fine sandy clayey silt. @ 17" Pipe: 5-inch diameter non perforated corrugated drain pipe. The section exposed was noted to be intact, with no evidence of pipe leakage. No water seepage or caving encountered. Total Depth: 20 inches. Test Pit TP-9 (Drainage pipe exposure, at grate inlet West of Unit 119) Soil Conditions Encountered: Fill: Olive brown, moist to very moist, medium stiff, fine sandy clayey silt. @ 1.3'Moisture Content = 19.5 %. Pipe: 5-inch diameter non perforated corrugated pipe. The section exposed was noted to be intact, with no evidence of pipe leakage. However, the drain pipe empties an approximately 12" x 18" pre-cast drain box, with cast-iron grate cover. The drain box has been sawcut to install the drain pipe, and some potential leakage may occur along the juncture between the pipe and box. No water seepage or caving encountered. Total Depth: 20 inches. Test Pit TP-10 (Drainage pipe exposure, West of Units 121 and 122) Soil Conditions Encountered: Fill: Tan to olive brown, moist, dense, clayey silty sand. @ 1.0' Moisture Content = 20.0 %. Pipe: 5-inch diameter non perforated corrugated pipe. The section exposed was noted to be intact, with no evidence of pipe leakage. However, the drain pipe empties an approximately 12" x 18 pre-cast drain box with cast-iron grate cover. The drain box has been sawcut to install the drain pipe, and some potential leakage may occur along the juncture between the pipe and box. No water seepage or caving encountered. Repon of Lintiled Geolechnicd and Structurai Investigation Selected Unita(lI7,118,l23,124,125, and 130) La Coili View Aaneornera Association April 27,2001 Page 14 Project NoWi8W Test Pit TP-11 (Northwest corner of Unit 123) Soil Conditions Encountered: Slab: 3" - 4 %" Concrete with welded wire mesh located in lower %" overlying 4" - 6" decomposed granite. Fill: Olive gray and brown, very moist to wet, medium stiff to stiff, fine sandy clayey silt. @ 1 .O' Moisture Content = 20.4 %. @ 2.0' Moisture Content = 22.5%. Excavation terminated at 2.5 feet. No water seepage or caving encountered. Total Depth: 2.5 feet. Test Pit TP-12 (West of Unit 117) Soil Conditions Encountered: Slab: 3%" - 4" Concrete with welded wire mesh located on subgrade material consisting of 6%" gravel and decomposed granite. Fill: Olive tan, moist, medium dense, fine sandy silt. @ 2.0' Moisture Content = 22.5 %. @ 2.SOlive, brown and rust, very moist, stiff, fine sandy clayey silt. @ 3.0' Moisture Content = 20.5 %. @ 3.5' Formation: Olive, tan and rust, moist, dense, siltstone interbedded with sandstone. @ 5.0' Moisture Content = 14.1 %. Excavation terminated due to dense formational material. No water seepage or caving encountered. Total Depth: 5.0 feet. VIII. LABORATORY TESTING Selected laboratory testing was performed on representative soils obtained from the test borings performed immediately adjacent to the building perimeter. Laboratory tests were performed on both disturbed and relatively undisturbed soil samples in order to evaluate their pertinent physical characteristics and engineering properties. The following tests were conducted on the soils sampled: 1) Moisture Content 2) Density Evaluations 3) Consolidation Test 4) Expansion Index Test ASTM D2216-71 ASTM D1557, Method A and others ASTM D2435 ASTM D4928, UBC 18-2 L Ssrnple Moisture Location Content (%) B-I @2' 21 8 B-l @ 5' 21 7 Reporl oflimiled Gealeehnieal and Slimeturd IEYesligPtiOO Selected Units (117, 118.123,124,12S, nnd 130) Ls Casu View Aolncovncri Association April 27,2001 Page IS Degree of Dry Max. Dry Relative Saturation Density Densify Compact (Yo) (pc0 (pc0 (Yo) 88 100 3 1182 85 91 101 8 1182 86 The relationship between the moisture and density of undisturbed soil samples give qualitative information regarding the in-place soil moisture characteristics and soil conditions. Results of ow in-place moisture and density testing are presented in the table below. The results of our maximum dry density and optimum moisture content determinations are presented in the Laboratory Summary Table and are also enclosed within the Laboratory Test Results, Appendix C. The results of our relative compaction and degree of saturation testing is presented in the table below B-I @8' B-3 @ 2.5' B-3 @ 4.5' 8-3 @ 8' TP-I @ 2.5' 20.3 99 108.1 118.2 91 21.3 90 102.2 123.9 82 20.3 91 104.9 123.9 85 17.2 85 108.4 123.9 87 21.0 82 99.4 120.9 82 TP-I @ 5.5' TP-2 @ 5.5' 11 TP-I a3.5' I 21.1 I 75 I 95.5 I 120.9 I 79 22.8 90 99.6 120.9 82 22.0 75 94.9 120.9 78 TP-3 @ 3' TP-5 @ 5' 18.4 94 109.5 120.9 91 20.9 95 105.0 120.9 87 TP-5 @ 8' * The consolidation test is used to estimate the consolidationisettlement or swell that could potentially occur within a soil under specific loadings (such as may be imposed by buildings, walls, piers, etc.). The results of our testing indicate a low to moderate potential for consolidation within the near surface fill soils. See Laboratory Test Results, Appendix C, attached. __ 17.6 86 108.1 .__ Rcporl of Limited Geot~~hnicil and Structural Invatigalion Selceled UniU (117,ll8, 123,124,125, and 130) La Cost. View Aolneorneri Association April 27,1001 Page 16 Test TP-I @ 2-3' TP-3 @ 0.5' Project No 00.1800 Dry Density Initial Moisture Expansion Index Expansion 99. I 12 9 51 Medium 99.2 13.0 43 Low * The expansion index of the upper foundation soils was evaluated in accordance with ASTM Test Method D4928 (UBC 18-2), where representative soil samples are tested at saturations near SO percent. Expansive soils are classified as follows (by the Expansion Index Test): 0 to 20 Very Low 21 to50 Low SI to90 Medium 91 to 130 High Above 13 I Very High The results ofthe soil testing is presented in the table below. Also see the Laboratory Test Results, Appendix C, attached. IX. REVIEW OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS-UNITS 125. AND 130 Based on the findings of our floor elevation survey and the general pattern of floor distortion as measured within portions of Unit Nos. 125 and 130, we coordinated with representatives of Protec Building Services Inc. to open areas of the exterior stucco and expose the selected areas of the floor system framing accessible from the carpart areas beneath the units. The areas selected for exposure were limited to those areas where the pattern of floor tilt, as measured by our survey, indicated that the floor framing system was found to display significant floor tilt and/or distortion. Upon opening of the stucco, our registered structural engineer reviewed and documented the conditions exposed, and evaluated the general structural configuration of the surrounding floors, walls and roof systems which contribute loads to the flooring system from above. Upon review, the structural engineer then performed a general analysis and load calculation based on his observations and assumptions. Upon the completion of his review, Protec Building Services Inc., performed interim repairs to the exterior stucco opening using exterior grade plywood screwed in-place to cover the wall opening until repairs can be implemented. As summary of the structural engineer's findings and recommendations have been integrated into the Findings and Conclusions, and Recommendations sections of this report. Reporl oflimiled Geoteehniul and Structural Investigation Sclrctd Units (117,118,123,124,125, and 130) Ls Cosu View Aamrownrn Association April 17,lWl Page 17 Project No MI8W X. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Based on the site evaluation and subsurface exploration, it appears that the units surveyed have sustained building distress generally considered to range from minor to severe. Based on the information collected, the distress appears related to either one or a combination of underlying soil conditions and structural conditions. Based on our site evaluation, we provide the following comments and opinions with respect to the units studied: 2308 Altisma Way, Units 117 and 118: Unit I17 was noted to display evidence ofmoderate to severe foundation and floor movement. Based on the character and location of the damage, as well as the floor tilt measured to-date, it appears that the distress has resulted from soiVfoundation movement, primarily consisting of settlement of the building foundation along the westerly, northerly and northeasterly sides of the structure. Our exploration revealed that the building is supported on a combination of concrete continuous spread footings (along the westerly, and portions of the northwesterly and southwesterly building walls), as well as perimeter masonry block stemwall located along the northeasterly, easterly, and southeasterly portions of the structure. Based on our evaluation, it appears that the northwesterly, northerly, and northeasterly portions ofthe perimeter foundation and interior floor slab have experienced differential movement, downward, related to fill settlement. This opinion is supported by the pattern of the floor tilt, the observed areas of concentrated distress, and the findings of our exploration, which found that the northerly building wall is underlain by poorly compacted fill soils of approximately 7-feet in depth. The observed foundation crack noted within the northerly stemwall was also found to correspond to the location of a cold joint, between the masonry stemwall and the poured in place concrete spread footing. The character of the footing crack appears to suggest soil settlement, associated with the poorly compacted underlying soil found within the area. Additionally, our site observations noted that at some previous time, a limited program of soil compaction grouting was implemented along the westerly and southerly sides of the structure, as well at the northeasterly building corner. It appears that within the general vicinity of the previous grouting operations, the building distress is less than that noted within the areas of the structure where no evidence of grouting was revealed. It is possible that this previous grouting was performed, in part, to reduce the potential for settlement within the surrounding concrete flatwork in the driveway, parking and sidewalk, as had been revealed during our review of the reference documents, which suggest that flatwork damage resulting from soil settlement had been previous reported and repaired within portions ofthe site. Unit 118 displays evidence of minor to moderate foundation and floor movement. This opinion is supported by the results of the floor elevation survey, the reports of the owner, and other evidence of building cracking as noted within the building exterior wall surface. Based on the site conditions as evident within Unit 117, and the results of our floor elevation survey, it appears that Unit 11 8 may have also sustained some previous foundatiodfloor movement, especially along the westerly side of the structure. These observations correspond with the observed evidence of a limited soil compaction grouting program which apparently had been previously implemented along the westerly side of the structure, as well as along the southerly side of the building. Report of Limited Geoteehnieal and Strueera1 Investigation Selected Uaiu (117,118.1U.124,125, and 130) La CmIs View Homeowners Associalion April 27,IWI P.bc 18 - - 2308 Altisma Way, Units 123 and 124: Project No W18W Unit 123 displays evidence ofminor to moderate foundation and floor movement. This opinion is supported by the results of the floor elevation survey and the reports of the owner, who has indicated that some floor cracking was exposed within the interior floor during the installation of new flooring at the time of purchase, approximately 2-112 years ago. Further, the owner has reported some concern that several hairline to 1132-inch wide cracks in the exterior balcony and patio, have widened slightly, Based on the site conditioxddistress as evident within the Unit 123, and the floor survey, it appears that the unit has sustained some foundation and floor movement associated with soil settlement. No evidence of foundation repairs were revealed during our exploration. However, the owner has reported that a previously revealed slab crack was repaired prior to purchase. Unit 124 displays evidence of minor to moderate foundation and floor movement. This opinion is supported by the results of the floor elevation survey, and the observed presence of a foundation crack evident along the southerly wall foundation, adjacent to the living room fireplace. Based on the site conditions and the results of our floor elevation survey, it appears that the unit may have sustained some minor foundation movement associated with soil settlement. This movement appears to have contributed to the approximately 118- to 3116-inch wide crack in the foundation located east of the fueplace. The observed foundation crack noted within the southerly stemwall may also comespond to the location of the cold joint between the masonry stemwall and the poured in place concrete spread footing. No evidence of foundation repairs were revealed during our exploration. However, some evidence of cosmetic exterior crack repairs were noted along the southerly side of the residence. 2310 Altisma Way, Unit 125: Unit 125 was noted to display evidence ofminor to moderate foundation and floor movement, as indicated by the presence of the floor tilt, distress, and the installation of previous foundation and structural supports beneath the subject unit. Based on the character and location of the interior cracking as noted, and the pattern of floor tilt measured, it appears that the unit has sustained previous structural floor movement, as well as foundation movement. Conditions related to building desigdconstruction, may be a significant factor contributing to the observed floor tilt noted. Based on our review of the project documents, the northerly foundation wall of the structure was retro-fitted with a system of caisson supports. This work was reportedly observed by Geocon Inc., during the repairs performed in October, 1986. Our evaluation found no evidence of additional foundation distress which has occurred since the previous foundation (caisson installation) repairs. Additionally, our site observations noted evidence of the installation of supplemental floor supports, beneath the central and northeasterly comer of the building. It appears that these repairs were intended to provide additional support to the existing floor joists, as well as the northerly most portion of the cantilevered rear floor area. However, based on the magnitude of the floor tilt as measured within the cantilevered (easterly section of the building), it appears that the floor system is distorted, and portions of the floor joists have been over-deflected by long term load conditions. This unit shares foundation and structural elements with Unit 225, as well as other units located within the structure. Reparl of Lidled Geoleehnical and Slruelvrnl Iwesligalion SalerlrdUnib(117,118,123,124, 125,and 130) W COW View Eomrownerr Atroeinlion April 27, ZW1 PIge 19 2310 Altisma Way, Unit 130: Unit 130 was noted to display evidence of minor to moderate floor movement as indicated by the pattern of floor tilt measured within the central and rear central (cantilevered) portions of the residence. Based on the character and location of the interior cracking as noted, as well as the pattern of floor tilt measured, it appears that the unit has sustained previous structural floor movement. Conditions related to building desigdconstruction may be a significant factor contributing to the observed floor tilt. Based on the magnitude of the floor tilt as measured within the cantilevered (easterly central section of the building) and central portion of the residence, it appears that the floor system is distorted, and portions of the floor joists have been over-deflected by long term load conditions. Additionally, it also appears that at least a portion of the floor deflection as measured within the central portion ofthe unit may have been caused by some previous settlement ofthe central post supports, located beneath the main north-south support beam. This unit shares foundation and structural elements with Unit 230, as well as other units located within the stmcture. XI. RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the results of OUT site evaluation, it is OUI opinion that soil movement is ongoing and will continue to contribute to building and site improvement distress. To address the areas of observed distress noted to-date, we provide the following recommendations and general guidelines for the releveling of the building foundation using compaction grouting, which is considered as a practical alternative to restore the damaged portion of the building founiiation and slab to a near-level condition. It should be noted that the recommendations only address the supplementation of the existing foundation systems as related to remediation of the visible distress features and foundatiodslab tilt considered beyond normal construction tolerances. Due to the condition of the soils underlying the site, it is possible that some continuing soil-related movement may occur even after the repairs have been completed. (Post-construction monitoring of structure performance will help to reveal if this is, or is not the case). At the time the compaction groutingireleveling is performed, we recommend that the structures be closely monitored so as to reduce the potential for unwanted foundation andor building distress. As the grouting is performed, monitoring of the building reaction will allow the grouting program to be modified to address site specific conditions and constraints. Additionally, because of the combination concrete and masonry stemwall design, it may not be feasible to attain the desired magnitude of releveling of the foundation and slab. Should this condition arise, it may be necessq to implement other releveling methods (it.., mechanical jacking/foundation releveling). It should be noted that the proposed compaction grouting program can provide improved soil densification and soil bearing, as well as improved building performance if properly implemented. Should, upon the completion of the proposed grouting program, additional foundation releveling be desired, upon request, this firm can provide recommendations designed to address such conditions. Report of Limited Geotrehnied and Slrvetursl Icvestigatim Selected Units (117,118,123,124,125, and 130) La Costs View Aommwacrs Association April 27,2001 Page 20 Comaaction Groutine Reoairs The proposed soiVfoundation repairs consist of a limited program of compaction groutingkeleveling in the area ofthe greatest differential floor tilt within the individual building structures (Units 117 and 118, and Units 123 and 124). The compaction grouting process is intended to improve the bearing characteristics ofthe supporting soils and allow for the releveling of the building foundation and slab in the affected area. The proposed grouting program is based on our findings, and the observed damage which has apparently been caused by the settlement of the fill and backfill soils underlying the affected portions of the site. Based upon the results of our evaluation, we recommend that the northerly and westerly perimeters ofthe buildings containing Units 117, 118, 123 and 124 be stabilized by compaction grouting the fill soils underlying the perimeter footings. The approximate location of grout injection points and the limits of the compaction grouting is shown on Figures llla and IIlb. The purpose of the grouting will be to densify the underlying soils, improve the bearing capacity, and to provide for some re-leveling of the building. The quantity of grout required to provide for compaction of foundation soils and partial re-leveling was estimated from the results of the geotechnical investigation. In general, we estimate that an average of approximately 1.5 to 3 cubic feet of grout per I-foot vertical increment will be required in the primary grout points between the depths of 3 and 13 feet. These grout points are located in the deeper sections of the underlying fill. The secondary grout points, located within the shallower fill areas, are anticipated to require an average of approximately 0.5 to 1.5 cubic feet of grout per vertical foot. Following foundation and slab releveling, we recommend that the void space which may develop beneath the existing slab andor wall footing which remain following the lifting process by filled with fluid mixture of cement grout injected in-place. Units 117and 118 Based upon the results of our investigation, it appears that the grout program required for the subject building (Units 117 and 118) will require a minimum average penetration of 6 to 8 feet into the underlying fill and natural soils for the primary grout points. The spacing required to densify the area in question appears to be on the order of4 feet between grout points. This spacing assumes that all the grout points will be located immediately around the exterior ofthe building. Additional secondary grout points may be required within the building to provide additional foundation and slab support, and to fill voids beneath the slab created by the re-leveling process. We have prepared the following estimates of total number of test pipes. In order for comparable bids to be obtained, these estimates are to be used in calculating unit costs and estimates. a. b. AVERAGE PIPE DEPTH = IO FEET. TOTAL LENGTH OF PIPE= 287 LINEAL FEET, (assumes no grout take withii the upper 3-feet of the ground surface). TOTAL NUMBER OF INJECTION PIPES = 4 I Report of Limiled Gmlrehnical and Slwcturd Iwuligstioo Selected Vnib (II7,118,123,124,125. and 130) L. Cats View Homeowners Association April 27,ZWI Page11 Project No WI8W C. ESTIMATED TOTAL VOLUME OF GROUT TO BE INJECTED = 861 CUBIC FEET. TOTAL AMOUNT OF DESIGN STRUCTURE LIFT = 2.4 inches d. Units 123 and 124 Based upon the results of our investigation, it appears that the grout program required for the subject building (units 123 and 124) will require a minimum average penetration of 1 I to 13 feet into the underlying fill and natural soils for the primary grout points. The spacing required to densitj. the area in question appears to be on the order of 4 feet between grout points. This spacing assumes that all the grout points will be located around the exterior of the building. Additional secondary grout points may be required within the building to provide additional foundation and slab support, and to fill voids beneath the slab created by the re-leveling process. We have prepared the following estimates of total number of test pipes. In order for comparable bids to be obtained, these estimates are to be used in calculating unit costs and estimates. a. TOTAL NUMBER OF INJECTION PIPES = 38 b. AVERAGE PIPE DEPTH = 12 FEET. TOTAL LENGTH OF PIPE = 456 LINEAL FEET, (assumes no grout take withim the upper 3-feet of the ground surface). C. ESTIMATED TOTAL VOLUME OF GROUT TO BE INJECTED = I026 CUBIC FEET. TOTAL AMOUNT OF DESIGN STRUCTURE LIFT = 1.2 inches d. The proposed repairs are discussed in the attached Appendix D, "General Notes And Instructions to Owners/General Contractor & Supplemental Notes Inshuctions To Prospective Compaction-Grouting Contractors", Appendix E, "Recommended Specifications For Compaction GroutingFoundation Releveling", and shown on the attached "Proposed Grout Point Location Map", Figures Ma, and IIIb, which also shows the proposed limits of compaction grouting. Following grouting and releveling the building foundation, further repairs should be performed in accordance with the specifications outlined below. - Repit of Limited GeotechnicaI and Strwcturd Inve=tigation Selected Units (117,118,123,124,125.snd 130) L. Cmtr View Aammwarrs Association April 27,ZWI Page 11 - Project No W-1800 - . Slab Repairs Following the compaction grouting and releveling repairs outlined above, we recommend that the interior floor slabs be repaired. Prior to slab repairs, readily removable floor coverings such as carpeting and padding should be removed so that the general condition of the floor slab can be observed. Following flooring covering removals and slab inspection, we recommend that all interior concrete slab cracks and separations between 1/8 and 1/4- inch wide be structurally repaired with epoxy grout, filled to the full thickness. Alternately, where the cracking is less than 1/8-inch wide, and no vertical separation is present across the crack surface, the crack may alternately be filled with an suitable elastomeric sealant to reduce the potential of moisture infilbation into the underlying site soils. Slab cracks greater than 1/4-inches wide should be considered for repairs using the recommended method for slab replacement as outlined below. Where floor slab replacement is required, such slab replacement should be performed in accordance with the attached Slab Replacement Detail, Figure IV b. Where cracks greater than Il4-inch in width or where exhibit vertical offset may be encountered, the interior floor slab should be sawcut and replaced. The cracked slab shall be sawcut a minimum of 16-inches to either side of the main crack and the concrete removed, Prior to pouring of concrete, the areas to be patched shall be reinforced in the following manner: The remaining in-place sawcut slab edges shall be thoroughly cleaned of debris and soil materials. Steel dowels consisting ofNo. 4 rebar shall be placed into the adjacent concrete slab on 18- inch centers. The dowels shall extend at least 6-inches into the existing adjacent concrete slab, and 12-inches into that area that will receive the new patch. The dowels shall be placed mid-height in the slab and shall be firmly fixed into place using a state-of-the-art epoxy or grout specified by the repair contractor. Where slab replacement is proposedrequired, new interior concrete slabs shall be constructed to be a minimum of 5-inches thick (interior floor slabs) and reinforced with No.4 rebar positioned at 18-inches on-center each way. The new slab areas shall be underlain by dense, properly moisture conditioned and compacted filVor natural soils, as well as 6-inches of clean sand and a IO-mil visqueen moisture barrier. New concrete slabs shall have the rebar positioned mid-slab, supported on concrete chairs. A minimum rebar lap of 16- inches shall be used. Grade-Beam Foundation Repairs Upon the completion of the foundation and slab releveling, any exposed footing cracks greater than I/4-inch wide may instead be supported using a minimum 6-foot long grade beaddeepened footing. The deepened footing shall be a minimum of 18-inches wide by 24-inches deep (bottoming at least 30-inches below the adjacent ground surface). The new Reporl of Limiled Geolrchniesl and Slructvral Invntigalian Selected Uni~(117,ll8,123,124.125, and 130) La CosU View Honreawners Asroeistion April 27,2W1 Page 13 Projerr No M18W deepened footing support shall be reinforced with four No. 4 rebars (two top and two bottom) wrapped with No. 3 rebar ties located at 12-inches on centers. The rebars and ties shall be secured to the existing footing using No. 4 rebar dowels epoxy set a minimum of 6-inches into the existing footing, situated at IO-inches on centers. Dowels and steel reinforcement shall lap a minimum of 12-inches, and extend around the new reinforcing steel. See attached Grade Beam Detail, Figure 1Va. All concrete repairs shall be performed using an approved concrete mix design which meets or exceeds a minimum compressive strength of 2500 psi, after 28 days. Crushed gravel mix designs are preferred as compared to pea gravel mix designs. . Structural Wood Floor ReDairs In order to address the observed conditions of excessive floor deflection as was measured within the wood floor system of Units 125 and 130, we recommend that the existing floor joists to fitted with supplemental steel joist members in accordance with the attached Figures titled Proposed Structural Repairs, Figures Va and Vb, as well as the attached Floor Joist Retro-Fit Repair Plan, Figure VI. The purpose floor joist repair involves the installation of 2 (hvo)-12FJ100 steel joist 14-feet in length to the floor joist located on either side of the diniig room nook window. On the balcony side of the window, a total of 5 (five) existing wood floor joists are to be retro-fitted, while on the master bedroom side of the dining room window, a total of 6 (six) existing wood floor joists are recommended to be retro-fitted. The proposed repairs are designed to enhance the load bearing capability of the existing wood floor joists within the areas of excessive deflection and high load conditions, which have been observed to be concentrated within the floor system joists located along either side of the dining room window. General Recom mendationslReDairs All compaction grouting operations, foundatiodslab releveling, slab repairs, wood floor system repairs, as well as the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete related to site and building repairs shall be observed by a representative of Anthony-Taylor Consultants to confirm compliance with applicable recommendations as outlined by this firm. We recommend that our firm be notified at least 24 hours in advance of the footing excavations in order to prevent any scheduling problems. Upon the completion of foundation releveling, we recommend that all roof members should be thoroughly inspected by a qualified architectural/structral engineering consultant, and shall be realigned, refastened or replaced, as warranted All walls should be checked to determine whether they are plumb. Walls that have rotated more than I-inch should be stripped of the covering to expose framing members and refitted, realigned, andor replaced as deemed necessary. Repart of Limiled Geotechnied and Strurtunl Invntiption Selected Unin (117, 118,123,124, 125, and 130) L. Costs View Homeowners Amxiation April 27,2001 Page 24 Project No W18W It should be noted that all interior and exterior cosmetic repairs to the residence such as crack patching, removal and refitting of doors and windows, removal and replacement of floor coverings, and realignment and attachment of flooring shall take place after all repairs have been completed. We recommend that exterior concrete flatwork/slab cracks, and cracks and separations along exterior joints between 1/16 and 3/8-inch wide be structurally repaired with epoxy grout, filled to the full thickness. Alternately, where the cracking is present within a cosmetic site improvement only, such as concrete walkway or other secondary hardscape improvement, and no vertical separation is present across the crack surface, the crack may alternately be filled with an suitable elastomeric sealant to reduce the potential of moisture infiltration in the underlying site soils. Exterior slab cracks greater than 3i8-inches wide should be considered for repairs using the recommended method for slab replacement. New exterior slabs shall be constructed to be aminiium of 4-inches thick and reinforced with No.3 rebar positioned at IS-inches on-center each way. The new slab areas shall be underlain by dense, properly moisture conditioned and compacted filVor natural soils, as well as 2-inches of clean sand. New concrete slabs shall have the rebar positioned mid-slab, supported on concrete chairs. A minium rebar lap of 16- inches shall be used. New exterior slab shall be provided with regularly space crack control joints, space at a maximum interval of 10- feet, on-centers, each direction. Cracks in the stucco should be cosmetically repaired by:’removing the covering surface; patching the crack with appropriate tiller material; applying repair tape (if appropriate); and resurfacing/repainting the repaired surface. Areas where the stucco wall has buckled or bowed, shall be stripped of the covering to expose framing members and refitted, realigned or replaced as deemed necessary. Within those areas where the stucco is severely damaged (i.e. spalling of stucco, cracks larger than 3/S-inch in width, etc.), the stucco surface shall be removed from the damaged area and the framing members should be inspected by a qualified structural engineer to determine whether securing or removal and replacement is warranted. The recommendations contained herein mt intended to address damage (cracked wall systems or connections) or deficiencies which may exist within the structural framework of the building. The evaluation of conditions and extent of damage to structural framing elements is beyond the scope of services presently authorized under this phase of our work. Our observations suggest that the structural framework of the building may have been locally damaged as a result of previous building movement. We therefore, recommend a thorough evaluation be performed by the project structural engineer addressing the condition and design of the building structural framework. - Report of Limited Gmlechniul and SIIYPIUI~ InvUIigPlion Selecled Unib(ll7,llS,123,124,125, and 130) La Carla View Homeowners Aatoeialion April 27.2W1 - Page 25 Project No W18W It should be noted that the following recommendations are provided to address foundation and dah damage as noted during our site evaluation. The recommendations presented herein are intended to restore the general integrity of the floor dah and foundation where cracked. Should, upon further inspection, additional or more severe foundatiodslab damage become evident, this firm should be contacted to review the condition@), and provide appropriate recommendations, as warranted. Mitigative Drainacle ReDairs In order to address and mitigate the existing conditions of locally poor surface drainage, and to reduce the potential for infiltration into the subgrade soils, we recommend the implementation of site drainage improvements. The recommended repairs are intended to correct or improve areas of observed or confmed poor surface runoff, or other drainage conditions with have a potential to affect or contribute to an increase in soil moisture variations, In order to simplify and utilize cost effective repairs, we have proposed that the drainage repairs be concentrated within the areas of the site where surface drainage conditions were found to possess insufficient gradient, or areas considered to have the greatest potential to contribute to subsurface moisture build-up in the vicinity of the buildings. To address this issue, we recommend that the following mitigative repairs he performed: We recommend that measures he taken to properly finish grade the all landscape planters and site concrete surfaces such that the surface drainage'is directed away from structure foundations, floor slabs, and top of slopes. As a general rule we recommend that a 5-percent minimum gradient be provided away from buildings and slabs for a minimum distance of I5 feet from the building for soillsubgrade surfaces, and I-percent minimum gradient for a minimum distance of IO feet for hard finish surfaces (pavement, walkways etc.). Ponding of water should not be permitted. Planter areas at grade should be provided with positive drainage directed away from all buildings and into new or existing (where found to be adequate) surface drainage improvements. In the case of this project site, appropriate site drainage repairs would consist of the removal of areas of poorly drained concrete slab, the installation of a new system of roof gutter and downspouts, as well as providing an adequate surface drain system with regularly spaced (generally spaced as approximately 10-feet on centers) drain inlets within landscape areas. Our site observations noted that the existing system of roof gutters along the westerly side of Buildings 2308 and 2308, primarily consists of plastic, home-improvement gutters and downspouts. These poor quality, low volume gutters and downspouts should be replaced with standard, full size, seamless aluminum rain gutters with splash and over-flow guards, with regularly spaced downspouts. Where possible, downspouts should be provided at regularly spaced intervals estimated not to exceed approximately 30-feet. Additionally, where possible, we recommend that all roof gutter downspouts emptying into 4-inch diameter, non-perforated drain system discharging to the street or another suitable drainage structure, such as the existing concrete swale located along the northerly portion of the site. The installation of a comprehensive surface drain system within the landscape planters surrounding the buildings, followed be re-grading of the ground surface within a distance of &feet of the building foundation may be required - Report of Limited Gealechnieal and Slruclunl Invesligstion Seleclrd Units (lit 118,123,124,125,md 130) La Cor18 View Hommwnen Aasoeialion April 27, 2001 Psge 26 - Project No 00.1800 within portions of the site. Any remaining irregular and/or reverse sloping concrete flatwork directing surface water into doorways should be removed and replaced with new, properly sloping concrete flatwork. New surface drainage improvements should consist of 4-inch diameter, non-perforated, SDR 35, PVC drain pipe (where located within pavement) or standard landscape grade, smooth wall, non-perforated, non-corrugated drain pipe placed a minimum 1% gradient sloped to the existing concrete swales or confirmed operational drain systems. In planter areas, new drain systems should be provided with drain inlets spaced at approximately IO feet on center. Additionally, the existing system ofroof drains and downspouts shall be connected into the existing drain system where confirm adequate, or into a new surface drainage system All new drains systems shall consist of the installation of 4-inch diameter outfall drain constructed in accordance with the recommendations outlined above. Runoff collected by new or existing drain systems shall he directed to an approved existing concrete drainage swale or other suitable structure. Irrigation Our site observations confmed generally poor site irrigation practices immediately adjacent to the building foundations. To correct these conditions, we recommend that the existing sprinkler type irrigation heads situated too close to buildings, be moved and/or replaced. To reduce the potential for the accumulation of site irrigation on or adjacent to the building, we recommend that the existing sprinkler-type irrigation system be replaced where located within IO-feet of the building perimeter foot-print. Replace sprinklers with new adjustable, low-volume, drip-type irrigation with individual adjustable valves in order to properly control and limit irrigation immediately adjacent to the building. We also recommend that regular, bi-yearly (twice a year) inspections of the operating condition of all site irrigation be performed especially irrigation systems adjacent to the building exterior walls. Adjust irrigation patterns and volumes in order to limit over-spray onto building foundations and walls, and so as to provide the minimum amount of water necessary maintain proper plant health. Where landscape damage occurs and re-vegetation is required, use only low water- use, drought-tolerant plant species suitable to match the site conditions and environment. . Leak Detection Testing Following the foundation repairs and releveling operations, we recommend that all structures which have undergone releveling and/or foundation system repairs be evaluated for the possibility of sewer and/or water line leaks. In the case of the leak detection testing, we recommend that the testing be performed by a licensed plumbing contractor specializing in leak detection testing. Where possible, we recommend that the sewer system be preferably tested using either a thorough static float test, or alternatively a video camera inspection. Where feasible, we also recommend that a thorough static test and/or the use of another suitable leak detection method to used to check for of the presencdabsence of a leakage within the pressurized water lines which service the building. Report of Limited Ceolcchnieal sad Structural Investigation Selrrlrd Units(117, LIS, 123,124.125,and 130) I.# Costa View Aomeowunrrr Associstion Project No WlSW ~ April 27, 2WI P.ge 27 - XII. LIMITATIONS Our conclusions and recommendations have been based on all available data obtained from our field investigation and laboratory analysis. Of necessity, we must assume a certain degree of continuity between exploratory excavations and/or natural exposures. It is therefore necessary that all observations, conclusions and recommendations be verified at the time mitigative repairs begin. In the event discrepancies are noted, additional recommendations may be issued (if required). Investigation of the overall stability of the general vicinity, which could also contribute to current or future damage, is beyond the scope ofour authorized work. Our fm did not perform an investigation of deep seated soil stability because the authorized scope of field work was specifically designed to evaluate the reported moisture density conditions underlying the subject site. Our firm shall not be held responsible for any subsequent movement of deep-seated geologic features that may underlie the general vicinity. No guarantee or warranty is either expressed or implied by our professional services, including the written reports of our fmdings and recommendations. Adverse geotechnical conditions or latent non-geotechnical situations could exist which might not be discovered and accounted for during our investigation or subsequent repairs. Past soil-related or moisture-related damage may have been repaired and therefore were not available for our observation and evaluation. In addition, latent defects in such non-geotechnical items as structural design, materials quality and type, or workmanship could result in future distress; analysis of such items is outside our authorized scope of services. Regardless, any existing adverse conditions concealed by site improvements or not revealed by our excavations, or past damages which have been repaired, are not able to be evaluated by our engineering professionals. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or owner's representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are called to the attention of the project professionals and Engineers, and incorporated into the project repairs and construction, and that the necessary steps are taken to ensure that the Contractors and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. This report may also be subject to review by the controlling authorities for this project. This report shall be considered valid for a period of one year or until significant additional soil-related or moisture-related damage occurs, whichever is less. At such time, this report is subject to review by our firm. If significant modifications are made to the investigated area, especially with respect to any changed drainage conditions, this report must be presented to us for immediate review and possible revision. L L Report of Limited Gtateehnical and Structwd inv~1tigation Sclreled Units (11?.118,123,124,125, md 130) L. Costa View Homeowners Association April 11,2001 P.gc 28 Project NO W-1800 We appreciate this oppomnity to be of service. Once again, should any questions arise concerning this report, you may contact the undersigned. Referencing our Project No. 00-1800, will help to expedite a reply to your inquiries. Respecthlly Submitted, Anthony-Taylor Consultants An Anfhony-Taylor Company Bruce Taylor President C.E.G No. 1960 &A 'kAd Gregory WK+ Project Engineering Geologist Distribution: (2 Originals, 1 Copy to Addressee) t z 3 U RELATIVE FLOOR ELEVATION SURVEY . -2.0 . SPOT ELEVATION (IN INCHES) --1.z- CONTOUR OF EQUAL ELEVATION X ~~-1/16" FOOTING CRACK (HL=HAIRLINE) (IN INCHES) -3/16" SLAB CRACK (WIDTH IN INCHES) UNIT 125 JOB NAME: S,TE ADORESS: LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS 2308 2310 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAO, CA. 00-1800 GMK/JLM 4/16/01 Ilc N;MBER: By: DATE: FIG. NO. -2.0- -1.6 - 1 INCH = 10 FEET GRAPHIC SCALE NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE DATE OF SURVEY: 11/14/00 ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSUL TANTS &-%%!!Fso %.%*"%Tz~ ,- - ,I, n-"4 .I. .,. llD I nnr*.. ... "Q, LEGEND UI.l. rr 7mo7 r.l.l-. 0 ._. ,nw 11.Otno , -2.0 SPOT ELEVATION (SURVEY HIGH/LOW IN INCHES) RELATIVE FLOOR ELEVATION SURVEY L -1.2 - -0.8 - -0.4 - 0 d 1 INCH = 10 FEET GRAPHIC SCALE UNIT 130 1.0 1 NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE DATE OF SURVEY: 11/14/00 I LEGEND A -2.0 SPOT ELEVATION (SURVEY HIGH/LOW IN INCHES) -2.0 SPOT ELEVATION (IN INCHES) I --1.2- CONTOUR OF EOUAL ELEVATION I (IN INCHES) x HL-1/16" FOOTING CRACK (HL=HAIRLINE) %3/16" SLAB CRACK (WIDTH IN INCHES) y' . _. . .. . . . . . . . . . 9. . .. C. I I I GRADE BEAM DETAIL BETWEEN SOIL & STEEL 4 EXIST. STEM WALL I c EXIST. WALL FOOTING AND SLAB -11 JOB NUMBER: 00-1 800 EXIST. FOOTING OR STEMWALL IVa REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. NO. GMK/JLM 4/16/01 24” MIN. SCALE: NOT TO SCALE I ANTHONY-TAYL OR CONSULTA NTS -k. bw....h Jn- .L. hryI Y u*,””, 7- SLAB REPLACEMENT DETAIL I 32" WIDE TYP. I I -1 NO. 4 REBAR ROWEL EPOXY SET 18 O.C. PROVIDE NEW 2" THICK LAYER OF CLEAN SAND BASE. A IO MIL.(MIN.) VISQUEEN MOISTURE BARRIER, AND 1" LAYER OF SAND BETWEEN SLAB AND VISOUEEN. LNO. 4 REBAR ROWEL EPOXY SET 18 O.C. NOTE: ALL CONCRETE TO BE 2500 PSI MIN @ 28 DAYS SCALE: NOT TO SCALE PROPOSED STRUCTURAL FLOOR REPAIRS --1.z- CONTOUR OF EQUAL ELEVATION (IN INCHES) LIMITS OF PROPOSED ezzzm SEE FLOOR JOIST RETRO-FIT STRUCTURAL REPAIRS REPAIR, DETAIL, FIG. VI UNIT 125 LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS SITE ADDRESS: 2308,2310 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA. JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED DATE: FIG. NO. 00-1 800 GMK/JLM 4/16/01 Va WITH 2 METAL JOISTS RETROFIT 6 EXISTING EACH JOIST -2.0 -1.6 Od 1 INCH = 10 FEET GRAPHIC SCALE RETROFIT 5 EXISTING F OOR JOISTS EACH JOIST /WITH 2 METAL JOISTS [14'-12FJ100) NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE DATE OF SURVEY: 11/14/00 LEGEND -2.0 SPOT ELEVATION (SURVEY HIGH/LOW IN INCHES) PROPOSED STRUCTURAL FLOOR REPAIRS UNIT 130 WITH 2 METAL JOISTS )I~.-IZFJIOO) 7 RETROFIT 6 EXISTING F OOR JOISTS EACH JOIST \ t.----- -1.2 - -0.8 . -0.4 - \ O'P 1 INCH = 10 FEET GRAPHIC SCALE RETROFIT 5 EXISTING F OOR JOISTS EACH JOIST /WITH 2 METAL JOISTS [14'-12FJlOO) D.0 1 NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE DATE OF SURVEY: 11/14/00 ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS %%.$'Xz' m%% !r?m i-.h 375 r.-* .I_ .I. m 5.. 1,1*. .. w, LEGEND -* 7. 71007 c.1."". u - ,MI I!+- A -2 0 SPOT ELEVATION (SURVEY HIGH/LOW IN INCHES) 9 2 APPENDIX A REFERENCES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. REFERENCES “Report of Distress Observations and Survey Findings, Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums, 2308 Altisma Way, Carlsbad California, 92009,” prepared by Anthony- Taylor Consultants, dated December 12,2000. “Interim Report of Survey Findings, Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums, 2308 Altisma Way, Carlsbad California, 92009,” prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated November 28,2000. “La Costa View Condominiums Consultation, 2308 Altisma Way, Carlsbad California,” prepared by Geocon, Inc., dated July 10, 1986. Letter addressed to Board of Governors, La Costa View Owners Association, prepared by Duke, Gerstel, Shearer & Bregante, dated March 20, 1985. “Limited Soil Investigation for La Costa View Condominiums, Carlsbad, California,” prepared Geocon Inc., dated September, 1984 and October 8, 1984. “La Costa View Damage & Repair Report,” prepared by Building Analysts, dated March 15, 1984 “La Costa View Condominiums Pavement Section Survey,” prepared by Testing Engineers-San Diego, dated March 30, 1983. “La Costa View Condominiums Consultation, Altisma Drive, Carlsbad California,” prepared by Geocon, Inc., dated June 16, 1982. APPENDIX B SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Appendix B Photographs Selected Units-2308,23 10 Altisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca (Project No. 00-1800) Captions for attached Photographs 1 thorough 20, are presented below: Photograph No. Description: Rear view of Units 123, and 124, as viewed looking northeast from the driveway. #2 Easterly side of Unit 23 IO, as viewed looking north from the driveway. #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 # 10 # 11 # 12 Northerly side of Building 23 10, as viewed looking west. Notice the concrete drainage swale extending along the property boundary. Easterly side of Unit 117 and 217, as viewed from the entry walkway. Notice the absence of roof gutters and downspouts along this section of the building roof. View of the northwesterly comer of Unit 123. Notice the presence of undersized plastic roof gutters and downspouts, and the location the downspouts which discharges on the concrete parking area slab near the building comer. Close-up view of circular concrete patches located within the parking area west of the Units 117 and 118. The concrete patches appear to be evidence of previous compaction grouting operations. Close-up view of circular patches located within the parking area slab located along the westerly side of the Units 117 and 118. Close-up view of the plastic downspout installed near the northwesterly comer of Unit 123. Note the crack in the parking area slab, is located immediately adjacent to the downspouts. Close-up view of moisture related peeling and spalling of the exterior stucco located along the easterly side of Unit 124. Close-up view of the entry door threshold outside Unit 117. Notice the evidence of previous stucco patching performed along the base of the exterior wall. Close-up view of previous patch repairs to the exterior stucco near the balcony on the outside of Units 117, and 118. Close-up view of the vertical footing crack located along the northerly side of Unit 117. Notice that the crack is located where the masonry block wall stemwall adjoins the poured in-place concrete footing. Appendix B Photographs Selected Units-2308,23 IO Altisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca. (Project No. 00-1800) Captions for attached Photographs I thorough 20, are presented below: Photograph No. Description: # 13 Close-up view ofthe same foundation crack as that shown in Photograph # 12, above. # 14 # 15 # 16 # 17 # 18 # 19 # 20 Close-up view of the foundation test pit excavated along the easterly side of Unit 124, near the front entry walkway. Close-up view of a bulb of concrete exposed beneath the underside of the footing along the northerly wall of Unit 125. The concrete visible may be evidence of the foundation repairs along this section of the building wall, as reported by Geocon, Inc. Close-up view of the same bulb of concrete beneath the wall footing as that shown in Photograph # 15, above. Close-up view of the foundation exposure located within Test Pit -7, located along the westerly side of Unit 117. Close-up view of the test pit excavated over the drain pipe, situated along the westerly side of the Building 2308. Close-up view of the corrugated drain pipe exposed within the test pit shown in Photograph # 18, above. View of the test pit excavated over the drain pipe situated along the westerly side of the Building 2308, near Unit 123. ! ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTAm PHOTOGRAPHS JOB NAME: SITE ADDRESS: LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS #I #2 PHOTOGRAPHS ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS ,- - ,?-, % y_ I.... ,- Y "0" ,.", ."~U #3 JOB NAME: LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS SITE ADDRESS: JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: , 2308,2310 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA. I f'G' "O.8-2 00-1800 GMK/JLM 4/16/01 #4 a ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS ,- ,... ,-, 3’. - I- I- Y ,.... ”.*, /*.,” I JOB SITE )DRESS: JO8 !MBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: 00- 800 GMK/JLM ___ 4/16/01 . 230 ,2310 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA. 1 ”O.8-3 IUF, PHOTOGRAPHS a ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS h - ,-, ,,. - *- - Y - m.2 ,-- #5 LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS .SITE ADDRESS: 2308,231 0 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAO, CA. 00-1800 GMK/JLM 4/16/01 8-4 J06 NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. NO. PHOTOGRAPHS E ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS ,- - ,-1 m. N_ I".., .L I "YI (rri ,~- - #6 JOB NAME: SITE ADDRESS: JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: 00-1800 GMK/JLM 4/16/01 LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS . 2308,231 0 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA. 1 FIG' 'OoB-5 #8 ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS PHOTOGRAPHS JOB NAME: LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS ADDRESS: #7 PHOTOGRAPHS ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS I- - <?-I s u_ 3- n- Y "." ""1 ,=-I JOB NAME: LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS 2308,2310 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA. ADDRESS: 6-7 JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. NC. 00-1800 GMK/JLM 4/1~/01 #10 PHOTOGRAPHS #11 PHOTOGRAPHS PHOTOGRAPHS #12 #13 PHOTOGRAPHS ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS I- CA.. (-1 rn - ,- .- "... ,"., ."~- #14 JOB NAME: LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS SITE ADDRESS: 2308,231 0 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA. JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: 00-1800 GMK/JLM 4/16/01 1 FIG. "O'B-11 #15 PHOTOGRAPHS ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS I- - I-, --I.... .- Y Y. ,-, .Y- JOB NAME SITE ADDRESS JOE NUMBER REVIEWED BY DATE FIG NO LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS 2308,2310 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA. E-12 00-1 800 GMK/JLM 4/16/01 PHOTOGRAPHS ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS .--I-, ,.. - -< .- Y Ye, ,”., -.”” #19 JOE NAME: LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS 2308,2310 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA. 00-1800 GMK/JLM 4/16/01 ADDRESS: JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG N008-13 PHOTOGRAPHS a ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS ,_ - rcc, ," y_ .- .L Y Y_ ""J -...e #20 JOB NAME: LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS 2308,2310 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA. 00-1800 I GMK/JLM 14/16/01 1 ADDRESS: JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: ~ DATE: "B-IL APPENDIX C LAB TESTING RESULTS LABORATORY SOIL DATA SUMMARY 0FT 2FT - TAN TO WHITE, SlLM SAND WITH SOME ROCK. TAN SILTY SAND WITH SOME ORGANICS - TP-l 3 - LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST 140 130 120 110 100 SPECIFIC GRAVITY 90 0 AIR VOIDS CURVES 80 0 10 20 so 40 JOB NUMBER: 00-1800 I I TRENCH I SOIL CLASSIFICATION I NO NO 1 'OIL I SOIL CLASSIFICATION TYPE REVIEW 0 BY: DATE: GMK JLM 4/16/01 I I../TAN SILTY SANDY CLAY I 8-2 I - I 0 TO 5 FT. I 00000 I 0 s O0O0 m I -I 09LS W 5 0882 v) v) W e ow L 000 L OZL a 09-2 00 L lN33t13d - NOllVallOSN03 3 k > 4 lN3383d - NOllVClllOSN03 t (0 lN33813d - NOllVClllOSN03 s .-- APPENDIX D GENERAL NOTES AND INSTRUCTIONS TO PROSPECTIVE GROUTING CONTRACTORS GENERAL NOTES AND INSTRUCTIONS TO PROSPECTIVE COMPAC.I'ION-GKOIJTINC; CONI'RACTORS 1. 2. Provide estimated costs and total job time for the specified grouting program, Provide information on the type@) of floor-level monitoring system to be maintained during the grouting program. we have prepared the following estimates of total number of injection pipes, total length of pipe, and total amount of grout required. In order for comparable bids to be obtained, these estimates are to be used in calculating unit costs and estimates of total work days. Units 117 and 118 We have prepared the following estimates of total number of test pipes. In order for comparable bids to be obtained, these estimates are to be used in calculating unit costs and estimates. 3. a. b. TOTAL NUMBER OF INJECTION PIPES = 41 AVERAGE PIPE DEPTH = 10 FEET. TOTAL LENGTH OF PIPE= 287 LINEAL FEET (assume no grout take within the upper 3-feet of the ground surface). C. ESTIMATED TOTAL VOLUME OF GROUT TO BE INJECTED = 861 CUBIC FEET. d. TOTAL AMOUNT OF DESIGN STRUCTURE LIFT = 2.4 inches Units 123 and 124 We have prepared the following estimates of total number of test pipes. In order for comparable bids to be obtained, these estimates are to be used in calculating unit costs and estimates. a. b. TOTAL NUMBER OF INJECTION PIPES = 38 AVERAGE PIPE DEPTH = 12 FEET. TOTAL LENGTH OF PIPE = 342 LINEAL FEET (assumes no grout take within the upper 3-feet of the ground surface). ESTIMATED TOTAL VOLUME OF GROUT TO BE INJECTED = 1026 CUBIC FEET. TOTAL AMOUNT OF DESIGN STRUCTURE LIFT = 1.2 inches. C. d. Page 1 of 2 4. All prospective contractors should inspect all building areas where work will be required, prior to preparing or submitting bids. All prospective contractors must obtain and review copies of all applicable building plans prior to preparing or submitting bids. All prospective contractors must include in their bid documents all information necessary to show conformance of their equipment and personnel with all applicable specifications and requirements. 5. 6. Page 2 of 2 APPENDIX D GENERAL NOTES AND INSTRUCTIONS TO THE OWNEWGENERAL CONTRACTOR GENERAL NOTES AND INSTRUCTIONS TO THE OWNEWGENERAL CONTRACTOR 1. It is the responsibility of the owner to furnish copies of all necessary reports, building plans and design releveling criteria to bidding contractors. Necessary reports, plans and drawings would show the following: a. All foundations. b. All underground utility lines. c. d. e. Existing floor plans. f. The owner will be responsible for having all underground utility lines and drain locations marked out in detail by the appropriate companies prior to the start of any grouting. It is common and understandable practice for contractors to disavow responsibility for damage to any subsurface structures or lines whose locations are not accurately known by the contractor at the commencement of a grouting program. In order for contractors to accurately plan and estimate their work, all prospective contractors must be allowed to inspect all prospective work areas inside the building. In addition, the contractors must be informed by the owner of any and all areas where equipment sensitive to vibration or movement is located, and of any restrictions on either certain work areas, or times. All existing subsurface drainage systems. All as-built improvements around the building which are to remain. Logs of excavations in the vicinity. 2. 3. 4. The owner shall supply access to water, under pressure, and electricity during the grouting program. Contractors must have access to all areas ofthe ground-floor during grout injection. If ground-floor areas are not accessible during either compaction-grout or slurry injection, the contractor will not be able to determine during grout injection whether unacceptable cracking or slurry leakage is occurring. 5. Page 1 of I APPENDIX E RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATIONS FOR COMPACTION GROUTING RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATIONS FOR COMPACTION GROUTING I. INTENT AND DEFINITIONS 1. It is intended to use the compaction-grout technique to reduce potential differential settlement of the treated soil mass (only), by densifying identified, natural settlement-prone soils and creating more uniform soil conditions. As designed, the program includes partial releveling of the affected building. Refer to the attached figures for more details concerning point location and depths, and releveling amounts and areas. Compaction grout is defined as a grout injected with not more than a 2-inch slump (per ASTM C243-78), preferably less than 1.0 inch if the material and hose length allow. The grout does not enter the soil pores but grows as a bulb, giving controlled radial displacement to compact loose soils. 2. 11. GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. b: Provide all labor, materials and equipment to accomplish compaction grouting in the area(s) and zone(s) shown on the drawings and shall include all necessary drilling, grout pipes and grouting. Mounting: It shall be the contractor's responsibility to design and implement a relative-elevation monitoring system during the grouting program, to protect the structure from unplanned uplift, while allowing the planned amounts of uplift to be achieved in a controlled manner. This monitoring system shall be capable of being read to an accuracy of 0.005 feet, in order to minimize unplanned uplift during densification, and shall be approved by the quality-control firm. The contractor shall provide sufficient personnel to observe nearby slopes, and adjacent features during grout injection to prevent foreseeable unplanned uplift or damage due to grout injection. The contractor shall monitor the adjacent site improvements for undesired movement/damage, and to the extent possible, perform the grouting operations in a manner so as to limit the potential for unwanted damage resulting from the grouting process. We suggest the adjacent retaining wall be monitored using a one or a combination of a string line to confirm horizontal displacement, as well as using levels andor dial gauges to monitor rotational movement. 2. Page 1 of 6 3. Protection ofutilities: The location of all known underground utilities and obstructions will be marked on the surface prior to any grouting program. The contractor shall use due caution to prevent damage to these underground utilities and shall inject grout at distances and pressures determined by the quality -control firm. Further, the contractor is cautioned that unknown utilities may be encountered or that the exact location of known utilities may be different than marked on the surface. In all such cases, work in that area must not proceed without the quality-control firm's approval and acknowledgment from the owner that unavoidable damage to utilities may be incurred. If the above criteria are not met, the contractor will not be held liable for damage to underground utilities of obstructions. Inspection and Records: The quality-control firm shall be the owner's representative to observe the pressure-grouting operations. The contractor shall keep records of drilling and grouting, including depths, quantities, and pressures for each hole at each stage, and shall submit this in a form satisfactory to the quality-control firm. Prior to grouting, relative-elevation benchmarks outside of the structure shall be installed and measures for vertical and horizontal control during grout injection. Water and Electricity: The owner shall provide access to water (under pressure) and electricity during the grouting program. Eligible Contractors: It is recognized that the success or failure of this technique for the controlled densification of soils beneath structures, and for controlled releveling, is dependent upon the skill and experience of the contractor. Severe damage to structures either during or after a compaction- grouting program, can result from inexperience. To be eligible to perform this work, the contractor must have at least three years of experience using this method. In addition, the on-site representative of the contractor must have sufficient experience and knowledge in performinglsupervising this type of work to evaluate incoming data, troubleshoot the wide variety of problems/situations inherent to this type of work and communicate with the quality-control firm and owner on job status. 4. 5. 6. Page 2 of 6 111. MATERIALS 1. 2. Portland Cement shall be Type I or XI. Fine aggregate shall be a silty sand ideally about 20 to 30 percent passing a No. 200 sieve (ASTM 117-80), that is "lean" enough to allow mixing and provide interparticle friction but "fat" enough to hold the mix water at the slump and pressures used. If locally available sands do not provide the needed water retention, small amounts of pozzolan or clay may be added (1) only if necessary; (2) only as much as necessary; and (3) not more than 4 percent in any case. Proportions of the mix, by volume, shall be not less than 1 part cement to 10 parts aggregate. Grout admixtures may be used with the approval of the quality-control firm. Slump (per ASTM C143-78) of the mixed grout during densification procedures shall never exceed 2 inches at the point of injection. Preferably, slump measured at the point of injection shall be 1.0 inch, or less. Higher slump grout is acceptable only for releveling or void-filling procedures, after densification procedures. If agitated continuously, the grout may be held in the grout plant as long as two hours at temperatures below 70°F; somewhat less at higher temperatures. 3. 4. 5. 6. IV. EQUIPMENT 1. The grout plant shall be equipment specifically designed for compaction grouting. The mixer shall be of a pug or similar type that ensures complete and uniform mixing of the materials used and shall be of sufficient capacity to continuously feed the pumping unit at its normal pumping rate. The grout pump shall be capable of injecting grout at a pressure of 500 psi at the point of injection, shall have an agitator in the holding tank, and will be readily controllable down to 0.2 cubic feed per minute. 2. 3. Page 3 of 6 4. A volume-measurement system shall be provided at the mixer or the pump, preferably both, that will measure volumes mixed and pumped to 0.2 cubic feet. 5. Accurate pressure gauges shall be provided at both the pump and the injection point to measure the grout pressure. A two-way communication system shall be maintained between the grout plant and the injection location. 6. V. GROUT PIPES AND SEQUENCE 1. Injection points shall be initially laid out in a modified grid system, with the horizontal distance between closest injection points being 6 feet. Ideally, the grid of points would be installed as close as possible to the point locations shown on Figure No. 111, modified where necessary to locate points beneath load-bearing foundations. As necessary based on site conditions, we recommend that prior to building releveling, a lineal sequence of grout points be established along the exterior of the building in an effort to create a grout curtain and limit the potential for unwanted grout migration and/or damage to surrounding site improvements. These grout containment points should extend to a suitable depth, be located at approximately 4-feet on-center, and be grouted using a uniform volume of grout estimated at approximately 2- cubic feet per lineal foot of grout pipe, or as site conditions allow, in order to densify the soils and create a containment curtain. The "closure" method of grouting shall be employed in selection of the grout point sequence. Alternate points in the total grid shall be grouted to completion, utilizing any method which maximizes positive control of the grout injection depth. These initial injection points shall be referred to as the "primary" points. Following completion of two adjacent "primary" points, the intermediate "secondary" points shall be grouted to completion. Comparison of injected grout quantities should reveal a decrease in grout "take" in the secondary holes from the primary holes. If grout takes in secondary holes are greater than or approximately equal to grout takes in primary holes, a new pattern of "tertiary" holes should be considered by the quality-control firm and discussed with the project soils engineer. Satisfactory compaction-grouting of any one injection point shall include the following: 2. 3. 4. Page 4 of 6 a. Maximum vertical depth (or "stage") of loose soil to be treated with a single injection shall be 3 feet. The maximum slump of the soil-cement compaction grout mixture shall be 2 inches as measured by ASTM Method C143-71. This "slump" test might be performed twice daily - or more frequently - as requested by the quality-control firm. Failure to meet this specification would result in immediate termination of the program, The maximum rate of grout injection shall be 4 cubic feet per minute. the minimum rate shall be % cubic foot per minute. Grouting of any one stage shall continue until (1) unacceptable ground surface lift or undesired wall and/or building movement occurs; (2) the grout injection rate falls below the minimum at an injection pressure of 400 pounds per square inch (measured at the injection point) for a minimum time period of one minute; or (3) when injection pressure drops suddenly by more than 50 pounds per square inch while injecting grout at pressures in excess of 100 pounds per square inch; or (4) when the specified volume of grout is achieved as outlined within Section of ). If the soil engineer modifies or adds to the list of criteria for successful completion of grout stages, such changes shall be documented in writing., b. c. d. 5. The grouting contractor will provide an elevation monitoring system which allows the quality-control firm to verify the amount of incremental and total lift in structure areas. For bidding purposes, the maximum amount of incremental lift without raising surrounding areas shall be 1/4 inch. Refer to Figure No. 111 for the design releveling criteria. All compaction-grouting and subsequent releveling shall proceed from the lowest structure areas to the highest. 6. VI. CLEANUP 1. At the completion, each grout pipe shall be completely removed or, if the pipe cannot be pulled, it shall be cut off/driven to a depth designated by the quality-control firm (typically a minimum of 12 inches below the slab bottom). Holes in exterior concrete slabs, etc., shall be rough patched to the satisfaction of the quality-control firm. Holes in interior concrete slabs need not be rough-patched, as planned repairs are to include slab replacement. Page 5 of 6 2. It is understood that this work is messy by its nature, but the contractor shall keep the work area neat and grout spills promptly picked up. Painting, etc., due to cement stains, is not the responsibility of the contractor, but the removal of all grout spilled and splattered is the responsibility of the contractor. 3. Contractor shall exercise due care to minimize damage to larger trees and shrubs that cannot be removed prior to his operation. Page 6 of 6 Report of Limited Geotechnical and Structural Investigation Units 119, 120,127,227, & 230 2308,23 10 Altisma Way Carlsbad, California 92009 FOR: La Costa View HOA c/o S.H.E. Manages Properties 3990 Old Town Road, Suite 105-C San Diego, California 921 10 Attn: Mr. Lenny Kanarvogel DATE: March 21,2002 Project No. City Of CARLSBAD OO-I800 BUILDING DEPT. PREPARED BY: Anthony-Taylor Consultants 304 Enterprise Street Escondido, California 92029 (760) 738-8800 TABLE OF CONTENTS OF WO RK ...................................................... PURPOSE ....................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTIO N .. ..... ..... ........ 2 SITE DESCRIPT ION .. SUMMARY OF FLOORLEVEL SURVE CONDITIONS OF OBSERVEDREPORTED DISTRESS ................................... 4 SUBSURF ACE EXP ........ LABORATORY llSF.@G . REVIEW OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS .............................................. 9 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIO NS ............... 9 ....... ...... 11 Reoa irs Grade Beam Foundation ReoairS Grade Beam Reuairs At Column F ootines StlUCtU ral Wood Floor Reoain RemovaURe leveling of Liehtwe ieht Concrete Floors General Recomme ndations/Reoa 'IS Mitieative Drainaoe R& meation Leak Detection Testing LIMITATIONS ..... .. ........ .......... 20 - I. 111. - IV. V. VI. - VI1 VIII. - LX. X. XI. XII. FIGURES: Site Plan: Relative Floor Elevation SUN~S: Proposed Grout Point Location Map-Units 119-120 Column Retro-fit Repairs and Grouting-Unit 130 Proposed Floor Repairs-Units 227,230 Grade-Beam Detail Slab Repair Detail Proposed Column Footing Retro-Fit Repair Floor Joist Retro-Fit Repair Detail RemovalKZeleveling of Lightweight Concrete Floor Figure I Figures IIa-IId Figure IIIb Figure IIIc Figures IIId and IIIe Figure IVa Figure IVI, Figure IVc Figure IVd Figure IVe APPENDICES: A References B C General Notes and Instructions to Prospective Grouting Contractor/Owner General Contractors Recommended Specification for Compaction Grouting ANTH 0 NY -TAY L 0 R C 0 N S U LTA NT S 304 Enrerpriae Street 9 Eiconddo. CA 92029 (760) 718-8800 (760) 738-8212 fm -m March 21,2002 La Costa View Homeowners Association c/o S.H.E. Manages Properties 3990 Old Town Road, Snite 105-C San Diego, California 92110 Attention: Mr. Lenny Kanarvogel Subject: Report of Limited Geotecbnical and Structural Investigation Selected Units (119, 120, 127,227, and 230) La Costa View Condominiums 2308-2310 Altisma Way Carlsbad, California 92009 References: See Appendix A Project No. 00-1800 Dear Mr. Kanarvogel: In accordance with the Association’s authorization, we have performed a Phase I1 limited geotechnical and s!n~ctoral investigation of reported building distress within selected units at the subject site. The purpose of the evaluation was to review conditions of reported building distress reported as previous and/or recent damage that was noted by the property owners ador others. Our scope of services was planned to be performed in two separate Phases. Our initial Phase I scope of work included; site observations, floor level snrveys, discussions with the homeowners, which have teen snmmarized within this investigative report, with recommendations for repairs, where and as considered appropriate. The findings of onr Phase I1 scope of work as outlined below is presented herein. L SCOPE OF WORK, The following scope of services was performed as part of our evaluation: . Review ofvarions documents (see References, Appendix A) peltinent to the site, provided Relative floor elevation surveys performed across a majority of the readily accessible living by the Associations management company; . area floor of the Units authorized (Vnit Nos. 119, 120, 127,227, and 230); Site reconnaissance observations of distress features, and surface drainage conditions, as evident within the readily visible portions of the site; . Site reconnaissance observations of exposed building exterior conditions, and general site A limited geotechnical and stmchml investigation in areas of building distress andor floor drainage; . deflection, as determined by site observation and survey findings. The investigation included two (2) interior concrete cores and logging and sampling of two (2) hand auger borings through them. Report orlimited &technical ad Slmctunl InvedlgaUCm SelecId UniLI (119, 120, 127,227, md 230) la CON View Homeormen AModatlan hkch 21,2002 Page 2 Projed No 00-1800 . Preparation of this mary report of geotechnicd and structural conditions noted during the investigation and document review. The report presents our findings, conclusions and recommendations relative to the observed distress, site conditions, and related repairs. U. IIL Iv. V. PURPOS E The purpose of our senices was to evaluate reported site distress features within selected individual condominium units including Unit Nos. 119, and 120 within Building 2308 Altisma Way and Unit Nos. 127,227 and 230 within Building 23 10 Altisma Way. We understand that the purpose of the investigations was to assess general conditions of building damage/distress, and provide reasonable and practical recommendations for cost effective mitigative building repairs considered appropriate based on the observed areas of site distress notedheported to-date. I" As requested representatives from Anthony-Taylor Consultants performed a program of initial site observations and interior floor elevation surveys within the subject units outlined above. Our Phase I field activities were performed on October 3,2001 and March 13,2002, followed by our Phase I1 investigation performed at the selected units on February 5,2002. SITE DESCRIPTION The project development is approximately 20 + years old, and consists of multi-unit, two- and three- story residential condominium structures. The project development has been constructed into terraced building pads, typically separated by a combination of slopes and parking level retaining walls. The elevation daerence between a majority of the adjacent building pads range from approximately 8 to 15 feet in height. The building areas visited consist of double and triple-story attached units ranging from approximately to 1200 to 1500 square feet in size. The buildings are built of wood-frame and stucco constrnction founded on continuous perimeter masonry block wall foundation and concrete spread footings, with an apparent combination of slab-on-grade and light weight concrete floors. In the case of Building 2310 Altisma Way, the rear portions of the strnctures are cantilevered over carport parking areas. The threestory structure (including the carport level) are supported on a combination of perimeter masonry block foundation walls, and isolated concrete footings with steel column supports. In the case of Building 2308 Altisma Way, the front portions of the structure appear to be cantilevered over backfilled wall cavities. SUMMARY OF FLOOR LEVEL SURVEYS In order to evaluate individual units for foundation and floor movement, we performed relative floor elevation surveys (manometers) across the living area floors within the lower units on October 3, 2001 and March 13, 2002. A summary of the survey results and the characterization of the damagdtilt observed has been summarized below. Report of Umited CwtPchnicd and Strurtunl Investlg=Uon Selected Unitr (119, 110, 127,227. and 230) L. Cost. View Homoomen Auorlation Much 21,2002 me 3 Pmjd No 00-100 2308-Units 119 & 120 A review of the survey findings as measured across these units notes that with respect to Units 119 & 120 combined, a total of approximately 3.5-inches of elevation difference was measured across the floor area of both units. Further, the floor elevation difference measured across the individual units was found to be approximately 3.3-inches across Unit 119, and approximately 2.8-inches across Unit 120. In the case of Unit 119, the survey measured approximately 3.3-inches of floor elevation difference measured across 17-feet horizontal. The downward tilt is directed towards the east- southeast from the high point (located within the northwesterly comer of the master bedroom) towards the low point (located within the central portion of the master bedroom closet). We noted that the location of this high point in the master bedroom corresponds to the location of several compaction grouting points located outside the northwesterly comer of the master bedroom. The presence of the patched compaction grouting points near the building comer further supports the opinion that a limited program ofexterior compaction grouting was previously performed within the project site to apparently address issues of possible building movement as well as exterior flatwork. In the case of Unit 120, the survey measured approximately 2.8-inches of floor elevation difference across 35-feet horizontal. The downward tilt is directed to the west-northwest, from the high point (located within the dining area), towards the low point (located within the easterly portion of the second bedroom). See the attached Relative Floor Elevation Survey, Figure IIa. 2310-Unit 127 A review of the survey findings, as measured across Unit 127, found a total of approximately 1.1 inches of elevation difference. Further, the floor elevation difference measured at the greatest concentrations, equaled approximately 1.1 inches across 10-feet horizontal, trending downward towards the southeast from the high point (located along the easterly portion of the kitchen), towards the low point (located at the southeasterly comer of the dining area). The survey also noted approximately 0.7-inch of floor tilt across approximately 8-feet horizontally, concentrated within the area of the master bedmom walk-in closet. See the attached Relative Floor Elevation Survey, Figure IIb. 2310-Unit 227 A review of the survey findings, as measured across Unit 227, found a total of approximately 1.8 inches of elevation difference. Further, the floor elevation difference measured equals approximately 1.8 inches across 33-feet horizontal, trending downward towards the southeast from the high point (located within the northerly portion of the second bathroom), towards the low point (located in the easterly central portion of the living room). See the attached Relative Floor Elevation Survey, Figure IIc. Report of Llmild Geoldmird and strudunl In*nti@ion SIlPrted Unitr (119, 120. 127.227, ad 230) L. Cmt. View Hornemem Asorlalion Murhll, 2002 Page 4 Project No 00.1800 2310-Unit 230 A review of the survey findings, as measured across Unit 230, found a total of approximately 2.8 inches of elevation difference. Further, the floor elevation difference measured equals approximately 2.8 inches across 34-feet horizontal, trending downward towards the east-southeast from the high point (located along the easterly wall of the second bedroom), towards the low point (located within the central portion of the dining area). See the attached Relative Floor Elevation Survey, Figure IId. VI. CONDITIONS OF OBSERVEDlREPORTED DISTRESS During our site visit, we performed reconnaissance observations of readily visible interior and exterior site conditions and features, and where possible held discussions with the property owner regarding their observation of distress conditions and/or site changes. The following represents a general summary of site distress observed todate, supplemented by other reported distress conditions relative to the individual units. 2308 Altisma Way, Unit 119 Reported Distress: Based on the reports of Ms. Ann Hessell, she has owned the unit for approximately 15 years. Currently, Ms. Hessell’s mother resides in the unit. Approximately 13 years ago (1988) the sheet vinyl flooring in the bathrooms was removed and replaced with ceramic tile, due to moisture damage. Additionally, the carpet was removed at that time, revealing slab cracks. Ms. Hessell also reports that approximately 12 years ago the rear sliding glass door became difficult to operate and was repaired by a handy man. Since that time, the door has worked satisfactorily. The homeowner reports patching some 1116-inch to l/S-inch wide ceiling cracks and painting the ceiling approximately 4 years ago. Within the past several years plumbing problems have developed in the unit, specifically toilet backnps requiring snaking the sewer line approximately three times a year. These backups reportedly occurred shortly after the unit was retrofitted with low flow toilets. Observed Distress: During our site observations of readily visible site conditions, we noted the following distress features: A few approximately hairline to 1/16-inch wide cracks in the concrete exterior walkway slab, adjacent to the front entry area; . Very few hairline cracks located within the exterior stucco; Evidence of previously patched and repaired ceiling and drywall cracks, especially within . the living room and secondary bedroom; Apparent moisture damage to the drywall adjacent to the showerhath tub; . Slight binding of the rear sliding door from the master bedroom to the balcony/patio; Report orlimlted Geotechid md Structural Invntigatlon Selected Units (119. 110, 127,227, and 230) La Cmts View Hornrowen AuoclaUon Murh 21,2002 me 5 hjad No 00-1800 . Slight frame distortion of the master bedroom doorway and binding at the door latch An approximately 1/16-inch wide crack in the concrete slab exposed during the limited carpet removal performed near the northwesterly corner of the residence. 2308 Altisma Way, Unit 120 Reported Distress: Based on the reports of the tenant Ms. Katherine Nation, she has lived in the unit for approximately 2-1/2 years. The unit has not hem painted for an unknown period of time, but she reported it was not freshly painted when she moved in. Reportedly, a leak had developed in the P- . water line within the master bedroom closet area. The leak was noticed when the carpet was found to be damp. Apparently, the leak had occurred over a period of a couple of days. A plumber was called to repair the leak, but not before portions of the master bedroom, closet and bathroom were flooded. Mer the leak was repaired, the tenant reports that large fans were used to dry the carpet. With the exception of the plumbing condition noted above, Ms. Nation reported no other signtficant damage or conditions of concern. Observed Distress: During our site observations of readily visible site conditions, we noted the following distress features: A hairline crack in the concrete exterior walkway slab, adjacent to the front entry area; 2310 Altisma Way, Unit 127 Reported Distress: The homeowners Mr. and Mrs. Mitchell were out of town, therefore no distress conditions were reported. Access to the unit was provided by Ms. Mary Jo Cook. Observed Distress: During our site ObServatiOnS of readily visible site conditions, we noted the following distress features: . Hairline to 1/32-inch wide cracks in the interior drywall in the master bedroom and living A hairline to 1/32-inch wide crack and separation in the interior drywall and comer bead room, radiating from the comers of the windows to the floor; . radiating from the window in the dining area. This area also appears to have been previously patched; . Hairline cracks in the ceramic floor tiles in the kitchen area near the refrigerator; Some hairline ceiling cracks near the hallway entrance to the master bathroom; Discoloration and staining from apparent water damage to the window sill and drywall . . comer beads ; Report olLimited Gpolarhnied and Strurtuni Invlrtigalion Selected Unitr (119. 120. 127,227, and 230) L. costa Vlerr Homeomen Asurodrtion March 21,2002 Page 6 Pmjicl No 00-1800 Further, our observations noted what appeared to be several locatiom of interior drywall patching, especially around the window sills. Additionally, we noted a sag within the cantilevered building floor located adjacent to the exterior. The observed condition appears to correspond to a location of concentrated floor tilt as measured within the floor elevation survey. 2310 Altisma Way, Unit 227 Repoaed Distress: Based on the reports of Ms. Linda Wilson, she purchased the unit approximately 4 years ago. Since owning the properly, there have been very few changes, but she reports having added dle tiles above the fireplace hearth and painting the entire residence within the last year. Ms. Wilson also reports that the wood and drywall around the hearth were replaced due to termite damage. Additionally, the homeowner reports noticing hairline cracks at the fireplace window, master bedroom ceiling and overall tilt in the flooring adjacent to the exterior rear patiobalcony. With the exception of this damage, Ms. Wilson reports no other conditions of concern relative to her unit. Observed Distress: During our site observations of readily visible site conditions, we noted the following distress features: A hairline to lB2-inch wide crack in the exterior lightweight concrete surface at the entry balcony, radiating from the staircase comer; . A hairline to U32-inch wide crack in the interior drywall adjacent to the window next to Some hairline ceiling cracks in the master bedroom near the master bathroom the fireplace; . Further, OUT observations noted what appears to be sag within the cantilevered building floor located in the dining area and between the exterior patio and fireplace. The observed condition appears to correspond to the location of concentrated floor tilt as measured within the floor elevation survey. 2310 Altisma Way, Unit 230 Reported Distress: Based on the reports of Ms. Suzanne Risser, she purchased the unit March 30, 2001. Sice owning the property she has not performed any patching or painting. Ms. Risser reports noticing the sliding glass door to the exterior patio being out of plumb, some discoloration in the drywall comer beads at the window sills in the master bedroom and living room, and floor tilt in the living room near the southeasterly comer of the residence. With the exception of this damage, Ms. Risser reports no other conditions of concern relative to her unit. Observed Distress: During our site observations of readily visible site conditions, we noted the following distress features: . A hairline to 118-inch wide crack in the exterior stucco radiating from the comer of the living room sliding door; Project No 00-1800 A hairline to 1/8-inch wide crack in the exterior lightweight concrete surface at the entry balcony, radiating from the living room; . A hairline to 1/32-inch wide crack in the ceiling, between the master bedroom and master Some minor binding of the master bathroom door; An apparent patch of the acoustic ceiling in the kitchen nook; Distortion of the front entry door, approximately 118-inch out of plumb; Distortion of the living room sliding glass door, noted as an approximately 3/4-inch bathroom; . . . . spacdgap at the lower left hand comer of the door, when closed. Furlher, our observations noted what appears to be sag within the cantilevered building floor located adjacent to the sliding glass window. The observed distortion appears to correspond to the location of concentrated floor tilt as measured by the floor elevation survey. vn SUBSU RFACE EXPLORA TION Based on the obseived distress, we performed two exploratory subsurface soil borings to evaluate the underlying soil materials. Our subsurface exploration included the excavation, logging and sampling of two exploratory test borings consisting of 4-inch diameter hand excavated borings, which were performed through interior concrete coreholes on February 5,2002, at the locations shown on the attached Site Plan, Figure No. I. A log of the soil conditions encountered within the individual borings is presented below: Corehole CH-1 (Northwesterly portion of Unit 119) Soil Conditions Encountered: Slab: 5-1/2" Concrete with no steel reinforcement encountered, on subgrade soils (no visqneen or sand base present). Fill: Light Olive and Light Gray Brown, moist to very moist, firm, silty sandy clay with chunks of claystone. @ 0.5' Moisture Content: = 18.7 %. @ 3.0' Moisture Content: = 17.9 %, Dry Density @D) = 105.2 pcf, equaling a relative compaction of 85 percent, using a maximum density of 123.8 pcf. @ 4.0' Becomes very moist to wet, Moisture Content: = 19.0 %. @ 5.0' Moisture Content: = 21.7 %, Dry Density @D) = 101.8 pcf, equaling a relative compaction of 82 percent, using a maximum density of 123.8 pcf. @ 6.0' Becomes soft to firm. Report of Limited GIotechnicll md Structunl Invntl@ion selected Unk (119,120,121,221, and 230) La Cmtl View Honmrmrn Auociation Mmh 21,2001 w= 8 Project No 00-1800 @ 6.5' Becomes light olive to tan, silty clayey sand, very moist to wet, loose to medium dense, Moisture Content: = 19.1 %, Dry Density (DD) = 101.2 pd, equaling a relative compaction of 82 percent, using a maximum density of 123.8 pcf. Satnratioii = 80 %. No water seepage or caving encountered. Total Depth: 7.0 feet. Corehole CH-2 (Northwesterly portion of Unit 120) Soil Conditions Encountered: Slab: 4" Concrete with no steel reinforcement encountered, on subgrade soils (no visqueen or sand base present). Fill: Light Olive to Tan, moist, firm, silty sandy clay. @ 0.5' Moisture Content: = 18.5 %. @, 1.0' Moisture Content: = 19.0 %. @ 1.5' Becomes moist to very moist. @ 3.0' Becomes firm to stiff, mottled with dark brown chunks of clay, wet, Moisture Content: = 19.2 %, Dry Density (DD) = 107.7 pcf, equaling a relative compaction of 87 percent, using a maximum density of 123.8 pcf. Saturation = 95 %. @ 4.0' Moisture Content: = 19.9 %. @ 5.0' Moisture Content: = 17.4 % @ 6.0' Moisture Content: = 15.0 %, Dry Density (DD) = 101.8 pcf, equaling a relative compaction of 82 percent, using a maximum density of 123.8 pd. Saturation = 64 %. No water seepage or caving encountered. Total Depth: 7.0 feet. vm. LAB0 FlATORY TESTING Selected laboratory testing was performed on representative soils obtained from the test borings located immediately adjacent to the building perimeter. Laboratory tests were performed on both disturbed and relatively undisturbed soil samples in order to evaluate their pertinent physical charaaeristcs and engineering propehes. The following tests were conducted on the soils sampled: 1) Moisture Content 2) Density Evaluations ASTMD2216-71 ASTMD1557, Method A and others The relationship between the moisture and density of undisturbed soil samples give qualitative information regarding the in-place soil moisture characteristics and soil conditions. Results of our in-place moisture and density testing are presented in the Subsurface Exploration section of this report. Report ofLimltsd htechnial and Structural Investi~tion Selected Units (119, 120, 121.227, mad 230) La C& View Homeowners Asoristion March 21,2002 Page 9 Pmjed No 00-1800 E. REVIEW OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS-UNITS 227. AND 230 Based on the findings of our floor elevation survey and the general pattern of floor distortion as measured within portions of Unit Nos. 227 and 230, we coordinated with representatives of Protec Building Services Inc. to open several areas of the exterior stucco and expose portions of the floor system hmhg accessible from the exterior balconies beneath Units 227 and 230. The areas selected for exposure were limited to those areas of the floor framing located adjacent to areas of floor tilt as measured by our survey, and accessible from the exterior balcony, in order to limit interior building damage. Upon opening of the stucco, our Shuctnral Engineer reviewed and documented the exposed framing conditions, and evaluated the general structural configuration of the supporting floor joists framing. Upon review, the structural engineer then considered the measured floor survey data and general framing conditions, based on his site observations and general engineering assumptions. Upon the completion of his review, Protec Building Services Inc., performed interim repairs to the exterior stucco opening using exterior grade plywood screwed in-place to cover the wall opening until repairs can be implemented. A summary of the structural engineer’s findings and recommendations have been integrated into the Findings and Conclusions, and Recommendations sections of this report. x FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONQ Based on the site evaluation and subsurface exploration, it appears that the units surveyed have sustained building distress generally considered to range from minor to severe. Based on the information collected, the distress appears related to either one or a combination of underlying soil conditions and structural conditions. Based on our site evaluation, we provide the following comments and opinions with respect to the units studied: 2308 Altisma Way, Units 119 and 120: Unit 119 was noted to display evidence of moderate to severe foundation and floor movement. Based on the character and location of the damage, as well as the floor tilt measured to-date, it appears that the distress has resulted from soiVfoundation movement, primarily consisting of settlement of the building foundation and slab within the westerly, northerly and central portions of the structure. Our previous explorations indicate that the adjacent site Building (Unit 117 and 118), was supported on a combination of concrete continuous spread footings and perimeter masonry block stemwalls. In the case of Units 119 and 120, it appears that this structure is primarily by supported concrete continuous spread footings with slah-on-grade floor, (along the westerly, northerly, southerly portions of the building), and the easterly building walls (near the balcony and dining nook) is constructed using perimeter masonry block retaining walls and soil hackfill. Based on our evaluation, it appears that the portions of the perimeter foundation and interior floor slab have experienced differential movement, downward, typical of fill settlement. This opinion is supported by the pattern of the floor tilt, the observed areas of distress, and the findings of our subsurface exploration, including our earlier borings which found that north of the building wall (Boring B-3 included in our previous report) is underlain by moderately to poorly compacted fill soils to a depth of approximately 13-feet. Additionally, our site observations noted that at some previous time, a Reporl orllmlted Gool=hnlt.l and Slruclunl Involllgallon Selected Unlb (119,120,121,211. md 230) La Cast. Vim Homeomm Assoelallon Wch 21.2002 P4e 10 Pmjed No 00-1800 limited program of compaction grouting was implemented along the northerly sides and northwesterly comer of the building. It appears that the observed grout points, and the measured local uplift of the northwesterly comer of Unit 119 suggest that the previous limited grouting operations were performed, in part, to reduce the potential for settlement within the surrounding concrete flatwork, driveway, parking and sidewalk. Further, our review of the earlier project documents suggests that flatwork damage resulting from soil settlement had been reported and repaired within portions of the site. Unit 120 displays evidence of minor to moderate foundation and floor movement. This opinion is supported by the results of the floor elevation survey, and other evidence of building cracking as noted within the building exterior walls. Based on the site conditions as evident within Unit 119, and the results of our floor elevation survey, it appears that Unit 120 has sustained some previous foundatiodfloor movement especially along the north-central portion of the unit. These observations correspond to similar conditions of floor tilt as noted within Unit 119, and the observed evidence of a limited soil compaction grouting program noted as previously implemented along the northerly side of the structure. 2310 Altisma Way, Unit 127: Unit 127 was noted to display evidence of minor to moderate floor movement, as indicated by the presence of the floor tilt across the subject unit. Based on the character and location of the interior cracking as noted, and the pattern of floor tilt measured, it appearsthat the unit has sustained some previous structural floor movement. Conditions related to building design/construction may be a significant factor contributing to the observed floor tilt noted. Our survey indicated that the floor system adjacent to and above the perimeter masonry building foundation wall was found to have a relative elevation difference of approximately 0.4-inch along it’s length. This finding generally indicates that the building walls have not sustained evidence of significant foundation distress andor movement. However, OUT snrvey measured approximately 0.7-inch of defection within the floor near the corner of the dining room nook. This deilection corresponds to the location of concentrated loads transferred into the cantilevered section of the building, from the walls and ceilings and building areas above. Based on the magnitude of the floor tilt as measured within the cantilevered (easterly section of the building near the balcony), it appears that the floor system is distorted, and portions of the floorjoists have been overdeilected by long term load conditions. This unit shares foundation and structural elements with Unit 227 above, as well as other units located within the structure. 2310 Altisma Way, Unit 130: Unit 130 was noted to display evidence of minor to moderate floor movement as indicated by the pattern of floor tilt measured within the central and rear central (cantilevered) portions of the residence. Based on the character and location of the interior cracking as noted, as well as the pattern of floor tilt measured, it appears that the unit has sustained previous structural floor movement. Conditions related to building desigdconstrnction may be a significant factor contributing to the observed floor tilt. Based on the magnitude of the floor tilt as measured within the cantilevered (easterly central section of the building) and central portion of the residence, it appears that the floor system is distorted, and portions of the floor joists have been over-deflected by Report of Urnitad Geotcrhninl and Structuunl Investlylion Selected Unltr (119, 120, 127,227, and 230) La Costa View Hornmmers kuorlatlan Much 2.1, 2002 Page 11 Pmjja No 00-1800 long term load conditions. Additionally, it also appears that at least a portion of the floor deflection as measured within the central portion of the unit may have been caused by some previous settlement of the central support columns, located beneath the main north-south support beam located beneath the unit within the carport. This unit shares foundation and structural elements with Unit 230, as well as other units located within the structure. 2310 Altisma Way, Unit 230 Unit 230 was noted to display evidence of moderate floor movement as indicated by the pattern of floor tilt measured within the central and rear central (cantilevered) portions of the residence. Based on the character and location of the interior cracking as noted, the out-of-square condition of the sliding glass door, as well as the pattern of floor tilt measured, it appears that the unit has sustained previous strnctural floor movement, compounded by settlement of the column supports located in the carport below. Conditions related to building desigdconstruction may be a significant factor contributing to the observed floor tilt. Based on the magnitude of the floor tilt as measured within the easterly central section of the building (dining room nook) it appears that the floor system is distorted. Based on a review of the additional survey data, it appears that at least a portion of the floor deflection as measured within the central portion of the unit has been caused by previous settlement of the column supports beneath the main north-south beam located beneath Unit 130. Therefore, the additional survey data indicates that portions of the floor deflection, as measured within Units 130 and 230, have resulted from previous settlement of the column footings supporting the main beam located beneath Unit 130. Xl. RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the results of our site evaluation, it is our opinion that previous soil movement has contriiuted to building and site improvement distress. To address the areas of observed distress noted to-date, we provide the following recommendations and general guidelines for the releveling of the building foundation using compaction grouting, which is considered as a practical alternative to restore the damaged portion of the building foundation and slab to a near-level condition. It should be noted that the recommendations only address the supplementation of the existing foundation systems as related to remediation of the visible distress features and foundatiodslab tilt considered beyond normal construction tolerances. Additionally, given the findings of the floor surveys relative to Unit 230, it is our opinion that compaction grouting repairs beneath the column footing presently supporting the rear of Unit 130, and 230, can be considered as a practical method to reduce the magnitude of measured floor tilt associated with previous soil movement, and also reduce the likelihood for additional soils movement where compaction grouting and foundation repairs are performed. It is anticipated that during the column releveling process and the lifting of the cantilever and the installation of the steel joists below Unit 130, that a significant portion of the floor tilt meaSured across Unit 230 may be reduced. Therefore, we recommend that following repairs to the columns and floors below Unit 130, that Unit 230 be reevaluated and re-surveyed to access the conditions of floor tilt. This supplemental post-repair survey can then be used to assess the need for further repairs to the floor system within Unit 230, and evaluate the need for additional floodframing repairs to include, but not necessarily be limited to, localized removaVreleveling of the lightweight concrete floor, as was recommend for Unit 221. Report of Llmited Goatechninl and Slmdunl Investigation Selecld Unilr (119, 120, 127,227, and 230) La corn view Hornemmen AmOci.li0" March 21. %001 Page I2 Due to the condition of the soils undei PmIect No 00-1800 ing the site, it is possible that some continuing soil-relate movement may occur even after the repairs have been completed. (Post-construction monitoring of structure performance will help to rev4 if this is, or is not the case). At the time the compaction groutinglreleveling is performed, we recommend that the structures be closely monitored so as to reduce the potential for unwanted foundation and/or building distress. As the grouting is performed, monitoring of the building reaction will allow the grouting program to be modified to address site specific conditions and constraints. Additionally, because of the combination concrete and masonry stemwall design, it may not be feasible to attain the desired magnitude of releveling of the foundation and slab. Should this condition arise. it may be necessary to implement other releveling methods (Le., mechanical jackinglfoundation releveliug). It should be noted that the proposed compaction grouting program can provide improved soil densification and soil bearing, as well as improved building performance if properly implemented. Should, upon the completion of the proposed grouting program, additional foundation releveling be desired, upon request, this firm can provide recommendations designed to address such conditions. CQmoactionCrouting Reoa irs The proposed soiJ/foundation repairs wnsist of a limited program of compaction grouting/releveling in the area of the meatest differential floor tilt within the individual building structnres (Units 119 and 120), as well 230. releveling of the column footings and beam snpporting the rear of Udt 130 and The compaction grouting process is intended to improve the bearing characteristics of the supporting soils and allow for the releveling of the building foundation, slab, and floor system in the affeaed area. The proposed grouting program is based on our findings, and the observed damage which has apparently been caused by the settlement of the fillhackfill soils underlying the affected portions of the site. Based upon the results of our evaluation, we recommend that the northerly, westerly and central portions of the buildings containing Units I19 and 120 be releveled by compaction grouting of the fill soils underlying the perimeter footings and interior floor slab. The approximate location of grout injection points and the limits of the compaction grouting is shown on Figures IIIa. The purpose of the grouting will be to dens@ the underlying soils, improve the bearing capacity, and to provide for some re-leveling of the building foundation and slab. The quantity of grout required to provide for cornpachon of the foundation soils and partial re-leveling has been estimated and is outlined below. In general, we estimate that approximately 1.5 to 3.0 cubic feet of grout per I-foot vertical increment will be required in the primary grout points. These grout points are located in the deeper sections of the underlying fill. Following foundation and slab releveling, we recommend that the void space which may develop beneath the existing slab and/or column footings which remain following the lifting process be filled with a fluid mixture of cement grout injected in-place. Repod of Llmited Geoterhnlnl and Struclunl Inve3Ugation Selected UniLI (119, 120, 127.227, nod 230) L. CON Vim Homoormen kuorlation Murh 31,2002 Page 13 Pmjra No 00-1800 Compaction Grouting/Releveling-Units 119 and 120 Based upon the results of our investigation, we have estimated that the grout program required for Building Units 119 and 120 are assumed to require an average penetration of approximately 13 feet into the underlying fill for the primary grout points. The estimated spacing to densify the area in question was estimated to be on the order of 5 feet between the exterior grout injection points and 6 feet between the interior gmut injection points. Additional secondary grout points may be required to fill voids beneath the slab created by the re-leveling process. See Proposed Grout Point Location Map, Figure IIIa. We have prepared the following estimate of total number of grout pipes. In order for comparable bids to he obtained, these estimates are to he used in calculating unit costs and estimates. The total estimated grout quantity listed assumes 3 cubic feet per foot of pipe. The actual grout quantity may differ. a. b. TOTAL NUMBER OF INJECTION PIPES = 79 AVERAGE PIPE DEPTH = 13 FEET. TOTAL LENGTH OF PIPE= 1027 LINEAL FEET. ESTIMATED TOTAL VOLUME OF GROUT TO BE INJECTED = 2370 CUBIC FEET/88 CUBIC YARDS (assumes no grout take within the upper 3-feet of the ground surface). TOTAL AMOUNT OF DESIGN STRUCTURE LIFT = 2.0 inches C. d. Compaction Grouting/Releveling-Units 130 Based upon the results of our evalnation, we have estimated general grouting program required to relevel the existing column footings and the beam beneath Unit 130, as well as the depth of the fill soil underlying the three column footings supporting the north-south beam beneath Unit 130 and 230. Further, we have estimated that the partial re-leveling will require an estimated average penetration of approximately 20 feet into the underlying fill soils for the primary grout points. The spacing required to densify the area in question appears to be on the order of 5 feet between grout points. This spacing assumes that all the grout points will be located surrounding the column footings. Additional secondary grout points may be required beneath the footings to provide additional support and uplift, and to fill voids created by the re-leveling process. We have prepared the following estimate of total number of grout pipes. In order for comparable bids to be obtained, these estimates are to be used in calculating unit costs and estimates. The total estimated grout quantity listed assumes 3.0 cubic feet per foot of pipe. The actual grout quantity may differ. port or Limited chterhnird md swnvnl ~nvlrtipuom Weaed Units (119, 120, 127,227, mad 230) L. Cmt. Vlaw Hamammon kuorlrUon Murh 21,2002 Page 14 Pmjd No 00-1800 a. TOTAL NUMBER OF INJECTION PIPES = 19 b. AVERAGE PIPE DEPTH = 20 FEET. TOTAL LENGTH OF PIPE = 380 LINEAL FEET. ESTIMATED TOTAL VOLUME OF GROUT TO BE INJECTED = 969 CUBIC FEET136 CUBIC YARDS (assumes no grout take within the upper 3-feet of the ground surface). C. d. TOTAL AMOUNT OF DESIGN STRUCTURE LIFT = between 0.2 and 0.8 inch. The proposed repairs are discussed in the attached Appendix B, "General Notes And Instructions to Owners/General Contractor & Supplemental Notes Instructions To Prospective Compaction- Grouting Contractors", Appendix C, "Recommended Specifications For Compaction GmntingPonndation Releveling", and shown on the attached "Proposed Grout Point Location Map", Figures 111% and IIIb, which also shows the proposed limits of compaction grouting. Following grouting and releveling the building foundation, further repairs should be performed in accordance with the specifications outlined below. Grade-Beam Foundat ion Reoairs Upon the completion of the foundation and slab releveling (Unit 119 and 120), any exposed footing cracks greater than 1/4-inch wide may instead be supported using a minimum 6-foot long grade Wdeepened footing. The deepened footing shall be a minimum of 18-inches wide by 24-inches deep (bottoming at least 30-inches below the adjacent ground surface). The new deepened footing support shall be reinforced with four No. 4 rebars (two top and two bottom) \napped with No. 3 rebar ties located at 12-inches on centers. The rebars and ties shall be secured to the existing footing using No. 4 rebar dowels epoxy set a minimum of 6-inches into the existing footing, situated at 10-inches on center. Dowels and steel reinforcement shall lap a minimum of 12-inches, and extend around the new reinforcing steel. See attached Grade Beam Detail, Figure IVa. . Following the compaction grouting and releveling repairs outlined above (Units 119 and 120), we recommend that damaged sections of the interior floor slabs be repaired. Prior to slab repairs, readily removable floor coverings such as carpeting and padding should be removed so that the general condition of the floor slab can be observed. Following flooring covering removals and slab inspectiob we recommend that all interior concrete slab cracks and separations between 1/8 and 1/4-inch wide be structurally repaired with epoxy grout, filled to the full thickness. Alternately, where the cracking is less than US-inch wide, and no vertical separation is present acmss the crack surface, the crack may alternately be filled with an suitable elastomeric sealant to reduce the potential of moisture infiltration into the Report orLimited Wrrhnicai and Structural InvutigaUon Selected Unhs (119, 120, 127,217. md 230) IA Costa VinrHomoormen Asoclatlan Myrh21, 2002 Page I5 Project No 00-1800 underlying site soils. Slab cracks greater than 1/4-inches wide should be considered for repairs using the recommended method for slab replacement as outlined below. Where floor slab replacement is required, such slab replacement should be performed in accordance with the attached Slab Replacement Detail, Figure IV b. Where floor slab replacement is performed the cracked slab shall be sawcut a minimum of 16-inches to either side of the main crack and the concrete removed. Prior to pouring of concrete, the areas to be patched shall he reinforced in the following manner: The remaining in-place sawcut slab edges shall be thoroughly cleaned of debris and soil materials. Steel dowels consisting of No. 4 rebar shall be placed into the adjacent concrete slab on 18- inch centers. The dowels shall extend at least 6-inches into the existing adjacent concrete slab, and 12-inches into that area that will receive the new patch. The dowels shall be placed mid-height in the slab and shall be firmly fixed into place using a state-of-the-art epoxy or grout specified by the repair contractor. Where slab replacement is proposedlrequired, new interior concrete slabs shall be constructed to be a minimum of 5-inches thick (interior floor slabs) and reinforced with No.4 rebar positioned at 18-inches on-center each way. The new slab areas shall be underlain by dense, properly moisture conditioned and compacted filVor natural soils, as well as 6-inches of clean sand and a 10-mil visqueen moisture barrier. New concrete slabs shall have the rebar positioned mid-slab, supported on concrete chairs. All rebar splices shall be staggered, and a minimum rebar lap of 16-inches shall be used. Grade-Beam Reoairs At Column Footines Following the releveling of the isolated column footings and the main support beam located beneath Units 130 and 230, we mommend that the existing column footings be retro-fitted with an new concrete gmdeku& which connects the three column footings together, and increases the load bearing capacity. The new concrete grade beam shall he dowelled into the existing footings using four, #5 rebar dowels epoxy set into the existing footings to a depth of 12-inches. and extending a minimum of 24-inches into the new grade beam. The new grade beam shall be 24-inches wide and 18-inches deep, and ifpossible, extend below the bottom edge of the existing column footings. The new concrete grade beam shall be reinforced with four # 5 rebars (two top and two bottom), wrapped with # 3 rebar ties positioned at 12-inches on-center. The rebac shall be properly configured and securely wired in-place, and supported on concrete dobies or chairs so as to positioned with a minimum of 3-inches concrete cover between the rebar and the surrounding soils. The steel rebars shall be cut and positioned in such as fashion as to limit the number of rebar splices required to assemble the steel rebar cage. All rebar dowels shall be set with Simpson high strength mctnre epoxy (or approved equivalent) specifically formulated for the placement of structural anchors and/or dowels. Report oKLirniled Gwlerhninl and struclutunl Investigalion Sclwled Units (119.120, 121,227. and 230) La Cost. Vim Homeomem Association March 21,2002 Pqe 16 Pmjwl No 00-1800 It is estimated that the new grade beam shall be approximately 8-feet in length. Dowels and steel reinfomment shall lap a minimum of 24-inches unless indicated otherwise. See attached Column Footing Retro-Fit Repairs and Grade Beam Detail, Figure IVc. AII conwee repairs shall be performed using an approved concrete mix design which meets or exceeds a minimum compressive strength of 2500 psi, &er 28 days, with a maximum of 5-inch slump at the time of placement. Crushed gravel mix designs are preferred over similar pea gravel mix designs. StNCW ral Wood Floor Reoairs In order to address the observed conditions of excessive floor deflection as was measured within the wood floor system of Units 125 and 130, we recommended that the existing floor joists to fitted with supplemental steel joist members in accordance with ow previously prepared figures (April 27,2001 report) titled Proposed Structural Repairs, Figures Va and Vb, as well as the attached Floor Joist Rem-Fit Repair Plan, Figure VI. In the case of the floorjoist repairs to Unit 127, we recornmeend the installation of 2 (two)-12FJlOO steel joists 14-feet in length to the floor joist located on the balcony side of the dining room nook window. On the balcony side of the window, a total of 5 (five) existing wood floor joists are to be retro-fitted. See the attached figures titles Proposed Structural Repairs, Figures IIIb, as well as the attached Floor Joist Retro-Fit Repair Plan, Figure IVd. The proposed repairs are designed to enhance the load bearing capability of the existing wood floor joists within the areas of excessive deflection and high load conditions, which have been observed to be concentrated within the floor system joists located near the dining room window. . . PemovaURe leveline Of Lishtwe iebt Co ncrete Floors In order to address the observed conditions of excessive floor deflection as measured within localized paions of the wood floor within Units 227, we recommend that the areas of the existing flooring be shipped of carpet and flooring in order to expose and remove the light weight concrete floor and the underlying plywood in the areas of greatest localized floor deflection. The floor joist within these areas can then be enhanced with new 2 x 6 supplemental joists glued and nailed in place. The purpose of the repairs is to reinforce the existing floor joist in areas of concentrated saddeflection, and relevel the general floor surface area. In the case of the floor joist repairs to Unit 227, we recommend that following the installation of shoring, limited lifting of the cantilevered building area (southerly portion of the dining nook) and the placement of the recommended steel joists beneath Unit 127, the area of localized floor saddeflection within the living room area of Unit 227 shall be provided with floor repairs as outlined above. The areas of proposed floor removal and releveling is shown on the attached Repairs Figure IIIb, IIId, and IIIe, related to Units 127, 227, and 230 and the method of releveling floor areas. The specifics related to the removalhelevcling process for this units is shown on the attached detail titled RemovalReleveling of Lightweight Concrete Floor Surfaces, Figure IVe. L Report afLlmitOd Geotechnical and Structunl Investlgstlon selected Units (119,120,127,227, and 230) L. Corn Vim Homoownen Assaelatlon MUeh 21.2002 Page 17 Project No OO-i800 In the case ofunit 230, it is anticipated that following the column and beam releveling, the installation of shoring, limited Lifting of the building cantilever, followed by the installation of the steel joists, that these improvements should noticeably reduce the amount of localized floor tilt as measured across the rear portion of Unit 230. However, following the completion of the repairs below Unit 130, we recommend that the condition and magnitude offloor tilt present across Unit 230, be reevaluated, by re-surveying the floor area. Based on the results of this post Unit 130 releveling survey, the floor area within Unit 230 will then be considered for the need for mer repair measures, including but not limited to the removal/releveling of localized floor elevation differences (as recommend for Unit 227) as site conditions may warrant. . General RecommendatioosNtena irs All compaction grouting operations, foundatiodslab releveling, slab repairs, wood floor system repairs, as well as the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete related to site and building repairs shall be observed by a representative of Anthony-Taylor Consultants to confirm compliance with applicable recommendations as outlined by this firm. We recommend that our firm be notified at least 24 hours in advance of the footing excavations in order to prevent any scheduling problems. Upon the completion offoundation releveling, we recommend that all roof members should be thoronghly inspected by a qualified architecturallstructural engineering consultant, and shall be realigned, refastened or replaced. as warranted. AU walls should be checked to determine whether they are plumb. Walls that have rotated more than 1-inch should be stripped of the covering to expose framing members and refitted, realigned, and/or replaced as deemed necessary. It should be noted that all interior and exterior cosmetic repairs to the residence such as crack patching, removal and refitting of doors and windows, removal and replacement of floor coverings, and realignment and attachment of flooring shall take place after all foundation and structural repairs have been completed. We recommend that exterior concrete flatworWslab cracks, and cracks and separations along exterior joints between 1/16 and 3/8-inch wide be structurally repaired with epoxy grout, filled to the full thickness. Alternately, where the cracking is present within a cosmetic site improvement only, such as concrete walkway or other secondary hardscape improvement, and no vertical separation is present across the crack surface, the crack may alternately be filled with an suitable elastomeric sealant to reduce the potential of moisture infiltration into the underlying site soils. Exterior slab cracks greater than 3/8-inches wide should be considered for repairs using the recommended method for slab replacement. New exterior slabs shall be constructed to be a minimum of 4-inches thick and reinforced with N0.3 rebar positioned at IS-inches on-center each way. Report ofLimitd GDotrchnld and swrtud InwstigaUan Sclfftd Unha (119, 120, 127,227. and 250) La Coat. View Homeormen Association Much 21,2002 Page 18 Pmjert No 00-1800 The new slab areas shall be underlain by dense, properly moisture conditioned and compacted Wor natural soils, as well as 2-inches of clean sand. New concrete slabs shall have the rebar positioned mid-slab, supported on concrete chairs. A minimum rebar lap of 16- inches shall be used. New exterior slab shall be provided with regularly space crack control joints, space at a maximum interval of 10-feet, on-centers, each direction. Cracks in the stucco should be cosmetically repaired by: removing the covering surface; patching the crack with appropriate filler material; applying repair tape (if' appropriate); and resurfacing/repainting the repaired surface. Areas where the stucco wall has buckled or bowed, shall be stripped of the covering to expose framing members and refitted, realigned or replaced as deemed necessary. Within those areas where the stucco is severely damaged (i.e. spalling of stucco, cracks larger than 3/8-inch in width, etc.), the stucco surface shall be removed from the damaged area and the framing members should be inspected by a qualified structural engineer to determine whether securing or removal and replacement is warranted. The recommendations contained herein -t intended to address damage (cracked wall systems or connections) or deficiencies which may exist within the structural framework of the building. The evaluation of conditions and extent of damage to structural framing elements is beyond the scope of services presently authorized under this phase of our work. Our observations suggest that the structural framework of the building may have been locally damaged as a result of previous building movement. We therefore, recommend a thorough evaluation be performed by the project structural engineer addressing the condition and design of the building structural framework. It should also be noted that during the building releveling and repair process additional areas of building distress may become evident or develop. Therefore, it is recommended that some contingency funds should be set aside at the time of project budgeting, in order to address the possibility for additional repairs as such conditions become evident. It should be noted that these recommendations are provided to address foundation and slab damage as noted during our site evaluation. The recommendations presented herein are intended to restore the general integrity of the floor slab and foundation where cracked. Should, upon further inspection, additional or more severe foundatiodslab damage become evident, this firm should be contacted to review the condition@), and provide appropriate recommendations, as warranted. . Mitieative Drainaee Reoairs In order to address and mitigate the existing conditions of locally poor surface drainage, and to reduce the potential for infiltration into the subgrade soils. we recommend the implementation of site drainage improvements. The recommended repairs are intended to correct or improve areas of observed or confirmed poor surface runoff, or other drainage conditions which have a potential to affect or contribute to an increase in soil moisture Report of Limited GeotPehninl and Struetunl Investigation Soleded Units (119.120.127,227, urd 230) La Costs View Hommrmln Association Mzrch 21,2002 Page 19 variations. In order to simplify and utilize cost effective repairs, we have proposed that the drainage repairs be concentrat& within the areas of the site where surface drainage conditions were found to possess insufficient gradient, or areas considered to have the greatest potential to contribute to subsurface moisture build-up in the vicinity of the buildings. To address this issue, we recommend that the following mitigative repairs be performed: We recommend that measures be taken to properly finish gmde all landscape planters and site concrete surfaces such that the surface drainage is directed away from structure foundations, floor slabs, and top of slopes. As a general rule we recommend that a 5- percent minimum gradient he provided away from buildings and slabs for a minimum distance of 15 feet from the building for soillsubgrade surfaces, and 1-percent minimum gradient for a minimum distance of 10 feet for hard finish surfaces (pavement, walkways etc.). Ponding of water should not be permitted. Planter areas at grade should he provided with positive drainage directed away from all buildings and into new or existing (where found to be adequate) surface drainage improvements. In the case of this project site, appropriate site drainage repairs would consist of the removal of areas of poorly drained concrete slab, the installation of a new system of roof gutter and downspouts, as well as providing an adequate surface drain system with regularly spaced (generally spaced as approximately IO-feet on centers) drain inlets within landscape areas. Our site observations noted that the existing system of roof gutters along the westerly side of Buildings 2308 and 2308, primarily consist of plastic, home-improvement gutters and downspouts. These poor quality, low volume gutters and downspouts should be replaced with standard, 111 size, seamless aluminum rain gutters with splash and over-flow guards, with regularly spaced downspouts. Where possible, downspouts should be provided at regularly spaced intervals estimated not to exceed approximately 30-feet. Additionally, where possible, we recommend that all roof gutter downspouts emptying into 4-inch diameter, non-perforated drain system discharging to the street or another suitable drainage structure, such as the existing concrete swale located along the northerly portion of the site. The installation of a comprehensive surface drain system within the landscape planters smunding the buildings, followed by re-grading of the ground surface within a distance of 15-feet of the building foundation may be required within portions of the site, Any remaining irregular andor reverse sloping concrete flatwork directing surface water into doorways should be removed and replaced with new, properly sloping concrete flatwork. New surface drainage improvements should consist of 4-inch diameter, non-perforated, SDR 35, PVC drain pipe (where located within pavement) or standard landscape grade, smooth wall, non-perforated, non-cormgated drain pipe placed at a minimum 1% gradient sloped to the existing concrete swales or contirmed operational drain systems. In planter areas, new drain systems should be provided with drain inlets spaced at approximately 10 feet on center. - Report of Limited Geotschnied and Slmctud Inwstlgatlon Selected Units (119, 120, 127,227. and 230) La Cost. View Honeomen Auociation Much 21,2001 Page 20 - Project No 00-1800 Additionally, the existing system of mf drains and downspouts shall be connected into the existing drain system where contirmed adequate, or into a new snrface drainage system All new drain systems shall consist of the installation of 4-inch diameter outfall drain conshucted in accordance with the recommendations outlined above. Runoff collected by new or existing drain systems shall be directed to an approved existing concrete drainage swale or other suitable structure. Irrimtion Our site observations confirmed generally poor site irrigation practices immediately adjacent to the building foundations. To correct these conditions, we recommend that the existing sprinkler type irrigation heads situated too close to buildings, be moved and/or replaced. To reduce the potential for the accumulation of site irrigation on or adjacent to the building, we recommend that the existing sprinkler-type irrigation system be replaced where located within 10-feet of the building perimeter foot-print. Replace sprinklers with new adjustable, low-volume, drip-type irrigation with individual adjustable valves in order to properly control and limit irrigation immediately adjacent to the building. We also recommend that regular, bi-yearly (twice a year) inspections of the operating condition of all site irrigation be performed, especially irrigation systems adjacent to the building exterior walls. Adjust irrigation patterns and volumes in order to limit over-spray onto building foundations and walls. and so as to provide the minimum amount of water necessruy maintain proper plant health. Where landscape damage occurs and re-vegetation is quid use only low water-use, dmnght-tolerant plant species suitable to match the site conditions and environment. . Leak Detection Testing Following the foundation repairs and releveling operations, we recommend that all smctures which have undergone releveling andor foundation system repairs be evaluated for the possibility of sewer and/or water line leaks. In the case of the leak detection testing, we mmmend that the testing be performed by a licensed plumbing contractor specializing in leak detection testing. Where possible, we recommend that the sewer system be preferably tested using either a thorough static float test, or alternatively a video camera inspection. Where feasible, we also recommend that a thorough static test and/or the use of another suitable leak detection method to used to check for of the presencdabsence of a leakage within the pressurized water lines which service the building. XIL LIMITATIONS Our conclusions and mmmendations have been based on all available data obtained from OUT field investigation and laboratory analysis. Ofnecessity, we must assume a certain degree of continuity between exploratory excavations and/or natural exposures. It is therefore necessary that all obsewations, conclusions and recommendations be veriFted at the time mitigative repairs begin. In the event discrepancies are noted. additional recommendations may be issued (if required). - ~eport or Limited Gmtechniul and hruclun~ rnves~gitian Selected Units (119, 120, 127,227, urd 230) La Cmt. VI- Honeomem AssociaUon March 21,2002 - Py 21 PmJra No 00-IS00 Investigation of the overall stability of the general vicinity, which could also contribute to current or future damage, is beyond the scope of our authorized work. Our firm did not perform an investigation of deep seated soil stability because the authorized scope of field work was specifically designed to evaluate the reported moisture density conditions underlying the subject site. Our firm shall not be held responsible for any subsequent movement of deep-seated geologic features that may underlie the general vicinity. No guarantee or warranty is either expressed or implied by OUT professional services, including the written reports of our findings and recommendations. Adverse geotechnical conditions or latent non-geotechnical situations could exist which might not be dismvered and accounted for during our investigation or subsequent repairs. Past soil-related or moisture-related damage may have been repaved and therefore were not available for our observation and evaluation. In addition, latent defects in such non-geotechnical items as structural design, materials quality and type, or workmanship could result in future distress; analysis of such items is outside our authorized scope of services. Regardless, any existing adverse conditions concealed by site improvements or not revealed by our excavations, or past damages which have been repaired, are not able to be evaluated by our engineering professionals. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or owner's repmntative to em that the information and recommendations contained herein are incorporated into the project repairs and construction, and that the necessary steps are taken to ensure that the Contractors and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. This report may also be subject to review by the controlling authorities for this project., This report shall be considered valid for a period of one year or until significant additional soil- related or moishm-related damage occurs, whichever is less. At such time, this report is subject to review by our firm. If significant modifications are made to the investigated area, especially with respect to any changed drainage conditions, this report must be presented to us for immediate review and possible revision. Pmjrcl No 00-1800 We appreciate this opprtunity to be of senice. Once again, should any questions arise concerning this report, you may contact the undersigned. Referencing our Project No. 00-1800, will help to expedite a reply to your inquiries Respectfully Submitted, Anthony-Taylor Consultants An Anthony- Taylor Company C.E.G No. 1960 -. . Project Engineering Geologist Distribution: (2 Originals, 1 Copy to Addressee) P .. .. 1 a E z 1 : L a i E i L 1 a L i z > Y 3 " 2 Y c < 0 RELATIVE FLOOR ELEVATION SURVEY , NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE DATE OF SURVEY: 03/13/02 /------ -0.4- -0.4 SCALE: 1” = 10’ ALL DIMENSIONS *NO LOCATIONS ARE AIPPROXIMAIE. UNIT 127 -0.8 -0 4 -0 4 I EXT. PATIO -0.8 LEGEND * -2.0 SPOT ELEVATION (SURVEY . -2.0 HIGH/LOW IN INCHES) SPOT ELEVATION (IN INCHES) ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSCLTANTS w <<“C .“a .I E ..-.. . , . ...r .. ... .. ..o, I.. h”.”‘. i* , ...,... ..., V,Z.*.<. , .. ,,. I.. ’”,. ,<..,.-,., 3,. <. ... ~. , .. i ...... / . “on 1*0 I,. I.DC JOB NAME: SITE ADDRESS: RELATIVE FLOOR ELEVATION SURVEY 0 = rn UNIT #227 LEGEND .-2,~ SPOT ELEVATION (SURVEY HIGH/LOW IN INCHES) SCALE: 1" = 10' ALL DIMENSIONS AN0 LOCAT.TION5 #RE APPROXIMATE ;3 I * 2 \ AREA OF WOOD FRAMING EXPOSURE (FROM BUILDING EXTERIOR) \ \ DATE OF SURVEY: 10/03/01 -1 . -2.0 SPOT ELEVATION (IN INCHES) i.: 2 CONTOUR OF EOUAL ELEVATION $I-- * -1.2- (IN INCHES) RELATIVE FLOOR ELEVATION SURVEY I DATE OF SURVEY: 10/03/01 I 2 SCALE: 1" = 10' ALL DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIYAIE. LEGEND .-2.O SPOT ELEVATION (SURVEY HIGH/LOW IN INCHES) \ JOE NUMBER: 00-1 800 \ Ild REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. NO. GMK/JLM 03/13/02 \ \ \ UNIT #230 4 I - -20 SPOT ELEVATION (IN ;NCHES) CONTOUR OF EOUAL ELEVATION -'*- (IN INCHES) .. SLAB CRACK (WIDTH IN INCHES) AREA OF WOOD FRAMING EXPOSURE (FROM BUILDING EXTERIOR) ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS S." os.,. .rq-c., 10. rnt.-. ID.., r"-** c. 9101. 0'0, 7Ia-Moo .. . PROPOSED FLOOR REPAIRS LEGEND A -2 0 SPOT ELEVATION (SURVEY HIGH/LOW IN INCHES) (IN INCHES) - -1 2- CONTOUR OF EQUAL ELEVATION LIMITS OF PROPSED STRUCTURAL REPAIRS, SEE FLOOR JOIST, RETRO FIT REPAIR DETAIL, FIG IVd LIMITS OF PROPOSED REMOVAL/RELEVELING OF THE LIGHTWEIGHT CONC FLOOR SEE FLOOR REPAIR, DETAIL FIG IVe 49 UNIT# 127 ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS h" r-,*... ,,DO ".-*.., .(. 160 "*Wm rx 71007 3." ,"me 57, r..",." . .I. IYI I." SID"/... ~* 9.<05 3." mp ,c-c., ,o. E"l.,.,.. 3, ..I r.l.".da r. 9ma ,760, il8.DOD JOB NAME: LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS SITE ADDRESS: 23089231 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBADv CA. JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. NO. 00-1800 GMK/JLM 03/13/02 lllb SCALE: 1" = 10' Ail DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS IRE APPROXIUATL RETROFIT 5 EXISTING FLOOR JOIST WITH 2 METAL JOISTS (14'-12FJlOO) EACH JOIST, SEE FIG. IVd c NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE DATE OF SURVEY: 03/13/02 COLUMN RETRO-FIT REPAIRS AND GROUTING \ UNIT #130 SCALE: 1" = 10' ALL DIMENSIONS AND IOUTtONS ARE APPROXIMATE 7 * SEE NOTE FOR ADDITIONAL REPAIRS I NEW 24" W X 18" D CONCREA I r EXISTING STEEL- COLUMNS WITH CONCRETE FOOTIN( \ GRADE BEAM TO CONNECT TO EXISTING COLUMN FOOTINGS SEE FIG. IVc -1.2 - -0.8 - -0.4 . 6 GROUT INJECTION POINT (TYP.) :ISTING 8" X 12" )OD BEAM * NOTE: ALSO SEE ANTHONY-TAYLOR REPORT DATED STRUCTURAL FLOOR REPAIRS RELATIVE NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE DATE OF SURVEY: 11/14/00 LEGEND A -2.0 SPOT ELEVATION (SURVEY - HIGH/LOW IN INCHES) . PROPOSED LOCATION OF GROUT INJECTION POINTS CONTOUR OF EQUAL ELEVATION (IN INCHES) PROPOSED APPROXIMATE LIFT (IN INCHES) AT COLUMN LOCATIONS (0.8) SITE ADDRESS: PROPOSED FLOOR REPAIRS UNIT #227 SCALE: 1" = 10' ALL DlULNSlONP *NO LOCATIONS ARE APPmXIUATE REMOVE EXISTING LIGHT WEIGHT CONC. FLOOR AND PLYWOOD, REINFORCE AND RELEVEL AREA OF EXPOSED FLOOR JOIST WITH NEW 2 X 6 GLUE0 AN0 NAILED IN PLACE. PROVIDE BLOCKING. NEW 3/4" PLYWOOD, AND RE-POUR NEW LIGHTWEIGHT CONC. SEE ATTACHED DETAIL OF LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE FLOOR. FIG. IVe \ \ I \ I \ DATE OF SURVEY: 10/03/01 ~~ ~ ~~ VAL/RELEVELING PROPOSED FLOOR REPAIRS LGEND A -20 SPOT ELEVATION (SURVEY HIGH/LOW IN INCHES) -2.0 SPOT ELEVATION (IN INCHES) ~ CONTOUR OF EOUAL ELEVATION -1 2- (IN INCHES) AREA OF WOOD FRAMING EXPOSURE (FROM BUILDING EXTERIOR) LIMITS OF PROPOSED REMOVAL/RELEVELING OF THE LIGHTWEIGHT CONC FLOOR SEE FLOOR REPAIR, DETAIL FIG We UNIT #230 ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS sa" h.,. iconomc., 30, En,.?7.cn PI...< Irrrnd.*. c1 112019 (Ira, ,J.-ldoo JOE NAME: SITE ADDRESS: . LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS 2308,2310 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA. 00-1800 GMK/JLM 03/13/02 llle DATE: FIG. NO. NUMBER: REV,EWED SCALE: 1" = 10' ALL DIMENSIONS AND IotmoNs ARE APPROXIMATE. POSSIBLE LIMITS OF REMOVAL AND RELEVELING OF THE LIGHT WEIGHT CONCRETE FLOOR. SEE FIG IVe. ACTUAL LIMITS AND SCOPE OF REPAIR TO BE DETERMINED UPON COMPLETION OF GROUTING AND LIFTING OF UNIT# 130. DATE OF SURVEY: 10/03/01 GRADE BEAM DETAIL ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS I-” h,. rc-nit.,. 101 hlmmr s-.G xmmmdo c. 1.111 ,,eo, ,3,~..00 JOB NAME: LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS SITE ADDRESS: 2308,231 0 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA. JOE NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. NO. IVa - 00-1800 GMK/JLM 4/25/01 \ EXIST. STEM WALL EXIST. WALL FOOTING AND SLAB 4 7 1 i n U \//////// EXIST. FOOTING OR STEMWALL #4 REBAR DOWELS @I 10” O.C., EPOXY SET (6 DOWELS MIN; $74 #3 TIE @I 12” O.C. I 3” MIN. SEPARATION’ 18” MIN. BETWEEN SOIL & STEEL NEW 6’ LONG CONC. GRADE BEAM/FOOTING (CENTER AT FOOTING SEPARATION/JUNCTURE) NOTE: ALL CONCRETE TO BE 2500 PSI MIN. @ 28 DAYS SCALE: NOT TO SCALE 24” MIN. 1 SLAB REPLACEMENT DETAIL JOB NUMBER: 00-1800 NO. 4 REBAR Q 18" O.C. EACH WAY. STAGGER ALL REBAR SPLICES AND PROVIDE 16" MINIMUM LAP. IVb REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. NO. GMK/JLM 01/30/02 NEW 5" SLAB MIN. NO. 4 REBAR ROWEL EPOXY SET 18 O.C. LNO. 4 REBAR ROWEL EPOXY SET 18 O.C. PROVIDE NEW 2" THICK LAYER OF CLEAN SAND BASE, A 10 MIL.(MIN.) VISQUEEN MOISTURE BARRIER, AND 1" LAYER OF SAND BETWEEN SLAB AND VISQUEEN. TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE EXTEND NEW VISQUEEN AND CONCRETE SEVERAL INCHES BENEATH EDGE OF EXISTING SLAB. NOTE: ALL CONCRETE TO BE 2500 PSI MIN 6 28 DAY MIX, WITH 5-INCH MAX SLUMP. SCALE: NOT TO SCALE PROPOSED COLUMN FOOTING RETRO-FIT REPAIR UNIT # 130 ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS I.” h.,. IC-...,., 70. S“<..””. m..., r.-*_ N ,101, ,?‘O, >*a-.,w - - . . . . . . SITE ADDRESS: Y c Q x 0 E a a 4 Y (L Q w z VI I w 0 J J Q r e I Y r 0 z L 0 z .. w J 6 0 Ln 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. APPENDIX A REFERENCES “Report of Distress Observations and Survey Findings, Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums, 2308 Altisma Way, Carlsbad California, 92009,” prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated October 24,200 1. “ReportofLimitedGeotechnicalandStructuralInvestigahon,Units 117, 118,123, 124, 125, and 130, 2308, 23 10 Altisma Way, Carlsbad California, 92009,” prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated April 27,2001. “Report of Distress Observations and Survey Findings, Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums, 2308 Altisma Way, Carlsbad California, 92009,” prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated December 12, 2000. “Interim Report of Survey Findings, Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums, 2308 Altisma Way, Carlsbad California, 92009,” prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated November 28, 2000. “La Costa View Condominiums Consultation, 2308 Altisma Way, Carlsbad California,” prepared by Geocon, Inc., dated July 10, 1986. Letter addressed to Board of Governors, La Costa View Owners Association, prepared by Duke, Gerstel, Shearer & Bregante, dated March 20, 1985. “Limited Soil Investigation for La Costa View Condominiums, Carlsbad, California,” prepared Geocon Inc., dated September, 1984 and October 8, 1984. “La Costa View Damage & Repair Report,” prepared by Building Analysts, dated March 15, 1984 “La Costa View Condominiums Pavement Section Survey,” prepared by Testing Engineers-San Diego, dated March 30, 1983. “La Costa View Condominiums Consultation, Altisma Drive, Carlsbad California,” prepared by Geocon, Inc., dated June 16, 1982. APPENDIX B GENERAL NOTES AND INSTRUCTIONS TO PROSPECTIVE GROUTING CONTRACTORS TO PROSPEC'IIVE COMPA~ON-GROUTING COM238LTpBs 1. 2. =de estimated costs and total job time for the specified grouting program. Provide information on the type@) of floor-level monitoring system to be maintained during the grouting program. We have prepared the followkg esIimatea of tot& number of injection pipes, total length of pipe, and total amcuntofgmut required. In order for comparable bids to be obtained, these estimates are to be used in calculating unit costa and &a@ of total work days. Compaction GrontinglRelweliag-Units 119 and 120 We have prepared the following estimate of total number of grout pipes. In order for comparable bids to be obtained, these estimates are to be used io calculating unit costa and dmates. The total estimated grout quantity listed assumes 3 cubic feet per foot of pipe. The actoal gmut quantity may differ. a b. 3. TOTAL NUMBER OF INJECTION PIPES = 79 AVERAGE PIPE DEPTH = 13 FEET. TOTAL LENGTH OF PIPE= 1027 LINEALFEET. ESTIMATED TOTAL VOLUME OF GROUT To BE INJECTED = 2370 CUBIC FEET/ 88 CUBIC YARDS (assumes no grout rake within the upper 3-feet ofthe ground surface). TOTAL AMOUNT OF DESIGN STRUCTURE LET = 2.0 inches. C. d. Compaction Groutiag/Releveling-IJUnitr~ 130 We have prepared the following estimate of total number of grout pipes. In order for comparable bids to be obtained, these estimates are to be used in calculating unit cow and estimates. The totd estimated gmut quantity listed assumes 3.0 mbic feet per foot of pipe. The actual grout quantity may differ. a. b. TOTAL NUMBER OF INJECTION PIPES = 19 AVERAGE PIPE DEPTH = 20 FEET. TOTAL LENGTH OF PIPE = 380 LINEAL FEET. ESTIMATED TOTAL VOLUME OF GROUT TO BE INJECTED = 969 CUBIC FEET06 CUBIC YARDS (assumes no grout take within the upper 3-feet ofthe ground surface). TOTAL AMOUNT OF DESIGN STRUCTURE LIFT =between 0.2 and 0.8 inch. C. d. Page 1 of 2 4. AU prospeaive contractors should inspect all building areas where work will be required, prior to preparing or submitting bids. The contractor shall also be responsible for contact Underground Utility Markout in advance of commencing the proposed grouting. Further, the contractor should also wn6rm that adequate measures have been undertaken to limit damage to underground senice lines and pipes. Such measures could consist of performing their own utility mark out with the proper equipmenf retaining a experienced and licensed mark-out contractor, or insuring that the pmperty owner has retained an experienced underground markout contractor/company to locate any anticipated underground service piping which would be expected within the work area. All prospeaive contractors must obtain and review copies of all applicable building plans prior to preparing or submitting bids. AU prospeaive contractors must include in their bid documents all information necessary to show conhrmance oftheir equipment and personnel with all applicable specifications and requirements. 5. 6. Page 2 of 2 APPENDIX B GENERAL NOTES AND INSTRUCTIONS TO THE OWNEWGENERAL CONTRACTOR TES AND INSTRUCTIONS TO THE OWNEIUGEWRAL CO NTRACTOR 1. It is the responsibility of the owner to furnish copies of all necessary reports, building plans and design releveling criteria to bidding contractors. Necessary reports, plans and drawings would show the following: a. AU foundations. b. All underground utility lines. c. d. e. Existing floor plans. f. The owner will be responsible for having all underground utility lines and drain locations marked out in detail by the appropriate companies prior to the start of any grouting. It is common and understandable practice for contractors to disavow responsibility for damage to any subsurface structures or lines whose locations are not accurately known by the contractor at the commencement of a grouting program. In order for contractors to accurately plan and estimate their work, all prospective contractors must be allowed to inspect all prospective work areas inside the building. In addition, the contractors must be informed by the owner of any and all areas where equipment sensitive to vibration or movement is located, and of any restrictions on either certain work areas, or times. The owner shall supply access to water, under pressure, and electricity during the grouting program. Contractors must have access to all areas of the ground-floor during grout injection. If ground-floor areas are not accessible during either compaction-grout or slurry injection, the contractor will not be able to determine during grout injection whether unacceptable cracking or slurry leakage is occurring. All existing subsurface drainage systems. All as-built improvements around the building which are to remain Logs of excavations in the vicinity. 2. 3. 4. 5. Page 1 of 1 APPENDIX C RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATIONS FOR COMPACTION GROUTING PECO-CIFICATIONS FOR COMPACTION GROUTING L INTENT AND DEFINITIONS 1. It is intended to use the compaction-grout technique to reduce potential differential settlement ofthe treated soil mass (only), by densifying identified, natural settlement-prone soils and creating more uniform soil conditions. As designed, the program includes partial releveling of the affected building. Refer to the attached figures for more details concerning point location and depths, and releveling amounts and areas. Compaction grout is defined as a grout injected with not more than a 2-inch slump (per ASTM C243-78), preferably less than 1.0 inch if the material and hose length allow. The grout does not enter the soil pores but grows as a bulb, giving controlled radial displacement to compact loose soils. 2. II. GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. m: Provide all labor, materials and equipment to accomplish compaction grouting in the area(s) and zone(s) shown on the drawings and shall include all necessary drilling, grout pipes and grouting. m: It shall be the contractor's responsibility to design and implement a relative-elevation monitoring system during the grouting program, to protect the structure from unplanned uplift, while allowing the planned amounts of uplift to be achieved in a controlled manner. This monitoring system shall be capable of being read to an accuracy of 0.005 feet, in order to minimize unplanned uplift during densification, and shall be approved by the quality-control firm. The contractor shall provide sufficient personnel to observe nearby slopes, and adjacent features during grout injection to prevent foreseeable unplanned uplift or damage due to grout injection. The contractor shall monitor the adjacent site improvements for undesired movement/damage, and to the extent possible, perform the grouting operations in a manner so as to limit the potential for unwanted damage resulting fiom the grouting process. We suggest the adjacent retaining wall be monitored using a one or a combination of a string line to confirm horizontal displacement, as well as using levels andor dial gauges to monitor rotational movement. 2. Page 1 of 6 3. ECptectio n of Ut ilities: The location of all known underground utilities and obstructions will be marked on the surface prior to any grouting program. The contractor shall use due caution to prevent damage to these underground utilities and shall inject grout at distances and pressures determined by the quality -control firm. Further, the contractor is cautioned that unknown utilities may be encountered or that the exact location of known utilities may be different than marked on the surface. In all such cases, work in that area must not proceed without the quality-control firm's approval and acknowledgment f?om the owner that unavoidable damage to utilities may be incurred. If the above criteria are not met, the contractor will not be held liable for damage to underground utilities of obstructions. Inspection and Records: The quality-control firm shall be the owner's representative to observe the pressure-grouting operations. The contractor shall keep records of drilling and grouting, including depths, quantities, and pressures for each hole at each stage, and shall submit this in a form satisfactory to the quality-control h. Prior to grouting, relative-elevation benchmarks outside of the structure shall be installed and measures for vertical and horizontal control during grout injection. 4. .. 5. Water and : The owner shall provide access to water (under pressure) and electricity during the grouting program. 6. e Contractors: It is recognized that the success or failure of this technique for the controlled densification of soils beneath structures, and for controlled releveling, is dependent upon the skill and experience of the contractor. Severe damage to structures either during or after a compaction- grouting program, can result from inexperience. To be eligible to perform this work, the contractor must have at least three years of experience using this method. In addition, the on-site representative of the contractor must have suficient experience and knowledge in performinghupervising this type of work to evaluate incoming data, troubleshoot the wide variety of problemdsituations inherent to this type of work and communicate with the quality-control firm and owner on job status. Page 2 of 6 m. MATERIALS 1. Portland Cement shall be Type I or II. 2. Fine aggregate shall be a silty sand ideally about 20 to 30 percent passing a No. 200 sieve (ASTM 117-SO), that is "lean" enough to allow mixing and provide interparticle friction but "fat" enough to hold the mix water at the slump and pressures used. If locally available sands do not provide the needed water retention, small amounts of pozzolan or clay may be added (1) only if necessary; (2) only as much as necessary; and (3) not more than 4 percent in any case. Proportions of the mix, by volume, shall be not less than 1 part cement to 10 parts aggregate. Grout admixtures may be used with the approval of the quality-control firm. Slump (per ASTM C143-78) of the mixed grout during densification procedures shall never exceed 2 inches at the point of injection. Preferably, slump measured at the point of injection shall be 1.0 inch, or less. Higher slump grout is acceptable only for releveling or void-filling procedures, after densification procedures. If agitated continuously, the grout may be held in the grout plant as long as two hours at temperatures below 709, somewhat less at higher temperatures. 3. 4. 5. 6. lV. EQUIF'MENT 1. The grout plant shall be equipment specifically designed for compaction grouting. 2. The mixer shall be of a pug or similar type that ensures complete and uniform mixing of the materials used and shall be of sufficient capacity to continuously feed the pumping unit at its normal pumping rate. The grout pump shall be capable of injecting grout at a pressure of 500 psi at the point of injection, shall have an agitator in the holding tank, and will be readily controllable down to 0.2 cubic feed per minute. 3. Page 3 of 6 4. A volumemeasurement system shall be provided at the mixer or the pump, preferably both, that will measure volumes mixed and pumped to 0.2 cubic feet. Amrate pressure gauges shall be provided at both the pump and the injection point to measure the grout pressure. A two-way communication system shall be maintained between the grout plant and the injection location. 5. 6. V. GROUT PIPES AND SEQUENCE 1. Injection points shall be initially laid out in a modified grid system, with the horizontal distance between closest injection points being 6 feet. Ideally, the grid of points would be installed as close as possible to the point locations shown on Figure No. III, modified where necessary to locate points beneath load-bearing foundations. As necessary based on site conditions, we recommend that prior to building releveling, a lineal sequence of grout points be established along the exterior of the building in an effort to create a grout curtain and limit the potential for unwanted grout migration and/or damage to surrounding site improvements. These grout containment points should extend to a suitable depth, be located at approximately 4-feet on-center, and be grouted using a uniform volume of grout estimated at approximately 2- cubic feet per lineal foot of grout pipe, or as site conditions allow, in order to densify the soils and create a containment curtain. The "closure" method of grouting shall be employed in selection of the grout point sequence. Alternate points in the total grid shall be grouted to completion, utilizing any method which maximizes positive control of the grout injection depth. These initial injection points shall be referred to as the "primary" points. Following completion of two adjacent "primary" points, the intermediate "secondary" points shall be grouted to completion. Comparison of injected grout quantities should reveal a decrease in grout "take" in the secondary holes from the primary holes. If grout takes in secondary holes are greater than or approximately equal to grout takes in primary holes, a new pattern of "tertiary" holes should be considered by the quality-control firm and discussed with the project soils engineer. Satisfactory compaction-grouting of any one injection point shall include the following: 2. 3. 4. Page 4 of 6 a. Maximum vertical depth (or "stage") of loose soil to be treated with a single injection shall be 3 feet. The maximum slump of the soil-cement compaction grout mixture shall be 2 inches as measured by ASTM Method C143-71. This "slump" test might be performed twice daily - or more frequently - as requested by the quality-control firm. Failure to meet this specification would result in immediate termination of the program. The maximum rate of grout injection shall be 4 cubic feet per minute. the minimum rate shall be % cubic foot per minute. Grouting of any one stage shall continue until (1) unacceptable ground surface lift or undesired wall andor building movement occurs; (2) the grout injection rate falls below the minimum at an injection pressure of 400 pounds per square inch (measured at the injection point) for a minimum time period of one minute; or (3) when injection pressure drops suddenly by more than 50 pounds per square inch while injecting grout at pressures in excess of 100 pounds per square inch; or (4) when the specified volume of grout is achieved as outlied within Section of). If the soil engineer modifies or adds to the list of criteria for successful completion of grout stages, such changes shall be documented in writing. b. C. d. 5. The grouting contractor will provide an elevation monitoring system which allows the quality-control firm to verify the amount of incremental and total lii in structure areas. For bidding purposes, the maximum amount of incremental lift without raising surrounding areas shall be 1/4 inch. Refer to Figure No. 111 for the design releveling criteria. All compaction-grouting and subsequent releveling shall proceed from the lowest structure areas to the highest. 6. VI. CLEANI.JP 1. At the completion, each grout pipe shall be completely removed or, if the pipe cannot be pulled, it shall be cut owdriven to a depth designated by the quality- control jjrm (typically a minimum of 12 inches below the slab bottom). Holes in exterior concrete slabs, etc., shall be rough patched to the satisfaction of the quality-control firm. Holes in interior concrete slabs need not be rough- patched, as planned repairs are to include slab replacement. Page 5 of 6 2. It is understood that this work is messy by its nature, but the contractor shall keep the work area neat and grout spills promptly picked up. Painting, etc., due to cement stains, is not the responsibility of the contractor, but the removal of all grout spilled and splattered is the responsibility of the contractor. 3. Contractor shall exercise due care to minimize damage to larger trees and shrubs that cannot be removed prior to his operation. Page 6 of 6 , ..... . . . , , , . . , , , ..):. . .. .,,,. ,/,,. ,, .,, ,,.,., ., , , ./ ' Report of Repair Observations La Costa View Condominiums Units 117,118,119,120,123,124, 125,127,129,130,227, and 230 2308-2310 Altisma Way Carlsbad, California 92009 FOR: La Costa View HOA c/o Premier Property Management 325 Carlsbad Village Drive, Suite D-1 Carlsbad, California 92008 Attn: Ms. SueBarnett DATE: May 19,2003 Project No. 00-1800 PREPARED BY: Anthony-Taylor Consultants 304 Enterprise Street Escondido, California 92029 (760) 738-8800 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 .o %OPE OF WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . 1 2.0 aBSERVATI ...................................................... 2 2.1 mction Grout ing ............................................. 3 2.3 Grouting ....................................... 9 2.4 aade Beam Repab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 ' ................................................ 11 2.6 2.7 Rm-Joist i .......................................... 12 2.8 2.2 Sum? Of Grout Oua ntitieaept hs ................................ 4 2.5 Slab Repairs ................................................... 10 Light-Weieht FloonW 1 ..................................... 11 3.0 SUMMAR Y OF PRE- AND POST RE -LEVELING FLOOR SURVEYS 12 4.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS . . , . . . . . . . , . . , . , . . . . . . . , . , . . . . . . , . . . . . . 18 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................... 19 6.0 -. , , . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . _. .. , . __. . , . . . . . . . . . , . , . . , . . . , .. . . .20 FIGURES: Relative Floor Elevation Survey-Post Releveling-Units 117 and 118 Relative Floor Elevation Survey-Post Releveling-Units 119 and 120 Relative Floor Elevation Survey-Post Releveling-Units 123 and 124 Relative Floor Elevation Survey-Post Releveling-Units 125 Relative Floor Elevation Survey-Post Releveling-Units 127 Relative Floor Elevation Survey-Post Releveling-Units 129 Relative Floor Elevation Survey-Post Releveling-Units 130 Relative Floor Elevation Survey-Post Releveling-Units 227 Relative Floor Elevation Survey-Post Releveling-Units 230 Figure la , Figure% Figure IC Figure Id Figure le Figure If Figure Ig Figure Ih Figure Ii APPENDICES: A References ANT H 0 NY -TAY L 0 R C 0 N S U LTA NT S 304 Enterprise Street Escondido, CA 92029 (760) 738-8800 (760) 738-8232 fax L May 19,2003 La Costa View Homeowners Association c/o Premier Property Management 325 Carlsbad Village Drive, Suite D-1 Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: Ms. Sue Barnett 7 L - Project No. 00-1800 - Subject: Report of Repair Observations La Costa View Condominiums Units 117,118,119,120,123,124,125,127,129,130,227, and 230 Carlsbad, California 92009 - 2308-2310 Altisma Way References: See Appendix A c r r Dear Ms. Barnett: In accordance with the Association's authorization, we performed site observations and inspection services during foundation and structural repairs, performed to the above listed units at the project site. The purpose of our services was to provide supplemental observations and inspection services during foundation and building repairs, recommended by this office, and performed by Nautilus General Contracting on behalf of the Association. Our observationdispections were performed on an on-call basis between October 17,2002, and Februay 6,2003, and were coordinated by a representative (Mr. Dana Butts) of Nautilus General Contracting. The following report provides a general discussion of site observations and building repairs performed to address the conditions of reporteddocumented building distress within the residential units listed above. 1. SCOPE OF WORK The following scope of services was performed as part of our site observationdinspection services: . Observations of the compaction grouting operation; Architects Engineers Planners Construction Managers I- - Site Repair Observations Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums 2308 and 2310 Altisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 2 ProjectNo. 00-1800 . Observations of exposed foundation and slab conditions in selected units Observations of the placement of epoxy set footing dowels related foundation Observations of epoxy injection and patching of interior slab cracks; Observations of framing and floor members exposed during structural repair following compaction grouting and releveling. . grade-beam and slab replacement steel reinforcing; . . areas associated with the reinforcement of floor joists and rim joists members along portions ofthe cantilevered floor area beneath Units 130, 129, 127, and 125; . Relative floor elevation surveys of readily accessible portions of the residences Preparation of this report presenting a general summary of our site following compaction grouting, structural, and foundation and slab repairs; . observations. 2.0 QBSERVATIOB A representative of Anthony-Taylor Consultants was present on an on-call basis to observe: the compaction grouting and foundatiodslab re-leveling; the exposed limits of foundatiodslab damage following releveling (where slab exposures were performed); exposed floor framing and the installation of reinforcing steel channels to floor members below portions of selected units in Building 2310; observed subgrade soils beneath slab replacement areas; the epoxy placement of reinforcing dowels; the placement of steel reinforcement to repair slab area damage and install footing grade-beams; follow-up observations of epoxy repairs to floor slab repairs, and post-releveling repair floor surveys. The following repaidreconstruction items were observed: Site Repair Observations Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums 2308 and 23 10 Altisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 3 ProjedNo. 00-1800 2.1 ion Groutug As recommended in project reports (See Appendix A, References), a program of compaction grouting and foundatiodslab releveling was performed to address conditions of measured floor tilt within Units 117, 118, 119, 120, 123, and 124, 2308 Altisma Way, and to relevel column footings beneath a portion ofunits 130/230,2310 Altisma Way. The proposed compaction grouting of the subject building areas was performed to locally li and reduce the amount of floor tilt within portions of selected units, and locally improve and densify the underlying soils at depths ranging from approximately 3 to 16-feet below the existing ground elevation. Grouting was performed using 2-1/2 inch diameter injection pipe driven using an air-driven hammer, manually assisted by operator body weight. The driving ofthe injection pipes was lody observed and monitored for progress, and the injection pipes were advanced to a depth to terminate on or above resistive soil materials. The location of the grout injection points were based on the recommended locations as indicated within the project reports, adjusted in the field based on discussions with a representative from this ofice and the grouting contractor (Hayward Baker, Inc). Where necessary, the location and depth of the individual grout points were modified, to better position the injection points to reduce the potential for damage to underground service lines, utilities, or other improvements andor to position the points based upon nearby wall locations. Additionally, during initial grout injection for Units 119 and 120, selected injection points were omitted where in conflict with floor coverings, underground services, and where a greater grout point separation was desired to obtain lifting using reduced injection points. Following the selection of the injection points, the pipes were driven to penetrate more settlement-prone fills and to a depth on or adjacent to the resistive underlying soils. The grout injection pipe was then extracted 0.5 to 1.5 feet, and grouting was performed from the bottom-up, using a vertical grouting interval (stage) of 2 feet. The injected grout materials consisted of a low slump (generally 2-inches or less) sand cement-sluny mix. During the grouting process, the grouting contractor performed continuous monitoring of the relative elevation of the adjacent ground surface and existing slab. This monitoring allowed for the Site Repair Observations Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums 2308 and 23 IO AItisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 4 Project No. 00-1800 verification of the incremental building uplift. The elevation monitoring system provided by Hayward Baker Inc. consisted of a manometer (water level) and laser level. The grout injection ceased when the desired lift was achieved, or when other pertinent termination criteria was encountered. Please see the attached “Summary of Grout QuantitieslDepths,” below, which provides a tabular summary of the grouting quantity injected during the shallow groutinghe-leveling program. 2.2 rout Oms/Deoths Summav of G .. units 117/118 @uutPoint Toto1 Deoih /feet1 #I 9 #2 12 #3 12 #4 12 #5 12 #6 7 #7 7 #8 9 #9 9 # 10 9 # 11 9 # 12 9 # 13 9 # 14 9 # 15 7 # 16 7 # 17 7 # 18 7 # 19 9 # 20 9 # 21 9 # 22 9 # 23 9 # 24 9 # 25 9 # 26 10 # 27 9 # 28 IO # 29 IO # 30 9 # 31 IO # 32 10 Total Grout Vol. lnrbic feet1 9 11 10.5 19 29 9.5 5.25 12 6.5 38 7 10 21 12 10 7 9 0 31 12 8 8 IO 8 9 5 8 7 1 12.5 17 5 Stoo Code Pi GWGS GM GWGS GM SM GS COISM GM co GM GM GM GM GM GM SWGM GM SWGM SMMrM SMNM SMiWM WM SM WM WM I * HP SWGM SM SM Site Repair Observations Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums 2308 and 23 10 Altisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 5 bits 117/118 (Continued) Grout Point Toto1 Deoth fleet1 # 33 8 # 34 # 35 # 36 # 37 # 38 # 39 # 40 # 41 Lifting Points # A-1 # A-1B # A-2 # A-ZB # A-3 # A4 # A-5 # A-6 # A-6B # A-7 # A-8 # A-8B # A-9 # A-9B # A-10 # A-IOB #A-11 #A-IlB # A-12 # A-IZB # A-I3 # A-I4 #A-15 # A-16 # A-16B # A-17 # A-29 # A-36 # A-37 Units 117/118 9 13 9 9 9 9 9 6 10 9 9 9 9 6 9 9 7 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 6 7 6 9 6 9 6 9 9 Total Grout Vol. /cubic fietl 5 16 20 14 IO 10 6 4 8 10 22 6 9 14 3 8 2 9.5 4 3 5.25 6.5 3 7 5 6.5 3 12 5 8 8 5 4 4.5 20 10 10 10 Project No. 00-1800 $100 Code Pl . u GM GM GWSM SM SM t 4 Total Grout Vol 686.25 (25.4 cubic yards) SM SWGM SM GS GM SM SM SM GS SM GM GS GM GM SM GS GM GS SWGM GS GS GS GM GS SWGM GM SM' * * Site Repair Observations Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums 2308 and 23 10 Altisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 6 mts 119/120 Grout Point Total Devth /keg #1 10 L #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 # 10 # 11 # 12 # 13 # 14 # 15 # 16 # 17 # 18 # 19 # 20 # 21 # 22 # 23 # 24 # 25 # 26 # 27 # 28 # 29 # 30 # 31 # 32 # 33 # 34 # 35 # 36- #37 Not used. # 38 # 39 # 40 # 41 # 42 - # 43 Not used. # 44 # 45 # 46 # 47 # 48 12 12 12 12 8 I2 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 I2 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 I2 12 Total Grout Val. /cubic &et) 16 21 26 25 I9 18 14 13 10 10 10 9 10 13.5 10 10 10 10 33 33.5 26 13.75 27.5 14 14 27.5 26 22 12 27 33 35 11.75 40 35 46.5 18 24 31.5 9.75 13.25 20 7.5 11.5 Project No. 00-1800 Stav Code PI COISM co COISM COISM COIGM COIGM COIGM COIGM co COIGM SMIGM COIGM COIGM COlGM COIGM COISM COIGS COISM GSlSM COISM COISM SM COISM SM SM COISM co co COIGS co CO co CO/SM COISM co COISM COISM COISM COlSM SM COISM COISM SM COISM Site Repair Observations Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums 2308 and 2310 Altisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 7 PmjectNo. 00-18W 9/120 (Contlnued) Grout Point Total DeDth (fie g Total Grout Vol. /cub ic fieil StOD code p) Litling Points # A-5 # A-5B # A4 # A-7 # A-9 # A-IO # A-12 # A-I4 # A-I5 # A-16 # A-IS # A-20 # A-22 # A-27 # A-30 # A-31 # A-32 # A-35 12 8 12 12 12 12 9 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 7 12 12 7 15 S 10.5 13 13.5 20 13.5 13.5 30 33 34 33.5 27.5 26 19 15.5 17 7.5 COISM GM COISM COISM COISM COISM SMIGM SMIGM co COISM co COIGM COISM COISM SM SM SM SM Total Grout Vo lume Un its 119/120 fcubic-fed = 1217.5 (45.1 cubicyards) #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 # 10 # I1 # 12 # 13 # 14 # 15 # 16 # 17 # 18 # 19 # 20 # 21 1231124 S;rout Point Total Denth fleet) Total Grout Vol. /cubic fietL StOD Code P) #1 12 9.5 COIGM 13 11.25 COIGM 13 13 75 COIGM 13 13 13 13 13 13 IO 13 13 13 13 13 13 12 13 13 13 13 13 14.5 12 13 13 13 12 13 13.5 9.5 14 15 16 5.5 12 12 23.5 14.5 COIGM COIGM COIGM COISM COISM COISM COIGM SM COISM COISM SMIGM SMIGM COISM COISM COISM COISM COISM COISM .- Site Repair Observations Selected Units-La Costa View Condo&ums 2308 and 23 10 Altisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 8 Units 1231 124 (Continued) Grout Point Total Denth (feet1 # 22 13 # 23 13 # 24 13 # 25 13 # 26 13 # 21 12 # 28 12 # 29 12 # 30 12 # 31 13 # 32 13 # 33 13 # 34 12 # 35 13 # 36 I2 # 31 13 # 38 13 Lifting Points # A-I 9 # A-2 9 # A-1OB 12 Total Gmut Vol. /cubic feet1 37 32 22 26 22.25 IO 11 11 9 9 12.5 13 1.25 9 5.5 11.5 11.25 22 9 15 ProjectNo. 00-1800 &&?kcl COISM COISM COISM COISM COISM co COBM COlSM SM . * COISM "ISM COISM COISM SWGM GM COIGM * Total Grout Volu me Units 123/124 f cubicfeetl= 578.75 (21.4 cubic yards) units 1301m Grout Point r- #I 15 #2 15 #3 15 #4 1s #5 15 #6 15 #7 16 #8 15 #9 15 # 10 15 # 11 15 # 12 15 # 13 15 # 14 18 # 15 15 To~l Gmut Yo/. /cubic feeg 14.5 9.5 13.5 20 17 19 16 9.5 9.5 19 22 11.25 24 31 21 SM GM/SM SWGM COISM SWGS SM SM COISM SWGM SWGS COlSM SM COISM Site Repair Observations Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums 2308 and 2310 Altisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 9 Project No. 00-1800 units 1- (Continued) # 16 16 22 COISM # 17 15 23.5 COISM # 18 15 20 SM # I9 15 21 COISM Total Grout Vo I ume Units 1301230 hbic-feetl = 343.25 (12.7 cubic yards) Grout Point Total Deuth (fee0 Total Grout Vol. /cubic fief1 SIOD Code Pi (*) Note: Summary of Stop Code Abbreviations: SM=Slab Movement, WM=Wall Movanent, GM=Ground Movement, GS= Ground Surface, HP=High Pressures, COCVolume Cut OE 2.3 *mF- Following the re-leveling process, exposed or encountered ground fractures resulting fiom the releveling process in the areas of Units 117, and 11 8, were filled with a fluid mixture of cement sluny injected under low pressure. The purpose of the sluny injection was to lody fiU ground cracks and other near- surface voids, where they were encountered and readily accessible. No visible ground cracks were evident following grouting of the remaining units, therefore no sluny placement was performed in these areas. 2.4 Beam Repairs As recommended within the referend project reports, a concrete grade beam was installed beneath footing cracks where cracks approximately l/4-inch wide and wider were encountered. A total of three concrete grade beams were installed during the project repairs. Two grade beams were installed beneath cracks located on the north side of the Unit 117, and one was installed along the south side of Unit 124. In general, the concrete grade beams were installed in general accordance with the Grade Beam Detail, as prepared by this office. In the case of the grade beam located on the south side of Unit 124, and one on the north side of Unit 117, the doweling and steel configuration was adjusted to match a step in the building foundation between a section of masonry block foundation and the concrete spread footing. Representatives from this office observed the epoxy placement of dowels and steel rebar reinforcement. The location of the grade beam repairs to footing cracks is shown on the attached Relative Floor Elevation Survey for Units 117, and 118, (Figure Ia) and Units 123 and 124 (Figure IC). Site Repair Observations Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums 2308 and 23 10 Altisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 10 Project No. 00-1800 Additionally, during the excavation performed for the installation of a grade beam to connect the individual column footings below Units 130 and 230, it was discovered that a grade beam already had been installed between the column footings at this location. The top and a side portion of the existing grade beam was exposed, and was found to be in good condition, and of similar size to that recommended. No visible cracking or distress was noted in the exposed sections of the existing grade beam. As such, the installation of the recommended grade beam in this area was omitted, and the partial grade-beam excavation was backfilled with concrete backfill. 2.5 Slab Rep;us ‘r Following the re-leveling process, hairline to 1/32-inch wide cracks within the exposed sections of the interior slab of the residence were surficially sealed with an epoxy sealant. Exposed cracks that were 1/16-inch and greater were filled with injected epoxy grout. Cracks repaired in this fashion were mainly located within the exposed areas of Units 117, 119, and 120. In should be noted that floor coverings were not removed in some repaired units. Little or no floor covering removals were performed in Units 118, 123, 124, 125, 127, 129, 130, and 227. The largest slab cracks and areas of frequent cracking exposed during the building repairs (Le. in portions of Units 117, 119, and 120), were provided with slab replacement repairs. The general limits of the slab replacement repairs is shown on the attached Relative Floor Elevation Survey, Figures Ia and Ib. The sections of damaged slab were removed and replaced according to the Slab Replacement Detail outlined on the project reports prepared by this oftice. At slab replacement areas, the concrete was removed, and the adjoining side slab and wall footing were doweled and reinforced. These repairs were observed by a representative and/or Inspector with Anthony- Taylor Consultants, and were found to be in general conformance with our recommendations. r Site Repair Obsmations Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums 2308 and 23 10 Altisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 11 Project No. 00-1800 2.6 Following the compaction groutingke-leveling of the column footings beneath Units 130 and 230, Building 2310, the cantilevered floor joists beneath portions ofunits 125, 127, 129, and 130, were lied and reinforced. These reinforcing repairs involved the localized hydraulic lifting of the deflected floor area joists, and the installation of heavy duty 8-inch wide steel channels using both bolts, washers and plates. During the lifting process, the most easterly end ofthe floor joists (at the end of the cantilever) was typically lifted between 0.4-inch and 0.6-inch, prior to bolting the channels in place. These repair were also inspected by our project structural engineer, at various times during the repair process. The purpose of the repairs was to reduce the magnitude of deflection within the cantilevered areas of the floor framing, and to strengthen the general capacity of the affected wood floor joists where repairs were performed. Based on field measurements, it appears that an general improvement in the over-all floor deflection ranged from approximately 0.25 to 0.5-inches following the steel joist placement repairs. These measurements were based on relative spot elevations performed on the underside of the wood floor joists, before and after and lifting and steel channel installation. Additionally, some individual homeowners (Unit 230) reported noticeable improvements in the operation of the sliding door, and some windows. 2.7 nt Flooriw ir Following steel channel placement, the localized replacement of lightweight concrete floor (as previously proposed), was not performed to address conditions of localized floor tilt encountered in some units in Building 23 10. This repair method was not implemented based on a desie for additional cost- effective measures, and the observation that portions of the floor tilt may be related to the placement of the original light weight concrete floor at the time of construction. Instead, surface releveling using a level compound was considered as a more cost effective means to address the localized conditions of floor tilt measured in some units. It is our understanding that the Association Board has elected to postpone the surface releveling of the floor areas in selected units of Building 2310, until such time the repairs will coincide with the removal and replacement of floor coverings performed by the unit owners. To our knowledge, only Unit 230 was provided with surface releveling of the light weight floor, since the owner decided to perform - r- r I Site Repair Observations Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums 2308 and 23 IO Aitisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 12 ProjectNo. 00-1800 flooring removals and replacements to during the repair period. Therefore, it is also our understanding that cosmetic releveling of floor areas within selected units included studied during the investigation phase of work, are most likely to be undertaken when the unit owner plan flooring removals. We recommend that at such time floor covering removal are planned, a representative from this office should be contacted to observe the condition of the exposed floor within the units studied, so that appropriate repairs or other recommendations can be provided. 2.8 Rim-Joist sol ice Repair While in the process of exposing the framing associated with the installation of the reinforcing steel channels, observations noted that in some locations the original rim joists was locally constructed with a side-by-side splice. This framing condition was considered in need of correction where encountered. Accordingly, the project structural engineer with this office prepared a supplemental detail outlining the removal of a portion of the outer rim joist (either side of the splice), and reinstallation of a new section of outer rim joist, nailed in place. These repairs were performed where the side-by-side splice condition was encountered in the areas opened for floor repair, and the completed rim joist repair work was observed by the project structural engineer. 3.0 PRE- AND POST RE -LEVELING FLOOR ELEVATION SU RVEYS In order to evaluate the magnitude of elevation difference across the living area slab- on-grade floor and light weight concrete floors, a relative floor elevation survey (manometer) was performed. The relative floor elevation measurements were obtained to the nearest l/l0-inch vertical. The results of our previous surveys and post-repair surveys are presented below. Also See Relative Floor Elevations Surveys- Post Releveling, Figures Ia through Ii, attached. Site Repair Observations Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums 2308 and 2310 Altisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 13 Project No. 00-1800 Units 117 and 11 8 The findings of our initial survey indicate that the two residential units (1 17 and 1 18) displayed approximately 4.1-inches of elevation difference across the two units. The floor survey found that the high point of the survey was measured to be in the east- central portion of the kitchen in Unit 118, and the low points measured within the northerly and central portions of the master bedroom and bathroom in Unit 117. Following the compaction grouting operation, a second relative floor elevation survey was performed. Based on the results ofthe post-repair elevation survey, a maximum of approximately 3.2-inches of elevation difference was measured across the living area floor slab. The survey measured the high point of the floor slab as located in the central portion of the kitchen within Unit 118, and the central portion of the master bedroom in Unit 117. The results of the post-re-leveling floor survey are shown on the attached Relative Floor Elevation Survey, Figure Ia. Units 119 and 120 The findings of our initial survey of Units 119 and 120, indicated that approximately 3.5-inches of elevation difference across the two units. The floor survey found that survey high point was measured to be located in the southeast comer of the dining area nook in Unit 120, and the low point was measured to be in the central portion of the master bedroom closet in Unit 119. Following the compaction grouting operation, a second relative floor elevation survey was performed. Based on the results ofthe post-repair elevation survey, a maximum of approximately 2.6-inches of elevation difference was measured across the living area floor slab. The survey measured the high point of the floor slab to be located in the northwesterly comer ofthe master bedroom in Unit 119, and the measured low point of the survey to be located in the southeasterly comer of the master bedroom in Unit 120. The results of the post-re-leveling floor survey are shown on the attached Relative Floor Elevation Survey, Figure Ib. r I Site Repair Observations Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums 2308 and 2310 Altisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 14 Project No. 00-1800 Units 123 and 124 The findings of our initial survey indicated that Units 123 and 124 displayed approximately 2.3-inches of elevation difference across the two units. The floor survey indicated that survey high point was measured to be located in the central portion of the master bathroom in Unit 124, and the low point was measured in the northwesterly comer of the master bedroom in Unit 123. Following the compaction grouting operation, a second relative floor elevation survey was performed. Based on the results of the post-repair elevation survey, a maximum of approximately 1.4-inches of elevation difference was measured across the living area floor slab. The survey measured the high point of the floor to be located in the northwesterly portion of the living room in Unit 124, and the low point of the survey to be located in the southwesterly comer of the master bedroom in Unit 123. The results of the post-re-leveling floor survey are shown on the attached Relative Floor Elevation Survey - Post Releveling, Figure IC. IMtLm The findings of our initial survey indicated that Unit 125 displayed approximately 2.1- inches of elevation difference across the unit. The floor survey indicated that survey high points were measured to be located in the east-central portion of the living room, and front entry, and the low point of the survey to be located in the northeasterly corner of the master bedroom. Following the hydraulic lifting of the cantilevered floor joists and installation of the reinforcing steel channels, a second relative floor elevation survey was performed. Based on the results of the post-repair elevation survey, a maximum of approximately 1.9-inches of elevation difference was measured across the living area floor. The survey measured the high point of the floor to be located in the easterly portion of the living room, (adjacent to the sliding glass door), and the low point of the survey located in the northeasterly comer of the master bedroom. It should be noted that during the period between the initial and post-repair surveys, the unit was sold and the new owners installed new floor tile in the kitchen, entry, dining nook and bathrooms of the residence. The results of the post-re-leveling floor survey are shown on the attached Relative Floor Elevation Survey - Post Releveling, Figure Id. c Site Repair Observations Selected UNts-La Costa View Condominiums 2308 and 23 10 Altisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 15 Project No. 00-1800 I.hw27 The findmgs of our initial survey indicated that Unit 127 displayed approximately 1.1- inches ofelevation difference across the unit. The floor survey indicated that survey high point were measured to be located in the south-central portion of the living room (near the fieplace), and the low points of the survey were located in the southeasterly corner of the dining nook and the central portion of the master bedroom closet. Following the hydraulic lifting of the cantilevered floor joists and installation of the reinforcing steel channels, a second relative floor elevation survey was performed. Based on the results of the post-repair elevation survey, a maximum of approximately 1.4-inches of elevation difference was measured across the living area floor within Unit 127. The survey measured the high point of the floor to be located in the easterly portion of the living room, (adjacent to the sliding glass door), and the low point of the survey located in the central portion of the master bedroom closet. The results of the post-re-leveling floor survey are shown on the attached Relative Floor Elevation Survey - Post Releveling, Figure Ie. Based on these general findings, it is our opinion that the apparent increase in floor tilt may have resulted from variations in the survey methods, such as differing locations of the individual elevation measurements and/or the precision tolerances of the manometer readings. UQitLm The findings ofour initial survey indicated that Unit 129 displayed approximately 1.5- inches ofelevation difference across the unit. The floor survey indicated that survey high point was measured to be located in the northeast corner of the living room (near the sliding glass door), and the low point of the survey to be located in the central portion of the master bedroom closet. Following the hydraulic lifting of the cantilevered floor joists and installation of the reinforcing steel channels, a second relative floor elevation survey was performed. Based on the results of the post-repair elevation survey, a maximum of approximately 1.5-inches of elevation difference was measured across the living area floor. The survey measured the high point of the floor to be located in the easterly portion of the living room (adjacent to the center of the sliding glass door), and the low point of the - Site Repair Observations Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums 2308 and 2310 AItisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 16 - Project No. 00-1800 survey to be located in the central portion of the master bedroom closet. The survey also detected a decreased level of floor tilt along the northerly side of the dining nook, above the area ofjoist reinforcement. The results of the post-re-leveling floor survey are shown on the attached Relative Floor Elevation Survey - Post Releveling, Figure If. Unit 130 - The findings of our initial survey indicated that Unit 130 displayed approximately 2.1- inches of elevation difference across the unit. The floor survey indicated that survey high point was measured to be located in the southerly wall of the living room, and the low points were measured in the easterly comers of the dining nook, and the southeasterly corner of the master bedroom. Following the compaction grouting to densifjr and lift the column footings beneath Unit 130, and the lifting and installation of the reinforcing steel channels, a post- releveling survey was performed. Based on the results of the post-repair elevation survey, a maximum of approximately 2.0-inches of elevation difference was measured across the living area floor in Unit 130. The survey measured the high point of the floor to be located in the east-central portion of the living room (adjacent to the sliding glass door), and the measured low point of the survey to be located in the central portion ofthe master bedroom closet. The results ofthe post-re-leveling floor survey are shown on the attached Relative Floor Elevation Survey, Figure Ig. We should note that during the period between our initial floor survey and the post- repair survey, Unit 130 was apparently sold, and the new owners elected to install new ceramic floor tile throughout the kitchen, entry, hallway, and bathrooms. As such, portions of the original floor elevation difference has apparently decreased during the placement of the new tile flooring in some areas. unit 227 The findings of our initial survey indicated that Unit 227 displayed approximately 1.8- inches of elevation difference across the unit. The floor survey indicated that the survey high point was measured to be located in the area of the second bathroom, and the survey low point to be located in the east-central portion of the living room. Site Repair Observations Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums 2308 and 2310 Altisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 17 Project No. 00-1800 Following floor Wig and the installation of the reinforcing steel channels below Unit 127, a second survey was performed. Based on the results of the post-repair elevation survey, a maximum of approximately 1.9-inches of elevation difference was measured across the living area floor in Unit 227. The floor survey indicated that survey high point was measured to be located in the area of the master bathroom, and the low point of the survey to be located in the east-central portion of the living room The results of the post-re-leveling floor survey are shown on the attached Relative Floor Elevation Survey - Post Releveling, Figure Ih. It is our opinion that the measured increase (0.1-inch) in floor tilt is generally within the accuracy of the survey methods, and may have in part been caused by differing locations of individual elevation measurements and/or precision tolerances of the manometer readings. A slight decrease in tilt along the easterly cantilever near the dining nook was also noted. unit 230 The findings of our initial survey indicated that Unit 230 displayed approximately 2.8- inches of elevation difference across the unit. The floor survey indicated that survey high points were measured to be located in the northeasterly corner of the second bedroom, and the low point was measured in the east central portion of the dining nook. Following the compaction grouting to densify and lift the column footings beneath Unit 130, and the lifting and installation of the reinforcing steel channels, a post- releveling survey was performed. Based on the results of the post-repair elevation survey, a maximum of approximately 1.5-inches of elevation difference was measured across the living area floor within Unit 230. The survey measured the high point of the floor to be located in the south-central portion of the living room (adjacent to the fireplace), and the measured low points of the survey to be located in the east central portion of the master bedroom. The results of the post-re-leveling floor survey are shown on the attached Relative Floor Elevation Survey, Figure Ii. It should be noted that during the period between our initial floor survey and the post- repair survey, the owner of Unit 230 elected to remove the interior flooring covering, and the floor areas of the living room, dining room and kitchen were releveled using a releveling compound. Following this work, the owner then elected to install new ,- Site Repair Observations Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums 2308 and 23 10 Altisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 18 Project No. 00-1800 ceramic floor tile throughout the kitchen, dining room, entry, and master bathroom. As such, portions of the original floor elevation difference were apparently removed during the placement of the new tile floor and surface compound within these areas. 4.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Based upon the results of our site observations, it is our opinion that the compaction grouting, the installation of foundation grade beams, the slab replacement repairs to localized interior floor slab areas and exterior patios and driveways, the installation of reinforcing steel channels on selected floor joists, and exterior slab repairs observed by this office were performed in general accordance with the recommendations prepared by this office. It should be understood that the repairs were designed to address conditions of existing distress as reported or observed. - It is our experience, on this and on similar projects, that the fill extent of the proposed releveling may not always be attained during the compaction grouting process. In the case of Units 117 and 118, a combination of conditions affected the releveling. These conditions included: the presence of several large slab patches in Unit 117 which were not fastened to the surrounding slab and thereby limited the lifting process; the presence of the retaining wall foundation along the northerly building wall; the desire of the unit owner in Unit 118 and the Association’s representatives not to remove an existing wood floor in Unit 118 if not specifically required; and a desie to limit, to the degree feasible, unwanted distress during lifting. As performed, we understand the owners’ and Association’s desire to perform reasonable repairs, and avoid, to the extent feasible unwanted distress and cost. We should note that because of the foundation design (masonry retaining wall and standard spread footing), the compaction grouting program was performed along the building perimeter only. Further, no floor coverings were removed during the releveling of Unit 1 18. In the case of Units 119 and 120, factors affecting the releveling process, included the presence of an area of slab over-lied during a previous localized grouting performed by others. Site Repair Observations Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums 2308 and 23 IO Altisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 19 - ProjectNo. 00-1800 In the case of Unit 125, our research of previous archive documents and site observations indicated that this unit received previous caissons support along the north building wall and the installation of column supports at the carport level. These previous repairs limited the scope and methods of repairs to address the conditions of measured floor tilt in this unit. 5.0 RECOM MENDA TIONS - The following recommendations are provided based upon our site investigation and our subsequent observations during the repair phase at the subject property, and our experience. These recommendations are intended better ensure the proper fknctioning of the existing site improvements. .- We recommend that the other recommended mitigative measures outlined within the project reports be performed, including but not necessarily limited to, providing improved site surface drainage conditions, controlled site irrigation practices within the areas adjacent to and in close proximity to the buildings, and the localized removal of trees and roots adjacent to residence foundations. During our site repair observations, we noticed evidence of root intrusion adjacent to portions of the buildings, apparently originating from the mature plants and trees situated in close proximity to many of the site buildings. We also recommend that the water services be checked to confirm an absence of any leaks from pressurized and/or non- pressurized water bearing service lines. In the case of Units 118, 123, 124, 125, 127, 129, 130, and 227, little or no floor covering removals were performed during the compaction grouting, lifting, andor joist reinforcement repairs to these units. Therefore, at such time that the respective unit owners elect to perform floor covering removal and replacement, it is recommended that the Association retain this firm to observe the exposed conditions, and to have their contractor undertake any needed floor repairs (such as surface releveling, epoxy injection, or others) as considered appropriate based on these exposures, and recommended by this office. Further, site observations noted that the Wng condition consisting of a side-by-side splice in the rim joists where the cantilevered floor is present beneath portions of the lower floor units as constructed in Building 23 10. Where encountered, this framing condition was corrected using localized outer rim joist replacement. Site observations Site Repair Observations Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums 2308 and 23 10 Altisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 20 ProjectNo. 00-1800 appear to suggest that this framing condition may be present at other locations within the project, as indicated by noticeable saddeflection points along the easterly edge of the cantilever in Building 23 10, as well as Building 2306. This framing condition is considered to be a poorly constructed framing connection in the building framework, and appears to be located where concentrated wall and roof load are present. As such, we recommend that the Association seriously consider, as soon as feasible, the inspection and implementation of repairs to address and correct this framing condition, where present at the site. Considering that the Association Board appears to be considering various repairs to balcony flashing and decks, the inclusion of repairs to this framing condition, could readily be implemented during such repairs. Further, we recommend that general monitoring of the individual units be considered. A general monitoring program would consist of an annual re-survey of the relative floor elevations, for several consecutive years, or longer (if desired), in order to confirm the presence/absence of additional buildindslab movement. Based on our last survey date, we suggest that the first monitoring surveys be performed in May 2004, unless some evidence of new distress is noted and/or suspected. Should you so desire, Anthony-Taylor Consultants will prepare a proposal to perform the proposed monitoring at that time. 6.0 LIMITATIONS The findings, opinions, and recommendations contained in this report are based upon our observations, our review of pertinent documents, and our understanding of the subject site. If site and/or soil conditions change or are encountered which are different from those assumed in the preparation of this report, we should be immediately notified so that we can review the situation and make supplementary recommendations, as warranted. This report has been prepared in accordance with the generally accepted soil and civil engineering practices within the greater southern California area. The Geotechnical services described herein have been conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the Geotechnical engineering profession practicing contemporaneously under similar conditions in the subject locality. Under no circumstance is any warranty, expressed or implied, made in connection with the providing of services described herein. Data, - Site Repair Observations Selected UNts-La Costa View Condominiums 2308 and 2310 Altisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 21 - Project No. 00-1800 interpretations, and recommendations presented herein are based solely on information available to this office at the time work was performed. Anthony-Taylor Consultants is responsible for those data, interpretations, and recommendations, but will not be responsible for other parties' interpretations or use of the information developed. Due to the inherently dynamic nature of even low-expansive soils, no home or structure on such soil should be expected to remain totally free of cracks. Seasonal ground moisture changes cause most one and two story structures to rise and fall periodically, and brittle exterior surfaces such as stucco and/or concrete flatwork are especially prone to ongoing cosmetic cracking. In addition, fill and/or natural soiIs, even when properly compacted, can cause minor damage due to differential settlement resulting from variations in soil conditions and thickness. - The types of damage which may be expected from either expansive soils or minor soil settlement consist of cosmetic exterior and interior cracks in stucco and wallboard materials, minor cracking of exterior yard area concrete flatwork, and cracking around attached improvements such as fireplaces, bathroom fixtures and kitchen cabinetry. The compaction grouting program performed under our site observations has been performed to locally re-level the building foundation and slab, and to locally improve the general engineering characteristics within the soil mass at depths ranging from approximately 3 to 16-feet depths beneath portions of the subject structures. The repairs (grouting) performed were not intended to preclude fbture soils (building) movement, but instead to reduce the potential for such movement. The work performed does not address measures to ensure that repaired or non-repaired features will not incur new damage related to either seismic or non-seismic conditions. The intent of repairs performed to-date are to reasonably and practically reduce the potential for damage within the repaired area of the buildings, and to improve site conditions over those which existed prior to repairs. No guarantee or warranty is either expressed or implied by our professional services, including the written report of our findings and recommendations. Site Repair Observations Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums 2308 and 2310 Altisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 22 ProjectNo. 00-1800 We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Once again, should any questions arise concerning this report, you may contact the undersigned. Referencing our Project No. 00- 1800, will help to expedite a reply to your inquiries. Respecthlly Submitted, Anthony-Taylor Consultants An Anthony-Tqlor Company Bruce Taylk) President C.E.GNo. 1960 Distribution: (2 Originals, 2 Copy to Addressee) beni APPENDIX A REFERENCES “Project Memo-La Costa View Repam- Recommended Repairs and Additional Information,” (2308 & 23 10 Altisma Way, Units 124, 130 and driveway repairs west of Unit 124), Anthony-Taylor Project No. 00-1800, prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated December 1 1, 2002. “Project MemoDetaiI-La Costa View Column Base Repair,” prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated December 10,2002. “Project Memo-La Costa View Site Repairs- Recommended Repairs and Additional Information,” prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated November 26,2002. “Project Memo-La Costa View Site Repairs- Recommended Repairs to Damaged Exterior Flatwork,” prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated November 25,2002. “Project Memo-La Costa View Building Repairs and Releveling-Unit 129,” prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated November 7,2002. “Report of Limited Geotechnical and Structural Investigation, Units 119, 120, 127, 227, and 230, 2308,2310 Altisma Way, Carlsbad California, 92009,” prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated March 2 1,2002. “Report of Limited Site Evaluation-Moisture Related Slab Damage, La Costa View Condominiums, 2302 Altisma Way, Unit 102, Carlsbad California, 92009,” prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated February 13,2002. “Report of Distress Observations and Survey Find~ngs, Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums, 2308 Altisma Way, Carlsbad California, 92009,” prepared by Anthony-Taylor consultants, dated October 24,2001. “Response to Project Letter-La Costa View Condominiums, 2308 and 23 10 Altisma Way, Carlsbad California, 92009,” prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated August 27,2001. “Review of Contractor Bids for Foundation and Structural Repairs, Units 117, 118, 123, 124, 125, and 130, 2308 and 2310 Altisma Way, Carlsbad California, 92009,” prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated June 5,2001. “Project Memo-La Costa View Condominiums-Proposed Floor Repair,” prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated May 16,2001. “ReportofLimitedGeotechnicalandStructuralInvestigab’on,UnitS 117, 118, 123, 124, 125,and 130, 2308,2310 Altisma Way, Carlsbad California, 92009,” prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated April 27,2001. “Supplemental Observations and Findings-Drain Pipe Exposures West of 2308 Altisma Way, Carlsbad California, 92009,” prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated February 26,2001. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. IO. 11. 12. 13. - APPENDIX A - REFERENCES 14. “Supplemental Observations and Findings, Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums, 2308, 23 10 Altisma Way, Carlsbad California, 92009,” prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated February 5,2001. - 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. ‘‘Sununary Discussion-Scope of Authorized Investigation-Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums, 2308 and 23 10 Altisma Way, Carlsbad California, 92009,” prepared by Anthony- Taylor Consultants, dated February 7,2001. “Report of Dims Observations and Survey Fink, Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums, 2308 Altisma Way, Carlshad California, 92009,” prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated December 12.2000. “Interim Report of Survey Findings, Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums, 2308 Altisma Way, Carlsbad California, 92009,” prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated November 28, 2000. “La Costa View Condominiums Consultation, 2308 Altisma Way, Carlsbad California,” prepared by Geocon, Inc., dated July 10, 1986. Letter addressed to Board of Governors, La Costa View Owners Association, prepared by Duke, Gerstel, Shearer & Bregante, dated March 20, 1985. “Limited Soil Investigation for La Costa View Condominiums, Carlsbad, California,” prepared Geocon Inc., dated September, 1984 and October 8, 1984. “La Costa View Damage & Repair Report,” prepared by Building Analysts, dated March IS, 1984 “La Costa View Condominiums Pavement Section Survey,” prpgared by Testing Engineers-San Diego, dated March 30, 1983. “La Costa View Condominiums Consultation, Altisma Drive, Carlsbad California,” prepared by Geocon, Inc., dated June 16, 1982. y. .. . .. (0 f t z 3 0 w V a 0 1 .O" - 1 .O" GROUT INJECTION POINT ADDITIONAL LIFTING POINTS SPOT ELEVATION (SURVEY HIGH/LOW IN INCHES) SPOT ELEVATIONS (IN INCHES,';5'' CONTOUR OF EQUAL ELEVATIC (IN INCHES) I2 APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF SLAb3 REPLACEMENT REPAIRS. APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF R CONCRETE GRADE BEAM SCALE: 1" = 10' 1.- ALL DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE P 2.- ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN CORRECTED FC DATE OF SURVEYS: 12/23/02 01 /09/03 3.- MEA OFF LIMITS AT TIME OF SURVEY, 1 TAKEN IN THIS AREA. (TILE BEAM INSTA. .,... , n.IHML. 4 - NO FLOOR COVERINGS WERE REMOVED i COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS REPAIR WORK. (OWNER JUST FINISHED INSTALLATION PRIOR TO REPAIR WORK). r. 'I- Y .. VI u a Y > 0 Z ru Y t 4 0 u n 2 z$ on RELATIVE FLOOR ELEVATION SURVEY LEGEND , -2.0 SPOT ELEVATION (SURVEY . -20 HIGH/LOW IN INCHES) SPOT ELEVATION (IN INCHES) CONTOUR OF EQUAL ELEVATION (IN INCHES) --12- 1.5' ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS hn h.vo (c--#.J SO. me.-. She< ES&L 0 sZm9 W6OJ 73,-8#OC JOB NAME: LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS SITE ADDRESS: 2308 2310 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA. 00-1800 GMK/JW 5/16/03 Id N&BER: By: DATE: FIG. NO. UNIT 125 POST - RELEVELING SURVEY -1.5". - 1 .O". .IOTE. I. ALL DIMENSIONS AN0 LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. Z. ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE CORRECTED FOR FLOOR COVERING. 3. SURVEY PERFORMED AFTER LIFTING AN0 JOIST CHANNEL PLACEMENT, AND PRIOR TO ANY SURFACE RELEVELING (IF PFRFORMFD) OWNER HAD COMPLETED NEW FLOOR ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ -. ~ILE IN PORT~~AS -OF UNIT AT TIME OF SURVEY. 1. NO FLOOR COVERINGS WERE REMOVE0 DURING REPAIRS. SCALE: 1" = 10' DATE OF SURVEY: 5/13/03 RELATIVE FLOOR ELEVATION SURVEY LEGEND , -2 0 SPOT ELEVATION (SURVEY HIGH/LOW IN INCHES) 0-2 0 SPOT ELEVATION (IN INCHES) c-12- CONTOUR OF EQUAL ELEVATION (IN INCHES) 127 ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS 3.” *#o fC-omuJ 30, Int-nN. shd E~mAdo. u sm11 fmo) m,-#,w JOB NAME: SITE ADDRESS: JOE NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. NO. LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS 2308,2310 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD. CA. 00-1800 GMK/JW 5/16/03 le POST - RELEVELING SURVEY NOTE: 1. ALL DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. 2. ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE CORRECTED FOR FLOOR COVERING. 3. SURVEY PERFORMED AFTER LIFTING AND JOIST CHANNEL PLACEMENT, AND PRIOR TO ANY SURFACE RELEVELING (IF PERFORMED). SCALE: 1” = 10’ DATE OF SURVEY: 05/13/03 4. No FLOOR COGERINGS WERE REMOVED DURING REPAIRS. RELATIVE FLOOR ELEVATION SURVEY 2 9 N m UNIT #129 POST - RELEVELING ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS LEGEND Ao, A-1 2 SPOT ELEVATION (SURVEY HIGH/ J.” n.,. fCwm”L., JW 8”l.glu. St...‘ lUd.ea u li0Il) r,ra, Is.-d.oo LOW IN INCHES) NOTE: 1. ALL MENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. 2. ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE CORRECTED FOR FLOOR 3. SURVEY PERFORMED AFTER LIFTING AND JOIST CHANNEL COVERING. i I : .~ I .l .O” 1 .O” -- 1.2 - CONTOUR OF EOUAL ELEVATION .-1.4” SPOT ELEVATION (IN INCHES) JOB NAME: LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS SITE ADDRES (IN INCHES) ,..,,.... *^. ADJACENT UNIT (NOT SURVEYED) S: I 2 $ -I If - APPARENT FLOOR CRACK BENEATH JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. NO. 00-1800 GMK/JW 05/16/03 CARPETING. PLACEMENT, AND PRIOR TO ANY SURFACE RELEVELING SCALE: 1” = 10’ (IF PERFORMED). 4. NO FLOOR COVERINGS WERE REMOVED DURING REPAIRS. DATE OF SURVEY: 01/03/03 RELATIVE FLOOR ELEVATION SURVEY i2 2 2 1 2 5 G UNIT #130 LEGEND ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS **., Du.0 ,c.nlml., 30. mt-. ST".' I.rdU., u ,*@*I ,780, m.-..oo A-2.0" SPOT ELEVATION (SURVEY HIGH/LOW 0-2.0" SPOT ELEVATION (IN INCHES) a2 (IN INCHES) JOB NAME: LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS SITE ADDRESS: 2308, 2310 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA GROUT INJECTION POINT lg --1,5- CONTOUR OF EOUAL ELEVATION JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. NO. (IN INCHES) 00-1 800 GMK/JW 05/16/03 POST RELEVELING \ \ - 1 .$" - - - - 1.5'' '(I -1.0" EXT. PATIO '5 40 -3 0 2 0 -1 4" \ \ - 1.5" NOTE: 1. ALL DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. 2. ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE CORRECTED FOR FLOOR COVERING. 3. SURVEY PERFORMED AFTER LIFTING AND JOIST CHANNEL PLACEMENT, AN0 PRIOR TO ANY SURFACE RELEVELING (IF PERFORMED). 4. NO FLOOR COVERINGS WERE REMOVED DURING REPAIRS. SCALE: 1" = 10' DATE OF SURVEY: 12/27/02 RELATIVE FLOOR ELEVATION SURVEY 2 ? ") v J ul 2 - ; POS' ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS LEGEND SPOT ELEVATION (SURVEY s.n R.IO (c-d.) 30, mr- S~.L tar-& CA e202111 POJ ISa-1*00 HIGH/LOW IN INCHES) A-2.0 JOE NAME: SITE ADDRESS: 00- 1800 GMK/JW :. -2.0 SPOT ELEVATION (IN INCHES) LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS CONTOUR OF EQUAL ELEVATION 2308, 2310 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA Ih -'-1.*- (IN INCHES) JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. NO. 5/16/03 \ UNIT #227 - RELEVELING NOTE: 1. ALL 2. ALL COVt 3. SUR PLA( (IF I I' SIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. )NS SHOWN ARE CORRECTED FOR FLOOR IRFORMED AFTER LIFTING AND JOIST CHANNEL .. AND PRIOR TO ANY SURFACE RELEVELING - SCALE: 1" = 10' iMEDj. 4. NO FLOOR COVERINGS WERE REMOVED DURING REPAIRS. DATE OF SURVEY: 01/03/03 RELATIVE FLOOR ELEVATION SURVEY 2 2 0) h) i? I 2 d 2 UNIT #230 POST - RELEVELING ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS LEGEND SPOT ELEVATION (SURVEY s..s hU.0 ,c-#., I_ In- Sl".' nu. u .2m. <,so, ,m-..oo AO HIGH/LOW IN INCHES) JOB NAME: SITE ADDRESS: JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. NO. -2 0 SPOT ELEVATION (IN INCHES) LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS CONTOUR OF EQUAL ELEVATION 2308, 2310 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA 00-1800 GMK/JW 5/16/03 li -'-1.55 (IN INCHES) \ -1.5'' -1.5" \ -0.5" NOTE: ~- 1. ALL DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. 2. ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE CORRECTED FOR FLOOR COVFRINC, .- 3. SURVEY PERFORMED AFTER LIFTING, JOIST CHANNEL PLACEMENT. SURFACE RELEVELING. AN0 NEW TILE BY OWNER SCALE: 1" = 10' DATE OF SURVEY 5/15/03 8 5 0 Y C C 0) B .. . .~ ..___ ... . PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDEO BY THE POLICIES BELOW. 'Cavignac h Aasociates 1230 Columbia St., Suite 850 San Dieao CA 92101-3547 Fax:619-234-8601 PERSONAL 6 MU INJURY $ 1000 000 GENERALAGGREGATE 12000000 PRWVCTS - COMPIOPAGG I 100 0 0 00 GENLAGGREGATE LIMTTAPPLIES PER &mp Ben. 1000000 I LOC AUTOMOBILE LIABILRI 7RD80782200 05/01/02 05/01/03 (Esacciaont) I ~oooooo COMBlNEDSlNGLELlMlT ALL OWNEOAUTOS I BODILY INJURY tP=r wsm1 INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE INSURERA Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co INSURERE State Compensation Ins. Fund INSURERC Steadfast Insurance Company INSURER 0 INSURER E IH I I I I I I I GARAGE LUBlLW ANY AUTO I I X HlREOA(TT0S x Y"LI."WLIF" AI IT06 iM I AUTO ONLY. EA ACCIDENT I OTHERTHAN AUTO ONLY PROPERTY DAMAGE (Perlc6ide"l) AGO I BODILY INJURY I ' RETENTION Io YjCRkERS COYPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY I le; I I OTHER I I I . ! TwgLdjyl%kS! 1";fi"' 168823802 05/01/02 05/01/03 EL EACHACCIDENT 11000000 EL DISEASE-POLICYLIMIT $1000000 EL DISEASE-EAEMPLOYEE $ 1000000 1 I I I I' . .. . . I I ' A 1 Property Section I 7RD80782200 1 05/01/02 1 05/01/03 I Ea Claim 1000000 I ~ Aggregate 1000000 I CERTIFICATE HOLDER 1 N I ADDITIONALINSURED INSURERLETTER: - CANCELLATION spgc~ - 1 1 SHOULD ANY OFTHE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRA~NI DATE THEREOF. THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MUL NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED IMPME NO OBLffiAllON OR LIABILIN - DAYS WRITTEN , BUT FAILURE TOW SO SHALL SPECIMEN CERTIFICATE WE INSURER. ITS AGENTS OR ~ I